CAMDEN – Camden’s school and town leaders have agreed on one point: There is a little less than four months of time left for interested parties to submit proposals to keep the Mary E. Taylor School on Knowlton Street from being demolished. The Camden-Rockport School Board has laid out specifications by which it will consider ideas about MET’s future, and the Camden Select Board has voted to direct the town’s Community and Economic Development Advisory Committee to explore opportunities that would benefit the town with economic activity.

At an Aug. 9 joint workshop of the Camden Select Board and the Camden-Rockport School Board (School Administrative District 28) to talk about the issues, the following fundamentals emerged:

• The school district will review the proposals itself, without the help of a municipal committee.

• The school district’s superintendent, Maria Libby, will advise the School Board not to sell the real estate beneath MET.

• The School Board wants to see credible and financially committed proposals. The board especially wants to avoid the risk of an entity beginning a renovation project and then walking away for lack of financial resources, or commitment.

•  Creativity and vision of the proposal is likewise important.

• The board that oversees Camden Hills Regional High School (Five Town CSD) and administrators have also discussed building a new structure on high school property in Rockport, within the next decade, to house the high school’s alternative Zenith Program, which would eliminate the need to possibly site Zenith in the MET building.

At the Aug. 9 meeting, some Select Board members said the School Board is projecting a negative stance toward saving the historic brick building. The School Board, on the other hand, insists it is open to reviewing ideas, as long as they meet the specified criteria. (Read the criteria: SAD 28 Board of Directors issues public statement on MET building)

The discussion over MET has broadened since May, when citizens questioned the need for tearing down the 1925-built historic brick school building as part of the larger demolition of the Camden-Rockport Middle School complex. That is all in preparation for the construction of a new $26 million middle school, and rebuilt playing fields.

Camden and Rockport residents had approved the $26 million project at the polls in June; now, however, there is discrepancy in thought as to whether all citizens understood that they were voting to approve MET’s demolition.

Complicating the debate are statements that were made prior to the vote by Camden-Rockport School Board members to the effect that the building did not necessarily have to be demolished. Superintendent Maria Libby stated in a June 7 public letter urging approval of the new school expenditure, that the the School Board would reconsider the issue.

“In 2015, voters indicated that they were unwilling to spend the amount of money it would take to renovate MET for district needs. During the course of this project, the town of Camden expressed little no interest in the building. Without a viable use for the building on the table and not having the resources to renovate it, the school board voted to demolish it along with the rest of the facility if the middle school bond vote passed allowing a new building to move away from the tree line and enabling construction of a useful practice field.

“Some members of the community have since made it known that there is a strong interest in preserving the MET building. As such, the school board voted unanimously to reconsider the issue and allow for more community input on the MET issue. Discussion about the future of the MET building is on the agenda for the June 15 school board meeting. I assure you those discussions will continue in earnest and all viable options for the MET wing will be considered again.”

But the debate continues. At a two-hour July 13 meeting, citizens told the board that it was obligated to allow time for proposals to percolate. (Read: Give community a chance to brainstorm about MET before tear-down, citizens tell school board)

The Aug. 9 school/select board meeting was to move the discussion forward. While no resolutions were made, there was some talk about intentions.

For one, the Five Town CSD has entertained the idea of a new building for the Camden Hills Regional High School’s alternative education program — Zenith — on the Route 90, Rockport, high school property. School board members said that within a decade, the community would have spent down its debt obligations, therefore, making it more affordable to again build. Some Select Board members debated those savings figures.

And, the district, as represented by Libby, wants to keep the land on which MET sits, even if a proposal for the renovation and re-use of MET is approved. (See attached PDF for the original deed transfer when Camden sold the land to the school district for $1 in 1968)

At the 75-minute meeting Aug. 9 meeting (Click here to watch it), the two boards sat around a table in Camden and talked about the process.

The Camden Select Board was represented by Chairman John French and members Alison McKellar, Bob Falciani and Jenna Lookner (board member Marc Ratner was absent).

The School Board was represented by Chairman Matt Dailey, Becky Flanagan, Pete Orne, Marcia Dietrich and Lynda Chilton. Superintendent Libby was also present. Absent were Elizabeth Noble, Betsy Saltonstall and Sarah Bradley Prindiville.

Meeting dialog

Camden Select Board member Alison McKellar asked the school board that given, “there was sizable group in the community that was interested in not tearing it down,” could the town assume the proposal prescreening responsibilities from school district so that it could concentrate on the new school project details.

Superintendent Maria Libby responded that she wanted to back up the conversation and better understand the community feedback.

“The [school] board has been getting conflicting perspectives from people in town,” she said. “People haven’t reached out to me. We’re not getting a lot of input from the community. We’ve gotten a few emails from people who say they don’t want anything to happen.”

“There’s enough people questioning that they want to understand the process,” said Select Board Chairman John French.

McKellar said the criteria document “was great.”

But, she added: “The tone still worries me a little. For somebody interested from outside, they will think, ‘they [the school board] are against it.’”

She asked the school board, “What kind of things are you going to say no to?”

Libby returned to gauging community interest. Is the Select Board hearing from townspeople and town committees, she asked.

“Help us understand the nature of the interest,” she said.

Select Board member Bob Falciani responded: “I don’t want to sit here and talk about whether there’s 50 or 500 people pro or con. There is an asset here that has a 100 percent chance possibility of being financially sound in terms of property tax revenue for the town.”

Falciani said school buildings have been repurposed hundreds of times across the country. He agreed any project would have to be completed so as not to negatively affect children in school. 

“We need to understand whether there is interest in saving this building for the town’s interests,” he said. “If community is the riding force, then put it on the referendum for the November vote.”

French said that he recalled the school board had offered the building to the town in 2015 and “nobody stepped up.”

He added: “It does make sense to find out who’s out there who wants to do this. I have not heard.” 

Select Board member Jenna Lookner said she had received inquiries from out-of-state interests.

“We have this potential of property tax opportunities to bring revenue in,” she said.

School board member Pete Orne agreed that repurposing is common, but said: “I do hope it is not just to help the tax base. The School Board will consider its own proposal. The school has needs that it outlined a few years — administration, special ed, or pre-K — of needing more square feet per student.”

The school board has said it would like to use half of the MET building (12,000 square feet) for administrative offices, if the proper proposal emerged. 

“That is really great, if we could combine historical tax credits and a developer,” said McKellar. “If we could find a way to make it financially viable, would that make you happy? Or, have you moved past that?”

School Board Chairman Matt Dailey said if a proposal included room for school district offices, then it would rise in priority.

After a brief discussion about ownership of the land and building, it was suggested that SAD 28 would want to be the landlord, and own the property.

“We control the fate of the building,” said Dailey. 

He said that whoever made a proposal, “doesn’t have to be a developer but has to have credible concrete commitment.”

Then Dailey said: “The ownership could change hands as long as that’s part of how it makes the financing work and meets our long term goals.”

“The SAD owns the building now,” said Orne.

If there is a referendum to keep MET erected and demolished, “then we are changing it from a classroom use to nonclassroom use, in which case, the school system would have to offer it back to town of Camden.”

If the town rejected ownership, MET and the land beneath it could then be placed on the market.

When SAD 28 was considering renovation plans of MET in 2015, the proposed use for it then, said Libby, was for adult education.

Libby said she would not encourage the school board to divest of MET.

“We would be foolish to give up the property,” she said. “We own property right now.”

“The town should be involved in looking at proposals with SAD 28,” said Falciani.

“It is an unlikely scenario that we would let go that land,” said Libby. “I wouldn’t recommend that the school board gives up the real estate.”

Falciani said: “I guess you’re not looking for private proposals, then.”

“There are a lot of scenarios I have heard,” said Dailey.

Falciani said that given legal and financial liability, the most reasonable scenario would be for some other entity to buy the building.

“You keep saying that and I keep disagreeing with you,” said Libby. “I just said it twice. I think it is an unlikely scenario. The school board would have to think hard and recognize the asset that they are giving up.”

“So SAD 28 would own the building and land, and let someone put $3 million into the building and bring it to a use?” said Falciani.

Dailey said: “You need to be aware that there are multiple scenarios that are possible. There are lots of things out there — take ownership of building and give first refusal back to school. Let the school continue to control property — We would have to consider creativity with somebody of what they could do.”

Orne agreed with Libby about school ownership.

“Most proposals I’ve heard include SAD using some part of the building,” he said. “I can’t imagine the school not having ownership of the building.”

He added: “The creativity and vision of proposals are what’s important here.”

The two boards also talked about financial figures associated with renovating MET. McKellar asked if the district needed space for Zenith.

“What is the plan if MET isn’t used at all,” she asked. “What are you thinking the costs might be with some other solutions?”

Libby said one idea included returning to voters within the next decade and: “do something at high school. It would cost half as much to build as to renovate MET.”

She said the $3.4 million MET renovation costs have been estimated at $250 per square foot.

McKellar said those numbers could be reduced by using historic tax credits.

She said the cost of waiting until the next decade, plus the demolition cost, plus the cost of incorporating the granite front of MET (currently an architectural design of the new school) into the new middle school all added up, as well.

“You wouldn’t have to do the nostalgic thing,” said McKellar. “When you start adding the numbers, the cost to taxpayers build in next decade could end of being higher than finding a creative solution now.”

School board member Lynda Chilton said that if the district waited five years before building space for Zenith on the high school campus, then taxpayers would be finished paying the 1999 high school construction bonds the community’s overall debt would be reduced.

Falciani said the document outlining proposal criteria contained broad language and asked what “legal compliance” meant.

He said it requires much time to compile a proposal, and asked if a binding referendum would be place before voters.

“Eventually, the public would have to vote on a proposed future use of the building,” said Dailey.

Libby said that the district’s legal counsel would look at all the proposals.

Falciani repeated that the criteria document was not representative for normal development proposals.

“I don’t see why anyone would struggle,” said Dailey. 

He added that the school district wants to reduce risk, and the prospect of developers either over-committing or under-committing, so that the building is “not there rotting.”

“I understand the frustration,” said Falciani. “This [the criteria document] just brings more confusion to the table.”

Eventually, French posed that legal compliance may be associated with determining what an acceptable use around children is.

“Are there others?” asked McKellar.

“What the neighborhood and town will accept,” said Dailey. “It is a political question. Short of what is out of bounds, we would have to consider what is brought forward. It’s not just up to the school board.”

“This is a unique project,” said Libby. “It’s not just about being near to middle school. The soccer field is 20 feet away. It’s on the campus.”

McKellar then cited the close proximity of businesses to the Camden-Rockport Elementary School.

“It’s not where the kids play,” said Libby. “I don’t think there’s enough appreciation that it’s right next to the campus. It would be shortsighted that parents won’t have something to say about what might happen on the space.”

Dailey reiterated that MET would not be sold on the open market.

“We have to have a risk of zero,” he said.

“The hurdle is high because you are asking the community to undo a successful referendum vote,” said Orne.

“I have said this before,” McKellar responded. “I would ask for more sensitivity to the fact that many of us worked hard to convince people to vote for this. I had many conversations with people about MET. The MET issue came up, and many of us, because of respect we had, did not want to sabotage the middle school vote. I asked many questions ahead of time. We were all assured, including by the Middle Matters Facebook page.”

She said that people collaborated and used school resources to help others understand the vote. She said the bond authorized the school board to demolish MET but didn’t require it to do so.

“That’s what Maria said in her letter,” said McKellar. “It’s understandable that people are confused. A lot of us would have made a huge fuss earlier. A lot of us feel we are are being treated like we are sabotaging whole project.”

Be careful, school board with other public campaigns, McKellar advised.

“One of reasons I voted for it it was in part because of Maria’s letter,” said Lookner. 

She said had been reassured by people in positions of trust, including the superintendent, that tearing down MET was not an inevitability. 

Libby responded: “I didn’t envision anything. I said we would consider it. It’s frustrating to me that people continue to talk like the board hasn’t been true to the proposal. I think exactly what we promised is what is happening. There is a system to bring proposals forward.”

“The only issue for me is that we were not voting on the demolition and now we are being told that people voted to demolish that building,” said McKellar.