Considering the 5 million dollar cost for the Newman relocation, is there a reason why the School Committee did not accelerate planning for one of the upcoming school renovations so that; instead of dismantling these modulars, they could have been utilized for the next relocation instead?
Consecutive on site renovation of Hillside and Mitchell (recent surveys projecting this as the desired option) would have been the least disruptive, minimized redistricting, and the cost and time associated with all these feasibility studies could have been avoided.

The modular classrooms were gorgeous. Would've made a lot of sense to move them to Hillside or Mitchell.

It's an interesting point. Someone raised that question at a recent School Committee meeting, and here's, roughly, the response the committee gave: There is no way the town/school district could have gone through the Massachusetts School Building Authority process to develop a plan and proceed with renovation/construction of Hillside or Mitchell on a schedule that would have allowed for the modular units to be reused immediately. The MSBA process, which is very specific and rather lengthy, is required in order for the district/town to be reimbursed for part of the project; otherwise the town/schools would have to fund the full Hillside/Mitchell renovation locally. And that process is in the very early stages. Basically, there's a certain amount of red tape required, and thus the schedules just don't align. Still have a question about the process? Contact the Needham School Committee at schoolcommittee@needham.k12.ma.us.

Newman is a unique school......as in it has a gigantic parking lot....so there was space to put the modular school. I do not know of any space at Hillside or Mitchell that could do that.

First, moving the modular school was not my intent but rather to bus the students to Newman (making modifications to the modular and/or common areas, as needed). In regard to Mitchell, although the site does not have a gigantic parking lot; according to feasibility studies, it has enough land to accommodate 2 schools.
Second, in regard to the timing, it is not the process but the planning that I question; that is, why the current feasibility studies were not initiated back in 08/09 when the opportunity to utilize the costly modulars for multiple renovations presented itself. Given that relocation costs are not reimbursable, a collaborative effort to accelerate the renovation of one of these schools would have been advantageous.
Third, it is my understanding that a school can only increase in size by 10% to receive reimbursement money. Although it may seem senseless not to seek a reimbursement through the MSBA process, there may be other options; for which, thinking outside the box could result in more cost effective solutions that would better accommodate the needs of the schools now and in the future.
Finally, as stated in a previous comment, it is of concern that there have been no proposed solutions for the overcrowded high school. If tax payers are expected to support a projected 80 million dollar school renovation project, it would behoove the School Committee to conduct a wider range feasibility study to find a solution the high school overcrowding as well.

Schools can grow up to 10% larger than the projected population 5 years out. In this case, that should be enough capacity for the Elementary level for some years, so I think it makes sense to stay in line for the 40% reimbursement from the State.

The town also has to manage its debt carefully in order to maintain it's AAA bond rating. If we had accelerated Hillside and/or Mitchell, there is a good chance that our debt would have been too large for such a rating. Losing the rating would drive up the interest rate that us taxpayers would have to pay on our debt. This is why the Town has a master plan and schedule for capital investment in infrastructure. When the Newman emergency arose, it was slotted into the plan - but everything else had to slide out a couple years.