Director Kathryn Reith |
Redmond High School Addition Will Provide More Permanent Classrooms at Lower Cost
By Kathryn Reith, Communications Director, Lake Washington School District
The opinion piece by Susan Wilkins from December 5 on the Redmond High School addition contains significant errors of fact. Let me provide some specific corrections here. To start with, the total budget for the project is $16,400,000, down from the original estimate of $18,600,000. Read More >>
The district actually promised an addition of classrooms to serve 250 students (see the press release announcing the measure). While the projected addition of 500 students to RHS with the addition of ninth grade is correct, the caveat to that projection was that it was a maximum that did not take into account that some number of RHS students will elect to attend the new STEM school, also included in the same levy that funded the addition. Other students may elect to enroll in the Cambridge program at Juanita High School, which leads to the Advanced International Certificate of Education. These two additional options for students are expected to reduce enrollment at Redmond High by about 100 students next year and more in future years as these programs expand.
The original 500-student growth estimate has recently been updated to 450 based on current enrollment numbers. When you reduce that number by the amount expected to attend other new programs, you end up with about a 350-student increase in population at Redmond High for next year.
Because of the uncertainty of enrollment in new programs and the potential for more need in the future, a master plan to accommodate portable classrooms serving an additional 250 students if needed was included in the project. The plan for portables actually includes six classrooms in three double portables and one portable that provides bathrooms.
There is no plan at this time to place any portables at Redmond High School next fall. However, by including the siting in the plan, we gain future land use approval in advance and portables can more easily and efficiently be added if needed. That flexibility is critical since as a public school, RHS must serve every student who shows up, no matter how many there are and when they arrive.
The original plans for the addition to serve 250 students included 10 classrooms. Cost estimates further into the project showed that we could build the permanent structure with 14 classrooms and come in under budget. Thus, the final project will provide permanent classroom space for 372 students. (Note: it could accommodate up to 448 students, as Ms. Wilkins writes, though teachers would have to give up their classrooms for their planning period and all classes would have to be fully subscribed.) Those additional classrooms reduce the potential that portables will be needed any time soon.
Ms. Wilkins’ calculation on the cost of the classrooms is erroneous. First, she does not take into consideration other parts of the project. In addition to the classrooms and the auxiliary gym, the project includes upgrades/renovations to:
- The commons area so there is more space for lunch periods
- A relocation of the career center
- Additional administrative support offices
- Additional parking
- Additional bike racks
- Improvements to the storm water system
The budget also includes money for things like the furniture needed in these rooms. Desks and chairs for students are included. The renovation of the commons area removes a wall and creates more effective space for the lunchroom within the current building, one of the issues Ms. Wilkins raises but did not investigate.
Square foot costs are determined by the construction cost, not the total project cost. The actual construction square foot cost is $272 per square foot (includes addition space + renovated space), which is less than $250,000 per classroom, one quarter of Ms. Wilkins’ incorrect estimate.
There are quite a few costs in addition to the construction costs, as Ms. Wilkins correctly points out. That’s the reality of building schools today. Just because these costs are not for construction does not mean they are not required. For example:
The District must pay: $1,008,800 in sales tax and
budget a construction change order contingency of $900,000.
The City of Redmond permit costs to date are $439,024.73, which includes
$14,399.25 to traffic signal improvements
$263,500 for traffic impact fees
The district does outsource its construction management costs: that allows us to ensure that we scale up the construction management staff when there are projects and scale it back down immediately when those projects are completed. This flexibility saves the cost of permanent employees in our facilities department and ultimately is more cost effective to the district and to taxpayers.
Ms. Wilkins claims that all ninth graders will be driven to school by their parents. High school students who live within a one-mile radius of the school and thus do not get bus transportation may walk or ride bicycles to school. (Students with disabilities are provided transportation.) Students who live beyond that one-mile radius are provided bus transportation by the district. The choice to be driven to school is just that: it’s a choice students and families make. The district would prefer that students walk, bicycle or ride the bus to school or even carpool but we cannot force them to do so.
In answer to Ms. Wilkins’ questions, the expansion is adequate but conservative: it strikes a balance between the need for more space and the cost to taxpayers in these difficult economic times. There is adequate LWSD bus transportation: the issue is whether students will choose to take advantage of it. The plan is appropriately sized and priced and in fact will deliver four more classrooms than promised to voters at a lower cost.
-- Kathryn Reith
So we’re paying “only” $16.4 million for 14 classrooms instead of the initially proposed $18.6 million. That is still a lot of money for so very little space. Where’s the frugality? So much of the cost goes to non-classroom construction costs. They are tearing out and rebuilding the storm water vault and geothermal field that were brand new in 2003 when the school was rebuilt. And they’re spending a lot to get ready for portables. Did anyone ask if this would be the best use of the taxpayer money before the levy was presented to the voters?
ReplyDeleteThere seems to be no acknowledgement that the school already has a problem with overcrowding in hallways, stairwells, common areas and in the library and lunchroom. (Is removing a wall really going to fix these problems?) This year there are 495, 496 and 509 students in 10th, 11th and 12th grades – and they tell us that next year adding the 9th graders will only increase the school’s population by 350 because students will go elsewhere – maybe. They’re also blaming traffic congestion on too many students choosing not to ride the bus to school. This year, RHS has only 6 bus routes and most are full to capacity. Morning traffic backs up in all directions, blocking side streets and even causes a significant backup on Avondale Road. They tell us that this is the fault of the RHS students and their parents driving to school?
The school district’s response seems to show a level of denial and rationalization that prevents them from even acknowledging that anything is wrong at Redmond High School. I guess we can’t expect them to address problems that they cannot see or take responsibility for.
Is the Administration really going to put 10 portables on the RHS campus??? I heard about this from RHS staff.
ReplyDeleteRJH is getting 4 portables.