Presented to MSAD #55 School Board of Directors

February 12, 2011

Presented in a Public Meeting

February 16, 2011

Sacopee Valley Middle School Cafeteria

South Hiram, Maine

2

GOALS To review future funding.

To review district operating costs. To evaluate district facilities and transportation.

To review district curriculum. To present a roadmap to be reviewed by the entire Board.

To hold a public information meeting.

3

LONG RANGE REPORT

From the M.S.A.D. #55 Five-Year Plan Committee

TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION 1:

Mission Statement and Goals Introduction Background of the Five-Year Plan Committee Our Comprehensive Research, Resources and Consultations

SECTION 2: Findings: Student Population and Enrollment SECTION 3: Findings: District Curriculum Definition: RTI (Response to Intervention) SECTION 4: Findings: Technology SECTION 5: Findings: Professional Development Definition TIF Grant (Teachers Incentive Fund) SECTION 6: Findings: Special Education SECTION 7: Findings: District Facilities SECTION 8: Findings: Sacopee Valley High School

NEASC Accreditation Harriman Engineering Report SECTION 9: Findings: Transportation SECTION 10: Findings: Finance and Bonding SECTION 11: Exploring a Central Campus: Pros and Cons of a Central Campus SECTION 12: Recommendation SECTION 13: Closing An Elementary School

The Law: Closing and Disposition of Public Schools in the State of Maine Why Fred Morrill? Financial Implications of Closing Fred Morrill Fred Morrill Elementary Students’ Bus Routes if students went to Cornish We Are Listening (results from Spring 2010 website public comment) School Closing Procedure

SECTION 14: Moving Forward SECTION 15: The Possible Future of South Hiram Elementary School

Elementary School Space Needed for a Central Campus Timeline: School Closings

4

SECTION 16: The Possible Future of Sacopee Valley High School Possible Sacopee Valley High School Remedies Timeline: Sacopee Valley High School

SECTION 17: Traditional Construction vs. Permanent Off-Site Construction SECTION 18: Scenarios for Funding a Central Campus by Bond

5

Long Range Report From the

M.S.A.D. #55 Five-Year Plan Committee

SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION

The charge to the Five-Year Plan Committee by the SAD #55 School Board was to provide a roadmap to the future and we have done comprehensive research as we approached this task. We are also aware that what we have developed will not end in 2016. It is a stepping-stone into an unpredictable and fast changing future. We hope that we have prepared a plan that will insure that SAD #55 will be designed to provide the best education for our young learners balanced with the financial realities of available funding. To begin our research we looked at historical and projected student population. We are showing a decline over the next five years. However, both the District Planning Committee and the Policy One Research firm tell us that this decline is only a blip in a larger picture that shows our population to be fairly level in the long term. We should be planning to accommodate a total district population of up to 1300 students. SAD 55 is facing educational and economic concerns similar to other Maine districts with small neighborhood schools. Like them, the 5 Year Plan Committee is struggling with balancing what’s best for our students as we face declining state funding. It is our conclusion that moving toward a central campus is both educationally and economically the best direction for our district. Some of the findings of the District Planning Committee focused on the possible discomfort experienced by some students and their families when moving from smaller schools to larger schools. The five-year plan would include focusing on lower student/teacher ratios. Progressing from one school to the school next door on the same campus surrounded by familiar classmates will be less intimidating than transferring from an outlying school to join strangers in a new setting. Technology is the future. The way education is delivered, the operation of our district’s physical plants, the technology rich environment our students experience throughout their daily lives and what will be required for employment beyond high school are examples of what the future dictates. A central campus would enhance the implementation of a more effective technology program. All of this and much more has been evaluated and included in our findings as we focus on optimal educational opportunities for our students. SAD #55 will be channeling limited resources in the most effective and efficient ways possible. And today we bring you our long range plan from the M.S.A.D. #55 Five-Year Plan Committee. Our research, our conclusions and our recommendations will be outlined for you in a Power Point presentation. The Power Point will give an overview of the work we have done. A comprehensive document supporting the Power Point will also be made available to you.

6

BACKGROUND OF THE FIVE-YEAR PLAN COMMITTEE Hiram Elementary School closed July 1, 2008 Because of declining student enrollment and to better educate the students of SAD #55, the Hiram Elementary School was closed because of “Lack of Need”, a term the Department of Education uses to define why a school is being closed.

Construction & Transportation Committee Report “Regarding Closure of An Elementary School” (March 4, 2009) The Construction & Transportation Committee was asked to review all aspects of school closings, including savings to the district, maintenance issues, age of buildings and short and long-term capital improvements. On March 4th, 2009 the recommendation was made to close Baldwin Consolidated School on July 1, 2009. The school board never acted on this recommendation. District Planning Committee Report (January 5, 2010) The stated goal of the District Planning Committee was “to provide the best education for our children balanced with the financial realities of funding available both at the state and local level, now and in the future. The District Planning Committee… [will] review educational programs and operating costs… [and] develop a long-term plan and a projected cost analysis for the next five years based on findings and conclusions impacting all grade levels K-12.” The DPC divided its charge into five big block items, and presented its report to the School Board on January 5, 2010.

1. Population and Enrollment The conclusion was that a flat overall enrollment trend will continue.

2. Transportation. Several options were presented including an overview of the Ledgemere contract; two-tier operation possibilities; Buy/Lease vs. Contract; potential savings of diesel fuel; re-routing; rider-ship percentages; Cost per pupil-mile and related services such as specialized transportation provided by Two Rivers Transportation

3. Student Impact of Consolidation The conclusion was that a majority of students, parents and teachers surveyed agree that smaller class sizes are important.

4. Funding The report stated that school budget revenue sources are derived from taxation and alternate funding such as Federal and State programs and grants. The conclusion was that state funding may continue to decrease in the future and, without finding other funding sources or cutting the school budget, property taxes will increase.

5. Physical Plant Evaluation. Sacopee Valley High School

The DPC examined the Harriman Engineering study and Major Capital Improvement application for Sacopee Valley High School submitted to the DOE for the 2010-11 rating cycle.

7

Operating costs of each school The DPC summarized costs of repairs and improvements, and considered costs and savings of school closings.

Recommendation to Close Fred Morrill Elementary On April 28, 2010, after numerous public meetings, the School Board took a vote to close Fred Morrill Elementary School effective July 1, 2010. The motion failed by an 11-4 vote. One of the criticisms by the public was that there was no Five-Year Plan in place. The Five-Year Plan Committee The Five-Year Plan Committee, made up of School Board members, began meeting in September 2010.

OUR COMPREHENSIVE RESEARCH, RESOURCES AND CONSULTATIONS

OUR COMPREHENSIVE RESEARCH

Student Population District Curriculum

Technology Professional Development

Special Education District Facilities Transportation

Finance and Bonding Construction

RESOURCES District Planning Commission Report (January 5, 2010) Construction & Transportation Committee Report “Regarding Closure of An Elementary School” (March 4, 2009) Harriman Engineering Study of Sacopee Valley High School (Sept. 1, 2009) Policy One Population Study (July 7, 2010) Planning Decisions, Inc. Population Study (December 1999) VFA Facilities Analysis (June 2006/updated 2010) Major Capital Improvement application for Sacopee Valley High School (June 2010) Marx, G (2006) “Sixteen Trends: their profound impact on our future: Implications for students, education, communities and the whole of society.” Alexandria, VA: Educational Research Service.

8

Stevenson, Kenneth R. (2010) “Educational Trends Shaping School Planning, Design, Construction, Funding and Operation.” Susan Gendron, former Maine Commissioner of Education re: population. Maine State Law re: procedure for closing a school. Notes from Public Meetings held in Spring 2010 re: school closures. Public responses logged on the SAD #55 website – Spring 2010 CONSULTATIONS Curriculum Committee/Curriculum Coordinator Construction, Transportation & Safety Committee/Facilities Director Finance Committee/Business Manager Ledgemere Transportation Technology Coordinator Special Education Director Harriman Associates Schiavi/Vanguard

9

LONG RANGE REPORT From the M.S.A.D. #55 Five-Year Plan Committee

SECTION 2

FINDINGS: STUDENT POPULATION AND ENROLLMENT Nationally, trend analysts such as G. Marx (1) and Kenneth Stevenson (2), say that the number of youth in the United States is going to increase dramatically. This may be true, but we are not seeing it here. According to the former Maine Commissioner of Education, Sue Gendron, the State of Maine lost 2,000 students per year during her six-year term. In April 2009, the Construction and Transportation Subcommittee presented a document entitled “Regarding Closure of an Elementary School”. Included in their report were population projections based upon the number of births in the district. The report predicted that between FY2009 and FY2014 the district would decline by 124 students or 10%. In January 2010, the District Planning Commission analyzed historical enrollment data taking into consideration local births, immigration into the district, economic opportunity, parochial/private schools, and home schooling options. The DPC predicted flat overall enrollment trends to continue. Furthermore, they identified that the 10-year projections of the Planning Decisions Inc. report of December 1999 were accurate to within 5% substantiating the same long-term population trend. In order to apply to the State for renovation and upgrades or replacement of Sacopee Valley High School, the district hired Policy One Research, Inc. to provide a population study required for submission with the application. In July 2010 Policy One predicted that, based on existing enrollments and projected entering class sizes, as well as projected grade-to-grade migration experienced over the past ten years, total enrollments will decline slightly then level off between 1,204 and 1,241 through FY2020. Therefore, based upon these studies, we should be planning for a district population of 1,300 students in order to accommodate blips in population that will happen. In addition, planning should allow for the bulk of the population shifting back and forth between elementary (K-4) grades, to middle school grades (5-8), to high school grades (9-12). (1) Marx, G (2006) Sixteen Trends: their profound impact on our future: Implications for students, education, communities and the whole of society. Alexandria, VA: Educational Research Service. (2) Stevenson, Kenneth R. (2010) Educational Trends Shaping School Planning, Design, Construction, Funding and Operation http://www.edfacilities.org/pubs/educationaltrends.pdf

10

FIFTEEN-YEAR POPULATION HISTORY

FY1997

1996-1997

FY1998

1997-1998

FY1999

1998-1999

FY2000

1999-2000

FY2001

2000-2001

FY2002

2001-2002

K 81 97 78 83 101 83 1 92 89 117 78 96 104 2 101 93 95 113 85 87 3 92 93 89 100 114 94 4 115 86 95 93 101 112 5 105 105 88 102 94 102 6 94 109 118 101 104 93 7 108 103 106 120 96 113 8 96 105 101 120 118 98 9 110 92 126 121 122 121

10 102 95 88 94 94 92 11 94 85 84 79 88 81 12 66 80 89 90 72 81

DISTRICT 1256 1232 1274 1294 1285 1261

FY2003

2002-2003

FY2004

2003-2004

FY2005

2004-2005

FY2006

2005-2006

FY2007

2006-2007

FY2008

2007-2008

K 84 88 87 105 86 90 1 97 94 103 93 96 81 2 101 96 88 110 88 97 3 89 101 98 102 111 92 4 93 93 99 106 106 105 5 111 93 103 107 104 102 6 105 114 110 114 107 108 7 90 113 101 116 128 109 8 108 98 119 99 110 127 9 100 124 108 136 107 112

10 101 94 90 105 118 103 11 80 92 106 95 101 112 12 80 86 74 105 76 100

DISTRICT 1239 1286 1286 1393 1338 1338

FY2009

2008-2009

FY2010

2009-2010

FY2011

2010-2011

K 73 86 74 1 82 73 89 2 79 81 77 3 86 86 81 4 87 92 87 5 97 90 93 6 99 90 85 7 102 104 96

11

8 98 101 105 9 112 101 99

10 105 107 101 11 96 97 104 12 89 90 95

DISTRICT 1205 1198 1186

At 12/2010

FIVE-YEAR POPULATION PROJECTION USING BIRTH STATISTICS

*Parsonsfield: Year goes from July 1 to June 30. BIRTHS 2005

Births 2006 Births

2007 Births

2008 Births

2009 Births

2010 Births

74 89 87 59 65 65 estimate

Baldwin 17 17 17 14 12 Cornish 15 18 14 8 14 Hiram 13 17 16 5 14

Parsonsfield* 15 16 23 17 15 Porter 14 21 17 15 10

FY2011 FY2012 FY2013 FY2014 FY2015 FY2016

2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16

9/1/2010 K 71 89 87 59 65 65 1 83 71 89 87 59 65 2 73 83 71 89 87 59 3 79 73 83 71 89 87 4 87 79 73 83 71 89

Elementary 393 395 403 389 371 365

5 93 87 79 73 83 71 6 91 93 87 79 73 83 7 96 91 93 87 79 73 8 106 96 91 93 87 79

Middle 386 367 350 332 322 306

9 105 106 96 91 93 87 10 101 105 106 96 91 93 11 105 101 105 106 96 91 12 95 105 101 105 106 96

High School 406 417 408 398 386 367

Out of District

2 2 2 2 2 2

DISTRICT 1185 1179 1161 1119 1079 1038

12

CONSTRUCTION AND TRANSPORTATION SUBCOMMITTEE SUMMARY OF “REGARDING CLOSURE OF AN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL”

Presented April 1, 2009

SAD #55 Projected Population Difference In District Population Between Current Year and Projected Years.

Actual 2008-09

2009-10

2010-11

2011-12

2012-13

2013-14

K 72 82 74 89 87 59 1 84 72 82 74 89 87 2 79 84 72 82 74 89 3 87 79 84 72 82 74 4 88 87 79 84 72 82 5 97 88 87 79 84 72 6 101 97 88 87 79 84 7 103 101 97 88 87 79 8 100 103 101 97 88 87 9 116 100 103 101 97 88 10 107 116 100 103 101 97 11 102 107 116 100 103 101 12 90 102 107 116 100 103 District 1226 1218 1190 1172 1143 1102 Difference -8 -36 -54 -83 -124

DISTRICT PLANNING COMMITTEE

SUMMARY OF POPULATION/ENROLLMENT STUDY Presented January 5, 2010

Dawn Coolbroth, Chrys Demos, Beth Wadsworth

GOALS OF THE POPULATION STUDY: Focus on student populations per current districting program (K-4, 5-8, 9-

12) Primary data sources Consistency in count periods Clear and objective trend identification

WHAT THE DATA SHOWS

Grades K-4 enrollment decreases by approximately 12% from 1984 through 2010.

Grades 5-8 enrollment increases by approximately 12% through the same period.

Grades 9-12 increase slightly. Total enrollment (K-12) holds steady from early 1970’s through present. Data spans three economic recessions.

13

HOW THE DATA WAS AGGREGATED

Data was selected from the most consistent reporting time of year: Spring (April to May) of every year from 1971 to 2009.

Data from the Maine Department of Education and town reports from the MSAD 55 district administrative office was merged to extend scope of study.

Grade level divisions in plots were established in order to clearly represent what current model of districting would have shown if applied to district history.

CONCLUSIONS:

Enrollment is affected by local births, immigration into the district, economic opportunity, parochial/private schools, and home schooling options.

From the Planning Decisions Inc. report (Dec. 1999) their 10-year projections were accurate to within 5%.

Reported data (similar to Planning Decisions Inc.) predict flat overall enrollment trends to continue.

POLICY ONE RESEARCH, INC.

SUMMARY OF SCHOOL ENROLLMENT TRENDS & PROJECTIONS THROUGH 2019-20

Presented July 7, 2010 Jim Damicis

In order to file our application for the Sacopee Valley High School construction or renovation project, the School Board approved the expenditure of funds for an enrollment study, which was required by the State of Maine Department of Education. Only specific vendors could be used to complete the study and Policy One Research, Inc. was chosen because they were able to complete the study by the June 2010 application deadline. When the district made application for construction of Sacopee Valley Middle School in December 1999, a similar required study done by Planning Decisions, Inc. was attached. The research resulted in construction of a middle school built for 500 students. Policy One used a cohort survival model based on recent trends in resident birth levels, enrollments, and net migration to project enrollment for SAD 55 through 2019-20. The enrollment projections reflect trends in resident births as well as net preschool and grade-to-grade migration. They examined residential development trends in member communities and how changes in these factors may impact future enrollments. They allowed that the recent significant economic recession likely has had an impact on migration and birth levels. In making enrollment projections, Policy One first examined the relationship between first grade enrollment and resident births in the year six years prior to that entry date. They then analyzed grade-to-grade ingratiation to project future enrollments at each grade level for the next ten years. The report presented enrollment trends and projections on a district-wide basis for grade groupings K-4, 5-8 and 9-12.

14

They included an addendum that further broke out the K-4 projections by individual schools within the district with the caveat that individual school enrollment projections would be statistically less reliable than the district-wide projections. First Grade Enrollment and Elementary Grades (K-4) Over the last ten years there have been year-to-year fluctuations, but first grade enrollments have generally declined in SAD 55, ranging from a high of 104 students in FY2001 to a low of 73 students in FY2008.Examining the correlation between births and first grade enrollments for the most recent seven-year period Policy One predicted that the district would see overall elementary school levels increasing through FY2014 then declining to a level that remains relatively stable through FY2020. Middle School (Grades 5-8) Policy One predicted that, as a result of the advancement of the smaller elementary grade sizes into the middle school, middle school enrollment would decline to levels between 361 and 421 students through FY2020. High School (Grades 9-12) Driven by smaller class sizes at the elementary and middle school levels passing through the system, Policy One predicts that high school enrollments will continue to decrease reaching a low of 364 students through FY2020. District Wide Policy One predicts that based on existing enrollments and projected entering class sizes, as well as projected grade-to-grade migration levels as experienced over the past ten years, total enrollments will decline slightly then level off between 1,204 and 1,241 through FY2020.

K-4 Projections By School over Ten Years Year Baldwin Cornish Fred Morrill South Hiram 2010-2011 87 71 49 Low 218 2011-2012 90 73 51 226 2012-2013 95 High 78 High 54 High 240 High 2013-2014 95 High 77 54 High 239 2014-2015 92 75 53 232 2015-2016 92 75 52 232 2016-2017 91 74 52 228 2017-2018 86 Low 70 Low 49 Low 217 Low 2018-2019 90 73 51 225 2019-2020 92 75 52 232

15

LONG RANGE REPORT From the M.S.A.D. #55 Five-Year Plan Committee

SECTION 3: FINDINGS: DISTRICT CURRICULUM

Response to Intervention (RTI) Response to Intervention (RTI) is now Maine state law. RTI provides targeted instruction – interventions - matched closely to student needs. These needs are determined by meaningful assessment measures that allow for specific, best practice instruction for students as soon as an issue is recognized. RTI is designed to keep those students out of special education who have ended up there not because they have learning or behavioral issues, but because they did not receive appropriate instruction. RTI is not an initiative or a program; it is a systemic reform focused on individual student needs. The unit of reform is the school building level. Every school district is required to define and implement a K-12 system of interventions, and every classroom teacher is responsible to see that RTI is carried out. An RTI plan will look significantly different from building to building because it is based on the particular students, their needs, and the professionals in that building. ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS (Grades K-4) AIMSweb is an assessment and data management system for RTI in K-4 and this year in grade 6. It is a benchmark and progress monitoring system based on direct, frequent and continuous student assessment. The results are reported to students, parents, teachers and administrators via a web-based data management and reporting system to determine response to intervention. All students are assessed three times a year via a benchmark assessment, while struggling students receive more frequent progress monitoring assessing. Math The Everyday Math curriculum includes six strands of knowledge: algebra; data and chance; geometry; measurement; numeration and order; patterns, functions and sequences; operations; and reference frames. Everyday Math emphasizes the application of mathematics to real world situations. Lessons include time for whole-group instruction as well as small group, partner, or individual activities. These activities balance teacher-directed instruction with opportunities for open-ended, hands-on explorations, long-term projects and on-going practice. There is an emphasis on communication and opportunities to verbalize thoughts and strategies to give children the chance to clarify their thinking and gain insights from others. In addition the curriculum includes appropriate use of technology. Everyday Math progress is formally assessed 2 times a year, but teachers also use data from the unit tests to drive individualized instruction. Spelling Words Their Way is a program of developmental spelling, phonics, and vocabulary that is formally assessed 3 times per year. This program helps identify students’ individual learning targets. Students are provided core small group instruction to best meet their needs.

16

SAD #55 is moving away from a district-designed program called Targeted Words to the Dolch or Fry Word List. The Dolch Word List is a list of 220 words compiled by Edward William Dolch that contains commonly used words that should be recognized by "sight" for fast or "fluent" reading. Spelling skills are assessed 3 times per year. Developmental Reading Assessment (DRA2) is given to chart students' development as readers over time. Students are tested in accuracy, fluency, and comprehension. The assessments are conducted during in one-on-one reading conferences administered 2 times per year. Writing Writing prompt assessments present a statement about a particular topic. This is used to challenge the students thinking power and stimulate creative writing. Assessments are administered 2 times per year. In addition to the core subjects of Math and English/Language Arts, assessments are done in social studies, science, music and art. Physical education uses the Presidential Fitness Awards at the end of the year as well as other assessments. SACOPEE VALLEY MIDDLE SCHOOL (Grades 5-8) AIMSweb is the benchmarking tool for RTI and will be piloted by the SAD #55 6th grade this year, in FY2011. NECAP (New England Common Assessment Program) assesses reading, writing, and mathematics and are used are used for federal accountability reporting required under the “No Child Left Behind Act”. NECAP tests content standards known as Grade Level Expectations. The results of NECAP testing are not immediately known and may lag significantly. NECAP is administered in October with results typically being released at the end of January. NWEA (Northwest Evaluation Association) provides a benchmarking tool that gives immediate results. It is administered 3 times per year (3 hours given in 1 hour increments over 3 days). It measures students’ advancement towards growth targets in three areas: Mathematics, Reading and Language Usage. Connected Math is a comprehensive, problem-centered curriculum designed for all students in grades 6-8. The program blends seamlessly with Everyday Math. During Middle School “Maine Studies”, a state requirement for graduation, is fulfilled. SACOPEE VALLEY HIGH SCHOOL (Grades 9-12) Sacopee Valley High School operates on an eight period schedule. Students must be enrolled in a minimum of 7 courses at all times. Full year courses earn 1 credit. Semester (1/2 year) courses earn ½ credit.

17

Promotion Requirements FROM TO REQUIRED CREDITS Freshman Sophomore 5 credits Sophomore Junior 11 credits Junior Senior 16 Credits Graduation 23 credits including all required courses. Credit Requirements for Diploma English 4 credits Math 4 credits Required: Algebra I, Geometry, and Algebra II Science 4 credits Social Studies 4 credits Required: US History, Citizenship, World History, and Senior Seminar Wellness 1-1/2 credits Fine Arts 1 credit Computer ½ credit Electives 4 credits Sacopee Valley High School requirements for a diploma exceed what the State of Maine requires. State of Maine Credit Requirements for Diploma English 4 years Math 2 years Science 2 years, one being a lab study Social Studies 2 years, one being American History & Government Wellness Health, safety and physical education Fine Arts 1 year of art, music, forensics or drama Computer A proficiency in computer skills Assessments at the high school level include report cards generated by individual teachers. Grades 9-10 use the NWEA assessment tool for benchmarking and it is administered 3 times per year (3 hours given in 1 hour increments over 3 days). The NWEA results are immediate. In addition, Grade 11 uses national PSATs and SATs (Scholastic Aptitude Tests), which are standardized tests for college admissions.

DISTRICT CURRICULUM AREAS OF FOCUS

Does the Kindergarten’s “Letter People” (letter of the week) still meet our needs? This would have to be carefully analyzed if we were able to provide a preschool program.

Everyday Math is in its third year of implementation. Students above second grade have not had the benefits of this being their only mathematics curriculum and teachers may find that there are areas that need to be covered in more depth. Administrators will support and supervise teachers to insure that the program is completed each year with fidelity.

Middle School math assessments are 40% are below standard. This is a priority to be targeted this year.

High School measurement tools are inadequate.

18

PROBLEM SOLVING

NWEA assessments cost the district $13 per student annually for grades 5-10. It might be informative to offer in lower grades as well, though we would want to carefully consider the advantages and disadvantages.

Thoughtful and careful use of consultants. Conferences attended by teachers have to relate to the curriculum the

district is doing. Suzanne Day, the District Curriculum Coordinator, shares duties as the

South Hiram Elementary School Principal. The position of Curriculum Coordinator should be a dedicated assignment.

FIVE-YEAR PLAN CURRICULUM GOAL Within five years 80% of all K-12 students should have their needs met within the Core Classroom Curriculum and be prepared and meeting standards. The remaining 20% will be getting there with support. Measurement will be done using a standardized assessment tool that gives immediate feedback, and RTI will be fully implemented. HOW WILL SCHOOL CLOSINGS AND A CENTRAL CAMPUS SUPPORT THE DISTRICT CURRICULUM?

Multi-grade classrooms present academic challenges (especially EveryDay Mathematics) for both students and teachers.

The use of technology in the classrooms is an essential part of the education process.

Teachers and students have limited access to district resources because staff is shared between all K-4 schools (Library, Guidance, Nurse)

Scheduling of specialists’ time cannot be optimized because specialists teach in all K-4 schools (Art, Physical Education, Music).

Varied special education needs in each building make it difficult to optimize staffing.

RTI (Response To Intervention) plan varies from building to building depending on staffing availability and expertise.

Specialists traveling between schools are loosing instructional time.

19

LONG RANGE REPORT From the M.S.A.D. #55 Five-Year Plan Committee

SECTION 4

FINDINGS: TECHNOLOGY The Technology Team plans and assesses the implementation and impact of computers and related technology on the learning of our children. They refine technology benchmarks and provide help to staff as they integrate technology into the district curriculum. The team works with the Adult Education Program to design computer offerings that meet the needs of the community. In addition, the Technology Team develops grant proposals to supplement funds available in the district. The vision statement of the technology team is that all MSAD #55 students will be competent in a technology rich environment. They will be able to choose the appropriate technology tool when completing a project, and continually refine their technology skills. Not only will students become more competent users of technology as they complete their lessons, but the technology resources will enrich their learning experience. In addition to computers, the technology umbrella also provides such hardware as computer printers, telephone systems, digital cameras (video and still), and LCD projectors. Each school has been internally wired for a network and provided with access to the Internet. The grade K-4 Baldwin Consolidated School, Cornish Elementary School, and Fred Morrill Elementary School have access to one laptop cart of approximately 25 ibook laptop computers. The K-4 South Hiram Elementary School has one computer lab made up of eMac computers and one cart of 24 macbook laptops. All Sacopee Valley Middle and High School students Grades 5 – 12 have one-to-one laptop access. Grades 5-6 have an ibook laptop that is stored in the classroom for their use during the school day. Grades 7-12 have an MLTI (Maine Leaning Technology Initiative) macbook computer that is allowed to be brought home for schoolwork. South Hiram Elementary, Sacopee Valley Middle School, and Sacopee Valley High School share data and access to the Internet over a shared Fiber Optic cable. We have Tandberg distance learning units in all the schools providing virtual field trips, meetings, and workshops originating at other capable locations. Virtual High School allows a designated number of students to take on-line courses not offered at the high school. The SVHS TV2 digital video program allows for high school class offerings in video production and TV production. TV2 broadcasts school music, sports and other significant events, as well as

20

School Board and Town meetings to share with students, parents, and community on local access channel 2 and the Internet. SVHS Journalism and Yearbook courses use online editing tools and local software on their laptops for publishing. SVHS AutoDesk courses utilize a 16-station Dell PC lab located in the shop area to teach students the basic of 2D and 3D design. Email used by students and teacher is provided through the Open Text First-Class communications system. Teachers also develop websites and share files, links, and images using the First Class system. All high school seniors are required to complete and present a planned, scripted, and edited multimedia project as a portion of their exit exhibition.

Curricular and Administrative Software

All MSAD #55 computer operating systems are standardized for ease of use and repair.

There are Internet subscriptions to various instructional support subscriptions.

All MSAD #55 school library catalogs are accessible through the Internet at home and school. State of Maine databases are linked through library access pages.

Teachers and administrators have access to the Infinite Campus student information system at school and at home.

Administrative services have web access to the state MEDEMS/Infinite Campus student information system.

An Internet subscription to Blackboard Connect is provided for administrative and emergency phone bank communication.

Networks:

• All rooms are wired with 2 or more cat5 or cat6 jacks and are connected through ethernet switches to servers and the Internet.

• All classrooms have 100% access to a wireless connection. • Fiber optic cabling connects South Hiram Elementary, Sacopee Valley

Middle School, and Sacopee Valley High School for fileserver access and Internet access.

• Twelve servers have been installed to manage network traffic, provide file storage, email, web, licensing, library and accounting services for staff, students, and the administrative offices.

MSAD 55 technology also makes the high school computer labs available to the community through Adult Education classes. The adult education students use word processors as they write, calculators and spreadsheets as they review their mathematics, and the Internet as they do research.

21

Present Technology Staff: Technology Support staff consists of a full time MDOE certified technology director, a fulltime MDOE certified educational technologist, and one fulltime/two school year Educational Computer Technician I (ECT I). The Technology Director position is designed to facilitate the planning and budget process for technology, locally administer the e-rate program, support and maintain the district networks, the district hardware and software, and plan district technology training and integration opportunities. The Educational Technologist provides high school laptop management and administration as well as teacher/classroom support as time allows. (Note: Presently teaches one video production class at high school) Educational Computer Technician I (ECTI) positions are responsible for classroom technology distribution, installation, configuration, and management as well as user assistance for instruction and learning. (Note: High school ECTI presently teaches one TV production class at high school) Single Campus Ramifications for Technology Equipment A single campus facilities layout would increase computer access, increase access to shared technology resources, and increase access to tech staff for students and staff in grades K-4. As all laptops and technology equipment is moved to one location the laptop carts shared in each separate building would all be available for all K-4 staff. All shared cameras, projectors, and scanners would also be pooled making resources more readily available. The ECTI would also be more available for classroom assistance and equipment repair as traveling would be eliminated between buildings. There would be little cost savings except for the elimination of travel reimbursement for the ECTI but the improvement in service would be significant as all K-4 technology resources were pooled. Staffing A single campus facilities layout would not create a savings in staffing. Presently all K-4 buildings share one staff member and do without service for the remainder of the school week. Please note that K-4 technology is not presently staffed for technology integration and professional development. The addition of a certified integrator is needed and but would provide much more service and be cheaper to in a single K-4 facility where no traveling was necessary.

22

LONG RANGE REPORT From the M.S.A.D. #55 Five-Year Plan Committee

SECTION 5

FINDINGS: PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

In order to become a teacher in Maine, one must earn a baccalaureate college degree, get a teacher education degree and become teacher certified. A newly hired teacher in MSAD #55 is given a probationary contract for two years. That contract is renewed each year if the teacher’s performance is satisfactory. After two successful years a teacher is placed on a continuing contract. Teacher Education Degree A teacher education degree provides content knowledge in the area of expertise, effective teaching tools and classroom management techniques. Teacher Certification Beginning teachers in all content areas must pass Praxis I Pre-Professional Skills Tests which tests in three areas: reading, writing and mathematics; an appropriate “Principles of Teaching and Learning” test; and Praxis 2 in their area of expertise. Maine Professional Development Model Maine has adopted a Professional Development Model to improve student achievement that includes:

The importance of data for driving school improvement; The alignment of assessment with curriculum and instruction; The provision of quality staff development with research-based content; The necessity of learning communities that work collaboratively; The study of implementation of planned change; The formative and summative evaluation of planned change for its impact

on student learning; and The guidance of strong leaders operating collectively and collaboratively

to govern the staff development/school improvement system. Highly Qualified Teacher (HQT) Designation “Highly Qualified” is a specific term defined by No Child Left Behind. The law outlines a list of minimum requirements related to content knowledge that a “Highly Qualified” (HQT) teacher would meet. A “Highly Qualified” Maine teacher is one who:

Holds a Bachelor’s degree, and Holds full state certification (Maine’s Provisional, Professional, or Master

level), and Is competent to teach the subject(s) taught as demonstrated by: Having a major in the content (24 semester hours), or

23

Having coursework equivalent to a major in the content (24 semester hours), or

Having an advanced degree in the content, or Being National Board certified in the content, or Having a passing score on a content test (PRAXIS II), or Achievement of the Maine HOUSSE (High Objective Uniform State

Standard of Evaluation) standard, if eligible for its use.

National Board Certification The National Board Certification process takes a year to complete. It consists of ten parts. four portfolio, classroom-based entries (two of these are video supported and two are student work sample supported); and six 30-minute online assessments. This is an intense job-embedded professional development activity. To be eligible for this process you must be at least in your third year of teaching and be certified as a teacher. Teacher Incentive Fund Grant (TIF) Fifteen Maine schools will share a $27.1 million grant to pay their teachers to pursue an advanced credential and fund a teacher evaluation system based on students' performance. The grant-funded project offers teachers incentives to take classes that lead to an advanced teaching credential, and bonuses once they receive the credential. The five-year pilot project also offers bonuses to staff members who teach hard-to-staff subject areas, and to teachers who meet goals for improving academic performance. MSAD #55 has been accepted to participate in a Teacher Incentive Fund grant. The main focus of the grant is to increase the skillfulness of teacher, reward them for those skills up to $7,500 per year, and increase student achievement. FY2011 is a planning and awareness year. The grant extends for five years. Salary Schedule Maine follows a salary schedule for teachers that increase pay according to years of teaching as well as earning advanced college degrees or certifications. The Tri County Teachers Association in a Collective Bargaining Agreement with the School Board negotiates MSAD #55 salaries.

24

LONG RANGE REPORT From the M.S.A.D. #55 Five-Year Plan Committee

SECTION 6

FINDINGS: SPECIAL EDUCATION As of December 2010 SAD #55 has identified 14.5% of the total student population as qualified for special education services. This is a reduction from 18.5% since April 2008. During FY2011, the district’s identified special education population has remained between 170 -175 students. The categories in which they are identified are:

Autism Developmentally Delayed Emotional Disability Mental Retardation Multiple disabilities Other health Impairment Specific Learning Disability Speech/Language Impairment

SAD #55 has 17 special education teachers including one Wilson Reading teacher, one certified speech therapist and a special education certified alternative education teacher. There are 31 special education ed techs, 8 of whom are paid with non-district funds. Special education students are also supported by an occupational therapist, speech pathologist, speech assistant, social workers, a psychological service provider and consulting psychiatrist Special Education students receive services in several ways. Most of our special ed students spend 80% or more or their time in regular classrooms. Others are in Resource Room Placement and spend 40-79% of their time in regular classrooms. Eleven percent of special ed students are in Self Contained Placement spending less than 40% of their time in regular classrooms. We had one student in a Separate Day School but that student has since transferred to another district. Not all Special Education financial responsibilities are born by the district. Currently Medicaid is paying speech and occupational therapy services for 40 students. This number reflects less than a third of the students whom we anticipate will be able to receive behavioral day treatment services under Medicaid in the future. 14 students are State Agency Client (SACs) and state money comes to the district to fund tuition, related services and transportation costs. Other grants provide specific funds for defined services. Nationally, there are over 6 million children served by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) or 12% of all students. There has been a 35% percent increase in the past 10 years in identification. The number of learning disabled students has increased 300% since 1976. Half of all special education students are learning disabled. An estimated 80-90% have reading problems. IDEA funding has increased 227% since 1994.

25

Currently SAD #55 has identified 14.5% of the total student population with special needs. IMPACT OF A CENTRAL CAMPUS ON SPECIAL EDUCATION

Consistent delivery of services.

Better access to specialists (Case Managers, Speech/Language Therapists, Occupational Therapists, Social Workers, Behavior and Integration Specialists)

Better opportunities for collaboration and professional development for

staff.

Larger environments can intensify issues for students that have sensory needs.

Schedules in larger schools can be less flexible making it difficult to meet

the needs of a students requiring Social Skills Training.

26

LONG RANGE REPORT From the M.S.A.D. #55 Five-Year Plan Committee

SECTION 7

FINDINGS: DISTRICT FACILITIES DISTRICT TOTALS

Campuses: 4 Total Acreage: 108 acres Total Building Square Footage: 225,500 sf

BALDWIN CONSOLIDATED ELEMENTARY SCHOOL

OVERVIEW - BALDWIN Located at 536 Pequawket Trail (Route 5/113), West Baldwin. 8.8 miles from the SAD #55 administrative offices in South Hiram. Single story 8,370 SF wing built in 1954. 6,430 SF wing built in 1976. Total 14,800 SF Nine classrooms Multi-purpose room Kitchen Office Library Staff room. Designed to accommodate 115 students. Currently serves 85 students K-4. One teacher per grade Class sizes of 19, 20, 16, 16 and 14 (as of November 2010).

BACKGROUND - BALDWIN In 1954 the Town of Baldwin constructed a single story 8,370 SF building to house both the Baldwin Consolidated School and the Baldwin Town Offices. The Town Offices were located in space to the left of the front entry door. In 1966 the Town of Baldwin voted to become a part of School Administrative District No. 55. A deed dated October 10, 1974 conveyed to SAD 55 for the sum of $1 “buildings located on said premises together with all materials and equipment incidental to the use thereof…reserving to the grantor that portion of the building on said premises used by it for a town office with access to and from the same.” In 1976 SAD 55 added a new wing 1-story 6,430 SF wing to the Baldwin Consolidated School and the Baldwin Town Offices moved to space at east end

27

of the New Wing. Simultaneously 10,000 SF of lawn area was improved around the school site. In 1991 the Town of Baldwin decided to add a town office wing of 1,834 SF wing. In 1993 a Quitclaim Deed released the town office parcel to the Town of Baldwin. This parcel includes the footprint of the present town office, a parking area abutting the addition and the well that serves the entire complex. In 1996 the Baldwin Recreational program added a 62,500 SF baseball field with a chain link backstop, a chain link perimeter fence, 2 four-tier bleachers and a 75,000 SF practice field with a 3’ high chain link fence along south side of playfield. Baldwin maintains these playing fields, has added a snack shack and two concrete block dugouts to upgrade the property. In 2005 a formula was established based upon square footage so Baldwin could share electricity and heat expenses. Their office space and 330 SF of storage and bathroom space in the new wing is assessed at 13% of the total complex square footage. SAD 55 forwards a monthly bill after the utility bills have been received and the Town of Baldwin pays their share. In March 2009, the School Board Construction & Transportation Committee recommended closing Baldwin in the fall of 2009. The School Board did not support the recommendation at that time.

CONDITION OF SCHOOL - BALDWIN The condition of the building was determined by information from the Capital Improvement Committee; the SAD #55 Maintenance Department; the updated VFA Report originally prepared by Northeast Building Consultants in 2006 and updated by the Maintenance Department in 2010; as well as insurance reviews. Because of budget cuts in the past, many preventive maintenance projects across the district have been postponed repeatedly, causing deterioration in many of the district properties that should not have happened. Because of the age of the Baldwin Consolidated School, the effects of budget cuts are more dramatic and the remedies more costly. The district should budget for preventive maintenance, but must also take into consideration the following capital improvement projects for this property. Replace unit ventilators Asbestos removal (extensive) Water testing and maintenance on petroleum pollution filtration system. Installation, water testing and maintenance of arsenic filtration system. Window replacements Roof replacement Roof engineering study to determine snow load Replace all chimneys New central clock and bell Add fire sprinkler system New fire panel Generator hookup for the boiler and pump Replace all lights and switches

28

Additional electricity and technology infrastructure Remove old furnace, oil tank, boilers Replace water pressure tank Replace well water pump Replace sewage pumps Replace and upgrade domestic hot water heater As we move forward, the district should be sure that everything possible is done for health and safety concerns, energy efficiency, code compliance, and best practices for a stimulating learning environment within the Baldwin School as long as it is part of the SAD #55 district. BALDWIN PRINCIPAL’S STATEMENT OF USE OF SPACE: Shelley Lemieux, Teaching Principal The District Planning Committee asked each Elementary School Principal to respond to the following: “Please make a list of how many classrooms your building has (including portables) and what they're being used for. Also, your best estimate of how many more students you could comfortably fit in your school if necessary.” Classrooms: Kindergarten, First Grade, Second Grade, Third Grade, Fourth Grade (one of each) “I have a classroom that is currently being used for Art and Music instruction. “ “I also have a classroom that is being used as a special education resource room. (Both of these could be used for regular classrooms if needed.)” “Currently, the student population of Baldwin School is 89 students. If needed, the two classrooms mentioned above could accommodate an additional 50 students.” “At one time Baldwin School was K-7, and had a student population of 150.” “I have a classroom that has been converted to the library. If necessary, it could become a classroom again, but I would hate to see happen as the current set up has had a positive impact on library services and instruction.” CORNISH ELEMENTARY SCHOOL

OVERVIEW - CORNISH Located at 313 School Street, Cornish 3.1 miles from the SAD #55 administrative offices in South Hiram. Single story 11,216 SF school Built in 1976 Five classrooms Multi-purpose room (gym/cafeteria)

29

Kitchen Office Library Staff room 2 smaller rooms used for special services Portable (district owned) 1,568 SF portable Added in 2000. Two rooms (heat and electricity, no plumbing). Used as a music room and learning lab. Designed to accommodate 100 students. With the portable additional students can be accommodated. The school currently serves 58 students K-4. There are three multi-grade classrooms. (as of November 2010) K/1 class has 16 students 1/2 class has 17 students and the 3/4 class has 25 students.

CONDITION OF SCHOOL - CORNISH The condition of the building was determined by information from the Capital Improvement Committee; the SAD #55 Maintenance Department; the updated VFA Report originally prepared by Northeast Building Consultants in 2006 and updated by the Maintenance Department in 2010; as well as insurance reviews. Because of budget cuts in the past, many preventive maintenance projects across the district have been postponed repeatedly, causing deterioration in many of the district properties that should not have happened. The district should budget for preventive maintenance, but must also take into consideration the following capital improvement projects for this property. Roof is at the end of its useful life (old asphalt/rock type of roof) Roof engineering study for snow load Single Boiler will have to be replaced Unit ventilator with pneumatics should be replaced with direct digital controls. Asbestos removal Hot water heater replacement Replace grease trap Install fire sprinkler system Upgrade fire panel Replace lights and switches Add insulation Replace and upgrade windows As we move forward, the district should be sure that everything possible is done for health and safety concerns, energy efficiency, code compliance, and best practices for a stimulating learning environment within the Cornish Elementary School as long as it is part of the SAD #55 district.

30

PRINCIPAL’S STATEMENT OF USE OF SPACE: Rebecca Carpenter, Teaching Principal The District Planning Committee asked each Elementary School Principal to respond to the following: “Please make a list of how many classrooms your building has (including portables) and what they're being used for. Also, your best estimate of how many more students you could comfortably fit in your school if necessary.” “We certainly have room for first grade to return.” “We have the two portable classrooms, and five classrooms if we left the library where it is. We make use of all the space, but the art room could rejoin music in the portable and if first grade came back we wouldn't need that space for first grade math every day.” “Yes, we could easily revert our old first grade room, because we wouldn't need that room for the everyday first grade math classes anymore. Other than that, we keep all the other rooms busy most of the time. The library really needed to be bigger and that is working very well. The music room is the speech/language room and is often used for testing.” “We have testing, speech, Laurie Goforth, health, flu shots, tooth fairies, visits from DHS, SAT/504/IEP meetings, OT, volunteers, PTC projects, etc. We're, also, starting the process of adding Foster Grandfriends through PROP which will require space.” FRED MORRILL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL

OVERVIEW – FRED MORRILL Located at 634 North Road (Route 160), North Parsonsfield. 7.1 miles from the SAD #55 administrative offices in South Hiram. The single story 10,080 SF Built in 1986. Five classrooms Multi-purpose room (gym/cafeteria) Kitchen Office Library Staff room 3 smaller rooms used for special services. Designed to accommodate 80-100 students. Currently serves 43 students K-4. Two multi-grade classrooms and a single 4th grade. K/1 class has 14 students

31

2/3 class has 17 students 4th grade has 12 students (as of November 2010).

BACKGROUND Students in North Parsonsfield attended public school in the former Parsonsfield Seminary buildings (locally known as “Par Sem”) from 1949 until 1986. The four-building complex was originally built in 1832 as a Free Will Baptist school. When it closed in 1949, the Consolidated School District took it over until the construction of the Fred Morrill School in 1986. Parsonsfield is the largest town in the SAD #55 district by acreage. It covers 60 square miles including the villages of Kezar Falls, and North, East and South Parsonsfield. Some of the students in Parsonsfield attend Fred Morrill and some attend South Hiram Elementary School, depending upon where they live. The school was named for Private First Class Frederick William Morrill who was a US Army Infantryman. He died during the Viet Nam conflict in Kien Hoa Province, South Vietnam on 5/15/1968 at the age of 20. Because of declining enrollment and the necessity for multi-grade classrooms, the School Board considered closing Fred Morrill in the fall of 2010. After many meetings, the School Board voted to keep Fred Morrill open for FY2011.

CONDITION OF SCHOOL The condition of the building was determined by information from the Capital Improvement Committee; the SAD #55 Maintenance Department; the updated VFA Report originally prepared by Northeast Building Consultants in 2006 and updated by the Maintenance Department in 2010; as well as insurance reviews. Because of budget cuts in the past, many preventive maintenance projects across the district have been postponed repeatedly, causing deterioration in many of the district properties that should not have happened. The district should budget for preventive maintenance, but must also take into consideration the following capital improvement projects for this property. Maintenance of new uranium water filtration system. Asbestos removal. Roof is coming to the end of its useful life. Roof engineering study to determine snow load Replace unit ventilators with pneumatic controls; new one to have direct digital controls. Install fire sprinkler system Fire alarm panel upgrade Replace grease trap Replace boiler Replace lighting and switches Add insulation to building Replace windows Well pump replacement

32

As we move forward, the district should be sure that everything possible is done for health and safety concerns, energy efficiency, code compliance, and best practices for a stimulating learning environment within the Fred Morrill Elementary School as long as it is part of the SAD #55 district. PRINCIPAL’S STATEMENT OF USE OF SPACE Clay Neidlinger, Teaching Principal The District Planning Committee asked each Elementary School Principal to respond to the following: “Please make a list of how many classrooms your building has (including portables) and what they're being used for. Also, your best estimate of how many more students you could comfortably fit in your school if necessary.” “1 Special Needs classroom shared with Title 1 and the number of kids varies.” “4 Regular Ed. classrooms all that could support about 20 students (the split 3/4 grade has 19 and it is tight).” “The Special Needs class is the biggest room and the 3 others are all the same size.” “One of the regular ed. classrooms is used for specialists (art, music, guidance) and because of that is utilized about 3 out of 5 days.” “There are no portables, gym and lunch are in the multipurpose room.” “A large closet in back of this is used for Speech and Language sessions holding about 4 students at the most.” “We usually hold assemblies in the Foyer.” SOUTH HIRAM ELEMENTARY SCHOOL

OVERVIEW - SHES

Located at 213 South Hiram Road, South Hiram. It is situated at the eastern end of the 80-acre central campus Two-story 39,952 SF Built in 1986 with the possibility of adding a mirror image wing to the east. The electrical, plumbing and boilers (of which there are two) were set up to accommodate this projected addition. Fifteen classrooms, Four smaller special education classroom spaces Combination gym/cafeteria with stage and locker rooms Kitchen Offices Library, Two computer labs Staff room.

33

Although not fully ADA compliant, the South Hiram Elementary School does have a two-stop elevator. The school was designed to accommodate 320 students, although it has had many more students with the addition of portable classrooms. South Hiram Elementary currently serves 222 students K-4. There are two teachers per grade, with the exception of first grade where the population requires 3 classes. Class sizes range from 17 to 24 students (as of November 2010). The additional classrooms are used for art, music, computer labs and special services such as Title 1; OT/SL The Horizon Building is a 1,100 SF post and beam building to the east of the SHES that was built in 2000. The District leases it to the Rec Council. The plumbing and electrical service for this building are underground and would be addressed if a mirror image wing were to be built. The wing itself would not interfere with the Horizon Building in any other way. Portable Classroom: The district owns the 2,788 SF former classroom building. It was added in 1986. The condition of the building has deteriorated so it can only be used for dead storage. District Maintenance Shop: 600 SF building was constructed in 1986. It has electricity but no plumbing. The grounds include lawn areas, a 60,000 SF play area, four baseball diamonds, three soccer fields and a 21,324 SF outdoor ice skating rink.

BACKGROUND - SHES

In 1967 the Sacopee Valley Junior/Senior High School was built to accommodate grades 7-12 on a 41-acre site on the South Hiram Road, South Hiram. In the early 1970’s additional land was acquired to the east, expanding the site to approximately 80 acres. In 1985 South Hiram Elementary School was constructed and the 7th grade relocated there. In 2007 Sacopee Valley Middle School was built between the two schools for grades 5-8. South Hiram Elementary School became a K-4 school and the Sacopee Valley High School accommodated grades 9-12. Prior to the construction of the middle school, South Hiram Elementary had become crowded and leased portable classrooms were necessary. These portables, as well as portables at the high school, were removed after the new Sacopee Valley Middle School was built. In 1999 a windstorm caused several massive pine trees shading the South Hiram Elementary playground to topple. At that time the centerpiece of the playground was a ship constructed of suspended tires. Upon inspection of the pines it was determined that because of interwoven root systems and undetected rot, the other trees were in danger of toppling as well. Therefore, they were all removed along with the ship of tires, and a new playground was designed and built.

34

CONDITION OF SCHOOL - SHES The condition of South Hiram Elementary School is important for two reasons.

First, the current condition should be examined as we look at each of the current school properties.

Second, it should be looked at with an eye towards a future central campus and what steps would have to be taken to alter the existing structure to accommodate that model.

The condition of the building was determined by information from the Capital Improvement Committee; the SAD #55 Maintenance Department; the South Hiram Elementary School administration; the updated VFA Report originally prepared by Northeast Building Consultants in 2006 and updated by the Maintenance Department in 2010; as well as insurance reviews. Because of budget cuts in the past, many preventive maintenance projects have been postponed repeatedly, causing deterioration in many of the district properties that should not have happened. As we move forward, the district should be sure that everything possible is done to protect, repair and upgrade the buildings and grounds we have. This is important from the standpoint of maintaining their property value, but also for health and safety concerns, energy efficiency, code compliance, and best practices for a stimulating learning environment. Roof is original to the building and will need replacement or reconditioning. Controls on the two boilers should be re-worked. Install ADA compliant bathrooms Technology: update network infrastructure Install LCD projector mounts Upgrade phone and PA system to fiber optic (whole campus) Fire sprinkler system New fire panel Replacement of unit ventilators; pneumatic heat controls to direct digital controls Refinish the gym floor (it is resealed annually) Replace two sewage pumps Replace domestic hot water heater (instant hot water? solar?) Upgrade kitchen Upgrade locker rooms Replace stair handrails Air condition library and offices Install outside bleachers Irrigation for fields Repave and expand asphalt parking lot PRINCIPAL’S STATEMENT OF USE OF SPACE Suzanne Day is the Principal at South Hiram and also serves as the district Curriculum Coordinator. The District Planning Committee asked each Elementary School Principal to respond to the following: “Please make a list of how many classrooms your building has (including portables) and what they're being used for. Also, your

35

best estimate of how many more students you could comfortably fit in your school if necessary.” FIRST FLOOR Day – Principal’s Office Mansfield – Guidance Counselor (also used for testing, outside service such as DHS) Conf. Room – used ½ a day for Title One Office by Teacher’s Room – used ½ a day for Title One, Tri-County Mental Health Services other times Teacher Room Clinic – Nurse’s Clinic Miller, Room 109 – First Grade McGary, Room 110 – Kindergarten Spec. Ed, Room 112 – Spec. Ed. – Wilson & Social Work (all day, each day) Murphy, Room 113 – District Self-Contained Classroom (4 students currently) Speech, Room 114 – Speech/Language (4 days a week) Lyons, Room 115 – Resource Room, Spec. Ed. Music/OT, Room 116 – Music (2 ½ days a week), OT (2 days a week) Woodsome, Room 117 – Kindergarten Wentworth, Room 118 – First Grade Hamilton, Room 119 – Kindergarten SECOND FLOOR Title One, Room 213 – seven staff members working in this space Richmond, Room 202 – Second Grade Stocks, Room 203 – Second Grade Comp. Room, 204 – Computer Lab – 24 stations Comp. Room, 205 & Library – One big room – 24 stations of computers & library Doughty, Room 207 – Third Grade Wykes, Room 208 – Fourth Grade Sawyer, Room 209 – Third Grade Adelman, Room 210 – Art Room – 2 ½ days a week Barnes, Room 211 – Fourth Grade Another question posed to South Hiram Elementary Principal Sue Day: “In your estimation, how many more children could fit in your school (per grade) comfortably?” “Do you mean without additional staff? Our ratio is already over 20, so if we are using the term comfortable, we are already at capacity.”

SACOPEE VALLEY MIDDLE SCHOOL

OVERVIEW - SVMS It is located at 137 South Hiram Road, South Hiram and also houses the MSAD #55 administrative offices. It is situated at the middle of the 80-acre central campus. Two story 80,700 SF Opened in 2007.

36

Designed to accommodate 500 students, grade 5 through 8. Currently serves 379 students, grades 5 through 8. (as of December 2010) There are four classes per grade as well as a special education, art, music and tech ed rooms. As of November 2010, class sizes range from 20 to 25 students. Mike Lynch is the Principal at Sacopee Valley Middle School. Mike Lane is the Assistant Principal at Sacopee Valley Middle School. Harriman Architects and Engineers of Auburn, built the Sacopee Valley Middle School through the State of Maine Department of Education constructed the school for $15.7 million. Sacopee Valley Middle School was funded in the 1999-2000 Rating Cycle. It was #36 in a list of 70 projects and was rated at 86.46 points. The contract with Harriman was signed in 2004 and the school opened in the fall of 2007. Quotation from Learning By Design magazine, 2008, page 101. “Designing the new Sacopee Valley Middle School was an opportunity to craft a new middle school where none existed. MSAD 55 encompasses five communities in a rural area of western Maine. They had five elementary schools and one high school, but no middle school. The objective was to design a new school for 500 students that would consolidate grades 5 through 8 in one building. The heart of the school is its centrally located library from which two 2-story classroom wings radiate. Each floor of each wing accommodates a single-grade team. Designed as a state-of-the-art educational facility, the new school was envisioned as a center of community involvement. The facility features a cafeteria and full-size gymnasium with a share stage, art room, band room and tech ed room. Special services programs are also integrated throughout the building. The orientation of the building allows for an abundance of natural light to fill the classrooms during the normal school day. Planned fro durability and low maintenance, the building is of conventional steel-framed construction with a predominantly all brick exterior. On the interior, masonry walls were used in all high-traffic and high-abuse areas. The new facility is situated on an 80-acre site that includes the district’s high school and one of the district’s five elementary schools. The three-school site creates a centralized educational campus within the district.”

BACKGROUND - SVMS In 1967 the Sacopee Valley Junior/Senior High School was built to accommodate grades 7-12 on a 41-acre site on the South Hiram Road, South Hiram. In the early 1970’s additional land was acquired to the east, expanding the site to approximately 80 acres. In 1985 South Hiram Elementary School was constructed and the 7th grade relocated there. In 2007 Sacopee Valley Middle School was built between the two schools for grades 5-8. South Hiram Elementary School became a K-4 school and the Sacopee Valley High School accommodated grades 9-12.

37

CONDITION OF SCHOOL - SVMS

The condition of the building was determined by information from the Capital Improvement Committee; the SAD #55 Maintenance Department; insurance reviews, and an updated report formatted after the VFA Reports that were done for the rest of the district in 2006 by Northeast Building Consultants. Because Sacopee Valley Middle School is less than four years old, there are no capital improvement needs at this time. Preventive maintenance will continue. In the future campus-wide upgrades such as technology, fiber-optic phone and PA communication systems and possibly a central heating plant may affect this school.

SACOPEE VALLEY HIGH SCHOOL

OVERVIEW - SVHS Located at 115 South Hiram Road, South Hiram. It is situated at the western end of the 80-acre central campus. Three stories 68,000 SF built in 1967. 17 Classrooms 4 Science Classrooms Art, music and drama classrooms Video Studio 2 shop classrooms CADD classroom Special Education Classrooms and Therapy Rooms Alternative Education classrooms in separate building ROTC classroom in district-owned portable Library Gym (with folding 510 seat bleachers) and locker rooms with showers Cafeteria with full service kitchen Administrative Offices Guidance Offices Nurse’s Office Staff Room Other Offices Originally designed for 500 students, grades 7 through 12. Currently serves 399 students 9 through12 (as of December 2010) Ryan Caron is the Principal at Sacopee Valley High School Carl Landry is the Assistant principal at Sacopee Valley High School.

BACKGROUND - SVHS

In 1967 the Sacopee Valley Junior/Senior High School was built to accommodate grades 7-12 on a 41-acre site on the South Hiram Road, South Hiram. In the early 1970’s additional land was acquired to the east, expanding the site to approximately 80 acres. In 1985 South Hiram Elementary School was

38

constructed and the 7th grade relocated there. In 2007 Sacopee Valley Middle School was built between the two schools for grades 5-8. South Hiram Elementary School became a K-4 school and the Sacopee Valley High School accommodated grades 9-12. Prior to the construction of the middle school, South Hiram Elementary had become crowded and leased portable classrooms were necessary. These portables, as well as portables at the high school, were removed after the new Sacopee Valley Middle School was built.

CONDITION OF SCHOOL - SVHS The condition of Sacopee Valley High School was determined by information from the Capital Improvement Committee; the SAD #55 Maintenance Department; the updated VFA Report originally prepared by Northeast Building Consultants in 2006 and updated by the Maintenance Department in 2010; insurance reviews; and the 2009 Harriman Report. This is detailed in SECTION 8: FINDINGS: Sacopee Valley High School.

39

LONG RANGE REPORT From the M.S.A.D. #55 Five-Year Plan Committee

SECTION 8

FINDINGS: SACOPEE VALLEY HIGH SCHOOL

Sacopee Valley High School NEASC Accreditation Every ten years Maine high schools go through a review process done by NEASC (New England Association of Schools and Colleges). The result of this review is the accreditation of the high school. The Sacopee Valley High School ten-year review in being done in the spring of 2011 and members of the committees preparing for this have worked long, hard and diligently. The NEASC review team will be here for several days beginning March 27, 2011. In the past the NEASC accreditation standards have called for a definitive five-year plan. This is no longer the case. They are now asking for “long term planning”. NEASC will evaluate the high school based on eleven standards, addressing the areas of mission and purpose; planning and evaluation; organization and governance; academic program; faculty; students; library information and technology resources; physical resources; financial resources; public disclosure; and integrity. Ryan Caron, Principal of Sacopee Valley High School is optimistic that we will have an acceptable rating in all areas except Standard 7. Standard 7: Community Resources for Learning The achievement of the school’s 21st century learning expectations requires active community, governing board, and parent advocacy. Through dependable and adequate funding, the community provides the personnel, resources, and facilities to support the delivery of curriculum, instruction, programs, and services. 1. The community and the district's governing body provide dependable funding for: -a wide range of school programs and services sufficient professional and support staff -on-going professional development and curriculum revision -a full range of technology support -sufficient equipment -sufficient instructional materials and supplies 2. The school develops, plans and funds programs: -to ensure the maintenance and repair of the building and school plant -to properly maintain, catalogue and replace equipment -to keep the school clean on a daily basis

40

3. The community funds and the school implements a long-range plan that addresses: -programs and services -enrollment changes and staffing needs -facility needs -technology -capital improvements 4. Faculty and building administrators are actively involved in the development and implementation of the budget. 5. The school site and plant support the delivery of high quality school programs and services. 6. The school maintains documentation that the physical plant and facilities meet all applicable federal and state laws and are in compliance with local fire, health, and safety regulations. 7. All professional staff actively engage parents and families as partners in each student’s education and reach out specifically to those families who have been less connected with the school. 8. The school develops productive parent, community, business, and higher education partnerships that support student learning. NEASC RATING GUIDE FOR STANDARD 7 A rating of DEFICIENT is appropriate if any of the following exist:

The physical plant and facilities fail to meet all applicable federal and state laws

The physical plant is not in compliance with local fire, health, and safety regulations

The school site and plant fail to minimally support the delivery of high quality school programs and services or the school’s level of adherence to the Instruction Standard/Indicator 2 and Curriculum Standard/Indicator 6 is significantly compromised by site and plant shortcomings

The community and the district's governing body fail to provide dependable funding for:

a wide range of school programs and services sufficient professional and support staff to meet the learning needs of

individual students on-going professional development and curriculum revision a full range of technology support sufficient equipment sufficient instructional materials and supplies

A rating of LIMITED is appropriate if the physical plant and facilities meet all applicable federal and state laws and are in compliance with local fire, health, and safety inspections but only minimally supports the delivery of high quality

41

school programs and services, or the community and the district’s governing body provides minimally adequate revenue, but:

All professional staff fail to actively engage parents and families as partners in each student’s education and reach out specifically to those families who have been less connected with the school

The school fails to develops productive parent, community, business, and higher education partnerships that support student learning

The school fails to develop, plan, and fund programs: to ensure the maintenance and repair of the building and school plant to properly maintain, catalogue, and replace equipment to keep the school clean on a daily basis The community fails to fund and the school to implement a long-range

plan that addresses programs and services, enrollment changes and staffing needs, facility needs, technology and capital improvements.

A rating of ACCEPTABLE is appropriate if the school adheres to indicators outlined in LIMITED, and:

The community and the district's governing body provide dependable funding for a wide range of school programs and services, sufficient professional and support staff, on-going professional development and curriculum revision, a full range of technology support, sufficient equipment, and sufficient instructional materials and supplies.

The school develops, plans, and funds programs to ensure the maintenance and repair of the building and school plant; to properly maintain, catalogue, and replace equipment; and to keep the school clean on a daily basis

The community funds and the school implements a long-range plan that addresses programs and services, enrollment changes and staffing needs, facility needs, technology, and capital improvements.

Faculty and building administrators are actively involved in the development and implementation of the budget.

The school site and plant support the delivery of high quality school programs and services.

A rating of EXEMPLARY is appropriate if all the descriptors in the ACCEPTABLE rating are met and:

All professional staff actively engage in outreach to parents and families as partners in each student’s education and reach out specifically to those families who have been less connected with the school

The school actively develops productive parent, community, business, and higher education partnerships that support student learning

The Sacopee Valley High School Physical Plant

Decisions have been made over the years that now impact the condition and life-expectancy of the 43 year old high school. The building has not been properly maintained during its lifetime. When budgets were tight, the maintenance budget was reduced and a great deal of preventative maintenance was never done. Our current maintenance staff can only do so much to accommodate years of neglect and they work miracles on a daily basis with our aging and deteriorating facility.

42

Beyond the preventative maintenance deficits of the high school, the original design and programming plan no longer works today. The existing building lacks clearly defined organization for educational delivery. The Capital Improvement Committee was formed to study the high school and attempt to come up with a solution. To determine the extent of the high school’s physical plant problems, Harriman Architects and Engineers were hired to study the problem.

THE HARRIMAN REPORT On January 21, 2009, Jeff Larimer of Harriman Architects and Engineers presented the Capital Improvement Committee with budget figures for evaluating the existing high school and site for renovations, possible additions or total replacement. Task 1: Building Evaluation and Renovation Analysis: $15,000

Similar to a New vs. Renovation analysis, assumes we would be keeping the existing building as opposed to looking for a new site and building a new school. The analysis would include some projected costs of what a comparable new school would cost.

Task 2: Program Development Report: $10,000 Evaluation of existing educational programs and provides us with a new program document of what is needed in terms of space. This would be similar to the Space Allocation Program and Educational Specifications done for the Sacopee Valley Middle School and would provide a vision for future educational needs of the high school.

Task 3: Design Concept and Alternatives: $30,000

Harriman would take the information from the first two tasks and provide design studies and options for renovating, reorganizing and adding on to the school as well as evaluating what is needed for site upgrades (bus and parent drop-offs, parking, athletics field, etc.).

Task 4: Schematic Design: $45,000 This task would take the preferred concept option from Task 3 and develop it into a final schematic design for the building and site. This would include floor plans, site plans, 3D model and/or elevations, a project budget and a project schedule suitable for presentation to the public.

This was a quick look at what we might be expected to pay for the services Harriman could offer for a high school renovation or replacement project. The actual numbers could vary higher or lower depending on the specific type of services we decided we needed or wanted. Regardless of whether it is a state funded or locally funded project, Harriman follows the Maine State DOE process because it works well. The only difference for a locally funded project is that we would not be obligated to follow all the DOE rules and we would only have to send the final submission to let the Commissioner of Education know that we

43

were going to referendum for a locally funded project. Local funding would not involve all the meetings in Augusta necessary for a state funded project. On April 22, 2009 the School Board voted to move forward with Task 1: The Facility Analysis Proposal and Task 2: The Programming Proposal from Harriman Associates. The Harriman Report for Sacopee Valley High School was presented five months later on September 17, 2009. Some of the critical or potentially critical items identified were: SAFETY AND HEALTH

Asbestos flooring Asbestos ceiling tiles Asbestos around old steam piping and the heat plant Lack of emergency lighting Lack of a fire protection system Elevated exterior concrete stairs from gym have deteriorated due to

weather and the use of ice-melt. Gym exterior steps lack proper guardrails.

ENERGY EFFICIENCY Curtain-wall construction: non-thermal aluminum frame, with single glazed

windows or insulating panels (that contain asbestos) is not energy efficient Poor ventilation attributable to old mechanical systems/unit ventilators. Original aluminum or metal doors and hardware need replacement for

security and energy efficiency. ADA COMPLIANCE

Multiple building levels with limited or no handicap access. Toilet rooms that are not handicap accessible.

EDUCATION Inadequate electrical power Inadequate technology Library load on second floor may be too great. Science rooms need updated furnishings.

OTHER Worn out plumbing fixtures and piping. Interior and exterior building finishes beyond their rated life. Roof has been re-roofed without removing all the original roof materials

causing a greater load. Roof has no pitch to allow for snowmelt. Inadequate parking for staff, students, visitors and handicapped vehicles

AND MORE

44

LONG RANGE REPORT From the M.S.A.D. #55 Five-Year Plan Committee

SECTION 9

FINDINGS: TRANSPORTATION

Ledgemere Transportation, Inc Local Terminal at: 255 Federal Rd, Parsonsfield

Current Five-Year Contract (2007-2012) OPTION: Double Bus Runs: We could do a double run using one bus for younger children and one for older ones. It would not change the routes. We would have to look at staggering start and end times of the school day in order to do this.

Day Care Center Accommodations: When we drop children at Day Care Centers in the afternoon we are discharging at a different address than the morning pickup, which does alter numbers on particular buses. The Day Care Centers are along our routes anyway and Ledgemere tries to accommodate. Mini-Bus vs. Larger Bus: Cost to run a large bus is the same as running a small bus. No savings. Length of Ride: The earliest pickup now is 6:20 A.M. and that child has a one-hour ride (near Sebago Lake in Baldwin). There are very few children in the Province Lake area of Parsonsfield now. We recognize that the population can shift. Children entering Kindergarten in 2016 have not yet been born. Idling: Ledgemere tries not to have their drivers idle in front of the schools. Bus Turn Arounds: The public often does not understand that where a tractor-trailer rig can turn, a bus may not be able to. A truck can bend in the middle, a bus cannot. Discipline: The drivers, for the most part, are capable of handling any disruptions. Adult bus monitors are unnecessary. Central Campus: Transporting to and from a central campus would save time and money. More direct routes. No drop off time at smaller schools before proceeding to South Hiram campus. If we added Pre-K, we may have to enlarge the fleet. Changes to be considered. Updated digital cameras should be considered. Some of our cameras are the old tape versions that were in the old Laidlaw buses.

45

DISTRICT PLANNING COMMITTEE SUMMARY OF TRANSPORTATION STUDY

Presented January 5, 2010 by Don Murphy, Nadine Stover, Nate Therriault, Olin Thomas

SCOPE OF THE TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE:

Contract Two Tier Operation Buy/Lease vs. Contract Diesel, potential savings Re-routing Ridership % Cost per pupil-mile Related Services (Currently Two Rivers Transportation $38,000)

CONTRACT 2008-2009 Contract Cost: $883,608.00 Current Contract Period: 2007–2012 Current Contractor: Ledgemere Transportation, Inc. Number of Buses: 21 TOTAL

6 buses each – 84 capacity 14 buses each – 72 capacity 1 bus – 18 capacity

ROUTES/MILES Number of Routes: 16 (including Lake Region bus) Number of miles:

Route miles 267.079 School to School miles 15,005 Trip miles 24,320 TOTAL 306,424

Number of students transported: 1,083 Total enrollment as of 11/2009: 1,219 Rider-ship percentage: 89% Contract cost to Student riders = $816/student per year (does not include fuel)

COMPARISON TO OTHER DISTRICTS MSAD 6 (Bonny Eagle) 47 buses, 4 vans used daily, 12 spare buses Ridership of approximately 4,000 students Fleet travels a total distance of 1,200,000 miles

Buys (6 Ea.) new buses/year, and has recently bought (6) propane buses, which they predict will save the district a “considerable” amount of money. Owns their own fuel tanks:

(1 Ea.) 10,000 Gal. Diesel Tank (1 Ea.) 4,000 Gal. Gasoline Tank (1 Ea.) 1,000 Gal. Propane Tank

46

MSAD 72 (Fryeburg) Owns 20 buses @ $68,000/Bus.

Contract with Bennett Transportation for Drivers & Maintenance. (2) Special Ed buses with (2) Driver Aides. Has a ridership of approximately 1,282 students. K-8 = 797 Students 9-12 = 485 Students Has (16) Bus Routes with 300,000 miles contracted with Bennett. MSAD 72 pays for buses, fuel, insurance and pays $1.69/mile to Bennett (under contract) for the drivers. Owns their own fuel tanks:

(2 Ea.) 10,000 Gal. Diesel Tanks Diesel locked @ $2.30/Gal. for next year. $1,214,000 Budget / 1,282 Students = $947/Student/Year

FUEL CONSUMPTION AND COST Currently: Fuel is and has been bought at a commercial gas station at near market value. Cost of diesel fuel for 2008-2009: $.069 under pump price * Cost of diesel fuel for 2009-2010: $.040 under pump price * Bulk discount is declining from current source. * * As reported by school district as of November 2009. Alternatives: Buy bulk. Buy from another source (bid). Evaluate the cost of installing a district owned tank. CONCLUSIONS, OPTIONS TO CONSIDER: Option: Two-Tier Operation (high school day with one hour offset Grades K-8.) Option: Buy/Lease vs. Contract (a bus costs $68,000) Option: Bid out a 15,000+ gallon diesel skid tank with key or pin number. Option: Diesel delivery contract (i.e. Diesel Direct, Inc.)

47

LONG RANGE REPORT From the M.S.A.D. #55 Five-Year Plan Committee

SECTION 10

FINDING: FINANCE AND BONDING We are aware that state and federal funding has been declining. In planning school budgets for the school year 2011/2012, the Department of Education states that proposed state funding will be reduced by $59 million reflecting the loss of federal stimulus money this year. The state board of education is calling upon the state to make increased efforts to reach the 55% funding level established by the so-called LD1 law backed by voters statewide in 2005. The state is supporting 44% of the cost of education as defined by the EPS (Essential Programs and Services) formula, with local taxpayers picking up 56% -- almost the opposite of the intent of the LD1 law. The legislature will ultimately decide at what level to fund education in the biennial budget. There is limited state funding for new construction and grant money is decreasing. On the local level municipal revenues are down as taxpayers are unable to pay their taxes, many loosing the homes either to bank foreclosures or to towns for non-payment of property taxes. In this area our population is aging and approaching retirement in a weak economy. For those of working age, there in very little in the Sacopee region to offer jobs as well as provide an industry tax base for our five towns.

48

LONG RANGE REPORT From the M.S.A.D. #55 Five-Year Plan Committee

SECTION 11

EXPLORING A CENTRAL CAMPUS: PROS & CONS OF A CENTRAL CAMPUS

Based on these findings, the committee explored the idea of moving towards a central campus.

PROS OF A CENTRAL CAMPUS Elimination of multi-grade classrooms. Improved access to materials (school library, sharing library, technology, physical education materials). Improved access to support services. Unified arts teachers will have more available instructional time due to less travel time. Enhanced safety, security and access to community services. Equitable class sizes across the grades. Transportation may be consolidated. More opportunities for collaboration and professional development for staff. Better implementation of RTI and the Teacher Incentive Fund Grant. Eventual long term cost savings. Parental travel will be centralized.

CONS OF A CENTRAL CAMPUS Loss of some local school(s). Relocation of some students. Transportation may increase for some students. Larger school (not class size). Staff and students are less likely to “know everyone”. Loss of sense of community. Cost for construction of an addition to South Hiram. Parental travel may increase.

49

LONG RANGE REPORT

From the M.S.A.D. #55 Five-Year Plan Committee

SECTION 12 RECOMMENDATION

Our recommendation is to begin the process of moving towards a central campus, which will have one elementary school, one middle school and one high school. Our first step is to improve the educational experience of our students by eliminating multi-grade classrooms in two schools. This will be accomplished by closing Fred Morrill and moving the students to Cornish. The time frame for full implementation of this Long Range Plan will depend upon when the School Board asks the public for support for a bond or bonds to fund the plan.

50

LONG RANGE REPORT From the M.S.A.D. #55 Five-Year Plan Committee

SECTION 13

CLOSING AN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL

Before the Committee’s could recommend closing any school, we wanted to examine exactly what criteria and steps were required to close a school.

THE LAW: CLOSING AND DISPOSITION OF PUBLIC SCHOOLS

IN THE STATE OF MAINE According to M.R.S.A. 20-A Chapter 202: CLOSING AND DISPOSITION OF PUBLIC ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY SCHOOL BUILDINGS, the closing of a school building by a school board may only occur if the school is

Replaced by a new building. The school building has been condemned and ordered closed by local or

state officials for health and safety reasons. “Lack of Need” (the building has been deemed to be unnecessary or

unprofitable to maintain by the school board). Before a building may be closed under the “Lack of Need” subsection, a report must be filed with the Maine State Education Commissioner containing the following information: A. Projection of the number of students in the affected area over the next 5 school years, including a projection of the educational programs which they will need; B. Manner in which the continuation of the educational programs for the affected students will be provided; C. Effective date on which the closing will take place; D. Projection of additional transportation or other related services; E. Existence of any other outstanding financial commitments, including debt service, related to the school building along with a retirement schedule of payments to meet the commitments; F. Proposed disposition of the school building; G. Financial impact of closing the school building; and H. Statement of reasons why the school building is being closed. Elementary schools in a school district may only be closed if approved by the voters in the municipality in which the school is located. A referendum election must be conducted within the municipality and the costs of the election borne by the school district. The referendum article on the ballot will read: "Article: Do you favor authorizing the board of directors of (name of regional school unit) to close (name of school)? Yes No The additional cost of keeping the school open has been estimated by the regional school unit board to be $(amount)."

51

If the voters vote to keep the school open, the municipality is liable for the amount that would have been saved if the school were closed (the amount stated on the referendum ballot), subject to the approval of the State of Maine Department of Education commissioner. This expense will be subtracted from the school district budget before each municipality's assessment is computed. If a school proposed for closure is a school that serves students from more than one town, the article must be submitted to the voters in each of the municipalities that sent all students from that municipality to the school. If a majority of the voters in each of the municipalities vote to keep the school open, the municipalities share in the costs in the same proportion as they share the current operating costs of the school. DISPOSAL OR OTHER USE OF CLOSED SCHOOL Leasing of closed school building The school board may lease the building for its fair rental value if there is a reasonable likelihood that the building will be needed again for educational purposes. Leases not to exceed 4 years may be entered and may be renewed at the end of any lease period if the school board determines there is still a reasonable likelihood that the building will be needed again for educational purposes. The proceeds from the lease shall be used to cover the maintenance costs on the building; to reduce any outstanding indebtedness on the building; and to meet educational expenses, in that order. Any renovations to a leased building shall be compatible with its reuse as a school building. Transfer of closed school building to municipality in which it is located The school board may transfer control/ownership of the building if it does not have any anticipated use as a school building to the municipal officers or inhabitants of the town in which it is located. The receiving town, if they accept the transfer, shall be liable for any outstanding indebtedness. If the building had been constructed by the receiving town and was transferred to the district (such as a portion of Baldwin Consolidated School), the district may require the town to pay the district any debt service expended on the building by the district over the 5 school years prior to the transfer of the building minus their apportionment of that debt service. If the building had been constructed by the district, the district may require the receiving town to pay the district a sum equal to the fair market value of the building, minus the town apportioned share in the building, to be determined in accordance with the cost-sharing formula in effect at the time of the transfer. The receiving town may use the building for municipal purposes but is not required to. Sale of closed school building The school board may sell the school building on the open market if it determines that it will have no future use for the building and they have offered to transfer control/ownership to the municipal officers of the town in which the building is located and the municipal officers have not accepted the transfer.

52

If the school board is unable to sell the school building on the open market after a reasonable period of time, not to exceed 2 years, then it may attempt to sell the building through sealed bids. Sealed bids shall be solicited a minimum of 60 days prior to being opened. Appropriate notices shall be published in local news media. Demolition of closed school building If the school board determines that it has no future use for a building, and the property could be better used for other educationally related purposes without the building and if the selectmen of the town approves, the school board may demolish the building on the site and retain the site. The school board may also demolish the building if it has been condemned by local or state officials for health and safety reasons, regardless of whether the site will be retained or sold. PROCEEDS FROM SALE OF CLOSED SCHOOL If the school building was built by the administrative unit, the proceeds shall be used solely for educational purposes. If the building was transferred by a member town to the school administrative district (such as a portion of Baldwin Consolidated School), the proceeds of the sale, minus any expenses related to the sale or any outstanding indebtedness, shall be credited to the town in which the facility is located and used to offset the town's share of the educational expenses for the district. If the school administrative district has made major renovations or additions, the town shall be credited with only those proceeds of the sale attributable to the appraised value of the original school building at the time of the sale. If a building has outstanding indebtedness, the proceeds of its sale shall be used to retire the unit's debt service on the building and the balance of the proceeds shall be placed in a sinking fund to reduce future debt service payments.

WHY FRED MORRILL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL?

After the Committee had a clear understanding of the criteria and steps needed to close an elementary school we examined the reasons for recommendation to close Fred Morrill Elementary School and sending the students to Cornish Elementary.

Elimination of multi-grade classrooms. Both Fred Morrill and Cornish have multi-grade classrooms: two at Fred Morrill and three at Cornish. Combining the two schools will eliminate multi-grade classrooms in both schools, enhancing the education of all the students.

Fewer students impacted by the transition. As of February 2011 there are 44 students at Fred Morrill and 56 at Cornish. Cornish Elementary has five classrooms plus a district-owned portable with two additional classrooms. Fred Morrill has 5 classrooms.

53

Better Access to 911 Services Cornish Elementary is a more centralized location. This provides better access to 911 services. Safer evacuation plan at Cornish School. Cornish Elementary is located next to the Cornish Fire Barn within easy walking distance if evacuation of the school became necessary. Fred Morrill’s evacuation plan would require that the children walk an extended distance on Route 160 to Par Sem. Response To Intervention (RTI) can be better implemented The Federally mandated RTI program requires interaction between staff members and the greater number of staff members in a school building, the more effective RTI will be. Cornish currently has three teachers as does Fred Morrill. Everyday Math is difficult to implement effectively in multi-grade classrooms. The Everyday Math curriculum includes six strands of knowledge: algebra; data and chance; geometry; measurement; numeration and order; patterns, functions and sequences; operations; and reference frames. Everyday Math emphasizes the application of mathematics to real world situations. Lessons include time for whole-group instruction as well as small group, partner, or individual activities. The curriculum would require that a teacher divide the students in the two grades into groups in order to teach effectively.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS OF CLOSING FRED MORRILL

STAFFING Teaching Principal stipend; Principal’s Ed Tech (salary and benefits); Teacher (1) (salary and benefits); Special Ed Teacher (1) (salary and benefits); Custodians (2 part time) (salary and benefits). REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE UTILITIES AND SERVICES Heating oil, electricity, water & sewer, telephone and Internet, copier lease and other service contracts for maintenance of the property and care of building SUPPLIES Custodial supplies (toilet paper, soap, etc.); and maintenance supplies (cleaning materials) EXPENSES IN FIRST YEAR ONLY Moving costs EXPENSES IN SECOND YEAR ONLY (Assuming we will carry the closed school for only one year) Carrying costs for fuel and glycol, insurance, security and a phone line for it, plowing (at Fred Morrill this is done by our staff), electricity and other expenses. Expenses of Sale.

54

WE ARE LISTENING

55

RESPONSES FROM THE PUBLIC – SPRING 2010 from the SAD #55 Web Site

(www.sad55.org) During FY2011 budget preparation, a section of the SAD #55 website was made available for public comment. We received 63 responses, although two were sent twice, so the actual number was 61. Many had multiple suggestions and comments, so this brief summary is not intended to add up to 61. One community member commented that it was their perception that the Board is not listening, and three others implied the same. One person felt that half the Board is frustrated and the other half complacent. Three people commented on the so-called “divided Board”. Several people commented that they would not speak at public meetings. CLOSING SCHOOLS There were a lot of comments about closing schools. Temporary closure (1) Reopening Hiram Elementary (2) Raise our taxes, but save our schools (3) “Don’t Close” (12) Close them all (9) Close one or two schools (7) “I would rather loose square footage than teachers.” (1) DISTRIBUTION OF STUDENTS Regarding Fred Morrill students to Cornish (1 no) Regarding 4th grade to the Middle School (3) yes, (4) no. Put 5th grade back in the elementary schools (2) Make Cornish an all kindergarten school (1) High School to the Middle School (2) Do not bring back portables (4) PROCEDURE We should have a public vote in each town (3) Ask the kids (1) Poll in the Shopping Guide (1) ATHLETICS Pay to Play with sponsorship available (5) Cut sports by half (1) Limit away games (1) TRANSPORTATION Cut the late bus (1) Eliminate field trips (1)

56

STAFF Two suggestions were brought forward that had already been enacted because the Tri-County Teachers Association understood the budget dilemma and were cooperative. For FY2011 there was a district-wide salary freeze and the staff took 2 furlough days. STAFF SALARIES AND BENEFITS Cut staff pay by 6% (1) Have staff to give back the 2% raise they got in FY2010 (1) No pay cut for hourlies (janitors, food service, ed techs and secretaries) (1) Pass health insurance increases to the teachers (1). Job sharing (1) Ask community to volunteer in the schools (1) Cut staff benefits (1) OTHER STAFF SUGGESTIONS Reduce the high paid administrators (1) Reduce the number of secretaries (1) Hire a payroll company in order to eliminate positions that handle that function (1) Stop sending the Special Ed Director and the individual who handles our State Agency Clients to conferences together (2) Eliminate K-4 grade level meetings and save on substitute teachers (1) Limit the days that the English-As-A-Second Language teacher works (1) BUILDING AND GROUNDS Turn down the heat (1) Bleacher pad was a waste (1) Do less mowing (1) PROGRAMS Get rid of the laptops (2) CALENDER 4 day week (2) Extend winter vacation (1) PLANNING Repeated requests for a Five Year Plan. Implement the District Planning Board recommendations (1) MISCELLANEOUS Don’t raise lunch prices mid year (1) One Board member, Judy Ingram of Parsonsfield, responded to one of the comments saying “Believe me, ALL of us are frustrated and not one of us is complacent. Not having answers should not be viewed as complacent.”

57

Specific questions were extracted from the website responses and addressed by Superintendent Pease. 1. Why do you wait to put things in the paper the night of the meeting? There was a notice placed in the Shopping Guide the night of the meeting that was not placed by the district, but by community members. 2. Since the teachers are giving up their raises, why can’t the administration from the superintendent on down to the receptionist give back their 2% raises? All salaries were frozen for the 2010-11 school year including the superintendent and all administrators. 3. If you decide to close a school and then decide to re-open it later, won’t it cost more to bring it up to the new required code standards rather than if you leave them open and only have to perform necessary regular maintenance? The district's maintenance staff continues to monitor the Hiram Elementary School. If repairs or maintenance need to be completed at Hiram Elementary, the issues are addressed at the time. The district has checked with the Department of Education and we do not have to bring the school up to the new required codes. 4. Now that the governor has decreased the amount of cuts that he is making in the budget in K-12 education, what is our expected shortfall? The shortfall for the 2009-10 year is $251,000 and $1 million reduction in subsidy for the 2010-11 year. 5. If schools are going to be closed and teachers laid off, there has to be a reduction in the Administrative Office at SAD 55. There is where the least impact on students would be. If you're going to cut positions, how about looking there first instead of kids losing their schools and teachers? Two positions were reduced from the Superintendent's Office. A full time receptionist was eliminated during the 2009-10 year and the Assistant Superintendent position was eliminated in the prior year. 6. There should not be so many secretaries in the Supt office. Can't some of that finance be done on the computer or shipped out to save money? There is only one secretary in the Superintendent's Office. Other positions include a Payroll Clerk and an Accounts Payable Clerk. These three staff members also provide support for the Food Service Director, the Maintenance Director, the Business Manager and the Superintendent. 7. I am unsure why we have an ESL teacher for so many days. Many districts are eliminating the position when faced with these cutbacks. Do we have a large number of English-As-A-Second language students that justify having an ESL teacher for more than one or two days a week? Currently the district has ten ESL students. The state requires that ESL students receive services. Currently six of the ten students receive direct services. The

58

ESL teacher position is being reduced for the 2010-11 school year from 4 to 3 days. 8. Why does our district state agency client coordinator and our special education director often have to attend meetings together? If this the best use of time and money? The State Agency Client Coordinator is funded by reimbursements received for the State Agency Clients who are enrolled in district schools. There are times when both the Special Education Director and the State Agency Client Coordinator need to attend certain meetings. 9. Re: The MLTI Laptop program: Are we going beyond what is funded by the state? The 7th and 8th grade laptops are funded by the state. The district did decide to purchase the high school laptops that were not fully funded by the state. The high school laptops are being funded primarily through grant funds, stimulus funds and the operating budget savings in the technology budget. 10. I find it interesting that Hiram residents bear the brunt of the burden of the financial shortfalls. Where did this formula come from? Hiram's share of the district's funding is based on the town's valuation as prescribed by the Department of Educations Essential Programs and Services formula. 11. Is a 4-day school week an option? The district has looked into four-day school week. There is not a significant savings on fuel consumption. It would make it difficult for parents who would need to find day care on the day school was closed. 12. Has the idea of using Cornish Elementary as an all K school been explored? This idea has never been explored.

59

WHAT NOW?

PROCEDURE TO CONSIDER CLOSING FRED MORRILL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL

February 12, 2011 School Board approves consideration to close. February 16, 2011 Public Meeting to solicit comments and questions. March 2, 2011 School Board of Directors Vote (super majority) TBA Report submitted to the Maine State Education

Commissioner TBA Approval of Report from the Commissioner TBA Referendum Article within the municipality of Parsonsfield. If

the voters choose to keep the school open, they will be liable for the amount that would have been saved if the school were to be closed.

June 30, 2011 Fred Morrill Elementary School closes. TBA Appraisal of fair market value is done. TBA School building and grounds will be offered to the Town of

Parsonsfield for the appraised value minus the percentage of the district budget that the town contributed in FY2011 (26.33%). The offer will stand for 60 days and, if the town accepts the sale, must close within 90 days after acceptance.

If the town does not buy the school, it will be offered for sale.

60

LONG RANGE REPORT From the M.S.A.D. #55 Five-Year Plan Committee

SECTION 14

MOVING FORWARD… After closing Fred Morrill, the rest of the Five-Year Plan is dependent upon funding at local, state and federal levels. If the Board decides to proceed with an addition to South Hiram Elementary, there are two construction scenarios to be considered:

SOUTH HIRAM 20,000 SF ADDITION OPTION 1: TRADITIONAL CONSTRUCTION $4.7 million (plus $100,000 up-front design costs) Timeframe: 18-24 months

SOUTH HIRAM 20,000 SF ADDITION OPTION 2: OFF-SITE CONSTRUCTION $4 million (design costs included) Timeframe: 6-8 months

When funding is secured for an addition to South Hiram Elementary, Baldwin and Cornish schools will be closed. Contingent upon funding, renovations or new construction will begin for the High School. We will know by the summer of 2011 where we stand on the list of projects eligible for state funding. If we do not get state funding for either renovation of replacement of our high school, there are several options to be considered when deciding upon a remedy for the high school paid for by local funding. In reviewing the current condition of our high school, it is imperative that a decision be made regarding its viability. The Board must decide whether we want to renovate, upgrade and add to the size of the existing building, or build a new high school. HIGH SCHOOL OPTION 1:

RENOVATION, UPGRADE AND 20,000 SF ADDITION

$7 million (plus $75,000 up-front design costs and unknown costs of where to locate the students during the renovation) Timeframe: 18 months HIGH SCHOOL OPTION 2: NEW 90,000 SF HIGH SCHOOL TRADITIONAL CONSTRUCTION

61

$22 million (plus $75,000 up-front design costs) Timeframe: 2 years

HIGH SCHOOL OPTION 3: NEW 90,000 SF HIGH SCHOOL OFF-SITE CONSTRUCTION

$18 million (design included) Timeframe: 9-11 months

62

LONG RANGE REPORT From the M.S.A.D. #55 Five-Year Plan Committee

SECTION 15

THE FUTURE OF SOUTH HIRAM ELEMENTARY SCHOOL

ELEMENTARY SCHOOL SPACE NEEDED FOR A CENTRAL CAMPUS NEEDED: 60,000 sf (20,000 sf additional) 25-27 Classrooms South Hiram Elementary School Current square footage: 39,952 SF Number of classrooms: 11 Current enrollment (as of February 2011): Kindergarten (2): 18 and18 = 36 District Total: 76 kindergarten First Grade (3): 17, 17 and 18 = 52 District Total: 87 first grade Second Grade (2): 21 and 21 = 42 District Total: 76 second grade Third Grade (2): 22 and 21 = 43 District Total: 82 third grade Fourth Grade (2): 24 and 25 = 49 District Total: 85 fourth grade South Hiram Total: 222 District K-4 Total: 406 The District Planning Commission posed the following question to South Hiram Elementary School principal, Suzanne Day: QUESTION: “In your estimation, how many more children could fit in your school (per grade) comfortably?” ANSWER: “Do you mean without additional staff? Our ratio is already over 20, so if we are using the term comfortable, we are already at capacity.” The population studies indicate that the district should be planning for a district population 1300 students. In order to accommodate blips in population that will happen, planning should allow for the bulk of the population shifting back and forth between elementary (K-4) grades, to middle school grades (5-8), to high school grades (9-12). Therefore, a Central Campus elementary school should be able to accommodate between 400 and 500 students. Classroom size should be 20 students or less. South Hiram Elementary School will need a total of 25-27 classrooms. Mr. Larimer of Harriman Associates suggests that, for our purposes without further design research, we would probably need a 20,000 sf addition making the school approximately 60,000 sf. SHES was built in 1986 with the possibility of adding a mirror image wing to the eastern end. The electrical, plumbing and boilers (of which there are two) were set up to accommodate this projected addition. If the district were to construct a single story wing of 20,000 SF, the Five-Year Plan Committee feels that we would have enough space to house all elementary school students grade K-4

63

while maintaining small classroom sizes. A cafeteria would be added to eliminate dual use of the gym; a nurse’s office would be included; and the library would be moved to the first floor, central to both wings. LOCAL FUNDING: 20,000 SF ADDITION (TRADITIONAL CONSTRUCTION) If the district opts to proceed with a 20,000 sf addition to South Hiram Elementary, locally funded using traditional construction, a rough estimate of costs would be as follows. DESIGN: $100,000 Task 1: Building Evaluation and Renovation Analysis: $15,000 Task 2: Program Development Report: $10,000 Task 3: Design Concept and Alternatives: $30,000 Task 4: Schematic Design: $45,000 CONSTRUCTION Jeff Larimer from Harriman Associates suggests that for budgeting purposes we should use $235 per square foot for total project costs. This would include construction and soft costs. Add 4% per year beyond 2011. Add up-front design costs (Tasks 1, 2, 3 and 4) = $100,000 20,000 sf X $235/sf = $4,700,000 Add 4% increase per year after 2011. A 20,000 sf addition to South Hiram Elementary School using traditional construction would be completed in 9 to 10 months, but the design phase would have to be funded by the budget before going to bond. The design phase could take 6-8 months. The construction time frame for this project would be 18 to 24 months.

South Hiram Addition (Traditional Construction) = $4,700,000

LOCAL FUNDING: 20,000 SF ADDITION (OFF-SITE CONSTRUCTION) If the district opts to proceed with a locally funded off-site construction project, the design and engineering costs (typically 1% of the project total) are included in the square foot estimate. Jeff Snow from Schiavi/Vanguard suggests that for budgeting purposes we should use $200 per square foot X 20,000 sf for total project cost of $4,000,000. That cost includes engineering and design, new building construction, site development, and additional soft costs. Add the rate of inflation based on consumer price index per year beyond 2011. A 20,000 sf addition to South Hiram Elementary School using off-site construction (design and construction) would be completed in 6 to 8 months. South Hiram Addition (Off-Site Construction) = $4,000,000

64

65

LONG RANGE REPORT

From the M.S.A.D. #55 Five-Year Plan Committee

SECTION 16 THE FUTURE OF SACOPEE VALLEY HIGH SCHOOL

POSSIBLE SACOPEE VALLEY HIGH SCHOOL REMEDIES

Using the Harriman Engineering Report as a part of the documentation submitted to the State, application was made for financial assistance in either renovating

and upgrading, or replacing the current Sacopee Valley High School. The content of the Harriman Report is outlined in the Section 8: “Findings: Sacopee Valley

High School”. The report concluded that our 68,636 SF high school would need at least an additional 21,000 sf to become a 90,000 sf high school

1.) 2010 MAJOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT APPLICATION

Major Capital Improvements funding through the State of Maine becomes available every few years and points are assigned by the Department of Education to each project submitted in order to prioritize and select the projects that will be funded.

The Three Previous Rating Cycles Rating Cycle

# Projects Funded

Estimated Construction Cost

# Students Impacted/Year

1999-2000 24 projects $249,729,086 11,545 students 2001-2001 11 projects $183,894,704 6,406 students 2004-2005 20 projects $498,342,326 11,107 students TOTAL 55 projects $931,966,116 29,058 students Sacopee Valley Middle School was funded in the 1999-2000 Rating Cycle. It was #11 in a list of 70 projects and was rated at 86.46 points. On November 4, 2009 the Board voted to move forward with the application for a Major Capital Improvement Project for Sacopee Valley High School for the 2010-2011 Rating Cycle. A committee to complete this process was formed in January 2010, and the completed application was delivered to Augusta on June 14, 2010. The Harriman Report was included with this application, as well as a School Enrollment Trends & Projections Through 2019-20 done by Policy One Research, Inc. (dated June 2010), and a Long-Term Facilities Plan as required by the State. We have been told that there are 74 applications. The timeline for State evaluation and possible approval of the application is as follows: Step in Process Action Done By Projected Dates Application to DOE School District Deadline June 15, 2010 Application Review/ Site Evaluation

Department of Education July 2010 thru February 2011

(SVHS site evaluation took place Dec. 8, 2010)

Compilation of all Department of Education February 2011 thru

66

Evaluation Scores March 2011 Development of Priority Listing of All Applicants

Department of Education March 2011 thru April 2011

Presentation of Final Priority List by the Commissioner of Education to the State Board of Education

Department of Education State Board of Education

June or July 2011

Concept Approvals (designs, plans, schematics)

Department of Education State Board of Education

2012 & 2013 (Tentatively scheduled)

The DOE developed school size guidelines to establish equity in funding by the state. The square foot per student (125 sf for an elementary school and 165 sf for

a high school) are what the state uses for funding purposes and are not necessarily what is appropriate to meet our specific educational programming needs. When a state-funded project exceeds those guidelines, the state will

expect the district to fund the overage locally. Most every school project on the last funding list had local money in them because they wanted more than what the state was willing to fund. Every school project is unique with many variables

and it is difficult to compare the projects side-by-side.

In planning our middle school, the decision was made locally to build a school that was 100% state funded without any local dollars. Achieving this was not

without effort. The state then agreed to fund additional square footage to build the district offices as a part of the project.

Our district will know by June or July 2011 whether our Major Capital Improvement application has been approved in part or in full and whether it will provide funds for renovation or replacement of the high school. If the application is approved final concepts (designs, plans, schematics) will not be approved until 2012 or 2013 and the project will be completed no sooner than 2017 or later. Considering the current economic climate, it is the opinion of this committee that we should not expect funding from this source.

2.) LOCAL FUNDING MODEL: RENOVATED HIGH SCHOOL On February 3, 2011 Jeff Larimer said of Harriman Associates said “The conclusion of the analysis was that you needed additional square footage of at least 21,000 sf. And that is subject to update. At this point it is unknown how much of the existing building would be renovated over and above an addition and whether you may have one or more additions. If you were to do one addition of 21,000 sf and no renovations, you could possibly be looking at a construction cost of about $3.5 million and a project cost of about $5 million. But my guess is that a single addition and no renovations would not be the final solution. So if you are figuring $7 million total project cost, then that may be ok but that needs to be qualified that it is not based on an actual solution at this time.” Mr. Larimer also said, “Whether you are renovating or building new, the goal is to build a school with a life expectancy of about 50 years. Many factors can

67

contribute to that and a lot depends on the decisions of the building committee and what the voters are willing to approve. If decisions are made to minimize costs up front then that could impact the life expectancy of the building. Keeping a building properly maintained during its life will also be a contributing factor. When budgets are tight and maintenance gets reduced, then that affects the life of the building as well.” The district has already paid Harriman to accomplish Tasks 1 and 2 of the four-task scenario listed below. Task 1: Building Evaluation and Renovation Analysis: $15,000 (COMPLETED)

Similar to a New vs. Renovation analysis, assumes we would be keeping the existing building as opposed to looking for a new site and building a new school. The analysis would include some projected costs of what a comparable new school would cost.

Task 2: Program Development Report: $10,000 (COMPLETED) Evaluation of existing educational programs and provides us with a new program document of what is needed in terms of space. This would be similar to the Space Allocation Program and Educational Specifications done for the Sacopee Valley Middle School and would provide a vision for future educational needs of the high school.

Task 3: Design Concept and Alternatives: $30,000

Harriman would take the information from the first two tasks and provide design studies and options for renovating, reorganizing and adding on to the school as well as evaluating what is needed for site upgrades (bus and parent drop-offs, parking, athletics field, etc.).

Task 4: Schematic Design: $45,000 This task would take the preferred concept option from Task 3 and develop it into a final schematic design for the building and site. This would include floor plans, site plans, 3D model and/or elevations, a project budget and a project schedule suitable for presentation to the public.

Mr. Larimer indicates that we would have to complete design Tasks 3 and 4 before going to public referendum for a construction bond for an up front cost of $75,000. This process could take 4-6 months. Following the design process, the district would go to the public seeking a renovation and construction bond for an estimated $7 million. Following approval from the voters, we would develop the construction documents, bid the project and finally build the project (renovation plus an additional 21,000 sf). This will be dependent on the complexity of the solution and the phasing of the work to accommodate the students during renovation/construction. The district should be prepared for students to be housed in temporary portable classrooms during the renovation. Renovation and construction would take at least a year to complete. Renovation: $7,000,000 (after an initial $75,000 design cost)

68

3.) LOCAL FUNDING MODEL: NEW HIGH SCHOOL USING TRADITIONAL CONSTRUCTION If the district opts to proceed with a new high school, locally funded using traditional construction, Harriman Associates has given us a rough estimate of costs as follows. Task 1: Building Evaluation and Renovation Analysis: $15,000 (COMPLETED) Task 2: Program Development Report: $10,000 (COMPLETED) Task 3: Design Concept and Alternatives: $30,000 Task 4: Schematic Design: $45,000 Jeff Larimer from Harriman Associates suggests that for budgeting purposes we should use $235 per square foot for total project costs as of 2011, adding 4% per year beyond 2011. That cost is broken down as

$165/sf for new building construction $35/sf for site development $45/sf for soft costs.

Demolition of the old high school would be $6/sf or approximately $400,000. The Harriman Report concluded that we would need a 90,000 sf high school. 90,000 sf X $235/sf = $21,150,000 Add demolition of existing high school = $400,000. Total Replacement = $21,550,000 in 2011. Add 4% increase per year after 2011. A new high school project using traditional construction would be completed in about 2 years.

New High School (Traditional Construction) = $22,000,000 4.) LOCAL FUNDING MODEL: NEW HIGH SCHOOL USING PERMANENT OFF-SITE CONSTRUCTION If the district opts to proceed with a locally funded off-site construction project using a contractor such as Schiavi/Vanguard, the engineering costs (typically 1% of the project total) are included in the square foot estimate. Jeff Snow from Schiavi/Vanguard suggests that for budgeting purposes we should use $200 per square foot X 90,000 sf for total project cost of $18,000,000. That cost includes engineering and design costs, new building construction, site development, demolition of the existing high school and additional soft costs. The cost increases annually according to the rate of inflation based on consumer price index. There would be no up-front design expense or time before going to a public referendum. If the public approves the project this method of construction would insure predictable costs of building within a controlled environment; minimal site

69

disturbance and a design/construction timetable that typically would be a matter of 9-11 months rather than years.

New High School using Off-Site Construction = $18,000,000

70

71

72

LONG RANGE REPORT

From the M.S.A.D. #55 Five-Year Plan Committee

SECTION 17 TRADITIONAL CONSTRUCTION

VS. PERMANENT OFF-SITE CONSTRUCTION

TRADITIONAL

CONSTRUCTION

Offers permanence of construction. Greater flexibility in the design and the selection of features and materials. Competitive bidding with local contractors and sub-contractors. Utilizes local resources rather than out of state companies. Better coordination with existing construction. Maintains local control over the design, bidding and construction process.

PERMANENT OFF-SITE CONSTRUCTION

Off-site designs provide a permanent steel and concrete structure. Built to the same building codes as traditional construction. Can be built to coordinate with existing architectural styles, façade materials, etc. Local sub-contractors can be utilized for on-site installation. Off-site designs have significantly reduced construction time with less site disturbance. Because the structure is built in a controlled environment with less exposure to the elements, the possibility of deterioration or moisture during construction is less. Cost per Sq. Ft. can be up to 50% less than traditional construction The time frame for construction may be shorter than for traditional construction.

73

LONG RANGE REPORT

From the M.S.A.D. #55 Five-Year Plan Committee

SECTION 18 SCENARIOS FOR FUNDING

A CENTRAL CAMPUS BY BOND Currently, the only debt service that SAD #55 is carrying is a bond for the high school track. That bond will be paid off in November 2011. If bond issues are available and the Five-Year Plan is adopted, the district would go for a 30-year bond for a remedy for the high school, an addition on South Hiram Elementary or a single bond for both projects. The School Board will decide when that it is feasible and when the voters are likely to support such a bond. Local impact would be divided among the taxpayers of the five towns according to their share of the budget in each individual year. That percentage is set by the State and based upon the town’s property valuation. The FY2011 School Budget was shared by the towns in the following percentages:

Baldwin 20.25% Cornish 17.44% Hiram 19.28% Parsonsfield 26.33% Porter 16.71%

REMEDIES FOR SACOPEE VALLEY HIGH SCHOOL State Funded Renovation/Upgrade/20,000 SF Addition State Funded 90,000 SF New High School Locally Funded Renovation/Upgrade/20,000 SF Addition $75,000 up-front design costs $7 million construction costs funded by bond Timeframe: 18 months Locally Funded 90,000 SF New High School – Off-Site Construction $18 million (design cost included) Timeframe: 9-11 months Locally Funded 90,000 SF New High School – Traditional Construction $75,000 up-front design costs $22 million construction costs funded by bond Timeframe: 2 years SOUTH HIRAM ELEMENTARY 20,000 SF ADDITION Locally Funded 20,000 SF Addition to SHES – Off-Site Construction

74

$4 million (design costs included) Timeframe: 6-8 months Locally Funded 20,000 SF Addition to SHES – Traditional Construction $100,000 up-front design costs $4.7 million construction costs funded by bond Timeframe: 18-24 months