St. Joseph school board narrows facilities options, schedules public hearing before Nov. 24 decision
Summary
The St. Joseph School Board reviewed a revised facilities recommendation (Plan 2R) with projected staff impacts and $2.32 million next-year savings, debated re-opening Plan 7B under a four-middle-school model, and agreed to a public hearing Wednesday and a Nov. 24 board vote.
The St. Joseph School Board on Saturday reviewed a revised facilities and district reorganization recommendation and agreed to hold a public hearing Wednesday, followed by a special meeting, before taking a final vote at its Nov. 24 board meeting.
Doctor McGinnis, introducing the item, summarized the sequence of prior votes and public comment and said administration’s current recommendation is a revised "Plan 2" (Plan 2R). "Our recommendation at the October board meeting was 7 b," he said, and presented Plan 2R to show how a two-high-school model would work if the board chose it instead.
Administration staff walked the board through feeder patterns and boundary edits. Mister Kelly explained that moving Ellison to the Truman/Central path lowers Lafayette's projected enrollment and adjusts which elementary schools feed particular middle schools; presenters warned that Spring Garden appears tight on capacity and may need further tweaks.
Mister Correll, presenting staffing implications, said the district set K–2 target class sizes at about 21, grades 3–4 at about 23 and grades 5–6 at about 25, and projected the plan’s fiscal and personnel effects. "Our total cost, cost savings for Plan 2R is 2,320,000.00," he said, adding a best-case maximum savings projection of $4,170,000 if attrition and other assumptions align. He estimated the plan would affect about 165 certified staff, 79 classified staff and 9 administrators.
Doctor Hedgeworth reviewed the district's five-year finance projections and reserve impacts, noting the savings in the models reflect reduced utilities and debt and that the projection tool is conservative on revenue assumptions. He told the board the financial models do not include sales revenue from any building disposals: "I do not" have sales price built into these projections, he said when asked.
Several board members praised the phased approach and the potential to preserve four middle schools while reducing closures. Others urged caution. Board member Rhonda asked that Plan 7B be re-examined under a four-middle-school model and compared side-by-side with Plan 2R so the board could see long-term implications: "I still would like to entertain the idea of looking at 7 b," she said.
Opponents of reopening prior options warned the board against repeatedly revising plans, saying the process is stressful for students and staff and risks wasting capital dollars on building conversions. One board member criticized continuing to change course: "We go October 27. We all vote for, for plan E. We come back, we change our minds," the member said, urging decisiveness. Another urged the board to "show some freaking leadership and make bold decisions and move forward." (exact quote used as spoken.)
The board discussed logistics for adding a short, focused work session or public hearing ahead of the Nov. 24 meeting. Administration said it can prepare a side-by-side comparison packet and estimated conversion-cost figures where available; staff aimed to have updated materials ready by Wednesday noon if possible. The group agreed on a public hearing Wednesday at 5:30 p.m. with a special board meeting immediately after to identify the single plan the board will present at the Nov. 24 meeting.
No final facilities decision was made in the meeting. Procedural business at the start and end of the session included approval of the meeting agenda and a motion to adjourn; the transcript cuts off during the final roll-call vote on adjournment. The board's next steps are the scheduled Wednesday public hearing and the Nov. 24 meeting, when members said they expect to vote on one plan.
