Amherst and Pelham Regional School District Planning Board ...

1

Amherst and Pelham

Regional School District Planning Board

Final Report

09-06-19

2

September 6, 2019

Amherst Town Council

Pelham Select Board

Dear Colleagues:

MA General Law Title XII Ch71 Section 14A requires a Regional School District Planning Board to

“submit a report of its findings and recommendations to the selectmen of the several towns.” The

submission of this final report fulfills this obligation and concludes the work of our Board.

At no cost to the Towns of Amherst and Pelham (volunteer members, with consultants funded by a

State Regionalization and Efficiency Grant), our Board studied the possible regionalizing of the two

local school districts for more than a year, analyzing the financial and educational issues in-depth,

while continuously gathering community input and feedback.

Asking school districts to regionalize is a multi-generational decision for communities, and in the end

our Board decided unanimously that it was not in the best interest of both Towns to pursue

regionalization at this time. If there is future interest, any town may form a new Regional School

District Planning Committee to explore regionalization with one or more interested towns.

It should be noted that the Board experienced the working relationship between our two Towns to be

exceptionally strong and productive throughout this process. The feelings of mutual respect and

support expressed by both members of the public and Town officials indicate a strong cooperative

spirit, and openness to future collaborative work.

Respectfully submitted,

Amherst and Pelham Regional School District Planning Board

Peter Demling, Chair

Emily Marriott, Vice-Chair

Cara Castenson

Richard Fanning

Joan Temkin

Marylou Theilman

CC: Amherst Town Council and Town Manager

Pelham Select Board, Town Moderator, and Finance Committee

Amherst School Committee

Pelham School Committee

Amherst/Pelham Superintendent of Schools, Dr. Michael Morris

Amherst/Pelham School Finance Director, Sean Mangano

Jay Barry, Consultant, Massachusetts Association of Regional Schools (MARS)

3

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................................ 4

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND ........................................................................................................................... 6

FINANCIAL ISSUES ...................................................................................................................................................... 8

REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION REIMBURSEMENT ............................................................................................................................... 8 ASSESSMENT METHOD ................................................................................................................................................................ 9 MASSACHUSETTS SCHOOL BUILDING AUTHORITY PROJECT REIMBURSEMENT ...................................................................................... 12 BUDGET APPROVAL PROCESS AND SCHEDULE ................................................................................................................................ 13 CENTRAL OFFICE IMPACTS AND OTHER BUDGETARY EFFICIENCIES AND FLEXIBILITY ............................................................................... 15 BUILDING OWNERSHIP .............................................................................................................................................................. 16 DEBT OWNERSHIP .................................................................................................................................................................... 17

GOVERNANCE ISSUES ............................................................................................................................................... 19

SCHOOL COMMITTEE COMPOSITION ............................................................................................................................................ 19 SCHOOL COMMITTEE ELECTION ................................................................................................................................................... 20 IMPACT ON 7-12 AMHERST-PELHAM REGIONAL SCHOOL DISTRICT ................................................................................................... 23

EDUCATION ISSUES .................................................................................................................................................. 24

RESOURCES AND PROGRAM ACCESS ............................................................................................................................................. 24

APPENDICES ............................................................................................................................................................. 25

APPENDIX A: REGIONAL SCHOOL DISTRICT PLANNING BOARD CHALLENGES AND BENEFITS DOCUMENT ................................................... 25 APPENDIX B: MASSACHUSETTS ASSOCIATION OF REGIONAL SCHOOLS Q&A DOCUMENT ...................................................................... 31 APPENDIX C: KP LAW, AMHERST TOWN COUNSEL, MEMO ............................................................................................................. 37 APPENDIX D: TWO TOWNS MEETING PRESENTATION ..................................................................................................................... 43 APPENDIX E: TWO TOWNS MEETING NOTES ................................................................................................................................ 55 APPENDIX F: PUBLIC FORUMS REPORT BY THE LOGUE GROUP ......................................................................................................... 62 APPENDIX G: UPDATE REGIONAL FINANCIAL MODELS AND CALCULATION OF COST SAVINGS BY THE ABRAHAMS GROUP ............................ 72 APPENDIX H: BUDGET APPROVAL PROCESS IN A TWO-TOWN REGION FLOWCHART ............................................................................. 88 APPENDIX I: PROCESS FOR APPROVING PROPOSED REGIONAL SCHOOL DISTRICT BUDGET ..................................................................... 89

4

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

In the Fall of 2017, Pelham and Amherst Town Meetings, at the request of their respective School

Committees, each approved formation of a Regional School District Planning Committee. After

meeting separately, these two committees each voted to form a joint Regional School District

Planning Board to explore the possibility of regionalizing their two PK-6 school districts.

The Amherst and Pelham Regional School District Planning Board then held more than 40 open public

meetings from April 2018 to August 2019. Funded by a $21,500 State Regionalization and Efficiency

Grant, the Board contracted with Massachusetts Association of Regional Schools (MARS) as process

consultants, The Abrahams Group as financial consultants and The Logue Group as public forum

facilitators.

The Board began by identifying the key questions and potential benefits of regionalization, and then

engaged in an in-depth analysis of the major financial, governance and educational issues. A summary

of the analysis on each of these issues, with supporting information in appendices is included in this

report.

The Board also made a number of presentations to local groups and boards during this period,

including the Pelham Select Board, Pelham Finance Committee, Pelham School Committee, Amherst

School Committee, as well as the League of Women Voters, Amherst-Pelham Special Education

Parent Advisory Council.

In April 2019, the Board held a "Two Towns Meeting”, which included both Towns' School

Committees, Pelham Select Board and Finance Committee and the Amherst Town Council; quorums

of all five were present. The Board presented the results of its work to date and asked for feedback.

The presentation from that meeting is included in Appendix D.

The consensus of Pelham officials was to pursue regionalization, and the consensus of Amherst

officials was to not pursue regionalization. The Board then held widely advertised public forums that

month in Amherst and Pelham, where the Board gave a similar presentation and answered questions.

Both forums were sparsely attended, although information was distributed through all the schools,

newspaper articles, on posters in public places, and on Amherst Media. General public response

ranged from ambivalence, to not wanting regionalization.

The Board then discussed and considered the results of its own analysis, consultants’ reports, the

input of public boards and residents, and in May 2019 voted unanimously not to pursue

regionalization. Each Board member expressed slightly different reasons for voting not to

recommend. The main themes were: not enough financial and educational benefit to both Towns to

justify the level of change; and not enough support expressed from Town officials and the public to

move forward.

The primary motivation for Pelham was increased financial stability, and there was broad agreement

on the Board that regionalization could possibly provide this. This was the main theme from Pelham

Town officials, concerned about future financing of their small school. But Pelham residents also

expressed concern about loss of autonomy and self-control as a small Town in a larger region.

5

The primary motivation for Amherst was financial savings, primarily through state reimbursement of

transportation. Amherst Board members echoed the feedback from the Amherst School Committee

and Amherst Town Council, in concluding that the amount of savings Amherst would realize through

state reimbursement of transportation (est. $228K in the first year) was not enough to justify the

level of change.

Further, Board members expressed disappointment and frustration with the state's failure to keep its

promise of reimbursing 100% of regional school district transportation costs. One of several

"unfunded mandates" that the state shortchanges every year with the "subject to appropriation"

loophole, the Board had to assume continued under-funding when projecting future

reimbursements. The state's failure to fully fund this the primary incentive for regionalizing was a

major factor in our decision making.

The Board also found the state laws on regional school district assessment method, budget approval

and governance quite difficult to apply to our case of one small Town and one much larger Town.

Much time was spent trying to identify the “best” assessment method, school committee

composition and election mechanism, without producing a clear and satisfying option.

Our stated goal from the outset of this process was to determine if this would be a "win-win" for both

Towns, both financially and educationally. In the final analysis, our conclusion was that it was not.

6

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

THE HISTORY:

Regionalization has been considered many times since the current secondary education region

(middle and high school) was created in the mid-1950’s. The four Towns of Amherst, Pelham,

Shutesbury and Leverett have had official discussions about regionalizing in 1968, 1976, 1992, 2009

and 2012. Starting in January 2018, the Towns of Amherst and Pelham began exploring regionalizing

their two elementary school districts.

Up until 2012 the Towns relied upon volunteers for explorations of regionalization. The volunteers

conducted all the fact-finding, which was difficult for all Town and Regional business offices that were

responsible for the research. In 2012 experts in school finance and education were hired to collect

data to determine the impact of regionalization on the four Towns. At that time, initial funds to

secure consultant services were sought and granted to support the bulk of the related expenses. The

current study is funded with a $21,500 Regionalization and Efficiency grant from the Governor’s

Community Compact Cabinet.

THE PROCESS:

State law, MGL Chapter 71, Section 14, requires that towns interested in regionalizing create

Regional School District Planning Committees by Town Meeting votes, and that these committees

must come together to create a Regional School District Planning Board (RSDPB). Pelham’s 2017

Spring Town Meeting voted to form a Regional School District Planning Committee to explore

regionalization preK-6th grade education with other town(s). At the 2017 Amherst Fall Town Meeting,

the members voted to form an exploratory committee for regionalizing its elementary school district

with Pelham's. In February 2018, Amherst and Pelham's Regional School District Planning Committees

voted to join as a Regional School District Planning Board, (RSDPB). (A RSDPB was also formed in 1992

but not in 2009, when regionalization was explored by an informal committee.) While creation of a

RSDPB does not commit any town to any plan, it formally allows further exploration. While the state

promotes regionalization, the two Towns came together on their own to explore solutions that may

fit their communities.

The Regional School District Planning Board consists of three members each from Amherst and

Pelham. This configuration is required by state law. Each Town’s Moderator appointed the members,

one of whom must be a School Committee member. The members are as follows:

Amherst Peter Demling, Amherst and Amherst-Pelham Regional School Committees Joan Temkin, former member of Pelham, Amherst, and Amherst-Pelham Regional School Committees Marylou Theilman, former member of Amherst Finance Committee, Amherst and Amherst-Pelham

Regional Committees

Pelham Cara Castenson, Pelham and Amherst-Pelham Regional School Committees Tom Fanning, former member of Pelham and Amherst-Pelham Regional School Committees

7

Emily Marriott, Pelham Finance Committee, former member of Pelham and Amherst-Pelham Regional School Committees

In addition, the following consultants provided information for the Board: Consultants Jay Berry and Mac Reid of the Massachusetts Association of Regional Schools (MARS) Mark Abrahams, The Abrahams Group William DeVane Logue and Loraine M. Della Porta, The Logue Group. While many ideas about regionalizing grades Pre-K to 6 in all four Towns have been discussed over the past few years, the current RSDPB only discussed regionalizing those grades with Amherst and Pelham. Both Towns currently form Union 26 and share a Central Office, Superintendent, staff and curriculum.

8

FINANCIAL ISSUES

Regional Transportation Reimbursement Description: The state reimburses a percentage of regional school district transportation costs, which is one of the primary financial incentives for regionalization.

Pros Cons

• Yearly revenue for the region (approx. $243,000 in the first year)

• Reimbursement rate not constant - subject to appropriation by state

• Average reimbursement rate for last 10 years is only 66%

Summary In the case of Pelham and Amherst, since these Towns share a superintendent and central office staff through Superintendency Union 26, transportation reimbursement is the primary financial incentive for regionalization. The inconsistency with which the state funds this mandate was a factor for many on the Board, as there is no guarantee that the state will continue to fund it at its current level or even to fund it at all. The uncertainty surrounding the reimbursement level also undercuts the benefit of financial stability that Pelham is looking to gain through regionalization. If there were some commitment from the state to fully fund transportation reimbursement, or at least fund it at a consistent level from year to year, it would serve as a stronger incentive. The Abrahams Group estimated that at a reimbursement rate of approximately 72%, an elementary region would receive approximately $243,000 in transportation reimbursement in 2019, which is about 1.2% of the estimated net amount to be assessed to the Towns. References

• Appendix G: Update Regional Financial Models and Calculation of Cost Saving by The Abrahams Group

• MGL Chapter 71, Section 14B(e) Regional School Districts; Formation (School Transportation)

• MGL Chapter 71, Section 16C, Regional Transportation

https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleXII/Chapter71/Section16c

9

Assessment Method Description: Method by which regional school district costs are apportioned to member towns. Key Points:

• Difficult to find a method that the Board believes both Towns can agree to long-term • Commonly used assessment methods did not divide costs in desirable way

Criteria used to evaluate assessment methods:

Amherst Pelham

• Agreeable to both Towns over a long period of time

• Savings (not subsidizing Pelham) • Predictable • Transparent, easily explainable

• Increased stability in educational costs • At least cost neutral, preferably savings • Predictable • Transparent, easily explainable

Table 1. Explanation of primary assessment methods considered.

Method Explanation

Alternative 1: Five-year rolling average of foundation enrollment

Costs apportioned based on the five-year rolling average of enrollment. This alternative method has been used by the 7-12 Amherst-Pelham Regional School District (APRSD) in the past.

Alternative 2: Five-year rolling average of foundation enrollment + transportation

Transportation costs apportioned based on number of students being transported over 1.5 miles and the balance apportioned according to the five-year rolling average of enrollment. This method is expected to shift some additional costs to Pelham compared to Alternative 1.

Statutory 1: Required local contribution + Alt. 1

Statutory method with costs exceeding the required local contribution apportioned by five-year rolling average of enrollment.

Statutory 2: Required local contribution + Alt. 2

Statutory method with costs exceeding the required local contribution apportioned according to transportation costs and five-year rolling average of enrollment as in Alternative 2.

Alternative 3: Assessment by agreement

For the first year of the new region, member towns agree to assessments based on their educational spending from the previous year (before regionalization), basically rolling forward their educational costs as separate districts. This forms the base assessment. Regional transportation reimbursement (savings) is apportioned based on five-year rolling average of enrollment. Each year after that, any operating budget increases above the base assessments are apportioned according to the five-year rolling average of enrollment.

10

Table 2. Estimated changes to costs associated with each assessment method as compared to not being regionalized. Negative numbers indicate cost savings.

Summary Regional school districts can choose between two general types of assessment methods, the statutory method or an alternative method. The statutory method is preferred by the state in which a “required local contribution” is calculated for each member town using a state-proscribed formula defined by M.G.L. c. 70 S6. This formula includes many factors intended to account for differences in wealth among towns, including aggregate property values and aggregate personal income. The towns have discretion in deciding how to apportion any additional costs, but the method must be agreed upon in the regional agreement. If regional districts decide to use a different method than the statutory method, this is termed an alternative method. Because financial benefits were the primary motivations for both Towns to investigate regionalization, the Board spent considerable time discussing how to evaluate assessment methods and what type of cost sharing would be palatable to each Town. Initially, the Board examined two alternative assessment methods and two statutory methods based on these alternative methods (first four methods in Table 1). The Abrahams Group estimated each Town’s assessment based on these methods for FY19-FY21 (see Appendix -- for more details about these calculations). The resulting estimated assessments for the two statutory methods showed savings for both Towns in all three years, although the savings were greater for Pelham, often nearly double or more. The alternative assessment methods resulted in small increases in costs for Amherst in two of the three years and considerable savings for Pelham (Table 2). Because all of these methods resulted in what the Board considered to be disproportionate savings for Pelham, the Board worked with the Abrahams Group to explore other alternative methods that would shift most of the savings to Amherst initially. This was acceptable to Pelham Board members since cost stabilization for Pelham would likely result from any assessment method. A third alternative assessment emerged as a viable option after considerable exploration. This method, termed “assessment by agreement” (Alternative 3 in Table 1), essentially set the first year assessment according to what the Towns were currently spending on elementary education as separate districts and split the transportation reimbursement between the Towns according to the five-year rolling average of enrollment, resulting in Amherst receiving 94% of the savings and Pelham, 6%. For each subsequent year, additional costs would be split according to the five-year rolling average of enrollment. Because this method allows the Towns to determine how the transportation reimbursement is shared, many Board members found this method to be most promising.

11

References • Preparing Member Assessments: Guidance for Regional School Districts, DESE • Appendix G: Update Regional Financial Models and Calculation of Cost Saving by The

Abrahams Group

http://www.doe.mass.edu/finance/regional/guidance.docx

12

Massachusetts School Building Authority Project Reimbursement Description: The Massachusetts School Building Authority (MSBA) may, at its discretion, allocate an additional six percentage points toward project reimbursement of an approved project if the school facility is a member of a newly created region.

Pros Cons

• Reduce the cost of new elementary school in Amherst; Town could receive a one-time additional six percent incentive as part of MSBA's reimbursement for being part of a newly formed Region

• Some uncertainty regarding whether a new region would be the “owner” of the Amherst elementary building project

Summary It is likely that the new elementary school building project in Amherst could have qualified for this additional reimbursement if the Towns would have moved ahead with regionalization. Overall, the Board viewed this as a possible net benefit of regionalizing. However, the logistics of changing the “owner” of the building project from the Town of Amherst to the new region were not completely understood and there was some hesitation about Pelham, through its representative(s) on a regional school committee, having input on the building project. In reality Pelham’s voting influence on a new school committee would be minimal (see School Committee Composition, p. 19). It was also unclear whether or not the state would still provide this extra reimbursement if ownership and associated debt of the new building was retained by the Town of Amherst instead of the new region. This incentive proved to be of little interest to Amherst town officials as they were more concerned that regionalization could complicate their application to the MSBA and reduce their chances of being selected (see Appendix E: Two Towns Meeting Notes). References

• Appendix B: Massachusetts Association of Regional Schools Q&A Document

• Appendix E: Two Towns Meeting Notes

13

Budget Approval Process and Schedule Description: When towns regionalize, the regional school district must follow a state-mandated process--and timeline--for the development and approval of its schools’ annual budget(s). The process in a two-town region differs in some respects from that in a region with three or more Towns. Budget approval timelines may also differ between towns. Key Points: Process and Timeline

• The regional school committee develops a budget, holds a public hearing, and adopts the budget by a vote of at least two-thirds of its members. The school committee notifies town officials of the adopted budget by April 30th.

• A majority of member towns must vote to adopt the budget (and the assessment method, if using an alternative) for it to go into effect. In a two-town region, the vote must be unanimous. If the budget is based on an alternative assessment method, both the method and the budget must be reported to the Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE).

• If either town rejects the budget, it goes back to the regional school committee for reconsideration. The school committee has thirty days to revise the budget; the revised proposal must be voted on by the towns within forty-five days.

• If the budget is still rejected, a two-town region using the statutory method would convene a district-wide meeting to vote on the budget. (Note, this is very rarely used.)

Summary of budget and assessment method approval requirements in a two-town region.

Assessment method Yearly approval by towns required for:

Unanimity required?

Statutory budget yes

Alternative budget

assessment method yes yes

Pros Cons

• Since a new elementary region would have to follow the same budgetary schedule as the 7-12 APRSD, all school budgets would be due for approval at the same time.

• Towns would lose autonomy as to the development and schedule for the approval of the elementary school budget.

• Amherst and Pelham currently follow different timelines for voting on budgets.

Summary If a new two-town region were formed, the regional school committee would develop the schools’ budget for approval by both Towns. The Towns would lose autonomy over the development of the budget and the schedule for its approval.

14

As to process, in a two-town region, town approval of the budget—and assessment method, if using an alternative—must be unanimous. If one town rejects a budget, there is a multi-step process for consideration of an amended budget, which includes a very seldom-used provision requiring a district-wide meeting for budgets based on the statutory method. As to timeline, participating towns in a region may adopt budgets at different times, which can produce complications. Currently, for example, Pelham’s Town budget--including both its elementary school budget and its regional assessment--is voted in mid-May at its annual Town Meeting. At the time of the preparation of this report, the Town of Amherst is transitioning to a Town Council form of government, which will entail some changes to the budgetary schedule followed in the past, both for the four-town 7-12 APRSD and in a hypothetical two-town elementary region. In Amherst, under the new Town Charter, the Town Council adopts the budget by June 30th. The budget approval process can be complicated: a regional agreement is a multi-generational document, and even established assessment methods can yield unpredictable and disparate results for participating towns over a long time horizon. As a practical matter, however, the Board’s consultants from MARS stressed that the process would be similar to the current norm followed by the four-town 7-12 APRSD, and that the Towns could work out an acceptable solution and schedule for budget approval. References

• Regional School District Budgets, DESE 603CMR 41.05

• Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE)

• Appendix H: Budget Approval Process in a Two-Town Region Flow Chart

• Appendix I: Process for Approving Proposed Regional School District Budget

• MGL Chapter 71, Section 16B, Budgets, Apportionment of Expenses

http://www.doe.mass.edu/lawsregs/603cmr41.html?section=05

15

Central Office Impacts and Other Budgetary Efficiencies and Flexibility Description:

• In a Board meeting on November 2, 2018, the Board asked Dr. Morris, Superintendent, what efficiencies would be achieved through the regionalization of Pelham and Amherst Elementary School Districts. Dr. Morris stated that there would not be a huge impact on Central Office, as there were not a lot of efficiencies to be gained. Flexibility would be an advantage in allocating resources where needed to handle offsets. There would be flexibility in developing and implementing budgets. Overall, there would be no huge positives or negatives for Central Office.

• Mr. Mangano, Director of Finance, likened a Region to a business, which is responsible for its entire operation. Specific to Amherst and Pelham, he cited that the Business Office would be managing two districts instead of three. Policies would be the same, and capital and debt would be in the Region and not the Towns. Ability to allocate resources where needed would be an advantage.

• In the March 29, 2019 meeting of the Board, Mr. Mangano also pointed out that regionalization could, in the long term, provide greater staffing efficiencies, and could also provide more budget flexibility; positive and negative budgetary drivers in individual schools could offset each other, allowing for smoother distribution of resources.

Summary In the meeting of November 2, 2018, Dr. Morris and Mr. Mangano stated that “there would be no huge positives or negatives for Central Office.” They did enumerate minor positives which are listed above. Mr. Mangano on March 29, 2019 indicated that regionalization could provide staffing efficiencies, more budget flexibility, and smoother distribution of resources. References

• Minutes: RSDPB Meeting, November 2, 2018

• Minutes: RSDPB Meeting, March 29, 2019

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1DXxxr68j5PGCOEXCMwj78ZokWaBectlk/view

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1pXTecMUp43ZusEnn2iF9a-Vqpu1VYFBa/view

16

Building Ownership Description: Questions on building ownership were brought up at Board meetings and in public forums by members of the public. During these deliberations there were members of the public from each Town who expressed that they wanted the two Towns to retain ownership of their buildings. Regarding building ownership, the Board did not seek to stipulate how to handle ownership of buildings in the proposed PreK-6 region. However, the Board did address this issue in the slide presentation used at public forums.

Building ownership:

• The regional agreement can stipulate that individual towns can retain ownership of existing school buildings/property or the region can assume ownership of school buildings/property.

• If towns do retain ownership of buildings, maintenance/improvement costs need to be addressed.

In reference to actions member towns can take with respect to buildings and appurtenant land that member towns own, MGL Chapter 71, Section 14C, states:

"The agreement made under section fourteen B, or any amendment to such an agreement, may contain provisions authorizing any member town to sell, lease or grant a license to use any school building and any land appurtenant thereto or used in connection therewith to the regional school district, and any such town may authorize such sale, lease or license accordingly, notwithstanding the provisions of section three of chapter forty or any other provisions of law to the contrary. In case of a sale, the price and time or times of payment and the method by which the towns other than the selling town shall be assessed for such payment shall be set forth in the agreement or amendment; but in no case shall payments be made which shall extend over a period in excess of twenty years. In the case of a lease or license to use, the rental or license fee and terms of payment and assessment shall be set forth in the agreement or amendment. The lease or license to use may be for a term or period not in excess of twenty years, and may contain provisions for the extension of the lease or license to use for an additional term or period not in excess of twenty years, at the option of the regional district school committee.”

Summary Building ownership, therefore, was on the minds of the public and the Board members\ but was not addressed in detail by the Board. In the future, building ownership would have to be studied and recommendations made on current and future building ownership. References

• Appendix D: Two Towns Meeting Presentation

• MGL Chapter 71, Section 14C, Lease and Sale of Property to Region

17

Debt Ownership Description: The Board discussed the issue of debt ownership at multiple meetings, including in discussions with Mr. Mangano, Director of Finance, and consultants from MARS. Through these discussions the Board came to understand, as stated in the slide presentation used at public forums: associated debt and capital costs can stay with the towns or be owned by the new region. In the description of topics a RSDPB may address in their proposed regional agreement, the MGL, Chapter 71, Section 14B, states that a regional agreement can describe the method of assuming costs of school construction or renovation, and the method of paying for those costs including issuance and repayment of bonds. The MGL Chapter 71, Section 14D, Regional Schools, covers indebtedness. It specifies that the regional agreement can provide that indebtedness may be approved by member towns by majority vote in a ballot election. If the agreement does not provide this option, any member town may disapprove by a majority vote in a town meeting or, the regional school committee by a two-thirds vote, can require that the indebtedness be approved by a majority of registered voters in a ballot election. Any proposed agreement would have to include a process for identifying the project and debt owner(s) for building construction and renovation; and in the case of a regional project, how to apportion the debt for such projects. Another significant issue is whether an Amherst-Pelham PreK-6 Region was created while there was an active Amherst MSBA project. Guidance and collaboration with the MSBA would be needed to clarify which legal entity is the “owner” going forward (Town of Amherst or the Amherst-Pelham PreK-6 Region). At the Two Town Meeting on April 13, 2019, the Amherst caucus included that possible complications with their current MSBA project as a reason to stop the regionalization planning process. Summary New debt could be in the region and not the towns. MGL Chapter 71, 14B and 14D set out some of the rules for assumption and repayment of debt. Also, the proposed agreement would have to clearly identify how project ownership and debt be apportioned for building construction and renovation; and identify other issues that may arise and workout how those issues would be resolved. Notes MGL Chapter 71, Section 14D, Voter Approval Required Chapter 71, Section 14D. Regional school district planning board; agreement; approval of indebtedness

18

[ Text of section as amended by 2016, 218, Sec. 179 effective November 7, 2016. For text effective until November 7, 2016, see above.]

Section 14D. "The agreement made under section fourteen B, or any amendment to such an agreement, may provide that the incurring of indebtedness by the district shall be approved by the registered voters in the member towns pursuant to the provisions of clause (n) of section sixteen. In any district for which the agreement does not so provide, the incurring of indebtedness shall be subject to disapproval by any member town pursuant to the provisions of clause (d) of said section sixteen. Notwithstanding the provisions of this section, the regional district school committee may, by vote of two-thirds of all its members, require that the approval of any particular authorized issue of indebtedness shall be by the registered voters of the member towns of the district pursuant to the provisions of clause (n) of section sixteen rather than pursuant to the provisions of clause (d) of said section sixteen."

MGL Chapter 71, Section 14B, Regional School Districts; Formation Section 14B "The said regional district planning board may recommend that there shall be established a regional school district which may include all the towns represented by its membership, or alternatively, any specified combination of such towns. If the said regional district planning board so recommends, it shall submit a proposed agreement or agreements setting forth as to each alternative recommendation, if such be made, the following: (d) The method of apportioning the expenses of the regional school district, and the method of apportioning the costs of school construction, including any interest and retirement of principal of any bonds or other obligations issued by the district among the several towns comprising the district, and the time and manner of payment of the shares of the several towns of any such expense." References

• MGL Chapter 71, Section 14B, Regional School Districts; Formation

• MGL Chapter 71, Section 14D, Voter Approval Required

https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleXII/Chapter71/Section14B

https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleXII/Chapter71/Section14B

19

GOVERNANCE ISSUES

School Committee Composition Description: MGL Chapter 71, Section 14B (a), Regional School Districts Formation, states that if a RSDPB recommended the formation of a Region, it also recommends the number, composition, method of selection, and terms of office of the member of the regional district school committee. Summary

Although the Board is not recommending a PreK-6 Amherst-Pelham Regional School District, in its

deliberations, it did discuss an arbitrary composition of seven members for four of the Options. The

number is consistent with the current number of seven members, five from Amherst and two from

Pelham, which serve on the Regional School Committee of the 7-12 APRDS. It was thought to be the

best option to maintain the nine-member 7-12 Regional School Committee, which consists of five

members from Amherst, two from Pelham and one each from Leverett and Shutesbury. However, the

Board could have chosen any number, as the law does not limit the number of members on a school

committee, as seen under Governance: School Committee Elections. Examples: Option 1 could have

29 school committee members. Option 3 could have five members designated from Amherst and two

designated from Pelham.

A major issue for composition of a PreK-6 Amherst-Pelham Regional School Committee revolves around whether elected committee members have equal or weighted votes. Weighted voting is often used in the State.

The Board recognized and discussed what the impact of an Amherst-Pelham PreK-6 Region would

have on the APRSD School Committee in terms of composition, selection/election process and term

of office (see Impact to 7-12 Amherst-Pelham Regional School District, p. 23.)

Finally, a PreK-6 Regional School Committee would have the same powers and duties as spelled out in

Massachusetts General Law and also the Regional Agreement approved by the voters of Amherst and

Pelham.

20

School Committee Election Description: MGL Chapter 71, Section 14E, Options for Election of Regional District School Committees, provides for the following five options concerning the election of members to requirement that representation be proportional to population (one person, one vote).a regional district school committee. Note: According to the 2010 census, the total population of both Towns is 39,140: Pelham has 1,321 for 3.3% and Amherst has 37,819 for 96.6%. Of that number, Pelham has 973 voters and Amherst 17,200 as of the 2016 Town Reports. Total voters are 18,173 or 5.3% Pelham and 94.6% Amherst. Option 1: Elect committee members by voters in member communities with each community’s representation apportioned according to population.

Pros: None identified.

Cons: • Based on the 2010 census, Amherst would have 28 members and Pelham would have 1 member. A 29-member school committee would be unwieldy.

• Pelham’s vote would be significantly small in comparison to Amherst and would be a loss in autonomy for Pelham.

Option 2: Elects members in district-wide elections held at the same time as state biennial elections.


Cons: • All candidates from the two Towns would be elected by all voter in both Towns at the same time as the State biennial elections in November in even numbered years.

• All elected members possibly could come from only one Town.

• As per the Amherst Charter, all five Amherst School Committee members are up for election every two years on the first Tuesday following the first Monday in November in each odd-numbered year. Pelham School Committee members have three-year staggered terms and are elected on the Tuesday following its Annual Spring Town Meeting.

• Neither Towns' election cycle meets the requirement of "at the same time as state biennial elections", which are in even numbered years.

• Special legislation would be required to permanently change the School Committee election to a date agreed upon by both Towns.

Option 3: Elects members with residency requirements in district-wide elections to be held at the biennial state elections.

Pros: • Allows designating a certain number of members to be elected from each of the two Towns. All voters in both Towns would vote on all candidates. All school committee members would have an equal vote.

21

Cons: • Depending on the number of School Committee members from each Town, Amherst’s representation could be disproportionate to its population and financial obligation/budget to a region, even though the Option satisfies the one person, one vote requirement.

• Must choose traditional or ranked choice voting. (See Option 2 for election timelines.)

Option 4: Weights the votes of committee members according to the population they represent.

Pros: • Each member’s vote would represent the same number of residents in each Town. (Weighted voting is often used in the State.)

• School Committee elections could be held on each Town's current election schedule: Tuesday after Annual Spring Town Meeting in Pelham. In Amherst, the first Tuesday in November in odd numbered biennial years.

Cons: • Pelham’s vote would be significantly small in comparison to Amherst and would be a loss in autonomy for Pelham.

Option 5: Appoints members by locally elected officials.


Cons: • Elected Town officials would appoint school committee members---Amherst Town Council and the Pelham Select Board for their respective Towns.

• Removes the voter from directly electing school committee members.

Summary

The RSDPB used the arbitrary number of seven for a proposed Amherst-Pelham PreK-6 School Committee, as it currently represents the number of members Amherst and Pelham have on the 7-12 APRSD Regional School Committee. However, any number could be chosen. The Board discussed all options and their ramifications and considered the comments made at the forums and meetings held with various constituencies. The Board concluded that Options 3 and 4 were the most feasible. Both Options had supporters. Option 3, which designates a specific number of members, with equal votes from each Town, appealed to those who wanted Pelham to have greater input in decision making. Some residents from both Towns said that other options could minimize Pelham’s vote. Option 4, weighted voting, was supported by those who wanted votes to actually reflect each Town's population as one person, one vote, the percentage of financial obligation of each Town, and the number of students from each Town. In school districts in other towns, experience has found that members with weighted votes, although small, have a full voice at the table.

Governance is one of the major issues. Both Towns have different forms of government. Amherst has a Town Council and Pelham a Select Board and Town Meeting. Election timelines for the two Towns are not at the same time of year: Pelham every year in the spring and Amherst in the fall every odd year. Term of office also is not the same: three years staggered terms for Pelham officials and

22

two-year non-staggered terms for Amherst officials, who are up for reelection every two years. If the Towns wanted the election timeline to be the same, special legislation would be required to permanently change the School Committee election to a date agreed upon by both Towns.

In both Towns there was concern about the loss of autonomy, as under regionalization, regardless of which election option is chosen, each Town gives up the autonomy of its school district’s (values, ideals, beliefs, benefits) unless specified in the Regional Agreement, which can prioritize matters of significance.

The discussions in forums, with consultants and among the Board, reflected how extremely challenging it is to regionalize school districts in towns which do not have similar governance structures and are extremely disparate in both student and town populations.

23

Impact on 7-12 Amherst-Pelham Regional School District

Description: The Towns of Amherst and Pelham currently belong to the nine member 7-12 APRSD, along with the Towns of Leverett and Shutesbury. All of Amherst's Elementary School Committee members serve on the 7-12 Regional Committee. The other three Towns select members from their Elementary Committees to serve on the 7-12 APRSD Regional School Committee. Amherst has five members, Pelham two and Leverett and Shutesbury each have one member. An Amherst-Pelham (Elementary) PreK-6 Region would impact the 7-12 APRSD in School Committee appointments and other issues. Summary School Committee Appointments A PreK-6 Amherst-Pelham Regional School District would be its own entity and would require the present 7-12 APRSD Regional Agreement to be amended. The current 7-12 APRSD Regional Agreement calls for members to be selected from local school committees. If an Amherst-Pelham PreK-6 Region were established, there no longer would be a local school committee from Amherst nor a local committee from Pelham. This would probably need to be resolved prior to Department of Elementary and Secondary Education’s (DESE) acceptance of an Amherst-Pelham PreK-6 Regional Agreement. If the 7-12 APRSD Regional Agreement were opened, DESE may compel compliance with the one person, one vote requirement. Other Issues In the event that the 7-12 APRDS Regional Agreement were required to be opened to resolve some of the issues stated above, the 7-12 APRDS School Committee Composition could change depending on what Governance Options were selected by both an Amherst-Pelham PreK-6 Regional School Committee and the 7-12 APRSD Regional School Committee. (See Governance Issues: School Committee Composition, p.19 and School Committee Elections, p. 20.) A PreK-6 Region and the present APRSD 7-12 Region would each be its own separate entity and neither would be required to hire the same superintendent. However, they could voluntarily cooperate to do so, as Union 26 and 7-12 APRSD do currently through policy.

24

EDUCATION ISSUES

Resources and Program Access

Description: Amherst and Pelham share Central Office resources and curriculum through Superintendency Union 26, but do not have access to all of each other’s programs. Discussion of this topic was part of the November 2, 2018 meeting with Superintendent Dr. Michael Morris and Director of Finance Sean Mangano.

Pros Cons

Educational benefits would include specialized programs and a broader range of services available across both Towns. The breadth of academic offerings also could be increased.

Both Towns would give up some degree of autonomy of their resources and/or programs.

Summary The Amherst and Pelham Elementary School Districts form Superintendency Union 26. As such, they share the Superintendent and other directors and services in the Central Office. They also share the elementary curriculum. Both School Districts have limited access to special education programs offered in each other’s elementary schools and have to pay for placement in such programs. Students in Amherst and Pelham can attend each other’s schools through the State School Choice Program. In a new Pre-K Amherst-Pelham Region, the Regional School Committee would have the same powers and duties spelled out in Massachusetts General Law that includes setting policies for attendance, access, and enrollment zones.

References

• Minutes: RSDPB Meeting, November 2, 2018

• MGL Chapter 71, Section 16, Status, Powers, and Duties

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1DXxxr68j5PGCOEXCMwj78ZokWaBectlk/view

APPENDICES

Appendix A: Regional School District Planning Board Challenges and Benefits Document

Note: Highlighting denotes recurring themes in member responses.


26

Potential Benefits (all responses)

From the Pelham perspective Financial

• Largest benefit hoped for is financial sustainability for Pelham School and Town. Hope that regionalization improves long-term financial viability of Pelham School.

Educational

• Access to more resources in a new region, especially in terms of special education placements and programs.

• Only half the currently enrolled students are residents, possible placement of Amherst students in open spaces.

• Expansion of the school, 2 classes per grade, would create more space for placement of Amherst students.

Governance

• Elimination of one school committee and Union 26 requirements; simplification of administrative structure.

From the Amherst perspective Financial

• More money for regional transportation.

• Regional Transportation every year. ~240K to Amherst at recent reimbursement rate of ~70% (~290K at possible 85% for FY19, ~340K at 100%). Future rate unknown; evolving state political issue. For context, the FY19 Amherst budget is 23.2M, representing a 537K cut to level-services from FY18.

• Possible expansion of Pelham Elementary School could be part of the solution to the future of two of Amherst’s elementary buildings that have applied for MSBA funding.

• 6% additional reimbursement from MSBA “when forming a new regional school district” (the qualification of which needs verification) could significantly benefit a new elementary building project, if/when its SOIs are accepted. E.g. 3M saved on a 50M project.

• An outside study of the elementary schools (maybe secondary) by a recognized independent firm to help the district determine how both Towns can maximize their school resources and budgets as both Towns move to the 2.5% cap on real estate taxes. (Both are over $21 per thousand now.)

• 64K phased-out bonus aid.

• Cost-savings from reduced Central Office responsibility and/or reporting (both Towns share Superintendent, HR, IS, Facilities Director, Curriculum, Business Office, etc.).

• More efficient use of time and resources resulting in a reduction in the elementary budget.


27

Educational

• Having most transportation costs covered allows for more flexibility when considering enrollment zone options that would otherwise be cost-prohibitive (e.g. additional bus routes to send students to not-their-closest school, which is needed/desired for some enrollment zone designs).

• Pelham Elementary is the closest elementary school to some Amherst residential neighborhoods.

• School and teacher choice by parents within the district, open on space available basis.

• Greater diversity of Towns and neighborhoods in student peer groups.

• Possibly more flexibility for curriculum options within buildings by principals and teachers.

• Possible use of the Pelham School building during school building construction. Governance

• Less paperwork for Central Office to comply with State Requirements.

• Makes work life simpler for key administrators (Superintendent, Asst. Superintendent, Finance Director): reducing the workload and meetings of the remove from three districts to two frees up their attention for other priorities.

• Simpler school committee organization, with one Regional Committee replacing the Pelham Committee, Amherst Committee and Union 26.

• A potentially larger Regional Committee would help with the heavy workload of the Amherst Committee.

Questions / Concerns / Challenges

(all responses) From the Pelham perspective Financial

• Leaving aside the aid, would Pelham achieve financial predictability for the elementary school? (I’m remove assuming that hinges on the assessment method.)

• Is there any way to guarantee that we won’t have future unpredictability surrounding the assessment method?

• Would savings (or predictability) be long term? Is there any way of knowing?

• Property taxes: due to Pelham's limited tax base (approaching $25/k of assessed property value) a large benefit would be relief from increasing property taxes to support the elementary school, but will regionalization bring that tax relief?

• How do we allocate the transportation aid between the two Towns (and how do we arrive at that formula)?

• Loss of School Choice revenue if we join a region and phase out our Choice program. Educational

• How will enrollment zones be configured? Will Pelham kids be certain to go to Pelham?

• Would there be any freedom in terms of school selection among families in the new region?

• Conversely, how would Amherst families feel about moving to Pelham?


28

• Would the character of the school remain the same? Could we still continue to have our traditional Pelham events— e.g., Family Fun Night, Halloween, Spring Fair, etc.?

• What about our current choice-in population? (Many of them are among our most dedicated families, and often pull most of the weight at the PTO.) Will they be allowed to continue through? What about their siblings?

• How does the Pelham School building fit into Amherst elementary school building plan?

• Would Pelham have access to more resources in a new region, especially in terms of special education placements and programs?

Governance

• Biggest concern is vulnerability to closing or changing use of Pelham School with loss of governance/control that will come with regionalization.

• What are options to safeguard Pelham School again closing/change of use?

• Concerns about the risk of closing the school when regionalization plans are brought to public hearings.

• Can Pelham ensure that the school won’t close and will remain a PK-6 school?

• Could Pelham (or Amherst) elect separate school committee members for the two regions?

• What would the new school committee look like? How many members from Pelham would it include? (If only one, what would we do about our membership at the 7-12 Region?)

• Are there any other ancillary effects this arrangement could have on the existing region?

RSDPB

• Leaving aside any questions of what we’d do in terms of an expansion, are we able to consider it, and work it into our discussions, without over-complicating the regionalization process? How do we strike that balance?

• One class per grade has limitations, no options when there are interpersonal issues, student-student, student-teacher, parent-teacher.

From the Amherst perspective Financial

• How much more money would Amherst receive?

• How reliable is future regional transportation reimbursement; what’s the minimum reimbursement rate that would make it “worth it”?

• Could the assessment method be constructed in such a way as to greatly minimize the likelihood of future Town conflict? To put it another way: if one Town desires substantially less/more funding levels in a future year – how “bound” would the other Town be to this decision?

• What’s the timing requirement to get the 6% additional reimbursement from MSBA; what if our SOI(s) don’t get accepted until long after Regionalization goes through?

• Is Pelham Elementary expandable, and if so, what’s the ballpark cost for various expansion levels?

• What budget items are added and what is reduced or eliminated?


29

• How will the per pupil cost be determined. What will be the formula for the assessment method? According to the DESE site, Pelham now pays less per elementary pupil that Amherst. How would that be reconciled? Would per pupil cost for Pelham and Amherst be the same?

• Who would pay for the maintenance of the buildings in each Town?

• If another school is built in Amherst, since Pelham would be part of the District, would it be assessed a portion of the cost, if their students were attending the "new" school?

• How would the difference in per pupil cost for Choice In students from other Districts be assessed to each of the Towns for the students who attend their school(s), since they bring in $5000 per child and the cost is 20,000. Who makes up the approximately S15,000 difference?

• What’s the exact bonus aid expected?

• Would there be any notable financial savings from central office efficiency?

• How would future major capital costs (e.g. a new Amherst building) affect both Towns? Educational

• What are the risks? What does Amherst gain? What does Amherst lose?

• What would the impact to current Amherst enrollment zones be (aka, “Where will my kids go to school”)?

• Is the Amherst SC (and/or Superintendent) considering enrollment zone options that would benefit from regional transportation reimbursement?

• What would the impact to the location of current Amherst specialized special-ed programs be?

• Are there Amherst neighborhoods/families who would prefer to attend Pelham Elementary (because of distance or other reasons)?

• What would the school-choice strategy/philosophy be going forward, given the difference in how both districts use it today?

• Exactly how valuable would the “reduced workload” on the Superintendent / Central Office be? Could they estimate this in a measurable way?

• What would the impact to the unions / staff seniority / transfer rights? Governance

• How could the new Regional SC be composed in a way that Amherst residents wouldn’t feel like they were giving up too much control?

• What would be the number on the School Committee?

• What’s the fairest way to count Town sizes, when determining school committee composition/representation? (e.g. total population; total current students; average students per grade; include choice or don’t include choice; weight early grades and projections more heavily; etc.)

• Does Pelham’s current representation level at the current 7-12 Region factor into the discussion of what equitable representation would be for this new region?

• Would it be one person, one vote as recognized in the traditional method?

• How would the School Committee be elected?

• Would Pelham only vote for Pelham SC reps, and Amherst only vote for Amherst SC reps?

• How would that blend into the 7-12 Region?

• Would the 7-12 Regional Agreement need to be open and amended?


30

• Would the current 7-12 Regional agreement need to be amended in any way?

• Who would determine the use of buildings?

• Who would determine if a school would be closed?

• Could exception rules be applied to voting to handle Town-specific concerns (e.g. school closings)?

• What would the name of the new Region be? (“Amherst-Pelham” is the name of the current 7-12 Region of Amherst, Pelham, Leverett and Shutesbury.)

RSDPB

• Which questions do we need to answer, and to what level of detail, before our Board votes a recommendation on regionalization? (As distinct from what we’d need to answer when fully completing a regional agreement and long-term educational plan prior to a final approval vote.)

Appendix B: Massachusetts Association of Regional Schools Q&A Document

Massachusetts Association of Regional Schools (MARS) Consulting Group

Questions/Issues for MARS Analysis

What kinds of rules regarding building use/closure can be part of a regional agreement, and what

are the pros and cons?

Special school-based activities (Fun Night, Halloween, Spring Fair) that help define the culture of an

elementary school should continue. This can be handled through a building use policy that prioritizes

Town or school sponsored activities.

Given Pelham’s concern about school closure, there may need to be a policy or a provision in the

regional agreement that there will always be at least one elementary school in each Town. With this

language in the agreement, the only way the school could be closed would be to approve a future

amendment to the regional agreement at a Pelham Town Meeting and at a general election in

Amherst.

The MSBA regulations about school closure also need to be considered. (963 CMR 2.21): “If a school

district were to apply to the Authority for a grant, after having sold, leased or removed from service a

school facility, said district may be eligible for a grant only if the Authority determines that the grant

is not for the purpose of replacing a school facility sold, leased or removed from service in the last ten

years or that the need for the grant could not have been reasonably anticipated at the time of the

sale, lease or removal from service.”

Advantages: Makes the closure of the Pelham School very difficult and reassures that community that

their school will continue to be an elementary school well into the future. This likely would have an

impact on capital planning for the elementary schools.

Disadvantages: Commits the new district to operating this school which lacks field space and a

cafeteria.

What are the options for School Committee composition between one small and one large town,

and what are the pros and cons?

Options to Elect School Committee members:

• Option 1: Electing committee members by voters in member communities with each community’s representation apportioned according to population

o Advantages – fair; simplest o Disadvantages – difficult to have towns’ populations provide whole number

representation

• Option 2: Electing members in district-wide elections to be held at the biennial state elections


32

o Advantages – meets the legal requirements o Disadvantages – allows for disproportional representation; elections only every other

year; one ballot for both communities

• Option 3: Electing members with residency requirements in district-wide elections to be held at the biennial state elections

o Advantages – allows for a specific number of representatives from each member town o Disadvantages – elections only every other year; voters in both towns vote for school

committee members in both towns

• Option 4: Weighing the votes of committee members according to the population they represent

o Disadvantages: requires computation of each vote o Advantages – fair; provides equal representation for citizens in both member

communities; allows for smaller member towns to have more members at the table for discussion even though they each have a lessor vote than school committee members from the large member community.

• Option 5: Appointing committee members by locally elected officials such as school board members

o Advantages – simple o Disadvantages – takes school committee representation away from the voters

In the past, the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE) offered an alternative

option for member communities: Amherst and Pelham could be members of a PK-12 Regional

district, along with the existing four Town 7-12 district. This would clearly involve opening both

agreements for planning, developing amendments, and gaining community approval.

What are the options for school committee elections between one small and one large town, and

what are the pros and cons?

How Do Other Regional School Districts Elect School Committee Members?

Most regional school districts whose town populations allow whole numbers of representation to

meet the one person, one vote legal requirement, use option #1. It is the simplest and most straight-

forward.

Option 4, weighing votes, is becoming the next most popular option with newly amended regional

agreements as it is fair and it keeps voting within each community. The MARS Consultants have both

worked in regional school districts which have utilized weighted votes and found it to be efficient and

practical.

To what extent does our Board need to study and/or recommend specific school policies? What

areas are normally deferred and/or assigned to school committees for later definition?

At least initially, it may be beneficial to leave enrollment practices in place until the administration

and new school committee can study, learn from public input and recommend a more appropriate


33

policy. As a new region is considered by voters, one of the foremost questions for parents will be

“how will regionalization change my children’s education?”

Educational equity is of utmost importance. For example, similar or identical curriculums and

materials, same enrichment programs, after school programs (or transportation to them) and extra-

curricular opportunities.

As mentioned above, enrollment zones and intra-district choice are policy matters for the new

regional school committee to study, share with parents and develop as needed.

A new elementary regional district may want to allow students residing in either town to enroll in

schools other than their school of residence. Some families may be interested in choosing a different

school if it means less time on the bus. Student placement is a complicated issue and it may not be in

the district’s best interest to disrupt the current enrollment zone practices at the outset of a new

district.

A regional agreement could codify that Pelham residents attend the Pelham School, unless they

choose otherwise. Similarly, there could be language guaranteeing Amherst students the right to

attend an Amherst school – unless they choose otherwise.

Pelham receiving School Choice students from districts other than Amherst, would continue to be the

programmatic responsibility of a new elementary regional district. Amherst School Choice students

from districts other than Pelham would continue to be the programmatic responsibility of a new

elementary regional district. Any School Choice revenue generated by Amherst students attending

Pelham would no longer be in place. The same would be true for Pelham students attending an

Amherst school. Although state funding for these students would cease, a regional agreement could

“grandfather” these placements so no student is forced to leave their current school.

Students served by severe special needs education teachers may need to be placed in a common

location. It is very costly to duplicate substantially separate programs in multiple schools.

School Choice parents will want to know the impact to current/future students and siblings.

MSBA project reimbursement increases 6% “when forming a new regional school district.” What

are the restrictions on qualifying for this increased reimbursement?

As noted above, the Massachusetts School Building Authority (MSBA) regulations about school

closure need to be considered. (963 CMR 2.21): “If a school district were to apply to the Authority for

a grant, after having sold, leased or removed from service a school facility, said district may be

eligible for a grant only if the Authority determines that the grant is not for the purpose of replacing a

school facility sold, leased or removed from service in the last ten years or that the need for the grant

could not have been reasonably anticipated at the time of the sale, lease or removal from service.”

The MSBA may, at its discretion, allocate 6 percentage points toward project reimbursement for an

approved project if:


34

1. The project is at the site of a school facility that is a member of a regional school district, which district either a) was newly created as a result of working with the Authority during the application process or, b) whose membership changed as a result of working with the Authority during the application process and

2. The Authority determines that a school facility construction, renovation or repair project was avoided directly as a result of, either a) a newly created regional district or b) a change in a regional districts’ membership. (963 CMR 2.18, 2, g)

We will ask the MSBA if a future project in this new region would be eligible.

What is the employment impact to our current staff (teachers, unions, central administration)?

The new elementary regional district must comply with the provisions of M.G.L. Ch. 71, Sec. 42B. This

law encompasses the following obligations:

• Teachers assigned to a new regional district cannot earn less than in the prior year. Teachers carry with them time served toward status, sick leave, and any retirement or

longevity payments.

• If there are not enough positions to accommodate all teachers, decisions must be made on the basis of seniority.

What is fundamentally different for a regional school district with regards to the creation and

management of annual budgets and capital projects?

Budget Development

The budget would be developed the same way as the current Secondary Amherst-Pelham RSD

budget. If the PK – 6 Regional School Committee would have the same school committee members as

the secondary Regional School District, it would be simple.

If there were to be different people representing the PK-6 Region as the 7-12 Region, there could be

two options. One would be that the PK – 6 Regional School Committee could operate, and develop

the budget, totally independently. A second option would be to write some language in both the PK –

6 and 7 – 12 regional agreements which would operate similarly to the current arrangement where

there is cooperation between the two School Committees.

Assessments

The current Amherst-Pelham Regional School District regional agreement states that assessments to

the member Towns for operating costs will be based on their relative student enrollments related to

a five-year rolling average. This is the most common assessment process for operating costs.


35

Enrollment can be based on:

• Foundation Enrollment – all students in the member towns eligible to attend the public schools – counts School Choice and Charter out, and students in vocational schools

• Public School Enrollment – just those students in the PK – 6 Amherst and Pelham Public Schools including School Choice in

• Resident Enrollment – students who live in the district and attend one of the district schools; excludes School Choice in and School Choice & Charter out

Operating assessments can also be based on wealth of the member communities (EQV). For example:

50% enrollment & 50% EQV (Equalized Valuation); 90% enrollment & 10% EQV, etc. This is not

common.

Capital Projects

Capital assessments are more often (than operating costs) based on something in addition to, or

separate from, student enrollment. In addition to enrollment (Foundation Enrollment, actual school

enrollment), capital assessment formulas sometimes include comparative property valuation,

comparative aggregate wealth, and the comparative ability of the member communities to pay.

There could be (often is) some combination of these factors. Often there is a three to five-year rolling

average of these factors built in.

Transportation Reimbursement

The State reimburses regional transportation for all students who live more than 1.5 miles from the

school in which they attend. The percentages reimbursed vary from year-to-year. In recent years it

has been in the low to mid 70 percent.

Assessments for regional transportation can be calculated on exact costs to the region, exact costs to

each member town, bus miles, bus runs, and picking up students who live within 1.5 miles of the

school in which they attend. Transportation reimbursement for a new region is not meant to be

realized until the second year of operation as it is based on the costs from the first year of the region.

There is precedent that this reimbursement could be based on the year prior to the beginning of the

new region.

What (If any) Impact would there be to the existing 7-12 region (between Amherst, Pelham,

Leverett and Shutesbury): does it have to be "opened"; and, if opened, is the scope of changes

limited?

It does not appear that the secondary regional agreement would have to be adjusted in any way;

although we need to further clarify if there Is a need to address how the two regions interface with

hiring central office staff and budget preparation and curriculum. If the RSDPB decides more

definition is needed, it would require amendments to the secondary regional agreement.


36

What are the legal and procedural steps to regionalization (that we have not already identified)?

The regional school district planning board may solicit input from school committees, select boards

and Towns councils, and the RSDPB may take a preliminary vote as to whether or not to proceed to

the development of a regional agreement. The RSDPB does not have a formal responsibility to the

existing school committees or the supervisory school committee. Their formal recommendation to

the Pelham Select Board and the Amherst Town Council must be accompanied by a proposed

regional agreement and this recommendation will start the formal timeline.

Consider the sequence of meeting the following steps:

• Legal counsel for each of the Towns, each of the school districts should review the agreement

• The legal office of the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education needs to review the proposed agreement and gain their preliminary approval

• The RSDPB sends the proposed agreement to the Pelham Board of Selectmen and the Amherst Town Council to be placed on a Town Meeting warrant or to follow an approval process yet to be confirmed (general election Amherst?)

• Member Towns vote by ballot to accept the proposed regional agreement.

• Approved regional agreement with certified votes from each Town Is sent to DESE for signature and approval by the Commissioner

Other Notes

Town boards could express opinions on regionalization at their respective meetings, through the

community engagement process or individually. Typically, town boards will take a position on the

proposed agreement prior to the member town votes and publicize that position.

The name of the district must be defined in the agreement. The simplest solution might be to add the

word "Elementary" to the name – Amherst-Pelham Elementary Regional School District.

There would be efficiencies relative to the functioning of the central office that would serve both

districts: two school committees rather than four, one copy of required documentation like

curriculum adaptation policies, improvement plans, one less end-of-year financial report etc.

The MARS Consultant Group was involved in writing a document entitled, “Step-By Step to

Regionalization.” That document contains discussion of the “Advantages” and “Challenges” to

regionalization. Many of the issues are not germane to Amherst and Pelham becoming a regional

school district as they are already part of a union school district. We will share that as a separate

document at a later time.

Appendix C: KP Law, Amherst Town Counsel, Memo


38


39


40


41


42

43

Appendix D: Two Towns Meeting Presentation


44


45


46


47


48


49

9/4/19

7

Regional School Committee

Amherst Pelham

Option 1:Proportional representation


Amherst Pelham

Option 2:District-wideelections


50

9/4/19

8


Amherst Pelham

Option 3:District-wideelections with residency


Amherst Pelham

Option 4:Weighted votes

= 10 votes= ¾ vote


51


52


53


54

55

Appendix E: Two Towns Meeting Notes

Two Town Meeting convened by the Amherst and Pelham Regional School District Planning Board

Saturday April 13, 2019, 9 am Amherst-Pelham Regional Middle School Library

Amherst, MA 01002

Regional School District Planning Board Members: Peter Demling, Marylou Theilman, Joan Temkin, Emily Marriott, Cara Castenson (by phone), Tom Fanning Boards in attendance:

• Amherst o Town Council: Brewer, De Angelis, Griesemer, Hanneke, Pam, Ross, Ryan, Schoen o School Committee: Spitzer, Ordonez, Nakajima

• Pelham o School Committee: Jean-Louis, Hall, Mannino o Finance Committee: Trickey, Vanderbeck o Select Board: Agoglia

• Other: Bockelman (Amherst Town Manager), Morris (ARPS Superintendent), Mangano (ARPS Finance Director), Barry & Reid (MARS), Aldrich (Amherst Comptroller)

Tom Fanning’s Notes Introductory Presentation: Peter carried out the presentation by projecting slides. Q: Slide 5: why two green dots on the PK-6 regional committee? Q: Which Supt oversees the new region? Q: What is the role of the Amherst Town Council?

A: Town Council is asked to put the Regional Agreement question up for a vote. Comment from a few Amherst people: the first public forum is on the same night as ta TC meeting. Bad scheduling! Pelham person: How much saving goes to Pelham? How much MSBA savings goes to Pelham? Building funding if we form a PK-6 Region: Sean:

1. Who owns the building? 2. If it's the region, the debt is voted by both Towns. 3. We need to do more research on this.

Pelham person: If Pelham has to pay, regionalization is DOA. Comment: The Board should show savings after Bonus Aid is gone, out 6 to 10 years.


56

Amherst person:

1. Over time did you assume cost increases or decreases? 2. Any operational savings in the new region? 3. School Committee Elections

Q: Do both Towns have to elect at same time? A: Yes, and we have to fix that.

Amherst person: Note that option 4 is in use in Massachusetts. Amherst person: option 4 is not a good option because it does not democratically engage Pelham.

Q: Option3: Why 2 Pelham members and not one? This seems to undervalue Amherst.

A: Two and five kind of matches the composition of the secondary region. Comment: Amherst should get more input from Pelham.

Q: What about School Choice?

A: All current students are in - ok, and the new Regional Committee would decide the choice policy.

Amherst person: Option 5 is not a good structure.

Timing of the impact on the composition of secondary committee vis a vis the regional agreement: We would have to have a selection plan in place. That would probably occur after the new Region is voted in. The effects on the secondary regional agreement would have to be clarified before the vote on the new Region. Also, the Amherst Town Council change would have to be reflected in the secondary agreement - apparently this change must happen.

Pelham Breakout Session: Q: Would this region provide stability? A: Finance committee opinion

• Level funding over 3 years would help financially.

• It would provide a good buffer against Choice problems.

• Head winds coming in 2 years due to changes in assessments from the secondary region

• The 2 ½ increase limit and $25/1000 tax rate would force changes on budgets.

• Anything that forestalls these headwinds is good. Comment: If this change happened in November then Pelham has not enough input on moving the 6th grade to the middle School - Amherst would control that decision. Q: Would it always take 2 and a half months to work out the assessments as it does in the secondary region?

A: Probably not because the secondary region requires 4 Towns to agree.


57

Comment: no commitment on the assessment formula; I was told initially that this would save a million dollars. How do we know that there won’t be more changes. Comment: If we share in Amherst’s new building costs it would cost Pelham $60k per year over 20 years for a building we are not using. Response from two others: Towns could retain ownership so those costs are borne by each Town. Q: Where does the stabilization come from?

A: We are heavily impacted by changes in Special Education costs, choice out and Charter costs. In a region these costs are diluted.

Comment: in a region, Echo Hill becomes part of our school community. Comment: We should just create a stabilization fund for Pelham School. Comment: We can write caveats into the agreement to protect Pelham. Comment: Moving 6th grade is out of our hands. Comment: Try to keep “moving the 6th grade” and regionalization separate. Comment: 6th grade location could be written in. Comment: I am worried that there is not enough time to digest all of this. Comment: We’ll have more meetings before the vote in November. Q: Why not wait?

A: Waiting one year might hurt Amherst’s MSBA benefits. Comment: Writing the agreement will take significant time - more time than you have this year. Comment: Delaying would stop the momentum. I would rather have the region than an unviable school and Town financial situation. Bob: the AP Planning Board must make the decision (to write an agreement or not) soon. Regroup After Breakout Sessions: For Pelham: pushing out the election date is not good. The Board should vote to write an agreement soon. Comment: The actual vote would be: a) yes write, b) no don’t write, or c) more study For Amherst, a Town Council member:

• Pull the plug, our vote was 10-1 to not form a region at this time


58

• MSBA submission may be impacted

• New State Aid formula - uncertain

• Fall election in 2019 is complicated

• Towns owning their own buildings is complicated

• We don’t want contention between Amherst and Pelham

• We like Union 26 Emily Marriott’s Notes

Governance:

• Not in favor of weighted voting, thinks should use extreme care in thinking about presenting this option to public as viable given small impact Pelham has with this method.

• Appointed method deserves consideration, there is political accountability built into this method.

• Definitely not in favor of appointed.

• District-wide elections with residency – one could say that Pelham is over-represented in this method.

7-12 Agreement:

• Confirmed that this already needs to be updated to reflect new Amherst government. Pelham Breakout Session:

• Stability would come from having larger budget. Pelham facing stiff headwinds as 7-12 regional assessment predicted to increase in 2? Years.

• Concerned about timeline and impact on decision whether or not to move 6th to middle school.

• Concerned about selecting assessment method, example of 7-12 Region.

• Pelham can’t take on debt for new Amherst elementary. Would Amherst still qualify for 6% bonus if Region doesn’t own building?

• Preference for each Town retaining ownership of own buildings.

• Redistricting with regionalization could create more of “neighborhood” feel in Pelham compared to School Choice in.

• Concern that timeline is too tight to educate voters.

• Concern that pushing back timeline would result in loss of momentum/attention.

• In presenting to Pelham voters, need to share what happens if don’t regionalize/provide context.

• Would rather regionalize than have elementary school that’s not viable because of budget cuts.

Joan Temkin's Notes

1. Amherst Town Council was upset that the Monday public forum in Amherst was scheduled for Monday night when they meet.


59

2. Pelham wondered how they would benefit from the bonus points the new elementary school in Amherst would get from the MSBA if we regionalized. Who would own the new building? If Pelham has to pay for the new building there would be no support for regionalization.

3. Questions on the Assessment slides:

• What does it look like after the bonus aid is gone in 5 years?

• Why does Pelham get only $17,000 of the savings?

• Would there be operational savings?

• Would there be any additional costs to regionalizing?

• Would the assessment method be the same in future years? 4. School Committee composition and election

• Option 4 doesn’t seem like it would work.

• Option 3: Amherst doesn’t get enough representation.

• Has the RSDPB talked about the impact of School Choice on the change to a region? Amherst Breakout Session:

1. What would be the impact on new building applications? 2. If Amherst retains ownership of school buildings, does Amherst get the 6% bonus aid? 3. The timing of trying to bring regionalization to our communities at this time is wrong. The

community has been through a lot with the change in Town government and the new school proposal.

4. The state may be changing the foundation funding formula and we don’t know the impact of that.

5. One member said don’t do it at all. We have been down the regionalization road before. 6. Amherst would be subsidizing Pelham. 7. They took a straw vote. 10 people voted no to regionalizing. 1 vote for delay.

Marylou Theilman's Notes

Amherst Breakout Session: Amherst's major issue around regionalization is financial. While the Statement of Interest (SOI) is the immediate concern, the overall financial picture and needs facing the Town are challenging and also a serious concern. Words like "uncertainty," "risks unknown," "risks greater than benefits" were some used to express reservations. After discussion, Griesemer gave the group 3 options from which to select, and basically meant the following: 1) pull the plug, do not go forward, 2) continue working and gathering more information, and 3) delay until there is more information from the MSBA in order not to "upset" the process. It was mentioned that the term of the RSDPB is for 3 years. Eleven Town officials voted: 10 voted for (1) to stop now and not go forward. No one voted for (2) to continue, and one voted to delay (3) until later. One SC member suggested looking at ways other than regionalizing that Amherst and Pelham could work together in a partnership, as both Towns have good working relationships. At the open meeting, it should be noted that Amherst Town Councilor Mandi Jo Hanneke, commented on the one person, one vote, stating that she has heard the concerns from


60

residents about the disparity in the number of representatives/votes Amherst has on the 7-12 Region compared to the other three Towns.

Jay Barry's Notes

Presentation:

• Organizational aspects seem to be understood

• Questions about timeline – seems to be rushed, not enough time (because there isn’t)

• Public forum in Amherst scheduled for same night as Town Council

• Pelham likely opposed to taking on capital debt for an Amherst school

• Reservations about weighted voting

• Would Amherst be under-represented

• Amherst should accommodate Pelham (concerns) if they want a region

• Clarify whether 7-12 agreement needs amendment Amherst Breakout Session:

• Would regionalization require re-filing the SOI?

• If we retain building ownership, would the incentive points be denied?

• Strong feelings that the MSBA process not be complicated by regionalization

• The options seem to be: not regionalizing, waiting to regionalize or moving ahead

• Debating all the particulars of regionalization in a short time frame not realistic

• And not a good idea

• The MSBA project and the first year of the Town Council and elections are already priorities – don’t need another priority

• Small Towns like ownership of their schools

• The process of informing and voting on regionalization is stressful

• The Town does not have the political or psychological capacity to sort this issue out at the present time

• Keeping small schools open might be a liability

• Why make all these changes? Are there compelling reasons?

• The timeline is a problem

• Need a longer timeline

• Would Amherst be subsidizing Pelham?

• Could we explore an inter-municipal agreement? For Enrollment purposes?

• Could we use the School Union to explore inter-municipal agreements and sharing?

• MSBA project done by a region – can towns own the schools? Regroup After Breakout Sessions:

Pelham suggests staying with the timeline, perhaps writing a “draft regional agreement” without making a decision. Or if the RSDPB needs more time – push it out a year or delay

Amherst suggests not moving forward with regionalization because:

• MSBA complications


61

• State Aid revisions

• First Town elections

• Time frame too rushed Recommend looking for new ways to be cost effective and share services with Pelham

62

Appendix F: Public Forums Report by The Logue Group

Amherst-Pelham Regional School District

Planning Board

Summary of Pre-K – 6 Regionalization Public Forums

May 14, 2019

Prepared by

The Logue Group William DeVane Logue and Loraine M. Della Porta


63


64


65


66


67


68


69


70

PublicForums–April22&25,2019 PageAmherst-PelhamRegionalSchoolDistrictPlanningBoard

8

• We’llneverknowhowmuchisbeingspentonthePelhamschoolagain–nowwegetadetailed,lineitembudget–thatwillneverhappenagain.We’lljustgetanassessment.

• DothepeopleofAmherstknowwhat’sbeingspentateachschool?• Whowouldpayforexpansion?• Howwouldassetsandliabilitiesbeallocated?

Governance

• Wewouldlosecontrolofourbuildingsandnevergetitback.Academic

• Couldbesomeeducationalbenefit-easierplacementforPelhamstudentsintospecialedprograms.Theyarecurrentlyinoutofdistrictplacements–thisopensupmoreoptionsforkids.

• LookingattheoverallstudentpopulationinPelham–Ifindthetrendinteresting–moreschoolchoiceout.Kidsarechoosingnottostayhereandgotocharterschools.Peopleareleavingandgoingtootherschools–especiallyforspecialneedsstudents.TheduallanguageprogramthatAmherstisstartingisattractive.Wecandothingsregionallythatwecan’tdohere.Weneedtolookateducationforkidsofthewholetown…notjustone.Peoplemoveawayordon’tmoveherebecausetheirkidscan’tgetwiththeyneed.

• Whenyouhavejustoneclassforeachgrade–ifakidhasanissuewithanotherkidorateacher–youcan’tmovethem.Socializationcanbeanissueforsomechildren.Youarelimitedinasmallschool.Inaregionyouhavemoreoptions.

• Wouldtherebemorethanoneclasspergrade?2.AsthePlanningBoardcontinuesitsworktodecidewhetherornottorecommendregionalization,whatdoyouthinkitshouldbesuretoconsider?

• AboardmembercommentedthatUMasshasalong-rangeplantoadd10,000studentsby2027.Theywouldneedtohireatleastsomefaculty.Theywillprobablybeyoungfaculty(paythemless)andtheyarelikelytohavechildrensoatleastsomepopulationgrowth.WhatelsecanwedotoincreasepopulationinPelham?

• Pleaseconsiderdiversityandsocialization.• Theproblemisthatthestatejustdoesnothaveanymoney.Wemayendup

worseoff.• ThestrengthandweaknessofPelhamisthatitisasmallschool.

3.Whatadditionalinformationwouldbehelpfulforyoutohave?

• Abetterdelineationoftheeducationalbenefits–itiskindof“sketchy”asithasbeenpresented.

• IwouldliketohearfromthePlanningBoard–aftermonthsoflookingintothis–arethereareasthatwarrantmorestudy?Doyouthinktherearesomegaps?

• AplanningBoardmemberasked:


71

72

Appendix G: Update Regional Financial Models and Calculation of Cost Savings by The

Abrahams Group

Appendix G: Update Regional Financial Models and Calculation of Cost Savings by The Abrahams Group

73


74


75


76


77


78


79


80

7

3. Enrollment changes have little impact on Amherst due to the large number of students.

4. Enrollment changes have a larger impact on Pelham due to the small number of students.

The alternative approach was selected in lieu of an objective statistically based method. The latter did

not produce an assessment methodology that would provide a savings to both towns that would be

replicated year-to-year likely due to the size and economic disparity between the two towns.

Based on the above, for the methods that we analyzed, we believe the alternative assessment

methodology updating the base assessment by the foundation enrollment shares method should be

considered by the RSDPB as the assessment methodology going forward. This is termed the “Assessment

by Agreement” methodologies where the two towns agree to a base assessment and a method to adjust

the base assessment going forward.

In conclusion, the Alternative Assessment methodology would produce savings to both towns as

described above and summarized in Appendix 7, beginning with a base assessment or savings adjusted by

enrollment shares.


81


82


83


84


85


86


87

88

Appendix H: Budget Approval Process in a Two-Town Region Flowchart

Appendix I: Process for Approving Proposed Regional School District Budget

Prepared by Jay Barry, MARS

Process for approving proposed regional school district budgets

The regional school committee develops a proposed budget, consistent with Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE) guidelines and after a public hearing, by a two-thirds majority vote, adopts this proposed budget and notifies municipal officials in the member towns by April 30.

The proposed budget is placed before the appropriating authorities of both member towns.

Approval of the budget requires majority vote from appropriating authorities of both member towns If an alternative assessment method is used, the appropriating authorities must approve the assessment method and the assessment itself (can be one or two votes). Approval of a budget based on the alternative assessment method shall also be reported to the Commissioner of the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE).

Approval by both member towns constitutes approval of the regional school district budget.

Process for reconsideration of rejected budgets

Thirty days after disapproval (this time frame can be extended), the school committee sends a revised budget to the member towns and the member towns vote on this revised budget within 45 days. Approval by both member towns constitutes approval of the regional school district budget.

If budget is not approved, a two-town regional district shall convene a two-town district wide meeting and present a budget based on the statutory method. A majority vote constitutes approval of the budget. If the budget is not approved at a district wide meeting, the school committee may use the alternative assessment method and continue to revise the budget proposal and request approval from member towns guided by 603 CMR 41.05. A two-member regional district comprised of one town and one city should consult with DESE and legal counsel about planning a district wide meeting, where registered voters would vote on the revised budget proposal. This process is rarely utilized.

Note: If a new elementary regional district adopts an alternative assessment method, the budget approval

process would be very similar.

Amherst and Pelham Regional School District Planning Board ...

Documents

Transcript of Amherst and Pelham Regional School District Planning Board ...