School project underway

A groundbreaking ceremony for the project was held in August, and the new elementary, plus a new ag building and kitchen and upgrades to the science lab, is expected to open in time for the 2016-17 academic year.

It will add 31,000 square feet of new space, with 25,000 of it a new elementary school, and a 6,000-square-foot expansion of the junior/senior high school to include enlarging its kitchen and adding an ag building that will include not only space for woodworking and metal fabrication but also ag sciences and robotics.

After an $11.2 million bond issue for the same proposed project went down in 2009 with a 57 ercent no vote, the project was revived when windmill dollars provided by the Sherman County Court started filling school district coffers. Since 2009, the school district has received $6.5 million.

With most of that still in the bank, the school board voted in May to seek a $5 million loan, repayable with windmill money, to do the $11 million project.

The Sherman County Court, however, had repeatedly asked the school district to take the matter to a vote, even offering to guarantee a loan if it did so. That offer was declined by the school board.

On May 8, the court sent a letter to the school district saying that, while it recognizes the autonomy of the school district, “Without a consensus vote on the project, the Sherman County Court is unable to guarantee any loan amount that the district is contemplating. Any and all debt created by the school board is the responsibility of the school district and not of Sherman County.”

The county plans to continue making windmill payments to the school district, but stated it cannot guarantee them.

The letter caused a stir, and school board officials and citizens appeared before the court a few days later to register their concerns, with one citizen calling the letter “divisive,” according to meeting minutes.

Sherman County Commissioner Tom McCoy apologized for the confusion, according to county meeting minutes, and said the letter was merely reiterating that the county was not guaranteeing a loan.

The minutes said McCoy felt it was important to “move forward in support of the school district’s position.”

The project and lack of vote on it is so divisive that several people who initially spoke to the Chronicle about the matter -- both of them against the project -- later asked that their comments not be printed or their names used. Two others spoke to the Chronicle to provide information but did not want to be involved in the story. They said they believed a majority of voters would not have approved the project, and the ensuing consolidation it would cause, even if they didn’t have to pay for it.

As to the idea of a vote, Sherman County School Board Chair Bill Martin said, “We are not asking the taxpayers of Sherman County to build this project.” Instead, it is being built with windmill dollars.

“The reality is, the board has to look at this from what their job is, and their job is to look at this as what is best for education in Sherman County. There’s no doubt this is what’s best for education in Sherman County,” Martin said.

Oregon law actually doesn’t allow the mechanism for such a vote to be held by a school district. State law only creates mechanisms for cities and counties to refer matters to voters.

The consolidation of schools will bring an estimated $240,000 in savings per year in administration and other costs, school board documents say.

School Supt. Wes Owens said cost savings will include food service efficiencies, reductions in transportation costs, cuts in administration, and a restoration of about $100,000 in state funding for seventh and eighth grades that was lost when they were moved to the high school in 2005.

Martin said this was the final of many school consolidations in the county. He noted at one time every town had its own high school. “The consolidation has gone on in this county for many, many years,” he said. Closing Grass Valley has been discussed since at least since the 1990s, when the school burned and was rebuilt, Martin said.

In meeting minutes from February, board Vice Chair Angie Thompson said it was “an opportunity to make it the best educational experience for preschool through seniors and the district may not get this chance again.”

Martin said he understood why there might be strong feelings against the project. “I think anytime you close down a school there’s obviously certain parts of any community that want to make sure you’re doing the right thing.”

He said, “Has there been controversy? Yeah,” but he said “it’s no different than a family where you have different ideas about how to spend your money.”

Owens said “change is difficult,” but the county is resilient and has been through many consolidations before, each of them beneficial. He is confident this one will be too.

The board was not unanimous in pursuing the project. Jim Macnab has been the consistent lone ‘no’ vote on the project. He recently has been joined in that column by new board member Merrie von Borstel.

In meeting minutes from February, Macnab expressed his concerns “related to abandoning another school, following the agreement with the county court, indebting the school district, possible staff cuts, and future enrollment. He also expressed his frustration regarding the sequence of moving elementary students to the least populated area, ‘sticking’ the county with the Wasco elementary building and now moving the students to Moro.”

Later in the meeting, Martin stated the county willingly took the Wasco building.

In March, the school board got four proposals for a construction manager/general contractor and hired Bend firm, Kirby Nagelhout Construction Co.

Very few citizens were at most meetings throughout the last year as the board hired an architect, then a company to build the project, and then approved the $5 million loan.

The district has taken out a 15-year loan from a private lender, with two payments due in 2015 and then annual payments thereafter.