Don’t Delay The Vote On The 5/6 School

It started as a hypothetical question late in the April 4 meeting of the Legislative Council. “What if we can’t go to a town meeting until November or December,” asked council chairman Pierre Rochman. At issue was the new school for grades 5 and 6. After years of planning, the Board of Education finally put the $33 million project out to bid last month; construction companies are due to submit bids at the end of this month. So the suggestion that the town put off the vote on the project from the planned June town meeting until November or December came as quite a shock to school officials, who tried to console themselves later by allowing that it had just been a hypothetical question.

This week, it appears that some council members, at least, are seriously considering a five or six-month delay in voting on the school project – a delay that would be a serious mistake. Their reason for putting off the vote has nothing to do with educational excellence or even with fiscal responsibility. It has everything to do with political expedience. In short, they want to hitch the Fairfield Hills bandwagon to the popular 5/6 school plan to help ensure the passage of a $21 million spending plan for the purchase of Fairfield Hills and associated projects to give the town more office space and playing fields. This week, Mr Rochman changed his tone from “What if?” questions to declarative sentences: “It would be foolish to go ahead with a major school project when a major issue of Fairfield Hills and all its uses is right around the bend. Even though it may cost more to wait, this is a time to make the right decision and hold off on schools.”

In sharp distinction to Fairfield Hills, the 5/6 school plan has evolved in a transparent and logical way with time lines, planning and bidding schedules, and detailed construction plans for the Watertown Hall site off Mile Hill Road and Wasserman Way. The school board has kept the Legislative Council informed about its progress and plans every step of the way, presenting detailed plans and schedules last December and in March of this year. It is unfair, if not erratic and irresponsible, for the council to watch the 5/6 school schedule unfold without comment to a point after the project goes out to bid to decide at the 11th hour to delay town authorization of the project for five or six months. Such a decision would have adverse educational and financial consequences.

The school project has already been delayed nine months, and the scheduled opening has slipped back to mid-school year in January/February 2003. The most common kinds of delays in projects of this size are construction delays, and construction hasn’t even begun. The mid-year opening would give the project a six-month cushion that would allow for such delays without jeopardizing the start of the 2003-2004 school year at the new 5/6 school. Any further delays at this point will deprive the project of that leeway.

The consultant managing the project for the school board this week estimated that the delay would cost the town between $750,000 and $1.3 million in additional project expenses, provided contractors are still interested in dealing with a town that seems so uncoordinated at this point. There are plenty of other school projects coming up around the state in the next year, which may command a greater sense of certainty and predictability for contractors. Then there is the issue of the state grants. The school district has secured a commitment from the state to pay a third of the project costs, but only if there is local authorization for the project by June 30, 2001. The state does grant extensions to such deadlines if there is a good reason for an extension. But since the school planning is complete, and the project has already gone out to bid, there is no good reason why the project cannot go forward now. The state may question why is should commit funds from its limited pool of grant money to such a reluctant town.

We have to ask, why would the Legislative Council incur for the town the extra expense of up to $1.3 million, and jeopardize another $11,147,500 for the dubious purpose of delaying a school project that is ready to roll so that a slowly evolving Fairfield Hills purchase plan, riddled with unknowns, can be attached to its coattails in November or December? Why did the council demand $800,000 in cuts from the school budget this year – at the cost of larger class sizes – if it is now going to turn around and squander at least that much on an unnecessary delay of the 5/6 school project?

We have argued in this space before against connecting the vote on the 5/6 school project to Fairfield Hills and the associated municipal projects. Both projects are deserving of support by the people of Newtown. For the council to use the popular 5/6 school plan as leverage to get the Fairfield Hills purchase approved, however, is just plain wrong. It may be a clever political maneuver to hold the school project hostage to the success of the Fairfield Hills plan. But it is wrong. We urge to council to commit itself to a June vote on the 5/6 school project. There’s a lot at stake here, not the least of which is the credibility of the council itself.