Wednesday, August 10, 2011

2011-2012 Student Enrollment Report

The start of the 2011-2012 school year is only a few weeks away. We have some preliminary enrollment numbers as of 7/28. The report below shows the actual enrollment by School/Grade for 2010-2011. It also contains a "Projected by School 2011-2012". I expect an updated version of this report by the time school starts and another update in October. These reports will show 2011-2012 actuals by grade/school.

In short, we're looking at 95 fewer students this year as of 7/28.

I have no doubts enrollment numbers will play a major role in the next budget cycle. Leaving this report here as a placeholder for discussions to come.


Breachway said...

Great Tony - enrollment will play a roll in the budget for next year. Will it matter what the public thinks? It doesn't seem to have mattered when it came to the turf/track project. Are you really going to get up there and say we need to cut this or that because the economy is bad? Are you going to charge the kids more for pay to play? Maybe get a few more bucks out of them for parking? Are you going to say "its not the BOE that approved the turf/track project"....In my 20 yrs as a Cheshire resident - jamming this through is probably the low point in local politics. I used to attend these meetings when I could....not anymore.

Anonymous said...

The Awesome turf project started today!
This is a great project and will be well used by all
Cheshire should be proud and we can all celebrate!
Go Rams!!

Tony Perugini said...

Breachway, I've detailed every decision I've made on the BOE, the finance meetings, the budget discussions, areas of reductions including constraints, etc.

Besides Tim White, who else holding an elected position in town bothers to go into detail let alone explain why they voted the way they did on the web? Nobody.

Sorry, I don't hide behind my microphone on the BOE and I'm not afraid to write down what goes into my decision making. I don't mince words either.

I support the turf project. Sorry.

I support the track project, it needs to be done though I would've preferred a proper bid process for it.

All one has to is look through my archive. Lot of detail there that will be revisited again during the next budget process. A lot of groundwork (no pun intended) went was done through the BOE finance committee this past budget process setting the stage for further analysis soon.

If you have something of substance to offer, such as an area of potential reduction, it would be welcomed.

Anonymous said...

8:36 you say the turf project "will be well used by all."

Explain exactly what age range and for what purposes people will use it. In other words how will someone that's say 3 use the turf? How about 83? Sure they could walk on the track but YOU say the turf will be well used by all. Well used means often. Be specific.

Anonymous said...

Tony, if there turns out to be some additional cost incurred while doing the track/turf project and since it's so close to that referendum number, how will the public know that that cost wasn't slipped into some other "outside maintenance account" or somewhere else to avoid halting the project and sending it to referendum?

Tony Perugini said...

10:04...with the scrutiny these projects are receiving one would need to be a fool in order to hide excess costs. If there's an overrun it must be discussed in public in a committee, tc or bow meetings. I will certainly post it here if it happens.

Work started yesterday on the football field.

Anonymous said...

the Trucks rolled on the field and the project has begun!
This is a proud day For all the good folks in Cheshire
I can't wait to see it done!
The whole town can be proud all sports can use it and there will be thousands of citizens who will benefit
The turf project was long time in the making and now we see the success!

Anonymous said...

yes what a wonderful project
Good for all involved
would have been way too expensive to go with grass field re-do
Smart way to spend the money

Anonymous said...

I guess, 8:36, you still can't explain how the turf "will be well used by all."

Not surprised.

Anonymous said...

I like the field turf project as it did not cost the taxpayers of Cheshire one dime and it is a smart investment
Let the haters hate-celebrate the great project
Don't be negative
Be positive

Anonymous said...

This turf/track project (which it is now called) just cost the taxpayers $188,000.

Oh, and let's keep an eye on Greenwich. They just closed their turf fields because of toxic chemicals found next to them in the soil.

Anonymous said...

Mike Ecke stated he wants more turf fields installed in Cheshire and that this is the first of many turf fields to come. The fund raising group is already raising funds for the next fields and Ms. Fritz has begun lobbying Hartford for another grant.

Cheshire will soon be known as the Turf-Field Capitol of CT.

Anonymous said...

I wonder where all of the naysayers were last week when the tc held a public hearing on the track? Too busy being miserable at home I guess. Good job.

Breachway said...

Tony - you have been straight forward, you dont need to get cranky....still wondering how you are going to make any cuts and rationalize them vs the turf/track....I can't think of anything worth cutting if doing this project makes sense.
Anon 10:35 - they were at the referndum

Anonymous said...

The turf project is going to allow so many more civic, sports, school and band groups to have their events
The old field was a real eyesore
Let's get behind this project
good for Cheshire
Good for our town
Good for all of us!

Anonymous said...

Cheshire just made the top 100 places to live US in Money Magazine
Good job to all

Anonymous said...

I would like to clarify a couple of points regarding the turf/track.
#1. The project will cost the State taxpayer $525,000. Some of the tax money came from Cheshire.
#2. Why was the field and track not maintained? Who is responsible for that?
I hope that now that this has been approved that we maintain the new field and track better than the old.
Let's move on to the pool.

Anonymous said...

3:23 says - #1. The project will cost the State taxpayer $525,000. Some of the tax money came from Cheshire.

Don't forget to add in the recently tc approved $188,000 all of which is Cheshire taxpayer money.

#2. Why was the field and track not maintained? Who is responsible for that?

If you want something totally new, then not taking care of what you have might get you that new field. If everyone thinks it's in such sad shape and dangerous it'll be easier to convince the people who vote on it. Apparently it worked.

Anonymous said...

My biggest concern with the turf is the same as 3:23's.
If they couldn't take proper care of a natural grass field, how will they take care this $1 million field so it can last the minimum 10years?
I also don't want to hear that this didn't cost us any money, where did the $525,000 come fro,.
I am sounding like 3:23, but these are valid points.
I was also quite surprised on how fast they began digging the next day after the TC approved it. I wonder what would have happened if they tabled that vote?

Enough of all the phonies here saying what a "wonderful project" this was. I gurantee that if this went to referendum, it would have lost by a larger margin then the track did. But as we can see, it doesn't matter what we say. If there are enough influential people involved in a project, it will get pushed through, no matter what the publi wants.
I just hope these people are around when it comes time to replace it. Lets hope they follow through with all their fundraising and can afford the replacement.
But no worries, even if they didn't, we will have creative ways of funding it like we did the track.

Tony Perugini said...

Folks, there's a little bit of a history with both the track and field in terms of maintenance. They were being maintained, they were not neglected.

The track is over 16 years old. 16 years is a long time for any track surface to last as long as it did. We got our money's worth out of it and then some! It was simply time to replace it. Will the next track last 16 years? Who knows? I hope it does. If Andy Falvey's calculation is correct, doing the track now saves the town $163K.

As for the field itself, we've discussed it here on this blog many times. A lot of those discussions are buried in the archive. I have to find a way to make this detail easily available to bloggers. I don't mind rehashing these topics but it would be easier for us all if we could read the relavant posts as needed. I'll find a way.

I wasn't here when this field was installed. If one has walked the field, you'll see peaks and valleys in the surface that's supposed to be flat. Drainage is non-existent and the field becomes a mud pit. Chemicals cannot be used on the field. This means no weed control and I believe no fertlizer. The field is over-seeded over and over again every year but it became a lost cause. Approximately $23K/year has been spent on maintaining the field.

Grading and drainage are the main root causes for it's condition, in my opinion. In this regard, I don't know why the drainage and grading weren't properly architected for the field. Re-sodding it an expensive proposition but no matter what we put on the surface...the drainage and grading issues have to be resolved.

Yes, the state grant is funded by taxpayer dollars. But the installation doesn't require going to the Cheshire taxpayers for a property tax hike or bonding to make the project happen and the turf group raised over $225K in donations to make certain the town isn't being hit for the turf installation costs. I think these are very positive events.

The issue, or concern, is the long-term replacement cost of the field. The turf group is continuing to raise money for long-term replacement costs. The BOE, yesterday, drafted a policy to capture field-revenue such as ad banners, ticket surcharges of $1, field rentals, etc. towards turf replacement. These monies will be deposited into a town account for the sole purpose of field replacement.

It may not mean much to some folks but I believe the BOE is taking responsibility for this field in making certain that the replacement costs will be as minimal, if not zero, to the cheshire taxpayer. I don't know if the field can be self-sufficient but we're trying to make that happen.

Regarding the current annual maintenance costs of the grass field. Many numbers were thrown around. In fact, it seemed that every time Bob Behrer spoke in public, the number got higher, lol. Based on my observations, the maintenance number for the field is $23K per year. Over 10 years, for example, we're contributing $230,000 to the grass field. The field does not look like a $230,000 field. It looks like hell, IMO.

The maintenance for the turf is much, much, much simpler and cheaper. A lot less labor will be needed to maintain the turf. The maintenance of the turf field requires a 45 minute grooming of the turf about once a week. The grooming equipment consists of a brush roller that attaches to our current tractor. Rubber infill pellets may need to be spread over the field as needed. While the field doesn't require watering, water will be used on particularly hot days to keep the temps down for the players on the field. And lastly, there will probably be anti-bacterial spray on the field much like we use today on the grass field.

I expect a savings of $20,000/yr in maintenance costs with the turf field in place.

In the end, I believe we'll have a much better field, one that the town can be proud of and it makes economic sense.

Anonymous said...

Thanks for explaining the costs of maintenance on the fields.
I am curious, you actually believe it will only cost $3,000 a year to amintain the field (Based on your assumption that we would save $20,000 per year)??
I looked at other schools maintenance figures for their turf fields and their maintenance costs average over $10,000 per year.
The $23,000 that you state was used to amintain the current field, if it wasn't used on chemicals and fertilizer, what was it used on? Seed and water or are you including labor costs?
I assume that an artificail turf field will need to be groomed after each game, I find it hard to believe that if it gets used as much as they say it will be that a once a week grooming will suffice.. Add the other sports that will be using this field and those labor costs can get quite high.Add the replacement of the rubber pellets and that can get costly as well.
Don't mean to be a devil's advocate, but I think your maintenance fees are a little off.
One other thing. What is going on with the replacement og the goal post that was damaged during the Relay? Who will pay for that repair/replacement?

Anonymous said...

Went by and saw the turf field project is going along quite well
Can't wait until Cheshire sports play their first home games under the lights and on the turf
Good job by the Democrats and Republicans who supported this project
Smart thinking!!

Tim White said...

I don't know if the field can be self-sufficient but we're trying to make that happen.

Thank you for saying that. I think it's an important point to acknowledge.

Anonymous said...

Gotta love the sarcasm you display the words of Andy Falvey, you are an "idiot"
Hope you enjoy the tax increases we are getting from Malloy too. Imagine if the state gave grants to all the towns to put in fake grass.

Anonymous said...

Good article in the Record Journal today-Cheshire will get to play on turf in Wallingford who already used their grant money to build a wonderful field
Thanks to all the boosters to helped make the Cheshire field possible
Good job!
Maybe we can now move forward and get more field turf fields

Anonymous said...

8:43 I think you inhaled too many rubber infill pellets because you have a few typos in your post.

Anonymous said...

Let's be positive this year
We need to all work together and make sure our kids get the best education for the least cost
It can be done-this should not be a negative thing
We are getting a great field and track
Good for our town
Good for all of us