Skip to main content

Public hearing set on proposed building improvements for City Schools

By Howard B. Owens

bmscapprojectjan122017.jpg

A $26.8-million plan for a wide range of improvements and upgrades within the Batavia City Schools is moving to the next phase of the approval process after getting a funding guarantee from the state and unanimous approval of the school board.

The next phase, a public hearing followed by a vote of district residents in March.

The public hearing will be at 6 p.m., Wednesday, Feb. 15 at the high school. The public vote will be Thursday, March 2.

The district will use $7.5 million saved in the capital reserve fund and the balance of the expenditure will be covered by the state.

This funding plan, said Scott Rozanski, business administrator, will mean the district can complete a number of projects without a local tax increase specifically for this project.

Rozanski compared the project to something a homeowner needs to do periodically, basic maintenance, replacing old and worn out parts of the house and making general improvements.

"It allows us to move into the 21st century in a lot of different ways," Rozanski said. "There will be technology upgrades and we can take care of our facilities for the long run. There are some things that need fixing and some things that needed fixing after our consolidation in 2012. After living in it for four or five years, things fit but they could be a better fit."

All of the schools will get fixes specific to those locations.

Batavia Middle School (floor plan above) will receive:

  • a renovated building entrance and improved entrance security;
  • expanded music area;
  • upgraded finish on gym floor, stairway halls, auditorium and classrooms;
  • improved indoor air quality;
  • upgraded lighting and PA system;
  • replacement of roof areas.

Batavia High School:

  • auditorium upgrades, including lighting and sound system and improved orchestra pit;
  • upgraded fire alarm system;
  • expanded restrooms;
  • roof replacements;
  • improved parent drop-off configuration.

Jackson School:

  • upgrade finishes in classroom;
  • expanded restrooms;
  • upgraded lighting system;
  • exterior window replacements.

John Kennedy School:

  • classroom addition;
  • reconfigure interior spaces;
  • window replacements, roof repairs;
  • upgraded lighting system;
  • improved parent drop-off;
  • improved sound system.

Upgrades to Richmond Memorial Library, including ventilations and the fire alarm system, are also part of the scope of work.

A big part of the project is a proposal to demo the current Van Detta Stadium and reconfigure the location of the stadium (still to be called Van Detta) and Woodward Field.

Woodward Field would get artificial turf and the surrounding track would become an improved synthetic material. 

Without this rebuild, Rozanski said, the 70-year-old Van Detta will become a bigger and bigger money pit. The current estimated costs of repairs and upgrades to improve accessibility and safety are nearly as costly as what the district is proposing now.

An improved, all-purpose facility will also help Batavia become a destination location, being halfway between Rochester and Buffalo, for regional sports competitions.

Even now, he said, the district gets requests to host events but can't because they conflict the the high school's own use of the facilities.

"We could keep repairing it or we could fix it permanently for 30 or 40 years and have very little maintenance expense," Rozanski said. "(Given the location) we should be able to draw a lot of different activities and that should benefit all businesses in the community. We should have increased (numbers of) people coming into the area to hotels, restaurants, retail and whatever other types of business. That will have a long-term positive impact on the community."

Ed Hartgrove

"The district will use $7.5 million saved in the capital reserve fund ..."

I have a few questions.

Where does this "capital reserve fund" come from?

Is it derived from "overpayments" of taxes from residents, to be used for possible future improvements/emergencies"?

If that is the case, how would anyone moving out of the district/area/county benefit from any excess tax payments they've contributed through the years? I'm guessing the county/city/school district doesn’t reimburse someone if they decide to relocate outside the district.

Jan 12, 2017, 10:19pm Permalink
Daniel Jones

Ed - Capital reserve funds are revenue set aside for future construction projects by local government entities. When municipal governments or school districts build or repair, they can finance these actions by either bonding (adding to their debt service), raising taxes or by using money they've already set aside for such projects. It's called being fiscally responsible. Batavia CSD is being smart by using allocated funds that are already banked rather than adding more debt or hiking taxes, and it looks like a pretty great series of projects too.

https://osc.state.ny.us/localgov/pubs/lgmg/reservefunds.pdf
(Page 27 explains the process well)

Jan 13, 2017, 6:09am Permalink
Dave Meyer

Is there a link to the details of this plan on the district's website? I searched but was unable to find it.
If someone knows, would you please share the link?

Jan 13, 2017, 10:07am Permalink
Ed Hartgrove

Thanks, Daniel. While I didn't (and, I'm sure, most likely won't) read all 45 pages of the pdf, I think I got the gist of it.

In short, because we know, from human experience, that things break, populations (and their "needs") grow, inflation happens, etc., we allow "a little bit extra" to be set aside for such things.

Sure, that makes sense. On a small example, (it seems like) there's nothing more "earth-shaking" than knowing that your bank account has only $6 in it, but, the "cute, little squirrel" that your wife has been feeding had decided that $120-worth of your car's wiring made for a good dessert.

So, as for the 3rd question in my original comment, I guess the answer is that one can only hope that they move to some place that has, likewise, been fiscally responsible enough to take the same precautions.

Got it!

Jan 13, 2017, 1:50pm Permalink
Dave Meyer

In the past I've criticized the district for their penchant for overbuilding their infrastructure. The fact that they have consolidated from 3 elementary buildings to 2 I think supports that thinking.
It's troubling that this project proposes building EVEN MORE classrooms at JK when we have existing space available at the Robert Morris building but I guess I can see where logistics would play into this proposal. That being said, it would be nice to see if some of the smart administrators could find a way to make use of that space and avoid new construction. (I won't hold my breath)
As regards the proposed project for VanDetta stadium, I regard this as a ‘want’ and not a ‘need’. The Batavia football program has been brought back from the depths by the excellent leadership of Coach Briggs. That is to be commended and celebrated.
I don’t know to what extent this proposal is related to that but in any event this project, on this scale, simply is not necessary. Just last year, there were improvements made to enhance handicapped access for spectators.
As regards the proposed artificial turf field, there are countless articles citing the health risks for students who play on artificial turf, ranging from orthopedic injuries to cancer risks. Ask any professional athlete which surface they would prefer to play on. Natural grass is better and healthier (and less expensive) than turf.
The TOTAL COST of grass vs Turf is higher. The Forbes article entitled “How taxpayers get fooled on the cost of an Artificial Turf field” http://www.forbes.com/sites/mikeozanian/2014/09/28/how-taxpayers-get-fo…
details how taxpayers are deceived about maintenance costs. These fields have to be replaced every 8-10 years. In addition to the environmental solid waste impact what about the cost of turf replacement??
As regards the proposal to use this new field for multiple sports, there have already been projects to develop playing fields for those other sports. What are we to do with those? That grass is still going to need to be mowed. I'm sure that if other sports such as Lacrosse or Soccer wanted to play on the existing field that could be accommodated.

The fact that the business administrator feels compelled to weigh in on this project is troubling. His job is to manage the district finances and not to offer opinions on various projects. That should be reserved for the superintendent or a BOE spokesman. I’m simply not buying the “this project will make Batavia a destination for events” argument. Really?

In summary, unless the BOE can split this proposal into 2 votes, one for the building upgrades and one for the VanDetta upgrades I would advise voters to reject this project.

Finally, the BOE argument is that this money is ‘FREE’. I disagree. This money is not ‘FREE’. It is money collected by New York State from us. I’m sure the district will argue, “well if we don’t get it some other district will”. That may be the case, but I would rather be part of the solution than part of the problem. If the district has surplus funds, how about this novel concept? Use it to reduce school taxes.

Jan 14, 2017, 2:25pm Permalink
Howard B. Owens

"The fact that the business administrator feels compelled to weigh in on this project is troubling. "

Great.

Great way to make my job harder. Tell people not to talk to me.

I called the school district so I could provide you with a follow up on this project and I spoke to the one administrator available that day to talk. If you don't want me to report something, why just say so.

Not to mention, it's rather ludicrous to suggest one of the most knowledgeable people on the project shouldn't answer a reporter's questions. I've spent my career arguing that all public employees have an obligation to answer reporter questions. And of course they should. Nobody on the public payroll should be immune from answering questions in my view. Why suggest otherwise?

Jan 14, 2017, 9:53pm Permalink
Dave Meyer

Howard, this certainly wasn't intended as a slam against you. The superintendent or a spokesman from the BOE should have been available. It doesn't seem to me that the business administrator should be acting as a spokesperson for the district.

Jan 14, 2017, 11:11pm Permalink
Howard B. Owens

I didn't take against me, Dave, but 1) Whoever I call who is knowledgeable should talk and suggesting otherwise just makes my job harder; 2) Related, I'm always operating on limited time, so if, as in this case, the superintendent isn't available, I don't have time to wait until he is, so I'm grateful another administrator is able to talk knowledgeably about the issue; 3) I reject the idea of a "spokesman." Whoever can talk should talk.

Further, it's not like Rozanski said anything the superintendent hasn't said or wouldn't say. It's all in line with his board presentation a few weeks ago, so why is this an issue? None of his statements are controversial or out-of-line.

Jan 15, 2017, 8:47am Permalink
Tim Miller

Why shouldn't a Business Administrator give an opinion about potential expenditures? Yes - one of the tasks is to follow approved plans and direct resources as fiscally prudent as possible. However, wouldn't another task be to give insight into whether specific plans make sense fiscally.

I work for a small company that has 2 accountants (my guess is they are the equivalent of the BA). When the Big Boss discusses plans for the future (both near and far), these two fine folks will interject with their insight on whether the Big Boss' ideas make sense fiscally. It's their job.

Jan 16, 2017, 10:35am Permalink
John Roach

If the Board of Education did not want the Business Administrator to weigh in, he would not have done it. Don't like it, vote in new members of the BOE.

Jan 16, 2017, 1:03pm Permalink
Dave Meyer

Let's not get hung up on my opinion regarding who should speak about projects. It's one guy's opinion and I get that I might be in the minority.
What's more important is whether this entire project is worthy of being passed by the voters.
I believe that the building improvement portion is worthy of passage while the VanDetta stadium demolition & reconstruction is unnecessary. The board has chosen to lump them together under the "free money" umbrella. If that is the case, personally I will vote against the entire project.
I feel the board should present these projects as two separate projects rather than lumping them into one, but unfortunately I doubt that will happen.

Jan 16, 2017, 9:54pm Permalink

Authentically Local