NHS Expansion–

School Bd Sticks To Its Plan

By Martha Coville

A 4-2 vote by the Board of Education put the $38 million proposed high school expansion back on the table. Last week, the Board of Selectmen voted against the project, refusing to authorize the bonding for the project. Selectman Herb Rosenthal said he voted against the project primarily because he believes “the cost is too great for the taxpayers to support.” He said that a “more affordable” project would stand a better chance of being approved “by elected officials and, more important, by the taxpayers.”

Only the Board of Selectmen is empowered to borrow money on behalf of the town. But before the project can go before the voters, in a referendum scheduled for April 22, it must also be approved by the Legislative Council and the Board of Finance. The finance board will consider the project at its regularly scheduled meeting on Thursday, March 27, held after this issue of The Bee went to press.

On Tuesday, March 25, the Board of Education conducted a special meeting to discuss how to proceed in the wake of the selectmen’s rejection of the project. Schools Superintendent Janet Robinson told the board that she had met with district administrators and elected officials and that she believed the board had four options. She presented three ways to cut the cost of the project. The fourth option, she said, would be to send the project out unchanged.

She said the cutting the scope of the project, building an addition to accommodate fewer students, or excluding several of the proposed 25 new classrooms, is no longer possible. She and schools Business Manager Ronald Bienkowski said that would mean commissioning new designs from architects, and resubmitting them to the state. The district has already paid architectural firm Fletcher Thompson approximately $2 million in design fees. Currently, the district is in the middle of an exhaustive review by state officials. The Board of Education has long said that scheduling another review would delay the project by a year.

At Tuesday’s meeting, Mr Bienkowski said the state had granted Newtown a special favor by reviewing the high school plans before the project went to referendum. Usually the state refuses to review unfunded projects. Mr Bienkowski and architect Joe Costa, from Fletcher Thompson, said the state is unlikely to grant an exception to its general practice a second time. Reducing the scope of the project at this point he said, would mean waiting not one, but two years.

Officials Questions Answered

Town officials have complained about the lack of communication between the school board and other town bodies. At the Board of Education’s special meeting, Dr Robinson reviewed answers to several questions posed by elected officials.

The recent news that the town of Portland would be required to repay funds reimbursed to the town from the state has startled town officials. Although the State of Connecticut reimburses individual towns for about a third of the cost of school building projects, the state Department of Education said officials in Portland built a larger high school than necessary, and did not provide proper documentation for its enrollment projections.

Selectman Herb Rosenthal has expressed concern that the enrollment projections preferred by the Newtown Board of Education may be too high. Mr Rosenthal and Board of Education member Anna Wiedemann, among others, worried that Newtown might be required, like Portland, to return money to the state.

The Newtown Board of Education commissions an annual enrollment projection, predicting student populations for the next two years. Board Chairman Elaine McClure said commissioning projections from consultant Bruce Bothwell has been de rigeour for as long as she can remember.

Mr Bothwell provides the district with a high, middle, and low projection, and usually recommends that the district rely on his middle projection. The Board of Education proposes to build to his high projection of 2022 high school students in 2017-2018.

A second enrollment projection, performed by Dr Peter Prowda, predicted student enrollment similar to Mr Bothwell’s middle projection.

At the Tuesday meeting, Mr Bienkowski provide board members with an e-mail from Raymond Inzero, chief of the Office of Internal Audit for the Connecticut Board of Education. Mr Inzero said that Newtown has provided acceptable document for its projected enrollment. “If the enrollment project is documented,” he wrote to Mr Bienkowski, “we will accept that figure regardless of the actual enrollment.”

A ‘Good Faith Effort’

Board of Education members Kathy Fetchick and Anna Wiedemann said they believe some elected officials, together with Newtown residents, consider the project too expensive. Both emphasized that they acknowledged the need for an expansion. “I’m not against the project,” said Ms Fetchick, “and I’m not suggesting removing any classrooms. I’m just trying to come up with some kind of consensus that elected officials could get behind.”

Anna Wiedemann said that her chief concern is that project receive approval from town bodies and voters. “I’m trying to move the project forward in a more effective manner,” she said.

Ms Fetchick suggested that the Board of Education reduce the cost of the project by $2 million, slightly more than five percent. “I’m trying to show a good faith effort” with other town boards, she said.

Ms Fetchick and Ms Wiedemann stood alone in their support of reducing the cost of the project .

The Superintendent’s Suggestions

The most economical of the three reductions offered by Dr Robinson would cut $2.33 million from the cost of the project, at least for this year. She proposed a two-part referendum. This April, voters could consider the cost of the academic building itself. The upgrades to the athletic fields, needed to bring the school in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, could wait until next spring for voter approval, under such a plan. Dr Robinson said that reduces the figure on this year’s ballot by $2.33 million.

A third option, she said, would be to remove the bid alternates from the project. The $38 million requested for the expansion is still, in fact, an estimate. To put an exact price tag on the project, the district needs to collect bids from prospective contractors. If they receive bids totaling less than $38 million, the board has said it will consider adding three bid alternates. Excluding them from the project altogether would save $447,000 from the project. It would also mean that any savings derived from low bids would be passed on to the taxpayers.

The three bid alternates include lightening protection, a more expensive painted block for school hallways, and a green roof. Dr Robinson said that including the lightening protection and the painted block would save the district substantial money in the long run. Although the new addition will be built with lightening surge protection, the existing high school does not employ that technology. Resetting the systems vulnerable to lightening is costly, according to Dr Robinson.

So is repainting school hallways. Custodians typically repaint at least once a year. A more expensive building material would cost an additional $80,000, but would net the district savings on custodial salaries and maintenance supplies.

The third, and final, alternate is a “green roof” over the entrance to the proposed expansion. The roof, accessible from the science classrooms, would function as a sort of greenhouse, and enhance the science curriculum. Unlike greenhouses, the roof would not be enclosed in glass. High fences would provide for students’ safety. Board member Kathy Fetchick has questioned the necessity of including the green roof in the project at several meetings. Fletcher Thompson’s Mr Costa, said green roofs are increasing included in new high schools, especially in Fairfield County.

Finally, Dr Robinson said that Mr Bienkowski suggesting building the high school without furniture or classroom or library computers. Voters could consider those costs at a future referendum. His suggestion proved unpopular with board members.

Board Members

 Approve Project

Board member David Nanavaty did not approve of the cuts offered by Dr Robinson, and moved to approve the project at its present $38 million cost. Ms Fetchick tried unsuccessfully to amend his motion, to reduce the cost by $2 million. She and Ms Wiedemann were the two dissenting voters. The board approved Mr Nanavaty’s proposal, 4-2. The project will next be considered by the Board of Finance on Thursday, March 27.