School board on defensive during joint town meeting that spanned nearly 3 hours. New Primary Building and related renovation project proposal faced questions from Cumberland Town Council and North Yarmouth Select Board members.
Oak Point Associates presents revised project plan to School Board - Budget & Timeline
Following brief statements from School Board Chair, Tyler McGinley, North Yarmouth and Cumberland officials outlined current work and challenges each town is facing. Tax relief, senior housing options and long-range planning are priorities for both communities. According to Bob Vail (Chairperson), Cumberland is in process of developing a new Comprehensive Plan as well as creating an “Action Plan” related to ensuring food supply in event of a future widescale emergency, such as another pandemic. Brian Sites (Chairperson) summarized North Yarmouth town projects, focusing on impact related to TIF, and next steps related to the town’s Comprehensive Plan. Additionally, North Yarmouth has the urgent issue of need to fill Town Manager and Auditor vacancies.
Superintendent Jeff Porter gave a broad history and overview of current situation within MSAD51, focusing on impacts of increasing student population. He described the situation as an “enrollment crisis.”
Porter also outlined capital priorities for the district. Top-tier projects were a new primary building, renovating Mabel I. Wilson (MIW), plus relocation and expansion of District offices. Porter added that he considered a new turf athletic field a “need” for the District, recommending adding the $1.5M installation cost to the $64M Primary Building Project. Secondary level projects focused on 2nd phase renovations at the high school - renovating the pool, cafeteria, library and the math and science wing. These are considered long-range projects and not considered top priorities for District.
Budgeting history presented by Scott Poulin showed work by District to prepare for this project. Specific planning targets reducing tax impact to residents. Savings for educational subsidy from state has been diverted to capital reserves. Additionally, Poulin has added incremental steps for debt service, with a $740,000 increase for five years. This would cover initial interest payments, starting in 2024. Principle payments will align with the expiration of previous high school renovation bond and a projected capital reserve balance of approximately $5M in 2030
Oak Point Associates delivered an overview presentation of the project. Highlights included District priorities, project challenges, budget considerations and tentative timeline.
Roundtable discussion that followed touched on a number of concerns. Council and select board members questioned the limited flexibility of the design, tax impact, appropriateness of overall design, and communication flow.
A school building capital project in the District is not unexpected. Since closing the Drowne Road School in 2011, space challenges within MIW have been a growing concern. In early 2000, enrollment had been trending downward and based on 2009 studies, was expect to continue to decline. However, relocating an entire grade level into the building left few possibilities for classroom flexibility to accommodate unexpected student increases. Closing North Yarmouth Memorial School (NYMS) in 2014 and moving 4th and 5th grade into the renovated Middle School further limited expansion options for the District. A November 18, 2019 report to the Board, showed enrollment has steadily increased since 2015, counter to expectations. During Monday’s meeting, Kevin Desmond (School Board vice-chair) summed up the situation. The District has tried to work around the space challenges and “eke out every square inch of space for educational purposes.” There is just no further space left to utilize within the current elementary building.
According to the District’s 2020 annual report, total enrollment is projected to be 2734 students by the 2028-29 school year, based on study by Wandell Consulting (2019).
Porter reported MIW student population has exceeded the 600-student capacity. For 2020/21 school year, 10 modular classrooms had been installed to accommodate additional classes. Eleven additional units are currently being installed as part of the “Return to School Plan.”
The additional modulars will enable the District to offer significantly reduced classroom sizes for the 2021/22 school year. The original purpose of the extra modulars was to adhere to state distancing requirements for COVID. However, Porter committed to keeping all 21 modulars even if distancing requirements were lifted. Smaller classroom size will be beneficial for transitioning all students back to full in-person learning. However, the resulting loss of playground space to house modular units significantly impacts available outdoor recreation space.
Newsletters and District updates show a new building is a priority for the District. In 2019, the Board began moving in earnest to deliver a new elementary building. During the July 2019 meeting, the Board authorized to begin search for an architect. In Dec 2019, the Board approved recommendation from the Early Education Task Force that “called for a new PreK-Grade 2 primary school, located in North Yarmouth. The Board appointed a primary school building committee to develop a concept design to be completed in June 2020.” According to the Forecaster (Oct 2019), the District was on track to deliver a project plan by mid-June 2020, with the goal of a November 2020 referendum vote.
Complications related to COVID caused the Primary School Building Committee to pause work in June 2020. A subsequent letter from Yarmouth Water District (YWD) stalled the project. YWD confirmed its opposition to the project, as it could not endorse the planned site due to concerns about watershed impact. Without a site the team was forced to start the process over.
Porter confirmed to the District in a July 2020 letter that “[t]he placement of a new eight-room modular unit at MIW this summer should ease the current enrollment for the next three years.” He further stated that next steps would include an all-call public advertisement for land as well as reconsidering “a smaller-scale primary school with growth options” to be placed on current Greely campus. He added “any project involving the campus would involve considerable studies of congestion, traffic, parking, and installation of an artificial turf field.”
The District received zero offers to their land query, according to Desmond. With no viable options available, the project was further stalled. In December 2019, Peter Bingham’s Facility Committee report included that work had resumed with Oak Point Associates on the Primary School Building project.
Desmond noted, in early 2021, a private owner approached District with the option to purchase a 2.5 ac tract abutting the current administrative offices. A campus expansion would provide an option to locate a new building on the current Greely campus. The current plan supports this option and is aligns with Porter’s draft vision, “One Campus, One Community.”
Feedback was complimentary of the design presented by Oak Point. There did not seem to be any opposition among town officials to the fact that current MIW building is beyond capacity.
However, questions directed to the School Board touched on the process. Repeated comments centered on the impression that the meeting seemed a formality, and the project development did not include Council or Select Board input. It was asked, “Are we at the point of no return?” and was the expectation that councilors and select board members were convened to “just take notes?”
Councilor Allison Foster (Vice Chair) questioned, “Is this the best answer?” Other council members echoed her observation that the committee had “made this piece of property work.”
Other scenarios had been part of the Task Force exploration process. Questions about why those were not pursued more aggressively arose. Councilor Shirley Storey-King had been on that team. She advocated for “neighborhood schools” and was disappointed that option had not been followed.
Prior to formation of MSAD51, both NY and Cumberland have a history of these sorts of “district” schools, which served the families in the various sections of the towns. (More info can be found: Cumberland; North Yarmouth)
The proposed design focused on “economies of size” but did not deliver a 2-community solution. Any plantings would take decades to fully mature, initially limiting green space. Other trade-offs noted were elimination of a ballfield and potentially limited equipment play.
Other concerns related to the appropriateness of the building size. Validity of the enrollment data was questioned multiple times. Studies from 2009 have proven inaccurate, but questions about whether revised numbers correctly capture future trends remain, particularly in regards to COVID impact on population growth.
Comments from some reiterated the question about forcing the design into the campus footprint - “Is this too much on too little?” One councilor questioned the necessity and expense to relocate the Sweetser Building. Selectperson Jim Moulton (Vice Chair) did not support current plan, asking about the possibility of a reversing trend for enrollment. “Is this too much upfront?”
Others considered whether current, revised projections could be under-representing potential population growth. Porter deferred to Oak Point to address questions from Councilor Mark Segrist regarding “worst case scenario” for enrollment. No definitive timeline was given when asked, “When will we outgrow this design, 2030?”
During 2020/21, the District declined from 2129 to 2094, with 35 students opting to transfer to homeschool, charter, or private. Porter stated the District will be re-evaluating projections this fall. Porter estimates MSAD51 will have 2241 students for 2021/22. Confirmed enrollment numbers will not be available until October 1.
If elementary student population were to exceed capacity, only minor expansions will be possible on the proposed design. There will be little campus space remaining to house modular units.
Vail expressed his appreciation that there has been a lot of work put into this project, but asked why was the “council just seeing it now?” He questioned the thoroughness of the land search noting multiple, sizeable tracts of land in the District. Many neighboring districts have sited their schools “all in the middle of nowhere. In locations that were probably thought it wouldn’t be a good solution.”
Current issues with traffic congestion in Cumberland Center make any expansion on the current campus problematic. Vail would not support any changes to Main Street that furthered the “95-effect.” This would be “something we cannot recover from.”
Vail encouraged the Board, “Ask us to help you.” School Board Facility Chair, Peter Bingham, responded the School Board did ask and were “ill-helped when the North Yarmouth site fell through.” Bingham summarized that there were no off campus options at that point that met the site criteria of providing town water, sewer and power. Additional benefits to the one campus design provide efficiencies for bus scheduling.
Bingham felt the plan was the best possible option available. He stated that if given the information he believes anyone in the town that has “intelligence above a potato chip” can make the right decision
District is currently servicing three bonds – High School renovation, Middle School expansion to accommodate 4th and 5th grade ($2M), and Performing Arts Center ($9.5M).
Both Cumberland Council and North Yarmouth Select Board emphasized a two-town solution must be a priority. Within the NYMS closing plan was an expectation that any future school building would be placed in North Yarmouth.
Currently, no additional joint town meetings are scheduled, and no changes to the current timeline were made. Tyler asked town officials to help get information out to residents. Community information sessions are planned in September and October. Public Hearing will be October 18 and referendum vote on November 2.
Target completion date for the new primary building is beginning of 2025-26 school year. Permitting process is anticipated to take 18 months and could begin January 2022. The Central Office and Mabel I. Wilson portion of project could be completed as early as summer 2024. To meet target completion date, work will occur during school year.