ROCSD plan: 2 campuses, $34 million
The Red Oak School Board is moving forward with plans for funding a $34 million project that will result in a two-campus school district.
The board discussed the renovation options during its meeting Dec. 12. Superintendent Tom Messinger advised the board of his stance on the project, stating that a two-campus district was the best way of accomplishing a number of goals.
“Two campuses will give us the best chance of putting forward a very responsible and efficient budget. We will also be able to operate and meet the needs of our students, and it’s a plan that is consistent with what other districts of our size in the area have in place.” Messinger said.
Board President Paul Griffen said the board’s decision would launch the formation of a steering committee, which would put forward a detailed plan for what the district would get for the money it would spend.
Board member Bret Blackman said based on board feedback and the feedback of the community, he favored a two-campus scenario.
“When you think about the importance of protecting academic enterprise, doing so from a budgetary standpoint is essential. It’s essential from an efficiency standpoint. The projected $750,000 annual savings to the general budget is important. And it’s been clear from our community sessions that the two-campus scenario is the preferred choice.
Board member Mark Johnson also favored moving to a two-campus system. While saying he was hesitant to eliminate Washington Intermediate immediately, he felt based on the timeline, it wasn’t feasible to keep it open.
“My only alternative I consider is to keep Washington School. It looks to me like it would save around $3 million. But if we look at the future of our district, it’s not that far into the future that we’ll have to deal with that building. For the savings offered, and that amount of time, I think we need to look further down the road, and in doing so, two campuses is the answer, whether we like it or not,” said Mark Johnson.
Board member Bryce Johnson said he felt the two-campus system was the best way to prevent reducing academic options. Board member Kathy Walker also favored the two-campus scenario, but was concerned the bond issue would lack the public support.
“Right now the proposed bond is two times more than the last general obligation bond that passed. I think we have to think about what is feasible from a community standpoint and what the community is willing to pass,” Walker said.
She added she felt the public may hesitate to close multiple buildings, especially with Washington Intermediate being in such good condition. She proposed keeping Washington Intermediate for the time being, and examining ways for Washington Intermediate to be repurposed in the future, while decreasing the size of the proposed bond.
Mark Johnson agreed that Walker’s plan made sense, but added that the public input they had received was in favor of reducing the district to the two-campus system and eliminating Washington Intermediate.
Boyd Jones representative George Schuler said his firm would provide a detailed cost estimate with the least amount of scope necessary to reduce the district to two campuses, with ala carte options of what could be added and what was considered unnecessary. That would be vetted by the steering committee, and its proposal would then be shared with a larger audience.
Griffen said he felt the board should propose the full two-campus bond issue to the vote. If the district were to receive heavy push back from the public, they could then alter the plan in the future.
“If we don’t look at the whole scope of this project moving forward, I believe we’re doing ourselves an injustice,” stated Griffen.
The board unanimously approved having Boyd Jones proceed with plans for the $34 million plan reducing the district to two campuses. The plan from Boyd Jones would be presented to the board in January.
The board also discussed options for the hiring of an architect for the school project. Rules set by the state indicate an architect can be hired without going through a bidding process. However, board policy dictates any project over $25,000 requires a bidding process.
The board was considering suspending board policy or amending board policy to modify to the state’s standard of hiring architects.
Messinger said the board approved an original agreement with Alley Poyner Maccietto Architecture for a scope of work without a charge or fee. The last condition of the agreement were that if the board were to put out prepared documents for bond, that would engage the services of Alley Poyner.
According to Messinger, the fees presented by Alley Poyner for the work were in line with what the board would expect to be charged for the services. Messinger was against modifying board policy for a single purpose, which was hiring an architectural firm.
Messinger said the earlier agreement with Alley Poyner was board approved, but he could not find a signed document to accompany the action.
The board elected to take further action on the hiring of an architect at their next regular meeting Jan. 9.