Talks of potentially building a new school was a topic of discussion again at the recent Clinton City Board of Education meeting, where a proposed timeline was considered.
Michael B. Hardison | Sampson Independent
New schools remain a hot topic around Sampson County these days, with a new high school already on tap for Hobbton. Meanwhile, the Clinton City Board of Education first entertaining its own notion of possibly constructing a K-2 school, a topic that once again came up during a recent school board meeting.
Discussion about building a new school was initiated during September’s meeting as members also talked about funding for much needed roof repairs and replacements. It was at that time that Superintendent Dr. Wesley Johnson presented the idea of potentially looking into constructing a new school facility for K-2 students.
As part of those talks, Johnson presented to the board that Clinton City had received four bids from architectural firms interested in taking on the project. Those four firms were Becker Morgan, LS3P, Michael Graves and SFL+a.
The goal of bringing the information forward was to make the board aware that the option is available, Johnson said last month.
It was revisited during Tuesday’s meeting, where a timeline for pursuing the new school was mapped out.
“If we go with a new school, it could just be a PreK or it could be kindergarten-second. I mean, there are different options that we could think about, but we have received bids from four architectural firms,” Johnson stressed. “One of the things when I was talking with the board chair and the vice chair at our agenda meeting, it was mentioned that we might need a proposed timeline.
“I reached out to Mr. (John) Lowe, and he was real quick to share the timeline,” he said. “Now we have one, but this can be slightly adjusted as much as you want. You’re in control of this. But, if you want to move forward with a proposal to the Needs Based Public School Fund for next year, that would have to be done in August.”
The initial timeline and items detailed included:
• June 5, 2024 — Release of Request for Qualifications for Architectural Firms
• June 20, 2024 — Deadline for receipt of questions regarding the RFQ
• July 9, 2024 — Deadline for receipt of proposals
• December 3, 2024 — Selection of architectural firms to interview
• January 2025 — Completion of architectural firm interviews
• Jan. 21, 2025 — Board of Education approval of architectural firm selection
• July 2025 — Completion of initial designs
• August 2025 — Application for Needs Based Public School Capital Fund Grant
• October 2025 — Notification of receipt of NBPSCF Grant funding
” This was a proposal that Mr. Lowe and I talked about for the architectural firms,” Johnson said in presenting the proposed timeline. “Information was shared with you last meeting and is here again. Those four architectural firms are the ones that submitted bids when the timeline was established. So, I’m just going to kind of be quiet and let you all talk over it. What are your thoughts?”
One inquiry was in regards to looking at projected cost versus actual cost based on projects the four firms have completed in the past. Another was on the amount of freedom Clinton City Schools would have in selecting, approving and bidding for subcontract work that may need to done. There was also mention of cost for potential interviews which could come in at $20,000 to $25,000. The question regarding when to hold discussions with any current landowners about selling property for the host location for a new school was also raised.
While all these bullet points were addressed in some fashion, they were all based on hypothetical or “what if” scenarios, members noted, since none of the questions would be relevant without one major need — the $42 million in funds needed for the school project from the Needs Based Public School Capital Fund.
“Now we can’t build a new school without the $42 million so we’re going to, if your desire is to build a new school, we’re going to have to submit a bid sometime to the Needs Based Public School Capital Fund,” Johnson said. “It doesn’t have to be in ‘25 it can be in ‘26 if you want.
“Let me share this with you also,” he said. “Going forward, if we pursue this, and once, or if, you receive the funding, you have two years to put shovel in the ground so keep that in mind when thinking about planning and building a new school.”
With that in mind, the board did suggest and make a change to the originally drafted timeline opting to add an item and push back the proposed selection of architectural firms to interview.
“I think that meeting to select architectural firms to interview by Dec. 3 is to early considering we don’t have a meeting scheduled for November,” board chairwoman Dr. Linda Brunson said. “So, what I’ll ask the board is, we have four to choose from, right? There are hard copies here, and you have the digital copies, as well, of the four firms we’re considering. Could you come by and choose two out of the four you’d like and would pick for the project between now and when we meet again on Dec. 3? Then we can consider selection of architectural firms to interview in maybe January, is that alright?”
The board members all agreed and the talks were put to rest again until December.
“So let’s just start with those two, so by Dec. 3, give us two names,” Brunson said. “Then maybe, Mrs. Nacole can do the collection (of names), to let us know which two, and then when we get back here on Dec. 3. we can choose a date to try to set up for the interviews.”
Reach Michael B. Hardison at 910-249-4231. Follow us on Twitter at @SamsponInd, like us on Facebook, and check out our Instagram at @thesampsonindependent.