[Masthead] Fog/Mist ~ 48°F  
High: 68°F ~ Low: 50°F
Tuesday, May 3, 2016

School facility future: Costs of new school trimmed for April ballot

Thursday, January 21, 2010

Tim Rosa of Titan Construction explains changes made to the design of a proposed new elementary school at the Marshall school board's Jan. 5 meeting. About $3 million was cut from the cost estimate, bringing the total to about $16 million.
(Eric Crump/Democrat-News)
Editor's note: This is the third part in a week-long series about the various aspects of efforts by Marshall Public School District officials to present facility plans and get feedback from the public.

The basic design for a new three-grade elementary school has not changed dramatically in the past decade, an indication that educational needs have not changed dramatically in that time, according to district officials.

But when the district returned to the project last summer after a hiatus of several years, Superintendent Craig Noah first convened teachers to get their advice about what they need from school facilities.

"They described the learning spaces optimum to them," he said. That information was given to architects, who returned with a design for a building that would have cost about $19 million.

The bond issue to finance that building failed at the polls in November, however, so district officials revisited the plan.

"Feedback we got was that it was too much, the cost was too high," Noah said. "What we've done is we've come back and shrunk that cost down to around $16 million."

Tim Rosa, representative of Titan Construction, and Bill Mankin of ACI Frangkiser Hutchens, presented the revised design to the board at its Jan. 5 meeting.

To reduce costs, ceilings were lowered from 20 feet to 12 feet in the media center and gymnasium.

Architects worked on the assumption that the site for the school would be the Banks property on South Odell Avenue, because that was the site chosen last fall.

A second driveway from the street to the school was added to help relieve traffic congestion, but it was removed from the revised plan to save money.

And a ground source heating system -- included in the design last fall in the interest of long-term efficiency and cost savings -- was removed because its initial costs are higher than conventional heating systems.

One community member at a recent meeting questioned the removal of ground source heating, noting that it is both greener and more efficient.

"We eliminated things not because we want to, but to respond to members of the community who thought the cost was too high," said board member Anita Wright.

The school board has re-opened the site selection process, and the result of its decision could have some impact on the total cost of the building because of differences in site preparation and access road costs.

Rosa said site selection would not make a significant difference considering the size of the project.

What the new design did not change was the shape and size of the learning spaces. Classrooms, at about 850 square feet, will be larger than in any of the district's existing elementary schools, Noah said.

The new building would also have "swing" classrooms that introduce flexibility in scheduling and would help the district handle any particularly large classes.

The design also includes focus rooms and classrooms for special programs like speech therapy, Title 1 reading and math, occupational and physical therapy.

Those are uses that didn't exist when the current schools were built, forcing the district to improvise, subdividing traditional classrooms to make small spaces for those kinds of instruction.

The new school would also have rooms for music and art, classes that currently are relegated to trailers at some schools and the gymnasium at others.

The design also includes a media center/library, cafeteria and regulation-size gymnasium.

Between the cafeteria and gym is a platform that can serve as a stage facing either room, depending on whether dividers are open or closed on one side or the other.

Rosa said the expected lifespan of the new building would be about 50 years. The estimated lifespan of renovated existing buildings would be about 20 years, he said.

Even with the budget trim, the building appears to be too expensive to some critics of the plan.

"I had a person say to me, 'That's a lot of money.' Yeah, it is. You're building a school," said Wayne Crawford, co-chairman of Citizens for the School Bond. "The building itself is about $120 a square foot. That's not out of line. Ten years ago when I was putting up buildings for the Department of Mental Health, we thought we'd hit the lottery if we could put up a building for less than $150" per square foot.

"That's a building that has in it what the children need," he added.

Walt Keith, who has attended nearly every public meeting on the subject to offer ideas for saving costs, has suggested the district avoid architect's fees.

"You have to have professional engineers, but you don't have to have an architect," he said at one recent public meeting.

But Noah said the district signed a contract with ACI prior to the 2000 bond issue and if it backs out now, it will be forced to pay the company for all the hours it has put into design work since then.

ACI and Titan Construc-tion are providing services on the project but are not paid until a bond issue passes.

One issue raised at recent meetings is the fact that even if a new school is built now, the district's long-range plan calls for another building to be built in eight to 10 years. In the meantime, three of the four older schools will still be used for classes.

Noah has said the administration is working on a new facility plan that will take into account the growing maintenance needs of the older buildings, anticipating needs as best it can.

"Whether this passes or not, we've got to have a long-term facility plan. You can't wait until something falls apart," Noah said. "You can always manage anything that's thrown at you."

Crawford argued that the days are numbered for the existing schools, regardless of the board's decision Monday about whether to build new or renovate.

"I personally think that whether we pass this bond or not this time, we are going to build new schools some day. We have to," he said. "I mean, eventually something's going to fall in."

Contact Eric Crump at marshalleditor@socket.net

Related stories:

New building estimate drafts:

Note: The nature of the Internet makes it impractical for our staff to review every comment. If you feel that a comment is offensive, please Login or Create an account first, and then you will be able to flag a comment as objectionable. Please also note that those who post comments on marshallnews.com may do so using a screen name, which may or may not reflect a website user's actual name. Readers should be careful not to assign comments to real people who may have names similar to screen names. Refrain from obscenity in your comments, and to keep discussions civil, don't say anything in a way your grandmother would be ashamed to read.

Basing your vote on your estimation of the administration and staff is like beating up the fireman who is putting out your house fire because you don't like the fire chief.

When will people stop punishing the children by voting no just because they don't like the staff? Why can't you understand the flaw in that logic (if you can even call it logic)?

-- Posted by hat full of sky on Fri, Jan 22, 2010, at 9:51 PM


We're working on getting an answer for you. The engineers are the best ones to provide that information. We'll try to get it to you by next week.

outsider -- the ceilings have been lowered to 12 feet to cut costs.

-- Posted by Citizens for the School Bond on Fri, Jan 22, 2010, at 9:43 PM

I will continue to keep voting no on this issue untill something is done with with this poor excuse of a Superintedent and the poor caliber of teachers is taken care of and reconciled.

-- Posted by tazman on Fri, Jan 22, 2010, at 1:45 PM

Citizens for the Schol Bond!!!

Per the DRAFT Building Cost Budgets, a significant expense listed under OTHER COST is soft/professional/fees/other. This cost is 18% for a new school, and range from 23% t 28% for renovated schools.

Significant in that a cost over 20% should be broken down. Will someone be so kind as to break down this line item?

-- Posted by CWilli on Fri, Jan 22, 2010, at 1:04 PM

Ok...so is the 12 ft ceiling in the gym true? If so, how will that work? I'm looking at the ceiling in my office and it measures 11'4". There's no way to have a decent gym with a 12 ft ceiling. It's gotta be a misprint. If not a misprint, then doing so would be a huge mistake.

-- Posted by outsider on Fri, Jan 22, 2010, at 9:20 AM


It's good to hear from someone who thinks that the planning is in place this time. May we ask you to tell your friends?

There were a huge number (more than 3,000) people who didn't come out to vote in November. We need those people to vote in April. (And yes, even if they vote no.)

Everyone bring a friend with you to the polls in April.

-- Posted by Citizens for the School Bond on Fri, Jan 22, 2010, at 7:19 AM

i understand the need for a new school and the children are the future. i do agree that the heat source should be included it is good for the enviornment. lets just vote yes on this issue cause it is not going to get any cheaper, if we wait the price of everything is still going to go up. i say stay with the 19 million and build it the right way and the most energy efficient that we can.

-- Posted by retired military on Fri, Jan 22, 2010, at 7:03 AM

I don't think it's a misprint about the 12 ft ceilings.

-- Posted by fvsol on Thu, Jan 21, 2010, at 11:46 PM

16 million for a building with a lifespan of 50 years or even more than that to renovate buildings with a life span of 20 years. What kind of choice is that? Most everyone agrees that something has to be done, so it's time to do it. It seemed like it was being hurried through at the last election, but it appears to be laid out very well this time. I'm gonna vote yes for the first time. Don't cut corners with the heat source though. Lowering the ceilings to 12 feet in the gym??...I'm assuming that's a misprint.

-- Posted by outsider on Thu, Jan 21, 2010, at 10:51 PM

Respond to this story

Posting a comment requires free registration: