High school project a good investment

     Two years ago, the Whitefish School Board hired us to determine how to gain the community’s support to rebuild the deteriorated Whitefish High School. To find out, we gathered input from more than 1,000 community members and, as you can imagine, we heard a wide range of diverse and often strong opinions.

There was, however, one universally held opinion: the solution had to be cost-effective, practical and long lasting. The school board heard this message loud and clear and the project they now propose is exactly what the community demanded.

The district faces the challenges of a deteriorated facility that is difficult to remodel, has little remaining value and is riddled with code violations. To fix the sewage pipes that seep up through the floors, the underlying concrete slabs have to be torn out. To replace the decades old carpet, specialists have to be called to remove the asbestos filled glue and tiles below. Adding ventilation to a building that literally has none requires cutting through concrete walls. Even a small amount of this work triggers requirements to bring the entire facility up to current code. The cost to renovate the existing facility — just to bring it up to code — would be $17 million.

It has been suggested, however, that a renovation could be done for $7 million. But what that buys is little more than new paint, lights, windows and carpet. None of the failed mechanical systems would be replaced, leaving the students to either freeze or sweat their way through class as they do today. The absence of any form of ventilation would not be addressed and only a portion of the code violations would be corrected. Furthermore, we would still have a building configured for teaching methods from the 1950s that would lose in the competition for students with the new school up the road. It might look and smell better but it would only be a few years before demands were renewed to replace it. In short, a $7 million renovation would be a waste of good money.

Instead, the district proposes a sound investment into a project that renovates the 40 percent of the current facility that can be fixed cost-effectively and replaces the 60 percent of the building that cannot. Replacing the outdated classrooms also creates the opportunity to design a building that will meet today’s educational needs and serve Whitefish for the next 50 years or more. Furthermore, the district heard the message loud and clear that the community would not support something too big or too fancy, so it is proposing a building that is the same size as the current facility and costs 12 percent less per square foot than neighboring Glacier High School.

Finally, the district has accomplished something never before attempted in Montana: it sought and secured $5 million of alternative funding before turning to the district’s voters. So the voters now have the opportunity to invest $14 million to get a $19 million facility. This includes $500,000 in private fundraising to cover the one “extra” in the facility: an assembly and performance hall which will provide much greater utility than using the cafeteria for those functions as many schools now do. The project also takes advantage of current low construction costs and historically low interest rates of 2.75 percent that lowers the tax impact to less than $1 per week for the owner of an average home.

In today’s political and economic climate, there are lots of reasons to distrust publicly managed projects. But the Whitefish School Board has proven to be a shining example of how to be responsive to constituents and to be good stewards of tax payer money. There are many good reasons to vote yes to support the high school project including the fact that it is what the vast majority asked for: a cost-effective, practical and long-lasting investment in our community’s future.

— Bayard Dominick and Chris Kelsey are consultants with Steeplechase Development Advisors