A. OPENING

PRESENT: Edwards, Hackett, Huyler, Lok, O'Neill, Rizzo, Robinson

ABSENT: Holmes, Thresher

ALSO
PRESENT: Interim Superintendent of Schools Mistretta, Director of Student Support Services Tait, Assistant Superintendent for Curriculum & Instruction Brett, Director of Human Resources Attorney Libby

ABSENT: Business Manager Huot
.
Mr. Robinson called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.

Mr. Robinson led the Pledge of Allegiance.

Mr. Robinson stated that much of the agenda is dedicated to facilities issues. Therefore, he suggested moving New Business to the beginning of the agenda in order to discuss a textbook adoption first.

E. NEW BUSINESS
1. Textbook Adoption (Geometry Textbooks - 1st reading)
Dr. Mistretta asked L. Gedja, K-12 Math/Science/Technology Supervisor, to speak to the Board regarding the textbook. The Board Policy 6161 has been followed through this process.

Mrs. Gedja stated that she was bringing to the Board, for their review, a recommendation for a new geometry text for the high school. She distributed a packet outlining the geometry text packet. She additionally distributed some copies of the geometry textbook. On June 9, Kathy Watson, Chair of the Math Department at MHS, presented this information to the Board's Curriculum and Instruction Committee. Ms. Gedja summarized that report. The geometry curriculum was revised during school year 2002-2003, and the focus of the department was not only on identifying the content, but the skills in geometry that students must be able to demonstrate and apply. There was special attention given to the performance tasks that students should be able to complete. This is very much focused towards CAPT and the state frameworks, as well as towards PSAT and SAT geometry information. Once the curriculum was revised and the goals were set by the department, teachers began to look at the resources that would help them meet these goals and the needs of the students. A variety of geometry texts were assembled and two books were selected to pilot: McDougal, Littell and Holt. In Fall 2003, the pilot began with two teachers and three geometry classes. In March, information from the pilot was retrieved from teachers, students and parents. The results of the pilot are included in the distributed packet. Based upon the results, the department decided to recommend the Dougal, Little book. She explained that in addition to the hard copy of the book, there is also an online version, which is included in the cost of the adoption. The online version would allow students to have access from home as well. The money for this adoption has already been budgeted in this year's budget. The cost proposals from both textbook companies are included in the packet.

Mrs. Lok stated that this was a special meeting, which typically would not include a textbook adoption. She asked what caused this item to either be delayed or pushed up so that it appears on a special meeting agenda.

Dr. Mistretta stated that in the transition between Mr. Beitman leaving and her coming abroad, it simply got left off of an agenda. They placed it on this agenda so that that second reading could be placed on the August 23 agenda, thereby being able to order the books and have them delivered for the first week of school. The company assures the district that they can be delivered within five days, so that they would be in student's hands by the last week of August/first week of September.

Mr. Edwards stated that the quote lists 270 pupil additions and 30 at no charge. He asked if it was to service 270 students with 30 in reserve for damage, etc.

Mrs. Gejda stated that these 30 books could have been part of the pilot.

Mr. Edwards asked that the online addition be adjusted to reflect 300 students as well.

Mrs. Gedja stated she would make sure that it was included.

Mr. Robinson asked if there was any interest from the Board to move the item along by advancing it to Old Business at this meeting. There was no objection from the Board, and Mr. Robinson asked for a motion.

MOTION: Hackett/Edwards s.v. The Board of Education adopts the textbooks as listed in Item E-1. (7/0/0)

Mr. Robinson welcomed all the members of the Board of Directors who joined the meeting tonight, as well as Town staff and administration.

B. PUBLIC COMMENTS
1. Terry Werkhoven, 88 Santina Drive. He reviewed the land purchases that were in the newspaper and he is concerned with some of the property on Woodside Street, which is owned, by Botticello and Bunce. With regard to the Hillstown property, he stated that the land was purchased in 1982, and according to his information, he believes the land was strictly dedicated to cemetery use. He stated he has this information that he could share with the Board. He also asked what would be done about water and sewer lines. With regard to the Barnard building, he stated he made an inspection of it with the Assistant Principal. He is interested to find out exactly what happened with the ceiling falling. He also saw another area where there is a series of pipes, and was informed that something fell here as well. He does not feel the public should be alarmed too much until what really happened is known.

2. Tom Stringfellow, 183 Hillstown Road. He stated that in 1814, the "Star Spangled Banner" was written, and there is an article in the July 2004 Smithsonian Magazine that talks about repairing the flag that is in the museum. He recommended a book by Mr. Chris Mercogliano, Teaching the Restless - No Ritalin Approach to Helping ADHD Kids. He feels that this should be considered with No Child Left Behind. There was an article in the current edition of USA Today about BA college degrees for preschool teachers. The study suggested that more education would benefit the students more. He stated he attended a forum on June 23 dealing with Study Circles on race, and he recommended Uprooting Racism - How White People Can Work for Racial Justice, by Kivel, Paul, copyright 2002. He feels America is at a turning point with these issues and that this is a very important book.

3. Stephanie Knybel, 138 Bobby Lane. She urged the Board to move forward with Option 5 for the high school. She asked that Board not to be the accreditation in jeopardy but not addressing this issue, as NEASC has asked. She feels that the new wing should be built for grade 9 students, and not used for swing space. Students from Bentley need to come back to the high school, which would aid in lowering the dropout rate. She is also in favor of building a new Bennet Middle School on the Hillstown Road site. The partnerships that could be developed in that area are phenomenal, with Manchester Regional Academy and Manchester Community College. She reminded the Board that ceiling tiles are continually falling at Bennet. She proposed that Bennet is opened after Labor Day in order to make sure the building is safe for 850 students, faculty and staff. She is a parent of a grade 8 student and is frightened for his safety. Ceiling tiles have already fallen on a teacher's desk, and she cautioned that one might fall on a student. She asked if a lawsuit would fuel change. She stated that the four other buildings also have to be considered for this safety issue as well. She wants Bennet to be a safe learning environment this school year. She does not want the issue of what to do with Bennet be replaced by the "not in my backyard" syndrome. She feels that there are many things that could be done with the Bennet campus if the Board decides to relocate the school.

4. Merrill Kidd, 158 Follybrook Lane. She addressed issues concerning the safety at Bennet Middle School. There are a lot of parents that have concerns with their children entering or returning to Bennet this year. She wants to know what will be done to ensure the safety of every child and staff members. She feels that after the last incident, it is not known how safe Bennet is and what exactly needs to be done to renovate the buildings. She believes the children should feel safe in their learning environment. She hopes for a unanimous vote of the building of a new Bennet on Hillstown Road and on the addition to Manchester High School.

5. Dorothy Brindmour, 6 Morse Road. She stated that she and her husband, many years ago, were presidents of the Verplanck PTA. At that time, they complained about the roof leaking. Twenty years later, her son and daughter-in-law were presidents of the Verplanck PTA, and the roof was still leaking. She attended a PTA meeting and again complained, and within that year, the roof was fixed. She feels that the schools are falling apart and are neglected. She feels that people need to fight to get the schools fixed.

C. CONSENT CALENDAR
1. Bennet Middle School Roof Replacement Project - Barnard Building - Educational Specifications
Dr. Mistretta stated that a number people were present at the meeting to address the roof situation at Bennet Middle School. She explained the incident. On July 18, there were torrential rains at night. On July 19, at approximately 11:00 a.m., a piece of ceiling that was approximately 4 feet by 4 feet fell in the northwest stairwell of the back of the Barnard building. Mr. Daly and Mr. Gagnon immediately evacuated the building. An engineer from the Town immediately was on the roof. On July 20, a number of Town and Board officials walked the Barnard roof. They had a meeting on July 21 to talk about what was found on the roof and they went into action. They called the State Department of Education and got a temporary project number, which will become a bonafide project number once the specs are adopted by both the Board of Education and the Board of Directors for a new roof. They also talked about safety during construction and they discussed the staging areas that would be needed around the Barnard building, which would eliminate parking around that building. Principal Ouellette is working with area parking lot owners to gain access to some of the parking lots that are near Bennet. They also discussed the protective coverings that will be placed above the emergency exits, and should any of the construction continue into the first week of school, those emergency exits will only be used for this purpose. The school administration at Bennet is charged to work out modes of moving students from building to building. They asked that students who are normally scheduled in the third floor of the Barnard building be moved off into other areas of the school complex, into rooms that are vacated by classes that have gone to Unified Arts as well as lunch. They believe this will be a one-week construction period, and the finish date will be August 25. If there are any glitches, they will know by August 23 and are prepared to come to the Board of Education at that meeting to request half-day starts for Bennet. She stated that Mr. Keith Epstein, the Town Facilities Project Coordinator, was present at this meeting. He inspected the Barnard, Cone and Franklin roofs, and he will help with the bid process. At this point, they intend to use Board of Education funding should the specs be adopted. They have adequate funding through Policy 3510. She asked if Mr. Esptein could address the Board.

Mr. Epstein stated they hoped to get approval this evening regarding the Barnard roof from the common Boards, and hope to have major construction occur within a one-week period before school starts. This means they hope to award the contract by August 18. They are very optimistic that it can occur before school goes into session. As far as the other roofs, the Cone and Franklin buildings are not quite as severe. He feels that they can be maintained very easily over the year, and roof replacement can occur next summer. There is nothing to suggest that failure is imminent on either roof.

Mr. Robinson thanked him, Dr. Mistretta, the Board and Town staffs for coming together collaboratively to address the issues at Bennet in a timely manner.

Mrs. O'Neill asked what type of roof would be installed.

Mr. Epstein stated that a rubber membrane, single-ply roof would be installed. It eliminates the odors and a lot of noise that you would traditionally see with a built up roof and hot asphalt.

Mrs. O'Neill asked if there was slate on the roof, and why the problem was not detected earlier.

Mr. Epstein stated that they are just replacing the asphalt sections of the roof; the slate roof is intact and is in good shape.

Dr. Mistretta stated that she could not answer the question of why it was not detected earlier. She stated that she does have a roof inventory. Mr. Huot has supplied the Board with a Capital Improvement Plan 2004-2005, which gives the roof inventory on the last page. It lists every school buildings roof and when it was last installed. Most of the roofs have been put on since 1985, and many of them are quite recent. Bennet is the building that has the oldest roofs. She guessed that there have been concerns all along, but a lot of issues have not been resolved about Bennet and its use.

Mrs. O'Neill proposed a routine roof inspection agenda.

Dr. Mistretta stated that Mr. Cadman, the Board of Education's Project Manager, was present to address this.

Mr. Cadman stated that they have a roofer on their staff that is on the roofs every day. He has made numerous repairs on the Barnard roof in particular, and all of the Bennet building roofs. They have been well aware that this roof has been in bad shape for a long time.

Mrs. O'Neill was concerned that this was not a pressing item on the Building Committee. She hoped that it was not due to the indecision on Bennet. She hopes it is rectified and that there are routine inspections so that surprises like this do not occur again.

Mr. Rizzo asked Dr. Mistretta about the funds being taken from the Policy 3510 funds, and how the priorities will need to be adjusted. He asked what projects would not be done in order to fund this project.

Dr. Mistretta stated that she met with Mr. Huot, and that all of summer projects are being carried out. Additionally, there are several projects that are still in the design and approval stage, as well as several that will be delayed (i.e. the painting of the helipad). She will make sure that all Board members got a copy of the update on projects. The projects that are in the design/approval stage will not be done this summer.

Mrs. Hackett asked if there was a distinction being made between replacing the roof and repairing the ceiling, or would one project take care of all damage.

Mr. Epstein stated that it is not one project that would take care of all damage. He stated they spent the day with the Fire Marshall's office, Building Official's office, representatives from the Board of Education, and the Assistant Principal of the school walking through every single room and closet verifying anything that could be an unsafe condition to the staff, faculty or students. They documented these items and there was nothing substantial. Ceilings and walls that had cracks were identified so that someone else could inspect to verify the stability. Nothing appeared to be falling down.

Mrs. Hackett asked about the 4 by 4 piece of ceiling that fell, and how it would be fixed.

Mr. Cadman stated that once the roof has been replaced and the ceiling dries out, Buildings and Grounds staff will repair the ceiling.

Mrs. Hackett asked how developed the contingency plan is should students not be able to go back to school on time.

Dr. Mistretta stated that Bennet Middle School has 1,026 hours of instruction on an annual basis, and the State of Connecticut mandates 900. There could be a few days where the students go in at the normal time in the morning, and are dismissed by 12:30 so that the construction company could complete the work. There are some aspects of working on a roof that can be done will students are in school, without posing a danger to them. They will take an assessment on August 20-23 to see where the project is and to make a determination whether or not half-day sessions are needed. Long light hours can also be taken advantage of for construction work. She feels it is too early to make the call.

Mrs. Hackett commented that her daughter would be an 8th grade student at Bennett this year. About monthly, a notice is sent home from administration that informs parents of another disaster that has occurred to the physical plant. They range from ceiling tile, to electrical fires, smell of smoke, water leaking, neighborhood disturbances, etc. and she feels that once these things happen, something should be decided so that these items do not get deferred. She commended that staff at Bennet for doing a tremendous job of keeping parents and students informed, making sure they are preventing as much as possible from going wrong.

Dr. Mistretta noted that on the Capital Improvement Plan, the replacement roofs for the Barnard, Cone, Franklin and the Rec buildings are listed as high priorities. Looking at other schools, it is noted that there are plans to replace roofs on many of the schools. There is also data as to when the Lawrence Associates did a roof survey, and when they expected that roofs will absolutely need replacement. She hoped that the Facilities Committee received this document. One of the things that have been done is patching and repairing when the money is not available.

Mrs. Lok referenced concerns from parents regarding the safety of their children attending school at Bennet, and she asked who would be supervising the project and who would take the responsibility should something go wrong. She asks this in order to get everyone in the mode of thinking the process through and having contingency plans in place with assurance that the work that is to be done will not cause any other structural or interior problems. Should the project be started and something go wrong, it will be too late to state that there should have been an alternative plan.

Mr. Epstein stated that the project has been designed through his group, and that they would take responsibility through construction. They have been proactive, and when the roof comes off they will inspect the deck, and if there are issues, they will replace portions of the deck so that it is structurally sound. The roof going in place is a lighter system than was it currently there, so there should be no structural implications on the physical deck itself. The rear parking lot will not be occupied. The only rear door will have protection over it so that it can be used in an emergency situation. They have been extremely proactive to be sure that a majority of the construction can occur before school is in session. It is not allowed by the State Department of Education to try attract or qualify bidders before they approve the project; but under their guidelines, the Town is allowed to have an information meeting. A public notice has been placed in the paper to try to jumpstart the project and attract interest to see who will bid and what type of timeframes there are. This was done through a walkthrough, and there were three potential bidders that attended. They are very interested in bidding on the project and did inform the Town that the timeframe for construction would be about a week. Some of the detail work (flashing, caps), which is not dangerous or noisy, will take a couple of weeks beyond the initial week. The bulk of the heavy construction should occur before school is in session. As far as monitoring the sight, they will be working with the Board of Education to make sure they are in constant communication of what is happening.

Mrs. Lok asked who takes responsibility for inspecting the work as it is being done, and inspecting each phase as it is completed.

Mr. Epstein stated that he would, and that he welcomes the Board of Education to join him. In the end, his department will sign off it on the project. The roof has a 20-year warranty from the manufacturer.

Mrs. Lok stated that she is less concerned about the warranty than the fact that the project will be done in time for school to start. She understands that there is a contingency plan should the work not be completed; however, her concern is should something go wrong or additional problems are discovered, what is the contingency plan for the students.

Dr. Mistretta stated the rest of the school could absorb one-third to one-half of the students that are in the Barnard building by creative scheduling. Both Assistant Principals have been working on this plan. She stated that she would alert the Board at the August 23 meeting as to the status of the project, and if half-day sessions are needed. She emphasized that a construction crew will meet every morning with the administration of the building and detail what is scheduled for work. The principal will be able to make a call as to whether the work could commence.

Mrs. Lok asked about a list of items that are a result of the Bennet safety walkthrough conducted on July 28, 2004, that were identified as potential hazards that should be reviewed and rectified to eliminate potential problems. She asked how serious the list is.

Mr. Epstein stated that he didn't see any of the items as serious other than they just need to be taken care of. No one will be in eminent danger if the list does not get taken care of, with the exception of some lights being installed for emergency egress at night. The list is nothing more than what could be found at most typical schools.

Mrs. Lok stated that one of the items is "check attachment of ceiling plaster". She asked if this was a pending injury.

Mr. Epstein stated that they are asking the Buildings and Grounds to further check these situations. There were no areas where plaster was falling.

Mr. Edwards commented that the Board has done an excellent job in the past of focusing on student achievement as the number one goal. However, personally it is his number two goal while safety is the number one goal. As a parent, he would also question the safety of the students. He stated it is a good thing that the Board is taking this issue so seriously. He had heard there was another area in question adjacent to the four-foot area that could be in jeopardy of falling. He asked if this section had been evaluated and if there is any further danger of this particular section coming down.

Mr. Cadman stated that four square feet fell. The other area referred to was the area immediately surrounding it. They have taken down approximately 16-18 square feet that was also loosened up by the moisture.

Mr. Edwards also heard that the other roofs at Bennet, Franklin and Cone, would need new roofs next year.

Mr. Epstein confirmed that the roofs should be replaced. They can be maintained over the school year and be replaced next year.

Mr. Edwards asked if he was engaged to determine the cost of these projects.

Mr. Epstein stated he has not been engaged to date.

Mr. Edwards asked about the other schools that are similar in age (Nathan Hale, Bowers, Highland Park) and asked if it would be worthwhile to get a team to perform safety walkthroughs as well. He also commented about the adjustment of priorities of Policy 3510, and presumably there is a list of things that will not be done. He stated that these are also urgent items or they would not have been put on this list. Replacement of the other roofs at Bennet will also have to be funded and that the Board can't keep tapping Policy 3510 for this. He believes that they will need to take a serious look at funding the projects. He also commented that the Board has done an excellent job in trying to make due with what is has. He has seen many cuts over the years, in programs and staff, and Policy 3510 was intended to ensure that the maintenance staff had the materials to do the kinds of work that needed to get done. Yet, over the last few years, the Board has had to made hard decisions lowering the type of people working on this type of maintenance. He does not feel it is fair to the Town of Manchester or the students to continue to have to make these choices between teachers and maintenance.

Dr. Mistretta stated the roof inventory and the data in the Capital Improvement Plan state that the following schools need re-roofing: Bowers, Buckley (in process), Highland Park, Martin, Verplanck and Waddell.

Mr. Rizzo asked about the items on the safety walkthrough list, and commented that some of them are minor issues that the maintenance staff can take care of. He asked for assurance that the staff will be instructed to go through the list and take care of the things they can.

Dr. Mistretta stated that this would happen, as she believes most of them can be taken care of by the maintenance staff. It will be made a priority.

Mr. Robinson asked about the Franklin and Cone plan, and what is the most current thought on how it will be funded.

Dr. Mistretta asked Mr. Werbner if he could address this question. She referenced his email that states the cost of these projects should be factored into next year's budget plan.

Mr. Werbner stated that this work has to be done next summer and should be part of the planning process and budget process for this coming fall in the 2005-2006 budget. The estimated cost is $200,000 with reimbursement from the State offsetting some of the cost. During the next several months, he asked Mr. Epstein to work with Board of Education officials to prepare cost estimates so there are figures to work with during the budget planning process.

Mr. Robinson asked for a motion on the Consent Calendar.

MOTION: Hackett/Rizzo s.v. The Board of Education approve the educational specifications and request the Board of Directors approve the grant application for the project, establish a building committee, and authorize the design of the project. (7/0/0)

D. OLD BUSINESS
1. Request for School Referendum Items
Mr. Robinson stated that many, if not all, members of the Board of Directors are present, and he invited them to participate in the next portion where Mr. MacDonald from The Downes Group would present his reports on Manchester High School and Bennet Middle School. He stated while there would not be any joint actions taken by the respective Boards, he invited the Board of Directors to make comments or ask questions.

Mr. MacDonald stated they have spent the better part of six months working with the principals at the two schools, the former Superintendent and the Special Education Committee, as well as Mr. Huot to determine the needs of the district. This presentation was originally given in June, and it lays out the summary issues and best alternatives. He gave brief definitions from the State Department of Education of alteration, code update, renovation, and other construction project types. Alterations are changes to the interior structure of an existing building. State reimbursement is subject to restrictions on ineligible and limited eligible costs per State Facilities however; some of the work falls into the alteration category and would not necessarily get the full 65% participation. A code update is a project for the correction of code violations within an existing facility. This work is fully reimbursed. They include fire, handicapped, building and OSHA code issues. The term renovation is changes to an existing school building to totally refurbish the building with results in the renovated facility taking on the useful life comparable to that of a new facility. This does permit normal reimbursement for the replacement of worn out items, whereas alteration does not. However, the renovation requires a comprehensive improvement of all systems in the building. This is a gut-type project where all systems are removed and replaced. The life cycle of the building is 20 years or more. The Bennet school has one proposal as a renovation project. There are also a variety of smaller project types such as energy conservation, school extension (additions, roof replacement, technology infrastructure, new school, purchase of a school and relocatable classrooms. A project may be a combination of several approaches as part of a single grant request. Grant reimbursement will vary based on SFU guidelines in which the State evaluates the relative wealth and prosperity of towns and determines the reimbursement rate through an existing formula. The Manchester High School project currently contemplates includes alteration, energy conservation, school extension, roof replacement, technology infrastructure, and code update. Some of this work would be ineligible for State grant funding. The existing Bennet School project contemplated would be a renovation or a new school, in which every cost would be eligible for State grant funding. He stated that the figures given are not absolute price tags for the projects, rather relative prices for relatively different alternatives of work. Each alternative could be adjusted up or down within millions of dollars.

Three issues regarding the high school project are comparison of options, State space standards, and utilization factors. In Option 4, the addition is proposed to be 57,660 square feet, with site improvements, demolition of the K-wing to accommodate the alternative high school students, and the associated cost contingencies for escalation, architects fees, furniture and the cost of financing. This cost is Option 4 is $18,419.487. In Option 5, the addition is larger at 78,000 square feet and projected to accommodate the freshmen enrollment. It also includes all of the other factors included in Option 4, and the cost is estimated at $23,465,906. The same amount of code update work would occur in the existing high school, regardless of the options, and is valued at approximately $9,571,413. These are fully reimbursed at the Town's rate. Additionally, for either option, there is a priority list of capital improvements with an approximate value of $2,924,988. Some of these items would be eligible for reimbursement, some for partial, and some not at all. Option 4 is approximately $31M for the total project for 57,660 square feet and the utilization rate would be 89.39%. The target rate is 80-85%; the current utilization rate is 99%, giving no flexibility in the scheduling day. Option 5 is approximately $35,962,307 for the total project and yields lower utilization rate thereby increasing flexibility of 83%. It is 78,000 square feet and would accommodate the entire freshmen class. He reviewed rough floor plans for each option. The State Space Standards are used to figure the Town reimbursement rates. The State suggested 378,700 square feet for the high school and it is currently 309,000 square feet.

Mr. Rizzo clarified that the utilization rates projected include the removal of the portable classrooms.

Mr. MacDonald confirmed this. He stated that if the portables are retained, the utilization goes down to the lower 80's.

Mr. Rizzo commented that one criticism a number of communities have made is that once the school is completed, it is discovered it has been built too small. He stated that he prefers Option 5 as it gives the flexibility and space that the high school badly needs. He believes the NEASC report highlighted this as well. Option 5 also ensures that the freshmen will have a separate wing in the school, which is very important for their performance. He also does not want to retain the portables once the project is complete. He feels the money will be well spent.

Mayor Cassano stated that Option 5 puts the square footage about 10,000 square feet over the State Space Standards. He asked if that meant the 10,000 square feet would not be reimbursable.

Mr. MacDonald stated that this is the case, but an adjustment may mean an a few more students per classroom. Enrollment in the freshmen class will also vary from year to year. A slightly smaller wing could probably accommodate the freshmen class with slightly larger classes next year, and then the enrollment levels out in outgoing years. There is room in both options to get closer to the optimum reimbursement.

Mrs. Lok stated that she would support Option 5, as she believes it is the right move.

Mr. Robinson asked for a motion on the item.

MOTION: Rizzo/Lok s.v. The Board of Education recommends to the Board of Directors that Option 5 for the high school be put on the referendum ballot in November. (7/0/0)

Mrs. Hackett stated she would support Option 5, but pointed out that there are some options for non-instructional or common space.

Mr. MacDonald reviewed the options for Bennet Middle School. The variety of buildings present a lot of obstacles for the operation of the school because students have to suit up in winter gear to walk to the adjacent building or across the street to another building, and walk through a courtyard that is often covered in ice and puddles. It is a difficult campus in a number of ways as there is not much total acreage, and the physical education activities are conducted down the street at the public park. When there is a security issue in town or in the nation, security control becomes an issue. Furthermore, the age of the buildings is a concern because some of the buildings are nearly 100 years old. Given that, even with maintenance, some of the systems are not going to last and must be addressed at some point. All of these issues have culminated to a critical point at this facility. They envision two options: a total makeover of the buildings doing what is necessary to alleviate the disconnected structures, or a new school. A lot of time was spent on the issue of swing space. The budgets that were prepared were without the consideration of new land for a new school, or for swing space on the comprehensive renovation. He stated that this renovation contemplated the abandonment of the Cheney building to add parking to the campus, and an addition in the courtyard, as the courtyard is a maintenance issue. The addition would join the buildings, thereby eliminating the need of an additional elevator. This would mean complete removal of every wall inside the buildings, except the staircases that are adequate in size and could be rehabilitated in place. This would not relieve every concern, such as a lack of playfields and adequate parking. It is his firm's opinion to do this comprehensive a renovation, the students should not be allowed to continue to use the facility through the period of construction as it impacts all of the utility systems that are on an interconnected system. Each building cannot operate on its own for basic utilities. If they are separated, it becomes difficult and expensive to maintain them once construction is complete. Too much of the site will be needed for construction and there are significant safety concerns for a period of two years. This would require swing space, an alternative location for the students. There have been suggestions that students be spread out through the district or they use the new addition at the high school if it is built. Another alternative is to find an alternative location and renovate for a temporary school. If the Town does not own the facility, there would be rent factor. The State will reimburse for rent up to a certain level. The maximum is $15 per square foot for swing space for as long as it is needed. There is no absolute figure for swing space as there are so many different options. They project if the project is done building by building, it would double the construction time to four years, and the inflation on construction costs would be about $1M per year. He provided a sample calculation on what the total contribution from the State might be for swing space. The space for a school for 850 students should be about 140,000 square feet. The State would reimburse at $15 per square feet for rent reimbursement, therefore the Town would receive about $4.2M for two years. For a new school, they would look for an optimum of 23.5 acres. If more acreage were added, reimbursement would go down. The renovation project is estimated at $41M for 158,000 square feet. The share of Town money would be $19M, the State share $23M. The new school has two options. The first is 158,000 square feet (similar to the current school) for $50M; the town share $22M, the State share $27M. The other option is smaller at 138,000 square feet for $45M; the town share $20M, the State share $24M. When $8M is added for either swing space or land purchase, the Town's share in both renovation and replacement options is approximately $23M. There is a difference in that when $8M is spent on swing space, it is left all behind, whereas when $8M is used to purchase land, it becomes an integral part of the school project.

Mr. Becker stated that when the Town renovated the Town Hall, there were many unforeseen circumstances, and he asked if these contingencies were included in the estimates.

Mr. MacDonald stated that a variety of contingencies have been included. They increased their escalation contingency to 4 percent per year for four years. The midpoint of construction, if approved, would be four years from this November. The escalation equals about $3.5M. There is a 5 percent design contingency for $1M, and there is a construction contingency of 8 percent or $2M. This is a total of about $6M for contingencies.

Mayor Cassano stated that the Board of Directors were going to convene to vote on the previous high school issue.

Mr. Rizzo asked if the Town presently owned enough land on Hillstown Road to build the option of a new middle school.

Mr. Werbner displayed a rough drawing of the Hillstown Road site, illustrating how the building would be placed on the parcel of the land. It shows that there is additional land for the building of a new fire department as well. This still leaves additional town-owned property that could be used for cemetery purposes with proper buffering. The Botticello farm remains as well as another family owned parcel, and the Town recommends that this land be purchased as it becomes available. The only part that would be impacted is the wooded area where the Ropes Course is located. He stated that there is at least two legal opinions that indicate the property could be used for general municipal use. There is a question that some money should be reimbursed back to the cemetery fund, for half of the property that was originally acquired. Additionally, the area could be signaled for entries and exits.

Mr. Rizzo stated the land cost that was mentioned earlier is not a significant issue, as the Town already owns the land.

Mrs. Hackett asked what the required acreage is for State reimbursement.

Mr. Werbner stated the maximum acreage was approximately 23 acres.

Mr. Edwards stated he was curious about the escalation costs and asked if the assumption of four years out for construction was made in both cases.

Mr. MacDonald stated they were, because the project is not recognized at the State Facilities Unit as a construction project yet. There is a sequence of events that would have to take place that would put each project four years out from the start of the project.

Mr. Edwards asked how long it would take to build a new building versus renovating Bennet.

Mr. MacDonald felt that these two projects would take the same amount of time, approximately two years.

Mr. Edwards stated that he was surprised at the estimate as in a renovation, there has to be time to remove everything, whereas once a new slab is poured, a new building can be built right away.

Mr. MacDonald stated that it would take the same amount of time to pull everything out of the current building as it would to prepare a new foundation for a new school based on the timing of the project start in November.

Mr. Robinson asked for a motion on the item.

MOTION: Lok/Rizzo s.v. The Board of Education recommends to the Board of Directors that the town moves forward with building a new middle school, Option B, to be placed on referendum in the earliest part of 2005, as is possible. (withdrawn)

Mrs. Lok stated that she would have liked to recommend at this meeting that this item go to referendum for the coming election; however, she feels that it would be unwise. She hopes that the Board all agrees that something has to be done at Bennet Middle School. Her preference is to build a new middle school, but she feels that the Board needs to put some time and effort into the planning. She does not feel that it is reasonable that it be done in time for a November referendum. She feels that it is wiser to put it on the ballot as early as possible in 2005. She chose this wording carefully because as much as she would like to have it on the March ballot, she feels that it may not be possible. She feels the Board needs to move forward as quickly as they can.

Mrs. Hackett thinks that it is clear that something has to be done at Bennet. She is not exactly sure what that means to her, and is not sure that she has any decisive information at this meeting that leads her unilaterally to say that a new middle school should be built. She believes, at some point after she has had more time to analyze it, it is likely that she will reach that conclusion. She stated she was not a member of the education subcommittee, although she read in the newspaper of what was going on and spoke with members, but she does not feel the issue has been hashed out as a full Board. She feels there is a divide on this issue already, and she feels she needs to do more to be able to reconcile some of the differences that she is hearing. In terms of final cost, she feels both options are fairly comparable. She understands that something has to be done very soon, but does not feel that she could that conclusion at this meeting.

Mr. Edwards commented on the timing of the motion. He stated that he supported the new middle school rather than the renovation. He had the benefit of being on the education subcommittee, and he feels that committee very clearly decided that an addition to the high school is the way to go. There was not much decent on this, but he does not feel the community fully understands the difference between renovation and new construction. He clarified in the motion that it specifies Option B, and offered it as a friendly amendment.

Mr. Robinson stated it would be a friendly amendment unless there was an objection. There were no objections.

Mr. Edwards stated the 138,000 square feet in option B is equivalent to the 158,000 square feet in a renovated Bennet, the reason being that the basement classrooms should no longer be used. He stated he would support the motion as made; however, his preference would be to put the referendum question on the ballot this November. The upside to this is that it is a presidential election year and voter turnout would be greater. He believes this puts the possibility of passage higher because there will be more people participating. Additionally, he feels if it is put on the ballot for November, the Board is giving the voters a chance to talk about what they want. He understands the work that needs to be done in order to place it on the ballot and to get people to understand what the projects are. He commented that the Board does not even have a planned vision of the footprint of a new school on the Hillstown Road site. What the Board does have is a relatively straightforward cost estimate and know that the site works on a practical standpoint. While it has its shortcomings, he believes a middle school can easily be placed there. If this was put to referendum in November and it passed, it may not place the town any farther in the process, but at least designs could be started. He feels the sooner it can be moved along, the better off the Town will be. He understands there are legislative issues that will regulate what can be done and how fast. He feels the students have labored far too long in an environment that is not conducive to education. He feels that not placing it on the ballot based on the fact that there will be two big-ticket items is selling the voters short. The voters know there is an issue at Bennet, and they know it will be on a future ballot. This will find out immediately if the public supports a new middle school or a renovation to the current school. He stated that he would support an amendment of this nature. The other option is not to put a timeframe on it and leave it to the Board of Directors; however, he would rather give them guidance on the timing.

Mrs. Lok stated there are various theories about the best time for a referendum. In past years, this has been greatly discussed. She does not feel higher voter turnout assures passage of a new Bennet Middle School, only that more people will pay attention to the issue. She does not feel that the Board should risk failure of a new school because there is not a well thought out plan. She feels there is risk at any time, but she prefers to put out a well thought out plan and question to the voters.

Mr. Edwards also commented that the worst-case scenario is if the Board held a special referendum, or waited a full year, with a fully developed plan and the voters reject it. This would mean that the renovated school option would be put off for another year. He feels that this is a bigger risk. He feels that Bennet students have waited far too long for a solution. He is in favor of a plan that guarantees a new solution as quickly as possible without the potential for another delay because voters didn't like the new middle school.

Mrs. O'Neill stated that she was on the committee and one of the people who opposed the new middle school. On the committee, they had to be convinced that the current site is not a viable site. Two groups formed, one to look at new sites and one to look at renovating the existing site. The group that looked at renovation came up with a decent plan that addressed most of the issues. For the most part, she felt it was dismissed and the committee voted, with the majority favoring a new middle school. She commented that the people who advocated for the new school failed to make a convincing argument that the existing site was not a viable site for a middle school. She feels these circumstances are similar to the new high school proposal. She stated that people have been demanding a renovation of Bennet for years. She feels it is a smart, prudent decision, which is sensible and addresses most of the major issues. She believes it can work and that the Board needs to think about it more. She stated the renovations take place everyday in occupied buildings. She amazed at those who believe a new middle school will pass. Even if a new middle school is built, there is still the cost of renovating the existing school for use. At the same time, repairs need to be made. She feels that this is repeatedly hitting the taxpayer She stated that the same problems exist with this situation that existed with the new high school proposal, including increased transportation costs. She strongly believes the existing site should be renovated. She stated she would oppose the motion.

Mrs. Hackett asked what is lost if the Board did not vote on this item at this meeting.

Mr. Robinson stated the Board would have to recommend any action to the Board of Directors so that it could be effectuated by September for purposes of a referendum this November. In terms of a November referendum, it would need to be acted upon at this meeting. In terms of the current motion, he does not think time is an issue.

Mrs. Hackett stated that the motion asked for a referendum in early 2005. She stated that she is seeing some of the content for the first time at this meeting. She felt the last two referendums were rushed, and she is not prepared to make the same mistake by voting at this meeting. She believes she should be afforded the luxury of more deliberations and more input from the public. She stated that she would abstain from the vote.

Mr. Rizzo stated that in light of Mrs. Hackett's comments and that there were two Board members absent from the meeting that would be very interested in participating in the vote, he would not oppose if the motion were withdrawn.

Mrs. Lok stated that she would withdraw the motion in the interest of allowing Mrs. Hackett time to review and feel comfortable with a decision, and also in light of the fact that there are two Board members absent from the meeting.

Mr. Robinson stated that the motion is withdrawn. While the high school referendum is relatively straightforward and was approved unanimously, there is still quite a bit of debate regarding the Bennet decision. He stated that he favored the new middle school for a variety of reasons. He feels that the suggestion of a referendum in 2005 was taken to heart, and that much more needs to be reviewed before that referendum.

Mrs. Hackett thanked Mrs. Lok for allowing the Board more time on this issue.

Mrs. Lok stated that she had another motion that the item reappear on the very next meeting's agenda, and that Board members try to get information that will help them be comfortable with a decision, and that the administration provide Board member with any information that is needed. The reason that she believes it is imperative that a decision is made and the thinking process is started, is that these problems are not going to go away. She feels that the Board should show some leadership and make a decision. She believes this decision should be to build a new middle school.

Mr. Robinson stated that the item would be on the August 23 agenda.

Mrs. Hackett made an appeal to the public to contact her and other Board members regarding this issue. She stated that every member could be contacted by email, and that the Board of Education has a brochure of their contact numbers.

Mr. MacDonald commented that all that has been compared in the analysis is the cost of one solution versus the other. He stated that there are other factors, which bear investigation to compare the two alternatives. The location of the school is an issue, as well as what happens to the site if a new school is built. It is some peoples desire to renovate and maintain the campus as it is, and others desire a rural school campus, with playing fields and adjacency to the college. The only issue that has been addressed is cost.

Mr. Robinson stated there has been additional progress with facilities upgrades on the elementary schools, as well as the decision regarding the high school at this meeting. The Bennet issue will be addressed on the August 23 meeting. They are also making significant strides on the Early Childhood facilities upgrades. He asked Dr. Mistretta to address this in connection with Head Start.

Dr. Mistretta stated that she and Mr. Robinson attended a meeting with Alan Desmaris and Hanna Marcus, and they are working very closely with the Town and the School Readiness Council to investigate the expansion of the Head Start Program. Currently, there are 132 children in the Head Start program, spread across eight classrooms in four schools. The space is limited and there are approximately 50 families on the waiting list. Having the program spread across the town is unacceptable. They are looking into the possibility of taking advantage of recent legislation that will allow putting several funding streams together. Twenty-eight percent of the cost of a Head Start facilities could be paid by CHEFA, and the State Department of Education has a recent ruling that the School Facilities Unit may allow school systems to pair up State Department reimbursement (65%) with the CHEFA funds. They are also investigating the possibility of using Head Start federal dollars for more expansion, as well as some other funding streams. With this financing, they believe they can get local funding down to approximately 7 percent, or $500,000. They are in the exploration stage and she will update the Board on the decisions on combining the funding streams. They believe Manchester stands a good chance of being able to put them altogether. The State Department of Education looks favorably upon Manchester for pre-school education. Manchester has had many grants for preschool through first grade curriculum. The newly endorsed Strategic Plans focusing on getting students ready for school. They believe with an expanded Head Start facility, they will be able to service approximately 200 students, a third more than currently. They are also looking at building concepts that were done about seven years ago.

Mr. Edwards wondered if there was anything needed from the Board, and what the next step is.

Dr. Mistretta stated that one of the items at the August 23 meeting would be a resolution crafted by the Curriculum and Instruction Committee over the years for Board consideration. There will be other things needed for Board support in the future.

F. PUBLIC COMMENTS

1. Terry Werkhoven, 88 Santina Drive. He wanted to assure the Board that he is not against any repairs that are being done to the Barnard school. He is in favor of replacing the roof and whatever has to be done to ensure the safety of the students. He sat on the Citizen Advisory Committee for the Board and has reviewed every school roof in the Town, photographed them, and has all the warrantees. He stated that Lawrence Associates reported that the Verplanck School roof was leaking because the windows were leaking. He reviewed this and found it was not the roof that was leaking, but the joints on the roof, and he made recommendations to Buildings and Grounds. This was repaired, and he inspected it afterwards. He feels it is important to use the right materials and have at least a 20-30 year warranty. A rubber membrane will make the roof last for 30 years.

2. Stephanie Knybel, 138 Bobby Lane. She stated that she is pleased that the high school is going forward; however, she is disappointed that the Board is not moving forward with Bennet. She understands that some Board members have not heard the whole story and that public input is wanted. She stated that she personally sent out flyers to the five feeder schools that go to Bennet, telling the elementary school parents about the meetings that were scheduled. At all of the meetings, the attendance is poor. She feels the public has no interest in coming and commenting. She reminded the Board that Bennet has a higher minority rate than Illing, and that needs to be addressed, possibly by redistricting the entire town. She is disappointed that Board members felt left out of the meetings, as they were open to the public, published in the paper, and Board members could have attended. She will be watching carefully what will happen regarding the roof at Bennet.

3. Bob Samuelson He stated he lived in town all his life, and was on the Town Building Committee that remodeled five schools. He stated that he could not clearly hear the discussion at the meeting. As far as the Hillstown Road property, he believes putting a school on the edge of East Hartford makes no sense. The bussing costs do not make sense. He suggests the roads are not large enough to support another school building, as there are already traffic problems. He believes the Board should really analyze this project before it is voted down again.

4. Eileen Sweeney, 86 Hawthorne Street. She stated she greatly appreciated the decision on Manchester High School. She has two children attending this school year, and they are very familiar with the schools. She also appreciates delaying the decision on the middle school until there is more discussion, gathering of information and input from the public. She believes that there are issues that need to be explored.

5. Leslie Frye, 30 Florence Street. She stated that the roof and the school should be fixed (Bennet). She feels that the school has been neglected for years. She also read a lot of misleading articles in the newspaper talking about the cost of the swing space. She asked about the bussing costs. She feels the logical choice is to use the new high school addition as the swing space. She feels that some of the Board members were swayed by some of the teacher's comments at the public hearing. Although she appreciates their concern, she questions how many actually live in town, are taxpayers, and how many will vote at a future referendum. It also greatly upset her at the public hearing some of the comments about the school being in a "ghetto". She lives in this neighborhood and would not use this term. She believes this term should be corrected. She feels the Bennet complex is a fundamental part of Manchester's history, and it should be renovated. If Bennet is fixed, it will be the showcase of the State of Connecticut.

6. Tom Stringfellow, 183 Hillstown Road. He stated that he supported the geometry textbook selection, as he thinks math is important. He commented that the Department of Energy has implemented a science education program called STAR, which will start in the fall at the middle school level. There was an article in USA Today about students getting involved in businesses and computer programming. He feels information technology is vital. He also supports the repair of the Barnard school building. He feels the high school addition has to be done right away because of the NEASC report. He is undecided about the building of a new Bennet on Hillstown Road. He has family members buried in the cemetery there, and feels that it should remain cemetery space. The traffic flow will also be affected. He believes that other sites should be considered, and that community input is important. He is concerned with lighting, water, cutting down trees, and noise. He asked the Board to keep all options open.

MOTION: Robinson/Rizzo s.v. The Board of Education adjourned at 10:10 p.m.