Behrer on funding the turf replacement costs
Last night's Council discussion on the 2010 / 2011 capital budget turf project offered some details on the proposed replacement funding. But tonight's BOE meeting saw more details being offered by Bob Behrer. I'm confident these spreadsheets offered by Bob are self-explanatory... whether you accept them as "conservative" or "realistic" is entirely your opinion:
I applaud Bob for his efforts. But I'm still skeptical that the annual fundraising efforts will continue in perpetuity.
In my opinion, this is a question similar to the one I posed regarding the pool:
more services = higher spending
and
fewer services = lower spending
In the midst of The Great Recession, I think people are comfortable with lower spending and relatively fewer services.
Separate from funding the replacement costs, I learned tonight that the BOE did vote on the turf on June 28, 2010. I think it was the annual end-of-year, early-in-the-AM meeting. It was buried in -- perhaps -- a largely undiscussed 4-0 vote (Brittingham, Mrowka, Pavano, Perugini present) on the BOE Planning Committee's recommended capital budget for the schools. Personally, I think the vote was somewhat unfortunate in that it didn't generate much voter participation. But a vote is a vote. And it is now properly on the Council's desk.
Tim White
5 comments:
" I think it was the annual end-of-year, early-in-the-AM meeting. It was buried in -- perhaps -- a largely undiscussed 4-0 vote (Brittingham, Mrowka, Pavano, Perugini present) on the BOE Planning Committee's recommended capital budget for the schools."
Tim, no offense but I discussed the meetings leading up to 6/28 here extensively. Maybe you missed it during your much deserved hiatus at that time but to act surprised about it is a bit of a mystery to me.
There was no turf vote on 6/28. The vote that occurred on 6/28 was the amendment of the capital budget. Specifically, the amendment, by request of the TC Planning Committee, was to put in the full estimated cost of the Turf project instead of "zero". The discussion was done at the TC Planning Committee meeting.
I also talked about the TC Planning meeting here in detail too because there was confusion by pretty much everyone present on how projects paid for by grants should be represented on the capital budget plan. Everyone agreed that whether or not the project actually happens it needed to be on the capital plan so it can be tracked and vetted through the proper channels if it comes to fruition.
The BOE has not voted to move forward with the turf let alone the track project. I suspect that after tonight's meeting, it'll take a few months to discuss the long-term costs and planning...a discussion that has NEVER happend with the BOE past or present regarding turf.
There was nothing to vote on tonight even though Bob was looking for approval from the BOE to move to the bid phase.
The detail you posted tonight was also seen for the first time by the full BOE this evening. Even Massey was taken aback by some of the ideas the committee is suggesting we use to fund the turf field replacement. As I mentioned tonight, there's a slew of unanswered items related to how money from fundraising makes it's way to the BOE or TC to pay for replacement...let alone installation.
Tonight was the first I heard of some type of trust-fund account idea that could be setup by the town to depost donations for the replacement of turf down the road. Apparently, this is being discussed with the TM?
What I still can't understand is why my questioning of the post-installation costs, and how they're going to be funded, irritates some BOE members. At least tonight, however, the BOE agreed that it's time to FINALLY discuss long-term costs. I don't know why it took 2 years to realize this. And as much as Gerry insists that the turf committee has discussed long-term funding...the full BOE and TC wasn't in the know about the details until tonight. At best, they're ideas in their early infancy.
Tony P
Behrer's numbers remind one of the bare beginnings of a business plan scratched onto a piece of paper.
The town might be wise to let this group of boosters - - or are they just another group of special interests bent on driving up our taxes for their own special purposes?- - put their own money where their mouths are. Do what Hamden has done belatedly with their municipal ice rink. Turn it over to a third party, for profit business.
No doubt Behrer's numbers will be good enough so that any local banker would be happy to front a couple of million to finance this knowing just how big the ongoing revenue stream associated with field rentals is going to be. And the school board would then only need to pay for the very few times each year that it actually uses this field for anything which even mildly resembles actual student education.
Privatize now, lower taxes and better services for all.
I discussed the meetings leading up to 6/28 here extensively.
I know. I recall it well. The annual 7:30am meeting always leaves me scratching my head about the timing. My point was about the lack of discussion regarding the turf at the 6/28 meeting.
The BOE has not voted to move forward with the turf let alone the track project.
I know that's your intent. But this just strikes me as the way in which gov't often acts. All too often, legislators / elected officials vote on something then the regulators / civil servants act in an entirely different manner from what was intended... but the legislative body doesn't have the votes to tell the regulator to act differently / reverse course.
Anyway, my point was to clarify that the proper process of handing something from the BOE to the Council was being followed. I don't want to go down the path of the Sptd handing stuff to the Council... just seems inappropriate to me.
"I don't want to go down the path of the Sptd handing stuff to the Council... just seems inappropriate to me."
I agree. Somehow, somwhere, someone felt that it was perfectly OK to introduce "Add Ons" to the turf field project without any heads up to the BOE Planning Committee, let alone the majority of the members on the BOE. The cost analysis report was provided to just about everyone else but the BOE until last night.
And despite having gone through a design phase to firm up the numbers...the BOE/Turf Committee has NOT discussed or approved funding for this project, long-term planning, etc. As I mentioned earlier, last night was the first I heard of some type of Trust Fund account being discussed with the TM.
It seems to me that if this Turf Committee and our Chairman wants the "Support of the board" then they need to include, or at least apprise us, of this very important information.
As it stands right now, this project (for me) has become so muddied that it needs to be put on hold until these issues can be worked out. I believe it's going to take at least 2-3 months to discuss and prepare a funding plan-proposal for turf replacement that the BOE can officially vote on BEFORE committing to this project. In essence, while we received firmer numbers of cost...nothing else has changed.
My guess is that if a vote was taken last night to commit to the Turf project, the vote would probably be:
Tony Perugini - No
Sandy Pavano - No
Alan Sobol - ??
Todd Dixon - No
Gerry Brittingham - Yes
Steve Mrowka - Yes
Peter Massey - Yes
I think it's clear that this is what happens when a committee is formed and allowed to operate without any oversight.
Thanks,
Tony Perugini
"the BOE/Turf Committee has NOT discussed or approved funding for this project, long-term planning, etc."
Good point, Tony. I knew there hadn't been a vote to approve this project. It does seem that the Turf Committee is either unaware how the process is supposed to work or they just think it should be their way regardless of procedures.
There are still so many unanswered questions. Listing this project in the Capital Budget is OK but it should be moved out a couple of years so that everything can be ironed out.
Post a Comment