Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the High School Campus Planning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Waunakee board reviews four high‑school campus options with wide cost ranges
Summary
District staff and consultants reviewed four conceptual campus options (A–D), preliminary cost ranges and next steps; the board asked for more detail on academic needs, phasing and tax impacts and made no decision.
The Waunakee Community School District convened a special board meeting to continue planning for the high‑school campus and hear preliminary conceptual options and cost estimates from district staff and consultants.
Dr. Brown, staff member, opened the presentation and framed the meeting as informational: "Decisions, we are not looking for decisions tonight," she said, adding the district seeks board feedback to guide next steps.
Consultants presented four high‑school campus concepts. Mike Schwanhammer, design architect with DUA, described the options as preliminary and exploratory and said they reflect enrollment planning assumptions (1,610 students by 2040). Jay Thompson, cost estimator with Boulder Brothers Billing Company, provided high‑level project scopes and inclusive cost ranges (construction plus soft costs). At the presentation level the ranges shown were: - Option A: mostly minimal work to re‑use the existing middle school space for high‑school use — preliminary range cited for the work needed at the middle‑school building was about $2 million to $3.5 million. - Option B: renovation‑focused approach with no new major construction — preliminary total project range about $100 million to $125 million. - Option C: mix of new construction and renovation — preliminary total project range about $180 million to $220 million. - Option D: larger new‑construction approach (demolition of the middle‑school building and new construction) — preliminary total project range about $190 million to $230 million.
Presenters emphasized these are high‑level estimates that include construction and soft costs and that final numbers will change with detailed design, escalation assumptions and phasing. Thompson said the team applied escalation to a mid‑point of an assumed 2027–2029 construction window and used recent district projects (Heritage Elementary and the new middle school work) as cost comparators.
Board members pressed for clearer distinctions among options and for evidence that programmatic needs (science labs, music spaces, culinary, natural daylight and other academic priorities) are met in each scenario. Several board members said they want a clearer mapping of "needs versus wants" — what is required to meet educational goals versus desirable amenities. Staff agreed to summarize stakeholder input collected through interviews and to show how specific academic requests would be addressed across options.
Board members also discussed whether the existing middle‑school building should be repurposed for long‑term high‑school instructional use. Some members expressed concern that the middle‑school corridors and room sizes were not designed for high‑school programs and questioned the value of heavy renovation there; others noted substantial capital maintenance investments already made and asked staff to model alternative uses of the middle‑school facility (wellness clinic, administrative or specialty program space) if the board prefers new construction for the high school.
The district noted the board workshop scheduled for Aug. 18 as the next formal step to refine priorities and requested additional financial context, including updated enrollment projections (to be updated after the fall pupil count) and the evolving state budget, which could affect local property tax capacity and referendum timing. Staff said village planning staff indicated a possible path to amend local code to allow a third story on the north section of the high school, and the district can pursue that ordinance conversation before final design decisions.
No formal decision or referendum authorization occurred at the meeting. Board members asked staff and the consultant team to return with: (1) a summary of stakeholder requests categorized by academic need versus amenity, (2) side‑by‑side descriptions of how each option would meet key instructional priorities (science, music, tech ed, daylighting), (3) updated enrollment projections and (4) an affordability/tax levy analysis tied to the state budget outlook.
Votes at a glance: The meeting included procedural motions (approval of the agenda and adjournment) that were approved by voice vote; no policy or capital actions were taken on the campus options.
The board scheduled further review and public engagement as the team refines phasing, costs and priorities.
