Houston School Board reaches consensus

At their third special workshopping session with SiteLogiQ, the Houston School Board reached a consensus on their proposed building referendum. While no vote was taken and nothing is written in stone, the board decided on an approximate cost, the projects to be included, and the question (questions) to be asked when the public vote is held.

To begin the session, Andy Fields from SiteLogiQ recapped the previous workshops for all the of the board and especially Arlin Peterson who had been absent from the previous workshops. Fields reminded the board that the voters would be thinking about three things as they voted—1) Do they support increasing taxes?, 2) Is the amount of increase reasonable based on their own finances?, and 3) Do they value the projects being proposed?

In the previous workshopping session, the board decided to offer two questions to the voters. The first question to be answered yes or no would be, “Are you in favor of a $20 million building referendum?” The second question which could only pass if the first one passed would be, “Are you in favor of an additional $10 million?” If both questions were answered affirmatively, the school would have funding for $30 million in projects.

The board had asked for more information about how such a vote would affect local farmers. SiteLogiQ came back to the session with some answers; they provided a chart of tax impact for various types of property. For agricultural homesteads, they reported estimated increases for three different values of such land per acre. For property valued at $4,200 per acre, taxes would rise by $1.61 per acre for the $20 million and $1.92 per acre for the $30 million. A house valued at $150,000 would see an increase of $322 for the $20 million and $385 for the $30 million.

Each taxpayer will have a different situation; SiteLogiQ’s municipal advisor would be able to provide an online calculator to help taxpayers estimate what their individual taxes are likely to be. Both Fields and Superintendent Morem stressed that the board needs to be fully informed about what the impact of the referendum will be for the public. Mimi Carlson noted that she would steer people to the calculator to help them.

Based on board input at the second workshopping session, the SiteLogiQ staff had reworked some plans to better suit the board’s ideas. The elementary plans remained much the same with a safe and secure new entrance, an elevator, a new cafeteria and kitchen, and additional bathrooms.

The high school plans were changed to more economically add features the board wanted. In the CTE area, the art room space would be added to CTE with the art room moving to a new space. The new secure entry with offices for administration and the nurse would be created in the current media room. A new media room with an art room next to it would be created at the back of the school with windows to take advantage of the natural beauty.

The existing principal’s office would be used for collaboration space. If question two were passed, a new weight room accessible to the public would replace the current band room with a new band room constructed elsewhere. In addition, a flexible 350-seat auditorium would be created at the front of the west side of the school.

The cafeteria would be expanded with a learning commons connecting the CTE area and the current locker rooms. Furnishings for the cafeteria could vary with high tops, soft furnishings, and other configurations to make the space more useful throughout the day.

When a construction is done, a school is required to spend 20% of the project cost on ADA improvements. This would include the elementary elevator and additional bathrooms in both buildings.

The SiteLogiQ staff pointed out that “flexible” was a key word going forward. As plans are developed focus groups will be created to get the key players input in the plans. SiteLogiQ will create renderings that will depict the future individual plans for the Houston buildings.

The board toured the existing building so the visual learners in the group could get a better idea of the proposals. A rough draft drawing was provided as well for the board. Peterson suggested that footages of areas and rooms would be helpful in the future to help with visualization of the possibilities.

With the newest changes, the cost of question one would actually be closer to $17 million and question two would add another $11.9 million.

Board chair Mimi Carlson felt the plan was a good one; she liked giving the residents of the district two different options. Nickki Johnson agreed, adding that it was part of the education of the public to show them that voting yes to both questions would not increase their taxes much more. The total estimated equalization aid from the state would increase if both questions passed. If only question one passes the aid is estimated to be $16,675,618; if question two also passes the aid is estimated to be $30,528,914.

Arlin Peterson commented, “The farmers have a lot more to consider.” He also mentioned the uncertainty of the city’s position with the OHV trail project.

Mark Swenson noted that there is never going to be a good time. Richard Erdmann agreed and commented that every year the school waits, the cost will increase.

Superintendent Morem declared, “We have to put trust in us as educators to educate the public, and we have to trust the public to make a good decision.” Morem mentioned that CTE can continue to get funding from other sources as well.

The next step for the board is to work with Baker Tilly to work the numbers. A resolution would need to be passed by May 26 to have a vote on a referendum.

If both questions were to pass, it is possible that total expense would actually be less than projected. The auditorium could include all of the necessary safety compliances. SiteLogiQ assured the board that they build in a 10% contingency and escalation to their estimates.