To the Editor:
We heard the arguments at town meeting both for both sides of the Tisbury school issue. I thought it would be best to lay out the issues with renovating the Tisbury School, and why I felt new construction was the better solution. While the initial estimate as stated at town meeting was that 70 percent of the current building was salvageable, the updated number, based on an intensive review of the building, showed that no more than 35 percent was salvageable.
Current problems: The current electrical system has reached its limit, and is in need of complete replacement. You cannot add one more plug to the current system. The plumbing system needs a major overhaul, and probable complete replacement. The heating system has been repaired before, and even after the repairs, windows are opened in the rooms that are severely overheated, while other rooms are still cold. The ventilation system has not worked in years. There is no AC in the building. The head of the building committee told me after the town meeting that they wouldn’t be able to save anything in the building except for the veneer. Even at that, the foundation would need to be shored up. The school still puts buckets on the staircases to catch the water from the leaking roof, despite the fact it was repaired just two years ago. The cafeteria needs to more than double in size to handle the current number of students and still allow a reasonable amount of time for the children to eat.
So just with this short list, with all the major systems needing replacement, a new roof and foundation work to be done, I believe the conclusion of the committee that the entire school would need to be gutted is correct. So how much should it cost? The time it takes to renovate is certainly significantly longer than building new. The more you try to save, the longer it takes. It is a prevailing-wage job, and a recent look at the state-mandated prevailing wages shows that even the most basic of jobs is requiring a pay and benefits rate around $50 per hour, with skilled labor requiring $75 per hour and up. Unfortunately, due to the bid process and the requirement for bonding, most of these jobs are likely to go to people not living here. The other issue with renovation is the cost and difficulties with relocating the children during renovation. The example mentioned at town meeting showed that another school district spent $14 million to renovate an unused building just to be the temporary school, while the main school was going to require more than $32 million in its own renovations. We don’t have a place like that for our kids, and I think it is unfair to our current kids to ask them to spend three years in trailers with little to no playground left for them during construction. With all things considered, I do believe the committee when they say that the all-in cost on renovation is just as much as new construction.
So what does our vote do?
A yes vote would continue us on the current path to build a new, efficient school with all the space the kids need and the state requires.
A no vote would set up a 10-day explanation period to the state as to why we have wasted their time and money on something the people didn’t want. If during that time we can’t convince the state to forgive us and let us move into detailed plans for a renovation, then we are out of the system. If we are out of the system, there is no state money for renovation. It will probably take years before we can get back into the system to receive large amounts of state money. In the meantime, we as a town will have to start spending large amounts of money to catch us up on the deferred maintenance of our current building. No matter what the outcome of the vote, taxes will be going up significantly to cover school expenses.
Please vote yes on the new school for the most efficient use of our tax dollars.
Peter Goodale
Vineyard Haven
The post New school is more efficient expense appeared first on The Martha's Vineyard Times.