Board weighs options for new school referendum
School officials consider eliminating plans for transportation facility
BY JENNIFER DOME
Staff Writer

MILLSTONE — After hearing from residents at a special meeting about the failed school construction referendum, the Board of Education got to work on a new plan Monday.

Setaro told board members that he needed them to focus on things the school district can change. While residents expressed concerns about the way schools are funded or even suggested handing out birth control at the Oct. 29 meeting, there are only some issues that the district can address.

"Other things, such as the use of eminent domain, are things we can’t do anything about," board member Mary Pinney said.

The board talked about removing the proposed auditorium and transportation facility from the overall referendum and possibly posing a second or third question that asks voters to approve the two buildings. Most board members said the proposed transportation facility should be forgotten altogether.

Overall, though, the board discussed the tax impact that residents will face with the construction of a new school. While some board members felt getting rid of the transportation facility and separating the auditorium to a second question was enough, others felt the renovation and construction plans should be pared down as well.

Voters were asked to approve $39.9 million for a new middle school and transportation center on Sept. 30, but the measure failed by more than 300 votes.

The tab for the entire project was pro­jected at $46.5 million, but the state agreed to fund $6.6 million of the pro­ject. The total figure included the cost of reno­vations to the existing middle school and elementary school on Schoolhouse Lane.

Residents would have seen a school tax increase of 14 cents per $100 of as­sessed property value if the referen­dum had passed. On a home assessed at $400,000, that would translate into an increase of $560 per year in school taxes.

Setaro said that he has ideas on how to reach out to members of the commu­nity so they are better informed, an­other concern expressed by residents last week.

"There’s this perception that this process took like three months, but it actually took like four years," board member Alan Gallagher said. "The communications are out there.

Setaro said that he specifically needed the board’s guidance on the scope of the school construction so he can bring the information back to the architects and have new options ready for the board’s next meeting.

Board members discussed several options, including increasing the class size, which they originally planned to keep at 20 students per class.

"I think we should keep the 20 ... so that when we move in, we’re not full," board member Paula Kinsey said.

They also discussed the configura­tion of the grade levels at the schools. When the new school is built, the grades would be divided into three schools — prekindergarten through second grade at the current elementary school, third grade through fifth grade at existing middle school, and sixth grade through eighth grade at the new school.

The school officials even discussed the possibility of seeking a new site for the new middle school. Board member Kathy Winecoff said that while con­troversy surrounds the former Waters property, now owned by Orleans Builders, looking for a new piece of land would add to the cost of the refer­endum since the 100 acres the district is getting from the township is free.

But board members Laura Dreifus and Thomas Foley encouraged the board not to completely discount the option of finding a new location for the proposed school.

Setaro said he felt it was important to meet with the Township Committee to better understand what is going on with Orleans and the property where the school is proposed to be constructed. He said he felt that many residents would never vote in favor of a school construction project on the site as long as it is unclear what the township will do with the remaining 66 acres of the 165-acre tract of land.

"The bottom line is I think we do need to meet with the town council, whoever is seated," Setaro said. "We would look foolish to some degree if we pulled out because they’ve already con­demned the property."

At the time of the referendum vote, the proposed school was to be built on a property once owned by the Waters family, now owned by Orleans Builders. The township finalized con­demnation of 99 acres of the 165-acre tract of land and is currently in litiga­tion with Orleans over the legality of the condemnation process and to de­termine the cost of the land.

In June, the committee authorized $4.8 mil­lion for the property to house the district’s expansion and approved the use of eminent domain if officials were unable to negotiate the sale.

Mayor William Nurko said last week that some of the remaining 66 acres of the Orleans property may be used for municipal uses in the future. How it will be used or if it will be used at all is questionable, Nurko said.

Nurko has said that the Waters family will retain an unspecified number of the 66 remaining acres for their nursery business.

The board will hold another special meeting about the referendum Nov. 17 at 7:30 p.m. in the middle school li­brary, off Schoolhouse Lane.