There are many “myths” now circulating on this critical upcoming town vote. I am a selectman and was a member of the School Building Committee (SBC) during the conceptual development phase. Here are the myths and the facts.
“Building an expensive new school was always an option.” No, our 2016 Town Meeting funded this study to address issues of the kindergarten wing and bring the 1988 main building up to code, at an estimated $4.5 million net cost to Harvard.
“The 1988 building is so bad we have to replace it.” During the February 2017 school vacation, the SBC opened its walls. We were relieved to find they were in good shape. It does need sprinklers and improvements to its roof and heating system. If your house was 30 years old and needed those repairs, would you demolish it and start over?
“Renovation costs almost as much as a new school.” Replacing the K-wing and renovating the 1988 building only approached the cost of an all-new school when the SBC (and a visioning committee meeting privately) added things the state pays little of: administration offices, new cafeteria and gym, and reconfigured walls. Without these our cost would have been around $13 million.
“Renovation would disrupt students.” A modest renovation could be less disruptive than building a huge new building less than 20 feet from our school.
“If we vote no, the state will no longer help fund it.” We can vote no and reapply for state funds, and the K-wing issue would still give us funding priority.
“We can spend $35 million on a new school and it won’t affect our ability to fund teachers and other needs.” This is the most troubling myth of all. If we drive our taxes to among the highest in the state, then a recession or a hiccup in the Devens contract could jeopardize funding for the critical part of our schools, its staff. Too many towns have had this happen. Plus, we’d be hard-pressed to maintain the much older Bromfield School.
It’s time to vote no, and go back and get this right.
Ken Swanton
Fairbank Street
