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.
Saturday, May 17, 2008
Green School Advocates
'Green' School Advocates - (Consolidators)
To the Editor: Voices May 18, 2008
If you were fortunate to attend last week's presentation on Green Schools, sponsored by the Washington Environmental Council, you saw firsthand what is possible for a new "green" elementary school in Region 12.
The Willow School is a role model, and it can be a reality in Region 12. What will it take to make it happen?
First and foremost, the three towns in Region 12 have to get over their small-town mindset and do what is best for the elementary school kids and the environment.
The Willow School is built on 17 acres, of which one third is wetlands; these wetlands provide a natural habitat that adds to the learning experience for the
kids.
Instead of antiquated buildings stuck in the middle of town, kids and teachers learn in an environment which interacts daily with nature.
"Green" construction costs no more than conventional; buildings are designed to last 100 years, are virtually maintenance-free, with a 70% savings in fuel and other operating costs. Better for the environment, the kids, and the taxpayers, this is a win-win.
Instead, the Region 12 Building Committee is pursuing cheap renovation plans that offer no educational enhancements, no improvements to the learning environment and even higher operating costs.
In an attempt to keep construction costs as low as possible, they are all too willing to compromise the plans.
Shame on the Region 12 Board, the Region 12 Building Committee and the leadership of the three towns for not insisting on a new "green" elementary
school for the 21st century.
The 385 elementary school kids in Region 12 deserve better than what is being proposed.
Frank Adams
Washington CT
To the Editor: Voices May 18, 2008
If you were fortunate to attend last week's presentation on Green Schools, sponsored by the Washington Environmental Council, you saw firsthand what is possible for a new "green" elementary school in Region 12.
The Willow School is a role model, and it can be a reality in Region 12. What will it take to make it happen?
First and foremost, the three towns in Region 12 have to get over their small-town mindset and do what is best for the elementary school kids and the environment.
The Willow School is built on 17 acres, of which one third is wetlands; these wetlands provide a natural habitat that adds to the learning experience for the
kids.
Instead of antiquated buildings stuck in the middle of town, kids and teachers learn in an environment which interacts daily with nature.
"Green" construction costs no more than conventional; buildings are designed to last 100 years, are virtually maintenance-free, with a 70% savings in fuel and other operating costs. Better for the environment, the kids, and the taxpayers, this is a win-win.
Instead, the Region 12 Building Committee is pursuing cheap renovation plans that offer no educational enhancements, no improvements to the learning environment and even higher operating costs.
In an attempt to keep construction costs as low as possible, they are all too willing to compromise the plans.
Shame on the Region 12 Board, the Region 12 Building Committee and the leadership of the three towns for not insisting on a new "green" elementary
school for the 21st century.
The 385 elementary school kids in Region 12 deserve better than what is being proposed.
Frank Adams
Washington CT
Friday, May 16, 2008
Education is more important than buildings
Education is more important than buildings
NewsTimes.com
Article Last Updated: 05/16/2008 09:34:33 AM EDT
To the Editor:
Region 12 has endured countless difficulties as it tries to resolve problems with its elementary facilities.
It's been a great opportunity to be a "life-long learner," something Region 12's students are taught to become.
It's been frustrating, time consuming and corrosive. For those who care deeply about the education of our children, finding a solution to this thorny matter is worth the effort.
Concentrating on excellent education, rather than wetlands and reimbursement, will be a welcome relief.
Bridgewater's Town Meeting recommending exploring de-regionalization is more disturbing than any building issue yet.
School regions form to share resources. Some local autonomy is given up. That's a worthwhile trade for towns as small as ours.
Our daughter started kindergarten 20 years ago, my husband served one term on the Board of Ed from 1991-1995; I'm a board member since 1997.
There have been conundrums, crises and calamities, but many more resounding triumphs. Prior to the buildings' debacle, this three-town school region got along very well.
We solved our differences, then gathered at games and functions and congratulated each other on what great kids we have. We took pride in our schools. What town we lived in didn't much matter. Our kids are the only people left with a grasp on the ideal of teamwork.
The "D-word" is phenomenally time consuming, expensive, and intentionally difficult to achieve by law. The ultimate losers will be our children. Their education is bound to suffer.
How can we consider even partly dissolving what has been a successful district for 40 years over buildings? Cure worse than disease; tail wags dog.
We should convene a forum on how to reunite the Region 12 community. Use our resources to make it better, instead of rip it apart.
Buildings are just buildings. We must save our children's education.
Irene Allan
Washington CT
Blog Editor Notes:
1. The most important "difficulty" the Region 12 board has had is understanding that 80% of Bridgewater, 65% of Roxbury and 35% of Washinton voters said "No"
to consolidation in 2006. This means don't "close" our local schools.
2. Those who "care deeply " about education will review the elementary student achievement on the CMT scores for 2006/07 and find that current progam is excelling.
3. Giving up "some autonomy" does not mean "closing" the local school. If keeping the Burnham school "open" requires de-regionalization, then that will undoubtedly happen.
4. Being a board member since 1997 indicates being in a third term. It is time for the board to set "term limits". The maximum should be two (2) terms or eight (8) years.
NewsTimes.com
Article Last Updated: 05/16/2008 09:34:33 AM EDT
To the Editor:
Region 12 has endured countless difficulties as it tries to resolve problems with its elementary facilities.
It's been a great opportunity to be a "life-long learner," something Region 12's students are taught to become.
It's been frustrating, time consuming and corrosive. For those who care deeply about the education of our children, finding a solution to this thorny matter is worth the effort.
Concentrating on excellent education, rather than wetlands and reimbursement, will be a welcome relief.
Bridgewater's Town Meeting recommending exploring de-regionalization is more disturbing than any building issue yet.
School regions form to share resources. Some local autonomy is given up. That's a worthwhile trade for towns as small as ours.
Our daughter started kindergarten 20 years ago, my husband served one term on the Board of Ed from 1991-1995; I'm a board member since 1997.
There have been conundrums, crises and calamities, but many more resounding triumphs. Prior to the buildings' debacle, this three-town school region got along very well.
We solved our differences, then gathered at games and functions and congratulated each other on what great kids we have. We took pride in our schools. What town we lived in didn't much matter. Our kids are the only people left with a grasp on the ideal of teamwork.
The "D-word" is phenomenally time consuming, expensive, and intentionally difficult to achieve by law. The ultimate losers will be our children. Their education is bound to suffer.
How can we consider even partly dissolving what has been a successful district for 40 years over buildings? Cure worse than disease; tail wags dog.
We should convene a forum on how to reunite the Region 12 community. Use our resources to make it better, instead of rip it apart.
Buildings are just buildings. We must save our children's education.
Irene Allan
Washington CT
Blog Editor Notes:
1. The most important "difficulty" the Region 12 board has had is understanding that 80% of Bridgewater, 65% of Roxbury and 35% of Washinton voters said "No"
to consolidation in 2006. This means don't "close" our local schools.
2. Those who "care deeply " about education will review the elementary student achievement on the CMT scores for 2006/07 and find that current progam is excelling.
3. Giving up "some autonomy" does not mean "closing" the local school. If keeping the Burnham school "open" requires de-regionalization, then that will undoubtedly happen.
4. Being a board member since 1997 indicates being in a third term. It is time for the board to set "term limits". The maximum should be two (2) terms or eight (8) years.
Thursday, March 27, 2008
New WPS at Shepaug - Presentation by SLAM
03/22/2008
Plan for New WPS Shown to Citizens
By: Ann Compton
Note: SLAM is the "Consolidation Architect" and the "attendees" below that are consolidators are shown in "RED" Is there conflict of interest? Where are the parents of the students in WPS. Why are they not attending?
WASHINGTON - Roughly 50 residents filled Bryan Memorial Town Hall Wednesday, March 19, to hear a conceptual plan for a new Washington Primary School on the Shepaug campus.
Town residents will be asked to choose between this plan and one to renovate the existing WPS in the Depot at a town meeting at 7:30 p.m. Thursday, April 3.
One of these two plans will be implemented if Region 12, consisting of Bridgewater, Roxbury and Washington, opts to stay with three individual primary schools in each town rather than build a consolidated regional school.
The report, prepared by the S/L/A/M Collaborative and presented by Kevin Herrick, details a 41,000 square-foot building on the existing field hockey area of the Shepaug campus, which is owned by Region 12 and located within the Washington town boundary. The Gym is oversized at 5,850 Sq Ft. It sholuld be the same as Booth 4,300 Sq Ft. This is an easy compromise.
First Selectman Mark Lyon explained that the Shepaug site was chosen for the purpose of exploring the potential cost of a brand new school. The Board of Selectmen commissioned the Shepaug study after one was completed to renovate the existing WPS.
Discussion and questions from members of the public focused on comparison between the Shepaug plan and one to renovate the existing Washington Primary School located in the Depot within the 100-year flood plain, which virtually excludes such a project from most, if not all, state reimbursement.
Most residents at the meeting expressed support for a plan that would build a new, energy-efficient school over one to renovate an old, problem-laden, existing building.
A preliminary estimate on the renovation of the existing WPS is $13.1 million plus roughly $500,000 in additional costs. According to Mr. Herrick, a new, LEED-certified elementary school would cost the region around $15 million after state reimbursement, with a total cost before reimbursement of $18.8 million. The net of $15 million is $4 million higher than the WPS renovation and would be unacceptable to Bridgewater and Roxbury because it makes the total too high for the voters.
Since this would be a new building, Mr. Herrick said all costs would be eligible for state reimbursement at a discounted rate because of the small enrollment number.
Under that formula, 60 percent of the total 41,000 square-foot project's cost would be eligible for reimbursement, some $3.7 million.
Mr. Lyon explained that the Shepaug site was chosen for the purpose of exploring the potential cost of a brand new school and, if necessary, other sites could be considered. The Net proposal should be for $12 million after the removal of the HS/MS Septic and reduction of the Gym size with the site "to be determined".
He noted that $2.5 million is built into the conceptual plan budget for septic work that could be put toward the purchase of a new site if the Shepaug site is not used. This is not possible! If Washington wants a different site, it must pay for the land from town funds. Removing this from the proposal is an easy compromise.
Resident Peter Tagley pointed out that Shepaug was considered several years ago as a location for a consolidated primary school.
"That didn't go over well in many towns," he said. "Shepaug parents weren't happy with having another school on the grounds."
Mr. Tagley questioned whether the town of Washington or Region 12 would own the school. Presently, the elementary schools in Bridgewater, Roxbury and Washington are owned by the towns and leased to the region.
Mr. Lyon replied that it is his assumption that a school built by the region on land owned by the region would belong to the region.
"That would be just fine; then I wouldn't have to go to lease negotiation meetings," he observed, referring to the ongoing and, so far, unsuccessful efforts to negotiate 20-year leases between the three towns and Region 12.
Despite Mr. Lyon's efforts to hold the discussion to a single primary school for Washington, the subject of consolidation continued to rear its head.
Most agreed any discussion on schools was incomplete without a comparison between which is a better option: three elementary schools in each town or one regional school for all.
This brought up the issue of costs.
Region 12 Building Committee member Jay Hubelbank noted that renovating three schools to new would cost millions more than the cost of building one regional school.
A recent report by CREC said that limited renovation of the three schools will cost nearly $6 million more than a consolidated Region 12 school.
A renovate-to-new plan for the three schools will run nearly $8 million more, according to Chris Charles of the Region 12 Building Committee.
Valerie Friedman pointed out that consolidation offers the opportunity to pay less money for maintenance and more on education.
"Three aging schools is three that need constant work," she stressed, adding that in an effort to keep costs to a figure taxpayers would accept, "corners have been cut right and left."
Carlos Canal questioned whether discussion of a new school for Washington might derail plans for a consolidated school - a concern to those who favor one regional school for all three towns.
Board of Education member Valerie Andersen responded that it could "cause the consolidated vote to become more confused than it is already."
A number of residents asked what the town would do with the current WPS if a new one is built.
Mr. Lyon said a committee has been formed to complete a preliminary investigation of that question and will begin meeting this week.
Mr. Canal asked whether Washington can decide if it wants to renovate or build new, or if that is a decision made by the region.
Board of Education member James Hirschfield said it is the town's choice which of the two plans to present to the region, although the final determination would be made by the region.
"There is some urgency to this, however," Mr. Hirschfield said. "The town must make a decision soon which plan it wants to put forward. You can't ask the [Region 12] Building Committee to consider both."
Mr. Lyon promised that an answer and the town's plan choice would be presented to the regional Building Committee following the upcoming town meeting on April 3 in Bryan Memorial Town Hall.
Plan for New WPS Shown to Citizens
By: Ann Compton
Note: SLAM is the "Consolidation Architect" and the "attendees" below that are consolidators are shown in "RED" Is there conflict of interest? Where are the parents of the students in WPS. Why are they not attending?
WASHINGTON - Roughly 50 residents filled Bryan Memorial Town Hall Wednesday, March 19, to hear a conceptual plan for a new Washington Primary School on the Shepaug campus.
Town residents will be asked to choose between this plan and one to renovate the existing WPS in the Depot at a town meeting at 7:30 p.m. Thursday, April 3.
One of these two plans will be implemented if Region 12, consisting of Bridgewater, Roxbury and Washington, opts to stay with three individual primary schools in each town rather than build a consolidated regional school.
The report, prepared by the S/L/A/M Collaborative and presented by Kevin Herrick, details a 41,000 square-foot building on the existing field hockey area of the Shepaug campus, which is owned by Region 12 and located within the Washington town boundary. The Gym is oversized at 5,850 Sq Ft. It sholuld be the same as Booth 4,300 Sq Ft. This is an easy compromise.
First Selectman Mark Lyon explained that the Shepaug site was chosen for the purpose of exploring the potential cost of a brand new school. The Board of Selectmen commissioned the Shepaug study after one was completed to renovate the existing WPS.
Discussion and questions from members of the public focused on comparison between the Shepaug plan and one to renovate the existing Washington Primary School located in the Depot within the 100-year flood plain, which virtually excludes such a project from most, if not all, state reimbursement.
Most residents at the meeting expressed support for a plan that would build a new, energy-efficient school over one to renovate an old, problem-laden, existing building.
A preliminary estimate on the renovation of the existing WPS is $13.1 million plus roughly $500,000 in additional costs. According to Mr. Herrick, a new, LEED-certified elementary school would cost the region around $15 million after state reimbursement, with a total cost before reimbursement of $18.8 million. The net of $15 million is $4 million higher than the WPS renovation and would be unacceptable to Bridgewater and Roxbury because it makes the total too high for the voters.
Since this would be a new building, Mr. Herrick said all costs would be eligible for state reimbursement at a discounted rate because of the small enrollment number.
Under that formula, 60 percent of the total 41,000 square-foot project's cost would be eligible for reimbursement, some $3.7 million.
Mr. Lyon explained that the Shepaug site was chosen for the purpose of exploring the potential cost of a brand new school and, if necessary, other sites could be considered. The Net proposal should be for $12 million after the removal of the HS/MS Septic and reduction of the Gym size with the site "to be determined".
He noted that $2.5 million is built into the conceptual plan budget for septic work that could be put toward the purchase of a new site if the Shepaug site is not used. This is not possible! If Washington wants a different site, it must pay for the land from town funds. Removing this from the proposal is an easy compromise.
Resident Peter Tagley pointed out that Shepaug was considered several years ago as a location for a consolidated primary school.
"That didn't go over well in many towns," he said. "Shepaug parents weren't happy with having another school on the grounds."
Mr. Tagley questioned whether the town of Washington or Region 12 would own the school. Presently, the elementary schools in Bridgewater, Roxbury and Washington are owned by the towns and leased to the region.
Mr. Lyon replied that it is his assumption that a school built by the region on land owned by the region would belong to the region.
"That would be just fine; then I wouldn't have to go to lease negotiation meetings," he observed, referring to the ongoing and, so far, unsuccessful efforts to negotiate 20-year leases between the three towns and Region 12.
Despite Mr. Lyon's efforts to hold the discussion to a single primary school for Washington, the subject of consolidation continued to rear its head.
Most agreed any discussion on schools was incomplete without a comparison between which is a better option: three elementary schools in each town or one regional school for all.
This brought up the issue of costs.
Region 12 Building Committee member Jay Hubelbank noted that renovating three schools to new would cost millions more than the cost of building one regional school.
A recent report by CREC said that limited renovation of the three schools will cost nearly $6 million more than a consolidated Region 12 school.
A renovate-to-new plan for the three schools will run nearly $8 million more, according to Chris Charles of the Region 12 Building Committee.
Valerie Friedman pointed out that consolidation offers the opportunity to pay less money for maintenance and more on education.
"Three aging schools is three that need constant work," she stressed, adding that in an effort to keep costs to a figure taxpayers would accept, "corners have been cut right and left."
Carlos Canal questioned whether discussion of a new school for Washington might derail plans for a consolidated school - a concern to those who favor one regional school for all three towns.
Board of Education member Valerie Andersen responded that it could "cause the consolidated vote to become more confused than it is already."
A number of residents asked what the town would do with the current WPS if a new one is built.
Mr. Lyon said a committee has been formed to complete a preliminary investigation of that question and will begin meeting this week.
Mr. Canal asked whether Washington can decide if it wants to renovate or build new, or if that is a decision made by the region.
Board of Education member James Hirschfield said it is the town's choice which of the two plans to present to the region, although the final determination would be made by the region.
"There is some urgency to this, however," Mr. Hirschfield said. "The town must make a decision soon which plan it wants to put forward. You can't ask the [Region 12] Building Committee to consider both."
Mr. Lyon promised that an answer and the town's plan choice would be presented to the regional Building Committee following the upcoming town meeting on April 3 in Bryan Memorial Town Hall.
Saturday, March 15, 2008
WPS New School by SLAM 3/15/08
03/15/2008
Additional Public Meeting March 19 Conceptual Plan Presented for New Primary School on Shepaug Campus:
By: Ann Compton
S/L/A/M Collaborative representative Kevin Herrick presented a conceptual report for a new Washington Primary School on the Shepaug campus to a handful of people at a meeting Tuesday, March 11, in Washington.
WASHINGTON - S/L/A/M Collaborative representative Kevin Herrick presented a conceptual report for a new Washington Primary School on the Shepaug campus to a handful of people at a meeting Tuesday, March 11.
The presentation will be repeated at a public information meeting at 7:30 p.m. Wednesday, March 19, in Bryan Memorial Town Hall.
The Board of Selectmen commissioned the study after one was completed to renovate the existing Washington Primary School in Washington Depot.
The selectmen and a number of residents have questioned the wisdom and the cost of renovating a building located in the flood plain.
First Selectman Mark Lyon explained that the Shepaug site was chosen for the purpose of exploring the potential cost of a brand new school.
According to Mr. Herrick's report, the site, owned by the town, is quite feasible for a building to educate the town's elementary students, at slightly more money than renovating the existing WPS.
A preliminary estimate on the renovation of the existing WPS is between $13 million and $16 million.
According to Mr. Herrick, a new, LEED-certified elementary school would cost the region around $15 million after state reimbursement, with the total cost before reimbursement $18.8 million.
The conceptual plan is based on current enrollment calculations, allowing for an average of 20 children per class and a total enrollment of roughly 200 students, although the school's capacity could hold up to 294.
Each classroom is projected at 845 square feet, with kindergarten rooms at 1000 square feet. The building includes a 5600-square foot multi-purpose room, which Mr. Herrick referred to as a "cafetorium."
This would serve for both lunch and gym. A separate full-service kitchen is planned as well.
A media center and library is shown at 1800 square feet, with music, band and stage space at 1100 square feet.
Much discussion about this site has centered around the septic capacity on the Shepaug campus. S/L/A/M has built $2.5 million into the proposed budget for upgrading or replacing the existing septic system for the new facility.
Mr. Herrick described several innovative waste water management systems that are available and suggested if this plan were to go forward that they be considered.
The cost of septic investigation, which he recommends, would run between $15,000 and $30,000.
Since this would be a new building, Mr. Herrick said all costs would be eligible for state reimbursement at a discounted rate because of the small enrollment number.
Under that formula, 60 percent of the total 41,000 square-foot project cost would be eligible for reimbursement, or $3.7 million of the $18.8 million project.
The conceptual plan places the school on the Shepaug campus near the old baseball field in the field hockey area. The field hockey area could be turned, which would provide the additional benefit of not facing east/west, said Mr. Herrick.
Extra parking has been factored in, along with access routes. Mr. Herrick noted that due to the staggered class times in elementary, middle and high school hours, traffic should flow easily with minimal impact.
The new school would be certified at the LEED Silver level. LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) is the nationally accepted standard for the design, construction and operation of high-performance "green" buildings.
"The advantage of a new facility," observed Mr. Herrick, "is that you are not shuffling kids around while it's being built. They can stay where they are until it's complete.
"There are two facilities that can absorb an increase in the population, plus it's not a stretch to increase the population in the new one."
The conceptual plan allows for expansion, if needed, of a new school.
Mr. Lyon, in attendance with Selectman James Brinton and former Selectman Richard Sears, had hoped to obtain input at Tuesday's meeting on the Shepaug plan from other members of the town's Building Committee, but most were at another Board of Education meeting that evening.
Only one member of the committee was able to attend, along with one Washington member of the school board. Mr. Lyon plans to consult with the Building Committee members prior to next week's public information meeting.
Following the public information meeting and depending on the input the selectmen receive there, the plan will next be presented to the Region 12 Building Committee.
Additional Public Meeting March 19 Conceptual Plan Presented for New Primary School on Shepaug Campus:
By: Ann Compton
S/L/A/M Collaborative representative Kevin Herrick presented a conceptual report for a new Washington Primary School on the Shepaug campus to a handful of people at a meeting Tuesday, March 11, in Washington.
WASHINGTON - S/L/A/M Collaborative representative Kevin Herrick presented a conceptual report for a new Washington Primary School on the Shepaug campus to a handful of people at a meeting Tuesday, March 11.
The presentation will be repeated at a public information meeting at 7:30 p.m. Wednesday, March 19, in Bryan Memorial Town Hall.
The Board of Selectmen commissioned the study after one was completed to renovate the existing Washington Primary School in Washington Depot.
The selectmen and a number of residents have questioned the wisdom and the cost of renovating a building located in the flood plain.
First Selectman Mark Lyon explained that the Shepaug site was chosen for the purpose of exploring the potential cost of a brand new school.
According to Mr. Herrick's report, the site, owned by the town, is quite feasible for a building to educate the town's elementary students, at slightly more money than renovating the existing WPS.
A preliminary estimate on the renovation of the existing WPS is between $13 million and $16 million.
According to Mr. Herrick, a new, LEED-certified elementary school would cost the region around $15 million after state reimbursement, with the total cost before reimbursement $18.8 million.
The conceptual plan is based on current enrollment calculations, allowing for an average of 20 children per class and a total enrollment of roughly 200 students, although the school's capacity could hold up to 294.
Each classroom is projected at 845 square feet, with kindergarten rooms at 1000 square feet. The building includes a 5600-square foot multi-purpose room, which Mr. Herrick referred to as a "cafetorium."
This would serve for both lunch and gym. A separate full-service kitchen is planned as well.
A media center and library is shown at 1800 square feet, with music, band and stage space at 1100 square feet.
Much discussion about this site has centered around the septic capacity on the Shepaug campus. S/L/A/M has built $2.5 million into the proposed budget for upgrading or replacing the existing septic system for the new facility.
Mr. Herrick described several innovative waste water management systems that are available and suggested if this plan were to go forward that they be considered.
The cost of septic investigation, which he recommends, would run between $15,000 and $30,000.
Since this would be a new building, Mr. Herrick said all costs would be eligible for state reimbursement at a discounted rate because of the small enrollment number.
Under that formula, 60 percent of the total 41,000 square-foot project cost would be eligible for reimbursement, or $3.7 million of the $18.8 million project.
The conceptual plan places the school on the Shepaug campus near the old baseball field in the field hockey area. The field hockey area could be turned, which would provide the additional benefit of not facing east/west, said Mr. Herrick.
Extra parking has been factored in, along with access routes. Mr. Herrick noted that due to the staggered class times in elementary, middle and high school hours, traffic should flow easily with minimal impact.
The new school would be certified at the LEED Silver level. LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) is the nationally accepted standard for the design, construction and operation of high-performance "green" buildings.
"The advantage of a new facility," observed Mr. Herrick, "is that you are not shuffling kids around while it's being built. They can stay where they are until it's complete.
"There are two facilities that can absorb an increase in the population, plus it's not a stretch to increase the population in the new one."
The conceptual plan allows for expansion, if needed, of a new school.
Mr. Lyon, in attendance with Selectman James Brinton and former Selectman Richard Sears, had hoped to obtain input at Tuesday's meeting on the Shepaug plan from other members of the town's Building Committee, but most were at another Board of Education meeting that evening.
Only one member of the committee was able to attend, along with one Washington member of the school board. Mr. Lyon plans to consult with the Building Committee members prior to next week's public information meeting.
Following the public information meeting and depending on the input the selectmen receive there, the plan will next be presented to the Region 12 Building Committee.
Friday, March 14, 2008
Leases for Three Schools Not Final Yet
03/12/2008
Residents Share Frustrations With Lack of Region 12 Leases
By: Ann Compton
WASHINGTON - Washington's Hank Martin was joined by two members of the Board of Education at the March 6 Board of Selectmen meeting in expressing consternation at the lack of resolution of the Region 12 primary school lease issue.
The state granted Region 12 an extension last December in filing an application for a $51,000 reimbursement on repairs to Bridgewater's Burnham School, completed last year.
The extension was based on finalizing 20-year leases between Bridgewater, Roxbury and Washington and the region for the use of the primary schools by the end of February. Without a lease in place, the state will not grant the reimbursement.
Bridgewater and Roxbury are currently operating on a month-to-month basis; Washington has a yearly lease.
With the February deadline past, Mr. Martin questioned why the Board of Education has not been able to finalize the leases.
"I could not let this pass without saying every taxpayer should be outraged," said Mr. Martin. "Why did this happen?"
Neither the selectmen nor Board of Education members Valerie Andersen and Anthony Bedini had an answer, although the question elicited a number of possible reasons, and lengthy discussion.
Mr. Martin, former chairman of the Zoning Commission and a veteran of Washington town board and commissions, contends that the process was inefficient and insufficient.
"The Board of Education knew this matter had to be taken care of as soon as they approved the spending [for the Burnham repairs] last spring," he stressed. "So it isn't just two months that they wasted; it's more like 10 months."
Selectman James Brinton said he sat in on the final lease agreement meeting and believed an "agreement in principle" had been reached with the board, Bridgewater and Roxbury, when the meeting ended.
"The next day, the Board of Education rejected it," he reported.
Ms. Andersen attributes the trouble to board leadership, which she called "an incredible problem."
"There has been no communication, as there was in the past with the previous chair and the superintendent. The board was as out of the process as you were," she told the selectmen.
"I asked the chair to let the board know what was going on. I thought I was involved, but I was out in the cold."
First Selectman Mark Lyon agreed that he has yet to see any written communication on the leases, although he has been told there is a proposal coming to the towns' selectmen soon.
"If I do get anything in writing it will be the first written document I have received since November from the Board of Education or the Lease Committee," he said.
Mr. Bedini explained the board's position regarding the Burnham $51,000 reimbursement.
He said that under the towns' proposed leases, Region 12 would have been contractually obligated for the next 20 years to make repairs on the school buildings, even if a consolidated school is built and the existing buildings are returned to the towns.
Each town submitted a list of repairs it said was needed to each of the primary schools to be included in the lease agreement.
"The lists got bigger and bigger and changed weekly," he reported, "until finally it appeared that if you did everything on the list you wouldn't have to do any renovation. Those lists became unacceptable and the arguments got longer.
"Finally, it was decided the loss of money for Burnham School was not as bad as committing the board to 20 years of expenses down the line."
Mr. Bedini maintained that the accusation the board has put no money into fixing the school buildings is untrue.
"If you look at the budgets going back 10 years, there's at least $225,000 each year just for repairs. It's nonsense that we didn't fix anything," he said.
Mr. Brinton countered, "The Board of Ed has not put in the proper amount for the last 30 years. We cannot let the region build another school and let it fall into disrepair the way these three buildings have."
Mr. Martin called the entire process "dysfunctional."
"The board created a committee, then complained they couldn't get enough information from the committee they created.
"If there's a proposal available now, it could have been done two weeks ago."
"I hear your pain," Ms. Andersen told Mr. Martin. "I'm very frustrated with the process. It's not the administration, which has to work through a committee and board leadership that is out there in never-never land."
"If you think for a moment many of us on the board are happy with the way things are going, we're not," said Mr. Bedini.
"We really have three small boards," he continued, "the smallest of which is the most vocal. You need leadership to make it run as one. I'm not saying the leadership doesn't need to be tuned, but we don't have many people willing to put aside their town's agenda and come together with one voice.
"Maybe we could agree the sun is coming up, but most likely we'd argue about that. It's a fight for everything."
"I would feel better if the board showed some sense of urgency about this," stressed Mr. Martin.
"There should have been more information, more lease committee meetings, a lot more input," said Ms. Andersen. "Things are hidden from this Board of Ed. We don't get to see things until it's too late."
"This is an endless conversation about an impossible situation," observed
Selectman Richard Sears.
"We could spend a lot more time on this," concluded Mr. Lyon after nearly an hour's discussion, thanking the participants for their input.
Residents Share Frustrations With Lack of Region 12 Leases
By: Ann Compton
WASHINGTON - Washington's Hank Martin was joined by two members of the Board of Education at the March 6 Board of Selectmen meeting in expressing consternation at the lack of resolution of the Region 12 primary school lease issue.
The state granted Region 12 an extension last December in filing an application for a $51,000 reimbursement on repairs to Bridgewater's Burnham School, completed last year.
The extension was based on finalizing 20-year leases between Bridgewater, Roxbury and Washington and the region for the use of the primary schools by the end of February. Without a lease in place, the state will not grant the reimbursement.
Bridgewater and Roxbury are currently operating on a month-to-month basis; Washington has a yearly lease.
With the February deadline past, Mr. Martin questioned why the Board of Education has not been able to finalize the leases.
"I could not let this pass without saying every taxpayer should be outraged," said Mr. Martin. "Why did this happen?"
Neither the selectmen nor Board of Education members Valerie Andersen and Anthony Bedini had an answer, although the question elicited a number of possible reasons, and lengthy discussion.
Mr. Martin, former chairman of the Zoning Commission and a veteran of Washington town board and commissions, contends that the process was inefficient and insufficient.
"The Board of Education knew this matter had to be taken care of as soon as they approved the spending [for the Burnham repairs] last spring," he stressed. "So it isn't just two months that they wasted; it's more like 10 months."
Selectman James Brinton said he sat in on the final lease agreement meeting and believed an "agreement in principle" had been reached with the board, Bridgewater and Roxbury, when the meeting ended.
"The next day, the Board of Education rejected it," he reported.
Ms. Andersen attributes the trouble to board leadership, which she called "an incredible problem."
"There has been no communication, as there was in the past with the previous chair and the superintendent. The board was as out of the process as you were," she told the selectmen.
"I asked the chair to let the board know what was going on. I thought I was involved, but I was out in the cold."
First Selectman Mark Lyon agreed that he has yet to see any written communication on the leases, although he has been told there is a proposal coming to the towns' selectmen soon.
"If I do get anything in writing it will be the first written document I have received since November from the Board of Education or the Lease Committee," he said.
Mr. Bedini explained the board's position regarding the Burnham $51,000 reimbursement.
He said that under the towns' proposed leases, Region 12 would have been contractually obligated for the next 20 years to make repairs on the school buildings, even if a consolidated school is built and the existing buildings are returned to the towns.
Each town submitted a list of repairs it said was needed to each of the primary schools to be included in the lease agreement.
"The lists got bigger and bigger and changed weekly," he reported, "until finally it appeared that if you did everything on the list you wouldn't have to do any renovation. Those lists became unacceptable and the arguments got longer.
"Finally, it was decided the loss of money for Burnham School was not as bad as committing the board to 20 years of expenses down the line."
Mr. Bedini maintained that the accusation the board has put no money into fixing the school buildings is untrue.
"If you look at the budgets going back 10 years, there's at least $225,000 each year just for repairs. It's nonsense that we didn't fix anything," he said.
Mr. Brinton countered, "The Board of Ed has not put in the proper amount for the last 30 years. We cannot let the region build another school and let it fall into disrepair the way these three buildings have."
Mr. Martin called the entire process "dysfunctional."
"The board created a committee, then complained they couldn't get enough information from the committee they created.
"If there's a proposal available now, it could have been done two weeks ago."
"I hear your pain," Ms. Andersen told Mr. Martin. "I'm very frustrated with the process. It's not the administration, which has to work through a committee and board leadership that is out there in never-never land."
"If you think for a moment many of us on the board are happy with the way things are going, we're not," said Mr. Bedini.
"We really have three small boards," he continued, "the smallest of which is the most vocal. You need leadership to make it run as one. I'm not saying the leadership doesn't need to be tuned, but we don't have many people willing to put aside their town's agenda and come together with one voice.
"Maybe we could agree the sun is coming up, but most likely we'd argue about that. It's a fight for everything."
"I would feel better if the board showed some sense of urgency about this," stressed Mr. Martin.
"There should have been more information, more lease committee meetings, a lot more input," said Ms. Andersen. "Things are hidden from this Board of Ed. We don't get to see things until it's too late."
"This is an endless conversation about an impossible situation," observed
Selectman Richard Sears.
"We could spend a lot more time on this," concluded Mr. Lyon after nearly an hour's discussion, thanking the participants for their input.
Washington Selectmen Meeting 3/12/08
03/12/2008
Washington Board Supports Single Vote on Region 12 Issue
By: Ann Compton
WASHINGTON - The Board of Selectmen unanimously passed a resolution calling for a single binding vote referendum on the Region 12 primary school issue at its March 6 meeting.
Region 12 Board of Education member Valerie Andersen told the board a "two-step" process had been proposed and was under consideration, which she believed would further confuse an already convoluted issue.
The referendum, postponed from last year, has been further delayed by a lawsuit initiated by the Town of Bridgewater which sought to amend the original Region 12 plan so that each of the three towns would have to vote and reach a consensus on a single school vs. three schools for it to pass.
That lawsuit was resolved last week in Litchfield Superior Court when the court found that a majority-rules vote in all three towns was adequate.
Board of Education member James Hirschfield proposed the two referendum plan at a recent meeting, which would require two votes several weeks apart.
One would cover the question of a consolidated school for all three towns and the other, the question of renovation.
Ms. Andersen maintained that this plan is impractical on several levels. She stated that holding two votes in the coming months by June 30 with town budget votes going on in May would be unwieldy.
"We would have to have one referendum, close the machines, have another and somewhere in there put our budget referendum. It just doesn't make sense," she said.
The selectmen agreed, and the resolution was passed requesting that the Board of Education define a way to hold a single binding referendum.
Ms. Andersen also encouraged the selectmen to seek an opinion as part of their Washington Primary School study at the Shepaug campus whether there would be septic issues.
She suggested using a local, independent contractor for this rather than S/L/A/M, who recently completed the study for the town.
"We need to find out if the existing septic could handle an additional 200 primary school students with the existing school or more, if consolidation goes that way," she noted. "It's well worth the trouble and would ease the process."
First Selectman Mark Lyon said the S/L/A/M conceptual design includes $2.5 million to address septic issues at the Shepaug campus.
Mr. Lyon explained that S/L/A/M representatives said there are "some new and innovative ways of handling waste for a small population that wouldn't involve the septic system."
The selectmen will review the complete report shortly, said Mr. Lyon.
Friday, December 7, 2007
Lease Proposal Prudent - Spectrum
'Town lease proposal' for Region 12 elementary schools seen as "prudent".
News-Times Staff
Article Last Updated: 12/06/2007 04:48:20 PM EST
To the Editor:
Here is why the Bridgewater, Roxbury and Washington town lease proposal for the three elementary schools is the prudent and reasonable thing to do.
1. We have had 20 years of a delayed maintenance program that has left our schools in poor condition.
2. The town proposal is for annual payments by the region to a "Capital Repairs Fund" in each town dedicated for the region to use on elementary school repairs. This will ensure that the money will be available for ongoing repairs when they are needed.
3. The repair fund payments -- Bridgewater ($38,000), Roxbury ($48,000) and Washington ($69,000) -- are based on the number of students in the schools and as such would be funded by the towns as part of the total region operating budget.
4. The proposal states the region maintains the schools, as is the current practice. The region also performs all the day-to-day maintenance as it does now. The towns do no maintenance.
5. The region will have a town fund to draw on when there are capital repair items that need to be paid for, such as roofs, boilers, air conditioning units and mechanical things. Each town fund will be used exclusively for that town's schools. That fund will be added to each year by depositing the payments into the fund and allowing the money to accumulate until it is needed. A committee with region and town representatives will decide what has to be done and when.
The Board of Education will vote on the recommendations of the committee (the region has full control).
The key concept is each town will have a fund for its school and only the region can spend money from that fund. Each fund will be dedicated to a specific town school.
This plan will not solve all problems, but it makes sure that money is there to fix a roof or a septic system or a well or the heating system when it needs to be done.
There should be no waiting for five years to fix a roof when the next 20-year renovation cycle comes around. No more deferring maintenance that costs more.
Roof leaks cause collateral damage. Things should get fixed on a timely basis. This should also reduce the frequency of asking for bonding to do these things and paying the bond interest on top of the repair costs.
The total annual fund payments proposed for elementary schools is $155,000 each year. This is less than eight-tenths of 1 percent of the budget.
How can anyone oppose allocating less than eight-tenths of 1 percent to keep the elementary schools in good repair?
The December 2007 referendum proposes a $1.55 million bond to maintain equipment and replace the track on the Shepaug campus.
On average this will cost $250,000 in bond servicing for the next seven years.
This fixed-cost represents 1.25 percent of the current budget and must be paid each year.
Ed Wainwright
Mardie Ford
Region 12 Board of
Education members
Bridgewater
News-Times Staff
Article Last Updated: 12/06/2007 04:48:20 PM EST
To the Editor:
Here is why the Bridgewater, Roxbury and Washington town lease proposal for the three elementary schools is the prudent and reasonable thing to do.
1. We have had 20 years of a delayed maintenance program that has left our schools in poor condition.
2. The town proposal is for annual payments by the region to a "Capital Repairs Fund" in each town dedicated for the region to use on elementary school repairs. This will ensure that the money will be available for ongoing repairs when they are needed.
3. The repair fund payments -- Bridgewater ($38,000), Roxbury ($48,000) and Washington ($69,000) -- are based on the number of students in the schools and as such would be funded by the towns as part of the total region operating budget.
4. The proposal states the region maintains the schools, as is the current practice. The region also performs all the day-to-day maintenance as it does now. The towns do no maintenance.
5. The region will have a town fund to draw on when there are capital repair items that need to be paid for, such as roofs, boilers, air conditioning units and mechanical things. Each town fund will be used exclusively for that town's schools. That fund will be added to each year by depositing the payments into the fund and allowing the money to accumulate until it is needed. A committee with region and town representatives will decide what has to be done and when.
The Board of Education will vote on the recommendations of the committee (the region has full control).
The key concept is each town will have a fund for its school and only the region can spend money from that fund. Each fund will be dedicated to a specific town school.
This plan will not solve all problems, but it makes sure that money is there to fix a roof or a septic system or a well or the heating system when it needs to be done.
There should be no waiting for five years to fix a roof when the next 20-year renovation cycle comes around. No more deferring maintenance that costs more.
Roof leaks cause collateral damage. Things should get fixed on a timely basis. This should also reduce the frequency of asking for bonding to do these things and paying the bond interest on top of the repair costs.
The total annual fund payments proposed for elementary schools is $155,000 each year. This is less than eight-tenths of 1 percent of the budget.
How can anyone oppose allocating less than eight-tenths of 1 percent to keep the elementary schools in good repair?
The December 2007 referendum proposes a $1.55 million bond to maintain equipment and replace the track on the Shepaug campus.
On average this will cost $250,000 in bond servicing for the next seven years.
This fixed-cost represents 1.25 percent of the current budget and must be paid each year.
Ed Wainwright
Mardie Ford
Region 12 Board of
Education members
Bridgewater
Region 12 School Leases - Opinion by Specrum
Lease Renewals:
School lease committee needed shake-up
News-Times Staff
Article Last Updated: 12/06/2007 04:48:27 PM EST
Region 12 School Board Chairman Matthew Franjola showed strong leadership this week in readjusting the board's lease committee, which has the delicate task of finding agreement among Washington, Bridgewater and Roxbury.
Mr. Franjola reduced the size of the committee from seven to three members and in so doing removed two who have been at loggerheads -- Irene Allan and Ed Wainwright.
Ms. Allan has been intractable in her dealings with Bridgewater, the town Mr. Wainwright represents. Last month she sent a mass e-mail urging people, in essence, to annoy Bridgewater First Selectman Bill Stuart by encouraging an attorney who is suing that town about a non-education matter.
In the e-mail that she had asked recipients to pass along, she called Mr. Stuart a "bully."
Clearly she could not be effective in negotiating a lease with Mr. Stuart for the district's use of Burnham School in Bridgewater.
Mr. Wainwright is not as contentious as Ms. Allan, but he realistically acknowledged that it is for the better to remove both polarizing members.
The previous lease committee was "unworkable" with the seven members, Mr. Franjola said. Now whittled down to three, the committee can focus on the task at hand -- negotiating fair leases for the Region 12 district to use the elementary schools in the three towns.
The new lease committee has a member representing each of the three towns, plus Mr. Franjola and Superintendent of Schools Bruce Storm as ex-officio members.
Leases proposed by Bridgewater and Roxbury have been wildly apart from the district's expectation of $1 a year, so the first step is to find a compromise.
Time is critical here. A lease agreement is needed by the end of the month to enable the district to receive state reimbursement for renovations already completed at Burnham School.
Mr. Franjola became the district's school board chairman in July with a coin toss. He needed, therefore, to unify the board; his forceful handling of the lease issue indicates he is up to the challenge.
With the choice of whether to continue maintaining three separate elementary schools -- one in each town -- or construct a consolidated school likely going to referendum before June, strong, consensus-building leadership as exhibited by Mr. Franjola is required, and appreciated.
School lease committee needed shake-up
News-Times Staff
Article Last Updated: 12/06/2007 04:48:27 PM EST
Region 12 School Board Chairman Matthew Franjola showed strong leadership this week in readjusting the board's lease committee, which has the delicate task of finding agreement among Washington, Bridgewater and Roxbury.
Mr. Franjola reduced the size of the committee from seven to three members and in so doing removed two who have been at loggerheads -- Irene Allan and Ed Wainwright.
Ms. Allan has been intractable in her dealings with Bridgewater, the town Mr. Wainwright represents. Last month she sent a mass e-mail urging people, in essence, to annoy Bridgewater First Selectman Bill Stuart by encouraging an attorney who is suing that town about a non-education matter.
In the e-mail that she had asked recipients to pass along, she called Mr. Stuart a "bully."
Clearly she could not be effective in negotiating a lease with Mr. Stuart for the district's use of Burnham School in Bridgewater.
Mr. Wainwright is not as contentious as Ms. Allan, but he realistically acknowledged that it is for the better to remove both polarizing members.
The previous lease committee was "unworkable" with the seven members, Mr. Franjola said. Now whittled down to three, the committee can focus on the task at hand -- negotiating fair leases for the Region 12 district to use the elementary schools in the three towns.
The new lease committee has a member representing each of the three towns, plus Mr. Franjola and Superintendent of Schools Bruce Storm as ex-officio members.
Leases proposed by Bridgewater and Roxbury have been wildly apart from the district's expectation of $1 a year, so the first step is to find a compromise.
Time is critical here. A lease agreement is needed by the end of the month to enable the district to receive state reimbursement for renovations already completed at Burnham School.
Mr. Franjola became the district's school board chairman in July with a coin toss. He needed, therefore, to unify the board; his forceful handling of the lease issue indicates he is up to the challenge.
With the choice of whether to continue maintaining three separate elementary schools -- one in each town -- or construct a consolidated school likely going to referendum before June, strong, consensus-building leadership as exhibited by Mr. Franjola is required, and appreciated.
Friday, August 10, 2007
Booth, Burnham and WPS Renovation Proposals
August 10 , 2007
BTS Editorial Comment:
Roxbury has submitted a renovation proposal to the BOE for the Booth Free School that has a gross cost of $9,000,000. This is $4,700,000 less than the
proposal from 2006. The residents are pleased with the compromises made and support this plan.
Bridgewater has submitted a renovation proposal to the BOE for the Burnham School that has a gross cost of $7,800,000. This is $4,000,000 less than the proposal from 2006. The residents are pleased with the compromises made and support this plan.
Both of these Plans will undoubtedly receive Voter Approval at Referendum!
It appears that the Washinton Building Committee has taken up the challenge and is currently working on a revised plan for renovating the Washington Primary School building. Hopefully they will make reasonable compromises that will be needed for voter approval in a fall referendum.
Ed Wainwright
Bridgewater, CT
BTS Editorial Comment:
Roxbury has submitted a renovation proposal to the BOE for the Booth Free School that has a gross cost of $9,000,000. This is $4,700,000 less than the
proposal from 2006. The residents are pleased with the compromises made and support this plan.
Bridgewater has submitted a renovation proposal to the BOE for the Burnham School that has a gross cost of $7,800,000. This is $4,000,000 less than the proposal from 2006. The residents are pleased with the compromises made and support this plan.
Both of these Plans will undoubtedly receive Voter Approval at Referendum!
It appears that the Washinton Building Committee has taken up the challenge and is currently working on a revised plan for renovating the Washington Primary School building. Hopefully they will make reasonable compromises that will be needed for voter approval in a fall referendum.
Ed Wainwright
Bridgewater, CT
Architect Hired for WPS Renovation Study
08/04/2007 - Voices
Consultant Hired for Washington SchoolBuilding Committee Study
By: Ann Compton
WASHINGTON - The Board of Selectmen has hired architect Peter Bowman to act as consultant in the Washington Primary School Building Committee study which is currently being developed.
Mr. Bowman, who is a member of the committee presently, will resign if he is retained to complete plans for the project. He has given the selectmen a letter of proposal which the selectmen agreed to accept pending the approval of the building committee.
Mr. Bowman will be charged with the task of developing a preliminary design, along with construction costs, by September, with plans available for discussion with a construction manager early this month. Fees would not exceed $6000, with additional $1500 in consultant costs.
Mr. Bowman has already shared preliminary ideas with committee members, which include a picture of the proposed WPS building and floor plans for the first and second floors.
This plan includes keeping the gym as a gym only, and moving the regional office to the second floor of the "old high school building," with handicapped access to this second floor by the elevator and bridge connector.
The first floor of the "old high school" would be a library and media center, and the cafeteria would move to what is presently the library, where a loading dock and garage already exist. First grade classrooms would replace the area of the current cafeteria.
Mr. Bowman noted existing building security issues. He moved the administration and entryway into the space between the WPS and "old high school" building.
The plan also added roughly 500 square feet to the kindergarten rooms. He noted that the existing glass walls in this area are not insulated; there is no ventilation and heating is an issue there.
Some committee members do not believe any addition should be made to the present school, although it was agreed that this plan appears to contain all the space needed.
First Selectman Dick Sears said he fully supports engaging Mr. Bowman for this project. "His expertise and knowledge have already given us a jump start," he observed.
Selectman Mark Lyon questioned the propriety of hiring Mr. Bowman without opening the procedure to other interested parties. Mr. Sears stressed that this would further delay the process, and time is of the essence if it is to be completed by September.
He noted that an important component of this study is to maximize state reimbursement, and added that Mr. Bowman has had substantial experience in this area working with other schools.
The Building Committee met July 31 and unanimously endorsed Mr. Bowman as consultant for the project.
Consultant Hired for Washington SchoolBuilding Committee Study
By: Ann Compton
WASHINGTON - The Board of Selectmen has hired architect Peter Bowman to act as consultant in the Washington Primary School Building Committee study which is currently being developed.
Mr. Bowman, who is a member of the committee presently, will resign if he is retained to complete plans for the project. He has given the selectmen a letter of proposal which the selectmen agreed to accept pending the approval of the building committee.
Mr. Bowman will be charged with the task of developing a preliminary design, along with construction costs, by September, with plans available for discussion with a construction manager early this month. Fees would not exceed $6000, with additional $1500 in consultant costs.
Mr. Bowman has already shared preliminary ideas with committee members, which include a picture of the proposed WPS building and floor plans for the first and second floors.
This plan includes keeping the gym as a gym only, and moving the regional office to the second floor of the "old high school building," with handicapped access to this second floor by the elevator and bridge connector.
The first floor of the "old high school" would be a library and media center, and the cafeteria would move to what is presently the library, where a loading dock and garage already exist. First grade classrooms would replace the area of the current cafeteria.
Mr. Bowman noted existing building security issues. He moved the administration and entryway into the space between the WPS and "old high school" building.
The plan also added roughly 500 square feet to the kindergarten rooms. He noted that the existing glass walls in this area are not insulated; there is no ventilation and heating is an issue there.
Some committee members do not believe any addition should be made to the present school, although it was agreed that this plan appears to contain all the space needed.
First Selectman Dick Sears said he fully supports engaging Mr. Bowman for this project. "His expertise and knowledge have already given us a jump start," he observed.
Selectman Mark Lyon questioned the propriety of hiring Mr. Bowman without opening the procedure to other interested parties. Mr. Sears stressed that this would further delay the process, and time is of the essence if it is to be completed by September.
He noted that an important component of this study is to maximize state reimbursement, and added that Mr. Bowman has had substantial experience in this area working with other schools.
The Building Committee met July 31 and unanimously endorsed Mr. Bowman as consultant for the project.
WPS Building Committee Sets Agenda
07/28/2007 - Voices:
Primary School Building CommitteeSets Goals, Dates for Renovation Plan
By: Ann Compton
WASHINGTON - The Washington Primary School Building Committee is hard at work. With two meetings accomplished and a site walk on July 25 completed, the group has set goals and dates for future meetings to update the two-year-old renovation plan for Washington Primary School.
At the group's first meeting, July 10, First Selectman Richard Sears outlined the committee's objectives.
They include reviewing the 2006 Master Plan renovations for WPS; examining specific concerns about the plan and evaluating alternatives and costs to accommodate those concerns; preparing an alternative town plan that represents what is "best for Washington;" and submitting a final plan to the Region 12 School District after review by the Boards of Selectmen and Finance, as well as the town's legislative body.
Mr. Sears said the goal of the committee is to accomplish these objectives in time for the planned fall referendum at which voters will choose between the best three-school and single-school options.
Committee members, appointed by the Board of Selectmen, include Mr. Sears, Selectman Mark Lyon, John Quist, Peter Bowman, Phil Markert, Roxanne Kraft, Walter Whitney, Wayne Hileman and John Boyer.
Washington Board of Education members have been asked to participate ex-officio.
At the first committee meeting July 10, Board of Education member Irene Allen encouraged the group to look at the physical condition of the building. She believes the teaching space is too small and outdated.
Mr. Sears noted that the building has to house two classrooms per grade, for a total of 12 with kindergarten.
Board of Finance member Jack Field, also in attendance, pointed out that the old package previously presented was the lowest cost option and "cut too thin."
He added that the committee must examine what must be added to be acceptable to people.
When the committee met again July 17, members reviewed the floor plans for square footage and determined that the classroom space is not the problem, but rather the larger rooms including the gym, cafeteria and library, which must be on the ground floor for kindergartners and first graders.
The music room, currently in the basement, must be brought to ground level also.
There was discussion among the committee members regarding gym use. The WPS gym is also used by the regional middle school. The group agreed that its only use should be as a gym and not a combination gym and cafeteria.
Peter Bowman distributed a document that included a picture of the proposed WPS building, with floor plans for the first and second floors.
It includes the gym for single use, moving the regional office to the second floor of the old high school building, making the first floor of the old high school a library and media center, and creating a cafeteria in what is now the library, where a loading dock and garage already exist.
This plan adds 500 square feet to the kindergarten rooms. Some committee members believe no addition to the present school should be made, although it was agreed that this plan appears to contain all the space needed.
Mr. Sears asked the group to keep three plans in mind - the existing conditions at WPS; the SLAM plan containing the first and second floor plans; and a new plan.
Mr. Sears has set up several committees to research specific areas: the floor plan, the flood plain, state reimbursement, current gym use and the second floor of the "old high school."
Additional meetings of the committee are scheduled on August 14, August 21, August 28, September 11 and September 18. All meetings take place at 7 p.m. in the Land Use Room at Town Hall.
Primary School Building CommitteeSets Goals, Dates for Renovation Plan
By: Ann Compton
WASHINGTON - The Washington Primary School Building Committee is hard at work. With two meetings accomplished and a site walk on July 25 completed, the group has set goals and dates for future meetings to update the two-year-old renovation plan for Washington Primary School.
At the group's first meeting, July 10, First Selectman Richard Sears outlined the committee's objectives.
They include reviewing the 2006 Master Plan renovations for WPS; examining specific concerns about the plan and evaluating alternatives and costs to accommodate those concerns; preparing an alternative town plan that represents what is "best for Washington;" and submitting a final plan to the Region 12 School District after review by the Boards of Selectmen and Finance, as well as the town's legislative body.
Mr. Sears said the goal of the committee is to accomplish these objectives in time for the planned fall referendum at which voters will choose between the best three-school and single-school options.
Committee members, appointed by the Board of Selectmen, include Mr. Sears, Selectman Mark Lyon, John Quist, Peter Bowman, Phil Markert, Roxanne Kraft, Walter Whitney, Wayne Hileman and John Boyer.
Washington Board of Education members have been asked to participate ex-officio.
At the first committee meeting July 10, Board of Education member Irene Allen encouraged the group to look at the physical condition of the building. She believes the teaching space is too small and outdated.
Mr. Sears noted that the building has to house two classrooms per grade, for a total of 12 with kindergarten.
Board of Finance member Jack Field, also in attendance, pointed out that the old package previously presented was the lowest cost option and "cut too thin."
He added that the committee must examine what must be added to be acceptable to people.
When the committee met again July 17, members reviewed the floor plans for square footage and determined that the classroom space is not the problem, but rather the larger rooms including the gym, cafeteria and library, which must be on the ground floor for kindergartners and first graders.
The music room, currently in the basement, must be brought to ground level also.
There was discussion among the committee members regarding gym use. The WPS gym is also used by the regional middle school. The group agreed that its only use should be as a gym and not a combination gym and cafeteria.
Peter Bowman distributed a document that included a picture of the proposed WPS building, with floor plans for the first and second floors.
It includes the gym for single use, moving the regional office to the second floor of the old high school building, making the first floor of the old high school a library and media center, and creating a cafeteria in what is now the library, where a loading dock and garage already exist.
This plan adds 500 square feet to the kindergarten rooms. Some committee members believe no addition to the present school should be made, although it was agreed that this plan appears to contain all the space needed.
Mr. Sears asked the group to keep three plans in mind - the existing conditions at WPS; the SLAM plan containing the first and second floor plans; and a new plan.
Mr. Sears has set up several committees to research specific areas: the floor plan, the flood plain, state reimbursement, current gym use and the second floor of the "old high school."
Additional meetings of the committee are scheduled on August 14, August 21, August 28, September 11 and September 18. All meetings take place at 7 p.m. in the Land Use Room at Town Hall.
WPS School Plan to be Re-Evaluated
07/11/2007
Washington to Update Single School Plan
By: Ann Compton
WASHINGTON - The Board of Selectmen agreed at its June 28 meeting that it's time for Washington to update its single school plan.
In a conversation with Board of Finance member Jack Field, the board decided to appoint a task force to update the town's two-year-old single school plan, a process that has already taken place in Region 12's Bridgewater and Roxbury.
"The way it's looking, we will wind up in a three-school mode rather than with a consolidated school," observed Mr. Field. "There are many things we need to address: an all-purpose gym, curb appeal, the effects of affordable housing and the flood plain.
"It may make more sense to build a new school rather than fixing the old one," he said, referring to the town's Washington Primary School.
The three Region 12 towns have been embroiled in a tussle for months over the consolidated school issue, with no sign of resolution on the horizon.
"We have to have the best plan possible for a single school," stressed Mr. Field. "It may take a lot of time with all the legal entanglements to get this sorted out and people could become impatient to have an individual school here."
A June referendum set to take place in the three towns on the issue of a consolidated school was abandoned and continuing legal action has put any direction on hold for the three towns.
The Washington Board of Selectmen moved to reinstate the task force which developed the school plan two years ago, to include new and former members along with Washington members of the Region 12 Board of Education, selectmen, members of the Building Committee and others.
First Selectman Richard Sears planned to have the group in place by last week. The new group's first task is to formulate a request for proposals to be issued as soon as possible.
The group plans to meet weekly through the summer in order to present ideas to the town in the next few months.
Mr. Field reported that the Board of Finance agreed at its last meeting that it would support an allocation of $15,000 for professional consulting help with this work.
"This will reopen the conversation about what we want," said Mr. Sears, who suggested that the board also consider hiring an architectural engineer to perform a feasibility study. The selectmen agreed to pursue that plan.
"Roxbury and Bridgewater have both come up with their own plans," said Mr. Field.
"This issue is complicated because the makeup of the Board of Education is different; the consolidation concept has been challenged and the courts will have to decide on it. It's time to revisit our own school plan."
Washington to Update Single School Plan
By: Ann Compton
WASHINGTON - The Board of Selectmen agreed at its June 28 meeting that it's time for Washington to update its single school plan.
In a conversation with Board of Finance member Jack Field, the board decided to appoint a task force to update the town's two-year-old single school plan, a process that has already taken place in Region 12's Bridgewater and Roxbury.
"The way it's looking, we will wind up in a three-school mode rather than with a consolidated school," observed Mr. Field. "There are many things we need to address: an all-purpose gym, curb appeal, the effects of affordable housing and the flood plain.
"It may make more sense to build a new school rather than fixing the old one," he said, referring to the town's Washington Primary School.
The three Region 12 towns have been embroiled in a tussle for months over the consolidated school issue, with no sign of resolution on the horizon.
"We have to have the best plan possible for a single school," stressed Mr. Field. "It may take a lot of time with all the legal entanglements to get this sorted out and people could become impatient to have an individual school here."
A June referendum set to take place in the three towns on the issue of a consolidated school was abandoned and continuing legal action has put any direction on hold for the three towns.
The Washington Board of Selectmen moved to reinstate the task force which developed the school plan two years ago, to include new and former members along with Washington members of the Region 12 Board of Education, selectmen, members of the Building Committee and others.
First Selectman Richard Sears planned to have the group in place by last week. The new group's first task is to formulate a request for proposals to be issued as soon as possible.
The group plans to meet weekly through the summer in order to present ideas to the town in the next few months.
Mr. Field reported that the Board of Finance agreed at its last meeting that it would support an allocation of $15,000 for professional consulting help with this work.
"This will reopen the conversation about what we want," said Mr. Sears, who suggested that the board also consider hiring an architectural engineer to perform a feasibility study. The selectmen agreed to pursue that plan.
"Roxbury and Bridgewater have both come up with their own plans," said Mr. Field.
"This issue is complicated because the makeup of the Board of Education is different; the consolidation concept has been challenged and the courts will have to decide on it. It's time to revisit our own school plan."
Monday, July 23, 2007
BOE Questions and Answers 7-18-07
Meeting of Board of Education on the Burnham School Town Proposal
July 18, 2007
Questions and Answers
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Matt Franjola - Drainage: New roof flowing onto new structure. How will this flow from the gym roof be handled?
Answer- Peter described the flow from the top roof through the four current downspouts to the lower areas and ultimately to the ground drains.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Gary Steinman - Concerns over additional storm water load on the existing drainage systems.
Answer – Bill Stuart stated that the two storm drains between the school and the Burnham library have been recently replaced with larger drains and larger pipes. If a larger pipe were needed to go under route 133, this would be state of CT responsibility. Bill said it has not been a problem in the last 23 years.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Gary Steinman – He was concerned that 1920s building where Art and special education does not have ground level egress to grade for kindergarten to 2nd graders. SLAM and Friar expressed this concern.
Answer – There seems to be a disagreement regarding understanding the egress building code. This “Life Safety Code” issue was fully explained by Peter that proper egress from the 1920’s building is within code. The floor above the basement of 1920’s building is considered the level of exit discharge, since it is not a two-story building. Ed Wainwright stated if necessary, changes could be made to the south end of the building. An exterior ramp could be built and there are only two steps inside the building between the floor level and the exterior door.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Gary Steinman – Expressed concern over traffic flow (bus and car routes, parking and safety). He was concerned about the size of the curb cuts. He was concerned about parent traffic exiting through the entrance curb cut (entry for buses and parent autos).
Answer – Peter stated the southern single curb cut was wide enough because the buses stop and queue up in the loop. There is sufficient room for 3 large and two small buses in the loop.
(Additional information: The buses queue up to wait on the 8:45 unloading time. The buses exit via a separate northern curb cut. The vast majority of parent drop off occurs between 8:45 and 9 am after the buses have gone.)
There was consideration to having the parent drop off exit behind the old firehouse so that exit auto traffic would use the fire department parking area. However this idea has not been fully explored with the fire department. It would be discussed with the firemen during the detail design.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Irene Allen – Student overflow is an issue. Does the plan provide for adding a 7th classroom if it is needed in the next 20 years?
Answer – In the event of a need for a 7th classroom, it is possible to use one of the proposed special education rooms in the 1920’s building. However Peter suggested it might be possible to add three classrooms in the front of the 1950’s depending on the set back requirements. If this is a requirement, it can be investigated during the detail design.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Irene Allen: Wants to renovate 1920s building to new. It has been 20 years since the 100 year- old building has been renovated. The region should take this opportunity to renovate everything to new.
Answer – The Bridgewater building committee was sensitive to the need to get a referendum passed by the taxpayers where previous referendums failed due to high costs. The building committee preferred to spend the money on new classrooms and the media center where the children spend most of their time.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. Irene Allen - was adamant about making certain all education specs were met versus CT state specs (she emphasized there are differences).
Answer – There are many areas where the proposal exceeds the specification, such as classrooms, Art, Music and Special education. The gym is smaller than recommended but is appropriately sized for 120 to 140 students. The health area while smaller than recommended is expanded by 80% and provides room for two cots, examination/office space and a separate toilet. In general there is 6% more space than requested and much of this is due to the added space for storage in the basement and in the lobby area. The Ed Spec Square footage could be completely met, except the Gym, by placing functions in undesirable locations. This would be an Administrative decision during the detail design phase.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. A/C question – Will the entire building old and new be air-conditioned? Will the current ductwork handle the air conditioning in the old buildings?
Answer – Jack McKenney who’s firm supports the current heating equipment in the region 12 elementary schools responded to this question. He said there are two types of A/C that could be used in this situation. There was plenty of room for ductwork in the 1920’s building to feed the classrooms (either in the attic or the basement). We many need additional ductwork for the 1950’s building. The cost estimate provides for A/C for both old and new buildings.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. Septic system – will the septic need to DEP approved?
Answer - DEP will not be involved since the flows are well below volumes required for DEP approval. The septic system will be moved to a building lot on Becket Lane. This lot is owned by the town and abuts the school property in the back. The septic tank will be in the current location and the fluid will pumped up to the new location for the septic fields. In the last 7 years the fire department installed a similar system on the same ridge close to the proposed lot. We have monitored the lot with 5-foot pipes to measure the ground water flow in late April and May this year. The location looks good for the pump up system that is proposed.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Valerie Andersen – Will the building be LEEDS certifiable?
Answer – The building is not presently designed for LEED certification, however new lighting and occupancy sensors will reduce the electricity consumption. There will be all new energy efficient windows and doors. The 1950’s building will be wrapped with new construction and the Gym will be surrounded with rooms that are energy efficient. The new insulation has just been installed in the new gym roof in the spring of 2007. New roofs are proposed for the areas that were not done at that time. The 1920’s building has good insulation in the attic. The building will be much more energy efficient after the renovation.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: LEED Certification can be achieved with a slight budget increase. A preliminary review of the LEED for Schools checklist shows that the project could exceed the 29-point required for certification.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Valerie Andersen - Wanted to know how much would be covered by the state reimbursement
Answer – Peter said some things would be covered by state aid. Examples of items eligible for aid are: new classroom space, renovating things to code, new roofs on the 1950’s and 1920’s buildings and some egress windows. However the state aid of 35% calculation would be reduced because Burnham will be much larger than the size that the state accepts. Peter’s estimate is that we might get 12-14% state aid.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Fred Stern – He is concerned that the gym unsafe because of it’s small size. This is specifically true for older children (5th grade). Also the town residents play basketball each week during the winter and find it is difficult to avoid bumping into the walls.
Answer – Jerry said that normal size of a Gym is 5,600 Sq Ft. An Elementary School Gym is acceptable at half-size which is 2,800 Sq Ft. Our plan calls for a new sports floor and padding on the walls.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Matt Franjola – suggested the repairs section is underestimated and could be increased.
Answer – Peter stated that some repair estimates may be too low and some may be too high. The reason for the 5% design contingency ($275,000) is to cover the estimates that might be too low. His record for overall proposal price vs. project cost is very good. He has NEVER had a project cost more than his proposal.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Dave Baron – What kind of wall materials will be used of the new construction?
Answer – Peter said the external walls would be concrete block and brick. The internal walls will be concrete block.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Is an A2 survey available for the BOE to review?
Answer: - Peter stated that no A2 survey was found when looking through all the drawings on file.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Gary Steinman asked why $234 per square foot is an acceptable cost for new construction when $250 was suggested at the Consolidated School presentation.
Answer – Rory stated that it was the $185 per square foot cost for the consolidated school that was questioned. David Hawley recommended $225 to $250 per square foot for new construction on multiple occasions at the building committee meetings for the consolidated school.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
July 18, 2007
Questions and Answers
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Matt Franjola - Drainage: New roof flowing onto new structure. How will this flow from the gym roof be handled?
Answer- Peter described the flow from the top roof through the four current downspouts to the lower areas and ultimately to the ground drains.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Gary Steinman - Concerns over additional storm water load on the existing drainage systems.
Answer – Bill Stuart stated that the two storm drains between the school and the Burnham library have been recently replaced with larger drains and larger pipes. If a larger pipe were needed to go under route 133, this would be state of CT responsibility. Bill said it has not been a problem in the last 23 years.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Gary Steinman – He was concerned that 1920s building where Art and special education does not have ground level egress to grade for kindergarten to 2nd graders. SLAM and Friar expressed this concern.
Answer – There seems to be a disagreement regarding understanding the egress building code. This “Life Safety Code” issue was fully explained by Peter that proper egress from the 1920’s building is within code. The floor above the basement of 1920’s building is considered the level of exit discharge, since it is not a two-story building. Ed Wainwright stated if necessary, changes could be made to the south end of the building. An exterior ramp could be built and there are only two steps inside the building between the floor level and the exterior door.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Gary Steinman – Expressed concern over traffic flow (bus and car routes, parking and safety). He was concerned about the size of the curb cuts. He was concerned about parent traffic exiting through the entrance curb cut (entry for buses and parent autos).
Answer – Peter stated the southern single curb cut was wide enough because the buses stop and queue up in the loop. There is sufficient room for 3 large and two small buses in the loop.
(Additional information: The buses queue up to wait on the 8:45 unloading time. The buses exit via a separate northern curb cut. The vast majority of parent drop off occurs between 8:45 and 9 am after the buses have gone.)
There was consideration to having the parent drop off exit behind the old firehouse so that exit auto traffic would use the fire department parking area. However this idea has not been fully explored with the fire department. It would be discussed with the firemen during the detail design.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Irene Allen – Student overflow is an issue. Does the plan provide for adding a 7th classroom if it is needed in the next 20 years?
Answer – In the event of a need for a 7th classroom, it is possible to use one of the proposed special education rooms in the 1920’s building. However Peter suggested it might be possible to add three classrooms in the front of the 1950’s depending on the set back requirements. If this is a requirement, it can be investigated during the detail design.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Irene Allen: Wants to renovate 1920s building to new. It has been 20 years since the 100 year- old building has been renovated. The region should take this opportunity to renovate everything to new.
Answer – The Bridgewater building committee was sensitive to the need to get a referendum passed by the taxpayers where previous referendums failed due to high costs. The building committee preferred to spend the money on new classrooms and the media center where the children spend most of their time.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. Irene Allen - was adamant about making certain all education specs were met versus CT state specs (she emphasized there are differences).
Answer – There are many areas where the proposal exceeds the specification, such as classrooms, Art, Music and Special education. The gym is smaller than recommended but is appropriately sized for 120 to 140 students. The health area while smaller than recommended is expanded by 80% and provides room for two cots, examination/office space and a separate toilet. In general there is 6% more space than requested and much of this is due to the added space for storage in the basement and in the lobby area. The Ed Spec Square footage could be completely met, except the Gym, by placing functions in undesirable locations. This would be an Administrative decision during the detail design phase.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. A/C question – Will the entire building old and new be air-conditioned? Will the current ductwork handle the air conditioning in the old buildings?
Answer – Jack McKenney who’s firm supports the current heating equipment in the region 12 elementary schools responded to this question. He said there are two types of A/C that could be used in this situation. There was plenty of room for ductwork in the 1920’s building to feed the classrooms (either in the attic or the basement). We many need additional ductwork for the 1950’s building. The cost estimate provides for A/C for both old and new buildings.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. Septic system – will the septic need to DEP approved?
Answer - DEP will not be involved since the flows are well below volumes required for DEP approval. The septic system will be moved to a building lot on Becket Lane. This lot is owned by the town and abuts the school property in the back. The septic tank will be in the current location and the fluid will pumped up to the new location for the septic fields. In the last 7 years the fire department installed a similar system on the same ridge close to the proposed lot. We have monitored the lot with 5-foot pipes to measure the ground water flow in late April and May this year. The location looks good for the pump up system that is proposed.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Valerie Andersen – Will the building be LEEDS certifiable?
Answer – The building is not presently designed for LEED certification, however new lighting and occupancy sensors will reduce the electricity consumption. There will be all new energy efficient windows and doors. The 1950’s building will be wrapped with new construction and the Gym will be surrounded with rooms that are energy efficient. The new insulation has just been installed in the new gym roof in the spring of 2007. New roofs are proposed for the areas that were not done at that time. The 1920’s building has good insulation in the attic. The building will be much more energy efficient after the renovation.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: LEED Certification can be achieved with a slight budget increase. A preliminary review of the LEED for Schools checklist shows that the project could exceed the 29-point required for certification.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Valerie Andersen - Wanted to know how much would be covered by the state reimbursement
Answer – Peter said some things would be covered by state aid. Examples of items eligible for aid are: new classroom space, renovating things to code, new roofs on the 1950’s and 1920’s buildings and some egress windows. However the state aid of 35% calculation would be reduced because Burnham will be much larger than the size that the state accepts. Peter’s estimate is that we might get 12-14% state aid.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Fred Stern – He is concerned that the gym unsafe because of it’s small size. This is specifically true for older children (5th grade). Also the town residents play basketball each week during the winter and find it is difficult to avoid bumping into the walls.
Answer – Jerry said that normal size of a Gym is 5,600 Sq Ft. An Elementary School Gym is acceptable at half-size which is 2,800 Sq Ft. Our plan calls for a new sports floor and padding on the walls.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Matt Franjola – suggested the repairs section is underestimated and could be increased.
Answer – Peter stated that some repair estimates may be too low and some may be too high. The reason for the 5% design contingency ($275,000) is to cover the estimates that might be too low. His record for overall proposal price vs. project cost is very good. He has NEVER had a project cost more than his proposal.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Dave Baron – What kind of wall materials will be used of the new construction?
Answer – Peter said the external walls would be concrete block and brick. The internal walls will be concrete block.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Is an A2 survey available for the BOE to review?
Answer: - Peter stated that no A2 survey was found when looking through all the drawings on file.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Gary Steinman asked why $234 per square foot is an acceptable cost for new construction when $250 was suggested at the Consolidated School presentation.
Answer – Rory stated that it was the $185 per square foot cost for the consolidated school that was questioned. David Hawley recommended $225 to $250 per square foot for new construction on multiple occasions at the building committee meetings for the consolidated school.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)