Act 34 Hearing Materials Commentary and Questions

I read through the materials last night (the PDF is available here) and found the following:

The Bottom Line.
The total millage impact is 6.51 mills for this project.

A 2.69 mill increase is required for the indirect building costs such as staffing, supplies, utilities, services, insurance, etc. This will be an annual expense ($2,072,224 in additional expenses year one of operation) with a probable 8-10% increase per year (based on increase from 2006-07 to 2007-08 in the general budget).

The funding will be through a General Obligation Bond that will result in an average annual payment at 4.5% for 20 years or $4,110,956 per year. One would assume this is in addition to the $8,537,000 debt service the district will pay in 2007-2008, unless a portion of these were already included (I contacted both the admin and board via email one week ago today and requested 10 year schedules of debt service with and without the new building, but received no response).

What We Get.

The NASD considered three properties primarily owned by Cement Companies - 2 options were Essroc properties, one (that selected) Hercules. The selected property does list as a disadvantage that "soils in area are prone to sinkholes" (could be said of any property in the valley, but this area does seem to have more than its share) and "Requires zoning variance" (put in hands of Upper Nazareth Twp).

The advantages, and this one surprised me, was that it "Contains usable youth athletic field" (does this mean no more clippers field for Upper Nazareth?). Also sites size, price, road access, and its being adjacent to HS.

Also surprising was the inclusion of both a pool and all weather track (not around Andrew S. Leh Stadium, but instead a second track with field immediately adjacent to the new MS).

Within the Project Description (which is in essence a state form to be completed by the NASD) it indicated that the acreage to be acquired was not currently in agricultural use. I seem to recall crops along Friedenstahl Avenue, but maybe that wasn't this past year. And in response to the question "Describe existing community use of the site and any planned changes." NASD responds "The smaller parcel contains a youth baseball field that is leased to a community group." Again this is Clipper field and while nothing here is stated, at the very least the Clippers will not have exclusive use to this in the future if they have any at all.

Square footage and floor plans follow, but there are no architectural drawings to know what it will look like from a design standpoint (ie the colonial facade etc).

What grabbed my attention looking at the floor plans is the observational percent of core instructional areas compared to other areas. I see roughly 50 classrooms, labs (science and computer) and language classrooms. These are contained on the 1st and 2nd floors on the east side of the building. The rest of the facility contains gym, auditorium, library, band, swimming pool etc. Visually I'd say less than half the building is for these 50 classrooms.

Again, without drawings I can't be certain how this will look, but the east entryway appears to have a large two story "common area/entryway" that could easily fit a full basketball court inside it (maybe 1.5 courts). The library, cafeteria, auditorium, band room, gym, aux. gym, and swimming pool are all two stories and therefore the 2nd floor space is "unusable" for other purposes (appearing to reduce its floor space by half). While I understand some of these need to be two stories, it wouldn't seem they all do.

The Building Admin and Guidance area includes 5,060 square feet for 14 staff, which seems a bit much on paper (361.5 sq. ft. per staff member), and is larger than the cafeteria including the faculty eating area (4,625).

How We Got Here.

The NASD projects the continuation of the pattern of enrollment from the past decade over the next decade, which was 22% growth.

The current MS, open to students in 1999, was "specifically designed for a middle school concept instructional facility but has little flexibility to enhance a middle school strategy of team and thematic instruction."

It sounds like a flaw. As I recall the team concept was in place when the building opened with color coordinated teaching groups, yet here it is stated it is not supported by the building design. We need to make sure when we plan this new building it can meet needs today and ten years down the road.

"Concern exists for traffic congestion at the beginning and end of school and for the mixing of bus and vehicular traffic."

Again, this was not well planned. After the MS opened the entranceway was redesigned. Further, the NASD succumbed to residents who lived along 4th Street and decried buses and students traveling from the MS to the HS along the road directly connecting the two facilities. As a result, the NASD rerouted buses along Victory Lane to Tatamy Road to the entrance of the building, compounding the problem of entering and exiting the facility. The NASD also installed a remote controlled gate to reduce non-authorized entrance and exit. All of these were over and above the cost of the building.

Let's hope the traffic is better planned for at this new facility.

The final two reasons for a new facility (the two noted above plus enrollment being the first three) is the need for hands-on experience with "increasingly sophisticated range of technological equipment available for home/family or businesses in today's society." And the Citizen's Committee recommended this building option over three others (a new elementary building, expansion of Lower and Bushkill, and a new 4-5 intermediate school).

So what do you think? Voice your opinion here, but be sure to attend the January Board Meetings and Act 34 Hearing to officially make your opinion heard. Do you think there is room to trim back some of the expenses? Does this really meet our needs? Do we need a second track? Will this be the only all weather track or are we getting two (as seemed to be indicated in the Morning Call article)? Should the pool be located in the MS or in the Athletic Facility that is also on the plans, where it could utilize existing locker rooms and be available to four grades instead of two?

Lots of money, lots of questions, any comments?

Happy Holidays!