- By Dan Veaner
- News
Print 
On the agenda was a rundown of costs and the impact on maintenance, a presentation on how the High School is utilized and a question and answer period. Kirk Narburgh, of King & King Architects was on hand with his crew to answer questions. The two hour session generated a lively discussion as people who are for and against the project learned more about it.
The capital project is tentatively structured into three propositions. The base proposition would cost around $31.2 million. It includes additions and renovations. Most of these would go into the High School, with some in the Middle School and a few in the Elementary School. Proposition 1 also includes work on the district campus to improve the traffic flow and address safety and security issues. Proposition 2, valued at about $7.2 million would build a new auditorium onto the High School. The Board of Education (BOE) will have to decide whether they want to build an 800 seat auditorium or a 1,000 seat one. Proposition 3, if approved, will buy a new phone and security system for the district.
Tom Jones, former Middle School principal and administrator, said that he thought people should know what the real costs will be before being asked to vote on the proposal. By his calculation taxpayers could be asked to pay 17.5% more than they did last year. If Propositions 1 and 2 are passed the average annual payment will be almost 10% of current school taxes. Add 2% utility costs plus the 5.5% annual budget rise the BOE has predicted for next year and you get a school tax rise of 17.5%.
How you approach the numbers tells the story in different ways. That 10% is an average over 20 years of debt repayment. The way the payments are structured the payments are high in the first years, then drop down to much lower amounts. So the tax rise in the first year, if Propositions 1 and 2 are passed would be 12.51%, not 10. That would bring the total to approximately 19%. It would be much less after eight years assuming no new projects and taxes were added in that time.
The auditorium is the most controversial aspect of the project, in part because of the expense. Aside from being expensive auditoriums are not as "aidable" as classrooms, meaning that taxpayers have to pay for a much larger percentage of it. Narburgh explained that the State bases "aidability" on the number of people it assigns to a type of room. He said the State calculates 27 people in a classroom, and only 70 in an auditorium, even though it actually seats hundreds. He said these are not the actual number of people a room can hold, but a number that is used to calculate how much aid you can get.
Jones asked whether the BOE had considered expanding the existing Middle School auditorium, and Narburgh told him it had been considered. The $1.5 million it would take to do the renovation would not provide the features the District wants, so it was deemed a bad use of money.
In defending the proposal administrators said that the Middle School auditorium is not an adequate space for many activities that occur there. Middle School Principal John Gizzy put it this way: "I don't think anyone in this room would feel good if our football field were 99 1/2 yards. What are we shortchanging our kids if we don't give them an adequately designed space to meet current and even to meet future needs?"
Retired music teacher Cindy Howell said the Middle School Auditorium is in constant use. Resident Dan Konowalow took issue with that, saying that when he had toured the space the day before nobody was using it. Howell said that was an exception. Marcy Rosenkrantz asked about whether the project would cost more if the auditorium had never been considered. She suggested that there would be fewer outside walls which would mean less initial expense and ongoing heating costs. Narburgh told her the cost would be less, and that his firm had included an auditorium because it had been directed to do so by the BOE.
Richard Meagher asked if classes are held in the auditorium could it be considered a classroom for the purposes of getting aid. Narburgh said the State doesn't see it that way and is not disposed to funding multi-purpose rooms. Ed Fuller asked whether there are other funding opportunities to lower the cost to taxpayers. For example some districts have put money aside each year to be used for projects like this. Lewis replied that the State has recently changed the rules for capital reserves, requiring the money be spent within a relatively short time period.
Meagher was also concerned about whether we are planning far enough into the future. Will we be faced with this again in eight or ten years?" he asked. Narburgh replied that the current project was a distillation of $70 million of things that were envisioned. He implied that there would likely be more projects on the horizon.
High School Principal Michelle Stone gave a presentation on building usage, providing those assembled with a schedule showing each room and how it is used for each period. She said that the goal is for a building to have about 85% usage, but that the High School is so cramped that it is in the nineties. Indeed the schedule have very few blank spaces on it.
She told the committee that although she would love to have an auditorium, she is afraid that it is overshadowing the programmatic needs she is faced with. Classroom Space is my number one priority," she said. Proposition 1 would provide eight new classrooms, plus better science labs, art studio and music facilities. In addition to the stuffed classrooms, some classes are being taught in the halls, she said. She also explained why it is important for most teachers to have their own classroom, citing inefficient use of time and unsupervised students as fallout from not having enough rooms.
The music department has become a controversial issue in that it has grown to the point where none of the current facilities are adequate to house it. Some residents felt that it has grown too big and should be cut instead of spending money to provide new space. Stone said that she doesn't think it is appropriate for a public school to go to an audition-based music program, one solution for handling the problem. She noted that "They were charged with growing their program, and they have done that."
A student raised the issue that school is a place where kids who can't afford music lessons can get them as part of their education. She said this is a valuable opportunity that she wouldn't want to see lost.
Lewis told the group that he had developed an on-line survey to use use a means of getting the committee's feedback to the BOE. He said there will be two surveys: one for those who attended the committee meetings to learn specifics about the project and another for the general public. He said they would be on-line shortly once a technical glitch had been worked out, and promised to bring the results to the next BOE meeting on Monday night.
All four committee meetings included lively exchanges, with many issues raised and questions answered. It was clear that some residents are supportive of the project while others feel the BOE is asking too much of the community. Even among supporters there is concern about the other municipal bodies that will be asking for funding for sewers, the library, a new fire station and other projects over the next year or two. Narburgh said that situation is unusual, and could be damaging to the project. He said it is best to avoid that kind of clustering of municipal projects.
It is up to the School Board to set the final scope of the project and present it to the district for a vote. After considering input from the committee they may choose to scale back the project, or even to put it on hold to allow them time to revise it in a way they feel the public will support. They are scheduled to make their decision at the February 13 meeting.
----
v2i4