This is a printer-friendly version of an article from Zip06.com.
04/02/2019 02:20 PMIt’s now a $100 million or more problem. On April 1, members of the tri-board working group tasked with presenting alternatives to the Board of Education (BOE) 10-year capital maintenance plan unveiled a series of possible options to address the district’s aging facilities for further consideration.
Every alternative presented has a price tag greater than the $100 million maintenance plan. The new numbers, ranging from $119 million to more than $200 million, made it fairly clear to members of the Board of Selectmen (BOS), Board of Finance (BOF), and BOE present at the April 1 meeting that large costs to address the facilities issue may be unavoidable. The question becomes: How much can the town actually afford and what do you get for your dollar?
The BOE unveiled and adopted the $100 million, 10-plus year capital maintenance plan in June 2018. The long-term capital maintenance plan, which can be viewed in full with this story at Zip06.com, ranges from fiscal year 2018-’19 to fiscal year 2032–’33; the projects are divided by building. The BOE voted on June 19, 2018 to send the next five years’ worth of projects forward to the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) Committee and BOS for their consideration. Those five years of projects alone total roughly $61 million.
However, school officials have emphasized that all of the projects listed don’t do anything to upgrade the schools in terms of new features to match current teaching; the proposals address things like new boilers or new HVAC systems, projects designed to keep the old school buildings up and running. Since $100 million was considered a lot of money to spend on maintenance, a new tri-board working group was formed about three months ago to explore other options.
The group includes two members of the BOE, two from the BOS, and two from the BOF. The tri-board group had to make a presentation on a possible solution or solutions to the full boards by April 1.
In the months leading up to the April 1 deadline, the tri-board group met weekly and held public forums with sectors of the community including parents, seniors, businesses, and real estate agents. The goal was to figure out what the community valued in terms of school facilities and how those values played into having modern, safe learning environments while still being fiscally responsible.
The group also worked with Colliers International, a local project management firm with which the district has worked previously, to put some rough numbers on all options presented.
Options on the Table
The tri-board considered a number of options to move forward with including the existing maintenance plan, which has often been described as a Band-Aid fix or throwing good money after bad; a five-school model; a four-school model; and a three-school model.
The five, four, and three-school models all have various iterations. However, when the tri-board presented to the full boards on April 1, it was clear the group did not feel the five-school model or three-school model was the best way forward.
All options under the five-school model range would shrink the district from the soon-to-be six schools to five, involve new elementary schools in the north and south, and have various changes at Polson Middle School and Daniel Hand High School (DHHS) and would leave Brown Middle School as a grades 4 and 5 school. The price range on the five-school model is anywhere from $142-to $228 million. (This cost and others listed below include a four percent escalation assumption and combination of new construction, renovation, conversion, and maintenance costs.)
Superintendent of Schools Tom Scarice said the tri-board moved away from this option because five buildings may soon be too many for the district based on enrollment.
“Five schools was not supported because the enrollment doesn’t really support five schools long term and we have enough space to contract our schools from five to four within this timeframe,” he said. “There will be a higher cumulative cost if you keep five schools online.”
The three-school model was also pushed aside fairly quickly. Under a three-school model, there would be one elementary school, one middle school, and one high school, likely in a central location, which would mean bigger schools and longer bus rides—something Scarice said would likely be an issue for parents.
“The three-school model will result in an elementary school of 1,000 kids and travel times would be problematic,” he said.
The price range on a three-school model is $130 million to $207 million.
Is Four Just Right?
With a five-school and a three-school model seemingly off the table, Scarice said the group took a hard look and found a four-school model to likely be the best option going forward.
“The four-school option provides the most flexibility,” he said. “I think the initial takeaway out of all the options is what was championed is a four school district—not a five school or a three school, and within that four there are a variety of options to consider.”
Under this model, almost all options involve a new central elementary school, maintain Brown in some capacity, and have a series of upgrades or improvements at Polson and DHHS. Total costs range from $119- to $198 million.
The group looked at least eight different variations of a four-school model but focused on five to share with the larger boards. Those options, all of which can be found on the district website, are 4.1a, 4.2, 4.3, 4.4, and 4.5.
The most expensive of those options is option 4.2 with a range of $162- to $191 million. Under this option, DHHS would be converted to a middle school, Polson would be renovated to become the new high school, Brown would be maintained as is with grades 4 and 5, and a new, central pre-K to 3 elementary school would be built in a central location near Polson and DHHS.
The least expensive of the four-school model options is 4.4 with a range of $118- to $129 million. Under this option, DHHS would be maintained as is, Polson would be maintained as is, Brown would be converted to a K to 5 elementary school and a second central elementary school would be built south of Green Hill Road to house pre-K to 5.
Scarice said option 4.4 also would involve the least disruption to students from a construction and relocation standpoint. He said a key point under any four-school model that doesn’t show a total renovation of Polson means the $40 million listed for Polson over the next 10 years in the maintenance plan doesn’t go away.
“I think we all know there are quite a few Polson projects and the question was: Can you carve out some of them for bonding and then do the remainder of the capital projects over a longer period of time,” he said. “The answer is ‘Yes.’”
Regarding Polson, Scarice said there is about $3.5 million listed to renovate the auditorium and members of the tri-board said it expressed to members of the Academy Community Center Design Committee that a preforming arts space should be housed in Polson, not Academy.
Scarice said the tri-board group didn’t prioritize the five options under the four-school model put up for discussion. Some members of the tri-board did, however, express the need to possibly dismiss the two four-school options that only have one elementary school; the only person at the meeting who expressed strong support for a single elementary school model was BOE member Seth Klaskin.
Having a K to 5, K to 4, or pre-K to 5 model for the elementary schools was also a common theme in the four-school model. Some BOE members expressed concerns over having that wide of an age range in the same building, but Scarice said building architecture can be used to keep grades separated under one roof.
“We saw the possibility of five or six years of continuity for a family as opposed to what we have now,” he said.
Funding and Next Steps
The town is now facing what could be hundreds of millions of dollars between the schools and the town facilities in the coming years. Members of the BOF present made it very clear that there needs to be a big-picture approach to how all these needs are funded.
“It has to be figured into the overall equation when we talk finance and how this all will be paid for and the timing of that has to be bundled together,” said BOF member Ken Kaminsky. “From my perspective, without knowing what we can sustain and not knowing the timeline, it makes it hard for me.”
BOF Chair Jean Fitzgerald said the finance director is currently building a long-term capital funding plan so that the town will know how much it can afford in terms of bonding over the next 10, 20, or 30-plus years.
“In terms of the BOF it’s not so much which one of these options can we afford, it’s more about how much money can we bond,” she said. “Then it becomes a matter of trying to figure out how you balance that with everyone’s needs…We have to do our job to see what that number look like but not necessarily basing it on option 4.4 or option 4.5. Our job is just to say this is what we can financially afford and that is where you need guidance from us.”
BOE Chair Katie Stein agreed that the tri-board will need some guidance from the BOF and noted that these options need to be floated out to the public soon, too.
“We don’t need to have every detail set in stone to get some feedback on these options,” she said. “It’s important to start testing the waters a little bit with the community.”
BOF and tri-board member Bennett Pudlin said the tri-board would want to narrow down the multiple-four school model options and firm up some of the numbers. He also said the tri-board was looking for a nod or endorsement on a way forward. Fitzgerald gave the endorsement.
“I think we are looking, based on what you said, a four-school model,” she said. “So take that back now, massage those options a bit more, and then we will have another meeting. In the meantime, the BOF will start to look at the bonding and start to run numbers in general so that we will have more knowledge… The objective of this meeting was to find some kind of pathway out of all the options and I think this is it.”
The full presentation with all options broken down in more detail will be posted on the Madison Public Schools website, https://www.madison.k12.ct.us/, in the coming days.