|
Post by Go Plainedge! on Oct 10, 2005 15:59:48 GMT -5
elpha, I've heard "through the grapevine" that Packard has been rented to BOCES. That they will be moving in at the end of the month. So where's that money going to go if true? Rinx: That's good news, thanks for sharing. I think the question that needs to be asked first is how much will it cost for our portion of the demolition, build out and parking lot requirements? Then lets ask where the money will go. I hope, in the long run, that this works. Speaking of "long run", with your "grapevine communication", do you know how long the lease is? This COULD be a very good thing for the district.
|
|
|
Post by elphaba65 on Oct 10, 2005 16:25:14 GMT -5
Dear Rinx and Go Plainedge:
I hope your information is correct, it would indeed be a wonderful thing. Go Plainedge is right, Dr. Richman stated last year that we would be required to make certain changes for them. I would guess that in year one we would not see that big of a revenue gain , but after that we will have a firm dollar amount to add to the budget.
The money can go to wherever Dr. Richman and the Board decide, and that naturally would be restoration of programs.
Let's keep our fingers crossed!
|
|
|
Post by concerned on Oct 10, 2005 19:59:30 GMT -5
Interesting points about the lease. When I first heard about this at one of the board meetings, I too questioned how long the lease would be for. I certainly hope we can enter into an agreement that allows us to make a profit quickly. Here's a question....since we are already on contingency, where does the money come from to pay for any of the changes required for the rental of Packard?
|
|
|
Post by yruohk on Oct 11, 2005 10:59:34 GMT -5
Interesting way to restore programs that were "cut" from a budget that turned out to be higher than last years. Packard was deemed "unsafe", therefore, a new school was built to how many $$$$? Now the old Packard building isn't unsafe enough to "lease" it out to BOCES. We the taxpayers will spend the $$$$ to make the old Packard building "safe" for others to lease it from us not knowing when we will see "profits"? Now we will be in the business of being Landlords which in turn can open the door for future litigation with our "tenants" if something should go awry with the previously "unsafe" building made "safe" not to mention other unforseen Landlord/Tenant disputes. Good question, Concerned. How do we get the money to bring the old "unsafe" Packard building up to standard when the children's programs were cut from a higher budget than last years? If the $2.4 million increase from last years budget caused the BOE/Rich-man to CUT the children's programs, how does the old Packard building get financed to get up to snuff to lease? Hopefully, the "financial wizards" don't plan on sending the children out to do car washes, AGAIN!
|
|
|
Post by frawg88 on Oct 11, 2005 21:17:54 GMT -5
“yruohk”
I do not know where you get your information because you seem very misinformed. I do not ever recall Packard being deemed “unsafe.” The new school was built because the old middle school could not handle the increased student enrollment, and portable classrooms (trailers) were the only alternative since four other school buildings were sold years ago. There would have been lots more options to accommodate the student growth if we still had those properties rather than having to finance a large bond and costing the taxpayers more money.
As far as being Landlords, the old Northedge elementary school building (now the new middle school) housed tenants for many years – Broad Hollow Theater and Center Island Preschool. The high school also housed Commerce Plaza for several years, so this is nothing new in Plainedge. And I’m sure they (or future tenants) are required to have proper insurance coverage in addition to the school district’s liability coverage. I think it’s a good idea to rent to BOCES or any reasonable tenant that would not negatively impact the neighborhood. The revenue would be a big help. I also wonder with “concerned” as to how we can get the property ready for tenants if we are on a contingency budget. I guess we will find out more at future BOE meetings or coffee hours.
|
|
|
Post by yruohk on Oct 12, 2005 0:51:37 GMT -5
“yruohk” I do not know where you get your information because you seem very misinformed. I do not ever recall Packard being deemed “unsafe.” As far as being Landlords, the old Northedge elementary school building (now the new middle school) housed tenants for many years – Broad Hollow Theater and Center Island Preschool. The high school also housed Commerce Plaza for several years, so this is nothing new in Plainedge. If I've been "misinformed", than the individuals who told me personally as well as many in the community that the building was "structurally unsound" must have told a fib. Check out the former info and you will find it was one reason given for the building of the new school. All that Landlord business evidently didn't "profit" the community much or the children would not have had to wash cars to restore programs cut by this administration. Is the district going to profit better this time around by doing as they've done in the past?
|
|
|
Post by elphaba65 on Oct 12, 2005 6:57:22 GMT -5
YRUOHK: If I've been "misinformed", than the individuals who told me personally as well as many in the community that the building was "structurally unsound" must have told a fib. Check out the former info and you will find it was one reason given for the building of the new school.
For accurate information I guess you should have attended one of the many meetings that were held or read all the literature that was sent to your home. The bond was defeated the first time it was proposed partially I think from the lack of information that was sent out and the names attached to the bond. When the bond was put up for a revote after three new Board members came into office the information given to the community changed. There were meeting from July until December and many articles, letters and flyers sent to the home.
The bond booklet contained four different options, costs attached and why the Board chose the option it did. It passed by a very large margin, I guess most people took the time to read the info instead of listening to "fibs".
BTW, I am still waiting for a reply as to how old the "Stats" of the districts test scores that you posted on this website and were distributed on flyers last year? Another "fib" perhaps?
|
|
|
Post by Go Plainedge! on Oct 12, 2005 7:50:12 GMT -5
From the Massapequan Observer - 12/17/1999
After two heated board/community dialogues and meetings with PTAs, the Plainedge Board of Education and administration has re-evaluated the proposal they developed to build a new school on the Packard site and tear down the existing structure and has come up with a new plan to renovate and build onto Northedge School and use that as a middle school.
Since August, after discovering that there was a 10 percent incentive on capital projects for school districts which have a bond approved by July 1, 2000, the board and administration have been looking at various plans for Packard Middle School. Although it was known that something would have to be done about the middle school, which by the district's accounts is not an educationally sound facility and has some structural problems such as leaks and crumbling concrete, the district had not planned to do anything right away until this incentive, which would bring the reimbursement on aidable capital improvements up to 65 percent, was discovered.
The plan which the board presented to the community at the two board/community dialogues was either to renovate Packard or to rebuild the school. In November the board voted to put a bond up for the rebuilding of the school on the Packard site.
When the community reaction to the bond proposal of $50 million, which would include $40 million for the middle school and $10 million for the renovation of the other district buildings ,was highly negative, the board and administration went on another tour of the district buildings to look at other possible options. What they discovered was that the Northedge School, which is currently being used for kindergarten classes and Center Island Preschool, would be a more than feasible location for a middle school.
According to Plainedge Superintendent of Schools, Dr. John Richman, this new option for the middle school would alleviate many of the concerns that were voiced by the community. Some of the concerns he believes would be addressed by renovating Northedge and moving the middle school there would be the concern for the safety of the children, if they are attending class while construction is being done; the impact on the housing development adjacent to Packard; and the disruption of the educational process at the middle school. There were also questions raised about whether the district would be able to make better use of the state aid if they renovated rather than rebuilt.
Although they are still considering all possible options, Richman said that right now the Northedge site looks like the best possible option. With this new plan the district would move the kindergartners to their home elementary schools, renovate and expand Northedge and knock down Packard, leaving the site as athletic fields. At the Plainedge Board of Education meeting he outlined a list of pros and cons for the Northedge site. Under the cons, Richman noted, transportation would be required for all students who live south off Hempstead Turnpike; the all-day kindergarten plan would be delayed for at least one year; there is a possible loss of state aid on the demolition of the Packard building; and the fact that a bond referendum would not be able to be brought to the voters until June as opposed to March which was originally proposed. By not bringing the referendum to the voters until June, the district loses the opportunity to bring it up for a revote if the referendum does not pass the first time.
Under the pros for the Northedge site, Richman included the potential to increase state aid on combination renovation and new construction; similar 7.6 acres more or less, but access to an additional athletic field at Northedge; it moves one of the district's major educational programs back into the northern end of the district; minimal residential impact; kindergartens can be returned to the three neighborhood elementary schools; proper kindergarten sized (900 square ft.) classrooms can be built at each of the elementary schools; it is better able to accommodate growth over the next three years at Packard Middle School; one less building to maintain and staff over time; no loss of playing fields, an actual gain of playing fields at Packard site.
According to Richman the cost of renovating and expanding the Northedge site would be so much less than building a new building at the Packard site that the difference would cover the cost of building 12-15 new additions at the elementary schools for the kindergartners. Since the district already buses kindergartners who live south of Hempstead Turnpike to Northedge and middle schoolers who live north of Hempstead Turnpike to Packard, the change in transportation would be minimal.
Although the actual acreage of the Northedge is very similar to that of Packard, it was noted that there are sump areas that belong to the Town of Oyster Bay that the town would be willing to let the district have, which would increase the acreage by about an acre and a half, bringing it closer to the amount of property the state would like to see for a middle school, which is nearly 22 acres.
Richman explained that because they have only been looking at this site for a matter of weeks, they do not have any figures for how much the project would cost at this site. He noted that the Northedge building does not have any of the construction difficulties that the Packard building has so it could be renovated and then expanded up one floor and out, but he does not have any figures on that yet.
Richman expects to have some preliminary numbers about what the district would save by having one less building to maintain at the next public meeting which will be held on Jan. 20.
Although many residents had questions about the new proposal, the overall reaction to the proposal to renovate the Northedge site was much more positive than it was to the original plans. One resident expressed concern that this new proposal came out of the blue but others thanked the board for listening to the community's concerns and coming up with a new plan. A major question raised, that has yet to be settled, is where the Center Island Preschool would be housed if the Northedge site is chosen. Richman said that he does not have an answer to that yet but both he and School Board President Josephine Reder said the district is committed to that program and is trying to find a way to accommodate it but that its first concern must be the education of the district's own students.
Richman stated, "We continue to listen to what the community is telling us. We've had lots of good information that's come as a result of the dialogues and we're doing our best to accommodate the concerns and make sound educational decisions."
|
|
|
Post by Go Plainedge! on Oct 12, 2005 7:51:35 GMT -5
From the Massapequan Observer 9/22/2000
The Plainedge School District will submit the bond proposal defeated by local voters in the spring for a re-vote, Dr. John Richman, superintendent of schools announced this week.
During a regular school board meeting held last Thursday, Sept. 14, Dr. Richman said the district will hold a referendum on a $53 million proposal, which would fund an overhaul of facilities, on Dec. 5. He noted that the proposal includes the same projects included in last year's $50 million bond, but that costs have escalated. The major components are construction of a new middle school to replace Packard, and renovation of each of the other school buildings in the district.
District administrators and school board members have cited growing enrollment and a subsequent lack of classroom space as a major reason for the construction project. They have also noted that Packard needs to be rebuilt because although structurally sound, it is structurally inadequate as a learning environment, and necessary renovations would cost nearly as much as a new building.
In addition to putting forth the bond proposal, Dr. Richman said that due to pressing space concerns, in October, he will ask the board of education to purchase two portable classroom units for Packard Middle School. "We have no more space. We have no more places to put kids," he said.
The district will present the bond proposal in detail at a series of public meetings to be held at each of the elementary schools. The meetings are being dubbed "Neighborhood Conversations," and residents are being encouraged to attend the meeting at the school nearest to their home. All the meetings will contain general information on the entire bond, in addition to a focus on the renovations proposed for the individual buildings hosting each meeting. The dates and locations of the meetings are as follows: Oct. 5 - Schwarting School, Oct. 16 - Eastplain School, Oct. 23 - West. Residents who live nearest to Northedge are asked to attend the meeting at West. All of the Neighborhood Conversation meetings will begin at 7:30 p.m. The district will also set aside a portion of the Nov. 16 regular board of education meeting for discussion of the bond.
Also during last Thursday's board meeting, the district announced that the board of education and the Plainedge Federation of Teachers have reached an agreement on the extension of the teachers' contract through 2005. The agreement marks an apparent end to the tough contract disputes that the district has seen in recent years. "You're going to see a much more relaxed and upbeat atmosphere than you've been used to historically," Dr. Richman told district residents in making the announcement.
Later, in a press release from the district, he stated, "We are very excited. With this extension in place, we can now focus on our instructional processes and our goal of placing 'kids first.'" Plainedge Federation of Teachers President (PFT) Pauline Weissman added, "With the ratification of the contract extension, I am very optimistic that the future of the Plainedge District is going to be much brighter."
The agreement with the PFT, which was due to expire in 2002, provides a 3 percent annual increase plus increment for the years 2003, 2004 and 2005. It withdraws all outstanding grievances. In addition, it adds one instructional day to the calendar beginning in September, 2002. It includes provisions for staff development for first-year teachers and ongoing professional development for all teachers. The PFT has agreed to support district efforts to enlist faculty participation in committee work, and teachers will be compensated for work in curriculum areas. Improved dental benefits were also a part of the deal.
The board reached a similar agreement with the teacher assistants. That deal extends their contract through 2005, providing a 3 percent salary increase for the years 2003 to 2005, one additional instructional day beginning in September 2002, and better dental benefits. In addition, the district reached a consensus with the Directors Association and the bus drivers. Both of those contracts are from July 1, 2000 through June 30, 2004 and include a 3 percent salary increase.
|
|
|
Post by Go Plainedge! on Oct 12, 2005 7:53:56 GMT -5
First its not structurally sound, then it is sound. It seems like John Kerry was evaluating the building.....
Flip Flop, Flip Flop
The wording in these two articles are like the US Constitution....it's all based on interpretation of the "playful" wording.
|
|
|
Post by elphaba65 on Oct 12, 2005 12:40:16 GMT -5
Go Plainedge,
That's terrific that you saved the articles, do you still have the Bond booklet? I agree, it does seem like a John Kerry statement! I wonder if it has anything to do with the way two different Boards delivered the message-
|
|
|
Post by frawg88 on Oct 12, 2005 15:15:41 GMT -5
Today "yruohk" wrote:
“If you were involved with this forum from it's inception, then you would know who began using diversionary tactics, such as bringing up the library, to turn attention away from the reasons why the forum was begun. Censorship of the schools Community Forum birthed this forum.”
If that’s the case, "yruohk", then: a) What goal(s) did you intend to accomplish on the School’s Community Forum? If it was to rant and rave, criticize and call people names as is done so much in THIS forum, then I’m glad my hard-earned tax dollars are NOT being spent by the school district to spread more negativity and misinformation. b) Now that this substitute community forum does exist, what POSITIVE things do you intend to accomplish, and once again, what personal experience qualifies you as a reliable/credible source of information about the school district? I still have not been able to determine either of those two things, therefore I must continue to be skeptical of your own sleeves.
"yruohk" also wrote:
“As for "closing the library", what person in their sound mind would even consider such a move as has been given life by those few who probably don't even use the library? And I agree with you, they are not "trying" to indoctrinate they ARE indoctrinating those who allow themselves to be. The idea has no merit but certainly has "more" tax dollars on the horizon. The school district will probably spend triple the library budget to transform their "dream" into a nightmare! There must be something up someone's sleeve.”
a) Maybe the fact that they DON’T use the library is their justification for wanting to spend that money on something else that their kids will directly benefit from. b) You’re saying that it’s the school district’s "dream." This idea originated with the community residents, not school district personnel, unless you can quote (like "go plainedge") any information obtained directly from the district which proposes this.
|
|
|
Post by concerned on Oct 12, 2005 18:24:26 GMT -5
GoPlainedge-Thanks for finding those articles. I too was going to review old minutes, etc. I am confident it has been stated on numerous occasions the building was old and had many structural problems. In fact, I recall discussing with my neighbor this summer the fact that the building was going to be rented out. She commented that it was funny the building wasn't safe for our kids but might possibly hold the kids that were part of Center Island.
Perhaps it's all semantics, but I am confident we have all heard about the structural issues. In fact, I think at one of the last board meetings when people asked about the school site, the issue that the building was old and needed a lot of work was cited as the reason for it taking a while to rent the facility. I know there are a lot of people to take matiulous notes of the board meetings. Can someone check this out?
|
|
|
Post by justfacts on Oct 13, 2005 10:56:10 GMT -5
Yruohk and Elphaba65 and others on this forum thread:There stills seems to be some waiting for report card info from Yruohk by Elphaba. Each seems to have points to "grind out" with the other. This has left me, and maybe others, wondering what the full issue is about. I went to the Newsday site which purports to have the latest results and organized the data presented to focus the results on the Plainedge school district. Here is what I found: From Newsday Education Site School Report Cards, March 9th, 2005 This contains report of Eastplain score for 4th Grade Math at 100%. Definitions of Performance Standards:Level 1: Shows minimal achievement of the standards; demonstrates no evidence of proficiency in one or more of the standards. Level 2: Shows partial achievement of the standards; some knowledge and skill for each standard or full proficiency in some but not all of the standards. Level 3: Shows meeting all standards. Level 4: Shows superior performance, knowledge and skill for all standards. Standardized test Results by School:Eastplain School High Points: 4th grade math 100% Percent; 4th Grade English 88% Grade 4 - Elementary-level English language arts assessment Level 1 - % Level 2 - 12% Level 3 - 50% ¤Level 4 - 38% Mean Score - 684 Grade 4 - Elementary-level mathematics assessment Level 1 - % Level 2 - % Level 3 - 23% Level 4 - 77% ¤Mean Score - 696 John H. West School High Points: 4th Grade Math 100%; 4th Grade English 86% Grade 4 - Elementary-level English language arts assessment Level 1 - % Level 2 - 14% Level 3 - 59% ¤Level 4 - 26% Mean Score - 677 Grade 4 - Elementary-level mathematics assessment Level 1 - % Level 2 - % Level 3 - 33% Level 4 - 67% ¤Mean Score - 692 Charles E. Schwarting School High Points: 4th Grade Math 96%; 4th Grade English 89% Grade 4 - Elementary-level English language arts assessment Level 1 - % Level 2 - 11% Level 3 - 58% ¤Level 4 - 32% Mean Score - 679 Grade 4 - Elementary-level mathematics assessment Level 1 - % Level 2 - 4% Level 3 - 41% Level 4 - 56% ¤Mean Score - 688 Packard Middle School Grade 8 - Intermediate-level English language arts assessment Level 1 - 2% Level 2 - 31% Level 3 - 48% ¤Level 4 - 20% Mean Score - 712 Grade 8 - Intermediate-level mathematics assessment Level 1 - 2% Level 2 - 11% Level 3 - 54% ¤Level 4 - 32% Mean Score - 746 Grade 8 - Intermediate-level science total score (combined score of the performance and written test) Level 1 - 4% Level 2 - 50% ¤Level 3 - 46% Level 4 - % Mean Score - 60 (sic) Plainedge Senior High School High Points: Passing Math Regents 75% ; Passing English Regents 93%; Passing Regents Science 97%; Passing Regents Global History 90%; Passing Regents US History 94% Graduates - 221 Graduation rate - 95% (25th out of 56 on list) Receiving Regents Diploma - 73% (34th out of 55 on list) Plans after graduationFour-year college - 61% ¤ Two-year college - 23% Other post-secondary education - 0% Military - 1% Employment - 5% Other - 10% This list is intended to show all parts of the "elephant" to end discussions between those that examine only the leading edge (trunk of the elephant) and those that only examine back edge (tail of the elephant) Partial information often leads to these wasteful disputes.
Any disputes with accuracy or numbers reported are to be argued with Newsday, the Source for this information.[/b]
|
|
|
Post by justfacts on Oct 13, 2005 22:33:25 GMT -5
Yruohk and others on the Forum; Not that I'm "picking on" Yruohk, but they're the one that got several pieces of questionable or partial information lately.
You were told by frawg88 in a response to your comments about Library closing plans that: "You’re saying that it’s the school district’s "dream." This idea originated with the community residents, not school district personnel, unless you can quote (like "go plainedge") any information obtained directly from the district which proposes this."
Counterpoint: Yet in a response to something I posted about the changing Librarian cost the quoted part of the post was; "According to Dr. Richman in recent paper to the Commissioner of Education, the school originally planned that this cost would be about $65,000. Later, when planning Contingency Budget cuts, he "discovered" the cost would be higher - $78,761 because of market place prices."
The response from elphaba65 was: " I believe that cost also included an aid, the after hours discussed at BOE meetings mentioned both positions."
So which is it? The Public Library closure and substitute plans for after hours School Library operations were often discussed by the BOE at meetings where they were revised and implemented by putting an added librarian and aides into the budget - - - or they were community resident's ideas or dreams?
Is frawg88 misinformed or is elphaba65 the one that's wrong?
|
|