Voting 6-3 on party lines, the Mansfield Town Council approved a conceptual project Thursday to close all three of the town’s elementary schools, and replace them with two new community schools.
“I think the time has come to make a decision, bite the bullet and send it to voters,” Councilman Paul Shapiro said.
The plan includes the demolition of the , and elementary schools, and the construction of two new elementary schools on those sites.
The future use of has not yet been determined.
Let Patch save you time. Get great local stories like this delivered right to your inbox or smartphone every day with our free newsletter. Simple, fast sign-up here.
Per the council’s proposal, the will receive renovations “including but not limited to roof and window replacements, installation of solar panels and the replacement of modular classrooms,” according to information provided Thursday.
While Councilman Christopher Paulhus was against the two-school option, he said he would have liked to see Goodwin and Southeast as building sites "because they're at opposite ends of the town."
The conceptual project - at an estimated cost of nearly $64 million* - has now been referred to the Planning & Zoning Commission for approval. Pending P&Z's approval, the council will be on track for bond authorization and a November referendum.
“I think it’s the right decision to go forward with the two-school project,” School Board Chairman Mark LaPlaca said following Thursday's meeting. "The future of the program is at stake," he said. "We have to go forward."
“I feel it’s the right decision,” Mansfield Mayor Elizabeth Paterson added. “I really felt it was time to make a decision. and I think we’ve chosen the right sites,” she said.
In coming weeks, the council will further review the project and receive public input as it pertains to the referendum and future use of Southeast.
*Town Note: Estimates are preliminary until final design and site selection occur.
Bottom line, name a normal homeowner or business owner (and not Tiger Wood's ex-wife or a Steinbrenner) who tears down a perfectly sound structure to build another that is "more conducive" to this or that? This is ONLY an extravagant luxury that YOU can achieve with unencumbered access to OTHER people's money. The Storrs Project is already a disgusting monstrosity/eyesore that will suck the town dry for decades when state funding dries up. The Bike paths. The structurally sound state buildings at the depot site with 24 inch masonry foundations that have been allowed to sit and rot for decades. The bus routes to nowhere for no one. Ironic how the things that make our lives "more conducive" to this or that are bankrupting your neighbors. "Yes, it will result in tax increases" is easy for YOU to say. But what about those of your neighbors who can't afford these tax increases that you so casually, callously and arrogantly dismiss (yes, you do)? "No elected official would undertake a project like this unless they believe that residents will be better off in the end." No, of course not. The ends always justify the means don't they? Crooked politicians - never heard of such a thing? Politicians making poor decisions that bankrupt towns/countries - never heard of that either. I guess we got nothing to worry about then.
"You are just ignorant and that's more reason they should take your money from you - you are too stupid to spend it for yourself. Thank god for the Town Council and it's wisdom." Already said by me/Zachary! "No elected official would undertake a project like this unless they believe that residents will be better off in the end." Said Toni, in effect restating my very position!
1st, 50 yr old buildings with bad furnaces and no insulation... Terrible isn't it? My house is 74 yrs old with an old STEAM furnace and no insulation, yet I do NOT have the option of plowing it under. I make do, I repair and maintain. There are many residents with old houses that have issues yet they repair and maintain them because that is the COST EFFECTIVE thing to do. But, maybe If the Town Council would give them the money for it (by raising their neighbors taxes) they would plow them under because it's not their money and that is exactly my point. The Town Council spends money (& raises taxes) casually & without much hesitation because it's NOT THEIR MONEY, it's like play money & this thing is just a big game. Many of us work hard & sweat every tax bill. I do & is is why YOUR WORDS are a serious concern to people like me. 2nd, if you think the words I use are "attacks" and "mean spirited" that is your opinion and you've based it on nothing of substance. But, unlike you, the Town Council and those who support such disregard for the financial situation of others, I will say that I fight my battles with words and I do not oblige the labor of my neighbors get things that I prefer. I do not demand taxes (labor) from you because I'd rather have a new house and come up with convenient excuses like the furnace is old and insulation is nonexistent to rationalize it all as these are the tactics of "crooked politicians." Whoops, I used that word again.
Exactly what I am talking about, this insanity just doesn't stop! http://stonington.patch.com/articles/is-connecticut-running-out-of-money?ncid=txtlnkuspatc00000003
Not all who disagree are "lacking in information", however. The town council previously shelved this idea because there was such strong public opposition to the school building project. It should not be surprising, therefore, that there is some push back when the idea is raised again. People oppose it for many different reasons. There is a lot of development going on in this town already. I hope it will prove successful, but perhaps there is a limit as to how much growth people are willing to accept all at once. If the majority of taxpayers approve the project in the referendum, so be it. However, it concerns me that the referendum is being held during a general election. There will therefore be a substantial number of voters attending who are not stakeholders in the Mansfield Public Schools or the town itself (UCONN).
Second, "refurbishing" can mean anything and in this case does. The deceit in the statement that "refurbishing" costs less is not accidental but intentional. It's the crookedness of which I spoke earlier. This is not inappropriate but accurate language applied to your example. There is NO WAY "refurbishing" an old boiler and the assorted this or that that breaks down costs more than a whole new building with a new boiler and new this or thats in it, you know it, I know it, and everybody knows it. The logic of spending, and plowing under and building anew changes when the money is unlimited and it's not coming straight out of your pocket, but when you can reverse-spread-the-wealth-around, the decision making becomes careless (at best) and criminal (at worst).
I am not ashamed to live in a one horse town and prefer it. NYC, Boston, Hartford and New Haven are close by as well as the crime, congestion and high taxes that go along with them. You can have urban if you want it. It's the rural that is becoming rarer and harder to find. It's irreplaceable. You want urban you can have it, but once the rural is gone, it's gone forever. The Storrs Center monstrosity will uglify this town for decades and cost us money for decades no matter how much Uconn or the state pitch in... it's still ugly and a dumb idea but all of your neighbors, both in and out of town will pay for this nasty mistake and those responsible will sleep well at night just the same. It should make everyone sick yet it doesn't. And, this is the same principle being kicked around with the schools. We must spend the money like it all came out of our own pocketbooks, not brag about how others will foot the bill. We must be frugal, a good New England tradition and we must resist careless disregard for the labor and money of our neighbors. That is the MORAL way to behave and act. Respect your neighbor, don't loot and pillage them. http://s7.postimage.org/7ie3hsx8r/392402_403840049659686_56128813_n.jpg
Regarding the school building project, most of us would not keep pouring thousands of dollars into repairing a 25-year-old household appliance such as a refrigerator. Some may really like the retro look, but an energy-efficient new model makes more sense. Choosing to continue maintaining the current elementary schools is like holding on to that 25-year-old refrigerator. The proposed plan will cost between 32 and 35 million dollars, but will SAVE the town $865,000 annually in our operating budget through maintenance, energy costs and administrative overhead. Building new, reliable and efficient structures that will last at least the next 50 years, along with saving Mansfield nearly a $1,000,000 annually in its operating budget seems like a more rational choice than doing nothing and continue repairing equipment (whereas in some cases, the parts are no longer made). Change is difficult for most of us. No one wants to see their elementary school become vacant, changed to another function or demolished. Mansfield has the opportunity to move ahead and maintain its reputation for academic excellence by updating facilities so our students can be trained adequately for the demands of 21st century careers.
We are not talking about 25 yr old refrigerators. Refrigerators are disposable today. Houses and bigger buildings are not. Anybody can throw out figures. These figures are absolutely meaningless as they are derived from those who would have the results turn out no other way. No one plows under their old house and builds a new one. No small business owner plows under his building to erect a brand new one because the furnace is old. The argument that it will save taxpayers money (made in the same breath that states taxes will go up a 'little') is nonsense. Look at YOUR math, it's ridiculous. 35 million for the plan divided by your savings of 865,000 per year will take over 40 years just to BREAK EVEN! And that's if your figures are right (and they never are, they are always under). By that time that 40 years is up, and if your numbers come up wrong it will be 50 or the time you say the building will be no longer serviceable, the same people will be clamoring to tear it down again and build a new one, to save us money of course! Do your figures include the unknown repairs and unanticipated upkeep? The math just doesn't add up. For the 35 million, you can do a lot of patch jobs to the schools and they will be just fine and any change left over, will be profit.