Two years ago, 62% of Cape Elizabeth voters rejected a $116 million school bond proposal. Now we must decide whether to accept the current, “Middle Ground” $89.9 million proposal.
I voted no in 2022. I will vote yes this year.
While all three Cape schools feature sprawling, outdated layouts, the middle school is the worst. The narrow stairwells of the “Thirties Building” are evacuation and safety hazards. The Thirties Building is aesthetically pleasing outside, yet an educational nightmare inside. The classrooms are minuscule, constraining active student learning strategies. The middle school has an A+ music program in an F- facility.
The problems go on. The middle school is a mess.
Following the 2022 defeat, a School Building Advisory Committee (SBAC) was appointed to advise on next steps.
Ultimately, five SBAC members voted for a renovations-only approach, “Option B.” The four other members preferred “Option E” that combined a new middle school and renovations at the other schools.
Option B’s projected cost was between $77 million and $83 million, compared to Option E’s cost of $114 million. Given the close vote, the school board heard in a public meeting from both options’ SBAC supporters.
After listening to the architect, the owner’s representative and both options’ advocates, following a lengthy public discussion, the board charged the architect to return with a new building proposal that addressed its opponents’ objections.
The architect met the challenge. The Middle Ground option addresses all safety and educational concerns and many of its opponents’ objections, while reducing the price to $89.9 million.
In addition to providing a new middle school, the proposal addresses key elementary school issues. Among them, it provides a new, secure school entrance, with adjacent administrative offices with clear sightlines to the entrance; and the “cafetorium” becomes an exclusive elementary school space, meaning our youngest children for the first time will eat when it makes sense.
Were there compromises in arriving at the Middle Ground option? Yes, but they are sensible compromises.
Compared to the Middle Ground, Option B would have kept classroom sizes the same; continued to use the Thirties Building; displaced half of Cape’s elementary and middle school students one year and the other half the next, at a cost of $3 million, with zero lasting benefit; and led to a fiscal cliff in 10-20 years, when most of the middle and elementary schools’ components age out.
Opponents of the Middle Ground suggest that its bond cost is $94 million, with a real cost over $100 million. These claims are misleading or lacking context.
First, the cost of the Middle Ground is $89.9 million. The total cost of the bond proposal is almost $95 million because the Town Council added almost $5 million to renovate the Thirties Building, although there is no renovation plan and no plan for the building’s use.
Fortunately, according to bond counsel, bonds for the added amount cannot be issued, even if approved by voters, in the absence of a plan. In other words, those additional funds may never be spent.
Perhaps the council may be convinced to seek a private developer to renovate that building, at private expense, for apartments for Cape’s teachers, police or elderly? One can hope.
Second, opponents create the impression that there are baked-in, hidden, future tax increases coming, due to capital improvement budget increases to address the other schools’ needs. That claim is misleading. The school district already has a capital and maintenance budget. With inflationary increases only, that budget will pay for needed projects over time. Hence, no hidden tax increases.
Finally, opponents’ arguments lack critical context – the cost of the alternative plan. At a range of $77 million to $83 million, Option B is also expensive; it would increase taxes somewhere between 9.9-11%, compared to 11.6% for the Middle Ground alone, without the council’s add-on.
Cape voters face an important question, as $89.9 million is a lot. Even with the plan to spread out the impact (with tax increases of 0%, 1.9%, 5.8% and 3.9% over four years), the cost is large.
But it’s time to stop kicking the can. The Middle Ground option is worthy of approval, including by the 62% of us who, like me, voted “no” last time.
Send questions/comments to the editors.
We invite you to add your comments. We encourage a thoughtful exchange of ideas and information on this website. By joining the conversation, you are agreeing to our commenting policy and terms of use. More information is found on our FAQs. You can modify your screen name here.
Comments are managed by our staff during regular business hours Monday through Friday as well as limited hours on Saturday and Sunday. Comments held for moderation outside of those hours may take longer to approve.
Join the Conversation
Please sign into your Press Herald account to participate in conversations below. If you do not have an account, you can register or subscribe. Questions? Please see our FAQs.