Dear Editor,
The proposed $142 million ($75M new; $63M rural; $4M contingency) expense of demolishing the entire Schlador Campus and construction of a new insufficient sized, extravagant school, is neglecting students, district owners and common sense. Once remediated, Schlador may hold 1,000 students, compared to 450 new. This disregards the soon-demand for an expansion of the new high school; another bond.
When chairman of the high school relocation in 1993, if relocated, our caveat was to plan that Schlador must become the middle school. Our independent study by facility managers and engineers recommended $6 million. Today, [I estimate it would require] less than $14 million (using a high 4% construction price index).
The Board’s own architect, Weeks, similarly stated $3.9M in 1993; $4.3M in 1999; $26.7M circa 2012. Their latest was supportive of demotion and modules.
In 2012, two seasoned architects and a structural engineer inspected Schlador together and their written independent reports stated positive for remediation. School architect, Geoff James, proposed a budget of $7.5 million, including a south lobby and elevators. Today, [I estimate] $16 million (using a high 6% construction price index). This information was buried by [former] Superintendent Bellando. I gave Scott Drue these [figures] on Feb. 26, 2021.
Superintendent Drue has publicly stated that neither he, nor the board, but the Bond Advisory Committee made the decision to go for the $138 million bond.
As typical with many Task Forces, it was a rubber stamp. Members of the committee are complaining that the information provided had one goal, “tear down and build new”.
When other cost information was requested, there was no serious response; just guesses. None of this history or original intended use of Schlador as the middle school was provided to them.
The question for the owner/voters is, if you owned a $400,000 home, not including land, and could do a $100,000 remodel to improve it, would you believe your architect’s advise to tear it down and build new? No, the process would decrease your equity by $900,000.
To get this bond to pass, the superintendent has spent [thousands] for consultants. Was this in the annual budgets? … Do we squander funds personally in this manner?
Chairman Traeger’s Facebook words speak of school closures if our bond does not pass. Not true. It is not an operations bond, but a building bond.
Video on the district’s bond page express that the buildings are “CONDEMNED.” Silverton’s building official confirms that no Schlador building is condemned.
District employees state that [former]Superintendent Bellando required that there be no maintenance on the Schlador facilities. Including caulking mechanical roof units and flashings. Not an expensive issue. This policy continues under Superintendent Drue.
A reasonable bond, leaving room for the future, should be $20M Schlador; $10M rural; $5M contingency.
Read the words written by David Beason, 6/21/2013, to the Board and Mr. Bellando, “Until we honestly and objectively analyze and address all issues, and until we have a long range plan for the education of our youngsters that a majority of voters understand and are comfortable supporting, we will continue to squander public funds and district time and energy- and credibility- on unsuccessful bond requests….”
Check out our website at silverfallsbondhistoryandfacts.com.
Thank you.
Gene Pfeifer,
50 years of services to Silverton Schools
Bill Schiedler
2022-23 Bond Advisory Committee
(Editor’s Note: The print version of this letter included a typo in the URL, which was caught by the watchful eye of Silver Falls Library District Director Christy Davis and has been corrected in the digital version.)
