This is a victory for the Westfield Taxpayers and the children of Westfield. I spoke to so many parents who prefer their kids playing on a natural grass field, without the huge tax burden this would impose.

The BOE has been less than honest about the management of its Roofing Maintenance, and the huge amount of money requested. The BOE should focuse on ACADEMICS, and not worry about creating a power plant it can't maintain.

If you can't even maintain the existing roofs, how do you expect to maintain roofs and a Solar energy plant????

Three cheers for the residents and voters of Westfield!!!!!

I am proud of the thousands of Westfield residents for showing up at the polls today to voice their opinion on this very heated issue. Regardless of how you voted, school elections traditionally have very low voter turnout, and today was clearly not a typical school vote. Let's hope this is the new standard, and not the exception. Democracy only works when the citizens are engaged, and today we were.

See you at the polls on Tuesday, November 6th.

The board should worry less about making statements, and be more concerned how out of touch they are. This vote is a clear mandate for the board to cut the crap and stop playing games. Stop the manipulation people. Don't spin this to mean anything more than what the voters intended...get the message we're trying to send.

Next up, the school budget. Lets send a message that the 2% tax cap is just what it is .......2%. No more out of touch 3.9% raises for teachers and maybe the voters will approve roof repairs. The turf field ? Not during the current economic climate. The voters have spoken and they have spoken loudly.

Thanks to all who voted today. Especially the "nay" votes. I do have one simple question. Why was Lincoln School slated on the referendum for roof repair and or replacement? Was it not just a few years ago that the school went under major renovations? Did someone forget to inspect the roof for damage?

How is that hope and change working out for everyone? 2016themovie.com drudgereport.com bigovernment.com theblaze.com americanthinker.com cnsnews.com thedailycaller.com newsmax.com

Good job Westfield! Hopefully, we can now focus on priorities that will improve the classroom experience including keeping our children dry when it rains. It would be nice to vote on the roof project soon.

Congratulations to the Voters of Westfield.
When you consider the reaction of the voters to such things as the Parking Deck Fiasco and now the Turf Field Bundling, you can take pride in the system that keeps elected officials representative of the wishes of the voters. When elected officials turn to the public with candid truthful statements, they can usually expect our support. When they are less than candid, their plans go down to defeat.
Has anyone proposed that the roofs be repaired within the budget of the BOE? I'm sure it could not all be done at one time, but aren't repairs normally paid for in the working budget? Is it legal to remove repairs from the budget ( and thus from the spending caps) and issue a bond to cover repair costs?
A.John Blake

This is for "Time for a change" and "Doogie Howser". Based on your rude and snarky comments to anyone who disagreed with you or voiced an opinion contrary to yours, will YOU now need help packing? I only ask because that was included in many of your replies, telling people to move. Well b'bye now. :).

While the turf update may have been unnecessary, the roof replacements were needed in order to make the roofs ready for solar panels. You can't put new solar panels on old roofs. I hope the school board comes back with a smaller proposal based solely on the roof replacements and then does a better job of explaining why we need to do this (instead of continuing to patch the roofs). If the proposal is smaller and clearer, it may pass next time.

Arrogance by the school board to bundle a necessity with a luxury....... And a luxury item that would put additional strain and stress on the areas surrounding WHS.....if the had separated, I am sure we would be getting our roofs replaced.. solar panels and all. And the BOE would have gathered additional data in regard to the towns thoughts on ANOTHER lighted turf field

Maybe the board will now present the 2 items separately and have the vote on a day when the polls are open anyway .... And hopefully on a Tuesday when people expect to vote.

I am sure the board is smart enough to find a way to cover the cost of the roof repairs. Perhaps they will even figure out a way to do one roof every year or so and avoid the big time hit when all of the need replacing at once.

"If voters had said "yes," the average assessed Westfield home's annual tax bill would have increased by $45 next year."

Does anyone know what the "average tax bill" is in Westfield? I assume it's public information, but I can't find it.

Thanks.

princeton vote is bundled and passes .
so we still need building repairs and fall way behind in the quality of our fields. great job westfield
pat yourselves on your back voters what did you really accomplish.
25% turnout democracy at its finest, the majority of westfield residents don't care enough to even vote , but i am sure they will be the first to complain about fields and buildings

Who needs solar panels on our roofs? Solar power is the most costly way to generate electricity. If the roofs leak fix with in the operating budget of the school system. I don't want to pay for someone's green Obama agenda.

A leasson learned for all of our children in the Westfield School system - the people in this country STILL have power...the power to vote their opinion.

The local government and BOE are so out of touch with the reality of its citizens that it serves. Westfield politicos take notice: Henceforth, sneaky, slimy tactics will be pushed back into the dark cave that they come from ad infinitum.

I'm curious...will we ever find out how many tens of thousands of dollars the BOE WASTED on consultants pursueing this silly turf project? I sure hope it's not more then the Town Counsel wasted on the parking deck fiasco....hmmm, is this a trend I see here in local government??

I would like to say "thank you," to the residents of Westfield who took the time to educate themselves on the issues beyond regurgitating the BOE sales pitch as well as those who made the effort to get to the polls to vote.

Why was Mr Slater ask not to speak, is the board taking an "us vs them" approach with the citizens or lesson from Skibitsky and his mob. Does anyone else find this troubling?

Congradulations for the defeat. I just want to know who is paying the expenses for this special election According to the Freeholders is will cost Wesfield 34,000 plus ot cost and printing. Should come out of the BOE pockets and not the citizens of Westfield,
CJ

@Jeff B. You did a great job of keeping Patch readers informed on this issue. Thanks! If the two issues had been separated, I'd have voted a "Yes" for the roofs and I'm kind of in the middle in my thinking about the turf field. But, the bundling of the two issues by the BOE is what was truly disturbing. That was a real insult to the people of Westfield and that's what got my very strong "No" vote. A message needed to be sent to the BOE. Now, they can re-submit the referendum, but separated into two distinct questions (or three, with the lights being the third)! Thanks again Jeff B.

Town athletes and their parents (at least those I have spoken with) would not be opposed to playing on natural grass fields provided they were maintained to a level that would make them safe to play on. But the fact is that the current town natural grass fields are poorly maintained and unsafe. We are not deaf in hearing the comments from visiting team players, their coaches and parents as we sit on the sidelines of our natural grass fields. They too are concerned for their children’s safety when playing on our natural grass fields . A safe environment for athletic activity is NOT a luxury but a necessity. Let’s fix and maintain the fields we have to a level that will not only be safe for the athletes, but also to a level that this town can be proud of when we are hosts. The downtown, our homes, our schools, our fields, our town’s people, our local services, our commerce are ALL a reflection of who we are and what Westfield is all about. For many of us it is the reason we chose to live here.

@ Don't Tread and Bill Austern - I couldn't agree more with you. It's almost scary how out of touch these BOE representatives are. I just hope they understand this vote and the message voters are sending. But something tells me they won't. It would be refreshing for them to acknowledge that they clearly didn't hear the people and were bull-headed with their approach. That they will try to work more with the people, and not to make unilateral decisions in the future on issues of this magnitude. But again, I don't see that happening.

Not a real expert here, but my understanding of solar is that any excess power that is not consummed on site is pushed out to the grid and essentially "sold" back to the public. I would think that during the summer months when the panels are generating the most power and the school facilities are consuming the least that the whole operation would be in the black and can offset the costs. Anyone have any info on those numbers?

Doogie Howser, it is about fairness to all taxpayers and ethical conduct. 3.9% increases were so vastly in excess of the cost of living increase then (nearly zero) as to be a joke. The health giveback is small versus what 12% of salary in the third year of the contract amounts to and, I believe, was required by law anyway by subsequent legislative action. A $57,200 starting salary for a basic education degree, with 3 months vacation, full health benefits, a defined benefit pension plan, unavailable in most of the private sector, and good job security is so far above the private sector for comparable qualifications as to be an insult to taxpayers and just unethical to ask a young private sector employee to finance for a peer. Perhaps you are out of touch with young people looking for work in the private sector. I am not.

Your $25 per year on the bond is nonsense. It was $23.5 million over 20 years. On about 10,000 families that is $2,350, or roughly $120 per year. Taxpayers just got stuck with $170 for a sewer tax/fee extra. Union County spending is out of control. Banks are back to taking property taxes into account on how much (or little) mortgage they will give you toward the purchase price. In case you did not know it, there are plenty of families struggling in Westfield and too many people with the attitude that if you can't afford the taxes for every project under the sun "just move".

Doogie Howser, the headline said - "$16.9 Million Bond Referendum Defeated." It did not say that a $3.3M turf field was defeated. You may wish to portray the loss as if people did not want to spend $25 per year on a turf field, but I believe the vote bundling and impact on a residential neighborhood were far more important factors. I also know plenty of people incensed over the total tab, and years of failure to replace roofs in favor of other priorities.

The Westfield Board of Ed should be excoriated for its attempt to bury the desired lighted turf field amongst the more important budgetary considerations. Maybe they take a lesson here. You want a lighted turf field? Post it as such and let the residents determine it based on its own merits. Bundling with more important concerns is like thinking the idiot voters wont read, maybe we can slip it in. That's more like bunggling. For years some in town have tried to force the issue of lighting the existing recreation field on Rahway. It has always been defeated so this new ploy to relocate a lighted turf field by the high school is a slick attempt to circumvent the known desires of the majority of Westfield residents. And yes, solar energy has the worst return on investment of any energy source making it a last, not a first choice. There is no doubt that if roof repairs or replacements are needed, Westfield will find the funds to accomplish that.

The Duke said - "Statements from Mr. Slater that might be perceived as inflammatory would only drive the wedge further and disenfranchise a third of our residents."

Where have you seen that Mr. Slater was going to say anything the least bit inflammatory? Mr. Slater apparently reflected a minority point of view ON THE BOARD, or he would not have been stifled. Given that his actions to date have been both more democratic (unbundled vote) and more reflected the results of the election, I want to hear what he had in mind.

Those board members who supported the bundled referendum should resign today. That will give the opportunity to save face and show that they are "now" in touch with the taxpayers.

Duke, Just to clarify. A well maintained natural grass field is choice #1. But choice #2 would be a turf field over the current crop of poorly maintained grass fields. I say, take the $, and fix and maintain our current grass fields to the standards we see in surrounding towns. Make them safe for the athletes, and make them places we would be proud of hosting events at.

If they want my roof vote, I need more info. Like......
Do we need solar panels in the future? Is it cost efficient? What is the electric bill now vs what we can save with solar panels? How much would the roofs cost without getting them solar panel ready? Can they fix the roofs without a bond if they were not solar ready roofs? Will they produce any income from the unused electric? Will they reduce my taxes with that income? Where can I get answers to my questions?

What the BOE teachers and administrators need to realize is that there's a little thing called The Great Recession going on outside. The concept that non-vital educational expenses, and that includes raises for teachers, should continue to be extracted from the residents unabated---many of whom may have received no raises themselves or even lost their jobs---is unrealistic, arrogant and insulting.

My point was simply that teachers can't be immune from the hard economic realities that we're all sharing, and sacrifices have to be likewise shared. I don't believe Westfield teachers are "poorly paid" relative to other NJ communities and the issue, in any case, only concerns the size of future raises, not salary reductions.

Another $25 million bond issue coming? Can we vote on it? The county Freeholders are moving forward with their development of the former Oak Ridge golf course, plotting "improvements" that cost upwards of $25 million! Where does the money come from for this? If it's a new bond, meaning more debt, shouldn't the residents of Union County be able to vote on this just like the Westfield Bond issue? Are county Freeholders allowed to borrow and increase taxes at will?

http://www.nj.com/union/index.ssf/2012/09/little_has_changed_at_oak_ridg.html

Transparency, Transparency, Transparency

Process, Process, Process

Disingenuous, Disingenuous, Disingenous

Fred Norris, historically, if you are not a candidate supported by the "moms" and the PTAs, your chances of getting elected in Westfield were very slim. That means someone who brings a balanced view and dares to say the magic words, "we can't afford everything", has a big problem. That said, it was unfortunate that a couple of the recent candidates who were unsuccessful did not choose to try again this Fall. With the election for the Board now at the regular voting time in November, the leverage of the "moms" vote is far less than when turnout is very low. There now really will be a chance to eventually have a Board more representative of the entire community with more financial expertise.

NJ is now a leader in using solar power. Currently, Westfield schools could get solar panels installed at no cost except for paying for the power that is produced at a rate that is less than what they pay for PSEG electricity for about 15 years, then no more payments. This is a good deal for Westfield taxpayers and a good teaching example for the students at the schools. We should support new roofs for the schools and support solar power for the schools.

It's interesting reading the comments because it shows that this was voted down because the voters didn't take the time over the last 4 years to pay attention to what the board of ED was telling them. The ones being hurt are your children. The board provided facts on the age and condition of the roofs 3 years ago and that based on recommendations it made sense to replace 25 year old roofs rather then repair them. The new roofs would reduce the operating costs and in the current economic environment of very low interest rates the savings in heating costs and potential for solar reducing costs even more made sense. So now our children are in buildings not well insulated. The turf field would be used by every child in the HS from 7:30 am to 2:45 pm for gym, plus allow for better scheduling of the high school sports. So our HS students will now have to have gym classes in a field that is all ways muddy, that will still costs thousands to repair and upgrade and have to be paid for through the operating budget which will take away from other needs of the students.
For those residents that are angry at the high level of property taxes you pay and voted this down because of that, then again you have not been paying attention the last 4 years as the state has eliminated ALL of the funding for our children and placed the cost to be TOTALLY upon property taxes. Use that anger to demand that Trenton restore funding to all school districts on an equitable basis.

Glad to see the bond turned down for these reasons:
1. Teacher pay negotiations left a bad taste. I would have been willing to raise 1% to cover the cost of paying into healthcare, but a cost of living increase was unwelcome to this family who have been losing against the index for years as a result of continual cuts in our employer's share of paid benefits, elimination of pension (years ago!), and raises of any kind seen only by those who have brought increased business into the company.
2. If BOE expects taxpayers to understand & support a bond to replace most roofs within a short period (as opposed to a schedule of replacements over time, from operating budget), full & detailed info on past decisions leading us to this place, as well as how we'll avoid same in the future, needs to be at voters fingertips-- much more is needed than blurbs about the 2% cap and current low bond rates, with details buried in notes to past BOE meetings.
3. To sell a turf field, voters need to see the whole picture including future maintenance and replacement costs, their timing, and how they will be financed, always, but especially during a serious recession. If mediocre maintenance of grass fields is an issue, show the needed costs and do the comparison. 4. Bundling a basic need with a nonessential during hard financial times betrays a misreading of the votership; this is historically a fiscally conservative town.

Gary, a defeat for one's position is always the opportunity to learn something. It remains to be seen whether the BOE will or not.

In my opinion, the Westfield teachers' compensation package and especially that for new people out of college - when you take into account salary, raises, health benefits for which relatively little is paid, a defined benefit pension plan which the private sector has largely eliminated, and job security - puts these folks in the top 1% of the "99%" in today's economy. Several cities in CA are now learning this and going bankrupt because they can no longer afford public employee compensation packages.

I think "Jane Doe" made that poignantly clear from the taxpayer's point of view. Retirees on fixed income are in even worse shape, given depreciation of home values and near zero interest rates on savings. I fear that until both parties at the bargaining table realize this, nothing will change. Resources for roofs or anything else in the operating budget will be restrained by the 2% cap and incessant union demands for out-sized salary increases met by Boards of Ed with little backbone. Unfortunately, I do not believe that this is good "for the children" at all.

I was not a proponent of this bond issue and had difficulty with its timing and bundling a new field and lights with roofs for our schools. I must say however, that while I sympathize with residents of the neighborhood, I am always a bit taken back when they object to the use of the athletic fields which existed long before any of them were residents of this town. Am I wrong to say perhaps you shouldn’t have bought a home adjacent to a sports field if you didn’t want to have our young athletes use them to play sports? It is actually a little funny when you think about that argument. Truth be told, it would make much more sense to put lights on the existing turf field utilizing private donations which could undoubtedly be secured. No cost to the taxpayer and all facilities are currently in place. This could and should be done.

Sal E, three comments. At least one neighborhood poster pointed out that their family home was purchased long before there was a high school there. There was already a fight in the 1990's against lights at Kehler and nothing was done then. That makes the current proposal including lights seem a little odd to me. I also have an ethical issue with imposing anything on a residential neighborhood that is likely to negatively affect their lives and property values for anything less than an essential public purpose - which resurfacing a field and adding 80 foot lights is arguably not.

Frank, I can agree with everything you are saying except that no one forced anyone to purchase a home near existing schools and atheltic complexes. This one street has a lot of action on it to be sure but if you could enlighten me on why you would make a decision to move into an area with obvious year round activities and then not expect traffic, kids, games and noise I would like to hear it. I didn't buy one of those homes maybe for all the reasons you indicate but if I did I wouldn't expect anything less or feel like the community owed it to me to curtail these activities so I could enjoy peace and quiet. When you buy a home next to a stadium, what do you expect?

For Sal E,
When you buy a home near a school, of course you expect extra activity. When you buy a home near the train tracks, you expect the train noise. When you buy a home near a grassy football field in the 1970's, which wouldn't be considered a stadium, and the realtor says there are 4 home FB games and some track events, you make your decision. Nowhere does that imply that 80 foot lights or astroturf will be in place. Other than Dave Brown, who played on grass, is there any other pro football player from Westfield? For that matter, how many of today's pros had a home turf field? It's a residential town with a field in a residential area. No citizen should have any less of a right to SOME peace and quiet than any other.

Frank, if there were lights, there would still only be 4 home games. The difference now is that many more sports exist that didn't back in the 70's and are played competitively at the HS level. No town can be frozen in time so as not to recognize this progression and make accomodations so these young atheletes have facilities to play on. It makes more sense to me ehance those facilities which exist, then to establish new ones. The most logical one I have seen called for a new stadium to be built on land currently used by the Conservation Center but, of course, residents of Lambert's Mill Road had issue with that. So if we can't enhance our current facilities and we can't build new ones we are left to do what, exactly, nothing? I

Kehler Field already is enhanced. It is used from 7am-7pm all the time, from gym classes at Edison (don't they have a field?), games, meets, practices, P.A.L., you name it- in addition, since there is no sign that says no trespassing after dark nor a lock, there are kids on the weekends- just ask the local police. The progression is already there.

Lights are not a 'necessary addition' in a residential area for anyone.

What Sal E doesnt get, is that when you buy a home next to a school, the hours of operation are normally, 8am to 4pm during the school year, maybe a random Saturday or two, but there is no traffic for the most part on weekends/summer months. A lit field would be non stop noise, cars, litter, you cannot compare the two.
How about a lit field at Franklin? How would those residents respond? The same I bet. Why turn a nice neighborhood into a stadium because a handful of "helicopter parents" desire this? I would rather the money go back into the schools. Dont most schools have to share a Gym/Art teacher/Librarian? What about the special education teachers? Dont they split their time between schools also? I am glad the good people of the town came out and voted NO. This town has become a commuter town, many residents dont care about decisions that will effect the town long term. Their jobs will have transferred them to a new city in approx 10 years. Unlike those residents, my family has been in the area for over 60 years, I have seen and heard about all the changes, the mcMansions, the renovations at the pool, which have turned it into a mini Long Island water park,( check out the Metuchen pool remember when our pool looked like that not so long ago? )
I know I am on a rant, but I see no benefit for a lit field in a residental area and am glad of the outcome of the vote.

Jeff B, I AM one of those families who have been here for 50 years. While you are able to find people who have lived here this long or longer MOST are not here anywhere near this. Check with any realtor, they'll tell you what the average is.

never have i seen so many comments on a patch article. excellent! completely agree with NR9. in addition i find it disturbing that BOE members were censored. "Slater, who with BOE members Ohlig and Mark Friedman, voted to separate the roofs from the field, said he wanted to respond but was asked by the Board to not speak." i hope the BOE has learned to stop playing games. Not only was the bundling clearly a political bullying tactic in a town that prides itself on a no bullying policy but the reasoning given "other towns do it" was insulting. Iexpectthe BOE to look out for the best interests of the students in the future, as opposed to this poorly planned political tactic.

Turf vs.