Janene, thanks for your reply. I’ve had a chance to review your information and had a few more questions; more for the planning committee than necessarily for you.
1) How much is remaining of un-used bond funds from previously approved bonds? What uses are these funds ear-marked for now?
2) I understand that building a portable is less expensive and speedier that building a permanent structure; but isn’t the lifespan of a portable significantly less than that of a permanent building if we use the 30-40 year lifespan or a permanent building before modernization is necessary?
3) And, as most temporary classrooms only house at most two classrooms (average 30 students per classroom), but a permanent building similar to the “B Wing” at Redmond High School could house 10-14 classroom spaces plus bathroom facilities; wouldn’t it be more cost AND TIME effective to build permanent classroom structures at sites where multiple temporary classrooms are existing?
I’m thinking of the site at Rockwell Elementary, for instance. There are 5 portable classrooms on site presently; I’ve been told this is the maximum allowed at this site. As Rockwell would be likely to be in the next modernization phase (and was, in fact slated to be in Phase 3 of the old plan); wouldn’t it be prudent to have plans drawn for the planned modernization including layout of new building(s)?
If the plans were drawn with layout of new buildings, one of the things the committees, et al could provide was location of a permanent building to replace the temporary buildings. The location of the permanent building could be in the footprint of the existing temporary classrooms or worked into the future plan so that it wouldn’t need to be destroyed with construction of the new building.
Assuming the footprint of 5 temporary classrooms is greater than the footprint of one permanent structure (again similar to “B Wing” at RHS), after the permanent structure was completed, it would have less of an impact on the location than 5 temporary buildings. The permanent building could then be attached to or connected in some way to the planned and to-be-built new school on the same Rockwell site.
I’m also persuaded that voters might be more willing to vote “YES” on Bond issues for new/modernized schools and structures if they felt that the planned projects capacity would actually be applicable for more than 10 years of the 30-40 year life span of buildings. My case(s) in point are Redmond High School, Lake Washington High School and Horace Mann Elementary schools which were built without capacity increases that would have provided for a growth in the areas they serve.
Granted, Horace Mann is housing temporary classrooms based on over-crowding at Rockwell Elementary; but while the District is shifting the boundaries in many neighborhoods, many more areas in LWSD are still experiencing HUGE building growth which will only ADD to the capacity issues and not lessen them (for instance all the multi-family housing in downtown Redmond and Overlake areas).
Thank you for your response and your time.