Letter to the Editor: The Cost of a No Vote

I voted yes for the school project last year, along with approximately 75 percent of the voters.  At the time, I knew that the amount that I was voting on, was based on a partial estimate; this fact was made clear at the time.  I also thought that the construction market would rebound a bit prior to the final estimates, which would increase the cost of construction materials.  In short, I thought that we would have had to use at least some of the built-in contingency.

Unfortunately, since then, there have been several significant challenges with the physical building site and the construction market has rebounded beyond what was forecasted.  Since the original estimate was too low and the additional costs exceeded the buffer allocated, we have a shortfall.

To counter this situation, the Secondary Schools Building Committee has been working tirelessly to determine what modifications can be made to the building and what items can be cut, in order to both meet the budget and have no impact on either educational programs or necessary square footage.  While the SSBC has done a good job eliminating what they can, the additional cuts required to meet the original budget would negatively impact the school.

Building a beautiful new auditorium, but not installing permanent seats or air conditioning?  Building a new gymnasium, but eliminating bleachers?  Eliminating sports fields?  Not adding restrooms/team rooms to the turf field facility?  These will all reduce usability by the students in the otherwise new school.  It will also eliminate the possibility of generating revenue from renting these facilities to other organizations outside of school hours.  This seems short sighted to me.  (For a complete list of proposed eliminated items, go to www.nrssbc.org).

The alternative to these cuts is a tax increase that we will need to vote on at Town Meeting March 18 and at a Special Election March 22:  $40 million has been committed already and the foundation has been started.  A yes vote will allow the project to be completed.  A no vote will not only force these reductions, but also increase costs (or decrease funds) by another estimated $3 million as buildings are redesigned and timelines are delayed.

The choice is obvious to me.  The benefits greatly outweigh the costs.

Signed,

Keith Daly