according to presentation the bond is unnecessary. The roofs can be maintained and replaced from the amount of tax for prior bond issuances that homeowners are no longer obligated to pay due to expiration of prior year bond issuance.

By the 2020-2021 school year the WHS populaton is projected to be below the student populaton for 2012-2013. The increase enrollment is only a mini baby blip. Natural grass can support a strong school system and help all residents household savings increase.

Interestingly if this bond does not pass, which it really shouldn't based on its merits, the BoE has said that they can unbundle the bond and put the roof bond back out for vote as soon as the November 6 general election, when it should have been held in the first place. So VOTE NO now, and get the luxury turf field off the ballot, and rest assured that your child will not be going to schools with leaky roofs.

We need fiscal responsibility at the BOE. Since the 2 projects are bundled together, it forces me to vote no. Had they not tried to manipulate the issue with the bundling I would have voted FOR the roof repairs and AGAINST the field.

The most significant reason our housing prices are higher than surrounding communities (Scotch Plains, Mountainside, Cranford and Clark) is that our school system is considering, and actually is, better by any objective measure. Funding our schools, including replacing roofs and upgrading athletic facilities, will allow us to maintain our ratings as a superior school district and will maintain and enhance the value of your home, the largest asset most of us own. Voting for the bond issuance, regardless of its benefits to students, is the right financial decision for any Westfield homeowner.

Why do Moms and Dads become politicians the moment they are sworn in ? Why did they bundle the lights with the roofs ? Also isn`t there a line item every budget for the brick & mortar of the buildings ? Why do we have to replace all the roofs NOW. Can`t we replace one this year and "Patch" the others. Next year replace another roof & so on. BONDS=HIGHER TAXES. And oh yeah, next year the teachers will want a new contract & this board will just give them another raise. So it`s $25 this year,+ the new water bill tax + another tax for the teachers union. It does add up. Vote NO on the referendum. To all who want these lights, ask the neighbors who live around the field how they feel.

I understand all the points for and against the bond, but for me it really comes down to one issue -- the attempt by the BOE to bundle the two items together, knowing that one item is a necessity and one item is a luxury. They took the choice out of the hands of the voters, simple as that. We have to send the message -- with a NO vote -- that their action is unacceptable, and force them to allow separate votes for the two issues in November. Also, regarding the cost -- whether you think it's high or low, whether you care about the increase in taxes or not -- we apparently have become a town that can't afford to staff our fire department at a level where it can respond to more than one fire at a time (resulting in forcing firefighters to stand on the sidewalk and watch a house burn while they wait for assistance). How do we then choose to take on more debt to spend $3 million on a lighted turf field? Lastly, to John Levy's point, I agree with the idea of investing in the school system to maintain property values. So, yes, fix the roofs. However, Westfield's standing as a school district is not influenced by whether we have turf or grass fields. It is influenced by things like class size, available technology, test scores, etc. So if that is the concern, spend the money in the classrooms and help ALL students.

NO WAY! Cut in public safety with the town, and we will get a new turf field -- HELLO?

Some like to mislead and/or scare homeowners. $2300.00! that number is for the life of the 20 year bond. $45.00 - $55.00 per home is the projected annual cost increase for the entire bond. Most agree with the roof portion of the bond. So considering the field is less then a quarter of the bond, that puts the cost of the field at around $15.00 per year. I think all town residents, can afford $1.25 a month. ONE DOLLAR and twenty five cents a month !

RE: "Westfield schools athletic director Sandy Mamary has stated .... that the maintenance of natural grass fields has become cost prohibitive."

It was just reported in the Leader that the Houlihan turf fields require about $775,000 of maintenance work at about the 7 year mark. Considering the relatively short life of turf fields, their great expense, removal costs and maintenance costs, to try to suggest that a grass field, which only needs maintenance, is more costly is bizarre. If a grass field has become cost prohibitive, then she just made the case that a turf field is totally unaffordable.

Mr. Mitch Slater, could you explain why we are not putting the lights at Kehler Stadium instead, with the existing artificial field? Wouldn't that be the most logical, the most economical, and the most sensible thing to do? I posted this same question to Mrs. Ann Cary and Mr. Rich Mattessich and they could not answer this obvious, glaring, and simple question.

They tried twice for permanent lights and once to install temporary ones for 1 or 2 Football games and the neighbors went ballistic, so they never brought it to a vote.

So now they try to pick on a different neighborhood? Why do they think that they can get away with it this time? This neighborhood is not as rich and not as powerful? Is that it?
"They tried twice for permanent lights and once to install temporary ones for 1 or 2 Football games and the neighbors went ballistic, so they never brought it to a vote."

The high school already has a turf field at K stadium. This town has suffered a number of disastrous fires over the past year. A field for use by the field hockey team and other minor sports is a luxury at any time, but particularly in the current economic environment. Turf fields are proven to lead to higher injuries rates in young athletes. I understand that the bond and public safety are not directly related, but the continuing gall of the school board to behave as if the external economy doesn't exist is symptomatic of the tragic arrogance of local government in this town. Unbundle the bond, and then I will consider voting yes.

HERE ARE SOME FACTS. - The economy is bad. - Interest rates are at an all time low. -The roofs are in need of repair. The field is in terrible shape. - Most vicinity towns have better fields. -The BOE did not budget the money required to maintain the roofs or build a new turf field. - Our home values are related to our school system. - This has nothing to do with fireman, cops or DPW workers. - Turf fields are a luxury. -BOE members are volunteers. - last BOE election cycle only 4 people ran for office. -All were uncontested. ----- HERE IS MY OPINION.- I will not blame short time volunteers for our current situation. - I don't want our school roofs to get worse -I don't like having second or third rate fields for our kids. BOTTOM LINE - Doing nothing is not an option - I can afford $2300.00 over the next 20 years. - Thats less then $2.50 a week. I am voting Yes.

GGG, I absolutely DO blame short term volunteers for our current situation!

Specifically, they are the ones that chose to give teachers 3 years of ridiculous 3.9% raises in 2010! We would have had plenty of money for replacement of roofs without those raises, with no bond issue. Salaries might be around 60% of a $95M budget. In the last year of the contract 12% higher salaries is a great deal of money, each and every year - forever!

As to your mention of "volunteer". So what?! If you can't bring the skills to properly supervise a $95 million budget and devote the time to do so, why would you dream that you are qualified for the job. In case you have not been around Westfield for decades, these elections have been like High School popularity contests. People who talk about sound fiscal management of limited resources (and not being able to do everything) have had an extremely difficult time getting elected versus people who have little or no financial background and promise to do everything imaginable "for the children".

This is a question of priorities. Clearly, the roof project is a worthy and responsible use of the money we pay in school taxes. However, I fail to see how a light turf field is a priority given the current state of our school system. Is it more important to have a lighted turf field than to have smaller class sizes for our children. Hey, while we are at it, a full day Kindergarten would probably be a better investment of our tax dollars than a lighted turf field. Shame on the Board of Ed for bundling this together. Someone should really investigate exactly who stood to gain financially from the lighted turf field. It certainly wasn't the taxpayers or our children.

Thank you Jesse. I plan to vote no as well. I understand that there are already plans to put the roof project to a separate vote in November. What a waste of time this has been, when we could have just voted on the roof project now and been done with it. I can't speak to what has motivated the BOE but there should be an investigation. Their bundling tactic has unfortunately invited suspicion.

"After the tide recedes, we will find out who have been swimming naked." Hopefully, after Monday's voting, we will examine how the town of Westfield has come to be like this and where we want it to be in the future. I am hopeful. I will make sure all my eligible family members go to the voting booth.

Time For Change, your nasty comments say more about you than about me. I happen to be a senior citizen whose family has been in this town since long before you were born. Our family includes educators and has volunteered in many capacities, when we had young children and now. People with financial expertise who are willing to say "no" and senior citizens have had almost zero chance to get elected by the moms here. Look at Keith Hertell who recently tried twice and was well-qualified. I write and speak with people plenty and pay attention. I have also learned from personal experience that attending Board of Ed meetings to speak out or offer help tends to get you ignored or insulted, or both.

We dont need a lighted turf field - it is safer for our kids to play on grass and most of the towns we play have grass fields. You can buy a lot of grass seed for $3 million. And the roofs should be funded through the capital budget. It is fiscally irresponsible that the BOE has not set aside anything for roof repair and suggests fiscal incompetence.

You said it Jeff! My family has been in this town LONG before all these commuter famiies moved in! Changed the atmosphere of the town pool-its now like a water park for toddlers, now lets get a lit field so we can compete with the other towns? Who cares? If you want a lighted field-move! You will only be here a few years anyway until your job transfers you to another city.. Pls vote NO!!!!

$1.3 million per roof. We're getting hosed!!! I think someone's relative is getting over on us!!!

Walkin Westfield, the numbers you quote seem reasonable. They mean the roofs will cost 39% more ($23.5M versus $16.9M) as a result of borrowing money than if they had been responsibly replaced in the past out of the operating budget or, for that matter, paid over the next several years from the operating budget.

I can only hope that each of you that is against this bundled, bungled bond calls 5-10 of your neighbors and friends to join you- offer to drive those neighbors on your block or ones you know from town on Monday so no one FORGETS that the vote is this coming Monday. Jeff B, you should be applauded for your truthful comments about the town and who gets elected. With Mr. Hertell, there was a fellow named Michael Farrell who ran for a spot. Look him up now, he is a financial giant that could've really added some strength and smarts.
Remember to vote Monday.

Just to clarify the math, compound interest is calculated using the following formula: Amount = Principle*(1+ interest)^years.... Therefore borrowing $16.9M at 3.0% interest compounded over 20 years would be calculated as follows: $16.9M*(1+0.03)^20 = $30,523,200 The number goes up significantly if we use the current going rate for municipal bonds with a AA+ rating of 3.5% (Total amount = $33,627,400)... Since there are 10,000 +/- households in Westfield, each household will be responsible for $3,362.00 or approximately $168 per year. Either way, the claimed $45-55 per house doesn't compute.

Jeff, Thank you for your clarification. I forgot about the possibility of pre-paying the principle. However, using the boards upper-limit projection of $55 (household/year) that would be mathematically impossible. $550,000/yr barely covers the interest. At that rate, it would take over 100 years to pay off the bond. (4 times the life expectancy of the roof and 12 times the life of the field).
I will have to give the board the benefit of the doubt that I am simply missing something here. If they are counting the maturity of current debt to obtain this figure, its rather misleading but not technically inaccurate.

The BOE are like embarrassing parents: the kids are under leaky roofs, embarrassing; no money set aside for roof repair, embarrassing; trying to take out another big mortgage (bond) for roof repair, embarrassing; trying to take out even bigger mortgage (bundled bonds) to pay for a Ferrari (lit turf field) to keep up with the richer neighbors (Summit, Chatham), now that has become ridiculous!

The BOE is a bunch of thieves, trying to guilt us all that "its for the kids". Did you know the AVERAGE administration cost for each and every class room in NJ is $250,000 per year! Cut admin costs now. How can they not have the roof replacement in the operational budget? What if the boilers go? What if the have to resurface the parking lots? All normal wear and tear items that should be in operational budget. At some point we all have to say NO MORE spending- time to cut expenses. If we put solar panels were does that electrical savings go? To pay a debt (bond) operational expense, or more administration waste???? It is time to say enough is enough. It is not if we can "afford" the assessment, but is it fair to the tax payers? Can all the money being spent, be spent more wisely?