Home
	Results of CG Survey
	Facilities Options Report
	Proposed Referendum
	FAQ's
	Other Studies
	How You Can Help
	References & Links
	Contact Us
	About CQE

Report of the Public Facilities Input Committee to the Cedar Grove Board of Education 
August 29, 2000

Table of Contents

Goal of PFIC

Definition of Problem  

1. Impact of K-6 population growth from 1994-2000 

2. Additional development in the community 

Brief History

The Public Facilities Committee  

1. Overview 

2. Committee Member List 

3. Work of the Committee 

Key Results  

1. Plans from Architect 

2. Costs Estimates from Architect 

3. ADA and Fire Alarm Upgrade Cost Estimates from Architect 

4. Miscellaneous Additional Costs from Architect
   (room enhancement, board office at MHS, RR field upgrade) 

5. Facility Upgrades Revised Priority List from Architect 

6. Option Evaluation Matrix 

7. Qualitative Evaluation of Options Chart and Addendum 

8. Summary of "Positions" (for each plan configuration) 

K-4, 5-8, 9-12 Argument 

Proponents’ views 
Critics’ views 

K-4, 5-6, 7-8/9-12 Argument:

Proponents’ views 
Critics’ views 

K-6, 7-8/9-12 Argument:  

Proponents views 
Critics views 

Appendices

1. Suggestions for How to Build a Strong Referendum 

2. Examining Parameters/Criteria (Pareto Chart) 

3. Specific Configurations Recommended for Consideration 

4. SuperMax + Hilltop Projections: Projected Enrollments by Grade 

5. Estimates for Asbestos Abatement at LRP 

6. Grades 7-8 Student Survey Form 
   Grades 9-12 Student Survey Form 

7. CG Community Survey Form 

8. Executive Summary of PFIC Community Survey 

 

Report of the Public Facilities Input 
Committee to the Cedar Grove Board of Education 
August 29, 2000

 

Goal:

The goal of the committee was to provide recommendations to the board of education to remedy the school population growth problem. These recommendations were to be based on an open and thorough analysis of a wide variety of options. This goal was met. All proposed options meet space requirements and are educationally viable.

 

Definition of Problem:

a. From 1994-2000, the K-6 population (including special education) of the Cedar Grove Schools increased by approximately 27%.

Impact of this growth:

• Art and music "on a cart"—no individual room for use for art and music instruction.

• Gifted and Talented class housed in MS/HS building

• Trailer added at South End School to accommodate its computer room.

• Eventually, computer rooms eliminated at each school to make room for regular classroom space.

• Media centers double-scheduled—used for both library and computer instruction

• Gymnasiums double-scheduled as needed for physical education classes (i.e., two classes with gym area split and/or team teaching)

• Gymnasiums scheduled right up to and immediately after lunches, creating issues relative to set-up and break-down of lunch area.

2. Additional development in the community is anticipated to create an additional 3-4% growth in the K-6 population through 2004-2005. At the same time, the current population will be moving forward to the middle school and high school, increasing their enrollments by 37% and 29%, respectively, from 1999-2000 to 2004-2005.

 

A Brief History

During the 1998-1999 school year, members of the board’s Facilities Committee (a standing committee) raised concerns about population growth and solutions to the growing problem. While updating growth projections, the committee (board members Philip Tully and Keith Kawecki) asked Superintendent DeCesare for recommendations regarding the best educational configuration.

May 11, 1999: DeCesare recommended K-4, 5-8, 9-12 configuration to the board as best educational option. His recommendation was based on discussions with administrators and with staff.

June/July 1999: Board interviewed and hired a) architect, DiCara/Rubino Associates, and b) bond counsel, Rogut McCarthy Attorneys PC.

August-September 1999: First Public Facilities Input Committee meets to develop proposal for plan to resolve growth issues.

September 1999: Board accepts recommendation of PFIC and moves to shape referendum.

March 2000: Community votes on 2-part referendum to:

1. authorize bonding of $19.5 million to build a new 5-8 middle school at the current Ridge Road School site ($17.8 million) and provide priority upgrades to other schools ($1.7 million);

2. authorize bonding of $6.8 million to complete a variety of upgrades at other NE, SE, and MMS/HS.

The referendum is defeated

Question 1: 691 for 2382 against

Question 2: 894 for 2155 against

 

April 2000: Board creates second Public Facilities Input Committee.

 

The Public Facilities Input Committee

Overview:

Membership was on a voluntary basis. The invitation to membership went out to all Cedar Grove residents via local media in late March/early April, 2000.

The initial number of volunteers was 59. Most of these individuals attended initial meetings that set the parameters of the task ahead and considered basic data. As the analysis became more detailed, attendance at meetings averaged 20-30 individuals.

Summaries of each meeting were drafted by Board Member Thompson and mailed by Central Office to all committee members, along with supporting documentation.

Committee Member List:

Members of the committee were as follows:

*Italics indicate those who attended most consistently

 

Work of the Committee

The goal of the committee was to provide recommendations to the Board of Education to remedy the school population growth problem. These recommendations were to be based on an open and thorough analysis of a wide variety of options.

To this end, the committee met 14 times during the period of April 13 to August 15.
Specific subcommittees met 3 times. Activities included the following:

1) enumerated key principles in looking toward a new referendum (Appendix A).

2) enumerated key parameters for decision making (Appendix B).

3) delineated information needed by the committee; this information was provided as the process went forward.

4) carefully defined the facilities resources of the district: buildings, fields.

>physically toured MS/HS, LRP
>"walked through" every building via floor and site plans
>identified issues at each site

5) generated a list of plans to be considered (Appendix C); this included input from the public and staff, who were invited to submit suggestions to the committee.

6) examined population projections (Appendix D) to more fully understand capacity needs in each building in each plan.

7) developed two formats for viewing and analysis of the options.

>quantitative, based on costs
>qualitative, based on information that shapes perceptions of strengths/weaknesses of each plan

8) met with the district asbestos consultant to understand issues and costs relative to asbestos abatement (Appendix E).

9) met with the architect as needed.

>to understand basic issues of cost per square foot, advantages/drawbacks of different kinds of development (for example, vertical build), ADA requirements, state requirements, site issues
>to review specific plans and cost estimates for the full range of options

10) developed several surveys to gather input from public.

>researched formats/costs for professional survey
>developed consensus on student surveys relative to middle school
>conducted and collated student surveys (Appendix F); results reported to board of education on June 27^th, 2000.
>implemented survey to the public (Appendix G)
>analyzed data from survey of the public
>reached consensus on Executive Summary of survey data (presented by superintendent at Aug. 22, 2000 board of education meeting) (Appendix H)

11) generated and refined the Options Evaluation Matrix based on extensive questioning and refinement.

12) received and reviewed a variety of individual options, views, and perspectives submitted in writing; engaged in considerable discussion of individual options, views, and perspectives.

13) via analysis, narrowed the full range of options to three "sets" of options for ongoing consideration. At the direction of the board, which received an update of PFIC activities on June 27^th, 2000. These options were then questioned, refined, and examined in great detail.

1. Subcommittee on the Option Evaluation Matrix met twice with the architects to refine costs and ensure comparability of analysis of options (see pages 33-34).

2. At direction of the board, Qualitative Evaluation of Options chart (see pages 35-36) was reconfigured to be primarily fact-based rather than opinion-based (i.e., rather than listing advantages/disadvantages).

3. Individual members submitted detailed questions/concerns to the architect for resolution.

4. Full committee reviewed options in detail and raised further questions/issues for refinement.

5. Full committee generated lists of "qualities" of each plan (positives/negatives; strengths/drawbacks; pros/cons; pluses/minuses) which were developed into an addendum to the Qualitative Evaluation of Options chart (see pages 37-38).

6. At request of committee, architect updated facilities upgrade costs for board consideration (see pages 23-32).

14) received copies of research done by individual committee members and/or heard presentations of research by individual committee members.

15) developed consensus on presentation of report to the board of education; subcommittee formed to assist presenters in preparation.

These activities are documented by agendae and summaries.

 

Key Results:

Plans from architect

The following plans (not in this file on website) represent DiCara/Rubino Architect’s conceptualizations for the various configurations. The cost presentations represent figures for budget purposes. It is understood that these plans and projected figures are for planning purposes only. Both plans and budget estimates are subject to further refinement by the Board of Education.

For clarity:

• The architect presents these plans for the board’s planning purposes only.

• Whatever plan the board of education selects must be reviewed by State offices. As part of the planning services, the architect will help the board to prepare for this review of educational sufficiency.

• The architect is not "bidding" on the actual construction of whatever plan is chosen. The architect’s fees for this planning service are not tied to eventual construction in any way.

• Once the board of education decides on a particular plan, construction is subject to the bidding process--that is, it is open to all interested parties.

Option Evaluation Matrix

The Option Evaluation Matrix was devised as a way for the committee to look at the costs relative to various plans that were considered. (Please note that this original information did NOT include any state funding; nor did it include work subsequently done by the board to reduce various costs.) The matrix provides an "apples to apples" view of each plan, delineating specific costs for each building of each plan and projecting ongoing costs for each implementation scenario.

Options are listed and briefly defined across the top of the matrix.

The left margin column provides cost breakdowns for each school involved in any given option. Below the heavy black line is a "Construction Subtotal"—adding all the costs in that column for that option.

The next row adds the 30% soft costs that are projected for each option. (Soft costs include such items as architectural and engineering fees; application fees; permits; studies and surveys as needed.) Adding this row to the "Construction Subtotal," leads to the "Construction Total."

Beneath the "Construction Total" appear additional annual costs. The first set, "Lost Annual Revenue," reflects the rental income that will be lost if LRP or RR is reopened. "Additional Annual Costs" include additional administration needs, operational costs (custodial, maintenance, utilities), and mandatory busing. The cost of additional staff was not included because most staff additions will be driven by changing enrollments rather than by configuration. Furthermore, programmatic staff additions will be comparable across the options. The row "Annual Costs/Revenue Lost" provides a total for the ongoing costs of each plan.

The row entitled "Annual Total (PV Factor)" brings the ongoing costs to a "Present Value." This is a recognized accounting procedure to help compare current costs to costs over time. (Note: The present value factor translates into practical application in the next set of figures presented on the matrix.)

The final set of information on the matrix translates the construction costs and annual costs into the cost to the average taxpayer. This information is broken out into the cost for the bond (construction costs) and the cost on the annual budget (ongoing costs). The bottom line of the matrix provides the total cost to the average taxpayer. Again, this line provides the practical application of the Present Value calculation above.

 

Qualitative Evaluation of Options Chart and Addendum

In addition to looking at fiscal issues via the Option Evaluation Matrix the committee also wanted to provide information about other factors or elements that need to be considered in selecting an option. At the board’s request, the committee limited information on the chart to facts rather than opinions based on those facts.

The Addendum to the Qualitative Evaluation of Options Chart provides some of the implications of the information on the chart itself.

 

Summary of "Positions"

Considerable discussion of the options occurred during PFIC committee meetings. The "argument" relative to each option is summarized on the next several pages. The points made represent opinions expressed by members of the PFIC.

It should be noted that the administration has consistently maintained that the quality of a school district rests first and foremost on quality curriculum and quality personnel to deliver that curriculum. Nothing in the following "arguments" is meant to override this basic consideration.

 

K-4, 5-8, 9-12 (1A/B) Argument:

Proponents of the K-4, 5-8, 9-12 plan emphasize the following:

This plan will allow improvement of the K-4 program through availability of art and music rooms.

This plan will allow improvement of the 5-8 program through implementation of a true middle school philosophy:

• Electives

• Exploratories

• Guidance

• Advisories

This plan provides the best focus on the developmental needs of "tweens," students between childhood and adolescence.

This plan provides efficiencies through consolidation of resources.

• Efficient division of classes

• Efficient balance of classes

• Efficient use of specialists

This plan aligns program with the State’s Core Curriculum Content Standards organization and assessment (K-4, 5-8, 9-12)

This plan provides middle school and high school with separate identities.

• Provides real transition from middle to high school

• Allows high school to function independent of middle school constraints

This plan is less susceptible to enrollment trend shifts than the K-6 plan.

Critics of the K-4, 5-8, 9-12 plan emphasize the following:

The Grades 5-8 configuration is not necessarily "the best"

• Other districts use various other configurations successfully

• Star Schools/Blue Ribbon Schools do not include 5-8 schools

This plan creates traffic/safety concerns due to student numbers and locations

• Approximately 238 cars anticipated for drop-off and pick-up

• Either site located on main road (LRP heavily trafficked; RR 40 mph speeds)

This plan removes grades 7-8 from the high school setting

• Less efficient because core facilities must be duplicated in new setting

• Eliminates support of 9-12 programs (such as music) by middle school

• Lessens contact with positive 9-12 role models

This plan focuses on middle school facilities and does not affect other building facilities in the district.

 

K-4, 5-6, 7-8/9-12 (4A/B) Argument:

Proponents of the K-4, 5-6, 7-8/9-12 plan emphasize the following:

This plan can provide many of the benefits of the 5-8 plan (such as team teaching, guidance) in a more cost effective manner.

This plan will allow improvement of the K-4 program through availability of art and music rooms.

This plan will allow improvement of the 5-6 program through consolidation of resources for those grade levels.

A Grades 5-6 school will permit focus on the developmental needs of these youngsters.

• Grade 5 students should not be together with Grade 8 students in a building.

This plan is the less costly than the 5-8 option. At LRP, $4.075 million less; at RR, $2.490 million less.

Maintaining grades 7-8 in the high school facility allows use of that building’s core facilities.

• Auditorium

• Gymnasium

• Cafeteria

• Media center

Critics of the K-4, 5-6, 7-8, 9-12 plan emphasize the following:

A 2-year school is not the most desirable for students.

• Negatives of 2-year sequence documented in research literature

• Insufficient time for students to acclimate to school.

• Insufficient time for teachers to develop familiarity with students.

• Negative impact on achievement scores noted

This plan does not remove grades 7-8 from the high school setting

• 12-year-olds are in the same building with 18-year-olds

• Proximity provides the opportunity for younger students to see negative behaviors (smoking, use of foul language, drugs & alcohol, sexual activities)

 

K-6, 7-8/9-12 (7A/B/C) Argument:

Proponents of the K-6, 7-8, 9-12 plan emphasize the following:

This plan, currently in use in the district, has a positive track record.

• Achievement test scores are consistently strong: 25% above national average

• Scores on the state tests are strong: GEPA 96% proficient lang. Arts; 75% mathematics

• SAT scores are strong: 1999 average 1032; 95% of class taking test; 33/43% average scores were 1118-1295.

• Cedar Grove students are accepted to a wide variety of colleges/universities

This plan will allow improvement of the K-6 program through availability of art and music rooms.

A third K-6 school will bring back the "neighborhood schools" concept.

A third K-6 school is most likely to minimize busing issues.

Plan 7C permits the most positive distribution of traffic.

This plan is the least costly: At LRP, $4.7 million less than 5-8; $630,000 less than 5-6 (construc.)

At RR, $3.376 million less than 5-8; $886,000 less than 5-6.

Maintaining grades 7-8 in the high school facility allows use of that building’s core facilities.

• Auditorium

• Gymnasium

• Cafeteria

• Media center

Benefits projected for 5-6 can be applied within K-6 as well as 5-8.

Critics of the K-6, 7-8, 9-12 plan emphasize the following:

Having a 3^rd K-6 school is the least flexible option

• Dividing school populations among 3 sites instead of 2 is more likely to lead to unbalanced classes and/or single classes at a grade level.

• The benefits of our current K-6 schools (in terms of achievement) may derive from having multiple sections at a grade level; this could be lost with 3 K-6 schools.

• Redistricting would be needed, possibly every year, to maintain balances.

This plan does not remove grades 7-8 from the high school setting

• 12 year olds are in the same building with 18 year olds

• Proximity provides the opportunity for younger students to see negative behaviors (smoking, use of foul language, drugs & alcohol, sexual activities)

---

Home | Current School Problems | Results of CG Survey
Facilities Options Report | Proposed Referendum | FAQ's 
Other Studies | How You Can Help | References & Links 
Contact Us | About CQE

Disclaimer: Information on this site has been ascertained through various public sources and is provided in the best interest of the Cedar Grove community.

Paid for by the
Citizens for Quality Education.
257 Cedar Street
Cedar Grove, NJ 07009

Need a web site? Contact the webmaster 
or visit our web site at www.OK2try.com.