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