The Built-to-suit Proposal for Bridgewater is ready
(Page Down for Detailed Report. Click on each page to enlarge)
The board will soon be updating the education specifications to reflect lower student forecast for the region that was received in February 2007. The current student population in Burnham is 120 students and it is forecast to decline in the coming years. However, the state of CT predicts by 2015-16 the student population in Burnham will be 110 and the newly renovated building may eliminate any drop in enrollment.
Build-to-suit proposal for renovation could support a student population of 145, with class sizes of 25 students per room. The proposed configuration exceeds the current education specification in most functional areas.
As you know the last referendum in June 2006 was defeated at the polls since Washington did not want invest in the schools located in the other regional towns. At that time the net bond cost for the Burnham school after state aid was $9.5 million. The build-to-suit proposal has advantage of not depending on Washington to pay for renovations of the Bridgewater school. It assumes no state aid and therefore does not require the entire building to be renovated to the status of a brand new building. The cost estimate by Oak Park Architects for West Hartford, CT is $7.7 million. The town of Bridgewater would bond this amount over a twenty-year period.
Here is a summary of the features of the Burnham Build-to-Suit proposal.
What is brand new?
6 full sized new classrooms.
A large media center has a computer room for 24 computers.
Fully equipped handicapped bathrooms.
New equipped warming Kitchen is provided.
New Music room is next to the stage.
New storage is convenient to the gym/multi-purpose room.
New rubber sports floor in the gym.
What is old but improved?
The Lobby is larger and has an attractive canopy.
Flat roof in 1920’s and the roof in 1950’s administration and lobby are replaced.
All windows are replaced with energy efficient windows.
All classrooms in 1920’s and 1950’s building are brought to code.
Expanded nurse area is provided next to administration.
Special education space is much larger and instructional storage is improved.
What Infrastructure changes are made?
Both buildings have new fire sprinkling system and new wells are added.
A new larger electric service is provided.
An emergency generator is included.
An additional boiler will be added.
Air conditioning is planned for the whole facility.
Footing drains in the south end of building are installed.
Does it meet education specifications?
The overall space exceeds requirements (107% of SLAM proposal of Feb. 2006).
The square footage for instructional space, administration and special education exceeds the requirements of the 9/15/05 education specifications.
Why does it cost less than SLAM estimated in 2006?
The oldest building is not renovated to a brand new building.
The storage space and boiler room in the basement will not be renovated to new.
The existing gym and stage will be renovated in place.
Realistic site and soft costs are provided.
Can we get state aid?
Yes, if Washington agrees to go with build to suit and commit to the IMA.
Yes, If BOE approves the plan, applies for state aid and legislators get relief.
State aid can come after the project is complete as it did in Kent.
The application for aid can be made earlier.
When can we start?
When the town referendum is passed, the BOE approves the plan and the town has a long-term lease commitment.
The Building Committee of Bridgewater
Saturday, March 24, 2007
Sunday, March 18, 2007
Build to Suit- Viable Option by Shannon Tredennick
"BUILD TO SUIT" IS ABSOLUTELY A VIABLE OPTION
I do not understand why a certain group in Region 12 continue to refer to 'build to suit' as a nonviable option. We only have to look to our neighbors in Region 9-Easton/Redding to see how well it can work. In Region 9 the towns MAINTAIN and run their own schools from Kindergarten through Eighth grade. Each town has their own BOE for the schools in their town. The two towns merge in High School at Joel Barlow where they have their own BOE as well. It does work and it can work if it is given a chance.
The Region 12 BOE has now added a third option-"triple renovation," which seems to be their version of "build to suit." It comes on the heels of the projected enrollment numbers for the next 10 years looking significantly lower that they expected. However, the idea of a regional elementary school in Roxbury is still being pushed forward as a "doable" option.
The Mundy property has significant limitations. It's not technically on the market and there is indication that it will be over priced. If the property does come forth as seemingly affordable, what will it cost to make it buildable? There are wetlands issues, the bridge needing to be built and a very long road to access the wet grounds. The proposed 3 story building is a strange concept for young children who are usually housed in level buildings. Do we have emergency and fire vehicles that can access the building? What about the single access road and the traffic issues that will need to be managed? The proposed parking and playing fields are not adequate due to the wetlands/run off issues, the septic and drainage seem limited. This property is also a know hunting ground, will we need bright orange uniforms? And if we can combat the stray bullets can we keep the tics and mosquitoes at bay? Will Roxbury be willing to approve all of these zoning and wetlands issues, and then ultimately fund it? We can never turn back from consolidation and the costs of it. It would be blind faith to throw away what we have now, that works and risk enormous cost overruns for the proposed single school advocated by a group that has not been completely forthcoming to the public with information.
The consolidators are running ads on educational value and economic savings. They will soon have a difficulty selling a regional elementary school, when the true numbers surface. As for the educational value of one school, the "21st Century" phenomena we keep hearing about.....the majority of the research on regional schools compared to smaller schools indicates that small is far superior to large, particularly for our younger population. In fact, many larger schools break their populations down into small schools within where they can be better managed and educated. Kids in large schools get lost and often don't get their needs met.
Losing our schools would be a tragedy, they are what make our towns so desired. I have spoken to many people about their decision to move here and they've said the small school and it's great reputation was what sold them. More recently, I'm already hearing of people who have considered moving here and backed out of buying when they learned of the potential for a consolidated school, rather than the existing small school.
There should be concern about the negative effects of a consolidation. Bridgewater would be the only town in our region and our state without a school. This will dramatically effect the culture and the economic value of our town, specifically property values. Losing our school would begin a downward spiral toward ending up at the bottom of the list of great small towns. In a recent article in Connecticut Magazine, Bridgewater was named the #2 small town. This proves that local education is a denominator in property value.
It is also important to note, Roxbury would ultimately pay the price for a consolidated school in their back yard. People would want to move where the school is, causing the per pupil percentage in Roxbury to increase as ours decreases. This would shift more of the fiscal burden to Roxbury leaving them to pay a higher percentage to the region. Is Roxbury prepared to carry the burden for Bridgewater and Washington?
If "one" is better, why not merge all three towns to have one Town Market, Post Office, Fire Department and Town Hall.....if saving money is what it's all about why not??? What would our towns be without their cultural and economic centers? Consolidation will negatively effect the economics of our town. This is not "nostalgia," this is fact, with research that stands behind it.
The Region 12 BOE has written in it goals, "The primary purpose of creating a regional school district is to combine the resources of more than one town to gain educational and fiscal advantage by working cooperatively. The Board of Education will continue to foster this cooperative concept as the way in which Bridgewater, Roxbury, Washington, and Region 12 will educate their children." I hope that the BOE can reflect upon it's goals and move forward with honest and fair representation of it's people, to it's people and do what is truly best for all of us, especially our children.
Shannon Tredennick, Bridgewater Resident
I do not understand why a certain group in Region 12 continue to refer to 'build to suit' as a nonviable option. We only have to look to our neighbors in Region 9-Easton/Redding to see how well it can work. In Region 9 the towns MAINTAIN and run their own schools from Kindergarten through Eighth grade. Each town has their own BOE for the schools in their town. The two towns merge in High School at Joel Barlow where they have their own BOE as well. It does work and it can work if it is given a chance.
The Region 12 BOE has now added a third option-"triple renovation," which seems to be their version of "build to suit." It comes on the heels of the projected enrollment numbers for the next 10 years looking significantly lower that they expected. However, the idea of a regional elementary school in Roxbury is still being pushed forward as a "doable" option.
The Mundy property has significant limitations. It's not technically on the market and there is indication that it will be over priced. If the property does come forth as seemingly affordable, what will it cost to make it buildable? There are wetlands issues, the bridge needing to be built and a very long road to access the wet grounds. The proposed 3 story building is a strange concept for young children who are usually housed in level buildings. Do we have emergency and fire vehicles that can access the building? What about the single access road and the traffic issues that will need to be managed? The proposed parking and playing fields are not adequate due to the wetlands/run off issues, the septic and drainage seem limited. This property is also a know hunting ground, will we need bright orange uniforms? And if we can combat the stray bullets can we keep the tics and mosquitoes at bay? Will Roxbury be willing to approve all of these zoning and wetlands issues, and then ultimately fund it? We can never turn back from consolidation and the costs of it. It would be blind faith to throw away what we have now, that works and risk enormous cost overruns for the proposed single school advocated by a group that has not been completely forthcoming to the public with information.
The consolidators are running ads on educational value and economic savings. They will soon have a difficulty selling a regional elementary school, when the true numbers surface. As for the educational value of one school, the "21st Century" phenomena we keep hearing about.....the majority of the research on regional schools compared to smaller schools indicates that small is far superior to large, particularly for our younger population. In fact, many larger schools break their populations down into small schools within where they can be better managed and educated. Kids in large schools get lost and often don't get their needs met.
Losing our schools would be a tragedy, they are what make our towns so desired. I have spoken to many people about their decision to move here and they've said the small school and it's great reputation was what sold them. More recently, I'm already hearing of people who have considered moving here and backed out of buying when they learned of the potential for a consolidated school, rather than the existing small school.
There should be concern about the negative effects of a consolidation. Bridgewater would be the only town in our region and our state without a school. This will dramatically effect the culture and the economic value of our town, specifically property values. Losing our school would begin a downward spiral toward ending up at the bottom of the list of great small towns. In a recent article in Connecticut Magazine, Bridgewater was named the #2 small town. This proves that local education is a denominator in property value.
It is also important to note, Roxbury would ultimately pay the price for a consolidated school in their back yard. People would want to move where the school is, causing the per pupil percentage in Roxbury to increase as ours decreases. This would shift more of the fiscal burden to Roxbury leaving them to pay a higher percentage to the region. Is Roxbury prepared to carry the burden for Bridgewater and Washington?
If "one" is better, why not merge all three towns to have one Town Market, Post Office, Fire Department and Town Hall.....if saving money is what it's all about why not??? What would our towns be without their cultural and economic centers? Consolidation will negatively effect the economics of our town. This is not "nostalgia," this is fact, with research that stands behind it.
The Region 12 BOE has written in it goals, "The primary purpose of creating a regional school district is to combine the resources of more than one town to gain educational and fiscal advantage by working cooperatively. The Board of Education will continue to foster this cooperative concept as the way in which Bridgewater, Roxbury, Washington, and Region 12 will educate their children." I hope that the BOE can reflect upon it's goals and move forward with honest and fair representation of it's people, to it's people and do what is truly best for all of us, especially our children.
Shannon Tredennick, Bridgewater Resident
Saturday, March 17, 2007
Viewpoint for Build to Suit by Ed Tierney of Roxbury
The VIEWPOINT by Ed Tierney
The debate continues concerning the renovation of the existing elementary schools in Washington, Roxbury, and Bridgewater, or building a new Consolidated School on a newly proposed site in Roxbury. My intent is to bring some balance to the argument, because the propaganda that has incessantly been put forth by the consolidators, makes the single school proposal appear like a gift from heaven.
Although some of what follows I have stated in the past, I deem it important enough to bear repeating.
The Region 12 Administration claims that there would be $855,000. estimated annual operational savings in a Consolidated School, and that operating the three schools would add $202,000 In annual cost. These estimates combined add up to an alleged saving of $1.057,000.in the first year of operation. The Administration then projects that total to increase at the rate of 4 ½% over 20 years to a total of $33,159.593. in savings. The consolidators have been quick to grab this projection and use it in their propaganda.
Editors Note: Even Dr Carmelich admitted later, that the savings may for only one year.
However, there are possible costs that are likely to realized at the Consolidated School, such as:
1. An assistant principal
2. Cafeteria workers
3. A second nurse
4. Certainly more than one custodian for 72000 square feet of school.
5. The Administration claims that there will not be a need for more busses.
I question that.
On the other hand , there are possible savings to be realized at the three renovated schools, such as:
1. Energy savings in newly renovated schools
2. Parents to be used as cafeteria workers
3. The need for only one additional custodian.
If and when these additional costs and savings are taken into account, the total savings realized by the Single School choice could conceivably be reduced significantly. However, no matter what the savings turn out to be, they will be absorbed over time. As soon as the Administration adds a new recurring item to the normally increased annual budget, the alleged savings will be reduced by that amount, which will in fact become an expenditure. Such new annual recurring costs might be, for example, an additional teacher at the new Consolidated School or additional new programs at any level.
That reduction in the alleged savings will lower the amount on which the Administration and the Consolidators have applied the factor of 4 ½% (which is high given the inflation rate of about 3%), thereby reducing the annual savings. Furthermore, this addition of new recurring expenditures will continue until the highly touted savings of $1,000,000. will no longer exist. The savings that were predicted to reach a level that would pay for the Consolidated school will never reach that level.
Some will argue that to offset the alleged savings with expenditures on an additional teacher or on new programs will be a good thing. However, the tax savings represented by those alleged savings will also disappear. The Consolidated Elementary School may show an initial operational savings, but the Administration and a Board majority will blow it away in short order.
___________________________
In all the talk by the Consolidators about a new Single School in Roxbury, there is little word about the existing school buildings that will be returned to the Towns in their present state of disrepair. Kaestle-Boos Associates did an investigative study in 2002 for the Board, which enumerates in great detail the extensive repairs needed for these buildings(copies available at the Administration office). Last year Warren Peter, construction manager and owner of CBJ Construction Management, provided an overall estimate of $10,290,066. to completely rehabilitate the three elementary schools.
This estimate included abatement of hazardous materials, repairs, code compliance, and renovations. No matter what is done with these buildings, there will be substantial costs to each Town, even if done in a more economical manner. One cannot claim that because the buildings will no longer be used as schools, that it will not be necessary to do the sorely needed repairs. Incidentally, the Administration used the word “decrepit” in describing the condition of the schools.
Unless there is a benefactor out there somewhere who will donate the funds, there will definitely be an additional cost to the Towns if the Single School is built. This cost, whatever it might be, should be recognized by the Consolidators and should be spoken of in their ads and press releases that they are using to further their cause.
In addition, there will be substantial costs involved just to operate (heat, electric, etc.) and maintain each building---estimated at $50,000.to $60,000.per year for Roxbury and Bridgewater, $75000. for Washington.
___________________________
The location proposed for the new Single school appears to be barely adequate, considering wetlands and rock. Aside from that, however there will be a nightmare of traffic on the Roxbury- Washington road as busses from all three Towns converge on the proposed site. Incidentally, I use that road very often in my travels to and from Washington, and regularly I experience other drivers passing me in “No Passing” zones, sometimes where there are double lines, at speeds of 50-60 miles per hour. And they continue at such speeds until out of sight. There is presently little respect by these persons for our traffic laws, or for other people using that road. The road is narrow in the area of the proposed site, and there is a dangerous curve just north of the site. A good location for a school? I don’t think so!
The proposed site for the Consolidated Elementary School has been shown by the consolidators as centrally located in the Region. however, they have not pointed out that most of the children will have longer distances to travel, and that they, therefore ,will spend longer times on the busses. This is especially true for those children coming from northern Washington, and from southern Roxbury and Bridgewater.
___________________________________
As for the existing elementary school buildings, there is no reason why they cannot be renovated and /or added to as needed on their present sites. If this is not the case, why did SLAM Architects produce plans to renovate and /or add at these sites, plans approved by the Administration and the Board of Education, and taken to a Referendum? It has been alleged that the lower playing field at Booth is wet and mushy. Not true. The Town of Roxbury spent over $50,000.within the past ten years to raise the level of that area, so it is definitely usable. That area was also to be used in SLAM’s recent plans.
The closing of the local elementary schools will be a great loss to the children. There is an intangible and an intrinsic value for the children (especially the very young) in attending their hometown school, to be part of the community, to care about the local environment, and to feel a connection to where they are living. These children will not experience these benefits in a Consolidated School housing 450 students from three Towns.
As a member of Build to Suit, I fully support the three school option. Having lived in Roxbury for 51 years, I am well aware of how much the local school means to the students, the parents, and the townspeople. I ask the Board of Education to live up to the promise that I remember very well, the promise that the local schools would never be closed. Let’s not destroy our Town by building another edifice that we don’t need. Properly renovated, our local school buildings will last indefinitely, not just 20 years.
If our local schools are closed, they will never be reopened as schools. The Towns will have lost something that cannot be replaced. The Towns will no longer be the same.
Ed Tierney, Roxbury
The debate continues concerning the renovation of the existing elementary schools in Washington, Roxbury, and Bridgewater, or building a new Consolidated School on a newly proposed site in Roxbury. My intent is to bring some balance to the argument, because the propaganda that has incessantly been put forth by the consolidators, makes the single school proposal appear like a gift from heaven.
Although some of what follows I have stated in the past, I deem it important enough to bear repeating.
The Region 12 Administration claims that there would be $855,000. estimated annual operational savings in a Consolidated School, and that operating the three schools would add $202,000 In annual cost. These estimates combined add up to an alleged saving of $1.057,000.in the first year of operation. The Administration then projects that total to increase at the rate of 4 ½% over 20 years to a total of $33,159.593. in savings. The consolidators have been quick to grab this projection and use it in their propaganda.
Editors Note: Even Dr Carmelich admitted later, that the savings may for only one year.
However, there are possible costs that are likely to realized at the Consolidated School, such as:
1. An assistant principal
2. Cafeteria workers
3. A second nurse
4. Certainly more than one custodian for 72000 square feet of school.
5. The Administration claims that there will not be a need for more busses.
I question that.
On the other hand , there are possible savings to be realized at the three renovated schools, such as:
1. Energy savings in newly renovated schools
2. Parents to be used as cafeteria workers
3. The need for only one additional custodian.
If and when these additional costs and savings are taken into account, the total savings realized by the Single School choice could conceivably be reduced significantly. However, no matter what the savings turn out to be, they will be absorbed over time. As soon as the Administration adds a new recurring item to the normally increased annual budget, the alleged savings will be reduced by that amount, which will in fact become an expenditure. Such new annual recurring costs might be, for example, an additional teacher at the new Consolidated School or additional new programs at any level.
That reduction in the alleged savings will lower the amount on which the Administration and the Consolidators have applied the factor of 4 ½% (which is high given the inflation rate of about 3%), thereby reducing the annual savings. Furthermore, this addition of new recurring expenditures will continue until the highly touted savings of $1,000,000. will no longer exist. The savings that were predicted to reach a level that would pay for the Consolidated school will never reach that level.
Some will argue that to offset the alleged savings with expenditures on an additional teacher or on new programs will be a good thing. However, the tax savings represented by those alleged savings will also disappear. The Consolidated Elementary School may show an initial operational savings, but the Administration and a Board majority will blow it away in short order.
___________________________
In all the talk by the Consolidators about a new Single School in Roxbury, there is little word about the existing school buildings that will be returned to the Towns in their present state of disrepair. Kaestle-Boos Associates did an investigative study in 2002 for the Board, which enumerates in great detail the extensive repairs needed for these buildings(copies available at the Administration office). Last year Warren Peter, construction manager and owner of CBJ Construction Management, provided an overall estimate of $10,290,066. to completely rehabilitate the three elementary schools.
This estimate included abatement of hazardous materials, repairs, code compliance, and renovations. No matter what is done with these buildings, there will be substantial costs to each Town, even if done in a more economical manner. One cannot claim that because the buildings will no longer be used as schools, that it will not be necessary to do the sorely needed repairs. Incidentally, the Administration used the word “decrepit” in describing the condition of the schools.
Unless there is a benefactor out there somewhere who will donate the funds, there will definitely be an additional cost to the Towns if the Single School is built. This cost, whatever it might be, should be recognized by the Consolidators and should be spoken of in their ads and press releases that they are using to further their cause.
In addition, there will be substantial costs involved just to operate (heat, electric, etc.) and maintain each building---estimated at $50,000.to $60,000.per year for Roxbury and Bridgewater, $75000. for Washington.
___________________________
The location proposed for the new Single school appears to be barely adequate, considering wetlands and rock. Aside from that, however there will be a nightmare of traffic on the Roxbury- Washington road as busses from all three Towns converge on the proposed site. Incidentally, I use that road very often in my travels to and from Washington, and regularly I experience other drivers passing me in “No Passing” zones, sometimes where there are double lines, at speeds of 50-60 miles per hour. And they continue at such speeds until out of sight. There is presently little respect by these persons for our traffic laws, or for other people using that road. The road is narrow in the area of the proposed site, and there is a dangerous curve just north of the site. A good location for a school? I don’t think so!
The proposed site for the Consolidated Elementary School has been shown by the consolidators as centrally located in the Region. however, they have not pointed out that most of the children will have longer distances to travel, and that they, therefore ,will spend longer times on the busses. This is especially true for those children coming from northern Washington, and from southern Roxbury and Bridgewater.
___________________________________
As for the existing elementary school buildings, there is no reason why they cannot be renovated and /or added to as needed on their present sites. If this is not the case, why did SLAM Architects produce plans to renovate and /or add at these sites, plans approved by the Administration and the Board of Education, and taken to a Referendum? It has been alleged that the lower playing field at Booth is wet and mushy. Not true. The Town of Roxbury spent over $50,000.within the past ten years to raise the level of that area, so it is definitely usable. That area was also to be used in SLAM’s recent plans.
The closing of the local elementary schools will be a great loss to the children. There is an intangible and an intrinsic value for the children (especially the very young) in attending their hometown school, to be part of the community, to care about the local environment, and to feel a connection to where they are living. These children will not experience these benefits in a Consolidated School housing 450 students from three Towns.
As a member of Build to Suit, I fully support the three school option. Having lived in Roxbury for 51 years, I am well aware of how much the local school means to the students, the parents, and the townspeople. I ask the Board of Education to live up to the promise that I remember very well, the promise that the local schools would never be closed. Let’s not destroy our Town by building another edifice that we don’t need. Properly renovated, our local school buildings will last indefinitely, not just 20 years.
If our local schools are closed, they will never be reopened as schools. The Towns will have lost something that cannot be replaced. The Towns will no longer be the same.
Ed Tierney, Roxbury
Friday, March 16, 2007
Smaller is Better by Sandy Krin of Roxbury
Why Smaller is Better
Dear Editor,
A compelling body of research shows that when students are part of smaller and more intimate learning communities, they are more successful. . Retaining the Region 12 school buildings is not the issue, retaining the education the children receive in them is.
There are those who will say that large schools are more efficient and more economical to build and run. They assume they offer a broader range of course offerings and a wider variety of extra-curricular activities. They claim to provide students with more opportunities for specialization and with more special services. As Education World states despite their reputed fiscal inefficiencies and curricular deficiencies, small schools can provide a solid -- even better -- education for all students. SMALLER IS BETTER! The Chicago Task Force on Small Schools characterizes "small schools" in the following way: They are small, with enrollments of less than 300 for elementary schools. They consist of like-minded teachers and families. They are sufficiently autonomous to control key curricular, budgetary, personnel, organizational, and student decisions. They have an agreed-upon focus or theme. They are inclusive, rather than selective. They are effective in preparing and graduating students. These individual schools provide significant advantages over larger consolidated schools in a number of important areas. Those areas include:
· Personalization: Perhaps the most important characteristic of small schools is the personal relationships established between teachers and students. In small schools, teachers are closely involved with each student. They know who the students are and in such an environment, it's harder for a student to fall through the cracks. In small schools, students lose their anonymity and have to produce.
· Climate: In small schools, teachers and students know one another personally. Such knowledge fosters a sense of community and promotes a climate of mutual respect. The result is fewer discipline problems and an environment that's tolerant, caring, and safe.
· Student Achievement: Smaller classes at smaller schools promote improved pupil performance. Common expectations are clearly communicated, home-school relationships are close and supportive, and the evaluation system frequently includes parents, students, teachers, and staff.
· Morale: In small schools, both teachers and students often have a more active role in decision-making and, therefore, a greater sense of belonging and community. Greater teacher empowerment elicits stronger school affiliation, more effort, and stronger commitment to the school and to the students. Empowered students are more academically productive and more likely to participate in school events and activities.
Many researchers now believe that the disadvantages ascribed to small schools may be more perceived than real. Though these smaller schools have somewhat higher costs per student, their much higher graduation rates and lower dropout rates produce among the lowest costs per graduate. Regarding the argument that big schools can offer more comprehensive programs, researchers have found that "it takes a lot of bigness to add a little variety. On average, a 100 percent increase in enrollment yields only a 17 percent increase in variety of offerings." (Pittman and Haughwout).
Furthermore, studies show that only five to twelve percent of the students in large schools avail themselves of those extra courses and activities. (McGuire 1989; Monk 1992; Rogers 1987) School consolidation is an outdated idea whose time has come and gone. Extra programs are not a replacement for the basics of reading, writing and arithmetic. Region 12 needs to support and foster the small intimate education we already have.
Sandy Krin, Roxbury CT
Dear Editor,
A compelling body of research shows that when students are part of smaller and more intimate learning communities, they are more successful. . Retaining the Region 12 school buildings is not the issue, retaining the education the children receive in them is.
There are those who will say that large schools are more efficient and more economical to build and run. They assume they offer a broader range of course offerings and a wider variety of extra-curricular activities. They claim to provide students with more opportunities for specialization and with more special services. As Education World states despite their reputed fiscal inefficiencies and curricular deficiencies, small schools can provide a solid -- even better -- education for all students. SMALLER IS BETTER! The Chicago Task Force on Small Schools characterizes "small schools" in the following way: They are small, with enrollments of less than 300 for elementary schools. They consist of like-minded teachers and families. They are sufficiently autonomous to control key curricular, budgetary, personnel, organizational, and student decisions. They have an agreed-upon focus or theme. They are inclusive, rather than selective. They are effective in preparing and graduating students. These individual schools provide significant advantages over larger consolidated schools in a number of important areas. Those areas include:
· Personalization: Perhaps the most important characteristic of small schools is the personal relationships established between teachers and students. In small schools, teachers are closely involved with each student. They know who the students are and in such an environment, it's harder for a student to fall through the cracks. In small schools, students lose their anonymity and have to produce.
· Climate: In small schools, teachers and students know one another personally. Such knowledge fosters a sense of community and promotes a climate of mutual respect. The result is fewer discipline problems and an environment that's tolerant, caring, and safe.
· Student Achievement: Smaller classes at smaller schools promote improved pupil performance. Common expectations are clearly communicated, home-school relationships are close and supportive, and the evaluation system frequently includes parents, students, teachers, and staff.
· Morale: In small schools, both teachers and students often have a more active role in decision-making and, therefore, a greater sense of belonging and community. Greater teacher empowerment elicits stronger school affiliation, more effort, and stronger commitment to the school and to the students. Empowered students are more academically productive and more likely to participate in school events and activities.
Many researchers now believe that the disadvantages ascribed to small schools may be more perceived than real. Though these smaller schools have somewhat higher costs per student, their much higher graduation rates and lower dropout rates produce among the lowest costs per graduate. Regarding the argument that big schools can offer more comprehensive programs, researchers have found that "it takes a lot of bigness to add a little variety. On average, a 100 percent increase in enrollment yields only a 17 percent increase in variety of offerings." (Pittman and Haughwout).
Furthermore, studies show that only five to twelve percent of the students in large schools avail themselves of those extra courses and activities. (McGuire 1989; Monk 1992; Rogers 1987) School consolidation is an outdated idea whose time has come and gone. Extra programs are not a replacement for the basics of reading, writing and arithmetic. Region 12 needs to support and foster the small intimate education we already have.
Sandy Krin, Roxbury CT
Roxbury Site Concerns for Children by Alice Page
Attention Citizens of Washington
I would like to alert you to the consequences we will face if the consolidated Elementary School is voted in. Washington has the most to lose since we have the most students and their parents will have the farthest distance to travel – 45 minutes one way in 50 percent of the cases. We also happen to have the best elementary school building and field space in the district. ----------- As well as the central location for a neighborhood school. Washington Primary also provides facilities for Middle School Sports, Girl Scout Meetings etc. One further cost will be in our property depreciation if we lose our neighborhood schools and local businesses will also be affected.
I would also like to bring to your attention the S/L/A/M Collaborative Report presented to the Board of Education and reported in the February 8 Voices Weekender. This article includes the archcitural site plan for the Roxbury location.
First of all the building is designed for 451 students. This will be a larger enrollment then at Shepaugh H.S., located on a far smaller site, and a much smaller building. (71959 sq feet) Please remember we are dealing with primary school children.
Another detail is the multi use field, it is only 140 x 220 feet. This is smaller than a soccer field. Besides the size, this field and the playground are surrounded by parking lots and the driveway.
Another important detail is the building has three floor levels. The ground level will have all the core services – Administration, Health and the social Worker’s office, Cafeteria Auditorium , Gymnastics, Art, Music and the Media/Computer Centers plus Classrooms for Kindergarten and First Grade. The top level will house 4th and 5th grades and the bottom level the 2nd and 3rd grades. Can you imagine the traffic and confusion.
One further requirement: Daily Physical Education being presented as a federal bill. Regardless if it passes or not, it is important, and with enrollment of over 400 students, it will be necessary to provide two P.E. Teaching Stations both outdoors and indoors.
Where and how can all of this be accomplished on a 20 acre building site in a space of 72,000 sq. feet?
Larry Engel said it well in the March 9th Spectrum View Points: “A small neighborhood School forsters cultural lessons of volunteerism, democracy, tolerance and self-determination”. "It also permits children to be recognized as individuals rather that faceless numbers who won’t fall in between the cracks.”
Alice Page
New Preston
I would like to alert you to the consequences we will face if the consolidated Elementary School is voted in. Washington has the most to lose since we have the most students and their parents will have the farthest distance to travel – 45 minutes one way in 50 percent of the cases. We also happen to have the best elementary school building and field space in the district. ----------- As well as the central location for a neighborhood school. Washington Primary also provides facilities for Middle School Sports, Girl Scout Meetings etc. One further cost will be in our property depreciation if we lose our neighborhood schools and local businesses will also be affected.
I would also like to bring to your attention the S/L/A/M Collaborative Report presented to the Board of Education and reported in the February 8 Voices Weekender. This article includes the archcitural site plan for the Roxbury location.
First of all the building is designed for 451 students. This will be a larger enrollment then at Shepaugh H.S., located on a far smaller site, and a much smaller building. (71959 sq feet) Please remember we are dealing with primary school children.
Another detail is the multi use field, it is only 140 x 220 feet. This is smaller than a soccer field. Besides the size, this field and the playground are surrounded by parking lots and the driveway.
Another important detail is the building has three floor levels. The ground level will have all the core services – Administration, Health and the social Worker’s office, Cafeteria Auditorium , Gymnastics, Art, Music and the Media/Computer Centers plus Classrooms for Kindergarten and First Grade. The top level will house 4th and 5th grades and the bottom level the 2nd and 3rd grades. Can you imagine the traffic and confusion.
One further requirement: Daily Physical Education being presented as a federal bill. Regardless if it passes or not, it is important, and with enrollment of over 400 students, it will be necessary to provide two P.E. Teaching Stations both outdoors and indoors.
Where and how can all of this be accomplished on a 20 acre building site in a space of 72,000 sq. feet?
Larry Engel said it well in the March 9th Spectrum View Points: “A small neighborhood School forsters cultural lessons of volunteerism, democracy, tolerance and self-determination”. "It also permits children to be recognized as individuals rather that faceless numbers who won’t fall in between the cracks.”
Alice Page
New Preston
Wednesday, March 7, 2007
Letter to the Editor Shepaug vs Roxbury
Consolidated Comparison –Shepaug vs Roxbury Site
In February 2006 the proposal by SLAM for the consolidated school at Shepaug had a Total cost of $29,805,436 including $2,500,000 to upgrade the High School septic system. The total for the Roxbury site this time is $27,365,840 without the cost of the land.
A preliminary comparison of the two SLAM proposals indicates some significant changes. The septic system at Shepaug was budgeted at $1.5 Mil, while at the Roxbury site it is only $647,000. The most interesting fact is the drop in construction costs from $209 to $180 per square foot that is a 14% reduction. In contrast, when trying to save $4 Mil in June 2006, SLAM raised the new construction cost from $200 to $250 or 25%. The renovation cost went from $165 to $200 or 21%. The subsequent savings went from $4 Mil to less than $2 Mil and the referendum failed.
How can new construction go down 14% in 2007?
Is the $180 per Sq Ft believable?
Observations:
At Shepaug_______ In Roxbury
Open level areas ___Woods and rock ledge
Road in exists_____ New road required
Enter parking lot___ New Bridge over the Wetlands
Septic under track__ Septic built over rock ledge
Design unrestricted_ Must be 3 stories, 1 in basement
Reviewed by BC___ Presented to Board only
No Zoning review __ Zoning review mandatory
No Wetlands review_Wetlands clearance required
No land purchase___ Binding contract advisable
________________3 story elevator
I am an electrical estimator for a firm that prepares conceptual construction budgets for Architects engaged in the design of public and private schools. The current average cost for a new school is $200.00/sq. ft. to $250.00/sq.ft. It would seem highly unlikely that the consolidated school on the Roxbury site could be built for $180.00/sq.ft.
It is rumored there is currently a difference of over $1.5 Million between the BOE appraiser’s value of the land and the price set by the seller.
You can make your own judgment as to whether a consolidated school can be built cheaper in Roxbury than at Shepaug.
For more information, please visit http://www.buildtosuitnow.com/
Page. Westervelt
Roxbury, CT
In February 2006 the proposal by SLAM for the consolidated school at Shepaug had a Total cost of $29,805,436 including $2,500,000 to upgrade the High School septic system. The total for the Roxbury site this time is $27,365,840 without the cost of the land.
A preliminary comparison of the two SLAM proposals indicates some significant changes. The septic system at Shepaug was budgeted at $1.5 Mil, while at the Roxbury site it is only $647,000. The most interesting fact is the drop in construction costs from $209 to $180 per square foot that is a 14% reduction. In contrast, when trying to save $4 Mil in June 2006, SLAM raised the new construction cost from $200 to $250 or 25%. The renovation cost went from $165 to $200 or 21%. The subsequent savings went from $4 Mil to less than $2 Mil and the referendum failed.
How can new construction go down 14% in 2007?
Is the $180 per Sq Ft believable?
Observations:
At Shepaug_______ In Roxbury
Open level areas ___Woods and rock ledge
Road in exists_____ New road required
Enter parking lot___ New Bridge over the Wetlands
Septic under track__ Septic built over rock ledge
Design unrestricted_ Must be 3 stories, 1 in basement
Reviewed by BC___ Presented to Board only
No Zoning review __ Zoning review mandatory
No Wetlands review_Wetlands clearance required
No land purchase___ Binding contract advisable
________________3 story elevator
I am an electrical estimator for a firm that prepares conceptual construction budgets for Architects engaged in the design of public and private schools. The current average cost for a new school is $200.00/sq. ft. to $250.00/sq.ft. It would seem highly unlikely that the consolidated school on the Roxbury site could be built for $180.00/sq.ft.
It is rumored there is currently a difference of over $1.5 Million between the BOE appraiser’s value of the land and the price set by the seller.
You can make your own judgment as to whether a consolidated school can be built cheaper in Roxbury than at Shepaug.
For more information, please visit http://www.buildtosuitnow.com/
Page. Westervelt
Roxbury, CT
Monday, March 5, 2007
Consolidated Supporter E mails-Unsure about Site
Roxbury Site May be Unsuitable
There were are approximately a dozen emails between supporters of a consolidated school and
Irene Allen (Chairperson, Region 12 BOE)
Gary Lord (Roxbury Board of Finance, "Private Citizen" and professionally involved in the land purchase as Agent by email)
Wayne Piskura (Roxbury Board of Finance, "Private Citizen", Owner of Tierney Realty and professionally involved in the land purchase as Broker by email)
Richard Carmelich (Ex-Superintendent Region 12) among others.
These emails are regarding the BOE chosen site for a consolidated school on Route 199 & Waklee Rd. It appears even the supporters are unsure of the reasonability of this site.
1. An email from Irene Allen to Kemp Morhardt of S.L.A.M. is cause for concern.
" Heads up on the Roxbury property. As far as I know, it's the bow and arrow season now and rifle season comes soon. Mention to your people to keep an eye out & make noise".
It appears we may have to send our children to school in red coats and air horns at this time of year.
2. Another email that disturbs me is the one to Irene Allen from Wayne Piskura:
"I was very disappointed with the limitations of the site. I think it gives a lot of fodder to our opponents...."
3. An Email from Wayne Piskura to Gary Lord:
" I'm very concerned about the public perception on this. I'm still standing but my knees are weak".
4. An Email from Wayne Piskura to Gary Lord:
"...the 4-1/2 acres is smaller than Booth. True and not true...".
Even if it were a little more than Booth, we are talking about 400+ students on a site not much larger than Booth Free School, which is by BOE standards too small for 130+/-.
It Sounds like fuzzy math.
5. Gary Lord to Irene Allen and Kevin Herrick from S.L.A.M.
"...just to make you aware of his outlook regarding the 4.5 usable acreage concept. Hopefully we can somehow make it sound better".
It sounds desperate.
If I were considering moving from my present residence to build a home (school) on a site with this many limitations, I would sensibly reconsider. From what I read this just does not seem to be the right site for our needs.
It would seem to me that using our current school sites is the right thing to do.
From several Roxbury residents at February BOF meeting.
There were are approximately a dozen emails between supporters of a consolidated school and
Irene Allen (Chairperson, Region 12 BOE)
Gary Lord (Roxbury Board of Finance, "Private Citizen" and professionally involved in the land purchase as Agent by email)
Wayne Piskura (Roxbury Board of Finance, "Private Citizen", Owner of Tierney Realty and professionally involved in the land purchase as Broker by email)
Richard Carmelich (Ex-Superintendent Region 12) among others.
These emails are regarding the BOE chosen site for a consolidated school on Route 199 & Waklee Rd. It appears even the supporters are unsure of the reasonability of this site.
1. An email from Irene Allen to Kemp Morhardt of S.L.A.M. is cause for concern.
" Heads up on the Roxbury property. As far as I know, it's the bow and arrow season now and rifle season comes soon. Mention to your people to keep an eye out & make noise".
It appears we may have to send our children to school in red coats and air horns at this time of year.
2. Another email that disturbs me is the one to Irene Allen from Wayne Piskura:
"I was very disappointed with the limitations of the site. I think it gives a lot of fodder to our opponents...."
3. An Email from Wayne Piskura to Gary Lord:
" I'm very concerned about the public perception on this. I'm still standing but my knees are weak".
4. An Email from Wayne Piskura to Gary Lord:
"...the 4-1/2 acres is smaller than Booth. True and not true...".
Even if it were a little more than Booth, we are talking about 400+ students on a site not much larger than Booth Free School, which is by BOE standards too small for 130+/-.
It Sounds like fuzzy math.
5. Gary Lord to Irene Allen and Kevin Herrick from S.L.A.M.
"...just to make you aware of his outlook regarding the 4.5 usable acreage concept. Hopefully we can somehow make it sound better".
It sounds desperate.
If I were considering moving from my present residence to build a home (school) on a site with this many limitations, I would sensibly reconsider. From what I read this just does not seem to be the right site for our needs.
It would seem to me that using our current school sites is the right thing to do.
From several Roxbury residents at February BOF meeting.
Parent Research Shows Smaller is Better
AN INVESTMENT IN OUR CHILDREN
I have been waiting for some shred of concrete evidence to justify the concept that a consolidated school would better serve my children. For a while, I firmly believed that if those who supported consolidation could produce some research that indicated my children would be better off academically and socially AND it would ultimately cost me less I would have no trouble supporting the concept. Looks pretty, costs less and its better for my kids…seems like a no-brainer….
To date, all I have read about from the “Consolidation Advocates” is that a big new beautiful school would better prepare our young children for the 21st century. OK, how? Our former Superintendent of Schools claims that a big new school would enable our teachers to “collaborate” more frequently. And how might this “sharing of responsibility and ideas” benefit my children? Like every parent, there is nothing more important to me than ensuring my children receive the very best educational experience possible
Feeling like I didn’t have enough information on the “consolidated approach” to make a fair judgment, I embarked on a research effort of my own. The only thing I have succeeded in doing is to convince myself completely that I want to see our region’s elementary schools renovated. I give you the following information to support this opinion:
“The relationship between small schools and positive education outcomes has been confirmed with a clarity and at a level of confidence rare in the annals of education research”. Mary Anne Raywid of Hofstra University came to this conclusion after reviewing more than 100 studies on school size and the effects of consolidation.
In 1997 the State of Vermont conducted a study of small schools with the majority of legislators intending to close them (small being fewer than 100 students). Instead of consolidating these small schools the legislature voted to provide additional funding to cover the higher costs sighting they are “worth the investment because of the value they add to student learning and community cohesion”.
According to the U.S. Department of Education, “A higher percentage of students across all socioeconomic levels, are successful when they are part of smaller more intimate learning communities….security improves, violence decreases as does student alcohol and drug abuse”.
“For decades research has shown that children learn well and often better in a small school environment. Further, the research indicates that violence and behavior problems diminish, attendance is higher and extracurricular participation increases. “One study concluded “While impersonal bigness may actually provoke disruptive behavior, small schools conducive to trust and respect tend to defuse it. “
“Student achievement is influenced much more by caliber of instruction than by number of courses offered”. “A 1996 analysis of 103 research documents concluded that achievement in small schools is at least equal and often superior to that in large schools. No study found large-school achievement superior”
Please, don’t take my word on this. Do the research yourself. There is endless information available on the failure of consolidated schools but nothing on the success of such an effort. Will we have a “Consolidation Failure” story on our hands? Like so many others, I am tired of this debate. Region 12 faces an enormous expenditure no matter how you look at it. I don’t like to pay more for something if I don’t have to BUT when it comes to the education of our children, I refuse to be cheap. Our children are worth the investment. Just fix the schools we already have…seems like a no-brainer.
Nancy Hawley
Bridgewater
Check these Web sites for more information.
Subject: class size
http://www.wested.org/policy/pubs/full_text/pb_ft_csr23.htm
http://www.osba.org/hotopics/classize/index.htm
http://www.ed.gov/pubs/ReducingClass/Class_size.html
17 or less results -------------- The Students kids are 1 month ahead in K
-------------- They are 2 months ahead by 2nd grade
22 with one teacher ----------- The Students are behind
22 with one teacher and aid ----They are still behind
This was a controlled experiment in TN over a 4 year period
The big emphasis in the education community is to reduce class size(CSR) but not in District 12.
I have been waiting for some shred of concrete evidence to justify the concept that a consolidated school would better serve my children. For a while, I firmly believed that if those who supported consolidation could produce some research that indicated my children would be better off academically and socially AND it would ultimately cost me less I would have no trouble supporting the concept. Looks pretty, costs less and its better for my kids…seems like a no-brainer….
To date, all I have read about from the “Consolidation Advocates” is that a big new beautiful school would better prepare our young children for the 21st century. OK, how? Our former Superintendent of Schools claims that a big new school would enable our teachers to “collaborate” more frequently. And how might this “sharing of responsibility and ideas” benefit my children? Like every parent, there is nothing more important to me than ensuring my children receive the very best educational experience possible
Feeling like I didn’t have enough information on the “consolidated approach” to make a fair judgment, I embarked on a research effort of my own. The only thing I have succeeded in doing is to convince myself completely that I want to see our region’s elementary schools renovated. I give you the following information to support this opinion:
“The relationship between small schools and positive education outcomes has been confirmed with a clarity and at a level of confidence rare in the annals of education research”. Mary Anne Raywid of Hofstra University came to this conclusion after reviewing more than 100 studies on school size and the effects of consolidation.
In 1997 the State of Vermont conducted a study of small schools with the majority of legislators intending to close them (small being fewer than 100 students). Instead of consolidating these small schools the legislature voted to provide additional funding to cover the higher costs sighting they are “worth the investment because of the value they add to student learning and community cohesion”.
According to the U.S. Department of Education, “A higher percentage of students across all socioeconomic levels, are successful when they are part of smaller more intimate learning communities….security improves, violence decreases as does student alcohol and drug abuse”.
“For decades research has shown that children learn well and often better in a small school environment. Further, the research indicates that violence and behavior problems diminish, attendance is higher and extracurricular participation increases. “One study concluded “While impersonal bigness may actually provoke disruptive behavior, small schools conducive to trust and respect tend to defuse it. “
“Student achievement is influenced much more by caliber of instruction than by number of courses offered”. “A 1996 analysis of 103 research documents concluded that achievement in small schools is at least equal and often superior to that in large schools. No study found large-school achievement superior”
Please, don’t take my word on this. Do the research yourself. There is endless information available on the failure of consolidated schools but nothing on the success of such an effort. Will we have a “Consolidation Failure” story on our hands? Like so many others, I am tired of this debate. Region 12 faces an enormous expenditure no matter how you look at it. I don’t like to pay more for something if I don’t have to BUT when it comes to the education of our children, I refuse to be cheap. Our children are worth the investment. Just fix the schools we already have…seems like a no-brainer.
Nancy Hawley
Bridgewater
Check these Web sites for more information.
Subject: class size
http://www.wested.org/policy/pubs/full_text/pb_ft_csr23.htm
http://www.osba.org/hotopics/classize/index.htm
http://www.ed.gov/pubs/ReducingClass/Class_size.html
17 or less results -------------- The Students kids are 1 month ahead in K
-------------- They are 2 months ahead by 2nd grade
22 with one teacher ----------- The Students are behind
22 with one teacher and aid ----They are still behind
This was a controlled experiment in TN over a 4 year period
The big emphasis in the education community is to reduce class size(CSR) but not in District 12.
Sunday, March 4, 2007
Consolidation Shepaug vs Roxbury Sites Costs
Consolidated Comparison March 3, 2007
Elementary School
GSF 71,960
New Construction..At Shepaug..In Roxbury..Difference
Shepaug $209 Sq Ft_$15,061,689
Roxbury $180 Sq Ft__________ $12,962,966__($2,098,723)
Site costs_________$2,100,000__$2,832,748____$732,748
Building site work______________$405,093____$405,093
Septic system_____$1,500,000___$646,632____($853,368)
Septic-Shepaug HS_$2,500,000____________($2,500,000)
Land cost________________________________________
Sub Total______$6,100,000__$3,884,473_($2,215,527)
Tot Const_____$21,161,689_$16,847,439_($4,314,250)
Soft costs________$4,183,070___$5,919,406___$1,736,336
Total Project__$25,344,759_$22,766,845_($2,577,914)
Escalation________$3,193,438___$2,527,116____($666,322)
Contingency_______$1,267,239___$2,071,879____$804,640
Total Costs___$29,805,436_$27,365,840_($2,439,596)
State aid_________$8,777,852__$7,227,373___($1,550,479)
Net Cost______21,027,584_$20,138,467___($889,117)
Elementary School
GSF 71,960
New Construction..At Shepaug..In Roxbury..Difference
Shepaug $209 Sq Ft_$15,061,689
Roxbury $180 Sq Ft__________ $12,962,966__($2,098,723)
Site costs_________$2,100,000__$2,832,748____$732,748
Building site work______________$405,093____$405,093
Septic system_____$1,500,000___$646,632____($853,368)
Septic-Shepaug HS_$2,500,000____________($2,500,000)
Land cost________________________________________
Sub Total______$6,100,000__$3,884,473_($2,215,527)
Tot Const_____$21,161,689_$16,847,439_($4,314,250)
Soft costs________$4,183,070___$5,919,406___$1,736,336
Total Project__$25,344,759_$22,766,845_($2,577,914)
Escalation________$3,193,438___$2,527,116____($666,322)
Contingency_______$1,267,239___$2,071,879____$804,640
Total Costs___$29,805,436_$27,365,840_($2,439,596)
State aid_________$8,777,852__$7,227,373___($1,550,479)
Net Cost______21,027,584_$20,138,467___($889,117)
Building Sub Committee Delayed Action Jan 8,2007
THE DISTRICT 12 BOARD – BUILDING SUB COMMITTEE
After the failed referendum in June 2006, Mardie Ford, Ed Wainwright and Jerry Ronan met with David Wedge of the State Aid Grant Department in early August. We concluded from that meeting that State Aid would be very difficult to get in the normal way. The State Representatives would probably have to prepare special legislation to obtain funding. A proposal for the Burnham School was prepared with less renovation costs and without state aid. This proposal was presented to the Superintendent, Dr Carmelich in late August and subsequently to the Board on September 11, 2006. The Chair of the BOE, Irene Allan insisted on referring the Burnham and another Booth proposal to a special Building Sub Committee Chaired by Gary Steinman and established that night to “Compare the Proposals to the Education Specifications for Spatial needs”. Gary selected three other members of the building committee to serve with him. On their own they expanded the review scope to include a review of budgeted costs. Two meetings were held and although repeatedly asked for a report, none was issued until January 8, 2007.
Kevin McQueen gave the verbal report to the Board and quite correctly addressed only the spatial comparison requested by the Board. The actual written report to the Board included many budget and cost comments that were inappropriate.
The Following E mails happened after the meeting of January 8, 2007:
-----Original Message-----From: GRONAN0137@aol.com [mailto:GRONAN0137@aol.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2007 3:12 PMTo: KEVINMCQUEEN@ARCHT-DESIGN.COM; STEINMANG@REGION-12.ORGCc: ERWAINWRIGHT@SBCGLOBAL.NETSubject: Your Sub BC Report last night
Hi Kevin,
The last sentence of your report last night indicated there are 4 areas that failed to meet the Education Specs.
Area................ Current... Proposed ...Ed Spec... Short
Health Rm.......... 155............ 391.......... 500........ 109
This area was increased by two and one half times.
Media/Tech...... 1136........ 1600......... 1952........ 352
This area was increased by over 40%
Kitchen................. 0.............. 832......... 1200........... *
*The SLAM plan in June called for use of the old kindergarten and that 832 ft was accepted.
We assume these are correct assumptions and will address these problems.
You show a line for Support Services of 4300 Sq Ft on your schedule for Ed Specs. Please provide the detail of that number as soon as possible.
We note that the total of your Ed Spec column adds to 21,112 NSF. This means the GSF is 31,668. This is more than the first Master plan referendum of 31,077 GSF and the second referendum of 29,077 GSF.
Our proposal shows 29,148 GSF which is higher than the last submission to the voters.
We do feel that we can make the necessary changes within our current proposal.
Look forward to hearing from you soon.
Jerry
Gary, -----------------Forwarded Message:
Subj:
RE: Your Sub BC Report last night
Date:
1/10/2007 8:18:04 A.M. Eastern Standard Time
From:
garysteinman@charter.net
To:
GRONAN0137@aol.com
CC:
ERWAINWRIGHT@SBCGLOBAL.NET, KEVINMCQUEEN@ARCHT-DESIGN.COM, andrewkotas@sbcglobal.net, irenka@charter.net, dbaron@baronengraving.com, CPAVJA@aol.com, alan@brown.org
Sent from the Internet (Details)
Jerry – Andrew Kotas of the Subcommittee, who analyzed conformance to space program specifications, has addressed your questions, as follows:
Page C-5-2 of the master plan item 10 support services section a is 4100 existing plus the additional 200 mentioned in section b = 4300 total under support services.
The handout received from Ed/Jerry (10/3/06) lists a NSF of 19,432. I do not believe that I have seen anything with the numbers that Jerry mentions.
My recommendation at this point is that you not make an effort to resubmit your proposal with revisions to the space program.
First, to be meaningful, there would have to be full disclosure of your budget at a more detailed level and sufficient basis for it to evaluate the budgets accuracy and implications. Further, the proposal would need to address the full range of educational specifications, not just the space program.
Second, we have entered a 6 to 7 week period during which the feasibility and acceptability of build-to-suit as a concept will be determined. If that is the route to be taken, then proposals such as yours would need to be submitted to architects hired by the Towns for further evaluation and possibly development before any evaluation by the Board would take place. If B2S is not the route forward, the BOE will proceed with a full Building Committee and its own architects who, together, would need to evaluate any incoming conceptual proposals.
Gary
Final E Mail To Gary
Gary,
The purpose of this E mail is to encourage you to correct the Sub Committee report that was handed out at the Board meeting on January 8, 2007. Kevin Mc Queen properly addressed only the spatial comparison to the Education Specs during his presentation to the board, but your Report included many other items.
At the BOE meeting of September 11,2006 your "Sub Building Committee" was formed to compare the Bridgewater and Roxbury renovation Proposals to the Education Specifications. The Memo dated September 14, 2005 by Dr Carmelich is the Ed Specs document that should have been used by your committee for your review.
The following numbers are from the Slam Report and are not Ed Specs.
4100 is the basement (Mechanical/Storage)
200 Custodian
The Referendum in June had the Gym remaining at 2795 Sq Ft (NSF) and the Kitchen at 832 Sq Ft (NSF). We intend to use these room sizes as agreed to by the Board of Education in June 2006.
The request for 500 Sq Ft (NSF) for the Heath Room and 2000 Sq Ft (NSF) for the Media Center has been referred for evaluation to our Architect.
OakPark Architects, LLC of West Hartford has been hired by the Town to estimate detailed costs for this proposal. Their Design team has toured the Burnham School on January 15, 2007 for the start of the Feasibility Study.
All of the comments that you made in your report about costs and budgets are premature at this time. You can make an appropriate review of the proposal's cost estimates when the architect's estimate is produced and presented. The proposal outlines a renovation of the School that is less than "renovate to new" but far more than "renovate to code". Stating that the project is underfunded is not constructive.
I have asked Dr Carmelich twice to have Administrative representation on our Building committee and have been turned down. We are disappointed in not having this important input during the formulation of our proposal for the board of education's consideration.
In August 2006, Mardie Ford and I met with Dr Carmelich and discussed the room sizes in our Proposal. We expected a two week Administrative review with suggestions for some changes. What we got was a Building Sub Committee, and delay of four months. You should modify your report.
Jerry
No action has been taken to correct this Sub Committee report!
After the failed referendum in June 2006, Mardie Ford, Ed Wainwright and Jerry Ronan met with David Wedge of the State Aid Grant Department in early August. We concluded from that meeting that State Aid would be very difficult to get in the normal way. The State Representatives would probably have to prepare special legislation to obtain funding. A proposal for the Burnham School was prepared with less renovation costs and without state aid. This proposal was presented to the Superintendent, Dr Carmelich in late August and subsequently to the Board on September 11, 2006. The Chair of the BOE, Irene Allan insisted on referring the Burnham and another Booth proposal to a special Building Sub Committee Chaired by Gary Steinman and established that night to “Compare the Proposals to the Education Specifications for Spatial needs”. Gary selected three other members of the building committee to serve with him. On their own they expanded the review scope to include a review of budgeted costs. Two meetings were held and although repeatedly asked for a report, none was issued until January 8, 2007.
Kevin McQueen gave the verbal report to the Board and quite correctly addressed only the spatial comparison requested by the Board. The actual written report to the Board included many budget and cost comments that were inappropriate.
The Following E mails happened after the meeting of January 8, 2007:
-----Original Message-----From: GRONAN0137@aol.com [mailto:GRONAN0137@aol.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2007 3:12 PMTo: KEVINMCQUEEN@ARCHT-DESIGN.COM; STEINMANG@REGION-12.ORGCc: ERWAINWRIGHT@SBCGLOBAL.NETSubject: Your Sub BC Report last night
Hi Kevin,
The last sentence of your report last night indicated there are 4 areas that failed to meet the Education Specs.
Area................ Current... Proposed ...Ed Spec... Short
Health Rm.......... 155............ 391.......... 500........ 109
This area was increased by two and one half times.
Media/Tech...... 1136........ 1600......... 1952........ 352
This area was increased by over 40%
Kitchen................. 0.............. 832......... 1200........... *
*The SLAM plan in June called for use of the old kindergarten and that 832 ft was accepted.
We assume these are correct assumptions and will address these problems.
You show a line for Support Services of 4300 Sq Ft on your schedule for Ed Specs. Please provide the detail of that number as soon as possible.
We note that the total of your Ed Spec column adds to 21,112 NSF. This means the GSF is 31,668. This is more than the first Master plan referendum of 31,077 GSF and the second referendum of 29,077 GSF.
Our proposal shows 29,148 GSF which is higher than the last submission to the voters.
We do feel that we can make the necessary changes within our current proposal.
Look forward to hearing from you soon.
Jerry
Gary, -----------------Forwarded Message:
Subj:
RE: Your Sub BC Report last night
Date:
1/10/2007 8:18:04 A.M. Eastern Standard Time
From:
garysteinman@charter.net
To:
GRONAN0137@aol.com
CC:
ERWAINWRIGHT@SBCGLOBAL.NET, KEVINMCQUEEN@ARCHT-DESIGN.COM, andrewkotas@sbcglobal.net, irenka@charter.net, dbaron@baronengraving.com, CPAVJA@aol.com, alan@brown.org
Sent from the Internet (Details)
Jerry – Andrew Kotas of the Subcommittee, who analyzed conformance to space program specifications, has addressed your questions, as follows:
Page C-5-2 of the master plan item 10 support services section a is 4100 existing plus the additional 200 mentioned in section b = 4300 total under support services.
The handout received from Ed/Jerry (10/3/06) lists a NSF of 19,432. I do not believe that I have seen anything with the numbers that Jerry mentions.
My recommendation at this point is that you not make an effort to resubmit your proposal with revisions to the space program.
First, to be meaningful, there would have to be full disclosure of your budget at a more detailed level and sufficient basis for it to evaluate the budgets accuracy and implications. Further, the proposal would need to address the full range of educational specifications, not just the space program.
Second, we have entered a 6 to 7 week period during which the feasibility and acceptability of build-to-suit as a concept will be determined. If that is the route to be taken, then proposals such as yours would need to be submitted to architects hired by the Towns for further evaluation and possibly development before any evaluation by the Board would take place. If B2S is not the route forward, the BOE will proceed with a full Building Committee and its own architects who, together, would need to evaluate any incoming conceptual proposals.
Gary
Final E Mail To Gary
Gary,
The purpose of this E mail is to encourage you to correct the Sub Committee report that was handed out at the Board meeting on January 8, 2007. Kevin Mc Queen properly addressed only the spatial comparison to the Education Specs during his presentation to the board, but your Report included many other items.
At the BOE meeting of September 11,2006 your "Sub Building Committee" was formed to compare the Bridgewater and Roxbury renovation Proposals to the Education Specifications. The Memo dated September 14, 2005 by Dr Carmelich is the Ed Specs document that should have been used by your committee for your review.
The following numbers are from the Slam Report and are not Ed Specs.
4100 is the basement (Mechanical/Storage)
200 Custodian
The Referendum in June had the Gym remaining at 2795 Sq Ft (NSF) and the Kitchen at 832 Sq Ft (NSF). We intend to use these room sizes as agreed to by the Board of Education in June 2006.
The request for 500 Sq Ft (NSF) for the Heath Room and 2000 Sq Ft (NSF) for the Media Center has been referred for evaluation to our Architect.
OakPark Architects, LLC of West Hartford has been hired by the Town to estimate detailed costs for this proposal. Their Design team has toured the Burnham School on January 15, 2007 for the start of the Feasibility Study.
All of the comments that you made in your report about costs and budgets are premature at this time. You can make an appropriate review of the proposal's cost estimates when the architect's estimate is produced and presented. The proposal outlines a renovation of the School that is less than "renovate to new" but far more than "renovate to code". Stating that the project is underfunded is not constructive.
I have asked Dr Carmelich twice to have Administrative representation on our Building committee and have been turned down. We are disappointed in not having this important input during the formulation of our proposal for the board of education's consideration.
In August 2006, Mardie Ford and I met with Dr Carmelich and discussed the room sizes in our Proposal. We expected a two week Administrative review with suggestions for some changes. What we got was a Building Sub Committee, and delay of four months. You should modify your report.
Jerry
No action has been taken to correct this Sub Committee report!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)