In last week’s article “Stakes High in School Vote,” Albert DiMillo Jr. describes his proposal for renovating the South Portland High School by borrowing only $22 million. It is important that voters of South Portland know that Mr. DiMillo’s “plan” consists entirely of numbers. There are no floor plans, no design drawings, no site layouts and no architect or construction firm has reviewed Mr. DiMillo’s proposal. It does not address the many code violations, accreditation issues, programming needs, and site design requirements necessary for the school to be functional. I have 33 years experience in the construction industry and would like to address some of the key problems in Mr. DiMillio’s proposal.

The square foot comparison used is flawed. In arguing against the size of the proposal, Mr. DiMillo includes the auditorium in his calculations and arrives at around 300 square feet per student. Most other schools do not have auditorium facilities. The total square feet of the project without the auditorium is 285,862 or 259.9 per student. This is more in line with recent high school building projects throughout the state.

Mr. DiMillo calls for the elimination of the new library to save $2.5 million. The current library is housed on the second floor of the Annex. All experts have agreed this area cannot be salvaged and must be completely demolished. Under Mr. DiMillo’s proposal, SPHS would have no library. A high school needs a library to maintain its accreditation.

Mr. DiMillo’s proposal will not address the significant security issues of the existing building. There are currently more than 20 unsecured entrances and exits to the building. The proposed renovation will funnel people through two secure entrances which requires a significant transformation to the layout of the existing building. Mr. DiMillo’s proposal does not address the security issues because it cannot physically connect the three anchors of the building (Beal Gym, the auditorium, and the original structure).

Mr. DiMillo’s proposal also calls for eliminating the addition behind Beal Gym. Removing this area would eliminate necessary handicap access to the locker rooms, the robotics department, Tech Ed. programs, and new bathroom spaces that are required to address existing code issues in Beal Gym. It is not possible to obtain building permits without addressing these concerns.

Mr. DiMillo’s proposal ignores site constraints. His spreadsheets show a pro rata reduction in site work in connection with his proposed elimination of square footage in the building. All of the site work must be completed regardless of the size of the project. The necessary site work includes DEP requirements for storm water treatment and drainage, upgrades and changes to the electrical grid, and installation of a gas line to save on heating costs.

The proposal also does not take into account savings of scale for much of the work. It is not possible to reduce construction costs on a per-square-foot basis as Mr. DiMillo has outlined. The square foot renovation/addition cost includes replacing and updating mechanical systems (such as plumbing, heating, and electrical), new windows, and roof replacement in the buildings that are being preserved. All of these costs must be incurred regardless of the scope of the project.

Mr. DiMillo also proposes to eliminate the relocated cafeteria and continue to use the existing facilities. The existing cafeteria serving area is too small and does not accommodate the 300-400 students during the largest lunch period. It is also in the middle of the circular redesign of the building. If the cafeteria remains in its current location, the circular design is not possible and security concerns related to the numerous unmonitored entrances cannot be corrected. The cafeteria must be located on the exterior of the building to be accessible for deliveries.

My biggest concern with Mr. DiMillo’s proposal is that it is based on an assumption that the cost for renovation or construction of one area of the building can easily be pulled out of the whole project. Construction does not work that way because of constraints such as the site work, permitting, code violations, economies of scale, and design requirements. All these factors have been integrated into the current proposal. Mr. DiMillo’s plan merely reduces the cost by eliminating portions of the building with no regard to how this will affect the overall plan.

For example, the reduced square footage proposed by Mr. DiMillo would eliminate the circular design of the building. This will make it impossible to complete the renovation with the students still in the school. As a result, the school would either need to be shut down during construction or upwards of 38 portable classrooms would be needed during the construction process. Mr. DiMillo’s plan does not include the cost of the portables (which is significant) or address where they would be located.

I have many other concerns with Mr. DiMillo’s proposal, but space in this paper does not allow me to list them all. The current renovation plan was developed by school administrators, city officials, community leaders, contractors and architects. It has been carefully examined for six years, recommended by the Secondary Schools Facilities Committee, approved by the School Board and City Council, and reviewed by two independent architectural and construction firms. Mr. DiMillo’s proposal consists of numbers on paper, and has not undergone professional, regulatory, or governmental review. It is not a viable plan or legitimate alternative to the current proposal. I hope that everyone will consider my views on Nov. 2 and vote “yes” for the South Portland High School renovation bond.

Bill Barthleman, a South Portland resident, has 33 years of experience in the construction industry. He is the former owner of Ledgewood Construction.