Understanding School Referendum in Lower

To the Editor: 
There has been much written regarding the school referendum Jan. 26. It is great to have members of the community discuss the merits of the projects proposed, but it is also important that accurate information be part of the discussion.
Two questions await voters, one from Lower Township Elementary Schools (grades K-6) and one from Lower Cape May Regional School District (7-12). In making decisions regarding these important questions, residents may want to keep three key questions in mind: Is there a need? Is the project beneficial to the students and staff? Is the project a financially-responsible use of taxpayer money?
Lower Township Elementary Schools are asking to raise funds to replace two roofs (Maud Abrams School and Mitnick School) and also to resurface parking lots (Maud Abrams School and Sandman School). Those who have visited the schools know the needs are real. Severe leaks at both schools are the result of old roofs. Replacement is needed to prevent future damage and maintain a safe, healthy environment.
Given the state’s laws regarding school finances, there is no way for a school district to save up for a “rainy day,” hence the need for the bond referendum. Currently, conditions are favorable for a project such as this. The state will be providing 40 percent of the cost, so this $5 million project will be reduced to $3 million.
Is there a need? Clearly, there can be no question about the need.
Is the project beneficial to the students and staff? Keeping the kids and adults safe and healthy should always be a priority.
Is the project a financially responsible use of taxpayer money? Major projects such as this are costly, but given the need for this work and the state’s 40 percent contribution, it would seem clear that taxpayer money would be used wisely.
Similarly, Lower Cape May Regional School District needs essential roof and window replacement as well as parking lot resurfacing. Security enhancements at both schools are proposed as well. Additionally, a multi-sports facility is proposed. This has drawn quite a bit of attention. Total cost of the project is $6.3 million with the state providing about $1.4 million to bring the cost down to about $4.9 million.
Is there a need? The maintenance elements of the project are obviously needed. Regarding the multi-sports facility, the hectic practice schedule for the many athletic teams at the high school and Teitelman School indicates the need is there. In addition, the recreation department and Little League will also benefit from the facility’s availability.
Is the project beneficial to the students and staff? Again, keeping the students and staff in a safe, healthy environment is essential. The athletic facility would certainly have a positive effect on many students by providing an opportunity for physical activity and learning teamwork. Actively-engaged kids are less likely to be causing problems in the community.
Is the project a financially responsible use of taxpayer money? The financial numbers are well documented. While the maintenance items would also receive the 40 percent state funding, the multi-sports facility would not. The district has been upfront with the finances, even providing a cost calculator on their website.
As a retiree on a fixed income, I weighed the pros and cons of the proposals. By acquiring accurate information, I have a clear understanding of the project. For me, the pros far outweigh the cons. Encouraging kids to be active in safe facilities is well worth the cost.
I encourage all residents to get the accurate information and participate in the community’s decision by voting.