Thursday, February 10, 2005
Wayland Town Building
School Committee Conference Room
Attendees
HSBC members: Lea Anderson, Dianne Bladon, Steve Breit, Jim Howard, Mary Lentz, Joe Lewin, Cindy Lombardo, Eric Sheffels
Absent: Josh Bekenstein, Brian Chase, Steve Tise
Ex Officio members: Gary Burton, Fred Knight, Charlie Ruopp
HMFH team: Steve Friedlaender, Doug Sacra
Call to order - Chairman Lea Anderson called the 32nd meeting of the HSBC to order at 7:40 p.m.
Discussion of Special Election/Town Meeting Results – Chairman Lea Anderson asked the committee members for their perceptions of the reasons for the failed vote. Comments were:
- We should do a self-assessment of why the vote failed and what might make a successful project. I was surprised that the vote failed at the polls.
- The reason the previous vote didnŐt pass was that the public didnŐt like any of the Feasibility Study options. They thought repairs would be cheaper. There are two stumbling blocks. We are still getting letters saying we should look at repairs. The opposition does not want to pay more in taxes. There are legitimate criticisms such as waiting until we know what the MSBA rules are. We have to convince people that the program is important. We have a political problem. We must go block by block and educate voters.
- Having some experience with the HSSC, I was under no illusion that it would be easy to pass the proposal. While people want the renovation option to be the answer, the conclusion is what it is. This is a very tough battle politically. We need a much deeper grass roots effort including standing at the landfill and the local markets every week if that is what it takes. Things will have to get worse with temporary classrooms and severe crowding. If we want to resurrect this now, can we do it before the next Town Meeting?
- There are no easy answers. There are three problems in the public view: issues about the project, the make-up of the committee, and the dollars. I was not shocked by the vote. We can have debates about demographics. Our interpretation of the charge resulted in three alternates of full scope. It was a project with no budget for much of the process. There were no alternative price points. Regarding scope, there are some items on the table – enrollment, gym and auditorium. Regarding the committee, there is the perception that we were advocates. No matter how we look at it, we have to find the right price point.
- People had a bad taste about the project from the beginning. I am optimistic that we will figure out what the right project is. A guaranteed rate of reimbursement will help. We did not do a good job of communicating with early empty nesters and the birth to kindergarten cohort. I am convinced that there will be a meeting of the minds at some price - $20, $30, $40, $50 million.
- 4,600 people voted. 200 people understood the magnitude of the issues with the high school facilities. Positions were set early on. It is very frustrating. Most people who came to the forums were the same familiar faces. I wonder if the composition of the HSBC needs to be changed. Have we become discredited? Will some other group of people bring the project along? Maybe we should offer up our resignations to the School Committee.
- Why did the project get voted down? Was it because we didnŐt have a saleable project? Was it because the timing was wrong? Was it a failure of communication? We need to think very carefully about what problem or combination of problems we have. Is a survey a way to know? If we are going to make changes we have to make sure we know if the project was over-scoped, if there is a credibility problem with the committee, or if there is a lack of understanding about the project.
- A project wonŐt be approved until we know what SBAB will do. We might think about a bifurcated project: do classrooms first and common area later.
- We looked at those pieces. LetŐs ask the opponents, ŇWhat do you do?Ó It has been too easy to sit on the sidelines.
- Our approach was too intellectual. If we canŐt explain our proposal in the time it takes to ride in an elevator, then it is too complicated. We should also look at other sources of funding.
- I have heard from many people since the vote. There are several reasons that reasonable people were not able to support the project. The first reason is the uncertainty around state funding. People looked at the worst-case tax effect that we presented and the even more drastic scenario that the opposition presented in making their decision. Enrollment is an area that a logical person might have had reservations. The problem is that if we are off by 100 students, the savings is so minor. The third area of concern expressed by school supporters who just couldnŐt vote for the project is the scope around athletics and the size of the auditorium.
- If this is a $36 million project, then it is a tremendous bargain for the Town.
- Do not disband the HSBC. Consider enlarging it.
- The School Committee must determine what the committee make-up should be. Getting voices that are divergent onto the HSBC is essential to the credibility going forward.
Where do we go from here? Lea informed the HSBC of the directions of the School Committee at their meeting on 7/7/05. The HSBC was directed to work to a goal of having an application for state reimbursement ready for July 2007. This means a proposal for design funding at the April 2006 Town Meeting. The group discussed possible tasks leading to a proposal.
- In my experience a committee like this cannot spend too much on planning. (Planning is essential.)
- We should fear a group of well-meaning folks trying to define a project without professional help.
- It is suicide to move without professional help.
- Comments at Town Meeting that we can proceed with a laundry list of tasks such as permitting without funds are just plain wrong.
- Are we going to guess what we might save by cutting things out?
- Cost estimates are good for a year. It will be prudent to update cost estimates before proposing a budget to the Town, given this delay.
- Use escalation assumptions for future years.
- The HSBC should not expect HMFH to do any more work on this project for free. They have already taken a huge hit on the work in the conceptual phase.
- The town has placed shackles on itself with Article 2. We could ask to reassess this article because it limits the committeeŐs ability to proceed. It is foolhardy to proceed without professional help.
Dr. Burton reminded the group that there is a project because this group of people is willing to work for it. There are reasons the vote failed such as SBA and sticker shock. The truth is that there are not high schools around that are built for less. This is a nationwide struggle. The organized opposition is free to misrepresent with impunity. To say that we should not ask our professional educators what the educational needs are is ridiculous.
Charlie Ruopp thanked the HSBC for taking the time to understand the educational program at WHS. We need to keep moving in the direction of solving the high schoolŐs facility issues. This town and its children deserve a world-class education. It will be a huge challenge over the next five years to deal with the increasing enrollment and facility problems. The staff will rise to it.
More discussion followed:
- We must be very clear about the ramifications of not moving forward. Do not sugarcoat it.
- We are going to spend 100 cents on the dollar for short-term solutions that we will then throw away.
- The quality of the analysis of the educational program was excellent.
Discussion on proceeding to April 2006 – The HSBC tried to come to closure on whether we could meet the School CommitteeŐs direction. With the limits imposed by Article 2 at the January STM, there are no funds for analyzing changes to the current proposal. The HSBC had a lengthy discussion about needing professional services to make any significant changes to the proposed design in anticipation of coming forward in April of 2006 with a project. While the HSBC can gather information of a political nature and try to build consensus, we cannot answer questions on what significant changes to the design would save. If we determine after a year that we want to propose a project very close to what we already proposed, then there is no issue other than updating cost estimates. Slight tweaking of the design (like fewer seats in the auditorium) has already been analyzed. If we end up having to change the project significantly, then we cannot be ready with a proposal until additional study is performed. This could make it difficult to meet the July 2007 goal of application submittal.
The group was not ready to take a position on coming forward this April to secure a small amount of money and undo Article 2. Some committee members thought that this would be very bad politically. Others expressed the need to explain how tied our hands are in doing anything that moves us forward and that we should ask for funds this April. There was agreement on this being a very frustrating circumstance.
Lea agreed to ask for Mark LanzaŐs advice on the following:
1. Are we allowed to spend some of the small balance in the HSBC budget on conducting a survey?
2. Are we allowed to spend any of this money on analyzing the draft regulations in 2006?
3. Are we allowed to spend any of this money on analyzing changes to the design?
She will check on the date for Special Town Meeting article deadline.
Steve Friedlaender reported that he had spoken with MSBA people who are advising towns to wait. He also reported that the construction environment is very tight. Everett put a project out to bid and received only two bids.
Survey - Dianne Bladon led a discussion on the information the group would want to get from a survey. There were many suggestions including:
- Would the project have passed if state reimbursement were known?
- What are taxpayers willing to spend?
- What elements of the project caused people to vote against it.
- Do you believe the benchmarking? How important is it?
- We should ask the nay-sayers for input on the survey
- What are the biggest challenges facing WHS?
- How much of the loss was due to financial reasons and how much to scope?
- How aware are people of the new construction vs. renovation conclusions?
- How do you perceive the committee?
- How did you get your information? How do want these results communicated back?
- Survey the voters only. We are going too far a-field to survey everyone.
- The survey should come from the WSC and the HSBC together.
Dianne and Lea will meet next week with a town resident who has done professional surveying and is willing to help us design the survey.
Focus Groups – The group briefly discussed the benefit of establishing focus groups. The consensus was that focus groups would be very informative.
Thank you - Lea thanked HMFH and Turner for the excellent quality of their work.
Comments from the Public
- Please keep the ball rolling. There is value in trying to understand why people voted. Consensus is very important. Get people not on the boards involved. Agree on scope first. It is easy to say NO. Ask what their proposal is. Have an active debate. People see different consequences relative to cash flow vs. house appreciation. We need to do a much better job getting the word out to voters about something as basic as whether to show up at TM or not. Is private funding a possibility?
- For people new to Wayland, the voting process is very complicated. Do a better job communicating the process of elections and town meetings. People in favor of the project did not get out to vote.
- There are pros and cons to adding people to the HSBC. It might take more coordination, but it is a good idea to expand the group. The survey is the most important thing on our plate. There should be an open meeting to solicit opinions on the survey so that it is not discredited. Do not ask for anything that jeopardizes anonymity. Do no put up with anyone discrediting this tool. Advertise consequences of the failed vote.
The meeting was adjourned at 9:55 p.m.
Observers: Pat Abramson, John Campbell, Barb Fletcher, Bob Gordon, Cherry Karlson, Kim Reichelt, Chris Reynolds, Michael Short, Lisa Valone