School Committee members and the Wayland Public Schools administrative team met with HMFH Architects at the committee’s Feb. 25 meeting to review the culmination of the Wayland PS PK-8 Facilities Planning report that was initiated last June.
The report outlines an array of possibilities for future school building configurations, renovations, and student distribution see the report slide deck at tinyurl.com/WPS-facilities.
Chair Erin Gibbons emphasized that no decisions would be made about these options during the meeting and doubted that any would be forthcoming in the near future. This information was disseminated to the community from the High School on March 4.
The report was first previewed by members of the Advisory Group (Select Board member Bill Whitney, School Committee member Kate Sambuco, Betsy Gavron and others from the Central Office, community members and parents) on Feb. 23.
The proposed plan is based on HMFH’s study of each site and considers factors such as size, adjacent wetlands, and current building conditions along with the 10-year projected student population. Site inspections determined that the elementary schools and the middle schools would all require renovations or new structures, but that the elementary schools had the most need.
“When we think about when our facilities were built, in the 1950s and the 1960s, special ed did not exist, EL[L [English Language Learners] did not exist… the concept of small group instruction in education was very different,” said Superintendent David Fleishman when explaining a need for future changes.
The four central Pre-K to grade 8 options, which have been highlighted in the vision meetings, include:
Option A: the current set up of five schools that include one Pre-K building, three elementary school buildings, and one middle school building.
Option B: four schools, with the preschool incorporated into one of the three elementary schools buildings.
Option C: three separate school buildings: a Pre-K-5 school, a grade 1–5 school, and a middle school.
Option D: very similar to Option C and would also include three buildings: a middle school and two elementary schools, but the elementary schools would be divided differently into two schools: a Pre-K–2 school, and a grade 3–5 school.
When considering the option of building a new school on a current school site, Claypit Hill emerged as the only place with enough space to hold both the new and old buildings. Two alternate properties – Holiday Road and Alpine Field — were also considered for future use. Both are town-owned properties in the care and custody of the school committee. Holiday Road was deemed to be a more practical option as Alpine Field is farther north.
Before the team dug deep into the data, school committee Kate Rodrigo posed a question about another option.
“Is it possible to have a two schools, a Pre-K–2, and a 3–5, all on the same campus?” she asked. “Is it possible to have a bigger campus with these together but separate [buildings]?”
Discussion entailed about neighborhood schools and having separate elementary schools in the north and south of town.
The proposed options include major assumptions that: all Pre-K 8 projects will proceed with the MSBA (Massachusetts School Building Authority) partial reimbursement program and. The projects will proceed sequentially in a multi-year process with one year gaps. The MSBA typically will not accept a second school project from a district while another is still active in the pipeline.
In the meeting, it was determined that working with the MSBA may be slower but that without their partnering there would be less funding available. Further, due to space limitations, elementary schools would sport two-floor buildings while the middle school model shows three floors.
All pricing projections are based on dollars per square foot and every project with a 4% increase per year, and would be subject to feasibility testing. The MSBA has reimbursed the district $22.4 million for the Wayland High School project that opened in 2012.
A Statement of Intent (SOI) to the MSBA would jumpstart the future projects after the first building was started. For the first project, acceptance into the MSBA would have to occur in 2027, with an application by April 2027.
HMFH President and Principal Lori Cowles praised the group for their extensive ongoing work in their vision work committees and said that it will be a boon when it comes to partnering with the MSBA. She couldn’t commit to which project would most likely be accepted by the agency.
“Yes, it’s about being efficient with cost and everything and being judicious with the state’s money, but they also don’t want you knocking on their door for the next 30 years,” Cowles said. ”Having done this work will put you on stronger footing with them.”
Testing would include civil engineering testing, geographical and soil testing, and conversations and negotiations with the Conservation Committee. For the middle school, a waste water treatment plan will have to be completed.
The unanimous thought was that there would be both pros and cons to all of the options outlined. The team also considered the feedback of the Advisory Committee which felt that double moves should be avoided, equity must be considered and that there would probably be more support for the $490 million price tag as opposed to a cost of $517 million.
Members also felt that these options should be aligned closely to the educational values proposed by the vision teams. While they felt that they had thoroughly analyzed the information from the presentation, they said it would be more helpful to align the educational needs into the presentation when presenting it to the public on March 4.
Based on current building conditions, the need for additional teaching spaces, and restrictions on available land due to wetlands and hills, future changes will be inescapable.
After reviewing the plan, the committee closed out the meeting by voting to support a motion to go forward with phase three of the high school athletic complex in the FY 2027 capital budget plan.
