This is a printer-friendly version of an article from Zip06.com.
04/25/2017 12:00 AMThen there was one. After years of narrowing down options within the school utilization study, on April 18, the Board of Education (BOE) voted to move one option forward for further consideration by the other town boards. The winning option? Option Three—a plan to address a total rebuild of Ryerson Elementary School and a renovation of Jeffrey Elementary School over the course of two referenda.
Madison’s discussion about a long-term plan for its public school facilities began 2 ½ years ago in response to growing concerns over declining enrollment, the age of the district’s buildings, and the need to ensure the buildings could support the structural vision of the district. The BOE settled on a five-school model in October 2016, but with the state budget in crisis and growing concern over equity between elementary schools, the final arrangement within a five-school model had been a moving target. On April 4, the board presented three options to the public.
The board voted five to four to move forward with Option Three rather than Option Two, which would have addressed Ryerson and Jeffrey in the same referendum, or Option One, which involved a rebuild of Ryerson and a more gradual renovation of Jeffrey over a 10-year plan.
Under Option Three, a Ryerson project will be submitted to the state this year, but the Jeffrey project won’t be submitted to the state until 2019. This option is the most expensive and has a longer overall timeline, but does still address the concern of equity (all elementary students will have new schools if the plan is completed) and could have some financial bonding advantages.
To complete Option Three, the total estimated project cost comes to $65.8 million with an estimated district share of somewhere between $55.2- and $59.4 million. Renovation rates from the state are a bit more difficult to nail down for this option. While the Ryerson project, if submitted to the state in June, would be subject to the 2017 reimbursement rate for new construction of 17.5 percent, rates are very likely to change after this year due to proposed legislation. If they do, Colliers International, the board’s project manager, is only estimating a 15 percent reimbursement rate from the state for renovations if a Jeffrey project is submitted in 2019.
The timeline for this option is also the most extensive. A new Ryerson would be designed and constructed from late 2017 through summer 2020 and the Jeffrey renovation would be designed and completed from summer 2019 through to summer 2022. Jeffrey would still be offline for two academic years, but the town and the district would not have to manage two construction projects simultaneously.
The Economic Impact
Spreading out the construction also means possibly spreading out the town bonding. At the April 18 meeting prior to any vote, town bond consultant Bill Lindsey of Independent Bond & Investment Consultants LLC gave a presentation outlining the potential bonding process, timelines, and projected impact to the taxpayer.
To finance Option Three, the town share of the project including capitalized issuance costs is $59,885,000. The tax impact of Option Three, considering a median household assessed value of roughly $400,000, is on average $455.
Looking at the debt service over the next 10 years, including current debt and new debt from the library project, the highest debt service year under Option Three is fiscal year 2024–’25 at $7,122,795. However, by choosing Option Three, Finance Director Stacy Nobitz pointed out that by having a longer timeline, the town can take advantage of certain years were debt from other projects begins to fall off—such as 2025 when the high school debt ends—to try to smooth out tax increases.
“Because the timeline is not as compressed, it is spread out over an extra year, the increases to the debt service on a year-over-year basis are not as large as they are under Option Two,” said Lindsey.
Discussing Other Options
The board debated for more than an hour before voting to advance Option Three to the Board of Finance (BOF) and Board of Selectmen (BOS) for further consideration. Before voting on one of the three options, some board members threw out a couple of new options.
Board member Seth Klaskin put forward an option that would address Ryerson, Jeffrey, and Walter C. Polson Middle School in a single referendum. Klaskin said the needs at Polson are great enough to be considered now along with the elementary schools.
“Because Polson will be expanding its service load and because Polson clearly needs substantial attention and because now would be the best time to borrow money at low rates and receive maximum state reimbursement…we should be reasonably discussing and voting on options that include Polson,” he said.
The proposal was voted down. BOE Chair Jean Fitzgerald said she understands that Polson needs work, but that there is no formal plan for Polson at this time and any needs will be addressed in the capital budget.
Once the board narrowed the discussion down to options two and three, board member Katie Stein threw out an alternative form of Option Three. Stein said she wanted to see Jeffrey addressed first and Ryerson addressed second under Option Three, essentially flipping the plan.
“For me it would be a lot easier to stomach Option Three knowing that we have done right by those kids in the southern part of town,” she said. “It just feels like if you are taking kids out of a school they should be moving into a school that is ready for them.”
The proposal was also voted down. Fitzgerald said Option Three is structured to address Ryerson first because the need at Ryerson is greater than the need at Jeffrey.
“The schools have no parity right now,” Fitzgerald said. “Ryerson does not have what Jeffrey has and they have been that way from the beginning…I went and asked what school is in the biggest need and it is Ryerson.”
In debating moving forward with Option Two or Option Three, the main sticking points with the board were concerns over the likelihood of two successful referenda and the concern over having one referendum with a big dollar amount. Board member John Dean said historically Madison residents do not approve projects at referendum that they see as being too costly.
“I don’t believe if we go to the voters with a $64.5 million request that it is going to pass on the first time,” he said. “With Option Three it gives us two referendums— we are taking smaller bites of the apple and that is a road I want to go down.”
However, Klaskin said he was concerned about addressing the schools in two referenda, saying Madison residents might get referendum fatigue.
“You have no guarantee whatsoever that Jeffrey will ever see the light of day,” he said. “What I mean by that is just because we vote tonight to advance Option Three, does not bind future boards to our double-referendum scheme.”
Fitzgerald said the decision is all about weighing the risks and she sees Option Two as too big a gamble.
“We run the risk of losing everything and Ryerson cannot lose everything,” she said.
The board ultimately voted to advance Option Three to the BOS and BOF for further consideration. Superintendent of Schools Tom Scarice said however the study plays out from here, Madison will continue to provide high quality education. Having worked in numerous districts, Scarice said good buildings certainly help support education, but they are not the key element.
“There are some magical things happening in our classrooms with our current facilities,” he said. “The board will make the best decision for the district and the community and regardless there is going to be great teaching and learning in our classrooms.”