Two years ago I took a tour of the Middle School and experienced a building that was jaw-droppingly decrepit and ineffective.
We need to renovate. So let's pass this bond and get the work going. The
sooner we do this we will start to get return-of-investment from the
increased insulation, solar hot water panels, geothermal, dual-flush toilets
and HVAC efficiencies of this plan. For example: auto-sensors to dim lights
when daylight is sufficient will cost $185,000 -- and get us a payback of
investment in only 2-5 years. From this one technology we will be saving on
utilities for decades to come.
Let's do this. Vote YES.
Every day we delay our tax dollars are literally pouring out the windows.
Celeste Cleary
New Paltz
Friday, February 5, 2010
32 People Voice Support in Letter to the Editor 02/04/10: Why We Support the Renovation Project
We are voting YES! on the issue of renovating the Middle School for these reasons:
- The middle-school teachers are enthusiastic about the innovative layout in the renovation plan and we wholeheartedly endorse the green technology in it;
- it keeps a school within the village proper while the other schools remain in remote locations;
- we have to use this site for educational purposes or lose it according to a [sic] reversionary clause;
- if we do not act now the eventual cost of any other project will surely exceed the overall cost of this renovation plan;
- the real issue is not the tens of millions in public debt the renovation will amass, it is merely the tens of dollars added annually to our school taxes we must pay to support this project.
We implore all the parents of children who go to our schools, or will go to our schools in the near future, their relatives, their friends, and their neighbors, to vote YES! on February 9 in support of public education for our children.
Todd Quinlan, Jeffrey Goldman, Norman Turner, Tessa Killian, Betty Marton, Joan Cherney, Robin Perls, Jerry Teters, Jennifer Zaborowski, Jeff Perls, Joanna Teters, Glenn McNitt, Robby Vorspan, Alysa Sullivan, Maryann Fallek, Brian Lynch, Dan Sullivan, Eric Schwartz, Joan Combellick, Jasmine Redfern, Stacey Schaffer, Joel Keehn, Cordell Stahl, Theresa Fall, Renee Falanga-Brenner, Paul Carroll, Mariann Sennett, Eleanor Wolfe, Matthew Flusser, Robin Hayes, Lisa Munzer, Bill Munzer
- The middle-school teachers are enthusiastic about the innovative layout in the renovation plan and we wholeheartedly endorse the green technology in it;
- it keeps a school within the village proper while the other schools remain in remote locations;
- we have to use this site for educational purposes or lose it according to a [sic] reversionary clause;
- if we do not act now the eventual cost of any other project will surely exceed the overall cost of this renovation plan;
- the real issue is not the tens of millions in public debt the renovation will amass, it is merely the tens of dollars added annually to our school taxes we must pay to support this project.
We implore all the parents of children who go to our schools, or will go to our schools in the near future, their relatives, their friends, and their neighbors, to vote YES! on February 9 in support of public education for our children.
Todd Quinlan, Jeffrey Goldman, Norman Turner, Tessa Killian, Betty Marton, Joan Cherney, Robin Perls, Jerry Teters, Jennifer Zaborowski, Jeff Perls, Joanna Teters, Glenn McNitt, Robby Vorspan, Alysa Sullivan, Maryann Fallek, Brian Lynch, Dan Sullivan, Eric Schwartz, Joan Combellick, Jasmine Redfern, Stacey Schaffer, Joel Keehn, Cordell Stahl, Theresa Fall, Renee Falanga-Brenner, Paul Carroll, Mariann Sennett, Eleanor Wolfe, Matthew Flusser, Robin Hayes, Lisa Munzer, Bill Munzer
Peter Muller's Letter to the Editor 02/04/10: Small Increase Is Worth the Benefits
As a homeowner and landlord in New Paltz, I certainly don’t want to see my taxes increased any more. However, I feel that the small increase is worth the benefits of a renovated, environmentally sound and energy-efficient middle school. I agree with those who want their children to have the best educational environment in which to prepare for their and our future.
I will be voting “Yes” to the renovation.
Peter Muller
New Paltz, NY
I will be voting “Yes” to the renovation.
Peter Muller
New Paltz, NY
Rachel Lagodka's Letter to the Editor 02/05/10: Investing in the Future of the Community
I want to begin this letter by saying that some of my best friends are landlords. And they support funding the Middle School project because as stakeholders they care about investing in the future of the community, and as conscientious people they care about taking real action to create a world they want to see. It is true that the most vocal opponents of the project are landlords, and a frequent speaker at the many public hearings that were provided is a landlord who does not live in New Paltz, but a set of circumstances, self-interested or not, connected to proponents and detractors of the project does not prove or disprove the project’s worth. The project either is or is not a smart move, regardless of who is in favor or against it, and regardless of any details at all about the people with opinions one way or the other. Everybody wants a good school for the children. Nobody wants a tax increase. Unfortunately, at this stage of our existence, we can’t have a good school without paying for it. Defeating the bond won't decrease our taxes. Spending money to defeat the bond is a bad investment because the project, though it involves an initial increase in taxes, will actually cost less than continuous repairs on an inefficient building, or building later when the prices for fuel and labor and supplies are just going up. Detractors of the project have put up signs that double the price, some claiming 100million and others a more modest 80 or 90. If you vote “no,” and they keep having to repair the Middle School, and eventually have to replace it anyhow, the costs will eventually double, but for now, there is no reason to be frightened by the exaggerations of the opponents of the project. They have come before the board again and again and their math has proven to be wrong again and again.
My suggestion would be to vote "yes" for the bond, and then make sure the project is as efficient and effective in the long run as possible, and watch every bit of the construction process to make sure there is no waste. Make sure they hire local people. Check up on the pricing and sourcing of all the material they get. Try to help them do the best job possible by bringing their attention to local resources and expertise. The school board has been very receptive and responsive to public comment. Over the last 5 months they have held public forums at least once and sometimes 3 times a week. The have responded to the concerns of the public and continue to respond. In response to my concern about coming up with yearly payments, they are going to divide the payments up so we don’t have to come up with a lump sum. While they cut out the cultural benefits to the school like the amphitheater and new equipment in the auditorium in response to public comment they did not cut the green energy modifications that will save us money in the long run, also in response to public comment.
If the project comes in under budget, the money would go back to the taxpayers. If it ends up costing all that money, the community still gets the high performance building they can be proud of and the children get the benefits of a wise investment in a healthy school that does not depend on fossil fuels.
There probably are ways that taxes can go down without depriving the students. At least the tax burden could be distributed more fairly. The problem for small homeowners in New Paltz like me is that your property gets taxed instead of your income and many of us here bought houses when they were cheap, still live in the same houses and make the same incomes, but have to pay double and sometimes triple the taxes as we did when we moved here.
That is not a reason to refuse to pay for the middle school. That is a reason to restructure the taxation.
Rachel Lagodka
New Paltz
My suggestion would be to vote "yes" for the bond, and then make sure the project is as efficient and effective in the long run as possible, and watch every bit of the construction process to make sure there is no waste. Make sure they hire local people. Check up on the pricing and sourcing of all the material they get. Try to help them do the best job possible by bringing their attention to local resources and expertise. The school board has been very receptive and responsive to public comment. Over the last 5 months they have held public forums at least once and sometimes 3 times a week. The have responded to the concerns of the public and continue to respond. In response to my concern about coming up with yearly payments, they are going to divide the payments up so we don’t have to come up with a lump sum. While they cut out the cultural benefits to the school like the amphitheater and new equipment in the auditorium in response to public comment they did not cut the green energy modifications that will save us money in the long run, also in response to public comment.
If the project comes in under budget, the money would go back to the taxpayers. If it ends up costing all that money, the community still gets the high performance building they can be proud of and the children get the benefits of a wise investment in a healthy school that does not depend on fossil fuels.
There probably are ways that taxes can go down without depriving the students. At least the tax burden could be distributed more fairly. The problem for small homeowners in New Paltz like me is that your property gets taxed instead of your income and many of us here bought houses when they were cheap, still live in the same houses and make the same incomes, but have to pay double and sometimes triple the taxes as we did when we moved here.
That is not a reason to refuse to pay for the middle school. That is a reason to restructure the taxation.
Rachel Lagodka
New Paltz
Ben Marshall's Letter to the Editor 02/04/10: I am Excited to Make This Investment in New Paltz
How unfortunate that the timing of our vote for the future of education in New Paltz coincides with our receiving that mail marked “Important Tax Documents”. I now recognize that the February 9th vote will reinforce the direction our school district takes in preparing our kids for complex and challenging lives in this integrated, global, technologically advanced society.
The vote is not about a building, nor about taxes, nor the recession. It’s about community and the willingness of us folks to invest in the future of this community. It is about the role of our schools in developing strong thinkers who can work on complex problems spanning multiple subjects, organized as teams that strive toward common goals, a capacity urgently needed in the workforce and desperately lacking in civic organizations like those in our nation’s capitol.
On January 27th I attended the final school board meeting pertaining to the middle school project. The board detailed the reasons why we need to replace our middle school, why it makes fiscal sense to do it now, during the recession, at its current location, and how the design of the new middle school lends itself to 21st century educational best-practices.
I was amazed by the thoroughness of the work this board produced, all of it available on the web site. I can imagine the time investment they have given to this project since its inception and I profoundly respect their willingness to do it on our behalf. I was impressed by the patience they demonstrated answering questions and addressing concerns of the assembled taxpayers, whose understandable frustrations about such a big decision were handled graciously by the board.
At the meeting, we comprehensively discussed the financials of the project. I had no prior knowledge of the numbers involved though I had seen a few lawn signs of folks who oppose the project. I left the meeting with a clear understanding of the costs for New Paltz taxpayers, the contributions from Albany and the debt service on both our existing bonds and the one associated with this project. Everyone present that night received a detailed spreadsheet from the district’s business manager and heard his succinct explanation of the financial impact we can expect.
It boils down to this: Based on assessed home values, the average New Paltz taxpayer will incur $162.75 per year additional school taxes for the next twenty years on top of whatever school tax increase would already take place, capped at 4%. That’s $13.56 average per month for homeowners, a bit more for some, a bit less for others, but roughly the cost of a burger and beer at P&Gs.
I am excited to make this investment in New Paltz. I am glad for my kids and the children of every family in this district, now and for the next 50+ years, who will have the privilege of learning in a sophisticated educational program amongst a community of forward-thinking, hopeful and responsible adults. We will create a top-tier middle school as the launching pad for our kids into our already top-200 in the nation high school. I can’t imagine a better way for our kids to prepare themselves or a more worthy investment for us to make.
Please vote YES on February 9th.
Ben Marshall
New Paltz
The vote is not about a building, nor about taxes, nor the recession. It’s about community and the willingness of us folks to invest in the future of this community. It is about the role of our schools in developing strong thinkers who can work on complex problems spanning multiple subjects, organized as teams that strive toward common goals, a capacity urgently needed in the workforce and desperately lacking in civic organizations like those in our nation’s capitol.
On January 27th I attended the final school board meeting pertaining to the middle school project. The board detailed the reasons why we need to replace our middle school, why it makes fiscal sense to do it now, during the recession, at its current location, and how the design of the new middle school lends itself to 21st century educational best-practices.
I was amazed by the thoroughness of the work this board produced, all of it available on the web site. I can imagine the time investment they have given to this project since its inception and I profoundly respect their willingness to do it on our behalf. I was impressed by the patience they demonstrated answering questions and addressing concerns of the assembled taxpayers, whose understandable frustrations about such a big decision were handled graciously by the board.
At the meeting, we comprehensively discussed the financials of the project. I had no prior knowledge of the numbers involved though I had seen a few lawn signs of folks who oppose the project. I left the meeting with a clear understanding of the costs for New Paltz taxpayers, the contributions from Albany and the debt service on both our existing bonds and the one associated with this project. Everyone present that night received a detailed spreadsheet from the district’s business manager and heard his succinct explanation of the financial impact we can expect.
It boils down to this: Based on assessed home values, the average New Paltz taxpayer will incur $162.75 per year additional school taxes for the next twenty years on top of whatever school tax increase would already take place, capped at 4%. That’s $13.56 average per month for homeowners, a bit more for some, a bit less for others, but roughly the cost of a burger and beer at P&Gs.
I am excited to make this investment in New Paltz. I am glad for my kids and the children of every family in this district, now and for the next 50+ years, who will have the privilege of learning in a sophisticated educational program amongst a community of forward-thinking, hopeful and responsible adults. We will create a top-tier middle school as the launching pad for our kids into our already top-200 in the nation high school. I can’t imagine a better way for our kids to prepare themselves or a more worthy investment for us to make.
Please vote YES on February 9th.
Ben Marshall
New Paltz
kt Tobin Flusser's Letter to the Editor 02/04/10: Project is Right for Our Community
I urge my neighbors in our school district to join me in voting YES on February 9th.
Long before I ran for school board, I advocated renovating the Middle School. When I ran I promised to seek to "maintain excellence despite fiscal pressures . . . to actively participate in the middle school renovation, an opportunity for the district to concretize its commitment to 21st Century education while going green and staying fiscally sound.”
The decision-making process regarding this proposal has been thorough and transparent. We have held numerous public meetings and put thousands of hours of work into this proposal which included the participation of students, teachers, staff, PTA’s, parents, community groups, and interested citizens. With the input of so many stakeholders, the final proposal includes a solid relocation plan with the least disruption for students, maintenance of full-day Kindergarten, a bond timeline which delays tax impact till 2012, and the removal of components deemed “wants” and not “needs”. While some suggested postponing the project, we rejected this too, because the toll on our children and financial cost to our community makes no sense.
I agree that $49.8M is a lot of money. Initially I had sticker shock, but after diligently working with my board colleagues, I now know that this is what we need to do. We have “interrogated” our architects and construction managers - drilling down on all the scenarios, demanding all the how’s and the why’s - and have come to understand this is the appropriate price for a public building built to last and serve us well into the 21st century. We have conducted an exhaustive due-diligence check of costs. All estimates are based on comprehensive budget examinations of similar projects in our region. Respected community members who work in related fields have affirmed that the proposed costs are right on target.
These may be the worst of economic times. Yet, paradoxically, in many ways they are the best of times to build. Construction costs and interest rates are at historic lows. It is probable that costs will NEVER be lower than what they are now.
Critical physical deterioration to the building was identified in 2005. This project is overdue. We need to reject short-term fixes that fail to correct the egregious structural problems with our Middle School. Over the long run, alternative approaches will cost considerably more than what is currently proposed. Now is the time to act for health, safety, security, equity, energy efficiency, the environment, our pocketbooks, and most of all, the appropriate education of our children in this century.
I am confident in my neighbors’ ability to evaluate this proposal on the merits, benefits against costs. We know the cost. We know what we need to do for our community. I voted YES to send this project to our citizens because it is right for our community, and I will vote YES February 9th. Please join me.
kt Tobin Flusser
New Paltz
Note: This is an expression of my personal view, and does not represent a statement from the school board.
Long before I ran for school board, I advocated renovating the Middle School. When I ran I promised to seek to "maintain excellence despite fiscal pressures . . . to actively participate in the middle school renovation, an opportunity for the district to concretize its commitment to 21st Century education while going green and staying fiscally sound.”
The decision-making process regarding this proposal has been thorough and transparent. We have held numerous public meetings and put thousands of hours of work into this proposal which included the participation of students, teachers, staff, PTA’s, parents, community groups, and interested citizens. With the input of so many stakeholders, the final proposal includes a solid relocation plan with the least disruption for students, maintenance of full-day Kindergarten, a bond timeline which delays tax impact till 2012, and the removal of components deemed “wants” and not “needs”. While some suggested postponing the project, we rejected this too, because the toll on our children and financial cost to our community makes no sense.
I agree that $49.8M is a lot of money. Initially I had sticker shock, but after diligently working with my board colleagues, I now know that this is what we need to do. We have “interrogated” our architects and construction managers - drilling down on all the scenarios, demanding all the how’s and the why’s - and have come to understand this is the appropriate price for a public building built to last and serve us well into the 21st century. We have conducted an exhaustive due-diligence check of costs. All estimates are based on comprehensive budget examinations of similar projects in our region. Respected community members who work in related fields have affirmed that the proposed costs are right on target.
These may be the worst of economic times. Yet, paradoxically, in many ways they are the best of times to build. Construction costs and interest rates are at historic lows. It is probable that costs will NEVER be lower than what they are now.
Critical physical deterioration to the building was identified in 2005. This project is overdue. We need to reject short-term fixes that fail to correct the egregious structural problems with our Middle School. Over the long run, alternative approaches will cost considerably more than what is currently proposed. Now is the time to act for health, safety, security, equity, energy efficiency, the environment, our pocketbooks, and most of all, the appropriate education of our children in this century.
I am confident in my neighbors’ ability to evaluate this proposal on the merits, benefits against costs. We know the cost. We know what we need to do for our community. I voted YES to send this project to our citizens because it is right for our community, and I will vote YES February 9th. Please join me.
kt Tobin Flusser
New Paltz
Note: This is an expression of my personal view, and does not represent a statement from the school board.
Rebecca Rotzler's Letter to the Editor 02/04/10: A History Lesson
The New Paltz Middle School was built in 1930 to house the 10th, 11th, and 12th grades that were formerly educated on the Normal School campus, now SUNY New Paltz.
When the state alerted the village that it would have to take over the last three years of high school education there was considerable debate about where the school should be built and how much it should cost.
August 1929, Millard Dubois, the school should "not be far from the center of the village".
November 1929, Bryun Hasbrouck, on the debate about what to do, urges the newspaper and the district to "make clear a subject that has probably been hazy in the minds of many people."
January 1930, an editorial includes a call to move forward, "Because New Paltz voters are far too self-respecting to commit the foolish errors made by so many towns when this kind of decision has to be made, frequently holding up a needed program for years, adding thousands of unnecessary expense."
January 1930, Elting Harp, in response to opposition to the project, "It is seldom, if ever, in an election that involves the spending of money that some people do not say the price is too high."
February 1930, in a report on the New Paltz Lumber Company's donation of athletic fields, "The deed conveying title is to contain a reversionary clause to the effect that if said tract ceases to be used as an athletic field, recreation center or playground in connection with educational purposes, it shall revert to the New Paltz Lumber Company, it's successor or assigns."
April 1930, it is reported that the state played an active role in site selection and building design and would pay a quarter of the estimated $190,000 to build the school. Further, in an editorial response to attacks on the school board, "...the board has worked with painstaking care to meet the requirements of Albany and at the same time conserved our taxpayers' money... No stone has been left unturned."
May 1930, voters accept the plan with 154 for and 108 against. One anti-voter is quoted, "What is the use of a fine building if people are too poor to send their children to school?" A supporter is quoted, "If we vote it down, the extra trouble will make it cost just as much in the end."
August 1930, actual bids were lower than expected, three Kingston firms were selected, with a total cost of about $160,000. Even in the Depression era, the state paid its full share.
October 1930, in his building dedication, Superintendent Gillette, "According to recorded experiences of the past, our generation will be called upon to make a contribution to the world's educational progress and young men and women whom this building will serve will strive to contribute their share."
All research cited here was conducted at the Haviland-Heidgerd Historical Collection, Elting Library. All direct quotes appeared in the New Paltz Independent.
Rebecca Rotzler
New Paltz
When the state alerted the village that it would have to take over the last three years of high school education there was considerable debate about where the school should be built and how much it should cost.
August 1929, Millard Dubois, the school should "not be far from the center of the village".
November 1929, Bryun Hasbrouck, on the debate about what to do, urges the newspaper and the district to "make clear a subject that has probably been hazy in the minds of many people."
January 1930, an editorial includes a call to move forward, "Because New Paltz voters are far too self-respecting to commit the foolish errors made by so many towns when this kind of decision has to be made, frequently holding up a needed program for years, adding thousands of unnecessary expense."
January 1930, Elting Harp, in response to opposition to the project, "It is seldom, if ever, in an election that involves the spending of money that some people do not say the price is too high."
February 1930, in a report on the New Paltz Lumber Company's donation of athletic fields, "The deed conveying title is to contain a reversionary clause to the effect that if said tract ceases to be used as an athletic field, recreation center or playground in connection with educational purposes, it shall revert to the New Paltz Lumber Company, it's successor or assigns."
April 1930, it is reported that the state played an active role in site selection and building design and would pay a quarter of the estimated $190,000 to build the school. Further, in an editorial response to attacks on the school board, "...the board has worked with painstaking care to meet the requirements of Albany and at the same time conserved our taxpayers' money... No stone has been left unturned."
May 1930, voters accept the plan with 154 for and 108 against. One anti-voter is quoted, "What is the use of a fine building if people are too poor to send their children to school?" A supporter is quoted, "If we vote it down, the extra trouble will make it cost just as much in the end."
August 1930, actual bids were lower than expected, three Kingston firms were selected, with a total cost of about $160,000. Even in the Depression era, the state paid its full share.
October 1930, in his building dedication, Superintendent Gillette, "According to recorded experiences of the past, our generation will be called upon to make a contribution to the world's educational progress and young men and women whom this building will serve will strive to contribute their share."
All research cited here was conducted at the Haviland-Heidgerd Historical Collection, Elting Library. All direct quotes appeared in the New Paltz Independent.
Rebecca Rotzler
New Paltz
Ivy Sciandra's Letter to the Editor 2/4/10: We Can't Afford To Wait
I struggled with the question of the New Paltz Middle School renovation for some time because it's a complicated project that will affect both my child's education and my family's tax bill. But after attending many meetings and talking to anyone who would listen, I've come to the conclusion that it's in the best interest of our kids and our community to do this renovation now. There's been a lot of talk about the "band aid" repairs that have been done to this school over the years, the most recent example being $50,000 to repair the roof in the gym.
Nobody got hurt -- this time. The longer we delay the more expensive these patch jobs will become as the building degrades. And how much more expensive will it be if we have to pay for the medical care of someone who is hurt?
A lot of people are scared about how much this will cost New Paltz if we don't get the state aid that's been promised. If that happens, the project won't move forward -- period. We won't be forced to come up with the extra money.
The Board of Education has done a great job putting together this plan. The layout of the school is genius and will really provide the students with a feeling of unity amongst their classmates. Finding the school in Tillson for the relocation plan -- and persuading the state to let us use it -- is a real feather in the board's cap. It answers one of the most important questions about how to implement this renovation project.
Our kids and teachers deserve a safe place for learning and we can't afford to wait.
Ivy Sciandra
New Paltz
Nobody got hurt -- this time. The longer we delay the more expensive these patch jobs will become as the building degrades. And how much more expensive will it be if we have to pay for the medical care of someone who is hurt?
A lot of people are scared about how much this will cost New Paltz if we don't get the state aid that's been promised. If that happens, the project won't move forward -- period. We won't be forced to come up with the extra money.
The Board of Education has done a great job putting together this plan. The layout of the school is genius and will really provide the students with a feeling of unity amongst their classmates. Finding the school in Tillson for the relocation plan -- and persuading the state to let us use it -- is a real feather in the board's cap. It answers one of the most important questions about how to implement this renovation project.
Our kids and teachers deserve a safe place for learning and we can't afford to wait.
Ivy Sciandra
New Paltz
Thursday, February 4, 2010
Nancy Schniedewind's Letter to the Editor 02/4/10: Join me in voting yes for the middle school project
It is unfortunate that public education is the only area in which taxpayers have a very direct and immediate voice in supporting or rejecting tax initiatives. The pain we feel from an economic crisis created by the greed of unregulated banks and corporations can too easily fuel action that hurts community children, public education and ultimately ourselves.
The economic times are very frustrating and painful, but where and how should we push back? Is pushing back at others in our community wise?
-- Should we push back against a responsible school board and district that have spent many years developing a renovation plan for the unsafe New Paltz Middle School with ongoing opportunities for community input? This plan will most effectively keep New Paltz affordable by costing taxpayers less over the years than renovating or building later.
Instead locally,
-- Why not push back by gathering accurate and well-researched information. For example, will the district's debt be $100 million as some opponents allege? The district now has about $24 million in debt, some of which retires in two years, more ($12 million) in nine years and the rest ($10.8 million) in 13 years. For the middle school project, the district would take on a debt just under $30 million dollars, factoring in state aid. This combined debt will be $54 million dollars, not $100 million dollars.
-- Why not push back by basing our thinking on reason and not fear. Should we fear the state cutting out building fund monies once the project starts? As a veteran SUNY employee, I've seen the state cut academic budgets many times, but never cut a building project allocation once it's committed. The district has also promised that it will not move ahead on the project without the state's share committed.
And instead more broadly,
-- Why not spend more of our time pushing back through our elected leaders and advocacy organizations against those economic and foreign policy decisions that have brought on and sustained this economic crisis, pushing for solutions that can bring much greater economic relief than the $163 a year the average household will pay to retire existing debts and the middle school loan. (See The National Priorities Project's costofwar.com.)
-- Why not push back by becoming more active advocating for school funding changes in New York state, such as the Equity in Education Act legislative proposal that would change funding from the property tax to income tax, to take the burden of school taxes off those who are hurt by them the most. (See NYS A.6009)
Yes, we do need to push back, but let's think about what are fair, honest and effective ways to confront these hard economic times.
I will vote "YES" for the middle school renovation because I believe it will best keep New Paltz affordable while showing commitment to the common good. I hope you will join me.
Nancy Schniedewind
New Paltz
The economic times are very frustrating and painful, but where and how should we push back? Is pushing back at others in our community wise?
-- Should we push back against a responsible school board and district that have spent many years developing a renovation plan for the unsafe New Paltz Middle School with ongoing opportunities for community input? This plan will most effectively keep New Paltz affordable by costing taxpayers less over the years than renovating or building later.
Instead locally,
-- Why not push back by gathering accurate and well-researched information. For example, will the district's debt be $100 million as some opponents allege? The district now has about $24 million in debt, some of which retires in two years, more ($12 million) in nine years and the rest ($10.8 million) in 13 years. For the middle school project, the district would take on a debt just under $30 million dollars, factoring in state aid. This combined debt will be $54 million dollars, not $100 million dollars.
-- Why not push back by basing our thinking on reason and not fear. Should we fear the state cutting out building fund monies once the project starts? As a veteran SUNY employee, I've seen the state cut academic budgets many times, but never cut a building project allocation once it's committed. The district has also promised that it will not move ahead on the project without the state's share committed.
And instead more broadly,
-- Why not spend more of our time pushing back through our elected leaders and advocacy organizations against those economic and foreign policy decisions that have brought on and sustained this economic crisis, pushing for solutions that can bring much greater economic relief than the $163 a year the average household will pay to retire existing debts and the middle school loan. (See The National Priorities Project's costofwar.com.)
-- Why not push back by becoming more active advocating for school funding changes in New York state, such as the Equity in Education Act legislative proposal that would change funding from the property tax to income tax, to take the burden of school taxes off those who are hurt by them the most. (See NYS A.6009)
Yes, we do need to push back, but let's think about what are fair, honest and effective ways to confront these hard economic times.
I will vote "YES" for the middle school renovation because I believe it will best keep New Paltz affordable while showing commitment to the common good. I hope you will join me.
Nancy Schniedewind
New Paltz
Make An Informed Vote
In order to make an informed vote, you need to have accurate facts:
* Middle School Project budget is $49.8M: the local share is $29.8M and state aid will cover $20M
* District is in excellent financial shape with a high credit rating and current budget year is running at a surplus
* Board has confirmed the project will not break ground if state aid is not approved
* State building aid has never been cut and Paterson’s proposed budget for next year increases building aid by $222M
* Architects and construction managers:
· Specialize in renovation of historic, green, high performance public school buildings
· Never exceeded budget on a project or missed a deadline for completion
· Never been sued
· Base costs on regional prices, allowance for unforeseen “unknowns”: 10% contingency, 10% in construction
* By law, district cannot spend any more money than is approved in bond; if costs come in lower, loan will be for lower actual cost
* Interest rates at historic lows and will be locked in for 20 years (state aid offsets interest and principal)
* Labor costs are low right now – bids are expected to be lower than estimated cost
* Tax impact conservatively estimates high at 4.5% - actual rates should be lower
* For a median valued home ($297K) tax impact will be an average of about $14 per month for the life of the loan; cumulative total over 20 years about $3200
* Cost of doing “Nothing”, an unviable alternative, is $10M in emergency repairs and projected to cost about $10M every 10-15 years, very possibly could end up costing more than proposed project without systematically addressing any of the safety, health, environmental, equity, or educational issues
* There are no major repairs needed at Duzine, Lenape, and the High School in near future, all had significant work done in recently (much of it paid for with State aid Excel funding) with no big issues remaining
* Current Middle School:
· Significant health concerns due to failed systems and lack of air circulation
· Layout creates safety concerns and accessibility issues, frustrates team teaching, is a labyrinth, and on average rooms are 30% under state requirements
· Technologically insufficient for contemporary education
* Proposed design:
· Entirely new classroom wing increasing day lighting, fresh air, proper climate control; resolves layout, security, and accessibility issues
· Actual instruction time increased by at least 25 minutes every day!
· District office back to Middle School campus in the renovated 1930’s historic building, saving $87K per year in rental costs, ensuring entire project aid will be based on better renovation aid ratios
· Solar for energy and water heater, possibly geothermal heating, many Green advantages and building techniques greatly increasing energy efficiency and lowering operating costs
· Strengthens “house” method of middle school education, as widely practiced in New Paltz and elsewhere, updates building to appropriately provide education for our children in the 21st century
Amy Mosbacher
Middle School YES!
* Middle School Project budget is $49.8M: the local share is $29.8M and state aid will cover $20M
* District is in excellent financial shape with a high credit rating and current budget year is running at a surplus
* Board has confirmed the project will not break ground if state aid is not approved
* State building aid has never been cut and Paterson’s proposed budget for next year increases building aid by $222M
* Architects and construction managers:
· Specialize in renovation of historic, green, high performance public school buildings
· Never exceeded budget on a project or missed a deadline for completion
· Never been sued
· Base costs on regional prices, allowance for unforeseen “unknowns”: 10% contingency, 10% in construction
* By law, district cannot spend any more money than is approved in bond; if costs come in lower, loan will be for lower actual cost
* Interest rates at historic lows and will be locked in for 20 years (state aid offsets interest and principal)
* Labor costs are low right now – bids are expected to be lower than estimated cost
* Tax impact conservatively estimates high at 4.5% - actual rates should be lower
* For a median valued home ($297K) tax impact will be an average of about $14 per month for the life of the loan; cumulative total over 20 years about $3200
* Cost of doing “Nothing”, an unviable alternative, is $10M in emergency repairs and projected to cost about $10M every 10-15 years, very possibly could end up costing more than proposed project without systematically addressing any of the safety, health, environmental, equity, or educational issues
* There are no major repairs needed at Duzine, Lenape, and the High School in near future, all had significant work done in recently (much of it paid for with State aid Excel funding) with no big issues remaining
* Current Middle School:
· Significant health concerns due to failed systems and lack of air circulation
· Layout creates safety concerns and accessibility issues, frustrates team teaching, is a labyrinth, and on average rooms are 30% under state requirements
· Technologically insufficient for contemporary education
* Proposed design:
· Entirely new classroom wing increasing day lighting, fresh air, proper climate control; resolves layout, security, and accessibility issues
· Actual instruction time increased by at least 25 minutes every day!
· District office back to Middle School campus in the renovated 1930’s historic building, saving $87K per year in rental costs, ensuring entire project aid will be based on better renovation aid ratios
· Solar for energy and water heater, possibly geothermal heating, many Green advantages and building techniques greatly increasing energy efficiency and lowering operating costs
· Strengthens “house” method of middle school education, as widely practiced in New Paltz and elsewhere, updates building to appropriately provide education for our children in the 21st century
Amy Mosbacher
Middle School YES!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
