Green Meadow School Building Public Meeting

5/4/2023

by Glenn C. Koenig, webmaster at Town Wide Mall

Maynard, MA - Approximately 25 residents attended a meeting at 7 PM Wednesday evening, hosted by the town's Green Meadow School Building Committee. The town is proposing to replace the existing school building, Maynard's only elementary school, with an entirely new building, funded partly by the state.
The purpose of the meeting was to review the Schematic Design document, prepared for the project (to submit for state funding), answer questions, and gather input from the public. Members of the committee, representatives from Mount Vernon Group Architects, as well as the school's principals were all on hand to join in the presentation.
Details of that document are available on the Project's web site:
https://www.maynard.k12.ma.us/o/green-meadow-school/page/gm-building-project-information
A representative of WAVM was there with a video camera to record the meeting for later posting on their web site:
https://www.youtube.com/@WAVMproductions/videos

The meeting began with an overview of the condition of the current building, its fitness for current educational use, and the number of students currently being served.
There was also a review of options considered in the past, including renovating the current building, a partial rebuild, or demolish the current building to replace it with a new one.
The overall cost of the project was then discussed. The town is in the process of applying to the Massachusetts School Building Authority (MSBA) for funding assistance, the remainder of the cost to be paid for by the town. The town would borrow the money by issuing municipal bonds, to be paid back over time with revenue from local property taxes. The project is currently estimated to cost $83 million, with MSBA to provide $30 million , and the town funding the remaining $53 million. To obtain the MSBA funding, the town must vote to go ahead with the project as a whole, first by a vote at Town Meeting this fall, then later at a general election in November, where voters would be asked to approve a tax increase (an override of the current tax limit) for funds to retire the debt incurred by issuing the bonds.

A significant portion of the meeting was devoted to the choice of a heating and cooling system for the proposed school. This has been a topic of conversation around town and has sparked some controversy. Some preliminary designs have included a natural gas fired boiler system, while others have indicated an electrically powered heat pump system instead.

Presenters explained that some costs could not be determined yet because some government rebate programs, such as the nation's "Inflation Reduction Act," passed late last year, were still relatively new, and therefore there was some question as to how the systems would qualify and for how much. There were also questions about where to locate the wells needed for a ground source heat pump system, involving the timing of the demolition of the current building (see video at right), where the wells might be situated.

The main part of the meeting, in the cafetorium of the school. Principal Robert Rouleau and Vice Principal Karen Lindquist can be seen, standing, at left.

After the formal portion of the meeting was over, Principal Robert Rouleau led a tour for anyone wishing to see the features of the current building.

Excerpt of the discussion on where to put wells for a possible ground source heat pump system (4 minute video).

One member of the public commented that, in the long run, a heat pump system would actually cost the town less than any other option, even though the initial equipment cost would be slightly higher. She cited statistics from the Schematic Design document itself. The break-even point, she contended, would vary based on the amount of rebates obtained, but regardless, it would occur well before the end of the lifespan of the building.

Once the meeting was adjourned, the school's Principal led a tour through the current building for those interested. The group looked at representative sample of classrooms and other areas, making a full circuit of the hallways, many of which slope up or down in the building's most recent addition. We were told that this was done originally to avoid blasting to demolish the ledge (solid rock outcroppings) beneath those portions of the building.

=== Comment ===

In the interest of full disclosure, I was at this meeting in two capacities: As a reporter and as an interested citizen. I have done my best to write the above report as objectively as possible, but of course, there were way too many comments and points made to detail them all here.
While at the meeting, I made a number of observations and had some thoughts regarding what we're facing overall.
The setup:
• I was disappointed that the sound system was not employed. I saw loudspeakers mounted in the room, but I do not know why they were not in use. There were no microphones present and there were refrigerators on one side of the room making significant noise. If you view some of the video posted above, you may get some idea of how hard it was to hear the presenters. It was even more difficult to hear the questions asked by those attending. The presenters did attempt to repeat the questions asked, but on occasion didn't remember to do so.
• The screen used by the presenters was much too small for the fine detail on most of the slides, many of which were taken directly from the document itself, with text much too small for audience projection. Most people could not read them from where they were sitting; some people had to interrupt to ask the presenters read some content to them. Attendees were invited to access the document online, after the meeting, in order to see the details they might have missed.
• When members of the audience wanted to speak, no one invited them to stand in order to be heard more clearly.
I'm not pointing all this out to blame anyone in particular, because I don't know what factors might have contributed to this situation. Sadly, I have experienced similar setups in other towns, and it seems counterproductive when the object is to inform the public and gather their input. It certainly left me straining to hear and view the material.
The challenge:
• The document being presented and discussed at this meeting is over 1600 pages long. It includes much in the way of detailed technical information. This presents a significant challenge to anyone in town to find the time to adequately understand the material it contains, in order to better decide how the town should proceed.
• A significant number of questions could not be answered by the presenters because information is not yet available.
Again, this is the document needed to submit to the state in order to obtain the $30 million in state funding. This lack of answers has resulted for a variety of reasons - some government programs and regulations are still in flux and some details cannot be worked out until after a vote to proceed on the project overall takes place - there just aren't the funds available right now, to pay for all the additional research ahead of time. So voters this fall will be asked to trust that those details will be worked out to their satisfaction, after approving funding for the project.
The Big Picture:
• The classic difficulty faced by many towns is that state funds are often insufficient to help towns maintain and improve school buildings properly over the years, whereas significant grants are available to tear them down and build new ones.
This leaves towns with difficult override votes, followed by tax increases that can last for 20 years or more.
• An $83 million building project is an incredibly complex undertaking, something that has become increasingly difficult to present to the public who will have to pay for it. We are a far cry from the old wooden schoolhouse with a pot belly stove for heat and chairs in rows, bolted down to the floor. In those days, the public could easily understand what was being built and vote accordingly. Now it's a completely different story.
No, I'm not recommending returning to that era, but our government decision making process is still quite similar to what it was back then. We still have meetings and votes, we just have more people, more requirements, more details, and much greater costs involved. We've added telephones, cars, radio, TV, web sites, social media, and cell phones to our lives since those old days, yielding a level of complexity unimaginable back then. It's no wonder that many people feel overwhelmed by government process and opt to let others make decisions for them, for better or worse.
The Future:
It is human nature to postpone major changes until a crisis occurs. Again and again, I hear recommendations that we become more proactive, instead of reactive. That is, look at where trends are going and start developing plans for alternatives before the crisis is on top of us. We certainly live in times of rapid and profound change, which makes future projections even more daunting. And yet, I think finding at least some time to examine where we're headed is worth it. As our tax funded education systems become more and more expensive over time, just waiting for the crisis doesn't seem like a good idea.
If the task of significantly changing the current system just seems impossible, may I suggest we look at how learning is supported in other countries, in other non-public schools, and in various other traditions. Of course, we may not want to just copy what others are doing, but we can certainly learn something and adapt it for our own purposes. Learning is a life long endeavor, after all, not just for those in school.

§ § §

Note: If you discover any errors or factual inaccuracies in my reporting, please click once on the headline of the news story in question, then scroll down to the comment box and fill it in. I will endeavor to make changes as necessary.

6 Comments

Catherine Loeb

5/6/2023 10:24:02 am

One concern I have that I don't believe came up the other night is this:

The state recently set climate goals for us all to achieve by 2050. What happens if we put in a gas-fired boiler now and then are forced to reduce our carbon emissions well before the life span of the boiler? Yes, the building will have the electric in place to become "renewables ready", but at what future cost to switch over? This is another unknown. Wouldn't it be better to 'do it right' from the beginning?

Glenn Swanbon

5/6/2023 02:08:23 pm

There is no such thing as a free lunch when it comes to energy and in particular energy. There are pros and cons to every source. There seems to be this automatic assumption that gas will increase in price more then electricity. If you look at a state like CA they have had drastic electricity price increases exarcerbated by over aggressive mandates on EVs and renewables (brown outs as well).

The bigger fish to fry with respect to greenhouse emissions is coal which still accounts for 20% of our electricity production and countries like China are building new plants. Natural gas won’t go away once the reality of the limitations of renewables sets in. They can’t do it alone you need either large scale Hydro (available in only a few places, nuclear (should be used more but no shortage of detractors, natural, or some combination of them.

Glenn C. Koeng link

5/7/2023 10:45:25 pm

Glenn Swanbon - I agree that there are pros and cons to everything. And it's true that predicting the future is a difficult task. So I do my best.
Here’s what I see: The track record for renewables over the last 20 years shows astounding progress, despite the critics, who kept saying it was a fools errand during that entire time. What I see now is a well funded continuing effort to improve renewables across the board. To me, there is no question that solar, wind, and battery technologies will continue to increase efficiency, reduce costs, and reduce environmental impact (e.g. new battery chemistries will reduce reliance on lithium and other rare elements). I see government, at all levels, and the public in general, getting behind this progress.
What I see for natural gas is dwindling resources. We ran out of gas from ordinary wells, in major regions of the US, so we started using an expensive, energy intensive, and environmentally damaging method called “fracking” to wring more gas trapped deep in bedrock. What happens when that’s gone? To me, there is no reason to pursue such an effort. Better to get out of the gas business as quickly as practical.
Then there is the question of the atmosphere. Of course there is a lot of controversy, but in the long run, based on a preponderance of research, it seems very clear that fossil fuel use of any kind is critically damaging the climate, so it behoves us to eliminate as much of it as we can.
I cannot control what they do in China, but what I can do is work hard to eliminate use of all fossil fuels as soon as possible, and, at the same time, work to solve the problems that will arise (and have arisen) in making that transition. It will take time. There will be problems to be solved, technologically, as well as economically and politically. I say, it’s worth it. And, to me, making America Great means to serve as an example for the rest of the world - we can do this and you can it as well, so let’s all work together, as much as we can, to bring about a cleaner, more healthy world.

Sarah Pryputniewicz

5/9/2023 12:08:53 pm

As for natural gas reserves, there is no notable decrease in the amount of proved reserves in the United States.

Check out the actual data on the EIA website:
https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/natural-gas/how-much-gas-is-left.php

https://www.eia.gov/naturalgas/crudeoilreserves/

Natural gas is a huge component of how we generate electricity in MA (and the US). It's a source that's not fickle, like the sunshine or the wind.

As for making the environment cleaner/better, the US has changed a great deal just in my lifetime. I look back at historical photos of smog and polluted rivers before the 1970s. I look around today, and with few exceptions, I don't see the evidence of pollution everywhere.

Natural gas is a much cleaner fuel than coal, and the use of natural gas instead of coal has been a boon to the environment.

Instead of advocating for one electricity source over another, since ALL of them have significant negative environmental effects, we would do much better in considering whether so much electricity is needed.

It's the old (and decidedly unsexy) concept of the negawatt. It's also far cheaper to use less electricity than to figure out "greener" ways to use the same amount or more.

Glenn C. Koenig link

5/9/2023 08:52:06 pm

Sarah, I agree with you that conservation is one of the best ways (the "negawatt") to reduce our environmental impact. I also agree that we have come a long way to reduce smog and other forms of pollution.
However, the remaining critical form of pollution is exactly what we cannot see or smell: Carbon dioxide and methane build up in the atmosphere. I acknowledge that there has been much debate about this, but I am firmly convinced that we cannot risk damaging the entire planet with what we're doing, based on the best evidence I have found.
As for significant environmental impact, I would consider fracking a significant one, as well as aging gas distribution infrastructure (which leaks methane). As conservation measures become more widely accepted, and as the technology for electricity generation advances to reduce it’s environmental impact, the demand for gas will drop, but the problem of that aging infrastructure has no practical recourse. Digging up and replacing thousands of miles of pipe under our streets and roads is, in my opinion, way too expensive and wasteful to undertake.
Just as gas supplanted coal in the past, now renewables are replacing gas. It’s inevitable. That is why I am in favor of banning gas in all new buildings, from now on.

5/10/2023 03:43:29 pm

A few thoughts:

1. Maynard is a small town in a small state. What we do (or don't do) here to ban/use less/use more natural gas/heating oil/propane will not make a whit of difference on the global scale. Even if the entire state of Massachusetts were to somehow stop emitting any carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels, there would be no detectable difference globally. If the entire United States were somehow to be made magically fossil-fuel free, there would be such a negligible change in the global levels of carbon dioxide and methane.

2. Relying on intermittent electricity sources (which is what wind and solar are) means that electricity will be intermittent. This is how a large portion of the world lives. It is decidedly not what most Americans are accustomed to. If the electrical supply is unreliable, more people will use portable generators, which pollute more per unit of electricity generated than the bigger electrical plants.

3. EVERY energy source has negative effects on the environment. Pit mines to extract materials to make solar cells and batteries are hugely polluting. I would highly recommend reading Cobalt Red, by Siddarth Kara, about the mining of cobalt. The book is available through the Minuteman Public Library system.

This doesn't even start to get into the issue of needing far more copper to fully electrify everything. See https://www.forbes.com/sites/jimvinoski/2023/04/28/theres-not-enough-copper-for-our-electrification-plansand-biden-is-making-it-worse/?sh=1a18a7481fbf

The sheer size of wind and solar installations needed is another issue that people living in cities and suburbs ignore. Yes, you can have solar on your rooftop and it doesn't negatively affect your life. But there's increasing solar field encroachment in rural areas, on land that was used for agriculture. It's clearly unsustainable to remove land from food production to make electricity.

See https://www.wsj.com/articles/inflation-reduction-act-backlash-clean-energy-wind-solar-f3d4d900?st=tohv4ikms9f80ci&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink

Reliance on one or two different sources (i.e. wind and solar) for energy means that you're at the mercy of the availability of those one or two sources. And that the many mineral and other resources to make the devices to capture the "free" power will be used more heavily.

4. There's an old adage about not putting all of one's eggs in a single basket. Without a mix of energy sources, the system is more fragile, subject to single point failures. A mixed system (with fossil fuels, nuclear, wind, and solar) is much more robust.

Green Meadow School Building Public Meeting

=== Comment ===

Leave a Reply.

Author

Archives

Categories