That portion of the meeting agenda includes:
POOL AND FACILITIES
A. Pool Project Community Engagement Report on plans for four options. (DETAILED BELOW)
B. Acceptance of Long Term Facilities Plan (SEE LINKS BELOW)
C. Engineering Report on the Garage
D. Authorize Costing of Proposed West Field Option with All Sports on Campus
- Background and proposed motion
- Designs
* Legat's proposals for the LTFP were essentially deemed unintelligible by the board. For starters the report was formatted for large stand-alone computer screens and not suitable for viewing on laptops or tablets. Also, it was confusing that the pool options and the facilities options used the same numbering system.
* In LTFP Option #1, the idea to remove track from the campus came out of comments made by students at the facility visioning sessions held earlier in the school year. Students mentioned various track improvements, including the possibility of a 200 meter track. So an option to put track off-campus was included in one of the LTFP designs. Board members were not happy that this occurred without their consent.
* Legat acknowledged that a complete loss of electrical power throughout the entire campus for six weeks was not the case. Any power loss would involve primarily just the south end of the building (the Field House) and for any lengthy outage (more than a couple days) a substitute source of power would be utilized.
* Legat's report and presentation were poorly received in both public comments and by the Board. Most assumed that since each facility plan was designed around a specific pool option, that the pool options were "married" to their corresponding facilities options. This was not actually the case but it was very confusing to both board members, administrators and the audience. The Board characterized it as a preliminary work which would need substantial rework before being anything close to usable.
* Garage Report - Agenda Item C - The garage needs about $271,000 in repairs for areas of cracked and spalled concrete and damaged sealant. If these repairs are done, the garage should last at least 10 more years. If routine annual maintenance is performed as well as those repairs, then the garage should last about 25 more years. This is based upon a visual inspection by Larson Engineering (118 S. Clinton, Chicago). Here is a LINK to the full garage report (17 pages)
* West Field Option - Agenda Item D - Dr. Gevinson resurrected Option 5 (LINK) which was resoundingly put down in the last Board meeting, into the improved Option 5A and an entirely new Option 5B. These new options were different than what was available prior to the meeting. LINK to designs for 5A & 5B.
Option 5A brought the tennis courts of his original Option 5 back to the HS west fields, but Gevinson learned from talking to coaches in the past few days that it was still unacceptable, so Gevinson tabled 5A by the end of the night.
* Gevinson introduced Option 5B along with the pro-bono architects of impeccable credentials that created it, local residents Frank Heitzman and Garret Eakin. They proceeded to give a concise and masterfully detailed presentation of a proposed swimming pool to be situated UNDERGROUND at the West fields. It was obvious to all in the room that this proposal elegantly solves the myriad headaches of years of designs that could not implement a pool solution.
* In response to the proposal, member Spivy then made a very strong assertion that the Board should replace Legat with new architects due to Legat's ineffectiveness in bringing clarity to the project to date, as everyone has spent so much time only to result in a muddled and incomplete solution.
* The Board voted to authorize Legat to flush out the 5B proposal and provide a formal cost estimate, with 5 in favor, Arkin opposed and Weissglass abstaining.
POOL PROJECT COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT REPORT
The consultant presented the following summary:
More than 350 residents attended the three meetings in April, which included presentations with information about the project and the process, the role of water sports in curricular and extracurricular programs, the current condition of the two pools, and four options to replace the current pools. Participants sat in small groups at tables with a note-taker who recorded their comments. Additional comments were also submitted online via e-mail and surveys. More than 1000 individual comments were gathered. It should be noted that these responses are qualitative - not quantitative. No numerical or statistical data was presented, though the comments were categorized. (summarized at this LINK for Frequently Asked Questions)
FINDINGS OVERVIEW (42 page report, linked HERE)
The analysis included meeting notes, thoughts and questions submitted at the meeting and via email, and the survey results. Approximately 1,000 comments and questions were reviewed, coded, grouped, and prioritized. The following topics were raised most frequently:
- The long-term facilities plan (LTFP)
- The existing garage and parking
- Funding and impact on tax bills
- Timing and impact on school activities
- Possibilities for creating a multi-story building that would include some combination of pool(s), tennis courts, and parking
- Academic and competitive advantages of the pool options and various lengths
- School finance and budgets —types of funds and ending fund balances (reserves)
- Intergovernmental cooperation —Village of Oak Park, both park districts, and other local entities were all mentioned
- Comparative information about other high schools —swimming requirements, pool sizes, building costs for new pools, etc.
- OPRFHS enrollment—current, projected, and percentage of students involved in water sport
- OPRFHS swimming requirement —attendees both questioned and promoted the requirement
