The lame duck Council's turf vote: does it matter?
I'm sure many of you have seen the recent Heralds, including a new talking point for turf:
The Council voted for the "50% goal." Now the Council is moving the goal line!
That's a factual statement, but also a serious distortion of reality.
Perhaps a more honest and complete talking point would be:
Last November's Lame Duck Council voted for the "50% goal." Now -- of the current nine Council members, including one elected Council member who voted for the "50% goal" -- the new Council is moving the goal line!
Seriously, this is ridiculous. I hope somebody submits an LTTE and reminds people that the November 2009 Council vote included only one elected Council member among the nine current Council members.
Don't get me wrong though. I respect the fact that people are raising money. And I understand the concerns that Councils have not historically asked for replacement funding -- look at the playground at Bartlem -- but for me The Bailout changed everything. And I do think the current Council has a legitimate -- though short -- record on considering long-term, lifecycle costs. We did it with the pool structure. And I hope we continue to do that, particularly with the more visible, larger ticket items.
I think the turf would be really nice. But I also think it's going to drive up long-term costs for taxpayers. And I still need to hear a convincing argument addressing those costs, if I'm going to support the turf.
Tim White
13 comments:
Unless ALL ongoing costs associated with a new fake turf field are truly and actually paid for through savings associated with fake turf it will only act to be a tax increaser for everyone. Property taxes will be increased and it sounds as though representatives of our local BOE want to institute an additional fee for event tickets. Those guys are in effect recommending an additional form of taxation beyond the property tax. Wonder who voted them the power to devise new forms of taxation.
How many high school workers need to be eliminated in order to have the necessary cash on hand for routine field maintenance and for the once every 5 to 7 year total field replacement? The BOE should table activities associated with this item until they come forward with a plan to pay for this thing by cutting positions.
They should also immediately come forward with accurate projections of future tax increases which will be needed to support this activity as it has currently been planned. If 'accurate' projections cause them too much strain now it would be smart to just forget about this and refocus on educating the majority of our children.
It will be an interesting to wathc the postion the Council takes on the Marching Bands invite to play in London. While this is a great honor, I would imagine the cost is going to be huge. So large an undertaking, my belief is it will go beyond fundraising and possibly require money from an already tight budget. Being that this is an extracurricular activity, I hope the TC uses the same prudence as it is using when looking at the TURF project.
I don't know why the turf people keep comparing the Kids in Motion playground to their project.
Lets all remember, that group raised the funds and replaced the playground that was built by another group of parents. Id didn't have to be replaced, but they saw the benefits of having a boundless playground.
The turf will have to be replaced in 8 to 10 years. No question about it. It is necessary to have a field for the high school athletics. It wasn't necessary to replace the playground.
I have asked this several times without hearing from anyone on the council or BOE--has anyone checked with other towns who have turf fields to find out what their actual costs are to maintain the field and what their life expectancy is?
WHy not learn from those who have already done it and make sure the turf committee is being upfront in regards to the actual maintenance costs.
I have a few more examples of ridiculous:
(1.) At our 9/20 BOE Planning meeting, I listened to one parent tell me that I should be thanking the donors such as Rob Oris for all of the money the folks have donated to me. And that I am doing a terrible disservice to them by holding up the turf field. This was a point more or less that Rob Oris felt he had to make with me a number of times that evening.
Well, if I went to a bank to get a mortgage I know full well that I will be put against a series of underwriting guidelines and loan qualifications. A bank is not going to give me a mortgage simply because I want one. They're going to perform due diligence before making a responsible decision.
The BOE, well, a few of us, wants to perform our due diligence on this (or any matter) for that matter. The fact donations have been made doesn't not alter the process nor does it warrant special treatment of expenditures. Sorry.
What these folks should be asking elected officials and administrators is WHY did it take 2 years before the BOE planning committee started performing due diligence?
My simple answer: Because the proper processes were bypassed.
(2.) The same person went on to tell me that I would more or less be a fool not to support the turf field because IT SAVES THE TOWN MONEY.
Well, guess what? We're not going to be "saving" money with turf. Let me explain: It costs roughly $12,655 to maintain the CHS grass football field. Using a 10 year life expectancy of the turf field, we'll need to save or raise $49k a year over 10 years to have enough money to replace turf.
$49K > $12,655. However, IF and ONLY IF the annual $49K is covered by donations, then I would agree we'll be saving money. Personally, if the fundraisers follow up on their publicly recorded promises than the full cost may indeed be cover by donations. But $49K > $12,655.
And I will not support allocating $12,655 out of our operating budget into a reserve fund for future replacement.
Now, I lost count how many times Bob Behrer has all but guaranteed that the turf committee will cover the long-term replacement costs. Would he be willing to put it into a contract?
Other ridiculous moments. Matt Bowman stated at Monday night's meeting that the BOE "made up the $12,655" figure. We pulled it out of thin air. The fact is that the turf committee (of which Matt is a member) derived this number last year and the BOE confirmed it this year...I think Matt had a senior moment, LOL.
There were more moments that evening but I can summarize it by saying, at this point, the supporters' frustrations are morphing into emotional arguments. It's no longer an argument/discussion on the merits (or not) of the turf project but rather who is or is not being political.
I will post up documents from the BOE Planning committee in advance of the 10/21 meeting here. I believe we'll have one more planning meeting to finalize the motions to be presented to the BOE on 10/21. I will post details of the meeting as soon as I know the time/place.
Tony
To my colleague Tim White,
Your facts are incomplete. Two council members re-elected from the previous Council voted for the compromise and they are Tim Slocum and Michael Ecke. I suggested the compromise surprising myself (and my caucus for that matter) at the time. Tom Ruocco, Jim Sima & you were opposed and may remain so today...don't know as haven't voted yet pending BOE decision.
I'm not here to predict the outcome a the next vote but to imply anything else by misstating the last years YES tally is factually incorrect and disrepectful.
Tim Slocum
Anonymous said...
It will be an interesting to wathc the postion the Council takes on the Marching Bands invite to play in London.
It's the BOE that votes on all out of the state/country fieldtrips. Usually they do approve them with the condition that the trip will be at no cost to the board.
Two council members re-elected from the previous Council voted for the compromise
Teddy Kennedy, Paul Kirk and Scott Brown have all served as US Senators from Massachusetts since President Obama took office. All had full Senate voting rights.
Kennedy and Brown were elected Senators. Kirk was not.
Holding office and being elected are not the same. Roland Burris (IL), Ted Kaufman (DE), Michael Bennett (CO), Kirsten Gillibrand (NY) and Carte Goodwin (WV) are all sitting US Senators. But none of them were elected.
Two current Council members voted in favor, but only one was (re)elected. My facts are correct.
FYI At tonight's football game their was a petition circulated to encourage the support of the turf & acceptance of all state grants by the BoE & TC.
At the last Board of Ed meeting the motion to vote on the turf was tabled, I believe, because the Planning Committee did not have a quorum at their meeting so they can't bring a motion to the full board for a vote if there wasn't a legitimate meeting previously. Perhaps Tony P can verify this...I believe he pointed it out.
Even if the Board gives their approval of the project, I believe the project should be part of the 5 year capital budget and should go to referendum. It was in the capital budget but then was removed. So it would only make sense that, if the BoE approves the project, it should be put back in the capital budget next time around in July/August 2011 and then voted on by the TC. Isn't there a proper procedure to follow?
"I'm not here to predict the outcome a the next vote but to imply anything else by misstating the last years YES tally is factually incorrect and disrepectful."
This TC voted for the 50% target. Although, frankly, I don't quite understand what the motion was exactly. I don't think it really matters because if the BOE has not voted to get behind the project and present a funding plan for it (and stand behind the funding plan) then there's no point in the TC voting on the release of the grant.
The ONLY reason the TC vote is in the papers is because the supporters are trying to use it as an excuse as to why the turf field has "stalled" in their opinion. It's typical political tactics i.e. "people are stonewalling this", "they keep moving the target", "we have donors waiting impatiently", etc, etc, etc. They want people to feel bad for them as a means to fast track the project.
IMO, they're venting their 'frustrations' at the wrong body, they should be asking the BOE chairman why has it taken 2 years for the BOE Planning committee to finally perform due diligence on this project? If the Turf Committee had the answers for 2 years, as quoted by Gerry and Bob, then why have those answers only recently made their way to the BOE?
Answer: Because the Turf Committee and BOE bypassed proper processes. Why didn't the prior BOE perform due diligence? Why didn't the prior BOE vote to accept the Turf project? It seems to me that if the work that's being done now, by this BOE, was done last year then perhaps the Nov TC vote may have had a different outcome.
This is what happens when folks try to bypass processes. That's the only reason the TC vote is today's news.
Tony
"At the last Board of Ed meeting the motion to vote on the turf was tabled, I believe, because the Planning Committee did not have a quorum at their meeting so they can't bring a motion to the full board for a vote if there wasn't a legitimate meeting previously. Perhaps Tony P can verify this...I believe he pointed it out."
The BOE Planning committee has been reviewing, questioning and, in some ways, interrogating the funding options and costs for Turf. I submitted, as did Todd, a series of questions/ideas/concerns to the Turf Committee and Vincent Mascianna. Our talking points covered every aspect of the turf project but we felt they were unanswered questions and no artifacts exist to answer/support them, i.e. a plan for long-term funding. Certainly, no artifacts existed from the administration on long-term funding/planning.
In short, the planning committee was finally performing due diligence and it needed to be completed.
We tasked this group to go forth and get answers. Those answers were not ready in time for the BOE meeting. And, more importantly, they were not discussed and finalized. The planning committee did not reconvene with a quorum prior to the last BOE meeting.
I feel that the BOE should present a comprehensive (or close to it) plan for turf. Simply holding a quick show of hands is not going to do it.
In summary, the BOE Planning committee did not vote to move the project forward before the last BOE meeting.
The last BOE meeting had an agenda item labeled "Possible action/vote on Turf". I was surprised to see a lengthy motion that was added at the last minute, to our packets that evening because the planning committee did not complete it's work. It was a member motion, not a motion from the planning committee.
It appeared to be an attempt for a quick show of hands in order to get back in front of the TC and ask to release the grant.
Needless to say, most of us on the BOE were not ready to have the vote on Turf. It was premature to do so. Alan Sobol also raised an important fact: shouldn't the public be given advanced notice about a turf vote?!? Um...YES!
The Planning committee will be finished with it's due diligence in time for the 10/21 meeting. Unfortunately, some supporters feel that we're stonewalling.
But the simple fact of the matter is that proper processes were bypassed and this is why we are where we are at this point in the process. Fire, Ready, Aim! has caused us (IMO) to prolong our due diligence. But trying to right a wrong with another wrong is not going to happen.
Tony
"It will be an interesting to wathc the postion the Council takes on the Marching Bands invite to play in London"
Whatever funding is needed to get to London ($600K I believe) needs to raised outside of the BOE. The BOE does not pay for field/out of country trips. I think the marching band has a major hurdle of raising so much money is so little time. We'll be discussing the trip at the 10/21 BOE meeting.
The 50% motion should have never been made - period.
Post a Comment