This blog printed on 100% recycled electrons.
Editorial: Gymnasium expansion idea should be abandoned
JON M. HUNTER, Publisher 01/16/2001
For the Madison Central School Board to discuss expansion of the middle school gymnasium seems strange to us, given the important challenges of upcoming years.
On Jan. 8, school board member Rod Goeman proposed a 100-foot addition to the north side of the existing gym. The expansion would provide space for additional bleachers, locker rooms, bathrooms and an expanded concession area. It would provide athletes with "a home court for the first time," since the Dakota State University Fieldhouse is used for many events. The estimated cost could be between $300,000 and $500,000.
The board didn't take action on the proposal, preferring instead to have Goeman check into the cost of having a feasibility study done before voting on it.
At the school board's annual retreat in August, goals and plans were set for the coming year. Included were trying to improve academic opportunities for students, educating the community regarding the financial position of the school district brought about by declining enrollments, continuing to study the replacement of elementary buildings, working on teacher compensation issues, including performance pay plans, improved instruction and staff development.
We don't see how spending $300,000 to $500,000 on more bleachers and locker rooms fits into any of these.
With the dual financial challenges of lower enrollment and replacing elementary schools, putting our limited resources into already-good athletic facilities is misguided. When forced to make choices, school boards should elect to focus on academics, not trying to build a homecourt advantage for sports teams.
We'd encourage the school board to abandon the idea of a middle school gym expansion.
[Jon Hunter, "Gymnasium Expansion Idea Should Be Abandoned," Madison Daily Leader, 2001.01.16]
Our man Hunter's opinion appears to have evolved since then: his editorial in last night's paper suggests gym expansion now at least deserves a review. Hunter does sound somewhat more sanguine about Ron Barthel's gum expansion proposal than he did about Goeman's in 2001. And a gym he called "already good" seven years ago now is "too small for some events."
But before we all start piling flip-flops on Jon's doorstep, perhaps we can identify some differences between 2001 and today:
- The school district was looking ahead to replacing the three elementary buildings with the new building now on the windy north edge of town.
- The district was facing declining enrollment and was gearing up to push for an opt-out. As I understand it, we've weathered the worst of the budget crunch and may be headed for a more stable budget situation.
Then again, some things haven't changed:
- The district's capital outlay budget is still committed to paying off the elementary building (not to mention replacing the light poles in the parking lot).
- Any wiggle room we have for big capital investments will likely be dedicated to the impending renovation of the high school.
- Our fiscal situation still requires keeping a firm hand on the reins. We have impending expenses that we need to save up for, like the increased cost of sustaining AIM High without state aid. Technology is also eating up more of the budget than it did in 2001, what with laptops and a new "director of technology" position coming.
Hunter may feel we have a little more leeway now than in 2001 to at least consider a gym expansion now... and in classic Hunterspeak, the publisher sprinkles enough if and could into his current statement to avoid staking a clear position of advocacy.
I would suggest that his closing words from seven years still stand: the gym isn't perfect, but it's good enough. And as Hunter said (and nothing he said last night contradicts these words), "When forced to make choices, school boards should elect to focus on academics, not trying to build a homecourt advantage for sports teams."
The 2001 gym proposal went nowhere. A feasibility study found the actual cost of the expansion then would have been $1M, not $300K-$500K. Perhaps Mr. Barthel's proposal will meet a similar fate. Or maybe it will be saved, not by government action, but by a dedicated group of fundraisers who will get tired of being told no at the ballot box and make their arena-dreams come true through private donations and sponsorships.
Valuations have been climbing steadily and rapidly, and with the capital outlay levy set at 3% and probably never leaving that percentage (it is adjustable, I realize, but I don't think it will ever be lowered), the capital outlay fund should be more flush with money than the figures showed even a couple of years ago.
ReplyDeleteWith the state not funding laptops, the capital outlay fund will likely be hit for the laptops. Maybe they can at least purchase more reasonably priced ones than the state contract provided. And the tech person salary has to be paid for out of general fund monies, doesn't it?
Not sure if Aim High can be funded thru the capital outlay fund. Does anyone reading this know? That is a worthwhile program, especially now that students are mandated to attend thru age 18.
The elementary will be paid off early. Then the high school renovation is planned. But there should be enough in the capital outlay to add to the gym with the increased valuations. Maybe the gym renovation should come first if there is such a need, and then the high school renovation.
Why do the taxpayers have to pay extra for the gym when there is a perfectly good capital outlay fund for just such expenditures?
Nonnie
Careful with that word need -- someone might mistake you for one of those big-spending liberals I hear about! ;-)
ReplyDeleteYou do make some very good points and ask some important questions about the state of the budget. Any school board members reading out there care to chime in?
You're right - I guess I should say "maybe the gym renovation should come first if there is such a WANT...!"
ReplyDeleteNonnie
One method for completing several needed improvement projects including moving the High School Office east a few feet into the former board room for better visibility and improved entrance security, replacing the 40 year old seats and other improvements to the High School Auditorium, bringing the HS Library up to code, replacing bathroom plumbing and making HS restrooms handicap-accessible, revamping the band room and chorus room and expanding the current Middle School Gym seating might involve a combination of a small amount of capital outlay funds and a bond issue to accomplish all the needs and wants.
ReplyDeleteNonnie is correct about staff salaries coming from the General Fund and building projects coming from Capital Outlay Fund.
Our district is taxing the maximum 3% allowable by law for Capital Outlay and those dollars are mainly being directed to debt reduction on the new Grade School for several years. Those funds are tight because they are committed already.
While the public turned down a nearly $6 Million Bond Issue for a new Competition Center last year, they may favor a $3 Million bond issue for a renovation project that would benefit our band program, our theater program, the library, building security, and also enlarge the Middle School Gym to 2000 seats, up from the current 890 maximum occupancy.
When several groups benefit and when our community benefits, this district will show its support. The advantage of using Capital Outlay Funds is that our taxes don't go up because we're already taxing at the maximum 3% level. That's why nobody noticed any change in their taxes when we built the $8 Million Grade School.
Using a Bond Issue for the new improvements allows them to happen now and be paid off quickly.
Once the estimates come in for some of these improvements, perhaps the board will entertain the possibility of a smaller bond issue that encompasses several projects and gets wider approval.
Whoa there! A bond issue for renovation to the high school?! I don't think so. We were told last year that the elementary school was going to be paid off earlier than expected because of the increased amount of dollars coming into the capital outlay fund. When the school was paid off, the next item on the agenda was renovation of the high school. Repeat, WHEN THE SCHOOL WAS PAID OFF.
ReplyDeleteThere is nothing in the high school that merits a bond issue and higher taxes to fix immediately before the funds are avialable through capital outlay. If you think the people are going to approve a $3M bond for improvements to the high school that can well be covered in a very few years through our present taxes paid into the capital outlay fund, you are very much mistaken.
What part of living within your means don't you understand?
ReplyDeleteWe have to do that. If we can't afford an improvement to our house, we save for it and then build it or whatever. And we pay for it ourselves.
And you shouldn't be asking taxpayers, who are already overtaxed as far as schools go, to pay even more so you can have new seats in a theater or a bigger gym or whatever. The capital outlay fund will be sufficient to very adequately cover those expenses very shortly. It's not like people viewing plays have to sit on the floor, or the band (which now has considerably fewer numbers than ten years ago) all of a suddem doesn't enough room, or the pipes all of a sudden sprung a leak in the bathrooms and caused a flood. These are wants and can be addressed as soon as the funds are available through the taxes we (or at least some of us, remembering the gym committee) pay.
We are being told that the economy is sluggish, we know that gas prices are ever increasing, which is raising prices of almost everything else, and some people think that we need to pay more in a bond issue for wants? Good luck.
Jon Hunter needs to go back into his own archives so he can keep track of his opinions.
ReplyDeleteOne year he's cold, next year he's hot, let's build it, let's not.
Which side of the fence will you eventually fall, Jon? You've been to the boy's games and I noticed you don't sit down. You stand on the south wall. Could that be because your tall and uncomfortable in the stubby bleachers?
Madison has been notorious for "underbuilding" our facilities including the High School Gym and obviously, the Middle School Gym which was downsized three times before it was built, due to concerns about public perception.
It's time to bit the bullet and either build a new, larger gym or add on to the existing gym, and I'd like to see privately raised funds do a portion of it with naming rights.
Jon stands by the wall for the games? Maybe he's on to something: lot cheaper to stand or bring a cushion than to build a whole new gym at everyone's expense.
ReplyDeletePrivate donors -- why hasn't someone pursued this before?
Private donors were mentioned as a way to build a new gym when the issue was first brought up. Former athletes should be glad to pony up for this. (My former high school did raise funds in just this way, and I sent them a donation just because I'd attended high school there and had memories of events that occurred in that gym.) Could buy memorial bricks with a donor's name, a donation tree on a wall with leaves naming donors, or find one super rich donor and name the whole complex after that person, etc. There are ways to do this, but this requires more effort than simply asking taxpayers to pay for it.
ReplyDeleteI've stated before I liked the plans for the new gym proposal, I just didn't like the way certain people thought other certain people in the community should pay the lion's share of the bill. Find a fair way to pay for it and there won't be a problem.
Nonnie
Jon Hunter is spinning like a top.
ReplyDeleteLet's get the City, the School District and the Education Foundation together and do a three-part fund raising campaign. It's all about team, right?
The City could add a half-penny sales tax for a set number of years to pay for one-third of the $6 Million. $2 Million here! Hosting more events and larger events would be great for economic development and attracting new families to our district.
The School District could figure out how to come up with one-third from a bond issue, capital outlay certificates or simply budgeting from capital outlay. $2 Million here! Larger facility would bring in more revenue, more concessions for the Booster Club and more tournaments.
The Madison Central Education Foundation could fund-raise for the last one-third. $2 Million here! Go after those 10,000 alumni and maybe make one entire wall of engraved bricks or memorial bricks at $100 each would raise $1 Million, plus a couple of big hitters dropping a half-mil each. The business community would endorse it and support it.
Let's finally do this! Get Madison off its dead a-s and grow for a change.
Remind me -- why are we so determined to use tax dollars for this project?
ReplyDeleteWhy not use tax dollars for a portion of it? After all, notice the age demographic at events. It spans several generations.
ReplyDeleteToday's taxpayers are obligated to pay for tomorrow's children. That's how school facilities were built in the early 1900's in Madison and that is how it has to be. That's how school operations are funded too.
My parents and I certainly didn't pay for the three old grade schools we attended, but we did help pay for the new high school and middle school and now we're paying for the new grade school that benefits the next generations.
One generation can't simply say "I'm going to sit this one out and let someone else pay", because someone before them already paid for the buildings and salaries their kids were educated with.
I have no problems using tax dollars to fund improvements that our entire community can benefit from. It spreads the cost fairly among community members and land owners. It is not regressive because "He who has the least, pays the least".
Sorry, but the "he who has least pays least" doesn't work here. School funding locally is solely generated from propety taxes. A peson who farms for instance, owns (most times in conjucntion with a bank or other lending agency) property as a necessary part of his doing business. He gets taxed on it whether or not it generates income in a given year. Another person might make more money in his job but own no property and therefore pays nothing in property taxes, i.e. school taxes (think back to the last gym proponent).
ReplyDeleteWhy not use the capital outlay fund, which is funded by all property owners at the maximum mil levy of 3%, and is thus completely taxpayer funded, to build a new gym instead of a new bond issue and additional property taxes. Get 1/3 this way, 1/3 through donations by those who will use the mostly sports facility, and 1/3 by the city extra penny sales tax. As stated here before, the city as a whole benefits from any increased attendance at activities.
It's not fair to assume that the same property taxpayers should be taxed even more for school improvements, when they are already paying huge taxes to support our schools.
I'd rather see a different split, the City pays half with an extra half-cent sales tax, capital outlay pays a fourth and donations pay a fourth and nothing happens until the donations reach their fourth first so we know our community is behind the project.
ReplyDeleteThe City can definately use economic development as its reasoning for the half-penny sales tax. Our district would benefit greatly and the city would generate lots of new sales tax dollars from increased visitors to our community. Skip the bond issue altogether.
If the point of the gym expansion is solely educational, then funding solely from the school district makes sense. If the point of the gym is economic development, then other interested parties should chip in. And to think we've gone through so many years of grumbling about the gym without any sort of private fund drive continues to boggle me. Does that absence of private funds suggest there isn't really that much support for expanding the gym?
ReplyDelete