Cannon County board reviews East Side school feasibility, weighs grade configurations and funding options

The Cannon County School Board reviewed a consultant feasibility study on whether to reopen East Side school and in what grade configuration during a workshop discussion that lasted through routine closing items.

Miss Julie opened the presentation, saying the study — which the board received by email the night before and in hard copy at the meeting — addresses capacity, building condition and what upgrades would be required to meet code and ADA standards. The report shows the building currently has 13 classrooms and lays out both primary needs (life-safety systems, sprinkler/water flow, hazardous-material and microbial testing for asbestos, HVAC and secure public/gym entry) and secondary items (flooring, ceiling tiles).

The study’s floor plans and a room-by-room breakdown indicate the building could support PreK–4 without additions (about 10 of the 13 classrooms in use in one scenario) and could accommodate a PreK–5 configuration in most layouts but would require added space at the enrollment levels discussed in the report. Board members noted that accommodating a larger student population would likely trigger a new wing and cafeteria expansion.

Board members discussed financing options without approving any commitments. Workshop participants were told Fund 177 (the adequate facilities tax fund) holds roughly $400,000 that could be used for initial work such as assessments, drawings and hazardous-material testing. Staff also presented Fund 141 monthly balance tracking and said, subject to audit, that Fund 141 could total about $9 million at the end of June; the board discussed whether any of those funds should be allocated to reopening East Side.

Cost estimates discussed at the table varied widely. One participant with construction experience suggested major renovation could total in the tens of millions, while others characterized a minimal reoccupancy scope as lower—roof replacement, flooring, and kitchen restoration could be in the low millions. Participants flagged that a new gym or large gym renovation can be costly (participants cited rough per‑square‑foot figures discussed at the meeting), and that any per-foot figures do not include the cost of adding a new wing.

Requesting more precise fiscal modeling, board members asked staff to develop financing tables showing several loan sizes and estimated annual payments; staff said it would produce sample payment figures (USDA loan rates in the 3–4% range were discussed as an example). Miss Julie said the architect (St. John Engineering) would be asked to develop an as-built site plan and a prioritized list of tasks, and facilities staff would prepare cost estimates for both a minimum scope and for larger additions.

Members also discussed site impacts: reconfiguring the driveway as suggested in the report could require relocating rear playground space and adding or reorienting fencing; several members recommended increasing parking capacity to prevent vehicles from queuing onto the adjoining roads. Board members emphasized that playground and site upgrades must be ADA compliant.

The board agreed to collect public input before taking further direction. Members asked staff to draft a short public survey focused on grade-configuration preference (PreK–4 vs. PreK–5) and to include a free‑response comment section. The board requested draft survey questions and suggested edits by July 6 so staff could post the survey in time for a follow-up discussion already scheduled for July 13 (the board confirmed the follow‑up meeting date as previously voted in June).

Several members cautioned against using limited district funds for one project without a prioritized districtwide plan. ‘‘Your job is to make the best possible school system for the students,’’ one board member said in urging that decisions weigh educational research, expert recommendations and community input together. Members requested a prioritized multi‑year repair list so the board can avoid repeated stopgap spending on older facilities.

No formal motion to reopen East Side or to commit construction funding was made or voted on at the workshop. Board members directed staff to: 1) ask St. John Engineering for as‑built drawings and a prioritized cost list; 2) prepare financing scenarios and sample loan payments for various amounts and rates; and 3) draft and post a public survey with a July 6 deadline for suggested questions ahead of the July 13 follow-up meeting.

The board closed the workshop by confirming a next workshop on Tuesday, July 7 and the regular board meeting on July 9.