$95 Million New Essex Elementary School: It’s Too Much

To the Editor,

Former senator Everett Dirksen is rumored to have once said, “A billion here and a billion there and pretty soon you’re talking about real money.” 

The voters of Essex and Manchester are facing the same conundrum as they consider the fate of the Essex Elementary school project, which has grown from a $9 million renovation project to upgrade the windows, heating system, roof and renovate bathrooms to a now proposed completely new, $95 million, 72,000 square foot building.  

The evolution of this plan is hard to follow.  I need to state that Teresa Whitman has been respectful and solicitous of my input, personally inviting me to the building presentations.  I did attend the first meeting and tour but realized by the end that the issue had already been decided.  

It seemed like a sales pitch.  Everything was aimed at convincing us that the only option was a new building.  It was clear that the District had given up on renovating the building before the evaluation process was completed.  In the week after that first presentation, I saw the coring rig drilling in the soccer field behind the school and knew my further participation was pointless because the decision was already made. 

The 2023 Habeeb Report stated that there were no structural defects in the existing building and that the building’s 56,000 square feet was 10,000 more than the MSBA standard of 45,000 sq. ft. for a 250-student elementary school.  It stated that while the bulk of the spaces met or exceeded the MSBA standards, the extra 10,000 sq. ft. could be used to address some deficiencies in individualized learning settings etc.  Yet, since the creation of the School Building Committee, they have insisted that any renovation of the existing building must include an addition.

Given that the building has historically educated and fed 400 students as a kindergarten- grade 8 building, and the MSBA standard is 10,000sf less than the existing structure, it seems to strain common sense and credibility that an addition is necessary.  It would however, significantly increase the renovation cost versus the projected cost of a whole new building.

We are told that it is imperative to chase the MSBA funding which is usually about a 30% subsidy but if the standard is 45,000 square feet, are we eligible for the full 72,000 sq. ft. or are the taxpayers funding the full cost of the excess square footage?  Moreover, if we accept the state funding, are we forced to install all electric utilities and are we prevented from using natural gas heating and cooking systems that have served us without interruption for almost 60 years?  

Teresa Whitman’s latest update makes clear that the current level of state subsidy is based on only ELIGIBLE costs.  I obtained a spreadsheet of costs and subsidies in an attempt to determine how much the excess square footage was actually costing the taxpayers, but the costs and subsidy levels were broken down into so many line items that I couldn’t figure it out.  What is clear is that the state subsidizes construction costs of the building at $600/square foot, but our projected costs are almost $800/square foot.     

My point is that the proponents of this project have a duty to explain why we need a building that is approximately 60% larger than the state standard for a 250-student elementary school and 30% larger than the existing building that formerly educated 400+ students and how much the cost of the extra square footage is coming directly from our pockets.

A more obvious question, given the designs that have been published, is why we are expected to expend our tax dollars on an extravagant architectural tribute to the Essex ship building heritage that will add nothing to the educational program when for almost sixty years, there has not been as much as a painting, lithograph or ships model within the walls of our elementary school?  Why now?  And how much is that costing? 

I have heard some people say that after Essex has assisted in funding two new buildings in Manchester, that Manchester owes Essex a new building.  This philosophy is misguided and territorial.  When the District was formed, Essex had been looking for a permanent home for our high school students with quality education and participation in the governance of the system.  Manchester came to the table with an educational staff that included a cadre of exception individuals that included Dr. John Stuart, Tim Averill, Pat Kavanaugh, Liz Wansong and others.  These educators set high standards for academic performance and responsible personal behavior.  All students were encouraged to enroll in AP classes.  With the guidance department, they supported graduates’ applications to the finest institutions of higher education and achieved remarkable success.

Essex students have benefitted from this, which by all accounts, is continuing.  Unfortunately, the buildings in Manchester were poorly constructed and in need of replacement. Manchester elder statesman Ron Kelly told me that Manchester was forced to build these sub-standard buildings because, at the time, a large percentage of residents chose to send their kids to private school, and they didn’t have the support necessary for high-quality building construction.  All parties were aware of what we were buying into.

Essex came to the table with a student population that were known as great athletes who regularly outstripped the academic performance of the student populations of the high schools that they were tuitioned into.  Essex also brought the Essex Elementary school building.

Unlike the Manchester buildings that were a deficit to the District, the Essex building is an asset, extremely well- built from concrete, brick and steel, constructed on solid ledge.  That is why everyone was comfortable putting off considering it until after the Manchester building issues were addressed.  The Habeeb report of 2023 states that there are no structural defects in the building and that it is adequate size for our purposes.  When other buildings need new windows, roofs or heating systems or bathrooms, we don’t call the demolition man, we call the roofer, the plumbers and the window guys.  It will be wasteful to destroy this valuable asset.

Manchester does not owe Essex a “yes” vote on this extraordinary proposal.  The District owes Essex students a warm, safe educational environment and to accomplish that without unduly burdening the taxpayers in both communities.  That is the most important lesson for our children, strive for success and live within your means.

Edward Neal

Essex