Lea,

I am about to go off on vacation so I thought I better put in my 2 cents before I go regarding my view on which option to select. I wrote this in a hurry, so I hope it is coherent. Please feel free to share with anyone.

1. I understand the charge to the HSBC, but I still feel an obligation to give the Town some real options in terms of price. I don’t think we are in a position to tell the Town which price point is correct and therefore welcome the guidance of the School Comm., Selectmen and/or Finance Comm.

2. My view is influenced by my understanding of the school population numbers, which I know is a minority view. I think the most likely scenario in terms of population, based on the numbers and assumptions presented is that we will see the school peak out at around 1000 students by 2010 and that we not see that number again for a decade or more. No one really knows what the demographics will be and I understand how people come to the conclusion of a much higher number.

3. I think there are 2 possible projects. One with the full scope done all at once that will cost $50-55M and one without a gym and auditorium, (with the expectation that adding a gym and auditorium in more than 10 years away) which will cost $35-40M. There is no doubt that doing the full scope all at once is the least costly (significantly) and least disruptive (big time) option, if the desire is to do the full scope within the next 10 years. I don’t see any way to get real savings (more than $5M) by doing the full scope, but paring everything back (small gym, smaller auditorium, smaller classes, cutting out a few amenities). You end up spending almost all the money and all of your spaces are compromised.

4. I fully understand that the project without a gym and auditorium does not give us the program the school desires (a program I think is reasonable) with regard to the arts and athletics. However I think it leaves us about where we are today with arts and athletics and that’s passable. Because I don’t see a huge, sustained increase in population I think arts and athletics will be able to serve most who want to participate. I think the significant improvements the smaller project would give us in terms of academic learning environment, betters work spaces for teachers and meeting places for teachers and students, and probably some improvement to the arts, world be well worth doing.

5. If the Town desires the full scope project I would go with option 3 (reasons below). If the Town’s desire was to go with the smaller project I think there may be a version of option 2 that would be best. However, I don’t think we will get a decision answer on the question of budget and the difference between 2 and 3 as smaller scope projects (as presented last week) is not significantly different. So I go with 3 since we have to choose one.

6. My recommendation is that we go with 3 and we plan for the full scope, with the understanding that we know how to do a less costly version (no gym and auditorium), if needed. I come to this conclusion for two basic reasons. First, I think new construction can have several advantages over the renovation/new construction project without a significant difference in price (even more true if you look at life cycle costs). Even if option 2 could be done for several million dollars less of up front costs I think the impact on tax bills, spread over 25 is not material enough to justify it. Second, I go with the full scope because I think it is a reasonable risk to assume that we will get SBA reimbursement and if we do it will be around 40%+. At a price point of $33M I think it is a good investment for the Town.

7. SBA: I do not think it is a certainly that we get SBA reimbursement and I think it is a real possibility that we don’t get it until well after 2007. However, I do think we are more likely than not to get it. Nothing is certain in a political arena. We don’t know what the priorities for selection are. I think Wayland may not get selected in the first couple of years, depending on the priorities. The only way we can be sure we will get the reimbursement is to wait for approval before starting construction. That could mean not starting until 2010 or beyond. I think the Town can take that risk to start sooner as long as there is the understanding that it is not a certainty we get the money and we are willing to deal with that possibility.

8. Assuming we get SBA, the full scope project will be around $33M financed over a 25-year period. That may be a price point (and tax bill increase) acceptable to a significant majority of residents and certainly it is a number that is acceptable to more that a $55M number. The new building probably has a greater positive impact on resale values that a renovation.

9. I think the new building is better for several reasons. Our current buildings are not great structurally and architecturally (the arts building being the best of the lot). Pumping a lot of money into them will not fundamentally change what they are. New construction allows us to use all the money to fashion a project that really fits the needs of the program in terms of circulation and spaces. If done well it will give us a better learning environment (light, air, sound, etc.). It can be more energy efficient and have lower maintenance costs. It can last longer with less repair costs. It can include a lot of small features (custodian closets, storage rooms, etc.) that make buildings work much better. It can look great inside and out! People will like being I the space.

10. I don’t think we will get much under the $55M because I think anything we feel we can take out of scope to save money will ultimately be offset with improvements we make to quality. Building in quality up front saves money over time. It is certainly possible to build a bad new building, but I am confident that if we go this route and don’t make penny wise and pound-foolish decisions we can get a very good building with the help of the HMFH/Turner team.