HOLYOKE — The smell of pizza filled Enlace de Familias on Tuesday evening as residents and public officials gathered to discuss the topic occupying so many local voters’ minds: the city’s proposal to build two new middle schools.
The information session was the second of two put on by the mayor’s office, state Rep. Aaron Vega, D-Holyoke, and school officials. The panelists made the case for the project, which would require voters on Nov. 5 to approve a debt-exclusion override that would see property taxes increase for up to 30 years — the life of the bond for the project.
If voters reject the deal, the city will have to decline $75.8 million in funding from the Massachusetts School Building Authority, or MSBA. If approved, the City Council would bond for $57 million and the MSBA would reimburse the rest of the $132.9 million cost for the city to build two new middle schools: one at the site of William R. Peck Middle School, which would be demolished, and the other across from H.B. Lawrence Elementary School, which the city would explore selling. Both are designed for 550 students.
School officials have pointed in particular to Peck, citing health, safety and logistical concerns with the 1973 building. And, as the district moves to system of distinct elementary, middle and high schools, school officials have said there is no adequate space for middle school students.
Discussion about the project has been heated, with the “yes” and “no” campaigns making their cases online and in public forums.
Those in favor of the project have taken on the slogan “Yes to Invest,” and say the project is a rare opportunity to improve the city’s schools and show commitment to its students. Those opposed have questioned the need for new schools, and have raised doubts about the city’s projections of the cost to taxpayers.
Many of those issues were brought up at Tuesday evening’s panel, which featured presentations from Mayor Alex Morse, Superintendent Stephen Zrike, Vega, educators who work at Peck, the project’s lead architect and At-Large School Committee member Devin Sheehan.
The panelists addressed what they said were misconceptions they had heard people holding about the project. One that Vega raised early on was the fact that the project is a debt exclusion, not a Proposition 2½ override, which means that the debt incurred to build the schools would only last the lifetime of the bond.
“A Proposition 2½ override is baked in permanently to a budget,” Vega explained. “A debt exclusion is specifically for that debt, for that project, and it will go away.”
In its latest projections, the city and its financial adviser estimated that residential property owners would pay an additional 68 cents per $1,000 of property value in taxes, and commercial property owners would pay an additional $1.40 per $1,000 of property value if the city takes out a 30-year bond. For the average single-family home, valued at $190,637, that 68-cent increase would mean paying an additional $129.60 per year.
Some opponents of the schools project have questioned those numbers, saying they are premised on a $1 million financing commitment from Holyoke Public Schools. That commitment, they say, is not a legal contract and can’t guarantee the schools’ payment for the life of the bond.
“You cannot truthfully factor in a million-dollar reduction,” was how City Councilor Linda Vacon summarized it at Tuesday evening’s City Council meeting.
One attendee on Tuesday, Joe D’Ordine, asked a similar question. The district’s chief financial officer, Anthony Soto, said the district is in talks with the state education commissioner to formalize a memorandum of understanding for the city to charge the school district that amount in administrative costs.
Mike Bloomberg, the mayor’s chief of staff, described the situation as “a more legally binding MOU with the City Council.”
City officials have also said that additional offsets and funding sources could be found to further reduce the impact on taxpayers.
Another question that was raised concerned the fact that Holyoke is eligible for 80 percent reimbursement rate from the MSBA, but the $75.8 million the MSBA is contributing accounts for only 57 percent.
That’s because not all construction costs are eligible for reimbursement from the MSBA, such as the expanded health clinic and parent center, explained Dorrie Brooks, the project’s lead architect.
“This district prioritized some things that the state doesn’t care to pay for at all,” Brooks said.
The rest of the square footage of the project is reimbursed 80 percent, but the MSBA reimburses at $330 per square foot. Brooks said a more realistic construction cost is $476 per square foot.
Brooks added that the buildings aren’t “extravagant.” Rather, she said, the cost per square footage is in the lowest third statewide.
“They’re very cost-effective schools, they’re not overly elaborate,” Brooks said.
The panelists ended by stating that some have raised the doubt that the project is just a “blank check” for the city.
Sheehan, the school committee member, said that is not accurate at all. The ballot question is very specific about what the debt exclusion is going toward, and the contractor would take responsibility for any costs that go above estimate.
“They take the risk on that,” Sheehan said. “It is a more protected way to go.”
Dusty Christensen can be reached at dchristensen@gazettenet.com.