Board of Ed meeting 9-25-07

The proposed capital budget was not discussed at this meeting.

There was a well-done presentation by CCS student Jack Kervin (I hope I have his name right) and science teacher Sandy Fischer regarding the use of green energy techniques within the facilities. Some can be implemented regardless of the outcome of the capital project and others are more involved. A board member commented that some energy-saving steps can be taken immediately at no cost such as turning off lights that seems to be on all the time regardless of need, and turning off the computers in the computer lab at night. I see no reason why this cannot be done by simple directive from the Board or Superintendent to the staff.

I expect there will be significant discussion of the capital budget at the next meeting on Tuesday, Oct. 9.

Architect's $47MM proposal 9-10-07 (click page to enlarge)

Fair Disclosure

This blog is not intended to present a neutral viewpoint of the capital expenditure proposal.

Board of Education meeting 9-11-07

The superintendent and architect presented a summary of the proposal. A number of comments were made, pro and con. Most of the negative comments revolved around the relationship between the capital proposals and their effect on educational goals. Many of the commenters seemed to think that much of the money was being spent in ways that would not directly impact the student body's education. Particular reference was made to the amount budgeted for air conditioning, driveway/parking lot, and other items not directly related to basic education.

There were also comments regarding the effect on taxation, and that if the full capital proposal were to pass, taxes would increase by 15% (although the proposal handout seemed to indicate 15.56 if I'm interpreting it correctly) per year (not compounded - i.e., a set fixed increase every year until the required bond issue is retired). This is in addition to the normal operating budget increase which was estimated by the financial consultant (sorry, didn't get his name) as 5% per year (compounded), although this is less than the district saw last year.

In addition, a commenter presented to the Board a well-thought out critique. While a number of points were made, the key point I took away was that the presentation and architectural analysis was given by entities "solely concerned with the presentation's monetary acceptance." There was no second opinion, no second cost estimates, no second pair of eyes. The architect that did the study was the architect for the Taconic Hills project. Not surprising that our costs of $47MM (million) was in line with theirs.