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Galvin had just made a motion, withdrawn for the vote on whether to rescind the previous vote to: Eliminate the auditorium [a savings of $8.8 million from the town’s share]; eliminate 2,000 square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.”