Text of Prepared Statement

Im Laura Quilter, a co-sponsor with Maria Kopicki of Article 38, which requests that the Town
approve an independent project review of the costs of renovating Wildwood and Fort River
Elementary Schools.
Although bottom-line numbers for renovation and new construction of a large consolidated
school are available, these bottom-line construction figures do not provide a complete picture of
the costs to the Town. Article 38 would authorize a Town-supervised third party to review and
flesh out the complete project costs for presentation to the voters.
As an example of what would be included, the costs associated with the proposed elementary
reconfiguration, now estimated at $65M, do not include the costs of renovating Crocker Farm to
become a Pre-K-1 only facility or the costs of decommissioning Fort River. Also, the original
estimates need to be updated to include changes in the proposal additional bus runs, for
example, and the move to a two-school administration model.
Secondly, to enable apples to apples comparisons, the renovation costs need to be fleshed out
from a cost per square foot estimate to the next level of detail, level 2, which includes a highlevel list of projects and costs, such as HVAC, $1.2 million; sitework $250,000, etc.
Currently renovation is listed only at a cost per square foot estimate. This accounting method
does not permit project-based and direct comparison with the new construction project. It also
does not take into account either large spaces that might not need extensive renovation, such as
the gym, or items that have already or will have already been renovated, such as Fort Rivers
boiler.
The additional detail will also enable voters to understand the two schools problems, and to
consider whether and how to prioritize individual renovations. It will also answer the unresolved
questions about whether and why the square foot cost estimates presented for renovation are
higher than other MSBA funded renovation projects.
Our analysis of existing documentation suggests that some of this detailed estimation has already
been done and an independent review of the existing documentation could enable the creation of
documents for the voter that provide this kind of direct cost comparison.
The elementary school project is very significant in cost and even more significant in its effect on
our children and our community for generations to come. Consequently, our hope and intention
is to provide the Town with a more complete set of information with which it can approach the
decisions it faces in the coming months about this and other capital projects.
Because renovation will not receive further scrutiny within the current process, we ask that the
Town provide the means with which to accomplish this before we are asked to vote on these

decisions for our schools.

On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 9:32 PM, 'Richard B. Morse' richmorse@comcast.net
[amhersttownmeeting] <amhersttownmeeting@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

So correct me if I'm wrong, but the presumption here is that our elected School Committee
members did not do the job in making a HUGE decision about how to configure our schools. I
was watching during that process, and what I believe I saw were School Committee members
agonizing considerably about the right course to follow. I am confident that they spent hours
thinking about this. There was enormous public pressure on them. I went to one forum, and
watched others on Amherst Media, and I saw School Committee members, like Rick Hood and
Katherine Appy, sitting there hour after hour listening to members of the public. But, inevitably,
some people won the argument, but some lost. For me, that's why we're facing this end-run
around a sizable School Committee majority earlier this year.
One does not have to be attentive to Amherst governance and town politics for very long to be
aware that we are haunted by the holy grail of consensus here. We want it, we aspire to it, and,
almost always, it's an impossible goal here. The best we can do is elect people to make tough
decisions, expect them to garner as much public input as they can (but not endlessly) and then
believe that they have done their best to get it right.
How will we continue to elect good people for School Committee if every time its membership
makes a decision, costly or not, they are subject to a do-over in Town Meeting? We are already
having visible trouble attracting candidates with the ordinary array of other responsibilities and
time demands to run for town-wide offices.
I want to hear from School Committee members of that 4 person majority, either current or
recently former, who think that "an independent project review" is a good idea. That would
weigh heavily for me. I want to respect the deliberative decision-making process that they put
themselves through. I think it's not over-dramatic to believe that there were some sleepless nights
for some or all of them. For me, as a Town Meeting member, there has to be a higher burden of
proof from the sponsor of a petition article that wants essentially to overturn, or delay, the
decision of an elected School Committee in Amherst. That's MY definition of representative
democracy, involving delegated powers to decide to those we elect......in contests, by the way,
that have far more transparency than Town Meeting elections.
Rich Morse
Precinct 7

Hi Rich (and all),

Article 38, luckily, isn't about overturning it even delaying the decision -- it's actually just
about filling in some gaps in information before Town Meeting votes, as scheduled.

For instance, we don't know how much the renovation of Crocker Farm will cost -- a
necessary part of the reconfiguration, and one that the architects said would be expensive.
I don't know what means -- $1 million, $5, $10, $20? That cost will be borne by the
Town.
Long story short: You can support this petition and still support reconfiguration.
The SC did its job in voting for the options presented to it as part of the MSBA process.
But the MSBA process requires Town sign-on, too, and this is where we are supposed to
consider the whole enchilada, as it were.
Long story, long (below):
You said "correct me if I'm wrong", so here goes: I am not saying the SC did not do their
job. The SC did their job in the sense of making a choice in the MSBA process. But they
were never given the job to look at the whole picture; that's Town Meeting's job. That's
what we need the additional numbers for.
I wouldn't presume to speak for School Committee, but institutionally they had a
different role and decision in the MSBA process. The SC had to vote on a "preferred
solution" based on the options presented, and the MSBA options by design are centered
around only one school, with the only exception if you're redesigning the whole District.
The Administration felt it unlikely that Town would find a new school for Ft River on
Town money so opted to move for District-wide reconfiguration rather than Wildwood
only.
So please note that the SC was never given the data to weigh in on dual reconfiguration.
Many parents would have liked them to consider the overall budgetary issues and dual
renovation, and Kathleen Traphagen did ask them to keep looking into dual renovation.
But the SC was never tasked with "looking into renovation" -- just voting on plans in the
MSBA process. And the only renovation plan in MSBA process was a Wildwood only
renovation, which was obviously "plan B" because it didn't do Fort River. But that's only
Plan B for the MSBA process -- it doesn't have to be for the Town process.
As the "plan B", all SC was presented was a total cost estimate based on a cost-persquare-foot-estimate. As presented, that looked much more expensive than the
reconfiguration: Renovation was costed at $339 per sf times Wildwood's total sf, then
doubled for FR, for a total that was more than the new building.
But the new building cost isonlythe cost of the MSBA-funded new building. Because
it's the MSBA process.

It doesn't count all the non-MSBA funded stuff like the Crocker Farm reno, the site prep
work, the Fort River demo / refurbishment, etc. And it doesn't cost out renovation the
way we would if we were really considering it -- "renovate WW boiler, renovate FR
HVAC, the gym doesn't need renovation" -- just does it on a per square foot basis and
comes up with a total. (We have also been puzzled why the square foot cost -- listed at
$390 / sf once, and $338 / sf another time -- is much higher than the state average with
annual increases, which is $280 mean and $300 median. That adds up, significantly)
But there was nothing sinister in that process. It's just that, procedurally, in the
MSBA process, there has been no opportunity to consider things that MSBA wouldn't
fund. Admin didn't flesh out dual renovation because it wasn't part of what MSBA would
pay for, so it was always Admin's Plan B. They frankly acknowledge this -- it's not a
hidden conspiracy, and we're not alleging it is.
But the MSBAbuilds in the process-- it wants public support for its funded projects, and
it gives 30 months to work out all the issues and come to a final decision. The Town
Meeting vote and Town override on the budget are also part of the process, intentionally.
And they are the only places that can consider the bigger picture -- would Town be
willing to fund a separate renovation of FR? So we aresupposedto consider these
questions at this point in the process.
So for that reason we're asking for Article 38 -- not to re-do everything the MSBA
process has done, but simply to fill in the missing data and provide a holistic picture -- an
apples to apples chart, if you will -- for the Town to assess the big picture, and what we
would like to do going forward.
-- Now, please note that I am not blaming SC for picking & choosing as they were told
to from among the options they were given. (Although I was disappointed for reasons
beyond the financial.) I am, however, saying that the School Administration made a
decision to not fully investigate renovation, based on their calculation that TM wouldn't
fund a dual renovation, and the fact that the MSBA process didn't need it to be discussed.
They may be right or they may be wrong, but I think it's worth us knowing how much
both projects would cost before we decide. That's what the MSBA process wants from
usnow.
Cheers,

Laura
On Apr 22, 2016, at 7:16 AM, Laura Quilter lquilter@lquilter.net [amhersttownmeeting]
<amhersttownmeeting@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
Also -- just a reminder about Janet's proposal to look into the middle school. The SC is
just elementary and would need to work with regional SC to deal with the middle school.
That wasn't part of MSBA process either. But it CAN be part of what we consider, in TM.
Laura

Following up from my email below (I will find out what the latest numbers are and come back
here with those.):
Cost to renovate WW to keep it as a K-6 with current capacity: $34,662,000. There is no
reimbursement for that option from MSBA now, because thats not the plan we submitted to the
MSBA, and its too late to change. But of course the town could choose to spend that on both
WW and FR and forgo MSBA for a total cost of $69,324,000. That compares with cost
of$66,325,000 for a new 2-6 school with a net cost to Amherst of $33,162,000 after MSBA
reimbursement. These numbers from from Community Forum #4 of January 13, 2016 and have
not changed since then.
There are no costs for CF work yet, but am told it is not expected to be a sizable amount as it
does not involve much work. We already have the bathroom set-up for the additional PreK
rooms. We'd likely want to lower a fewbathrooms for K students, but that's it.
None of this is coming up for consideration at this town meeting, only Article 38 relates to this
topic.
Rick Hood
On Apr 22, 2016, at 8:15 AM, Richard Hood <rick@flowmediadesign.com> wrote:
Reasons why the middle school was not considered include:
1. MSBA money could not be used because the Town of Amherst has to own the property that
MSBA money is used for. Perhaps Amherst could buy it from the Region, but the timeline for
that would be way beyond the MSBA timeline. So its not an option that could use MSBA
money that is available now.
2. There was and remains no certainly about when and if the middle school will be vacated - or
vacated enough to add onto it in a way that it could house elementary kids.

3. Its not a good building for elementary students.

4. If the middle school were to be vacated, or partially vacated, it was thought there were other
uses for it that are better than putting elementary kids there, such as housing services/
organizations such as LSSE and expanding the use of it by GCC, which would be nice for the
community. Many organizations have expressed interest in moving there if it space becomes
available.
K-8 was mentioned and some other ideas like that. To do anything other than a 7-12 region
requires that the 4 towns agree to change it. Anyone following the regionalization effort knows
how difficult that is.

Enough already with the mega school label - its not. The proposed 2-wing new school to
house grades 2-6 is far from mega.
The proposed 2-6 school is 750 students with roughly 375 in each wing. Back in the 1990s
Wildwood and For River had over 600 kids. You should be comparing 375 with 600, or with
the current numbers (422 and 345). Not mega.

We (the public and the SC) were presented with costs to renovate WW and FR (WW with
MSBA money and FR without). The issue is that some people do not believe those numbers are
accurate and that renovating WW and FR could be cheaper than the numbers presented.
The numbers presented showed the double-renovation option to be more expensive by a lot.
Reasons for that include:
a. There is no inexpensive renovation that can solve the walls and HVAC issues in both
buildings (WW and FR). The interiors basically have to be gutted because putting in real walls
and altering the HVAC system affects plumbing and electrical, so you are more or less keeping
the shell and thats it. Plus they both need new roofs, so not even the shell is kept entirely.
b. The SF of WW + FR total more than the SF of the proposed new building, in part because the
new building makes more efficient use of space but also because WW and FR were built when
the population was larger.
All the numbers presented at the time of the SC vote were estimates, and by the time TM votes,
updated numbers will certainly be available. I will find out what the latest numbers are and
come back here with those. It is correct that we did not have estimates on renovating CF, but
those are surely coming (or perhaps already have). It was thought that changing the sinks and
toilets to smaller and lower would not be expensive, but maybe that is not true will find out.
----

I was 1 of 4 (of 5) SC members who voted for the new building configured as 2-6 with CF as a
PreK-1 early childhood learning center.
I voted for it because I thought the 2-6 option was better, not cheaper. There are many reasons
for that, but the primary one for me was its more equitable and efficient to have programs
needed in one building than in three. Also, early childhood learning is key, and having one
building focused on that is surely a good thing. During discussion we heard Principals argue
passionately for that.
There was more than enough time for me hear and weigh all the pros and cons. I heard them all
over and over again. For what its worth, by the time I had to vote, I was 99% sure of my vote
(nothing is ever 100%).
I urge you all to support the plan.
Thanks,
Rick Hood
Former Amherst School Committee (2010-2016)

Hi Rick --
Thanks for the detail. Your email is a great example of why the Town could use a third party to
assess.
You say "There are no costs for CF work yet, but am told it is not expected to be a sizable

amount as it does not involve much work. We already have the bathroom set-up for the
additional PreK rooms. We'd likely want to lower a fewbathrooms for K students, but
that's it."
At a public forum, when this exact issue was raised about adding pre-K to plans, the response
was that it was very expensive to retrofit plumbing for the pre-K/K crowd. Cost-prohibitive.
Discussion of how walls have to be moved, plumbing has to be changed, and it's not just a little
thing.
Different answers to the same questions, depending on the audience.
Rather than relying on a former School Board member's statement that he was "told it is not
expected to be a sizable amount", and in the face of on-the-record statements from the Architects
otherwise, we think the Town deserves to actually have dollar amounts attached so the Town
knows what it's voting for.
Another example: Renovation square foot estimates were listed at $390 per square foot. Then it
was pointed out that was almost $100 more than MSBA average. The next proposal changed

them, without explaining what had gone wrong in the original estimate, to $338 per square foot.
This is still considerably more expensive than the MSBA inflation-adjusted estimates, which are
$294 (mean) and $307 per square foot (median). The numbers produced by competing architects
much earlier in the process actually are basically on par with the median state averages
(inflation-adjusted, again). (See chart below.)
Inconsistencies and gaps in information should be filled to present a clean and consistent picture.
For large projects -- and nobody could argue that $60, $70 million is a large project -- it is
actually completely customary to have an independent project review to make sure that there are
no major mis-steps or oversights. Those cost around $20 - $40k, which is why we asked for that
money; we were told to fix a dollar amount to it. But to be honest, simply having a neutral thirdparty go over the existing project closely and generate an apples-to-apples total project cost
comparison chart would be important for voters.
Look, we don't expect the Townspeople to trust a lawyer / librarian and an MD's assessment of
the numbers. We are putting this Article forward because in talking to construction people,
architects, finance people, about the project, we hear things that make us concerned about how
the data is presented. I have raised some of these questions since October of last year. Others
have noticed things I didn't notice. There are lots of unanswered questions, and "a School
Committee member was told it wouldn't be too expensive" is vague and hearsay.
Town Meeting, and the Town, deserve to have all the information needed to make a vote. These
processes are not put into place to simply rubber stamp decisions chosen up the line -- because
otherwise, we could save the time and expense and uncertainty of having the vote at all, and just
have decision-making by administration. Instead, there is an MSBA-mandated process that
includes quite a lot of democratic oversight and requirements for approval.
This is due diligence. And it's surprising to me that the people thus far speaking out in favor of
reconfiguration don't support fleshing out and verifying the numbers.
Laura

Hi Laura,
Responding to some of your points:
the response was that it was very expensive to retrofit plumbing for the pre-K/K crowd
I am not sure who said that, but It makes no sense at all. Installing smaller toilets and lower
sinks is just not a big job. I dont see why walls have to be moved to do that. It cant be cost
prohibitive, especially when in context of a $66 million overall project cost. But if someone
said that, then thats obviously confusing and not a good thing communication-wise.

Renovation square foot estimates were listed at $390 per square foot. Then it was pointed out

that was almost $100 more than MSBA average. The next proposal changed them, without
explaining what had gone wrong in the original estimate, to $338 per square foot.
I am looking at a January 2015 document by A.M. Fogarty & Associates that puts the cost of
WW renovation at $338.15 per square foot. January 2015 is a long time ago. Perhaps somebody
put the wrong numbers into a presentation? Thats possible. Anyhow the $338 is what I used in
the numbers I gave in my email yesterday.

it's surprising to me that the people thus far speaking out in favor of reconfiguration don't
support fleshing out and verifying the numbers
I repeat what I said below: I voted for it because I thought the 2-6 option was better, not
cheaper. I am aware you and others do not agree with that decision. It seems a financial
argument is being made now for for what is really a configuration preference: you and others
preferred to stay with three K-6 schools rather than switch to the 2-6 and PreK-1 schools that the
SC voted on.
Construction cost did not weigh much into my vote, simply because regardless of how accurate
the numbers are, there is simply no way that renovating 2 schools is cheaper than building the
one new 2-6 school, and so long as the option we voted on was not more expensive than keeping
the three K-6 schools, then construction costs did not weigh heavily on my vote.
Finance did enter into my decision more on the operational cost side. There will be operational
cost savings from having 2 schools instead of 3. We wont quite get the the $800,000 savings we
got by closing Marks Meadow, but savings will be several $100ks. We have to find ways to get
big chunks of savings like that without cutting programs where possible. I hope the middle
school is able to move to the high school building for the same reason, but that is not looking
promising at the moment based on the last SC meeting.
Regardless of which option we ended up choosing, it was going to cost a lot, and require a debt
exclusion override, thus adding debt service to annual costs. If operational cost savings can
partially offset the debt service increase, so much the better, and will push out the time when a
regular override might be needed to cover operational cost increases in the future, due to rising
inflation, health care costs or whatever.

The MSBA itself is a third party, and I doubt they are going to approve something where the
numbers dont sound right to them - they see numbers all the time on these projects so have
experience in them. They were given the cost analysis of renovating WW, and if they thought
the numbers were wacky I think they would say so.

Finally, changing from the K-6 schools Amherst has had forever is obviously not easy for

anyone to get used to. Its normal for it to cause a lot of concern, which I certainly appreciate
and understand.
Thanks,
Rick Hood
The original recommendation by the Administration was for a 750-student 2-6 "mega school". It
was reconfigured into two separate "schools" in response to critique of the "mega school" idea.
At that point the architects & OPM said there would be complete separation -- separate
entrances / exits, etc.
Since then, the plans have been modified. The current iteration is still described as two separate
schools, with:
* outside playspace combined usage by all 750 kids (at around half the size the existing
playspace is now, but playspace on the asphalt & in the woods will also be considered according
to the last public presentation)
* cafeteria combined usage by all 750 kids
* library / media room combined usage by all 750 kids
* maker space combined usage by all 750 kids
* gym combined usage by all 750 kids
* combined 6th grade
There are still planned to be separate administrations, although the annual administrative costs
still include a reduced cost of one vice principal. (So maybe there will be one vice principal for
the two "schools"?)
2nd thru 5th grades are still planned to be in the "two school configuration". That presumably
will require zoning to maintain continuity from 2nd thru 5th grade. However, please note that
two of the benefits of the single large school were (1) eliminating zoning, and (2) being able to
flexibly spread all the kids across the available classes to eliminate large classes in one "school"
and small classes in another "school". Given that the pedagogical & developmental benefits to
kids of a continuous K-6 experience have already been significantly affected by moving from
K-1 to 2-5, and transitioning again to the combined 6th grade, I'm personally not sure how
advantageous the "two school configuration" is. I'm not sure anyone else is persuaded of the
advantages of "two school" in this particular configuration. It's a lot different than the two-wing
K-6 which was put on at the Town's insistence.

Oh, how could I forget?

* Combined entrance / exit by all 750 kids at the same time, with all bus kids loading onto the 23
busses, circled in double rows around the loading zone. (750 kids "milling around" is probably
an unkind way to think of it.)
Those busses are the same fleet that's serving the Crocker Farm K/1st graders, so kids will either
wait at the school for the busses to get there from the other school, or kids will board the bus, and

take a bus trip to the other school before going around to their neighborhood. (Some kids, from
the middle of town, will get to zig-zag.)
That's the current plan.
The other obvious choice would be to have individual busses go from the two schools, and
simply have two busses going through each and every neighborhood.
Laura

Hi Rick,

the response was that it was very expensive to retrofit plumbing for the pre-K/K crowd
I am not sure who said that, but It makes no sense at all. Installing smaller toilets and lower
sinks is just not a big job. I dont see why walls have to be moved to do that. It cant be cost
prohibitive, especially when in context of a $66 million overall project cost. But if someone
said that, then thats obviously confusing and not a good thing communication-wise.
The architects & OPM have said that repeatedly at the School Building Committee meetings,
according to Maria Kopicki's notes. I heard them say it at the School Committee meeting on
January 13.
On square foot estimates: $338 / sf is indeed the current set of estimates. It's still quite a bit
higher than state mean or median. As an estimate for renovation costs, it may have been
sufficient for what School Committee needed, but it's inadequate for Town consideration for a
few reasons, which I've discussed previously. To sum up: Renovations that will have to be done
in the meantime anyway (Wildwood's boilers, Fort River's roof) could come out of the total reno
costs, and be done sooner -- 2016 dollars not 2019 dollars -- and renovation would allow us to
pick and choose and prioritize the most important issues.
Clearly you disagree, and have been convinced for some time long before this MSBA process of
the merits of reconfiguration. Many others of of us have had 6 months to figure it out and
haven't been convinced yet.
Laura
From: Richard Hood rick@flowmediadesign.com [amhersttownmeeting]
<amhersttownmeeting@yahoogroups.com>
To: amhersttownmeeting <amhersttownmeeting@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sun, Apr 24, 2016 10:44 am
Subject: [AmhTownMtg] Article 38 and the Elementary School Building Project

I think I dont have much more to add on the Article 38 discussion. I appreciate and respect all
the viewpoints on this. Thanks Laura for the good discussion on this.
In the fall TM and the town will vote on this proposal for building a new elementary school and
its important for everyone to get well educated on it.
I highly encourage folks to watch videos of meetings here: https://amherstmedia.org/content/
amherst-school-committee
(Note: thanks goes out to Amherst Media who put in a lot of overtime to cover all the extra
meetings that this project has involved.)
I highly recommend these:
Elementary School Building Project Forum 04-07-16
Amherst School Committee 01-19-16
This is the meeting where we voted to go with the reconfiguration to one new 2-6 school and
turning CF into a PreK-1 early education school.
Amherst School Committee 01-14-16
At this meeting we had a good discussion among SC members. Kathleen Traphagen asks a lot of
good questions and Mike Morris (mainly) gives a lot of good responses.
Also this site has many presentation docs: http://wildwood.projects.nv5.com/presentations/
Thanks,
Rick Hood
Precinct 4 TM member
Former Amherst School Committee (2010-2016)