...but since it's not...
Madison Daily Leader reports that the Madison Central School District discussed building renovation options with Sioux Falls architect Jeff Nelson at its Monday night meeting. Of course, you wouldn't know that from the official minutes, as the board didn't put any summary of that discussion in the minutes. Turn to the newspaper, and you learn that, apparently, there is no Plan C.
Superintendent Schaefer and board member Paul Weist both asked whether renovations could be completed one small project at a time. The insightful architectural observation our local press chose to highlight:
"There are things that you can do, but you're also going to lose things."
Wow. We're paying this architect money, right? Or has his enthusiasm for fixing Madison High School fizzled now that his jackpot new gym plan has failed?
I'm extremely disappointed that, at least from the language in Monday night's article, neither the board nor the architect seem to formed any firm back-up plan on how to proceed with fixing the obvious building issues at Madison High School in case the bond issue failed. It seems only logical that, during the long process of formulating the original project, the building committee would have considered a variety of renovation plans. At the start, someone had to make a list of building needs and prioritize it into a checklist from "absolute necessity" to "good but not essential" to "pure frill." There had to be suggestions that didn't make it into the final proposal but that someone wrote down in the "Next Best Thing" file. The architect had to provide options from which the decision-makers could choose. At least that's the process I would expect if a project's aim was to first identify needs, then develop and analyze alternatives, then prioritize and choose the optimal solution.
Alas, I get the impression that our board chose its solution first---build a new gym!---and then worked backwards to shoehorn everything toward that pre-ordained outcome. I get the impression that the board considered alternatives only so far as to develop talking points to dismiss them in favor of the outcome they wanted.
Whatever the case, we need a Plan C. I'd like to have a community meeting---a charette!---to get parents, students, teachers, and taxpayers to prioritize the renovations and new additions they think the school needs most and design a plan for completing those facility upgrades.
Here's the input I'd provide at a charette for how we ought to fix the high school:
- First we tour the building again, tuning out all of the earlier talk about how there's only one way to fix it.
- Then we make a spreadsheet with three columns: building needs, priority of fixing those needs (must do now, must do within X years, desirable but waitable), and cost estimate for fixing those needs.
- We sort that spreadsheet by the priority column.
- We adjust that order item by item by identifying individual upgrades that would be practical to do simultaneously or sequentially.
- We identify projects our own custodial staff can do, separate them from the list, make a reasonable timetable, and say, "Brad, get to work."
- On the remaining list of upgrades to contract out, we draw lines based on how much capital outlay will be available each year. Each summer, the moment classes let out, the hard hats march in and do all the work we can afford. By Labor Day, they march out, and school proceeds, uninterrupted.
You'll note that this plan doesn't revolve around any pre-determined outcome other than a safe, healthy school building conducive to learning. However, I'll suggest these general priorities:
- Accessbility: wheelchair access, ADA compliance
- Fire and electrical: new wiring, avert disaster in the utility room, fix fire traps
- Academic environment: upgrade classrooms, lighting
The high school's facility needs are obvious. Every problem discussed on the MHS tour was a problem when I attended MHS in the late 1980s. I've heard numerous fellow Bulldog alums say the same thing. We should have been tackling these problems one by one over the last couple decades. The school board should have this list of problems online, ready to bid and fix one by one, as we can afford them with existing resources. Instead, by wedding itself to just one big enchilada plan that failed to win voter support, the school board has wasted more valuable time in getting the job done.
Update 16:05 CST: The Madison Daily Leader gives my plan ink! Right now, dozens of Madisonites are looking up from their rustly papers and asking, "What's a spreadsheet?" Let the letters to the editor begin!
MDL also includes my superfluous parenthesis. Oops! Sorry!
Let's do it Cory! Rock the Charette!
Cory, did you attend the school board meeting? Did ANYONE who voted against the bond issue attend the meeting?
Was it not you that suggested that the school board wait until our legislature had passed a budget to revisit any building remodel plans. Passing a budget takes 41 days and it's always the last thing done. Note to legislators: we teach our kids to do the important tasks FIRST!
Only ONE person has taken out a petition for school board so far. We had 72% of the registered voters NOT bother casting a ballot.
We might want to wait even longer with any plans. Like the Lewis and Clark Water System, education funding may find itself without any money from the federal government. We won't know until who knows when because the Congress can't bother to do its job of passing a budget on time.
I was at the last board meeting for a while, it was during the fine arts night afterall.
We did not attend the school board meeting on Monday. We had attended a school board meeting when the plan was voted on last year, we both spoke at it. We were thanked for coming, told it was great to have people there and offer comments. Of course, their plan was set and nothing we said changed any minds or their course to proceed with the proposal. It really does no good to go to these meetings as their minds are made up and public input has very little to zero impact.
I believe there was no alternative plan because they didn't think they could possibly fail. Cory's proposal above makes sense. I also think that the board should be forward looking to when the capital outlay fund is available to address other more major needs or wants. The elementary school will be paid off someday, and after that with the well over million dollars a year that is taken in for capital outlay there should be funds available for more major items.
This was the original plan when the elementary school was built, that when it was paid off they would address the high school needs. Why was that plan changed? Why was the elementary school pay off date extended?
Thanks, Linda!
Michael, my fiscal position hasn't changed one bit. We may not be able to affod to make any changes. We may not be able to afford piling any more debt on the public. But that doesn't mean we can't meet, form a plan as a community, and figure out what we can do with the money we have. Did you notice the part of the plan that specifies identifying maintenance our own staff can do right now? That minimizes budget impact. I'm advocating making a plan, discussing how much farther we can stretch current capital outlay dollars, and then evaluating whether we can afford any more investment. That plan is still perfectly capable of taking into account whatever budget realities Governor Daugaard and Senator Olson set for us in March.
How about instead of waiting until the 41st day to pass a budget, we make it the ONLY priority NOW!
When is there a legislative crackerbarrel?
I have no problem with that, Michael. Put in a few good words for me: I'll be in Watertown judging debate!
Michael, I'm going to have to respectfully disagree with you. Our institutions of learning (higher and otherwise) do an excellent job rewarding procrastination. I wouldn't expect anything different from our legislature (though I might hope for it anyway).
1)address important needs
2)get the bond issue below 10 million
3)any project over 10 million obtain private or non tax monies with commitment up front
4)put issue to a vote
5)passes 70-30
Charlie, remind me: why $10 million? As I've thought about the building, I've realized I have trouble picking any dollar figure as a limit. More people said Yes to the $17-million gym/renovation plan than said Yes to the $6-million gym plan in 2007. Are there some criteria we can use to determine a dollar figure that our economy/tax base can support?
Chris, Charlie, and Linda,
Which of you has thought about running for school board?
O.K., before we get answers, just picture it: me, Chris, Charlie, and Linda answering questions and duking out for two spots on the ballot. I think we could raise money by selling tickets to an event like that! Mike, you can play referee.
I see you made headlines in the paper today. This is the kind of dialogue that needs to happen if you want the message to get out. Of course that does not solve the problem of a few farmers paying a huge amount of any bond issue. I visited with Doug Tonsager on Sunday. We had quite the talk.