Pickerington Area Taxpayers Alliance

I would like to make some suggestions to the school board:

1. GO to split sessions as soon as possible.

2. Convert one of the Junior Highs into a Middle school on split sessions

3. Convert one of the Middle schools into elementary schools on split sessions.

4. Abandon the OSFC and explain the costs to the taxpayers of why this isn?’t a very good deal for us. I would employee the help of Yosemite Pam.

5. Staring with the elementary schools. It is clear in the FRC report that the district has chosen to have schools that will hold 750 elementary students.

6. I noticed this morning that Tussing is a one floor plan school and it has a hip roof. Hip Roofs are much more costly than straight gabled roofs. Loose the hip roofs. Put on straight gabled roofs. I know they don?’t look as good but the are cheaper.

7. Design the class room wings to be narrower and make the roof span shorter. Visiting other schools with new elementaries you can have two 900 square foot class room with a ten foot center hall way leaving only a 70 some foot span for the roof trusses?‘. This will cut down on costs.

8. Design the school to be half grade or split level. I know the ADA has requirements but even with an elevator the costs and advantages of a smaller foot print will pay off in the long run.

9. Show an artist rendering of this two story design for the very sloped lot at Sycamore Creek Elementary Site. During this campaign it looked as if you were circulating the Tussing Road plan on a flat lot.

10. I would propose that you bring all of the elementary?’ up to that same capacity. I would propose an eight class room addition on to both and Pick and Violet. The new two story additions would have 8 classrooms on the lower level (30?’ X 30?’ each for classroom) offices or storage between every other classroom. (10?’ X 30?‘). On the upper level of this two story addition you could have either a open space or make it into a open cafeteria or multi purpose room. This would require concrete construction.

more suggestions

I would remain on split sessions until the parents are begging for a bond issue.

I would revise the Facilities Plan to plan to build one Elementary in 2007 ($14 Million) Plan to build one Middle school in 2009 ($15.6 Million) and a Junior High in 2012 ($24 Million)

I would put additions onto the two high schools to house 200 more student each. I would make additions to both Junior Highs to accommodate 1,000 students and once the second Junior High is built I would convert Ridgeview to a ninth grade school of 1,000. I would make additions to Violet Elem of 150 students, Pick Elem of 150 students and Fairfield Elem of 100 additional students.

The most expensive building to build is the Senior High Schools. Instead of a new high school in 2013 we could hold off until 2020 or beyond.

Of Course we must include the teachers this time and have Jim Brink buy in but I am sure if other school districts can teach in less expensive buildings our teachers can adapt and do just as good of job as before.

Taken to the cleaners

Last year the FRC presented a ten year master plan for the Pickerington School District. In this plan it called for $160 Million in spending over the next ten years. With the proposed two elementary schools on the May 2nd ballot the School Board has apparently adopted the report in spirit. Because that is the first step in the FRC's Master Plan.

This is a very flawed plan and it is building to the OSFC standards in hopes of getting some of the $160 Million reimbursed to the district.

The facts are that the District could provide he needed facilities to the district for far less than what was proposed in the FRC report. Even using the Tussing Road Elementary plans and making a few modifications to them the district could provide the needed capacity to the district for the next 10 years for around $54 Million in new schools and another $30 Million in additions and capital repairs.

Our portion of the $160 million is $106 Million. Even if I am off some we still save a ton of money. By only spending $84 Million over those ten years.



By Bean Counter

Another point of view...

Just because Board has put two schools on the ballot does not mean they are implementing the plan that was presented by the FRC.

It's clear that there are enough kids now to more than fill one school but it takes over two years to build a school - it makes sense (at least to me) to create enough seating to cover todays needs as well as limited future needs. The levy info I saw stated two schools covered the districts K-4 needs through 2012-2013.

If the criticism is that there's not a plan or they don't plan. I don't think either are true. But I have kids at Violet and have made a point to follow & help with the Bond Issues. Why would you want seating capacity that you know is exhausted before the building even opens - that point which has been made numerous times by posters that only want one school built. I don't get it - how can we ask for both things? One school & better planning. They are actually opposites.

The timeline in the FRC is also enrollment based - so it has to be flexible along with enrollment numbers - that comment has been made time after time at Board Meetings that I've attended.

Another big difference is the Board has stated they prefer to expand at both high school campuses before building a third high school. That significantly changes the cost of the plan presented by the FRC as well as the projected timing.

From what I've heard & I'm not sure which minutes I'd have to check is that there are pieces of the report that the Board agrees with & pieces that they don't. High school expansion being one. I think the types of space being added to Pickerington and Violet elementary is another and I believe the Heritage renovation is another. There are probably more I just can't think of them now.

In terms if OSFC - I don't know if I believe we will see those dollars either. I know, at least last year, the PLSD's position was 312/616 school districts & funding would be ~ 50%/50%. The trick is if we would qualify for this we have to raise the first 50% if we move forward with projects that don't meet the qualifications they don't count towards the 50% we would need to raise. So to throw out the OSFC & their projected monies would only make sense if we could execute the buildings we need for less than 50% of the projected plans. Right?


By Violet Mom