To the editor:

In your March 8 edition of Shorelines, Tim Gillespie gives accolades to the Westport School Building Committee for achieving resounding success at the polls and a triumph for the town. Yes, the unelected committee was able to convince voters that the tax burden for the new school project was going to be $60 million because “the community actually borrows only its share,” according to and stated by their chair, Dianne Baron.

I question if voters believed her and subsequent media reports, or did they research the information given by the MSBA website and conclude that the consequences of borrowing $97 million (appropriated and authorized by Special Town Meeting vote, January 23, 2018) would ensure a stronger future for Westport. Allow me to provide some of the quotations to which I refer:

1. The Massachusetts School Building Authority defines themselves as a Quasi (apparently but not really; ostensible) Independent (not subject to or affiliated with another’s authority) Government (authoritative direction funded by taxation) Agency (entity that produces a specified result), although the A in their acronym is for Authority.

2. The Project Funding Agreement (PFA) governs the relationship between the district and the MSBA.

3. The district agrees that, in order to demonstrate adequate funding for the project is available, it shall provide the authority … sources of all the funding the district will apply equal to total project budget ($97 million).

4. Nothing stated in this agreement shall impair the right of the authority to…determine ineligible costs as provided elsewhere in this agreement.

5. All project costs and project scope items are subject to review and audit by the authority, and whether a project cost is eligible for reimbursement shall be determined by the authority, in its sole discretion, during the authority’s audit of the project.

6. The district acknowledges and agrees that certain costs incurred by the district in connection with the project shall not be eligible for reimbursement.

7. The district acknowledges and agrees that the amount of eligible project costs reimbursed by the authority may be subject to change depending on the results of an audit conducted by the authority.

8. The district acknowledges and agrees that the requirements set forth in the PFA are intended solely for the benefit and protection of the authority as the grantor of the project funding…It is solely the obligation of the district to determine and comply with all legal requirements applicable to the project.

If anyone believes the MSBA grant is merely for construction of a new school building project, please consider:

9. A copy of the educational program for the project is attached and incorporated.

The Massachusetts Department of Revenue limits the debt exclusion to what voters were told the project would cost ($97 million). It allows the borrowing amount to exceed the fixed amount only if it is “a modest amount attributable to inflation, new regulatory requirements, or minor project changes.” Unless the Department of Revenue finds that the additional amounts fall within these narrow exceptions, any cost overruns will have to be funded from other town budgets within the limits of Proposition 2½.

The aforementioned numerical items list the potential of meeting and exceeding the total amounts required to finance the bonds necessary for Westport’s new school project costs. No wonder the unelected Westport School Building Committee exhibited such jubilation upon receiving results of the February 27 referendum. The Blank Check Bandwagon gave them a $97 million expense account (in addition to a $37.4 million MSBA non-entitlement, discretionary, need based grant), the authority to spend it, and the taxpayer becoming the cash cow source of funding!

Marilyn Pease

Westport