Letter to the Editor: Says support for school building facts wrong

An article that appeared in the “Letters to the Editor” section a few weeks ago titled, “Says all dollars are not created equally,” has the facts wrong.

The writer wants you to believe that restoring the historic school rather than building a new elementary would be more practical and more cost effective. The article states that the new high school was originally budgeted for about $27 million while the final cost was $50 million. The writer also points out that the Historic School would house about 450 students, which he says is within the school board’s estimation needed for the future.

Let’s consider all the facts. On Feb. 28, 2005, New Kent Board of Supervisors voted to determine the cost of construction of the new high school. The estimate was $38 million. When it was finally approved in the spring of 2005, the cost had risen to $50 million.

In 1998, a referendum was on the ballot for the construction of a new middle school in the amount of $17 million. In 2002, a second referendum was on the ballot for a new high school with a cost of $25 million. Both referenda were turned down. Because of this delay, the cost to the taxpayers went from $17 million to $26 million to $50 million in seven years.

If we move toward renovating the Historic School, the county will lose space for Heritage Public Library, the school board office, and they may find that renovating will cost more in the long run when dealing with unknown issues.

Most important, we must consider the children. If a new elementary school is placed in a residential area, small children will not have to ride on the bus an hour each way to school. That is hard for small children. Older children may be able to ride their bicycles to a neighborhood school. In regards to the Historic School holding 450 students, it is worth noting that New Kent is one of the fastest growing counties. We must look ahead to the future. When you mention to the taxpayers that renovating is more cost effective than building a new school it sounds appealing, but all the facts must be considered.

Suppose the county moves to renovate as the writer suggest and spends millions on the project and 10 years from now, the old Historic School will not house the number of children from the growth of the community. Then taxpayers, you will have to build a new school anyway at an enormous cost. Sounds costly does it not.

Construction cost is at a low right now. Take advantage and go with the new school. Do not delay this time.

Judi Fleischman
Quinton