Well stated Mr. Friedman- I will also be voting YES today- I have listened to all the chatter and noise and ultimately have decided this is an important and good thing for the kids of Westfield- and to me as a parent, that matters most. Thank you for your hard work.

Mark, I agree and will be voting YES today. I hope those who want to "take a stand" against how we got to this point, can put that aside and focus on the benefits of these projects. One vote or two, I think both projects will benefit our community for years to come and the timing is right!

VOTE NO... separate the bonds and start the process again - doing it the correct way instead of jamming it down people's throats with the excuse that's it's good for the kids. Mr. Friedman had the right idea, too bad the BOE didn't listen. Restructure it!

I will be voting Yes it all makes sense and the cost to us is minimal . The safety for kids and teachers is very important and as a town the turf fiel adds to our high school.

I will be voting no. Some may say the cost is minimal but where does it stop. To circumvent the governor's 2% tax cap, how many more band referendums will be floated to obtain more money for expenses that were once covered by budgets ? I am also voting no because I don't like the bundling of the two issues into one vote. It is a prime example of piggybacking a luxury with a necessity to get both passed. I'm tired of the battle cry of "it's for the children." The board of education should have planned for the roof repairs and the turf field is not a necessity during the current fiscal state of affairs in both Westfield and the State of NJ.

They have tried to cram a "luxury" field down our throats with an undemocratic process in two respects - bundling the two projects unnecessarily and scheduling the vote for when turnout will be low and their core constituency has undeserved weight. The ends do not justify the means! Vote NO - make them do it correctly.

As to his claim, "we will likely miss a window to complete all of the work over the next year and this will therefore cost us more repair money that will eventually be wasted", I believe that it is false. It is totally implausible that another vote on roofs separately in a month or two, leaving 6 months before summer, would not have MANY firms falling all over themselves to get a $13 million project. Furthermore, unless every single one of these roofs has no useful life left, continuing to make repairs on ones with life left is likely the most cost-effective strategy anyway.

I also disagree with the implication of his other point, "The money for these repairs WILL come out of the operating budget and will impact other services that we will be able to provide." Where does he think the $500,000 per year interest ($17M x 3% interest rate) is going to come from if not the operating budget. The only thing that will be squeezed in the operating budget is future salary increases for teachers, who already got double what they should have for three years in 2010.

Reject
Pork Project
10:43 am on Monday, September 24, 2012
Amen to that Jeff. I concur. I will also be reconsidering voting for Mark if he chooses to run again. A wolf in a sheep costume and Halloween is over a month away.

I'm an 18 year old senior and cast my first vote today- a YES for fixing roofs and a Turf field at WHS. I was proud to cast my vote and even though I won't benefit from it I know my sister will (she plays softball) and my parents will eventually make more money on their house as well. Please vote YES with me.........

It's wrong not to put the lights at Kehler Stadium. Kehler already has the artificial turf, is the home field to varsity teams football, soccer, lacrosse, field hockey, and track and field. Kehler has field house, trainers office, stands and bleachers, concession shed, and bathroom facilities. Kehler has long established traffic patterns. To put lights at Kehler will benefit all our school sports with the least amount of expenses, least disturbance and most results. Simply putting lights at Kehler will solve the "need more playing time" problem. To put lights at Kehler is the most logical, the most economical and the most sensible thing to do. Why BOE and Ms. Mamary want to avoid this obviously easier solution and try to destroy a functional, beautiful grass field and damage so many people's quality of life, is incomprehensible. The BOE and Ms. Mamary apparently fear the anger of the Kehler neighborhood and think much less of the high school field neighborhood. For the BOE and Ms. Mamary to make up all kinds of excuses for a new lit turf field, with a straight face, is dishonest at best.

A few things that have me scratching my head and wondering how the Board of "Education" can even consider spending $3.3M on a lit turf field:

Decline in Ranking: Our HS ranking has dropped consistently from 1999 to present (top 10 in 1999 to #49 2012). It’s clear that the lit turf $ would be better spent on education and not out on a field.

Envy of other towns - I read a quote from a former BoE member “…that when the field was done other towns would have “field envy.” Do we want to be the envy of other towns because of a lit turf field, while our school ranking continually declines? I know what I’d like my tax dollars to stand for.

Increase in Student Population: In a recent BoE presentation it was noted that in the last 12 yrs, Westfield’s total pop has grown 3.2%, enrollment in schools has risen 17.4% and that WHS Athletics has grown 31%.

So, to accommodate this growing population, the answer is to build a multi-purpose turf field. Is it multi-purpose enough to allow students to have classes out on it? If not, how is the BoE planning to handle the bump in student population inside the school building?

A “NO” vote doesn’t mean you don’t support your child’s education – it just means the BoE needs to come up with a better plan.

Great Article
A town discovers the actual cost of a lit turf field is tremendous and ongoing
www.wickedlocal.com/hingham/newsnow/x427978027/HINGHAM-LETTER-Ward-Street-turf-fields-are-unsustainable

VOTE NO

It cost taxpayers $50,000 to run today's voting, a poll official told me this morning. What a waste! Would $50,000 be enough to have fixed one leaking roof? I would bet $50,000 is enough to fix quite a few leaky roofs! Special referendum, lit turf field, the BOE is acting as if there is unlimited supply of money!

I'd personally spend $50 Thousand to find out the real identity of Westfield Parent and exposer him/her for the all the lies they continue to throw out there on this board. Yes -the BOE has unlimited money and just chooses to let the roofs cave in on your kids-
You really are an ass. Grow a pair and tell us your name- Chicken lttle.

Whitney, your criticism misquoted Westfield Parent who said, "the BOE is acting as if there is unlimited supply of money!" That is not even close to him/her saying "the BOE has unlimited money." In fact, it is obvious that the Board has behaved as if money grows on trees. Otherwise, they would have replaced roofs out of the operating budget over the years as other towns like Scotch Plains have. Instead, they gave teachers unjustified raises in 2010 with money that should have and could have gone for roofs. But wait, it is no big deal if 80% of roofs will need replacement. There is always a bond issue that can be dumped on the public to get around the 2% cap and it can be scheduled for an off date when most of the citizens will not remember it and the "moms" will have disproportionate effect on the vote - at, apparently, a $50,000 extra polling cost. Some lesson on fiscal management and of democracy in action "for the children".

Mark Friedman, serious question. I am very familiar with corporate finance. Interest payments on debt show up in the income/expense statement. Are you really telling us that this is not a vote for a $16.9 million bond issue but to raise $16.9 million for the capital expenditure PLUS $23.5 million to pay back the bonds plus interest? That would be $40.4 million or about $4,000 per Westfield family over 20 years. I do not think there is any citizen in town that perceives the entire transaction as entirely outside the operating budget.

Mark, you are correct as to the total. I made a sloppy mistake. But I am still interested to learn that the $6.6 million of interest payments ($23.5M - $16.9M) is not coming out of the operating budget. By the way, at a current interest rate of 3% or more, $6.6M of interest payments has to mean there are sinking fund or principal repayments during the 20 year term, or the interest would be a lot more than that. I presume such payments will also be funded by the tax levy. Correct?

Per the BOE website:

School Bond Referendum Defeated, 3874 No, 1508 Yes

I am surprised at both the size of the turnout and margin of victory.

To Westfield Parent

Lights at Kehler field were overwhelmingly rejected by residents back in the 90's and the opposition is still there.