OurMontville.com Blog

QUICK LINKS

ARCHIVES

January 2007February 2007March 2007April 2007May 2007June 2007July 2007August 2007September 2007November 2007December 2007January 2008February 2008March 2008May 2008July 2008

LINKS OF INTEREST

OurMontville
Little Green Footballs
Powerline
New York Sun
Opinion Journal
HotAir
Cox and Forkum
Atlas Shrugs

Monday, February 19, 2007

A New Home for the Board of Education - Town Hall?

Posted by Ron Soussa at 4:49 PM

Credit the Board of Education and the Township Committee for working together to reduce the burden on taxpayers. Recently the two elected groups have discussed moving the Board from rented space on Changebridge Road to the Municipal Building.

The trouble is that there isn't enough room at Town Hall for the Board without relocating municipal employees. An expansion of the municipal building will likely be needed.

47 Comments | Post a comment

Home

47 Comments:

An addition on town hall...and this will reduce the tax burden HOW?

Posted by Anonymous on February 19, 2007 8:14 PM

I assume the Board of Education will save money by moving in with the elders. What will they spend the saved $ on.......courtesy busing? ha!

Posted by Anonymous on February 20, 2007 8:21 PM

A permanent home for the Board of Ed. can save money in the long run if in fact it becomes a permanent home. Currently the Board is paying top leasing rates for space which they will never own. They spent an additional $1 million plus to build an extent ion on Lazar as a permanent home and moved out in 3-4 years and now are paying about $200,000 per year for the current situation. They could bond for an expansion of the Township Building and own it for less then they are paying for space now and eventually own it out right.

Posted by Dan Grant on February 21, 2007 9:15 AM

why re-locate town employees and add on to that building?? doesn't the board of ed have numerous schools which could have the offices attached to?? or is it time to be realistic and use the former police station on river road
Is the Board of Ed working with the town to circumvent the voters having to approve this bond?

Posted by Anonymous on February 22, 2007 3:35 PM

86 River Road, the former municipal building and later police station, seems to be the obvious choice. It just needs to be renovated.

Does anyone know why the Board of Education rejected it?

Posted by Ron Soussa on February 22, 2007 6:44 PM

The Bored of Education is more concerned with themselves than education or saving money.

Why do you think they are spending a fortune leasing that Taj Mahal instead of putting their offices on to one of the schools they just expanded?

John Alin is on a power trip and Grau, Cortellino, and cohen give him whatever he wants.

Posted by Anonymous on February 23, 2007 3:33 PM

One way to reduce the tax burden is to have a countywide school district in each county and dissolve all the districts that exsist now. This idea will reduce the unnecessary adminstration and offices that exsist now. It is done this way in other states, Florida is one example, too bad the teachers' union fought against it.

Posted by Anonymous on March 1, 2007 12:22 AM

Just a question. At this point the Board of Ed is about half way through their lease which was for three years with a renewal provision. It doesn't seem that they are any closer to a solution for ending the aproximately $180-$200 thousand per year in lease expense at their current site. The debt service on either improving or rebuilding the old municipal building or adding on to the New Town Hall would be less but the longer they wait to find a permanent home the more costly it will be both in construction costs and lease costs until they occupy new space. Is there an end in sight?

Anon from Feb, 23rd. I don't think you know who the players on the Board are. You seem to have put an odd combination together in support of Jon Alin.

Posted by Dan Grant on March 3, 2007 9:17 PM

Dan is right. The Bored hasn't done anything and is then going to say its an emergency because the lease is going to end.

Where is the leadership?

They should have selected a new location and worked on getting it built the minute they signed the lease for the Taj Mahal.

Posted by Anonymous on March 5, 2007 3:34 PM

The board can't raise the money for a new home and is relying on the town to pay for it. They have to go somewhere. It should be where it will cost the least and it doesn't have to be pretty.

Posted by Anonymous on March 5, 2007 7:20 PM

The early numbers are out regarding the Board of Education's plan to move to another location. From the looks of things, they are planing to stay in the Taj Mahal and renew the lease. I say put them in a trailer until they get serious about finding a solution.

Posted by Anonymous on March 11, 2007 8:53 PM

I hear FEMA's got a bunch of trailers they're willing to part with!

Posted by Anonymous on March 12, 2007 11:58 AM

The fact is that any business man would have started looking for a real home the day they signed the lease for this temporary home. At aproximately $200,000 per year and three years to accomplish it they should have plans on the table and money in capital budget right now. The way things stand they are going to be forced to sign another three year lease and in order to have the time to get their act together. It is absolutely wrong and in the end we will all pay over $1 million for tempory space before they even have a workable plan.

Posted by Dan Grant on March 12, 2007 12:35 PM

Exactly why can't they add on to one of the schools?

Why didn't they plan to do that years ago?

Vote them all out!

Posted by Montville star on March 12, 2007 7:11 PM

I really don't have a preferance as long as they do something that is cost effective but it is also a fact that you have a majority which has hung together for 3 years and you need to determine which side has failed and why the leadership hasn't been able to build a consensus. So it is not as simple as just voting them out. You have to change the majority.

Posted by Dan Grant on March 12, 2007 10:23 PM

You are right Dan. This group is going to present a plan that is so expensive that they'll look good to just renew in the Taj Mahal.

And they're going to try to get the Township to pay for it instead of putting it in front of the voters.

Alin and company are very sneaky.

Posted by Anonymous on March 12, 2007 10:52 PM

I agree. Put them all in trailers behind Lazar and see how fast they move on a new location. The voters have a right to call this shot. We are the ones paying for it. Shame on all the players here.

Posted by Anonymous on March 13, 2007 2:02 PM

There is a joint Republican-Democratic sponsored Debate of this years crop of Board Candidates on March 26th at the Senior House. It is open to all Montville Township Residents. People should come out and question those who want to be elected or re-elected about this important issue.

Posted by Dan Grant on March 13, 2007 2:39 PM

The Board of Ed. sat on their butts until this past fall. Now they blame the Township Committee for their situation. The bottom line is that they can't go to a referendum because it will not pass with the voters. So, they will go to the back door and ask the Township Committee to fund it with no vote. Why would anyone in their right mind stick their neck out and fund this? It's political suicide. The Board of Ed. should solve their problems within their own budget.

Posted by Anonymous on March 16, 2007 2:02 PM

To Anonymous March 16, 2007 1:02 PM

You are right that the Board of Ed should fix their own problems. They created them when they didn't put their offices at one of the schools they expanded.

Or at the very least when they signed the lease for their current space.

And worse than political suicide, it is circumventing the voters.

We have referendums for a reason.

Posted by Ron Soussa on March 17, 2007 1:46 PM

They had their offices at a school which was expressly done for Board of Ed offices at a cost of an additional $1.5 million. Four years later or so they decided to move. A free standing building would prevent that happening in the future. If they can pay $200,000 per year for lease space the question is what will they pay that is more cost efficient for a building they own. The problem is that they knew they would have to move the day they signed the lease and now they will probably have to renew the lease for a period of time as they also build a new home. They had three years and knew that going in. A decision should have been done and implemented by now so that we would not bear the expense of both a lease and construction at the same time.

Posted by Dan Grant on March 18, 2007 1:48 PM

I heard 2 figures, first $1.5 mil and then $3 mil. WOW. Spend at this level without public vote? Exactly what $$ are going toward our kids? ZERO. Posh digs for administratin only. There will be angry residents. Who is approving these dollars? I have not heard this discussed at Bd of Ed mtings. Does the Township council approve? I agree, FEMA trailers (refurbished)are a low cost alternative....

Posted by Anonymous on March 19, 2007 5:21 PM

there's still plenty of time to get them relocated either to a cheaper lease or to a trailer, but decisions need to be made. Bottom line is that if no decision is made they shold be forced to move out and work out of tents!

How many people are working in this office and how big is it?

Posted by Anonymous on March 21, 2007 1:16 PM

Actually the employees will work whereever they are told to. Maybe we should take a page from Trump and put the team that failed in a tent until they succeed in a task. I wonder how the Board would like using outside toilets.

Posted by Anonymous on March 21, 2007 2:09 PM

Put John Alin in a tent. He's the Board President and he hasn't gotten the job done.

John you should be ashamed!

Posted by Anonymous on March 21, 2007 2:20 PM

Maybe he hasn't been able to find a home for the BOE yet, but at least he has brought in some new leadership.

Posted by Anonymous on March 22, 2007 9:56 AM

what the hell does that mean? What leadership has he brought in and what are they leading in?

Posted by Anonymous on March 22, 2007 10:04 AM

It is an eight member board (one who is not attending anymore) so there must have been a subcommittee working on this issue. Who is on that and what have they been doing?

Posted by Anonymous on March 22, 2007 11:29 AM

Their not doing anything. They want to wast 2 1/2 million dollars not a cent on education on their own office space.

Who is on the subcommitee?

Posted by Anonymous on March 22, 2007 12:32 PM

Why do we have an 8 member board? If 8 of them can't get the job done, let's reduce their number by half. That should also make it easier to find space to stick them in.

Posted by Anonymous on March 22, 2007 1:05 PM

The Board should be 9 but one member quit coming and to whoever said that half that amount would be good is on to something.

Posted by Anonymous on March 22, 2007 4:17 PM

Who is the member who isn't coming anymore. He/She should be publicly scolded. These people are elected officials. If you can't or won't make the time to serve then you shouldn't run. Again, who is the missing person?

Posted by Anonymous on March 22, 2007 7:34 PM

Has anyone seen Frank Cooney?

Posted by Anonymous on March 22, 2007 7:50 PM

They should buy the Taj Mahal and be done with it.

Posted by Montville Star on March 22, 2007 7:57 PM

You can't say that there isn't fat in a budget that has an extra $200,000 for lease space. If they bought is now that means they paid $600,000 for three years for nothing when it could have gone to the purchase of it three years ago.

Posted by Anonymous on March 23, 2007 8:15 AM

People need to get a grip and be reminded, the board brings in the best professional leadership available and sets policy. The superintendent and his assistants run the schools and make decisions in our best interests, period!

Posted by Anonymous on March 23, 2007 5:16 PM

yea they also make stupid decisions on busing and waste a lot of money

Posted by Anonymous on March 23, 2007 8:07 PM

I think you all need to come to the Debate Monday March 26th at 7:00 pm at the Senior House and ask your questions directly and hear for yourselves what each has to say. The Board spends 65 per-cent of the property tax dollar and has a direct bearing on property values yet their elections draw only 20 per-cent of the voters. Come on out!

Posted by Dan Grant on March 24, 2007 11:40 AM

Yes the Board hires the best qualified people they can find. In fact they are so good at it they have hired about 14 Superintendents and Assistant Superintendents and other administration over the past 8 years. Of course many of them were interims which someone called babysitters the other night. Of course these babysitters get $700 per day and have the keys to the house and can sign checks. So I don't know if Babysitter is the correct terminology.

Posted by Anonymous on March 24, 2007 3:58 PM

Here are the facts: The BOE represents 65% of our tax dollar. We hire and fire superintendents so frequently that we are getting the BOTTOM OF THE BARREL when we do so. They should have made plans for new offices the day they signed the lease on the TAJ MAHAL. Instead, they waited long enough to try and force the township committee to fund new space, behind the voters backs-- (after they screwed us by taking the money the town put back into the budget for courtesy busing and using it for something else). Now we are supposed to show up at a debate and figure out who the geniuses are that are crazy enough to join this bunch of clowns who control 65% of our tax dollar. If this were the Apprentice, Donald Trump would fire all nine of these incompentents on one show! I say put the BOE in trailers or teepees or more fittingly, under a circus tent! Bring them back to reality and make them accountable.

Posted by Anonymous on March 24, 2007 7:46 PM

Why would you want to fire these guys? They are no better or worse then the nine before or the nine that will come after. The system is set up for the board to be manipulated,everything is done for the sake of the children who are more often left out of the equation

Posted by Anonymous on March 26, 2007 10:02 AM

Not true, We have had good Boards in the past and better Parent Organizations. For the past 5 years we have been in a downward spiral of personal agendas that have hurt the District and the Township and that is the fault of the voters not caring enough to really look at what is happening. We now have the highest inventory of homes for sale and declining values but it is what the voters have asked for by either buying the BS or worse not voting at all.

Posted by Anonymous on March 26, 2007 11:52 AM

If you think there is a correlation between the number of homes on the market and the performance of the Board of Education then you're nuts. The whole region is facing the same surplus inventory of homes on the market. Montville, unlike your head, is not in a vacuum.

Posted by Anonymous on March 27, 2007 7:48 PM

And if you think that the quality of the Educational system isn't one of the first and most important issues in buying a home then you are a fool. Not every Town is suffering the way we are and voters like you who don't think that it matters are the problem

Posted by Anonymous on March 29, 2007 10:49 AM

Anonymous March 29, 2007 9:49 AM

Mountain Lakes has great schools and presently has a record number of homes on the market.

I don't think the cyclical real estate market has anything to do with the changing personnel in the schools.

Posted by Ron Soussa on March 29, 2007 4:44 PM

Name a town with a decent school system that doesn't have a surplus inventory of homes. Checkmate!

Posted by Anonymous on March 30, 2007 10:02 PM

Put the Board of Ed in Fema Trailers until they come up with a suitable plan. They have no right to even attempt renewing this lease. Better of buying a home in town for this kind of money. Oh, and the tax write off would be great. Whoever allowed them to take this lease on in the first place? Shame on this town for spending this kind of money.

Posted by Anonymous on March 31, 2007 10:55 AM