New Gym Plan B

...courtesy of the Madville Times, Community Marketing Division

Following the defeat at the polls yesterday of their plan to saddle the public with nearly $10 million in debt over the next 25 years, the gym boosters vow today both on KJAM and in the Madison Daily Leader that "there is no Plan B" (Bud Postma, MDL, 2007.04.11, p. 1). Darin Namken, driving force behind the failed project's marketing campaign, said in an interview aired this morning on KJAM that he might not even want to participate in any effort to resurrect the gym plan.

If, as MDL notes, the gym feasibility committee met and studied the idea for "several years," how can they not have had a Plan B? How can they abandon all that hard work so quickly? How can they turn their back on a project for which they've already spent thousands for architectural plans and who knows how much for advertising? The athletic supporters have lost one two-month campaign. Big deal. 57% of voters said they couldn't afford a 25-year tax increase to pay for his project. 43% said they could afford that sort of contribution.

So, Messrs. Postma, Namken, Schaefer, et al, here's Plan B, if you're interested:

1. Find the 43% who voted for the project and get them to donate the money they were willing to pay in increased taxes.
   
2. Find the 57% who voted against the project and ask them how much they would be willing to donate. I'll bet you could find a farmer or three who would say, "Hey, I couldn't commit $1500 a year for 25 years, but I can donate $100 right now, and if corn prices stay high, I'll have another hundred for you in the fall."
3. Keep the website. It's building online recognition, and it has all sorts of good links from Madison's most exciting current affairs blog. Keep promoting!
4. Target your market: Have committee members shaking hands and passing the hat at every local track meet, golf meet, tennis match, baseball game, softball game, and so on for however long it takes to raise the money.
   
5. Keep building urgency. Go to your potential donors and tell them, "See? We can't count on a free ride from the taxpayers. If we want this done right, we've got to do it ourselves, and do it now." Don't let the momentum you did build fade by making it sound like you don't have a plan or the motivation to keep moving forward.
   
6. Knock off this defeatist talk. You may not have been able to convince the majority of the district voters who came to the polls, but that doesn't mean everybody thought you were wrong. For every cynical tightwad who can't recognize a great opportunity for the community (or, more accurately, for every working family whose budget is already tight), I'll bet some ambitious fundraisers could find another family or sports fan who has some wiggle room in his budget and would love to contribute to a big sports arena.
7. Go after the corporate sponsors. I doubt I can convince the CEO of Heidelberger Painting (Madville Times's dad) to bid for naming rights, but you might well find some local businessmen who would love to bid for the chance to name the arena. (Think Swiftel Center... and check out some numbers on the Swiftel Center and other similar projects from a study done on building an events center in Mandan, ND). Bid out those scoreboard banners, lobby signs, memorial bricks, whatever it takes.
8. Be patient. Call the Moores in Fairbury, Nebraska, and ask them how they've dealt with increasing construction costs. Good things come to those who wait. And in the end, after all the hard and humble work of fundraising, when you cut the ribbon and throw out the first pitch (um, you're the sports guys -- pick your own metaphor), you can enjoy one of the sweetest forms of satisfaction I know of: proving your opponents wrong by achieving something they didn't think was possible.
   

There's my contribution (and I voted against this project). Now turn those frowns upside down and go get 'em!

Dell Rapids -- Downs Is Up!

A little farther down the KJAM election results page, I find cause for Bulldog Pride of another sort: fellow Madison HS graduate Mark Downs has won seat as Ward 3 alderman in Dell Rapids. A profile in the April 4 Dell Rapids Tribune says Downs has a big interest in economic development (Ah, don't we all...). Mark's dad Myron will surely be proud: Myron served on the Madison city commission. And just to top it off, Mark and wife Amanda's fourth child is due today, Election Day. Congratulations, Mark and Amanda! And remember; kids first, then economic development.

No and No -- Voters Feeling Frugal

Straight from KJAM:

Transfer of $100,000 from city electric fund to school for electric upgrades

Ward 1 Yes 396 - 51.36% No 375 - 48.64%
Ward 2 Yes 191 - 43.12% No 252 - 56.88%
Ward 3 Yes 97 - 34.77% No 182 - 65.23%

684 - 45.81% Yes (Money will be transferred from city to school)
809 - 54.19% No (Money will NOT be transferred from city to school)

Madison High School Gym Resolution

Ward 1 Yes 386 - 50.06% No 385 - 49.94%
Ward 2 Yes 208 - 43.43% No 240 - 53.57%
Ward 3 Yes 109 - 39.07% No 170 - 60.93%
Rural Yes 210 - 33.82% No 411 - 66.18%

913 - 43.09% Yes (Gymnasium will be built)
1206 - 56.91 % No (Gymnasium will NOT be built)

Not seeing anything to the contrary, I'm assuming these are final results. Not bad turnout for a snowy day with no candidates on the ballot.

Note that the bond issue to build the new gym required a 60% majority. Even in the apparently least fiscally conservative Ward 1, the measure received only the smallest possible majority, 50% + 1. A friend of mine told me local politics isn't about philosophy. It apparently isn't about slick brochures and fancy websites, either. Is Madison really this impervious to a professional marketing campaign?

The rural vote appears not to have been deterred by the bad weather. (This correspondent went in the ditch on the way to work this morning, thanks to the unseasonable slush that's been falling all day.) Evidently a few slick miles of road won't stop our farmers from getting to town to save themselves from a $1500-a-year tax increase.

Matt G. commented earlier that the athletic supporters had a plan to "aggressively pursue funds through donations, advertisements, naming rights, etc." and apply those funds toward paying down the debt. If that's the case, why didn't the gym promoters say so sooner? And given their loss tonight and the urgency of doing the project now to avoid rising construction costs, will the gym promoters follow through with those fundraising plans and see how far they can get with private dollars?

This correspondent will, alas, be in school all week and Pierre Friday and Saturday (State Student Congress!) and thus miss all the good coffee talk. The Madville Times thus welcomes any and all Wednesday-morning quarterbacking on the election. How'd you vote, and why? Why do you think the vote went the way it did? What's next for the gym promoters? Is Madison really a bunch of cynical tightwads, or are we just showing some conservative fiscal sense? Post your thoughts here!

Tonight's MDL: Contrast in Priorities

A brief perusal in tonight's Madison Daily Leader offers some interesting insight into how things work -- or don't -- in Madison:

Page 1, lead story: City electric consumers should expect a 3% increase in their electric rates this year. This increase comes after the city has made enough of a profit on selling electricity that it can donate $100,000 to the school district (an issue referred to a public vote, which takes place tomorrow and on which I have commented elsewhere in response to a question from a loyal reader).

Page 1, second story: Substitute teacher Beth Knuths has organized the donation of 24 framed posters of famous artworks to Madison Elementary. The school district provides no art instruction until sixth grade, so Knuths felt the need to address that educational gap. Knuths says the project will teach vital cultural literacy:

"Students who have exposure to famous paintings will understand the many references made to them in literature, movies, music and other art -- so our students will be clued in to a very large part of our American and world culture."

Knuths was going to pay for the project out of her own project, but she managed to get some help from the Madison Area Arts Council and other sponsors. No mention of public money applied to the project.

Page 1, bottom story: The statewide school funding lawsuit has its first hearing in circuit court this week. After years of frustration with the Legislature, seventy school districts have turned to the courts for fiscal relief, arguing that the state is failing in its constitutional duty (SD Const 0N-8-1) to provide free and adequate education.

The plaintiffs argue the state is not providing enough money to prepare students "to meet state academic standards and achievement requirements; function as voters, jury members and participants in a democratic society; find meaningful employment and compete effectively in the economy; and qualify for higher education" [props to MDL and AP for good semicolon usage!].

No mention of preparing students to watch others play basketball in comfy gyms (the other issue on tomorrow's ballot -- more to come!).

Page 1, side story: Robb Graham, president of local business Professional Training Services, is organizing a math club for middle school students. He plans to host weekly meetings (Thursdays, 5:30-6:30 p.m. -- bring your pencils, kids!) in the PTS offices in the basement of the Radio Shack building downtown. Kids will work on ratios, story problems, and interest-rate problems, as well as possible math contests. No mention of public money being used to promote this vital educational goal.

Page 3, Editorial: On the eve of the vote on the city's fund-transfer to the school district and the $5.83-million (more like $9.8 million, including interest) bond issue to build a bigger gym, our man Mr. Hunter remains silent on both issues. Instead, he discusses the future of 911 service in the county.

"More than $2 million has been spent so far on 911 emergency communications in Lake County since its beginning in 1994," Hunter begins. He proceeds to voice his concerns about rising operating and upgrade costs. How will we find the funds to maintain this vital service? The county, Hunter notes, "says its funds are limited by property tax caps." Hunter suggests that we address the increasing costs by looking into consolidation of services with other counties.

Apparently money is so tight in this county that we may not be able to afford to maintain our own 911 service...

Page 3, Letter to the Editor #1: ...but money isn't so tight that we can't cough up an extra $100 per year per household and $1500 or more per year per farm to build a 2200-seat gym for high school sports. In his last election-eve push, gym promoter Randy Schaefer writes in to express his profound embarrassment at spectators having to sit in uncomfortable seats or even choosing not to go to home basketball games because the gym might be crowded, thus missing "some of the best entertainment our area has to offer."

No mention of his embarrassment at the lack of elementary art instruction, the absence of upgrades to the 45-year-old high school theater, cutting of a music instructor's position this year, or Madison's contribution to South Dakota's tradition of lowest-in-the-nation teacher salaries. No mention of embarrassment at the failure of the businessmen pushing this project to come up with a business plan for an events center that might actually pay for itself (see Charlie Johnson's commentary). No mention of embarrassment at using the school district to fund an economic development project that will not enhance any of the basic educational functions of the school (again, read Johnson). No mention either seeking private donations first to reduce the $9.8-million public debt burden.

Page 3, Letter to the Editor #2: Gym promoter Dean Gehrels does address the issue of public funding, saying it might actually hurt the cause. Gehrels fears a private fundraising campaign wouldn't raise money fast enough to outpace inflation in construction costs. The new gym could bring in revenue (district and region contests, sponsorships, etc.) that will pay for the annual operating costs, but the nearly ten million we will spend to build this gym is to be borne by the taxpayers.

Never mind that no one has shown how this project meets the school district's mandated function to provide a free and fair education: the athletic supporters want their big gym, they want it now, and they want everyone, not just the spectators who might get less crowded bleachers, to foot the bill.

(Oh, wait: Gehrels says the athletic supporters have received some private donations. That money has been spent thus far on the gym boosters' ad campaign....)

Page 5, gym booster committee quarter-page ad, top half: Evidently the gym backers must be hearing a lot of flak over the Sioux Falls Lincoln project (the combination of my own comments, Matthew Paulson's letter in last week's paper, and street buzz must have gotten to them). The top half of the ad offers a chart comparing the Lincoln and Madison projects. The chart explains why the Lincoln project is so much cheaper -- just an expansion, not a new building, smaller courts, no additional locker space, etc.

Of course, the chart fails to answer one obvious question: if Lincoln can just expand their gym for half the price of a new gym, why can't we? Mr. Schaefer in his letter says, "There's not a smaller, cheaper option around the corner," but Lincoln has found one.

Page 5, gym booster committee quarter-page ad, bottom half: The gym committee offers a comparison of their proposed gym to that of smaller schools. They compare total district enrollment and gym seating space in Lennox, Tri-Valley, Tea, and Flandreau. With the proposed new gym, we'd have more seating than everyone but Tea, whose gym can hold 2500 spectators. Of course, this chart fails to answer the logical question the preceding chart would suggest: How big is Lincoln making its gym? Let's review some numbers:

• Lincoln HS enrollment: ~1900
• New Lincoln gym capacity: 2000
• Madison HS enrollment: ~400
• New Madison gym capacity: 2200

Is this gym project about meeting genuine needs or simply one-upping Lennox and our other athletic arch-rival communities?

Advertising insert: The gym boosters include a bright orange campaign sheet, complete with their continuing co-opting of the Madison Bulldog mascot for their political purposes, stirring jingoistic feelings of "Bulldog Pride!" while avoiding a real discussion of the educational necessity of a giant sports arena.

The insert focuses on the cost to taxpayers, breaking down the property tax increase folks in various neighborhoods can expect. The costs are broken down to per month and per day numbers. But let's not lose sight of the big picture: from even the owner of a modest ($50,100) house on North Liberty Avenue, the gym boosters want to take $1,109.75. From the owner of a swankier ($192,300) home on Twin Oaks Drive, the gym boosters would demand $4,259.50.

Not mentioned on this chart are any rural property owners -- ouch! I thought these guys were good at marketing, but they put out a chart that ignores and possibly alienates the large number of rural voters in the school district. Not mentioned in this chart is the huge hit farmers will take in their property taxes just to transfer some meager amount of wealth to the in-town business interests who think a big gym will translate into more burger sales and motel-room rentals.

Just to top it off, the chart bears this heading:

Actual Illustrations of Real Homes and there 2007 Assessed Values.

At risk of muddling the issue on election eve, I note the following problems with that text:

1. Wrong their (an easy mistake, but an easy one to fix with proofreading... or so I tell my freshmen).
   
2. For consistency, Their should be capitalized with the other words in that heading.
3. Actual and real feel redundant.
   

So what's all this mean?

1. Read your local paper. There's a lot of good material.
   
2. Read your local blog. Commentary every bit as good as what you get at the Country Cafe, but you don't have to leave a tip (not that I'd mind ;-) ).
3. Go vote tomorrow.

Pelicans Arrive on Lake Herman

Pelicans made their first Lake Herman appearance of the year today. Several dozen of the majestic birds can be seen (right now! out my window! gleaming white in the evening sun!) dotting the lake, where they are surely sampling Herman's selection of bullhead, crawdads, and other freshwater treats. After a seemingly brief stay of the migrating geese in March, and after several unseasonably chilly April days, I relish the spring sight of our graceful, big-billed friends circling high over the lake and gliding single file in their disciplined, unhurried bands from bay to bay.

Keep It Local -- Outside Consultants Hurt Local Politics

South Dakota War College notes (and I note with dismay) the intrusion of an out-of-state consultant in a Meade County School District bond issue. See my comment there on how local politics should stay local. I plan to vote against the gym-bond issue here in Madison Tuesday, but I wouldn't want some outsider with his own agenda intruding on what ought to be a local discussion. Local politics should provide a community a chance to have a conversation with itself, not let outsiders profit from sloganeering and disinformation that obscures what really matters to the locals.

Make More Energy... or Just Use Less?

I notice that Tony Dean shares some of my concerns about ethanol. Mr. Dean makes a connection between the push for more ethanol and the Bush Administration's plans not only to not add any more acres this year to the land protected under the Conservation Reserve Plan but also to "release former CRP holders from their commitments." CRP lands protect wildlife, groundwater, and the wily pheasant, the hunting of which adds $153 million to South Dakota's economy annually. Dean notes that switchgrass promises to be a much better source of alternative energy. But he also quotes fellow conservationist Ted Williams ("Under the Influence of Ethanol," Fly Rod & Reel, April 2007, p. 18) on a better route to fuel economy:

We do, however, possess the technology to build fuel-efficient automobiles. In the current charade designed by and for agribusiness we're allocating 18 percent of the corn we grow to ethanol, thereby cutting our petroleum consumption by one percent. But [UC-Berkeley chemical engineer Dr. Tad] Patzek has calculated that if we doubled automobile fuel efficiency, we'd cut petroleum consumption by 33 percent or, put another way, we'd increase our petroleum supply by a third. It's a revolutionary concept that America has never tried. Fish-and-wildlife advocates are calling it conservation.

Then again, maybe Connie Blanco at the Lakota Country Times has a better alternative (you'll appreciate this cartoon if you've seen Chris Eyre's Smoke Signals):



Given the surge in backyard inventors figuring out how to run their vehicles on used cooking oil, Blanco may not be joking!

Maybe the New Gym Needs A-C and a Seawall...

As I sit here at the lake on a gorgeous spring day, enjoying Arctic gales keeping the temperature below freezing, I continue to wonder if global warming would really be so bad. KJAM cites Tony Dean, South Dakota outdoor broadcaster, columnist, and admitted Republican, as urging us to act now to minimize the impacts. Dean worries that global warming will increase wildfire danger and dry up wetlands, decimating wildlife habitat and hurting hunting and fishing. Spoken like a truly conservative conservationist (those two labels should go together!).

Speaking of the IPCC, they issued a report in Brussells today outlining various threats to our species and the entire ecosphere from global warming. (See the draft policymakers' summary here.) They do note that global crop yields may actually increase 5 to 20 percent from longer growing seasons in the short term. That benefit only sticks, however, if the global temperature increase doesn't exceed 3 degrees Celsius (5.4 degrees F). And warmer weather won't help if it's also drier weather, as our friends in West River can attest. I'd like a warmer Easter break, but I'd also like the garden to grow.

Real Boosters -- The Fundraisers of Fairbury

Hat tip to Mrs. Madville Times, who is on a fact-finding mission to Nebraska this week.

As I continue to wait for a reply from the athletic supporters to my question about seeking private donations for the new gym to relieve the public debt burden, I pass along this Lincoln (NE) Journal Star story about a sixty-something Nebraska couple raising money for a new sports facility. Chuck and Sharon Moore of Fairbury, Nebraska (population 4262), have spent the last three years raising donations for a new 1500-seat football/track stadium for the local high school. So far they've raised over $500,000 from 500 donors. They need $1.5 million to complete the project. The article makes no mention of turning to the school district or the city or any other source of public dollars, nor does it sound like the Moores are worried that they have to hurry to finish the project:

Like her husband, Sharon Moore knows how to stick with something long term. She’s been a bus driver for Fairbury Public Schools for 32 years. She’s taken that same persistent, hard-working attitude into the stadium project, which she hopes will be completed for the 2008-09 school year.

“Someone asked me, ‘What if you only get $350,000?’ and I said that we’ll keeping working until we get it done,’’ she said. “It’s a slow process, but we’ll get there. Our goal is to have one of the most impressive football and track facilities in this area.’"

Maybe Madison's athletic supporters could take a lesson from the Moores. Instead of seeking instant gratification, playing marketing games by trying to capitalize on the buzz around our successful boys basketball team, and fostering a false sense of urgency, the gym backers could do the patient hard work of a long-term fundraising campaign. Such a project would avoid the hard feelings of an election battle and maybe even promote community spirit as people voluntarily join together in a cause they believe in.

(Maybe their first donor could be a Ralph Kappenman, 1974 MHS graduate, now living in Hutchinson, Kansas, who writes a letter to the editor in Thursday's MDL. Kappenman sends his congratulations for our initiative to build a new gym. "You certainly have my support. Go Bulldogs!" While he doesn't say so in his letter, I'm sure my fellow MHS alumnus will follow up his declaration of support with a pledge to send $120 a year every year for the next 25 years to help pay for the gym, just to match the contribution this resident taxpayer will be required to make if the ballot measure passes.)

Ethanol: Every Silver Lining Has Its Clouds

The ethanol boom is getting more press, and not all of it good. Perusing the news this morning, I find a Christian Science Monitor report (2007.03.22) that says ethanol demand is raising land prices. Now for bankers profiting from mortgages and governments addicted to an obsolete property tax system, higher land prices are great. But for young farmers trying to get into the market, higher land prices are one more disadvantage they face as they try to stake their claim and compete with corporate farms.

Ethanol is impacting consumers as producers in the milk market. An AP report from this morning predicts a 9% increase in milk prices by fall. Locally, I've seen the price for a gallon of milk jump up 20-30 cents, to $3.00 a gallon. The cause (reports AP): "Costs have surged for fuel and petroleum-based products and for the corn used to feed dairy cows, a side effect of increases in the production of ethanol."

These market pressures are already kicking in, even with ethanol only taking up 20% of the national corn crop (that's twice the percentage of the corn crop directed to fuel production four years ago). We may well face some tough market choices. People need to eat, but that includes farmers. What will happen if the market provides the best return to farmers who sell their corn to big energy producers rather than food producers?

New Gym: Fishy Facts, Unfair Funding

Guest commentary from Linda McIntyre, of Winfred's two-person think tank. Previously published MDL, 2007.03.28, p.3.

A few more facts regarding the proposed $5.8M bond issue.

1. While it is claimed that the new gym will cost $5.8M, when the interest over 25 years is included, the actual cost will be almost double that at be approximately $10M to $11M!

2. At the last informational meeting it was asked whether passage of this bond issue would jeopardize another needed opt out in three or so years. The committee stated they couldn’t say and hoped not, but this is now, that is then, and they want a new gym now. They are clearly placing their wants ahead of future academic needs of students.

3. Although the committee’s brochure states an economic impact of $1.5M, that is an estimate that is implied but which they admitted is probably not possible for Madison. When the door-to-door campaign starts and you are handed this brochure and pep talk, be sure to question the presenters and get actual facts. (Note, hardly any of this economic impact, whatever it is, will trickle down to those paying for the gym anyway!)

4. The promoters state a need to build now because construction costs will be higher in a couple of years. But, if the promoters wouldn’t rush into this and would instead collect up-front money as a “down payment,” the savings in interest alone could more than make up for any increased construction costs.

It’s time for those who really want a new gym to put THEIR money where their mouths are. Have a fund raising campaign. Get the promoters and those who will use the gym to contribute. Maybe put a wall in the new gym with donors’ names, a donor tree or donor bricks; there would be a real sense of Madison Pride in that for the donors and their kids. Charge a little more per admission for a couple of years to build up a gym fund; those that use the gym will pay. Have a raffle for a year’s free admission to athletic events. Get the city to kick in some from the second penny sales tax. Now that the community center is paid off early, the city has extra funds set aside for economic improvements which they can legally use for a gym, especially since this gym is touted as an economic benefit to the city, even if not quite as much as the brochure states.

There are a lot of ways other than a tax increase to raise money for this gym. Just think outside the box. Then come back to the taxpayers after most of the funding is raised by those who will benefit from the gym.

The fact is that this new gym will cost many taxpayers a huge amount in increased taxes, and others hardly a dime. And it will neither improve any student’s academic skills nor raise any teacher’s salary, which it would seem should be the most important use of our hard-earned tax dollars.

It is important that every voter in the district who values academics gets out to vote. The absentee ballots are in, so either vote in person or absentee. It’s your education dollars. It’s up to you how you want those dollars spent.

Sioux Falls Lincoln Gym Expansion: 2000 Seats, $2.7 Million

Comparison to Madison Raises Questions -- Special Report!

An anonymous special correspondent directs our attention to a news item of enormous relevance to Madison's new gym ballot issue. KELO-TV reports on plans just released today by the Sioux Falls School District to expand the auxiliary gym at Lincoln High School. The district will spend $2.7 million to expand the existing gym to seat 2,000 spectators, a capacity matching what Roosevelt and Washington High Schools have. Even though the cost is about 30% higher than expected, the district apparently will still be able to fund the project entirely from its capital improvements budget -- i.e., without raising property taxes.

Now compare "Frequently Asked Question" #9 on the Madison athletic supporters' pro-gym website, "Can a new Gymnasium [sic] be built for less money?":

...This facility is the product of careful study comparing Madison’s size and needs to other schools of similar size. Madison doesn’t need huge arenas like Sioux Falls or Watertown, but does have similar needs to places like Lennox, Salem and Volga, which have all recently built new gymnasiums. If this facility was built with the current High School in the 1960’s or the Middle School in the 1990’s, the cost would have been less than it is today. However, with the current construction costs, this is a reasonable price to build a practical facility to meet Madison’s needs. [emphasis mine]

The gym backers say we don't need a big Sioux-Falls-size gym. Yet they want to spend $5.83 million to build a gym in Madison (high school enrollment ~413) that holds 2170 spectators, 170 more than what the expanded gym at Sioux Falls Lincoln (enrollment ~1902) will hold [enrollment figures courtesy SD Department of Education fall enrollment database, AY 2004-2005]. Maybe what they meant to say was, "Madison doesn't need a huge arena like Sioux Falls, but we'd like the taxpayers to buy us one anyway."

Even if the gym backers can justify an arena bigger than the Lincoln Patriots' home court, they still have to explain how Sioux Falls can come up with a comparable amount of seating for less than half the price of the Madison bond issue, and without a tax increase.