Lacking state decision, board looks at options
Issues surrounding new high school to be hashed out Monday
BY JESSICA SMITH Staff Writer
As the deadline for a December referendum looms large, the Monroe Board of Education is trying to hash out a workable plan for moving forward on the new high school.

Short on funds to complete the proposed school, and still awaiting the state's decision on whether it can be built in Thompson Park, board members voted last week to conduct a decision analysis at a Sept. 10 meeting with the help of a facilitator.

"I thought it was critical for the board to decide then," board member Rita Ostrager said. "I am very flexible in where, or what, we're going to do. We have to build something."

The last possible date to authorize a December referendum - which would provide the necessary additional funding to build the high school - will be at the board's Sept. 26 meeting. In order to have the December referendum, however, the proposed site in Thompson Park must be approved by the state Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) and deeded to the township by Sept. 26.

If the December referendum does not happen, the next opportunity to hold one would be in March. That would not be a good time for it because it would coincide with school budget introduction, Board of Education President Kathy Kolupanowich said.

Holding the referendum any later will push back the opening of the new high school, which was hoped to be operational in 2011.

"If the referendum is passed in September of 2008, [the] school would not be built until 2012," Kolupanowich said.

A long-debated land swap would have the township trading 172 acres of land for 35 acres in Thompson Park, on which the high school would be constructed. The township would also have to pay $1.127 million to cover the higher value assessed on the parkland. The release of restrictions from the Green Acres division of the DEP is required before the swap can take place.

Litigation from citizens and environmental obstacles to the process, and questions about whether a historic Indian settlement once stood at the site caused the DEP to require archaeological surveys of the parkland.

"It was going to be free land, and they said it was going to be a slam dunk," board member Marvin Braverman said.

Those involved with the project are again awaiting DEP approval, as the phase 2 findings of surveys there have stated there are no significant artifacts on most of the tract. Representatives of Cranbury based Richard Grubb and Associates presented their conclusions at the Township Council meeting Wednesday.

Assistant Township Attorney Peg Schaffer and Township Business Administrator Wayne Hamilton both stated that DEP approval should come within a week at the latest.

"They've been telling us we're going to know in another month for the past four years," Braverman said. "If it's not Dr. [Ralph] Ferrie [superintendent of schools], it's [board member] Mr. [Joseph] Homoki. If it's not Homoki, it's Peg Schaffer, and if it's not Peg Schaffer, it's [council President] Gerald Tamburro. I've been frustrated for many months."

Voters approved a bond referendum in 2003 for $82.9 million to build the high school. Since then, projected costs for the facility have risen, as have projected enrollment numbers. In January, school Business Administrator Wayne Holliday announced that the planned building would cost over $36 million more than originally anticipated.

Fluctuating costs of goods and services have pushed costs up as time goes on and the project is not actualized.

As slated, the new high school would hold 1,800 students. With an average of 300-350 new students entering the district each year, however, board members expressed concerns about the building opening at its capacity in 2011, and are in talks about an addition. Whether it would be a two-story addition, allowing the school to house 2,200 students, or a three-story addition, which would allow for 2,400, is another decision that is up in the air.

Kolupanowich said the board has not received an estimate for what the addition would cost, and it has not determined whether the added costs for the original building still stand at $36 million. She also pointed out that $15 million of the total approved in the 2003 referendum was to come from the state, and that if the site or plans change, that money will no longer be available to them.

"If we lose the $15 million ... that's another $15 million that the community will have to give us," Kolupanowich said.

Jim Morton, the architect for the project from New Brunswick-based Design Ideas Group, said more money will be necessary, even to build the facility at a capacity of 1,800, according to Ostrager's report of the Aug. 29 board meeting.

Morton also urged the board to decide what they would ask for in the referendum, saying even if a decision was rendered that night, he would be hard-pressed to meet the Sept. 26 deadline.

Ferrie suggested a facilitator be brought in for the Sept. 10 meeting, at which time the board would reach a decision.

Ostrager attempted to make a motion that the board follow the lead of the Middlesex County Board of Chosen Freeholders and the council by preemptively passing resolutions to approve the land diversion as soon as word comes from the DEP. In the board's case, she said, they could start the ball rolling for a December referendum by allowing the board secretary to prepare for it so it would be ready if the approval for the land swap comes in.

"Ralph Ferrie interrupted me and told me I could not make that motion at the time," Ostrager said.

Both Braverman and Ostrager suggested brainstorming sessions to look at other options if the land swap does not pan out. One example Braverman shared was the possibility of reconfiguring the district and adding onto existing facilities.

"That was simply a suggestion as a number of things we could do," Braverman said later. "I don't think we're going to pass a referendum. I think we have to be dynamic, I think we have to be proactive, and I think we have to think outside the box."

Whatever direction the board decides to take, Kolupanowich said it will reach a conclusion Sept. 10. She said they are hoping to get a large number of residents to attend the meeting, to offer input and help steer the decision.

Ostrager agreed.

"A key factor in my decision of which way to go is what the public will support. I don't know if I want to waste time to do a referendum the public is not going to support," Ostrager said.

Braverman, who said at the meeting he did not think voters would pass a referendum, also said he would like the public to come out and participate in the meeting.

The board has received criticism from some members of the public since the project's inception, often being questioned about the continual delays.

"They voted for people who were the status quo," Braverman said. "So obviously, the public is not concerned ... regardless of what they say."