OXFORD – One thing is clear after a second public forum held by the Oxford Academy School District: The superintendent and board of education will have a hard time finding support for their capital project proposals if they intend to move students out of the historic middle school building or raise the local tax levy.

More than 100 residents of the Oxford Academy School District, three times the number who attended a similar meeting in December, turned out Thursday despite the inclement weather to express their views on three building options being explored by the district.

“If we lose the middle school as a vital school ... it will contribute to the gross deterioration of this community,” said district resident Liz Wonka, a statement which was applauded by those in attendance.

“You can’t just walk away from this building,” said another resident.

“I’m glad this meeting is taking place, but I think it should have happened a year ago,” said McDonough resident Fred Bateman, noting his frustration over what he saw as a closed process. The board and administration have been working on the project proposal for close to two years, but public input has been limited until this point.

Bateman had done his research prior to the meeting, going so far as to contact the district’s State Education Department representative, Kurt Miller.

Those who attended last night’s meeting were given a much different presentation than those who attended the first public forum, held Dec. 3. Statements viewed as inflammatory during the prior event, questioning the advisability of investing in a 78-year-old building and the claim that classroom usage would drop in the building by 50 percent in the near future, were notably absent from Superintendent Randy Squier’s abbreviated slides.

Any ground gained by the different approach was lost, however, when Squier was forced to respond to a direct question about the availability of state education aid for the three options on the table.

“Are they all fully aidable?” asked Facility Advisory Committee member Joe Spence.

“No,” replied Squier. The response drew criticism from those in the audience that were under the impression that each option would be eligible for 98 percent aid, as the superintendent had touted, with the 2 percent local share being covered by EXCEL aid.

“I guess I’m confused,” said Anna Stark, another FAC member, who has attended numerous school board meetings related to the proposed capital project.

Oxford resident Jim Tynan went one step further, comparing Squier to a “car salesman” who changed the terms when it got down to the “nitty gritty.”

“That’s not the way you’re presenting it,” Tynan accused.

Tom Emerson, another resident of the Oxford community, accused Squier of continually tying talk of the middle school’s renovation with construction of a flood wall which would not be aidable as an attempt to discredit leaving the district in its current configuration.

“You are looking for a particular answer,” Emerson said.

The idea of combining junior high level students in the same building with grades 9 through 12 raised concerns among both parents and long-time district staff members.

“We seem to have not mentioned the middle school concept at all,” said Susan Franco, which she said the district had worked hard in the past to develop. She stressed the importance of sixth through eighth grade in particular being together in order to work through the social and emotional issues students must face at that age. “You’ve got to speak to that.”