Frazier School District
Central may finally receive much-needed alterations JEFFERSON TWP. – As one of three buildings analyzed in a feasibility study for renovations and construction, Central Elementary School in the Frazier School District has continued to get by for the last 10 years with temporary repairs.
As the building nears 40 years old, it could receive alterations as one of two proposed affordable options are being examined by the school board in a feasibility study prepared by Eckles Architecture and Engineering of New Castle.
Depending on the option, Eckles estimated the cost of alterations at $19.6 million or $25 million for a new facility at the stadium site with the intent for the district to break ground for a new middle school about five years from now.
Alisha Phillips, vice president of public finance with Janney Montgomery Scott (JMS), advised the board in September the district would not be able to afford a third proposed option costing $29.1 million since it would exceed Frazier’s debt limit, which is based on its annual revenue.
With the district’s current millage rate at 13.069 mills, Phillips said Frazier would be able to borrow up to $25 million.
Otherwise, the district would be required to put the project on a referendum next month if the board were to exceed that amount included in a third option for $29.2 million.
“We have elementary needs to take care of, but we also have a middle school that is the oldest buliding in the district,” said Donald Martin, superintendent.
In all proposed options, Eckles noted that site development costs at both elementary schools, along with acquisition fees for the middle school, remain undetermined.
The options also exclude renovation costs for the middle school that was built in the 1920s and renovated in 1992.
The board is poised to vote on taking out a bond issue for the project later this month that would coincide with the paperwork being put into place by JMS to secure the best rate by Nov. 4 under Federal Stimulus funds.
If the board opts for renovations, Tom Shetterly, business manager, said taxpayers would be looking at an annual increase of $139.50 over the next five years based on a house assessed at $75,000 or by $204 a year for a new facility.
Eckles said the district is looking at $5.3 million in state reimbursement for renovations and $4.7 million for a new facility.
At 40,000 square feet, Central was constructed in 1971 and opened its doors in 1973.
The building houses about 190 students in kindergarten through fifth grade, but a feasibility study from eight years ago determined then it no longer meets the educational standards and building codes of the Pennsylvania Department of Education (PDE) and the Americans with Disabilities Act as well as Perry.
With a capacity of 325 students, David A. Esposito, partner with Eckles, said the state would classify Central as favorable for renovations because of its student enrollment.
According to PDE, state reimbursement for school construction projects is based on the capacity of a building, which is justified by present or projected student enrollment, plus 15 percent of the highest 10-year projected enrollment or a district’s enrollment projections.
The state also considers the size of the building and the district’s wealth with Frazier classified as a low-income, rural school.
Esposito said he believed the most feasible option would be a new facility since it would accommodate all elementary students.
“It allows to have a balance of class size, which is an educational advantage,” said Esposito.
Over the last five years, Central and Perry elementary schools have undergone a series of walk-throughs by school officials, board members and architects.
From there, John Phillips, supervisor of building, grounds and maintenance, devised a punch list of problems the board has continued to prioritize and paid for out of the general fund budget.
In order to save the district money, Phillips has made most of the repairs himself, but has been limited on time.
Overall, Phillips found the top priority involved constructing a new sewage treatment plant that Eckles estimated to cost $250,000.
Phillips noted the roof and heating system also needs replaced along with the interior and exterior lighting, plumbing and restroom fixtures and additional electrical outlets.
Dave Simmons, school board member and chairman of the building, grounds and maintenance committee, reported two years ago that some of the windows were falling out of the building.
Simmons also found the windows in the principal’s office were posing a danger since they open from the inside.
Tom Shetterly, business manager, said the district has replaced one window per year in each classroom similar to a separate program of replacing the furniture in one grade level per year paid for out of the Capital reserve fund.
Shetterly said other savings resulted from not having to bid the projects out since the total was less than $10,000.
Ten years ago, security cameras were installed throughout the building to monitor the inside and outside of the entrance along with a card system for access.
While an initial feasibility study was conducted in 1998 by Hayes Large Architects of Pittsburgh, renovations were estimated then at $8.7 million.
The study, however, expired in 2002 after the board became divided on operating one or two elementary schools.
At the time, Hayes Large determined it would be most feasible to renovate Central and Perry for $7.2 million that was tagged as the most expensive option.
It consisted of housing grades K-5 at each elementary school with major renovations to all classrooms, kitchens, multipurpose rooms and administrative facilities, and new lighting, ceilings and windows.
The study also included replacing the roof, the electric boiler with a gas unit, the water pumps, exhaust systems and heating items and the existing gymnasium.
The relief air system and existing wiring system was also found in violation of the building codes in the study with the automatic temperature control system needing replaced as well as the exhaust systems.
Designated masonry areas, relocating the administrative office and making the building more accessible for individuals with disabilities completed the recommendations.