Comparisons to Building Projects in Other Towns

It’s natural, when looking at a building project of the scope facing Duxbury, to make comparisons to surrounding towns. While not every other school building project in Massachusetts is an appropriate comparison, there likely are things we can learn from each situation.

Plymouth

In 2003, voters in Plymouth voted down a school building project for Plymouth North High School. At the time, the new school was estimated to have cost about $60million, and Plymouth was in line for about 70% reimbursement. When the project was voted down, the money that had been earmarked for PNHS went elsewhere…and Silver Lake High School was built.

Meanwhile, conditions at PNHS continued to deteriorate, and accreditation was at risk. By 2007, rebuilding Plymouth North High School was the town’s priority. Voters approved a $199million override to rebuild Plymouth North, expand Plymouth South and build a Senior Center. (http://www.patriotledger.com/news/x1839605996)

Construction on Plymouth North began in November 2009. The estimated cost of the project is $80million, with a reimbursement rate of 58.24%. What would have cost taxpayers about $18million (after reimbursement) in 2003 is now costing them (after reimbursement) about $33million.

Cost of waiting to taxpayers: $15million.

Hanover

In October, 2001, Hanover residents voted down funding for a feasibility study for a rebuild of Hanover High School -- by 18 votes. At the time, construction was estimated to cost about $31million, with the state reimbursing for about half of that. The cost to taxpayers would have been $15-16million. (Boston Globe archives)

When funding for a new Hanover High School was finally approved, the estimated cost was up to $50million with a reimbursement rate of 48.21% (HPS website). The total cost of the project increased by $18million -- and the cost to taxpayers was up over $8million.

Cost of waiting to taxpayers: $8million

Norwood

“In May 2008, when the Town of Norwood entered into discussions with the MSBA about building a new high school, the proposed cost for the 203,000 square foot project was over $100 million. In January 2009, MSBA’s Board of Directors approved a new 227,000 square foot school with a total budget of $73.9 million.

This approximate $30 million in savings is a direct result of Norwood’s participation in the MSBA’s Model School Program. Rather than reinventing the wheel for each new school, the Model School Program reduces project costs and completion time by adapting proven elements from recently completed schools and tailoring them to local needs to ensure cost-efficient, easy-to-maintain designs. Thanks to this innovative and sensible program, construction in Norwood got underway in May 2009, instead of November 2009.” (http://www.massschoolbuildings.org/programs/model_school)

Savings to taxpayers by using Model School Program: $30million

Norton

In several instances, folks in town have used the example of Norton in an effort to declare that saying no to the building project now means the SBC would come back with a cheaper option in short order. Comparing Duxbury to Norton, however, is not really appropriate.

While it is true that the current Norton project is less costly and of smaller scope than the initial proposal, it helps to understand it in full context.

1. When the Norton proposal was first brought forward for an override vote, the plan had yet to be presented to the MSBA. It had not received approval of any kind from the MSBA, from a mere agreement of the scope of the project to commitments for funding levels. It not been vetted by MSBA engineers. It was an incomplete proposal in that sense.
   
   THE DUXBURY DIFFERENCE: The school master facilities plan of 2000 identified the need for addressing the conditions of Duxbury Middle School and High School within 10 years. In 2009, Duxbury voters approved a feasibility study to evaluate the complete condition of the middle school and high school. That document, along with repeated submissions of Statements of Interest to the MSBA resulted in the an MSBA visiting Duxbury to see conditions for themselves. They concurred with the conclusions of the feasibility study and invited Duxbury into the program. Our project is MSBA approved.
   
2. The first Norton proposal was for a high school to accommodate about 1000 students. However, Norton High School has only about 760 students. When the MSBA did look at that first plan, they disagreed with the scope of the project. The MSBA told Norton that their enrollment was stagnant if not declining, and that there was no justification for the school to be so large. The current proposal is more appropriate to projected enrollments: it is smaller in scope and adds only a small science wing -- and it is only now going before the MSBA for full approval. Part of the reason the Norton proposal was voted down -- and why a subsequent proposal is coming in for less money -- is that it was too big to begin with.
   
   THE DUXBURY DIFFERENCE: Duxbury worked with the MSBA to determine the appropriate size and scope for the current schools project. A comprehensive study of population trends by the MSBA coupled with a complex formula for enrollment projections confirms that we are building the right size building to accommodate Duxbury children for decades to come.
   
   Note also that in this new plan, Norton is getting all new science facilities. If the current Duxbury proposal were voted down, and the SBC were to try to move on a renovation option, our science classrooms would still be undersized and inefficient.
   
3. The current Norton proposal will be reimbursed at 55-60%. Norton has a different demographics. While all cities and towns in Massachusetts start with a 31% base reimbursement rate, percentage points are added on based on a variety of criteria. Because it is a relatively wealthy town, Duxbury’s community wealth factor is lower than Norton’s (which is double-digits). We will never get to the 55-60% reimbursement rate; maximizing every reimbursement point available to us takes us to the current commitment of 43.42%, including significant cost savings in using the Model School Program.
   
   THE DUXBURY DIFFERENCE: The School Building Committee, comprised of engineering, architectural, building and educational experts, has been working extremely hard on this project for years. Using vetted information from professional, reliable experts and sources, the SBC has put in hundreds of volunteer hours in an effort to evaluate and present the best long-term, cost-effective option for current and future generations of Duxbury children. They did not take the first option presented to them; they asked the firm that completed the feasibility study for more options, so that they could make the best possible proposal to the entire community.

The SBC has done its due diligence to be sure the proposal presented to the town for a new co-located middle school and high school is the most cost effective, efficient, educationally appropriate option for our children and our community. It is up to us to see this project through.

The time is now. Yes for schools. Yes on ballot question 3.