66°
GRAFTON, Mass. - The Grafton Finance Committee voted unanimously, during their Tuesday night meeting, to not recommend the facility upgrades to the municipal center and school buildings, which will come to vote at the Town Meeting on Oct. 15.
The concern came down to how the financing was structured.
“This isn’t an argument against the project, we voted against it from a financial perspective,” said Wayne-Hutchinson Fontana, the Finance Committee Chairman. “We’re taking revenues to commit to a debt payment without any forecast of the next several years.”
The Board of Selectmen have proposed that funding come from existing tax dollars collected from various sources including the town’s savings account, money saved from the new high school project, and energy credits.
Despite the lack of confidence from FinCom, the Board of Selectmen published an open letter in The Daily Voice, asking the voters for passage.
“The Municipal Center is currently an asset at risk. The building is over 60-years-old and showing signs of its age,” it said.
This is the second time the Board of Selectmen has asked for the residents to approve building upgrades. They called a special Town Meeting last February asking approval for a $5 million proposal, which did not pass.
In the new articles, the town will ask for $6.5 million to upgrade heating and air conditioning systems in the municipal center and area schools plus additional renovations to the municipal center for its roof, windows, and chimney. The letter said upgrading the school’s heating systems will reduce the school department’s energy budget by 25 percent.
But without a “thumbs up” from FinCom, getting the new articles approved might be a tougher sell on Oct. 15. Many who voted “no” back in February found the original plan, bundled with Honeywell, complicated and the energy savings argument unconvincing.
Comments (4)
I too am not surprised by the Finance Committee's vote on this project aka Honeywell 2.0 (2.0 being for second bite at the apple).
Many Grafton residents are against this project because of the financing and shaky funding sources at best. Even if you could convince me that every part of the municipal center plan was absolutely necessary (something many do not believe) not all of the plan is repair, I can justify repairs but not necessarily upgrades. That being said, 3.4 million dollars upgrading the HVAC system is a lot of money no matter when it is being proposed. If that line item can withstand the test of the voters and stand up to scrutiny, why not separate the upgrade from the repair portion of the project? Is 3.4 million the best price we can get? Is that the best solution or is there a cheaper alternative? What % of the municipal center has broken heating or cooling now?
The town saw through the faulty proposal last year when the ask was $5million, why wouldn't they see through the rehashed proposal that has an additional burden of another $1.5 million?
I am all for replacing the boilers in the schools and saving money for the town but lets do so with solid financing and financial sources rather than the creative accounting being proposed.
I am all for repairing the roof and fixing windows that need to be fixed (do we really need to replace all the windows in the whole building?).
This should be three separate project proposals, not one combined.
a) Replacing the School Boilers to save the town operating cost $
b) Repairing the needed items in the most cost efficient manner possible for the municipal center.
c) Proposed upgrades to the Municipal center including multiple options, plans and costs, well structured, clearly communicated and easy to see the numbers line up.
I went to the information night held by the BOS to explain this project, I even went and sat in on some of the finance committee meetings deliberating on this issue, this is not politics, this is not personal, this is pure and simple, good, principled financial judgement - I agree with the Finance Committee, I am not convinced and can not support the project the way it is being presented.
I seriously hope that the Finance committee members do not end up with broken arms from all the arm twisting I am sure is happening between now and Monday and I hope they remain firm in their original vote.
Sir Scully has spoken after visiting Tibet. Sir Scully knows french fries from chips.
Can FinCom help move this process along by proposing a financing approach that meets with their approval?
I'm not surprised by FinCom's vote. The selectmen and the town administrator have all but ignored the town committee process for capital planning and continue to push a project that disguises the fact that the majority of building repair costs at the municipal center, is really a comfort issue of central air conditioning verses window air conditioners.
And with a total project costs, inclusive of debt, totaling more the $11 million, it's hard to justify in terms of all the demands placed upon our limited budget.
I think FinCom has made a rational informed decision and I support their position over the selectmen's politics of the day approach to capital planning.