203's Naperville Central plans

[bob]

Naperville Central High School could become a six-story building with a parking garage and new stadium.

It could also just get a couple of classroom additions and a face-lift.

Naperville Unit District 203's facilities committee recently got a look at what options are available to deal with the aging, overcrowded school.

Architectural consultants who studied all 21 schools recently laid out three options for Central: A minimalist approach taking care of only top priorities; a middle-of-the-road option to fix the biggest problems through demolition and renovation; and building a brand-new school.

An 'urban' campus

Many of the large tracts within district boundaries either have regulations governing their use or are privately owned and, therefore, expensive. So a new school likely would be built on the current site.

That site, however, is only 30 acres while most high school campuses take up 60 to 100 acres.

Superintendent Alan Leis said if the district chooses the rebuilding option, it may try to work out an agreement to use Naperville Park District's Knoch Park land south of Hillside Road for parking or athletics. Officials are also exploring the possibility of closing Hillside.

With such a scarcity of land, an "urban" campus, with the six-story school and parking facility, would be one option, said architect Ted Rozeboom.

Several committee members said they'd never pictured Central as being a six-story building and felt that three or four stories would be more practical.

Not everyone was sold on the idea of a parking deck, either. It would cost about three times more per parking spot but save valuable space on the site.

School board member Suzyn Price said that because of a shortage of parking in downtown Naperville, a parking deck could be beneficial to more than just students if it is in the right location.

"Looking at where our site is if you move the parking deck it would become a real value to the community and solve a lot of the problems the community has," she said.

There are advantages to a high-rise school: Classrooms in the same department would be kept together. Also, public areas such as the theater, administrative offices and gymnasium would be close together so the building would be more secure with three entrances instead of several dozen.

Rozeboom estimated that construction alone would cost $110 million to $125 million, not counting land, furniture equipment and other costs.

Renovate some areas

A middle-of-the-road option for Central would involve some demolition and renovation to take care of the worst portions of school, such as outdated and deteriorating science labs.

This option involves building music and physical education additions, a cafeteria/commons area and humanities classrooms. The district would also add more parking and demolish the football stadium and build a new one off site.

This option also arranges the building so that classrooms in the same department are placed together. Currently, some departments are spread over the entire campus.

Remodeling would likely take longer than building a new school because more of the work will have to be done when school is not in session.

This project would cost about $60 million to $70 million in construction costs only.

Fix top priorities only

This minimalist option would take care only of top priorities in the building. The plan calls for demolishing the existing theater, which was actually one of the more recent additions built in 1992, as well as building classroom and food service additions and a parking lot.

Several years into the project, a classroom wing and the south gym would be demolished, a new theater and fieldhouse addition would be built. A parking garage would be added to the site. Eventually, the plan would also include a new stadium and relocating the district's administrative center.

This option would cost about $52 million to $62 million.

What's left

The middle and minimal options have lower price tags, but Rozeboom said they leave some of the building's problems unsolved; additional work would be needed eventually.

"You can see in those two schemes that we still have a building with many additions, we have a building that's got a fairly complex, contorted circulation scheme, organizational scheme," Rozeboom said. "We still have multiple levels for the building. We still have areas of the building that need an infusion of money for infrastructure upgrades on a regular basis."

The committee recently expressed its desire to avoid quick fixes that will have to be revisited in 10 to 15 years. But it's too early to tell what that will mean for Central.

"We definitely want to make sure we have community needs represented and can do something that we will get support for," said Doug Wilson, head of the committee. "Along the way here we've got to figure out something that will be an (efficient) solution but cost-effective, and that's always a challenge."

The committee meets again tonight.

Leis stressed that the district is merely looking at its options and there are many more factors that will be considered, such as fixes needed at other schools, especially Mill Street Elementary, which faces a significant space crunch.

"I think that we haven't gotten to the end of the line yet," Leis said. "Let's not make assumptions about Central until all the pieces fit together."

Early next month, the committee will hold a forum seeking community input on the options for Central.

[EagleDad]

Man, those six-story fire drills are going to be a mess.

[wvhsparent]

Dist. 203 group favors new Central
So far, committee prefers three-story high school model

By Melissa Jenco
Daily Herald Staff Writer
Posted Wednesday, September 13, 2006

Building a new Naperville Central High School came out as a facility committee’s top option Tuesday, though it is a preliminary recommendation.

The Naperville Unit District 203 facilities committee discussed several options for the aging, crowded school and the majority of the members said they favor rebuilding it entirely.

Architectural consultants have provided the group with both a three-story and six-story model of what a new school could look like, though the group has thus far leaned toward the three-story model.

Also in its preliminary recommendation, the committee said it would like to explore closing Hillside Road and building a new football stadium with synthetic turf off-site, possibly across the street at Knoch Park if an agreement can be reached with the Naperville Park District.

Members also said they want to maintain green space, ensure flexibility for the future and are open to building a parking deck if they can share the costs and maintenance with the city or other groups who may use it.

Building a new school would cost $105 million to $125 million in construction costs alone. If the school board ultimately approves this option, consultants said it could be ready for the fall of either 2010 or 2011 depending on the final plan they choose.

But whether the committee sticks with this option will depend on future discussions about other district facility issues, especially the space crunch at Mill Street Elementary School.

“I really think we have to put it in the context of what we’re going to do, what we can do, what is our time, and then what is going to be palatable to our community both in the building itself … and we do have to take into consideration what our spending limitations are,” said committee and board member Suzyn Price.

Funding has not been discussed extensively at this point, but some members say they will need to know more about how these projects will be paid for before they can make a final recommendation.

The group was divided as to its backup plan.

If the district doesn’t build a new school, some said the next best solution is a newly revised plan that includes a two-story addition, a new stadium off site, added parking, and consolidating core academic areas. This plan would cost about $47 million to $57 million in construction costs alone.

Others thought that if there isn’t a new school, they should just do some “Band-Aid” fixes such as renovating science labs and dealing with security problems and then revisiting the building’s issues in about 10 years.

“When we looked at the middle option of $50 (million) to $70 million and we’re talking $100 (million) to $130 million with the (new building), the differential is not that much when you sit down and do the financing. … It’s roughly the same task, said committee member Raymond Hill. “So it just didn’t make sense to us that we would do that for half of the fix instead of getting a whole fix.”

The committee will begin discussing Mill Street Elementary later this month and hold a town hall meeting seeking community input next month.




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

dailyherald.com

[wvhsparent]

Principals: New Central needed
Dist. 203 school board still mixed on $105 million-plus proposal, though

By Melissa Jenco
Daily Herald Staff Writer
Posted Monday, September 18, 2006

Past and current Naperville Central principals are endorsing a proposal to replace the high school with a new building.

But board members who’ll make the final decision appear less certain a brand-new school is needed.

A Naperville Unit District 203 facilities committee recently indicated support to build anew instead of putting on more additions and doing renovation work.

Built in 1948, Central has been expanded six times. Roughly 70 percent of the facility is more than 38 years old.

It also faces crowding issues.


Architectural consultants estimated the school needs not only larger classrooms but about a dozen more of them.

Principal Jim Caudill said he didn’t think a new Central was necessarily a good choice or even possible until he considered the price tag on remodeling parts of the building, which architects estimated at $47 million to $57 million in construction costs alone. Construction costs for a new building would be about $105 million to $120 million.

“You don’t want to minimize the importance of that kind of money, but you’ve just taken care of your problems for 40 or 50 years,” Caudill said. “I think you seriously have to look at it.”

Plus, he said, by building a new school, classes can continue during construction with little interruption. Also, the annual cost of maintenance will go down and materials will be cheaper now than five or 10 years from now when a new school becomes perhaps the only option.

Tom Paulsen, associate superintendent for operations, spent 21 years at Central as its assistant principal and principal. He had a similar change of heart.

He had viewed an option that called for a variety of repairs and new classroom construction, “but it still falls short of meeting some of the concerns — especially when you talk about the way the building is laid out in a fashion that makes it difficult to get from one end of the building to the other.”

Paulsen said he was also swayed by a committee member who pointed out that although renovations are cheaper, they would still take extensive financing, just as a new building would.

“It was almost like, why stop with (the middle option), why not make the big change?”

Three- and six-story models for a new school have been presented to the committee, but Caudill and Paulsen say they would prefer a three-story school, mostly for safety reasons.

“Getting kids out of a six-story building in an evacuation might not be as fast. That would be something I’m concerned about,” Paulsen said. “Another thing is they’d have to go up and down six flights all day. Kids are young and such but … I really think three would be better, even aesthetically, so I would lean toward three.”

Ultimately, though, Central’s fate will not be up to Paulsen or Caudill but the school board, which is giving the proposal mixed reviews.

“I must have turned 37 times to get to the place in the middle of the building where the (facilities) meeting was being held,” board President Dean Reschke said. “I was saying to myself this building up until now has just been over time a series of add-ons, add-ons and add-ons, and it really did seem like a lot is in disrepair.”

While he stopped short of endorsing a new building, he pointed out that in addition to layout and aesthetic issues, there are electrical and plumbing problems that can’t easily be fixed.

“I don’t want to jump too far ahead of it,” Reschke said. “The recommendation does make some sense to me.”

But school board member Mike Davitt questioned the need to spend more than $100 million on the school.

“How does this affect student performance?” Davitt asked. “Isn’t that our ultimate goal — where our dollars should be spent — to improve our students? Do facilities do that? Do we have to keep up with the Joneses? In this case, do we have to keep up with Neuqua?”

Davitt also questioned how the project would be financed, especially in light of the 2002 referendum request in which the district collected $24 million more than it told taxpayers to expect.

“The taxpayers cannot be burdened any more than what the referendum did to them,” he said.

Superintendent Alan Leis has said there shouldn’t be an automatic assumption building a new school would mean a referendum because a variety of funding sources are available.

The committee has sidestepped financial discussions thus far but might start tackling the issue next month if the school board directs it to do so.

The committee will turn its discussion to other district facility issues before reviewing its proposal for Central.

Mill Street Elementary is high on the priority list due to crowding, and some schools are facing traffic and security problems. The committee would also like to consolidate the district’s early childhood program to one facility and deepen the pool at Naperville North.




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

dailyherald.com

[wvhsparent]

New Central High would require park district’s help
By Melissa Jenco
Daily Herald Staff Writer
Posted Monday, September 18, 2006

Construction of a new Naperville Central High School would likely need the cooperation of its neighbors — especially the Naperville Park District.

One of the most popular models of what a new school might look like includes building a new football stadium. The closest and most convenient site is across the street at Knoch Park, home of numerous athletic fields and, of course, Naperville’s summer celebration, Ribfest.

District 203 and park district officials have had preliminary discussions about the possibilities of sharing or swapping land.

“This is a big challenge for them, so we most certainly are open to chatting with them,” said Barbara Heller, park district executive director. “We’ve met a couple times. We appreciate the fact they’ve done such a great job communicating with us.”

Heller said the park district may be willing to give up some of northern Knoch Park, the area between Hillside Road and Martin Avenue. However, the park district doesn’t want to give up some land without gaining land or fields in another location.

Central already uses Knoch Park fields for baseball, softball, tennis, football practice and physical education classes.

The fields also are used by outside groups, including the Naperville Youth Football League, Naperville Baseball Association and occasionally girls softball teams.

But perhaps its most well-known use is the Naperville Exchange Club’s annual Ribfest, which has been setting up at the park for at least 17 years.

Mike McManus, president-elect of the Exchange Club, is uncertain what would happen to Ribfest if Central takes over part of Knoch Park.

The festival drew in excess of 260,000 people this year and the park suits it well, he said.

“That’s been centrally located, easy to get to, close to downtown … great for the fireworks,” McManus said.

McManus and Heller said they believe the Exchange Club’s contract with the park district to use the land for Ribfest runs until 2008.

McManus said he will be meeting with school and park district officials in the coming weeks to discuss the issue and will start looking for other areas to relocate Ribfest, in the event plans for Central and the park go through.

Finding land that can accommodate such a large festival will be a challenge, though.

“We would love to stay in town,” McManus said. “There’s no place close to downtown (big enough) even though we think that’s what it’s all about.

“There’s a whole lot of ‘ifs’ and ‘what-ifs’ and ‘I don’t knows.’ ”




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

dailyherald.com

[bob]

Looks like they are pushing for a new HS. The one problem I don't like is that they want to buy Park District land for it. So the 204 residents get less park land so 203 can build a new HS. I don't think so.

[204parent]

Didn't they say we couldn't add on to NV because all of the surrounding land is owned by the Park District, and they wouldn't sell it to us?

[ilove204]

Thats a bunch of BS!!!!!!!!!!!!

There was plenty of room on SD land to add onto NV without ever getting near PD land.

[mommygator]

Well, its sort of BS. There is room to build onto NV.... but at the cost of losing athletic fields or parking. In order to add onto NV without using those spots, you would be looking at park district land. That is how the SD explained and mapped it.

[wvhsparent]

I think 203 is planning on a swap letting the Park Dist take over the land where central is now
kind of a flip of parcels

[wvhsparent]

Group questions Central plans
By Melissa Jenco
Daily Herald Staff Writer
Posted Thursday, September 21, 2006

An area taxpayers group says Naperville Unit District 203 needs to look at more options before replacing Naperville Central High School on its current site.

But members of the Will DuPage Taxpayers Alliance aren’t necessarily criticizing the district facilities committee’s preliminary recommendation for a new building. Rather, they say, they’re concerned with the road it took to reach that decision.

“In general, I think if it’s a dump and out of place, yes, build it,” said Dan Denys, a member of the alliance. “But have you explored every option that’s out there before you’ve reached a decision?”

Architectural consultants analyzed all 21 of the district’s schools last fall. The facilities committee began meeting in late May and devoted two recent meetings solely to Central to review options from minor fixes to extensive renovations.

The panel’s preliminary recommendation is to build a new three- or six-story Central on its existing site at 440 W. Aurora Ave. The committee also is suggesting a new sports stadium be built across the street.

But alliance members say the process was too rushed and options were limited.

Denys said the district did not seriously consider possibilities such as relocating Central to a larger site, building a third high school and converting Central to a smaller magnet school, or condemning the residential property east of the campus to provide more land.

Denys said the district should have done a cost-benefit analysis of all of its options to give the panel a better picture of the possibilities.

Superintendent Alan Leis said the school board can examine those options if it chooses, but he believes a third high school would be a huge expense.

“Establishing a third high school would be a phenomenal undertaking and the community already extensively reviewed this 10 to 15 years ago and decided not to go there,” Leis said. “I don’t see any reason to open that discussion. It’s an incredibly involved process and I’d question whether it’s realistic.”

Although the committee is scheduled to present its districtwide recommendation to the school board in November, Leis said it won’t be the end of the road.

“You just didn’t want to see the process drag out forever,” Leis said. “It doesn’t mean it will all by done by November. We just wanted to get input from the community on what the best options are.”

Kevin Hausman, who is a member of both the taxpayers alliance and the facilities committee, said he also is concerned the myriad facility issues in other schools may not be properly addressed if the focus is on Central and the crowded Mill Street Elementary.

The school board’s priority list also includes addressing traffic and security problems, consolidating the district’s early childhood program to one facility and deepening the pool at Naperville North.

“You can’t commit the whole basket (to Central and Mill) and leave things out that are going to have to hang for the next 20 years, too,” Hausman said. “Overall, you have to get the best value for everybody.”

Leis said the district is looking at its immediate needs and plans to discuss other priorities on the list in coming meetings.

“We’ve said all along once we finish Mill we have to come back and prioritize by the whole district,” Leis said. “And just because it’s reasonable to look at a whole new Central, it doesn’t mean at all it’s where the committee is going to end up.”

Denys and Hausman also are concerned the committee hasn’t extensively discussed how it will pay for its projects.

They said if the district needs to ask residents for money, it will first have to regain credibility they feel it lost after collecting at least $24 million more than it told taxpayers to expect from its 2002 referendum.

Leis has said the improvements don’t necessarily mean a referendum will be necessary and a variety of funding options are available.

“It’s way too premature to talk about the hows and whys and ifs regarding referendum,” Leis said. “It’s just not at that point yet.”

The committee will look more closely at finances next month, if advised to do so by the school board.




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

dailyherald.com

Let's go while 203 has their attention diverted

[bob]

Boy it looks like WDTA/CFO's view on 203 is completely different than 204? I wonder why that is?

[momof3]

I really cannot understand why they are talking about taking away Knock Park, used by lots of people, instead of Garden Plots and Sportsmen Park, used by a few people.

What I'm not surprised about is that CFO/WDTA gets the headline in the DH. There is something going on at that paper - someone's got an 'in'. (Did someone say 'wetlands'? Oh good, I'll just reference that misinformation for future articles.)

[momof3]

bob said:

Boy it looks like WDTA/CFO's view on 203 is completely different than 204? I wonder why that is?

My guess is that 'King Construction and Development' won't profit somehow from NOT building on the Central site.

Or perhaps they want to start off sounding sane to A - gain trust and possible converts and B - have the admin underestimate how dangerous they are. Then they'll probably kick it into high gear with the rumors & misinformation.

[chicoryowl]

Per today's Daily Herald Wesbite:

Panel: Remodel existing Central
Committee pushes major renovations

By Melissa Jenco
Daily Herald Staff Writer
Posted Thursday, November 09, 2006



The Naperville Unit District 203 facilities committee wants to do major renovations to Naperville Central rather than rebuild the school, a plan that would still require a tax increase.

In all, the committee put a little more than $100 million in projects into its final recommendations Wednesday to cover a variety of facility issues around the district. Sixteen of the 18 members at the meeting approved the overall plan.

For the aging and crowded Central, the major renovations recommended are a $72 million project that includes extensive remodeling and additions, which the committee said gives Central more square footage, better traffic flow in the hallways, centralized subject areas and a longer life span for the building.

Nine of the members approved this project. Of the remaining members, five wanted minor renovations and four wanted to rebuild the school.

Central Principal Jim Caudill was among those voting for the major renovations and said as the plans move forward, he wants to make sure the money is used to best address as many of the school’s needs as possible.

“My heart says (rebuild) the whole thing, but I really I believe we can get the job done with $72 (million),” Caudill said. “That’s a lot of improvements in your school. I think my biggest concern with that is trying to do that construction over four years and how that is going to affect the day-by-day education process for our kids.”

The group had previously made a preliminary recommendation to rebuild the school but said Wednesday the $150 million price tag would be too high in light of the other projects that need to be done around the district.

Other projects the committee agreed to Wednesday include:

• $11.25 million to build an early childhood center.

• $11 million for major renovations to the crowded Mill Street Elementary.

• $2.7 million total to improve traffic flow at Naperville North and Prairie Elementary.

• $2 million for major renovations to Naperville North’s pool, including deepening the pool and improving locker rooms, access and ventilation.

• $750,000 total to add synthetic turf to both high school football stadiums.

• $500,000 total to improve security at Ranch View and Prairie elementaries and Washington Junior High.

The district can afford only $59 million of the projects. If it uses all $59 million and goes to a referendum for the remaining $41 million, a taxpayer with a $300,000 home would see a one-time property tax increase of $71.30, which would stay flat on their tax bill for 20 years, according to Dave Zager, assistant superintendent for finance. This essentially means the taxpayer would pay an extra $1,426 over the 20-year period.

Zager stressed that these figures are based on numerous assumptions and are meant only to give the committee a general idea of what to expect.

But committee members have expressed concern about using all of the available $59 million of the district’s money toward facilities so it is also possible the referendum could be higher.

Ultimately, the school board will decide whether to adopt any or all of the committee’s recommendations.

The committee will present its plan to the board at 7 p.m. Monday at the district’s administrative center, 203 W. Hillside Road.