Sigourney School Board Selects Architecture Firm

SIGOURNEY – During a special meeting of the Sigourney School Board on Oct. 30, the board voted to hire SitelogIQ to manage the planned infrastructure updates at the Jr/Sr High School, pending attorney approval. SitelogIQ managed the infrastructure work at the elementary school carried out over the summer. The company was the unanimous first choice of the board members. Board member Adam Clark stated that SitelogIQ finished their work at the elementary within budget and without any major issues, which speaks volumes. Board member Mike Bensmiller added that SitelogIQ had proved themselves. 

During the work session prior to the special meeting, Superintendent Kevin Hatfield stated that the elementary infrastructure update had been fairly successful, was currently four months ahead of schedule, and was right at budget. He mentioned other expenses the district would encounter in the future, like regularly cycling out chromebooks and possibly purchasing a passenger van. Board member Steven Seeley noted that the elementary bathrooms and teachers’ lounge still need to be updated.

Hatfield stated that the district would likely need to pass a bond referendum for the high school infrastructure work. Seely stated that the board had repeatedly lowered the area’s tax rate in the past. Hatfield stated that, when the tax rate was higher, the public didn’t get anything out of it.

The board discussed possibly hiring a proxy advisor, who would advise the architecture company and report back to the board. Clark questioned if the advisor would be listened to, noting that, when the city had an advisor give feedback for the work on the square, the contractor was able to ignore that feedback. Hatfield stated that a knowledgeable advisor could influence before the work began. Clark asked if the advisor would sit in the architecture office during the engineering phase, because once that early work is set, the company would not want to change it.

Hatfield noted that, when he worked at West Branch, it cost $35,000-$40,000 for an advisor. Clark stated that was a lot of money if the advisor’s opinion didn’t hold weight. Hatfield stated that, during the elementary project, SitelogIQ initially had a manager who was working on two other projects. He stated that, after he requested a full time manager and SitelogIQ switched to one for the project, things went more smoothly.

Hatfield brought up the idea of having the public participate in advisory meetings to determine what the Jr/Sr High work should accomplish, suggesting holding these meetings January-April of next year. Seely asked what the board thought was important to focus on at the Jr/Sr High. Clark stated that there is a lot of work that will not be visible, but needs to be done to get the school up to code and lay a good foundation to expand upon. Seely stated that the school will need sprinklers, that HVAC work is important, and that the district should set aside money for a visual update, so the public will know money was spent. Clark stated it was important to install secure entrances and update the school’s infrastructure. Board member Tim Bruns mentioned ADA parking. Clark stated some of these updates could be tackled by the school board instead of through a bond.

Bruns brought up the property recently bought by the district, saying it would be silly to not use it for something, like parking. He brought up the idea of partnering with the city for a rec center. Clark noted that the board had previously been given estimates of half a million dollars to update the music room and one million dollars to update the weight room, and that although these things need to be done, it was important to focus on the nuts and bolts of the building first. Bensmiller stated the high music room price was due to it not being ADA accessible.

Hatfield stated it was important to have the improvements be good for all kids, and that it was hyper-critical to get input from the community. Board member Alan Glandon stated that a lot of this will be worked out by the facility advisory committee. He noted that the district would need to install new fire alarms. Hatfield estimated this would cost around $260,000. Clark stated the conversation was premature and they would need to wait for the architecture company to do an assessment of the school.

After the board agreed that SitelogIQ was their top choice but before officially approving them, Hatfield stated that other companies would likely have “piggybacked” off the assessment SitelogIQ did a few years ago. Clark stated he disliked this and wanted other companies to do a proper assessment. Bruns stated he wanted to have another perspective, and suggested having another company do an assessment, which several companies had offered to do for free. Hatfield stated that he would be shocked if another company did a free assessment, knowing the district was planning to go with another company. Clark stated that he was willing to pay for another assessment, because getting a second opinion is worth it to the public. He noted that an assessment cost of roughly $50,000 was “pennies” compared to the estimated 10-14 million dollar cost of the entire project.

Hatfield stated that the “harsh reality” was that, even if the company is paid, other architecture firms likely would not complete an assessment in a timely manner. This is a problem, because the assessment would ideally need to be done in December to make the Nov. 25 election for the referendum. Clark asked the board if they wanted to potentially delay things for a year for an assessment, or keep moving forward. He questioned how thorough a second assessment would be, if the company knew the district was doing multiple assessments. Seely added that companies other than SitelogIQ don’t have any “skin in the game.”

Hatfield stated that the SitelogIQ assessment for the elementary brought things back to reality and let the board know they needed to focus on basic infrastructure. He speculated they may learn the same thing about the high school. Seely stated that SitelogIQ had proved themselves, and that getting two assessments might overcomplicate things. Bruns stated that different companies would notice different things and that it would be good to use a combination of both assessments. Hatfield stated that there is an industry standard for assessment and that everyone would follow that level of assessment. Clark noted that, if the board decides to go with a different company after the assessment, they can.

Hatfield noted that he wouldn’t be around forever, and that the Jr/Sr High infrastructure update had to be the community’s project.