Millbrook school officials consider next steps after capital plan defeat

MILLBROOK — The Central School District Board meeting on Tuesday, Dec. 17, in the wake of voters’ rejection of the three-phase major capital plan at the Nov. 19 referendum brought discussion of how to interpret the defeat.

Board members offered opinions on a wide range of factors which might have led to the vote result. Also discussed without resolution were potential next steps to resurrect portions of the capital plan. Particular focus was on the most serious of the roof leak problem areas.

Following a lengthy discussion, board members agreed to decide on a way forward at the next meeting on Tuesday, Jan. 7, when decisions will be made about reducing the project scope to enable critically needed roof repair, along with cost estimates.

Early in the discussion, a reduction in project scope seemed warranted, so roof repairs to Elm Drive School could proceed and the Middle School could receive roof repairs and installation of a lift for ADA-compliance, but perhaps not the originally planned elevators for access to all levels of the Middle School.

Representatives of BBS Architects offered advice during the discussion. For more information on the architects’ project planning, go to www.millbrookcsd.org.

Wide-ranging board discussion recognized residents’ reluctance to pay for the repairs. Others felt officials and project proponents were not effective in explaining the project to the public and there were not enough people who came out to vote in the referendum.

How to get to a ‘Yes’ vote was a focus of the discussion. The total number of voters at the special referendum numbered only slightly more than 500. One board members felt that 3,000 voters should have turned out to vote.

Board members spoke of previous boards deferring maintenance from term to term, bringing the schools to the current emergency where rainwater can be heard within the walls of Elm Drive School and rainwater spurts directly into the Middle School. Damage to the floors is evident.

Architect Joseph Rettig said it would be essential to retain plans for a lift in the Middle School to allow for access where none exists from the lower corridor to the auditorium. The elevators which would have provided more convenient access to other levels could be eliminated, he said.

“We will do anything we can to ensure continuity of the Middle School programs, but the buildings will decide for us,” one official said.

Rettig noted that a flat roof does shed water as a flat roof does have a gentle pitch to channel runoff water.

“But the Middle School roof is very old,” Rettig said.

Most board members agreed that the community must be better informed of the need for maintenance work.

If the project is reduced in scope, the needed repairs will be deferred further. In a few years, the demonstrated needs will be more severe, and more expensive to correct, starting with a redo of the design plans.

Rettig pointed out that if the Middle School roof is replaced, and then in a few years, the HVAC work is approved, then the new roof would need to be cut into to do the installation of the new equipment. He said that cutting into a new roof invites damage to the roof, recommending instead that roof and HVAC occur at the same time.

The school district board has until the first week in February to choose a direction.