To the Editor:
As a prior member of the 2000 project Building Committee and having spent 20+ years designing and administering school projects in Connecticut, I can’t vote for this referendum.
First, we spent $36 million on the four schools in 2000. Now add $57 million and we will have spent a total of $93 million on four buildings … or $23,250,000 on each building … or approximately $1 million a year per building for 22 years!
Something is wrong with this picture. I’m not sure how this “snowball” got started but I think it’s rolled downhill too fast!
It’s obvious enrollment was not the impetus … perhaps HVAC was. And the fact that a lot of the HVAC work is not reimbursable is beside the point.
To jump to “Renovate as New” only greatly expands the project scope/cost … the increased reimbursement does not justify the scope expansion.
If HVAC is what’s truly needed, let’s do that work … state participation or not. I’ve looked for a list of eligible/ineligible items with associated dollars but cannot find it.
I could go on and on with questions regarding the proposal but I feel there are way too many “wants” rather than “needs.”
I implore all to vote emphatically No to this referendum.
Sincerely,
Charlie Meek,
Old Lyme.
Do you know that the HVAC accounts for approx. 20 million dollars of the proposed costs?, Do you know that all school classrooms currently have air conditioning?
If i used the logic of our BOE I would be replacing my home air conditioning system that I installed new six years ago not because it doesn’t work but because I won the lottery, in our case the lottery is substituted by taxpayers.
I agree in concept. I feel by their engineers report alot of mechanical components are far from outliving their life..but nearing it. Who knows what they have left..5yrs,10 yrs?
What I do know nothing is failing and have the local officials (Bldg insp, fire marshal) cited the district for code violations? I dont think so or the uproar would be deafening!
All ploys to justify the “wants” of the district.
And the “reno as new” is a fee
enhancer for the design professionals and opens up the project for unnecessary work..all under the guise of “reimbursement”.!
In 2000 the buildings NEEDED work as they had been neglected for a long, long time. Not the case now.