Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the School Construction topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Sweetwater trustees outline new high school timeline, say state rules could delay work
Summary
Board members said state-mandated design changes could require revised plans and delay construction for Sweetwater County School District #1’s proposed new high school; district is weighing facility tradeoffs such as a $40 million pool vs. a $10 million field house.
Board member Dr. Seppi told the Sweetwater County School District #1 board on May 20 that the timeline for a new high school depends on whether the current architect can revise plans to meet newly requested state construction standards.
"If the current architectural firm is able to achieve this, we're looking at starting construction in about 8 to 18 months. If we go into a new architect, we're talking about 2, 2 and a half years before we could even start construction," Dr. Seppi said during the meeting.
The board member said the state has changed how it funds building layouts — asking that certain program spaces such as cafeterias and libraries sit on exterior walls to accommodate future expansion — and that requirement is driving the potential redesign. He said the district has two paths: show the state a reasonable savings with the original architect’s revised plans, or restart the design process through a request for proposals and likely add years to the schedule.
On facility choices, Dr. Seppi said districts receive funding for a baseline square footage tied to student population and can use rec board or local funds for additional amenities. He noted the state does not fund pools and said an eight-lane pool would cost “about 40 plus million dollars,” whereas a multipurpose field house with an indoor track was estimated at about $10,000,000 and could attract regional events.
"A pool comes with a massive price tag, about 40 plus million dollars," Dr. Seppi said. "We may be better off to utilize some of our square footage as a field house so that we could have an indoor track facility."
Board members emphasized the tradeoffs are financial as well as programmatic. Another trustee added that choices should consider how many students would use each auxiliary facility: "...a $40,000,000 pool for a hundred students versus a $10,000,000 track for hundreds of students," the trustee said, pressing a cost‑benefit view.
District staff described other practical constraints: the state currently funds only a single gym in the standard allowance and does not fund tennis courts or pools; districts must self-fund extras. Board members said they are continuing to explore funding options and partnerships, including support from rec boards, and invite community input on priorities.
The board did not take a formal vote on building scope or funding at the May meeting. Trustees said they will continue discussions with the architect and state officials and will return with updated timelines once a design path is confirmed.
