Lehighton Area School Board held a special meeting Thursday evening to discuss and vote on the proposed building plan for the district. Approximately 200 interested community members attended the meeting at Lehighton Area High School.

After much discussion and debate, the plan failed to attract a board majority of five votes.Architectural consultants Mark Barnhardt and Leah Shiley of EI Associates reviewed the building issues that LASD is currently facing. They explained that the school district conducted a feasibility study in 2008 and prioritized the problems. Although the elementary schools are older and most of them are over capacity, it was determined that the middle school is the district's "Achilles' heel."East Penn, Franklin, and Mahoning Elementary Schools were built in 1954. Shull-David Elementary School was constructed in 1959. Built in 1964-65, the current middle school building originally served as the high school for the district.According to the feasibility study, issues at the middle school include an antiquated boiler system; lack of insulation; pipes corroding; valve failures; leaking skylights in the gymnasium roof; heating difficulties in the auditorium; potentially dangerous bleachers in the gymnasium; replacement of the roof within the next five years; and asbestos throughout the building.Apparently, the 20-year-old high school is also experiencing mechanical failures on an increasing basis.In response to these concerns, the LASD Building Task Force Committee was formed to evaluate the building issues, review all options, and give the school board direction on behalf of the community. This committee is made up of approximately 30 interested community members, teachers, administrators, and school board members.After meeting over a 10-month period, the committee has proposed a building plan that would add on to the existing high school building. This would allow the high school and middle school students to share some core space - while retaining their respective separate educational space.Following the project, the current middle school would most likely be torn down and the land turned into athletic fields or sold.EI Associates estimates that if the district decides to take no action, the costs for maintenance projects for the middle school over the next five years will be $12,700,000 - of which there will be no state reimbursement. This represents approximately 1.35 additional mills to current taxes.If the district decides to renovate and expand the high school, the state would reimburse the district approximately $16 million of the estimated $35 million project over the life of the bond. This represents approximately 2.72 additional mills to current taxes. These figures are assuming that one mill equals $352,000.Broken down, the annual cost per household for the average assessed home value of $44,250 would be $120 in additional taxes. Taxing is based on 50 percent of the assessed value of a home. So, the average assessed home value of $44,250 is actually a home worth $88,500.Barnhardt pointed out that state reimbursement - which only comes around once every 20 years - would be approximately 30 percent of the project for just a new middle school. By servicing the needs of not only the middle school students, but also the high school students as well, the state reimbursement would be approximately 47 percent of the project.Scott Shearer of Public Financial Management then addressed the crowd, explaining that his firm helps local governments and school districts attain lowest cost funds."The school district would probably not borrow all the money at one time," he said. "The 2.72 additional mill increase would be phased in gradually."Shearer noted that interest rates are currently at all-time lows. Construction costs are also currently low.An often contentious question and answer period followed the presentations.Noting that the school board reorganizes in December, Dan Rossino asked, "Why are we voting on this tonight?"School Board President Dave Krause answered, "We started this process in 2006. We didn't just decide to do this two weeks ago."Dave Bradley, who started a grassroots effort to get people to take notice of the proposed building project and become involved, cited what he feels are discrepancies in the feasibility study."Why are you trying to push through a flawed feasibility study?" he asked. "Why not fix it and then vote?"Several community members voiced their concerns that they feel some building issues are being exaggerated.When he did not receive an answer to his question, Bradley protested loudly."This is a sham! I have not received an answer!" he said."I am against building a new joint structure," said Beth Beers.She and others expressed concerns about students in grades five through 12 being together in essentially the same building.Superintendent James Kraky assured them students will "certainly not be co-mingling."Barnhardt said that his firm has worked with 15 other school districts throughout Pennsylvania whose high school and middle school students share core facilities. He cited Greencastle-Antrim School District in Franklin County as one recent example.In the LASD building proposal, the high school and middle school would share an auditorium, library space, media center, and band rooms - as well as locker rooms, nurse's office, and art facilities. While the students would eat in two separate cafeterias, there would be one kitchen facility to prepare the food. There would be two separate gymnasiums.Beers then brought up the increased number of students who receive a free lunch and questioned how these families can be expected to pay additional taxes to cover the cost of a new building."Just because the board has the authority to tax, you don't have to exercise it," she said.Most concerns came down to the "bottom line" - money. Questioning the long-term effects that a tax increase could have on the community, one concerned taxpayer objected, "You want teachers to take a pay freeze and then you want to fund a new building project?"Several taxpayers requested that the matter be put to vote through a referendum."You voted to elect the school board," Krause replied. "We represent the taxpayers."Following the courtesy of the floor portion of the meeting, the school board voted on two matters. The first motion made was to approve the Act 1 Resolution, which would limit any tax increases to the level set by an inflation index - currently, approximately one mill.Tina Dowd, Duane Eidem, John Finnegan, Krause, Vice President Larry Stern, and Treasurer Andrew Yenser voted in favor of the motion. Voting no were William Hill, Hal Resh, and Wayne Wentz. The motion passed 6-3.Next, the motion was made to authorize EI Associates to prepare and submit PlanCon A (Project Justification) and PlanCon B (Schematic Design) to the Department of Education for the new building proposal. When a school district undertakes a major construction project and seeks reimbursement from the state, a comprehensive process known as PlanCon is initiated.Voting in favor of the motion were Dowd, Eidem, Krause, and Stern. Hill, Resh, and Wentz voted no. Finnegan and Yenser abstained.A hush fell over the crowd as it appeared that the motion to move ahead with the proposed building project had passed 4-3. However, attorney William Schwab, solicitor, quickly pointed out that the vote had failed."When spending money, a majority of the board is required," explained Schwab.Since the school board is comprised of nine members, at least five votes are needed for any motion to spend money.Applause erupted after Schwab's explanation that the vote had not passed. Krause thanked the crowd for coming, announced the next meeting date, and adjourned the meeting.After the meeting, Krause said, "We have to get with the board members who abstained and see what additional information they need so that we can move forward." He continued, "The motion wasn't voted down. It just wasn't passed."Summing up, Krause said, "We'll keep working and see what has to be done in order to move forward with the project. We're just trying to do the right thing."The next regular meeting of Lehighton Area School Board is scheduled for this coming Monday - Nov. 21 at 7 p.m. - at the Administration Building, Conference Room A. The public is encouraged to attend.Minutes from the LASD Building Task Force Committee meetings and the building feasibility study can be found on the "Files and Documents" page under "District" of the LASD website -

www.Lehighton.org