Expansion of Two Schools? Log Out | Topics | Search
Moderators | Edit Profile

Living In Mercer County Forums » The Towns of Mercer County » Robbinsville » Expansion of Two Schools? « Previous Next »

Author Message
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

FYI
Unregistered User
Posted on Thursday, January 19, 2012 - 10:29 am:   Edit Post Delete Post    Admin only

Read about the latest options being considered:

http://www.centraljersey.com/articles/2012/01/19/the_messenger_press/news/doc4f1 74b7feeda1956786357.txt
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Nope!!!!!
Unregistered User
Posted on Thursday, January 19, 2012 - 01:58 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post    Admin only

Against! I am for a second elementary to be built. I am concerned about our space issue.
But, I will not vote to make those two schools even bigger. It is wrong on so many levels. It is not what is best for the children, it's a cheaper fix.
How much will our taxes increase, per home, with this new idea compared to how much they will be with the solution that adds a new school?

I understand what they are attempting to do. I respect the attempt. I will vote yes for a new school. I will vote no for these expansions.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

dfgh
Unregistered User
Posted on Friday, January 20, 2012 - 07:04 am:   Edit Post Delete Post    Admin only

The latest proposal will go down when put to the vote. The voters who want a complete new school will vote no and the voters who always vote no, will vote no.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

historylesson
Unregistered User
Posted on Friday, January 20, 2012 - 08:18 am:   Edit Post Delete Post    Admin only

The new school was already defeated along with repairs to Pond and Sharon Schools. And that came with millions of dollars in state aid that is no longer available at the moment.

Nope, get 2,000 of your friends to go to a board meeting and tell them you want a new school and all promise to vote yes.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Not Simple
Unregistered User
Posted on Friday, January 20, 2012 - 09:58 am:   Edit Post Delete Post    Admin only

As to how voters will vote, dfgh,it's not that simple. There are more scenarios then the two you mentioned.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

EXPAND
Unregistered User
Posted on Friday, January 20, 2012 - 10:59 am:   Edit Post Delete Post    Admin only

I will vote for the option that allows for more space at the most cost effective way. At this point it looks like expanding.

What people fail to consider or care about is that a new stand alone building requires another PRINCIPAL & ASSISTANT PRINCIPAL, so more administration at a recurring salary of at least $200,000 plus pensions and benefits. Let's now add to that a nurse and a guidance counselor and secretaries that goes along with a stand alone building. That is another $200,000 plus benifits for those spots.

Remember that's a recurring cost of over $500,000 with benefits not a one time fee.

We've all been through this already with the building of the high school, as many costs are added in that are not advertised to the voters initially and that is deliberate.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

what say you, naysayers
Unregistered User
Posted on Friday, January 20, 2012 - 12:03 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post    Admin only

So what solutions do you propose in addressing the space need? Love to hear the POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS in stead of just "no, no, no." How do you accommodate the influx of students if NO to a new school and NO to building onto the existing structures?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Wallets
Unregistered User
Posted on Friday, January 20, 2012 - 12:26 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post    Admin only

That's the problem. There are too many people that will vote no to ANY solution. They just don't care where the kids go. They could be put in closets or stuffed 30-40 in a classroom. It doesn't directly affect them, so they don't see a need to address it. I know that there is the argument that poor schools will cost these folks in property values, but if they are not planning on selling in the near future, again they don't care. What they DO care about is their wallets and how much money is in it. Not enough people are in it for the good of the community. They want to keep as much of their money as possible.

Don't get me started on the people that can't be bothered to vote even though it would be a positive for their family AND they can afford a tax increase!
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

dfgh
Unregistered User
Posted on Friday, January 20, 2012 - 12:42 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post    Admin only

EXPAND - where would our high school students be today if not for the RHS building?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

truthbtold
Unregistered User
Posted on Friday, January 20, 2012 - 04:29 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post    Admin only

Naysayers, we need a second school. my children would not benefit from it but I support it.
Neither solution will win.

When we go to split sessions, people will stop voting no.
When the state demands a new school, it will get done.

It's the sad fact.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

what say you, naysayers
Unregistered User
Posted on Friday, January 20, 2012 - 05:26 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post    Admin only

tbt - if that is the sad reality then the decision to go split sessions should be done - would be interesting to see the droves of indifferent voters get off their butts and pull the yes lever. Not just parents of school kids but all the sales signs that don't budge because of a split session school district.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

TBT
Unregistered User
Posted on Friday, January 20, 2012 - 08:25 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post    Admin only

You know that is what its going to take in this town. People are selfish. They don't want the schools because their child won't benefit. That was the excuse I heard more than taxes even. They aren't seeing the big picture. Most of us can't afford higher taxes but we realize we could forgo our lattes and cut back on eating out and are willing to do it. Others won't.

The parents in this town need a kick in the arse to see the bigger picture and get out of the bubble they live in.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

2 cents
Unregistered User
Posted on Saturday, January 21, 2012 - 07:56 am:   Edit Post Delete Post    Admin only

That's sad that people are so short sighted. WW didn't become a prestigious area because the houses are bigger. It's because of a kick a$$ school system. People move there to raise a family and give them the best possible education they can. Bad schools=bad home values. Ps I have no children that will benefit from a new school but will gladly vote yes. Just need to convince 1000 more people :-)
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

verde
Unregistered User
Posted on Saturday, January 21, 2012 - 08:05 am:   Edit Post Delete Post    Admin only

People move here because they really wanted to live in West Windsor but couldn't afford it.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

EXPAND
Unregistered User
Posted on Saturday, January 21, 2012 - 09:56 am:   Edit Post Delete Post    Admin only

dfgh, the HS is a valuable asset to the town and to the overall education of our kids. If it wasn't built we would still be sending the kids to Lawrence and they would have needed to expand further, a similar situation that Millstone currently has with Allentown. Not the end of the world but less than ideal. Plus we would incur similar cost increases without the benefit of having a school.

The truth is that a stand alone building costs more to operate than an expanded school WITH INCREASED core facilities as well due to the administrative recurring costs that were outline in my first post.

The kids need to go somewhere. There are options.

However the last thing I'd worry about is "what the state says", oh pahleese.

Once we get less than a paltry aid figure then we could worry about the big bad "state"
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Novalues
Unregistered User
Posted on Saturday, January 21, 2012 - 10:02 am:   Edit Post Delete Post    Admin only

WW doesn't shove 1000 kids in a k-3 building. They actually built schools when needed.
They care about the education of the children and their home values.

Robbinsville is the land of wanna be's.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Not Simple
Unregistered User
Posted on Saturday, January 21, 2012 - 10:26 am:   Edit Post Delete Post    Admin only

Novalues, I grew up in WW. They had to put 7th & 8th graders in the high school because of over crowding in the schools. This was for many years. You don't have any idea of the growing pains they also suffered, do you!?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

dfgh
Unregistered User
Posted on Saturday, January 21, 2012 - 01:16 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post    Admin only

EXPAND - "We've all been through this already with the building of the high school, as many costs are added in that are not advertised to the voters initially and that is deliberate".

These are your words and imply you don't like the RHS and were trick into voting for it.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Novalues
Unregistered User
Posted on Saturday, January 21, 2012 - 03:19 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post    Admin only

Not simple, that happens in ALL districts. They all have growing pains. Its what they do after a couple years. In WW, they built. They didn't allow the mess we are in today. They had an option (to put 7/8 in the HS) and did it until the schools were built.
We are beyond that. We reorganized by switching 4/5 into a middle school. This happened years ago knowing this time was coming and did NOTHING. NOTHING! We just put up blinders and pretended this wasn't happening.
The way WW handled it was no where the same.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

nuffsaid
Unregistered User
Posted on Saturday, January 21, 2012 - 06:41 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post    Admin only

We did something. Defeated a referendum that would have built a new school and taken the 4th and 5th graders out of a middle school, and did necessary repairs to the existing buildings, with millions of dollars in state aid.

That's what this town did.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

2 cents
Unregistered User
Posted on Saturday, January 21, 2012 - 07:38 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post    Admin only

I dont know about you but i live here because i want to. I don't want to live in WW. It really is a shame, and no indication that anything would change if we voted again.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mike
Registered User
Username: Mike

Post Number: 22
Registered: 06-2008
Posted on Sunday, January 22, 2012 - 09:48 am:   Edit Post Delete Post    Admin only

So, I generally view myself as a realist....that being said, when the referendum came out a couple of years ago I voted for it. It was a “pay me now, pay me more later” situation. The biggest incentive was the grant money that was available and is no more. The biggest mistake was the wording of the question on the ballet. It should have been two separate questions. One as it read and the other just for the proposed improvements without a new school. That would have provided a large enough band-aid to whether through a while longer. But, that was the past and we now have to move ahead.

Since my first born will be entering our school system next year and another two years later, I have a vested interest as to how these new scenarios play out. The last thing we need are taxes to go up again…they are too high as it is. The proposals being discussed would reportedly cost $35M or the additions $18M. I am sure there would be at least a 10%+ increase to those figures due unforeseen material costs, etc. Without more in-depth information, I don’t think any one of us could say for sure which one is the better option at this point.

A few things to take into consideration: as someone already pointed out, funding to OPERATE a new school (which would require another tax increase after the one needed to build it). Either scenario would require hiring new teaching staff, but the additions would not require additional janitorial, maintenance, operating and administration costs. Through benchmarking, find out what the highest population of students is sensible to have in one facility. Building a smaller school (as suggested in the news article) than the one being proposed may not be a good use of funds either. Most times when a school is built it ends up being occupied at full capacity.

My general opinion at this point is to max out the existing facilities before we build another school. In addition, move the classes in the Windsor school to Sharon…assuming the additional 4 classrooms are incorporated into the expansion design. If both the Sharon and Pond Rd schools are built out, the next step is a new school. It’s only a matter of time until it’s absolutely necessary to build. Unless grant money is provided for this project, I think it makes sense to utilize and maximize the two existing properties before building a new school. As information is shared by the BOE over the next several months we’ll have to evaluate again and again until it makes sense which way to proceed.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Futuregrowth
Unregistered User
Posted on Sunday, January 22, 2012 - 10:02 am:   Edit Post Delete Post    Admin only

You said it, we will need to build. Why not do the right thing for our long term needs. elementary schools can not function properly at the size they are proposing.
People love Windsor because it is small, personal, and a community. That is what we should give to all our students. They are not cattle.
We need to do what is right for our district.
I will vote no for expansion.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

BuildSchools
Unregistered User
Posted on Sunday, January 22, 2012 - 11:16 am:   Edit Post Delete Post    Admin only

Between the plans for TC South, and the recent court case to convert the Gordon Road housing to all ages, we will have to build. Trailers cannot deal with that amount of growth.

I too have a child entering the system in two years, and am willing to put my wallet behind my words. Robbinsville is a town of families, not senior housing - I'm surprised it didn't pass previously, although the economy certainly didn't help.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

2 cents
Unregistered User
Posted on Sunday, January 22, 2012 - 02:41 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post    Admin only

Build schools- I agree and I have discussed this with other residents with young children and they voted no. Seems there were alot of broken promises on the high school and now there is general mistrust. This is at the expense of their children's education. That said, Pond is a great school with a wonderful, caring staff and my child is getting a great education. Hopefully that level of education can continue for other Robbinsville families.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

dfgh
Unregistered User
Posted on Monday, January 23, 2012 - 06:35 am:   Edit Post Delete Post    Admin only

The students are coming which means you need to hire new staff (i.e. teachers) no matter which path is taken.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Not Simple
Unregistered User
Posted on Monday, January 23, 2012 - 09:16 am:   Edit Post Delete Post    Admin only

Hiring new teachers for the new students is a given. People realize there is no avoidance of that.

What people are talking about are the EXTRA expenses associated with a new school building. Additional janitorial, maintenance, operating and administration costs that are not a one time expense, but permanent. Right or wrong, with the economy the way it is, the "no" votes will always be thinking of those expenses.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Excuses
Unregistered User
Posted on Monday, January 23, 2012 - 09:35 am:   Edit Post Delete Post    Admin only

More students means more janitors, administration, etc. It goes hand in hand.
It's an excuse. you are saying we should house the children but not give them the appropriate staff? Two admin can only be stretched so much at Sharon. Most schools, with half the population have two admin. The difference? The admin can actually get to know the teachers, help and guide them to grow. The admin can get to know the children and their families. That makes a good school. strong leadership is needed but the admin is stretched too far.

More students, more staff.

When they build, they do factor all costs, not just the structure.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

JustSayin
Registered User
Username: Justsayin

Post Number: 9
Registered: 06-2011
Posted on Monday, January 23, 2012 - 10:36 am:   Edit Post Delete Post    Admin only

I think that our school expansion issues are based is the intersection of a couple of issues that cause people not to want to trust or support the education community. The previous school budget was proposed at the height of the NJEA battles with Trenton. Benefits and work rules that are out of synch with the real world turned people off. The number of school district in this state and the high paid over-benefitted administrators that run them also turns people off. People who understand business and how organizations become successful look at our schools and realize that politics, monopoly, and corruption have created a monster that we all pay too much for. It’s funny how the cry about the children provides funds that get into non-children’s pockets.

When you couple that with an over designed, expensive high school that contains some facilities which sounded great on paper but that are now underutilized, you begin to understand the rejection of the new school proposal.

The reality is that we are a growing town and need to educate our kids. Proposals for new facilities should be cost conscious, pragmatic, and demonstrate responsible stewardship of already strained resources.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Qaz123
Registered User
Username: Qaz123

Post Number: 31
Registered: 09-2011
Posted on Monday, January 23, 2012 - 01:08 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post    Admin only

Which RHS facility is underutilized?

Which part is over designed?

Most people that look at it that way do so because it's new compared to a HS you or your children may have attended which was 20+ years old. Montgomery HS is new and if you ever saw it, you might temper your opinion of RHS.

If a neighboring school district had a large number of unused classrooms, you would have a point regarding consolidation. That is not the case. There are no school districts in Mercer County or even nearby Allentown that have enough open classrooms to house our students.

How much do you think our property taxes would go down if you could merge all Mercer Schools into a single school district? Which jobs are you eliminating because the only money savings is going to come from eliminating jobs.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Lemmings
Unregistered User
Posted on Monday, January 23, 2012 - 02:01 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post    Admin only

I agree. Our hs is nice, it was done well. But it is far from extravagant. It's a classic design with some of today's needs. I am so tired of the lemmings who claim RHS is so much more than it is because they compare it to schools that were built 25+ years ago.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

2 cents
Unregistered User
Posted on Monday, January 23, 2012 - 08:21 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post    Admin only

Ok, you lose credibility when you don't call a spade a spade. Our HS is over the top nice. It's far better than any school in the area ( that were all built many years ago.) The classrooms themselves are normal but the common areas are like being in the mall. That doesn't mean we don't need facilities for K-8
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

No Taj in R'ville
Unregistered User
Posted on Monday, January 23, 2012 - 08:37 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post    Admin only

Here we go again. The cafeteria common area was made large enough to accommodate 300 students per lunch period. This was according to state guidelines. It is in almost constant use from students or it is often rented out which brings in much needed funds. Are the hallways wide, yes they are, but until you are there between classes to watch the flow, it is wrong to say they are too big. The glass roof is great for saving on electricity during the day. The auditorium is sized for 1000 people. It is often filled almost to capacity for the many times it is used for both school activities and community events. The gym is standard in all recent construction. The turf field is being rented to add to the income generated from the so called over the top facilities

What other common areas are you concerned with as being too "nice"? Should we have distressed and aged them just to make them comparable to the older schools in the area?

If you really want to see an over the top school, go check out Tom's River. They actually have a jumbotron in their gym and an entire track and field "bubble". Due to the foresight of their BOE they now make a nice profit renting out top of the line facilities!
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

No Taj HS
Unregistered User
Posted on Monday, January 23, 2012 - 10:43 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post    Admin only

Well said No Taj in R'ville. It was built based on current building trends. Turf fields are becoming the norm today. The auditorium is for 1000 and what is so OVER the top about the gym---
NOTHING. It is a nice building but FAR from the luxury HS some project it to be. No pool, very small weight room, average size caf, regular classrooms....
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

EXPAND
Unregistered User
Posted on Tuesday, January 24, 2012 - 08:33 am:   Edit Post Delete Post    Admin only

How many MORE classrooms in the high school could have been built if the design did NOT INCLUDE a 2-story feature over the commons area?

I would estimate at least 6 more classrooms.

That was the poor planning-a dramatic entry took precedence over practicality.

Enough said.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Xpand
Unregistered User
Posted on Tuesday, January 24, 2012 - 09:49 am:   Edit Post Delete Post    Admin only

High Cost Media Room with few or no classes
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

OMFG
Unregistered User
Posted on Tuesday, January 24, 2012 - 01:11 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post    Admin only

Oh my god... A two story entrance makes you mistrust the school board? That is what gets you mad?
Wow.
We need a new school. Stop nitpicking stupidity (a media room!) and face the facts. The kids are here, more are coming (hundreds more).
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

verde
Unregistered User
Posted on Tuesday, January 24, 2012 - 01:12 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post    Admin only

RHS is not the school with the capacity problem.

How much more would be added to the RHS tab if there was a 2nd floor over the common area? How much less would RHS cost if the common area was only made to be 1-story high?

As soon as RHS does have a capacity problem, the media room will be the 1st to get converted, just like is being considered in PRMS.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

dfgh
Unregistered User
Posted on Tuesday, January 24, 2012 - 02:59 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post    Admin only

There is real wood veneer in the auditorium. That's what gets me riled up. It should have been cardboard. Don't you people know how to save money?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

dfgh
Unregistered User
Posted on Tuesday, January 24, 2012 - 03:00 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post    Admin only

Here's another old favorite. The seats used by the basketball teams have an "R" logo on them and they are padded. They should be made to sit on the floor.

What's wrong with you people? Save some money already!
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mike
Registered User
Username: Mike

Post Number: 23
Registered: 06-2008
Posted on Tuesday, January 24, 2012 - 04:48 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post    Admin only

Wasn't this thread intended to discuss the FUTURE of Sharon and Pond Rd Schools? The high school is built, operating and paid for....it's in the past. We need to look to the future. If all of these aspects of the HS listed above bother you and so many people so much, then attend BOE meetings that focus on the future of these two schools or a future one and let the Board know what bothered you about the HS build. We need to learn from the past, not dwell on it.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

we are just saying...
Unregistered User
Posted on Tuesday, January 24, 2012 - 04:49 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post    Admin only

I think the people posting on the school expansion/new school and old vacant thriftway subjects should join hands... hint... hint... maybe a good use of a the empty supermarket could be a re-use as a school site... the building has a kitchen... interior offices and classrooms could be constructed within the shell... let the criticizing begin... (fyi... I'll post on the school expansion site to break the ice...)
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Tough choice
Unregistered User
Posted on Tuesday, January 24, 2012 - 05:52 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post    Admin only

A supermarket replacement would pay tax. A school in that same space would not

I agree that this about the future, not some people stuck on the past.

I'm so glad that 2% budgets are being taken out of the voters hands, and failed budgets out of the hands of local yokal politicians. We will never have to sit for that charade again.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

we are just saying...
Unregistered User
Posted on Wednesday, January 25, 2012 - 09:46 am:   Edit Post Delete Post    Admin only

At least try to understand the premise before you run your mouth... The owner of the Shopping Center is paying Taxes not the school. The School Board would lease the space (which may include payments towards a share of the taxes for the building.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

we are just saying...
Unregistered User
Posted on Wednesday, January 25, 2012 - 09:57 am:   Edit Post Delete Post    Admin only

http://www.p12.nysed.gov/facplan/publicat/XNYCleases.pdf

I guess its never been done before...
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Lots of Potential
Unregistered User
Posted on Wednesday, January 25, 2012 - 10:52 am:   Edit Post Delete Post    Admin only

This is an amazing idea!

We won't have to hire a nurse-sick kids can go to the pharmacist or pharmacy tech at Rite Aid when they feel ill.

We won't have to hire gym teachers-the kids can have PE at All For Dance especially since the other alternative is to take their state mandated gym classes in the lovely parking lot.

We won't have to hire cafeteria workers-there are numerous lunch options that the kids can walk to including the fabulous Take 5 for dessert!

While at school they are there they can always run a few errands for mom and dad-dry cleaners, get the taxes done, pick up a gift for grandma's birthday or even take the family pet in for a checkup.

They can even get their grooming needs taken care of such as nails and haircuts. What a time saver for their parents!

The benefits or housing the unwanted children in a converted grocery store are so numerous who wouldn't think this was an A-One idea?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

2 cents
Unregistered User
Posted on Wednesday, January 25, 2012 - 09:47 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post    Admin only

Wow, You would think I said the new HS sucked. It's really nice, nicer than any school I've ever been in. Seems like there is a lot of defensive people here trying to defend decisions they may have made. The HS is a bonus to the community, now we need to fix our other issues with pond/Sharon.

@taj 1and 2 I hear those really large open areas are very energy efficient. And 60 ft ceilings in the open space was probably a state requirement as well. I get it, It's a beautiful school you build it once very 50years, build it right, but don't think people are stupid enough to buy "we did it because we had too" BS. "man up" and say you did it because it was the right thing to do.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Uh yeah
Unregistered User
Posted on Friday, January 27, 2012 - 01:36 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post    Admin only

Ok LOP. Aside from your sarcastic response to an old concept that deserves some consideration I also see that you lack intelligence... "housing unwanted children..."

It's not a new idea... it's been talked about before (even on this board - see prior posts)and it has some merit to enter into this discussion...

http://www.ncef.org/pubs/adaptiveuse.pdf
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Lots of Potential
Unregistered User
Posted on Friday, January 27, 2012 - 03:15 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post    Admin only

Sorry, but I do not want my kids going to a renovated supermarket for school. I don't know how you can suggest that putting the students in the middle of a very busy commercial area is a good idea. You question my intelligence by calling the children unwanted. If you read one of many threads on this forum you will see that no one wants more kids in Robbinsville and are fighting any new development. You would call that kids that are wanted?

The study you cited had lots of warnings as to the feasibility of conversion.

Matching Vision with Reality
When considering a building for adaptive reuse,
check:
• the building’s structural layout and its
capacity to accommodate classrooms and
other required spaces and functions;
• the energy efficiency of the building’s walls,
windows, and roof;
• the building’s potential for meeting building,
heath, safety, and accessibility requirements;
• the condition of mechanical, plumbing, and
electrical systems and their capacity for modification;
• for the presence of hazardous materials;
• the ability of the building and site to provide
a safe and secure environment;
• the convenience and safety of the building’s
location for the students and communities
served, and all applicable real estate and
property management issues

I see lots of potential problems from the list above. Talk about the lack of intelligence!
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Uh yeah
Unregistered User
Posted on Friday, January 27, 2012 - 04:23 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post    Admin only

LOP: I didn't say it should be a done deal... I said it deserves more consideration... and it still has some merit in my eyes. I only brought it back up again after the person who originally started the discussion gave up on it because nobody else wanted to discuss it. I agree that it will take more than just throwing up some 2x4's to create classrooms and slapping the words "School House" over the old thriftway sign. Things like redesigning the site's circulation to create safer drop off areas, outside play space, etc... if it turns out that it a bad idea than OK but it seems to me that someone should put it back on the table for consideration/discussion before its thrown out because you don't like the concept.

Sorry about the lack of intelligence comment... I see it struck a nerve. It was more of an attack on your sarcastic nature that lacks intellectual thought... yeah maybe that's a better way to put it.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

tough choice, not not this one
Unregistered User
Posted on Friday, January 27, 2012 - 08:04 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post    Admin only

no need for anyone to dismiss any else's opinion with insults.

However, before getting too defensive, I think you have to explain why its a good idea. Most people would like to see a supermarket back in that space. Personally I would rather see a business that generates tax revenue then a public use that washes out. In a city, a school with no outdoor play space and a front door on a public sidewalk might work, but not too many people who live in the suburbs are going to go along with that. Even if you used the land behind it for open space, kids would have to cross a delivery road. Why choose this space when you can rent modulars and place them on a campus to share other facilities and staff? The full rent on this space approaches a million a year. After 20 years and millions in renovations, and millions in lost tax revenue, what would this accomplish?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

qwerty
Unregistered User
Posted on Saturday, January 28, 2012 - 05:24 am:   Edit Post Delete Post    Admin only

The tax revenue would only be washed out if the school bought the vacant supermarket. If they rent it, the owner is still paying property taxes.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

tough choice
Unregistered User
Posted on Saturday, January 28, 2012 - 01:13 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post    Admin only

where does the owner get the money to pay taxes?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

MoreSpace
Unregistered User
Posted on Saturday, January 28, 2012 - 01:42 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post    Admin only

Here's another article on the same meeting, but different amounts:
http://www.nj.com/mercer/index.ssf/2012/01/existing_robbinsville_schools.html

Add 29 classrooms for $11.1M vs a new school with 38 classrooms for $35.1M.

Notable quote:
"It has already been projected that for the start of the 2013-2014 school year, the district won’t be able to accommodate all fourth- through eighth-grade students at Pond Road. “In that year, we’re going to have to leave some fourth-graders at Sharon, or find some temporary space,” Mayer said. "
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

JustSayin
Registered User
Username: Justsayin

Post Number: 10
Registered: 06-2011
Posted on Saturday, January 28, 2012 - 03:21 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post    Admin only

The trend seems to be to fight and limit the number of new homes available that will attract new families and increase the school population.

That said, as the current children move through the schools there will be less children replacing them. At that point, what do we do with 38 new classrooms and a $35.1M investment that probalby won't be paid off?

Granted that there will be some turnover of school aged families into the current housing inventory, but there probably will never be a 100% replacement of all the old school aged children with new school age children. What are the long termed growth projections beyond 2013-2014?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Good point
Unregistered User
Posted on Saturday, January 28, 2012 - 03:26 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post    Admin only

Yes its people with no kids buying all those large multiple bedroom homes. Clearly that's what will happen
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Growing pains
Unregistered User
Posted on Saturday, January 28, 2012 - 11:30 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post    Admin only

Everyone needs to muscle up and pay a little more in RE taxes for a new school. I don't like it either but we are a growing community and we will all benefit in the long run. Better schools will translate to higher home values and better teachers. I bought a home here expecting to have growing pains with the belief that most people here want a great school system and a top rate town.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

dfgh
Unregistered User
Posted on Sunday, January 29, 2012 - 05:04 am:   Edit Post Delete Post    Admin only

and when the children grow up and move out, mom and dad will continue to live in the big 4/5 bedroom home all by themselves paying over $15K/yr in property taxes.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Inanutshell
Unregistered User
Posted on Sunday, January 29, 2012 - 02:10 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post    Admin only

There is 0 chance a new school will be approved by taxpayers. None.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

nuffsaid
Unregistered User
Posted on Sunday, January 29, 2012 - 04:39 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post    Admin only

If that happens there is a 100% percent chance of split grades between buildings, increased class sizes, more trailers with their cost negatively impacting on programs, and consideration of split sessions. All of which will decrease the value of your property.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Qaz123
Registered User
Username: Qaz123

Post Number: 34
Registered: 09-2011
Posted on Sunday, January 29, 2012 - 07:55 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post    Admin only

Decreased property value is too abstract a notion compared to the property tax bill which hit you right between the eyes.

Using decreased property value as your lynch pin in convincing voters to vote for the new school is a non-starter.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Pay attention
Unregistered User
Posted on Sunday, January 29, 2012 - 08:56 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post    Admin only

FYI -- the district actually looked at the Marrazzo's supermarket concept. Problems with circulation and lack of playground made it difficult, but the real problem is that renting the space would need to come out of operating budget. They can't raise taxed by more than 2% per year so they cannot rent anything -- including trailers. They have to build something. What they build depends on a lot of things including what happens to South side of TC.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

dfgh
Unregistered User
Posted on Monday, January 30, 2012 - 04:12 am:   Edit Post Delete Post    Admin only

That's interesting.

The 2% Cap may force the choice that makes less economic sense.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

2dimes
Unregistered User
Posted on Monday, January 30, 2012 - 11:12 am:   Edit Post Delete Post    Admin only

What is interesting is that property in TC South was purchased by the township to curtail residential growth, negatively impacting the schools. But, since the redevelopment plan has such a large residential component, far beyond what they planned for, the School Board is being force to consider a new school.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

dfgh
Unregistered User
Posted on Monday, January 30, 2012 - 01:00 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post    Admin only

Put the new school on the TC South land eliminating the residential component. Make sure you put in a safe cross walk and TC students can walk to school.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Face facts
Unregistered User
Posted on Monday, January 30, 2012 - 02:37 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post    Admin only

And how will the district pay for the land on TC South to build the school? Is the town just going to give it to them for free? We're already paying bonds worth about $12 million for half of TC South. They need to sell it to pay off the bonds. The district cannot afford to add that kind of debt onto the cost of building a new building. With the tax cap, the district cannot afford to rent any new facilities including new trailers or a rehab of an existing building (even if they could make Marazzo's work). So the question is do you build an expansion to the existing schools or a new school? The right answer is going to depend on what happens with Gordon-Simpson and TC South. The district thinks they can house the kids projected in the study in an expansion. Neither Gordon Simpson nor TC South were contained in any great measure in the study bc they were age restricted or because the town said there would be no children on its property. If there are a great deal of children coming out of either or both of these sites, it has to be a new school.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Tough choice
Unregistered User
Posted on Monday, January 30, 2012 - 03:51 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post    Admin only

A school would only need 5 of the 72 kushner acres, or less then $900k worth of the original purchase at 2007 prices. Preventing 5 acres of high density housing would be a bargain. Now get the developer to build the school at cost plus a modest profit as part of the redevelopment package, and it's not such a bad idea. Developer might make more building a school then building houses in this market. However, a school would not be a permitted use under the recently approved plan unless it's modified.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

poi
Unregistered User
Posted on Monday, January 30, 2012 - 03:58 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post    Admin only

Sounds to me from what you are all saying, we are stuck because of the 2% cap. With the cap we cannot afford to expand, build or buy land for school. I guess that answers the question of what to do...nothing can be done.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

dfgh
Unregistered User
Posted on Monday, January 30, 2012 - 06:18 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post    Admin only

The $12M TC south land is not worth $12M now.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Face facts
Unregistered User
Posted on Tuesday, January 31, 2012 - 03:36 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post    Admin only

POI -- that's not what I said at all. With the cap in place, you can't rent facility space. Rentals come out of your operating budget. If you went to a meeting, you would have heard that the increase to the budget at 2% was about $600,000. This amount is eaten up by increases to health benefits, utilities, new programs and the like. The district cannot use that to rent a building or a trailer. The expansion of existing buildings or building a new school are done by separate referendum. The money is not in the operating budget. We can afford to expand, build, and buy land. The question is do the residents have the stomach to do what's right?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Face Facts
Unregistered User
Posted on Tuesday, January 31, 2012 - 03:42 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post    Admin only

By the way, no developer is going to build a new school (at a cost of $35+ million) for the town as part of being named redeveloper of south side. You suggest having the redeveloper build it and sell it to the district at a profit. So the redeveloper is going to build a multimillion school without knowing that the district is going to buy it ahead of time? What happens if the referendum fails? He's stuck with a useless school building? This is not how the real world works. The developers out there who are building are not going to give away free schools. You cannot even legally require this. Face facts -- there is no such thing as a free lunch. The town got itself in this mess by putting bandaids on this problem in the past. We need to deal with it now. Building a new school or expanding the old ones are the only options. We're going to have to pay. The question is how much?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Tough choice
Unregistered User
Posted on Tuesday, January 31, 2012 - 05:20 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post    Admin only

Who said anything about building befor a referendum?

With redevelopment, yes, you can legally negotiate just about anything, including school construction. However, the whole package deal has to attract a willing redeveloper.

Having a 25-30million approved project may actually sweeten the pot for a redeveloper. The town still has to find someone willing to take the whole thing on, which may be the hard part in this economy.

I'm not saying this is a perfect idea, but it's one way to buy additional development rights back.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Face facts
Unregistered User
Posted on Wednesday, February 01, 2012 - 01:25 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post    Admin only

So you want the district to go out to referendum on a property which they don't own and which will still need to find a redeveloper who is willing to build the project that the school wants on the property? And the town should just give the school the property free of charge to build the school or will that cost be added to the referendum cost? The main problem is one of timing. Assuming that this could work, how long do you think it will take to find and then negotiate a deal with the redeveloper to build this type of project? Probably significantly longer than if the district simply built improvements to their existing buildings or a new school on the Pond Road site. Something needs to be done yesterday. If they did a referendum in December 2012, the new school or improvements wouldn't be finished until September 2014 at best. In two years, there won't be enough room at Pond to house the entire 4th grade. The kids will need to be split between Sharon and Pond. From that point on, this bandaid will have officially fallen off. The schools are just out of room. Something needs to be done and there is no time to see if something creative (which most likely will cost more and take more time) can be worked out on South side of TC.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

really
Unregistered User
Posted on Wednesday, February 01, 2012 - 01:33 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post    Admin only

Currently there is a line of developers willing to sign up for this project?

Add Your Message Here
Posting is currently disabled in this topic. Contact your discussion moderator for more information.

Topics | Last Day | Last Week | Tree View | Search | Help/Instructions | Program Credits Administration