Great Barrington —
Just in time for Halloween, some opponents of the Monument Mountain High School Renovation project are whipping up scare tactics and political antics, including ads in the press and flyers loaded with misinformation and outright lies, that would make a busload of Tea Party strategists drool with envy.
The high school renovation project has become a lightning rod for the “tax increasers,” as one flyer attributed to “Concerned Citizens of Great Barrington” put it. Several paid political advertisements in newspapers and flyers state several blatant lies about not only the renovation project cost, but possibly about another Great Barrington town project as well.
What the mailed flyer did not say is that the Great Barrington Republican Town Committee was behind it. The Committee, as “Concerned Citizens,” registered with the Town of Great Barrington, but did not register in Stockbridge and West Stockbridge, the other two towns in the school district. All three towns will vote on both the renovation project and Proposition 2 ½ override ballot questions on Tuesday, November 4.
Another anti-renovation flyer, taped to car windows in private driveways in the middle of the night, had no attribution. Yet another paid political advertisement in two local newspapers was attributed to “DDynamics,” which did not register in any of the three district towns.
Complaints have been filed with General Counsel at the Commonwealth’s Office of Campaign Finance (OCPF), but will not be resolved until after November 4. The complaints may result in anything from a slap on the wrist to fines.
Jason Tait, a spokesman with the OCPF said a ballot committee must file an organization form with all towns involved in a school district ballot question.
Four hundred households received the Concerned Citizens letter this week informing them of the upcoming election and urging them to vote against the renovation project. The letters were mailed from Hartford, Conn., but had no return address. The group purchased the Great Barrington voter list for $30 from Town Hall and identified — in some cases incorrectly — households that did not vote at the May 4, 2014 Town Meeting. Several people who said they did vote were puzzled to receive the article. (All declined to be identified here.)
The letter described the Berkshire Hills Regional School Committee and its supporters as “tax increasers,” and contained two untruths, the most odious of which was that the School Committee had “fraudulently omitted” an “Option No. 3,” a “repair and replace option, funded at about 50 percent by the state.”
“There is absolutely no grain of truth in that statement, and [questions] have been asked, answered, illuminated and illustrated more times than I choose to remember,” said high school renovation steering committee chair Karen Smith.
The repair and replace option was considered over a six-year research process, according to the Berkshire Hills Regional School District and the School Committee. School Committee and Building Committee minutes point to a time-consuming and rigorous process of debating numerous options before making the decision to renovate the school, not simply repair it.
Under either Massachusetts School Building Authority’s (MSBA) Major Repair or Accelerated Repair programs, the district could not receive more than 40.9 percent in reimbursements, said Smith. That 40.9 percent, she added, is only for reimbursed items, and would likely not include, say, hazardous materials abatements triggered by a repair or system replacement.
Further complicating matters and reducing reimbursements under alternative repair scenarios is that space modifications to address educational program needs are not reimbursed, added Smith.
The letter also states that the “hidden” repair “option No. 3” would cost one quarter of “what the School Committee wants to spend.”
Smith says this, too, is hogwash. “A quarter of the project would be $7 million,” she said, referring to the $28 million the district is responsible for of $51.2 million project. The MSBA will reimburse the district almost half the total cost. Indeed, in a repair scenario, the roof alone will cost $8 million to $9 million due to inflation, structural upgrades and other contingencies and costs. That is according to the district’s project manager Jon Winikur, who has 20 MSBA-funded projects under his belt.
The ballot committee form filed with the Great Barrington town clerk has the signature of former Great Barrington Selectman and Republican Committee Chairman Andy Moro, and Finance Committee Member and Republican Committee Treasurer Walter “Buddy” Atwood III, both vocal opponents of the renovation.
“We weren’t trying to deceive anybody,” said Moro of the flyers, noting that the Republican Committee had received donations from residents who were not Republicans but who were against the project. He said the Republican Committee is a small group in Great Barrington, but reaches out to people, regardless of affiliation, who share concerns over certain issues.
The money “trickled in” from supporters, added Moro, and that allowed the group to pay for the mailing.
“There was no mischief,” he added.
That depends on whether printing lies is considered “mischief.” The Republican Committee took out a large advertisement in another newspaper last week, peddling the same “Option #3” at “50%” funding assertion.
But this advertisement contained two more whoppers. The first was that “a YES vote will add on another $500 to next year’s tax bill,” true only for a home assessed by the town at around $550,000. The average home in Great Barrington is assessed at $375,000, but most houses in town are assessed in the $200,000 to $225,000 range. Assuming the 3.75 interest rate on the district’s 25-year bond, a house assessed at $200,000 would see a yearly increase of $184.
The second fib is that the coming sewer plant upgrade will “add another $340 a year” to property tax bill. Not true, said Great Barrington Town Manager Jennifer Tabakin.
“Only taxpayers who are on the Town’s sewer system pay sewer rates. It is an enterprise fund, which means the users of the sewer system pay the cost of the operation of the system,” she explained. “The sewer rate did not increase this fiscal year (FY 2015) year and may not for FY 2016. In FY 2017 there could be an increase, we don’t know the exact amount, but it would be under $100.”
She added: “Last year, we split the phase two of the renovations of the Wastewater system into three separate projects. Payment on the second package of work, which is not yet designed, will occur when the construction is completed and will likely raise the rates about $75 to $100.”
