“You had your chance at the ballot box,” former board member Robert Pepe told the project supporters, and turned to the board and urged them to “stay the course.”Īnother former board member, George Bonekemper, argued that renovating the current middle school for the sixth time would be a waste of money, but noted that the newest wing is well-suited for grades four and five. Those opposed to the project pointed out that the voters had clearly chosen the slate of anti-project candidates – by a margin of 18 percent.Ĭalling that election victory “a landslide,” Steve Straka of Marlborough congratulated the new board members and urged those who had voted to terminate the project to “stay the course.” Predicting that it would ultimately cost $20 million to close down the project, leaving the district with nothing to show for the money spent, LaBrea Huff of Red Hill asked “can you please explain to me how this is fiscally responsible?”ĭoug Butler of East Greenville called the halted project “a $25 million hole in the ground. 4 vote were present Tuesday night and reiterated their arguments and their positions. Many of those who spoke against, and for, the Dec.
![project haven in upper perk project haven in upper perk](https://bloximages.chicago2.vip.townnews.com/pottsmerc.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/b/93/b932b75b-3dd5-5e08-8bcd-7cb86e7a0340/5b7c7aee4194d.image.jpg)
With each motion came a stream of speakers making public comment. That failed by a 5-4 vote which brought Elliott’s motion back to the table. The first obstacle to that vote was a motion to amend Elliott’s motion to have the opposite result – send termination letters to all the project contractors – made by board member Hofkin. 4 vote to terminate the project put the primary issue in the district back on the table. One of those steps was taken when Drake appointed board Vice President Mike Elliott, a supporter of the middle school project, and board members Melanie Cunningham and Raeann Hofkin, both project opponents – earning boos from the very vocal audience.īut a motion by Elliott, seconded by Joan Smith, to rescind the Dec. 4 vote to secure and temporarily stabilize the site to satisfy government environmental officials while the school board decided what steps to take next. 4 vote and looking at what comes next.Ĭonsultants outlined the steps necessary after the Dec.
![project haven in upper perk project haven in upper perk](https://www.breslinarchitects.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/ADD_IMG_18-955x635.jpg)
The votes came toward the end of a marathon meeting lasting more than three hours and called with just a few items on the agenda aimed at following up on the Dec.