Opinion: Clarifying The School Path Forward

As someone who has been tuning into virtually every town meeting to report for Medfield Insider, and has attended nearly every Dale Street School Building Committee meeting for the last few years, recent public statements have prompted this opinion piece to help inform the community.

This information could be especially helpful in advance of the April 7 public hearing hosted by Medfield Board of Selectmen and School Committee, and in light of the April 29 deadline to reapply to the Massachusetts School Building Authority program.

Statement #1: “The only real downside of submitting another Statement of Interest to Massachusetts School Building Authority is that it prevents us from submitting an SOI for an accelerated repair for Blake roof project this year.” (Jeffrey Marsden, Superintendent, Superintendent Parent Advisory meeting, March 9, in response to a parent question.)

Incorrect. While receiving a grant to offset a quarter of school building costs is certainly attractive, there are most certainly other downsides to the MSBA program, as other districts like Tisbury have concluded (screenshot provided).

For Medfield, additional downsides include:

• The inability to build a multi-use facility to provide for both school and Parks & Recreation needs since per former School Building Committee members, MSBA will not allow it.

• Without the ability to build a multi-use facility and have an all-in project for voters, the Town will then need to take into account a variety of future costs that could be associated with poor Pfaff Center conditions, supporting Parks & Recreation, and re-use of Dale Street School if a different site is selected than currently.

• Lack of autonomy and control (and when it counts most). If Medfield re-enters the MSBA program, it will sacrifice a significant amount of freedom to pursue a project that is best suited for the town and its budget. MSBA plays an enormous role in selecting and approving a project manager and designer, as well as overseeing a project scope that conforms to mandated classroom sizes, common space requirements, enrollment projections and other aspects of the building design. Based on other MSBA-funded projects, the authority does not concern itself with potential negative impacts of school siting. It does not intervene when site selection has a negative impact on such things as open space, water, infrastructure, traffic, land-taking, or other issues that need to be considered early on by school building committees. The Waltham High School project is one example of a project that went too far along with no objections from MSBA forcing residents to pursue legal avenues during the too-late permitting stage.

• A prolonged schedule. Without MSBA, the moment a new Medfield School Building Committee is formed, the Town could take concrete steps almost immediately to move forward. However, if Medfield opts to wait to see if it can gain re-acceptance into the MSBA program, that step alone will delay the project by about at least 7 months (assuming it is invited back in). From that point, voters will likely need to wait until the 2023 Annual Town Meeting in May to approve funding for the mandatory MSBA feasibility study step. The combined delay alone would add nearly a year to the project. Prior to Town Meeting 2023, Medfield would be in a prolonged phase (up to 270 days) as mandated by MSBA, followed by an equally prolonged MSBA-mandated feasibility study phase. None of these steps would be required if Medfield pursued a project on its own -- the Medfield SBC could practically jump right in to begin the process of hiring a project manager and design firm. the original Dale Street School SBC timeline can be found in these early project manager materials.

Statement #2: “It will take us 5-7 years to build a new school.” (Michael LaFrancesca to Capital Budget Committee, April 5)

This statement needs clarification. Once again, based on a typical MSBA timeline, yes, it could take 5-7 years to build a new school for Medfield if we pursue the MSBA program since the town will be required to follow a mandated process. However, if the Town decides to go it alone, without MSBA mandates and Board of Director meeting timing constraints, it has been estimated that a school can be built within a 2.5 to 4-year timeframe assuming a site has been chosen, and efficient planning is in place.

The big question: How much does shaving off 2-3 years from a school project save us in real dollars based on cost escalation and existing building maintenance? We need these financial considerations analyzed and shared with the community.

Statement #3: "I'm told if we pursue renovation of the existing school, it will result in a compromised product." (Selectman Pete Peterson as stated at various Board of Selectmen meetings and in e-mails.)

It is unclear if the statement refers to a bare-bones base repair of the existing building (not a path MSBA supports or has been popular within the community) or an addition/renovation. Whether libraries, schools, town halls or other municipal buildings, across the country additions/ renovations have stood the test of time.

Conversely, as various town reports show, Medfield's relatively new Town Garage and Public Safety Building are encountering problems with either heating/air-conditioning or handicapped accessibility -- and this is before reaching the 10-year mark. In fact, Selectman Peterson has expressed frustration at more than one public meeting about the issues confronting Medfield's newest buildings. Compromised products are the result of poor original construction and/or lack of regular maintenance, not from simply being an addition/renovation.

Statement #4: “What became pretty apparent to me is that the people that wanted it (the school) at Dale wanted it there for the location. They could have cared less about the old building…” (Sharon Tatro, Capital Budget Committee, April 5 in context of decision, re: whether or not to spend money to replace Dale Street School portico given the uncertain future of the school.)

There is no statistical data to confirm that Dale supporters would support demolition of the school because the community was never asked for its views via a survey or through other data-gathering means. In fact, when the former chair of the School Building Committee was asked why the SBC did not consider the option of demolishing the existing school and building new on the site, his response was that the community was against it. (No data exists to confirm that point either.) The truth is that we have no data on residents' views on demolishing the existing school, or preserving all or some of it.

Statement #5: “If we get readmitted to MSBA we can pull out and choose not to take the money.” (Jessica Reilly, School Committee Chair, stated at Superintendent Parent Advisory meeting, March 9; repeated by other town officials at various meetings.)

Yes, Medfield absolutely has the ability to reject MSBA's invitation into its program. But is rejecting the authority the right thing to do? Imagine this: Dozens of towns and cities apply to MSBA hoping to get admitted into the competitive program, yet only a relatively small number are selected.

If Medfield is invited once again, it means another town/district is rejected. In response to a public records request, MSBA documents show that over roughly the past 10 years, not one town/district that was invited into the program responded to MSBA with essentially "no thanks."

A meeting with MSBA is a good next step

Of special note, Medfield should pursue the offer from State Rep. Denise Garlick to convene a meeting with MSBA to get a variety of questions answered and concerns addressed prior to April 29. Questions might include:

1) What would happen if Medfield was to reapply to MSBA, but then decline an invitation into the program, if offered? Would there be political penalties and negative impacts on other towns/districts trying to get accepted?

2) To what degree would MSBA allow Medfield to shorten the timeline and project phases given the work that has already been done? Project delays of any kind will not only chip away at the ultimate value of an MSBA grant, but prolong student time in a deteriorating school.

3) Would MSBA consider accepting plans for a mixed-use facility, and if so, what would be the parameters or requirements (e.g., segregation of school costs eligible for MSBA reimbursement from ineligible Parks & Recreation expenses)?

4) If we experience another decline in student enrollment after it has already been certified by MSBA, what options do we have during the Feasibility Study to re-evaluate it without penalty?

The views expressed here should not be taken as a position against reapplying to MSBA for the Dale Street School project. The objective of this piece is to provide a more balanced perspective so that the decision to re-apply to MSBA or self-fund the school project takes into consideration all pros and cons (including financial), and that those considerations are documented, analyzed and shared publicly.