Wareham School Building Committee presents plans to Selectmen

By Meghan Neely | Jun 26, 2018
Photo by: Meghan Neely Members of the School Building Committee present their plans to the Selectboard.

Members of the School Building Committee presented their site plans for a new, $90 million combined Minot Forest and Decas Elementary schools to Selectmen on Tuesday night.

Wareham Public Schools Business Manager Micheal MacMillan said the committee will know by noon Wednesday, June 27 if their plans have been approved by the state. This will allow the project to move forward and eventually go before Wareham voters for a final decision this fall.

"We're encouraged by what we've seen so far," MacMillan said.

The decision to combine the two schools follows what Selectman Peter Teitelbaum called a "myriad of structural issues".

"What people thought would be a 100-year school ended up being a 50-year school," Teitelbaum said.

Minot requires upgrades for security, electrical wiring and fire safety. Additional classroom space, new windows, boilers, floors and ceilings are needed as well.

"One of the old showers was converted into a classroom," Selectman Patrick Tropeano said.

Tropeano also pointed out that Decas wasn't in much better shape.

According to MacMillan, 75 percent of the project's cost will be reimbursed by the state of approved, which is 4 percent higher than anticipated.

The new school would be build were Minot currently is, with space for 1,020 students. MacMillan said the proposed building would be three stories with two wings.

Plans call for completing an official design in time for voters to consider approving a debt exclusion at the October 2018 Town Meeting.

If approved, Wareham voters would have to OK funding the school during the state's Nov. 6 election as a ballot question. The debt exclusion would raise taxes on residents to pay for the project for the life of the debt.

"It's not as easy as everyone thinks," Tropeano said. "We've been agonizing over this to make the best decisions possible."

Comments (45)
Posted by: Just Me1 | Jun 27, 2018 07:34

How were these schools allowed to deteriorate to this state? Is there no planning for maintenance and upgrades to the infrastructure?



Posted by: sadie | Jun 27, 2018 08:29

An update to just the wiring would cost a fortune. The school is 50 years old does it have asbestos? You can only update to a certain point with an old school. the town made it very clear they didn't want the town to spend more then they had by vetoing overrides. You can't make expensive repairs if the town won't vote for the money. 



Posted by: Bpigeon | Jun 27, 2018 09:14

The School Dept is responsible for maintaining all school buildings. The Town has been trying to have maintenance responsibility turned over to the Town but the School Dept. refuses.

Also, the comment that MSBA will reimburse the Town 75% of the cost is misleading. They only reimburse 75% of what they classify as reimbursable cost. We would have to pay for upwards of 40+ million of the possible total of 90 million. When you go into the voting booth you will be authorizing the borrowing of 90 million dollars via a debt exclusion.



Posted by: Spherebreaker | Jun 27, 2018 12:06

The schools maintaining their own stuff.....what a joke. We see what they do to their buildings....nothing. They want to schools to fall apart so they can get bigger ones to impress other towns at the educational workshops where they gather to conspire against the taxpayer.



Posted by: Spherebreaker | Jun 27, 2018 12:13

Minot requires upgrades for security, electrical wiring and fire safety. Additional classroom space, new windows, boilers, floors and ceilings are needed as well. These are called upgrades and homeowners do this all the time and mostly on their own. No rocket scientist from any committee can honestly say that upgrading costs more than a total replacement without speaking a straight out LIE.  The new school will need all the things and costs an upgrade will require plus new walls, roofs, ceilings gyms, fixtures , plumbing wreckout of old school, foundations. I say everyone on these committees , architects  and so many others is a bold face lying sad sack  



Posted by: cranky pants | Jun 27, 2018 13:04

Cue the " Everything is going to be gravy " comments from the fruit loops...

 



Posted by: Uptohere | Jun 27, 2018 13:57

So I asked this question before and received no answer. So I'll ask again. I understand having to bortow the full amout for the project then we get reimbursed x amount of dollars will that money (reimbursement ) but put to against the money borrowed thus lowering the bottom line? If not where will it go and why and who decides that? If it goes to the loan how will that effect the taxpayer paying it back?



Posted by: Uptohere | Jun 27, 2018 13:59

And I'll vote NO until thsee questions are throughly answered



Posted by: Doctor Deekas | Jun 27, 2018 15:15

Has there been any thought as to how Minot Ave and the site will accommodate the parents picking up many of the 1000 kids at the same location?? This will be a traffic nightmare!



Posted by: WESProjInfo | Jun 27, 2018 15:37

UPTOHERE - I can assure you that the Town does not need to borrow the full amount for the project, just the anticipated district share of $39.8M.  Reimbursements of eligible costs are made by the MSBA on a monthly basis.  Upon completion of of the schematic estimate reconciliation process, a comprehensive cashflow projection will be developed by the Owner's Project Manager which will forecast the anticipated district's out of pocket expenses at any given point in time.  This cashflow projection can then be utilized to limit borrowing to only what is absolutely necessary to keep the project moving along, thus keeping borrowing charges to a minimum.



Posted by: WESProjInfo | Jun 27, 2018 15:42

DOCTOR DEEKAS - Absolutely, the preferred schematic report included a full traffic study of Minot Ave, and includes suggestions for traffic mitigation.  Costs associated with the traffic mitigation necessary to address your concern has been included within the cost estimates.  Please visit the link below to access the traffic study if you wish to read further:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/02sva45thtnu255/Appendix%20C%20C%20Minot%20Forest%20Elementary%20School%20Traffic%20Impact%20Study.pdf?dl=0

 



Posted by: WESProjInfo | Jun 27, 2018 15:56

SPHEREBREAKER - You state: "The new school will need all the things and costs an upgrade will require plus new walls, roofs, ceilings gyms, fixtures , plumbing wreckout of old school, foundations." which is 100% correct.

However, the existing schools also need those exact same items in order to be brought up to current code.  The walls and roofs do not meet current energy code (lack of insulation or vapor barrier).  The existing ceilings contain asbestos and would need to be abated & replaced.  The plumbing systems do not meet low-flow or handicap accessibility requirements.  The gymnasiums require new floors, structural reinforcement, lighting and mechanical systems.  You are correct that the new building will require foundations, but the old building would also require extensive foundation work, in addition to steel shear bracing and seismic clips throughout as necessary to meet current structural code.

When working within the confines of an existing structure, costs for these items increase exponentially.  Imagine trying to install new mechanical system ductwork (to satisfy the current code's minimum outside air requirements) in an existing small cramped corridor with low ceilings and a plethora of other old systems in your way versus the same task in a new structure which has a clear route and has been designed and framed to accommodate these necessary systems.

 



Posted by: Uptohere | Jun 27, 2018 16:59

Thank you westprojingo for you input. I still need to see this in writing by the town officials.  Does this 90 million include what's needed inside the building ex: desks whiteboards? Or will this a surprise after the fact?



Posted by: cranky pants | Jun 27, 2018 17:51

Can you share the new footprint for the proposed plan ? How much of that hill behind the school would the new project be tearing into ?



Posted by: Spherebreaker | Jun 27, 2018 19:26

Wespro, will yu put in escrow half the money so if this 100 year school only lasts 50 again the kids that will still be paying for this when they are old and gray get some of our money back?



Posted by: rhbinma | Jun 27, 2018 20:04

This will be just like the water treatment plant. We need x amount to build this we will raise your water x amount. Oh yea we forgot we need chemicals so we will raise the water again x amount..Oh and we want solar so we can just add that to your bill also. All the dept heads and committees  think we have open checkbooks .



Posted by: WESProjInfo | Jun 28, 2018 08:15

UPTOHERE - You are most welcome.  Town officials will discuss placing the project on the ballot at one of their upcoming Board of Selectmen meetings in July, I recommend attending so that you can ask them the question in person.  The $90M is an all-in number, it includes contingencies, furnishings, equipment, technology, utility connections, even movers for when the building is complete.



Posted by: WESProjInfo | Jun 28, 2018 08:23

CRANKY PANTS - The recent Wicked Local Wareham article had a photo of the latest site plan, if you have Facebook we'll upload it to the project page there as well.  Minot Avenue is known to be an archaeologically sensitive area and the team is working with the Massachusetts Historical Commission to limit any new disturbance.  We are working to stay within the confines of the existing limit of disturbance from when the building was originally constructed in the 1960s and will have a complete picture upon completion of the archaeologists site survey as required by MHC.



Posted by: WESProjInfo | Jun 28, 2018 08:25

RHBINMA -  The Building Committee intends on going for one and only one debt exclusion, on November 6th 2018.  At that point the designer's contract will include a design-to-cost clause based upon the authorized budget to prevent scope creep like your example above.



Posted by: WESProjInfo | Jun 28, 2018 08:28

SPHEREBREAKER - A BoS member stated it perfectly on Tuesday evening, buildings from the early 1900s held up much better than those constructed in the 1960s/70s.  Design professionals are well aware of the reasons for this and Wareham's Architect has been steadfast in their approach to design a building which is flexible enough to accommodate future needs for decades to come.   It is impossible to predict the future, but we can certainly learn from the past.



Posted by: Doctor Deekas | Jun 28, 2018 11:39

What WestProj doesn't tell us is that the State hardly reimburses for sitework, something along the lines of less than 10%. On the hill, and with a 2 or 3 story building and new parking, there is going to be a lot of sitework, especially with a loop road around the building. If the site was flat, Wareham wouldn't face much burden, but on this site, we will be spending 90% of the 'sitework funds' and the State will give us 10%.  If the sitework is worth $10million, we are on the hook for $9million of it. This also goes for roadway improvements or anything we have to do that is site-related. There is no bang for the buck at this site for Wareham, Decas would've been less an issue ironically.



Posted by: WESProjInfo | Jun 28, 2018 13:30

DOCTOR DEEKAS - the State reimburses for sitework costs up to 8% of the direct building cost.  That is why it is so important to understand that reimbursement is 74.98% of eligible project costs.  The $39.8M district share forecast takes ineligible costs such as sitework exceeding 8% of direct building cost into consideration.

 

One of the contributing factors to the 2/3 story approach is to work with the existing topography and limit ineligible sitework costs.  By having one 3 story wing (down the hill) and one two story wing (up the hill), we limit the amount of soil cut and fill.  Nearly every project, even in dense urban areas with limited sitework, exceeds the MSBA's 8% cap.

 

In Wareham's specific case, the preferred schematic report sitework estimate is $5,943,282 and the MSBA reimbursable amount is estimated at $3,755,678.  That means that $3.75M is reimbursed at 74.98% and the remaining $2.19M is ineligible for reimbursement.  As we work through schematic design the Building Committee will focus on reducing ineligible costs to the maximum extent possible in order to reduce the burden on Wareham's taxpayers.



Posted by: yourmonkeysuncle | Jun 28, 2018 14:27

Why is it that every time a new school is needed we have to re- invent the wheel ? Of all the tens of thousands of school building blue prints on file why can't one of those be chosen and modified if needed. This project will cost aprox 30 MILLION before the first brick is laid. Insanity !



Posted by: WESProjInfo | Jun 28, 2018 15:02

YOURMONKEYSUNCLE - this is also a frequent question.  None of the five MSBA approved "model school" options are large enough to accommodate Wareham's enrollment of 1020 K-4 + Prek.

The largest elementary model from Andover can only accommodate a maximum of 816 students (http://www.massschoolbuildings.org/programs/model_school).

Unfortunately, the actual savings from utilization of the model school program is nowhere near the $30M you suggest.  A more appropriate figure might be 1/10th of that amount, and of that ~$3M total savings, the MSBA grant would be reduced by 74.98% and the district would save the remaining 25.02%, or ~$750k.  All in all, a realistic hypothetical savings of less than $1M for the Town by using one of the models, and again, none of the models are large enough for Wareham's enrollment and none of them are suited for the topography of the Minot site.  Hopefully this information is helpful.  We also encourage community participation during Wareham's monthly Building Committee meetings to have open dialogue and to provide a forum for rather complex questions like this that are better answered in person, the next meeting is scheduled for 7/9 at 5:30PM in the MultiService Center.



Posted by: yourmonkeysuncle | Jun 29, 2018 07:55

WESPRO...Of the only 5 MSBA approved "model school" options the largest design can only accommodate 816students. MODIFY the plan to allow for 204 more. Not rocket science.Additionally, the 30 million is the generally accepted formula for NEW design which includes (but not limited to) consultants, studies,design  and modifications, change orders, permits....the list goes on. when it's all said and done about 30% ergo 30 MILLION. A very real possibility is that this one school will end up quite close to a Tenth of a BILLION dollars !

 



Posted by: WESProjInfo | Jun 29, 2018 08:16

YOURMONKEYSUNCLE - 814 enrollment capacity is the modified plan figure, the original Andover school model design was for 680 students.  The Building Committee has spent considerable time discussing the model school program and unfortunately the option does not exist with Wareham's enrollment.

 

Aside from that fact, MSBA limits reimbursement of Architect's fee to 10% of Construction cost.  Owner's Project Manager fee is limited to 3.5% of Construction Cost.  Total soft costs are capped at 20% of Construction costs; a figure which not only includes the aforementioned design/management fees but also includes furnishings, equipment and technology.  With a model school your design costs are reduced by roughly 4% of construction cost, all other costs remain identical, it is still controlled construction, they still are liable for any design issues and still must have a presence on the project; hence the ~$3M estimated savings to be split between Town and MSBA (4% of $72M construction cost).

 

The $90M figure presented includes all of the above considerations, soft costs are within the MSBA's 20% cap and therefore eligible for reimbursement at 74.98%.



Posted by: Andrea Smith | Jun 29, 2018 14:55

Wesprojinfo - I understand that the school building committee members poured their hearts and souls into bringing forth a proposal for a new elementary school that they believe will best service the needs of Wareham's elementary school children and be the best possible fit for the town. I also understand that at this time there are a number of reasons why any school building committee (not just Wareham's) would want to focus voters’ attention on the proposed new school’s design attributes rather than upon the potential financial impact the new school could have upon individual real estate tax bills.

However, there’s an undercurrent of tax payer panic running through Wareham. The majority of people who pay Wareham’s real estate taxes are not wealthy people. No one wants to deny children a safe, comfortable, accessible learning environment. But a lot of people just don’t know how given life’s circumstances they are going to be able to afford the impact that the proposed new school would have upon their individual real estate taxes. Real estate tax payers who live in the Onset Fire/Water District are already facing a property tax increase to cover a new $8 million fire station.  And Wareham Fire/Water District tax payers are facing: 1) the unknowns of property tax increases to cover a new water treatment plant (last estimate $12.5 million) which will cause graduated real estate tax increases of yet unknown amounts over the next three years, 2) a projection of soon-to-begin “miles and miles” of district water pipe repair/replacement and 3) a 35 percent increase in water fees, the impact of which won’t be clear until December’s six month water bill comes in the mail...approximately one month after the school building committee’s proposed date for a ballot vote on the new school proposal.

A simple answer to a very basic cost-related question would at least give real estate tax payers a time frame within which to anticipate receiving the information necessary to better understand the financial impact that the proposed new school would have upon their individual annual real estate tax bill. Hopefully having that time frame will help those who have financial concerns to focus on design details and benefits now and on personal financial impact within a time frame when that information will be available.

So I ask again a question that I have posted but has gone unanswered in other comment sections to which you have actively contributed responses:

“By approximately what date will there be sufficient Minot project-related financial information available in order for real estate tax payers to be given a reasonably accurate projection of the cost impact upon their individual real estate tax bills?

In other words, the cost to individual real estate tax payers per $1000 of their evaluation (assessment?)”



Posted by: Doctor Deekas | Jun 29, 2018 15:22

Hi Andrea, I researched Bourne and they have a similar tax rate. When they borrowed for the school and police station, (up to $42 million total), it came out to $283 on the average $398k home per year, over 30 years. However, we have nowhere near a $398k home average in Wareham so these rates are going to be higher, AND, they are asking us to borrow more than Bourne did. How are the many on fixed incomes going to fork over an extra $350-500 per year, on top of the outrageous Fire District increases?



Posted by: Peaches0409 | Jun 29, 2018 16:54

^ Doc you should go back to the drawing board. Your figures are way off.



Posted by: Andrea Smith | Jun 29, 2018 17:29

I'm not asking for a dollar quote of the cost impact per $1000 of evaluation at this time. I'm just asking when taxpayers can anticipate that information being made available.



Posted by: WESProjInfo | Jun 29, 2018 22:28

ANDREA - Sorry I missed your other comment. The estimated tax impact will be calculated after receipt of schematic estimates in late September.

Very very preliminary estimates included within the recent submission to the MSBA had an estimated annual impact of around $180-$210 on the avg single family home. We will have a more firm number upon receipt of schematic design.



Posted by: cranky pants | Jun 29, 2018 23:34

That jump in taxes, combined with the updated fire/water tax is quite a bit more than your average cost of living raises. Wasn't there just an article about blight in Wareham ?



Posted by: WESProjInfo | Jun 30, 2018 06:07

CRANKY - From what I can gather, the 2018 cost of living increase is 2.0%. Median household income in Wareham is around $62,560 according to https://www.bestplaces.net/economy/city/massachusetts/wareham. A $200 annual impact equates to 0.3% (<1/3 of 1%) of the median household income.

 

Historically, a school project's positive impact on real estate values far exceeds the tax burden.  Furthermore, under prop 2 1/2 there would be no additional increase in taxes based upon that increase in tangible market value. If an updated and desirable school increases average real market home values by even $5,000 then it is a break even over the life of a 25 year bond. My personal opinion is that the appreciation will be far greater than that, look at Carver's real estate today with a new school about to open versus their relatively stagnant market just a few years ago.  Yes, real estate values are increasing across the state, but Carver market appreciation has certainly outpaced Wareham's over the same period, arguably a result of Carver's increased desirability amongst young families, a demographic which is currently extremely active in this hot real estate market.



Posted by: cranky pants | Jun 30, 2018 07:33

Boy this sure seems like someone is blowing smoke up someone's keister. Even if your math is as correct as your facts you listed it doesn't mean we as a whole can afford this.

Here's the thing...

Many of us don't have children in your school system, so no thank you.



Posted by: WESProjInfo | Jun 30, 2018 08:12

Understood that keeping costs down is a priority, and I assure you it will continue to be right through project closeout. Also understood that many folks do not have children in the school system.

 

My point is that school systems are more often than not the #1 consideration for a home buyer, and desirability drives market demand and thereby directly impacts home values. Wareham is without question a beautiful place to live and one that I'll always be proud to call home, but if residents don't collectively find a way to start attracting young hard working individuals then I have serious concerns about what Wareham might look like 10 years from now.

 

There are many successful young professionals living in Wareham right now who are watching to see where this goes to decide if they are going to stay put or relocate. If those hardworking professionals sell their homes at firesale prices comparable to some of the economically challenged cities in our area, guess who moves in?

 

Not to mention the 'do nothing' option ends up costing Wareham just as much, if not more, in the long run between repair and exorbitant operational costs at existing Minot and Decas buildings.  Why not tackle the issue head on and at least give Wareham a fighting chance to become a desirable place for young families to live in the process?



Posted by: WESProjInfo | Jun 30, 2018 08:12

Understood that keeping costs down is a priority, and I assure you it will continue to be right through project closeout. Also understood that many folks do not have children in the school system.

 

My point is that school systems are more often than not the #1 consideration for a home buyer, and desirability drives market demand and thereby directly impacts home values. Wareham is without question a beautiful place to live and one that I'll always be proud to call home, but if residents don't collectively find a way to start attracting young hard working individuals then I have serious concerns about what Wareham might look like 10 years from now.

 

There are many successful young professionals living in Wareham right now who are watching to see where this goes to decide if they are going to stay put or relocate. If those hardworking professionals sell their homes at firesale prices comparable to some of the economically challenged cities in our area, guess who moves in?

 

Not to mention the 'do nothing' option ends up costing Wareham just as much, if not more, in the long run between repair and exorbitant operational costs at existing Minot and Decas buildings.  Why not tackle the issue head on and at least give Wareham a fighting chance to become a desirable place for young families to live in the process?



Posted by: cranky pants | Jun 30, 2018 09:27

We see what the do nothing attitude did for your previous school, that couldn't last more than 50 years... And now you're looking for a new one ?  What's to say that the new school would outlive the life of your loan ? There are plenty of small towns across this country that have schools well over 100 years old. The visual that the general public is drawing is that this is more of a " want " than an actual " need ".

You want the town to be more desirable ? Tackle your drug and petty crime issues. Get a grip on the municipality spending. Quit gouging the taxpayers.

In reality getting those issues under control is what will keep families here. That and free rent.



Posted by: Andrea Smith | Jun 30, 2018 12:31

Wesprojinfo - Thanks for the response.  Imagination, especially in the face of a potential financial impact upon already strained household budgets, often runs in panic mode, picturing dollar amounts far worse than factual reality.

 

Now just one more question to which you hopefully have an answer. What's the average single family Wareham home considered to be worth?



Posted by: WESProjInfo | Jul 02, 2018 09:11

CRANKY - The existing school was constructed in 1965 and a new one would not be open until 2021, 56 years later.  As previously stated, buildings constructed in the early 1900s are actually easier to renovate than those from the 1960s as they are typically structural masonry type construction with higher ceilings, wider corridors and larger rooms that lend themselves to more easily accommodate requirements such as sprinkler systems, mechanical ventilation, shear/seismic braces, etc.



Posted by: WESProjInfo | Jul 02, 2018 09:15

ANDREA - if helpful, the following is right out of the Preferred Schematic Report Submission: "The local share of debt service is planned to be allocated via debt exclusion if supported by the Town of Wareham during the November 2018 state election ballot.  A total project budget of $90.3M in alternative MF-2B.3 results in an anticipated district share of $39.5M, which translates to approximately $0.66 - $0.81 of additional tax burden per $1,000 of valuation, or roughly $170 - $210 annual for the average single family home, depending on the length of bond (20-30 year) and subject to fluctuation with market conditions."

 

The average single family home in Wareham for FY2018 was  assessed at $258,143.



Posted by: Doctor Deekas | Jul 02, 2018 13:16

WESPROJ has it wrong. There is no way borrowing $39.5 million dollars will be only 170-210 per average household. For one thing, Bourne paid for two projects, have almost the same tax rate and same number of households, and their bills are documented online about an average of $300 per household. Secondly, Bourne got TWO buildings for this amount! In Wareham, we never borrow for anything which is why our buildings are the way they are. Then, why would we put all of our eggs in one basket like an elementary school when we also have other buildings that need big improvements or renovations? It doesn't seem logical that the voters are going to go for this big nut with so many others that have been passed by, that were lesser amounts.



Posted by: WESProjInfo | Jul 02, 2018 14:28

DOCTOR - Bourne tax impact for just the Peebles school was $163 for the average home valued at $398,944 (http://www.capecodtimes.com/news/20161012/bourne-voters-face-575m-in-debt-exclusions).  Bourne's Peebles school is less than half the size and Bourne's share was ~$25M for 72K SF accommodating 460 grade 3-5 students (no requirement for bathrooms in each classroom in those grades).

 

Wareham's Project is 159K SF, over 1100 PREK-4 students, going out to bid two years later in a market where cost escalation is running 6% annually, and includes more expensive PREK and K spaces which require a bathroom in each classroom.

 

So in summary, Wareham's project is 220% larger than Bourne's, includes more expensive spaces to build, and includes an additional ~12% of market escalation, yet the district share forecast is only 58% higher.  Certainly a testament to the Building Committee's hard work to keep costs down.

 

The data referenced above and included within Wareham's Preferred Schematic report came directly from Wareham Town Hall's Finance department.



Posted by: Doctor Deekas | Jul 02, 2018 14:59

WESPROJ - Duck and weave while you try and defend $40-50 million of borrowing from Wareham voters. Again, for $40 million, Bourne got TWO buildings, one an elementary and one a police station. Yes, they did their homework and changed their schools so the new elementary was not Kindergarten with bathrooms in the classroom. Are we really talking about that many bathrooms in our classrooms that we will be several million more? C'mon... You escalated the cost to $90 million from $80 million in one month, and then put here that construction costs escalate 6% per year, when a quick google search will show that the Bourne school bids came in LOWER than they borrowed for! Good luck fleecing Wareham voters!



Posted by: WESProjInfo | Jul 02, 2018 15:26

DOCTOR - Not ducking and weaving, only here to provide factual information as there seems to be an abundance of misinformation. An example of this is repeated references to a $50M Wareham price tag which has no factual basis, the published figure is $39.5M. 

 

As for Bourne, a police station is a fraction of the size and cost of a school, the two buildings you reference in Bourne when combined are still roughly half the size of Wareham's proposed ES, and Bourne still paid $2-3M more.  Bids coming in lower than an estimate is by no means an indicator of market escalation, if you want escalation data visit the link below, draw a line of best fit and while you are there look where Wareham falls in comparison to other schools on similar schedules: http://info.massschoolbuildings.org/TabPub/TableauCostData.aspx

 

If you could kindly direct me to documentation of an alleged $80M cost it would be appreciated.  During PDP (Preliminary Design Program) it was >$100M and since has been reduced to $90.25M at PSR (Preferred Schematic Report).  There were half dozen options on the table at the end of PSR ranging from $87M to $92M, and a $90M option was selected over the slightly lower cost "courtyard" option due to acoustics, educational and future expansion concerns with that lower cost "courtyard" option.  I believe one older article made reference to the lowest cost $87M "courtyard" option, but aside from that I am not aware of anything which would lead you to believe that a $80M option was the frontrunner at any point in time.



Posted by: Andrea Smith | Jul 02, 2018 18:19

Wareham/Bourne tax rate comparison and Bourne School and Police Dept. Debt Exclusion info:

 

A 2016 Wicked Local Bourne article (see link #1 below) quotes the debt exclusion for the Bourne Police station at $17.6 million and the debt exclusion for the new Peebles School at $24.8 million. Combined the two debt exclusions, approved December 2016, total $42.8 million.

 

Below is a comparison of tax rate statistics for Bourne and Wareham. In considering the comparison it should be noted that because the Bourne’s Fire Department is part of town government, Fire Department funding is included within the Bourne Tax Rate. Water fees, which are calculated separate from the tax rate, are calculated based upon 3 water districts, and add fees of $ 0.07 per $1000 of evaluation, $ 0.85 per $1000 of evaluation, or $0.89 per $1000 of evaluation depending upon the district in which the taxed property is located. Keeping that in mind:

 

Bourne’s FY 2018 tax rate is $10.54 per $1000 of evaluation (plus water fee) See link # 2 below

 

Wareham’s FY2018 tax rate which does not include the Fire/Water Departments is $11.28 per $1000 of evaluation, (see Link #3 below) to which the following Fire/Water Department fees are added depending upon which district the taxed property is located:

 

Wareham Fire District, $2.35 per $1000 of evaluation – combined with tax rate = $13.63 per $1000 of evaluation


Onset Fire District, $2.76 per $1000 of evaluation – combined with tax rate = $14.04 per $1000 of evaluation

 

 

 

Link #1:

 

http://bourne.wickedlocal.com/news/20161018/bourne-stm-peebles-police-station-plastic-bag-ban-pass

 

Link #2:

 

https://www.assessedvalues2.com/index.aspx?jurcode=36

 

Link # 3

 

http://www.wareham.ma.us/assessing-department/pages/tax-rates

 



If you wish to comment, please login.