Guest Commentary: Gym Project Cuts into Academic Needs

Friday's Madison Daily Leader offers the following letter to the editor from Winfred's one-man think tank, Neal McIntyre. I republish with pleasure (and the author's permission) a very tight, thoughtful argument on the merits of building a 5.83-million-dollar gym:

Madison Pride is a nice sounding name but needs to encompass more than just a new gym. It should consider future building needs based on consolidation and increased student numbers, the age of the our high school, an already stressed budget just to meet academic requirements, and it should prioritize needs to best address all these issues with our limited tax dollars.

1. Are students now deprived of participation in sports? No. Scheduling can be a problem at times, but students can and do participate.

2. If Madison does not have winning teams in the future, how will that affect attendance? No one knows, and while we are all proud of our winning teams, we know that it is not possible to win every year.

3. How will maintenance costs of a new gym fit into an already stressed school budget? A new gym will require more utilities, insurance, staff, repairs, etc. While advertising and increased attendance may bring in more money, this will not cover the entire operating costs.

4. With competition for athletic tournaments, would our gym attract as many tournaments as stated and would they would bring in the anticipated revenues ? Maybe, but even if so, those funds will not go toward paying for the new gym. The gym is paid for with property taxes, not sales taxes.

5. How will consolidation and an increased number of students impact future needs? The district may need its financing ability for more classrooms, teachers, and buildings. Already the new elementary school had to be enlarged just to meet current needs.

6. What about the 42-year-old high school building? In eight years after paying off the elementary school, renovation is already planned for the high school. Will a new high school be wanted instead? The present school board can tell you a new high school is not contemplated, but the current board cannot bind a future board on this issue.

7. Who will bear the brunt of the cost of a new gym? Farmers and business owners. A smaller than average farmer would still pay an extra $600 to $700 per year, on top of the $250 to $300 for the present opt out, on top of the thousands he already pays in school taxes. Businessmen will see like increases. A homeowner in town will pay on average an additional $50 to $150 per year. This places an unfair burden on farmers, businessmen, the elderly on fixed incomes, and people already on tight budgets. A reminder for the elderly on fixed incomes who have your valuations frozen, you will still pay an additional tax for this bond issue.

8. Lastly, don’t forget that another opt out will be needed in about four years. If we have to continually opt out to ensure the continued quality of academic programs, how can we justify asking taxpayers to come up with even more in taxes simply for a new athletic facility?

In the next few weeks you will hear a lot more about the need for this gym. Many promoters of the new gym simply want the gym and want it now, but are not considering the cost or future demands for our limited education tax dollars. Also, many of those who are promoting the new gym will not be paying a significant portion of its costs. Tax records are open; if you wonder what various individuals pay toward in taxes to support our schools, just go to the courthouse and ask.

In summary, while a new athletic facility would be nice, there are many things to consider before voting to further tie up tax revenues and bonding ability for 25 years. With academic needs looming in the future, is it wise to tie up available funds for athletics? This election is one of the few ways you can have any direct input into what will happen with your education dollars. Please consider the information available, and whatever you decide, get out and vote. Thank you.