Westborough finance advisers back Hastings roof replacement, split on Mill Pond restoration and other school projects

The Westborough Advisory Finance Committee on March 7 recommended that town meeting approve borrowing $4,142,800 to replace the roof at Hastings Elementary School, citing extensive water infiltration, interior damage and safety risks that the superintendent said could not wait another year. The committee voted 7–1 to recommend the Hastings borrowing.

The school department, represented by Superintendent Amber Box and school finance director Anita Patel, framed the larger capital package as five paced projects that tie to a five‑ to ten‑year facilities plan. Box told the committee the Hastings roof bid was opened that day under a DCAM emergency waiver and that the project includes guardrails for rooftop safety, replacement of wet insulation as needed, and other corrective work the department considers necessary to keep the building safe and operable.

Why it matters: School officials said Hastings has suffered repeated interior damage from leaks, lost instructional time and ongoing maintenance disruptions. They argued moving now protects students and staff and reduces cumulative repair costs; some committee members countered that the proposal represents an insurance choice with a high near‑term cost to taxpayers.

How the committee voted on related school articles: The committee recommended multiple other school items for town meeting. It voted to recommend a $60,000 transfer from free cash for high‑school exterior rim design (recommendation carried by recorded vote, committee tally announced as 7–1 with one member absent). It also recommended funding for high‑school design work for the C wing and the A/B wings after separate motions and debates about timing and long‑term cost exposure. The Mill Pond School restoration borrow article, which sought approximately $1.07 million for a seal‑coat restoration, failed in the committee’s first recorded vote and the committee later moved to recommend defeat.

On vendor specifications and procurement: Several committee members raised procurement concerns during debate, noting that Garland (and the company’s Liquitec coating) was identified in the project documents and asking whether the bid specifications effectively favored a single manufacturer. Committee members asked whether an independent owner’s project manager had been engaged; school officials said the engineering firm GGT is acting as the owner’s project manager for projects above $1 million and that state oversight for the DCAM waiver process had been part of the record.

Budget trade‑offs and town impact: Members repeatedly returned to the town’s broader fiscal context. Public comment and several committee speakers noted the projected tax impact in the draft budget and urged caution about adding borrowing or free cash transfers this year. School leaders responded that they had reallocated internal funds, identified roughly $1.0 million in previously authorized borrowed funds to apply against ADA work, and that design and bid results had lowered some cost expectations versus earlier rough estimates.

What’s next: School representatives said they would finalize bid confirmations and cross‑check budget language with town finance staff before the committee’s next opportunity to vote and before finalizing motions for town meeting. The committee scheduled follow‑up work and planned to vote on outstanding budget items in a subsequent session.