Bethlehem Central School District officials are continuing to seek feedback from the community about bonding for facilities upgrades, and on a Monday, Sept. 10, forum, it was clear there is mixed opinion about the idea.
At the meeting, the district presented a state-mandated five-year plan developed by the district in 2011.
It identified about $9.1 million of upgrades to be made over 10 years to fix up buildings, upgrade water and lighting fixtures and replace aging equipment. About another $4 million would be needed to make expansive athletic facilities improvements and I.T. system upgrades.
The district is already about two years behind with the upgrades, and with budget constraints few options remain available but to bond for the projects.
“Putting something off or not addressing it will have cause and effects down the road. We all have to be cognizant of that,” said Superintendent Tom Douglas, who added if a bond cannot be agreed upon, many of the projects would still need to be done. The money would then need to be found in the budget, potentially placing more programs on the chopping block.
BC Operations and Maintenance Director Gregg Nolte said the main concern is protecting the structural integrity of each of the district’s 11 facilities and 22 out-buildings and ensuring the health and safety of students and staff. Nolte’s department has identified repairs needed to the roofs at Slingerlands and Glenmont Elementary schools and at the high school, with façade and masonry repairs needed at the middle school.
Technology upgrades are needed for the district to support a new state mandate that calls for all standardized testing to be done online starting in 2014.
Since 1989, the district has taken out five bonds totaling $128 million. Money from the two most recent bonds was used to build Eagle Elementary, make infrastructure improvements and to build additional space to move to full-day kindergarten.
Douglas said the public should keep in mind interest rates are low and by bonding the district would be eligible for state aid. The district typically receives a 71 percent aid-to-bond ratio, which means taxpayers would usually pay about 29 percent of a bond. However, that number can not be confirmed until a plan is in place and paperwork has been submitted.
Former bond, sports debated
After a short presentation, those in attendance on Monday were split into groups to talk about the projects. They were asked to identify what they felt were priority items, how much they would be willing to bond for and if they would prefer smaller, systematic bonds to one large bond.
Many in attendance said they would like to see more transparency from the district.
Participants felt information should be placed online throughout the process and perhaps a survey should be conducted so more feedback could be gathered from the community at large, not just those with children at the district. Others wanted more definite numbers about state aid and a breakdown of how much certain bond sizes would cost taxpayers per home.
“Let’s talk about the elephant in the room,” said High School Principal Scott Landry, reporting for his table. “There is still a lot of perceived mistrust over the $93 million bond and I think that is hovering over this whole discussion.”
Some participants said they felt slighted by the 2003 bond because only half of the money went to infrastructure projects, which they presumed would have taken care of all the needed upgrades. Also, a full half of the money was used to create Eagle Elementary to deal with growing attendance, but in 2011 the district decided to close Clarksville Elementary.
Opinion was split on weather the district should bond to upgrade athletic facilities.
Last December, three fathers and sports booster club members began a grassroots campaign to bond for a new synthetic turf field and track, lights for the high school gymnasium and replacement of three sets of bleachers. The district estimates the work would cost between $2.5 and $3.5 million, but those supporting the bond estimate the cost to be much lower.
Some at Monday’s meeting did not feel the athletic improvements to be a necessity, while others felt it is the poor condition of the facilities damages school pride.
“I’m 100 percent opposed to an artificial turf,” said parent Jeff Brown. “I don’t think it’s a priority, I don’t think it’s an urgency, I don’t think it’s touching anywhere near the number of students that that kind of money is meant to touch.”
Jim Giacone, one of the parents originally arguing for the project, said sports and extracurricular activities help children become well rounded and studies show they improve test scores.
“Literally pigeon holes, like $500,000 out of an $80 million budget, goes to extracurricular activities that help kids make smart choices,” he said. “So I think if there is any way we can put in a couple million for the kids on the state’s dime and partly ours to keep a positive atmosphere, I’m for it.”
The district plans to hold an addition forum at the end of September in hopes more community members will join in on the discussion. Further talks on the topic will take place at future Board of Education meetings. If the board approves a bond, the community would also have to pass the measure by referendum.
