VOTE NO: Four cases against Minuteman

Another Yes-Yes-No: 30-year burden

The following viewpoint was submitted by Leba Heigham, Precinct 11 Town Meeting member and former Arlington School Committee member.

Please vote “yes” for the Thompson and Gibbs and “yes” for Arlington High School — but “no” for Minuteman Vocational High School. Why?

The Minuteman vote would require a 30-year commitment with Minuteman Regional Vocational High School. The Minuteman regional agreement has recently been changed to allow districts to exit and to allow representative voting.

Last year Arlington sent one-third of the students, but had only one-16th of the vote. Since the agreement change, six towns have withdrawn, and Belmont may withdraw, rather than fund its share of the rebuild. This means Arlington’s financial responsibility to Minuteman will only increase.
A 30-year commitment to a single vocational school holds other pitfalls. Beyond the cost of the rebuild is the per student cost.

Minuteman is the most expensive vocational school in the area. Last year’s per-student costs were $26,528 at Minuteman Regional, $16,165 at Nashoba Valley and $18,652 at Shawsheen Valley Regional.
Last year the town of Arlington would have saved $1.5 million if our students attended Nashoba instead of Minuteman. With a recently voted 15-percent increase to more than $30,000 per student at Minuteman, this savings could have been $2 million in the upcoming year.
Money should not be the only factor in selecting a school. Minuteman is a Level 2 school, meaning all students, high-needs students and special-needs students did not make adequate gains on the state assessments.

Both Nashoba Valley and Shawsheen Valley are Level 1 schools, with all students, high-needs students and special-needs students all making adequate gains on the state assessments.

I am a former assistant principal and a former School Committee member whose focus is on providing students with the best education possible. Sending our students to Shawsheen instead of Minuteman would increase their chances for academic achievement.

If we approve the Minuteman rebuild, we will be forced to send Arlington students to Minuteman for the duration of our financial commitment. A rebuild would also limit the new freedom and voice that Arlington finally has under the new regional agreement.

Last, a Minuteman rebuild will greatly limit our ability to secure the best and most fiscally responsible vocational education for Arlington’s students. Please join me in voting “no” for the Minuteman rebuild.

This viewpoint was published June 9, 2016.

Misleading cost comparisons provided to Town Meeting

The following viewpoint was submitted by Chris Loreti, and Arlington resident who formerly served on the Redevelopment Board:

Some supporters of the Minuteman rebuild have tried to claim that everything was settled at Arlington’s Town Meeting. Thus it is important to consider the accuracy and completeness of the
information that was presented there.

What newer Town Meeting members (and others) may not understand is the extent to which some public officials are willing to provide incomplete or inaccurate information to promote their positions.

Slide 25 of the Town Meeting presentation given by the Minuteman superintendent is an excellent example of this. See it here >> 

The title of this slide is: “Project Costs are in Line with Other New Vocational Technical Schools,” and the slide lists the total cost and cost per square foot for Minuteman and three other new
vocational-technical schools in Massachusetts.

The costs per square foot listed in this slide for the comparison schools are pure fantasy (including a cost of $705/square foot for one school!).

When the correct square footage is used for all the schools, it is obvious that Minuteman’s project costs are not at all in line with the others. It is far more expensive.

Here are the numbers (using the total school cost from the slide and the square footage numbers from the Massachusetts School Building Authority website):

Worcester Vocational: $220/ft2 ($90,000,000/410,000 ft2)

Putnam (Springfield): $394/ft2 ($124,000,000/314,890 ft2)

Essex Tech: $399/ft2 ($134,501,368/337,000 ft2)

Minuteman: $562/ft2 ($144,922,480/257,745 ft2)

Minuteman will be more than 40 percent more expensive than any of the other vocational technical schools on a cost-per-square-foot basis.

But that is only part of the story. The square footage per student is much greater at Minuteman than the other vocational technical schools. Here are the numbers (again using MSBA data for the other schools):

Worcester Vocational: 301 ft2/student (410,000 ft2/1,360)

Putnam (Springfield): 225 ft2/student (314,890 ft2/1,400)

Essex Tech: 234 ft2/student (337,000 ft2/1,440

Minuteman: 410 ft2/student (257,745 ft2/628)

The excessive cost per square foot combined with the excessive size of the school in relation to the student population explains why Minuteman’s project costs are so out of line with other new
vocational technical schools in Massachusetts.

Please join me in voting NO on Question 3 on June 14.

This viewpoint was published Tuesday, June 7, 2016.

The following opinion was submitted by Anthony Lionetta of Arlington. He is a member of the town’s Capital Planning Committee and was formerly a town representative on he Minuteman Building, but these comments are made as a private citizen. A second case supporting a no vote follow his:

Why should we underwrite the new building?

One of the debt exclusion votes on June 14 is for Arlington to fund of a portion of the cost for a new building for Minuteman High School. This vote is not for or against the Minuteman vocational-educational program but on a building. The School with continue to operate whether the debt exclusion passes or not. Arlington students will still be able to attend Minuteman.

The proposed project is to replace the building, which is only 46 years old, with a new building with an estimated construction cost in excess of $144 million. There has been intensive marketing by the Minuteman administration to portray this endeavor as a worthy one for Arlington taxpayers — and the taxpayers of other district member towns — to mortgage the cost of the new building.

However, there are many issues lying just below the surface, which do not appear to have been publically expressed and are required for the voters to be aware of in making their decision and casting their vote.

First, just a bit of background: The Minuteman district, until a vote this year change the number, included 16 communities (“district members”). Six of these communities have made decisions to leave the district. Their leaving will shift more cost to the district members, with a heavy percentage of this shifted operating cost going to Arlington. Do you know that about 45 percent of the Minuteman school population comes from nondistrict communities?

One issue that is most troubling and maybe most salient is that Arlington is being asked to fund not only its own share of the building project, but also underwrite a significant portion of the higher cost of a larger building for nondistrict towns to use. As you vote, please consider that:

The planned building is much larger than is needed for the number of students that attended from district communities.

The Minuteman’s administration expects to continue to solicit students from nondistrict communities in order to justify the size of the school.

District communities, of which there will be 10 in July 2017, including Arlington, are expected to fund the nonstate share of the cost of the project, including the added cost of a larger than needed building so nondistrict students can attend.
Arlington is expected to fund not only a major portion of the district share, but also a major portion of the cost (more than other district towns) to provide the larger building. Arlington will have to pay this increased cost, even if nondistrict student decide not to attend Minuteman.

The conclusion: If you vote yes, the taxpayers of Arlington will be underwriting a project well beyond what is needed to accommodate Arlington and other district member students. This is not appropriate and particularly disturbing in that it siphons away funds for the next 30 years that we could otherwise apply to other needs of Arlington, including the education of our children.

Please Vote NO on the Minuteman building July 14.

Belmont was correct in voting against this question.

This viewpoint was published Friday, June 3, 2016.

Yes for first two question, but nix the last

The following viewpoint was submitted by Charles Foskett, Precinct 8 Town Meeting member, and Alan Jones, Precinct 14 Town Meeting member. Both are members of the Finance Committee, but neither is representing the Fincom. These opinions are solely their own.

We recommend Yes to the elementary schools, Yes to Arlington High School feasibility and No to Minuteman in the June 14 referendum.

We recommend against the Minuteman project for three reasons: high cost, major risk and lack of fairness. This massive new project should at least be delayed until we can use Arlington’s greater authority under the new Regional Agreement to create a better plan.

High Cost

Minuteman is the most expensive regional vocational school in state. In the 2016/17 school year, Minuteman’s cost per pupil will be over $30,000 a year. If Arlington students were going to Shawsheen Valley Technical Vocational High School, our cost per pupil next year would be $14,000 less. The proposed new Minuteman building project will add $10,000 a year per pupil to that cost, based on this year’s enrollment of 120 students. An annual total cost per pupil of $40,000 a year is too high. Minuteman’s financial position is completely out of control.

Enrollment growth and aging infrastructure in Arlington Public Schools (APS) are driving demand for additional investment in Arlington’s elementary, middle schools and high schools. These projects are coming online over the next several years. One measure of relative cost is the capital cost per student. The Arlington High School (AHS) project may have a similar net total cost after state reimbursement, but the number of students served is vastly different.

In the 2015/2016 school year, only 120 students from Arlington attended Minuteman. When the AHS project is complete, it is expected to serve almost 1,500 students. Arlington’s capital cost per student for its projects range between 5 percent and 30 percent of Minuteman capital cost per student.

Minuteman debt service costs per student for one project (directly funded by your real estate taxes) are 500 percent of the debt-service costs per student for all of the APS projects together.

The capital cost proposed for the new Minuteman high school is not only way out of line when compared to Arlington schools; it far exceeds the cost of other new vocational technical high schools in Massachusetts. Based on the comparable schools and capital cost data provided by the Minuteman administration, the Minuteman capital cost per student will range from more than double to more than triple its peers.

At an annual cost per pupil of $40,000 a year, Arlington could afford to send these children to the Belmont Hill School or even to a community college. Minuteman’s financial position is completely out of control.

Major Risk

The annual per-pupil cost mentioned above is based on Minuteman’s forecast of enrollment. Minuteman is forecasting 628 students to populate the newly built facility in several years, 458 of whom are forecast to come from member towns within the district, and 170 of whom are forecast to come from out-of-district towns, whose students are referred to as OOD or nonmember students. If Minuteman’s enrollment forecasts are not met, Arlington’s annual capital assessment could rise dramatically above the $1.2 million a year Minuteman currently forecasts.

Minuteman is shrinking, not growing. For the past 40 years there have been 16 member towns in the Minuteman school district. As of the recent change in the regional agreement, six towns have already voted to exit the district, and Belmont — with one of the larger enrollments — may do so, not a resounding vote of confidence in Minuteman management.

The remaining towns consist of Arlington and nine other towns. Enrollment among these 10 towns peaked in 2005. The capital project should be postponed until Arlington’s increased Minuteman School Committee voting influence under the new Regional Agreement can help restore fiscal sanity to Minuteman.

Over the 10 years since 2005, student enrollment from the nine towns excluding Arlington declined by 22 percent. Arlington’s enrollment declined by 13 percent. Minuteman district management is forecasting member town enrollment will be 458 students, a 36 percent increase. Minuteman forecasts the total target number of 628 students will include 170 OOD students, and each OOD student is expected to make a capital contribution of approximately $8,500. State legislature (600 CMR 4.03 amendment) and Department of Education rules will further curtail OOD ninth-grade enrollment. Learn more at www.yesyesno.org.

OOD cities and towns can be expected to challenge the state regulation allowing Minuteman to impose this contribution, however, and thus it is far from certain it will ever be collected. And, if it is allowed, OOD cities and towns will certainly look for less expensive options for their students. In either case, Arlington taxpayers and those in the other member communities will have to make up the deficit.

The official, overly optimistic Minuteman School District forecast, which assumes a 36-percent member-town increase over today’s enrollment, results in an Arlington annual capital cost of $1.2 million. In an alternative scenario provided by Minuteman that assumes no out-of-district students and 34.3 percent of the 628 students are from Arlington, our capital burden rises by $500,000 per year to $1.7 million. In this case, Minuteman’s capital cost per pupil alone is larger than APS cost to educate a student. On top of the capital cost, we have to add Minuteman’s operating cost of more than $30,000 per student.

Minuteman has not lived up to its enrollment projections since it was built, and its attempts to increase enrollment to reduce costs for member communities have had limited success. History demonstrates that Minuteman cannot increase its enrollment enough to offset the local cost impact of a $144,500,000 project. Clearly, Arlington faces the risk of major financial burdens from Minuteman’s overly optimistic enrollment forecasts.

Lack of Fairness

Arlington is facing major capital expenses in meeting its enrollment challenges in its elementary and middle-school system. Arlington High School was originally constructed in 1914, more than 100 years ago; it is in need of an overhaul. In addition, Arlington is likely to face a need for an operating override in the next five years.

Minuteman, from an operating and a proposed capital perspective, is taking valuable financial resources from Arlington. The cost will constrain Arlington’s Public Schools, lower spending for APS students and impact overall town costs. At some point, taxpayers will resist tax increases and that may affect either Arlington High School or a needed operating override in the years ahead. There is no equity in a proposal to spend $32 million (Arlington’s share of the total expense) on a student population of 120 students — a population that has been declining and is likely to decline further.

The member towns recently voted a new regional agreement for the Minuteman district. Arlington, which in the past had only a single vote of 16, while paying 35 percent of the bill, now has a stronger role, more in proportion to its student enrollment.

We should delay this program until we can use our stronger position to restore fiscal sanity at Minuteman.

Belmont rejected this project, and so should Arlington. Minuteman’s costs are too high, its risks are too great and it is unfair to Arlington Public Schools, students and taxpayers. Please stop the $144.5-million Minuteman fiasco and protect Arlington Public Schools by voting Yes for the elementary schools, Yes for AHS feasibility and No for Minuteman on June 14 (visit www.yesyesno.org). 

This viewpoint was published Thursday, June 2, 2016.