Submitted Photo One of the proposed capital improvement projects that the Gowanda board of education discussed is the replacement of the bridge over Panther Drive.

GOWANDA — The proposed capital improvement project for Gowanda Central School, which was initially voted down in May, was back on the table at a recent board of education meeting. Heated discussion among board members indicated that the proposed $31 million project may be facing a lot of scrutiny by families in the district, despite revisions to the proposition.

During the meeting, Shawn Wright of Wright & Young Architectural presented a new proposal for the capital improvement project. There are four main capital project goals: health/welfare/security improvements, site improvements, energy improvements and enhancement of the student experience.

Wright reworked the project into two separate propositions for the board to consider. The first proposition (estimated $25,900,380) includes work inside the two buildings:

¯ Secure entries for elementary school and middle/high school

¯ Relocation of high school main office and other classrooms

¯ Renovation of high school and middle school libraries and music rooms and renovation of middle school art and technology classrooms

¯ Installing climate control in middle/high school

The second proposition (estimated $5,288,543) encompasses site work at the elementary and middle/high schools, as well as the bus garage. Site work includes:

¯ Expanding the ball field at the elementary school by purchasing neighboring property

¯ Replacing the Panther Drive bridge

¯ Improving the bus garage through HVAC renovations, improved lighting, updated equipment, updated access control and a wireless system

¯ Repairing the tennis court at the middle/high school and improving the softball and baseball fields by installing turf, underground drainage, fencing and concrete walks

Financial Advisor Jeff Smith of Municipal Solutions explained that the school district is in the unique position of receiving Native American building aid, which covers about 25 percent of the total project cost and does not have to be borrowed or have interest attached.

Proposition one would also receive state building aid and additional state EXCEL aid. The local share of proposition one is approximately $1,400,000, which could be covered by the district’s capital reserve fund, meaning the proposition would have no local impact on taxpayers.

Proposition two would be similarly funded by state building aid and Native American aid, but would not qualify for EXCEL aid, which is for student-occupied spaces such as classrooms. In proposition two, $882,790 is not covered by building or Native American aid; however, capital reserve funds can be used to result in no local cost impacts.

While the district cannot offer alternative propositions, they can offer dependent or contingent propositions. For example, voters can vote for proposition one or proposition two, but proposition two can only pass if proposition one is passed.

Smith pointed out Gowanda’s fortunate eligibility for Native American aid, as well as generous funding from the state. He referenced the concentration of wealth and the high taxes paid in the New York City area and explained, “The legislature has really tried to move some of that money upstate by seriously encouraging, through the five-year building condition survey process, its very, very generous state building aid to districts that can’t lift on their own quite as much — to have those buildings in which the state has invested quite a lot money to be maintained and expanded, and have those students have some of the privileges that are pretty much par for the course down state where there’s a lot more wealth.”

Board member Janet Vogtli was the first to respond to the presentation. “I guess I’m terribly shocked that we have put up the same project. The taxpayers voted down the project. We’ve talked about it in previous meetings, and a lot of community members have come here to share their concerns. I’m appalled that you’ve done the exact same thing. You’ve done absolutely nothing that the community has asked.”

According to Vogtli, the original project was voted down in May due to the high cost. “This is a very rural, poor district,” she stated.

Another board member, Lynn Guzetta, addressed Vogtli: “I have a question for you. We all pay state tax. It doesn’t change regardless of what we decide here. Why, as a district, wouldn’t we want New York state to spend the money here?”

“Because we have a declining enrollment,” Vogtli responded.

Guzetta followed up: “The kids that are here shouldn’t benefit from the money that New York state wants to spend here because there might be less kids next year?”

Vogtli went on to voice her concerns that the proposed project included things that weren’t necessary for students’ education, such as the installation of turf. She also expressed concern over the lack of “back up data” to support the proposed projects. “I came to these meetings before and asked questions about the project and got no answers. I am on this school board because the community was the forgotten taxpayer. And we voted down your budget. And we voted down this capital project. After most people found out you have proposed the same thing, I guarantee you this project will go down. The whole thing.”

Board member Mark Nephew supported the idea of providing more justification to community members for the proposed changes and considered the need for climate control throughout the entire building. Interim high school principal Joseph Bruening reported that at the beginning of the day, the temperature on the second floor is 85 degrees, and the first floor is typically five degrees cooler. By the end of the school day, temperatures reach 93 to 97 degrees in some second floor classrooms.

Vogtli requested that the board and community be provided with cost estimates associated with recurring expenses that may result from the capital project and maintained that the board only make improvements that she believes are absolutely necessary, such as the secure entrances and Panther Drive bridge.

Board President Cynthia Sutherland posed a question to the board: “Do we want to fine tune this? Do we want to work toward a second capital project vote?” Nephew and board member Barbara Weston voiced their support of breaking up the project into two propositions.

A meeting to discuss the capital project is planned for Sept. 12 at 6 p.m. Sutherland said, “It is important to know that no decisions have been made. The two propositions are just examples of what could be done. Between now and Sept. 12, Superintendent Dr. Anderson is taking questions about the project from all those concerned so that answers can be included in the presentation, and the board can decide what will be included in the next proposal.”