Medford residents raise questions, concerns about possible referendum
More than 40 people attended the second listening session held January 24 about a potential referendum for the Medford School District.
At the previous meeting, school officials identified a number of areas in need of repair, upgrades or improvements to improve education, health, safety and access to the school buildings.
As with the previous meeting, district resident Dave Koester ran last week’s hour-long session reporting on his research and findings done in the weeks since and also moderating and seeking answers for questions from members of the community.
Koester said he tried to separate the projects by building and their relative need. He said this resulted in a complex matrix with a lot of overlapping items.
“It is very subjective,” Koester said of his ranking of the relative needs of various projects over others.
He said his intent was not to create a definitive list of projects, but instead have something to prompt continued discussion and take the district and community into the next step.
Among the items identified include things such as the building boilers which are currently five to 8 years past their expected serviceable life, the exterior doors at buildings which are wearing and need to be replaced, the fire alarm system which, while grandfathered, does not meet current fire codes. Other items were transitioning the buildings to LED lighting, redoing the gym floor, adding to and improving locker rooms and looking at ways to gain additional green space around the buildings for practice space.
Koester said he has toured through the buildings and spoken with teachers and students. He expressed admiration and said he was impressed with what has been done in the spaces they have, noting that custodian closets have been converted into offices and education spaces in the buildings.
“They are trying to get by with what they’ve got,” Koester said, of the school staff.
Koester made an appeal for those interested in working to bring together a potential referendum project to give him their email and contact information so the group could get together. The potential goal would be to present information to the school board later this year with the hope of getting a referendum on the November 2024 ballot.
“We live in a different world,” Koester said of the changes in needs educationally and for the community that the school has been faced with since he and other community members graduated decades ago.
Unlike previous attempts at school referendums, the school administration is remaining hands-off with the efforts coming from community members. Any potential referendum question will need to be approved by the school board before going to voters.
As with past meetings, there were plenty of questions, comments and concerns raised.
Resident Stan Carbaugh asked about the cost the district is looking at to fix the identified problem areas.
District administrator Pat Sullivan noted the office addition on the high school at a cost of over $2 million, but that it was made possible because the district was able to use one-time federal funds to supplement other areas of the budget in order to free up the money for the construction project. He said the cost of any projects would depend on what was decided to be done.
He also spoke about the priority setting of the board to address security, safety and office space concerns over the leaking basement issue. He also clarified that often companies that help put together referendums for schools do so at no up front cost to the schools with the hope that they will get the contracts to do the construction work when a referendum passes.
Former school board member Mark Temme said it is very frustrating to see proposed projects fail and have opportunities missed especially when interest rates were very low. “We have guaranteed we will get less and it will cost more,” he said.
Resident Bryan Bormann asked about school budgets and if the dollars are being looked at closely enough to include more of these maintenance items within the school budgets.
School finance director Audra Brooks explained how prior to the creation of Fund 46, the state funding formula did not provide a good way for districts to save up to do larger projects. She explained that every year, the district puts money toward building operations and upkeep, but that it just doesn’t stretch far enough.
Concern was raised about adding on square footage to the school building if there already are struggles to maintain what was there. “I think it is a very fair question,” Sullivan said.
He said the reality is that if you add a classroom, you are not looking at hiring additional staff to clean that room. He also said they continually are looking at where to save money in the operational budgets.
Taxes and how to pay for any improvements was a major concern for many of those present at the meeting. They voiced concern about the large tax increase seen particularly in the town of Medford, which had a revaluation occur this year. A speaker noted her taxes went up $1,600 while others went up $3,400, asking how they would convince people to vote for a referendum that could take the taxes higher.
“That is a good question,” Brooks said, noting that it will come down to a decision that individual residents will have to make. “I am going to hope that we all want to invest in our facility,” she said.
She also noted that the school does not have any control over the assessed value of people’s home.
As far as potential tax impact of a future referendum, she said that if the district were to pass a referendum for $10 million, the tax impact would be $30 on a $100,000 home in the first year. In following years, that would drop to between $14 and $17 per $100,000 of value because state aids would kick in to help cover debt service payments.
Other residents questioned when the district is going to stop pushing for referendums.
Sullivan said that in the end it is a personal decision whether or not to vote for a referendum. He said he respects that people who decide they cannot support it and would vote no.
