Options, Costs, Fields and the WTC

Last week the Citizen’s Facilities Planning Committee made its recommendation to the Windham School Board.

The Committee shared its proposal for Option 2 which entails a significant renovation and addition to Golden Brook School as well as renovation to Windham Middle School. I would like to thank the Citizens Committee for the time and effort they put into this proposal.

Here are my comments and questions for the Committee and the School Board.

Would the School Board consider reviewing a true cost analysis (including operating costs) that is prepared by a hired architect and engineering team and that compares the following three scenarios: 1) Option 2 (renovation and addition to GBS), 2) renovation and addition to Windham Middle School as recommended by the Faciltiies Master Planning Committee, and 3) building a 7-8 Grade Middle School on London Bridge Road as recommended by previous Boards?

Would the School Board justify why full day kindergarten is not being considered as part of Option 2? Windham continues to lag behind national trends in offering intergrated pre-school and full day kindergarten. I urge you to consider offering at least some classes of full day kindergarten and keep in mind that the integrated pre-school program has potential for growth - both of these would create a revenue stream for the District.

The Process section states that costs of various options where approximated, including renovations, additions, land purchases, site costs, fields and operational costs. I understand that costs had to be “approximated” because there was no achitect and engineering firm involved in the process. Please clarify how the cost were approximated including what outside sources were used and any agreements that were made with these parties.

The Guiding Principles section states that the assumption is 20 students per class in Pre-school through grade Four. The Principal of Golden Brook School recommended 15 students/class in Kindergarten, 18 students/class in First Grade, and 20 students/class for Second, Third, and Fourth Grade. Does the proposal underestimate the actual number of classrooms needed?

The Significant Current Issues section states that the District is missing classroom space for two full grade levels, including core space and support spaces. It also states that there are undersized and outdated core areas, electrical, mechanical, septic, and wells at our current facilities (I assume this refers to GBS). Does adding 400+ students and faculty to an already outdated infrastructure make sense?

Lack of fields are also noted as a Significant Current Issue. Committee members have stated that the purchase of the land next to Golden Brook School could be used either for parking or for fields. It should be noted that the owner of this property is a member of the Citizens Facility Committee and it appears that Option 2 is contingent upon the purchase of this land. It should also be noted that the lack of fields is District wide, and not just a concern for GBS. Would the School Board consider a proposal that included meeting District wide needs for fields and a track?

The Recommendation section says that Option 2 will solve capacity issues with room for growth. Please by very clear in answering the following questions: Does Option 2 give us enough space to accomodate existing needs or does it plan for future growth? Kids will be moved out of closets and hallways and into classrooms. Adequate space will be available for specials and there will be labs for science classes. More special education students will be accomodated on-site as opposed to sending them out of District. These are needs that must be met. Once met, is there room for growth?

There were Qualifications and Exclusions noted in the presentation. Two things are excluded: The cost of relocating the current Golden Brook School population (600+ students and staff) during the estimated two years of construction and the interest on the bond.

The interest on the bond raises a final important question. Last time a building was on the ballot, the Windham Taxpayers Coalition (WTC) stated that the interest on a bond of $31 million would be over $20 million. The proposed plan has a very preliminary price tag of $17.5 million (already $2.5 million than proposed in March). Using logic similar to that of the WTC, Option 2 would carry a price tag of $28 million. What effort is the current School Board, which has members of the WTC as well members who are supported by the WTC, going to take to ensure that the WTC does not undermine efforts to address the overcrowding in the Windham School District?

Friends and neighbors, join me in asking questions and seeking answers. The time is now to address the overcrowding in our District. I support a solution that best meets the needs of children and our town.