AMHERST — The town cannot get state support for a different school building project from the one defeated last month by Town Meeting.
The Massachusetts School Building Authority, which is authorized to help pay for public school building projects, has rejected school and town officials’ request to bring to voters a project with twin K-6 schools to replace both Wildwood and Fort River elementary schools.
However, the state authority said its $34 million funding commitment is good until the end of March, if Town Meeting can be persuaded to support the original project before then.
Mary Pichetti, director of capital planning for the MSBA, wrote in a Dec. 2 letter to interim Superintendent Michael Morris that the project to reconfigure the elementary schools is the only one that Town Meeting, which rejected the plan Nov. 14, can act on.
Pichetti referred to the Jan. 19 decision by the Amherst School Committee to have the Wildwood site on Strong Street be the place for co-located Grade 2-6 schools, each with up to 375 students, with Crocker Farm School becoming an early childhood education center.
“The district’s proposed change is contrary to this decision previously approved by the School Committee, and is contrary to the district’s preferred schematic report, dated February 2016, within which all K-6, 670 student options were considered to be ‘not viable’ based on the School Committee’s vote for grade reconfiguration,” Pichetti wrote.
The School Committee voted 4-1 in favor of the reconfiguration, and the MSBA used this as the basis for awarding $34 million for the $67.2 million project.
Voters Nov. 8 narrowly approved the Proposition 2½ debt exclusion, which needed only a majority, by a 6,825 votes to 6,699. But Town Meeting failed to authorize the borrowing, falling 37 votes short of clearing the two-thirds threshold at its Nov. 14 session. The vote was 108 opposed to 106 in favor.
Even though the agency turned down the attempt to revise the Amherst school project, the MSBA is providing Amherst an extension through the end of March to get the approved project passed by Town Meeting,
In addition, officials have been informed that if they are unable to secure passage, they may have time to file a new statement of interest in a new building project in 2017. These applications are due in the first week of April.
School Committee Chairwoman Katherine Appy said in an email that she is confident Town Meeting will get a chance to revisit the project and learn that the current plan is endorsed by educators.
“Our teachers are fully in support of this current proposal with the MSBA, and I am optimistic that Town Meeting will reconsider their votes based on this information, and because this proposal addresses the equity issues in our town and brings us a sustainable new building for all elementary students in our community,” Appy said.
The equity issues include providing more children preschool education, which offers a foundation for learning, and eliminating the busing from certain neighborhoods to create socioeconomic equity across the schools.
Morris said he appreciates the extension and flexibility offered by the MSBA.
A special Town Meeting can be called by the Select Board, or submission of signatures from at least 200 registered voters. If such a submission is made, the Select Board would have to schedule this within 45 days.
Peter Demling, of Atwater Circle, said having Town Meeting re-examine the proposal would be a good idea. Demling said there is new information that members didn’t have, including that the design can’t be changed, that there is no process for an accelerated submission to the MSBA and that the level of teacher support for the project is high.
Select Board Chairwoman Alisa Brewer said her board has not discussed whether there should be a special Town Meeting to reconsider the school project.
Should a revote fail, Pichetti informed officials that they would have to submit a new statement of interest and await a second invitation from the MSBA board. For several years, such statements of interest were submitted until Wildwood was selected.
The process would then start anew, including hiring a new project manager and designer, and completing a new feasibility study and schematic design.
This is the route supported by Save Amherst’s Small Schools, which opposed the project, in a letter it sent to Katie Loeffler, MSBA’s capital project manager, last week.
“We look forward to the district and the town moving forward apace with the submission of a new statement of interest as soon as possible and an open and inclusive process,” the group wrote.
SASS has been critical of the project and points to the decision the School Committee made even though a survey completed by 451 parents and guardians showed reconfiguration was the least popular option among the four choices available.
Both Wildwood and Fort River have several problems with their open classroom design, including noise and lack of natural light, that a new school would have solved.
Wildwood needs a new boiler, estimated at $400,000, and Fort River a new roof, projected at $1 million. Both these projects may be brought to Town Meeting if the building project is not revived.
Scott Merzbach can be reached at smerzbach@gazettenet.com.
