Published: November 17, 2008 01:22 pm      

EDITORIAL: A revised Prop. 1 for LHS could be endorsed

Over the past few weeks our Editorial Board has opposed the $29.5 million Lockport High School capital construction proposal. Our stance has been met with agreement by many and, for obvious reasons, disagreement by district officials.

Superintendent Terry Ann Carbone and members of her administrative team met with the US&J Editorial Board this week to explain the project in great detail, hoping to change our opinion.

For the most part, they did not.

As it stands today, the project is split into two separate spending propositions, both to be voted on Dec. 16 either in person or through absentee ballot. The absentee ballot option was news to us, so be sure to spread the word on that portion of it to your snowbird friends.

Administrators have said the project will have no impact on local school tax rates because most of it will be paid for by state aid and the portion that’s not is to be covered by existing district savings.

Our opinion remains that there are no guarantees from the state and, considering the financial crisis afflicting both the nation and the state, there’s no better time than now for the school district to protect its reserve funds.

Proposition 2, which would pour $6 million into a Lockport Lions athletic complex including a varsity stadium with artificial turf, should be thrown out the window. It’s the perfect symbol of increasingly widespread public sentiment about this project generally: great idea, bad timing.

Proposition 1, tabbed at $23.5 million, should be rejected as well.

Elements within it are worth preserving, however. What we would recommend, after a double “no” vote, is that the Lockport School Board come back with a revised Proposition 1.

Projects within that warrant support are:

n All renovations except the cafeteria/kitchen re-do. Bringing the technology education wing up to date, adding handicap-accessible bathrooms and an elevator in the classroom wing and cleaning up the crowded entry corridor are projects that meet legitimate student needs. Rearranging the cafeteria into multiple dining stations, so Suzy can go for Chinese while Sam visits the Mexican stand, is not.

n All building condition survey work, including window replacement and mechanical upgrades, to increase energy efficiency.

n Addition of a computer lab and special education/life skills classroom. Carbone made a convincing case for both enhancing students’ day-to-day education.

n Site improvements: Increased parking, relocation of the Locust Street bus loop and creation of a parent drop-off and visitor area on Lincoln Avenue.

Other parts of Proposition 1 — addition of four “general” classrooms, a new chorus room, a new fitness room, an art gallery (?!) and band room expansion — are luxury items and should be scrapped.

We urge residents to listen carefully to district officials’ choices of words to defend Props 1 and 2. You’re being told that the state aid and district reserves can only be spent on capital improvements, not books, staff or other resources that affect children more directly. OK, that’s fine; a slimmed-down Prop 1 still fits the bill.

You might also be told, by Carbone, that your children “deserve” the best facilities, as good as any found in a district like Williamsville or Orchard Park, and these propositions are all about helping your children aim higher.

Listen: We all want the best for Lockport’s students, but this is not Williamsville, where the tax base is thriving and population is growing.

Lockport is a small-city school district, with big city struggles, which Carbone knew when she took the job. As superintendent of such a district, she ought to realize the difference between needs and wants.

Once again, this proposal seems like a great academic case study in fiscal responsibility and priority setting. We all deserve great things; that doesn’t mean we’ll get them all.

You might also be warned, “if we don’t use it (state aid) someone else will.”

We say “Let them.”

Let someone else risk Albany changing the aid game mid-stream. Let someone else spend down the reserves on luxuries. Let someone else gamble on the long-term outlook turning rosy again.

Deborah Coder, Carbone’s assistant superintendent for finance and management, asserts project critics are confused when they think the stock market’s troubles mean borrowing to cover costs upfront is bad; the municipal bond market is doing well, she said, and by the time the district actually takes out a loan, in 2010, conditions likely will be even better.

Less than 24 hours after Coder insisted that’s so, we received an alert about municipal borrowing from the office of state Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli. It read, in part: “The credit crunch is squeezing local governments. The disruption in the markets could have serious implications for school districts and local governments, which need access to short-term credit to manage cash flow and finance infrastructure projects. Higher borrowing costs are making an already volatile fiscal situation more challenging for school districts and local governments.”

Boiled down, DiNapoli said, municipal capital projects that invoke borrowing may have to be postponed until the market situation improves; and since one cost of delay is price hikes, municipal planners will have to rethink their priorities even when the markets do improve.

And there we have it: Do we “need” Props 1 and 2 or do we simply “want” them?

Whether the public approves or rejects one or both propositions on Dec. 16, Lockport City School District needs to adopt a long-term capital improvement plan, one that spans 10 to 15 years, so taxpayeyrs aren’t hit with one giant, catch-all spending proposal every decade or so.

Chipping away at the needs is what any good homeowner does with an aging house. The district ought to treat the high school, and the rest of its aging buildings, the same. Better planning is necessary.