Ossining Bond Vote Debate

The debate over Ossining's proposed bond referendum is heating up. The Ossining Union Free School District is getting the word out about their proposal while the organization FreeOssiningTaxpayers.com is spearheading the effort to oppose a bond issue.

FreeOssiningTaxpayers.com's spokesperson explained why residents should vote down the proposed school bond issue in a posting on Patch yesterday. At the same time the Ossining School District is holding an informational meeting at on Ryder Road this morning.

The capital bond vote is set for March 6 from 7 a.m. - 9 p.m. at .

To view FreeOssiningTaxpayers.com's website click here.

To view the Ossining School District's bond proposal site click on this link and then click on "Bond Proposal Website" button on the top-left of the page.

To view Ossining Citizens for Schools site click here.

Here's what Patch readers are saying about the bond proposal in our comments section:

Voters: The following direct quotation was taken from the contruction manager of the proposed Ann Dorner Middle School cafeteria expansion program...and published on February 11th by The Daily Ossining web newspaper commenting on the open house school tour afforded voters:

“What’s being proposed is a better space to allow for kids to be served quicker and allow them to eat comfortably during the time they have.”

Yes, it said what you thought you read: “What’s being proposed is a better space to allow for kids to be served quicker and allow them to eat comfortably during the time they have.”

Vote "NO" on March 6th. Keep your million dollars back into our pockets.

“What’s being proposed is a better space to allow for kids to be served quicker and allow them to eat comfortably during the time they have.”

Yes, it said what you thought you read: “What’s being proposed is a better space to allow for kids to be served quicker and allow them to eat comfortably during the time they have.”

Vote "NO" on March 6th.

Mr. Little I always appreciate your desire to keep taxes in check. Lots of commentary here however seems slightly off the mark however and perhaps would be better broken up into several chunks, but let's discuss one of your points:

<LittleSays>"The proposal to completely replace five boiler systems and the back-up generating systems at five schools is the third and arguably most contentious and most difficult all of the issues for the community to accurately assess. " </LittleSays>

I believe the current bond replaces only four (4) and the 5th is funded in the administrations words " as part of Energy Performance Contract" but let's set that aside.

It seems indisputable that the boilers are:
1) Old and in need of repair
2) Two run on a fuel source (#6) that is both inefficient and not very eco-friendly and which is going to become difficult to purchase in the near future (within 5 years).

How would you suggest we pay for this needed upgrade? An increase in taxes to pay for one boiler would appear to be both costly and painful to the taxpayers, much less to pay for four.

Not sure why you would support that but would like to know how you would suggest financing the improvement.

If a school building is currently using No. 6 oil, the administration can make a relatively inexpensive switch to No. 4 oil. The switch involves using up the No. 6 oil in the tank, cleaning the tank if necessary, adjusting burner settings, making some minor modifications to the oil pump and oil lines, and starting to use No. 4 oil. The Department of Environmental Protection estimates the conversion will cost approximately $10,000 per school buillding. The No. 4 oil can be used until 2030... all according to Rand Engineering, a NYC Consultant. Adjustments and repairs, as I said, shall be taken as required from the $103,000,000 school administration operating budget capital expenses line. No boiler needs to be replaced and none will be required for some time.

As an Ossining taxpayer, and someone who spends time at schools throughout the tri-state area for my line of work, I fully support this bond.

Many of Mr. Little’s points do not present a full picture. He fails to mention the bulk of the work to be done at AMD is really part of an effort to create more classrooms to accommodate a student population that has grown substantially over the last 20 years with no signs of let up (1990:3,020; 2002:4,208; 2011:4,564) and do so without building on to the exterior (a substantially higher cost). While the population has grown, government mandates have forced restrictions on the amount of space allowable for a given number of students, creating the need for more classrooms. The cafeteria expansion, principals and nurses office and music rooms are not some frivolous effort to waste taxpayer money. Rather, they’re all part of an effort to maximize space by creating several new classrooms including ones more in line with the standards of today and the future. Which brings me to point #2. (cnt’d)....

He mentions nothing will be of direct benefit to SAT scores (or as he states in other forums, “students getting a job someday”). As I’m seeing on a daily basis at schools I visit, and as I would think any sane person would agree, higher SAT scores or even getting into college are great but aren’t necessarily the only indicator of success (FYI Steve Jobs was a college dropout). What IS important are good, inspiring teachers combined with (relatively) modern tools that help spur students to compete in today’s world. Does anyone think the 50 year- old science labs at AMD are adequate enough to inspire and help our children compete for jobs in a modern world dominated by science and technology driven industries like bio-pharma or Apple?

One more area where he “glosses” over is in“rebuilding the OHS auditorium”. In fact, this is only a partial “rehab” to address issues such as electrical work and safety codes at an 80 year old facility which in fact has nearly caused loss of revenue in the past due to equipment failure.

I would suggest that people visit another site to get a fuller picture of the bond and it’s scope (www.ossiningcfs.com).

In this day and age we’re all looking to do more with less and I think if you read through enough facts you’ll see this bond is the best approach to doing so.

Mr. Kaplan: I would like to use the views of an Ossining Taxpayer who submitted her opinion to www.FreeOssiningTaxpayers.com website:

"On other Ossining Taxpayer site a gentleman commented about wanting to go to a school with modern facilities. Sounds great, but it is a sad scenario when you suggest that going to a nicer school is a motivation for kids to do well. It's not only the building, it's fellow students, teachers and curriculum that create a good learning environment. In addition, it's important that they have support at home.

Can one also assume that if the fields were nicer, the auditorium and the science lab updated, we would have more motivated athletes, scientists and actors? People have to learn to work with what they have available to them at any given time. Sure it would be nice to offer all these improvements, but in this economy we have to chose to improve those that affect safety first. If we are looking to cut, don't start with the teachers, start with the administrators who are making well over $200,000 each with benefits."

Another poster added: "Can you believe that 20 Administrators of the Ossining UFSD together make $4,300,000...and you wonder why Ossining citizens will vote against the $42,000,000 Ossining proposed bond initiative?"

I conclude by observing that the INTEL science kids did astoundingly well over the past few years with an excellent teaching staff and the same facilities that others have used year after year after year!

If you own a home and bricks get loose, or the roof begins to leak, or the boiler isn't working properly, you fix it immediately. To wait until you have a dozen problems requiring repair is not only foolish, it's extremely costly in one lump sum. We'd probably all like to have a brand new kitchen or bathroom in our home but if we can't afford it we don't do it. Repairs should be done on an "as needed" basis, but they weren't. This situation shows mis-management of public property, and public funds, by the BOE.

I agree that Mr. Little's attempt to keep our tax base down is a wonderful thing. After all, who wants to spend more money on unnecessary things or 'fluff'? Not me, or the many people who live in this village/town. And yes! . . economically, it seems like it's an awful time to spend, when I too, see store front after store front empty in the village. So, thank you Mr. Little.

However, I also must agree, that after seeing, and hearing, and pinching the numbers, it would be worse to vote no! It's easy to say NO, and look the other way. Then in 5 years when the consequences of that <no> comes back with higher repair costs; the people will cry, "why wasn't this done years ago?"
So, as a one-income, single mother of two school age children, who is also being squeezed beyond my financial limits monthly, I support this bond because it just makes good economic sense.

HOW DO YOU FEEL ABOUT THE SCHOOL BOND VOTE? TELL US BY CLICKING ON THE COMMENT BUTTON.

Editor's note: FreeOssiningTaxpayers.com was incorrectly identified at FreeOssiningTaxpayers.org. This has been corrected.