Support Builds for Bond Referendum
Westfield BOE will hold one more public meeting before Sept. 24 vote.
In 12 days, residents of Westfield will have the opportunity to make one decision that will determine the fate of two separate multi-million dollar capital projects. Though it remains unclear whether the public will vote to approve or deny the much-discussed bond referendum that will be on the ballot on Sept. 24, the answer does seem to be becoming clearer as the crucial date approaches.
Since the Board’s decision in June to include funding for both district roof repairs and a lighted turf field installation as a single bond proposal, the public outcry has been loud. Some members said they would have preferred to decide each project on its own merits. Taxpayers contrasted the roof repair – almost unanimously viewed as an urgent necessity – with a turf field that some felt was more of a luxury. Residents of the high school area expressed concern with potential nuisances spilling over and affecting their property. Others balked at the sheer size of a $16.9 million bond and the all-or-nothing stakes that attached the two projects.
But after a summer that saw impassioned meetings in public and fierce discussions online, last night's gathering remained largely civil and calm. Most in attendance either expressed full support for the bond referendum or raised issues to the Board that were addressed shortly after.
The meeting was held at the cafeteria of Roosevelt School, in part to allow for more space for members of the public to attend and partake in the discourse. About 25 members of the public were in attendance and eight residents addressed the Board on the bond issue, but most of their questions were answered adequately by its members or a team of experts on hand. Others merely spoke up to offer the Board their gratitude or to express excitement that their sport may soon receive the same advantages that football and other programs have enjoyed since a turf field was installed at Kehler Stadium in 2006.
The Board turned to the bond referendum option when it struggled to find other ways to fund two projects it views as urgent and important, and members say they aim to act quickly in order to take advantage of lower interest rates and favorable bidding environments in the construction industry.
“We felt these projects were both necessities at this point,” Board Vice President David Finn said last night.
In the past, school districts had been able to put aside money within annual operating budgets to eventually pay for major capital projects. However, because budgets are now subject to a two percent annual cap, such an approach is no longer an option. Additionally, districts are limited in what they can use a bond to pay for, as such measures may only be allocated for major long-term projects and not, for example, additional computers or textbooks.
The $16.9 million bond would increase the average assessed home’s annual tax bill by $45 in 2013-2014, according to a presentation given last night by Superintendent Margaret Dolan. Over the life of the bond, the average home’s tax bill is not expected to increase by more than $55 (including existing debt).
The roof replacement proposal has received strong approval for months, after the Board spent several years seeking to address the growing concern. In her presentation, Dolan said the average age of the district’s 10 school buildings is 73 years. Though the roofs of most of the buildings have lasted longer than their original lifespan, as Dolan said, “they’re old.” Should the bond be approved, $13.6 million will be allocated to replace the roofs of all district buildings during the summer of 2013, representing 77 percent of the district’s total roof surfaces.
The disrepair of the roofs had also held up other objectives. The district had approached solar investment companies several years ago with the goal of replacing the roofs and reducing energy costs, but no deals were reached because the roofs were so dilapidated. Once they are replaced, Board members said insulation will be upgraded so that future solar installation would be possible at no cost to the district.
“It’s a savings on an expense that will have meaningful results in the future,” Board President Richard Mattessich explained last night.
The bond’s primary sticking point has been the additional $3.3 million that would be used to install a lighted all-purpose athletic field at the high school. The Board has justified the need for such a facility by pointing to student population growth. According to Dolan’s presentation, enrollment in district schools rose by 17.4 percent from 2000 to 2010, with a 31 percent spike in athletics participation. The proposed high school field would not only provide regulation-sized field for soccer, field hockey, lacrosse and softball teams, but would also be used for all high school student physical education classes. Board members say the field would alleviate scheduling concerns and make the town’s fields more weather-proof, and such a facility would help Westfield stay competitive with those of similar towns.
Dolan’s thorough presentation addressed many questions members of the public had before they had the opportunity to ask them, and a team of consultants and experts were also present to clarify any technical ambiguities that anyone was concerned with. As was addressed at the last meeting, the field’s lighting system will be targeted to allow only minimal spillage. Using a metric known as footcandles, the district’s lighting expert said the high school field lights would result in a spillage of 0.0 to 0.2 on the property of the residents closest to the field. By comparison, the average streetlight results in a spillage of 3.0 to 4.9 footcandles. The lighting will also be targeted for specific sports and Board members said the lights would only be on during practices and games. A password-protected system would allow the lights to be controlled remotely. The lights will not be used on Sunday nights.
Dolan also said the Board is already in discussions with the town and the Armory to avoid scheduling conflicts. A public address system will not be installed at the field and the high school’s restrooms will be available during events. Only one regulation game will be permitted at a time and games and practices will be scheduled to end by 9 p.m.
The last public meeting on the bond will be held at 9:30 a.m. on Wednesday, September 19. Dolan implored the public to read the information that has been made available and to partake in the vote on Sept. 24.
“Please take the time to become informed,” she said. “The choice is up to you.”
Time For Change
6:03 am on Wednesday, September 12, 2012
I went to the presentation tonight to support the bond and to see if any of the "mouths" on this Board would show up. The only person who spoke up opposed was an intelligent woman who asked good questions and made fair comments. All of the folks who want to live in a town that "regresses" rather than "progresses" chose to stay home and watch reruns of "How I Met your Mother". The professionals were excellent, the BOE presentation was strong and convincing of the needs of the roofs and the field. As has been said, it is now in the hands of the voters.
Robert Wendel
10:18 am on Wednesday, September 12, 2012
The insulting nature of your comments is unwarranted and counter-productive. We need to get beyond the smart remarks and have a dialogue that focuses on people's concerns. Both the roof repair and the field are well-needed but I think combining them into one bond referendum is a mistake. It appears (although I know was not the intention of the Board) to get one past the voters which may be the basis to many voting "no" on this bond referendum. If the presentation had been separate, I think both would have been approved by the voters. Now that they are combined, I think many will now vote against the combined referendum in order to make a point. Both projects are important - I believe the priority of them should be left to the voters to decide.
Dan
7:43 am on Wednesday, September 12, 2012
To regress is to go backwards. In choosing to stay home, I chose not to waste my time. I chose to excercise my right to vote at the polls. If I choose to its no it's because I do not agree with the "piggybacking" of the turf field, a luxury, with roof repairs, a necessity. Not wanting a turf field is not regressing. Wanting to get rid of the existing field altogether would be regressing. Time For Change, you can criticize those that didn't show up and make accusations of why they they chose to stay home. I for one would never consider publicly standing up against the board of educations wishes for fear of my son or daughter suffering the consequences of my actions. In this town "pay to play" is not just a political slogan. It also can be attributed to the soccer, lacrosse, and other rec department or leagues that feed into high school sports teams. I believe this referendum will pass due to the shear number of parents whose children participate in team sports at the elementary and middle school grades outside of school teams. Once again, I don't support the way the board has lumped the two together.
Enough already
7:49 am on Wednesday, September 12, 2012
@Time For Change: There is no need to be insulting.
Elizabeth G
7:49 am on Wednesday, September 12, 2012
How does the BOE expect people to vote yes for a new field when they can't even provide uniforms to their athletes? It is an embarrassment to go to a game and see boys & girls with 4 different kinds of uniforms. The presentation the BOE should work on is how students represent our town when they are playing sports. They want us to spend money on a new field for what? So the athletes can wear 10 year old torn, stained uniforms while playing a game against a town that has their athletes in at least matching jerseys? I suppose it is more important to brag about having a turf field.
Time For Change
8:07 am on Wednesday, September 12, 2012
Elizabeth G.--good call on the uniforms. Can you tell us what you have done to help make the improvements with the uniforms. Have you communicated to the BOE or the schools? Have they told you, NO, we won't do that? If that is so, then you should bring it up again and demand an answer. If you have done nothing, how come?
Turf No
8:08 am on Wednesday, September 12, 2012
It is amazing that they continue to push this and yet 1 week into the school year with a new Math program, no one in the 7th Grade at Edison has the new textbook yet. Perhaps they should cleanup their own house first and stop worrying about others
Jessie
8:38 am on Wednesday, September 12, 2012
So where were all the name callers and extreme posters last night? Maybe putting up the ugliest signs ever made in the history of lawn signs- who can read those things?
Seriously folks, kind of sad that only 2 people actually took the time to show up and be counted while the rest decided to hide out in their hidden silos.
Kathy
8:45 am on Wednesday, September 12, 2012
We weren't there because we have heard the one-sided sales pitch before and voiced our concerns. Did they talk about why they haven't started saving the 2% in the capital reserve for the roofs so they could finance it a little each year, instead of increasing OUR debt? Did they tell you that the reason your taxes will go up that little is because we will be retiring some debt -- without the bond referendum, our taxes could actually go down for change -- wouldn't that be nice? Did they tell you how much it actually costs to maintain a turf field? Did they explain how they will get the $1 million+ in 8 years to repair/replace this new turf field with a useful life of only 8-10 years? The town of Westfield is seeking a grant for $387,500 to pay HALF of the repairs needed at Sid Fay/Houlihan. They got the other HALF, or total of $775,000 from user fees - did they tell you that they don't plan on charging user fees and that OUR taxes will have to pay to repair/replace that field every 8-10 years? Did they tell you what they are going to do to get WHS Ranking up from #49 (after being in the TOP 10 in the late 1990s and dropping each year)? Did they tell you that none of them would want an 80-foot light pole in their backyard, but have not problem doing that to the 30+ houses surrounding that field? No, they didn't.
Time For Change
10:17 am on Wednesday, September 12, 2012
WHS Neigbor- you didnt come because you were afraid that you might learn something about all of the above. Let us help you out:
1) On the 2% for the capital reserve- it did come up and the point was made by the Board that they had done 30 projects in the last year costing the district like $2.5 million dollars-boilers, bathrooms, windows, etc. You people just think that stuff gets fixed with a snap of the fingers. It costs money to maintain 73 year old buildings.
2)If you look at the Website, you would in fact see that the taxes would go down if there was no bond. All you have to do is to WANT to find the information and you can.
3) Mattessich said that they will create a "sinking fund" so that each year they will budget for a portion of the funds to eventually replace just the turf portion of the field. They said that of the $3.3 million that will be spent, only a small portion of that actually is for the turf itself-the piece that would eventually be replaced.
4) As for the rest, why don't you stop talking about everything other than your last point. You don't want the field because of the lights. If you had come, you would have heard FACTS about the lighting.
Jessie
10:28 am on Wednesday, September 12, 2012
WHS you are a fraud- All of these issues were discussed ad nauseum last night- you can watch the video on TV 36- Just admit you don't want a turf field and lights in your neighborhood- that is your right and your point- the rest is all B.S. you are hoping will stick- which apparently based on last nights turnout- is not sticking at all. I agree with the comment below about how nobody has these discussions face to face due to cowardice. What a shame you did not show up last night- Guess Americas Got Talent must have been on.
Elizabeth G
9:04 am on Wednesday, September 12, 2012
Time For Change - as a matter of fact I have done something. I've paid the ridiculous STUDENT ACTIVITY FEE for the past 3 years that was mandated by the BOE to cover the costs of activities when the Governor reduced funding to the district. However, since then, the state has increased funding to the district and yet parents are still charged with this fee. The question really is, what is the BOE doing with this fee? Paying for presentations for a turf field, likely. Some of the uniforms are 10 years old, are you trying to say that it should OUR responsibility to advise the BOE when new uniforms should be purchased? Maybe members of the BOE should attend games other than Football which is where most of our money is perceived to be spent.
Time For Change
10:10 am on Wednesday, September 12, 2012
Elizabeth, I do not know what the activity fee goes to cover specifically. I do know that although the funding from the Governor has been increased, it is still almost $2 million below what it was before the cuts were made, hence the activity fee continues. Why do you stand on ceremony about what you can or can't do or what your job vs the BOE job is. If you think something can be done better, give a call to the Supervisor of Athletics, Sandy Mamary and express your concern to her. I am sure she would be very happy to get your input about the uniforms. Maybe you would just rather be bitter.
Elizabeth G
10:45 am on Wednesday, September 12, 2012
I'm not bitter, Time For Change, I'm embarrassed. Maybe you can refrain from judging people and remember that each person on this forum or any other, has a right to their opinion.
Carol Barnes
9:25 am on Wednesday, September 12, 2012
I think everyone needs to stop being selfish and realize that we need to spend money to maintain our facilities and adding lighting to a field is maintenance. You can extend the use of that field when it starts to get dark earlier and it allows additional practice time for teams. 9PM lights off is very reasonable. As far as the user fees go, you should have to pay a fee to use a field as you are adding to the wear and tear of the field and therefore should share in it's maintenance. I don't believe that our school system wastes money. You have to maintain your facilities or they start to deteriorate and then you end up having to spend even more money. Would you let the roof go on your own house until your ceilings started to fall in? The fields are something all of the school systems have now and Westfield should have what the other schools have. I'm not sure what not receiving books on time has to do with all of this, but it would be my guess that it's more an issue with the publishers rather than the Westfield schools failing. And with the uniforms - why don't you as a parent start a fundraiser to get new uniforms? Or do you just like to complain and not do anything proactive to help the situation? Everyone here needs to stop throwing in irrelevent topics into the mix and stop being so negative. Your home value depends on the maintenance of our schools and making it the best school system possible and your children deserve the best.
Elizabeth G
9:43 am on Wednesday, September 12, 2012
We have a turf field - it is called Kehler. Put lights on that. Why should it be the parents responsibility to now start yet another fundraiser for something as fundamental as uniforms? I have to work to keep up with my growing taxes due to all the "great ideas" that our BOE comes up with for the taxpayers to pay.
Jeff B
10:12 am on Wednesday, September 12, 2012
Re: "Your home value depends on the maintenance of our schools and making it the best school system possible and your children deserve the best."
Carol Barnes, tell that to the people whose home values will be negatively affected because of a lighted turf field next door. In my opinion, it is unethical to impose house depreciation on any resident for something that is not an essential public purpose, which this is plainly not.
FD
9:40 am on Wednesday, September 12, 2012
Besides all the other comments whats so great about a turf vs a grass field? Turf causes more injuries, gets hotter and is more expensive to maintain and has a shorter life span. Ever notice most of the other towns we play are on grass? So our kids gets used to turf and then they slow way down on the grass at other towns. It is not a competitive advantage. Personally I hate turf
Doogie Howser
1:27 pm on Wednesday, September 12, 2012
Um - perhaps useability? Turf drains, grass (at least in our town) does not. Typically, the fields are not only unuseable while it is raining, but usually, they are unplayable the following day as well. Between lights and drainage, the town will get a great deal more hours of useable fields to help satisfy the unquenchable demands for field space.
This is money well spent if it passes - and desperately needed.
john mancini
9:59 am on Wednesday, September 12, 2012
NEW BOND = HIGHER TAXES !!!!! Every year the board sets a budget ( unlike the federal gov ) and in the budget isn`t there a line item for the brick and mortar for the repair of the buildings ? We should be using that money to repair the roofs. Why is it all of a sudden ALL the roofs need to be replaced ? Can`t we replace the worst roof this year and "Patch" the others for now and next year replace another roof. People complain about our politicians ear/bundling all the time so why is it our neighbors who volunteer their time to serve our community, are doing the same thing professional politicians do all the time. VOTE NO, and make the board seperate the two issues and fix one roof at a time to SAVE TAX money. This way there is no need for a BOND therefore on need to raise taxes.
Ryan
10:02 am on Wednesday, September 12, 2012
Two quick comments:
1) Our children do deserve the best -- my concern with the bond referendum is that we don't get to vote on the field on its own merits for being 'the best' for our kids. Lots of other measures/ideas costing money could be bundled in here and fall under the category of our kids deserve the best. When does that get out of control? When does that impact our taxes too much? That's why I will vote it down and see if it can come back again on its merits.
2) There are no real rules/policing of comment boards (that's what makes some of them interesting!) but for some reason all these discussions rush to the basement of civil decency within a few posts. I find it hard to believe that everyone would say what they are posting directly to someone else s face...but maybe I'm wrong. I know I've not seen anyone talk to people in some of the nasty ways I've seen on some of these chat boards since I moved to Westfield two years ago...
Robert Wendel
10:33 am on Wednesday, September 12, 2012
It should be necessary to use your real names (first and last) and not hide behind "handles" or only first names. We need to get to concrete discussions which evaluate all sides of issues in a cooperative and constructive environment. We are, for the most part, adults and should present our opinions as such. Let's rise to the occasion and get out of the "verbal opinion basement".
Jeff B
2:14 pm on Wednesday, September 12, 2012
Re: "Our children do deserve the best."
Ryan, without qualification, I disagree. They deserve the best consistent with it being a public education at public expense. They do not deserve the best that can be obtained at a private school. A lighted turf field has little or nothing to do with a good public education, especially when we already have some in town that are largely away from residences.
However, attitudes like it is "tough" if your house might be devalued by this turf field and "if you can't afford the taxes, move" (which has been expressed publicly in the past) ought to be unacceptable in a place that wants to be considered a "community" - and have a lot more to do with how our kids grow up than whether or not we have a lighted turf field. Too bad some on the Board of Ed appear to have no interest in educating our children by setting a good ethical example.
Ryan
6:16 pm on Wednesday, September 12, 2012
Robert -- Ryan Meyers...Nice to meet you! No idea why it just shows Ryan
Jeff B -- I like your point about community -- well said. I think we are getting at generally the same thing re: deserve the best with maybe . The community should be able to decide what constitutes good education experience at what public price. We don't need to (and frankly can't afford to) buy everything.
No Lighted Fields
10:11 am on Wednesday, September 12, 2012
We don't need lights on any of the board of ed fields. Our high school athletic teams have been practicing and playing during daylight hours for decades. Its the town rec leagues and other leagues that are in need of the expanded hours of playing time and fields. Let them fund the projects through the lease or purchase of land and build it themselves with money generated through their own user fees.
Doogie Howser
1:32 pm on Wednesday, September 12, 2012
Where is all of this available vacant land you speak of for the leagues to purchase?
Mike
10:51 am on Wednesday, September 12, 2012
No further discussion or propaganda needed. This issue will be put to a vote. Go vote, and be thankful we can vote.
Westfield Parent
11:16 am on Wednesday, September 12, 2012
Why not put lights on Kehler Stadium? WHY NOT? Isn't that the most logical, most economical, most sensible thing to do?
Elizabeth G
12:33 pm on Wednesday, September 12, 2012
AGREED !
Ghost of Gary
9:46 pm on Wednesday, September 12, 2012
Nope, They tried that in the 90's and it was soundly defeated.
Westfield Parent
1:53 pm on Wednesday, September 12, 2012
Westfield is a corrupt town. The elected officials are eager to serve the elite group, and worse, in this process, they blatantly pick on the people who are not as rich and not as powerful. From Washington redistricting, to Central/Clover light, to now the lit turf field, they are just jamming it down your throat. If you still think that Westfield is a nice place, you are deluding yourself.
The Mayor
2:28 pm on Wednesday, September 12, 2012
Attention Westfield Parent: Please Leave town now- Pack up your troubles and head down the Parkway- You are an idiot. Sorry. Elected officials in this town receive zero dollars and work all kinds of hours- To be corrupt- you need a motivation- being a public servant in Westfield does not come with that luxury.
Thank you.
Westfield Parent
3:12 pm on Wednesday, September 12, 2012
"The Mayor": The emperor has no clothes on and now you feel embarrassed? The truth is plain out there for everyone to see. You and your cohorts do not own this town. This is still part of America, where it is supposed to be "liberty and justice for ALL". With people like you, you not only bully others, if they dare to protest, you call them "idiot". Look into the mirror, "Mayor". In my book, using official position to unfairly treat one group of people for the benefits of another group, is CORRUPTION.
UnionAtty
4:28 pm on Wednesday, September 12, 2012
Seriously, folks? Does anyone really believe that Mayor Andy Skibitsky is the one making this comment? Just focus on the pros and cons of the issues before you and make an informed decision when you get into the booth. All the other stuff, the name calling, insults, deliberate mis-identifications and ad hominem attacks are just fodder and have no purpose in this debate.
Luke
10:27 pm on Wednesday, September 12, 2012
Mr Mayor aside from the tales that you really seem to like alot of prescription pills I would be curious to see the bank accounts of all of the BOE memebers pushing for this field. Or just ask all thise BOE members if they were given ANYTHING from this turf field company whether if it be a pen, t-shirt, meals or anything of that nature. If every member can stand before the audience and pass the red face test by saying that they have not accepted anything then I will vote YES for the field.
Suzanne
6:34 pm on Wednesday, September 12, 2012
I would like to know what would happen if this bond issue is voted down. Will they actually allow unsafe school roofs to go unreplaced? Would the State Board of Education allow it?
Pete
8:23 pm on Wednesday, September 12, 2012
The schools aren't unsafe but way to buy into the scaremongering. Do you seriously believe that every roof in town needs to be replaced at the same time? If enough people see sense and vote this nonsense down they'll either fix the actual leaks, replace a roof at a time when money is available or just split up the bonds and put it all to another vote.
Pete
8:26 pm on Wednesday, September 12, 2012
Simple fair answer: the parents of the kids can pay and those without kids pay nothing. That way, if they want fields or lights or roofs with solar or team jerseys or iPads or anything else they can dream up, they just need to do what they expect everyone else in town to do: open up their wallet.
khaleesi
9:33 pm on Wednesday, September 12, 2012
Pete- I want to have the Dothraki take you away and move you to another town
Westfield minions do not appreciate your selfishness- maybe you could open up your cold heart instead of your wallet
Mike
9:24 pm on Wednesday, September 12, 2012
Since the Board of Ed rolled the turf field (which I wouldn't have voted for in these economic times) in with the roofs (which I would have voted for) then I have no choice but to vote 'NO'. If they think I am that dumb, then they deserve my "NO" vote. Anyway, respect the democracy, be happy that it IS being put to a vote, and live with the election results.
Suzanne
5:47 pm on Sunday, September 16, 2012
Mike I have to agree with you. Had the BOE not rolled the roof repair (a necessity) in with the fancy field (a luxury) I would have voted for the roof repair. They have now forced me to vote no on this bond issue. This is plain old ordinary extortion!
Luke
10:22 pm on Wednesday, September 12, 2012
Where is the report stating that ALL of the roofs are bad and need to be replaced all at one? If every school roof truely indeed needs to be replaced then I should be able to stick my head between my legs and kiss my own arse!!
Gary McCready
11:23 pm on Wednesday, September 12, 2012
At the Boe meeting referenced it was stated only 77% of roof surfaces needed to be replaced
Walkin Westfield
10:41 pm on Wednesday, September 12, 2012
In Chatham 1/3 of the acquisition costs and 100% of the maintenance costs are paid for by donations and private contributions. Why do those people promoting covering the WHS field with plastic expect everybody else to pay for their toy.
Just Conerned
11:02 am on Monday, September 17, 2012
Our police and fire departments -- public safety is a BIG issue.. VOTE NO. How can we have money for a field, but not public safety!!!??!?!?!