Aug 19, 2005 By Steve Ostrosky 4 min read

A larger and louder group gathered Thursday to ask the Uniontown Area School Board to rethink a renovation/construction project Uniontown Area High School slated to begin early next year. The Rev. Peter Malik, who addressed the board last month about the project, said the public has not been made fully aware of the true cost of the planned work. Along with the estimated $43 million required to complete the job, he said the district will pay another $54 million in interest over the life of the bond issue.

“Even if you get the project to $35 million after reimbursement, it will still cost $84 million,” he said. “This is a $107 million high school you’re going to build that will last 50 years, while the current one has been here 94 years.”

He said the taxpayers of the school district cannot afford to bear the burden of such a project, which will require an additional 2.7 mills in taxes.

Several disgruntled taxpayers said they were not familiar with the project until recently and said residents cannot afford the additional tax impact.

Barry Mortichesky of Menallen Township said the board should have made more contact to the public about the plans for the high school to allow people to express their opinions.

“You know where to find us when the tax notices are due,” he said. “Do you believe that this expenditure will result in graduates that can do the work they are supposed to do? I’m asking the board to rethink the razing and rebuilding of the school.”

Geraldine T. “Gerry” Mazza of Franklin Township suggested that the board contract with an out-of-county architectural firm to review the facility and determine what the building needs. She said the taxpayers of the district cannot afford the current millage and will be unable to handle any further increases.

“You have a sign in the cafeteria that says ‘Doing what’s right isn’t always easy,’ so do what’s right and forget about this new building,” she said.

Upon questioning from the public, directors who supported the project offered comments about why they endorsed the work.

Director Ken Meadows said the district has a long-range plan to upgrade all facilities in the district and came about after a feasibility study was completed in 1999. He said the new school does not have to be a “Taj Mahal,” but the district needs to keep its students competitive.

Dorothy Grahek, who chairs the board’s buildings and grounds committee, said the board made a commitment in 1999 to renovating schools after directors found some of them in “deplorable condition.” She said the board members are also taxpayers and will also be affected by the project and its cost.

“My daughter’s high school career is going to be disrupted by the project, but we have to do it for the betterment of our kids,” she said.

The work includes replacing about half of the existing school with new additions that will include:

– A four-story “academic tower” with 38 classrooms, five science labs and seven business/computer labs. The new addition will be built between the end of the football stadium and the existing 1980 section of the school.

– A new gymnasium, locker rooms and team rooms. The new gym will be built on the existing parking lot on Grant Street next to the swimming pool.

– A three-story addition with a kitchen on the ground floor, music and art on the second floor and district administrative offices on the top floor.

The area of the school west of the auditorium will be demolished for this piece of the school, as well as for additional parking.

Malik said the outcry is continuing to grow against the proposal. He said the work can be done to improve the current facility without taking on such an ambitious and costly project.

“You don’t have to spend $107 million to take care of this building,” he said.

Board President Harry “Dutch” Kaufman said the board moved to take advantage of historic low interest rates, as did other local school districts, to advance building projects. He said the bond issue money must be spent in a timely manner to avoid penalties, such as Internal Revenue Service sanctions, and the plan will advance.

“At this point, we’re moving forward and there is a solid bloc of board members who support this project,” he said. “This project came about after many public meetings.”

Kaufman said the board should vote to seek bids for the project in October and award contracts in November. The project has an early 2006 start date and is expected to be complete in 2009.