It occurred to me as some lingering comments were being made on some older posts in regard to the pool that the NASD would still seem to need to determine where the swim team will practice and compete next year.
The cost for the two facilities rent (Wilson and the YMCA) will be the same, but the transportation and time to Wilson would presumably cost more.
With a 5% cut across the board in the Athletic Budget, it would seem a decision to save money in this regard may be worth examining.
Further, the time factor means students are either released from school early to get to competition or events or they start practice that much later, meaning less time when they get home to complete school related responsibilities.
Finally, with two facilities available, maybe the NASD would be able to negotiate better rates for the contract for the 2007-08 and 2008-09 seasons (presuming the school opens on time fall 2009).
As a contract item, I would assume this will be reviewed and voted on by the Board based on a recommendation from the AD and/or the Athletic Committee.
7 comments:
Can anyone explain where the 40K in cuts from athletics is coming from? Are all coaches pay being cut by 5%? Are they planning on ending some middle school or freshmen teams? I am curious, and hoping to learn more...
How ironic would it be to spend millions on new facilities, only to cut the "feeder teams" (younger grade teams like middle school and freshmen) that feed the High School programs with its athletes??
And if we are struggling to come up with 40K in athletic savings now, how will we be able to afford to 200-250K per year in operational expenses for the new pool.
Not sure about nazareth, but in most districts coaches pay is part of the contract and cannot be decreased. The district can eliminate positions, unless the contract specifically states there will be a certain number of positions. Anything specifically stated in the contract cannot be changed except through renegotiations.
From the meeting it sounded like the 5% was from the Athletic Budget, which is equipment, supplies, officials, transportation, etc.
Since you can't cut officials and must drive a bus to events, the savings are going to come from equipment and supplies.
Coaching salaries as noted is a part of the Contract through the EPED (Extra-Pay for Extra Duty) system. EPED includes all extra pay athletics and otherwise (tutors, clubs, activities).
Dr. Lesky also noted that Pay to Play might be the future at Nazareth and that included not only athletics but all extra-curricular activities.
Given all the fundraising that is done today by students in addition to the taxes, class dues, etc., it would be a shame to force students to pay in order to participate in these activities be they athletics, arts, music, drama, or otherwise.
Which of course was a reason why many of us were attempting to argue against the proposed MS. We'll have a building, but won't be able to provide the services and education we expect.
original poster here...thanks for the insight.
I am still forced to wonder where the extra 200-250K in funding will come from to cover the yearly operational expenses for the new pool. Seems like we cannot even maintain the status quo with the programs (and expenses) we have now...
The pool is a drop in the bucket compared to the cost of the building.
As you say, we can't meet a budget now, without the building.
Our debt service will increase significantly. In 2001-02 our debt service was $3.6 million, five years later in 06-07 (this year) we are at $7.9 million, and with the new MS we are scheduled to increase to $12.4 million by 2011-12.
That does not include any maintenance, utility, staff, etc, it is simply paying off what we are borrowing.
The concern I saw by residents who spoke was not anti-tax as much as it was a concern for how we are going to provide a quality education for our students in the future if we build this building and must rely on voter referendum's to increase taxes.
The further concern is how we are going to add classroom space at the HS and IS in seven years when one is at capacity and the other within 100 of capacity and we have very little money left to borrow.
Again, the pool is not the issue as much as the building itself.
I second that the pool is not the issue, the total building is. It was noted at a school board meeting that the usual cost for a school in the NE is approx. $200/Sq ft where this one is coming in at $300, has the design been researched? Included are redundant items for athletics that we already have ie. All WEATHER TRACK???? ARTIFICAL TURF FOR A NEW FOOTBALL FIELD (when most pro teams and college teams are pulling it out for injury reasons!!! Additional wrestling facilities when there are already seperate facilities, the list goes on. In addition the pool can bring in some income as well, there are management firms that do this as was noted in a school board meeting. Also, pay for play is not a good idea, it will make the district less attractive to prospective buyers thus housing values will go down. There is allot of talk on the taxes, but has anyone noticed that in the last 5 years the value of a house in Nazareth has gone up atleast 70%, sort of like an investment. One of the major reasons for the gain IS THE SCHOOLS, we need to support them to protect our investment. As Forrest Gump said say "That's all I have to say about that".
Anon 8:05-
I was the one who questioned the school $/ft2. However, I only used the instrutional area (listed at 133,000 ft2) vs. the total area (228,000 ft2) which includes mechanical, hallways, bathrooms, etc. I was corrected by Mr. Butz and Mr. Lynch. When you figure the $46M over 228,000 ft2, you come up with $202/ft2. However, I still have a few "problems" with the $$
1) The average $/ft2 of ALL MS schools is $138/ft2. Of course, this is over the entire US and it does cost more to build a school in PA/NY/NJ than it does in IA. However, that said, the Act34 documentation does indeed use the $138/ft2 figure for comparison.
2) The average MS $/ft2 for PA/NY/NJ was $220. The problem however is that the $220 figure is based on a median sized school that is 133,000 ft2 for 600 students. The construction report goes on to say that smaller schools cost "more" than larger schools. So we are building a larger than the median value school, so we should be below the average $/ft2.
3) Finally, I question the amount of non-educational space. The space available for "education" in our proposed school is only 58% according to the numbers I have seen. Of course, every school needs hallways, restrooms, mechanical space etc. But if you build up, the amount of space dedicated to non instructional purposes can be a lower percentage of the overall total. That should reduce the $/ft2. For example, the MS proposed in Bethlehem is also for 1000 students but the price tag has been listed at almost $12M less than ours. The reason? They are building a four story building vs. our two story building.
Post a Comment