A special election to pass a debt exclusion for the construction of a new Wellington Elementary will almost certainly be needed, as negotiations on the final price tag for construction of a new Wellington Elementary School between the Mass. School Building Authority (MSBA) and the town continue. The delays will make it impossible for town leaders to put a vote on a debt exclusion to fund construction before voters in the town’s April election.
Word on the delay came down late this week from School Dept. Finance Director Gerry Missal, who said that meetings between the town, its architects, project managers and MSBA staff were progressing, but that questions over cost estimates were slowing the process of reaching a Funding Agreement that is necessary before going out to bid on the project.
At issue seem to be cost differences between the cost of the Wellington project compared with that of a similarly sized project in Hingham, Mass., one of the more recent projects to pass MSBA muster. At the meeting, Wellington Building Committee Chairman Mark Haley and vice-chair Pat Brusch, as well as Jonathan Levi of Jonathan Levi Architects and project managers PMA explained that differences in the siting of the two projects and the need to do site improvements at the Wellington (the site includes the remains of a previously demolished building) and energy efficiency features explained the cost/sq ft. differences with the Hingham project. When those factors were subtracted, the two projects had similar per-square foot costs. They also described $2 million in value engineering reductions to the Wellington project.
Mary Pichetti of the MSBA will now take those adjusted figures back to her larger team for feedback. Furthermore, there are still questions about which unique features of the Wellington project would be reimbursable by the state, Missal noted. As an example, MSBA generally hasn’t reimbursed towns for demolition costs, and Belmont is looking for guidance on whether those costs might be reimbursable with the Wellington. But with the Selectmen facing a March 2nd deadline to get a question on the April ballot, the MSBA sent a signal that it would not have all those issues ironed out in time.
While the delay gives backers of the Wellington project more time to organize, it greatly complicates matters for the town’s political leadership, which is also juggling a vote on an operational override. At public forums and elsewhere, town leaders have floated the idea of putting off the override vote until late spring until the state’s budget has been settled and the town has a clearer picture of what’s coming its way in the form of local aid, etc. However, those calculations were based on the assumption that the Wellington vote would come in April. With that vote postponed, the town faces the possibility of a combined override-debt exclusion vote that backers of both measures would likely find politically unpalatable.
I may be mistaken, but it could be helpful to have both the Wellington funding and the operational override on the same ballot. I got an email recently that suggested that the Wellington community could tip the scales to get the override passed. But if they are not on the same ballot, we may not get them out to vote! What do others think??
My guess is there's significant overlap between the two communities already so there wouldn't be much of an uplift in favor of either an override or the exclusion if the two were combined. The risk is that putting both on at the same time would simply amount to electoral overload.
On a related note, I continue to be surprised by the hostile posture taken toward the school community – and 'newcomers' to Belmont in general – that I see in the BCH and various related forums. Hmmmmm…
I agree with Joe on the hostility issue. I don't actually believe that the people in this town are as against the schools as the few vocal citizens lead us to believe though. The part that amazes me is when budget cutting time comes and the town stands up to present their cuts, and they claim to be cutting “plowing sidewalks in front of private residences”. They cannot be serious- show me a sidewalk in front of a private residence that is plowed. It seems that they don't have too much trouble finding hidden pockets of money- yet the schools are cutting 20 teachers and they are accused of having hidden pockets.
Hey Joe. I agree — though technically I don't think you can combine the two spending items into one big override. The debt exclusion is a different instrument than the property tax increase and will have to be voted on separately. But — yeah — if the challenge with both items is to get the folks in town who support the schools and, broadly speaking, aren't opposed to paying more to make sure that Belmont Public Schools stay among the best in the state, you could argue that it will be easier to get those folks out to the polls once instead of twice. My 2c.
Joe,
You haven't seen hostile yet. There is a rumor floating around about a possible cost savings move by the SC involving the Wellington that will pit Parents against Parents and will be vicious. Trust me there is a fire brewing that will make the BYBA issue seem like cotton candy. Hopefully it is just nonsense but I will know more in a week or two.
PJ
Are referring to the proposal to save money by putting some grades (e.g., K,1,2) at the Burbank, and other grades (3, 4) at Wellington? This was discussed publicly at the school committee meeting two weeks ago (my wife goes to many of these). You get a slightly more efficient allocation of personnel that way; if your budget is limited, and you want to minimize the hit on class sizes and services, this is something you might do. I'm not sure I like it.
Interesting stuff, this. Thanks for the perspective and insights everybody.
I lived in a town in Maine where they did lots of research that supported the idea of K-2 in one building and 3-5 in another building. It helps to even out class sizes, and it consolidates materials to a single building- so you only need one set of materials instead of two. They were successful with the changes. As far as pitting parents against parents, no community likes change, but if it continues to support excellent schools in these hard economic times then it's worth it. It could also get some good will points with the citizens who believe the schools are draining them financially to see the SB trying to be more creative.
Teachers have a hard time with that kind of change- but if it means keeping their jobs and not having 32 children in a classroom- they may be interested too.
No really great answers here- but all food for thought.
Kim,
There are also studies that show kids lose ground in the early months of transitions between Schools and also that Schools (K-2) which don't have MCAS responsibility tend to lose focus which puts a great strain on the transition schools when MCAS starts in grade 3. Add in the logistical nightmare for parents with children in different grades and you have a disaster for what amount of savings? I would also venture that all these moves were based on fiscal decisions and none based on educational value. I still think this is a float the idea privately and measure the response before proceeding. Based on the response I have seen from dozens of parents, the SC would be wise to dispel any notion of merging the grades between the Schools before this escalates into areas in which civility gets tossed out the door. Will the same merger occur between Butler and Winn Brook displacing their children? I have seen nothing from any School Admin/School Committee even hinting at this change besides David's comment and a private email so I will wait and see what transpires.
PJ
PJ,
You are right that there are concerns about transitions- but the difference is that these kids would not be leaving friends or merging with new kids- just a building shift- and in addition- our teachers are capable of communicating with the other grades to prep for MCAS- all that being said, I am less than enthusiastic about the idea and wonder if the cost savings is really there- I think the new superintendent needs to apply a fresh eye to the finances and help us make some other changes. Also- Wellington has been designed as K-4- it would have to be redesigned…. anyhow…. like I said….. food for thought……
“I would also venture that all these moves were based on fiscal decisions and none based on educational value.”
I don't agree. The problem we're faced with is which choices will match our fiscal constraints while doing the least damage to education (or else vote an override to fix the fiscal constraints). I do not think we can make the necessary cost cuts without making actual cuts in education. Look at what's proposed to be cut, look at what's left over. The split-school trick saves money and preserves class sizes, and adds some other not-easily-quantified (continuity, student churn) costs.
I'm only mildly sympathetic to “logistical nightmare” claims — for the 4 years before this one, we've had one kid at Butler, one at Chenery, and one at the high school. Wellington and Burbank are not far apart, and the single street connecting them is relatively walkable — the worst crossing there is Goden, which is much tamer than Trapelo, Common, or Concord.
Also, keep in mind that “specialist” teachers such as reading support like the lasered approach they are able to take when working with a smaller age spread. Playgrounds can be more age appropriate as well. In some towns they have schools set up in different ways to meet different needs- so I don't think that having Wellington and Burbank set up as k-2, 3-4 and Butler and Winn Brook as traditional schools is a problem at all.
Oh, and also, well said dr2chase- what ever it takes to keep our children learning! At this point- losing 20 teachers is unacceptable- we already have larger class sizes than many surrounding communities without laying off teachers- and every day more children register at our schools- they haven't seen this kind of influx in years.
“I would also venture that all these moves were based on fiscal decisions and none based on educational value.”
I don't agree. The problem we're faced with is which choices will match our fiscal constraints while doing the least damage to education (or else vote an override to fix the fiscal constraints). I do not think we can make the necessary cost cuts without making actual cuts in education. Look at what's proposed to be cut, look at what's left over. The split-school trick saves money and preserves class sizes, and adds some other not-easily-quantified (continuity, student churn) costs.
I'm only mildly sympathetic to “logistical nightmare” claims — for the 4 years before this one, we've had one kid at Butler, one at Chenery, and one at the high school. Wellington and Burbank are not far apart, and the single street connecting them is relatively walkable — the worst crossing there is Goden, which is much tamer than Trapelo, Common, or Concord.
Also, keep in mind that “specialist” teachers such as reading support like the lasered approach they are able to take when working with a smaller age spread. Playgrounds can be more age appropriate as well. In some towns they have schools set up in different ways to meet different needs- so I don't think that having Wellington and Burbank set up as k-2, 3-4 and Butler and Winn Brook as traditional schools is a problem at all.
Oh, and also, well said dr2chase- what ever it takes to keep our children learning! At this point- losing 20 teachers is unacceptable- we already have larger class sizes than many surrounding communities without laying off teachers- and every day more children register at our schools- they haven't seen this kind of influx in years.