March 19, 2024

Work session involves two more reconfiguration proposals, Berg dilemma

Estimate for new Berg complex is $30 million

There were plenty of facts discussed at Thursday’s Newton Community School District board’s special work session at the Emerson Hough building — and two new reconfiguration proposals were discussed as well.

The proposals, put together by several NCSD leaders as a composite response to teacher and parent surveys, would reconfigure the grade levels at each district facility, through the sixth grade, and would follow a recent committee recommendation to return Emerson Hough to a regular elementary school.

The work session didn’t involve public discussion or comments, and there were no votes planned or taken.

Superintendent Bob Callaghan also presented some data about the aging Berg complex that involved estimates of either a $17 million renovation or a $30 million rebuild.

Both of the proposals described on Thursday turn the Berg elementary/middle school complex into a grades 5-8 facility, and Callaghan and others were quick to point out that no plans involve cutting staff.

“In fact, depending on how we’re prioritizing classroom size, we’ll have to add staff,” Callaghan said. “We think we can do this by adding four teachers, district-wide.”

The first proposal then distributes kindergarten-through-fourth-grade enrollments evenly across what would be the district’s four elementary schools — Emerson Hough, Aurora Heights, Thomas Jefferson and Woodrow Wilson — putting about 275 students on each campus — with preschool at a different facility.

The second proposal puts preschool through second grade at Thomas Jefferson, kindergarten through second grade at Emerson Hough and the third and fourth grades at Woodrow Wilson and Aurora Heights.

“This plan would leave Jefferson and Hough filled to the gills, but would allow Wilson and Aurora a little breathing room, as in 85 to 90 percent of capacity,” Callaghan said.

There was no opposition voiced in the meeting to reopening Hough as an elementary school. Callaghan said any reconfiguration that would give the district more existing classrooms would involve returning the Hough building to being a regular school.

The Hough building, which has received renovations and add-on construction through the years, is currently home to administration offices, the pre-school program, the Basics & Beyond alternative school, the Disciplinary Alternative Program and a gymnasium used by many programs.

“I believe we should re-open Hough,” board member Donna Cook said. “I’m just not sure how. We do need to plan for the future, but right now, we’re not busting at the seams.”

Callaghan presented much of the same data that he mentioned at a Dec. 3 School Improvement Advisory Committee meeting — including feedback from this year’s teacher and parent surveys and forums. The two proposals also have teacher and administrator numbers for each plan.

The first plan involves smaller teaching teams, while the second plan would feature the teams of five to six teachers —similar to what Newton elementary schools function now. School board member Bill Perrenhoud strongly advocated for the reopening of the Hough school, but he said it was important to keep teams of educators together as much as possible.

“We’ve got some fantastic teams, and I’d hate to see those split up,” Perrenhoud said. “They say ‘Don’t fix something that isn’t broken.’ I don’t want to start from scratch. I was wondering how we can do that — maybe if a team volunteers to go somewhere as a unit.”

Perrenhoud also called out for “option three” more than once after the two reconfiguration proposals were detailed. Callaghan pointed out that the two proposals are not up for vote or approval, and the district is by no means limited to any sets of reconfiguration plans.

The first two items on Thursday’s agenda — utilization of the Emerson Hough building, potential reconfiguration options both ended up involving discussion about what to do with the Berg complex, even though that topic was the third and final item on the agenda.

Callaghan pointed out that a renovation would involve temporarily moving students out of the Berg complex — perhaps in as many as three phases — whereas a new facility could be built on site without relocating a single student from a classroom until moving into an all-new facility.

“We could also design a new energy-efficient building however we’d like, with geothermal heating, or whatever,” Callaghan said. “The tipping point usually is 50 percent — if your renovation would cost more than half of new construction, it makes more sense to go with new — and these estimates have renovation as 58 percent of new.”

The estimate in Callaghan’s presentation for renovation is $17,828,400, with about $5.25 million being architect expenses. An estimate for new construction, which would utilize the existing gymnasium, is $30,629,000.

“It took longer than we planned to even look at all the different pieced-together parts of Berg, and all the wiring and plumbing,” Callaghan said. “Some if it is really hard to get to. Not only are we putting heavy demands on the electrical supply there, but I am told the district bought electrical implements from a company that was going out of business, at a cheap rate — so the wiring might not even be up to early-1960s code.”

No one at the meeting brought up any concerns about having fifth graders and eighth graders in the same Berg facility. At least one parent had mentioned this concern at a recent forum.

Also, no one argued on behalf of leaving the current Berg configuration as is, with no building improvements or grade re-alingment.

“Any of the kids and staff that are forced to get an education and work in that building are working in a 50-year-old piece-of-junk building that has not been maintained,” board member Nat Clark said.

Board member Andy Elbert asked about the next steps for a possible bond issue, “hypothetically,” and the details of a possible 2015 timeline.

Director of Business Services Gayle Isaac replied, pointing out that a September voting cycle, even if the board announced a bond issue as early as January, would be realistic. The September elections will also be when school board positions are on the ballot as well. Isaac also said a bond could be paid for using a combination of an existing tax that doesn’t “sunset” until 2029, and a new one that would have to be approved by voters.

Board member Robyn Friedman posed a question to the board about how much of the Berg facility issued need to be resolved or planned before a full reconfiguration plan can be put together.

Board president Sheri Benson said the district should figure out if and how to reconfigure first, in order to go to voters with a unified, solid plan. Friedman pointed out that if a full rebuild of Berg were pursued, as opposed to a renovation, it wouldn’t matter which grades were housed a Berg, as no student relocation would happen.

“Most of our voters don’t have any kids that are in any of the schools,” Friedman said. “Berg is a sick building. I don’t think we need to be fearful of doing something that’s positive for the community.”

The board holds its next regular meeting on Monday, however, reconfiguration is not on the agenda.

Contact Jason W. Brooks at 641-792-3121 ext. 6532 or jbrooks@newtondailynews.com.