District staff urge board to reaffirm Highland rebuild plan including ground source heat pumps; board delays formal vote

Salt Lake City School District staff on June 3 asked the school board to reaffirm previously approved plans for the Highland High rebuild that include installing ground source heat pumps under the athletic fields and investing in alternative fields at Clayton and Dilworth so the district can meet next season’s needs.

Isaac Gastel, a district staff presenter on the high school rebuild, told the board the geothermal system and field-preparation work were included in the original bond project list and the district’s sustainability action plan and that halting progress now would likely delay construction and increase costs. He asked the board to authorize moving forward with the Clayton and Dilworth investments and to approve ground source heat pumps under the Highland athletic field area as one of the two bond-scoped options.

Gastel framed the request with project history: he said the district recommended consolidating educational spaces at West High in February to preserve a historic clock tower and improve phasing, and in April returned to the board with temporary field options. Since then, the district studied alternative locations and reported that Glendale had been approved at a previous meeting and that Clayton and Dilworth were recommended for field preparations. Gastel said the district had also approached the Sugar House Park Authority about using park land but that three constraints made that option less viable: Sugar House Park currently lacks a softball field, work needed at that site would likely cost more than preparing Dilworth, and the Park Authority would not be able to consider the request until August because of its meeting schedule.

Gastel warned that redesigning to place fields or the geothermal equipment elsewhere could add "a couple million dollars" to the project and would require removing planned water-retention features and reducing parking (he estimated roughly 200 parking stalls could be lost during an altered construction approach). He also said moving the geothermal infrastructure could significantly disrupt school operations by reducing available parking and work areas while construction is under way.

Board members pressed for clarity but expressed differing procedural views. Board member Longwell thanked staff for documenting prior approvals and the work to date, and asked whether affected families and coaches had opportunities to review the plans; Gastel said the district had provided a memo and intended to follow up with impacted families. Board member Anderson and others emphasized the urgency and the importance of understanding total costs across both Highland and West; Gastel said he could not guarantee that the city would complete its review of West High property by the next meeting and that the city’s timeline was outside district control.

Some board members said they were comfortable with staff continuing design work that includes geothermal systems because that element was described in bond materials presented during the bond campaign; others said procedural norms meant a formal vote should wait until the next board meeting so the public would not be surprised by action taken during a report. The board ultimately directed staff to bring a formal action item to the June 17 meeting rather than take a vote on June 3.

No formal motions or votes affecting the Highland plan occurred on June 3. Board members repeatedly emphasized the project’s urgency and the risk that further delay would increase costs and threaten the timeline, and they asked staff to continue outreach to impacted families and to provide cost comparisons and any new city responses before the next meeting.

Ending: The board will revisit Highland High design decisions, field siting and the ground source heat pump authorization at its June 17 meeting. Staff said they will continue planning in the interim and provide updated cost and schedule information to the board and to stakeholders.