Why I will be voting NO on the new elementary school.
The whole discussion about the new school project can be
broken down to two points. First, how many bells and whistles should we include
in the project. Second, who should make the decision about what bells and
whistles the town wants to pay for. The needs for the K-wing are extensive. For the 1988 building they are much smaller - including mostly code upgrades and an improved roof. The wants include improvements to the cafeteria and gym, significant interior reconfiguration for administrative office space, and changes to the interior configuration of classroom space.
I believe in spending good money to take care of real
problems. I like my tools, and my things, to last. Fix what needs fixing, and do it right. But
don’t mortgage the farm for something you can’t afford. That's what my grandparents taught. I like to see the town share those practical, traditional values.
The school building committee (SBC) took it upon themselves
to include in this project a number of items that are desirable, at an
additional cost. The result is a very costly project that includes more than is needed to fix the problems.
The committee took the four original proposals and whittled
them down to two. The two proposals that were brought forward, one renovation,
and the new building, both contained significant expenditures on “want” items. And
at that point, the public debate centered around those two options, as though
they were what we had to choose from, although they weren’t. When the SBC chose
one project to bring to the town vote, they chose the most extravagant of those available.
I am opposing this project on two counts. First, I believe
it contains more bells and whistles than we, as a town, want to spend for this
purpose. Second, I think the citizens, not the committee, should have been the
ones to make the decision about which bells and whistles to include, if any. In spite of efforts to minimize the risk such a large expenditure means, there are very real risks.
Before I go on, a couple of bio notes on why I have some expertise
on this topic. I spent 15 of my career years
in project controls for major infrastructure construction. The first six years
of that time was in project cost control on a school capital improvement
program in Memphis, TN. We were the project management team. That school
project oversaw more than $500M in school renovations and construction, some 27
projects, if memory serves. For five of those years, I was the senior cost
engineer –the guy who tracked and watched over project costs.
History of the Project
Many among us are not aware of the full history of this project. In 2014 the town had engineers and architects look at our elementary
school buildings in order to make recommendations on action, and give an
estimate. The end result was a renovation estimate for the K-wing, with
construction of an additional building, for a cost of $4.6M. That renovation included
complete abatement of the mold issues. The school supervisory personnel never
followed through to carry this forward, so it died. To be replaced by a much
larger and more expensive project.
In 2016, a new project was brought to life. This project
started with the demolition of the K-wing as a minimum. Renovation of the
K-wing was no longer in consideration. The initial estimates came in with the
simplest estimate (“needs” only), which included a new building to replace the
K-wing, at $11M. The next step up, a simple renovation plus a cafeteria
upgrade, came in under $20M. That was total cost to the town.
Now, in my
professional opinion, based on my experience in the field, I don’t particularly
have issues with subsequent estimates coming in somewhat higher. And they
rapidly did. Those low end, “focus on needs” estimates quickly went up to $16 and
$19M. In the next few weeks and months, they went up higher still. When estimates
double, and then more than double in size, it is a warning sign that either you have
an incompetent estimator, or you have changed the ground rules for the
estimate. And, indeed, “wanted” items were being moved into the “need focused”
estimates. The low end estimates were quickly discarded, and the subsequent focus was on
expensive projects that also bought items the school administration wanted.
Needed Fixes, Triggers, and Bells and Whistles
That brings us up to today, and the current decision,
because one of the problems being experienced, and the justification for a new
building, are the roof problems in the 1988 building. In a nutshell, ice dams.
There are other considerations in the 1988 building that are also needful, such
as an update to the heating system.
The K-wing is from the 1950's, and it has major issues on
several fronts. The primary need for attention is the presence of mold, due to
roof leaks (also due to ice dams and snow removal issues). This problem needs
to be fixed, and it is the primary driver why all these changes are being
looked at now. There are numerous other issues in the K-wing that are truly
needful. The K-wing needs major work. For more information about the condition
of the K-wing, see the 2014 report: “Investigative & Assessment Report for
Harvard Public Schools – Hildreth Elementary School – K-Wing, Blackstone Block
Architects” (linked in the reference section).
Then, there are triggered items that need to be fixed, by law, when
you fix the needed items. An example is ADA compliance. Then there are bells
and whistles. These are items the school administration wants.
Those changes
include work on the gym, the cafeteria, internal classroom redesigns, and
additional office space. They represent investment beyond what is required to
fix the problems in the school buildings.
So then the question becomes how much do we need, and how
badly do we want the proposed changes. There are pro arguments, for a new gym and new
cafeteria, but I have to observe that the school supervision has been working
with the current gym and cafeteria for decades, and that situation has been
manageable.
You might ask if the changes are needed due to an increase
in student enrollment, or overcrowding in the existing school. Our school
population has been on a decrease over the past decade. Current forecasts do
not predict a significant change from this. We don’t have overcrowding. School
management stated, at a building project public meeting, that we already have
very good pupil/teacher ratios in class size.
What the committee brought forward in this process of
renovate or build new was the most expensive renovation option vs a new
building. They included all kinds of changes above and beyond what was necessary
to just fix the problems that exist. They voted, 9 to 1, to offer the citizens
of Harvard only two options. Either a YES vote to a very large capital
expenditure or a NO vote with the uncertainty of results that will entail. That bothers me.
The Building Quality of the 1988 Structure, and Suitability to Needs
One of the major pro-new arguments being bandied about is
the projected lifetime of a renovation to the 1988 building. Another question
has been to ask how sound the 1988 building is. In the late 1980’s, the town of Harvard had two buildings
for the elementary school. One was what is now called the K-wing, and the other
was a wooden school building called the Brown School, dating to 1905. The town
voted to tear down the Brown School, and build a new structure. The architect
of that building designed a structure face that reflected the old Bromfield
school (now the Harvard Public Library), and the old library. The 1987 school
projects were a major capital expenditure, and as a result met with
controversy. Some compromises were made in the design to reduce the cost. One
change that was discussed, but decided against, was changes to the roof design
to reduce cost. Some people, in Nextdoor comments, have indicated they believe
the original roof was a compromise. But according to the Harvard Post
reporting, the town did NOT compromise on the roof design or structure.
To be honest, the answers that I see, that the renovation of
the 1988 building is risky, and that it was a poorly constructed building in
the first place, give me heartburn. The questions are good questions. The
answers some are providing are not good answers. They are products of
misinformation – logical fallacies.
Is the 1988 building sound? One of the early moves made by
the building committee, and a proper move, was to order a wall penetration
study be done to assess the unseen damage inside the walls. Engineers came to
the school, made several observation penetrations at interior sites where it
looked like they might expect damage to occur. Town members looked at what they uncovered. What they found was very little
damage. What is important about this is that the interior condition of the
walls is not an unknown. Some people arguing pro would have us believe that
renovation is highly risky because “anything can be found when you open a
wall.” This is a scare tactic, predicting unrealistic consequences. Frankly,
given the results of the penetration testing, this is the least of my worries.
The 1988 building is basically still sound – it still has “good bones”. This
was affirmed at the public meetings the school building committee held last
year.
Another scare tactic that has been used is saying that, should we renovate, we will have to repeat whatever we fix, within, say 20 years. Think about this argument
for a minute. The current roof has been in place for 30 years, and is still
sound. It has some leakage issues as a result of ice dams. So presuming that a
renovation would only last 20 years sounds far-fetched, doesn’t it? This is an exaggeration of the risk factors
involved. Frankly,
even new construction contains risk. Take, for example, our new police station.
We’ve already taken the constructors of that project to court over HVAC issues.
And we have already had to spend thousands of dollars replacing components that
we should not have had to replace.
The 1988 building is sound and is serving the school well enough.
I recognize that some things would be nice to have, but “nice to have” and
needful are different things.
School Ranking
We have, today, a school that gets exceptionally high
ratings. It rates a 10 on GreatSchools.org. The Harvard Public School system is
ranked by Boston Magazine in the top 10 of 125 school districts that lie
within, or partially within, I-495. And I know these are references that
prospective home-buyers use for research: 10 years ago I was such a buyer, and
Great Schools was the website I used to research communities. Boston
Magazine has been described by other residents as the gold standard for school
rankings in Massachusetts. By pretty much any measure, Hildreth ranks highly.
Are these changes going to improve those school ratings? When you have a score
of 10 out of 10, how do you improve it? Answer? You can’t.
Property Values
The arguments in favor of a new HES sometimes try to convince us that our property values will improve as a result of the construction. Those arguments are deeply flawed. If anything, the argument that this level of spending creates a risk of lowering our home values has better logic.
One "pro" argument quotes statistics equating increases in school
spending with an increase in home values. It just doesn't work that way. This is the logical fallacy
known as the “Gambler’s Fallacy”. In case you don’t remember your first
semester in statistics (or you never took it), the example frequently given
uses a coin toss question. “If you toss a coin 9 times, and it turns up heads
each time, on the tenth toss, what are the odds that the coin will turn up tails?”
And the answer is? It’s still 50/50. There is no trick involved. The statistical
average or likelihood does not apply to the individual case. So saying "statistics say" doesn't apply, because we are a single point among the many that made up the calculation of those statistics, and our unique circumstances are what will dictate property value.
In our case, we have a town where our schools are already ranked very highly,
and a town where the average spending per pupil has historically been high. The
likelihood that a large increase in spending on the school will be reflected in
home values is small. We who are already citizens might know the difference
between a new school and an old one, but home-buyers from out of town won’t.
Additionally, the obverse is also not true. If we only fix
the problems, we won’t be hurting home values. The school building is what it
is, and has been so for decades.
On the other hand, an increase in property taxes creates a very real risk of a decrease in property values. So, projecting an increase in home value is possible, just
as anything is possible. But I find it exceedingly unlikely.
Project Cost for Needs Only Fixes
There has been a number calculated ($28M) of what our town
would spend on a renovation-only school project. I doubt the validity of that
number for several reasons.
First, it was “backed out” of an estimate that
already contained a number of the “wants” – the improvements. You can not cleanly do this with an estimate.
Second, it is
more than twice what the early estimates were – and more than 50% larger than the first revisions of those schematic estimates. As I mentioned previously, I don’t have an issue with an estimate going up as
you get into the detail, but when it goes up as much as this, it is an
indication that either the original was incompetent, or the work description
changed.
Third, there is a procedure for staying in the MSBA (the
state funding) “loop” should the SBC project (the new school) get voted down. Voting "NO" does not mean we automatically lose the state funding. Other
districts have gotten voted down, continued with the process, and gotten MSBA
funding. And, to be fair, some have not.
If we go with the new school, I am not confident that the
new school cost will not go up again. Most recently, the BOS stated $54M as a
not to exceed, but the current estimate is at $52M (since I first wrote this, the announced estimate has already gone up another $1.8M to $53.8M). It sounds to me like the BOS are not confident the cost will not go up –
again. But let’s stick with the current numbers for a minute. Given the current
estimate, the town will be spending $35M. That represents $7M more than the
projected $28M “If we do it all ourselves” number. And that $7M difference
could help cover other capital costs that we, the town of Harvard, know are
coming soon.
Town Money Needs
Harvard has more capital expenditure requirements in the
future. We can’t be considering the elementary school in a vacuum and also be
considering our needs wisely. So let’s take a look at the spending vs needs.
What possible major capital expenditures could come up in the next few years? Keep in mind, these expenses are very likely to happen, but they are NOT on the current list of projects in our capital spending plans!
Fire trucks have come into the town conversation recently. And moving, perhaps
building new, the town fire station. The
Council on Aging is another area where we are expecting capital spending. And
the Conservation Commission is looking at short funds, so they are already
looking for more town funding. This is just what I can think of.
What happens if we go all out for the new elementary
school? Then we risk ignoring these other capital expenditure needs, or we
raise taxes again.
Conclusion
In one meeting, as we discussed the topic, a citizen applied
the description “Cadillac” to the new school. Others then argued that it isn’t
“a Cadillac”, and one even called it a “Toyota”. Ok, fine, whatever. But let me
ask you this: what do you call something when it has bells and whistles?
No one here is arguing to make our schools a lower priority. And no one is looking to “kick the can down the road” on this. Saying one “side” is doing so is divisive. Let’s stay focused on the real question here. That question is whether you, the town of Harvard, in addition to spending millions on fixing very real problems, also want to spend more millions on school improvements.
I believe the building committee took decisions on themselves that should have
been left to the town. And, that we have been offered a project that is
considerably more expensive, and of greater scope, than is necessary. If we vote NO, the school building committee has to go back to the estimate and change that estimate to reflect WHY it got voted down. They have a couple of months to do that, and then they resubmit to the MSBA. Since the school building committee has left us with no other choice, I believe a NO vote is the best option for the town.
References
May 2007, Harvard submission to MSBA
The Harvard Post (for research on the 1988 project)
From Post research notes, volumes not
recorded. Copies available at the public library.
1987, Brick building renovation
planned, “brown” building demolition planning
10-87, schematics
10-16-87, Hildreth new building
design to reflect old Bromfield school architecture
Computer wiring access
built-in
Publication
dates recorded
1-29-88, p. 1, 8, School Building
Cuts Look Inevitable
2-5-88, p. 1, 20, Selectmen Nix
More Money For Schools
2-12-88, p. 3, Planners Want $1.3M
More
p. 3, Why the Overruns?
Board Asks
2-19-88, p. 3, Olsen Finds
$2,000,000 in Cost Overrun
p.3, New School Cost Now
Set at $15,000,000
2-26-88, p. 5, Planners Will Wait
till June to Ask for Additional Funds
6-3-88, p. 1, 16, School Bid
Opening is Delayed Again
6-10-88, p. 4, Planners OK Site
Plan
6-17-88, p. 1, 17, School Sub-Bids
Are Lower than Expected
p.
1, 17 & 19, Good News and Bad News
6-24-88, p. 1, 5 & 13, Again:
It’s Good News and Bad News
7-8-88, p. 3, Asbestos Removal Will
Cost $278K
7-29-88, p. 1, 11, School Project
Gets Going
8-26-88, p. 1, No Septic Plan, No
Permit for School Project
9-9-88, p. 1, 9, Schools Get
Approval for Septic System
p. 1, 9, Zoning Board
approves elementary school septic system
9-16-88, p. 1, 15, Building permit
for new elementary school issued.
,
Contractor Annoyed at Delays, Uncooperative Boards
3-10-89, p. 1, Town, School
Contractor Disagree
5-5-89, p. 11, School Building and
renovation Project Picks up Steam; But worries Persist About Cost Overruns
2-9-90, p. 3, It’s Done at Last!
New Building Opens Feb. 27
The Harvard Press
