This is my report on the Business Advisory Council at the September 19 board meeting:
At last month’s meeting (story here), Tom Rocklin, Chair of the BAC, presented some recommendations from the council on what to do with Milford Main. Based on expensive building maintenance needs and the inability to use Milford Main for the district’s ongoing educational purposes (the cost to update the building to meet regulations is just too great to justify the investment), the Council recommended the district divest itself of Milford Main as soon as practical.
First, I’d like to stress that the BAC simply recommends to the board – the board can choose to act or not on what they suggest, and no decisions have been made or even discussed re: Milford Main.
Second, there appears to be some misunderstanding about what the Council’s actual recommendation is. I have had people ask if the district is going to tear the building down – and the answer is no, the board has never discussed this. It is absolutely the last choice, and a decision that would be made far in the future.
The true goal of Mr. Rocklin’s report last month was to make the board – and the community – aware of the situation with Milford Main in the hope that people or organizations would step forward with creative ideas for what to do with the building and how to finance it. In fact, this is happening, and we have already had several groups approach us. The Council and others are continuing to explore options.
The Council is also providing information on some additional costs so the board can understand the liability if something big – such as the roof or a boiler – needs to be replaced.
Mr. Rocklin will be returning to the board in a few months with an update. In the meantime, if anyone has input they would like to share about Milford Main, please get in touch with me or Dr. Farrell. The district and BAC will be holding some form of community input opportunities as well, before any decisions are made.
Andrea Brady's Blog 
Pingback: Highlights from 9/19/13 school board meeting | Andrea Brady's Blog
I suggest we put it back into service to reduce class sizes throughout the district.
Don, have you ever been in the building? If you had, you would understand that it is not possible to use it long-term in any type of educational setting. The building is not handicapped-accessible. There are not enough restrooms. A tremendous amount of repair and renovation needs to be done. It would cost a tremendous amount of money even before we consider things like the roof or the boiler going.
In addition, when you talk about reducing class sizes, where are you going to get the money for the additional teachers for those classes? To reduce class sizes to 20 each, we would need a minimum of 29 additional teachers! At an average cost (first year) of $56,000 each (that includes taxes, retirement, and benefits for a starting teacher), you’d be adding $1.6 million to the budget – an additional 1.9 mills!
Research on class size is all across the board – you can find studies that say reducing to 20 students is hugely beneficial; but there are MORE studies that say you have to go down much farther, like to a dozen students per teacher, before you see a real difference. And I’m talking about reliable quantitative studies, not qualitative, non-controlled interviews.
We are getting solid educational results right now – Milford is in the top 10% of districts in the state. The community wants an excellent education at a reasonable price, which is what we’re delivering.
I I have been in one of the 3 the buildings, in fact was just there and saw many kids on the playground. Seems if its good enough for these children, its good enough for Milford’s children. In fact St Andrew uses the cafeteria and some rooms for Sunday school while other classrooms are used by http://www.ccesc.org, for autistic children, of which 4 Milford students attend. A Gymnastics company uses the gym where my children have been many many times.
If it works for them, why won’t it work for us?
I still recommend we put all the buildings back into service with some TLC.
Or, move the administration offices there and put their building back into service as classrooms.
If it works for them, why won’t it work for us?