Amesbury Additional: Amesbury
Elementary School:
On August 1st Amesbury held
a public forum to hear comments critical of the project
for a new Amesbury Elementary School. The current plan, passed in
2019, proposed a new AES building next to the current Cashman
Elementary. Critics of the project wanted to rebuild or refurbish
the current AES school instead.
On August 12th the School
Committee responded to the public comments. On a live streaming
meeting the seven committee members considered their options. Peter
Hoyt, the only member who had been on the committee since the project
began five years ago, expressed his support for the project. He
reminded everyone that Amesbury needs a new school.
Next, Abigail Jurist Levy, elected to
the committee in the past two weeks, commented that she signed the
petition against the school project. She
expressed her concern that the planning had been deceptive or flawed.
She also admitted that maybe the whole project had been fine. Even
if mistakes had been made, she said, the city still needed to move
forward.
Mayor Gove asked the Chief Financial
Officer of Amesbury, Angel Ann Willis, to take questions from the
committee. Mel Webster asked a number of questions. How much had
the city spent on the project: $2.9 million. How much was
reimbursed: $1.5 million. Were the bonds, approved by the residents
in last year's vote, only for a school at the Cashman site: possibly,
but unsure. What happens to the bonds: they need to be repaid for
twenty years, starting in December. Are there repercussions for
backing out of contracts signed with companies to build the school: a
full answer is needed from the city attorney, but it seems companies
can seek full payment.
With no further questions, Mayor Gove
asked Donna DiNisco, President of DiNisco Design, to explain their
reasoning and how they arrived at the final decisions.
What follows are her explanations,
which she accompanied with a power point presentation.
Amesbury applied to the MSBA as early
as 2010, but wasn't accepted until 2016. In early 2018 the city
chose their architect, and spent the year conducting a feasibility
study to determine the location, design, and situation of the new
school. The final plan was submitted to the MSBA in January of 2019.
MSBA approved the project the following month. The vote in the fall
of 2019 by the city residents to pay for the project, led the MSBA to
ratify the entire project in August of 2019.
There were seven community forums,
beginning in May 2018, and evenly spaced until September 2019, along
with three community surveys.
DiNisco Design considered a number of
goals when designing the school: equity across schools, learning, and
flexibility. The city planned to move the 5th grade from
middle school to elementary school. They considered six different
grade configurations for the elementary school system, and narrowed
it down to two choices, two K - 5 schools, or one K - 2 school and
one 3 - 5 school. The city eventually decided on the latter option.
The elementary system, with the new school, was designed to hold an
estimated enrollment of 875 students.
In addition to the grade configuration DiNisco, the city, the seven community forums appraised multiple sites; AES, Woodsom Farm, Cashman, and private locations. The community vehemently rejected the Woodsom site so it was no longer considered.
The private sites were also quickly
discarded as insufficient. While AES initially seemed good, DiNisco
Design found the AES site suffered from expansive wetlands. The
city's Conservation Commission also found similar issues with
wetlands on the AES site. DiNisco had planned to build a separate
building next to the old AES site, move the students into it, and
then tearing down the old building. The wetlands meant, that at
best, the new building would have to occupy the same space as the old
building, making it impossible for students to stay on location
during construction. Additional designs, created with the new
wetlands in consideration, were found unsatisfactory as well. With
private sites no good, Woodsom rejected, and AES covered in wetlands,
Cashman remained the only viable site.
A review of the Cashman site found
slightly more wetlands than initially thought, but nowhere comparable
to the amount on the AES site. At the Cashman site a new road has to
pass through a small portion of Woodsom Farm. The planned three
story building includes community areas like a gym, and an isolated
part for academics.
The construction was supposed to begin
in June of 2020, ending in June of 2022. The current timeline
assumes a finished project in November or December of 2022. DiNisco
believes it might still be possible to finish on time, or the opening
could be delayed until September 2023.
If the project is halted it may be at
least five to twelve years before a new school is completed.
Students will still be in the old AES building, which needs to be
repaired. Costs to repair are about $34.5 million, to be paid
entirely by Amesbury.
DiNisco insisted there was not a
cheaper solution than the proposed project, and water flooding from
storm water would not impact nearby areas. No part of the planned
school is on Woodsom farm, only a 24 ft access road to cross a corner
of the Farm. The police department, fire department, and public work
department all approved the safety of the site.
DiNisco ended by expressing her belief
that the new site would provide a modern site for learning, and fixed
issues of poor conditions and overcrowding.
The Mayor said she wanted to be more
transparent and engaging than past Mayor. She understood the concern
of citizens dedicated to the old AES site. Most people on the
Committee were not involved in the majority of the process.
Peter Hoyt thanked DiNisco Design for
their work. He hoped the minority could accept the project.
The Mayor said the City Council
declined to comment on the project, saying it was the issue of the
School Committee.
Mel Webster accused the past Mayor of
failing to form a consensus around the project. But Mel thought that
the time to change the project had passed. It was approved by all
the boards. It was approved by vote by the City residents. All the
issues were seen and considered by multiple committees and citizens
and they ratified it. Mel thought that once the project is finished
some of the complaints will fade away as people came to appreciate their
brand new school.
Mel thought there had to be a motion to
address the petition: to either to approve or deny it.
Maryann Welch agreed with the need for
the committee to vote.
Mel moved to deny the petition, and to
continue the project as originally designed. Peter Hoyt seconded the
motion.
Elaine Bucher agreed with Mel that the
past Mayor was at fault for the divisiveness of the project. She
asked for people to come together as a community. She asked for
unity for the children of Amesbury.
Abigail Levy said she was still against
the building, but would endorse the final vote, whatever it was.
Mel reminded the committee that the
project still needed the approval of the Conservation Committee and
Planning Board.
The school committee voted, with Yes
affirming the project, and a No vote rejecting the school building.
The result was six to continue to build the new school next to
Cashman, and one against.
Abigail Levy – No
Maryann Welch - Yes
Mel Webster - Yes
Elaine Bucher – Yes
Kate Currie – Yes
Peter Hoyt – Yes
Mayor Gove – Yes
The entire discussion as described
required roughly an hour. After the vote the committee proceeded
with other issues, such as reopening during the coronavirus pandemic.
Relevant:
Comments
Post a Comment