As plans for the Hildreth Elementary School renovation move forward, answers to residents’ questions about costs and scope are gradually emerging at a series of public forums and committee meetings. The School Building Committee, whose meetings are also public, must choose one of four schematic design options by June 8.
At forums held since schematic sketches of the four options were available, participants have been able to vote informally for the option they prefer. At all three events, the votes have been heavily in favor of a completely new building, with participants suggesting it provides the best educational outcome combined with the best value for its cost.
What will it cost?
At the most recent forum, held Tuesday in the HES library, Superintendent Linda Dwight presented new cost estimates for the four schematic designs under consideration. All the estimates were presented as actual costs to Harvard, after figuring in an expected reimbursement of about $15 million from the Massachusetts School Building Authority.
The most recent estimates, which now include so-called “soft” costs, are as follows:
Option 1 (replacing the K-wing and needed updates to the 1988 building), $25 million
Option 2 (the above changes plus a new, larger cafeteria), $27 million
Option 3 (the above changes plus both a new cafeteria and new gym), $30 million
Option 4 (a completely new school building, with the old one demolished), $36 million
Asked to put those costs in terms of the $10,000 tax bill for an average Harvard house, School Committee member SusanMary Redinger said the amounts would be an additional $1,137 for the first option, $1,204 for the second, $1,366 for the third, and $1,602 for the fourth. The tax costs would be highest in the first year and decrease year by year as the debt is paid off.
The cost estimates have risen substantially at each of the three public forums since late April. Harris Lane resident Dennis Rossi expressed concern about the increases at an earlier meeting, where he was one of very few who had attended two of the forums.
“We’ve chosen to be as transparent as possible,” Dwight responded, “but this means that information is constantly changing.”
What happens to the existing building?
One firm conclusion that the School Building Committee has come to is that the mold-plagued 1950s kindergarten wing cannot be saved. “That section will come down,” Dwight said at both the May 3 and May 9 forums.
Another important piece of information to emerge from the May 3 meeting was that the main section of the school, which dates from 1988, is structurally sound, according to inspections by the architecture firm Arrowstreet and also by separate consultants, despite having numerous roof leaks and outdated heating and electrical systems. “The bones of the 1988 section are good,” Dwight said. “They are not deteriorating behind the walls, despite the leaks.”
HES Principal Sue Frederick commented that parents who are thinking of moving to town sometimes come to look over the school. “We just hope there aren’t too many buckets sitting around under leaks,” she said.
Asked what the 1988 building needs for updates, Dwight said the roof and the heating system must be replaced, a sprinkler system installed, insulation added to exterior walls, and the building in general made compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Most important from an educational viewpoint, however, the building should be adapted for newer methods of teaching and learning. “Teaching has changed since the 1980s,” Dwight said. “More of the kids’ work is hands-on and cooperative, with more use of technology.” This style of learning calls for smaller areas where groups of children can work together without disturbing others.
Associate Principal Josh Myler, who will become HES principal in July, confirmed, “Classrooms are less teacher-centered, with more group work. We don’t have good spaces for that. Kids are sitting in the hallways. It’s a challenge for supervision, and they get distracted.”
Another factor in the decision process, Dwight explained, is the possibility of moving the administrative offices out of the century-old Bromfield House and into the renovated elementary school. While the state would not reimburse the town for the cost of the new offices, the town would save money it otherwise needs to spend for repairs, upkeep, and modifications to the old house. “This is the fiscally responsible solution, in the opinion of the Building Committee,” Dwight said.
How do the voters get a say?
According to the Massachusetts School Building Authority process on which the reimbursement depends, the Building Committee—not town voters—will choose among the four options on June 8. However, the Building Committee includes representatives not only from the schools but also from the selectmen, the Finance Committee, and the Energy Advisory Committee, and the community.
Voters will not get to weigh in again until Town Meeting and Town Election in the spring of 2018. Then they will be asked to approve funding through a long-term bond (probably 25 years) for the option the Building Committee approves this June.
If the voters say no at that point, Littleton County Road resident Mark Buell pointed out in a previous forum, the K-wing will still be at the end of its useful life, and the main building will still need substantial repairs. But Harvard would lose its place in the state reimbursement program. If that happens, Buell said, the full costs to repair and renovate an aging building would fall on local taxpayers, with much less to show for it at the end.
At present, the forums and School Building Committee meetings are the places where the public can have input in the process. But overall the forums have been poorly attended, with only about 60 people in total attending the six meetings. School Building Committee meetings are also open to the public, although the opportunity for public comment is more limited than at the forums. Three such meetings are currently scheduled for May 11, May 25, and June 8, and they will be posted on the websites of the school and town.
