Want the old…keep it. District offices and bus garage can go there. Use it to stage duzine kids when that school gets a major face lift. Ya all know that’s coming sooner or later. Make it a big sports arena to off set land used by the high school. Rent it out. There are a million ways to make use of an old building. One of them is not making it new however.

Want your kids to walk to the library or teen scene after school? Get the bus to drop them off there, car pool, work it out. I had to work out getting horse back riding and boy scouts for my kids. I didn’t see the school system or district rally around that. Why should everyone pay more or have less because of your kids extracurricular needs? Isn’t that part of the parents responibility not the school districts?

1. the building belongs to the community and functions for
the community in a user friendly location for seniors and students
in particular who may not drive.

2. the middle school student age group is well located in the
center of town where they can begin to experience and learn to
handle some independence of movement.

3. it will definitely be less costly to remodel than to build anew.

4. it is definitely possible to organize the remodeling work to work with
school schedule and this district already has some experience in doing this.

5. the building, while needing some upgrades and interior redesign, is in
decent structural condition.

6. this community is being taxed and priced out of existence for most of us.
it would not be a friendly gesture to tack on a large expense.

7. financial impact on the taxpayer has not been laid out for the community.
this makes this high priced venture very suspect for the public. why hasnt
there been an adequate summary breakout of costs for the community.

8. what research has there been for state finances to help foot the bill for
any work required.

9. selling the middle school to a private developer is a very unfriendly
concept. we do not need a major development in the center of town. further,
the problems inherent in such development would undoubtedly gather the ire of
many concerned with quality of life issues to create a vehement fight against
such a prospect.

10. the heating costs for the middle school seem way of scale. the boilers still
have 17 yrs life left to them as is understood. the distribution system seems
highly over estimated at $6 million. i think some more work needs to go into this
plan before presenting to the community.

11. of course if the district is trying to bury extra money for yet unnamed projects
this is highly unethical and manipulative. although a common practice, it is very
unethical.

12. while talk is focused on the middle school, what about the other buildings.
$10 million is slated for these buildings. why are we talking about the entire
package of proposed work and total costs.

13. what about the district office. district operations have moved into a building
that will require several additional million to make functional. and what about the
existing district office? is that going to be remodeled? it is very desirable to
maintain that building in the center of the village. it has historic charm and
character. the building can be remodeled to function a lot better and still be
the charasmatic structure that welcomes people into the school community.

14. in the mid-90’s there was $13 million repair project undertaken by the district.
the then supt. put together a finance advisory committee that i co-chaired. we worked
very closely with members of the community and school district taking reports from the
many depts and segments of the district as to their needs and suggestions. the committee
reviewed these requests and whittled about 20% off the budget. thanks to the financial
acuity and contacts of the supt, research informed us that with good timing, the state
would fund the vast majority of our costs and our bond need was reduced to about $4 million,
a great savings to the community.
the committee, with the supt, then devised a campaign to take the project out to the
community. we attended different community groups, created a video for public access tv,
and organized letter writing among other publicity techniqes. when the community let us
know, loug and clear, of their opinions, we adjusted the project to accomodate some major
ideas. in the end, we received a strong vote at the polls for the work which then proceeded.

15. i suggest the boe and supt develp a better campaign to inform the community of cost
breakouts.

16. in summary, i repeat my position that the middle school needs to remain in its present
location, and be remodeled with an eye to better servicing the community at large, as well as
the school district.

I’ve heard an awful lot of assertions from the school board about what sort of effort it will take, for instance, to replace the current heating system, with a price tag of $4.5 million. (They’ve backed themselves up with a consultant’s report.) That sounds like something that really needs a cold eye, and should not be taken at face value. Suppose the community put together an independent volunteer group of HVAC engineers and technicians, commerical construction contractors, etc. who would take a look at the system in the Middle School and determine exactly what the situation is and the least expensive way of fixing or replacing it. Just to satisfy the concerns of taxpayers that a range of options has been explored.

The problems with the heating system are being used as the point of departure for justifying massive renovation. Let’s instead, for the sake of clarity, start with the premise that there is a much less expensive solution to the heating system and see where that takes things.

As I noted in an earlier comment on this blog (comment No. 46), I don’t understand why, when the New Paltz community is already groaning under the weight of school taxes, that the school board has offered the false dilemma of new construction vs. massive renovation. How about starting with the option of doing what needs to be done for the lowest cost vs. a Rolls Royce renovation.

I don’t know about the rest of the taxpayers in this community, but when school bureaucrats talk about “long-term solutions” I start thinking about the long-term effective tax lien that the school district has on my modest property, which is going to be roughly $50,000 over the next ten years if the current budget trends continue.

I wonder about the families who will be seeking “21st Century eduction” for their children somewhere else because they can no longer afford to live here, while their modest homes will look like a genuine bargain to people from Westchester. What we would be seeing in that case would be median- to low-income taxpayer cleansing, so that “better families” can move in to take advantage of the new five-star “21st Century education” that will look a lot like the current educational program but come with the big price tag that drives the “lesser folks” out.

I really see this whole false dilemma public relations push by the school district as quite appalling, and my vote on this matter is a vote of no confidence.

As a personal anecdote…went to a junior high in California where they did just that..put a junior high and high school together…was not a pleasant experience for a 6th grader which I was at the time.

HISTORIC SCHOOLS:
RENOVATION vs. REPLACEMENT & THE
ROLE OF A FEASIBILITY STUDY

http://www.nationaltrust.org/issues/schools/downloads/school_feasibility_study.pdf

Weighing the pros and cons of renovating a historic neighborhood school or
building a new one takes preservation “know-how,” experience and creativity. As
school districts face the challenge of trying to satisfy educational programmatic
requirements, the latest trends in teaching methods and integrating new technology,
the historic neighborhood school is not always given full consideration. Prevailing
assumptions that a newer school will result in a better education or perceptions that
historic school buildings have unfixable flaws also place historic neighborhood
schools at risk. The potential for renovation is routinely dismissed without full
consideration of the facts and long-term implications.

Central to this decision-making process is the feasibility study, often conducted by an
architectural consultant hired by a school district. A feasibility study of the issues
involved in renovation is the only tested way to evaluate the fit of an old building to
contemporary educational uses. In its most basic form, a feasibility study helps
establish if renovation of a historic school is possible, practical and whether it can
meet the proposed educational needs. Not simply a cost-benefit analysis, a
feasibility study evaluates technology needs and barriers, scheduling to complete a
school construction project from start to finish, options and alternatives, and
potential implications of decisions to the surrounding neighborhood and community.

Potential problems persist including feasibility studies of historic schools conducted
by inexperienced architects, inflated and exaggerated cost estimates for renovation,
limited or no community input, a bias against historic, hidden costs not accounted
for, and minimal consideration for impacts to a community.

A biased or incomplete feasibility study will not fully inform the general public or
school district about all options. The below feasibility study checklist can help
identify the factors involved in making the best decision and assuring that a
feasibility study for your historic neighborhood school is fair, objective and
reasonable. It will also assist in identifying “warning signs,” questions to ask, and
knowing what to look for when challenging the results and projected cost estimates
of a feasibility study.

Consultants: More often than not, school districts hire architects and
professionals who know a lot more about designing new buildings than renovating
older ones. Not all architects have training, experience or an interest in the
subspecialty of historic rehabilitation. Many architects are unfamiliar with, or biased
against, renovation options.

In addition to the historical importance, location in the village and environmental reasons for reusing what exists (the external structure), I believe that the costs will be less and there is proof less than 1/2 mile away that can prove it.

Indeed there can be cost overruns. But look at two historic buildings at the college: Vanderberg Learning Center and Old Main. The VLC was renovated in the last few years and Old Main is scheduled to be renovated in the next few years. I understand that the costs of bringing these ‘old’ buildings into state of the art 21st century learning centers was in the $20-30M range. Both are larger buildings. I feel more comfortable with renovation estimates than new. With careful planning/bidding/oversight, the school district should be able to complete the renovation of the attractive Middle School at a price much lower than building new. Please check with the college on how they did/will do their renovations.