|
Post by justfacts on Sept 26, 2006 22:41:51 GMT -5
plainedge13 The following Cut & paste from a copy of a copy of an e-mail reply of a BOE member to a resident about the issue of mixed wording about the Eastplain expansion project should give some insight on the value judgments made by the BO OE in this regard! (maybe the strike thru is not warranted?) "But to answer your question I was told Dr. Rufo at one of our last meetings that it was advised to us to word the proposition that way by our bond counsel. She said that in case the state doesn't follow through on its promise for the EXCEL money for some unseen reason we need to have that in there. We still fully intend to have the state pay for everything using EXCEL money and state aid. Any further questions don't hesitate to ask."Now it was nice that one of the BOE and Administration persons who were queried did reply - but did you notice? It was under the advice of the Bond Salesperson that the particular misleading wording was chosen? [Anyone that uses the advice from a used car salesman as the reason for closing a deal gets USED - - -as well as getting the car!] Did you notice that the rational for the BOE promising totally free State aid to the District doing so was not fully understood? ("for some unseen reason") The BOE just stated it is entering into a financial deal that would /could burden the community where reasons for that burden happening are not fully understood! Did you notice that the BOE "fully intends to have the State pay for everything"? ;D
Now - just how are they going to have that intention backed up? Are they each going to have a mortgage taken out to provide the $1.5 Million in case the State doesn't drop the "Manna from Heaven"?
It is a doable deed - have them each take out a $200,000 mortgage to back up their full intentions! That is about the only other method that can be used to NOT have the Community pay the money! Hope the info and thoughts help! Ed.
|
|
|
Post by Go Plainedge! on Sept 27, 2006 8:37:40 GMT -5
Ed;
Welcome back.
At least that person received an answer. My neighbor has yet to get one.
What is disconcerting to me is that the Administration and BOE are painting this beautiful image to the community with half a paint brush. They have not come forward and explained all of the project details including the POTENTIAL of a tax levy IF all of the money is not obtained. It seems like this part is a big secret.
|
|
|
Post by justfacts on Sept 27, 2006 10:00:40 GMT -5
Go Plainedge! That was an excellent response to my post. It highlighted for others that this "Wording" or "Semantic" issue that the Administration chose to use in giving widespread information to the community about the Capital costs the community is going to be approving - - - that the information given to us by the Administration is not the whole story! The cost for this "just an Eastplain Expansion" is not just an Eastplain expense - it is spread across the whole District and will definitely affect next year's budget planning!
We all should know it is another likely expense in the Capital portion of the Budget that might force lowering Budgetary amounts to the Children's portion of the budget next year.
We should also know that the "no cost to the taxpayer" statement made to the voters is a statement that the Administration cannot guarantee!
But - there is one way for this "no cost to the community" promise to happen - have Richman, the maker of the statement, agree to pay for any shortfall in State Aid! The likelihood for that happening is nil!
There is another way for this to happen, have the BOE promise to take out mortgages on their property to make up any shortfall! They said they "fully intend" to have the State Aid pay for all the costs. Well, let them back their intentions with a personal commitment to the community that they will pay for any shortfall in State Aid! Again, what is the likely-hood of that happening? Ed. Take a nickle from the Brokers and Bankers next year - and put it towards the Children!
|
|
|
Post by justfacts on Sept 28, 2006 21:36:19 GMT -5
As some may have seen in a prior post, I can't physically make meetings. I even had to miss the last Library Board meeting! (the other Board members refused to come to my hospital bed meeting area!) That was a very rare event for me during 1/3 of a century of being on the Library Board.
So I'm asking a favor of anyone that wants to help make the District provide more of Plainedge's Tax Dollars to the Children in next year's budget.
Forcefully state the communitys' desire for a budget that benefits the Children! Not the Administrator, who has been off-course for a long while. Turn out strong to the next few meetings - whether Richman is there or not.
The Administrative heads are not empowered to run a meeting!
Case in Point: At the Board to Board meeting we had both the Library Director & Richman sit in the audience. Where they still could perform their two purposes of attending a Board meeting. Provide a report of activities to the Board and to supply more detailed information if requested from them by the Board.
The Administrative heads are not empowered to run a meeting!
That only happens when a new or weak Board defaults on its job.
Dr. Richman attempted to interject comments at the Board to Board meeting - and was promptly told he could not speak on his issues by the Library Board president. He did not speak!
Now back on topic - The last few years have seen more of the bottom line of recent budgets going to Capital costs. Even the Contingency Budget had a few more cents per hundred going to the Program portion of the budget than this year's budget!
The immutable fact is; This year's Budget had thirty cents less approved for Programs while the same thirty cents went into Capital spending!
This year we're told to approve a bond issue for $1.5 Million in a Capital project and if approved, the normal course is to put it into the budget - cutting into the money available from the total budget's bottom line.
True, the expense may be spread over a few years - but any increase in Capital costs (which your budget vote does not change at all) seems to always come from just one source - cuts in the Programs portion of the budget!
So, what I'm asking any and all to do - is to make it very clear to the BOE by your physical presense at meetings in my stead that;
a) They don't have to get a bond, even if approved by us, nor enter into a construction contract, UNTIL THEY HAVE THE STATE AID IN HAND! That can even happen the following year!
b) For this year at least, reduce the Capital portion of the budget from $19.80 cents per hundred dollars of the Budget's bottom line to $19.75 or less! (During Contingency it was $19.50!)
c) For the coming year put the Capital money reduction in the Programs portion - making it $70.25 per hundred of the Budget's bottom line! (During Contingency it was $70.50 - I'd love to see it go back to that!)
d) Recognize that this continued shifting of budget dollars into Capital projects at the expense of children's programs is something that Plainedge taxpayers will no longer accept! We have too many financially skilled Board members to allow this to occur - and too many recently aware voters that will allow this practice to continue.
And you'll also have this "watchdog" around for a long time yet to show alternate plans for getting more to the Children - and less to activities that don't benefit the Children.
Ed. Cut the Crap! Put the buck where it belongs! -
|
|
|
Post by Go Plainedge! on Oct 4, 2006 18:54:28 GMT -5
Anyone care to fill us in on the dog and pony show/coffee hour last night?
|
|
bette
New Member
Posts: 29
|
Post by bette on Oct 5, 2006 10:04:26 GMT -5
Yes, The Board and approx. 10 people were there. So how could it have gone. Same questions- Same people!!!! What else is new!!!!
|
|
|
Post by justfacts on Oct 5, 2006 23:35:34 GMT -5
Say!, Bette's answer to just how few participated in last night's Coffee Hour, gave me second thoughts about the whole process! This year's budgetary increases for District Meetings went from $20,900 to $35,400 - a 69.4% change. When the cost was $20,500 I figured that the cost per meeting covered 22 regular meetings, 5 or 10 "Coffee hours" and maybe 10 or 12 special budgetary hearings and 1or 2 Voting meetings. That's 46 total meetings funded at an average of $20,500 - or $446 per meeting! I thought that to be high. When the bill went to $35,000 and the Vote meeting dropped to one and only "Coffee Hours" were increased, the "average" meeting cost went to over $800! That covers a hell of a "Coffee Hour" allowance for just ten people! So the thought is: Why not make Coffee Hour a Social Hour for different Community Groups and any other persons who are paying for these refreshments and not using them? Just gather at the Coffee Hour the District is holding and freeload on $800 in eating delights and using facilities you paid for!!! Hold your Camera Club meeting that night - etc. ;D Why not just turn out and talk about what interests you? You're paying for it anyhow! Then, get the School Administration to hold Coffee Hours on your schedule, not theirs! You might even "trade-off" going to one actual Coffee Hour for each 5 of your own group's meetings or making one person from your Group actually attend a Coffee Hour! Just don't bring your own beer! That's saved for Sal's Place! Ed.
|
|
|
Post by justfacts on Oct 8, 2006 14:37:31 GMT -5
The following is not fact - it is part of an e-mail exchange discussing the reason to have a Bond approved for what is said to be a "Free no-cost to the taxpayer" project.
Other cautionary note: there's much talk about the Eastplain addition that (according to BOE - clarified by Doug) that it was the Brokers suggestion the wording for project cost to the public call it "cost free", despite our being expected to OK a $1.5 Mill Bond for this same expense! The contradiction is well covered at plaintalkchat.com. What was revealed at the Sept 12th meeting is that there is an expense item of the same magnitude ($1.2 Mill) for the "Locker Room" planned as well.
I thought it best to share this.
Ed.
Interesting speculation from e-mail:
********************************************************************* QUESTION: Could Richman, once getting approval for a Bond at $1.5 Mill for the expansion, be planning to fund it all through EXCEL - - - and then be planning to get the approved BOND money and use it to cover the Locker Room?
The Bond money transactions would end being spent this way: $1.2 Mill = Locker Rooms; HS Track Repair= $100,000; Entrance Doors=$70,000; Soffits=$30,000 Total=$1.4 Mill - which is exactly the number they said in that meeting that the Eastplain Addition would cost!
I truly expect that the answer to the above question is YES!.
********************************************************************
|
|
|
Post by Go Plainedge! on Oct 8, 2006 22:35:42 GMT -5
Ed:
Wouldn't that be extremely illegal considering the proposition is written for Eastplain only?
|
|
|
Post by justfacts on Oct 9, 2006 7:25:39 GMT -5
Since when has "being illegal" ever stopped this administration?
Example #1: 2004/5 1st Budget was rejected. 2nd Budget was approved at $500,000 less, after costly meetings, debates, re-vote and cuts in Programs. In violation of State Education Law 1718 the final Budget figures were "adjusted" in February to show they spent $619,000 more than approved amount! No details of where money was spent were provided, no record of BOE having approved the extra expenditures in any minutes of meetings.
Example #2: Library funds for the first five months of the year totaling $800,000, were withheld by the administration despite State Education Law Section 259 1a) requiring the District Treasurer, being solely authorized, to turn over such funds in a separate Library account (which was never established by the administration) directly to the Library Trustees upon their request. The Library Trustees are the only entity under State Education Law to disperse Library Funds - the Administration has no legal authority to intervene in this process, yet they did and plan to do so again this year!
Case in point for taking Bond Agent's recommended wording on Bond - about Eastplain project possibly costing nothing. He may be aware of Bond Law that permits using the total Bond moneys for other Capital purposes than initially raised for if the cost of the initial project is paid for. This is a known "do-able deed" when most of the Bond money is used for a project and some money is left over at the end of the project. This is how the High School Parking lot got paved.
By including the "free" info in the Bond Issue Notice, it may release the entire amount of the Bond for spending on other Capital projects.
Now, What do you think the answer to my original question is?
Ed.
|
|
|
Post by Go Plainedge! on Oct 13, 2006 8:20:41 GMT -5
In reading the latest Massapequa Post, it gave the impression that we're being set up once again.
The article read as though we are getting a certain amount of state funds for the Eastplain expansion and any additional left over money will be used for additional capital projects not yet named.
To me, this means that we are going to get hit with a tax levy so the boys locker room at the high school can also be refurbished. The proposition is worded in such a way to achieve that deceitful goal.
I will post the article once I can get the online version.
|
|
|
Post by Go Plainedge! on Oct 13, 2006 10:58:25 GMT -5
As per the Massapequa Post
Plainedge and Massapequa schedule EXCEL and bond votes Projects will not increase current tax rate, say officials by Tiffany Elliott
The Massapequa and Plainedge school districts are asking residents to approve acceptance of state aid for school renovations under a program designed to encourage districts to renovate their facilities. In addition Massapequa School District residents will be asked to approve an additional $7 million bond that will be paid for with revenues already included on the expenditure side of the budget, according to school officials.
The one-time funding source, EXCEL or Expanding our Children's Education and Learning, is determined by the state for each district according to the number of students enrolled. That figure is then multiplied by a predetermined number to arrive at the total aid package.
However, before the funding is distributed to each district, local voters must vote to accept it. Massapequa has scheduled its vote for Tuesday, October 24, while the vote in Plainedge is scheduled for Wednesday, October 25.
Plainedge is slated to receive $1.16M in aid from EXCEL and is looking to add 3-and-a-half classrooms to Eastplain Elementary. That, combined with state building aid, will give the district a total of $2.3 million for capital projects, according to Plainedge Superintendent of Schools Dr. John Richman.
The work at Eastplain is expected to cost $1.5 million. A school official said that the additional money will be used to complete other capital projects which have at this time not been identified and that the work will not increase the current tax rate in the district.
The additions at Eastplain school will be used for fifth grade art, music, kindergarten enrichment and a special education resource room.
"This proposal eliminates the need to teach classes in the cafeteria and small rooms in the gymnasium," said Richman in describing the project to the public. "It also solves the problem of using mobile carts for art and music, while costing the local taxpayers nothing."
With the Eastplain School in a crowded situation, the district hopes that residents will accept the state funds and avoid forcing a redistricting of fifth grade students as a result of space constraints.
In Massapequa, all nine school buildings are slated for some type of upgrade with the EXCEL funding, should voters approve accepting it. Those include the installation of new roofs to upgraded boilers.
"This is a continuation of the renovations we started in 1998 when it was determined the district needed $90-million in renovations," said Alan Adcock, assistant superintendent of business for the Massapequa School District. "When these critical improvements are done, every building will have new roofs and new windows that are no more than a couple of years old."
Massapequa is slated for $2.6 million in EXCEL Funds. In addition the district will borrow $7 million for a total of $9.6 million to be used for capital improvements. In addition to the EXCEL funding, the district anticipates receiving 53 percent of the cost of the in state building aid, which will be applied to pay off the bonds. The additional 47 percent of the cost of the bonds will be paid for through two separate accounts: $81,000 in reserve funds for six years, and $250,000 in the district's budget line for capital improvements. While the reserve fund will be exhausted prior to payment of the bonds, the district anticipates that an existing bond will be paid off prior to that, and the funds for those payments will be transferred to complete payments on the new bond. Thus, said Adcock, the new spending will not have any impact on the current tax rate.
Improvements at the top of the list for Massapequa include a new roof for Ames High School, window replacements for Unqua, Eastlake and Hawthorn elementary schools, and an emergency generator for McKenna Elementary School. In addition the district will be improving ventilation systems and adding a new athletic field.
To be considered an EXCEL project, the proposal must fall into the category of education technology such as electrical upgrades or internet connections, health and safety issues such as the reduction of fire and health-code violations, accessibility for people with disabilities, physical capacity expansion or school construction that reduces energy consumption.
According to the State, BOCES, private and charter schools are not eligible to receive EXCEL aid.
Residents of Massapequa are asked to vote on Tuesday, October 24 at their designated school between 6 a.m. and 9 p.m.
Residents in Plainedge are due to vote Wednesday, October 25 at Plainedge High School on Wyngate Drive between 1 and 9 p.m.
Considering that the locker room project would cost $1.5 million, we will be hit with a tax levy for $700K by voting yes.
|
|
bette
New Member
Posts: 29
|
Post by bette on Oct 13, 2006 11:19:59 GMT -5
Go:
When did you hear that the locker rooms and other capital projects were being done? I know that it has been mentioned that the locker rooms should be done not that it will be done. The track should be repaired also but I have never heard that will be done. From what I have seen and heard the only thing we are voting on is the Eastplain Expansion. Where are you getting this information?
|
|
|
Post by Go Plainedge! on Oct 13, 2006 11:48:39 GMT -5
The locker rooms are a project Richman has been wanting to get done. He first mentioned this at a BOE meeting over the summer. It was then brought up again more recently.
As far as "other capital projects", that's what is mentioned in the article. I didn't add that in.
|
|
bette
New Member
Posts: 29
|
Post by bette on Oct 13, 2006 12:53:42 GMT -5
Thanks Go!!
I thought it was more substantial fact the way it was written. Looks to me like it is just a wish list of what we need to do. The locker rooms are in desperate need of refurbishing I personally would love to see them done. As well as a refurbished track.
Any ideas on how we can re-catagorize the refurbishment for track for HMMM let's say health and safety, adding on disability access and add in a covered space with some desks to make it an instructional outside classroom that would save on electric that would save on energy?!? LOL ;D
Anyway, thanks again.
|
|