TOWN OF ROCKY HILL
BOARD OF EDUCATION
PUBLIC FORUM OF AUGUST 29, 2006
Members Present: Neil Geldof (Chairman)
Jennifer Viggiano-Grosse
Nadine Bell
Peter Arico
Mark E. Carberry
Charles McMonigle
Rene (Skip) Rivard
Anne Schmidt
Catherine Vargas
The Board of Education held a Public Forum on Thursday, August 29, 2006, in the Council Chambers of the Rocky Hill Town Hall, for the purpose of disseminating information concerning the Facilities Committee Report and Recommendations on addressing the conditions of our schools and space needs to address enrollment increases and programmatic changes.
Chairman Geldof called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
The pledge of allegiance was recited.
Dr. Vautour and Mr. Arico presented the Facilities Committee Report & Recommendations, School Space Needs, June 2006 through PowerPoint presentation (Attachment #1). The focus of the report was the long term (25+ years) building needs of the school district. The report contained five sections: building statistics, enrollment data, philosophical/programmatic considerations, feasibility study review, and recommendations.
At the conclusion of the presentation, Mr. Geldof asked people in attendance to present their comments and questions. He explained that the Board will prepare responses and present them at the September 20, 2006 meeting.
Mr. Farnham asked:
· How did we get into such a problem of the schools never maintained in all these years with all these violations?
· The Board did not propose the increasing population within the schools by the type of school, but if you went back and looked at the stats from preceding years you could line it up more so that we would know where the enrollment is coming into - where is the biggest need going to be in the future?
· Over the last five to six years the majority of building going on is for condominiums with the majority being 55 and older and will not have children coming into the schools. This is using up the space where we would have single-family houses coming in. I would like to see in your figures with the percentage of condos being built now and percentage of single family homes what will that do to the potential or anticipated growth in the amount of children that will be coming into the school district. I would come to the conclusion that the population of school children will not be increasing, it will be decreasing.
Mr. Tom Slavin said he has four children in the school system grades K through 6. He thanked the Board for the report and said it was outstanding in assessing where the schools are. His comments:
· Assuming the plan is approved, what would be the construction plan and timeline? Is it sequential construction or concurring?
· When you have to do construction on the schools, how do you at the same time protect the children because construction will be substantial at every facility?
· How will this impact taxes and the mill rate?
· If public or town land is not available, what are the options with regard to private land and the expense that is going to come with that?
· There was a series of deficiencies identified at each school. I was a little disappointed because you’re talking about maintenance items that should have been addressed all along and many of them are just issues at the facilities that need to be addressed like safety or code violations that have been allowed to continue for a substantial period of time that need to be addressed. What would the plan be and the expense to do that should none of these scenarios be approved by the town?
· With regard to comments made about K-2 vs. K-5 in the elementary system: my children have all gone through Moser School. It is an excellent learning environment. Space is always important, but the teachers and the staff at the schools make the education system, not the space. I understand the concern about transitions, life today is nothing but transitions and getting used to that at an early age is sometimes part of that. I understand the conflicts of having kids in multiple schools at the same time and the conflicts that go with that. I do think there is value in older role models and older children in the schools, but they do not always set a positive example. To some extent, that may be overstated.
· With regard to looking at issues of generating revenue with this, I don’t think that should be a goal here. I think it is more important to provide education for our children and come up with the best system and facilities that we can and that we can afford to do.
Mr. Jay Montalbano, of 11 Rocamora Road said he has a child at Stevens School and feels the presentation was excellent. He believes education is the primary function of government and the future of our society depends upon the caliber of the students and the education we provide them. His comments:
· What is the time frame?
· What is the decision-making process going to be for the taxpayers: a referendum; what bonding might be required; how it will impact taxes?
· Cost overruns – these are great first numbers, but anybody who has ever done anything in construction knows that you will deal with overruns. For example, Middletown is building a new high school and they are dealing with this issue.
· What are examples of land under Town control that is available? For example, there is a huge park in front of Moser School, has that ever been considered for expansion and what other land might be available?
· I am concerned in the interim about existing code violations. I have a child at Stevens School and am quite concerned about acknowledged safety and code violations. Some are fire problems and we need to remember that terrible fire in Rhode Island to realize that we can’t play with our children’s lives. I’d like to know what our Board is doing to address code and safety violations at Stevens and other schools.
Mr. Gary Sekorski of 130 Falcon Ridge Road said he has been a resident of this town since 1989 and has one child in West Hill School and one in Griswold Middle School. He thanked the Board for the presentation, which he feels was very good. His comments:
· I think we need to not only consider costs, but also cost savings. A comment was made about energy and efficiency. Energy cost savings could be substantial in one or more of these scenarios and I would like to look at that in detail.
· A price-per-household breakdown. With regard to the differential, what you get for $58 million is substantially less than what you get for $65 million.
· What are the challenges the town faces with location?
· I would be concerned with the time to complete. If at some point the project does go forward, what would be the time frame?
Mrs. Eleanor Vancisin, of 175 Countryside Drive, said she has one child attending West Hill School and one has just graduated from RHHS. Her comments:
· Page 58 of the final report shows that the existing high school area has a little over 140,000 square feet which does not include the pool. The new high school as proposed will have 142,300 square feet which is an increase of a little over 2,000 square feet. Page 72 shows that an auxiliary gym is 2,500 square feet. When they reconfigure the high school will they be taking out any tech ed programs or space needs? Are we going to lose anything that we currently have at the high school to go into a new high school?
· What does this do to our budget going forward to fund additional staffing and programs at all levels of the schools?
Mrs. Carol Carpenter, of 54 Chapin Avenue, said her house is right next door to RHHS. She’d love to see the high school move away. She put up a beautiful big privacy fence this year. However, in her opinion, the bottom line is the town cannot afford this. She is sorry the town hasn’t seen fit to address fire and code safety issues – those are things that should have been done and shouldn’t even be part of this whole report. However, the bottom line for here is that the town simply can’t afford this elaborate plan.
Mr. Tom Kask, of 10 Fern Street, said since 1962 he was the Chairman of the Board of Education during the period when the existing high school was built and was on the Board of Education through the construction and is fairly familiar with it. His comments:
· The building was built to 141,000 square feet which is a recommendation of the State Board of Education of 141 square feet per student. You indicate it is only registered or qualified for 800 students; the state certified it for 1,000 at the time it was built. I understand programming issues, but it should be good for a minimum of 850. I think your number is inaccurate.
· You mention Moser School and some elements in the town have been trying to get rid of Moser for some time. In my tenure on the Board and subsequent to that, I have never met one parent who is dissatisfied with Moser School. They loved it for their kids.
· Town Planning and Zoning features over 55 housing. I don’t see where we are going to be increasing our student population to $50, $60, $70 million worth. It just isn’t there. We do have the space if it is properly used.
· In this morning’s paper there was an article about a planned development of condos and the developer backed out. One of the reasons cited was the cost of copper has a 400% increase. The cost of building materials has gone up at an astronomical rate far greater than you have indicated in the $50 or $60 million. It might be $120 or $130 million. I don’t believe the number projection is right.
· With regard to the alluding to of safety violations and building violations, every school was built to the building code and the fire code at the time; we did not ever build any facility in this town that was in violation. Building regulations, fire regulations and codes change over time. He condemned the administration, the prior administration and the prior Board for letting what are maintenance items accumulate to the extent they have here. Now we are faced with a whole gaggle of building code violations, safety violations, inadequate this, inadequate that, when all of these things could have been taken care of in a timely fashion at far less expense than is projected today.
Mr. Geldof thanked Mr. Kask and said this is the type of dialog they were hoping to get from the public this evening. He said that when they received the Schoenhardt report that report is a snapshot taken by the architectural firm at the time. There is no one sitting at this table tonight who is aware of violations. You are correct - the schools were built to the codes existing at that time. Even though the codes may change, they still do warrant consideration to make some improvements for the safety of everyone. Mr. Kask commented that a proactive administration over the years would have taken care of this. Mr. Geldof said we have to deal with the snapshot taken by Schoenhardt and how we make progress from this point on.
Mr. Bill Kasprazinski of 108 Bailey Road, said he has a lot of questions which he will type and submit to the Board. His comments:
· The cost for the land acquisition was confusing; it can go from $5 Million to $6 million depending on whether it is public or town land? Dr. Vautour said the Schoenhardt report put in a factor of $1.8 million for land acquisition.
· What is the anticipated or estimated number of new hires in this project for teachers, custodians, and administrators and the estimated annual costs of those factors?
· What would be the estimated added cost of utilities and insurances for facilities of the sort being considered?
· Are all the equipment and furnishings accounted for in your cost analysis for this project?
· I would like to concur with everything Mr. Kask said.
· Having been a coach, I noticed that missing from the presentation was how many athletic fields are part of this project. I ask because if they do not exist, I can foresee a need for them in the future. Parents are going to want these things for their children just like they wanted the press box at McVicar field and dugouts at the baseball fields and we’ve gotten all of those at a cost to the town. Could they be listed, and are they part of the cost analysis?
· Will any of the new athletic fields have lighting for evening competition and the costs associated with all of these? Will any of the athletic fields have artificial surfaces? Will there be a new track? Will there be any stadiums or stadium seating and press boxes? Will each field have its own scoreboard, flagpole and public address system? Will there be permanent bathroom facilities adjacent to athletic fields? Will there be an athletic field concession facility? Will there be an athletic field storage facility? Will there be an athletic field team facility? In short, will there be a field house? Will natural grass fields have sprinkler systems at the time they are constructed? What is the anticipated estimated new cost for maintaining all new athletic fields on a yearly basis?
· What is the anticipated estimated number of new hires for teachers, custodians and administrators?
· After having gone over those questions, it brings up another area that the Board may not be aware of but will impact the taxpayer. Will the Town have to hire more personnel for its parks and highway departments to maintain new fields, roads, and parking facilities, and the costs estimates for this?
· Would new or more equipment (trucks, plows, lawnmowers, etc.) have to be purchased?
· How would the new facility impact buses and transportation needs for the school system and the town?
· What is the anticipated added cost for food services?
· Are all books and supplies for the project included in the cost analysis?
· Any estimated cost for yearly supplies for these new facilities? The annual budget could take a big hit in supplies of all kinds, upkeep, salary and insurance.
· How does Schoenhardt Architects figure into the design and development of the new project? Could they bid to design the new project?
· The estimated cost is $97.9 million less $30 million reimbursement from the state, plus land acquisition, plus preparation. Is the preparation for site development figured into the costs, such as perc tests, core samples that have to be taken for the foundation, etc., or will this be an added expense that we didn’t know about?
· If the Sunnycrest site is used as was mentioned in the newspaper, would that mean relocating the park’s garage facility that is now there? What would be the cost of relocating that facility?
· As mentioned earlier, the majority of building going on in Rocky Hill now is for 55 and older and I would also be interested to learn how that impacts your numbers.
· What is the estimated tax increase per household for this project? Does it include all ancillary costs alluded to such as teachers, custodians, administration, parks, highway, town departments, equipment, maintenance, and the list goes on?
· Am I correct in assuming that West Hill Elementary School has been one of Rocky Hill’s most outstanding schools having won numerous academic physical education awards for student achievement as well as staff and administrative awards? I think at the time it won some of these awards, it was one of the largest schools in town with an even larger population than the high school. Then we have the other extreme of Moser School which is very small and very successful. It goes back to who is in those classrooms and who is doing the job. The teachers in Rocky Hill have been doing an outstanding job for years.
· Realistically, cost estimates are usually low. Projects tend to go over budget. For example, the town hall, the sally port project and one of the fire houses. Am I correct to assume that any cost overruns will be absorbed by the Town with no further reimbursements from the state?
· Have you looked into how the Sunnycrest site would affect neighborhood traffic patterns during peak periods and during normal hours; ditto athletic field use for middle and high school events? If you put a high school at a different site and still try to use the existing high school facilities now you’ve got athletes being bussed from one spot to another, crossing streets, and for transportation it’s a large headache.
· How would having four schools within a square mile area (middle, high, new elementary and Stevens School) affect safety concerns such as fire or lockdowns? If you lockdown one school with the others being so close, would you have to lockdown all the schools?
· The Veterans Home property, how would this affect Elm Ridge Park? The amphitheater? The veterans’ home itself? And traffic patterns and safety?
· What is the anticipated cost to the town for closing Moser?
· When will the Board attempt to answer the questions put to you tonight? Mr. Geldof explained that it is the Board’s intent to gather information and input this evening and work on responses between now and September 20th so when we go into the public part of that meeting we will be able to answer some of the questions in a formal presentation.
Mr. Kasprazinski said he has more concerns; a lot of which weren’t in the presentation and are going to affect the taxpayer on a yearly basis in addition to the initial cost of the project. He said he would come back on the 20th. Mr. Geldof asked Mr. Kasprazinski to email his questions to the Board offices so they could be sure to address as many points as possible.
Mrs. Jane Hiller, of 177 Catherine Drive, said she has two children at West Hill School and has a vested interest in making sure we have the proper educational facilities and programs for our children. Her comments:
· When was the last time the Board of Education and the Town did a review of this magnitude of the school system?
· What are our plans going forward to insure we don’t again arrive at a state we are in now? It is a normal evolutionary process within a town to need to revise all of its facilities on a cyclical basis. However, I agree with comments made earlier that there are a lot of maintenance and safety issues that need to be addressed regardless of what we do with these five scenarios. I am not comfortable with my children being in the schools the way they were described to me tonight. It makes me uncomfortable that there are no sprinkler systems for almost all of our school facilities.
· What is the implementation time frame with the phase-in and the disruption? How and when do we move the children if we build a high school? What’s the phase-in plan?
· Thoughts regarding total costs insuring we’ve accommodated increases in materials and services in terms of the construction that we budgeted for overruns: What are the anticipated impact to the operating costs, incremental or a deduction as was mentioned with energy consumption to where we are today, additional staffing and expenses vs. any savings that are available to us?
· We all need to understand that as we look at the total cost of the project minus any state reimbursement and town costs we all live in the state and in some way will bear the burden of the State’s input to the town. So we need to keep that in mind.
Mrs. Debby Friday, of 316 Parsonage Street, said she thinks we need to reinvest in our schools and we need to address the problems that exist right now. Her comments:
· I understand this is a huge project and there is a lot to discuss and review, but I think as others have indicated, that there are significant problems that exist right now and I’d like to see an actual list of projects that you plan to work on this year, next year, and the year after, so we do see some improvements. Or, are we stuck in a holding pattern until the town decides? I don’t think that is acceptable.
· At a previous meeting, the Facilities Committee talked about six sites in town that would be the right size for the new high school and I’d like to know what those sites were and what their decision was in terms of what were the best sites for the new high school.
Mrs. Marie Benedetto, of 594 France Street, thanked the Board for their efforts and said she agrees with comments people have already made. Her comments:
· My main concern is, what are the lessons learned in this process. Obviously, we cannot wait 20 or 30 years to maintain our buildings the way they need to be, and $55 - $65 million is a lot to ask the town to absorb. Who is going to be in place to better monitor our schools on an ongoing basis and how are they going to work with the Board of Education (since the budget for the facilities is not on the Board of Education’s budget), and what will that committee be doing on a regular basis?
· We are already two years into the process from when we first engaged the architectural firm; how much longer will this take?
· What is the process to undergo to get a referendum in place? I think people need to understand that process and what the timing might be. I don’t want to be three, five or six years out and still talking about this and not having something accomplished.
· I would like to see a prioritized plan as to how we are going to address some of these issues in a one-, three-, and five-year plan because the longer you wait, the higher the costs are going to be.
· A contingency plan if this is not passed and how would that work?
· Reimbursements from the state that you’ve talked about, what are the assurances that the funding is available and what our process is to be able to obtain it. If we have to wait several years to get this done, how will that affect our ability to obtain that same funding?
Mrs. Benedetto concluded stating that the most important issue is that she doesn’t want this to be a distraction from what we really need to consider for an ongoing evolution in our education process. She hopes the focus will continue to be placed on programming and adding new programs and not just maintaining and sustaining as we have been doing, but to take a proactive look toward our education and not be distracted by this whole process.
Mr. Kevin Sudell of 30 Chapin Avenue, said when he watched this report, he chuckled a lot, because everything, for the most part, is maintenance issues and there are inaccuracies. His comments:
· The auditorium at the high school was renovated 3 ½ years ago and that didn’t show up in this report. The mezzanine at the high school did not show up in this report either. It is not handicapped accessible and never was built as handicapped accessible.
· A lot of what is presented here is ADA requirements and things of that nature. Most of the report is extremely misleading. I am familiar with a lot of the fire codes and if there was truly an issue no one would be entering the building - the fire marshal’s office would have closed it.
· At the high school, parking is ridiculously inadequate.
· Additional classroom space, I’d like to see programmatically what is the long term future for these programs? How are they truly going to impact that school?
· What is the long term use of the facility? After hour usage as well as during the day since the building is programmed from 6:00 a.m. until 10:00 p.m. every single day of the week with athletic and other activities.
· At the middle school, I love the idea of another auditorium, but I hate it for that building. I think it is a big joke. During the time when the middle school was renovated a conscious decision was made to remove that stage. You got a portable stage, it’s not handicapped accessible. Also, the additional parking is not enough especially for that site.
· At the high school, the location for the new parking lot. You’ve proposed that the high school tennis court be removed and converted to parking. If I remember correctly, the seniors in town didn’t like walking up the hill to go from the regular parking lot to the gymnasium to vote inside the gym, so why are we sticking the parking lot at the furthest location from the fields that people would be walking to. My fear is that if you eliminate that tennis court, we’ll never see it again. When money gets tight that won’t come back. So, why don’t we think about putting the parking lot where you are proposing the tennis court?
· Stevens School air conditioning and other upgrades. I’d love to see air conditioning in that building.
· The report states that teachers cannot call out from classrooms. Is that an issue that there are no telephones in the classrooms to get an outside line or is it an issue that the PA system they use can only call to the office? It’s not clarified in the report.
· ADA requirements for the elementary schools. I remember being in the elementary schools and going through when the ADA stuff was supposed to come up and recall that every building had something ADA compliant so that it technically met what it needs to be today.
· I’d like to see the school system look at reconfiguring classrooms inside the school buildings to get maximum usage of the actual current physical plant before adding additional classes. This report does not take into consideration reconfiguring any of the school buildings except for Moser where it proposes to demolish it or portions of it. I’d like to see that especially at the Stevens School and also at the high school because I know there is a tech ed classroom that isn’t used for much other than storage.
· At Moser School, I don’t like what you are currently proposing. I don’t see a significant need to remove it. If you changed which classes went in there, technically then the second floor is usable, because in your report it states that it’s only not usable for K through 1. Could we look at the impact of making it 4-5 instead of K-2? What’s that impact? That would make that building more usable and give it a longer lifespan.
· At West Hill School, the report states that all the rooftop units should be replaced. Didn’t a lot of the units get replaced when we redid the roof on that building?
· Eliminate the pit. I’m very for auditoriums. Get rid of the pit, it doesn’t serve a purpose.
· As for consistency, West Hill doesn’t have a covered entryway. Stevens doesn’t either. Moser doesn’t either. The only school that has a covered entryway from the busses to the building is Griswold Middle School. The high school doesn’t either. So, why wasn’t it proposed for all the buildings?
· The maintenance issues on cafeterias, etc., everything sounds like maintenance or lack thereof.
Fire Chief, Joe Kochanek, and state certified fire inspector said all these schools have been visited by the fire department numerous times in the past 1½ years. He has four daughters who attended the school system and now has five grandchildren going through the system. His kids went through Moser - it’s a great school. He inspected Moser yesterday and is in the process or writing a letter to Mr. Cooke about Gene Pelleren and what an outstanding job he did because it looks brand new.
He said the reason he is in attendance this evening is because this report makes it look like the fire department is not doing its job and to answer people’s questions. He wished to put to rest some of the issues here. He asked who made up the slides with all the flames? That does nothing but spread fear into people’s hearts. Trust me folks, my grandkids are in that school. There are deficiencies. They stem from housekeeping. They stem from people’s inability to recognize dangerous things that they do – like extension cord to extension cord to extension cord. Maintenance is definitely a problem and some of these issues are maintenance. If you build a new school, you will move that problem from here to there and instead of us citing the problem in this building we will do it there, because where the people go, the problems go.
Starting with Moser; for people with kids attending Moser School, rest assured that Moser is in good shape.
· The report says the custodian’s office located under the fire stairs – fire separation issue. The fix to that is to put a fire rated door with an automatic closure and keep it closed. Done.
· The report says the fire alarm system is antiquated, etc. It’s not the newest. Does it function? Yes. Would we like to replace it? Yes. Are your kids safe there? Yes. This tends to lead people to the point of thinking we have big problems.
· The emergency lighting. In the last 2½ years, myself and Rich Renstrom, your Fire Marshal, have gone through these schools and picked up on things that should have or may have been missed over the years. In those two years, what was deficient is no longer that way. There are some big issues that have to be taken care of, but most of them have been taken care of in the last 1 ½ years.
· Moser needs fire doors for its separation from the stairwells. That’s been a budgeted item. We’ve referred that to the town and they have supposedly put money in the budget for this coming year and that will be taken care of. Once you’ve done that, Moser is okay.
· Someone made the statement that we should be proactive on code updates. Absolutely. Do you have to change the system? Not by code. Is it prudent to start changing the system? Absolutely. The only way to get anything is to do things on a programmable basis.
Students at Stevens are fine, too. Stevens School had a lot of problems also, but they were all taken care of in the last year. I went through the schools and provided you with a report. Mrs. Schmidt said she thought that was for the middle school. Mr. Kochanek said since that time they have fixed all the stuff.
· With regard to no sprinkler system at Stevens, in 1997 you had all the ceilings apart for asbestos removal, etc., that would have been the time to do it. For you to do this now will cost you ten times as much as it would have if you’d done it before. Programming yourself ahead and asking what can we do to make this better will save you money.
· The emergency lighting system is all fixed and will last during a power outage.
As for West Hill School:
· That school just got a brand new, state of the art, fire alarm system from the panel and devices to the wiring.
· The hood system has been a bone of contention for two years. Fix the hood system. We don’t use it. The stove is disconnected because they don’t cook there. Why is it being shown as a deficiency? You don’t use it.
As for Griswold Middle School:
· AV device layout does not meet contemporary code standards. That’s an addressable system like this one here. It tells you where it is, what it is, and even how dirty it is.
As for Rocky Hill High School:
· The high school alarm system was built in 1977 and it needs to be upgraded. What have we done? We said to facilities, you’ve got to change the alarm system. We cannot afford to do the whole thing. Well, let’s change the panel to begin with. You now have a new panel in the high school. Progress. I think there is money in this year’s budget to rewire the school with state of the art heat and smoke detectors. We are being proactive for your kids and families.
Things that are in here, like need for a sprinkler system, as was pointed out, when you built it, it didn’t need one. If you do major renovations to any of these buildings, that brings you up to all the new code standards. These buildings are protected by the codes that were in place when they were built and if there was a deficiency then we would be asking for the town to put them in. So, when they say there are deficiencies, yes, there are. It would be nice to have a sprinkler system; but do we need one, no.
I wanted to make sure that everyone is comfortable and know that the fire department has looked at each school three or four times and things that were wrong were corrected and things that go wrong will be corrected as soon as we find out about them.
Mr. George Corneilusson, of 69 Dividend Road, thanked the Fire Chief for bringing out a lot of things that should have been brought out. He said he is over 55 and doesn’t have children in the school system now, but did have and he is not against education. He thinks the Schoenhardt report is flawed. His comments:
· Supposedly, we own some property adjacent to the Veteran’s Hospital so we don’t have to buy land. I saw that in print. We are talking $1.8 million to buy land. You can build four or five houses on that. Property in back of me just sold 17 acres for about $4 million. $1.8 million is not going to buy a lot.
· As for projecting 25 years in advance, are they architects or Kreskin? That’s not their expertise to give the population of the school. We cannot project that far ahead. How can an architect say what the school population is going to be in 25 years? Let them stick to being an architect.
Mr. Cliff Hart said he is neither for nor against the project. He thanked everyone for the report and the Board for their efforts. He suggested that there will probably be a need for a new high school whether it is now or in ten years from now. In addition, he feels that some of the report is a little bit inflated. His comments:
· With regard to ADA compliance with water fountains, if you install a cup dispenser next to the water fountain where someone in a wheelchair could have access to the cups, they could have access to the water fountain.
· My thoughts are that if we are going to do the project, let’s spend more money. Let’s build a parking lot that’s big enough. If necessary, build a one- or two-story parking garage if we don’t have enough land to make an adequate parking space. If we are going to build a new auditorium, let’s build the biggest, the best, state of the art auditorium that we can. Let’s cut the nonsense, spend the money and do it.
· The next problem the town will be addressing is a new Belden library. The library is getting small, the building is inadequate and it’s not energy efficient. So, why not build a library onto the new high school as part of the high school and make it accessible to the public. If we are going to do this project, let’s do it and do it right.
· Same with a gymnasium. Build it big enough. The current gym at the high school does not have enough bleachers. When you go to ball games, there is no place to sit down.
· Does the report reflect cost of furniture in the new school?
· A suggestion for students in our school system would be to provide them with a course in economics or banking 101 because there is obviously an economic problem in this country and our children have the wrong idea about spending and how they should spend their money.
· My other though was about location. I like the idea of putting it where Stevens School is and eliminating the current building. It is right in the center of town and that would save us money.
· As far as saving money and what we do with Moser School, I think Moser School is the future foundry property in this town. Nobody wants to do anything with that property because it’s going to take a lot of money to bring it up to date to use the whole facility.
Mr. Bill MacDonald, of 32 West Ridge Drive, said he has one son in West Hill and one entering the High School. He thanked the Board for the great job and for bringing an issue of such importance upfront to the public. He appreciated hearing from the Fire Chief and it would have been nice to have someone from the fire department more integrated into the study to bring out the true deficiencies that as a parent he is concerned about. I think you have an obligation now that there is a public record showing 50 +/- deficiencies within the schools to document each one and if it has been remediated, when it was remediated, and what’s still open. I think you may even have an obligation to your insurance carrier. His comments:
· Since the February report was issued, those items like the oil tank for example, I would assume has been removed and some of these other maintenance items that seem to be pretty easy to do have been addressed. It is just appalling to me that any of these issues are on a report like this.
· Is scenario number five the best one? It may be, but I definitely think there is a lot of discussion and I agree that you don’t have the fully loaded cost picture in this report. I think you’re missing a lot of the different costs.
· There are also opportunities for efficiency from some of the different ways of energy efficiency in the newer operations.
· Some of the locations. The high school fields, if it is going to be on Brook Street, how are the kids going to get over to the high school? Regardless of what happens, I think we need to make sure that we don’t have kids changing in garages in between sporting events at the high school. That’s ridiculous.
· The largest component is what is the cost? I think you have a good first step, but I think you are far away from taking this to a Council or even looking at a referendum. Absolutely, I think you should never tie any remaining safety issues or inadequacies to a referendum when you are trying to roll it into a large new school or adding onto a couple of existing schools. I think there are some hybrid alternatives in between.
· One item I want to get clarification on is for the students who opt out. My son is entering the high school and we could send him to any private school in the state. However, we live in Rocky Hill and are sending him to the public school, but that is not the case for everyone. When you look at the percentage, it seems to me a lot of kids are opting out of going to the high school. I don’t know how that data has been reflected into your overall projections of enrollment and if that has any impact or not.
· There was a slide about revenue generating potential. All of your scenarios have Moser up and running. I don’t know what the carrying cost is of keeping Moser up and running, I don’t know if the revenue generating alternatives really have a positive net present value. I think before you say you can be making money out of this, I think you need to provide all of us more information on that.
· What’s the impact to the taxpayer?
Mr. Geldof stated that everyone has to realize this program is still in the “embryo” stage. The goal tonight is to keep it moving. That’s why we are soliciting your input. The reason we reflect the potential of generating revenue is just so that the general population is aware that there is a potential there without defining the exact amount. The goal is to keep it moving. We don’t know what the timeframe is when we will actually get a better handle on the costs. We have a plan on how to get a better handle on the costs, but that’s after it gets moved along to the Council. When a referendum would be scheduled is anybody’s guess at this time. This is not something you are going to see under construction in the next couple of years. There’s a lot of work to do in refining the estimates and what strategy to take. So, I think that we have basically covered everything here this evening.
Mr. Charles Wisnioski, of 666 Old Main Street and former member of the Board of Education said five of his children graduated from Rocky Hill schools, each having a full K-12 experience. He thanked the faculty and the staff of the entire school system for the education that they received. He has expressed his opinions about the proposed plan in writing. It will be available on ourrockyhill.com website in a few days. He requested that the Board include this correspondence in the minutes of this meeting and attach it to the minutes kept in the library and on record in the Town Clerk’s office (Attachment #2). He said his writing is titled, What the Board of Ed Did Not Tell You in which he addressed three areas: (1) school enrollment (2) school condition, and (3) costs and benefits. His comments:
· Page 12 of the Schoenhardt report indicates their projected enrollment as 2,705. You show it different on your slide 3 of 2,752 and I have an earlier slide that has the other number that needs to be resolved.
· The present school enrollment depending upon which figure you have is about 2,550. The State Dept. of Education indicates that the building capacities are approximately 2,890 with the 800 at the high school. There is a present excess capacity of 340. From the State Dept. of Education, I got the average class size for Berlin, Newington, Wethersfield, Cromwell, and Rocky Hill. In every case, kindergarten through high school, we are way below everybody else. We don’t have a space crunch at this time.
· Projections. Who is projected enrollment and what did they conclude? The State Dept. of Education provides projections on a 10-year basis for every town in the state every year. I would like to have those projections for the last three years. I have attempted to get them and have not had any luck doing that.
· The State Dept. of Education’s 10-year projection to the year 2015 is for 2,710 students. Schoenhardt’s projection is for 2,705 for the same period. That averages 2,708. The Board of Education has taken one sentence from the Plan of Development, “If Rocky Hill becomes a community of about 22,000 people and the school enrollment ratio is at around 15%, Rocky Hill may need a school system that can accommodate 3,300 students.” What they didn’t include was the rest of the information in the report - that the future school sites may not be needed until the year 2030. So, one is a 25 or 30 year projection while the other two are ten year projections. You can’t match them. The Plan of Development goes on further. Current enrollment trends and projections seem to indicate that the system-wide enrollment peak is passing in Rocky Hill. Thus, Rocky Hill can anticipate an enrollment decline until about the year 2015. Further it says space needs will peak for schools in 2010. It is an old report. It is not entirely accurate, but do not tell the public and the taxpayers that the Plan of Development is a relevant document when we are projecting to 2015 and try to associate it with the other two. It’s an “if” statement with a whole lot of other information. It’s a misrepresentation.
· What if the proposals were approved? Option five. The minutes for the Board of Ed meeting for May 23, 2006 indicate that there would be approximately 23 empty classrooms upon completion of the proposed project if it was built as suggested. That’s where I come up with all these alternate uses because there are going to be 23 empty classrooms based upon excess capacity at the middle school when it becomes an elementary school and when the high school becomes a middle school. Further, when you do that, you are going to need more busses. You will have to bus another 200 kids.
· Impact on Board of Ed operating costs. People have talked about it and asked about it. You need new principals, secretaries, custodians, and cafeteria staff, etc. What do we get for approximately $100 million? Our capacity is proposed to increase to 3,005 students. If the existing capacity is 2,890, we get another 115 student capacity for $100 million. If 10% of 70 million was bonded for 20 years, we’d have an annual $7 million per year (approx. 3.5 mills) which would be a 15% tax increase according to the Town Manger.
· The Fire Marshal has already talked about condition. If there are violations without a plan and you’re letting people go to school on Thursday, there is something wrong here. And all this cute stuff about flames and inadequacies, etc., you have a responsibility as Board of Ed members and as adults not to let anyone enter those buildings and put anyone at risk. If you are not pursuing that, but alleging it, it is a misrepresentation.
· None of the Board of Education minutes from the last three years that I have seen discussed safety issues that are portrayed in the “flamie” sheets. As the Fire Marshal pointed out, the cute little thing about the audio visual layout not meeting current code, fails to tell you that the Schoenhardt report said that the facility is fully protected by a water-based wet fire sprinkler system; on and on cherry picking one little item to achieve your goal of supporting this plan.
· The Griswold Middle School is criticized for lack of an auditorium, inadequate parking, limited outdoor activity areas, limited air conditioning. These conditions exist because the present administration chose not to put any of those items in there. That was done in 1996; less than 10 years ago. Those are conscious decisions by the administration not to have those items in there. We have five more years to pay on the bonds for those improvements and this is a good example. You’re planning for 25 years in the future, yet something you did less than ten years ago is inadequate.
· You have to think, what is that question mark that you’re showing on the front of the first exhibit. What comes after the computer? Do you think that you are so intelligent that you’ll know what our needs are that far out especially as it has been pointed out. The actual population of Rocky Hill is shifting; we are older than most towns (based upon population data) with our median age being about 42 which is older than surrounding towns by about three years. 450 units of active adult housing have been approved in the last three years. There are no more residential sites that are non-senior remaining in Rocky Hill. We are down to the ridges and wetland areas for undeveloped residential land.
· Included in my report is Dr. Vautour’s statements including one in 2004 when he said that the next 3-5 years we’ll get a better idea of what the statistics are telling us about State Dept. of Education projections for enrollment.
Mr. Geldof asked Mr. Wisnioski to wrap it up. Mr. Wisnowski said he would provide the Board of Education with an original of his report along with pages that show the wrong information, and he provided copies to people in the audience.
Mr. Rivard stated that as a member of the Facilities Committee, he appreciates the passion and dedication to the Town of Rocky Hill and would like to say something about what the Board of Education did not tell you. We met a minimum of fourteen times relying on information and data that was given to us. These meetings are open to the public and any person that was a former member of the Board of Education that had information, I certainly hope would come forward to the Board not in an aggressive stand for those of us who met at 8:00 a.m., 2:00 p.m., 4:00 p.m., to do this work, but would come to give us a helping hand to do a report to present to the public. I think it is important that we bring out, so rumors don’t continue, that there is nothing in this report that says fire code violations. It does not state violations or that anything is against code. I certainly hope you feel that your elected officials would be diligent enough that if there was a violation, students wouldn’t be in school. Let’s make these rumors stop and work together on this so that we can come together for what’s best for our students and the future of our students in Rocky Hill. As a member of the Facilities Committee I invite you to come to any of our meetings and to listen to our deliberations and to give us your input so that in the future and in continued reports, maybe our information will be corrected if there is an error. Thank you.
Moved by Mrs. Vargas, seconded by Mrs. Viggiano-Grosse, to adjourn the meeting (9:20 p.m.).
FAVOR: ALL
MOTION CARRIED
Respectfully submitted,
Juanda J. Simons
Recording Secretary
Accepted by: _______________________ Date: _____________________