Option D Revisited

*** This article has been updated based on more recent understanding of staid aid. Note that this was written in January, 2019, before our original stage 2 was submitted, before it was rejected, and before we investigated the feasibility of a new HS the first time last spring. As you know we are now embarking on another feasibility study. But the information here is still relevant***

The Town Council’s decision to put off a facilities vote until January 29 gives the community a much needed pause. It’s clear there are questions about the need for taxpayers to foot the bill for a plan they thought was to be paid for via operational savings. Let’s take this opportunity to walk down fantasy lane, back in time to the original visioning sessions, and reconsider a plan left on the cutting floor which could have done just that.

At least half of the community members present strongly considered option D as the best plan for the future of the town. It was a radical plan that would have completely reshaped elementary education in SK by closing both WES AND WKES. As a result it was viewed as too extreme for the town.

The biggest advantage of Option D was its massive operational savings, estimated at $3.15 million. The true value of these savings were never presented in the way they should have, as a 25 year outlook compared to debt service costs, but if they had, its possible many people would have taken a second look at what we could afford. Follow us down the rabbit hole (warning, there are numbers involved)….

Operational savings such as these, which come primarily from personnel related expenses, rise in value over the years as the district avoids increases in salaries and benefits. In general, these costs rise about 3.5% per year. Over the course of a 25 year window, the cumulative value of the Option D savings would grow to $102 million. By contrast, the cumulative debt service cost to the town for the $75 million project currently under consideration (assuming 50% state aid) is $70.25 million. In other words, Option D would have paid for itself plus left a $32 million dollar surplus on the table.

By contrast, Option A’s 25 year operational savings total just $21.6 million. These fall short of paying the debt service by a cumulative $48.65 million. This is why taxpayers are rightly concerned. But assuming the town is willing to cover that shortfall, let’s consider what the extra operational savings from Option D could have bought us.

The difference after state aid and debt service between options A and D is $85.75 million. After debt service is factored in, this could have financed $92 million in additional construction. Coupled with the $75 million project we are contemplating yields $167 million. With that size/scope, we could have afforded to build a new High School, expand Matunuck, and fully renovate BRMS as a state of the art Middle School.

Unfortunately, the value of Option D was presented without this long-term analysis, so the community was likely unaware of the immense value these savings could have provided. Of course, in order to realize the savings necessary we would have to close 2 elementary schools, and we saw what happened when 1 school closure was proposed. But the choice should be made more clear. You can keep four underutilized neighborhood schools, or you could have a new High School (and a practically new Elementary School). Personally, I’d prefer the latter.

Is there time to reconsider? Would a delay to the newly announced September deadline give the district a chance to reset and consider other options now that the entire community is plugged in? It might be worth the risk.