The latest Madville Times poll finds strong support among readers here for the $6.315 million bond issue the Madison Central School District wants to include a new gym with its high school renovation:
Should Madison voters approve the $6.315 million bond issue for a new gym and high school renovations?
- Yes (64%, 67 Votes)
- No (36%, 37 Votes)
Total Voters: 104
Of course, Ashley Allen, webmaster for the Vote Yes campaign, reminds us that online polls are unscientific, manipulative, and deceptive. So those numbers really don't mean anything, do they?
Since this poll has a margin of error only slightly larger than the new bleachers principal Sharon Knowlton wants to build in the physical education classroom, I cannot conclude that opponents of the new bond issue are in a hopeless minority. (Of course, the science education classroom has no bleachers, which is funny, since Knowlton says science is just as important as gym.) However, the fact that even my favorite Winfred conservatives Linda McIntyre and Neal McIntyre are expressing support for the bond issue this time around suggests there is a strong possibility that district residents will be paying higher taxes to build a very large gym.
While running this poll, I received a note from a Madison neighbor with kids in the district who faces this bond vote from a tight financial perspective. This individual requests confidentiality, because this individual is afraid that voicing such opinions will lead to accusations from local leaders of being an enemy of education. I always hesitate at anonymity, but the concerns in this e-mail mirror my own:
I'm not very vocal (or involved) on these issues, but I do vote.
I absolutely love the cost caluclator [on the school's updated renovation promotion website].
It feels like buying a car--how much can you afford to pay per month?
The big difference for me is that if I already have a car payment budgeted, I can't have a new car until the old one is paid for. plain and simple. If my car breaks down, yes, I need to find money for repairs, and budget accordingly, but that's just the cost of ownership. I cannot just go out and add another payment, especially in these financial conditions.
Cory, you know my position... no raises in forever, but increased expenses every time I turn around. My family can't afford to add more costs to our already tight budget, even if it's only a few dollars a month...
I know this is over-simplified, but when you cut through all the issues, so is the school renovation. Budget the money to fix what needs to be fixed—keep the school safe and accessible, and worry about the new and improved facilities when the bulk of the community, who can't afford any more increases right now, can afford to build.
It's not that I don't want the best for my kids.... I'll admit that my kids would reap the benefits of this new and improved facility.... But how are my kids better served? with a fancy gym, or by a lesson in fiscal responsibility? [redacted for anonymity; Lake County resident, personal e-mail to Madville Times, 2011.10.13]
That line about fiscal responsibility catches my attention. It should catch yours.
After its narrow-minded assertions just nine months ago that Madison Central had no extra money available in capital outlay to fund renovations, the school district has found $8.3 million in existing debt capacity, enough to fund more than half of the proposed building project. Fiscal responsibility would have found that money last year. Fiscal responsibility would have had new fire doors and lighting and wheelchair accessible labs and toilets in place by now.
But because our school leaders have fixated on the false notion that there is only one way to fix the high school, we continue to dawdle, letting the building decay until the voters give in to the jockocracy and build a new gym.
The poll suggests there are plenty of people who have been worn down by the arguments and just want to get something done. But we'll see just how many neighbors on tight budgets decide that a new gym is worth tightening their belts in other places.
For a home valued at $100,000, that's an increase of $65 a year. That's reasonable, and to be fair this is much more than just a gym. We criticize and want Washington to compromise and get something done. This is a worthy solution. It's hard to understand what's standing in the way of acceptance, if not outright approval.
When will the bulk of the community be in a position to afford to build? 5 years? 10 years?
Like John posted, for a $100,000 house the cost is $65 per year, which is only $1.25 per week. I am only guessing, but if a person lives in a $100,000 house, they surely can afford an additional $1.25 per week. With that in mind, someone in a $50,000 house can surely afford $.625 per week.
The entire project sounds like a good compromise. I also wonder why our previous business manager could not find the same money Mitch found.
I agree with John and Jim.
At this rate I have to give up at most one soda a week or rent one less movie from the greenbox, or better yet return them on time. Maybe I eat out a little less or maybe I choose not to drive one day a week. What this will cost me a week my kids probably find in my couch. I can give up a Mountain Dew a week for my two children.
Let's not use the soda pop rationale. And yes, every household has its own challenges. I was on the committee that worked on the proposal. Is it everything that i want in a plan-no. Is this proposal better the last one-yes. Will it satisfy the 60% vote required--I don't know. That is why we have an election. The simple solution to basic needs would have been to just use capital outlay and spend about $8 million and not go to bonding. Problem is that we have about 4 plus years yet to pay on the elementary school. Money that could have renovated MHS was in large part spent on the elementary school the last several years. The solution presented combines the payments on the MHS renovation and the elementary school. Until the elementary school is paid, interest only will be paid on the MHS project. So in theory, you can say we will be making "2 car payments" at the same time. Capital outlay will be asked to pay out $1 million annually then back down to about $700,000 after the elementary school is done. Adding extra "foot print" to the project like the science labs, gym, etc. does require us to ask for bonding. Thus the election. If approved, this project will require patience, persisitence, and discipline. The capital outlay certificates will require that hefty $700,000 for 20 years. $ 1 million for the first 4 years. This will leave little wiggle room for other capital outlay expenses. But we have been doing that for 20 years now paying the middle and elementary school--just plan on another 20 years. Bonding is a one punch meal ticket. It's almost certain that the voters would not approve a second issue down the road until this bond issue is paid. That is why community support in terms of financial giving not just verbal or voting support is so important. Best plan on paying the extra few dollars in taxes and also "giving up that soda pop" if you really support this project. This plan is better in terms of doing the payments in 20 vs. 25. The cost factor is $14.5 million rather than $17 million. Building costs should be reasonable and interest rates low. Whether it is a good enough plan, we will let voters decide. Please be informed and do vote whatever your stance on the issue.
I am not advocating a yes or no here. I appreciate the anonymous letter above and agree completely with him. I have been called "against education" and it more than irritates me, but I know I'm not so that is all that really matters.
However, this project will keep coming back and back until the advocates get the new gym, so this is a good time to get it done cost-wise (I hope). There had better not be any added costs found at the end. And there had better not be another opt out proposed for the general fund.
I will wait and see the economic boost this brings to Madison! This was one of the main reasons to build a new jr high and new elementary, and I have yet to see any boost.
I want to point out that I wasn't questioning your integrity on the poll...but merely that it can be controlled with technical interventions. I still love ya Cory...you never waver in your opinions.
I agree with John....compromise is the word.
And a poll is no excuse to not go vote...either way.
So what is the plan 5 years down the road when it will be time to redo the middle school? As a skeptic I just wonder when does it stop? It is a much better plan then the original I will grant that. I know my parents live on a very tight budget and my father has had no raise for 3 years so any increase really cuts into their budget. I just hope that Pierre does not cut state aid more this year to the schools so that we will have a fancy School and Gym but no money to keep the existing staff. Which will force another opt-out and people again will be saying it is only $60 more dollars per 100K house just another pittance to pay the teachers. It isn't a horrible plan but I am just wondering once the powers that be get this what will they want next. I am in totally agreement that the High School needs renovation I just cannot understand why they cannot simply call this a vote for a new gym. Most of the money is available through the capital outlay to redo the Highs School.
Actually Matthew, the Middle School will not need major attention for decades. The types of buildings typically need renovation every 40-50 years. That's 20-30 years from now. Also don't forget the Middle School is included in this renovation plan. It will gain a new library, plus two new classrooms.
I have to agree w/Matthew on this keen observation, and may I add/or second the voice that we will be forced to fund more of our k-12 education system locally in the coming years, unless we can force change in Pierre and the republican led legislature and of course, that's about as unlikely as not. Adding to our local shortsightedness, we're spending funds which will should save for actual educational needs, like replacing teaching positions and growing programs of academic worth and rigor which can better prepare, and lets be honest, our sadly under-prepared student product.
Yes, the high school needed improvements 25 yrs ago, and yes some of those are finally be addressed, but these necessities are being held hostage for the lavish needs and desires of a community that can't really afford it, that is, unless we borrow for the next 20 years. We should fix what's wrong with the high school, and maintain the building to the highest of standards, for that we have a moral obligation, but to spend funds which we do not have to build monuments of brick and mortar, that has no moral ground, and will prove to be a short-sighted mistake, and leave Madison further behind academically and fiscally as other communities push forward and succeed with stronger and more progressive visions in the coming generations.
Love back at you, Ashley. You know your stuff!
John, I look at it this way: if you come to my house and ask me for $20 to buy a bunch of beer so you can get drunk, I'll turn you down. If you come back, tell me you recounted, found $10 in the couch, and now only need me to lend you $6.50 to get enough beer to get drunk, I won't say, "Hey, that sounds like a reasonable compromise from your last offer; here's the money." I'll say, "John, that's still a really bad use of your money and mine."
This idea that everybody can always find a little more money is flawed. There is always a trade-off. People either need to get a raise, work harder, or spend less on something else. I can think of a lot of people who would say they've already had their extra $65 eaten up by $500 increases in insurance, $100 increases in gasoline bills, $60 in electricity bills, $800 for that emergency room visit.... That $65 does not exist in a vacuum. It exists in the context of other fiscal and educational priorities. After five years of trying, no one has convinced me that the gym Darin Namken tried to sell us in 2007 is necessary for education.
This discussion makes me think of one of my favorite speeches that was turned into a pop song...
" Accept certain inalienable truths: prices will rise,politicians will philander,you too will get old; and when you do, you'll fantasize that when you were young, prices were reasonable, politicians were noble, and children respected their elders.
Respect your elders.
Don't expect anyone else to support you. Maybe you have a trust fund, maybe you'll have a wealthy spouse, but you never know when either one might run out.
Don't mess too much with your hair or by the time you are 40, it will look 85.
Be careful whose advice you buy,but be patient with those who supply it. Advice is a form of nostalgia; dispensing it is a way of wishing the past from the disposal--wiping it off, painting over the ugly parts, and recycling it for more than it's worth.
But trust me on the sunscreen."
.....................
So if now isn't the right time, when? Prices will coninue to rise... promise.
First off I've got my own beer money. Secondly I don't think you're painting an accurate picture of the positives. We may not care about the gym, but many other people do, and it's important to consider all the improvements. It would be healthy to think of this as a win where the plan was altered, the funding was changed, in part through feedback which your blog has been a part. This is about as good as it gets. Be happy!
John, I would like to believe that our discussion here helped push the school board to go back to the drawing board and come up with a much better plan. But I can't shake the nagging suspicion that we're being played.
I know, a beer loan is far from a perfect analogy. But my point is that I still don't believe that even the "compromise" is spending our increased tax dollars well. The only reason a $6.3 million new gym is more necessary now than a $5.8 million new gym was in 2007 is because our leaders have deliberately narrowed their attention to one blueprint that takes a sledgehammer to the existing gym. That's not enough reason to convince me to open the checkbook.
A lot of people may care about a gym... but that doesn't mean they should. They need someone to look them in the eye and tell them their priorities for my money are screwed up. Maybe this is as good as it gets... but I refuse to believe that we can't make it even better.
I'm not going to advocate either a yes or a no vote. What each person decides in the end is his/her choice. The bond issue is part of the entire finance plan for the $14.5 million project. This project is 14% less than than the earlier one($17million). Last winter, I(assume there were others) posed the thought that once the elementary school is paid for, could we not use that levy to help pay the 2 mills on the bond issue from last winter. Or perhaps reduce that levy voluntarily to help the burden of taxpayers. Right now, school tax payers pay 3 mills on capital outlay. About half or $790,000 is paid on the elementary school. In theory, in 4 years we could have reduced CO by 1.5 mills with an effective additional tax burden of .5 mills(2 minus 1.5) Our new proposal is asking for about .65 mills for 20 years for the bond issue and the full 3 mills for the CO. The earlier proposal if played out would have been 5 mills(2 Bond issue & 3 CO for 4 years then 21 years 3.5 mills(2 mills bond issue & 1.5 CO). The new proposal is 3.65 mills(3 CO & .65 bond issue) for 20 years(5 years less than the earlier proposal). Just number playing perhaps but we do need to keep in mind that we are at this point asking property owners to cover the entire $14.5 million just as we were asking property owners to cover the $17 million back last February. Responsibility for debt hasn't changed.
OK, I'll admit it. I thought their suddenly realizing they had all this capital outlay was fishy. Like had the bond issue passed then they would have had all those capital outlay dollars too, and how could two people see such different things in the same set of books. But that's just a suspicious mind making assumptions. The main thing is this is a solid plan. Funny this is, had they presented the capital outlay portion in the beginning they may have gotten everything they wanted, so if this was a strategy, it backfired. But this is where we are now, and it's a good place.
For me the car analogy is quite ironic. Our cars are both paid for. I haven't made payments in a very long time, but the repair bills are starting to more than hurt. Do I keep fixing the car that has way too many miles on it? Do I buy a car that I can afford right now only to have another nightmare repair bill? Do I scrape together a down payment on a car that's newer and fancier than I really need, but that will last me 5 to 10 more years?
Today I have to try and diagnose what happened this time to the car that left my kids sitting along the side of the road. How long before that happens at the school?
I would like to respond to John who indicates that it would only cost the homeowner of a $1000000 house $65/year.
What people don't realize or care about is that what that while that same homeowner will pay $65/year the ag land will pay approximately $2000/year based on 10 or so quarters wether they own or rent the ground they are making a living off of. The more ground they rent or own the higher it will be. That would be in addition to the same $65/year based on a $100000 house that I would live in if I were in farm country.