District officials favor church site for new school

Published 10:20 am Tuesday, June 7, 2011

A new school could go up near Ellis Middle School.

Austin Public School board members heard details Monday about three sites for a potential new grades 5-6 school because of a projected increasing enrollment that could mean an extra 400 students by 2014. The three sites in question weren’t what people expected, however. One of the sites was the Fellowship United Methodist Church land off of Seventh Avenue SE, another was the Ellis land itself. The third site is the land west of Highway 218 to the north of Target. The list did not include the old Kmart building of 18th Avenue NW, a site officials were previously considering.

District officials and some board members seemed the most optimistic about putting a school on the church property.

Email newsletter signup

“It’s the most cost effective,” said Mark Stotts, director of finance and operations.

According to combined cost estimates from school administrators, ATS & R architects, Austin Utilities workers and city officials, the church property would cost about $28.9 million, compared to the $29.5 million it would cost to build on Ellis fields and the $32 million it would cost on Hwy. 218. As the Hwy. 218 site would cost more than $30 million — the budget cap district officials have swore to uphold — it is likely out of the running.

Within each bid, the total cost of building a school was $24.2 million, an estimate based on classes using current elementary class sizes as well as other requirements like four science labs. The building could also be two stories. There were other consistent costs, such as $500,000 for technology.

“There are educational enhancements built into this,” said David Maroney, ATS & R architect. ATS & R is employed by the district on a consulting basis concerning the new school, and the group did a facility usage study for the district last year.

Where the prices differed had to do with already existing utilities.

The church site has utilities built in, lowering the expected site costs to about $600,000, according to cost estimates.

That’s not true for the Hwy. 218 site, where it would cost about $2.3 million to put utilities in. While the Ellis fields would have lower site costs at about $400,000, district officials would still purchase the church property in order to replace the athletic fields, which the new school would largely erase.

Aside from being the most cost-effective plan, the church property could be constructed to ease traffic flow in the area and save on transportation costs. Though board members decided in April to not pursue building a new school on Ellis land, acquiring the church property means district officials could conceivably create athletic fields for fifth- and sixth-graders, cutting down on some of the scheduling concerns teachers brought before the board.

“You’re talking about a school site going from about 1,000 students to 1,800 five years from now,” said Aaron Keenan, board chairman. “(We) have a good potential to limit that (student) impact.”

In addition, the church property would allow the new school to create its own emergency planning, effectively treating a new school and Ellis as two separate entities. The Ellis fields were treated as a possible site in order to provide a comparison, according to Maroney.

District officials have not made any deals concerning land yet, and there are no sure site plans until the board decides which site would work best for a new school. Stotts told the board Fellowship United trustees were seeking a land appraisal and could get back to him later this week with a price. He said the trustees were allowing soil bearings to be taken as well.

Keenan was pleased district officials recommended the church site, as it came in at less than the $30 million mark set by a community task force, a group that looked at ways to solve the district’s coming enrollment and the facility space issues that would cause. He hopes district officials find ways to make the project cheaper.

Board members will formally discuss the sites at 5 p.m. next Monday during their monthly public meeting at the City Council chambers. They plan to decide on a bond referendum to ask local residents to vote on at that time. District officials need the proposed bond referendum as part of the school proposal they’ll send to the Minnesota Department of Education, which has to review and comment on any new school before a bond referendum can be set. District officials would need that comment done by mid-August so they can call for a bond referendum this November by the state-mandated timeline: any later and the district would have to wait another year.

KMart K.O.’d

Absent from the list of sites was the old K-Mart building of 18th Avenue NW. District officials were considering the site until recently. Kmart representatives are willing to sub-lease the property to the district, but officials say such an agreement is a large risk for the district to take.

“Constructing a building on that site is a moot point, since we can’t buy it,” said Mark Stotts, director of finance and operations. “That’s a pretty big risk.”
The old Kmart property is owned by DCA Minn LLC, out of Kansas City, Mo. The site is currently under lease to Kmart through 2016. While researching possible sites, district officials proposed buying out the lease and purchasing the property from DCA Minn. A broker for the owners told Stotts DCA Minn would sell the property to the district at a much higher price than what district officials are willing to pay. Kmart representatives brought their own possible solution to the table by offering to sublease the property.

They were supposed to give district officials a cost estimate two weeks ago, but Stotts said Monday he had not received a proposal. Still, school officials say a subleasing agreement wouldn’t benefit the district financially, even if they were able to maintain the lease for decades. If Kmart’s representatives built in extra costs for profit, it may be cheaper for the district to build a school from scratch.

Aaron Keenan, board chairperson, questioned whether the state would approve a school plan involving leased land, because there would be financial risks.