53°
HOLDEN, Mass. — The Mountview School Building Committee continues to move forward with the potential middle school construction project, and has whittled down its options to a renovation and addition, or building new on either the existing site or on a new location.
According to Vice Chairman David White, every major system in the current middle school is "near, at or beyond its serviceable life," including the HVAC and plumbing, electrical systems, and roof and building envelope.
While White emphasized that people shouldn't be panic-stricken about the safety and environmental hazards in the old building, as it is "sustainable for the time being," he also stressed the needs to move forward with upgrades.
"This project offers the most cost-effective opportunity to deal with this liability," he said.
Because the Massachusetts School Building Authority potentially cost-sharing 50 to 54 percent of the project with Holden, it requires that the project conform to their strict guidelines, reflects and supports the educational program practices of the school district, and produces a 50-year building.
At its meeting on July 24, the committee reviewed preliminary construction cost estimates for the various options, which had a minimum renovation at $733,243, moderate renovation at $10,126,913, a renovation and addition at $39,518,682, new construction on the existing site at $47,929,966, and new construction on a new site at $47,724,822.
Because they would not achieve the educational standard of the district or the Massachusetts School Building Authority, the committee voted to eliminate the minimum renovation and moderate renovation options from future consideration.
At 7 p.m. on Aug. 28, there will be a public hearing at Mountview to discuss data, findings, and recommendations of the Preliminary Design Program and prepare for the next phase in the the feasibility study.
Local committees and representatives have been invited to discuss the status of the Preliminary Schematic Report and the various options being considered.
At the Sept. 4 meeting, the committee will decide which of the three remaining options will be submitted to the state in the PSR. The project will not move forward unless the MSBA agrees with Holden's preferred solution.
Comments (18)
Long time observer: Thanks for the info. If I can't make tonight's meeting due to my prior commitments, I will mark my calendar for both Sept 5th and Sept 11th to attend. Where are these meeting being held? Most meeting I see are usually at the Senior Center.
The 5th and 11th should be at the Holden Light Department at 6:00pm, which is where the meetings are usually held. When in doubt you can check the own's web site holdenma.gov under calendar of events and it will say there.
SMR3357: All town committee meetings are open to anyone who wants to attend, resident or not. The latest word from the building committee is that they are giving a presentation tonight at 6 and soliciting input from the community on the 3 options being considered. Then they are meeting at 6PM on both Sept 5 and Sept 11 to debate and decide which option to put forward. There is a period for public comment at all their meetings.
Hi C_Lucchesi,
Thanks for the invite, I would love to come and share my ideas with the committee on Tue night but unfortunately I am no longer a resident of the town but still own a home in Holden. I'm not sure what the requirements are for 'non-residents" in regards to attending meetings of this type. If it were permissible and the meeting is today 08/28, unfortunately I have a prior appointment that will take me into the early evening. If another meeting is scheduled at a later date, I would love to attend if it's allowed.
Some background about myself. I grew up in Holden and lived a total of 46 years in the town before moving out but still have a financial stake as I still own a home in the town not to mention the many friends I have living in the town. I went through the Holden School system before K-12 was adopted and my kids attended the WRSD up until high school. I still feel a sense of commitment to the town of Holden with the financial stake being secondary due to all the good years I had growing up and living in the town.
Hello again to all: The Regional Agreement defines the relationship between
the towns and the school district. In the middle and elementary schools,
the District hires and pays for the custodians while the towns do the
plowing, raking, etc. The custodians clear the doorways and adjacent
walkways of snow and do some cleanup of flower beds, etc. At the
high school, the custodians take care of the grounds and the fields
in addition to cleaning and maintaining the interior of the building.
The District pays the costs of electricity and water to the towns.
The Regional Agreement explains how the costs of maintenance
and repairs to the individual schools are made. This Agreement can be
accessed on line. Also, the Agreement will be reviewed this
year; the Committee will be inviting input, and any proposed
changes will be voted on at the May town meetings in all five
towns. You are welcome to address any suggested changes to
the Regional Agreement Subcommittee.
At this time, I will not make any comment regarding the
advantages of regionalization, as that topic is not part of the
task of the Mountview Building Committee.
I hope this information is helpful.
Margaret Watson
smr3357: The type of planning you spoke of earlier was done for Mayo yet you say it will be outdated when/if it is ever needed. I would suggest that the mechanical systems will be outdated at some point or another and the up-charge to put in larger than necessary to accommodate a future addition was very minimal at best. You are only talking about a small up-charge for the larger equipment but the install would be about the same even if the boilers were slightly smaller. What there will be a payback on is the fact that all of the mechanical and electrical systems are dead ended inside the foundation wall right where the addition would be constructed.
Davis Hill was not constructed the same way. First of all the design for David Hill was actually for the location where the Senior Center is. This is why there is a bend in the building from the front door toward the west. This bend was to accommodate the shape of the site in the center of town. Once a “deal” was struck with many groups in town the Davis Hill site was purchased from the Zottoli’s to put the new school on. To avoid the additional cost to re-design the school the same drawings were used and simply moved to the new location to save money. Additionally it was not felt that it would be necessary to add onto that building since the Mayo property was already done and could accept 220 more students if the need ever arose.
Lastly, even though the town fields are fairly well cared for there is always a need to do reconstruction work on them. Last year the Bubar Field had a significant amount of money spent on it because it needed restoration work. That money came from the recreation department’s revolving account. This account takes excess money from user fees and sets it aside for future projects. This account was set up in the past because fighting about “playing Fields” on town meeting floor is always a loser! So to take the debate off of town meeting floor regarding this type of item the “recreation revolving account” was set up.
As far as population is concerned it always goes up and down slightly. As families children go through the schools and they become empty nesters they sell their houses. In most cases they sell to another family with children which keeps enrollment up.
You mentioned that the Mayo school was designed with a future addition and that the mechanicals will accommodate such an addition but I'm sure, by the time an addition is finally talked about, the mechanicals currently in place will probably be out-of-date and need to be replaced so all that money spent for the extra to support a future addition will be a waste. Also, what about the Davis Hill School? Was that designed with future expansion in mind?
Am I suggesting that it is realistic for the district to have a line item in the budget of that amount with no earmark except funding depreciation? yes I am as I believe it could be sold to the public if the numbers show it would have a significant saving over the long haul. In the case of Holden Schools this can not be done in the WRSD budget, as Ms. Wason stated in her post, but it could for the WRHS. Also, field overhauls are a "nice to have" and do not contribute directly as part of education of a student and in my opinion does not need to be considered. If they need to be updated, a separate expense can be raised and passed on it's own merits based on need and availability of money. Besides, if the fields are maintained properly, they should never need to be updated or overhauled which is part of a bigger problem with the WRSD in regard to maintenance.
Keep in mind that the population of students we currently have in the middle school is a result of the building boom that has since gone south and little or no growth to speak of is now occurring in Town. By the time a new Middle School is build, I suspect the population will shrink again over the next decade. Spikes in student population is something a school periodically needs to contend with and if when building the next middle school the current student population is considered too closely, Holden will again be overbuilding as I don't see this economy improving for at least the next decade or two, at least in regards to housing market.
I don't think the the Building Committee has taken the idea on planning for the future far enough. I have given many examples of what could be taken advantage of in order to make future buildings more configurable as time goes on without building the current monolithic monstrosities currently being built and could be a more cost effective solution to the tax payer. I hope the building committee keeps some of the ideas suggested in-mind when giving design specs to the architect.
Thanks Mr. White for the debate as I feel they are informative to both myself and anyone else reading them and can often result in fruitful ideas that might otherwise not be considered.
SMR3357:
Please come and share your ideas at our meeting on Tuesday night. You clearly care about what our community is faced with and have some ideas on how we can solve the problem before us at Mountview. I've read you posts and think your comments can add value to the debate. The members of this committee are not interested in "monoliths" but a real long term solution to a real problem.
While I may disagree with some of your points, I sense in spirit they are genuine thoughts in search of the same conclusion.
At Holden Days this weekend, as I represented the committee at it's booth/tent, I spoke with a number of individuals with many different thoughts related to what is before us. I value these discussions and I know my fellow committee members do as well.
The committee doesn't exist in a vacuum. We know there are people with good ideas different than our own. We know the current climate isn't optimal. We recognize what stresses our community and fellow taxpayers have before them. We are under the same stresses as individuals.
Please come and share your ideas.
Thanks Margaret, If it's true that the town owns both the schools and the grounds in Holden, does the WRSD pay the town a lease for using the building and if not, why? How does this work with WRHS, who owns that building? Do all 5 towns or Holden because it's physically on Holden land? I'd have to guess Holden but probably not due to the fact it had to pass all 5 towns in a vote to be built. It was mentioned a while back that the WRSD was going to close one of the towns middle schools(outside of Holden) and there was talk of them being bussed to Mountview Middle School. If that possibility could occur, with any town not just Holden, will Holden be building schools with the possibility of other towns kids using it and not having to pay for it? Doesn't seem fair if that is the case.
Back when when the WRHS was being built, why where Holden Little League/Babe Ruth games (games my son and daughter played in and I coached) canceled/postponed/reschedule at both the Mayo and Davis Hill due to the WRSD taking over authority of these fields? Also heard this happened to the soccer fields at both schools but I can't confirm this as my kids didn't play soccer. If the town of Holden owns both the Buildings and the Land, who gave the WRSD authority to supersede the town ownership or cooperating agencies (Baseball and Soccer Leagues) that normally work with the town of Holden's to fulfill it's needs?
If no lease is payed by the WRSD, where is the ROI to the town for using these buildings after all the money is payed for a new school? It would be totally idiotic to have the town pay 40+ Million for a school, turn it over to the WRSD to use and abuse only to have the town build another school in 40-50 years just to start the same cycle all over again. I also don't count the fact that the WRSD is educating the kids as ROI as the Town of Holden could do this much more efficiently and at a much cheaper cost on it's own, without being in the District, as it did years ago when I was a child growing up in Holden thus eliminating all this infighting amongst the towns and the drama the WRSD seems to always bring. If there is lease money paid by the District, that money should be put aside by the town in an account to pay for new schools or updates to schools in the future.
In my opinion, the value add of being in a District has long passed. The town had a chance to remove itself from the WRSD while the decision was being made to build WRHS. This would have given the Town of Holden the ability to focused all its needs and money on Holden kids only without the drama the WRSD brings to the town, but that's a whole other matter.
Hello to all: The Town of Holden owns both the school building and the
grounds. Renovating or replacing the present Mountview Middle School
has nothing to do with the WRSD budget. The taxpayers of Holden need
to decide whether to support renovation or new construction as they do
with any other town construction. However, the State of Mass. will
subsidize about 53% of this project if the taxpayers vote to support
it this coming May. This subsidy comes from the state sales tax; one
penny of the state sales tax is devoted to school construction.
If the Holden taxpayers agree, then we would have what is called
a debt exclusion. Again, this has nothing to do with the WRSD
budget or debt. Since all five towns send students to the high
school, that situation was quite different from the present one
dealing with Mountview.
Margaret Watson
smr3357, you disagree with my 5% number but where do you come up with 1%? Businesses usually for major capital investments look between 10-20 years for depreciation. You talk about the value of fields and the land. All of these do need to be reinvested in regularly. Field overhauls and parking lot crack filling seal coating and striping all need to be done. So if you don’t like 5% I will suggest 1% isn’t even close. The total cost of WRHS includes computers and equipment such as furniture which all needs to be replaced over time. But even your number of 1% is still 900,000.00 annually. That amount only does the high school then factor in Holden Schools and the number begins to reach 1.5 million from Holden. Are you suggesting that it is realistic for the district to have a line item in the budget of that amount with no earmark except funding depreciation? That would never fly, even though it probably should. But again I believe 5% is much closer to reality than 1% you suggest.
I mentioned the town budget because if we are pushing a funding plan and program for school facilities the town should also use the same plan. If it’s the best financial model than everyone should use it.
Your last point of planning for the future; The Holden School Building Committee did just what you suggest 12 years ago when we built Mayo School. The building was designed to accept an addition for around 220 students. The gym, library and cafeteria are all oversized to accept the additional student population. The mechanical equipment is large enough for the addition and in fact the mechanical piping and electrical connections already exist at the foundation wall to connect a new addition. This plan would not fly today with the new MSBA however under the old School Building Authority we were able to do it. So your suggestion is not something new and it is something that Holden has done with it’s school buildings.
Yes David, it’s true that colleges have a different funding source but that doesn’t mean that an account can be created as part of the WRSD budget to put aside even 1% of the cost for refreshing building. There is no hard rule that you need to use 5% as this is where most of my issue lies with what is being done. Everyone shoots for the moon when making proposals when there is no need for that. You also can’t simply say that the WRHS is worth 90+ million and use that number as total cost of recapitalizing a building when the whole intent in not to do that. We would only be interested in very focused periodic updates or refreshes to meet the needs of changing conditions throughout the life of the school. I believe this would keep property taxes as low as possible with that goal in mind. It’s done all the time in the hi-tech business by constructing labs, along with most if not all of the building, that have raised floors, PDU’s (Power distribution Units), and no load bearing walls so configurations of the lab/building can be changed or updated as project/business conditions change.
You also have to consider that the WRHS included a huge cost for all the site work and installation of the athletic fields along with supporting infrastructure which would not need to be factored in as part of the building cost. This would hold true for all the buildings throughout the WRSD where only the building would be considered and not expenses or upgrades to anything other than Education. Let’s face it, when it comes right down do it, sports is not part of education, it’s a nice to have and doesn’t not need to be considered as part of this equation. Although I personally like athletics in the schools, the focus should stay on the education of the student, not the extracurricular activities. If extra money needs to be appropriated for athletics infrastructure support they can be done as independent projects outside the scope of what’s needed for education. This number also doesn’t have to be based on the cost of schools, it could simple be a percentage of the overall budget that is set aside for these types of improvements and refreshes. I believe the towns already use accounts of this type so money can be use to help or cover the total cost of projects or equipment they towns may need.
I’m not sure why you even included all the town buildings as they are a whole separate issue handled under the town budget. In any case, a value for the buildings alone should be used, if used at all, for all the School building in the WRSD and then take 1% of that and have it added to the overall school budged at part of and infrastructure refresh fund. Even if I used an exaggerated total evaluations of 100 Million dollars per town to give you a total of 500 Million, taking one percent of that would be 5 Million that would be added to the school budget and set aside for future updates/refreshes as needed. Even with this greatly exaggerated example, I’m confident, if the numbers were presented correctly, people would much rather pay 5 Million more every year (split amongst all the towns) as part of the total school budged than be hit with a new school project lump sum every few years when someone determines a school is no longer usable and needs to be replaced. Not to mention the fact that you would get more than 40 years out of a school because it was originally designed to be updated/refreshed where the usable lifetime of the building could be almost unlimited.
People complain about capital project for the very reason I mention in my first post. Schools are currently built as monumental monoliths forgetting that it’s just a school where painted cement blocks and drywall are sufficient. We use enormous amounts of asphalt shingles to roof huge buildings when a metal roof, while a little more expensive, have a much greater life span. Then when it does come time to replace it (70+ years down the road) you don’t have to worry about the expense of hazardous waste and can simply scrap the old metal roof and probably get something for it in return. This same thing happened with the Safety Building when it came originally at 85,000 sq ft, later to be down sized to 35,600 sq ft. The building is still way to big in my opinion even after taking a walk through when the public was allowed. A Police/Fire department of Holden’s size will never need a station of that size even with expected growth. Nobody probably realizes but the Six Flags indoor water park is 38,000 sq ft and there is no way Holden needed a safety building larger than an indoor water park that can accommodate thousands of people. Some of the largest towns in the area, much larger than Holden, don’t have anything that compares to this building. WRHS is a very impressive building but never needed to be the size or expense is was actually built at. There’s no doubt that is both big and impressive, but will the five towns get close to what is considered close to a 100 Million return on investment, I think not. If either one of these buildings were put in frond of board of directors meeting at a private company, they would have been shot down. But I digress, as the point of all this is that everything having to do with Holden or the WRSD needs to be big and more importantly, impressive to all the surrounding towns.
Regardless of whether or not a wireless system goes obsolete in a few years, something should have been considered at the time. Speed is speed at the time and the total amount of users isn’t even an issue with wireless technology even 15 years ago. Once the cabling infrastructure is in (preferably optical), the updates to the hardware could be made a little at a time as needed, at far less an expense than what it would cost today to integrate the new system into an already established building. If I were to agree with the example you gave, the wireless system suggested should never be installed due to the fact that it would be obsolete in a couple of years so why bother. My question is, why is it even considering it now.
My final comment will be on planning and design of a building for the future to accommodate updates and expansion as part of the original design. Based on your reply, you really don’t get it as planning of this type does not involve building supper huge buildings to accommodate future student enrolments decades down the road or spaces to occupy nothing just in case it’s needed in the future. It involves a building architected by design to accept additions for expansion when needed. Allows for the upgrade or expansion of electrical and HVAC without major destruction of the building. For the design to allow for no or few no load bearing walls so interior changes can be made to accommodate changes in the needs for both teaching and technological needs. I could go on but I think you will now get my point. Until the mindset of the current building committee members change and start thinking out of the box instead of only going with the ideas that the Architects being hired suggest, you will always be building gigantic monolithic buildings that will always be torn down in the end with a much less than expected ROI. I don’t agree with your “if you look over the 50 year life of the building and how much money was not spent on it over that time the amount needed now is about right” as I don’t believe the numbers would support that, especially in regards to the new WRHS. You are right in saying “You are correct that eventually you have to pay, there are no free lunches or cups of coffee when it comes to maintain the envelope and mechanical/electrical systems in a major building.” But with careful planning and the right designs, you shouldn’t have to pay as much.
I find it extraordinary disconcerting that we no longer even seem to ask "But can the taxpayers Realiy afford this at this juncture?". It's as if this is not even so much as a factor in our public discourse anymore.
Our economy is horrendous right now. It is projected that unemployment may rise to 9% or more next year.
When future generations look back on our time with astonishment as to how we came to be a nation that thoughtlessly and shamefully passed on the burden of multiple trillions of dollars of crippling debt onto our children, they will undoubtedly point out that we fast became a people of "I want so therefore I am entitled..."
I only pray that those people still bear the name "Americans."
Though at is rate, I tend to think that what was once called America will long since have been no more.
I cannot speak to the residents from the past whom Mr. White (whose sincerity i do not doubt, though I think he is sincerely wrong on this) says "always said no" as I have not lived here long enough to have seen them. I do know that since I have been here we have a massive new high school that came in millions over-budget and a new multimillion dollar public safety complex that must be two to three times the size of what we really need (whichi I voted for much to my regret) so it seems to me these "no's" haven't exactly reigned supreme.
But what I do know is while the building may well need to be replaced in the future, the fact is we are entering extremely perilous times economically. The fact is families will have less and less money. The fact is this inevitable multimillion dollar rebuild means they will have even less.
The fact is when this is combined with an economy headed into another sinking recession, or worse, this shall invariably mean outright economic despair for Holden's families.
Frankly nor do I care.
Any sorry : I meant to place "Frankly nor do I care" after the sentence ending "...it seems to me these,'no's' haven't exactly reigned supreme."
And again, I thank Mr. White for his civility, regardless of how strongly I may disagree with him on this.
To respond to a couple of smr3357’s points, You are completely correct that colleges and universities do have buildings that are very old and still in use. The difference is that they do maintain their buildings and b maintain I don’t simply keep them clean either. However these institutions regularly reinvest in their infrastructure and do large capital projects to keep their buildings updated. In municipal government if there were regular money going into a capital account for these purposes it would be the first thing cut from the budget every year. The type of recapitalization you talk about is significant annually. It should be around 5% of the value of the property which would mean in a 20 year period we would have recapitalized a building 100%. So in looking at the Holden Schools which are valued at approximately 80 million let’s say that would be around 4 million per year in capital improvements, just for Holden Schools alone. WRHS is worth 90 million + - and Holden is 40% so we have around 36 million there to reinvest in annually which is another 1.8 million. Then the town buildings are worth around another 20 to 30 million and you do the math. There is no way out of property taxes that we can fund this level of recapitalization of our buildings. Universities have a much different funding source and they are able to fund their recapitalization. As I am sure you know business funds its “depreciation” that is what recapitulation of your property is.
Since municipalities do not fund their depreciation because it is impossible with the constraints of 2 ½ and the many stains on property taxes buildings do get to the point of needing so much work that the projects are far too expensive to be handled within a regular budget cycle. This is why the MSBA is there and funds school projects.
The same people that complain about capital projects are the ones that would complain about adding to the town budget a line item to fund depreciation. The goal is always keep property taxes as low as possible.
As far as wireless networks I would agree with you however wireless systems are continually changing with regard to speed and the number of simultaneous users. If in 2008 WRHS had a wireless system it would quickly become outdated because to the ever increasing speed of the internet. At home it is usually one or two users so the speed difference is much less an issue that at a school where there are hundreds of users.
Planning for the future is also something that people will complain about. If you are going to build for the future the project will fail because people will say it is too big. Just look at the public safety building recently built. Many people say it is too big and if they are right it will mean in future years the building can accept growth within the departments. If they are wrong it will not however there are complaints about it being too big. So the argument about “plan for the future” as you say gets its share of people that complain about building too much or too big.
I don’t disagree that it seems that having to rebuild a 50 year old building seems like a waste however if you look over the 50 year life of the building and how much money was not spent on it over that time the amount needed now is about right. You are correct that eventually you have to pay, there are no free lunches or cups of coffee when it comes to maintain the envelope and mechanical/electrical systems in a major building.
For once I'd like to see school buildings in the district be maintained and updated on a regular basis instead of new buildings being built every 40 - 50 years and then thrown away as disposable buildings on the premiss they are now out-of-date and no longer usable. For some reason I get the impression that everyone seems to think that "Maintain" means cleaning and daily repairs as things break only.
Some of the best colleges in the country have buildings hundreds of years old while educating some of the brightest minds. You don't see them tearing buildings down and throwing them away unless it's absolutely necessary. Maybe it's because they are spending their own money instead of others and apply practical business practices on how they educate along with what would be considered a more reasonable ROI. If the school district spent half the money proposed for new buildings and put it towards scheduled updates to maintaining schools properly over the total life of a building, instead of letting them rundown and become obsolete before their time, the District would save hundreds of millions of dollars and put a severely reduced tax burden on its taxpayers over the long haul. Not to mention the technology refresh that would occur every few years instead of waiting every 40 - 50 years for an update.
Schools should be designed to include future updates and additions as technology and conditions change with student population and needs. Instead we build monumental monoliths that put some corporate headquarters to shame so we can all pat ourselves on the back at the end of the accomplishment as to how great a school that was build with all its technological wonders and beauty while knowing the reality, in the back of our heads, it will only be demolished in the next 40 - 50 years.
I wish someone would rebuild my home every 40 - 50 years after I let it go from simply being lived-in. Although it should be more like every 20 - 25 years as my home doesn't get the use a school building gets. People need to remember that buildings do not educate students, teachers do.
BTW, Wachusett Regional High School is the most recent school build/remodel for the District and was completed in 2008 (Just 4 years ago) According to the articles written at the time expressing the need to purchase IPad's for the District, it was mentioned that all the schools the district, including WRHS, needed to be updated to wireless internet. Who was the brainiac on the building committee that didn't include wireless internet?? That should have been a no-brainer for a new school building in this day and age. Hell, I've had wireless in my house for the last 15 years.
Actuall “Name Withheld” I would disagree with a couple of your points.
1.If a rebuild is not the recommendation as you state as a certainty it will be because it is not the best value. If it is chosen it will be because it is the best value. As it looks right now the difference between build new or add renovate is minimal at best because of the challenges in renovating the current building. Given that however it is being fully studied by LPA and the best valued solution that meets the educational requirements as set forth by the MSBA will be the proposal that I will vote for.
2.With regard to the state funding not coming through. It has never happened that the state reneged on a school building project that the MSBA has funded. The funding comes from $.01 on the sales take which is dedicated to the MSBA. Also the funding for the project is different than in years past. The way that it is done now is a pay as you go project. This means that the state makes their portion of the payments all throughout the project construction process. So we are not left paying the entire amount only to have to wait for the state to reimburse us annually. In addition there is a signed agreement between the town and the MSBA before the project goes out to bid which binds both parties to the agreement.
3.As far as this not being the right time. When over the past 15 years have the people that opposed a project stood up and said this is the right time? It has never happened the “this is not the right time excuse” for not supporting a project is the favorite one of opponents of anything. I can argue that this is exactly the right time. The project, if approved next spring, will not even begin until the spring of 2014. If you wait until then construction costs and interest rates will most likely be higher. The Public Safety building came in 2.3 million dollars under budget because it was the right time to build and the same can be said for right now.
4.In the past some people did relate the cost of a project in terms of a cup of coffee. You will not hear this committee do that. The money it will take to solve the Mountview problem is real money and not some foolish analogy to a cup of coffee.
dave white
Is there any real suspense here ? Any real question that a full rebuild is not going to be chosen by this committee?
It is well worth noting, moreover, that as the school committee chairman recently noted, the state does not always come through with uts end of the bargain. A single legislative enactment done on a late Friday afternoon (yes, this is commonplace on Beacon Hill) and next thing you know Holden is on the hook for the whole $40+ million.
Not that we can actually afford half of that anyway.
The mantra is just around the corner: "Come on,....just one more cup of coffee a day folks".....
And anyone who opposes this rebuild right now (I am in favor of it when....if..... the economy is something better than the worst one since the depression) shall instantly be labeled a "hater of our children", "backwards", etc Hey, perhaps, throw in "Satan" for good measure.
All the while, our families are simply at their limit. Unemployment is ticking up even higher, the housing market is horrendous, employers are extremely weary of what's around the corner thus not hiring and family budgets will necessarily be constricting even more, and worse.
But come on folks, the tax increase (proponents of this will say "levy" because they know enough not to use the T- word) will cost you but one cup of coffee or so a day.
I am sorry but right now we simply cannot afford any more coffee.