Approve negotiated leases for Region 12 elementary schools now
Newstimes/Spectrum
Posted: 02/04/2009 09:54:01 PM EST
To the Editor:
Region 12 has been trying to solve the elementary school buildings issue for seven years.
In 2006 a number of referendums failed regarding consolidation and renovation of the town schools.
In 2006 and 2007 the towns brought forth formal town proposals prepared by architects for renovations of the local schools.
In 2007 and 2008, after much deliberation with an independent evaluation of these proposals, the June 2008 deadline for submission to the state of Connecticut was missed.
The lease committee was working with the town selectmen since August 2007 on long-term leases containing a list of prior repairs submitted by the towns.
In November 2008 the lease committee reached agreement in principle and agreement on the lease language. The cost of the town school repairs list is just under $1.8 million.
Assuming a 20-year bond, on average these repairs will cost less that .05 percent of the annual school budget.
After using the current year repair budget of $100,000 and using the 1 percent fund, the bond would be less than $1.4 million.
Here are reasons to approve the negotiated 20-year lease now:
1. It is important capitalize on the low interest rates and the goodwill created by the lease committee. This is first time the town officials and the region are in agreement on this subject.
After all this time and effort, it is prudent and ethical to approve the leases. To shelve the 20-year lease indicates the region was not negotiating in good faith.
2. The annual cost of the elementary school repairs is less than the annual cost of the repairs of the Shepaug Middle School/High School building.
3. It is unlikely there will be a repair and maintenance referendum this spring, if further changes are made and must be vetted, since the budget referendum must take first priority. There will not be enough time between the first week of April and the first week of May (when the first budget referendum is required) to hold a repair and maintenance referendum.
It takes six weeks to go through process of a hearing and the 30-day period. So the repair/maintenance referendum will take place after the budget and the current leases expire on June 30.
Then the 20-year lease renegotiation will occur in the fall of 2009 to adjust the lease language and repairs list to reflect the maintenance referendum.
With the region and towns in agreement now, why open another negotiation cycle later this year?
4. One immediate benefit of approving the negotiated 20-year lease now, is the Burnham school fuel oil tank is eligible for state reimbursement.
This means $20,000 of state aid that the region could receive to assist with the cost of this replacement.
Whereas, if the 20 year lease is shelved, this replacement job at Burnham will be completed before the 20 year lease is in place and therefore there will be no state aid.
Ed Wainwright
Bridgewater
Monday, February 9, 2009
Lease Action Delayed Another Month
Lease action delayed
By Lynda WellmanSTAFF WRITER
Posted: 02/04/2009 07:11:05 PM EST
Proposed primary school leases for town-owned buildings in Region 12 are stalled once again.
Without the 20-year leases, the region can't get state reimbursement for eligible work. It has already forfeited $51,000 for roof work and stands to lose $20,000 for replacing an oil tank.
After more than an hour of debate Monday, the regional Board of Education voted 8-3 to table action on the leases in order to have them reviewed by the board's attorney.
Several members of the regional board that covers Bridgewater, Roxbury and Washington appeared ready to vote and were shocked to learn that a legal review had not occurred.
Asked why, Superintendent Bruce Storm said, "I'm too cheap."
Dr. Storm explained he's keeping a close watch on legal billing and noted leases before the board are the seventh draft.
"We let the attorneys for the towns develop [the leases] to save our money," Dr. Storm said.
The issue has been contentious for almost two years, with the towns demanding the region agree to complete lists of maintenance and repair items.
Board member and lease committee chairman Jim Hirschfield said the proposed leases obligate the board "to fund the repairs in five years."
The estimate for the work totals about $1.8 million, but that number is being scrutinized by a working committee established by Dr. Storm, who proposed last month the work be bonded and completed in one project outside of the leases.
The goal of the working committee is to have the cost estimates to Dr. Storm by April for presentation to the board, and if approved, eventually to a referendum vote in the region.
Mr. Hirschfield noted if a referendum on repairs passes, then the lease obligation would be eliminated. If there is a vote for consolidation, the repairs would still have to be completed.
He said residents deserve a chance to weigh in the leases, but he's also concerned that the buildings are old and the proposal would not be economical going forward.
The proposed leases require the board to include a minimum $100,000 annually in the budget for the first five years of the leases for primary school repairs as well as up to 0.75 percent of any operating surplus up to 1 percent of the budget.
Member Tony Bedini, who chairs the working committee, predicted "$100,000 isn't going to begin to do the job" and the board would be looking at a "big number" in five years.
Member Irene Allan said it's unacceptable for the board to agree to leases that obligate the board to complete repairs at the expense of educational priorities.
"If we have repairs in the budget, who is going to guarantee those budgets will pass?" she asked. "I think this entire document is misguided."
"I'm not against doing the repairs," Ms. Allan said. "I am against codifying them in a lease."
"We are mixing two really separate issues," said Valerie Andersen. "Where are the dollars coming from to do this in five years with no bond?"
She urged tabling the leases until the board could complete repair estimates, know the results of a bonding referendum for repairs, and know what impact a new Washington Primary School or consolidation in the future would have if 20-year leases are in place.
In years six through 20 of the leases, the region is to guarantee $150,000 in budgets for ongoing maintenance.
Dave Baron, the board's facilities committee chairman and a lease committee member, said the board has averaged more than $150,000 annually in past years on maintenance and repairs.
"It's goofy to say we are tying ourselves up," he said. "We are overdue for this folks. Get on board"¦ it's time to just face this and move forward."
Board chairman Matt Franjola argued lease approval should come before any bond referendum. He said not approving the leases would engender ill will in the towns and there would be no leases in the foreseeable future.
"We have to take care of what has not been done," Mr. Franjola said, adding, in this economy "I think consolidation is doubly dead and renovation is slightly dead."
Others said they support a bond referendum for repairs, but agreed the leases need to go forward as well, that the two issues were not mutually exclusive.
"We can't duck the lease issue," said Mardie Ford, who along with Ed Wainwright and Kelly Lott opposed tabling a vote on the leases.
Mr. Wainwright said shelving the leases when there is agreement with the towns would be seen by the public as not negotiating in good faith. He fears with a budget referendum coming there won't be time for a bonding referendum for repairs.
If the board approves the leases, then they will go to town meetings in the three towns for approval and then to the state for approval.
By Lynda WellmanSTAFF WRITER
Posted: 02/04/2009 07:11:05 PM EST
Proposed primary school leases for town-owned buildings in Region 12 are stalled once again.
Without the 20-year leases, the region can't get state reimbursement for eligible work. It has already forfeited $51,000 for roof work and stands to lose $20,000 for replacing an oil tank.
After more than an hour of debate Monday, the regional Board of Education voted 8-3 to table action on the leases in order to have them reviewed by the board's attorney.
Several members of the regional board that covers Bridgewater, Roxbury and Washington appeared ready to vote and were shocked to learn that a legal review had not occurred.
Asked why, Superintendent Bruce Storm said, "I'm too cheap."
Dr. Storm explained he's keeping a close watch on legal billing and noted leases before the board are the seventh draft.
"We let the attorneys for the towns develop [the leases] to save our money," Dr. Storm said.
The issue has been contentious for almost two years, with the towns demanding the region agree to complete lists of maintenance and repair items.
Board member and lease committee chairman Jim Hirschfield said the proposed leases obligate the board "to fund the repairs in five years."
The estimate for the work totals about $1.8 million, but that number is being scrutinized by a working committee established by Dr. Storm, who proposed last month the work be bonded and completed in one project outside of the leases.
The goal of the working committee is to have the cost estimates to Dr. Storm by April for presentation to the board, and if approved, eventually to a referendum vote in the region.
Mr. Hirschfield noted if a referendum on repairs passes, then the lease obligation would be eliminated. If there is a vote for consolidation, the repairs would still have to be completed.
He said residents deserve a chance to weigh in the leases, but he's also concerned that the buildings are old and the proposal would not be economical going forward.
The proposed leases require the board to include a minimum $100,000 annually in the budget for the first five years of the leases for primary school repairs as well as up to 0.75 percent of any operating surplus up to 1 percent of the budget.
Member Tony Bedini, who chairs the working committee, predicted "$100,000 isn't going to begin to do the job" and the board would be looking at a "big number" in five years.
Member Irene Allan said it's unacceptable for the board to agree to leases that obligate the board to complete repairs at the expense of educational priorities.
"If we have repairs in the budget, who is going to guarantee those budgets will pass?" she asked. "I think this entire document is misguided."
"I'm not against doing the repairs," Ms. Allan said. "I am against codifying them in a lease."
"We are mixing two really separate issues," said Valerie Andersen. "Where are the dollars coming from to do this in five years with no bond?"
She urged tabling the leases until the board could complete repair estimates, know the results of a bonding referendum for repairs, and know what impact a new Washington Primary School or consolidation in the future would have if 20-year leases are in place.
In years six through 20 of the leases, the region is to guarantee $150,000 in budgets for ongoing maintenance.
Dave Baron, the board's facilities committee chairman and a lease committee member, said the board has averaged more than $150,000 annually in past years on maintenance and repairs.
"It's goofy to say we are tying ourselves up," he said. "We are overdue for this folks. Get on board"¦ it's time to just face this and move forward."
Board chairman Matt Franjola argued lease approval should come before any bond referendum. He said not approving the leases would engender ill will in the towns and there would be no leases in the foreseeable future.
"We have to take care of what has not been done," Mr. Franjola said, adding, in this economy "I think consolidation is doubly dead and renovation is slightly dead."
Others said they support a bond referendum for repairs, but agreed the leases need to go forward as well, that the two issues were not mutually exclusive.
"We can't duck the lease issue," said Mardie Ford, who along with Ed Wainwright and Kelly Lott opposed tabling a vote on the leases.
Mr. Wainwright said shelving the leases when there is agreement with the towns would be seen by the public as not negotiating in good faith. He fears with a budget referendum coming there won't be time for a bonding referendum for repairs.
If the board approves the leases, then they will go to town meetings in the three towns for approval and then to the state for approval.
Friday, January 23, 2009
Bridgewater Voter Rights Letter by J Ronan
Bridgewater residents should have voters rights
Newstimes
Updated: 01/21/2009 10:44:31 PM EST
To the Editor:
This is why Judge Pickard's decision on the Region 12 vs. Bridgewater should be reversed on appeal.
It is a "Voters Rights" issue not a "Replacement of Buildings" issue.
The first referendum to form Region 12 in 1967 failed. The towns did not approve the temporary regional school study committee plan.
The committee went back to work and addressed the concerns of the residents by adding the following to the plan:
"Elementary grades K-5 to remain in their present home town schools." The original 1967 approved plan is posted on the District 12 Web site.
The second referendum was worded:
"Shall the town of Bridgewater join with the following named towns of Roxbury, Washington, in the establishment of a regional school district with schools located in the towns of Bridgewater, Roxbury and Washington, for the purpose of providing the necessary facilities and administering grades K through 12 of public schools."
This referendum was approved by the voters in each of the towns as required and Region 12 was established by the state Board of Education.
If the voters in Bridgewater in 1967 knew that a judge could override their vote in 2008 and rule that Region 12 could "Close their local school" or have "No school" in Bridgewater, then they would have voted no.
Judge Pickard used the 1975 legal action brought against District 15 as the basis of his decision.
In this case, District 15 replaced its high school in Southbury with a new building at another site in Southbury.
The old high school became the Middle School and no schools were closed in Southbury or Middlebury.
This is obviously a "Replacement of Buildings" issue and does not fit the situation in Region 12.
Region 12 is a "Voters Rights" issue.
The residents of the town of Bridgewater must have the right to approve the closing of their local school and approve having no school in Bridgewater, as outlined in section 10-47c of the state education department statutes.
Jerry Ronan
Bridgewater
Newstimes
Updated: 01/21/2009 10:44:31 PM EST
To the Editor:
This is why Judge Pickard's decision on the Region 12 vs. Bridgewater should be reversed on appeal.
It is a "Voters Rights" issue not a "Replacement of Buildings" issue.
The first referendum to form Region 12 in 1967 failed. The towns did not approve the temporary regional school study committee plan.
The committee went back to work and addressed the concerns of the residents by adding the following to the plan:
"Elementary grades K-5 to remain in their present home town schools." The original 1967 approved plan is posted on the District 12 Web site.
The second referendum was worded:
"Shall the town of Bridgewater join with the following named towns of Roxbury, Washington, in the establishment of a regional school district with schools located in the towns of Bridgewater, Roxbury and Washington, for the purpose of providing the necessary facilities and administering grades K through 12 of public schools."
This referendum was approved by the voters in each of the towns as required and Region 12 was established by the state Board of Education.
If the voters in Bridgewater in 1967 knew that a judge could override their vote in 2008 and rule that Region 12 could "Close their local school" or have "No school" in Bridgewater, then they would have voted no.
Judge Pickard used the 1975 legal action brought against District 15 as the basis of his decision.
In this case, District 15 replaced its high school in Southbury with a new building at another site in Southbury.
The old high school became the Middle School and no schools were closed in Southbury or Middlebury.
This is obviously a "Replacement of Buildings" issue and does not fit the situation in Region 12.
Region 12 is a "Voters Rights" issue.
The residents of the town of Bridgewater must have the right to approve the closing of their local school and approve having no school in Bridgewater, as outlined in section 10-47c of the state education department statutes.
Jerry Ronan
Bridgewater
Bridgewater Town Appove Added legal Funds
Bridgewater OKs more money for court appeal
By Lynda Wellman
STAFF WRITER
Updated: 01/21/2009 10:43:59 PM EST
Bridgewater residents voted unanimously Tuesday night at a town meeting to add $37,360 to the current budget to continue a state Supreme Court appeal.
In an effort to retain control over the fate of its primary school, last spring Bridgewater appealed Litchfield Superior Court Judge John Pickard's decision in favor of the Region 12 School District that includes Bridgewater, Roxbury and Washington.
Judge Pickard ruled March 3 that a vote on any proposed consolidated primary school is essentially a facility issue. Bridgewater, however, argues it is a matter of voter rights, not a facility issue.
The town argues primary school consolidation is a fundamental change in the decades-old regionalization agreement that kept K-5 schools in each of the region's towns.
"Each individual town has to be able to vote "yes" to change the plan, that's the key thing," Bridgewater First Selectman Bill Stuart said. "Our votes are important to us."
If Judge Pickard's ruling stands, consolidation could be decided by a majority vote of residents of the region as a whole, even if the majority of Bridgewater residents vote against consolidation.
Members of the political action committee "Save Our Schools" urged the town to spend the additional money to pursue the appeal.
Nancy Hawley, the SOS treasurer, said after the vote she was happy with the result since "we are so close to a decision in this case."
"It's been a long battle preserving a small Town's rights," she said, remarking a larger town, such as Washington, should not have the right to determine if the Burnham School in Bridgewater should be closed.
A "very happy" Mr. Stuart said after Tuesday's town meeting vote that with the current economy the idea of building a new school is on hold, but he expects it will be back in the future.
Mr. Stuart said the law firm handling the Supreme Court appeal, Horton Shields & Knox, has agreed to cap its fees at $50,000 since the firm can use the research and preliminary work done by the town's initial appeal attorney, Charles Bauer.
"This will be the end of it," Mr. Stuart told the four dozen residents who attended Tuesday's 10-minute town meeting.
He said the case is expected to be argued before the state Supreme Court sometime this spring, in March or April.
Jen Iannucci, an SOS member, said she was "extremely pleased with the result" that showed "townspeople are behind the appeal."
The town has spent $61,000 on the case -- $19,600 on the Superior Court lawsuit and $41,400 on the appeal as of Dec. 31.
By Lynda Wellman
STAFF WRITER
Updated: 01/21/2009 10:43:59 PM EST
Bridgewater residents voted unanimously Tuesday night at a town meeting to add $37,360 to the current budget to continue a state Supreme Court appeal.
In an effort to retain control over the fate of its primary school, last spring Bridgewater appealed Litchfield Superior Court Judge John Pickard's decision in favor of the Region 12 School District that includes Bridgewater, Roxbury and Washington.
Judge Pickard ruled March 3 that a vote on any proposed consolidated primary school is essentially a facility issue. Bridgewater, however, argues it is a matter of voter rights, not a facility issue.
The town argues primary school consolidation is a fundamental change in the decades-old regionalization agreement that kept K-5 schools in each of the region's towns.
"Each individual town has to be able to vote "yes" to change the plan, that's the key thing," Bridgewater First Selectman Bill Stuart said. "Our votes are important to us."
If Judge Pickard's ruling stands, consolidation could be decided by a majority vote of residents of the region as a whole, even if the majority of Bridgewater residents vote against consolidation.
Members of the political action committee "Save Our Schools" urged the town to spend the additional money to pursue the appeal.
Nancy Hawley, the SOS treasurer, said after the vote she was happy with the result since "we are so close to a decision in this case."
"It's been a long battle preserving a small Town's rights," she said, remarking a larger town, such as Washington, should not have the right to determine if the Burnham School in Bridgewater should be closed.
A "very happy" Mr. Stuart said after Tuesday's town meeting vote that with the current economy the idea of building a new school is on hold, but he expects it will be back in the future.
Mr. Stuart said the law firm handling the Supreme Court appeal, Horton Shields & Knox, has agreed to cap its fees at $50,000 since the firm can use the research and preliminary work done by the town's initial appeal attorney, Charles Bauer.
"This will be the end of it," Mr. Stuart told the four dozen residents who attended Tuesday's 10-minute town meeting.
He said the case is expected to be argued before the state Supreme Court sometime this spring, in March or April.
Jen Iannucci, an SOS member, said she was "extremely pleased with the result" that showed "townspeople are behind the appeal."
The town has spent $61,000 on the case -- $19,600 on the Superior Court lawsuit and $41,400 on the appeal as of Dec. 31.
Thursday, June 12, 2008
Nothing has changed, just the name
Nothing has changed, only the name
Letter to the Editor:
Frank Adams, Valerie Friedman's partner from Washington wrote a letter about Green Schools that I find to be just another tactical angle on how to push their personal agenda of consolidation into Region 12.
First, it was Consolidate for Better Education, then Straight Talk for Tax Payers, and then Shepaug Elementary School Advocates, and now we are looking at what, Region 12 Green School Advocates?
It's all the same people twisting the truth to convince the public to support consolidation. Nothing has changed, just their name.
I agree that we should all have grecn schools and that having green doesn't mean it has to cost more.
Many towns across the country are converting their current buildings to green standards and it would make sense that we make every effort when we renovate our local schools to do so.
It's funny how Mr. Adams states we should get over our small schools to do what is best for our children.
I do have children in Region 12 and I know what is best for them.
It's our small school in the center of our town that should be renovated green.
TheWillow School I am sure is a good role model, so let's use it and see what we can do with what we have.
Building a new 72.000square-foot building when you already have facilities seems
wasteful in and of itself. At the same time, harming wetlands to teach children a lesson seems very contradicting.
Our PTO raises tens of thousands of dollars each year to provide the enrichment programs that meet those needs which give them the best education. We already stand at the top of our class in statewide schools.
Mr. Adam stated, "instead of antiquated buildings stuck in the middle of town, kids and teachers learn in an environment which interacts daily with nature."
Well, my children interact with nature on a daily basis where we live. They run free in the meadow, play in the streams examining the water and plant life and watch eagles soar over the Shepaug.
We live in a magical land in Region .1 2, no need to spend tax dollars recreating it.
When I send my elementary children off to school cach day, I expect they will spend their day learning the fundamental skills of reading, writing and arithmetic.
I want my children to bc proficient readers and mathematical wizards so that when they go to middle school they can begin to apply all of their skills. What they discovered in nature, what they read in a book and what they learned at an environmental enrichment program provided by the PTO and not by tax dollars.
I also agree with Mr. Adams, we should have a win-win situation for our kids and the taxpayers. But having a few people from one large town trying to manipulate and distort the truth of consolidation and what it means to go green will never bring us to the finish line.
It's not shame on Region 12 for not looking into green; it's shame on everyone involved who if these schools had been properly cared for we wouldn't be in this situation.
As Mr. Adams states, "Region 12 deserve better than what is being proposed."
I agree, so stop shoving consolidation down our throats and let's work together to rebuild our schools to be green friendly environments within the center of our towns and set our own example of what we can do with what we already have and recycle, that would be a green thing to do.
Jen Iannucci
Bridgewater
Letter to the Editor:
Frank Adams, Valerie Friedman's partner from Washington wrote a letter about Green Schools that I find to be just another tactical angle on how to push their personal agenda of consolidation into Region 12.
First, it was Consolidate for Better Education, then Straight Talk for Tax Payers, and then Shepaug Elementary School Advocates, and now we are looking at what, Region 12 Green School Advocates?
It's all the same people twisting the truth to convince the public to support consolidation. Nothing has changed, just their name.
I agree that we should all have grecn schools and that having green doesn't mean it has to cost more.
Many towns across the country are converting their current buildings to green standards and it would make sense that we make every effort when we renovate our local schools to do so.
It's funny how Mr. Adams states we should get over our small schools to do what is best for our children.
I do have children in Region 12 and I know what is best for them.
It's our small school in the center of our town that should be renovated green.
TheWillow School I am sure is a good role model, so let's use it and see what we can do with what we have.
Building a new 72.000square-foot building when you already have facilities seems
wasteful in and of itself. At the same time, harming wetlands to teach children a lesson seems very contradicting.
Our PTO raises tens of thousands of dollars each year to provide the enrichment programs that meet those needs which give them the best education. We already stand at the top of our class in statewide schools.
Mr. Adam stated, "instead of antiquated buildings stuck in the middle of town, kids and teachers learn in an environment which interacts daily with nature."
Well, my children interact with nature on a daily basis where we live. They run free in the meadow, play in the streams examining the water and plant life and watch eagles soar over the Shepaug.
We live in a magical land in Region .1 2, no need to spend tax dollars recreating it.
When I send my elementary children off to school cach day, I expect they will spend their day learning the fundamental skills of reading, writing and arithmetic.
I want my children to bc proficient readers and mathematical wizards so that when they go to middle school they can begin to apply all of their skills. What they discovered in nature, what they read in a book and what they learned at an environmental enrichment program provided by the PTO and not by tax dollars.
I also agree with Mr. Adams, we should have a win-win situation for our kids and the taxpayers. But having a few people from one large town trying to manipulate and distort the truth of consolidation and what it means to go green will never bring us to the finish line.
It's not shame on Region 12 for not looking into green; it's shame on everyone involved who if these schools had been properly cared for we wouldn't be in this situation.
As Mr. Adams states, "Region 12 deserve better than what is being proposed."
I agree, so stop shoving consolidation down our throats and let's work together to rebuild our schools to be green friendly environments within the center of our towns and set our own example of what we can do with what we already have and recycle, that would be a green thing to do.
Jen Iannucci
Bridgewater
Friday, May 30, 2008
Region 12 disregrds voters wishes
Region 12 disregards voters' wishes
News-Times Staff
Article Last Updated: 05/29/2008 05:04:12 PM EDT
To the Editor:
"Green schools," those constructed as LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design, a green building rating system), are the direction
desired by the Connecticut state Department of Education for new buildings.
It is outstanding that there are "Green School Advocates" in the town of Washington.
The new construction for the Booth and Burnham proposals are both green LEED.
All of the classrooms and the Media/Computer center, where the students spend most of their time, are planned as new.
Unfortunately, Washington's elementary school would be mostly renovation, and "green" LEED construction becomes impossible. That is why a new school was proposed.
The new Washington elementary school --green LEED proposal -- presented to the town of Washington is a good proposal for a local school, except for the following:
1. The location should be at another site, not Shepaug.
2. The inclusion of $2.5 million for the replacement of the Shepaug septic system.
3. The gym should be reduced from 5,850 square feet to 4,300 square feet.
That would bring the net cost down to $12 million, with the site location to be determined.
This is the plan that the Green School Advocates should be concentrating on instead of pursuing consolidation.
I agree to shame on the Region 12 Board:
1. For not respecting the voters of 1967 who
inserted the term -- "Elementary grades K-5 to
remain in their present home town schools"
before approving the Region formation "Plan."
2. For disregarding the voters of March 2006
who overwhelmingly rejected consolidation again
as they did in 1986 -- Bridgewater, 80 percent;
Roxbury, 65 percent; and Washington, 35
percent.
I also agree to shame on the Region 12 Building Committee:
1. For not completing its work on the proposals presented in a timely manner. Shame also on the Washington leadership for not selecting a final
proposal and then endorsing it as a local school plan for the town of Washington.
2. For missing the June 30, 2008 deadline for the state aid grant.
Since the parents, residents and voters of Roxbury and Bridgewater will not allow their local schools to be closed, the six board members who are pushing consolidation better re-evaluate their thinking because they are pushing Region 12 toward de-regionalization.
Jerry Ronan
Bridgewater
News-Times Staff
Article Last Updated: 05/29/2008 05:04:12 PM EDT
To the Editor:
"Green schools," those constructed as LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design, a green building rating system), are the direction
desired by the Connecticut state Department of Education for new buildings.
It is outstanding that there are "Green School Advocates" in the town of Washington.
The new construction for the Booth and Burnham proposals are both green LEED.
All of the classrooms and the Media/Computer center, where the students spend most of their time, are planned as new.
Unfortunately, Washington's elementary school would be mostly renovation, and "green" LEED construction becomes impossible. That is why a new school was proposed.
The new Washington elementary school --green LEED proposal -- presented to the town of Washington is a good proposal for a local school, except for the following:
1. The location should be at another site, not Shepaug.
2. The inclusion of $2.5 million for the replacement of the Shepaug septic system.
3. The gym should be reduced from 5,850 square feet to 4,300 square feet.
That would bring the net cost down to $12 million, with the site location to be determined.
This is the plan that the Green School Advocates should be concentrating on instead of pursuing consolidation.
I agree to shame on the Region 12 Board:
1. For not respecting the voters of 1967 who
inserted the term -- "Elementary grades K-5 to
remain in their present home town schools"
before approving the Region formation "Plan."
2. For disregarding the voters of March 2006
who overwhelmingly rejected consolidation again
as they did in 1986 -- Bridgewater, 80 percent;
Roxbury, 65 percent; and Washington, 35
percent.
I also agree to shame on the Region 12 Building Committee:
1. For not completing its work on the proposals presented in a timely manner. Shame also on the Washington leadership for not selecting a final
proposal and then endorsing it as a local school plan for the town of Washington.
2. For missing the June 30, 2008 deadline for the state aid grant.
Since the parents, residents and voters of Roxbury and Bridgewater will not allow their local schools to be closed, the six board members who are pushing consolidation better re-evaluate their thinking because they are pushing Region 12 toward de-regionalization.
Jerry Ronan
Bridgewater
De-Regionalization Disturbing
De-regionalization of Region 12 Disturbing,
But May Be A Necessity
It is interesting that Irene Allan, former Chairman of Region 12 BOE, would write a letter calling for reuniting the “Region 12 Community”.
Under her leadership the Board of Education became polarized and relationships with the town officials were seriously damaged. Ms. Allan used questionable tactics to get approval for investing in the Mundy property, first for authorizing the feasibility study and then for the option to purchase the land. Ms. Allan ignored the 2007 building committee recommendation for a thorough study of the consolidated school proposal in order to force a referendum in June 2007.
What Ms. Allan and other BOE reps need to review are the facts:
The “No To Consolidation” votes cast was 80% Bridgewater, 54% in Roxbury and 38% in Washington. This vote was in March of 2006.
The “Yes to Consolidation” votes cast was 15% Bridgewater, 26% Roxbury and 55% Washington.
Roxbury voters in the last BOE election voted by machine vote 2-1 to elect representatives supporting Roxbury’s majority vote of “NO” to Consolidation.
The primary reason to continue local schools is student achievement. There are 20 small town school districts in Connecticut consisting of a total of 31 schools. Comparing the 2006-7 CMT results for all 31 schools, each school was ranked from 1-31 based on the percentage of children achieving the Connecticut goal.
The results:
Burnham 3rd grade ranked 1st in Math, 6th in Reading and 2nd in Writing.
Burnham 4th grade ranked 2nd in Math, 1st in Reading and 1st in Writing.
Booth 3rd grade ranked 4th in Math, 1st in Reading and 3rd in Writing.
Booth 4th grade ranked 1st in Math, 2nd in Reading and 5th in Writing.
Dedicated effective teachers and strong parent involvement are keys to achieving these results. Why would you change anything? Why bus our youngest students farther away from home and their community? It doesn't make sense.
If reuniting the region is really the desire, Ms. Allan and others must honor votes already taken and stop the crusade to close the local schools.
We could then renovate the schools and focus on further improvements to the education process where it is needed.
Sharon Benedict, Ed Wainwright,
Roxbury, Ct. Bridgewater, CT.
But May Be A Necessity
It is interesting that Irene Allan, former Chairman of Region 12 BOE, would write a letter calling for reuniting the “Region 12 Community”.
Under her leadership the Board of Education became polarized and relationships with the town officials were seriously damaged. Ms. Allan used questionable tactics to get approval for investing in the Mundy property, first for authorizing the feasibility study and then for the option to purchase the land. Ms. Allan ignored the 2007 building committee recommendation for a thorough study of the consolidated school proposal in order to force a referendum in June 2007.
What Ms. Allan and other BOE reps need to review are the facts:
The “No To Consolidation” votes cast was 80% Bridgewater, 54% in Roxbury and 38% in Washington. This vote was in March of 2006.
The “Yes to Consolidation” votes cast was 15% Bridgewater, 26% Roxbury and 55% Washington.
Roxbury voters in the last BOE election voted by machine vote 2-1 to elect representatives supporting Roxbury’s majority vote of “NO” to Consolidation.
The primary reason to continue local schools is student achievement. There are 20 small town school districts in Connecticut consisting of a total of 31 schools. Comparing the 2006-7 CMT results for all 31 schools, each school was ranked from 1-31 based on the percentage of children achieving the Connecticut goal.
The results:
Burnham 3rd grade ranked 1st in Math, 6th in Reading and 2nd in Writing.
Burnham 4th grade ranked 2nd in Math, 1st in Reading and 1st in Writing.
Booth 3rd grade ranked 4th in Math, 1st in Reading and 3rd in Writing.
Booth 4th grade ranked 1st in Math, 2nd in Reading and 5th in Writing.
Dedicated effective teachers and strong parent involvement are keys to achieving these results. Why would you change anything? Why bus our youngest students farther away from home and their community? It doesn't make sense.
If reuniting the region is really the desire, Ms. Allan and others must honor votes already taken and stop the crusade to close the local schools.
We could then renovate the schools and focus on further improvements to the education process where it is needed.
Sharon Benedict, Ed Wainwright,
Roxbury, Ct. Bridgewater, CT.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)