Board Decides to Pursue a Bond
“The Cluster Option”
Last night the Board of Education voted to put a Bond referendum before the voters on October 26th for $6.7 Million dollars. The community will have the opportunity to vote on whether or not they want the reconfiguration of the school system to be in a “cluster model”. Since construction is needed to achieve this model if the bond fails the school district will be configured in a North/South model. I will try to answer some of the most prominent questions that I have heard.
- How can you ask the community to spend money on a bond when you are closing schools to save money?
In this case the old adage, “It takes money to make money” is appropriate. The savings generated from closing 3 buildings will far outweigh the cost of the bond. (The finance committee agrees with this statement, you can view their presentation on the district website.) This bond will insure the district is operating the most efficiently by streamlining all of the staffing and operating costs of the district into the minimum number of buildings.
- Why can’t you have one vote and have the public pick the option they like?
Legally the Board of Education cannot abdicate its right to decide on how the district is configured. Therefore, it cannot ask the public via a bond vote to choose a cluster or North/South configuration. The board must decide first and then ask the public to support the decision by passing a bond to make it a reality.
- Why 3 schools?
While it appears extremely radical, it is actually easier and more cost effective to achieve a cluster model in 4 schools rather than 5 schools. Assuming we want to leave the current 6-8 and 9-12 configuration, how would we arrange grades pre-k-5 in three buildings? Six and ½ grades in three buildings would mean transitions every two years, something that the community expressed great opposition to. Moreover, the construction costs to place these same 61/2 grades into two buildings would be cost prohibitive, that is why the current proposal moves 5th and 8th grade.
- Why a roof top playground?
One of the many ‘knocks” on Willis is the amount of available outdoor play space for children. The current playground is considered too small. To help alleviate this problem we propose adding an additional open play space on the roof of the cafeteria. While this seems unusual, it is a fairly common practice when space is limited. This proposal solves a problem of keeping the current parking spaces on the property and also finding additional outdoor space. Two large lots across the street from the school are currently for sale. The price to buy this land and convert it into a 50 space parking lot parking (so the current parking lot can become a playground) is well over 3 million dollars. The rooftop playground will cost approximately $500,000
- Why not use Hampton it has plenty of space?
Hampton’s play area is obviously better than Willis, but to make Hampton a 32 classroom building it would require a 13 classroom addition. So whereas the Willis project is estimated to cost 2.3 million for 14 classrooms and a playground to create the same space at Hampton would cost approx. 5.5 million, making the total bond almost 10 million dollars.
- Wasn’t the greatest feedback from the public to keep the 5th grade and 8th grade in the elementary and middle schools?
Yes- As I mentioned previously- in order to create a full cluster model leaving the HS and MS as they are and minimize transitions, it would require two buildings that could hold approximately 600 and 700 students. Converting our largest elementary (Jackson) to hold 600 students is what is currently proposed. The cost to convert any other elementary into a building for 700 students outweighs the savings that would be generated. If the bond proposal fails bond option 1 addresses the 5th and 8th grade. However, that option generates the least amount of savings of the three options
- What are we doing with the empty schools?
We do have rental interest from several parties as well as an offer on the table to rent Meadow. One of the buildings will need to be used to house Central Office if the bond passes. That building can also be used to house the 3 year old program, Board of Education and an alternative High school. The alternative high school would house students that are having difficulties excelling in a traditional high school setting but would flourish under different structures and scheduling. We have had great success with our current academy program and an alternative HS would expand on this program
- What happens if the bond fails?
My recommendation to the Board of Education would be to pursue bond option 1 as quickly as possible. A bond defeat would be a clear indication that the community doesn’t want a cluster option; therefore the community should have the option to vote on whether or not they want the current configuration of the Middle and high school.
Dear Dr. Nagler,
As a perspective parent assessing where to buy a home and whether to place my preschooler in public or private school, I am very concerned about a rooftop playground. I understand the worry about space and might have more understanding in Manhattan, or even Queens. However, we live in the Village of Mineola. A rooftop playground is not appropriate for our children or neighborhood. I plan to look into this issue further.
Thank you for considering a perspective parent’s concern.
Again I must ask your intention. If you rent out Meadow Drive, I want to be sure there will NOT be a parking lot directly across from my front livingroom and bedroom windows and my driveway! My property value will tumble if there is such a change. You mentioned previously that the playground and fields will be available for the use of the community. Later, at a meeting in Albertson, you stated that the parking on the blacktop (basketball courts) was a negotiable item. That does not satisfy my concern. You are dancing around the answer. The blacktop area is part of the playing area. People play basketball, handball, and racketball on this area. If you really keep your word, this area at Meadow should not be touched! I have lived across from Meadow’s side property for 32 years enjoying hearing young people having a good time in the fresh air. If you put a parking lot there, I will have cars coming and going at all times and fumes from all the car activity. That is a real slap in the face to a long-time taxpaying resident! The district’s policy has always been to be a good neighbor to residents around the schools. Well, be a good neighbor now and guarantee to me that I will not have a parking lot opposite my house! We have other alternatives–use them!
Dr. Nagler,
You said at a board meeting you didn’t want to name any schools that could be rented so it wouldn’t sway the vote. While I agreed with that statement at the time I was wondering what caused the change of heart?
The surveys are the only tangible evidence we have on community sentiment and they are being ignored.
It is clear that since the surveys don’t support the administrations desires that they are being downplayed. Even if the surveys only had a 20% response rate why are they ignored in favor of a district wide vote that costs us money. What is the average district turnout for board elections or budget votes? I would guess the number to be somewhere around the percentage of people who answered the surveys.
Can someone fill me in on why we are choosing to use Willis over the other elementary schools? Even though Willis might be the newest, I have driven by it and I see that there is no parking, no outdoor space, and it is not in the most attractive area of Mineola. Even if the other schools need updating or construction, the campus might be more attractive in the long run. The “roof top playground” sounds like a terrible idea, and in the long run it doesn’t seem like the best choice for an elementary school. I have read Dr. Nagler’s post about the history of Mineola and opening and closing schools. Let’s choose wisely. It doesn’t sound like many parents like the idea of Willis being the school we keep. Even Jackson doesn’t seem like it has any room for an addition. As a resident who has small children, and have lived here for 4 years, I feel like this is all being thrown at us at once. Make a decision right now! Maybe within the school system there has been talk, but as a tax paying resident, this all sounds pretty new to me. Thank you for your time.
At this time there is NOT a play set on the roof. Please remember that this space is in addition to the current play set outside of the cafeteria. Children could either go out one door to the play set or go up an enclosed staircase to the open area on the roof. (There is no access to the roof top from outside the building. You must enter from inside the cafeteria.) If the bond passes and we decide to amend this notion we will have time to do so.
Will a play structure i.e. slide, swings, monkey bars be added to the rooftop play area? I shudder to think what kind of trouble my 2 boys (ages 4 and 6) would get into if there is nothing to occupy them. I am just holding out hope that the $500,000 price tag has a play apparatus included in it.
Mr. Duff: I have interest in all of the buildings. Just like us all of the rental interests are schools that are trying to plan their own futures. I have an obligation to inform the public of financial opportunities. Should I allow a possible lucrative rental to slip away and have a vacant building? Please remember that voting is the only way to accurately know what the public wants, surveys don’t achieve that – especially when the rate of return is less than 20%
A few board meetings ago Dr. Nagler said he had a party interested in renting a school but he didn’t want to say what school it was because it may sway peoples opinions.
Why was the information now released?
Further are we in business to make money or provide the children of the district the best education we can?
When it comes to the school buildings we should be using the best buildings possible for “our” children not renters.
The consideration of renting should have never been disclosed until we had a vote in place deciding what model we will be using in the future.
Dr. Nagler also shows how we have made numerous changes to our district over the years but none of them lasted. So why are we now voting on a bond for full clustering when in the ONLY TWO SURVEYS the district has done the majority of residents said they do not want the full cluster model that is being proposed?
The CCC recommendation endures as the best balance between the full community sentiment and fiscal responsibility.
At this time we have a rental interest in Meadow for August of 2011. We will continue to pursue all leads on rentals. It becomes difficult to ascertain interest if you don’t know what building will close or what year it will close. I will not divulge a number since we are still negotiating, but I will say that it will be palatable. I have no preference for what building Central office is housed in. The cost associated with an alternative HS would be partially realized by no longer sending students to outside placements. It would be premature to place a figure on it. Lastly, what will be the new debt and its effect on the budget? The current budget has $700,000 to pay the $10,040,000 bond. By the time we borrow for the proposed bond, the $10 MM will be paid and that 700,000 can be applied to the new bond. Therefore, the percent increase will be minimal (I don’t have the exact yearly cost of the 6.7 MM Bond)
I have carefully reviewed the information provided at the last meeting and have a few more questions.
While it is mentioned that you have a rental interest for Meadow Drive, what is being done about renting Cross Street or Hampton? If the revenue potential for Meadow is considered for the recommendation for option 3, then shouldn’t we secure rental interest for Options 1 and 2?
It is important to compare apples to apples, as much as is reasonably possible and thus far, I don’t believe we have any information on the other schools rental potential or lack thereof. It would do the district little good to have a vacant school. We have heard that BOCES always wants additional space but at what price? I think the community should be aware of the rental figures for all three schools before being asked to make a decision on any of the options. It might be more palatable to give up a building for $500,000 per year rental vs $100,000.
It has been mentioned that Hampton could become the administration building in the future.
If I recall, (no offense meant here) Cross Street was deemed to be the least desirable for rental purposes. If, that is correct and I don’t know that it is, wouldn’t it make far more sense to house administration in Cross Street rather than Hampton?
The suggestion of a possible alternative High School will no doubt come with associated costs; do you have an idea of what they are and how they would be paid for?
Last question, given a refunding of the current bond debt to more preferable rates, can you give the residents an idea, what the % increase in overall bond debt might be once the old debt is swapped for the new. What is the current % of budget dollar that pays off bond debt and what will the new % be?
Thank You.
A renter may ask for many things; the important piece is what we are willing to allow. The board has repeatedly stated that they want the playground and fields available for the community, therefore any rental agreement will guarantee the community use of the fields.
From what I have heard, the possible renter for Meadow wants a guarantee of 100 parking spots. As there certainly are not that many spots in front of the school, do you plan on making the playground a parking lot? If so, just hold your horses! I live directly across the street from the basketball courts and would not tolerate living opposite a parking lot! Do you have no concern for what you are doing to the property values of district residents? If Meadow is too small for use as an Elementary school, put Administration in there with the Alternative HS and, if room available, PreK or Universal PreK. The school has a brand new state-of-the-art library! Our students should reap the benefits of that addition!
Ms. Napolitano, Mr. Hale and Mr. Hornberger all made it very clear that they are in favor of closing three schools. So even though Ms. Napolitano may be one of the biggest advocates to maintain our fields and playgrounds, the simple fact of the matter is our children will not have access to THE SCHOOLS themselves. Not Hampton, not Cross, and not Meadow. The children will all be “clustered” into Jackson and Willis. That’s what will happen if the proposed bond passes on October 26.
Ms. Napolitano continues to be one of the biggest advocates to maintain our fields and playgrounds and NOT lose them in a rental agreement. The current negotiation over Meadow Drive specifically states that the fields are available to the community after school hours, weekends and holidays. One of the biggest reasons to rent instead of selling property is that you still control who, when and how the land is used.
1) You cannot separate the two issues. If you cannot afford to pay for the programs we offer it will have a negative impact on the educational experience.
1a) Some districts are “cluster models” based on their enrollment. For example Carle place has a K-2 building of 316 students and a 3-6 building of 446. While other transition every two years- Bellmore has a Prek-2 building of 500, 3-4 building of 370 and a 5-6 building of 350. East Williston has a K-4 building of 615 and a 5-7 building of 441.Oyster Bay is another example pre-K -2 424 and 3-6 516 students.
1b) While there is a good amount of empirical data on the subject the majority of the research is based on case studies. Therefore, the findings are not necessary transferable.
2) There is no timeline for the conclusion of negotiations. If the desire is to win substantial givebacks the likelihood that negotiations would end quickly is slim.
3) The primarily occupants of Hampton street will be Central Office, if they remain at Willis Avenue (In a N/S configuration) then we would look to maximize revenues by renting the entire building.
Ms. Napolitano made it clear at the Board Meeting the other night she was in favor of closing three schools. She also made it clear that for those of us concerned with our young children playing on a rooftop playground at the Willis Avenue School that it is only for 30 minutes per day and to get over it. She continued to tell us if we were so concerned with having our kids play in a real park that we should take them to one after school. That’s great, Ms. Napolitano, but which park is it that we are taking them to? You want to close Meadow Drive School, Cross Street School AND Hampton Street School, three of our local neighborhood schools — schools with parks of grass and playground equipment, baseball fields, and basketball courts, which kids of ALL ages take advantage of on a daily basis. Where are these kids going to now? Kids from each of these neighborhoods ride their bikes to these schools to meet up with friends and play for hundreds of hours throughout the school year. Or, maybe this isn’t a concern and the school building is the only part of the lease? Speaking as a parent of the Meadow Drive community, there isn’t a park close enough for these kids to ride their bikes to without having to cross a major road.
Dr. Nagler, you mentioned there was a party interested in leasing one of these buildings. Is there a clause in the lease allowing the community to have access to the playground, as we do now? If not, can such a clause be added to the lease for each of these three buildings? The kids spend a great deal of time keeping out of trouble playing in the parks of their local schools.
1) Is this being done for financial or educational reasons?
1a) If educational, what other districts in the area use a cluster model?
1b) Are there any studies that residents can see that show the benefits of a cluster model?
2) Can’t some financial savings be saved with negotiations of new contracts that are expiring soon? Other district’s unions seem to realize the times we live in and are agreeing to cutbacks in their new contracts.
3) Is Hampton Street school going to be used by Mineola Schools in any of the configuration plans presented by the finance committee? (Alternative H.S. maybe?)
While I am not surprised, I am still disappointed that the cluster bond will be put up for a vote. I think it’s a mistake. This option throws out the configurations proposed by the CCC (representatives from the community) and the recommendations of the district consultants from two years ago (after polling of the community) in favor of the drastically different configuration proposed by one person.
I believe it would be a mistake to commit to a 10 year bond and a 10 year lease before any of the schools have closed and any of the children have moved. There is no need to take these radical steps now when we can close two schools first (as the Board originally voted to do) and then, if necessary and desirable, fully cluster the district as the final step. We are barely 7 years into the new Willis Avenue building and people have been talking about closing that building for over 2 years. I would hate to have all the kids moved and then find this was not the best option. Yet, we are stuck with construction and a 10 year bond and we have leased the most desirable of our 3 neighborhood buildings.