60°
HOLDEN, Mass. — Should Holden renovate and add to Mountview Middle School, build a new school on the existing site or construct one on Malden Street? Those are the options the Mountview School Building Committee is weighing.
The committee will make its final decision at its Sept. 11 meeting at the Holden Municipal Light Department.
If the option were to renovate the building, the plan is to construct a 53,000-square-foot addition behind the school. Cost estimates range from $51 million to $54 million, which would include the costs of remediating hazardous materials and providing temporary classrooms. The town's share would be $24 million to $25 million, with the average cost per household of about $229 to $238.
This is the lowest cost option but would have the highest impact on students and would require modular classrooms on site, according to Vice Chairman David White. An addition/renovation could take 36 to 42 months to complete, but the new building options are expected to take 30 months to complete.
Another option is a new 128,000-square-foot building on town-owned land on Malden Street, behind Mayo Elementary School. The most costly option would come in at $59 million to $62 million, which would not include the cost of remediating hazardous materials or demolishing Mountview. The town's share would be $28 million to $29 million, with an annual cost per household of $267 to $276.
This would have no impact on students, would have a shorter construction timeline than a renovation and would preserve the Mountview building and site for other town uses.
In the last option, a 128,000-square-foot school would be constructed on Shrewsbury Street behind the existing building. This option would make the remediation of hazardous materials and demolition of Mountview reimbursable.
The total cost would be $56 million to $58 million. The town's share would be $26 million to $27 million, with the annual cost per average household at $248 to $257.
Although less intrusive than a renovation, this option would still have some impact on students, would take away the school's playing fields and construction would have to work around school operations.
Next spring, Holden voters will decide whether to move forward with the project, with more than 50 percent of the cost to be picked up by the Massachusetts School Building Authority.
A video tour of Mountview Middle School is available online to see the issues in the aging building.
Comments (16)
We built the very best high school addition renovation we could and it is a vast improvement over what we had before. But there were students who spent their entire four years of high school in a building under construction. We could have built brand new for less money had not Mr. Meyer, Mr. Ferguson, Mr. Jumonville and their Holden Associated Taxpayers not scared people to death with exactly the sort of sleight-of-hand juggling of figures that is going on now. They helped kill vote after vote on building new until an exhausted community voted for an addition renovation.
The state rules are different now. We have one shot at this, not the three or four votes we had on the high school project. Yes, let's learn from our mistakes: build new.
I am not sure where the confusion is on the cost for these projects? Let me try again,
1. Add renovation is projected to cost the Holden taxpayers 24 to 25 million dollars
2. New project between Malden and Bullard St. would cost Holden taxpayers 28 to 29 million dollars
3. A new building on the existing site would cost the Holden tax payers 26 to 27 million dollars.
The savings between the highest cost project and lowest cost project to Holden tax payers is 4 million dollars and the difference between the highest and mid price project is 2 million dollars to the town of Holden. Whichever project is decided upon by the (Mountview School Building Committee) MSBC it will be financed using 20 year debt exclusion. So in simple math terms the difference will be a decision between $100,000.00 and $200,000.00 per year on the debt exclusion plus interest. This equates to a difference on the high side of $38.00 per aver house on the annual project cost. And $19.00 per average house on the low side.
In summary of the above: If Holden is committed to doing the project at all the discussion will be between $19.00 annually and $38.00 annually.
People will say that the state portion is also “taxpayers” money. This is not entirely a true statement the way the MSBA funds school projects. It is a .01c piece of the sales tax that goes to the MSBA to fund school projects. If Holden does not spend any money it would only be a savings to Holden and would NOT be any savings to the state. The MSBA spends their entire .01c of the sales tax every year on some project somewhere whether it is Holden or not. Their reimbursement is given right along with the outflow of the cash for the project so there is no catch up at the end required with regard to reimbursement. The MSBA will be totally reviewing what we submit and they will decide what they want to spend their money on. So “we” locally are talking about what the project will cost “us” locally.
What we, the MSBC will be discussing is what is the best value to the ton of Holden. The MSBC will also be discussing what will be in the best interest of our students. In this regard the discussion will be.
a. Long term operating costs.
1. Heating
2. Electrical
3. Repair and maintenance of the building.
4. Design sustainability
b. Layout and configuration of the teaching spaces.
1. Do the spaces fully reflect the educational goals of the school district
2. Design sustainability, will the design be adaptive to changes in educational programs?
3. Is the design flexible for current uses of the spaces?
c. The best interests of the students during the project duration.
1. How disruptive to education will the project be?
d. Best long term building going forward for the next 50 years.
After we discuss all of these questions and most likely more the MSBC will take a position on the PSR which will be, in our opinion, the best value to the town of Holden. It may or may not be the “cheapest” but in our option it will be the best. Whenever a financial decision is made there is the cheapest the most costly and the best value. Sometimes the best value aligns with the cheapest and sometimes it is the most expensive. We will have to wait and see what the best value is for Holden.
The opinions expressed here are my own opinions and do not reflect is any way the feeling of the rest of the MSBC!
Thank you, Mr. White, for these details. Your post certainly clears up a lot of confusion. I hope that all of us can keep what you wrote in mind when we discuss this issue. Thanks, too, for reminding some of us that cheapest is not always best and that value for money spent is a much more important consideration.
Keep up the good work.
To dwilliams: You are intentionally trying to mislead the taxpayers by mixing apples with cumquats. You are trying to mix new construction estimates with renovation numbers.
The original estimate was $39 Million. The ‘lowest’ current estimate is $51 Million. A 30.77% increase. The ‘highest’ current estimate is $62 Million. A 58.97% increase.
These are the types of questions we should have asked before we let Ex –Superintendent Al Tutela rush us into his $70.5 Million high school building project. You may recall that project ran an incredible $21.4 Million over budget including the reported $6.4 Million in lost lawsuits.
This time let’s ask the questions ‘before’ we take another multi-million dollar leap of faith.
With regard to stepping away from the calculator, someone needs to look at the numbers and clearly you don’t know how.
Let's stop the rhetoric and look at the facts.
Try reading what I wrote again, Ed, but this time for content. How can I be intentional trying to confuse anyone by mixing the cost of renovations to that of a new building when I clearly wrote "[...] the $39 million figure was for renovations, while the $48 million figure was for a new building"?
No, it is you who is conflating the two costs in order to find the widest possible spread between project cost estimates so that you may cause "the taxpayer" to shriek in revolt over all that money that's allegedly coming out of their pockets.
Read Mr. White's post above and stick to the facts.
Mr. White stated: "In any case the 62 million stated in an earlier post by Mr. Meyer is the most expensive solution possible. It would be highly doubtful that would be the solution for the project given the excessively high cost and the fact there are less expensive solutions available."
Can we assume this means you will be recommending the 'renovation' option thereby saving the taxpayers up to $8 Million dollars?
I finally have an answer to the question of the 39 million dollar projected project cost. Originally I thought the budget amount came from the MSBA however I was incorrect with my recollection on this matter. Around 2 1/2 years ago the building committee needed a number associated with the project to use when advertising for an OPM and then a designer. A simple metric was used based on enrollment then square feet per student times a dollar amount per square foot for construction. The number achieved was only a starting point to begin getting the professionals on board to start working on the actual costs.
In any case the 62 million stated in an earlier post by Mr. Meyer is the most expensive solution possible. It would be highly doubtful that would be the solution for the project given the excessively high cost and the fact there are less expensive solutions available.
As I have stated one of the good things with the new MSBA process is that we will have very accurate numbers before the project goes to town meeting and before the project is bid. So it is way too early to be debating the cost because it is still being developed.
I would agree with one commenter that part of the problem with the system we use in Massachusetts is the “prevailing wage” law. This requirement for all projects that are publically funded does add 15-20% to the cost of public construction throughout the state. However this is the law and there is nothing Holden can do to change it. And certainly refusing to do projects because of it would be foolish on our part.
Dear Present Tense: The facts are easy. The answers are tough.
They started at $39 Million. They are now up to as much as $62 Million (an enormous 55% increase). How? Why?
Facts? You know, Dan Moynihan had a great saying, Ed: Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts.
The $39 million dollar figure comes from a preliminary--that means not final, Ed--estimate, and itself represented the low range of cost that was placed at $39 million to $48 million. And, on top of that, the $39 million figure was for renovations, while the $48 million figure was for a new building.
So now a more complete estimate has a range of $51 million (for renovations and remediations) to $62 million (the high end of the two new building options). And what do you do? You take the low end of the more preliminary range and the high end of the later range and claim "an enormous 55% increase." Well, if I were as dishonest with numbers as you are, I could take the high end of the first estimate ($48 million) and the low end of the second ($51 million) and claim a cost increase of only 6.25%.
So no, Ed, facts (as you call them) are not easy; they are only easily manipulated by someone such as yourself, someone with an agenda who is dishonest enough to manipulate them to scare others.
Do us all a favor, Ed, and step away from the calculator.
To LTO: Sorry they didn't mention that at the two hour meeting that I did attend last month. As I recall the number they sold us on when we were asked to start the process was $39 Million. As an old commercial once said 'We've come a long way babe!' All the way to $62 Million and we haven't even stuck a shovel in the ground yet.
To Ms. Deminimus Maximus: Perhaps YOU would prefer we use a more expensive union contractor and pay far more money? It's only our money. Don't worry be happy! Is that your deal Ms. Deminimus?
Mr. Meyer,
Is that the same two hour meeting you left 45mins into. Just wondering since I observed you walk out and summon Mark Ferguson and another out of the building where you continued to hold court so you couldn't have your opinion misled by the actual facts presented at the meeting.
Mr. Ed goes straight to union busting. Surprise, surprise.
Yes, let's not worry about that trifling little matter called costs.
Obviously, the $16 trillion and growing national debt is the result of the same "logic"
This truly is mortifying and proof positive that we, the people, the residents of this Town, quite simploy cannot afford this.
We are all standing on the brink of a fiscal precipice as it is. How anyone can suggest to "not worry about the cost" is a staggering reminder of exactly why America is in the horrendous fiscal predicament in which it now finds itself...
This would have been a good question to ask last night at the forum. Why didn't you go and ask them instead of posting it here?
Fortunately, I did ask this question after the meeting and found out that the original estimate was from the MSBA based on very rough guidelines of middle schools. At that point the MSBA had no information on number of students, or potential sites (and therefore potential site development costs) or the presence of HazMats or information on any number of other issues.The purpose was solely to let designers know that this was not a $5m project or a $100m project, so that the correct kind of companies bid on the job.
The committee has been very consistent in telling us that these are estimates and that they will change as the project moves along and gets more defined, so don't get your knickers all twisted every time a new number comes out.
Wasn't the original estimate way down in the $40 Million range?
How did we get all the way up to a $56 Million to $62 Million price tag (an enormous 55% increase)?
If the original estimate was a ‘Ball Park’ guess which ball park were they playing in at the time? An extra $22 Million (a 55% increase) is a pretty big stretch. If they are already off by 55% on the original estimate could they be off again on this estimate?
As I recall the high school project ran $15 Million over budget then we lost another $6.4 Million in law suits and we paid the bills.
If, as has been suggested, the difference is between a union and a non-union project why would we even consider a union project? It simply does not make sense.
Although union and non-union shops may have to pay the same hourly rate we hear that union shops tend to require more people standing around watching while others work. That costs us far more money.
The School Building Committee is doing a good job of keeping us informed on the project and I appreciate all the hard work they are doing. It was a bit shocking to see how expensive any of the options are and I hope they find a way to bring that cost down. Maybe more "green" initiatives to get higher reimbursement from the state. Sounds like the annual cost is about the same for all options, so we should chose the best plan without worrying about the cost.