- By Dan Veaner
- News
Print 
"It was a very enlightening process that the school and community went through in January and February," Lewis told the Board. "As a result of that we've learned a lot about what the community's expectations are of the school regarding participation in projects of such magnitude." He said that the new plan is a manifestation of what they learned from community members who participated in the Ad Hoc Facilities group before the BOE withdrew their original proposal last month.
The new strategy involves two committees meeting concurrently, both with plenty of participation from the public. The first would be the Facilities Group, with the mandate to rebuild a project that can realistically be passed in a referendum. This group will assess educational needs and make recommendations to the BOE. "Revisiting from ground zero the facilities in the district," said Lewis. "Examining the infrastructure needs of the district first and foremost, looking at health and safety items, code items, looking at renovations in general. In addition to that, looking at how program needs impact the educational space, and what is appropriate in response to addressing the challenges of putting the current and future program in that space."
The second committee will be a Community Awareness Group. This team will assess the level of community support and develop a community action plan, communicating the level of community support to the BOE and Facilities Group, and telling the public about the project as and after it develops. Both groups will have a cross section of voters to give and get input to all stakeholders in the community.
The time line is tight, requiring that both committees begin meeting on March 29, and wrap up their deliberations and present recommendations to the BOE no later than the end of July. The two groups will meet together on the 29th and then meet separately, but with some overlap.
"It is our earnest feeling that if these projects are to be supported wholeheartedly by the community, the community itself must become directly involved with the process," said Lewis. "We're looking for members of the community who can commit the time to engage other members of the community." He stressed that he wants people from all aspects of Lansing who are willing to come to all the meetings, not just a few here and there.
Resident David Digtman challenged the process in which King & King Architects are developing the project, and later will be allowed to bid on it. But Lewis explained that is the way it is done for school projects, noting that King & King are not paid until the project has been approved by the voters. He asked, "What if you build up a huge architectural bill and the community doesn't pass the project?" Another resident, Richard Maher, defended the architects' participation, saying they were a valuable resource for the Ad Hoc Facilities Committee last month and confirming King & King partner Kirk Narburgh's statement that the firm has no role in influencing decisions. Narburgh estimated the firm has about $100,000 of billable hours in the project so far.
Sue Henne, representing Lansing teachers, expressed concern about how teachers fit into the two-committee plan. Lewis assured her that teachers are considered part of the community and that he hopes teachers will participate on the committees. By the same token BOE members agreed their participation on the committees is important both to show their support for the process and to hear directly from the public what they would support. They agreed that a minimum of two BOE members should attend each meeting with representatives in both committees.
The upshot is that the BOE will make a second attempt to come up with a project the public can support. The hope is that they can stay on schedule for a December vote so that a construction season is not lost, affecting the total cost of whatever project might be approved.
----
v2i9