I revisited the NASD presentation on building projects through 2010 (view it here pdf). There are several projects including the now completed Buildings & Grounds facility and L. Nazareth parking lot. There is the under-construction work to the HS in the area between the original high school and north campus. Then there is the MS building, the new Media Center, the gymnasium, and the athletic fields.
On the final slide it noted that the NASD currently has $25M borrowed. The 2007-2008 budget indicates $8.5M up from $7.5 in 06 and 7.2 in 05 in debt service. The assumption is that more has been (and will be) borrowed and as such the rate has gone up.
At the 11/20/06 NASD board meeting it was noted that the maximum project cost for the MS would be $57,895,451.
In the presentation on the projects (the link is above) the MS project was listed at $40.8M and athletic fields at $7.1M for a total of $47.9M.
It would seem that if the new MS project includes every option of the athletic field proposal we have increased the cost by $10M before breaking ground (is $5M for the pool?).
Rounding to $57.9M less the $25M borrowed we need to make up $32.9M.
The final slide in the deck notes at the time we had a "borrowing capacity of $29M" and if we borrowed the then needed 26.8M it would result in a 2.4 mill tax increase for construction (no ongoing costs would be included).
Can one estimate the new tax increase for the building will about 3.5 to construct?
What will happen with ongoing expenses. We are not replacing an existing building. We are moving two grades from other buildings. When they move out, other students, classes, activities, will move in - they will not be shut down. They will be differently utilized. Therefore except for the moving of teachers, students, and classroom supplies, all other expenses are new.
New in this sense means extra costs for maintenance (both staff, equipment, and supplies), support staff (nurse, psychologists, etc), special area teachers (health, phys.ed, library, art, music), IT (staff and equipment - again expectation that the previous equipment will be used in the same classrooms not uninstalled from elem and reinstalled in new building), administration (principal).
The building cost is big, but the added expenses of a new building on an ongoing basis have not been revealed to the public (it'd be great to see a projected 2010 budget with building built and in operation given the anticipated enrollments to understand the real impact)
There are several important meetings coming up on this issue:
- January 8, 2007 - 7:30 PM - NASD School Board Meeting, North Campus.
- January 9, 2007 - 6:30 PM - NASD Act 34 Building Hearing, HS Large Group Instruction.
- January 22, 2007 - 7:30 PM - NASD School Board Meeting, North Campus.
The current project has increased by $10M on paper before we have begun it. The amount we need to borrow has exceeded our "borrowing capacity" (not sure how this changes or is calculated).
I guess it again goes to the question of what does the future hold? I'd like to see the concept for what we are looking at in 10 years for spending and revenue, because I can't understand how we are going to make ends meet, particularly with the Act 1 and a voter referendum if expenditures increase over a state set per district allocation (I think Nazareth is around 4.6% to start, which makes me wonder if the budget is intentionally being inflated so the target will be easier to reach in future years - get more money at a lower percent when have 70 million compared to 35 as base).
Seems we have to be more careful than ever with our spending and building. No frills, lets make the building and budget as efficient and effective as possible, and lets keep the focus on the purpose of the schools - educating the children who attend them.
Lots to chew on - what do you think?
10 comments:
Best keep it all trim and lean in future building expenses etc, new buildings without the bells and whistles look good anyway just by being new. One must really keep in mind it is the education our students leave with that is important to the future. And who knows what the future hold, s oplease be frugal. This is not a bottomless pit of money here. Educational Services to students must be number 1.
Ross....I think you would be a great candidate for the school board!
Your last comment about inflating the budget now to hedge against future limits I believe is right on the mark.
I attended a PTA meeting a little over a year ago, and Dr. Lesky basically said this is exactly what they were doing in response to a question. Whether he will admit that now, I'm not sure.
Operational costs have to go up as was clearly stated. More teachers, more buses, more IT, the list goes on and on.
Doesn't the sunshine act apply to schoold districts as well? Do we need to follow Bernie's lead with the boro and file suit against the board to open up?
We the taxpayers are constantly victimized by the people we put in office. It is time we take back control of our elected officials.
The NASD school board has been very open in all their dealings... (it's just getting people to go the meetings to find out what's going on that proves to be so difficult).
That said, we do need to be aware of what's going on in the district and in the education of our children. There is some very big ticket items that are on the table that we need to consider very carefully.
I do think Brad is right in regard to the Board being open and posting information on their site has improved significantly the past few months.
There are few people who attend any public meetings. Again the point of having this site. You can be informed without attending them.
And I hope this changes the notion that a big group of people coming to a meeting will eventually go away, so you can do whatever you want.
For as much as is discussed in these meetings and made available online, the trick is getting to the committee meetings at the early stages so when these plans are being discussed they can be brought to the public before they even get to the board.
We constantly feel behind, because once an item is on the board agenda it seems to be a done deal. This would lead you to believe that decisions are being made somewhere else, but I think in actuality it is because even fewer people go to committee meetings and the board seems to approve whatever the committee promotes.
In this case, however, some consideration and more public discussion needs to take place. By public I mean have an open meeting where we can see the work the committee had done leading up to this point. Explain why each item is needed, how it will help, and answer questions. Tell us about alternatives and what the trade-offs are.
As we found in the case with the borough this summer, there are a lot of people willing to help and offer insight - alternative solutions can be found.
Thanks again to everyone for reading and commenting!
does anyone know which of the 3 athletic field proposals the district is going with? i heard rumors they were going with the multipurpose stadium and separate all-weather track and multipurpose practice facility near the new middle school. under this proposal, the track team would not have a practice facility for this season or next season. many people on this site seem to be concerned about what is in the best interest of the kids, well under this proposal, multiple sports would be without a place to practice (possibly for more than one season). is that fair to the kids? you know the district is going to spend the money, so please at least make sure they do it right. no coaches were consulted in the design of the new athletic complexes. i can tell you from the perspective of someone involved with track, it is nearly common knowledge that a new track should have 8 lanes instead of 6. this would allow our school to be a host site for invitational meets (which means revenue for the district). in addition, there are numerous other design flaws that could have been avoided if coaches were allowed to give some input. parents of athletes in the district, please voice some of these concerns at board meetings. if the district is going to overspend, they might as well do it the right way.
If we are feeling "victimized" and want better control over our school officials we need to write directly TO the board members, attend meetings enmass, circulate petitions (as the citizens did so effectively with boro council). Just airing our gripes via NOC is NOT enough. And , yes, where is the concern about the sunshine law and schoolboard ?!?!?!?!
The Act 34 plan for the new MS is available for review at the Admin offices (I think it was made available as of Dec 19). Ms. Swigart also informed me after the last board meeting that they were going to get it online as an adobe (*.pdf) file.
I don't think the board has violated the sunshine law in any way with the plans/budget for the new MS and ancilliary facilities. Do I agree with all the plans? No. But just because they are plowing ahead with the multi-million dollar projects doesn't mean they have violated the sunshine law.
The Act 34 information is up on the district web site at the following:
http://www.nazarethasd.k12.pa.us/718101017155739153/site/default.asp
I haven't DL'd it yet (or even looked at it that closely).
Anon 9:57 you make an extremely valid point in regard to input from coaches, but this also extends to curriculum leaders and department heads. When the MS was built there was some input, but then change orders resulted in going against the very input that was sought.
Also, in looking at the plans on the link Brad posted it appears there will be a track and competition playing field at the MS in addition to Andrew S. Leh Stadium. If this plan is correct I'm not sure why the McDonalds game would be moved except for a lack of parking (Mitchell Avenue area).
The plan shows the track and field next to the new MS School along with what look like 2-3 soccer/field hockey fields and a phys. ed. field.
Tough to see all detail in the pdf as it was reduced from a blueprint.
And I absolutely support getting it done right the first time. Look at the fiasco with the drive way at the current MS. It was redesigned not a two years after it was installed new because it hadn't been thought through properly.
Post a Comment