Records Show MSBA Offers Options for Site Change Before Town Vote

When it comes to feeding the rumor mill with false claims and scare tactics, it seems the same ones can be found in some of the other communities that have participated in a Massachusetts School Building Authority (MSBA) project.

The most common myths? These two top the list: "We cannot change our plan before the Town votes" and "A Failed Vote will force us to wait a decade to be readmitted to the MSBA program."

Based on documents obtained from MSBA from Public Records Requests, and research into other districts, including talking with residents directly involved with school projects and media accounts, both claims are false.

No. 1 fact: MSBA has a proven track record of accommodating districts in its program.

The best supporting evidence of this fact is both Hopkinton and Ipswich, whose MSBA history bears a close relationship to Medfield's current trajectory.

In 2011, despite a school building plan that received unanimous support of its school building committee, board of selectmen and finance committees, the Hopkinton elementary school project was not supported by the Town and experienced a Failed Vote at both its Special Town Meeting and in the Special Town Election. In 2017 in Ipswich, its elementary school project also experienced a Failed Vote despite overwhelming support by town officials.

In both cases, MSBA was asked to respond to either community members or officials' concerns about the ability to change sites prior to a Town vote. And in both cases, the window of opportunity was lost.

More key points about Hopkinton & Ipswich:

• In response to Hopkinton residents, MSBA Director of Capital Planning Maria Pichetti issued a letter stating that if the SBC were to change course late in the process (i.e., after the Project Scope & Budget Agreement was executed and approved by MSBA Board of Directors, but before a Town vote), MSBA “may require the district to begin a new feasibility study process.” Most notably, the letter did not state that MSBA would force Hopkinton to submit a new Statement of Interest (i.e., "sending it back to the end of the line.")
• MSBA's Mary Pichetti also issued a three-page letter to Ipswich town officials clearly stating that "the district has the option of reconsidering its preferred solution (i.e., site selection) within the terms and conditions of the executed Feasibility Study Agreement."
• Despite Hopkinton and Ipswich receiving letters from MSBA offering accommodations, both towns ignored the information -- as well as widespread community opposition -- and pushed forth school projects that resulted in Failed Votes.
• Had both towns changed course earlier, and especially while they were still under the more accommodating Feasibility Study Agreement with MSBA, the districts would have lost far less time and money.
• Ultimately, and with MSBA guidance, Hopkinton opted to submit a new Statement of Interest to MSBA and was accepted back into the program within about 15 months. From there it changed the site and eliminated the consolidation plan; Ipswich opted to abandon the MSBA program.
• In 2015, Hopkinton voters overwhelmingly approved the elementary school project, and the Grade K-1 school for 550 students opened in fall 2018. Pre-school programs were also added to the space. (Hopkinton's two-grade elementary schools have been rated among the top 20 in Massachusetts.)

Besides Hopkinton, other districts have benefited from MSBA flexibility in a variety of ways. Details about each project are irrelevant -- the overall theme that emerges is MSBA's willingness to collaborate with and accommodate school building projects in its pipeline.

Other examples include:

• Nauset – In January 2021, it had been reported by numerous media outlets that it had received two extended high school project extensions from MSBA (partially pandemic related). Nauset had hoped to receive a 3rd extension in January 2021, but seemed nervous about taking that step. MSBA’s Jack McCarthy was quoted as saying that the district “never asked" for a third extension and he guessed “they made an assumption” (presumably that it would have been denied).
• Lowell – District records show that in 2018, MSBA allowed it to resubmit a new Preferred Schematic Report with a change to a downtown site and an addition/renovation for its new high school. Less than six months later, a new PSR was approved by MSBA.
• Boston – From 2014 to 2020, MSBA records show it allowed the Josiah Quincy Upper School to conduct a second feasibility study, change its site, submit a new PSR, and ultimately stay in the program after an extended period of changes.
• Marblehead – In 2019, it received an unusual, short extension to obtain Town approval beyond the 120-day mandated deadline (one of the few MSBA has stated it cannot go beyond).
• Numerous other districts have received MSBA extensions after a failed vote to put forth projects with cost reductions (but not a site change), as reported by Martha Vineyard Times.

Also based on MSBA records and district feedback, if a change in school sites is desired, the time to ask for an official extension is not after a Failed Vote -- it's well before, and ideally when a district is still under the MSBA Feasibility Study Agreement which provides more project flexibility.

Important to note: The newly revised Medfield Feasibility Study Agreement does not expire until Nov. 30, 2021 or until the Project Scope & Budget Agreement is signed (currently slated for July/August) – whichever happens first. In fact, a preliminary Project Scope & Budget Conference is so important that MSBA statutes specifically state a list of officials who it may require to be in attendance. The statute also states that districts "shall invite members of the public to attend" although the meeting is not subject to Open Meeting Law.

Why is the time now -- before the new Agreement is made -- significant? It means Medfield has a window of opportunity to avoid repeating Hopkinton and Ipswich mistakes and request an extension from MSBA for a site change to significantly reduce the risk of a Failed Vote. Cost should not be a factor with an extended feasibility study since Medfield has received one or more reimbursements from MSBA representing approximately 39 percent of the original $1 million that was allocated for the study. That money can be reapplied to cover a percentage of the additional costs; savings reportedly achieved from the Public Safety Building project could be used to cover the remaining amount.

Based on MSBA records, Medfield has only requested one official extension of its Feasibility Study Agreement. Claims of multiple extensions requested from MSBA in the early part of 2020 were related to inconsequential scheduling or submission date changes -- not changing the terms of an existing agreement. Unlike the recent Medfield Feasibility Study Agreement change, none of the early requests for more time required senior-level MSBA approval. MSBA e-mails show they were handled as informal requests.

No. 2 fact: Average Re-Admittance to the MSBA Program After a Failed Vote is 2.5 Years, Not a Decade

It's common knowledge that MSBA doesn't easily admit new school building projects into its program. However, once a project has gone through MSBA scrutiny and has been finally admitted, the evidence indicates that MSBA works hard to keep those districts in the pipeline -- even after a Failed Vote. The Dale Street School project would be no different.

MSBA records as of 2019 show the average amount of time it took for a district to be readmitted into the program after a failed vote was about 2.5 years. In fact, for some districts similar to Medfield, readmittance was less than two years. Examples include Hopkinton (15 months), Shrewsbury (19 months) and Swampscott (23 months).

Once a project like Dale Street School is finally accepted, records show MSBA has a track record for collaboration, flexibility, and a willingness to work with a district to overcome challenges and bring a school project to completion.

This has especially been the case during the pandemic when MSBA stated on its website, "Some of the major concerns that we have heard are regarding MSBA deadlines, project schedules, and potential budget increases" and that "The MSBA is working with districts to provide flexibility with extensions and MSBA deliverables."

In an Associated Press article about the Lowell project site change to a downtown location, MSBA Executive Director Jack McCarthy was quoted as saying,"(School) siting is the most emotional decision made in a district.”