Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Facilities topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents press Stillwater Board over proposed 1988 wing work, demand transparency
Summary
Residents raised repeated concerns about transparency and the scope of work described in the RFQ for the district’s 1988 wing, asking for engineering reports, online access to meetings and clarity on potential financing as the board outlined next steps for the project.
Residents pressed the Stillwater Township Board of Education on transparency and the scope of proposed work to the district’s 1988 wing during public comment at the Nov. 17 meeting.
In public comment, resident Richard Kelsky said he appreciated Superintendent Dr. Danny Papa’s willingness to meet but told the board "the community needs greater transparency" about the project and budget, questioned whether the district is "economically stable" despite the auditor’s statement that the district is in good financial shape, and asked whether pursuing a multi‑million‑dollar bond was the correct direction. He said his request for the engineering report was denied and asked why meetings are not streamed online.
Why it matters: The 1988 wing project could require significant capital work and public financing. Residents’ requests for engineering reports, clearer timelines, and online accessibility speak to public oversight of district spending and procurement.
Board context and staff remarks: Superintendent Dr. Danny Papa had earlier in the meeting provided an update on the 1988 wing project, saying staff are identifying next steps and various funding options. Business Administrator René Metzgar also presented building‑and‑grounds items later in the agenda, including ongoing projects such as a boiler replacement and a proposed district letterboard/digital sign.
Another resident, Cody Castner, told the board that after reviewing the RFQ for architectural services "it appears the district is not asking whether the work needs to be done, but rather instructing architects on the full scope of work for the wing," including stabilization and renovations such as new HVAC, LED lighting and bleachers. Castner characterized the RFQ language as premeditated rather than focused on determining actual structural need.
The meeting record shows the district has initiated procurement steps but does not include a public presentation of the engineering report or a formal financing plan at this meeting. The audit presentation earlier in the evening included a statement from auditor Anthony Ardito that the district is "in good financial shape," and the board subsequently accepted the audit with no findings or recommendations, but neither the audit presentation nor the acceptance vote resolved residents’ specific requests for the engineering documentation or for greater public access to meetings.
What’s next: Board members did not adopt a financing commitment at this meeting; several residents asked for additional disclosure and for meetings to be made available online. The board’s stated next steps on the 1988 wing were limited to continuing planning and exploring funding options.
