Revere City council reviews Mackenny school renovation plan, including shared 9‑1‑1 space; financing requires bond approval

A presenter for Revere City outlined a plan to renovate the historic Mackenny school (circa 1904) to provide classrooms, administrative offices and community space, and to host a consolidated 9‑1‑1/call‑center function for several partner communities.

The presenter said interior work would include second‑floor arts space, about 11–12 class sections, elevator access and a community area for events. The construction schedule given was a late‑November 2026 start with an expected summer 2027 opening.

Richard (first identified speaking at SEG 219) described the financing picture: he referenced an estimated total project cost in the mid‑tens of millions and said a city bond authorization—described in the presentation as a $37,000,000 authorization—would be needed. The presenter gave an overall project total estimate described in the meeting as roughly $43.5 million, with construction costs cited near $31.5 million and separate line items for project management, architecture and contingencies. The presentation also referenced a roughly $19,000,000 figure tied to 9‑1‑1 operational components and described some technology costs (including a radio tower and communications fit‑out) as part of the total.

Councilors and attendees asked for clarifications about what the school portion of the funds would pay for and how school operating revenue versus capital costs would be split. A presenter emphasized that school operating funds would not be used for construction; operating revenue would remain for school programs. Several members asked for more detailed cost breakdowns and confirmation of funding sources before any final vote.

The project presentation included proposed community benefits: expanded early‑education space, after‑school programming and municipal offices at the Foster Street location. Speakers said consolidation of services with nearby Chelsea and other partners was expected to create operational savings (one speaker referenced prior savings estimates of about $150,000 for 2025 when partners were included), but councilors asked for more robust documentation of those projections.

Questions at the meeting also focused on practical issues: staffing and training plans for the consolidated call/center operations, expected station and staff counts (presenters discussed needing roughly a dozen stations per shift), and parking capacity and spillover to adjacent residential streets. Presenters said additional parking behind the building and operational agreements with partner cities were part of the plan but that some details remained to be finalized.

Next steps: the council did not take a final financing vote during this meeting; presenters asked the council to consider the bond authorization and related approvals in future sessions and to provide more detailed cost and funding documentation for subsequent hearings.