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.”