We support the November referendum for $90 million - to (1) rebuild and renovate the Middle School in the current location, (2) replace High School HVAC systems, and (3) install updated fire safety at the High School and both elementary schools.
Our decision to support and advocate was not made lightly. We were disappointed with the outcome in April. All summer, we followed board meetings closely, helped keep the community informed, and personally wrote and called board members and Dr. Foeckler.
Our biggest concern with this new referendum is the amount of money (and therefore projects) that were cut from the plan. Those projects still need to happen in the future, and we know that doing projects piecemeal will ultimately be a more expensive undertaking than all at once. However, we can also recognize that the monetary increase of doing all at once would be significant to many in the community.
$90 million with the addition of $17 million from the district’s savings will complete the most critical projects - addressing both infrastructure and educational challenges at the middle school, replacing the high school HVAC, and adding updated fire safety at the High School and both Elementary Schools. The survey from last fall (leading up to the April referendum) originally outlined the top priorities as HVAC/fire safety and the middle school, stating that these “...must be addressed before any of the projects below can be considered.”
This referendum proposal addresses everything from those priorities EXCEPT the HVAC at the elementary schools (a project which would cost an additional $20 million). When compared, the high school HVAC is older, at higher risk of failure (remember the server failure in April?), and would have a larger educational impact if we needed to replace it in an emergency.
And of course, this plan pivots to a renovation/rebuild of the Middle School on the current site. This was surprising to almost everyone and disappointing to many.
What happened to the plan to build on Armory Park?
Before the April referendum, the district had support from the Friends of Armory Park group (the veterans group that manages the site, separate from the Save Armory Park group). However, their support changed and the group planned to campaign against building a school at Armory Park. It is likely that without their support at the beginning of the year, the Armory Park plan would not have been put forward in April.
Why are we endorsing a renovate-in-place plan now, when we previously said it was unviable?
The answer is simple - this plan is NOT the same renovation plan considered before April. The board went back to its planning partner CD Smith and pushed for an option that would enable rebuilding on the existing location without untenable disruption to student learning. This new renovation plan results in a building that is 70% new and 30% heavily renovated. The new additions would house a new classroom wing and a new two station gym. The oldest original part of the building (the center gym and surrounding hallways/classrooms) would be transformed into a student commons (i.e., cafeteria).
One of the main concerns about renovation in place was the use of temporary classrooms. This new plan solves for that. The new classroom wing will be built in Phase 1. This allows students and staff to move into updated spaces for their core curriculum classes starting in Phase 2. During Phase 3, there will be temporary spaces set up for the cafeteria and likely some special classes (like Project Lead the Way). The district will have several years to plan for these disruptions.
There is a loss of green space, especially during construction. The administration said that they are looking at how to utilize the fields across Henry Clay (either lacrosse or football) during this period. More details will come, particularly after determining how Henry Clay traffic will be impacted during construction.
Lastly, and possibly most importantly, there are genuine benefits to the renovate/rebuild plan.
Building new at Armory Park would have required a smaller footprint fit into an elongated L-shaped space. By using the existing footprint, the Middle School is able to have a central commons area (with natural light) that provides a true centralized gathering place.
Given the square shape, the new classroom wing will have more flexible space in the middle (with better sight lines) when compared to a long, skinny classroom corridor that would have been built where the tennis courts currently are.
The new footprint also means students will have to travel shorter distances to go from one end to the other (rather than traversing a whole block).
The resulting building will be both educationally and functionally equivalent to a completely new building. Classrooms will still be updated to collaborative, flexible spaces. And infrastructure systems will function as well as a new building.
