Proposition #1 Student Parking Questions

Where will our RCS students park in our proposition #1, which includes a parking lot plan?

With our capital project vote two days away, I realize our students are concerned about this question. The simple answer is that our ‘Juniors’ lot remains exactly the same and there will still be parking where the ‘Seniors’ lot is now but it will likely be the ‘Employee’ lot. There will be significant additional parking at the tennis court lot,  visitor parking at the bus garage where we currently park extra vehicles and overall we are gaining 44 spots.

The drawings we have included in the materials we’ve published are not detailed to the level we will use when we go to bid. The architects call these ‘conceptual drawings’ and I’m glad because I’ve learned some things that I will follow through on with them after the project vote this Tuesday.

What have I learned from listening to our employees, students and participants at the public hearing that we can now work to include in the detail?

Assigning a specific parking spot to every employee and student with permission to park is high on my list of great ideas. Working with the architect to really look at the entire traffic flow plan again–including where two way traffic is planned,  finding a way to afford to include the exit drive parking lot and walkway directly from the top parking lot to the field, and how to add even more parking where possible are also on the list.

Now you may be asking ‘isn’t this a final design’? Of course not! When residents vote on Tuesday, they are approving a conceptual design and a total proposition dollar amount. We are permitted to spend less than the voter approved total, but not a dime more.

Our BOE members and I have already met with our construction manager to talk about the VALUE of the project. We want the District’s monies worth out of this project! After Tuesday’s vote we then are prepared to pay the costs of a detailed design by CannonDesign, our architectural firm. We will fight to make the most of every dollar.

And please don’t worry about snow removal. This is a question that’s come up that I don’t quite understand. We will handle the snow just as we always have–we haven’t always put it in the same place that we do now. Remember when we piled it directly in front of the elementary school? We can figure this out.

Thanks to everyone for the feedback and conversation! This is how we end up with the best possible result. After Tuesday, please continue to express your ideas and questions and I will include them in our work with our construction management company, Campus, and our architect, CannonDesign.  We also have a good team working on this with the varied expertise of our BOE members and our employees at RCS.



Capital Project Financing

What’s all of this going to cost me, as a taxpayer?

For the $7,050,545 Proposition #1 Capital Project, the average cost to the taxpayer varies based on two factors. Do you have STAR/SENIOR STAR and what is the full value of your home?

For SENIOR STAR recipients, there is no annual cost to those taxpayers with homes valued under $80,000. An $80,000 home will carry an average additional annual cost of $1 annually; $2 annually for a $90,000 home.

For STAR recipients on a primary residence, a $60,000 full value homeowner will have an average additional cost of $2 annually; an $80,000 home will carry an average additional annual cost of $3; $4 annually for a $90,000 home.

For non-primary residence homeowners, a $60,000 full value homeowner will have an average additional cost of $4 annually; an $80,000 home will carry an average additional annual cost of $5; $6 annually for a $90,000 home.

For the Combined $9,815,000 Proposition 1 & 2 Capital Project:

For SENIOR STAR recipients, there is no annual cost to those taxpayers with homes valued under $60,000. An $80,000 home will carry an average additional annual cost of $6 annually; $10 annually for a $90,000 home.

For STAR recipients on a primary residence, a $60,000 full value homeowner will have an average additional cost of $13 annually; an $80,000 home will carry an average additional annual cost of $21; $25 annually for a $90,000 home.

For non-primary residence homeowners, a $60,000 full value homeowner will have an average additional cost of $25 annually; an $80,000 home will carry an average additional annual cost of $34; $38 annually for a $90,000 home.

Please come to vote on Propositions #1 & #2 on Tuesday, March 24, from 2:00-8:00 in the high school cafeteria. We’ve been responsible to our taxpayers with zero percent increases since 2008 and we continue to be responsible with the project propositions we put before you for your vote on March 24. Please come March 24, 2015 to support our students and programs!

Project Financing



Prop #2-Artificial Turf Multi Purpose Athletic Field

Proposition 2, resurfacing our existing natural turf football field as an artificial turf multi-purpose field is the most exciting proposition in this capital project. As we consider the campus of Randolph Central and our limited green space, this is the only field we own and can therefore invest in improvements—we could take what we currently have and make it so much better!

By investing in artificial turf for this field, we won’t have to restrict access as we’ve done for so many years to keep it useable for the home Varsity and JV football games, one soccer game for girls and one for boys, and four youth football games. Instead we will be able to allow access to this field for every football game, soccer games, and physical education classes. The community requests to use the field for other purposes that we’ve had to deny could be allowed. And what I love most about this idea is that what we already have–a beautiful stadium with a concession stand and bathrooms and bleachers and lights–could be used so much more!

Our track absolutely must be resurfaced now. This is the perfect time, if we’re ever going to consider artificial turf, for us to invest in this field for our students. Our athletic programs are a point of pride for this community. None more so than our FIVE TIMES SINCE 2005 STATE CHAMPIONSHIP FOOTBALL TEAM!

Instead of saying “a grass field was good enough for me, it’s good enough for everyone else”, let’s say “our programs are as good as or better than anyone else’s in the state of New York–our students deserve this!”

Proposition 2


Student Safety-Our #1 Priority for Prop #1

From the beginning of our planning process in 2013, the BOE members, school personnel, students and community members agreed that improving the safety of our parking lot for our students and community members is our #1 priority. We spent a considerable amount of time evaluating how to gain more space, including a removal of the bus garage and reconstruction of outside parking of buses off the campus.

Ultimately the BOE responded to the concerns of the bus drivers and to their own concerns about tearing down a building that we have, determining to leave the bus garage intact. That left us with the task of determining how to improve safety with a clearly delineated parking lot plan and at the same time, a much needed increase in parking, considering our limited space.

What does this new parking lot design provide us that we don’t have now?

  1. Two way traffic in and out of our campus on what is currently a one way entrance and a one way exit drive. This plan allows for greater access in and out in the event of an emergency and it also provides multiple parent drop off spots so that all traffic is not moving through one exit point at the same time that our buses are unloading/loading and our students are moving across our campus.
  2. Separate bus lane areas.
  3. Additional parking of 42 new spots.
  4. Extended parent drop off/pick up lane. Three designated parent drop off options.
  5. Raised crosswalk with gate control between our two buildings.
  6. Expanded parking areas at the elementary and tennis courts.
  7. Safer curbing and distances between parked vehicles and the main entrance to the high school building.
  8. Daytime visitor parking along the entire west side of the bus garage with all outside transportation vehicles parked off of the campus. This was the concession to keeping inside parking of our buses that we then have at least the space up to the building for the improved safety and parking.
  9. Clear safe crosswalks through our parking lot to our multi-purpose field, athletic stadium.

Parking Lot Changes

Elementary Building Improvements/Proposition #1

The changes to our elementary building are similar to those I talked about yesterday in our high school building.

  1. Replace the master clock system with a wireless clock system.
  2. Intrusion detection devices integrated with video surveillance.
  3. Code compliant hardware locksets for all classroom doors that allow teachers to lock their classroom doors quickly in the event of an emergency, without using a key.
  4. A handicapped toilet room in the occupational/physical therapy multi purpose room.
  5. Smartcard technology security access that interfaces with our video surveillance systems and replace our analog cameras with IP, integrating our two systems.
  6. Replacement of boys toilet room urinals.
  7. 18,000 square feet of carpet replacement.
  8. Stage lighting control updates in the gymnasium.
  9. Preparing for a conversion to hot water heat in a future, phase #2 project: crawl space abatement, steam piping, ventilator and pump conversion.
  10. Replacement of HVAC that is at end of useful life.

Elementary School Improvements

High School Improvements/Prop #1

So what changes will we see in the high school building if the voters approve Proposition #1 of the capital project? Many of the items won’t be seen easily when visiting our building because they are items we need to do to take care of what we already have here.

  1. Our boilers will be near the end of their useful life cycle in about five years. We are taking care of work in this project that will get us ready to move to hot water heat in a second phase project five years from now. We are changing steam piping to hot water now.
  2. Roof areas need to be replaced over the gym, the second floor and stairs/lobby adjacent to the Auditorium.
  3. Our stage rigging is antiquated and unsafe for use by anyone. That’s being replaced.
  4. A new, wireless master clock system throughout the building.
  5. Adding 25 fire alarm detection system devices.
  6. Refinishing and repairing wood wall cabinets in the 1931 2nd floor section of the building.
  7. Adding emergency power and AC to 5 data rooms.
  8. New theatrical lighting dimming panel for the Auditorium.
  9. 12,000 square feet of vinyl tile flooring abatement and replacement in the 1931 & 1965 2nd/3rd floor sections of the building.
  10. Toilet component replacements in the 1931 section.
  11. Wood door refinishing in the 1931 section.
  12. Door hardware to be replaced to meet ADA requirements.
  13. Door hardware to be code compliant and include locksets on classroom doors that don’t have to be locked with a key by the teacher in the event of an emergency.
  14. Kitchen ceiling replacement and a 2nd floor ceiling replacement, 1931 part of the building.
  15. Total track resurfacing-the track is beyond it’s useful life and has not been previously replaced.

High School Improvements


Frequently Asked Questions on the Capital Project

Capital Project Questions & Answers

Q. Why is the District having a bond vote?
A. Randolph Central School District is committed to providing a safe learning environment and well-maintained facilities for students and public use. Just as one’s home ages and needs upkeep and repairs to keep it in good shape, so do our schools. Many routine repairs and projects are funded within the annual District budget, with local taxpayers bearing the full cost. Larger work items and safety concerns would have a greater impact on everyone’s taxes if they were to be included in the annual District budget. However, a capital project bond issue results in a much lower tax impact and is a fiscally responsible alternative because the State reimburses a large percentage of the cost and the expense is spread out over a longer period of time.

Q. Why was this work chosen?
A. Every five years, all school districts are required by the State to have a certified Architect review the condition of their buildings and grounds. Recently, our architectural consultant and construction management firm examined the District’s facilities and helped the District to define over $40 million in potential needs. A significant portion of these items are either required by State regulations or were developed to improve safety concerns in the parking areas and with traffic circulation throughout the campus. A District subcommittee studied those items and developed a recommended list of the most critical improvements and safety upgrades.

Q. Why are there two propositions?
A. The Board of Education divided the project into two distinct areas. Proposition 1 is work that pertains to building and safety needs that are high on the list of priorities. The District’s Building and Grounds personnel and the Facilities Planning Committee felt these work items were considered to be “needs”…those items primarily included safety, security and improvements to extend the life of building systems. During the scope definition process, that same committee also identified a synthetic turf field as the highest priority “want”. This work, however, would receive less aid from the State Education Department. Therefore, Proposition 2 was developed separately, primarily due to the difference in the State’s building aid, for consideration from our community.

Q. Why is a synthetic turf field being considered?
A. The concept of a synthetic turf field in Randolph has been discussed for years. The benefits of synthetic turf include significantly increased use by our sports teams, gym classes and by the community; less maintenance time and water usage, and; increased playability even in the most extreme weather conditions. More and more school districts throughout the State are providing synthetic turf fields for their students and their community use. The Board of Education and the Facilities Committee feel the time is right for the voters to consider this option for our students and our community.

Q. How will the project be financed?
A. The project will be paid for by a combination of State Building Aid funding, the District’s cash reserves especially set aside for capital projects and taxpayers’ local share.

Q. Isn’t State Building Aid just my tax dollars too?
A. Yes, it is. The New York State Legislature has given all Districts in the state an opportunity to use tax dollars to enhance their communities through school building improvements and renovations. This is an opportunity to keep some of those tax dollars in our own community, working to improve the educational setting for our children and the public.

Q. If the 1st proposition doesn’t pass, can the 2nd proposition pass?
A. No. Proposition 2 is contingent on Proposition 1 passing.

Q. When will the work take place?
A. It is anticipated that the State Education Department’s approval for the project will be received by early 2016 with the bulk of work starting in the summer of that year. Based on the State’s approval of the project, completion would be expected in 2017.

Q. How will contractors be selected to build the project?
A. The project must be contracted utilizing State of New York competitive bidding laws. Essentially, this requires that each project 1) be divided into at least 4 prime contracts (general construction, mechanical, electrical and plumbing); 2) utilize the NYS Dept. of Labor prevailing wage rate and; 3) be awarded to the lowest responsible bidder. Also, the District and the Project Team recognize the importance of local contractor participation. Therefore, during the bidding process, the construction manager will be actively recruiting local contractors and subcontractors to submit bids to the District.

Q. Who is eligible to vote?
A. Any US citizen that is 18 years old and who has resided within Randolph Central School District for at least 30 days prior to the vote is eligible.

Q. What will it take to pass the vote?
A. A simple majority of the total votes is needed.

Q. Where can I learn more about the project?
A. Please go to the District’s website for the most up-to-date information ( Also, a public meeting will take place in the High School auditorium on March 18, 2015 and the Capital Project Newsletter will be mailed to each household in mid-March.

Q. How do these propositions affect the district’s overall debt when considering previous construction projects?

A. We currently have 3 bonds on previous projects for which we receive state aid and make annual payments. We have a bond that’s paid in full June, 2018 and carries an annual payment of $1,306,750 with state aid of $1,326,066 annually. We took advantage of refinancing last year, which is why our aid exceeds our payment. 

When that bond is paid off in June 2018, this Proposition 1 Project is an annual payment of $543,072 and the state aid we receive will be $513,371, a local share of $29,701.

If Props 1 & 2 both pass, they will carry an annual payment of $810,750 with state aid at $603,522 annually. Both propositions, combined with debt from the other 2 bonds left result in total payments of $2,735,393 with state aid of $2,580,968 and a local share of $154,425 for debt in the 2018-19 school year.

Letter to the Community on our Proposed Capital Project

Dear District Resident,

On March 24, 2015, you will have an opportunity to vote on a capital project that is primarily designed to address critical facilities and equipment needs in each of our buildings, along with vehicle and pedestrian safety concerns throughout our site. The project is based on the needs assessment required by the State Education Department every five years to be sure we are planning for and maintaining the district’s assets.

The study, review of recommendations, and planning were achieved through the collaboration of our Buildings and Grounds team, headed by David Flaherty; our Chief Information Officer Mike Frame; the leader of our transportation services Brian Hinman; our administrative and professional services team; our Board of Education (BOE) Facilities Committee, which includes Julie Milliman, Daniel Jackson, and Marshall Johnson; and members of our community.

During the process, this team identified and prioritized over $40 million of facilities, site and educational needs. To maximize our available state aid and minimize the impact to taxpayers — key objectives set by the Board of Education — the team recommended a capital project to address the most critical and beneficial needs, amounting to $9,815,000. It is important to note that the team considered and evaluated a variety of options to address immediate needs, competing priorities and funding scenarios. This proposed project is their final recommendation. It includes the following two propositions:

Proposition 1: The number-one priority of our BOE members and our planning teams was to improve the safety in our parking lots. Therefore, a large part of Proposition 1 will include the reconfiguration of our campus for improved site circulation and parking. Also included are high-priority improvements to our Elementary and High School buildings. Additional scope highlights are provided within this newsletter.

Proposition 2: The committee also looked at items they felt would be of significant benefit to the district but could not be achieved without some additional cost to our local tax payers. As a result, we are asking you to consider upgrading our football field to an all-weather multi-purpose field. Resurfacing the field with synthetic turf would extend outdoor activities to additional physical education classes and many of our athletic teams throughout a greater portion of the year. Proposition 2 cannot pass unless Proposition 1 also passes.

All work will be paid for using a combination of state aid funding, cash from the capital project reserve fund established and built up by the district, and the local tax share. Years of careful financial and operations management by the district will enable RCS to fund the work in Proposition 1 at a relatively minor local tax impact — an average of 0 – 33 cents/month, depending on applicable STAR exemptions. If Proposition 1 passes, the work for Propositions 1&2 combined would cost an average 0 – $2.08/month.

Over the years, we’ve experienced the pride and involvement that our community has in our district. Capital projects like these are meant not only to help keep our facilities in good working order, but also to improve the conditions under which our children learn and thrive. We need and appreciate your support, and we ask that you come to learn more at the Public Hearing on March 18, and to cast your vote on March 24.


Kimberly Moritz                                                     Michael Evans

Superintendent of Schools                               Board of Education President

Capital Project Vote, March 24, 2015

We are preparing for a capital project vote here at Randolph Central School on March 24, 2015 from 2:00 pm-8:00 pm in our High School Cafeteria. As we’ve been doing public presentations to inform the public on the details of the project propositions, it may be helpful for me to share the information in a series of blog posts also.

Over the next couple of days, I will write about the different parts of the proposed project. We have a public hearing on March 18, 2015 at 6:00 in the Auditorium. During the hearing I will present these same details and community members will have the opportunity to ask questions.

A special thank you to BOE members Julie Milliman and Janet Huntington, who have been with me this week as we presented after the Grandparents’ Breakfasts and last night during a community forum. Thank you to all of our BOE members, RCS employees, and community members who have worked so hard to plan a project that addresses the critical needs of our district and is mindful of the cost to the taxpayers.

If you can’t make it to the public hearing on the project, please feel free to call me or stop by at any time. Also, our BOE members are very well versed in the details.

Please come and vote on March 24, 2015!


Why We Test

Cross Posted at TheHill

In New York State, the debate over the implementation of the new,  more rigorous common core learning standards has been everything from controversial to impassioned to confusing. The argument has frequently centered on the evaluation of teachers and principals using student test scores.  And the debate has become so heated that some teachers and even some superintendents are refusing to administer assessments tied to the standards. That’s entirely the wrong direction for our schools and, most important, for our kids. And it’s just too simplistic.

Instead, the discussion we must have is both about testing for our children’s understanding and understanding our children’s tests.

Historically, tests have been used as a measurement of a student’s learning at the end of a chapter, book, or unit. That’s what most of us remember, right? The test measured if we studied, did the work, understood the concepts, mastered the material or just did well on tests. Today the testing that we’re doing in our schools can still be what we remember but it can also be more formative in nature. In fact, it should be formative--we should be using what we learn about our students’ learning to inform what happens next in the classroom. Do we need to go back to the drawing board on a concept 90% of the students missed on this test? What kind of progress has each student made toward mastering the next standard? Who needs more support? Who’s got it and is more than ready to move on?

As a superintendent I worked with our teachers and administrators in the alignment of our curriculum to the common core standards. As a measure of our progress–of our alignment and our expectations–we also implemented formative testing four times during the year in grades K-8, Math and ELA. Our families know this as iReady. We do this not to measure learning at the end of a chapter or quarter, but to check student progress toward the attainment of learning standards so that we can make mid-course corrections.

Since we made this commitment to learn more about our students and their learning, our student achievement on NYS tests has improved dramatically as compared to other districts. Why? Not because we’re now “teaching to the tests” but instead, because we are focusing on the standards and individualizing learning through adaptive testing and diagnostic instruction in a blended learning environment. Teachers have always worked incredibly hard here. We are simply providing them with more information that helps them do the job better for every student.

Consider our rank on the achievement index. The achievement index is a metric wherein each district’s academic rank is compared to its socioeconomic climate rank. If a district is 25th academically and 50th in socioeconomics, it is said to have overachieved by 25 places. Using this metric we are the fourth most overachieving district in Western New York. I’m not so crazy about this measure as it’s like saying, “hey we’re doing better than expected given our rate of poverty” but it does demonstrate that ALL children can learn within a system that supports learning in the right ways.

Some opponents of State and federally mandated standards have argued that too much classroom time is spent on testing and test preparation. There is a lot of truth in that, particularly if  accountability measures are mishandled and teachers, administrators and students are made to feel anxiety and pressure about testing or “practicing” for the tests. Without the right leadership actions to provide support to our teachers in building a system of functioning programs and testing that work, teachers cannot figure this out on their own. They will. Because they always have. But it won’t be a system, it will be random. And it won’t give a school district the kind of system wide results in which every child is challenged that most of us are looking to build. However, if schools are using adaptive testing and diagnostic instruction to inform the choice of curriculum for individual students, then making a small investment in testing time enables us to maximize  instructional time.

Adopting high quality tests and administering them with an eye on using the results to provide students with timely individualized help allows us to greatly enhance our educational systems. I see it in real learning in the classrooms and in our students’ abilities, not just on NYS assessment results. For example, in our math classrooms our students now have much better rapid recall of math facts and their understanding of fractions and ability to do operations with fractions is much improved. They are also much better at attacking multi-step problems and seem to have overall better retention of what they have learned. Why? The common core standards are more rigorous and we’ve raised our expectations for all students while supporting them in a more individualized way.

The most significant factors in our school improvement success have been the implementation of a coherent, cohesive common core standard aligned curriculum in grades K-8 and our use of regular adaptive testing and diagnostic instruction. This kind of testing is about giving teachers more information. Computer based diagnostic instruction is about giving all students individualized instruction. The bottom line? Blended learning with adaptive testing allows us to challenge all of our learners not just our struggling learners. And by the way, our NYS test results have also improved significantly.

That’s the kind of comprehensive learning and assessment for which the Common Core standards were designed. Simply turning your back on the learning standards and “opting out” as a public school system is a disservice to the work of educating all of our students. It’s hard work to get it right, and it’s worth it.