New Mt. Pleasant School Bond Vote Likely for March
Four months after its previously proposed capital projects bond was resoundingly defeated by voters, it appears all but certain that the Mount Pleasant School District will put forward another proposition in late March.
Last week school officials said they are planning to go ahead with a second bond, but will not finalize the list of items that will be included or its price tag until the board of education’s Feb. 4 meeting. The board may also opt to offer more than one proposition.
“There is going to be a bond,” Trustee Christopher Pinchiaroli said. “The question is how much.”
Board President James Grieco said the vote would be held either March 24 or March 28. The board does not want to hold the vote in April because it would conflict with the 2015-16 budget review, he said.
Grieco said a decision on which date to choose will be influenced by district residents’ opinion on whether to hold the referendum on a weekday or a Saturday.
Some residents have told school officials they objected to projects included in November’s $55.8 million bond that was defeated by more than a 2-1 margin. The decision to include lights for the athletic field, an artificial turf surface and a second access road for the middle school and high school campus has been criticized.
However, nearly 70 percent of the projects would have been devoted to infrastructure and renovations, including work to replace and repair ceilings, classroom floors, lighting, and heating and ventilation systems at the middle school and high school.
Though district officials said last week that the items in the November bond were needed, they are considering a cost reduction. No specific amount was discussed at the meeting.
Superintendent of Schools Dr. Susan Guiney said a survey has been posted on the district’s website and printed copies have been mailed to residents. The deadline for survey replies is next Monday, Jan. 26.
The board is scheduled to hold a special work session on Jan. 28 to discuss the bond, including the survey results. The district is also expected to meet with KG&D Architects & Engineers at that meeting.
Once the board has decided on the final list of items, the district will hold informational meetings at Columbus and Hawthorne elementary schools, Guiney said.
If the capital projects are not approved in a bond they would have to be funded through the annual budget, Grieco said.
A resident, who declined to be identified after the discussion, said while she supported the November bond, many residents who opposed said they could not afford the higher property taxes. Grieco said he understood the opposition, but if improvements are made to the district’s facilities and programs, property values would rise and those selling their homes would get a higher sale price, he said.
Grieco and other trustees said that instead of trying to convince most of the residents who opposed the first bond to support a new one, officials must convince parents who failed to vote in the fall to turn out in March. School officials legally cannot campaign for support of a bond or budget.
According to the district, 62 percent of eligible voters with children enrolled in the district did not vote in November.
Pinchiaroli said the district needed to learn why residents voted against the first bond. But Trustee Theresa Fowler said most of the opponents would not have voted for any bond with higher taxes regardless of what projects it included.
The key to passing a new bond would be to convince those who did not vote in November to go to the polls, Fowler said.
