The Independent-News, Volume 119, Number 48, Walkerton, St. Joseph County, 14 April 1994 — Page 4

4

- THE INDEPENDENT NEWS - APRIL 14, 1994

EDITORIALS

YOU DO THE TALKING We will be very brief this week in expressing our views as an editorial and leave the talking up to you. We always encourage “Voice of the People" articles as we. as well as others are always interested in what you. the public thinks. We still have a few simple guidelines, which briefly are, we always reserve the right to accept, reject or edit any article. Also, it must be signed or presented in person and if sent through the mail, we must have a phone number or address in case of any questions on our part. We are still responsible for anything in the paper whether or not it is our opinion. Personally, we think a more brief and to the point article carries more weight than a lengthy, drawn-out one, but do not have a limit on words. And of course, we urge these articles to be legible. Typewritten and double spaced is great, but not an absolute necessity. Also, in your right to speak, we want to remind the public of the very important 1028 Hearing set by the John Glenn School Corporation for Tuesday, April 19, at 7:30 p.m. in the John Glenn High School auditorium. This is necessary in considering the proposed plans before the Board on the Urey Middle School renovation, improvements of athletic facilities at John Glenn High School and the new administration office. The public is encouraged to attend and participate. There are a few simple rules that will be followed for public input. They are: A person should sign up to address the Board; give your name and address; speakers will be limited to three minutes. After this, others will be offered a time to speak and finally there will be a second opportunity for you to speak. Remember, Tuesday night, April 19, at 7:30 p.m. at the John Glenn High School auditorium.

VOICE OF THE PEOPLE “Attention’’ To the owners of two large dogs, east end of Koontz Lake, 1 brown short hair, the other long black hair, some white, these two dogs killed my registered miniature poodle on Easter Sunday. My dog was chained in my front yard. 1 suggest you keep these dogs tied before they kill again. Helen Trago “Goof" Soon it will be election time and a very important vote is the election of the John Glenn School Board. Several of you candidates forgot to file in LaPorte County. I know that Johnson Township is a small place, but I’m sure that the school would notice our size when it comes time for our taxes. Or the lack of them. Each candidate is required to file in the counties of each of the Townships involved. I think that the School Board should be made up of one manditory resident in each township. The additional three members should be elected at large. It is possible that Johnson Township could have more than one person who would make a good school board member. Quackers is very happy with his lady friends. Gobblette and Martha have two boyfriends keeping them company . Blackie, the rooster, and his three gals have settled into the family routine. This brings up the spying that has been going on, of my fowl group. Hoppy, I must warn you and your happy Para Planers, that I have my rubber band gun loaded by the door. 1 have been hearing rumors about more eateries coming to town. 1 guess that I’ll have to get busy inquiring. They are still playing cards at Al's on Tuesdays. If you've got time and want to spend a pleasant afternoon, please join them. We should all be studying the candidates for the school board so that we can pick the best for our children. Sincerely, Nedra Williams “The Three Ea E<tac«tioe - EctMieadcs - Election* LtakMl To Our Future" Yes, the three Es are very closely linked to the near and long term Future of the Walkerton area! The

vote taken by the John Glenn School Board to hold a “1028” public hearing on April 19, 1994, presenting a proposal for additions and renovations to the Corporation's Educational Facilities is a first step toward providing for the educational needs of our future students. It has been long in coming! However, having been decided upon by prudent and deliberate consideration, it can provide facilities to properly educate our students for several years to come. The process is technically, legally and politically complicated. It does provide checks and controls commensurate with the magnitude of funding dollars to be drawn from the taxpaying public. (Approximately half our real estate tax levy.) The present School Board, after the “False Start” of the preceding Board, has adopted a proposal that can provide affordable education, the common goal of the patrons and taxpayers of the John Glenn School Corporaion. This Board has encountered honest disagreements, resignation and court appointed replacement of a member, and continued intransignee on the part of some members. Yet, thru it all, they have sought that common goal, education for students! They have had the benefit of informed community input; education experts’ advice; ample legal, financial and engineering counsel; excellent research and development covering the many options and plans by Supt. David McKee and his staff; and have been continuously monitored by interested patrons and taxpayers. The Board members, individually, have spent many hours studying these options, weighing the merits of each, balancing the cost against the requirements for adequate educational facilities. They are aware that this proposal is a compromise between a completely new installation and whan can be provided by the taxpayer. They have recognized the impact on the area’s ability to retain and attract businesses and industries that excessive tax levies would have. The linkage of Education and Economnics has now been established. And now, you may ask, “Where does education link to them?” You no doubt are aware that on May 3, 1994 we shall be voting for School Board members for three vacancies that will exist. There

are two candidates for each position; one each from Liberty, Lincoln and Polk Townships. These new members must be chosen with care and insight to their qualifications. To carry the proposed project to a successful conclusion will take those with accommadation and compromise as a part of their thinking. Intrasigence and backward looking approaches cannot prevail. “Gridlock” voting must not stand in the way of education and its demonstrated needs. Fortunately, there are candidates who have those required qualities. They have closely followed this project for its entire time and have taken a personal interest in its development. They are committed to its successful completion, as well as also having followed the entire operation of the school system thru attending the School Board meetings. They are most familiar with the budgeting process and the management by budget practices that is needed to provide adequate education for the students. Those candidates are: Dave Gensinger, Liberty; Robert Schaeffer, Lincoln; and Ben Smith, Polk. Elect these candidates that can work with the other members to provide the facilities and education that has been the proud drawing card for our community! Elect those candidates that are looking at ’94 and beyond, not those looking back at ’B2 to 'B7 plans and ideas! Elect those candidates that truely understand and appreciate the linkage of Education, Economics and Elections to our future! Roman Brehm (Editor’s Note: This is the statement presented to the John Glenn School Board at their last meeting which is referred to in the Board minutes.) “To The School Board" Due to what I feel is an unfair comparison based on price alone, between the most recent 7th and Bth grade Urey Middle School proposal at $6,593,016, done by Superintendent of Schools David McKee and the Fanning and Howey Associates, Inc., proposal for a stand alone 6th, 7th and Bth facility at $11,7J 1,393, I studied the differences. The $5,118,377 difference seems well worth throwing out the 6-7-8 proposal as a viable, do-able solution. But is it just a matter of this difference alone? I think not! There are additional costs associated with the Urey proposal which in comparison brings the facility equal to the 6-7-8 proposal. These costs will hit the taxpayers within asor 6 year period. Some of these costs are on the agenda as I write. Soft costs are calculated at 30% in the 6-7-8 proposal and are calculated at 20% in the 7-8 proposal. This is not fair! In order to compare the projects as apples to apples we must deduct the 10%, $900,876.40 from the 6-7-8 proposal. Walkerton Elementary School is overcrowded! The building was designed as a K-5, temporarily housing the 6th grade until they could be sent to the middle school. Students are being taught in what were designed as storage rooms or closets. Teachers share classrooms, band lessons can only be obtained if a teacher vacates their classroom for the period or a closet found where lessons can be taught. The list goes on. The solution for this problem with the 7-Bth proposal is continue with these pitfalls (approximately 3 years) until the 3 portable classrooms now being used at Urey can be moved to Walkerton Elementary School. Is this a solution? Meanwhile as the 6 years slip by. the current $500,000 4 room addition to Walkerton Elementary becomes $1,000,000. North Liberty Elementary School has a lot of space but does not have enough classroom space. If the 6th grade were moved out, adequate classrooms would be avail-

able at no additional cost. If the 7-8 proposal goes through, an additional cost of up to $72,000 could be added to the project. (2,900 sq. ft. rooms at S4O per sq. ft.) Technology budgeted amounts of $400,000 is lost from our Capital Projects Fund if we implement the 7-8 proposal. Is this wise in this day and age? The 7-8 proposal, even after all of the construction and remodeling has two classrooms at 737 sq. ft., well below the 900 sq. ft. obtained in the 6-7-8 proposal. Two classrooms at 900 sq. ft. at a cost of SBS per sq. ft. adds $153,000 to the 7-8 proposal. The 7-8 proposal adds $330,000 for a new administration complex. If the Urey building were vacated, as would be with the 6-7-8 proposal, this money would not have to be spent. In all fairness if the administration office were to move to the Urey building, I would include a price of $140,000, S4O per sq. ft. at 3500 sq. ft., to the 6-7-8 proposal, for renovation. Athletic facilites at Urey are currently non-existent. Additional money needs to be spent on Place Park for athletic purposes in the amount of SIOO,OOO. Additional property needs to be purchased, approximately SIOO,OOO, and additional money spent, approximately SIOO,OOO for more athletic facilities, tennis courts. The money would not have to be spent if the 6-7-8 proposal were adopted. The students would be able to utilize the high school facilities which after the much needed $927,000 is spent would be first rate. Utilization efficiencies, students per dollar spent, would increase by 84%! (September 1993 figures JGHS, 523 students; combined 6-7-8, 441.) The 7-8 proposal docs not enlarge the gymnasium to state minimum standards. It falls short by 1,326 sq. ft. The 6-7-8 proposal meets the minimum. This adds to the 7-8 project cost by $112,710 (1,326 sq. ft. times SBS per sq. ft.) The proposal cuts another $1,578,272, in addition to the $400,000 from the technology fund. Some of these cuts can be taken if the 6-7-8 proposal were adopted. (1994 land acquisition $150,000, 1994 replacement of tennis courts SIOO,OOO, 1995 outdoor restrooms $30,000, 1996 new track $250,000.) The other cuts are 1994 emeregency fund SIOO,OOO, 1996 Walkerton Elementary School replacement of classroom sinks $15,000, 1995 North Liberty office renovation $20,000, 1995 North Liberty Elementary School playground $20,000, 1995 instructional equipment $175,000, and future projects budgets years 1994, 1995 and 1996 are cut $192,173, $161,081, and $365,018 respectively. These cuts are not made in the 6-7-8 proposal and need to be added to the 7-8 proposal to maintain fairness. There are more differences to be considered when comparing the two proposals which are very difficult to assign monetary amounts to. They include, but are not limited to the following: Future capacity 6-7-8 at 80% equals 520, 173 students per grade. Future capacity 7-8 at 80% equals 375,187 students per grade. Compromise middle school philosophy by not having 6th grade in middle school. This also compromises the John Glenn School Corporation Community Task Force Report sub-committee Middle School Program and Grade Organization report, dated February 2, 1993. Included in that reports bibliography is “Board of School Trustees, John Glenn School Corporation, “Position Statement”, February 3, 1987.” This most current statement directly agrees with the sub-committee’s report. Approximate 2 year construction and remodeling period. Ask anyone ever involved with such a period. It hurts! Transportation of students to high school for academic and athletic purposes. Costs and liability increase during those times.

Compromise John Glenn School Corporation Community Task Force Report, Technology Implementation sub-committee report, dated February 2, 1993. That committee recommended at $300,000 expenditure for 1993, and that the Technology Advisory Council know the funding available for technology from John Glenn School Corporation two years in advance. The 7-8 proposal cuts $200,000 per year from the planned budget of $300,000 per year from the years 1995 and 1996 budgets. The John Glenn School Corporation Community Task Force Report, sub-committee Finance report, draws 8 conclusions. Three of those conclusions were “Interest rates on bonds are at the lowest rate in years making financing cost of new facilities attractive.” “Construction costs are at a very low level.” “The John Glenn School Corporation tax rate is at the lowest level in serveral years because of a reduction in Corporation debt and General Fund at 61 cents below the minimum rate allowed.” The pay me some now, make do with all the hardships, then pay me later, when possibly all three conclusions may have gone down the drian due to increases in constructions, interest costs, and tax rates, does not to me seem to follow the wisdom behind these conclusions. As a summary for the costs involved to see these two projects as a fair comparison 1 list the following. 6-7-8 Proposal: Sq. ft., 90,521; building cost, $7,603,764; equipment costs, $905,000; site cost, $500,000; soft cost, $2,702,629 (30%) for a total of $11,711,393. Soft Cost equalizer -$900,876.4; renovate Urey for Adminstration + $140,000; total $10,950,517. 7-8 proposal — Sq. ft., new 37,608 plus renovation 37,892 = 75,500; building cost, new $196,680 plus renovation $1,462,000 = $4,658,680; equipment cost, $710,500; site cost, $175,000; soft cost, $996,736 (20%) (deducting JGHS facility) for a total of $6,540,916. Walkerton Elementary School -*-$1,000,000; North Liberty Elementary School, -*-$72,000; technology, + $400,000; 2 small classrooms, + $153,000; administration office, +$300,000; Urey Athletics, + $300,000; under-sized gym, + $112,710; non-CPF Reductions, + $1,578,272; total $10,456,898. As you can see, the difference is $493,619. With a rule of thumb of our tax rate increasing by 16 cents per 1 million dollar incrase, this gives us an increase of 7.9 cents per SIOO or net assessed valuation. Are all of these comparison, shortcomings, pitfalls, worth this. 1 think not! As a footnote, I just found another $180,999.80 to be added to the 7-8 proposal because that project did not calculate equipment costs into the soft costs as the 6-7-8 proposal does. And the list goes on. Respectfully, Jeffrey L. Johnson Patron for a Quality Education CARBONLESS FORMS To till Your Business Needs Independent-News 601 Roosevelt Rd., Walkerton JOHNSON ' INS. AGENCY 00N R JOHNSON Certified Insurance Counselor OONNA L. RAUSCH DIANE JOHNSON We Sell Service Along With Our Product Call (219)586-2580 Koontz Lake