BUILDING RENOVATIONS PROJECT COMMITTEE NOTES

Jr/Sr High School Library

February 9, 2006 (6:30 p.m.)

Board Members Present:   Rodney Figard, Pete Ritchey, Aaron Martin, Leroy Walls, Bernie & Ingrid Hoffnar, Ken Burkett.   Administration Present: Dr. Ronald McCahan, Rick Heath, Lisa Rankin, and Jim Mitchell.   Committee Members Present: Robin Smith, Gary Morrow, Kevin Steele, Larry Williams, Bob Thomas, Ben Rogers, Kenneth Elder, Jim Eichelberger, Karen and Anna Haney, Amy Snyder, Cathy Harshbarger, Carol Black, Diane Kline, Jerry Shoemake, Corina Hoover, Deb Stepisianos, Mike Angelo, Dave Thomas, Philip Dolte.   Press Present:   Josh Kowalkowski – Bedford Gazette, Jon Baughman – Broad Top Bulletin, and Ron Morgan – Daily News.

Rodney Figard introduced Scott Vencil from Crabtree Rohrbaugh & Associates Architects, and Les Bair from Arthurs, Lestrange & Company, Inc. and turned the meeting over to Scott Vencil.   Scott provided a handout providing several options to consider for a building project.   He explained the feasibility study and how the process proceeds and the intent of the study.   He said that, regardless of what work is done, the buildings must be brought up to current building code.   He informed the group that the minimum renovation option has a cost that qualifies the district for the maximum reimbursement level.   He reviewed the options from the handout, explaining in detail what each option entailed.   Bernie Hoffnar asked if the minimum renovations can be added to the addition option.   Scott said the district can do whatever they want to.   Skip Elder asked what cost factor is being used in the calculations provided.   Scott informed the group that the cost factor used is 25% (in addition to costs provided).   He also stated that rise of inflation is calculated to be 1% per month due to high fuel costs, Hurricane Katrina, etc. Mr. Elder also asked if each building would have its own plan.   Scott said that they would.     He also stated that the recommendations in the feasibility study are based on PDE guidelines.   One issue he address are modular classrooms; PDE wants portable classrooms removed from the site during any renovation project.   Scott recommended additional space to eliminate using the gymnasium as a cafeteria dining hall at Saxton Liberty to correct the schedule problem that currently exists.   He also mentioned additional inadequate space at all buildings that currently exists (library, kitchen/cafeteria areas, technology education, and general classroom space. There was a discussion about land availability for additions to buildings.   There was also a discussion concerning decreasing enrollment, which affects the reimbursement from the state for building projects, since this calculation is based on student capacity by building.   Cathy Harshbarger asked if it would be possible to building up a level to the building instead of out due to restriction of land available.   Scott responded that he would research, but feels confident that the original design of the building does not accommodate a second floor.   He said the structural engineers would check into this possibility.   There was a discussion concerning closing all three elementary buildings and building one central elementary building as well as a discussion about building a middle school from grades 6-8.   Scott said that the disadvantage of building a middle school is that the requirement would still exist to accommodate the core space (library, kitchen, phys ed, etc.).   Therefore, he doesn’t feel this is the most cost effective option.   There was further discussion pertaining to building a middle school.   Scott reminded the group that renovations alone would not improve the educational program.   The main intent of the option to add space is to bring the educational program up to educational standards.   There was further discussion concerning the “20 year rule” whereby a district can only be reimbursed for a building project every 20 years.   Therefore, consideration must be given to deficiencies that will need to be addressed over the next 20 years to be sure the district won’t be faced with a major project that it can’t afford to pay for before the 20 year period has expired.   Skip Elder asked if the specifications in the feasibility study allow for the 20 year service life.   Scott said that the service life is longer than 20 years.  

The meeting was then turned over to Les Bair, who provided information about funding options.   He said there are several ways to finance the project.   He informed the group that Tussey Mountain School District is in a unique situation in the state since they are one of only four or five districts in the state who are debt free.   He also informed the group that the district has been putting money aside each year for a construction project in the amount of their former debt payment.   He reported that school district borrowing is tax exempt and the average interest rate for 20 year financing at this time is approximately 4 ˝%, and for 30 year financing is approximately 4.7%.   Districts cannot borrow for longer than the project will last.   Repayment terms are two interest payments per year and one principal payment per year.   He reviewed interest rates over the past year, showing no significant change.   He explained the state’s formula for calculating a district’s borrowing capacity, showing our district’s level at $27,640,295.   Exceptions are available, but it must be taken to voters for approval.   He said the project specifications need to be prioritized by building.   He explained that the district would need to borrow the entire amount of the project without consideration of reimbursement.   The budget should show the annual expense as the net amount (after reimbursement).   Mr. Bair then reviewed the estimated millage increase required to cover the debt service payment.   There was further discussion on cost savings between 20 year and 30 year financing and funding options.   There was further discussion concerning budget issues, such as the project resulting in additional costs (computers for computer lab, books/equipment, etc. for library, etc.).  

The next meeting date scheduled is February 23, 2006 at 6:30 p.m. in the Jr/Sr High School Library.   Rodney Figard asked that the group bring with them a list of their desires for the project.   He said that the Board will provide a list of their priorities and they will compare the two lists.   It was suggested to meet with both groups to exchange priority lists and then the Board Advisory Committee will meet by itself to discuss the two lists.   Bernie Hoffnar questioned whether this was enough time for the Board to prepare a priority list.   Dr. McCahan said that the Administration would provide their “wish list” for educational priorities.

The group was also told that they will be given information on millage at the February 23 meeting.

 print 

MISSION STATEMENT

“The continuing mission of the Tussey Mountain School District

 is to provide a safe, stimulating, and challenging environment where every person has an

equal opportunity to attain the knowledge and skills necessary to become

lifelong learners who contribute positively to society."