Superintendent won’t urge districtwide question after Belmont rejects Minuteman funding
UPDATED, May 7: Four members of the Board of Selectmen voted unanimously Thursday, May 4, to place three questions on the ballot for the June 14 special election.
But a vote by Belmont Town Meeting the same night to reject that town’s share of funding for rebuilding the Minuteman High School has added a serious degree of doubt to the process. The Minuteman School Committee could call for a districtwide vote, but Minuteman’s superintendent says he will not recommend that.
The next scheduled meeting of Minuteman School Committee is Tuesday, May 17. In a brief interview with YourArlington May 6, Superintendent Edward A. Bouquillon said a districtwide vote may be discussed, but it will not be on the agenda as an action item. While the superintendent will not recommend holding such a vote, which would have to be approved by the state School Building Authority, the full committee could vote to pursue it.
He doubts that will occur. He will tell the committee that such a vote would be too disruptive, and he hope Arlington and Needham town meetings on May 9 will support building the school.
Belmont’s 141-81 vote to not approve the debt was a first among Minuteman district towns.
Arlington’s share of Minuteman funding depends on a successful June 14 vote here.
Selectmen’s actions
After lengthy discussion before leaving for Town Meeting, selectmen voted, 4-0 (Kevin Greeley was absent), to put the following questions before the public in June to pay for:
1.) Thompson Elementary School expansion $4 million) and the former Gibbs renovation ($25 million);
2.) Arlington High School Feasibility study ($2 million); and
3.) Minuteman ($32 million).
Polls are to open at 7 a.m. that Tuesday in June for the three votes totaling $63 million.
Bouquillon urges towns to stay course
In a memo to Arlington and Needham selectmen May 5, described the next steps in the building project. They include not recommending to the School Committee pursuing a districtwide referendum on the project.
He wrote that only the School Committee has the legal authority to determine whether to invoke that provision of the law, he will not recommend it. “As superintendent,” he wrote, “I am now convinced that it is not the best way to get us to ‘Yes.’
While “disappointing,” he wrote that the action by Belmont Town Meeting “does not end the project or stop the 60-day clock that the Minuteman School Committee set in motion with its vote authorizing $144.9 million of debt” on March 15.
He wrote that he has been asked by several town officials what advice he would give to Arlington and Needham, the two remaining nondeparting towns that have yet to consider this matter. Needham is also scheduled to take up the issue May 9.
“Here is my simple advice to both Arlington and Needham: Stay the course,” he wrote.
“Please take up the article at Town Meeting on May 9 and join the seven other nondeparting member towns in supporting construction of the new school.” Acton, Bolton, Concord, Dover, Lancaster, Lexington and Stow all approved the project by wide margins, some unanimously.
“With the support of Arlington and Needham — and the expected votes in Boxborough, Carlisle and Weston to ‘pass over’ the matter since they will no longer be members as of July 1, 2017 — 15 of the 16 member towns will stand united. With such a united front, we can talk with the Massachusetts School Building Authority (MSBA) about their local approval deadlines and how we can best proceed.
Chapdelaine explains to selectmen
Town Manager Adam Chapdelaine explained that the amount for the Gibbs project was increased from $19.9 million, the number reviewed May 2 by the School Enrollment Task Force, after adding in estimates for fixtures, technology, and other construction costs.
A memo from Chapdelaine calls the number for Minuteman an “approximate maximum impact” and is “variable based on enrollment.”
The board’s discussion of a number of scenarios reflected the difficulty members had in deciding which route to take. See the full text of the scenarios below. Read all three related memos here >>
Selectmen Chair Diane Mahon, a veteran of previous debt-exclusions, said she strongly favored scenario 1, but expressed a concern about people on the fence seeing two Minuteman options. “They might see it as asking for a blank check,” she said.
Concern, looking ahead
Concern was raised about the possibility that other town meetings might vote down Minuteman’s high school project, action that Belmont took that night.
Selectman Dan Dunn suggested that Minuteman project costs could be placed on an operating override, which has been discussed for possibly 2020.
Selectman Steve Byrne wanted to know when town officials would get more accurate estimates of costs. Chapdelaine responded that there is a “lot of uncertainty” based Town Meeting votes on Minuteman.
Mahon asked Chapdelaine directly about the risks in each the scenarios. He said these include administrative risk in scenario two — that the state School Building Authority may not be on board.
A public-relations risk, he said, lies in the challenge in telling voters what they are voting for in scenario two.
Selectman Joseph Curro Jr. said that, at first, he believed No. 2 was way to go, but now he was leaning toward No. 1.
Byrne said he was leaning toward No. 2, which he said is “a safer play right now.”
Dunn backed No. 1 and his motion to support it passed, 3-0.
Lexington supportrs its debt exclusion
In related news, Lexington voters on Tuesday, May 3, supported a ballot question to authorize a debt exclusion to pay for $71 million in renovations and construction costs for schools, 61 percent to 39 percent. About 26 percent of the registered voters turned out, and the vote was 3,333 to 2,134. They voted to authorize the tax increase to pay off the borrowing for William Diamond Middle School ($44.9 million), the Jonas Clarke Middle School ($21.6 million) as well as $4.08 million and $5.38 million for design and modulars for three elementary schools.
The average property tax impact on the town’s median value house ($786,000) is reported to peak in fiscal 2020 at about $430. The tax impact in 2017 is reported at $41 and is to average about $312 during the next 30 years.
Vote backs Minuteman article
During discussion of Special Town Meeting Article 6 (Minuteman School Building Bond Authorization), official made clear that support on the Minuteman project moving forward is contingent on a successful debt exclusion. Support for Minuteman derives from the “lack of a clear-cut appropriate alterative.” Chapdelaine said.
“I want it to be built,” Dunn said.
Curro, who will miss Town Meeting next week because he will be away on business, expressed his support and said Arlington High students may find Minuteman “a good option” during the expected confusion surround the AHS rebuild.
The board voted unanimously to support the Finance Committee’s recommendation to support the Minuteman article.
Ballot Question Scenarios for Minuteman Rebuild or Rehab
Scenario 1 – Authorizing Rebuild Only:
Shall the Town of Arlington be allowed to exempt from the provisions of proposition two and one-half, so-called, the amounts required to pay for the Town’s allocable share of the bond issued by the Minuteman Regional Vocational Technical School District for the purpose of paying costs of designing, constructing and originally equipping a new district school, and for the payment of all other costs incidental and related thereto?
Comment: This presents the ballot question as recommended by Minuteman, and closely conforms to the MSBA’s model language for debt exclusions for reimbursable projects.
Scenario 2- Authorizing Rebuild or Rehab:
Shall the Town of Arlington be allowed to exempt from the provisions of proposition two and one-half, so-called, the amounts required to pay for the Town’s allocable share of the bond issued by the Minuteman Regional Vocational Technical School District (“District”) for either:
1) the purposes of paying costs of designing, constructing and originally equipping a new District school, and for the payment of all other costs incidental and related thereto; or
2) The purposes of paying capital costs of projects to design, renovate, remodel, and originally equip the current District school building located at 758 Marrett Road, Lexington, MA 02421, and for the payment of all other costs incidental and related thereto?
Comment: Under this scenario, the Town would attempt to place before voters an authorization to incur excludable debt for either the rebuilding project as proposed by Minuteman and supported by MSBA funds, or the capital renovations to the existing building, which Minuteman will almost certainly make in coming years if the rebuilding project is not approved by member communities.
Scenario 3 – Two Separate Ballot Questions:
Shall the Town of Arlington be allowed to exempt from the provisions of proposition two and one-half, so-called, the amounts required to pay for the Town’s allocable share of the bond issued by the Minuteman Regional Vocational Technical School District for the purpose of paying costs of designing, constructing and originally equipping a new district school, and for the payment of all other costs incidental and related thereto?
AND A SEPARATE QUESTION (Resulting in four total debt exclusion questions)
Shall the Town of Arlington be allowed to exempt from the provisions of Proposition two-and-one-half, so called, the amounts required to pay for the bond or bonds issued for the purpose of paying Arlington’s allocable share of capital costs of projects to design, renovate, remodel, and originally equip the current District school building located at 758 Marrett Road, Lexington, MA 02421, and for the payment of all other costs incidental and related thereto?
Comment: Under this scenario, the Town would request of voters two separate authorizations to incur excludable debt relative to Minuteman, only one of which would be utilized. The first articulates the rebuilding project as proposed by Minuteman and supported by MSBA funds. The second, again provides capital renovations to the existing building should member communities ultimately reject the new school proposal.
High School Feasibility Study
Shall the Town of Arlington be allowed to exempt from the provisions of Proposition two-and-one-half, so called, the amounts required to pay for the bonds issued in order to pay the costs of the Arlington High School Feasibility Study/Schematic Design for Arlington High School located at 869 Massachusetts Avenue, Arlington MA?
Comment: This vote presents the feasibility ballot question in the form required by the MSBA for reimbursable projects. The only latitude afforded is in our description of the project, which in this case can and should be broad.
Thompson, Gibbs, and Ottoson Additions and Renovations
Shall the Town of Arlington be allowed to exempt from the provisions of Proposition two-and-one-half, so called, the amounts required to pay for the bond or bonds issued for the purposes of paying costs of projects to design, construct, reconstruct, remodel, add to, and originally equip the Thompson School and the Gibbs School and for the payment of all other costs incidental and related thereto?
Comment: This vote bundles the Thompson and Gibbs additions and renovations together for a single debt exclusion, much in the way prior renovation debt exclusions have been articulated to voters. It does not follow the MSBA’s model because they are not MSBA-backed projects. For reference purposes, please see below successful April 1, 2000 ballot question submitted to voters authorizing excluded debt on multiple school capital projects:
“Shall the Town of Arlington be allowed to exempt from the provisions of Proposition two and one-half, so called, the amounts required to pay for the bond or bonds issued in order to finance projects by the issuance of such bonds or notes to construct or add to, remodel, reconstruct and originally equip the Dallin, Pierce, Stratton and Thompson elementary schools?
This news summary was published Thursday, May 5, 2016, and updated May 7.
