ARCHIVES
 




 		  
Tuesday, May 15, 2007
Montville to bond for Board of Ed building
Posted by Ron Soussa at 3:46 PM
 
According to a published report "the township committee has tentatively agreed Montville will bond to construct a 6,000-square-foot office building and lease it to the school district".

Some people regard this as a win-win for all parties. Others see it as circumventing Montville's voters, who last month rejected the school budget.

What do you think?


82 Comments    |    Post a comment
Home
 


 
82 Comments:

Before everyone starts slinging arrows, it would be great if someone can post the reasoning of the TC in doing this. I personally feel that a more cost effective solution can be found.
Posted by Anonymous Anonymous on May 15, 2007 4:33 PM
 
 
What's your cost effective solution? They've been looking for it for 2 years.
Posted by Anonymous Anonymous on May 15, 2007 5:36 PM
 
 
Who will own the buillding when the lease is over?
Posted by Anonymous Anonymous on May 15, 2007 5:38 PM
 
 
I believe the Township would own the building. The big question is will the township charge the BoE after the bond is paid back?

It should not be that important to charge the BoE after the bond is paid back since it is still taxpayer dollars either out of our left pocket (BoE) or right pocket (TC).

I hope the lease goes to one dollar a year after the bond is paid back but all of these types of issues need to be ironed out over the next month or so.

The TC does plan provide more information to the public after the BoE considers our offer and the details are worked out.

Please understand that every month that this existing lease continues costs the taxpayer about $16,000 when we could be paying off the bond at something less than $16,000 per month.

I trust most of you understand my point which is no different from you renting versus paying off a loan and then owning your home.

Regards,
Art Daughtry
Posted by Blogger Art Daughtry on May 15, 2007 10:34 PM
 
 
Thanks Art! Personally, speaking I would like to see the site over near 100 Horseneck Road and the 86 River Road building demolished.
Posted by Anonymous Chris Schlomann on May 16, 2007 11:12 AM
 
 
The issue of the tax saving is kind of disingenuous. The same tax savings occur if the Board of Education does their own bonding and the only caveat in that is that they require voter approval which would be avoided if the Township bonds. In the past I have favored joint projects but the requirement was always that the Township have a direct interest in the project and utilize it for Township programs. in other words the Township was a real partner in the improvement. That is not the case here. I was very happy to see Jean Bader oppose the idea. I also question how Art would have to leave the room for the budget discussions because he is a vendor to the district and yet be able to vote on giving the district the bonding to building. Some will call this bickering but what hat did Art wear when he pushed the project when he has a financial arrangement with the Board.
Posted by Anonymous Dan Grant on May 16, 2007 11:48 AM
 
 
The proposed building will not be large enough at 6,000 square foot to accommodate everyone the Board of Ed wishes to relocate, which leaves another space issue we will be dealing with in the near future. Unless the building is planned with expansion capabilities either up or out, this will prove to be a short-lived solution we will have lost money in the process of doing. I would like to see more options presented with long-term solutions spelled out for the public.
Posted by Anonymous Ellen Oxild on May 16, 2007 12:41 PM
 
 
All we heard about the "old" building was that it wouldn't be worth repairing - am I to believe that suddenly it is a worthwhile building - check out cost of new against repair of very old.Didn't we learn our lesson on the Lazar School - good money after bad is still good money after bad.
Posted by Anonymous Anonymous on May 16, 2007 1:50 PM
 
 
Mr. Daughtry, The bottom line is that you are funding the Board of Education with tax dollars which were not voted upon. You say that the end justifies the means. Then WHY is our government set up to avoid this approach? Do the savings warrant the Township Committee using a loophole in the structure of our government to fund this? Just because there is a projected savings doesn't make it the right thing to do. Did you ever consider that? Is it OK to bend the rules whenever there is money at stake? The Board of Ed has grossly mismanaged their space issues and instead of being held accountable to the voters (ie. the failed budget), you are bailing them out. What lesson will be learned by future irresonsible boards? Who will bail them out next time?
Posted by Anonymous Anonymous on May 16, 2007 8:53 PM
 
 
A few points to consider -
1. In the opinion of our Township engineer, renovating the existing building would probably be more costly (particularly in the long run) than building a new one.
2. The BoE can NOT bond for land & building the Township owns.
3. If the Township had previously built a new bldg at 86 River, determined we didn't need it for Township purposes any longer and rented it to the BOE, what would be the problem? This is the same thing except the TC was dilligent and didn't build until we had a tenant.
4. There are savings to current expense the BoE is incurring. Since the rent expense is in the annual budget, the voters will have the chance to approve it. That then leaves more money for in-classroom instruction or reduced tax burden.
5. I don't care about who is bailed out or not; I care about creating a win/win where the citizens pay less, the children get more and the BOE has an office it can utilize well into the future.
Posted by Anonymous Jim Sandham on May 16, 2007 9:39 PM
 
 
After attending the Board of Ed meeting last night I am more convinced than ever that it run by a bunch of idiots.

Tim Lindert has been running the committee that is tasked with finding a new location. After two years the best he can do is beg the Townshi[ Committee to bail him out.

And Jon Alin is the head lunatic running the asylum.
Posted by Anonymous Anonymous on May 16, 2007 9:50 PM
 
 
I think Bd of Ed buildings should be on Bd of Ed property. Period. I went by the old town hall, cars for ball games everywhere. I thought the building was going to be torn down? Seems to be a cheaper solution. Budget this year called for $250,000+ for school windows, also a boiler for same amount. Who needs ANOTHER building for taxpayers to maintain? Squeeze 'em into a school or someone said trailers. And just HOW MANY administrative employees (overhead) are there anyway. Do we need all of them? I agree Alin has had 3yrs, and now no plan? The town to bail them out. Voters should weigh in.
Posted by Anonymous Anonymous on May 17, 2007 8:11 AM
 
 
The money to tear down that building was put into the Township Budget quite a few years ago and it is my understanding that it has now been used for some other purpose. Not unlike other line items that have been shifted so the Township Committee could do pet projects.

While the Board of Education cannot bond on property they don't own the Township could give them that property and let them bring the project to the voters. Years ago the Board of Education gave the Township the property the Library is built on but in those days there was a better working relationship between the two Boards. We had people more interested in the long term good of the Township and less interested in short term political gain.

It is certainly true that the Board of Ed should have looked for a permeant home as soon as they signed this over priced lease on the building they are now in and that is no ones fault but the Board of Ed's. No matter what happens at this point the Board will be forced to sign a new lease or find some kind of make do space until the voters decide the next move, Under no conditions should the Township Bond for a building on their behalf.
Posted by Anonymous Dan Grant on May 17, 2007 11:24 AM
 
 
I had the same reaction when I read Ellen Oxild's comment. Just exactly how many non-teaching employees does the BoE require? Just how many of the politically-connected are the taxpayers expected to support? Give them 6000 sq. ft. and tell them to make it work. That's how it's done in the private sector.

Why does it seem that every member of the TC and BoE that taxpayers can be abused without limit?

Pete Sesnick
Posted by Anonymous Anonymous on May 17, 2007 11:41 AM
 
 
The last sentence in my post should have read:

"Why does it seem that every member of the TC and BoE THINK that taxpayers can be abused without limit?"

Sorry if I confused anyone.

Pete Sesnick
Posted by Anonymous Anonymous on May 17, 2007 11:46 AM
 
 
Anonymous May 16, 2007 8:50 PM

If you're upset at what you think is a lack of leadership that's fine. But calling people names without using your own is cowardly.

Grow up and make some positive suggestions.
Posted by Blogger Ron Soussa on May 17, 2007 12:25 PM
 
 
Is this the only option presented to solve the BoE housing problem? After years to be diligent and analytical in a search, we're presented with 1 option?

My opinion is find space inside the schools, add a trailer, squeeze yourselves in somewhere. At least you'll be close to the action.

With budget cuts, continual raises in taxes, many paying for bus transportation for their children to school, Montville schools falling in ranking and Montville wants to dig deep into the taxpayers pockets to fund a brand shiny new building for our BoE?
Posted by Anonymous Anonymous on May 17, 2007 5:48 PM
 
 
A number of points -
1. Dan, as usual, your understanding is wrong! The money for the demo of 86 River Rd is intact. You know that the Fire Dept has part of 86 River, making a donation to the BoE improbable. And this TC pulled together the numerous 'down payments' you bonded for various projects that had stalled over a number of years and actually completed a project. Dan, stop taking your pot shots with bad facts and innuendos. Stick to the real facts, the ones you have actually verified, not 'your' facts.
2. As to having the BoE office at a school - in long ago days that was common. Unfortunately today we are concerned with any stranger that shows up near a school -- that would be compounded with BoE visitors at a school.
3. Have you visited our schools lately? We have experienced student growth in excess of demographic studies used to plan facilities. Every school building has interested parties (principals, teachers, parents, students) that believe more not less space is needed.
4. Pete - I'm confused by your remark. How does the TC finding a solution of building a BOE office that will save $ compared to their current lease 'abuse' taxpayers?
Posted by Anonymous Jim Sandham on May 17, 2007 8:15 PM
 
 
Jim,

With all due respect, worrying about strangers isnt much of a defense to locating the BoE in schools. Frankly, I find the schools easy as pie to walk into. I've been to 3 in the past few months, 2 buzzed me in sight unseen and the other I walked right through the front door.

Financial responsibility trumps the BoE needs for a sweet building to work in.

Now, tell me the BoE is responsible for making significant improvement in the schools rankings, which in turn increases my property value. Tell me the BoE has positioned Montville Schools to attract top notch teachers and administrators instead of them staying away like we're lepers. Tell me the BoE can hire quality leaders in the schools that dont leave in short order. Tell me the BoE leased that bldg @ $200k/yr at gunpoint.

Then, come to me and say the BoE wants $$ for a new bldg. I might consider that.
Posted by Anonymous Anonymous on May 17, 2007 8:40 PM
 
 
To Poster Anon above on 5/17, 7:40 -
YOUR comments make a lot of sense. Perhaps you should run for public office... that is of course, if you are not "in the game" already........ :) Accountability and responsibility are essential.
Posted by Anonymous Anonymous on May 17, 2007 10:53 PM
 
 
Hi folks I’ll try to address some of the questions asked by the following posters below.



Ellen Oxild said...
The proposed building will not be large enough at 6,000 square foot to accommodate everyone the Board of Ed wishes to relocate, which leaves another space issue we will be dealing with in the near future. Unless the building is planned with expansion capabilities either up or out, this will prove to be a short-lived solution we will have lost money in the process of doing. I would like to see more options presented with long-term solutions spelled out for the public.
Ellen – Key words are BoE “Wishes to locate” The question is do they need to actually move more people then the ones in the building on Chagebridge Road? Reality is they use about 5500 actual sq ft of that building for offices which includes a conference room and cafeteria. They also use the basement for storage. The 1.2 million offer was the result of looking to outside architects asking them what would it cost to build an “austere” office building in the public sector. The numbers came back within $10 a square foot at about $200 per square foot. The TC originally set a max at 1 million but most of us thought that was impractical since that would only support a 5000 sq ft building. As to a short lived solution the life and planning for future expansion, if necessary, can and should be incorporated into the new structure. By the way the existing building for all of these conversations is to be demolished based on what the BoE president stated to the TC at past meetings. I realize the “little house” up by the wrestling barn they wish to vacate. Even with the 6000 square feet they could possibly include those folks in the move.

As far as losing money I need to keep repeating myself – every month the status quo continues we, the taxpayers, are losing money. That does not make this offer the correct one however if the BoE accepts they will be bound to some very tight budgets regarding construction and bonding costs which frankly has not happened with past Boards, or Township Committees.



Anonymous said...
Mr. Daughtry, The bottom line is that you are funding the Board of Education with tax dollars, which were not voted upon. You say that the end justifies the means. Then WHY is our government set up to avoid this approach? Do the savings warrant the Township Committee using a loophole in the structure of our government to fund this? Just because there is a projected savings doesn't make it the right thing to do. Did you ever consider that? Is it OK to bend the rules whenever there is money at stake? The Board of Ed has grossly mismanaged their space issues and instead of being held accountable to the voters (ie. the failed budget), you are bailing them out. What lesson will be learned by future irresponsible boards? Who will bail them out next time?
Anonymous you raise some absolutely understandable points. Please believe me on this at least two TC members expressed a desire to stay away from this problem and leave it with the BoE. As was stated to me in no uncertain terms it is political suicide to get into this however frankly politics is not my thing so that part doesn’t concern me. What does concern me is a past member of the TC was liaison to the BoE for many years and all that resulted was criticism and divisiveness. I promised I would do everything possible to foster a good working relationship with the BoE keeping the taxpayers first. If the TC doesn’t “bail them out” as you suggest the taxpayers suffer. That is my dilemma with all of this. Do you realize how easy it would be to sit back, point a finger at the BoE and do nothing? I was not at the BoE meeting last Tuesday however I wouldn’t be surprised if they do go to referendum on this and all of this goes away. Please read at the end of this some hypothetical scenarios that I would appreciate constructive comments.

Anonymous said...
I had the same reaction when I read Ellen Oxild's comment. Just exactly how many non-teaching employees does the BoE require? Just how many of the politically-connected are the taxpayers expected to support? Give them 6000 sq. ft. and tell them to make it work. That's how it's done in the private sector.

Why does it seem that every member of the TC and BoE that taxpayers can be abused without limit?

Pete Sesnick
Pete – Right on with your comment about the 6000 sq ft. As far as abusing the taxpayers all I can do is apologize because I believe I’m trying to protect the taxpayers. As all of this unfolds I wouldn’t be that surprised if the BoE goes to referendum anyway which leads me to maybe a totally new topic (Ron S. up to you), which is:

IF YOU WERE A MEMBER OF THE TC AND THE BoE PUT THIS OUT AS A REFERENDUM (SAY 2 Million) AND IT WAS DEFEATED WHAT WOULD YOU DO AS A MEMBER OF THE TC?

Choices:

- Overrule the voters which takes three votes out of 5 on the TC so the BoE gets the 2 million
- Do nothing and let the referendum fail
- Let the referendum fail and offer the 1.2 million for a 6000 sq ft building at 86 River Road

Remember every month nothing changes the taxpayers are spending $16000 per month just like you would rent versus paying off a bond, which would cost less per month and own the building outright in less than 10 years.

On a side note I believe 40% of the Board of Ed members are new since 2005. When will the critics give them some support and then judge them? One possible long term solution which started in the Midwest is to do away with the Board of Educations and the town governing bodies taking them over. Now that should spark some conversations!!!

Remember collocating the BoE in our new town hall????

Regards,
Art Daughtry
Posted by Blogger Art Daughtry on May 18, 2007 12:09 AM
 
 
Poster May 17 7:40
About time someone said what alot of people are thinking.
Seems as though poor performance by the board is rewarded with new facilities. This on top of the $16,000 a month rent we're paying for them now.
As far as Im concerned, they can convert someones garage into office space until they start delivering results!
Posted by Anonymous Anonymous on May 18, 2007 7:55 AM
 
 
Art,

I could take offense to your comment:

"On a side note I believe 40% of the Board of Ed members are new since 2005. When will the critics give them some support and then judge them??"

First off, after such a decline in Montville schools, tax hikes and $200k per year leased space, I believe its time for the BoE to EARN OUR SUPPORT rather than we just give it to them.

The BoE is looked at by many through a microscope and rightfully so. The track record speaks for itself. The situation is poor and its up to the BoE to change it. Dont expect much support until then.
Posted by Anonymous Anonymous on May 18, 2007 8:10 AM
 
 
Art,

Doesn't the Township Committee have anything better to do than get involved with the Board of Education's problems?

You people already screwed things up enough by inviting them to Town Hall when everyone knew there isn't enough room.

Mind your own business and let Alin fix his own mess.
Posted by Anonymous Anonymous on May 18, 2007 2:29 PM
 
 
They can buy used office trailers for 5k each and park them in the back of any of the schools.

No reason this has to cost so much ecept for big egos.

We don't trust Alin or Lindert to tell the truth. No wonder the budget didn't pass.
Posted by Anonymous Anonymous on May 18, 2007 2:32 PM
 
 
Without getting into the kinds of attacks Jim Sandham makes, I do think we need to look at what happened here with both the Budget and the Bonding.
The Township Committee cut $610,000 from the defeated $65 million budget. A quick review of the Board over the last 4 years shows that when they needed $200,000 of unbudgeted money to move out of Lazar, no problem, they had it. They were prepared to expend up to $300,000 to fight with Dr. Kramer, no problem. They budget their Attorney at $225,000 per year and pay him $325-350,000.00 per year, finding an additional unbudgeted $125-150,000.00 per year. No problem. Just the Attorney and the Lease equal half the money the Township Committee cut from the budget. The Township Committee returned $750,000 to the School Budget two years ago to restore Curtesy busing and while the money remained the Busing didn't.

On the issue of Bonding on behalf of the School Board, Art and Jim say that this is a break for the Taxpayers. The fact is that Boards of Education have the same Bonding capacity and rate as Municipalities. The only reason for having the Township do it is that the voters are left out of the picture. The fact that 40% of the Board is new has nothing at all to do with the logic of leaving Lazar with no plan in place as to where to go long term. The Board has had the same President and Vice-president for the whole 4 year fiasco and that still leaves 60 percent of the board to have come up with a workable and efficient solution. They haven't. They will shortly be forced to either vacate their current building or sign an extension on the lease which is going to raise the ante.

No one in business would vacate their facility without developing a plan for where they will go but this Board did exactly that. They were all elected on the promise of the professionalism they would bring to the board. While Art and Jim take slaps about a former committeeman's divisiveness with the Board of Ed and they are clearly talking about me they should know that I worked fine with the Board of Education on numerous projects over the first 12 years in office.

I was supportive of every budget and every referendum but I do have a habit of calling it the way I see it and at this point I think that it ought to be clear to everyone that things are far from perfect and maybe I was justified in my criticism.
Posted by Anonymous Dan Grant on May 18, 2007 6:07 PM
 
 
Dan.

The fact that the BOE entered a horrific deal that they are now bound to, is no excuse for bypassing the will of the people. Alin and Co. made a bad deal, and Daughtry (no conflict) and Co. come around with a way to bale them out. All the way they have the audacity to claim that they only care about the tax-payers and saving $$$.
Posted by Anonymous Anonymous on May 18, 2007 10:38 PM
 
 
What I care about is reducing the current BoE lease expense - which everyone complains about - while finding a long term solution to the BoE office issue, so that they don't spend more money relocating every few years! I still believe taking an unutilized town property and making it into a frugal but useful facility at a lower per annum cost than the current lease is good for our taxpayers. It's amazing that some who supported giving township funds to the BoE for a turf track, which had no financial payback, but now takes the opposite position. And Dan, I was there when YOU voted to give the BoE the $750k for courtesy busing!

Folks - Isn't politics wonderful?

I really do not care about bailing out/saving (or any other associated verb) the BoE. I don't agree with all that actions the BoE has taken - but that's not the issue here. I care about saving the taxpayers money (I am a taxpayer, too!) and utilizing Township assets wisely. It is okay that we have disagreements on the topic and maybe there is a better, realistic solution. But let's have the discussion using accurate facts. So here's the financial facts - if a new bldg is built at $1.2M or less and bonded for 10 years at 5%, the annual cost is <$153k. On 15 year bonding the cost is $114k per year. Both represent savings to the current lease and at the end of the bond payments we own the bldg!
Building onto an existing School may not be any cheaper and has other problems. Trailers are a short term fix and unrealistic in the long term.
While many of the postings here are not in favor of our proposal, the vast majority of people I talk with face to face think it's a very viable solution. Particularly compared to many more expensive alternatives previously proposed.
Posted by Anonymous Jim Sandham on May 18, 2007 11:37 PM
 
 
The landlords at Boe headquarters know how many people are waiting to jump into your space when you move onto TC land. If your deal was so great, they can't wait to replace you!!
Posted by Anonymous Anonymous on May 19, 2007 12:00 AM
 
 
Mr. Sandham, You just don't get it. You will not save the tax payers one cent and it is plain wrong to continue to say so. The Board of Ed. will take the savings and spend it on something else (not courtesy busing for sure!). They will reallocate the money and the BEST we can hope for is that it'll be on something worthwhile. You have alot of faith in a group who's best effort for relocating is a beg-a-thon at Township Committee meetings. We elected YOU to straighten out our municipal finances. We elected the BOE to handle there's. It's simply NOT YOUR JOB!
Posted by Anonymous Anonymous on May 19, 2007 1:59 PM
 
 
The BoE although ineffective, is not dumb. They realize at the end of their lease, the money they'll need to either build a new bldg or re-lease will come out of the Montville citizens pockets. So, there is no sense of urgency for them to do a thing or shop for less expensive housing. They know it's really "OUR" problem.

My solution is find a dump or use trailers or a combination inclusive of school offices. If they dont like the non-luxury space, tough. Place the burden on the BoE to present a better alternative that's reasonable instead of just sticking it to Montville taxpayers. For now, they're in a no lose and from their actions (or should I say lack of) they're letting us know they could care less about our money.
Posted by Anonymous Anonymous on May 19, 2007 3:27 PM
 
 
Dear Mr. or Ms. Anonymous from 5/19 12:59 pm. I try not to reply directly to anonymous postings, but feel the need to here.
You stopped being respectful in your post after 'Mr. Sandham'. The difference between us is I see the glass half full. We can save $50k or more a year on the BoE lease. Let's just say the BoE does as you suggest & goes right ahead and spends it - on a new teacher, more instructional materials, add'l extracurricular activities - aren't we/our children ahead? I think so! And if you are long term thinker, as I try to be, there is even more potential savings after the bonding is repaid!
As to your other points:
People elected me because they have faith in me as a leader and that I would do what I believe is right, whatever the issue.
One responsibility is taking care of Township property - including 86 River Rd. Fixing up that property while saving $$ from current expense levels and working with the BoE are all positive steps.
So please don't tell me I don't get it; please don't tell me it's wrong to state my thoughts; please don't tell me what to do or not to do. I haven't placed those restrictions on you.
To All - going forward I will only respond to those that post their names. Sorry, but I do not think it's right to debate (even if it ends up being good, solid, progressive debate) when one side is unidentified. I do not see eye to eye on certain issues with Terry Cavanagh, Ron Soussa and Dan, but I respect that they enage in the debate and put their name to it.
Posted by Anonymous Jim Sandham on May 19, 2007 8:02 PM
 
 
Jim Sandham

Some people post anonymous because they have no power. Being on the TC or BoE etc places you in a position of power. Therefore, should a taxpayer have an issue needed to be brought forth to either the TC or BoE, they may fear reprisals speaking out against your opinions publicly on this or any other forum.

Now surely most political responses to this will be 'of course,this wont be held against you'. Try selling that to the public because nobody will believe it.

I respect your choice not to respond to anonymous however I fail to see your point is the subject and position taken is honest and sincere. What difference does it make if you know the persons name unless...
Posted by Anonymous Anonymous on May 20, 2007 8:59 AM
 
 
You keep patting yourself on the back. People didn't elect you because they have full faith in your leadership abilities, you were chosen because you promised more open responsive government. Now you offer the same old end run play, this time with smoke and mirrors. You know the lawyer told Daughtry it was a conflict of interest for him to engage in cutting the failed school budget. Isn't it interesting that cutting the budget is a conflict for a sitting member who happens to be a vender of the BOE, but adding to the budget with a high priced perk bail-out bond is no coflict what so ever. As a person with such great leadership abilities, you will remain numb on the issue, as you need the fourth vote to push it through. If you guys were democrates, Christie might be breathing down your neck.
Posted by Anonymous Anonymous on May 20, 2007 9:22 AM
 
 
AMEN to Anonymous on May 18 1:29 PM.

Daughty and Sandham: BUTT OUT!

Make Alin sleep in his own mess!
Posted by Anonymous Vote For Pinto on May 20, 2007 10:26 AM
 
 
Mayor Daughtery asked what the TC should do if the boe put it to a vote and failed.

Answer still is NOTHING!

It's not your business. They've got $65 million. Let them figure it out.

Rent 86 River Road to a non-profit for $1 a year if they agree to fix it up.
Posted by Anonymous Vote for Pinto on May 20, 2007 10:29 AM
 
 
Regarding a break for taxpayers if we bond the building vs paying the $200k lease.

First off, the premise is flawed if you want to use the ridiculous $200k lease as a starting point. With that rationale, had the board irresponsibly agreed to lease a space for $500k, we'd be hearing how we'd be saving money moving them into Trump Towers.
Posted by Anonymous Anonymous on May 20, 2007 11:31 AM
 
 
Given the property for free, a person could build a 6,000 sq ft house for a few hundred thousand and thats with lots of bells and whistles. Where the heck did $1.2 mil come from?
Posted by Anonymous Anonymous on May 21, 2007 7:46 AM
 
 
Mayor Daughtry,

Rather than get involved with this issue, you are missing a real opportunity to exercise some real leadership.

Use this chance to go to Trenton to discuss the true reason taxes are so high and rising so fast: the bloated beauracracies that cost so much.

Why must every district have so much administration? Do we really need more districts than municipalities? Why not regionalize school boards?

It is obscene that a relatively small town like Montville requires 6,000 square feet of space for non-teaching personnel.

Mayor Daughtry, stand up and exercise some real leadership!

I regret that I cannot use my name but I work in the field and have too much to lose.
Posted by Anonymous Former administrator on May 21, 2007 8:54 AM
 
 
Mr. Sandham,

Before you bond one penny you owe it to the taxpayers to determine why Montville's Board of Education requires so much space (6,000 square feet!) for non-teaching personnel when many much larger districts get by with far less administrative space.

Have you ever seen the Board's personnel plan along with projected growth studies? If so, why haven't you shared it with the taxpayers?

It is a grievious error to become involved with the Board of Education's overhead in every case, particularly so here when they have refused to share information with the residents.

I regret that I cannot use my name but I work in the field and have too much to lose.
Posted by Anonymous former administrator on May 21, 2007 8:59 AM
 
 
Mr Alin,

You and Mr. Lindert should be ashamed of yourselves. What self-respecting Board executives would move from school space without a plan for getting out of the temporary facility?

It is clear that your plan has been to whine and beg for help. That is not leadership. It is failed leadership!

And there is absolutely no reason why such a small district requires anywhere close to 6,000 square feet of administrative space for non-teaching personnel.

This is a gross waste of money and ample evidence of your collective failures to hold the line on the growth of overhead.
Posted by Anonymous former administrator on May 21, 2007 9:04 AM
 
 
Correction to Anonymous - a number of us were at the meeting where needs of Board Ed administrative offices were reviewed. Dr Bowen stated a range of 6400-7800 feet of space needed. No firm number given. So how do you sqeeze that number into even 6000?! And, how do you justify a building that is not the stated size of your needs? Will they build AND rent? Does anyone with REAL leadership care to run for these positions?
Posted by Anonymous Anonymous on May 21, 2007 11:45 AM
 
 
Mr. Sandham, You STILL don't get it. Of course you can create space cheaper than the BOE can. You can also cut their grass cheaper and fix up our schools faster and come up with an equitable busing plan. I'll bet you can even get grass to grow on the football field while they can't even grow weeds. That doesn't make it right. We'll vote them out and you too if you persist on overstepping your bounds. Get it now?
Posted by Anonymous Anonymous on May 21, 2007 5:20 PM
 
 
My somewhat belated response to Jim Sandham: Well, actually, someone else made the point. Using the current lease cost as a starting point to project a savings for the taxpayers is a bit disingenuous. Better to start with a more reasonable number and go from there. And of course, whether or not any savings will be realized remains to be seen.

As to my "abusing the taxpayers" remark, it was meant in a more general sense and not specific to this subject. I believe that most taxpayers will agree with my point of view which is that politicians view taxpayers as an unlimited source of funding for projects designed to keep them (the politicians) in power. I would be delighted to be forced to change my opinion.

Pete Sesnick
Posted by Anonymous Anonymous on May 21, 2007 5:37 PM
 
 
Pete - I try to spend taxpayers' money like my own. 2006 was the first time in over 20 years that the Township's debt decreased. We've brought the Muni tax increase down from 18% in 2005 to <8% & <7% in 2006 & 2007, respectively. Some will see this post as self-congratulatory, but one of the reasons I ran for TC was that seniors who lived in town for 30, 40 & 50 years were being chased out by exhorbitant tax increases. That was pure wrong! We haven't solved all the problems, but we're making progress. I lost supporters when we made the Rec Comm prioritize all their partially projects and then swept all the individual funding to just complete their #1 priority. So I don't really care about using projects to garner votes. In the long run better fiscal management will get the support of voters. Maybe I'm too thin skinned to be a politican, but I do disagree with your opinion that we view taxpayers as an unlimited source of funds.
Thanx for your points on the bldg issue.
Posted by Anonymous Jim Sandham on May 21, 2007 10:43 PM
 
 
Jim,
The target rate of increase for municipal taxes should be closer to the rate of inflation.

Be that as it may, someone's post stated that Dr. Bowen's estimate of the space required for BoE offices was 6400 to 7800 sq. ft. Did anyone ask how he arrived at those figures? Were his estimates compared to current architectural or engineering standards?

Now, I'm no architect, but just off the top of my head, the company I worked for allocated about 6'x6' (or was it 8'x8') for cubicles for "clerical" staff. Let's be generous and give BoE employees 10'x10' or 100 sq.ft. (That also makes the math easier for me.) And let's give up half the estimated space for files and "common spaces" (passageways, conference rooms, bathrooms). That would be 3200 to 3900 sq. ft. Both of those figures are bigger than the house that my wife and I haved lived in for almost 40 years (and in which we raised four children), Let's give another 400 sq. ft. to the Superintendent and Ass't. Super. for offices. That would leave 2800 to 3500 sq. ft. or space for 28 to 35 cubicles. Now, just how many people does the BoE employ?

Based on my figures (which, of course, are subject to critical analysis), I'm thinkin' maybe 5000 sq. ft. should be enough.

Pete Sesnick
Posted by Anonymous Anonymous on May 22, 2007 11:03 AM
 
 
Now, just how many people does the BoE employ?

Great question!!
Posted by Anonymous Anonymous on May 22, 2007 2:28 PM
 
 
Art and Jim,

I've always been in favor of the BoE using 86 River Road, though I believe they should pay for the improvements.

My question is what happens if they can't complete the project after they've spent $1.2 million?

Their own estimate puts the cost at over $350 per foot.
Posted by Blogger Ron Soussa on May 22, 2007 5:25 PM
 
 
Jim Sandham wrote:
"What I care about is reducing the current BoE lease expense - which everyone complains about - while finding a long term solution to the BoE office issue, so that they don't spend more money relocating every few years!"

Jim, you weren't elected to deal with Boe issues. If that was your concern you should have run for that board, not the TC.

Stay out of it!
Posted by Anonymous Anonymous on May 22, 2007 7:16 PM
 
 
Does anyone else find it "interesting" that Ron Soussa just 'happens' to be building an office building next door to the Boards offices?

I dare you to print this.
Posted by Anonymous Anonymous on May 22, 2007 7:33 PM
 
 
Wasn't Jim Sandham on the BOE and quit? Now he will solve all their problems?
Posted by Anonymous Anonymous on May 22, 2007 10:14 PM
 
 
Is this for the Jefferson Board of Ed or The Montville Board of Ed
Posted by Anonymous Anonymous on May 22, 2007 10:51 PM
 
 
Anonymous May 22, 2007 6:33 PM

Fascinating. What's your point?
Posted by Blogger Ron Soussa on May 22, 2007 11:15 PM
 
 
It's public record - I did resign from the Board of Ed as my employer requested I spend 50% of my time in the U.K. While I did keep up with my BoE commitments for the first 6 months, I felt someone else might be able to put in even more time on the BoE and that it was unfair to my family (particularly my 8 yr old daughter) to spend 10-15 hours per week of my time in the US on BoE matters. If you want to criticize that, go ahead. But as Teddy Roosevelt said 'It is not the critic that counts...'
These postings have gone way past the point of discussing the issue. A little civility is in order! Bantering, like Dan & I sometimes do is one thing - threats are another!
Some info to answer the legitimate points raised - counting the Supt, Asst Supt, Business Office (A/P, P/R, etc,) Transportation, Facilities Admin and Admin Asst's I believe there are about 15 people the BoE will want to house in their office. Then there's common areas, a conf room, filing, rest rooms, etc. Yes, the a range of space the Supt would like is 6,400-7,800 sq ft. Yes, the original BoE had space at a much higher cost per sq ft. The BoE's architect's proposal was as high as over $3 million. That is one reason why some believe the Township should build a bldg on the Township's property at 86 River Rd. - we will make it work at no more than 6,000 sq ft at $200 per sq ft. ($1.2 million) or we won't do it!
Just one point to remember - if the Township didn't have a unutilized, decaying property that we don't use but want to improve as it adjoins other Town facilities, this discussion would be moot. So a good question to answer is - How would you improve 86 River Rd at no or minimal expense to our taxpayers?
Posted by Anonymous JIm Sandham on May 23, 2007 12:23 AM
 
 
$1.2 mil to build 6,000 sq ft bldg.

I know some fairly new homes in town near 6,000 sq feet that would now retail close to $1.2 mil, LOT INCLUDED!
Posted by Anonymous Anonymous on May 23, 2007 7:36 AM
 
 
It's already been stated, sell to a non-profit (or the BOE) for a buck. There is plenty of private foundation money that would go to a worthy cause. You will not even look in that direction. You quit the BOE so fast, its obvious you feel you can do more for the BOE by being on the TC. Your campaign signs plastered all around town and your platform spoke of open government, the BOE and River Rd. were not part of it. Yours and the Mayors obsession with this is amazing. You are bright people, if you keep pushing this pathetic deal, the community is going to continue to question the true motive. No need to promise open government, the people will do the job if need be.
Posted by Anonymous Anonymous on May 23, 2007 10:19 AM
 
 
The common standard for office space is 200 sf / person, and in recent years companies have been looking for opportunities to decrease that ratio to anywhere from 150 - 180 sf / person. This includes common areas, filing areas, etc. Office sizes are typically 10x12, for the executive level 12x16. Based on the staffing requirement of 15, the town should insist that any new space is ballpark 3,000 sf.

Because the taxpayers will be paying for the space, we should also insist that they are in either class B or C space. There is absolutely no reason that this group should be in a class A building!

For the record, I work in this field for a major corporation and the above ratios are 100% accurate.
Posted by Anonymous Anonymous on May 23, 2007 10:40 AM
 
 
HI Ron

First off the township went to bid about a year ago to remove the old flat roof and put a new truss roof over 86 river road. Included in the bid was the new roof and stucco of the old building to match the fire house on the other end as well as new windows. The bid came back a little HIGH at roughly 400,000.

The TC was trying to see if we could take the $100,000 the fire dept has budgeted for an addition to their fire house, the $70,000 in our budget that was to be used for the demolition and relocation of existing electronic equipment still in operation within this structure and save the entire structure even though we had no official tenant or use for the building. If we could accomplish this the fire department would finally get their space and the township would end with a sound building that had about 7000 square feet on one floor. I expected a bidder between $250,000 and $300,000 for this work however only one bid was received and subsequently rejected by the TC so the building sat there. We also were advised by our architect under contract for the animal shelter that in his opinion it would be more cost effective to knock the building down and start over.

Regarding your concern over what would happen if the BoE cannot put up a new building on that site for 1.2 million and where would the cost overruns come from well you are a builder so let me ask you a question. Can you put up an austere office building for $150 a square foot? You had better say yes or you shouldn’t be in the business. Whatever cost over runs or whistles and bells the BoE might want would have to come from within their budget with NO ADDIOTIONAL bonding. Of course there can be plenty of debate regarding the possibility of students and faculty suffering as a result the BoE needing more funds to fit out the building the way they would like to however that is their business and the public would be well aware of the costs and where the funds would come from. To address one of the anonymous postings comparing a residential private sector constructed home of 6000 square feet at 1.2 million dollars including property to a publicly funded and constructed 6000 square foot building is comparing apples and oranges. The unfortunate reality in NJ is public work always costs more than private work. When the TC considered what would be a “fair” cost to the taxpayers we asked a well-recognized and respected architect that is working on the animal shelter project to provide a cost per square foot to construct an austere building for the BoE. I also asked the architect that designed our building at 381 Main road for an estimated cost per square foot. Both architects arrived at a cost of between $200 and $210 per square foot. This same building if constructed privately should cost about $150 per square foot.

Just a reminder regardless of what Dan Grant wants you to believe. Since this blog topic was posted (May 15) the taxpayers, in the last 8 days have paid the landlord about $3300!
On the other hand Dan is absolutely correct that if the BoE went to bond for a 6000 square foot building to be constructed on their own property somewhere in town and the bond amount was $1.2 million it would have the same positive impact on the taxpayer.

I’ve known the landlord of the building, where the BoE offices are, and his family for over 30 years. He likes to call me once in awhile and tease me about the $200,000 figure. According to him the BoE pays him $136,000 per year for the lease and $24,000 for the taxes. The lease might be what is known as a triple net, which might account for the other $40,000. I believe the last BoE information on this topic had numbers the same or similar to what the landlord advised me.

The last anonymous poster has his ducks in a row with his comments. We are defiantly looking to a class B-C building at 1.2 million. That is what is meant by “austere”. As far as the square footages again he is very close to reality. In the building they occupy now the actual usable square footage is between 4500 and 5200 square feet. There is much wasted space with the building as configured. This is why I stated in a previous post that a austere 6000 square foot building could handle moving the folks out of the “little house” up by the wrestling barn as well a the folks currently in the leased space.

This will be my last post on this blog because I have done enough Monday mourning quarterbacking on this issue. I trust most of us understand that we all need to see if the BoE wants to go this route, if they accept the terms and financial restrictions that the TC would place on them, and if they intend to move the folks out of the little house and keep the building size to 6000 square feet.

To those that posted constructive comments and offered criticisms in a professional manor – thank you!

Regards,
Art Daughtry
Posted by Blogger Art Daughtry on May 23, 2007 11:14 AM
 
 
Hey Art: Did you mean Monday morning? I believe mourning would also be accurate in this case.
Posted by Anonymous Anonymous on May 23, 2007 1:03 PM
 
 
Hey Anonymous

I know I said no more posts but you made me laugh and yes "mourning" might also be appropriate.

Oh well so much for spell check!

Thanks for the catch!

Regards,
Art
Posted by Blogger Art Daughtry on May 23, 2007 4:12 PM
 
 
Art and Jim, You make some good points on the pro side of this discussion but you'd have to admit that others do the same on the con side. You'll either be heros or you'll join the notorious dog park gang. Time will tell.
Posted by Anonymous Anonymous on May 23, 2007 5:24 PM
 
 
There's a slight difference between using a $1 million piece of prime commercial property for a dog park and making an unused property useful again at a savings to the current BoER spending level. Most of the people I talk with acknowledge the potential benefits to be derived by rebuilding at 86 River. Yes, there are many specifics to resolve; but we are definitely talking about no more than 6,000 sq ft of class B/C space at a cost not to exceed $1.2 million. If it can be done for $1 million, even better!
As to a non-profit - most of the ones I know of do not have an extra $1 million laying around and what part of our taxpayer base would they serve?
And yes, I acknowledge many good points on the con side (in whatever form they came in) that I will take into consideration when making my decisions.
Posted by Anonymous Jim Sandham on May 23, 2007 7:14 PM
 
 
Jim & Art: As pointed out and agreed to by Art; the ratio of SF/person indicates a 3,000 sf space is needed, why do you continue to say 6,000 sf? Unless there is another group that can benefit from the extra space, shouldn't we focus on smaller to lower costs?
Posted by Anonymous Anonymous on May 23, 2007 7:35 PM