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
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.

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.”