Voters approved the bulk upgrades and improvements proposed across Guilderland schools, but secondary expenditures that district officials believed could seen as more frivolous failed at the polls.
Guilderland Central School District on Thursday, Nov. 14, presented residents with two building project propositions totaling $18.17 million. The first proposal totaling $17.32 million passed, with 897 votes in favor and 790 opposed. That proposition included infrastructure upgrades, safety and security improvements, and districtwide technology upgrades. The second proposition, totaling around $845,000 failed, with 857 opposed and 829 supporting. That would have included high school auditorium renovations and replacing football field light poles.
Superintendent of Schools Marie Wiles said she was “very thankful” voters passed the first proposition.
“The work involved in that proposition is vitally important to our school district and our facilities,” Wiles said. “We very much believe it is necessary to protect our investment in our facilities, and we are looking forward to being able to do some additional work to enhance the safety of our school buildings.”
Wiles said the two projects in the second proposal were “probably less essential” than some of the “very basic work” included in the first proposal.
“I think that we knew that the nature of that work was a little bit different than the rest of the work in the project,” she said, “and that is why we separated it out and the community told us it is not as much a priority as the other.”
The second and smaller proposal was contingent upon the first proposition being approved by voters. The first proposal did not require the second to be approved.
The approved proposition results in an annual tax increase of $65 for a home in the Town of Guilderland assessed at $246,500, the median value. The second proposition would have likely resulted in an annual tax increase of $3.
Facilities Committee members recommended separating the two proposals because it was believed the larger proposal best captured needed facility improvements.
Assistant Superintendent for Business Neil Sanders was unsure what the outcome would have been if both proposals were combined into one.
“We don’t know the thoughts of the voters when they go to the polls,” Sanders said.
Wiles said if two proposals were combined and voters choose to reject it, that would have been “a very bad thing.”
Wiles previously said many of the items included in the first proposal were things the “average homeowner” would understand as needed.
“I think these are the types of needs people deal with in their homes all the time,” Sanders said, “so you don’t have to stretch too far to understand you need to replace a roof after many years … and those sorts of things.”
Building infrastructure upgrades totaling $14 million were a majority of the first proposal’s cost. Some of the more expensive improvements this includes are roof replacements ($4.7 million), parking lot paving ($2 million), boiler and controls replacement ($1.2 million), flooring replacement ($978,300) and mechanical equipment replacement ($971,400).
Technology improvements total $1.8 million and address mobile labs, wireless access points, classroom technology, network switches and uninterruptible power supply.
Security and safety enhancements total $1.48 million and deal with lobby modifications, classroom and office locksets, security cameras, door access swipe card readers and computer server upgrades.
For those turning out to the polls, it was possibly their second week casting a ballot.
Sanders said the vote was scheduled for Nov. 14 because of the timeframe required for the project. The committee also did not complete its work until the end of June after the district’s annual budget vote.
Holding the vote on Election Day would not be ideal, he said, because polling locations for the district and local elections are different. He questioned how many people would make the effort to cast ballots at two different polling locations.
He said the school’s vote might have been perceived as political if held on the same day, too.
Wiles said voter turnout was consistent with previous capital project votes, but less than a typical budget vote.
There were approximately 1,100 fewer votes for the Nov. 14 project referendum vote than the 2013-14 budget. Almost 1,690 votes were cast to approved the first proposition.
Project design and development is planned to last around six months, with the district in July 2014 submitting the project to the State Education Department for review. Assuming the state approves it, then bidding and awarding of contracts would be completed in March 2015.
The first phase of construction would begin in the spring of 2015 and completed that August. The second phase would then begin and be completed during the summer of 2016.
