The only thing that is going to hold our taxes level or meaningfully reduce them is a restructuring of compensation and benefits of the administrators, teachers and staff. So far no one, and I mean no one has had the stomach to call the NJEA's bluff during contract negotiations and let the teachers strike and then fire them and start over. Until that happens we are stuck with 3 to 4% annual raises, exhorbinant health care costs and life long retirement packages.
Bond referendums are a fact of life for school districts (and taxpayers) as it is the only way to raise enough money to do significant capital improvements. I find it sad that the turf field items have become such a lightening rod. (Although the last time we did this the pool at the HS served the same purpose. Since the Village is now contemplating a $10 million dollar renovation of Graydon, the $400,000 for the pool that was proposed for the HS now looks like it would have been money well spent, huh?) The people who are all fired up about the $5 million for the fields and track probably don't understand the math. The actual price will be significantly less (just look at what those fields are costing in other towns) and the State of NJ is giving us $2.1 million of the cost!
People are trying to turn this into a "$48 Million Dollars for Turf" headline story and that is not even close to being accurate. The total cost to the taxpayers after the State contributions is closer to $36 million and most likely it will be less than that as construction costs have been significantly reduced by the economic situation. Of that $36 million probably less then $4 million will go to the upgrades of three fields and a track. Consider Maple Park was a million bucks on its own and the cost is not out of line.
The proposal is projected to cost the average house $300 bucks a year. The fields portion is $25 bucks of that $300, effectively only 7% of the total cost. The whole thing is a lot of money but the whole thing isn't about turf fields, its about upgrading and renovating our facilities almost across the board, facilities that have fallen so far into disrepair that if we don't fix them now we're going to be talking about $50 to $60 million a few years from now to do the same thing.
Posts
4 comments:
So are you saying that the installation of the new turf a/k/a "the carpet" is going to prevent everyone from getting hurt? Don't you think that is grasping at straws?
If the stands are so bad then why aren't they being condemned by the state? And as for the field itself, I hate to break it to you, but there isn't a surface known to man that could prevent an injury. Furthermore, the students playing on that field are not there against their wishes, they are there well knowing the assumed risks associated with heavy contact sports that are played on A FOOTBALL AND LAX FIELD. And as much as I agree that we live in a litigious society and anyone can sue for any reason, it would be very difficult to make the argument that the injury incurred during practice and/or game in a high impact sport such as football or lacrosse is the result of the field when there are THOUSANDS of fields out there in MUCH, MUCH worse conditions.
So you may not want reconsider using that argument because, quite honestly is sucks!
As for the schools, there is NO doubt that they are in dire need of repair.
And how can you compare Graydon pool to a football field? The percentage of residents that would get the use out of the field is a tiny fraction to the percentage of people that would get the benefit of the use of Graydon.
I think what sucks here is the fact that the field is on the same referendum as the school repairs. They should be two separate issues, it's this "all or nothing" approach that the general public is not pleased with. And quit blaming the teacher's compensation. Have you ever heard of the saying "what you pay for is what you get?". Well in this case I assure you it applies 100%. "Fire them and start over?".. Oh that is a BRILLIANT IDEA! Look what that approach did to the airline industry, which is arguably the most inefficient and financially unstable industry in the WORLD today. But there's one difference here, we are not talking about a vacation to Wally World from being ruined, we are talking about out CHILDREN'S FUTURE. Besides, what do you think that firing the entire Village's teaching staff and hiring all new ones is going to be cheap? Ha! And you're worried about being sued for a bumpy football field or bleachers? You terminate an entire staff of teachers and you will have so many lawsuits complaints coming at you from so many directions we will be paying the town's plow drivers O/T just to clear the streets of them!
Get real!
Craig
sure sounds to me that that 85% needs to be addressed. let the teachers strike. fire those that refuse to work. there is no shortage of qualified ready willing and able teachers from other districts that would like to come and work here for a portion of our overly generous salary and benefits.
The original poster, exclaims at the surprise to the opposition of turf fields added in the education budget, refers didn't believe turf fields issue would become a lightening rod of opposition to the budget. Another post referred to Ridgewood as being 'anti-jock', and yet said not surprised from previous opposition, as when they did Maple Park. So then if they already knew strong opposition exits, why attach the turf on the referendum? Hoping to slide it through. Separate it before it goes to poll. It should be dealt with separately. Period.
You say you haven't seen a boe budge ever defeated before? Been here long enough to say Yes, boe budgets have been defeated before. Defeated budget do and have sent a strong message.
Heads up, the opposition to turf fields, is not just a Ridgewood issue as you'd like people to believe. Statewide, in other towns, communities, and in other states, there also was, and has been the same opposition to turf fields. So, lets stop the negative accusation that the Ridgewood taxpayers are being just unreasonable, whether it be due to finances, or to their strong preference in wanting the real natural grass.
By the way, a previous post replied to a rotation replacement of turf fields question; by saying the rotation would be done with Maple when that time comes and that should satisfy the need for rotation replacement of fields, yet says the HS and Stevens fields would need to be done, installation at same time for cost savings. Not the answer I was looking for. IF there might be turf fields at HS and Stevens, those should be staggered years apart, so not to cause a big bite on the taxpayers down the road for replacement.
As far as Maple - that was not taxpayer dollars funded, as we all know. It was privately funded not costing the taxpayers a dime. It should not then fall in the lap and cost the taxpayers a dime either IF when it might need to be removed, disposed and IF replaced. The neighborhood kids that have played on both grass and turf, have told me last year, that they do prefer the grass, the turf is just an 'ok'. No spin needed on the background of lack of play fields, etc., we all already are aware of whats been said. thank you. By the way, what happened to all that money that was saved by using turf at Maple? Last town budget was in the hole.
Have read that Christie plans, will be asking the state to perform audits on the costliest school districts to ensure the money is spent efficiently, in an attempt to uncover spending that doesn't directly help educate students. Its reported his plan for reducing property taxes will target the costliest school districts in NJ to be held more accountable. Oh!-"fiscal responsiblity by the BOE". He should read this blog, ha. Also read plans to eliminate positions in the DEP. Wait till he audits Ridgewood - stampede! They'll be running for nearest exit. It's also about time, haveing someone to stand up to the NJEA. If the teachers go on strike - so be it, they'll be replaced, many waiting in the wings, things happen for the better, maybe its time.
All of the little expenses add up. And they show a total disregard for fiscal responsibility.
The budget was voted down in the 1990s. The Board tried to submit one huge bond for approval. After it was voted down they broke it into three sections and had another vote. Two of three sections passed. The electorate spoke loud and clear. It is not "all or nothing". It can be done better.
Post a Comment