|
Fallacy
The
state has not guaranteed 59% reimbursement for a new Wilson Middle School. |
Fact
The Town has the guarantee
in writing. Click here for the information. |
|
Fallacy
The
ballot question will not contain a dollar amount. This means that the town
has a blank check. |
Fact
The state’s Proposition 2½
law prohibits placing a dollar amount on the ballot for a debt exclusion
vote. However, Natick Town Meeting has placed a dollar limit of $25.6
Million on this project. Only Natick's elected Town Meeting can appropriate
changes to the project, and other major school building projects in recent
years have come in on budget. |
|
Fallacy
Wilson
would have lasted longer if it had been better maintained! |
Fact
In 1958, Wilson was designed
and built to last 25 to 30 years. This is evident from the
construction methods and material used. The fact that the school
still serves us 42 years later would not have happened unless it had been
maintained. It is now well past the point of economic repair and
maintenance. In contrast, Kennedy School was built for twice the
cost per square foot just a few years later and will serve Natick for many
years to come. |
|
Fallacy
We
can solve the overcrowding problems by using East School. |
Fact
East School will require
a substantial investment to be brought up to safety code and educational
standards. There are virtually no facilities at East other than 8
classrooms. Students, teachers and administrators would therefore
spend valuable teaching time on transportation and logistics. The
cost of using East School is not reimbursable, and this "solution" will
essentially force Natick to warehouse its middle school students, when
we have a responsibility to educate them. Using East is creative,
but costly, as past town committees that have studied this alternative
have learned and reported. |
|
Fallacy
A split
tax rate will generate enough money to pay for the school without an override. |
Fact
If a split tax rate were
implemented in Natick, it would only shift the burden of taxes from one
group to another (usually from residential to business). The total
amount of taxes collected in the town would remain the same because of
Proposition 2½. Therefore, an override would still be required
to pay for Wilson. |
|
Fallacy
Overcrowding
is just a problem at Wilson Middle School. |
Fact
Kennedy is more overcrowded
than Wilson. If the override fails and the town buys trailer classrooms,
there will be more trailers at Kennedy than at Wilson. A YES vote ensures
that Kennedy's common spaces, currently subdivided into classrooms, will
be restored. A No vote will result in no restoration of those spaces
at Kennedy. The problem is townwide; so is the solution. |
|
Fallacy
We
can do better than 59% State reimbursement under the new state policies. |
Fact
This fallacy gambles with
your money.
The State will give priority
to projects submitted under the old regulations, which guarantee 59% reimbursement.
The proposed percentages under the new regulations are not guaranteed;
no projects have yet been submitted under the new regulations; and it is
almost certain that we would receive less from the state, while our costs
would increase.
In reality, if either
or both of the state tax cutting initiatives (Questions 4 and 6) on the
November 7th ballot were to pass, this would significantly reduce the amount
of future monies that the Legislature can appropriate to both local aid,
and to school building reimbursement. Since the new reimbursement
law (unlike the old) is subject to annual appropriation by the Legislature,
the No committee is asking you to take a big risk against all available
evidence. |
|
Fallacy
We
don't have a plan to fix the High School, and that will require another
override. |
Fact
A citizen's committee, working
with professional architects and engineers, is developing a plan to renovate
NHS. A final report will be available in December. Even if
we knew the exact price tag today, new state reimbursement guidelines that
will dictate the phased project timing and cost to Natick taxpayers are
not yet available, and the entire project will be subject to public review,
input and comment.
It is not possible, nor
practical, to combine the Middle School problems with a High School renovation
project.
If we do not solve the
Middle School crisis, the strain on our operating budget and educational
resources will make a comprehensive solution to NHS issues impossible.
As the School Committee
and School Department have acknowledged, an NHS renovation would almost
certainly require a debt exclusion override, which means the voters will
have approval on this project when the cost to Natick taxpayers is known. |
|
Fallacy
We
don’t have to spend this much money to build a school. We don’t need
any Taj Mahals! |
Fact
In order for the state to
reimburse us, the school must be designed and built to last a minimum of
50 years. This is so taxpayers will receive good value for their
money. The $25 million that Wilson will cost to build is very consistent
with the cost of middle schools built in other communities. Also,
the state would not fully reimburse us if the cost were excessive. |
|
Fallacy
The
schools never would have gotten in this mess if there had been long term
planning. |
Fact
Long term planning for the
schools began prior to 1993. This resulted in the renovation of Brown (1995)
and Lilja (1997) and the replacement of Ben-Hem (1999). The replacement
of Wilson has been a part of that plan in order to take care of both the
building condition and the large increase in the student population that
has been steadily progressing through the grade levels. |
|
Fallacy
There
are homes in this town that are over 100 years old because they have been
maintained. Why couldn’t Wilson have been maintained like this? |
Fact
This is a poor analogy because
none of those 100-year-old homes have had 600 – 700 students using them
every single school day for the last 42 years. A school building
is a very high use facility, and its maintenance requirements are vastly
different from those of a private home. The maintenance efforts at
Wilson have gotten Natick taxpayers over 40% more useful life out of the
building then it was designed for. |
|
Fallacy
The
school committee and the school administration long ago decided they wanted
a new school regardless of the cost. There are viable options that
have never been considered. |
Fact
Over the last three years,
no fewer than 19 different options had been considered. All of the
options were analyzed as to the educational benefit and the cost impact.
The decision to rebuild Wilson was made because it is the best value both
to the students and to the taxpayers of Natick. |
|
Fallacy
Nothing
has changed since the last override election. They haven’t listened
to a thing the ‘no’ voters said. |
Fact
Since the last override election,
there have been numerous actions taken to respond to the concerns of the
people who voted ‘no’. These have included an architect’s peer review,
the formation of a town committee to determine the needs of modernizing
the high school, while the Selectmen established a surplus property committee
to determine if there was any property that the could be sold to offset
the cost of the override. The price of the project has increased
about $600,000 because of construction cost increases. Further delay
will add further expense. |
|
Fallacy
The
people who want this override are just a special interest group and don’t
care about the needs and concerns of others. |
Fact
Support for this is coming
from many people from all walks of life, including seniors, singles, families
without children in school, and businesses who understand the value of
investment in education. Also, over 75% of our Town Meeting members,
people who are elected by you and who have taken the time to fully understand
all of the issues involved, have voted to support this effort. |
|
Fallacy
During
the last override, the people have spoken and they said no! We should
listen to them and not bring this up again! |
Fact
In the last election, 4,345
voters voted against the override. However, there were 4,168 voters
who said yes. There were many reasons why people voted "No," and
many of those reasons have been addressed and answered.
There are some "No" voters who will oppose any override; we have tried
to provide all the information there is, including the costs of another
"No" vote, so that voters can make a fully informed choice. |
|
Fallacy
The
yes side is using scare tactics telling us that if the override loses,
then there will be deep cuts in the town’s operating budget. |
Fact
Just because something is
scary, doesn’t mean that it is not true. If the override fails, the
overcrowding and building condition problems still have to be solved.
The other options (even the short term and temporary ones) all cost a great
deal of money. That money will have to come from somewhere. An informed
voter needs to understand the consequences of his or her vote. |
|
Fallacy
The
overcrowding is not that bad. Don’t worry, even if the override fails,
there will always be a place for your children to go to school. |
Fact
The overcrowding is already
evident. This year, there are four classes of Wilson students at
Ben-Hem. Not only has this put these students in another building,
but it has also used up the rooms at Ben-Hem that had been built to take
care of the increasing student population in the elementary grades.
This situation will only get worse. |
|
Fallacy
The
only purpose of an override is to forgive financial mismanagement. |
Fact
Since Proposition 2½
was enacted 18 years ago, Natick has never had an override. In contrast,
many of our surrounding communities have had several. This good fiscal
management has provided Natick homeowners with a bond rating of AA2, which
is in the top 5% of all municipalities. The Proposition 2½
law recognizes that there will be times when towns will need to go beyond
the 2½% per year increase in order to fund critical needs.
Natick has reached that point. |
|
Fallacy
Funds
can be produced through normal growth in value, new developments and the
implementation of a split tax rate. |
Fact
For this claim, all we can
say is “Show us the math.” Growth in value and a split tax rate do
not produce any additional funds. This is because Proposition 2½
says that property taxes on collected for existing property may not exceed
a 2½% increase per year. If the total assessed value of property
in town goes up, the overall tax rate goes down in order to comply with
Proposition 2½. |
