This Week’s Letters to the Editor

Editor’s Note: The Letters to the Editor section in the Woodbridge Town Chronicle is a place where community voices can be shared and heard. In the print newspapers of years past, letters to the editor were often the liveliest section, where readers spoke directly to one another, the broader community, and its leaders. To submit a letter for consideration please refer to the submission guidelines.

Proposed replacement for the Beecher Road School project, Part 2 – A “Better Value Solution”

To the editor,

As a follow-up to my original email, some folks have suggested that the Beecher Road Building Committee’s options already include the better value solution I am proposing. I believe this is a misunderstanding of the recommended project scope and offer the following diagram to clarify the idea:

There could be many ways of looking at such an approach, including where the new construction could be placed, whether in front of the existing North School, to the side, or to the back. I’m not suggesting a finished design or physical layout, as that would be the design consultant's job.

Rather, I am suggesting revisiting the premise of the proposed project to substantially reduce the square footage of new construction. It should be clear that if you retain 50% or more of the existing school, the resulting project will have significantly less new construction, reducing capital expenditures by tens of millions of dollars, even after reimbursements are factored in.

The 1960 building with its 1964 and 1997 additions, along with envelope improvements (windows) and HVAC upgrades 10 to 12 years ago, can continue to serve the community for the foreseeable future and does not need to be pursued as “renovate as new”. Smaller targeted improvements and renovations could be included or postponed. Such improvements could address interior finishes, plumbing changes, technology improvements, security enhancements, accessibility upgrades, and door/hardware updates.

A new two-story grades 4–6 addition would be fully accessible and have a more compact footprint than the existing one-story structures.

Consultants can advise on different reimbursement rates for alternate approaches and the Town can continue to work with our legislators to submit additional “notwithstanding” language into the biennium State Public Act to further improve reimbursement rates, as has previously been the case.

The building committee has done an excellent job maximizing the reimbursement rate. Such efforts could continue with a smaller targeted project that meets all the programmatic and curricular needs of the school. The net outcome will be an excellent, renewed facility with lower bonded cost and a reduced burden on resident taxpayers than the current replacement project dictates.

Respectfully,
David H. Barkin, FAIA

The writer is a former member of the Woodbridge Board of Education (2005–2013), where he served as vice chairman and Facilities Committee chair. He also chaired a Beecher Road School Building Committee during that time.

Why are taxpayers being asked to pay millions for a new Central Office?

To the editor,

The proposed $118.5 million Beecher Road School project includes something voters should examine closely: $2.3 million for a new Board of Education Central Office.

Perhaps that could be explained when the plan called for demolishing the entire existing Beecher complex. But the Board of Selectmen has now decided to retain the South building — which houses the Central Office.

So why are taxpayers still being asked to build another one?

The Central Office occupies 1,828 square feet in Beecher South today. I have seen no facilities study finding the space inadequate, documented need to replace it, or explanation why it cannot remain there. 

The financial implications are significant. Central Office construction qualifies for only about 12.9 percent state reimbursement. On an estimated $2.314 million cost, that leaves Woodbridge taxpayers responsible for approximately $2.02 million — before interest on the borrowing.

That is an extraordinary expenditure to duplicate administrative space we already own, while other Town employees work under genuinely inadequate conditions.

The Town Clerk’s office, for example, is located on the lower level of Town Hall, where flooding has repeatedly left employees working with wet carpeting underfoot. Our Police have long operated in a building requiring major renovation. These represent real capital needs that will compete for the same limited taxpayer resources.

This isn’t about whether school administrators should have comfortable, functional offices. They should. The question is whether taxpayers should spend more than $2 million, plus interest, replacing functional administrative space.

The decision not to demolish Beecher South changed a fundamental assumption underlying the project. The project should have changed with it, but the Selectmen did not remove the new Central Office from the proposal.

Taxpayers deserve an explanation for why this $2.3 million expenditure is necessary — and why, if the existing Central Office remains perfectly serviceable, it was not removed from the project before the proposal was sent to voters.

Now, with the October 13 referendum set, our only recourse is to vote down the proposal so we can start over with a better plan. 

We have too many genuine capital needs to borrow millions duplicating space we already have. 

— Michael S. Helfenbein

Editor’s Note: Letters reflect the perspectives of their authors. They are published to foster dialogue about issues of local concern, including questions of governance, transparency, and accountability, as well as topics such as highlighting upcoming or past events from community groups. To submit a letter for consideration please refer to the submission guidelines.