Nov 9, 2004 By Josh Krysak 4 min read

MAPLETOWN – After a group of upstart citizens ousted five members of the Southeastern Greene School Board during last year’s election promising not to raise taxes, the new members are coming to the realization that the district cannot continue to provide educational services unless costly renovations are made to the ailing high school. And while the board came together with about 100 area residents to discuss possible options and to dispel rumors regarding the school district, the board has trimmed the district’s future to three general options: a $7.2 million renovation project, a $2.2 million basic overhaul or sending the district’s 385 7th- through 12th-grade students to other schools, something the district referred to as “tuitioning.”

“We are trying to develop an answer for the future of this school district,” buildings and grounds chairman Gary Yoskovich said. “We have to have some promise for our future for our children. Until our legislators do something about how to fund education, this is a problem we all have to face.”

According to board President Gary Moser, the district has discussed sending students to the Central Greene School District and the Carmichaels School District and both said they could accommodate some students. Moser said Carmichaels can accommodate 150 students and West Greene can take an additional 60 students. He said the district can also contact Jefferson-Morgan School District as well as Albert Gallatin School District in Fayette County to take the remaining 165 students.

Some residents remained adamant about the possible tax hike.

“There are a number of people that have to move if the taxes go up,” Ginny Everhart of Greensboro said. She and others against a tax increase asked the board put the proposal on the ballot as a referendum in next year’s elections.

But many area residents as well as a petition from more than 200 Mapletown High School students expressed opposition to sending the students out of the district and most said they are willing to pay a tax increase to keep the school alive.

Sherry Jordan, a special education teacher in the district said that the board has said if they remodel taxes will go up. She said if the district does nothing, taxes will go up. Jordan contended that if the board sends the kids out of the district, according to district Business Manager Patrick Sweeney, the taxes will still be increased by at least one mil to pay for additional transportation.

“Our taxes are going to go up anyway you cut it, so lets have a nice building four our kids,” Jordan said. Her remarks were met with loud applause.

Directors seemed to lean toward the $7.2 million renovation to the junior-senior high school, still less than half the projected cost of a new $18 million school proposed by the old board in July of 2003.

After state reimbursement, the proposal would cost the district $5.2 million, but that number could change after board members and the architect get together to decide what plan will work.

Earlier this month, the board approved taking on up to $8 million in debt service to pay for renovations to the junior-senior high school.

The proposal would renovate the ceiling and roof as well as the windows and would reduce the square footage of the school from 87,000 to 59,000, a more manageable and practical space for the declining student population.

The proposal would require a 3-mil increase in local real estate taxes, but would be offset by a cut to the taxes in December of 2.23 mils.

The $2.2 million revamping would be the school’s most cost efficient option, but no reimbursement would be available and only the bare minimum would be completed.

The final option of sending the students to other districts would take the majority of federal aide from the school and give it to the host school districts and would actually cost the district about $88,000 more annually in transportation and tuition fees.

According to a feasibility study conducted by Hayes Design Group in late 2002, architects found numerous structural problems throughout the district and recommended one of four options to the district for the needed renovations.

One of the original options was for the district to construct an entirely new facility for kindergarten through 12th grade use, a building that would house all the district’s students but at a cost of $18 million, something the already burden tax base could not afford.

The current high school was built in 1924 and was renovated in 1939 and 1961 but was found to be in bad repair in the 2002 feasibility study.

While there is no timeline in place for the project, Moser said something will be done soon one way or another.

“We have watched the water boil long enough,” Moser said. “It is time to cook the meal.”