Another Take on the SSBC Information Session

I attended the SSBC information session last night, eager to hear the updated status of the program and the latest plans for dealing with the budget challenges on this project to provide North Reading with the updated educational facilities we so badly need. What I mostly heard was a lot of people looking to place blame for their higher taxes. What I think we need, is to focus on our choices from here.

The SSBC began with a presentation that I found confusing at best. As I came to understand it, there were really three different projects being portrayed: the original project as estimated from the 20% design drawings, the project as modified after the 60% drawings were completed and the SSBC realized they had to make some cuts, and then the drastically affected project that the SSBC now expects would be required to keep the project on budget given their expectations of the 90% design-based Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP) coming later this month.

One thing I’d misunderstood was that the list of candidate items to be removed from the project that had been presented at the previous session was of those items that would be removed to meet the estimates based on the 60% drawings. The updated list presented this month, which included such draconian measures as the removal of air conditioning and seating for the auditorium, represented the types of modifications the SSBC would have to consider to keep the project on budget based on the anticipated range of the forthcoming GMP.

After the presentation was discussion. Several townspeople asked questions of the SSBC.  Many of these seemed to center around the causes for the original estimate being so far off. One gentleman, who said he was a professional in the estimating field, called the claim by the providers of the original estimate that it represented a plus or minus 10% number “reckless”.  In fact, the math doesn’t really justify that harsh tag. If we look at the original estimate of $107.8 million compared with the current “worst case” estimate of $123.8 million, that’s a 15% increase, or about 5% beyond the original range. It certainly exceeds the claimed 10% accuracy, but it’s not as if the estimate was totally out of the ballpark.

Speaker after speaker seemed to ask “how could you have gotten the estimate wrong?” or “can’t we recover this money from the estimators?”  The responses from the SSBC were consistent: the estimate was low and all options to recover are being investigated. But really, it doesn’t matter. We won’t be changing the past. The estimates used then don’t match the reality today. Other speakers questioned specific construction decisions such as the cutting of additional trees, the recovery of project costs through the sale of lumber, wetlands approvals, potential loss of revenue due to an incomplete auditorium – all really interesting but not particularly germane to the decision at hand.

Today, we are where we are. We’re not going to change the original estimate. We’re not going to “uncut” the trees. Our only choices have to do with how we proceed from here. And it’s on this point that I’d urge the SSBC to focus its preparation for the next information session and the upcoming votes. If the vote is to be a simple “Yes” or “No”, then make completely clear what those two choices are:

A Yes Vote Would – Grant the additional $13 to $16 million required to complete the project at the soon to be delivered GMP with the features as originally designed. Maintain the current project schedule of completion for the fall of 2014. Impact the town tax rate by approximately $42 per $100 thousand of assessed value. Deliver a complete facility requiring only normal operating costs.

A No Vote Would – Deny the additional funding and retain the current project budget of $107.8 million. Delay the project completion to summer of 2015. Force the removal of all of the originally listed at risk items and the more drastic items on the “new” list to make up for the $13 to $16 million increase in building costs and the $3 million cost for delay. Require the SSBC to work with the MSBA to try to maintain the maximum reimbursement possible. Impact the town operating budget to make up for the facility deficiencies over the coming years.

I hope the SSBC will continue their efforts to offer the voters an objective choice by supplying additional clear and concise data that answers some of the remaining questions on the effects of a Yes or No vote. What’s the real GMP? If the entire list of cost cutting opportunities is implemented now, how long would it be before the facility would be brought to completion? What would be the dollar impact on the annual operating budget over that period? If the additional funding is denied, how long would the abutters wait to see some trees restored? Can we really operate a school with no air conditioning, no seats in the auditorium, and a half paved driveway?