Officials Consider Changing 60% Vote Threshold?
The Madison High School Facility Committee is hurrying to approve a revamped plan to build a new gym and renovate the 1960's high school building. The group appears to be following a timetable that will put a new bond issue before Madison Central School District voters by November in hopes of winning approval and being able to let bids by spring.
One committee member has told me the new plan includes a smaller gym but a much smaller library. I'll wait to see the actual blueprints, but those two phrases suggest some bad priorities: can we really afford to do away with more reading and thinking space than ball-throwing space?
The actual blueprint changes may be less significant than the funding changes. Madison Central will still spend a lot of money laying new gym floor and fixing other items around the high school, but a lot of the money will come from existing capital outlay funds via debt restructuring. We still have a new bond issue coming, but the additional burden on taxpayers may drop from $200 per $100,000 home (the amount rejected by voters last February) to just $60 per $100K.
A 70% change in new tax burden could ease a lot of opposition to the plan. However, the total cost is still coming from Madison pockets. I look forward to reviewing the final price tag and seeing how wisely we plan to spend that money.
* * *
That lower new tax levy may eliminate the need for the school to resort to the electoral hijinks and voter coercion that marred last winter's bond election. It may also lessen the need to turn to another plan that various local officials have been discussing: getting State Senator Russell Olson (R-8/Wentworth) to sponsor legislation that would remove the 60% vote requirement for local bond issues.
I'll admit, I might support such a move. Requiring a supermajority to impose new taxes but only a simple majority to cut taxes or take other actions makes it harder for local districts to raise needed money (which, of course, is the intent of such supermajority requirements). But if Senator Olson tries to float such a bill (alongside the bill I'm almost positive his boss Mike McDowell will tell him to write to repeal the financial reporting requirements for the LAIC), he'll have to explain whether the logic that would support repealing the local supermajority rule would also apply to the State Legislature, which must also muster a supermajority to levy new taxes.
Although the library will be smaller, it will still have more square footage than the combined footage of the middle school and high school libraries that exists today. Numerous other changes were suggested bringing the original footprint down some. While the architect is hesitant to hang a number out there now, suggested changes will reduce costs hopefully by $ 2million or more. What amount of private money and how it will be raised is still in play. A sub committee will begin work on this shortly. Obviously the amount of private money raised will lessen the impact on taxpayers and in the end demonstrate community support for the project. City of Madison may(should)be asked to contribute also through the second penny sales tax(same fund that help build the CC) perhaps in the area of storm sewer, site preparation, etc. Financial package is still to be worked out. Rather than all of the funding coming from bond redemption levy of 2 mills in the last vote, funding would be supplied by capital outlay(which taxpayers fund already)and bond mill levy of about .6 or so. Thus about 60(capital outlay)-40(bond levy). Where private money or city support falls into the mix is still a big maybe. bottom line is the finance package appears to be much more workable than last time. Whether it will be enough , we will find out down the road. Keep in mind that anything that will lessen the impact on property owners will translate in more support for the project.
This plan is a middle of the road compromise. There are approximately 2.5 million dollars in changes from the last building plan. Yes, they had to slim down some of the changes.
But the biggest change is in how we fund it. Through suggestions from the public, the committee has found a way to finance this by restructuring some of our current capital outlay obligations.
This means we will still be getting a 14 Million dollar facility that is new and or remodeled. I have been assured that the upgrades will give us a 40-50 year lifespan and that quality products will be used (even with the price reduction).
The gym is always a hot debate topic on this forum. Let me say that the gym has been scaled down a little, but it will still be able to hold approximately 2300-2500 seats. This will allow Madison to host district, regional, and state tournaments. IF the LAIC or someone else can assist Madison with adding one more Hotel, we will make the list for hosting State Tournaments. It would be great for our local economy. DQ, Pizza Ranch, Skippers, etc. would benefit from increased sales and the greater public would see more sales tax revenue in return.
We will also have space to host music competitions, debate, show choir, etc. in the new building as we will be enhancing the building with a new fine arts section.
I feel this is a good compromise for everyone. New academics areas, vocational arts, fine arts, athletics and health sciences will all benefit from this new building.
Even more exciting is the new commons areas and cafeteria. I am one that believes that open lunch needs to end and with this plan the school will finally have the appropriate areas to feed and seat all of the students in a reasonable time period. No more long lines blocking exit doors. No more kids sneaking off at lunch to have a "smoke". No more security concerns for student safety while they are off campus for lunch.
I look forward to the meeting next week and hope that the committee will ask the school board for approval through an official vote at an upcoming meeting in September. I also hope that the School Board will have a Public Meeting (that is highly promoted) for any citizen to come and speak their mind about the plan before it is referred to a vote. While the current meetings are open to the public and we have been allowed to speak, there should probably be one meeting dedicated just to public comment.
This is a middle of the road plan that compromises on building size and remodeling scope while limiting the increases needed in taxes. I think it is a plan that 75% of the public will support.
Charlie makes some excellent points on the City contributing to the project (by using funds that are going to the Community Center, that payment should be done pretty soon right Charlie?) or possible reclaiming the 100K from the Forward Madison fund.
He is also correct that the figures are not final. The numbers that are provided are estimates for discussion, not actually what the committee or school board has approved. There is still much work to do in the next few weeks.
If you want OFFICIAL information, I cannot provide it as I am not a member of the committee, just an observer.
I thank Charlie and the others on the committee for their hard work.
Cory, you did not use the term "luxury gym" in your post this morning. I find that very surprising.
The current Madison Middle School gym has some HUGE safety issues: you cannot walk from the bleachers without putting yourself at risk. You have a very narrow area on the edge of the court to navigate in and out. On the one side it is barely acceptable. On the other side, the players chairs create another barrier forcing you to walk out onto the court to get to your seat. When there is snow on the ground, water is tracked in along the edge, creating a further safety hazard for not only the spectators, but the players as well. Bud Postma runs around with towels or a mop constantly trying to keep the floor dry. It's commendable that Madison's AD puts forth so much effort, but it's ridiculous that he has to because to save a few dollars decades ago, the gym was cut down and not designed correctly. If the new gym blueprints do not allow for better traffic flow, then I suggest not building the gym at all. Do it right in the first place. I do not want to see little kids, grandparents or even me have to walk around the players chairs, onto the basketball court and around the huddle during a time out to go to the concession stand or to use the bathroom. Build it right or not at all.
If I recall, the city completed its obligation on the community center building and its only obliagation at this point is for the annual budget and maintaining the fund for building improvements.
Thanks Elisa.. couldn't remember if it was a 10 or 15 year deal.
I went to the last public meeting that was held before the bond election. During the time I was there I saw various people get up and express their opinions. Instead of a question and answer session that engaged the school board, administration and architect with the public, we had what I would term a "gripe session" where everyone would get up and speak passionately, but no one would take the initiative and ask the tough questions of "what if". Because no real new information came forth, the opposition to the remodel may actually have been strengthened during the meeting.
Instead of having just an open mic night, why not get tough questions and then answer them with a little discussion.
It has been asked before,"Why should Michael Black care about what happens in the Madison School District?"
Someday my kids could be among the students roaming the halls of MHS.
The committee meetings are open to the public and have been publicized. People should be giving their input now and and helping the committee design a plan that they would be willing to support. We have had people from "both sides of the isle" at the meetings the last few weeks and last night some of the previous no voters said that this is a plan that they can support. I was able to speak last night multiple times and offer up my questions and suggestions.
People could be engaging committee members right now if they wanted to do so. I did suggest that they allow one more "bitch and yell" session before referring it to a vote so that if anyone has problems and really wants to comment one last time, that they are given the opportunity. But really, if someone wants to be involved all it takes is picking up the phone to call or emailing a committee member or school board member.
The Daily Leader was there last night and I would bet there will be a summary article in the paper tonight. I am sure it will generate talk in town and maybe a few more people will show up to the meeting next Wednesday night to offer their suggestions.
I do believe the most "vocal" individuals of the February meeting have been involved this summer and their concerns have been taken into consideration. The revised plan that is coming together is the product of many compromises. There is plenty of transparency and opportunity for involvement.
With the pressure on the SD Legislature to find ways to streamline schools and increase cost savings, it is a real possibility that schools that have less than 10 children per class or 150 total students enrolled could see funding cuts and or be forced to consolidate (under previously proposed legislation). So yes, my friend Mike, you might see your kids at MHS someday.
Technology applications to education will dramatically change our schools over the next few years. The method of delivery of information to students and the funding (or lack thereof) may even make classrooms obsolete at some point in the future.
Consolidation will happen over time through attrition. Forced consolidation through legislation will not necessarily save the taxpayers any money or offer the student greater educational choices. Any gains in efficiency will be offset by job losses as schools close. If we see forced consolidation across the state on a grand scale, we should get rid of open enrollment too. If forced consolidation happens, local control will be given to (taken by) the state.
Is anyone else nervous about how much the cut to education funding will be this year? Since it appears that Congress will again be unable or unwilling to pass a budget again this year, the states are left hanging in respect to how much federal funding they can expect.
I completely agree that technology will become a dominant force in the classroom, but I do not think the majority of students will be home schooling through the internet or we will give up classrooms. We still need structure, discipline, leadership, etc. through teaching in the classroom. With the increase in developmental disorders and more chaotic home situations, students need a foundation, and for many of them that is a traditional classroom.
Technology can do many things, like eliminate textbooks and paperbacks. The library size shrinking a little bit is not as big of a deal as we move to eBooks and a minimized paper environment. Storage will also become less of an issue as we move away from storing so many textbooks in every classroom, to a model where we have updated eBooks every year.
I personally believe in smaller classroom sizes and choice in education. Unfortunately, I think many in Pierre will side with saving money (taxes) and will want to consolidate more schools in the future. I don't think there is any evidence that this improves education. Nor does a 4-Day School week like some are doing to save money. There are just not a lot of options, especially for the smaller school districts. I also don't think that our 8 am - 3 PM school day is enough. I think students should be going to school year round with an 8-4:30 PM school day. Integrate study halls, extra-curricular activities, and job training. Too many students waste time from 3-5:30 PM watching MTV and Nickelodeon, surfing the net, and other things they should not be doing. It is a symptom of our "Latchkey kids" society. Now if you take another full day out of the school week... are they watching more Sponge Bob or doing their math homework? My bet is Sponge Bob unless they have good parents. I think I am a good parent, but I bet my kids watch at least two hours a day of some type of media.
This discussion however is about the merits of remodeling and building new facilities at MHS, so I will stop digressing. I do believe the new facilities will improve academic opportunities and give students a better extra-curricular activity experience. (Without all the MTV, social networking, drugs, sex, and Rock N' Roll) ;)
Schools spend their time now teaching the kids so that they can pass a test and not so they can think on their own. Unfunded mandates steal money away from what we should really be doing in schools.
The problems with extending the school day and taking away summer vacation is that we don't have the money to pay for what we have now. School funding is going down not up. Are we going to try to tell teachers that they need to work an hour or two more a day and 3 more months of the year for the same pay they receive now?
We would need more funding. I believe in still having about 5-6 weeks a year for vacation, plus observing all Holidays. Space it out over time and eliminate the 3 month span of summer where we lose much of what was taught the year before. The "Summer Brain Drain" problem. Teachers would be on a 12 month contract instead of this 9-10 month system. There are some places, like Colorado, that are moving to year round school already.