Frequently Asked Questions on the Proposed New Middleton Elementary School

INTRODUCTION

The Middleton School Building Committee (MSBC) has compiled this set of Frequently Asked Questions as part of its ongoing commitment to provide complete, open, and honest communication with Middleton residents on the proposed new elementary school project.

While questions often cross multiple categories, they have been assigned to one of several major headings based on primary focus:

• Questions Related To…
• School Space Issues & Need for This Project
• Financial Costs & State Funding
• The Howe Manning Building Site Decision
• Other Sites Beyond Howe Manning
• Impact of a Larger School in Town Center
• Overall School Timeline
• Miscellaneous

For further information on the project, including numerous source documents used in the development of these Frequently Asked Question responses, please visit www.tritownschoolunion.com and click on the link to the Middleton School Building Committee home page.  This document will be updated as warranted, in order to reflect the completion of future events or address any additional questions that may arise.

---

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Questions Related to the Need for the New School Project

Questions Related to Financial Costs & State Funding

What are the expectations on state reimbursement for the new school?
How much will the school cost the average taxpayer?
How would the cost of renovating Howe Manning compare to that for a new building?

Questions related to the Current Howe Manning Building & Site Decision

Questions Related to Other Sites Beyond Howe Manning

Questions Related to Building a Bigger School at Town Center

Questions Related the Overall School Timeline

What is the overall school timeline?
Will there be any community input into the new school?  When will we have a design in place?
Why not slow down and analyze the site question again?

Miscellaneous Questions

---

Questions Related to the Need for a New School Project

Are our elementary schools really overcrowded?  What are some examples of issues and what is the impact?.

 

Table 1.  Current and Projected Student Population vs. Existing Capacity
Existing School	Size of Building(SF)	Design Capacity*	Current Enrollment 10.1.08	Current % of Capicty 160% 160% 150%	Enrollment Projection(2016)	Projected Percent of Capacity
Fuller Meadow PK-3	56,000	313	512		510	160%
Howe Manning 4-6	40,400	224	368		386	170%
Total PK-6	96,400	537	880		896	160%

 

• Compared with Boxford and Topsfield, we have the second largest total student population and the largest special education student population. We anticipate exceeding Boxford, which currently has the largest student population, in the next two years.
• We have purchased three temporary modular classrooms for the Fuller Meadow School and two temporary modular classrooms for the Howe Manning School to address overcrowding.   
• Examples of current overcrowding issues impacting educational quality include:
  • A number of classroom spaces do not meet current Department of Education and Massachusetts School Building Authority guidelines for square footage.
  • Special Education spaces do not meet current state and federal standards.
  • Core facilities are undersized for the present school enrollment (Cafeteria, Auditorium, Gymnasium, Library, Art Room, Music Room, Health Room, Office Areas, and Conference Rooms).
  • Areas designed for storage are now used for instructional space and administration.
  • There is no classroom space to offer more than a half-time Kindergarten program or to meet demand for our Preschool Program, resulting in the need for a lottery each year for available Preschool seats.

Table 2. Howe Manning School ? Summary of Space Shortage
Space Type	MSBA Standards	Existing Space	Net Shortage
Classrooms	950 SF	10 within range 6 undersized	1800-2000 SF for current program needs
Art	2,300 SF	700 SF	1,600 SF
General MusicInstrumental	2,700 SF	None 150 SF (Dishwashing Room)	2,700 SF
Special Education	950 SF each	Ranges 200-700 SF for 5 spaces	2,700 SF approx.
Small Group and Resource	500 SF	None	500 SF
Library	3,310 SF	900 SF	2,410 SF
Cafeteria/Auditorium	2,550 SF (15 SF * 341 population/2)	1,800 SF	750 SF
Gymnasium	6,300 SF	2830 SF	3,470 SF
Kitchen	1,900 SF	700 SF	1,200 SF
Custodial/Maintenance	1,600 SF	200 SF	1,400 SF
Stage	1,000 SF	None	1,000 SF
Teacher Workroom/ Lounge/Lunch Room	750 SF	300 SF	450 SF
Guidance	335 SF	None	335 SF
General Administration	1,600 SF	390 SF	1,210 SF
Health (Nurse)	510 SF	286 SF	224 SF
Equipment Storage	300 SF	None	300 SF
General Storage	600 SF	400 SF	200 SF
TOTAL NET SHORTAGE:			24,859 SF

Are we really running out of space in the buildings to adequately serve the school children?.

BACK TO TOP

---

Are our elementary schools really not meeting standards today?

• Howe Manning was built in 1937 and last modified from an instructional space perspective in 1957.  There has been no significant renovation or any addition to instructional space since then.  The Town has been forced to try to retrofit to accommodate current education standards vs. those from 1937/1957, but only so much can be done given the constraints of the existing building.  This means that our children are receiving their educational experience in a school that has not been significantly modified in over 50 years.

BACK TO TOP

---

Will school enrollment begin to taper off and reduce the severity of the current overcrowding problem at Howe Manning and Fuller Meadow?

• In February 2007, a subcommittee of the MSBC performed a thorough analysis of all student population projections received to date.  Based upon a statistical review of the data, the subcommittee concluded that the MSBC should plan for long-term educational space that provides for a for a projected student enrollment of 850 to 900 students out to the year 2015 (grades K-6).  The current student population for the 2008-2009 school year is 813 students (grades K-6).
• The MSBA conducted an independent enrollment projection and have concurred with our projected student enrollment.
• The argument that growth had stopped was the primary reason the appropriation of funds for a new school failed the required 2/3 majority by 19 votes at the Fall Town Meeting in October 2002.  In fact, growth did not stop, leading to our current overcrowding situation.  Due to construction inflation and other factors, the estimated cost to our Town for a new school is now almost triple the 2002 amount.

BACK TO TOP

---

Why is the school being planned to meet a capacity of 553 students? 

• A subcommittee of the MSBC performed a review and analysis of recent enrollment projections for grades K-6 and determined that total student enrollment for the new school should be at least 500 students to support grades 3-6. 
• The Massachusetts School Building Authority (MSBA) conducted an independent enrollment projection and analysis of Middleton’s student population and determined that the new school should accommodate 553 students to support grades 3-6 and the PK program.  The new building will be constructed to meet this capacity as agreed by the MSBA and the Town of Middleton.

Questions Related to Financial Costs & State Funding

What are the expectations on state reimbursement for the new school? 

• Funding through the Massachusetts School Building Authority (MSBA) is very different than what the Town experienced for the Fuller Meadow School expansion or Masconomet Regional High School.  Rather than the Town expending total costs and then being reimbursed at a much later date for the costs by the state, the state will be reimbursing their portion of funds throughout the entire project period.  Therefore, once the building is complete, all funding will have been received by the state. The Town will not experience any delayed reimbursement, as was the case with the previous Department of Education bureau (where reimbursement would take years for towns to receive).
• The Middleton School Building Committee (MSBC) is working very closely with the MSBA and adhering to the required process to maximize potential reimbursement. 
• The MSBC anticipates reimbursement in the 48% range.  This is considered to be in the reasonable range based on past history and understanding of proposed changes in State funding.  Independent consultants have validated the reasonableness of this estimate.
• The MSBC will explore all options for maximizing our reimbursement rate.  An example of this is the “Green Schools Initiative” by which the Town can increase its rate by receiving State funding for including certain environmentally-friendly features in the school design (please see separate Frequently Asked Question on Green Schools for details).
• At the same time, with the cost of a school increasing at an estimated $1.2 million per year due to construction inflation, it is critical that the Town does not delay.  The Town’s cost of the same project that narrowly missed the required 2/3 majority by 19 votes at the Fall Town Meeting in 2002 has almost tripled from the original $5.7 million estimation.  This does not include the significant, non-reimbursable cost of temporary modular classrooms, the cost of which has totaled approximately $715,000. 

How much will the school cost the average taxpayer?

• The cost estimate for the project is $31.4 million.  With 48.1% funding from the state, the cost to the Town is approximately $16.3 million.  These are not final numbers.  Final numbers will be determined with the MSBA and the project scope and budget agreed upon with the MSBA will represent the final actual cost of the project.
• Impact on taxes must also consider the debt to be retired over the course of the project.  Over the first 10 years of the project, the town will have paid off over 1 million dollars of debt service.  This will offset 90% of the tax increase estimated in the year 2020.
• The estimated tax increases over time for the New School Building Project are provided in Tables 3-5.

Table 3.  Calculation for Estimated Tax Increase
Cents/$1,000 of Assessed Value	FY 2011	FY 2012	FY 2013	FY 2014	FY 2017	FY 2020
	14.7 cents	29.6 cents	43 cents	47.5 cents	28.2 cents	7.8 cents
Example for FY2014	For a $350,000 home 47.5 cents x 350 = $166		For a $500,000 home 47.5 cents x 500 = $238		For a $650,000 home 47.5 cents x 650 = $309

Table 4.  Calculated Total Annual Tax Increase at Bond Interest Rate of 4.5% for 20 years
Assessed HomeValue:	$350,000	$450,000	$500,000	$600,000	$650,000	$750,000
2011	$51	$66	$74	$88	$96	$110
2012	$104	$133	$148	$178	$192	$222
2013	$151	$194	$215	$258	$280	$323
2014	$166	$214	$238	$284	$309	$355
2017	$99	$127	$141	$169	$183	$211
2020	$27	$35	$39	$46	$51	$58

Table 5.  Average Tax per Year Over the Ten Year Period 2011 to 2020
$350,000	$450,000	$500,000	$600,000	$650,000	$750,000
$99.66	$128	$142	$170	$185	$213
Total Tax Over the Ten Year Period 2011 to 2020
$350,000	$450,000	$500,000	$600,000	$650,000	$750,000
$999.60	$1282	$1425	$1705	$1852	$2132

How would the cost of renovating Howe Manning compare to that for a new building?

• The cost of renovating and building the necessary addition to the current Howe Manning school was approximately $2.4 million greater than building a new school at the site.
• This increased cost was due to two primary factors:
  • A major renovation and addition would be required to bring the Howe Manning building (including core facilities, classroom sizes, etc.) to current standards and make it suitable for the required enrollment size. The Town has been forced to try to retrofit to accommodate current education standards vs. those from 1937/1957, but the differences in codes and amount of additional space needed is far too great to allow for a simple renovation.
  • Renovation is made even more unattractive from a financial perspective when including the significant financial costs associated with relocating students, since the students would not be able to occupy the building during the renovation process.  This would very likely entail bussing students to some out-of-town school for a two-year period. 
• Two additional options were considered to address long-term space needs: 1) a new school at Howe Manning and 2) demolition/addition of 3 story building at Fuller Meadow.
• It was determined that Option #2 did not provide equity between the schools. Fuller Meadow is a newer building and meets MSBA regulations.  The main issue with Fuller Meadow is that it is overcrowded.  The Howe Manning School does not meet MSBA regulations.  The school is not only overcrowded, its design is functionally obsolete for educational purposes.
• It was felt that addressing the obsolete nature of the Howe Manning School, as it relates to conformance to existing MSBA regulations, would serve the best interests of the students and the community. 
• From a value perspective, the community would realize more benefit with a new school at Howe Manning.

Questions related to the Current Howe Manning Building & Site Decision

How was the site recommendation made?

• School overcrowding is a critical issue that has been studied by various Town Committees for over 10 years.  The MSBC thoroughly reviewed all potential sites as part of its rigorous assessment.
• The MSBC’s site evaluation and recommendation was fact-based.  Hundreds of hours of due diligence were invested by the Committee, plus many more by other Boards and independent studies.  Just a few of the sources used include:
  • Space Needs Committee Report – February 2000
  • School Space Needs Study Committee – December 2001
  • Elementary Building Feasibility Committee – August 2002
  • Children’s Instructional Space Sub Committee Report - June 2005
  • Demography and Enrollment Projections prepared by the New England School Development Council - March 2005
  • Howe Manning Feasibility Study prepared by DiNisco Design Partnership - June 10, 2005
  • Updated Feasibility Study for New Elementary School at the Locust Street Site prepared by KBA Architects - June 29, 2005
  • Locust Street Feasibility Study completed by KBA Architects in October 2002
  • Middleton School Building Committee - August 2005-December 2006
• In February 2007, the MSBC conducted a survey of residents to determine the major issues that impacted the NO decision in November 2006 for a new school at Locust Street.  While the survey showed that the community overwhelmingly agreed that the schools were overcrowded, opinions diverged on the best solution to address this issue. The projected cost was the most significant factor. The community felt that there may be less costly solutions. Other factors included the need to maintain the central location of school and the need to keep the Howe Manning building.  Results of the survey were considered by the MSBC when making their decision.
• After thorough due diligence, the Howe Manning site was recommended by the School Building Committee by a majority vote.

• The MSBC deemed a new school at the Howe Manning site to be the best, most cost-effective long-term solution to address the school overcrowding issue.  Some of the key criteria considered included:
  • The cost for renovating and adding to the current Howe Manning School was the most expensive option explored.
  • Howe Manning was built in 1937 and last modified from an instructional space perspective in 1957.  There has been no significant renovation or any addition to instructional space since then.
  • The Town has been forced to try to retrofit to accommodate current education standards vs. those from 1937/1957, but the differences in the codes and the amount of additional space needed is far too great to allow for a simple renovation.  This means our children are receiving their educational experience in a school that has not been significantly modified in about 50 years.  Fuller Meadow was built over 40 years ago in 1964, with an expansion/renovation project completed in 1997.
  • Renovation at the Howe Manning site would most likely force the need to bus students out of town for the duration of the estimated two year construction process.  This carries an additional significant financial cost to the Town, as well as impacting the quality of life and education of affected students and parents.
• An independent architectural firm has validated the significant problems in renovating at the Howe Manning School.  The June 2005 Howe Manning Feasibility Study by DiNisco Design Partnership, a respected consulting firm with extensive qualifications in school design, focused exclusively on Howe Manning site options.  The report highlighted a number of critical issues with renovating the school, including the displacement of students during construction.

Why did the Town invest money in a new septic system at Howe Manning?

• The Howe Manning septic system was installed at a cost of $240,047 in 2004.  This was an unavoidable cost to address a critical need.  The system was deemed to be in failure under Title V regulations by the Board of Health, and the Town was facing potential fines from the MA Department of Environmental Protection if it were not corrected.  The school would have to have been closed if the septic system was not replaced.
• The 2004 septic system will not be replaced for the new school at Howe Manning. The existing system will be expanded to accommodate the new building population.

What is going to happen to the Howe Manning building if the new school is built? 

• The new school will be built behind the current school. Students will remain in the current school while the new school is being built. Once the new school is complete, the current Howe Manning Building will be demolished.  The area where the old school was located will be landscaped as the front entrance and designed to allow bus queuing for student drop-off and pick-up.
• The cost to demolish the Howe Manning building is included in the total cost of the project.
• Where feasible, furniture and equipment from the old Howe Manning School will be transferred to the new school.
• Due to the fact that the new building will be constructed prior to the existing building being demolished, a majority of the existing building will not be able to be incorporated into the new building. However, symbolic use of the existing brick and other recycled material can be incorporated into the new building.

Questions Related to Other Sites Beyond Howe Manning

Were all sites considered?  Doesn’t the Town own another suitable site?

• The Town owns 34 acres on Locust Street, approximately 17 acres which is available for municipal use.  Locust Street was the site choice for two building committee recommendations that were presented to the Town.  This choice failed to receive the required number of votes both times it was presented at Town Meeting and on the ballot.  The survey conducted by the MSBC indicated that, while the Locust Street site was not the primary reason for the failure of the previous two new school building requests, the community preferred a school that was centrally located.
• The Town of Middleton does not own any other sites that approximate the acreage required for a school; the vast majority of remaining land in the Town is privately-owned.  There are no alternative sites on the market that approximates the acreage required for a school. 
• Even if a site were available for purchase, the market rate to acquire such a parcel – which is not reimbursable by the State – would push the total project cost well beyond anything under consideration and immediately render it cost-prohibitive.  For example, a comparably sized site in an accessible and suitable location could easily cost an additional $4-6 million dollars. 
• In the February 2007 Survey, the community overwhelming stated that purchase of land should not be considered an option.
• The land on Gregory Street is not owned by the Town.  This property is owned and operated by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.  The Town has received confirmation from the state that state ownership of the land will continue indefinitely. A letter dated March 21, 2007 from Jane Tewksbury, Esq., Commissioner of the DYS, to Town Administrator Ira Singer stated that the new DYS Northeast Regional Center will be located at the Middleton site.

Is the North Shore Technical High School a viable alternative option?

• At public information meetings and Town Meetings, residents have been informed that the North Shore Technical High School (also known as the NSTS, which is located off 114 on Log Bridge Road behind the Dairy Queen plaza), is not a feasible alternative for a new elementary school for several reasons.  One of the most important factors is that Middleton does not own the building or land; its ownership is shared by 17 member communities. 
• Purchase of the site would be required to be at market rates [Ref: M.G.L Chapter 463 of the Acts of 2004, Section 15].  This was estimated in 2003 at $6-7 million dollars.  Coupled with high renovation costs for the building and that the purchase would not be reimbursable by the State, this would be much more expensive than a new school and ultimately cost-prohibitive. 
• In addition to being cost-prohibitive, the other major issue is timing.  In 2008, the Legislature made an appropriation for construction at the Maple Street site.  The most optimistic date for construction and consolidation of both institutions at the Maple Street location is the year 2014.  If Middleton were able to obtain the NSTS property, funding and remodeling of the existing facility on Log Bridge Road would be necessary. The realistic opening dates for an elementary school building would be in the 2017-2018 school year.

Can a second floor or other major expansion be added to Fuller Meadow to alleviate the overcrowding situation?

• When renovation and expansion options at Fuller Meadow were being considered in the mid-1990’s, professional engineers concluded that it would be structurally unsound to add a second floor to Fuller Meadow.  This led to the decision to add a new first floor wing in 1997. 
• The concept of significantly expanding the school “sideways” is not viable from a number of standpoints.  The acreage of the school site is insufficient for this type of expansion.  The core facilities (e.g. cafeteria, gym) are not sized appropriately for the planned increase in student population.  An expansion sideways would compound, rather than alleviate, the significant problems with parking and access.  
• The Howe Manning School is in immediate need of systems replacements and other repairs. This cost is approximately $4 - $5 million. These repairs would not be reimbursable by MSBA or other state agency. The town would be responsible for the entire cost. These replacements and repairs would be done over summer breaks which would last at least 3 summers (years).
• The MSBC did explore the option of tearing down the old part of Fuller Meadow and building a 3 story addition in its place.  The need for systems replacements and repairs at the Howe Manning School also needed to be factored into the overall cost of taking this approach.  The estimated cost was slightly less than that of the new school at Howe Manning.  At the time the decision was made, the estimated overall cost to the Town would have been $17,356,523 compared to $20,426,841 for renovation/addition at Howe Manning, and $18,033,870 for the new school at Howe Manning.
• The Committee determined, based on the overall cost and the need to provide equity between the buildings, that the Fuller Meadow option was not appropriate. 
• Ultimately, such expansion at Fuller Meadow would do nothing in terms of addressing the critical issues at Howe Manning, with a facility that has not had a significant renovation/addition in nearly 50 years, and as a result is 60% overcrowded by minimum standards today and not meeting current standards such as classroom size, size and quality of core facilities, etc.  Even if a significant expansion at Fuller Meadow were possible, this does not solve the key issues or make good financial sense.

What will happen to the Fuller Meadow School once the new school is built?

• The Fuller Meadow School will continue to operate and will serve grades K through 2 (currently PK-3).  This will allow for a full-time Kindergarten program that is aligned with Boxford and Topsfield.  The new Howe Manning School will serve grades PK and 3-6 (currently Grades 4-6). 

Questions Related to Building a Bigger School at Town Center

How long will construction take?  What steps will be taken to minimize disruption?

• The design phase will take approximately 1 year (9 more months).  The construction period is estimated to begin in Spring 2010 and last approximately 2 years.  This is considered a very reasonable estimate based on the duration for other new school building projects, and has been validated by independent consultants.  The new school is anticipated to open in the 2011/2012 academic year.
• One of the criteria for the contractor selection process is expected to be the contractor’s demonstrated record of working well with neighbors and minimizing the construction impact. 
• One of the major responsibilities of the MSBC and Owner’s Project Manager is to ensure effective relations with neighbors throughout the construction process.  The MSBC understands the concern regarding the construction process and is committed to minimizing impact on residents.
• The new school will be constructed directly behind the existing school to maximize the site. When the new building is completed, the students will move into the new building and the existing building will be demolished. Based on the current schedule, the demolition of the existing building will take place over a summer and not during the school year.
• Safety of the students, staff, administrators and visitors are paramount. There will be a clear separation of contractors and users of the facility with a construction fence. The contractors will have a separate “haul” road to enter and exit the site. They will not use the same access to the site as the users of the school. Students will be separated from the construction area.  Recess will occur in the gym or at alternative sites in the area (e.g. Town green).
• The MSBC is committed to making the construction process a positive experience for our elementary school children.  Where feasible, programs that incorporate the construction process into the curriculum will be created. This can include showing instances of math and geometry in drawings, layouts and floor plans.  

What will be the impact of the new school on traffic?

• Without question, a comprehensive traffic study will be performed as a critical part of the design process.
• Traffic at the school can be thoughtfully designed, including bus drop-off/pick-up, parent drop-off/pick-up, and overflow parking.  The new school design and layout allows for a more logical traffic pattern that alleviates congestion due to the addition of a parent drop-off/pick-up point that is separate from the bus queue.  Buses will be queued at a new drive created at the front of the school that will allow traffic to continue to pass by while students are loaded/unloaded onto the bus in the driveway area.
• Neighbors will be able to provide input into such matters as part of the upcoming Design Advisory Group process.  The MSBC understands such concerns and is committed to a design that minimizes impact on neighbors both during and after construction.

Questions Related the Overall School Timeline

What is the overall school timeline?

• The process for new school building funding and approval by the state began in April 2006 with the submission of the Statement of Interest (SOI).  The SOI documented Middleton’s intent to request funding from the state for a new school to alleviate current and future overcrowding conditions of the schools and to address the obsolete educational design of the Howe Manning building.
• In November 2007, Middleton was placed on the first short-list for communities to enter into a potential funding agreement with the MSBA.  Of the 423 projects submitted to the MSBA, we were 1 of 81 to make the cut.  Middleton is one of the first 5 communities of those 81 under review for project funding by the MSBA. 
• A Feasibility Agreement was signed with the MSBA in October 2008.
• The MSBA Board approved funding of Middleton’s New School Building project on March 25, 2009.  We are 1 of only 3 communities in the state to receive approval for funding of a new elementary school building.
• Now that we have received approval from the MSBA, the Town has 120 days to vote to approve the project (at Town Meeting and through a Prop 2 1/2 Override vote).
• If the Town does not approve the project, we do not receive funding and we will need to resubmit a funding request.  This means the project moves to the bottom of the pile of 423 SOI applications received by the MSBA.
• The new school is currently targeted for opening in the 2011/2012 school year.

Will there be any community input into the new school?  When will we have a design in place?

• The MSBC will form Design Advisory Groups (DAGs) to obtain input on the school design.  These groups will include representation from parents, educational personnel, neighbors, Town Boards and Committees, and interested citizens. 

Why not slow down and analyze the site question again?

• School overcrowding is a critical issue that has been studied by various Town Committees for over 10 years, with all potential sites and options closely considered.  This includes numerous independent studies, including 5 feasibility studies. 
• Three separate committees have been formed to determine the long-term solution to overcrowded schools over the past 7 years.  In each case, each committee concluded that the best, most cost-efficient method to address the problem would be to build a new school.  The current MSBC thoroughly reviewed all potential sites as part of its rigorous assessment.  The MSBC’s site evaluation and recommendation was rigorous and fact-based. 
• The school overcrowding issue is already critical and getting worse, based both on the current state of our facilities and continued growth in enrollment.  The quality of education is already impacted in a number of ways (e.g. increase in number-of-students/class, use of non-educational space for educational purposes). Delaying the process will only add to the impact).  This is a problem that is not going away.
• There are also major financial costs associated with delaying:
  • Construction inflation: From 2002-2008 , Each year of delay translates to an estimated $2.6 million annual increase due to escalating construction costs alone (i.e., not including costs for modular classrooms noted below).  Because of this, the total projected cost has more than doubled since the proposal that missed the required 2/3 majority by 19 votes in 2002 (from $13.5 million in 2002 to $31.4 million in 2009).  Continue to project construction cost increase at rate of $1M/year.
  • Modular classroom space: There is a significant, non-reimbursable cost associated with temporary modular classroom space needed to address overcrowding.  We have already purchased 5 temporary modular classrooms at a cost of $715,623 to the Town (non-reimbursable). With continued growth, there is the potential for purchase of more temporary modular classrooms.
  • Government Funding:  Over the years, the state’s ability to fund has been significantly reduced. In 2002, anticipated state funding for the new school building was 58%.  In 2006, state funding was expected to be at 52%.  Currently, we anticipate state funding of approximately 48%.  With the current economic crisis, delay may mean an even greater reduction in funding or no funding at all.

Miscellaneous Questions

What is the “Green School” concept and its benefits?  How will environmentally-friendly aspects be evaluated?

• “Green Schools” are cost-effective facilities that conserve energy and use renewable resources.  The Green Schools Initiative is a program developed by the Massachusetts Technology Collaborative and the Massachusetts Department of Education.  This program provides an opportunity for towns to obtain State funding for certain environmentally-friendly school design features, which increases the overall MSBA reimbursement rate.  The goal of the Green Schools Initiative is to encourage school districts to construct or renovate school buildings that will cost less to operate and will provide healthier learning environments for students. 
• Some examples of potential energy efficiency features under the program include passive solar design, tight construction, natural lighting and ventilation, high performance insulation, windows and doors, as well as efficient heating and cooling systems, appliances, and light fixtures. Studies have shown that these approaches have been successful in reducing energy consumption at a relatively low cost.  Other elements include waste minimization, water conservation, indoor environmental quality, low-impact use of land, and the greater use of natural and recycled materials. These approaches minimize the impact of buildings elements on human health and the environment.
• Data from the Green Schools Initiative pilot projects show projected energy savings of 30% above state code requirements on average, with some projects projecting more than 40% energy savings.  These energy savings translate to expected annual cost savings of $70,000 per year on average.
• Because of the potential environmental, financial, and learning benefits, the MSBC believes it is in the best interests of the community to consider Green School elements in the school design. 
• At the same time, each potential Green School element must be evaluated carefully to ensure it makes sense from all perspectives, including student/community impact and financial return on investment.  There will be elements that will have clear benefit and return on investment (through funding from the program and/or ongoing cost savings), while others may have a questionable benefit and payback.  The community, the Designer, and the MSBC will work together to consider potential Green School elements and identify those that make the most sense.
• In addition, the MSBA is requiring new school projects meet minimum green school design attributes, as defined in the MA-CHPS scorecard, in order to receive state funding (e.g. storage/collection of recyclables, mold protection, pollutant source control, drainage).  Projects that go above the baseline requirements have the potential to receive additional reimbursement from the state (1.5-2.0%).

Will the new school include “Community Use” aspects such as a  room suitable for town meetings?

• Some consideration will be given to “Community Use” features, which are aspects of a school facility and property that are designed for use by all town residents, not just students.  Examples of Community Use features often associated with schools include a gymnasium that is suitable for town meetings, community field use, and a cafetorium for community meetings.
• Community input into this concept and potential Community Use aspects will be sought as part of the Design Advisory Group process. 

Will there be playing fields or field lights at the New School?

• The grounds behind the new school will be reconfigured to create a Little League-sized baseball field and playground area.  Three ball fields will be lost due to the new school configuration.
• There have been no discussions or suggestions to install playing field lights. 

Who serves on the Middleton School Building Committee?

• Appointed by the Board of Selectmen, the Middleton School Building Committee is comprised of members who are highly knowledgeable of Middleton and the school situation and are vested in our community.  The Committee includes some of the Town’s most well-known, long-term residents, with representation from all major Town boards including the Board of Selectmen, the Finance Committee, the Planning Board, and the School Committee:

Middleton School Building Committee Members

Voting Members         Frank Fitzgerald, Co-Chairperson Jill Mann, Finance Committee, Co-Chairperson     Richard Kassiotis, Board of Selectmen Nancy Jones, Board of Selectmen Christine Lindberg, Planning Board Teresa Buono, School Committee Rock Mastrangelo, School Committee Scott Downs, At Large Member Beverly Popielski, At Large Member Jeffrey Appelstein, At Large Member Anne LeBlanc-Snyder, At Large Member, Architect       John Smith, At Large Member Richard White Jr., At Large Member

Ex Officio Members Bernard Creeden, Superintendent of Schools Ira Singer, Town Administrator Steve Clifford, Director of Facilities Steve Greenberg, Director of Finance & Human Resources Michelle Fitzpatrick, Principal, Howe  Manning School Recording Secretary Mary Jane Morin

Where can I get more information and updates on the project?

• MSBC members are committed to providing the community with updated information on the needs of the Middleton Elementary School population and the progress of the new school building project.  Communications have and will continue to include information sessions and other events open to the public and televised on local Cable TV, letters to the editor, newspaper articles, etc.  You may also register as a Middleton Insider at the Town website (www.townofmiddleton.org) to receive e-mail updates on the project’s progress.  MSBC committee meetings are held at least on a monthly basis, are open to the public, and are televised.  Additionally, there is a large amount of information posted on the Internet at www.tritownschoolunion.com (click on link to Middleton School Building Committee homepage) including source documents that support the facts presented in these Frequently Asked Questions.