Saco Planning Board finds Ecology School extension application complete amid heated public scrutiny

The Saco Planning Board voted 3–1 on Dec. 16 to find the Ecology School’s site‑plan amendment application complete and opened a public hearing on the school’s request to extend its prior approval to June 3, 2027.

The application centers on off‑site work the school must complete — chiefly a left‑turn lane on Route 112 — and on a city construction loan arrangement under the BPI program. Peter Van Hemel, counsel for the Ecology School, told the board the applicant had supplemented materials requested at earlier meetings and asked the board to "look at this as being closer to the finish line" as engineering, design and payment updates had been provided.

Several residents urged the board to delay action until it received more written analysis. "You simply do not have the information that you need," resident Inga Brown said, asking the board to table the item. Brown and others warned that unknown cost overruns could be borne by city taxpayers under the construction loan terms.

Interim City Administrator Emily Cole Prescott read aloud portions of the city’s construction loan agreement, saying the agreement states that the Ecology School "shall bear all engineering design and construction costs for the entire project, less those costs paid by the BPI grant." She also confirmed the City Council declined the applicant’s requested intercreditor agreement, but that the applicant had paid amounts required into a city project deposit account.

A certified public accountant who spoke during public comment, Deb Hilton, summarized audited financial statements and told the board the auditor had reported "substantial doubt" about the school’s ability to continue as a going concern. Hilton presented figures from audited statements and inflation‑adjusted cost estimates for the turn lane that she said pushed the full project cost above $1.1 million and increased the school’s required share.

Board members split over whether deeper financial evaluation was necessary at the completeness stage. Jim Moller and other members noted that money had been posted into the project account and that statutory repayment mechanisms and a mortgage/promissory note exist; Jeff Brochu said he remained unconvinced the applicant had demonstrated financial and technical capacity after years of delay and unanswered questions about easements and utility work.

After debate, Moller moved to deem the application complete. Catherine Paolini seconded. The board recorded three votes in favor and one opposed and then unanimously agreed to open the public hearing so written and oral input could be added to the record.

Next steps and what the board asked for: members requested written clarifications from staff and the applicant about the construction‑loan provisions, an updated tally of the project deposit, status of easement acquisition and utility coordination (CMP and consolidated communications), and any responses to the auditor’s concerns. The board set follow‑up review dates and asked parties to file additional materials in advance of the next hearing date so members and the public could review them.

The public hearing on the Ecology School extension will continue at a future board meeting; the board requested additional information from both city staff and the applicant before making a final decision.