Former Town Manager Kate Fitzpatrick’s mantra — “Everything in town government takes at least 18 months” — was her go-to reminder that public projects almost always take longer than their proponents anticipate.
It was certainly a coincidence, but after selecting HMFH Architects in May to lead the design effort for the long-awaited Pollard School project, the town’s goal was to have the project ready for a Proposition 2½ override vote by November 2026, which was 18 months away at that time.
The project has advanced significantly in the five months since HMFH came on board, with the town in September submitting a 2,000-page preliminary design program with seven construction options to the Massachusetts School Building Authority.
Still, the town finds itself needing to hustle to meet pressing deadlines to stay on track for that November 2026 townwide override vote to fund the more than $300 million project.
There are many decisions to be made before the project can advance from the “feasibility study” phase of the MSBA process to the “schematic design” phase. The biggest and most challenging is selecting a site should the town opt to construct a new school rather than undertake an addition/renovation of the 1950s-era building.
Site selection is a choice of either the rear of the current Pollard property along Harris Avenue or a significant portion of the DeFazio Park complex off Dedham Avenue in the area around its current parking lot, pavilion and tot lot.
That choice will need to be made and brought to the MSBA by mid-December if the town hopes to stay on the schedule required to hold an override election next November. Yet it can’t be made without consensus among elected boards — primarily the School Committee, Select Board and Park and Recreation Commission — which do not currently agree on a plan.
A major hurdle is the feature of town governance that assigns jurisdictional control of various town-owned parcels to particular boards. A significant portion of the proposed site at DeFazio falls under the jurisdiction of Park and Rec, which has already voted twice not to surrender its control out of concerns about impacts on the town’s recreational offerings (see separate story).
Legally, it seems that Park and Rec could remove DeFazio from consideration as a possible site, as an assertion of jurisdictional control does not appear to be able to be overridden by Town Meeting or any other town entity.
There is support for keeping the DeFazio site on the table, at least for the time being, as the Pollard School Building Committee has not completed its analysis of the pros and cons of the competing sites during its feasibility study.
The work done to date by the SBC, which is managing the project but takes direction from the elected boards, indicates that both sites raise concerns. They are both tight sites with traffic circulation and parking challenges, stormwater issues and possible wetlands restrictions.
DeFazio’s flat terrain is considered a plus, while the downward slope of the Pollard site is a potential stormwater management problem. DeFazio’s potential footprint would allow it to be built as a three-story building, while Pollard’s would require four stories. The School Committee has said DeFazio more easily meets the needs of the preferred educational plan for a grade 6-8 school.
The SBC has also yet to receive results of traffic studies conducted around both the Pollard and DeFazio sites. This is key information considering the expected traffic impact of increasing the student population by more than 400 students, as well as the need for more parking for staff.
It’s also awaiting more details on wetlands and each site’s capacity to support a geothermal energy system.
Other issues to be decided
While the idea of doing the project as an addition/renovation has not been formally dropped from consideration, it has not been well received when discussed. It would add nearly two years to the construction schedule, require students and staff to spend four school years surrounded by construction activity and likely be the most expensive option.
The town also needs to decide what the grade configuration will be. The School Committee’s educational plan, which the MSBA will largely rely on, strongly recommends a grade 6-8 model that would no longer require the use of High Rock School as a sixth-grade center.
The committee is aware, however, that there is a cohort in town that favors maintaining the stand-alone sixth-grade model that has been in place at High Rock since the 2009-10 school year.
The SBC had been expected to discuss the merits of 6-8 vs. 7-8 at its Oct. 21 meeting, but it did not end up being on the agenda. Longtime SBC member George Kent noted its omission.
“I suggested that we vote on setting aside the seven-through-eight configuration,” Kent said late in the meeting. “Someone then came back to us and said, ‘Don’t do that.’ Who was it?”
SBC Chair Richard Creem explained the request came from “the town manager and a member of the Select Board. They want to ensure that all options are fully vetted so they can make their presentation, their case to the community.”
Members also inquired about the issue of the enhanced auditorium proposed for the site, a feature likely not eligible for reimbursement funds from the MSBA.
“Well, we’ve already pared it back from 1,000 seats to 750 seats,” said Haff. “That seems to be what’s settled. You just can’t fit enough parking spaces on the site to accommodate 1,000 seats.”
The accumulation of unresolved issues led several SBC members to question whether the town could complete its feasibility study by the mid-December deadline required for it to be voted on by the MSBA board at its February meeting.
If the town were to miss that deadline, the MSBA would not be able to vote until its April meeting. If so, the town would not be able to meet other deadlines required for the issue to be brought before Town Meeting in October and ultimately end up on the November 2026 election ballot.
“Do we have time to take in all this information?” asked SBC member Stuart Chandler. “And can we structure it in such a way to be informative and make proper decisions?”
Also on the SBC docket is a Nov. 24 all-board summit, which would be the second convening of the seven town boards that have roles as the process unfolds, such as the Planning Board on zoning issues and the Finance Committee on evaluating cost estimates that are expected to be provided three days before that meeting.
“It seems to me incredibly compressed on a $300 million project to get the cost estimates on Nov. 21 and then have to make a decision on Nov. 24,” said John Connelly, the Finance Committee’s representative to the SBC. “I just look at that and say, ‘Really?’”
“I’m not saying it’s purposely unfair, but it really is unfair.”
The SBC’s next meeting will be Nov. 3, and the next community meeting on the project is set for Nov. 6 at 6:30 p.m., a Zoom-only session intended for “sharing preliminary plans and gathering additional feedback.”
Save as PDF