Tonight's meeting was very short even though there was a fair amount covered.
There was a quick meeting/presentation at 7:15 for the purpose of reviewing all relevant matters relating to the Acquistion of Land. D'Huy Engineering was there to present the site evaluation and costs involved in the purchase of the Calandra property (5.91 acres, just north of the proposed new MS, bordering Friedenstahl Ave). This parcel would be the site of the two new athletic fields. A handout was presented that contained the plancon, drawings, site evaluation and estimated costs:
- Acquisition costs total: $692,428 (of which $638K represented the contract sales price or estimated just compensation for land and improvements).
- Related costs: $325K for rough grading for playfields and parking.
- TOTAL ESTIMATED COSTS: $1.017M
A motion was made and passed to approve the resolution to make a revised offer to the owner for $638,280 and if that offer is refused, initiate condemnation proceedings.
After this special meeting, the board held the annual reorganization meeting. Mr. Audenried was elected temporary chairperson to oversee the nomination of Mr. Keller as President. Motion was made and passed to elect Mr. Keller president. Mr. Butz was elected VP.
The meeting itself was fairly quick and uneventful. Except as noted below:
Ms. Callie presented the Board Committee Curriculum Report. She noted that they are "desperately trying to hold the line" on all items and that it was "very challenging in special education". They would "ask for some lenience in those areas".
It was mentioned that the advertisement for replacing the baseball coach had been in the Morning Call.
Dr. Lesky presented the Superintendent's Report. The budget was the focus in that essential services would be looked at first and foremost at the projected increased enrollment. After that, all "value added" items would all be listed as individual projects (line items). A very interesting item was about school usage for the elementary schools. Given the increased enrollment at LNES, they would be looking at possibly shifting some students around. Dr. Lesky mentioned that in the past, the "dividing line" for Bushkill/Shafer elementary has moved a bit. It has been as far South as 191 (East Lawn in Upper Naz) and as far North as Colver Rd. He mentioned that they would make recommendations at the Jan 18th meeting on this. In previous discussions, the board favored "grandfathering" kids so that they stayed in place. Any change, however would need to be adopted at the February board meeting.
Thanks again to Brad for sharing his notes from the meeting.
8 comments:
I didn't know that Nate Stannard had resigned. When and Why?
It was in the Board Minutes and I referenced it on the Activities page (read it here).
Most likely though not confirmed is that his position as Principal at Fountain Hill Elementary was the overriding reason.
The comment about the purchase of the land, for either their offer or they will proceed with condemnation, should scare every person in this community.
What give anyone the right to decide they want a piece of property, and if the owner won't sell it, take it from them?
I know how the Supreme Court ruled on this, but that does not make it right.
If the public allows this to happen, what is to stop them from going after other vacant property in the same fashion in the future?
Lower Nazareth Township used this same draconian tactic when the Prologis people came to town and I disagreed with that as well.
This is a person's property. They own it. The district should buy it for what the OWNER is willing to sell it for, not what they want to pay for it, and they shouldn't have the option to take it away under as BS law.
What bothers me the most is how easily residents of this area are so willing to stab their neighbor in the back to further their agenda, especially those in a position of power. How do they live with themselves and how can they walk down the street knowing what they are trying to do to a fellow resident?
I personally found the comments to be rather "blunt" as expressed by the Board and reported here and in the paper.
I believe the land in question is not vacant, but is farmland, right?
Regarding the use of terminology, it was stated at the Council meeting that condemnation occurred as a result of a sale to a public entity like the borough or school district and it did not mean it was being done forcibly. Here it seems there is a "regular" offer and if it is not accepted then it will be condemned.
The other interesting thing is how "careful" the Board is with the purchase of land, but yet don't mind putting all the trimmings (colonial style, brick facade, etc) and a pool in the building - quite a bit more than what they are saving on the land purchase.
The land (parcel J8 11 2A - 5.91 acres) is indeed farmland (I live just up the road from the property). As far as I can tell, the land has been fallow for awhile.
Eminent domain has been long used by schools/governments as a means of acquiring land for PUBLIC use. The land is appraised and fair market value is offered to the landowner. Usually, they come to an agreement on the purchase price. If not, the school/gov't has the right to aquire the land through condemnation. The landowner gets fair market value (it's not like they just take it).
The really scary part is that the US Supreme Court has opened up the seizure of private land by eminent domain by PRIVATE entities. This means that a business (casino anyone?) can come in, appeal to the local municipality that your land is worth more (in terms of tax revenue) as their business du jour and you're SOL. Several states are trying to enact legislation that would prevent state law very rarely trumps federal law.... we'll see....
I understand where you are coming from on the public vs. private use.
But, regardless of that, I cringe any time any entity brings in the use of eminent domain to take control of property, regardless of the state it may be in.
If the owner does not want to sell, then that is his/her decision and should be the end of the story. If the owner has the land for sale, but the offer is not what they want, then the offer is either rejected or countered, and the buyer has the option to do so as well, just like you or I would do buying or selling a property.
Would I prefer to see a school built as opposed to yet another housing development on this parcel? Most certainly yes. Do I want to see it done in such a heavy handed manor (sell or have it condemned)? Absolutely not. It goes against every principle I believe in.
I do have to agree with the moderator in that it is curious how the district can be so tight on this purchase, but are willing to throw dollars to the wind when it comes to purchasing the "nice to have" items.
In the real world, the essentials get all the priority and funding, while the "nice to haves" usually fall off the agenda.
Does the motion approved statement reg board minutes mean Mr Keller is "renewed" as the board pres. or does it mean he is nominated and still yet to be re-elected? We vote in spring for board members? Are there any other nominees for board pres? Hopefully someone out there can fill in the "gaps" for me-THX
As I understood the minutes this was the reorganization meeting for next years' officers.
As long as he is a member of the Board which would be through the end of his term, he has been approved as president for 2007.
Post a Comment