| Recommend |
| Comment |
| Email this article |
| Print this article |
| Get news alerts |
| RSS Feeds |
 Share
|
Digg
Mixx
Linked In
Facebook
Twitter
Delicious
Photos by Jessica DiNapoli
The Bridgehampton School Board is continuing to work on plans to replace the 114 windows in its main school building and, at its meeting Monday night, reviewed a study of the windows recently completed by a Manhattan engineering firm.
WJE Engineers and Architects, P.C. evaluated the windows and the lintels that support them, explained architect Benjamin Chaleff of Chaleff & Rogers Architects, P.C. in Water Mill. In the study, staff at WJE Engineers broke down the lintels in the school into three types of conditions: problematic and needing replacement, problematic and maybe needing replacement, and not needing replacement. The board asked Mr. Chaleff to survey all the windows in the school and figure out how each of the 114 fit into each category. After Mr. Chaleff and his colleagues make that determination, the board will decide how to move forward in replacing the windows, figuring out the total cost of the project, setting a date for a bond vote, and bidding out the construction work.
The School Board commissioned the study earlier in the fall, after learning that many of the lintels, which are buried in brick behind the windows, were rusting and causing grout to crack open. The board passed a resolution in September that set a maximum price on the study at $2,400.
The School Board also decided to raise the price of water bottles sold in the cafeteria by 10 cents, from $1 to $1.10. The board had to hike the price because their supplier, Whitson’s Culinary Group in Islandia, put a surcharge on the water. Whitson’s Culinary Group cited a new New York State law regarding recycling as the reason for the price increase.
Six members of the School Board approved school principal Jack Pryor’s employment contract for the next year. Joseph Berhalter cast the dissenting vote.
“There were issues in the contract that were not beneficial to the district overall, it had nothing to do with Jack,” Mr. Berhalter said. “I objected to the wording that I thought had long-term implications for the district.”
Mr. Berhalter did not want to discuss the specifics of the contract that he disagreed with, but explained that he had an issue with semantics in the document that could have financial ramifications for the district.
Add a comment