To the Editor:
OK, I guess it’s time for me to respond to some of the critics of the MMRHS Renovation Project. I’m Richard Coons, chairman of the MMRHS Building Committee. This is a role that I am quite familiar with since I co-chaired the Muddy Brook, Monument Valley, and Site (Water Storage & Treatment Systems) Construction Project.
Issue number one deals with the aforementioned project; first, that project came in on schedule and under-budget; second, you will not find a “vanity plaque” in either building listing the members of the School Building Committee.
Now let’s move on to the MMRHS Renovation Project. Early in the process the School District decided to seek financial assistance from the Commonwealth to renovate the high school. This decision bound the school district to the Massachusetts School Building Authority (MSBA) process. That process is initiated by the school district developing a Statement of Interest (SOI). This document identifies what the district sees as shortcomings of the high school, both physical and educational.
The MSBA identifies eight (8) priorities as the basis for an SOI. The priorities listed by the school district included; the health and safety of school children; replacement-renovation-modernization of school roof, windows, boiler, HVAC systems, to increase energy conservation; and an addition to provide for a full range of programs consistent with state and local requirements.
The MSBA approved the school district’s SOI (submitted November2009) and issued an invitation to participate in a Feasibility Study. With the approval of the district’s SOI, the phantom “Third Option” (repair only the major systems) was eliminated because it did NOT meet the basis of our SOI. The process continued until the failed local funding vote in November 2013.
At subsequent community meetings residents indicated that their primary concern was the cost of the project. The school building committee revisited the project and reduced the cost by $4 million dollars. Not the major cut some opponents wanted — 50 percent cut — but it maintained the integrity of the district’s approved SOI. The MSBA stated that if our cuts impacted the basis of our SOI (deleted any educational/energy conservation/safety improvements) the district would have to withdraw from the process and submit a new SOI. A secondary concern was that we not jeopardize our ability to meet the LEED-S Silver standard that qualified the project for an additional 2 percent reimbursement (any MSBA funded project must meet LEED-S Basic standards).
Unlike a local columnist, I do not believe that a no vote is un-American. A number of families, including mine, may struggle with the tax impact of this project. However, the fact remains that a no vote doesn’t mean the district can sit back and ignore the issues associated with a facility that is nearing its fiftieth anniversary, is not handicapped accessible (try getting to the greenhouse in a wheelchair), and is in desperate need of security and safety (fire suppression system) upgrades.
Opponents of this project cite School Choice and Tuition agreements as the basis of their objection; these are School Committee issues and have nothing to do with the MMRHS Renovation Project. MSBA established our enrollment projection at 570 students. That doesn’t mean we have that number of students but that we must have the capacity to educate that number of students.
I am in favor of this project and would hope that district voters will support our efforts with a YES VOTE on November 4.
Richard Coons
41 Grove S.
Great Barrington
