July 23, 2014 at 2:10 p.m.
No easy choices (7/16/05)
Editorial
There are no good options available.
That’s the inevitable conclusion when one ponders the choices confronting the Fort Recovery Local School Board.
After squabbling with the Ohio School Facilities Commission over a period of months, the board and administration found themselves weighing two proposals, neither of them a good one.
In one, the OSFC — the state’s system for assisting in school construction projects — proposes tearing down the older portion of Fort Recovery High School and building a 10,000-square-foot addition to the newer part of the school. It has the advantage of being more affordable than the other proposal on the table, but that’s about the only thing that can be said for it.
Option A, if we can call it that, would also require evicting Fort Recovery’s pre-school program, since it’s outside the boundaries of the OSFC. And because the new addition wouldn’t be large enough, it would require giving up district control of vocational classes and joining a cooperative.
Option B, as we understand it, doesn’t involve any demolition. Instead, it calls for a major renovation of the high school, including replacement of most of the mechanical systems.
Trouble is, the local property tax share for Option B is more than three times the money required for Option A. The OSFC’s contribution to the project would stay exactly the same, whichever option was chosen. And because OSFC funds would be involved, the state commission would set the standards for the renovation. For instance, Ohio state law doesn’t require installation of a sprinkler system at the school; but if the school system chose Option B, OSFC would require sprinklers, a requirement that would eat a big chunk of the OSFC contribution.
So, why not reject them both?
That’s where it gets complicated. School officials are contending that OSFC erred in calculating the project and want to discuss the matter further. Formally declining the proposals could mean that it would be decades before a chance for OSFC assistance returned.
As we said, there are no good choices available.
That’s why, under the circumstances, the board’s decision not to decide makes the most sense. Faced with a deadline, the board neither accepted nor declined the proposals.
Will that get the OSFC’s attention and re-open the discussion? That’s anyone’s guess, but it was the right thing to do. — J.R.[[In-content Ad]]
That’s the inevitable conclusion when one ponders the choices confronting the Fort Recovery Local School Board.
After squabbling with the Ohio School Facilities Commission over a period of months, the board and administration found themselves weighing two proposals, neither of them a good one.
In one, the OSFC — the state’s system for assisting in school construction projects — proposes tearing down the older portion of Fort Recovery High School and building a 10,000-square-foot addition to the newer part of the school. It has the advantage of being more affordable than the other proposal on the table, but that’s about the only thing that can be said for it.
Option A, if we can call it that, would also require evicting Fort Recovery’s pre-school program, since it’s outside the boundaries of the OSFC. And because the new addition wouldn’t be large enough, it would require giving up district control of vocational classes and joining a cooperative.
Option B, as we understand it, doesn’t involve any demolition. Instead, it calls for a major renovation of the high school, including replacement of most of the mechanical systems.
Trouble is, the local property tax share for Option B is more than three times the money required for Option A. The OSFC’s contribution to the project would stay exactly the same, whichever option was chosen. And because OSFC funds would be involved, the state commission would set the standards for the renovation. For instance, Ohio state law doesn’t require installation of a sprinkler system at the school; but if the school system chose Option B, OSFC would require sprinklers, a requirement that would eat a big chunk of the OSFC contribution.
So, why not reject them both?
That’s where it gets complicated. School officials are contending that OSFC erred in calculating the project and want to discuss the matter further. Formally declining the proposals could mean that it would be decades before a chance for OSFC assistance returned.
As we said, there are no good choices available.
That’s why, under the circumstances, the board’s decision not to decide makes the most sense. Faced with a deadline, the board neither accepted nor declined the proposals.
Will that get the OSFC’s attention and re-open the discussion? That’s anyone’s guess, but it was the right thing to do. — J.R.[[In-content Ad]]
Top Stories
9/11 NEVER FORGET Mobile Exhibit
Chartwells marketing
September 17, 2024 7:36 a.m.
Events
250 X 250 AD