New Hampshire: The Real FactsSubject: Keene Ad Hoc Middle School Committee Report
Subject: Ad Hoc Middle School Committee Report
Importance: High
Folks,
Tonight (Wednesday, April 2, 2008) I went to the Middle School Ad Hoc committee meeting. Basically the entire meeting was taken up with still going forward with interviewing architects and developing a plan to use the $1,000,000 revenue surplus for complete architectural drawings. Below are my thoughts:
Committee members:
Dotty Frazier – Principle MS
Don Parker – Board member
Neil Donegan – Board Chair
Liz Coppola – Chair of Finance – Board
Carol Burns – Chair of Ad Hoc Committee
John Harper – SAU 29 Business Manager
Carmelina Tonkinson – PTA President
Richard Beard – Engineer (Citizen)
Tom Remillard – School Maintenance Director
Bill Gurney – School Superintendent
Fred Parsells – Citizen
Kurt ???? - Citizen
Initial thoughts:
In March, Keene citizens turned down a one million dollar bond for the complete architectural drawings for a new middle school. However, they approved a reasonable school budget increase. Part of that approval was based on the fact that $1,000,000 of revenue surplus would be returned to the Keene citizens. Ms Coppola is now lobbying to use that $1,000,000 surplus, promised to go back to the tax payers, for the start of complete architectural drawings, thus, disregarding the good faith of the voters who approved the budget on this money being returned. She actually won her case last night at a full board meeting on a vote of 5 to 3. If Chris Coates had been there (a no show) it probably would have been 5 to 4. Nevertheless, this lobbying is resulting in a potential public hearing to determine if citizens want to spend this $1,000,000 revenue surplus. John Wrigley has been instructed to explore the uses of this surplus with the NH Department of Revenue.
Even if Ms Coppola is successful, the start of the complete drawings would probably take place around July. Detailed drawings take about a year to complete and it would be highly unlikely that enough of it would be finished to get a proper quotation from any respectable construction company before another vote is taken in March of 2009. So, this strategy gains almost nothing in terms of timing.
To the credit of Neil Donegan, Carol Burns, and Eric Murphy, who voted against using the surplus, they still, at this point, represent a minority.
The Board and Ad Hoc Committee believes that if they do not hasten the process then the fire marshal would force them to make Step 2 and Step 3 code requirements which they estimate to be about $10,000,000 or more dollars. I disagree with this entire assessment. All they really need to do is address the educational specifications and they should win approval by next March. Of course, that leaves the big problem of selling the building. There are indications that there may be already one (possibly two) interested parties. However, we cannot count on that.
The bottom line is that the $1,000,000 belongs to the tax payers. They have no right to take this away.
Carl
Comments
Clarification
The vote was for a public hearing to listen to the public's sentiment about the use of the funds. The vote was not a vote for or against using the surplus. (The post states that Murphy, Donegan and Brown voted against using the surplus, but that was not the motion.)
Also, in terms of "they represent a minority"- all of the other board members said they were not certain at all- far from it- about the use. I myself said this during the meeting- though I felt that the costs that the tax payers will have to bear for the school was at least as worthy a cause as the renovation of Alumni Field. Last year the field hearing did occur and after which the board voted 8-1 against (Coates voted to use the surplus). The future of the middle school- which is going to be very costly whatever way one looks at it- was at least to be as important an issue as the Alumni Field (not even close really) - hence my yes for the hearing. I said during the formal meeting and directly afterwards directly to Mr. Panza I was strongly learning against the use.