New Middle School Question Goes to Voters
A $31 million bond will be placed on the ballot in March.
It will be up to voters in March if they want to add another school in Windham. The School Board voted Friday night to place a $31 million bond on the ballot to build a new seventh and eighth grade middle school on London Bridge Road.
Included in this bond is $1.9 million for a new multi-purpose turf and field complex at Windham High School.
The warrant for the bond will require 60 percent of the vote to pass.
If the new middle school is approved, the older one will house grades four, five and six. Golden Brook would house kindergarten through grade two and Center School would house grades three and four.
Currently grade three is split between Golden Brook Elementary School and Windham Center School.
Because the three schools are over capacity by more than 700 students as of December 2012 (excluding the portables at Golden Brook,) programs have been cut or modified.
Students are learning music and art from mobile carts, with no dedicated rooms. World language and enrichment classes have been cut in the lower grades, and physical education times have been reduced in first grade because of increased class size. Some teaching is done in the hallways.
It was stated at the hearing Friday night that the Fire Department has asked the schools to stop using the stairwells and hallways for teaching.
During the two-hour session Friday, the School Board outlined the plan and answered questions from citizens.
Some asked why the district couldn’t come up with a smaller solution.
The board answered that it did not want to just “kick the can just a little further down the road” with a temporary solution that would require coming back in a couple of years for another expansion plan.
The board said the operating cost of the new building would be around $1 million per year. This includes the total operating cost (teachers, lights, etc.) However, no hard numbers have been determined yet and they will be refining the numbers as it gets closer to the vote. There will be some cost savings since there will be most likely be a reduction of an assistant principle at the current middle school.
Some questioned why an addition just couldn’t be added to the existing high school. The response was that 87,000 sq. ft. is needed and that a new administration would have to still be hired as the skill sets for middle and high school staff is different.
Also, building at the new high school would mean demolishing part of the new high school, and this would mean additional costs for demolition, roads, parking, lighting, sewer and water, and an updated HVAC system.
In addition, the seventh and eighth grades would have to be isolated from the high school and that would mean common space such and the cafeteria, gym and auditorium would not be able to be shared.
If nothing is done, it is projected that the current middle school will have a 1:40 teacher/student ratio.
A slide presentation showing photographs of the overcrowding situation was shown to the 30 or so citizens who showed up at the hearing Friday.
School Board Chairman Bruce Anderson was very vocal about the current middle school’s lack of science labs and technical education. He referred to a photo of eight middle school students around a hot plate doing experiments.
“This is not a lab,” he said. “It’s one or two students doing the work and the remaining six students observing a demonstration.”
He added that the high school has to compensate for the skills that were not learned in middle school.
“This is what I was referring to when I say that our school system is not effective,” said Kevin Lefebvre, one of the founders of WINS – Windham Initiative for a New School. “Teachers at the upper levels have to compensate for the students not being taught enough at the lower levels which is costing us money at the upper levels.”
Lefebvre added that the school tax impact would not reach the high water mark of Fiscal Year 2012.
“Taxes may creep up a bit because of the high school and middle school bonds, but as the high school bond is paid off, taxes will begin to go down,” he said.
The proposed solution for economic tax impact for a home valued at $300,000 was $701.94 for FY12. It will drop to $461.34 in FY13 and creep up to $700.70 by FY16. It will then lower each year as the bond for the new middle school is paid off.
WINS is holding informal neighborhood meetings to talk with residents about the new middle school solution to overcrowding.
GrassisGreener
8:55 am on Tuesday, January 15, 2013
Patch-
Can you detail out the tax impact you're displaying as I heard it stated at the meeting the 1st Year's impact was $0.66 / $1,000. That's $198 over and above what we're paying today. The WHS Bond is $1.58 / $1,000 in FY2013. Certainly the $0.66 will go up as the larger amount is Bonded. Perhaps showing the details of today (WHS) vs. the New WMS would help provide some clarity.
Also, FWIW there is no impact on FY2012 for this proposed solution and a $701.94 increase is a tax impact of $2.34.
Invictus
10:52 am on Tuesday, January 15, 2013
I have 3 kids in the school district and I won't vote in favor of this. It is too expensive. There are simpler, cheaper alternatives.
GrassisGreener
7:38 pm on Tuesday, January 15, 2013
Invictus,
To provide some perspective, for every $1M you make it "cheaper" over a 25 year Bond that equals $0.02 / $1,000 on the tax rate. Hypothetically, if you cut off $10M that is $58.76 / year on a $300K home. I suspect your kids education is worth $20 each no?
Dave
10:59 am on Tuesday, January 15, 2013
Although I'm not sure this is exactly what they are planning, I believe they were going to try and balance the declining HS bond with the MS bond to keep the annual payment somewhat stable. See slide 28 in this older presentation. I would also like to see this updated with new numbers based on the new proposal.
http://www.windhamsd.org/schbdinfo/WSB_2012_Facilities_Progress_Report.pdf
Michael Ryan
11:03 am on Tuesday, January 15, 2013
Hi all, I have posted the Presentation from Friday's meeting above, which should provide some more clarification.
Thanks,
Mike
GrassisGreener
7:26 pm on Tuesday, January 15, 2013
Thanks Michael. That helps clarify.
So your article should probably state something like the following as it currently reads as if this solution is going to increase taxes by $700 for a home valued at $300K!:
The current High School economic tax impact for a home valued at $300,000 was $701.94 for FY12. It will drop to $461.34 in FY13. If approved, the proposed solution, including the existing High School Bond's will creep up to $700.70 by FY16. It will then lower each year as the bond for the new middle school is paid off.
Basically, the Capital Tax Impact of this proposed solution will never be greater than the Windham High School Bond's that we're paying today.
soc
6:23 am on Wednesday, January 16, 2013
But the operational costs live forever!
Nate
12:04 pm on Tuesday, January 15, 2013
If this passes I will gladly pay since thats the way it works in this country.If it does not pass I would expect to stop hearing excuses of overcrowding and more solutions and ideas from teachers and admins to work with what they have and stop using the overcrowding as a crutch.
Chris
12:22 pm on Tuesday, January 15, 2013
Lets throw in some pork just like the big boys in congress, 1.9 MILLION for yet another filed at our already bloated - spend $ we do not have - High School.. ENOUGH please - please let the sane majority shoot this down when brought to vote. And Yes, Yes I Have 2 Kids in The WSD.
OKC
6:12 pm on Tuesday, January 15, 2013
Pork. Give me a break. The high school fields are ridiculous. I have a student athlete in the high school and it is embarrassing to host a playoff game. I have lived in 13 places and my kids have attended schools in 8 different school districts while I served this great country for 20 years. This is the first place where people ever got to vote on something like this. Frankly improving our schools and our athletic facilities should be something that we do for our kids. Taxes are lower here than anywhere I lived so all I can say is consider yourself lucky. Everywhere else the politicians just spend the money. We buy fire trucks, police cars and dump trucks yet will not spend the money to build fields that should have been built 5 years ago. Heck the town wants to renovate a stupid castle. One man one vote. Hopefully the responsible majority votes for our kids and not their own selfish interests.
soc
6:19 am on Wednesday, January 16, 2013
Monty,
With all due respect why did you move to New Hampshire? Where your child might have to get a dirty uniform during a game they are one of the only high school students that is issued a laptop at the beginning of their tenure in the state. Which is more important to you? Additionally if you lived in a location with artificial turf, they probably had lights/stands/etc as the only way the can really justify costs. (cost per usage) Or be able to establish some revenue stream to offset costs (sport camp rentals, etc) Last it is a misconception that it is a one time cost, it has a lifetime to the point that we will be replacing the field probably the day the bond is paid off. The bottom line is people her are 'tax conscience' and follow what we spend money *maybe* that is why it has a lower tax load. Last, building the building is really only about 1/3rd the cost and it declines over the years. The other 2/3rds are the operational costs and teachers salaries and benefits. This solution is NOT a silver bullet in my eyes.
Chris
9:29 am on Wednesday, January 16, 2013
hope you fell the same when you move on to your next port of call - and you lose your shirt with the sale of your home. or do you rent??
and for the record - Windham public schools spend $7,010 per student. The average school expenditure in the U.S. is $5,691. There are about 15.5 students per teacher in Windham.
and surely in direct correlation with - Compared to the rest of the country, Windham's cost of living is 44.90% Higher than the U.S. average.
and if you only knew how many families with "challenged children" move here for our school system.. A MN lawmaker was recently exposed for moving his wife and two sons, one suffers from seizures - HERE while still repping MN
Oh ya, we are cheaping out on our kids...
soc
1:02 pm on Wednesday, January 16, 2013
Chris,
I don't know where you are pulling these numbers however if you use a student population of 2700 in the town....
The amount spent currently/this year is - 16,220 per student. Of this 11,830 per student comes from local taxes, 2720 comes from the state property tax, lottery, etc and the rest from federal and other source (1/2 of which no longer exist such as building aid) such as medicare, food sales, and the 600k surplus left over from the previous year
Chris
2:17 pm on Wednesday, January 16, 2013
http://www.bestplaces.net/city/new_hampshire/windham
soc
8:31 am on Tuesday, January 29, 2013
Has this been discussed: RE new state school building funding:
"The new system for School Building Aid will become effective in Fiscal Year 2014 which begins on July 1, 2013. The moratorium for votes by the legislative body continues through June 30, 2013. Districts that vote to approve a project prior to July 1, 2013 will not be eligible to receive School Building Aid for that project."
Nickjo
3:59 pm on Monday, February 4, 2013
People it is simple. We do it now or later. It has to be done. Our town is growing not shrinking and it is an embarrassment that students in the town have to sqeeze into rooms too small, high student to teacher ratio, no labs and no room to grow. Our Athletic fields are embarrassing, damgerous and cost too much to maintain. The fields will also become a bigger issue as the town grows. Money is cheaper then it will be in five years and it is obvious that the school board has considered evertything they can to keep our tax burben at or close to what it has been. If you save on the taxes you'll pay when people stop wanting to live here and your property values drop. Our kids are worth the investment. How can anyone argue that??
Chris
4:59 pm on Monday, February 4, 2013
"no labs" + "athletic fields are embarrassing"? Wrong and wronger. Take a tour of the surrounding communities, our fields are outstanding - sorry you have to bring your own folding chair, oh the horrors. And surely you have not been to the brand new HS to see the labs (do not try to tell me we should have labs in grade school) - if anyone feels our fields or labs are not sufficient for their own children, take the old school approach and find the ultimate private school. Get what YOU pay for.
And my favorite is that money is cheaper now than in five years - The economy is at an all time bad, people losing their jobs + homes but its surely a good time to dig our holes deeper. We all have the right to our opinions, See you at the poles.
A
5:43 pm on Monday, February 4, 2013
i hope you're talking about the younger grades. at the high school our student-teacher ratio is just fine and our labs are quite good. and how on earth are the fields embarrassing?
Celia Brown
4:26 pm on Monday, February 4, 2013
As in the CIP made less than two years ago, there are more ost-effective options than building a new standalone facility. For that reason, and that reason alone I am voting NO on the upcoming school warrant article.
I have two kids in WMS today and care just as much as the next person. However we cannot afford THE most expensive option (when considering total loaded cost) when a lesser option provides the needed room and a lower total loaded cost.
Thank you school board for your valuable information and hope we get something built in the next few years.