| Author |
Message |
    
fringe
Citizen
Username: Fringe
Post Number: 819
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, March 13, 2005 - 8:14 am: | 
|
The district's long term capital improvement program began in October 2002 with BOSE approval for $7.2 million in spending for what the BOE regarded as the most pressing district needs. Bonds were sold for the total, but as of this date about half remains unspent because certain projects were canceled including five additional classrooms at MMS and the dance studio at SOMS.
The dance studio, or lack thereof, has resurfaced in the 2005-06 budget discussions as Super H has tried to justify his staff cutting decisions. At the 24 January meeting he stated the reason that dance was being dropped in the middle schools was because the enrollment for the class never materialized. By the 7 March meeting the rationale had morphed to, "There was never a space for the class." Whatever the real reason, it is clear that in 2002 the district's priority was a dance studio, the need for which was not a certainty, rather than deferred maintenance.
Why dredge up these old excesses when the unspent money has been used to partially fund the recently passed $21 million spending authorization representing less than half of the money needed for the long deferred maintenance? Well, consider the below article in Friday's Star-Ledger and the administration/BOE priorities that have given us the Black Box Theater, the apparently abandonded dance hall at SOMS and the never built classrooms at MMS. The architects got paid.
..............
Jersey halts new pacts for school construction
Inspector general to review contracts
Friday, March 11, 2005BY DUNSTAN McNICHOL
Star-Ledger Staff
The Codey administration yesterday suspended the awarding of new contracts under New Jersey's school construction program until the state's inspector general can review pending deals. Inspector General Mary Jane Cooper sought the timeout after a meeting with the head of the Schools Construction Corp., the agency in charge of the $8.6 billion program.
In a letter to acting Gov. Richard Codey, Cooper asked that the SCC "refrain from completing and/or entering into any contracts, change orders or any other commitments for purchases or services until we have had an opportunity to review those agreements." Cooper said her office "will establish a protocol for reviewing all pending and contemplated contracts, as well as change orders, to determine cost-saving measures." Kelley Heck, Codey's spokeswoman, said the corporation will abide by the inspector general's request. She added construction already under way probably would not be affected. "We expect that existing contracts will move forward," she said. The length of the new-contract suspension was unclear, but Cooper told SCC officials yesterday she would set up the review process "expeditiously." Schools Construction Corp. spokesman Dominick DeMarco said Cooper met with SCC chief executive Jack Spencer for about 3 1/2 hours yesterday. DeMarco said: "The SCC has said it welcomes any productive input that will help it do its job more productively. We see (Cooper) meshing into the process and having it flow." Cooper took office a month ago as New Jersey's first inspector general, in charge of rooting out government waste and mismanagement. Codey asked her to scrutinize the SCC after a Star-Ledger analysis showed that schools built under the corporation since 2002 cost, on average, 45 percent more than schools built by local school districts at the same time. The Star-Ledger report found that the corporation, since starting work 30 months earlier, had approved contract changes costing more than $500 million, and paid $216 million to 13 project management firms -- more than triple the rate local school districts paid their construction managers. In her letter to Codey yesterday, Cooper said her office "may be able to suggest certain measures that may result in significant savings of state funds, as well as help ensure that the remaining school construction funds are used in the most efficient manner possible." According to the corporation's Web site, 133 design and construction contracts are awaiting SCC action, and 12 change orders worth a total of $930,000 await approval. Cooper told Codey she will ensure that any school repairs that are deemed emergency work will receive "immediate attention" from her office. Gov. James E. McGreevey set up the schools corporation in 2002 to jump-start an $8.6 billion school building program that lawmakers had established in 2000. Since its formation, the SCC has spent just over $3 billion. It is scheduled to approve $1.2 billion worth of school construction work this year, and spend $2 billion. The corporation is on track to exhaust its entire $8.6 billion allotment by next January, five years earlier than expected, according to Spencer. SCC officials acknowledge they will have completed less than half the school construction work assigned to it before the money runs out. Lawmakers have demanded an accounting of the corporation's spending before they consider authorizing additional funds to it. A bill that would set up a committee to review the state's school construction needs and the corporation's practices has passed the Assembly and is awaiting full state Senate action. The corporation has announced plans to cut down the role of project management firms in an effort to trim its oversight costs.
Dunstan McNichol covers state government issues.
|
wharfrat
Citizen
Username: Wharfrat
Post Number: 1639
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, March 13, 2005 - 11:43 am: |
|
Tucker-
Once again you demonstrate that you are clearly someone who has the best interests of our schools at heart.
NOT!
Yet again you attempt to smear the district by posting innuendo.
Your use of the Star Ledger article on cost overruns and mis-management at the School Construction Committee has nothing at all to do with SOMSD's decision two years ago not to proceed with certain bonded construction projects.
Yet, your juxtaposition of the two is done for no other purpose than to create the false impression of linkage.
You know full well the reasons behind the abandoned projects, which have been repeated many times at multiple BOE and BOSE meetings, including very recent ones.
1) The additional classrooms at MMS were not built because by the end of the 18-24 month state capital project approval process enrollment estimates had changed and the rooms were not needed.
The "million dollar" dance studio, you and Michael Stratechuk screamed about and the gym project at SOMS were abandoned because by the time the project was approved, the space was needed for classrooms.
2) The music room work at CHS was abandoned because asbestos was discovered in the ceiling which would have required tens of thousands of dollars of additional expense and required the school to be totally shuttered for two months or more.
Not surprisingly, the district decided to leave the stuff alone (which was a perfectly safe option). The money for these projects has now been re-directed to the current round of capital improvements just bonded by the BOSE.
So, what exactly are you complaining about?
If the board had proceeded with these projects in face of the changed circumstances, we wouild hear you whining that it spent money it shouldn't have.
But, because the board prudently trimmed back the projects and did not irresponsibly expend taxpayer dollars, the best you can now do is resort to slimy innuendo.
Some "objectivity!" |
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 5839
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, March 13, 2005 - 5:38 pm: |
|
Fringe, if you ran the place, what would you have done differently, assuming having been dealt the same hand of cards? |
fringe
Citizen
Username: Fringe
Post Number: 822
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, March 13, 2005 - 6:59 pm: |
|
I don't run the place, but believe those who do should be accountable for their actions. Below is a memo sent to the then Maplewood BOSE members before the vote on the 2002 bonds.
...
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: Vic DeLuca, Burt Liebman, David Huemmer
FROM: Jim Nathenson, Tucker Lamkin
RE: BOSE - 10/29/02 Debt Proposal
DATE: October 27, 2002
_______________________________________________________________________
1. THE BIG PICTURE – SIGNIFICANT INCREASES IN LOCAL TAX BURDEN PERTAINING TO DEBT SERVICE RELATED TO $52.1MM IN DEFERRED MAINENANCE EXPENDITURES PLUS $9.7MM NEW CLASSROOM SPACE EXPENDITURES
§ Information presented to BOSE summarizes Long Term Facilities Master Plan (LTFMP) and related financing requirements.
§ LTFMP deals primarily with massive deferred maintenance accumulated over recent years during which time the BOE has pursued a high cost educational program which has yet to produce tangible objective results.
§ LTFMP outlines $52.1MM in refurbishment and upgrade expenditures to existing facilities, mainly between 2003 and 2008. It also outlines up to $9.7MM in additional expenditures to increase classroom space.
§ BOE plan shows the time sequence of expenditures but does not provide any prioritization as to necessity. The BOE must provide this before any funding is considered.
§ Local taxes over next 10 years will be driven by operating expense growth plus growth in debt service. In projected budgets through the 2005-06 school year, BOE shows annual total expenditure growth of 4.6% and annual growth in local tax burden of 5.2%. These projections significantly underestimate the likely outcomes, based on recent history. Over the past 5 years expenditures have increased at an annual rate of 6.4% and taxes have grown at an annual rate of 6.3%.
§ The projected budgets through 2005-06 reflect the impact of $7.2MM of financing pertaining to new classroom space. They do not show the tax impact of any incremental financing pertaining to the $52.1MM of deferred maintenance projects.
§ Although details regarding timing and structure of debt issuance have yet to be determined, simple calculation will demonstrate that taking into account the run-off of the current $20.3MM of debt, the increase in Total Debt to approx. $60MM could cause annual debt service to more than double in the near future.
§ The BOE’s pro-forma debt service analysis for the years beyond 2005-06 assumes $62MM of debt issuance between now and 2010, with maximum annual debt service peaking at $5.3MM in 2013 and staying level at about $4.8MM into the foreseeable future beyond that. However this analysis makes optimistic assumptions regarding the continuation of a low interest rate environment through the issuance period as well as a back-ended repayment schedule for the newly issued debt. Both of these assumptions are subject to considerable doubt. Higher interest rates and/or more level required debt amortization could materially magnify the tax impact in both the short and long run.
2. OCTOBER 29, 2002 PROPOSAL – $12.3MM NEW DEBT ISSUANCE
§ The 10/29/02 proposal to authorize $12.3MM of new debt issuance does not address any of the deferred maintenance items referred to above. Requests to authorize bonding for the $52.1MM will be made later.
§ $5.1MM of the 10/29/02 proposal relates to permanent refinancing of short term borrowings previously authorized. These borrowings financed prior capital expenditures. We have no objection to this piece of the proposal.
§ $7.2MM of 10/29/02 proposal relates to expenditures for increased classroom space, mainly at Columbia HS and Maplewood Middle School. Of the $7.2 MM, $4.6MM is proposed for local funding with the balance of $2.6MM in the form of Grant Anticipation Notes to be repaid upon receipt of state funding, already authorized by the state, according to the BOE.
§ New expenditures for increased classroom space is driven by current policy/practice regarding small class size. Small classes are intuitively accepted as a driver of academic performance, but are empirically unproven. The educational literature is divided on the efficacy of small classes, compared to other educational strategies.
§ Recent SOM experience with small class sizes is inconclusive.
§ In the first semester of the 1994-95 school year, the proportion of CHS sections with under 15 students was approx. 10%. By the first semester of 2001-02 the proportion had increased dramatically to approximately 33%. Most of this increase is attributable to remedial programs.
(Note: This is based on 1st cut analysis of data provided by the BOE. Further analysis by the BOE should be required. A complete review of class sizes was recommended in last spring’s CBAC report. Had the class size data been made available at the time, a more complete analysis would be available today.)
§ During the same period, objective measures of academic achievement at CHS indicate declining academic performance, both on absolute basis and relative to peer group. No objective evidence has been presented by the BOE to support the notion that the commitment of additional resources through smaller classes is having a positive impact on academic performance.
3. CONCLUSION
§ Proposal to refinance $5.1MM in short term financing is acceptable.
§ Deferred maintenance expenditures must be given priority over expenditures for new classroom space. However, the Long Term Facilities Master Plan must be enhanced by the BOE to prioritize deferred maintenance expenditures, reducing them and stretching out the time sequence where possible.
§ Proposal to authorize $7.2MM in financing for new classroom space should be declined at this time. Notwithstanding the $2.6MM of state support for the projects in question, BOE has failed to justify an additional $4.6MM in permanent indebtedness because the educational effectiveness of such expenditures has not been substantiated.
§ As has been mentioned in CBAC reports in recent years, the BOE must commit to a long term limit on expenditure growth and tax growth.
§ Given the extremely high tax burden endured by Maplewood taxpayers, the Maplewood members of the BOSE must determine the maximum amount of tax support of school expenditures it is willing to approve. Additionally, given other municipal priorities, (including support of redevelopment of Springfield Avenue), it must determine the extent to which it is willing to see tax dollars for school expenditures crowd out municipal expenditures.
|
C Bataille
Citizen
Username: Nakaille
Post Number: 1893
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, March 14, 2005 - 11:08 am: |
|
You really can't have it both ways, fringe. And wharfrat is right that no matter whether the money was spent or not you would be complaining. I hope you have some other, more pleasant pastimes.
Cathy |
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 5846
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 14, 2005 - 11:11 am: |
|
You haven't answered my question, and you haven't shown that my question is somehow irrelevant. In fact, I feel it is very relevant. |
Hoops
Citizen
Username: Hoops
Post Number: 97
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Monday, March 14, 2005 - 11:15 am: |
|
gee- instead of building a new dance studio, maybe they could fix the heating in the main gym at columbia.
dance studio? for what? |
C Bataille
Citizen
Username: Nakaille
Post Number: 1894
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, March 14, 2005 - 12:09 pm: |
|
See, Tom, the problem is that you've asked Fringe to post something constructive. He doesn't really do constructive, as far as I can tell. Tearing down is much more his style. Fringe, maybe you should get a job that involves using wrecking balls on buildings. Could be very satisfying for you. And socially useful.
Hoops, I think you're talking two very different budgets as far as state regs go. Construction money comes from a different sub-source or spending line than repair/maintenance, I believe. I don't think you're allowed to just move the numbers like that. Kind of like the difference between capital improvement and infrastructure. Someone correct me if I'm wrong per state regs.
Cathy |
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 5849
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 14, 2005 - 12:14 pm: |
|
OK, I'll try to make it easy then.
Fringe, I saw you at the CHS play on Saturday night. What did you think of the production? |
marie
Citizen
Username: Marie
Post Number: 1280
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Monday, March 14, 2005 - 2:00 pm: |
|
Tom,
Did you buy popcorn?  |
Iwant2 KeepMyJob
Supporter
Username: Fastfusion
Post Number: 29
Registered: 12-2004
| | Posted on Monday, March 14, 2005 - 6:59 pm: |
|
------------------------------------------------
HOOPS:
gee- instead of building a new dance studio, maybe they could fix the heating in the main gym at columbia.
dance studio? for what?
------------------------------------------------
The heat was fixed in the main gym. Both heating units are operational.
The problem (one of the many) with the heat is when the hot water heat system (C wing) finally reaches operating temperature the steam part of Columbia (A wing) is overheated. It is all being worked on by our in house maintenance mechanics.
Only 2 men do Heating so they are spread out thin......very thin.... |
Reflective
Citizen
Username: Reflective
Post Number: 822
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 14, 2005 - 10:02 pm: |
|
I guess a few commenters didn't take the time to read or understand the 10/27/02 memo above. I surmise that is how fringe would approach the issue.
the bigger question is what did the three Board of School Estimate, maplewood committeemen all -Vic,Davy,and Burt do with the recommendation? More importantly what did the BOE do?
Another reason for skyrocketing taxes. |
Hoops
Citizen
Username: Hoops
Post Number: 98
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 15, 2005 - 9:32 am: |
|
iwanttokeepmyjob - thats my point. its ok to let our kids freeze in the main gym because we dont want to spend to have the resources to keep our current facilities in good condition. We have grandiose plans on building dance studios.
its the wrong priorities.
|
fringe
Citizen
Username: Fringe
Post Number: 829
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, March 17, 2005 - 8:50 am: |
|
At last night's BOE meeting it was stated that the actions described in the Star-Ledger article in the initial post will be limited to the certain districts or groups of districts.
The projects approved by the BOSE on 11 Feb. will be allowed to proceed. |
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page