Editor, Times-Union: I was disappointed in several articles recently about the meetings involving the Warsaw Schools referendum. Specifically, Monica Boyer's letter to the editor and the Times-Union story and photos on the front page of the paper touting support for the referendum. Mrs. Boyer and the Times-Union appear to be taking the school board and administration agenda without investigation. The Times-Union missed an excellent opportunity to objectively investigate and report their findings rather than merely repeat and promote the administration's agenda to build monuments. An in-depth investigation and analysis of the needs versus benefit should be conducted. I do not believe lavish and extravagant buildings equate with quality education. The teachers unions, administrators and many parents have been indoctrinated over the years to think otherwise. Some of my concerns and suggestions are: 1. With a stagnant economy and the pending merger of two of our major employers that will result in job losses due to attrition and consolidation, this is not the time to further strap the taxpayers of Warsaw Community Schools with higher tax rates. Monica stated in her letter that the proposed spending will result in an average tax increase of $45 per home. I don’t know where that figure came from but if you believe that, there is a bridge to Hawaii I would like to sell you. What will be the tax impact on businesses? When was the last time politician's projected tax hikes were accurate or over estimated (remember Obamacare; reassessment of home taxes a few years ago, etc.)? Warsaw's population is stable and not growing; let's not live beyond our means. 2. Has an objective study been conducted (not a paid consultant from southern Indiana with a fee and potential commission for an approved project riding in the balance)? 3. Lets consider some less expensive solutions such as: a. Changing middle schools to grades 6, 7 and 8 thus freeing up four to six classrooms per elementary school which would allow current schools room for expansion for five to 10 years before new construction might be necessary. b. Remodel and add on to Edgewood to accommodate growth of sixth-graders added to the student body. This building was constructed with expansion plans in mind when it was built and enough surrounding land is available. c. Move the Food Services offices from Lakeview to the old gym area of Gateway modifying that space to accommodate the new occupancy. The Gateway gym area is no longer necessary since the building is used mainly as classrooms and for remedial and disciplinary students of middle and high school age. d. By moving out the Food Services occupancy from Lakeview, that area could be modified to accommodate sixth-graders from the corresponding elementary schools. Lakeview is not yet overcapacity and could handle some of the additional sixth-graders by utilizing freed space. e. Repair and renovate the deferred maintenance items at Lincoln School. Pipes that need replaced or rewrapped is much cheaper than building a new school. New windows, updated electrical systems (i.e. conduit and enhanced service boxes and outlets), new windows, HVAC improvements, plumbing repairs and upgrades) could make the building serviceable for many years. Many communities in Indiana are operating schools with buildings older than 65 years. Some of the proposals I heard of are tantamount to scraping the perfectly serviceable family car because it needs new tires or brakes. Claypool Elementary School was shut down and reopened three years later so the special interests in the community could get the athletic facilities they wanted. Three to five years before it was closed down several million dollars was spent on the building renovating and expanding it. As of three years ago, it was put back in service and is performing well as an elementary school again. It is similar age to Lincoln and the same concept can be applied at Lincoln. Let's not throw the baby out with the bath water. Can't we come up with a program that will cost around 20 to 25 million or less? Before approving such a huge expenditure, the community deserves objective out-of-the-box thinking that does not break the bank without improving academics. Dollars wasted does not equate to improved education standards. Jim Merritt Warsaw, via email
