The article quotes:
"I think it is wrong," Keller said. "The township is sticking it to this district every chance they get. I think it is terrible that we are getting shafted like this."And states that the annual cost is $10,000 for electric, but the NASD is suggesting the purchase of its own transformer (cost $174,000 to design and install) to save $50,000 per year on electricity for the building.
10 comments:
The school district is getting shafted? Are you kidding ME!!! What about the taxpayers! We are the ones getting shafted by the school district with this new school and pool! Donald Keller you really make me laugh!
exactly
Wait a minute - - in all fairness, we wouldn't have to building a new school if it wasn't for Upper Nazareth and their zoning laws. They're making money from all these developers and the school district is stuck trying to figure out how to educate the extra children they bring into the district. Don't get me wrong, I'm not supporting the frivolous spending, but let's be fair. The farmers keep selling their land, developers will pack as many houses as the zoning laws will allow. Low and behold, the school district is faced with a booming enrollment. What choice do they have? You want to stop the building of new schools - SLOW THE DEVELOPMENT OF RESIDENTIAL HOMES! (yes, Upper Nazareth - that means you!)
I've noted that by-passing zoning in favor of a park was not right (as Upper Nazareth did), but the NASD chose this location and this building.
The new MS will house as many as 1300 students for 2 grades. Right now I believe 420 is the most for any single grade. So the building could have 840 students in one built for 1300.
In the meantime the High School will be overpopulated in five years and we'll have no money to build.
The point I and many others made throughout is that a k-6 elementary would have been the wiser choice at this juncture. Much cheaper and could have been put anywhere.
The NASD wanted a 'campus'. They picked the spot, the building etc.
I don't have the numbers in front of me, but our expenditures are raising at a faster rate than our enrollments.
Blaming Upper Nazareth (and bushkill and Lower have added quite a few students too) for the decisions the NASD has made isn't quite fair.
I agree with anonymous 2:01. The reason we need a new school is because of the increasing number of homes. The townships need to increase lot size to reduce development. Wont solve all our problems but it will help. Building an ES may have been cheaper now but we would have needed an additional MS in the near future regardless. Where did you get your figures on the new schools enrollment? The numbers I was told were 1000 student capacity. I believe it will be at capacity within 5-10 years, why would we build a school that will be over capacity in that time period? The current MS is overcapacity and It is not more then 10 years old.
The new MS is for grades 7 and 8 only. The highest I recall seeing any single grade was in the 420 range. 840 would be the most students based on that. Can go back and dig up figures, but I'm pretty certain that is real close. The capacity was on the building plans submitted to the state and I believe it was actually 1360. Maybe the 1000 is what it would comfortably house?
The idea for the ELEM was to bring 6th grade back down, which would have reduced roughly 400 students from the current MS, giving it room to grow.
The HS remains stuck.
The initial point, though, is that the NASD picked this location and knew the impact it would have on the roads and chose it to have their campus.
I'm not saying any party, township or school district is blameless, but I am saying they have all not made the best decisions.
Of course their expenditures are raising faster than enrollment. What is the average figure to educate a child - if my memory is correct, it's about $6000-7000 per student per year (please, someone correct me if I'm wrong). A new home with 2 children costs the district about $12,000 - I'm guessing the avg. taxes the homeowner pays is $4000-$5000. Now, granted, not every home has 2 children - - but I bet the income from taxes isn't covering the cost of the new students. Quite frankly, if you want to solve the ills of the school district, stop the frivolous spending, change the zoning laws, and promote business growth instead of residential growth (businesses = tax dollars with no children attached)
We have been spending gobs of money at all governmental levels on education. We have insisted on lower class sizes as though it were the Holy Grail that would turn all kids into Einsteins. What has been the result, continually lower test scores. In the meantime we have hired personnel with degress in education and not content. We have tossed discipline out the door. We have allowed for a top heavy administration that sucks the life blood out of the taxpayers by building ugly but huge buildings for their own gratification. We see constant change in programs, goals and standards all of them costing us money. The administration, with their allies in the teacher's union, has been yanking our chains for decades and the end result is that parents now think of themselves as incapable of rearing their own children despite the fact that their gut tells them better. We have become a sorry lot.
During budget talks these were the figures I noticed regarding expenditures and enrollment:
"I was also surprised to see that expenditures in 2006 were listed at $49 million, while those for 2012 are projected at $74 million. This represents a $25 million dollar increase in six years. In comparing enrollment the 2006 actual was 4604 ($10,643 per student) and the 2012 projection is 4809 ($15,388 per student)."
You can read the full post here.
Additionally, you're spot on with spending, zoning, and business development.
Post a Comment