Facilities vote on Jan. 22, 2008

Please see below for very important information about the CCS budget vote.

You do not need to own property to vote. Renters can vote if they otherwise meet the criteria. If you cannot vote in person, please vote absentee. Pay attention to the requirements below to get absentee ballots - do it now!!. Couples: both members can and should vote.

If you haven't registered but are qualified, please register so you can vote. Registration is (as shown below) on Jan. 3 (less than 2 weeks from now).

Please pass this along to anyone who lives in the district!!

When and where is the vote?

The referendum will be held on Tuesday, January 22, 2008, from 12 – 9 p.m. at Mary E. Dardess Elementary School.

Who can vote?

There are a few qualifications that must be met in order to be eligible to vote on January 22.

You must be

a citizen of the United States
18 years of age or older
a resident of the Chatham Central School District for more than 30 days preceding the vote
registered to vote with either the School District or with Columbia County Board of Elections

If you have not previously registered and you would like to vote on this referendum, you must register with the School District Board of Registration.

Those individuals who are not on either the County list or the School District Register List will not be allowed to vote.

You do have a chance to register with the District on Thursday, January 3, 2008, between 12:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. in the lobby of the M.E.D. Elementary School.

Do you accept absentee ballots? - VERY IMPORTANT, READ THIS!!

Yes. If you wish to have an absentee ballot mailed to you, you must first request an application for the absentee ballot from the District Clerk at least seven days prior to the vote (mailing address: District Clerk, CHATHAM CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, 50 Woodbridge Avenue, Chatham, NY 12037)

If you wish to apply for an absentee ballot that you will be submitting in person, you must apply in the District Clerk’s office prior to 4:00 p.m. on Friday, January 18, 2008. All absentee ballots must be received in the District Office by 5:00 p.m. on January 22, 2008.

If you want more information, call the district (392-2400, ask for the district clerk) or send an e-mail to this blog at chathamny@gmail.com .

Board Approves Final Facilities Proposition (click page below to enlarge)

At its Nov. 27 meeting, the board approved the final form of the propositions to be voted upon in a referendum on Jan. 22, 2008. The basic proposition (#1) is approximately as indicated before at around $25 million, but the enhanced proposition (#2) has increased from $4.6 to $9.8 million, for a total of $35 million. Approximately $12 million of the $47 million in the original proposal has been totally eliminated. Some of the items have been shifted from #1 to #2 or vice versa to come up with the final proposal.

The vote is Jan. 22, 2008. Absentee ballotting is permitted. Here is the link to the form of the proposition: http://www.chathamcentralschools.com/district_office/CapitalProjectReferendumApproved.pdf

The final breakdown is shown above (click to enlarge) or go to http://www.chathamcentralschools.com/district_office/CapProjectNewsletterApprovedConcD12.pdf

Final Board of Education Budget Meeting Tuesday, November 27, 2007

The next and final budget board meeting is this Tuesday, November 27 at 6:30 in the high school library. This is the meeting at which the board will decide what items will go into each of the two propositions which will be part of a budget referendum on Tuesday, Jan. 22, 2008. This is the last chance to let the board know how you feel. You can attend the meeting, or you can call individual board members prior to the meeting. As of the last board meeting, the first proposition will be at least $25.3 million, and the second will be at least $15.9 million, with an additional $4.6 million that could go into either or be eliminated entirely. Potential total is $45.8 million.

I think it would be much better to have a set of reasonable propositions decided upon on Tuesday, rather than have to vote down unrealistic ones in January.

In the interests of protecting their privacy, I won't put their numbers here but most of them are listed in the phone book. If you need help in getting a particular number, send an e-mail to chathamny@gmail.com . Your request will be kept confidential and no use will be made of your e-mail address other than to respond to you.

As taken from the CCS web site, here are the board members:

John Wapner, President
Elizabeth Macfarlane, Vice President
Ric Campbell
Michael Clark
Denise Dapice
Francis Iaconetti
David O'Connor
Wayne Rose
James Toteno

Revised Capital Budget Proposal 11-8-07

The Board has come out with a revised proposal (shown above, click to enlarge) but there are still too many, non-essential, not educationally necessary items. The base proposal is now $25.3 million, but there are a number of items that may still get added to it. Apparently nothing will be taken away from this new base.

More information will be added to this blog shortly.

Revised Capital Budget Proposal 10-23-07

At its meeting last night, the board presented a scaled-down version of the original $47 million proposal.

The revision, shown above (click to enlarge), essentially broke the total into two pieces, a $30 million piece consisting of "infrastructure and high priority program improvements" and a $16 million piece (the remaining items). A 4 classroom addition for $1 million was basically eliminated.

The board then voted 7-2 to revisit the manner in which the budget would be presented to the voters, with the majority agreeing that there would be two proposals rather than one.

There would be a basic, high-priority set of items and a second, additional set of desirable but not absolutely necessary items. Voters could then approve the first set, both sets, or neither.

The board will now be working to decide what items go into each of the two categories.

Board of Education meeting Oct. 23, 2007

The board will be discussing the capital facilities project at this meeting. See http://www.chathamcentralschools.com/boe/agenda102307.pdf

Reply to Board of Education FAQ's

Response to the CCS Facilities Proposal FAQ posted by the Board of Education

The Superintendent and Board President have posted responses to questions they believe are of interest to voters, tax-payers, parents, faculty and others.

They state they will be the “primary source of accurate and objective information about the proposed project, its educational benefits, and its costs.”

Let’s be very clear about something: their information will be no more objective than this blog. Their agenda is clearly to get their proposal passed. The difference is that the blog states it is not intended to be objective.

This post is not an attempt to reply to every point they make, some of which are valid, but rather to indicate concerns with their responses.

· The fact that the architect billed us for $45,000 for work costing them $350,000 is irrelevant. They took on this job expecting to make a significant amount of money when the project is approved. Their interest is in seeing the project completed, on which they will no doubt recoup all their costs and make a profit. Some people would call this a “loss leader.” In addition, if they were unable to estimate reasonably accurately the cost of working with CCS to develop the proposal (which they underestimated by a factor of 8!!!), how can we expect to rely on their estimates for a multi-million dollar project? If they have so much experience, one would expect a more accurate cost estimate.

· In addition, having this architect serve as the district’s “professional advisor” on this project seems to be a clear conflict of interest. I think the board exercised poor judgment in having the same person design the facilities and serve in the above advisory capacity.

· It is not at all clear that reconstructing the 1958 MED wing will substantially improve the education of the students. What data is there to support this statement? Fully integrating everything sounds nice, but “where’s the beef?” We need more than a touch-feely sense that this will be the case.

· It is hardly a side note that the district and support office are being relocated.

· The comment that public school districts must follow ALL (their emphasis) State Ed and building code regulations is irrelevant. Are we following them now? If so, the comment adds nothing. If not, what are we doing NOW (my emphasis) to remedy the situation?

· The comment that we must follow the Wicks law is also irrelevant. It has no bearing on the issue.

· Maximizing state aid is not the same thing as minimizing taxpayer impact. We can maximize state aid by doing lots of things we may not need. This increases the taxpayer burden.

· Bundling classrooms with a gym makes no sense. If we need new classrooms (which may or may not be the case), then propose new classrooms. Bundling 4 classrooms with a $4 million gym to perhaps maximize state aid will increase spending for something we don’t need in order to get something that we might need. While there’ll be more state aid, there’ll be much more in taxes.

· While the Board gives lip service to declining enrollments, very little in the facilities proposal appears to recognize a substantial decline in student population. The Board’s enrollment projection study dated August 2006 (by an outside consultant) indicates 2005 – 2006 K-12 enrollment at 1415 students. The study has a number of different scenarios projecting possible enrollments to the year 2016. The most optimistic projection (i.e., greatest number of students) shows 1090 students in 2016, a decline of 315 students or 23%. However, other scenarios they identified indicate that enrollment could be as low as 790 students, a drop of 625 students, or 44%.

· They ask that “people view the proposal in its entirety for the positive impact it will have on many facets of the educational enterprise, rather than viewing its components piecemeal without full understanding of how they interrelate, before making judgments.”

This suggestion has merit. When will the information be available that will allow us to evaluate the “positive impact … on the educational enterprise?”

UPDATE on Oct. 9 Board Meeting

The Board, after thoughtful discussion, modified the proposed resolution to read:

"R.28 BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Education accept the Long Range Facilities Plan (LRFPC) Report recommendation in its entirety, as goals to develop referenda for voter approval." (Bold text in board agenda, and represents the change from the original shown below).

The resolution was passed with all board members voting to approve it.

I think this indicates that the board considers the $47 million proposal as a set of goals to be considered over time, and which will form the basis for potential voter approval, but not necessarily all at once.

The remainder of the board meeting consisted of a lengthy (but very interesting) presentation by the board's financial consultant, who did an outstanding job of trying to boil down the enormous complexities of budgets, state aid, borrowing costs, tax rates, equalization rates, etc. to something understandable. There is no easy way to summarize his approx. 100 pages of spreadsheets as well as his multiple sets of assumptions, but his efforts will help the board attempt to balance educational and taxpayer needs. They have their work cut out for them.

IMPORTANT: Board Resolution for Oct. 9 meeting

The board has a resolution proposed for a vote tonight which reads:

"R.28 BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Education accept the Long Range
Facilities Plan (LRFPC) Report recommendation in its entirety, as goals to be
accomplished by the District by the year 2020."

This is entirely premature, ignores the sentiments expressed by voters, and binds future boards and voters to this plan.

It is possible that the board tonight may modify the wording to make it seem less like a "done deal" for the entire $47 million proposal. Come to the meeting!!! 6:30 in the high school library.

Front Page Coverage!!!

Today's Independent has a front page article on this blog and the budget. Please buy the paper or read the article at http://www.zwire.com/site/index.cfm?BRD=248&dept_id=462341&newsid=18872836&PAG=461&rfi=9

Please forward the link to anyone who might be interested.

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.