Published 9:51 pm, Tuesday, April 1, 2014
To the Editor:
At the recent Region 12 hearing regarding the proposed consolidated elementary school, there were bankers, lawyers and architects, all of whom have a lot to gain from the construction of a new consolidated school and very little to gain if voters say no.
They, along with our Region 12 administration and those representing them, told the public it will save taxpayers' money to bond $35 million to pay for the new school and repairs to the middle/high school, plus another $15 milllion in interest.
People wondered how it would be possible to take on $50 million of new debt and at the same time, lower our taxes.
Here is the straight talk.
The vast majority of the alleged savings are based on staff reductions -- cutting our teachers, paraprofessionals, administrators, etc.
These proposed cuts are based on predictions by Dr. Prowda, whom the region hired to predict future student enrollment out to year 2023. His latest report is available on the Region 12 website.
Here is a quote from Dr. Prowda's report summary: "This remains a difficult time to predict future enrollment... it is critical to remember that a projection is just a moving forward of recent trends... this projection should be used as a starting point for local planning."
The Region 12 administration is not using these projections as a starting point, they are hanging their hat on them.
Dr. Prowda predicts the number of elementary students in 2023 will drop nearly 50 percent to 221 students. Thus, the administration can cut loads of teachers and staff and claim this will result in $79 million in savings.
Enrollment numbers tend to be cyclical over time -- they go up and go down. If this happens, there would be no $79 million in staff savings to justify this $50 million expenditure.
More importantly, in order for the Region 12 administration to show such extreme savings, it has compared the consolidated configuration to the current three hometown schools without any staff reductions through 2023.
The proposed school budget for next year shows a reduction of a kindergarten teacher at Burnham as the plan is to combine this small class with another, therefore eliminating a teacher.
However, the $79 million in savings assumes two teachers in these classes every year forward, thus making the pitch for consolidation look all the better.
In fact, all the projected savings for consolidation are based on assumptions the region doesn't implement any other remedies for the next 30 years... none.
Not one other solution, not one plan to bring in more students, not one plan to combine classes between schools, nothing at all. This simply is not reality.
When this vote fails, new cost savings and enrollment solutions that meet the needs of all the towns must be considered.
In addition, repairs to the middle/high school only address the next five years. As a member of the long-range planning committee, I heard time and time again from Board of Ed members and administration that Shepaug Valley Middle/High School was "crumbling under our feet."
Significant improvements and repairs must be done in years five to 25. This will involve more bonds, more debt, more cost to taxpayers.
Also, each town would be saddled with the cost of the existing elementary school buildings.
Whether the buildings are repurposed or razed, there would be costs associated that would be the responsibility of the taxpayers.
In addition, studies confirm what we all suspect, that a town without a school would see a drop in real estate values.
For Roxbury and Bridgewater, which would be the first two towns in Connecticut without a school, this would be a serious and costly implication.
In summary, a new consolidated school would raise taxes. The cost savings projections are false and are based on assumptions no one in Region 12 should accept.
Who wins in this scenario? The bankers, the architects, the builders.
Who loses? The students, the teachers, the taxpayers and the communities left without their high-performing schools.
Co-chairwoman
Save Our Schools
Bridgewater
No comments:
Post a Comment