LASD Master Facilities Planning
Approved Master Facility Plan November 11, 2010
Video of October 14, 2010 Special Planning Meeting Video of September 3, 2009 Initial Planning Meeting Video of September 22, 2009 Community Dialogue Video of October 27, 2009 Public Meeting Video of Dec 2, 2009 Public Meeting Video of Jan 19, 2010 Public Meeting Part 1: Video of March 16, 2010 Public Meeting Part 2: Video of March 16, 2010 Public Meeting (Please note these videos may take a while to download before they begin playing) Master Plan Timeline Updated November 12, 2009 - revised (pdf) Public Dialogue Invitation (pdf) Facilities Presentation August 13, 2009 (pdf) District Background Information (pdf) Results of Community Dialogue September 22, 2009 Facilities Options Presented October 28, 2009 LASD Community Dialogue 2 Results DeJong Executive Summary and Recommendations LASD Overview of Entire DeJong Planning Process Information Packet January 19, 2010 Master Facility Plan Options January 19, 2010 Facilities - Frequently Asked Questions March 16, 2010 Tally Educational Needs Report LASD Facility Study Schedule Feasibility Study Update September 9, 2010 (pdf) Union County Plan and LASD Facilities Study (pdf)
Comments Posted by Community Members:
02/02/12  Child had after school appt yesterday. Needed to get child from high school to appt. That is bad experiencing trying to pick up child from high school at 2:45. THAT PARKING LOT and TRAFFIC Pattern is dangerous etc. AWFUL. Hope still working on new high school ???? Also recently attended high school boys basketball game at middle school. First time in few seasons--good team. Why is the floor so slippery--other schools do not have this problem??? Posted by:  11/09/10  Great Job Lewisburg School Board! You can never please everyone, but you know you have done a complete and thorough job for the last two years, now we need to move forward. I only hope that my elementary age children will be fortunate enough to be one of the first classes to attend the new facility. Posted by:  11/08/10  Well done School Board I did not realize that the Elementary school is located out in the COUNTRY. Glad that the new High School will also be int he COUNTRY. At least if we did a new school with facilitites in the COUNTRY we chould have a high school playoff football game at 7 pm instead of 5 pm GO DRAGONS. Posted by:  11/02/10  The school board for the Lewisburg Area School District has recently stated that they are supporting the building of a new high school on the Newman Road property in Lewisburg. This property is located in a rural area adjacent to one of the elementary schools, more than 2 miles from the current high school and middle school. The remote location would make busing mandatory (a budget cost that has not been considered) and would dramatically increase the number of students who opt to drive themselves to school. As eloquently noted by Mr. Mark Temple during the October 14 school board meeting, young student drivers are at the highest risk for accidents, and the lengthier commute would significantly increase the likelihood of injury. The remote location would also make it mandatory to initiate an after school activities bus route (as schools such as Williamsport offer), which would entail costs that have not been considered in the budget estimates. Building a new school on Newman Road would also require tremendous alterations to infrastructure including sewage, water, and roads. The resultant increase in sewer/public water rates, property taxes and school taxes have not been addressed at the meetings, either. These “hidden costs” dramatically change the overall budget comparisons when fully realized. Although the school board states that the current high school will be “repurposed,” adaptive reuse of the current building is NOT guaranteed. Many of the organizations expressing interest are limited in their funding and have not been able to satisfactorily acquire properties or commence building on sites they currently own. The current high school runs a high risk for becoming an unused vacant building or at best remaining in disrepair. The proposed connecting corridor between Linntown and the Eichorn Middle School is a highly cost effective option for increasing space. However the estimated construction costs for a new high school (which may not include infrastructure costs) are roughly 3 million dollars higher than the estimate for renovating the current high school (the amount needed for our new athletic complex). When handled by experienced firms, the innovative reconstruction of older schools can produce vibrant and energetic open spaces. Examples of some of these fantastic transformations (including schools in Reading and York, PA) can be viewed on several internet sites recommended by the state (http://www.portal.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt/community/school_preservation/2404/school_renovation_successes/293125). New construction is not the only way to achieve a highly energy efficient school or to fabricate classroom and performance space that is supportive of our students. The most appropriate action would be to put the final decision to a public vote. Allow the residents, the taxpayers, to express their opinion in a democratic fashion by voting on individual options after considering fully all of the entailed costs with each plan. Posted by: C. Kasales and G. Gerhard 10/21/10  Attended the latest presentation, only one option for athletic fields was presented--the Newmann property. Makes sense to put a new school there, since fields etc, do not fit anywhere else. The Y would be great addition to the community at the corner of 15/45 or a better Heeter Center. Posted by:  08/12/10  I have said previously and will reiterate that we should voice our opinions as tax payers to our elected officials in various ways. The process of checks and balances between school board and administration was intended to give us a majority outcome and a rational, thoughtful conclusion to all our schools issues. Posted by: patrick flannery 08/12/10  Cont....I went to this sight to update my knowledge on the options to tonight's meeting only to see voices without names. I have seen people finish other peoples sentences in this district at all levels...the question of transparency by leadership has dipped into this public document. State your name.....your thoughts and then let our leadership decide what is best for the community. I want to see the school stay local in town for many reasons that have been beaten up. The idea of a new school I have encouraged since I was a student interested in public policy. The decision is cost (economy), student welfare in safety, academics and access, plus real numbers on increased enrollment possibilities. If done fair..done consciously for the community and done with fact, not personal motivation I will support with all my energy and resources whatever my school board decides based on their representation of us as tax payers. Posted by: patrick flannery 08/02/10  You are right when you note that driving a vehicle is a great concern --- that is why we need a school and buildings at one location. One location for a nice high school, fields, auditorium etc. So when students and staff start the day at this location, they are not leaving at 3 pm to practice band, sports, plays etc at another location. They do not leave this area until they are finished with school sponsored activities. Crossing guard at 15/45, I do not know if an adult wants to put him or herself on front of cars at this location. I would not want to do this. Yes, it is time for board to make the right decision. NEW HIGH SCHOOL and NO SCHOOL at 15/45 intersection. Posted by:  07/28/10  Dear School Board, Please make a decision based on the numerous community input sessions...all options have been discussed and rediscussed, and two options were overwhelmingly decided upon by the community members that were present at the meetings. Enough is enough, majority rules. You are not going to please everyone. Make a decision based on the needs of all the townships, and providing the best possible educational environment for our children now and in the future. Posted by:  07/25/10  The single most dangerous thing kids do on a regular basis is ride in a motor vehicle. The proximity of roads like Rt 15 and Rt 45 raises people's hackles but the real, statistically validated threat is increasing the number of minutes people under 18 spend in cars. This is a hard thing for people to get their brains around. Their intuition says a nearby road is an immediate threat to be countered with absolute force and conviction. The insidious threat of letting vehicular miles/person creep ever upward doesn't register, except in the accident records. It requires an effort of exerting the conscious mind to understand this disconnect. That said, there ought to be a crossing guard at Rt 15 and 45 anyway -- which is a far more reasonable solution than forcing every student to arrive in mobile (and counterproductive) armor every day. Posted by:  07/23/10  I see the comments in todays Daily Item (7/23/10) about another option being the focus of a group of Lewisburg residents. Putting 3-5th graders at intersection of Route 15 and 45 is not a good idea. Putting any students at this intersection is not a good idea. I have a high school student walking across that intersection and I am nervous everyday that she walks.Someday an accident is going to happen??? We did this building (high school renovation) the last time and we regret that decison---let's move on. Also putting athletics facilities any where other then next to a school is a bad idea. Some student is going to get hurt rushing off to practice at a remote location. Time to get this right and time to move forward. The orginal time line had all of these decisons made by now---why do we continue to get bog down and drag this out???? Walk to school, walk to school, walk to school, if you live in town your child (grades K-8) does not walk to school and he/she is most likely picked up a few blocks from home, isn't that great that you do not have to worry about him/her crossing streets etc and when you do give them a ride, isn't it great that there is space at the schools for your car to navigate, as opposed to the high school parking situation etc. Move on, time to move forward for our district. GO DRAGONS---Great Students and Great teachers, now time for great facilities??? Posted by:  06/22/10  As Dr. Gropious would say "ver is your vimsy". The existing school is not having much fun. May I suggest you uncover the windows and super-impose the Bucknell Weis Center on the front of the existing building. It's difficult to invision design without a model but you have one in the Weis bld. Add solar panels and make an edible school yard in front ie: the White House & Berkeley. Add a 3rd floor if you need more sq. feet. Posted by: Patricia MCP 06/07/10  How long until a new high school is built? Posted by:  04/25/10   The Kelly elementry property is next to the prison so you can not use that excuse. The State Police cover Kelly Twp. Try another issue. My favorite is having the students attending classes in the theater. Just build the school. Posted by:  04/20/10  Perhaps the folowing points were previously offerred. Newman Road and connecting roads are narrow and were not intended to carry the additional traffic brought by a new high school in that area. Has any consideration been given relative to how many additional school buses will be needed to transport students to a high school on Newman Road? Why move the high school from the Borough of Lewisburg where a full time Police Force is available within afew minutes to Kelly Township with no police force? Has consideration been given to the damage that heavy construction equipment would do to the narrow roads near the Newman property. The Newman property is near and possibly adjacent to the Lewisburg Penitentiary, a maximum security prison. Certainly within hearing of prison PA systems and sounds of firearm qualification gunfire. Posted by: George Nedostup 04/09/10  Lewisburg is set apart by having a thriving downtown with an excellent high school right in the middle of it - I've seen a thousand empty small towns with a high school out in the country. And there is a high percentage of students who CAN walk and who do walk regularly, if not 100% of the time. It is a great option, esp for days when there is a delayed opening or an early dismissal. A school at Newman removes this possibility altogether - everyone drives, and that is a terrible option. Posted by: Bud Hiller 04/08/10  One thing I haven't seen mentioned is this: What happens to those stuents who wish to take a class at Bucknell? With the High school in its current location it is possible, with the high school 2 miles away, it is not. Are we going to abandon this opportunity for our children if we move the school to Newman? I think a sensible option that has not been discussed much is to knock down the current high school and build a new one in its place. It could be done in the same footprint, just make the building taller. I think there is some merit to the idea of building it big enough to house the 7th and 8th graders as well. We could probably avoid any other renovations/ additions to any of the other schools. It would also provide the advanced 7th and 8th graders close by to take advantage of high school classes and arts opportunities. We already have the 8th grade participating in the marching band at some inconvenience to all. Put the atheletic fields by the middle school. Posted by:  03/22/10  The idea that a complete renovation of the high school at its current location would be a band-aid is inaccurate. Since there have been no architectural drawings of ANY site, it is premature to say what ancillary facilities they could add to the HS site (aside from adjacent athletic fields). Some of the most innovative and functional buildings in the country are in the midst of cities a lot larger and more crowded than Lewisburg. A good architect will work with the site to design whatever renovations the School board asks for. Let's just let the architects do their work first. Posted by:  03/19/10  In response to the student's question there are many positive reasons to keep the high school in it's current location. Having a school within a town connects the school to the community creating more possibilities for interaction. The presence of young people downtown adds to the vitality of Lewisburg and provides the students with opportunities for work, play and socializing after school hours. Some proportion of students can walk to school which won't be the case if a new school is built outside of town. Keeping the school downtown allows for creative, though as yet untried, off site learning possibilities. Why not solve some of the space problems by holding classes at the Campus theaer? Classes could be offered in film studies as part of the English dept. or film making as an art elective. How about a class in civics that makes regular visits to the courthouse? Just to be clear, however--there is no plan currently under consideration that leaves the high school as it is. The main choice is between building a new school or extensively renovating the current one. I'm not sure why a moderate (and lower cost) renovation is not being considered. It may be possible to enlarge and update the current H.S. modestly and be more creative with the scheduling and space issues but that has not yet been discussed. One of the biggest reasons to use the current building is that it's the greenest option. It uses what we already have, avoids paving over more green space, avoids the resulting sprawl of new roads, electric and sewer lines and keeps the school in the heart of the community that supports it. Posted by:  03/18/10  We are doing a project for English class on whether or not to keep the high school how it is or build a new one. For the debate we were assigned the side of keeping the high school how it is and NOT building a new one. Please comment some reasons to support our side of the debated. Thank you! Posted by: c.sx2 h.n. 03/15/10  Although I can understand the need for housing expanding student enrollments and improved facilities, the current economic condition of the country (and consequently, our area) may warrant a delay to large capital projects. A few comments/thoughts to which I cannot find a clear answer: 1) What is the enrollment in Pre-K and why does the school district provide Pre-K? Would dropping Pre-K alleviate crowding and increasing enrollment issues at Kelly? Would this allow some enrollment 'push downs', for example a grade moved from Linntown? If Pre-K is not required by the state, and is certainly not utilized by all potential children (Pre-K has a waiting list if I understand correctly), why not use private sources (and therefore private property) for the provision of Pre-K. Currently, the program is using public property, and therefore receives a subsidy of public dollars. 2) Could the Newman property (or parcels of said property) be sold to finance renovations at current locations (e.g. the high school). I recognize that the Newman property was purchased during the peak in property values, but at some point it may be time to cut the losses. The decline in property value could be classified as a sunk cost. 3) What is the source of the rapid increase in enrollment? Additional faculty/staff at Bucknell? Geisinger employees relocating to Lewisburg? Assuming the increase in enrollment is driven by an increase in families in the area, there should be a corresponding increase in housing in the area and therefore an increase in the tax base. I am guessing that mill's have not decreased, therefore the taxes collected by the school district should have been increasing based on an increasing tax base. What has happened to the additional amounts from the increased base? Are they sufficient to fund a portion of the proposed capital improvements? Furthermore, if the increase is partially driven by Geisinger, could we petition Geisinger to divert some of their philanthropic spending to assist in funding these projects? 4) Back to the source of rapid increase in enrollment...it seems that unless we have an accurate understanding of the increases, we risk over/under building. Are we potentially increasing capacity far beyond future use (requiring the future closure of facilities, which is happening in many school districts across the nation), or are we possibly under-investing in capacity, requiring equally painful discussions/increased taxes in the near future? Posted by: Opposed_to_Increased_Taxes_in_Touch_Economic_Times 03/14/10  As a parent, I am writing in response to some of the comments regarding keeping the high school in it's current location. You could continue to band-aid/remodel and expand the 80 year old high school, but you would have no other cohesive ancillary facilities, such as, no sports or performing arts facilities, no parking, no outdoor space, therefore, no state of the art high school facilities, and therefore, no increased property values for anyone. Millions of dollars will have to be spent even if the high school remains on top of State Routes 45 and 15, or moves two miles northwest, thirty seconds from Evangelical Community Hosptital. So why wouldn't you spend your millions of tax dollars to get the best possible facility? The number one priority should be having the best educational opportunity/system/facilities for ALL of the townships that make up the Lewisburg school district. Posted by:  03/13/10  This is a previously posted comment but makes a lot of sense so I am re-posting it. Thanks to the original poster. A new high school complex with all of the modern amenities and on site athletic fields is a logical option. However, abandoning the existing high school completely and spending money to expand other facilities is not. If we build a new high school, we should have more that enough space in existing facilities to house our expanding enrollment without costly additions to other schools. I would suggest it makes sense to build a new high school for grades 9-12 and multi purpose athletic complex with adequate parking on the Newman Property. Considering 7th and 8th grades are the only others that enjoy school sponsored sports, to get maximum benefit of the new athletic facilities, I would suggest making Kelly the new middle school for grades 7 and 8. We could then use the existing middle school to house grades 5 and 6, the existing intermediate school for grades 3 and 4 and then reuse the existing downtown high school for grades K, 1 and 2. The additional space in the high school could be used for administrative offices. This plan minimizes construction costs by building only one new school and not making any additions to existing facilities. The existing high school renovations that would be required for the elementary students could be done in phases during the summer and school year, with one floor being renovated at a time while the other floor was used by students. Posted by:  03/11/10  While some may be impressed by the point of view expressed by those wishing to keep the high school in it's present location, many are not. Repeatedly, the argument has been made that it should remain downtown so that students can continue to walk to the high school. District wide, 8% of the students walk to school. Three schools contribute to that 8%. There are NOT a large number of students who walk to the high school now. Please keep that in mind when forming your opinions on this matter. The administration has bent over backwards to provide plenty of opportunity for all residents of this community to voice their opinions. To say that this process has been "fore-ordained" or "rushed" is an insult to the administration and the community members who have volunteered hours of their time to this process. It's not too late to register your opinion on the matter. Leave comments here and, if possible, try to attend the Community Forum meeting on Tuesday, March 16th so that the voices of many are heard rather than the opinions of a few. Posted by:  03/09/10  I attended Lewisburg High School in the 70s and at that time there were over 800 students in the high school without the addition and we used the track behind the high school for our actual track meets. As a student athlete I heard no complaints and all the students were happy. In fact in those days we were able to leave the school at lunch and walk down town or go home for lunch. Not an option most of us would like for our children now. However, this being said times have changed and opportunities to grow are necessary. I don't want to see the high school leave town that is part of the charm. Part of the concern is the "entitlement" and concern over athletics. As a parent of two high school athletes yes I would love to see beautiful facilities that the other districts have. But at what cost. I can't afford much more in taxes. We can't not just focus on the athletes we need to think of all students. The renovations and money that was recently put into the auditorium...does that just go to waste? Thanks alumni for the money but we don't want to use the faclity anymore. Not sure of the answer but definitely needs more thought and public opinion. I am sure there is a solution and that our board members will consider listening to all the public and not rush any decisions. Finally, what about the 9 acres for sale next to the middle athletic complex...why not invest in that and put all the athletic fields there? Posted by:  03/09/10  I am a graduate of Lewisburg High and I know that pretty much the whole time I attended there (from 9th - 12th grades) there was always some for renovation going on. There was renovations going on when my son went there, also. So, why all the renovations??? Seems to be all the concern is on our athletes these days and not the actual teachings of our children. What ever happened to the wood and automotive shops? In my opinion, if we are to renovate we bring back the hands on shops. I also think that the school if fine where it stands. I know there are a great deal of financially secure families out there that don't mind paying more taxes for either the renovations or the move...but there are also a great deal of families in Lewisburg that can't afford more taxes in these economically challenging days. Posted by:  03/09/10  On the whole I am impressed by the arguments presented by the groups advocating keeping the schools in Lewisburg borough. Granted, the school system is a consolidated one bussing students from some distances. But if there is a COMMUNITY to which they belong and contribute, it is what one may call Greater Lewisburg, including East Buffalo and Kelly. (It ought also to include that long patch of Buffalo that all but projects into the borough.) Hauling high-school kids out to the Newman property for their education doesn't seem to me to make much sense. Whether that property should be used for new athletic facilities is another question--though I have very little sympathy for the Green Dragon group who seem to think competitive sports is what high school is all about. Maybe there is a case for exiling sports across Buffalo Creek into the boonies and concentrating a fine community-building education in Lewisburg. Posted by:  03/08/10  I am surprised at the most recent comments in the newspaper about "abandonment" of the current high school...as far as I know there is nothing decided and comments like the ones in the newspaper only excite people rather than educate them. If you really want to have input please come to the last open meeting on the 16th of March and let your opinion be known. I truly hope that the community is doing their job in becoming informed and participating in this process. Thank you to the administration for letting this process happen and letting our voices be heard. I think you have went above and beyond. Posted by:  03/07/10  A new high school complex with all of the modern amenities and on site athletic fields is a logical option. However, abandoning the existing high school completely and spending money to expand other facilities is not. If we build a new high school, we should have more that enough space in existing facilities to house our expanding enrollment without costly additions to other schools. I would suggest it makes sense to build a new high school for grades 9-12 and multi purpose athletic complex with adequate parking on the Newman Property. Considering 7th and 8th grades are the only others that enjoy school sponsored sports, to get maximum benefit of the new athletic facilities, I would suggest making Kelly the new middle school for grades 7 and 8. We could then use the existing middle school to house grades 5 and 6, the existing intermediate school for grades 3 and 4 and then reuse the existing downtown high school for grades K, 1 and 2. The additional space in the high school could be used for administrative offices. This plan minimizes construction costs by building only one new school and not making any additions to existing facilities. The existing high school renovations that would be required for the elementary students could be done in phases during the summer and school year, with one floor being renovated at a time while the other floor was used by students. Posted by:  03/04/10  The conditions of the facilities in our school district are an absolute disgrace. This issue was addressed years ago and it was decided not to construct new facilities and look where the school district is now. The majority of the people in the community want new facilities and have expressed the willingness to pay for it. Pay for it now or pay for it later when it will cost triple the amount. Hey, I got a great idea, leave the schools the way they are and lets build some more low income housing for people from Philadelphia, New York and New Jersey to move to our community. Posted by: Dave BURNS 03/04/10   I have two children in the school district and there are certain things that can't be ignored .... 1.the population is growing in this area as seen by the increased enrollment in the elementary classes. 2. The high school is 80 years old with no parking, no sports facilities, or possiblity for expansion. I am not thrilled at the prospect of higher taxes, but the high school should have a new location with a new building. Any of the options are going to cost the tax payers, let's do it right the first time and move forward!! Posted by:  03/04/10  Whether or not "the majority of people in the community want new facilities and have expressed the willingness to pay for it" as the preceding writer asserts--is questionable at best. The school district has a population of roughly 15,000 people. 90 people attended the first public dialogue (1/3 of which were employees of the school district, according to this website) and 135 attended the second session. It is safe to assume that the two groups contained many of the same people. "Willingness to pay for it" is hard to ascertain when there are no hard numbers anywhere. Many members of the community feel this process was fore-ordained and rushed and that the outreach for public input actually did not reach the majority of potentially interested citizens. Nobody thinks that doing nothing is the best idea but many feel there are creative and somewhat more economical options not fully explored. The writer's closing comment is entirely inappropriate. Posted by:  03/02/10  Leave grades 9-12 in the present high school in its present location. Spending millions dollars to construct a high school in a location where no student can walk to is an unreasonable option for Lewisburg. We can't afford this expenditure when so many are unemployed or on fixed incomes. We can't afford to be saddled for years to come with taxes to repay this amount. We need the high school where it is. Now, many kids can walk to the high school in the morning. Many can walk downtown after school to jobs or for supper before their sports or band activities. The high school students can easily interact with downtown businesses as part of classroom activities. Posted by:  02/26/10  I hope consideration will be given to improving the buildings we now have instead of abandoning them as Walmart did. As a resident of the boro, I would love to see energy and finances put into creative and green renovation because I value our community and I'd like to see the community preserved and the downtown thrive. It's great to see our neighbors and friends, and their children, walking downtown. We need to do what is best for our children, of course, because they deserve the best education we can provide for them. If significant improvement in current buildings is feasible, it would be a great investment in our future and in our quality of life here in Lewisburg. Posted by: Deb Slade 02/25/10  Whether or not to move the HS is a complex decision and must consider among other things: 1. the educational needs of students; comfort of staff 2. the impact on community and public infrastructure surrounding school sites 3. the degree to which the community is willing and able to pay for the enhancements Some key research might be: 4. what usually happens to a community when a HS moves out of town to the "suburbs"? 5. how do you bring an old school facility to new world teaching/learning standards? What are the bells and whistles that are really necessary and worth the cost? How can we provide the best High School experience without gross overspending? 5. how do you renovate a school and minimize disruption when students are still attending? 6. how have other communities paid for their big facility projects and do they generally seem to be worth it? I don't think this decision can be rushed. The numbers must be fine tuned and reliable. The soft issues must also be flushed out and their impacts understood. Prior to the final vote, the RATIONALE for the most likely alternatives should be clearly articulated to the residents. Those with the facts must bring others along and help them understand why one alternative is better than the others. Posted by: Scott Stieler 02/23/10  I strongly believe that the high school should remain in town, or at least in a location where people can walk or bike to the school. Building a school out in the country where virtually everyone has to drive there seems foolish to me. Besides the waste of fuel and additional traffic on the roads, you are depriving students, teachers, and others the opportunity to walk and bike, exercise their bodies, be in the outdoors, and "be" in the community on foot. I am dismayed that the school district wants to "suburbanize" the Lewisburg schools and create traffic problems and auto & bus dependency. We should be looking at ways to make the schools MORE accessible to people walking, biking, "human school buses", etc. The other issue that concerns me is the use of open, green space for this -- more concrete, more buildings, parking lots, etc. I would hope, by now, that we would be trying to protect our green space, not use it up for new building complexes. Thanks for the opportunity to share my views. I sincerely believe the LASD is creative and forward-thinking enough to find a healthy solution to this -- a location that does NOT require everyone to depend on cars & buses, that does NOT take away more open space, does NOT create traffic congestion, and that encourages good health and exercise for our students. Sincerely, Ann Longanbach Resident and taxpayer Posted by: Ann Longanbach 02/22/10  I supported two childen through high school: one in a 'town' school, the other in a 'country estate' school. An in town school is preferable for the following reasons: 1/ expanding a town location abides by current land development policies of concentrating population and facilities growth in population centers and not spreading them out over precious agriculture/conservation land, 2/ there is more community investment, especially from people without current students, in a visible in town school than in one isolated out of town, 3/ there is less use of transportation energy, 4/ there is more family support and interaction in the high school, and 5/ an in town school helps bind and create community. I appreciate the spaces issues of expanding Lewisburg HS where it is, but finding a way to do it will pay off in the long term. Posted by: Judith B. Harvey, V.M.D. 02/22/10  Education is an important part of our community and we must strive to provide the best opportunities to our children that we can afford. However our governments and school districts too often spend beyond their means and then it all comes back to the taxpayer. In this economy I find it hard pressed to support a $47 million dollar school expansion and renovation project in this community when we are already faced with future state, county, and school tax increases to just maintain the status quo. I've lived in the Lewisburg District for 7 years now and can't remember the last time there wasn't a tax increase. School boards have little fiscal accountability and continue on the path of tax and spend. So tough choices need to made and I would suggest you forget about the sports facilities as one way to trim down the costs. Sports teach important lessons to children but the main mission of a school is education not football, basketball, field hockey, etc. Also has anyone examined the true costs of the various alternatives under consideration (economic, environmental, social, community, etc.)? Posted by:  02/22/10  It seems that a lot of the opposition to building a new high school stems from apprehension at the price tag, which, as I conceded in my last post, is daunting. The reality is, however, that we have outgrown our current eighty two year old facility, a fact that is clear to many who learn and work in it nine months a year. Simply sticking a band aid on the problem by spending millions of dollars expanding and renovating the current high school seems futile and wasteful when one examines the rising enrollment trends and the demands our evolving curriculum places on school facilities. In 2000, the school district opted not to build a new facility and instead went through with a costly renovation. Look where we are now, again debating how to fix the problem over overcrowding in the high school. Renovating the current high school is a temporary fix that will come back to bite the community a few years down the road, when the next set of community stakeholders is faced with the very same problems we are experiencing today, and only serves to give a certain segment of the community a false sense of fiscal responsibility. Passing the community's current problems onto future generations is not a viable option in my view, nor is it ethical or fiscally responsible. In addition, I'd just like to point out that, from my understanding, any plans to renovate existing facilities or build a new facility will have to be approved by the voters in a bond election, so there will be ample time to discuss the specifics of the costs and structure of whatever course of action the school board decides to recommend and I can say that, as someone who generally finds himself on the conservative side of these debates, I will oppose any attempt to raise property taxes or otherwise raise revenue from the taxpayer if the school board is not completely transparent and accessible throughout the entire process or isn't spending our money efficiently with the same amount of vigor I am putting into my support for what is currently on the table. However, at this point in the process, I can't in all good conscience oppose any effort to move forward plans to build a desperately needed new high school. Posted by: Michael Alan, LAHS '10 02/19/10  Why does the 2-17-2010 comment from "anonymous" keep appearing (defaulting) AFTER comments posted on later dates. I don't see any anti-new high school comments exhbiting the same cyber-behavior. Just an observation. Posted by: Leo Armbruster 02/18/10  First, the library moved to a location between a housing development and an office park. It is accessible to most mainly by car and is no longer part of the town's daily life. The only real food market disappeared in the last year and if the high school follows suit, the town will take one more step towards being a shopping mall with trees-- a pretty, but fake, town populated with gift shops and restaurants. If we want Lewisburg to remain a real place-- and for students to learn in a real environment-- perhaps we can find a way to improve and update the existing building. As a resident I enjoy hearing the marching band practice and seeing the students decorate the shop windows for the holidays. Currently, a certain number of students are able to walk to school and some to after school jobs. They can walk to a park or pizza shop and the facilities of Bucknell are a few blocks away. Putting the school in a remote location will sever its connection with the community. In the current economic climate, renovating the current school or switching the middle and high schools seems like a better solution for reasons financial, social, educational and environmental. Posted by: Marjorie Priceman 02/18/10  The students are correct: switch the Middle and High Schools. The LASD could target money at upgrading the heating and cooling systems at the Market Street site, so that teachers and students are comfortable. Unless the school remains a school (there are folks in the valley who want to develop a well-needed community college- with a certain college in the area is loath to offer evening or continuing education classes to residents - but I digress) where students can spill into the town after school hours as well as walk home, the town will lose much of it's quaintness and sense of community. Where is there community in a giant McSchool where most students are bused? If a new high school is built, should it be once again be called "Lewisburg" Area High School? In truth, since East Buffalo has the population base, we could call it the East Bufflao Area High School or because it would be in Kelly Township....well you get the idea. Lewisburg High School without Lewisburg, is well, destined to be a wasteful pile of bricks in a bucolic setting with shepherds and nymphs playing pan flutes;and Lewisburg will be consigned to the mystic chords of memory. Interest in a new athletic field is warranted and can be served by building a multi-purpose stadium on the Newman Property. We would have an adequate site for our young athletes and we would not have to dicker with Bucknell each year. Pouring money into a new school is simply too expensive for a small school district. People are going to realize quickly that the tax burden will be heavy. For the tax increase alone, we can anticipate a revolt. How could upgrading present facilities be more costly than building a new high school? It simply doesn't make common sense, particularly since our "crumbling" facilities with fine teachers continue to graduate fine scholars. Posted by: Ben Jonson 02/17/10  Upon reviewing all the pdf documents provided on the website I must say I was impressed by the job Dejong Consulting did for the district. I am not an expect in car repair so I take my car to a mechanic, I am not an expert in health/illness so I go to a doctor, I feel strongly that Dejong are experts in school district facilities planning and would use there recommendations! I understand people wanting to keep the high school for historical, location, and property value reasons but if the goal is to provide the best education settings for our students then a new high school must be built per Dejong's recommendation. Posted by:  02/16/10  At a neighborhood meeting last night, Borough residents in attendance were unanimously opposed to any plans for abandoning the downtown school building. Closing that site will lower property values, increase taxes, and remove a valuable asset from the community. There is no viable reuse plan for such a unique building, and considering the economy and the money needed for renovation, there is no combination of agencies with anything like the money that will be required to retrofit that space. Alternate Option 3 (Middle School becomes the High School and High School becomes the Middle School) seems to be the only option that will not abandon the old high school building, and leave a critical gateway to the Borough to a degrading fate. We want our children to have up-to-date facilities, but not at the price suggested by this report. We expect to hold additional town meetings to advocate for this position, and look forward to talking about it further. Posted by: Brian Gockley 02/12/10  I was hoping the people of Lewisburg were capable of coming up with a solution that keeps kids downtown and encourages them to walk but it seems like we've already given up. Many, many other school districts in the area and across the country have taken the easy option of clearing farmland, building a mega parking lot with a school in the middle and claiming victory. This country has been following this model for the past 60 years and we’re just late-comers to the party. We claim to be planning for the future when we’re actually planning for the past. I (optimistically) believe the tide is starting to turn away from this type of sprawl mentality that’s left us with dead downtowns, abandoned mega-stores, obese kids and an ever increasing dependence on oil. History will see what we do here now as either the last gasp of short sighted public policy fueled by laziness and apathy or as visionaries that were determined to give their descendants a healthy future. It’s time to let the school board know that they made a mistake by choosing a consultant that didn’t have the future of our whole community as their primary objective. Posted by: Dan Defebbo 02/03/10   In response to Miss Hiller: First, I'd like to say that I'm glad to see other students getting involved in local issues in this way. Open discussion by all parties involved is essential to a functioning community in a democratic country such as ours. However, I must politely disagree with Miss Hiller on many points. Foremost, while “literally every” student that she has spoken with has been “overwhelmingly in favor of keeping the high school downtown,” I have heard the exact opposite. Yes, there are students who feel that way, but from my experience they are by far the minority. Most students I have spoken with feel that moving the high school is the right decision. This discrepancy likely springs from a difference of peer groups between Miss Hiller and I; certainly our different friends and classmates will have different opinions. Nevertheless, it is important to note that not all students feel, as Miss Hiller says they do, that the high school should remain where it is. In regards to Miss Hiller's claim that she has never found the facilities to impair her learning during her four years here, I'd like to compliment her on her ability to focus on her education and not be distracted by environmental conditions. Last year I had the pleasure of taking AP United States History, taught by Mr. Mark Temple. Miss Hiller was also in this class, along with 13 other students (a total of 15 students in the class). The room we were taught in was about 8 feet by 12 feet. Fifteen students, their desks, a teacher, and a teacher's desk, all in a room 96 feet square? In my experience, this certainly did not offer myself or my classmates the opportunity to interact with the teacher and each other in the best way possible. In fact, the students in the class jokingly referred to the room as “The Closet” or “The AP Closet.” Miss Hiller also says that attending high school downtown greatly enhanced her learning experience, and that the high school's location did the same for other students as well. While I do not doubt this claim, my personal learning experience has not benefited from the fact that the high school is located in downtown Lewisburg. The only positive side-effect of the high school's current location that I can identify is that students who drive themselves to school get more exercise than they would if the high school were located elsewhere because the lack of parking spaces forces them to park sometimes several blocks away. Miss Hiller makes many valid points, and I am certain that there are many others who share her view, but I would like it to be clear that not all of my 620 fellow students are of the same mind as her, and, in fact, many feel that a newer, more spacious facility for education would greatly improve the Lewisburg High School learning experience. Posted by: Lincoln Edward Davidson 02/03/10  As a high school senior, I'm thrilled that the district is soliciting ideas and opinions from all members of the LASD community--taxpayers, faculty, staff, parents, and students. As someone who is attending the high school, I can attest to the fact that the status quo is NOT acceptable. I don't think that this has really become a point of contention for any party that has participated in the community dialogue as this is a fact that anyone who looks at the enrollment projections, which seem fairly conservative, or who watches teachers float from classroom to classroom because there isn't enough space in the school can understand. I also understand the concerns of the already overtaxed property owners in the district when they see the daunting $47 million price tag that comes with addressing these concerns, but we must make the best of the circumstances our district suffers due to the system the state uses to appropriate funding for education, the current economic climate that is driving down property values, and the increase in the district's obligation to PSERS. None of the cheaper alternatives seem to be feasible or good for students. I am against any plan that splits up grades 9 through 12. I think moving 9th grade to the middle school or "junior high" damages the traditional high school experience that allows for maturing and preparation for higher education. While building a new high school at the Newman property does require a sizable commitment from the community in the present, it will pay off incalculable returns in the future by providing a modern facility to accommodate a growing student body and allowing our amazingly qualified and dedicated faculty to get down to the business of shaping our community's future without the obstacle of overcrowded and outdated facilities. It will also serve to attract new families from around the area, state, and country to Lewisburg and help to bring young people like myself back to the community after they pursue higher education, fostering economic growth and prosperity. I do not feel, as has been mentioned on this comment board and in community dialogues, that having the high school downtown adds anything to the “educational experience.” If anything, it hinders it due to the inability to create new classrooms, build a more modern media center, or even meet the parking needs of the faculty, staff, and students. I think the “educational experience” is best enhanced by executing the recommendations in the DeJong plan, in addition to utilizing the largely untapped academic resource that is our relationship with Bucknell University and investing in the hiring of capable, qualified technology professionals to meet the evolving needs of the increasingly computer based curriculum in our schools. As far as the purported student consensus against the plan to build a new high school, this is most definitely not the feeling I have observed amongst my peers. With all that said, I wholeheartedly endorse the DeJong recommendations and urge members of the community to consider the limitless potential for returns an investment in our children’s future will pay out when forming their own opinion on the matter. Posted by: Michael Alan 01/27/10  As a high school senior, I feel that it is extremely important that the student voice is heard, for we are truly the experts in this matter. In the high school, the facilities plans have been discussed a great deal, and literally ever single student that I have talked to directly or overheard has been overwhelmingly in favor of keeping the high school downtown or switching the high school and the middle school, but I have not heard a single student who was in favor of the construction of a new high school on the Newman property. Attending school in the heart of the community has been an incredible experience, and as a student body we feel that moving the high school to the Newman property would be detrimental to the well being of both the school and downtown communities. Additionally I have attended the high school for four years, and have never found the facilities to impair my learning as I heard many community members (who have never been a student of the school) claim in the January meeting. At my table during the meeting, there were two Lewisburg alums who also wholeheartedly agreed that attending high school downtown greatly enhanced their learning experience. There was only one person who strongly supported the Dejong plan, and her facts about the condition of the current high school were entirely false. The claims that there are classes with 30-40 people, students take classes in closets, the building is crumbling and unsafe, and that only 50 students walk to school are all definitely false, and it is important that the public is made aware of this. So, speaking on behalf of my 620 fellow students, just know that being a part of the community enriches our educational experience in a way that a larger, fancier school would not be able to. It is for this reason that we support additions to the middle school and the continuation of a downtown Lewisburg school. Posted by: Sara Grace Hiller 01/26/10  Video of the Jan 19 meeting will not download. I have a fast DSL connection that has no issues with other sites. I recognize the comment that it will take a while, but this is yet another drawback to working parents who can't attend meetings. I've been waiting 15 minutes and no sign of loading. Posted by:  12/04/09  The Lewisburg Area School District received recommendations from DeJong Consulting regarding the development of a District Facilities Plan on December 3. The recommendations are based on a review of district data and responses from the public and staff members that attended two community sessions in the fall of 2009. Videos and documents from all the meetings including DeJong's recommendations are available on this page for the public to review and comment. The District Facilities Committee will be meeting in the future to consider these recommendations and other ideas about our facilities needs. Your opinions and comments will be appreciated. We ask that you please keep your comments focused on the facilities discussion, not personnel or other school district matters. We look forward to your thoughts. Posted by: Mark DiRocco, Superintendent 11/10/09  Welcome to the Master Facilities Planning Comments Posted by: WebMaster