Dill answers most frequently asked questions related to Fine Arts Building

In a 45-minute interview with the Herald, Superintendent Scott Dill answers the most asked questions about the Fine Arts Building as the school board considers demolition.

This process began at the January school board meeting when board members approved exploring the possibility of demolishing the Fine Arts Building on campus. What factors went into this decision? Why does the district believe demolition – or at least looking into it – is needed?

This started in December when I announced that I was leaving the district. I had a long-term vision for some facility needs, so I offered –– and several board members took me up on –– tours of all the buildings. Although we have invested significantly during my time in the district, we are still not where we need to be in terms of our facilities. I think we can do better by our kids and by our community.

Those tours began and ended in my office, and the topic of the Fine Arts Building came up. It hasn’t been used in years. I asked the board for permission to explore the cost of demolition. It’s something that has been talked about my entire time here and speaking to some members of the community and former board members, the conversation goes back further than that.

We’ve heard opinions from those who favor restoration and those who suggest demolition, including some professionals. What is your understanding of the costs associated with restoration versus demolition?

We have ballpark figures on a lot of this. Sapp Design Associates, who the district has an existing relationship with, is telling us right now new construction costs $150-180 per square foot. Restoration, based on their experience, they generally price out at 125-135 percent of the cost of new construction. That puts the price between $188-243 per square foot.

There has been some discrepancy about the size of the building. Originally their numbers were based on 21,000 square feet. What we’ve determined is the insurance company puts it at just over 16,000. At the base figure, assuming best-case scenario at $180 a square foot, puts it just over $3 million.

If you do a serious renovation of that building, you have to make it ADA compliant and the entrance and egress have to be compliant. It’s not a matter of simply restoring what’s there. It’s a matter of making the building sufficient to the needs and compliant with the requirements of 21st century buildings.

Demolition, we went through the bid process on abatement and received one bid in full compliance. It ended up being just over $46,000. I’ve had five different vendors express interest in demolition and three have been on site. Those are due on May 31. I would anticipate on top of the price of abatement, and I’m guessing, anywhere from $50,000-100,000 to demo. All told, I’m thinking an estimate of about $150,000 for abatement and demolition would be about right.

What is the timeline associated with the building since the Pinnacle report in 2008? How long was the facility used for storage after being vacated by students. When and why was it completely closed off?

The building was vacated for instructional use at the end of the 2007-’08 school year – before the Pinnacle report, which was done in August. The building was actually closed based on a recommendation from (former high school principal) Ben Yocom, myself and (former superintendent) Clinton Waters. We spoke with the teachers in the building and used our best judgment, and we determined we could better meet the needs of students with other existing facilities. We relocated all those classrooms – and I think there were six rooms that were in use – and teachers without cutting any programs or jobs. At that point, the building ceased being used for instructional purposes. We’ll call it May 2008.

Then we started using it for storage, and it was used for storage right until we completed the storage facility (in March 2014). But it was used increasingly less. There were obviously some problems with the building –– and any building when shut up is going to have some mold problems. We had an auction maybe as early as 2012 and at that point, we emptied out the majority of the contents of the building. The junior class and athletic department had some stuff they stored on the second floor.

When the central storage facility was complete, I tasked the guys with dismantling. Like the stair railings, they didn’t fall. They were placed there with anticipation of pulling them out. At that point, the guys came to me and said, ‘We don’t feel safe working in that building. It’s moldy, and we’re concerned about the floors.’ They asked, basically, for permission to leave it as is. I weighed that request and decided there wasn’t anything in that building that was worth the safety of a single individual. In retrospect, maybe we should have suited up and gone in and got things. With the benefit of hindsight, yes.

After the Herald’s video tour of the facility on Friday, many members of the public are wondering why the building was not maintained through the years by the district? Was it intentionally neglected to allow it to deteriorate to this point so it could be demolished?

The answer is an unequivocal no. There was no plan or conspiracy to let it go. A lot of the damage occurred right as I came into the superintendency. The building has been shut up, and obviously that’s not good.

One of the primary reasons it wasn’t maintained is we are tasked with being good stewards of taxpayer dollars. Maintenance of a facility that we aren’t using for instructional purposes and increasingly less for any purpose, didn’t make good fiscal sense in my mind. I could take anyone on a tour of our campus and show them where the money has gone and where it still needs to go.

I chose to focus on the areas where there were kids. Our primary focus is the education of children. If this were a wealthier district, maybe we would have adequate funds to do all we needed to do in our current in-use buildings and maintain this historic building. But we don’t. So that’s the choice I made and even with the benefit of hindsight, I would make that choice again.

A letter circulated Friday by Houston resident John Impey, who has been outspoken against demolition and passed around literature door-to-door, says “Missouri law states that school boards shall keep their buildings in good repair.” He says failure to maintain the building since 2008 is the result of non-compliance with Missouri law. Is this true?

That’s untrue, and I have clarified that with Mr. Impey directly. We had district counsel weigh in on that. The purpose of that specific law is to ensure students are not required to go into hazardous buildings. The law was mainly written to stop a school district from selling all of its property and not having a school. As long as we are adequately meeting the needs of our students, we reserve the right to do whatever we need to do with our property.

In accordance with Section 177.011 (and consistent with common law property rights in Missouri), the Board of Education holds title to the land and structures that belong to the school district. As the title holder to such real estate and structures, the Board of Education has, as prescribed by statute, the authority to sell, lease, and make other decisions regarding the property.

Section 177.011 provides that no schoolhouse or school site shall be abandoned until another site and school house are provided for the district. However, this provision is entirely inapplicable to the current situation. That provision was enacted because originally a specific 1/16th of a section of land was designated by the state for the purpose of building school houses. A district could not just sell the land and not provide a school house. However, in this case, the school district has buildings that are safer and more serviceable than the building in question and is providing district students with an education in those buildings. Accordingly, the board is authorized to make all decisions regarding the repair, improvement, lease, sale, abatement, and/or demolition of the property.

Of course, Section 177.031 does require school districts to keep buildings in good repair. However, nothing in Section 177.031 or any other provision of law requires a district to continue to pour money into a building that – as in the case here – has significant structural defects; includes the presence of mold, and asbestos; is technologically outdated; and that would require substantial sums of money to render usable. Accordingly, the board may legally choose to proceed with abatement and/or demolition of the Fine Arts Building.

Many have suggested there has been a “waste of taxpayer dollars” by not maintaining the building. Are those concerns founded? Has public money been wasted on the building?

Do you continue to put taxpayer dollars into a building that is not longer used for instructional purposes? We are a school. We are not a preservation or historical society. Our business is and always will be the education of students. This facility does not aid us in that mission whatsoever.

Could the building have been better salvaged? Possibly, yes, But I can show people where their money has gone and been spent. The money has followed the kids. From my perspective, that’s where the money needs to go.

Another question after the newspaper’s video tour Friday pertained to the remaining contents inside the building. Will items such as the trophies be preserved? Can any of the other supplies be sold?

Anything that can safely be preserved should be. One of the concerns with the building is the mold problem. If we can safely retrieve those items, you bet. But I’m not going to put anyone in harm’s way to go after those items. I do regret that. If I could revisit that, I would. But we were in the process and when the guys expressed concerns about their safety, I halted the process.

Opponents of demolition have raised concerns that we would like for you to address. Let’s run through them. First of all, related to the structural integrity of the building, has a structural engineer conducted a comprehensive evaluation of the structure of the building? What is your understanding of the structural condition of the facility today?

The Pinnacle report from 2008 was done by a professional engineer with an architectural firm. At that point, deficiencies were noted. The building did not meet specifications for student loads. There were fixes recommended at that point. I know questions have been asked if it could have been done at that point. I guess the answer is ‘yes,’ but the district did not choose to invest the money at that time.

My understanding is that whatever issues were still are. I would imagine the building being shut up for eight years has not improved those issues. Have we had anyone in there recently? No. I can’t imagine the conditions have improved any.

Is there asbestos in the building and if so, what is its condition? And what is the estimated cost of its removal?

The bid came in around $46,000. There is asbestos in the floor tile, transits above the windows, pipe linings for the heating system. That full report is available, and multiple copies have been distributed in the community. It’s my belief that whether we do renovation or demolition, abatement will be necessary.

There are questions regarding the most recent Department of Natural Resources inspection that cites the presence of black mold. Was this study conducted by DNR? What were the results?

This is a semantics issue. The report was not conducted by DNR. It is, however, a report required by the Department of Natural Resources. When you go to investigate demolition, you’re required to have an inspection done to determine the levels of hazardous materials. There is a list of vendors on the DNR website. We contacted multiple vendors and selected one from the list. We worked with Triangle Environmental Services on this. The report satisfied the requirements from the Department of Natural Resources. So while absolutely, technically and 100 percent it is not a DNR report, it is a report required by DNR, conducted by DNR certified individuals to satisfy DNR requirements.

The building was vacated by students in 2008. To your knowledge, did the district receive any communication from the public asking for the building to be repaired then? Since you became superintendent, has anyone asked questions about the building before this January when demolition talks began? Were any of the individuals who are speaking up now against demolition expressing concerns from 2008 until January 2016?

I was not privy to all the conversations (former superintendents) Clinton Waters or Dan Vandiver might have had. I have inherited all their documents. I have seen the documents from the (failed bond issue) discussion in 2009, and some of the same individuals were involved at that point. Since that time, to the best of my knowledge, I am not aware of anyone that came and discussed this with Dr. Vandiver. During my time as superintendent from 2012 to the present, nobody has come and spoken to me about restoration, preservation or access to the building. I’ve had zero requests. It hasn’t been a topic of conversation at all.

To be perfectly honest, the only time it has come up in conversation in the community is when I’ve had people ask me when we were going to tear it down.

The building obviously has historical significance in this community. If demolition takes place, is there anything the district can do to honor the building? Could anything be done with the bricks on campus?

The short answer is probably ‘yes.’ I haven’t explored those options at this point. Obviously, if the board were to select to demolish it, that would be a discussion to have very quickly. From a financial standpoint, that would make demolition significantly more expensive.

I’ve been in school districts where they’ve had plaques honoring and telling the story of previous buildings. There are options out there. If the board does select demolition, my office door would be open for suggestions as to the best way to honor the story and history of the years that building has served the community.

If the building is demolished, how will the grounds it sits on be used by the district? Is there a long-range plan in place for 5, 10 or 20 years down the road?

I do not have a formal plan at this point. It was something I was starting to work on this year, and then my career path obviously changed directions. That will be a challenge for (incoming superintendent) Dr. (Allen) Moss, and I will assist him in any way I can.

As of right now, there are no specific plans. In my personal opinion, if anybody cares, I’d like to see this district pursue a fine arts facility. Not that we couldn’t use another gymnasium, but we could really use a fine arts facility. But those are just my ideas.

Right now, the district does not have the bonding capacity to pursue a building. The situation may change but as of right now, I’d anticipate another building project is a minimum of 3-4 years if not longer away.

The district conducted a phone survey last month with results – as you reported to the school board – that favored demolition. The newspaper conducted a Facebook poll that overwhelmingly favored demolition. Although both polls were unscientific, they appear to indicate the public supports demolition. Is it your belief that the prevailing opinion of the public favors demolition?

Yes. The conversations I’ve had with district patrons – primarily parents – the prevailing opinion seems to be that it’s time for this building to go. I don’t think our board would be pursuing this, even as an investigation, if they did not believe they had public backing on this issue.

Discussions about the building have become pretty passionate on both sides. We saw some of that passion in the last school board meeting. Can you address the emotions involved in this process? Has it been difficult for you and the school board?

I think it has been difficult for everyone on both sides of the issue. The reason is there is a lot of passion and love involved in this.

Some of the individuals advocating for restoration, you can hear the passion, love and respect in their voices when they discuss this facility. That is not lost on me or the board. I have a lot of respect for the individuals on both sides. It’s unfortunate the situation has created a divide in our school board meetings and to some extent in the larger community.

Regardless of the passion or emotion, it doesn’t change the facts of the issues. My role in all of this is to present information and assist the community and the board in understanding the issue and making decisions. I’ve tried.

When do you anticipate a final decision will be made by the district?

If the board should elect to accept a bid for demolition, it could be as soon as the June board meeting. I don’t know that they will, but they will at that point have all the information they have requested from me to make an informed decision.

Thank you for the time. Is there anything else we haven’t discussed or that you want to emphasize?

I appreciate the opportunity. There are a lot of questions, and I hope we’ve answered them. I don’t anticipate changing anyone’s mind. I hope moving forward it can be done civilly and respectfully on all sides.