In January, 2005 voters were asked to approve a debt-exclusion for a proposed $4.2 million design project for Wayland High School, and the proposal was not approved. The purpose of this study was to gather information about voter attitudes and opinions toward the proposal and Wayland High School. The High School Building Committee (HSBC), with assistance from the Wayland School Committee and other community members, developed and distributed the survey in June, 2005.

The surveys were mailed in individually addressed envelopes to active voters, which was defined as all voters who voted during any election in Wayland in the past two years (as of 5/31/05). If more than one voter lived at the same address, each voter received a separate survey. The survey mailing included a postage-paid return envelope. A total of 7,921 surveys were sent. (At that time, a total of 8,824 voters were registered in Wayland.) The surveys were mailed the week of June 22, 2005.

The survey was also available to be completed on-line. Links were provided to the survey from the School Committee web site. The on-line survey was available from June 22, 2005 until November 2, 2005.

Notices were run for several weeks in the Wayland Town Crier inviting any Wayland resident to complete a survey, either by paper form (available at the Library and Town Building) or via the Internet.

A sample of the survey can be found in Appendix A. The survey included opinion questions as well as demographic questions, to allow for a comparison between survey respondents and all voters.

Out of 7,921 surveys mailed, 2,075 responses were received. The survey was anonymous, i.e. respondents were not asked to provide their names. For this reason it is not possible to know the total response rate among active registered voters. In fact, some respondents indicated that they were not registered voters. However it can be estimated that the response rate was about 26%.

Due to limited resources, at this time there has been no analysis of the 74% of active voters who were non-responders. It is important to note that the surveys received are not a random sample, and came only from respondents who were self-motivated to return the survey. For this reason, it cannot be assumed that survey respondents are representative of all active voters.

In order to use this survey to draw conclusions about the total population, it would be necessary to conduct further research about the non-responders. For example, a telephone survey could be done, with randomly selected voters, to identify non-responders and gather additional information. At this time, the HSBC does not have sufficient resources to accomplish this research.

All surveys received through November 2, 2005 were included in this analysis. A total of 2,075 surveys were returned. 1,959 of these came through paper surveys, and the remaining 116 were received over the Internet. Surveys were data-entered by volunteers, including written comments. Of the 2,075 surveys received, 16 of them contained only comments. These 16 surveys were not included in the statistical analysis of responses, leaving a total of 2,059 surveys analyzed.

II. Summary of Research Findings

Demographically, the survey responses were fairly representative of active voters. There was a small variation found in age (respondents were older) and in home assessment value (respondents reported higher tax assessments). Although these variations were not fully analyzed, they were small and there isnít clear evidence they affected the survey responses.

There was found to be a fairly significant over-representation of project non-supporters or ìnoî voters among survey respondents. The analysis accounted for this by using a weighting factor.

Overall, the survey results were quite polarized, with project supporters and non-supporters taking opposing viewpoints. Non-supporters usually felt more strongly than supporters. Many respondents (7%) didnít answer the question about the proposed project, but generally expressed the same opinions of non-supporters. Since no adjustment was made for this group, this could have tended to skew the survey responses towards the non-supportersí viewpoint.

State reimbursement was an issue for many respondents. Non-supporters especially were quite concerned about the risk of not obtaining reimbursement. Overall most agreed it was important to have an application ready when the state begins accepting them, and that construction should not proceed until state aid is guaranteed.

A majority felt the existing high school facility was inadequate (65%) but an even larger majority thought it was important to address the code compliance issues (88%). Respondents were divided on whether the educational program would be affected if the facility needs at the high school were not addressed. Though most respondents thought the proposed project was too big in size and scope (59%), and thought it could be reduced without affecting the educational program (70%), they were not in favor of making reductions to academic space or fine arts space, and only a slight majority favored cuts in athletic space or common and support spaces.

An overwhelming majority (97%) of respondents agree that it is important to maintain the quality of the current educational program at the high school. Only a minority thought other town projects had higher priority.

Questions about the project approach and the High School Building Committee brought polarized responses without any clear majority. Respondents did want to see more research (63%) on the project approach. Of all 2, 059 surveys received, 11% said they made their decision for reasons not included in the survey.

Respondents were polarized on the question of cost, 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%).

As for the cost of the proposed project, respondentsí estimates were everywhere. Although 32% werenít sure or didnít answer, those who did respond gave estimates that ranged from less than half the HSBC/Finance Committee estimates to more than triple. Respondents who said they assumed reimbursement actually estimated higher than respondents who said they did not assume reimbursement. 38% of non-supporters estimated more than 20% higher than the HSBC/FinCom estimates with no reimbursement, 11.4% thought it would be double, and 4.8% thought more than triple.

When asked about the cost of a future proposal, respondents who did not see a facility need were predictably less willing to spend to address it, with nearly 40% not willing to spend anything and only 18% willing to spend up to the HSBC/FinCom estimate with reimbursement. Those who saw a need still wanted a project at the lower HSBC/FinCom estimate with reimbursement (63%). However, many voters were inconsistent in their responses to the cost questions, and apparently made a voting decision at odds with what they said they would do based on cost (using their own estimates, not the HSBC/FinComís).

III. Detail of Research Findings

Detailed survey findings are presented in this section, in graphic and narrative format, and in the appendix, in numerical and tabular format. This section is organized by topic or issue, and the appendix is in the same order as the survey questions themselves. The appendix also contains a copy of the survey with a summary of the results.

A. Demographics

The first step was to compare the demographic information on the surveys received (the sample) to what is known about the group being studied (the total population), to determine if the sample is representative of the population, and if not, how that might have affected the answers to other survey questions.

1. Age

The table below is based on the response to Question 8a, ìHow old are you?î It compares the ages of survey respondents to active voters.

Table 1. Age of Survey Respondents Compared to Active Voters

	Respondents	Active Voters
Mean (average) years	54.2	53.1
Median years	54.2	52.2

Respondents were slightly older than active voters, but the distribution was close, as shown by the graph below.

Survey respondents were different than the population of active voters, but did this affect the responses? It did for Question 1 (ìDid you support the project?î). Older voters were much more likely to answer ìnoî. Did age make a difference in the other responses too? A test of the Question 2a responses for project supporters (those answering ìyesî to Question 1) showed differences only in the 65 & over category.

Because the difference in ages is small, and because it did not have a remarkable affect on Question 2a, it was not fully analyzed and no adjustment was made.

2. Gender

Question 8b asked, ìAre you male or female?î The difference between respondents and active voters was not statistically significant and was within the variation expected for the sample size.

3. Children

Question 8c was, ìDo you have children in your household under the age of 18? If so, are your children currently enrolled/will they enroll in the Wayland Public Schools?î

These responses were compared to the general Wayland population, according to the 2000 U.S. Census and the Superintendentís office. The difference was not sufficient to conclude that survey respondents are different from active voters or the general population in this regard.

4. Voter Registration

This table is based on the response to Question 8d: ìAre you currently registered to vote?î

Table 2. Registered Voters Among Survey Respondents

	Frequency	Percent
Registered	1943	99.4%
Not registered	7	0.4%
Not sure	5	0.3%
Total	1955	100.1%

No answer: 104 surveys

Does not total 100.0% due to rounding.

5. Home Assessment

Question 8e asked, ìWhat would you say is the assessed value of your home?

To analyze the answers and determine if the response was representative, the addresses of active voters were merged with tax assessment records to obtain a tax assessment distribution for active voters. This data does not account for rentals, which comprise 8.3% of all Wayland households according to the 2000 U.S. Census. It also does not account for some 30 multi-family dwellings, because there are inconsistencies between voter address numbering and tax assessment address numbering. For example, one might have ì1B Maple Streetî while the other has ì1 Maple Streetî. Using this data, it was possible to obtain only an approximation.

Compared to this approximation, the survey respondents are not representative, and the difference cannot be attributed solely to rentals.

The chart below shows the percent variance between the approximation of active voter assessments and the survey respondentís assessments.

The approximation of active votersí assessments yielded a mean (average) of $645.8k and a median (midpoint) of $552.5k. The survey respondentsí assessment yielded a mean of $829.3k and a median of $562.8k. Although the difference in the means is great, the difference in the medians is not. The data does suggest that a slightly larger proportion of voters with higher assessments might have responded to the survey, particularly in the highest categories, and that a slightly lower proportion of voters with lower assessments responded. In other words, higher assessments might be slightly over-represented and lower assessments slightly under-represented.

Did assessment value make a difference in the survey responses? It did for Question 1 (Did you support the project?). Voters below the median assessment were more likely to answer ìnoî, while voters above the median assessment were more likely to answer ìyesî. However this difference was not fully analyzed, and could be attributable to other variables such as age or the presence of children. The effect of assessment value on other questions was not analyzed.

6. Information Sources

Question 7 asked, ìHow did you receive information about the high school project this past winter? Check all that apply.î

Table 3. Response to Question 7 ìHow did you receive information?î

Information Source		Percent of respondents
Newspaper	74.6%
Friends and neighbors	64.4%
HSBC mailer		60.8%
Warrant		48.3%
HSBC forum	48.3%
Email newsletter		43.9%
Phone call from a group		35.7%
Web sites		27.8%
Other mailer		25.0%

It is interesting to note that over 480 respondents cited ìHSBC forumî as a source of information. Though tapes of the forums were broadcast over the cable network, this figure far exceeds the attendance at all the HSBC forums combined.

For most categories there was not a significant difference in information sources between supporters and non-supporters. More non-supporters cited ìother mailerî. More supporters cited ìphone call from a group,î as well as ìemail newsletterî and ìweb siteî.

7. Voting Behavior

Question 1 asked, ìRegardless of whether or not you voted, did you support the design project as it was proposed?î By comparing this response to the results of the January 2005 Special Election, it is possible to determine if survey respondents were representative of active voters.

Table 4. Comparison of Question 1 Responses to Election Results

	Survey Responses		Election Results		Expected
	Frequency	Percent	Frequency	Percent	Frequency	Weight
Supporters⁽¹⁾	590	36.9%	2005	43.1%	690.324	1.170
Non-supporters⁽¹⁾	1011	63.1%	2645	56.9%	910.676	0.900
Total	1601	100.0%	4650	100.0%	1601.000

No answer to Question 1 and/or Question 6: 165 surveys

⁽¹⁾ Includes those who said they voted (Question 6); 194 respondents said they didnít vote; 99 respondents said they voted but were ìundecidedî

The difference in rates is sufficient to conclude that the survey respondents are not representative, in that a much greater proportion of non-supporters responded to the survey. Supporters responded to the survey at a rate of 29.4%, while non-supporters responded at a rate of 38.2%. Because this effect can be quantified, it is possible to adjust the sample (i.e. the responses) to be like the study population (i.e. the voters). This was done by applying the weight shown in the table above. The weight was calculated by the ratio of the actual responses to the expected responses. Throughout this analysis, these weights were applied to results that included both supporters and non-supporters.

How many respondents said they voted? Supporters and non-supporters both said they voted at a rate of about 91%. Only 68.3% of ìundecidedî respondents said they voted. In the January Special Election, active voters voted at a rate of 58.7%.

Why didnít respondents vote? Only 21% of those who said they didnít vote gave a reason. Of those who did give a reason, 45% said they were away, 36% cited a conflict or illness, 7% were undecided, 6% werenít registered, and 6% forgot.

B. Responses to Opinion Questions

1. State Reimbursement

Question 2a was, ìThe risk was too great that Wayland would not obtain the estimated state reimbursement.î The results are broken down by the response to Question 1, ìDid you support the design project?î

Non-supporters felt strongly that reimbursement was too risky while supporters mostly did not. Most ìundecidedsî, and the majority of all respondents, agreed that reimbursement was too risky.

Question 4h stated, ìIt is important for Wayland to proceed with a design project (at a cost of about $4 million), to be ready with an application when the state reimbursement program begins accepting them.î

Although non-supporter respondents were more divided and mostly did not agree, the majority overall did agree with this statement.

Question 4i was, ìAfter submitting a state reimbursement application, the town should not proceed with construction until state aid is guaranteed.î

Although supporters were generally more comfortable proceeding without state aid, a strong majority overall was not comfortable.

2. Adequacy of the Existing Facility

Question 2e asked for an opinion of this statement, about the proposed design project: ìThe existing high school facility is adequate.î

Supporters felt strongly that the existing facility is not adequate, and non-supporters were more divided. However a strong majority of all respondents did not agree that the existing facility is adequate.

Question 4a asked for an opinion of this statement, about the high school project: ìIf the facility needs at the high school are not addressed, the educational program will be reduced.î

A slight majority of respondents did agree with this statement.

This is actually a ìdouble-barreledî question, in that it asks about the facility needs, but also about the connection between the facility needs and the educational program. Respondents who didnít agree there are needs probably wouldnít agree that the educational program would suffer if they werenít addressed. For those respondents, this question doesnít provide any information about whether they saw a connection between the needs and the education program.

Among respondents who did think there are needs, the responses to Question 4a break down as follows.

Table 5. Response to Question 4a, for Respondents who Disagreed with Question 2e

	If the needs are not addressed, the educational program will be reduced.
The existing facility is adequate:	Strongly agree	Somewhat agree	Somewhat disagree	Strongly disagree	No opinion	Total
Somewhat disagree	3.6%	15.2%	13.2%	6.3%	1.4%	0.0%
Strongly disagree	37.5%	16.2%	4.0%	2.1%	0.7%	30.1%
Total	41.1%	31.4%	17.1%	8.3%	2.1%	30.1%

A large majority (72%) of those respondents do see a connection between facility needs and the educational program. They agreed the educational program will suffer if the needs are not addressed.

3. Cost of the Proposed Project

The charts below summarize the responses to the first three cost questions in section 2, which asked about the proposed design project.

Question 2b: At $57 million, the overall cost of the project was too high.

Question 2c: Even with state aid, the net cost to the town of $39 million was too high.

Question 2d: The cost to me as a taxpayer was too high.

The responses to each of these three questions were similar. In general, respondents who were concerned with project cost were more concerned with the overall cost than the net cost or their personal cost, and perceived a difference in these aspects.

The pattern for the cost questions was similar to the pattern for the state reimbursement question. However a significant portion of supporters somewhat agreed the cost was too high, especially the overall cost.

Question 3 asked, ìIf the project had proceeded as proposed through construction, what did you estimate the annual effect on your property taxes would have been?î Respondents were asked to choose from a list of ranges, such as $250 - $499, to indicate the tax effect amount. 32.1% of all respondents didnít answer or werenít sure, and only 3.3% said they donít pay property taxes.

The annual property tax effect amount for a household is a function of the tax rate and the assessed property value. The tax rate is the same for everyone, but assessments are different. If two respondents estimated a tax effect of $500, did one of them think the cost would be higher than the other? It depends on their assessment.

In order to make comparisons, the survey responses were converted to a tax rate, using the respondentsí assessment as provided in Question 8e (ìWhat would you say is the assessed value of your home?î). The tax rate calculations were based on the midpoints of the ranges given in each category on the survey.

Using the midpoints makes the calculations easier, but the ranges were rather broad, at $250 for cost and $250,000 for assessed value. Many different rates could result from using numbers at the high and low ends of the ranges. Even the HSBC/FinCom estimates were given as ranges.

Because respondents gave ranges, and didnít specify exact dollar amounts, it is difficult to draw conclusions or make assumptions based on specific amounts. However, relative comparisons would still be valid. For example, if two respondents had tax assessments of $400 - $548k, and one chose a cost of $250 - $499 and the other $500 - $749, it can be said with confidence that the second respondent thought it would cost more than the first.

The chart below shows the respondentsí estimates of the tax effect. The lines show the midpoints of the ranges that the respondents used.

The HSBC/FinCom estimates per $100k of value, after the sixth year of the project, were $79.05 - $105.69 with reimbursement, and $126.20 - $156.56 without reimbursement.

Surprisingly, the estimates of respondents who assumed state reimbursement were higher than those who assumed no reimbursement, and the estimates varied greatly. A very large percentage of respondents supplied estimates that were higher than the HSBC/FinCom estimates, as shown in the table below.

Table 6. Respondentsí Project Cost Estimates vs. HSBC/FinCom Estimates

	Project Supporters	Project Non-Supporters	Undecided	No answer to Q1	Total
Below HSBC/FinCom⁽¹⁾	29.5%	9.1%	19.4%	8.6%	16.7%
+/-25% HSBC/FinCom⁽²⁾	60.4%	53.0%	68.1%	60.5%	60.5%
Above HSBC/FinCom⁽³⁾	10.1%	37.9%	12.5%	30.9%	22.9%
	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%	100.1%

Totals do not add to 100.0% due to rounding.

⁽¹⁾Includes respondents who estimated less than $60.

⁽²⁾ Includes respondents who estimated between $60 and $180.

⁽³⁾ Includes respondents who estimated more than $180.

A significant number (38%) of project non-supporters estimated the project cost to be more than 25% higher than the HSBC/FinCom estimate, and 11.4% thought the cost would be more than double, and 4.8% more than triple.

4. Support for the Cost of a Future Proposal

Question 5 asked, ìBased on your opinion of the needs at Wayland High School, would you support a proposal to meet those needs if your annual property tax effect wereÖî Respondents were asked to choose from a list of ranges, such as $250 - $499, to indicate the tax effect amount they would be willing to support.

This is another ìdouble-barreledî question, in that it asks about the facility needs, but also about the respondentís willingness to support the cost of meeting those needs. Again, a respondent who did not agree on the needs would be unlikely to support spending much money to address it.

As with the previous question about the tax effect amount, the survey responses were converted to a tax rate to help with comparisons, using the respondentsí assessment as provided in Question 8e (ìWhat would you say is the assessed value of your home?î).

The tax effect rate calculations were based on the midpoints of the ranges given in each category on the survey. 25% of respondents werenít sure or didnít answer, and 2.3% said they didnít pay property taxes.

This chart shows the percentage of respondents who said they would support a project at each rate, based on their response to Question 2e about the facility need (ìThe existing high school is adequate.î) The percentages are cumulative, since a respondent would presumably also support a project at a lower cost than specified. For example, 50% of respondents who saw a facility need said they would support a project with a tax rate of $100, but only 8% of respondents who did not see a need said they would support such a project.

The chart also shows how the responses compare to the HSBC/FinCom estimated cost for the proposed design project. Of those who thought the high school inadequate, 45 – 58% would support spending up to the estimate assuming reimbursement, and 17 – 28% up to the estimate assuming no reimbursement. Of those who thought the high school adequate, 7 – 15% would support spending up to the estimate with reimbursement, and only 1 – 4% without

How does respondentsí ìprice pointsî compare to their estimated cost of the proposed design project? How much less would the project need to cost, in respondentsí minds, to win their support? Even though respondents usually did not estimate near the HSBC/FinCom projections, it is still useful to examine how respondents said they would react to a perceived increase or decrease.

The chart below was made by calculating the difference between what the respondent said the proposed project would cost (Question 3) and what they said they would support (Question 5). A difference of –20% means that the respondent was only willing to support a proposal that cost at least 20% less than their estimate of the proposed project cost.

For example, 25% of those who thought the high school was adequate say they would support a project costing 40% less than their estimate for the proposed project. 25% of those who thought the high school was not adequate say they would support a project costing 20% more than their estimate of the proposed project.

Was this consistent with the voting decision? In other words, if a respondent reported a willingness to support a $150 project, and thought the proposed project would cost $100, did he or she in fact support it? Conversely, if a respondent were only willing to spend $50, and thought the proposed project would cost $100, did he or she in fact not support it?

In fact many respondents were not consistent in their survey answers. Many supported the proposed project even though it didnít meet their spending criteria, and did not support or were undecided about the proposed project, even though it met their spending criteria.

18.6% of those who said they supported the project did so, even though they estimated the cost would be 20% higher or more than the cost they said they would support. 10.1% of non-supporters and 26.6% of undecideds did not support the proposed project, even though they estimated the cost would be at or below what they said they would support. In summary, 15.8% of all respondents decided about the proposed project contrary to their stated cost criteria. For this group, and perhaps others, cost was apparently not the deciding factor.

5. Scope

Question 2f asked for an opinion about the statement, ìThe proposed project was too big in size or scope.î

Non-supporters agreed the project was too big, and supporters didnít.

Question 4c asked about the statement, ìIt is important to bring the school into compliance with codes for health/safety, disabled students, and gender equality (Title IX).î

A large majority of respondents (87.7%) agreed this is important. Respondents who were project supporters were quite consistent in their response to this question and question 2e, about the adequacy of the existing facility. However, respondents who were project non-supporters or were undecided were quite inconsistent. Here is the breakdown of their responses.

Table 7. Recap of Question 2e and 4c, for ìNoî and ìUndecidedî Respondents

	Strongly agree	Somewhat agree	Somewhat disagree	Strongly disagree	No opinion	Total
The existing high school facility is adequate.
Project non-supporters	26.1%	29.1%	30.9%	11.0%	2.9%	100.0%
Undecided about project	12.0%	15.5%	27.5%	38.7%	6.3%	100.0%
It is important to bring the school into compliance with codes for health/safety, disabled students, and gender equality (Title IX).
Project non-supporters	41.1%	38.5%	9.5%	6.5%	4.3%	100.0%
Undecided about project	68.1%	27.0%	2.1%	0.7%	2.1%	100.0%

Among respondents who were project non-supporters, 55.2% believed the existing facility is adequate yet 79.6% believed it is important to bring it into code compliance. Among those undecided, only 27.5% believed it is adequate yet 95.1% believed it is important to bring it into code compliance. It could be that respondents were not aware or did not believe that the existing facility is currently not in compliance. It could also be that other factors determine ìadequacyî.

Question 4e was, ìThe project can be reduced in size and scope without affecting the educational program.î

The responses to this question were consistent with the responses to Question 2f, ìThe proposed project was too big in size and scope.î Project supporters did not agree, and non-supporters and undecided respondents did agree.

Although 70% of respondents overall thought the project could be reduced, the questions about specific reductions did not draw anywhere near this level of support.

Question 4d asked, ìTo reduce project costs, the HSBC should propose reductions in the size and scope of:î

4di. Academic spaces

4dii. Athletic spaces

4diii. Fine arts spaces

4div. Common spaces and support spaces

There was not much support for reducing academic spaces (only 23.3% overall), and respondents were divided on athletic and fine arts spaces, with a slight majority favoring athletic space reduction. Most did agree with reducing common and support spaces (55.5%) but not overwhelmingly so.

6. Construction Approach

Question 2g asked for an opinion about the statement, ìI was not comfortable with the construction approach (build new vs. renovate).î

Non-supporters were not comfortable with the project approach, whereas supporters were comfortable. Overall, respondents were divided on this question with a slight majority agreeing they were not comfortable.

Question 4k was, ìThe HSBC should more thoroughly analyze building new vs. renovation.î

Those who were not comfortable with the project construction approach, and a few more who were, agreed the HSBC should do more analysis.

7. The High School Building Committee

Question 2h asked for an opinion about the statement, ìI was not comfortable with the High School Building Committee.î

Most project non-supporters were not comfortable with the HSBC, and most supporters were. The great majority of undecided respondents were either comfortable or had no opinion. Overall, respondents were divided on this question but 23% had no opinion or didnít answer.

Question 4f stated, ìThe current membership of the High School Building Committee should be changed.î

Nearly 40% of all of respondents had no opinion or didnít answer this question. Among those who did, project non-supporters favored change while supporters did not.

8. Project Priority

Question 2i asked for an opinion about the statement, ìOther town projects are more important than the high school.î

A strong majority of respondents, even among those who were non-supporters, do not agree that other projects are more important than the High School.

Question 4b asked for an opinion about the statement, ìIt is important to maintain the quality of the current educational program at the high school.î

By the largest margin, and with the greatest response rate of any question on the survey, 96.7% of respondents agreed with this statement.

9. Other Reasons

Question 2j asked for an opinion about the statement, ìI made my decision for other reasons not listed above.î

A third of respondents did not answer the question. The chart above shows the distribution for respondents who answered the question. Of all the surveys received, only 1.2% indicated they made their decision for other reasons.

C. Issues of Greatest Concern

The table below shows those issues that resulted in the greatest response, among all respondents.

Table 8. Statements with the Highest Number of Respondents who Agreed, Weighted

% strongly or somewhat agreeing
96.7%	4b	It is important to maintain the quality of the current educational program at the high school.
87.7%	4c	It is important to bring the school into compliance with codes for health/safety, disabled students, and gender equality (Title IX).
70.0%	4e	The project can be reduced in size/scope without affecting the educational program.
68.4%	4i	After submitting a state reimbursement application, the town should not proceed with construction until state aid is guaranteed.
68.2%	2b	At $57 million, the overall cost of the project was too high.
67.3%	4di	To reduce project costs, the HSBC should NOT propose reductions in the size and scope of academic spaces.
67.2%	2a	The risk was too great that Wayland would not obtain the estimated state reimbursement.
66.4%	2i	Other town projects are NOT more important than the high school.
64.5%	2e	The existing high school facility is NOT adequate.
63.2%	4k	The HSBC should more thoroughly analyze building new vs. renovation.

The table below shows those issues that divided respondents; in other words, there was less than a 15% difference between those agreeing and those disagreeing.

Table 9. Statements with the Smallest Difference Between the Number of Respondents who Agreed and Disagreed, Weighted

Difference
3.0% (more agreed)	2h	I was not comfortable with the High School Building Committee.
-6.8% (more disagreed)	4diii	To reduce project costs, the HSBC should propose reductions in the size and scope of fine arts spaces.
8.0% (more agreed)	2g	I was not comfortable with the construction approach (build new vs. renovate).
-12.6% (more disagreed)	4a.	If the facility needs at the high school are not addressed, the educational program will be reduced.

Appendix 1. Survey Questions, with Responses

This appendix shows the survey as it was distributed, with the response percentages shown in italics. Of the 2,075 surveys returned, 2,059 have been analyzed. 16 surveys were returned with comments only and are not included in the analysis. Percents do not total 100 due to rounding, and only reflect those answering the question.

The first table shows the responses weighted with the factors as described in section I.A.7, Voting Behavior. The second table shows the responses without the weighting.

Table X.0.1 Survey Responses, Weighted

The High School Building Committee (HSBC) and the School Committee (SC) are continuing to develop a proposal for Wayland High School, to serve our students and faculty for many years to come and maintain our tradition of high quality education. Your assistance is needed to help the HSBC and SC decide how best to move ahead. Please take a moment and complete this completely anonymous and confidential survey and return it in the enclosed envelope (your stamp will save the town the cost of the postage). If you prefer, you may complete the survey on-line at www.waylandschoolcommittee.org. Follow links to the High School Survey. We are eager to have your input.

Please answer these questions about the high school design project presented in January 2005.

1. Regardless of whether or not you voted, did you support the design project as it was proposed?

q Yes

33.9%

q No

58.5%

q Undecided

7.6%

2. Here is a series of statements about that project. Please indicate your opinion about each statement.

Statements	Strongly agree	Somewhat agree	Somewhat disagree	Strongly disagree	No opinion
a. The risk was too great that Wayland would not obtain the estimated state reimbursement.	^48.0%	^19.2%	^13.0%	^13.2%	^6.7%
b. At $57 million, the overall cost of the project was too high.	^53.0%	^15.2%	^11.8%	^17.1%	^2.1%
c. Even with state aid, the net cost to the town of $39 million was too high.	^45.1%	^16.4%	^13.1%	^22.2%	^2.5%
d. The cost to me as a taxpayer was too high.	^42.6%	^14.8%	^13.3%	^24.7%	^3.9%
e. The existing high school facility is adequate.	^15.9%	^17.2%	^23.7%	^40.8%	^2.4%
f. The proposed project was too big in size or scope.	^42.0%	^16.7%	^11.6%	^26.0%	^3.6%
g. I was not comfortable with the construction approach (build new vs. renovate).	^34.8%	^16.4%	^10.7%	^32.1%	^6.0%
h. I was not comfortable with the High School Building Committee.	^27.0%	^14.2%	^8.7%	^29.5%	^20.6%
i. Other town projects are more important than the high school.	^8.7%	^13.0%	^21.4%	^45.0%	^11.9%
j. I made my decision for other reasons not listed above.	^9.2%	^7.7%	^6.2%	^34.2%	^42.7%

3. If the project had proceeded as proposed through construction, what did you estimate the annual effect on your property taxes would have been?

q Less than $250 1.5%

q $250-$499 12.9%

q $500-749 20.2%

q $750-$999 15.2%

q $1,000-$1,999 14.6%

q More than $2,000 6.3%

q Not sure 25.9%

q I donít pay property taxes

3.3%

Did your estimate assume state reimbursement?

q Yes 47.2%

q No 52.8%

Please answer these questions to help the HSBC develop a future proposal.

4. Here is a series of statements about the high school project. Please indicate your opinion about each.

Statements	Strongly agree	Somewhat agree	Somewhat disagree	Strongly disagree	No opinion
a. If the facility needs at the high school are not addressed, the educational program will be reduced.	_30.9%	_24.1%	_20.0%	_22.4%	_2.5%
b. It is important to maintain the quality of the current educational program at the high school.	_77.4%	_19.3%	_1.6%	_1.5%	_1.3%
c. It is important to bring the school into compliance with codes for health/safety, disabled students, and gender equality (Title IX).	_59.9%	_27.8%	_6.1%	_3.6%	_2.8%
d. To reduce project costs, the HSBC should propose reductions in the size and scope of: i. academic spaces	_8.6%	_14.7%	_15.5%	_51.8%	_9.5%
ii. athletic spaces	_24.5%	_28.9%	_14.3%	_23.7%	_8.7%
iii. fine arts spaces	_16.6%	_25.4%	_18.9%	_29.9%	_9.2%
iv. common spaces and support spaces	_27.2%	_28.3%	_14.4%	_21.0%	_9.0%
e. The project can be reduced in size/scope without affecting the educational program.	_49.4%	_20.6%	_11.7%	_13.7%	_4.6%
f. The current membership of the High School Building Committee should be changed.	_27.4%	_15.5%	_7.9%	_15.2%	_34.0%
h. It is important for Wayland to proceed with a design project (at a cost of about $4 million), to be ready with an application when the state reimbursement program begins accepting them.	_35.5%	_20.7%	_14.5%	_23.2%	_6.0%
i. After submitting a state reimbursement application, the town should not proceed with construction until state aid is guaranteed.	_49.4%	_19.0%	_13.5%	_14.2%	_3.9%
k. The HSBC should more thoroughly analyze building new vs. renovation.	_48.2%	_15.0%	_9.2%	_21.9%	_5.7%

5. Based on your opinion of the needs at Wayland High School, would you support a proposal to meet those needs if your annual property tax effect were:

q No increase 17.3%	q Less than $250 16.9%	q $250-$499 21.7%	q $500-$749 11.9%	q $750-$999 7.3%
q $1,000-$1,499 5.6%	q $1,500-$1,999 3.0%	q More than $2,000 3.3%	q Not sure 10.2%	q Donít pay property taxes 2.7%

Please answer these general questions.

6. Did you vote in the special election this past January?

q Yes 90.4%

q No 9.6%

If no, why not?

7. How did you receive information about the high school project this past winter? Check all that apply.

q HSBC forum 48.3%	q HSBC mailer 60.8%	q Warrant 48.3%
q Email newsletter 43.9%	q Friends and neighbors 64.4%	q Phone call from a group 35.7%
q Web sites 27.8%	q Newspaper 74.6%	q Other mailer 25.0%

8. Please provide some demographic information. Remember, your responses are anonymous.

a. How old are you?

q 18-24 2.7%

q 25-34 3.3%

q 35-44 19.6%

q 45-54

28.8%

q 55-64 22.7%

q 65 & over 22.9%

b. Are you:

q Male 44.6%

q Female 55.4%

c. Do you have children in your household under the age of 18?	q Yes 45.0%	q No 55.0%
If so, are your children enrolled/will they enroll in the Wayland Public Schools?	q Yes 94.6%	q No 5.4%

d. Are you currently registered to vote?

q Yes 99.4%

q No 0.4%

q Not sure 0.3%

e. What would you say is the assessed value of your home?
	q Less than $250k 0.5%	q $250-$399k 6.9%	q $400-$549k 24.3%	q $550-$699k 25.5%	q $700-$849k 15.0%
	q $850-$999k 8.6%	q $1-$1.49M 10.8%	q $1.5-$1.99M 3.7%	q $2M & over 1.6%	q Not sure 3.2%

We sincerely thank you for your input. It is highly valued in this community-wide endeavor. If you have further questions, comments or concerns, feel free to contact the HSBC at 508-358-7728.

Table X.0.2 Survey Responses, not Weighted