Griffin Memorial School (GMS) is an aging school, one that is near (and perhaps even past) its useful lifetime. The history and various problems with GMS are detailed in other pages on the site. This page gives a quick take on the various options considered by the building committee in order to address these problems. Their ultimate duty was to recommend a solution that met the needs of our children in regards to safety, education and environment. Additionaly, their duty was to recommend an equitable solution in terms of taxpayer impact. The tables immediately below outline the various options considered, costs and considerations for each. Following the detailed tables is a summary table and an analysis comparing all of the options. If you read anything on this page, make sure it is this analysis.

We can see the rising construction costs that have taken place each year in past school proposals in the following table. The increases are startling enough to highlight. Please note that to keep the construction costs of the 2008 proposal close to the 2006 proposal, the building committee worked with the architect in cutting back many things and by using space in creative manners. Note that the chart does not include any financial grant money, and that the cost to the taxpayer for this year's project is $14.5 million after state assistance.

Year:	Total Construction Cost:
2004	$14.2 Million
2005	$19.8 Million
2006	$22.1 Million
2008	$22.2 Million
Future?	It's not going to go down! If you are worried about increased taxes, let's get it done NOW.

Synopsis:	Renovations to GMS, includes no new space.	Following state guidelines, there would only be space for 4th and 5th grade Possibility of losing state aid (30%) if the water problem is not fixed Does not address where to put Pre-K through 3rd grade
Cost:	$10.5 million

Synopsis:	Renovations and additions to GMS; add a second floor.	State Dept. of Ed. stated that they will not approve any additions onto GMS. The entire cost would have to be shouldered by the town. Cost was undetermined because geotechnical studies could not be performed (due to groundwater issues) to see if footings could be poured for a second floor; this was a rather large unknown.
Cost:	Unknown

Synopsis:	Renovations and addition to GMS, first and second floor additions.	State will not approve any additions onto GMS so residents would shoulder the entire cost of construction and renovation Cost may be more due to unknowns regarding second floor construction and lack of geotechnical studies
Cost:	$28.5 million plus

Synopsis:	New two story school near LMS, no expanded core.	Should the school ever need expansion, the most expensive parts are the cafeteria, kitchen and library (all considered core areas). The building committee felt it best to build the exterior walls of these areas to town capacity and try to use the space creatively. Building a smaller core would result in paying more money in the future for expansion, which is what happened with LMS several years ago; it is less expensive to plan ahead.
Cost:	$27.85 million

Synopsis:	New two story school near LMS, expanded core, SAU offices.	Too expensive to include the SAU offices and opted to keep the SAU at Campbell.
Cost:	$29.28 million

Synopsis:	G4-G5: Renovate GMS, remove 1930's portion. PreK-G3: New smaller school.	The possibility of losing state funding for GMS due to water issues still remains. The total cost does not take into consideration the costs for operating, maintaining, staffing, bussing, etc. for two schools.
Cost:	$31.1 million (GMS $10.1M, New $21M)

Synopsis:	PreK-K: Renovate GMS, remove portions. G1-G5: New smaller school.	The possibility of losing state funding for GMS due to water issues still remains. The total cost does not take into consideration the costs for operating, maintaining, staffing, bussing, etc. for two schools. The total project cost is more expensive than a one school option in just the construction phase.
Cost:	$32.1 million (GMS $5.9M, New $26.2M)

Synopsis:	New two story school near LMS, no SAU offices.	This was the option selected by the school committee. The core areas are the library, cafeteria, kitchen and gymnasium. The difference between a small and full sized gym is only $75,000, so the larger gym was selected. The exterior walls for the core areas are designed to meet future expansion size. These other core areas are portioned off creatively to meet other needs, and to save money (i.e. a music room in the cafeteria core, computer lab in the library). If future expansion is needed in these core areas, the interior walls can easily be removed. SAU offices would remain at CHS. The committee shaved $5.5 million off the original project cost of $27.7 million.
Cost:	$22.2 million

Here is a quick table comparing the costs involved for each option. The  orange  cells indicate whether the option includes GMS renovations, a new school, or both. The  green  column indicates the option that was put forth to the town as school board warrant article 1. The  yellow  cells under options C-1, C-2 and D are highlighted to point out that these options did not even have kindergarten planned in the figures, because at the time, the district had not yet been told by the state that a building without kindergarten would be approved for state aid. So, taking a conservative approach, these entries were seeded with values based on the kindergarten portion costs of option F to give a rough idea on what the end cost might be.

	A	B-1	B-2	C-1	C-2	D	E	F
GMS: Renovate	No adds	Add to 2nd	Add to 1st/2nd			G4-G5	PreK-K
New School				Small Core	Big Core, SAU	PreK-G3	G1-G5	Big Core, No SAU
Project Cost	$10.5 M	Unknown	$28.5 M+	$27.9 M	$29.3 M	$31.1 M	$32.1 M	$22.2 M
30% State Aid	Unlikely	No	No	$7.9 M	$8.3 M	$6.3 M	$7.9 M	$6.2 M
Kindergarten Aid	No	No	No	$1.1 M	$1.1 M	$1.1 M	No	$1.1 M
Impact Fees	No	No	No	$0.4 M	$0.4 M	$0.4 M	No	$0.4 M
Adjusted Cost	$10.5 M	Unknown	$28.5 M+	$18.5 M	$19.5 M	$23.5 M	$24.2 M	$14.5 M

In a nutshell, any option involving GMS would have all costs almost certainly be shouldered entirely by the town. GMS has just too many issues; in fact, so many that the state will not approve ANY sort of addition, and as a result will not grant any financial assistance to any such project. In any case, even if renovated, GMS is a building just waiting for the occurrence of a major system malfunction. It is also a build that is well past its prime, as is evidenced by the images in the GMS slideshow. If nothing is done, GMS will simply continue to be a money pit devouring our precious tax revenues. Refer to the maintenance cost analysis included elsewhere on the site.

The building would never pass inspection in its present state if it were not grandfathered. The building does not have sprinkler protection against fire hazard. GMS has a very large water problem. This is a problem so large that dehumidifiers in the classrooms remove ninety gallons of water (yes, 90!) per DAY out of the AIR. CORRECTED 3/2/2009: This should read: On many days, up to ninety (90) gallons of water are removed from the dehumidifiers that are throughout the building. This correction was raised by Mr. Miller back in early 2008, but was only updated on the GMS issues page, and not here. That does not even take into consideration the moisture that is present in the concrete, under the tiles, and on the floors and walls. One rug, which was installed several years ago, was recently pulled up... and the glue had never dried - it was still wet.

The least expensive option, A, does not address any of these issues, nor what would happen if a major mechanical system fails. The same holds for options B-1 and B-2. Options D and E also are affected by those issues. In addition to that, options D and E incur additional costs to the taxpayer in the form of operating and maintenance expenses for two schools rather than one.

This leaves options C-1, C-2 and F. C-1 was designed with smaller core areas, which would end up being yet another problem for the town in a few years when enrollment pushes the limits of the school's capacity. It would mean another warrant article, another vote, and another bond. The difference between C-2 and F are the SAU offices. The board went with option F (no SAU offices) to reduce the cost to the taxpayer. The board knocked off $5.5 million by various creative reductions, yet leaving the core spaces at a size that will support Litchfield's growth for many years to come.

So, when examining the two least expensive options, A and F, one question begs to be answered. What would be your preference, a GMS renovation for $10.5 million, or a new school and no more GMS problems for $4 million more?