OXFORD – It was standing room only at Monday’s Oxford Academy and Central School’s school board meeting, at least until someone brought out extra chairs. The meeting had near record attendance as concerned community members gathered in opposition to controversial capital project proposals being reviewed by the board.
A petition, complete with more than 660 signatures gathered in just over a week’s time, was presented to the board and district administration by Oxford resident Tom Emerson.
“We are all tremendously concerned about what it really takes to educate our children; we’re all concerned about the economy; and we’re all concerned about the proper utilization and maintenance of our current facilities,” he said in his address to the board.
Emerson said he had first been made aware of the potential capital project by his brother, David, a member of the district’s Facility Advisory Committee. Emerson said his brother had been frustrated by the lack of involvement the committee, which has not met since February, has had in the process so far.
“I urge you to get more input as you develop your options,” he said, citing his own involvement in two extensive capital projects with area non-profits. “In both instances, feasibility studies were conducted which gauged the support of the community and its ability and willingness to support the projects.”
He said this important step had been done before project details were developed. In the instance of the YMCA, he said, this community feedback led to the construction of the new Y downtown rather than the cheaper option of building a new campus on the outskirts of the city.
“You, the board, are elected by the residents of this district. Over 600 of your fellow residents have urged you to focus on quality education by maintaining, improving and utilizing our current facilities in their existing configuration,” urged Emerson. “Listen to the community and consider today’s economic climate.”
Emerson blasted the board for failing to properly maintain the Middle School building.
“To allow a roof to leak as long as that in the Middle School, is a clear breach of fiduciary duty,” said Emerson. “It makes many of us wonder if the failure is intentional because it plays into someone’s apparent game plan.”
According to Superintendent Randy Squier, the roof in the Middle School started to leak in the winter of 2007-08. Reports from other community members allege the roof began leaking months earlier.
Although district voters approved funding for the needed repairs in May, those repairs have yet to be made.
Squier blamed the delay partially on the backlog of projects awaiting approval from the New York State Education Department. Although project specifications and plans were finalized by the district’s architects, Bernier Carr and Associates, in July, they were not approved by State Ed until September.
Bids for a full tear-off of the roof have been received, said Squier, but the contract will not be awarded until December. Work will not begin on repairs until the spring.
Squier plans on putting out an additional request for proposal to get bids on a partial tear-off of the roof in the meantime, to see if the work can be done for less than the apparent low bid of $112,000 for the full tear-off. He assured the board that, since the work will not be conducted until the spring, putting out the partial tear-off RFP will not delay the project further.
According to the superintendent, sealant will be applied as a temporary measure to prevent additional leaks through the hairline cracks in the roof. He said he hopes this will get the school through the winter.
Emerson also raised concerns about the advisability of undertaking an extensive capital project with the current state of New York’s economy.
“The projected deficit over the next four years, the time during which such a project would be financed, is now in excess of $47 billion,” he said.
While the district administration and School Board President Robin DeBrita maintain that the Excel funding will remain on the table, even Squier himself expressed concerns about the local effects of the state budget crisis during the meeting.
“The tea leaves in Albany are anticipating cuts to state aid,” he said.
In preparation for the possibility of mid-year take backs and mirroring Governor Paterson’s state-level spending freeze, Squier announced that the administration and the teacher’s association have discussed what freezes can be made in the district.
Their goal will be to “keep the impact as far from the classroom” as possible, he said. One change may affect the spring sports schedule. Squier said he will recommend that athletic teams travel only to competitions in Chenango and Delaware counties and eliminate trips outside of that area to trim transportation costs.
“It’s not a good picture, we all know that,” said Squier.
The superintendent said he plans to have a preliminary version of the next year’s district budget ready for review at the Dec. 16 school board meeting, the same date on which Paterson will unveil the state’s 2009 budget.
In an update on the capital project planning, Squier reiterated the program goals established by the board and the three options that are being considered.
In that update, he also mentioned that if the Middle School does continue to house students, school buses currently stored at that facility will need to be moved to another location.
Squier’s statement is not entirely consistent with those made by Bernard Brown, Jr., CEO of Bernier Carr during his update to the board during their Oct. 27 workshop. At that meeting, he described the Stated Education Departments concerns about the Middle School serving as both an educational facility and a transportation hub as observations on their part rather than an edict.
“The SED strongly encouraged, that if students were going to remain in the building, doing something else with transportation,” Brown reported, stating that their concerns were for the safety of students walking in vicinity of buses rather than any fumes associated with the diesel engines.
“It’s not a great situation. But, honestly, you’ve managed for what? 80 years?” he said.
Brown also reported at the meeting that “there has been no discussion of any significance where any kind of transportation facility would be located.”
While the school board maintains that no options have been eliminated for keeping the schools in their current configuration, it was Brown who re-introduced that option at the Oct. 27 workshop. The current “status quo,” Option 1, was not included in the packet Squier provided to board members at that meeting.
“The board and administration have been working with our architects to design options to upgrade our facilities in a way that meets our program goals,” said DeBrita in a prepared statement. “Many ideas have been discussed, but no decisions have been made.” said DeBrita.
The school board president directed residents to visit the district website to view meeting notes or to contact the district office if they have concerns or questions.
“We will have public meetings to explain these options and answer questions,” she continued. “No matter what we decide, any final capital spending project proposed by the board must have voter approval.”