The Independent-News, Volume 119, Number 35, Walkerton, St. Joseph County, 13 January 1994 — Page 7

To Patrons Os John Glenn School Corporation SOME FACTS AND FIGURES ABOUT UREY MIDDLE SCHOOL

1 was grateful to see the recent article by Neil Downey in Voice Os The People. Straight forward talk such as in his article is needed. Because of my involvement working with those opposed to what a vast majority of people felt would be an unnecessary large expenditure of money for a new school building and the continued effort to force that program through the School Board many have asked me to write an article setting forth the facts regarding an addition to Urey Middle School. Most patrons are not aware of these details which we will endeavor to outline in this article. Read the article, then make up your own mind. If you have questions, give me a call. I will set a meeting time and show you data and figures to substantiate my conclusions. Once again I must thank Neil for his article, he is correct as to why the Board voted the way they did. Regarding Mr. Chapman's letter, let me translate what he is really saying when he says, re-read the Task Force Report. He is saying Board Members read the Task Force Report, then act upon the Middle School Program & Grade Organization Committee recommendation and vote to build a new Middle School located on the High School site. That Task Force Report has been challenged by many, including some on the Committee and is considered by many as a bias report. Do you know that report is the only report wherein a Task Force Committee member requested their name be withheld because of disagreement with its content. That request was not honored, but even today, those who support a new school, point to this report as the principle reason for a new facility. I would like to remind those who are so bent on having a new school at any cost, that those who banded together from all walks of life including farmers, business and trades people, factory workers and professional remain committed to their cause. Many made monetary contributions, while others contributed with advice, research and vital support. Therefore, we have a moral responsibility to carry their commitment to a successful conclusion which we will do. Some choose to compare the Urey proposal to a step backward, when in reality it will provide learning opportunities for students commensurate with a new facility, while showing prudence and demonstrates financial responsibility in expending public funds in this day of high taxes with Federal increases due in 1994 and State Property Tax Re-assess-ment now underway. Regarding the age of Urey, be reminded this building is the best constructed building the Corporation owns and is well maintained. Extensive renovation was done in the eighties. For details by someone who worked on the project contact Randy Verkier who knows what was accomplished at that time and has strong feelings regarding the viability of that building for continued use as a Middle School. The new addition to Urey will have a Combination Cafeteria, Locker Room and Storage; a new Art Room; two new Science Rooms; Music and Band Rooms; four general classrooms; four teacher prep areas; principals office; storage areas; a Media Center with 3510 SF that includes the following areas, Circulation 500 SF, Student area 1700 SF, Office/Work 150 SF, A/V Storage 400 SF. Conference 360 SF, Production 250 SF, and General Storage 150 SF. This is more square footage than in the Fanning/Howey proposal for Urey. Included is a crossover where handicap and regular restrooms are provided on each floor along with an elevator. Site preparation includes a drive off Washington St. providing bus drop-off and pick-up along with teacher parking. What about the present Urey? Six classrooms would be renovated and all classrooms would meet State minimum size requirements. A new 1300 SF Computer Lab is provided. This also exceeds in square footage the Fanning/Howey proposal. In addition included is 2827 SF of Administration Area, a large Conference Room and 4236 SF of total storage area. In addition there are large classrooms for Health, Chapter #1 and LD students. Better than 70% of student activity would occur in the new addition. Does this sound like a proposal that would short change student education? When one can find no measurable difference in the two facilities under consideration, regarding new rooms and equipment being made available, then it becomes difficult to justify in ones mind the additional expenditure necessary for a new facility adjacent to the High School. How about Utilization with an addition at Urey. Capacity would be 420 students, that means to stay within the State guidelines of 85% Utilization Urey could have an enrollment of 355 students equaling 84.5% Utilization. That means for this year Utilization would be 72.8% with 306 students. But wait, do you know what it will be two years from now using current Sth and 6th grade figures? 58.8% with only 247 students. That means to build a new facility at the High School the cost would be $66,052.63 per student based upon a total cost of $16,315,000 as set forth in the cost analyze set forth below. I will bet no where in the State of Indiana in recent times will you find such an outlandish cost per student for building a new school facility. Now lets discuss costs. By the way, these figures are not my figures but rather Fanning/Howey and Skillman Corporation figures. Before I begin let me say that when I presented the Urey Addition Proposal for our group to the Board 1 presented copies to all

LINE DRAWING OF MODIFIED UREY MIDDLE SCHOOL Cxioti M * ft. hi r_., . * — 888805® 9 = - - _ i n 2^ MEWJ QApetElZ.Ch * t- I I I I I I ill - * * * “- \ ) 1:1 - A I , - t — * • — — ‘ E———— -A _ J ' **-’** v ’ - * • * View from Washington Street of Modified Urey Middle School

Board members, the Superintendent, and the Fanning/Howey, Skillman representatives 1 had been told I would receive a copy of the Skillman Proposal prior to the meeting or at least I would receive a copy. I was not given a copy that night nor as of today have I recieved a copy of that report. This is an example of the courtesy extended me, I presume because of my position on the Middle School issue. That kind of treatment just makes one more determined to remain involved and committed. 1 did obtain a copy by request from Board member Mrs. Anderson. Cost figures submitted by Skillman Corporation show the following: 7 & 8 Adjacent to H.S. w/construction/soft costs $ 9,748,055 Urey Addition including construction/soft costs $ 4,950,686 Additional cost to taxpayers — $ 4,797,369 7/8 cost with 20 Yr. Financing 35.5% $16,315,000 Urey cost with 20 Yr. financing @ 5.5% $ 8,285,000 Additional cost to taxpayers = $ 8,030,000 7/8 cost with 20 Yr. financing 3 5.5% $16,315,000 Urey cost with 10 Yr. financing 3 5.5% $6,567,500 Additional cost to taxpayers = $ 9,747,500 Using Fanning/Howey figures should the Board wish to squander the $4,797,369 left over from building an addition at Urey here is what could be accomplished with the money they would use just for a new building. New JGSC Superintendent’s office $ 297,675 Field House $1,759,000 WES Addition S 515.200 H.S. Site P.E $ 672.500 H.S. Concession/Toilets $ 150.000 Lockers & Storage $ 405.000 Total expenditure = $3,790,375 Balance still uncommitted $1,006,994 Now you can see what could be accomplished with the additional money some wish to squander just to build a new building while still leaving an unused balance of $1,006,994. I am not proposing these options be executed just giving an example of what could be accomplished. Os course these funds could and should be earmarked for equipment and programs to enhance our children's education. Regarding an addition at Walkerton Elementary School. Here is a prime example of ignoring a report after being requested by the Board. The Superintendent and I attended a meeting conducted by Dr. Jerry McKibben who provides demograph studies for the State of Indiana after which we were told by Dr. McKibben that our School Corporation could expect a downturn of 10 to 15% in enrollment sometime in the mid 90s. As a result of that discussion, Dr. McKibben prepared a study which dictates a wait and see posture on building for the Corporation. Yet in complete disregard for that report some members of the Board continue to vote to build an addition to Walkerton Elementary School at a cost of $515,200. Questionable business judgement when one is dealing with a large expenditure of public funds. Total enrollment is down 26 students this year at Walkerton Elementary School. Why an article now? With a new member added to the Board shortly a vote will be taken to decide the Middle School issue. Most of the general public not having attended Board meetings are not aware of the contents of the Urey proposal therefore the reason for this article. We have set forth the basic proposal for Urey and the costs involved so that all Board Members arc aware the public has been informed and will make their own judgements regarding how Board Members vote on the issue. Do not hesitate to call Board Members to questions their position on the matter. Should you wish to see the layout for the proposed addition at Urey please feel free to call me and I will be happy to show it to you. May 1 add that all three Trustees involving Lincoln. Liberty and Polk Townships fully support the proposed Urey addition and oppose the large expenditure of funds required to build a new facility. I am a concerned patron of JGSC who strongly supports quality ecucation for our students. lam equally convinced, as are many others, that a quality education can and would be provided with the proposed addition at Urey Middle School. The staff at Urey has been outstanding in their performance and there is no reason to suspect but that they will continue to excell in their performance supported with a new addition and complimentary equipment. Robert Schaeffer Phone 586-3795 A supporter for the Urey addition

JANUARY 13, 1994 - THE INDEPENDENT NEWS

7