Long Range Facility Committee
Meeting Notes
September 21, 2016
Notes taken by Mike Parker
In attendance:
Don Oliver, Mike Parker, Shannon Webster, Brock Maxfield, Don Hiltner, Annette Moir, Jan Magri , James McDougall, Bill Wieland, Ron Enstrom, Todd Gwinn and Hoki Moir. Absent: Dave Westby, Jim Eddy, Larry Dubore and Lori Murphy.
Guest: Alan Gozart, Jason Ihde and Patti Reynvaan.
Mike Parker welcomed the committee. This year will be the 4th year the committee has been together.
He shared the importance of their attendance and appreciation of their commitment.
The team discussed/reviewed the ultimate mission of the committee- to assess facility needs and proposed a bond to the board for their consideration.
Mike reminded the committee on the “bench marks” that are laid out in order to actually “break ground” on a renovation/remodel of a facility with state match (yet to be decided)-July 2020.
He also reviewed the agenda for tonight’s meeting.
The last meeting that took place on April 20, 2016 featured a guest from OSPI- Justin Rogers. Justin explained to the committee how school construction funding worked. In his explanation, he showed what the district might expect if the HS was the focus of the bond and/or Lincoln. Both schools were rated by the WSU Engineers as in need of repair (please refer to the ICOS report posted to the district web page).
Don Hiltner took time to review with the committee the work that was done this past summer with facilities. The largest project was re-roofing the HS Shop. This was a costly project ($280,000) yet necessary. The committee received a list of this work in their notebooks.
Don also reviewed the district’s Six Year Facility Plan. It shows what work is scheduled for the next five years.
Mike introduced Guest Alan Gozart. Alan is a local architect who is working with the district to design facility spaces on the campus. He has been working with Mike Parker and Don Hiltner to develop a plan that would address a location for the district office and maintenance shed. The current district office is failing as it is located in a “portable”/ “temporary” building and has been for nearly 20 years. There is no on campus Maintenance building that can store district vehicles. Currently, the district is renting a space off campus ($750/month) in which to store some vehicles. A facility in needed on the district campus.
Mike also shared a proposal to relocate the DO to the high school Business building as an option.
Alan showed the committee the “phase in” proposal to relocate the DO to B-1. Phase one is the move itself-likely in the summer with the creation of 4 offices and lots of signage. Phase two would include improving road access and create parking. Phase three would be to further construct office space inside the building.
Fundamentally, the reasons to move to B-1 included:
1)The DO building is failing and to relocate now is being proactive rather than reactive( in the event the building fails). 2) The HS campus can accommodate a DO as it was built in 1968 to house 1,200 students-current enrollment is around 470. However, since there are 3 classes in the Business Building, they will need to be relocated. Brock Maxfield, Principal, understands this and commented that this is possible. 3) Moving the DO to B-1 takes existing district resources- tax payers would see the value of this. 4) The building is large enough to accommodate the DO and itinerant space. 5) The “phase in” approach allows for budget considerations over 2-3 years as opposed to all at once. 6) Once vacated from its current location, the land the DO now sits on can be liquidated and the proceeds used to offset costs. 7) It puts more adults on the HS campus.
The drawbacks to this proposal are: 1) Access to the district office site. 2) Security (as expressed by several staff members). 3) Displace 3 classrooms. 4) Technology? Will it be possible to relocate and take from the current DO? 5) Other unknown logistics. 6) it puts more adults on the HS campus.
The committee asked many questions about the potential move.
Mike Parker discussed other options for a DO: 1) Washington Elementary. Yet, there are four entities in the school who lease the space. Total revenue for the district per year is approximately $83,000. And it is not able to accommodate a maintenance shed for vehicles. This option was not discussed further.
2) Other location in the community? Whatever the site, it would also need upgrades/renovation/remodel to accommodate a DO.
The current DO is approximately 2,000 sq. foot of space.
The Business Building, according the ICOS, is over 9,000 sq. foot space.
There will be costs to the relocation- by “phase”. Mike will work with Alan Gozart to calculate and he will bring these back to the committee in October.
Following Alan’s presentation and committee discussion, Mike asked the committee if this proposal is something that he should pursue as a remedy for the DO.
To the person, every member voiced approval for this proposal.
Alan Gozart also presented a “phase in” approach to locating the Maintenance Building on Lions Park property.
Mike shared with the committee that other locations were considered, but each had issues with the soil.
Phase one would begin once school board approves- fall or winter 2016. This would include some excavation of the site then laying down a base to allow settling over a period of months.
Phase two would include going out to bid for a pole building and construction of all or part of the building in summer 2017(dependent on funding).
Phase three would be completed by the summer of 2018.
Questions followed Alan’s presentation.
Alan also said that to construct a DO and Maintenance building on Lions Park would cost the district approximately $4 million dollars.
Mike shared with the committee that there is not enough money in the fund balance to do this and it is not something that would be taken to the public as a new tax. The district wants to be debt free when it goes out for a bond in 2019.
When asked by each committee member if this was something we should move forward on, each individual expressed their support and endorsement.
There was not enough time to complete the ICOS rating of all buildings. This information can be found on the district web site.
The next meeting will be:
October 26, 2016
6-8 pm
B-1
Agenda will include:
1) Building consensus
2) Approximate Costs for DO and Maintenance Proposals
3) Review WSU Engineers ISCOS ratings of buildings
4) Bond for selected building(s)