This is not a bait and switch. Did you attend last night? The SSBC and OPM explained in detail how the estimate was derived and why it was too low.

I suggest you attend the next informational session on Feb 28.

First, it is important to note that we no longer have an April town meeting. A couple of years ago the annual meeting was switched to June. Waiting until June to vote on this could end up costing this community an additional $1.5 million or more because of the delay in construction. And, that cost would be incurred regardless of whether the override is approved or not.

Second, good summary, John. If people feel they cannot afford to pay any more in taxes and want to vote no on the override, I completely respect that. However, it is always better to attend the public information session and get as much information as possible so you can understand the situation. It will cost us an estimated $500,000 a month for any delay in this project. And, while I am not sure that a special town meeting/special election cost the town $10,000, if it does, $10,000 is certainly a lot less than $500,000 a month.

Thanks to everyone who attended last night and for asking a lot of good questions and raising a lot of solid points. It was a small turnout, but those in attendance got to hear the details. We expect that by the February 28th meeting we will be close enough to the Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP) to be able to give a range regarding how much we will be asking for at the special town meeting and special election.

Slight correction. We plan to have a range in terms of the override cost at the February 28 session, but we will not have the GMP available until the March 14 information session. The schedule calls for the selectmen, school committee and SSBC to hold a joint meeting on March 11 to receive the guaranteed maximum price from the construction manager at risk, Gilbane.

So can only see the the costs 4 days prior to Town Election...Have you been to Moscow, Mel? That's pretty much how they do issues such as this! You have no need to know...so don't ask! Would you please as a democratic office holder, admit you have a plan to go forward w/an agenda to confuse the electorate. Why would any property tax payer agree to A 30.9% increase when the HS did not need to be replaced? Are you perceiving reality? I think not. Please see the Issues and (then speak), not to a special interest group.

When the project was estimated for the vote in March 2012, it was based on 20% completion of the contruction documents. There was no Constructon Manager at that time. There is nobody in the construction industry who will give a GMP with only 20% contruction documents. When the contruction documents are at 90% (which should be late february), then the CM will give the GMP.

Because the GMP is to be based on the 90% design drawings.

Look, it's just like doing construction work on your house. You think to yourself, "It'd be nice to build an addition!" So, you draw a sketch and you show it to some builders and they look at it and say, “something like that's probably going to run you around $40,000.” So you go to your bank and you get approval for an equity loan for the $40k and another $5k to pay an architect. You get approved, you make the commitment, you hire an architect, and he does detailed construction drawings. Once those are done, you get a new and more accurate estimate based on the details. If it’s higher than the $40k, you have to go back to the bank and ask for a bigger loan – or you take out some of the amenities you wanted in the first place.

We’re waiting for those 90% drawings to be done so we can get that updated GMP. Then, if it’s bigger than originally anticipated (and everyone expects so), the Town has to go back to the voters to get either more funding approved, or direction to take out the amenities.

Capisce?

C'mon Ed! Aren't you the guy who knows everything about construction? Did you think the design was complete at the onset of the project?

Actually, the estimate was based on design documents that were 20 percent complete. Construction documents were not even started. Again, this is all in accordance with MSBA regulations. As for the "renovation " of the high school, it truly was a band-aid after the town voted against a larger project. Basically, the "renovation" included a new library, new windows, and dividing larger class rooms into smaller spaces to have more rooms. Many of those rooms now do not meet state standards. The school is sadly out of date, the mechanical systems are nearing the end of their useful life, the septic system is almost completely shot, the gym floor has been refinished so many times it is almost down to nothing, the auditorium is deplorable with a large number of broken seats and insufficient lighting and stage, the science labs are beyond outdated and we don't have nearly enough of them, and the electrical system is maxed out and has been for years. Two years ago the lighting for the spring musical blew the electrical service for the school. There is a lot more, but you get the picture. Other than that, the school is in great shape.

John, thanks for the kudos..."knows everything about construction"

No I didn't think the design cost were complete. Thus my comments last year that the project was being "rushed" for approval without all the necessary information. But I did not see anywhere in the public domain that we were being asked to vote on a projection of a 20% cost estimate. There were a lot of numbers thrown out at the time and most seemed to be incomplete & inaccurate. There were various members of the SSBC speaking publicly about the same issues, but using conflicting amounts.

But again, that's for the compliment.

You're welcome Ed! I should point out, however, that my compliment was based solely on your own evaluations - and we all know the validity of those! ;)

You know John, did you ever think some of your nasty comments are unnecessary? But in that vain...I'll compare my resume against yours any day of the week. I think I can say that categorically w/out any doubt.

Really Ed? We're gonna play "Mine's Bigger"?

Ed -- Again more misleading information. Wayne Hardacker and his staff maintain our schools as well if not better than any other district in this state. In fact, if you paid attention to the facts, you would know that we actually got an additional almost 2 percent reimbursement from the state for the high school/middle school project because of how well Wayne and his staff have maintained these inefficient, insufficient, aging buildings. In addition, the MSBA agreed that we needed a new high school. They said that they would not approve any type of addition or renovation to the existing building.

I will continue to provide the facts and the truth about this project.