Posts
To plan or not to plan is not really the question. Of course we should plan! But, it strikes me as problematic that both our town and school district are having such a difficult time answering simple questions about what exactly they are planning and specifically how they are paying for it all.
Amid the ethics questions raised about Ken Wishnick’s new job as Town Planner, the question of precisely what the job will actually entail has been lost. As reported in the New Paltz Times, Mr. Wishnick himself is not really sure what the position involves. While the town has already approved this new position in the budget, and a civil service job description has been written, Wishnick states, “the town board will decide the role of the town planner and it has not yet done so.” How can this be so?
The town is not the only local elected body lacking a clear articulation of what a planner could do for them/us. The school district is considering hiring a consultant to create a long-term plan. I don’t mean to sound cute, but what exactly are we planning? We have a building inventory, and we have a forthcoming educational learning plan to be constructed by the superintendent. Is this long term planning a synthesis of these two documents? Or is it more? We need additional information about what a consultant will provide: Does this involve data that has already been compiled and/or that could clearly be assembled by existing staff? What existing studies (that are sitting on a shelf or otherwise) will be integrated into this planning? How come the superintendent and her staff are not assigned the task of conducting this type of planning? And what will a paid consultant value-add to this planning process, exactly?
There are a few things on this topic I feel pretty strongly about: One, I am concerned about shipping this job out to someone external to the inner workings of the district and our community. If this process is to move forward, we need to be clear, those that are most intimate with the data, that is, the teachers, staff, parents, and the community, must play an integral role. Perhaps the volunteer Building Level School Climate Action Teams, whose task will be completed in February, would be willing to stay on and work on this project. Given the state of the economy, any tasks that can be completed by current staff or volunteers should be done so in house (so to speak). Further, while the district plans, so does the Village and Town of New Paltz and the rest of the towns that are included in the district. Any planning project needs to include input and collaboration with these local municipalities.
Second, we need better projections for our school age population. In the board’s pamphlet handed out at the Middle School forums last winter, there is chart of the projections from 2008 to 2070 which show (within the margin of error) a tiny decline in student population and reads,
“The district has conducted multiple* demographic studies, which have revealed varied statistics. After careful examination and comparison of the various studies against actual figures, enrollment is projected to be approximately 2,200 to 2,300 students annually in the next five years.”
I would like to see a very simple, straightforward analysis of the projections of the school age population for at least the last ten years to see if the current source(s) for this information is reliable. As a parent of kindergarteners in 2005 and 2008, I am highly skeptical that the current sources are dependable. In 2005, kindergarteners found themselves in classrooms of 24-26 students because the estimates were off. This past May, an additional kindergarten class was added to the expected number for this past September when pre-registration showed the estimates to be low. In August, an additional third grade class was added at the very, very, very last minute (for the earlier cohort of 2005 kindergartens) because of the inaccuracy of the projections. As Yogi Berra said, “Prediction is hard, especially about the future.” But I think we can do a better job. And, we need reliable data in order to move forward with a comprehensive plan.
Third, the Middle School location is non-negotiable. As reported in the New Paltz Times on December 11th, school board member Don Kerr, while supportive of hiring a consultant, was concerned with the time frame. If the study is to take eighteen months, “…what if the planner’s final report contradicted their decision to renovate the middle school? Kerr said he did not like that possibility.” Nor do I. Any district wide planning needs to be crystal-clear, the Middle School is staying put – this issue is absolutely not on the table. Last winter, our community (including the Village Boards and Town Boards) came out in full force to let the school board know that the Middle School – not just any one of our schools, but the Middle School – is to stay put. There is no wiggle room. (And the study needs to take a lot less time than eighteen months. As my dad use to say, “While you plan, it happens.”)
However, there are implications for the future of the Middle School site that impact the wider district. Two obvious ones are the location of the kitchen (there is only one kitchen that actually is suited to cook food, the rest merely distribute food, and the cooking kitchen is currently at the Middle School) and the old district office of which I don’t even know is possible to renovate and perhaps needs to be leveled. At the September meeting where Rhinebeck Associates, the firm hired to evaluate the Middle School, presented their work to date before the board, the firm was clear that they are only looking at the Middle School, not at the district as a whole. Is this a logical way to proceed? I am not sure, nonetheless I am not open to a process that will impede the guarantee of the Middle School staying put, along with the planning dollars promised to the endeavor. The Middle School is actually the only project even close to shovel-ready given the work already done by Rhinebeck Associates, which means we should be moving faster and focusing more on the Middle School since it is the only site realistically available for potential Obama stimulus dollars in the next year.
Which leads to my last point: Given the state budget cuts, how much money are we talking about and where will the district get the money for this service? It is my understanding that the money is proposed to be taken from a budget line that has been unmistakably allocated for study of the Middle School renovation, including an assessment of both the current status of the facilities and how to implement the actual renovation. It is unacceptable to use these dollars for different purposes. From the district website, the results of the vote to focus on the renovation of the Middle School are recapped:
“Passing the resolution means the Board will move ahead to flesh out the specifics of a plan to renovate and reconstruct portions of the Middle School using the latest “green” and energy-efficient technologies. The Board will engage professional architectural, engineering, and surveying firms to provide detailed plans and costs* that will be shared with the community as the discussion moves forward.”
While only a portion of this budget line has been spent so far, that is, the initial fact finding portion: the state of the facilities, it is the only part that has been completed, and has not even been reported to the public yet. (FYI – scheduled for February 18th .) The remaining dollars are for the remaining stages – not just current status but implementation. Implementation dollars for the Middle School project should not and cannot be pilfered from this budget line.
If you would like the school board to hear your opinions on this matter, please attend their next meeting on January 7th, 7pm at the high school.
* Emphasis added
Relevant links: This entry is also posted at New Paltz Gadfly
Sunday, December 28, 2008
Friday, December 26, 2008
Important info for Middle School supporters
I sent the following letter to the New Paltz Times. It exceeds their word limit, so I'm abridging it for the newspaper. I am publishing it here in its entirety. Please distribute. Thanks.
It is unfortunate that the New Paltz Times article this week did not mention why I am opposed to hiring a long-term facilities planner at this time. And I say "at this time" because I have been clear that this is a necessary endeavor, but that now is an especially poor -- and improper -- time to do so.
There are a few reasons. One is the poor timing. We are not prepared to get a good value for our dollar because we haven't done two pieces of critical work without which a long-range facilities plan cannot be usefully created. One is to determine the actual demographic and enrollment trends. The last time this was paid for two years ago, enrollment was predicted to decline, but it's been growing -- significantly -- ever since. We have to hit the pause button on paid consulting until we examine this matter thoroughly. We also do not have the new long-term comprehensive performance plan from the Superintendent. Without this, even with accurate demographics, a planner cannot even pretend to provide useful facilities advice, because much of that advice is derived directly from application of the comprehensive plan. In other words, by moving forward now, all we'll get is another expensive document that gives us very little to apply to our decision-making process, and no return of equivalent (or perhaps any) value to the taxpayer, as has happened so many times already.
On top of these practical matters, and where we cross the line into impropriety, is that the Superintendent and majority of Board members in support of moving forward now are going to use money that was appropriated for the Middle School renovation study, in front of the fully assembled public last winter, and approved by the voters in May. Going ahead with the planner means choosing not to move the Middle School study forward -- period, let alone on the "aggressive timetable" that was promised. All we'll get for the $12,000 we've spent to date (of the $60,000 appropriated) is an existing conditions study and an extremely broad cost estimate. Unless additional studies are conducted, that $12,000 is wasted, for two reasons. One is that we already paid a lot of money last year for a much more detailed existing conditions study, the one that led to the public discussion on the future of the Middle School, and then spent more money printing and distributing mailings and public information pamphlets, which included generalized estimates. So all we're getting for the $12,000 spent so far is an update and tweaking of what was previously paid for. The second is that if we don't use the remaining funding to move forward with the additional research the public agreed to finance, such as where to hold classes during construction, or exploration of designs that would suit the Middle School's current and future mission, curriculum, extra-curricular and community needs, then the $12,000 spent so far was nothing more than a make-work project for two consultants as a salve for a temporarily engaged -- and angry -- public. We (and I say "we" because I was not on the Board at the time, and even now that I am, I'm still a taxpayer with kids in school) were promised a full-bore study on an aggressive timetable, a study that was described to us as follows:
There are a few reasons. One is the poor timing. We are not prepared to get a good value for our dollar because we haven't done two pieces of critical work without which a long-range facilities plan cannot be usefully created. One is to determine the actual demographic and enrollment trends. The last time this was paid for two years ago, enrollment was predicted to decline, but it's been growing -- significantly -- ever since. We have to hit the pause button on paid consulting until we examine this matter thoroughly. We also do not have the new long-term comprehensive performance plan from the Superintendent. Without this, even with accurate demographics, a planner cannot even pretend to provide useful facilities advice, because much of that advice is derived directly from application of the comprehensive plan. In other words, by moving forward now, all we'll get is another expensive document that gives us very little to apply to our decision-making process, and no return of equivalent (or perhaps any) value to the taxpayer, as has happened so many times already.
On top of these practical matters, and where we cross the line into impropriety, is that the Superintendent and majority of Board members in support of moving forward now are going to use money that was appropriated for the Middle School renovation study, in front of the fully assembled public last winter, and approved by the voters in May. Going ahead with the planner means choosing not to move the Middle School study forward -- period, let alone on the "aggressive timetable" that was promised. All we'll get for the $12,000 we've spent to date (of the $60,000 appropriated) is an existing conditions study and an extremely broad cost estimate. Unless additional studies are conducted, that $12,000 is wasted, for two reasons. One is that we already paid a lot of money last year for a much more detailed existing conditions study, the one that led to the public discussion on the future of the Middle School, and then spent more money printing and distributing mailings and public information pamphlets, which included generalized estimates. So all we're getting for the $12,000 spent so far is an update and tweaking of what was previously paid for. The second is that if we don't use the remaining funding to move forward with the additional research the public agreed to finance, such as where to hold classes during construction, or exploration of designs that would suit the Middle School's current and future mission, curriculum, extra-curricular and community needs, then the $12,000 spent so far was nothing more than a make-work project for two consultants as a salve for a temporarily engaged -- and angry -- public. We (and I say "we" because I was not on the Board at the time, and even now that I am, I'm still a taxpayer with kids in school) were promised a full-bore study on an aggressive timetable, a study that was described to us as follows:
"Passing the resolution means the Board will move ahead to flesh out the specifics of a plan to renovate and reconstruct portions of the Middle School using the latest “green” and energy-efficient technologies. The Board will engage professional architectural, engineering, and surveying firms to provide detailed plans and costs that will be shared with the community as the discussion moves forward. With community backing, this is a firm step to keep the Middle School located in the village, but the Board remains open-minded as they continue on their fact-finding process. Board President Rod Dressel wants to be certain that the Board has all of the information needed to make a decision before any concrete plans are put in place. To get that information, however, the District needs to make an investment of both human and financial resources. The Board’s vote enables the District to take this important step forward." (http://npcsd.edublogs.org/2008/02/04/a-recap-of-the-boards-decision/)
Note: "firms" is plural, three types of firms are indicated, the phrase "detailed plans" is used, and the need to have "all the information needed to make a decision." We have not even scratched the surface, and the Superintendent and solid majority of the School Board are already moving forward at great speed to cancel the remaining funding and use it for something else.
When I announced my candidacy for School Board, I promised to do all that I could to hold the New Paltz Central School District to its promises regarding the Middle School. I have been doing so. Consider this letter part of that effort. The full board is expected to hold its vote on redirecting the Middle School money to a poorly timed long-term facilities consultant at its next meeting, on January 7th at 7 PM at the High School. I will be voting "no." I hope you will come down to take part in this urgent matter.
Steve Greenfield
New Paltz
Thursday, December 25, 2008
A note from Steve Greenfield re: New Paltz Middle School study
It's unfortunate that the NP Times article this week did not mention why Edgar and I are opposed to hiring the planner. There are a few reasons, but one of the biggest is that they're going to use the Middle School renovation study money that was appropriated in front of the fully assembled public last April. There is no other line item from which it can be taken, and everyone on the board knows that, as per the superintendent. Going ahead with the planner means choosing not to move the Middle School study forward -- period. It is extremely important that the community turn out on January 7th on the same scale that we did from January to April. We're losing this vote 5-2 right now. Only an overwhelming community response can win the Middle School study back.
I will be putting this information in the form of a letter to the New Paltz Times. In the meantime, I'd appreciate it if you post it on your blog.
And Merry Christmas, too.
http://soundclick.com/share?songid=6092347
Steve
I will be putting this information in the form of a letter to the New Paltz Times. In the meantime, I'd appreciate it if you post it on your blog.
And Merry Christmas, too.
http://soundclick.com/share?songid=6092347
Steve
Tuesday, December 23, 2008
New Paltz Middle School renovation evaluation funding to be redirected?
According to Steve Greenfield, via comments at the new paltz gadfly: "If you have any further questions, please attend the January 7th board meeting at the high school, 7 PM for public comment. The board is about to vote to redirect its Middle School renovation evaluation funding to an unrelated project. Your presence is urgently needed if we are to have any hope of preventing this."
Monday, October 13, 2008
New Paltz Board of Education Meeting Schedule 2008-2009
2008:
October 15 Regular/Business Meeting
November 5 Regular/Workshop Meeting
November 19 Regular/Business Meeting
December 3 Regular/Workshop Meeting
December 17 Regular/Business Meeting
2009:
January 7 Regular/Workshop Meeting
January 21 Regular/Business Meeting
February 4 Regular/Workshop Meeting
February 18 Regular/Business Meeting
February 25 Special Meeting – Budget Presentation
March 4 Regular/Workshop Meeting
March 18 Regular/Business Meeting
April 1 Regular/Workshop Meeting
(Budget Hearing for Community Input)
April 15 Regular/Business Meeting
(Budget Approval)
(Gardiner Town Hall)
April 22 BOCES County-Wide Vote
May 6 Regular/Workshop & Public Hearing on Budget (Legal Requirement)
May 19 (Tuesday) Annual Meeting - Election/Budget Vote
May 20 Regular/Business Meeting
June 3 Regular/Workshop Meeting
June 17 Regular/Business Meeting
Please note that all Board of Education meetings begin at 7:00 PM and are held at the New Paltz Central High School Audion unless otherwise noted.
Meetings are broadcast live on local access channel 23.
October 15 Regular/Business Meeting
November 5 Regular/Workshop Meeting
November 19 Regular/Business Meeting
December 3 Regular/Workshop Meeting
December 17 Regular/Business Meeting
2009:
January 7 Regular/Workshop Meeting
January 21 Regular/Business Meeting
February 4 Regular/Workshop Meeting
February 18 Regular/Business Meeting
February 25 Special Meeting – Budget Presentation
March 4 Regular/Workshop Meeting
March 18 Regular/Business Meeting
April 1 Regular/Workshop Meeting
(Budget Hearing for Community Input)
April 15 Regular/Business Meeting
(Budget Approval)
(Gardiner Town Hall)
April 22 BOCES County-Wide Vote
May 6 Regular/Workshop & Public Hearing on Budget (Legal Requirement)
May 19 (Tuesday) Annual Meeting - Election/Budget Vote
May 20 Regular/Business Meeting
June 3 Regular/Workshop Meeting
June 17 Regular/Business Meeting
Please note that all Board of Education meetings begin at 7:00 PM and are held at the New Paltz Central High School Audion unless otherwise noted.
Meetings are broadcast live on local access channel 23.
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
Pro-Renovation Greenfield Wins Seat on New Paltz School Board
"New Paltz school district residents voted 896-471 in favor of a $48.19 million district budget that increases spending by 7.04 percent, or $2.57 million. Under the spending plan, the property tax levy will rise by $1.44 million, or 4.88 percent, to $30.91 million.
Residents also elected two candidates to three-year seats on the Board of Education: Steve Greenfield, who led the field with 867 votes, and incumbent Patrick Rausch, who received 795 votes. Incumbent Michael Swigart trailed with 620 votes." - source: Kingston Daily Freeman
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
Steve Greenfield Announces Run for New Paltz Board of Education
In response to strong encouragement from broad sectors of the New Paltz Central School District community, Steve Greenfield is announcing that he will run in the May 20th, 2008 School Board election. Much of that support results from his recent efforts for preservation of the Middle School, and the overwhelming desire to strengthen the commitment of the board to full implementation. Others pointed towards the need to rectify the absence of representation for the interest of elementary-school children, the desire to move forward with healthy food initiatives, and the need for the board to take a more pro-active while Albany and Washington directives unfairly burden local property taxpayers to the point where expenses exceed means.
Greenfield explained the gaps in the incumbent School Board that he intends to fill. "Besides protecting the community's decision to preserve the historic Middle School, there are other key matters before the Board during the next term. Many of them are related to the sustainability of programming and control of tax levies during a time of dramatically rising fuel and employee health insurance costs; and others pertain to healthy, locally grown food and other aspects of environmental and economic responsibility. I would be a passionate advocate for progressive and sustainable solutions, and will promote an improved climate for public input into School Board decision-making on an ongoing basis -- the importance of which was demonstrated by the Middle School debate. It is also critical that parents of elementary school children have an advocate on the Board. With some board members having no children in our schools, and others having high-school aged children, and given that today's elementary school students will be the first group to feel the impact of the next term's decisions, this is a time when a stakeholder in those outcomes needs to be part of the decision-making process." Greenfield has 3 children who will attend elementary school over the next 8 years.
Former Deputy Mayor Rebecca Rotzler will be Greenfield's campaign manager. "I have come to know Steve as a dedicated community volunteer in many capacities, most significantly in his role as a firefighter, which was a result of recruiting his assistance in fundraising for our fire department. His dedication is reflected in his attention to his family, where his integrity and commitment to simply "doing the right thing" will benefit all of our children as a school board member."
Election Day for the New Paltz Central School district is May 20, 2008. For further information, contact Greenfield4OurKids@gmail.com, 532-0280.
Greenfield explained the gaps in the incumbent School Board that he intends to fill. "Besides protecting the community's decision to preserve the historic Middle School, there are other key matters before the Board during the next term. Many of them are related to the sustainability of programming and control of tax levies during a time of dramatically rising fuel and employee health insurance costs; and others pertain to healthy, locally grown food and other aspects of environmental and economic responsibility. I would be a passionate advocate for progressive and sustainable solutions, and will promote an improved climate for public input into School Board decision-making on an ongoing basis -- the importance of which was demonstrated by the Middle School debate. It is also critical that parents of elementary school children have an advocate on the Board. With some board members having no children in our schools, and others having high-school aged children, and given that today's elementary school students will be the first group to feel the impact of the next term's decisions, this is a time when a stakeholder in those outcomes needs to be part of the decision-making process." Greenfield has 3 children who will attend elementary school over the next 8 years.
Former Deputy Mayor Rebecca Rotzler will be Greenfield's campaign manager. "I have come to know Steve as a dedicated community volunteer in many capacities, most significantly in his role as a firefighter, which was a result of recruiting his assistance in fundraising for our fire department. His dedication is reflected in his attention to his family, where his integrity and commitment to simply "doing the right thing" will benefit all of our children as a school board member."
Election Day for the New Paltz Central School district is May 20, 2008. For further information, contact Greenfield4OurKids@gmail.com, 532-0280.
Saturday, March 29, 2008
A message from Steve Greenfield
Friends:
Under strong encouragement in the aftermath of the recent public action for the preservation of the Middle School, I am considering running for the Board of Education this spring. There are two seats opening -- those currently held by Patrick Rausch and Mike Swigart -- for a three-year term, during which the investigation into the prospects for a successful renovation of the Middle School will be conducted.
There are several other key matters before the Board during the next term: many of them related to sustainability of programming and rising property tax levies during a time of dramatically rising fuel costs; and others pertaining to healthy, locally grown food and other aspects of environmental responsibility. Neither Mr. Rausch nor Mr. Swigart is proactive in these areas, and there is reason for concern that they are less than supportive to these and other matters of great importance to all of us. I would certainly be a passionate advocate for progressive and sustainable solutions, as well as promoting an improved climate for public input into School Board decision-making on an ongoing basis.
Of course, mounting a campaign that would require around 1200 to 1300 votes to be competitive is an enormous undertaking, and I need to first get a sense of the degree of support for my entry into the race. Toward this end, there will be a gathering this coming Wednesday night at the Gilded Otter, at 7:30 PM. I hope you can attend and bring your ideas for what you'd like to see out of the campaign and my potential service to you as a member of the School Board.
Please circulate this message to anyone you think would be interested. Thanks so much, and feel free to call or write with any questions or comments.
Steve Greenfield
255-2516 (h), 532-0280 (c)
Wednesday, April 2nd, 7:30 PM
Gilded Otter 3 Main Street, facing the Wallkill River
Under strong encouragement in the aftermath of the recent public action for the preservation of the Middle School, I am considering running for the Board of Education this spring. There are two seats opening -- those currently held by Patrick Rausch and Mike Swigart -- for a three-year term, during which the investigation into the prospects for a successful renovation of the Middle School will be conducted.
There are several other key matters before the Board during the next term: many of them related to sustainability of programming and rising property tax levies during a time of dramatically rising fuel costs; and others pertaining to healthy, locally grown food and other aspects of environmental responsibility. Neither Mr. Rausch nor Mr. Swigart is proactive in these areas, and there is reason for concern that they are less than supportive to these and other matters of great importance to all of us. I would certainly be a passionate advocate for progressive and sustainable solutions, as well as promoting an improved climate for public input into School Board decision-making on an ongoing basis.
Of course, mounting a campaign that would require around 1200 to 1300 votes to be competitive is an enormous undertaking, and I need to first get a sense of the degree of support for my entry into the race. Toward this end, there will be a gathering this coming Wednesday night at the Gilded Otter, at 7:30 PM. I hope you can attend and bring your ideas for what you'd like to see out of the campaign and my potential service to you as a member of the School Board.
Please circulate this message to anyone you think would be interested. Thanks so much, and feel free to call or write with any questions or comments.
Steve Greenfield
255-2516 (h), 532-0280 (c)
Wednesday, April 2nd, 7:30 PM
Gilded Otter 3 Main Street, facing the Wallkill River
Friday, March 28, 2008
Steve Greenfield Considering Run for New Paltz School Board
According to a letter by KT Tobin Flusser in this week's New Paltz Times, Steve Greenfield is considering running for School Board.
There will be an exploratory meeting on Wednesday, April 2, 2008 at the Gilded Otter in New Paltz.
"Steve was integral in the recent campaign to show the current school board the enormous support that citizens in the district have for keeping and renovating the middle school at its current location," wrote Tobin Flusser.
There will be an exploratory meeting on Wednesday, April 2, 2008 at the Gilded Otter in New Paltz.
"Steve was integral in the recent campaign to show the current school board the enormous support that citizens in the district have for keeping and renovating the middle school at its current location," wrote Tobin Flusser.
Friday, February 1, 2008
Maria Rice: Board's Vote Not a Guarantee New Paltz Middle School will be Renovated
NEW PALTZ — In the face of a near-unanimous public appeal to renovate the middle school building, the New Paltz school board voted unanimously to explore doing just that Wednesday night.
But the board’s action isn’t a guarantee that the aged building, whose original structure was built in the 1930s, will become the final home for middle school students.
Superintendent Maria Rice said the decision will be based on exactly what engineers and architects discover when they explore the building, which includes a ’60s-era wing in far worse repair than the original structure.
New Paltz school board to investigate renovation option
NEW PALTZ — The school board unanimously voted last night to start investigating what it will take to renovate the existing middle school building.
The vote came at the end of a standing-room-only public meeting where people overwhelmingly urged the board to renovate the aging building rather than move the school to another site.
The motion proposed by board member Don Kerr also answered the requests of many at the meeting - to investigate the costs of a “green” renovation.
The motion passed 6 - 0; board member Laura Walls did not attend the meeting.
Crowd wants district to renovate school
January 30, 2008
NEW PALTZ — It was as close to a love-in as you could expect to see when people talk about increasing the tax local burden.
The burden in question - initially at first - was the costs of either renovating the district’s existing and aged middle school or building a new one at a different location. The occasion was a school board meeting that brought scores of residents from as many walks of life to a too-small music room at the high school last night.
The result was an undeniable consensus on the question to renovate or to re-locate the aging middle school. Overwhelmingly, the request from about two dozen residents was to keep the middle school in the village, to renovate it and don’t even consider building a new one elsewhere.
Dollar amounts were presented as hypothetical figures and seemed to hold minimal interest for the crowd following an initial presentation by Superintendent Maria Rice. That may change as more solid figures are developed. But what resident after resident urged the board to do was renovate the existing building for what might best be called quality-of-life reasons: the importance for students of having the school within walking distance of the village, the need to keep future gas costs in mind ($8.50, $9.50 a gallon, who knew?) and the desire to make a renovation as green as possible.
A petition containing 802 signatures of residents from not only New Paltz but the parts of Gardiner, Esopus and Highland served by the district urged that the school be renovated.
The town and village boards, which have been able to agree on little if anything in recent years, both unanimously requested the building continue to be used as a school.
Two residents were less enthusiastic and urged the board to keep the potential costs of renovation in mind.
The meeting even featured a confession of sorts - former teachers union president Ron Simon said near the end of the public comment period that he’d changed his mind since last week and now favored renovation rather than building new. He received a loud ovation.
The board had taken no action by 10 p.m.
NEW PALTZ — It was as close to a love-in as you could expect to see when people talk about increasing the tax local burden.
The burden in question - initially at first - was the costs of either renovating the district’s existing and aged middle school or building a new one at a different location. The occasion was a school board meeting that brought scores of residents from as many walks of life to a too-small music room at the high school last night.
The result was an undeniable consensus on the question to renovate or to re-locate the aging middle school. Overwhelmingly, the request from about two dozen residents was to keep the middle school in the village, to renovate it and don’t even consider building a new one elsewhere.
Dollar amounts were presented as hypothetical figures and seemed to hold minimal interest for the crowd following an initial presentation by Superintendent Maria Rice. That may change as more solid figures are developed. But what resident after resident urged the board to do was renovate the existing building for what might best be called quality-of-life reasons: the importance for students of having the school within walking distance of the village, the need to keep future gas costs in mind ($8.50, $9.50 a gallon, who knew?) and the desire to make a renovation as green as possible.
A petition containing 802 signatures of residents from not only New Paltz but the parts of Gardiner, Esopus and Highland served by the district urged that the school be renovated.
The town and village boards, which have been able to agree on little if anything in recent years, both unanimously requested the building continue to be used as a school.
Two residents were less enthusiastic and urged the board to keep the potential costs of renovation in mind.
The meeting even featured a confession of sorts - former teachers union president Ron Simon said near the end of the public comment period that he’d changed his mind since last week and now favored renovation rather than building new. He received a loud ovation.
The board had taken no action by 10 p.m.
New Paltz to study renovating middle school
Poughkeepsie Journal
Thursday, January 31, 2008
NEW PALTZ — The board of education voted unanimously Wednesday night to study renovating New Paltz Middle School.
The school, built in 1930, now houses 650 students in grades 6-8, as well as the district’s shipping and receiving operations and the district’s main kitchen.
It was last expanded in 1966, with infrastructure updates completed in 1998.
Reasons cited on the district’s web site for needing renovation include energy efficiency, building codes, meeting state education mandates, compatibility with modern technology, ADA compliance and parking area expansion.
Thursday, January 31, 2008
NEW PALTZ — The board of education voted unanimously Wednesday night to study renovating New Paltz Middle School.
The school, built in 1930, now houses 650 students in grades 6-8, as well as the district’s shipping and receiving operations and the district’s main kitchen.
It was last expanded in 1966, with infrastructure updates completed in 1998.
Reasons cited on the district’s web site for needing renovation include energy efficiency, building codes, meeting state education mandates, compatibility with modern technology, ADA compliance and parking area expansion.
Archive of Comments by New Paltz Residents on "The Board's Dilemma"
The following comments were posted by residents on a blog created by the School Board's request for comments regarding the future of New Paltz Middle School. The public comments are being re-posted here as a public service, as both an archive and a forum for continued community discussion on the proposed New Paltz Middle School renovation:
December 18th, 2007 by npcsd
Grab a free edublog to your get your own avatar! December 18th, 2007 by npcsd
The aged infrastructure of the New Paltz Middle School has been under discussion for many years. The Board of Education has committed to make a decision in early 2008 on whether or not to rehabilitate the Middle School for educational purposes. Before investments are made the Board is asking the community to share its thoughts about what it considers are the most important factors that must be considered when taking this very important step forward.
Over the next few months, the Board and Superintendent Maria Rice will reach out to the community for this input. In addition to this Blog, community forums, paper and online information and interactive surveys, community presentations, and tours are planned.
You are invited to contribute to this Blog as a means to offer the Board information, guidance, opinions and questions on the future of the Middle School Building. We also ask you to consider and offer your perspectives on the following question: Will the current Middle School continue to be used as a learning center for students of the 21st Century?
This is the thinking stage, and the purpose of reaching out NOW is to hear about what matters to you and understand the priorities you have in making the decision. Asking this question will certainly generate numerous questions about the specifics of a yes or no answer, but the Board is not yet at a stage where answers are available.
Once the Board decides whether to move forward with a renovation project or with new construction, a comprehensive examination of all issues (especially cost) will be undertaken. It is at this point that the specific questions people will surely have about such things as where students will attend school or how school meals can be prepared if the Middle School building is unoccupied during renovations or how many classrooms a new building would have, can be answered.
For now, the Board wants to hear what matters to you. The Board will ultimately be responsible for making this decision and taking it to the voters. What would you like them to base their decision on? The information that we currently do have available is provided within this Blog, which was created to facilitate a dialog between the School District and the Community.
To begin our discussion, we would like feedback on what the community thinks are the most important factors for the Board of Education to consider when making this decision.
Each post will be on a specific topic so all comments should relate to the posted topic. Comments will be reviewed for appropriateness before appearing on the blog and only comments that are relevant to the topic will be posted. Every effort will be made for posts to be reviewed daily during the week, however depending upon the number of comments received and the holiday closings, this may take a bit longer at first.
NOTE: If you know of people who would like to comment but do not have a computer, please tell them to call our voice mail number (256-4175 ext. BLOG) and leave a voice message.
Posted in Seeking Feedback |
89 Responses to “About our Blog…”
-
Joyce schiff Says:
January 30th, 2008 at 3:14 pmI would like to express my feeling about the future of the New Paltz Middle School.
I would like to see it upgraded to modern educational standards.
My four children attended the school during the 70’s and 80’s, and one of my granddaughters graduated from there two years ago. Presently, I have one granddaughter who is a student there.
I was also a substitute teacher there as well as an active PTA parent who was one of a few women who were responsible for the playgroound behind the school.
The consensus of my family and myself is that the school has a wholesome feeling and should stay.
When the Lenape school was built, the school came with lots of physical problems which had to be addressed. A new building is not a promise that it comes without problems. Therefore, I am for keeping the middle school at the present location and upgrading it.
- Melissa Weatherly Says:
January 30th, 2008 at 3:18 pmAs a former student at the New Paltz Middle School, I feel that the school should remain in its current location and be upgraded.
- Amy Silvestro Says:
January 31st, 2008 at 7:33 amThank you to KT Tobin Flusser and friends for their enormous effort in demonstrating the unanimous support of local businesses and residents throughout the district, by petition, to preserve the middle school on site. Your efforts not only paid off, but also served to remind us what a dynamic community we live in.
- Tom Mulvihill Says:
January 31st, 2008 at 1:24 pmMany thanks for all the hard work the school board and Ms. Rice has put into this project. I think you made the right decision under difficult circumstances.
- Walter Earl Says:
January 4th, 2008 at 9:24 amI’ve worked in the Middle School for 14 years now, and really think its time for a new facility. Repairs or upgrades to the existing buildings only happen now on an emergency basis, long after they are requested and often incorrect. I would hope that if the change occurs whoever is in charge of planning will have the foresight to ask for the input of those who actually use it.
- Brian Tourville Says:
January 12th, 2008 at 11:03 pmView the existing Middle School Building as an existing ‘Foot Print’- not a jumble of walls and walkways as it now exists.
Do not tour the interior as it exists forgetting that only the main structural components that hold up the roof, floors and walls will remain once professionally gutted.
Once gutted, you are then looking at existing open space square footage in a well built Brick Building - as would any competent New York City Developer would view such a project.
Take the overall Square Footage of the existing Middle School - and lay out a ‘Progressive Floor Plan’ - and have that installed within the overall M-S ‘Foot Print’.
- Brian Tourville Says:
January 13th, 2008 at 12:46 amPlease provide for the January 16th presentation a table with an enlargement of the Middle School Structure Blueprints to gain a better understanding of the shape and size of the Middle School Buildings Foot Print.
A Xerox hand out of the Buildings outline - length x width of exterior Building Walls, listing
the existing square footage of each floor - in total - and the existing square footage of open areas between bldg. wings that could provide extra classroom square footage is requested. - Bill Mulcahy Says:
January 17th, 2008 at 10:34 pmI was asked to videotape a community forum on the future of the Middle School building for our Time Warner public access channel 23. It was great to see so many of my fellow New Paltzians so concerned with the future of this building. In my opinion any school board members who thought building a new middle school was good idea changed their mind during that meeting. I must compliment the school board members for arranging such a good public forum. Special kudos in particular for school board member Edgar Rodriquez who made sure that this important event was recorded for future viewing for those who couldn’t attend in person.
Basically the issue was whether to renovate or build an entirely new building. As the latter does not appear to be going to happen, the issue seems now to be how to renovate and upgrade the present building without disturbing the education of hundreds of middle school kids. All I can say is I’m happy that my son will be graduating (hopefully) this year and going on to our high school. I can’t believe, as one board member told me, that it would take “two years” to replace heating pipes. I think the board should get a second opinion. - Margaret & Richard LaMark Says:
January 19th, 2008 at 12:02 pmWe feel repair or renovate is the way to go with the present middle school. This facility is meant to be an educational learning center for so many through the years and we feel it would be a great loss to the community to shut down and rebuild elsewhere.
NOTE OF INTEREST: Mohonk is old but you don’t hear of shuting it down. Maintenance is the key and we should value what we have. - Terence P Ward Says:
January 23rd, 2008 at 12:12 pmThe community forum brought two things to crystal clarity: building new will absolutely cost far more money (not only will the percentage of aid be lower, but the bond for a new building will be compounding interest over thirty years instead of fifteen), and the cost to our community would be incalculable.
It was made abundantly clear that renovations will be able to address the needs of the children and staff as completely as building new could.
Despite Mr. Mulcahy’s optimism, I am not convinced that the Board was swayed. Dismissing the impact on our community as “nostalgia” by Mr. Swagert is extremely troubling to me. - Johann Koenig Says:
January 23rd, 2008 at 3:38 pmAs a former NP student (Duzine -> HS) and a current SUNY NP student, I believe whole heartedly in keeping the school in it’s current location. The proximity to the center of town allows students and teachers who live nearby to walk or bicycle anywhere in town in a short amount of time. Moving it out to the high school location kills this for most people. Since public transportation is … lacking … in New Paltz, these are the only real means for people without licenses (the students) or those who do not want to drive to get around.
I would personally like to see New Paltz become more accessible to people without vehicles (or those who would like to forgo them), and moving the Middle School out of town is a big step away from that.
- Dorene Shepherd Says:
January 26th, 2008 at 4:48 pmThere is a 3rd option - consolodation. Many districts have a Jr/Sr High School. By adding an addition onto the High School shared services such as Administration, Health Services, Food Prep, Cafeterias, Libraries, Computer Labs and an addition Gym could be added at a lower cost than a self-containing Middle School. The old spaces in the High School could be turned into classrooms. The Historical Middle School could be retained. The second floor as District Administrative Offices (eliminating rental costs of their current space) and the 1st and basement used as income producing space (District offered Day Care and Pre-K Programs, the YMCA may want to rent space and fields for serving the NP, Gardner,Highland residents, or SUNY NP may rent it as an annex) The public would appreciate an effort to produce income from sources other than School Taxes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
January 2nd, 2008 at 6:32 am
First, the current Middle School is an uninviting place for the children moving up from Lenape. The layout is confusing with several “you can’t get there from her” impediments. A new Middle School, situated on the grounds of the High School would offer an opportunity to plan a “user friendly” layout, the use of energy efficient heating and cooling strategies, and may even save on bus fuel consumption because the MS and HS students would end their travel at the same location. The sports fields could be shared.
The town and village would be wise to consolidate their several offices in the various segments of the current Middle School. The parking would be more appropriate for that use, access to Main street for emergency vehicles would be faster, and without the need for athletic fields, Police/ Fire/ Rescue vehicles could move about and be stored efficiently.
Finally, retrofitting an old building often costs as much or more than new construction. I have serious doubts that the current patchwork quilt of a Middle School could be brought up to modern standards for energy and space utilization.
January 2nd, 2008 at 8:29 pm
I appreciate the effort the board is making to solicit community input and look forward to exploring this issue in more depth, but I feel very strongly that the middle school, whether renovated or rebuilt, should remain where it is.
Its central location is an advantage in many ways to the increasing independence of students in that age group (and to hs students who bus to the ms. I also think that an updated version of the middle school could serve as a potent community magnet, something New Paltz could truly use.
January 3rd, 2008 at 8:17 am
What I’d like to know is whether the district has data on how many district students live in the village, in the town outside the village, and in the parts of other towns that are in the district. That info. would help me decide where schools should be located.
January 3rd, 2008 at 8:28 am
Per your inquiry, I have listed below the number of students per township in this district. The public school student numbers are based on the district’s student data base as of January 4th. The private school numbers are based on Transportation Request forms and student rosters submitted by individual buildings.
TOWN - Number of STUDENTS
TOWN OF ESOPUS - 100
TOWN OF GARDINER - 728
TOWN OF LLOYD - 16
TOWN OF NEW PALTZ -1,215
VILLAGE OF NEW PALTZ - 397
TOWN OF PLATTEKILL - 31
TOWN OF ROCHESTER - 0
TOWN OF ROSENDALE - 29
TOTAL STUDENTS - 2,516
January 3rd, 2008 at 7:58 pm
I agree strongly with Betty about the location. I think that the central, in-village location of the Middle School is highly advantageous for kids at that age. They can walk to town, the library, and many can walk home. In addition, the use of the facilities by our many youth sport groups make the location a plus.
I also feel strongly that renovating a building as old as the Middle School would be a mistake. Our students, and the students of the next few decades, deserve a modern, efficient building that is designed for education and that is ready for the teaching and learning of the next few decades.
In short, I don’t think remodeling the current building makes sense, and I do think the location is ideal, so I would support a new building on the site of the current Middle School.
I neglected to mention that it is obvious to anyone that has been in the building that a new building is long overdue.
Thanks to the BOE for the opportunity to provide feedback.
January 4th, 2008 at 7:47 am
It is all about cost for me. This community is quickly becoming one that people on fixed incomes can no longer afford. I want my children to able to afford to live in this community in the future.
For me, education is not dependent on bricks and mortar. It is about the teacher who cares enough to find the key to inspire and teach her students. My children received a better education from a school with very few resources. What they did have is teachers who cared and loved their students.
If there was federal or state money available and all things were equal, I would like the MS building preserved for use as a community center, town/village offices, conference center, youth center and a new building built near the HS. However, I would like a lot of things in life, but we all have to make choices within our own budgets and ability to pay. Thank you for seeking the community’s input.
January 7th, 2008 at 8:37 am
Renovate or build, what makes more sense? I think part of the
problem that everyone in the community is struggling with is how do we
afford what we really want to do? Figures such as $40 million scare me
to
death. When you think about the 92 million dollar jail that has so
impacted
the county tax, I say what would 40 million do to this small community?
I think the only way to sell the idea of a new school versus renovating
is
for the board to find a way to break down, after state re-imbursement
what
our share would be and the ultimate tax impact.
Gardiner did this when they wanted help for their library. They were
able
to say to taxpayers, this will add $1.50 to your yearly taxes (I don’t
remember the exact figure, but it was small and it passed).
As taxpayers we need to have a sense of how a new building would impact
our
yearly taxes. For example, if I knew it was being bonded and only going
to
increase my yearly school tax by $200.00, I might say go for it. If
someone
said $1000.00 more, I’d have to say pass.
This is the kind of information we need to make such a decision. An example; suppose I need a car and I know for $20,000.00
I
can buy a new dependable car that won’t need a lot of work for many
years,
but I only have $5000.00 to spend, then I might buy a used car and just
figure I’ll try to fix it when problems occur. Do I want the new car?
Yes,
of course I do, but I can only afford the used car and will pour bad
money
after good because that is what I can afford. It is the same dilemma
with
this building project.
The stark reality is that we as a community really love our kids, but I need to still be able to afford to live in this
community and have a desire for my children to be able to live in this
community. My taxes, school and Town/County have gone up almost 75% in
the
last 12 years. We hope to retire soon (in about 6 years) and that is a
very
real worry. God help the people who retired 20 years ago, I don’t know
how
they stay here.
So this kind of information would be helpful if you want a new building
to
pass.
Thank you,
Nora Strano
January 9th, 2008 at 11:34 am
Thank you for soliciting the community input!
It boils down to money and what will hurt the least.
Rich Morris has it correct (previous message).
1. No matter how big the band-aid it is still a band-aid.
2. Build a new addition to high school grounds. This will reduce fuel costs, maintenance costs. plowing costs, ect. This will also help centralize our school system. At the same time build new offices for the school district office.
3. Town and Village need to “grow up” and consolidate. They need to combined and be under one roof. The Middle School would be a perfect location.
On a seperate issue: If a new school is to be built, the builder must be a New York Based company to avoid having to chase an out of state company should problems arise.
Respectfully Submitted,
January 12th, 2008 at 9:52 pm
= Hypothetical Comparisons =
New Construction:
Up to 65% Costs covered by Aid
-or-
Renovation:
Up to 100% Costs covered by Aid.
1. The Nation is entering an Economic Recession and we’ve Residents leaving the area due to increases in Taxation.
It is incomprehensible to saddle our Community with Debt for the sake of a ‘Utopian Four Building Campus Plan’ - not 100% Funded by Aid.
We’re looking at a 15 year Bond with Renovation and possible 100% funding -vs- a 30 year Bond and Aid funding of only 65% maximum.
2. If we can get 100% of what we want with 100% funding - create the Best Plan Possible.
3. ‘Green Construction’ is much more costly and experiences greater ‘cost over_runs’.
Given ‘Green Construction Variables’, plan with a 25% cost over_run in addition to initial projected cost for a ‘Four Building Campus Plan’.
3. If it is such that we can cover 100% by Renovating vs 65% in New Construction:
Gut the interior of the existing M-S and install a progressive floor plan for the existing structural footprint.
4. Get Bids from Construction Firms of Scale.
The smaller the firm, the higher the subcontracting and total costs will be.
5. Work with SUNY New Paltz as to utilizing their Campus during the Renovation time frame.
January 14th, 2008 at 6:40 am
I certainly agree with the concept of a new building located on the high school property. I agree with the cost savings component. The Town-Village use of the old building is a no-brainer. I would ask the board to reach out to the Montgomery School District. They have a Middle School/ High School set up on the same property. Coincidentally they have a similar local government dynamic of a village and town. Maybe the officials from the Montgomery District could offer some insight surrounding the pros and cons of having both schools centrally located.
January 14th, 2008 at 10:56 am
I definitely agree that the middle school should be modernized. Whether that will mean renovating or re-building, I will have to learn more during the tour. But one thing that must be taken into account with this new or updated school, is how much green technology is incorporated into the construction. Cost is definitely a factor that concerns all of us as tax payers, but we must learn from the problems that the library is presently experiencing. The New Paltz Library is getting slammed by heating and utility costs. If there was more thought of suplimenting a portion of heating/cooling/general electricity with solar, they would not be in their present financial dilema. New Paltz has a great opportunity to create a new school that will reflect the high educational standards of our town from the very building that houses our faculty and students. Whatever happens, the middle school will have to be a modern and VERY efficient structure if we want to see it last through this new century-and beyond.
January 15th, 2008 at 2:04 pm
On cost: I wonder about the demographic projections. They don’t seem to square with new construction in the District: fifty-eight new houses in the past three years in New Paltz Town alone. Better get the projection right. Whether more students or fewer, building for the future is the smart thing to do, even if the present cost seems high. It will be cheaper and better in the long haul, with fewer repairs and a potential for seriously reduced operating costs. The old building, renovated, will still be an old building, subject to various ills. And properly housing the administrative offices really ought to be included – a two-for-one deal.
On siting: Only 397 students of the current enrollment of 2516 are from the village. How many of that number are attending the Middle School and able to walk there, if willing? Not a strong argument here for the current location. There are good arguments in favor of new construction elsewhere; others have already given some. Then there’s the issue of finding a place or places to house classes while the old building is renovated or a new one built where the old one stands. This appears an intractable problem, contrary to what some have said. What about labs, computers, a gym, the District kitchen? If this problem can’t be solved, then new construction elsewhere than on the current footprint is the only option.
On the dying hulk: The Town has broken ground on a community center. With its limited resources, and with tax payer fury a constant, why would the Town tackle an aging labyrinth? To what end? Isn’t going to happen. So who buys the property if the middle school moves? A developer, for a teardown and an apartment complex? Not a popular outcome. But the District should absolutely look for top dollar, to offset some of the cost. Choose your headache.
On the many, many other questions: Needless to say, there are plenty. Would a new middle school, built for the future, fit roughly on the current footprint, with adequate parking? Are the playing fields at the Middle School adequate for the future? Can the derelict District offices building be razed, and a new building sited on the current parking lot while classes continue in the old building and temporary parking is provided on the playing fields? Do we really want middle school students crossing North Manheim through traffic, even with a crosswalk, when that’s among the worst intersections for young pedestrians in the Village? Is it in fact feasible for Middle and High School students to share the existing fields at the High School location? Has anyone asked the coaches? Can a new building (and possibly new playing fields) actually be accommodated at the High School property, or must adjacent land be purchased? And on and on.
Well, there’s so little concrete information to go on that writing this is like firing a shotgun at a fence post. In the dark. Maybe a couple pellets will hit.
January 16th, 2008 at 5:31 am
Contact: Annette Saturnelli, Newburgh Enlarged City School District Board of Education, phone: (845) 563-3400.
Discuss the 2002 ‘West Wing’ addition to Newburgh Free Academy - square footage / class rooms / # students per room / final cost.
Ask for Contacts:
The Architectural Design Firm.
The G.C. Contractor.
The Construction Firm who handled the main construction.
Schedule the NFA West Wing Architects to tour the M-S, present them with the requirements for rooms / offices / heating / cooling & see if they can come in under / on the 100% aid / 15 year Bond Budget to do the work.
Once the M-S is ‘gutted’ - only the exterior walls / roof will remain.
A Progressive Floor Plan can be drafted and installed, say moving a central hallway over to one side of the building so that two previously narrow rooms are now one large room etc. -
Solar Heating / Ground Water Cooling can be incorporated along with Solar Electric support.
If it is that we can achieve 100% funding / 15 year Bond, having an entirely NEW Middle School that only utilizes the the 1930’s Middle School exterior walls & roof supports - and save ourselves the hardship of TAXATION to cover the additional 20+ Million Dollars and the additional 15 years of Bonds required for the all new Building at the High School Property - let sanity prevail.
January 17th, 2008 at 7:58 pm
As a first time visitor to this web site, I want to first say I’m very impressed by the thoughtful comments you guys (bloggers) are making here. In respect to points some of you have made here, I’d like to put in my two cents worth - based on what I learned at the special school board meeting last night (Jan 16th) at the Middle School.
It was clear from the tour and the detailed explanation of problems with the existing building that the present conditions are too serious to address by making simple repairs/renovations. However, There was (clearly) a very strong sentiment among those attending that meeting for keeping the school on the current site, for reasons some of you have pointed out in your comments above. But — based on what we learned last night — let’s be clear as well on the actual options before the school board: (1) Tearing down the old building and building a new one on the same site is NOT an option (for a variety of reasons, including cost and unique legal issues re that site limiting where new construction can take place) (2)The rehab option includes SUBSTANTIAL rehabilitation, including the possibility of completely gutting the old building and/or building a large addition yet still qualifying for more state aid than building an entirely new structure. But this option is not without its problems, and these were discussed in detail at the meeting as well.
You can get all the details yourself by watching a video of the (January 16th) special board meeting, including the building tour, on the Access Channel (#23) — possibly as soon as this weekend (January 18th-20th) though it may not be posted on the Channel 23 menu until early next week. It was a great meeting, very informative, including a good discussion of the issues in all their complexity — so if you missed it, try to watch that video!
January 17th, 2008 at 8:33 pm
Whichever option the community recommends and the school board ultimately approves, the plan is going to face an uphill battle in the current economic climate (all buiding projects do). So while the district holds its meetings, hosts this blog and sorts through its many options to arrive at this difficult decision, it needs to immediately begin another process: start convincing the voting public that SOME plan is inevitable and that that plan will cost something. It’s never too soon to get people accustomed to the idea that SOMETHING will have to be done. The problem is not going to go away by itself. The district needs to start selling THAT idea, and then it can mobilize itself to sell the particular plan it adopts. That process needs to begin (and with great fervor) right now.
January 18th, 2008 at 4:27 am
Brian’s suggestion sounds great, but when I try to envision moving the entire contents of M. S. - offices, computers, classroom equipment, lab(s), a gym, and all the people - to another location or locations I keep drawing a total blank. No move, no renovation. Simple.
January 18th, 2008 at 7:05 am
My son will be attending the middle school next year and I have another son following him to MS in 5 years. I read through many of the comments and I found myself in agreement with many of the points. I think it is important the children have a school they can feel proud of, but the teachers will always have a greater impact than the building. However, I recognize an aging building whith an inefficient layout will pose issues, but it also seems obvious that increasing taxes will do little to garner public support. I believe there are significant tax cuts and possibly aid to be had with green buildings, not to mention the reduced codt of operating and owning a green building. While there are so many issues to consider, I hope the board seriously reviews the green aspect when renovating the MS, because that is something our children can be truly proud of.
January 18th, 2008 at 8:55 am
Every year there is a school budget and tax increase–how come enough money was not budgeted over the years to cover the maintainence on the school, My company budgets truck maintainence money,It comes to a point when some accountability has to take place–the taxpayers do not have an open check book, and the district has to make good fiscal choices, or step down and other people step up
January 18th, 2008 at 8:57 am
Every year there is a school budget and tax increase–how come enough money was not budgeted over the years to cover the maintainence on the school, My company budgets truck maintainence money,It comes to a point when some accountability has to take place–the taxpayers do not have an open check book, and the district has to make good fiscal choices, or step down and other people step up
January 18th, 2008 at 9:22 am
Every possible matter of interest to taxpayers, students, students’ families, community strength, and local business points towards the retention and rebuilding of the existing structure.
Given the staggering difference in known costs, which will be at least triple for a new structure, possibly much more after investigating the impact of costs such as site acquisition and preparation, and the vast differential in interest burdens of a 30-year, 25 million dollar loan vs. a 15-year, 8 million dollar loan, I’m hard-pressed to understand how the school board ever saw fit to present the “new campus” option, let alone be leaning towards it. The person who raised the comparison to the jail debacle is making the key point here. If the board were demonstrating the prospect that the students and taxpayers would realize triple or quadruple the value in investment and quality of educational services by choosing a new campus, I could understand why we were having this discussion. But that’s not the case.
There is also the matter of the value of the current location to key elements of child development, especially for the age group in question. While the data reports only 71 students walk to school, anyone standing nearby can see that far more than that depart school on foot. These students are getting the education New Paltz can provide outside the fully programmed experience within the four walls of the school itself — identification with our community, our small businesses, our library, our incomparable westward view, personal development towards self-realization and adulthood, and the relationships that will define their sense of grounding in, and devotion to, this wonderful and historic place. That’s priceless, and it comes at no extra cost to the taxpayer. The Middle School is the only school we have that offers these opportunities, and at just the perfect age for them to have their best impact. Should the students be moved to a remote campus, there will be no choice but to have all of them put directly on school buses and taken directly home — New Paltz schooling will become an entirely hermetic experience. I don’t think that’s good for our children’s overall development, nor do I think that’s what New Paltz is about.
Another thing that nobody is talking about is the status of the athletic facilities at the current site. The deed requires that the site remain a student athletic field in perpetuity. At this week’s hearing, the School Board acknowledged that they are barred from selling the property, and that this requirement would be met by busing students from the remote schools to the abandoned site just for sports activities. This is simply nonsensical.
Where to site the students during the reconstruction is not as problematic as has been suggested. There are substantial vacant (or easily vacatable) structures available. There is also the option of adding 6 classrooms of temporary structures to Duzine, Lenape, and the high school to allow each to handle one extra grade, which would absorb all three grades of the Middle School without disruption or dispersion of normal school activity. However this question is addressed, it’s important to remember that this is a question of only two years, while the lifespan of the new or re-built Middle School must be thought of in terms of 50 to 75 years.
Have I mentioned the staggering difference in cost between the two options? That will be on our property tax bills until after most of us are dead, and will be an inexplicable legacy for our heirs. “Thanks for leaving me the house, Mom and Dad, and I’ve always loved living in New Paltz, but I can’t afford the taxes.”
Let’s reconstruct the existing school.
January 18th, 2008 at 11:23 pm
The Community Forum on the Middle School held on Wednesday January 16th is airing on local public access TV Channel 23 throughout the weekend and beyond.
Check back here at the blogsite for more specific scheduling details about the video.
Thanks to Bill Mulcahy for volunteering to videotape this event (he did a superb job) and to Don Kerr for putting the video on PATV.
January 19th, 2008 at 5:24 am
# Norman Turner Says:
January 18th, 2008 at 4:27 am
Brian’s suggestion sounds great, but when I try to envision moving the entire contents of M. S. - offices, computers, classroom equipment, lab(s), a gym, and all the people - to another location or locations I keep drawing a total blank. No move, no renovation. Simple.
\\
I understand the logistics of relocating say 500 students is bewildering.
But having been a child in Sudbury Mass. at a time when the School Districts were engaged in an extensive renovating / construction phase, it really isn’t that bad.
You won’t be moving the Gym..nope. That stays put.
The beauty of Computers is that a Teachers entire Curriculum Data is now stored on a Disc, and can transported to an existing Computer at another School Facility and installed in under 5 minutes giving the M_S Teacher an immediate ‘On line’ status - ready to go.
You won’t be transporting Lab Equipment, the Middle School Students will utilize fully, the infrastructure of which ever School they end up at.
For 6th Grade, I went from attending one school one year to being Bussed to another School the next…. not the upset one might consider - and we’re not talking 1,500 students > we’ll find a School to work with us for our 500 students and get on with the Task ahead.
I’m watching the Ch. 21 Apre’ Building Tour meeting as I type.
Really did enjoy the ‘Boiler Room Tour’!
Lots of good input - lots of concerns that center around where do the Kids go while Renovating remain.
I hope that the Board will address this question promptly.
January 19th, 2008 at 10:47 am
We feel repair or renovate is the way to go with the present Middle School. This facility is meant to be an educational center for so many through the years and we feel it would be a great loss to the community to shut down and rebuild elsewhere.
NOTE OF INTEREST:Mohonk is old and you don’t hear of shuting it down. Maintenance is the key and we should value what we have!
January 19th, 2008 at 10:56 am
I feel we should repair or renovate the present middle school. I feel building a new facility would be too costly. Would a new facility in 78 years be constructed as well as the present middle school? I don’t think so. We should keep what we have for the community and be proud.
January 19th, 2008 at 1:47 pm
I currently work for a company that is retrofitting a 110,000 square foot building to modern energy standards. I can tell you that this is going to be far less expensive than constructing a building of this size. Even if unexpected problems were to occur during renovation of the middle school,I seriously doubt they would amount to 25 million dollars.
I sincerely believe that the time has come ( if not already overdue ) for the school and the goverments of this town to be fully accountable to the legitimate concerns of the tax payer.
I am married to a teacher, and I know that it is caring and concerned educators that leave a lifetime imprint on their students. It’s not about the “building”.
January 19th, 2008 at 8:38 pm
I’m of two minds on this issue, but am leaning toward building a new building, just because it makes sense in the long run to have state of the art, “green”, new construction for our children -this of course is more important than saving money now, we’d just be putting off for a future generation to deal with more renovations that will be due again in time, and higher energy & repair bills, etc. The fact that we can sell the current building is certainly a plus, offsetting a significant portion of the costs.
I like the current location of the middle school and love the fact that kids can be right in the village but I also think it appropriate for the school to be on the high school campus (think of the money that will be saved on busing.)
It is my understanding that the population of students is not growing proportionately to the overall population increase in the area (wonder why…could it be the exorbitant cost of housing/taxes?) If I’m correct, perhaps a new building could be built with the potential for enlargement, but smaller (and cheaper)than current estimates. Also, couldn’t the high school and middle school share some facilities, like one of the gyms or library? This might be a cost saver too. Just a thought…
I appreciate being part of the process, esp since I couldn’t make the meetings.
January 20th, 2008 at 9:01 am
Where do you put the students while gutting the present building? Relocation would benefit the bussing to two different locations (hs/ms) and also the shared staff that have to travel between two buildings. Adding to the hs site would benefit students to be able to have access to hs courses. The present building is old and out of date and unhealthy.
January 20th, 2008 at 11:53 am
The School Board needs to conduct itself in a business like manner. The child-like pro forma that was provided was full of “unknowns”. If that had been turned in to a business person, it would have been sent back with a big red question mark on it. The caption free snapshots appear to have been selected for shock value, I suppose, but really lacked shocking images. There was no verbiage associated with the images to indicate “what was wrong with this picture”. A picture of a staircase? A picture of a classroom? No information as to what was wrong with the facilities shown. I suppose they needed some freshening up, but most appeared serviceable, and I apologize, but I’d like to be advised as to what the providers feel was unacceptable with what was shown. I could probably surmise, but if you’re asking for ten or twenty million dollars, how about at least sharing your thoughts? No information as to what repairs have been made in the recent past, or their cost. No information as to what repairs would be made for the ten million dollars, or their necessity. No information as to what we would get for twenty million dollars, besides “a new middle school”. Many businesses would like to tear down their old facilities, and build new. They don’t because they can’t afford it. Many businesses would like to make wholesale repairs on their existing facilities. They don’t because they can’t afford it. They stage their capital expenditures to match what they can afford. Ironically, our school board, to me, is behaving like a teen ager that wants a new Play Station but has no money to pay for it, so they try to guilt their parents into paying for it. “All of the other kids haver one”. (All of the other towns have a new school). The School Board is asking for money from the tax payers for things that we can’t afford in our own homes or businesses - I believe that the school board has to understand that the cupboard is empty. The tax payers are broke. The School Board has to do a better job on their home work. They must tell us what repairs have been done, what repairs need to be done, and what each repair has and will cost. The first money they should be asking the tax payers for should be to provide this information. Even Governor Spitzer is acknowledging the extravagant spending of School Systems throughout the state, and is exploring legislation that will help to control it. The New Paltz School Board needs to begin conducting themselves like adult business persons , and stop spending moneythat they (we, the tax payers) don’t have.
January 20th, 2008 at 9:09 pm
The New Paltz Village and Town Bicycle Pedestrian Committee unanimously passed a resolution in favor of retaining the Middle School location. The process of making the Middle School more safe and convenient to walk and bike to school and to educate parents, scholars,teachers and other staff about the value to health of doing so, has already been begun. The Safe Routes to School program is being applied to for a grant and improvement of the Main St. crossings near the school are being considered. An out of town location for the Middle School will reinforce habits of being driven everywhere at a critical age for students.
January 21st, 2008 at 8:35 pm
It may be beneficial to incorporate the transportation study from the town, or any other relevant long range traffic concerns, into the decision process regarding the location of the Middle School.
Thank you for the opporutnity to comment.
January 21st, 2008 at 9:26 pm
Thank you for the opportunity to participate in the deliberations over the future of the Middle School.
One of the refrains repeated throughout this discussion is the need for a facility to meet the needs of 21st Century education. Preparing students to participate in the civic life of a community is a key component of a 21st Century education. This has become increasingly difficult for our district since we have repeatedly decided to locate our school facilities at a distance from any immediate contact with civic life.
I would urge the Board to maintain an educational facility at the current Middle School site. It is the only facility in the district that provides a direct connection between students and the community in which they live.
No amount of new digital technology could ever make up for the loss of the opportunity the current site affords students to directly consider and explore the community in which they live.
Thank you for your efforts, and please let me know if I can be of any assistance in this initiative.
January 22nd, 2008 at 12:15 pm
Regarding busing ms and hs kids together: I have 3 kids and I personally don’t want my 11-12 year olds on the same school bus as 17-18 year olds. I’d prefer they travel with kids their own age. Sixth graders and 12th graders are miles apart, socially and emotionally.
January 22nd, 2008 at 12:26 pm
Further on the bus issue, I don’t see where there’s a savings. Whatever number of kids can currently walk will not be able to, and that means more buses, not fewer. You can’t just cut down the number of buses when you have the same total number of kids plus the additional ones who can no longer walk.
And there is the additional issue (mentioned above in post #19) of having to bus the kids to and from the athletic fields, if the ms moves. So there is yet another increase in transportation expense (not to mention the waste of time).
I would really like to see the middle school stay in its current location.
January 22nd, 2008 at 4:12 pm
I would 100% disagree with a new middle school being built on the high school grounds. There simply is not enough room. There is no more land, with property owned on both sides of the school grounds and then the thruway behind the school. The only way would be to destroy athletic fields, and then you want the high school and middle school teams to share fields? no way. The high school teams are squeezed in as it is during the fall and spring. Extra soccer fields had to be made to accommodate all teams for practice and games, there is only one softball and baseball field and one and a half practice football fields. There is also not be enough parking at the high school for all the students, high school teachers and then middle school teachers. This just does not seem logical if you look at the high school grounds. The high school should not be messed with to accommodate a new middle school. The middle school should stay right where it is. I would assume that people who are in favor of moving the middle school onto the high school grounds do not have a student in the high school.
January 22nd, 2008 at 10:50 pm
As there is no way that the school is going to be moved I think what should be discussed is how to deal with the problems that need to be fixed. Do they have really be handled in a comprehensive plan? Why not one at a time? If the heating system has to be fixed or replaced why not do that first? I think 4.5 million dollars is a lot of money. What do we get for that.
All I can say is I’m happy that my son will be graduating (hopefully) from the Middle School this year and going on to our high school. I can’t believe, as one board member told me, that it would take “two years” to replace heating pipes. I think the board should get a second opinion.
I was asked to videotape a community forum on the future of the Middle School building for our Time Warner public access channel 23. It was great to see so many of my fellow New Paltzians so concerned with the future of this building.
January 23rd, 2008 at 5:36 am
Just to clarify, middle school students and high school students are currently bussed together. In my experience the high school students contain and look out for the middle school kids. They have stopped bullying on the bus often.
January 23rd, 2008 at 7:54 am
The New Paltz Green Works Committee urges the board to act now to commit to keep the Middle School at its current location. We propose that perhaps we could have the best of both old and new. We could have the historic original building updated and
renovated and only build new at the current location to replace the additions. We could have a historic site at the center of the district that is cutting edge in terms of both technology and accessibility. Further, keeping the Middle School in the heart of the village promotes a pedestrian lifestyle which translates into a stronger sense of community. This vital sense of community is integral to the education of our citizens of the future.
January 23rd, 2008 at 7:57 am
fyi - The vote on January 30th is not listed on the district calendar (linked on the district home page).
January 23rd, 2008 at 9:55 am
I recommend that the Middle School NOT be moved. I would like the Middle School to be renovated, perhaps added on to if necessary. A new extension could be added where the current baseball field is located, with renovations proceeding in the rest of the building as needed.
You could even put the district office in the the old Main building.
January 23rd, 2008 at 9:57 am
We are a joint town and village commission (a Global Warming Taskforce) and we are AGAINST moving the location of the Middle School.
It is vital to our community to keep the school at it’s location to promote walking and biking for students at such a critical age. This community is finally moving toward taking responsiblity for it’s part in carbon emmissions and moving this school should not be an option. How can you say that it is “green minded” because it will save on bus fuel and plowing? This is grasping. Regardless of how many students walk to school, so many more walk from school to various places. They go to the library, activities, to meet their parents and they support local businesses along the way. Their habits and sense of community are molded at this age. Let’s not take them out of this central location to a place where they can never experience our community, a place they will never walk or ride their bike to and from.
There are so many other reasons not to move it’s location but I want to really emphasis that we as a community need to hold out to our moral obligation to do what’s right for the envirornment. Remodel the existing building and show our kids the way of the future- supporting local busiiness and walking and biking as much as possible.
-Theresa Fall
Chair of New Paltz GreenWorks
(a Global Warming Taskforce)
January 23rd, 2008 at 12:35 pm
My review of this post frustrates me. You have asked the community to keep comments to the topic of the specific post, and yet my review of other posts only showed two that allowed comments! Is this an oversight?
I understand that actual costs cannot be meaningfully estimated at this time. However, your illustration should include a reasonable estimate of the interest rate the district would obtain for a 15- and a 30-year bond, as well as the TOTAL AMOUNT PAID by the taxpayers in each of those two cases. The Board and Superintendant have done an excellent job of making it clear that the 20- and 40-million dollar figures are just for illustrative purposes. Without illustrating the difference in interest costs, however, those illustrations are just dots that cannot be connected.
Please provide the citizens of this community with sufficient data to provide an informed opinion. We who elected the Board from among our fellows deserve nothing less.
January 23rd, 2008 at 1:17 pm
I am strongly in favor of renovating the school - We simply cannot afford a new building, and it is not environmentally sane to move the location to a place where no kids can walk to school. Republicans are always talking about “fiscal responsibility” and Democrats talk about protecting the environment, so this should be a no-brainer issue that everyone understands. Renovate.
January 23rd, 2008 at 1:28 pm
As a parent, taxpayer and member of the global warming taskforce (New Platz Greenworks) I would like to say, in agreement with Theresa Fall, that it is important, first and foremost that we think environmentally and keep this decision green and therefore DO NOT MOVE THE MIDDLE SCHOOL. On a personal note, I must admit, that I would simply, be very sad to see this aesthetically beautiful building moved from it’s convenient central location for many reasons, especially the history and attachment I have to it myself, not to mention the idea of connecting it to the existing Highschool. I always loved the school’s being seperate and envisioned this for my children. Think Local, Think Green!!! Thnks! Anita
January 23rd, 2008 at 1:28 pm
Has the District had the current Middle School site appraised? The “Cost” site says “If the Board decided to build new and sell the current Middle School facility, it is possible that a significant amount of revenue could become available to apply to the cost.” It would really be helpful to know what the building is appraised at and then ask what entity could raise that kind of capital PLUS pay for all the repairs.
January 23rd, 2008 at 2:27 pm
Good question, Terrence. I did the math on this yesterday, using a standard on-line loan calculator, and then doing it again on a different site to check the numbers.
By the board’s description, we’re not actually starting with a difference between 20 and 40 million. Because the two options are “aidable” at different rates (renovate & add is 100%, and build new is only 65%), their starting figures are really 8 million and 24.4 million.
The 8 million version would be financed for 15 years. The 24.4 million version would be financed for 30 years. Final cost to taxpayers? Renovate/Add is 12 million. Build new is 52 million.
January 23rd, 2008 at 5:52 pm
This is what this very website says (http://npcsd.edublogs.org/current-building/) about the current condition of the Middle School:
“Although the building is 78-years old, it has been well maintained. Major construction to expand the building was done in 1966, and portions of the infrastructure were updated in 1998. The District’s professional consultants who inspected the building (the Greenwood Corporation) did not indicate any severe structural issues and only a minimal level of short term health/safety issues.”
At the bottom of that page there are several photographs that basically show what appear to be common maintenance and repair problems. In between are some wish list items about what could be done with an extensive renovation.
What I would like to know is how this leads to the false “dilemma” of new construction vs. two-year renovation. It appears to me that this entire issue has been presented by the school district in bad faith, and that a third option of aggressive maintenance and moderate renovation, not requiring a two-year closure, has not been put on the table. Or, worse, has been deliberately left off the table.
If the building has been well-maintained, as the quote from this site states, then why are photographs of maintenance problems, which could be addressed by maintenance and repair, being used to sell a new building or a massive renovation?
What it comes down to, answering my own question, is that the board and the superintendant want a new facility by massive renovation or new construction when there is, in fact, no facility “crisis.” That is bad faith, and the New Paltz community needs to address that before it addresses the Middle School issue.
January 23rd, 2008 at 7:44 pm
I am a resident, I have four children in the NP school district and I pay close to 7K a year in school taxes, so I feel I have a real stake in this issue. I appreciate the opportunity to comment - and feel very strongly that the old building must be saved and renovated. The impact to the community, surrounding businesses and the middle school-aged kids would be really terrible. I’m sorry a new facility is even under consideration, given the taxes already paid by citizens of New Paltz. But even more than that, New Paltz has a culture (and a sense of environmental responsibility) that shouldn’t be ignored or underestimated. How many kids get to walk to school in America today? How many towns have a great old school building right in the center of town anymore? If the school district truly feels there is money to burn, then I am sure there are other programs that would benefit from this funding instead. I am fully in support of a cost-saving (and culture-saving) renovation instead, and of preserving a wonderful landmark for current and future students.
Respectfully,
January 23rd, 2008 at 10:54 pm
As a student with 12 years experience in the New Paltz school system I would like to add my name all those who have spoken out in favor of keeping the Middle School on site (NP Bike-Pedestrian Committee, the NP Global Warming Task Force, the NPHS Student Government Officers, the informal sentiment of all 5 Village Board members and scores of residents and parents).
As Peter Fairweather suggested above no amount of 21st century technology, operational savings or organizational efficiency can replace the benefit of having kids attend middle school in the heart of the community. The village provides students with a safe environment in which to appreciate their new partial, though thoroughly exciting, independence during a critical stage in adolescence. The school’s present location encourages independent young people who share a deep pride in their community.
Other benefits of renovation are equally compelling:
1) Financial-all accounts suggest that renovation would be significantly cheaper
2) Aesthetic-renovation offers the opportunity to preserve a beautiful piece of our community’s history
3) Environmental-building on site would decrease required building materials, prevent the expansion of an intra-town commuter-psyche, preserve space on the high school property all while allowing for a comprehensively “green” building
Finally I assume that the funding of either alternative would be dependent on the passage of a town-wide bond-referendum.
For all these reasons I encourage the board to reflect what I perceive to be the popular community sentiment by voting to keep a school in the village.
January 24th, 2008 at 4:36 pm
Keep the Middle School where it is.
I am in agreement with all the points regarding its central location.
Additionally, I would like to point out that keeping and renovating the current building sends a message that we as a community value what we have. This is an important lesson many of us could learn from. Rather than just tossing what we have outgrown, may we find a better use.
January 24th, 2008 at 6:37 pm
The New Paltz Green Works Committee urges the
board to act now to commit to keep the Middle School at its current
location. We propose that perhaps we could have the best of both old
and new. We could have the historic original building updated and
renovated and only build new at the current location to replace the
additions. We could have a historic site at the center of the
district that is cutting edge in terms of both technology and
accessibility. Further, keeping the Middle School in the heart of the
village promotes a pedestrian lifestyle which translates into a
stronger sense of community. This vital sense of community is
integral to the education of our citizens of the future.
January 24th, 2008 at 8:33 pm
I’d like to start out by commenting on what a great way this is for residents to provide input on issues before the board. Most of my points have been made by others, mostly very sensibly and thoughtfully, although I have a few points to make that have not been brought up.
First, let me say that I’m firmly in favor of renovating the existing school building. I don’t agree with those who say it would cost the same, or more, to renovate the old school as it would to build new. As Joseph Weeks and Steve Greenfield point out, renovation of an old building can be done, and done economically.
Sure it would be nice to have the newest of everything, but can we, as a community, afford it? We all have to live within our means, and as Nora Strano said, that means making choices about how we spend our money.
And before we say that building new is the answer to all our problems, let’s not forget Lenape school, which was built brand new and is still, years later, battling problems with leaks, mold, boiler fumes, and other issues.
Are we sure how much room we will need in the future for middle school students?
It seems that this is one of the key to deciding whether the existing building is large enough or will need additions at some point. As Rich Koenig points out, there is room for an addition on the present site, if necessary.
In conclusion, let me mention again what many others have brought up. Ultimately, it’s not the building that makes the education, it’s the teachers who teach in that building.
And I’d like to say thank you for the opportunity to comment on this important issue.
Steve Dodd
January 25th, 2008 at 11:36 am
I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW WHAT THE PLANS ARE FOR THE STUDENTS ATTENDING THE MIDDLE SCHOOL IF THE BUILDING IS TO BE RENOVATED. WILL THEY BE BUSED TO ANOTHER ONE OF THE DISTRICT SCHOOLS, THE COLLEGE OR ANOTHER TWON OR VILLAGE BUILDING? HOW LONG WILL THE STUDENTS BE DISPLACED? DOES ANYONE HAVE THE ANSWER TO THIS VERY IMPORTANT QUESTION? THIS UNSTABILITY COULD BE VERY COSTLY TO THE CHILDRENS EDUCATION.
BUILDING A NEW SCHOOL, MAYBE ON THE SAME CAMPUS AS THE HIGH SCHOOL, WOULD ALLEVIATE THIS CHAOS. THE MIDDLE SCHOOL CHILDREN RIDE THE BUS RIGHT NOW WITH THE HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS AND IF A MIDDLE SCHOOL STUDENT IS ON A VARSITY SPORT, THEY ARE BUSSED TO THE HIGH SCHOOL WHERE THEY BOARD A BUS OR PRACTICE WITH THE HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS. I DO NOT AGREE THAT THIS COMBINATION OF DIFFERING AGES CAUSES A PROBLEM. I THINK THAT MIDDLE SCHOOL STUDENTS ARE IN GREATER DANGER OF BAD INFLUENCES WHEN THEY HAVE FREE ACCESS TO ROAM THE VILLAGE AND HANG OUT AFTER SCHOOL AT MCDONALDS OR CONVENIENT OR JUST WALKING THE STREETS. I KNOW QUITE A FEW PARENTS THAT HAVE HAD CHILDREN GO THROUGH THE MIDDLE SCHOOL AND WERE UNHAPPY WITH THIS FREE REIGN.
BUILDING A NEW SCHOOL ON THE HIGH SCHOOL CAMPUS, IF IT’S POSSIBLE, COULD ONLY BENEFIT THE CHILDREN.
I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO TAKE THIS TIME TO SAY THAT IF THE SCHOOL BOARD DECIDES TO BUILD NEW, I HOPE THAT THE IDEA OF BUILDING A POOL AT THE NEW SITE WILL BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION AND THAT PLANS FOR THE NEW SCHOOL WILL BE CAREFULLY THOUGHT THROUGH BEFORE BUILDING. I HAVE HEARD THAT THE COLLEGE WILL BE BUILDING A NEW POOL WITHIN THE NEXT COUPLE OF YEARS AND THE OLD POOL, WHICH BOTH VARSITY SWIM TEAMS AND THE HAWKS SWIMMING ASSOCIATION USE FOR PRACTICES AND MEETS WILL BE WITHOUT THE USE OF A POOL. I KNOW THAT THIS MAY NOT SEEM LIKE A BIG DEAL TO SOME BUT IT IS SOMETHING TO KEEP IN MIND IF BUILDING A NEW STATE OF THE ART MIDDLE SCHOOL CAMPUS. ALL STUDENTS AND THE COMMUNITY COULD BENEFIT FROM THIS.
ALTHOUGH, I THINK BUILDING NEW IS THE RIGHT CHOICE, I HAVE TO SAY THAT I WOULD NEED A DETAILED EXPLANATION OF THE RENOVATING COSTS VS THE NEW CONSTRUCTION COSTS, THE LENGTH OF TIME FOR COMPLETION FOR BOTH AND HOW THE STUDENTS WILL BE AFFECTED FOR EACH PROJECT BEFORE I COULD MAKE A FINAL DECISION. WE KNOW THAT OUR TAXES ARE GOING TO BE RAISED EITHER WAY- BUT BY HOW MUCH?
January 25th, 2008 at 12:57 pm
Thank you to the Board for this public comment opportunity and specifically for the use of this blog to get feedback from the community. I was out of town and missed the earlier meetings so this is a welcome chance and convenient way to provide some input.
I strongly support keeping the Middle School at the current location, which I think is vital to maintaining the integrity of the Village and allowing students and community members the option to walk to the facility. When considering building new facility, it always seems easier and somewhat tempting to build a completely new outside existing villages or cities, but as we’ve seen throughout communities in the Hudson Valley, there are negative consequences to doing so. It is often more expensive in the end to build new (as seems to be the case in this situation), removes important public buildings from our villages and small cities, and increases our dependence on buses and cars at a time when it is increasingly important that our communities promote, rather than discourage, pedestrian and bicycling alternatives.
I also favor retaining at least the outside of the historic 1930’s Building. New Paltz has lost many of its historic buildings along Main Street and should avoid losing another by considering a “gut” interior renovation to the building that would retain the building’s outside. The extensions to the building are not historically significant so the decision of whether to renovate those or completely rebuild is less important to me. It might make sense to simply rebuild those to improve both the design and energy efficiency or the facility.
The cost of building a new facility by the High School seems excessive when compared to renovating or rebuilding at the existing site. After considering the financial and non-financial costs of moving the school from the Village, I think the Board would be wise to focus on various alternatives for the existing site. I also hope that this facility will maximize use of energy efficient and green building materials so that it is in the long run less expensive to heat/cool/light and also is a healthier environment in which children spend a significant portion of their days.
Thank you again for the opportunity to submit comment on the Middle School alternatives.
January 25th, 2008 at 3:02 pm
The current Middle School campus is an integral part of our community’s history and future.
Keeping it in the Village is important for our economy: residents, children, taxpayers,and local businesses all benefit.
To move it is symptomatic of our society’s need to buy into planned obsolescence, tossing things out at as they do not meet their original intent or a newer-something-better comes along. This is not an appropriate standard, and is essentially unsustainable in the long term.
Adaptive reuse of the existing building and site is the most ecologically sustainable option, and represents a necessary model for our children’s 21st century learning toolbox.
January 25th, 2008 at 4:13 pm
New Paltz has always been and always will be known for its historical importance in the Hudson Valley, in New York State, and in the United States. With so much history involved in the original building it seems a shame to even consider taking it down. The building itself typifies Main Street USA in its charm and character, all of which attracted me to move here 30 years ago.
As a compromise I would have no problem if they took down the addition but maintained the original brick building.
January 25th, 2008 at 5:02 pm
Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
I am strongly in favor of keeping the Middle School at its current location. As indicated by the many thoughtful posts above, the historical, potential environmental, and community value of the current location far outweigh a new building.
January 26th, 2008 at 11:15 am
I began my comments here by suggesting that situating a Middle School on the High School property seemed to allow for a completely new building with innovative architectural features, accessibility etc. I hadn’t heard anything about the NYSED reimbursement percentages at that time. I am still of a mind to create the new structure on S. Putt Corners Rd. because I believe that it would ultimately be more efficient.
I have one concern though that we all might do well to consider. I find it hard to believe that NYSED would approve 100% of anything we can think up. Is there an “upward limit” to that 100% reimbursement? Think of our infamous Law Enforcement Center with 10’s of millions of dollars in “overages”. We are left with an ill-conceived, inhospitable place far from the “state of the art institution” recommended by the State Department of Corrections. My fear is that, as taxpayers, we will be renovating the jail building five years from now to the tune of millions of additional dollars. Could we be caught with a Middle School building, three quarters demolished and a cost over run for upgrading the historic building portion to match the new segments? Could we find ourselves with a bill for the completion of the Middle School renovation due to unanticipated “retrofitting issues” that could surpass the NYSED reimbursement amount despite the 100% formula?
Here’s my point. Ulster County thought the Jail was going to cost something like $25 million. It ended up costing something like $95 million. The entire County has to absorb the $70 million hit. If the upward ceiling to renovate the Middle School was, say, $20 million and it ended up costing $60 million, we could find ourselves preferring the new construction when it’s too late to go back. In such a scenario, we would be left with quite a bill in a village, town and county reeling from unanticipated overages. Could we find out what the limits are?
January 26th, 2008 at 1:04 pm
I was unable to attend the January 16 public forum at the Middle School but it is clear from a review of the information on the Blog site and the January 24 article in the New Paltz Times that on January 30, 2008, the New Paltz School Board will be in no position to make an informed choice between renovating the Middle School versus constructing a new Middle School. The Board should delay this decision and invest in a more detailed study of the relative ability of renovation versus new construction to achieve the Board’s facility and program needs and the costs of such actions
The Middle School needs repair and the Board should ask whether the 78 year old facility is the best building to educate our 6th-8th graders. However, based solely on publicly available information, the Board has failed to perform even fundamental analysis necessary to make an effective decision. More study will add cost and time, however, the potential savings from an informed decision will likely far exceed any study cost and the Board has identified no pressing need to decide now whether to renovate or build.
In the introduction to its Blog, the Board asked the community to “share its thoughts about what it considers are the most important factors that must be considered when taking this very important step forward.”
The most important factor to consider is which actions are necessary to achieve the facility and program needs identified by the Board (assuming that those are the correct facility and program needs) at least cost to taxpayers.
The Board should identify now – before making a multi-million dollar decision whether to renovate versus build new –the specific actions necessary to achieve facility and program needs and how a renovated versus new Middle School will achieve these actions. For example, one of facility needs identified by the Board on its web site is “sufficient building and grounds to facilitate the curriculum and programs.” Prior to deciding whether to renovate or build new, the Board should determine (i) the types and characteristics of building and grounds necessary to facilitate curriculum and programs; (ii) estimates of the area necessary, in square feet, of the required building and grounds; (iii) whether such types and space can be achieved with either a renovated or new building; and (iv) an estimate, in greater detail and with a greater level of reliability than current estimates, of the cost of constructing and operating such space.
This is just one example of a number of factors the Board has identified as important to determining whether to renovate or build. Yet the Board has provided no analysis that compares the relative feasibility and cost of the two options with regard to these factors. Without this fundamental analysis, the Board proposes to decide first and analyze second. The Board may get it right, but if it does, it will be by luck, not design. Without analysis, they are more likely to get it wrong. Either way, taxpayers will ultimately pay the cost. The Board should analyze now, then decide.
January 26th, 2008 at 2:14 pm
I am completely in favor of renovating the historic (and quite beautiful) Middle School for all the compelling reasons I’ve seen listed in this blog. It is the most important building in the district to restore and preserve because it was originally built with unmatched care and quality; indeed, it is the only building in the district that has hardwood floors in rooms other than the Gym! We cannot underestimate the importance of QUALITY when discussing building projects. As a student at Lenape, I was educated “hands-on” in the consequences of a poorly designed, low quality facility. Under no circumstances should our community agree to such shoddy work again. If we cannot afford to renovate a quality school, then we certainly cannot afford the repercussions of building a newer, cheaper one. The current middle school has stood the test of time because of a firm, secure foundation of quality. Will Lenape look as good as the Middle School when it nears its 80th year? (Hint: this will be in the year 2072.)
I would like to thank the board for creating this blog and soliciting community input; however I have grown very concerned about the manner in which this issue has been handled. In the “background” section of this site, I find the picture of the deranged/corpse-like figure clutching at its face to be inappropriate and disgusting. I think the “hysteria” inducing tactics taken by the board (calling the issue a “dilemma,” plastering ad nauseum the completely irrelevant pictures of random rusty plumbing pipes as though they alone represent the overall state of the school, and rushing the New Paltz community into making a decision without first properly investigating the choices)to be suspicious and alarming. With consistent maintenance and periodic updates, our children can enjoy the best of everything: A beautiful, safe functional building in an ideal location as well as whatever technological advancements the passing of time slings their way. I know that the kids in New Paltz will both Survive and THRIVE (!) in our current Middle School for decades to come — no matter how terrifying the board would have you believe the 21st century will be.
January 26th, 2008 at 5:40 pm
As a past New Paltz student, I would like to add my opinion as to what should happen to the Middle School. I really and truly hope that the school will stay in its current location. I agree with Dan Shniedewind above. The school is the heart of our community. The location offers students who live nearby the ability to walk to and from, allows students to walk to different areas of the town when needed, the library, for one, amongst many others.
While I can see how moving the Middle School near the High School may seem ideal, I don’t see it as being that advantageous. We just renovated the high school building and the area around it to make it more suitable for the growth of the student population in the high school. Adding the middle school to the land would only cause a problem, yet again, with fitting all students in the area.
Back when the High School was being renovated, I was the student representative for the project. In the beginning, it seemed like there was no way that the school could logically be added on to. But, after seeing many ideas from various companies, a great solution was created. I feel that with the right company behind the job, we could easily add on to the middle school making it easier to get around and easier to hold the growth of the student body.
My other concern with moving the Middle School would lie with not knowing who may buy the school and what it may become. It’s a large building in the center of our village and it is an iconic part of New Paltz and its people.
I hope that the Board will hear the people and their concerns and keep the school in its current location.
Thank you,
Lindsey Williams
January 27th, 2008 at 4:45 pm
I urge the Board of Education to vote in favor of renovating the existing Middle School. Renovation is the
most practical solution from an environmental and economic perspective, and in addition it’s clearly the choice that the majority of this community supports.
The Board solicited community involvement and the community has spoken up, overwhelmingly in favor of renovating. Rod Dressel, Board President, publicly acknowledged this at last week’s meeting. A vote to rebuild would be unpopular, and would clearly demonstrate that the appearance of involving the community was a charade.
I’ve heard more than one Board member speak about legacy - this Board desperately wants to avoid being remembered as another group
who ignored the problems of our district’s facilities, and passed the buck. Voting in favor of building a new school will accomplish nothing. The taxpayers, regardless of where they stand on the arguments surrounding the environment and community, will laugh at the notion that they’re being asked to pay for a $60 million bond, in this shaky economic climate. The budget will get voted down and the Board will be back to square one, having accomplished nothing.
I’m hoping that pragmatism, as well as respect for the voice of the community they represent, will help this Board make the right decision on Wednesday night.
January 27th, 2008 at 6:36 pm
I had a twp year old down jacket that I loved. The zipper broke. I called Lands End to see if they could fix it. They said they would replace it if I sent it in, but they had no one to fix zippers. It was easier to just destroy it. I brought it to a local tailor who charged me $30 for a new zipper, installed. The jacket replacement would have cost over $100.
I think of this now when examining the issue of the Middle School: destruction or renovation. I say “destruction” because I am very sceptical that a purchaser could be found for the building if it is vacated by the school district. Where will the Village and the Town get the money to renovate, were they to move their offices there? The taxpayers? What would happen to the current town and village offices? It may well be wishful thinking to imagine that any substantial savings would offset the cost of a new building; more likely is an empty hulk, deteriorating quickly as empty buildings tend to do.
The benefits to the students of being in the center of the village have been very well stated, and I wish only to add that in the three years my son took the bus to the middle school, I can count on one hand the times he took the bus home. We live about two miles from the school, and he either walked, or rode his bike when the weather was good, after he was through with his activities in the village.
The freedom to do this was enormously important to him.
Housing the 500 students during a renovation would require good planning, but it is not an insuperable obstacle. Other districts have managed it. Let’s not reinforce for our children the message of our throwaway culture by discarding a structurally sound building, that could be made energy efficient through both active and passive solar technology and proper insulation and building materials.
January 27th, 2008 at 7:11 pm
Sell the old middle school to the college and build a new school on the same road as the high school. Link the two properties together so drop off and pick up for the middle school and high school will be on the same parking lot making it easier for transportation and time schedules for the school and district.
January 27th, 2008 at 7:33 pm
Preserve the original Middle School building! So much crap is allowed to remain standing under the veil of Historic Preservation, this is one that should be kept for its value and importance to the village. We just do not discard our beloved school buildings!
How did we get to this point? Why was the building allowed to deteriorate? Is the school administration inspecting the building on a regular basis or do they just not care? This is an important question to ask. if my house is in need of repair I better take care of it or there are more costly problems to deal with.
There will be questions concerning where to house the students during this work. One suggestion is to return the 6th grade to the elementary school where it belongs, and they avoid the upheaval. Then you can realistically determine just how much space is really needed to replace. Citizens! If you want to be efficient in this endeavor then make Duzine K-3, Lenape 4 - 6. Middel School 7 - 8.
It is important to examine the space needs realistically and not sensationalize the condition of storage rooms (as shown in the picture). Then, along with administrators who, as in the old days, truly loved their buildings and were proud of them, the renovated middle school will be the jewel of the community as it should be, and a shining center of learning for all!
January 27th, 2008 at 8:40 pm
Why is my comment from Jan 24 still “awaiting moderation” ?
January 28th, 2008 at 11:45 am
Our middle school building is just about perfect as it is in terms of location, history, and community-building. Its dignified façade is a source of civic pride.
Not only would it be a travesty if this wonderful building was sold to commercial interests, it would be a loss to generations of students who would miss out on its tradition of after-school opportunities for social freedom and real-word independent study. After school our students can now walk to Elting Library, the Teen Scene, the movies, or even a pizza parlor to share a plate of garlic knots with their friends.
Of course, the building is old and there are repairs that need to be made to the HVAC and some access issues need to be addressed. And there are many classrooms that are smallish and dark, and the footprint of the building is problematic.
That said, our historic school building is not at all incompatible with “21st Century Learning.” For examples of many other towns that have successfully preserved their historic neighborhood schools while renovating them into 21st Century Learning Centers, please take a look at these reports by the National Trust for Historic Preservation:
“Historic Neighborhood Schools Deliver 21st Century Educations” [pdf]
Case studies include Kokomo, IN; Boise, ID; Manitowoc; WI, Evansville, IN; Hibbin, MN.
“Why Johnny Can’t Walk to School: Historic Neighborhood
Schools in the Age of Sprawl” [pdf]
http://www.nationaltrust.org/issues/downloads/schools_why_johnny.pdf
Please, let’s keep the middle school where it is.
January 28th, 2008 at 11:48 am
“Historic Neighborhood Schools Deliver 21st Century Educations” [pdf]
http://www.nationaltrust.org/issues/downloads/schools_21st_edu.pdf
January 28th, 2008 at 3:26 pm
I would like to add my voice to those who understand the importance of keeping our tax burden to a minimum. Many good points have been raised for and against renovation, and we all want what is best for our New Paltz kids. Here are two things I think are very good for kids:
1.Having parents who do not
need a second job is good
for kids.When parents need
more income to pay school
taxes, they are forced to
give up precious time with
family.
2.Having grandparents who can
afford to stay in New Paltz
is good for kids. More of our
seniors are being driven out
of town due to an ever
increasing tax burden. An
extended family gives our
kids something they need even
more than an updated building.
Please consider the financial impact that increased taxes will have on the lives of our kids and weigh this carefully when you decide the future of our Middle School.
Respectfully,
Debbie Bayne
January 28th, 2008 at 5:22 pm
“Learning to cross the street”
I will continue to reach for my son’s hand when we cross the street together, probably until the time when I’m the one who needs a gentle push to get across in 30 seconds.
Since starting middle school in New Paltz, my son has learned not only how to cross the street on his own, but is growing into a citizen of this town. In school, he is now responsible for keeping track of his assignments, his schedule, and his behavior. After school, he and his friends can now proudly and independently walk downtown without chaperones – to the library, to get a snack, to the climbing wall, or the park. He loves this freedom and the trust that accompanies responsibility.
As he grows and experiences more of life outside of school or home, I feel comforted knowing that his face is recognized in our town. I am glad that a walk down Main Street is a part of his daily life, just as it is part of mine.
Healthy learning comes from life experiences, not from isolation behind ivory towers. Our schools and our community need to be more integrated to help our children develop into well-rounded citizens who care about their hometown.
I support building a new Middle School at the site of the current middle school with crosswalks, sidewalks, bike racks, and the rest of the village for neighbors.
January 28th, 2008 at 6:26 pm
why is my submission (twice submitted) still awaiting moderation?
January 28th, 2008 at 7:25 pm
One more voice strongly in favor of maintaining the current location, based on what I have read and heard so far. Others have articulated strong arguments regarding walkability, cost and community, which I agree with for the most part. If even one or two busloads worth of kids can instead walk, that is a very significant positive, both in terms of their development, and in terms of fuel costs and environmental impact.
I also do agree with the feeling expressed by some that this decision feels somewhat rushed, although the board at the 1/16 meeting seemed to be saying that they’ve been trying to get this information out for a while, w/o getting much response. In any case, it’s good to see all the community involvement at this time.
In post #4, someone from the district offered student numbers from the various towns. Could these numbers be broken down by the various schools? Or at least, could the numbers of middle school students from the various towns be posted? That would be useful information. I’m especially curious about the number of MS students from Gardiner.
Matt
January 28th, 2008 at 8:24 pm
I appreciate all of the posts made by members of our community and the opportunity to comment on this important issue.
I graduated from NPHS (1982) and have two daughters attending the middle school (6th and 8th grade). While I never attended the middle school, I’ve attended many sporting events there and I can attest to the fact that the heating system doesn’t work properly and there are areas of the building in disrepair - not falling down or structurally unsound, but in need of attention. I am totally opposed to either selling or demolishing the middle school and am in favor of retaining the original structure and rebuilding a new internal floor plan that works. I view demolishing the building as the least “green” of all options and an absolute waste of building materials.
I also agree that keeping the building centrally located allows students to participate in the local community by enabling them to patronize local businesses, visit the library, etc., but let’s not forget that having the middle school at its current location also brings many parents into the village for pick-up, drop off, school events, sports, etc. who would not necessarily come into the village if the school was moved to the HS property.
As a financial person, the decision of choosing between the two options seems to require a lot more in the way of concrete detail and real numbers, but given the information we have been provided as to cost projections after factoring financing into the mix ($12 million vs. $52 million) renovating seems the only feasible option. Residents throughout the state are already overburdened by skyrocketing property taxes with New Paltz being no exception. School taxes are a big part of the total tax problem and given the current economic climate, I don’t see how the additional burden to be placed on homeowners can be justified.
The middle school is a beautiful building and while we might be able to receive some revenue on the sale it still sends the message to the community and our youth that rather than investigate alternative options and come up with a plan to better use the space at possibly a tremendous savings to taxpayers, just build something else. Why not? After all we Americans are the throw away society. You can’t tell me that with a brick building (one of the best insulators) you couldn’t incorporate an up-to-date energy efficient heating system and include some solar energy solutions as well. Not to mention the other “ungreen” points that a new building would create more blacktop for parking lots and destruction of still more of our vacant land.
As far as this 21st Century Education model, I am certain that adequate accommodation could be made to incorporate additional educational technology if the middle school were remodeled. I am wholeheartedly in favor of keeping the middle school on site with a new energy efficient, learning friendly environment that the community can proud of for years to come.
January 29th, 2008 at 3:56 am
The articles that Celeste Cleary posted are very worthwhile reading — in particular the one titled “Why Johnny Can’t Walk to School: Historic Neighborhood
Schools in the Age of Sprawl.”
That article speaks to my continued puzzlement of how it ever came to be that our town would for so many years tolerate the situation of a High School that is virtually a moated castle to most of its teenage students, enforcing their dependency on school bus or parents, providing no reasonably safe way for them to bicycle to/from home or to walk to the uptown plazas or anywhere (unless for some reason, they want to hang at Tom’s Repair Shop).
Now putting in a decently paved shoulder on S. Putt Corners and slowing down the traffic is clearly not the School Board’s role, but contemplating moving the Middle School away from the community into a similar confined site as the High School — well, it seems to me that we should should work hard to avoid that situation.
A different aspect which I earlier conveyed on the School Board hotline but might as well post here: In general, major school district expenditures should be presented in terms of the impact on a typical homeowner taxes.
In this particular case, the move vs renovation options should be presented in such a way as: “our best guess is that it may cost (and the interest expense should always be factored in) between _____ and ______ , which would cost a homeowner between ______ and ______ per year per $100K assessed home value, additional to their current taxes.
I understand that the School Board only has preliminary estimates — giving possible high and low figures is a better way to represent tentative figures. And having only rough total cost figures does not preclude the usefulness of doing the math so we can all readily gauge the impact on taxes. Only by breaking the numbers down to yearly taxes per $ assessment can people participate in assessing the right balance between educational imperatives and fiscal prudency.
A third point: I have concerns similar to Andrew Otis and others above. I just don’t see the pressing need for jumping headlong into either of these two options immediately. I understand the heating is wasteful and ungoverable; the roof is leaking in places; the rooms are too dark. Still, as Bill Mulcahy asks, I don’t understand why different projects of renovation and repair cannot be undertaken in separate stages, planned out over several years. But admittedly I don’t know the building. It would be helpful if the Board can provide a fuller explanation for the immediacy for a decision on the two options presented.
A last point (semantical and picky, sorry): I know the phrase “21st century learning” may sound impressive to people. But let’s face it — with the breakneck pace of technological change, with what looks to be tremendous and worrisome environmental and economic challenges ahead, can we really see forward to what learning will be in 2050? Or even 2030? I think the limit about which we can speak with any assurance is this decade and most of the next. I’m not saying we shouldn’t consider long-term, but let’s leave aside the century pretenses. I doubt a 1908 building could meet the needs of education by the 1940s without total renovation. In 1908, folks really had no idea what the 20th century meant or was to be. I’m sure we all hope this century will be less harsh, and as stable and prosperous for us here as it has been since post-WWII. But really, we have no idea.
January 29th, 2008 at 9:47 am
It is our hope the original section of the middle school be renovated to provide energy efficiency, logical traffic flow, comfortable learning spaces, and original details retained whenever possible. A more efficiently run and logically laid-out addition could replace the “newer” addition.
Long worn steps and handrails, if safe, provide a sense of history and permanence that cannot be duplicated in a new sterile environment. New Paltz, a town that prides itself on its history, should maintain as much of theirs as possible. The current lack of an obvious, even if only symbolic, front entrance has long detracted from what must have been an attractive building before someone bricked up the front door.
Having recently restored a local historic home, I know it is possible to find a balance between preserving the past and creating a comfortable energy efficient environment. New does not always mean trouble free as was learned at Lenape.
The freedom to move independently around town is a rite of passage for middle-school children. I know that even children who ride buses daily often avail themselves of the in-town location for after school events or social activities.
Having these children exposed on a daily basis, often for more than a hour a day, to high school students during commingled transportation, does nothing to serve our children who are already being asked to grow up too early from every direction. Busing students back and forth to athletic fields that must remain on the middle-school campus is also a less than optimum plan. Our children need less time on buses not more. Even if the number of middle school students now walking to school is not in the hundreds, it is still a large group of children who are out in the fresh air and not parked in front of a TV or computer. The more we move our community outside of the core, the more suburban and diluted our community becomes. An excellent example are the many European communities who closely guard their core keeping their villages and small towns intact.
I believe every effort should be made to keep the middle school and its students at its current location. The original building should be restored and updated. A new energy efficient addition should replace the addition on the back. This addition should be architecturally in keeping with the historic roots of our town and the original building. It should also maintain a subordinate feel to the original building. From what I have read here, renovating is also a fiscally responsible option.
Thank you for creating this venue for the sharing of ideas.
January 29th, 2008 at 10:48 am
As a life-long resident and graduate (class of 1964), I would like to submit the following comments on the New Paltz School Board’s “Dilemma” as it is presented to the residents of the district. My comments focus on two major concerns, the economic and socio-cultural cost to the community.
Having attended one presentation and observed another on the local cable access, I fail to be convinced that there is any real difficult choice between renovating the current building, or construction of a new one. The costs alone make this obvious. Despite the constant rhetoric about “21st Century Learning,” community support for purchasing suitable property, construction of a new building and the debt service required for a new Middle School, located out of the village will become a major obstacle. In the current climate, tax increases by a school board that already are questioned by many may become a prohibitive choice by the district voters. Given the cost comparison that’s already been presented to the public, without any debt service estimates on a long-term bond issue, your strategy currently appears to convenience the district of only one real choice; to approve the renovation of the current building. Even the Board’s own enrollment projections and the current four building school system structure’s adequacy through 2015 raise the question of why would a new building even be a consideration.
If the only purpose for consideration of a new building is getting something “new,” better supporting the “21st Century Learning,” I question just what is the difference. Education should always be enhanced; however the core education of our future citizens will always remain the same. The ability to read, write and calculate has not, and will not change. The core objectives of education have not changed to point that our schools are no longer suited for their purpose. The presentations about engaging students in “21st Century Learning” have not convinced me that students would be any more prepared for the “unknown” world in which they will live than my grandmother’s education at the turn of the last century, a period in which she saw changes from “horse-pulled vehicles to standing on the moon.” “Technological excellence” was also a feature of the last century’s educational values and, which for the most part have become obsolete, thus requiring constant revision or replacement. Throughout the last century, education strived to meet the needs of a changing world, but the core values of education have remained the same and should be applicable to next. One might wonder if Ben Franklin’s sense of social responsibility, self-subsistence and the relationship of knowledge to experience, as well as the cultural values of hard work, duty, demands of energy and adaptability have been lost in all the buzz about technology, “Face-book or My Space hits” and “text-messaging”. I tend to place a higher value on imagination, intellect, discipline and common sense as a better preparation for the future than a “self-indulgent” knowledge of current and future technologies. I cannot see the needs of the 21st Century Learning environment as the major justification for building a new school when a renovation such as was recently done on the former SUNY Campus School and planned for Old Main could accomplish the majority of the suggested “Elements” of a learning space.
Your presentation does have it somewhat right. The schools do have educational, environmental and economic implications. They do serve as anchors for the community and are a reflection of community values. But what are the economic implications of building a new school to replace the 1930 building? What economic and socio-cultural cost is assigned to moving the historical educational center of the community to a more remote and disconnected location? In a period where one questions the “Wal-Mart” effect on communities nation-wide, building a new school on a site outside the village would have the same negative impact as moving the commercial and shopping district away from the community center. The student’s ability to be in the community center during their formative educational development has a far greater intangible impact on their character than some remote location to which they are transported. Community strength and health has a direct relationship to the connections and activities of its residents. Moving the school to a location outside the community is contrary to that principle. Therefore for both this concept, as well as the economic costs of doing so, I strongly urge the administration and school board to choose the option of renovating the current historical building, and upgrading it with the most environmentally and educationally sound features available.
January 29th, 2008 at 1:25 pm
As a local tech-activist and education critic (and founder of a website that has become an icon of local technology), I must first ask that we dispense with the notion that technology requires (or implies) something like the following:
*21st century education must take place in sleek, centralized, sterile buildings. The importance of the institutions of the neighborhood, and perhaps implicitly the family, will wane in the 21 century.
I think that this attitude is completely backward and ignores the actual, real, observable trends of the use of technology by young people in favor of an image put out (not accidentally, in my estimation) by the media and big government interest.
The beautiful old schoolhouse, right here in the village and near the neighborhoods from which the highest concentration of young people hail, is absolutely the logical, sensible, and best place for students of 21st century New Paltz to learn.
January 29th, 2008 at 9:35 pm
While the fate of the school as an institution is undoubtedly important, I would also like people to consider the historic significance of the building that houses it. The middle school is a beautiful building in the classical style designed by Myron Teller, a noted architect from our local history. It would certainly be a shame if we were to lose this symbol of our town’s unique character simply by not recognizing its aesthetic and historic value.
January 29th, 2008 at 10:32 pm
I am a product of the New Paltz Central Schools and would like to add my two cents to this debate.
I agree wholeheartedly with keeping the middle school in the same location. The accessibility and independence it provides matches no other school in the district. The highschool is almost too far to walk to town from; not to metnion that S.Putt is not an ideal road for middle schoolers to be walking on.
Something that I have not seen mentioned is the maturity difference that comes with moving up to highschool. In middle school kids are still kids. The highschool is a completely different environment that truly shapes young adults and gives them independence they have never felt before. If the middle school and highschool were to be on the same land than that ‘moving up’ ceremony would be missed. Highschool would be just another building to attend school and not a place to grow and truly learn about yourself.
Thank you for making comments so accessible and open to the public and I hope you [the board] will make a decision that can benefit everyone in the community.
January 30th, 2008 at 5:30 am
While this may be a little late, I’d like to point out that several years ago I posted in the NP Times that it was time to do something about the MS.
Proving again that government works slowly, it is disappointing that (less expensive) solutions were available then and are now, but not mentioned.
I suggested to gradually buy the land across the HS (or make a long term agreement with the land owner)
Building a new MS across the HS gets the busses out of town and rid of the congestion.
The argument that kids are now able to “walk” around in town cannot be the reason to
locate a school.
But, even if it is, it can be addressed by cutting a wide and well lit walkway, kind of like the rail trail into town. Make it useable for bikes and you do something good for fitness. Kids today don’t walk enough as it is.
One could actually walk to the athletic fields at the MS.
Connect the MS and HS via an aerial walkway. Safe and not a traffic issue. Plenty of beautiful looking styles can be constructed.
Building the school on High School Grounds will not happen. There is no space.
Sadly, millions were spent for the library, more money will be spent for the community center, police station, expansion of teen seen etc.
That could all have been in town in the old MS.
Whatever they do, please build green. Ground source heating (air conditioning comes almost free with it) passive solar and the latest insulation techniques should be a must.
Unfortunately peopel will vote for the cheapest solution not considering that it will cost them more later anyway.
January 30th, 2008 at 6:29 am
I urge the board to renovate the current Middle School.
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.
January 30th, 2008 at 9:06 am
I excerpt below from another worthwhile article on old schools, with the point that the School Board should hire an architect/consultant who has considerable experience in renovating old schools. In particular, note the concern voiced in the article for “inflated and exaggerated cost estimates for renovation.”
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.
January 30th, 2008 at 10:48 am
Please do everything possible to keep the costs down. The taxes in this town are going to make this a community of only upper middle class people and that is not the community I want to or can live in. Preserve our diversity by keeping the costs low and renovating the existing building.
Thank you for all your work.
Chaia Lehre
January 30th, 2008 at 10:52 am
I also agree that the Middle School location is a central part of our community within the town and village and should be saved in the most cost efficient manner for taxpayers.
As has been said, we don’t know what the 21st century classroom is going to look like but moving it outside of the heart of New Paltz seems like a step towards suburbanification (a made up word) of the village. There are ‘green’ reasons too which I think in the future will become more and more important. Moving it outside the village and next to the high school seems more like a step backwards.
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.
January 30th, 2008 at 12:13 pm
There seems to be a growing and overwhelming consensus among New Paltz taxpayers that renovating the Middle School is the way to proceed. So this discussion should move on to how much renovation.
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.
January 30th, 2008 at 1:51 pm
I think there are problems with both plans. Though the renovation seems to be the better of the two. The MS building is old, and if you ever had to do your child’s schedule, you would understand that the current layout is difficult, exhausting and plain confusing. The whole thing needs to be redone and the addition needs to be torn down and rebuilt. There should not be more than three floors to any school building. Lenape was built new in 1995, and it lacks AC, and it was built without a kitchen big enough to cook (not just reheat) for the schools children.
The problem I see with leaving the MS at it’s current location is that at 2:27 PM the bells rings and the children are left to do as they wish. A ten or eleven year old 6th grader can just leave. Remember the incident with the children who cut class and were hit by a car on Route 32? The location is bad. Parking and traffic are horrific. There is not enough land to contain the school at all. In MS they are still young children.
I am rambling - I think we need to do more work upfront BEFORE any vote is made. Two months of “Fire hose into a tea cup” of information is too fast and seems like there may be an agenda?
January 30th, 2008 at 3:12 pm
We are in strong support of repairing/renovating the existing middle school. Besides believing in the notion that its the teachers and not the building thats most important to our childrens education, we reflect upon a successful major school renovation we witnessed in California where portable trailers were brought in and used as temporary classrooms during the construction. The tradeoff in costs/benefits of a brand new school is just not there—lets work with what we have, at the existing location.
January 30th, 2008 at 4:58 pm
my feelings about the middle school building mirror many
of those of others in the community who i have been having
talks with about the district’s concepts for the school.
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.
January 30th, 2008 at 5:59 pm
Renovate. Build new. Either way the decision is going to place a tremendous burden on the already overtaxed population of the New Paltz School District. Why not use the money to hire a few more Administrators and Assistant Superintendents who can lead us into 21st century learning.
January 30th, 2008 at 9:26 pm
It’s a no brainer. I’ve been through retro fits, gutting and re-building, and building new. New is always the best hands down.
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?