New Ames School Board Eager To Work On Schools Plan

Fresh off Tuesday's election that brought four new faces to the Ames Community School Board, members said one of their first priorities is to figure out people voted against a $65 million bond referendum to replace and update the district's elementary schools.

Incumbent , the only of four incumbents who was Tuesday, said he's heard several reasons why the referendum failed. He said people wanted five schools instead of six, some didn't think now was the time for higher taxes, the district lacked a long-range facilities plan, people didn't want schools to move or weren't in favor of reopening Roosevelt Elementary.

“We have to find out, what was the main stay,” Woodin said.

Woodin hopes the board can have a new proposal in place near the end of the year so that proponents can educate voters.

“We are not going to make everybody happy, but we have to have a plan that 60 percent of people agree with,” Woodin said.

Tuesday, more than 77 percent of voters objected to a plan that would have allowed the district to build three new elementary schools, reopen School and repair and remodel and elementary schools. The tally, with all 21 precincts reporting, was 5,078 to 1,288, according to unofficial results.

The election brought a record-turnout. Near 16 percent of registered voters cast a ballot. In the 2009 school board election less than 6 percent of voters participated.

Ames Community Schools Superintendent Tim Taylor said he was surprised by the results in some respects and energized by the level of voter turnout.

“It indicated enthusiasm and people are paying attention and I think it's a good thing,” he said.

Plans would have allowed the district to abate asbestos, lead paint and mold present in all elementary schools buildings, make repairs, increase building security and add flexible space.

The board wouldn't be able to bring another bond referendum up for a vote until April 3, 2012. Taylor said the board could decide that it's too much work to do in that short period of time.

“There's a lot of work to do,” Taylor said, “but a lot of work has been done so I'll be anxious to see how we move forward myself.”

During candidate interviews before and after the election, all newly elected candidates said they wanted to move forward on some type of facilities plan.

Challenger , said she would work hard as a board member to prepare a new bond issue.

“I realize people want to move forward with our facilities, and our schools are in need of major upgrading,” she said.

After she was elected Tuesday, Simpson said operating a sixth school was just too expensive. and have also said they were in favor of a .

said he was interested in coming up with a referendum as soon as possible and one that people would agree with so kids would be in new or renovated buildings that would meet their needs.

Woodin said, if the main issue behind the "no" vote, was that the community wanted five schools instead of six, then the main decision for the community is where the new Fellows Elementary should be because residents seemed to agree about everything else.

When the school board discussed Fellows new location some objected to the 24th Street site chosen because of high traffic congestion and a railroad track in the area. The board ultimately went with that location because the alternative GW Carver Road site was farther from where School is now.

Finding out why the majority of people objected and moving forward might take at least a couple weeks.

New board members will take over during a transition meeting Monday. Woodin said they might need to take a little time learning the ropes and catching up before discussing plans for facilities updates.

Whenever those discussions take place Woodin said he hopes that more members of the community will participate.

“We have to figure out how to get more people's input so we know that when we put something out there that it has a higher likelihood of success,” Woodin said.

Note an earlier version of this story incorrectly stated the number of new board members and didn't fully identify a board member.