It's good. I'm going to call the U meeting to order. Who reads the adequate notice? >> I do. That's my job. Huh? Uh adequate notice of meeting. The written notice
was sent to the office of the secretary of the board at 7:34 a.m. on February 5th, 2026 with two different times. Uh, but we are starting at 6:30 because that's what the agenda says. Uh, that said notice was sent via email to Maplewood
and South Orange Township clerks and the editors of the news record, Star Ledger, Tap into Soma, and the Village Green. Please call the role. >> Of course. Thank you. I will call the role beginning with Mayor Victor Luca. >> I'm here. >> Deputy Mayor Malia Herman
>> here. >> Committee person Nancy Adams >> here. >> Committee person Jane Collins Cing. Committee Oh, not here. Okay. Mayor Sheena Colum >> here. >> Council member Jennifer Greenberg
>> here. Council member Olivia Lewis Chang >> here. >> Council member Bill Haskins >> here. >> Board President Will Meyer >> here. >> Board member Jeff Bennett >> here. >> Board member Melanie Nyer >> here.
>> Right. Cororum. >> Thank you. Please join us in the pledge of allegiance. Okay, we have um the next item is approve the board of school estimate meeting minutes. And I understand they go back to around 2024.
Is that correct? >> Uh they go back to 2021. >> 2021. Um so some of us up here were not on the board at that time. Is there some advice that someone could give us as to whether
we can act on this? >> Yes. >> Button. Okay. Yeah. >> So, um there isn't there isn't a prohibition on the fact that you weren't on the board at the time. Um as I understand it, this was discovered um when there was an open request received
for certain minutes. Um the business office then reviewed all of the video recordings of the meetings and prepared the minutes based upon the actual video video recordings of them. So essentially at this point you're approving the business offic's work to create these
minutes. Um and so again you don't need to have been at them to approve them. >> Okay. >> Did we receive them? >> They're they're on the website. >> Oh, >> I'm gonna I'm gonna I'm sorry. >> I'm not going to vote. >> I'm going to motion to table it until the next meeting. And if if it could be
distributed to the members to at least review the written record before we approve them. >> Yeah. I can't vote on something I haven't read. >> Okay. It's been moved and seconded that we table. All in favor? >> I >> I Okay. Uh discussion items. We have three
discussion items this evening. One is the role and purpose of the board of school estimate. Second is the discussion of the district's finances and third what proposals might be coming to the board of school estimate. So uh
let's start with the role and purpose of the board of school estimate. Oh, we have behind us. Or do we have it behind us? >> Uh, thank you. I'll be brief here. Um, >> good. >> Good. That's what we want.
>> Um, and my name is Patrick Carrick. I'm the board attorney for the South Orange Maplewood Board of Education. Um I was asked to prepare a brief presentation on the role of the board of school estimate for tonight. So this is my brief presentation of that. Uh basically in short the board of
school estimate of a type two school district a type two school district is one with an elected board as opposed to an appointed board. This is an elected board. Uh the board of school estimate has two primary roles. It's to fund capital projects at the request of the board of education or to authorize
what's called additional funding or sometimes referred to as a separate proposal and that's when the board of education wants to exceed the permissible tax levy and other exceptions and ask for additional tax levy.
So with respect to capital projects, essentially what happens in those situations is the board of education uh identifies its need for capital projects that are going to be supported by bonds. It goes through a process with the state to get authorization for the issuance of
bonds and and approval of the project. And then they take a vote. The vote that they take there has to have a twothird support. And then once they have that twothird support, they send that to the board of school estimate for approval. Um there's a magic window of time for
the board of school estimate approval, which is between 15 days and 30 days after the board uh sends over the certified costs um and the proposed project. Um and so this has happened a few times since I've been board attorney
with respect to capital projects. Uh in terms of how a board of school estimate works with respect to a budget, it receives a copy of the board's base budget uh and that's about it. Uh the board goes through the process every spring to submit a budget for uh to the
DOE. It goes through a county approval process. As part of that process a as a courtesy it is sent to the board of school estimate but the BOSE ultimately does not have any role in approving the base budget for the board of education
that differs with a type one district where the board of school estimate does have a role in approval um but that's a different set of circumstances that doesn't apply here. What they do uh have a role in is if in that base budget the board of education
asks for a separate proposal to raise the tax levy. Uh from time to time boards of education feel that the limitation on what they can raise which is usually capped at 2% plus certain exceptions to exceed it is not enough and so they'll come to a board of school
estimate to ask for additional tax levy. uh where a school district has a board of school estimate, it essentially replaces a referendum where a board goes out to a public question to the voters to then pass the additional tax levy. So
this substitutes for that. Um and so there's a separate process for uh the proposal or the SE proposal proposal or additional funds. Essentially the board prepares two budgets. a base budget that's going to meet thorough and
efficient education and then a secondary one that would include that separate proposal where they're telling the board of school estimate, these are the additional things that we would like you to fund through additional tax levy. And once they go through that process, if the BOS approves it, it'll become part
of the tax levy going forward in perpetuity. If the BOS does not uh support it, then those additional funds don't come in and the board still proceeds under its base budget. I I have a lot of information in terms of the technical processes for it, but I
don't think we need all that tonight since it's not really before us. Um, every year the uh state issues an election calendar/budget calendar. And so my last slide, that election calendar specifies when the board of school
estimate gets its version of the base budget. Uh and again that's all it gets in this situation because they don't do the the any vote on it. Um if there was a separate proposal to be sent to them then there is a process through that election calendar as to when they are
going to vote to approve the separate proposal or not. South Orange Maplewood is one of the few districts in the state that has a board of school estimate for a type two school district. I could only find two others. Uh, one in Paya County and one in Bergen
County. Um, it's got one of the only cases that I could find that relates to um the processes for approval. What this case basically says is that um to approve a a separate proposal or to
approve um a capital project, you need a majority of the board of school estimate. But because there are two members of the board of school estimate that are school board members themselves, there's a little bit different counting that goes on. And so in this particular case, what they
basically said is you need a majority of the township members um but not necessarily um a majority in both townships. And so ultimately the decision was a majority of the members of the full BO BOSC need to support the
proposal. Um a majority of the members appointed by the participating townships need to support. So in a situation where you have six members three and three from two towns um if one town has two members vote against and one member four, you don't have a majority of that
town. But if the other town all three were to vote, now you've got four there against the two on the other side. you do have a majority of the townships represented and that is sufficient for passage of the separate proposal or additional funding.
So essentially what they said is two members of a town do not have veto power over everyone else. Um and that's pretty much it. >> Thank you. Could we have we might have some questions. I don't know if you want to do it there or over here. >> Whatever is best.
>> Okay. Anyone have any questions? I I have a question. Um I haven't served on the board of school estimate for a long time, but I remember the debates at that time as to whether or not members of the board of school estimate could
substitute their own judgment on uh budget items. And I think at that time we were doing courtesy reviews of the operating budget and people were wondering why you know they wanted to move around items. I I remember being
told that we have no authority to move around items. Is that correct? >> So now with respect to a base budget for a school district, since you don't vote at all, there's there's nothing to do there. Um years ago when elections were
in April and you used to send out your budgets to the voters or to the board of school estimate. Um the board of school estimate obviously since it represents the voters it could say no to a budget and then there was a process for a defeated budget. Uh in townships that
had voters vote on it. There was a process for a defeated budget. So that's how it used to apply. Once the change was made by law to go to the 2% cap to go to November elections um you didn't have to go to the town anymore in a similar way. You didn't have to go to the board of school estimate anymore.
And so that's been now for quite some time since 2008 or nine or so. Um in terms of what you do now with the two areas that you do have involvement in um with the additional funding, the separate proposals, you're limited to
the separate proposal for the most part because they're presenting to you this is what we need for these additional things. There's already a base budget that's going to meet thorough and efficient education that is if you defeat that, the base budget's just going to go through anyway and that'll
be how the district is funded going forward. With regard to capital projects, this is where there's a little bit possibly more nuance there. Um, again, you're representing the voters. You're going to authorize what you think is appropriate in terms of the capital
projects that are presented to you. um depending on how they're presented. Sometimes it's, you know, a single project with one funding. It's really hard to divide that up. Sometimes it's split up into different things and you may have different yeses and no votes on those separate proposals. Um so there's
a little bit more discretion for board of school estimate matters with members with regard to capital projects. Again, depending on how they are presented to the BOS. If, for example, there's four items presented and you vote yes on three and no on one, then the board of
education has to determine, okay, are we going to be good with that and move forward with that, they can pass another proposal after the fact, you know, accepting the funds and moving forward. Um, they can rely upon their initial that they passed all four, they accept, you know, they accepted three, we'll
just rely on the initial that, you know, that's fine. Uh but outside of what's proposed to you, you really can't go in line item veto it. >> So let's let's say on a capital budget they they come to us with four items that total $100.
Um and we say we want to spend A, B, and C, but we don't want to spend D. You're saying we can do that? >> Yes. If if it is presented to the board of school estimate as four options with four separate abilities to vote on. Yes. If it was packaged as one when presented
to the board of school estimate, then you're really voting on just one project. Um it really depends on how it's ultimately presented. Um if you decide I want to just do A, B, and C and not D, then it kind of goes back to the
board of education to say well do we want to do that at all? Because it's not the project necessarily the total projects that we submitted. It's not unlike uh uh the house sending it to the senate. the Senate approves something else and then it goes back to the House and they decide do we want to approve what the Senate gave us or do we want
to, you know, scrap it all together or go back to the Senate again. >> But we would not have a right in that same example to say we want to fund A, B, and C and we don't want to fund D, but we want to use that $25 to add to A.
>> Yeah, that would not be appropriate. >> Any questions? Okay, thank you very much. >> All right, our next item is the um school the district finances. Thank you, Mayor Dooka. Jason Bing, our
superintendent, and I will kind of double team this process, but I'll lead off. Um again, Imani Moody, school business administrator. Um, as we all know, budgeting in the state of New Jersey for all the school districts remains a challenge with the
major burden being on local taxpayers for the 2% property tax cap. And we we find that to be an inequitable funding formula. We've been advocating across the state. Superintendent has spoken in Trenton. Um, and we've essentially been
underfunded for years due to that cap. Our current outlook as we navigate the budget process is that we began with probably around an $8 million funding projected funding shortfall for next year. In the process
where we've uh interfaced with senior district leadership, with our board, with uh budget advisory committees, and explored lots lots of ideas. Essentially, we've whittleled that down to a preliminary budget gap of around 3
million. Now, we anticipate being able to actually balance this budget within um our statutory tax levy within the allowances in that tax levy. We do not foresee uh sending a separate question to the board of school estimates. We
have some some guiding uh principles in our process. We are committed to uh you know zero reductions in force. This is what we're having as one of our guiding principles in our funding proc and our uh balancing process for the district
budget for next year. And we're continuing to scrutinize all vacancies uh whether through resignation deter termination or attrition before rehiring. We've done a lot of that work within this budget year uh to allow for the right sizing of the staff across the
district. So, we do have strategic priorities. That is, we're attempting to protect our classrooms and educators and support staff from reductions in force. We're maximizing the usage of our current staff. Uh we want to ensure
competitive compensation for our teachers and make sure that they're fairly rewarded. Uh and we also are committed to maintaining safe and supportive environments with our through our facilities work. Uh that's a difficult challenge given the the uh age
of our security of our uh facilities. We're also working towards operational efficiency by really re renegotiating any contract that's available for renegotiation trying to engage in structural change initiatives within those contracts um to just optimize
them. And uh we're also looking at bringing in uh new in-house skilled labor. We did that for our prior year budget and we're continuing to look at that. Um, essentially we regard this particular inflection point as a a call
for partnership across the community and uh helping to advocate for changes in the funding formula, but then also to, you know, bear with the district as it makes tough choices that uh limit the skyrocketing expenditures and uh are
continuing to operate within the the limitations of our revenue sources. that that being the uh the cap on taxation. So, I mean, that's what I'll lead with, but uh if you want to supplement Oh, good. Thank you.
>> Um, I don't I don't think we need to go into detail about how arduous the budget cycle is for us as well as municipalities. We we have a 2% cap currently and we have a state funding formula that doesn't benefit the South Orange Baywood
school district. We've been underfunded by about Jeffrey this is your cue about a million and a half every year >> 1.6 million for this current school year >> about 1.6 every year we've gone down to Trenton to advocate and I think LA our last discussion was hopefully going down collectively
um so it's the same wicked cycle that we're caught in every single year. Um for us it's obviously revenue is not there. It never will be there. We're a public school system. Um
we really rely on retirement attrition. Uh we rely on efficiencies of services. Um this district in particular has kind of tapped its efficiencies privatizing almost everything close to a decade ago. Uh there is not a service
that we currently use that is controlled in-house. Whether it's custodial, security, busing, everything has been privatized over the last 10 years. uh some of our work over the last year and a half has been re-examining that ideology that we'll be saving money
through private privatization which you do to start off with and then it levels off and and that's where we are right now. So for us, uh, we brought back skilled maintenance workers last budget. We put that in. That has saved us, and I do not have the correct numbers, but
we've had about five pipe bursts and flooding over the last two months, and we have a plumber on staff who's able to go in and work instead of calling a private person in and paying through the nose. So, we're looking really to invest in long-term things that are going to
pay off, such as our special services programming. Uh last year we expanded some of our special education programming to keep kids in district. Right now we're averaging $120,000 per year per student that goes out of district including
transportation. Uh so we expanded our ERRI program. Um we're now expanding that again to keep kids inhouse and we're also opening that up to other districts. So currently I believe we have about four tuitions from other districts that don't have these programs. Um and we brought them in. Um
right now we're also working on some audits whether that's energy uh whether that's custodial uh just to really see if hey are are we utilizing our personnel correctly uh are we utilizing our energy correctly we know we're not uh you've seen our
buildings they are quite old uh so we're looking not only at a behavior change which is a no investment uh and also uh an EIP which is LED lighting your solar panels Uh and hopefully some of that will be
covered by the state. Um so for the last two years we've been doing a zerobased budget just literally going over line by line. Uh any positions as Ammani noted that do not need to be filled we are not filling. We transferred I would say
around 50 people last year to vacancies that would normally be filled with outside hires. uh saving probably close to around three and a half to $4 million. >> Yeah, I would say that's a good estimate. >> Um and that's the plan this year as well. Um we have already done a
personnel audit. That was part of our work last year. So we know everyone's certification. We know where they are. So if we do have vacancies, we're looking inhouse instead of looking to hire. Um, for us, I think moving forward, some of our sweet spots are those privatizations, whether it's
paras, whether it's lunch aids, um, whether it's busing. Right now, we're possibly looking at bringing in some vans to the district to handle our, uh, McKenna Bento students, um, that we have to pay a 55 passenger bus to bring 10 kids or maybe eight kids. Um, and right
now with new legislation, we can pay a teacher a stipen to drive that bus as long as it drive that van as long as it's seven kids or under. So, uh, yeah, we're looking at a variety. Our big switch over the last three months has been health insurance. Um, we would not have been able to survive the state
increase of 33%. Um, we had to get out. So, we're now in a private fund. Uh, we worked closely with our associations uh, and made that switch. So the our current insurance is only increasing 11% instead of the 33% that was planned. Um
so we're looking at everything at this point. We're also going out for requests for proposals for the first time probably in about seven or eight years for for a good majority of our services. Uh one to keep our vendors honest and two to see what rates we can get from
different folks around the state. Uh we're also working we have a new transportation action committee. We're working pretty hard to lower our transportation costs. I mean at this point we believe we've made some inroads into that uh that hopefully we'll be
sharing over the next couple weeks but we're still working on it. Uh anyone who's traveled in the morning knows that this town is getting more and more congested on our end. We're trying to take buses off the street and trying to optimize times when those buses are on the street where people aren't driving
to work or people aren't driving to school. So, we're we're looking at a wide variety of things right now. We're also hoping uh I know Senator Senator Ruiz has uh some legislation out there about funding
infrastructure. We're hoping uh that uh the new governor coming in will possibly bring back a form of SDA. uh she knows more than anyone that these buildings are falling apart. Uh it's not just particular us where you go, we have
some of the oldest schools in the country. That's the reality. Uh and we need that 40% to cover those infrastructure changes. So we're hoping that'll that'll come down the pike as well. Um so yeah, it's it's that same wicked
cycle. We've talked about it for years. It's it's it has not changed. And this new funding formula has been fully funded as of last year and it is not benefiting us nor will it until something changes shared services as well. We just had a
good conversation with Nance. Uh we'll continue those conversations with the towns in regards to seeing what we can share. >> Okay, great. Um any questions? So just so we're clear. Um,
well, thank you for all the work that you've done to to close the gap. And what you've said to us is that there will not be a separate proposal for additional funding. Is that correct? >> We do not anticipate doing making a separate proposal. No, we're uh
attempting to really fund the budget within uh the statutory tax cap, >> which is a 2% cap. >> 2% and then any associated waiverss. >> Right. right now and I think you're getting the questions as well as we are because we just submitted our long-range
facility plan about I'd say five months ago. >> Uh so for us and we do and we've talked about this uh before it is not a spending plan. I get a lot of emails saying what are you spending 150 million? It is not a spending plan. It is a wish list we submit to the state is
required by the state every five years so we can apply for funding if the state does decide to do bring back something like SDA or rod grants or something. It's required to submit if we want to apply for those grants. It is not a spending plan. Uh we just made the
transition to a new director of facilities. So so Tom left us uh who was wonderful. So we just switched over um to Henry. So he took a look at our long range facility plan which we prioritized with one, two or three. One being the job needs to be done within a year, year
and a half. Uh we took that list and then really ran down everything in the district uh that needed to be done by code uh or safety. So we're now at about 10 and a half to 12 million that we believe
we could finance ourselves over the next three years. uh to to make those fixes. So that's where we currently sit with the longrange facility plan. >> Great. Any comments or questions? >> Go ahead.
>> Anybody else have anything? >> No. >> Oh, okay. So, when you talk about the 2% cap, um it's one of my favorite topics because, you know, it was introduced under Chris Christiey's era. And what was interesting is that um and it is partisan is that all these exemptions
were carved out like it was almost like gerrymandering but then those in control of the legislature never said okay we need to stop referring to this as a 2% cap um because the unfunded obligations that are going to schools and to municipalities far exceed anything close
to a 2% cap. You can't be in the state health benefits plan as we are see a 33% increase in over 110% increase in 5 years and then be expected to live by a 2% cap and when pension obligations are far exceeding anything close on the municipal side to a 2% cap. So it's very
disingenuous not from the board but from the state to keep calling it a cap because it's not really a cap. They've drawn out so many exemptions. What are the major drivers of exemptions that are within the school district budget that fall outside of that appropriations cap?
>> So just real sorry real quick. So as you recall when Christy put this in place there had to be Sheen and correct me if I'm wrong probably about 40 exemptions. >> Yeah, >> that list has been now diminished to about I think they're at 15 or I think about 15 right now.
>> Um one of those and I'll let Ammani How many is it? I know they've slowly reduced >> um for school districts the exemptions are enrollment healthcare and then like in theory we get a pension exemption but our pension obligations are very very small so that hasn't been a big factor
in why we've gone above 2% so many years but enrollment certainly and healthcare and incidentally about enrollment you know like after co our enrollment actually fell by 800 students and then it slowly rebounded although not to the point it was before co so works kind of like a ratchet actually we get
enrollment adjust um adjustments for our rebound even though it's only a partial rebound. So if hypothetically like our enrollment had fallen from like 7100 to 6,700 which is what it is for K12 right now we wouldn't have gotten a tax act adjustment but actually since it's like rebounded from like you know under 6500
to now like in the 6700 range we do get an an adjustment >> for those you don't remember the history it there was well >> I'm not going to say anything about Christie um so you know there was good intent behind before Christie
uh not allowing districts to go to the 12. I mean, there were districts going to 12%, 8%, 9%. So, they wanted to find a balance. 2% wasn't a balance in our humble opinion. Uh and they're still not there yet. They've been arguing this for >> years. Yeah. >> Um but I mean, when we went down to the
state funding formula, you know, the way they are currently funding districts just doesn't benefit us at all. and it's leaving money on the table that we should be getting. >> Can you explain the enrollment exemption because we don't we don't have that on
the municipal side. So, I'd like to just Yeah, I'd speak to the various different uh waiverss as we call them. Okay. Uh and the ones that are the major ones that are applicable, you know, for us uh as Mr. Bennett mentioned, it's uh health care costs, enrollment, and then uh
additional participation in the employer share of uh PERS. Okay. Now um what we do see is that uh again you know the waiverss that will be explored are associated with healthcare. Clearly
we're seeing skyrocketing health care costs even uh and after the circumstance that we've made we've anticipated this and changed away from the state plan um to a plan that's self-insured that we anticipate much less in the way of
projected growth. However, to the extent that there is that growth, then we would be allowed to uh apply for that waiver as well. Right. >> Okay. >> Um so that's now from an enrollment standpoint, we're currently at about 7,143 students. Um and the DOE has
estimated that we'll grow to 7,217 students. That's an increase of 74 students. So that would make for an enrollment waiver as well. It would be much smaller, but uh it would have some financial impact. >> But what do you mean? Yeah. Like when
you say enrollment, is there a a a dollar amount associated with the student that anything above that amount is considered a waiver? >> Well, no. Meaning when there is growth year-over-year in your enrollment and that growth eclipses a certain uh
percentage, I believe it's around two 2%. Uh >> then you well actually the money follows the the student, right? So if you're if you're projected to have an increase in students, you're going to have an increase in your enrollment based uh uh
funding. So currently we're looking at a situation where the numbers that we're working with are a move from 7143 to 7217. Uh we anticipate that having about a $40,000 impact. >> Okay. So it's nothing significant.
>> And I think we are, and correct me if I'm wrong, I think we are back to prepandemic numbers. I think our hit or yeah, we were at 7,100 was our high. >> If you include preK students who are at the preandemic level, but just for K12,
we're still down by a few hundred students. >> But board member Bennett, you probably remember better than all of us because you are a walking Wikipedia. Um, is that when we had the demographic report that was presented to the district is that it int anticipated I think the district would be close to 8,000 students at this
point, right? Or something close to it. I do remember that 2017 demographic report and it predicted like in this year we'd have like 7,500 students. >> Okay. >> Um which has just turned out to not be the case as we all know. >> Okay. >> Um but there's actually a long history of demographic reports going um back
which have been very erroneous. Like in like the 1960s they predicted like we'd have like 10,000 students and then the 1970s they were predicting like our enrollment would like crash to like 5,000 students. So there's a long history of demographers getting it wrong. Although our most recent demographic report which was done in
2023 um is much more accurate. >> Okay. >> And in like the early 2010s my first board term like then the demographers got it right. But the 2017 demographic part report did end up being erroneous. >> Well, it's good to know that our enrollment is back to the preandemic levels.
>> So the latest uh demographic they used two formulas. >> So they used the one that our state software utilizes and they are literally one off last year. That's how close they were. The other formula they used was an experience formula that said we were going to be dropping in student
population which was interesting. So the state formula has really held up pretty strongly. >> Okay, great. Any other questions? >> You're good. >> Hold on one second. So, um, you also referenced that as a
part of the $150 million wish list outside of this existing long-range facilities plan is that 10 and a half to 12 million have been identified as code or safety related. Is that correct? And so, you're anticipating even though you're not coming back to us for $150 million and you shouldn't, is that the
next round of long range facilities requests to the board of school estimate will start off with the code and safety related items or No, >> we we're going to be handling those. That's the plan for the next three years. We're going to handle that >> within your existing budget. >> We want to handle that 10 and a half million. >> Okay. So that's 10 and a half to 12 million. That's good to know also. And
then something we discussed on the budget uh advisory committee and something that I think u the district is rightfully addressing is your fund balance right now. >> And so uh could you speak a little bit more less to perhaps maybe us but more to the public about the strategy for the
fund balance um to make sure that you're in a good financial position? Yeah, we just spoke with the county the county BA uh today. So, let me give you a little summary of it. >> Sure. >> Absolutely. So, um in last year's budget process, uh folks may recall that my
central theme was the decline in fund balance and the fact that we needed to alter course. Um so, in the 2526 budget, we did uh consider around it was 13.852 852 million to be used of
of fund balance. Now there is a component of that which is given to us by our auditors uh which is about 6.893 million and then we did which which we had to put aside for use and then there was a component that was our maintenance
reserve of 2.5 million. Okay. So that maintenance reserve funded a lot of our 2526 maintenance efforts. That said, we do project that we'll be returning about a million of that maintenance reserve back to to our maintenance reserve from this budget year. Um, we
also anticipate that in this uh 2627 budget year, we'll bring down the dollar amount of uh intended use of fund balance considerably. will be uh saving money in the 2526 year for use in the
2627 year to the tune of around 5 a.5 million. Uh so the the full dollar amount of fund balance use that we anticipate would go down from about 13.8 to about 11. Now within this recapitulation of fund balances, it's
the major story affecting all school districts. Essentially, we by statute must actually save certain amounts for the two subsequent years, but we're also called upon to save within our current budget year to move
forward dollars for our next year and also to replenish reserves. Uh it's a multi-year process. It's one that the district, you know, currently has to engage in. It's sort of lessening its dependence on using fund balance that we save in a prior year by making structural change within the school
district. Now, that structural change can come from, you know, lessening the number of buses in our transportation contract, lessening lessening the number of custodians we deploy across the district, lessening the number of security, you know, it there has to be structural change to do the savings to
be able to bring monies back to fund balance. uh and sequential years. So, that's that's what's driving our our budget process year-over-year, but it is a multi-year process to to add back to those reserves and to add back to fund balance. >> Follow up if I can, Mr. Chair. And and
I've been really impressed the way that you're talking about that because we're we're a little crazy on the municipal side about the fund balances and um utilization of it for, you know, the years. What I didn't hear is I you said $13.8 million used. What is your typical
balance? Not not the utilization, but where is your balance sitting at? >> Yeah. And that's that's what is a very difficult question that's typically faced by auditors and and and BAS around the state. There's no typical, right?
There is use of fund balance. There is uh you know um suggested fund balance to to have to be safe for subsequent years. But you know it is there for us to actually use when necessary to balance subsequent year budgets. But we have to
you know derive our our our efforts towards lessening that use and adding back to it. Now there's no we've we've badgered our auditors and various folks around the state with that question as well. What is the optimal percentage fund balance? And it's never a direct question. Um it really depends and
that's the answer we always get. >> No, I understand that. But like if you have a $200 million operating budget today, how much do you have in fund balance? >> Well, I mean, I could pull up the audit and show what as of the end of fiscal year 25, yeah, >> what we had in fund balance. Uh, and
then I could, you know, look at financials to see where where we currently are and what we project to be at the end of year. But I don't have the audit in front of me. But I do know that uh >> well, I'm looking at budget documents now, so I'm looking at how we're using fund balance, not the static level at a
particular time. I could give you that information by looking at our >> that would actually be really helpful too because we're actually both towns have I think spent a lot of time building our fund balance. So I would say that you know we have a $55 million operating budget. We have $13 million in fund balance, right? Um so we've been
building and we know that we get the impacts of >> increasing in bond ratings when we get those nice little notices like you're doing a good job. And um again, we it's not money to be spent. But what we did do uh was pass a policy is that we would never spend uh money from the fund
balance and the preceding year budget unless we were fully confident that we could replenish it. Um so we're we're almost getting to that place of maintenance right now. So it would be and I I don't know for school districts, I'm sure everybody says, you know, it's either a month of expenses, three months of expenses, 20% of your budget. what
what is the best practice that your CFO and auditors are recommending so that we have an idea for your operating budgets moving forward as not only what you can apply to your operating budget but how much you have to set aside to get to that optimal number over the next 5 years. >> Yeah. And I'd be happy to come back to
you with with a thought process on that. But what I'm saying is that in our efforts to zero in on that very, you know, the way you positioned it, it was very straightforward. 200 million, you know, we set a level, we don't want to go beneath it, and you make your decisions accordingly. But because of the fact that school districts are
actually called upon to use that fund balance and replenish it, I think more more um frequently, uh it becomes a more of a complex answer to what is the optimal level. But I can gather some some thoughts on that from our auditors uh and workshop that internally and get
you some information. >> That that would be really helpful. That's it, Mr. Chair. >> Thank you. Anyone else have any questions? Okay. So, um that was very helpful. And now let us go
into what proposals you're contemplating bringing to the board of school estimate. Okay. Well, so I think it's been said already here today that we're not contemplating coming up with a a big array of projects
to then come back to the board of school estimates with. What we have done is consistent with our requirements set forth a long range facilities plan that we have to do every uh five years. Right? That's our grand wish list of everything that we could contemplate.
So, we do that as a matter of due course. But within that long-range facilities plan, we have over the transition, our facilities directors uh put our eyes on exactly what we believe to be urgently necessary. So, we set
priority levels. The priority level one assessment kind of rendered about a $10.2 million array of projects. Now, that's not to say $10.2 $2 million is the dollar amount of the impending bond request. No, what we're saying is that
the $10.2 million in more urgent complianceoriented projects in our schools uh is will be our guiding light in subsequent budget years. So each of the next three years, we'll be looking at that list and deciding how we can
whittle down that list uh through locally funded sources. So that's our that's our plan. uh we don't have like a um an outlook of when we're going to come back for a large ask. I think you know we're we're attempting to to really handle that stuff local through local
our local budget. Um but uh I mean we know we're on the heels of $187 million bond issuance over 2019 to 24. We know that we're uh currently contemplating a Ritzer project which is a worthwhile project. It is a buildings and grounds project that would enhance the district.
But that's that's the lay of the land for us currently. >> So what's what's on table, excuse me, what's on the table right now uh is the richer project as you know. Uh it's the richer field at about uh 7,745,692.
Uh it's the South Orange Middle School, their theaters at around 936,000. It's the Maplewood Middle School Auditorium around uh 2.2 million. Uh so
you're looking at a total of around 10.8 10.9. >> Anything else? >> Anything else? No, don't plan on bringing anything else uh to you all. I mean, we do want obviously part of this work is getting feedback
and just hearing from our colleagues in regards to, you know, maybe you should be doing this, maybe you should be doing that. For us, that's what we're hoping to get um and what you think the priority should be and bring that back to uh to our group.
Okay. >> Questions? Yep. >> Anyone have questions? Okay, committee member Adams, >> thank you. Um, so we've all been hearing obviously from
residents, but also just observing what's going on in schools. What we're hearing when we're not having this kind of discussion is things like facilities like literally bathrooms in Columbia High School where students aren't even
going to the bathroom because they're so bad. We're hearing other facilities inside the different schools like the Seth Bdon gym is unusable, completely unusable to where they're doing gym classes in the classrooms. Um so how
does that not get a prior those things and others like them not get a priority over say ritzer which is you know not used as a field right now. Um it's except for practices. So I I'd like to
know how basic needs like because if I if my bathroom is unusable I'm going to fix that before I'm going to do any recreational like I'm not putting a tennis court in my yard. You know what I'm saying? >> Yeah. Yeah. So it doesn't make sense to me. >> Yeah. I mean for us Ritzer whether it's
Ritzer whether it's uh playgrounds for our special education students that all falls on the infrastructure for us needed infrastructure. Um we've had these conversations. There are not enough fields in this town. There are not. And we are growing. Our athletic
program is growing. This used to >> I understand. I know what you're saying. I just I want you to answer my question with regard to basic needs as opposed to >> something you you think we we do maybe we need maybe we don't if that's up to
the board of ed to decide but it's also >> it seems to me that the basic stuff is vitally more important. >> So something like you just mentioned Seth Boyd so we're fixing it in house we're not coming to you guys to fix that. uh we're using our our funding uh
and that's really I think when we discussed our the development of our 2526 budget um that was one of our big objectives to really take a look inhouse do an audit uh and put facilities first.
So for and you know this stance I'd say 20 years facilities was the first thing to be cut when they're trying to balance budgets uh in SOSD. Last year was the first year we actually kept money in the budget for facilities. Um and we're starting those repairs that you're
talking about the basic repairs. Those repairs take a long time. They're not I'll take a bathroom for example. If we wanted to upgrade a bathroom you're talking anywhere from six to eight months. We just applied for the state water infrastructure grant uh for our
secondary buildings that we're hoping to receive which will address our bathrooms and our water fountains in those three buildings which those two buildings probably have some of our worst bathroom issues. Uh so we just sent more documentation back to the state a couple
days ago for that grant. Um, so we're hoping to bring in monies from the state as well to fix that. Uh, that was that grant was just put out about seven months ago for the first time in probably about four years. >> And Jason, if I could add something here
because I I understand the nature of your question, right? You're you're talking about relative priority essentially. >> Um, and I think sometimes, you know, uh, you have to look a little bit wider than that. We can't really juxtapose those pose those two things. We have to do uh
we feel compelled to to make adjustments to Ritzer but also we have other efforts going at self Seth Bdon. We know at Seth Bon there's a Seth there's a drainage challenge that's been you know decades
uh you know prior to to our arrival. But what we have earmarked are uh unexpended fund balances from the prior bond issuance that we can redirect towards a sethon drainage project that's actually
on the horizon for us to you know we contracted with some uh an architect and we've scoped out a project to really fix directly address once and for all that Seth Bdon drainage challenge which is the you know the uh lower level gym that
was affected ed by the water access for years. Uh we have to address the source in order to then approach fixing that lower level gym. That project is uh being teed up for consideration across the the fall and into next year for Seth Bdon drainage.
>> So that gymnasium has been fixed twice before >> and flooded again for a third time. >> So this time we're trying to do it right in house. >> Well, you should >> uh which is actually going outside and inside in regards to drainage. Mhm. >> So, as Ammani said, that's something we
had to wait until the summer uh to fix. But, yeah, we we plan on addressing that in-house. We plan on putting money in for its facilities and addressing our our basic needs in house. >> Okay. >> The one other thing I want to add layer in is >> often times u you know,
the complaints around bathrooms could be custodial in nature versus not functioning in nature. Right? So what we're called upon to do is to comprehensively look at our deployment of custodians and our existing contract and then give consideration to the
extent to which we can make adjustments to that that contract. make uh allocation changes to the personnel within that contract. And then also look at uh opportunities to bring uh head custodians back into individual
buildings so that we can have them as staff um you know internally and then uh contract out for the supporting personnel. Right? We're looking at all of those circumstances to attempt to optimize the custodial distribution and and the approach across the district um
so that we can be more proactive. We can also have more agency uh with those personnel being in-house personnel. >> Of course, we have to balance that with the increases in employer share of PERS that that come with that those personnel with increases in workers compensation
uh you know uh fees associated with those personnel. All of that we're uh actively considering and looking at ways to optimize things, optimize deployment uh and costbenefit analysis to to really show movement with those things that we're listening to to what we're hearing
from from the community, from students, from our student representatives and and and trying to approach them with different strategies. >> Our yeah, our our goal is really the basics to do inhouse. I mean, the CHS auditorium is a perfect example that that's being done in house. Mhm. >> We we've just replaced the rigging.
We're now working on the lighting. Uh then we'll work on the on the paint. All that's in house because we we invested in skilled maintenance folks. May take a little longer. Uh but we're paying for that in house. That would normally would have gone out, you know, that for for funding from you all. So, we're trying
to keep stuff in house that we we could manage. I appreciate that and I appreciate um the thorough look looking at all options, but I don't think that applied to Ritzer. Um when we talked whenever the last time we had this
conversation at Bose um about about the field, I specifically asked um did you at least get a bit an idea of what it would cost to in-house maintain a natural grass field and what it would be
to rebuild that field with natural grass given the escalating costs. I mean what when I think it was a little over two million when we first brought up brought up Ritzer as artificial >> A was about 4 point >> no I think it was less than that 2.0
2.4. So now we're at five to6 million more than that. And there's to my knowledge, unless you correct me, which I would love to have be corrected on this, the the district has still not gone out for a comparison for what it
would cost to build a natural grass field and in-house maintenance of that field as such as we're doing at DeHeart. um because the community clearly spoke at least Maplewood community twice through referendum
um against the artificial turf. So we listened to them then. So I've been really frustrated that even getting an estimate so you can compare what it would cost to build it with natural grass and what it would cost as we're
seeing almost $8 million now. >> Yeah. I mean we're and we're in the same boat as you. We're listening to our constituents. It's our students. It's our parents. It's our boosters. >> It's also the residents all saying residents as well. All saying that we need more playability. Now, does that
necessarily mean the expansiveness of >> Does that necessarily see so $8 million for a field that's going to be have to be so it's a million dollars a year for an artificial turf field basically. if it's 8 to 10 life expectancy before it
has to get replaced again over what we're doing um at Dehart is 2 five >> 2.7 >> 2.7 for natural grass of of two fields. So >> okay um >> that I just wanted to get my piece
because I'm really frustrated that no you know bid has gone out for to getting at least an idea of what it would cost. >> Nope. This is the feedback that we're looking for. For us, and I think we've said this a few times, our main goal was meeting our students needs and wants and then playability.
Now, what that may look like in the future, that's really up to the feedback we get. >> Okay. Um, anyone else have questions or we'll go here and then Bill?
>> Thanks. Um, so I am also looking for more information from you on the number and especially what how the number has gone from what we were looking at last August to where we are now with the 7.7. So that kind of detail. Um, as a parent
of kids in the district, I know firsthand the vast needs of the district. Um, you know, I see needs for our special education students, our students who need working elevators, students who need the gym at Seth Bdon, like you mentioned. um you know
chemistry students who need a lab like we have needs definitely um we also need to be looking at um the education for the whole child. So I I think it's no surprise to anyone I am in
support of uh Richerfield. Um as a high school parent in particular, you know, thank you for your email of the mental health crisis. Um you know, happening right here. When we talk about education, we need to be talking about um so much more than just what's
happening in the building because as we all know um it's these other things that our kids are involved in from theater to music to athletics that build the whole child. Um you know and we have seen you know sports provide um this kind of
resilience and team learning and working together um and depending on each other that um we know are components of um social emotional learning which is so important when we have uh kids in the district. So so I am a supporter of this
plan. I want to hear more about this these numbers because you know we are all seeing tax increases and you know we on on the municipal side are working really hard to try and keep things as low as possible. Um you know I'm on the senior advisory committee and we talk
all the time about how people are getting uh priced out of our town and they want to be able to stay here. They want to age in place and they want to live here. Um you know and so this is important. These these numbers are really high. I would like to have more clarity. Um, I think a sideby-side
comparison would be really helpful. Um, I know that the the maintenance of the fields is a really really um difficult piece and it's expensive. And I'll be honest, even though we in Maplewood are
looking at Deart as a grass field, we don't yet have a plan for how we're going to adequately be able to maintain this field in the way that needs to be man maintained. If you look at the baseball fields over at Underh Hill,
they're they are in not their grass fields. They're not in great shape. Um I mean our teams are ridiculed sometimes for you know the the poor shape that they are in. Um and you know you need to have dedicated staff like I know you're
talking about not hiring any more staff. Are you able to hire maintenance like field like field maintenance individuals people that will be there after school and on weekends who can keep up the mowing keep up all of the you know these fields need to be releveled every several years. You need to have all the
edging. you need to have the mound built up. Um, I mean, there's a lot that goes into the maintenance and you can't just put it off on the people that you already have. Like, this is a specialized area. So, yes, to Miss Adam's point in terms of getting a cost comparison, but but I want to see real
numbers of what it actually costs because that's expensive. >> Um, and as you said, you know, we've got more and more um needs of these fields. Um, >> so we're also waiting. So, we're in a bit of a holding pattern right now because we're also waiting to see what
the debt service relief will be on that that project. >> Okay. >> Which may be anywhere from 25% to 40%. >> So, we're currently waiting on those numbers right now, which obviously will play a big impact um for us. Also, we upgraded
um the storm water system as per what we were hearing um significantly updated it from the original plan. Uh so we updated that irrigation system as well as you noted for the natural grass but I also think that's a conversation as well for
shared services. You know if if the decision is made that we want more natural grass out there then that's I I was the superintendent of a district that had natural grass. It's a four to sixman team that as you noted is just dedicated to the fields or woman team
that's just dedicated to the fields. So that's discussion I think we need to have between the three entities because we can't take that on by ourselves. Um we do not have that fiscal capacity. So that could be a future discussion amongst us. >> Oh we we don't have that capacity either. Maybe South Orange can do it.
They've got >> they've got a lot of field people. >> You have more. >> Yeah. I want to ask specifically to correct the record on a couple of things that I've seen. Um the project adventure would not be lost in any of these plans. Is that correct? >> Correct. So, as of last time, we had uh
I would say about two months ago, we had Project Adventure in um and they gave us an assessment of what needed to be upgraded >> in in regards to the equipment. So, uh we were thinking about doing both at the same time where we would upgrade some of the equipment out there. It would be
pushed back about I think it was five feet. Nothing would change though. Everything would stay the same. It would be about a five feet push back and we would get new poles. >> Okay. Okay. >> We just had that in about two months ago. >> And things like the walking path, uh,
seating for lunch, some grass areas, trees, to the >> still there in the in the current plan we just submitted. >> Okay. Thank you. That's helpful. Um, and then I just wanted to also um check on the um the use because I believe that
there are um you're growing in terms of the sports that you're offering. I mean, we talk about football, baseball, softball, soccer, but then there's also al obviously ultimate because we're the home of it, but um I've been hearing a lot about um girls flag football is a
big one. Um and so we've got a lot of use like a lot of needs like can you like share a little bit about these the needs of the field and and why you see this as so critical? This is one of the ones you've listed as a critical item. Yeah, I mean we we have a substantially
growing athletic department on our end and then we also obviously have recreation as well. I I would say I receive about five or six emails from either private clubs or recreation a week in regards to field usage that we just don't have that we have to deny on
a regular basis. Um so part of our work is not only working with the clubs, we're also looking at a partnership with Satan Hall if some sort of richer project would have gone would go through. Um that's a partnership that I think would grow our relationship with Satan Hall because it's other than a
couple dual enrollment classes. We don't have much of a relationship with them. Uh and they're also in need of fields. For us also it's an opportunity for revenue growth whether that's tournaments, hosting tournaments, things of that nature. It provides another revenue stream as well for us. Um, and
it also provides an opportunity for us to keep our homegrown students here. What we're finding is we have a really solid wreck program and solid private athletic programs, soccer clubs, things of that nature and most of our top tier athletes are cherrypicked and they're
going to your seat and hall prep or going to other schools. And you know, 99% of that is because of the facilities they can offer. They're gorgeous facilities and and host not only statewide tournaments but national tournaments as well. So there's some opportunities for growth there uh if
you're looking five 10 years out. >> And yeah, sorry, one more question. Just following on that you um one other thing I've heard, is it true that um scouts coming for like colleges um having you know having fields that our athletes
could play on also helps in that area? I'm I don't think that many of them get these scholarships right now. Again, our one of our main goals is to not abandon the fact that we're we are a great academic high school. We send kids to some of the top universities in the
country. Our arts program is probably one of the best around the state. We're still trying to grow that. The athletic side of the house needs support. Uh we did a nice job in my humble opinion of hiring a new athletic director uh Adam
Newark who's looking to really grow this program significantly and part of that growth it is fields um and I know she spoke at one of our last meetings but she ran through the list of what she deals with on a regular basis trying to schedule our private clubs our wreck our
kids our different levels our freshman JV senior teams it's tough we also work with Satan Hall. They use they use Underh Hill. Their track team uses Underh Hill. Um and every I'd say 3 months it seems like a new private club
has been created either in South Orange or Matewood and they're requesting field usage. >> But when we're talking about equity, for example, the school sports are not a private club. So school sports anyone can play. And so this is really the only
opportunity for children who don't have the means to join a private club to participate and and possibly earn a scholarship. >> Right. And and to be very honest with you, we're we're seeing some fruits of our labor. Last year, our girls softball team made it to the state finals. Uh we
have one of the best Gatorade athletes in the nation right now on that softball team. Uh and honestly, if you talk to a lot of these kids, one of the reasons they were staying is because they thought a field was coming three years ago. Uh and you talk to these boosters
and families. Uh and we and that's a whole another side of the coin. We have a very strong booster parents who who want more. And right now we have a separate um subcommittee for our board looking for alternative revenue streams. Uh, and a lot of that focuses on our
prior a athletes and also on our 30 to 40 to 50 alumni. We do a decent job with alumni 55 and older. We don't do too good of a job with alumni between 30 and 50. Uh, so the board formed the
subcommittee about four months ago and we're trying to work on those revenue streams as well. So, as noted, we're looking for different revenue streams, whether it's grants, whether it's uh bringing in-house folks in to save us money. We're looking for a variety of revenue streams, especially around
athletics to make sure we have one of the top tier programs in the state. I mean, we we do believe our kids deserve that. >> Okay. I'm going to I'm going to um Councilman Haskins. >> Uh thank you and thanks you all for
doing this and uh bringing us us up to speed on this that are new. Um I want to ask a couple questions. When the community is reaching out to me, um what they're talking about is priorities. Um what's next? What should we do next?
That's what they're talking about and that's what they're reaching out to me about. and um they're using information that's been provided in the public. So, they're looking at the last uh long range facility plan um presentation that you guys did. It's a wish list. I I get
it. I understand that. Um but just to pick two items from that list, accessibility and bathrooms. So, those are what the public's reaching out to me to talk about and uh thinking that maybe maybe that should be next. And so, um,
when I'm hearing you guys address those things tonight, um, one of the things I think I need to understand is when you say, "Hey, we're going to do those things in house." But then when we step up one bullet point in the agenda, you know, it feels like there's a
relationship between our current operating budget and what we can do inhouse, right? Um, and it seems like we're a little short right now. things are tight. And when we were on that budget line, when we were on that bullet point, we're actually talking about less
busing, less custodial services, and less maintenance. But then when we talk about solving our bathroom issues, we're like, hey, maybe more custodial services. So, I'm kind of trying to square like what what does inhouse mean? Because it seems like in-house things
are really tight. So, you know, then, you know, to go a little more specifically, like when you look at the Seth Bdon gem issue there, this is something that's not like just now. This has been on the radar for a long time.
And if we were going to deal with it in house, we've had that chance. And I just feel like when I hear how tight things are in house that it feels like that priority might get um put off. So maybe there's another way to make that kind of
thing a priority. >> Yeah, I mean on our end I'll touch on the custodials. Uh so as noted we did a we did a pretty good audit. We're we haven't been 100% satisfactory rate currently with our custodial and again as noted that's
privatized. We we we use a private company. So part of our work around that was the audit and seeing how we can use personnel better than what we're currently utilizing and also making sure we're matching up the square footage with the amount of personnel that we're paying for with the company. So part of
that audit is showing that we're we're not where we should be. We actually should be using less which should reap a decent savings for us. And I go back to the investing in-house and anyone you all have facilities. When you
have somebody who works for the district who works for the district and has, you know, has a stake in the building, that building is is usually maintained and is in really good shape. So, one of our plans moving forward on top of bringing back the skilled maintenance
folks we started bringing back last year is bringing back lead custodians who work for the district and will be in charge of the private teams that are in our schools to make sure these maintenance issues are being caught and taken care of immediately instead of being 20 years down the line where
they're in the shape they're in now. Um, so the water infrastructure grant that I noted we applied for, that's to upgrade our secondary bathrooms and water fountains. Um, knock on wood, I believe we should be receiving that, which will really help with the work we're doing.
Um, but the fact that we did bring in an HVAC guy, a plumber, that's also going to expediate that, expedite that work that we normally went out and paid quite a bit for. Um, so for us, I think we're at a at a better place than we've been in in the past. I can't really speak on
the past. I mean, being here for a year and a half, uh, but we have people in house now that can start these projects. uh and finish them instead of waiting the usual 9 to 11 months that they had to do in the past by using private
vendors. Um you know for us it's having people in the buildings that have a stake in this district and you don't see that with privatized companies no matter how great the company is. And now we're seeing what
that has left us with. So, we've been working on those bathrooms that you noted, the projects at Seth Bdon. They've been fixed three times. They just didn't fix the core problem. They went the cheap route. I'm just going to do a fix. I'm going to fix this pipe. I'm going to put the flooring in and
we're going to go. We brought our plumber in. He noticed that it was a lot more extensive than that. That it included uh French draining. That also included work that needed to be done outside so we wouldn't have continued flooding. Um, so I'm hoping our new
team, our new maintenance team will really get ahead of some of these issues because if you also looked um, in that 10.5 million prioritization, you'll also see a lot of grading, which has never been done here in the past. And a lot of that grading has to
do with the flooding that we're experiencing in a couple of our buildings. >> Yeah, I want to follow up on that a little bit. So, I mean, I I get about doing like in-house maintenance and the efficiencies and the dedication to the to the projects and things like that,
but at a certain point, especially when you have these aging buildings, these are capital projects. So, are we saying that the savings between privatization, you know, going from an outside contractor to bringing somebody inside that we're getting savings from that
approach that that's going to start funding capital scale projects? So, our our biggie, which obviously was the HVAC systems, was done in that last large capital project. Every one of our buildings now has new boilers and HVAC
systems. I think we need to upgrade about two or three more boilers and that's about it. So, from a school perspective in regards to facilities, that's the heart of your operations. Those are all newly upgraded. So issues that they've had in the past
that have required heavy investment, we've now upgraded to 21st techn 21st century technology. Everything's been replaced in that last capital project. So yeah, I do believe now that the heart of our infrastructure has been replaced. uh and the hope and the belief that rod
grants will be coming out from the state um over the next year or so where we can do the roofing that we still have to do um we'll be in a better place than we have been in the last 15 years. I do believe that >> and I just want to add that as it pertains to the Seth Boyd and drainage
challenge, you know, that was a known challenge as superintendent did say the choices that were made in the prior years were to just repair the surface level challenge, right? However, as we move through the uh use of the proceeds
of our bond funds, right, towards the projects that were enumerated and identified at the beginning of the process, it's a sequential process of actually doing that work. Um, as we're closing it all out, we have unexpended balances of probably around $4 million out of all all of that. And the projects
are coming to completion. One of the projects that was considered at the time was to address the Seth Bdon drainage issue. uh about half a million was uh uh allocated towards that. It's just that the scope of the project increased beyond the half a million and so we have
to leverage unexpended balances that were prior authorized to to kind of backfill and and fund that. We've done that at this point and so now we can actually begin the process of working with the architect for setting forth uh a time frame for bidding and submission
of application. So that's in motion. Um, and we want to make that structural change such that we don't have to put the, you know, band-aid on on this in the future. We we want to be able to actually do that so we don't have the so we can then approach the the gym floor
and we know we'll have confidence that a new drainage challenge won't won't exist, right? Um, but to your point, it's not that we're attempting to make new allocation of custodial decisions that will fund a capital project. It's just that we believe that we can more
efficiently operate in terms of repair and maintenance when we redistribute or reallocate staff. We we uh bid out for a portion, but then we have some that have agency and ownership that are hired internally. We just have to do the cost
benefit around the additional uh you know beyond salaries to the fringe benefits and workers comp and and these other uh expenses that grow when you bring in new personnel. So it's a lot of moving parts but uh we believe that our approach as it pertains to facilities is
a solid one. We do know that the change has to be iterative over time. Um but uh you know we also know that we're working with uh you know very old facilities that where we have surprises you know and to be I think we've been pretty transparent for the last year and a half
you know we have a systems issue here. There was a lack of systems in this district, a lack a lack of standard operating procedures in this district. And that from facilities to curriculum and instruction, you name it. A a a
total lack of systems. So over the last year and a half, that's what we're trying to put in place that we hope will remedy a lot of these issues instead of us having to keep come coming to you guys. One of the first things we did was pull all the BOSI requests since what 2012
and we put that as part of our last year budget presentation. There had to be 15 15 requests over since 2013 which I can only speak for Ammani and my and myself.
>> I have to say I think that's exactly what I'm hearing from the public. >> Yeah. is that this backlog of 15 years of of of capital scale improvements for our facilities that you detailed quite well in that presentation that last
presentation people were wondering should should those be the priority? Yeah, I mean for for us after we we saw that uh lengthy list um part of our work around that list was again going back to
our systems and seeing what we can do inhouse. So even with our former director of facilities, we had a plan to address really our major issues in house. We did not want to come to you guys at all. Um, and that's really something we want to stick to for a
while un unless there's a big emergency or something that we really need. Um, we would prefer to really do that, do the work inhouse through through proper and efficient budgeting, through changes in our system, through changes in what we're doing so we can fund these things.
Um, and again, it goes back to systems change. We need it. Okay, I'm going to try to move this on because we have people that want to speak to us and I think we're just sort of >> rehashing. Um, mayor,
>> I guess maybe I should just rip off a band-aid. Um, I don't as it as it relates to the items that you have listed here and I think I've communicated this during our board of ed leaison and partnership meetings. I don't believe you have the votes on the board of school estimate to proceed
forward with Ritzer. End of story. Um, oh, I don't need to clap. This actually is awful because I supported it. I absolutely supported it um in every single iteration. Um, I think that the issues could have been very easily mitigated working with Hixon residents
um on land use application, on the storm water management, on uh the landscaping, on parking. I think all of those items you can successfully do to have a a wonderful turf field, but as a product of I think the transparency of the
district looking at things like systems in place, talking very openly about an $8 million operating budget, which you've now got to $3 million, is that you have been so forthcoming and I'm very grateful to the leadership, to the board president, to the newly elected
members of the board of education for being that real with the public about the challenges that are being faced by this district. Whether it is state issues of not getting our fair share of h um of funding for the school district, whether it's issues of outsourcing
versus bringing people inhouse. You've been working so hard, especially with our special needs community on making sure that their issues are being addressed. I've seen you have to really really make some of the most difficult decisions. I'm not uh envious in the
least bit of what you are facing right now. You've had to use terms like fiscal cliff to express and project out to the community the severity of what the district is facing and I commend you for
that. But at the same time, when we convene as a board of school estimate on what will likely be $8 million towards a turf field, it strikes me personally, not speaking to anyone else, as very tonedeaf. Um, I I think, and I'm not going to put
any of my colleagues on the spot because I'm sure each of them has something very different to contribute. We went back and forth about environmental issues or you know implications on athletics which I know it's very very important for deputy mayor Herman but based on the uh
presentation that we were given you need to be able to count to four on this board and I could say with 100% certainly certainty is that there is a discomfort for at from at least four members on the municipal side um that asking for this type of request at this
moment in time given what we know now from the last time of the board of school estimate meeting to this moment in time has changed a lot of sentiment towards not whether it's a good idea but whether it's an idea we can afford right now
>> so I think one of the bigger issues is there's variables here our budget variable will never change every year we're going to go through this I'm looking at you and telling you every year we're going to go through this I've been a superintendent for 15 years.
Every year there's a gap. Every year school districts have to make very difficult decisions in the state. That variable will never change. And if we're looking for that to change, then upgrading our fields will never get done ever because every budget Jess, come on.
>> Oh, I apologize. >> Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. >> Oh, hold it. Hold it. for the record on both sides. On both sides, let's not talk to the audience and audience, please don't talk to us. We're going to have an opportunity for you to come up.
>> Uh so for us, that variable is never going to change. Hasn't changed in my 14-year career. Whether it's a $5 million gap, $10 million gap from my time in Bloomfield down to Barnagett to here, that variable will never change. >> Okay. >> So that's my my question is then, you
know, the variable that can change is the scope and of the project. you know, that's a variable that can change. There are other variables that can change, but the budgeting side of the house, it's can I ask one more change? >> So, um, Superintendent Bing, I'm very
grateful of you being the voice, but we do have our colleagues on the board on the board of education. We have new members on the board. You have people who were all elected from different times. And so one thing I've always honored and I've shared with the public. It's very tough for me to make an argument against something when you have
a unanimous vote of nine members who have continuously told us this is the way to go. I honor that. Your meetings are closed. So when you're in finance, when you're in FFT, you're having a lot of discussions that we are not privy to as board of school estimate members, as
members of the public. The issue of title N has been floated, well not floated but explicitly noted during these board of school estimate meetings. But again, those are internal conversations you have with your attorneys that you have to be able to address. You have that knowledge that we
will not have and shouldn't have. That's that's confidential in nature. So with a nine member board right now, have you re-evaluated this or for you as duly elected members, you know, of the community, is this still your priority
bringing it to the board of school estimate? >> Well, so I appreciate the question. I appreciate, mayor, your cander and transparency and sort of telegraphing the sort of change of view that that you've had over the past few months. Um, and you know, I
I can't speak for the newly composed 2026 board because we have not had a resolution to act on, right? We are still waiting on a number of pieces. We've presented information on what the 2025 board was prepared to push forward
and we realized we had to go back and ask the state for additional state aid which we are very close to the end of the process of. Right. We've gone through we well we were trying to go through the Maplewood Planning Board. That's going to happen in a couple weeks. Uh and we're going to get
feedback from them. We're going to hear back from the state as far as what they intend to contribute the debt service aid which will meaningfully change the cost of the project. Right? Is the field piece 7.5 million? Is it only 5 million?
Right? So we don't know those pieces. We also don't know specifically what it is that we're being that we're considering and voting. that has not happened yet. Um, so are we delivering a 90 vote? I have no idea. Right. We would deliver we deliberate in that in public and we
would have the vote on that. Uh, what I do know is that this is my third year on the board and my third year contemplating a Ritzer change. Right. We we took a vote in 2024, brought it to the board of school estimate. That piece was severed and shot down. Fair. That's
the way things work. Brought it back in 2025. Had a preliminary meeting. two of them in fact where it looked like we were in perhaps good shape for it then we pulled it back for the procedural reasons. I think the sentiments of the board at that time was that we do have a
number of issues that we need to address right our facilities are in many places in disrepair. We have a lot of work to renew our very old buildings and get them up to spec. Some of which we did in the $180 million prior project. some of
which is still remaining. Um, we also have a pronounced need that many members of the community have expressed and many members of district staff expressed that we need to improve Ritzerfield uh because it is required for our student
athletes uh and many other activities that happen at CHS and in our district. And I think the belief of the board during those prior votes was we can walk and chew bubblegum at the same time here, right? There's not a single
priority. Um I tell you, look, being one of the few boards to have a board of school estimate instead of a public referendum, um it makes it a whole lot easier to come and ask for money. And the number of times that we think, shoot, well, this is a real problem.
Maybe we should go get money from the board of school estimate. And the answer is almost always no. that's that's not the right answer. And we we don't bring things to you, right? We looked at the uh significant deficit this year and said, well, should we go for a a a second question? No. No, we're not doing
that. Same last year. Same the year before that when we had to riff a number of people. We said, we're not we're going to stay within our financial means and our statutory amount of of taxation. And that's what we are I think what the district is saying they're trying to do with a lot of the maintenance projects
that we have here is that if we can do them within what the law has for better or worse allotted for us uh then we can do that. We can't jin up enough funds all at one time to go and do the upgrades to Ritz or field whether they
were turf or grass because the cost we did get some quotes earlier and the qu the costs are not that far different. uh we can't just go and and jin that money up right that's a thing where we would need the assistance of a bond uh to do and I think that's why we have been here
in the past two years uh and that's why we may be coming back again uh and and if it is the will of the board of schools we do not approve it that may be a thing that happens um but I think we have to take those steps uh and and find out you know how much support does this
proposal have on this year's board and can we find a path forward that does have unonymity and then we bring it to you folks and see what you think. >> I would if I if this is a helpful takeaway because we want to work collaboratively with the district. These
are tough things like nobody wants to be here. Like I said, I wanted the turf. Okay, I voted for it every single time. Um is that I think uh direction from the board of school estimate. Again, I can't speak for everybody, but I can speak to the discomfort level of the majority.
And the majority would say we would ask that the board of education look critically at this issue. And certainly I can say for myself I will honor a decision if all nine duly elected members of our board of school or board of education come to me and say Sheena
this is our priority but my mind has changed at least over the past six months for the reasons that I have described and uh looking at a 7.5 7.7 million project now and thank you for incorporating the storm water mitigation
all these additional items that weren't contemplated or at least um thoughtfully uh planned. So that's honesty and that's transparency and that's good to have in our district. Um but yes, if if members of the board of education, the
facilities committee in particular, and with your uh collective knowledge of every challenge you're trying to solve, whether it's litigation or equity, is is to really take a close look at this one more time. I I don't think that the other items will be nearly as controversial from the board because
previously they were discussed and and there has been broad consensus around the auditoriums being done and things of that nature and if there was going to be an additional request I think all of us have received uh the emails about the bathrooms. So even even if it's a matter
of asking for more without perhaps rits are at $8 million is that the bathroom situation uh within all the schools. I mean I haven't been in the B thank goodness uh but we do get uh pretty regular comments from families that ask us to talk to our district colleagues
about the bathroom situation. Um and that's that's kind of uh the feedback that I can offer at this point. Any other members of the board of school estimate? >> I just I just want to add an observation. Um
I think there only two words that resound from people in my area my area of town and as an elected official I have to speak to it and that is affordability and priority and a fair amount of residents around seeking
village do not feel that we can afford this. Um and I think we have to hear them. I'm not sure how we go about it. And of course, you know, I've been on the partnership and we've talked about this and it remains an issue for residents. Um, and as to the bathrooms,
you know, I talked to a lot of seniors and juniors and when children are running home to use the bathroom, I don't see how we're going to talk about playing a sport when they leave school primarily because they cannot use the
bathrooms. So it sounds very trivial but you know when you speak to mental health and you speak to the stress of our students and you talk to what will make our students happy certainly the condition of our schools are not part of what makes our kids happy. So >> anyone else?
>> Yeah I just I do want to stress real quick that the condition of our schools is one of our challenges that is not localized. We have many challenges that are localized to South Orange School District. infrastructure challenges and age of
schools are not. It's across the state. We're one of the oldest states in the union. We have some of the oldest schools in the union. So again, that's also the hope that the state offers up some money for us to make those changes so we don't have to
come to you. >> I just want to put on record that um I'm in agreement with my colleagues. So, I'm say we're all saying the same thing, but I just want to put it on record that the emails that we have been getting really
show that the concern is financial and the bathrooms and all of you know everything that everyone has been saying. So, I just want to put it on record that I am uh along those same lines at this point and has changed for me. >> Mr. Chairman, I have one more thing very
quick. >> Go ahead, Mayor. Um, one more thing that I wanted to add, uh, for all members of the board of education that are here as well is that we hear the need that you're talking about because we share it. I told you our fields were at 100% capacity also. And so, uh, when South Orange went out for our open space trust
fund referendum and the taxpayers voted to approve an additional levy of, uh, I believe, gosh, what was it Bill? $80 or so a year. $85 a year. Is that investment in our fields is a part of that allocation. you're you're likely seeing that we're adding lighting in
different places. We're getting more hours of operation later into the night. Um and so we're able to accommodate not just partner but accommodate the increased number of uh youth and active older adults who are using our fields at different hours as well. So we we see
you as partners in the way that we think about our existing fields. if we're unable to do ritzer is items like that that are less money that may be natural uh you know grass unlike unnatural grass which isn't really a word um but but that we see and hear the pressure that
you're getting uh from the public as well and we're trying to make those capital investments as well. >> Yeah, I think you made a good point. It's it's not only the youth, the adult teams and adult usage is also growing substantially. >> Oh yes, absolutely. >> A lot of emails around adult team usage and adult league usage and things of
that nature. Yeah. Yep. >> So, I want to ask if anyone has any questions. I know we've been focusing on Ritzer, but there were two other items. The South Orange Middle School about a million dollars and the Maplewood Middle School about $2 million. Any questions
on those? >> That's what uh South Orange has two theaters. >> Yeah, it's got a big theater and a little theater. MMS is just one. >> I think it's the other way around. >> Yeah. MMS is because of ceiling.
rigging, lighting. So, similar to CHS, uh it was the rigging and the lighting that goes for SAMS and also goes for MMS. MMS also has a ceiling issue. I think we just talked about it last year. We had a couple ceiling tiles fall down. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. So, that's also in
>> Why the big difference between a million and 2.2? >> We're redoing all the ceilings in at MMS >> and you didn't have to do that. >> No. Yeah. We had some issues last year. We thought we had it localized. we had brought actually our own person in to
take a look at it and it's it's systemwide that we have to replace. >> So based on the comments here um unless anybody has any more questions I just want to >> I just point of clarification um when we're talking about the overall costs um
we're so the theaters are $3 million for the theaters. Are we talking about that we're unc the those who are uncomfortable with the cost or uncomfortable with all of these projects and the cost cuz 3 million is still a big cost to have. Um so I just want to
clarify that. Um or do we want to hear additional numbers for um Ritzer that might be more in line with some of the the numbers that we've heard previously? >> I I have I I mean these are continuation items. I think we highlighted the auditoriums like going back several
years now and they haven't had um to my knowledge there's not been anything other than the change orders associated with fixing them not adding new items to them. Um so I I don't I mean I can't say try and save money on an auditorium but I do see them as necessary inside the schools.
>> Yeah, I see I definitely see them as necessary and all of them as necessary. Okay. So, I just wanted to clarify because we're talking about if we're talking about funding, >> some funding we're okay with, but others we're not. >> So, I think what I think where I was going with this is that I think the
board is asking us to give them We're not doing any votes tonight. We're not making any decisions, >> but you wanted to get a sense, not even a straw poll, but you wanted to get a sense as to are we on the right direction, wrong direction. >> Yeah. I mean for us as you just noted uh
I'm gonna use analogy here. Uh athletic fields are the auditorium of the athletes. >> Okay. >> Very good. Very good. But we let's let's >> looking for us. We came here. We really want feedback and you know some guidance
in regards to hey maybe you want to look at this or hey you should look at this. >> Uh it is a priority for us. The fields are a priority. But I what I heard here is that I think there's a receptivity here to hear more about the South Orange Middle School and the Maplewood Middle
School projects and certainly there seems to be some willingness to to work on those. I think $8 million for the field whether it's turf or grass is a non-starter. That's what I also heard because one of the things about about
our government is you you know you get to the majority number. So, as soon as you get the four, it stops. So, um that doesn't mean that it's a non-starter to get solved because I think there's real issues about solving
it. Um I am not adverse to a smaller project that contains turf, but I think that it's you we can't justify the $8 million um based on what we're hearing here. So that's I think that's the
feedback you wanted to hear and I think we are willing to have more conversations with you about what other type of project we could all live with. Um but something has to get done. We understand that too. I don't think
anybody's saying not to deal with you know the auditorium of the athletes but the auditorium of the athletes we have to feel comfortable with that. And right now there's a lot of discomfort by the majority of the members of the board of school. So >> yeah. No, and for us that was the point
of this preliminary meeting. We just we really wanted to get some feedback, some direction of you know what we need to bring back and what that should look like. Okay. >> And the board president also mentioned I I think um President Meyer, right? Um is that uh
debt service relief also? Is that you're waiting on those numbers? >> That's it. Right. So it it would never be our expectation to come to the board of school and ask you to pay 100% for this project. If the state is not
providing that service, I cannot imagine us bringing that forward, which is why last year and we realized that there was a significant amount that had not been put forward for contribution. We stopped the project in its tracks. We did not say, "Ah, we probably have the votes. We'll just go do it." So, we would
certainly hope that a project we're bringing to you would in fact, you know, have a I don't know, approximately 30% knocked off of it. I don't know if that is making a difference for you folks. And I think we shouldn't necessarily prejudge. Let's see what comes back, but I would imagine we're not presenting
that in any event. >> We're in the waiting stage right now just to see what qualifies for that debt relief, right? >> So, that's why we're kind of static right now. we're seeing, you know, what qualifies in this current project for debt relief. So, we can bring that to you guys so you know, uh, and then also just to hear some other options and to
hear some considerations on your end. >> So, given given the the the direction of this conversation, are you still moving forward with the courtesy review at the Maplewood Planning Board? >> That's absolutely. Yep. Y
>> Okay. And that's and that is necessary in order for you to pursue >> that that'll allow us to finish our process with the state to get uh any award of funding they want to give which would be contingent on us at some point pursuing it. If we don't pursue it this
year, I believe it lasts and if there's a future time at which it seems to make sense, we could continue to go. So, we've made an investment here. We've got the dates lined up. We're on the agenda. I think we get that piece out of the way regardless. It also gives us a good idea of what they will qualify for that funding. >> Okay.
>> Right now, our architects are back and forth in regards to what they'll qualify for that funding. So, we'll have a much better idea from the state of what they qualify for that funding. >> Okay. So, um unless there's any further comment I want to get to hearing of individuals. Um >> I actually have a question for you, Mr.
Chairman. Um so, um during the last and I I sent a message to all of you about this is that I and I take responsibility. I did not realize that uh statutory boards in Maplewood weren't livereamed and recorded the same way that they are in South Orange. We've had requests from people in the community of
whether that could be live streamed. South Orange is willing to incur, you know, any partial part of the cost or anything like that. I ended up sending somebody from our IT department just to sit in the corner and videotape for four hours that it never actually got to Ritzer. So, can can we try and make it
so that uh the meeting about a land use application can be streamed or available for the public rather than just the audio? >> So, >> I'll share cost with you, Vic. >> Yeah. No, it's not a matter of cost. It's um that really is a decision of the board, the planning board, and the
planning board is not going to meet until that night. So, I I don't know. >> That's the answer. I don't know. I don't know if if the planning board chair feels that she can make a decision on this
alone or in consult with maybe some others but we'll we'll certainly >> if you could just pass along and you know it would be helpful if not we'll be recording um with our wonderful uh employee who came out um to record the
proceedings and then post it on our website >> but in any event it would be a recording and not a hybrid meeting. Yes. Yes. >> Okay. Um, what are the rules? There's a signup sheet somewhere. >> Does that just magically appear in front
of me or somebody else uh brings it up? >> Somebody reads it. >> We bring >> That sounds like a school board president job >> or someone. How does that work? >> And is there a uh >> I I handle this part.
>> You handle Okay. What does that mean? you're giving it to me. Okay. And um >> we have a number of online as well which I'm happy to tell you after. >> That's great. And uh what about what's the time limit that we give everyone?
>> It's three minutes. >> And do we have a timer? >> Okay. >> Right behind you. >> Right behind you. >> Oh, okay. All right. And we hold people to that. Correct. >> Yes. >> Okay. All right. I hear you. Uh, first
person is David Yumer. I have to amend my remarks because of what's happened tonight, but I want to thank you, David Huer, 26 Nelson, please, uh, Maplewood and, um, two aides based on what I heard. won the most successful team at Columbia High School
over the last three decades is the fencing team. Both boys and girls are in the top four of the state. They're the state semi-finals. They practice in the cafeteria. So, the focus on facilities is only part of it. And I would say look at your stipen schedule because great coaches make much more of a difference
in the facilities. Um, I want to commend you for addressing decades of of uh underfunding facilities and I think there are cheaper, longerlasting, more effective solutions than putting plastic on richer to address the chronic problem
that Mayboard South Orange and the school district don't have enough field space for recreation. Chronic. You can go back decades. Every mateboard master plan talks about how we don't meet national standards for recreation space. And we have not added any title
recreation space for open space for recreation since title n. So it's a chronic problem. And you have two mechanisms right in front of you. The border school estimate and the open space trust fund. Many towns don't use the open space trust fund as anything but a wreck equipment or maintenance
fund. Okay. Despite what the charter of the open space trust fund says. Okay. Most of those towns have adequate field space. We don't. Mapboard and South Orange could and should use the open space trust fund as the voters understood it and understand it when
they voted to tax themselves. There are two properties in Maport. They should actually purchase and remediate open space. There are two properties in Maport adjacent to current public lands, both big enough for athletic fields, both with less than desirable current uses for less than $7.7 million. These
parcels could be purchased, remediated, and converted for public use. The result would provide much more playable field time than the proposal to put plastic in red fields. The only other thing I'll say is that the combination of a difficult budget year where you're going to probably see a tax increase
considerably greater than the rate of inflation means you have to start from scratch. All right? But you're also identifying hundreds of millions of dollars in needs of this district. This is an generational opportunity. And I would say to the members of the board of school estimate, exploit the cooperative
power of the board of school estimate and exploit the hundreds of thousands of dollars of years that citizens have told you they want to tax themselves for open space. Okay? So that all three entities here at reduced cost to each of them can improve or expand the recreational
opportunities for students and for all our residents. You have a real opportunity to do this. I don't have to tell you the members who have been on who I served with uh 20 years ago. This has been a problem forever, okay? We know this and all of you want to solve it. So, please take the opportunity that
we have that we have a border school estimate that it can be the nine of you that can fix this. Thank you. >> Thank you. Uh Mary and Rob, >> good evening. My name is Marian Rab. I live at 7 Hubert Place in Maplewood. And I uh I too have to amend what I was
planning on saying. Um I am so glad, Superintendent Bing, first of all, that you are looking for feedback on capital expenditures. Um and there's and you only want to authorize the ones
that are appropriate in your opinion. I just wanted to mention something that just pinged in my mind when you mentioned appropriate. Um, I no longer have any children in the school district, but I did have children in the school district for 17 straight years, starting in 2008 and ending last year.
And as many of you know, my youngest son is disabled. He has cerebral palsy. And I honestly don't know how we were able to get him through this district. between the outrageous ADA violations in
every single building of this district to the elevator at Colombia, which was beyond a me beyond a mess. And I think I once testified in front of a school board that I was my son was lucky. He was a lucky disabled kid because he
could manage stairs with with help of his one-on-one parah and someone else. And I also want to commend you, Superintendent Bing, because I have heard just today that major repairs have been done on the Columbia elevator and it is actually working. Thank you so much. It's not affect I have no skin in
this game anymore except as a taxpayer, but I am so relieved to know that you have a functional elevator in a school of over 2,000 students because you cannot run a school of even less than that without an elevator. And not I'm not just talking about disabled
children, faculty, staff, guests. I'm talking about efficiently running a school, moving equipment, moving books. We had an elevator that was pretty much more broken than fixed for the four years my son was at Columbia. And
another word, another word came to me when I heard you say appropriate. There's a law called the Individuals with Disabilities and Education Act. It's a federal law and it affects every single classified and it protects every classified student in this district no
matter what their classification is. And under IDA, every classified student is entitled to a free and appropriate public education in the least restrictive environment. And I'd like to mention in my last 20 or so seconds that
the hundreds and that may be that may be a low estimate. The hundreds of violations of ADA violations we have in this district right now spanning every single building including this one are opening you up to a class action lawsuit
under the ADA. And even though I have no skin in this game, I will happily support that lawsuit. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Um, Ben Vatitali,
>> good evening. Thank you. Uh, I sent you my comments earlier, so you know that I intended to talk about three things. Plastic turf is more expensive than grass. Second thing, state adequacy standards consider plastic turf excess costs not eligible for state aid. And
third, Title 9 does not require plastic turf. But I don't have time to cover all that. You can read what I wrote to you. So I'm just going to talk about one of those things and then respond to a couple things I heard tonight. So the one thing I want to talk about was that state adequacy standards do not consider plastic turf as eligible for state aid.
I can't tell you what the state is going to do because they often break their own rules, but the law says that athletic facilities that are beyond basic standards are not eligible for state aid. It's very clear about that. Now, in other towns, what we've seen is that
your architects will check every box, eligible, elig eligible. They're just lying. They're just deceptive. They're trying to get the state to, you know, give them as much money as they can. More power to them. Bring on the money. Our district needs the money desperately, right? But it I think it informs a question of, you know,
morally, ethically priorities. What's the right call here? It's not easy to see actually because it's quite right that time outside in green space. I'm not sure about plastic but also physical activity is very important for student mental health. It's very important important to the athletes and their careers. But the state has an
answer. The law has an answer. And the law says very clearly and the regulations under the educational facilities construction and financing act say this stuff is not eligible. In every other most towns we don't have a board of school estimate, right? We have a ballot question. And if you look at those ballot questions in all these
other towns, the turf proposal is in a separate question. And the basic facilities like the bathrooms and the elevators are in the main question. Why do they do that? It's because the turf is not eligible for state aid. Uh as for the costs, I completely agree
with board member Adams. I really think the district should get a bonafide estimate for grass. I think that would be a great service to the community and to the board itself. Um the one that Speasel Architect has there now is for I'm sorry it's not credible. Okay. Um
shared services were an excellent idea. What you see in many other towns is that the town the district will band together with several other districts and contract this maintenance out. That's a feasible way to do it. The capital costs of grass are three to five times cheaper than than turf. Um the maintenance costs
are between 30 and the the maintenance costs of turf are less. They're not free though. It's like 30 to 50% or something like that. We need to see credible numbers. The maintenance costs on grass would be far less than a teacher salary. Okay, so all this discussion remember
that. Um just want to point out that the school district is not on the hook for private teams, private clubs, all these other needs. They're talking about a lot of money here. The priorities have to be for the students and not all these luxuries. Okay. Thank you.
Jessica Miller, I apologize. I skipped over you. >> Intentional. >> No, I wasn't. >> It was because I wasn't marking, but now I am marking. >> Um, I'm sorry. I don't have an organized uh I was taking notes as you were speaking. Um, but I would like to start
with Mr. Big, please. Storm water infrastructure is required by law. It is not a courtesy and we should be especially respectful of that because Maplewood is cutting edge in this state
for having a storm water utility. So, um, so I've taken a couple notes and I have a daily conversation with my 9-year-old and it'll go something like, "I have a headache." And I always say, "How much
water have we had to drink today?" And that's almost always the issue. Um, and part of that problem is that there's no working drinking fountain that's near her classroom that she can access during the day, right? So, like I mean, it's
such a little thing, but I think a lot of them were taken offline because of lead in the lines and so only the filtered ones work. I don't know exactly what the issue is, but it's like it is something that makes a meaningful difference in a student's day. Um, so and I and I have to express a little bit
of skepticism that we see like $30 million in like plumbing and bathrooms and that we're going to do that all in house with our own funds. I just I have a little difficulty recti rectifying that. I also
have a difficulty with the long range facilities plan being presented with its like $423 million list and then it has $145 million that are labeled as first and second year needs yet we come to this meeting asking for a very specific
project and suddenly it's like oh no we don't do anything. No, no, we we have it. We're going to pay for it. No, we have a guy. He's going to do it. he's gonna waterproof the, you know, the gym that's been offline for decades. I just I have to express my skepticism in what
we're hearing. Um, and I have to listen, nobody wants Ritzer done more than me. I want to retire from showing up these stupid meetings. I'd rather focus on other things. But we have to do the project right. And you also need to think that no matter what anyone's
doing, Ritzer needs to be taken care of for the spring for the spring season, right? You guys have been digging test pits all over. I see the lack of maintenance. I go to the beard. I see those fields over by the beard. South Orange has got some tips for you. Okay,
so like talk to them. Um I have many other questions, but I will I will email them as I'm running out of time. Thank you. Thank you. Yep. >> I do want to point out that Jess has been a wonderful partner since day one.
I think you were one of the first people persons I met in the district. I just want to shout out. >> Great. Thank you. Uh next up is Jonathan Castro. Good evening. No. >> Yeah.
Let's see. It was in this very building that Lauren Hill first diagnosed the miseducation of her generation. 25 years ago, she warned us about a system that prioritizes its own its own survival over the souls of the students they're meant to serve. She
wrote a song, The Mystery of Iniquity. She describes how institutions don't just lie, they formalize the lie, legalize the sin, and call it permissible. That's what suppression looks like in 2026. Tonight, you're being presented a clean audit.
But that audit that they tell you has an 8 million deficit also shows a 16 million or so uh surplus. So those discrepancies are red flags. There are expenses that are potentially
being reclassified as general expenses. Policies rewritten less than a month before the audit that retroactively make certain things look like compliance. Uh he'll warned us that professionals often use their titles to suppress the
truth. They use the titles of PKF O'Connors to show a clean audit. But that clean audit has already been under investigation. Ahead has already uh also uh run its own
investigation. NJSBA has already uh distanced itself from that very audit. So when we talk about how this expenses uh special specific items, how are they being interpreted when you
don't see the full budget? when you have to trust the word of the very people who next week are going to be uh I don't know what the word is uh uh by the uh school ethics commission
um there were 400 students over 400 students at subway without a gym water sporing from the Columbia high school ceilings nonfunctional bathrooms broken elev ators, dry fonts, but that's not
uh bad administration. That is a deliberate ch uh choice to prioritize certain things over other things. When you look at what districts like Livingston are spending
per student, this district is spending three times as much. And then I want to talk about uh last week's uh PowerPoint ethics presentation. Right? So when you present a PowerPoint
presentation for ethics violations while under ethics investigations, that is just shifting how it's categorized. That is legal consultation categorized as a workshop. That is how the budget is being misrepresented.
Thank you. Next up, Jane Conrad. Good evening. So, um, in my opinion, um, when you're looking at capital projects, artificial turf requires special scrutiny
because unlike really all other capital pro expenses that we consider, we know we're going to have to redo it at least every 10 years going forward forever. And I think that we have to look at um the
big not only the initial expenditure of installation but the big recurrent costs that follow um reinstallation every 10 years and then as we know and is about to happen in a few years with um Underh Hill there you
have to rebuild the base. It's the industry standard that after 20 years something will have gone wrong with the drainage etc. And so that is another thing that has to be added in. Um and we know that there are big recurrent costs
also to the operating budget. Um, and they're disguised by if you if you only focus on what your maintenance contract, which is sort of brush brushing the field and things like that, that's not going to that's not going to contain at
all. Um, I think honestly you got to look at what are the personnel requirements that turfing Ritzer would add in terms of security, custodial and also storm water maintenance. You know, right now Ritzer is asking really
nothing of you or it's it's really not getting anything besides mowing, but this is going to be a whole new facility that will require staff and inputs. And the storm water maintenance, if you read the manual that went to the the planning board, you realize it's, you know, it's
sort of a job in itself and it's what the whole thing rests on in order that it drain well and that it not flood. I I also have concerns about the storm water plan in general and I I realize I guess we'll I'll get a better chance to
ask those at a planning board, but to me it what's been presented it does not look like green infrastructure and that's green infrastructure is no longer like something nice to have. It's a requirement without which a project
might not be approved. And you know it's it's it's a matter of survival for us. You know, are we going to have drinking water? Are we going to have um streams that flow that land that is not subsiding? And when you're making an area 80 to 90% impervious,
those are real questions. And a project that just collects water and holds it in holding tanks and then sends it all into the stream is not going to accomplish what it needs to. So my concern well I'm going to stop there. I'm concerned about
that. I just want to say one more thing which is I love the idea of bringing back skilled labor. I think that's a great idea. We have buildings. Yes, they may be falling apart in some ways, but they were built with materials and to a standard that we will never be able to
afford again with construction. So, it makes sense to have artisans that can keep them going. Please do the same thing for grass fields. Professionals can yield you things that you will be proud to play on. They can mow your
outfield in a different plan. Thank you. >> Every year. Thank you. >> And it would be great. >> Thank you. Jonathan Poor. >> Hello, I'm Jonathan Poor. Roosevelt Road. Um, so many things, a very interesting meeting tonight. Lots of
information. Thank you. Um, and so yeah, I'm I I'm sort of throwing out my my prepared comments. I just a couple of things that struck me. I wanted to just um say the you know that I've heard several times not enough fields. We don't have enough fields. One thing that
I noticed from looking at the the design of this new field is it actually doesn't in increase the number of fields. It's actually reducing uh field space because right now Ritzer is a very flexible setup where you have
two side byside high schoolsiz soccer fields during the soccer season and then in the spring season it switches to the in the other orientation and you have a much longer lacrosse field and it's also used by flag football and so on. Um so
the current situation actually has more field space than the new project which is adding a softball field off on one side. Um another thing I heard, you know, was um um Deputy Mayor Herman, I think, brought
up an interesting idea about how perhaps there could be um between the two towns and the district some shared professional uh expertise. Um, you know, the debt service we're talking about, I guess we're waiting to hear what that would be, but you know,
this $8 million could be like $800,000 a year. I mean, that's a lot of money that you could Well, first of all, it you know, you it's money that could be used for other things in the school district, but um certainly some of that could go towards expertise and maintaining our
our our grass fields like our baseball outfields and so on, our baseball infields. Um, bring that inhouse. Yeah. Um, another thing is again that the cost estimate for what it would take to do grass. The cost estimate is like imagining rebuilding this entire field.
You could start much much cheaper. Just spending some money on the grass field uh as it currently exists would be an amazing step forward. Um uh there are all kinds of examples and um and and and models of of maintenance programs that
would be something like $30,000 a year for Ritzerfield. Um um and then um there's a lot of the final comment is that it's a little frustrating the way this is formatted where we come up at the end and we kind of remember what people said and respond to it. It would
be great if there would be some way to have like an informal gathering of people who are concerned about these things and just exchange ideas. Um anyway, again, thank you very much. >> Okay. Uh
we have people on >> Looks like we've got seven folks here. >> Okay. >> I'm going to propose to go out of order. We have one CHS student waiting to speak. Wyborg, >> wy, you're muted. >> Excuse me. >> There we go. >> Okay. Um, so I am a ninth grader at
Columbia High School and I personally think it is an incredibly poor idea to turf uh Ritzer. This is for numerous reasons, but firstly, according to my sources, Columbia High School uh funded by the SOMD district is in a budget
deficit next year of $3 million and a debt of $190 million. this would be further exasperated, especially if we were to spend $8 million turfing the field. Um, and now before we even go talking about spending an absurd amount
of money on a very um hyperspecific, non-inclusive, and expensive project, let's look at the school facilities. So, a lot of classrooms are damaged. Most of them are lacking supplies. The bathrooms are in disrepair. Ceiling tiles are
falling. The elevators are broken. I could go on, but I won't for the sake of time. Um, I, as a student, have to deal with this every day. And while the money saved from not turfing the field may not fix every problem within the school, it would most definitely hurt a s help a
significant amount. Excuse me. Um, spending $8 million to do something that benefits only a select few students is a disservice to the rest of the students, the f and the faculty within the school. We claim to be an inclusive district, yet we allow non-functioning elevators
and dysfunctional facilities to create a physical and educational barriers for students with and without disabilities. We are choosing to fund a luxury sports field over an accessibility. Um, while I may not be able to name every problem within the school, I can guarantee you
that there are many people who suggest places where that money would be better spent that would benefit the majority of the students better than a turf field. And now that's my main point about why we shouldn't turf the field. But I I'm pretty sure people have already brought this up, but turf fields are terrible
for the environment. Like really bad. They not only create terrible amounts of pollution just from the upkeep of them, the amount of plastics deposited, but they release um PASES uh polyphal
substances like forever chemicals which really isn't good for the environment. Um the EPA and numerous other health organizations have strongly um talked against the fur fields mainly for their
health um risks. They are incredibly damaging to the environment. Um they trap an absurd amount of water and they're also not great for the players. If you fall on a grass field, generally
you'll be fine. But if you fall on a turf field, especially during the summer, you can get burned. It's much easier to get um injured. There are so many disadvantages to having a per field rather than just having a well-kept
grass field. Thank you. >> Next, we have Sylvia Dombby Pearl. That community member is not online. Thank you. Next we have Olly Gans. Hi. Um I will let me see if I can get my camera working. Okay. Not my not my best
look, but that's fine. Um hi everyone. Thank you so much. Um I want to thank you all for being here and for your public service. And I also just want to give a special shout out to um my mayor, my South Orange mayor, uh Mayor Col for
for uh her advocacy for uh for on this issue. Um I live on Hixon Place. Uh I have a child in the district. I am also editing my statement uh the part where I talk about the budget issues because I think that has been thoroughly described tonight. Um, but what I will say is that
despite the current budget situation, the district is advancing the most expansive and most expensive version of the Ritzerfield project, a multi-acre artificial turf complex far beyond what was outlined in the 2019 plan. As we've
discussed many times, this has jumped in cost from $2.2 million to now $7.4 million with every indication that it will get more expensive. And just I'm going to say this many times, this is the biggest and most
expensive plan and it goes beyond what is actually needed. The plan also entails removing mature trees, adding significant fencing and netting, and building fields for sports played only a few months each year. Meanwhile, the operating costs of this complex
maintenance, security, storm water management, and eventual replacement have not been fully accounted for. This I'm here tonight not to say let's not improve our athletic facilities. As Jessica Miller said, I would rather be doing bedtime with my child tonight, but it is an argument for responsible
prioritization. As Mr. Bing described earlier, we are cutting costs everywhere. Yet, we're pursuing for this the biggest and most expensive artificial turf field. I hear the term equity constantly thrown around when talking about Ritzer and it's not
clear to me why we need again the biggest and most expensive artificial turf in order to achieve equity and meet the holistic needs of our students. No one has answered that for me. A scaledback version still meets those needs. This is not an all or nothing issue and I would not compare the
expense of repairs for collap collapsing infrastructure to bankrolling the biggest and most expensive turf field. So the things that I would ask for the board of school estimates to consider is to request a scaledown ritzer plan that's focused on providing a safe
functional field, not a costly multi-acre complex. Require the district to present a clear, transparent prioritization process. Uh and encourage town hall meetings. Someone else mentioned it would be nice to have a forum to really talk about these things openly. Um and I think that's something
that would um really benefit the community. So thank you so much for your time tonight. I greatly appreciate it. >> Next we have Deiani Gua. >> Uh hello. Uh I do am changing my entire little comment. Um, I actually had two
quick questions. One is the new LRFP had 18.75 million um for structural repairs to MMS and I'd like to hear a little bit more about that and where that is. It was a first
priority and what is happening with that. Um, and my second question is the 2019 LRFP. I guess there were a lot of projects that were left on the floor over there. What is the status of maybe
the larger um larger portions of the stuff that was left on the floor? I so I guess these are questions and that's all I have um today. Um and oh okay, maybe
I'll add that I don't think that um the the comments made about maintenance of turf versus um grass. I looked at a proposal that CME and Speedler did. I'm sorry I'm decimating their name. um did
for Westfield and the cost for uh maintaining a grass field there was 2,10 sorry 210,000 whereas that for turf was 140,000. So
it's not like turf maintenance is zero. Um and these are the same professionals who created the um who are working with our district. So, I'd suggest that you at least look at that. I'm not quite understanding why uh we haven't received
similar estimates. That's it. Thank you. >> Next, we have Julia Flath. >> Hi. Um, thank you for your time tonight and um, you know, it's it's great to hear this discussion of how to prioritize
effectively and um, make compromises where we need to. Um, I'm here to support um having the district get estimates for natural grass fields and what that would
look like to maintain them and what those costs would be. Um, so that everyone can make informed decisions when comparing that to the cost of putting down artificial turf. Um because ultimately the natural grass
field is better decision for the long-term health of our community um and our environment. And I don't need to really belabor it more than that, but just wanted to um
share my support of that tonight. Thank you. And last comment, Jerry Hall. Good evening. Um, I am so heartened to hear some of the conversation that I have um, heard tonight. really great to hear that we are in less debt than
originally planned. However, I do think that this comes down to like Councilwoman um Olivia Lewis Chang said, it comes down to affordability. Like when we are putting forth a budget for our school district, what can we actually afford? What can the community
bear? What can the families in this community bear? Um some people have brought up our taxes are going up. Taxes are always going up. There are so many squidgy numbers here that have been thrown around that I really feel like we need to focus on priorities. Sorry, that is my son calling. He just did his
public comments uh and now he's calling me for feedback. Um um so getting back to the very serious issue at hand, um we do have a budget crisis. We're in a budget crisis across a number of different uh areas here and
focusing on the actual infrastructure of these schools is so important. Um Ritzer really does feel like almost an add-on to me and I was a sports person in my high school career. My son is taking um advantage of a lot of the
extracurriculars at CHS. So that is a, you know, it does have a place in our school district, but perhaps not at this scale. So I would urge you, and it sounds like we're going in perhaps a different direction tonight, um, but to
just reconsider the the amount of money that is being tossed around for this project at this time when there are so many other critical needs at our schools. Um, I really want to thank you for the thoughtful conversation that
I've heard this evening. It is really heartening to to see the transparency. Um, to hear that we're, you know, filling gaps. We're, you know, using uh our talent that we have. But at this time when people are strapped um and
it's I only feel like it's probably going to not get better anytime soon, we really need to make smart choices that benefit the most students in our district. Um again, thank you tonight
for this conversation. That's it. Okay. Um, anyone have anything else they'd like to say? Mayor Colin, uh, one of the things that we heard during public comment tonight was about
ADA accessibility and I recall it wasn't the last board of school estimate meeting because we were focused solely on the Ritzer and what was presented before us, but we had as a body spoke about the elevator issue. Um could the board of ed unless there's any objection
from my colleagues as a part of the next round of discussions if there's remaining ADA related items that are somewhere in where you think the long-range facilities plan will go in its next various iterations and future years. Could that be brought to the board of school estimate just for
explanation and consideration because that is something I know our residents absolutely prioritize. Just a a little side note or a tangent here is that um the village came in possession of a property in in the community that was gifted to us. Um long story, but uh when
we did a survey of our residents and we said, you know, what do you want to do first with this property? How do you envision it? It was heartening to see that everybody said the first thing we want to do is make sure that it's compliant for everybody to use it before we even talk about anything else. Um, so I just share that little anecdote is
that, you know, um, no matter how great our buildings or fields or whatever is, unless everybody has access to them, they're they're not great, you know, truly great assets for us. So, if there's um, you know, if you could bring that to us as well for consideration, that would be really helpful unless
there's any objection. >> No, they're they're part of that compliance list that we that we talked about in regards to the 10.5 million. Okay. We prioritized ADA. So, railings, uh, new stairs, things of that nature. >> How is that elevator that we heard about again?
>> Is it earlier in the year? >> All right. Great. Thank you. >> Okay. If no one else has anything, can we get a motion to adjourn? >> I was going to say one thing. >> We have had conversations about um improving some of our playgrounds for um disability access, too.
>> Thank you. We have a motion to adjurnn. Is there a second? >> Second. All in favor? >> I >> opposed. Abstension. >> Thank you. >> Thank you.