Ch 2 CES #4

Session 4: Financial Implications of the Facility Options

Here’s the scoop…

At Session Four, Vision 202 attendees learned about the construction logistics and costs associated with the top three options selected by participants at CES #3.  Architects from Perkins+Will presented refined information as well as financial details for each of the three top options followed by Superintendent, Dr. Keith Filipiak, who shared information about the financial implications for District 202.

The presentation was divided into two sections:  construction logistics and financial details.  Session Four participants learned how the construction project would potentially be phased for each of the options and heard about possible impacts on the student population.  Participants then had the opportunity to discuss and add advantages/disadvantages to the list generated at CES #3 for the options, then ranked the facility options without financial considerations.  The results for this task indicate the majority of tables preferred Option G as their first choice (64%), Option F as their second choice (57%), and in third place was Option C (86%).

The architects then shared the estimated costs associated with each of the three options and Dr. Filipiak presented the impact on the District’s financial picture.  Participants also had a chance to ask questions for clarification before ranking the options while considering the financial impact on the schools and community.  With the finances as a consideration, the small groups’ preferences slightly shifted while maintaining the same order.  The breakdown was: 71% of participants chose Option G as the first choice, 71% of participants chose Option F as their second choice, and 93% of the participants chose Option C as their third choice.

Session Four participants also had the opportunity to provide their individual preferences for the facility options.  The results were consistent with the group consensus feedback in regard to the ranking of the facility options.  When asked to rank the scenarios without taking into consideration the financial factors, 57% of individual participants selected Option G as the first choice, 41% selected Option F as the second choice, and 65% chose Option C as the third choice.  When including financial considerations into the ranking, 64% of the participants selected Option G as the first choice, 58% chose Option F as the second choice and 85% selected Option C as the third choice.

 

What Did the Top Three Options Include?

The following scenarios were identified as the top three options:

Option Grades Location
G PK-5 (New) Meadows
F PK-5 (New) Schiesher
C PK-2 (New)

3-5   (New)

Meadows

Schiesher

 

At Session 4 participants heard about the costs of each option as well as the financial implications for District 202.  Take a look at the presentation below.  Click on the flipping book arrows in the bottom toolbar to enlarge the presentation.