From the January 26, 2012 Stoneham School Committee meeting:

 

School Committee member Jeanne Craigie, also chair of the School Building Committee (SBC), led a discussion about the proposed Stoneham Middle School project. Craigie noted that the Massachusetts School Building Authority (MSBA) approved a 57.5 percent state contribution for the proposed new middle school. The project should cost approximately $40 million, with the Town of Stoneham paying approximately $18 million.

 

The project calls for increasing the size of the existing Central Elementary School to accommodate up to 775 students in grades 5-8. After razing the existing middle school, Stoneham would only need to care for five facilities (Stoneham High School, the new middle school, and three elementary schools – Colonial Park, Robin Hood, and South). Craigie later said that the consolidation eliminates 35,000 square feet in school facilities.

 

The consolidation would allow the School Department to reallocate its resources to restore team teaching in middle school, reading specialists in elementary schools, and full-time art, music, and physical education at all levels. Stoneham students lost many of these programs in 2004.

 

Superintendent of Stoneham of Public Schools Dr. Les Olson noted that there are 15 projects current under review by the MSBA. Stoneham received the third highest percentage (57.5) of state aid among these projects. He added that it is “unusual” to see Stoneham near the top of funding.

 

Craigie said that the SBC goal is to be “efficient.” She added that some people have asked her why the project lacks an auditorium when the existing middle school has one. She said that MSBA does not allow for an auditorium in middle school projects in which it pays a percentage of cost. Stoneham could have added an auditorium to the school, but at a $4 million to $6 million cost. The project, however, does include a gymnasium with seating.

 

Craigie said that this project provides a “21^stCentury school” and should enhance the middle school curriculum, too.

 

Noting the site’s polluted past and the Department of Environmental Protection concerns, Craigie said that Phase One of the project should undergo a peer review to ensure safety during and after construction.

 

Stoneham resident Jim Prior asked the committee about the capacity of the proposed new middle school and its ability to accommodate a potential increase in students. He noted that state statistics show a total of 760 students in Stoneham Public Schools grade one to grade four (790 in grades 5-8). Prior questioned the 775 student capacity. He said that positive publicity and results could inspire young families to choose Stoneham as a place to settle.

 

Craigie said that the state provides the 775 student capacity based on its estimates. She said that the state believes the facility would provide room for growth, but avoid overcapacity. School Committee member Shelly MacNeill said that most cities and towns disagree with the state’s enrollment projection when building a new school. She added that cities and towns appeal the state’s enrollment projections more often than any other aspect of a proposed building.

 

Superintendent Olson said that the new building allows for 195 students per grade. Stoneham currently has 159 in Kindergarten, 164 in grade one, 161 in grade two, and 190 in grade three. Only grade four has enrollment of more than 200 students. He added that birth rates are decreasing throughout the state, a steady trend since 2004. The state also estimated the effects of new developments at the site of the former Our Lady of Nazareth Academy, the former Boston Regional Medical Center, and the property on Fallon Road.

 

Jim Prior argued that grade one and two enrollment is substantially less than that of grades three and four. He also noted that Stoneham is the only community in the area that suffered a population decrease since 2004.

 

School Committee member Marie Christie said that the state considers the average age of women in a community when estimating enrollment. In surrounding towns, the average of women is 35; in Stoneham that average is 42.

 

Prior said that young families have not been choosing to settle in Stoneham. Many years of Chapter 70 state education funding iniquities are to blame for this situation.

 

Superintendent Olson noted that the new elementary schools in Stoneham did not attract as many young families as the town originally estimated in 1997.

 

Prior commended the SBC for its nearly two year effort. He concluded that he supports the project despite not having children who would benefit from it.

 

Craigie said that the tax impact of the project is only $176 per household. She said that it’s a good time to build as construction costs are low. She added that the town began this project in 2008. The state approval process takes approximately three years.

 

South School PTO Co-President Christine Kerans then asked the committee about the logistics of the project. Craigie said that SBC discussed traffic patterns and parking capacity.

 

Kerans said she supports the project. She added that some oppose the project for various reasons, but there is a lack of positive information available to potential voters. Kerans asked what she and South School PTO could do to promote the project favorably.

 

Craigie simply said to tell everyone that accepting this proposal is the right thing to do for Stoneham children. Superintendent Olson said that PTO is able to endorse the project. Committee member MacNeill said that PTO may not send information home through the schools, but could use email or social media to support the project openly.

 

Kerans asked the committee about redistricting at the elementary level, the result of eliminating one elementary school and inviting fifth grade classes to the new middle school. She said that has been a big question on people’s minds.

 

Superintendent Olson said that redistricting is a subject that is likely two to three years away. He added that the redistricting proposal is not a “wholesale” redistribution, but only Central Elementary students would need to change schools. Craigie said that the proposed project would not reach completion until 2014-15.

 

South School parent Cathy Cann asked the committee what guarantee it could offer that restoration of team teaching, art, music, and more would stay in the budget for the long term.

 

Olson said there’s “no guarantee,” but the savings in staff and facilities expense that accompanies consolidation would be a benefit. He said that if Stoneham stays steady financially then the School Department would reallocate – not eliminate - teachers to fill the new positions.

 

Committee member Craigie said that the department’s base budget always increases. The Board of Selectmen does not take away funding from the base budget.

 

Olson said that some people would prefer to take savings in the School Department and reallocate the funds elsewhere, but Town Meeting voters must approve such reallocations.

 

Cann said she fully supports the project, but has heard Central School parents express concern about safety at during construction.

 

Craigie responded that SBC and Dr. Olson had spent nearly two years working to get state approval and funding. The committee just now begins working on Phase II.

 

Cann said that parents would feel better about the project if the committee could produce definite plans. Craigie said that the committee is creating a program plan for construction and would like to hear parents’ concerns so as to address them.

 

Cann suggested to the committee that it highlight a plan for student safety during construction. Committee member Shelly MacNeill said that her son should be in the middle school during the construction phase and she understands the concerns as a parent.

 

School Committee Chair Shawn McCarthy said that his children attend Central Elementary, but he has not heard much dissent among parents there.

 

Superintendent Olson said that the Owner’s Project Manager (OPM) would set the plan and answers parents’ questions at least ten months before construction begins.

 

Colonial Park and SMS parent Randy Perillo (author of this report), asked the committee what options exist if voters reject the project at either Special Town Meeting on February 7 or Election Day on April 3.

 

Committee member Craigie said that MSBA would assess the project and determine why voters rejected the proposal. MSBA could consider the Stoneham project again within 120 days to try to find a resolution. Without a resolution, a new plan could take three years (as this plan did) to gain state approval and reach a public vote.

 

School Committee member David Maurer said the town knew of its need for a new middle school 11 years ago. Olson said that studies then showed the need, but economic consideration forced the town to shelve the idea. He added that the town decided to pursue the new elementary school projects at that time.

 

Maurer said that the current middle school is now 11 years older than when the town’s study showed the need to replace it. He suggested that voters consider the economic benefit of a new middle school. He said that the needs to “resolve” the issue and it should support a plan that gained 57.5 percent reimbursement from the state. Committee member Craigie said that the town has already invested $600,000 in feasibility studies.

 

Olson noted that some residents have asked if the town could renovate the existing school. He said that such a project would cost 33 percent more than the project approaching a public vote. He added that renovation would require students staying in the existing school during construction.

 

Stoneham resident Cheryl Walsh asked if the SBC meeting scheduled for Monday, January 30 (SHS Library, 7pm) is open to the public. Committee member Craigie said that the meeting is open to the public and the Owner’s Project Manager should be in attendance, but not the project’s architect.

 

Walsh asked about a peer review. She noted that she, Craigie, and Olson discussed contamination at the site and added that a well at the site contains arsenic. Walsh asked if a peer review would allow Stoneham parents to review documents. Craigie said that the committee has a report for geological study and history of the site. The peer review would provide an independent review to provide any new findings.

 

Christine Keran returned to the microphone to note that construction projects run over budget nearly every time. She asked the committee what would happen if the project runs over budget.

 

Craigie said that MSBA averages overruns less than 1 percent since the current process began. Olson said that the public was not eligible to use this process until two to three years ago. He added that the Construction Manager at Risk could hire subcontractors without a formal bid process, but the CMR signs a guarantee on the maximum price.

Olson concluded that the “construction process does work.”

 

Resident Jim Prior introduced another concern to the committee. He said that people who do not have children in the school system comment about the lack of maintenance and funding to clean the existing facilities. He also said that the committee should address the state’s Chapter 70 education funding formula at every meeting. He said that the formula has been inequitable toward Stoneham from its inception in the early 1990’s. He commended the School Committee for operating without the funds the state should provide to Stoneham, but the cleanliness of the buildings is an issue with voters.

 

Committee member Craigie said the committee heeds parents. She said, “Buildings don’t make education. Buildings house education.” She noted that she would cut support staff (janitorial, etc.) before cutting classroom teachers. Craigie said Stoneham needs a rebirth and a new middle school would excite residents. She noted that some private building projects in town have stalled because of economic conditions, but a new middle school would provide a great return on investment in the form of our children’s education.

 

Committee member Shelly MacNeill said she spoke with Massachusetts State Senator Katherine Clark just prior to the meeting. She said there is no increase in local aid funding in the governor’s first budget proposal. Clark took the issue to the senate ways and means committee to get an increase. The senate and house propose their own versions of the state budget in upcoming months.

 

Craigie said that the Stoneham Board of Selectmen, School Committee, and Finance & Advisory Board all support this middle school proposal, but the voters make the final decision.

 

Susan O’Neil, Stoneham Middle School PTO Vice President, said she is in favor of the plan as the school needs the technology associated with the new building. She recalled how volunteers worked to beautify the current middle school in support of students and teachers.

 

O’Neil said the proposal is a good plan for the town as it could attract young families to Stoneham. She added that change is difficult, but we would get through it. Kids, she continued, accept change better than adults.

 

O’Neil then questioned the committee about the future of “green space” at the site. She asked who would have the final say if the town wants to sell land at the site for commercial development. Committee member Marie Christie said that the School Committee makes the final decision about returning land to the town for sale. [NOTE: The committee recently returned land at the former East School and the former North School site to the town for sale.] Christie added that the committee would make a decision if the new project reaches completion.

 

O’Neil said that the town needs green space. Christie repeated that the committee could not make a decision now. She added that a new committee could be in place in three years when the project could reach completion.

 

Committee member Craigie said that the town could sell some of its assets to offset the cost of the new project. She noted that there is a lot of green space behind the proposed site and the MSBA allowed the town to include basketball courts in the area of Pomeworth Street.

 

Colonial Park parent Jay Daley spoke next to introduce concerns during construction. Daley said that project produce a lot of noise and children find it difficult to pay attention.

 

He also added that parents should receive assurance that construction workers undergo proper background checks as they would be working in the vicinity of children.

 

Daley also said that bussing would be necessary with the elimination of an elementary school.

 

Daley asked who would represent the Town of Stoneham regarding change orders during construction. He also noted some poor construction at the new elementary schools in Stoneham. He said that is an embarrassment to the town and the construction firms.

 

He agreed with committee member Craigie, who earlier said that Stoneham needs a rebirth, but he said that the rebirth must also include commercial building. He said the town must stop residential development. He also conceded that such development is beyond the scope of the school committee.

 

Craigie said that the process changed since construction of the elementary schools. The change should prevent cost overruns and poor construction.

 

Superintendent Olson said that, in the past, the school department needs to accept the low bid general contractor. That is no longer the case. The town, ultimately, decides.

 

Daley asked if bussing would be feasible in three to five years. Olson said that, legally, the town must offer bussing to students who live more than two miles from their school. The potential high school site would have required bussing. The department seeks to minimize bussing. Olson said he could have just one or two 25 passenger busses – a low cost option. Committee member Shelly MacNeill said that bussing would eliminate the traffic congestion, but the town has been unable to afford that for years.

 

Daley concluded by urging the committee to consider “talent versus tenure” if the department must reduce its teaching staff. He noted that he understands the difficulty in dealing with labor unions.

 

Robin Hood parent Melissa Powers thanked the committee for allowing a peer review of Phase I of the potential project. Powers asked about Weston and Sampson, an environmental consulting firm. Superintendent Olson said that Weston and Sampson was the consulting firm the Stoneham Board of Selectmen used more than a decade ago to investigate the Railroad Right of Way (land located along the back of the new Central School). Powers asked if Weston and Sampson had concerns about arsenic during its study. Olson said he did not know. 

Powers asked if the town is working with Weston and Sampson again. Craigie said the town is working with them again regarding the Railroad Right of Way, but not the school property. She said there would be a third-party review of Phase I planning.

[EDITOR'S NOTE: the following paragraph comes from Jeanne Craigie in response to the original paragraph above:]

Powers asked if the town is working with Weston and Sampson again. Craigie said the town is working with them( For our site Geo-Tech firm hired by our Architect-Tappe)Wesson and Sampson was the original site Geo Tech for the Selectman regarding the Railroad Right of Way back when the first building projects were done the School Committee did not control the land in question, but not the school property. She said there would be a third-party review of Phase I planning as long as the Building Committee agrees.

 

Committee member Shelly MacNeill said that she could not imagine the state paying more than $20 million for an “unsafe” project. Parent Jay Daley asked what options the town would have if there are problems found at the site.

 

Craigie said the town would need to fix any environmental problem. Daley asked if the town would not be able to build the school if the site fails review. Craigie responded that she would find it surprising if the site failed review. She said the plan does not call for excavation; instead the plan is to push down to set footings.

 

Olson added that, even with remediation, the site would still be feasible for building.