Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the West Elementary Study topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board reviews four options for aging West Elementary — renovate, add, rebuild on-site or build elsewhere
Summary
Architects from 3 Peaks and JLG presented four high-level options for West Elementary — renovate in place, phased addition plus renovation, full replacement on site, or build on a new site — with preliminary cost estimates ranging from the low tens of millions for renovation to roughly $39–50 million for new construction; board directed further fiscal analysis and teacher/community engagement.
Architects from 3 Peaks (Jason Robidoux) and JLG (Ron Olson) presented four high-level options for the district’s West Elementary footprint during an Aug. 4 work session: 1) continue deferred maintenance; 2) phased addition (add gym and kindergarten) with staged renovation; 3) replace the building on the existing eight-acre site in two phases; or 4) acquire a different site and build new.
"The 4 options that are starting to come to the surface…there’s certainly a lot of variables to these," Jason Robidoux said, cautioning the board that the designs and numbers were conceptual and intended to narrow the funnel of possibilities. 3 Peaks and JLG walked the board through tradeoffs for each alternative, calling attention to asbestos tile, an old pneumatic HVAC control system, limited site acreage and storm-drain easements that constrain on-site replacement options.
Ron Olson, speaking to the retrofit vs. new-build trade-offs, emphasized site constraints and code changes that drive complexity: "Some of those beams... they're past or they're beyond what he would consider, margin of error that you could just leave alone as a grandfather sort of approach," he said, arguing that snow-mitigation and structural work are real risks for a renovation-only path.
Architects and staff presented early cost ranges rather than firm estimates: renovation-only scenarios were discussed near $18 million, phased new-plus-renovation approaches and replacement scenarios were discussed in the high tens of millions, and architects noted that a new site build could vary widely depending on land and utility costs (the team used +/- $50 million as an illustrative uncertainty range for some off-site scenarios). Presenters and staff repeatedly stressed these were conceptual planning numbers and that more detailed design and delivery planning is needed.
Board members asked about capacity implications (renovation-only preserves a ~400-student footprint; phased or new options could expand to ~600 students and move Mountain View grades), the timeline for community engagement (teacher sessions in late September; community sessions Oct.–Dec.), and how to balance the capital program with deferred-maintenance needs across the district. The architects said a phased approach could allow the district to keep students on site but would take multiple years, while a replacement or off-site build changes drop-off, access and parking considerations.
