Posts
At the March 18th meeting, the school board voted 6-1 to approve the process of renovating the New Paltz Middle School.
Board member Steve Greenfield noted that the resolution explicitly affirms the social contract with the community to keep the school at its current location. This vote clearly demonstrates that the board is formally committed to renovating the Middle School.
The only dissenting vote was Rod Dressel who still thinks it's a mistake to renovate and that the district should be building a new school at a new site.
Showing posts with label middle school. Show all posts
Showing posts with label middle school. Show all posts
Saturday, March 21, 2009
Friday, February 27, 2009
Next Steps - Design!
For those of you that could not make Rhinebeck Associates presention of the the Middle School Feasibility Study, click here for the power point.
The architects presented the details of a $9.8 million simple repair of existing building needs, which the great majority of the board agreed is not is not an option. For renovation, the dollar amounts ranged from $26.9 to $47.3 million (see pages 3 and 4 of the power point for cost and impact on tax bill estimates).
It is important to remember, that these are pre-aid figures; our actual costs could be significantly less since state and federal aid could be in the neighborhood of 50% of the total budget. These estimates also do not include the savings we would get from dropping the rented district office (about $200K per year). Nor do they include the retirement of significant debt in the next few years (and its annual service payments included in the tax levy) during the time the design phase is is underway, so the overall net impact per household for the construction will be minimal. However, these are the amounts voters will have to decide upon when the project goes to a bond vote. Therefore, we need an educated and informed public.
Save the Middle School would like to start mobilizing support in the community for moving from feasibility study to the design phase, starting with a weekly letter to the editor campaign. We want to get this to the design phase quickly - the longer it takes to have finished plans, the higher the construction costs, and the less likely we'll be able to capitalize on federal stimulus dollars. We need to keep this rolling, and community support for moving into the design phase is critical to advancing the time line.
Please email us at SaveNPMiddleSchool@gmail.com to let us know if you would like to get involved and/or would be willing to write a letter to the paper.
The architects presented the details of a $9.8 million simple repair of existing building needs, which the great majority of the board agreed is not is not an option. For renovation, the dollar amounts ranged from $26.9 to $47.3 million (see pages 3 and 4 of the power point for cost and impact on tax bill estimates).
It is important to remember, that these are pre-aid figures; our actual costs could be significantly less since state and federal aid could be in the neighborhood of 50% of the total budget. These estimates also do not include the savings we would get from dropping the rented district office (about $200K per year). Nor do they include the retirement of significant debt in the next few years (and its annual service payments included in the tax levy) during the time the design phase is is underway, so the overall net impact per household for the construction will be minimal. However, these are the amounts voters will have to decide upon when the project goes to a bond vote. Therefore, we need an educated and informed public.
Save the Middle School would like to start mobilizing support in the community for moving from feasibility study to the design phase, starting with a weekly letter to the editor campaign. We want to get this to the design phase quickly - the longer it takes to have finished plans, the higher the construction costs, and the less likely we'll be able to capitalize on federal stimulus dollars. We need to keep this rolling, and community support for moving into the design phase is critical to advancing the time line.
Please email us at SaveNPMiddleSchool@gmail.com to let us know if you would like to get involved and/or would be willing to write a letter to the paper.
Sunday, December 28, 2008
To Plan or Not to Plan!
To plan or not to plan is not really the question. Of course we should plan! But, it strikes me as problematic that both our town and school district are having such a difficult time answering simple questions about what exactly they are planning and specifically how they are paying for it all.
Amid the ethics questions raised about Ken Wishnick’s new job as Town Planner, the question of precisely what the job will actually entail has been lost. As reported in the New Paltz Times, Mr. Wishnick himself is not really sure what the position involves. While the town has already approved this new position in the budget, and a civil service job description has been written, Wishnick states, “the town board will decide the role of the town planner and it has not yet done so.” How can this be so?
The town is not the only local elected body lacking a clear articulation of what a planner could do for them/us. The school district is considering hiring a consultant to create a long-term plan. I don’t mean to sound cute, but what exactly are we planning? We have a building inventory, and we have a forthcoming educational learning plan to be constructed by the superintendent. Is this long term planning a synthesis of these two documents? Or is it more? We need additional information about what a consultant will provide: Does this involve data that has already been compiled and/or that could clearly be assembled by existing staff? What existing studies (that are sitting on a shelf or otherwise) will be integrated into this planning? How come the superintendent and her staff are not assigned the task of conducting this type of planning? And what will a paid consultant value-add to this planning process, exactly?
There are a few things on this topic I feel pretty strongly about: One, I am concerned about shipping this job out to someone external to the inner workings of the district and our community. If this process is to move forward, we need to be clear, those that are most intimate with the data, that is, the teachers, staff, parents, and the community, must play an integral role. Perhaps the volunteer Building Level School Climate Action Teams, whose task will be completed in February, would be willing to stay on and work on this project. Given the state of the economy, any tasks that can be completed by current staff or volunteers should be done so in house (so to speak). Further, while the district plans, so does the Village and Town of New Paltz and the rest of the towns that are included in the district. Any planning project needs to include input and collaboration with these local municipalities.
Second, we need better projections for our school age population. In the board’s pamphlet handed out at the Middle School forums last winter, there is chart of the projections from 2008 to 2070 which show (within the margin of error) a tiny decline in student population and reads,
“The district has conducted multiple* demographic studies, which have revealed varied statistics. After careful examination and comparison of the various studies against actual figures, enrollment is projected to be approximately 2,200 to 2,300 students annually in the next five years.”
I would like to see a very simple, straightforward analysis of the projections of the school age population for at least the last ten years to see if the current source(s) for this information is reliable. As a parent of kindergarteners in 2005 and 2008, I am highly skeptical that the current sources are dependable. In 2005, kindergarteners found themselves in classrooms of 24-26 students because the estimates were off. This past May, an additional kindergarten class was added to the expected number for this past September when pre-registration showed the estimates to be low. In August, an additional third grade class was added at the very, very, very last minute (for the earlier cohort of 2005 kindergartens) because of the inaccuracy of the projections. As Yogi Berra said, “Prediction is hard, especially about the future.” But I think we can do a better job. And, we need reliable data in order to move forward with a comprehensive plan.
Third, the Middle School location is non-negotiable. As reported in the New Paltz Times on December 11th, school board member Don Kerr, while supportive of hiring a consultant, was concerned with the time frame. If the study is to take eighteen months, “…what if the planner’s final report contradicted their decision to renovate the middle school? Kerr said he did not like that possibility.” Nor do I. Any district wide planning needs to be crystal-clear, the Middle School is staying put – this issue is absolutely not on the table. Last winter, our community (including the Village Boards and Town Boards) came out in full force to let the school board know that the Middle School – not just any one of our schools, but the Middle School – is to stay put. There is no wiggle room. (And the study needs to take a lot less time than eighteen months. As my dad use to say, “While you plan, it happens.”)
However, there are implications for the future of the Middle School site that impact the wider district. Two obvious ones are the location of the kitchen (there is only one kitchen that actually is suited to cook food, the rest merely distribute food, and the cooking kitchen is currently at the Middle School) and the old district office of which I don’t even know is possible to renovate and perhaps needs to be leveled. At the September meeting where Rhinebeck Associates, the firm hired to evaluate the Middle School, presented their work to date before the board, the firm was clear that they are only looking at the Middle School, not at the district as a whole. Is this a logical way to proceed? I am not sure, nonetheless I am not open to a process that will impede the guarantee of the Middle School staying put, along with the planning dollars promised to the endeavor. The Middle School is actually the only project even close to shovel-ready given the work already done by Rhinebeck Associates, which means we should be moving faster and focusing more on the Middle School since it is the only site realistically available for potential Obama stimulus dollars in the next year.
Which leads to my last point: Given the state budget cuts, how much money are we talking about and where will the district get the money for this service? It is my understanding that the money is proposed to be taken from a budget line that has been unmistakably allocated for study of the Middle School renovation, including an assessment of both the current status of the facilities and how to implement the actual renovation. It is unacceptable to use these dollars for different purposes. From the district website, the results of the vote to focus on the renovation of the Middle School are recapped:
“Passing the resolution means the Board will move ahead to flesh out the specifics of a plan to renovate and reconstruct portions of the Middle School using the latest “green” and energy-efficient technologies. The Board will engage professional architectural, engineering, and surveying firms to provide detailed plans and costs* that will be shared with the community as the discussion moves forward.”
While only a portion of this budget line has been spent so far, that is, the initial fact finding portion: the state of the facilities, it is the only part that has been completed, and has not even been reported to the public yet. (FYI – scheduled for February 18th .) The remaining dollars are for the remaining stages – not just current status but implementation. Implementation dollars for the Middle School project should not and cannot be pilfered from this budget line.
If you would like the school board to hear your opinions on this matter, please attend their next meeting on January 7th, 7pm at the high school.
* Emphasis added
Relevant links: This entry is also posted at New Paltz Gadfly
Amid the ethics questions raised about Ken Wishnick’s new job as Town Planner, the question of precisely what the job will actually entail has been lost. As reported in the New Paltz Times, Mr. Wishnick himself is not really sure what the position involves. While the town has already approved this new position in the budget, and a civil service job description has been written, Wishnick states, “the town board will decide the role of the town planner and it has not yet done so.” How can this be so?
The town is not the only local elected body lacking a clear articulation of what a planner could do for them/us. The school district is considering hiring a consultant to create a long-term plan. I don’t mean to sound cute, but what exactly are we planning? We have a building inventory, and we have a forthcoming educational learning plan to be constructed by the superintendent. Is this long term planning a synthesis of these two documents? Or is it more? We need additional information about what a consultant will provide: Does this involve data that has already been compiled and/or that could clearly be assembled by existing staff? What existing studies (that are sitting on a shelf or otherwise) will be integrated into this planning? How come the superintendent and her staff are not assigned the task of conducting this type of planning? And what will a paid consultant value-add to this planning process, exactly?
There are a few things on this topic I feel pretty strongly about: One, I am concerned about shipping this job out to someone external to the inner workings of the district and our community. If this process is to move forward, we need to be clear, those that are most intimate with the data, that is, the teachers, staff, parents, and the community, must play an integral role. Perhaps the volunteer Building Level School Climate Action Teams, whose task will be completed in February, would be willing to stay on and work on this project. Given the state of the economy, any tasks that can be completed by current staff or volunteers should be done so in house (so to speak). Further, while the district plans, so does the Village and Town of New Paltz and the rest of the towns that are included in the district. Any planning project needs to include input and collaboration with these local municipalities.
Second, we need better projections for our school age population. In the board’s pamphlet handed out at the Middle School forums last winter, there is chart of the projections from 2008 to 2070 which show (within the margin of error) a tiny decline in student population and reads,
“The district has conducted multiple* demographic studies, which have revealed varied statistics. After careful examination and comparison of the various studies against actual figures, enrollment is projected to be approximately 2,200 to 2,300 students annually in the next five years.”
I would like to see a very simple, straightforward analysis of the projections of the school age population for at least the last ten years to see if the current source(s) for this information is reliable. As a parent of kindergarteners in 2005 and 2008, I am highly skeptical that the current sources are dependable. In 2005, kindergarteners found themselves in classrooms of 24-26 students because the estimates were off. This past May, an additional kindergarten class was added to the expected number for this past September when pre-registration showed the estimates to be low. In August, an additional third grade class was added at the very, very, very last minute (for the earlier cohort of 2005 kindergartens) because of the inaccuracy of the projections. As Yogi Berra said, “Prediction is hard, especially about the future.” But I think we can do a better job. And, we need reliable data in order to move forward with a comprehensive plan.
Third, the Middle School location is non-negotiable. As reported in the New Paltz Times on December 11th, school board member Don Kerr, while supportive of hiring a consultant, was concerned with the time frame. If the study is to take eighteen months, “…what if the planner’s final report contradicted their decision to renovate the middle school? Kerr said he did not like that possibility.” Nor do I. Any district wide planning needs to be crystal-clear, the Middle School is staying put – this issue is absolutely not on the table. Last winter, our community (including the Village Boards and Town Boards) came out in full force to let the school board know that the Middle School – not just any one of our schools, but the Middle School – is to stay put. There is no wiggle room. (And the study needs to take a lot less time than eighteen months. As my dad use to say, “While you plan, it happens.”)
However, there are implications for the future of the Middle School site that impact the wider district. Two obvious ones are the location of the kitchen (there is only one kitchen that actually is suited to cook food, the rest merely distribute food, and the cooking kitchen is currently at the Middle School) and the old district office of which I don’t even know is possible to renovate and perhaps needs to be leveled. At the September meeting where Rhinebeck Associates, the firm hired to evaluate the Middle School, presented their work to date before the board, the firm was clear that they are only looking at the Middle School, not at the district as a whole. Is this a logical way to proceed? I am not sure, nonetheless I am not open to a process that will impede the guarantee of the Middle School staying put, along with the planning dollars promised to the endeavor. The Middle School is actually the only project even close to shovel-ready given the work already done by Rhinebeck Associates, which means we should be moving faster and focusing more on the Middle School since it is the only site realistically available for potential Obama stimulus dollars in the next year.
Which leads to my last point: Given the state budget cuts, how much money are we talking about and where will the district get the money for this service? It is my understanding that the money is proposed to be taken from a budget line that has been unmistakably allocated for study of the Middle School renovation, including an assessment of both the current status of the facilities and how to implement the actual renovation. It is unacceptable to use these dollars for different purposes. From the district website, the results of the vote to focus on the renovation of the Middle School are recapped:
“Passing the resolution means the Board will move ahead to flesh out the specifics of a plan to renovate and reconstruct portions of the Middle School using the latest “green” and energy-efficient technologies. The Board will engage professional architectural, engineering, and surveying firms to provide detailed plans and costs* that will be shared with the community as the discussion moves forward.”
While only a portion of this budget line has been spent so far, that is, the initial fact finding portion: the state of the facilities, it is the only part that has been completed, and has not even been reported to the public yet. (FYI – scheduled for February 18th .) The remaining dollars are for the remaining stages – not just current status but implementation. Implementation dollars for the Middle School project should not and cannot be pilfered from this budget line.
If you would like the school board to hear your opinions on this matter, please attend their next meeting on January 7th, 7pm at the high school.
* Emphasis added
Relevant links: This entry is also posted at New Paltz Gadfly
Friday, December 26, 2008
Important info for Middle School supporters
I sent the following letter to the New Paltz Times. It exceeds their word limit, so I'm abridging it for the newspaper. I am publishing it here in its entirety. Please distribute. Thanks.
It is unfortunate that the New Paltz Times article this week did not mention why I am opposed to hiring a long-term facilities planner at this time. And I say "at this time" because I have been clear that this is a necessary endeavor, but that now is an especially poor -- and improper -- time to do so.
There are a few reasons. One is the poor timing. We are not prepared to get a good value for our dollar because we haven't done two pieces of critical work without which a long-range facilities plan cannot be usefully created. One is to determine the actual demographic and enrollment trends. The last time this was paid for two years ago, enrollment was predicted to decline, but it's been growing -- significantly -- ever since. We have to hit the pause button on paid consulting until we examine this matter thoroughly. We also do not have the new long-term comprehensive performance plan from the Superintendent. Without this, even with accurate demographics, a planner cannot even pretend to provide useful facilities advice, because much of that advice is derived directly from application of the comprehensive plan. In other words, by moving forward now, all we'll get is another expensive document that gives us very little to apply to our decision-making process, and no return of equivalent (or perhaps any) value to the taxpayer, as has happened so many times already.
On top of these practical matters, and where we cross the line into impropriety, is that the Superintendent and majority of Board members in support of moving forward now are going to use money that was appropriated for the Middle School renovation study, in front of the fully assembled public last winter, and approved by the voters in May. Going ahead with the planner means choosing not to move the Middle School study forward -- period, let alone on the "aggressive timetable" that was promised. All we'll get for the $12,000 we've spent to date (of the $60,000 appropriated) is an existing conditions study and an extremely broad cost estimate. Unless additional studies are conducted, that $12,000 is wasted, for two reasons. One is that we already paid a lot of money last year for a much more detailed existing conditions study, the one that led to the public discussion on the future of the Middle School, and then spent more money printing and distributing mailings and public information pamphlets, which included generalized estimates. So all we're getting for the $12,000 spent so far is an update and tweaking of what was previously paid for. The second is that if we don't use the remaining funding to move forward with the additional research the public agreed to finance, such as where to hold classes during construction, or exploration of designs that would suit the Middle School's current and future mission, curriculum, extra-curricular and community needs, then the $12,000 spent so far was nothing more than a make-work project for two consultants as a salve for a temporarily engaged -- and angry -- public. We (and I say "we" because I was not on the Board at the time, and even now that I am, I'm still a taxpayer with kids in school) were promised a full-bore study on an aggressive timetable, a study that was described to us as follows:
There are a few reasons. One is the poor timing. We are not prepared to get a good value for our dollar because we haven't done two pieces of critical work without which a long-range facilities plan cannot be usefully created. One is to determine the actual demographic and enrollment trends. The last time this was paid for two years ago, enrollment was predicted to decline, but it's been growing -- significantly -- ever since. We have to hit the pause button on paid consulting until we examine this matter thoroughly. We also do not have the new long-term comprehensive performance plan from the Superintendent. Without this, even with accurate demographics, a planner cannot even pretend to provide useful facilities advice, because much of that advice is derived directly from application of the comprehensive plan. In other words, by moving forward now, all we'll get is another expensive document that gives us very little to apply to our decision-making process, and no return of equivalent (or perhaps any) value to the taxpayer, as has happened so many times already.
On top of these practical matters, and where we cross the line into impropriety, is that the Superintendent and majority of Board members in support of moving forward now are going to use money that was appropriated for the Middle School renovation study, in front of the fully assembled public last winter, and approved by the voters in May. Going ahead with the planner means choosing not to move the Middle School study forward -- period, let alone on the "aggressive timetable" that was promised. All we'll get for the $12,000 we've spent to date (of the $60,000 appropriated) is an existing conditions study and an extremely broad cost estimate. Unless additional studies are conducted, that $12,000 is wasted, for two reasons. One is that we already paid a lot of money last year for a much more detailed existing conditions study, the one that led to the public discussion on the future of the Middle School, and then spent more money printing and distributing mailings and public information pamphlets, which included generalized estimates. So all we're getting for the $12,000 spent so far is an update and tweaking of what was previously paid for. The second is that if we don't use the remaining funding to move forward with the additional research the public agreed to finance, such as where to hold classes during construction, or exploration of designs that would suit the Middle School's current and future mission, curriculum, extra-curricular and community needs, then the $12,000 spent so far was nothing more than a make-work project for two consultants as a salve for a temporarily engaged -- and angry -- public. We (and I say "we" because I was not on the Board at the time, and even now that I am, I'm still a taxpayer with kids in school) were promised a full-bore study on an aggressive timetable, a study that was described to us as follows:
"Passing the resolution means the Board will move ahead to flesh out the specifics of a plan to renovate and reconstruct portions of the Middle School using the latest “green” and energy-efficient technologies. The Board will engage professional architectural, engineering, and surveying firms to provide detailed plans and costs that will be shared with the community as the discussion moves forward. With community backing, this is a firm step to keep the Middle School located in the village, but the Board remains open-minded as they continue on their fact-finding process. Board President Rod Dressel wants to be certain that the Board has all of the information needed to make a decision before any concrete plans are put in place. To get that information, however, the District needs to make an investment of both human and financial resources. The Board’s vote enables the District to take this important step forward." (http://npcsd.edublogs.org/2008/02/04/a-recap-of-the-boards-decision/)
Note: "firms" is plural, three types of firms are indicated, the phrase "detailed plans" is used, and the need to have "all the information needed to make a decision." We have not even scratched the surface, and the Superintendent and solid majority of the School Board are already moving forward at great speed to cancel the remaining funding and use it for something else.
When I announced my candidacy for School Board, I promised to do all that I could to hold the New Paltz Central School District to its promises regarding the Middle School. I have been doing so. Consider this letter part of that effort. The full board is expected to hold its vote on redirecting the Middle School money to a poorly timed long-term facilities consultant at its next meeting, on January 7th at 7 PM at the High School. I will be voting "no." I hope you will come down to take part in this urgent matter.
Steve Greenfield
New Paltz
Tuesday, December 23, 2008
New Paltz Middle School renovation evaluation funding to be redirected?
According to Steve Greenfield, via comments at the new paltz gadfly: "If you have any further questions, please attend the January 7th board meeting at the high school, 7 PM for public comment. The board is about to vote to redirect its Middle School renovation evaluation funding to an unrelated project. Your presence is urgently needed if we are to have any hope of preventing this."
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
Steve Greenfield Announces Run for New Paltz Board of Education
In response to strong encouragement from broad sectors of the New Paltz Central School District community, Steve Greenfield is announcing that he will run in the May 20th, 2008 School Board election. Much of that support results from his recent efforts for preservation of the Middle School, and the overwhelming desire to strengthen the commitment of the board to full implementation. Others pointed towards the need to rectify the absence of representation for the interest of elementary-school children, the desire to move forward with healthy food initiatives, and the need for the board to take a more pro-active while Albany and Washington directives unfairly burden local property taxpayers to the point where expenses exceed means.
Greenfield explained the gaps in the incumbent School Board that he intends to fill. "Besides protecting the community's decision to preserve the historic Middle School, there are other key matters before the Board during the next term. Many of them are related to the sustainability of programming and control of tax levies during a time of dramatically rising fuel and employee health insurance costs; and others pertain to healthy, locally grown food and other aspects of environmental and economic responsibility. I would be a passionate advocate for progressive and sustainable solutions, and will promote an improved climate for public input into School Board decision-making on an ongoing basis -- the importance of which was demonstrated by the Middle School debate. It is also critical that parents of elementary school children have an advocate on the Board. With some board members having no children in our schools, and others having high-school aged children, and given that today's elementary school students will be the first group to feel the impact of the next term's decisions, this is a time when a stakeholder in those outcomes needs to be part of the decision-making process." Greenfield has 3 children who will attend elementary school over the next 8 years.
Former Deputy Mayor Rebecca Rotzler will be Greenfield's campaign manager. "I have come to know Steve as a dedicated community volunteer in many capacities, most significantly in his role as a firefighter, which was a result of recruiting his assistance in fundraising for our fire department. His dedication is reflected in his attention to his family, where his integrity and commitment to simply "doing the right thing" will benefit all of our children as a school board member."
Election Day for the New Paltz Central School district is May 20, 2008. For further information, contact Greenfield4OurKids@gmail.com, 532-0280.
Greenfield explained the gaps in the incumbent School Board that he intends to fill. "Besides protecting the community's decision to preserve the historic Middle School, there are other key matters before the Board during the next term. Many of them are related to the sustainability of programming and control of tax levies during a time of dramatically rising fuel and employee health insurance costs; and others pertain to healthy, locally grown food and other aspects of environmental and economic responsibility. I would be a passionate advocate for progressive and sustainable solutions, and will promote an improved climate for public input into School Board decision-making on an ongoing basis -- the importance of which was demonstrated by the Middle School debate. It is also critical that parents of elementary school children have an advocate on the Board. With some board members having no children in our schools, and others having high-school aged children, and given that today's elementary school students will be the first group to feel the impact of the next term's decisions, this is a time when a stakeholder in those outcomes needs to be part of the decision-making process." Greenfield has 3 children who will attend elementary school over the next 8 years.
Former Deputy Mayor Rebecca Rotzler will be Greenfield's campaign manager. "I have come to know Steve as a dedicated community volunteer in many capacities, most significantly in his role as a firefighter, which was a result of recruiting his assistance in fundraising for our fire department. His dedication is reflected in his attention to his family, where his integrity and commitment to simply "doing the right thing" will benefit all of our children as a school board member."
Election Day for the New Paltz Central School district is May 20, 2008. For further information, contact Greenfield4OurKids@gmail.com, 532-0280.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)