GREENFIELD — Questions about the cost impact of a new $236.6 million Franklin County Technical School building amid a difficult economy blended with comments urging support for the school’s future during the final information session about the proposal this week.
This latest info session, attended by about 50 people, comes ahead of an Oct. 6 vote on the proposed 211,075-square-foot facility that would cost the district’s 19 member towns $122.8 million using a 30-year bond, with each town paying a percentage. A maximum reimbursement of $113.8 million, or 66.27% of the total project cost, will come from the Massachusetts School Building Authority (MSBA).
Project updates
Since the last information session in February, “a major milestone” was reached in April when the MSBA voted to approve its reimbursement rate for the project, opening the next phase for signing the final Project Funding Agreement ahead of the October vote, according to Tim Alix of the owner’s project management firm Colliers.
Alix noted that the cost estimates were produced by two independent firms that looked at project documentation, and they reached a consensus on the $236.6 million price tag.
Although there have been some cost reductions, speakers acknowledged that the large figures come during a time of economic hardship for many member communities, and reassured attendees that the building was developed with student needs in mind.
“I know that we need a building, however, we have care and compassion of where we are with our communities and the very challenging times that we are in,” Superintendent Richard Martin said when asked by Moderator Justin Lawrence about what the panelists want audience members to keep in mind after the info session.
Balancing the cost
Outside of reviewing the scope of the new building and the various new vocational and academic facilities, speakers also presented a breakdown of the tax implications, giving the audience an idea of the increase to the average tax bill for a single-family home.
Franklin Tech Finance Director Elizabeth Bouchard explained how she developed the numbers to help provide insight into the project’s local impact.
Franklin Tech will finance the project through long-term bonding, with annual capital assessments owed by 19 member towns. These assessment figures were prepared using the current district agreement, population data from the latest census and state Department of Revenue property valuation figures.
Bouchard clarified that the annual capital assessment figures for each town represent the average annual cost of the 30-year bonding and the payment at the height of the bond.
According to Bouchard’s calculations, Greenfield’s average annual capital assessment would be the largest at $1.87 million, equating to a 24.5% share of the total cost. Heath would have the lowest contribution, with an annual assessment at $89,000, equaling a 1.16% share. Tax impact-wise, Sunderland would face the largest property tax increase of $334.66 for the average single-family home valued at $478,080.
Now or never?
Some of the questions on Tuesday related to the portion of ineligible costs, as only 66.27% of the construction costs are eligible, along with long-term operational costs. Paul Hollings of the Shelburne Planning Board, who shared his previous involvement with the Mohawk Trail Regional School District, asked how many towns might need to pass an override for the project to move forward, and what input non-Franklin Tech stakeholders have had when it comes to exploring cost-saving options on programs and student capacity.
“In Shelburne, we’re $11,000 from our tax levy, and so I’m curious, do you know how many towns are going to be pushed to do an override if this gets approved?” he asked.
While no definitive number of towns that would need an override was provided, Franklin Tech School Committee Chair Richard Kuklewicz explained that outreach to public officials has been ongoing through the 24 committee members. Martin addressed the question similarly, noting that outreach to selectboards started three or four years ago.
In previous meetings about the project, architects noted that student, faculty and School Committee outreach had been done to develop goals for the new building.
Another financial consideration discussed was the cost of repairing the current building, which would cost $126 million without any state reimbursement, and would be done with continuous 15-year bonding over the next 50 years, with phased construction between repairs, causing disruptions to student learning.
Jason Cusimano of the Shelburne Finance Committee asked why the MSBA wouldn’t just reimburse the cost of phased repairs when other schools like Mohawk Trail have accomplished these projects. Alix explained that the MSBA doesn’t like to invest in smaller construction projects for larger buildings that don’t meet educational and space needs.
“That’s kind of where we are now, with the shops being undersized, to the security [issue] of having the public having to go deeper within the building to go to the public-facing cosmetology or the cafe,” Alix said.
Nearing the end of the information session, staff and alumni of Franklin Tech shared their thoughts about the deteriorating condition of the current building. Others spoke of the value they gained as students, the opportunity for state funding to offset costs and the impact they see the school having on graduates.
One comment from Jim Carpenter, who was part of the development of the current Franklin Tech school building in the 1970s as a School Committee member, noted how concerns for cost and local impact were central to the original construction at the time.
“The thing is that there’s never a good time,” Carpenter said, adding, “It’s going to cost us one way or the other, and I would rather have it cost us for a new building than a patch on an old building, and have our children and grandchildren trying to deal with it another 10 or 15 years and cost a whole lot more.”
