North Reading SSBC Plans Special Election and Town Meeting for School Building Project
Determined to save educational programs, the committee anticipates a budget shortfall as the construction documents develop.
Late in 2012, the Secondary Schools Building Committee (SSBC) learned that some line items exceeded original budget estimates for the school building project. With the construction documents for the project currently 60 percent complete, the SSBC foresees more cost overruns once the documents are 90 percent complete. Therefore, they plan to ask the town for additional funds at a Special Election and Special Town Meeting.
The $355,000 cushion created by eliminating certain building features in December has been reduced to a cushion of $155,692 due to adding $200,000 in security equipment, which had previously been deferred from the budget. Selectmen Chairman Sean Delaney concurred with Superintendent Kathleen Willis and School Committee member Gerald Venezia that no educational programs would be compromised by cutbacks. They stated that all alternatives to non-essential elements in the original plan are being considered for elimination. For example, rather than incorporating an administrative suite of offices on the building site other office space available in town would be substituted.
The construction documents are scheduled to be 90 percent complete in February and a new budget estimate should be available Feb. 25. The final Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP) is expected by March 11, according to Willis. Once the SSBC has that figure, they will know how much more than the original budget of 107.7 million they will have to ask for at Special Town Meeting.
The Board of Selectmen and School Committee will meet on Jan. 28 to confirm the dates for a Special Town Meeting and Special Election. Right now, the tentative dates are March 18 for Special Town Meeting and March 23 for Special Town Election.
According to School Committee Chairman Mel Webster, the philosophy is that residents should have the opportunity to vote again. At Special Town Meeting, residents will be presented with all of the information regarding the budget. They will also be informed of what the school will be like if they vote for the override and what it will be like if they do not vote for the override and the SSBC has to work with the existing budget.
Informational meetings for the public are tentatively planned for Jan. 29, Feb. 28 and March 14. The focus of these meetings is to explain the revised costs and the impact those costs will have on residents.
"The March 14 meeting will focus on financial information associated with the final GMP. The presentation will provide details regarding the additional funds needed to complete the project as originally planned and what the tax impact would be on the average household," Willis said.
Jessica
6:37 am on Thursday, January 17, 2013
Is anyone held accountable for the overruns? This is like a bait and switch.
Kevin MacDonald
9:03 pm on Thursday, January 17, 2013
1% of the sales tax goes toward the Massachusetts School Building Authority. When a person looks at a project like the proposed Wilmington High School project and then looks at a cost estimating company like Reed Construction Data (RS MEANS) and sees that there may be a problem with over inflated prices and contracts that are not going out for competitive bid on the State's Central Register he may recognize massive waste. He may also feel that a community should not knock down a structurally sound building that could be used to generate income for a community when that community could build a school for less money on another site. He should recognize that regional schools could help defray costs of education. A Wilmington/North Reading regional school would accomplish that. Someone please take a look also into Wilmington's North Intermediate School window project. A same size school two years ago (the Shawsheen School) was reported to have a window designer contract of $84,000 and this North Intermediate school has a designer cost of $207,000. These designer costs do not have to go out for competitive bid on the State's Central Register. This is a huge mistake. There is a lot of nonsense that should be eliminated before raising taxes. I just think on the economical issues that we could be doing things differently to gain success. Hammering people in taxes leaves them without disposable income to put back into the economy.
pattie d
8:19 am on Thursday, January 17, 2013
NO, enough!
Jeff Witts
8:25 am on Thursday, January 17, 2013
This is not bait and switch. The hired experts and MBSA told the SSBC the number we voted on was good to go. So, if you want to hold someone accountable, then it has to be the Project Manager, Architect, and MSBA.
I suggest that you and anyone to attend the SSBC meetings that are held every Tuesday at 5:30 in the High School cafeteria or Middle School LGR to get more information as I do not have all the facts.
Ed Canney
2:17 pm on Thursday, January 17, 2013
Read my previous posts Jeff, I have already debunked the alternate reality theory. If the SSBC relied on misinformation from those not qualified to provide it, then its the SSBC that bears the responsibility.
Jeff Witts
2:27 pm on Thursday, January 17, 2013
Ed,
I that is what you believe, then they should all be fired. Who is going to replace them, you? When the town asked for volunteers in 2005, only 7 people volunteered out of 13,000 town residents. I challenge anyone who finds fault with the SSBC to request a position on the committee if you think you have the answers. This is how the system is structered. Citizen volunteers join the committe and you get what you get. Then, they hire experts to provide estimates.
If you do not like how the system works, contact Brad Jones or Bruce Tarr to get it changed.
Ed Canney
4:09 pm on Thursday, January 17, 2013
Jeff...yes that is what I believe. Finding scapegoats is not a solution. The MSBA, the architect, the project manager. I've volunteered greatly in North Reading. I have served in elected and appointed positions. I just don't understand how you and Mel in addition to the School Committee, Selectman and the SSBC can't see the the problem. The information supplied was incorrect ( to me for obvious reasons). You may have absorbed that I was the liaison to previous SBC's. They did not have these issues. As Selectman, we made clear their charge.These are public funds, so be accurate for us to go forward to accurately inform the voters. If you do not see that difference in approach, then there is no point to discuss. So either I'm wrong that the SSBC incorrectly supplied poor numbers or somehow they were blind sided by the State.. Can't have it both ways, Jeff.
john nowosacki
8:30 am on Thursday, January 17, 2013
I'm shocked, Shocked, that the project would wind up costing more than originally promised. Taxpayers will never learn. Now, on top of that, prepare for $.30 a gallon more gas tax, a greater than 20% increase in your state income tax, and a 'big brother is watching you' mileage tax at the state level, and even more tax increases at the federal level with no spending cuts anywhere in sight. You get the government you deserve by voting for the people you do.
MPG
8:22 am on Friday, January 18, 2013
110% correct John.
Ryan
8:36 am on Thursday, January 17, 2013
Since I moved from Reading in 2007 to escape high taxes, North Reading has increased taxes 60% ($10 to $16) in 6 years in the worst economy in 80 years. Great timing. We're now by far the highest rate in the region, facing more increases, and inevitably getting an incomplete project that will be hacked up on the drawing board. Make no mistake, the preliminary budget was sugar coated knowing they'd come back for more. "What's another $100-200/yr per household after the $1k increase already approved??" BS! We deserve honest accounting and complete info up front.
Jeff Witts
10:24 am on Thursday, January 17, 2013
The budget up front was based on 20% contruction documents and estimates by hired experts based on that as required by the MSBA. The plan was never to come back as the SSBC was promised by the hired experts that the original estimate was solid. Do you really think members of the SSBC, who are tax payers, would plan to ask for more money later? That is absurd.
I suggest you attend the SSBC meeting which are held every Tuesday at 5:30pm in the High School cafeteria or Middle School LGR. At these meetings, you can ask any questions.
Mel Webster
11:07 am on Thursday, January 17, 2013
Ryan -- there was no "sugar coating" of the preliminary budget with a knowledge that we would come back for more. The original estimate was prepared by the two professional firms that were hired for this project -- the architect and the owners project manager -- as is dictated by the Mass School Building Authority. That is who the SSBC and other town boards depended on for that number, as they are the experts. I hope North Reading residents attend the public meetings that will be held, as well as the regularly scheduled SSBC meetings to hear all of the information about the status of this project and how we got to this point.
Janine Largent
8:47 am on Thursday, January 17, 2013
I am not shocked at all. North Reading voting for a $107.7 million dollar school project on the heels of the Batchelder debacle. We "invest" enough in education. Give me the $10,000 -- $15,000 dollars per year we spend on each student and I assure you I will get a better return for your "investment" then we are getting with public education.
Mel Webster
10:01 am on Thursday, January 17, 2013
Just curious. What was the "Batchelder debacle?"
Jeff Witts
10:27 am on Thursday, January 17, 2013
The Batchelder School project came in under budget and on time. Why is that a debacle?
Tom Magner
10:52 am on Thursday, January 17, 2013
NR spending per pupil is about $2K below the state average and in the bottom quarter of the state. Our test scores are regularly among the top quarter. I'd say that's a pretty good return on investment.
John Intorcio
3:20 pm on Thursday, January 17, 2013
Debacle? The new Batch is pretty nice. My youngest certainly benefited from the new facility.
Ed Canney
3:21 pm on Thursday, January 17, 2013
That debacle Mel & Jeff was the original plan was to construct a new school at the Swan Pond site!!? That site did not perk for a waste disposal system, nor was there sufficient water pressure. A revised proposal was to construct a water tank for the contemplated site. The entire proposal was discarded & the re-building of the Batchelder commenced. Remember? No?!
John Intorcio
3:25 pm on Thursday, January 17, 2013
Why us that a debacle? One alternative was explored and discarded, another was chosen. Would you have preferred that construction continued on the Swan Pond site after the problems were found??
Ed Canney
4:18 pm on Thursday, January 17, 2013
Because John, there were hundreds of thousands of dollars spent on a plan, that could not be constructed. They went back to the original Bachelder site plan that they (School Committee) were adamant could not be done.
Dave Miskinis
10:21 am on Thursday, January 17, 2013
Keep voting Democrat people....................
Jessica
10:22 am on Thursday, January 17, 2013
People must love self punishment.
Mel Webster
10:35 am on Thursday, January 17, 2013
All town elections are non-partisan, and as a member of the school committee, I can tell you that there are numerous Republicans and non-Democrats on this committee, as well as the Board of Selectmen and other boards. This has nothing to do with Democrats or Republicans.
Mel Webster
11:02 am on Thursday, January 17, 2013
Thanks for that comment, Tom. You are absolutely correct. When I first was elected to the school committee almost 9 years ago, North Reading was in the bottom 10 school districts in the state in terms of spending per student, so we have made good progress and have put additional funds to good use. The residents of this town get a tremendous bang for their dollar from the public education system.
Ed Canney
3:41 pm on Thursday, January 17, 2013
Mel, the bottom 10 districts of the State!!! Not plausible. The schools receive 65% of the town's budget. In several years the Selectman increased that percentage by $750,000 to $1Milion. Public record, Mel. I'm sure you followed the process. But you are correct as to non-partisan issue. Its not Democrat or Republican, but Special Interest. A Thursday Special Town meeting, followed by a Saturday ballot. In 30 years,I've never seen that. So please Mel, stop the pretending. You & the Selectman orchestrated this project from the start(fast town meetings Chaired by Murphy and quick elections declared by the Selectman). And failed the property owners in the process. Shame...shame on all of you. Selfishness would be my description of your actions
Ed Canney
2:30 pm on Thursday, January 17, 2013
For those that may have missed posts between Mel Webster & I from earlier this week:
"...when the septic outlet pipe for the Middle School was drilled through(and had to be replaced) during soil analysis, don't you think that should have raised some flags? Contractors are required to investigate where all pipes, wiring and all underground connections to structures are located prior to soil work...its called "Dig Safe". And who paid for that pipe replacement. The property tax payer!? Wouldn't you agree that was incompetence? "
"Mel I appreciate your explanation. However as I pointed out, the building code requires architectural plans be reviewed by a structural engineer for projects of this magnitude. Additionally soil analysis is required. Its all in the "Construction Control" section of the State Code, for all construction 35,000 cu/ft and over. Prior to permit issuance, building departments require affidavits from electrical, mechanical and structural engineers affirming that they have reviewed the plans and will inspect within their discipline as the project progresses and submit reports relative to those inspections. I just can't imagine the MSBA advising communities to subvert the codes. If there are members of the SSBC with "construction experience", then they missed some very important criteria. Wasn't several million spent on "plan preparation"? Well, that's when these issues should have been resolved."
John Intorcio
3:22 pm on Thursday, January 17, 2013
Ed - You seem to have all the answers. How about volunteering to help out the SSBC?
Ed Canney
11:57 am on Friday, January 18, 2013
No John, just better answers than you do. Why don't you sue the architect & project manager for "errors of omission"...malpractice, should it be accurate it was"their fault"?
John Intorcio
12:11 pm on Friday, January 18, 2013
Nice comeback.
I'm not advocating for or against lawsuits. My point is that you speak, well, type as if the proper actions are obvious and the SSBC must all be dolts for not seeing them. I happen to think they (or at least some of them) are pretty bright people so I don't think the answers are as obvious as you portray them. Or, if they are, we clearly need your help on the SSBC! Why not get in there and really be helpful rather than just ranting in the media?
Ed Canney
12:40 pm on Friday, January 18, 2013
John, volunteers are great. But at some critical point they have to "get out of the way". Hire the best project management/engineering firm available, and hand the ball off. But at the same time, when mistakes are made, they(SSBC) are accountable. Sadly it comes w/the territory. I thought i gave you a great example...the Library. TA sacked the project manager & the slate roof went south. And as you saw from a previous post a blogger w/ a good memory holds me responsible, because I was on the BOS. Comes w/the territory. But a nice library, don't you think? You may remember, I condemned the "old" library (across the street) for structural failure as building inspector. Caught hell for that also...but comes with job.
Mel Webster
2:46 pm on Thursday, January 17, 2013
Ed -- In response to this sentence in your post: "If the SSBC relied on misinformation from those not qualified to provide it, then its the SSBC that bears the responsibility."
First, the SSBC absolutely bears responsibility since it is overseeing this project. However, the SSBC relied on information from its original project manager and architect, each of which were on the MSBA's approved list of vendors, have completed numerous other school projects in this state, and which were selected after a review by the MSBA and SSBC of all proposals that were submitted. As I have stated numerous times, the SSBC has followed every step as required by the MSBA. Again, the issue is that the original estimate for the cost of the project, as provided by the architect and project manager and approved by the MSBA, was too low. It is an unfortunate situation, but these are the facts.
Ed Canney
3:43 pm on Thursday, January 17, 2013
Mel, the bottom 10 districts of the State!!! Not plausible. The schools receive 65% of the town's budget. In several years the Selectman increased that percentage by $750,000 to $1Milion. Public record, Mel. I'm sure you followed the process. But you are correct as to non-partisan issue. Its not Democrat or Republican, but Special Interest. A Thursday Special Town meeting, followed by a Saturday ballot. In 30 years,I've never seen that. So please Mel, stop the pretending. You & the Selectman orchestrated this project from the start(fast town meetings Chaired by Murphy and quick elections declared by the Selectman). And failed the property owners in the process. Shame...shame on all of you. Selfishness would be my description of your actions
Jeff Witts
3:50 pm on Thursday, January 17, 2013
Many towns have elections and town meetings on Saturdays. Wilmington has town meeting on Saturdays. The town officials are not being selfish. The school project passed by a 4-1 margin and over 1000 people attended town meeting. A record for North Reading. It seems like sour grapes to me....
Mel Webster
3:59 pm on Thursday, January 17, 2013
Ed -- there was no "debacle" involved with the Batchelder project. I won't re-hash history, but there was an opposition group that did its best to scuttle the Swan Pond project and ended up costing the town several years and several million dollars. Again, Ed, the facts are the facts.
Ed Canney
4:30 pm on Thursday, January 17, 2013
Scuttle!! Hogwash!! The Swan Pond site for the Batchelder School failed 3 perk tests. There was too much ledge. How could you build a school w/out a septic? Mel you have to at some point rely on public records.There at the town hall. That site failed three perk tests! Weren't you informed? And that's my point...rather than say the site was unacceptable, you say scuttled! There was no scuttle...it was a poor site. Do you think those tests were manipulated? You had your own engineer for those tests...did he say anything about scuttling the results of the perk tests?
Mel Webster
4:00 pm on Thursday, January 17, 2013
Ed -- at one point, North Reading was 8th from the bottom in terms of spending per student. Just one more fact.
Mel Webster
4:23 pm on Thursday, January 17, 2013
Ed -- for the final time. The MSBA has completely changed the rules on how towns build and renovate schools. It is far different from when you were a liaison to other school projects. NOTHING was done wrong, Ed. The SSBC followed every step it was required to follow. Your continued misrepresentation of the facts is not helpful to anyone.
Ed Canney
4:38 pm on Thursday, January 17, 2013
So what is correct 8th or 10th? And what do you include in that number? Salaries, health care, retirement, special ed? I know what's included & not included Mel. Been there. done that. Its all about swaying public perception that we don't spend sufficiently for the schools. 65% of the budget is sufficient, is it not. Ask a Fire Fighter.
Ed Canney
5:10 pm on Thursday, January 17, 2013
For the final time Mel, just what was your response as a public official when you learned the septic pipe was drilled thru during tests by your contractor? Cover it up!! Seems so.
Mel Webster
5:27 pm on Thursday, January 17, 2013
Ed. Nothing was covered up. It is impossible to deal with you and I am through, You can go on spreading your misinformation undeterred by me.
Mel Webster
5:23 pm on Thursday, January 17, 2013
Ed - 8th from the bottom was the lowest North Reading ranked on per pupil spending, but I cannot get my hands on those records. However, in Fiscal 2006 the town spent $8,429 per student and was 11th from the bottom or 339th out of 350 districts..
The town has stepped up its commitment to education and that is a good thing. For fiscal year 2011, the last year for which statistics have been released by the state, North Reading spent $11,842 per student, while the state average is $13,361 per student. Out of 350 school districts (not including regional districts), North Reading ranked 247th in per pupil spending. Again, These are FACTs straight from the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education.
As for your claims about the Swan Pond site not passing perk tests, I am not sure where you are getting your information, I have newspaper articles dating back to 1997 and not one mentions any issues related to perk tests.
This will be my last response to you. You continue to ignore the facts while spreading misinformation.
Ed Canney
12:09 pm on Friday, January 18, 2013
Mel the Swan Pond site DID NOT PERK. How could a School Committee member miss that!? Good luck w/the softball discrimination allegations. Perhaps you would categorize that as a debacle.
Jeff Witts
6:23 pm on Thursday, January 17, 2013
Ed,
My last repsonse as well as you seem to always want the last word. In this case, it is both ways. The SSBC correctly supplied numbers that were estimated by hired experts approved by the state. So, yes they were blinded sided by the state.
There are two ways this could have been avoided. First, the SSBC could have added 10% to the project for no reason other than to have extra money, just in case. They would have been lambasted by you and many others if they did this. Also, the state probably would have redacted the 10% anyway.
Second, the comittee could have been filled with contruction experts familiar with building public schools or other large commercial building projects. Therefore, the SSBC may have been better equipped to challenge the estimates. Guess what, noboby volunteered with this experience. I know early on the SSBC desparately tried to find this talent and was not successful.
Ed Canney
12:15 pm on Friday, January 18, 2013
Again Jeff. If the SSBC truly believes that it was the architect's and/or the project manager's "fault" Then sue them for "errors of omission". Both should have malpractice insurance policies.
Rob
5:41 am on Friday, January 18, 2013
Of course it was bait and switch.
Nick
8:00 am on Friday, January 18, 2013
Learn to work within the budget! Our tax rate has increased 11.54% over the past year and it's the highest in the area. What's been done to control spending and decrease the tax burden on the residents, nothing. You got the money to build a school a place of learning not a sports complex.
Mel Webster
12:11 pm on Friday, January 18, 2013
We are not building a "sports complex," we are building a school.
Nick
8:54 am on Saturday, January 19, 2013
Two schools for the price of one and where is it.
MPG
3:09 pm on Friday, January 18, 2013
Mel, I'm sure you are a nice guy and respect your willingness to serve the community. But our elected officials in this town have failed us yet again. I moved here in 1998. Care to guess how much my taxes have gone up since then? I for one have had enough! The well has gone dry. And your brethren in state government now want to raise the income tax another 1%. Not to mention the recent increase in the federal tax rate. Most folks just can't donate anymore. Or should we all move out of town like one of you colleagues on the Board of Selectmen recommended?
Mel Webster
3:58 pm on Friday, January 18, 2013
Clearly the responsibility for the school project rests on the shoulders of elected and appointed board members and clearly seeking more funds for the project will place an added burden on the taxpayer. However, I don't agree that elected officials have "failed" the taxpayers. An estimated cost, developed by the professionals hired to manage the project, was presented to the town a year ago for the vote. As far as I know, all of the elected and appointed officials associated with the project believed that figure, because it came from experienced professionals who have been involved with numerous school construction projects. Now we know that number is too low and we face a difficult situation. The right thing to do is to give the townspeople the option by letting them know what the school will look like if an override is passed, as well as what the school will be without the override. Residents approved the original project and it is only right that they give an up or down vote on spending more money on the project.
As for a selectman advocating that residents move out of town, that is not advice that I would give anyone. Not sure what problem that solves.
Joe Veno
7:45 pm on Saturday, January 19, 2013
MPG, Who is the Selectman that said people should move out of town?
Barry
4:28 pm on Friday, January 18, 2013
This tirade started by long standing opponents of progress in North Reading is just the latest illustration of why comments should not be allowed on Patch.
MPG
4:45 pm on Friday, January 18, 2013
Please Barry cut the typical liberal BS. "... long standing opponents of progress... is just a euphemism for "What do you mean you don't want to give us more of your hard earned pay to waste"
Ed Canney
5:22 pm on Friday, January 18, 2013
"...opponents of progress in North Reading"
HS School renovation, Hood,Little and Batchelder Schools, Library, Police & Fire Station, Hillview Golf Course & Ipswich River Park. Barry did you move to town just last week? Seems so. Or perhaps you feel "deferred maintenance" is progress.
You do realize $1M was spent on design for the Swan Pond proposed site for the Batchelder School prior to perk test failures.Maybe perk first? That's what developers do.
One might expect skepticism when a project is $12M short before its begun.
Jeff Witts
6:52 pm on Friday, January 18, 2013
North Reading has done a wonderful job addressing its aging infrastructure.The middile school and high school are part of that. Hillview CC and Ipswich River Park were forward thinking ideas that have greatly benefited our town. I feel the senior center shoud be next as they are in a sub-standard facility.
Jeff Witts
9:09 am on Saturday, January 19, 2013
Nick,
The school project has just started. If you drive by the high school, you will see the trees have been cleared and excavation has begun for the drainage and foundation. That's where it is at the moment.
If you want more details, the SSBC meets every Tuesday at 5:30pm.
Ed Canney
11:13 am on Saturday, January 19, 2013
Just a quick bit of cost saving advice. Concrete.poured foundations have to be kept @ 50 degrees for 5 days.(just covering won't suffice) So you may want to wait 'till Spring to pour, sans covering and supplying a heat source for 5 days. Same w/the excavation, can't be allowed to freeze.
Ed Canney
2:27 pm on Saturday, January 19, 2013
"North Reading SSBC Plans Special Election and Town Meeting..."
Thought the Selectman made those decisions. Who exactly is in charge these days?
Kris
1:36 pm on Thursday, January 24, 2013
I just read through all these comments. I find it rather surprising that no one has mentioned the destruction of the forest behind Tower Hill Road and School Hill Lane, right up to the property lines, leaving not one tree or stick between residents and the parking lot, all to save money on dirt removal, which by the way was never discussed with abutters. This is a HUGE deal going on right now, that no one seems to notice. Hmmmmmm.....
Ed Canney
12:43 pm on Friday, January 25, 2013
I have Kris...in a post regarding the architect's performance:
"Yes its always a dilemma to change a contractor or architect. But sometimes after assessing their performance, it can be the prudent path. The architect's back & forth w/ the CPC about lot clearing is really a concern. Why would he request from the CPC, tree cutting to the abutters' lots, when the abutters were told that would never happen...a buffer zone would be left. And then go ahead & do the clearing, when he only had permission to clear for the foundation footprint. With any construction project, it always best to keep the neighbors happy! An architect of all people should prioritize that policy."
As to the mounds of excavated soil they supposedly were to remove, Kris. You never take away excavated soil, its kept for regrading. So that excuse is a bit tongue & cheek. Why would you remove excavated soil...and then purchase soil to grade? Never heard of it.