MONTAGUE — As a district-wide vote on the proposal for a new $236.6 million Franklin County Technical School building approaches this fall, the School Committee discussed a draft question-and-answer document last week that reflects questions the 22 representatives have been receiving from fellow residents.
The two-hour meeting centered around discussion on the five-page, 19-section question-and-answer sheet that includes explanations regarding why a new building was chosen over renovating the existing structure on Industrial Boulevard, what the taxpayer impact will be and information for the ballot vote slated for Tuesday, Oct. 6, among other items.
Wednesday’s discussion comes after Franklin Tech conducted public information sessions in the spring at Greenfield Community College, presented information about the project during Annual Town Meetings, and held discussions with town boards and committees.
Notably, School Committee Chair Richard Kuklewicz and district administration emphasized the informational nature of the document, noting that it can’t advocate for a position, but it can serve as a touchstone for facts that committee members can reference when taking questions from residents.
“We can certainly put our spin on it when we’re talking as School Committee reps from our town [about] why we think the ‘yes’ vote is important,” Kuklewicz clarified.
A few of the sections inspired more discussion than others, including answering the question, “Why is FCTS proposing a new building instead of repairs?” The draft document highlights the $125 million price tag for repairing the existing building. The document also explains there would be “substantial code and infrastructure” upgrades, disruption to student learning, and the repairs would not address the issue of classroom overcrowding that constrains enrollment and educational programming.
The committee had a nuanced debate on language explaining why the new building was chosen, along with whether a reimbursement is out of the picture for an alternative option.
Leyden representative Gerald Levine asked about a prior informational handout that had stated that if a renovation was proposed to the Massachusetts School Building Authority, it would “likely not qualify for meaningful reimbursement.” Levine said he couldn’t answer a question raised by someone who said they had called the MSBA and were told it’s not necessarily the case that a building renovation wouldn’t qualify for reimbursement, and that a “not terrible number” for reimbursement was given.
Greenfield representative Russ Kaubris, who previously served as Franklin Tech’s business manager, asked whether any of that $125 million project cost to repair the existing building would be reimbursable in the event that the new building project fails at the ballot boxes in October, and a “Plan B” needs to be looked at.
Owner’s Project Manager Tim Alix sought clarity from the MSBA on reimbursement after the May public information session at GCC. He said the MSBA did not want to definitively say “no” on whether a future renovation would get a reimbursement.
“We’re not trying to be deceptive. We just don’t have a clear, concise answer to that,” he told the School Committee.
Last spring, the proposed base repair to bring the Franklin Tech building up to code and the proposed addition and renovation projects were described as not meeting the educational goals for the district, and the work would be more costly for less value. The School Committee voted to recommend the new building, and the MSBA has agreed to reimburse 66.27% of the total project cost. The district’s contribution of $122.8 million would be spread out over 30 years between the 19 member municipalities.
Alix explained that at this phase, a different option would only be available if the new building project is scrapped before the vote, or if it fails at the ballot boxes. The MSBA could offer a reimbursement for a renovation project if a statement of interest is submitted, but an invitation to join a building program isn’t guaranteed and could take five to 10 years.
Kaubris said he’s received similar questions about the cost to repair the existing structure versus building a new school.
“I think the answer can’t be as simple as it’s not reimbursable,” he said. “The answer is it would take a whole bunch of years and a lot of risk to even get near the reimbursement rate we’re getting, but it is reimbursable.”
Kaubris asked Alix whether the state would reimburse “if the roof went today.” Alix said that in his experience, the MSBA won’t fund a project to help a district “limp along” with a renovation after the need for a new building had previously been demonstrated.
“They’re going to say, ‘Well … you’ve already demonstrated, you’ve already told us, you put in your statement of interest that your building is no longer viable,'” Alix said.
Deerfield representative Robert Decker shared that he feels it’s a “long shot” for another building project to be accepted by the MSBA for a renovation down the road.
“We’re already driving the car down the road. We don’t need to take a detour and start from the beginning when we don’t know whether it’s going to be a road or a washout,” he said.
Both Kuklewicz and Erving’s representative, Jacquelyn Boyden, expressed concern over the lifespan of the existing roof, and that it may not last before the MSBA decides whether to invite a renovation project into its program.
In wrapping up this portion of the document, Kuklewicz noted that he felt it would be beneficial to learn more about what can be explained to voters on the subject.
Other parts of the document were also discussed. Some of the other recommendations were to ensure updated voting information is included, highlighting that the project must pass with a majority of ballots cast rather than a majority of towns needing to approve it, including a timeline for when voters will start to see the project impact their tax bills if the vote is approved, adding further explanation on ways the cost has been mitigated and providing updates on a new tax calculator feature on the project website that can reflect split tax rates, among other revisions.
In reflecting on the discussion, Levine said he felt that the School Committee was honest in its questions and answers, compared to the last public information session where many attendees were from Franklin Tech or the School Committee, and the perception might have been that people come in only to say positive things.
“I think we need to focus in and let it all hang out and have them ask those hard questions,” Levine said, “and we be as honest in our answers.”
The question-and-answer document will be available at fctsnewbuildingproject.us.
