Frequently Asked Questions

In 2018, the Town Facilities Master Plan was completed, promoting the consolidation of the elementary schools. For more information on the 2018 Town Facilities Master Plan, please click here.

In 2020, the Town submitted Statements of Interest (SOIs) to the Massachusetts School Building Authority (MSBA) for all six elementary schools. The MSBA partners with cities and towns across the Commonwealth to help fund school construction and renovation projects. For more information on the MSBA, please click here.

The Statements of Interest were approved by the School Department, School Committee, and Select Board. The Wildwood School was accepted into the MSBA program on the basis that the Town and MSBA would study three different enrollment options: PK-K (130 students plus PK), PK-3 (550 students plus PK), and PK-5 (755 students plus PK) across three schools, which included Wildwood, Woburn Street, and North Intermediate School. As a condition of the Wildwood SOI being accepted into the MSBA program, the final selected solution must include the Wildwood student population.

Since 2021, the Town and MSBA have undertaken a comprehensive partnership progressing from the eligibility phase through a robust feasibility study. This effort has included assessments of existing conditions, analysis of enrollment consolidation, strategies for delivering 21st-century education, and cost estimates for proposed options involving the Wildwood, Woburn Street, and North Intermediate School sites.

The School Building Committee initially studied 18 options—ranging from renovations and additions to new construction—across the Wildwood, Woburn Street, North Intermediate, and Town Hall sites. Each option was evaluated using a rating matrix that considered educational delivery, site development constraints, community input, sustainability, construction logistics, enrollment consolidation, project duration, and cost.

In April 2024, the list of options was narrowed to 9 following a committee vote. From there, the most cost-effective and educationally appropriate solution was identified: a new PreK–5 facility (755 students plus Pre-K) to be constructed on the existing North Intermediate School site. For more information on the 9 options, please click here.

For more information on the most recent submittal to the MSBA, the Schematic Design Submission, please click here.

The selected solution, the “Wildwood Project,” is proposed to be a three-story, 165,000 square feet facility that is designed to serve a K-5 enrollment of 755 students, plus PK. The proposed facility will serve all Wilmington students in PK-5 on the North side of the Town. Construction is scheduled to commence in the summer of 2026, with the new school facility to be completed for occupancy by September 2028. The new school facility will be constructed behind the existing school and the existing school will remain open during construction. At the conclusion of construction of the new facility, the North Intermediate School will be demolished, and the remaining sitework and amenities will be implemented.

The Total Project Budget for the Wildwood Project is $173,265,626. The MSBA has committed a maximum grant of $62,134,793 to the Town. Additionally, the Town has proposed allocating $15,000,000 from the Town Stabilization Fund to offset the cost to the taxpayers, resulting in the Town’s share for the Project at $96,130,833.

The estimated tax impact for the average home value ($702,889) is approximately $422/ year or $35/ month. To access a tax calculator to determine your approximate tax assessment, please click here.

A Special Town Meeting will be held on September 13, 2025. If the Wildwood Project article passes by a 2/3 majority, a Town-Wide Ballot Debt Exclusion will occur on September 16, 2025. For more information on the Special Town Meeting, please click here.

The Wilmington Conservation Commission issued an Order of Conditions under the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act, related to jurisdictional governance over a limited portion of the site within the 100’ buffer zone to bordering vegetated wetlands. The Order of Conditions is the local wetlands permit that authorizes the project to proceed, subject to required conditions intended to protect wetland resource areas and the interests of the Wetlands Protection Act.

Yes. A group of residents filed a Request for a Superseding Order of Conditions with MassDEP. This is an appeal of the Conservation Commission’s Order of Conditions.

Under the Wetlands Protection Act, certain parties may request that MassDEP review the local Order of Conditions and issue a Superseding Order of Conditions. This is part of the standard regulatory process. MassDEP has recently accepted the appeal. However, acceptance of the appeal means it was accepted for review. It does not mean MassDEP has agreed with the assertions in the neighbors' appeal, nor does it mean MassDEP has determined that the Conservation Commission’s Order of Conditions was incorrect. MassDEP will conduct its own review and issue a Superseding Order of Conditions after completing its internal review.

Yes. Construction activities may proceed in areas of the site that are outside the jurisdiction of the Wetlands Protection Act and Wetlands Regulations. However, no work may begin within the 100-foot buffer zone to Bordering Vegetated Wetland resource areas until MassDEP issues a Superseding Order of Conditions and the applicable appeal periods have elapsed.

A Licensed Site Professional is commonly referred to as an LSP in the design and construction industry. In Massachusetts, an LSP is an environmental professional licensed by the Commonwealth to evaluate soil and groundwater conditions in accordance with state environmental regulations.

For this project, ADS Environmental Engineering, LLC serves as the project’s LSP. In that role, ADS Environmental Engineering evaluates environmental site conditions, determines what testing or additional review may be needed, interprets laboratory and field data, and provides professional opinion and direction on how soil and groundwater should be managed in compliance with applicable Massachusetts environmental requirements. In simple terms, an LSP is similar to a professional engineer, but focused on environmental site conditions.

Four of nine soil samples at the site showed arsenic concentrations above the Massachusetts Contingency Plan (“MCP”) reporting threshold of 20 mg/kg. However, the MCP includes a specific exemption, 310 CMR 40.0317(22), that exempts naturally occurring arsenic from notification when it is consistently present, attributable to natural geology, and has not been mobilized by human activity. Wilmington is on MassDEP’s own list of “arsenic belt” communities where bedrock is naturally rich in arsenic. The arsenic at this site is consistent across all depth intervals and across the full 12-plus-acre property; no other contaminants were detected, and there is no evidence of anthropogenic contribution. It is the professional opinion of ADS Environmental Engineering that the exemption applies, and notification was not required.

Separately, the neighborhood group retained legal counsel and an independent environmental professional, who submitted concerns regarding arsenic and other site-related assertions to MassDEP. In response, the Town provided MassDEP with documentation prepared by the Project’s environmental professionals, including ADS Environmental Engineering, the Project’s Licensed Site Professional (LSP).

After reviewing the Town’s materials and the neighborhood group’s assertions, MassDEP communicated to Town Counsel that the arsenic levels found at the site are consistent with naturally occurring conditions and that no further MassDEP action was required, other than continuing to manage site soils through the standard Licensed Site Professional (LSP) process, including appropriate testing, reuse, and disposal procedures in accordance with all local,
state, and federal regulations.

There is no single lab test for this. A Licensed Site Professional (LSP) evaluates multiple lines of evidence. In this case: Wilmington is within the USGS-documented arsenic belt; arsenic concentrations are consistent across shallow and deep soils (averages of 19.83 and 21.1 mg/kg respectively); no co-contaminants were detected in comprehensive testing for VOCs, semi-VOCs, PCBs, TPH, pesticides, herbicides, and metals were consistent with natural background conditions; 34 test borings and 17 test pits showed no anthropogenic debris; and ADS Environmental Engineering identified 13 other release tracking numbers in Wilmington with arsenic above 20 mg/kg, several of which MassDEP closed specifically because the arsenic was confirmed to be naturally occurring at background concentrations as high as 75 mg/kg.

The property has been in continuous use as a school since at least the 1940s, with a 1938 aerial photograph showing the site as open grassland and hayfields prior to its development for educational purposes. Today, the site includes an existing school building, parking areas, pick-up and drop-off loops, sidewalks, and athletic courts, all of which represent existing impervious surfaces. The proposed Wilmington Elementary School is new construction on land currently used as school athletic fields and represents an expansion of an existing educational use on the school property, not the redevelopment of a former industrial site.

Although the project is classified as partial redevelopment due to the presence of existing impervious surfaces, the stormwater management system has been designed to fully comply with the MassDEP Stormwater Policy Standards for New Development, accounting for both existing and proposed impervious areas. This approach is consistent with the requirements of MassDEP and the Town of Wilmington’s local Comprehensive Stormwater Management Regulations and By-Laws for projects within a Zone II Wellhead Protection District.

The site has been investigated through 34 test borings and 17 test pit excavations across the full 12-plus-acre property. Soil samples were collected from depths ranging from the surface to 16 feet, capturing conditions both above and below the groundwater table. The testing included VOCs, semi-VOCs, PCBs, TPH, pesticides, herbicides, and metals consistent with natural background conditions. The results did not identify any related substances or chemical indicators suggesting an industrial or man-made source. Fill material was predominantly reworked native soil, typically less than 5 feet thick, with no man-made materials observed other than a few isolated brick fragments near the surface.

All earthwork operations will be conducted in accordance with a site-specific Soil and Groundwater Management Plan and a Health and Safety Plan. Key measures include: industry-standard dust control during earthwork operations; dust monitoring at designated site locations; proper characterization and shipping of export soils under material-shipping records; a groundwater management plan for dewatering with on-site infiltration; and placement of a clean soil buffer over any exposed bearing soils after construction is complete. Standard erosion and sedimentation controls will also be implemented in accordance with the stormwater management pollution prevention plan.

The Soil Management Plan will include procedures and protocols for encountering unanticipated conditions. If a pocket of questionable soil is encountered during excavation, the Project’s Licensed Site Professional (LSP) will advise on next steps, which may include isolating the area, additional sampling, and determining appropriate handling and disposal. The presence of an isolated area of questionable soil would not result in a wholesale stoppage of the project. Construction would continue in unaffected areas while the questionable soil is evaluated. This is standard practice on construction projects across the Commonwealth.

Four groundwater observation wells were installed at the site as part of an early geotechnical investigation. Groundwater was encountered at approximately 5 to 15 feet below grade. These wells are used to monitor fluctuating groundwater table levels. It is important to note that there is no planned use of groundwater from this site for the property's drinking water supply, and no plans to install a new irrigation well for the new school.

No. Based on the environmental investigations completed to date, there is no evidence that the school property is a hazardous waste site or that tannery waste was disposed of at the project site. No foul or unusual odors were noted by the geotechnical or geoenvironmental field representatives during the site investigation. However, the project team has previously acknowledged public reports of a temporary “rotten egg”- type odor during earlier test-pit work. As explained at a School Building Committee meeting, test pits performed near wetlands or old organic/swampy soils may disturb damp or saturated soils. When soil remains wet for extended periods, natural bacteria can break down organic matter under low-oxygen conditions, producing hydrogen sulfide, which has a rotten-egg odor. When that soil is disturbed, the trapped gas can be temporarily released, and the odor typically fades once the soil dries out or is no longer disturbed.

Regarding the tannery claim, ADS Environmental Engineering reviewed the 1978 Town Crier article cited by abutters. That article indicates that tannery byproducts were spread on land between the Harriman house at 430 Middlesex Avenue and the railroad, which is not the school property and is now the area of homes on Barbara and Dorothy Avenues. The article separately notes that the school site was used for potato farming. No animal hides, industrial byproducts, or chemical indicators of tannery waste were observed in the borings or test pits performed on the property. The environmental review did not identify visual or chemical evidence of industrial byproducts or tannery waste at the subject property.

Naturally occurring arsenic at the concentrations documented at this site, averaging approximately 20 mg/kg, is bound to mineral particles in soil and does not volatilize. Regarding wind-blown dust, the Project’s Soil Management Plan specifically requires dust suppression, stockpile management, and continuous dust monitoring during earthwork operations. These are standard, proven measures used on school construction projects across Massachusetts.

Arsenic in the area is naturally occurring in the soils and bedrock. The project does not introduce arsenic. In addition, the project has been designed to meet Zone II Wellhead protection and MassDEP Stormwater Standards, which include water-quality treatment and groundwater-protection measures.

No. The off-site traffic improvements are not part of the Wilmington Elementary School Project scope or budget. The school project includes the new school building and related on-site improvements, including site access, internal circulation, bus circulation, parent drop-off, staff parking, sidewalks, and other site safety improvements directly associated with the school property.

The off-site traffic improvements being studied by the Town are separate roadway and intersection improvement concepts outside the school project site. State Chapter 90 funds are being used to support the design phase of that separate off-site traffic improvement work.

Construction of the off-site traffic improvements would depend on separate Town funding decisions and future funding availability. Those decisions would occur through the Town’s normal municipal process, not through the School Building Committee’s school project budget, the school project contingency funds, or the MSBA-funded school project scope.

The connection stems from the initial traffic study completed as part of the early school project planning process. That study evaluated traffic conditions associated with the proposed school, particularly during peak arrival and dismissal times, and identified potential traffic mitigation and off-site intersection improvement concepts on the north side of the Town. Because traffic is an important community concern, these concepts were discussed during School Building Committee meetings to provide context and transparency. However, the fact that they were discussed in relation to the traffic study does not mean they are part of the school project scope or budget.

After the initial traffic study, the Town advanced the off-site traffic improvement concepts as a separate Town effort. The Town retained Vanasse & Associates, Inc. as the traffic engineer to advance the design concepts, using the earlier traffic study as a foundation. This work is being coordinated as a Town/DPW traffic improvement effort, not as part of the Wilmington Elementary School Project. These off-site improvements are outside the school project budget, are not funded through the school project contingency, and are outside the direct scope of the School Building Committee.

The Town has been evaluating off-site traffic improvement concepts at the following general locations:

• Route 62 / Middlesex Avenue / High Street.
• Middlesex Avenue / Salem Street.
• Salem Street / Cunningham Street.

No. These traffic improvements were not created solely because of the school project. They had already been identified as part of the Town’s broader 5- to 10-year capital planning efforts. However, because the school project involved a detailed traffic study and related traffic considerations, the timing of the Town’s review of these off-site improvements has been accelerated.

Given the scope of the project currently being proposed, the likely source of funding for the project ultimately selected would be a debt exclusion. The total project cost for the new school is $173 million, and the MSBA has approved a State contribution of $62 million*, leaving the local share at $111 million. If the Town adds an additional $15 million from free cash or the stabilization fund, as it did with the new Senior Center and new Town Hall, the final project cost to taxpayers will be approximately $96 million.**

* At a minimum, the State has committed to a grant of $62 million. Based on contingencies that may be expended, additional grant funding may come from the MSBA. 

** value subject to change based on final expenditures and State grant funding.

The total project budget covers all anticipated costs for the new school. This includes professional services for design and project management, construction of the facility and related site work, abatement and demolition of the existing North Intermediate School, and the purchase of furniture, equipment, and technology. It also factors in miscellaneous expenses—such as legal, administrative, utility, and moving costs—along with contingencies to address any unforeseen circumstances that may arise during the project. A summary of the total project budget can be found here.

The MSBA and Wilmington have recently entered into a Project Scope and Budget Agreement (“PSBA”). Prior to this agreement, the MSBA conducted an assessment of the Project scope and budget and determined specific ineligibles and/or exclusions to the Project. This assessment determined an estimated maximum reimbursement grant that the MSBA has guaranteed to the Town based on local approvals this September at Town Meeting and the subsequent ballot election. Any costs beyond this MSBA grant are the Town’s responsibility.

The Town of Wilmington’s base reimbursement rate is 49.11%. However, because the Project has capitalized on available MSBA incentive points related to sustainability initiatives, the reimbursement rate has been increased to 54.78%. However, please note that the MSBA’s reimbursement rate is only applied to eligible costs, and not all costs are eligible. In addition, some eligible costs have specific funding caps/ limits.  

A simplified, visual way to explain this—using a grocery list as an example—is shown below. While we recognize that a $173 million school project is hardly comparable to a $130 grocery list, the purpose of this chart is simply to illustrate how the MSBA’s reimbursement process works.

As project expenses are incurred, the Town submits them to the MSBA for review. The MSBA audits each expense and applies reimbursement only to those deemed eligible. Reimbursements are issued monthly, up to the maximum grant amount established in the PSBA. Any costs beyond the MSBA grant are the Town’s responsibility.

A summary of the total project budget, including ineligible costs and how eligibility has been assessed and applied, can be found here.

To see how the Wildwood Elementary School Project compares with other recent MSBA elementary school projects in regard to reimbursement rate for eligible costs compared to the net reimbursement rate, please click here.

Yes. From June 21, 2023, to July 22, 2025 — a span of 25 months — the School Building Committee held seven publicly posted Community Forums and 35 publicly posted School Building Committee meetings. Over this period, the Committee averaged an open public meeting approximately every 2.6 weeks.

Based on public input gathered through surveys at these forums, there was overwhelming support for key topics such as school consolidation to serve a PK–5 enrollment, the inclusion of a high school–sized gymnasium, and the proposed solution of constructing a new PK–5 school at the North Intermediate site.

With the selected solution to consolidate schools, the standard single-court gymnasium to provide services to a single school is approximately 6,000 square feet. A full-sized gymnasium is approximately 12,000 square feet. Under the consolidation plan, the Town would no longer operate the gymnasiums at the two schools being vacated. Therefore, including a full-sized gymnasium in the new school would better accommodate the physical education schedule for students and support broader community use during non-school hours.

Based on multiple surveys conducted — including feedback gathered through community forums, the 2024 'Fun on the Fourth' event, and a community flyer, which included results from the Senior Center — there was overwhelming community support for the proposed 12,000-square-foot gymnasium.

Both new construction and addition-renovation options were studied and included in the Preferred Schematic Design submission made in October 2024, which can be found here.

The addition-renovation option would involve more complex phasing of the construction work, a longer construction duration, greater disruption to students and staff, and a finished school with a less efficient layout than the new construction option. For these reasons, the building committee preferred the new construction option.

No. When you look at the total cost to the town to meet the needs of all elementary students on the north side, the PK–5 project at North Intermediate is actually the least expensive option.

Consolidated PK–5 at North Intermediate

• Total cost: $173.3 million
  • MSBA pays: $62.1 million
  • Town pays: $111.1 million
• Number of projects: 1
• Town’s total cost: $111.1 million

New PK–3 at Woburn Street + Repairs at North Intermediate

• New PK–3 cost: $139.3 million (MSBA pays $50.0M, Town pays $89.3M)
• Repairs at North Intermediate: $32.4 million (Town pays all)
• Number of projects: 2
• Town’s total cost: $121.7 million

New PK–K at Wildwood + Repairs at North Intermediate & Woburn Street

• New PK–K cost: $84.2 million (MSBA pays $30.2M, Town pays $54.0M)
• Repairs at North Intermediate: $32.4 million (Town pays all)
• Repairs at Woburn Street: $39.3 million (Town pays all)
• Number of projects: 3
• Town’s total cost: $125.7 million

Bottom line:

• PK–5 at North Intermediate: $111.1M to town – least expensive, 1 project
• PK–3 at Woburn + repairs: $121.7M to town – more expensive, 2 projects
• PK–K at Wildwood + repairs: $125.7M to town – most expensive, 3 projects

If the proposed project moves forward, it would result in the consolidation of multiple schools. In order for any vacated property to be sold for development, the Town Manager would first need to declare the property as surplus. This designation must then be approved by both the Select Board and Town Meeting.

If a property is declared surplus, the Select Board, working with the administration, would make determinations regarding potential reuse of the site or facility, if any. However, at this time, the Town Manager has indicated that he does not intend to declare either of the schools involved in the consolidation as surplus, and is working on preliminary plans for municipal reuse.

Repairing the current schools is not a good long-term solution. They already need major work now, and as they get older, the costs will keep climbing.

Estimated repair costs (minimum):

• Woburn Street School: $39.3–$43.5 million
• North Intermediate School: $32.4–$35.8 million
• Wildwood Street School: Condition is so poor it is recommended for demolition.

These estimates come from the feasibility study and were only meant for comparison with other options. They do not include:

1. The cost of temporary modular classrooms (“swing space”) for students during construction.
2. Annual cost increases of 4–5% if construction takes more than three years (as would happen if work only occurred during summer breaks).
3. Additional professional service fees for design and construction over a longer timeline (beyond the current timeline of 2026–2029).

Why repairs are especially challenging:
Replacing major systems (mechanical, electrical, plumbing), fixing exteriors, updating interiors, and meeting accessibility requirements can’t be done while the schools are in use. This leaves two options—both expensive:

1. Phased construction over many years during summer breaks, which greatly increases costs.
2. Modular classrooms to hold displaced students during the school year, which also adds significant costs.

Even after years of disruption and spending tens of millions of dollars, the repaired buildings would still not support modern teaching methods that have occurred over the last 60 years.

Yes, the Dore + Whittier (Project Designer), with the consultation of CDW Engineering and Nitsch Engineering Traffic Division, conducted an existing conditions assessment and a Traffic Impact Study of the site circulation as part of the proposed site design at the North Intermediate Site. As a result of the traffic analysis and the expected increase in traffic to the existing traffic at the adjacent intersections, the proposed school is expected to worsen operations at the intersection of Salem Street and Middlesex Avenue, as well as at the intersection of Middlesex Avenue/High Street. The analysis indicates that the expected operational issues can be mitigated by signal retiming at the intersection of Route 62 and Middlesex Avenue/High Street. It is recommended that further study be conducted by the Town of Wilmington to address the existing operational deficiencies at the intersection of Salem Street and Middlesex Avenue in a manner that also provides excess capacity for the projected new trips from the proposed school. No significant impact is expected at the other study intersections. The design team has met with the Town Engineer and DPW to review the results of the traffic study. The town plans to investigate potential off-site improvements at the intersections identified in the traffic study, in conjunction with the proposed project.

The Planning Board required the owner, Camber Development, and Amazon, the tenant, to construct approximately $5 Million dollars of improvements to the Route 62 roadway network to improve safety, efficiency, and to offset additional trips from Amazon.

Vehicles associated with the Amazon facility will heavily utilize I-93 except for local deliveries. For improvements, Camber and Amazon will be upgrading the intersection at Salem Street and Woburn Street in 2026.  Work within MassDOT’s jurisdiction includes installing signals and left turn lanes at the I-93 ramps. This work will need to be reviewed by MassDOT and will be completed in 2027.

The developer will also be contributing $200,000 to the Martins Brook culvert project.

We will have transportation challenges during construction, but the end result will be an upgraded roadway network constructed with private dollars that will better meet the Town’s needs.

If the project were to fail, Massachusetts School Building Authority (MSBA) FAILED VOTE POLICY is as follows:

In the event that a school district fails to approve funding for a proposed project within the 120-day deadline, by no later than 10 business days following the failed vote, the school district must submit to the MSBA a plan that: (1) presents the vote results, (2) explains the school district’s understanding of the reason(s) for the failed vote, and (3) sets forth the school district’s plan to remedy the failed vote and a suggested timeline for such a remedy. The MSBA will review the plan and determine whether it can continue to set aside MSBA funds for the proposed project. However, a failed local vote likely will result in the school district being required to submit a new Statement of Interest to the MSBA and await an invitation from the MSBA to enter the Eligibility Period phase of the MSBA’s process.

The view the full MSBA FAILED VOTE POLICY, please click here.

If the proposed Wildwood School project does not move forward, the Town would need to initiate an aggressive, long-term plan to bring the north side elementary school buildings into code compliance and up to current educational facility standards. This effort would span more than a decade, as construction and renovation could only take place during the limited summer months—approximately 50 working days per year—due to the buildings being occupied during the school year. 

The scope of this work would include costly design and construction efforts for code compliance and ADA upgrades, including mechanical, electrical, fire suppression sprinkler system, plumbing, communications, and security systems. Additionally, the building envelopes and interior finishes—such as windows, façades, roofing, flooring, ceilings, and painting—would require significant maintenance or full replacement. Under state building code, any substantial renovation would likely trigger the requirement to bring the entire facility into full ADA compliance. As part of any system upgrade, asbestos remediation would also be necessary. Both the Wildwood and Woburn Street schools would require significant asbestos abatement due to the age and condition of the buildings. 

Wildwood Street School

The 2018 Master Plan Study recommended that the existing Wildwood School be demolished. Town Facility Leadership also strongly believes that renovation is not a feasible option due to the building’s condition. All mechanical systems are outdated and require full replacement. The building envelope is in similarly poor condition, with single-pane, metal-framed windows that are not energy efficient—allowing exterior temperatures to be felt inside the classrooms. Overall, the school does not meet modern educational or energy standards.

Woburn Street School

Like Wildwood, the Woburn Street School would require comprehensive upgrades to address ADA and code compliance. Renovation of this facility would be particularly difficult due to its multi-level design, which complicates accessibility improvements. While a partial roof replacement was completed recently, the remaining sections will need to be replaced soon. As with Wildwood, all major systems—including mechanical, electrical, and plumbing—as well as building envelope and interior finishes, would require full replacement. The complexity of completing this work in an occupied building means upgrades would need to be phased over 10 or more years.

North Intermediate School

While the North Intermediate School has received some facility upgrades and is considered the most feasible candidate for a potential renovation compared to the Wildwood and Woburn Street Schools, a comprehensive analysis was conducted to determine the best solution for addressing PK–5 enrollment on the north side of Town. This analysis considered several factors, including the availability of land for a combined school, site topography, utility infrastructure capacity, as well as other evaluation criteria. Based on these findings and analysis, the North Intermediate School site was identified as the most cost-effective solution. If the proposed project were to fail, the North Intermediate School would still require significant upgrades to meet ADA and building code compliance as well as current educational standards.  

EDUCATIONAL IMPLICATIONS OF A FAILED VOTE

The Wildwood School community, divided between two buildings, would continue to face challenges.  This ongoing separation impacts the delivery of services to the student body, particularly in identifying and addressing students' educational needs as the demand shifts throughout the year.  It manifests itself in the fact that classes have to cross the street to attend specialist classes.  The collaborative process of teacher teams to ensure student needs are met remains a significant challenge.  At the elementary level, failure of the building project would delay the addition of STEM classes. These young learners are housed in a school space not specifically designed for their needs, and the overall difficulty of having a split school community persists.

The Middle School and West Intermediate School, which share space with the Wildwood, would continue to face significant challenges due to the loss of educational space.  Specifically, the Middle School has lost large meeting spaces, the library space, and office space; these deficiencies would continue without the new building.  Furthermore, the dedication of early childhood learning space, which includes classrooms and play areas designed for young children, affects not only the overall schedule but also gym scheduling and space, necessitating the expansion of special subject classes and creating a ripple effect of the failed debt exclusion. At the West Intermediate, this impacts instructional space, flexibility of programming, and scheduling.

The district's ability to consolidate resources in one location, ensure a high rate of service delivery, and design learning spaces for intense special needs, which would keep students in the district, would be significantly delayed due to the failed debt exclusion.

Lastly, to address core mechanical needs, the district would need to look at consistently closing and renovating schools, causing increased disruption and costs to the town.

While a timeline around making such a decision is not clear, it is reasonable to believe that, in the long term, the Town and the School Department will want a comparable education path for all elementary-age students. For more information on the Town's plans for future modernization of public facilities, please click here and refer to the Long Term Building Plan on slides 8 and 9 of the Town Manager’s Budget Presentation for Fiscal Year 2026.

Yes, the project includes several key sustainability features that support long-term environmental, educational, and financial goals. Following a comprehensive analysis by the design team and building committee—factoring in the state's net-zero public building goals, updated energy codes, available state and MSBA grants, and a formal life-cycle cost analysis—the decision was made to design an all-electric building. This system was selected for its long-term energy efficiency, reduced greenhouse gas emissions, and cost-effectiveness across energy, maintenance, and operational lifecycles. The facility is being designed to achieve a minimum of LEED Silver certification, with LEED Gold as the aspirational goal. LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) is the most widely recognized standard for sustainable buildings and ensures high performance in energy use, water efficiency, indoor environmental quality, and sustainable materials. In addition, Wilmington is pursuing the MSBA Green Schools designation, which provides an additional 4% reimbursement on eligible project costs. This program promotes all-electric, carbon-free buildings and prioritizes improved indoor air quality—benefitting the health and productivity of students and staff. Finally, the school’s design incorporates outdoor learning spaces and environmentally integrated landscape features that support both play and education. The site emphasizes flexible spaces that complement the building and enhance STEM and nature-based learning, while promoting student well-being.

The Town has a 20-year agreement with Reading Municipal Light Department (RMLD) that helps keep our electric rates low. Under this agreement, we cannot enter into a power purchase agreement (PPA) with another provider, including for solar power. This means that if we wanted solar panels on the school, we would need to purchase the system outright. Given RMLD’s already low rates, the return on investment (ROI) would take many years, making it financially impractical. In discussions with RMLD, the option they proposed was leasing roof space to them so they could install panels. In this scenario, the electricity would go to the RMLD grid, supporting overall rate stability, but not directly powering the school.

After touring and reviewing other schools with geothermal systems, the committee determined that geothermal is not the best option for Wilmington. While geothermal can be an efficient system in certain situations, Wilmington’s low electricity rates and the high cost of drilling 40–60 wells on the property make it less cost-effective here. A life-cycle cost analysis conducted during this phase showed that installing geothermal would cost the Town more over the life of the system compared to other HVAC (Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning) options. Additionally, based on experience with past construction projects in Wilmington, there is a strong possibility of hitting ledge underground, which could further increase construction costs and cause greater disruption to nearby properties.

Yes. From the outset, the project team has planned with full consideration of local bylaws and state regulations. The team has actively engaged with Wilmington’s police and fire departments to gather input and address safety concerns early in the design process. A traffic engineering consultant has been retained to assess traffic impacts and recommend improvements, and the Town is also evaluating potential off-site traffic enhancements. Additionally, the project team has been working closely with the Town’s engineering, planning and conservation departments to ensure the design complies with all environmental, wetlands, and zoning requirements.

Yes. The project team has evaluated the site’s existing stormwater and groundwater conditions and developed a preliminary stormwater management plan as part of the schematic design. The system is being designed to meet all local requirements as well as MassDEP stormwater management standards. After construction, the system will ensure that runoff and discharge rates remain at or below existing levels. During construction, a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) will be implemented to manage runoff and protect the surrounding environment until the permanent system is in place. This proactive approach ensures responsible water management throughout all phases of the project.

Yes. Once the location for the new school at the North Intermediate site was decided upon, Town Leadership and the Project team met with the North Intermediate School neighbors. As a result of the meeting, listening to and hearing the concerns raised, the design team addressed as many concerns as reasonably possible, such as incorporating green screening, fencing, and transition zones, to create an appropriate buffer between the new school and the adjacent neighborhoods.

Town leadership and the School Building Committee (SBC) are committed to continued conversations with the adjacent neighborhoods to pursue all reasonable measures to create an appropriate buffer between the school and the adjacent neighborhoods. 

No. The current use of the pedestrian access from Arlene will continue to be utilized as a pedestrian access point for the adjacent neighborhood. It will NOT be utilized as an emergency vehicular access point, nor will it be utilized as a student drop-off or pick-up access.

The exterior lighting design—including wall-mounted fixtures and other site lighting for security—will comply with dark sky standards, directing light downward to minimize glare and reduce light pollution in surrounding areas and neighboring properties. Fixtures will be utilized to contain lighting within the site, thereby limiting any impact on adjacent residences.

A preliminary review was done on all three sites. Further Geotechnical Engineering and Surveying will be done on the approved site.

A preliminary review was done on all three sites. Further review of parking and a traffic study will be completed on the approved site.

The Design team will perform further site analysis, traffic, and all site-related work will comply with State and Local regulations.

See the Estimated Project Cost and Potential Local Share chart above. The timeframe will be determined by the Town.

Given that the scale of this project is completely different from other projects in the pipeline and would need to be paid with a debt exclusion, the impact on other projects that we try to fit within the regular budget would be minimal. If another project that requires a debt exclusion arises, it would have an impact.

The largest remaining debt is from the High School, which ends in 2037, and is $2.3m for FY25, and decreases over time. The Middle School is paid off.  

If either a PreK-K option or Pre-K-3 option are chosen, the Town and the School Administration will need to prepare a long-term plan for the North Intermediate to extend its functional life. This would likely include system upgrades. Whether or not this would include more extensive renovations or changes to the educational program would be determined in future meetings.       

Roughly $7,000,000 would not be covered by the MSBA and would be fully funded by the taxpayers.

No. That decision does not fall to the authority of the Wildwood School Building Committee. Unless there is an MSBA project underway, the oversight and maintenance of the public schools in Town falls to the Town.

• There is no rule that states a City or Town cannot be in the MSBA program for more than one school. The MSBA reviews all submissions and makes their decision to allow Districts into the program based on need. There is no way to know when or if a community will be invited into the program as it is based on what other communities submit their Statement of Interest and how the MSBA views the needs in that submission period.
• The process to enter the program is as follows which was pulled from the MSBA https://www.massschoolbuildings.org/
  • The MSBA opens their program for Statement of Interest for Core Programs in January of 2025.Although the Town of Wilmington is currently in the program, there is nothing that precludes the Town from submitting SOI's. There are communities currently that have more than one school in the program. The Massachusetts School Building Authority's (the "MSBA's") grant program is a non-entitlement, competitive program, and its grants are distributed by the MSBA Board of Directors based on need and urgency, as expressed by the district and validated by the MSBA. The MSBA completes an exhaustive review of available information regarding all districts that submit a Statement of Interest ("SOI") for the Core Program each year. The goals of this review include:
    • To determine those schools that are the most urgent and needy relative to the cohort of SOI submittals filed in that year, the MSBA considers many factors when looking at the totality of the SOIs including, but not limited to, the age of the building, the amount of space per student, the current and projected enrollment, the condition of the major systems of the school, the general environment of the building and the appropriateness of the building to the educational mission;
    • To collaborate with districts on the potential project that they have identified as the priority school if filing more than one SOI for that given year;
    • To understand if the MSBA is currently partnering with the district on another project already underway; and,
    • To understand the range of options each district faces when planning for district-wide educational facilities. 

Based on the current timeline for the project, the project will likely go before the Town residents at a Special Town meeting, followed by a ballot question, either in the late Spring, or in late Summer of 2025.