This is a printer-friendly version of an article from Zip06.com.
11/22/2016 04:30 PMAfter electing to move forward with a five-school model, the Board of Education (BOE) is preparing to begin further investigations into the new model within the school utilization study. At a BOE meeting on Nov. 15, a representative from Colliers International, management firm with offices in Madison, came to speak about the path from now to referendum.
Madison’s discussion about a long-term plan for its public school facilities began a few years ago in response to growing concerns over declining enrollment, the age of the district’s buildings, and the need to ensure the buildings could support the structural vision of the district. While a decision on the schools’ futures was postponed this May due to state budget concerns, the BOE made a decision on a five-school model on Oct. 18.
To begin investigations into the five-school model, the board is looking to hire an owner’s project manager (OPM). While no official decision has been made, the board is strongly considering Colliers International, with which the board and town have worked before.
“At this point in the process we need to have experts who can guide us and really make sure we are asking all the right questions and getting accurate information going forward,” said Superintendent Tom Scarice. “Nothing has been approved, but it is a matter of paper work at this point.”
Colliers Senior Director of Project Management Marc Sklenka attended the meeting. He said has worked with numerous other districts to help them build schools.
“What I have been asked to do is to help guide this project,” he said, “[to] get us to a referendum date when you have the utmost confidence that you have the right project, the right budget, and the right schedule.”
Sklenka said for now he is collecting information on what has transpired with the project thus far and will then assemble a framework for moving forward. The board will undertake a geotechnical study, an environmental review, a wetland review, civil/drainage/utilities analysis, a traffic review, hazardous materials testing review, and an updated enrollment study over the next several months.
The goal is to have an assessment completed by June 30, 2017 to be sent to the state for reimbursement assessment. The project can be sent to the state with a pending referendum date within the next six months—before Dec. 15, 2017, if the project proceeds as planned.
“In short order you will start to see options, you will start to see dollars, you will start to see schedules,” said Sklenka.
Dollar amounts for the project are still just estimates. The gross cost is estimated at $51 million with a mill rate impact of 0.67 mills. After state reimbursement, which is currently estimated at 28.5 percent for projects deemed “renovate as new,” the net cost of the project is estimated at $45 million. However, the 28.5 percent reimbursement rate might not apply to the whole project and concerns have been raised over the likelihood of state reimbursement, a concern Sklenka said Colliers would keep a close eye on.
“Things are changing up in Hartford and we have been meeting with [the state] quite often to understand what is changing and how it may impact our clients,” he said. “We don’t want to go to the town with a project expecting X amount back from the state and then have them say of our rules have changed you are not going to get X, you are going to get Y.”
One particular concern is the future of the “renovate as new” status. As the state attempts to tighten its belt, Sklenka said the “renovate as new” option might be in jeopardy.
“The ‘renovate as new’ status is being looked at very carefully by the state and might actually go away,” he said.
Scarice said Colliers brought the possible changes to the “renovate as new” status to the boards attention.
“We knew going into this with the state fiscal situation that by the time we get to the point of actually submitting an application that things might change,” Scatrice said. “However, we would not move forward with a plan and a referendum without having a firm understanding of what reimbursement would be available for us.”