Commentary –

The School Board’s Position On Cochran House

By Amy Dent

The Board of Education (BOE), in conjunction with the Superintendent of Schools’ office, after having identified a need for additional instructional space in the town’s middle school and four elementary schools, has embarked on an ongoing effort to plan for the construction of a 5/6 school.  This is the result of the growth in new housing that we have seen in Newtown and the continued influx of families with school age children.  The impending sale and development of the Fairfield Hills property has complicated planning for this school and has extended the timetable for its planning and construction.

As late as March of this year, it was the intention of all parties to utilize the land the Town of Newtown owns on and around Watertown Hall on the former Fairfield Hills campus as the site of the 5/6 school.  During a meeting of the Legislative Council in March 1999, the vast majority of its members expressed a belief in the need for the school project and for it to move forward.  However, due to the significant decisions that are before the town regarding the development of Fairfield Hills, the Legislative Council felt it prudent that any decision on further design of the 5/6 school should be delayed until the ramifications resulting from the final decision could be fully evaluated and understood.  It was speculated that the matter might be resolved by November, 1999.

When the proposals from the three prospective developers offering to purchase Fairfield Hills were submitted, it came to the BOE’s attention that one submission included a proposal for a 5/6 school.  Becker and Becker proposed  the renovation of an existing building on the campus, Cochran House, modifying it to fit the needs of the school district.  The BOE and the superintendent felt that it was incumbent to evaluate the viability of that plan.  After meeting with the developer to learn more about their intentions, we undertook a preliminary inspection of the facility,  and it was our initial belief that the site was not practical for the new school.  Becker and Becker subsequently revised their plan and proposed modifications to some of the structural aspects of the building and their proposal became worthy of serious consideration.

This now left us with four options to consider for the future 5/6 school: (1) use of the original Watertown Hall site with completely new construction; (2) use of Cochran House as provided to the town by Becker and Becker, with an undefined method of payment and ownership; (3) purchase of Fairfield Hills by the town with use of Cochran House as an assumed possible site; and, (4) purchase of Fairfield Hills by the town with use of an undetermined site for possible development.

In considering any of the four options, the BOE must have financial data to compare all the proposals in a consistent manner. Because of the delay in pursuing our initial plan for the Watertown Hall site, we have not received firm financial data for new construction.  We have, therefore, recently contracted for a conceptual design and budget information from the architectural firm of  Jeter, Cook  and Jepson, due by December 1.  This information will allow us to update our existing study from last year and provide a benchmark against which to evaluate other proposals.  Additionally, while we have received, on October 12, a financial proposal from Becker and Becker to renovate Cochran House, there are a number of uncertainties that make a reasonable cost comparison difficult and thus a recommendation impossible.  Additionally, we presently have no confirmation from the State Department of Education that they agree with the financial details of Becker and Becker’s plan.

In comparing the construction costs as provided by the developer, it appears that the Watertown Hall and Cochran House options are about equal in cost before considering development costs, and state reimbursement of tax credits that the developer is proposing.  No estimate of development cost has been forthcoming, but it will escalate the cost of Cochran House regardless of who is the developer.  The Cochran House option receives a slightly favorable state reimbursement because square footage contained in the existing facility is larger than a newly constructed school would be.  Uncertainty surrounding the use of historic tax credits gives us the greatest concern. We don’t know whether they can actually be secured and what their impact on the project ownership will be if they are available. Lack of clarity about the actual mechanics of ownership and transfer of ownership from Becker and Becker to the town troubles the BOE.  Finally, we don’t believe that the Becker and Becker numbers fully take into account the cost of the land and how that transfer would occur.  Covenants make it unlikely the town would actually own the land under Cochran House and more likely it would hold a long-term lease.  Therefore, with the savings of using Cochran House hinging primarily on the historic tax credits, we see significant unanswered or unanswerable questions that preclude us from being able to support this option at the present time.  Lastly, we have not heard any ideas regarding the options that include town ownership.  In either of these scenarios, we have grave concerns about the economic feasibility of using Cochran House based on the BOE’s current understanding of the historic tax credits and the use of state matching funds.

An important feature of a school site is the nature of the surroundings.  In the Becker & Becker proposal we have been given some ideas about the use of the land and buildings surrounding Cochran House.  However, with town purchase of the property, we have no indication as to what might be developed in the adjacent areas of this school site and this gives us concern.  This concern, along with other issues, makes it difficult for the BOE to make a fair determination regarding Cochran House in either scenario.

Finally, there is the issue of time.  When the need was identified for the 5/6 school, based on estimates of growth in the student population, it was hoped that the project would be finished in time for the opening of school in fall of 2001.  As the months move by, the goal becomes more unlikely to be attained and our needs become more acute, as witnessed by a 4.5 percent increase in students this fall.  Not only does a delay push the occupancy date back, but it threatens to increase costs as we delay the bidding process and provide interim alternatives to house students.  Recent reports from architects of ongoing school projects in the state support the assertion of increased construction schedules and increased costs.  Increases in cost could be of such magnitude that would make it prudent to pursue a parallel course of action to allow for progress on the design phase of the Watertown Hall site while other options are being considered and discussions with regard to the disposition of Fairfield Hills continue.

As you can see, the BOE is faced with a rather complex situation:  We would like to be able to give some reasoned recommendation on how and when to proceed on behalf of the educational community, yet we have many questions that need to be addressed before a clear decision can be made.    We therefore suggest that if a final decision is not reached on the disposition of Fairfield Hills by December 1 of this year, we will request funds for the architect to begin the design phase of the 5/6 school project at the Watertown Hall site, as not to waste additional time and put our goal further out of reach.

(Amy Dent is chairman of Newtown’s Board of Education.)