Fort to opt out of deal (02/01/06)

FORT RECOVERY — Possible construction of a new high school has been put on hold again after the school board voted unanimously at a special work session Tuesday to opt out of a deal with the Ohio Schools Facility Commission.

Instead, the board has decided to revisit the discussion in a year, giving members time to engage with the community to decide what, if any, renovations need to be made and how much additional funding from the community could be available.

“We are dealing with some big issues and a lot of money and I am concerned about time,” said board president Dan Kahlig.

“Whatever decision we make has to be the right one.”

If the board had chosen to take part in the project, they would have only until November elections to gain community support or risk losing OSFC funding completely.

“Once we tell (OSFC) yes, and then if something doesn’t work out or the community doesn’t get on board, we are not automatically (eligible for the money) next year,” explained Fort Recovery schools treasurer Lori Koch.

“But if we opt out this year, that money is still available to us next year.”

The OSFC began in May 1997 in an effort to aid public school districts in the maintenance and emergency care of its buildings.

One of OSFC’s programs gives money to school districts for renovation and construction projects based on assessed valuation, school enrollment and the district’s estimated debt, but only if the district agrees to fund a minimum percentage of the project.

Also, the OSFC must assess the building and approve the project. The OSFC helped fund construction of the elementary/middle school in the late nineties and offered to evaluate and help fund renovations of new construction at the high school.

In this case, Fort Recovery would have to agree to fund about $4 million dollars worth of construction to be eligible for a $2.6 million dollar grant, bringing the minimum cost of the project up to $6.6 million dollars.

Fort Recovery school officials have been discussing the possibility of engaging in a construction project since last spring, when OSFC officials evaluated school facilities and recommended adding about 10,000 square feet to the elementary/middle school and demolishing or selling the current high school building.

The current high school building has been renovated as recently as 2001, with the addition of a commons area, though parts of the building date back to 1931.

“The real question is, how much money are we willing to spend to get state money,” said Koch.

One reason for the delay is a lack of certainty on the part of the board as to what type of project they want to begin, and what the community is willing to fund.

Superintendent David Riel said some community members may be reluctant to fund a construction project while current facilities are still viable, and others may feel nostalgia to the current high school and not wish to see it demolished.

Other options include major renovations without the aid of the OSFC to the portion of the existing high school built in 1935, or simply putting off the project for another few years.

“We’ve talked about all these options, but there is another we need to put some thought in,” said Kahlig. “The next option may be to do nothing. There will be some out there who will say ‘Why can’t we just keep patching?’”

Riel said he would outline a timeline in the coming weeks to determine a course of action for gaining community input as to which project, if any, the district will pursue.

“We know just enough to be dangerous,” said board member Dan Jutte. “What we decide tonight is going to affect the next seventy years.”

Opting out of the agreement is not without its risks. There is no guarantee that OSFC funds will exist in the future, and according to Terry Liette, project manager representing the architecture firm Fanning Howey, construction costs rise about seven percent every year. He said some construction companies report a ten or 12 percent increase.

While this will make any construction significantly more expensive in the future, board members said support from the community was more important.

“Seven percent is worth maintaining the trust of the community,” said board member Steve Wendel.[[In-content Ad]]