Bonita Springs council approves 16-foot replica facade for historic school, 6-1

Council member Folick urged the council to accept a 16-foot replica facade and asked colleagues to prioritize students as the council voted on the measure.

The Bonita Springs City Council voted 6-1 to approve a 16-foot-tall, to-scale replica facade (36 feet wide) intended to replicate the front of the historic school building that was destroyed. The vote followed more than a year of negotiations among city leaders, the school board and school attorneys over the height, width and construction details of the proposed wall.

Council member Folick, who led the city’s negotiations, told colleagues the school board’s engineers said a 16-foot wall could be built to meet wind-load and construction requirements while restoring a visual reminder of the original facade. “I would personally support it. I would ask that you do the same, as basically the children are our priority,” Folick said. He and staff relayed cost estimates discussed during talks: roughly $20,000 for the wall footing, impact windows and visible replica features, with additional engineering and related costs driving overall city-facing costs toward what one council member described as “closer to $200,000.”

City attorneys and staff said the 16-foot option was a compromise between an earlier 11-foot proposal and the original 17 feet, 3 inches. Derek Rooney, identified in the meeting as the city attorney, described technical constraints that make structures taller than 16 feet require “more buttressing, more engineering” because the replica will be freestanding and open in back.

Council debate mixed support for preserving a visible piece of the city’s history with concerns about optics, cost and the city’s lack of ownership of the school site. Councilmember Fitzpatrick said the city is “nowhere near what we hoped for” but that the alternative could have been far costlier. Councilmember Laura (surname not specified in the record) expressed reservations about the expense and whether the money should be devoted to other school priorities.

The formal motion before council (text as discussed aloud) was to approve the 16-foot-to-scale facade proposal. The record does not specify who made or seconded the motion. The roll call vote recorded Council member Carr voting No; Mayor Gibson, Council member Quarry, Council member Folick, Council member Bogaz, Deputy Mayor Purdon and Council member Fitzpatrick voting Aye. The mayor announced, “Motion carries 6 to 1.”

The council instructed staff to continue coordinating with the school board and school attorneys on final plans and to consider a joint public statement. No binding interlocal agreement or funding transfer was adopted at the meeting; the council’s action approved the design proposal. Further engineering, permitting and any payment responsibilities will be addressed in later staff reports and contract documents.

The decision follows months of public comment and negotiation; council members said the intent was to avoid further delay to construction of the new school while preserving a visible community reminder of the historic building.

Looking ahead, staff and council indicated they will return with implementation details, including any required engineering plans and cost breakdowns for council review before construction starts.