Decisions remain under debate
CONSTRUCTION: Project "surpasses that of other schools," official says
William Quinn
Posted in: News on 11/16/06 at 8:39 PM PST
Teachers and gathered in a tense atmosphere with school board officials Nov. 6 in the Music Recital hall to see how the $246 million granted to Harbor through Propositions A and AA are being spent.
Although some of the construction projects, like the new athletic field, have already been approved or are nearing completion, there are still debates about what begins next.
The continuing construction project at Harbor is more intense than others in the area according to Executive Director of Facilities Planning and Development Larry Eisenberg.
"The construction at Harbor well surpasses that of other schools in the district," he said.
Eisenberg told the crowd that the cost to build structures at Harbor will run as much as $550 a foot, perhaps twice as much as what it would have been just three years ago because the price of construction materials have risen sharply since the bond measures passed.
Four major building options were presented at the meeting. Not one plan appeared to please the entire audience and at times emotions showed.
When someone mentioned that he had been kept in the dark as to where the money was going, or how to find information on it, a light murmur of went up from the crowd.
"He sure wants his P.E. building," said a respondent, chuckling sarcastically.
Whispers among others back and forth were heard many times over.
Option One included new buildings for the Child Development Center and the Physical Education Building. It also entailed partial renovation in the Science and Business Building. No work would be done on the Cafeteria, the Seahawk center or the Administration/Community Services Building. There were also plans for a reduced scope in campus improvements.
Option Two also entailed a new P.E. building, but gave no new building to the Child Development Center and would only replace one portable. Full renovation of the Science building and a full scope campus improvement plan were the most notable differences.
Option Three was significantly different. There were no plans for a new P.E. building and the replacing a portable, but a new Chemistry/Physics Building and a completely demolished business building were also major differences within the option. Major campus improvements were also planned.
Option four, an apparent attempt to satisfy the majority of the crowd, was somewhat similar to the first options presented. New buildings for Child Care Chemistry/Physics, and Physical Education were planned. Demolition of the business building and reduced campus improvements were included.
The final decision expects to be a long and controversial process.
Although some of the construction projects, like the new athletic field, have already been approved or are nearing completion, there are still debates about what begins next.
The continuing construction project at Harbor is more intense than others in the area according to Executive Director of Facilities Planning and Development Larry Eisenberg.
"The construction at Harbor well surpasses that of other schools in the district," he said.
Eisenberg told the crowd that the cost to build structures at Harbor will run as much as $550 a foot, perhaps twice as much as what it would have been just three years ago because the price of construction materials have risen sharply since the bond measures passed.
Four major building options were presented at the meeting. Not one plan appeared to please the entire audience and at times emotions showed.
When someone mentioned that he had been kept in the dark as to where the money was going, or how to find information on it, a light murmur of went up from the crowd.
"He sure wants his P.E. building," said a respondent, chuckling sarcastically.
Whispers among others back and forth were heard many times over.
Option One included new buildings for the Child Development Center and the Physical Education Building. It also entailed partial renovation in the Science and Business Building. No work would be done on the Cafeteria, the Seahawk center or the Administration/Community Services Building. There were also plans for a reduced scope in campus improvements.
Option Two also entailed a new P.E. building, but gave no new building to the Child Development Center and would only replace one portable. Full renovation of the Science building and a full scope campus improvement plan were the most notable differences.
Option Three was significantly different. There were no plans for a new P.E. building and the replacing a portable, but a new Chemistry/Physics Building and a completely demolished business building were also major differences within the option. Major campus improvements were also planned.
Option four, an apparent attempt to satisfy the majority of the crowd, was somewhat similar to the first options presented. New buildings for Child Care Chemistry/Physics, and Physical Education were planned. Demolition of the business building and reduced campus improvements were included.
The final decision expects to be a long and controversial process.
Be the first to comment on this story