The Greene County Schools facilities committee met last week for an update and to discuss options before moving forward with a bond referendum for new construction and renovations leading to a two building district (grades pre-K – 3 and grades 5-12). The voters turned down a $20 million proposal last September by a 2:1 margin.
According to school superintendent Tim Christensen, the committee is looking at two options in response to surveys completed by voters after last fall’s election. “We had a lot of great feedback, and we appreciate the people who took the time to complete the survey,” Christensen said. “We’re working to address the concerns people expressed on the survey.”
Many voters questioned the need to build new space rather than renovate or repair the district’s two vintage buildings – the intermediate school in Grand Junction and the middle school in Jefferson. The board last November approved a $15,000 contract with Shive-Hattery Inc to do a review of both those buildings, as well as the administrative building (formerly south grade), to provide cost estimates for needed work including tuckpointing, updates of the electrical and heating/cooling systems, installing elevators, replacing windows and doors, and creating secure entrances.
The architects have done their inspections and Christensen expects to have preliminary estimates this month and a report for the board in April. He said total cost may be more than the cost of new construction, but if repair is the ultimate decision of the voters and the board, the work could be done over a period of a few years. That would change how the project is funded.
“It’s not comparing apples to apples when we look at renovating vs building new. We could renovate those buildings and still, they’d be 100 years old. There are a lot of considerations,” Christensen said.
The committee is also paying attention to comments on the survey about how and what information was provided before a referendum is put on a ballot again next September. The cost to renovate is one part of that. According to Christensen, voters asked to see more information about the total scope and educational benefits of the proposed project. “People said all we talked about was a new gym. We need to do a better job of explaining what we’re doing,” he said.
Survey respondents also asked to see more detailed drawings of the proposed construction and more detailed budget information. The contract with Shive-Hattery includes assistance with that, as well as providing experts to help explain the project at town hall meetings.
Christensen said the project proposed next September will not be identical to the first, but that it may not be much different in cost. The first proposal looked at by the facilities committee was $28 million. That was pared down to a $22.5 million project requiring a $20 million bond issue.
He expects the committee will have a clearer sense of direction in another month or so. Calling for another bond referendum would require signatures of 604 registered voters. “By law, I or the school board can’t call for an election. That’s something the voters would need to do,” he said.
The facilities committee includes school board members, administrators, teachers, and members of the community.
Meanwhile, Christensen and the board are wrestling with the budget for 2016-17. As he explained the need to cut $500,000 from expenses at the February work session, Christensen talked of heating, transportation, and administrative costs that would be significantly less if the district had only two school buildings.
