Decatur Schools Bond Referedum Vote May Be Pushed Back Until 2014
Decatur Metro | July 5, 2013In an item on the School Board’s July 9th agenda titled – “Bond Referendum Date Move from November 2013 to 2014″, Superintendent Phyllis Edwards writes…
In June, the Board approved the request to send the Commissioners the request to approve for a referendum in November of 2013. At each discussion of the Master plan, the schedule was always discussed. The Commission would need to approve this request by August 5th in order to meet the various publishing in a legal manner and also meet other requirements. There is a 90 day requirement in place according to our Bond Attorney and legal counsel.
The plan to have the two entities meet in a worksession was hindered by calendar issues. The Commission according to our City Charter, must approve the request for a referendum. The concern raised is one of having the city understand the plan and the need in more details before asking them to vote. The difficult timeline has always been an issue.
If the bond referendum is placed in 2014, it will give the school system more time to share the information and facts with the citizens and the city leaders. There are certainly pros and cons to this discussion. Pros include the time to hold additional discussions and fully inform others; the ability to document this year’s projections against the actual enrollment ( we are at 96%) at this time; the ability to continue discussions with DOE relative to their formula for building the amount of necessary classrooms. The school system has a number of projects in the works for this school year including the start of planned construction of renovating the old gym into some instructional units and the completion of 8 classrooms at the 4/5 Academy; the reopening of Westchester for the 2014 year and the selection of a Principal for the school by the spring.
Naturally on the con side the loss of a year will mean that we will have to account for classroom spaces in other methods; such as portables for an additional year.
This is the largest request we plan to make of the citizens. The need is clearly apparent to those of us working in the school system but equally important to make sure that we inform as many others as possible.
h/t: Patch
in other words, you’re saying there’s still a chance we can annex West Paces Ferry Rd in order to dramatically expand our tax digest.
cool.
um. leasing Medlock Elementary instead maybe
Medlock is being used as a school and is not sitting empty.
that’s my understanding. it was leased, right?
You want more money from me? Pretty sure a year won’t make a difference in my answer…but perhaps.
Pretty sure a year won’t make a difference in the outcome, either.
Depends what you believe the outcome will be.
The outcome will be that the bond referendum is approved.
This is the most confusing thing I’ve ever read. (And I’ve spent some time this summer perusing condo documents, insurance policies and sales contracts.) Is there a typo in the first paragraph and it should read “2014” instead of “2013”?
I don’t think so but I’m not sure either. I think this message is trying to say that the Board voted for one thing in June, to have a referendum in 2013, but now CSD has changed its mind and would like to postpone the referendum to 2014.
Not being on top of this issue, but knowing it’s real important, I’m ok with postponing because
– the more info the better
– a new Board will be here soon. IMHO, the Board that has to deal with the consequences should be the Board that puts forward the referendum.
I know that we don’t want to be too slow about responding to the burgeoning enrollment but, given the price tag, we also need to get this right.
So is the message here really this: In June the board voted to go ahead and ask the City to approve a Nov 2013 referendum on the Master Plan; the Commission’s approval would have to be given no later than Aug. 5 in order to comply with public notice requirements and other stuff. Meanwhile, CSD thinks it important for the City to have opp’ty to hear details & understand whole schmear before voting, yet plans for a joint City/CSD work session have been foiled by calendar conflicts. CSD has known (and acknowledged) throughout this process that the accelerated timeline to reach the referendum was problematic. CSD now wants to punt the referendum to 2014. Upside: more opp’tys for City leadership and community stakeholders to dig in and understand rationale and ask questions and get answers; and CSD can focus on near-term projects already in train for the coming year. Downside: another year of provisional solutions for needed additional classroom space. Inside CSD, it’s obvious why we need to do this, but we realize it’s going nowhere unless/until we convince enough folks in the community (City officials and other thought leaders) that it’s the best course of action.
This is not a baited question–is that the gist?
I think you nailed it STG.
I, for one, regardless of the ultimate outcome, appreciate that the school board has elected not to chase a self imposed artificial rushed deadline.
Cudos to the school board.
Thank you for the translation, Smalltowngal. I’m being sincere. That note from the supt. was making my brain hurt….
Just my two cents… but I wonder how much a delay of a year will cost the city if interest rates keep creeping up. The Fed is signaling that its stimulus measures won’t go on forever. A spike in rates could cost us big time down the road.
Due diligence is one thing, but all of these new students will need classrooms. And it sounds to me like the city may come to regret this delay in the future.
Forgot about interest rates. That’s a point. But it’s like “saving” at a sale. It’s not a bargain if you don’t need it. We know we need more space but the question is how much and for how long. We made bad, bad mistakes the last time we projected hastily and closed down schools whose buildings we could use right now.
Indeed they are going up and will have to, eventually. Friday’s better than expected employment numbers actually caused the market to decline for a time because they were regarded as the final nail in the coffin of QE 3 or whatever number we’re now on.
Another threat is that the current administration would dearly love to eliminate the tax-free status of municipal bonds for high income individuals, who, of course, buy most of the bonds. This will, without a doubt, drive up borrowing costs for cities, even those with stellar credit ratings.