PRESENT: J. Howroyd, L. Spadaccini, J. Nye, F. Maffe, M. Rizzo, T. Robinson, L. O'Neill, S. Edwards*, S. Werbner, K. Ouellette, ,

ABSENT: S. Cassano

*arrived 7:30 p.m.

AGENDA:

T. Robinson opened the meeting at 7:10 p.m.

T. Robinson led the Pledge of Allegiance.

Adoption of Minutes of Previous Committee Meeting(s) - September 28, 2004

T. Robinson asked for a motion to accept the minutes of the September 28, 2004 meeting.

MOTION: Maffe/Spadaccini s.v. The Education Subcommittee accepts the September 28, 2004 meeting minutes. (7/0/0)

Discussion of Middle School Options

Mr. Robinson opened the floor to members of the subcommittee for comments, and stated he would entertain any motions on the topic.

Mr. Howroyd stated that in November, Mr. Edwards submitted an email to members of the Board of Directors and Board of Education putting forth a concept to establish a sixth grade academy at Bennet and renovate and expand Illing to accommodate a town wide grade 7 and 8. He commented that he thought it was an intriguing concept but still held hope for a new school and other uses for the Bennet complex. After Dr. Mistretta's presentation and the information she presented, he revisited Mr. Edwards' proposal as a potential solution to address many educational and space issues. He has done research regarding the structure in other communities. Two weeks ago, the Board of Directors took the Board of Education's recommendation for a new 6/7/8 school off the table. He believes this provides an opportunity to move forward with some alternative concepts, including the sixth grade academy which provides a tremendous option to develop a curriculum for the 550 sixth graders, as well as bring this class together earlier in their education. He feels it will bring students together in a smaller environment and ease the transition. There is unlimited potential to develop this plan. There are limitations in adding on to the Bennet site, and it is imperative to move students off the site when any renovations are being done. By reducing the population from 800 to 550, it affords the opportunity to utilize buildings on the site as swing space as renovations take place. It also presents the opportunity to preserve the architectural integrity of the existing buildings. He stated that uses of the Rec building should be explored, which could be used both by Town administration and the Board of Education for after school programs and community uses. The Cheney Building use is open for discussion, but it has been suggested to demolish it to make room for outdoor recreation space, in place of walking to Charter Oak Park. The sixth grade curriculum does not require large and interscholastic athletic fields that a middle school does. With acquisition of adjacent properties, transportation issues could be eased, as well as parking and bus drop off. He would envision this to be a major renovation, and the cost estimates of the Downes Group included major demolishing to take down the interior walls. He feels it would provide an opportunity to design classroom space to meet modern day needs in a historic structure. After reviewing enrollment projections, the population would require an addition to Illing as well. In the mid to late 1970s, there was a substantial addition put on to the rear of the building. He suggests two options should be reviewed regarding how and where to add onto Illing: front and the side of the building. Additionally, code upgrades could be addressed. The result would be two buildings that the community could be proud of and that could serve the Town into the next 30 to 40 years. He hopes the committee gives serious thought to this concept to the next step. He would like both Boards to authorize expenditures for this purpose.

Mr. Maffe stated that West Hartford, South Windsor, and Glastonbury have the split of the all six and 7/8. He did not compare these towns to Manchester; however, East Hartford is more similar to Manchester and they have an all six and 7/8 schools. The size of their all sixth and 7/8 schools is also similar to the Manchester population. He spoke with the principal of the sixth grade school who stated it has reduced a lot of the racial tension that East Hartford faced. He supports looking into this plan.

Mr. Howroyd confirmed that East Hartford and Glastonbury has the same grade configurations. He stated Glastonbury has a hybrid solution in having six elementary schools, 4 of which are K-5, 2 or which are K-4 because of space limitations. The fifth grade for these two schools are located in the sixth grade academy. He emphasized that Manchester is not the only community that deals with space issues. Middletown also has a sixth grade academy and a 7/8 school, which currently are on the same campus, which may change in the future. He feels that this concept, if done properly from an educational standpoint, could yield tremendous benefits to the community, taking into consideration No Child Left Behind, Least Restrictive Environment and racial and economic solutions. This also preserves the K-5 neighborhood elementary schools. As a citizen and elected official, he spent a lot of time and feels very invested in these issues. He feels the community would accept this type of proposal if fine-tuned.

Mr. Maffe stated he supported this plan as well. He pointed out that there is a part of the community who wants Bennet to remain 6/7/8. He asked if two questions could be put on the referendum with a one or the other choice. He asked if this was a legal possibility.

Mr. Werbner stated that this had been discussed and there is the potential to do this.

Mr. Maffe feels this would give people a choice while making it a final decision at the next referendum. He feels either plan will cost the Town approximately $45M, as costs are continuing to escalate.

Mr. Howroyd stated that some informal conversations he has had with the Town Attorney found that the Connecticut State law, which authorizes local referenda, states that it has to be a question that can be answered in the affirmative or negative, and it must begin with the word "Shall". Other than that, there is a lot of flexibility. He suggests that you may have to condition one question upon the approval or disapproval of the other, because there is the potential to have both questions succeed.

Mr. Maffe stated that Town of Groton had two questions on its ballot and suggested Manchester checks with them on the details.

Ms. Nye feels that this plan has serious potential. One of her reservations was adding a transition for the students; however, after researching, she strongly feels the transition might not be so bad as the students are moving together. She believes both Boards need to be unified to be successful.

MOTION: Nye/Robinson s.v. The Committee moves the process to the next level to get cost estimates and explore educational issues on the proposed plan. (7/0/0)

Mr. Maffe feels this is postponing the decision again. He does not feel it is up to the Committee to decide what the next level is. He feels the next level is the Board of Education. If they are not interested in the proposal, the Committee needs to start again. If the Board of Education says yes, then it should be passed on to the Board of Director. If they say yes, then cost estimates, architectural structure and educational needs should be looked into.

Mr. Robinson stated the idea was for the committee to recommend to the Board of Education to review it for educational soundness and for the Board of Directors to cost it out. He asked if the motion should be restated.

Mr. Howroyd clarified that it would be cost out similar to the options of last year.

Ms. Nye suggests that decisions cannot be made without having those numbers. The Board of Education has to be behind the plan as educationally sound. The theory needs to be proven out.

Mr. Maffe asked where the process goes once the numbers are gotten. He asked if the Committee handles it again before passing it on to the Board of Director.

Mr. Rizzo stated that this is a good option, and a solution that considers a lot of different opinions. He is concerned that it is just an option. The 5/6, 7/8 plan was also an option. He does not want the committee to rubber stamp this proposal without the Board of Education looking at it deciding which option is best. The Board of Education has not yet had this discussion and he feels it needs to be done. The educational professionals need to be asked for their opinions. The best way to educate students is answered only by the Board of Education and the educational professionals. He feels that Manchester's problems have to be addressed with any plan, and one of the problems is that not all the 8th grade students are ready for high school. These needs have to be addressed. He is not convinced yet that this option will solve the problems Manchester faces. He feels the committee has waited this long, it should wait longer to ensure that the plan solves the problems and do the right thing.

Mr. Edwards thanked Mr. Howroyd for his introduction of the plan. He feels Mr. Rizzo is right that the committee has to be sure that the solution solves the educational problems that Manchester faces. He agrees with Mr. Maffe's position as well that something needs to be done soon to help the students who currently attend the school. He believes the discussion needs to be focused on both of these issues.

Ms. O'Neill feels there are two options: sixth grade at Bennet and 7/8 at Illing; or, leave grades 6/7/8 at Bennet. The main question she has for the sixth grade at Bennet and 7/8 at Illing is the status of the Title I money. She would like to see, by grade, how the qualifications for Title I money will stand. The second question she has is the impact on the transportation costs. She feels that it will increase and the Boards need to understand the recurring costs. She would hope to see these studies by the next couple of Board of Education meetings. She stated that something has to be put forward that is going to pass with the voters and she is not for waiting to make a decision. She would like to look at these two options, iron out their issues and get it on the ballot. She is hesitant about putting two questions on the ballot.

Mr. Spadaccini stated that he supports the motion. He believes the plan needs to improve academic achievement in a cost effective manner. He agrees with the options put forth by Ms. O'Neill and could support both. He feels the sixth grade academy appears to be a practical and reasonable way to improve the schools. He has been supportive of Bennet renovation throughout the process. He does not agree with having a choice on the ballot. He feels multiple questions create a possibility for confusion, and a potential situation where there are two results. He feels that this has been an issue too long and the community deserves that it be brought to a reasonable conclusion to put forward a plan that is practical and based upon the best information available. He does not feel a spring referendum makes sense, as there is low participation. He feels any plan has a greater chance of failing in a low turnout election. It makes more sense to put it forward in November, and not past that time.

Mr. Maffe does not feel it's the committee's place to give the figures. He feels the committee should give both Boards a recommendation of the best way to go, submitting both options to them. The Boards should get the figures and do the educational review.

Mr. Rizzo stated the work the committee has done has been good. Two questions have been answered: Bennet will be used as a school and that the community wants to discontinue having two middle schools. He feels that these are very key questions and answers. The question that has not been answered is the possibility to put an addition on Illing. He feels this would need to be researched.

Ms. Nye stated that this would be part of the investigation.

Mr. Edwards stated that he would support the motion and feels that going to the voters with two questions is wrong. He believes this would be confusing. He does not believe it would be impossible to put an addition on Illing.

Mr. Maffe spoke about putting an addition at Illing based on prior discussions with an architect. It was determined it could be done by moving things around and it creates many possibilities.

Mr. Howroyd supports the motion with the understanding that it is up to the roles of the respective Boards. There is cost data for an addition at Bennet for a 6/7/8 as well as cost data of a new 6/7/8 school. He believes that costs should be determined for this concept and that the plan should be formalized architecturally. Regarding the potential for increased transportation, he stated that all three facilities, including the high school, are all centrally located. All options considered have increased transportation costs. He does not feel the middle school plan should be devised solely to get Title I money. He believes it is not a badge of honor, particularly where it emphasizes the divide of the two middle schools. It is a valid outcome but should not be a motivating factor to go forward. The longer the committee and Town waits, it adds $1M of escalation costs.

Mr. Maffe asked if the numbers would go to the committee or to the Board of Education.

Mr. Robinson stated that they would go to the respective Boards as this committee's work is essentially done.

Mr. Maffe stated he would support the motion if this were the case.

Mr. Spadaccini asked if the committee would meet again to review these items.

Mr. Robinson stated if someone wants to reconvene the committee, it would be fine; otherwise, the respective Boards have enough to do.

Mr. Spadaccini reminded the committee if there were other plans that they should be brought forward. He stated that Mr. Lutz has been supportive of changing Keeney School's reconfiguration. He asked if there is any way the public could get information on what review has been done with these recommendations.

Mr. Robinson called the motion before discussing anything further.

Mr. Maffe asked that while this work is being done, if the General Manager could look into the possibility of placing two questions on the ballot, worded so that the public is not confused.

Mr. Edwards believes that it is not possible. One question would have to be conditionally upon the other.

Mrs. Nye also did not support this.

Mr. Robinson stated the committee could make a motion to have the General Manager look into this possibility.

Mr. Rizzo stated regarding Mr. Lutz's proposal, he also received a copy. If it has also gone to the Superintendent, it could be addressed by the Board of Education in its review of options.

Mr. Spadaccini agrees that these plans should at least be looked at and commented upon.

Mr. Howroyd stated he reviewed this plan, and he also researched it as well. He learned not to rule out anything in a process. He cautioned that Mr. Lutz estimated the cost at $48M, and in just in rough estimates, he feels the range would be approximately $72M - $92M, based on current construction costs. He commended Mr. Lutz who has come up with many good ideas on school and town projects.

Mr. Spadaccini asked how long it would take to get cost estimates.

Mr. Werbner stated that it depends upon the timing that the committee wants to proceed at. The pricing timeframe is about six weeks. If there is still a desire to have a spring referendum, and there is a waiting period for both Boards to approve to go to the next level, it would be a very tight timeframe up against the deadline. If there was an approval at this meeting to engage a consultant to proceed, he feels there is a reasonable timeframe to get the information back for both Boards to deliberate, have an educational campaign for the public and the election. A flyer to the public and educational forums normally takes 3-4 weeks. Another consideration is either using the same consultant or going for additional RFPs, which would add more time to the process.

Mr. Spadaccini stated that he wants to move forward as quickly as possible. He still does not see how all the items would be completed in time. He asked how long it would take the Board of Education to evaluate the educational merits.

Ms. Ouellette stated that they would be complete by the end of February.

Mr. Spadaccini stated that this could be put on the February agenda for the second meeting.

Mr. Werbner stated that this would be an approval to proceed as money has already been identified. It would be decided to use the existing consultant or using an RFP process.

Mr. Spadaccini asked if this was within the current consultant that has already been retained, and does the Board have to wave an RFP process.

Mr. Werbner commented that it is how the Board has been currently operating.

Mr. Spadaccini asked about the Board of Education review process.

Ms. Ouellette stated she would be meeting with the consultants on a week-by-week basis and preliminary data would be shared with her. She would not have the entire picture to share with the Board of Education until the end of February, which she feels would be the best approach. The Board would then need some time to discuss and approve.

Mr. Spadaccini stated it would be a 60-day process and does not see any reason not to move the process. He suggested amending their February agenda to include it with time to give the public sufficient notice to respond.

Mr. Werbner stated an addendum would be prepared to bring to the Board of Directors for the second meeting.

Mr. Rizzo asked, what if the Board of Education, after getting the impact studies at the end of February, deliberates and finds another idea it would rather see.

Mr. Spadaccini stated that the Board of Directors is not going to put something on the ballot that the Board of Education believes is a bad idea, as it is a recipe for a failed referendum. If there is another idea, that would be priced too.

Mr. Rizzo stated that as long as the minds are open to this, he has no problem. He does not believe the Board should rubber stamp an idea.

Mr. Edwards stated that the process is moving forward but not yet decided upon. If the Board of Education gets data back from the studies and it is not a good idea, the Board of Directors will stop the process. A June referendum would be out of the question at that point as more study will be needed, and a November question is warranted. If this idea proves to be accepted, there may still be a chance at a June referendum.

Mr. Spadaccini stated that there has been enough support expressed and enough positive things said about a sixth grade academy, that it would be priced out regardless. It does not mean that it would be the only idea priced out.

Mr. Rizzo restated that he wants to see open minds throughout this process.

Mr. Maffe asked how much it would cost taxpayers to cost these ideas out.

Mr. Werbner stated the cost estimate they have to price out this plan is $24,000 and will exhaust any available funds that they have for this type of procedure. If there were further plans to cost out, then funds would have to be identified from other sources.

Mr. Maffe asked if it was something similar to costing out the high school, a base plan.

Mr. Werbner confirmed that there would be no specifications, no details, just a conceptual plan.

Mr. Robinson favors the approach of taking one project at a time. He is not a fan to two questions on the ballot. If this plan ends up at a dead end, then it should be taken to the next step. If it turns out to be a success, then it should be placed on the ballot. He feels the Boards should be looking at a contingency plan if there the plan fails.

Mr. Edwards stated he is not sold on a June referendum and has several concerns. He suggested that even though everything may go through the process smoothly, a June referendum may still be decided against.

Mr. Werbner stated if options are going to be compared (6 and 7/8 and 6/7/8) one portion of the 6/7/8 option that was never clarified in terms of determining cost was the swing space. He feels that someone needs to work on this as well in order to present them as competing options.

Mr. Robinson asked if the two options should be considered in tandem or if one should be taken at a time.

Mr. Maffe believes this decision is up to the Board of Education. He stated there is a cost for swing space if Bennet is left as is at $8M. The only swing space cost not identified if there is a sixth grade academy.

Mr. Werbner stated that he was speaking about not only identifying a cost, but also how it would be done and where so that it could be presented to the voters.

Mr. Howroyd believes if the plan moves forward, it is great to have a cost estimate. If it is put before the voters, they need to know what will be done with the students for two years during construction. More than a cost is needed regarding the swing space alternative. A plan is also needed for either alternative.

Mr. Maffe suggested looking into the availability of a school in East Hartford that may be available. He knows that there will be transportation costs involved. He does not feel the students can be left at Bennet during any construction of any plan.

Ms. O'Neill stated that common sense says if you can't leave students at Bennet during construction, how can you do it at Illing.

Mr. Maffe stated construction at Illing would be a wing, not the major building.

Ms. O'Neill commented that it is not as cut and dried as many may think.

Mr. Robinson asked if there was a motion to adjourn.

MOTION: Rizzo/Maffe s.v. The committee adjourns at 8:35 p.m.

Note for the record: Mayor Cassano is ill and not present at the meeting.