***Please see the most recent information that has been posted for the Town of Fairhaven located at the bottom of the page. This information was posted on May 18, 2011.
April 1, 2011 - Questions and Answers
- When was the Fairhaven Project invited into the Capital Pipeline?
Fairhaven was voted into the MSBA’s Capital Pipeline in November of 2007.
- What was Fairhaven invited to study?
Fairhaven was invited to study and evaluate potential solutions to the deficiencies the District identified in its priority Statement of Interest (SOI), including renovation of the existing school, renovations/additions to the existing school and /or new construction.
- What information has Fairhaven provided MSBA to date?
To date, Fairhaven has submitted certain prerequisite documents required of every district once they are invited by the MSBA to collaborate on a feasibility study. The next document required for submittal by the District is the Preliminary Design Program, which the MSBA is expecting on April 1, 2011. A Preliminary Design Program is a document in which the District describes its current educational program and the ability of its existing school facility to meet this educational program. For a more thorough description of this process, visit the MSBA web site at www.massschoolbuildings.org/building/feasibility.
- Where is Fairhaven in the MSBA Process?
Fairhaven is in the Feasibility Study phase of the process. A Feasibility Study is the exploration of potential solutions to the problems the District identified in their priority Statement of Interest (SOI). Invitation to Feasibility Study is not approval of a project. For a description of this phase, visit the MSBA web site at www.massschoolbuildings.org/building/feasibility
- What guarantee does Fairhaven have that the MSBA will participate in the costs associated with a project?
The Feasibility Study Agreement confirms MSBA’s participation in the Feasibility Study/Preferred Schematic Design work. Again, the Invitation to Feasibility Study is not approval of a project.
- What will the funds appropriated at Fairhaven’s Town Meeting be used for?
The appropriation at town meeting will fund the Preferred Schematic Design. A Preferred Schematic Design is a detailed look at the scope, schedule, cost estimate and design of the agreed upon “preferred” solution to the District’s school facility deficiency.
For a more detailed description of this, visit the MSBA web site at www.massschoolbuildings.org/building/schematic
- Would the MSBA consider funding a two school renovation project that is similar in cost (or cheaper) to the MSBA than the one school option that provides educational equity for all of Fairhaven’s elementary age children
- Would the MSBA consider funding a two school renovation project that is a few million dollars more in cost to the MSBA than the one school option that provides educational equity for all of Fairhaven’s elementary age children that is supported by town meeting
- Would the MSBA consider funding a two unit Rogers School renovation project and renovating one of the units at Wood School with the town fully funding the other unit at Wood?
- Would the MSBA consider funding a Rogers school renovation project coupled with a 3 room addition to the Wood School?
- Would the MSBA consider funding a two unit Rogers School renovation project and allow the town to seek other funding sources (including other grants) to upgrade a two unit Wood School
MSBA is consolidating it’s response to the above questions:
Invitation to Feasibility Study is not approval of a project, but is strictly an invitation to work with the MSBA to explore potential solutions to the problems the district has identified in their priority project. Fairhaven has identified the Rogers Middle School as their priority project. Possible solutions that a feasibility study would address are renovation, addition, addition/renovation and new construction. Per MSBA regulations the MSBA will ask Fairhaven to explore non-construction options such as redistricting within Fairhaven.
All districts voted into the Capital Pipeline must follow the MSBA’s statute and regulations, which require that Fairhaven and the MSBA collaborate on each step of the process. MSBA will work with the District to bring forth the most educationally appropriate and fiscally responsible solution for the district’s needs. These discussions and collaborative efforts between the district and the MSBA will take place during the Feasibility Study when the various options are put forth by the district.
http://www.massschoolbuildings.org/building/modules_overview
- Would the MSBA consider funding a Rogers school renovation project now and a Wood School renovation project at a later date considering it has a new roof and boiler (3-5 years or even 20 years)?
The MSBA asks each district to prioritize their school facility needs. Once the district has prioritized their needs, the MSBA will work in collaboration with a district on their top priority. The “one-project-at-a-time” rule is based on the MSBA’s experience from working with districts that were on the 400+ project Waiting List inherited from the prior program. Most districts can only work on and fund one project at a time. The MSBA invites districts into the Capital Pipeline based on need and urgency at the time of their SOI submittal with respect to all SOIs submitted by other districts. The MSBA will only consider a project that is the district’s priority as stated on the district submittal of a Statement of Interest. Given that the MSBA must fund the most urgent and neediest projects first and that there is a limited revenue stream supporting the MSBA’s grant program, working with a district on one project at a time ensures that limited state and local resources are focused on the neediest and most urgent priority.
The MSBA cannot promise funds that are not available. If a district is invited into the MSBA’s Capital Pipeline, the MSBA has the ability to fund its share of a potential project if the District can demonstrate local support and continues to work in collaboration with the MSBA through all phases of the project. The district must show a good faith effort, through a local town vote approval, to work in collaboration with the Authority.
- Does the MSBA need to see the detail operating cost comparison of a one school versus a two-school project before making a decision to support a project?
Yes, all districts that are invited into the Capital Pipeline have to demonstrate the ability to properly fund an operating budget for their school facilities. As past experience has shown, it makes no sense to build schools that local districts cannot afford to operate, heat/cool, maintain and staff appropriately.
- What type of questions regarding the Fairhaven project are should be directed to the MSBA?
The MSBA can answer questions about the MSBA’s process. As a State Quasi -Public Authority that is funded by 1 cent of the sales tax, MSBA is responsive to any/all requests relative to the MSBA’s school building construction process, rules, regulations and guidelines. There are instances when certain questions can be better answered at the local level. Fairhaven owns and operates the schools in its district, so questions about operating the schools, budgets and capital planning, are better answered at the local level.
- Has the MSBA suggested a postponement?
No member of the MSBA staff has suggested postponement of the project. A Senior Capital Program Manager, who serves as a liaison to the general public to clarify any and all information in regards to the MSBA School Building Construction process, suggested that members of the Fairhaven community who have questions about the development of the preferred options look back to the beginning of the Feasibility Study process to understand the progression of the project to date. The MSBA is due to receive a Preliminary Design Program on April 1. All questions regarding the development of this Preliminary Design Program should be directed towards the District.
- What type of questions regarding the Fairhaven project should be directed to the Town of Fairhaven?
There are instances when certain questions can be better answered at the local level they include:
- Any questions regarding the preferred drawings to be explored by the District during the Feasibility Study as presented to the MSBA
- The process through which these options were selected (preferred drawings are due to the MSBA April 1, 2011. Appropriate time will be needed to review all options.)
- Budget questions, public meeting schedules, and other items under local jurisdiction are best answered by Fairhaven
April 15, 2011 - Questions and Answers
***The MSBA is making every effort to be responsive to the many questions being raised by Fairhaven residents; however, please note that many of these questions include misstatements and inaccuracies regarding MSBA policy.
- If Fairhaven is in the feasibility stage of this project why is MSBA telling our SBC that if they were to put a "pause" in the process they would lose state funding?
Nobody from the MSBA has suggested the district “pause”. The district has not contacted the MSBA about the possibility of a pause relative to the goal of a school construction project between the MSBA and Fairhaven. Without there being a request from the district to pause, the MSBA wouldn’t be able to answer whether the district would be in jeopardy of losing any potential funding.
- Why is it that the MSBA has policies and procedures which state that MSBA will support renovation projects for a school with less than 300 students, yet our Fairhaven SBC is stating that MSBA is saying "MSBA is stating that would be a steep hill to climb"?
Invitation to Feasibility Study is not approval of a project, but is strictly an invitation to work with the MSBA to explore potential solutions to the problems the district has identified in their priority project. Fairhaven has identified the Rogers Middle School as their priority project. Possible solutions that a feasibility study would address are renovation, addition, addition/renovation and new construction. Per MSBA regulations the MSBA will ask Fairhaven to explore non-construction options such as redistricting within Fairhaven.
As mentioned above, all districts voted into the Capital Pipeline must follow the MSBA’s statute and regulations, which require that Fairhaven and the MSBA collaborate on each step of the process. MSBA will work with the District to bring forth the most educationally appropriate and fiscally responsible solution for the district’s needs. These discussions and collaborative efforts between the district and the MSBA will take place during the Feasibility Study when the various options are put forth by the district. It is the expectation of the MSBA that these options put forth by the district have been presented to the community in order to seek community input and gauge support of the proposed solutions to be examined during the Feasibility Study.
- Why does the MSBA guidelines reflect an ability to do one project now and one later and our Fairhaven SBC is stating that MSBA will not consider this because "MSBA will not support a project of greater than 370 students" and that "MSBA wants it done in one shot and doesn't want to come back"?
As previously stated, the MSBA asks each district to prioritize their school facility needs. Once the district has prioritized their needs, the MSBA will work in collaboration with a district on their top priority. The “one-project-at-a-time” rule is based on the MSBA’s experience from working with districts that were on the 400+ project Waiting List inherited from the prior program. Most districts can only work on and fund one project at a time. The MSBA invites districts into the Capital Pipeline based on need and urgency at the time of their SOI submittal with respect to all SOIs submitted by other districts. The MSBA will only consider a project that is the district’s priority as stated on the district submittal of a Statement of Interest. Given that the MSBA must fund the most urgent and neediest projects first and that there is a limited revenue stream supporting the MSBA’s grant program, working with a district on one project at a time ensures that limited state and local resources are focused on the neediest and most urgent priority.
The MSBA cannot promise funds that are not available. If a district is invited into the MSBA’s Capital Pipeline, the MSBA has the ability to fund its share of a potential project if the District can demonstrate local support and continues to work in collaboration with the MSBA through all phases of the project. The district must show a good faith effort, through a local town vote approval, to work in collaboration with the Authority.
- With all the valid research known to us regarding larger schools verses small schools (of less than 350) especially as it pertains to studies indicating that larger schools have an increased drop out rate, decreased community participation, increase in negative student behaviors, etc., why is the MSBA pushing our town to consolidate?
MSBA is not “pushing” Fairhaven to consolidate. As stated, Fairhaven is in the Feasibility Study phase of the process. A Feasibility Study is the exploration of potential solutions to the problems the District identified in their priority Statement of Interest (SOI).
For a description of this phase, visit the MSBA web site at www.massschoolbuildings.org;/building/feasibility
- With all the valid research known to us regarding how class size affects student learning, why would the MSBA and SBC recommend a project that increases class size?
The MSBA is not the owner of the project and the MSBA does not make recommendations to a district for solutions to the district’s facilities needs nor does the MSBA determine class size policies for a district. The owner of the project is the district. It is up to the district to create a master plan for their schools, evaluate this plan with the community, and make sure the plan is within the MSBA guidelines . Class size policies and teacher staffing levels are decisions that rest entirely with the local school district.
Next Steps
The MSBA will need time to review the Preliminary Design Program once it is received from Fairhaven. Upon completion of that review the MSBA will gladly have a meeting with the District to discuss the preferred options presented by the District. All MSBA meetings are open to the public and we welcome attendance from interested parties.
April 29, 2011 - Links to Recent Communications between the MSBA and the Town of Fairhaven
- The MSBA has offered a response to The Standard Times article dated April 25, 2011 in a letter dated April 28, 2011.
- The MSBA has completed its review of the District's Feasibility Study documentation and has sent a letter with comments dated April 29, 2011 to the District.
- The MSBA received a Preliminary Design Pricing Summary Table on April 28, 2011 at 4:37 PM. *Corrected version of the Preliminary Design Pricing Summary Table, posted May 19, 2011.
- The MSBA received the District's Local Action and Certification submittal on April 29, at 3:33 PM.
- What happens when a district does not meet its goals by the end of the 1 year feasibility contract? Are there circumstances that a district could apply for an extension? What might those circumstances be?
- Is it possible to extend the timeframe of the Feasibility Study Agreement?
- What is the impact to the district if it cannot perform within the FSA timeframe?
The Feasibility Study Agreement is an agreement executed by the MSBA and a District that has been invited to conduct a Feasibility Study by the MSBA Board of Directors. The Feasibility Study Agreement describes the scope, schedule and budget for a Feasibility Study and allows the District to be reimbursed for a portion of the eligible, approved costs incurred in connection with that Study.
The Feasibility Study Agreement expires 365 days after the MSBA’s Executive Director has signed it or after the Board of Directors has voted to approve a project, whichever is sooner, unless the MSBA, in its sole discretion, agrees to extend the term.
- Are there any sources of emergency funding either through MSBA or another agency for a school building that is deemed uninhabitable by safety officials?
- Where can information about the MSBA Emergency SOI be found?
The Emergency Statement of Interest (eSOI) process is available to districts, by invitation of the MSBA, that identify issues at a facility where an emergency condition exists as defined by MSBA regulations. To see what the MSBA considers an emergency condition, please see the MSBA's Regulations regarding the Emergency Statement of Interest Process.
- Please clarify.... If a district votes "no" for appropriation of funds for schematic design does the district jeopardize funding?
- What are the next steps if a "no" vote resulted for schematic design and could the district be removed from the pipeline?
Within 10 business days of the failed vote to approve funds for a proposed project through schematic design, the District must submit a plan that: (1) presents the vote results, (2) explains the District’s understanding of the reasons for the failed vote, and (3) sets forth the District’s plan to remedy the failed vote and a suggested timeline for such a remedy. The MSBA will review the plan and determine whether it can continue to set aside MSBA funds for the proposed project. The outcome of a failed vote will most likely be that the MSBA would require the District to submit a new Statement of Interest and begin anew the process for seeking funding, at which point the District would need to await a second invitation from the MSBA to return to the beginning feasibility study stage of the process.
- What is the process for a district to re-engage with the MSBA
- Once the SOI is resubmitted what is the timeframe to get back to the feasibility phase?
Pursuant to MSBA policy, districts who fail to approve funding for feasibility study and schematic design will be removed from the Capital Pipeline and will be asked to provide evidence of community support before their proposed project will be eligible for reconsideration by the MSBA’s Board of Directors. This policy is necessary to ensure that the MSBA’s limited capital program funds are not indefinitely tied up for projects that lack local support.
In order to reactivate the Statement of Interest for and re-enter the Capital Pipeline, the Town must demonstrate local support for funding a school project by passing a ballot question for a project with a defined scope and budget. As stated above, The outcome of a failed vote will most likely be that the MSBA would require the District to submit a new Statement of Interest and begin anew the process for seeking funding, at which point the District would need to await a second invitation from the MSBA to return to the beginning feasibility study stage of the process.
May 18, 2011 - Update
The Fairhaven School District presented their preferred option to MSBA Board Members and staff at the May 11, 2011 MSBA Facilities Assessment Subcommittee meeting. Several residents of Fairhaven were in attendance and, upon completion of the District’s presentation, requested copies of information submitted by the District to the MSBA. Below is a link to the Fairhaven Public Schools website that includes the information that has been submitted such as the District’s Educational Program, the District’s Feasibility Study submissions on April 1st and April 13th, and the MSBA’s enrollment letter, as well as other informative links that detail how the District came to it’s preferred option.
http://www.fairhavenps.org/building_committee.cfm