School Board Backs Expenditure—

$447k For NHS Greenhouse Questioned

By John Voket

Newtown’s Board of Education affirmed its need to construct a new greenhouse classroom in place of a former facility at its September 7 meeting. The board concluded that although the low bid of $447,000 seemed excessive, the facility was part of the education specifications or ed specs that were already approved as part determining the overall reimbursement to the town from the state.

“There’s money in the contingency fund to pay for this,” said school board member David Nanavaty, adding that the replacement of its unusable predecessor clearly qualified under the contingency as an “unexpected occurrence.”

“It’s part of the ed specs so it has to be done,” Mr Nanavaty said. “It’s not like we’re asking for more money.”

Saying that the new facility was going to have equivalent status as the high school’s science labs and culinary arts facility, Mr Nanavaty also reminded the board that since the greenhouse was slated for partial state reimbursement, and that he was hoping to negotiate an increase in the district’s credit against the old building from Morganti Construction, the end cost to taxpayers could be as low as $275,000.

One week earlier, members of the Public Building and Site Commission, the Legislative Council, and even the town’s building inspector expressed dismay over the news that a replacement greenhouse at Newtown High School was estimated to cost $400,000.

“You can build a four-bedroom, two-bath Colonial home in Newtown for $400,000,” Building Inspector John Poeltl told The Bee after learning about the projected cost for replacing a former greenhouse, which reportedly collapsed and was deemed a total loss after crews attempted to dismantle the high school’s original structure.

On February 4, The Bee reported that Joe Costa, with the architectural firm Fletcher Thompson, presented the school board with an option to replace the high school’s former greenhouse, which a subcontractor determined would be rendered unusable if an attempt to disassemble and store it was made.

The structure was planned to be moved as part of the high school expansion and renovation project, Mr Costa explained at the time. He also said the greenhouse was originally planned as a temporary structure at the high school, and the new greenhouse, if passed, would have a more permanent design.

Mr Costa also told the school board the recommendation from Fletcher Thompson had not yet been seen by the town’s Public Building & Site Commission. The first official notification about the new greenhouse proposal was floated to that advisory commission August 31.

The design presented to the school board in February, Mr Costa said, “is by no means a luxury green house.” Continuing that explanation, he said the goal was to keep the price of the new structure down.

Fletcher Thompson determined the old structure to have been worth $30,000 to $50,000, and the firm would cover that amount of what he expected would top out at $130,000 to $150,000 for the new structure.

At the February school board meeting Mr Nanavaty reminded the board that passing the design would move it to the Public Building and Site Commission (PBSC) to look at further. Mr Nanavaty then moved to accept the design to replace the greenhouse, board member Richard Gaines seconded, and the vote passed unanimously.

It is unclear to PBSC Chairman Robert Mitchell why it took so long for that aspect of the project to come before his board, and that in view of the PBSC’s advisory role in municipal projects, “none of the board felt comfortable authorizing that the school district move forward.”

“What you have is a very unhappy commission,” he said. “This is the first time we were hearing that $400,000 number.”

Mr Mitchell said he “thought the original estimate of $150,000 made by Mr Costa in February was too high.”

“We expected it to come in somewhere around $100,000,” the PBSC chairman said.

Mr Mitchell added that at this week’s meeting nobody representing the district or architect could offer any specific information as to why the expense to replace the greenhouse had escalated to three times the February estimate to replace, and more than ten times the estimated cost of the original structure, which was apparently serving the school as needed for years.

“We understand that the district spoke to the low bidder and as a result, may be looking at an alternate design,” Mr Mitchell said.

He said the PBSC was unwilling to approve the expenditure and said he would require the town finance director or an appropriate elected official or body to authorize spending that amount. Mr Mitchell said that while the bid cost for the green house is currently available in a building contingency fund, a unanimous consensus among the PBSC members was not to go forward with the requested authorization.

“Maybe the Board of Education can authorize it as part of the bonding issue,” Mr Mitchell surmised. “If it’s part of the bonding, I think they can authorize spending it however they want. But technically, the voters did not approve it as part of the referendum on the bonding.”

The next evening, Legislative Council Vice Chair Mary Ann Jacob said she asked to clarify what role if any the council has in the authorization for spending so much on the replacement greenhouse. She later told The Bee that First Selectman Pat Llodra assured the council “there would be a lot more conversation about it,” before any expenditure is made.

During this week’s board meeting, however, Mr Nanavaty said the school board has the authorization to spend the money because the bond for the overall project was approved, and the contingency fund that would be used to build the new greenhouse was part of that bonding authorization.

During the discussion, school board Vice Chair Kathryn Fetchick suggested that the district explore removing the greenhouse from the ed specs for reimbursement, and determine if building a facility without all the state required add-ons would ultimately save money on the project. Superintendent Janet Robinson said that making that ed spec revision, however, would impact programming.

“It’s a program decision, and this is the board that makes program decisions,” Dr Robinson said.

“If we modify the ed specs and don’t go through the [state reimbursement process] would it cost less?” Ms Fetchick asked.

“I don’t want to go there,” Mr Nanavaty replied. “We have $2 million in contingency — this is $275,000.”

According to Ms Fetchick, the ultimate cost of $447,000 before credits and reimbursement would be spent to educate approximately 30 students per semester. She said in the first semester of the 2009-10 school year, 26 students enrolled in the program using the greenhouse classroom, and 31 had enrolled for that program last spring.