Posts
I've been an observer of the School Board since the Middle School renovation debate began, and I have spoken out about the need to have a mom on the School Board. After careful consideration I have announced my candidacy, and I look forward to your support.
Please join me to talk about the upcoming election, my candidacy, and the challenges our district will be facing in the next few years at a campaign kick-off on Monday, April 13th, 6pm to 8pm at the Mudd Puddle at the Water Street Market.
You can RSVP on Facebook here.
Thursday, April 2, 2009
Friday, March 27, 2009
Save the Middle School Chair Running for School Board
KT Tobin Flusser who led the “Save the Middle School” petition drive, and who since January 2008 has chaired the “Save the New Paltz Middle School” committee, has decided to run for school board.
More here.
More here.
Saturday, March 21, 2009
Board Votes 6-1 in Favor of Middle School Renovation Process
At the March 18th meeting, the school board voted 6-1 to approve the process of renovating the New Paltz Middle School.
Board member Steve Greenfield noted that the resolution explicitly affirms the social contract with the community to keep the school at its current location. This vote clearly demonstrates that the board is formally committed to renovating the Middle School.
The only dissenting vote was Rod Dressel who still thinks it's a mistake to renovate and that the district should be building a new school at a new site.
Board member Steve Greenfield noted that the resolution explicitly affirms the social contract with the community to keep the school at its current location. This vote clearly demonstrates that the board is formally committed to renovating the Middle School.
The only dissenting vote was Rod Dressel who still thinks it's a mistake to renovate and that the district should be building a new school at a new site.
Friday, February 27, 2009
School District Budget - Online tools to submit comments
Thanks to everyone who was able to attend the Community Forum on the budget this past Wednesday. The district now has a survey and a blog for submitting comments on the budget - click here to go to the district home page to take the quick one question survey and submit your comments.
Next Steps - Design!
For those of you that could not make Rhinebeck Associates presention of the the Middle School Feasibility Study, click here for the power point.
The architects presented the details of a $9.8 million simple repair of existing building needs, which the great majority of the board agreed is not is not an option. For renovation, the dollar amounts ranged from $26.9 to $47.3 million (see pages 3 and 4 of the power point for cost and impact on tax bill estimates).
It is important to remember, that these are pre-aid figures; our actual costs could be significantly less since state and federal aid could be in the neighborhood of 50% of the total budget. These estimates also do not include the savings we would get from dropping the rented district office (about $200K per year). Nor do they include the retirement of significant debt in the next few years (and its annual service payments included in the tax levy) during the time the design phase is is underway, so the overall net impact per household for the construction will be minimal. However, these are the amounts voters will have to decide upon when the project goes to a bond vote. Therefore, we need an educated and informed public.
Save the Middle School would like to start mobilizing support in the community for moving from feasibility study to the design phase, starting with a weekly letter to the editor campaign. We want to get this to the design phase quickly - the longer it takes to have finished plans, the higher the construction costs, and the less likely we'll be able to capitalize on federal stimulus dollars. We need to keep this rolling, and community support for moving into the design phase is critical to advancing the time line.
Please email us at SaveNPMiddleSchool@gmail.com to let us know if you would like to get involved and/or would be willing to write a letter to the paper.
The architects presented the details of a $9.8 million simple repair of existing building needs, which the great majority of the board agreed is not is not an option. For renovation, the dollar amounts ranged from $26.9 to $47.3 million (see pages 3 and 4 of the power point for cost and impact on tax bill estimates).
It is important to remember, that these are pre-aid figures; our actual costs could be significantly less since state and federal aid could be in the neighborhood of 50% of the total budget. These estimates also do not include the savings we would get from dropping the rented district office (about $200K per year). Nor do they include the retirement of significant debt in the next few years (and its annual service payments included in the tax levy) during the time the design phase is is underway, so the overall net impact per household for the construction will be minimal. However, these are the amounts voters will have to decide upon when the project goes to a bond vote. Therefore, we need an educated and informed public.
Save the Middle School would like to start mobilizing support in the community for moving from feasibility study to the design phase, starting with a weekly letter to the editor campaign. We want to get this to the design phase quickly - the longer it takes to have finished plans, the higher the construction costs, and the less likely we'll be able to capitalize on federal stimulus dollars. We need to keep this rolling, and community support for moving into the design phase is critical to advancing the time line.
Please email us at SaveNPMiddleSchool@gmail.com to let us know if you would like to get involved and/or would be willing to write a letter to the paper.
Sunday, February 8, 2009
7%
Due to state budget woes, the school budget process schedule will be much earlier this year. Last Wednesday (February 4), Superintendent Rice presented her draft budget at the board of education meeting. The summary and power point are now posted on the district website.
The proposed increase in the tax levy is 6.99%. Some board members (in particular, Don Kerr and Patrick Rausch) reacted that in order to get the tax levy down to 5%, the budget would need further cuts and/or the district would need to generate more revenues. Steve Greenfield noted that while 7% is not a low figure, in comparison, many districts in the region are now considering double digit increases and we need to remember we are dealing with public education, not a consumption budget (e.g. the district can’t stop going the movies and out to dinner, like a household can). Rod Dressel pointed out, it is also very important to note that the increased levy is primarily a result of less money coming from the state, not more spending in the district.
This coming Wednesday, Feb 11, the board will continue their discussion of the budget. (Reminder: this is the same night as the Middle School renovation study presentation.) On February 25, the board is seeking public input and will host a community forum at the high school. Maria Rice will submit her revised budget on March 4.
In terms of cuts, there is one in particular I would argue against: the $7,000 allotted to the food services line which is/was meant to facilitate progression towards healthier foods served to the children in our schools. While $7K is not chump change, in a 48 million dollar budget, it is somewhat symbolic… and its retraction is very indicative of a lack of commitment to providing better food in our schools.
Areas where I would like to see more cuts are in administrative lines… I am sure we could unearth at least $7K in the board of education ($105K) and superintendent ($264K) lines.
As far as revenues, one of my biggest concerns is the proposal to start charging building use fees to non-school groups that use school facilities after 6pm on weekdays and on the weekends. *I believe* it was stated that these fees will be $30-45 per hour (it is not in the power point…). This could have a major impact on civic and sport activities in New Paltz and I am very concerned about the ripple effects this will have on the community.
These are just a few of the things that popped out at me upon my first perusal of the draft budget. I urge anyone concerned about the tax levy and the delivery of public education in New Paltz to take a look, and to then show up on February 25 for the community forum. The superintendent and school board have asked for our input – about spending cuts and revenue generation – and we need to take them up on their offer to listen to us.
(ps. Check out the file name of the power point. Very funny.)
The proposed increase in the tax levy is 6.99%. Some board members (in particular, Don Kerr and Patrick Rausch) reacted that in order to get the tax levy down to 5%, the budget would need further cuts and/or the district would need to generate more revenues. Steve Greenfield noted that while 7% is not a low figure, in comparison, many districts in the region are now considering double digit increases and we need to remember we are dealing with public education, not a consumption budget (e.g. the district can’t stop going the movies and out to dinner, like a household can). Rod Dressel pointed out, it is also very important to note that the increased levy is primarily a result of less money coming from the state, not more spending in the district.
This coming Wednesday, Feb 11, the board will continue their discussion of the budget. (Reminder: this is the same night as the Middle School renovation study presentation.) On February 25, the board is seeking public input and will host a community forum at the high school. Maria Rice will submit her revised budget on March 4.
In terms of cuts, there is one in particular I would argue against: the $7,000 allotted to the food services line which is/was meant to facilitate progression towards healthier foods served to the children in our schools. While $7K is not chump change, in a 48 million dollar budget, it is somewhat symbolic… and its retraction is very indicative of a lack of commitment to providing better food in our schools.
Areas where I would like to see more cuts are in administrative lines… I am sure we could unearth at least $7K in the board of education ($105K) and superintendent ($264K) lines.
As far as revenues, one of my biggest concerns is the proposal to start charging building use fees to non-school groups that use school facilities after 6pm on weekdays and on the weekends. *I believe* it was stated that these fees will be $30-45 per hour (it is not in the power point…). This could have a major impact on civic and sport activities in New Paltz and I am very concerned about the ripple effects this will have on the community.
These are just a few of the things that popped out at me upon my first perusal of the draft budget. I urge anyone concerned about the tax levy and the delivery of public education in New Paltz to take a look, and to then show up on February 25 for the community forum. The superintendent and school board have asked for our input – about spending cuts and revenue generation – and we need to take them up on their offer to listen to us.
(ps. Check out the file name of the power point. Very funny.)
Friday, January 30, 2009
A 6 Man Board (We Need a Mom!)
Laura Walls resigned from the school board this week to take a job with Eliot Auerbach in the Ulster County comptroller's office. Laura was also the board vice president so that position is also now vacant.
The current board now consists of six men: David Dukler (President), Rod Dressel, Steve Greenfield, Don Kerr, Patrick Rausch, and Edgar Rodriquez.
These six men can:
* Leave the seat vacant until the May elections
* Appoint someone to the open seat now
* Authorize a special election for the seat
As far as the VP seat, these six men can:
* Leave it open
* Vote for a new VP
Any actions will be taken in executive session, I believe even the Superintendent will not be present.
It is too close to May to hold a special election. Given the prevalence of 4-3 votes on this board (Laura being in the "4" group), my suspicion is the board will appoint someone. Is it even possible these six men could find someone that they all could, well at least four of them, agree on?
And what about the VP slot? I suspect they may just let that one go till May, maybe even July.
The Dressel and Kerr seats are up this year, and if they decide they want to stick around, they will need to run in May to keep their positions. Laura's term also would have been up, so that means we have three school board seats to fill in May. Will they appoint someone just to fill the slot till May, someone that may not even choose to run this Spring? Will that be a prerequisite to appease all parties?
Only three (I think) of these six men have school-age children attending New Paltz schools. Only one has elementary school age kids (again, I think). In my opinion, we need a New Paltz mom! (Or two, or three... but good golly I'll take at least one at this point.)
(This post is also at New Paltz Gadfly)
The current board now consists of six men: David Dukler (President), Rod Dressel, Steve Greenfield, Don Kerr, Patrick Rausch, and Edgar Rodriquez.
These six men can:
* Leave the seat vacant until the May elections
* Appoint someone to the open seat now
* Authorize a special election for the seat
As far as the VP seat, these six men can:
* Leave it open
* Vote for a new VP
Any actions will be taken in executive session, I believe even the Superintendent will not be present.
It is too close to May to hold a special election. Given the prevalence of 4-3 votes on this board (Laura being in the "4" group), my suspicion is the board will appoint someone. Is it even possible these six men could find someone that they all could, well at least four of them, agree on?
And what about the VP slot? I suspect they may just let that one go till May, maybe even July.
The Dressel and Kerr seats are up this year, and if they decide they want to stick around, they will need to run in May to keep their positions. Laura's term also would have been up, so that means we have three school board seats to fill in May. Will they appoint someone just to fill the slot till May, someone that may not even choose to run this Spring? Will that be a prerequisite to appease all parties?
Only three (I think) of these six men have school-age children attending New Paltz schools. Only one has elementary school age kids (again, I think). In my opinion, we need a New Paltz mom! (Or two, or three... but good golly I'll take at least one at this point.)
(This post is also at New Paltz Gadfly)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)