Will Bayfield School District voters support another bond issue after approving a bond issue extension and a mill levy over-ride in 2012?
The district is sending out a survey this week to get a feel for that. The school board will review results at its next meeting on Feb. 9.
District owners representative Marty Zwisler presented cost comparisons on school construction options to the school board on Jan. 12. The estimates were more complete than those presented on Dec. 9. Those numbers had changed again by Jan. 20.
The cost difference was only $179,000 on two options to build a new school across the street from the mid school, Zwisler said. Option 1 would be a school for grades 3-5 with cost estimated at $29.3 million. Option 2 would be a school for grades K-2, with cost estimated at $29.1 million.
Both options include a large gym that could accommodate middle school activvities, instead of a smaller elementary school gym; and renovation of the current district administrative offices on Clover Drive at an estimated cost of $860,000. School board members were leery of the option 1 presented on Jan. 12 to renovate the Early Primary School east building for district offices at a cost of $2.5 million. That was eliminated.
Option 1 also includes major renovation and additions at the elementary school to accommodate grades K-2, with estimated cost of $8.2 million. The over-all cost for option 1 was listed at $38.9 million on the survey.
Option 2 has much less extensive renovation at BES to accommodate grades 3-5, with cost estimate of $5.8 million. The total cost for option 2 is listed on the survey at $35.8 million.
District officials hope to reduce the total cost of these options by getting a Colorado Department of Education BEST grant.
Superintendent Troy Zabel said CDE has reduced the maximum amount the district is eligible for from 31 percent of total cost to 28 percent, on grounds that "average income in Bayfield is actually higher than in Durango. Shocking!"
He also advised, "Getting a grant isn't certain. We've been told multiple times by BEST that we're way ahead of the game" with all the preliminary work the district has done in the last few months. "But we don't know what the competition will be. There could be schools with much greater need."
The school board is mulling whether to ask voters to approve a bond issue this November, and how much money to ask for. Board members were concerned that the survey draft presented by Zabel had too many options beyond the two and would just confuse people. His survey introduction framed the problem and said that without a bond issue, the option would be to install two more modulars with four classrooms at BEPS.
Board member Carol Blatnick said that sounded like a threat. Instead, the board wanted that as one of the survey choices. It's listed as option 3 on the survey with a cost of $550,000 that could be funded from district operating revenue.
Blatnick and Zabel listed other options: go back to half day kindergarten instead of full day, or larger class sizes. But District Finance Director Amy Lyons reminded them that full day kindergarten was promised with the 2012 mill levy over-ride. State per-pupil funding only covers a half day of kindergarten.
Zabel said the annual cost difference on an average price home ($280,000) in the school district for options 1 and 2 is minor, as is the cost to build a large gym for the new school. Tax impacts as listed on the survey would be:
. For option 1, the owner of the average home would pay around $240 a year more without the BEST grant or $175 with the full grant.
. For option 2, the cost would be $220 more without the grant or $160 with.
The big gym would cost about $2.60 a year more than the small gym, Zabel said.
Options 1 and 2 include off-site costs estimated at $6 million for the new school, with or without a big gym, according to Zwisler's Jan. 12 figures. The biggest would be around $4 million to pipe the irrigation ditch that runs north-south through the middle of the 40 acres.
Next would be improvements on East Oak Drive and several intersections to handle before and after school traffic from the new school.
"Traffic is a huge concern to people" about the new school, board member Daniele Hillyer said.
It's an issue whether a new school would be for grades 3-5 or K-2, Zabel said.
To get estimates of off-site costs, the district did traffic, water, sewer, and drainage studies. Zwisler said the sewer study "showed no significant new impacts. The infrastructure is capable. The storm water study was good. Regarding water supply, the engineers determined it wouldn't over-burden water services. But we have concerns about meeting state fire flow requirements."
The standard is 1,500 gallons per minute, while the flow in that area is around 1,300 gpm, Zwisler said. "The simplest scenario would be to get a waiver (of the standard) from the state."
Zabel said, "This is a common issue in rural areas. A lot of districts get that" waiver.
Zwisler commented, "To get 1,500 out of any hydrant in town is doubtful. Some are 600 to 800. We could add a tank or construct a new line if we didn't have to buy easement."
The traffic study showed negative impacts on three intersections, Zwisler said - Highway 160 and Commerce Drive, which already has issues that would become worse; at Mountain View and East Oak Drive which is fine now, "but the new school will create unacceptable wait times in the morning." The other is morning traffic on County Road 501 at Sossaman Drive.
"We think the (intersection) costs will not be above the $1.5 million" presented to the board, Zwisler said.
Zabel and Zwisler also have been talking to town and Colorado Department of Transportation officials about whether a new north side access on Hwy. 160 at the east edge of town will be needed across from the Conocl station. Private development on that land has been stymied for years because of lack of that access.
Also on Jan. 12, the school board approved an application to the town to annex the 40 acres.
To take the survey, district residents can go online to https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/bsdbondsurvey2016
