After several iterations, the Board of Education put its revised proposed long-range school facilities plan on the table at a special meeting held on Nov. 30. The proposal honors requests set forth in a petition circulated last spring and signed by 1,100 residents. Specifically, the board altered the plan to include the opening of the Salem facility and dropped the idea of building a brand new middle school, presumably on the 41-acres in Port North or on the 17-acre Guggenheim property owned by the district. The price tag for the initial plan was $75 million. The plan set forth last week is estimated at $85 million.

The current plan calls for the following grade configurations and enrollments. (For individual cost breakdowns by facility see page ** ):

Elementary schools (k-5): Weber-500 students; Salem-500 students; Daly-500 students; Manorhaven-500; Guggenheim-600.

Middle School (6-8)-- Sousa renovated and expanded for 1,200-1,300 students

High School (9-12)-- Schreiber renovated and expanded for 1,700 students.

According to an information packet compiled by the BOE, the plan provides for the following:

* meets the district's increase in enrollment:

September 1995- 3,760

September 2000- 4,413

September 2002- 4,716

September 2005- 5,057

September 2009- 5,396

(A year by year breakdown of projected grade enrollments through 2009/10 is on page * .)

* provides appropriate space to meet the new learning standards

* provides for appropriate technology space for students who are currently educated outside the district to return to their home school district, providing better educational opportunities at a lower cost.

* provides for ADA accessibility throughout the district.

* provides for adequate teaching spaces. Currently throughout the district, classroom and support spaces are inadequate.

* provides for the replacement of outdated and deteriorating equipment, particularly in the area of science at the middle school and high school.

* provides for better space for the increasing demand based on community expectations for after school and evening activities.

* provides for space for the pre-kindergarten program and central administration.

* makes use of all existing facilities, including opening Salem and eliminates all portables.

The information packet also explains that the BOE embarked on the design process by analyzing enrollment projections, developing an educational vision, soliciting the help of outside expertise and building on the work of the BOE's site-based committees.

An overview of what the plan involves for each facility is on page ***

Defending the hefty number for the proposal, Superintendent of Schools Dr. Al Inserra said that it's a result of a 45 percent increase in enrollment above the 1995 figure, a rise in learning standards and a dictum by the county to return special education students back to the district from outside placements. He also noted that even if the enrollment had not increased that much, the schools had not received much attention facilities-wise over the years and needed major renovations for things like technology updates, handicapped access and general classroom and support services space. He reported that learning sometimes takes place in remodeled storage closets.

He stated that this proposal overall is "educationally good" and "sets us up for the next generation."

The information packet contained the following debt service examples for amortizing $70 million and $80 million over 20 years:

Bond Amount Payment *Payment Tax Rate Yearly Cost for
Net 18% Aid Increase Avg. $10,000
						Assessed Val.
$70,000,000 6,097,976 5,000,340 $4.25/100 A.V. $425
$80,000,000 6,969,894 5,715,313 $4.86/100 A.V. $486
*Payment
Net 28% Aid'
$70,000,000 6,097,976 4,390,543 $3.73/100 A.V. $373
$80,000,000 6,969,894 5,018,324 $4.26 $426

* Under current law, the additional 10 percent state construction aid is available for projects that have been approved before June 30, 2000.

The debt service pages of the packet also indicated that four existing bonds will be paid off over the next six years, thereby resulting in a small decrease in the tax rate.

The board expects to approve the plan on Jan 4, subject to community feedback. (A regular Board of Ed. meeting is scheduled on Tuesday, Dec. 14.)

It's expected that the board will hold a public "town" meeting some time in January.

If the board adopts the plan on Jan. 4, the board will authorize the architect's contract, which identifies the scope of the work for the plan, at its regular board meeting on Jan. 18. At that point, the architect will create schematic designs, which include items like electrical wiring, plumbing, etc. and allow for better cost estimates.

At the same time, the board is currently interviewing construction managers for the project.

The architect's plans have to be completed by April 1 in order to hold a bond referendum by mid-May.

Another consideration in the timeline for most of the board members is the concern that the district could lose the extra 10 percent in state construction aid for the project being offered for this year, if the plan is not finalized by June 30, 2000.

While the meeting drew more of an audience than usual, it was composed of many teachers and staff from the school district. Several speakers thanked the board for performing the "daunting task" of reviewing and revising the facilities plan over the past two years.

That said, several speakers commented on the large cost estimated for the bond. Many said that the board will have to do an extraordinary job of convincing the taxpayers of the school district's need for a project of this scope, as well as justifying its price tag.

One speaker commented that it's going to be a "hard sell" to the community. Another said the $85 million ticket is a large psychological barrier (to getting it passed).

Another speaker urged the board to explain the pros and cons of what will happen without a substantial renovation and expansion to the facilities and to stress how little it will cost over time. Mrs. Kaufman feels the alternative to no plan will be a "trailer park." (One speaker noted that she appreciated the fact that school officials are limited in the amount of promotion they can do for a bond or budget.)

Ellen Ginsberg commented that even though the plan may be the "best" one, she did not think it would be approved at $85 million.

It should be noted that the board may still reduce the plan. At the request of board member Nancy Cowles, the architect is taking another look at the plans to consider eliminating one classroom in each of the elementary schools. The number of fixtures in the bathrooms appears to be excessive too, (Debra Odell noted that at one school the ratio was 1 toilet for 5 students), and is also being reviewed by the architect.

One area that might have reduced the cost was reported on for this meeting. The board had asked the architect to estimate the cost savings of not increasing the class room sizes of undersized classrooms at Daly and Salem to the state standard of 900 square feet. For this, the reduction at Salem would have been $300,000 and at Daly it would have been $700,000. The board decided that undersized classrooms at Daly were a critical issue that had to be addressed. For Salem, the $300,000 difference seemed minimal considering that the educational planner advised that larger classroom space should be considered a priority for elementary students. (At previous meetings the board chose not to increase the size of all of the classrooms to 900 square feet at the middle and high school, feeling it did not impact the educational program in the same way.)

Speakers expressed views on both sides of the issue of overbuilding versus underbuilding. Stan Ronnell believes that the district should "do it right the first time," favoring the option to "expand a little bit more."

One of the HSA presidents said that shaving $1 million here or adding $1 million there really would not have an impact on getting the bond passed. She said, essentially that at the $85 million range, a few million is not a factor. She added emphatically, "$20 million, yes!."

Former school board member Ken Beuttner commented that recent boards underestimated schools sizes and future population. He hopes the project will move forward with the community realizing that compromises have to be made and unfortunately money has to be spent and changes made. He urged the board to "get it done properly."

A few audience members spoke in opposition to the plan because it includes one large middle school. Ellen Ginsberg favors 2 smaller middle schools because she feels the students have twice the opportunity to join the band, sports teams, etc., and to excel more in general.

Michele Tashman also favors two smaller middle schools, or a k-6 grade reconfiguration with a 7-8 jr. high.

Robin Schroeder opposes the idea of the two smaller middle schools. She thinks it would result in very large elementary schools (Manorhaven and Salem max out at about 500 students per facility, leaving Guggenheim and Daly to split the remaining 1,600 of the 2,600 elementary school students projected).

One speaker criticized the plan for the middle school at Sousa as being a costly "patchwork." She feels the educational program (the house system) has to fit into an existing building, rather than building a new school to accommodate that program.

Jim Cowles objected to this characterization. He feels the plan looked like a very logical extension of the building that would provide a fine educational facility for students. He says Sousa can be redone to supplement the house program, allowing for small schools within schools, plus providing the needed additional spaces.

(Ed's note: Due to the length of the meeting and space considerations, this report will continue next week. It will include various sentiments expressed during the meeting and review some side issues mentioned by the board and audience.)