Advisory declines to back $500,000 feasibility package for Trotter/Finn reconfiguration

Advisory Committee members reviewed Articles 2 and 3 — a two‑phase feasibility package totaling up to $500,000 to study reconfiguration options for Trotter, Finn and Neary — and declined to recommend support.

Article 2 was described as a two‑phase study (phase 1: site/building capacity and wetlands; phase 2: schematic design and engineering). Advisory debated inserting contract language and summary estimates so that phase‑2 work would proceed only if phase‑1 demonstrates feasibility. A draft breakdown shown during the meeting estimated about $160,000 for site study, $240,000 for building work and $100,000 for project management.

When advisory voted, the motion to support Article 2 (with wording clarifications) failed on roll call (six no, one yes). Advisory also voted not to support Article 3 (related Finn/Trotter configuration option) by a 4–3 margin. Several members expressed concern about spending $500,000 on studies that could confirm infeasibility and about the potential for multiple, concurrent construction projects if both options advanced.

Advisory asked staff to include explicit phase‑1 cost estimates in the warrant summary so town voters can see that phase‑1 would likely be substantially less than the full $500,000 if the work stops after initial feasibility analysis. The advisory letter will explain educational tradeoffs raised during discussion and the fiscal rationale for the committee’s recommendations.

Next steps: staff to add estimated phase costs to the warrant summary; advisory will publish a rationale for opposing the two articles ahead of the March 2 special town meeting.