The Morgan Building Committee

In one of your FAQ you state that if a new school is not built “in contrast, unavoidable maintenance plans (the only alternative) would impact taxes next year.” However, even if you build a new school available in 2017, won’t there be significant maintenance costs in the intervening five years? Where are these accounted for?

I want to start by saying thank you all very much for the hard work you clearly put into Thursday night's presentation and your candor when answering questions from the public. I have questions regarding two issues that arose at the meeting. I'm not sure the building committee can answer the first set of questions which is why I copied Mr. Cross in on the e-mail, since they may be more appropriately directed to him.

Your explanation regarding how this committee came into existence and Mr. Vece's honest and simple response to the audience member who asked if creating a combined high school and junior high school had been considered ("No.") caused me to wonder if the district is looking at the bigger facilities picture. In the portion of the presentation regarding Morgan's history, the current Pierson school was featured as the "new building" when the original Morgan building was condemned many, many years ago. Given the age of Pierson school and the current condition of Eliot, how much longer do we have before they need serious renovation or even replacement? Is there a way to study the overall state of our facilities and look at whether or not there is a way to reorganize the district so that our next large construction project solves district-wide issues over the long-term and not just the current issues with the high school facility? Or has that already been done? In other words, is it appropriate to take a step back and look at the district as a whole before proceeding with the plan to build a new high school to make sure that as a community we are using our resources in the most effective way for the future of all of Clinton's public schools?

My second set of questions relates to the size of the new school and projected enrollment figures. I understand that the state requires the district to project enrollment for the next eight years as the means of determining the appropriate size of the new building. However, given the unexpectedly large size of the current kindergarten class, have studies been conducted looking at longer term enrollment projections? In Thursday night's presentation it seemed as though there were additions put on the current building every six or so years for a period of time after the building was completed in 1951 thereby creating the massive, labyrinthine, poorly functioning structure we currently have, and I would hate to see the town repeat history in that way. If it's not possible to accurately project enrollment beyond that eight-year period, does the new building allow for increasing its size if necessary in the future in a way that is functional and aesthetically pleasing to avoid repeating history? Or is that question more appropriate for the conceptual design part of the project?

Again, I truly appreciate the time and effort you've all put into this project and in answering questions from the community to help us all understand the bigger picture involved in your decision-making.

Sincerely,
Kim Buckley

I have read the Frequently Asked Questions and did not feel that the issue of possible regionalization was addressed adequately. My questions: a) Has Westbrook actually been approached about regionalization? I.e. have there been any serious discussions at all with Westbrook about regionalization? b) If so, then what, specifically, was their response? c) What other viable options exist for regionalization – e.g. with Madison, or with both Westbrook and Old Saybrook? d) Has a cost-benefit analysis been done (or, can a rough one be done) for a regional school?

Personally, I feel that a regional school makes the most sense from a financial perspective, and I would like to see this possibility explored more before this option is taken off the table. It has obviously made sense for so many other school systems around the state. My sense, from reading the materials available, is that the committee has not given serious consideration to any other options than building a new school.

I look forward to receiving your answers to my questions.
Margaret Krny

My name is Art Kuever, my wife and I were at the town meeting on Jan. 20. We found it very informational and up to that point our only information was hear say. I think if everyone in town could hear that presentation it would help move the proposal easily to the approval stage. In discussing the plan, I came up with a thought. If the school stays at the current location, has there been any thought to keeping the current auditorium and its new roof and seats and any other upgrades and the "new" gym. These are the parts of the plan that the town will incur all the cost of yet need the least amount of upgrading. If you were to move the new school south of the proposed site close enough to the current auditorium you could connect them through a passage and bring the exterior of the "old" parts to match the new building. You could then have additional parking created where the parts of the old school will be removed and keep the current fields and add on to the fields in the back. I believe that the boiler is also housed in this part of the building (my memory fails me here) so that could also be incorporated and heat the auditorium and the gym.

If this is done, then the plan of having the new school being built at the same time can still happen and any future additions to the school can happen north instead of south(toward 95) as indicated on the plans. Also, I would still build a new gym that would be acceptable under the state’s specifications thereby providing Harry with the much needed two gyms.

Hope to hear your thoughts,
Art Kuever

I am sorry if this is redundant as I could not see answers to questions yet.

1) The architect (David thompson, right) said at the very end of the meeting that we should not request $$ for plans to be drawn up until we are sure of the site. I am hoping that the committee will seriously consider doing this before having the plans drawn up, are they?

2) I am wondering why we considered building on the same location given the fact that what is suggested is that we tear the old one down, this is prime commercial real estate and the selling or potential selling of which could really create some great tax revenue for our town, given that a key point brought up in the presentation is how undesirable of a site the current one is for a school....I can't help but wonder how much we did really consider this when it wasn't preented as part of the presentation.

3) The auditorium is virtually new and is as much a community resource as it is a school resource (actually probably more used by the town)...the seating and roof is new....can we consider keeping the auditorium and two gym portion of the high school as a community resource (Harry swan was correct about the impact not having that gym will take on winter park and rec programs....we have many outdoor resources to benefit our thriving soccer and baseball programs in this town but so limited indoor access). This portion of the building, albeit with some obvious deconstruction measures could benefit the town by being able to rent it out as an auditorium (Clinton town hall is often rented by out of town private organizations....think of how much more of a draw the auditorium would be with it's nice interior and seating)...park and rec could also use the gyms for winter tournaments to help it sustain and build it's own programs. Leaving the auditorium and gym could both solve a problem and free up the rest of the demolished school property for commercial development. And then the auditorium at the new school wouldn't even be necessary and we would be able to use that square footage to the benefit of our school programs that could use the ample square footage an auditorium would take on a regular basis to better suit the educational needs of our school....why take up valuable state regulated sqare footage from our schools to rip down something we already have (that is virtually new) that can be used by all the schools as it is now just to rebuild it at the new school with incurred penalty?

4) Lastly, I wanted to ask if there is a plan to build in a way that can accomodate future additions to a new building. Much of the focus on the problems that exist with the present school was the ill-conceived design and additions (all that were added within a decade of the school being built)...we know that better schools often increase enrollment...do we have a plan to be able to accomodate any new additions that may need to be added by this possibility? Our present kindergarten class is 200 kids....if there were to be other classes as big or increased enrollment, we could be talking about a difference of a student body of 600 vs 800. At some point I can't help but think that if we're going to the expense of building a new school that we could very easily out grow just by building it, we should learn from the history of the old school....give us a way to provide for additions that aren't thrown on in desperation so 60 years down the road we're not dealing with the same thing.

I just want us to truly conceptualize in the most cost concious way. I'd hate to see us rip down good viable resources along with the bad, because we have preconceived notions about how things should be in the future only based on how they have been done. These things need to be done BEFORE permission is given for the architect to draw plans.

-Krista Braun, 23 Christopher Lane

I want to congratulate you on the fine presentation that was made last evening. It was logical and consistent. You laid out very well the pros and cons of renovation versus new. I thought the size of audience certainly made a very good impression of citizen involvement in an important issue. I also thought that some of the outside the box thoughts were interesting.

Being a relatively new Clinton resident – 4 plus years – and not a Morgan graduate, I was hesitant to ask any question. However, I do have some comments and questions.

I believe that the issue of the state subsidy should be ignored in your strategic deliberations for three reasons. First, we should do the best thing to educate the children of Clinton. Second, there is a possibility that the state subsidy will be reduced or possibly even eliminated for towns such as Clinton. Third, the state money is our money and if we cannot justify spending our money then we should not ask for more of our money.

With those things in mind, I believe that you made a very strong case that a new school is the most cost effective answer to providing the best opportunity to educate the children of Clinton. Also, strong cases were made for a large auditorium and 2 gyms.

Has any consideration been given to building a new school without auditorium and gyms and using the existing auditorium and gyms? This would maximize classroom space for education while keeping the cost at a minimum and, if there is a state subsidy, qualifying for the maximum amount. There is no reason why a “new” school has to be 100% new. There is also no reason why a school has to be a single building.

If you are looking for volunteers – particularly with a financial background – I would be interested in assisting your committee.

Best Regards,
Patrick T. Healey

After the appropriation requests you mentioned a town vote on the appropriation. Will this be a ballot vote? If not is there a way to have votes counted if the person cannot attend the meeting?

Thanks and, again, well done,
Val

Hi, I posted some questions that though they were answered with a "see above" answer, the above answer didn't really answer my question. You can refer to my original questions, however I just wanted to have it explained.

I understand that having the auditorium and gyms remaining ad on the same site still present problems in regards to spacing. But my quesiton had to do with leaving them as a community resource, and relocating the high school to a more desireable location. Irregardless of whether or not Clinton Crossing would purchase the land, leaving those two buildings left standing still would free up plenty of other space. Because of it's proximity to the high school, they cannot have a restaurant nearby that serves alcohol, given the attraction that Clinton Crossing is, being able to sell that land to other commercial developers as resaurants even would create nice revenue with it's ideal location off the highway and proximity to Clinton Crossing. I would appreciate it if you could answer the questions, I will write below what my reason for asking is so that you can fully answer without losing the point of the question.

Please answer below:

1) can you keep the gym and the auditiorium as community resources if you move the high school to a different location?

Can you then move the high school to a different location get rid of the plans for an auditiorium within the school, as it is never used during the educational day anyway, and keep a gym for the high school that is sufficient for only what the high school itself needs? Any productions can be addressed via a dress rehersal at the auditiorium and a large enough room to "set up" as they would on the stage, same with plays. The gym is the place where the student body can be addresssed as a whole.

...that way everything is in the "desired" location still, but it doesn't use up square footage that can be better used for the actual needs of the high school, and the high school can still be relocated to a better spot. The park and rec building at Indian River, for example, using the area that the building and the basketball court alone takes up could provide ampled multi-level space building space...where the fields for both baseball and soccer are already located nearby, as is parking. High school and town fields are always, and have always been used synonymously with high school needs taking preference.

Does it really matter if we have to wait a year to sell the land so it doesn't interfere with subsidies? We're talking about a lengthy process anyway, what's one year, when we're creating a community resource and allowing for the high school needs to be MAXIMIZED for what the high school only needs, and then also freeing up commercial space that can really be desireable, for other businesses as well, but just considering what I mentioned above re: Clinton Crossing? That way, if the subsidies should change we're not completely shooting ourself in the foot as we have a way to create tax revenue after the fact anyway.

2) I would also appreciate it if you could please just state what the process is moving forward regarding these kinds of conceptual decisions?

The architect said that picking a site is impreative to the design...which makes sense, to draw up the design before knowing where it can be located really doesn't make sense because then we have to look for a site that would fit the design...better rather to find the site and having the design fit for that...if you were to use the indian river site for example, it could be tailored to not use up the existing fields and parking that's already there.

Thanks,
Krista Braun