CLEARFIELD – The Clearfield Area School District Board of Directors on Monday night agreed to further investigate the feasibility study building plan proposed by former faculty member, Gail Ralston, with a more detailed board report to follow at next month’s meeting.
Last week, the board appeared to advocate first moving forward with the secondary education buildings in addition to the Central Administrative Office and Maintenance buildings.
The board would later determine the fate of the elementary buildings, while there was uncertainty due to the temporary closure of the Girard-Goshen Elementary School.
The current Central Office building was described as being in the “worst shape” and creating “the most immediate concern,” according to board President Dave Glass. He also didn’t believe it was a “viable, short-term option” to convert Centre Elementary School into a new administrative building.
Ralston wasn’t in agreement with the board’s apparent consensus. Instead, she shared the opinion of the feasibility study advisory committee, which suggested utilizing Centre for the district’s administrative offices.
“I’m responding to your invitation that was extended at the community meeting. I’m not here to criticize but to offer ideas,” Ralston said. “My agenda is the same as yours (and gives priority to) the well-being of our students, schools and community.”
According to her, the board has a long-standing history of “temporary moves to solve problems.” For example, Third Ward Elementary School was moved to the Clearfield Middle School for 13 years. More recently, Girard-Goshen was re-located to the Clearfield Elementary School, she said.
She recommended (1) consolidating to one classroom per grade at Centre and using the wing for administration; (2) moving the Maintenances offices to the vacated “White House;” (3) and maintaining the garage/storage at its current location.
Enrollment figures obtained by Ralston indicated that 551 students currently attend CES, and its limit is approximately 600 students. She posited that some students could be relocated from Centre to CES, and everyone would “still fit.”
Ralston pointed out that a new administration building would run the district $1.39 million, and it would be another $.90 million for the new maintenance facility. In 2008, the district spent $397,093 for a new roof at Centre, she said and also encouraging them to “use it.”
“It is a temporary solution that can work until the statewide plan for consolidating school districts is known and state funding is disclosed,” she said.
“I understand you want to pursue litigation about the Girard-Goshen roof, but that is long-term. I also think it’s going to be long-term for Girard-Goshen students at CES.”
She continued, “It’s not the perfect plan, but it meets our immediate needs. I’m in favor of re-using and re-purposing. It’s the best temporary fix with so many needs to be met.”
Glass told the board Ralston’s presentation raised “good enough points” that it warranted some investigation. He planned to solicit input from J. Greer Hayden of HHSDR Architects/Engineers, the district’s architect.
“I hate to put this off again . . . but I think we should take another look at this. It may be the quickest and easiest way to get the administration out (of the Central Office),” he said.