‘THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS OF AMHERST, MASSACHUSETTS (OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT 413-362-1810 (PHone) 170 Chestwur STREET 413-549-6108 (Fx) ‘Amuerst, MA 01002 November 22, 2016 Katie Loeffler Capital Project Manager ‘Massachusetts Schoo! Building Authority 40 Broad Street ‘Amherst, MA 01002 Re: Amherst Wildwood School Building Project and Town Meeting Vote Dear Ms. Loeffler: First, we would like to thank you for your steadfast work to support the Wildwood Building Project. The entire team at the MSBA has been an exemplary partner throughout this process. ‘This letter is a formal response consistent with the MSBA’s failed vote policy. The current project received the support of a town-wide vote for a debt exclusion override on November 8, 2016. The results (overall and by precinct) are attached; the building project was Question 5 on the ballot. However, the project did not receive a 2/3 vote from Amherst Town Meeting members on November 14, 2016 (attached; please view the first column for data on the building project vote). Reasons for the Fail ‘Town Meeting/Requested Reme: The School Committee (4-1), Finance Committee (4-0-2), Select Board (unanimous), and Joint Capital Planning Committee (unanimous) all endorsed the proposed project to Town Meeting, because of its merits to meet the needs of the Town. The School Building Committee had voted on the Schematic Design without opposing votes based on the excellent architectural design and acceptable cost. There were few negative comments about the architectural design or the cost at Town Meeting. It does not appear that Town Meeting was unwilling to undertake the borrowing that was the purpose of warrant article 2, However, this support of these elected bodies and the lengthy public process did not result in a 2/3 vote at Town Meeting.While there were many positive comments about the proposed project at Town Meeting, we sought to better understand the reasons for the failure of that vote. We analyzed comments made against the article at the meeting, comments shared with us in our public roles, and accompanying literature that circulated advocating the failure of the article. While these issues listed below were closely considered by the School Committee and the School Building Committee, three primary themes emerged from those opposed to the project: 1) The loss of three K-6 schools due to the grade configuration change a. Concerns about creating a transition in the elementary grades, since about 69% of our students do not currently attend the Amherst preschool program located in one of the three current K-6 schools b. Transportation concerns based on the configuration change, both in length of bus travel and supports available to families with children attending two buildings instead of one c._ The loss of informal mentoring opportunities between kindergarten and sixth grade students 2), The size of the new building a. The proposed building had more square footage than any current Amherst elementary school (although it would be separated into two schools, the concerns about a “mega” school were frequently stated by opponents of the project) b. Whether students would still be known by all teachers in a 2-6 school of this size 3) The co-located model a. Concerns were expressed about whether the co-located schools would be merged into one larger school at some point or would function as two distinct schools even if officially two schools b. Concerns about concentration of pollution with vehicles traveling to two instead of three school sites In conversations that have occurred in the past week, we have heard many questions and comments from Town Meeting members about staying in the MSBA process by shifting to the “Twin” K-6 model, 670 students that was approved as an enrollment option by the MSBA last, November. We are requesting an extension of the Feasibility Study to consider that option. The advantages of this approach would be: 1) Two poorly functioning school buildings (Fort River and Wildwood) would be replaced, which consistently has been shared as a community need and value that has been agreed upon by supporters and opponents of the original proposal 2). Such action would require only moderate architectural design work from our designers, given the similarities between this model and the proposed model,3) This was a request of many Town Meeting members who voted against the proposal due to their concerns about the prek-1 and 2-6 grade configuration ‘We are deeply appreciative of the financial and technical support that the MSBA has offered the Town of Amherst throughout this process; we would not be asking for the MSBA to financially support us further in the Feasibility Study. All costs would need to be borne by the Town, which would minimize any financial risk for the MSBA by supporting this approach. The suggested timeline for this extension would be: November 22 Submission of extension request to MSBA November 30 Expected response to extension request February 15 MSBA Board Approval of Change in Project. March 1 Approval of a revision of the Educational Program by the Amherst School Committee and submission to the MSBA March 15 Approval of revised Schematic Design Submission by School Building Committee March 23 Submission of revised Schematic Design Submission to MSBA May 10 Approval of revised Schematic Design Submission by MSBA Board of Directors June Debt Override Ballot Question June ‘Approval of Project Funding by Amherst Town Meeting In addition, since multiple Town Meeting members stated that the requested configuration change above would be accepted by MSBA, and/or that a new Statement of Interest would be accepted by MSBA, either or both in 2017; the resolution of that question—regardless of the answer—would clarify the MSBA process to Town Meeting members, and clarity on this issue may influence some Town Meeting members to reconsider their vote. If the above request is not accepted by the MSBA, we request a short extension of the 120 day period granted for local appropriation to March 31, 2017 to secure Town Meeting support for this project. We understand that the topic of reconsideration has come up at a subsequent session of Town Meeting since November 14, and offering more time for stakeholders’ voices to be included and heard by Town Meeting members might assist in their deliberations. There was a recent demonstration by community members and teachers who felt that their opinions were not considered in the Town Meeting process and who requested a revote on the current project. If this extension is not granted, please confirm the deadline needed for local approval of the project. Finally, in recent conversations with MSBA staff, it was stated that if the Town was unable to secure funding for this project, the next date Statement of Interests would be accepted fromthe Town would be 2018. Please clarify if this is accurate and the rationale for this delay of consideration of future Statement of Interests. Please let us know if you have any questions about this information and we look forward to your response. Yee W yy) Ke Me ne Hes (22 0a Michael Morris Dr. Katherine Appy ‘Mr. Paul Bockelman Interim Superintendent Chair Town Manager Amherst Public Schools Amherst School Committee Town of Amherst cc: Stanley Rosenberg, State Senate President Ellen Story, State Legislator Solomon Goldstein-Rose, State Legislator-Elect Alisa Brewer, Select Board Chair Marylou Theilman, Finance Committee Chair Doug Slaughter, Joint Capital Planning Committee Chair James LaPosta, JCJ Architecture Chief Architectural Officer ‘Thomas Murphy, NV/5 Project ManagerMassachusetts School Building Authority Deborah B. Goldberg Maureen G, Valente John K, McCarthy Chairman, State Treasurer Chief Executive Officer Executive Director / Deputy CEO December 2, 2016 Dr. Michael Morris, Interim Superintendent Amherst Public Schools 170 Chestnut Street ‘Amherst, MA 01002 Re: Town of Amherst, Wildwood Elementary School Dear Dr. Morris: ‘The Massachusetts School Building Authority (the *MSBA") is issuing this letter in response to the Town of Amherst’s (the “District’s”) letter dated November 22, 2016 by which the District notified the MSBA that the vote to support the Wildwood Elementary School project (the “Proposed Project”) did not pass at Town Meeting on November 14, 2016. In its leter, the District stated that at least three reasons contributed to the Proposed Project not passing at Town Meeting: a lack of support for the proposed elementary grade reconfiguration, concern over the proposed size of the new facility, and the introduction of a co-located model as the preferred option. The MSBA notes that these three factors ‘were at the core of the decisions made by the District during the feasibility study/schematic design phase and formed the basis of the District’s recommendation of the preferred solution. The District included in its letter a request for an extension of the Feasibility Study to consider a different grade configuration, a “twin K-6 model” for 670 students, and another request for more time to secure Town Meeting support for the Proposed Project. Additionally, the District included a request for the MSBA to clarify its policies regarding changes to a project approved by the MSBA Board of Directors (the “Board”), and its upcoming Statement of Interest process. On September 28, 2016, the MSBA’s Board approved the District’s Proposed Project which consolidated the existing Wildwood Elementary and Fort River Elementary Schools into a new “co-located” elementary school in one building serving grades 2-6 on the existing Wildwood Elementary School site. This preferred schematic was consistent with the District’s Educational Plan dated December 2015 (updated March 16, 2016) and the Enrollment Certification dated June 6, 2016, 40 Broad Street, Suite 500 + Boston, MA 02109 + Tel: 617-720-8466 * Fax: 617-720-5260 * www MassSchoolBuildings.org CePage 2 December 2, 2016 Wildwood Elementary School Letter In response to the District's request for an extension to the Feasibility Study to consider a “twin K-6 model” for 670 students, I have attached the previous position from the District regarding the School Committee’s decision on January 19, 2016 to support a district-wide 2-6 grade structure. The District’s proposed change is contrary to this decision previously approved by the School Committee, and is contrary to the District's Preferred Schematic Report, dated February 2016, within which all K-6, 670 student ‘options were considered to be “not viable” based on the School Committee’s vote for grade reconfiguration. The District's recommendation for a preferred schematic was based on a design associated with a 2-6 grade structure, and this grade structure formed the basis of the educational program and the selection of both the preferred solution and the selected design, Pursuit of a “Iwin K-6 model” for 670 students would be different from the project proposed by the District and approved by the MSBA’s Board. Therefore, the MSBA is unable to consider an extension to the Feasibility Study for the purpose of exploring options different from the approved Proposed Project. If the District determines that a different project from the one proposed and approved by the MSBA Board is the preferred direction, the District will have to submit a new Statement of Interest and await a second invitation from the MSBA Board to enter the Eligibility Period phase of the MSBA’s process. If the MSBA Board were to issue such a second invitation, the MSBA would require the District to: ‘© start the process anew including the selection processes for an owner's project manager and designer; and, ‘+ perform a new feasibility study and schematic design independent of financial participation from the MSBA for duplicated work. ‘The MSBA’s grant program is a non-entitlement, competitive program, with its grants distributed by the MSBA Board based on need and urgency, as expressed by the district and validated by the MSBA. The number of invitations that the Board is able to authorize each year varies and is contingent upon a number of factors, thus applying for an MSBA, grant is competitive, and not every Statement of Interest can be invited into the grant program. ‘The MSBA anticipates the 2017 Statement of Interest filing process to open the first week in January 2017 and close the first week in April 2017. Districts are encouraged to file a Statement of Interest for school facilities not already active in the MSBA grant program. The MSBA is pleased to continue to work with the District as it takes the time for stakeholders’ voices to be included and heard by the Town in its deliberations for next steps. Until the District’s decision on how to move forward with its current Statement of Interest is submitted by the District, and reviewed by MSBA staff, the MSBA is unable to confirm the Distriet’s ability to file a Statement of Interest in 2017,Page 3 December 2, 2016 Wildwood Elementary School Letter If the District determines as a result of its community outreach that the same project as proposed by the MSBA and approved by its Board is the preferred direction, the District ‘must demonstrate local support by obtaining voter approval of the project with the defined scope and budget on or before March 31, 2017. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at 617-720-4466 Zi Mary Pichetti Diréctor of Capital Planning Ce: Legislative Delegation Alisa Brewer, Chair, Amherst Select Board Paul Bockelman, Amherst Town Manager Katherine Appy, Chair, Amherst School Committee Ron Bohonowicz, Director of Facilities and Maintenance, Amherst Public Schools ‘Thomas Murphy, Owner’s Project Manager, NVS James LaPosta, Designer, JCJ Architecture File: 10.2 Letters (Region 1)