By Tracy F. Seelye, Express editor
editor@whitmanhansonexpress.com
HANSON – Finance Committee Chair Kevin Sullivan recommended that a free cash balance of 5 percent of the total be kept in reserve after Town Meeting and is recommending to his committee that they maintain the highest possible level of free cash as they vote on whether to recommend Town Meeting article requests.
Capital improvement and highway requests were among the few areas he saw room for trimming. While they are important, he said maintaining free cash was more critical and, if cuts were needed, those would have to be priority areas as opposed to other requests that appear absolutely necessary.
“We made promises in May that we’d fund in October and we’re running a razor-thin budget here,” Sullivan said.
Grants and other funding avenues would also need to be looked at, he said, and made the “unpopular statement” that, when the tax rate is set in November, he would advocate raising taxes.
“If we don’t do something now, we are going to be in significant dire straits,” he said. “It’s not sustainable.”
He is currently comparing the rates of surrounding communities and crunching numbers with Town Accountant Eric Kinsherf.
“Right now, out of a $34 million budget, that would require us to have a free cash reserve of $1.7 million,” he told the Select Board, on Tuesday, Sept. 12. “If we spend all the free cash that we’ve allocated for the articles, we’ll be at between $300,000 to $400,000, which is well below the 5 percent threshold.”
He said that figure has not yet been certified.
When the free cash is certified, Sullivan said the belief is that it will be at about $1 million, but the Town Meeting articles are proposing expenditures on almost $800,000.
Cutting the capital and highway improvement articles would bring the spending requests down to about $550.000, but Sullivan said that would not help the free cash reserve problem.
“We don’t even have that now,” he said. “If we didn’t spend a dime, we still don’t have it [a 5-percent reserve], because … the absolute minimum is 3 percent.”
The state recommends the 5 percent figure to maintain a community’s bond rating as well as to maintain a “rainy day fund.
Select Board Chair Laura FitzGerald-Kemmett said spending nothing is not an option, but spending less is an option.
“We’re estimating that, come the springtime, it will have deficit of over $1 million,” Sullivan said. “So we’re taking a hard look at a lot of the free cash [requests]. I’ve never been a proponent of using free cash in an operational budget.”
Sullivan said he understands that promises have been made and things were discussed, but he sounded a note of caution.
“October has generally been a period where we get projects done that are nice to have, [but] there’s a real concern right now with the [free cash] balance. We’re under 1 percent if everything is funded.”
He said the final decision is, of course, up to the voters and they can vote free cash down to a zero balance if they want, but he stressed he is warning them about his concern for the springtime that they run into a risk of talking about cuts and overrides and not having a revenue base to support what the town is doing now.
“To be clear, we’re going to be having that conversation, even if you trim it to the bone now,” FitzGerald-Kemmett said, “I’m not saying throw caution to the wind now … but I want to be clear that [a reserve] will soften the blow a little bit, but it’s not going to completely [eliminate it].”
Sullivan said he was aware of that, but that the town finances are at a point where if free cash drops below a certain level, it’s not going to meet the town’s needs.
“None of us want to affect the bond rating,” FitzGerald-Kemmett said, noting that they have not voted on it as a board. “None of us want to go below 5 percent. We’re in the process of having some financial projections done.”
While they had not previously had solid numbers from Town Accountant Eric Kinsherf, now that they do, that information would definitely shape some of their decisions that night.
Sullivan said this would be the third budget cycle in which the town has not put any money in the stabilization accounts, which also has the potential to affect the bond rating.
“It looks very innocuous,” he said. “There’s really nothing very egregious in these articles … they all have their merits. I struggle because we’re approaching, I think a critical point.”
There’s also not a lot of flexibility, with some articles such as school transportation, but they will be asking if capital projects can be put off for another cycle.
“We’re at one of the tougher positions I’ve seen,” Sullivan said. “We’ve done this many times in October … it’s when we expend free cash. … Then the spring comes and we’re talking about cutting people’s jobs, and I don’t think anyone wants to do that.”
“No, we don’t want to do that,” FitzGerald-Kemmett said. She noted that the town did manage to put a modest amount into stabilization in May, but agreed it was no game changer.
“That’s a good lens for us to look through,” she said.
The Board reviewed warrant articles for the Oct. 2 special Town Meeting, with Town Administrator Lisa Green saying there were no substantive changes in numbers since the previous week’s meeting.
Green said WHRSD Business Manager John Stanbrook has sent emails to Hanson regarding capital items approved at past town meetings for which money can be released – capital items that came in lower than what was budgeted for, but Kinsherf has already incorporated those figures into the free cash balance.
She said that is likely an installment of what will be released as Stanbrook’s office continues calculating.
Kinsherf, who joined the discussion late, said the 5 percent the state wants to see set aside should be a combination of savings in free cash and satbilization.
“In my opinion, you’d be at 5 percent even if you did those [capital and highway improvement] articles,” he said of the combined accounts. But, Kinsherf said, the town can’t go wrong by avoiding the use of one-time money for operational budget items.
“All through that warrant there’s operational stuff that, when you go back, that probably should have been in the budget,” he said. “Any decision you can make that saves free cash is definitely saving this yar but also projecting up to next year.”
Green also said she received some news about a transportation request for a Norfolk Agricultural student centering on which school district is responsible for the expense.
“There’s movement to the new district becoming responsible for that transportation,” she said, regarding a potential transfer of the student to the regional school district where they’re being housed right now.
“That’s awesome, but it’s still in flux right now,” FitzGerald-Kemmett said.
The Board made final recommendations on warrant articles and voted to close the warrant for the Monday, Oct. 2 special Town Meeting. Selectman David George was absent.
Among the articles referred to Town Meeting was a capital projects article, which included $125,000 in ARPA-eligible dirt replacement for the town’s ballfields. The remaining $322,282 of articles for school technology upgrades for the schools is sourced from free cash “that we’re getting a very strong read that FinCom is not going to recommend,” FitzGerald-Kemmett said.
Board Vice Chair Joe Weeks said that, with in the next 12 months, maybe two budget cycles the board is going to have to be “really transparent with townspeople around where they want to spend their money and where they want to see their tax dollars go.”
“Being fiscally responsible is where we’re at right now,” he said. “Conservatism implies that we have the money and we’re just trying to spend it conservatively. We’re not. We’re trying to be responsible with it.”
By referring to Town Meeting he said he was not trying to punt a decision to be made, but that people who show up on Oct. 2 need to make a decision on where they want to see their money go.”
“We’ve done a really good job of not raising taxes through the roof,” Weeks said. “We’ve done a really good job of stretching the dollar as far as we can
The board split the ballfield portion into another ARPA-funded article to clarify the issue, but FitzGerald-Kemmett said the two ARPA articles should be separate and the board voted to recommend the infield dirt article.
WMS plan goes to voters
The School Committee, during its Wednesday, Sept. 13 meeting, unanimously voted to approve sending the $135,289,673 plan for a new grade five to eight Whitman Middle School building — with an auditorium — intended to last and serve educational needs for 50 years, to the voters at the Oct. 30 special Town Meeting and to a Nov. 4 special election ballot.
The town stands to obtain $89,673,000 in reimbursements from the Massachusetts School Building Authority (MSBA) for the project.
The plan had been approved by the WMS Building Committee at its Aug. 15 meeting and survived an effort to rescind it in favor of a grade six to eight plan with a cafetorium instead of an auditorium at the building panel’s Aug. 28 meeting.
“We were accepted [by MSBA] in our first go-round because they saw the need for a new middle school,” Superintendent of Schools Jeff Szymaniak said, asking if that was a common occurrence for school projects. “If you postpone, you start rolling the dice.”
He said the project is at a critical point, if a middle school is to open in 2027.
“If I had a district calling me today … I would say to expect to potentially get in within three to five years,” said the committee’s Owner Project Manager Michael Carroll “It’s very unusual to put a statement of interest in the first time and get accepted right away.”
Carroll attended the School Committee meeting to brief them on the plan and the events of the Aug. 28 meeting.
“The Building Committee voted 9-0, with one abstention [former member John Galvin] to move the project forward,” said Szymaniak. He noted that the Whitman Select Board, on the other hand, had voted 3 to 2 [with Justin Evans and Shawn Kain against] on Tuesday, Sept. 12 to ask the School Committee to consider not voting on the project Wednesday.
impact of delay
Carroll was also asked to explain what could happen if the School Committee postponed its vote.
“Would we be out of the queue?” Szymaniak asked. “Would MSBA turn its back to us?”
He noted that Carroll is “relatively new to us,” having come on board with the project three weeks ago, but Szymaniak added, he had hit the ground running.
“There was a lot of discussion about budgets, there was a lot of discussion about the project, and we looked at different options,” Carroll said of the Aug. 28 meeting. “At the end of that meeting there was a vote taken to move forward with the school project as it currently stands.”
Carroll described an atmosphere of urgency as the committee worked on a schematic design package to submit to the MSBA, sending it to the building authority on Aug. 31 after the Aug. 28 vote.
“They’re reviewing it, they’ve given us a few questions,” he said. “They’re actually looking to talk to us about budgets next week. [The week of Sept. 18-22].
The MSBA project coordinator and project manager, who work specifically on the WMS plans, review it first and then with authority higher-ups with the ultimate objective to bring it before the MSBA board on Oct. 25.
“The assumption here is that they would be approving us,” Carroll said. When that happens, MSBA will forward a project funding agreement to the district and town. Carroll said that defines the funding agreement and, therefore, the overall project budget, which would go to Town Meeting and then the ballot question on Nov. 4.
Szymaniak asked how a postponement, as the Select Board had urged them to do, would affect the process.
“The MSBA would have to grant us a postponement, is that correct?” he asked. “It’s not a done deal?”
“When we entered into our agreement and feasibility study, we agreed to provide them our schematic design package within a certain time period,” Connor said, noting that, while he did not have that date on him, he believed it was Oct. 17. “If we were to withdraw our proposal, or ask to withdraw our proposal, one of the first things that we’d have to do is ask for an extension of that time. We’d have to explain to them why and … if we hadn’t submitted our package already … the MSBA is very accommodating.”
He said they do not want to continue to extend and extend and extend, but if there is a logical reason you need to do some reconsideration, there’s really typically no problem there.
They have, however, already submitted the schematic design plan and, while it has not gone to the MSBA board for a vote yet, he said he would think they would allow the district to withdraw it, but “we certainly ought to have a discussion on that before I would say that we could.”
Chair Beth Stafford, who pointed out that it would cost about $60 million just to get the current building up to code, said her concern was losing time as they worked to vote on whether to trim the $5 million in Teir 1 options from the plan. Funds for repairing the current school would also not be reimbursable, nor would the cost of the portable classrooms that would be needed while work is done.
Connor confirmed that they would have to confer with MSBA on how changes might impact the project.
While MSBA has not finalized their budget form, which will feed into the project funding agreement and what the vote entailed could have lowered that number.
“If we raised the number, we’d have to withdraw it, but if we’re lowering the number, I don’t know what the answer is,” Connor said. “We’d have to have that discussion.”
If a change is made to the project, it makes the process less definitive, he said. Building costs are also escalating, he explained.
“We can’t make that decision on this without talking to them and getting advice from them,” Carroll explained. The town could reconsider and do nothing, reconsider and ask for an adjustment to the overall project, ask the MSBA for an adjustment or to withdraw the proposal, which would require their input on what that withdrawal would mean and what duration they would be thinking about.
“The important thing here is, once they vote – if we do nothing – if they’ve approved us for a funding agreement, that’s kind of the point of no return,” he said. “Once they’ve done that, we’ve got to move forward with that project.”
Carroll said contingency funds are built into the budget in case change-orders come about.
“Virtually all my jobs, I’ve had the ability to send some of that contingency back,” he said.
Parents’ support
A quartet of residents spoke in favor of the project as approved by the WMS Building Committee on Aug. 28. expressing concern about the “near certainty of increased building costs” if the project is rejected or delayed.
“As we debate this huge topic, it’s important to remember that in order to just renovate the building and get it up to code has approximately a $60 million price tag on it and that would be 100-percent on the residents of Whitman,” said Leah Donovan, of 81 Old Mansion Lane, said during the public comment period. “There’s no funding available from the state. That’s a hefty sum or money for fixes that need to be done again and again and again.”
Small pointed out that the $60 million would not be a renovation, it’s a repair of what is broken and bring things to code.
Donovan said the town wants to take advantage of available MSBA funding, and that means a new school.
“That price tag is between $73 and $89 million at this point,” she said, noting that $10 million of that is contingency that might not be needed and residents would not be taxed on that. “That’s a staggering number for sure – I get it – but that price is not going to go down.”
Contingency funds are budgeted in case an unforseen problem adds to the cost of a project after a building budget is approved.
She said her fear is that, if the district doesn’t go ahead with a new school, they will end up paying the same price for a lesser school at some point down the road.
“We have an opportunity to do what’s right for the younger residents of the town,” Donovan said, asking the committee to give residents a chance to speak through their votes at Town Meeting and a ballot question.
Elizabteh Dagnall of 316 School St., also spoke in favor of the new WSM plan during the public forum.
“There seems to be a lot of fear surrounding this project,” she said. “Fear that it’s too large in scope, fear that it won’t be voted through, and fear as the main motivation in any situation can be a very damaging thing.”
She noted that, as the mother of a 13-year-old boy, she could be scared all the time, if she allowed herself to be.
“I can tell you that worrying amounts to nothing more than a state of worry,” Dagnall said. “What I’m learning as the parent of a teen is that Trust is far better than fear. Trust. When I allow for trust, the answer to ‘Are we going to be OK?’ surprises me. It often turns out to be something like this: ‘We are going to be more than OK. We are going to be great.’”
She challenged officials to, instead of fearing that it won’t pass at the ballot box, that “we trusted that it can.”
Julia Sheehan of 38 Beal Ave., thanked the committee and the building committee for their work on the WMS project so far.
“At this point, there is no way to drastically change the scope of the project without significant delays and even risking our grant from the MSBA,” she said. “Given that, I hope this committee will move forward with the Oct. 30 Town Meeting and the Nov. 4 vote. I believe the people of Whitman should have the opportunity to get out and vote.”
Julia Nanigan of 28 Forest St., who was born and raised in Whitman, said of all the schools she attended in Whitman, only WMS is still here and exactly the same as when she grew up.
“It’s pretty awful,” she said of the need for a new middle school. “We have to do this, and kicking the can down the road, we know is going to end up costing us more money. I think we just need to do it.”
School opening earns good grade
Superintendent of Schools Jeff Szymaniak gave high marks to the opening of school on Thursday, Aug. 31, despite some “blips in the road with busing,” thanking public safety personnel for participating in what has become their tradition of meeting incoming students at the schools for high-fives and smiles.
“The positivity from our emergency service workers is outstanding and I can’t thank them enough,” he reported to the School Committee at its Wednesday, Sept. 13 meeting.
New guidelines for buses went into effect this school year, and the Safety Committee met on Sept. 1 to review “each and every concern,” Szymaniak said, noting that panel meets annually.
“When parents have concerns around transportation, we gather the Safety Committee,” Szymaniak said. “It always includes public safety [officials], but this year, it included the superintendent, assistant superintendent, our building-level principals, the chair of the School Committee, and our two school resource officers, as well as our transportation director, her assistant and two members from First Student.”
Every complaint or busing issue was reviewed, Szymaniak repeated, changing or modifying some guidelines and not others. Both he and Transportation Director Karen Villanueva followed the buses around town to ensure the stops were safe.
“I ventured out and took some videos of some of the major concerns and I will be taking a couple of concerns back to the safety team,” Szymaniak said. He anticipated meeting with the Safety Committee again on Friday, Sept. 15 to make modifications based on his observations. “I have two public safety officers who travel the road, and we take it from an educational perspective, from a bus perspective and they take it from a safety perspective, and when they make recommendations or say that those stops are safe, we as a committee have to go on what they say.”
Szymaniak stipulated that some people are not happy with the decisions made, but he said he will review what he feels “might be debatable with the safety team.”
Additional modifications may be made to some stops when it snows, he said. “Even on sidewalks, if we’ve had heavy snow, we’ve had special bus pickups where parents can drop off their kids in certain areas for [safer] bus pickups,” he said.
During the course of the winter, buses will also stop to pick up students who are walking in the snow.
“I’m confident with the safety team’s decisions, although I looked at something today and I’m going to bring something back to the safety team,” he said. “I think we’re in a good spot with times. I haven’t heard many complaints about times in my travels.”
Szymaniak did hear, on a hot day, that it was hot on the buses and some drivers had the windows up, but a parent clarified on social media that the windows were not up and that someone was reposting incorrect information they had seen or heard.
Parents are encouraged to call the Transportation office at 781-618-7491 from 6:15 a.m. to 4 p.m., when the office is staffed.
“When the last bus is done, I have somebody on the phone,” he said.
School Committee member Hillary Kniffen noted that there is still a problem with motorists passing stopped buses, as email traffic has shown that to be a concern or something people have seen happen.
“Is there a way that we can get more police presence – more visual public safety out in the morning on these routed [such as routes 14, 18, 27 and 58] roads?” she asked. “People who live in these towns aren’t the ones we’re worried about.”
She suggested a safety sign such as those used in work zones might be something to remind people of the safety issues because the bus stops are new this year.
Assistant Superintendent George Ferro said it’s usually the overlap of the night shift officers to the day shift where police presence is not as available for school bus safety as they could be.
“We can ask them to be on those high-visibility roads because it is new for everybody,” he said.
“Nobody’s going to be happy with all the solutions,” Chair Beth Stafford said.
Committee member Fred Small brought up stop sign cameras as a possible deterrent, but he also said speed indicator signs also come equipped with cameras that transmit via cellular signal back to the police stations so they know when someone is speeding.
“You’d almost think they’d know when someone is going around a bus,” he said. “As far as I’m concerned, I’d love to see a police presence and I hope they throw the book at anyone who goes around a school bus like that.”
“We all know this is happening,” Stafford said. “It’s an ongoing situation. It’s awful.”
Szymaniak said the district’s legislators have reported that regional transportation reimbursement, meanwhile, has been level-funded for the third year at 79.5 percent, but Committee member Fred Small took issue with that.
“It’s time to dig up the votes,” Small said.
With an extra $2 million infused in regional transportation, Szymaniak said Rep. Josh Cutler, D-Duxbury, calculated that W-H could expect a reimbursement rate of between 85 and 90 percent this coming year.
Business Manager John Stanbrook said Cherry sheet figures show revenues up $620,825 over last year and assessments are up by $308,444 for a total increase of $3122,381 – or 1.25 percent.
However, the district receive $21.799 on revenue and an additional assessment of $220,000 over what was voted – down $242,391, “which is almost the entire amount of regional transportation,” he said. “We overbudgeted actual costs … and the reimbursements will be at what the commonwealth decides to give us.”
Author Martha Hall Kelly to speak about latest book tonight
The Hanson Public Library welcomes back former Hanson resident and New York Times bestselling author Martha Hall Kelly for an author talk about her most recent book, The Golden Doves, from 6:30 to 8 p.m., Thursday, Sept. 21 at the Camp Kiwanee Needles Lodge. Inspired by true events, The Golden Doves tells the story of two former Allied spies who reunite following World War II in a mission against ongoing Nazi activity in Europe and French Guiana. We hope you’ll join us for this informative presentation! The event it free, but signups are required.
This program is co-sponsored by the Hanson Public Library Foundation and Hanson Recreation Commission. There will be a book signing following the author talk talk. Storybook Cove will have copies of Martha’s books available for purchase.
Martha Hall Kelly is a former Hanson resident and the New York Times bestselling author of Lilac Girls, Lost Roses, and Sunflower Sisters. With more than two million copies of her books sold and her books translated in fifty countries, she lives in Connecticut and New York City.
Building project costs raise concern
WHITMAN – Voters at the special Town Meeting on Monday, Oct. 30 will have a lot of important decisions to make regarding the scope of a new middle school building – and how to fund a cost overrun of the new DPW building approved last year.
The Select Board met jointly with the DPW Building Committee during its Tuesday, Sept. 12 meeting before discussing the school plans with members of that building committee.
Former Town Administrator and Building Committee member Frank Lynam said the panel has been working through the bidding process in which numbers received last week caused concern.
“To say they were not what we expected would be something of an understatement,” he said, pointing to “probably the worst bidding environment that we’ve ever been in” for new building projects and soil conditions at the site.
They sought consideration to increase the debt authorization for the project by $2 million, as they work on “other possibilities that could, ultimately reduce what they are going to spend, but if the project is to move forward, the committee must be able to demonstrate that the project has been approved and funded for the work that needs to be done, Lynam cautioned. The committee is unanimous that, in order to move forward, the additional funding is necessary.
“We need to go before the voters and say, ‘We need another $2 million. We can’t complete the project without it,’” Lynam said about the cushion. “And we may not need $2 million. We may need $1.5 million, but nothing else has gone positive that way.”
On the Whitman Middle School front, Select Board Chair Dr. Carl Kowalski – who noted the price increase for WMS, which is the reason for the October Town meeting, handed the gavel to Vice Chair Dan Salvucci in order to make an impassioned plea to scale down that project in order to save it. He made a motion to ask the School Committee, at its Wednesday, Sept. 13 meeting, to reconsider their vote and consider reducing their ask. Select Board members voted to support that motion.
“I really believe that we need this building so much [that] we need to cut the costs down a lot and ask the School Committee to reconsider putting the fifth-graders there … and having an auditorium, if it’s going to cost as much money as I understand it.”
Former Building Committee member John Galvin, who resigned after the Sept. 28 meeting vote said his actions – and his vote, with which Kowalski was agreeing were for a simple purpose:
“I say let the people decide,” he said.
The Select Board was also concerned about the DPW project cost overruns but saw some reason for optimism in the work being done to find a fiscal solution there.
Kowalski said he would prefer that Lynam keep working to cut down that $2 million somehow, between now and the warrant closing on Sept. 26.
“I’m not asking for a vote tonight,” Lynam said. “I’m asking you to hear us out and what we think we’re asking for.”
Initially the DPW Building Committee had hoped to be able to construct a building for $18 million. Town Meeting and a ballot initiative had authorized the borrowing of $17.8 million for the project and $1 million had already been appropriated for the feasibility study and design.
“Our best guess right now [as of Aug. 17 when the low bid was calculated], our budget appears to be $22,186,000,” Lynam said, speaking in round numbers. “We’re short $3,289,000.”
The DPW has looked at completed, or nearly completed projects as sources of potential funding $1,049,000 leftover that might used to close the gap:
- $229,414 in remaining funds from water main project;
- $500,000 remaining from water meter project;
- $69,000 cleaning, surveying for right of way;
- $15,000 from sewer main repair;
- $36,000 generator surplus; and
- $200,000 from engineering of the force main replacement.
Town Meeting could approve those transfers. Assuming those were approved and discretionary ARPA funds the town has not yet allotted [$166,119], as well as Plymouth County discretionary ARPA funds [$583.881], it brings the project to a shortfall of $1,489,000.
“When we started down this road, we did examine the site,” Lynam said. “We did test borings, we identified how deep we would have to go to put supports into the ground.”
A lack of funding, however, prevented an examination of the soil contents, according to Lynam, who said it was a fortunate turn of events.
“If we did find something, we would be required to remediate it,” he said. Problems that have been found include lead in the soil, of which a lot is unsuitable and will have to be replaced, which added $2 million to the project cost.
“This is our third attempt to build a DPW since I’ve been onboard,” Lynam said. “It hasn’t improved with age and we’re at the point now, where there’s no more opportunity to say, ‘Let’s wait and see,’ and every time we do, it ends up costing us more money.”
The added $2 million the committee sought for the DPW building provides more contingency for unknown site cleanup costs and would put them in a position to finalize bidding and contracts. That would be placed on the Oct. 30 Town Meeting warrant.
“If we are able to reduce the amount this project is going to cost us, the net result would be that we would borrow less and end up spending less,” he said.
The town has 120 days to develop a plan for soil remediation on the site.
Select Board member Justin Evans asked if the $2 million would be handed to the taxpayers or the ratepayers to shoulder.
Town Administrator Mary Beth Carter said the $17.8 million already approved for the DPW building was done as a debt exclusion through taxes, the sewer force main project is being paid off through rates. She said the additional $2 million would be paid off via taxes along with the $17.8 million.
“The initial thought was another debt exclusion,” she said.
Lynam said they had hoped to use ARPA funds to close the gap, but it is not one of the qualifying uses, because the balance of ARPA funds is restricted and cannot be used for construction projects.
“I’m slightly frustrated,” Select Board member Shawn Kain said, noting questions he had sent the architect in April – before the spring Town Meeting. He had been uncomfortable voting on the project before the completed design was presented. The response was that the 50-percent estimate was as good as a 100-percent estimate, he said.
“Based on the information you’ve presented, the issue with the soil was known at that time,” he said. “There was a deliberate choice not to test the soil until we got approval, but, obviously, with the understanding that there could be contamination in the soil.”
Lynam said the testing could not be done because it is part of the construction project and – until the project was funded – it could not be done.
Kain said a contingency should have been included to deal with the issue.
Lynam said the refuse material in the soil, which was a former dump site, was expected, but the environmental issues such as lead were not. Because of the site’s location in proximity to an Zone 2 aquifer and a public garden, the testing standards were higher.
“We’re not even sure where that came from,” he said of the lead, adding that they have applied to the state for remediation funding, that they are not certain will come or when. “It isn’t a, ‘Let’s hide this and do it later kind of thing. It’s something that we couldn’t do until we had the funding.”
Now that it is known, they can either move ahead by identifying the cost and remediating it, or they could stop the project and do the remediation. DPW Commissioner Kevin Cleary said there was contamination remediation contingency – an extra $600,000 carried for foundation improvements in the original design of the project.
“Is there a way that we can appropriate the restricted ARPA funds … to the force main project?” Evans asked, then used rate increases the DPW commission has already voted to pay the money for the DPW project. Those restricted funds can only be used for COVID expenses, water/sewer projects or broadband infrastructure. “We have $2.2 million in ARPA that can be used for water/sewer projects,” he said. “It’s just finding the right water/sewer project to apply that to, so it minimizes the cost to everybody.”
Carter said $700,000 in Plymouth ARPA funds are unrestricted.
She also worked to find out how much the town received in reimbursements, discovering Whitman has received 60 percent – $8.7 million – leaving $4 million the town can still requisition.
Seeking those funds would lower the amount the town borrows to $10,698,000 on the sewer force main, down from about $12 million, meaning an article could be supported to seek the extra $2 million could be borrowed for the DPW facility. The restricted ARPA funds could possibly be used to make up the difference in the sewer force main borrowing.
“It will end up being the same level of debt,” Lynam said. “It will just be in two different classes.”
WMS project
Carter briefed the Select Board on the WMS Building Committee’s Sept. 28 vote against rescinding a vote in support of the architectural plan for the project, and notes some members of the committee preferred adjusting the plan to a grade six to eight middle school without an auditorium.
“There’s no doubt that a new Whitman Middle School is needed,” she said. “However, at a $17 million increase in cost – from $72 million to $89 million – the impact to taxpayers is significant.”
Kowalski mentioned concerns about equal opportunities between middle schools in each town, since Hanson Middle School is a grade five to eight school, adding that both town’s fifth grades have the same educational experience.
“It’s just in a different location and the fact that [Hanson students] spend 20 more minutes a day in school because of busing,” he said. “It started to sound to me like we were being asked to spend $20 million to have an auditorium and to allow 150 fifth graders in Whitman to get 20 minutes a day, and that just didn’t make sense to me.”
Evans, who succeeded former Select Board Chair Randy LaMattina on the WMS Building Committee voted to continue with the current plan on Sept. 28, saying the Select Board, even before his election had vetted the project to put forward what was needed.
“I just didn’t think it was our place to step in at the 11th hour and change direction,” he said.
Select Board member Laura Howe, who’s daughter and two grandchildren attend WMS, said she wants students to have the best of everything, but the town can’t afford it.
“I’m really torn,” Kain said. “I can’t imagine that our vote tonight is going to change their mind tomorrow.”
He said the Building Committee did its job with the plan they are presenting, even if the Select Board disagrees.
Select Board Vice Chair Dan Salvucci said he had a problem with out-of-town members on the Building Committee because they serve in School District jobs.
Building Committee Chair Fred Small said that the committee members Salvucci referred to sit in the committee because the school is looked at by the MSBA as a regional school project.
“We were shell-shocked,” by the change in numbers,” he said.
Galvin said his concern is people think there are two options – a grade five to eight option and a base repair option.
“But there isn’t,” he said. “There’s a third option … a six to eight option without the auditorium. … None of us have the final say. The final say comes at Town Meeting, and lots of things can happen at Town Meeting – we’ve all seen it. The people need to decide what they want.”
He supported the grade six to eight school with an auditorium, because he felt, at the time, that the $2.5 million price tag for an auditorium was worth it.
At the committee’s last meeting they were told the auditorium would cost $9 million – and a six to eight school without one could save $25 million, but it would cause a $350,000 per month delay as it went back to the design stage.
“Town meeting needs to have the option,” he said, “Town Meeting needs to decide.”
Galvin said he resigned because it is his intention to educate the public on their options.
Committee member Kathleen Ottina also explained some of the votes’ back story, including discomfort on the part of the Finance Committee with the increased price tag.
“There were not four votes to go with this reduced-cost building,” she said of the Sept. 28 meeting. “There were four votes to rescind the Aug. 15th vote.”
She didn’t vote for Galvin’s motion.
“This is 11th hour and 59 minutes,” she said. “This is not a time to pull the rug out from underneath the Middle School Building Committee. … Let the voters decide.”
She said the cost of the building may have gone up $6 million, but the town’s share increased by $60 million because of aspects the MSBA deemed ineligible.
“This is not the end of the discussion,” she said. “This is maximum exposure. It’s a long, detailed process. … and these decisions aren’t easy.”
Building panel hears its options
HANOVER — There’s no construction price tag available yet, but South Shore Tech Building Committee heard updates on the feasibility study toward a renovation project or completely new building during its Thursday, Sept. 7 meeting.
Project Manager Jen Carlson of LeftField, a Boston firm that specializes in project management and Carl R. Franceschi, president of architectural firm Drummer Roxane Anderson Inc. (DRA) of Waltham made the presentation.
Alternative options for the project took up the lion’s share of the meeting, while will be completed this month.
“We will have some ballpark figures based on narrative and square footage [at a joint School Committee/Building Committee meeting Thursday, Oct. 5],” Carlson said. “They will definitely flux, going forward, but they are a tool to compare options against each other when we move into the next phase.”
A virtual public forum will also be held on the PDP Oct. 5.
“We will push that out so the larger community is aware,” Superintendent/Director Dr. Thomas J. Hickey said, noting there will be other public forums held through December.
Before that meeting, the School Committee will have to vote on the preliminary design program [PDP], planned on Wednesday, Sept 20, as will Building Committee meeting again on Thursday, Sept. 28. Building Committee might want to give feedback in a joint meeting Sept. 20.
That does give us some wiggle room,” Carlson said. A second round of public forums will invite community feedback on the final design in April and May 2024.
“As you might imagine, the forums this fall are going to be about issues, ‘Should we renovate this building? Should we build new?’ — very high-level discussions,” Franceschi said. “But by next spring, we’ll have focused on one preferred option and, people may still have issues in their mind, but the meaningful input will be on the one design we’re working on.” [See related story]
“We haven’t quite quantified the price, but we’ve quantified the size,” he said.
About a year behind Whitman’s middle school project in the Massachusetts School Building Authority approval process, SST is still in the feasibility stage, having spent $248,500 so far of $2 million budgeted for that purpose. Carlson said $1.4 million has been committed to date — representing 76 percent of the project’s budget.
“We still have plenty to pull from the environmental and site line item,” Carlson said, noting that another line item had been pulled from for budget transfers, putting the total spent so far at $248,500. “Our total spent to date represents 12 percent of the budget.”
A total of $84,000 has been invoiced on the project so far, including $29,000 for Left Field’s services for the month of August and DRA’s second invoice of $55,000 for the same period.
The building committee unanimously approved the budget update. The committee unanimously approved those expenditures, as well.
The study presented three possible deigns if the committee opts to do a complete rebuild, and two potential renovation plans — all based on a student body of 805 students, with the recent addition of Marshfield to the district. But Franceschi, noted there are also ways to design for 900 or 975 students. From the lowest to the highest student population figure, there is a difference of 40,000 square feet to consider in planning.
“We need to show the building could be expanded in the future, too. They aways want to see that at the state level, but we don’t want to see a situation where we’d be talking about expansion in five years,” he said. “Projects we’re estimating right now – just in the construction costs alone – are somewhere in the vicinity of $800 per square foot with sitework and building.”
It could add at least $30 million to the plan to base it on 975 students.
The condition report on the school highlights the wetlands on the site as well as the drainpipe that runs across the athletic fields, “just to highlight some of the constraints that we’re dealing with,” Franceschi said. “We’re updating those wetland flags and we will be in conversation with the Conservation Commission soon, too, before we even design anything, just to get their understanding and agreement that, ‘Yes, these are the limits of the wetlands’ so that everybody’s working with the same information.”
Massachusetts allows filling up to 5,000 square feet of wetlands, but it would have to be replicated somewhere else, sometimes as much as a 2:1 ratio.
Financial ideas
Whitman representative on the School Committee and building panel Dan Salvucci asked if it would be possible to create a curriculum program for horticulture students on working with wetlands regulations as a way toward obtaining funding.
Hickey said there could be an opportunity there.
“We use our campus as our curriculum,” he said. “This is just another way.”
Franceschi said the athletic fields are also topographically lower than the school and close to groundwater. A conventional Title 5 septic system at the front of the property now serves the school, with a “high probability” that a wastewater treatment plant and leaving field would have to be included on another area of the property.
The plans would also need to highlight how spaces meet current educational standards, not just in relation to the condition of spaces, but size. With Marshfield already having joined the district, he said designers have agreed internally that the design, at minimum should fit about 805 students.
“We’re trying to get the state to agree,” he said. “It’s a little variable in the shops, because we have to project what the enrollment would be in each shop, and it’s not a hard and fast number just yet, but we’re close enough that we could do this kind of a calculation.”
DRA has, in fact calculated that there is a high-level need to expand the building.
Salvucci asked if adding a second floor in some areas might be an option.
“We don’t consider it practical to put a second floor on the existing building,” Franceschi said. “We’re thinking multiple stories to the new construction or addition portions of the building, or maybe even demolishing part of the existing building and building multiple stories, but not building on top of what’s here.”
Safety issues
While it could be done, it’s too complicated because the building couldn’t be safely occupied while a new story is being added above. In 40 years in the industry, Franeschi said he has not added additional floors to an existing building yet.
“You don’t really have small group spaces, collaborative spaces that we see and desire in schools nowadays,” Franceschi said. “Teacher planning spaces are kind of not up to par for what you’d want. The science labs are another one that would have to be increased in size to meet space standards.”
Where science lab standards are 1,400 square feet today, SST’s labs are 800 square feet.
How the school’s educational plan and programs are to be organized was another consideration in the preliminary plans DRA and LeftField reviewed with the committee. In developing the plan, the district identified six possible new programs they would ideally like to include.
“In all of these things, and independent of whether it’s going to be an addition or renovation, or new construction, in a way we and the state kind of uses the education plan to measure against our proposed solution,” Franceschi said. “That’s why the education plan is an important guideline for all of us.”
They’ve already moved nine administrative offices, and the parking spaces that go along with them, including Hickey’s, to a house next door to the school purchased and renovated by the district. Cafeteria staff who park in front of the school are done for the day by 1 p.m.
“Parent pick-up has been much more pronounced since the pandemic,” he said, so making room for that traffic has been a priority, although the data is not available to support that observation.’
At first, Hickey said, he thought a renovation would be a lot cheaper than brand-new. But it’s not. To bring a 1962 building up to code entails some unpleasant surprises.
Carlson also walked the committee through a schedule and budget update.
“The scope of this [budget] amendment includes a visual inspection of the hazardous building materials —looking for hazardous building materials and identifying them,” she said. “This will include a report identifying the hazardous materials and then estimate services … of what the [cost] of removing hazardous materials might be.”
The work on a first draft is expected to be completed this month and costs are in line with the costs decided in the PRA contract.
The schedule provides a “zoomed-in look” and what to expect between now and the submission of the schematic design to MSBA in December.
The preliminary design program (PDP) will be the first submission to MSBA, scheduled for Oct. 5 — including a conditions evaluation, educational visioning, a draft educational plan, initial space summary (spaces aligned with the educational plan), an evaluation of alternative options and comparative cost estimates.
Next phase
The next phase — the preferred schematic report (PSR) — will feature a more detailed review of the PDP options, including a final education plan and the preferred design option based on three enrollment options, as well as and creation of a matrix of priorities and will be submitted to the MSBA on Dec. 28 in time for a vote on their approval two months later. Another, more refined, set of cost estimates will be made at this time, according to Carlson.
“Once you submit that PSR, then we’re into the schematic design phase and them it’s full steam ahead, developing that one [preferred] option,” she said.
After the two-month MSBA review, there is a meeting with the MSBA before officially submitting the final schematic design on Wednesday, Feb. 28, 2024.
The final submission is due to MSBA by Thursday, June 27, 2024, including the final design program and total project budget.
“By the end of June, we’ll have some really good numbers that are reliable and that we need to live within for the rest of this project,” she said.
Finding new demands, direction at SST
HANOVER — As South Shore Tech plans its addition/renovation – or possibly new construction – the regional vocational high school has already expanded its membership once, with the addition of Marshfield, and is hearing of potential interest from another town that could raise the membership roster to 10 in time.
The aim is for a ribbon cutting somewhere in the 2028-29 school year, but there are some issues to be solved in the meantime.
It’s happening at a time when school officials are looking at new ways to serve students who wish to attend, but are wait-listed, and the Biden Administration is boosting vocational education as a road to the middle class that does not require a traditional college degree.
“Part of what we’re factoring in is there’s a great demand for kids to come here,” Superintendent-Director Dr. Thomas J. Hickey said Friday, Sept. 8. “We do well with the kids who want to come here. … We know the state would support a larger enrollment.”
It’s very early in their exploration, but Pembroke has formed a regional planning committee to explore vocational education options, and have toured SST as part of that process.
Right now, Pembroke students would only be able to attend as sophomores or higher, if there is space. The average waiting list stands at about 75 students each year, which is also expected to increase with the addition of Marshfield.
“With a new facility, we intend it would be open to adults [as it is now],” Hickey said, noting he was speaking of more than the adult night-school students looking to update their skills. “I’m talking about a future where, if you didn’t come to South Shore as a rising ninth-grader, there’s a place for you as well.”
Giving community college-bound students in the member towns’ other high schools a dose of technical training while still attending their current school is his goal.
“Imagine a program, where we had a kid in grade 12, come from a traditional high school, where they designed his or her schedule to … get half their senior year credits there, then come over to [SST] and go into one of a few programs and start to get some basic skills training, if we were trying to make it during the day,” Hickey said. “We are not going to be able to build a school that’s going to eliminate our waiting list, no matter what we build.”
It’s a plan that doesn’t have to wait for the new building, either, he explained.
“With the state grants we’re getting, we are right now able to open these doors to current seniors,” he said. “I don’t have the fine print, but that’s something they’ve adjusted slightly.”
He would like to pilot it with one school district to start off in able to determine interest.
“If you attach it to incentives like day credit for the high school or an internship is baked into it … and some externships, I feel an obligation,” Hickey said. “Regional voke-techs are not going to sustain the regional economy, there’s going to have be [other] kids not coming to regional vokes, who want and will end up being the future economic drivers in a lot of these industries who don’t get outsourced. We have to be the hub of that in this area.”
While it doesn’t guarantee a job after graduation, it instills confidence and focused direction in students who need it.
Pembroke also has to be willing to join a region beginning a building project that does not yet have a price tag. Marshfield was willing to join under those conditions.
“It’s basically a pay-as-you go number,” Hickey said, with the understanding that, after five years SST would revisit the number of Marshfield students, divided by the total enrollment with the resulting percentage representing their share of the cost.
“We should hopefully have a design project, a voter-approved project and be nearing the end of construction,” he said. “We will know, hopefully in early 2025 if this project is going to be supported by the voters.”
To get there, a preferred design must be decided by this December. Another six months will be spent on the final package, to be submitted in June 2024, and they anticipate final MSBA approval next August.
“I would say we are about a year behind Whitman,” Hickey said.
Then they would have to negotiate a fair amount for Pembroke to come in and support a new building to divide that cost by 10. Right now, it’s a pie with nine slices based on enrollment.
“We’re going to need a lot of information from a lot of smart people,” before a design is selected. he said. “We’ve got three designs [for new construction options] that all follow roughly the same design.”
Their architectural firm the district is working with, Drummey Rosane Anderson Inc. [DRA], has worked with them before and know the district’s needs.
“We worked with DRA five years ago, when we were trying to become a candidate for this program, and they helped us do some visioning, so some of these ideas – especially the addition/renovation ideas – are similar to what we’ve seen a little while ago,” Hickey said. “I think what’s going to come of these options is some feedback … maybe it will generate an additional option, or maybe they’ll take an existing option and modify it.”
When Marshfield freshmen walk through the doors for the 2024-25 school year, Hickey said he anticipates that their share of the student body at around 18 or 19 percent – or about 30 students – affecting the other eight communities “a little bit.”
“We have historically had a couple of towns not us their allotments,” he said. Norwell and Scituate are allotted space based on the size of the grade eight class, but by mid-winter there are usually left-over seats.
“There probably won’t be many leftover seats because we’ve got six communities that are filling their slots,” he said. “We’ll have to see how many Marshfield kids come.”
But at the moment, Pembroke has not even made a specific request.
Hanson Fire honors victims of Sept. 11 attacks
It’s one of those dates where moments in time take on new meaning: At 7:59 a.m., four planes began taking off from aiports in Boston, Washington, DC and Newark, N.J. on Sept. 11, 2001 The first plane hit the World Trade Center in New York City at 8:46 a.m., the second at 9:03 a.m. At 9:59 a.m. the South Tower fell.
At that moment, 22 years later, Hanson officials paused to remember those lost during a brief ceremony at the fire station.
In addition to remembering the nearly 3,000 police officers, firefighters and civilians who lost their lives that day, Hanson Fire Chief Robert O’Brien also noted that first responders who answered the call that day continue to pass away from illnesses traced to their time at the scene.
A moment of silence was observed as a bell was tolled by firefighter Peter O’Brien for the victims and the flag was lowered to half-staff by firefighter Matthew Keith.
Building panel sticks with proposal, Galvin resigns
WHITMAN – The Whitman Middle School Building Committee on Monday, Aug. 28 voted against rescinding the unanimous schematic approval plan vote of Aug. 15 for the project.
The project’s total cost is currently $135,289,672 [with construction costs at $106,689,882] with the town’s share at $89,684,133.
The impact of the new cost to taxpayers is approximately $1,494.01 in the first year of the debt. This figure is based on a level principal, 30-year debt schedule, calculated at the district’s anticipated borrowing rate of 5.5 percent, according to Town Administrator Mary Beth Carter’s office. “This impact amount was based on an average home valuation for a single-family home valued at $420,530.00 as of today. Debt payments based on a level principal debt schedule decrease each year over the 30-year term with the average debt payment being $1,017.59,” Carter stated.
It will be voted on by the School Committee at their next meeting, sent to both Select Boards for a vote within seven days of that and placed on the warrant for the October Special Town Meeting and on a debt exclusion ballot vote.
Member John Galvin abstained from the vote, and later announced his resignation from the committee.
“I find it difficult to volunteer the time to something I’m so strongly opposed to,” he said.
“I appreciate everything you brought to this committee,” Chair Fred Small said. “It is with very deep regret that the committee will be accepting your resignation.”
Galvin had just made a motion, withdrawn for the vote on whether to rescind the previous vote to: Eliminate the auditorium [a savings of $8.8 million from the town’s share]; eliminate 2,000 square feet of the wellness center; reduce teacher planning area to MSBA reimbursement limits; target construction value engineering; and move back to a grade six to eight enrollment to pare about $25 million of the $89 million cost recently projected.
Galvin said they need to put forth a proposal they have confidence will pass.
“At $89 million, I don’t have any more confidence in that,” he said.
Other members initially supporting that motion, expressed the fear that, without some reduction, the project will fail at Town Meeting and the ballot box. Small had advocated a reduction in the contingency fund.
“Granted, it’s not going to make a gigantic difference within the project, but every penny, I think, is important and, if we ended up having to take a smaller portion out of contingency, it is a smaller portion,” Small said. He said the remainder should still be within the contingency formulas.
Select Board representative Justin Evans said that, worst-case scenario, if furniture, features and equipment (FFE) had to be reduced, it could become a capital item at a later Town Meeting.
Small asked Mike Carroll of Colliers, the owners’ project manager, what might happen to the project timeline if the vote was rescinded. Carroll said, if they opted for the 7-percent contingency and the FFE, he would just need to know that.
“To me, the most important thing is that we pass a middle school project,” Small said.
If the decision was to take either the contingency or the FFE, it would give the town a little more flexibility down the line Carroll indicated.
Eliminating an auditorium and creating a cafetorium would cause a delay, Small said. The concern would then be if the necessary documents could be ready for a December MSBA meeting but would have to apply by October.
“If we remove these Tier 2 and 3 items, we blow up the whole project, correct?” School Superintendent Jeff Szymaniak said, noting that the School Committee had approved a grade five to eight educational plan after holding parent forums on the proposal.
Carroll said Tier 2 might not have that effect, but eliminating Tier 3 items definitely would and the need to adjust plans could push plans for a 2027 school opening, could push it back to 2028.
Szymaniak then questioned whether the roof could last that long.
Before those decisions were made, the Committee had to decide whether to rescind its Aug. 15 vote.
“I guess it depends, ultimately, if you vote for another course of action tonight,” Carroll said of the options of rescinding the vote to do a new vote and allow submission to the MSBA on Aug. 31 and attend the Oct. 25 board meeting; to delay and submit at a later date, which would mean, potentially, to go to a later board meeting or to move forward with the current schedule.
While the MSBA could meet in January their first meeting of this year was in March, according to Carroll.
Finance Committee representative to the Building Committee and Vice Chair Kathleen Ottina said during debate on whether to take up the issue of rescinding the previous vote said, if members of panel, which has been meeting on a monthly basis for three years, left the Aug. 15 meeting not sure they could support their unanimous vote because the cost estimate went from $73 million to $89 million, this was the chance for them to be reassured that it’s the responsible thing.
“We can’t walk away from a $45 million state grant to help us build the new building,’ she said. “But we need this committee to be enthusiastically behind whatever it is we end up voting.”
Committee member and School Committee Chair Beth Stafford asked if Szymaniak or Assistant Superintendent George Ferro could report on what can and cannot be rescinded on information they requested from legal counsel.
“I was just wondering what is the genesis of why we’re here today?” Ferro asked.
Small said he had received a “multitude of emails” from many members of the committee questioning the way information was given to them, a little bit shell-shocked, some information missing, so they could have a complete idea of all information in order to make an intelligent decision.
“Some people felt that they were a little bit shell-shocked and rushed,” he said.
Small said when the Committee made decisions, they made them based on the numbers they received. Up until the Aug. 5 meeting those numbers were a spread of from $67 million to $72 million.
“That’s a $5 million difference,” he said. “I don’t know about you guys, but to me, $5 million is a good, strong sum of money, when you’re talking about the town’s share.”
When it went up to $89 million, he said it was a “gigantic, gigantic leap.”
Then when he saw the emails coming in, he said he felt that maybe the Committee should take a step back and look at whether they had other options.
“I believe that we need a new Middle School badly, that, realistically there is no other option than to have a new middle school,” Small said. “I just want to make sure that we can present something that has a chance to pass the taxpayer – and $89 million is a very, very scary number.”
Szymaniak said he emailed legal counsel Andrew Waugh just about rescinding a vote and he read his opinion at the meeting recorded and being rebroadcast on WHCA and its YouTube channel.
“In order to rescind an earlier motion, a member of the … committee should make a motion to rescind the motion made on Aug. 15, 2023 at which time the … committee approved a budget number to submit to the MSBA on behalf of the Whitman Middle School building project,” Waugh wrote. “There’s one caveat to this advice. If action has already been taken … the motion cannot be rescinded.”
If the budget figure voted on Aug. 15 was submitted to the MSBA and they have taken action, based on that number, the committee may not be able to rescind it. But, if no budget number has yet been submitted to the MSBA, yet, the committee could move to rescind the Aug. 15 vote.
“I don’t know if any action has been taken on that vote by MSBA yet,” Szymaniak said.
Carroll said he briefed the MSBA of the situation and asked to have a meeting on Aug. 29 with them.
“I would say they have been informed, but no action has been taken [at the time of the Aug. 28 meeting],” he said. “They would not take action until the 31st.”
Stafford asked if it was not true that the grade levels five through eight had already been submitted to MSBA. Carroll said that had, indeed, already been submitted and acted on.
“I don’t think that was part of the vote,” he said. “In general, the building was part of that vote, but to your point, if you are going to consider something like that …we can’t just submit that to the MSBA. We would have to have a discussion with them and they would have to be a part of that decision.”
Stafford said that kind of a decision would also have to be voted on by the School Committee.
Small said the Aug. 15 vote was about the building itself, not the educational plan. Carroll agreed with Small’s contention that going back that far in time was almost like starting over again.
Ferro reminded the meeting that many people in the community that supported the decision that included an auditorium.
“If we’re going to discuss a reduction in grade or a reduction in square footage, would the educational vision, which included those pieces [grades five through eight and an auditorium], need, then, to be stalled and looked at, and what is the impact of the MSBA on the overall length of the project or the availability of WHRSD in a project like that?” he asked.
Ranking the options as tiers, Carroll said Tier 1 would increase the risk profile but wouldn’t really affect programs or operations, Tier 2 would possibly affect programs and operations Teir 3 could impact both operation and programs and would likely require a pause in the project to discuss it with the MSBA to make sure they were on board with it before moving forward.
Stafford asked how much a postponement would add to the cost of the project.
Carroll said a 4 percent escalation – about $350,000 per month — is their best estimate right now – higher than the historic average, but lower than recent estimates.
Galvin said that, had they changed the option and reconsider aspects of the plan such as the auditorium, a wellness center and a grade six through eight grade plan, the committee could have saved the town as much as more than $25 million.
“I find it odd that we are asking all of these questions now that are part of Option 1,” Galvin said. “That’s the DPW building right there.” He moved to table the discussion on rescinding the vote.
Stafford noted that Galvin wanted a higher-cost gymnasium.
“I would hope that this committee would not go back on every one of those things, knowing the importance to the education to the children of this town,” she said.
Galvin reminded the committee it doesn’t really matter what the decide. What matters is what the voters decide in October and November.
“Basic repair is a terrible option to put in front of the voters,” he said. “That’s the worst investment this town could make.”
He said that is why, despite his misgivings, he worked hard to sell the $73 million plan, but he cautioned that the $89 million price tag won’t pass any more than the basic repair plan would.
“So, where are we going to be?” he said. “We’ll be sitting here with nothing.”
Cuts rejected based on effect on educational program
WHITMAN – The Whitman Middle School Building Committee sat down to crunch the numbers on how they might trim the new school plans in an effort to make the price tag more affordable to voters, but – in the end, the committee was split in its decision, but the majority agreed to stick with the original decision.
“Whatever the number we set today, if we set a number today and we go forward to the MSBA, that’s the highest number the MSBA’s ever going to participate in,” owner’s project manager Mike Carroll said. “We’re above the cap on most of this anyway, so we’re really talking mostly town money when we get to discussions about the options here.”
A problem in finding places to cut lies in the efficiency of the school’s design, he noted.
“They know where the low-hanging fruit is and they’ve already picked many of those,” he said.
Base repair
Carroll said, as an example under a basic repair they would not be replacing all the windows, improving outside problems such as driveways or code upgrades the work would trigger.
“You’re bringing the building up to energy code as you can, but it’s within an existing building, so you’re not going to get as you would on a full gut/renovation or a brand-new building,” Carroll said.
The base repair is not a renovation or addition, it’s actually less than that, Carroll said.
It would not address potholes or other problems in the parking lot, either. Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and new fire code update requirements, based on the building’s assessed value, would also be triggered with base repair, affecting building entrances, floors and ceilings, bathrooms, railings and stairs as well as sprinkler and electrical systems under a three-year window.
Committee member Beth Stafford said space needed for students is also not included, nor the cost of portable classrooms that would be needed.
“This is the take-home message for me,” Finance Committee representative Kathleen Ottina said. “There’s no discussion among the members of this committee that we need a new middle school,” she said.
Ottina said she wanted to reframe the discussion to consider their options – would the committee want to stay with the project, eliminate some costs to reduce it at level one through contingencies and soft costs, eliminate the auditorium and downsize the gym or change from grades five to eight back to six to eight.
“We can go through all sorts of budget discussions and what we should have known, what we wish we knew then back in January, that’s not going to get us where we need to go tonight, which is what building are we going to support?” she said. “I don’t think any of us have a real finger on the pulse of the voter in Whitman to say, ‘This is the way forward.’”
She argued the question is can the Committee justify supporting a building that will meet the needs of our current middle school children and the middle school children going to the next many decades.
Carroll described the effect of each tier:
Tier 1
Doesn’t substantially change the building, or the educational program and does not affect the building operations, but it does impact the district’s risk profile both at acceptable levels in the opinion of the architect and owner’s project manager. The average cost is $770 per square foot. Some possible reductions are:
Reducing the total contingency from 9 percent to 7 percent, saving the town about $2.1 million — $24 per year for the average taxpayer. [Each percent represents about $1 million]. Carroll said the MSBA treats the contingency for soft costs and hard costs as separate items.
The base building is 138,000 square feet. MSBA allows an expenditure of $1,200 per student for furniture, fixtures and equipment and an additional $1,200 per student for technology costs. Reducing FFE and technology costs may have saved $810,000. For most of his professional career, the FFE allotment has been sufficient, but even five years ago, the technology limit was difficult, Connor said. COVID’s effect on the cost of materials have meant the recommendation to increase the allowance for both costs by 50 percent to $1,800.
“You would just start to spend some of your soft costs on contingency, if you went with that option,” he said.
Reconsideration of ineligible square footages: The auditorium is expected to be consider an ineligible cost in its entirety, but the MSBA has been asked to reconsider the stage area in the past, which they have done because they accept cafetoriums. Reducing the stage area could trim $684,215 if it had been adopted.
“We feel we can make any or all of those changes and still make the Aug. 31 date,” he said.
Tier 2
Reductions in these plan components could impact educational program and operations.
Eliminating auditorium and wellness area, creating a cafetorium, which is more difficult from the design standpoint represents $5.1 million on the construction value but since the auditorium is an ineligible cost, the town would save quite a bit more than that. 7 to 8 million.
Reducing the size of the gym, represented a saving of $4,303,000, for the gym which is now 3,200 square feet over what the MSBA allows.
Reduce the teacher planning area by 304 square feet would have trimmed costs by about $390,000.
Reduction of outdoor storage, mostly for outdoor maintenance and sports equipment would have meant a price cut of $286,265. Superintendent of Schools Jeff Szymaniak said he is not specifically familiar with the middle school, but the high school, built in 2003, lack of storage is a major complaint.
“It may not seem like a big deal, but in 20 years, it could be a big deal,” he said.
Tier 3
No question, it will impact educational program and operations, it’s a matter of how much it will impact them.
Cutting 25 percent of the students by switching back to the current grade six to eight program would also eliminate 19,000 square feet from the building, but also causes a delay by way of a need to redesign the building.
Target construction changes would have eliminated $1 million and changing the grade configuration back to a five to six program would have trimmed $6.8 million.
“Any of these savings [in Tiers 2 and 3] have not considered any escalation due to delays or anything like that,” Carroll said. But they affect educational programs to continue meeting the time on learning requirements by DESE.
Select Board member Shawn Kain asked what happens if the voters do not pass the school issue – what action would the MSBA take?
Carroll said a re-vote could be allowed or the town could stop the project. Other cuts could also be made from the three tiers.
But missing the Aug. 31 deadline could require filing for an extension in any case.
The MSBA is willing to work with districts, however.
“They’re not looking to kick you out,” he said.
Select Board representative to the committee Justin Evans asked how much a delay could cost.
Architect said major changes such as eliminating the auditorium or a grade level would essentially been going back to the beginning of the design phase and the town would have to go back to the MSBA for guidance.
A delay could cost $350,000 per month for delay of project.
Small said he would be hesitant to save on contingency, which serves as a financial safety net in the event of problems, as well as FFE and the stage. He preferred to keep the contingency protection, hoping that they could get the stage money back and “covering ourselves for the FFE down the line.”
- 1
- 2
- 3
- …
- 136
- Next Page »