The Conewago Valley School District met for over two hours last week to review the Act 34 booklet, a key step in the ongoing renovation project for Conewago Township Elementary School, and to consider other matters.
The bulk of the meeting was dedicated to presentations on the Act 34 booklet, followed by discussion about the scope and projected cost of the project.
Anthony Colestock, a representative from architectural design firm Crabtree, Rohrbaugh & Associates, provided the primary presentation.
Colestock presented the Act 34 booklet to the board and previewed the anticipated Act 34 public hearing scheduled for 6 p.m. Feb. 13 in the CTE gymnasium.
“The different information that is required to be presented is: What’s the need for the project? What were some options that you considered? What is the description of the project? How are you financing the project? And what is the cost estimate?” Colestock said.
Colestock said a board resolution to approve the maximum building construction cost will be presented to the board for a vote on Jan. 13.
The hearing will be atypical of what the community typically sees when attending a district meeting. Rather than being a board meeting, the public hearing will see all board members sitting among the audience with the exception of board president Jeffrey Kindschuh.
Once Kindschuh and the district solicitor begin the meeting, Dr. Sharon Perry, superintendent of Conewago Valley School District, and other members of administration will present details on the existing buildings and the facility upgrade needs the district has.
Colestock said his portion of the public hearing will include a recap of the options the board reviewed since it first investigated the renovation project, as well as the many steps taken to reach the current plans. He will also provide details on the design, cost and other details of the project.
The Act 34 booklet will be available for the public to review prior to the public hearing to better equip them to form an understanding and prepare questions for the hearing. Site plan and floor plan drawings will not be included in the public copies for security reasons, according to Colestock.
While the board has two simultaneous renovations projects in progress for Conewago Township and New Oxford Elementary schools, the public hearing in February will only be for CTE. A separate public hearing will be held at a future date specifically for NOE.
In addition to gleaning details from the Act 34 public hearing, the booklet itself has many details board and community members can use to fill in blanks. Colestock pointed to page 9, which focuses on the history of CTE’s renovation project from the initial feasibility study until now, as well as the reasoning used to justify the overall project.
The following two pages contain information on the square footage and student capacity of the building, as well as other information.
Some pages of the booklet, including pages 14-18, are more technical, as they include workbooks from the Pennsylvania Department of Education related to the project finances.
The maximum building construction cost detailed on those pages is not a project estimate but a project ceiling based on the PDE equation.
“The way that the maximum building construction cost is calculated – and again, this is a number that you’re going to adopt, that you’re going to have a resolution for this maximum building construction cost – it is not just the bricks and mortar,” Colestock said. “It also includes your design professional fees. It also includes the furniture and equipment that’s included, minus the site development costs. So this isn’t necessarily a number that you’re going to see on bid day. This is just to show to the community when you’re doing this new construction all the other costs that are involved to calculate this number that the state wants you to adopt.”
The site development costs, which for some projects can be pricey, is not included by PDE in that figure due to the highly variable case-by-case nature of those figures, according to Colestock.
Other costs that do not fit neatly into the pre-written worksheet have space on the following pages and are accounted for in the overall figure. These prices could include inspection costs, traffic studies and other costs, according to Colestock.
Page 17 is the start of financing details specific to the CTE project. Financing details continue again on page 19.
The maximum building construction cost will be compared with bids received for the renovation project. The breakdown from the bids will be fed into the workbook to ensure it fits within the PDE parameters.
While the maximum construction cost is a cost ceiling developed through the workbook, Colestock said PDE allows an 8% buffer. Should the actual bids be above the maximum construction cost but within the 8% buffer, the board will have the option to decide whether to proceed with construction. In that event, the district would have a follow-up Act 34 hearing.
The final portion of the booklet contains a copy of the Act 34 resolution the board will consider for approval on Monday, Jan. 13, as well as evidence of advertisement of the hearing.
The Act 34 booklet review was the first public board review of the booklet, though the board received a copy of the booklet on Friday, Jan. 3 for pre-reading.
Colestock said he felt the district has done an excellent job of ensuring the community has a thorough look at the project’s lifespan.
After the Act 34 booklet presentation was complete, some board members had questions and criticism regarding the project’s scope and budget.
Board member Lindsay Krug questioned whether the district is “over-building” the classrooms compared to how future enrollment needs.
Board member William Getz expressed concerns about the cost to the district.
“Not to put words in Lindsay’s mouth, but what I’m thinking is, pennies make dollars, and if we’re making classrooms larger than they need to be, that’s potentially an opportunity shave some in order to alleviate or relieve our taxpayers of some of the burden of that debt,” Getz said. “If we’re shaving 100 square feet, for example, per classroom times however many classrooms the project is when it all comes down to it.”
Colestock said that based on current enrollment as well as projected enrollment figures, the project is “lean and mean.”
One board member wondered whether reducing square footage of each classroom would significantly affect the square footage given the smaller impact shrinking them could have compared to the other, larger construction costs.
Colestock said another “guiding principle” the district provided for the project was ensuring equity both between the two elementary schools and within each school on an individual level. Colestock said that on prior projects he’s worked on, teachers will sometimes compare the size of their classroom to ensure it is comparable with that of neighboring classrooms.
Getz and Krug expressed concern regarding the project’s focus on equity.
“I genuinely hope that if someone here (compares classroom sizes) they then just go find a new job,” Krug said. “The pettiness is real. That’s insanity. It’s for the kids, it’s for the kids. Is it? Is the kid going to have the same tape measure? That’s enraging.”
Krug said she felt questions regarding the project – which began prior to her tenure on the board – have been inadequately answered, chief among them what she considers to be unnecessary increases in the project budget since its inception. She also expressed doubt regarding whether enrollment figures used to determine expansion needs are accurate.
Colestock explained that over the lifetime of the project, the scope has changed from updating the school to a 90% new build, accounting for the higher project fees. The site development cost was narrowed down over time following information fed by the civil engineer on district, municipality and county requirements, he said.
Kindschuh defended the need for the expansion, saying the school is already at capacity and that with the addition of housing developments, the enrollment figures will likely continue to follow enrollment projections.
Krug denied that a board tour of the school proved current capacity issues.
“At NOE we were taken into a closet – which, by the way, is bigger than my bedroom – and it was full of empty roll carts,” Krug said. “Honestly, to me, it kind of seemed like that room had those carts put in it so it would seem cramped when we went in. It had one desk, it had two computer towers. I’m not seeing certain things.”
At the end of a lengthy debate, Krug promised to send a list of questions to Perry for review. Questions requiring input from Crabtree, Rohrbaugh & Associates will be sent to Colestock’s team. Other questions from Krug’s list that may have been answered from previous board or community questions will be provided with the previous answer.
Following the Act 34 booklet review, the board went into its regular study session to review and discuss the agenda for next week’s regular board meeting.
Comprehensive plan
During the study session, Perry reviewed the highlights of the comprehensive plan, including the steering committee’s participants, overall goals, and strengths and challenges it identified on both a broader view and categorical view.
The comprehensive plan will be presented to the board in February for approval, then posted online for community input.
Kindschuh recognized the committee’s work.
“That was at least monthly meetings – I think in some months it was more – and I just appreciate all of the effort,” Kindschuh siad. “We had a really good cross-section of folks inside the district – parents, members of the community, members of industry – so it is just indicative of the support the community has for the district. We should feel good about that.”
Kindschuh also pointed to the negotiations between the teachers’ union and the district.
“Really, I do appreciate the union coming in and the discussions were very open,” Kindschuh said. “I think both parties were aligned with the vision for where we need to go and what we as a team need to do to help the district get to where we want to be.”
Following the study session, the board went into executive session to discuss personnel issues ahead of next week’s meeting.
Upcoming meetings
Jan. 13 will be a meeting-heavy day for the district. Before the meetings begin, the school board will hold a facilities meeting and take a private tour of New Oxford High School before heading into executive session.
Immediately following executive session, the board will hold a study session in the auditorium at about 7 p.m. After the study session ends, the board will go straight into a regular voting meeting.
During the voting meeting, the board is anticipated to vote on an updated contract for 2025-2030 between the district and the teacher’s union, the Conewago Valley Education Association.
A preview of the agenda for the 7 p.m. meeting on Jan. 13 can be viewed here.
Imari Scarbrough is a freelance journalist.
Imari Scarbrough is a freelance journalist. She was a staff newspaper reporter for five years before becoming a freelancer in 2017. She has written on crime, environmental issues, severe weather events, local and regional government and more.
You can visit her website at ImariJournal.com.