WAVERLY – After coming in around $16 million under budget, the Waverly School Board has been diligently trying to decide what should be done with the remaining money allocated for its Capital Assets and Preservation Project (CAPP) five years ago.

Under CAPP, improvements made to the district’s student-occupied facilities are considered aidable by the state, which then pays around 98 percent of the cost, leaving only 2 percent to be paid for by the district.

Because the end cost of the district’s projects only ended up being around $26 million, the board now has to spend the remaining money on other student-occupied assets.

“We were originally quoted around $43 million for the improvements we wanted to see, which was then approved by the public in a referendum five years ago” said board president Joseph Picco. “But throughout the process, with due diligence, the board was able to have everything accomplished for only about $26 million.”

Picco said the board originally removed several items from the endeavor’s scope of work to reduce the cost. But now that the district needs to spend the remaining $16 million, the board is re-evaluating the projects it originally cut.

In the last few months, representatives from firm BCK Architects have been presenting a “menu” of projects that could be done to each of the district’s facilities. The board, in turn, has had to deliberate which projects should be selected.

However, with dozens of potential projects to choose from, the process of discussing each and reaching a consensus can be difficult and extensive. Among the many items currently being discussed by the board is the potential inclusion of Memorial Stadium.

Updating the stadium had originally been considered under CAPP, but was eventually left out of the plans due to concerns over aidability from the state. The issue is somewhat complicated by the fact that the stadium is a high school facility, but sits on the property of the Elm Street Elementary School — which has already reached the maximum amount of aidability.

Superintendent Joseph Yelich previously said he is hoping to shift the cost allowance for such a project to the high school so that it would not exceed Elm Street’s aidability. At one point, the board discussed the idea of erecting a brand new stadium at the high school. However, during Thursday’s meeting, it was determined that the board would only seek to renovate the current facility at Elm Street.

This means including the stadium will need approval from the state education department (SED). In order to gain approval, the board first needs to decide what the scope of work to be done on the stadium will be. After the official scope of work has been determined, Yelich can then seek approval from SED.

In the board’s meeting Thursday, Yelich said he plans to approach SED and discuss the matter before submitting a formal proposal.

“I want to get their parameters and their view on these things before we submit anything to them,” said Yelich. “We’re going to get that guidance straight from the assessors at SED.”

The debate over the stadium is layered with issues that complicate the decision-making process. Perhaps the most debated item in the process so far has been whether or not to replace the current concrete bleachers – which have been in place for about 60 years.

Of all the work that could be done on the stadium, putting in new bleachers would probably be the highest on the list of priorities. However, by tearing down the current structure, the district would also be doing away with the stadium’s only restrooms, press box and team quarters – which are all contained within the bleachers’ structure.

Center, Memorial Stadium, which sits next to Elm Street School in Waverly, is in need of several repairs. Top right and left, parts of the ground level behind the bleachers have sunk so much over time that the bleacher entrances are far from being flush with the ground. Below, left, the stadium’s bleachers contain the players’ quarters and restrooms. If torn down, all of those facilities would need to be paid for in full by the district. If the current bleachers are not torn down, modifications would likely still be made to address the steep, worn-down stairway that provides access to those facilities. Bottom, right, Parts of the concrete bleachers have deteriorated beyond the point of simple repairs. In the meeting Thursday, a representative from Welliver-McGuire told the board that the 60-year-old concrete might be too worn down for simple patch work on the surface. Colin Hogan/Morning Times While all of those items could certainly stand to be rebuilt, state guidelines do not classify bleachers, restrooms, concession stands or press boxes as student occupied facilities. Therefore, they do not fall under the state’s guidelines for aidability and the district would have to pay all of the cost, not just two percent.

YELICH Dan Whalen, the project’s architect, estimated the cost of the stadium’s non-aidable items to be anywhere from $770,000 on the low end to $1.4 million on the high end.

This particular conflict sparked much deliberation in Thursday’s meeting over what the scope of work for the stadium should be.

Several board members expressed a desire to keep the current structure, repair the concrete and add bleacher seats on top, claiming that the current design provides excellent visibility from all vantage points.

“There isn’t a bad seat in those bleachers,” said board member Parvin Mensch. “If we demolish the concrete, it changes the integrity of the entire stadium.”

Whalen, however, noted that starting fresh might be the better option, rather than build something new on top of 60-year-old concrete. Whalen also noted that pouring new concrete bleachers today would be considerably more expensive than erecting an aluminum set. In response to an inquiry from Mensch, Whalen approximated the life expectancy of a set of aluminum bleachers to be about 25 to 30 years.

Other board members showed favorability toward tearing down the whole structure and starting from scratch.

“In my opinion, if we can’t do it right, why do anything at all?” added Board Vice President

Lee Haxton. “Let’s not just piece everything together. Let’s do it right.”

Yelich then reminded the board that taking on any non-aidable projects would fall outside of the original referendum, and would need to come from somewhere else in the budget.

Picco pointed out that the district absorbing

$1.4 million of the cost to renovate the stadium would likely result in a tax increase and an additional referendum.

Beyond the debate over the bleachers lies further debate over what do about the field. Unlike the bleachers, work done to the field would theoretically be aidable, therefore the state would be paying 98 percent of the cost.

With that in consideration, the board discussed what modifications they would like to see done to the field.

Chemung Elementary principal Dave Mastrantuono, who has been serving as a liaison between the administration and the endeavor’s contractors, said from his knowledge, the coaching staff would likely prefer a turf field, citing that it yields fewer injuries, handles wear and tear better than grass, and can withstand several practices/ competitions per day without wonderful becoming torn-up and muddy. He also added that having a turf field

Drive, would make the facility a strong

William candidate for hosting playoff and flowers, championship competitions, noting memorials, that the district sits centrally within words Section Four. many Picco then noted that all of the much to coaches he had spoken with echoed

Mastrantuono’s sentiment. While a couple board members still expressed having reservations over a

You All, McCarty, turf field, by the end of the discussion, the majority appeared to favor turf over grass.

The board will still need to continue deliberating what exactly will fall under the scope of work for the stadium before they are able to propose the idea to the state education department this spring.

Other CAPP discussion

The board held lengthy discussions over which projects they would select for each facility’s scope of work, as well as ways to reduce the cost of certain projects.

One item in particular that warranted deliberation was whether to include two single-sex lavatories in each teachers’ lounge or simply provide one unisex lavatory per lounge. The board was previously quoted an estimated $100,000 per lounge to renovate teachers’ lounges – a figure which caused contention both among board members and distirct residents.

Picco pointed out that removing one lavatory would reduce the cost of each lounge’s renovation by around $30,000. However, the notion was argued against by at least two board members – Andrea Giovenco and Renee Kingsley.

Giovenco said she had heard there were complaints among teachers about a shortage of toilet facilities, and could not understand why, with the district only being accountable for 2 percent of the cost, the district would shortchange a project that was actually needed.

“I just don’t understand how we can talk about spending $1.5 million on items for the stadium, but we won’t spend this money on something our teachers actually need,” said Giovenco.

Picco retorted that in all of the years his wife has been an employee of the district, he has never once heard any complaints about a restroom shortage.

Mastrantuono echoed Giovenco’s position on behalf of the district’s teachers.

“While I certainly understand that we work for the board and it is your decision to make, members of the faculty and staff would definitely prefer to have a more ample amount of restrooms,” said Mastrantuono.

Ultimately, nothing official was decided from the deliberations. However, Picco said the board is making steady progress on the matter and will continue to demonstrate due diligence with the taxpayer’s money.

“I’ll exhaust all the time that we need to the make sure the education of our students and fairness to the taxpayer is our priority,” said Picco.