|
June 16, 2006 - As one of the legislators who played a role in the development of Chapter 208 of the Acts of 2004 establishing the Massachusetts School Building Authority, I want to congratulate the Authority, under Treasurer Cahill’s leadership, for moving forward with this effort to provide the best possible educational facilities for the children of Massachusetts at a price that the taxpayers can afford.
You are continuing a legacy of state leadership in school construction in this 21st century that began in the 19th century. In his first report as the new Secretary of the Board of Education in 1838, Horace Mann (a former Senate President) focused on four issues – the first of which was the need to improve the quality of school buildings across the Commonwealth. The remaining parts of his report, which are also of vital importance today, concerned the role of school committees, the need for public support of schools, and the importance of qualified teachers.
As Horace Mann explained in his report, clearly five-sixths of the children of the Commonwealth would spend “a considerable portion of the most impressionable period of their lives” in these buildings and, for this reason, alone, school construction had a high priority with our state government, as it does to this day.
As Mann’s biographer noted, “The Yankee ingenuity which had designed the Windsor and Hitchcock chairs was satisfied to let children (in the 19th century) bend their spines as they sat for hours like so many birds perched on a backless pine bench. In terms of ventilation, the classroom either had too much or too little, depending on whether it was heated with an un-dampered fire place or a wood-burning space heater, yet for some reason the common sense which farmers used in constructing their farm buildings departed when they turned to building a school.”
Mann’s biography goes on to list the deficiencies of the school buildings of the day, concluding with this telling sentence. “Clearly, at a time when persons had given considerable thought to their own dwellings and shelters for their farm animals, they exhibited little interest or ingenuity in providing a comfortable environment for their children.”
As we look at the modern history of school construction in the last fifty years in our Commonwealth, and the proposed regulations to guide construction in the future, it’s evident that we’ve come a long way since that first report of the Massachusetts Board of Education!
There are, however, several concerns that may need to be revisited and clarified as you proceed with the promulgation of this first set of school building regulations under the new School Building Authority.
First, as a general comment, while I applaud the Authority’s efforts to restrain architects and school building committees from efforts to replicate modern day Taj Mahal’s as monuments to their egos, I would caution you not to be so frugal that the consequences of these regulations will result in buildings that, as Horace Mann had observed, “exhibit little interest or ingenuity in providing a comfortable environment for our children.”
Under the provisions of the draft regulations, let me offer a few observations and pose some questions which I trust, in the final rules, will be addressed.
1.02 Definitions – “Enrollment Projections.”
While I appreciate the requirement that enrollment projects are not to include incoming school choice students, I believe that students who have school choiced out of the district need to be counted as potential students who may well return to the sending school district if adequate educational facilities were provided. Obviously, students who have only one or two years left of public education are unlikely to return since they may well have graduated before the new or renovated facility is ready for occupancy, however, younger students must be accommodated if they choose to return to their home district to complete their education.
1.03, subsection (d) (page 5) General Requirements for Eligible Applicants.
While I understand and applaud the Authority’s concern with lack of maintenance or neglect of facilities, I would hope that buildings that have completed their useful life with reasonable maintenance would be recognized as in need of replacement or substantial reconstruction to address code changes, ventilation technology improvements, changes in educational style and philosophy, and the need for technology investment and energy conservation. Furthermore, school sites that no longer offer adequate space for building expansion, need to be considered to have reached their useful limits. It needs to be understood that, even with good maintenance by dedicated school staff, school buildings built fifty or more years ago, may not be the victim of “lack of maintenance or negligence,” but may no longer provide “a comfortable environment for our children” in which to learn from even the best teachers.
1.03, subsection (h) (page 5)
When the rule states that for an “eligible applicant” to be certified in “initial compliance,” all projects “shall have undergone review, in accordance with applicable state law and regulations,” I would hope that this does not imply the need to have received a favorable town meeting vote and Proposition 2 ½ debt exclusion vote as being incorporated within the meaning of “applicable state law.” Until local residents know the cost of the project and their share of that cost, it would be practically impossible to obtain town meeting and ballot approval. Consequently, I believe this section may need to be clarified.
1.05, (page 7) Site Standards
I am concerned with the potential for misinterpretation of the word “proximate” in the third paragraph when it states that “the site selected shall be proximate to other facilities such as libraries, museums, parks, natural resources,” etc. In some cases, it may not be possible for such proximity to be obtained, at least at reasonable cost. I would recommend that the sentence begin with the phrase, “Insofar as reasonably possible.”
Furthermore, the proximity of other facilities such as libraries or museums, does not guarantee that such facilities are adequate or of use for educational purposes. In my own town of Uxbridge, the public library – while general of good quality and professional staff – has been deemed inadequate for the town’s future, and has been recommended for major renovation and expansion. The fact that it is in proximity to the current high school, does not necessarily mean that its space and technology limitations or hours of operation are complementary to school facilities to the degree that it’s location should be viewed as a plus for rating a proposed school construction project.
1.06, subsection 2, (page 8) Educational Program Space Standards
A number of school districts have lost or gained enrollment because of school choice. While it is appropriate that the state not support efforts to expand new facilities in order to attract students from adjoining districts, the space standards need to accommodate the potential return of students who are attending other districts under “school choice,” but who may – upon completion of construction/renovation of facilities in their home district may wish to return.
1.09, subsection 1, (page 12) Application and Approval Procedures
Although I may well have misinterpreted the provisions of this section, I believe some clarification may be needed to avoid any misunderstanding.
The moratorium on application for school construction projects is currently scheduled to expire on June 30, 2007. The draft regulations state that a Statement of Interest must be submitted “no later than July 31 of the Fiscal Year in which funding is being requested.” The “Statement of Interest” must be submitted in “the format developed by the authority.”
First, I would ask if that format has been developed or, if not, when it will be developed?
Second, the draft regulations appear to contemplate a considerable amount of information that must be completed prior to submitting a Statement of Interest to the degree that it seems unlikely that the information could be completed and compiled in the one month window between July 1 and July 31, 2007. This may only be a problem for the many communities that have waited patiently, sometimes enduring placement on probation by accrediting agencies, for the opportunity to seek state school construction assistance. Perhaps, I am mistaken, but it seems that this tight time frame may render it highly unlikely that projects desiring funding approval in FY ’08 could file all that may be required in a timely manner, thus, pushing all of these backlogged projects out another year.
1.09, subsection 5, (page 14) School Building Committee
The draft regulations contemplates the formation of a school building committee after the Authority’s review of the Statement of Interest and Initial Compliance Certification. For communities that have been awaiting the end of the school construction moratorium, it is highly likely – in fact, I know of at least three communities in my Senatorial District (Milford, Southbridge, and Uxbridge) that have already appointed school building committees. I believe some consideration needs to be given to allow school building committees that have already been appointed and working to be considered as in compliance with this provision of the draft regulation.
Furthermore, once again, for those communities that have been awaiting the opportunity to seek state funding, it seems problematic that a Statement of Interest could be filed before July 31, 2007, THEN appoint a school building committee, and realistically have a project proposal submitted for funding for the FY ’08 school year.
Additionally, I would suggest that it may be inappropriate for the School Building Authority to require, by regulation, which officials, a school district SHALL appoint as members of the school building committee. This provisions seems to micromanage the process to a significant degree, and I would counsel that more flexibility be allowed, especially for school building committees that are already in existence.
1.09, Subsection 6. (page14), Design and Educational Program and Budget Statement for Educational Objectives.
Compliance with the provisions of this subsection appear to suggest that it may be impossible for school districts to provide this information prior to July 31, 2007 in order to seek funding in FY ’08. If I am incorrect, I would welcome another interpretation.
Furthermore, I would ask if the Authority has developed the format for requisite “Design and Educational Program and Budget Statement for Educational Objectives?”
1.09, Subsection 8, (page 15) , Preliminary Project Scope and Budget Meeting.
The draft regulation in this subsection, once again, appears to micromanage the process. Why should the Authority direct an applicant as to whom it may send as the district’s representatives?
1.09, Subsection 10, (page 16) Feasibility Study
The draft regulation should allow for districts that have been awaiting the end of the moratorium on school construction to submit the information sought in Subsection 10 as an addendum to the Statement of Interest. Many school districts have spent countless hours considering the need for the project to be submitted and should not, at the eleventh hour, be told to go back to the drawing boards to prove the need and the reasons for their choice of plan. The draft regulations might outline the components to be included or the questions that need to be answered to demonstrate feasibility of the plan selected as part of the Statement of Interest at least for those districts that desire to submit applications for funding for FY ’08.
1.09, Subsection 13, (page 18) Project Scope and Budget Agreement
I would suggest that the 90 day window may not be enough time for communities that need to set special town meetings and Proposition 2 ½ debt exclusion. These votes are not likely to move forward without firm numbers from the Authority for the total cost and town share of the cost prior to taxpayers voting on the project. I would recommend that the Authority consult with officials of the Secretary of State’s Elections Division, local town and city clerks, and others familiar with the process to determine if adequate time is allowed by such a narrow window. Furthermore, I would recommend that the window of whatever number of days, refer to business days and not Sundays or Holidays.
1.10, (page 19) Design and Review Process
Generally, it appears that the amount of work by the district required by the draft regulations “once a letter of project approval has been accepted by the eligible applicant, it seems unlikely that all of these steps could be completed and the work of each step completed in time for project funding in FY ’08.
1.10, subsection 2. (page 19) Procurement of Architectural and Engineering Services
This subsection suggests that districts that may have already retained such professional services and received completed architectural plans, may not be in compliance. For example, Uxbridge has already paid a significant sum, I believe around $2 million, for plans for a new high school. Assuming that these plans are, or with modest revision could be, acceptable to the Authority, I believe an allowance for such plans should be made. Why should the district be forced to pay another significant sum for architectural services if the existing plans, or some modified version thereof, could meet the Authority’s requirements?
1.10, subsection 3. (page 20) Authority Review of Project Plans
I would hope that there is some provision that if the required review adds time and/or cost to the project, that allowance would be made for increased costs from any delays in project review. This subsection, while necessary, has the potential for creating significant delays, especially with the expected influx of project proposals resulting from the three year moratorium on school projects.
Unfortunately, the legislative schedule has made it difficult for me to devote adequate time to fully review the draft regulations in the order of detail that I believe may be necessary. However, I trust that others will raise additional points of concern or inquiry that may result in a full and fair vetting of these draft regulations.
|
