Several readers sent notes and a comment was posted regarding petitions in local businesses in town calling for the NASD to not use eminent domain to acquire the Calandra's land.
As noted here previously, there is a big difference between doing what is right and what is legal. The NASD is within its legal right to proceed, but their action doesn't make it the right one to take. Not only is it against most people's wishes to see the NASD utilize eminent domain to take property the owner is not offering for sale, but it appears the choice of location and building type may not be the best solution to the NASD's need, nor the most cost effective one.
A lot of discussion came up last week when I posted based on the Morning Call article. In short, the Calandras have 9 acres of land, the NASD would like 6 acres of it to place two sports fields to the north of their proposed new MS building. The new MS building will replace the MS building opened in 2000 in order to give the NASD a HS/MS campus. The current MS will be converted into an intermediate school for 4th to 6th grades. The elementary schools will house K-3.
The NASD has a space issue, particularly at LNES.
The new MS will cost $58 million to build and an additional $2.1 million per year to operate. Many of its features already exist in the current MS and will be replicated (auditorium, gym, etc) while improvements will be made to the school's athletic fields including all-weather track and turf, and possibly the addition of a swimming pool.
In order to build the MS, the NASD will need to borrow $50 million, paid off over 30 years. The current debt service will increase from $5 million to as high as $12 million in a few years.
While the conversation has been based on addressing class space for k-8, no discussion or plans have been announced for 9-12. The concern being if the current plan goes through will there be any money left for annual expenses and/or an expansion to the HS.
An alternative approach would be to seek a more cost effective building now that resolves the classroom crunch and to purchase land now for future possible expansion. A new elementary school for 1000 students would allow the NASD to bring 6th grade back to the elementary level, make the current MS a 7 & 8 facility, and reduce transportation costs by keeping more students closer to the schools they attend.
An elementary is the most cost effective building to build. The NASD evaluated 50 properties with 20+ acres. Now may be the time to purchase land for a future building, so when the time arrives they set to the task of building the building without having to determine the location and wind up in the situation they are in now.
These decisions, however, are in the hands of the Board of Directors. You can influence their decision by signing petitions, attending the Board meeting (tonight at 7:30 p.m.), emailing them (their addresses are listed on the NASD web site), and by writing to the local newspapers to help ensure as many of the residents of the NASD are aware of the situation as possible.
15 comments:
Well put!
We are in crunch time. This district has waited way to long to act on the growing enrollment and is taking a short sighted approach to fixing it.
In the LONG thread, the comment was made that NASD has been using birth rates to determine future growth. Did they not see all the houses going up in the district and maybe think to change how they plan?
The board has proven that they don't have the ability to think outside the box and it is high time we let them know that (as clearly demonstrated through the numerous innovative ideas presented in all the threads here).
We need a plan that fixes not just the current crowding issue, but the one that is sure to come with all the new development that is going to happen (Tuskes development on 248/Daniels Rd., Racetrack development, and now Tuskes on 191 in Lower Nazareth). And most important, one that does not break the back of the taxpayers.
If you do a little research, you will find that in surrounding districts, for comparable houses, their TOTAL tax bill (schools, county, local, etc.) are lower than most of our school tax bill alone. This is just wrong. And if you think that slots revenue is going to give us any tax relief (as promised by our Governor), you are fooling yourself. Only the major urban centers will really benefit from that.
One last note for those of you that may think the Calandra's are getting a fair offer from NASD. One acre lots in Lower Nazareth Township are transfering for $225K to $240K. That equates to a sales price of $1.35MM to $1.44MM. Also keep in mind that their property has sewer and the LN lots require septic, so that land is worth more. So the NASD offer is well below market price.
7:30 tonight is our chance to make a change. Let's show our support for the Calandra's and the desire for fiscal responsibility from our elected officials.
We need a large turn out this evening to let the Board know that we are very displeased with the price tag on this building. I would like to see the rational as to why there was no consideration of either erecting a new elementary school or expanding the Bushkill and Lower Nazareth elementary schools.
I have another question, has there been any consideration to going to a tri-semester or a flex schedule and has anyone run the numbers on either of these possibilities?
The Calandra property, as I understand it, is also zoned commercial which gives it a greater value, in most instances, then residential.
LNES cannot be expanded any further (I have been told) due to the capacity of the septic system located on site. That being said, I wonder if how they can then keep adding portables and more students.
Any large expansion there would require a larger system. My guess is that Bushkill is in the same boat.
hmisxdThere was a check of the Bushkill septic system because there was a complaint about an odor and thus a potential leak. I do believe some work was done there but they should have plenty of room for expansion. I am not all that familiar with the Lower Nazareth situation but it would certainly be worth while to have the appropriate authorities look at the grounds
I agree the costs look overwhelming. But I am confused as to how putting the 6th grade back into the elementary schools would help the overcrowding situation. Wouldnt that require expanding all three elementary schools? Is there even enough land area at those sites to do that?
Also, the statement that other district's total taxe are less than our school tax alone is a misinformation. It is no where near correct. In fact when comparing school taxes alone, our school taxes are closer to the bottom in the area than the top.
The school millages are;
Easton 44.83; bethlehem 36.58; Wilson 44.70; Bangor 43.50; Northampton 39.35; Pen Argyl 36.85; Saucon Valley 49.61, NAZARETH 38.70.
And overall taxes atre also closer to the bottom
PLAINFIELD 48.15
MOORE 50.65
CHAPMAN 50.65
HANOVER 51.55
BETHLEHEM TWP 51.62
EAST ALLEN 52.15
LEHIGH 52.36
U NAZARETH 52.5
L NAZARETH 53.25
BUSHKILL 53.4
PEN ARGYL 53.98
ALLEN 54.65
WIND GAP 55.65
FREEMANSBURG 56.14
WILLIAMS 56.25
U MT BETHEL 57.05
NORTHAMPTON 57.25
WASHINGTON 57.3
L MT BETHEL 58.4
STOCKERTOWN 58.5
TATAMY 58.5
NAZARETH 59.2
FORKS 59.73
LMT BETHEL 59.73
ROSETO 59.8
GLENDON 59.95
PALMER 60.38
BATH 60.65
BETHLEHEM CITY 60.98
E BANGOR 62.8
WEST EASTON 63
L SAUCON 63.05
PORTLAND 63.62
N CATASAQUA 63.63
WILSON 66
BANGOR 66.8
HELLERTOWN 73.01
EASTON 74.08
WALNUTPORT 80.243
The idea of a tri-mester, flex scheduling, or year round school is an intersesting possiblity that was raised.
This site could be a powerful tool, but I beg all to use ACCURATE facts to support your points. IF you hate the idea that taxes are going to increase, that is fine to say. It is also OK to say you wish there was a way to stop it from happening. BUt us the truth and facts to support your concerns and ideas. Please don't try to stir up the pot with false ideas and erroneous information. This blog site and the Nazareth area deserve better.
"9:34" makes good points. "We are in crunch time. This district has waited way to long to act on the growing enrollment and is taking a short sighted approach to fixing it."
Short term fixes only cost more in the end. I am very suprised there isn't a much better long term plan for all current and future facilities in NASD.
Comparing tax amounts on other homes can be difficult. I know in Monroe ct there aren't re-assessments so homes 20 years old have much different assessments than homes built today. But the reason for seeing the lower taxes is probably due to the increase of tax revenue from businesses and industry that is not locaced in NASD.
The k-6 only works if you build a new elementary school. Then the MS which now has 6-8 would have 7 & 8.
If you built a new building for 1000 students, you would have to redistrict to get each up to a % of its capacity based on growth etc.
The elementary's would have more space and so would the MS without adding a level (IS).
Regarding the millage rates (not an area of expertise of mine at all), doesn't this change from place to place?
I thought you had to look at say tax on a home valued at a set amount for each to make a comparison.
Sure hope to see alot of familiar people tonite. All those who cried about the borough wanting to spend 2 plus million this past summer. and taking away "THEIR" green space. The school "wants" are along the same lines only of a much greater magnitude.
To NOC
All the tax rates given were located in Northampton County. The same assessment office asseses all the homes in the county. On a new home it is assessed as to what the value would hav ebeen when the existing homes were all last assessed in 1991. So a comparably valued house could be compare by the millages given.
So what your plan would save would be the "extras" that are needed in buidling a 1000 student 7-8 school as opposed to a 1000 student k-6 school? Is that your point?
Thanks, and primarily yes. Eliminate the redundant facilities. The elementary school buildings require less 'extras' and are therefore less expensive.
Being regional they also mean shorter transportation times for students and thereby less cost.
Keeping the three grade level structure will also help parents who with four grade levels could conceivably have three or four children each in a different building - 9, 7, 5, 3 for example.
Also, the new MS for two grades would accommodate up to 1350 students (as I recall).
The largest NASD class is about 420, so the planned MS is capable of accepting a lot of growth, but I don't think the HS could.
With 4 & 5 moving to IS, they aren't gaining any capacity (2 grades move out, 1 stays, and 2 more move in).
The elementary schools will since they will only house k-3.
Problem is the IS and HS don't benefit, we get too much room to grow at MS, not sure how counts work out at ELEM.
Based on the enrollment projections from the Act34 handout, in 2009-2010:
K-5 = 1904
K-6 = 2298
4-6 = 1092
6-8 = 1177
7-8 = 783
HS = 1602
We'll have lots of room in the new MS. The old MS (now 4-6) will almost be as crowded as the MS was..
If we were to build a new ES (K-6) all of the NASD schools would have approximately 575 students.
In 2015-2016, the numbers are:
K-5 = 2123
K-6 = 2532
4-6 = 1167
6-8 = 1239
7-8 = 830
HS = 1677
Even in 2015-2016, the projected K-6 enrollment would be 2532. Divided over 4 elementary schools this is 633 students. It has been stated that Shafer can "comfortably" accomodate 100 more students (above the 630 they currently have). Assume 730 students at Shafer and now you have 600 students at the rest of the ES. Not too bad.
The expected new MS enrollment never exceeds 856. So why are we building a new MS again?
Good question, I guess we did our homework and they took all the shortcuts.
Maybe you all should be onthe board?
Waiting for the clean slate.
Post a Comment