BOND PROJECT: New middle school or equity?

A new JLS would mean virtually no new construction at high schools

by Elizabeth Darling

For the Palo Alto school board, the latest rounds of discussions on what to do with the bond construction funds comes down to one key question: Is it fair to rebuild JLS middle school while other schools go virtually untouched? "There comes a serious equity question at that point," said board President John Tuomy. There is already so much basic renovation to be done at the middle and high schools, he said, that the district would not be able to do much extra, such as replace cabinetry or change wall surfaces, let alone do much expansion.

Board members have put off making a final decision until they can get a more detailed budget for what it would take to renovate JLS. Staff is expected to come back with specific JLS renovation costs on Aug. 19. The school board should make a final decision on JLS at its first meeting in September.

Going ahead with plans to build a new middle school would mean exceeding the budget by $22 million. In addition, the plans would leave Jordan Middle School and the two high schools with only basic upgrades, new roofs and building systems like heating, plumbing and wiring, with relatively little new construction.

Board members have already said they are committed to having new high school science buildings.

A year ago, the board was told that it would cost virtually the same amount to renovate as to build a new JLS. Board members embraced the idea of a new middle school because it wouldn't cost much more. Since then, the construction market has caused costs to skyrocket, putting the price for rebuilding JLS at nearly $24 million, about $8 million more than original estimates.

"We want to know as well as we can know what it's going to cost to renovate JLS versus a less expensive new JLS (without the controversial round design)," said board President John Tuomy.

"You can't rationalize building a new JLS and not fixing leaking roofs at Jordan," said board member Don Way. At the same time, he said, "we don't want to spend $143 million and have no new (buildings) . . . We want something new and exciting."

Not everyone is pleased that the board is likely to give up on the new school idea. "One of my desires is that we see some new, innovative schools, schools that we can be proud of," said Clark Schiller, a Garland Drive resident. "If you propose to renovate Garland (as a 12th elementary school), and end up with a 1960 school, I think it's really criminal. I think you could be more creative. Show something to the community that is positive, creative, beautiful and nice, and go back for another bond measure."

While board member Don Way says that idea is "tempting," it's not realistic to build new schools and leave others untouched.

"Rehabilitation absolutely has to come first," Way said. For example, a new high school science building cannot be built next to a building with substandard roofing. "I cannot see spending $60 million at the secondaries and $40 million at the elementaries," Way said.

The school board is looking at two scenarios: If JLS is renovated, the total cost for the four secondary schools would be an estimated $61 million. If JLS is built new, the cost would escalate to $70 million. The current budget for the secondary schools is $48 million, which means in either case, the district will need to cut the project.

"We're waiting for the last shoe to drop on JLS," Tuomy said. "The board wants to make the judgment calls."1 

Back up to the Table of Contents Page