|
Follow Up on the
News
|
Glitch
In A Good System
“All this information is public knowledge listed in
the National Sex Offender Registry,” the e-mail continued.
“Frank Smith raped and sodomized a 13 year old girl
using violence and physical force. He was in prison for seven
years, his full sentence.”
In private, the e-mail’s author stated that she knew
all this because she lived across from the sex offender’s
residence, then noted how “Our community road is meeting
tonight to form a community watch program to protect and educate
our children. I feel very strongly that the more people aware
of this situation the safer our children will be.”
That was Sunday, September 17.
“The meeting went well. 30 people showed up including
(Olive town supervisor) Berndt Leifeld. We will be meeting
again,” came an e-mail describing the meeting. “Topics
of discussion were 1) Beefing up police patrols; 2) Safe houses
for our children; 3) exchanging addresses and phone numbers;
4) operation safe child - setting up at Company 4 fire house
on Saturday; 5) Changing the late bus runs so our children
do not have to walk by his house; 6) the Superintendent notifying
the school community; 7) finding out what vehicle his is driving
(she noted that a maroon Plymouth neon on the property across
from her was registered to Smith)… hidden in a covered
garage on the side of their house. Kind of scary to me. 9)
His alias is Amber Seka Star, he was involved in pornography.”
When asked if the owners of the house Smith was allegedly
staying in had been contacted at all, the woman who contacted
the press said no, explaining how they had never really fit
into the neighborhood.
Sex offenders have been in the local news all summer. An October
4 public hearing has been set and advertised for the County
Legislature to hear thoughts about a proposed Ulster County
law that would establish residency restrictions for sex offenders,
despite a number of legislators’ worries that any such
proposals be first vetted by mental health and social service
professionals, as well as the county attorney. The law, as
written, would prohibit Level 2 and 3 sex offenders from living
within 1,000 feet of sites that would provide them easy access
to potential victims such as schools and day-care centers.
Comments posted online about the proposed law opined that
the net effect would be to force sex offenders out of more
concentrated communities, like Kingston, Saugerties and New
Paltz, into the county’s rural stretches.
Reports on the legislature’s discussion of the proposed
law noted that the county currently has 187 sex offenders
registered as living in the county, with 29 at level 3 (high
risk) categories and 75 as level 2 offenders. Furthermore,
they included serious talk about castrating such offenders.
Earlier, it was announced that Ulster County will start hosting
a pilot program via the county Probation Department to monitor
level 3 sex offenders with the global position (GPS) system.
Its $250,000 was procured through state funding granted the
county by State Sen. John J. Bonacic, currently in a re-election
battle.
Federal laws changed after the passage of a 1994 Violent Crime
Control Act that included a special Jacob Wetterling Crimes
Against Children/Sexually Dangerous Predator Registration
Act provision which ordered all states to require that released
sex-offenders register with law enforcement for at least ten
years after being released from prison.
“When an offender moves, he/she must re-register. Failure
to register is a crime, the penalty for which varies from
state to state,” reads the US Dept. of Justice website
where such listings are brought together. “Community
Notification picks up where registration leaves off. With
Community Notification, not only will law enforcement know
where released sex offenders reside, but so will members of
the public.”
Looking up Frank E. Smith, two entries came up. One in Fort
Worth, Texas. The other in Olive. Both were 48, 5 foot 7,
149 pounds with a Sept 10,1997 conviction for “more
than once deviate intercourse” with a young female identified
only as “non-stranger.”
“He’s not living here, I told the police that,”
said the supposed brother that Smith had been alleged to have
taken up residence with when asked about all that was swirling
around his Olive home. “Nobody talked to me about nothing.
I have a cousin Frank who gave my address but I told him no
way he’s coming here.”
Asked whether he’d been told about the neighborhood
meeting held about his home, the man said he hadn’t…
but he had noticed everyone streaming by his house, eying
it suspiciously on Sunday.
“The Sheriff’s office knows what’s up. They
came by to check on things and I said I’d told Frank
he couldn’t stay here, no way,” the man continued.
“This is ridiculous. This is going to ruin me and my
family. I didn’t do nothing. It’s ridiculous that
the whole neighborhood’s doing this.”
A call to the Ulster County Sheriff’s office straightened
out what had happened.
Per federal law, they had gotten a call about Frank Smith’s
intentions to move from Texas “nine, ten days ago,”
according to the officer who asked that his name not be used.
“There’s a glitch in the program that puts a new
address up on the registry before it’s checked out.”
The officer confirmed that when they checked with the Olive
address on the registry, contacted by the Fort Worth police
because the Town of Olive’s department is only part-time,
they were told that the owner of the residence “did
not want Smith there.”
“They have ten days to change their address at any point,”
the officer continued. “Smith eventually came into our
offices to say that he had taken up residence in the Town
of Rochester. We sent the new paperwork up to Albany for changing
the registry on Tuesday (September 19).
He added that any changes would likely not show up for a week.
Hence the unfolding Olive problems.
“Under the law, he’s free to say he can live anywhere.
He could say h was going to be living at the White House,”
the official continued. “You are also permitted to be
homeless, or living in your car.”
Asked for Smith’s most up-to-date address, the officer
said “Sundown Road, Samsonville.” He was supposedly
living on state land.
Told about the revised information on Wednesday, the woman
who originally dispersed information about Smith noted how
she’d heard that the man was asking at Tetta’s
Store about where to go camping in the area. She spoke about
how her husband, “had first noticed the man when he
showed up that one time.”
In the background, her husband noted how it was illegal to
camp on state land for more than three days.
The woman asked again about the car, noting how she’d
seen it across the street hidden in a garage.
“We’ve seen it in there,” she said. “I’m
just observing some of their lives at that house.”
She suggested that there may have been a switching of vehicles,
the Plymouth Neon for the truck owned by the neighbor’s
son.
“Frank’s not in Rochester, he said he was in Peekamoose,
at the Sundown Camping Site,” said the man alleged to
have been Smith’s brother. “This is all totally
out to lunch. They’ve ruined my life.”
Told what the neighbors were saying about the Plymouth Neon
and switched cars, the man grew angry.
“Frank’s living in his car,” he said. “I
don’t have a garage. My son doesn’t have a truck
or a driver’s license, even. Do these people want a
slander case? Do you? I can’t pick my relatives but
I tell you this, my name appears in your paper, I sue you
to the hilt. I own that paper.”
Checking back with the registry, no changes regarding Smith
were visible late Wednesday. But it did become clear that
of the county’s 187 sex offenders, a vast majority were
living in Napanoch… at the state penitentiary there.
“The Jacob Wetterling Foundation advises: ‘Community
Notification is not about chasing sex offenders out of our
neighborhoods,” the website for the current sex offender
registry laws’ originators reads. “We all face
the challenge of building new communities, which recognize
that sex offenders live and work among us. Experts state that
sex offenders are less likely to re-offend if they live and
work in an environment free of harassment… If
we are going to make our communities safer, we need to use
this law to our benefit. We need offenders to succeed, because
if they don't, that means there will be another victim.”
Later, on the same page, it is stated that, “Much of
the present discussion and debate about sex offenders is based
on hysteria rather than fact… If the result of Community
Notification is that offenders are harassed, the courts or
the legislature could take the law away.”
“The Department does not guarantee the accuracy, completeness,
or timeliness of the information contained in state Web sites
regarding specific offenders or with respect to the omission
of information about other offenders who may be residing,
working, or attending school in the vicinity of any location
that is the subject of any search using this Web site,”
The federal DOJ Sex Offender Website reads. “It is possible
that information accessed or obtained through this Web site
may not reflect current residences, employment, school attendance,
or other information regarding such individuals, and users
are forewarned that it is incumbent upon them to verify information.
But then it adds, ominously, “Any person who uses information
contained in or accessed through this Website to threaten,
intimidate, or harass any individual, including registrants
or family members, or who otherwise misuses this information,
may be subject to criminal prosecution or civil liability
under federal and/or state law.”
In the meantime, efforts have been underway to set up an Operation
Safe Child at the Town of Olive offices for all parents to
have information regarding their children recorded on file.
For more info, check out the Ulster County Sheriff’s
web
site.
Now
It’s Hurley’s Turn
Shultis said that
he was taken by surprise when he received a letter from Craig
Kaminski of the state’s Real Property tax office on
September 18th advising him that an apportionment rate of
90% had been established for his town at a hearing held on
July 28th.
"In essence, they enacted the Large Parcel Law without
it ever being voted on," Shultis said. "I was apparently
sent an E-mail but they’ve always corresponded in writing
and I never noticed the E-mail. I spoke with Dorothy Martin
(of the Ulster County division of ORPS) and she sent me a
copy of the E-mail that was sent to me. I approached Supervisor
Wilber and he said he wasn’t aware of the meeting. He
said he didn’t go but yet they told me he did and that’s
how it got turned over. I’m still trying to get to the
bottom of it."
"This is a letter we’ve been sending every year
for many years," said Woodstock Supervisor Wilber, who
denied attending the July meeting. "Sometimes it’s
been (sent) by a property owner and sometimes it’s done
by a town supervisor but it’s sent every year and it
goes back long before I got here."
"It’s my understanding from talking to my assessor
that they’ve been asking for segmentation for the last
several years but they’ve been unsuccessful until this
year," said Shultis. "The original letter was written
by Mary Fabbie, who is the (Woodstock) building inspector’s
secretary. I asked (Jeremy Wilber) how much it actually saved
his constituents and he said he’d have to get back to
me. I still haven’t heard a number on that."
"Mary Fabbie? She may have (sent letters) in the past,"
said Wilber, who by Tuesday, still didn’t have a figure
on how much Woodstock would benefit by the decision but seemed
surprised that a town employee had sent the letter. "Did
she do it this year? Do you know? She did? Okay, yeah, so
she’s a property owner in the Kingston school district
and this is a letter that can be written by any property owner
in the effected district.
"The segmentation issue is a request to the New York
State Office of Real Property Services that can be made by
any tax payer in a particular district for them to re-examine
a segment of a property in the school district for the purpose
of recalculating the apportionment," said Wilber who
added that he didn’t know the dollar amount of the tax
break for Woodstockers but, while it wasn’t much, it
was still ‘something.’
"What they did, in essence, is they saved the 884 people
in Woodstock that pay Kingston school taxes one half of one
percent on their school tax bill," said Shultis. "What
it did to Hurley was cost 1,400 of my taxpayers a 6.36% increase
in their school taxes. That doesn’t seem proper.
"On the other side of the coin," he continued, "when
the Onteora School District put out their tax warrant, they
utilized our uniform level of assessment instead of our equalization
rate for the school taxes- which is not proper. They also
used a 90% rate which, in essence, put a ‘backdoor large
parcel’ on us, so my entire town, with both districts,
saw an extra 6.3% rise beyond the level of taxes already going
up."
"Woodstock and Hurley share two school districts,"
observed Ulster County legislator Peter Kraft (D-District
3), who is opposing implementation of the large parcel law
at the county level. "Jeremy Wilber went to the state
and essentially had the large parcel law applied to the Kingston
School District by an obscure law that no one was aware of.
You would think that, being from the same (political) party
(Democrats), there’d be the decency to call up and say
‘Hey, Mike, here’s what I’m doing’."
"Jeremy and I are good friends," acknowledged Shultis,
"but I don’t agree with him on this one because
it’s costing my taxpayers a lot more than it’s
saving his."
"What I’m concerned about is that it seems that
it seems to be the City of New York’s strategy that
every year they’re going to sue to test the valuation
put on their (Ashokan Reservoir) property," Kraft said.
"It’s a dangerous game because, the way it’s
set up, if they win the suit the county could wind up having
to pay back the City of New York over $2 million. What the
City is doing is dividing and conquering the communities and,
as a community- not only the Onteora School District but the
towns of Olive, Hurley and Ulster County- it’s in our
best interest to make sure that the valuation put on the reservoir
is fair- and I believe it is. Instead of fighting over it
on a county level to save these other communities pennies
per thousand and hit Olive and Hurley hard, the bigger picture
that’s getting lost is that the City should pay their
fair share."
Kraft said that an attempt to introduce the large parcel legislation
at the September 18th meeting of the Administrative Services
Committee of the county legislature by Ulster County legislator
Glenn Noonan (R-District 8) was tabled by a unanimous vote
because one member was absent and two new committee members-
Brian Cahill and Gary Bischoff- required time to study the
ramifications. Also, he noted, county ORPS director Dorothy
Martin was at a conference and could not attend the session.
"They’re using the old arguments in support of
implementation- which don’t hold water," said Kraft.
"Olive has done a reval on all their properties, which
was a sticking point for some legislators, leaving only Shandaken
and the City of Kingston without revals. There was also the
claim that Olive wasn’t paying its fair share of taxes
and that’s just totally false. If you want to make a
comparative analysis between $100,000 houses in Olive and
Woodstock, the fairness comes in when you apply the equalization
rate."
Back
To Adjudication...
But others seeking a more significant downsizing
of the Belleayre Resort project than Gitter has proposed,
including local Congressman Maurice Hinchey and representatives
from the ad hoc Catskill Preservation Coaliton of eleven
national and regional environmental organizations, see
Steinberg’s September 19 letter in much different
terms from the developer.
As did Steinberg himself, in an exclusive interview about
his recent decision to hold off a decision until an ongoing
adjudication and review permitting process involving Gitter’s
proposal is completed in the coming years.
The Belleayre Resort proposal, which originally called
for the creation of two high-end hotels, time share condominiums,
and private home enclaves surrounding a pair of mountain
top golf courses along the ridgeline adjacent to the state-owned
Belleayre Mountain Ski Center, has been awaiting a state
Department of Environmental Conservation decision on a
series of appeals made by the developer to a DEC Judge’s
decision that a dozen key environmental issues involved
in its review go to trial-like adjudication. Albany insiders
say that that decision, handed down by DEC Commissioner
Denise Sheehan to an Assistant Commissioner because of
possible conflict-of-interest concerns, will likely not
occur until after the upcoming November election, when
it is expected that a new Democratic administration will
replace current Governor George Pataki’s appointees.
“As you know, over the past few months the Environmental
Protection Agency (EP) has participated in the public
dialogue about the project. In press statements and correspondence,
EPA has summarized its previously stated concerns about
site runoff during construction that would adversely affect
the Catskill watershed, which is already prone to turbidity
spikes,” Steinberg wrote, referring to letters written
to Congressmen and other officials in which a preference
for a “No Build” alternative proposed by Hinchey
was stated.
Gitter suggested, in a press release released while Steinberg
was making an August 29 visit to his proposed resort sites,
that Steinberg had been considering reversing that decision.
“EPA has explained that a reduced scale project
limited to the western section of the site could alleviate
our concerns,” Steinberg continued in this week’s
letter to Gitter. “EPA has indicated support for
discussion among interested parties to achieve a reduced
scale development, and has expressed support for project
revisions that would eliminate development on the eastern
site.”
As for Gitter’s proposed downsizing, made via a
verbal presentation at Steinberg’s offices this
past summer arranged by Republican Congressman John Sweeney,
who has since stepped back from the process, the EPA official
was cordial, acknowledging its “significantly smaller
footprint” and offering “initial feedback.”
The new proposal Gitter has been putting forth calls for
the substitution of a state-of-the-art spa for one of
the two golf courses and the elimination of approximately
100 housing units.
“EPA continues to elkieve that the no-build alternative
for the eastern Big Indian site would provide the greatest
assurance that water quality in the Esopus Creek watershed
would not be impaired,” Steinberg continued, while
noting that the reduced-scale proposal could reduce “the
risk of adverse impacts.”
But then Steinberg added that “additional review
will be necessary to evaluate more fully the water quality
implications of the revised project,” something
that would be handled as part of the ongoing SEQRA (environmental
quality) and New York City Department fo Environmental
Protection permitting review processes.
“Through the State and City review processes, issues
such as potential induced growth and site runoff will
continue to receive scrutiny,” Steinberg noted,
bringing up a sore subject raised by local governmental
agencies in support of the Gitter project in recent years.
He then specifically suggested that Gitter’s Crossroads
Ventures start looking into additional use of conservation
easements, construction phasing, and a heightened role
for greater regulatory agency oversight of the entire
building of the project to speed things along.
“Our response,” wrote Gitter spokesperson
Paul Rakov when sent a copy of the Steinberg letter, which
the EPA made available to the local press immediately.
“We are encouraged by Mr. Steinberg's letter and
his clear ‘wait and see’ attitude. Our engineers
have already conducted an initial briefing with the technical
staffs of the EPA, DEP and DEC, all of whom responded
positively. We will continue to fill in more of the technical
details to Mr. Steinberg and the other regulatory agencies
in the coming days and weeks.”
Almost immediately, statements also came in from the CPC
and Hinchey.
“CPC welcomes EPA Regional Administrator Steinberg’s
statement that the ‘no build’ alternative
on the east side will provide the greatest assurance that
water quality in the Esopus Creek and the New York City
Watershed will not be further impaired,” wrote CPC
Spokesperson Marc Gerstman, an attorney for the Natural
Resources Defense Council. “CPC concurs with Regional
Administrator Steinberg’s position recognizing that
the revised Gitter proposal must be reviewed through the
full New York State SEQRA process. The SEQRA process will
have to consider, as DEC Judge Wissler directed, the induced
growth impacts of the project as well as site run off,
natural resource impacts and, significantly, the impacts
on the Catskill Forest Preserve. Significantly, CPC also
agrees with EPA Regional Administrator Steinberg that
a proposed project of this magnitude could effect and
must be considered in the context of next year’s
review of New York city’s Filtration Avoidance Determination
(FAD).”
Hinchey, on a similar track, spoke about his own proposal,
made a year ago, for the project’s eastern portion
to be eliminated.
“I am encouraged by the EPA's letter regarding the
proposed Belleayre Resort because it clearly discusses
the importance of protecting the New York City Watershed
from such a project and highlights the clear evidence
that the proposal as was first presented would have a
severe negative impact on the watershed,” said Hinchey.
"If this original Belleayre Resort plan were ever
to go forward as presented, there is no question that
the EPA would inevitably require the construction of a
filtration plant for New York City since the water supply
would be so adversely affected by runoff from construction.
Currently, the watershed is clean enough that New York
City doesn't need a filtration system. Such a system would
cost $8 billion to construct and hundreds of millions
of dollars annually to maintain. Not only would New York
City need a water filtration system, but other municipalities
that draw water from the aqueduct, such as New Paltz and
High Falls, would need a filtration plant.
"I offered my scaled-down development proposal for
just the west side of the original project site in order
to safeguard the watershed. I am very pleased that the
EPA once again stated its support for a such an alternative,”
Hinchey added. “While a new proposal is apparently
in the works, as far as I know there is nothing in writing
at this point that goes into any detail. Regardless, we
will continue to fight to protect the watershed and shield
it from any negative impact that development of the eastern
half of the project would bring."
Told about the various responses to his letter on Tuesday,
the day of its release, Steinberg laughed and tried to
clarify his points.
“The important thing to remember is that the SEQRA
process is there. They have to go through that anyway
and complete what’s been started,” Steinberg
said, noting for the record that he was not “the
chief zoning officer of the region. My interest is that
the project not effect the turbidity of New York City’s
water.” Other than that, his role was merely one
“of oversight.”
“Everyone has to run through their processes here.
I don’t want my agency making any findings or decisions
in a vacuum,” Steinberg continued. The question,
he said, was now going to be whether the project had been
scaled down enough to answer all the questions that will
be raised during adjudication. Otherwise, he said, his
agency’s preference was for building only the western
half of the proposed resort.
After asking to hear Gitter’s response to his letter
again, Steinberg said, “I want to make it clear.
This letter is not an indication of approval or disapproval.
It’s a statement that it is necessary for us first
to have all the findings that arise through full review
before us.”
Asked to clarify a statement in his letter about ensuring
that the Gitter proposes meets the requirement of a new
Filtration Avoidance Determination due from the EPA this
coming April, 2007, Steinberg said that it was unlikely
review of the Belleayre Resort proposal would be anywhere
near finished by that time. What he was suggesting, he
added, was that anything that came up that might run counter
to that FAD would “be taken into serious account.”
“We’ve being very careful,” Steinberg
said at several points, noting that the disparate views
of his letter meant he must have done something right.
“I deal with controversial issues all the time and
am not afraid of making a decision.”
Finally, asked about its own response to Steinberg’s
letter, and Gitter’s implication that his new proposal
was currently under City review, NYC DEP spokesperson
Ian Michaels said, simply, “We have not yet received
a proposal and when we do, we will fully review it.”
For Pint
I find,
as I get older, that my “imprinting”
gets stronger. I find myself using my dad’s
words, which I once found old-fashioned, embarrassing
and silly, as a way of expressing myself. Some of
his words I could find in the dictionary. I now
use words like Hoosegow meaning “jail”
and brouhaha meaning “a big hullabaloo”
and copasetic meaning “everything is okay.”
Others like jamope, not found in Webster’s
Dictionary, referred to any “n’er do
well” that he didn’t approve of my dating.
I think a suitable synonym might be “hooligan.”
These expressions infiltrate my vocabulary as do
the few Norwegian words my Nana would sprinkle liberally
into her English sentences. One that she used often
is the word Pint, said with a short “I”
like in pin. This word, loosely translated into
English, meant “not for everyday use—only
for good.” Things like silver and damask tablecloths
were saved for “pint.” When Bruce’s
aunt died at the remarkable age of 98, we discovered
how many of her possessions were saved “for
pint.” Gifts were stored in boxes with the
wrapping paper neatly folded inside with the gift
card. We even found a box of silverware, dated 1938,
in its original condition. She had saved it “for
pint.” How sad that she never found an occasion
in ninety some years to set a table with her good
silver!
At a yard sale, a conversation ensued about using
crystal, silver, and other good stuff everyday,
instead of just for special occasions. I have a
friend who owns a complete set of Royal Doulton
China, but no one has ever been served a meal on
it. Why not wear those diamond earrings with your
torn jeans? Why can’t we eat that oatmeal
with a silver spoon and drink Merlot from a Waterford
stemmed goblet? What are you saving it for?
If you don’t need all those treasures, you
might donate some to the Reservoir Methodist Church
that is having an auction on October 21. They are
hoping to raise additional money for the finishing
touches to the new church building. The first service
was held on September 24, 2006 in the fellowship
hall while the pews are being put in the sanctuary.
Frank Carle shared with me that the fellowship hall
is being named in Don DuBois’s honor.
I noticed that my neighbors in Olive are getting
ready for winter. It’s strange that we don’t
need to prepare for spring or summer or fall. Winter
is so work intensive. Pools need to be covered,
outdoor furniture brought in, wood cut and stacked,
and windows shut. Since winter requires such effort,
autumn is our reward. Those vivid colors delight
us as we do our chores. It is our treasure to be
enjoyed NOW. In the Catskills, fall seems short-changed
by winter. We should savor those breezes that tumble
the colorful leaves to the flowers that remain from
summer. Mums and marigolds shout back in yellows,
golds and purples. Autumn cries out, “Don’t
save me for “Pint!” May you enjoy this
fleeting moment sandwiched between a short summer
and a longer winter.
Changing
Onteora?
School board president Marino D’Orazio stressed
both times that no decisions have been made and
this was only the beginning of the process, with
community input vital to what he said would be a
lengthy decision-making process.
A follow-up meeting on the possible redistricting
plans has been set for the West Hurley School on
October 10 and a meeting with a bonding expert on
October 26.
KSQ began their district infrastructure studies
a year ago and met with various stakeholders regarding
declines in student enrollment and what they envision
community schools could be like. Quadrini said the
costs, “are big numbers,” and would
be presented in increments to voters and not one
lump bond.
At the September 26 meeting, questions from a concerned
Phoenicia School community, including town supervisor
Bob Cross, Jr., centered around issues of local
economic impacts of a possible school closure, worries
about impacts on district-wide transportation needs,
which could increase travel time for young students
exponentially, and long term energy approaches.
Cross pointedly asked whether the concerns of town-based
dispatch were looked into, noting that it can be
snowing in Pine Hill while it’s raining in
Woodstock. Others spoke about the increased transportation
costs of most of the new plans.
According to Quadrini, costs for repairs and updates
to the “40 years old” schools were split
into two categories based on infrastructure needs
and a master plan. The master plan expenses would
give an alternative to three elementary schools
and a seven/eight middle school, addressing the
declining enrollment, and set a benchmark based
on educational requests regarding a separate middle
school, science labs, technology labs and an overall
updated educational structure. All plans were proposed
around a demographic projection of 1526 students
by the year 2011. This is a 25 percent reduction,
or 520 pupils less than what the district currently
has.
Although voter approval is necessary for all bonds,
State aid would cover approximately 30 percent of
costs.
Plan A
The district would leave three elementary schools,
a six-through-eight separate middle school (located
in the high school) and high school. It has not
been determined if Woodstock or West Hurley would
be the east end school. Woodstock/West Hurley combined
would have 244 students; Phoenicia, 150 students;
Bennett, 232 students; and the middle/high school,
900 students. The infrastructure cost to all the
schools is approximately $40 million and master
plan $30 million.
Plan C
The district would leave two elementary schools,
a five-through-eight separate middle school (located
in the high school) and the high school. It has
not been determined which additional elementary
school would close, with each school housing 258
students. The middle/high School would have 1,010
students. The infrastructure cost would run approximately
$32-36 million depending on which schools would
close and $31-38 million for the master plan.
Central Campus Plan
This would place a kindergarten-through-four elementary
school, five-through-eight separate middle school,
and the high school all on the Boiceville campus,
with the closure of Woodstock, West Hurley and Phoenicia
schools. Additional space would need to be built
onto the middle/high School. Infrastructure cost
comes in at $27 million and master plan cost at
$35 million. Although two schools could be sold
in this plan, Quadrini recommends keeping one school
in the event of a population shift because the space
would be maxed out. He also questioned the feasibility
of this plan due to athletic field space and traffic.
Currently, a little fewer than 1500 students occupy
the total Boiceville campus and in 2011, approximately
1526 students could be enrolled.
Quadrini noted that there is a fourth plan to do
nothing, under which the continual upkeep of the
aging facilities would also be costly.
All three plans are based on a district-recommended
classroom size guideline of up to 23 students in
kindergarten; grades one-through-three of up to
25 students; and four-through-six, up to 27 students.
The board would like to have future discussions
with the public regarding the classroom size versus
quality of education. Quadrini stressed that the
decision on which plan to choose will evolve around
community input and what voters can agree on.
At the Sept. 26 Phoenicia meeting, consensus was
solidly with Plan A of the three… which had
been THE district plan before C was requested by
board members last year.
Total construction costs per school
Triton Construction inspected each building’s
infrastructure and came up with line item expenditures
for needed changes and lists a total number for
each school. Phoenicia would cost $5,045,202; Bennett
would cost $5,304,713; Woodstock would cost $8,364,587;
West Hurley (Levins) would cost $6,453,885; West
Hurley (Ryan) would cost $2,868,141; MS/HS would
cost $20,270,455;and the in-district bus terminal
would cost $1,042,455. Items such as replacement
of boilers, windows, doors, handicap accessibility,
or asbestos removal are listed in a book available
for the public at the central office.
Questions from the public and information regarding
the plans will now be put on the district’s
website at www.onteora.k12.ny.us. A large book with
photographs and a cost of each item in need of repair
or replacement is available at the central office
through Jeanne Shultis, the district clerk.
Also on Sept. 26, the Onteora Board unanimously
approved a new policy, titled “Distribution
of materials and information to/by students and
recruitment of students,” created in response
to parent’s complaints of a more frequent
presence of military recruiters in the middle/high
school cafeteria, with all requests needing approval
by the school administration... a first for the
area and a further sign of dwindling support for
the Bush Administration’s War in Iraq.
In other recent business, the board of education
authorized the school’s attorney to act on
behalf of the school district regarding New York
State and New York City tax lawsuits pending in
the Ulster County Supreme Court. The City is currently
in a tax dispute with the town of Olive over the
assessment of the Ashokan Reservoir and the State
has a tax dispute with the town of Shandaken over
State lands.
|
|
