MOVE AES project on Existing SITE: South Hampton Rd.

09/20/2020

You have to ask: Why not Amesbury? Given more than 100 design flaws, traffic, flooding issues, loss of open space, loss of baseball fields, an abandoned building and now soil with toxic levels of arenic that must be removed, why would the MSBA rule out support for a change? when this project is clearly NOT in the best interests of taxpayers and the state. Note to taxpayers: $17 million of the project cost was ineligible for state funding due to 30,000 SF beyond guidelines; excess space is NOT needed.

Send your comments to the Planning Board and attend their virtual meeting a week from Monday, Sept. 28th.

https://apnews.com/83fdd65a7d26415f89171bd7416711d7

Lowell has MSBA support, but must submit modified high school plan
By CHRIS LISINSKI |
PUBLISHED: December 7, 2017 at 12:00 a.m. | UPDATED: July 11, 2019 at 12:00 a.m.
BOSTON — Lowell officials were told Thursday that they still have the Massachusetts School Building Authority’s support in pursuing a new high school, despite months of confusion and debate about the school’s location.
However, now that the city appears poised to switch its plans and keep the high school downtown rather than build a new structure at Cawley Stadium, officials must take several steps to acquire MSBA approval and funding — and the process will likely run well into next year.
City leaders met with MSBA staff Thursday in a working meeting to get a clearer sense of how to proceed. The City Council had previously voted to place the new high school near Cawley Stadium, but the MSBA, aware of a passionate debate on the topic, declined to vote on funding the project until a clearer consensus emerged.
In November, pro-downtown candidates won majorities on the City Council and School Committee, and a non-binding ballot question went strongly in favor of downtown. MSBA staff said Thursday that Lowell has not lost any support from the state because of the changes.
“The MSBA Board of Directors has made a commitment to the city of Lowell for a high school,” said James MacDonald, chief executive officer of the MSBA. “That is not an issue that is up for debate.
Lowell has MSBA support, but must submit modified high school plan

LOWELL -- Top executives from the Massachusetts School Building Authority said the agency protected Lowell and the state's taxpayers when its board of directors chose to postpone an August vote to...

08/13/2020

Just a short 25-slide presentation put together for the City Council and the School Committee. Would love to hear thoughts (without personal attacks please) from very thoughtful people. Re-posted to add one slide.

08/13/2020

Just curious. Thinking out of the box. Lots of boxes involved in the AES project. One of the biggest obstacles to changing site location for the AES project is that the bond was tied to a specific address. (Curious if that is standard.) In any case, if Amesbury were to break the bond, the bond insurer would cover any loss to the bond issuer. Since Amesbury has spent less than a fraction of that bond money (or any if it's come from tax monies so far), it would be in the bond issuer's best interests to negotiate opening the bond to any school project and school-related repairs to other buildings. The bond money will still be spent on school projects, the bond issuer will still get their interest payments for the length of the bond, and the insurer doesn't have to pay out. Given the state of the pandemic, the bond issuer would do well to allow a change, since many municipalities may end up defaulting on their bonds due to financial impact of the pandemic.

Here's a link to an interesting Forbes article. https://www.forbes.com/sites/investor/2020/04/13/municipal-bond-defaults-will-be-a-wake-up-call-for-bond-insurers/

08/05/2020

Do you think the AES project team is really worth the $$$$ millions Amesbury taxpayers are paying them?

Latest information coming out regarding the less-than-stellar cost/benefit analysis conducted by the project team continues to raise red flags. You have to wonder why so many billable hours and $$$$ millions in taxpayer funding collected by this team led to such problematic project design reviews by a 3rd party civil engineer and wetland scientist.

The MEPA (MA Environmental Policy Act) application submitted by the project team deserves a closer look; note the purpose of the alternative site analysis. The state funding agreement with the city included similar wording in paragraph 4 on page 1.

You have to wonder how the project team concluded that the Cashman site posed less of a community and environmental impact than the AES site.

Apparently the project team disregarded important site conditions at the South Hampton AES site: existing stormwater drainage system in disrepair, undersized and clogged culverts connected to that system; rainwater runoff gutters emptying directly to the school building foundation; stormwater runoff from the Powow Hill development above the school causing flooding and specifically noted in the state project application.

I suppose it's all a matter of interpretation. What do you think?

07/24/2020

Allison Davis Ruggiero mentioned the Penn Brook School where she works: The Penn Brook School in Georgetown: 98,000 SF school for 770 students cost only $36.3 million to build.

Sooo....Amesbury is building a 98,000 SF school for only 470 students for $60+ million.

A school for 300 fewer students costs $24 million more? Why such a big school for only 470 kids? Building a neighborhood K-4 school only requires space for 345 students. Hmmmm...

Perhaps the extra cost comes from an oversized school, 8+ acres of parking lots, roadways, stormwater managment solutions, Proprietary BMPs, lots of of billable hours, and many problems requiring specialized solutions....

07/10/2020

This video introduces the concept of green infrastructure.