http://www.rutlandherald.com/article/20130221/NEWS02/702219895
The Springfield School District waited a year too long to repair the roof of the Park Street school building.
Snow melt from the recent nor’easter, which dumped up to 16 inches on Springfield, caused major leaks in the building and forced the School Board to pass emergency funding Tuesday to begin necessary repairs.
Steven Hier, director of financial services, said the district will spend $56,600 to repair roof leaks that caused wall and carpet damage all the way down to the basement level, he said.
The school district had originally planned to fix the roof after the school closed in 2010. According to Hier, repairs kept getting postponed because the school district was trying to determine how to use the building after closing it.
Repairs began Wednesday and they will be financed with money set aside in the roofing reserve fund and capital plan.
“We put it off one year too many,” Hier said. “The repairs are fairly substantial and we estimate that $28,000 will come from the fund and we (saved) $30,000 in the capital plan this fiscal year. It will not impact the local budget for next year.”
The Park Street school building was built in 1895 for students in grades K-5. The school closed in 2008 after voters passed an article to close the school rather than make necessary renovations after it fell into disrepair.
The Park Street building has been a lingering community concern because voters authorized the School Board to dispose of, give away or sell the Park and East Street schools in 2010.
The East Street School, built in 1920, has been closed for years and is now on the market for $150,000 while the school district still uses the Park Street building as its central office.
Selectman David Yesman said future meetings will be scheduled to discuss the fate of the Park Street building. He said many residents still want the building permanently closed.
A special committee was established to determine the fate of the Park Street school building. The committee will consist of two Select Board members, two School Board members and an at-large member to be determined.
Yesman said it would cost $3.25 million for a complete overhaul of the Park Street building. He hopes the committee will put the best interests of Springfield taxpayers in mind.
“Hopefully a decision will be made one way or the other,” Yesman said. “I’m hopeful it will happen. It’s a big building with a lot of history and sentimental value. I’m one of those people.”
A date has not been determined for the committee meeting, he said.
Park Street leak will cost $56,600 in repairs
By Christian Avard
Staff Writer | February 21,2013
Rutland Herald
SPRINGFIELD —
How many studies do they have to have to determine Park Street needs to be demolished? Isn't this the third or fourth? Let the fire department use it for practice and get on with it.
ReplyDeleteNo study ever determined that Park Street needed to be demolished. Every committee that has ever studied Park Street has recommended its preservation.
DeleteIncorrect.
DeleteThere are many who use this facility. This is just not about school administration. The few working families in the area rely on the care of leap. Due to the space, the program has much more to offer.
ReplyDeleteAgreed, the building is also heavily used by the Town of Springfield's Parks and Recreation Department
Deletethen turn it into the rec center and get rid of the community center.....like they did in windsor
DeleteThat was one of the recommendations for a part of the building by the use subcommittee of the last citizen committee to study Park Street.
DeleteWhy is Yeoman even commenting on this since he already has a conflict of interest since he offered to buy the building for $1.00.
ReplyDeleteits standard procedure to put things off until they cost alot more. why do it right when the problem is found. that would be to smart.
ReplyDeleteCapital improvements get put off in general because of budget defeats, but in the case of Park Street it was put off because of dawdling over moving forward with a plan.
DeleteWould it be smarter to move the Gateway program to East School and eliminate entirely the Park Street School which first was not safe for high school students, then not safe for small students but is now being used anyway?
ReplyDeleteWhen the school made the brilliant move to completely shut down East School, they lost their grandfathered status with regards to several upgrades which make it cost prohibitive now to reopen as a school. The Gateway program was moved to the Catholic Church annex and we now pay them rent. It would make sense to move Gateway into a portion of the basement of Park Street, which is what the use sub-committee of the last committee recomended. The basement level of Park Street meets the code requirements. Closing schools down completely has all types of negative consequences as far as figuring out reuses.
DeleteI honestly recall a vote saying the school would be shut down and unused by students because it was unsafe. Why is Gateway in there? Why is it staffed? Why Is there a janitor working in there? Why why why?
ReplyDeleteYou honestly have a bad recollection and didn't understand the purpose of the vote. The vote was to authorize the School Board to sell or otherwise dispose of a series of school buildings. The vote came in the context of trying to decide whether to renovate three elementaries or two. They eventually opted to renovate only two and not use Park Street as an elementary. Park Street has been heavily used, and its basement area meets standards for school programs. The problem has been getting everyone coordinated so that there is a cash flow to maximize the use of the building. In order to get the maximum usage of the building, they need to work jointly with the Town. Unfortunately, you have people like Yesman on the Selectboard who are more interested in grandstanding and throwing obstacles in the way of improving the Town, than actually working to improve it.
DeleteI will buy it for $1.00
DeleteSell. Sell. Sell.
ReplyDeleteAnd you would want what to replace it? You realize that if it is not reconverted to an educational and public recreational type facility, that its highest and best use is going to likely be subsidized housing. Are you going to be one of the people who then comes on here and whines and complains about subsidized housing?
DeleteHey Assss Jack, if it's torn down it can't be "reconverted" to anything, which is the point. Stop Springfield's ineptocrats from doing more damage and inflicting the financial pain on the taxpayers. But if you're so supportive of utilizing it, then why don't you and your misguided friends buy it and run it. Oh, right, you and your friends can't afford to buy it, so you want to hang that albatross around the necks of Springfield taxpayers. No wonder the town is swirling down the tubes!
DeleteASSSS JACK - Proud socialist philanthropist...
DeleteHave you any clue what it would cost to tear down Park Street, and what exactly would that do for the Town other than to create a basically ugly lot? That is like the early 1960's urban renewal projects that created a bunch of flat asphalt that was of absolutely no value to the community.
DeleteThey just don't understand, Alpin Jack.
ReplyDeleteApparently not.
DeleteNo, most of us understand too well, which is exactly why we're opposed to the delusional dalliances that emerge from twits like you! We're sick and tired of paying for the failings and follies that Springfield never seems to be able to avoid!
DeleteThanks for the summaries, Alpin Jack. The information you provided is the sort of thing people need to make intelligent decisions. Your critics would have some credibility if they offered some solution other than the impractical one of turning it into a vacant lot.
DeleteLead, follow, or get out of the way, Anonymice.
Chuck, why don't you and Alpin Jack acquire the property. If you are such a visionaries you should be able to find a suitable purpose, line up capital and turn this into a sucessful venture - no problem. I urge you for once to put your money where your mouth is rather than constantly asking for publicly funded support.
DeleteAnonymous 9:02, this is a public building and a public problem, if there were a bunch of private sector people interested in acquiring the building it would already be sold without even going on the market. The problem is unless it is converted to an educational/recreational type building, then its most likely highest and best use is some kind of subsidized housing project. I suppose if our State Reps had been on the ball they might have got it put into the bidding process for the new State Mental Hospital....but most of the anti posts on this blog are for tearing it down. A very costly move with zero gain for the community. So if you think the private sector has some major interest in this building why don't you trot them right out.
DeleteJust lock the doors on Park Street already. Please stop using this building and start using the other 4 schools better. If the town wants to use the gym, let the town buy the building for the gym. Or, let the town help cover the maintenance costs. Better yet, have Parks and Rec use the gyms at SHS, RMS, Elm or Union. The LEAP/All4One program should be put back to the orignating schools, Elm and Union. Elm and Union NEED to find space in their respective schools to incorporate before/after school daycare. Finally, the central office staff NEEDS to find a more cost effective space. $56k could buy a house in town. This won't be the last roof leak. I find it hard to pay for daily maintenance, heat, snow removal and more for an aging building that doesn't educate a single student.
ReplyDeleteActually, for Springfield tax-payers it makes more sense economically for the school to keep the building open and useable by the Town government as it spreads the cost over a wider base. But the Town Government has been so snotty to the School, that I have pretty much come to the conclusion that the school should charge the Town for it use and maintenance, especially since the Town Government under Yesman and his cronies is offloading their budget items onto special appropriations, so that it looks artificially low.
ReplyDeleteTerrance is one smart dude.
DeleteRe: The problem has been getting everyone coordinated so that there is a cash flow to maximize the use of the building.
ReplyDeleteCash doesn't flow in Springfield, particularly within public facilities. This is pure taxpayer subsidy that can't be afforded. Tear it down now.
If you are in a yank to tear something down, why on Earth wouldn't you tear down the current "community center" building which would remove an eyesore, open a view of the river and then move the community center to Park Street? Can we think a little creatively here, or is that impossible in Springfield.
Deleteyup I was facing the roof leaking problem couple of months ago but i ignore it for a long time then it became a nasty problem for me it destroy all my interior and my home looks like a junk yard these days,
DeleteI have issue with someone saying it "doesn't educate a single student". What is education to you? Books in a square classroom, in silence? There are multiple children who access wonderful programs in that building. Learning by play and resources of this nature is invaluable and isn't being accessed on the school level. You can only fit so much "recess" and hands on play in a school day. They expand on arts, physical education, life skills, etc. Before ANYONE insinuates, no I do not work for the program. I am, however, a full pay parent whose children attend this program. Not only do I get to maintain working and therefore paying into the Springfield tax base, my children are not being "babysat", they are being enriched. As far as Gateway, they would have to modify the building for the safety of the average 40-60 students who already access this space. The time to bitch was BEFORE administration modified the building for their offices. In truth, all of you loud mouth bullies should have spoken up back when the ORIGINAL vote was being requested about renovating the schools. Personally, Park Street could have been renovated to house all of the K-5, union could have been the town community center since it is drop dead in the walking traffic of town and was in far better shape then the current rec center, and Elm could have been administration offices (Elm and Union having MINOR renovations made and the bulk being put into the nice old building that is park). It could have been done, many towns have done it successfully with no-interest bonds and public support. I am a tax payer of this town, a working tax payer. To say "sell, sell, sell" is ridiculous when all any of you do is get on here and bad mouth the town. Who the hell is going to want to pony up money and buy anything here! I do not think they are perfect or even always above board with what they do with money, but seriously get over yourselves and know all sides before spouting off. Oh and they had leap at each of the buildings and due to COST and logistics, all the enrichment programs were not able to be done. Now after school and summer programs are chock full of things to do with people who are trying and who care to look after your children.
ReplyDeleteActually Park Street was and probably still is in better shape than Riverside. There is not much change that is required in order to house both the current programs at Park Street and also Gateway without any real issues. Diagrams to that effect were drawn up by the Use Subcommittee of the prior citizen's committee. It would be very costly to tear down Park Street in compliance with environmental regulations, and it would be a tragic waste. Unfortunately, if they convert it to a non-educational/recreational use in the private sector it will probably wind up being subsidized housing. But at this point, I guess that is about what the community deserves given all the nasty posts on this blogsite.
Deletegood idea jack. the problem is the people in charge like new and big things. sometimes the common sense approach gets pushed to the side.
DeleteGood idea? A good idea needs to be based on a solid premise. In this instance, saying Park St School is "probably" in better shape than Riverside is simply untrue.
DeleteBoth schools need work, but the work required to rehab Park St School goes right to its bones. The building has served our community well, but let's call a spade a spade.
Alpin Jack, it seems the most popular sport in Springfield is The Race to the Bottom.
DeleteAnonymous 5:39 pm. You are not aware of the problems which we have at Riverside. At the time they opted to renovate Elm and Union, the two most structurally sound buildings in the District were East and Park -- and that includes the current High School. But Riverside was a total wreck and their are potential reversion issues there as well that have reared their head from time to time when bond issues have been considered to try and remedy its asbestos abatement, heating, dangerous bleachers, etc. etc. the list goes on and on...
DeleteHey Chuckles, good news for you. Look around, we have won that race. Thanks for carrying your leg of the relay so well. Springfield On The Move, better said Youth Move Out Of Springfield if you want a future. Or stay and guys like Chuckles will fight to keep you in government funds. Look how well its working now.
DeleteRiverside's heating plant (including entire distribution piping system) have been entirely replaced over the last few years, so it's effectively BRAND NEW. All asbestos associated with the plant and piping was also abated during this project.
DeleteJust so you know.
nice but i need more to know about this
Deletethis post clears my mind.
Deleteyup I was facing the roof leaking problem couple of months ago but i ignore it for a long time then it became a nasty problem for me it destroy all my interior and my home looks like a junk yard these days,
ReplyDelete