As Election Day (Nov. 8) nears, it is important that voters have accurate information and the tools to distinguish fact from fiction when it comes to the high school facilities referendum.
District 200 recently posted additional information on its website, including a new FAQ (October 2016) in response to voters’ recent questions. These updated factual documents are valuable to voters to counter the misinformation and unsupported claims of those opposed to this investment in our school.
The cost breakdown of various facilities plan components is stated more clearly and specifically in these documents than in earlier cost estimate documents. The plan totals have not changed since the board adopted it (August 16). The new cost breakdown details which costs belong to which project elements.
The documents clarify that the pool and supporting spaces make up less than half of the total cost ($21.4M) and the PE locker rooms, performing arts, and other learning spaces total $10.4M ($2.8M for locker rooms, $4.8M for performing arts, $1.6M for model classrooms, and $1.2M for Driver Education and other classroom space).
Make no mistake, the pool is the most expensive component of this comprehensive facilities plan, followed by the parking garage, yet the cost of those two components includes the benefit of creating space inside the building for the arts and other learning.
OPRF’s FAQ-October 2016 contains detailed information about why the two-pool option was rejected, provides a head-to-head comparison of the actual facilities plan with the rejected plan, and debunks inaccurate claims about potential cost savings.
These documents make it clear that the board thoroughly evaluated this option and found it fell short of the school’s needs in many ways (not delivering enough bang for the $39.9M buck, diminishing PE and athletics, eliminating the adaptive PE gym that would cost millions more to replace, creating less performing arts space, allowing less community use, reducing green space, and limiting future learning space, among others).
This is why, as the board reiterated on Sept. 22, the deeply flawed, expensive, two-pool option is not a viable option under consideration.
There is only one plan on the table.
Repeated claims by referendum opponents about a so-called “pragmatic” option are a red herring meant to distract voters from understanding and evaluating the actual adopted plan. The up-to-date factual information at oprfhs.org/facilities goes a long way toward clearing up confusion caused by these claims. We encourage voters to seek it out.
The D200 school board is the only group that evaluated all the information relevant to selecting a plan, reviewed all the data and alternatives, and weighed the impact of each option on the entire school, its students, its budget, and its future. This is what we elected them to do.
Now we voters have an opportunity to vote on financing part of the plan cost through bonds. Voting Yes will allow the comprehensive project to move forward. Voting No will result in costly delay, forcing the board to spend valuable time re-solving the pool, performing arts, locker room, and enrollment challenges when they could be working on other issues.
We urge you to get full and accurate information before voting on Nov. 8.
Ben Campbell, Lisa Colpoys, Wayne Franklin, Lynn Kamenitsa, Matt Kosterman, Mary Anne Montgomery, Ellen Pimentel, Peter Ryan, and Karen Steward-Nolan