BCAT News

The following is a letter to the editor and does not necessarily reflect the opinion of BNEWS. 

As the Chair of the Ways and Means Committee and a member of the BHS Building Committee, I have tried very hard to present the information gathered over the past 2.5 years without judgement for each voter’s ideas and opinions. As someone who has been intimately involved in the process and having spent many hours challenging the process and the project, I have a bias toward passing the project. As a tax payer and local business owner, I understand and respect the concerns expressed over the tax implications.

I decided to write this letter to counter some of the misinformation I am hearing in the community. I am not on Facebook, so thankfully have missed some of the personal attacks and worst moments. However, I am troubled by the amount of patently false information being presented as fact for the sole purpose of muddying the water and providing reasons for a No vote for those less informed about the project. I am seeing too many people using this to settle old political scores, punish some for mistakes, or to be seen as heroes, all while jeopardizing the best outcome for our future BHS students.

The problem the building committee set out to solve is the imminent failure of critical systems in a 60 year old building. The electrical, plumbing, and HVAC (heating, ventilation, and air conditioning) systems were designed to last between 50 and 60 years if well maintained. There is no amount of care and maintenance that will prevent these systems from lasting long beyond their expected lifespan. As we have seen, the planning and design required for a large project takes several years. We have spent 2.5 years on this proposal and will not break ground for more than a year from now if the vote passes. If the vote fails, we still have a building with aging infrastructure that will fail in the coming years.

Another problem that arose early in the planning phase, when we were looking at simply replacing these systems and keeping the exact same building we have now, are Massachusetts building regulations that require us to bring the entire building up to current building codes if we spend more than 30% of the buildings appraised value OR “touch” more than 50% of the building in a 3 year timeframe for purposes of replacing these aging systems. It has been said by those opposed to the project, that we can “get around” these regulations and we don’t really have to do these upgrades. To be clear, the upgrades are to have a fire suppression system (most of the current building does not even have sprinklers) and to make the building accessible to those with disabilities. First, I am not sure how someone could sleep at night knowing they were “working around” regulations to provide these upgrades. Second, there is no way that the Commonwealth of Massachusetts would allow a town to “get around” rules to provide fire protection and accessibility to school children. As opposed to the arm chair quarterbacks who are assuring our community that these facts are not true and that the current building is actually up to code for those with disabilities, the building committee used licensed professionals with years of experience and professional credentials to maintain. We will not avoid bringing the building up to code, if the next plan is to “just replace the aging systems a little at a time.”

Probably the biggest mistake the committee made was assigning a name to the upper portion of the school. For months we referred to it as “the upper section”, which was confusing. We decided to call it the Center for Education because that sounded better. Unfortunately, those opposed to the project have latched on to that and worked hard to make it sound like an extravagant overspending of tax dollars. In fact, it is just the upper part of the existing building (upper because it is at the top of the hill the building sits on). The vast majority of that portion of the building will be getting new A/C, heat, and plumbing, as well as a coat of paint and carpet. The only significant construction done will be to create a new space for the Early Childhood Center. This preschool houses a program for children with developmental delays and other special needs who we are responsible to provide services starting at age three. Without this facility we would be required to send these children to outside programs at a greater expense and with more disruption for the children and their families. In addition, some typical learners families chose to pay tuition for their preschoolers to attend this program, generating revenue to offset the cost. This program is currently housed in the section of the building that will be demolished and will be relocated to the existing cafeteria.

The rest of the Center for Education (upper building) will continue to house district offices, the Burlington Science Center, the Simmons alternative high school program, BCAT, the school district IT department and several extracurricular programs that require space (robotics, computer clubs, etc.) that would otherwise need to be located in the more expensive new construction part of the project. This space is being renovated and updated for much less per square foot than if we relocate to other space in town, buy a building, or take back the old Meadowbrook facility from Mount Hope. All of these have been presented as solutions, as if they had not been considered, vetted, and deemed too expensive or disruptive. The Meadowbrook space is being eyed by multiple departments in town and has been identified to solve so many problems of space for the Recreation Department, Council on Aging, future state required preschool programs, etc. It has become the solution every time someone is looking for a good alternative to a current plan.

The entire project is being done at a per square foot price that is considerably less than the current police station project, the current Fox Hill project, the current Lexington High School project, the recently opened Billerica High School project, and the Arlington High School project. This is because we are presenting a plan the keeps every aspect of the current facility that would be less expensive to remodel than to build new. The new building costs less than it would cost to remodel that portion of the existing building. And, as opposed to just remodeling the existing building, the town will end up with a modern high school facility with all new classrooms, new science labs, and state-of-the-art security and safety.

This is the best solution to a problem that will not go away with a negative vote tomorrow. It is not cheap, but it is cheaper than almost every other option we looked at, is much less disruptive to the students than any other option, and solves many other problems that have been identified with the current facility. The cost of solving this problem will only increase with time. The cost of delaying until one of these systems actually fails is significantly more in terms of dollars anas well as disruption. It is completely false that the students will not have a fully new and modern high school at the end of this project. It is completely false that the Center for Education is anything but a fancy name for an existing space that is having the mechanical systems replaced and getting a coat of paint on the walls.

Please ask yourself if you trust a committee of residents and taxpayers who have spent hundreds of hours and 1.5 million of your dollars hiring experts to answer our questions or do you trust a small group of residents who are spending an inordinate amount of time throwing as many false assumptions and conspiracy theories through blind copied emails that can not be responded to and that have now been spread as fact through the community? Please go back and look for these same faces and names through the 2+ years of public meetings. Please ask yourself where they were when the work was being done and when alternative ideas were being considered.

I believe a Yes vote is the responsible way to solve a problem that will not go away and will only be more expensive and disruptive in the near future. It is painfully expensive but will still keep our property taxes lower than most of our neighbors. There is no realistic alternative being proposed that will be less so.

Sincerely,
Doug Davison
6 Birch Street