Marshall school board receives new round of school site proposals

Friday, December 18, 2009

The Marshall Board of Education learned of new school site proposals and set a special meeting date early in January to review them in preparation for officially placing a bond issue on the April ballot.

Superintendent Craig Noah also reported that architects and construction mangement consultants are investigating two questions voters seemed to want more information about: Which school would be expendable if the building bond issue passes in April and how much would it cost to renovate the four existing elementary schools to meet the needs of the district.

The report on both questions is expected by mid-January, he said.

The new round of site proposals attracted submissions from five property owners, including two that were not submitted during the process in the fall.

One of the new properties is owned by the Gieringer family and includes eight different sections with individual prices and escrow requirements the board can consider as options.

Another new property is the Evans property located on the north side of state Highway 240 adjacent to Lake View trailer court, according to Noah.

Properties submitted again include the Banks property on South Odell Avenue, which the district had entered into a contract for contingent on the passage of the bond issue. When the bond failed at the polls in November the contract was allowed to expire.

Another property on West Vest Street west of U.S. Highway 65 was submitted again, as was the Gaba Property.

Cost per acre in the new proposals ranges from $8,000 to $17,500, and total cost for sites range from $160,000 to $650,000.

The board will meet at 6:30 p.m. Tuesday, Jan. 5, to review the proposals in detail.

The board also approved a motion to move its regular January meeting from Jan. 26 to Jan. 25. Jan. 26 is the deadline for placing the school bond issue on the April ballot. The board approved a motion Nov. 10 expressing its intent to place the issue on the April ballot but decided to wait to approve the specific ballot language.

Noah said the report on the cost of renovating existing elementary schools, the oldest of which was built in 1922, the newest in 1968, would consider a top-to-bottom rehabilitation of the buildings.

"New heat, new sewer, new plumbing, new electrical, redo the interior walls, redo the floors, everything," he said. "You're not taking down load-bearing walls, but everything short of that."

He said the estimates would include the cost of adding rooms to existing schools so kindergarten and fifth-grade students would no longer have to meet in trailers. Elimination of the district's dependence on temporary classroom structures has one of the primary goals of the board's desire to build a new school.

"If someone says, 'Well, why don't we just fix what we have?' you'll have that number," he said. "If the community would rather support that, we'll have to consider it."

Another factor in the board's mission to build a new building is maintenance requirements of the older buildings, and the board heard information from Noah on that subject, too.

More information to follow.

Contact Eric Crump at

View 11 comments
Note: The nature of the Internet makes it impractical for our staff to review every comment. Please note that those who post comments on this website may do so using a screen name, which may or may not reflect a website user's actual name. Readers should be careful not to assign comments to real people who may have names similar to screen names. Refrain from obscenity in your comments, and to keep discussions civil, don't say anything in a way your grandmother would be ashamed to read.
  • Using the courthouse as a barometer--guessimate $3 Million per school---total $12 Million. What about Bueker???

    -- Posted by CWilli on Wed, Dec 16, 2009, at 8:22 AM
    Response by Eric Crump/Editor:
    BMS is not part of the bond issue equation. The board has so far only talked about replacing it as a future project. The elementary schools are first up. I'm going to add more to the story about current BMS maintenance needs. Roof and brickwork repair estimates are being developed now, according to Craig Noah.

    -- Posted by blizz on Wed, Dec 16, 2009, at 3:45 PM
  • locations of the gieringer and gaba properties please? some of us aren't familiar with where those are. more information needed, don't assume everyone knows exactly where these properties are.

    one thing i'm betting on is that the estimates to repair the elementary schools are going to come in as very outrageously high numbers because it's obvious the administration doesn't want to go that route. i actually agree with them on that one, a new school is needed and completely re-doing the existing elementaries is probably not the route to go, but you can be sure that those cost estimates to refurbish the elementary schools are going to be outrageous and a campaign tool the school board, administration and committees will use.

    the school board, administration and committee didn't exactly do a very good job this last time getting a good barometer of public sentiment on this issue ... who's to say they will do so this time as it gets rushed to the ballot yet again? don't trust them to come out of their cocoon, they haven't earned that trust. read between the lines of noah's words and their intent of this cost estimate. maybe noah and crawford need to reach out a little bit more than just going to meetings where they hear "not a single negative opinion about the proposal" ... paraphrasing there.

    i'm also betting the evans property north of 240 will not even be given a shot, even though it might be the cheapest land available? wouldn't know, since i don't know where the gieringer and gaba properties are. last time a north side location was proposed, it got shot down didn't it? the south siders will never go for that, a school on the north side of town, having to drive their kids alllllllllll the way across town every morning, or God forbid, put them on a bus! hmmmm ... that sounds familiar ... a few reasons many didn't like the location of the banks property. guess those concerns might actually matter this time around? wouldn't want to put those kids in a school on the "bad" side of town!

    here we go again .....

    -- Posted by aikman8 on Wed, Dec 16, 2009, at 7:37 PM
  • Are they going to bother to tell the people paying out the money which site cost $160,000 vs $650,000???

    -- Posted by kkmom on Wed, Dec 16, 2009, at 7:43 PM
    Response by Eric Crump/Editor:
    Craig Noah released a list of properties submitted, but I didn't have time today to present the whole list and I want to check some details first in any case. There will be a followup story, hopefully Thursday or Friday.
  • If I'm correct the Geirenger property is N.Lincoln and WW area. Pretty neutral spot and might be the best yet...more info would really help

    -- Posted by kkmom on Wed, Dec 16, 2009, at 7:47 PM
  • you're doing a great job eric, but maybe they need to loosen the purses and you need an assistant/associate editor? you sound very overwhelmed, as i've noticed for a long time ... underpaid and very much overworked. doing a great job my man with what you have! it's definitely not an 8-5 job. c'mon shelly, give this man some help!

    -- Posted by aikman8 on Wed, Dec 16, 2009, at 10:14 PM
    Response by Eric Crump/Editor:
    Thank you! Of course, if I was better at managing my time, I might could do better. I rationalize that lack of time is part of the biz, though, so if even if I managed it better I still wouldn't have enough. I guess that's so for most folks.

    In hindsight, what I should have done was put a note in the story: more details to follow. Sorry about that!

  • Dear School Board,

    Make sure ALL issues are addressed, or you will fail for the FIFTH time.

    -- Posted by ieatsuperglue on Wed, Dec 16, 2009, at 10:30 PM
  • Eric,

    May I suggest for myself and those who are not familiar with the locations of the properties up for consideration, that that MDN include an inset map of marshall with the noted properties highlighted. Even if the locations (street names) are published, I for one can not place in my head their locations and, I'd like to see the surrounding areas to see what's around those locations.

    Thanks for your hard work.

    -- Posted by Greg House on Thu, Dec 17, 2009, at 8:02 PM
    Response by Eric Crump/Editor:
    Will do!
  • I still think the property on West Vest is the way to go. It's more centrally located, and it's big enough to eventually house all the elementary schools, that would put the elemenatry, high school, alternative school and adminstrative offices in very close proximity to each other.

    -- Posted by Hombre on Sat, Dec 19, 2009, at 11:21 AM
  • I hope the board will consider the public opinion on location, they can't just look at the dollar sign. Cost doesn't seem to matter to the voters.

    -- Posted by Scarpetta on Sat, Dec 19, 2009, at 7:20 PM
  • Clarification...

    Cost of the land, not of the project. Yes it might raise the total cost, but location location location is the kicker here. IMO.

    -- Posted by Scarpetta on Sat, Dec 19, 2009, at 7:22 PM
Respond to this story

Posting a comment requires free registration: