Memo to Leadership 113 : More Work To Be Done
Photos
On Monday night, the Leadership Group presented an update to the District 113 School Board.
Trip Hainsfurther and David Brint made a terrific presentation, but as will happen in any presentation of a complex subject like this, there were some things left unsaid or said in a way that they got lost among other points. This isn't a minority report, just some additional personal observations. I speak for myself, not the Leadership Group.
First, we never discussed the issue of declining enrollment that is projected for 113. This has been confirmed now by the School District and I think the topic is relevant in any conversation of the Long Term Facilities Plan.
Second, and not unrelated to the first point, we should make an explicit commitment to upgrade and make more useful the current square footage (over 900,000 square feet between Deerfield High School and Highland Park High School) versus expansion of our physical plant. When you add extra square footage, there is the first cost (of planning and construction) but also the ongoing costs of operation and maintenance. One way to limit these costs is to make the facility no larger than it needs to be. It was the proposed large expansion that I believe helped fuel opposition to last year's referendum.
Third, it appears from early observations by three different engineers that the moisture issues in B and C Buildings can be mitigated and/or managed in an economical way. This will be confirmed in an independent study that the School District will contract. As our report Monday night says, the buildings should remain unless repairs aren't feasible (meaning the costs to repair exceed or even approach replacement cost).
Fourth, if the B and C buildings are renovated, this can be done without necessarily gutting and reconfiguring the interior in its entirety. When the expression "Space is Space" is made, that is true in the purest sense only. To convert one type of space to another, depending on the complexity of the conversion, this can be a costly undertaking. If plans for conversion become too elaborate and expensive, this actually raises the threat of their removal. All other things being equal, it will be less expensive to renovate at least the B building without major reconfiguration (while still addressing critical elements such as electrical/mechanical systems and windows) versus the gut rehab route. This is a subject that needs to be further examined by Perkins and Will, our new architects.
Fifth, the elephant in the room: What will this cost? What should we allow this to cost? What will this community be prepared to support?
Finally, while I recently made the comment that I didn't want to tie the architects hands by being overly specific, there is a hazard in giving them an open-ended agenda. Last evening's presentation still leaves much to be interpreted and it is important that the community stay involved in helping to prioritize and make the hard decisions yet to be made. An Oversight Committee is a good way to do this.
The sooner, the better.
Richard Heineman
12:35 pm on Tuesday, May 22, 2012
Mr. Becker makes some excellent points. The last being the most important. We need the community oversight committee ASAP.
David Greenberg
7:13 pm on Tuesday, May 22, 2012
I agree with Mr. Becker on all of his above points. As for what this SHOULD cost - we don't yet know. We know it's going to be millions of dollars. I think that once we get an overall plan of what needs to be done, then we look at the implementation. What can be done with this building or that building? What will the costs to use it for X or Y be?
Perhaps the plan will take a staged approach, perhaps not (again, it all depends on the costs involved).
One thing is for certain: At each step of the way, the community must be informed and involved. If the District has questions - let them ask us. Conduct an online or physical survey (but release the data this time!).
This is a very complex process and we're not going to figure this out tomorrow. But as with all things involving our community - we'll figure it out. We have some of the best and brightest minds in the country in our area that are willing to assist, so I have little doubt that we'll get it done in a fashion that minimizes the impact to the taxpayer while still providing a quality education to our children.
Bringin' Down Briarwood
10:30 am on Wednesday, May 23, 2012
Thank you for offering the community some constructive suggestions, Mr Becker. You obviously attended the meetings, did your homework and provided good, detailed suggestions on weaknesses in the plan.
Many should pay attention to your approach.
Let's Get Real
10:12 pm on Wednesday, May 23, 2012
It is interesting that the comments made by Mr. Becker are basically the same points that are in the Education First plan
Miles J. Zaremski
1:54 pm on Wednesday, May 23, 2012
I find it interesting that this article generated all but 3 comments, and the reasons of which presently escape me. Anyway, I attended the presentation and it was well presented by Messrs. Hainsfurther and Brint. I take no issue---as yet---with any of what was said and presented, but as these two gentlemen were speaking, I kept thinking about the following: (1) this year, residential property taxes went up in the district, even though property values have gone down, so what will the costs for any District 113 improvements cost the taxpayer [noting that 29% of the tax bill went to 113 and 37.9% went to HP Dist. 112]; and (2) what happen to the needs of the primary school district [112 in HP and ? in Deerfield?]. These items must be factored into further discussions of how much the residents of Dist. 113 can afford on an annual basi and how much those who wish to reside in the school district want to pay for their school children(s)' education at the high school level.
Walter (Tripp) Hainsfurther
3:09 pm on Wednesday, May 23, 2012
Miles:
Since you were in the presentation, you should have heard that the Leadership and Finance teams were both very cognisant of the impact on taxpayers.
As far as the elementary districts, I would challenge the folks in 112 about their needs. As someone who led a study into their requirements when the district first came into being, I can tell you there were many options the district had in dealing with their facilities. My committee presented 33 different options. Bowing to parental pressure, they chose to pursue the most expensive option, which resulted in adding on to almost every school in the district. So, before they ask for a referendum, they should once again look at the way schools are being utilized and the distribution of the student population. I've heard rumors that they want to build 4 new schools and close everything else, which would be hard to defend.
In any event, the high schools must be improved or our property values will suffer.
Average Joe
3:13 pm on Wednesday, May 23, 2012
One reason why this posting has attracted so little attention may be that it is not associated with Education First, which seems to be an easy target for some of the microbloggers on this site. I recall that Richard Becker was associated with Ed. First last year and wrote a letter signed by architects opposing the referendum.
Many of Richard’s ideas are worth considering, as are many of the ideas put forth in Ed. First’s plan. Nevertheless, I suspect if Richard offered up Ed. First’s plan and vice versa, Ed. First would still find itself in a hail storm of criticism.
Tony Horwitz
3:00 pm on Wednesday, May 23, 2012
To reiterate: Taxes went up this year because of a one time balloon payment (for lack of a better term) on a bond issue which is being retired. That line item will disappear for next year's tax bill until the district does indeed pass another referendum for long term capital improvements. I personally hope this effort stays on track and echo other comments regarding pushing the process ahead (while not cutting corners on the deliberations). The longer this goes the greater chance of interest rates going up, and even a modest bump in rates could mean $millions of extra interest costs. Let's all keep up the level of effort that has been seen the past year and "Git 'er done".
David Greenberg
4:12 pm on Wednesday, May 23, 2012
To clarify - the D113 portion of the tax bill went up a bit because of the final payment for the bonds issued during the previous referendum in which we spent about $70M (when the Science wing was added at HPHS).
I agree with continuing to work on the Master Plan. But it needs to take as long as it takes to get it right - rushing it just to beat a potential uptick in interest rates could easily cost us millions of dollars in unnecessary building expenses for that which we don't need, or which ends up being underutilized.
D'skidoc
4:26 pm on Wednesday, May 23, 2012
Not saying the process should be rushed, but not dragged out either. Some of the opponents of the prior referendum have used tactics which have slowed this process somewhat. We need to respond to the district's needs in a thoughtful manner, but I do think a prospective timeline would be helpful to keep the process going forward. We don't have a deadline (like a contract expiration), and even that doesn't guarantee a particular end date, but If we don't set some expectations for completion of the various pieces of this puzzle, there is more room for unnecessary delay.
Dan Jenks
5:12 pm on Wednesday, May 23, 2012
What I take from this piece and the one he co-authored prior to the referendum is that Mr. Becker really, really doesn’t want to see the B and C buildings come down and his arguments have shifted to support this goal.
Prior to the referendum, he stated that “[m]y recommendations to rehab these buildings would be premised on a complete gut rehab (new foundation drainage, HVAC, plumbing, electrical, life safety systems, ADA compliance, windows, new bathrooms, new finishes, etc.). These would feel like new buildings inside.” Mr. Becker further argued that “the most prestigious colleges in the country have buildings that are a hundred (or hundreds) of years old. Many schools see buildings as part of their legacy, worthy of preservation….[w]hy don’t we?” Mr. Becker believed that we need to “plan smarter” and encouraged us to “explore alternative paths.”
Now, Mr. Becker argues that we need to be careful about “exploring alternative paths” like reconfiguring the B and C buildings because it might cost too much money and might, horrors, “raise the threat of their removal.” He states that there is a “hazard in giving [the architects] an open-ended agenda” because, uh, they may come up with some persuasive ideas that threaten the B and C wings. Let’s not do the analysis because we might not like the results.
Richard Becker AIA
7:41 pm on Thursday, May 24, 2012
Dan, thanks for taking the time to look at what I wrote last year and comparing with what I wrote this week. You're correct---my thinking has shifted (but not a lot) over the last year. Spending many dozens of hours meeting with other "stakeholders" will do that to you. I still believe that these buildings are worth saving, but as I've often stated, including in a 2011 talk-back, I don't think Highland Parkers should be asked to underwrite a preservation project solely for the purpose of preservation. If there is still utility in the buildings, then it seems reasonable to extend their useful life. The point I was trying to make about elaborate rehabs is that you will always hit a tipping point where it is more "practical" to tear down and reconstruct. BTW, updating finishes and incorporating new furniture to use the smaller classrooms more efficiently won't necessarily break the bank. But the more one loads up the agenda with requirements, the sooner that point comes. It's a fine line. We don't want to tie the hands of the architects, nor do we want to say, "Here are 200 pages of program notes, now go knock yourself out."
Dan Jenks
5:13 pm on Wednesday, May 23, 2012
The only way to square Mr. Becker’s two arguments is that he wants to bring the B and C buildings up to Code so that they can continue their to perform their current functions, regardless of whether the District’s needs have changed over the past 50+ years and regardless of the potential benefits of trying something new. Even E1 doesn’t have such a limited vision.
What about those prestigious universities that Mr. Becker talks about? They don’t follow this wisdom – as a general matter, I think it is safe to say that most universities buildings from the 18th and 19th centuries have been gut rehabbed and repurposed (in some cases several times). If we keep the B and C buildings, why shouldn’t we consider the same approach? At least let’s do the analysis.
David Greenberg
5:25 pm on Wednesday, May 23, 2012
This is a topic discussed many times in the 1914/et. al Study group. The general consensus was to keep the buildings if it made fiscal sense, and if we could get at least another 25-50 years out of them by doing so.
By way of an example:
* Are the buildings in good structural shape? Yes.
* Can we get another 50 years out of them if we rehab them? Maybe.
* 30 years? Definitely.
* What's it cost to rehab? $5 million
* What's it cost to build new? $10 million.
** Rehab it is!
Now if that amount narrowed to something like a $2 million difference, one could likely make the case that it's more cost effective to build new because we could get much more than 50 years out of the building, so it'd be less expensive in the long run.
No one was "married" to the buildings. They're certainly nice to have around, but if it makes fiscal sense to tear them down, we're not going to lose sleep over it.
As for a "gut/rehab" - what we do and how we do it depends on the PURPOSE for the building in question. If it remains as classrooms, that's one cost. If it becomes offices, that's another cost. So it's important to have an overall Master Plan laid out so we can do the proper cost analyses.
Richard Becker AIA
10:53 pm on Thursday, May 24, 2012
Actually, some of these college buildings have been re-purposed and reconfigured, while others are in the same configuration as originally designed. It would depend on a lot of things such as how useful the original layout was and how much money is on the table. In the case if B at least, this building is configured with classrooms, albeit on the small side. Classrooms, last time I checked, are still a common occurrence in schools.
Harry Steindler
12:00 am on Thursday, May 24, 2012
Let's recognize that the demographic study (which, as in projections of all types will prove to be inaccurate) takes us out to 2020. 2020 is just 8 years from now, In all likelihood the work done at the schools will not be put into service until 2015 or 2016 at the earliest. We have talked about this being a long-range plan - improving the facilities to carry us for the next 25 to 50 years. Are projected enrollment figures (which even the demographers state are tenuous as best) 4 years into the life of the new project relevant to what we should be planning for the next 25-50 years? I say absolutely not. If we plan on having a shrinking community, that's what we will end up with. If we plan on facilities to foster the continued attractiveness and viability of Highland Park and Deerfield than that's what we will achieve.