How Procedural Missteps Postponed the SES Roof Project

 

To understand how the deterioration of the school roof went on for so long, I referred to Shutesbury.org to find the mission statements and interrelationships of the various committees involved with the Shutesbury Elementary School (SES) building (charts courtesy of Shutesbury.org).

The Town Buildings Committee (BC) “examine(s) and oversee(s) renovations, new construction, and maintenance of Town-owned properties.” It is an advisory committee to the Select Board.

The Capital Planning Committee “stud(ies) proposed projects and improvements involving major non-recurring tangible assets and projects which 1) are purchased or undertaken at intervals of not less than three years; or 2) have a useful life of at least three years; or 3) cost over $5,000.” All Town Boards and Committees are to submit their project plans for the next six years whereupon the Capital Planning Committee will consider their worthiness and fiscal impact on Town finances. The Committee then submits its recommended Capital Improvement budget to the FinCom and Select Board for approval.

The Finance Committee (FinCom) weighs the various budget requests of boards, committees, and departments against anticipated revenues in order to prepare a balanced budget.

The Select Board (SB) is the governing body of the town.

Using the above information, it seems the BC was fulfilling its mission, dealing with issues as soon as it was notified. 

As for Capital Planning, several small repair or renovation projects (flooring, sliding glass doors, sidewalks, landscape edging) at SES made their way into the Capital Planning Recommendation list between FY2013 and FY2021; extensive repair/replacement of the roof did not. Assumedly, it was never requested.

The FinCom also weighed in on the Capital Planning Recommendation list, indicating that the committee also did its due diligence.

The minutes indicate that issues such as misdiagnoses of infrastructure problems at SES and the postponement of needed repairs originated with the Town Administrator (TA) and Select Board and consisted mainly of a lack of communication and inattention to detail.

Procedural Lapses Lead to Inaction on Repairs

Minutes reveal several occasions described below in which the BC was ignored by the TA and SB when repair issues were discussed or investigated.

Roof

There is little doubt the SB was kept up-to-date concerning the issues at the school. The TA attended nearly all BC meetings as a guest, presumably to serve as liaison to the SB and assist the BC whenever possible. The TA was the primary driver behind the MSBA grant applications described in the first article of this series; the BC was not averse to applying but also agreed the roof work needed to be done whether or not grant funding was secured.

The February 15, 2013, TA Report states that the BC “is requesting funds (Capital Planning Committee section) for repair to the elementary school gym roof in conjunction with a grant.” There is no such request listed on the Capital Planning Recommendations list for that year, however. 

Despite the BC’s repeated advice that the roof project should move forward with or without state aid, the SES roof discussions at SB meetings over the next few years focused primarily on trying to secure MSBA grants for the project.

When the fourth attempt to secure MSBA funds was rejected in April 2020, the SB’s unwillingness to commit the money necessary to fund the SES roof project is reflected in the comment, “if no MSBA funding is available, there will be a need to look into other sources of funding and whether there are any exemptions from the State requirements.”

There was no more Select Board discussion of the SES roof project until mid-September 2020 when the TA announced, “An engineering proposal for the school roof project is being sought.” By October 15, she noted that the school roof had been leaking “for a number of years” and the scope of the roof project will require bids from contractors certified by the Massachusetts Division of Capital Asset Management and Maintenance (DCAMM). In order to do this, a Request for Quotation from the Franklin Regional Council of Governments (FRCOG) was necessary. She noted she would be working with Bruce Turner, the Union 28 Director of Finance and Operations. There was no mention of the BC’s involvement.

After the BC Chair procured an estimate from a local contractor for the entire SES roof project, the TA said she would seek a waiver of DCAMM requirements. He is still awaiting the outcome of the TA’s request on this matter.

In early 2021, the Town Administrator (TA) announced she was moving ahead with the SES roof project, consulting with a member of the Capital Planning Committee and a member of the Board of the Assessors. When the BC Chair asked why his committee had been disenfranchised, another BC member stated, “SES paid for engineering study and handed it to (the TA) who put together her team.”

Heating System

Similar lapses have plagued the HVAC problems at the school. In early 2016, the School Committee notified the town that the school boiler needed replacing, making funding requests in February 2016 of $70,000 from Capital Planning (the request was never added to the Recommendations list) and requesting $40,000 in February 2017. The FinCom voted to disallow the last request as the BC, learning of the issue, determined that the boiler was not the source of the SES’s heating system woes. Even so, the SB added a request for a new school boiler in their 2019 and 2020 MSBA applications.

An incident recounted in the SB minutes of 1/7/20 describes the convoluted procedure followed when replacing a water heater at SES. An entity other than the BC had ordered a new water heater, which was delivered damaged and therefore not used. The BC Chair said he had agreed to look at the old heater to assess the situation on behalf of the BC and FinCom. He and a FinCom member with knowledge of such systems found that a different heater was needed, one that would be less expensive. The BC Chair tried to advise the TA of this but was unable to get a callback. With the involvement of the BC, the correct heater was purchased and installed in February.

I asked a member of the Shutesbury School Committee why these two issues took so long to resolve. He said that when there are infrastructure problems at the school, officials notify the Town of Shutesbury directly. Generally, that contact is the TA, who then begins the process of getting the problem rectified. 

According to the BC minutes, the committee was not notified of these issues, which explains the confusion surrounding the heating system and water heater concerns. When the BC found out about these problems, they stepped in to assist–which led to a satisfactory resolution.

Despite the assistance of the BC in assessing the school’s heating system requirements and needs, the TA announced at the April 12, 2021 BC meeting that she was hiring a consulting engineer–with help from the same individuals she chose for the roof project–for the school’s HVAC project. 

When the BC Chair again asked why the BC was not being consulted when the issue had been referred to them, the TA replied that the Capital Planning Committee (of which the BC Chair is also a member) had requested her to do so–though I could find no suggestion of this in the minutes of the Capital Planning Committee. She went on to say that the BC and FinCom, the same committee members who helped correct the heating system misdiagnoses, had “no experience with commercial systems and (were) not qualified.”

According to the BC Chair, the Building Committee agreed that the town should hire a consulting engineer. Inquiries made with local contractors and architects resulted in a referral to Hesnor Engineering, which provided a proposal to engineer and support the installation of HVAC upgrades on May 12, 2021. After providing copies of this proposal to the Shutesbury School Committee, the TA, and BC members, the decision was delayed by the TA, who said the project must be subjected to bidding protocol. Hesnor was finally awarded the contract in late 2021.

Next: How we can move forward, and how much these projects will likely cost Shutesbury taxpayers.

Weekly Factoids:

 

The condition of U.S. public schools:

Data: U.S. School Buildings: Age, Condition, and Spending

2021 Report Card for America’s Infrastructure: Schools

 

Infrastructure Problems Haunt Shutesbury Elementary School

Photo: shutesburyschool.org

As Shutesbury considers building a new library, many of the town’s public spaces have serious maintenance issues–including leaking roofs, heating and cooling system problems, and mold growth. The building with the most significant difficulties is the Shutesbury Elementary School (SES), with its 10-year history of roof leaks, among other serious concerns.

To find out why the two roof projects (gymnasium roof and school building roof are considered separately) at SES have not been fully addressed, I read through all the available minutes for the Town Buildings Committee and the Capital Planning Committee. I also pored over recent Annual Reports as well as several Finance Committee and Select Board minutes and requested several documents from the Town of Shutesbury. 

What I found was a pattern of patchwork repairs to a school roof that needed much more extensive work. Though many town officials noted the need for a more thorough scope of work–up to and including replacement–the project seemed to drop off the radar of Shutesbury’s government leaders for long periods. In addition, the town spent many years applying for grant aid for extensive repair and/or replacement, assistance that was denied. Meantime, the Town Buildings Committee took on the responsibility of monitoring and repairing the SES roof in response to each new problem.

A History of Deferred Maintenance

Shutesbury’s reluctance to address maintenance and repair of its public buildings is well-documented. A grant-funded study on Community Resilience Building published in 2020 noted that “Workshop participants stated that there is roof damage at almost every public building in Town. The roof of the Old Town Hall, where Town records and archives are stored, has caved in.” The Fire Department and Town Hall were also identified as buildings with leaking roofs.

The Town of Shutesbury Hazard Mitigation Plan of 2021 notes, “The roofs at the elementary school, Old Town Hall, and Highway Department salt shed are in need of repair.” 

When I asked the BC Chair about these problems, he told me that the Old Town Hall roof did not collapse, is solid, and that the Committee is not aware of any roof issues at the Fire Station. The Town Hall, where the roof was recently replaced, had a leak surrounding the chimney flashing; that has been repaired and a chimney cap installed. The roof at the Highway Department salt shed was repaired approximately three years ago.

Piecing together the SES roof story shows both the Select Board (SB) and the Finance Committee (FinCom) were aware of roof leaks at the elementary school by 2010 and 2011. The FinCom noted that suggested roof replacement costs of between $700,000 and $1,000,000 were “purely speculation” and that when replacement was necessary, the job “will likely be eligible for state grants.” 

The FinCom continued to acknowledge, in its Annual Reports for Fiscal Years 2016 through 2022, the need for continued maintenance on the 40+-year-old SES building. The fiscal year 2018 report notes a capital outlay of $300,000-plus for the school roof that FinCom expected to be on a Special Town Meeting warrant in Fiscal Year 2019. I could not find a record of that warrant article or a vote, however.

State Aid Denials Stall Action on SES Repairs

The “Upcoming Capital Projects” section of FinCom’s annual report for Fiscal Year 2020 estimated the SES roof project at $1,000,000 after noting “grant funding denied”. For FY2022, Annual Town Meeting approved $254,100 for phase one of the SES roof project as well as up to $200,000 to update controls on the SES heating system. In its year-end report, FinCom estimates phase two at $600,000. Also in the works is another costly SES upgrade: a new ventilation system, estimated to cost between $175,000 and $350,000. The ventilation project and the second phase of the roof replacement are on tap for next year (FY2023).

The grant funding mentioned time and again refers to the town’s fruitless efforts to secure aid from the Massachusetts School Building Authority (MSBA) for improvements to the SES roof as well as the heating, ventilation, and air conditioning system (HVAC).

My information request yielded applications to the MSBA’s Accelerated Repair Program and their subsequent denials for the years 2018 through 2021. The first request was made in February 2014 and presumably denied; the town had no record of this request.

The town’s insistence on submitting requests for funding prevented lasting repairs from being performed on the school roof for many years. Instead of accepting the fact that aid was not forthcoming, the town continued to postpone any substantial SES roof projects for several years–even as Shutesbury’s cash reserves continued to grow. Meantime, the Town Buildings Committee, whose Chair is a Massachusetts licensed construction supervisor, took the initiative to address each new roof problem on a case-by-case basis.

Volunteers Address Chronic Leaks at SES

Since at least 2010, Town Buildings Committee (BC) members, particularly the Committee’s Chair, have taken the initiative to maintain the SES roof and arrange repair work when leaks occur–something that has happened numerous times, according to BC minutes.

The available BC minutes on Shutesbury.org spanned mid-2015 to the spring of 2021. The minutes recounted many incidents of roof leaks at the school and the repairs and preventive maintenance work organized by the BC Chair and other committee members. Ice dams, an issue acknowledged by the Select Board in 2011, continued to cause leaks during the winter and spring months. A local roofing company, Hayden Roofing, often performed repairs as well as maintenance in the fall to fortify the roof for the upcoming winter.

After extensive repairs were completed in the fall of 2016, more leaks occurred in March of 2017. The BC agreed that a new roof needed to be installed by 2018. The roof suffered from chronic leaks through 2017. In December, the BC agreed that repairs were not sufficiently addressing the problems and were not cost-effective; the town should “move forward with roof replacement project and grant application.” On October 25, 2017, Shutesbury’s free cash balance was $1,253,860 and stabilization fund balance was $1,045,294.

Leaks continued into 2018. When the grant was denied by the MSBA in June, the committee agreed to consider resubmitting the grant application as an option, noting the “Town should proceed with plan to replace roof without grant.” On October 16, 2018, Shutesbury’s free cash balance was $1,253,057 and stabilization fund balance was $582,503. The Buildings Committee began discussions with Tom Ewing, Roofing Consultant. At the July 10, 2018, SB meeting, the Shutesbury Town Administrator (TA) announced, “an appraisal for the complete replacement of the SES roof is in process.” There is no further mention or record of this appraisal, however.

By May 2019, the third grant request was denied and stopgap measures to control leaks continued. On October 18, 2019, Shutesbury’s free cash balance was $1,389,680 and stabilization fund balance was $710,795. In February 2020, the TA, who often attended Buildings Committee meetings, stated that another grant request had been filed with the MSBA. The BC Chair noted that there needed to be a “Plan B” to replace the SES roof if MSBA funding did not come through. The grant request was denied on June 3, 2020, according to information supplied to me through the Town Clerk’s Office. On December 2, 2020, Shutesbury’s free cash balance was $1,378,767 and stabilization fund balance was $829,616.

The Town filed its latest request for grant money from the MSBA on June 1, 2021. The October 27, 2021 refusal marked the fifth time in a row Shutesbury was denied aid from the MSBA (source: Shutesbury Town Clerk’s Office). Our town has the funds to replace the roof. Why is this not being taken care of? Aside from the children, the roof is the most important part of the building. Why do we continue to send our children to a school with a leaky roof?

Heating and Ventilation Problems at SES

In addition to the roof problems, the heating system at SES has been balky and needs assessment and upgrading. The June 12, 2021, Town Meeting approved a heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) study as well as upgrades to the present system. The FinCom has acknowledged the need to set aside money for a whole-building ventilation system–which may also include air conditioning–though the town hopes that state money might be available to defray the costs of such a project.

In the next post, I’ll take a look at why it took so long for town leaders to recognize the need for extensive repairs at SES.

Weekly Factoids:

 

School building conditions and their effects on students:

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2920982/

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6360122/

Was the Small Library Pilot Project Tailor-Made for Shutesbury?

MBLC Building Specialist Lauren Stara Discusses the Small Library Pilot Project

Early next year, the Massachusetts Board of Library Commissioners (MBLC) will decide which town, Shutesbury or Otis, will receive the Small Library Pilot grant. This program, the first of its kind in Massachusetts, was designed for towns with 2,000 or fewer residents. According to the May 6, 2021 news release introducing the program, these towns are generally underrepresented when securing construction grants from the MBLC due primarily to the high costs of construction.

The release states that 46 small towns were eligible for the grant, yet only four towns submitted letters of intent. Two towns have since withdrawn from consideration. Did the MBLC misread the appetite for such a project? With the state now funding 75% of eligible costs compared to the usual 40% to 50%, providing increased technical support, and streamlining the process, it is surprising that few communities expressed interest.

One reason why there was not wider participation could be that this project was designed to favor Shutesbury as the program’s recipient. I have outlined the reasons why I believe this to be the case below. Taken together, I feel they indicate a predisposition to awarding this grant to Shutesbury despite the town’s history of opposing library construction projects–or, perhaps, because of it.

The Project’s Workload and Timelines are Daunting

Though the Pilot Project was created to help small towns navigate the complicated process of building a new library, the work is arduous. The sheer volume of documents listed on the MN Spear Small Library Pilot Project page is dizzying. The Trustees, Library Director, Friends, and volunteers have put an enormous amount of work into creating these documents, some of which are quite lengthy. Add to this the compressed timelines dictated by the MBLC and it is obvious that this is a herculean task.

In October, I emailed Lauren Stara, MBLC Building Specialist, asking why so few towns expressed interest in the program despite the additional financial and technical support offered by the Pilot Project. She replied:

“We are not surprised at the small number of applicants, and we think there are good reasons for this:

• The project is new construction only (many towns have historic buildings that they wish to preserve)

• The rapid timeline

• The amount of work involved in a major capital project (we think this is why two of the four towns have dropped out already – they realized how much it would take, even with increased help from us)”

 

This response belies the concept behind the Pilot Project, which is to make the grant process easier for small towns. Why create a targeted program with many of the same roadblocks that have historically kept small towns from participating?

These hurdles appear less consequential for Shutesbury. Ms. Stara noted at a meeting with Shutesbury’s Select Board on August 3 that “Shutesbury worked hard on grant applications twice before” and “the first step is to write a library building program; having written a program in the past, Shutesbury is in a good position”. Ms. Stara obviously has sympathy for those involved in trying to secure the library construction grant ten years ago. While introducing herself at the Small Library Pilot Community meeting on August 17, Ms. Stara mentioned her involvement in “the last grant round that Shutesbury valiantly tried to pass a grant in (sic)”. 

Shutesbury also has the advantage of a full-time Library Director. Of the 68 Massachusetts towns with populations under 2,000 six have Library Directors who work 35 to 40 hours per week. 

When I spoke with the Library Director in Otis several weeks ago, she speculated that the Pilot project entailed a lot of work complicated by truncated timelines that part-time Directors might find too much to handle. She noted that small towns like Otis, Chester, and Florida have Directors whose salaries are often supported by grants and donations, not by the town’s taxpayers as is the case in Shutesbury (on line 146). 

The MBLC and Shutesbury Share an Especially Cozy Relationship

Shutesbury Library Director Mary Anne Antonellis has a longtime association with the MBLC Board, dating back at least to the last grant round when she worked with Ms. Stara. The friendly relationship between the two is obvious. In addition to Ms. Stara’s comment about Shutesbury’s “valiant” efforts ten years ago, she responded to a resident’s call for “staff space” at a new library with the statement, “We’ll get Mary Anne an office.” This comment referred to Ms. Antonellis’ belief that a Director’s office is controversial in Shutesbury–a concern she voiced at the October 14 info session regarding space allocations in the library building plan.

Ms. Antonellis had been involved in the Pilot project long before the MBLC made its announcement in May. In her December 12, 2020 Director’s report, Ms. Antonellis noted that she had attended a meeting about the MBLC’s library planning tool, Library Space: A Planning Resource for Librarians, the same guidebook mentioned by Ms. Stara at the August 17 community meeting. Ms. Antonellis said she had “participated in reviewing this plan as it was developed”, a process that lasted over a year, according to Ms. Stara. Ms. Antonellis also referred to her involvement with the Pilot Project in her report of May 8, 2021, saying, “The potential to move forward with this long-discussed project is here.” 

Ms. Antonellis was given space in the MBLC’s Pilot Project news release to plead her case for Shutesbury, the only Director quoted of the 46 towns deemed eligible for the Pilot Project. She also sought the MBLC’s feedback while developing the language for Shutesbury’s 2021 Town Meeting Warrant Article 9, which requested permission from voters to apply for and use Pilot Project funds. 

In another favorable development for Pilot Project proponents here in Shutesbury, Karen Traub, a former Shutesbury Library Trustee who was active during the last grant round, was recently appointed to the MBLC by Governor Baker. Although the Board itself will not be voting on which town receives the Pilot grant, it is certain that Ms. Traub will be advocating for Shutesbury in her new capacity as Commissioner.

Pilot Project Requirements Favor Shutesbury

Some of the criteria listed in the MBLC’s Program Notice to rank towns regarding Pilot Project eligibility are clear, such as “financial stability of the municipality, its bonding capacity, and any financial reserves”. Shutesbury is particularly favored in the area of cash reserves, outpacing area towns and causing some residents to move to lower cost of living areas in its zeal to prop up its Free Cash percentage to nearly 20% of its annual budget.

Others are somewhat vague, such as the “demonstrated community readiness and support for a major capital project” criterion. I received some clarity on this recently, through an email exchange with Ms. Antonellis.

I asked her why, according to the MN Spear Small Library Project page, voting on this project at the Annual Town Meeting rather than at a Special Town Meeting in the fall was characterized as strengthening our application. She replied that such a move fulfilled the above criterion because “We showed ‘community readiness’ by asking for permission to pursue the grant at Town Meeting. We were both informed and organized enough to write a warrant article, and have it approved by the Trustees and Selectboard.”

The logic of this explanation seems a bit shaky. For instance, the warrant article was written by a handful of people with assistance from the MBLC, so Boston knows it does not reflect the “readiness and support” of the community at large. Neither was the Town Meeting vote itself. Of the 1,494 registered voters in town, a total of 219 (just under 15%) signed in to vote at Town Meeting. Fewer still voted on Article 9, since many had left or were leaving by the time that article reached the floor. Notably, of the 29 articles on the warrant, 22 passed unanimously; Article 9 passed with a “clear majority”.

In addition, the article does not speak to any costs related to the Pilot program, never mind a major capital project. In any case, as long as a town had administered the vote by the deadline of November 19, there should have been no advantage to procuring a vote months ahead of that date.

It should be noted that on June 12, Town Meeting voted on this article without any prior knowledge that another new library project was on the horizon; in fact, Trustee minutes from their meeting of April 12 show June 12 as the date when “we will introduce the town to our plan to apply for the MBLC Pilot Grant Project”. Shutesbury taxpayers were introduced to the concept of the Pilot Project and Shutesbury’s plan to participate in the program on the floor of Town Meeting with Article 9. 

The MBLC Plans to Use Shutesbury to Take its Planning Model Nationwide

As a replacement for the Wisconsin Library Building Project Handbook, the MBLC’s Library Space: A Planning Resource for Librarians was touted by Ms.Stara at the August 17 community meeting as the new, go-to manual for public library planning and construction not only for Massachusetts but for the entire country. Both MBLC Building Specialists Andrea Bunker and Lauren Stara are credited authors on this guide, and the Pilot Project will be using its principles throughout the planning and building of a new Pilot Project library. 

As a testing ground for its new handbook’s precepts and a prototype of a possible new library construction project type, the Pilot program is very important to the MBLC. What would be better than choosing a subject town with name recognition, where a legal fight over a failed library vote was covered by Boston media outlets as well as news media worldwide? It would be a coup for the MBLC if it could prod such a recalcitrant community into accepting the Pilot grant. What a wonderful marketing tool for its new planning guide!

Whether you agree with my assessment or not, the most important aspect of this scenario is that Shutesbury voters will have the last word. Will we use our cash reserves or vote for a debt exclusion override to fund this project? We will be asked to do one or even both of these things at Shutesbury’s 2022 Annual Town Meeting next spring, and at the ballot box shortly afterward. Staying informed on this important issue and attending Town Meeting will ensure that the will of the people of Shutesbury, not the MBLC, prevails.

Weekly Factoid: Christmas Edition

 

If you are looking for a different perspective on Christmas this holiday season, treat yourself to a reading of The Battle for Christmas by former UMASS history professor Stephen Nissenbaum. Ho Ho Ho!