Thursday, December 8, 2005
Wayland Town Building
School Committee Conference Room
Attendees
HSBC members: Lea Anderson, Josh Bekenstein, Dianne Bladon, Steve Breit, Brian Chase, Jim Howard, Mary Lentz, Joe Lewin, Cindy Lombardo, Eric Sheffels
Absent: Steve Tise
Ex Officio members: Gary Burton, Fred Knight, Allyson Mizoguchi, Charlie Ruopp
Turner team: Dick Amster
HMFH team: Steve Friedlaender, Doug Sacra
Call to order – HSBC chairman Lea Anderson called the meeting to order at 7:40 p.m.
NEASC Report – WHS Principal Charlie Ruopp reported on the recent decennial evaluation report of the New England Association of Schools and Colleges. While the Commission on Public Secondary Education continued accreditation to WHS, it expressed serious concern related to the facility in the following areas and more:
- Limited extent to which the present school site and plant support all aspects of the educational program and services
- Severe overcrowding throughout the building
- Outdated and aging condition of the science labs
- Inadequate plumbing and electrical systems infrastructure
- Inadequate infrastructure for technology
- Compromised air quality
- Narrow corridors, below code requirement; compromised emergency egress
- Lack of space, other than field house, to hold full school assemblies and performances
- Insufficient storage space
- Insufficient athletic field space and substandard drainage
- Failure to meet federal and state laws and maintain compliance with local fire, health, and safety regulations
- Lack of handicapped accessibility in the arts building, field house and lecture hall
Charlie explained that school officials are required to submit a special progress report by April 1, 2006 providing detailed plans on addressing facilities, space, and health and safety concerns. Some of the specifics that the report requires addressing are:
- Providing sufficient classroom space
- Providing sufficient storage space
- Full compliance with all building codes
- Full compliance with ADA handicapped accessibility requirements
- Providing technology infrastructure that meets instructional needs
- Immediately removing items that block 36Ó egress from all classrooms and corridors
- Providing contemporary science classrooms
- Providing common space for whole school assemblies
- Providing meeting space for teachers and students in small groups
- Correcting conditions regarding lighting, air quality, heating, electrical systems
In the short term (by April 1) a plan to remedy these shortcomings must be submitted. In two years (by Oct. 2007) a progress report must be submitted and in five years action must be complete. Charlie said that some of the items are being minimally addressed with modular science classrooms, clearing halls and doorways for egress, technology infrastructure, and private fundraising for artificial turf field. He said that there will be a Òthumb in the dikeÓ response in the short term. He points out that the whole community will be needed to solve this problem for the long term.
Charlie talked about Beverly High School as an example of what is likely to happen if we do not respond adequately. Beverly passed design money for a high school, but did not go any further. They were given a warning, then probation and now they are being recommended for loss of accreditation. In response to questions:
- Accreditation shows that a school meets a standard as evaluated by an objective, outside group
- There is a link between NEASC and state requirements
- NEASC will not compromise on health and safety, but will probably compromise on common space, for example.
- Safety is most important issue to address
Survey Results – Dianne Bladon reported on the results of the HSBC survey conducted this past summer and fall. She began by thanking the many volunteers who worked on the survey development and data input (Steve Breit, Terry Glick, Martha Gordon, Heather Pineault, Melissa Orlov, Mary Lentz and her staff, Fred Knight, Janet Correia, Cindy Lombardo, Kim Reichelt, and Charlene Bishop – statistics teacher at WHS).
Dianne presented a summary of the detailed report that can be found on the HSBC website and at the Wayland Public Library. The survey was mailed to 7,921 active voters of which 2,075 (26%) responded. The study is not representative because it is not a random sample. It is not predictive, and cannot establish causation. It is useful for general trends. Dianne said that she compared the respondentsÕ gender, parental status, age, and home assessments and found these to be very close to the voter population. The one area that had a statistically significant difference to the voting population in the January 2005 vote was the response rate from supporters and non-supporters. Many more responses were from project non-supporters (38.2 response rate for non-supporters compared with 29.4 % response rate from supporters). For the analysis a weighting factor was used to adjust for this difference, similar to the way political polls adjust for unrepresentative district responses. Data is available in weighted and un-weighted form.
Responses were polarized. Non-supporters held stronger opinions than supporters.
She said that she was surprised to find that the most recent census shows that 43% of all households in Wayland have children under 18. This was close to the 45% response on the survey.
There appears to have been no duplication of survey submissions, no gaming of the system.
In regard to state aid:
- 67% felt the risk was too great that Wayland would not obtain reimbursement
- 56% felt it is important to have an application ready when the moratorium is over
- 68% felt the town should not proceed with construction until aid is guaranteed
In regard to need, project size and scope:
- 65% felt the existing facility is not adequate
- 97% felt it is important to maintain the quality of the educational program
- 55% felt the program will suffer if the facility is not addressed
- 88% felt that it is important to bring the school into compliance with health and safety codes
- 70% felt that the scope of the project can be reduced without affecting the educational program
- 67% felt that academic spaces should not be reduced
Dianne then presented an analysis of the cost related questions. Respondents were polarized with non-supporters and a majority of all agreeing the overall cost was too high (68%), though they were less concerned about the cost to the individual taxpayer (57%). The cost to individual taxpayers may not have been well understood. 32% didnÕt answer or were not sure. 23% thought the cost would be 25% + more than the highest HSBC/Fincom estimate. Respondents who assumed reimbursement actually estimated higher than respondents who said they did not assume reimbursement.
The opinion on adequacy of WHS was the biggest determiner of the response to the question on the cost of a future proposal. Respondents who did not see a facility need were less willing to spend to address it. 28% of non-supporters would not support spending any amount.
In regard to project approach (build new vs. renovate) and the HSBC itself, the results were predictable:
- 90% of non-supporters did not like the approach; 70% were not comfortable with the HSBC
- 88% of supporters liked the approach; 80% were comfortable with the HSBC
The issues of greatest concern (having the highest agreement) were
- Maintaining the quality of the educational program and academic spaces
- Code compliance for health and safety
- Size and scope reduction without affecting the educational program
- Overall cost of the project too high
- Town should not proceed with construction without guarantee of state reimbursement
- HSBC should more thoroughly analyze building new vs. renovation
The statements with the smallest difference between agreement and disagreement (least agreement)
- I was not comfortable with the HSBC
- To reduce project costs, the HSBC should propose reductions in the size and scope of fine arts space
- I was not comfortable with the construction approach (build new vs. renovate)
- If the facility needs at the high school are not addressed, the educational program will be reduced
Discussion on the survey followed:
- Townspeople didnÕt trust the information around cost
- People did not trust the HSBC
- Is there a better way to communicate?
- The numbers were confusing with all the ranges of assumptions
- Uncertainty around state funding was an important factor
- The HSBC did not effectively establish the need for the HS project
Other discussion
There was concern expressed about the lack of reporting of the NEASC information. Comments were:
- The Town does not fully understand the seriousness of the NEASC report
- This is the first outside look at the WHS facility and it confirms everything the HSBC recommended
- Someone other than the HSBC should be reporting this
- Where is the newspaper?
There was discussion about next steps. The group agreed to ask the School Committee to consider changing the charge to the HSBC and also to think about the make-up of the committee. Dr. Burton suggested that the HSBC should recommend a revised charge to the WSC. There was the strong opinion expressed that people with divergent views should be brought onto the HSBC. The group was reminded about the various viewpoints when the HSBC started its work. It evolved to a unanimous position after many months of analysis.
MSBA Update – Doug Sacra of HMFH began the discussion by saying that the MSBA (Massachusetts School Building Authority) is expected to start rolling out segments of the regulations in January. He thinks that a draft of the regulations will not be released all at the same time. The criteria for new projects seems to line up well with WaylandÕs position.
Lea reported that the MSBA website has recent information including a presentation given in November on the program (http://www.mass.gov/msba/). The statutory criteria for new projects lists
1. Health and safety
2. Existing severe overcrowding
3. Loss of accreditation
4. Prevent future severe overcrowding
5. Increase energy conservations and decrease energy costs
6. Short-term enrollment growth
7. Replace obsolete buildings
8. Transition to walk-to districts
The MSBA is on track to complete the needs survey for every community by April 2006.. Dr. Burton reported that an engineer from MSBA will visit Wayland to examine the schools.
There will be a multi-phase application process described by MSBA:
Phase 1. Determine the building conditions, enrollment projection, proposed projectÕs fit with the statutory priorities, understanding of communitiesÕ educational goals and where it fits with the master facilities plan.
Phase 2. MSBA board selects projects that are allowed to apply for Phase 2
- MSBA funds more comprehensive facilities assessment
- Community submits more detail about project to MSBA (site, environment, schematic design)
- MSBA decides reimbursable portions of plan and what rates apply
Phase 3. Community demonstrates local willingness to move forward with project
- Votes
- Funding
- Commitment to set aside funds for operations and maintenance of proposed building
The HSBC raised several questions about the application phases. While it is stated clearly that communities may not apply for grants before July, 2007, it is not clear whether the first two phases can be submitted before then. Dick Amster of Turner suggested that members of the HSBC visit the MSBA to ask these questions. Lea agreed to set up a meeting in January with the MSBA.
Next steps – The HSBC agreed to meet in late January after meeting with MSBA to formulate a recommendation on the charge of the HSBC and the make-up of the committee to be presented to the Wayland School Committee.
Motion – A motion was made by Mary Lentz and seconded by Joe Lewin to approve the minutes of HSBC meeting #34 held on Thursday, May 19, 2005.
Vote – The motion was approved unanimously (10 in favor, 0 opposed).
Observers: Pat Abramson, Sam DiSavino, Barb Fletcher, John Hilliard, Ken Isaacson, Louis Jurist, Bronwan Lamont, Michael Short, Tom Sciacca, Jo Wilson,
Comments and questions from observers:
- Do not confuse survey responders with voters. The farther away we get from the Public Safety Building, the better the chances for a WHS project. Dissolving a committee is not the end of the world.
Adjournment – The HSBC adjourned at 9:50 p.m.