USD 257 has needs.
That much was laid out at the outset of Monday’s community steering committee meeting, which drew a crowd of about 40 to the Allen County Courthouse assembly room.
And tackling those needs will cost money, Scott Stanley, the district’s maintenance supervisor said, to the point that any improvement plan certainly will require a bond issue.
As for what sort of improvements should be pursued — renovations vs. new construction — well, that’s up for the community to decide, said Shannon Bohm of the Wichita-based architectural firm Schaefer Johnson Cox Frey, which helped host Monday’s meeting.
“We have a blank slate,” Bohm said in response to a question about whether the district already had a course of action in mind and renderings drawn. “We have no preconceived ideas. We’re relying on you to make the decisions. It needs to be your plan.”
Public input, transparency and community buy-in were major themes through the 90-minute meeting.
While the steering committee has met for several months, Monday’s was the first for the group since the USD 257 school board hired SJCF to help steer the district through the decision-making process.
MONDAY’S meeting opened with Superintendent of Schools Stacey Fager explaining how the district’s budget is funded, through a mix of property taxes supplemented with state and federal funding.
Local taxpayers generate about $1.8 million of the $15 million budget through property taxes (46.3 mills this year), with the rest coming in the form of state aid, with revenue coming from more affluent districts in the state.
The state funding formula is based on a number of factors, including the number of at-risk students who attend 257, vocational program enrollment and district wealth.
Another $800,000 comes from the federal government.
The different funding sources determine how that money should be spent.
For example, money from the General Fund and Local Options Budgets is targeted for operations, such as salaries and benefits, while federal funds must be spent on specific educational programs.
The capital outlay fund, meanwhile, is earmarked for maintenance and equipment purchases, and generates roughly $400,000 annually. Take away purchases — school buses, material, etc. — and the district can use less than half of that each year for maintenance and upkeep. Since Stanley’s arrival in 2011, the district averages about $106,000 for such matters.
And there’s the rub, Stanley said.
“Our needs outweigh our dollars,” he said. “We’re at a point now, even to tackle points on the list, we’d have to do a bond.”
For example, Stanley said a full-scale replacement of the district’s aging HVAC systems, almost all of which are beyond their life expectancy, would cost about $10 million.
Not replacing the units is problematic as well, he continued, because of the added energy required to run older, less-efficient systems.
The needs echo much of what the district presented to the community in a failed bond issue in 2014.
“What is the long-term vision for our district?” Stanley asked. “If it’s renovation, great. If it’s new facilities, great. We need a direction to head in, to start making a viable effort to get over this hump.”
NEXT up for the steering committee is to develop a number of planning teams, noted Rick Brown, another SJCF representative.
The four smaller committees will focus on specific areas — one each for elementary schools, the middle school, the high school and other support services.
The planning teams will begin meeting in December.
Again, the smaller communities will rely on community input to refine their discussions, he said.
“There is no preconceived notion,” Brown said.
That input will then be fed back to the steering committee, which will review potential concepts and plans.
“We’ll keep going back and forth until we get to the point where everybody feels comfortable with how we want to proceed,” he said.
Only then, he said, will a proposal be taken to the school board, and then presented for voters to decide.
THE MEETING concluded with input from audience members, listing their goals and objectives for any USD 257 facilities improvements.
The new or renovated schools should be:
— In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act;
— Energy efficient;
— “Technology smart;”
— Within a walkable distance for most students;
— Improved to maintain property values of neighboring homeowners;
— Safer for street traffic with better parking control.
Several in the audience added commentary to their suggestions.
County Commissioner Jim Talkington wondered if the district could equate facilities improvements to better student performance.
Mayor-elect Jon Wells noted athletic facilities should be included in the mix, and Iolan Becky Nilges said some voters will ask how any projects would affect the district’s relationship with and use of the Bowlus Fine Arts Center.
Bill Peeper, history teacher at Iola High School, pointed to foundation problems in the district.
“We need something we can be proud of as a community,” Peeper said. “We’re fighting an uphill battle to demonstrate why people should move to or stay in Iola.”
Terry Lower, an IMS instructor, pointed to air quality in the district’s older schools. That should be improved.
“I don’t want to just ‘get by’” he said. Rather Lower urged the district to look long-term.
“Quality and longevity are important,” Bohm agreed.
The district should anticipate future needs, added Angela Henry, SAFE BASE director. “Think of things we might need five or 10 years down the road.”
David Toland noted Iola’s older school buildings have advantages newer attendance centers lack — interesting architecture.
“I know the idea of renovations gets a bad rap,” he said. “In the past we’ve not done a good job with the quality of our renovations. What can differentiate us is using what we’ve got and doing an exemplary job with it.”
Bob Johnson, Register reporter, asked if any concepts have been considered, such as consolidating the elementaries into one school, or building multiple buildings.
“There are no concepts,” Bohm responded. “We’re not even going to look at that for a couple of meetings. We’re still coming up with pieces.”
The exchange led to Toland’s question about whether renderings of a new facility have already been drawn.
“We’re a long ways from coming up with any kind of plans,” Bohm responded.
LaHarpe City Councilman David Lee pointed to another vital piece of the puzzle: engaging a full cross section of the community. He noted that among the 40 or so in attendance Tuesday, most either were teachers or community leaders in some capacity.
“I’d say we need more parents” at future planning meetings, Lee said. Other suggested more students, elderly residents and those from less affluent backgrounds be involved as well.
THE various committees will meet over the next several months, with the hopes of presenting a proposal to the public by next summer, which likely would precipitate a November 2018 public vote.
