By Keith Hagarty

The Howell Times

The Howell Township Board of Education gave their backing this week to the district's $112.7 million 2009-2010 school budget, which includes a 3-cent increase to the school tax rate.

The 3-cent tax rate increase per $100 of assessed property valuation means a Howell home assessed at $350,000 would see an increase of about $105.61 per year, or $8.80 per month.

As the district's student enrollment is expected to decline by about 200 students in the upcoming school year, one of the most notable components of the budget was the board's recent decision to close Southard Elementary School, effective in June. With up to 35 positions expected to be eliminated by the closing, the district expects to see a cost-savings of about $2.3 million. The board is still in the process of reviewing potential redistricting options for the 300- plus Southard students.

In an effort to increase revenue, the board is also considering the possibility of leasing the closed school to a third-party.

District Assistant Superintendent/Board Secretary Herbert Massa said the district had five top priorities when developing the 2009-2010 budget: support and improvement of classroom instruction, maintenance and safety of school facilities, support of current technology programs, professional staff and reduction and control of operational costs.

Of the total $112.7 million, $101.4 million is designated for the general fund, with another $2.5 million earmarked for state and federal programs and $8.7 million for debt service. While the general fund has increased by 3.15 percent, the district's debt service, or the money used to pay back bond holders with interest borrowed from past school building projects, is expected to decrease by 4.77 percent.

A longtime administrator in the district, Massa said he's seen the financial landscape change by leaps and bounds for Howell and all of the state's school districts.

"I can remember when I first came here, that (overall budget) figure was $9 million," said Massa.

The overall tax levy rises from $62.3 million to $64.8 million, rising 2.4 percent, and staying under the four percent cap levy increase allowable by state law.

Officials said the 3-cent tax rate increase was necessitated by the district's contractual changes with teacher salaries and benefi ts and purchases of negotiated items and services, as well as a reflection of energy costs to operate its buildings and fuel for its fleet of buses.

"The board of education is a labor-intensive operation," said Massa. "Most of the money that we spend is not in buying commodities, it's in buying services from teachers, administrators, custodians and so on and so forth. They have to be paid, and there are certain payroll costs associated with that, and we are in a negotiated agreement with the teachers' union, and that agreement expires in June 2011."

Other contributing factors to the proposed tax rate increase Massa pointed to include: unfunded state and federal mandates, increased special education costs, increased cost of insurance and utilities and failure of the funding formula to adequately address equity issues.

The board did get some good news, however, with fuel costs, as natural gas and oil prices, which have moderated over the last few months, while electricity prices have also remained stable.

Seeking Ways To Save Money

To help curb costs in the coming school year, Massa said the district is exploring new and expanded shared services opportunities with the township for bus fuel, recycling and custodial supplies, as well as refinancing debt when interest rates are attractive.

"As we go further along, interest rates— we all watch them, particularly when it comes to our own mortgages—we're working to get a lower rate," said Massa. "Once the exact formula is reached, we are able to go to the local finance board, and see if refinancing is available. We did that a couple years ago, and saved about a million dollars in interest costs on our debt."

While no taxpayer wants to see an increase, Massa said there is a public misconception that a voter-defeated budget will significantly lower property taxes.

"Often times when I'm in the ShopRite or the Pathmark, someone will say to me, 'well, I'm basically voting the budget down because I don't want my taxes to go up.' I don't blame them. I don't want my taxes to go up either," said Massa, "but even if this budget is voted down, typically, the township (council) takes about $1.5 million to $1.8 million (from the budget), and that equates to about a tax point. A tax point on the average house is $35 (per year). So if we took $35 off that increase that we're looking at, you'd still have an increase of taxes for next year."

While an extra $35 in the taxpayers' pockets could be a nice bonus for the average taxpayer, Massa warned of the consequences cutting an additional million dollars from the budget would have on the schools.

"A cut of that magnitude would really not be good because we would find ourselves scurrying to make substantial cuts in programs, or perhaps even close another school," he said.

The district's bottom line is a constant concern for both the administration and the board, Massa emphasized.

"The board struggles with the amount of money we'd like to raise for the school year, and it struggles with the budget that we're in today with the tough economic times," said Massa. "Money is always on the minds of the board of education."

The budget will now go before the voters on April 21, with polls open from 3 to 9 p.m. The board also plans to hold additional budget presentations the first two weeks of April, with dates and times announced on the district's Web site, www.howell.k12.nj.us.

BY TOYNETT HALL Staff Writer

Tri-Town News

Testimony is expected to resume on April 27 on the Chelsea Commons application that is currently before the Howell Zoning Board of Adjustment.

Applicant and owner Marvin Kornmehl of Chelsea Commons at Howell LLC is proposing to build a 126-unit age-restricted housing development on property at the corner of Route 9 north and Salem Hill Road, Howell.

The applicant is seeking a use variance from the zoning board in order to construct a residential use in a highway development zone. The property adjoins St. Veronica Parish.

Testimony on the Chelsea Commons application continued at the zoning board's March 16 meeting. Several residents objected to the plan that evening.

Attorney Gerald Sonnenblick, representing the applicant, said, "Nobody wants this. The point is that if we are going to be there, what is best" for that site.

"We are the less intrusive use," Sonnenblick said.

Professional planner James Higgins testified that in his opinion, the use variance should be granted because "the site is suited for the proposed uses. It is isolated from all other commercial uses on Route 9. There is no specific zoning for age-restricted [projects]. The site has access to transportation, proximity to services, and it is geared toward modest-income families, with units ranging from $1,400 to $1,500 monthly."

Higgins said the proposed residential use is a better plan compared to a permitted commercial use because "in terms of impact on surrounding properties, a commercial use would create more garbage, activity, loading, lighting issues on site, noise and later hours of operation."

He added, "This is really a transitional use between Route 9 and residences. It also promotes smart growth."

The proposal has drawn opposition from residents who live near the property. Residents have said they believe Chelsea Commons would create more traffic and result in an unsafe area for the St. Veronica congregation and students at St. Veronica School.

Resident Brian McCarthy opposed the applicant's request for a use variance. He said the Chelsea Commons project will negatively impact the St. Veronica School and all parish activities.

Previous testimony indicated that vehicles will reach Chelsea Commons via an access on the St. Veronica property.

"Allowing vehicular traffic to the church property will pose a significant danger to all who use the property. If this variance is granted, there would be a traffic accident waiting to happen," McCarthy said.

Debra McCarthy also spoke against the application.

"Having been a long-term parishioner of St. Veronica's and the parent of four children who attended St. Veronica School, I had to serve as a traffic cop for many years as cars whizzed through the school's mall," she said.

"Granting this variance would only increase the number of cars," McCarthy added. "I know we need ratables to keep taxes in check, but do we really need to develop every piece of property, even property that's part of a jughandle?"

Roger Avallone said he saw no benefit to the Chelsea Commons project at all. He said it would do nothing to improve the quality of life for residents.

Mark Krupnick had a different view of the application, saying, "The applicant has a right to develop the property. Along some lines it would seem to me that the property's [proposed] use might be a better use than some of the permitted uses in the highway development zone. I think the board should strongly consider granting the applicant his use variance."

Board to offer budget plan

By Michelle Gladden • FREEHOLD BUREAU • March 18, 2009

Asbury Park Press

Staff Report

The Howell Times

Despite objections from neighboring residents, a 31-acre parcel of land, once known as the Cutler-Rubenstein egg farm, has been rezoned by the township to allow for the construction of over 200 homes.

The fate of the land has been up in the air for over three years, with the developer, AST, Sunnyside Road, LLC, and the town involved in a legal battle, most notable regarding the proposed number of affordable housing units to be built on the site.

"About two-and-a-half to three years ago, there was a memorandum of understanding that was done by the previous administration, and it ended up in a long drawn out court case because of affordable housing. They (AST) opposed our round two affordable housing plan," said Walsh. "It was down in Trenton that it was negotiated with about 10 to 12 lawyers in the room, representatives of the planning board of Howell Township, the zoning board of Howell Township, the governing body of Howell Township, representatives from AST, representatives from the Affordable Housing Commission in Trenton. There was about 22 to 25 people in the room."

A settlement agreement reached between the parties had called for 118 units, comprised of 100 regular, market value units and 18 affordable housing units, with 30,000 feet of commercial use zoned along the front of the property. However, the revised agreement now calls for an additional 102 homes, comprised of 42 market value units, and 60 affordable housing units, for a total of 220 units on the site.

"We were going to buy the back piece (of the property) for market value, which was a little over $1.5 million," Walsh said of the town's initial settlement agreement with AST in 2006. "Then along came Governor (Jon) Corzine and the affordable housing for round three. Howell's obligation is over 900 affordable homes. Right now the ratio is 4 (market value units) to 1 (affordable housing unit). If we allow for 900 (affordable housing) homes to be built in different parts of Howell Township, it could mean 4,500 new homes."

To curb the total number of new homes that would've been required by the state, and stem the onslaught of potential lawsuit by builders, Walsh said the town had no choice but to come to an agreement with the developer by December 31, 2008.

"We could've been facing right now 10, 12 or 15 (builder remedy lawsuits)," said Walsh. "They come out of the woodwork with 6-, 8-, 10-acre parcels and say, 'I've got to build 100 homes there, I'll build some of the affordable housing too.'"

While it's not ideal to have to allow a couple hundred homes to be built on the site, Walsh said the alternative would have been even worse for the town.

"Nobody up here wants us to have to build one affordable home, but we also did not want to leave Howell Township exposed to 4,500 homes," said the mayor. "If we had not put a plan together that we thought was approvable down in Trenton by (the Council On) Affordable Housing (COAH), we would've opened up this town to one lawsuit after the next."

Albert Hurley, of White Street, is concerned that the rezoning of the site is going to create a hardship on neighboring residents.

"Nobody in our neighborhood has been notified about this," he told the council. "The preliminary plan, which we had the privilege to see the conceptual plan, shows offsets with some of the people having 100-foot offsets, while others only had 50 (foot offsets), and nobody was notified."

With the site being a predominantly rural area, Hurley is concerned the land and surrounding roadways wouldn't be able to handle the increased development.

"When this all happened a few years ago, we assumed that the front part was going to be commercial, which is what was approved, and every committee in here—the zoning board, the planning board, the town committee—turned it all down," said Hurley. "Everybody in the neighborhood felt that was a done deal with the commercial up front, and then we found out that there was a lawsuit with the township and AST got 118 units in the front. That was bad enough, but now it's compounded by adding high density to the back. That's like a double whammy to me."

With her property abutting the proposed high-density housing site, White Street resident Lynda Fox believes rezoning the former farmland is a bad idea for the area.

"I noticed that we only had a 50 foot easement with us between the property, but other people have 100 foot easement, and I really don't think that's fair," she said. "I don't think it's fair that I wasn't notified. We like our environment the way it is, and it will really change it. We were under the impression that it was two-acre zoning, then all of a sudden my neighbor comes to me and tells me it's being changed to high-density housing. Right next to me I'm going to have townhouses, and it's not that kind of environment."

According to the revised agreement, all neighboring residents would be subject to a 50-foot easement buffer.

However, Fox is also worried that the surrounding infrastructure will not stand up to the increased traffic from hundreds of homes being built.

"Our streets are not strong enough," she said. "They are not cement, they're only blacktop and they are not meant for high traffic. We have had so much more traffic since Wawa was put in, but what's going to happen if you put high-density housing in there as well. We're talking about a high number of townhouses."

David Spitzer, of White Street, agreed with his neighbors' concerns.

"As far as I'm concerned, it's an outrage," said Spitzer, who questioned Mayor Robert Walsh being involved in the decision to rezone the site since he runs a mortgage brokerage company, an accusation which Walsh strongly took issue with.

"This agreement was done through the planning board, members of the council, the affordable housing attorneys, the affordable housing planners, and it was not done as an agreement between the mayor and AST," Walsh emphatically responded. "This was about 12 to 15 people in a room, and it was voted on by the planning board, and it was voted on by the governing body. Please do not insinuate that this was an agreement between me and AST."

A public hearing on the zoning change ordinance is scheduled to be held at the council's next meeting on March 24. Residents living within 200 feet of the site will be mailed a letter by the town notifying them of the hearing.

PROTEST RALLY PLANNED FOR MARCH 14TH
Staff Report

The Howell Times

Built in 19 , Southard Elementary School will be closing in June, following the board of education's unanimous decision last week to save approximately $2.3 million, including the reduction of 34 jobs, by closing its doors.

The 2008-2009 school year will be the last one for Southard Elementary School after the board of education unanimously decided to close the 54-year-old school last week, effective in June.

While redistricting plans have yet to be announced for the 300-plus students, the district anticipates up to 34 positions being eliminated by the school closing.

Speaking at this week's school Parent Teacher Association (PTA) meeting, Principal Andrew Smith informed parents of the board's decision.

"It is with a heavy heart that I inform you that at the last board of education meeting on March 3, the board unanimously voted to close Southard School, effective September 2009," said Smith.

The day after the board's decision, Southard students arrived to school preparing to take standardized testing with some already knowing their schools' fate, with others soon learning throughout the day.

The school administration sent a letter home to parents the following day alerting them of the board's decision, and assuring them that their children's education would not be adversely affected.

"I did say in the letter home that our entire staff is committed to providing a strong academic instruction program throughout the rest of the year, and remembering all the fond memories that we've created in the past," said Smith.

Based on current projections, the board said closing the school could save $2.3 million for the financially-strapped district. Although three new schools were only just built in the township in the last five years in response to demographer's prognostications of increased enrollment figures, those numbers never materialized, forcing the closing of one township school, according to district officials.

The school is still trying to come to grips with the board's decision, according to Smith, with no plans yet announced as to student redistricting and the ultimate fate of the building and its entire staff.

"It's so fresh that I really don't have too much information beyond that," said Smith. "We haven't spoken about what's going to go where, or who's going to go where."

To oppose the board's decision to close the school, the Southard PTA announced plans for a protest rally to be held on school grounds March 14 at 3 p.m.

"We're asking as many parents, neighbors, kids and everyone to come out—we need to have a big showing," said Southard PTA President Al Miller, asking everyone in attendance to wear Southard's school colors: red and black. In addition, the PTA is asking all Howell residents to decorate their mailboxes with red and black ribbons and/or balloons to further demonstrate their solidarity.

"This is really important to us for us to get out in numbers on Saturday, and for us to show the board that we're sticking together and we don't want this school to close down," he said. "Let's show this community that we're totally against what this board has done to us."

Parent Marie Grasso was disappointed when the board recently decided to drop a proposed school referendum question which would have asked the public if they wanted to back additional funding increases to possibly keep the schools open for another year.

"We vote every week for 'American Idol,' but we don't get to vote on where our children will be going to school," she said.

The special voter referendum question would have asked to help close the budget shortfall by raising $3.7 million to $5.8 million, depending on waiver approval, in addition to the school budget's allowable annual tax levy increase for the 2009-2010 school year and thereafter.

Grasso said she feels betrayed by the board, when just one year ago, she and fellow township voters backed the 2008-2009 school year budget when faced with similar threats of impending school closings.

"We all went out in big numbers, and I was on a committee—get out to vote, get out to vote, blah, blah, blah—and everyone said 'yes, we want our schools to stay open, and we want them to remain pretty much the way they are,'" she said.

With the school budget only passing three times in the last 15 years, Grasso said she now knows why it hardly ever gains voter approval when the board doesn't listen to the will of the people.

"Why did it pass last year?" she posed. "You don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure out that the people are saying that this is what we want to happen in our schools."

Parents expressed concerns that closing Southard School would leave a big void when it comes to educating the children living in the southwestern region of Howell.

"All you need is a map to figure out that maybe it's not a good plan not to have anything there," said Grasso.

With two children, ages 19 and 9, Grasso said it hurts to know that her eldest child had so many more educational opportunities in Howell's schools than her youngest one now does for the foreseeable future.

"It seems unbelievable that 10 years later that your children would have less," she said. "If we don't stop it now, then God knows what the future will bring for anyone."

While he wasn't in attendance at all the board of education's public meetings leading up to their decision, parent Joseph Anthony Grisanzio said he'd like to see the entire town do what it can to save Southard School and let their voices be heard.

"My feeling is that it was them (the board of education) speaking to a small group of people in a room, and basically saying these are the facts and these are the savings, so we're making the decision," said Grisanzio. "Everybody weighed in on it and everybody stated their case, but that's just a tennis match in one room. Not to say that it's going to have a good end result, but I think a lot of the people in the community would like to see what they could do and use their imaginations."

While parents and the PTA are looking to organize and fight the board's decision, Smith said it is their right as citizens to do so, but conceded that the fate of the school may already be cast.

"The board of ed is our employer, and they have the ultimate say at this point," he said. "There was a process that the board went through over the last year or so to investigate and present different things, and the end result was they decided Wednesday to close the school."