After presenting information, which he said took more than 40 hours to compile with interested Hawley School parents and PTA members, Democratic Selectman and Borough of Newtown Warden James Gaston, Sr said he plans to share a school closing cost/benefit analysis with Borough Burgesses June 9.

The local official, who lives on Main Street not far from the school, said he has myriad concerns, and can counter district assertions that potentially closing the elementary school will save taxpayers money, both immediately and in the long run.

Mr Gaston, who was former vice-chair of the Board of Finance, said that by his calculations, closing Hawley School will cost each Newtown taxpayer around $40 annually because of a decline in property values.

But that is far from the selectman’s only worries.

He said as he travels around the state for his law practice, he can’t count the number of colleagues and others who have approached him because of statewide news reports on the issue. Mr Gaston said plenty of Connecticut residents outside of Newtown are concerned that $40 million in state funds are being spent to rebuild Sandy Hook Elementary School, while at the same time, school leaders are preliminarily discussing ways to save money closing another school site.

Mr Gaston said he was also contacted by at least eight residents who told him they would move out of town if Hawley School was shuttered. He has additional concerns about the community’s emotional well-being, saying the anxiety of students, staff and families eventually returning to the new Sandy Hook School, will be greatly compounded if at the same time, another school community is facing the loss or closing of their facility.

While the request to develop an analysis rose from borough burgesses, Mr Gaston noted in the document that his report, “is not intended as the opinion of any board the author sits on, and to date, has not been adopted by any board or commission.”

“Hopefully, it is helpful and informative as to the significant question of closing an elementary school,” Mr Gaston wrote. “This work will be freely available to any and all persons, groups, organizations, entities, boards and commissions.”

The selectman said his report, “should not be interpreted as a criticism of any work already done by others relative to the Facility and Enrollment Study. Rather, the intention is to supplement, clarify and breakdown into more discerning elements those issues and factors involved in this highly emotional and potentially volatile decision.”

He also noted that a June 2 presentation to the school board and community was only about numbers does not mean the final outcome is a pre-determined. Mr Gaston acknowledged that the June 2 Facility and Enrollment Study (FES) presented to the school board, projects annual taxpayer savings at just over $1.1 million.

But Mr Gaston points out that the FES includes Capital Improvement Plan costs saved such as roof and HVAC, however, these are not costs within the Board of Education budget, but on the town side of the budget.

“Moreover, these costs must be expended for whatever use is to be made of the building,” Mr Gaston wrote. “If we are to use and/or properly maintain this building these costs will be incurred irrespective of whether it is a school or not. Only if the building is to be razed will the costs not be incurred. And of course to raze this historic building will likely cost significant money as seen at Fairfield Hills.”

Mr Gaston notes that if the building is slated for reuse, it will be required to be brought up to ADA (American with Disabilities Act) code. This would include ramps, elevators, and bathroom renovations with informal cost discussions pegged between $2 million and $4 million.

“The specific costs should be pinned down,” Mr Gaston wrote. “In addition, as learned from the owner-operator [school bus elimination and its] alleged cost savings – such savings are neither guaranteed, nor have returned to the Board of Education budget.”

Reviewing two studies on the financial impact to homeowners upon the closing of neighborhood schools, Mr Gaston estimated an approximate 10 percent depreciation of those values could be expected in the Hawley School district.

“Clearly, this imposes a significantly disproportionate and discriminatory impact on the Hawley district homeowners compared to other homeowners outside the district,” Mr Gaston noted.

By applying a formula using today’s Grand List, approved budget, and assessed home values, Mr Gaston calculated that, “Closing Hawley will actually raise taxes and cost each [Hawley district] taxpayer with a median assessed home…$41.65.”

Mr Gaston’s report also addresses the timeline around when serious talk about closing a school due to dwindling enrollment began gaining traction.

“Representations have been made at the FES presentation that enrollment numbers justified closing a school before the tragedy,” he wrote. “To say that means to persons outside Newtown, including legislators who approved the bonding of the school we knew we would be closing a school while accepting $50,000,000 to build a new one.”

Mr Gaston said, to his knowledge, such was not the case.

“There had been talk of closing a school but it was anticipated to be far down the road. Just as before the tragedy, the closing of any school should be down the road,” he wrote. “The FES suggests projection wise – nothing after the tragedy is different as to enrollments as before the tragedy.

“The author is aware of no representations to legislators that Newtown would be contemplating closing a school while at the same time building a new $50,000,000 one,” Mr Gaston concluded. “Further, issue of closing a school and not rebuilding Sandy Hook was raised in the Committee of 28 elected officials that voted unanimously to rebuild Sandy Hook School. The issue was dismissed as too speculative.”