Cedar Grove Town Council
November 13, 2000

Close this window, back to CQE.

Presentation of Information Regarding

Cedar Grove Board of Education

Proposed Referendum:

A Discussion of Content and Process

Dr. Judith R. Merz

Superintendent of Schools

 

Content: Proposed modification of and addition to Ridge Road School to create a Grades 5-8 Middle School

Rationale: Long-term solution to population growth; enhancement of educational configuration

Population:

a) Past growth:

    • 1994-2000, K-6 population, including special education, increased by approximately 27%

b) Current situation:

    • South End over capacity
    • North End at capacity
    • Trailer at South End
    • Computer labs eliminated at NE/SE
    • Double-scheduled PE
    • Music/art on a cart

c) Future growth:

    • District calculated to increase to 1591 by 2004-2005
    • K-6 additional 3-4% growth
    • MS/HS by 37% and 29% respectively

Educational:

a) Consolidation of resources

    • More efficient use of staff
    • More balanced classes
    • More opportunity for mixing
    • More focus on developmental needs of students
    • More opportunity for staff to interact on curriculum/students

b) Continuity of program

    • Better acclimation for student
    • Increase in comfort level
    • Impact on achievement
    • Greater opportunity for teachers to know students

Close this window, back to CQE.

Referendum 1 (March 14, 2000): 2 questions

Question 1

 Question 2
Plan New construction Upgrades Additional upgrades Total
5-8 MS at RR $17,800,000 $1,700,000 $6,800,000 $19.5 million Q1
$  6.8 million Q2
$26.3 million combined

Referendum 2 (tentative March 2001): 1 question

Plan Renovation/expansion Upgrades* Total
5-8 MS at RR $11,408,000 $2,858,500 $14,266,500
State Aid - $ 3,222,600 - $1,143,400 - $ 4,366,000
cost to taxpayers $ 8,185,400 $1,715,100 $ 9,900,500

*Upgrades: roofing, fire safety (alarms, sprinklers), boilers, ADA, science labs, elementary PA systems, HW piping

Process:

What we heard about the selection of option for Referendum 1 (March 14, 2000):

Response in working to prepare Referendum 2 (tentative March 2001)

Not enough options were considered
  • Opened to public for any and all suggestions
  • Worked from original 12+ options (more, if "variations" considered) to 7 to 4

Consideration of options was not detailed enough
  • Option Evaluation Matrix: Construction costs/annual costs
  • Qualitative Evaluation of Options Chart: safety, fields, education, special issues

"Rush" to consensus, minority views ignored
  • Worked from April through August; 14 meetings
  • Facilitated group processes: round robins
  • Subcommittee work

Board "managed" decision
  • Committee of 60; varied viewpoints; core of 30
  • Subcommittee work provided ample dialogue
  • Survey of community
  • Survey of students
  • Survey of staff
  • PFIC public report
  • Board information/input sessions

Close this window, back to CQE.

What we heard about the referendum itself in Referendum 1 (March 14, 2000):

Response in Referendum 2 (tentative March 2001)

Too costly:

In total: $19.5 million for Question 1

$ 6.8 million for Question 2

$26.3 million for total bond impact, Q1 and 2

 

 

In tax impact*: $341 for Question 1

$119 for Question 2

$460 total bond impact

*based on 20 yr. bond at 6%; impact on home assessed at $60,000
  • Cut cost of construction by $6,392,000
  • State aid reduces cost of construction an additional $3,222,600
  • Total referendum under $10 million (identified as median in community survey)

 

  • Tax impact* $168 for construction/upgrades

 

*based on 20 yr. bond at 6%; impact on home assessed at $60,000

Use current facilities: do not demolish and rebuild
  • Uses Ridge Road facility--expands and renovates

 

 

 

Do not present two questions
  • One question: incorporates highest priority upgrades

Close this window, back to CQE.