- Introduce ourselves, our charge and tasks to the community.

- Let the community know how they could reach us.

- Ask the community for its priorities and suggestions.

Mailer Distribution

A total of 6681 mailers were sent to households, postal box holders, businesses, and district faculty and staff using the District Office mailing list. We also made the survey available on-line for download and print at the MCSD website under Citizen’s Facilities Committee survey.  Both the Millbrook Roundtable and Poughkeepsie Journal carried articles requesting community participation.  Requested return date was May 30, 2003.

Due to bulk mail processing time, the committee set a deadline of  June 11, 2003 for inclusion in our report to the Board.

Survey Content

Survey content was largely developed out of community responses to questions asked at the forums hosted by Ellini & Dunn in 2002 and the CFC’s review of past facilities projects. The specific questions, options and their wording are a product solely of the committee.  Both multiple choice questions to “test” community ideas expressed at the forums and open-ended questions to solicit suggestions and comments were included.
 

Survey Response

As the intent of the CFC was to get ideas and a sense of what the community supports, the results are not meant to be quantitative.  Respondents were not asked to identify themselves nor were individual surveys issued a control number.  A total of 438 responses were received.  It is important to note that each survey reflects a household, not necessarily an individual.  The CFC did not request the count of voters per household represented in each survey response.
 

• Parent with children in Millbrook Central Schools (40%)
• Parent with pre-school children, or children who do not attend Millbrook Central Schools (12%)
• Resident with no school-age children (22%)
• District faculty or staff member (4%)
• Senior citizen (21%)
• Other (1%)

Note

Response demographic category “Other” includes those surveys where respondent either did not answer Question 6 or selected more than one response category (i.e., three generational household).

Comments and Suggestions

The CFC included various opportunities for respondents to write in suggestions or comment where “Other” was included as a response option.  Additionally, the committee included the following open-ended question:  What would you not want to change about the District’s current facilities?

Many comments and suggestions were received to this and other questions.Several notes, letters and emails were also received by the committee.Many comments were supportive and constructive.Some were general:look at cost, demographic projections, and program needs.Others were highly specific:pursue outsourced maintenance and countywide district purchasing for volume discount advantages (MCSD currently participates in a BOCES program which combines the buying power of small districts).Many respondents felt all elements listed in question 1 should be included in a new plan.Some respondents suggested the use of other buildings in the community to supplement district facilities:Thorne, Village Hall, Bennett and the Infirmary; others suggested additions or modification to Elm, Alden and/or the Jr. Sr. High School.Many stressed the need for maintenance and discipline.Other comments included:do nothing, dissolve the district, build two schools, add before and after school daycare programs, build up not out, no flat roofs and fix the heat Jr. Sr. High School.All verbatim comments and suggestions received by the committee are included in the final report to BOE.