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?”