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Galvin had just made a motion, withdrawn for the vote on whether to rescind the previous vote to: Eliminate the auditorium [a savings of $8.8 million from the town’s share]; eliminate 2,000 square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