School project moving forward

Aug. 4—With a judge on its side, the city can move forward in combining two local elementary schools in a new building at 11 Webster Street.

An Essex Superior Court judge has sided with the city of Gloucester and two state agencies that asked him to throw out a lawsuit filed by 14 Gloucester residents trying to stop construction of a consolidated elementary school on Mattos Field.

In a 16-page ruling issued Monday, Judge Thomas Drechsler granted summary judgment dismissing the lawsuit against the city.

"I am very pleased that the judge ruled in the city's favor," School Superintendent Ben Lummis said Tuesday. "We are expecting to keep moving forward like Gloucester is expecting."

With the legal battle out of the way, the $66.7 million construction project is set to break ground this October with an estimated completion date of September 2023.

Lummis noted that the city is moving forward with a project that is on budget and on schedule.

The planned school will combine the existing East Gloucester and Veterans elementary schools on one campus on the current site of Veterans on Webster Street and a portion of Mattos Field. Then, when the new school is opened, the East Gloucester school will be demolished and its campus will become open space. The city has also committed to improving soccer fields on Beckford Street to make up for the loss of open space.

A construction fence already has been erected around Mattos Field and work is being done in Veterans Memorial in preparation for demolition.

Lummis said that the staff of Veterans Memorial are preparing to move into St. Ann School on Prospect Street downtown, which will house the Veterans Memorial community once the school year begins this fall.

The combined school building project was approved by 52.32% of registered Gloucester voters during the November elections, while 7,854, or 47.68%, of voters opposed the temporary raise to their property taxes to combine the two schools at Webster Street.

The Massachusetts School Building Authority has committed to reimburse Gloucester a maximum of $26.9 million, which leaves $39.8 million to be paid by the city and its residents.

The legal battle

The plaintiffs, led by longtime environmental activist Patti Amaral, contended in the suit that the city failed to follow application and review requirements for building on open space under Article 97 of the state constitution.

Amaral did not return the Times' request for comment on Monday or Tuesday.

The city has said it does not believe that Article 97 applies but in "an abundance of caution," filed for special legislation — and then an amendment to clarify the timeline — to allow for the open space being taken up on Mattos Field to be replaced by not rebuilding on the East Gloucester Elementary School site at 8 Davis St. Ext.

Drechsler said the city "remedied" any issues with regard to the swap.

It also filed the appropriate environmental notification with the state Executive Office of Environmental Affairs after the suit was filed. The city argued, and the judge found, that filing rendered the accusation of failing to follow procedures moot. Drechsler noted that the plaintiffs' attorneys overstated what needed to be done and mischaracterized the law.

Drechsler said in the decision that the plaintiffs had "no reasonable expectation of proving" that part of their complaint given that the notice has been filed.

Drechsler also dismissed the claims against the Executive Office of Environmental Affairs and the Massachusetts School Building Authority, finding there is no private right of action against either agency in this circumstance. Neither agency is a "proponent" of the plan, the judge said; they are only acting in an administrative capacity.

Residents of the area near Veterans have raised objections on a number of fronts, including equity issues based on the disparity of typical family incomes between East Gloucester and Veterans. But those were not raised in the lawsuit.

The judge's decision came following an unusually contentious 90-minute hearing in Essex County Superior Court in Newburyport, where the attorneys for the plaintiffs, Thomas Kenefick III and John Stewart, found themselves scrambling to find the correct statutes and explain what the judge saw as disparities between what the laws stated and what they were arguing.

By the end of that hearing, the plaintiffs had already agreed they had no basis for their third claim in the lawsuit, that the entire approval process by the city should be nullified because Mayor Sefatia Romeo Theken was not acting as chair of the School Committee — something that is not required under the city's charter.

The judge did allow a motion by the plaintiffs to file an "emergency" motion that raised new arguments in the case — but then said he would not take into account much of the lengthy affidavit filed by Amaral in support of those arguments because they were based on her personal opinion.

Staff writer Taylor Ann Bradford may be contacted at 978-675-2705, tbradford@gloucestertimes.com or on Twitter at TayBradford97.

Courts reporter Julie Manganis can be reached at 978-338-2521, jmanganis@gloucestertimes.com or on Twitter at @SNJulieManganis.