Some residents wary of bond proposal
Officials questioned on timing
3 comments below
District officials are seeking voter approval next month for the construction of a new administration building and a synthetic turf football field with overhead lights.
The district currently leases space for its administrative staff in a building located in the North Country Plaza Shopping Center on Route 25A in Miller Place. But the space is cramped and officials believe they will be able to save money if they construct a new building rather than continue to pay rent, board trustee Michael Unger said.
Under the first proposition, Mr. Unger said, a one-story administration building would be constructed on the north side of the high school property to alleviate the overcrowding. The building would also likely contain attic space for storage of student records, he said.
Superintendent Agatha Kelly said the proposal would cost $3.3 million but would lead to an estimated savings of more than $530,000 over 15 years from what it would cost to continue renting.
"Over the time in 10 years we've been in that building, we've spent $1.2 million in rent," Dr. Kelly said to about 20 residents in the Sound Beach Fire Department meeting room.
"I hate to use the word 'no-brainer,' " Mr. Unger said of the proposition. "But it's a no-brainer."
Under the second proposition, a $2 million football field would be constructed outside the high school. It would include four 70-to-80-foot poles each with 18 1,500-Watt luminaries, according to district literature. The field would not only improve the athletic programs, Dr. Kelly said, but also allow students access to the sports fields for physical education classes.
"The concept is for community usage," said Dr. Kelly, noting that the track and field at Rocky Point High School is used by the community during the summertime.
If the field is constructed, there would be a $49,294 budget impact over the life of the 15-year bond, costing the average homeowner about $50 per year, Dr. Kelly said.
Dr. Kelly said approval of the propositions would also lock in a rate of 72.4 percent in state building aid on all site work.
The field proposition can only pass if the administrative building proposal is approved by the voters.
Sound Beach resident Mike Baselice questioned whether the field proposal is a prudent one, given the state of the economy.
"I think you are biting off too much," he said.
Arlynne Schatzkamer-Bleier took a similar stance on the issue.
"We were taught as children to go without," Ms. Schatzkamer-Bleier said. "If it's raining, you can't go out and play. Life is not over."
Still other residents believed the proposal might save the district some money.
Ann Moran said she thinks it's the right thing to do considering the savings and the success seen in other districts, such as Rocky Point.
"Rent just disappears," she said.
peggy@northshoresun.com
Want to learn more?
The bond referendums will be voted on between 6 a.m. and 9 p.m. March 2 at North Country Road Middle School on North Country Road. Prior to the vote, the school district will host a community information meeting at 7 p.m. Feb. 24 in the high school library. For more information on the two propositions, log on to millerplace.k12.ny.us and click on the link for Board of Education Bond Presentation.
The North Shore Sun is pleased to offer readers the ability to comment on stories. We expect our readers to engage in lively, yet civil discourse. The North Shore Sun does not edit user submitted statements and we cannot promise that readers will not occasionally find offensive or inaccurate comments posted in the comments area. Responsibility for the statements posted lies with the person submitting the comment, not The North Shore Sun. Please be reminded, however, that in accordance with our Terms of Service and federal law, we are under no obligation to remove any third party comments posted on our website.
3 comments found
Bond Vote...YES : 2/16/2010
The administrative office is a "no-brainer." What prudent person would continue to pay rent when they can have an asset for less money AND provide an improved situation on MANDATORY record keeping. It is a shame that student academic space is often comprimised for administrative needs due to space issues. Such situations will be avoided with this proposal. Regarding the ATHLETIC FIELD proposal, it is ridiculous to label this as just a football issue. That field will then be usable by 10+ sports programs on a consistent basis. The wear & tear on fields will be diminished, reducing costs in those areas. It will become a community focal point for activity and allow for residents to have a place to safely exercise and convene.
If you're angy at the administration and want to hold the students, programs & effective management of the district hostage over your anger of administrative structure...vote NO. Wait for the better opportunity, which will never come and cost more money in the end. If you're for the advancement of our educational district AND prudent about how/when you spend money wisely... then you vote YES on March 2nd.
MPSD Bond : 2/16/2010
If I'm reading this bond correctly, in order for Proposition 2, the football field to pass, Proposition 1, the new administration building, must pass also. So in other words, if Administration doesn't get their new building, then the students don't get their new field. Each year the new budget seems to include cuts to teaching and support staff, sports, music, art, and transportation, but NO cuts to administration. Why do we need all of these administrators? Does the Superintendent really need an assistant, and does the assistant need a director; does the director need an assistant? Does LADSBS need an assistant principal? Do NCR and MPHS need assistant principals AND Deans of Students? At the beginning of each school year, we seem to have a new "Dr." of some sort, which I'm sure commands a higher salary. Just read the Masthead of the mailings that the District sends out and you will see how many individuals are employed in Administration. As the previous poster stated, why is the website unavailable? I believe the time has come for ALL MPSD residents to attend the board, budget, and bond meetings to revolt against this current administration. With the current economy, now is not the time for the district to be asking for more money. Let them take a pay cut!
Bond Proposal - No way : 2/15/2010
No-brainer is right. No. Potential boondoggle. From my experience, this will end up costing much more than $3.3 million because the scope of the proposal will expand. Tangential, interested parties will want to add their pet interests to this.
In this uncertain economy, local government should be shrinking, not expanding. These facilities could turn into a white elephant and tax sponge.
If these facilities are for community use, MP residents will be paying the maintenance of while others use them. Taxes are high enough. Fees should be charged to others for the use of the facilities to cover the expense.
How about putting more students in class rooms to free up space for administration? How about shrinking the administrative staff?
And what’s the projection for enrollment in MP high school football? Is there an increase or decrease in students that are eligible to play football? If there’s a decrease, the field will be wasted.
Is it more than just a coincidence that website for the MPUFSD is unavailable? That is where the proposal is supposed to be. The longer the proposal is in the public the less it will be liked. That is why the proposal is not being made public.
The bottom line is local public school officials want to expand their turf. In this uncertain economy and the ever-expanding desire to soak up taxes, this is truly a no-brainer: no.
