On occasion around Rieke, I hear discussions about the possibility of engaging in "capital improvements" at the school. Whether this is "front entrance" improvements, renovated playgrounds, or replacing the soccer field, one typical response to these proposals is "well, if the school gets rebuilt, won't any capital improvement go to waste anyway?" While this may be true, I don't think that it should foreclose us from looking -- seriously -- into this kind of substantial improvements at the school. This is true primarily because I remain skeptical -- perhaps too skeptical -- about when a "new" Rieke is likely to come to pass. After the jump, I'll explain why.
As was reported earlier in the year, Rieke is one of ten schools that deserve, in the District's eyes, a "total rebuild." What wasn't well reported in that discussion, however, is that this conclusion does not mean that the school is on the "top ten" list for the district's priorities. Let me repeat that: The conclusion that Rieke and ten other schools should be replaced when the time comes DOES NOT mean that Rieke is on the "top ten" list for capital improvements. Instead, it simply means that when the time comes to repair, renovate, or otherwise fix up the school, the district has concluded that it makes sense to replace it. This is primarily a function of community desire and the relative cost of repair to the cost of a new school. There may well be other schools that are higher on the priority list -- even if those schools will be "fully renovated" or "fully modernized" rather than entirely rebuilt.
How will the district assess which schools to prioritize? This is part of the district's current discussion -- which appears to have been resolved, at least in principle, at the October 13 Board meeting -- about setting criteria for reconstruction. (The proposed criteria are listed at pages 15-18 of the Board Meeting Book for October 13; see also this list of proposed criteria from a month before. ETA: The board has adopted new criteria substantially similar to these; I'll discuss them in a later post.) The criteria include several factors that the staff will consider when establishing priorities for the reconstruction of the district's schools. (I'm going to comment more on one of those criteria -- "fulfilling prior commitments" -- in a later post.)
Based on my observation of the Board, staff, and the facilities process, it is apparent to me that the most important of these criteria is the "Facility Cost Index" -- which is the "ratio of the repair cost to the cost of replacing the school." See the definition on this page. The higher the ratio, the more pressing the need to replace the school, and the easier it is going to be to do it. (Note that in this context, "replacing the school" basically means "doing all the necessary capital improvements, whether they take the form of renovation, modernization, or construction of an entirely new building.") It's for this reason that I've heard district staff suggest that the FCI will be a substantial, if not overwhelming, factor in the setting of criteria for school rebuilding.
So where does Rieke stand when it comes to the FCI? As far as I know, the only public information on the web is in this chart. As you will note, this preliminary chart from early in 2008 has some red highlighted numbers that (1) highlight schools that have enrollments under 400, and (2) highlight schools with an FCI above 59% or so. As you will note, Rieke's FCI is high, but not that high compared to a number of other schools. I see 23 schools and other buildings with FCIs above 59%, and Rieke is 18th on that list.
Now, I should note that there are only 8 schools that have enrollments of under 400 AND that have FCIs over 59%. Rieke is one of those, and maybe that suggests that if both of those considerations enter into the analysis, Rieke might be higher on the priority list than I expect. But I doubt that will be the case. Not least of my concerns is the fact that as enrollment increases, we're likely going to require a second (and maybe even a third) portable classroom in the next couple of years. Once the district makes that commitment -- particularly if they are new portables -- I can easily see the district arguing that "Rieke is all set" on space, and then focus their attention on other schools. (Indeed, the fact that the district would be willing to put portables at our school strongly suggests that the District doesn't think that there's much risk of losing their investment in all of the site improvements that go along with placing new portables.)
So what's the net result of all this for Rieke? In my view, at least, it means that barring some dramatic change, we are probably at least a decade away from any "new" permanent building here. At best, it seems like the school is likely to be in a second bond measure, rather than a first (my impression is that we're likely to do at most 10-12 buildings at a time). Even that seems questionable to me given the commitment of portables we're going to need here. And even if Rieke is in one of the early bond measures, it's probably at least 3 years away, and then there is all the site planning, design, and preparation to do before making the commitment to actual reconstruction. My guess: 10 years, at least, before groundbreaking on a "new" Rieke building.
Now, maybe I'm wrong. But for all the above reasons, then, I think it would be very shortsighted to simply say "let's stop talking about any capital improvements at the school." I think that a major rebuild at Rieke will be a fairly long time coming, and most of the capital improvements that I've heard proposed have been improvements that will likely themselves need replacement or renovation in 10 years or so. So there's no harm in making every effort to make Rieke the best place it can possibly be at any given moment. We certainly shouldn't stop making efforts to try and make the improvements that matter. If those efforts pan out, and we get to the point of being able to make a major decision to commit funds for a new playground or field or ...., we can double-check to make sure that nothing has changed in the criteria listing. If it has and things look better than I expect, we can hold off. But if, as I expect, we're many, many years from a full rebuild, we do more harm by waiting. So my vote, at least, is to develop those projects and seize parental and community initiative while we can.
See you around the school...
No comments:
Post a Comment