Sathoff: FHS ballot should have ?only one question?

After 2.5 hours of discussion and reviewing previous floor plans about updating Fairfield High School, school board members left Wednesday night?s work session with homework.

?The seven of us need to come up with a plan, something that will endure and make sense 30 years from now, and longer,? Jennifer Anderson, board president, told other members. ?We all need to compile what we know and come to an agreement on that decision. I don?t know that I have enough data to make that decision tonight.?

She urged board members to ?read ? word for word? a 21-page, typed front and back, study compiled by Stanley Consultants for the Fairfield Community School District in December 2004. While the consultants had reviewed and written about all the district?s facilities, the 21 pages distributed Wednesday concern only the high school.

A major undecided question the board wrestled with is: Renovate and/or add on to the high school building or build entirely new?

?I remember hearing that renovating the high school and making it American with Disabilities Act compliant will cost about $20 million,? said board member Jeri Kunkle.

Board member Bob Waugh said if they went with a plan to build an addition, at an unknown cost, it would still cost $20 million to renovate the current high school building.

?I?ve talked with people over the last three weeks and that?s what defeated the previous ballot, the three phases,? said board member Rich Metcalf. ?Having phases on the ballot was confusing.?

Superintendent Art Sathoff agreed, ?It?s difficult to vote on phases. I always feel that the first phase will get done, but will the other phases?

?And I believe it?s important to have only one question on the ballot. There were two questions on the last ballot because schools have to first ask if taxpayers approve the project and bonding. The second question has to be asked if the district intends to raise its levy rate higher than $2.70 per $1,000 valuation.?

At the board?s direction, Sathoff talked about the district?s bonding capacity with Piper Jaffrey, an investment bank and asset management firm that frequently works with school districts to issue bonds.

?One good thing, interest rates are down,? said Sathoff. ?In 2009, our bonding capacity was $18 million without going above the $2.70 levy rate. Now, it?s $25 million. That?s more than we need or I?d ever want to ask for. It?s my plan to not have a two-question ballot.?

Waugh asked what the board could do that the public would support.

Some board members said the last defeat and subsequent conversations pointed in the direction of using Fairfield High School in any future plans.

?But do we go with the more expensive plan just to save the old school?? asked board member Amy Miller.

Various board members said it?s cheaper to build new; others said it?s cheaper to renovate.

Board member Jeremy Miller asked how much square footage is needed.

The current high school is 130,000 square feet, said Fred McElwee, director of auxiliary services. The 2004 Stanley Consultants? plan, which was never presented to voters, added 43,560 square feet with a northern addition. A total of 150,000 square feet would be a good target, administrators agreed.

?We have to be able to show that the plan is what?s best for students,? said Waugh.

High school teacher Scott Slechta, in the audience, remarked he and other staff have been active in several previous studies and facility plans.

?I like this [Stanley, 2004] plan,? he said. ?It had a lot of teacher input.?

Part of the teachers? input grouped subjects together for more efficient teacher collaboration, such as all the social studies? classrooms together and all the math classrooms in one hall.

?A lot of time and money was spent on the newer plan,? said Kunkle. ?We could re-look at Phase I and pick out what to use.?

?But that gets us back to phases, which was defeated,? said Waugh.

Building users? top priority: Air, temperature quality

FHS Principal Aaron Becker had two surveys completed to hand out Wednesday. All FHS staff and students were asked to prioritize the biggest needs among 13 specific areas about the school.

Among the 44 staff responses, the highest priority, rating at 79.5 percent, is to improve the air and temperature quality in the building.

Students, 123, felt even more strongly about this issue, weighing in with 82.1 percent, making it their highest priority also.

Staff rated class sizes and classroom space second highest at 72.7 percent and building safety/security, third highest, at 70.5 percent. Students rated class sizes and space at 69.1 percent; safety and security registered with students at 39 percent.

Students? next two highest priorities after air/temperature were locker room facilities, 74 percent, and restrooms, 73.2 percent.

ADA compliance scored fourth highest priority for staff at 68.2 percent but only 10th at 33.3 percent with students.

ADA compliance issues will need to be addressed in any new construction and in the current building if any new construction is attached or added.

Survey comments ask for more natural light

Many staff and students? survey comments asked for brighter hallways, more space, better lighting and natural lighting.

In the 2004 study, an addition is shown to the north, squared off and attached to the current building. The newer study, last voted on, proposed an addition attached to the west side of the high school.

Board members puzzled over providing brighter, lighter interiors if attaching additions at various points on the building.

?Why can?t we just build a stand-alone addition, back there to the north, connected by walkways?? asked board member Jerry Nelson. ?It would be cheaper.?

?What really needs to be decided is do we want to go with using one of the previous recommendations, and do we keep the high school or start new?? said Amy Miller.

And that choice was one of Anderson?s goals for the work session.

At the beginning of the meeting, she had outlined, ?We need to decide where we are at. Beginning tonight, I?d like us to know what we want and where we are going. I know at last month?s [work session] meeting, some of you expressed frustration at not accomplishing anything.?

The board agreed to meet for the next work session at 6 p.m. March 14.