Mount Pleasant School Officials Weigh Second Bond Vote
One month after the resounding defeat of a $55,855,000 capital projects bond, the Mount Pleasant Board of Education is considering a new multi-proposition proposal that could go to voters early next year.
Board of Education President James Grieco and Superintendent of Schools Dr. Susan Guiney said last week the district was moving ahead with a series of steps that could lead to a second bond vote as early as February.
About 30 residents attended the Dec. 10 school board work session to discuss the Nov. 15 proposition that was defeated by a more than 2-to-1 margin and the options open to the district. Since the vote, Guiney said she has been told by several residents that the reason they opposed it was simply because “$55 million was just too much money.”
Grieco said some critics of the bond said they could not support it because it included nonessential items, such as an artificial turf field, lights for the athletic field and a second access road for the middle school and high school campus.
Projects included in the defeated bond would have upgraded the infrastructure, primarily at the district’s two secondary schools, Grieco said.
“There’s a lot of work that needs to be done,” he said.
Nearly 70 percent of the original proposal’s cost was devoted to the infrastructure and other renovations, including work to replace and repair ceilings, classroom floors, lighting and the heating and ventilation systems at the middle school and high school.
Guiney and Grieco agreed that if a new bond is proposed it could be divided into multiple propositions. For example, one proposition could consist of major infrastructure work and the second ballot item could include projects such as a new artificial surface for the athletic field. But if the more costly proposition was defeated, the second proposition could not go forward even if it was approved by voters, Guiney said.
She indicated the earliest a new bond vote could be brought before the public would be in February because under state law there is a minimum 90-day waiting period after a school bond is defeated by voters.
Grieco said if another vote isn’t held in February, he would prefer to wait until at least the summer. The spring is going to be devoted to working on the 2015-16 spending plan and rushing to put a bond vote on the ballot the same day as the annual May budget vote and school board elections would not be prudent, he said.
The district is asking its architects, KG&D of Mount Kisco, to provide information on how the capital projects could be done at a lower cost, Guiney said. About $40 million of the defeated $55.8 million proposal was for renovations and infrastructure improvements, she said.
Guiney stressed that the district wants to collaborate with residents to address the infrastructure needs.
“We’re doing this together,” she said.
The district also plans to distribute a survey to residents in the near future, Grieco said. He would like the district to analyze why most residents failed to participate in the November bond vote.
