CLEARFIELD – A township supervisor and parent questioned the Clearfield Area School District Board of Directors about the fate of the Girard-Goshen Elementary School after learning of the district’s six feasibility study options that were presented a week ago.
In October, the board approved the temporary closure of the 8-year-old school because of structural issues related to its roofing system. Just weeks later, approximately 70 students and all of the faculty and staff resumed their academic year at the Clearfield Elementary School.
According to previous GantDaily reports, former Interim Superintendent J. Thomas Frantz and board President Dave Glass said the school was closed, while the district had received paperwork from C.S. Davidson, a civil engineering firm based in York.
At that time, Frantz indicated that the roof could hold 30 pounds of snow per square foot. However, he said it should hold 50 pounds per square foot. Neither Frantz nor Glass could then specify for which amount the roof was originally designed for, or if it was affected by something else over time.
Last week, J. Greer Hayden of HHSDR, the district’s architect, presented six options, which originated from the feasibility advisory committee. Both Hayden and Glass said committee members appeared to favor options five and six, but especially the latter of the two.
According to Hayden’s report, both of the favored options closed the Centre, Bradford Township and Girard-Goshen Elementary Schools. In addition, both called for “miscellaneous repairs” and the construction of a new addition at the Clearfield Elementary School.
Hayden said that option six would cost approximately $56 million if the district decided to construct a new middle school building. The second most favored – option five – would be slightly less at approximately $55 million, he said.
Parent Brenda Stiner said that Girard-Goshen Elementary School was previously “rated excellent” by HHSDR. But then on Oct. 19, she said parents were notified of possible “structural problems” related to the school’s roofing system, and its temporary closure was approved a week later.
“As I understand, you have hired an experienced roofing specialist to conduct a study at Girard-Goshen,” she said. She then asked if it was the same engineer, C.S. Davidson, which conducted and provided the initial report, resulting in the school’s closure.
“If you were diagnosed with some medical condition, wouldn’t you seek a second opinion?” Stiner asked. Glass said the initial analysis conducted by the firm wasn’t as rigorous as the present 12-week study, and the district doesn’t have any reason to speculate.
Stiner then asked if it was likely that the district would obtain a second opinion from another engineering firm. Although the possibility existed, Glass said that the current study would cost the district $30,000. “Someone would have to pay for it,” he said.
He said the district expected to have its report for the Girard-Goshen Elementary School roof study by Feb. 10. He said the report would be shared among the board as well as with the public at one of the regularly scheduled meetings next month.
According to him, the temporary closure of the school and the feasibility study are “two, completely separate” issues. Last week, Hayden presented grade configuration and facility options and indicated that the feasibility advisory committee leaned toward options five and six.
“We received the options but have not deliberated. The board has not decided, but this (engineering) report for Girard-Goshen will be a big piece in our decision,” Glass said. He said the feasibility advisory committee consisted of school board and community members, faculty and parents.
When asked by Stiner, he said approximately seven or eight parents attended the feasibility study meetings. However, Stiner believed there were more parents and community members who would oppose the closure of the school.
She didn’t believe it would be any more “cost effective” for the district to close three elementary schools, repair and complete an addition to Clearfield Elementary School, construct an entirely new middle school and renovate the Clearfield Area High School.
Glass said the board didn’t have any answers, as they had not reached that point yet. “Wish you had been at the feasibility study meetings,” he told Stiner.
Girard Township Supervisor Don Leigey said if the roof’s design and construction was found to be unsafe, it would fall back on either the contractor or the engineer. “So which was it?” he asked. “ . . . How did this get through?
“As a contractor, if this happens, it comes out of my pocket, or it goes to the insurance company. The taxpayers should not be the ones who have to pay for this.”
Glass said that neither he nor the board had those answers but wanted answers to the same questions. Solicitor Aimee Willett said the district notified all contractors of the C.S. Davidson report, and they have all contacted their insurance carriers.
Both Stiner and Leigey asked to be notified of the meeting date and time at which the C.S. Davidson roofing report would be presented. Glass said the district would advertise the information in the proper media outlets.
