Resident feels Bartlett may not be obligated to pay second high school bond

Resident Steve Andelman doesn't believe Bartlett is obligated to pay any of the additional $2.5 million bond approved by Conway voters in April to complete the new high school, and at least one school board member, Henry Villaume, agrees.The two made a presentation to the Bartlett board during a special meeting at the SAU 9 office in North Conway Tuesday night.Andelman submitted a letter to the board."You will not be getting seats for the auditorium nor will you get 135 of the 500 parking spaces even with the new bond and the interest. Surprised? Youre not alone. On the day before Conway voted, the Suns editorial supported the bond because 'it would be an embarrassment to open a new school without seats in the auditorium.' Although the auditorium will no longer be an empty shell and will be fitted-out for $300,000, the steering team, on Nov. 15, 2005 voted 'No' to 'Auditorium Seating Materials & Labor.'"These facts are in a document prepared by Lee Kennedy Co. Inc. on Dec. 15, 2005, marked Draft for Format. It is a list of 'the various potential Costs To Complete for project Alternatives, Contingencies and FF & E (furniture, fixtures and equipment) based on current overall project variances.' The items match those listed in the Suns April 12 article on Conways passing the $2.5 million bond (except for $778 difference for contingencies). The Sun failed to report the rejected items. SAU 9 recently gave the document to a Bartlett school board member. It was a partial response to the members 18-month quest for an exact definition of the new high school (vs. Appendix B) and what it would cost. The quest remains unanswered."Keep in mind that the new high school is still smaller than the original plan promised in the tuition agreement. In addition to the deficiencies mentioned above, there would be approximately 11,200 square feet less total space including about 1,000 square feet less space assigned to classrooms and staff."Not only did most Conway voters believe they would get auditorium seats, they believe that the sending towns are obligated to pay their share of the second bond. After all, every sending towns school board drafted a letter of support for the bond as requested by SAU 9. What SAU 9 did not explain and possibly does not understand was that the voters must specifically approve of the added expenses. "Why? Because the tuition agreement does not cover overruns. If it did, the school boards could commit to pay their share of the second bond. But overruns are not covered, and the voters, not the school boards, must agree to pay. Although Conway and Bartlett hired lawyers to clarify the agreement, their letters have not been made public although it is a completely public matter. Nonetheless, the facts can speak for themselves. The tuition agreement is convoluted and hard to understand (except for the parts that define the sending towns obligations and penalties). But the information is in there if you look hard enough. Section 10B, Capital Improvements (Long-Term Debt) recognizes that additional facilities will be required for Conway to meet the terms of the agreement. The purpose of the action is to specify how the towns will pay their share of the first bond, just as Section 10A, Computation of Student Charges, specifies how operating expenses will be shared."Section 10B does not mean whatever it costs. Lets look further: Under Section 14A, Conditions of Approval, the agreement is contingent upon Conway approving the first bond. Section 4, Bond Issue Passage, says the bond will be for 'construction of a new high school, according to plans and specifications consistent with the description of new facilities attached as Appendix B.' Therefore, the bond is for a fixed amount and for a specific plan just as we were led to believe."And what about cost overruns? There is nothing about cost overruns in the tuition agreement. The only other section that deals with capital expenses is 10C, Additional Capital Improvements. However, this section covers expenses 'beyond those improvements incidental to the original plan.' This is critical because the second bond will pay only for items incidental to the original plan and not 'beyond' it. As explained above, the two bonds plus the retained interest will not be enough to complete the high school let alone do more than the original plan."Nothing in the tuition agreement gives the school boards the right to obligate their town to paying for the overruns. Of course, the agreement could be revised to obligate the towns to pay for overruns and submitted to the voters for their approval. However, SAU 9 and Conways school board is unlikely to follow this path. Apparently, it doesnt think it is necessary. What then? Perhaps there is a state law that gives the boards that right? The state has said no: 'the school boards must administer their voted budgets.'""We have no authority from the taxpayers who voted for (the initial school bond) to support a $4.5 million overrun," Villaume said. "We do not have specific authority to pay for a cost overrun. To me, it means the contract is up for negotiation.""Your attorney disagrees," Carl Nelson, superintendent, said, explaining this issue was brought up in the spring and the school board's attorney felt the town was committed to the additional project costs.Andelman urged the board to read Appendix A and B. 'If you come up with any other conclusion I will formally write a written apology. This is something not clearly stated by the contract. It lets us as voters say, 'How generous do we want to be.' The voters voted for the tuition contract not the cost overruns. We need to talk and see if we can have representation and some ownership.""I think hell will freeze over and I'll skate on it before we get any ownership (of the new high school)," Vicki Harlow, board chair, said.The board took no action on the letter.