USD 417 residents are being asked to take a more direct role in determining what a future school bond proposal could include — and how much taxpayers may be willing to spend.
The district held two community roundtable sessions Thursday, Aug. 27, at 5:30 and 7 p.m., providing participants with packets outlining possible projects at Council Grove Elementary School, Prairie Heights Elementary School, Council Grove Junior/Senior High School and the district transportation facility. Another pair of roundtables is scheduled for Wednesday, Sept. 9, at Prairie Heights Elementary School, again at 5:30 and 7 p.m.
Rather than presenting residents with a single proposed package, district representatives described the process as “a la carte.” Participants could review individual projects, ask questions and then complete a “Build Your Bond Option” worksheet identifying which improvements they considered priorities. Board members seated at the tables listened to the discussion and collected the worksheets for additional feedback.
A board member told those attending that the district is trying to determine both what the community considers its greatest needs and what level of spending residents would realistically support. The previous community survey was included in the packet, but the board member noted that the results did not point to one overwhelming answer. “There’s no one right answer,” the board member said, adding that the district does not want to spend considerable time developing another bond proposal if the community will not support it.
The packet’s final worksheet allows residents to assemble their own combination of projects and compare the resulting cost with potential tax increases. District representatives emphasized that the drawings and combinations presented in the packet were examples rather than fixed choices.
For Council Grove Elementary School, individual components range from a $291,000 secure entrance at the southwest corner to a $5.719 million, 11-classroom addition. A five-classroom addition is estimated at $3.848 million; remodeling space for an early childhood learning center, $1.13 million; remodeling the 1940s classrooms, $1.221 million; remodeling the band/multipurpose area, $459,000; and site development, $1.589 million. At Prairie Heights, the worksheet lists a secure entrance at $41,000 (See USD 417 roundtable, Page 2) and renovation of the locker area at $361,000.
The largest number of choices involves Council Grove Junior/Senior High School. Demolition of the 1918 and 1960s portions of the building is estimated at $447,000, while demolition of the FACS area alone is listed at $42,000.
The packet also provides two alternatives to demolishing the older high school sections. A minor renovation of the 1918/1960s buildings is estimated at $3.188 million, while a major renovation is estimated at $8.137 million.
Several new-construction combinations are also presented. They range from approximately $10.032 million for five classrooms and renovated CTE and fine arts areas to $23.24 million for 20 classrooms, FACS, CTE, a media center and greenhouse. Other combinations include three classrooms with FACS, CTE, a media center and greenhouse for $13.397 million, and six classrooms with those same program areas for $14.662 million. High school site development is estimated at another $2.088 million.
Renovating the district office property for use as a transportation facility is estimated at $1.492 million.
The discussion also provided residents with an opportunity to suggest possibilities that were not included among the prepared options.
One participant asked whether the district had considered retaining the 1918/1960s buildings but, if they were no longer needed for school purposes, selling, donating or otherwise making them available for redevelopment as housing rather than spending $447,000 to demolish them. The participant cited Council Grove’s housing shortage and the conversion of the former school building in Cottonwood Falls into apartments as an example of another potential use for an older school building.
A board member responded that the district had not previously had that conversation. The suggestion was then restated at the table as a possible question for future consideration: if the district no longer used the older building, could it be converted to apartments or another use instead of being demolished?
Other discussion focused heavily on space and safety at Council Grove Elementary School. District representatives said some specialized staff members are sharing limited space, while students also travel between the main building and annex areas. Elementary Principal Kelcy Bremer discussed security concerns created by moving students outside between buildings and concerns about where children in the annex would shelter during severe weather.
Questions were also raised about why additional classroom space is being considered when district enrollment is substantially different from decades ago. District representatives responded that the junior high is now housed with the high school and that modern schools also require space for specialized instruction, student services and career and technical education programs that did not exist in the same form years ago.
Tax affordability was another recurring part of the conversation.
The district provided separate residential, commercial and agricultural mill levy information based on possible 30-year bond amounts of $23 million, $26 million, $30 million, $35 million and $40 million. The sheets use 11.269 mills as the existing levy figure. A $23 million project is shown at the same 11.269 mills, while $26 million would increase the levy by 1.5 mills, $30 million by 4 mills, $35 million by 6.5 mills and $40 million by 9.5 mills.
For example, the district estimates that a $200,000 home would see no increase under the $23 million scenario. The estimated increase would be $2.88 per month for a $26 million project, $7.67 per month for $30 million, $12.46 for $35 million and $18.21 for $40 million. For a commercial property valued at $200,000, the projected monthly increases are $6.25, $16.67, $27.08 and $39.58 respectively for the $26 million through $40 million scenarios.
Agricultural examples were calculated differently, using median-use values for native grass, tame grass and dry land. For 160 acres of native grass, for example, the projected monthly increase ranges from 59 cents under the $26 million scenario to $3.76 under the $40 million scenario. For 160 acres of dry land, the corresponding range is $1.39 to $8.82 per month.
A board member also said contingency funding has been included in the project estimates, although final construction prices cannot be guaranteed. The goal, the board member said, is for any eventual bond authorization to establish the maximum amount that could be levied.
The earlier district survey also resurfaced during the roundtable. At the table attended by the Republican, several participants questioned whether some survey questions had been structured in a way that encouraged respondents toward particular choices. One participant told a board member, “I felt like it was trying to tell me which direction to go.” The board member acknowledged the concern and said the purpose of the roundtables and individual worksheets is to obtain another form of community feedback.
The discussion illustrated why the district is seeking more direct public participation. Residents differed on which buildings and programs should receive priority, how existing structures should be used and how much additional taxation — if any — they could support. One participant said a tax increase would be difficult but would be comfortable maintaining the existing levy as the district’s current debt is paid off. A board member responded that such comments were exactly the type of parameters the board is trying to identify.
No final project package was selected during the meeting. The worksheets and conversations are intended to help the board determine whether there is a combination of improvements and costs that can gain sufficient community support.
Residents who want to participate in that process will have another opportunity Sept. 9 at Prairie Heights Elementary School, with roundtable sessions beginning at 5:30 and 7 p.m.