Actually, DuxburyCARES believes now is the best time to build a new co-located school for our middle and high school students.
All of us have experienced the economic uncertainty of recent years and this effort was not undertaken lightly or unadvisedly. We cannot "do nothing" about our schools; we must act in some way to maintain the educational value and physical safety of our school buildings for our children. We have an opportunity now to address both school buildings at once, at a significant reimbursement rate from the state, with low construction costs, and generally favorable bond rates. In addition, this temporary debt exclusion would not actually impact our tax bills for 3-4 years.
As difficult as it may be, now is the right time for this investment in our community. There is no guarantee of funding, reimbursement, construction costs or bond rates going forward. We need to take advantage of these favorable conditions while they exist.
Myth #2: This came out of nowhere.
The need to address the physical structure of Duxbury Middle School and Duxbury High School was first noted in 2000 in the Master Facilities Plan. When the high school was reaccredited in the early 2000s, the condition of the facilities was noted; NEASC, the accrediting body, called DHS a "facility at risk" in 2002.
Since that time the School Building Committee has been active in researching and planning needed building projects. Once the state moratorium on school building projects was lifted in 2007, the building committee started submitting proposals to the MSBA.
Forward-thinking Duxbury taxpayers approved funding for the feasibility study in 2009. That document (which was completed under-budget) was accepted by the MSBA and resulted in the MSBA inviting Duxbury into the model school program.
The high school is again in the process of reaccreditation; the building facilities are a significant factor in the ratings criteria, and if not addressed, could put reaccreditation at risk.
Myth #3: It will be cheaper to renovate the buildings
At first glance, it may appear less expensive to replace systems and or renovate the buildings. However, systems replacement and/or renovation would be a piecemeal effort. Voter approval and state reimbursement for each subsequent project would not be guaranteed -- and approval would need to take place annually. We cannot lock in construction costs for future buildings. In addition, systems replacement and renovation do not address educational deficiencies in the current buildings.
If we were to replace systems only, we would still need to look at replacing the buildings in 10-15 years.
Taking a piecemeal approach would bring greater risk to the process overall. We agree with the School Building Committee the co-located building plan is the most cost effective educationally appropriate long term solution for our schools and our community.
Myth #4: There was no effort to maintain the current buildings
The current serious conditions at DMS and DHS are the result of multiple factors.
When the middle school and high school were built, energy was cheap and the district looked at every option to cut costs. This resulted in some construction elements that would appall us today. For example, there is no insulation between the brick exterior and interior wall-board. None. Not only does this mean the buildings are extremely energy inefficient, the effect of the outdoor elements on the systems was much more obvious and more serious.
In addition, the challenging budget climate of the last 10 years (Duxbury's education budget has never recovered from the 2001 recession, much less the 2008-2010 recession) meant that while there was a desire and need to maintain the buildings, there were limited funds, and sometimes no funds, to do so. capital budgets were severely restricted for a number of years, and for several years there was no money in the capital budget; all dollars went to operational expenses.
Indeed, Duxbury is not the only community grappling with deteriorating school conditions. A November, 2002 article titled, "Do School Facilities Affect Academic Outcomes?" noted the following in as part of its conclusion:
"Building age is an amorphous concept and should not itself be used as an indicator of a facility's impact on student performance. Many schools built as civic monuments in the 1920s and 1930s still, provide, with some modernization excellent learning environments; many newer schools build in the cost-conscious 1960s and 1970s do not."
Myth #5: I have to choose between schools and public safety buildings. We can't have both.
While many of us might have preferred to address the public safety buildings and school buildings in different fiscal years, that has not happened. And yes, we need the schools and public safety buildings.
The scope of the public safety building project is 10% of the school building project. They are not equivalent projects by any means and it is unfair to each to compare them.
As difficult as it may be to say yes to all three projects projects, approving them at the same time might give our town finance officials the opportunity to bundle the debts together. Our town finance officials continue to look for the best way to finance these projects for the community, mitigating the impact as much as possible for the taxpayers. Simply approving projects in different years, or in a series of years, will not substantively alter the tax burden of these very important and needed projects.
In an article about the relationships between school quality, property value, and industry, Chris Belcher, Superintendent of the Columbia (Missouri) Public Schools had this to say:
"Vibrant, progressive communities have a very tangible impact on economic health. The complex symbiotic relationship of the many sectors of a community requires attention and nourishment...failure in any sector of the community impacts all other sectors. However, it is the interdependency of the system that makes it strong. The system wins or loses as a whole, and thus each sector must be supportive of the others."
Myth #6: Building new schools will have little effect on our property values
To the contrary, research has shown that just the decision by a community to build new schools has an immediate effect on property values. The study "The Value of School Facilities: Evidence from a Dynamic Regression Discontinuity Design," by Stephanie Riegg Cellini (George Washington University), Fernando Ferreira (University of Pennsylvania), and Jesse Rothstein (Princeton University), states, "passing a referendum causes immediate, sizable increases in home prices". By just approving the school building project, Duxbury homeowners should see an immediate positive impact on housing values.
In addition, because many communities that surround Duxbury have recently upgraded schools or built new schools, we are at a disadvantage to attract homebuyers. When presented with two homes of similar size and similar prices in different communities -- one in a community with an older school building and one in a community with newer school building, realtors are telling us that many buyers will choose the home in the community with the newer school building. Not only will building new school positively affect our property values, it will attract new buying interest to the town.
Myth #7: The schools buildings are fine. We need to concentrate on teaching, not building.
Although they look mostly okay from the outside, the schools buildings are not "fine." Far from it, in fact. Each school needs major systems replacements in the form of HVAC, electrical, insulation, roofs, windows, sprinklers, ADA compliance and more. In addition the current layout of each building actually impedes teaching best practices:
- Science labs are deficient and prevent full access to the science curriculums; chemistry students are unable to complete experiments due to lack of proper ventilation, for example.
- The physical layout of classrooms makes it difficult for teachers to team teach.
- Many classrooms are windowless and undersized.
- Building structure impedes full use of technology.
- Water damage throughout has compromised building climate
- Antiquated phone systems poses communication problems
If we as a community choose systems replacement or renovation, not only will we not address educational deficiencies of the buildings, we may make some worse. For example, the MSBA already tells us that current classrooms are too small. Renovations do not allow us to move walls, and adding a layer of insulation in each classroom would make each classroom smaller.
In addition, because students cannot be in the buildings while renovations or systems replacements are taking place (and none of the projects can be completed during an eight week summer break), we would further disrupt their educations by having them attend classes in trailers on Train Field for the duration of the work -- which would likely be years. Trailer rental is not reimbursable by the state, nor will the state provide funding for renovations of two separate schools in the same community concurrently.
The proposed co-located school building is the most cost-effective, educationally appropriate, long term solution for our schools and our community.
Myth #8: The state won't actually reimburse us that much.
The state does have money in it's pipeline marked for Duxbury. The money will be released when we approve the project.
The state reimbursement for the Chandler/Alden building projects was 67% and we did receive all the monies from the state. The reimbursement for the Chandler roof was 40% and we did receive all monies from the state.
Myth #9: The project will run overtime and over budget
Duxbury Public Schools has a history of careful management of taxpayer money for building projects. Although the Performing Arts Center was delayed, it was completed ON BUDGET. The Chandler roof project was finished ON TIME and UNDER BUDGET. The Feasibility Study was completed ON TIME and UNDER BUDGET.
The decision to participate in the model school program saves a significant amount of money and time, and the SBC will continue to look for ways to maximize benefit while appropriately minimizing cost and disruption to the community.
Myth #10: The new school building will be built on Train Field. We'll lose all that beautiful open space.
While building on Train Field was presented as an option in the Feasibility Study, it was ultimately rejected in favor of building behind the current middle school. Elizabeth Lewis, chair of the School Building Committee said, "We investigated as part of due diligence but found (Train Field) to not be a viable or desirable location."
Myth #11: This school building project will increase my property taxes by 20% or more.
This is not the case. Preliminary numbers point to an increase of about half that, closer to 11% and it will not actually impact our tax bills until 2014.
At the Board of Selectmen meeting on September 26, 2011, the School Building Committee presented some preliminary numbers regarding the tax implications of the school building project.
NOTE: We want to remind you that these numbers are preliminary. Town finance officials are still working through various scenarios and the numbers could vary somewhat.
Based on a cost to the town, after 45% reimbursement, of $77M and a 25 year term, the preliminary projected addition to the tax bill for a home of median value ($481K) would be about $800 per year.
If your house value is above the town median, the dollar amount of your increase would be larger. If your home is valued below the town median, your dollar amount would be lower. Remember also that bonding will not take place until 2014.
Please also remember that if the town does not pass this school building project, it does not mean there will not be additions to the tax bills for school-related projects. The conditions of the schools must be addressed. If the town chooses the piecemeal approach, tax implications are uncertain: the town may be faced with multiple additions to the tax bill over multiple years at varying interest rates and with uncertain state reimbursement.
