Two years have passed since a much-needed school referendum was rejected by Chesterfield voters for the second time, and Dec. 11 will show us whether the third time is the charm for the district.
The numbers have changed but the facts remain the same: new houses are being occupied by new families, and the township’s small elementary school is not sufficient to contain the numbers of students coming from these new houses. While there may be those who are averse to having new neighbors, the education of all of the township’s children should not hang in the balance.
The effects of overcrowding can already be seen. Six classes of first- and second-graders are now bused to a neighboring township, and in 2010 that lease will be up and a new plan would need to be adopted, if the new school is not built. Ultimately, if the education, health and safety of the students is so compromised that the state has to step in, there will be no choice at all: there will be a new school, and by then the cost will be even greater.
In 2003, voters rejected a $17.5 million referendum. In 2005, a $19.5 referendum failed. At that time, we implored residents to vote yes to avoid a further price increase. Now, the plan is for one school (rather than two schools in separate locations), which would cut down on administrative and infrastructure costs, though the initial price tag is greater, at $37 million. The old school building would be sold, to help defray that cost. The district is looking at environmentally responsible and thrifty options for geothermal heat, the possibility of using solar energy, and other cost-saving measures to reduce future annual expenses.
Common arguments that are voiced against proposals such as this focus on the way things “should” be. People might say new families shouldn’t move into our town, we like it here the way it is. However, the reality is that “new” people are already a part of the community. Houses have been built, and families have moved in. The population of the school has grown 25 percent in two years because of this growth.
Fortunately, because of the Transfer of Development Rights program, growth within the township is not expected to exceed the 1,200 or so new houses that are being built. Another argument that comes up from time to time is that new homeowners should be solely responsible for the cost of the school. That, of course, would be illegal. The public school is there for the good of all children in the municipality. Living as part of a community brings with it certain responsibility. Whether we like the laws that require public funding for public schools through taxation or not, those laws are on the books and we must live by them.
The reality of the situation is that voters have twice turned down the opportunity to fund this necessary project and now, as expected, the school population has grown and the cost of housing it in a new facility has grown. It is more urgent than ever that this plan be approved so the education of the community’s children is no longer compromised. The enrollment numbers show that projections were accurate, and growth will continue as the build-out reaches completion.
There is no easy way to ask people with an already strained budget for more, but some residents may wish to ask the municipality about state property-tax reimbursement programs for eligible seniors that make up the difference between property tax paid from a base year and the new rate. For those who meet income and other eligibility requirements, this could soften the blow.
We urge residents of Chesterfield Township to vote yes on the referendum and we urge all those who might be eligible for reimbursement or tax relief to pursue those programs. Voting will take place from 7 a.m. to 9 p.m. on Dec. 11 at the Chesterfield Firehouse on Route 528. More information about the referendum can be found on the school Web site at www.chesterfieldschool.com.