Monticello day care operators oppose school plan

Posted on Oct 10, 2009 by David DeWitte.

MONTICELLO — Plans for a school-run child care center have become an unexpected source of community friction in Monticello, as day care providers faced with declining enrollments try to halt the project.

Sixteen of the city’s 19 registered in-home day care providers have joined to oppose the 102-child center the city is planning for property owned by the Monticello Community School District. They have gathered 650 signatures on a petition opposing the project, according to Sue Holmes of Sue’s Daycare.

The Monticello City Council could decide as early as this month whether to go ahead with bid-letting for the center, for which grant funding has been secured and plans completed.

In opposition are day care operators such as Janet Simmons, who has been relying on her operation for income since her husband died in an accident 13 years ago.

“Maybe in the future a center would be good, but right now we do not even see a center making it,” Simmons said.

All but two of Simmons’ 12 day care slots are filled, but the inquiries she received in previous years for day care vacancies have nearly dried up because of the recession. She expects to temporarily lose four children for five days this year when their parents take mandatory time off work so their employers can reduce costs.

Increased local unemployment has taken more children out of day care, according to Holmes of Sue’s Daycare. Some parents also have begun caring for other parents’ children to help balance their household budgets.

Of 186 slots available at the 16 registered providers opposing the new center, about 50 slots remain open, according to Holmes.

St. John’s Christian Daycare in Monticello, the largest of the city’s three licensed providers, has room for 50 children and about eight vacancies. Many other openings are believed to exist in the city’s unregistered day cares.

The day care providers who oppose the center also have attempted to show that budget projections are unrealistic and could force the school district to use tax dollars to subsidize the operation.

Monticello City Administrator Doug Herman said there is still public support for the day care project, but some supporters are now reluctant to speak out because they don’t want to get on the bad side of day care providers they and their children depend upon.

Herman said the city’s only financial obligation would be to dedicate any revenue from the center’s school operators to payment of the debt for the project. If the revenue falls short, he said, the city would not be liable.

Holmes said a meeting between in-home day care providers and the school board late last month was the most positive interaction yet on the subject.

Monticello Community School Superintendent Chris Anderson said he thinks the city or district could still walk away from the project. The school faces declining state funding because of the economy, and that could have a bearing on the decision, Anderson said.

The district is looking to see what liability it would have if it cancels the project, he said.

Anderson said the school board understands the similarities and differences between in-home and school day care centers. He said the board is giving the matter careful study, and “playing it pretty close to the vest.”