By Gabbie Burton
Contributing Writer

The Oxford Area School Board reviewed possible financing scenarios for capital needs and renovations at the district’s schools at the Oct. 1 finance and budget committee and facilities and safety committee meetings.

The first meeting introduced the finance and budget committee, where Zach Williard, an advisor from Public Financial Management, presented three financing scenarios for the district to take on up to $55 million in renovations with as little impact to the budget and current debt as possible.

“We work for about half the schools in Pennsylvania, and we often get asked, ‘We want to borrow this money but we don’t want any impact to the budget,’ and that’s a hard thing to do,” Williard said. “In your case, you actually are in a position to be able to do that.”

The financial scenarios presented included one using debt restructuring, one using capitalized interest and one manipulating the timing of borrowings and spacing the projects out.

The financial team worked in conjunction with the engineering and architecture firms in order to aid efficiency and have a clear idea of what exactly is needed in the schools and how much it would cost.

After the finance and budget committee meeting ended, the facilities and safety committee meeting began with the district’s engineering and architecture firms, JPD Architects and McClure Company, who presented their findings from their studies done across the schools over the past few years.

Alyssa Wingenfield of McClure Company and Jay Darkey of JPD Architects gave a presentation that reviewed potential projects at Oxford Area High School, Elk Ridge, Jordan Bank, Nottingham and sports fields and stadiums. Findings were categorized as either red, yellow or green, with red being most important, yellow indicating projects nearing the end of their development and green representing new ideas and improvements.

Red findings included several outdated HVAC systems at the high school, Nottingham, Elk Ridge and Jordan Bank, that were categorized as being between 22-34 years old despite having a life expectancy of around 20-25 years. Other red designations across the district included roofing, flooring, ceilings, fire alarm upgrades, exterior doors and signage, adding restrooms at the high school fields and LED stadium lights.

Yellow findings consisted of classroom upgrades included more age-appropriate casework and cubbies, window treatments and instructional boards.

Green findings included repurposing out-of-use classrooms, adding new rooms and remodeling administration offices. Many green items were for the sports fields and stadiums, including adding turf fields and updating locker rooms, concessions and training areas.

The presentation included a spreadsheet which prioritized all red items and sports and stadium renovations with costs included over a three-year phased approach with as much renovation as

possible occurring over the summer months. The total proposed cost came to $51,858,000. Wingenfield clarified that this was a conservative cost assuming, “middle of the road,” choices and cost escalation.

“We really tried to be conservative here, because what we don’t want to do is get to the end of this and [find out that it] costs a lot more than what we suggested,” she said.

Darkey highlighted the importance of getting the community involved on these renovations as the total costs can seem daunting to the public especially when they do not see the effects themselves.

“Our approach was to do the needs first. We had to get the hot items and sometimes those types of items aren't the fun items. People aren’t going to see them,” Darkey said. “We understand that the public is seeing a lot of money being spent and that sometimes they need to get something too so we try to try to mix in some things that can be seen, like in classrooms and corridors.”

The board discussed the community aspect including how to get the community excited about these projects. The major project mentioned to get the community excited was the stadium and sports fields updates. Surveys and community feedback through meetings with stakeholders were suggested as possible measures to engage public involvement.

No final plans or budget were decided at the meetings as the presentations were to inform the board members on potential choices and approaches to the large project.