Will There Be Lights At Butler Field?

In a marathon meeting on January 24 that lasted almost four hours, the Scarsdale Board of Education passed two resolutions concerning the tax cap and mandate relief and conducted a very lengthy conversation on proposed lights for the turf field at SHS.

Tax Cap: Following up on earlier conversations about the proposed tax cap, the Board passed two resolutions opposing a 2% tax cap, one from the Westchester Putnam School Board Association and another drafted by the Scarsdale Board.

The Board voted to support the Westchester Putnam statement that asks for legislative and unfunded mandate relief to be included in any New York State Property Tax Cap Proposal. The resolution can be viewed here:

In addition, a majority of the Board approved a separate resolution drafted by the Scarsdale Board.

That statement voices the Boards opposition to a cap, but in the case that a tax cap is imposed, it calls for an override clause with 55% of the vote, and for the exclusion of mandated costs from the cap.

According to Board President Jill Spieler, the 2% increase in mandated pension costs alone would account for the entire allowable tax increase for the school budget. She supported the Scarsdale resolution and was not confident that the state legislation would include a provision for an override. Also in support of the resolution were Board members Barbara Kemp, Suzanne Seiden and Linda Chayes who said that “the tax cap could be a disaster for Scarsdale and other districts.”

Elizabeth Guggenheimer voted in support of the resolution, saying, “I am concerned that external forces can tell us how much we are permitted to grow our budget. We need to be vocal about our position on the override. I am glad that we are being proactive and supporting the override.”

Mary Beth Gose graciously thanked the Board for their spirited discussion but had a different perspective. She believes that the tax cap proposal will include an override provision and did “not agree that the tax cap could devastate the budget.” She said, “We pay the highest property taxes in the United States. I encourage people to vote on the budget and have confidence in the community. We have excellent structures in place and if we educate the public they will support the budget and override the tax cap.”

Lew Leone also opposed the resolution. He feels that Scarsdale’s overwhelming support for Governor Cuomo in the last election indicates that residents support a tax cap, since this was on Cuomo’s platform. In addition, he believes that taxes are too high, and said, “We have reached a tipping point in terms of real estate. We rely on new families to move here from the city. The balance between tuition and taxes has reached the point where we will lose the influx of young families. I support the tax cap and believe there will be an override provision.”

Seiden responded to Leone and defended the Board, saying, “No one here wants high taxes but it is our job to ensure a quality education and keep taxes low. We don’t want the state to tell us how to do our jobs. I don’t believe people in this community voted for Cuomo due to his support of a tax cap.”

The resolution was passed by a vote of 5-2 and will be sent to legislators.

School Calendar: the Board approved the 2011-2012 School Calendar.  For those of you who are thinking ahead to next Christmas, schools will close at 3pm on Tuesday December 20, 2011 and reopen on Tuesday January 3, 2012 providing almost two weeks of vacation. The entire 2011-2012 school calendar can be viewed here:

Finances: In the financial report, the Board reviewed the current budget surplus which has resulted from savings on teacher salaries due to a reduction in staff headcount, savings on heating costs as a result of the District’s use of gas fuel rather than oil and a 7% savings in year to date healthcare costs. There was a discussion of how this surplus could be used to fund subsequent budgets.

Lights: The most heated moments of the meeting arose in the prolonged discussion of a proposed gift of funds from Fields for Kids to install lights at the turf field at Scarsdale High School. The Board invited comments from the community and heard from those for an against.

The first speaker was a local attorney who has been retained by homeowners who live near the high school who believe they will be negatively affected by the lights. They are concerned about their privacy and the potential impact on the value of their homes. He told the Board that his clients would “take every effort to maintain the value of their homes.”

Next up was Rippy Philipps on behalf of Fields for Kids who assured the Board that they would follow all the requirements for the installation and that they did not mean to be adversarial. He told the group that he had already received an unsolicited gift of $1,000 for the lights and that the lights were “meant for the kids.” He added, “Is it a good time? Is it ever a good time? If we are going to raise the money, people can say no.”

Mark Michael a homeowner who lives in the vicinity of the school relayed his concern about the impact of the lights and the possibility that once installed, their use would be expanded beyond the agreed upon schedule. He said, “I think it will have a negative impact on the value of my home. Let’s see if people would put up money to put up lights across from their own homes.”

Susanne Jones of Wayside Lane questioned whether a press box would also be installed and told the Board of her experience last spring when a commentator spoke over a loudspeaker during a game at the field. She said, “It was so loud I could not sit in my own yard” and she called it “the most unpleasant experience (she has) had living here. “

Jones continued by saying, “I am the parent of a freshman and attended meetings at the school where stress was addressed. When you extend extra curricular activities and expand use of the field, there is more opportunity to play, but also shrinking potential for family time and homework. If kids are expected to go to practice and then go to a meet at night, when can they be home? In my mind, academics come first. Sports are lovely but not the overriding reason to be in Scarsdale. We have to get to the bottom of our priorities. How about spending $300,000 to get kids homework help with their science homework?”

Mark Sylvester came to represent the Scarsdale Youth Soccer Club and said that they “support Rippy and the new lights. We are happy to help with outdoor education in any way.”

Lawrence Patrizio of 11 Foxhall Place spoke in support of the lights, and vowed to “work with the Board to meet all the requirements for installing the lights. As a parent I think athletics are very important. I see a lot of positive in bringing the lights to the school.”

Dr. McGill was asked to discuss priorities for the high school and relayed that the “view of the athletic staff is that the fitness center is too small and it is unable to accommodate the number of students in class or those using it for athletic training after school.”

In addition, he said the “Baseball field is inadequate and substandard. The left field is often wet and fly balls go into the parking lot and hit cars and people.” He added that Athletic Director Mike Menna would like to have lights and Physical Education Director George Blessing has other priorities.

Assistant Superintendant Linda Purvis shared what she had learned about lights from other school districts. In Pelham, where there are lights, control of the field and the lights has been turned over to the Village who bills groups for use of the lights. The school system does not use them frequently as they do not have the funds.

In Eastchester the field with lights is also run by the town and Con Edison charges them to have the power available. The first time they turn on the lights each season costs $2,000. They also had to purchase a generator to run the lights at a cost of $75,000. She discussed the need for a power feed from the high school to the lights and additional costs for custodians and police during evening games.

A lengthy conversation ensued with some Board members calling for the establishment of a foundation to evaluate gifts. Guggenheimer pointed out that this gift is much larger than what a foundation could expect and urged the board to consider it. However, she said that the gift was not in line with the district’s current gift policy that states that “gifts should be appropriate, should have a desirable effect on the school, and should not have an influence over policy.”

Others were concerned with potential costs for the lights, power, game supervision and maintenance and called for further research. In addition the Board recognized the need for community outreach in light of the feedback they had received as well as an assessment from the school on the potential impact of expanded athletics on the academic program. The environmental effects of the lights would also need to be studied.

Given that the Board and administration were at the beginning of the budget process, Spieler felt that the staff would not have the resources to undertake the additional work at this time. She suggested that the issue be tabled, but others on the Board argued that the people behind Field for Kids could do some of the financial analysis of the project.

At the close of the meeting it was agreed that Fields for Kids would provide the Board with information on the equipment, power, and long-term costs, as well as a project timeline for their fundraising efforts.