Stokes: 'No' to school-land purchase
(Winston-Salem Journal) - Stokes County commissioners did not authorize the purchase of land for a new elementary school or set aside money for school-capital projects at a meeting Monday night.
That means that the next step in determining the fate of Nancy Reynolds Elementary School and a new elementary school for the King area will be a joint meeting between the Stokes County commissioners and school-board members.
The need for a new elementary school to relieve overcrowding at King and Mount Olive elementary schools is clear. When it comes to the best path to take with Nancy Reynolds Elementary School, which opened in 1923, consensus may never be reached.
That means that the next step in determining the fate of Nancy Reynolds Elementary School and a new elementary school for the King area will be a joint meeting between the Stokes County commissioners and school-board members.
The need for a new elementary school to relieve overcrowding at King and Mount Olive elementary schools is clear. When it comes to the best path to take with Nancy Reynolds Elementary School, which opened in 1923, consensus may never be reached.
posted by BP News Bureau | 12:00 PM
3 Comments:
The following was presented by members of the community at Monday's commissioners meeting.
Nancy Reynolds Historical Committee to the Stokes County Board of Commissioners
Monday, November 24, 2008
*
WE ARE HERE TONIGHT, because…
#1 - We want to update the Board of Commissioners on the information received by the Board of Education regarding the structural needs of Nancy Reynolds and the option of renovation.
#2 - We EXPECT an independent review of SfL+a’s long range planning study.
#3 - We EXPECT to have a historical renovation study conducted on Nancy Reynolds, as originally voted to do by the Board of Education on February 18, 2008.
#4 – We EXPECT the support of the Stokes County Commissioners on this endeavor.
#5 - Renovation IS an option.
*
Introduction
We the people would like to make you aware of the concern and the battle that the Nancy Reynolds community has been subjected to for the second time since our school has been in existence. The Board of Education has not heard the people. They have determined what they want to do with the money, once allotted, with no consideration of what the people really want.
Nancy Jane Cox Reynolds gave a gift that just keeps on giving to Stokes County. She shared her wealth with the people of this County willingly and continues to share even in death. She entrusted her gift to the people of this County, and we have not been good stewards of her generosity. Had we been good stewards and performed the proper maintenance on her as needed, we would not be standing before you tonight. We do not reward her legacy by using and abusing her and casting her aside as if she means nothing. Nancy Reynolds means something to all who have reaped the benefits of a good education in a beautiful environment as they walked the halls of the school they proudly called their alma mater.
Nancy Reynolds is not only important to this community, but for all of Stokes County. We cannot allow this school to be destroyed, because if we do, we will have failed our children in preserving a piece of the past for them to see and touch.
We all want the best education and facilities possible for our children. But, there will always be priorities, and we have to address them one at a time. For 85 years, Nancy Reynolds has given to others and now all she asks is that we give a portion back to continue providing a place for our youth’s education.
The Stokes County Board of Education tried to imply that they didn’t know how much it would cost for renovation, and once started, it could open up a whole can of worms, implying the price might exceed more than what they projected. They really don’t want to spend anymore than what it would cost to build a new school (assuming new would cost less than renovation), so they can spend the remainder of the 22 million elsewhere. They see a can of worms; we see a can of candy. The difference is in the eye of the beholder.
Henry David Thoreau said, “What lies before us and what lies beyond are tiny compared to what lies within us.” We know the people of Nancy Reynolds have a passion within them for this school and we are not looking at dollars and cents for the long overdue maintenance for Nancy Reynolds.
Nancy Jane Cox Reynolds has been a mother to thousands of children who have walked her halls. She has provided a home away from home and a sanctuary during many storms during 85 years.
We CANNOT, we SHOULD NOT, and WE WILL NOT allow her to be destroyed!
*
Historical Significance
Nancy Reynolds was given to the community in 1923 by brothers William and Walter Reynolds as a memorial to their mother, Nancy Jane Cox Reynolds, for $25,000. Nancy Jane was an educated woman. Her passion for education led her sons to commemorate her memory by erecting a building, on her original home place. The school served as a symbol, unifying the community for the past 85 years. During the early ‘30’s, the school was growing and Mr. Will Reynolds came to the rescue by adding two additional wings and fourteen classrooms and a recreational basement. In 1951, a $125,000 gym was built by Mr. Will Reynolds, which was the pride of the County. In 1956, the Z. Smith Reynolds Foundation provided the funds to build an additional Vocational Education Building for $35,000. Since then, the building itself has undergone renovations and additions, but all the while, leaving the integrity of the architecture in tact.
This school is historically significant because it represents the backbone of what this part of our state was built upon, which is an ideal that is slowly slipping away before us as we journey into a more technologically, fast paced, instant gratifying society. It is a symbol of integrity, honor and loyalty on behalf of families, community and education. It is a part of our state history, our county history and, most importantly, our community history. History is hard to come by these days, and as educators, and members of the community, we should be adamant in regards to the preservation of all things that will eventually be lost.
*
How did we get here? Poor Stewardship
Too often, ADA, fire safety and other important requirements are used as an excuse to demolish a valued school. Smaller community schools that have held neighborhoods together are destroyed without competent evaluations of their potential for continued use through modernization. Deferred maintenance on existing schools can very well set the stage for demolition of historic schools. Sometimes the failure to maintain schools properly reflect the simple lack of funds for maintenance. Often, it reflects a deliberate strategy to let buildings deteriorate and then to use their deterioration as justification for demolishing a school and replacing it with a new one. This is called “demolition by neglect.” We would not be fighting for the preservation of Nancy Reynolds School at this time if the required maintenance had been done on the school a little at a time over the past years.
On January 23rd, during a joint session of the boards, Bill Hart noted that they were talking about a problem that was talked about 20 years ago. He stressed making sure other phases continue after Phase I. In that same meeting, Sonya Cox commended commissioners in getting the Board of Education to the point that they could talk about the school financially. She stated that the dilemma had opened the Board’s eyes and she was excited about the planned structural analysis. She felt that both Boards had been talking about this way too long and that it was time to start Phase 1.
On February 18th, at the regular session of the Board of Education, Mr. Hart made a motion to retain SfL+a to provide a long-range school facilities plan and to retain Ersoy, Brake & Appleyard to complete a facility study, specific to Nancy Reynolds. The motion passed 5-0. Dr. Hobbs and Mr. Hart shared that out of 8 architectural firms interviewed that Ersoy, Brake and Appleyard was the best qualified to offer an opinion and to complete a restoration at Nancy Reynolds, given their specialty in renovation.
On March 17th, at the regular session of the Board of Education, Dr. Hobbs requested the addition of Item C, Ersoy, Brake & Appleyard, to the discussion agenda. And this is the last we heard of Ersoy, Brake and Appleyard, other than the night of September 30th, when Dr. Hobbs stated that the board did not retain them due to the $13,000 up front retainer. After some research, it was discovered that some of the $13,000 up front retainer fee would have been credited for any duplicative work in the schematic phase.
On September 30th, during our first town hall meeting, when questioned about the past board’s neglect regarding Nancy Reynolds, Chairman Steve Shelton quickly retorted that the current administration cannot answer or be held accountable for past administrations. We, the people, have been victims of neglect by our elected officials too long. At this point, we do not feel that we should be subjected to any more oversights by the present board. This board should take action to correct previous administration’s neglect and elevate Nancy Reynolds to the status she deserves.
It was also during this town hall meeting that Dr. Hobbs introduced the firm selected to perform the long-range study on all 18 schools. The architect, SfL+a, presented the following options regarding Nancy Reynolds: (1) renovation, (2) replace facility with a new school on the existing site, (3) replace the facility with a new school on a new site in an area adjacent to the original facility or (4) replace the facility with a new school, on a new site combined with Francisco. The presentation given by SfL+a stated that if renovation was the ultimate goal, the 1920’s section would need to be replaced, the unused rooms corrected and building and site brought up to code. What does “unused rooms corrected” mean? Mr. Hughes, the architect’s spokesperson, stated that renovation was possible, but that it would take money. Dr. Hobbs stated that it would take an “intensive study” by the architects and engineers to determine what could be done and what it would cost. He also noted that it would take months to complete the research and it would not be cut and dry, and he believed in getting all the information possible before making a decision. The initial figures analyzed in that meeting stated that the money it would cost to replace the facility would be “economically close” to what it would cost to renovate. Dr. Hobbs acknowledged that he understood that the community ultimately wanted renovation of the building. Mr. Shelton also allowed the other board members to show their affirmation by nodding their heads up and down “yes,” they understood what the community wanted.
After that meeting, the people were under the impression the board knew we wanted Nancy Reynolds renovated and to remain as an elementary school. We also understood they would be undertaking an “intensive” study on renovation and bringing those results back to the community. Instead they were back within 41 days, and we were told renovation was NOT an option.
After just forty-one days, on November 10, 2008, the Board of Education held another meeting at Nancy Reynolds and presented new options: (1) reconstruction of the school on the existing site, (2) building a new school on the existing site, or (3) building a new school on a new site and the “old, tired, 1920’s building” be used as a community center. So now, where would YOU like to be shot -- in the head, the neck or the toe? Of course, we didn’t want to be shot at all, but getting shot was presented as our only option!! The last option was somewhat ironic in that the board’s architects had earlier advised the board that the building was not structurally sound enough to use as a community center.
The School Board ultimately “envisioned” the extent of renovation and took it off the table, using the “shock and awe” tactic to confuse all those present. Sonya Cox had to stand up at the end of the meeting and express her confusion regarding the wishes of the community now. How on Earth could anyone make a two second decision after being sucker punched in the jaw? According to the materials provided by the board, the issues for the renovation of the facility noted a standard list that was nothing specific to Nancy Reynolds and that they “envisioned” what the renovation MAY consist of when a specific study had not been completed on Nancy Reynolds. They also based this decision on ONE firm’s proposal -- the same firm that previously stated that renovation WAS an option. Now, if you had been diagnosed with a life threatening disease or were told by your lifelong doctor that you had thirty days to live, would you trust what that ONE doctor had to say about you, or would you consult someone else for a second opinion? With something on the line as precious as your life, without a doubt a second opinion would be sought. The same thing holds true regarding the diagnosis of Nancy Reynolds. There should be a second opinion, more tests run, more research completed, more data gathered before a conclusive decision is made.
Taxpayers in the geographical area of the Nancy Reynolds community, according to the tax office, contributed more than $1,261,000 over the past 4 years in taxes. Over a period of 20 years, it has been estimated that this same area has contributed approximately $20 million dollars. Now consider what has been contributed by this same area in the past 85 years!!!
*
Get Your Facts Straight
Insurance: The architect, hired by the Board, stated that renovations to the school could not be insured, but that the full value of the new construction would be insured for the full amount. This information is incorrect.
Sentiment of Community: On October 25, in an email, Steve Shelton stated that there was a growing sentiment in the community that a new school would be in the best interest of the students with the old building preserved for some other use. What community meetings has Mr. Shelton been attending?
Codes: “Old schools were built before modern codes were written, but “this does not mean the buildings are not safe,” the National Trust says. Communities need to consider code compliance alternatives rather than strictly enforce the codes. [Several states, (e.g. New Jersey, Maryland and North Carolina), have adopted codes that recognize the special circumstances of older buildings]” (Z. Smith Reynolds Foundation). The firm hired by the Board is not knowledgeable with historical preservation guidelines in North Carolina.
History of the School: On September 30, Dr. Hobbs had said that Nancy Reynolds was built in 1927. Nancy Reynolds was built in 1923.
Foundation of Nancy Reynolds: Mr. Shelton stated that the structure of Nancy Reynolds was unsound and that the foundation of Nancy Reynolds consisted of a trench with brick placed directly on the ground with no footings. The board’s architect, however, stated during one of their workshops that the “four corners of Nancy Reynolds had not moved in 85 years and that it must be built on a solid rock.”
The emails of Steve Shelton state that they have no problem with anyone in the community doing whatever research they can in the preservation of Nancy Reynolds school; however, a letter encouraging attendance to this meeting was prohibited from being distributed because it would imply that the school “sanctioned” the request, even though the letter was signed by the Nancy Reynolds Historical Committee.
Dates of Additions and Renovations and Construction: SfL+a stated in their report that in 1975, more classrooms were added as well as an auditorium and music classroom. The auditorium is part of the original 1923 structure; how was it just added in 1975? Nothing was built; the floor plan was reconfigured. It appears that the architects are bewildered when it comes to facts.
Underserved Toilets as Key Issue: How is the school underserved by toilets when there is the same number available now as there were in 1959 when there were approximately 335 students and staff and the building was a high school, as opposed to 175 students now and an elementary school?
Cafeteria Issues: During the 1959-60 school year, approximately 315 children walked the halls, were educated, and dined in the same cafeteria.
POD Issues: Why is this an issue when the renovation could be completed in phases without kids being housed in “PODS” or going off site? Classrooms could be set up in the gym (as has been done in the past) and the agriculture building in the back.
*
Endowment Fund
I am Chris Holland and I am on the Endowment Board at Nancy Reynolds School. The Endowment fund was established by the will of Mrs. Kate Bitting Reynolds stating that money was to be used for grounds purposes and/or grounds beautification. I am here tonight to explain how much the Endowment fund has relieved the County in regards to maintaining the grounds at Nancy Reynolds through tax dollars and labor.
The endowment fund at Nancy Reynolds has purchased:
all lawn mowing equipment
all of the play ground equipment
paving for the parking lots,
walkways to the trailer classrooms
tree pruning services for insurance reasons
fencing around all of the campus
vinyl for outdoor concession and field house
two outdoor storage buildings
outdoor restroom facilities
picnic tables
the detached deck
entry rugs
and all shrubbery and flowers used to beautify this historic site,
which has alleviated these expenditures from the County.
By utilizing the generous gift of the Endowment fund, we have saved tax dollars for use on other projects throughout the County, enabling the County to use monies that would have been spent at Nancy Reynolds on other entities, within the county, as well as other schools---money that the County did not have to budget to the Board of Education. From July 2002 to June 2007, the endowment fund has spent over $47,600 on the maintenance of the school grounds. We have not reaped any benefits of the savings. Simply look at the eaves, bell tower, and read the reports regarding our building now.
We believe this school can be kept open as a great learning institution with a little more research. It appears to me that a school, gym and land that has been given to the County along with an endowment fund that has maintained the grounds of the school, even though our tax monies are supposedly budgeted for these purposes and are being used elsewhere, a school that was even kept open during the Depression by the Reynolds family so our families could still receive an education, those people are the very students who helped build this County. The family that dedicated this school to their mother deserves a little more than three or four months consideration after 85 years of education. We expect more time and effort be placed in this decision after all the families, neighbors, community members and leaders and even corporations that have kept this facility open for 85 years.
We, the Nancy Reynolds community, the school with the greatest view from its ball field, beside of the largest gym in the County, that sits in front of the coolest playground, according to the students, which is on the land of a one of a kind, historic, operational, elementary school, known as Nancy Reynolds Elementary, want our school to continue to operate renovated and up-to-date, but located on that hill on Highway 66 in Stokes County.
*
Renovation IS Possible
School districts, who are faced with the dilemma of overcrowding and building neglect, hire architects to perform a facility evaluation for all the schools in the district. “Such evaluations tend to be very superficial and are used to determine the broad outlines of need” and many times “school districts hire architects and professionals who know a lot more about designing new buildings than renovating older ones” With this in mind, there are positive aspects to renovation versus building a new facility.
Case Studies:
According to the National Trust for Historic Preservation in 2000, old schools were one of America’s top eleven endangered historical sites. In the surrounding area, there are no historical schools in Surry or Yadkin, only one in Forsyth, and one in Rockingham County. Nancy Reynolds is the only school in Stokes County that can boast as a historical school site. Renovation of endangered schools is not impossible. There are schools across the country, and in NC, who have renovated, and have done so successfully, and with children in the classrooms.
In 2000, Albemarle School in Stanley County was in jeopardy of being demolished. Before the school board made its decision to renovate, advocates visited two other schools that had been renovated in the general locale. The first was George Watts Elementary in Durham and the second was C. G. Credle Elementary in Oxford. Renovations of C. G. Credle were done in phases, allowing education to continue inside the structure itself.
Presently, Albemarle boasts an amazing floor plan, an up to date, state of the art facility in which test scores have increased, student, teacher, parent and community support has increased, and the overall morale of the community has grown astronomically. Not only does the school hold its structural integrity, it is also a safe environment for the students.
In the end, the cost to renovate Albemarle was still cheaper than building a new facility, even after cost over runs. The feasibility study completed by the company hired by the school system was significantly more than the study completed by an independent company hired by the school advocates. All three of these positive renovation projects faced county sabotage by facilities neglect, but eventually prevailed.
In a constant fight to save the history of our country, who would argue that symbols are more important than ever in this era of renewed American patriotism?
North Carolina adopted special codes for older buildings. Often times, new buildings do not even meet some specific building codes. In order for the codes to be interpreted correctly, an experienced historical architect, who is familiar with these codes, must be utilized. The codes set aside for historical buildings can be implemented in reference to this objective, but one must also know how to interpret them.
Renovation can be done in phases and during the summer; therefore, allowing the education process to continue. A historic school building provides a place in which children not only learn about, but also experience history. An older school that has anchored a neighborhood for generations represents tradition and continuity; these are important assets to a child.
In the July 21st regular School Board Session, SfL+a presented, as part of their recommendation, extensive additions and renovations, which could occur in phases, for Southeastern Middle. If this type of work could be done for them, why was it not an option for Nancy Reynolds?
Although many historic schools have suffered from deferred maintenance and other problems, they were generally solidly built often with great craftsmanship and architectural distinction. With the help of creative architects and sensible state policies, many school districts have demonstrated that historic schools can be brought up to 21st century standards and continue to serve the neighborhoods they anchored 50, 75 or even 100 years ago.
Nancy Reynolds, over the past years, has received band-aids and now a major renovation would renew the school to last another 50-70 years with no more maintenance than a new building would require.
*
Positive Aspects of Renovation
Careful renovation can reduce waste intended for landfills, decrease air pollution, and save dwindling natural resources. The Environmental Protection Agency estimates every square foot of non-residential building demolished adds 155 pounds of solid waste to area landfills.
In these struggling economic times, the process of renovation can create jobs in the community because it is more labor intense. New buildings actually require more maintenance since they lack the quality construction of an earlier era. Will a new school last 25 or 50 years? Nancy Reynolds has been here for 85 years and can last another 50-75 years with proper renovation.
The board’s architect has recommended the community’s least favored option, but IT IS the cheapest according to their estimates. Another board member agrees with the architect, at this point, and said he would rather “take one of the cheaper options” on Nancy Reynolds, in order to save money and spend it in another district. Commissioner Carroll was quoted as saying that the Board of Education should take into consideration due respect to the history and geography of Stokes County, and that the most cost effective route is not necessarily the best route when making decisions for school facilities needs.
*
Conclusion
The Board has not fulfilled their due diligence on this project. Despite the Board’s claim that they are not responsible for the past, they are responsible for what happens in this situation. Everyone is watching and waiting on the decision concerning Nancy Reynolds.
YOU are also responsible, commissioners. Nancy Reynolds is no longer just another school. She has become a historical monument for Stokes County that is in danger of being destroyed. The problems we face today are the same problems we faced twenty years ago. Why has it taken twenty years to finally see that this is an issue that needs not only to be addressed, but also acted upon?
The Nancy Reynolds community is just as deserving as any other district!
We expect that everything that needs to be done will be done. If we allow Nancy Reynolds to be reconstructed or demolished, we have absolutely destroyed a piece of history we can never get back.
Do you want that to be YOUR legacy?
After 85 years, you OWE it to Nancy Reynolds. You OWE it to this community. It is OUR turn to have tax money spent on OUR school in OUR district.
*
Questions:
Has the Board of Education carried out their fiscal responsibility?
ABSOLUTELY NOT!
Has the Board of Education completed a special historical facility study on Nancy Reynolds?
ABSOLUTELY NOT!
Has the Board of Education thoroughly investigated the option of renovation?
ABSOLUTELY NOT!
Has the Board of Education been given accurate information from experienced qualified architects in the field of historical renovation?
ABSOLUTELY NOT!
Has the County of Stokes been good stewards of their gift?
ABSOLUTELY NOT!
Has the Board of Education complied with the G.S. 115C-521 law, which states “If a board of education is considering building a new school building to replace an existing school building, the board shall not invest any construction money in the new building unless it submits to the State Superintendent and the State Superintendent submits to the North Carolina Historical Commission an analysis that compares the costs and feasibility of building the new building and of renovating the existing building and that clearly indicates the desirability of building the new building.”
ALL EVIDENCE WOULD SUPPORT THEY ABSOLUTELY HAVE NOT!
Are we as a County going to let the last historical school we have in the County be destroyed or abandoned?
ABSOLUTELY NOT!
*
AGAIN, WE CAME HERE TONIGHT, because…
#1 - We wanted to update the Board of Commissioners on the information received by the Board of Education regarding the structural needs of Nancy Reynolds and the option of renovation.
#2 - We EXPECT an independent review of SfL+a’s long range planning study.
#3 - We EXPECT to have a historical renovation study conducted on Nancy Reynolds, as originally voted to do by the Board of Education on February 18, 2008.
#4 – We EXPECT the support of the Stokes County Commissioners on this endeavor.
#5 - Renovation IS an option.
END TEXT
What a waste of time!!!
Ignorant people have no legitimate place in politics or governing.
The board of education and commissioners should do there job by building a new school on another site. There is NO good reason to keep an elementary school on the current location.
I personally do NOT want to see the building itself demolished. But keeping it as an operational school is seneseless.
If the community was not full of ignorant fools than they would gladly except the boards offer to build them a new, modern facility for their childrens' education at a different site, while keeping the old schoolhouse as a historic site. Their children could then have BOTH a new school and their old school. However, the mob of "community leaders" wants to yell and scream about the past instead of looking toward the future and taking advantage of this opportunity.
Great googly moogly, Strother. I hope no one expects the simpletons on the skool bored or the commissioners (only slightly less mentally deficient) to digest all of this, let alone understand it. Hell, Becky Boles probably can't even read it.
Honestly, the best hope for Nancy Reynolds is something along the lines of what was done at the Walnut Cove Colored School. The chances of it continuing to operate as a public school are pretty slim, regardless of the facts. Facts aren't usually an impediment to political momentum.
Speaking of Becky Boles, I'm curious to know where she has been on this. She wore us out about that stupid Scott house in Danbury. Even when we tried to help, she fought us tooth and nail. Then again, the woman is an utter moron, so I don't know why I would expect anything she does to make any sense at all.
Post a Comment
<< Home