Amherst officials should act quickly to submit a compromise school building plan to the state before it withdraws an offer to pay more than half the cost of construction. That is an option worth exploring before starting over with a years-long planning process and uncertain state funding in the future.
After voters Nov. 8 narrowly approved a Proposition 2 ½ debt-exclusion override for a new elementary school building, Town Meeting representatives on Monday put the brakes on the project by refusing to authorize $33 million in borrowing. While we are disappointed that Town Meeting did not heed the support expressed by a majority of voters, we accept the criticism that reconfiguring the elementary grades went beyond the original goal of replacing two aging schools.
Leaders of the group opposing the rejected plan, Save Amherst’s Small Schools, have said many of its supporters would have accepted a proposal to put two co-located schools containing Grades K to 6 in a new building on Strong Street. That is the compromise that should now be pursued, because it is the fastest way to replace the outdated Fort River and Wildwood elementary schools.
It would drop the controversial proposal to create an early learning center at Crocker Farm Elementary School for children in pre-kindergarten through Grade 1, separating those students from Grades 2 to 6 in the new building. That was unpopular with many parents opposing the project.
It appears there is some wiggle room for the town to adjust the details of its plan with the Massachusetts School Building Authority, which in September approved a $34.4 million grant for the new building on the Wildwood site. The total cost of the project is estimated at $67.2 million.
While MSBA policy suggests that a failed vote likely means restarting the process of securing state funding, it does not completely shut the door on the possibility of extending the already approved grant while changes are made in the project.
Acting Superintendent Michael Morris should explore that possibility, pointing out that it would achieve the primary goal of moving some 670 students into a modern building. And it is an option that was approved by the MSBA in 2015 as one of several the town could consider for state funding.
Opponents as well as proponents of the plan that failed to win Town Meeting approval acknowledge the poor conditions at Fort River and Wildwood, which were built in the 1970s using the open-classroom model that is now regarded as educationally unsound. Students and teachers in both buildings have long coped with the distractions caused by multiple classrooms sharing the same space, separated by partial walls that do not fully contain noise.
In addition, natural light is limited in many of the classrooms and other spaces at both schools, and the buildings are not energy efficient, have air quality problems and do not meet the Americans with Disabilities Act accessibility regulations.
If the town does not find a way to proceed immediately with building a new school, it faces expensive repair costs including replacing the roof at Fort River, which is estimated to cost $1.25 million, and buying a new $400,000 boiler at Wildwood.
The compromise plan would still produce a new energy-efficient building, estimated to save the School Department about $500,000 annually in operating costs once it is completed in 2020. The two co-located schools would still each have their own administrators, teachers, classrooms and playgrounds, with some specialized spaces shared to avoid expensive duplication.
And it would mean the loss of just one neighborhood elementary school, rather than two under the rejected plan. Kindergarten through Grade 6 students who formerly attended Fort River would move to the Wildwood site in a central location near the middle and high schools. Crocker Farm would remain a K-6 school in South Amherst.
We hope the MSBA exercises some leniency in extending its funding agreement with Amherst. Because the override question approved by voters specified two co-located schools for Grades 2 to 6, a special election would have to be scheduled for another override vote on the new plan. If successful, Town Meeting would have a second chance to authorize borrowing.
That process would extend by a few months getting a new school building approved in Amherst.
The alternative, starting anew, would add years more of undesirable conditions for students and teachers at Fort River and Wildwood, and no guarantee that the state would still help pay the bill. Amherst should do all it can now to avoid that costly prospect.
