School Board kills wellness center proposal

Here is the short version: After hearing the presentation for the proposed wellness center and comments from about 30 citizens, the Rensselaer Central School Board voted against approving a preliminary project determination resolution. The result is that the proposed wellness center is dead. It can be revived, but the process must restart, meaning that another public hearing would be required.

And now for a longer version if you are interested.

The Rensselaer Central School Board met for its monthly meeting on February 16 with an audience of approximately 80 citizens, almost all there for the public meeting about a proposed wellness center. After the normal start-of-meeting preliminaries, Superintendent Ned Speicher gave a financial report. He announced that the 2016 school budget had been approved by the state. He had a slide showing that assessed valuation in the school district had increased from about $600 million in 2009 to about $750 million in 2015. The property tax rate had remained under the level of 2009, which was .66, bouncing around between .57 and .61. He noted that the general fund, which is the money paying for the routine activities of the school, is completely funded by state taxes and that the state had cut those monies in 2008-2009 from about $12 million to about $10.5 million and that though that amount has gradually increased since, it remains below $12 million.

The Board approved incentive performance for teachers and administrators. This approval had been delayed because of the delay in the state's release of ISTEP results. The primary and elementary schools had scored an "A" and the middle and high schools a "B".

Next was a presentation of the proposed wellness center, which was largely the same as the presentation given at the City Council Meeting, reported here. However, both an architect and a financial advisor were present to add some details. The architect noted that the building would be pre-engineered, essentially a kit that is assembled on site. Apparently there are enough of this type of building being built to have a company or companies specialize in their production. The proposed building would be 125' long and 200' long. The running track around the center courts would be about .1 mile.

The financial consultant said that by refinancing bonds there would be some savings. The effect of the refinancing would be that the costs of the project would not appear until either 2022 or 2023 and then for six years the bond repayments would be higher than they otherwise would be. There was something about financing being done with a lease that I did not understand.

Then it was time for public comments. Most people speaking were in favor, with many pointing out that Rensselaer Schools have limited indoor practice space so that early morning and late evening practices are needed for some teams and that these times may impair school work. Some pointed to benefits to the community at large and said that the building was needed to move the community forward. Also mentioned was the trend for building prices to rise 2 or 3 percent a year and the very low current interest rates, which may not persist.

Those who had reservations focused on the financing. The rise in assessed valuation mentioned at the beginning is almost entirely due to the rising value of farm land and as a result farm land owners would pay a disproportionate share for the facility. A flat tax rate has not meant flat taxes to farmers. Their tax payments have increased because the assessed value of their land has increased. Also, the legislature is changing the way farm land is assessed and with the poor harvest last year and declining crop prices, the value of farm land may decline. If it does, the tax rate may have to exceed the .66 level that the board wants to keep as a maximum.

Then it was time to take up the approval of the preliminary project determination resolution. Koczan moved but there was no second, so president of the board Luddington relinquished the chair to Korniak so he could second. Parrish wanted to table, but Luddington wanted a discussion first so he called on the board members for their comments, ending with Parrish. Parrish moved to table, which Zeider seconded. The vote was four in favor with three against, not meeting the required 2/3 vote needed to pass. A vote was then taken on the main motion. In favor were Koczan, Korniak, and Luddington. Opposed were Parrish, Zeider, Lane, and Cozza. With that vote the proposal died and if it is reintroduced, the process muse begin anew.

The room then emptied and the Board took a short recess before finishing the rest of the agenda. They approved a roofing contract for the high school for $78,400 and had a long discussion about a safety response service that works through a cell phones application. The service has been recommended by the sheriff's office and the Rensselaer Police Department. It would have a one-button push that would give a faster response than calling 911 in case of threat of harm in a school. It would also have a second level push that would alert adminstrators to a stress situation in a classroom. The way the system is configured will be largely determined by the school administration. The cost was $4000 setup and $400 per month maintenance fee. The proposal passed.

The board also approved a number of other items before adjourning. The meeting lasted nearly three hours.