5 year plan

[Douglas Rushkoff]

I have been reading the bond proposal (VERY hard to find on the site - I am sure it's just an oversight and not intentional hiding, but we might need to publicize that the text is now available.) You can't navigate to it directly from the website, but need to use this link: http://www.hohschools.org/cms/lib07/NY01913703/Centricity/Domain/20/Agenda%208-27-13.3.pdf  

At first, it explains that the Board deems an environmental review unnecessary, because the project is relatively small and makes no significant changes to anything. Then, it explains that a lot of money is to be raised for a bunch of things. It doesn't say how much is spent on what, so I think the bond gives the board some leeway on how to spend the money. 

What I did find on the BoE site, in much plainer view, is the Five-year Facilities Plan (updated last Thursday) - but I can't figure out exactly how that relates to bond. The five-year facilities plan even has money for an upgraded auditorium, music studios, and other things I would value, slated for 2016. But it doesn't say where or how that would get paid for. 

It also doesn't explain which of the things on the 5-year plan would get paid for with the bond, and which wouldn't. Clearly, if we pass this bond, the other things on the 5-year plan wouldn't be happening anymore. But the auditorium/music/studios renovation is as expensive as the track and field proposal. 

So it's all looking like one big blur to me. I don't fully understand it yet, though I will keep putting in time. It just lists many things that are impossible unless we triple the size of the bond or, I suppose, vote for additional bonds each year? Maybe old bonds expire so we can vote for new ones? 

I just don't want approval of the sports items in the 5-year-plan to kill the other improvements that I value more, like science labs, and media and music. 

What I'm assuming now is that they figured the sports thing and artificial turf would be a tougher sell, so they may better separate it from the kind of improvements Hastings residents would approve more easily (arts, new boiler, safer doors in the elementary school), which they could hold for later. 

If there are folks with better backgrounds in budget/legal, please help clarify. We've only got a month or so before we have to vote. 

Maybe the Board could hold an informational meeting? Or maybe one of the advocacy or anti-field groups could do that? 

---

http://rushkoff.com
http://twitter.com/rushkoff

---

http://rushkoff.com
http://twitter.com/rushkoff

[David Skolnik]

Doug -
You bring up a number of points, each of which deserves its own discussion, for the most part.  I'll try to expand, briefly, on what you've raised:

New Web Site
While the site is a work in progress, and Jeanine Genauer, the new District Clerk, is making strides, it's a bad time for a site to be 'evolving' while people are trying to learn to engage with it.  It is not intuitively designed, for whatever reasons.  The Budget, the Bond Resolution, last year's CBAC information, should all be prominently linked, from the main district page, not from a sub-dropdown menu, or having to know how to go to the Meetings and Agendas page on the BOE page.  RE: Citizens Budget Advisory Committee info, that might help explain some of the other questions, it's not even on the site, as yet. 

With due respect, there is no acceptable reason to have a delay of more than a few days in having the video of BOE meetings posted to the site.  All it takes is BOE making it a priority, in the service of better communication and public engagement.

SEQR (Environmental Study)
The Kabuki theatre of SEQR (no disrespect to Kabuki) is ultimately a farcical distraction.  It is pure formality, unless there is an entity that is willing to cough up large bucks to sue the Lead Agency, in this case, the BOE, to challenge any of the findings.  Attachment A on the  Quick Link  Facilities Update contains the narrative of the BOE's thinking.  While expensive to challenge, legally, it's relatively inexpensive to do so in letters or at BOE meetings.
http://www.hohschools.org/Page/1378
To be clear, we, citizens, do not get to vote on the SEQR.

the bond gives the board some leeway on how to spend the money.

the estimated costs of the components of the Project as set forth in the Plan may be reallocated among such components if the Board of Education shall determine that such reallocation is in the best interest of the District;

This is fairly typical language in Bond proposals, which is not to say that it is inconsequential.  It basically gives the BOE carte blanche to change whatever they feel is for the best interest of the District.  It implies a degree of trust which, clearly, at this point, I don't experience.  Sorry W.

5-year plan / one big blur
You are correct, I think, with regard to the usefulness of that document, without a context.  At this point, having all those documents thrown onto a Facilities update page, with no narrative, even a biased one, verges on hypocritical - my view, of course.

Maybe the Board could hold an informational meeting? Or maybe one of the advocacy or anti-field groups could do that?

In this climate, could there be anything approaching 'pure' information?

David Skolnik

No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2013.0.3392 / Virus Database: 3222/6630 - Release Date: 09/02/13

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ReynoldsField" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ReynoldsFiel...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

[Victor Waldron]

In the transportation infrastructure world 5-year capital plans have to be "fiscally constrained," meaning the projects and costs listed need to be based on realistic assumptions of needs, costs and revenue. Often agencies load up on projects in year 5 for two reasons, 1) they tend to be conservative in the early years with hope that revenues will somehow be significantly higher than assumed, and 2) year 5 never actually happens because the subsequent 5 year plan is developed and passed before the last year of the previous plan takes effect. Looking at the numbers, it looks like this is what the BOE did, loading up on huge costs with the field and performance space projects in year 5. It's just that with the current bond expiring they "found" money to actually follow through on the athletic fields project now.