Do we really need to spend $ 120 million on a new high school?
The Basic information on Huguenot High School (pictured above)
- Brand New $ 64 million high school completed in 2015
- Located about 100 miles away in Richmond, VA
- 250,000 square feet, Certified LEED Gold
- Serves 1,385 students now, can flex to 1,700 student (we have 850 now, need to plan for 1,500)
- Auditorium with seating for 1,000
- Dining Commons for 500
- 3 court gymnasium with seating for 2,000
- Media Center, Television Studio, Distance Learning Center
- Administration Spaces
- State-of-Art technology, Construction, Architecture
- Field house & Stadium with seating for 3,500 (we already the stadium, maybe use that part of the funding to build an aquatic center or field house)
Take a Closer Look at $ 64 million Huguenot High School
Richmond Times Article on Huguenot High School
Builder’s (HESS) Information & Photo Gallery on Huguenot High School
www.hessedu.com/project.php?ID=37
The Benefits of spending $ 64 million instead of $ 120 million (referendum plan)
- Cut financial risk to the city by about half
- Potential to save more green space from development
- May not need to bring in 1,000 new apartments
- Helps keep our city affordable for more people
- Less strain on operating budgets (teachers, police, library, maintenance etc.)
- Potential for a community aquatic center or field house
Why a “No” Vote on the Referendum is Needed
Unchecked, we are on a course to spend $ 120 million on a risky scheme that puts our financial destiny in the hands of developers and other forces, like the economy, that we cannot control. Lots of things must go mostly right and mostly according to our complicated plan – for 30 years – to stave off serious financial problems, even ruin. Voting No on the Referendum is the only sure way to stop the perilous scheme.
The establishment (City Council, School Board, Office of Economic Development, School Superintendent, Chamber of Commerce, Falls Church News Press, PTAs…) will tell you to go ahead and vote Yes and that they will look at the $ 64 million Huguenot-type project because voting yes only means they can spend $ 120 million, not that they have to spend that much. But, in the end, they will find some fault with the Huguenot idea, just like they did with past Interim Superintendent Schiller’s sensible $ 60 million plan. (According to Dr. Schiller, his plan was discarded because the Economic Development Office wanted the full 10 acres for development.) If the referendum passes, the establishment will think they have a mandate to go full speed ahead with their $ 120 million project. There will be no second guessing or pause for reconsideration. The people will have spoken in favor of our $ 120 million plan, they will say, and the case is closed.
If there was open-mindedness about our options, they would give us a choice on the referendum between the $ 120 million project and a Huguenot-type project for $ 64 million.
If the establishment wanted to hear about options, they wouldn’t tell us, falsely, we only have two choices: vote Yes for the $ 120 million high school or vote No and get stuck with an absurd $ 70 million patch-job to the old high school.
If the establishment thought we could manage with something less grandiose than their $ 120 million school, the Superintendent would not be tweeting these:
“told SB last night that extensive analysis established there’s no realistic $50-70M GMHS renovation/expansion option” (October 11, 2017)
“2/40 for upgrade @MasonMustangs 4cents of 6 on tax rate gets NEW HS that lasts at least 30 yrs. @tjtigers &@mdhippos that means new 4 you!” (September 25, 2017, talking about $ 120 million option)
No, the establishment in Falls Church is determined to get their $ 120 million high school and equally determined to commercially develop 10 acres of green space on that campus. If you vote Yes, you green light that project. You will have to vote No to bring them back to their economic senses. If you vote No, you tell them …
- they must spend our tax money more carefully
- not to encumber us and the next generation with massive debt
- not to pay $ 120 million for a $ 64 million solution
- to develop a reasonable plan and we’ll support it
Vote No on the Referendum to stop the exorbitant $ 120 million school project.
That looks pretty nice. I still think that maybe renovation is cheaper but $64 million vs. $120 million is much better. We should have been given a cheaper option for the referendum.
Who’se getting kick backs on 120 million smackers, I ask? And who has failed to do due dilligence on alternative plans, and why? Council is rotten, school board rotten. Someone stands to get something outa this stupid project, and it sure as heck ain’t us!!!
Thank you for printing this. Many people have asked what is the alternative to a $120 Million school. I think this is a good substitute. I know that there are unique building and prices for each location, but there has to be a lot of similarities so it gives me hope that there are options for a lot less.
#fakenews
The HugueNOT cost only includes construction cost. Not included are architecture fees, no FF&E. Add to that the 20% increase in construction costs per year between 2015 and now, this high school far eclipses the GMHS plan.
Shame.
Why are you wanting to soak Falls Church in debt?
Hey Horst, How did you get 20% increase per year? That seems unrealistically high. Also, the construction data comes from VDOE, are you saying it is not good data? If not, why not and where is your details?
Lastly, I think that we should renovate and save a ton of money but I am probably in the minority.
So in two years a $64 Million project becomes $28 million more? I agree, that is a rip off but I just don’t see that as a true statement but if you are in the building industry, please let me know where to find this data.
I don’t think construction prices are really going up 20% per year, but if true, the deal for the $ 120 million high will not be finalized for about 2 years (new school available to students in 4 years) so that final cost would be $ 172.8 million by your reckoning.
I’ll take the 8% architecture fees on $ 63 million rather than the $ 172.8 million, thanks. FF&E might be a few million more, but I’d suggest we use the chairs and other stuff from the old GMHS as much as possible to offset those fees.
And, don’t demo the old school, turn it into affordable housing condos and let them pay for themselves.
As I understand the information, the Huguenot school requirements are more than we need at GMHS. Take out some of the square footage, the stadium and you can probably knock off $10 Million or maybe more. Certainly good information to use as a baseline for a cheaper school.
Can we really compare construction costs in Richmond, VA to costs here in the DC metro area? Cost of living is WAY cheaper in Richmond than it is here. And renovating is less expensive in the short term but but would not free up the land where current school sits for development and increased tax revenue for the city.
I would argue that it costs more to build in Richmond, VA because all their people are commuting from DC (where the bulk of their projects are and I would reckon most of their employees reside) The company has to pay for the crew to live in Richmond during the construction period which adds more cost. Plus all their vendors are in the DC area. Just another way to think about it.
The bottom line is we don’t know because we don’t have any RFPs out. Kind of silly not to get better cost info.
Wrong
I am glad you supported your answer with some facts. It’s one thing to have a different opinion but just plain sad if you can’t be part of the discussion with information.
It is too bad “E” can’t offer any substance. must be a troll.
Go to the link for Hess construction in the article above. They do much of their work in DC area. I like the Charles City high school for 1600 students with an indoor swimming pool for 72 million.
Just because they also work in the DC area doesn’t mean they charge the same for as they would in Charles City! Here’s an interesting article about increased school costs in metro areas: https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2016/11/24/mass-sees-flurry-plans-for-pricey-high-schools/b3oUDxm5w4UccQ3lTq0P5J/story.html. I absolutely agree, and I think the SB and CC would agree, that we want to build a new school, or renovate the existing school, as cheaply as we can.
Thanks for the link Beth. The reasons sited for the huge price tag are many: “The School Building Authority has spent the past several years trying to clamp down on school construction spending following public uproar over the high cost of Newton North, which included an unusual zigzag-shaped building with two theaters, a 25-yard-long pool, two gymnasiums, and pricey construction obstacles, such as granite ledges”
We should learn from this example. Provide a basic school for the minimum amount possible. There is no reason to have granite ledges and other high end materials.
I think two better comparisons come from Arlington County–their newly proposed high school, with seats for 1300, projected to cost $146.7 million (https://www.apsva.us/instruction/new-high-school/design-construction/) and the Wilson School, with seats for 775, at a cost of $100.8 million. (https://www.apsva.us/design-and-construction/wilson-school-project/).
Beth – thanks but I would submit that the Wilson school is a very expensive design when you look at the details: terracing, outdoor roof space, sunken courtyards, varying ceiling heights, etc. This is not a box but a work of art.
https://www.dezeen.com/2016/01/08/big-wilson-secondary-school-arlington-virginia/
I think asking questions on how to save money is prudent. Figuring out how to get a basic school without design constructs that will cost a fortune is prudent. At the end of the day, we don’t have the same amount of money as Arlington County and therefore must find smart alternatives. Picking out schools in districts where there is more of a tax base and they have more money to spend is not the answer. Look at places were budget matters and see how they are able to build schools within their means. I think the Richmond and St. Charles examples are very good and we should try to mirror those ,not the designs in Arlington or Massachusetts where they have a very large tax base versus our very small tax base.
Assuming Beth lives in the city, I ask you the following: You probably had some criteria on what house you wanted to buy in Falls Church City. You probably had criteria on number of bathrooms, number of bedrooms, garage, square feet, backyard, fence, etc. Some houses met those criteria and were within your budget so you considered them. Other houses had nicer amenities, were newer, had a larger yard, etc., but you couldn’t justify the extra costs to purchase that house or you couldn’t afford it.
The same is with the school. We have to look at a more affordable options because TJ still needs to be updated and we need money for infrastructure and other public needs such as police, City Hall services, etc. If we put all our risk and debt into just one school, we put everything else at risk: some things won’t get done, teachers and employees can’t get raises or you have to raise the taxes significantly which ultimately hurts home prices.
My Mistake, I mean to say it was St. Charles High School in Waldorf, MD about 10 miles south of the beltway . That’s the one for 1600 students, new, indoor swimming pool for 72 million.
Also, they did Paint Branch High School in Montgomery County MD – huge school with 340,000 square feet – for $ 81 million.
I hold incumbents accountable for their words and actions. Has any incumbent, other than maybe Mr. Size who appears to be saying different things….but aside from him has any incumbent running for reelection emphasized building a school based on what the city can comfortably afford? It appears you can build a very good school for far less than $120 million and avoid financial stress and risk.
Dale, that’s what I can’t understand. It appears that they did things backward: let’s think of all the things we want and add them up instead of let’s see what we can afford and bid it out to see what we can get for the amount we have.
Can someone explain and point to a requirements document that the $120 million is based on? Maybe it resides somewhere and I just don’t see it.
Hi Dale, the Perkins Eastman study has some top level detail, but not to the level I would expect for a detailed RFP or line item cost analysis. What is missing, in my opinion, is some basic analysis:
1. what type of learning can we expect in the next 20 years and will we need as many classrooms to fulfill those requirements (ie. online learning, dual enrollment at community college, Arlington Career Center, etc)
2. Do we need to offer IB, AP, dual enrollment, classes and other courses that have a small amount of students? This takes up classroom space and is inefficient especially if you have a small school with limited budget. Perhaps we can change course offerings and scheduling to have less space.
3. Can we minimize the amount of square footage (which adds cost) or make the school more modular if we need it, ie. add a floor a wing, etc.
4. What are the minimum requirements, what are the optional requirements? It seems like they need everything.
Check pg 90, pg 123, pg 144, pg 148
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B7vaFg7PcgKyelVlUC1oM0h4WDQ/view
Good luck with the document.