Letter to the Editor - Rochester grant merited[]
11/20/2006
A recent editorial stated that the $1.2 million in grants for the Rochester Area football stadium was based on the "whim" of state legislators. First, approximately half of the grant is for the turf, and the remainder is for the other improvements to the overall recreational facility, such as the tennis courts, basketball courts, etc.
Next, the editorial indicated that grants should be based on need. The Rochester Area School District is third from the bottom in the county in terms of budget. One mill brings in a whopping $70,000, fourth from the bottom in the county.
Football stadiums are the same size, but available funds are completely different from district to district. Some districts raise $2.8 million per mill; ours raises $70,000.
Which school district could more easily raise $600,000 for turf?
Should the legislators of our district have helped those districts instead of Rochester?
What is your definition of "need"?
Could we have raised funds from our own budget? Possibly, but charter school spending will have cost Rochester nearly $800,000 by the end of the 2006-2007 school year, and that's only for these last three school years.
The legislators from the Rochester Area - state Rep. Mike Veon and state Sen. Gerald LaValle - tried to help one of the poorest districts in the county apply for grants to fix a 50-year-old facility.
I fail to see a whim there. By the way, our football team plays rather well, despite coming from a poor district.
Dr. C. Dean Galitsis, Superintendent, Rochester Area School District