Some Greater Latrobe School Board members want to move forward with seeking proposals for replacing the junior high roof.

Others first want to see an updated district facilities presentation from consultant SHP.

It remains to be seen what opportunities the public may have to hear that presentation after it was removed from the agenda for this week’s school board meeting. And a proposal to include the presentation in one of the panel’s upcoming meetings was defeated by a 6-3 vote.

Brad Toman was among five school directors who were in attendance when SHP staff appeared in person and remotely to conduct the presentation at a Nov. 6 facilities committee meeting. At Tuesday’s school board meeting, he moved in favor of having the presentation repeated at a board meeting, for the benefit of all nine members of the panel and the public.

“You’re completely missing all of the due diligence,” Toman told board members who opposed the motion. “Part of that presentation was where we look at the cost analysis of the roof versus other options. Look at the long-term ramification of maintaining a building that’s not the right size for the (student) population.”

Lacking narration, slides from the SHP presentation since have been added to minutes from the Nov. 6 meeting that are posted on the school district website.

The slides outline potential options for the junior high, with estimated costs:

• $30.8 million for a full renovation, including a roofing system replacement carrying a 30-year warranty and a roughly $8 million price tag;

• $20.6 million for a less elaborate project, including a $5.6 million roof with a 20-year warranty, less interior construction and omission of exterior work including parking lot improvements.

The roofing options and a less costly version with a 15-year warranty are detailed in a presentation by TMR Roofing and The Garland Co., appended to Sept. 4 facilities committee minutes.

Kurt Thomas, Greater Latrobe’s director of facilities, operations and planning, said the less costly of the two junior high projects suggested by SHP would not rearrange any classroom space. Any roof project at the building, he said, should include drainage improvements to reduce the potential for leaks.

SHP created an initial district facilities master plan that had a projected cost of at least $182 million.

That included an addition to the senior high for ninth grade, a new building for seventh and eighth grades, demolition of the current junior high and either renovation or consolidation of the Baggaley and Mountain View elementary schools.

After gaining four new members in the November 2023 election, the board halted that plan. The new board asked SHP for a revised one focusing on the campus shared by the senior high and junior high.

SHP presentation slides updated in May list projected costs ranging from $104.9 million to $107.6 million for building a new junior high for grades 7 and 8, abating or demolishing the existing junior high and constructing a ninth-grade addition and making partial renovations at the senior high.

SHP noted the cost to renovate the junior high is 66% to 68% of the cost of replacing it with a new building. The consultant added that industry standards recommend replacement of a building if renovation costs exceed two-thirds of new construction costs.

School board member Merle L. Musick said Tuesday, “The consensus of the board in April was to put a new roof on the junior high. That’s six board members. We want to maintain that school.”

Musick said the cost figures in SHP’s presentation weren’t sufficient.

“When we do renovations, I want to see a plan,” he said. “I don’t want to see numbers. I want to see something physically that I can look at.”

“That’s not where we are yet,” board member Heidi Kozar said of project design plans. “That’s down the road once we agree on where we’re going.”

Kozar, who was at the Nov. 9 facilities committee session, and fellow School Director Dr. Rhonda Laughlin, who was not, joined Toman in pressing for inclusion of the full facilities presentation at a board meeting.

“We have paid SHP for this information and to give us their professional opinion and their best ideas of how we should proceed,” Kozar said. “By ignoring the professionals, we’re not doing due diligence, and we’re not doing the best for the taxpayers.

“I’m not saying I’m voting for a new building. I’m voting for us to be properly informed of the cost of all the options.”

Laughlin concurred: “I’m not saying I want a new building, but I want to see the presentation.”

Kozar questioned the wisdom of placing a new roof on the existing junior high building, indicating only two-thirds of the building’s space is being used and projections call for declining enrollment.

Greater Latrobe had about 500 students enrolled in grades 7 and 8 in 2023. State projections place that number at 477 in 2033.

Thomas said, with the downward enrollment trend, fewer students are spread out over a larger space.

“In learning support spaces, we may have only three or four students using a full classroom,” he said. “That’s where inefficiency starts to happen.”

The Nov. 9 committee minutes indicate SHP was expected to repeat its presentation at Tuesday’s school board meeting, but the item was pulled from the agenda.

Board President Merle D. Musick said, in answer to an email blast to fellow members, “I got quite a few responses that they did not want the presentation tonight.”

“We have a lot of great ideas here, but we’re not allowing the public as well as the board to be brought along through that deliberation process, like we committed to a year ago,” said Toman, who is one of the four new members elected last year.

Copyright ©2025— Trib Total Media, LLC (TribLIVE.com)