| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
louie
Senior Member
188 Posts |
 Posted - 01/22/2006 : 05:46:34 AM
|
State freezes aid on school construction
Funding limits spark outrage in cities, towns
By Scott S. Greenberger, Globe Staff | January 22, 2006
To rein in state spending on school buildings, Massachusetts will force cities and towns to use their own tax dollars to pay for dramatic increases in the cost of dozens of school construction projects across the Bay State, sparking outrage among mayors and city managers.
For almost 50 years, the state has shared the cost of school construction with cities and towns, and the state has paid the largest portion.
Now, with many communities trying to rebuild or replace schools, the state has frozen its contribution.
This has left officials in dozens of cities and towns with pending projects to contend with rising construction costs.
The policy, a break with practice, means that communities on a state waiting list will have to scale back projects, or will spend millions of dollars that otherwise would go to other basic services such as police and fire protection.
''We'd like to be able to do additional parks and libraries. I have to build a new police station and address other infrastructure and equipment needs in the city," said Somerville's mayor, Joseph A. Curtatone. ''We're hopeful that the Commonwealth will honor its commitment to cities and towns.
''That's what we've been told all along -- those assurances were given," Curtatone said.
In Somerville, the projected cost of a new middle school has increased from $22 million in 2003 to $33 million now. In Melrose, the projected cost of a new middle school and a minor high school renovation has increased from $42 million to nearly $50 million since the town was put on a list for school construction money in 2002, said Mayor Robert J. Dolan.
And in Newton, the estimated cost of a new high school has risen from $104 million in 2004 to as much as $160 million now.
The dispute between the state and cities and towns is the first major test for the School Building Authority, which was created in 2004 to revamp a Department of Education program.
That program had been overwhelmed by pressure to upgrade schools built during the baby boom. The authority's mandate is to control spending, and to clear the 428 projects on the state waiting list.
Shortly after taking over, the authority determined that the projects on the waiting list would cost the state $5.5 billion, not the $4.3 billion that had previously been estimated.About 80 of the 428 projects on the waiting list will cost more than cities and towns had expected when they got the initial approval from the state.
The waiting list is composed of projects waiting for state money; in many cases, the construction has already started.
Several mayors interviewed last week said they hope to persuade the state treasurer, Timothy P. Cahill, who oversees the authority, to give cities and towns more money. But Cahill said: ''My job is to hold the line." He also said that he does not intend to ask the Legislature for additional funding.
''They're used to the old system, where whatever price they came in at, the Department of Education and the Legislature would up the ante every time," Cahill said.
For the first time, he added, the state is capping the amount it will spend on school buildings statewide.
''It's hard for some of these mayors to understand that," he said. ''There is obviously a lot of pressure on them from constituencies that don't understand it either."
Overall, Massachusetts has covered an average of 72 percent, among the highest in the states; many states do not contribute at all. Depending on their wealth, individual communities got more or less than that percentage.
Until the authority was set up by the Legislature and Governor Mitt Romney, cities and towns decided on their own whether they had to renovate a school or build a new one. The state put them on the list with little scrutiny.
The state determined how many square feet were needed for each elementary, middle and high school student, and each year the Board of Education decided how much it would pay per square foot. But, if the school size grew in the final plans, the state almost always paid local officials for extra space, creating an incentive for communities to build bigger facilities.
By 2003, the school building program was growing in leaps and bounds. The waiting list had grown from 122 projects in 1998 to the current 428 projects, and the expected waiting time for state money had increased from three years to 10 years.
Overwhelmed, the state temporarily closed the list to new applicants. In 2004, Romney signed legislation establishing the School Building Authority to take over the program from the Department of Education.
The state set aside revenue, raised from 1 cent of the 5-cent sales tax, to pay for school buildings, to keep the school construction money flowing each year, while limiting the total amount of funding available.
To help in efforts to clear the waiting list quickly, the original legislation also approved $1 billion in borrowing.
The legislation also backed an immediate infusion of $150 million from the state budget.
For projects not on the waiting list, the School Building Authority plans a whole new approach. By the end of this month, the agency expects to complete an assessment of every school building in the state. When communities apply for state money in the future, they will have to tell the agency exactly why they need to renovate or rebuild, and the priority will be given to schools that are structurally unsound or severely overcrowded.
The dispute between the state and municipalities is over the projects already on the waiting list. Many mayors say state officials promised that those projects would not be affected by the new law. Because the Department of Education last updated the reimbursement rate in June 2004, they argue, the School Building Authority should raise it again to reflect higher construction costs.
''Do I think the state can handle [an increase of] 13 or 14 percent? Probably not. But there has to be some recognition of this. They can't put their heads in the sand," Mayor Dolan of Melrose said. ''I would totally agree that this program was out of control. But how can cities and towns be held responsible? It was a state-owned and managed program. The state created their own problem because they allowed it to get out of control."
Mayor David Cohen of Newton said there are ''a number of mayors" who plan to petition Cahill's office for financial help.
''It's not as though we have added any new program, or any new additional classrooms," Cohen said. ''It's simply that the cost of building materials, structural steel and petroleum-based products, have gone up so dramatically that it has to have an impact on every construction project."
But Katherine Craven, who is executive director of the School Building Authority, said there are plenty of ways that Newton and other cities could cut costs, and her agency is eager to help them do it. She said, for example, that while Newton is planning a roughly 400,000 square-foot high school for 1,750 students, Everett is building a 325,000 square-foot high school for 1,800 students.
In addition to constructing buildings that are too large, Craven said, many communities tend to include expensive flourishes that are not absolutely necessary. In November, an audit of new schools in Springfield highlighted expensive ornamental columns and glazed brick tile in hallways, for example.
A recent audit of the new Chicopee High School, near Springfield, found that officials had tried to bill the state for more than $1 million in ''ineligible" costs, including two golf carts, dumbbells, and the repair of a kiln.
Craven also questioned whether price increases in construction materials could be wholly responsible for the huge increases in projected costs in communities such as Newton and Somerville.
The estimated cost of the new high school in Newton has increased by as much as 54 percent since 2004, and the cost of the Somerville middle school has risen by about 50 percent since 2003. But according to the US Bureau of Labor Statistics, the price of construction materials rose by 5 percent between 2004 and 2005 and by 15 percent between 2003 and 2005. ''People are going to be upset, because this program was a lot more generous than we're going to be," Craven said. ''We're trying to gauge what the real needs are."
|
|
|
michael
Senior Member
195 Posts |
Posted - 01/22/2006 : 9:28:28 PM
|
| you will see our taxes going sky high in the next few years |
 |
|
|
H1ghCh4r1ty
Advanced Member
967 Posts |
Posted - 01/22/2006 : 10:20:07 PM
|
Mayor Hanlon will not let our taxes rise......ha, ha, ha
No one's taxes ever go down.
Let's blame the need for a new high school for our tax issues.
Blame it on progress and blame it on the administration who made the hard decisions, the right decisions.
Emile Schoeffhausen |
|
|
|
lisa
Senior Member
143 Posts |
Posted - 02/12/2006 : 1:47:13 PM
|
| did anyone happen to catch the school committee meeting? I understand they want to start up a school for the youngester but, why can't they accept the 3rd grade and have to go to the 4th grade? |
|
|
|
Court4Fred
Advanced Member
1201 Posts |
Posted - 02/12/2006 : 4:19:48 PM
|
Lisa - I watched the school committee meeting. I am not sure what you're referring to, but I did Fred Foresteire announce want a full day kindergarten, which will be paid for using money they already spent in 2004. That's right; one of the funding sources was NetSchool 2004, the very year they overspent their budget by hundreds of thousands of dollars. And the school committee just sat there and let him say it. No one challenged him, although Frank Parker did say, "2004?" and Fred responded postively.
They also want to keep the Webster, instead of allowing it to be sold and placed back on the taxrolls....and they plan to hire another principal and vice principal for this full day kindergarten and the "overflow" from the Keverian. That was my take on it. Anyone else? |
|
|
|
lisa
Senior Member
143 Posts |
Posted - 02/12/2006 : 5:24:37 PM
|
| ok court but I heard him say they can accept 3rd grade special learning needs children then a lottery for the other children or maybe i was dreaming it was at 8 am this morning |
|
|
|
EverettsPride
Advanced Member
1140 Posts |
Posted - 02/12/2006 : 5:28:41 PM
|
Thewre will be no overflow from the Keverian at the Webster. It will only be kindergarten in that building. By moving the preschools and many kindergartners out of the k-8 schools they will free up space.
I did get nervous when I heard the Keverian is 300 kids over their limit!! They talk about this high school being smaller than the currnnt high school so in a couple of years we will be hearing they cannot fit all of the students into it.
I wish they would work on getting the kids who do not live in this city to go to thewir own schoiols. There are literally hundreds of them.
Sally |
|
|
|
Court4Fred
Advanced Member
1201 Posts |
Posted - 02/12/2006 : 6:11:41 PM
|
| I don't believe any of their numbers. 300 over the limit? Right. Like the Dept of Education would be okay with that. That's more than 30 kids per grade, more than a classroom per grade...so assuming two classes per grade, that's an extra 7-8 kids per room. This is just a scare tactic to let them hang onto the Webster, and get another principal and vice principal on Fred's payroll patriots list. |
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
