SPILO: Stop the Super-Size Building

Submitted by Michael Spilo. Mr. Spilo is a member of the CMS Building Committee and is Chair of the RTM Public Works and RTM Labor Contracts committees.  The views expressed are his own.

The BOE is insisting on building Central Middle School (CMS) for 660 students with a cafeteria for over 700, 30% more than currently enrolled. This overbuilding is wasteful because CMS is not going to see 660 students this century unless we re-district and bus students there, and students don’t benefit from empty classrooms used for storage.

BOE projections show 2030 enrollment at about 450, and the middle school population in Greenwich in 2040 is projected by the State to be 4% LOWER than the 2030 population. The younger population will decline even more, indicating further declines at CMS well past 2040.

The reasons for the decline are long-standing social and demographic trends.  People are having fewer children later in life, and teen pregnancies are way down.  These rates have been dropping steadily since before 1990 (several references are provided below for this,) but the decline in CT is very pronounced.

In CT several related issues, including an already high population density (4th highest), make it extremely unlikely these trends will reverse.  In Greenwich this is exacerbated by increased capacity at private schools.

All the experts, including at the CDC, the Federal Department of Education, UConn, Wharton and others agree (links at end).  Only the Board of Education (BOE) thinks otherwise, and their thinking is not based on science.

The BOE has a history of over building, and they focus on “marquis” projects like MISA, CMS and “green” projects which all failed to deliver.  These are done at the expense of other projects.  BOE maintenance is often “fix it when it breaks,” and when it breaks it’s an emergency which costs extra. As a result, the BOE under-project maintenance costs and overspend on marquis projects and emergencies.

Politically this is expedient, but fiscally this is a disaster.  This political showboating is why we spent an exorbitant $61 million 2023 dollars on our super-sized high school auditorium, by far the largest in CT.

It’s also why we built a magnet program at New Lebanon School, which is currently attracting only 50 students, far shy of the planned capacity of 87.  At last count 66% of the magnet students came from nearby Ham Ave, making the purpose of the magnet program moot.

Given the very low likelihood of CMS ever seeing over 550 students, designing CMS for 660 will tie up an extra $30 million dollars, and increase taxes for maintenance, heating, cooling and cleaning.

At the moment things are in limbo, as the BOE wrestles with their net to gross building ratios which the Architects have called “impossible.” But it seems likely that some on the BOE would rather spend a needless $30 million on a super-sized school simply to create a false impression that they are advocating “for the children.” 

This was the case at MISA and at New Lebanon and is the likely result of BOE deliberations on CMS unless we tell them to stop grandstanding.  When they claim “it’s for the children” this time, don’t listen.  Demand a right-size school and put a stop to “marquis” over-building which benefits no one.

Grim forecast: UConn economist says global change is reshaping Connecticut, despite the state’s best efforts to forge its own future May 14, 2019

https://nces.ed.gov/programs/PES/section-1.asp

https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/issue-briefs/2022/12/the-long-term-decline-in-fertility-and-what-it-means-for-state-budgets

https://budgetmodel.wharton.upenn.edu/issues/2022/7/8/measuring-fertility-in-the-united-states

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/vsrr/vsrr012-508.pdf

http://data.ctdata.org/visualization/population-projections-by-town?v=line&f={%22Town%22:%20%22Greenwich%22,%20%22Measure%20Type%22:%20%22Number%22,%20%22Year%22:%20[%222015%22,%20%222020%22,%20%222025%22,%20%222030%22,%20%222035%22,%20%222040%22],%20%22Variable%22:%20%22Projected%20Population%22,%20%22Gender%22:%20%22All%22,%20%22Age%20Cohort%22:%20[%225%20to%209%20years%22,%20%2210%20to%2014%20years%22,%20%2215%20to%2019%20years%22]}