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.
Your post script comment is way off base and you know it.
There is a committee conducting a feasibility study on how to address the issues before Mountview school. A committee formed under the guidelines set forth by the Massachusett School Building Authority (MSBA). Mr. White is a member of the committee.
Whatever the conclusion of the feasibility study brings forward, the MSBA has final determination as to what if anything happens.
Yet you feel it's necessary to place the result on the shoulders of an individual.
The decision to phase this work is an appropriate action by the school committee. It was clear from the discussion I heard at the meeting, there is a desire to get this work done and done right. The B&F subcommittee can work to develop a specific RFP for this first phase. The results of the first phase will help to determine if any next steps will be required.
Should a report come forward which would indicate a need for another phase of audit, the WRSDC needs to be prepared to commit to it. View Comment
Name Withheld: Assuming you are the same Name Withheld which posted about "a multimillion dollar new middle school WE can't afford" I will again ask that you not confuse the operational costs of the district and the capital costs of the Town of Holden.
While both will be funded by our property taxes, the actual funding mechanism is different. The operating costs for the district are built into the normal limits of Proposition 2 1/2. The capital costs associated with resolving the issues before us at Mountview will require funding through a Proposition 2 1/2 Debt Exclusion. This provision allows communities to exclude from the normal limits of 2 1/2 the debt costs associated with borrowing money for a fixed period of time. When the borrowing is paid in full, the increase in property taxes associated with the borrowing is eliminated in full from the tax base.
As to affordability of anything, you state, "we can't afford". Frankly, I don't need you to speak for me. I'll make own decision. View Comment
Regardless of how you feel about the business and finance sub-committee vote, it is entirely inappropriate for you to suggest "there is more debate over $100-$300K to investigate this than there is over what undoubetedly will be the expenditure of $15 million or more of Holden taxpayer money for the inevitable rebuild of Mountview."
You've consolidated two issues. The issue discussed by the B&F subcommittee and the feasibility study for Mountview school.
The two are not related.
The subcommitee is adressing a WRSDC and operating cost concern fully under their control.
The Mountview Building Committee (MBC), whose membership is defined by the Massachusetts School Building Authority (MSBA), consists of four representatives with roles related to the school district and six members meeting specific criteria representing the Town of Holden. This committee as appointed representatives is working collorabatively with the MSBA, a project manager and architectural firm to address a capital concern. Members of these entities have been evaluating the Mountview issue for almost two years. Numerous public meetings have been held locally, where open and transparent discussion has occurred. Significant debate has and will continue to occur in the same manner.
I invite you to attend our committee meeting this evening where we will be discussing the contents of a 602 page document which if approved will be shared with the public and the MSBA. This "PDP" is a requirement stipulated in the MSBA process and contains significant detail regarding the existing conditions and potential options for Mountview.
As to the actions of the B&F subcommittee, I agree with their recommendation.
Unamious votes are not required. I was not present for the discussion but from the story and Mr. Scheinfeldt's post, it is clear to me the only concern discenting members had was related to the unknown cost of the audit. Perhaps with that information in hand there would have been a 9-0 vote and everything would be right with the world in your mind.
It is my hope the WRSD will vigorusly debate the recommendation of the B&F subcommittee with a specific estimate of the cost of the audit. I sincerely hope the cost of the audit is acceptable to the WRSD and they approve the audit recommendation.