Key Takeaways: A special work session was held to discuss two key facility priorities: the future of the Happy Hollow building and a phase one proposal for renovating the junior-senior high school ground floor, starting with the PE locker rooms. Because the district borrowed $95 million for the 2017-2020 construction projects, we have very little borrowing capacity, which limits our ability to complete needed facility projects.
Slide Presentation by Administration
Topic Timestamps: YouTube Recording
- 1:30 Retirement announcement at WLES
- 2:02 Purpose of Work Session
- 4:35 Happy Hollow Property
- 8:22 JSHS Ground Floor Locker Room Renovation
- 12:05 Three potential financial option scenarios for locker rooms
- 15:13 WLSEF Fundraising Role
- 19:06 Funding Priorities and Project Comparison
- 25:05 Board Questions and Discussion
The following is my summary of the public school board meeting, not the official meeting minutes. My personal thoughts and opinions are given in italics and represent my own views which do not necessarily reflect those of any other member of the school board. I identify myself as Mumford in the summary but use first person when describing my personal thoughts and opinions.
Attendance: 6 of 7 School Board Members (Yue Yin, Rachel Witt, David Purpura, Dacia Mumford, George Lyle, and Amy Austin); Shawn Greiner, Superintendent; Anna Roth, Assistant Superintendent; Michelle Cronk, CFO; Chad Rodgers, JSHS Principal; Joel Strode, Athletic Director; Wendi Ailor, West Lafayette Schools Education Foundation (WLSEF) Director
1:30 – The work session began with Greiner sharing that Marcella Holmes, dean of students at WLES, had just announced her retirement.
2:02 – GO Bond Priorities Slide Presentation: Greiner explained that the meeting would cover projects that were identified as priorities during the general obligation (GO) bond process and many of those were drawn from a prior feasibility study conducted with Fanning Howey. Cronk explained that the district’s priority project list is organized by importance, but it includes more items than can be funded. The session would specifically focus on two main projects: 1) The future of the Happy Hollow building, including the process for gathering community input and 2) A phase one proposal for the JSHS ground floor renovation project.
4:35 – Happy Hollow Property: Greiner said they need to make a decision on how to best use the Happy Hollow building including what needs to be maintained and what needs to be demolished. Roth explained that the district has partnered with Adam Jones, Skybound Education, (who has been working on the district’s strategic plan for the last year) to gather community input on the future of the Happy Hollow building and is currently developing surveys. Jones will draft the initial survey questions which will be reviewed by the administrative team and then shared with the school board for feedback before being sent to the public. Roth stated that the goal is to distribute the survey in late July or August. After survey results are gathered, the district plans to conduct focus groups to dive deeper into key ideas. All feedback—from the board, community surveys, and focus groups—will be synthesized to help inform a final recommendation to the board by December.
8:22 – JSHS Ground Floor Locker Room Renovation: Greiner said that the state of the JSHS ground-floor locker rooms has been a long-standing facilities issue. This area was not renovated during the school’s recent major construction projects. Greiner said the district has already worked with Fanning Howey to create phased renovation plans, and phase one focuses on the girls’ and boys’ PE locker rooms.
Rodgers, JSHS principal, clarified the terminology, noting that when the team refers to the phase one “locker rooms,” they specifically mean the girls’ and boys’ PE locker rooms, not the athletic team locker rooms. The phase one renovation project aims to modernize the PE locker room facilities to improve both student experience and safety. He emphasized that the girls’ locker room would be the first focus area, due to its current congested layout, outdated finishes, and limited functionality. In contrast, the boys’ locker room is still mostly serviceable during the renovation phase, though temporary changes—like taking showers offline—would be necessary.
Strode, athletic director, pointed out that these are typically called the junior high PE locker rooms. He emphasized that while the immediate priority is these heavily used student spaces, the larger vision includes future updates to the wrestling room, weight room, team locker rooms, training room, and laundry facilities. He noted that junior high PE locker rooms are used by the largest number of students throughout the school day, which underscores the importance of this project.
12:05 Three potential financial option scenarios: Cronk presented three financial scenarios for the priority projects on page 11 of the slide presentation. Option A involves fully renovating the PE locker rooms and only the subset of priority projects that can be completed without borrowing additional funds. Option B also calls for full renovation of the PE locker rooms, but the district would take on additional debt using lease financing to complete all the priority projects. Option C proposes value engineering the PE locker room project by designing both locker rooms but only partially renovating them within the constraints of existing funding in order to complete additional priority projects. Despite the limited scope, this option would still enhance student safety, privacy, ADA compliance, and functional adjacencies such as proximity to team rooms, laundry, and storage. She noted that these options were based on preliminary estimates from a rough study conducted about two years ago with a total cost of between $3.9 and $5.2 million. The school district borrowed $95 million for the 2017-2020 construction projects, nearly twice as much as the $50 million cost estimate, and as a result our school district has very little remaining borrowing ability. At the time of that borrowing, our district’s total debt obligation was more than $53,000 per student, the second highest debt per student of all school districts in Indiana. None of the administrators involved in that borrowing decision are still with our district. Of the current board members, only Witt was on the board when the borrowing and those projects were approved.
15:13 WLSEF Fundraising Role: Foundation executive director, Ailor, explained that the education foundation could provide financial support for the renovation project, emphasizing that the foundation does not set priorities but instead fundraises in alignment with those determined by the administration and school board. She outlined current foundation initiatives, including scholarships, teacher grants, the backpack food program, and mental health support. Regarding the proposed capital campaign process, Aaylor noted that it would begin with a memorandum of understanding between the foundation and the district, followed by the development of a campaign strategy that includes naming opportunities for future phases. The foundation would then work to cultivate donor interest—some of which already exists among alumni—and seek lead gifts while continuing to host donor site tours. She emphasized that the foundation would only run one capital fundraising campaign at a time, noting that she is just one person with a part-time staff, and they aim to do each campaign well. She stressed that a visible financial commitment from the board would be key to generating donor momentum and demonstrating shared investment in the project.
19:06 Funding Priorities and Project Comparison: Roth explained the color-coded chart on page 11 of the slide presentation comparing project priorities and how they align with Options A, B, and C. The blue box at the top represents funds that have already been committed to the highest priority projects (school bus purchase, tennis courts, and football field lighting). Green includes high-priority projects expected to be addressed in the near term (Happy Hollow chiller, partial demolition of Happy Hollow, and the JSHS LGI roof). Purple includes other potential high-priority projects (JSHS PE locker rooms, JSHS lighting upgrades, and WLES air handler) which may be addressed depending on the financial path chosen. Yellow and peach represent lower-priority or later-phase projects (JSHS air handler, baseball field lighting, WLES classroom upgrades, WLES restroom upgrades). Roth emphasized that the selection between options—especially between A and B—will directly impact how many of these projects the district can realistically complete.
Option A assumes current cost estimates are accurate and would allow completion of all the green high-priority projects as well as both PE locker rooms using only existing funds, though it would leave little room for other facility projects. Option B anticipates higher costs and requires about $1.25 million in additional borrowing, which would enable completion of all the listed projects. Option C also assumes increased costs but takes a value-engineering approach to the PE locker room project, scaling the renovation to fit within the current budget, which enables completion of the projects in Option A without incurring additional debt. All three options rely on the donations the foundation raised for the 2017-2020 construction projects ($1.88 million) and recently transferred to the school district.
Greiner stressed the importance of board direction, noting that any of the proposed funding options could be viable depending on the district’s priorities. He described ongoing uncertainty around property tax revenues and potential legislative changes that could impact school funding or how buildings like Happy Hollow may be used. He expressed concern that without timely action, Happy Hollow could become subject to charter school acquisition, a risk that has been discussed in past legislative sessions. Moving forward with partial demolition of Happy Hollow now, he argued, would help safeguard the district against such future risks.
25:05 Board Questions and Discussion: Witt expressed concern that the band program was not reflected on the facilities priority list, despite longstanding conversations about how it would be affected by potential changes to Happy Hollow. Greiner responded that the band is currently using space in Happy Hollow and is part of that ongoing dialogue. He noted that the band, along with other groups including the robotics clubs and summer sports leagues like baseball, are being considered in the planning process and have been engaged in discussions.
Lyle asked whether the administration had considered the full demolition of Happy Hollow, questioning the practicality of retaining parts of the building if they may not be useful for future site plans. Greiner responded that while full demolition has not yet been discussed, it remains a possibility depending on board direction. He explained that current discussions have focused on gathering community input and assessing how various school and extracurricular groups—such as athletics, band, and robotics—are using the space. He emphasized that portions of the building, like the gym, are still valuable and actively used, making selective demolition and repurposing a viable option.
Mumford asked about the timing of decisions related to facility priorities, noting that key information, such as community input on Happy Hollow and transfer student policy, was still pending. She expressed concern about committing to the JSHS PE locker room project before understanding the full scope and cost of potential Happy Hollow plans, which could influence both funding and the foundation’s fundraising campaign focus. Greiner responded that the goal of this work session was just to raise awareness and gather board input and that he is not asking for any immediate final decisions. He confirmed that a full picture, including data from the Happy Hollow survey, would help the board determine priorities. He added that while the foundation currently views the JSHS ground floor project as a stronger fundraising opportunity, since it directly serves students, the board ultimately guides where fundraising efforts are directed.
Purpura asked whether immediately demolishing the unusable portion of the Happy Hollow building could reduce project costs. Cronk responded that a previous quote estimated the chiller cost at $600,000 and $1.5 million for demolition of the unusable part of the building. Purpura suggested it might be worth considering partial demolition before completing the community study if it could lead to overall savings.
Yin expressed strong support for moving forward with the locker rooms renovations prior to completing the Happy Hollow survey. She argued that these facilities are urgent and essential for daily school operations, unlike the Happy Hollow project, which involves greater uncertainty and higher costs. She emphasized that locker room improvements are a clear and immediate need that don’t require community input and are more likely to attract donor support than infrastructure items like chillers.
Purpura asked for clarification on what specific safety issues exist in the current locker rooms that might warrant moving the project higher on the priority list. Strode responded that while the junior high PE locker rooms are currently “relatively safe” and supervised by PE teachers, there are several functional and supervision challenges. He described outdated and underutilized areas leftover from a previous remodel, such as unused showers, a lack of adequate restroom facilities, and a layout that creates hard-to-monitor corners. He also explained that some students use nearby restrooms to change for activities like swim units because they feel uncomfortable in the current locker room spaces.
Purpura asked whether the locker room renovations could be completed over the summer or if the timeline would extend closer to a year, emphasizing that timing could affect planning. Cronk responded that preliminary discussions with Fanning Howey indicated the project would begin in the summer but not be completed by the start of school due to the labor-intensive nature of plumbing and mechanical work. She estimated completion closer to the end of the calendar year, though an exact timeline would depend on the finalized design. Strode added that the locker rooms in question are mainly used by PE students during the day, with only occasional use by junior high sports teams. Therefore, summer demolition would be timed to minimize disruption, and any work extending into the school year would be less invasive.
Mumford asked if the administration now considers the PE locker room renovation as an immediate need, similar to the track, tennis courts, and football lighting projects. For each of those the school board gave approval without waiting for a plan for Happy Hollow. She also inquired about timing, asking if waiting until January would delay construction another full year and whether an earlier board meeting (such as in August) would be necessary to stay on track for summer 2025 construction. Greiner responded that both the PE locker room renovations and the partial demolition of Happy Hollow are top priorities. He confirmed that bringing a proposal to the August board meeting would keep the project on track for a summer start.
Mumford asked for clarification on whether current funding is sufficient to begin both the locker room renovation and Happy Hollow demolition, and whether the board could approve progress on the locker rooms in August without fully committing funds before more information is available in January. Cronk explained that while the design will cover the full scope outlined in the red dashed area, current funding likely only covers the girls’ locker room portion. She emphasized the need for the board to decide which part to start with, as full completion isn’t feasible right now. Greiner added that approving the architectural design in August would allow the district to move forward without committing to construction costs until winter bids are received, keeping flexibility for Happy Hollow priorities based on community input expected by January.
Purpura questioned whether the board really needs to wait until January to make a decision on at least a partial demolition of Happy Hollow, expressing doubt that the affected parts of the building are salvageable. Greiner agreed, saying that while it’s important not to appear presumptive without community input, the deteriorating condition of the building means action shouldn’t be delayed much longer. Cronk suggested issuing an RFP to get firmer estimates on phased demolition costs and Greiner confirmed that the district could also gather a list of extracurricular and athletic programs that would be affected, along with alternative options for them. Grades 4-6 moved from the Happy Hollow building to WLIS in October of 2018. There was no feasible plan for what to do with the Happy Hollow building then and there has been little effort to create a plan for this building until now. Just this month we are starting the process to gather input and the administration is preparing to present a plan for Happy Hollow this December, after 7 years of waiting. So, I don’t understand the urgency to spend so much money on Happy Hollow until we know what the plan is. We are just a few months away. As an example, it would be a big mistake to put in a $600,000 chiller if the plan ends up being a full demolition.
1:26:40 Adjournment
With an entirely new administration and mostly new school board, this work session reflected a very positive cultural shift for our school district. The meeting had open dialogue and was all about proactive planning, virtues that were lacking in our district a short time ago.
Dacia Mumford 