Granby01033

This is a long post with God knows how many proofreading errors. I've done my best to present our building problems without raising undue alarm. I like to know everything I can before offering my opinion. Right now, I'm frustrated because I can't find the Department of Environmental Protection regulations, and I haven't found the Massachusetts General Laws that govern when renovations require everything in a building to be brought up to code.

In the run up to the override vote, I left out the what if's associated with not going forward. Why? People don't want to here about what could happen. They want things to be definite. Nay sayers tend to latch on negative possibilities as threats and chicken littlism. When the public isn't up to speed on an issue, they tend to fall back on feelings and prejudices. Anyway, I could have published something about potential fines Granby could experience, but I didn't want to confuse the issue.

I've received emails from people asking, what next? What can happen if we don't do something with the schools? Paul Kneedler sent me this list (30 minutes before he emailed to say that Skanska, which hasn't received any money for its work for us, can't do anymore without actually being paid; they were working for free pending being hired for a feasibility study).

Whether or not Granby is fined depends on three things: 1) the type and number of deficiencies our school buildings have 2) the DEP deciding to fine us 3) Granby addressing our building deficiencies to the satisfaction of the DEP.

Before I talk about the building deficiencies, one thing you should know: our school building deficiencies don't result from lack of maintenance, preventative or otherwise. Our schools have actually been well-maintained. Unfortunately, there are TWO problems: 1) things wear out and become obsolete 2) building codes have changed.  

According to Paul Kneedler, Granby is violating Department of Environmental Protection (DEP/DWP) codes. How do he know? As part of the school building process, Granby was required to do studies to document the building conditions. These studies, by the way, were conducted by a completely different company, not Skanska.

The DEP deficiencies include:

1. System Staffing Plan (I think it has to do with septic system issues).
2. Emergency Response Plan (Seems to involve water contamination and waste water emergencies).
3. Nonconforming well location (Seems pretty clear to me).
4. School related work within the current well’s Zone I recharge area (Actually found this one. See p. 4).
5. Current storage tanks (I think this means school septic tanks. I don't think we have any other tanks that receive waste water).
6. Boiler Room drain discharge to the septic system (I guess you're not supposed to do that).

Having turned down the feasibility study, Granby is not be eligible for monies from the MSBA to research and remedy these code deficiencies.  Aside from paying for these fixes, Granby could be on the hook for fines going back to February 2009 when the town agreed to have funding in place for this related work. (There could conceivably be non-school building grants available for some of these deficiencies, but that's only speculation). Even without retroactive fines, the daily fines for the code deficiencies and violations can add up. Here are the current daily fines for DEP deficiencies/violations :

1. 1^st 30 days = $100 per day per violation (Is that $600 a day?)
2. 31-90 days = $250 per day per violation (Is that $1500 a day?)
3. 91+ days =  $500 per day per violation (Get the picture?)

There are also  additional requirements for school upgrades/renovations. Unfortunately, I don't know what they are. According to Paul Kneedler, there are items requiring repair along side the DEP deficiencies to maintain present school conditions. All costs for these required upgrades will fall on the town's shoulders.

The next big if is whether or not the combined cost of these two items meet or exceed code requirements mandating each school buildings affected be brought up to present day codes and regulations? I've written about this since 2007. According to Massachusetts law, a certain amount of renovation requires ALL of a building to be brought up to code. If this happens, Granby will be on the hook for figuring out solutions to these additional code deficiencies brought on by the DEP and required upgrade work. Given the number of studies we've done in the last 10 years, we know that engineering and such doesn't come cheap.

Another issue to consider: the economics of operating Granby schools in their present state of affairs. We all know the meaning of the phrase "penny wise, pound foolish."  Will it cost us more money to run our old, worn out schools or to build new ones? I don't know the answer, but my guess is that a new building would be less expensive to run.

School accreditation is done by the NEASC. After a school studies itself and produces a series of reports, a team from the NEASC comes in and checks things out. South Hadley High School lost accreditation for a while. I don't know how bad Granby school buildings would have to be before Granby lost accreditation. It's a possibility, but have no idea how the building conditions would have to be to lose accreditation.

Mark