Warrant Article 2 - New School at Brox

Article 2 on the Milford school warrant authorizes the construction of a six-classroom stand-alone building on the Brox property.

This article has several problems, and in my opinion, is not a good choice for Milford.

Requires 100% State Funding

The article requires that the state fully fund all the costs of the facility. That is nice in concept, but the practical matter is that the state adequate education costing committee is recommending that the funding be at a 75% level. As I detailed in a previous posting, it is my opinion that the state meets the requirements of article 28-a of the state constitution that bans unfunded mandates.

If the state only provides 75% funding, then this article does not allow the construction of a building since no local money is allowed to be used for the project.

Locks in Extra Overhead Spending

The fact that this is a stand-alone school results in the need for additional overhead spending to make it operational and safe. There are several extra positions that are needed to operate a stand-alone school as compared to an addition as proposed in article 1.

The district administration has estimated the the additional overhead spending will be in the $200,000 per year range. This is due to the need for extra positions such as custodians, nurse, office support, lead teacher stipend, etc. This corresponds to perhaps $30 or $40 per year in extra taxes for a $300,0o0 house.

There is no need for these extra positions, and we should strive to keep our overhead spending as low as possible.


Commits to a Brox Strategy

The Brox master space allocation diagram has reserved space for schools in a broad concept without any specifics. There is a basic understanding that there will be a need for space for schools some time in the future, but the specifics of that need won't be obvious until we closer to the time of need.

Keeping the school portion of the Brox site in unbuilt status keeps our options open for future development. It will be better if at the time of need of a new school that we are able to start with a fresh site and build it out in a manner that meets the needs the best.

If we construct a kindergarten on the site, then we will have locked in that portion of the site to a kindergarten or early learning facility. It would be difficult to use it for later grades such as a middle school since the needs are so different.

In our space needs discussions in the past, we have discussed various potential options for future needs. One concept was that if the overall enrollments in town grew quite a bit, then we would convert the current middle school to extra classes in support of the high school, making the high school a campus arrangement. This concept would require the construction of a new middle school to replace the grades moved out of the current middle school. The Brox property would be a good location for this type of school.

Another option that has been discussed would be the construction of a new school that would be a K-2 school. In this scenario, Jacques would be converted to a K-2 school and Heron Pond would be converted to a 3-5 school. This is more of a mid-term possibility (as compared to the high school expansion scenario), as it would come into play if the there was a more modest increase in enrollments in town. I don't see the need for this within 10 years, but it may happen someday.

It would be better to keep our power dry, so to speak, on the use of the Brox property with regards to schools. Let's leave the space alone and wait until the future needs become clearer.

Vote No on Article 2

The budget committee voted 1 in favor and 7 against this option. The district administration does not favor this article. The school board is split on this article: Len Mannino and Bob Willette (opposed to public kindergarten) are in favor of it, Paul Dargie and Bert Becker (in favor of public kindergarten) are against it, and Peter Bragdon abstained (personal financial conflict).

Please join me in voting against article 2.