(Globe Staff Photo / Joanne Rathe)
First came sticker shock. Then the burning question: How could the price for a high school project that was already the most expensive in state history increase by 32 percent in just one year?
In the weeks leading up to last January's referendum on the city's plan for a new showcase facility to replace Newton North High School, Mayor David B. Cohen said the project's cost could be held down to $141 million. A year almost to the day later, Cohen appeared before the city's Board of Aldermen and said the cost had risen to $186 million or even higher.
"As we were undergoing the value engineering process, Mayor Cohen suggested $141 million as a target that we could reach as a community," city spokesman Jeremy Solomon said. The figure "was based on the best information available at the time."
So, how to explain the $45 million jump - $31.6 million in the last six months alone? Globe West attempts to answer the question, using interviews with Newton officials and the project's critics, and an examination of city documents.
The starting point
Cohen's critics say that the $141 million figure was dubious at best. According to the city's own documents, the projected cost - based on the design at the time of the referendum - was actually significantly higher, at about $154 million.
To pull lower the price, the city drafted $11 mil lion in suggested cost-saving design changes, known as the "value engineering list," then tacked on $2 million in as-yet-unidentified cuts to arrive at $141 million.
Those savings, however, quickly proved to be illusory.
In the end, city documents show, Cohen and an advisory committee adopted only about $6.5 million of the saving measures - such as substituting vinyl flooring for porcelain tile - but they were quickly canceled out by increases in other areas.
Six months after the referendum passed by a comfortable margin, the city revealed the price for the school was almost exactly what it had been before the vote - about $154 million.
Cohen's most recent figure of $186 million includes nearly $32 million in new cost increases, which the city has divided into eight categories:
Site preparation
Shortly after construction crews broke ground last year, workers made two ominous discoveries - old buried demolition debris that contained asbestos, and a significant amount of undetected granite ledge - by themselves, the two complications could add as much at 8 percent to the project's overall cost.
Hazardous-materials crews were called to deal with the asbestos, and blasting teams were hired to remove the ledge.
The extra work has delayed the project and increased site-preparation costs to $30.9 million, a rise of $14.4 million (87 percent) from last year's estimate of $16.5 million.
Design complications
In percentage terms, design issues account for the greatest cost increases, going from $6.7 million to $14.9 million, a 122 percent rise. Critics have become even more unhappy at news that the project's key architect, Graham Gund of Cambridge, quietly signed an agreement with the city last summer allowing his firm to step back from an active role.
"Does this happen in the private sector?" asked Alderman Ken Parker, who is mulling a possible election campaign against Cohen next year. "Yes, but not without people getting fired."
The excavation problems, last year's referendum on the site plan, and other complications have pushed the completion date for the project from December 2009 to at least September 2010, forcing the city to extend the contracts for its main architectural team of the Gund Partnership and Dore & Whittier, officials said.
And, the need to meet last summer's July 1 groundbreaking deadline, set by the state School Building Authority, forced designers to bring in more staff and subcontractors, further raising costs.
Manager's contract
The project's delays forced the city to extend by a full year its $2.5 million contract with project management firm Turner Construction, adding $1.1 million to its bill.
Hazardous materials
Burned by the costly discovery of asbestos during site preparation, the city has set aside another $500,000 to deal with any unexpected hazardous material that might surface when the current school is torn down, mayoral spokesman Solomon said.
Additional square footage
Designers recently discovered that Gund's original vision failed to include enough cafeteria and kitchen storage space to serve the school's 1,800 students, city officials said. The resulting additional 3,742 square feet will cost $1.2 million for design and construction.
Steel estimates
Worldwide economic fluctuations have made the cost of construction materials a true wild card. The good news: A drop in prices and design changes helped the city trim the costs for steel and other metals by $5 million early last year, to an estimated total of about $11 million.
The bad news: The city's contractor, Dimeo Construction, has determined that designers underestimated the amount of steel needed by 290 tons, pushing the total cost back up to more than $12 million, officials said.
Early site work
In another error that angered critics, the city badly underestimated (by 65 percent) the cost for demolishing the football stadium and for preparing and grading the site for the Gund design. This added $2.4 million to the project.
Miscellaneous items
Every time the price of the project goes up, officials have to tack on another 15 percent to the increase to cover unforeseen costs as well as to update the construction bond and the insurance for the project. The additional $2.8 million brings the increased costs for the project to $31.6 million.
A final caveat: Since the construction documents are only 80 percent complete, officials say the final project cost is unknown. While Solomon said the city could "catch a break" if the cost of materials continues to moderate, Cohen has cautioned that the price could still top $186 million.
After the construction documents are completed, expected in March, the city will negotiate with Dimeo for a guaranteed maximum price for the project.
The final number, Solomon said, should be made public in May - just about when voters will be asked to decide on a $23.9 million property-tax increase.
Newton North is likely to be at the center of the Proposition 2 1/2 override debate, even though Cohen has insisted it is needed to cover an operating deficit caused by rising healthcare, energy, and pension costs, and not the Newton North project.
Critics, including Board of Aldermen members Paul Coletti and Cheryl Lappin, say that the mayor's stance is misleading, as money to pay for the project's debt service will come out of the city's operating budget.
© Copyright 2008 Globe Newspaper Company.
