Two years ago, the economic recession put the kibosh on plans for a new $28 million administration building for the Everett School District.
Those plans may soon get a second look. The Everett School Board is expected to discuss the building next month, now with an estimated price tag of $23.3 mi
llion.
School officials say a strong case can be made for a new building — it would save money by replacing existing buildings that are some of the school district’s biggest energy hogs, it would be safer in case of a fire or an earthquake and, by building in a buyers’ market, money ultimately would be saved.
Yet approving any new school administration building nearly always brings intense scrutiny. And the timing of this request could only add to the controversy.
The school district is facing multimillion-dollar program cutbacks due to deep reductions in state funding.
And Cascade High School has one of the state’s oldest remaining cinder tracks, triggering a letter-writing campaign lobbying for improvements.
Some people may ask why a new administration building has suddenly moved back onto the district’s short list of “to dos.”
“The No. 1 thing I don’t see is how this ties to student achievement,” said board member Jessica Olson. “At the end of the day, I think it’s a want, not a need.”
Board member Jeff Russell disagrees. The school district has been “kicking a can down the road for 20 years” on the issue of a new administration building. “You can only kick the can down the road so long before the buildings fall apart,” he said.
The school district, which has 18,000 students, includes the city of Everett, Mill Creek and parts of unincorporated Snohomish County.
The two-story, 62,000-square-foot building would be constructed on school district property at the south end of Everett Memorial Stadium on Broadway Avenue near 41st Street.
The issue has been tentatively scheduled for discussion at the school board’s June 14 meeting.
If it gets the formal go-ahead, it could be put out to bid by year’s end and the building could open by the summer of 2013, said Mike Gunn, the district’s facilities director.
Money for the project comes from building funds. It can’t be used to fill funding holes for school programs and services, said Ed Petersen, board president.
“We’re looking at what is the best use of these resources to position the district for success in the future,” Petersen said. “We have a problem with decaying, outdated, inefficient facilities.”
The project would be paid for without using voter-approved bond or levy dollars, instead using state matching money and income from rents and mitigations fees, Petersen said.
The design would be the same as what was discussed in 2009, Petersen said. At the time, costs for the building were estimated at $28 million. School district officials say the building will cost less now because of the construction bargains that can be found in a still lukewarm economy.
The school district already has spent a million dollars on the project for architectural and design fees and removing contaminated soil from the site, Petersen said.
“It’s a good time to build; construction costs are low,” he said.
Plans for a new administration building go back more than two decades, Gunn said.
More specific talks began in 2007, he said. The school board has met at least nine times to talk about design and other issues related to a new administration building. Plans were dropped in 2009 due to the recession.
School district officials say that the needs for a new administration building have remained the same. Administrative offices now are spread among three aging buildings which need major, expensive upgrades, Gunn said.
View Everett School District offices in a larger map
In 2009, the district estimated that upgrading all three buildings would cost $22 million.
One of them, the Longfellow Building on Oakes Avenue, was built in 1911. It was converted to an office building in the 1970s.
The former elementary school has some sentimental attachment, Gunn acknowledged. It was the school attended by former U.S. Sen. Henry M. “Scoop” Jackson.
“It’s very endearing; lots of character,” Gunn said. Yet Longfellow was built to be a school, he said.
The building would need major improvements to comply with current building codes, including upgrades to its sprinkler system and more fire-resistant doors, which should close automatically in case of a fire, Gunn said.
The heating system is inefficient, he said.
There are no elevators to allow people with disabilities to navigate the three-level building.
“In a new building, we could be a lot more efficient in how we use space,” Gunn said. And energy use would be reduced.
The other two buildings that house administrative offices are View Ridge Elementary School and the Educational Services Center at 4730 Colby Ave.
“We’ve outgrown the maximum capacity of these facilities,” Gunn said. “That’s why we have portables on site.”
The Longfellow and the Service Center buildings are the two highest users of gas and electricity in the district, he said.
Ventilation in the Colby Avenue building is so inefficient “there’s times it hits 104 degrees,” spokeswoman Mary Waggoner said.
Having administrative employees spread among three buildings makes collaboration more difficult, Gunn said.
It can be confusing for the public to figure out which location they should to go to, he said. This includes the Educational Services Center where Superintendent Gary Cohn works and where the school board holds its meetings.
“Even in this building, it’s hard to find your way around,” Gunn said. “You come to the main lobby. Where do you go?”
The school board meeting room is so small that people who want to comment on pending school board decisions are often left standing around the sides of the room. Crowds sometimes spill out into the lobby.
“It drives me crazy when people are standing around the meeting room,” Petersen said. “It was as if it was designed not to encourage attendance.”
A new building would provide ample meeting space so that people wouldn’t have to stand, he said.
Olson said she would like an estimate of how much the inefficiencies of operating the three current buildings cost the school district.
Petersen said he, too, would like to see the same numbers.
Russell said he thinks the current economy provides an opportunity to construct the building at a reasonable cost.
“If we were to fast forward 20 to 30 years, if the board is still sitting in this same place, I would say we’re fools for not taking advantage (of this) when construction costs are low,” he said.
The proposed building
Here’s an overview of the Everett School District’s proposed new administration building:
• The two-story building would have 62,000 square feet of space.
• The first floor would have meeting spaces, board rooms, a volunteer area, emergency response center, conference rooms and offices.
• The second floor would have conference rooms and offices.
The building would be a steel-and-concrete structure with glass, brick and metal siding, designed to save energy and maintenance costs.
The buildings now in use
The Everett School District’s administration occupies three buildings:
• The Longfellow Building at 3715 Oakes Ave. was built in 1911 as an elementary school and the annex building was built in 1957. It has been used for administrative functions since the 1970s.
• The Educational Service Center at 4730 Colby Ave. was built in 1964. Portables were added to the site beginning in the early 1990s.
• The special services addition at View Ridge Elementary School was built in 1982, and later converted to offices. View Ridge will be demolished beginning in June and a new school will be built there.
Source: Everett School District
Sharon Salyer: 425-339-3486 or salyer@heraldnet.com
Talk to us
> Give us your news tips.
> Send us a letter to the editor.
> More Herald contact information.
