CLEARFIELD – Clearfield school board members aren’t willing to spend $631,000 on a proposed maintenance facility for the district’s vehicles and storage.
On Monday night, the board held a special meeting to consider bids for the proposed construction of a new maintenance facility at the Clearfield Area Junior-Senior High School campus. However, no vote was taken due to a lack of a motion and second.
Caliber Contracting Services of Pittsburgh was the lowest bidder with a base bid of $590,000 and an alternate bid of $41,000 for an add-on to be used separately for storage.
Business Administrator Sam Maney said the district currently houses some of its vehicles at its facility on River Road. With that and storage being the only uses, he said it’d make more sense to construct a new maintenance facility at the CAJSHS campus.
Maney said if the district constructed the proposed 125-foot by 60-foot maintenance facility, it would be able to house all of its vehicles at one site. He said it would also be able to discard of its deteriorating maintenance facility on River Road.
When asked, Rick Bunning, director of buildings and grounds, said the district would have an area to service vehicles at the CAJSHS campus. He said with school vans in and out all of the time, the district does this work, as it’s too difficult to schedule with a garage.
According to him, the district currently uses about 750 square feet to store permanent records at its maintenance facility on River Road. He said the bid for the construction of the new maintenance facility included an add-on for storage.
Additionally, Bunning said he prefers to keep extra cleaning supplies, which the district goes through a lot of, on-hand in storage. However, he said the “biggest thing” was to get all of the district’s vehicles secured indoors. Bunning said the district currently doesn’t have enough space to house all of its vehicles.
Board member Larry Putt asked about having a pole building constructed and using students from the Clearfield County Career & Technology Center (CCCTC). Superintendent Terry Struble explained that the district is placed under restrictions by commercial code, which complicates the construction process and makes it more expensive.
So far as the proposed construction of a new maintenance facility, Struble said the board must be concerned that its insurance carrier for workers’ compensation has almost wanted to deny or hold off its inspection of the facility on River Road due to the garage door and the injuries it causes.
He said the insurance carrier recommended that the district replace the garage door, as it wouldn’t warrant allowing employees inside. Other problems and concerns, he said, are roof and wall leaks and black mold in the modular at the rear of the facility.
“There is a multitude of issues that need to be addressed somehow or another,” said Struble. He said it would make everything easier to house the district’s vehicles on-site at the CAJSHS, as it would be one less facility for the district to check on and maintain.
Board member Randy Pataky then asked about the floor plan for the proposed maintenance facility. Struble explained that it would basically be an “open garage” without any extra utilities, such as water and electric, at this point. “So, it’s basically going to be a shell for $631,000,” said Pataky.
Board member Tim Morgan asked if the district would have to spend any money this year if the board approved the bid for the proposed maintenance facility. When Maney said yes, Morgan said he would be hesitant to spend 5 mills on a new maintenance facility when there wasn’t a state budget in the foreseeable future.
Maney noted that if approved by the board, the construction of the proposed maintenance facility would be paid out of the district’s capital fund, not its general fund.
When board member Gail Ralston began to say it would be a “big bite” for her to contemplate, as well, she was cut off by board President Mary Anne Jackson. Jackson questioned why board members were just now choosing to state their opposition when the construction of a new maintenance facility has been on the table for some time.
Putt pointed out that it was the first time the board had discussed the proposed maintenance facility at any length in a meeting. Ralston then asked if she may continue, which was permitted by Jackson.
Ralston asked if it would be possible to construct the proposed maintenance facility but without a completely concrete floor. She said this way the district wouldn’t be taking such a big bite all at once. Struble said it wouldn’t be possible as oil would leak onto the gravel, then into the ground and the district would have to spend on an environmental clean-up.
Ralston also suggested that the district utilize some type of box trailer, such as that used for all-terrain vehicles, to house its vehicles.
Struble said if the board didn’t plan to have a new maintenance facility constructed it needed to address the problems and concerns at the current facility on River Road. “Because workers’ comp is going to cancel us, we have a leaking facility with a roof that’s shot in some places and not a whole lot has been done other than to keep it operable,” he said.
He said it was his understanding that once the district consolidated all of its classrooms into two school buildings, the board would move forward with the construction of a new maintenance facility.
“But now that we’re at this point, if we’re not interested in doing this, then you’ll have to incur the money to do that other part, and we’re not even going to be able to use it because we can’t have employees coming safely in and out of there,” said Struble.
Ralston said that her problem with the proposed construction of the new maintenance facility was the cost. Maney asked if the board would re-consider viable options if there was a state budget by sometime in November or December.
Morgan said that he felt the bid for the proposed maintenance facility was too much money, and the district may need what it has. He said it would depend upon the outcome of the state budget. Board member Phil Carr said he believed most of the board members expected the bids to come in much lower.
Struble asked the board for direction to which Morgan suggested fixing up the current maintenance facility on River Road for now. Morgan said that the board could later see if it was possible to get another proposal for a new maintenance facility that wasn’t as costly.
Struble then asked how long the district wanted to sit and spend on its current deteriorating facility to keep it usable. Maney asked board members if they wanted the administration to acquire estimates for work, which would need to be done at the district’s maintenance facility on River Road for presentation at a future meeting. Putt said that would be very helpful to the board.
Board member Susan Mikesell asked how long the construction bids for the proposed maintenance facility would be good for. Struble said that bids are usually good for a 30-day window.
