WHITMAN – It’s up to the voters now.
The Whitman Middle School project is one of the 15 articles on the warrant for the Monday, Oct. 30 special Town Meeting at 7:30 p.m., in the Whitman Town Hall auditorium. The $135 million project will now cost the town about $76 million, with the the Massachusetts School Building Authority (MSBA) voting on Wednesday morning, Oct. 25 to increase its funding for the project by $14 million — to $59,159,717, according to Building Committee member Kathleen Ottina. The vote lowers the amount the town would pay.
Voters must approve it at both the Town Meeting and a special Town Election held from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. on Saturday, Nov. 4 at Town Hall.
School district officials have been holding public informational forums and tours of the Whitman Middle School to demonstrate the need for a new building, with the last one held Saturday, Oct. 21. Beginning in the school’s cafetoruim, the tours included an overview of the MSBA process and determination that “we needed a project,” Building Committee Chair Fred Small said on a Sept. 28 tour [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Ti9g2SzvtQ]. Project architects, School Committee and district officials, and former Building Commissioner Bob Curran were on hand to discuss the project.
Videos of the tours are posted on the WHCA-TV YouTube channel for those who were unable to attend one of them.
“We wanted to make sure this got out on cable,” Superintendent of Schools Jeff Szymaniak said. “[There’s] a lot of information here. It’s going to be pretty detailed.”
The video is also posted on the district website whrsd.org.
The district has had a statement of interest for a new middle school before the MSBA since 2018.
Szymaniak became superintendent in February 2018 and former WMS Principal George Ferro was named assistant superintendent in March 2018.
“By July [2018], when we walked into Central Office, one of our first goals was to get an SOI (statement of interest) for this building because we thought five years before there should have been an SOI and it didn’t happen,” Szymaniak said. “In 2014, there was a major mold issue in the [WMS] gymnasium, similar to what we had a couple years back.”
But discussions about getting a new roof never got off the ground, Szymaniak said. He and Ferro decided their first priority was for it to happen this time, knowing it would take a while.
“Given the history I’ve had with the MSBA, you never get it the first time,” he said of acceptance into the project pipeline. “We wrote the statement of interest, they brought it to the core program, who did a site visit out here and the comments were: ‘Oh, my goodness, this building needs to be fixed. Who’s your facilities director?’”
But, Szymaniak said the facilities department has to do a lot without a lot.
“Rubber bands and paper clips,” he said.
The district was invited to Boston in December 2019 and were accepted.
“First time,” he said. “First run. I was there with people sitting next to me who had been [to MSBA] five times. … I’m nervous about having to reapply somewhere in the future because MSBA is very selective.”
Curran outlined how the town would have to fund repairs without MSBA help, if that choice is made, and once repairs reach 30 percent of the building’s value, code upgrades for fire safety – the school predates the first fire code in 1975 – as well as the Americans with Disabilities Act (1991) apply for the entire building and would increase the cost.
“This building has been a problem since I started,” he said, noting he had been building commissioner in town for 24 years. “This building was never built to be accessible. I don’t think they thought about that much back then.”
A slide presentation illustrated architectural and systems deficiencies of the building as well as for amenities that can bolster academics in a new school, such as the need for small, flexible learning spaces to help students catch up after the pandemic.
The forums also delved into the various options considered by the Building Committee and the financial implications of them.
Other articles on the Town Meeting warrant include:

• Appropriate the sum of $1,143,271.15 for a new DPW building and determine whether funds shall be raised by a transfer from excess funds originally raised for other capital projects;
• A $21,400 wing snowplow for the DPW;
• Portable radio replacement [$9,138.65] for the fire department, from the original appropriation for Whitman’s share of resurfacing the WHRSD track;
• Matching funds for a fire department brush truck [$14,090.72] and a $5,554.29 fire training grant also from the track appropriation remainder.
• A $36,459 municipal fiber technology grant from the balance of unexpended funds from the original appropriation to reimburse WHRSD for a chairlift installation at Duval School;
• A $142,793.60 appropriation from the Cable Access account to fund PEG cable access services;
• Acceptance of Little comfort Circle as a public way; and
• A Right to Farm bylaw.

WHITMAN – Borrowing for the proposed Whitman Middle School will be done through a level principal approach the School Committee voted 8-1 following a joint meeting with the Select Board on Tuesday, Oct. 17.
That approach calls for a larger first-year payment of $8 million – $3 million in principal and $5 million in interest – in order to greatly reduce the annual payments for the rest of the 30-year loan. With a level-debt bond, the town pays $6.2 million not only for the first year of the bond, but for all 30 years.
School Committee Dawn Byers voted no, because, she argued a level-debt structure with even payments was the more affordable option for taxpayers. Member Glen DiGravio was unable to attend the session, which will be rebroadcast on WHCA-TV and posed on its YouTube Channel.
The town must approve the issuance of debt for the Whitman Middle School project at both the special Town Meeting on Monday, Oct. 30 and at the Saturday, Nov. 4 special Election ballot in order for the current MSBA project to move forward.
The town’s share of the $135 million project is $90 million, with the Massachusetts School Building Authority funding $45 million of the cost.
“Understanding that these are not going to be exact numbers because we’re not there yet, we’re trying to give the taxpayers an idea of what’s to be expected to the best of our knowledge,” School Committee Chair Beth Stafford said. “It’s not going to be great and easy either way, but – and I won’t be here for the 30 years, I’m sure – I have to look at the future, too, for the town of Whitman, just as I look at the future for the children with a new school.”
She had initially been in favor of the level-debt structure, but hearing about the savings to the town changed her mind.
“I’ll find a way,” Stafford said.
The School District has also added website, wmsproject.org, providing information, videos, schedules and more about the project.
The $5 million in interest would be the same payment owed in the first year of the bond, but only $1.2 million of the principal would be paid that year under the level debt method.
“Basically, [on the level-principal approach], we’re paying more principal up-front and it’s working the interest down over the life of the loan,” Select Board member Shawn Kain said. “If you add the difference between the two over time, it’s about $19 million difference.” A level-debt bond, in other words, would cost the town an additional $19 million in interest on the life of the bond.
Town Administrator Mary Beth Carter said the cost of that $19 million difference to the average homeowner with an average assessed valuation of $420,530 over the term of the bonds will be $4,385.51 more under a level debt structure than they would under a level principal structure, projected on an estimated rate of 5.5 percent. She stressed that figures discussed are estimates based on $90 million in borrowing with an interest rate of 5.5 percent, on the average assessment on a home valued at $420,530.
“I do not recommend the level debt service structure for the Whitman Middle School project borrowing,” Carter said. “I recommend the level principal structure.”
The town can seek to refinance a bond structure after 10 years, Carter said. Kain noted that after 10 years the principal will have been paid down by about $31 million under a level principal – but only by $17 million under a level debt structure.
“That’s exactly what we did with the high school,” School Committee member Fred Small said. “It saved the towns on the assessment, while not lengthening the term at all.”
Carter said that both the district and the town share the same financial services firm advising them, Unibank, but each works with a different representative. The town’s advisor has stated that he cannot think of any reason why a municipality would choose a level debt structure over a level principal structure for a building construction project due to the “significance in interest,” Carter said.
School Committee member Dawn Byers said she “could think of every reason why we should not go level-principal, because at this moment, every taxpayer probably thinks both options are probably out of reach for them.”
She pointed to her own mortgage, which is level debt for 30 years.
“Maybe that’s not the best practice for municipalities, but we can look at the last decade, and I don’t see that some best practices have been followed here,” she said. “To now want to follow the largest jump, the most significant increase to our neighbors and ourselves, puts this building completely out of reach.”
She argued that a level-debt approach was a more stable approach.
“I’m hopeful the school department will do as it has done in the past and work with the town to choose the more fiscally responsible debt service structure for the Whitman Middle School project borrowing,” she said.
“If approved, the district will be the borrower of the debt for the Whitman Middle School project,” said Carter. “They will be what I consider to be the conduit for the borrowing for this project. The town votes to approve this project and the town votes to pay the debt through an assessment from the W-H Regional School District each fiscal year.”
The town will make the payments as a debt exclusion – debt outside the levy voted by the town, with the district making the payments to the issuer.
Both short-term borrowing called bond anticipation notes (BANs) and long-term borrowing, or bonds, with interest rates for each based on the district’s bond rating, not the town’s.
“It’s your decision to decide but [Stafford] wanted to talk to us about it – to decide which method of borrowing we would use for the new Whitman Middle School,” Select Board Chair Dr. Carl Kowalski said.
Carter and Kain prepared a presentation about the value of level principal borrowing over level debt borrowing.
“We’re very fortunate to have a town administrator who was a treasurer-collector for a long time,” Kowalski said.
Using information from the financial consultant the town has been working with, Kain outlined the difference between the two borrowing methods.
The Select Board recommended the level-principal method.
“What the level principal means is you take [the rounded-off] $90 million, which is how much you have to borrow and you divide it up into 30 years,” Kain said. “That’s $3 million a year – that’s the level principal.”
In the first year, the town would be paying the interest – at 5.5 percent – is about $5 million for the amount being borrowed. Carter compared a level-debt structure to a fixed mortgage in which, while the debt payment each year remains constant, reducing the early-year principal payback in order to lower principal and interest payments on the front end, but the level of outstanding debt-to-interest costs stay at a higher level, increasing interest costs over the term of the bond.
“Level principal pays of the outstanding principal faster over the term of the bonds and thus reduces interest costs,” she said.
Because the towns payment declines over time, the assessment to each homeowner will decline over time with level principal. Whereas with level debt the Town pays the same amount every year and assesses that amount to the taxpayers. For example (average homeowner with a 420K house) in year one might save $329 with level debt, by year 30 they pay an extra $569.
Stafford said that is a $26 difference between the two bond structures for the first year.
“In the beginning years, you’re paying less with level debt than you are with level principal, just the first 10,” Carter said. “People have to realize that that difference they see when the first year is quoted as a comparison is only in year one.”
By the eleventh year, however, the level debt structure is costing more than the level principal structure.
“With each year, you can see how it’s getting smaller with each year,” Kain said. “The reason it’s getting smaller is because, you’re still paying the $3 million principal, but the interest is getting slightly smaller each year.”
On the last year of the bond, the town would pay only about $3,150,000 in principal and interest to finish off the debt.
With a level-debt bond, the town pays $6.2 million not only for the first year of the bond, but for all 30 years.
“We also have to think about how it’s going to fit in line with some of the other projects,” Kain said of the school borrowing.
A rumor circulating in town, arguing that the school district can “use the next year to redesign the project as a grades six to eight school without an auditorium can stay in the MSBA pipeline” and still receive funding, is not accurate, school officials have stressed in public forums.
The MSBA has confirmed that the project scope and budget are locked in following the board’s approval and that the MSBA has never allowed a district to substantially change a project after a failed vote or continued a project to move forward under the same statement of interest. If a debt exclusion ballot vote fails the district has 10 days to update the MSBA on the failed vote and any re-vote must be for the same project.
The district would have to submit a new statement of interest and begin the MSBA process over again, with any changes or build any alternative plan at the district’s expense with no MSBA reimbursement.

By Tracy F. Seelye, Express editor
[email protected]
WHITMAN – The town will not need to place a debt exclusion question for the proposed DPW building project on the Saturday, Nov. 4 special Town Election ballot.
Town Counsel had been waiting on a call from the Commonwealth’s Municipal Finance Bureau on whether or not the town could use sewer rates to fund the portion of the $2.2 million in additional debt on the project.
“They did say today that, yes, we could do that,” Town Administrator Mary Beth Carter said during a remote special meeting on Friday, Sept. 29 with DPW Commission Chair Kevin Cleary, DPW Building Committee Chair Frank Lynam and Assistant Town Administrator Kathleen Keefe.
“We do have to set up a document sort of to memorialize exactly what we’re doing and what percentage we will be using, but that could be done after the special Town Meeting as long as everything goes through for that borrowing,” Carter said. “We don’t need to put a ballot on, which I think, is great news today.”
“That is perfect news, actually,” Select Board Chair Dr. Carl Kowalski said. “The DPW bulding’s progress is not going to be halted and it will allow us to clear the way for a consideration of the school issue at special Town Meeting and at the ballot box, so things don’t have to get complicated, things don’t have to get confusing, and I think that was great work that was begun by you and Justin [Evans, Select Board clerk].”
Kowalski also lauded the great work done at the DPW.
“I think this is a great ending to this week,” he said.
Cleary agreed, thanking the efforts of Carter and Evans as well as Lynam and Dennis Smith for finding the funding sources that allowed the project to be funded without a debt exclusion.
“I will give all of them credit,” he said.
“A lot of work has been done by the people Kevin just mentioned,” Kowalski agreed. “I think we have a lot to be thankful for, and hopefully the special Town Meeting and the ballot will go smoothly.”
Select Board member Shawn Kain asked if the funding arrangement would still require a rate increase to the average ratepayer.
“We looked at all the numbers, and to put it very simply, already the DPW raised sewer rates $1.50 last year, and planned on raising the sewer rates an additional $1.25 this year,” Carter said. “That is just for the sewer force main project, however, I calculate with Ken [Lytel, the town accountant], that we’re going to be able to accomplish the sewer force main and this $2.2 million in debt for an overall cost, which comes in less than the $2.75 increase that was projected and the reason for that is the sewer force main project has a lot of breaks and that came in under budget to start with.”
The town’s use of $2.2 million in ARPA for the sewer project and $1.18 million in ARPA forgiveness on a $12.8 million loan authorization on the sewer force main project, drops the loan authorization to a lower amount and the trust is saying the ARPA amount will not change on the reimbursement factor, she explained.
“So, for many reasons, that debt is coming much lower,” she said. “We’re figuring approximately – and these are rough numbers – about an 80- to 90-cent increase, when it was going to be $1.25 anyway this year.”
Lynam said some of the enterprise funds would be directed toward water and this is a whole project.
“Sewer rates will be coming down in proportion to what’s going up on the water,” he said.
Kain suggested that stabilization funds could be used to address soil contamination issues at the DPW site.
“Anything that we can do to lessen the burden that’s going to be put on the taxpayer with the rate increases or a debt exclusion, I think that could be a potential option that could help, as well,” he said.
Lynam suggested that be looked at when they see what the actual costs are, so it could be an option if needed later.

WHITMAN – The Whitman Middle School is officially on the ballot for the Saturday, Nov. 4 special Town Election after the Select Board on Tuesday, Sept. 26 voted to place the question before the voters.
Member Justin Evans attended the meeting remotely via Zoom and Chair Dr. Carl Kowalski was absent from the meeting.
A question for a debt exclusion to fund the DPW building project was delayed until 12:30 p.m., Friday, Sept. 29, so that the board can hear from Town Counsel on whether the town can use water/sewer rates to help fund the DPW project. [see below]. Town Counsel is seeking the opinion of a municipal finance board that only meets on Thursdays before offering advice on the matter, according to Town Administrator Mary Beth Carter. 
The deadline for that decision is close of business on Friday. 
Board member Shawn Kain read from a debt analysis he wrote on the town’s levy capacity [see page 7].
“The current tax levy is about $30 million,” he said after reading the analysis. “So when we’re talking about the red line, 12 percent of $30 million, that’s where that red line is.”
He said that the total levy was about $15 million when the new high school was built 20 years ago, and noted it could be $50 million 20 years from now.
The high school will come off the books in 2027, but Kain said, when it does, it will be at $350,000, but more than $8 million for the first year of the middle school will be there.
“That’s a big difference to consider,” Kain said. “The school [district] has made a very good presentation of their arguments for the school and even how much it’s going to cost individually, and people have to answer that question: ‘How much can I afford?’ The question we’re evaluating here is what can the town collectively afford – and that’s a different question, collectively, all together.”
He said that is why the town works with consultants and writes policy – to keep the town on sound financial ground.
Finance Committee member Rosemary Connolly, while thanking Kain for thinking about how the town handles debt, but said that happened a long time ago and there have been times in the last 20 years when the town carried no debt.
“Buildings erode, and we didn’t plan for this,” she said. “We had no rolling debt.”
She also argued, where the middle school is concerned, the town can’t give voters the “illusion that there is a choice – that there’s a cheaper option out there.”
“By law, we have to provide a building,” Connolly said. “This is the cheapest option, whether we want to pretend it’s not. Unless you figure out a way to stop inflation – and we’ve seen it with the DPW building and everything else – this is the point at which we can get the cheapest building.”
She said the real question is whether the town pays for the most it can get now, or comes back later and pays more for less building.
Renovation would trigger accessibility and fire codes that would also increase the cost, which the town would have to shoulder alone.
“We have to tell the truth to the public,” she said. “The truth is, we did not handle our capital and we did not handle our infrastructure well and now it’s come to a tipping point.”
Kain said he appreciated Connolly’s comments, but asked why the high school was so affordable and the middle school is not. While the building costs are high, he suggested that building the high school as a regional project is one of the reasons why it was more affordable.
“Did they consider a regional option?” he asked.
Building Committee Chair Fred Small, while cautioning he wasn’t trying to play Monday morning quarterback, said a regional middle school was an idea he had in 2013.
“It had been discussed in the past,” he said. “We do need a new middle school.”
The current building has outlived its useful life as far as systems – electrical, plumbing and HVAC – the major things, and special requirements have changed.
“The levy doesn’t move fast enough to encapsulate today’s construction costs,” Small said, noting that overall construction costs increased by about $7 million in the last six months.
Former WMS Building Committee member John Galvin also pointed to the building project South Shore Tech is planning, cautioning it would “catch us all by surprise.”
“We all knew they were accepted by the MSBA, but I think we were all surprised – or at least I was surprised – at how quickly they’re moving,” he said. “They were a couple of years behind us originally, but now they’re only about 10 months behind us. … They don’t have numbers yet, but they will soon.”
Galvin said SST’s website is projecting total costs at between $250 million and $300 million. Because Whitman has about 24 percent of the SST student body, 24 percent of the municipality share of that building – about $40 million – will come to the town.
“One of the things that bothers me is this debt is going to bring a lot of hardship to a lot of people,” Select Board member Laura Howe said. “I can’t speak to financial decisions of the past. … There’s nothing to be done about yesterday.”
She expressed fear that the costs of such projects would cause a “mass exodus from the town,” and said she is also concerned about the Duval and Conley schools, which are 20 years older than the middle school. “They have to look at what’s best for them,” she said of project costs vs household bills. “That’s why a voter votes.”
Lynam said he didn’t think the board was going to get anywhere with an 11th-hour discussion.
“A committee was formed,” he said. “They did an analysis. They met publicly over [three years] and they came up with a plan. The next step in that process is to present the plan to the public.”
That will be done at the Oct. 30 special Town Meeting and Nov. 4 ballot initiative.
“The discussions we’re having here are probably nothing compared to what we’re going to see at Town Meeting,” Lynam said.
The Select Board had questions as to whether a DPW ballot question should be on the same ballot as the Whitman Middle School project.
“I certainly have reservations about this,” Kain said. “I’m not comfortable going back to the voters for more money on a project … I’d rather find creative ways to get the money or be more disciplined about finding ways we can make the project work.”
Evans agreed, suggesting the decision on whether to place the question on the ballot should wait until they hear from counsel on Friday.
“My concern there is that, if the middle school project were to fail, we wouldn’t have a clear answer from the voters to say, ‘it’s because of the project,’” he said. “It could be we were confused because there were two questions on the ballot. I kind of want a clear direction from the voters on the middle school project, and I’m afraid this will muddy the waters.”
Salvucci said the question is only to provide a fallback in case Plymouth County ARPA funds were not an allowed use for completing the sewer force main project in order to free up other revenue sources for the DPW building.
He said the extra money is intended to address soil contamination at the site, which needs to be taken care of whether a building is placed there or not.
“We’re just setting [a question] so that, if something happens that we have no control over, which I don’t think is going to happen, we’re just covering ourselves to be able to get this project going and to clean up that soil.”
Howe said both questions should be left to the voters.
“We should give our voters the choice,” she said. “I think our voters are smart enough to know where they want our money to go.”
DPW building
During its joint meeting with the DPW Commissioners, the Board approved use of $2.2 million in Plymouth County ARPA funds to help pay for the sewer force main project to enable a Town Meeting article asking for the transfer of borrowing authority to the DPW building project.
A ballot question was delayed until Friday just in case the funding transfers were not approved by bonding counsel.
We are looking at the potential of not having to do a debt exclusion vote,” said Frank Lynam of the DPW Building Committee. “We may have to, it all depends how this final piece comes together. … I think, at this point, we’re all pretty confident that that’s going to work.”
The DPW committee had met just before the Select Board to discuss the need to raise additional funds for the project as Carter has been researching potential options, according to Lynam.
“This is only possible because so many previous articles came in under budget,” Evans said, thanking the DPW commissioners for conducting a well-run sewer main project. “We’ve caught every lucky break possible.”
He stressed the public is not being asked for additional money.
“We’re reallocating debt,” he said.
In addition to financial sources previously discussed, they also talked about borrowing funds, Lynam said.
“Our biggest concern was layering an additional level of borrowing on top of what is already being presented to the town,” he said. “Mary Beth suggested we look at the possibility of utilizing county ARPA funds to free up some of the debt commitment we’ve made to the sewer main replacement program.”
Discussions have been going back and forth on the issue between bond counsel and local counsel.
“I think it’s now in the hands of the umpire,” he said, but the committee expects to be able to commit about $2.2 million less on the sewer water main than previously voted and suggested extending that borrowing authority to the DPW building project. “We would not be borrowing any more money than we’ve previously committed, but we would be utilizing available funds to reduce the borrowing in one area to enable us in another without significantly increasing the cost to the ratepayer and the taxpayer.”
They are also looking at enterprise funds for a portion of the project funding.
Carter said the DPW project shortfall is $3,088,760 and by searching out remaining funds from previous projects, totalling $1,043,271.15 that there is $2.73 million remaining in Plymouth County ARPA funds. She recommended using $2.2 million of the ARPA funds toward the sewer force main project because the DPW building project is not one of the limited areas for which they can be used, but sewer/water project is.
A matching Town Meeting article for $2.2 million will ask voters to trade borrowing authority to the DPW building.
“I’ve checked with everybody, and everybody said that should work,” she said.

By Tracy F. Seelye, Express editor
[email protected]
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.

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.”

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.”

WHITMAN – Numbers on the Whitman Middle School project have suddenly changed, leaving Committee members questioning why, the Select Board heard on Tuesday, Aug. 22
Town Administrator Mary Beth Carter outlined the financials for the Select Board, noting that the Whitman Middle School project price tag has increased – but the MSBA reimbursement went up by a larger percentage.
The Building Committee met Tuesday, Aug 15 to discuss the most recent updates regarding the project. Another meeting for the Building Committee is slated for Monday, Aug. 28.
“Now it’s getting real, so to speak,” Building Committee Chair Fred Small said “There should be some options on the table for us.”
The whole committee needs to sit down and discuss why the numbers changed and to have the opportunity to seek another option – if one is available, he said.
“I’m glad you are calling another meeting,” said Select Board Chair Dr. Carl Kowalski.
A new school building’s total price tag increased by more than $7 million [$135 million, up from $127 million] – but the town’s portion after the estimated reimbursement from the Massachusetts School Building Authority (MSBA) would be increased by $17 million, with the town getting back $90 million rather than the $72 million previously anticipated – a 26-percent increase.
The Building Committee had also voted on Aug. 15 to send all the information on the schematic design phase of the project to MSBA. The final step before requesting approval from voters at special Town Meeting in October and a subsequent ballot vote. The schematic deadline was Aug. 31, and the Monday meeting should also look at options, including if an extension of that deadline could be granted.
“The numbers we were given for the new project originally were [about] $67 million to $72-something million.” Small said. “When we saw the $89 million figure, it was quite startling.”
He said the new numbers had not been received until very late before the Aug. 15 meeting, giving committee members little time to digest the information and have questions prepared.
“I ran some numbers and the impact of this new cost to taxpayers, is approximately $1,494.01 for the first year of debt,” Carter said. “This figure is based on a level-principal, 30-year debt schedule calculated at the district’s anticipated borrowing rate of 5.5 percent.”
That impact amount was based on an average single-family home with a valuation of $420,530 as of today. Debt payments based on a level principal debt schedule decrease each year over the 30-year term, according to Carter, with an average debt payment being $1,017.59.
“The difference in using a level debt service schedule as opposed to a level principal debt service schedule saves the town over $19 million on this new construction borrowing options,” she said. “That would be the option that I would say that I would want the town to use.”
She said staggering the borrowing over two or three years, based on projected cash flow, the interest rate used in the calculation would be different, and the impact to taxpayers would also be different.
A base repair option, for example, would be estimated to cost $60,358,000 with the impact to taxpayers on an average single-family house would be about $1,001.96 in the first year of debt. The borrowing rate of 5.5 percent and a 30-year schedule decreasing each year, were the same as the first option.
The average payment over the 30 years on a base repair option would be $682.38.
“The difference in using a level debt service schedule instead of a level principal service debt schedule for a repair option saves the town over $12 million in interest,” she said. Noting in this scenario, the level principal would be the best way to finance it.
“This is an estimate based on the district borrowing the whole amount in one bond issue,” Carter said.
The base repair cost is based on the useful life and would not be considered a renovation, but a repair of the building.
“The question is what would the useful life be, and you are allowed to expend your debt schedule based on the useful life,” she said, noting her calculations were based on a 30-year debt schedule. “If it were determined that it’s a 20-year useful life, of course, that payment would be even higher.”

WHCA contract
Comcast Executive Director Eric Dresser discusses the decennial license renewal process, the current license began in June 2014 and expires in June 2024.
“Just recently we kicked off the process of the every-10-years cable license renewal,” he said. He and Assistant Town Administrator Kathleen Keefe have met with attorney William Soloman in a preliminary meeting, whom the board approved to enter into the contract negotiations.
He said Soloman has assured WHCA they are not in any “red zone” in terms of timing, but they are aiming to continue progress on the process. The first of the necessary steps is holding an ascertainment hearing for the community to come in and speak about the benefits of the cable access service, including feedback or changes they might like to see in a new cable license.
He asked the Select Board to set a date for an ascertainment hearing, suggesting Sept. 19 or Oct. 3. The board agreed with Dresser’s preference for Oct, 3 for a meeting with department heads about how they can better serve them under a new contract. They have already conducted an ascertainment hearing in Hanson last February.
People who can’t attend in person can write a letter to WHCA.
“Our contact goes out over the entire world, so if there’s somebody that benefits from watching our programming in Florida, we’ll take whatever from wherever they are,” he said.