JEFFERSONVILLE — After other funding attempts were struck down, either by voters or the state, Greater Clark County Schools may pursue its last avenue for funding projects for three of its schools.
Monday morning, superintendent Andrew Melin held a news conference on Indiana Department of Local Government Finance’s determination that the district artificially divided projects at three schools in its latest bond issuances, meaning they can’t move forward with those renovations. The district’s referendum last November failed and now, Melin said after the conference that the board may consider the petition and remonstrance process.
“I think we have no alternative other than to consider that,” Melin said. “It’s our top priority to address the safety issues and learning environment at those three schools, [River Valley Middle, Charlestown Middle and Northaven Elementary].”
In tours with local stakeholders, including law enforcement, concerns were raised about safety of those schools in the event of an active shooter. The schools are open concept, many with classrooms without floor-to-ceiling walls or doors.
The DLGF made its determination in part because of the district’s plan to complete the work on those schools in the next several years. In December, it presented a five-year bond issuance plan. For three of those years, closing the open concept aspects of those schools were listed. Melin said the board only approved the first phase of the project, meaning the other two would need approval each year the board was set to vote on them.
Melin said with safety as a priority, petition and remonstrance may be the only option left available for the district without repeating a referendum.
“If the only alternative for us is to pursue petition remonstrance, we need to look at exactly what that entails and the timeframe,” Melin said. “We’ll have to do some research over the next several weeks just to see exactly how that works and what would be the best timeframe for us to pursue that kind of approach.”
Melin said since the DLGF has no built-in appeals process to its rulings, its only other option would be to file a lawsuit, but he said he won’t recommend that to the board because he thinks their time and resources would be better spent elsewhere.
THOUGHTS FROM OPPOSITION
Alice Butler, a Jeffersonville resident, submitted the petition to the DLGF in regards to Greater Clark’s bond issuances involving the three schools.
She said her intent was to make sure the district was playing by the rules laid out by the state. She didn’t think the division of the projects over several years followed statutes prohibiting districts from issuing smaller $2 million bonds over several years for the same project.
“I was pleased [with the determination] because I believe Greater Clark, in order to do these project, needs to follow the law,” Butler said. “That means they have to go through the petition remonstrance process, they can’t just avoid the taxpayers by slipping these in as separate projects under the $2 million threshold and circumvent the law.”
She said she’s not against school projects, but she didn’t feel the district was being honest about its process or its priorities.
She said she thought the district’s investment in radio stations for the high schools highlights how security at those three schools wasn’t a top priority.
Melin said the investments in the radio stations and frequencies was a matter of opportunity. He said because the Federal Communications Commission doesn’t open up radio frequencies often, he didn’t want to pass up on the chance to provide more experiences for high schoolers in the district.
Butler said she still harbors distrust for the district, mostly because she felt it wasn’t completely open about releasing information on the facilities study conducted by Kovert Hawkins Architects for the referendum last year. She also called the district’s bond issuance plan “underhanded” after the referendum’s failure.
“I think they would need to give the taxpayers complete, and i mean complete, documentation and information on the cost of each project and school,” Butler said. “It’s time for them to be open and honest. They say they’re transparent, but I’m going to tell you the people don’t believe they’re transparent.”
Melin said parts of the facilities study that weren’t released were strategic documents to let the board make a decision on the direction of the overall project. He said he invites any member of the public with concerns to reach out to the district and make arrangements to see the needs at any of its schools.
“It’s OK for people to disagree with what we’re doing or how we’re doing it,” Melin said. “But to insinuate that we’re being underhanded in our approach, I take offense to that. That’s not how we’ve approached anything with regards to facilities improvements.”