Skip to content
Roosevelt School in Worcester parking lot dispute pits city, schools
WORCESTER — When the city purchased land on Sunderland Road behind Roosevelt Elementary School four years ago, the hope was that it would ease traffic congestion and improve safety for students and their families.
But the land continues to sit undeveloped and unused. The questions of why, and what it would take to put the land to use, came up during a City Council meeting on Tuesday.
Councilor-at-Large Khrystian King sparked the conversation, submitting an order to request that City Manager Eric Batista provide council members a report with a timeline for fixing the traffic issues.
But King’s order led to discussions about whether the City Council should be involved at all, with some members saying they have no responsibility in the matter, while others argued that collaboration could lead to progress finally being made.
Why did the city buy this land and how much did it cost?
The city purchased the land four years ago for $600,000, after City Councilors George Russell and Kate Toomey advocated for it to do so.
On Tuesday, Russell said he had previously met with the principal at Roosevelt Elementary to discuss traffic issues. The principal told Russell that the school needed more parking spaces and also a second exit to allow traffic to flow more freely.
He said he was told that there had been an increase in the number students enrolling at the school, including students with disabilities who require specialized vehicles to get dropped off and picked up.
Russell said he sat outside the school to watch the traffic on Grafton Street during drop-off and pickup times. When one car stops, he said, the “whole” line of traffic stops.
What does the land look like now?
Located behind the school on Sunderland Road near other paved lots, Russell said most of the land is level and was previously used by a company to store gravel.
“Why don’t they just use it?” Russell asked during the meeting, of school officials. “Even if they just used it in the rough.”
He said he has previously recommended that the district cut down the weeds and allow people to park on the land even if it is not paved, but the district has not done that.
How would the land fix the issue?
The land purchased by the city was intended to be used for about 30 to 40 additional parking spaces, freeing up space in the main parking lot and creating a new area for pickup and drop-off from Sunderland Road, easing the flow on Grafton Street.
If the city purchased it, why doesn’t it pay to have it paved?
Part of the agreement when the city purchased the land was that it would be given to the School Department, Batista said. The schools would then contribute “their portion” to have the lot paved.
What was the district’s response?
District spokesperson Dan O’Brien provided the following statement in response to questions about the land and the discussion surrounding it at the City Council meeting:
“The Worcester Public Schools’ fiscal year 2024 Capital Improvement Plan includes $3.5 million in building rehabilitation projects and $500,000 in capital equipment purchases. Building rehabilitation projects include repairing or replacing school boilers, restrooms, and fire alarms. Capital equipment purchases include vehicles for student transportation and the Facilities Department, along with information technology infrastructure. WPS must prioritize its capital projects with limited funds. WPS continues to advocate at the state level for adjustments to how the Massachusetts School Building Authority allocates funds to large districts that have simultaneous capital project needs.”
In a joint meeting Monday between the City Council and the School Committee, Deputy Superintendent Brian Allen said the district has been looking for funding and grants to cover the cost of paving, but hasn’t found the money yet.
Analyses were done for Roosevelt as well as Burncoat Middle and High School, where there are also traffic issues, Allen said. The amount to correct the issues would come out to about $3.5 million for each school, which is the same as the district’s budget for building rehabilitation projects.
“We know it’s a significant issue at both schools,” Allen said. “We have plans to address them. It really comes down to a funding issue.”
Why did some councilors say it is not the city’s responsibility?
Councilors Morris Bergman and Toomey pushed back on the idea of collaborating, since it is the School District’s responsibility to make sure the land gets paved.
Toomey said it is on the district to get the parking and traffic issues fixed. She said that if the cost to pave the lot is too much, school officials should find another solution, pointing to the suggestions Russell has given.
“By not doing anything, it’s negligent,” Toomey said. “It’s negligent to the children and negligent to the community.”
Russell said he has suggested solutions such as using gravel on the lot instead of pavement, knocking down a berm and allowing staff to park on grass, or leasing land from nearby businesses with larger lots. But, he said, the district has not taken him up on his suggestions.
He also asked Batista if the city has received requests for additional funding to pave the lot. Batista said, “No.”
Why do some councilors want collaboration?
Councilors King and Thu Nguyen said it is more likely that the issue will get addressed if the city collaborates with the School District.
King said that, as a pedestrian issue, it affects both the schools and the broader community.
“We cannot turn a blind eye to this. I think we should move this forward,” King said. “We should codevelop a timeline.”
He said putting “their heads in the sand” and saying “let us know,” is not the answer. Despite handing the land over to the district, the city still has obligation to handle safety concerns, he said.
Nguyen said one solution would be to increase the district’s capital budget.
What happens now?
From the city side, Nguyen offered a friendly amendment to King’s order, asking that Batista also work with the superintendent on the issue. King accepted the amendment and the order passed.
