NEW TOWN HALL @ SPECIAL TOWN MEETING!

    I understand that in spite of prior discussions and the article in the paper that the Town Hall issue will be brought to the Special Town Meeting.  The newspaper did not even mention the Town Hall!  We have been through this at length, and the direction given was to wait until the finances are certain.  The senior center feasibility is complete; there is no reason to delay this item, as the newspaper correctly implied.  It is even suggested that Town Hall is concerned that the Senior Center project would postpone the Town Hall project in the near term.
    The Board of Selectmen have not discussed all options on the Town Hall, including the best taxpayer option - that of direct rental.  The budget includes rent for at least a year, why not seek a multi-year lease at perhaps $2 - $300,000.?  The fees sought at this time add up to another two to three years rentals.  Much of this cost can be offset permanently by renting a detoxified old Town Hall.  The budget indicates this cost will not exceed $245,000.  They will not even consider the real $5.2 million cost of the true renovations scheme ... They still want the $8 million NEW project, without any dialogue!  If the concern of the board is to spend this money now without a known date, perhaps the thinking (as also noted in the paper on the Gaming issue) should be that the proposition should also be a Ballot question!  They also have not cleared the total estimated cost issue; is it $8, $7 or only $5 million?  or $14, $12 or $7 million?
    There is one fact: ... an office is an office is an office ... this facility is not a gym, swimming pool or banquet hall, it is an office!  It can be put anywhere.
    The assertion, or conceit that we can do this with available cash, or small short term borrowing, or sale of properties, is to avoid and bypass the taxpayer regardless of the option.  This is ludicrous!  This is a major endeavor, not just a roof repair job, and should go the route of all the other construction projects in Town.  The hope of a new office at taxpayer expense when there are other viable options is little more than irresponsible!   
        *We are told that only $3.7 million needs to be raised by borrowing, that we have $4.25 million in available funds ( Scollins, Apr. 2011).
        *Of the $4.25 number above, we will continue to annually pay for the $1.7 million Bond issue cost charged to the HS project ... A COST!
        *The $550K ‘capital funds’ noted by Scollins, in the $4.25 number above, has been raised either by taxation, or a non-reduction of the tax rate ... A COST!
        *And the $2 million anticipated property sales could offset other current or future tax increases ... A COST!
    We all need to recognize that this will net the full $8 million plus whatever interest payments are included on the $5.4 million as well as the inability to use the $2.5 million to offset other tax increases!
    Apparently someone wants to get the Town to spend funds now, slip through a small amount, that no one should miss, then shelve the drawings until the funding is proper, then make what changes for code and escalation changes (at Town added cost). We are told that to answer all questions or criticisms already noted on the proposals, that this expenditure is necessary to prove the $8 million dollar budget!  It is not to verify ALL the options.  They won’t even consider a third party review, a process that used to be required by the schools program of past years.  We have heard a third party, and even a fourth party (Bob Hickey) on the rental proposal, all of which indicate SAVINGS to the taxpayer.  Office space is office space; renovate or rent!  This Town Hall proposed “minor” expenditure is to avoid any true debate on the subject and to avoid a ballot VOTE!  Rent space next week and move ... this will solve all of the apocalyptical and other scare tactics exhibited over recent months by Town Hall!
    And on top of everything else, the $5 hundred thousand plus suggested for this set of bid documents only, exceeds the State and industry standard of 8% for the total project, and should be reduced to a not to exceed $360 thousand for this portion alone!  Or for the $5 million renovation option, only $230,000.
    Merely do the calculation on the real cost ... the surplus moneys from property sales, from the HS bond issue, stabilization fund and available cash all affect the tax rate, either from non-rebates ... lower tax rate, or the long term yearly bond costs from the high school.  This last item is NOT a paid for item!  A bond issue at 5% over 20 years adds 50% to that cost.  We are told our bond interest rate is less.  We are also told our rate was not changed by Standard and Poors, yet look on the web to the Dec. 2010 decision in print!  It was lowered.  So what is the real cost to the taxpayer ???  What is the number on the non-lowering of the tax rate as we have a surplus, vs. new costs!  The $8 million grows to what number?  GIVE US THIS NUMBER!  If we don’t do this project where will these funds go?  The $1.7million can offset costs for the Library or water construction, lowering their cost!  The stabilization and other surplus can do the same, or be specific in lowering the tax rate, rather than the annual concept of looking forward to what is the cap number, then allocating the funds accordingly.  I particularly like the Chair’s comment on the OT issue, “ what you have is what we spend”.  It applies here as well, rather than Town Hall seeking where we might be able to gather either additional taxation or fee income or rate structure increases to pay for wish lists!

The comparison is as follows:
       item            @5%             1st ten years    over 20 years    40 years
a.    $8 million                           $7 million        $12+ million
b.    $5 million                           $3.87 million   $7.5+ million
c.    rentals                                $2-3 million     $4-6 million      $8-12 million
d.    income (offset on rental)    $2 million        $4 million         $8 million

Notes:
1.    Ownership (a., b., and d.) implies a maintenance and operation cost ... roof repair, heating etc.
2.    The rental approach is a no-brainer; no cost or minimal even over 40 years!
       And the gross annual cost is between 33% and 50% of the $8 million dollar project.
3.    Investing the available funds could net annually between 25% to 60+% of rental costs!

Dick Heydecker, 63 Grove Street, 508-543-9412