As we learn from page 8, there are 170 portables (of all kinds) being used in our district. Most are general classroom portables at "active" schools - 114. There are 14 at closed buildings. The rest have various uses.
Keep in mind they are only talking about middle/K-8 and elementary school buildings for BEX IV (except for Lincoln, Mann and wherever they put the World School).
They have many tantalizing projects but no explanation of what some of them might be used for.
The projection out date they are looking to is 2021-22 (how old will I be then? don't scare me like that).
They do not list possible costs for buildings (could be too soon) but those better be costs that reflect the building costs around the region. We cannot keep spending on buildings as we have in the past.
The cost range is from $545M to $825M. To note, the last BEX was $490M and they are out of their minds if they think they can ask for $825M plus the operating levy of about $250M in Feb. 2013. I cannot see going to the voters for this amount when (a) some of this is their own doing by not tracking demographics well and (b) not maintaining buildings so they wear out a lot faster and little problems become big problems.
So they have three scenarios:
#1 - w/current level of portables@$545M
#2 -w/portable use reduced to 5% @$725M
#3 -w/portables removed at elementary level @825M
Yes, I know I said 4 plans. So there is a 2A comprehensive middle school plan and a 2B K-8 "mushroom" plan.
I won't walk through everything but here are some first impressions:
- they need to find homes for Lowell APP, Nova and World School. It appears they would fix up Mann in every scenario so I would assume that is where Nova will go. It is less clear where Lowell and the World School will go. They are going to replace Meany (arguably the worst building in the district along with Arbor Heights) but who will be in there?
- BUT they only have John Marshall down as "interim" and not as renovation or moderization. Makes me think it won't be a permanent location.
- unbelievably, at least for me, they have a notation for "South Lake Union-New" in every scenario. No, no and, did I mention, NO. Look, that's a wealthy area with a lot of building going on. Have a company lease/donate a couple of floors in a new building for a school but the district has no business buying land/building a school in that area. Where is the money for that when we have so many capital needs elsewhere? This is not a burning need except they are getting pressure from downtown. That's politics, not good capital planning. If South Lake Union businesses need a school so badly, then they need to front money/land. I'm sure if that happened, the district would be glad to plan a school but use capital money now? NO.
- Under the K-8 Level 2B scenario, we would get three new K-8s; Thorton Creek, Olympic Hills and Wilson Pacific. We would end up with nearly as many K-8s as middle schools.
- What is interesting is that in the scenarios, several buildings remain on the list but have different notations. For example, Wilson-Pacific is a K-8 or a middle school and sometimes is new but then might just be "replaced". Fairmount Park might be opened/updated or modernized.
- As I mentioned Arbor Heights should be on the list and is on two scenarios but not the others. It also has an interesting notation "Roxhill/Arbor Heights@Arbor Heights - New". That would signal to me that they would close Roxhill and move it to Arbor Heights.
- It looks like Rodgers bumped View Ridge out of contention.
- And look who's on the list: TT Minor. Really? And oddly, on the K-8 Level 2B list, McGilvra is in there instead of TT Minor. Someone is going to have to explain that to me.
- Mercer is the only current middle school to get anything done to it (addition). If we didn't have so much need out there, I would have expected to see Eckstein, Whitman or Washington on this list.