DANVILLE — Danville community members, school board and administrators identified priorities for Danville Local Schools facility improvements during an open meeting Thursday evening.
Top priorities include replacing the roof over the 1965 section of the elementary school, adding elevator access in the three-story 1939 section of the high school, replacing unit vents and air conditioning for the high school, repairing the external masonry of the high school, adding an auxiliary gym and weight room to the high school, and adding on to create a full service kitchen.
A recurring point of disagreement arose over whether to demolish the administration building and convert the site to parking.
The board did not take any action during the meeting, as it was a work session. Thursday’s meeting was the second of its kind hosted by the district as a part of its master facility planning with SHP. The meetings, called Community Advisory Team meetings, are open for anyone interested to join, supt. Jason Snively said.
The board approved the agreement for limited professional consulting services with SHP during its regular February meeting, which will be effective through November 2022.
The district will be invoiced on an hourly basis, not to exceed $25,000, for the services. The project may be funded in part by ESSR funds and will not be administered by the Ohio Facility Construction Commission, according to the contract shared by treasurer Tonya Mickley.
During the first CAT meeting in March, community members identified initial wants and needs, and Joshua Predovich, senior educational facility planner architect for SHP, shared estimated costs for potential projects Thursday.
“Right now, trying to estimate construction is impossible,” Predovich said to preface. “The market is all over the place.”
That said, the estimated project cost grand total for all items on the wish list is $11.68 million, a figure based on 2021 cost data.
Most of the projects on this list are for the high school, but the 18 potential projects span improvements to the elementary school, high school and athletic facilities.
“This list is not exhaustive,” Predovich said. “There are things on this list that may potentially get prioritized out. There are still things that probably aren’t on this list.”
The roof replacement for the elementary school is the only project that has been identified for that building, which is estimated to cost $607,050.
At the high school, 13 projects are being considered.
These include: replacement of unit vents and adding air conditioning ($350,000), updating fire suppression if required for storage (cost to-be-determined), drama storage on stage ($112,500), replacing 300 student lockers ($105,000), adding the three-story elevator ($335,000), repairing external masonry ($35,000), adding an auxiliary gym and weight room addition ($5,512,500), weight room equipment ($250,000), adding a locker room and storage ($735,000), demolishing the administration building ($105,800), converting the administration site to parking ($560,000), adding an administration suite to the high school ($1,260,000), and auditorium improvements ($410,500).
Four athletic facility improvements have also been identified as potential projects. These include: an elementary school field house, locker room, restroom and concessions ($1 million), a sound system for elementary field house ($25,000), aluminum bleachers at the track ($30,000), as well as a DARCI fieldhouse, locker room, restroom and concessions ($252,000).
The board intends to make a decision on facility projects by May 16, after gathering feedback from the community through Thursday’s meeting as well as another one scheduled for May 10.
When the board ultimately decides which projects to pursue, it will need to get public support through the November election.
There are two options the district can take when it comes to putting the project on the ballot, which Michael Burns explained Thursday.
Burns is managing director of public finance for Baird, an American multinational independent investment bank and financial services company. There is no district agreement with Baird at this time, because there has not been an approval to put anything on the ballot yet, treasurer Tonya Mickley said.
Taxes are set to decrease in Danville because 2.10 mills will be falling off, which had been the maintenance levy for the elementary building.
“It’s a good time to issue new debt when an old debt is paid off because everyone is kind of used to paying that amount of tax,” Burns said. “Now, if we do the full project we’re talking about, taxes are going to go up a little bit, but the net result is going to be pretty minimal.”
The two options have to do with how the district incorporates this decrease into the total it presents to the public in November.
One option is a 37-year unlimited tax general obligation bond, which has taxpayers paying the net new bond mileage after 2.10 mill reduction.
For example, regarding taxpayer cost, if the district were to do the full litany of projects outlined above, the estimated annual cost per 100k home would be between $206.12 to $223.56. The estimated net additional cost per 100k home after millage reduction would be $132.65 to $150.15.
The lower end of the spectrum is as if the bonds were sold today, and the higher end is current rates plus .75%, assuming rates go up. Burns suggested focusing on the higher number to be conservative.
“We cannot lock the rates in until after the voters vote ‘yes’ in November,” he said, adding that rates will likely not be locked in until February 2023.
With this first option, voters will only see the estimated annual cost per $100k home, not the estimated net cost per $100k home after the millage reduction.
“The net difference is less, and I think that will be a challenge to explain,” Burns said.
The other option is a 37-year UTGO bond and 30-year certificates of participation, which involves moving the inside 2.10 mills to pay for the net difference.
If the district were to do the full litany of projects using this option, the estimated cost per 100k home as seen on the ballot would be between $151.46-$164.27.
“But, the challenge when we do that is from an optical standpoint, it could frustrate some taxpayers, because we’re moving 2.1 mills without the vote of the taxpayers,” Burns said.
Both options would get the district to the same place but through different means. The second option would be slightly more expensive.
While Thursday’s CAT meeting was discussion-based, the community is expected to come up with a recommendation for the board at the next meeting, which will be May 10.
This recommendation will then be presented to the board for a vote during its regular board meeting May 16.
