WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE IN THE PLAN FOR EACH OF THE THREE VOTES BROUGHT TO NORTHBOROUGH & SOUTHBOROUGH VOTERS ON THE NEW BUILD? 

What Is The Difference In The Plan For Each Of The Three Votes Brought To Northborough & Southborough Voters On The New Build?

There have been some murmurings in the communities that the Regional School Committee will be bringing the same proposal back to the voters for a third time. I would like to take a minute to address that concern.

 1.) a change in the capital cost sharing, to re-allocate the debt repayment between the towns annually, based upon the previous 3 years average of student population at the high school. Prior to this, debt allocation was fixed for the life of the loan, based upon the student ratios at the time debt was incurred.

 2.) Authorization to purchase approximately 148 acres of land from MetLife by the Regional district

 3.)Authorization for design fees for a new Algonquin to be built on the newly acquired adjacent land.

In Northborough’s March 13th Town meeting, all three articles passed. In Southborough’s April 1st Town Meeting, the land acquisition and the design fees passed, but the new capital cost sharing was defeated. Southborough’s Town Meeting also passed over the additional article to authorize the building of a separate high school in Southborough, after the earlier articles supporting the one regional school had passed.

The next event was the Northborough ballot, where the debt exclusion for the land acquisition passed, but the debt exclusion for the design fees failed by 41 votes. It is important to note that at the time of the Northborough Debt Exclusion ballot, the design fees had passed at both communities’ Town meetings, but the new capital cost sharing had failed at Southborough’s Town meeting. Therefore, Northborough voters went to the ballot box knowing that the design fees for an approximate 305,000 sf New Build, was supported in both towns. However, with the failure of the capital cost sharing change in Southborough, Northborough voters had no guarantee that the cost sharing formula would be changed to be more equitable in the future. Therefore, they would risk having the split of debt frozen at the population split at the time of the debt incurral. This potentially would have left Northborough’s share at 68% for the life of the loan – which is the highest proportion of population that Northborough is predicted to have over the next 10-20 years. The RSC understood that this uncertainty was quite likely the reason for the 41-vote loss.

Following this vote in Northborough, were the debt exclusion votes for the land and for the design fees in Southborough, which both passed at their ballot by a healthy margin. So, to sort it out, the RSC then was left with a need to address the cost formula in Southborough, which would hopefully address the failure of the debt exclusion for design fees in Northborough.

Encouraged by the two Town Moderators to discuss this final issue between the communities, a joint meeting of all of the finance boards as well as the boards of selectmen and school committee was held to discuss how best to resolve this outstanding issue. It was decided in May of 2000 to have a joint working group, consisting of 5 members from each community to negotiate a new cost sharing arrangement for the Regional District. The goal of a September Town Meeting was set, in order to give the group a defined timeline for reaching agreement.

During the summer, this group reached a new agreement not only on the sharing of capital costs, but also in the definition of operating costs, to include services that were previously absorbed by individual town budgets. The new cost sharing arrangements passed at Town meetings in both Towns. Southborough did not re-vote its previous articles on the design fees, so their prior “yes” votes were still valid. Northborough needed to re-vote the design fees, due to the prior debt exclusion failure, and to take it back to the ballot again on the debt exclusion question as well. The article passed easily at Town meeting, but again failed by about 5% at the ballot.

During the next few weeks, the RSC held several public meetings where feedback concerning these votes was requested and received. The major concerns with the Regional School committee’s proposal could be placed into 3 categories:

• Overall price of $50.6 million seemed too high
• Concern that entire old building structure did not need to be demolished
• Concern by Financial Boards in Northborough, that the District had not set clear Northborough K-12 building priorities, and would be bringing too many projects forward in too small a time frame.

To address these concerns, we asked the Architect to go back and take another look at which portions of the original building might be worth salvaging, rather than demolishing. We also asked them to re-look at the net program size for the school to see if there were any areas in which efficiencies could be gained, without compromising the educational program. In addition, we asked the school administration to work with both the Regional School Committee and the Northborough School Committee to adopt a clear prioritization plan for school building projects.

The School district took a firm stand that for Northborough’s K-12 picture, the biggest priority in terms of building projects was the Algonquin project. The K-8 Committee took a vote to postpone the beginning of requests for fees for K-8 building projects until Fiscal Year 2004, based on the particular needs of the buildings.

The Architect replied that by salvaging the 1969 addition to Algonquin, and designing a more efficient building (likely a 3 story plan instead of a 2 story plan) we could reduce the gross square footage of the new build by approximately 15,000 sf and reduce the associated construction costs by about $2.8 million. The Central Office could be moved to the 1969 portion of the old building, and the remaining space in that wing could be used as rental space for entities such as a satellite college campus. Further upgrades to that building could be taken into account when negotiating rental rates for the space.

I have heard concerns expressed around the costs associated with the saving of the 1969 addition. There is actually a net savings, when we save that piece of the building, so I would like to show you how we arrived at that conclusion. If the entire original building were to be demolished, we would have to create new space for the School District Offices. Costs for this District Office space are non-reimbursable, but are none-the-less necessary for the housing of our Central office staff. It has been estimated that we would need 5,000 sf and that the cost for constructing that space is about $835,000.

($  835,000)   savings if we do not need to build Central Office space

($    50,000)  Savings in site work development

($  196,500)   savings in demolition costs by keeping the ’69 addition

($ 131,000)    savings in HAZMAT abatement costs, by not tearing down the ’69 addition

($1,212,500)  Subtotal

+$  300,000   Make ’69 addition “stand-alone” (enclose & provide separate mechanical systems)

+$  150,000   Cost to convert ~5,000 sf to office space for Central Office

($   762,500)  Net savings

This clearly demonstrates that there are significant savings in utilizing the 1969 addition instead of tearing it down. Targeting satellite college campus use, would minimize any additional renovations, as the building is already set up as classroom space. In addition, we have not attempted to predict potential rental income, which could also result in additional income, that could be used to offset operating costs for the building, to subsidize the annual operating budget for the Regional High School, or to be used against the debt repayment for the high school project.

• Has been modified in scope without compromising the educational program - resulting in about $2.8 million reduction in cost,
• Will include keeping the 1969 addition to the old Algonquin for Central Office and rental space and
• Will address Northborough’s concerns of spreading out the K-12 building projects by several more years than had initially been proposed.

I would like to summarize the differences in the three votes:

• April 11, 2000 – Northborough vote on design fees, with no guarantee of
  a change in cost-sharing (actually the new formula had failed defeated
  in Southborough at this time) 
• September 11, 2000 – Northborough and Southborough vote on new
  formula for both operating and capital costs passes in both towns. 
• September 12, 2000 – Northborough vote on design fees but with new,
  approved, cost allocations
• November 18, 2000 – Northborough and Southborough both vote on
  design fees for a project with the following changes:


• previously approved change in cost allocations from September 11
  Town meetings
• 15,000 less gross square feet (no classrooms eliminated; better net to
  gross ratio)
• save 1969 addition; move Central Office to it and rent remainder as
  satellite college campus space 
• clearer K-12 Northborough building priorities, with K-8 delayed, to
  lessen tax impact 

back to ARHS Project page

home