In the past several years, the nation, state and especially our local community have been hit hard by a recession and stagnant economy that has forced many residents to move, and many more to tighten up their budgets and belt straps. No one likes their taxes increased, especially in this economic climate.

The sinking fund millage, however, is one expense that the Holly community needs to find a way to fund.

Usually, when taxes and tax increases are proposed, the arguments against them center around whether the “government” needs that money, what it will be used for, and if it will be used efficiently (or in other words, can other money be found to pay for it through cuts or changes). A common refrain is that, “regular Joes have had to tighten their budgets with less income, so the government (or schools) should too.”

That’s a very valid argument, except that after years of increasingly painful budget cuts, there’s not much more to cut that won’t drastically affect the high quality of education in Holly Area Schools. Staff has been downsized to nearly the bottom limit; faculty has been reduced at the cost of larger class sizes and loss of programs. The schools have become as lean and green as possible.

Schools can’t just go out and find other sources of revenue—they are at the mercy of the aloof State Legislature on foundation allowance funding and cannot propose millages for operating expenses due to Proposal A. Their only options for additional revenue are capital fund millages (for new buildings or facilities, for example) or sinking funds for maintenance to physical plants.

If Holly’s sinking fund millage doesn’t pass, the Holly Area Schools will need to find revenue for those necessary repairs to roofs, parking lots, safe and engaging playground equipment, heating and air conditioning somewhere else. The schools can’t just let those things go. And without the sinking fund, then those funds will likely need to come from the money that funds our academic programs.

A leaky roof makes learning difficult. A leaky roof repaired by having to cut programs or lay off teachers makes learning impossible.

Moreover, the Holly community should have the utmost faith and trust in the Board of Education and Superintendent Kent Barnes when they tell us that this sinking fund is necessary. Mr. Barnes has spent the past several months bombarding the community with facts—not sales pitches, not marketing, not spin, but facts. He’s answered both legitimate questions as well as addressed his favorite cliché of “rumors, gossip and innuendo.”

Moreover, the sinking fund proposal doesn’t even cover half of the anticipated expenses that the school district needs—only the most critical and important, a sign of both understanding of the districts shareholders as well as frugal management.

Despite those increasing budget cuts, Holly has been able to maintain itself as one of the top school districts in the county. Our test scores are on par with some of the more affluent districts, which is more significant when you consider that the socio-economic demographics of the Holly community are far lower than areas like Bloomfield Hills and Birmingham (far more than 50% of our children qualify for free or reduced lunch due to their relationship with poverty guidelines, which is a universally accepted indicator of potential academic challenges and achievement). Property values and student head counts have plummeted, yet our students remain at a top level.

Holly Area Schools is our community’s crown jewel—our largest employer, the Village’s largest water customer, and the exemplar of an organization that still achieves despite tough challenges. As members of the Holly community, it rests on us all, whether we have children in the schools or not, to ensure that this institution and resource continues to be a strong block in Holly’s foundation.

Vote yes and approve the Holly Area Schools sinking fund millage proposal on August 7.

Every organization, whether it be a school district, a business or a non-profit, undergoes changes in leadership. The right balance of turnover is necessary—too much change and the organization cannot find the stability to grow and achieve; too little turnover and the organization is in danger of becoming stagnant or path-dependent. So after more than a decade of leadership, Mr. Barnes’s departure opens the door for the right kind of change.

But, boy do I feel sorry for his successor.

It’s not that the new Superintendent has big shoes to fill; we shouldn’t be seeking a clone of Mr. Barnes, a carbon copy in a different suit or a simple replacement for him. New ideas, new approaches may serve to ignite a new flame of progress for the schools.

But whoever the successor is, they are going to need some of the same skills that Mr. Barnes masterfully used within the Holly community and allowed him to weather some tough storms and overcome some mighty challenges.

Mr. Barnes’s greatest attribute was his involvement within the community outside of the schools. He didn’t just manage the affairs within his domain of education, he was an avid volunteer and leader, lending his perspective, as well as effort, to many community efforts. This wasn’t completely altruistic, of course, as the savvy Mr. Barnes knew that he could best advance the message and the needs of the schools, rallying support and squashing rumors, by coming out of the proverbial ivory tower.

Hand in hand with this is the need for patient diplomacy. In the face of rising water rates (which hit the schools particularly hard as the community’s largest individual water and sewer customer) and the current Village President who fails to see the importance of our schools to our community, Mr. Barnes regularly stood for the interests of our children while never approaching an adversarial or contrary level. Part of this came from the knowledge that regardless of what our politicians did, he had the community’s well-earned support.

With his slow-paced, radio-quality voice, he regularly communicated with the stakeholders in the community, being as thorough and patient as a kindergarten teacher without ever being condescending. He didn’t mince words, but he also didn’t spin—he laid it out as it was, threw the wrench in the rumor mill regularly, and made sure that Holly knew exactly what was going on with our schools.

And most of all, while the job of Superintendent is naturally rife with politics, Mr. Barnes knew how to sidestep those landmines and when to say yes or no. If it helped the schools, and helped the community, the answer was always a no-brainer “yes.” If money was involved, then it wasn’t necessarily no (even with the schools’ budget woes); the answer was a smooth, “we’ll have to look at it.” And if nothing else, look at it, he did as he gave his word. When someone lobbed a grenade at him, he skillfully dodged them with a sly, knowing grin.

Many in the community would probably like to see Mr. Barnes remain as Superintendent, but the only constant in the universe is change. He will leave the school district in good hands—the ship will certainly be better than he found it, and it’s still sailing even through some rough seas. It’s a near certainty that Holly won’t notice the lack of Kent Barnes in community affairs—he’s not the kind of person to grow invisible while tending to African orchids in a secluded retirement. Free from the duties of administering a school district, there is little doubt he will lend his leadership and common sense to other areas of need in the community in a much greater way.

Enjoy your retirement, Mr. Barnes, and thank you for your service and commitment to Holly and its children. And leave a big binder of cliff notes for your successor—they’re going to need it.

In balancing the Village’s budget for 2012-2013, the Village Council had to make some difficult decisions. So difficult, in fact, that they were virtually in a no-win situation. But in the end, the pain was distributed and the Village is ready to move into the financial new year.

What the council, and Mr. Miller, does now is of more importance than the task of balancing the budget. While Oakland County is beginning to see a spark of light in its economy, it’s anticipated that Holly will be facing continued budget constraints next year and for the foreseeable future. Unless something proactive is done, it’s a certainty that the Village will be facing more dire choices and fewer options.

One option the Village Council is pursuing is a public safety millage to provide more dedicated revenue for the police and fire departments. This is certainly a viable option, and gives Village residents the opportunity to choose whether they want to reach deeper into their depleted pockets to fund their public safety institutions.

There’s just one problem—the Holly Area Schools is also advancing a 10 year sinking fund millage to the voters, to fund school maintenance and other ongoing costs.

Mr. Miller, however, doesn’t seem to care that there might be competing millage proposals on the ballot, and that could result in voters having to choose which millage to fund if they can’t afford both. While voters can always say “no” to either ballot, in our economically depressed area, the risk of the sinking fund millage failing due to the alternative choice of the Village’s millage could be disastrous for Holly.

What Mr. Miller doesn’t get is that the Village is not an island—its success is symbiotic with the success of Holly Township and with Holly Area Schools. Businesses and residents alike circle around this nebulous, vague term called “quality of life”, which encompasses everything from parks and recreation, home and neighborhood quality, public safety, citizen engagement, and significantly, the quality of the schools.

In today’s commuter world, one only needs to look at the freeways in the morning and evening to see that people will live in the communities that suit their quality of life. For families, that means living where the schools will provide their children quality educations, even if that means they have to drive down to the suburbs or city to work. People simply don’t live where they work and commute their children out of the way to and from school.

Holly Area Schools has managed to excel in achievement despite crippling budget and financial woes. But there has to be a limit to what they can do before education suffers—there’s always a limit. Should the sinking fund millage fail, Holly Area Schools will be forced to pay for the routine maintenance of its facilities out of funds that could be used for academic programs. Sinking funds, as Superintendent Kent Barnes has reminded the community, cannot be used for things like technology. However, the converse is sadly true—technology funds can go to pay for a condenser or roof, if need be.

A good roof won’t improve children’s test scores, but a bad roof can certainly hinder them.

Since assuming his throne two years ago, Mr. Miller has fought against nearly every pro-business, pro-development initiative that’s come through the Village Chambers. He argued against permitting liquor sales on Sundays and holidays until he eventually flip-flopped on his vote. He decried the very expensive Adaptive Reuse Study regarding the Village offices and prospective restaurants, barking that “Holly is no Birmingham, nor do we want to be” (who’s “we”??). His stalling and dodging led the Shared Services task force to go defunct without even taking the first steps toward greater financial efficiency in the community.

As a member of the Main Street Holly Downtown Development Authority, he advocated a community brand of a “town that time forgot,” a backwards and economically crippling approach taken by another Oakland County community that they sensibly shelved for a modern, progressive position. The driving force for that change: that young families want their children to grow up in modern, forward thinking communities, even with all of the benefits of a small-town lifestyle.

For Mr. Miller to advocate for a public safety millage, one that could damage the viability and success of Holly’s largest employer, largest water customer and shining beacon of success in the community, and spend the last two years not doing a thing to stimulate true economic development, that reeks of a “tax and spend” government, something that’s very incongruous with a self-proclaimed “lifelong Republican.”

If the community feels strongly enough about a public safety millage, then the community should have it placed on the ballot through a petition drive, with the weight of direct democracy behind it. But if Mr. Miller decides to champion a millage through the Council at the potential expense and total disregard of Holly Area Schools, biting the hand that feeds us, then we can only hope that voters approve both millage questions, in spite of the horrible policy it infers, and then also cast votes for a Village President who’s going to do more than just try to tax and babble his way toward financial ruin.

The move to shut off the fryers was not, however, an initiative that originated from the office of Superintendent Kent Barnes, nor from any of the members of the Holly Area Schools Board of Education. This change in the nutritional program originated from federal legislation and guidelines surrounding the National School Lunch Program that, since 1946, has provided free or reduced-cost nutritional lunches to millions of public and non-profit private school children nationwide.

The grumbling comes from two different directions: eliminating all of those yummy fried foods from the trays of our students, and how dare the government tell us and our children what they can and can’t eat.

I, for one, am pleased and excited about this change, and I don’t mind at all that it came from a federal mandate.

America is suffering from an epidemic of obesity, in both adults and children. According to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), more than 35% of adult Americans are obese. More than 17% of children aged 2-19 (12.5+ million) are obese. Michigan ranks among the top 10 states in percentage of obese population, and is the only “northern state” at this level.

The obesity epidemic in America has many causes, mostly centering on shifts in our economy and productivity. Our society moves very fast, so fast food reigns supreme. Technology has made our lives more sedentary, whether it’s hours-long commuting to and from work or hours-long video game sessions. Homemaking and family dinners (produced by either mom or dad) are rarities. These habits trickle down to our children, and this trend is not an easy one to reverse.

Studies by the CDC have revealed that children who participate in the National School Lunch Program tend to have a lower incidence of obesity and an overall lower proportional body mass index (BMI-the general standard for measuring healthy body size). The program follows the Dietary Guidelines for Americans, which sets targets and limits for nutritional components; specifically that fat calories should be less than 30% of our diet and should meet Recommended Daily Allowances for nutrients and calories.

So, the move to eliminate fried food, which due to the mass production facilities may contribute an even higher fat content within the foods, makes sense for Holly’s children. Sure, deep fried french fries are good, but no one is saying that fried foods can’t be served at home (hopefully in moderation).

That gets to the second grumbling—that of government interference in our personal lives.

I’m a firm believer that there are two good kinds of government: less government and more effective government. These are not mutually exclusive, either, but are rarely seen, much less together. I also recognize that people, by their instinctual, self-interested nature, often don’t hesitate to make choices that gratify themselves, even at the expense of themselves or others. That’s why government exists (in theory)—to provide order and balance in our society, and preferably at the most extreme minimum necessary for that order and balance.

Public health is one area that I cautiously encourage government participation, simply because I don’t comprehend the rationale that one’s individual liberty to engage in activities that damage their own health, or the health of others, is more important than their own health (or the health of others). What good is freedom if that freedom costs your physical ability or life? And it’s not a slippery slope, as libertarian-leaning folks might argue.

Economically, the lowest-cost foods are those that are high in fat, heavily processed and stripped of natural nutrients, and utilize numerous natural or synthetic additives and preservatives. Without the National School Lunch Program, many children from low-income households would be forced to eat these kinds of foods, if any food at all.

Where, then, is the sense in spending the tax dollars to fund the National School Lunch Program on the same kinds of foods that low-income students might still end up eating? Reactionaries view this as a “ban on fried foods” and an attack on liberty. Instead, the government is simply saying they will only pay for food that is more nutritious than what most low-income households would likely provide on their own.

That benefits the children, and moreover takes the stand that our tax dollars are not going to be spent in a way that reinforces nutritional behaviors that have led to nation’s obesity epidemic—an epidemic that has direct effects on the cost of health care in our country, an epidemic that has direct effects on the academic performance and achievement of our students, an epidemic that has direct effects on the social and personal development of our children, their physical and mental well-being.

We should always be vigilant of government intervention into our lives, but we should also temper that vigilance with a broader and big-picture view of whether that government initiative, albeit perceived as intrusive, yields valuable positive consequences to ourselves and our children. In this case, stricter federal guidelines for school lunches does nothing but good for the health and wellness of our children, and the only shame in it is that Holly Area Schools (and every school district) didn’t make this move on their own sooner.

Several years later, the same dream happened again—slightly different details, but the same experience: inability to escape, paralyzed, exceptionally vivid, and a horrible, approaching threat. Then it started to happen more frequently—every few weeks, then every few days.

It was then I learned that these dreams were not just a random phenomenon, but a rare and terrifying condition called sleep paralysis, where the brain becomes “awake” during a deep sleep cycle and believes that its dreams are reality, but the body remains paralyzed in sleep. Because the body can’t move, the brain’s instincts interpret nearly everything as a threat, believing it to be defenseless.

After a while, I learned to recognize when the sleep paralysis was happening—after all, my brain was awake. I had this notion that if I summoned all of my will in my dream to try to utter a noise, some scream or cry, someone might hear it and check on me, thus fully waking me up. Eventually this worked, although never soon enough to avoid the terror.

After reviewing the most recent Holly Area Schools Board of Education meeting, I couldn’t help but think that the school board must feel like they’re in a similar condition—in extreme duress, needing to cry for help, and no ability to do so.

Holly is one of the top performing school districts in Oakland County, with test scores on par with school districts with many more resources and with higher socio-economic populations. Nonetheless, enrollment continues to decline, resulting in decreasing budgets, cut services, and further reductions in enrollment. The district is as lean as it can get without making cuts that will significantly impact quality, which would again cause more harm.

Holly Area Schools relies on state appropriations for operations, which is based on the enrollment headcount. There are only very limited uses that the school district can use property tax millages for (mostly capital improvements and physical plant maintenance). In short, money is needed to maintain our quality schools and the school district has little, if any, control over what it gets.

The Board of Education requested of Superintendent Kent Barnes to begin exploring more marketing and advertising options in an attempt to stem the outflow of students that is whittling away the district, or to attract new ones. While this may be the best and only initiative that Holly Area Schools has full control over, it won’t help the root problem.

Advertising and marketing strategies might retain or lure students from private or charter schools. It might attract students who are near the district borders and can choose which district to enroll in. Although less likely, commuters to Holly might be affected by marketing and bring their children with them.

All of those possibilities might patch the bleeding, but it won’t cure the disease for one simple reason—public schools are community institutions. They serve and are a part of the geographic locations and communities they are in. As the community goes, so goes the school district and vice-versa, and right now, the schools are paying dearly for the torpor of the community. People are leaving Holly because of the need for sustainable employment, because of absurdly high water rates, and the low purchasing power of the tax rate.

The Village of Holly’s water woes are a double-whammy on our schools—not only do the high rates drive away residents that contribute to the tax base, Holly Area Schools also coughs up a small fortune for its own water every month. The only way to bring the rates down is to attract more residents and businesses.

Although our quaint downtown boutiques, parks, and outstanding schools might attract some residents here and there, real economic development comes from one core notion—Holly needs jobs. Our public officials, volunteers and activists need to take a vigorous approach to attracting businesses that will use water, pay property taxes, and attract and hire workers with families that will also use water, pay property taxes, shop in our stores, and put children in seats.

While many others in the community have repeatedly made this clarion call for true economic development and leadership from our officials, the Holly Area Schools has remained reserved. But the cry needs to be made—if we value our schools, if we are proud of our students, and if we care about our future, economic recovery and development in Holly needs to be everyone’s first priority, if for no one else but our schools.

Unfortunately, it’s not a dream or a misfired brain that is causing us to see buildings that need maintenance each and every day, or empty desks, or shrinking balance sheets. And a simple scream will not result in magically waking up to a less terrifying reality. But the cries of community activists have fallen on deaf ears;  Holly Area Schools must summon its will and break out of its terrifying, paralytic spiral and cry out for help itself, so that our governments and our residents might be stirred to act and help end our schools’, and our community’s economic nightmare.

Proposal A attempted to remedy that by eliminating operational funding through local school millages, increasing the state sales tax by 2%, revising other tax rates, and putting other caps and restrictions on property tax issues like assessments.

The initiative could be considered successful in that the property tax burden of Michigan residents was reduced and school funding moved toward equality across districts. With a few exceptions, the operations and per-pupil funding of school districts fell into the hands of the State of Michigan. While great strides were made in closing the gap between the haves and the have-nots, there was still a ways to go.

This, however, was in the period of economic success in the years following Proposal A’s passage. Jobs were plentiful and unemployment was low; the auto industry wasn’t in the ICU, homes were being built and property values were high.

We’re now in very different and difficult economic times.

Nearly every school district across the state has been faced with monumental budget cuts due to the declining revenues and available funding from the State of Michigan, sometimes to the tune of tens of millions of dollars. Retirement and health care costs continue to increase, although revenue and economic growth has not. Even discounting those costs, many school districts are facing increased class sizes and reduced services due to the need to lay off faculty and staff.

In most cases, these deficits haven’t come from gross mismanagement of operational funds or Paleolithic administrative mindsets. Legacy costs have increased while revenue has declined.

Michigan Governor Rick Snyder has championed local reform, encouraging school districts to rein in the cost of benefits, consolidate and share services and look for greater efficiencies. Nonetheless, many school districts are looking at class sizes of 30+ students and favoring new, inexperienced teachers (i.e. cheap) over more experienced and qualified educators.

The Holly Area Schools recently balanced its budget, cutting around 3.5 million dollars and taking 1 million from the district’s fund balance (savings, or rainy day fund). Most economists, however, are not terribly optimistic that the rainy days will be ending in the near future, meaning continued deficits for several more years.

Because most of these cuts came from operational costs, there’s not another significant source of revenue to offset these deficits. The drawback of Proposal A has been revealed, therefore—local communities have lost financial control of the quality of their own schools, making them wards of the State, swinging on the whims of legislators.

This is why an examination of Proposal A, and specifically the prohibition of local school operating millages must be reexamined.

The prohibition was, and still is understandable. Property tax rates soared; voters were begged constantly for increases—sometimes going directly into the pockets of administrators, and without the guarantee of increased academic performance. These principles should not be ignored—taxpayers deserve reasonable tax rates and responsible use of those funds.

But there are always options to safeguard those principles while allowing communities to have the flexibility to fund their schools—bluntly put, a local operational millage funds the education of our own children, not just contributing to a school-aid fund that has been subsidized by general tax dollars and raided at the same time—a ridiculous shell game that is costing our students.

There can be a cap placed on the amount or frequency of local operational millages. The cap could be a percentage of anticipated deficits or of the total current budget (thus forcing schools districts to pursue efficiencies and cost-saving measures without being handed a crutch and band-aid). Millages may have sunset limits—only lasting a maximum of two fiscal years, for example. Districts may only be able to ask for an operational millage after five years have elapsed from the expiration of a previous millage.

It could be that millage funds may only be used for certain purposes, such as excluding covering the costs of benefits like health care or retirement (again, forcing school districts to address those issues instead of just glossing over them). It could also be that an operational millage may not be pursued if there is an existing capital millage outstanding.

There are plenty of options.

A 2 year, 2 mill assessment on a home assessed at $100,000 (SEV $50,000) home would create a tax increase of $100 per year, or $200 total. If that millage was legal and approved in the Holly Area School District, that would generate some significant revenue per year—not enough to completely close the current deficit gap, but enough to mitigate it and save some talented teachers and keep class sizes reasonable until the economy flourishes again.

Most importantly, it places the well-being of our own students in the hands of our community. If we want to have quality schools and prepare our children for bright and successful futures, we shouldn’t have to go begging our legislators to provide the resources our own schools need. We should be able to step up and say, “This is important to me. I’m willing to fund it.”

No law is set in stone—many laws penned in the past have no relevance now, due to changing times, values, technology or other factors. Proposal A is no different—while it is a constitutional issue and not merely a legislative one, something has to be done to secure the financial health of our State’s General Fund, the School Aid fund, and at the forefront, the students in our schools.

In economics, the concept of pareto efficiency is related to change in an allocation of goods where at least one actor improves its situation and no other actors suffer harm. When applied to game theory and problem solving, a pareto optimal solution is one where every actor involved in a problem achieves their best outcome in relation to the others in the group. This doesn’t necessarily mean that any individual actor achieves the best possible outcome for themselves—it simply means that each actor gains something and no actor loses (or actors incurring losses are compensated equitably).

Pareto optimal solutions without compensation can be very hard to achieve due to the self-interested nature of humans and human institutions. People naturally think of their needs and wants first, even if it comes at a cost to others. Emotion frequently overcomes rationalism and logic. Governments are mandated to serve their constituents and citizens first, possibly to the detriment of other governments or populations. Economic altruism and communal awareness are concepts that are very advanced and must be trained in humans—lions seldom think of the well-being of the gazelles.

The Holly Area Schools Board of Education is faced with the difficult task of choosing which of several options for facility closings they feel would best contribute to mitigating the budget deficit while protecting the best interest of students and their educations.  The three most viable options: closing Holly Elementary, closing Sherman Middle School, and closing the Karl Richter Campus, each have their pros and cons, costs and benefits.

• Closing Holly Elementary and distributing students to the other three elementary schools provide the greatest numerical savings, even with greater transportation costs. However, it is also highly visible from the main road and a vacant school in the heart of the Village of Holly may be a “keep away” sign for potential residents and investors. Holly Elementary also has the smallest land area and smallest scaled facilities, making it less attractive for reuse.

• Closing Sherman Middle School may help reduce enrollment attrition and cut down on transportation costs, and provides a number of educational and curricular opportunities by moving 6^th grade and preschool to the elementary schools, but again there is the visibility of closed building on a main road; the potential of its reuse are not optimal, and the overall savings are moderate.

• Closing the Karl Richter Campus provides the greatest maintenance and energy savings. Similar educational and curricular opportunities exist as with closing Sherman Middle School, but the distance of Sherman Middle School from the southern areas of the district remains an issue. Additionally, there is no footprint for office space sufficient to house the entire Holly Area Schools administration together, dealing a blow to administrative efficiency.

Naturally, the Board of Education has ethical and fiduciary responsibilities to the student, parents and taxpayers within the Holly School District. Simply “watching out for their own,” the more obvious choices are the base financial decision—closing Holly Elementary, and the combination financial/educational best option—closing Sherman Middle School.

There is another option that the Board of Education could consider, but it would take the collaboration of some big-picture thinkers who seek a pareto optimal solution to a number of mutual problems. That solution is to relocate the preschool programs and 6^th grade to the elementary schools, relocate the special education programs to Sherman Middle School and Holly High School, and have the Village of Holly administration and the Holly Township administration consolidate into the Karl Richter Campus, creating a Community Center and Municipal Government hub.

This idea potentially solves a multitude of problems and has a number of benefits:

1. Educationally, the elementary schools would benefit from the integration of pre-K and 6^th grades, as well as maximizing space use amongst all facilities.
2. Issues of child security or detrimental effects on student education from having municipal business located at the Karl Richter Campus would be nullified as all educational activities will have been moved.
3. The Holly Area Schools administration would be able to remain in their current office spaces, averting the need to split the staff due to an insufficient unified footprint, as well as maintaining space for existing groups like the Holly Area Community Coalition and Holly Area Youth Assistance.
4. The location of the HAS administration, Village administration, and Township Administration, as well as any other entities that may benefit from “moving in” (such as OLHSA) creates a one-stop shop for resident and taxpayer needs, and better collaboration due to proximity.
5. Excess space would likely remain within the KRC, including the centrally-located auditorium, providing space for community groups or others that need room to meet or hold events, gratis or with the possibility of a nominal fee.
6. The Village and the Township each spend approximately $30,000 per year on utility and maintenance costs on their beautiful, historic, and very old buildings. The possibility of splitting utility and maintenance costs with the Holly Area School District in a modern (and likely much more efficient) building will almost certainly result in cost savings for each entity.
7. Consolidating Village and Township office space also provides the opportunity to put two sizable buildings back on the community tax rolls through selling the properties to private investors, while occupying a new building that would likely never be taxable anyway. Although the tax revenue to the Township is nominal, and to the Village only somewhat more, something is better than the nothing that is collected now. Moreover, the school district would receive the bulk of the non-Homestead tax levy, assisting in resolving the district’s budget challenges further (and this only considers the real property tax—personal property tax for each building can’t even be estimated at this point).

Of course, this is only simplistic brainstorming, and there would need to be much research, calculation, negotiation and consideration involved in such an initiative. What if the sale of the Village and Township offices doesn’t occur in a timely manner? Would the cost savings for one or more of the entities be sufficient? There might be legal or statutory issues that prohibit such a move.

There would need to be consideration of the long term—what happens if school enrollment goes up and more facility space is needed? Would there still be too much excess facility even if all three entities occupied the space? What are all of the possible contingencies and circumstances that could occur that might throw a wrench in the machine—might this be a mid-range plan, and would one of the original plans, like closing Sherman Middle School, have to be implemented in the short-term?

And there are cultural hurdles as well—hurdles that would likely never be stated overtly but exist nonetheless. Would the Village and the Township would be willing to finally bury the mistrust, the petty squabbles and territorialism that still lingers from the past and come together to cooperate, much less share a building (since without both, this idea would be a moot point)? Would the Village be willing to give up, at least in the foreseeable future, its dreams of cityhood?  Would the transformation of Village and Township assets from real property to cash/investments be understood and accepted by the citizenry?

The core of that cultural issue is whether each entity, and their respective citizens, would be willing to accept and support a pareto optimal solution—one where everyone could come out somewhat ahead in exchange for giving up the opportunity to maximize their own individual benefit? Remember, humans are naturally self-interested, and governments are institutions of humans.

In other words, could our community officials pull off a radical approach to problem solving and change some colossal community paradigms? Could they row against a cultural current and endure the slings and arrows of those who want the box to stay exactly like it is because they don’t have the vision to see outside of it? Can our community, our officials and our citizens, run counter to our natural instincts of looking out for ourselves first and only, and pursue an outcome to the game where everyone wins?

The only way we’ll know is if we at least look into it.

For weeks the speculation has been that Holly Elementary would be closed.  Those who would go to Holly Elementary would be reassigned to one of the remaining three elementary schools.  In fact, closing Holly Elementary was the first option presented by Dr. Gaynor.

Although this option would save the most money for the district (approximately $365,000 excluding the cost savings of eliminating some personnel), it is also the most disruptive to the district.  There are multiple ways Dr. Gaynor suggested this option could be accomplished, but all of them destroy the sense of community and belonging that has been so expertly created in that school.  It sends children to schools not within what they might consider their “neighborhood,” and completely pulls apart a staff of teachers, administrators, and service personnel.  It would also add to transportation costs, as well as transportation time, for children on busses or for parents who drive their children to school.  Some options even include splitting elementary students between Patterson Elementary and the Karl Richter campus, a situation that would surely be a deterrent for families shopping for a local elementary school.

Moreover, the option of closing Holly Elementary stands to have the most negative effect on economic development, as it would create a very visible closed public building very near the heart of the central commercial and civic district.

The next option, closing Sherman Middle School, was not necessarily expected, as the housing study was described as an elementary housing study.  It creates an interesting scenario that would save the district approximately $255,000 (excluding personnel reductions).

With this option, the four existing elementary schools would become K-6.  Seventh and eighth graders would be moved to the Karl Richter Campus, and special education classes and the administrative offices would remain at Karl Richter.

This option is somewhat disruptive, in that the Sherman Middle School students and teachers would have to change location, but, except for likely reductions in staff, the middle school would still largely remain intact.  So too would the special education program, which does attract families to the district.

It does leave a large school vacant on a main road, but this building is at the north end of the district, and not as near the commercial and social hub of the community.  In fact, moving the middle school closer to the heart of the community could actually help the district retain students, as some parents in southern areas of the district opt to send their children to[3] other middle schools due to proximity.

The final option is closing the Karl Richter campus.  At first glance, this seems like a slam-dunk option.  The building itself is only 60 percent occupied.  It is far from the main road, making it almost impossible for passers-by to perceive it as “closed.”  It is also ideally located to house a civic center, should the village and township decide to vacate their buildings in their downtown locations.

In this case, the four elementary schools would go to K-6, with the addition of preschool.   This option could bring more families into the district, as having access to the resources and facilities of an elementary school could give our tuition-based preschool a competitive edge.  It could also keep those families in the district, as once they experience the caring environments of our elementary schools, they may be less likely to move their children for kindergarten.  It also keeps the seventh and eighth graders at Sherman Middle School, where they have been attending.

However, it does require the special education program to be split between Sherman Middle School and the high school, and does not provide space for the school district administration.  The transportation department and Head Start would remain at Karl Richter, so the property would not be vacated totally, making it more difficult to be leased to a private concern.  This option yields the lowest cost savings of the three, at $213,000 excluding personnel reductions.

There is no doubt that our school board and our Holly Area Schools administration will consider these options carefully and with the best interest of our students in mind.  But as public opinion is still being sought, I would suggest to both entities that a priority be placed on selecting an option that does the most to increase enrollment, and the least to decrease it.  Given that the state budget will be slim for some years, our district’s best hope for survival is to remain competitive and maximize the number of students enrolled.  Every school district will be fighting for students, and I believe our district has the know-how and spirit to come out on top of that battle.

Option one, closing Holly Elementary, is the least desirable of the three.  One of the things that makes our district special is the small town attitude of community, of knowing and caring for one another. There are districts with great academic reputations that nonetheless leave parents and students with the feeling of being a “number.”   Disrupting one of our neighborhood schools could destroy that sense of hometown “belonging” that is so unique to our district.  Couple that with the negative impact of a closed school at the center of town and this option could be very damaging to the reputation of the community as a whole.

Options two and three have some advantages to attract and retain students.  While I haven’t studied the matter, it does seem as though there are two points at which potential students are lost to other districts or to private or charter schools.  Those are at the entry to kindergarten, and at the entry to middle school.

Satisfaction with the elementary school experience seems to be rather high in our district, so extending the elementary schools to sixth grade allows parents to keep their children in a positive environment they feel sure of.  Given that parents of “tweens” often worry about issues such as drinking, drugs, and sex being introduced at too early an age, extending children’s time in elementary school may be seen as a positive unique to our district.  It also gives the district another year to retain students who may otherwise move to Holly Academy or to an out-of-district middle school, either because of a distrust of the middle school experience, or because another middle school is closer to home.

In this regard, option two, closing Sherman Middle School, has an edge.  A more centrally-located middle school may be more desirable to many families.  And for some reason, Sherman Middle School doesn’t share the same shining reputation as our elementary schools and our high school.  I suspect that this has something to do with the fact that middle school is in general a very awkward, uncomfortable phase of life for both students and their parents, and has little or nothing to do with the quality of instruction at Sherman.  Nonetheless, moving the middle school closer to town, and closer to the administration, presents an opportunity to reinvent the culture of the school, and perhaps improve its reputation.  That, again, may help the district retain students.

Option three, although providing the least amount of cost savings to the district, does disrupt the least number of students.  It also has the advantage of moving preschool education into the elementary schools, which may help the district both beef up tuition-based preschool enrollment and may also help usher families into our elementary schools for kindergarten.  But then again, a concerted effort to make our preschools more competitive could occur right where they are now with similar effects.

In my opinion, extending all four elementary schools to K-6, closing Sherman Middle School and moving grades seven and eight to the Karl Richter campus, making a concerted effort to reinvent the middle school culture in a way that will attract and retain students, improving and promoting the existing tuition-based preschool program, and keeping special education and HAS administration at the Karl Richter Campus is the best option for cutting costs and retaining and increasing enrollment.  But, especially having seen the very thorough approach taken to the elementary housing study, I am confident that whatever our Holly Area Schools administration recommends will be an excellent choice for the community, and I encourage all of us to support it.

Energy Star recognition is not an easy achievement to reach. Facilities must self-evaluate their energy and water consumption, energy performance and efficiency, estimate carbon footprints, and provide planning and documentation towards being an energy-efficient and environmentally friendly facility. Commercial or educational facilities that rate in the top 25% of self-evaluation ratings must then be reviewed and validated by a professional engineer or architect before they may apply for the Energy Star. Industrial facilities must rate within the top 25% of their particular industry, and all facilities are continuously monitored by the EPA to ensure they are maintaining their Energy Star performance levels.

Receiving the Energy Star in all five facilities that were applied for demonstrates that the Holly Area Schools are not just undertaking quick fixes to reduce costs in the face of critical operating budgets. Energy Star recognition represents commitment and long-term investment in clean- and energy-efficient technologies. Along with that comes a variety of risks involving fiscal responsibility and perception. New energy-efficient technologies, such as the LED (light emiting diode) lights that illuminate the parking lot and sidewalks at Patterson Elementary carry high up-front costs compared to conventional halogen lamps. Replacing functioning systems with newer, more efficient technologies, such as the sodium-vapor lamps in the high school gymnasium or the single massive boilers in the elementary schools, may be perceived as, “spending money to fix what isn’t broken.”

What tends to be overlooked, though, is that although replacing those sodium lamps with fluorescent lights with automated occupancy sensors incurs an up-front cost, those systems will pay themselves off in less than three years through drastically lowered utility costs. These systems can also last up to 20 years or more with little maintenance or replacement, barring new significant technological improvements in efficiency during that period. In the previous year alone, Holly Area Schools have reduced gas and electrical consumption by nearly 20%, representing more than a million dollars saved in utility costs.

Holly Area Schools also do not have some of the luxuries that other private businesses or municipal organizations have when looking at cutting energy costs. Consideration must be given to ensure that there is balance between energy conservation and a productive educational environment. Schools also serve as facilities for public usage well into most evenings. Options like a four-day business week or simply lowering the thermostat and requesting students put on a sweater simply aren’t feasible.

The lesson of long-term planning and investing in efficient energy technology is one that can be learned by any public or private entity, though. With continued 9-digit deficits at the state level looming on the horizon, local governments are going to be forced to make difficult cuts in the next several years. The common approach to these difficult times will likely be, “handle this year, brace for next year.”

For each cut that our local governments must make, our leaders should also be looking for opportunities to invest in energy efficient technologies, or incorporate technology in cost-saving or consolidating initiatives. LED street lights powered by batteries fueled by solar-cells could marginalize the most visible use of traditional electricity throughout the community. The prospective redevelopment of the current village offices opens the door to integrating energy efficient technology or LEED principles in the successor facilities—putting a building back on the tax rolls while cutting long-term costs. These opportunities are only limited by the will to innovate and willingness to learn and adopt new technology.

With a commitment to energy-efficient technology as a part of Holly’s future, perhaps we’ll see many more Energy Stars shining greenly throughout the community.