The meeting, which commenced with an emphasis on community involvement, revolved around the financial implications of the proposed project’s budget. The existing Old Colony building, operational since 1975, is reportedly in need of replacement. Repair costs alone are estimated to exceed $130 million, without any financial aid from the MSBA. The proposed new structure aims to address these shortcomings and expand vocational programs, including new offerings like plumbing, HVAC, and dental assisting, to meet community demands. This project has been part of a broader series of 36 meetings since late August, designed to inform and engage the public.

The design for the new structure, a two-story building adjacent to the current facility, spans approximately 270,000 square feet and is intended to minimize educational disruption during construction. It includes specialized areas for academic and vocational programs such as health careers, automotive, and construction trades.

The urgency of the vote was underscored by the potential cessation of MSBA involvement should the proposal fail. The committee emphasized that a failed vote would require restarting the application process for state funding, a lengthy procedure that could delay addressing the school’s deficiencies. The board encouraged residents to use an online tax impact calculator to understand how the project would affect their personal finances.

A discussion compared the costs and implications of repairing the existing building versus constructing a new one. Repairing the structure could result in escalating costs due to code compliance issues, including accessibility and energy efficiency requirements. Once repair costs surpass 30% of the building’s assessed value, a series of compliance triggers would be activated, potentially leading to a “death by a thousand cuts” scenario as repairs reveal additional problems.

Further deliberation considered the projected increase in student numbers, estimated at 216, which would necessitate expanded custodial, transportation, and cafeteria services. The operational costs were expected to rise by 6%, but per-student expenses could vary based on each town’s minimum local contribution. This variability raised concerns about accurately projecting costs, given the enrollment changes and the lottery system for admissions.

Community members expressed varied opinions about the proposed project’s cost. Ken Sylvia, representing the community voice, advocated for constructing a new building, citing the outdated nature of the current infrastructure. In contrast, John Tevs raised concerns about the hefty $288 million price tag, comparing it to similar projects like Bristol Aggie and BP, which served more students for a lower cost. Tevs highlighted the projected $1,200 annual tax increase for his household and questioned the financial justification for such an investment.

The meeting also touched on the broader context of school construction in Massachusetts, with participants noting the escalating costs of building projects statewide. The MSBA’s involvement was discussed, with some expressing frustration over the state’s ability to override local decisions.

The conversation extended to the implications of voting against the proposal, with the understanding that a negative outcome could lead to the reallocation of MSBA funds to other projects. The potential for increased costs associated with maintaining the existing building was discussed, along with the necessity for modernized equipment in vocational education.

Board members acknowledged the community’s financial struggles and mentioned initiatives like the Heroes Act and senior work programs to provide relief. The discussion also highlighted the need for a stabilization fund to manage future capital expenses.