Burlington school officials will seek a consensus for future of facilities
By Ed Nadolski
Editor in Chief
Burlington Area School District officials will likely have a year to consider future referendum options in the wake of the decisive defeat of three facility-related questions placed before voters last week.
There is no fall 2017 election, according Superintendent Peter Smet, which means the next scheduled elections are the February primary election and the April Spring Election. The district could decide to schedule a special election, but Smet said that is unlikely.
At Monday’s School Board meeting, both Smet and Board President Jim Bousman expressed optimism that district officials could prepare a new referendum that would address the district’s facility needs and satisfy its voters.
“Now that the voters know what those (facility) challenges are, those challenges are on our shoulders,” Bousman said in reference to the School Board and administration.
From a logistics standpoint, last week’s referendum defeat should not cause administrative or budgetary distress for the district, Smet said.
He explained that Gary Olson, the district’s superintendent of buildings and grounds, prepared two budget scenarios – one for if the referendums passed and one for if they were defeated.
With any solutions delayed at least a year, it appears the only referendum-related risks at this point are an unanticipated mechanical or facility breakdowns and potential added costs due to any inflationary pressures that may come to bear in the meantime.
On the flip side, having another year to consider options alleviates pressure and helps remove some of the emotion that surrounded the election, Smet said.
Pragmatic approach
On Tuesday, Smet took a pragmatic approach as he was asked by a reporter to review last week’s defeat and consider future options for the district.
He said the ultimate goal is to settle upon a process that will lead to a consensus in the community – something “that will honor all sides of the issue.”
“It is really, truly a great democratic process,” he continued. “You can’t be frustrated or angered by it because that’s our system.”
In retrospect, Smet said, the three referendum questions presented in last week’s election were often taken as a whole by voters. Instead of viewing each question separately, a significant number of voters rejected all three.
The three questions asked whether voters supported spending $68.3 million for a new middle school and general repairs to other facilities; $11.7 million for additional gymnasium space at Burlington High School; and $14.4 million for a performing arts center on the BHS campus.
Each of the three questions was decisively defeated, with middle school and repairs option at 61 percent voter opposition; the gymnasium at 78 percent opposition; and the performing arts center at 72 percent opposition.
Whether there was backlash over the sum of all three questions costing $94.4 million, Smet could only speculate. However, he did say it appeared voters did not embrace the board’s intent to present them with a variety of choices.
“From the board’s standpoint, choice seemed like a logical and good approach,” Smet said. “But people tended to lump them together.
“The perception of choice didn’t translate that way at the polls.”
That response illustrates the disconnect the board experienced in the comments and desires expressed by staff, parents and residents at public input sessions and the results they saw in a pre-election survey and, ultimately, at the polls.
Those who attended the information-gathering sessions largely expressed support for additional buildings and programs while voters seemed to indicate they are seeking more of a bare bones approach.
Smet said the survey taken in winter was an accurate gauge of the community with one notable exception – undecided voters.
The survey predicted undecided voters would split evenly for and against the referendum questions. In reality, Smet said, the undecided voters turned out 80 percent in opposition to the referendum questions.
He said the challenge now facing the district is “to analyze the data to determine the best question to put before the voters. That’s the process in Wisconsin.”
The options
In the run up to the election, School Board member Phil Ketterhagen argued that a repair and maintain option should have been presented to the voters. He stressed that the district’s current declining enrollment should create available space without the need to expand.
Smet said administrators and the School Board will likely re-examine the 13 options presented in last year’s engineering study prepared by Plunkett Raysich Architects as it begins to start the process anew.
However, if the recent planning process is any indication, the lynchpin in the restart will again be the perceived state of Karcher Middle School. With portions of the campus dating to the 1920s, board members will again have to decide whether the smart money is on repairing and renovating or building new.
Smet likened the decision to the one homeowners have to make when dealing with an aging home. However, with a single homeowner, the decision only has to please a lone family. In the case of the school district, there are thousands of people to consider.
“That’s difficult because the majority is a moving target,” Smet said.
-
-
-
-
-