Debate on high school facility begins anew

Fairfield School District Superintendent Art Sathoff presented three scenarios for Fairfield High School building?s future at Monday?s school board work session.

? Do nothing and continue patching maintenance issues.

? Build an addition for a new science and technology center, at an estimated $2 million to $3 million, plus work on climate control and accessibility at additional costs.

?The $2 or $3 million is based on 200 square feet per student for 30 students, multiplied by 2 ? one high tech lab and one science lab ? with an additional 2,000 square feet,? said Sathoff. ?If we did something like that, I would propose building on site where the existing old tennis courts are and calling it something like the FHS Advanced Technology Center, Fairfield Community Science and Technology Center or FHS STEM Center. We could possibly have hours for community use.?

? New construction, costing perhaps $15 million to $18 million. The most recent building plan defeated by district voters was a new construction high school and remodeling plan with a $24 million-plus price tag.

?If we built a new technology and science center [option 2] we?d address two big facility needs, updated science labs and increased technology access and integration,? said Sathoff. ?We?d still need to address Americans with Disabilities Act accessibility in the high school as well as air quality and heating and cooling.?

He has talked with Davis County, which built a new school for $10.9 million recently and Mount Pleasant, which built its high school for $14.6 million about 12 years ago.

?Before we go very far into this process or present anything to the public, we need to have full board agreement on the plan, or we?re wasting our time,? said Sathoff.

The board is working on its first of four goals it set for itself this school year. Its top priority goal is: Create a plan for addressing high school facility needs before the next school year.

Board president Jennifer Anderson had given board members a homework assignment when they last met to share an idea about the high school?s facility needs.

Sathoff gave board members ideas he?d written down. He had viewed school planning websites, talked with other Iowa districts that recently built new buildings and researched national standards.

From the state?s July 2010 School Planning and Management, and the 15th Annual School Construction Report, Satoff?s handout included:

?High schools built around the time of the Baby Boom, post-World War II, were designed to go up quickly. These high schools were prevalent when the average space per pupil was around 100 square feet in 1970.

?By 1987 the space per pupil in high schools averaged 155 square feet. Today it is not uncommon to find high school space of more than 223 feet per pupil.

?Different states have different building guidelines. Georgia high schools are supposed to have a minimum of 2,850 square feet per classroom.

?California requires 960 square feet per classroom and does not differentiate between elementary and high school spaces.

?The median high school building in the nation costs $55 million and provides 250,000 square feet for 1,600 students; this is 156.3 square feet per student at $203.13 per square foot.?

Fairfield High School is not that large ? it has 580 students this year ? and construction costs vary by region, Sathoff added.

?Twenty-first century learning is not always desks in straight rows,? he said. ?We have technology needs, ADA compliance needs, space needs and heating and cooling issues.?

Anderson said the board would need to determine if the high school needs updating, a new start, or nothing. She gave a brief description of the board?s previous efforts, for the benefit of new board members.

?We did a study using a committee that included board members, teachers, students and community members,? she said. ?We prioritized our findings and the architect took our ideas and came up with a plan.

?It was estimated it would cost $20 million to make the current building completely ADA compliant. Costs for new construction were about the same, so the board decided on building an educational unit on the west side. It was a three-phase plan, and the educational concerns would be addressed first.

?We spent a lot of money and time on architects, and the plan didn?t fly with the public,? said Anderson. ?I think it would be too bad not to use some of that plan. We can look at it again and see where we could cut back.?

Anderson said the board worked hard to present information to the community, including offering tours at the high school, inviting public discussions at board meetings, and posting a website where property owners could calculate their own tax increase.

?The tours and meetings were not well-attended,? she said, ?I don?t think many people used the website.?

Board member Jeri Kunkle shared an email she received Jan. 18 from Roger Vorhies and Mark Hickenbottom, both of Fairfield.

?They?ve offered to make a plan at no cost to retrofit or remodel at the high school,? said Kunkle. ?They note that the high school?s foundation and structure are good. The auditorium cannot be duplicated at today?s costs. Problems with power and HVAC distribution need sorting.

?If we can save 60 percent over new construction by remodeling, that sounds like a good plan.?

Board member Bob Waugh wanted to know why the information hadn?t been brought to the board previously. Sathoff said it was a good time to bring it forward, because now the board was ready to explore new options.