OXFORD – Less than thirty people turned out for a public informational meeting at Oxford Middle School Wednesday night. But those who were in attendance had a lot of questions for the district’s superintendent and board of education.
The information forum was the first of two such events planned to inform district residents on three options for a capital project being considered by the board. The second meeting will be held at 6:30 p.m. on Thursday, Jan. 8 in the Middle School auditorium.
Superintendent Randy Squier gave a powerpoint presentation on the capital project planning process, which began with a building condition survey in 2007.
In those early planning stages, Squier explained, the board of education established four goals for the capital project.
Those objectives, he said, were to expand and improve the district’s physical education facilities; to bring grade 7 through 12 subject area teachers under one roof; to expand and improve the fine arts, technology, media and science facilities; and to upgrade the athletic facilities.
Using these programming and facilities goals as a guide, the board worked with Bernier Carr & Associates, the architectural consulting firm they retained last year, to develop several capital project options to meet the district’s future needs. They have narrowed the field to three.
The first identified option, Option 1, leaves the district’s grade configuration “as is.” The plan, with an estimated cost of $19.8 million, proposes extensive renovation and restoration of the historic Middle School building, flood mitigation efforts and upgrades to the Primary/High School campus.
In Option 2, the Middle School would remain in use as an educational facility but would house Pre-Kindergarten through Grade 2. Grades 3 and higher would be located in the current Primary/High School campus. This option would require even more extensive remodels of existing buildings, including a 22,500 square foot addition at the Primary/High School, but less extensive flood mitigation measures. The cost estimate is $26.7 million.
Option 3 would move all students to a Pre-K through 12 campus at the site of the Primary/High School building. A 51,750 square foot addition would be added to accommodate the move of grades 5 through 8 from the current Middle School. The Middle School would see only minimal renovations and be used as a bus garage and storage/administration building. The estimate for this option is $19.9 million, which includes only minimal renovations at the middle school.
“Eventually the board will need to make a decision,” said Squier. The board will decide which of the three options to proceed with. Once those plans are finalized, the project will be put before voters.
The timing of this project is important, Squier stressed, if the district hopes to take advantage of the State Education Department’s EXCEL aid program. With Governor Paterson calling for drastic cuts in state education aid, the future of this funding stream may be in jeopardy.
“Our current building aid ratio is 98 percent,” said Squier. The EXCEL aid could potentially cover the 2 percent of the project that would otherwise fall to district tax payers.
Leaving a list of questions board members were considering as they moved forward with the planning process on the projection screen, Squier moved on to the question and answer portion of the program.
Oxford Mayor Terry Stark was one of many in the audience who raised concerns. He asked several questions, one of which was why none of the “questions” the board was asking itself were directly related to student performance.
“You’re talking about making data-based decisions,” said Stark, referring to a line in the district newsletter. “What option increases the academic performance of the kids?”
When there was no direct response to this, several residents expressed their displeasure.
“You haven’t answered any part of that,” accused resident Marka Welsh.
School board president Robin DeBrita stepped in to help clarify.
“No, there is no one numerical indicator,” she said, explaining that the board hoped adding the programming space would raise scores.
“(There is some research indicating students perform) better in new facilities rather than old,” added Squier, who went on to define “old” as “unmaintained.”
District resident Julie Gates raised questions about the district’s commitment to maintaining its facilities, regardless of whether new construction was undertaken as a result of the capital project.
“We should have more pride,” said Gates, pointing out the conditions of seating in the auditorium.
Squier offered that attempts to add custodians had been cut from the budget in order to add teachers.
Audience members also questioned the timing of meeting announcements, enrollment calculations and how they related to empty classrooms, the timing of a capital project in the current economic climate and flood mitigation.
“When do you plan to go to a vote on this?” asked Stark. He also questioned how, in light of the public’s concerns, the board planned to convince voters to approve a capital project proposal.
“That’s the board’s struggle,” said Squier.
“I identify with the sentiment of the community,” said board member Mary Branham, who said that her mind was not made up about what option would be the best for the district. “We just have to look at the options.”
“Making unpopular decisions is not easy,” she added.
District residents who were unable to attend may view some of the materials distributed on the district website, www.oxac.org.
The next public information session will take place at 6:30 p.m. on Thursday, Jan. 8 in the Middle School Auditorium. Community members will also have an opportunity at the event to tour the Middle School.