Saturday, January 13, 2007

Resident has strong words for school in Express-Times

A letter to the editor today in the Express-Times by Bushkill resident Rodger Gordon (read it here) called the NASD on its spending for the new MS.

Gordon, who stated he had made similar comments at Monday's Board Meeting, noted that the cost of this building is nearly 3x the cost to build the previous MS, which opened in 2000. He also pointed out the numerous frivolities including the pool, track, and turf field (which I was personally unaware of until he mentioned it).

Using a different tact, but along the same lines I received an email that was also copied to the Admin and School Board that read:

Just a quick thought - Why are we so focused on adding the pool when we should be looking at other ways to minimize expense and maximize revenues? For example, we have 2 beautiful large auditoriums (NHS and NMS) – why do we need another one? The pool is something the district does not have – it can also be an incremental revenue stream when not in use. I am sure that the swim leagues in the area would love to have their championship meets at a world class facility.

My response was that the NASD's desire to have a campus requires the building of a MS, instead of an Intermediate or Elementary, school, either of which would be much cheaper to build and would not require all the same facilities we already have in the existing MS. Further, we have a tendency to do things the hard way. A future project to add classrooms at the HS does not simply add classrooms. It converts the library into classrooms, then converts the gym into a library, then we build a new athletic facility to house the gym (which is where I contend the pool should be if we are going to build one). In addition to all the renovation that takes place, the current gym has four locker rooms, a weight room, aux gym, wrestling room, storage, and trainers room that will all not be needed to support a library.

13 comments:

Anonymous said...

I respect Mr Gordon's right to express his thoughts and concerns,, but would caution everyone that he does not understand the facts. If you are truly interested in determining for yourself if this new school and other improvements are actually needed take the time and read the report. If you have questions ask them of the people involved that know and understand the facts, not of a peron that came into the discussion with a predetermined opinion that it is not needed and is a foolish waste of money. Just because he speaks fervently doesn't make him right!

Mr Gordon mentioned Chris Miller's "facts and statistics" with which he confounded, and had the administration "squirming in their seats". The reality is that every one of Mr Miller's numbers were eroneously miscalculated. He explained how in his experience in his profession as a realtor he calculated someone's proposed real estate taxes; all I can say is I hope that his clients didn't rely on his numbers, because he does not understand how the taxes are actually assessed. His ranting did nothing to cause the admistration to squirm in their seats, because it was painfully obvious to anyone that understands, that Mr Miller's comments were just bizarre rants of an uninformed zealot that does not want his taxes raised EVER for ANY reason.

Anonymous said...

and so the mudslinging starts----again. Excuse me, but if 600 (I was also told a thousand??) people could sign a petition opposing the borough plans, how come those same people handling the petitions no longer have the time to question the schoolboard ???

Anonymous said...

Over Spending for looks

Under Educating to make up cost differences.

Swimming classes in 4th grade about 4 years ago were cut from the gym classes due to the traveling time to the YMCA. While this 40-45 mins round trip time was need instead to build for standards and PSSA. With a pool at the new ms, busing, time travel, locker room changing will not change unless the elem day is 50 minutes longer. If that be the case...I'd rather see the students get back the in depth science and social studies lessons that were taught in the past years. Now this year this time of classroom teaching were reduced for PSSA practicing prompts (which is 40-45 minutes a day). So instead of learning to swim, which most kids will learn on there own, I would rather see the time used for educating our students in math, LA, science, and social studies. Also it would take a long time for the community use of the pool to bring in 5 million then add on up keep. I would be very consider with putting that much weight into the ground that is sorry to say sinkhole prone. As the geologists will tell you... the sinkholes are moving north and east up the Schoeneck Creek. Connect the dots. There has got to be less expenses ways to consider without the heavy tax burden that will follow year after year. I believe the huge auditorium at the hs when that was built was a very sore subject and nasd is still in debt due to the all the extras.

Anonymous said...

Just a grammatical correction for the piece written by the person who is defensive of the board's decision to go with the proposed project. I believe he is anonymous and "respects Mr. Gordon's right to express his thoughts" etc?

The pronoun that describes the nouns people, persons, and anyone is who, not that.

Sorry, but when I see or hear that mistake it drives me crazy.

Anonymous said...

To 2:27
Why do you think the person you are trying to correct was a man? And what the heck are you talking about anyway?

RossRN said...

Was outside all day trying to keep my cold away from my wife and kids, guess I missed the fun so I'll chime in now.

First off, I never said that this individual was right. I simply said he had strong words.

I've read the report and can honestly say I don't get it.

It is clear to me that the NASD wants a campus and is willing to do whatever it takes to have one.

If we need an intermediate school for 4-6 grade why don't we build it? We already have a MS.

Our taxes go up every year no matter what. My problem is that there will come a time when something does have to be cut and it will be classroom or student activity related - and that is not fair.

I'm also concerned that while costs are going up every year, our student performance is not improving and appears to be sliding based on PSSA scores.

To the question regarding the borough residents, this is more than the borough. There are 6,000 people in the borough, about 1/5 of the school district. So why are these individuals being called out to do more? They came together for a very specific purpose, achieved what they set out to do, and disbanded. To criticize them for not actively petitioning now is not fair. In turn, what steps have you taken to circulate petitions? What friends have you recruited? That is how the group worked this summer. Friends and family spreading the word door-to-door. Anyone can do it, you just have to step up.

And further, I don't think we want a citizens anti-tax committee. At least I don't. I want our schools to have what they need, but I need them to be responsible. And I'm not seeing it right now.

Regarding grammar and spelling, while we all try our best, let's face it we all think faster than we type and we type faster than the system can keep up. There will be errors both intentional and unintentional. I'm sure like me you've looked at something you've posted and cringed.

Let's not attack, but instead present points of view, information, facts and figures.

Thanks to all for visiting, reading, and posting comments!

Anonymous said...

To Post 9:34 AM Anonymous
I was out of town thus the late response to your inaccurate post.
A home in the Nazareth School Distract with a value of $300,000 would be assessed at $150,000 as is the process in Northampton County. Total taxes for Nazareth residents, borough, county and school would come to $8,010 or $5,805 for just the school tax. In my so called rant before the board, I declared that it was the total tax for my client in Washington Township. Please keep ears opened and if you have a difficult time hearing me raise your hand. Total millage in the Nazareth school district as of 7/06 is 53.50 mils. I have yet to see the 2007 milage but I know, as you should, that it will be higher. Keep in mind that if the county does a reassessment your taxes, while the milage will go down temporarily, will increase in the first year somewhere between 30-50 percent.

Anonymous said...

Mr Miller,

Where your calculations are incorrect is that the county does not take 50% of the current value as the assessed value. The "total value" that they start with is the value of the property as of the last county wide assessment(I believe it was about 1990) then take 50% of that and then multiply the applicable millage. For example a home that was recently built in the new Tuskes development sold for $459,416. The county has their"total value" as $184,900 then the assessed value (50%) of that is $92,500 which is then multilplied by the millage to get the final taxes of $4856.25. You would have erronously advised them that their taxes would have been $12,059.67. Quite a difference!!

Most likely your client's Washington Township taxes would be more likely be $3459.21. This is calculated by taking the current market value, dividing it by the adjustment value of approx. 2.48467(this brings the value down to that of the last county wide assessment) then multiplying by 50% to get the assessed value then multiplying by the 57.3(not the 53.4 you used) mills in Washington Township.

$300,000 / 2.48467 * 50% * 57.30 mills = $3459.21


Also, there is no set millage across a school district, as you stated. Each municipality has its own millage. To assist you in the future I have attached the web address of the most current Northampton County table.

http://www.ncpub.org/Forms/HtmlFrame.aspx?mode=content/MillageRates.htm

Hope this helps.


Your last assumption that if the county reasseses the taxes would increase, is even less informed!

Next time before you speak be sure you have heard and understand the facts.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous 7:14PM
You are correct in that there is a direct tie to the 1991 assessment but looking at some tax records of new houses the 2.48467 value does not appear to work and there doesn't seem to be a constant unless the county has some sort of sliding scale. Also, it does appear that when you take that sale price and use the factor, that result is the assessed value. Example: A home in Bushkill Twsp with a sale price of $381,650 is listed with an assessed value of $136,500 for total tax bill of $7,289 as noted on the County tax sheet. If you divide the price by the factor of 2.48467 you come up with an assessed value of $153,601.89. That would push total taxes to $8202.34. There is no further division by fifty percent once the assessed value is determined unless the county really means appraised value when it says assessed but then the tax numbers would be halved. Would apprectiate an explanation if there is an error here.
I would also note that if and when the county reassesses, and that will happen probably within the next five years, they will probably continue the 50 percent rule. There will be a lowering of the millage but the fair market values will go up considerably. I would expect a doubling of my home value if not a tripling. In the first year of a reassessment, the county may only raised taxes by around 5 percent. I do not believe that the school district and local municipalities must follow that guideline.
Keep in mind that in the above example I am referring to total taxes on that home in Bushkill Township where the total millage rate is 53.40

Anonymous said...

I do believe the home you are referring to was sold March 26, 2004 with 1.44 acres. The factor I gave you was for a property sold in Dec 2006. There are other factors involved but the point is that only a fraction of the present sales price is used as the county's "total value" before the 50 % factor is used.

As ar as reassessment; the total taxes collected after reassessment is EXACTLY equal to the total taxes before reassessment(on a county wide basis). Reassesing is NOT a tool that can be used to increase taxes. When the county's "total value" increases by reassessment, then either the 50% factor will be adjusted or the millage must be readjusted. Because, again, the toal taxes collected CANNOT and DOES NOT increase because of reassessment.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous
The county is not permitted to use reassessment as a windfall but they are allowed to reassess and increase taxes as much as five precent the first year. This according to a county councliman.
As to your example, if I understand you correctly, a home that sold for $459,146, its fair market value, now has a "total value", what is that, of $184,900 and an assessd value of $92,500 and the owner of that $495,416 home pays but $4856.25 for total taxes or just school tax. On top of this, there is no uniform factor used by the county. Is that correct?

Anonymous said...

The idea that they could increase the taxes up to 5% by reassessing does not hold water. If they would do that it would alos increase the taxes collected by each school district and municipality, which the county has no jurisdiction over. I would tell you that the councilman you spoke with is misinformed.

And yes the county does have a specific factor which is close to the number I previously stated. I have not had to use it recently, though I think their stated factor is still 2.43? Their are differences that come in when looking at new homes because the county assessor does not start with the sale price, they do their own market value analysis which may differ. Because it is the opinion of one person the very nature of property valuation is somewhat arbitrary.(An art not a science) For the case I gave( you can search it on the county site. I don't want to give the property address on this site) the taxes on, the $4856.25 are the total taxes not just the school taxes.

Anonymous said...

Mr Mller,

I did find the new factors. For Northampton County it is now 3.18. This is valid for July 1, 2006 through Jene 30 2007. But as I said before it all comes down to the assessor's opinion of value on a newly built home. What I have seen come smore in line wih the 2.47 number we discussed before.

Anyway, what I am trying to do is save you a sale. Hopefully with this knowledge those people looking at building in Washington Township could reconsider.

Hopefully your commission will help cover the increased cost of your taxes once this project hits. LOL