Bernie, Good question, we are trying to keep our buildings limited to three. Right now we count the high school east and west buildings as one administrative group. The middle school and the elementary school are each one building with their own administrative staff. A second elementary school would increase the support tail of the district 25%. We can't afford to pay another principle, staff, food service, janitorial, maintenance, utilities, etc. I personally like the idea, wish we could afford it, but our operating budget is too tight to expand it or grow our staff. We are trying to increase student capacity to alleviate overcrowding and provide for future growth, continue to provide a great education, and maintain our current staff levels. The busing issue is a matter of state funding. We are fortunate to have a great transportation coordinator and bus drivers that have made the program work. Thank you for your input and I hope you will stay engaged in the discussion. Regards, Dan Hopkins
The small additions affect the budget differently, particularly years later. The additions to the elementary school and high school have required maintenance to the respective roofs at different times costing us extra money. It is cheaper to have all of it done at once than to piece meal it. A couple of years ago it cost us hundreds of thousands for a portion of the elementary school roof, this year its an older wing of the high school roof. In a couple years its another part of the high school. These costs add up and stress the general fund. We are limited in what we can keep in the contingency reserve fund so every year it is a balancing act to budget repairs. By law we have to be very careful how we transfer money from one fund to another and how we spend capital outlay funds. The elementary school is serviceable but it is a money pit, overcrowded, and frustrates many citizens around 8:00 and 3:00 daily. To build additions on to our existing structures would also require a bond to fund it. Again, we'd have multiple open bonds. I hope you will remain open to the plan and make a decision when the information gathered is complete. Thank you.
5) I completely agree, education starts with educators and we have a great staff. Our families, grandparents, parents, siblings, aunts and uncles are all part of the process. It takes a village to educate a child. Our schools consistently achieve excellence in the standardized assessments and more important our students are doing well when they attend post secondary education or enter the workforce. We are addressing the bullying concerns; we have just updated our District Policies and synchronized those policies with our student handbooks. We have had assemblies, guest speakers and inculcated the antibullying message in our curriculum.
In summary, I believe Bernie_G stated it best, do we commit to 22 million today or do we use temporary fixes costing millions to get us 4-6 years into the future then commit to pay 50 or 60 million to finally fix the problem. If the latter occurs then this board will be cursed for not leading the district into the 21st century. I wish this project had an easy button but for every option one group likes another dislikes and so on. We have put together what we believe is the best solution for the district, students, staff and taxpayers. We are still working on the plan and taking into consideration inputs daily to ensure that we get it to the voters accurate, honest and complete. I would like to reiterate that I do not speak for the Board of Education or USD 464, I am speaking as a citizen and as an individual board member. If you have questions I encourage you to contact your board member.
Thank you for your involvement in this process and for providing valuable feedback. I hope I was able to answer some of your questions and provide you with why I support this project. Regards, Dan Hopkins
12345, allow me to explain my decision and provide feedback for each of your questions:
1) Moving one or two grades to the middle school creates some unique problems regarding supervision, curriculum and staff development. It also just delays the real problem, lack of adequate facilities. The budget is already stressed and we are committed to repairing the roof at the high school. Those costs are nearly half a million dollars in the next couple of years. We have some other major expenses coming up that will continue to stress our budget. Some of the projects in the future include the asphalt parking lot at the HS, restrooms at the elementary school, upgrades at the elementary school to gain compliance with the Americans with disabilities act, and scheduled work on the old wing of the high school. We may have to include the purchase of more modular trailers for TES to include infrastructure to support those units. We cannot raise the budget any further; school boards can add up to 30% of their general fund by using the local option budget. Ours has been near max for some time as a result of cuts in state aid from Topeka. It was designed that way to give the state more control over local spending. If the state were to increase our general fund then we might be able to work some other options but we are not expecting increases from Topeka in the foreseeable future.
2) We’ve been approached by many in the community that want to utilize the elementary building as a community center/city hall/ etc. We are exploring those options and the possible costs associated with that option. You are probably right in that it may be cost prohibitive.
3) Enrollment has remained steady, give or take a few students. We have had several students move in after 20 September which were not counted. This year’s kindergarten pre-enrollment is indicating a large class. We also use projections from the local governments regarding growth. The Leavenworth County Development Corporation has issued some numbers regarding growth at the Legends complex, new jobs, and families moving to the area. It is more an art than a science in my opinion but they have been relatively accurate. Even if we stay steady we are over capacity by a 100 students in a facility that requires a lot of attention.
4) Showing the mil levy of other communities is another important piece of information regarding our current situation. Having a low mil levy is attractive to small businesses wanting to relocate. Not all information provided is advantageous to the district’s proposal but I believe it to be my duty to provide all the information I have access to. It also shows that the board has been active over the years making do with our facilities and we have not been building for the sake of building.
At the Board of Education meeting the option accepted for the Superintendent to pursue further planning was to build a new elementary school. The cost of the project was spread across several areas, construction, roads, infrastructure, and design costs totaling 30 million dollars. 2-3 million would be outside the scope of state assistance and would require work with the city regarding special assessments. So we’re looking at 27 million dollars that is part of the states recognized costs, of that, 34% is paid by Kansas. That leaves us a bond of 18 million. Our current tax levy for education is one of the lowest in the area, upon approval of the bond our mil levy would move up to be nearly equal to our surrounding districts.
TES is overcrowded and most would agree that that is not in dispute. The dispute is on how we address the issue which will have ramifications for years to come. The staff at TES has done a remarkable job up to this point with finding room for classes, accommodating students with disabilities, and working between buildings to get the curriculum and guidance to the 5th Grade which is in TMS. We have had a class or two in the hallways and lunch scheduling is problematic, but the staff has done its best to minimize the impact upon our students.
The old school is a good building and has many years of service left. We have been looking into different uses and how it can best serve the community. Our city needs additional space and storage for records; we have a recreation commission that needs space for its offices and activities. Our own district offices could relocate. There are other city and county agencies that may benefit by this. We could share the costs and save a considerable amount of money. If in the future, 8-10 years from now we need more room we can rehabilitate the old school to extend its life another couple of years to provide space.
As a member of the board I assure you that this is not an easy decision, that the current economic climate has been considered as well as the impact. The best stewardship of our tax dollars basically demands a tough decision be made that will benefit this community. I agree with the patron named Bernie that looking past next month or next year is the wisest thing to do. It would be a nightmare if we tried to wait another four years and interest rates, costs, and state assistance were all inflated to twice our current projected costs but that is a distinct possibility.
Over the past three years this board has overseen the reduction of spending by over two million dollars. We have held our mil levy steady over that time and have worked with the staff to save where savings could be found. I assure you we have not taken this decision lightly and we were unanimous in understanding the cost savings of building what we “NEED” now and saving the tax payer millions in the process. Thank you for allowing me to serve,
“NO, NO, NO”? It is a matter of perspective. Some would say that Bixby's philosophy is just YES, YES, and YES. YES to fiscal responsibility, YES to good stewardship of the taxpayers resources, and YES to smaller government. And NO isn't always a negative when making decisions. Clockwork writes NO, NO, NO based upon what I perceive as a philosophical bias that is of the minority in Leavenworth County. Leavenworth is a predominately conservative county where YES, YES, YES is perceived as a conservative value when viewed as I have written above. So instead of going back and forth over nothing, why not ask why either is running for office. Is it to serve or is it for self? Based upon recent history, Bixby serves on the city council for little or no compensation. Mike is a great guy, but he served as the city administrator for a significant salary. Just facts so far, we don’t know why Mike was let go but we know that it was discussed in closed session. There were some budget issues and mistakes. The council had lost confidence in him and ended their relationship, it happens. Dennis has lived here a long time. How long has Mike lived in Leavenworth county? I thought he lived in Eudora? Now I don’t agree with the statement that he is running because of “sour grapes”. That is a personal attack and not productive toward good discussion. I would have to give the edge to Dennis at this point.
I agree that the highway has become problematic. Expecting our State Senator Tom Holland to do something about it is a dream at best. The guy shows up here twice a year during an election cycle othewise we might get a visit once.
I know both Dennis and Mike, both will do well. Anyone will do better than the three in there now. We need to release the county administrator or reduce the commissioners salaries by half. There is no justification for paying both to do the same job.
The 24/40 traffic issue, money for county improvements, county development opportunities, all reasons why Leavenworth needs its own Senator. As long as we are a house divided we'll get nothing but the scraps.
USD 464 board looking at bond issue for $30 million elementary school
Bernie,
Good question, we are trying to keep our buildings limited to three. Right now we count the high school east and west buildings as one administrative group. The middle school and the elementary school are each one building with their own administrative staff. A second elementary school would increase the support tail of the district 25%. We can't afford to pay another principle, staff, food service, janitorial, maintenance, utilities, etc. I personally like the idea, wish we could afford it, but our operating budget is too tight to expand it or grow our staff. We are trying to increase student capacity to alleviate overcrowding and provide for future growth, continue to provide a great education, and maintain our current staff levels. The busing issue is a matter of state funding. We are fortunate to have a great transportation coordinator and bus drivers that have made the program work. Thank you for your input and I hope you will stay engaged in the discussion.
Regards,
Dan Hopkins
June 15, 2012 at 2:05 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
USD 464 board looking at bond issue for $30 million elementary school
The small additions affect the budget differently, particularly years later. The additions to the elementary school and high school have required maintenance to the respective roofs at different times costing us extra money. It is cheaper to have all of it done at once than to piece meal it. A couple of years ago it cost us hundreds of thousands for a portion of the elementary school roof, this year its an older wing of the high school roof. In a couple years its another part of the high school. These costs add up and stress the general fund. We are limited in what we can keep in the contingency reserve fund so every year it is a balancing act to budget repairs. By law we have to be very careful how we transfer money from one fund to another and how we spend capital outlay funds. The elementary school is serviceable but it is a money pit, overcrowded, and frustrates many citizens around 8:00 and 3:00 daily. To build additions on to our existing structures would also require a bond to fund it. Again, we'd have multiple open bonds. I hope you will remain open to the plan and make a decision when the information gathered is complete.
Thank you.
June 15, 2012 at 1:50 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
USD 464 board looking at bond issue for $30 million elementary school
And finally, the bond issue will not be 30 million. The bond issue if approved by the board for voters to decide will be roughly 18 million.
June 14, 2012 at 11:38 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
USD 464 board looking at bond issue for $30 million elementary school
5) I completely agree, education starts with educators and we have a great staff. Our families, grandparents, parents, siblings, aunts and uncles are all part of the process. It takes a village to educate a child. Our schools consistently achieve excellence in the standardized assessments and more important our students are doing well when they attend post secondary education or enter the workforce. We are addressing the bullying concerns; we have just updated our District Policies and synchronized those policies with our student handbooks. We have had assemblies, guest speakers and inculcated the antibullying message in our curriculum.
In summary, I believe Bernie_G stated it best, do we commit to 22 million today or do we use temporary fixes costing millions to get us 4-6 years into the future then commit to pay 50 or 60 million to finally fix the problem. If the latter occurs then this board will be cursed for not leading the district into the 21st century. I wish this project had an easy button but for every option one group likes another dislikes and so on. We have put together what we believe is the best solution for the district, students, staff and taxpayers. We are still working on the plan and taking into consideration inputs daily to ensure that we get it to the voters accurate, honest and complete. I would like to reiterate that I do not speak for the Board of Education or USD 464, I am speaking as a citizen and as an individual board member. If you have questions I encourage you to contact your board member.
Thank you for your involvement in this process and for providing valuable feedback. I hope I was able to answer some of your questions and provide you with why I support this project.
Regards,
Dan Hopkins
June 14, 2012 at 10:51 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
USD 464 board looking at bond issue for $30 million elementary school
12345, allow me to explain my decision and provide feedback for each of your questions:
1) Moving one or two grades to the middle school creates some unique problems regarding supervision, curriculum and staff development. It also just delays the real problem, lack of adequate facilities. The budget is already stressed and we are committed to repairing the roof at the high school. Those costs are nearly half a million dollars in the next couple of years. We have some other major expenses coming up that will continue to stress our budget. Some of the projects in the future include the asphalt parking lot at the HS, restrooms at the elementary school, upgrades at the elementary school to gain compliance with the Americans with disabilities act, and scheduled work on the old wing of the high school. We may have to include the purchase of more modular trailers for TES to include infrastructure to support those units. We cannot raise the budget any further; school boards can add up to 30% of their general fund by using the local option budget. Ours has been near max for some time as a result of cuts in state aid from Topeka. It was designed that way to give the state more control over local spending. If the state were to increase our general fund then we might be able to work some other options but we are not expecting increases from Topeka in the foreseeable future.
2) We’ve been approached by many in the community that want to utilize the elementary building as a community center/city hall/ etc. We are exploring those options and the possible costs associated with that option. You are probably right in that it may be cost prohibitive.
3) Enrollment has remained steady, give or take a few students. We have had several students move in after 20 September which were not counted. This year’s kindergarten pre-enrollment is indicating a large class. We also use projections from the local governments regarding growth. The Leavenworth County Development Corporation has issued some numbers regarding growth at the Legends complex, new jobs, and families moving to the area. It is more an art than a science in my opinion but they have been relatively accurate. Even if we stay steady we are over capacity by a 100 students in a facility that requires a lot of attention.
4) Showing the mil levy of other communities is another important piece of information regarding our current situation. Having a low mil levy is attractive to small businesses wanting to relocate. Not all information provided is advantageous to the district’s proposal but I believe it to be my duty to provide all the information I have access to. It also shows that the board has been active over the years making do with our facilities and we have not been building for the sake of building.
Continued:
June 14, 2012 at 10:42 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
USD 464 board looking at bond issue for $30 million elementary school
At the Board of Education meeting the option accepted for the Superintendent to pursue further planning was to build a new elementary school. The cost of the project was spread across several areas, construction, roads, infrastructure, and design costs totaling 30 million dollars. 2-3 million would be outside the scope of state assistance and would require work with the city regarding special assessments. So we’re looking at 27 million dollars that is part of the states recognized costs, of that, 34% is paid by Kansas. That leaves us a bond of 18 million. Our current tax levy for education is one of the lowest in the area, upon approval of the bond our mil levy would move up to be nearly equal to our surrounding districts.
TES is overcrowded and most would agree that that is not in dispute. The dispute is on how we address the issue which will have ramifications for years to come. The staff at TES has done a remarkable job up to this point with finding room for classes, accommodating students with disabilities, and working between buildings to get the curriculum and guidance to the 5th Grade which is in TMS. We have had a class or two in the hallways and lunch scheduling is problematic, but the staff has done its best to minimize the impact upon our students.
The old school is a good building and has many years of service left. We have been looking into different uses and how it can best serve the community. Our city needs additional space and storage for records; we have a recreation commission that needs space for its offices and activities. Our own district offices could relocate. There are other city and county agencies that may benefit by this. We could share the costs and save a considerable amount of money. If in the future, 8-10 years from now we need more room we can rehabilitate the old school to extend its life another couple of years to provide space.
As a member of the board I assure you that this is not an easy decision, that the current economic climate has been considered as well as the impact. The best stewardship of our tax dollars basically demands a tough decision be made that will benefit this community. I agree with the patron named Bernie that looking past next month or next year is the wisest thing to do. It would be a nightmare if we tried to wait another four years and interest rates, costs, and state assistance were all inflated to twice our current projected costs but that is a distinct possibility.
Over the past three years this board has overseen the reduction of spending by over two million dollars. We have held our mil levy steady over that time and have worked with the staff to save where savings could be found. I assure you we have not taken this decision lightly and we were unanimous in understanding the cost savings of building what we “NEED” now and saving the tax payer millions in the process.
Thank you for allowing me to serve,
Dan Hopkins
June 14, 2012 at 3:18 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Tonganoxie council member, former administrator facing off in Leavenworth County Commission race
“NO, NO, NO”? It is a matter of perspective. Some would say that Bixby's philosophy is just YES, YES, and YES. YES to fiscal responsibility, YES to good stewardship of the taxpayers resources, and YES to smaller government. And NO isn't always a negative when making decisions. Clockwork writes NO, NO, NO based upon what I perceive as a philosophical bias that is of the minority in Leavenworth County. Leavenworth is a predominately conservative county where YES, YES, YES is perceived as a conservative value when viewed as I have written above. So instead of going back and forth over nothing, why not ask why either is running for office. Is it to serve or is it for self? Based upon recent history, Bixby serves on the city council for little or no compensation. Mike is a great guy, but he served as the city administrator for a significant salary. Just facts so far, we don’t know why Mike was let go but we know that it was discussed in closed session. There were some budget issues and mistakes. The council had lost confidence in him and ended their relationship, it happens. Dennis has lived here a long time. How long has Mike lived in Leavenworth county? I thought he lived in Eudora? Now I don’t agree with the statement that he is running because of “sour grapes”. That is a personal attack and not productive toward good discussion. I would have to give the edge to Dennis at this point.
June 5, 2012 at 3:45 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Tonganoxie council member, former administrator facing off in Leavenworth County Commission race
I agree that the highway has become problematic. Expecting our State Senator Tom Holland to do something about it is a dream at best. The guy shows up here twice a year during an election cycle othewise we might get a visit once.
I know both Dennis and Mike, both will do well. Anyone will do better than the three in there now. We need to release the county administrator or reduce the commissioners salaries by half. There is no justification for paying both to do the same job.
The 24/40 traffic issue, money for county improvements, county development opportunities, all reasons why Leavenworth needs its own Senator. As long as we are a house divided we'll get nothing but the scraps.
June 4, 2012 at 1:11 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )