Photo by Mike Lamb About 75 people attended a Marshall Public Schools District meeting inside the West Side Elementary gymnasium Monday evening to hear about details of a $29.8 million referendum election to be held May 14.

MARSHALL — Jeff Chapman stood inside the West Side Elementary gymnasium Monday evening listening to resident Robert Buysse share his concerns about a $29.8 million school building referendum.

As Buysse spoke to the Marshall Public Schools District board chairman, district officials took residents on tours of the 60-year-old building. Others were filing into the gymnasium and picking up the literature laying on a table near the entrance.

“I think we need more buildings and stuff,” Buysse said. “But I think our school board is not — how would you call it — fiscally responsible with the tax dollars they are getting.”

Chapman, as well other board members and district officials, were there to listen and try to answer questions and address the perceptions like the one Buysse has about the district.

It was part of a public meeting set up just two weeks before the May 14 referendum election. Tours of the school that is targeted for decommissioning if the referendum passes took place before the start of the meeting.

The referendum is a single-question ballot that includes:

• New second through fourth grade elementary school located on a 52-acre site near the existing Marshall Middle School.

• Three-classroom Early Childhood addition at Park Side Elementary, improvements to serve Park Side first-grade students and removal of the existing portable classroom.

• Centralized Early Childhood programming at Park Side Elementary and providing additional space at Marshall Middle School

• Safety and security improvements at Park Side Elementary, the new elementary school, MATEC and Marshall High School

• West Side Elementary to be decommissioned, demolished, prepared for future development and sold

Superintendent Scott Monson also addressed concerns and perceptions in his opening address to the crowd of about 75 people.

“It’s all about facilities. It doesn’t have anything to do with the cost to run the district. It’s all about investing in our facilities hopefully for the years to come,” Monson said in his opening statement.

With enrollment increasing, Monson explained that the school board asked him to look at facilities when he was hired back in 2014. He said all of the facilities were above capacity when it came to students.

“We formed a comprehensive facilities planning committee that met multiple times over the course of 12 months. (The committee) looked at 21 different options for addressing our facilities needs. And that committee did some great work,” Monson said. “The result of the work that committee did was roll forward to the school board in the form of recommendations that led to a referendum in the spring of 2016 for right around $40 million. That referendum failed. A year later, the district came back with a two-question referendum. Doing some things with the swimming pool at the middle school.”

Monson said that referendum also failed, which forced the district to re-examine its facilities strategy. After holding community input sessions, Monson said the same themes came up.

“Folks told us don’t ask for everything all at once. Done that twice and it didn’t work,” Monson said. “Folks said make sure you have a long range facilities plan. We do. We have what I would term a 15-year facilities plan. It’s broken down into three phases. The referendum on May 14 is phase one and at some point of time — seven, eight, nine — how many years down the road, we would take a look at phase two. And then sometime farther down the road, we would take a look at phase three.”

Monson also said the district was urged to lower the tax impact, which meant a lower amount for the referendum. He said the tax impact on the 2017 referendum was “around $10.50 a month” on an average priced-home in Marshall. He said that has been lowered to $6 a month in the upcoming May 14 referendum.

Monson also reminded the residents in attendance, that they are standing inside “our oldest building.” West Side Elementary was built in 1955.

“It’s in good shape as it can be,” Monson said. “It has original boilers, original pipes — and in some cases — original roofing and windows. There are a variety of different needs that exist in this building because it’s an old building.

“And our board spent considerable amount of time talking about — do we invest millions of dollars in West Side Elementary and still have a building that was originally built in 1955, or spend a little bit more money and maybe build a new elementary? Again, not an easy choice, but a choice our board had to make moving forward.”

Monson also talked about the early childhood program which presently takes place at two separate locations. Ideally, Monson said the district would like all those classes to be held at one location. He said early childhood enrollment has doubled during the past two years.

Monson fielded several questions from the audience. One man questioned Monson if he could guarantee the new proposed elementary school would be built to accommodate future rising enrollment. Monson said to project enrollment 10 years in the future would be difficult.

“The proposed elementary school is built with some flexibility where we need to add a section here or there,” Monson said.

Another man in the audience was concerned about the early childhood funding grant money not being renewed by the state.

“The grant is for two years. It’s been proposed by the governor and the House to renew that funding,” Monson said. “I would like to believe that funding will continue. If not, our school board will have to decide in late May or early June do we continue to figure out ways to do this from our general fund or do we go back to charging parents.”

Right now, Monson said 4-year-olds receive free preschool.

Even after Monson’s presentation, one critic of the plan remained unconvinced the new school is needed. Ted Anderson, a Marshall resident of 45 years, told the Independent he’s still not for the referendum.

“To tear this building down, I would say no,” he said. “I own a home here. And they put in a new street past our place and it was almost $7,000 for that. And it’s the taxes on my house on top of that. And I’m not interested in spending any money because I don’t think there is an emergency yet.”