THE REVERE ADVOCATE – FRIDAY, APRIL 14, 2023 Page 11 VOKE | FROM Page 5 tion about the public committee meetings. The NEMT district has over 251,000 registered voters. The project’s Facebook page has only 900 followers - onethird of one percent of the number of registered voters. There is no doubt that the committee members are aware of the Open Meeting Law requirements. The committee’s Chief Executive David DiBarri and School Committee Chair Deborah Davis have attested repeatedly to the Massachusetts School Building Authority (which oversees the funds for the project) that the committee has followed the Open Meeting Law [1-2]. Furthermore, all members of public committees are required to be familiar with the Open Meeting Law requirements. That includes every town and city in the district’s representative on the committee. I’ll share one more example of this committee’s lack of transparency and accountability. In January 2021, the Massachusetts School Building Authority asked the NEMT Project team to "provide a narrative that summarizes the District’s internal and public outreach discussions” regarding the estimated operating costs of the future building, which will be approximately 160% larger than the existing facility. The NEMT project team responded “This budget information will be distributed individually to each member community’s Finance Committee and Town Manager/ Mayor during this Spring’s annual budget presentation in April.” [3] This past February I requested a copy of those operating costs through the Building Committee’s records access officer. The response I eventually received was “No documents regarding post construction operational costs have been produced or shared with city/town officials.” I had to appeal this request to the Secretary of State’s Supervisor of Records to get this response. To be clear, these records relate to the increased annual operating costs that NEMT district residents will have to pay when the new building opens in 2026, on top of the $177 million district residents will have to pay to construct the school where the hilltop forest currently stands. After financing, the cost to the district’s 12 towns and cities will be closer to $307 million [4]. The fact that estimated operating costs were not produced or shared suggests that town officials across the NEMT district are still unaware of the full financial impact of the planned hilltop school building. The upset over the plan to build the new building on the hill is not “just about the trees.” It’s not even a partisan issue. Residents from all across the political spectrum are alarmed by the plan. For some it’s because of the needless destruction of high quality natural resources. For some it’s about the unnecessary safety risks to students of putting the school on the hill, where they will have to cross in front of stopping traffic on a steep road in all weather conditions to access the building from the student parking lot. For some it’s about the accessibility of the campus to students with diverse abilities, students who may see their vocational, recreational, and social opportunities limited because of a school design that clearly did not take them into account. For many it’s about wasteful spending of tax dollars and tax increases that will be required to pay for the extensive costs of building on the hill. The selected building site will require millions of dollars worth of blasting to flatten the hilltop. These blasting costs are not reimbursable by the MSBA and will be passed to the 12 communities in the district. This is not a NIMBY issue. We are simply asking that the school construct its new building in a different spot in our backyard. The NEMT School Committee will be meeting this Thursday, April 13th at 7 pm in the school’s library and will be discussing the OML complaint. I believe that each town’s representative shares responsibility for ensuring that their town has access to the information they need about the project. Please write to your town or city’s representative to tell them you want them to make the common sense decision that’s in everyone’s best interest - building the new school on the already developed land. Contact the district representatives for the 12 towns and cities: https://northeastbuildingproject.com/building-committee/ (Most members’ contact is through T. Kasparek’s email. Please ask Tyese to forward your communication.) Chelsea, Michael Wall Malden, James Holland Melrose, Ward Hamilton N. Reading, Judy Dyment Reading, Robert McCarthy Revere, Anthony Gaggiano Saugus, Peter Rossetti Stoneham, Larry Means Wakefield, Brittany Carisella Winchester, Brant Snyder Winthrop, Robert O’Dwyer Woburn, Deborah Davis You can find the full Open Meeting Law complaint on the Facebook page for Save the Forest and Build the Voke. Sources: [1] NEMT Preferred Design Program, Local Actions and Approvals (3.1.7), pg 17. http://northeastbuildingproject.com/wp-content/uploads/ sites/199/2020/09/3.1.7-LocalActions-Approval-Cert.pdf [2] NEMT Preferred Schematic Report, Local Actions and Approvals (3.3.5), pg 27. http://northeastbuildingproject.com/wp-content/uploads/ sites/199/2021/01/3.3.5-LocalActions-Approvals.pdf [3] NEMT Schematic Design. Response to MSBA PSR Review (4.1.2-01b), pg 6. http:// northeastbuildingproject. com/wp-content/uploads/ sites/199/2021/12/4.1.2-01b_ Response-to-MSBA-PSR-Review.pdf [4] NEMT Schematic Design Binder, Estimated Local Share Tax Impact (4.1.2-15d), pg 2. http://northeastbuildingproject.com/wp-content/uploads/ sites/199/2021/12/4.1.2-15d_ Estimated-Local-Share-Tax-Impact.pdf Jennifer Fanning Wakefield Resident
12 Publizr Home