Forgive the pun, but I thought it was time to clarify and correct some of the “news” you may have been hearing about the fields and lights at RHS Stadium and Stevens Fields.
Friday’s Ridgewood News hosted several concerns about the funding for the lights. There was an allegation that one sports group may pull-out of the commitment to donate a minimum of 40% of the lease payments for years 2-5, if that group doesn’t get its way in terms of light shut-off times (as in, later light shut-off times). As BOE president Michele Lenhard said in that same newspaper article, the Board has a good-faith agreement with a group of sports organizations, and as of now, we are confident that the group will meet its commitment. There was never a promise of time for money, but rather an assurance from the District that rec sports groups need not worry about losing time on Stevens Field and RHS Stadium. Everyone involved in the arrangement pledged to use reason when working out schedules for use. The Fields Use Policy that will determine what days and times the lights can be used is currently being developed by the Joint Village of Ridgewood & Board of Education Fields Committee, and it will not be determined according to donation levels. The policy is scheduled to be presented to the BOE on Monday night, for discussion, public comment and possible approval. The policy will also need to be presented to the Village Council (date unknown) for their own discussion, public comment and approval.
Friday’s paper also contained some sensational claims about funding for the lights causing teachers to be fired or other staff to be cut. That is simply not correct. Here’s the explanation for the funding:
The lights were purchased with a five-year lease/purchase. That means we make five annual payments of $105,000. The first payment was made with funds donated by the sports groups. For year two, the BOE budget for 2011-12 includes 100% of the lease payment ($105,000) in the General Purchases line, the funds from which are not allowed to be used for paying staff. The General Purchases line is for one-time costs such as facilities repairs and summer maintenance projects, not for on-going personnel costs.
When the BOE receives the donation from the sports groups for year 2, the funds which had been earmarked for the lights will become available for other one-time building and maintenance costs.
In years three through five, the Board will have the ability to use unspent money from the referendum to complete our portion of the lease payments. (Currently we are running about $2 million dollars under budget on referendum costs.)
I hope this clears up any concern you might have had based on Friday’s newspaper. As you can see, asking parents if they are willing to give up their child’s teacher to pay for the lights is misleading at best.
Bonus post!
If you’re wondering what’s the real story about baseball diamonds in Ridgewood (and I hope you do want to hear the real story), here it is in a nutshell:
We all know Ridgewood doesn’t have enough field space for the children who currently play sports (this was discussed at length when the Village commissioned the Recreation Master Plan) and volunteers work hard to balance field access. It's more complicated than it may seem because different age groups require different field sizes. The BOE and the Village knew when the District undertook the field improvements at BF and RHS that while access for some sports would be increased, a “domino effect” would impact the 2,000 children who play in the RBSA, as well as the RHS baseball and softball teams. Unfortunately, the necessary changes that would make more diamonds available on Village fields – whether at Pleasant Park (Lower Hawes), Habernickel or Schedler – have not yet happened. The expansion project at GW middle school will eventually add another small diamond to the mix, but that won’t help this coming Spring season. The lights at Stevens Field can potentially help, but we've got to balance their use with the concerns of our neighbors. We’re all going to need to work together, and that's the process we're in right now.
So, yes, Ridgewood has too few baseball diamonds for the number of kids who play baseball. But the BOE didn’t create this situation in a vacuum, and it appears that the ball (pun intended?) is in the Village’s field (as it were)…
Showing posts with label lights. Show all posts
Showing posts with label lights. Show all posts
Tuesday, February 1, 2011
Responses to many RHS neighbors' concerns are online.
For the past few weeks you may have heard some discussion around town about the neighbors around the high school and their concerns about the improved athletic fields and the (still not hooked up to electricity) lights. To re-cap, some of the neighbors wanted us to hold another hearing with the Planning Board, so that they could get their questions answered and their concerns aired. The Board of Education responded that we didn't think a Planning Board hearing was necessary in order to work directly with the neighbors and community to answer those questions and address those concerns. Toward that end, we've had a couple of meetings with neighbors, but for a couple of weeks we kept mentioning a document that would gather all the questions and concerns in one place, and we would answer or address them. Well, the document is finally complete* and available on the District website. You can find it at www.ridgewood.k12.nj.us, click on District Administration>Bond Referendum. Or you can click here for a direct link.
*The document is "complete" with all the information that's currently available. As new questions or concerns are raised, or as new or better information becomes available, the document will be updated. (For example, we still have no idea when PSE&G will hook-up the electricity to the lights. We've been told they're a little busy with weather-related issues for the foreseeable future!
*The document is "complete" with all the information that's currently available. As new questions or concerns are raised, or as new or better information becomes available, the document will be updated. (For example, we still have no idea when PSE&G will hook-up the electricity to the lights. We've been told they're a little busy with weather-related issues for the foreseeable future!
Friday, January 14, 2011
Discussing the Planning Board "invitation."
One of the more challenging parts of the job of being a member of the Board of Education is reading the newspaper stories that purport to tell the facts of this or that BOE event, and to see the difference between what is reported and what actually happened. Our small-town press, with a rotating cast of reporters, is imperfect (as is the national press, of course, though not usually to the same extent). Most of the time the facts are correct, but often the choice of quotes can skew the picture.
Anyway, my latest frustration was in reading the quotes attributed to me in the North Jersey.com story about the Board of Ed declining to participate in another Planning Board hearing. A quote from me about "moving forward" made it sound like I wanted to "move on." That isn't what I said or meant! So, I’d like to reprint here my comments from Monday night and, through the magic of the Internet, improve those comments further in order to make myself as clear as possible.
Monday night, I started by looking at the lengthy invitation (resolution) from the Planning Board. There were page after page of whereas this and whereas that. And then on page 5 they finally got to the point:
Monday night, I said that if the point of the proposed hearing (or “courtesy review”) was to give persons an opportunity to be heard and have open dialogue, then we don’t need the Planning Board to do that. Yes, I facetiously did say that we have plenty of space at the Ed Center to hold meetings and have dialogue. But I also said to my colleagues on the Board and to Dr. Fishbein that if our position is that we are already working with the neighbors to resolve our differences, then we need to keep working with the neighbors. We need to keep moving forward and show progress.
We tried to meet with the neighbors to get input on the Fields Policy, and they didn’t want to participate – choosing to wait for a decision regarding the Planning Board. Now that we’ve made our decision, we need to answer the neighbors on our own.
My concern is that we “on the inside” – on the Board and in the Ed Center – feel like we’re making progress (and we are), but it doesn’t look that way from the outside. We already know the answers to many of the neighbors’ questions. We’ve taken steps on things like signage at the fields and porta-johns and revisions to the Fields Policy and communicating standards of conduct to athletes. We on the Board know these things are happening – and that’s part of the reason we don’t feel the need to go to a Planning Board hearing. But we have not done a good job of communicating this information.
We have been talking about a “master list of concerns,” with answers and solutions, which will be shared with the neighbors and the entire community. We’ve been talking about the list for over a month, but we haven’t accomplished it yet. (Note: Monday night Dr. Fishbein updated the Board…the list will be done soon.)
I know we have the answers. I know we are or will be taking steps to address everything. I have no doubt and I am quite secure in the “rightness” of the things we’re doing. But I can see that from the outside, the answers and the info aren’t visible.
I don’t want to just keep inviting the neighbors to meetings where we “listen.” There’s really no reason for us to keep hearing the same concerns and the same questions. We have some answers, we'll get some more, let's start sharing them.
As I said Monday night, I am opposed to participating in a Planning Board hearing, but I say that with the understanding that, in my opinion, we need to that we are putting the neighbors’ concerns to bed.
(Note: The Board will send an official response to the Planning Board and I'll post it here when it's available.)
Anyway, my latest frustration was in reading the quotes attributed to me in the North Jersey.com story about the Board of Ed declining to participate in another Planning Board hearing. A quote from me about "moving forward" made it sound like I wanted to "move on." That isn't what I said or meant! So, I’d like to reprint here my comments from Monday night and, through the magic of the Internet, improve those comments further in order to make myself as clear as possible.
Monday night, I started by looking at the lengthy invitation (resolution) from the Planning Board. There were page after page of whereas this and whereas that. And then on page 5 they finally got to the point:
WHEREAS, although not an "official" action pursuant to law, the Planning Board wishes to memorialize its vote to confirm its intent to create an amicable forum and opportunity for open dialogue among the persons in interest, recognizing that an opportunity to be heard and to have issues vetted is appropriate for the community.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Board of the Village of Ridgewood does hereby memorialize its vote "to invite and encourage" the BOE to attend an additional courtesy review meeting, together with the neighbors of the subject Properties for purpose of discussing the issues of field lighting for RHS and Stevens fields…
Monday night, I said that if the point of the proposed hearing (or “courtesy review”) was to give persons an opportunity to be heard and have open dialogue, then we don’t need the Planning Board to do that. Yes, I facetiously did say that we have plenty of space at the Ed Center to hold meetings and have dialogue. But I also said to my colleagues on the Board and to Dr. Fishbein that if our position is that we are already working with the neighbors to resolve our differences, then we need to keep working with the neighbors. We need to keep moving forward and show progress.
We tried to meet with the neighbors to get input on the Fields Policy, and they didn’t want to participate – choosing to wait for a decision regarding the Planning Board. Now that we’ve made our decision, we need to answer the neighbors on our own.
My concern is that we “on the inside” – on the Board and in the Ed Center – feel like we’re making progress (and we are), but it doesn’t look that way from the outside. We already know the answers to many of the neighbors’ questions. We’ve taken steps on things like signage at the fields and porta-johns and revisions to the Fields Policy and communicating standards of conduct to athletes. We on the Board know these things are happening – and that’s part of the reason we don’t feel the need to go to a Planning Board hearing. But we have not done a good job of communicating this information.
We have been talking about a “master list of concerns,” with answers and solutions, which will be shared with the neighbors and the entire community. We’ve been talking about the list for over a month, but we haven’t accomplished it yet. (Note: Monday night Dr. Fishbein updated the Board…the list will be done soon.)
I know we have the answers. I know we are or will be taking steps to address everything. I have no doubt and I am quite secure in the “rightness” of the things we’re doing. But I can see that from the outside, the answers and the info aren’t visible.
I don’t want to just keep inviting the neighbors to meetings where we “listen.” There’s really no reason for us to keep hearing the same concerns and the same questions. We have some answers, we'll get some more, let's start sharing them.
As I said Monday night, I am opposed to participating in a Planning Board hearing, but I say that with the understanding that, in my opinion, we need to that we are putting the neighbors’ concerns to bed.
(Note: The Board will send an official response to the Planning Board and I'll post it here when it's available.)
Monday, November 8, 2010
Board of Ed is waiting for legal input before commenting on field lights.
Since the story in last Friday's Ridgewood News failed to present a balanced account of the discussion at last week's Board of Education meeting, I thought it would be helpful to share the following statement, which was made by Board of Ed president Michele Lenhard at that meeting. This statement has been posted on the District website:
We are aware that some members of our community have concerns and questions about the field lights currently being installed at RHS Stadium and Stevens Fields. When the project is complete and fully powered by PSE&G our lighting engineer will undertake tests to measure light output to adhere to the specifications in the design plans. This includes light spill surrounding the fields.
Recommendations for the usage of the fields and the lights will be made by the Fields Committee in the form of policy. They are currently revising the Field Use Policy to reflect the changes to the Stadium and Stevens Fields. The policy will come before both the Village Council and BOE for approval. The spring 2011 schedule of sports activities is being developed and will be posted to both the BOE and Village website when complete.
On October 27th [resident] Jim Morgan presented a statement to the Village Council on behalf of his neighbors, which differed significantly from the concerns recently brought before this Board. In the past when concerns were raised, we met directly with the neighbors and supported requests for adjustments to fencing, traffic, parking and landscaping. Mr. Morgan emailed a copy of the statement to BOE members, and on 10/29 Dr. Fishbein and I met with Colleen Kossoff, Jim Morgan, and Mayor Killion to better understand concerns. Unlike concerns raised to date, it questions Village Council or Planning Board authority over Board of Education activities. Prior to commenting on specific allegations raised by Mr. Morgan we are consulting with legal counsel.
Understanding our neighbors’ concerns is an important part of our evaluative process as we look to institute policy to manage the use of RHS Stadium and Stevens Fields. We hope that we can continue to work together to achieve mutual satisfaction for the neighbors, the Board of Education, and most importantly the children of the Village of Ridgewood, whose best interest we strive to serve.
Believe me, I wish we could just talk more freely as we work everything out (and I personally believe we will work it out), but once the possibility of lawsuits was raised, the Board had an obligation to consult our attorneys. Hopefully we'll be able to say more at our next BOE meeting, on November 15.
We are aware that some members of our community have concerns and questions about the field lights currently being installed at RHS Stadium and Stevens Fields. When the project is complete and fully powered by PSE&G our lighting engineer will undertake tests to measure light output to adhere to the specifications in the design plans. This includes light spill surrounding the fields.
Recommendations for the usage of the fields and the lights will be made by the Fields Committee in the form of policy. They are currently revising the Field Use Policy to reflect the changes to the Stadium and Stevens Fields. The policy will come before both the Village Council and BOE for approval. The spring 2011 schedule of sports activities is being developed and will be posted to both the BOE and Village website when complete.
On October 27th [resident] Jim Morgan presented a statement to the Village Council on behalf of his neighbors, which differed significantly from the concerns recently brought before this Board. In the past when concerns were raised, we met directly with the neighbors and supported requests for adjustments to fencing, traffic, parking and landscaping. Mr. Morgan emailed a copy of the statement to BOE members, and on 10/29 Dr. Fishbein and I met with Colleen Kossoff, Jim Morgan, and Mayor Killion to better understand concerns. Unlike concerns raised to date, it questions Village Council or Planning Board authority over Board of Education activities. Prior to commenting on specific allegations raised by Mr. Morgan we are consulting with legal counsel.
Understanding our neighbors’ concerns is an important part of our evaluative process as we look to institute policy to manage the use of RHS Stadium and Stevens Fields. We hope that we can continue to work together to achieve mutual satisfaction for the neighbors, the Board of Education, and most importantly the children of the Village of Ridgewood, whose best interest we strive to serve.
Believe me, I wish we could just talk more freely as we work everything out (and I personally believe we will work it out), but once the possibility of lawsuits was raised, the Board had an obligation to consult our attorneys. Hopefully we'll be able to say more at our next BOE meeting, on November 15.
Thursday, October 21, 2010
"Other than the lights, are there no other pressing issues in the village?"
Funny thing happened last night at Village Hall. I went to a Village Council Candidates Night, and a Board of Ed debate broke out. (That's supposed to sound like the old joke about going to a fight and a hockey game broke out...sound familiar? Anybody?)
Well, not really a BOE debate, more like a repetitive airing of grievances and misinformation.
I thought it was odd how so much of the conversation focused on the new lights at RHS Stadium and Stevens fields, as well as the Council's handling of the defeated school budget last spring. And by "conversation," I obviously mean mis-statements and vague promises.
Contrary to one of the candidates' statements, at no time did the school district approach the Village for funding of the lights, and the current funding arrangement was not developed following any "heated discussions" of any kind.
It was odd to hear such criticism of the users of the lighted fields, consistently referred to as "them," as those "others" who are somehow benefitting. Hello? They are the thousands of children of our town, children of our taxpayers. They are us, and we are all going to benefit from better, more efficient use of our limited field space.
To those candidates who lamented the short timeframe the Council had in which to cut (or not cut) the school budget (with the implication being, if they only had more time, they could have cut the budget more): Board of Ed members and Dr. Fishbein were all over town prior to the budget vote, offering to review the budget in detail and answer any questions. Long before the vote, the Board invited the Councilmembers to a meeting to review the budget and answer any questions -- in as much detail as desired. And as for the "new" idea that a Village councilperson could serve as a liaison to the BOE -- there has been one for a long time. Anne Zusy was the liaison to the BOE...prior to that Jacques Harlow was the liaison. My point is, there are many opportunities for communication and (no pun intended) education between the BOE and the Council. I don't believe communication or lack of time is what determined the Council's decision on the budget. As I've said before, the leading factor was undoubtedly the fact that we had already cut $6.9 million from the budget. There really was not room to cut more without damaging the district.
Anyway, back to the Candidates' Night: it was surprising to me how few questions there were from the audience. Not sure what that means...more voter apathy, I suppose.
I heard the Stop Valley people will be naming "their" candidate soon (possibly tonight). It should be an interesting couple of weeks till the election.
Well, not really a BOE debate, more like a repetitive airing of grievances and misinformation.
I thought it was odd how so much of the conversation focused on the new lights at RHS Stadium and Stevens fields, as well as the Council's handling of the defeated school budget last spring. And by "conversation," I obviously mean mis-statements and vague promises.
Contrary to one of the candidates' statements, at no time did the school district approach the Village for funding of the lights, and the current funding arrangement was not developed following any "heated discussions" of any kind.
It was odd to hear such criticism of the users of the lighted fields, consistently referred to as "them," as those "others" who are somehow benefitting. Hello? They are the thousands of children of our town, children of our taxpayers. They are us, and we are all going to benefit from better, more efficient use of our limited field space.
To those candidates who lamented the short timeframe the Council had in which to cut (or not cut) the school budget (with the implication being, if they only had more time, they could have cut the budget more): Board of Ed members and Dr. Fishbein were all over town prior to the budget vote, offering to review the budget in detail and answer any questions. Long before the vote, the Board invited the Councilmembers to a meeting to review the budget and answer any questions -- in as much detail as desired. And as for the "new" idea that a Village councilperson could serve as a liaison to the BOE -- there has been one for a long time. Anne Zusy was the liaison to the BOE...prior to that Jacques Harlow was the liaison. My point is, there are many opportunities for communication and (no pun intended) education between the BOE and the Council. I don't believe communication or lack of time is what determined the Council's decision on the budget. As I've said before, the leading factor was undoubtedly the fact that we had already cut $6.9 million from the budget. There really was not room to cut more without damaging the district.
Anyway, back to the Candidates' Night: it was surprising to me how few questions there were from the audience. Not sure what that means...more voter apathy, I suppose.
I heard the Stop Valley people will be naming "their" candidate soon (possibly tonight). It should be an interesting couple of weeks till the election.
Monday, July 19, 2010
Who says summer meetings are quiet?
Tonight's meeting of the Board of Education was for the most part a quiet affair, as meetings during the summer usually are. Dr. Fishbein updated us on referendum construction projects, which are rolling along. Big work starting at Hawes...Stevens Field is dug and draining is being installed...roofing projects all over the place. So far, so good. Our construction management company, Epic, is doing a great job of overseeing things and updating the administration and Facilities Committee.
We actually conducted some important business at tonight's meeting:
The Board passed a resolution opposing Governor Christie's proposal to cap school superintendents' salaries. We made some revisions during the meeting, so when the revised version is available in a day or so, I'll post it here.
The Board also approved going forward with a plan to install lights at the RHS Stadium and Stevens Fields, thanks to a financial partnership with many of the community sports programs, and high school parent booster groups. If you recall, during the referendum discussion last Fall, we talked about the need and desire for lights, but we wanted to wait and see if community sports groups were able to contribute to the funding. Over the past few weeks, a few remarkable things happened to lead to tonight's decision: first, the District solicited bids for the best, high-tech lights out there -- Musco lights are efficient and so well-targeted that there is no "light spill" just a few feet from the field. Next, the bids came in much lower than expected, and one contractor's prices were about $300,000 lower than the next bidder. Next, several youth sports groups and high school booster groups committed to funding over half the total cost, and Dr. Fishbein outlined a plan for the District the fund the remainder through a combination of donations to the District in exchange for "naming rights" of various facilities, through annual savings of approx. $10,000 in water expenses that will not be needed to water the turf fields, and, if necessary, with money saved in referendum project costs coming in much lower than projected.
Basically, the total cost of the lights is roughly $500,000 and it's a 5-year lease-purchase program. The sports groups will fund 100% of the installation -- $106,000 -- in the first year, then in years 2 through 5, the sports groups will fund $40,000 per year, and the BOE will fund $65,000. We could raise all the remaining funds through additional donations. It's definitely within reach. In any event, we'll have access to the leftover referendum funds in years 4-5 (that's when the projects will be complete), so the only "unknown" is our portion for years 2-3, which is about $130,000 (or $110,000 if you deduct the money we're saving by not watering the fields). There are already potential corporate donors "in the pipeline," who are eager to make donations in exchange for naming rights to fields or other facilities. (The Board already has a policy for naming rights...it is currently being updated.)
I'm really proud that we were able to work together, in partnership with the community, to make this happen. The arrangement is similar to what happened in the construction of Maple Field, when the sports groups worked with the Village and were so successful in their fundraising, that they were able to fulfill their financial commitment early.
Also at tonight's meeting, we approved a change to the school calendar for this year, 2010-11. As part of our budget cuts for this year, we eliminated paying teachers for extra time to conduct parent conferences outside of school hours. Instead, elementary schools will hold a half-day session on Election Day November 2, with teachers holding parent conferences in the afternoon. Additionally, all schools grade K-12 will be closed on November 3. On that day, grade K-5 teachers will conduct conferences, and grades 6-12 will do professional development. This will flow into the Teacher Convention Days, which are November 4 and 5.
The next Board of Ed meeting will be August 30. This will be our annual "Retreat," where we will set goals for the 2010-11 school year, and discuss our evaluation of our operations and effectiveness.
We actually conducted some important business at tonight's meeting:
The Board passed a resolution opposing Governor Christie's proposal to cap school superintendents' salaries. We made some revisions during the meeting, so when the revised version is available in a day or so, I'll post it here.
The Board also approved going forward with a plan to install lights at the RHS Stadium and Stevens Fields, thanks to a financial partnership with many of the community sports programs, and high school parent booster groups. If you recall, during the referendum discussion last Fall, we talked about the need and desire for lights, but we wanted to wait and see if community sports groups were able to contribute to the funding. Over the past few weeks, a few remarkable things happened to lead to tonight's decision: first, the District solicited bids for the best, high-tech lights out there -- Musco lights are efficient and so well-targeted that there is no "light spill" just a few feet from the field. Next, the bids came in much lower than expected, and one contractor's prices were about $300,000 lower than the next bidder. Next, several youth sports groups and high school booster groups committed to funding over half the total cost, and Dr. Fishbein outlined a plan for the District the fund the remainder through a combination of donations to the District in exchange for "naming rights" of various facilities, through annual savings of approx. $10,000 in water expenses that will not be needed to water the turf fields, and, if necessary, with money saved in referendum project costs coming in much lower than projected.
Basically, the total cost of the lights is roughly $500,000 and it's a 5-year lease-purchase program. The sports groups will fund 100% of the installation -- $106,000 -- in the first year, then in years 2 through 5, the sports groups will fund $40,000 per year, and the BOE will fund $65,000. We could raise all the remaining funds through additional donations. It's definitely within reach. In any event, we'll have access to the leftover referendum funds in years 4-5 (that's when the projects will be complete), so the only "unknown" is our portion for years 2-3, which is about $130,000 (or $110,000 if you deduct the money we're saving by not watering the fields). There are already potential corporate donors "in the pipeline," who are eager to make donations in exchange for naming rights to fields or other facilities. (The Board already has a policy for naming rights...it is currently being updated.)
I'm really proud that we were able to work together, in partnership with the community, to make this happen. The arrangement is similar to what happened in the construction of Maple Field, when the sports groups worked with the Village and were so successful in their fundraising, that they were able to fulfill their financial commitment early.
Also at tonight's meeting, we approved a change to the school calendar for this year, 2010-11. As part of our budget cuts for this year, we eliminated paying teachers for extra time to conduct parent conferences outside of school hours. Instead, elementary schools will hold a half-day session on Election Day November 2, with teachers holding parent conferences in the afternoon. Additionally, all schools grade K-12 will be closed on November 3. On that day, grade K-5 teachers will conduct conferences, and grades 6-12 will do professional development. This will flow into the Teacher Convention Days, which are November 4 and 5.
The next Board of Ed meeting will be August 30. This will be our annual "Retreat," where we will set goals for the 2010-11 school year, and discuss our evaluation of our operations and effectiveness.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
