In the News

 

August 14, 2008                                                                                              [Back to Top]

"With the passage of the $31 million school bond in June, Grand County School District officials are moving quickly into the design phase, and they’re seeking help... " To view PDF of the Moab Times Independent atcicle, click on this thumbnail.

76 KB

 

June 26, 2008                                                                                                  [Back to Top]

"By a wide margin, voters on Tuesday approved a $31 million school bond that will enable the Grand County School District to replace two crumbling schools and..." To view PDF of the Moab Times Independent atcicle, click on this thumbnail.

64 KB

 

May 15, 2008                                                                                                  [Back to Top]

"At the most recent Grand County School District public forum on the upcoming bond issue, a facilities tour of the Grand County Middle School highlighted the complications administrators face with..." To view PDF of the Moab Times Independent atcicle, click on this thumbnail.

60 KB

 

April 28, 2008                                                                                                [Back to Top]

"On Wednesday, April 30, the Grand County School District will hold the fourth in a series of monthly forums addressing..." To view PDF of the Moab Times Independent atcicle, click on this thumbnail.

60 KB

"Since the failure of last year’s attempt to raise revenues through a voted leeway election, the Grand County School District has been cutting costs and raising fees, but school officials say..." To view PDF of the Moab Times Independent atcicle, click on this thumbnail.

104 KB

 

April 4, 2008                                                                                          [Back to Top]

To view the June 24th ballot (PDF/40 KB), click on this image:

 

March 20, 2008                                                                                          [Back to Top]

"The Grand County School District is holding monthly forums through April to share concepts and hear concerns regarding the district's master plan, which is predicated on passing a $31 million bond election June 24... " To view PDF of the Moab Times Independent atcicle, click on this thumbnail.

168 KB

 

February 11, 2008                                                                                      [Back to Top]

[Times Independent Editorial]

Rebuilding our schools – priorities, possibilities, planning and silver linings

As most of us know by now, the District Facility Assessment has clearly pointed out the deterioration of our older schools.  We can hash and rehash our woes:  in an effort over time to not raise taxes, Grand County School District has depleted its reserves; unlike the City and County, the school district has no other way to fund building improvements other than through local property tax increases; each year construction costs increase approximately 15% which equates to millions of dollars in savings if we respond in a timely way to our facility needs ; finally, we know remodeling costs 75% of new construction, so is it wise to put our hard-earned money toward renovation?  I wonder how many of us, if offered choices, would remodel a 1955 car at 75% of the purchase price of a new 2008 model?  The issues for debate go on and on.

It is easy to view the Facility Assessment as doom and gloom due to the financial investment required to address the problem, yet there is another side of the issue worth considering.   We’ve looked at the bad.  We’ve been shocked by the ugly.  We haven’t paused, yet, to consider the good.

What if we were to approach this problem from a different angle?  Assuming we accept the notion that it is our responsibility to rebuild the schools, what might this look like?  The possibilities are very exciting.  What should be done first?  The School Board has spent eight months examining the work that needs to be done.  As a result, Board members are recommending we start with the elementary schools, then address High School vocational needs and move next to the Middle School.  After that, the community may want to discuss the option of building a regional field house.  (When building the new High School in the mid-nineties, the field house was dropped from the plans in a cost-saving effort.)  The lowest priority, though sorely needed, is to build a new District Office building.

There are a number of options for rebuilding schools, all of which are intriguing.  We could build one elementary that would house students up through the sixth grade.  Or, we could replace each elementary on its existing campus.  Promising talks are underway among the school district, U.S.U. and C.E.U. regarding partnerships involving vocational education.  If partnerships can form, funding from sources other than our local property taxes may be made available to assist with construction of the High School Vocational Center.  It may become, instead, a Community Learning Center. This exciting prospect could bring a wealth of new class offerings to Grand County for both high school students and for community members who wish to further their education at the college level.  With a new hospital coming into the valley, we would be able to train some of our locals for medical support positions.  Based on feedback from a community survey conducted two years ago, we could expand vocational programs to include Child Development  / Child Care, Recreation and Tourism, Automotive and Welding, and Media / Technology, to name a few.  Our ability to train within the community will help us not only to promote Grand County’s economic growth, but it will provide occupational opportunities for our young people and local adults who would like to continue living in Grand County but are now forced to seek higher education elsewhere – many not returning.  It is often true - we reap what we sow.  This type of partnership investment could have profound and positive impact on our local economy and on our quality of life in Grand County.

So, what’s the next step?  The School Board is sponsoring a series of Public Forums to present information and to hear feedback.  Please attend!  The next Forum is scheduled for Wednesday, February 27th at H.M.K. Intermediate School.  Topics include a review of priorities, sketches of buildings designed to meet our needs and initial cost projections.  On March 26th another Forum is scheduled at Red Rock Elementary. Topics focus on exact costs, the bond process and the cost to taxpayers.  On April 30th at the Middle School, Forum topics will include vocational education, partnerships and ‘putting it all together.’  At all schools, pre-forum activities begin at 6 p.m. with facility tours and a slide show.  At 7 p.m. the topics for the evening will be discussed. 

You can learn much more about the issues by going to the District website at www.grandschools.org/masterplan.  The time has come.  It is crucial for everyone to become informed, involved and contributing as we plan the future of our schools.  In order to shape this project toward its most beneficial outcome, we need community teamwork on a scale we have seldom seen in Grand County.  I am convinced we can tackle this well – together.

     –Margaret Hopkin, Grand County School District Superintendent

 

January 31, 2008                                                                                    [Back to Top]

"Bruce Barnes, a principal architect from MHTN Architects, was simply reviewing the Grand County School District's Facilities Assessment at a Januuary 23 public forum, but his matter-of-fact presentation seemed to have a far greater impact on..." To view PDF of the Moab Times Independent atcicle, click on this thumbnail.

160 KB

 

January 23, 2008                                                                                        [Back to Top]

Grand County Schools Open Forum – Rebuilding our Schools, Part 1

• Why did we assess our facilities?

• What are the findings?

• Should we renovate or build anew?

Wednesday,  January 23, 7:00 p.m.

City Council Chambers

Grand County Schools Open Forum – Rebuilding our Schools, Part 2

• What are the priorities?

• What are the possibilities? What do they look like?

• How much might it cost?

• How soon could it happen?

Wednesday,  February 27, 7:00 PM with pre-forum activities beginning at 6:00 PM.

HMK Multipurpose Room

 

Grand County Schools Open Forum – Rebuilding our Schools, Part 3

• What is a school bond?

• What is the tax impact?

• What does it mean for me as a taxpayer?

Wednesday,  March 26, 7:00 PM with pre-forum activities beginning at 6:00 PM.

Red Rock Elementary Multipurpose Room

 

Moab Toastmaster Informational Forum – Grand County School District Master Planning

To be discussed:

• the school district facility needs
• GCSD's board recommendations to meet these needs
• the upcoming June bond
• the bond's financial impact on taxpayers

Wednesday, April 23, Noon-1PM.
Zions Bank Downstairs Conference Room

Grand County Schools Open Forum – Rebuilding our Schools, Part 4

• What are our remaining needs?

• What are the partnership possibilities?

• How does it all fit together?

Wednesday,  April 30, 7:00 PM with pre-forum activities beginning at 6:00 PM.

Grand County Middle School Band Room

January 10, 2008                                                                                        [Back to Top]

[Times Independent Editorial]

Our crumbling schools: renovate or build anew?

Now that we have digested the 2” thick Facilities’ Assessment by MHTN’s architectural/engineering/mechanical/electrical team (available for you at the public library, the district office, and in each schools’ administrative offices) on the numerous structural problems with our aging buildings, the first conversation we need to have with you, the community, is do we renovate these facilities, or do we build them anew?

Red Rock and HMK are over fifty years old, and have been remodeled multiple times in the past. Former remodels were done with small budgets and only immediate needs were taken into consideration. We are now way beyond the “duct tape and bailing wire” stage. Red Rock and HMK, as well as the Middle School, CR Sundwall, and the District office, were constructed of “un-reinforced masonry” (URM), whose load-bearing walls are cracking due to settling, inadequate building joins, and use of glass on weight-bearing fronts—ancient construction practices that would never pass current Code. MHTN tells us that in a seismic event, which we haven’t had for hundreds of years but for which we are long overdue, portions of these schools would likely collapse.

Renovation, which would cost 75% of a new building’s costs, began to look wonderful until we studied the small print. Renovation would require stripping old walls down to and below their original portions and rebuilding those walls with reinforced materials—not to mention complete interior re-do’s—and yet we’d still be behind current Code, utility cost savings, and all the district’s ongoing needs for future growth, modern technology, and advanced curriculum.

As Rob Welch, our Maintenance Supervisor who has been our magic fix-it wizard, says, “It’s like pouring money into a 1980 Buick gas hog that’s all rusted out. When you’re finished emptying your bank account, it still burns too much gas and more than likely will never make it to New York because of expense and unreliability.”

MHTN architects, who conducted the facilities assessment, strongly recommend we NOT renovate these old buildings but that we build anew, starting with HMK and Red Rock, as these schools are in the worst shape—as well as building a viable vocational center that will provide vocational training opportunities for our adult community as well as our students. What we’d save in energy-savings alone over several years would more than make up for that initial 25% that renovating would save us.

By now, some of you are asking, “So, wouldn’t MHTN want us to build new schools, given the cost of new architectural plans?” Ironically, the answer is no. Renovating our schools would require far more costly architectural plans than building new ones!

  Building new schools would result in:

• safe, code compliant buildings (ADA, EPA, Fire and Life Safety)
• energy-saving buildings that save money for the life of the systems installed (high tech controls, ground source HVAC, solar)
• environmentally-friendly buildings (green buildings with LEED certifications)
• safe buildings to protect our children from other dangers, such as unwanted access
• schools that will give our children the best, research-proven environments to learn and compete in the 21st century’s job market.

What if we do nothing? How long will the duct tape and “patch-patch-patch” hold before these buildings so compromise learning and the safety of our students that they are condemned?

Our community has taken great pride and interest in building itself anew: library, city offices, forthcoming recreation facilities, regional medical center, and assisted senior living. We must not leave our children out of the equation. We need to look at our schools, most importantly our elementary schools, vocational center, and ultimately the middle school, to bring us into the 21st century and create the best possible learning environment for our children, who are our future.

The Grand County School Board—in tandem with intensive studies of building/bonding options and dialogues with staff and with you, the community—is putting together a priority list of building needs, the costs of each increment, and how it would affect your taxes. We hope to go for a bond, perhaps as early as June, to address the most crucial needs, since for every year we wait, building costs increase 15-20%.

We will have Open Forums every month, starting on Wednesday January 23rd, to hear your input and explore these options together. We are also designing a website that will address these needs and provide easy access for giving us feedback, which will hopefully be up and running later this month.

Please, come talk with us. Come to our first open forum at 7 p.m. on Wednesday, January 23rd at the City Offices on E. Center. If you can’t come, watch for more info in our TI editorials, the launch of the website, and write or email us your thoughts.

Kaaron Jorgen, school board president, grndschbrd@ frontiernet.net, 259-4056 or 259-5317.

December 27, 2007                                                                                     [Back to Top]

December 20, 2007                                                                                     [Back to Top]

December 13, 2007                                                                                     [Back to Top]

November 7, 2007                                                                                        [Back to Top]

[Times Independent Editorial]

School District Master Planning Gains Momentum

As usual, first trimester has rolled to a busy end.  Students, parents and staff have been immersed in school start up, getting back into the academic swing of things and juggling the many fall extracurricular activities – all the while wondering where the time has gone!  Adding to the crunch, MHTN, an independent architectural and engineering firm, has completed its systematic facilities assessment of school district buildings.  The Master Planning process, with resulting decisions that will impact all Grand County citizens, is about to unfold.  The purpose of this editorial is to share an overview of this process and encourage everyone to get involved by way of providing input.

It is of no great surprise to anyone who has spent time in District buildings that the facilities assessment shows a number of our schools are not only inadequate in many ways, but also in a state of notable deterioration.   After all, four of our five schools are over…….years old.  For a number of years the District’s annual capital improvement budget has provided enough funds for only bare bones maintenance. The District has done remarkably well with upkeep considering the funding struggle, but over time this band aid approach has now begun to take its toll. 

As part of the facilities assessment, MHTN has suggested a number of ‘options’ for meeting facility needs.  These options run the gamut from renovating old schools to constructing new schools.  Many details come into play when considering each option.  For example, the cost to renovate a school is approximately 75% of the cost to newly construct a school.  Given current instructional requirements, school renovation is not enough to transform Grand County’s older schools into adequate facilities but it will address a good portion of our nagging safety concerns.  We as a community have the job of deciding what to do given this choice.  MHTN also recommends which options should be addressed first.  For instance, the need for elementary facility improvements and the need to focus on the high school vocational facility are deemed high priorities. 

The Board and administration have spent September and October researching costs connected with each option as well as the pros and cons underlying each.  All of this information in detail is forthcoming for community review.  In weighing the options, we as a community must decide what is best for us as tax payers, what is best for the future education of our children and what is it we want to afford or are willing to afford. 

However, it is important to remember that these options and recommendations are just that.  The direction we choose to take – which options to support or which to let go – are solely in our hands.  This is an exciting responsibility for our citizenry and in many ways equally daunting.  Our choices will prove in future years to have been wise or unwise.  The impact will be one with which we live for a number of generations. 

Beginning next week through the month of February, the School Board and administration will share these options including accompanying cost commitment and rationale, with county citizens.  The Board will actively seek input, using every avenue of communication available - notes to parents, media announcements, presentations to local groups and agencies, public forums, etc.  However, this much we know is true: communication is one of the toughest things to accomplish in this community.  Please take an active role in seeking out this information regarding options.  The District will do all it can to make this information available to the public.

During the month of March, the Board and administration will compile all public input.  Once compiled, the Board will report back what Grand County citizens say are their preferred options for meeting the future needs of school facilities for our children.

From April to June, Grand County citizens will have time to become thoroughly familiar with the preferred option(s).  Currently, a June bond election is anticipated in which we will indicate our willingness to support the preferred options.  Again, it all comes back to what we value here in Grand County, how we come to think about what is important to us, how we shape our desires into a way of living.  The upcoming dialog will be challenging, intriguing and will require our full attention.  Please plan on remaining engaged.

     –Margaret Hopkin, Grand County School District Superintendent

August 9, 2007                                                                                     [Back to Top]

August 7, 2007                                                                                             [Back to Top]

[Times Independent Editorial]

School District Cost Savings and Revenue Enhancement:  A Call for Community Reprioritization

In light of the failed voted leeway, one critical question arises.  How do we best make ends meet for Grand County students, staff and community members with increased demands and limited resources? 

Two things are certain.  First, we cannot continue on as we have, supporting the same programs, practices and priorities.  Second, we must address the problem of our aging facilities in terms of renovation or replacement.  Our annual facility funding offers at best a band aid in response to the deterioration of our buildings.  

Many things are uncertain.  How will we as a community determine our new priorities?  When education budgets are stretched to the limit with little help in sight, what becomes the new role of the District?  If our community votes for the District to fund only ‘the basics’, what of our District traditions - our schools’ obligations – to serve as community hubs for activities outside the regular school day?  It may sound harsh, but reality is such:  The District, with the help of its citizenry, must leave no stone unturned in its search for cost savings and revenue enhancement.  ‘Leaving no stone unturned’ means systematically examining all programs, practices and expenditures.  It also means finding the wherewithal to start thinking and funding in new, creative and potentially unpopular ways. 

We are working with a hard topic.  Regardless of what we decide, a segment of our community will balk.  If we increase class sizes, parents and educators will raise concerns. If we cut quality programs, program participants will argue in support of their interests. If we increase student fees or facility rental fees, those impacted will claim their burden unfair.  If we cut back on extended day activities such as after school, latch key, athletic or other extra-curricular programs, cries will echo.  After all, research tells us that as support programs vanish, the probability of student failure increases dramatically.  When it comes to cut backs, whether done across the board or in a value-driven manner, the likelihood is that no one in the community will be happy.   Everyone will lose something.  If each segment of the community pulls its support from the schools based on its special interests, what then?  I can’t help but wonder if there is another healthier way to approach this dilemma with community unity as a goal, an approach we just have not yet conceptualized. 

Yet we are compelled to move ahead.  At the July School Board Meeting we a) cut a fourth grade teacher; b) increased High School academic, extra-curricular and gate fees; c) continued our discussion on raising facility rental fees to more accurately reflect the cost to the district; d) examined cost saving strategies presented by the District technology department; and, e) reviewed a number of ways in which to make small savings and enhance revenue generation, knowing that small gains will collectively add up.   None of these ideas bring the District enjoyment nor are they offered in the best interest of students or the community.  They are merely the initial effort to work within budgetary constraints.

The editorial in last week’s Times expressing concerns about the ‘banning’ of sports broadcasts for home games is well taken.  The idea of discontinuing radio broadcasts in order to boost gate receipts came from other Utah school districts that practice this revenue enhancement strategy.  I agree, it doesn’t fit our community spirit.  But neither do any of the measures discussed at last month’s Board meeting. It goes back to the idea of everyone having to give a little bit and, in the end, probably more than a little bit.  I also hope we see media columns and letters supporting the soft spots Americans hold in their hearts for challenging academic programs, adequate facilities for our children, acceptable student/staffing ratios, research-based support for struggling students and the recognized value of extra-curricular and athletic activities for youth as they develop  healthy bodies, contributing characters and creative minds.  And what of providing competitive salaries for school employees?  The problem is, all of the above issues are important.  Maybe we need to accept the fact that our existing level of funding will support only a portion of the desires and dreams we have for our children and our community. 

As the District moves into its examination of strategies for cost savings and revenue enhancement, we need to be mindful of the diverse community needs school districts attempt to meet.   We need to be willing to address the tough question.  What programs, practices and expenditures can be forfeited when we are forced to narrow our focus?

I thank those community members who are sharing concerns and ideas with District staff and Board members.  Sustained, collective, heart to heart dialog becomes even more critical as we move into the difficult phase of facility Master Planning.  Please accept the invitation to join us in our discussion.  After all, it takes a community to reprioritize a school district.

     –Margaret Hopkin, Grand County School District Superintendent

Back to "Main Page "