Acceptance of 2017 Single Audit Report – The annual audit of the District’s finances has been completed by Maher Duessel CPAs and the results of the audit will be reported by Amy Lewis, CPA at the meeting. There are no findings or issues to report. The Superintendent recommends acceptance of the audit report.Jo Posti is making her reset presentation tonight for the Century of Excellence Million Dollar Heist. This is what the late Nick Meduho had asked about at the last meeting, when Mary Birks said, "Nope." It is after the election and before the new board takes over.
Athletic Field Discussion - we already know that Bill Moorhead, Dan Remely, and the soccer ref's wife, Mary Birks will be going off the board and they are in favor of turfing everything in sight.
And then there is the Teachers Contract.
Letter of Engagement for Chief Negotiator – The Board is asked to consider the appointment Ira Weiss, Esq. as special counsel for teacher contract negotiations at a cost of $125 per hour plus training services of $1,500. The Superintendent recommends this appointment.If these items are up for discussion, the board will be voting next week. It will be Birks, Remely, and Moorhead's last meeting. Ever. All of these items should be tabled for the new board! It looks like Mary is not going out quietly.
6 comments:
Well the proof will be in the pudding if Riemer, Strotmeyer are everything they claimed to be.
11:15 AM, you don't get it, do you? There are nine school board directors. You named two. Even if Riemer, Strotmeyer, Beal, and Olbrich vote to table it, they are still outnumbered.
This is so dirty!
Elaine
Elaine Cappucci will not be able to vote for the chief negotiator for teacher contracts negotiations since her son is a teacher. I wonder if she will speak at the school board meeting again, like she had for the capital campaign at the last couple of school board meetings. I wouldn't be surprised.
Elaine
Yes, I do get it. Of course they are only two votes out of nine, but if this is as dirty as you claim (I agree) they need to stand up and vocalize what this is for the whole community to hear.
Remely, Birks, Moorhead will still have to live here and face the community that they stuck it too.
Will Riemer and Strotmeyer step up and fight to hold off the vote until the new board is seated or will they capitulate.
There’s more to being a school board member than just voting yea or nay.
Persuasive arguments should be made at these discussion sessions, questions should be asked. If they truly want constituent participation it should be asked for so that residents can chime in before the final vote.
Wonder if any of the directors will question the maintenance numbers from the Rock Pile Draft Report?
There seems to be quite a disparity between its numbers and those found elsewhere.
http://turf.uark.edu/turfhelp/archives/021109.html
“Maintenance
it is a myth that synthetic fields require less maintenance than natural turfgrass fields or to say that artificial turf fields are maintenance free. Synthetic fields require 1) additional infill, 2) irrigation because of unacceptably high temperatures on warm-sunny days, 3) chemical disinfectants, 4) sprays to reduce static cling and odors, 5) drainage repair and maintenance, 6) erasing and repainting temporary lines, and 7) removing organic matter accumulation. In a recent presentation by the Michigan State University, Certified Sports Turf Manager, she cited that the typical annual maintenance costs of her artificial turf fields ranged from $13,720-$39,220, while the typical annual maintenance costs of her natural turf fields had a similar range of $8,133-$48,960 (1).
“Long-term costs
Long-term costs are less with natural turf fields compared to synthetic turf fields. Artificial fields need replacing every 8-10 years, whereas a natural turf field does not need as frequent renovation and can be renovated at a much reduced price compared to an artificial field. In a 16-year scenario, Fresenburg came up with an annual average cost for each field type as follows: the natural soil-based field, $33,522; the sand-cap grass field, $49,318; the basic synthetic field, $65,846; and the premium synthetic field, $109,013 (2).”
From Forbes magazine:
“How Taxpayers Get Fooled On The Cost Of An Artificial Turf Field”
“So why are some municipalities still spending big bucks to install artificial turf fields? Main reason: taxpayers have been getting hoodwinked by bogus analysis into thinking artificial turf fields are cheaper than natural grass.
But the reality is that non-partisan studies have shown the exact opposite–natural grass fields are a bargain compared to artificial turf due to the huge costs taxpayers get stuck with to maintain and replace artificial fields after their warrantees expire. One of the artificial turf industry’s selling points is that an artificial turf field will last eight-to-10 years, even though the usual warranty runs for only eight, and that the initial exorbitant cost of installation is recouped in no time from tens of thousands in savings from no longer maintaining a natural grass field. Another way proponents of artificial turf skew the math in their favor is by saying many more events will be held on the field once artificial turf is installed, thereby lowering “the cost per event” on the field relative to natural grass. But who knows if that math is based on reality (the fields in my town, Glen Rock, New Jersey, are often vacant)? How can anyone accurately predict the future demographics of a town?”
Post a Comment