September 27th - Minutes
The Mohawk Trail Regional School District Interim Planning Steering Committee met in the Mohawk Trail Regional Middle School on Thursday, September 27, 2006, at 6:00 p.m.
Members in attendance: Michael Buoniconti, Steering Committee Chair; Sheila Litchfield and Win Healy, Steering Committee Vice Chairs; Robert Aeschback, Building Team Primary Chair; Marguerite Willis, Building Team Alternate Chair; John Taylor, Building Team Vice Chair; Dave Purington, Budget Team Primary Chair; Susan Flaccus, Budget Team Alternate Chair; Paula Consolo, Budget Team Vice Chair; Jon Wyman, Education Team Primary Chair; Pam Porter Education Team Alternate Chair; Julie Godfrey, Education Team Vice Chair; Andrew Baker, Transportation Team Primary Chair (arrived at 7:05 p.m.) and Michelle Olanyk, Transportation Team Alternate Chair.
Members absent: Charles Stetson, Transportation Team Vice Chair.
Others in attendance: David Greenberg, Joan Hellmund, Chris Skelly, Ned Wolf, Bill Yager, Don Stewart – Shelburne Falls Independent, Faye Whitney – West County News.
Following discussion, it was decided to postpone the October 16th presentation of final reports to the Interim Planning Committee until November 1st. This will give the Education, Building Use, and Transportation subcommittees two additional weeks to prepare their reports. The Budget planning committee can then prepare a budget based on the recommendation of the other committees. The initial budget numbers will be prepared by Joanne Blier, Business Manager, and supplied to the Interim Budget committee. December 1st was suggested as the date for the Interim Planning Committee to deliver the recommended final plan to the Superintendent. A revised schedule will be created based on these new dates and distributed to the committees.
Discussion followed regarding the report format. Two of the committees are using the SWOT method. The merits of all committees using this format were discussed. Transportation felt they could also use the SWOT format. Education expressed their concern about the lack of depth shown in using this tool and the need for a way to indicate the research and thought put into the decision making process. It was suggested that back-up data could be included with the SWOT analysis. Following discussion, a consensus was reached to try the SWOT method. If any of the committees feel the model is too restrictive, they can come to the steering committee for resolution or bring back to the full planning committee.
Key Assumptions:
Different options were discussed regarding preschool programs and the District’s responsibility to service preschool special needs children. Key assumptions that were agreed to by consensus included:
- 1. Preschools should continue to exist wherever the elementary students are located
- 2. Central Office can be located anywhere
- 3. The Walnut Hill relationship and location are flexible
- 4. Subcommittees should consider both current and mandated uses of buildings
- 5. Using the SWOT model, define as clearly as possible what would be lost and what would be gained in each model in formal reports
- 6. We know we need to save money and we may need to redeploy our resources to continue to provide a well-rounded quality education
- 7. Class Sizes: K-1 (13 average Ð 15 maximum), grades 2-4 (18 average Ð 20 maximum), 5-8 (22 average Ð 24 maximum), with no number designated for 9 Ð 12
It was also requested that a clear presentation be created showing where we’re at with the budget—what the state gives us versus our expenses.
The Building Planning Committee will analyze the information supplied by Terry Lapachinski on large projects/capital expenses and provide dollar amounts for capital investments to the Budget Planning Committee to include in the budget.
Define time horizon for planning – the consensus is to use a five-year projection with a 30-year amortization for capital expenses.
Foundation numbers: Towns are encouraging the District to plan staffing levels based on the Foundation numbers. Budgets will be created based on the foundation class sizes and our assumptions for class sizes for the final model that is recommended by the Interim Planning Committee.
Consolidation models to consider: (note: the interim planning committee did not vote on these)
- Heath to Colrain and Sanderson to Buckland-Shelburne
- Sanderson and Colrain to Buckland-Shelburne with some Colrain to Heath
- Heath and Colrain to Buckland-Shelburne with some Buckland to Sanderson
- Close Buckland-Shelburne and redistribute to all
The meeting adjourned at 9:35 p.m.
Judy Willis Secretary
