<p>The Tisbury school building committee will stick with the plan to build a new three-story school on the current school site, despite some backlash.</p>
The Tisbury school building committee will stick with the plan to build a new three-story school on the current school site, despite some community backlash.
At a nearly two-hour meeting Monday night, the committee heard opinions on both sides of the issue from more than 40 people, including parents, teachers, community members and representatives from town boards.
In the end the committee determined it did not need to revote the 11-5 decision it made on June 19 favoring new construction over renovation and expansion at the school.
“Right now, our vote stands,” said committee chairman Colleen McAndrews.“The vote we took on June 19, we will move forward with the MSBA [Massachusetts School Building Authority] process.” She continued: “It doesn’t mean the concerns that were raised by some of our committee members are going to be ignored or disregarded, because they will not going forward, I can guarantee that. The conversation will continue and we will work as hard as we can to come up with something we can all live with.”
The Monday meeting was called to air ongoing concerns, including those raised at a meeting of the Tisbury planning board last week.
Principal John Custer said expanded space is needed to accommodate growing needs of school population.
Principal John Custer said expanded space is needed to accommodate growing needs of school population.
“I am concerned that our town leadership is not publicly able to support our process, and this is giving the impression that the town is hedging on our decision,” Mrs. McAndrews said at the outset.
Discussion bounced back and forth between the rights of the children and the responsibility for preservation. Parents and teachers appeared to be aligned in support of the new building.
The new three-story building is expected to be 79,000 square feet (as opposed to an 80,400-square-foot addition/renovation) allowing for two 900-square-foot classrooms per grade level. Principal John Custer said the expanded space is necessary to continue to provide needed services, including special education, an expanding English language learners program, world languages and a maker’s space. The added space will also alleviate the congested lunch rotations the students currently deal with.
Emily Solarazza, a parent of an upcoming third grader and kindergartner, asked the committee to honor the June 19 decision.
“This is what we want, we want the new school,” she said. “People were losing sleep, including myself, before the last vote and were very relieved that people are thinking of our children as we make this transition.”
She said she was particularly concerned about displacing students into trailers during a renovation. “People have also been saying, including myself, that they would consider school choice in a heartbeat to not be part of that,” she said. Daniel Seidman, a planning board member who sits on the school building committee, said he was unaware of a provision offered by the MSBA for renovations that allows for smaller room size. He said that should have been further explored as it could save money and questioned the need for 900-square-foot classrooms.
“A good teacher is going to educate in whatever size space they have, if they can’t do that, they shouldn’t be a teacher,” he said.
Cost remains a heavy concern for taxpayers and the selectmen as the estimated $45 million project continues forward. The town has been approved for a 41.26 per cent reimbursement rate on all eligible costs, leaving the town responsible for approximately $33 million.
Project architect Peter Turowski said the cost will be more predictable with a new construction over a renovation addition.
“The cost estimates as they now have been developed . . . that is about $3 million less total project costs for the new construction option,” he said. “That is due to a number of factors, efficiency being one, the cost of modulars which is not reimbursed by the state being another,” he said.
Owners project manager Richard Marks from Daedelus said keeping to the schedule is important for the process. He said he already had to cancel a conference call with the MSBA last Thursday to wait for the outcome of the Monday meeting.
“The inflation factor here is $200,000 a month . . . . so the more we study the more we’ll cost, that’s just a fact of life,” he said. “You guys have been doing studies since 2012, I think. It is time to move forward . . . there is still another four-month of design to take place before the budget is set and before we are locked in to the total cost. The time is not yet over for people to look at the design and to give input. We’re going to have several more forums about the design.”
The building committee plans to host an open house at the school in August.
Comments
How could the construction of
Tisbury tax payerHow could the construction of a new school cost less than renovating? Are their budgets to show this in any detail? Maybe when "thinking about the kids" we should show them what good leadership is, and not reckless spending and waste.
They school board owes it to
larry mollin Vineyard HavenThey school board owes it to the community to get an independent budget analysis. Not have the architects who are doing the project give the cost analysis. That is crazy. Of course they want to build a new building instead of renovating. Their ego is in this.
Please, help everyone and get an independent voice to determine a price estimate.
We can't let the old school
Christine VHWe can't let the old school be taken down! Have the Superintendents office move into the old school!
Yes we can, and should.
rich VHYes we can, and should.
Sorry Rich, I disagree that
Christine VHSorry Rich, I disagree that you should tear down this building and replace it with a parking lot! And as a tax payer, and a parent I will do what ever I can to prevent it.
The old building space will
Barbara TisburyThe old building space will not be all parking/ it will be outdoor education and playground space, too.
Had they built at Manter Well
Former teacher Vineyard HavenHad they built at Manter Well site they could have done that plus Town Hall offices as well!
It is extremely unlikely that
Down IslanderIt is extremely unlikely that the Manter Well site would ever have been approved.
The dream of using that conservation land was based on exploiting a legal loophole that resulted from a 2012 ruling.
Furthermore, please see section 2.05, (2) and (3) of the MSBA regulations and guidelines, "adverse impacts":
(2) The site selected shall be chosen on the basi
s that it will meet the educational need,
maximize the use of any available community resourc
es, and minimize any possible adverse
educational, environmental, social, or economic imp
act upon the community. Such adverse
impact shall include, but not necessarily be limite
d to: the need to provide new sewers, roads,
transportation facilities, water supply, water conn
ections, and other public infrastructure to the
site; existence of soil conditions or hazardous mat
erials that may cause site development costs to
be greatly increased
(3) To the extent feasible, the site selected sha
ll be proximate to other facilities such as
libraries, museums, parks, natural resources, natur
e study areas, and businesses, which would
enhance the proposed educational program
YOu can read the regs here:
http://www.massschoolbuildings.org/sites/default/files/edit-contentfile…
YOu will see that they make ample provision for renovation and expansion of the existing school.
The program is actually very flexible.
Where will the new school be
WashAbhored EdgartownWhere will the new school be built so that it won't disrupt the old building if it's going to be on the same property?
Basically the new school is
Slipper ShellBasically the new school is planned for the current parking lot.
The site of the existing school becomes a parking lot/dropoff area.
Like in suburbia! Or a mall! Or the Regional High School!
“The inflation factor here is
clear, simple, and wrong math“The inflation factor here is $200,000 a month . . . . so the more we study the more we’ll cost" The trouble with this argument is that it's only looking at the cost of THIS school and ignoring the NEXT one (and the one after that one . . .). This project is $45 million to build a school that people will be clamoring to replace or renovate in, let's be generous, 30 years. That's 1.5 million per year (to be fair, that number declines in real value due to inflation). The point is, every year this project is delayed is one year later we have to build the next one, and that's worth something. Maybe less than 200K per month, or maybe more. It's all a guesstimate at this stage, but it shouldn't be ignored.
New School = maximum
Down IslanderNew School = maximum disruption.
#Kids going to school next to a major construction site: noise, dust, no parking lot for anyone.
#Neighborhood suffers same.
#Large trucks rumbling through five Corners and small neighborhood streets to bring in the construction machinery and the building materials.
#After the school is built: Noise of demolition. Dust bigtime. Asthmatics and elderly beware. Senior center is just around the corner.
#More Trucks rumbling through town streets to take the remains of the old school off-island.
Packers or the SSA? They all have to go through Five Corners or Main Street.
#Site graded and tarred, etc. More disruption and noise.
#Has anyone consulted the DPW concerning impact to street and substreet infrastructure of this major construction in an in-town neighborhood?
Minimum disruption: Renovate and expand.
Maximum disruption for kids and community: New building and tear down existing one.
Oh, I forgot to mention the cost down the line, in 20-25 years, when the "new" building needs major repairs.
You're right, we should never
Islander2 EdgYou're right, we should never build anything new ever again since those things will always be a problem. That includes renovating the school.
The disruption to the
Down IslanderThe disruption to the children caused by renovation has been a major argument of those who want a brand-new school.
In fact, it seems to be THE major argument.
They contend that building a brand-new school will mean the least disruption.
I am pointing out that when you stop to think about the realities,
this will be the scenario with the MOST disruption.
You may still want a brand-new school,
but IMO the "disruption" argument does not support that position.
Renovation and expansion is
tisbury voter tisburyRenovation and expansion is more expensive? certainly doesn't have to be.. where is the modest proposal, whats that look like, shouldn't we see that option before jumping at a hugely expensive and the incredibly wasteful demolition of our historic school
Common sense from Springfield
Down IslanderCommon sense from Springfield, Mass.:
"You don't need a Taj Mahal to have a great school"
#
http://www.masslive.com/news/index.ssf/2017/06/a_summer_blitz_springfie…
#
"Springfield is using state funds from the Massachusetts School Building Authority as well as city money to tackle a slate of school improvements and repairs this year, primarily during the summer months.
MSBA projects totaling $13.7 million primarily involve major work such as new roofs, windows and doors. The projects are ***80 percent state funded*** and 20 percent city funded.
Another $3.5 million involves various other repairs and improvements funded by the city and its school department. The projects range from painting to a new fire alarm system."
""This is a summer blitz we are doing," Mayor Domenic J. Sarno said in announcing the projects. "You don't have to have a Taj Mahal to have a great school but it does help for a good physical environment for our teachers, our students, our staff and our families."
Closer Look, Tisbury
Closer Look TisburyCloser Look, Tisbury
$32,000,000 of our tax dollars would go a long way toward a decent renovation and an addition to the Tisbury School. We can plan to add over $100 per thousand of our real estate valuation a year for twenty years for this, for a structure that will not last as long as this one has. That translates to roughly $600 for a house valued at $600,000. We do not need a new school for a declining school population. The state will make exceptions for classroom size. The school has been well maintained, recently with a new roof and a new boiler (one of three.) Why hasn't there been an independant study to see what could be done for the purposes of a modern education with the existing school? The committee is digging in its' heels in defiance of town leaders. I was at the meeting Monday night. Why is anyone who disagrees with their plan deemed to be somehow against education and children? It would be better to show the children some solidarity, instead of complaining that the children "deserve" a new school. Why are we being threatened by the architects with a project increase of $200,000 a month if there is a delay? That's the architect's guess. We should work with this amazing, strong, beautiful building to make it even better, and to make it last another hundred years. Down with planned obsolescence! As Harold Chapdelaine said, "Buildings don't teach, teachers teach."
Something is seriously wrong
born in tisbury tisburySomething is seriously wrong with this whole process.
Why would we be presented as a town with a renovation / addition project more expensive than new construction? What kind of choice is that? It feels like there is a motive to make one choice seem preferable to the other.
Through a renovation and addition we should be able to realize cost savings that make it less expensive than new construction. Anyone presented with necessary maintenance and capital improvements would insist they see an honestly less expensive option, to best understand the trade offs.
This is the only way to be fiscally responsible.
The town leaders need to address this false choice directly and quickly before we continue to spend town money developing the costly new construction option.
And oh yeah, what a wasteful lesson to our children it would be to demolish the singularly most important civic structure in our town that has schooled generations of Tisbury children over the last 90 years.
I was at the meeting last
Julie robinsonI was at the meeting last Monday night and heard some really sound arguments to not tearing down the old school. I think it would be a travesty to demolish a beautiful old building, built up on the highest point of land. When I drove by the school today from the west side of the school. I thought it would be a better idea to renovate where necessary in the old sound solid brick building and then building a new brick addition where the white temporary building is located. There would be glass walkways from the old building to the new building. This new addition would be as wide and high as the old school. It would extend to where the swing set is located. It would be built to mirror the old section. It could be a beautiful addition. This section could house a new cafeteria and class rooms. This would be my take on this project.
Add new comment