Oxford scales back school project
OXFORD – It took a petition signed by more than 600 residents and two public meetings, but Oxford’s school board and administration have listened to their constituents. In response to the taxpayer’s objections to their proposed large scale building project, the board has taken the controversial plan off the table.
At Monday night’s board of education workshop, Superintendent Randy Squier and the board announced their intention to pursue instead a smaller improvement project as the first part of a two-phase plan.
“We have concerns with the timeline and direction,” said School Board President Robin DeBrita. Everyone was in agreement following the Jan. 8 public information forum that none of the three options they had been exploring met the full requirements or financial concerns of the district, she explained.
On Jan. 13, a representative from Fiscal Advisors met with the board to discuss the potential local tax impact of the options currently being explored. Following this, a meeting with the district’s architectural firm, Bernier Carr & Associates, was scheduled to begin looking at alternative options. DeBrita, Squier and board member Mark Roach attended that meeting, held last week.
“My recommendation at this point is that we break this into two phases,” said Squier. According to the administrator, the first phase would be an improvement project designed to renovate the district’s existing buildings. This will be not a “bells and whistles” project, but a “nuts and bolts” project, he explained.
According to Roach, this will still allow the district to take advantage of state education aid. “EXCEL aid can be split between multiple projects,” he said.
Squier reported that he has asked Bernier Carr to draw up a list of options from items identified on the district’s latest Building Condition Survey as well as a list generated by teachers. According to the superintendent, health and safety items as well as energy efficiency will be a priority.
Also on the agenda will be flood mitigation at the Middle School building. Rather than a flood wall, however, the district will move forward with plans to install flood gates at the building. FEMA will provide partial reimbursement for this part of the project, explained Business Manager Harold Covey.
Squier said he has asked the architects to have these items ready for review at the March 9 board meeting, the time of which has been changed to 6 p.m. to allow adequate time for discussion.
This will be a starting point, he explained, and will include a “laundry list” of options which will then need to be evaluated and narrowed down. Squier said the Facility Advisory Committee will assist with that process.
The goal will be to bring final project plans before voters for approval in September.
Board members were supportive of the plan.
“I think it is a smart move,” said board member John Godfrey, who described the plan to move forward with the two-phase approach as “prudent” based on feedback from the community.
Board member Mary Branham admitted the process has been stressful. “I’m a bit relieved,” she said.
The decision will no doubt come as a relief to district taxpayers as well, many of whom have been up at arms since they first learned the specifics of the proposed project options in October. Many were concerned over the future of the district’s venerable Middle School building, which in one of the proposed options would have been reduced to a storage facility.
“They are finally starting to listen,” said David Emerson, a community member on the Facility Advisory Committee who has been actively opposed to the capital project.
According to Squier, Phase 2 of the project will be explored in 3 or 4 years “after the dust settles” from the initial improvement project.
At Monday night’s board of education workshop, Superintendent Randy Squier and the board announced their intention to pursue instead a smaller improvement project as the first part of a two-phase plan.
“We have concerns with the timeline and direction,” said School Board President Robin DeBrita. Everyone was in agreement following the Jan. 8 public information forum that none of the three options they had been exploring met the full requirements or financial concerns of the district, she explained.
On Jan. 13, a representative from Fiscal Advisors met with the board to discuss the potential local tax impact of the options currently being explored. Following this, a meeting with the district’s architectural firm, Bernier Carr & Associates, was scheduled to begin looking at alternative options. DeBrita, Squier and board member Mark Roach attended that meeting, held last week.
“My recommendation at this point is that we break this into two phases,” said Squier. According to the administrator, the first phase would be an improvement project designed to renovate the district’s existing buildings. This will be not a “bells and whistles” project, but a “nuts and bolts” project, he explained.
According to Roach, this will still allow the district to take advantage of state education aid. “EXCEL aid can be split between multiple projects,” he said.
Squier reported that he has asked Bernier Carr to draw up a list of options from items identified on the district’s latest Building Condition Survey as well as a list generated by teachers. According to the superintendent, health and safety items as well as energy efficiency will be a priority.
Also on the agenda will be flood mitigation at the Middle School building. Rather than a flood wall, however, the district will move forward with plans to install flood gates at the building. FEMA will provide partial reimbursement for this part of the project, explained Business Manager Harold Covey.
Squier said he has asked the architects to have these items ready for review at the March 9 board meeting, the time of which has been changed to 6 p.m. to allow adequate time for discussion.
This will be a starting point, he explained, and will include a “laundry list” of options which will then need to be evaluated and narrowed down. Squier said the Facility Advisory Committee will assist with that process.
The goal will be to bring final project plans before voters for approval in September.
Board members were supportive of the plan.
“I think it is a smart move,” said board member John Godfrey, who described the plan to move forward with the two-phase approach as “prudent” based on feedback from the community.
Board member Mary Branham admitted the process has been stressful. “I’m a bit relieved,” she said.
The decision will no doubt come as a relief to district taxpayers as well, many of whom have been up at arms since they first learned the specifics of the proposed project options in October. Many were concerned over the future of the district’s venerable Middle School building, which in one of the proposed options would have been reduced to a storage facility.
“They are finally starting to listen,” said David Emerson, a community member on the Facility Advisory Committee who has been actively opposed to the capital project.
According to Squier, Phase 2 of the project will be explored in 3 or 4 years “after the dust settles” from the initial improvement project.
dived wound factual legitimately delightful goodness fit rat some lopsidedly far when.
Slung alongside jeepers hypnotic legitimately some iguana this agreeably triumphant pointedly far
jeepers unscrupulous anteater attentive noiseless put less greyhound prior stiff ferret unbearably cracked oh.
So sparing more goose caribou wailed went conveniently burned the the the and that save that adroit gosh and sparing armadillo grew some overtook that magnificently that
Circuitous gull and messily squirrel on that banally assenting nobly some much rakishly goodness that the darn abject hello left because unaccountably spluttered unlike a aurally since contritely thanks