Division I regional track finals
Fenwick graduation 2012
Ponitz graduation 2012
Dayton Daily News education reporter Scott Elliott writes about schools, kids, teaching and learning.
Home > Blogs > Get on the Bus > Archives > 2008 > March > 12 > Entry
It’s $15 million for Wilbur Wright and Julienne
(Buses lined up at Wilbur Wright Middle School in a DDN file photo.)
The extra cost to renovation two schools that neighborhood groups are trying to save are high enough that they could force the school district to build one fewer school, district officials said.
The combined cost for renovating Wilbur Wright Middle School and the former Julienne High School buildings is about $15 million, according to a new estimate based on renovation plans drawn up by the district.
“It would amount to another school,” school board President Yvonne Isaacs said. “It would cost us taking a school from somewhere else. That would not be fair or equitable.”
The extra cost to renovation two schools that neighborhood groups are trying to save are high enough that they could force the school district to build one fewer school, school officials said.
The combined cost for renovating Wilbur Wright Middle School and the former Julienne High School buildings is about $15 million, according to a new estimate based on renovation plans drawn up by the district.
“It would amount to another school,” school board President Yvonne Isaacs said. “It would cost us taking a school from somewhere else. That would not be fair or equitable.”
The estimate for rehabilitating Wilbur Wright is $18.3 million with the district’s additional costs at $8.8 million. But district construction chief John Carr said that number may be low. He asked the district’s construction manager to do an estimate also that came in at $21.9 million for the rehab project.
“The Ohio School Facilities Commission doesn’t give us enough money,” Carr said. “What the project actually costs per square foot for renovation — we can’t do it for that.”
For Julienne, a detailed estimate shows the district’s additional costs at $6.3 million, even high than the $4 million difference between the projected $17.3 million project cost and the price for a typical elementary school because the state will match fewer dollars. The district is currently constructing elementary schools for about $13.5 million.
The board is willing to entertain offers or ideas for funding the difference, Isaacs said. Dan Andriacco, spokesman for the Catholic Archdiocese of Cincinnati, said the possibility of the church offering financial help to save Julienne was “unlikely.”
Some supporters of saving Julienne have argued that the school is historic because the martyred Sister Dorothy Stang attended the school and may have received her calling to the church there. She is being considered for sainthood.
“Nobody has made a formal proposal to the archdiocese,” Andriacco said. “We have our own financial needs to look at. Anytime we are approached to support anything it has to be looked at in that broader context.”
Bonnie Baker, spokeswoman for the Mathile Family Foundation, which has awarded grants to Catholic schools in the past, said the foundation would consider making grants to groups proposing projects that fit its mission to create opportunities for children or families and need.
Supporters of renovation said they want to learn more about the district’s estimates.
“I really question the figures at this point,” said Marc Suda, who is president of a Five Oaks neighborhood group that has fought to save Julienne. “I don’t know if they are comparing apples to apples with the renovation.”
Permalink | Comments (13) | Categories: School Construction
Comments
By Oldprof
March 25, 2008 11:30 AM | Link to this
Dave, perhaps you want to read more closely. Crisp asked why the materials in the building couldn’t be re-used—that’s different from retrofitting. I see used, cleaned brick being sold for higher prices because it’s “historic”. So tell us, when you retrofit, how much of the material do YOU carefully remove and re-use? And would it be cheaper?By Dave
March 21, 2008 2:15 PM | Link to this
Oldprof, that is the biggest line of nonsense I have heard in years. I have a little experience in construction as an engineer and project manager (about $50 million — mostly retrofits), so maybe you can explain to me why you think you have to dismantle a building brick-by-brick to re-use it?By Oldprof
March 19, 2008 11:19 AM | Link to this
Crisp, after a while, those of us who know just a little about construction might get tired of trying to explain things to those who know even less. You cannot save money by trying to re-use materials. Used brick is more expensive than new, since it must be removed carefully and cleaned. Many materials—roofing, concrete, insulation—cannot be re-used in any circumstance. Building new is easier and cheaper than re-doing old, and has been so ever since the abolition of low-cost slave labor. You might benefit from this article, sympathetic to renovation, yet clear-eyed about how difficult it is and how much more it costs: http://www.facilitiesnet.com/bom/article.asp?id=2639 Especially note that the new buildings also provide long-term savings via better energy and maintenance efficiencies—they’re more “green” (if designed right).By crisp
March 17, 2008 12:46 PM | Link to this
Oldprof, I don’t think asking for a second opinion should be an insult to anyone. I would think we would want all the estimates we can get before spending millions of dollars on renovation or new construction. I am not in any way suggesting that we spend an additional 15 million redoing any school. I just want to understand, as your last email directed to Rick indicates, if material costs have gone up so much, why wouldn’t it be more economical to use some of the existing materials that are in the building? I don’t claim to be an architect just a citizen who feels she has the right to question how our tax dollars are spent and what changes are made in my neighborhood. Again, if you like the way your neighborhood looks with the big box ….great. I don’t want it!!By Oldprof
March 17, 2008 9:11 AM | Link to this
Rick, your account is not so incredible to anyone who knows how much the material costs for construction have inflated over the last few years.By Rick
March 15, 2008 2:26 PM | Link to this
Several years ago I recounted the saga of the new high school in Huntington, Indiana. (My boss in the Air Force reserves lived there.) It seems the school board and administration wanted to abandon the downtown high school built of bricks and a classic architecture and build a new one at the edge of town. The estimate for renovation was, amazingingly, higher than the cost of a new building. However, the estimate for the cost of the new school grew dramatically. Opponents of the new school began to point out how renovation was now cheaper. Guess what, a new renovation estimate was done and it, so surprisingly, was higher than the revised estimate for the new school. Bottom line: educators and some education reporters, believe that new schools will bring about better learning. This bias is not limited to Dayton. When it comes to construction issues, all estimates of renovation should be viewed with great detail, caution, and deep skepticism.By Oldprof
March 15, 2008 10:25 AM | Link to this
Crisp, I have nothing against old buildings per se. Shucks, I live in one. I dislike having people with no expertise in construction who insult those that do. You have expert estimates from multiple sources; your task now is to raise the $15 million. Oh, I guess you have the option of trying to turn it into a court case; similar efforts so far have failed to accomplish anything other than to waste taxpayer money on attorney fees and construction delays.By crisp
March 14, 2008 10:19 AM | Link to this
Wrong again Oldprof. We are not asking for a 1000 student school and we are not asking for anyone else to fund this project. What I would like to see is an unbiased opinion on the cost of renovation “vs” tear down and a new building erected. I have no idea why you seem to despise old buildings or question everyone’s opinion if it dares differ from your own. I want the children to have the latest and greatest in technology and preserve what I consider to be a beautiful building at the same time. I like my neighborhood the way it is, if you are happy with the new Cleveland school in your neighborhood that’s great. I don’t want a building that looks like a big box where I live!By Laura
March 13, 2008 8:46 PM | Link to this
I have no opinion on whether the schools should be renovated or replaced. However, I seem to remember when the talk began about the new buildings the state then said they wanted the buildings to be small- for about 500 students and housed on one floor. I do think there is definitely an argument for smaller schools when you consider the frequent complaints of violence in the schools.By Oldprof
March 13, 2008 2:27 PM | Link to this
Dan, since you asked: when the numbers argued that Stivers should be torn down, the school’s alumni and supporters raised the millions needed to renovate and incorporate the old building into the design. Costs were held down by preserving the old materials rather than replacing them with similar, new materials—but if Stivers had been torn down, the new school’s floors would NOT have been tile, but something more economical. And yes, a 500 student school costs less than a 1000 student school—now consider; the people of Dayton voted for community based elementary schools, so should DPS now reneg on that commitment? The OFS operates impartially according to predetermined criteria; their estimates of enrollment in DPS are what determines the amount of funding they’ll provide. Call it razzmatazz if you will, but those are the rules that every school district must work within. One last thing—school populations of 600 or less have higher-performing students and fewer discipline problems, on average, than schools of 1000 or more students. Now that you know the facts, what’s your conclusion? Mine is that for Crisp and Lacey and Suda and Mary to insist that someone else fund their personally preferred restorations is an insult to the selfless, hard working benefactors of Stivers.By crisp
March 13, 2008 12:28 PM | Link to this
Dan, I was at the same meeting you were when they gave us all the razzmatazz. I don’t for one minute think the figures quoted here are correct for what is needed and hope Joe Lacey follows through with having another architect take a look at the schools. Imagine my confusion since I attended the dedication of Stivers and was given a booklet as I entered the building. That booklet, I assume was looked over and approved by the board, stated that the mosiac tile and wood floors, wood trim etc. were renovated which held down construction costs??? It really frosts me that they not only want to tear down Wilbur Wright but they want to put the new “box”, and yes I have seen the plans for this building, on the current football field changing the whole look of the neighborhood. How utterly thoughtless to not consider the impact of such a decision. I’m still curious to see what other schools ARE slated for renovation since that was part of the “sell” for the building levy.By Mary
March 13, 2008 7:58 AM | Link to this
Dan, you are probably absolutely correct about the bias of the OSFC and the board who does not get apples to oranges comparisons. Unfortunately, one does not have to be intelligent to be powerful on boards and in businesses. It’s scary about who is in charge.By Dan Kennedy
March 12, 2008 9:47 PM | Link to this
Dangit, I�m tired of this. Those OSFC reps walked right up to the edge of an outright lie when they made their comparisons at the meetings held at both of those schools. They compared 500 student capacity new schools to 1000 student existing schools. Even using their own numbers on the remodels, one could show savings if one did the math to compare them on a per student basis. Instead the OSFC reps said, essentially �Look a 500 student school costs less that a remodel.� Yeah, a remodel of a 1000 student school! The school board did not look like they had any idea, even when this was pointed out to them, that it was a fallacious apples-to-oranges comparison. When pressed, they could not or would not answer by what standard either of these schools could qualify for a remodel. i.e. How did Stivers convince the BoE to remodel? I believe the OFSC reps were blatantly anti-renovation. I even pointed out the fallacy to one of them directly and he had the gall to speak to me like I was an idiot and say, �Then we would need to build one less school.� All the while the BoE sat there in silent agreement. Stunning, what does one say at that point?