We would like to make some clarifications to statements made and answers to questions posed at the Tisbury annual town meeting.

The question was asked about the environmental impact of demolishing the existing school.

The recently completed demolition and construction of the Hannagan school in New Bedford recycled 95.69 per cent of its construction debris. We anticipate exceeding 90 per cent.

With only 35 per cent of the existing school suitable for the renovation/addition path, the notion that we would significantly reduce non-recyclable demolition debris is inaccurate. What would be retained in a renovation/addition scheme would be brick and steel, some of the easiest materials to recycle.

Whether a renovation/addition or new-build, both will require new mechanical systems, roofing, windows, insulation, wallboard, tile, flooring, casework and on and on.

We will not be filling a landfill with the school.

We will start by recycling upwards of 90 per cent of our debris.

The mechanical systems, while still fossil fuel-based, will operate at significantly higher levels of efficiency and inside a far more efficient and effective building envelope.

The building envelope and insulation standards will meet or exceed those set forth by the Massachusetts School Building Authority which are more demanding than the standard building code.

With a new-build, we will not be building and removing a temporary gym as required with a renovation/addition.

The school will be solar ready, and as part of our energy model we are looking into a third-party lease of our roof for future solar installation.

Why lease the roof for solar? Because as a municipal building, unlike with private property, the town does not receive tax credits for the installation. The school building committee understands the need to control cost, and we could not justify the additional expense of installing the solar in this budget.

The school building committee is committed to further improvements throughout the energy modeling phase.

The school building committee has worked on value engineering but that will not include cutting corners that will lead to premature repair costs to the town.

One voter asked what would the school community give up to reduce the cost?

The plan presented to the voters has been reduced by 5,000 square feet, translating to a $2.5 million reduction in cost.

Through the efforts of our architects and design group, workshop areas have been redesigned, reconfigured and details simplified, realizing an additional $1 million in savings.

Another $1.8 million was saved with the decision to use the design-build method of procurement, rather than the costlier construction management at risk method.

The school building committee has included a construction cost contingency within the reimbursed cost of $32 million.

On a recently completed school project, our architect and owners project manager has returned close to $2 million to the community.

All contractors are pre-qualified by the MSBA.

To say the committee has not been responsible about cost containment is factually inaccurate.

The estimates for a renovation/addition provided by our project manager, and analysis of recently completed and funded similar addition/renovations to schools in Massachusetts show a higher cost than a new-build.

A speaker at town meeting had a handout demonstrating the successful renovation/addition to the Cabot School in Newton at a cost lower than a new build. But the cost of the Cabot School example presented in the handout did not include the 12 per cent higher cost of construction on the Vineyard, which when factored in would raise the Cabot School cost to $644 per square foot, before state reimbursement.

The cost of the new Tisbury School before reimbursement is $612 per square foot.

Any renovation/addition will also need to add the cost of temporary classrooms, offices and a gym with estimates ranging from $2.5 to 3.5 million, depending on bids and duration. Corrected for the 12 per cent, the Cabot School cost comparison for a renovation/addition to the Tisbury School would burden the taxpayers with an additional $2.4 million, plus the cost of temporary classrooms for a total of between $5 and $5.5 million more than a new-build.

We left the annual town meeting wanting to answer these questions for the community, and hope this helps in your decision-making process.

Many valid opinions and concerns were brought forward during the meeting. The school building committee has no illusions about the work ahead of us, and we look forward to continued input from the community.

When you vote on April 24, we ask that you vote with consideration of the facts. We as a town must come together to ensure the continuity of quality education and the responsible administration of the town’s financial resources to build a new school for present and future generations.

Harold Chapdelaine and Reade Milne
Vineyard Haven

The writers are members of the Tisbury school building committee.