As reported, I summarized many of the past posts in a statement I made during the last school board meeting. The statement I handed out is below – Dr. Dave
ACSD Long-Range Facilities Plan – Thoughts and Concerns
- to be submitted/read at January 16, 2012 School Board Meeting
For many reasons, I believe the school board should postpone making a decision on the elementary portion of the long-range facilities plan and postpone any referendum till this fall in order to better understand the impacts of what it is proposing.
FINANCIAL
In the past couple of months, this board has learned about school finance and the position the district is in regarding spending authority.
At our 11-07-11 meeting, the district’s CFO presented us materials suggesting the district’s regular program cost will be $474,775 lower than last year. Per comments shared from the Budget committee at our last meeting, increase costs tied to contract negotiations and benefit costs may likely take necessary cuts over $1 million.
We were recently given a board learning session on negotiations where the past 30 year history documents that personnel costs have outpaced “new” money by 2% or more. On the presumption this trend will not change, more adjustments will be necessary.
Also at our 11-07-11 meeting, the CFO also gave us an Unspent Authorized Budget Report. The report showed that without corrective action, the projected unspent authorized budget in FY16 would be a reported -$3.3 million. This is not a certainty; rather a strong indication work needs to be done.
The budget guarantee being utilized by the district this year and next year will need to be paid back. Numbers in the report we were provided put that total over $800,000.
CAPACITY IN PROPOSED PLAN
At 15 units, the level of capacity in the proposed in the long-range facilities plan far exceeds projected growth. (details at website listed at end)
Capacity (district) = ( 15 “units” x 143 ) + ( 15 “flex” classrooms x 24 ) = 2,505
Struxture’s report references a projected student count of 2,000 by 2030. That’s only 120 students in the next 20 years, yet we are proposing the addition of two full units of capacity. Given the elementary work is supposed to be done first, the capacity may well be in place prior to 2020 and we’d only be half way to the projected target.
Assuming 1,940 students (2,000 – 60) and adding 10% cushion, needed space is 2,134. Thus the proposed plan will create just over 370 “extra” spaces above and beyond projected counts and cushion.
CONCERN
My concern is that the board has not taken the time to examine the consequences of what is being proposed. As a board we have not set a “target” capacity, nor have we determined the capacities of the buildings being considered. In addition, boundaries have not been discussed to confirm the feasibility of the information in Struxture’s recommendation.
Per the CFO’s numbers, and comments from other board members, the district finds itself constantly dealing with financial issues. The rush to set referendum language before these issues and their impact on families are better understood is wrong.
As I stated at a recent board meeting, rushed decisions in the past led boards to close school only to find a few years later they needed space. I am concerned adopting the old rushed decisions methods will result in this school board in the near future having to consider closing a school.
RECOMMENDATION
I feel it is this board’s responsibility to examine the consequences of our actions. Not doing so may create the illusion of plausible deniability but it doesn’t remove the facts. To put it bluntly, the plan is too big and money is too tight – something will have to give.
I again ask this board to postpone these facilities decisions till this fall. If the board is not willing to do so, at the very least the board should consider reducing the amount of capacity being considered in the plan by one unit. I propose reducing the 4-unit school to 3-units.
Respectfully submitted,
David J. Putz – Member Ames School Board
