Discussion centered on proposed building project
A special meeting was held tonight (Thursday, June 22) between the Mountain Lake Public School (MLPS) School Board and Mark Lenz of MLA Architects to discuss the district’s building project. MLA architects of St. Paul specializes in K-12 Educational Programming/ Planning and School Design. Lenz leads the firm with 30 years of school planning experience and over 100 facility studies and school building projects.
The decision by the board to meet with Lenz was made at a Monday, June 12 special meeting. At that meeting, members had discussed the building plan proposal created by architect Paul Youngquist of Architects Rego + Youngquist, Inc. (ARY) of St. Louis Park, and presented to the board by the MLPS Building Committe (Chair Tim Swoboda, Vice-Chair Tom Appel, Cheri Hanson, Jerry Haberman, Bruce Swanson, Bryan Bargen, Vern Peterson, Shawn Naas and John Carrison).
At a Wednesday, April 26 meeting, the building committee elected to move forward with Youngquist’s proposal and on Tuesday, May 30, together with the architect, presented that plan to the school board. For a detailed article on the May 30 meeting, architect proposals and discussion, go to: https://www.cross-countiesconnect.com/2017/05/mlps-school-boardbuilding-committee-holds-joint-meeting-with-architect/
At the June 12 meeting, school board members expressed their angst over Youngquist and his plans. During the course of the meeting, each board member shared their thoughts on the progress of the project over the past two years as it directly related to Youngquist. Thoughts were verbalized as to how each felt when the architect was first hired in relation to the current state of the project. Discussion revealed that the trust and confidence level of the board toward Youngquist had changed. Different issues raised included how the project list had been re-prioritized, questions concerning dollar amounts assigned to line items, number of architectural drawings produced and the options given.
Questions asked by board members included: Had the current and past architect’s plans been scrutinized? Why was the original building project needs list that had been circulated among staff and board members since 2004 not being followed? What would be a suitable size building project? Was it possible to receive a detailed cost comparisons on rennovating the 1904 versus demolition and building new?
Summarized MLPS Board Chair Pedersen, “Paul had a $13 million plan and didn’t even address the auditorium’s red seats or the building’s windows.”
A motion presented at the June 12 meeting to buy out the contract with Youngquist and ARY for $4,850 was defeated, prior to a unanimous board vote to invite Lenz of MLA Architects to speak with the board. For a more detailed account of the June 12 meeting, go to: https://www.cross-countiesconnect.com/2017/06/getting-a-second-opinion/.
In July 2014, MLA Architects had been the choice of the building committee, Lenz was hired, and had already created plans. However, due to his prior work with Johnson Controls, the company that led the failed MLPS December 2012 building bond referendum, that connection met with public resistance. Stated MLPS Superintendent Bill Strom, “We then stopped, because we wanted to be sure we were looking at all things.”
Youngquist of ARY was later selected as the project’s architect.
Pedersen opened tonight’s meeting with Lenz by recognizing that, “We (board) all came to the conclusion that things were not moving along as we (board) thought they should be. And, it was important – imperative – that the board be unified.”
Strom noted that Lenz had expressed concern that he did not want to get into an ethical dilemma, as the school district remains under contract with Youngquist and ARY. Lenz was on hand only to present what his firm could do for the district.
The initial comments from Lenz were directed at board members. “For whatever move you make in the future, you need the building committee on board.” He added that if he eventually does work with the district, a November building bond referendum vote would not be in the cards. “I can put the ‘stuff’ together,’ but you need to have consensus.”
“My niche is smaller rural school districts,” emphasized Lenz. He has completed projects with the districts of Sleepy Eye Public, St. James, Springfield, Cedar Mountain and Sebeka as examples. His company is able to take photographs of existing space, and display them with new space designs through conceptual photos, in addition to blueprints.
Lenz completes a majority of projects with Kraus-Anderson Construction as the general contractor, with the use of local contractors a probability, along with Holbrook Engineering for HVAC service and preventative maintenance programs.
Fast stressed the need that the board, “get our act together. We need to get trust back by doing some things and then district residents will believe in us. We can fill the ‘hole’ where the swimming pool used to be quickly, and by doing that, will earn trust. We can do things on the priority list with $5 million or $10 million projects, knock them out, and then do it again.”
Lenz supported that idea, but also inserted the need for a master plan.
Board consensus was for the need to get priorities defined and, according to Pedersen, “Do our job.”
The emphasis on creating a doable, voter-approvable plan has been made even more important due to action taken by the passage of a 40% tax credit on farm property taxes levied for school district bonding projects by the 2017 Minnesota Legislature. For Mountain Lake, with an ag tax base of 84.5%, that would mean that 40% of the cost for any project would be eliminated due to the ag tax rate.
Board members approved holding a joint meeting with the building committee beginning at 5 p.m. on Monday, June 26, prior to the regular June monthly board meeting. The crux of that meeting will be to inform the committee on what the board is doing and why, thank them for their hard work and for delivering on the task the board had given them, apologize for not giving them clear parameters and seek to have them continue as committee members to strive toward a building plan goal.