The volunteer Pay It Forward committee fielded many questions during a recent series of informational meetings about the Greene County Schools’ proposed $19.4 million bond issue.
Committee spokespersons answered most questions and said they would forward questions to school superintendent Tim Christensen. Following are the questions and Christensen’s responses:
Q. Does the bond cost include razing buildings? (Will the cost of demolition of the vintage buildings be included in the bond?
A. The bond does not include the cost of razing the buildings. The cost to complete this work if necessary would come out of PPEL (physical plant or equipment levy) or SAVE (secure advanced vison education, formerly known as school infrastructure sales and service tax)) funds. The intent at this point in time is to sell and/or gift these facilities to other entities so that they may be repurposed.
Q. The Perry superintendent plans to address state legislature estimate and see if things can be changed to direct PPEL funds to where they should go towards projects like this rather than their current designations. Are we doing the same? Why aren’t we waiting to see if we can do that?
A. PPEL funds can be used for this type of project. However, we do not have enough PPEL and SAVE funds to complete the project.
Q. If the bond issue is approved, what is the time frame for completion/construction?
A. It is a challenge to finalize a construction timeline, but ideally if the bond was passed in September construction on the elementary addition and the new portion of the building at the high school could begin in spring/summer of 2017. That construction would take one year (2017/18 school year). The current high school would be moved into the new high school area for the 2018-19 school year and construction/remodeling would take place on the existing high school area. This remodeling would take one year and the 5-8 students would move into that area for the 2019-20 school year. (Goal for completion would be August of 2019).
Q. An architect identified $26 million in renovations needed to continue to use the current buildings. Could that cost be spread out over time or do we need to do them all now?
A. It would need to be spread out over time. Items would be prioritized, but with having to put some things off, some costs will increase due to inflation.
Q. Why wasn’t some of this maintenance been taken care of before now? Why the sudden need?
A. There is always a fine line between what repairs to make and what to hold off on. The Intermediate building is a prime example. Some people wonder why any money was put into the building.
Q. Is there any money set aside for maintenance of current structures that could be spent?
A. We have some PPEL and SAVE funds, but not enough to complete the work necessary.
Q. The vintage buildings are not handicap accessible. Why weren’t Americans with Disabilities Act concerns addressed when the act went into effect in 1989?
A. The district has always been in a position of having limited resources. Many ADA items are grandfathered in to a point and if a school can get by, there is always another area to spend the money.
Q. If ADA accessibility is a concern, why is the proposal for a two-story addition, not a one-level structure?
A. An elevator incorporated in initial construction is cheaper than the roof costs associated with a one-story building encompassing the necessary square footage. A two-story structure also has some heating and cooling advantages. When a single story option was explored it was determined to create excessive egress travel distanced between classes for the students so this option was abandoned.
Q. Does it cost more to make a two-story building handicap accessible than just building a one-story building?
A. No.
Q. Does the proposed square footage per child per classroom cost more than if it were one floor?
A. The costs of elevating a second floor are typically more expensive than building it on the ground. However, the higher costs associated with constructing an elevated floor structure when combined with reduced costs of a smaller area of exterior envelope, more efficient HVAC, plumbing and electrical systems as well as reduced egress travel distances for the students provides a more balanced solution.
Q. Can the things that have been purchased in Grand Junction through their updates and changes be reused and repurposed as a way to save money in the new?
A. The number of things that can be reused is limited. Every effort would be made to reuse things including the kitchen equipment.
Q. Is there a 5-year projection on enrollment to see what our numbers would be like?
A. A five year projection on enrollment is going to be steady at best, but likely to continuing to decline. In general, all rural Iowa is declining in population.
Q. If Paton-Churdan reorganizes into the Greene County district, could the new school accommodate that?
A. We have the space necessary to accommodate P-C if voters make that decision in the future.
Q. If it’s good to use geothermal heating/cooling at the proposed 5-12 campus, why not just install geothermal at existing facilities?
A. More updates are necessary besides just the heating/cooling.
Q. Why was the choice made to use a flat membrane roof on the proposed new high school?
A. Every attempt is being made to keep the project at the lowest cost possible. A roof of this nature is the most economical. It is not truly a flat roof; there is slope in the roof. A majority of schools are built with this type of roof. Nearly flat or low-sloped roofs will also facilitate economical use of roof space for new HVAC systems and equipment.
Q. What is the cost per square foot now of our buildings, and what is it on new construction?
A. There is no valid comparison of the cost per square foot to operate an existing building with the cost per square foot to build a new building. It would be an “apples and oranges” comparison. Current per square-foot building estimates for the project are $180.
Q. How will voters know if the bond money is spent in the wisest way?
A. Typically a committee composed of a board member, superintendent, building principal, building and grounds director oversees such a project. The building is built to specs from the architect and within the financial constraints of the project. The school board needs to approve any changes from the original specs.
Q. What is the plan for students who ride the bus to Grand Junction at the end of the day? Where would they be dropped, off since no one will be at the school and the community center closes at 1 pm?
A. A location would be determined to pick up and drop off students in Grand Junction as is currently done in Scranton and Rippey. These locations are supervised (by the city) in the morning, but not in the afternoon as students are expected to go home after being dropped off.
Q. What are the plans for changes in staffing should the district have only two buildings?
A. There would be a reduction of a building administrator, a guidance counselor, some custodial staff and some food service staff, and a reduction in busing.
Q. If farmers will pick up approximately 75 percent of the tab, shouldn’t they get 75 percent of the votes?
A. That is a question for the state legislature, not the school board.
Q. Why doesn’t the Wild Rose Casino pay for this?
A. There are not enough casino funds that will come to the school to pay for the project. The school only has access to the casino funds provided by Grow Greene County and is not in a position to ask Grow Greene County to pay for the project.
Information about the bond issue proposal can be found at http://www.gccdsbondissue.info
