Anger Flares At Public Hearing On BCS Bond

by Phillip M. Zema
On December 8, the residents of the Berlin School District will vote on the $19,705,000 referendum to fund capital improvements to the buildings and facilities in the School District, but there are those in the community who are skeptical of the project’s merits. At the December 1 public hearing many from this camp voiced their frustrations and concerns. The Board did provide those in attendance with a number of informative documents, and both an architect and financial analyst gave PowerPoint® presentations which highlighted the major economic and construction details underlying the project. Many, however, were still adamantly opposed to the referendum, and some accused the School Board of deliberately misleading the public. Despite the Board’s best efforts to answer their questions, some were still unconvinced. At times, disagreements came in the form of angry shouting, and several crowd members, clearly irate, stormed out of the auditorium. Frank Zwack, President of the Board, was required to pound his gavel to keep order.
The hearing began with a presentation from one of the chief architects of the project, Doug Dickenson. He articulated where the additions and renovations would take place, and he explained why they were necessary. In short, in order to comply with ADA regulations, the District must construct an elevator and handicap accessible bathrooms in the elementary school. Moreover, a number of ventilation, heating and electrical upgrades are necessary, as well as roof repairs, parking lot improvements, masonry work, asbestos replacement and window replacements (particularly in the elementary school where the windows date back to 1936). The elementary school will see the addition of six classrooms, and they will particularly function as kindergarten and pre-k rooms. With these additions, the school will have 18 classrooms (three for each grade, kindergarten – fifth), two special education classrooms and two pre-k classrooms. The existing classrooms will be expanded so that their square footage complies with State Education Department requirements. The School District’s website provides more of the construction/renovation details.
Dickenson’s report was followed by a financial report. The financial report discussed the project’s costs and effects on taxpayers. The project requires $19.705m to be invested in elementary school renovations and construction, additional site work, high school renovations and construction and other operational expenditures. These costs include the many legal, construction, assessment and other investment-related expenses. The exact cost of each individual project can be accessed at Berlin’s website. The financial advisor emphasized that the total sum was a generous estimate, and so the total amount of expenditures might actually be lower. Moreover, the $19.705m is the maximum amount the District can spend. Under law, the District cannot spend a penny more than the amount voted, and if the project’s expenses are actually lower, the District will not spend the savings. The presenter, however, noted that people will not be voting on the interest the District pays, only the construction, renovation and other related costs. Since the renovation’s bond payment will not occur until 2013, interest rates may be higher than expected. Members of the Board claimed that the District’s five-year budget plan is compatible with what would happen if interest rates were higher than expected. Yet, there appeared to be agreement that a dramatic hike in interest rates is unlikely.
Beginning in 2013, payment on the referendum will begin, and it will continue until 2027. The bond totals $17,880,375. The rest of the project amount will be paid for by Excel Aid and the District’s cash and Capital Reserve Fund. Ultimately there will be an increase school taxes. The presenter gave estimates on how one’s taxes would increase. He included factors like whether the individual was a senior on STAR. Shortly after the tax was discussed, members of the audience became agitated.
The general concern was that the presenter made it seem like the average home was worth $125k. An audience member claimed that this estimate was wildly inaccurate. In reality, he claimed, the average market value of area homes is considerably more. The individual demanded that measures be taken to ensure the community was made aware of this misrepresentation. The Board’s general response to this criticism was that if one were to call the District’s business office and provide the market value of his or her home, the District would give an estimate as to how much the school taxes would increase.
Another worry – a worry vehemently articulated by several members of the audience – was that since the community is already burdened by heavy taxes and a struggling economy (e.g. loss of jobs, increase in state debt, proposed budget cuts to education and an astonishingly high cost of living), the fear is that people simply cannot afford another tax increase. Accordingly, the referendum would only exacerbate an ongoing economic problem. The general reply by Schools Superintendent Charlotte Gregory and several Board members was that while these considerations are true, it is not the school’s fault for the failing economy or high State taxes. The Board and administration, they argued, are simply trying to look out for the best interest of the District, and they are presenting the public with a proposal they can either accept or reject.
Along the same lines as the last complaint, some feared that the project would compromise the amount of funding that could be invested in various educational and operational services. The district, they feared, would simply lack the economic means to support educational advancements (e.g. improved technology), transportation improvements (e.g. a better bus garage) and maintenance requirements (e.g. keeping the heating system fully functioning). While the Board was divided over the severity of this issue, their response was that the school would, as needed, set aside the funding necessary to support these services. Funding for such projects would be incorporated into the budget, but the public would have the opportunity to vote on it.
Another skeptic pointed out that schools like Mt. Greylock, in Williamstown, MA, have recently gone through a similar process, but, unlike Berlin, they provided a number of project proposals to the public and gave the community the option to choose which referendum they preferred. This procedure, it was claimed, allowed the public to make a truly educated decision. Also, there was concern that the amount of funding necessary to educate each individual student is already vastly more than most school districts and the project, therefore, would only increase this number. Finally, people rejected the claim that closing Stephentown and Grafton would actually save the District money.
In closing, the Superintendent, School Board, committees, architects and financial planners stressed that a substantial amount of time and energy was invested in the referendum. The result of their efforts was a proposal that they felt would satisfy the District’s needs. By closing the elementary schools, they claimed they would save considerably on operational, educational and upkeep costs, by adding classrooms and renovating both schools, they claimed to satisfy NY State mandates and fulfill student needs. In many respects, the issue is emotionally and politically charged, and people disagree about the project’s advantages and disadvantages. Nonetheless, it is clear that both sides want the public to be fully informed. Although the vote will happen soon, the public can access relevant information at http://www.berlincentral.org/capital%20project/Capital%20Project.htm. All are encouraged to do so.