The forum was a chance to hear and be heard about the future of the Ironton City Schools.

Ironton citizens Tuesday evening got a chance to ask questions and get answers regarding the Ironton City Schools' proposed bond levy and school construction project.

When voters go to the polls in November, they will be asked to approve or reject a plan to build a new elementary, middle and high schools at a cost of $41.7 million excluding any locally funded initiatives (LFIs) such as auditoriums or additional classroom space.

The state would pay for 73 percent of the project. The rest of the cost, $11.2 million plus any LFIs,

would be paid by local residents if the tax levy is passed.

School and state officials and members of the project team explained how the process works

and why they think new schools are needed in the first place.

Board of Education President Robert Pleasant Jr. said the reason is simple: It is what Ironton children deserve.

"It's not just that we want to get new facilities, but it's that we want to give our students the best that we can possibly give them," he said.

The price tag

The locally funded portion of the bond levy would require $18 million, or 8.74 mils.

The cost to the average homeowner with a property with assessed value of $100,000 would be $267.66 annually, or $22.31 monthly. For a homeowner with property worth $50,000 would be $133.83 annually, or $11.15 a month.

The process

Although school officials suspected last fall they were in line for state construction monies, school leaders were officially notified in April that they were eligible for funding from Ohio School Facilities Commission, provided local residents were willing to pass a levy to pay for their share of the cost.

In late April, a 30-member citizen panel was established to decide whether to rebuild or renovate the district's aging buildings.

Lead architect Bruce Runyon, of the Columbus-based Fanning-Howey said the OSFC's objectives were to fund functional, cost effective, quality projects to enhance education. While renovation is an option, Runyon said there are financial considerations to that option.

"If the cost of renovation exceeds two-thirds the cost of building new, the state recommends building a new facility," Runyon said. "The state "co-funds" (the project) to current square footage guidelines and will not pay more than it would cost to build new."

The OSFC will not fund sports arenas, school board offices or even land purchases.

The facilities steering committee opted to recommend building all new schools and handed in its decision to the school board, which put its

stamp of approval on the plan in late May.

Jeff Handley, who served on the committee, defended the 30-member panel against repeated accusations that the steering committee went into its deliberations with the sole idea of all-new buildings and never studied any other option.

"I know I went in with an open mind and I think the others did," Handley said. I had no preconceived ideas and I know this was the same with the others. It was a difficult choice, not an easy choice to make."

The district has four chances within a 12-month period to put the levy on the ballot for voter approval: one primary and one general election and two special elections.

August 25 is the last day for the district officials to inform the treasurer of the actual bond millage amount needed for the levy, School Superintendent Dean Nance said.

Once a bond levy is passed, Runyon said the design process will take approximately a year. Construction of the lower grades will take 18-24 months, the same for the high school.

Under the proposed plan, the present day high school would be torn down to make room for the new one; the new elementary and middle schools would be built on land the district already owns adjacent to the existing middle school.

Using land the district already owns is cost-effective, said Lynn Goodwin, senior principal with Seasongood and Mayer, the underwriters for the project.

Why do anything at all?

One person asked how new facilities would improve or even affect the educational process.

Nance and Runyon reminded the audience that the high school has for years been plagued by a strong sewer smell that comes and goes and often leaves people nauseous.

Nance said the older buildings were wired in the old days when air conditioning and computers were unheard of. New facilities would eliminate the need for the 100 or more window unit air conditioners that adorn most of the city's buildings these days.

Renovate vs. rebuild

"Why are we tearing down the high school when 95 percent of the people want to keep it?" one person asked.

Runyon replied that the cost of renovating the high school would cost more money. The option to build new lower grade facilities and renovate IHS would cost $50,247,542, with local people chipping in more than $17 million. Renovating would tack on an additional $83 a year to the tax bill of the homeowner with a $100,000 piece of property.

William Prenosil, OSFC planning director, said some districts in other areas of the state had opted to save vintage buildings only to be eaten up cost overruns later on.

"A good example is John Hay High School in Cleveland," Prenosil said. "Three months into the construction they discovered $3 million in additional costs hidden behind a plaster ceiling. The biggest problem is risk involvement. It can be done, but it's a risky business."

Nance said renovation would require the removal of all asbestos in the building - the asbestos is currently encapsulated, or out of contact with students. Renovation would disturb it and require it to be completely torn out.

Runyon said he understood the sentiment Ironton

attaches to its high school "but we feel the emotional ties of the past need to be weighed against the changes of the future," he said.

Mark McCown, member of a grass roots organization aimed at saving the high school, said afterward he still opposes the plan to tear down the high school and plans to lobby voters to turn thumbs down in November, so a second plan can be put forth later- one that will preserve this piece of the city's history.

"They clarified a lot of information," Mark McCown said. "But it didn't change my mind. Voters will decide in November and if they vote it (the levy) down the school board can look at the reasons why it was voted down and change it to save Ironton High School, if they deem it appropriate.

"I think it's more than appropriate when you're talking about taking another $90 to save the high school."

Others who attended were equally sure they would support the levy

"I think it was good information," David McCown said. I think it should have answered the questions most people had."

Charles Scott said he also plans to support the levy. He said the idea of restoring the old high school did not appeal to him.

"I think sometimes we regress when we go back and try to save," he said. "I really enjoyed the meeting, though. I support Mr. Nance, he's a great guy. Whatever he decides."