The $5 million figure is again floated, but Board and Finance Committee member Tom Maher notes it is really $625,000 per year for 25 years to cover maintenance and debt service . Some quick math shows the figure is really $15,625,000 total with $10,625,000 the cost less annual maintenance to build and pay off the debt.
The team claims it is treated as a "second-level" program because it's facilities are not on school grounds. The swim team is not alone. The baseball team plays at the Borough Park and the Cross Country team competes there as well. The golf team and ice hockey teams also do not compete on school grounds.
================== ADVERTISEMENT ==================
On Thursday, February 8, 2007 NewsOverCoffee will present "Resident to Candidate: What You Need to Know" at 7:00 p.m. at the Nazareth News Agency (Main Street, Nazareth).
This non-partisan program is free of charge and designed to give you the information needed to become, or recruit, a candidate for local office.
Caffeinate Your Brain - Engage Your Community!
=============== END OF ADVERTISEMENT ================
On Thursday, February 8, 2007 NewsOverCoffee will present "Resident to Candidate: What You Need to Know" at 7:00 p.m. at the Nazareth News Agency (Main Street, Nazareth).
This non-partisan program is free of charge and designed to give you the information needed to become, or recruit, a candidate for local office.
Caffeinate Your Brain - Engage Your Community!
=============== END OF ADVERTISEMENT ================
It is also worth noting that the move to the YMCA brings them back into the community and closer to the school.
Other arguments include using a pool that is also used by young children who may have an accident (isn't this possible in any pool?), the pool temperature is about 5 degrees above PIAA recommended temperature (negotiate in the contract for a change in temp during the season to be within 3 degrees of recommended temp), concern for safety of swim team members by putting them in a facility that has adult members (many, many children use the YMCA daily and if the insinuation is child molestation, I think a lot of staff and members would take offense to this 'concern'), in the larger scheme of things it doesn't cost that much (costs a lot for number of students and amount they will use it-see below), and a lack of diving facilities (fair point).
Another argument, that I don't understand is that the only reason the YMCA wants the school there is so the school doesn't open a pool of its own and become competition for the YMCA. I don't understand how the school having a pool would take away from the YMCA. The notion that a pool will result in community use of it seems rather far fetched when you consider the school's tennis courts are often padlocked and therefore off-limits to the community. No discussion has been made about allowing anyone to use the pool other than the team and phys. ed. classes.
There are a few options, build a pool, use Wilson, use the YMCA.
If Wilson begins a team again, the pool may no longer be available. If the NASD takes past concerns into consideration and makes a contract with the YMCA that addresses these issues, it seems to be the best option.
The NASD can not currently balance its budget for 2007-2008 school year. They demonstrated at the last Board meeting that we are looking at annual deficits once the new MS is built. We haven't even calculated all the extra costs that will come as a result of the MS facility, so the expectation is that these deficits will grow.
Considering all this, the arguments posed by the swim team do not seem to merit spending $625,000+ per year (team costs were not included in the figures above) for 48 student's extra curricular activity that occurs for about three hours a school day and Saturdays from the 2nd week of November until about the first week of March.
And again, if we have no option but to have a pool, let's put it where it belongs, in the vicinity of the new gym that is being planned so we can have more shared facilities and locate it in a place that is intended to be visited and used by the public on a more routine basis.
54 comments:
In your rebuttal what is also neglected to be said is that while it is a 625K hit on the budget for the pool, what is the cost that will be aliviated from not having to rent facilities from Wilson of the YMCA. Also not having to contract busses for travel.
The facility coudllalso be rented out for district and state events for both High Schools and Private swim leagues. Last year due to an absense of available suitable facilities the YMCA Championships for Penn Del had to be held in New Jersey. The PIAA champioships have appoximately 800 people alone for a multiple day event that would bring increase income to Nazareth.
I said it before and I'll say it again, put it to a referendum and let the voters decide.
Just a thought....if the Nazareth
swim team is really as zealous as they claim in their quest for a pool why don't they organize a pool foundation and solicit contributions and pledges from local businesses and organizations.
If they find they have community support this would be a big boost to their plea for the pool. Personally, I think a referendum is the way to go....but again, if the boosters are sincere in their intent, back up their sincerity with an effort on their part to remove part of the burden from the taxpaying public.
If anyone has the amount we currently pay for the contract and buses (we'll still need transportation for away events), please let us know. My guess is less than 100,000 per year and closer to $50,000 overall.
Renting the facility out for events sounds good, but aren't other schools who already host them going to keep them? Particularly in the area of districts and states. To host states in our location would be tough because we aren't close to being centralized.
Renting the facility out also results in extra costs. We'd have to ensure we didn't waive fees and that the fees being paid accounted for all the costs (if they did could anyone afford to rent it?). Again, the NASD hasn't said they are willing or able (insurance and liability issues) to do so.
I would also imagine we couldn't rent out the facility between November and March. This is swim season.
I respect that the people involved in the program want a pool, but I don't think you're seeing the big picture.
I've noted the cost issues. I'd also like to note at the last meeting the NASD plans to cut 3 new laptop labs one for each elementary school to save $120,000 (I believe that was the figure).
They also plan to cut the tax rebate program for seniors.
They also plan to cut professional development for teachers.
They are planning not to rehire positions and cut staff through attrition.
There were something like a dozen cuts being made to balance the budget without a new building in order to "only" raise taxes 5%, the board asked them to get it down to 4.2%, meaning they need to come up with over $400,000 more in cuts.
Do we need a pool? Even if we needed it, can we afford it? I'd say not right now.
Again, I respect that you want one, but this isn't the only program that doesn't have a facility on school grounds and in light of our current situation, it doesn't seem to be the time to add one. And again, if we add it, let's put it were it belongs, not at a MS, but as part of the HS gym complex.
You raise soem intersting comments regarding the pool but there is still the issue why is not an all weather track adn artifical turf for a football field and additional athletic field not an issue to cut when we already have those facilties, albeit not state of the art but serviceable.
I don't disagree.
The athletic field upgrades were identified in the powerpoint the NASD had on line as a separate project from the MS building.
Then it was announced that the All Star Football Game would be held at Parkland because of the renovations and installation of an all-weather track.
Now it appears there will be one at the stadium and another to the west of the MS and this has all become a part of the MS building project. Seems to me a good way to slip some extras in.
I agree with you that it is not needed (or at least needs to be demonstrated to be cost saving as some have claimed). It has been noted elsewhere that this is not needed, but I didn't raise the issue in this post because it was in response to the article on the pool.
It seems like the group that is most diligent and vocal has the best chance of getting its way, I wonder if we'll hear from the PTAs now that items and services are being cut in the schools.
This whole thing is bordering on hysteria. Signs on poles"Don't let our kids swim in a quarry". Come on!! Would never be allowed!! Kids drowning. That is NOT/NEVER the school's fault. Parents, it's YOUR responsibility to teach your child to swim. Why must tax dollars subsidize everybody's "wants"?!?!?
How about ALL the townships UNITING and buiding one recreational/Swim/health complex for all?!?!
ONE PROBLEM WITH YOUR PROPOSAL FOR THE OTHER DISTRICTS TO HELP BUILD A SWIM COMPLEX.
MOST ALREADY HAVE THEM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I'm talking TOWNSHIPS ---not school districts. Let the DEVELOPERS pay up for a rec center for all their highly mortgaged homeowners
I have an idea, let the Keller's donate some land in the western end of Upper Nazareth Township for Tuskes to build a pool instead of a park. Surely, the high quality construction that Tuskes employs will ensure that the pool is the envy of the entire Lehigh Valley.
Isn't this whole thing getting out of hand and in addition maybe we are not looking at the most economical and useful solution???
Why are we looking at building a new intermeadiate school for just 2 grades, while duplicting some of the facilites that exist at the Middle School and High School. Have we looked at building an new Elementry instead, that is much cheaper and there is an abundance of land between the borough and Lower Nazareth. With the savings we could do the pool, since we don't have one and really need it, and put back the stripped educational items.
This isn't rocket science!!!!!!!!!!
What does Don Keller have to do with this? He thanked the YMCA for their proposal apparently because he understood that we can't afford a pool to be built at this time based on the plan to build the MS.
If you don't like him, fine, but please don't use this forum to attack individuals especially when they don't have anything to do with the conversation.
At this point, I think those affiliated with the NASD swim program/team are taking this way to personal.
The pool is only a part of the overall issue, and happens to be the subject of this topic.
That said, I think that most of the posters on this site are not only against the high expenditure for a pool, but also against all of the other proposed athletic facilities as well.
If, and this is a great big IF, we had the dollars, and we were not facing dramatic tax increases with high levels of debt service for the next 30 years, then yes, I think all would be in favor of building not only a world class pool, but all the other athletic facilities that some seem to think make our district better.
The simple fact, with the current budget on the table and the planned new facilities, we just cannot afford it.
Everyone seems to think because people are moving into the area an buying extravegant homes, we can all just suck it up and absorb the tax increase. Take a drive around some of these "rich" neighborhoods at night and you will see a lot of homes devoid of any furniture or curtains for that matter.
Do not assume that everyone can afford a major tax increase.
We have a lot of seniors on fixed incomes. Can they take the hit? I doubt it.
Those supporters of the pool are all to willing to put the rest of us (and themselves for that matter) in a deep financial hole all for the sake of a new pool (or all weather athletic field, etc.).
If you feel that strong about it, join the fight to push the district and the board to come up with a more logical plan that first gives us the educational space we NEED in a cost effective manner. Only then, when we bring about any sense of fiscal responsibility, can we start looking at spending on the "extras" that we want.
Cut all the extras at the new 7-8 building, including 7-8 and make it an elem school. Reducing and cutting out students field trips, activity buses, computer labs etc to met this year's budget should be a wake up call enough already and tell us one thing. Build with less for more sutdents and you will have money to place the new pool in the new gym complex.
The current and projected budgets are indeed "eye opening".
Today at lunch, I used the Morning Call's archive service (GREAT TOOL, BTW) to peruse articles about "Nazareth Middle School". While I undoubtedly missed some items/articles, what I found (going back to 1994) was VERY INTERESTING.
1) This district has shown in the past not to be very good at estimating costs. Look at the new MS and Shafer renovations as a case in point. Originally proposed at $38M, it increased to $40 and then finally to $52M. (See MCall article dated 11/18/1998). This did not include the mold remediation costs (which is another story entirely).
How confident are we in the estimated price tag of $58M given the district's history with project cost estimates?
2) The MS opening was almost 6 months behind schedule due to what was characterized as "bidding delays".
Given the very tight schedule for bidding on this MS project (bids go out April, Award May), how concerned should we be about the overall schedule (opening in Fall 2009)?
3) Projections in support of the new 7-8 MS seem to have "jumped around". In the Act 34 material, projections for each class is given into the year 2015-2016. Based on this, enrollment for 2012-2013 is projected:
4-6: 1077
6-8: 1177
However, in an article from the Morning Call dated 10/19/2004, the following projections are reported:
4-6: 1195
6-8: 1263
I only bring this up to ask: How confident is the district in its' enrollment projections? Notice how the "newer" enrollment figures are less than the figures from 2004 (by approximately 100 each).
There were several other "interesting" stories/headlines to me from a backstory and history perspective (taken from someone who moved into this district from Central PA in 2000).
I realize that this MS project has been in the works for some time (2004 or so) and they are fairly far along in the planning/scheduling of this school. Maybe it's too late to change this. Maybe (wishful thinking?) not. But it's not too late to make sure the board is aware of our concern over doing things the right way, the first time.
I will give a wake up call.
I lived in a district (in another state) where all the extras were cut from the budget. To make up for it, fundraising became a way of life, as did writing checks on a constant basis to the school.
And, when I talk about fundraising, it was to the tune of at least $100,000 per year, hopefully more. This was so we could have simple things like art and music teachers (which were not considered "essential" to education).
Oh yes, and we also had no buses either and sports were all pay to play.
And, if you think that the slots revenues are going to help us, don't hold your breath, unless you plan a move to one of the major cities.
Thus, fundraising becomes a hidden "tax" on top of the high taxes we will already be paying.
Our kids are only in these schools for a finite period of time. I understand we want them to be the best they can while they are there, but to do it at the cost of future generations (that will suffer from the lacks generated by our wants) is just wrong.
BTW, Brad, thanks for digging through the archives and giving us even more to think about.
Under budgeting and over costing high end estimates for wants and not needs is the way and means of nasd. Look back on the cost and estimates of building the hs auditorium plus then all the problems of mold surfacing, great burden on tax payers. Poor roof planning from the beginning. We are back to the same routine again. Over spending for looks, not looking too far into the future, cutting educational needs and student services. Yes with better and more efficient budgeting and building the proper buidlings now and in future to handle the handle the growth...we could still have more classrooms and a pool but at the right place, right time, and right cost. We will need more than one building as it is planned now :one brand new ms 7-8 leaving a 6yr old 7-8 building for greater debt, less student services, and overcrowded in 6 years again.
I really think this forum could do great things for the community. But I desperately need to understand why posters feel a need to degrade and insult the others that have differing opinions. It only decreases the weight of your opinion in my eyes. It would be a great if everyone would discuss and debate the issues on this site with the same respect they would give their grandmother
Let's all start listing celebrations in this newsletter, birthdays, anniversarys, graduations and births.
For future planning, can't we have some kind of ordinance that requires future housing developments that effect our school district to contribute so much money per house up-front to the NASD since we have all these problems because of these developers getting rich at our expense. If this was done prior to all this development we would have some of the money we need to build need schools and money to fund all the extras. Imagine $10,000.00 per home and we could have put all the extras such as a pool and needed athletic fields in the plan. I hope something is put into play before any more housing developments are approved. Just think of all the revenue we could have for the NASD for the luxury items such as the pool, it could be paid for without having to raise taxes significantly. I remember reading of other areas that did this, so much per home went to the school district but then again Nazareth seems to be behind the times with everything. Considering what these developers are charging for homes and condo's they could afford to put some money into the school district. We would have lots of money if this were done prior. Who would institute something like this, I Believe one of the conditions for the development off of rt 248 and Penn Allen Rd. was a rec center , so why couldn't a payment to the school per home built be one of the requirements? Just a thought.
The difference is the governmental bodies of a township and the school district.
A township can use an impact fee and/or waive zoning as upper Nazareth did to get a park paid for by a developer (who gets a 100 or so more homes than they should have had zoning not been waived), but the school district can't simply impose an impact fee.
Rep. Grucela had a bill that was introduced that would allow an impact fee to be imposed by a School District on sub-divisions. To even begin to get it moved forward it gave exemptions to all kinds of industries. Not Grucela's fault, just the reality of doing politics in Harrisburg, and better than nothing.
Unfortunately, the bill died with the last house session and will need to be reintroduced, if it hasn't already.
Posts from this site on the bill are available here.
The link to the bill itself has been broken (I'm assuming they removed them at the end of the last session).
Obviously this is a hot topic, but unfortunately I think it is deflecting attention from some of the more significant aspects of the NASD issues, particularly the inability to balance the 2007-08 budget and the building project as a whole (of which the pool is but a small part) including the land acquisition for the practice fields which may require eminent domain.
Until any new information is available from the District, I'm going to keep this post as the last one on the topic and not make any new ones as it seems this is going to continue on in the papers with pretty much the same arguments being rehashed.
I'll make posts in comments when I do see articles related to it, but won't be making new posts. So check back here for more information until 2/12/07 the date of the next Board Meeting.
Having said that there was a letter to the editor in the Express-Times from Evelyn Huth supporting the YMCA's offer to the NASD.
You can read it here.
And more letters to the editor from the Express-Times are available here.
I'm not opposed to spending the money for the pool. $15M over 25 yers (625K/year) doesn't really bother me. However since NASD is dependent more on individual homeowners for tax revenue moreso than other districts with industrial bases, lets lobby the good politicians for a Grant. It would be easier for Rep. Grucela to add some pork to some unrelated bill to give NASD 5,10,15M for the pool. Earmarks baby...thats how you get things.
Sounds like censorship to me, isn't the idea of this to be a venue for people to post their opions?
I understood the above blog as Ross from NOC will not post himself for a bit as he explained, however others can still post their comments.
Sorry if that wasn't clear.
Instead of creating a new post on the main site for every letter-to-the-editor and article about the pool (and thereby flooding the home page), I'm going instead use the comments within this existing post.
I don't mean to stop the conversation, but I would have had four different posts in about a week on this one topic and it seems this will keep the conversation more or less in one place.
That is why I included the links to the letters I found this morning here earlier instead of creating all new posts for them.
Again, sorry if that wasn't clear (was during the first cup of coffee)
As for other nasd sports teams: the baseball field is at the boro park and will stay there. The general public (except legion) cannot use this field. The golf team only has van transportation provided to away matches. To and from golf practice and home matches is up to the student or parents. I believe this is the same for the lacrosse teams. The cinder track is in very poor shape but is astro turf the way to go, I heard Easton said no to astro turf.
The budget is not balanced even for this year and student services will be cut. The new 7-8 building seems way over cost even without the pool and again a small part of the cost. Let us look out what else is a want and not needed for this building and other ones in the future. Taking land from those who do not want to sell for two practice fields does not seem right. Building schools for other grades right now might work better. There seems to be no one quick fix. Wiser planning and budgeting to build future schools, gyms, and the pool might been the answer. Seems this could be still be done with the consideration, budgeting and proper planning.
was totally clear to me-and appreciated as it does seem the pool and all the related buzz is deflecting attention from what should be the real attention getter---our pending over priced school development---so thank you Ross-
I just was informed that there is an emergency board meeting to be held Feb. 1, 2007 @ 6:30 pm regarding the pool. I don't know that everyone is aware of this since NOC reported next meeting as 2/12/07. There are posters/fliers in downtown advising people in favor of the pool to attend this meeting.
The meeting must be the one for the curriculum committee and athletic or buildings (I forget which).
There were the two committees that had to meet before the next scheduled Board Meeting to evaluate the YMCA option as it related to the team and the use of swimming in the curriculum.
I swam on my HS team growing up...
I played waterpolo in college...
Even with that bias toward the sport, I cannot justify the expense given the number of people who would benefit and how much they would benefit. It is not like NASD does not have a team, so the building of a pool will not bring a new sport to the district. Given the totality of the budget situation, I would rather pay a thousand dollars a year bussing kids to Wilson or the Y for practice verse the astonomical numbers being debated for building a pool.
Yes, it would be nice to have a pool at the HS, but it is not needed. And by the way, someone made a good point stating that other NASD teams must "travel" to their home fields (baseball, for example). I put "travel" in quotes because it is unbeleivable that we are talking about spending millions of dollars in order to save the 5 minute ride from the HS to the YMCA for a couple of dozen kids a couple of times per week for a couple of months per year!
I've seen alot of papers stuck on telephone poles in the borough stating "swim in pools not in quarries"--- or something like that.
They are posted by the advocates of the new pool in the new school.
Are they forgetting that we have a YMCA pool, and in the summer we have one of the nicest public pools in the area?
Never is there a need to swim in a quarry. It is up to every parent of a swimmer to impress that on their child. No excuses.
Safety first.
Do the individuals who are posting the "pole signs" know that it is illegal to use any means other than tape to do so on a telephone pole?
I haven't seen these signs, but it demonstrates to me at least that they are willing to say anything to get what they want and that is a shame.
I wonder how many of these new pool advocates had ever swum in the old YMCA pool?
If we were telling them they had to swim there and hold meets there, I could understand them being upset.
As it stands the YMCA has very nice facilities and have made a very generous offer.
To try to make it sound like they get no respect because of this is disrespectful in and of itself.
Again, golf, ice hockey, cross country, and baseball, all compete on grounds not owned by the NASD.
Regarding the signs on poles, if they aren't removed can the Swim Club be fined by the borough? I would think after a certain amount of time they would have to be taken down by the party that put them up.
It appears the swim team advocates have struck again. Page 6 of the US Weekly. Just read the ad. It appears that the YMCA is a very unhealthy place to swim!?!?! It appears very slanderous in nature towards the YMCA. I think maybe the YMCA should persue legal actions this time around. I know they want what they want but at who's expense?!?!
I read the US Weekly one-page advertisement too. If the pool supporters are looking for public support, why not ask the school board to let the public decide with a voter referendum? Obviously the US Weekly advertisement did not provide the tax increase the public would be burdend with if a new pool were built.
To 9:21 and others:
You say you swam in HS? Well picture this, when the HS team left the Y they had only 3 lanes given to them becasue Y members complained. Here is some math:
THere are 48 team members
There are 3 lanes
Easch lane is 25 yards
that means 16 per lane with an area of 4.5 feet per kid. Pretty short kids. Also a warm up is a 1000 yard swim 40 laps takes 15 minutes how do you put 48 kids to do that.Also the access to the pool at the Y is through the locker room which is small. Appoximatley 90 kids gettign dressed in 2 locker room and approx 80 spectators walking thru. In addiiton what about swimmer privacy and also the spectators. National guidlines for water temp is 78-82 for health Y pool approx 87 for arthritis. Lacross is a club sport and the Baseball field is dedicated. jsut soem on many thoughts
anon 7:19
You seem like a student and a current/former member of the swim team. Here is some advice, when you post a comment riddled with spelling, grammatical, and syntax errors, you can’t expect to be taken seriously. Why do you have no problem with lacrosse being a club sport but require the taxpayers to provide you with a pool? This whole pool issue is rooted in selfishness.
There is a new offer on the table from the YMCA. It is not the same offer as before. To argue against the offer because of the terms of the previous contract is ridiculous.
There will have to be a new contract based on the new offer. If the temperature is such a concern, negotiate that the temperature of the pool be within the guidelines or at least a degree or two thereof.
Again, I respect that the swim team would like a new pool, but these arguments aren't worth $625,000 per year for 48 students when we have just made cuts in 13 areas including laptop labs for each elementary to save a one time amount of $100,000.
We also cut the Senior Citizen Tax Rebate Program to save $100,000 per year. We cut staff development, cut 5% from the entire athletic budget, cut $15,000 for EPED positions (EPED is how people get paid for teaching/coaching student activities and sports). This short list doesn't cover them all and we are still $420,000 short for next year without the new building and the pool.
WHY IS THE POOL THE ISSUE HERE. A SWIMMING POOL IS A NECESSITY IN A SCHOOL. NOTICE WE ARE THE ONLY ONES WITHOUT ONE? LOOK AROUND PEOPLE! WE ARE BEHIND THE TIMES HERE.
If the pool is such a big deal and everyone else has one.. then why not go to one of these other school districts??
this is really a pathetic debate and totally useless..
Im hoping that the captain of the ice hockey team shows up at the meeting tomorrow night and requests a new hockey rink be built?? why not-- its a team sport and it shows teamwork? theres more kids that play hockey than swim.. and a rink would only cost a fraction of the pool.
Oh and maybe the lacrosse team captain shows up after that and requests a new state of the art lacrosse only field.. hey we can use it for gym class as well...
throw in a new football field for our team that has won 5 games the last 4 years.
any other way to just blow money please have ideas ready.. get your markers and make some more signs to put on poles..
There you go! Was hoping someone would suggest a hockey/ice skating rink. Equal time and conveniences for all! Who knows----someday we could have an Olympic ice skating champion. Anyone out there care if our kids can read, write, spell, add and subtract???
They NEED to learn these things so they can figure out their TAXES.
First of all you show your ignorance, lacrosse adn Hockey are club teams not league competitive teams. Second do you really think more people play hockey than swim, guess you don't go to the beach. Third one of the issues is they want a new football field adn already have one but no pool adn the girls team is 11-4 adn guys have as many wins already as the football team.
Why isn't anyone looking to cut all the excess fields, astro turf adn all weather track adn redundant wrestling facilities?????????
11:01, you must have missed my post stating that the entire MS project is wrong.
It is not a case of being against student activities or athletic facilities.
It is a case of addressing our needs before we address wants.
We can't meet the 2007-08 budget. The building proposal doesn't address the space issue at the HS and by 2015 we will have a space issue at the IS. It is a very costly option compared to an elementary school and it creates a series of other issues that will impact students, parents, and taxpayers.
The MS is a redundant facility - we've already got one and its rather new.
No one that I have seen on this site has adamantly lobbied for turf fields and all-weather tracks (the wrestling facilities you reference I'm guessing are part of the MS, but to that end you might as well throw in auditorium, stage, bandroom, library, choral room, weight room and everything else except the classrooms).
This seems to be the NASD's desire, but I'd imagine the outcry is less because they aren't nearly as costly per user as a pool.
Hey just a question to the former swimmer and water polo player, and I guess everyone else:
Do they make the baseball team practice on half the field at Borough Park? They could have them only hit the ball to right field adn run from first to second to home. THe other half people could play softball. LOL
Again, the YMCA offer is for exclusive use of the pool, all lanes. Why criticize this offer based on a different arrangement that existed years ago?
Get a good contract and you won't have a problem.
There was an article by Paul Sokoloski in the Express-Times today regarding the pool, you can read it here.
Just a question on use of the YMCA.
Where will 2 addiitonal buses adn approximately 50 cars park for meets. As far as a good contract what are you going to do sure the YMCA if they pull out???????
In addition to the cuts above NOC stated and needed to balance the budget now are the following:
Eliminate resource officer at hs and ms.
Cut field trip spending.
Get rid of the after school activity bus.
Note years back swim lesson for 4th grade gym class were cut due to busing costs and time was needed for core subjects.
The focus needs to be on all the new and current spending. Make it wise spending, not repeating what we have already. A pool seems to fit better as was first planned on the the lower level of the future gym complex. However this was when a 4-6 building(less expensive) was to be placed where the new 7-8 will be.
In response to the posts regarding ice hockey & lacrosse being just clubs, that's the problem. The athletic department is not even recognizing these groups of young athletes and they basically receive no financial support from the district. I'm sure a bathing suit,cap etc. is far less expensive than equipment/ice time etc. The boys lacrosse team has finally been given the opportunity to letter in this sport after an uphill battle. No other athletic team transportation to practice is paid by the district. Most booster clubs pay for the addtional busing costs. As for the astro turf at the current stadium, it doesn't only benefit football but soccer, who by the way have been having winning seasons for the past few years, field hockey, marching band, track, heck maybe even the swim team can do land base training since they seem to be under the belief that the facilities at the Y are inadequate.
At the last School Board meeting the Board instructed Dr. Lesky to eliminate the reduced taxes for low income seniors and reduce the current budget by $500,000 which will cost the District staffing. Why are we building a pool and a wrestling stadium when there will be no money to staff either facility? If we max our our 30 year borrowing capacity at $100,000,000+, I have heard the additional cost in taxes will be 40%. Are we being fiscally responsible or are just following the american way and passing our debt to the next generation pay
For the record there is no wrestling stadium.
The new MS includes many facilities we already have including a weight room, wrestling room, gym, auditorium, stage, band room, etc.
The pool would not be redundant, but in light of the points you make regarding the budget, it would be too costly when we have a viable option - the YMCA.
There are plans for resurfacing the track and making it all-weather. In the drawings there was also a second track adjacent to the new building. And there are plans for all-weather, turf field (which I would assume is the stadium field).
Given the fiscal challenge we face, it would seem the Board ought to be obligated to consider everything - including this building project (the building, fields, etc), not just existing items.
The existing track is being eliminated. There will be only 1 track in Nazareth. This has been stated several times at the public meetings. The new field will be made wider to allow for other sports. You do a great job but make sure your facts are correct.
I have an issue with the argument that this pool is only for a handfull (50) kids on the swim team. The way I see it this pool would serve at least 600 kids that will be on the swim team during the next 25 years, which is the length of time it is being financed. When you consider the value of dollar 20 or 25 years from now, because of inflation, the "real" cost is not so intimidating. Perhaps there is a CPA out there who could calculate this. Also by drawing the cost out over 25 years it helps distribute its cost over more families and is fairer because why should all the present residents pay for something now that will benefit many many future classes.
Post a Comment