Soderstrom consultant presents long‑range facilities plan for Brookings‑Harbor SD 17C, cites $38M–$66.5M costs

Marlene of Soderstrom Architects presented a long‑range facilities plan at a Brookings‑Harbor SD 17C board workshop that would reconfigure campus uses, relocate sixth graders to the elementary campus, expand the media center and convert an existing space into a performing‑arts/event center.

The consultant summarized a set of interior reconfigurations and targeted renovations rather than adding new square footage, and said the district faces a two‑tier cost picture: about $38,000,000 for identified critical maintenance items and "we will be looking at, you know, almost, you know, 66 and a half million dollars" if the full planning scope were completed, she said. Marlene emphasized the larger figure represents the cumulative cost of addressing every identified need, not a recommended single package.

Why it matters: board members said the plan helps clarify priorities and funding choices — what the district could pursue with district funds, what would likely require a bond, and how to package projects for grant opportunities. The board discussed timing for a bond and options for staging work to match likely funding availability.

Details from the plan: Marlene described two major moves the plan would enable: consolidating junior and senior high functions with alternate uses for underutilized junior high space and establishing a sixth‑grade wing at the elementary campus with its own playground and supervised access. She outlined an expanded media center with small study rooms, a consolidated special‑education suite adjacent to alternative‑education programs, and reconfigured CTE and science spaces to bring daylight and flexibility into otherwise dark corridors. The plan also suggested converting a kitchen area into a culinary classroom and creating a black‑box theater/event center connected by a gated event entry.

On security and circulation, the consultant proposed student vestibules with controlled access and intercom/camera entry points that would allow office staff to admit visitors remotely. Several sketches showed covered walkways, canopies to connect buildings for secure movement, and a dedicated student entry off the parking lot.

Funding and next steps: Marlene noted the district had already completed a facilities assessment and that the presented figures included construction costs plus project soft costs (fees and contingency). She recommended prioritizing repairs and identifying which work to pursue directly versus packaging for bonds or grants. The presentation referenced TAP grant reporting approved by ODE and suggested grant‑timing deadlines that align with election schedules; the consultant and board discussed the practical window to prepare campaign or grant materials some months before an election.

Board response and schedule: Board members thanked the consultant and said the workshop would remain on the agenda to allow time for the board to "wrap our heads around it" and develop priorities. The chair announced the board would recess into executive session later in the meeting; no formal motion or vote on the plan was taken during the public workshop.

What comes next: The board agreed to continue the discussion at a future work session, pursue the open ODE facilities assessment scheduled in November, and consider prioritization and bond strategy based on more detailed cost breakdowns and community outreach.