For those who haven't seen a picture of the proposed Bresnahan School, here you go...
For those without any sense of humor (or sense at all), that's actually the Garfield School, where I spent grades 5-8.
A fine place to attend school; a GREAT place to play stickball.
Anyway, no real revelations. As I noted in the comments to the previous post, the Solar Panels on the Nock will be used again. In fact, since the school's heat will be converted from electric (!!!) to gas (I think) the solar panels will be able to produce a great deal of the school's electricity.
Other revelations...
* Murphy Road, which will serve as an access point to the new school, will be upgraded with sidewalks and new sewer pipes, all part of the costs.
* The city, according to the reimbursement formula used by the state, has done a nice job of maintaining the buildings it currently has. In the eyes of the state, this isn't an issue of neglect.
* The fields behind the middle school will be upgraded to compensate somewhat for the loss of the fields at the Bres. (The new school will be built on the playing fields; the senior community center will stand where the current school does.)
* People seemed concerned about the bathrooms. The youngest kids will have a bathroom in their classroom. The older kids will not.
* The amountless ballot questions are required by the state.
* The Nock estimate went up from $17m to $27m because the city couldn't have a solid estimate done until the state gave a green light for reimbursement.
* Both schools will be highly energy efficent.
Let me know if I missed something. I attended the first part of the meeting, but The Boy was hungry (swimming lessons followed soccer practice followed by sign holding will do that to you) so I watched the rest from home. It's probably on cable if you're interested.
All in all, it's a good presentation. The one killer piece of info would be the anticipated cost of repairing, maintaining these buildings as they are for the next 20 years. Roofs, electrical systems, windows, skylights and many other things will need to be replaced or repaired. How much would that cost?
If we had that info, we could say, "We're going to be spending XX million anyway. So why don't we spend a little more and get two entirely new school buildings that will serve the community well for the next several decades." That seems like a winning argument.
Here's the actual picture, btw.
13 comments:
Was it named after the president, or the cat?
James. A. Garfield, our 20th president, who was assasinated after serving 200 days in office.
And he gets a school named after him.
At least he's more prestigious than the fellow for whom my elementary school - the Wolcott School - was named.
In fact, I'm not even sure who it was named after. I'm guessing it was Roger Wolcott, one time governor of Massachusetts (who took over as governor after the sitting governor died.)
I'm sensing a disturbing trend here.
both more prestigious than Bresnahan, but that is a whole other can of worms. Was there any mention as to what would happen to the brown school?
I had a similar thought last week. My schools were named after presidents or "distinguished" state wide politicians. IN Port we've named our primary schools after superintendents or local businessmen/politicians.
Regarding the Brown, yes it did come up. K and Pre-K would be moved to the Bres. Mayor Holaday said she'd like the Brown to be used for some form of senior citizen/affordable housing since we're in dire need of both.
She also mentioned selling the school and using the proceeds to setup some sort of evergreen endowment that would help fund school operations.
Not sure how that would work (or even if it's legal.)
By legal, I just don't know if city government is equipped to handle a revolving account that would be tapped into annually. I wasn't suggesting anything untoward.
And by untoward I was demonstrating that I can misuse a word with the best of them, or at least stretch its definition a bit.
if it could be used for senior housing, i'm assuming it could be used for a senior center, no?
That depends, would you want to live at the YWCA?
Seriously, accessibility isn't the only issue. Take a look at the plans and they include more parking than could be available at the brown. Room for meals on wheels trucks to roll in and out of. Several different type of rooms that I don't think are available in a school building like that.
I don't think the Brown is a legitimate site.
don't see what the YWCA has to do with anything? I'm just saying that asking taxpayers to build a new building instead of reusing an existing one seems like an awful lot on top of the other proposals you're asking us to pay for.
the new school will sure be ugly...
Well, my point is that while something may be suitable for housing it may not be suitable for a community center.
And I hear you, although I wonder how much less renovating the Brown into a senior center would cost. Then you've got to maintain that building, which is probably more expensive over the long run.
I wouldn't mind seeing the proceeds of a sale of the Brown going toward paying off the debt. But we'll see.
And yes, they'll be three different questions. I poll post them up here at some point.
So someone could approve one and not the others....the only contigency is a new senior center won't be built unless the Bres is approved because there would be no place to put it (at least that's the theory.)
selling off city property always bites us in the long run, better to use it for city offices or some other function that will keep the property and building under the city's control, that way we have spot to build the next school or municipal building when its needed. the cost of buying new property is the problem we've been facing when trying to get a new elementary school built the last 20 years.
Post a Comment