Flood plain, utilities lead to proposed school site

The proposed site for new schools remains a sticking point for opponents.
It took years for USD 257 Board of Education members to find what they considered the best site for new elementary and high schools in Iola, Board President Tony Leavitt said this week. Voters will decide on Nov. 4 whether to support a new elementary school and high school.
Leavitt broke down the board’s thought process in a Tuesday interview.
There were several criteria the land had to meet, he said.
— 1. It had to be large enough. Using a formula set by educational planners, the district wanted at least 19 acres for the elementary school; and at least 64 acres for the high school.
The large area was necessary to include ample ground surrounding the buildings to keep bus and car traffic separate, while also allowing for practice athletic and band fields for the high school.
— 2. The area had to be somewhere in or near Iola, but not in the flood plain.
Having the Neosho River west of town, Elm Creek to the south and Coon Creek cutting a large swath through the middle of Iola, potential building projects in those areas are limited.
— 3. The site had to have access to utilities, with a heavy preference the utilities be provided by Iola. Because the city has a stake in the vote in the form of splitting proceeds from a half-cent sales tax with the school district, board members wanted Iola as the utility provider.
— 4. The land had to be spacious enough to avoid any eminent domain issues.
One suggestion, to build a new school at the existing Iola High School site, was discarded because it would have required condemning 19 neighboring houses. Likewise, expanding any of the three existing elementaries, Lincoln, Jefferson and McKinley, would include removing houses as well. (Lincoln and McKinley also are near flood plains, throwing another wrench into the plans.)
“Condemning properties and removing houses would have been the kiss of death,” Leavitt said. “We would be starting with two strikes against us already.”
— 5. Perhaps most importantly, there had to be a willing seller for land.
The district has an option to purchase the land north of Oregon Road on both sides of the Prairie Spirit Trail for $521,000. The elementary school site (19 acres) would cost $7,500 per acre. The high school (about 76 acres) would cost $5,000 per acre.
The Oregon Road site has been on the district’s radar for years, Leavitt noted.
It was one of the preferred locations in 2008 when a citizens committee, following an eight-month study of USD 257’s needs, endorsed new construction.
But the owners, David and Joyce Austin of Parsons, weren’t interested then.
“I talked to Craig (Neuenswander, former USD 257 superintendent) and he told me one of our biggest hurdles was going to be in finding a site,” Jack Koehn, superintendent of schools, said. “That’s why when they agreed to this, and at this price, I thought the board hit a grand slam.”
Ah, the price.
Isn’t $521,000 for 95 acres, an average of just less than $5,500 per acre, rather steep for pastureland?
Not in Leavitt’s opinion.
The land’s value should not be viewed through the prism of an empty pasture, he said. Rather, it is valued as ground with relatively easy access to utilities next to a community that, if it wants to expand, has no choice but to go north.
“If you go five miles outside of town, that ground is less valuable for development because it wouldn’t have access to utilities,” Koehn added.
For comparison’s sake, the new hospital was built on land along North Kentucky Street costing $12,000 per acre.
The district considered a handful of other potential sites, all of which were considerably more expensive, or had owners unwilling to sell, Leavitt said.
Leavitt declined to be more specific because those discussions were held in executive session.

FINALLY, “the other option we considered was renovation,” Leavitt said.
But as cost projections for renovations came in higher than new construction, the district quickly agreed with what the 2008 citizens task force recommended: new construction was by far the better option.
Leavitt said new construction should be considered internal consolidation within the district.
“The educational enhancements with having all of our resources in one spot far outweigh having three separate buildings,” Leavitt said. “The other part to consider, is how do you handle renovations logistically. “What are you going to do with the kids while you’re renovating, not just in one location, but four or five.”
“It’s not pretty, it’s not very much fun, especially when there is a better solution out there educationally, financially and logistically,” to build new at one location, Koehn added.
“And that’s not even counting the operational efficiencies with new buildings,” Leavitt added. “The operational savings we’ll realize with new buildings will allow the district to be able to spend more on kids, when in the past, we’ve had to spend more on buildings.”
Leavitt was hesitant to obligate future boards on setting their annual budgets, but if the district realizes annual operational savings of nearly $700,000, it could allow the board to reduce its capital outlay levy. (Currently, the levy is at 8 mills, the highest allowed by Kansas law.)
“I could see us reducing that capital outlay levy within the next few years,” Leavitt said, perhaps cutting it in half.