|
Post by bagelmaker on Feb 1, 2008 21:40:53 GMT -5
Speaking of sports - you see that boy's basketball won another game tonight? That new coach must know what he is doing. Why did it take so long to make the change? We should make some other changes. How do coaches get hired? How long is their contract for? good night - have to get up early for work
|
|
|
Post by patriot2415 on Feb 2, 2008 0:06:26 GMT -5
bman, welcome..
you will enjoy it here, it does get heated, but thats what makes it interesting!!!!
as for coaches, from what i know, teachers get the first look, its in their contract. Doesn't matter if they are good or not. It really should matter since We pay for them!!!
|
|
|
Post by elphaba65 on Feb 2, 2008 8:34:43 GMT -5
I have another idea to throw out there, not a complete proposal but may have possibilities. If Venditto does admit that the deal is off my next suggestion for consideration would be to take in part of what was stated by Phil earlier but with a different twist. If I remember correctly the Packard property is somewhere around 8 acres not 9. If any other deal involves selling part of our property, why not the piece of land that has Packard on it? The TOB would then be responsible for taking down the building, not the Plainedge taxpayers. This would solve two problems, the building and land for fields. The TOB would have the land to build new fields, a park, and maybe even a new senior citizens center, something for everyone, and the PSD still has the field it currently owns without any additional cost. Thoughts?
Ellen
|
|
parklover
New Member
These are the Personal Views of Joe Amalfitano as a Resident & Tax Payer in the Plainedge Community
Posts: 26
|
Post by parklover on Feb 2, 2008 9:02:39 GMT -5
Ellen, Andy Rothstein gave us the impression that they wanted to stay clear of acquiring the building. He kept mentioning the SEA fund which was approved to acquire open land and preserve open space. The SEA fund could not be used to acquire buildings. That being said, I do not think they would want to entertain the acquistion of the building. However, that doesn't mean we can't ask....... Don't ask never receive! I would really like to know why they are so hell bent to steer clear of acquiring the building..... I think that in the coming weeks some additional answers will materialize regarding that. I think the TOB may feel that the building could be pandora's box and once demolition begins many sins will be revealed..... Just my opinion...... Haven't heard anything in that regard..... I just question the about face taken on their position regarding the building..... I think them backing out of the deal has more to do with the actual building then the opposition. Formerworker - GOOD RIDDANCE! ;D I am sure we won't see you at future board meetings because you never were involved..... You cowered in the back with the other Monday Morning Quarterbacks. Ciao!!! If you had any courage you would have stepped forward and made sure you took a stance for what you believed was right in this community. Like Patriot does!!!! Bmaker - Welcome aboard..... You'll see the topics change in the different sections that pertain to the budget when we start getting into the thick of things. Regarding why it takes so long for change to happen regarding the Coaches thats a Jamie LaBelle question...... Don't get me started. Picthers and Catchers refers to Spring Training for Baseball ..... Hoooray !!!!!! Patriot - Can I pat you on the back for chasing Formerworker off the board? Great job man!!!!!!! Your a Gentleman and a Scholar. ;D Quite honestly, I think whatever deal they come to us with will be less advantageous than the original one. That just might be something we are gonna have to come to terms with..... Joe Amalfitano
|
|
|
Post by mak on Feb 2, 2008 9:34:20 GMT -5
Since people are responding to comments that they think I’ve made, I’d like to set the record straight and speak for myself. First, I’ve been visible and vocal at Pick-Pack meetings and School Board meetings expressing my support for the swap. I’ve been involved with talks about Packard longer than anyone on this chat board (except Ellen), since 1994, and still have a lot of the original information about the problems with the building, costs for the different bond proposals, and why we chose to build a new middle school. I will be happy to share it with anyone who asks. As I have explained to some of you in passing, the reason the building is in the shape it’s in is because previous board members deliberately did not fund capital improvements in the budget so they could keep the budget increases low, and assure their re-election. I sat in the board room during several budget cycles when the majority of the board told the superintendent (first Clint Barter, then Gene Grasso) to cut the budget to a particular number. He would get totally frustrated, saying that money needed to be allocated for capital improvements. They said they didn’t care – take it out. A couple of those board members were on the board for 18 years!!
The board finally started putting money into a “Packard Repair Fund.” The amount was $330,000 per year, and we had gotten up to $990,000 in three years. (In the meantime, Jeff Burns did various repair projects on the building, like the roof and caulking windows.) But by then, the kids had outgrown the building, the state imposed new standards, and simple renovations were no longer an option. At the risk of repeating what’s already been said, we might have been able to knock down that school and build a new one on the site, (the perfect solution) if there was another school building to put the kids in the meantime. One idea was to build the new school next to Packard and keep the kids in there during construction. But there was too much concern from the community about the safety of the kids on an active construction site, their exposure to noise and asbestos abatement, the traffic concerns with buses, cars, construction equipment & vehicles, etc. So, the result was the new middle school on Stewart Avenue. (P.S. $600,000 of the $990,000 that had been put aside was later used to pay for air conditioning in the new school.)
I was also on the board when first BOCES said they were going to rent the building and then they pulled out. Then the Nassau County police wanted the building, and then they pulled out. That plan was initiated by a Plainedge resident, a police sergeant, who said that they lost their training academy when the East Williston school district took the school building back that the police had been renting. They then had to use trailers at the county jail, but wanted to find a new place. Suozzi’s reason for backing out, by the way, had nothing to do with John Richman. Suozzi started having community meetings about renovating Nassau County communities. Ellen & I, and other Plainedge residents were at the one he held at Bethpage High School, where he discussed building “affordable housing” in areas like Plainedge, especially since we have very little commercial tax base to help with property taxes. Suozzi started getting a lot of opposition and criticism for his perceived “low income” housing proposal, and that’s what turned him off to Plainedge.
When the Pick-Pack swap came along, it seemed to be the best solution because it would finally solve the district’s problem of what to do with Packard after all these years, while still keeping a school building in its possession for any future growth, and we’d get totally refurbished fields as well. A win for everyone. If any of you remember, I stood up at the last Pick-Pack meeting with the Town, said I was in favor of it, and that “I will be thankful to see this Packard problem resolved finally before I die.” (Or something like that.)
Now, here are MY opinions:
1) The fact that John Venditto took this deal off the table because ONE person, right, wrong or otherwise, told him not to sign the contract after hundreds of others supported it over an entire year, leads me to believe as well that he was never going to go through with it, and he capitalized on the fact that he could attribute the blame to someone else and walk away with a clear conscience. I believe Ellen’s idea of an exit poll is excellent, because it would put to the test Venditto’s claim that he backed out because there was not enough support from the community. There’s absolutely NOTHING preventing him from revisiting this. 2) I would take the exit poll one step further, and also ask voters at this year’s budget vote if they would support the Town’s alternate proposal of buying our fields for a one shot revenue, or any other ideas that people are throwing out. Personally, I would never support selling off any more of our land for so little in return. I would not want future boards or future generations to have to face the same dilemma I did when I had to make a decision to float a bond because there were limited options and all of our remaining property was sold off. Don’t forget that about $400 of our property taxes each year go toward paying the bond. What would the tax impact be 10 years from now to float another bond on top of this one? 3) I don’t believe the partial deal would get the same support as Pick-Pack, because it would not benefit the entire community. What do the senior citizens get out of it? How does it help the school district solve the problem of the deteriorating building? Everybody is going to want to get something out of it.
The original Pick-Pack deal addressed two issues, one being the building – tearing down the eyesore, putting up a community center in its place, but still keeping another building for rental or future use; and the second being the fields – getting larger and improved playing fields. This new “partial deal” proposal concentrates solely on the fields, and does not take into account the more important issue, which is the building and what our future educational needs will be. This is becoming more about what we “deserve” from the town - “Other towns are getting fields and parks, what about us?” I agree with all that, but that’s not why the board originally entered into talks with the town. They did so because the cost of running Packard is becoming a burden on the taxpayers, it’s becoming a safety hazard and an embarrassing eyesore in the community, and there is no one out there willing to invest money into it to renovate and rent the building to offset the expenses of keeping it open. That has to be the priority with any other deal they consider.
As far as the issue of private meetings, sorry boys, but I agree with others here that they do give the wrong impression. I was very vocal to Andy Rothstein about this last year when the vote on Pick-Pack got postponed. (You can ask him.) That decision was made after hearing from just one segment of the community, not all. If you don’t want people to misconstrue your intentions on these mini-meetings with the town, then make a posting and notify the community BEFORE they take place, not after, so they can participate if they choose, or at least feel that they’re being included. Don’t leave yourselves open to criticism and risk losing your credibility – you’ve worked too hard for that.
So, now that you’re probably sorry you mentioned my name, don’t worry – I will continue to do my speaking and give my opinions in my preferred venue – an occasional board or budget meeting, or at Joe’s bagel store or Sal’s Place. I served my time in Plainedge for 11 years. I’m too old and too tired to put this much energy into anything else now besides my job and my college classes at night.
I have an entire file cabinet full of information from when I was on the board. If I can be of any help with anything, or if I can answer any questions, just e-mail me at mkarageo@optonline.net.
MaryAnn Karageorges
|
|
hmmm
New Member
Posts: 22
|
Post by hmmm on Feb 2, 2008 10:52:41 GMT -5
To my friends that "work full time" sit on the sidelines, complain and can't name the VP of the United States let alone the school board-
Todays history lesson for the rookies-
I believe MaryAnn and Ellen both were on the board for 9 years from 1996 - 2005. They did not run for re-election at which time Pat and Cathy were elected to their first term.
|
|
|
Post by plaintalker on Feb 2, 2008 11:22:23 GMT -5
MaryAnn, A few people have made a proposal of selling off some of the Packard property to the Town so at least we have some new fields but keep the building in case we need it for future enrollement. I'm not taking a position on this but if I remeber correctly, isn't there a certain amount of acerage a building needs in order to be able to tear down and build a new building. I thought this came up during the new middle school talks and was one of the reasons why we couldn't build anywhere else due to not having the required minimum acerage on other properties. If this is the case then selling off some of the land at Packard would leave us with a broken down building that we could not rebuild on. You would probably be the one with the best recoloection of this. What do you remeber about this?
|
|
|
Post by mak on Feb 2, 2008 11:23:37 GMT -5
Yes we were on the board for 9 years from 1996 to 2005, when we chose to retire. And we were also on the Budget Advisory Team from 1994 to 1996, totaling 11 years of service and involvement in all aspects of district budgets and finance, and conversations about Packard.
Any other history you'd like me to clarify?
|
|
|
Post by mak on Feb 2, 2008 11:30:34 GMT -5
Plaintalker: Yes, the State Education Dept. has certain size specifications for school buildings, and it depends on whether it 's an elementary building, or a secondary building (MS or HS). There's regulations aboout how large the classrooms have to be, handicap accessibility (i.e. must have an elevator if more than one story, handicap bathrooms, etc.) percentage occupancy, and also that you have to provide X number of classrooms for BOCES. I don't recall numbers off the top of my head, but I can research it and get back to you.
|
|
|
Post by 1plainedge on Feb 2, 2008 11:36:02 GMT -5
From the NYS Website-
"Elementary grades K-6 must have 3 acre base, plus 1 additional acre for each 100 pupils or fraction thereof"
" Secondary grades 7-12 must have 10 acre base, plus 1 additional acre for each 100 pupils or fraction thereof" There are provisions and waivers written in if you are ADDING onto or altering existing school locations.
|
|
|
Post by patriot2415 on Feb 2, 2008 14:52:27 GMT -5
MK, 2 things.
1. I am sorry to say but no exit poll is going to resurrect the original deal. I have been contacted by 2 additional TOB officials regarding my emails to them. There is no interest in the original deal. A. they had push back from the plainedge and farmingdale residents about putting up a commercial building. B. the didn't see unity from the BOE C. I think they thought twice about spending 22 million in one district.
2. As for the meetings with TOB officials.. I total disagree with you. It happens all the time, it even happens with the BOE. The right thing to do if residents do meet, those conversation should be made public as it was decided to do after the meeting I and others attended. We are talking about elected officials that represent US. I and We have every right to speak to them. Its second only to our right to vote.
3. no partial plan has been "PROPOSED". As I said in my email, IDEAS were spoken about and this one although no where near perfect seemed to be the best option. I also said that the 1st phase of ANY option was for the TOB, Superintendent and the BOE to sit again and discuss options and have our elected officials present their plans to the community. We shared ideas that night and the outcome of that was brought to the community on the chat.
Yes losing the gym at packard was discussed and how it affects school and youth teams. IDEAS were tossed about and one stuck, but the TOB had to find out if they could actually do it. It's not a secret, but we were asked to hold off discussing it until the TOB could confirm.
YES the size of plots needed for a school was discussed. No one knew the answers, but we knew the TOB, Superintendent and BOE would certainly discuss that.
Lets be very honest.. our options are VERY limited now, no deal in my opinion will be as good as the first. I totally understand the residents in that areas positions, but what are the other options? I didn't check my lotto numbers but if I win the 87 million, I'll buy the land for 1 dollar, take the building down and donate the property back to the residents of Plainedge!!!! Thats the deal we need!!!! Of course it would need to be named the Toscano Field at Plainedge !!!! After all, I do need a slap on the back !!!!!
|
|
|
Post by 78ptownpower on Feb 2, 2008 17:10:09 GMT -5
<slap> ;D
|
|
|
Post by pedgeneeds on Feb 2, 2008 17:55:51 GMT -5
Lets see... "we were on the board for 9 years from 1996 to 2005, we were also on the Budget Advisory Team from 1994 to 1996, totaling 11 years of service " didn't Parkard go into the crapper those years? ?
|
|
|
Post by Go Plainedge! on Feb 2, 2008 18:12:52 GMT -5
It's sad that a contributor felt the need to leave this message board. She was entitled to her own opinions. That's what makes this place so good (and heated at times). We all have the same goals in mind, just believe in taking a different path to get there. I find it quite interesting that after all the years of this message board existing, two former BOE members really get involved with the discussions about this property because they were both on the board when we were initially lied to about the Packard building being a hazard to the students - trying to force a bond proposition. Also, one of these new members here actually allowed us to be forever committed to Mr. Richman by signing that pathetic, one-sided contract. Thanks for your service to the community... . Lets also be clear....from the day it was decided that this community fund the construction of a new MS, there was a less than enthusiastic approach to the issue of what we should do with Packard. This has been going on way too long and this community has lost way too much money on this building. In a district with no real income other than taxes, we couldn't and still can not afford to maintain this property the way it's been going all these years. With the height of the real estate market behind us, we missed a key opportunity to work out a profitable arrangement. This is nothing but another black eye for the school district. Now, once again, it seems like it's up to the people of this community to work out an arrangement.
|
|
|
Post by elphaba65 on Feb 3, 2008 10:12:40 GMT -5
To Pedgeneeds: Either you did not read the post by MAK or you did not understand it, so I’ll try to make it a little clearer. Prior to the Budget Advisory Team in 1994 the school budget did not include money for capital improvement. One of the recommendations by the BAT was to restore a dollar amount every year to this line item. Although the PSD was 3mil in the red at that point (the reason the BAT team was formed) the people on the Bat team were well aware of the condition of not only Packard but the other buildings as well.
To Go Plainedge: As far as you statement” find it quite interesting that after all the years of this message board existing, two former BOE members really get involved with the discussions about this property because they were both on the board when we were initially lied to about the Packard building being a hazard to the students - trying to force a bond proposition. Also, one of these new members here actually allowed us to be forever committed to Mr. Richman by signing that pathetic, one-sided contract. Thanks for your service to the community” I was not even going to dignify your comment with a response , but I will.
First of all, who are you? How dare you call me a liar? I do not see your name on your posts, nice to hide from your home. Obviously you never attended the community meetings held in 1999 and 2000, so don’t invent what was said. The bond was not forced on people, the community voted on it and it passed by 368 votes. Community input was given, scenarios developed from those ideas, choices available, and the BOE endorsed what was the best option at that time. Did you have any recommendations then or did you just sit at home, remain uniformed and complain?
As far as JR’s contract, 1 BOE member signed it, 7 approved it. You can dislike him for whatever your personal reasons are, but while you’re home inventing stories why not do a little research on the ranking of Plainedge Schools when he was hired in 1999 and where our students compared in 2005. One of the responsibilities of a school board member is “Remember that my first and foremost responsibility the EDUCATIONAL welfare of the district students: and focus my efforts on that mission instead of my personal goals”. See our scores, then talk. BTW, another violation on a BOE member’s part.
So yes, let’s be clear, you might have been opposed to the new middle school, but as strongly as some people felt about the wanting the Pick-Pack deal is just as strong as the people who wanted to see a new middle school rather than lose their fields to portables and have their children attend school in split sessions
Did you get up and speak at any of the public meetings on Pick-Pack? If so, where did you stand, for or against? Do you have any suggestions for that property now or do you just want to sit home and criticize other people?
|
|