Fluff 'n' Stuff

Finding the Excess in the Mountain Home High School Building Proposal

Almost immediately after the general public became aware of the proposed construction project at the Mountain Home High School, they began to question its size and scope, with many people expressing concern that the plan was excessive and had many amenities that were not reasonable or necessary.  After many hours of research, investigation, and hours of interviews with key decision-makers, the answer to whether there is excess “fluff” was found within the analytical data provided by the Arkansas Department of Education, Division of Public Schools Academic Facilities and Transportation (Division).

In January of 2022, the Mountain Home School District submitted its Facilities Master Plan to the Division, which included the plans for a new high school building. The District also submitted its Facilities Partnership Application for the project, requesting a funding partnership. On March 17, 2022, the Mountain Home School Board voted to pursue a millage tax increase and set an election date for August 9, 2022.

The District’s partnership application included a request to demolish 111,429 square feet of the current high school (here and here). The space identified for demolition included, 1) the front office space, the Fine Arts building, teacher’s lounge, multiple classrooms, labs, the library, and 2) everything currently under the pre-engineered metal building (PEMB also known as the Big Top), which includes the original high school building, the cafeteria and kitchen, multiple classrooms, student commons, and the old gym.

The Division performed multiple analyses of the space, including a Facilities Condition Index and a Program of Requirements. They looked at the condition of all the impacted buildings, the current programs within the buildings, and the current and projected student enrollment. The Division’s final determination, after back-and-forth communications, was that the Division would not partner on the demolition of the good structures (see email here), and they would only partner on a rebuild of 37,440 square feet after demolition of the Big Top reduced the overall square footage of the high school campus. See the final Partnership Determination letter.

The State Division’s partnership excludes the demolition of the front office space, the Fine Arts building, teacher’s lounge, multiple classrooms, labs, and the library, because they determined those spaces are still in good condition and it would not be a prudent use of taxpayer funds to tear them down. 

You can view the communications between Aliza Jones, Facilities Consultant, and the State Division, which provide information on the original request and discussion about the Division’s decision, here.

---

Click here for a diagram and photos of the good structures to be demolished.

---

The Division determined that the high school is already over-built – it’s too large for the current student population.  The state also projected declining student population going forward, so there is no anticipated growth (here, and here). Since the high school is already over-built, the Division will partner to build 37,440 square feet of new space only if demolition of the Big Top is included in the project. After removal of the Big Top, the high school needs only 37,440 square feet of new construction to meet the school’s needs based on the student population and core academic programs.

The State Division has determined the project is eligible for $2.99 million dollars in state funding, if approved by the legislature during the session. This amount is based on the current cost factor of $200, the 37,440 square feet of approved new construction, and the district’s wealth index, which allows the State Division to share in 40% of the cost.  There is the potential of an increase in the cost factor due to the rising cost of goods, but that is still undetermined and unknown. Assistant Director of the Division, Tyrel Pace, shared this information in his public presentation at Dunbar on February 6, 2023. His presentation slides can be viewed here.

The State of Arkansas, through the Division’s analysis, has clearly identified the excess, or the fluff, in the MHHS proposal.  After being informed that the State Division excluded demolition of the structures, because it would be a misuse of taxpayer money, the District still decided to pursue a second millage election without consideration of other viable options, without reassessing, and without the board even considering this new information provided by the Division. The Division determined this demolition was not a prudent use of taxpayer funds, but the District wants our community to fund it anyway, through a millage tax increase.

In the January 5, 2023, school board discussion regarding the available options for addressing the problems in the Big Top, Superintendent Long presented the board with three options; 1) do nothing, 2) take a second lien on the current bond and re-roof the Big Top, or 3) pursue a $60 million dollar bond to cover the cost of demolishing the entire 111,429 sq. ft. and the cost of constructing a new 160,000 sq. ft. facility.

Long told the board, “You have multiple options there. You have three options there. Uh, regarding the facility itself, um, you know, do nothing. Spend approximately probably 10 million on reroofing the whole thing. Move forward or um, you know, we give our kids and our community, you know, the facility that I think that they deserve. Um.” (transcript here and recording here)

At no point during this meeting did Long disclose the Division’s determination on the scope of their partnership, which he had received in the initial Partnership Determination letter on August 29, 2022. There was no discussion about the Division excluding the full demolition or the massive rebuild from the partnership. There was no discussion about revisiting the scope of the project with consideration of the Division’s findings.  Two of the three options presented to the board were not even viable. The Big Top has safety issues, so doing nothing to that building should have never been presented as an option. During a phone interview with Tyrel Pace, Assistant Director of the Division, he confirmed that a re-roof of the Big Top had never been discussed and would have never been approved, because it does nothing to address the problem. The board was steered toward only one possibility – a massive demolition and a new extravagant building – a project that was rejected for state partnership funding and would burden the district and taxpayers with extreme debt for the next thirty years or more.

Some key questions remain unanswered regarding this meeting. First, did Long guide a blindfolded board down this path, by not reporting the developments with the Division to them, and did he violate multiple ethical standards established by the Arkansas Department of Education by his omissions and his failure to fully report to the board?  Or was the board secretly informed by him? Did they have full knowledge of the Division's findings, but never discussed it in public meetings? And were they deliberately complicit, and in violation of the law, by hiding this from the public? 

In an effort to receive a $2.9 million dollar grant from the state, the District has blindly pursued reckless demolition and an extravagant rebuild in that space.  Should they have paused and considered whether the strings attached to the $2.9 million are even beneficial? The careless haste with which this has been pursued has not permitted a thorough, in-depth, and responsible evaluation of the issues and a consideration of all possible solutions. Have they considered constructing a brand-new building positioned at the back of the high school, connected to the current library area?  This could be self-funded, would not disrupt current operations, and would also provide the opportunity to properly assess the needs of the students and any safety and security issues. It could also be thoroughly vetted and shared with the public in full transparency.

The State Division’s assessment identified the structures the District had slated for unnecessary demolition and they identified that the facility already has excess space beyond what is required for core academics and student services. However, program-specific needs likely still exist within the school, but the District has not properly assessed and explored what those needs are, how to best meet them, or engaged in full disclosure with the public on what constitutes critical needs, specific program needs, or the wish-list items for consideration. Instead, the District has presented an all-or-nothing package, and has shrouded the facts behind a veil of talking points about the problems under the Big Top. 

There are many unexplored options that have never been considered, and research that has not been done, but should have occurred before the District asked for more money. The destruction of good buildings, the excess space for the current population, declining enrollment, failure to perform a thorough needs assessment, failure to explore alternatives, money with strings attached, rushed planning, non-existent public transparency, all coupled with genuine concerns under the Big Top that have been ignored by the District, make this a recipe for a community disaster.

This summary is based on understanding gleaned from multiple primary interviews with key decision-makers, many FOIA requests for documents, and many hours reviewing the gathered information. Here is a repository of Public Documents, some of which were referenced in this article.

MK