- (GantDaily File Photo)
CLEARFIELD – At Monday night’s committee meetings, the Clearfield school board debated how to overcome the $2 million deficit in its upcoming 2011-12 budget and the proposed building plans for the high school, maintenance building and Clearfield Elementary School.
The current budget proposal projects $31,057,562 in total revenues and $33,108,672 in total expenditures. A surplus is projected at $661,534 for the current-year, but at the present time, the district still faces a $2,051,110 deficit for next year, Business Administrator Sam Maney said.
According to him, the district’s fund balance ended at $4,234,218 on June 30, 2010, and it’s projected at $4,895,752 this year. But with the current deficit, the district anticipates a fund balance closer to $2,844,642 for June 30, 2012.
Superintendent Thomas B. Otto said he and Maney were requesting the board’s consideration of increasing real estate taxes by 4 to 6 mills this upcoming year. Also, “his philosophy” encouraged the incoming revenue be placed toward the district’s high school renovation and other building plans.
The Pennsylvania Department of Education allows school districts to raise real estate taxes to 1.8 mills next year unless it’s otherwise approved by a voter referendum or exceptions by PDE. The state has also approved the district’s application for exceptions, which would allow it to increase property taxes up to 6 mills.
The district’s current real estate millage rate is 89.84 percent and would be 91.63 percent if raised to this year’s adjusted state index. But if approved at the state index plus approved exceptions, real estate tax millage would increase to 95.93 percent.
For 2011-12, a 4-mill increase would generate an additional $489,264 in revenue, and millage would increase to 93.84 percent. A 5-mill increase would generate an additional $611,580, and millage would increase to 94.84 percent. And, a 6-mill increase would generate an additional $733,896, and millage would increase to 95.84 percent.
Board member Tim Morgan believed the district couldn’t afford to move forward without increasing property taxes. He told fellow board members that “no one likes to raise taxes” and sought “specific” areas where further cuts could be made.
“It will be hard. I won’t go to 6 (mills). I’m thinking maybe 3 mills. I don’t want to carve our fund balance,” board President Dave Glass said. “But, at the same time, I don’t want to raise taxes. I’m not sure what other options we have.”
Board members Rick Schickling and Jennifer Wallace said the board needed to go deeper with its cuts. Both believed administrative positions could be condensed or consolidated because of the dwindling student enrollment within the district.
Glass said that the board would continue its budget discussion with further information during the pre-board session of next Monday’s regular board meeting. The board must approve the budget so that it can be placed on display for 30 days before final approval in June.
Prior to its committee meetings, J. Greer Hayden of HHSDR Architects/Engineers, the district’s architect, followed up on his last presentation two weeks ago. He presented option 9 mixing and matching parts of option 7 and option 8 from their May 2 discussion of the high school expansion project.
“I’ve taken the options and downsized the magnitude of the projects and their price,” he said. Hayden’s newest proposal reduced the number of classrooms in the seventh and eighth grade addition, which still includes constructing a two-floor, 1,000-seat spectator gymnasium.
According to him, the main offices would consolidate so that administrators from both grades seven and eight and nine through twelve would be located in the same area. The guidance offices would expand into the same area, while the health suite would be redesigned, making it more accessible.
Hayden said that because the seventh- and eighth-grade wing would house a gymnasium, option 9 proposes that the current auxiliary gymnasium be converted into a two-story space for the district’s administrative offices. He said it would have a separate public entrance.
With seventh and eighth graders being located in the high school’s lower level, the family and consumer science classrooms would relocate to the second floor. Also, another library and computer lab area would be constructed above the first floor locker room area, he said.
“We’re conserving real estate with the use of two- and three-story spaces. It’s reduced the square footage and provided more parking,” Hayden said. The proposed maintenance building was also scaled back to 4,000 square feet and would be a 50-foot by 80-foot structure.
At the Clearfield Elementary School campus, his option proposed expanding its grade configuration to kindergarten through sixth grade. A two-story addition would be built to the eastern side, moving the parking lot to the right.
Hayden also proposed a small addition at the school’s rear for the kitchen, which would move the playground area slightly off to the left. The cafeteria would expand within the current building with a new kitchen area to be constructed.
According to him, it allows for a firewall between the cafeteria and kitchen areas. By the doing so, the district would actually reduce its project costs, as it wouldn’t be required to have a sprinkler system installed as part of the proposed renovation.
The high school expansion project, including the district administrative offices, would cost the district $30,383,000 for its construction, but when figuring in the soft costs, the total would come out to $35,326,500, Hayden said. However, its state reimbursement for the expansion project would be in the amount of $13,421,760, lessening the cost to approximately $22 million.
He said construction costs for the CES campus would be $7,413,000 but would be $8,926,500 when including soft costs but is, too, eligible for state reimbursement of $2,819,147. The new maintenance building would be $587,100 to construct for a total of $741,000. Reimbursement from the state isn’t applicable to the latter project, however.
If the district moved forward with current option 9 in June, construction of the new maintenance building could begin in November, and it could be occupied by May 2012. The CES and high school projects could then be initiated next June with them scheduled for completion in August and December of 2013, respectively.
“We have to move soon because costs are going up. I think this is pretty close to a packaged deal here. There is not too much fat left to trim,” Glass said. However, board member Phil Carr regretted not backing board member Dr. Michael Spencer’s middle school concept a couple months ago.
Carr wanted the district to consider renovating at both the high and middle school campuses and keeping costs at roughly $25 to $30 million. Renovations would also be required at the elementary schools, such as the structural issues needing resolved at Bradford Elementary. At the same time, the board could close an elementary school or two down the road if needed, Carr said.
Glass didn’t believe it would be feasible, while the district was currently looking to complete the high school expansion alone for the same price range. Instead, he foresaw costs closer to $35 to $40 million and for it to result in greater risks.
Carr requested paperwork that would compare the net present value of option 9 to the alternative of keeping the current middle and elementary school buildings open. He posed questions about what the board would do if the student enrollment would increase in future years.
Glass indicated that he hadn’t reviewed any information that showed a hint of the possibility. And, if student enrollment would increase, he believed it would mean more employment opportunities locally and in turn a larger tax base.
“I think the middle school concept is the better way. Aside from money, we, as a board, must determine what’s best for our students and for the community,” Carr said.
The board will put option 9 to vote at its next regular meeting Monday, May 23.
When the meeting had concluded, Otto presented a press release regarding the completion of its second phase investigation of the roof and substructure at the Girard-Goshen Elementary School with engineering representatives and construction contractors.
The PDE accepted the district’s emergency application to close the school last November when a routine inspection of multiple roof leaks lead to questions about the design and installation of the substructure and shingles.
The 8-year-old building remains closed because of water penetration as well as design and installation questions, and Goehring, Rutter & Boehm, the special counsel for the district, has tendered claims of property damage to its commercial general liability carrier, the press release stated.
The district is currently taking aggressive posture to pool resources to address repairs. Its firm will be hosting a meeting of responsible vendors, contractors and their insurers at the school to address the findings so far and to outline the process for effecting repairs.
A date and time for the meeting wasn’t provided in the district’s press release.