|
| BV Analysis --
2/24/99 |
|
|
|
| Question 1: How many square
feet needed? |
|
|
|
|
|
| Prior answers: |
|
|
| Actual prior to quake |
122,250
|
See FMP -- p.VII-5 |
| Facilities master plan |
152,632
|
See FMP -- p.VII-6 |
| EIR |
129,950
|
EIR p. I-2 |
| Latest proposal |
56,099
|
Undated Board handout |
| Correct answer |
129,950 |
Even with this we
may need portables -- see classroom analysis |
|
|
|
| Question 2: How many
classrooms needed? |
|
|
|
|
|
| Prior answers |
|
|
| Actual prior to quake |
45
|
See FMP p.III-29, et seq (count
them yourself -- 33 small, 6 medium & 6 large) |
| Facilities master plan - prior |
54
|
See FMP -- p. VII-18 et. Seq. |
| Facilities master plan - proposed |
59
|
See FMP -- p. VII-18 et. Seq. |
| Note - need to
resolve discrepancies re prior # -- need to count 6 portables to make equal |
|
|
| Current per EIR |
44
|
EIR p.1 & FMP p.III-29 et seq
- 34 portables + 6 in C & 4 in E |
| Latest proposal |
21.69
|
Based on same ratio of #classrooms
to sq ft as FMP |
| Correct answer |
I wish I knew!! Needs more analysis |
|
|
|
| Question 3: Projected
enrollment? |
|
|
| Prior answers |
|
|
| EIR |
837
|
|
| FMP |
900+
|
See FMP -- p. IV-3 |
| Latest proposal |
800-850
|
|
| Correct answer |
837 |
We are bound by
EIR to "approximately" 837, EIR p.I-1 |
|
|
|
| Question 4: What will it
cost to do it right? |
|
|
| (based on highly questionable
assumption of keeping all of Bld. B) |
|
|
| Demolition/earthwork |
$
671,240 |
Latest proposal |
| Site improvements |
$
685,000 |
Latest proposal |
| Electrical/Utility Upgrades |
$
830,000 |
Latest proposal |
| Bld. B (31,023 sf at$123/sf) |
$
3,815,829 |
Latest proposal |
| Bld. C. (23,533 sf) |
$
764,858 |
Latest proposal |
| New bld - 75,394 sf at $150/sf |
$
11,309,100 |
Makes total sf of 129,950 - see
Question 1 above |
| Re-use brick (where faces street) |
$
600,000 |
Memory/estimate - need to find
report with exact #s |
| Concrete accents - if clever |
$
100,000 |
Discount arrangements with local
artisans |
| Extra design elements |
$
500,000 |
Wild guess -- needs more analysis |
| Gymnasium |
$
- |
Defer |
| Correct subtotal -
constrn costs |
$ 19,276,027 |
Based on above
analysis |
| 15% contingency |
$
1,729,249 |
Latest proposal |
| Total probable cost |
$
21,005,276 |
|
| 5.6% escalation |
$
1,180,497 |
|
| Grand total |
$
22,185,773 |
|
| Trim here & there (6%) |
1,331,146
|
Informed estimate |
| Adjusted total |
$
20,854,626 |
|
| Rounded total |
$ 21,000,000 |
|
|
|
|
| Question 5 :Sources of Funds |
|
|
| Phase 1 |
|
|
| Current budget |
$
14,000,000 |
|
| Bond interest |
$
2,000,000 |
|
| Phase 1 Total |
$
16,000,000 |
|
| Est. # portables after Phase 1 |
10
to 16 |
(34-36 now) |
|
|
|
| Phase 2 |
|
|
|
Low |
High |
| FEMA |
$
1,000,000 |
$ 2,500,000 |
| State Bond Fund |
$
- |
$ 16,000,000 |
| Capitalize energy savings |
$
2,000,000 |
$ 3,000,000 |
| Private fundraising incl alumni |
$
- |
$ 5,000,000 |
| Additional bond issue |
$
10,000,000 |
$ 20,000,000 |
|
|
|
| Note that there is significant
probability that state bond funds nailed down before we |
|
|
| file BV plan with DSA -- if this
happens, all this gets done in one phase. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Question 6:
Romanesque Revival -- Can We Make It Work For Us? |
| Per Langdon Wilson
reports & CDE, all 4 elementary school sites now approximately 1/3 of recommended
size. Recommended renovation strategy is to build vertically to preserve play space and
ambient space. Romanesque Revival benefits aesthetically from 3 story approach as to
significant portion of the new buildings & this solves staging problems and may even
save money, e.g. less square feet of roof per usable square foot. |
|
|
|
| Question 7: How
much longer are we going to wait? |
| Due to cost
escalation, this will already cost $1 million to $3 million more than if the EIR had been
completed in 1995 & construction had begun in June of 1996. We are already over 3
years late in starting this and the Board's lack of decisiveness has, historically, been
epic. |
|
|
|
| So far, the Northridge
quake cost BV 3 years (the time that it should have taken to rebuild) and the Board has
cost BV almost 3 years (the time wasted before the Board got serious at the end of 1997
plus a fair amount of 1998). If we don't get in gear soon, the Board will be responsible
for more days of suffering than the quake. This is a contest that we want the quake to
win. |
|
|
|
| Isn't it ironic that
the school that has, by far, the greatest need has been shunted to the position of last in
line and most subject to the contingencies that some Board members keep citing as the
reason not to allocate anything more to BV. If, God forbid, their doom & gloom
projections come true, BV will remain a trailer park for years after the other 4 schools
are renovated. If a 10% contingency is now deemed insufficient, then BV is the LAST school
that should have to bear the brunt of this, because its needs are the most significant. |
|
|
|
| Even if we get back on
track and stay on track, BV will have been an unsafe, dysfunctional trailer park for 5 to
6 years (1995 to 2000 or 2001). Kids who were in the 1st grade in 1995 will be lucky to
have 1 or 2 years at a decent campus. |
|
|
|
| The answers to almost
every possible question can be found in the FMP (Facilities Master Plan & the EIR
(Environmental Impact Report). These are high quality documents that included input from
key staff members, the community and the Board. We have a good wheel to work with -- lets
at least study it before we try to re-invent it. |
|
|
|
|
[ Home ] [ Up ] [ EIR ] [ Renovation ] [ Bungalow Safety ] [ Demo ceremony ]
|