What would the various school alternatives actually cost the public? I decided to use School District Administration’s cost figures, distributed Feb. 15, to calculate the incremental operating costs of two alternative facilities plans the school board has discussed extensively. 

Both alternatives provide capacity for 15 units which gives the school district the flexibility to serve current students and to be able to reinstate open enrollments. The administration said the incremental operating cost of a two-unit school is $411,992; a three-unit school costs $573,801; and a four-unit school costs $669,830. These figures assume current service levels of administrative staffing and building maintenance.

The first alternative provides 15 units configured as one, four-unit school; three, three-unit schools; and one, two-unit school, at a cost of $2,803,225. The second alternative is for six schools and 15 units. This plan replaces a single four-unit school with two, two-unit schools and costs $2,957,379.

The cost difference between five buildings and six buildings is only $154,154. This amount is negligible, especially when considering the total school district budget of $40,000,000. The lack of any real difference in costs between five and six buildings allows us to consider the facilities choice in terms of educational and social impact rather than feeling constrained by fiscal considerations.

Given the lasting educational benefits to children of smaller, neighborhood schools and the benefit to the Ames community of having an additional neighborhood with the cohesion and sense of identity that a school provides, the small additional cost of $154,000 is a real bargain and an excellent use of public funds.

I applaud the school board for taking the time to dig deeply into a complex issue, and the administration for providing figures the public can use to come to educated and informed conclusions.