Gail, would you ever want the responsibility of a childs death on your concience, what price does society ever affix to an at risk childs welfare and safety, apparently this person has a dollar figure in mind.
Good to see that the scrooge is in the distinct minority and has been marginalized yet again on matters of public safety, this time childrens well being.

Gail, I think the fact that bussing is not the absolute essential is the mitigating factor; it's the cheapest alternative is the issue. If this item were a line item in the school budget they could theoretically refuse to bus and the state would require the district to improve roads, build sidewalks or invest in whatever's necessary to meet state requirements. That's the irony of Councilman Moench perspective the fact that if the onus were shifted to school the school district could in theory increase the district's budget.

Exactly.

perhaps you misconstrue the import of my comment, is that possible?
either way there seems to be a pattern of no votes from this individual when it comes to public safety time and again who seems to always vote no whether public safety questions are funded by grants or borne by the taxpayers, the PD is short 15 officers, 1st responders are discouraged from attending classes, shared resources in the form of court facilities and emergency services agreements, either way its a NO.

There really does come a time when the party-o-stupid becomes the party o-stupid-no's and should be called out for that dont you think?

thanks, mike. exactly. I am in favor of paying for busing.

sounds more like redlining to me

Again no obligation on the school to bus, could just as easily force the district to lay sidewalks, improve roads, or institute some other cost incurring initiative to meet state guidelines. Hence, the serious flaw in Councilman Moench's logic....

wrong side of the tracks representation?

Chris, you suggest "some kind of joint payment." Let's look at the entire student transportation picture. According to the "user friendly budget" for 2012-14 on the school district's web site, the entire budget for student transportation is $8.3 million. Of that amount, about $800,000 comes from state aid. The township pays about $280,000 for the "hazardous busing" portion (according to the above article.) That leaves about 87 percent of the total transportation budget being picked up by the school board. It seems like the school district is paying at least its fair share - especially when the regular transportation paid for by the school district, and the hazardous business paid by the township, basically all comes out of the same taxpayers' pockets anyway.

Oops, that should be 2013-14, not 12-14.

BwaterDad, Maybe a joint payment isn't the way to go. I’m honestly not sure where I fall on this issue because I don’t think we’re provided enough information in the article to gain a full understanding of what appears to be a long running issue.

But I do take umbrage with your comment that “It seems like the school district is paying at least its fair share”. We pay school taxes to pay for schools and school related items. It would seem to me that their “fair share” would be 100%. If I only pay 87% of my tax bill next month, have I paid my fair share?

The issue is pretty straight forward. State law dictates certain accomodations be made for areas deemed to fall into the category of hazardous standards for children who fall within the walking criteria for bussing. There are essentially two options to mitigate the circumstance:
1) Provide "hazardous bussing" or
2) Fix the hazard

Bussing falls within the bugetary criteria of the school district. Infrastructure improvements within the district. Both items are funded by the tax payer based on housing assessment.

In the case of BW; option 1 is much cheaper than option 2. City gets the benefit of not having to invest in capital improvements (i.e. saves money), school meets obligation to fulfill state criteria; in my world that's called a win-win.

In Councilman Moench's idiocracy he perceives budgetary gain on the district balance sheet (of which there is no guarantee since the school system could defer to infrastructure improvement as mitigating recourse) as somehow benefitting the community.

Gary, Judging by your personal attacks on Councilman Moench and your above comment “Why don't you go back to contesting voter registration for the GOP” I’m going to assume your voter registration was contested for some reason, you are therefore angry and unable to discuss this topic reasonably . I am however going to preserver.

This is where my comment about having more information comes in; I’d like to know the cost of hazardous busing versus the cost of fixing the hazard. Perhaps it’s cheaper in the long run to just fix the issue rather than perpetually pay for busing. Maybe there are outlying issues that are preventing a fix, I don’t know. But if not why wouldn't the town want to invest in capital improvements? Especially as that’s a fix that all residents will enjoy, not just those walking to school.

its not 'personal attacks' it's criticism of votes and stated policy of an elected individual

Chris, you seem to be assuming that 100 percent of the expenses of the school district are supposed to be paid for through the local school property tax levy. That is not true at all. State aid provides some of the funds (probably about 10 percent.) Federal aid provides some of the funds (probably only a few percent.) There are other sources of revenue, though very little in relation to the entire budget. Look at the budget, the facts are all there.

You may also want to look at the Bridgewater Township budget, which would tell you that the municipal government receives a higher percentage of its funding from "outside" sources than the school district does.

Chris, for the record my voter registration was not, however, my 18 year old daughter's was. Given the circumstances and given my personal witness as to the process and strategy behind what and how the voter registration was contested in municipal court; suffice it to say I have enough perspective to speak rather fluently on the matter. So to your point, I will continue my personal attacks in the appropriate forum where it dictates a la the councilman's idiocracy on said matter.

Most likely because of budgeting reasons. Hazardous busing, like courtesy busing, is not required to be provided if the child lives within a mile and a half of the school. Bridgewater has always provided it because of the structure of our area. However, because the budget always gets voted down, and the town council then hacks away at it (ask Mr. Moench what he recommended the last time THAT happened), it is most likely to be cut again if the school district has to foot the bill.