Athol school project hits minor snag while Templeton's mired by mixed messages

Athol school project hits minor snag while Templeton's mired by mixed messages

Andres Caamano
Senior News Editor/NIE Director

No more than a few months ago, back in July, the prospect for a new Templeton elementary school seemed to gain significant traction, shortly after a parcel of land on Crow Hill — as part of the soon-to-be-closed Templeton Developmental Center — was secured for its construction.

Despite that positive step, the project has hit one roadblock after another during the tenure of the district’s current superintendent, Ruth Miller, and that of her two predecessors.

In late November, town officials discussed whether a non-binding ballot question should be posed to town voters, asking whether they supported the building of an elementary school.

While the Board of Selectmen had initially approved drafting such a question, it was later decided the matter would not be placed on the warrant, as it was a “bad idea” according to Board Chairman Jeffrey Bennett.

Such a view, though, seemed in contrast with that of fellow selectman Julie Farrell, who argued that “I’ve had a lot of people come up and tell me they don’t support the new school,” while explaining why such a question was warranted, even if by doing so, it might jeopardize the loss of a promised state reimbursement — the Massachusetts School Building Authority is set to cover 59 percent of the project, a concern brought to light by selectman Kenn Robinson.


Contrast that with Athol — similar to Templeton with its fair share of dilapidated and aging school buildings, particularly the Sanders Street and Riverbend schools, both of which are around 100 years old — where its residents have so far twice come out to support building a new school to replace its three elementary schools.

The most recent vote was at the ballot on Dec. 9, when the town’s voters showed up to strongly backed funding to build a new school by a 727-446 vote.

One of the leaders seeking the needed backing for the Athol Elementary School Building Project was Mitchell Grosky, a longtime principal and teacher in the district, who retired in 2011 but still fills in as principal occasionally.

In growing support from the community, Grosky talked of how “in the next 25 years, to simply maintain, repair and replace the systems (at the town’s three aging schools), it would cost the town approximately $30 million. Compare that with the roughly $16 million for the town share (to build a new school), and you are making a choice.”

The new school is planned to be built alongside the Athol-Royalston Middle School, projected costs come in at $43,931,363, with the state reimbursing 62.94 percent of that, or $27,651,620, leaving the town to fund $16,279,743, paid by way of a Proposition 2 1/2 debt exclusion.

As noted by Athol-Royalston Superintendent Anthony Polito, the town would seek to minimize the impact on the community’s taxpayers by paying for the project over time.

“It will be an increase in the tax load on the homeowner, but the town is looking at 25 years (to fund the project), plus or minus five years,” said the superintendent. “The cost to maintain the (current school) buildings would be very high, and the cost of the new building would be much lower than renovating the three buildings.”

Therefore keeping the old schools in place wouldn’t amount to a cost savings, to where Grosky added, “If you are concerned about the effect on the taxpayer, then the taxpayer will have to foot the bill over the next 25 years to repair, maintain and replace systems. In the end you are still left with repaired, old buildings that will need to be replaced eventually.”

The superintendent agreed with Grosky’s assessment, along with pointing to the strong likelihood that waiting will only mean a higher construction cost for a new school down the road, and that state assistance wouldn’t cover renovations.

“There is no question if you figure the lifetime of a note to pay back the town’s share of the project, that the remaining elementary schools, because of their age, would need extensive renovations over that same time period (and end up being more costly than building one new school), said Polito.

Aside from those expenditures, Grosky also noted how the district could benefit from additional school choice dollars by opening a new school.

“(The district has) been losing $850,000 (annually in school choice expenditures) to neighboring communities, and there is a strong feeling by both our local government and the school committee, as well as from the state Department of Education that we will be able to reduce (that lost funding) by as much as 50 percent, amounting to $400,000 to $425,000 (returned to the district each) year.”

To Grosky, even with the push to have a new elementary school built, improving education in the town requires more.

“The buildings are a first step, they are essential and crucial in the process (to improve education in Athol). They are not the only step, as it goes hand in hand with the other improvements that the administration and teaching staff are making together,” including making curriculum improvements or with professional development.

Leading up to last week’s vote, Grosky noted how the school building committee sought to provide as much information as possible to prevent misinformation from spreading.

“We put out a brochure that spelled out things clearly, about what the project costs are, the educational benefits, and what the project schedule is,” said Grosky. “That was helpful, and we also included a Q & A sheet, and we attempted to answer the questions we heard most frequently (from residents).”

In addition, Grosky spoke of how the school committee discussed the project during 17 of its meetings, and that seven community meetings were held to talk about the project.

“The architects and the superintendent were available to answer questions, to go over the schematic designs, and to deal with the financial questions such as about the tax rate, and to talk about the current needs of the buildings,” he explained.

In seeing the positive results of the vote last week, Grosky said, “We certainly felt delighted that our message had gotten across.  I feel proud of the people of Athol in their support of kids and education. The people we spoke to in the streets of Athol, and at various meetings seemed to understand the importance of the project, and there were a number of people on the building committee and the selectboard who made the case that this was an important step in the development in Athol.”

If only the vast majority of officials in Templeton could get similarly on the same page on their project.

The mixed messages being thrown about a few miles east of Athol hardly does justice in finding support for that project.

For all the good vibes that followed Athol’s Dec. 9 vote, though, an announcement three days later by the superintendent’s office somewhat rained on that parade.

While the funding for the project had initially been approved on the Town Meeting floor on Oct. 21, that warrant article incorrectly listed the town’s portion — instead of the total project cost, as is required — meaning that Athol’s residents will have to vote again on Town Meeting floor Jan. 13 to move the project forward.

For the superintendent, despite the recent show of support, he wasn’t going to take next month’s vote lightly.

“I would hope that the vote will still be positive, but each time you ask voters for something, it’s an independent event,” said Polito. “The vibe is good all around for the future of Athol, and everything is moving in the right direction.

The votes in October and (Dec. 9) reflect that, but I won’t take anyone’s vote for granted.”

(Andres Caamano is the Senior News Editor/NIE Director at The Gardner News. He can be reached at acaamano@thegardnernews.com.)