Members of the Glasgow Independent Schools Board of Education heard presentations on Saturday at central office from five prospective architecture firms regarding the future of Glasgow High School. The board invited the firms to present their plans so it may decide how to go forward with either renovating the existing school, building a brand new high school structure or completing a combination of both.

“Our board will consider these proposals we’ve heard and perhaps invite one or more of those back for more detailed presentations and then make a decision ultimately on which architects we want to go with for building or renovating Glasgow High School,” said board member Jerry Ream.

Representatives from RBS Design Group, Sherman-Carter-Barnhart, Ross Tarrant Architects, JKS Architects and Engineers and CMW, Inc. presented to the board members and other central office staff in attendance.

The board wanted to gather all of the information it can get before making any decisions about how to progress on the plans for the school, Ream said. They provided each of the firms with the same 10 questions to address during their presentations in order to highlight the board’s highest concerns, such as pros and cons of renovation versus building a new school, estimated costs involved, how the school can be unique, what sets the firm apart from all others and examples of other schools the firm has completed that the board could tour or call for references.

“Board members had an opportunity to put questions into that list. And of course some of us have different questions and areas that we expressed. It’s always a learning experience. I went through that with the middle school, and Highland (Elementary), and now with the high school. Things change so it’s always important to learn all you can and know how to best decide, so that’s what we’re doing,” he said.

Superintendent Kathy Goff said the board members will consider all of the information presented Saturday and likely invite the selected firm back for a more comprehensive presentation and include feedback from the public.

“The board will not be making any kind of action today. In the upcoming weeks we’ll schedule a time to reconvene and probably have a longer discussion on what we want to do,” she said.

Ream suggested that the board narrow its selection from the five down to one or two by the middle of this week.

“Our current architects are Sherman-Carter-Barnhart and I think our board feels like they did a great job with Highland Elementary, however we have a responsibility to our community as good stewards of our tax dollars to pick out the best, so that’s what we’re all about,” he said.

Updating the heating, ventilation and air conditioning systems became the most discussed subject. Several firms encouraged the board to consider making the facility LEED Certified. They reasoned that the air system would be more cost effective due to less maintenance in the future while providing quiet and environmentally-friendly air, even though it would be more expensive to install than a regular HVAC system.

Many of the firms presented a similar plan that would incorporate renovated but existing pieces of the high school, such as the gymnasium and music buildings, into a new facility, because they are already larger than what could be created by using current Kentucky Department of Education guidelines. They also included ideas on how to minimize the impact felt by students and teachers while the construction phases move through the school.

Kevin Cheek, project manager for Sherman-Carter-Barnhart, said the existing music and workshop building and gymnasium could be renovated and keep their large size, although some other classrooms may lose a little bit of square footage during a renovation.

“In some of areas it will be more cost effective to renovate, and in some areas it will be more cost effective to build new,” he said.

The presentations come two days after Randy Wilkinson, district director of pupil personnel, discussed at a Thursday public forum that the district passed its recallable nickel tax rates. That will allow some $14.7 million bonding capacity to pay for construction or renovation, while the previous estimate was that the district would receive around $4.1 million bonding capacity. And the number may increase even more if the state chooses to match the recallable nickel rate.

“Our decision to either renovate or build new is going to be dependent on the funding we ultimately achieve. Will our current passage of the recallable nickel be equalized or matched by the state or not remains to be seen. We’re hopeful of course that the state will choose to equalize or match the funds that we have,” Ream said.