MH School Board grapples with high school renovation plans as new members take their seats

The Mountain Home School Board’s three newest members walked into their first official meeting Thursday evening and immediately faced one of the district’s most pressing challenges: how to renovate the aging high school campus without repeating the mistakes of the past.

Brad Butler, Tommy Knight and Marsha Partney joined veteran board members for a lengthy facilities work session, where architect Josh Siebert of Modus Studio Inc. presented multiple options for replacing the deteriorating structure known as the “big top” or “circus tent.”

Before diving into the heavy lifting, the board watched the Mountain Home High School robotics team demonstrate their award-winning robot, fresh from a second-place finish at the world championships where they competed against 3,690 teams from 23 countries.

As Siebert presented four renovation concepts, one issue dominated the discussion: what to do with the library. Built around the same time as Hackler Elementary, it’s one of the campus’s newer structures, and the district is still paying for it.

But its location — on a significant grade at the back of campus — creates major challenges for any renovation plan.

“People are going to look at this one and the one before that, and they’re going to go, ‘This is millage number one and two all over again,’” board member Scott Booth cautioned, referring to the two failed millage proposals that had included demolishing the library.

The technical challenges are substantial. The site has a 13- to 15-foot grade change, drainage concerns and the notorious Ozark rock beneath the surface. Building around the library would require complex engineering solutions and could lead to flooding problems.

Teachers have consistently requested fewer entrances and a more consolidated campus layout. The current configuration, with multiple buildings and numerous access points, makes monitoring and securing the campus difficult.

“We need less entrances. We need less ways to be dependent on fire code,” board member Mollie Morgan stated, echoing feedback from faculty.

With construction costs running $300-$350 per square foot, every decision carries significant budget implications. Board members debated whether preserving the library to satisfy voters might actually cost more than starting fresh. One option would convert the library into a cafeteria, but this would require extensive modifications including removing floors and working within the existing structure’s limitations.

“When you tear down that library, you lose everything,” Morgan questioned during the discussion. “Are we losing everything? Is there anything that’s salvaged that can be? Do you really lose everything?”

Siebert explained that the library was built as an immediate solution without consideration for long-term campus development.

“They built the library, it fit right there … and they weren’t thinking, ‘Oh, well, eventually need to go up, or we need to build around it.’”

The board appeared divided between those who viewed preserving the library as essential for voter support and those concerned about compromising the best long-term solution for the campus. The debate expanded to include other buildings — the Fine Arts building, the Agri building — and crucial decisions about cafeteria placement and future growth potential.

New board member Marsha Partney suggested exploring ways to build around the library, but construction manager Will Gregory outlined the practical challenges this would create.

“To your point, it technically could. It’s just not the best,” Siebert explained. “I think that gets costly … They didn’t have enough to get down to a solid foundation.”

As the meeting progressed, board members began exploring hybrid approaches that might balance community expectations with practical needs. The conversation ranged from maintaining food service during construction to planning for the district’s needs over the next 50 to 100 years.

“At the end of the day, we’re asking for X number a square foot multiplied by how many dollars per square foot that’s going to cost,” board member Jason Schmeski observed. “Doesn’t matter if it’s one story, two-story, three stories … That’s what we have to work with.”

The district must submit plans to the state by October to qualify for partnership funding, while construction costs continue to rise and the big top further deteriorates.

As the meeting wrapped up, the board agreed to not release any concept designs for the potential school upgrade until after a millage increase was secured with taxpayers, to avoid claims that they were attempting to build a “Taj Mahal.”

The board agreed that the focus for the new proposal should be on the bare bones basics of square footage, classrooms and security.

Siebert agreed to return in June with refined proposals based on the board’s feedback. While no firm decisions were made, the discussion suggested the board is moving toward some form of compromise solution.

“I think we’re trying to make the best for the next 50 to 100 years on this campus,” Siebert noted near the meeting’s end. “And what’s going to get us there.”