AUBURN - The proposed capital project for the Auburn Enlarged City School District will officially move to the next step.
The board of education voted 7-2 Tuesday to send the proposed capital project to engineers and architects for further planning and study.
A proposal on the capital project, which currently is 87 percent funded from state aid, is expected to come before voters in May.
Board president David Lansford and board members Sam Giangreco and Bill Andre voiced their support for including Holland Stadium into the project, stating that the cost would ultimately be minimal to the taxpayer and would provide for students and Cayuga County a unique stadium that would be a venue for sporting events as well as a gathering place for people.
“We need to focus on what the future's going to hold for these kids,” said Giangreco. “The future of that stadium is an important, integral part in our education because that's a place that they can play. That's also a community place, it's a place where Auburn gets together...
“Costs will go up, and if we don't do it now, four years from now or whenever we bring this up again and whatever board brings it up again, it's going to take more of a cost. Anybody in business knows that.”
The board is proposing an estimated $14.9 million capital project, of which $3.5 million would be earmarked for renovations at Holland Stadium, including concrete work, lighting, the installation of synthetic turf, enhancing the walking track and additional parking. The remaining money will be used for upgrading technology and infrastructure in each of the district buildings.
Superintendent Joseph D. “J.D.” Pabis has said that synthetic turf is ultimately cheaper than natural grass when considering life span and maintenance.
Board members Fred Cornelius and Joe Leogrande dissented and specifically cited Holland Stadium as the reason for their no vote.
“Our priorities need to be technology and moving forward in those aspects, which I know we are trying to do,” Cornelius said. “I am in favor of the turf field in an area of the school district where all students will be able to utilize it. I don't believe that Holland Stadium is that place and although I do see that there are necessary renovations to be done and that those necessary renovations should be a priority one for this next year, I don't believe that we can in good conscience say that synthetic turf is a priority one ...
“I don't like the proposal as it stands and I'm not in support of any referendum going forward where turf is included and not separated, because I think we'll shoot ourselves in the foot. This is such a divisive issue that needs to be separated so that we don't lose on the things like technology and code specific items.”
Leogrande suggested the board consider separating Holland Stadium from the capital project and put two separate referendums before voters. From what he has heard from the community, he said, the public is generally not in favor of renovations to Holland Stadium.
“I think we really need to consider public opinion,” he said.
The board has until March 27 to make that decision.
The next board meeting will be at 7 p.m. Feb. 12 at the Auburn High School library.
Staff writer Alyssa Sunkin can be reached at 253-5311 ext. 239 or alyssa.sunkin@lee.net
A proposal on the capital project, which currently is 87 percent funded from state aid, is expected to come before voters in May.
Board president David Lansford and board members Sam Giangreco and Bill Andre voiced their support for including Holland Stadium into the project, stating that the cost would ultimately be minimal to the taxpayer and would provide for students and Cayuga County a unique stadium that would be a venue for sporting events as well as a gathering place for people.
“We need to focus on what the future's going to hold for these kids,” said Giangreco. “The future of that stadium is an important, integral part in our education because that's a place that they can play. That's also a community place, it's a place where Auburn gets together...
“Costs will go up, and if we don't do it now, four years from now or whenever we bring this up again and whatever board brings it up again, it's going to take more of a cost. Anybody in business knows that.”
The board is proposing an estimated $14.9 million capital project, of which $3.5 million would be earmarked for renovations at Holland Stadium, including concrete work, lighting, the installation of synthetic turf, enhancing the walking track and additional parking. The remaining money will be used for upgrading technology and infrastructure in each of the district buildings.
Superintendent Joseph D. “J.D.” Pabis has said that synthetic turf is ultimately cheaper than natural grass when considering life span and maintenance.
Board members Fred Cornelius and Joe Leogrande dissented and specifically cited Holland Stadium as the reason for their no vote.
“Our priorities need to be technology and moving forward in those aspects, which I know we are trying to do,” Cornelius said. “I am in favor of the turf field in an area of the school district where all students will be able to utilize it. I don't believe that Holland Stadium is that place and although I do see that there are necessary renovations to be done and that those necessary renovations should be a priority one for this next year, I don't believe that we can in good conscience say that synthetic turf is a priority one ...
“I don't like the proposal as it stands and I'm not in support of any referendum going forward where turf is included and not separated, because I think we'll shoot ourselves in the foot. This is such a divisive issue that needs to be separated so that we don't lose on the things like technology and code specific items.”
Leogrande suggested the board consider separating Holland Stadium from the capital project and put two separate referendums before voters. From what he has heard from the community, he said, the public is generally not in favor of renovations to Holland Stadium.
“I think we really need to consider public opinion,” he said.
The board has until March 27 to make that decision.
The next board meeting will be at 7 p.m. Feb. 12 at the Auburn High School library.
Staff writer Alyssa Sunkin can be reached at 253-5311 ext. 239 or alyssa.sunkin@lee.net
The Citizens' Say
There are 21 comment(s)
james_13021 wrote on Jan 24, 2008 5:29 AM:
james_13021 wrote on Jan 24, 2008 5:25 AM:
It has always been a problem for High school Football player getting to practice after school when they have to commute across town after school. The High School Football team should be at the High School!!! "
drab1624 wrote on Jan 24, 2008 3:19 AM:
brew1234 wrote on Jan 24, 2008 12:43 AM:
forrest wrote on Jan 23, 2008 10:22 PM:
scoppola wrote on Jan 23, 2008 9:32 PM:
longboard315 wrote on Jan 23, 2008 9:15 PM:
gonesouth wrote on Jan 23, 2008 8:37 PM:
RWT wrote on Jan 23, 2008 7:58 PM:
Yikes wrote on Jan 23, 2008 7:39 PM:
When you consider the fact that district taxpayers will be paying approximately 13 cents on the dollar for these improvements, it's clearly a no-brainer. I believe Jim wrote it best when he stated it would amount to approximately $10.00 annually per district taxpayer.
I'll bet Jerry a twinkie that most taxpayers can come up with several ways to offset that additional $10.00 a year. Here are a few of my own thoughts.
1) Instead of sticking to my regular 4 week haircut cycle, I'm going to skip this month because it's cold and the extra hair provides warmth on my head. Savings - $13.00.
2) I budgeted to have my oil changed this month for $24.95 but viola, I came across a coupon from a competitor. Savings - $10.00.
3) I typically take the thruway to work in Rochester but this week, I'm going to take 5 & 20 instead. Savings - $12.60.
4) I like Pepsi and I drink a lot of it, but this week I think I'll buy Sams Club brand instead. Savings - $11.82.
5) I'm going to bring in leftovers for lunch tomorrow and Friday instead of buying at the office. Savings - $13.50.
Heck, by the end of the week, I'll have saved enough money to pay this additional $10.00 tax for 5 years.
"
Unknown... wrote on Jan 23, 2008 4:34 PM:
jlmorgansr wrote on Jan 23, 2008 3:48 PM:
Furthermore, you cannot separate the current economic problems we are facing just because you are in favor spending millions of tax dollars on frivolous items. It is all relevant. In order for this board to have acted responsible it should have looked at the economy, at both local and state level. Why do you think a board member sits on the AIDA board? I will be at the informational meetings and i hope you introduce yourself. But, I have to wonder why you are aren't telling everyone the costs of this project? I wonder, if I am spreading mis information, why you don't give the correct amount for the projects? I'll tell you why, because I have the correct number and you know it. I have been spreading the word all day and i can gurantee this proposal is going to be voted down. "
tome8689 wrote on Jan 23, 2008 3:42 PM:
tlb4 wrote on Jan 23, 2008 3:02 PM:
jlmorgansr wrote on Jan 23, 2008 1:59 PM:
As for Jim I understand that the operational budget is different than building aid, but the money to operate both is still money, an increase is an increase no matter how you look at it. When we get our tax bills we wont get one that says BOCES/building capitol improvement increase/ ordinary budget increase, it is all together and no matter how you want to make it appear, if it quacks like a duck and looks like a duck it is a duck. An increase is still an increase. I will vote NO and I will encourage everyone I know to do the same "
bbgonza@aol.com wrote on Jan 23, 2008 1:03 PM:
Jim wrote on Jan 23, 2008 12:57 PM:
jlmorgansr wrote on Jan 23, 2008 12:44 PM:
Here we go again...The estimated local cost of this project per tax paying property is about $10 per year (it might end up being less)
OK Jim, tell me how much did the BOCES Building cost us? Another 10 to 20 dollars?
And what about the project that was approved last year? was that another 10 or so dollars?
What about the budget increase? How much will that cost us? Just another 10 or so dollars?
What about the contracts for the teachers? They deserve a raise, so how much will that cost us? Maybe another 10 or so dollars?
What about the administrators contract? Their contract expires this year so they are in line for a raise so how much will that cost us? Maybe another 10 dollars or so?
What about increase in fuel for the district or the insurance we are told increases every year? How much will that cost us? Just another 10 or so bucks?
What about our local water and sewer, and local city and county taxes? Are they going up another 10 or so bucks?
You see Jim it's all adding up, and I dare say with the local economy struggling to keep their head above water, and a recession looming on the horizon, and the stock market taking a beating things are looking rather bleak. Yet, we have a board of education that sits impervious to every economic situation because they have the ability to tax and increase revenue at will, while giving lame examples such as the one you gave.
This area is depressed, neighborhoods are falling apart, there are over 200 pieces of abandoned property in this city. We have been hit with high unemployment, and we have had two employers leave the state and/or country in order to compete on a level playing field.
This whole project deserves to be scrapped and put on a shelf. When the debt load is reduced and the economy has bettered itself then it should be addressed, until then I will VOTE NO AND ENCOURAGE EVERYONE TO DO THE SAME "
Jim wrote on Jan 23, 2008 12:18 PM:
Unknown... wrote on Jan 23, 2008 12:17 PM:
Unknown... wrote on Jan 23, 2008 12:12 PM: