Pool and Facilities Options and Referendum Ballot Questions

The D200 Board of Education is meeting Thursday evening, June 23.  The agenda, linked HERE, includes further discussion of the UNDERGROUND pool option and how to incorporate that plan into the COMMUNITY DISCUSSIONS that will be taking place within the next few weeks.  Public comment is set to be heard beginning at 7:50 PM, after the board completes some necessary business matters.  Following the public comments, the board will again take care of some routine matters, and discussion on the ACTION ITEMS is set to begin at 8:30 PM.  The POOL OPTION 5B (the proposed underground option - LINK) is the third action item to be considered.

Discussion of POOL FUNDING OPTIONS is set to begin at 8:55 PM with a presentation by William A. Blair, the district's investment banking company who is advising on the bond issue.  Here is a LINK to their presentation.  It is about 18 pages and filled with a lot of technical bond and finance information, along with other less technical information.  It includes various scenarios for the different pool options and possible wording for a referendum ballot question.  There are several options as to how the referendum can be worded and it does not necessarily have to be specific as to the purpose of the bond issue.  
Some highlights include (images taken from the presentation linked above): 

Note that this labels as "Option A" the plan to renovate and rebuild the existing pools, and keeping the current parking garage.  The plan labeled "Option B" includes building a new structure to include both a parking garage and a swimming facility.  The third, "Option C" includes the underground pool, the cost of which is yet to be determined.

Below is a chart summarizing the effects of a $20 milliion bond issue vs. a $35 million bond issue on a typical taxpayer.

Below we see how the wording of the referendum question will effect how the high school uses the funds if the referendum is approved.  In the actual report, this page is followed by three examples of actual questions that may appear on the ballot.

For a more complete idea of how the referendum question might be worded, please see the last few pages of the report (LINK).

June Pool and Garage discussions - D200 Board meeting on Tuesday, June 14

There is a special D200 Board of Ed meeting on TUESDAY, June 14 at 7:30 PM in the Board Room (2nd floor) Agenda (linked below) focuses on the Pool and Facilities Planning Process.  Public comment is taken at the beginning of the meeting.

 

A. Review Project Timeline (LINK to more info )

B. Present Revised Long-Term Facilities Plan

C. Proposed Pool Option 5B Update

• 1. Legat Architects Peer Review of Option 5B
• 2. Construction Cost Systems estimate of Option 5B
• 3. Building Program Comparison Chart

D. Approve Proposal for Further Structural Study of the Garage  ( LINK to more info )

E. Approve Pool and Facilities Options to Include for Phase II of the Community Engagement Process 

Link to the full agenda:  https://intranet.oprfhs.org/board-of-education/board_meetings/Special_Meetings/Agendas/2015-16/20160614%20SPEC%20Agenda.pdf

 

The DECISION-MAKING TIMELINE for Pool is summarized at this time as follows:
● Thurs., June 23 Board meeting:
    ○ Report on format of July community engagement.
    ○ Presentation by Liz Hennessey on funding options.
●Week of July 11-15: Phone survey conducted.
● Wed., July 13: Community engagement meeting (tentative).
● Wed., July 20: Community engagement (tentative).
● Date TBD but before July 28, Special Board meeting (?): Report from phone-survey consultant.
● Thurs., July 28, Special Board meeting:  Approve final pool project as well as type and amount of bond.
● Tues., Aug. 16, Special Board meeting: Approve referendum question.
● Mon., Aug. 22, 2016: Deadline for submitting referendum question for November ballot.

SUMMARY NOTES AND LINKS FROM THE MAY 17 SPECIAL MEETING

The meeting began with public comment. Because it was known that Option 5 would be reconsidered, a number of representatives from other sports (mainly track, baseball, softball, football) and marching band spoke in opposition to Option 5 or other options that might impact their programs. Other speakers commented both pro and con on various aspects of the proposals. The board then considered other business before getting down to the agenda related to the pool process.

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)

• LTFP Plans with Costs - LINK to site plans, 4 pages
• LTFP Book - LINK to 106 page report

C. Engineering Report on the Garage
D. Authorize Costing of Proposed West Field Option with All Sports on Campus

• Background and proposed motion 
• Designs 

OUR OBSERVATIONS

* 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 

Other areas of high interest included:

• 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

Important Meeting at OPRFHS on Tuesday, May 17 at 7 PM to review pool proposals

BOE SPECIAL MEETING TUESDAY, MAY 17 at 7:00 PM OPRFHS Board Room D200 BOE- Special meeting. The agenda (linked below) includes a summary and review of feedback from the Community Forums on the Pool proposals, as well as a review of long-term facilities planning as impacted by the three pool proposals currently consideration.
AGENDA (link below)
https://intranet.oprfhs.org/board-of-education/board_meetings/Special_Meetings/Agendas/2015-16/20160517%20SPEC%20Agenda.pdf

Also on the agenda is a motion to revisit Option 5, a more recent option that would reorient the ball fields and tennis courts to make space for a new Natatorium with a 40 m pool.   LINK below:

https://intranet.oprfhs.org/board-of-education/board_meetings/Special_Meetings/Packets/2015-16/20160517%20SPEC%20Packet/20160517%20SPEC%20Packet%20West%20Field.pdf

Three proposals for Long Term Facilities Planning will be presented at the meeting. These three proposals are tied to the three new pool proposals. A LINK to the LTFP summary is below. On the LTFP proposals, Option 1 corresponds to Pool Proposal Option 2; LTFP Option 2 corresponds to Pool Proposal Option 3; LTFP Option 3 corresponds to Pool Proposal Option 4. A little confusing… AND, if the Board decides to pursue the revised Pool Proposal Option 5, it may get even more confusing.

Here is a LINK to a recap and cost estimates for the LTFP proposals:
Link to LTFP Propsals and Cost Estimates
Of particular note are pages 2, 7 and 12 where there are tables outlining the proposed building changes and cost estimates.