Board Meeting After Defeat of Proposal

Tuesday evening (Dec. 10) the Board of Education held a special meeting to discuss next steps following defeat of the capital proposal. While there was a relatively large turnout and a number of public comments both pro and con, it was mostly a reiteration of previous comments, although there was a lot of pressure to simply resubmit the proposal unchanged, with the expectation that parents will wake up and vote.

The Board appeared sincerely interested in understanding why the proposal did not pass. It is not clear what the next steps will be.

The Board’s architect mentioned that he believed the cost of the gym could be reduced by $500,000 by not increasing the height of the gym, which was necessary to have a full-size volleyball court.

The next regularly scheduled Board meeting is Jan. 7.

Follow-up to defeat of capital proposal

Last night (Tuesday, Dec. 3) the Board of Education held a special meeting to discuss next steps following defeat of the proposal.
 

Undoing the consolidation (i.e., not closing the middle school) was discussed but eliminated as an alternative for the same reasons it was decided to consolidate in the first place.

The second alternative discussed was going ahead with the consolidation but with no capital project. This was considered to be a last resort.

A third alternative was to put the same project ($13.8 million) unchanged up for another vote. All board members present weighed in and most did not think this advisable. The general consensus was to see if there were parts of the proposal that could be reduced or eliminated, and possibly split the proposal into two parts – a basic piece and a second piece (most likely the gym) that would depend on the first piece being approved. If the first piece were not approved by the voters, the second piece would not be implemented, even if it were approved.

The approximate time for a vote on the (presumably) revised plan would most likely be in March.

There will be a public comment period at next week’s (Dec. 10) board meeting. I will report after the meeting.

$13.8 million project proposal defeated

The vote was 668 against, 481 for (58% against).

Vote NO on the $13.8 million capital project proposal on Nov. 19, 2013

After careful consideration, I cannot support the Chatham Central Schools $13.8 million capital project proposal on Nov. 19 and will vote no. Here’s why:
 
First is the lack of transparency in the estimates. There is no breakdown of components of the various costs. Especially troublesome was the jump in total costs from $12.5 million to $13.8 million without a single word of explanation.

Secondly, and of nearly equal concern is the fact that more than ½ of the money will be spent before a single dime reaches an academic classroom, classroom supplies, or a teacher or teacher assistant. 52% of the money goes towards a gym, fitness room and parking/roadways.

Thirdly, the costs that were given for the gym and fitness room seem more worthy of 24 Hour Fitness or Planet Fitness rather than our modest-sized school district. Nearly $4.5 million for the gym and fitness room - compare that with the $9 million that the University of Michigan (with nearly 43,000 students vs. our current enrollment of 1158) will spend on their new athletic facility. The cost of the gym and fitness room is more than $3,800 per CCS student, more than 18 times the UMich cost per student.

Part of the $13.8 million cost will be met by using all of the district’s capital reserve funds of $2.07 million, leaving nothing in capital reserves. Since these reserves have been used and replenished from time to time in the past, it is not unreasonable to assume they will need to be replenished in the future. The only source of funds will be future taxes.

The proposal is being marketed as requiring no tax increase. I suspect, but do not have the data to prove, that if the reserves were not used to offset part of the costs, they would no longer be able to make this statement. In fact, if the costs of the proposal were scaled back, it is entirely possible that there could actually be a reduction in taxes, as other districts have been able to do.

In July the board revisited the proposal to see if there were any parts of it that could be scaled back, reduced, or eliminated. On August 13, the board decided that there was not a single part of the entire $13.8 million that was not 100% absolutely essential and could not be accomplished in a less expensive manner – there was not one cent of savings to be found!

The district has stated that if the capital proposal is defeated “a new consolidation blueprint would need to be developed which would involve making compromises and eliminating some of items [sic] that support our educational program.”

I find it hard to believe that this consolidation cannot be successfully completed at a lower cost without compromising our educational program. Let’s defeat this financially unrealistic proposal and hope we are presented with a more commonsense solution we can live with.

Vote NO on the Chatham Central Schools $13.8 million capital project proposal on Nov. 19.

Thank you.

David Levow

Radio Interview About The Consolidation Project

I was interviewed on Thursday, July 11 by Phil Grant, host of the morning show on our local community radio station WGXC, 90.7 FM. You can listen to it at

http://youtu.be/M_loJMavPEE

To Receive Notice of Blog Updates

If you do not already receive blog update notices and you would like to be added to the update list, send an e-mail to this address . No use of your address will be made other than for update notices.

Good news and bad news

The good news: at tonight's board meeting, the Option B gymnasium and related project ($13.0 million) was taken off the table, reverting to the Option A gymnasium project ($12.5 million).


The bad news: the cost has now increased to $13.8 million from $12.5 million.


But the really bad news is that not one single board member asked why the project has increased in cost by $1.3 million in two months, nor was any explanation given.

I am losing what little confidence I had left in the ability of the board to understand, critically examine and question the proposal.

To Receive Notice of Updates to the Blog

If you are not already receiving blog update notices and you want to be added to the update list, click here . No use will be made of your address other than for the updates. Also, click on the "comments" at the bottom of each post to add your own (anonymously if you like) and to read what others have said.

Note:
If you asked to be put on the list and I didn't confirm that I did so, your request may have been deleted as spam. I changed the e-mail address above to prevent deletion so please try again.

CCS Consolidation Study (closing the Middle School) and 2013-2014 Budget

At the April 16 meeting of the Board of Education, the tentative 2013-2014 budget was approved. It includes a tax levy increase of 3.60%. As you may know, the “2%” tax cap is not a fixed 2%. It is a starting point from which a number of adjustments can be made based on certain capital expenditures, retirement plan contributions and some other adjustments. For Chatham, the cap for 2013-2014 is actually 4.34%, so the proposed increase is within the cap, requiring a simple majority vote to pass on May 21, the date of the vote. If the proposed levy exceeded the cap, it would require a super-majority of 60% to pass. Much of the increase is due to state mandated retirement plan contributions.

 Overall, I think the proposal is reasonable and recommend voting for it.

 However, of greater long-term importance is the issue of closing the middle school.

 I attended the town hall meeting on March 28 regarding the possible closing of the middle school. On face value, closing the middle school will result in significant savings even with the multi-million dollar capital improvement proposals that would be required, but it is my opinion that upon deeper examination of these plans, these expenditures are excessive.

 Three options were presented:

Keep the middle school open (non-consolidation, called Option C), which would require capital improvements totaling $5.66 million

Close the middle school (consolidation, called Option A), which would require capital improvements of $12.47 million

Close the middle school (consolidation, called Option B), which would require capital improvements totaling $13.04 million.

 At its June 25 meeting, the board will decide whether or not to close the middle school. Whether they do so or not, any capital expenditures will have to be approved by the voters, probably in November.

The district’s financial consultant estimated that the capital improvements necessary to keep the middle school open (option C) would cost approximately $92 thousand on an annual basis to service the debt that would be incurred, while options A and B (closing the middle school) would result in net savings of $411 thousand (A) and $384 thousand (B). The savings in the latter two options would be the result of saving approximately $800 thousand in annual expenses by closing the building, along with state aid for part of the capital costs.

However, while these savings sound appealing, the are based on what are in my opinion extravagant expenditures well beyond what are necessary to maintain the educational standards we subscribe to.

When they put up the details of the various capital improvement options I had a sinking feeling of déjà vu. If you need a refresher or were not around at the time, read the blog posts beginning at the earliest ones in 2007 when the then-current board proposed $47 million in capital improvements. As a results of community response, it was scaled down to 2 separate proposals ($25 million and $10 million), both of which were defeated by margins greater than 5 to 1. The board then presented a single $6 million proposal, which was passed by the voters.

Many of the components in the current proposals sound to me like “nice to have” wish-list things but not critically required (gym additions/renovations, data/power/seating upgrades in the auditorium, cafeteria renovations in both MED and HS, etc.). I was surprised that option B ($13 million) includes expanding the MED gym to seating capacity of 700 (this in an environment that includes the current kindergarten enrollment of 72 students!).

The following graph and spreadsheet represent my projections of the enrollment. The figures in red are the actual current enrollment for 2012-2013, and they are carried forward at their current level until the present kindergarten graduates. The figures in black are enrollment projections made by the board’s consultant based on actual live births and estimates they have made. Note in particular the enrollment forecasted in 2015-16 of 1094 students, a decrease of 116 students or almost 10% from today. This year is important because the 2015-2016 school year is the earliest the middle school would close under either Option A or B, so we would be spending $12.5 or $13 million to build larger facilities to house a significantly declining population.

 

 



The Board's enrollment projections are given here:

http://www.chathamcentralschools.com/Facilities_Study/Enrollment_Projection_Report.pdf

Their study is dated November 2011, so the data I have used is more current and shows a larger decline than their study does.

 

 I am also concerned that that Option A ($12.5 million) includes almost $2.5 million for MED gym addition and renovations and Option B ($13.0 million) includes $2.9 million for an even larger gym! This latter option should never have seen the light of day – what were these people thinking? By the time these projects are completed the school population would have declined by nearly 10% from today. How many teachers would the additional $400,000 pay for? In fact, the gym expenses are far and away the largest items in those two proposals – is there some sort of reality disconnect or is it just me?

 

Furthermore, there are no specifications regarding the various improvements, no range of estimates suggesting different levels of improvements showing tradeoffs and costs. I find it hard to imagine we need to spend $2.5 or $2.9 million on a gym – there must be a cheaper way to do it if indeed we need to do it at all.

 

While I personally am somewhat on the fence about closing the middle school, perhaps leaning towards doing so, I am absolutely opposed to doing so along with either of the two options proposed without a very thoughtful examination and cost-benefit analysis by the entire board (as opposed to just the 3 member facilities committee) as to what is really necessary in terms of capital improvements. While closing the middle school under either proposal suggests cost savings, a more realistic capital improvement proposal could result in even larger cost savings. Can we achieve our goals without spending so much money?

 

Here is the link to the district’s information regarding the consolidation study:

 

http://www.chathamcentralschools.com/Facilities_Study/index.asp

Here are the details of the proposals:

 

Option C - keep middle school open (plus capital improvements of $5.66 million):



 

 

 

Option A - close middle school (plus capital improvements of $12.47 million):

 

 

 

Option B - close middle school (plus capital improvements of $13.04 million):