CLEARFIELD – After rescinding a motion from a prior meeting, the Clearfield Area School District Board of Directors approved by a 7-1 vote for HHSDR Architects and Engineers to perform a district-wide feasibility/facility use study at Monday night’s combined committee and board meeting.
Board President R. Denning Gearhart, Vice President Dave Glass and board members Tim Morgan, Larry Putt, Mary Anne Jackson, Susan Mikesell and Dr. Michael Spencer voted in favor of doing so. Board member Phil Carr was the only nay vote. Board member Rick Schickling was absent from the meeting.
At a Nov. 3 special meeting, the board approved for HHSDR Architects and Engineers to update the existing district-wide feasibility study at a cost not to exceed $7,000. The amount includes reimbursable expenses related to the feasibility study scope of work in the agreement with the exception of printing at a cost not to exceed $1,000, according to board documents.
The board then approved to do so by an 8-1 vote. Gearhart, Glass, Jackson, Mikesell, Morgan, Putt, Schickling and Spencer voted in favor of the update. Carr was the lone opposing vote at the previously mentioned meeting.
On Monday, Superintendent Richard C. Makin approached the board about rescinding the motion made in the Nov. 3 meeting. He then sought approval for HHSDR Architects and Engineers to perform a district-wide feasibility/facility use study as per the AIA document. He said it would not result in additional costs but remain at an expense not to exceed $7,000.
Makin said the cost included the reimbursable expenses related to the feasibility/facility use study scope of work in the AIA document. He said the AIA document limits the scope of work to include the feasibility/facility use study.
Makin said any expansion of the scope of services would be subject to a separate contract that would be mutually agreed upon by the parties. He said the AIA document is subject to review by Solicitor Aimee Willett before final agreement between parties.
“Why would we pay for another, when (J. Greer) Hayden agreed with the result (of the previous feasibility study),” Carr asked.
Makin said that he was approaching the board about reopening the feasibility/facility use study for a second look. He said he had contacted HHSDR Architects and Engineers because of his previous working relationship with them.
Both Makin and Rick Bunning, director of buildings and grounds, said they have been very satisfied with the work of HHSDR on past renovation projects.
Morgan then asked if the same board members who made the motion in the prior meeting had to move to rescind the same.
Willett explained that if it had occurred in the same meeting, they would need the same board members who made the motion to rescind the same. She said if it is being done in a subsequent meeting, it is open to the other board members.
As a result, Gearhart asked for the items to be separated for a role call vote for each.
Glass made the motion and Putt seconded to rescind that made in the Nov. 3 meeting. Both Glass and Putt made the original motion and second.
All board members voted in favor of rescinding the motion. Schickling was absent from the meeting.
At an Oct. 26 board meeting, Hayden, of HHSDR Architects/Engineers, offered his input on the district’s feasibility/facility use study.
Hayden then said although he found the study thorough, he believed the district needed a clearer direction before moving forward.
He said the current study left too many options. He, however, indicated the recommendation by the study’s advisory committee made a lot of sense.
Under the current recommendation, the middle school would close its doors. The high school would undergo an expansion to add a seventh and eighth grade wing. In addition, all of the district’s elementary schools would remain open and “unlikely” to see renovation at the present time.
Hayden said he had the opportunity to walk through the middle school. He said he noticed some of the new improvements.
He said the middle school was in poor condition and has a lot of needs. He said it would require a lot of dollars to continue sustaining the facility.
He also noted the “very poor” roof conditions at the high school. He said the access to both the school and the surrounding athletic facilities would drive some considerations.
“(I think) everyone needs to clearly understand the condition of the facilities,” he said, of the district’s school buildings.
Hayden said enrollment projections will drive the decision making process. He said enrollment is expected to drop over the next 10 years. He said the district’s enrollment history also shows a steady decline.
Hayden said the district needs to determine the appropriate proceedings for the study. In doing so, he said they must first determine the grade configuration and consider options that support the same.
He said they then need to update their facilities’ evaluation, as time has passed since the study was completed. He said they should research construction options and cost estimates.
“Lay the options out for the community. Help them understand the magnitude,” he said. “See what the community thinks.”
Hayden said once the district has committed to improvements, they need to prioritize them based on importance.
Hayden said the firm is willing to help the board move forward and reach a decision point.
“We’re looking at spending $30-40 million. We need to take every precaution,” said Makin at that meeting.
Glass then reminded the board it had been a year and was a good idea for the study to be updated.
“We’ve been collecting information for a long time. We need to move forward toward making a decision,” he said.
Makin emphasized that the board was only in the discussion phase. He also sated that they need to further engage the public.