Key takeaways from the June 25th, Rutherford Board of Education meeting
The Board unanimously approved the facilities plan which includes the destruction of the pool. This will now be put forward for a referendum to be voted on by all members of the community on Tuesday, October 2.
Before the vote, several members of the public once again spoke out passionately in defense of saving the pool and also expressed their concerns about other aspects of the proposal. The vast majority of speakers during the public sessions at all RBOE meetings this year have spoken very strongly in favor of saving the pool. The SaveOurPool petition was handed in to the RBOE. Over 550 signatures have been collected thus far.
Comments asking to save the pool included:
- Click here to view the summary of reasons provided by petition signatories.
- This outrageous plan to tell the swim team they must travel to another town to practice would never even be contemplated for any land sport such as football or baseball.
- Why isn't Borough Hall (our Mayor and Council) active in the efforts to save our community pool?
- Support for the pool does not mean lack of support for the other upgrades needed. This is not a choice between STEM labs, classrooms and saving the pool. All are possible.
- High School kids should be allowed continue to go out for lunch.
- Most of the new science labs will be windowless, but access to fresh air would be preferable for these rooms, especially when dissecting animals and working with chemicals.
- The portable classrooms at Pierrepont will remain despite this $53 million expenditure.
- Concern about the lack of outdoor space at Pierrepont as a result of this plan.
- Communication regarding Superintendent Roundtables has been poor and far less than communication sent for other less important matters.
- Appreciation for the visionaries on the Council and Board in the 1970s who secured the funding to build the pool.
- The difference in State aid between New Construction and Re-Purposed space is only $2.20 per $1 million expense.
- What is the expected bond time period? Is it 20-25 years as posted on the website or 25-30 years as mentioned at the meeting?
- The asset value of the pool (~$8 million) is not included in the cost of the Facilities plans.
- If the primary goal is classrooms and STEM labs why is $20 million going towards gymnasiums, kitchen, cafeteria & turf? How much will maintaining the turf field and kitchen cost the taxpayers year after year?
- Shock and embarrassment at the RBOE rejection of the YMCA million dollar investment offer.
- We should take advantage of the YMCA's offer to provide free swim lessons to every second grade Rutherford child.
- Put swimming back in the curriculum.
- The explanatory language proposed for the referendum "conversion of pool space" is inaccurate and misleading.
- Why isn't the expected bond time period included on the ballot?
- Why isn't the expected cost to the taxpayer included on the ballot?
- The October vote is guaranteed to ensure a low voter turnout. The most democratic process would be to hold the vote on Election Day in November, which would guarantee the highest voter turn out.
- The October vote is unnecessarily expensive. If held in November it would cost $0.
- This facilities plan has been 3 years in the making yet most people are only now hearing of it.
- Don't rush the plan. Take the time to get this right. The Board can do better.
Referendum language. The Board did respond to the feedback received by email and also during the public session regarding the misleading and incomplete proposed referendum language as was published on the meeting agenda.
- The initial proposal included "conversion of pool space and construction of addition".
- One of the Board members made a motion to change the language and after review and discussion the Board amended this language to instead state "Decommission and conversion of the pool facility".
- "The permanent destruction of a multi-million dollar community owned pool facility" would also be an accurate assessment but that was not considered. The asset value of the pool, or the 'destruction cost', was also not discussed and is not included or mentioned anywhere on the Facilities website, nor will it be included in the referendum language.
- Click here to view the language.
Some commentary was provided justifying the decision that was reached by the Board:
- Appreciation for the dedicated and passionate appeals made to the Board but cannot go with those appeals.
- Municipal and School Taxes are separate.
- School taxes are levied specific to school funding - therefore cannot be used to support the pool which is only used by the HS swim team 2 months of the year.
- Cannot ask the taxpayers to fund a bigger referendum to keep a pool that is not primarily used for school activities. The school referendum is not the appropriate way to pass along such a proposal to the community.
- Two options to save the pool were considered.
- 1-story $2.5m - 15% impact to the field
- 2-story $5.9m
- Either option would not benefit the school since the pool is mostly used for a non-school profit making entity.
We disagree with the Board's justifications for the following reasons:
- School taxes have been used for the past 38 years to pay for pool expenses, just as school taxes are used to pay for all school recreation activities.
- While the use by the High School swim team alone is all the justification that is needed, the reintroduction of swimming into the curriculum would be preferable. At a minimum swimming should be an elective for the High School students.
- The million dollar investment proposal presented by the YMCA includes reducing future annual pool expenses to $0. Why hasn't the Board entered negotiations with the YMCA in order to provide the greatest possible benefit for the Rutherford taxpayer?
- The 2017 Long Range Planning Committee's survey results, which formed the basis of this referendum proposal cited "limited lifetime fitness opportunities" exist at the RHS. The committee surveyed students, parents and staff including the High School Principal and the Athletic Director, and at no time did anyone suggest a need or a desire to demolish the pool. Demolishing the pool is diametrically opposed to the survey's findings.
- A one-story addition (Option-3) would allow for an expanded cafeteria and STEM labs; however, the exact impact to the field is unknown. The 15% statistic that was cited is an approximation; it was revealed through OPRA requests that the field was never measured. A "guesstimate" is totally unacceptable for such a momentous decision with life altering impact.
- Removing the $3 million kitchen / food distribution center and service delivery area from Option-3 would spare the pool and also remove the impact to the field. The need for a kitchen was not demonstrated in the survey that formed the basis for the Referendum.
- The $6 million Option-4 plan that was used as justification by the Board President for rejecting the YMCA offer was deemed to be "non-viable" per the Board's Vice President at the same meeting and that is confirmed on the Facilities website. Click here to read why it was deemed non-viable. How can it be both "non-viable" and also the justification for rejecting the YMCA offer?
At the June 4th meeting, one of the Board members commented that this is a teachable moment for our town and our kids, that we can look at a set of data and facts and come to different conclusions and that's OK. We can disagree and still respect each other, that we are a community of friends and want to keep it that way.
We wholeheartedly agree with those sentiments and regardless of the outcome of this referendum we hope and expect that respect for differing opinions will be shown by all. We believe everyone shares the same goal of living in a friendly vibrant community with strong schools. We believe we all want an environment where our children and all our citizens are afforded the best opportunities that can be made available.
Many of us believe that preserving our resources, spending our money wisely, and saving and improving the pool is critical to that goal; others believe re-purposing the pool is the better option. Let us move forward with respect, setting an example for our children on how democracy works at its best and despite this vote occurring off season on Tuesday, October 2, let's make sure everyone votes and has their opinion counted.
Click here to watch a replay of the meeting
Rutherford Citizens to Save Our Pool
http://SaveOurPool.us