By Gene Robbins, Managing Editor
School officials have begun a process that could lead to a March 8 referendum asking permission to borrow $2 million or more to repave a parking lot and rebuild the high school turf sports field.
The Board of Education authorized its architect, Gregory Somjen, to begin to draw schematic engineering plans to rebuild the pothole-filled lot at the middle school off Triangle Road. The project has an estimated price tag of $1.4 million.
The turf field replacement price was put at $600,000 to $1.1 million, depending on options, including replacing the track.
The board also asked Mr. Somjen to determine if the state Department of Education might fund 40 percent of either or both projects with debt service aid. Much of, if not all, of the remainder would come from the board’s capital reserve savings account. The board intends to have no new tax impact, but needs voter approval to borrow the money that would be repaid within a year.
A lot of information has to be gathered before making a decision on calling a referendum. The board wants to see the end-of-school-year audit to determine how much money it will have in, or can add to, its capital reserve account.
The board also wants to know if debt service aid would be available. Mr. Somjen said he was fairly certainly the parking lot project might qualify, but called it a “tossup” about the football field.
A referendum is necessary to allow the school board to borrow money.
Both projects need to be done, and the target period for the work is the summer of 2016. The parking lot is rutted and potholes and poor drainage invite icy conditions. The turf field at the high school has probably one more season before it would likely be deemed unsafe on which to play, officials said.
The estimated prices on both projects increased dramatically after the architect took a longer and harder look. Initial ballpark prices were more than $800,000 for the parking lot and more than $500,000 for the turf field.
Mr. Somjen said prices changed after his firm did its “progressive due diligence” in delving further into what might be needed for both projects. Prices also included a list of options, which would affect the final price. He said he added in contingencies and potential “soft” costs of engineering and oversight of work on the turf field. He said it appeared the underlying drainage system might be OK, but the carpet needs to be replaced.
On the parking lot, he said his firm found two sets of construction drawings on the existing lot, and had to determine which one was followed. The project will involve more than drainage, and will likely develop a traffic circulation plan and student drop-off areas.
Board member Jennifer Haley said she had a hard time understanding how repaving a parking lot could cost $1.5 million. Mr. Somjen said robust bidding could lower the price, and his estimate included an inflation factor that may or may not happen.
Greg Gillette, chairman of the operations committee, said it was “bad luck” that both projects had to be done in the same year.
Member Judith Haas asked if the township might chip in with money for the turf field as a recreation expense. She also wondered if county open space funds targeted for “development” recreation projects might be available, or whether private citizens and sponsors might chip in.
