At last week's board meeting, the architect provided a summary of building needs and estimated total cost by building, but there were no costs attached to specific projects within each building, in part due to the preliminary nature of the evaluation.
At the board meeting last night, audience members and some board members expressed concern that the voters would not have a clear picture of what would be voted upon, should the board go ahead with presenting the $5 million capital proposal to the voters (potential voting date of Dec.8, 2009), nor would the voters have an understanding of individual project costs or the criteria by which a given project might or might not eventually be included in the final construction. As construction costs are refined later in the project, it might be necessary to include or exclude certain elements due to their costs being less than or more than originally thought.
The board agreed to develop and make known such criteria, but the voters should realize that the actual work that will be completed may differ from that which is specified, and that voters are voting for the $5MM bond issue, not for a specific package of projects.
The board will be holding public meetings and make available further information. At present I have the architect's spreadsheet showing the individual projects and total cost by building. If you would like a copy, send an e-mail to chathamny@gmail.com. Please keep in mind that this may be revised and may not represent the actual work that will be done!!!
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
Capital Proposal - Board of Education meeting Oct. 6, 2009
At a very sparsely attended BOE meeting last night, there was a presentation by the district's (new) architect and the superintendent regarding a capital project proposal.
What they would like to do is to take $547,000 in federal stimulus money that must be spent by the end of the school year (6-30-2010), add to it $550,000 from the previous bond issue of approx. $6 million that was not spent due to some of the project coming in under budget and in addition allocate approx. $1.4 million from the district's existing capital reserve fund. This gives a total of approx. $2.5 million and then adding in estimated state aid of a little under 50% brings the total to approx. $5 million that could be used with no direct tax impact.
The architect reviewed the projects that would be implemented were the proposal to be approved. Details will be coming from the BOE but there were none of the grandiose projects that were in the original referendum that was defeated. There were mostly smaller items across all 3 buildings (costs attached to specific projects were not given) that related to improving energy efficiency, roof repairs still remaining, some ADA issues, and a number of others.
I'm not sure I agree with the necessity for every single one of the suggestions but as an entire package I think it's worthwhile for a number of reasons:
- No tax impact (however, see below)
- Use of federal stimulus money which will not be available on an on-going basis
- Availability of approx. 50% state aid which, due to the fiscal condition of the state, may be lower in the future
It does appear that the project can be implemented with no tax impact. However, using the capital reserve funds of $1.4 million will nearly deplete the district's capital reserve, which then must be rebuilt. I was assured by the superintendent and a number of board members that, although the fund will need to be rebuilt, it will be rebuilt over a number of years, not all at once, so it is possible that there might be an indirect impact on taxes in the future. I believe the board is very aware of taxpayer concerns and will consider the speed at which the reserve is rebuilt when formulating the 2010-2011 district budget.
Due to various regulatory constraints, this proposal would have to be presented to the voters for approval in December.
At this point, and subject to further details from the BOE, I think the project makes sense.
I will forward further details as they become available.
What they would like to do is to take $547,000 in federal stimulus money that must be spent by the end of the school year (6-30-2010), add to it $550,000 from the previous bond issue of approx. $6 million that was not spent due to some of the project coming in under budget and in addition allocate approx. $1.4 million from the district's existing capital reserve fund. This gives a total of approx. $2.5 million and then adding in estimated state aid of a little under 50% brings the total to approx. $5 million that could be used with no direct tax impact.
The architect reviewed the projects that would be implemented were the proposal to be approved. Details will be coming from the BOE but there were none of the grandiose projects that were in the original referendum that was defeated. There were mostly smaller items across all 3 buildings (costs attached to specific projects were not given) that related to improving energy efficiency, roof repairs still remaining, some ADA issues, and a number of others.
I'm not sure I agree with the necessity for every single one of the suggestions but as an entire package I think it's worthwhile for a number of reasons:
- No tax impact (however, see below)
- Use of federal stimulus money which will not be available on an on-going basis
- Availability of approx. 50% state aid which, due to the fiscal condition of the state, may be lower in the future
It does appear that the project can be implemented with no tax impact. However, using the capital reserve funds of $1.4 million will nearly deplete the district's capital reserve, which then must be rebuilt. I was assured by the superintendent and a number of board members that, although the fund will need to be rebuilt, it will be rebuilt over a number of years, not all at once, so it is possible that there might be an indirect impact on taxes in the future. I believe the board is very aware of taxpayer concerns and will consider the speed at which the reserve is rebuilt when formulating the 2010-2011 district budget.
Due to various regulatory constraints, this proposal would have to be presented to the voters for approval in December.
At this point, and subject to further details from the BOE, I think the project makes sense.
I will forward further details as they become available.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)