Architects and construction managers outlined millions of dollars worth of potential upgrades to Highland Park and Deerfield high schools during recent meetings, giving the public its first glimpse at estimated price tags for such projects since a building referendum failed in 2011.
Representatives from architectural firm Perkins + Will and construction management firm Gilbane Building Company outlined potential projects Township High School District 113 officials could pursue in coming years, from mechanical system upgrades to reconfigurations of facilities at both campuses.
Based on feedback form the public and district officials over the past year, the consultants identified high- and low-priority projects and attached cost estimates accordingly, but they stopped short of recommending specific measures or providing price tags for the total scope of work. Until the Board of Education decides which projects to pursue, it would be premature to give that information, they said.
“This is a long-term plan,” Board Vice President Marjie Sandlow said at a Nov. 28 presentation. “We need to break down what we do now and what we do in the future.”
The consultants provided input on smaller-scale projects like improving building security, a $500,000 to $1.5 million endeavor depending on what level of upgrades the district pursues, to large-scale projects like overhauling the swimming pools at both high schools. Building two new pool could cost $9.8 million at each school, while refurbishing the old ones could cost less — $8.4 million at Highland Park High School and $4.7 million at Deerfield, according to the presentation.
The consultants also considered the future of two century-old buildings on the Highland Park campus and how changes to them could impact other spaces around the school. In 2011, district officials had proposed demolishing them and replacing them with new structures, a measure that generated some push-back from district residents who felt doing so would be too pricey.
“We took a hard look at the idea of refurbishing or repurposing these buildings,” said Mark Jolicoeur, principal architect at Perkins + Will.
While the architects said refurbishing or re-purposing one of the structures — known as Building B — could be viable options at a cost of $5.9 million to $7.3 million, they also considered demolition and rebuilding of the second building — known as Building C — and its annex. Refurbishment or re-purposing the latter building could cost $14.1 million to $17.4 million, while rebuilding costs could be $18.8 million.
Board of Education members must now consider the options laid out by the architects and construction managers and consider what should be incorporated into a master plan for the district’s facilities, Sandlow said. Officials also would have to consider how to fund the projects. Sandlow said the district would likely look at how much it can contribute from its regular funds and whether it would need to ask the voters to approve additional funding via a referendum.
The last referendum, which asked voters to approve a $133 million bond issue for upgrades at the schools, failed in the spring of 2011. Its failure sparked the current planning process, which was intended to help prioritize needs in the areas of education, infrastructure, technology, repairs and maintenance.
“If we decide to go for referendum (again), we most likely won’t go for the entire amount,” Sandlow said. She said the board intends to decide on the master plan Jan. 23.
Highland Park resident Rich Schnadig, an opponent of the 2011 referendum who attended the Nov. 28 presentation, said he is pleased with the new planning process so far. Previously, the district did not do a good job of breaking down the components of its building plans.
“They’re doing good due diligence,” he said.
But he still has some concerns. In its master plan, the district should address changes in demographics and consider the need for additional vocational training over matters like athletics.
“The issue is wants versus needs,” Schnadig said. “There’s a huge amount of us that are concerned about the ‘want’ issues.”
The presentation can be viewed on the District 113 website, http://www.dist113.org.
