001of allegiance. >> I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> Okay. Um before we I ask for approval of the minutes, I just want to do a quick shout out um because it is teacher appreciation week. So, I just want to um record that on behalf of the Weston Board of Education, we want to recognize the excellence of our faculty and um we so appreciate that teachers nurture, guide, challenge, inspire. Each and every student is their goal each and every day for the long haul. And so we um salute their commitment and their professionalism and their consistency and we're so glad they're here. So I hope everybody enjoys teacher appreciation week
002and I know there'll be much more sort of tangible fun things at the schools and the buildings. So I'm just wishing everyone a great week and um Erica when you get the chance if you could add our board of ed wishes as well. >> Definitely. >> Okay. Thank you. Um, can I ask for approval of the minutes or any discussion about the minutes before I ask for the motion? >> Um, there was one comment I have on the minutes. >> Okay. >> Uh, in the minutes I think we were sending there were there were two items I thought we were sending back to the committee. I thought there was the um policy 6145 which is on publications which I I think we are sending that back. I also thought um in addition to others there
003was a policy 6142 on family life and sexed. There was a um a sentence I believe at the end of that that was being left out that we were going to discuss about being updated >> and I didn't see any reference to that. Jody, >> hang on one second. Let me see. Um >> I missed it. >> There were two Well, there were two sections of minutes. Let's see. >> Oh, okay. >> Um the board review I see survey of students was going back. Um, one sec. Oh, it is here. The board reviewed the updates and sent them back to the committee for its edits. Um, >> we were sending included in that one. >> We were sending back publications. >> Yep. >> Um, >> we were send >> publications for a definition. >> Yes.
004Helpful. >> Survey of students. Um, we were >> Yeah, I didn't I didn't see Erica. I didn't see policy 6142. I think there was a sentence that we were, if I remember correctly, we were discussing that was I think there was language that was stricken and then there was a sentence that was left out, I think, in the in the updating or amending of that document. And so, >> you're correct, Michael. It had a strike through it, that one last sentence. And I I did unstrike it. >> Okay. Okay. Okay. Got it. Got it. >> It was Yes, that was done in error. So, I took off the strike through and that sentence is included in the policy. >> I think that's why we >> Okay, I wasn't sure if it was coming back. Sorry,
005I was uh I was a bit confused as to whether or not it was going back to the committee or not, but okay, that's fine. >> It's actually going to be coming back to the committee anyway because another member had questions after that. >> Okay. actually ended up pulling it to begin with and it's you're going to see it at policy tomorrow if we can get to all of those as well. But so yeah, Erica was just going to correct the strike through. We weren't sending it back. Um but it is coming back now anyway. >> Got it. Okay. All right. Thanks. >> It is on the agenda though tonight for a second read. >> It it is. >> Yeah. 614.1 Oh, I thought I thought you were talking about >> No, no, no, no.
006Yeah. No, we're talking about 6142.1. Yeah. Hold on. >> That was the one. >> It is on the agenda. >> 6142 612 >> 6142.1. What's the name of it? >> Yeah, I didn't I didn't see it. Is it on the agenda tonight? Maybe I'm just getting confused because there's so many. >> May 4th. >> There's There's 6142.3. But yeah, there's 61442.3 >> that's coming back tonight. >> But there's no 6142.1, >> correct? I didn't I didn't see Erica, unless I'm >> Okay. Yeah, >> hold on. Why? >> It was originally and then I pulled everything. >> Okay. Sorry. >> There was a whole list of policies and then I pulled about eight of them. >> So, you may have seen it before in that draft, but it's not on tonight. >> Okay. Thank you. Okay.
007Yeah. >> Yep. >> I think I sent a bunch of questions in and I think um >> I didn't mean them to, but um and Jody felt it was better to go back to committee some of them. >> Yeah. >> And Erica didn't have a chance to take a look at them. So instead of um putting them on and then pulling them back off, we just took all of them off and we will address them at policy tomorrow or Erica can address them individually. >> Okay. So that one So 6142.1 then is going back to committee. Okay. >> Okay. Got it. It's my only comment. >> Yep. You're good. >> I see Peter. >> Okay. So, um, can we approve the minutes then? >> Mhm. >> So, there there are no revisions, right? >> No.
008>> Okay. Move that the minutes of the April 20th, 2026 meeting were presented for review. There being no corrections, the minutes are approved as presented. >> Is there a second? >> Second. >> Thank you, Lisa. All in favor? >> I. >> Any opposed? Okay. Minutes are approved. Next item on the agenda. uh school facilities, campus revitalization, overview of information regarding capital improvements, selected renovations, approach to Weston Middle School. I think we have informally called that the small R approach. Um, and I want to thank uh Scott Pelman for being here tonight and also um going through the older documents um to find out what we meant by small R and building off of that. And I know um there were some questions from board members. I think most maybe not all but most of them
009many of them anyway will be addressed tonight. So again, Scott, thank you for um being here to present and um if you could take us through it. Uh I think just want to give one um caveat is that as you as you talk um even though we're a small group tonight, I have a feeling that people will want to see this presentation perhaps later as well. So go ahead and and define the terms that you need and and all of that. And then also let us know uh when you want to take board questions. Would you like to wait till the end or not? You let us know when you when you want to stop for questions. >> Okay. Thank you, Deb. Uh good evening everyone again. Scott Pelman from Collier's Project Leaders. I'll try
010and do my best to stop at uh you know certain points and ask if there's any questions. um I tend to get going but I'll I'll try and curb myself uh just to make sure I give you opportunities. So, um, you know, as you're aware, um, we have put together highlevel estimates for both a new and a renovation option for the middle school. Um and and again the renovation or the big R just to you know rec cap this really quickly is if you if you renovate a school as new which is what we're calling the big R you go in and you replace every system electrical plumbing um in essence you you update the building to like new condition. um if you do that, if you're granted that and that's it's not a guarantee,
011but you have to submit um you know a whole packet of information and proof to the state that it's cheaper to do that and that's the best method. If the state approves that, then the state will reimburse you for all the repair replacement items. Repairing windows, replacing windows, ceilings, light fixtures, all the plumbing in the wall that may be getting ready to go, your your boilers and and so forth. But the um the task at hand that we're going to talk about this evening is is the small R. So, how does it compare if you look at just doing capital improvement projects? Um, and how do those numbers relate? Um, and again, you know, we'll talk about it, but a lot of those capital improvement projects would not be reimbursed by the state because you
012wouldn't be renovating the building as new. The state does reimburse on mechanical system replacements. Um, they do reimburse on roofing and code issues. Um but a lot of the work that would be involved um with the capital improvement plan would not be funded by the state. So I I put together a kind of a quick cover letter um to this presentation that the board should have in place. What we did is we went back and we reviewed the 2017 Silver Petraelian Associates facility condition assessment. Um, what they were hired to do is go through the building nine years ago, look at all the systems, take a lot of pictures, and then provide you a cost of what they felt were more of the immediate needs and the things that really required updating for the school.
013And they and they kind of classified those in a in a spreadsheet as far as tiers go. Um when we looked at that report, we did see that they had included costs for um updating uh mechanical units um including air conditioning. However, a big cost and and I'll show you momentarily um what they considered tier three um it was $12 million for mechanical upgrades. They didn't include that at that time in the in the overall projected cost. It was was listed on the sheet, but it wasn't in the total. Um, again, we think that was the remainder of full mechanical replacements. You know, reading through the port report, it wasn't um you know, evident exactly what their scope was again from 9 years ago. Um, so but it it did their their numbers at that
014time included replacing the roofing, replacing light fixtures and emergency fixtures, but it didn't address all the wiring, the switch gear, power, data outlets. Um, it included demolition and construction. Um, I actually checked that. That's the 2019 report. It did um it did state some of the things like the rooftop fans back in 2017. They said, "Well, those fans have about 10 to 15 years of useful life." Well, you're 9 years down the road now. So, I'm assuming if we um had somebody come back in through the school, they'd probably say those those fans have about a 1 to five year lifespan. So, again, that's part of the issue of going back to a a really old facility condition assessment is you're 9 years down the road. things that were starting to deteriorate and might have
015been marginal are now um you know have been used a a lot more and maybe you know suffering from some some issues. Um so I'm going to let's see if I can I'll go ahead and share here and before I get going any further any any questions on sort of the high level kind of discussion of what is and what wouldn't be included? So, so what you're basically saying is that with uh uh reconstructing is new, we get some money back from the state, but if you did a little R, still most of the things need replacing, but as you replace it over a longer period of time, then we're going to bear the entire cost of all these replacements. >> Yeah. It it really doesn't matter if you do it overtime or if you
016did all the little Rs all at once. It doesn't change the way the state looks at it. If you don't get renovation status approved, then the majority of all your repair and replacement costs are not covered. >> Right. But but the rep if we do the little R the repair and replacement costs are 100% borne by the school district but it can be over time versus res you know restore as new and then you could get reimbursement from the state. But the issues are the same. These things need to be replaced regardless of whether it's renovate as new or repair over time. >> And and you know certainly a facility condition assessment is not addressing programmatic needs. um you know it did not address some of the challenges you have with the existing school interior
017windowless spaces you know um maybe program areas and things adjacencies and other other issues with the building um from a programmatic standpoint would not be addressed as part of you know the facility condition assessment what we base this this number on. So, um, you know, very quickly just to show a little bit, this is this is some of the pages of the facility condition assessment. And you can see they went through interior finishes and took pictures, um, outside the building, plumbing systems, um, mechanical systems. Here you can see that pictures from up on the roof. And that all turned into this chart. Um, and this chart captures all of the items noted in their 2017 facility condition assessment. Had little notations here, corrective actions as far as site conditions, exterior conditions, put a cost on
018it back in 2017. So, these would be the costs that they had envisioned in 2017. Um, and let's see. you know, mechanical systems. You can see here there's notations to install air conditioning, add air conditioning to 1960s classrooms. Um, so I think, you know, they were augmenting some of the existing air handling units, doing some other things to it. Again, there wasn't a very clear description in this as as far as what that meant. This is the big one that I was talking about. So, if you look at the costs under mechanical systems, they have a tier one cost of just under $5 million and a tier 2 cost of $510,000. Those two total 5,476. They had tier three mechanical upgrades of $12 million that was noted includes consolidation of heating plants, new high performance
019HVAC systems, and structural modifications. Um because if you know you're familiar with the school, a lot of the duct work and things are actually right now run inside the school. You've got unit ventilators which are those heating units that go through the walls. You can't use those anymore legally. They're too noisy. And there's Connecticut statutes that say any background noise in a classroom has to be below 32 dB. So, my understanding is this $12 million that accounted for all of those other mechanical upgrades that you should do. But when you get to the very bottom of this this list, you can see there's a number here, 17,298. And that's important because that's going to show up again in a minute. So, that 17,298 does not include the $12 million of that tier three mechanical. So
020we based our sort of evaluation based on this capital improve improvement plan back from 2017 and the numbers that were incorporated into that. Now I did take those and I escalated them to today's rates but this is what we based it on. And again there may be other things if you if you you know had a new facility condition assessment performed. It might identify other things that aren't on this list that may have been borderline at that time, but now would be a recommendation from an architect and an engineer to replace. So, I'll stop there for a moment and see if there's any questions. >> Scott, I have a quick question. So, I think it's obvious that if you take the ED specs and you look at this small R, >> it's going to wind
021up someplace close to renovate as new. Um, are there things and I know that you took a quick look at this. If if you backed out ED specs and you were to simply do a small R, >> is this all? Yeah, >> this does not match the EDS spec or meet the EDS spec requirements. Again, this is just facility issues. This does not mirror line up match the EDSspec at all. >> Okay. >> So, so this this capital improvement plan does not meet the requirements of edspec. Is there anything in here? So from your perspective, are there thing when you look at a building that's as old as a middle school is and you were to simply look at a small R as we've been calling it, are there things in the capital improvement plan
022that are either missing that you would say should have been in here? And are there things in the capital improvement plan that are I don't want to say unnecessary, but I I think I'd just default more to the >> Yeah. I mean, well, you you paid a design professional to go through and prioritize what they felt was necessary for repairs back in 2017. Um, you know, my suggestion would be, you know, if if you were really going to pursue this, you would you would really need to get a new facility condition assessment performed. Um, I'm not familiar enough with the building, nor were we, you know, tasked going through and performing an FCA. um you know, we would we would recommend hiring a an architect in in an engineering firm to do that. So, um
023you know, I just don't think it's appropriate for me to comment on, you know, being an architect, being involved in school construction projects, going through this list, nothing jumped out at me either way. Nothing jumped out at me and and said, "Well, that's odd. We never see that included in FCA." Um, you know, this is is what I would say very typical to a building of this age to see these types of recommendations for corrective work. Um, but again, it wouldn't be appropriate for me to say I think you need to add on X, Y, and Z at this time. >> Thanks. Hey, hey, Scott. Really quickly, you know, if I scroll down to the bottom of this, it says that, you know, the total project amount is is is 100 100 million. >> Yeah,
024we're not there yet, but okay. >> Yeah. Yeah. Oh, no, no, no. I understand. I'm just I'm I'm trying to I'm trying to just think through. So um the the only advantage that I can see from go to moving forward with a small R let's call it would be to it it does give us the ability to layer in cost over time let's say >> right we don't have to front everything you know the entire cost upfront and bond it from the beginning right you can take more of an incremental approach Now, of course, you have to weigh that against sort of when these systems, you know, the prioritization of the system placements. Okay. So, take take that into into account. Okay. The disadvantages here though that you've talked about just at the onset here,
025and I know we're not the 100 million yet, but you know, there are limited grants and reimbursements, right? I think you mentioned here in the on the first page somewhere it was only 30 to 40% of this that even qualifies for reimbursement right so it's a small percentage um does that reimbursement rate Scott is that more along the lines of as I'm just thinking this is a gross number I'm trying to think of a net number but is that more along the lines of like the 22% of a renovate is new or like a 12%. I don't I don't know what the reimbursement rate there. >> Yeah. For example, if you're doing the roof, the roof would get reimbursed at 22.14%. >> Okay. >> Um you know, part of the work and and again we're
026about to get into this. Um so in 2019 silver Petraeli came back and they presented a number of options in design option one we've kind of used this as the as the basis now again this is 2019 so they included and I'll just kind of skip to the bottom you'll see it again um they included the 17298 that we just looked at from 2017. So that was that was in all these numbers up here. But then they added a lot of additional things. One of the one of the big ones was demolition and replacement of your science wing. uh because I think at that point two years later they felt looking at that programmatically there was so much um challenge with the the current facility that they recommended let's demolish that wing and we'll build
027a new 11,000 ft wing. So this again is is not a you know a full gut renovation but it starts to this one starts to at that time in 2019 address some of the programmatic issues. So, um, you know, they put that together and that totaled 37,543,000. Now, again, that was down back in 2019. We've escalated that to today's dollars and that's where this number comes from. 54 million25 >> and that's the four and a half% a year, correct? That you guys >> roughly. Yeah, we we saw some higher rates. >> Yeah. um you know through the co era. >> Yeah. >> So we've we've included what we really saw as far as industry escalations through co and all. So this is this is our best understanding of of the increase from 2019 to today's
028rate. Now, the one thing I also took out of this 54 million and and I'll show you that momentarily is the pool locker room renovation because I'm trying to do it apples to apples and my understanding is right now is we're not really looking at including the pool and the pool locker room. So, on my overall project budget, I subtracted out I took this 2,689. I escalated it by 1.44% 44% because that was the total escalations from 2019 to 2026. Um, and came up with a number of 3,872. So again, this this was a little bit more of a not just FCA, but addressing some of the real heavy needs we hear, renovating toilets, um, restrooms and lockers that weren't ADA accessible. And again, some of that could be reimbursed if it's code related, but
029not all. Um, new entry stair, um, you know, your front entrance isn't isn't ADA accessible. Um, some of those things. So, what I did then is I put that into our a format. I kind of simplified it here, our form that we used to develop overall project budgets. So, here's the 54,025. So that was the that was the facility condition assessment plus those partial programmatic things that silver Peter Sully recommended in 2019 escalated to today's dollars 54 million25. Here's also then the the 17 million of the um facility condition assessment recommendations. I subtracted out the 3,872 for the locker rooms and the pool renovations and I come up with 67,421. I took that and I escalated it to at this point 2030. Um again, this kind of just to do an apples to apples comparison.
030That's what we used um on the renovation option on the big R. uh by the time we get designs everything designed by the time you implement these changes. So I said, "Okay, now we'll get it designed and we'll implement these again in a fully occupied school. You're not renovating as new, but it still could take quite a bit of time to move the kids around, do this work." Um, just again to kind of keep apples to apples, I kept in when you're comparing the number, we did have we did have costs for new furniture. Again, you could take this out, but just so you see how the numbers align. Went through architects fees, a whole bunch of the soft costs, and kind of jumping to the bottom bottom of the page with contingencies, construction contingency,
031owner contingency. These are all within the other numbers for the new or the big R renovation um approach. Yeah, we we estimated that it would be approximately hund00 million. Now, even conservatively, and I I really truly think 30 to 40% of this work may be I just said what if 50% even of this work qualifies for state reimbursement. Um your ultimate cost um to the town is about $92 million. Now, if this gets spread out further, um, you know, past 2030, you do 10 $15 million here and here and here, you know, those costs could go up. Again, I just I didn't know what projects you would want to do first. I felt again I was trying to do apples to apples. So, saying, let's compare it to a to the big R renovation project
032will accelerate all these um costs up to that same point in time. Um, so, >> so Scott, just just a quick question as you're as you're going through this now. Sorry to interrupt. Um, >> no, no, please. >> But this this was the crux of my question. So, so the 100 million, this is the small R option, even if, like you said, even if it's 50%, it's 20% of 50% that may be reimburse reimburseable, right? So, >> it's it's a little less because the school is also oversized that you're renovating. So, you get a penalty based on your square footage. So, your reimbursement rate actually goes down to 16.68%. >> Okay. Right. >> 50% >> it's about the state would pay $8.4 million and you'd pay about 92. >> Okay. Yep. That that makes sense.
033I was going to say about 10 million. That's that's right with the penalty. Um okay. So, so that so that being the case, that 100 million though. Okay. I just want to know if there are a few things included. Um, that includes the $12 million, right, for that that HVAC AC that was not included. Okay. Does that include the the cost of the temporary relocation of students as well? >> There's some some minor facility relocation cost. It does not include the numbers don't include any portable classrooms or vacating students out of the building. So again, it's going to be a process to plan that >> and and if we move forward with that, I think it would be highly likely that you would need that, right? So there's additional costs. So what we're looking at
034is this hund00 million is I mean it's the conservative number because it only goes up when you factor in potential costs of again temporary relocating students when you're now looking again at the entire building and systems and you're catching let's say issues today that were not identified nine years ago. Right. >> And so it seems like the 100 million is is conservative. We only go up from there. >> It it it could I mean certainly there's more of a risk in this option because you're not replacing everything in the big R. So, let's just say you start working on some of those bathrooms to make them handicap accessible and you got to put in a new carrier to move the the toilet and all of a sudden you open up the wall and you discover,
035you know what, all of this piping is rusted and it's about to fail. That's not in the number. So, yeah, the the the risk and reward or the potential for unknowns because you're not planning on replacing everything is is a lot greater. So, I think your your point is well taken. Yeah, the risk the risk is is even, you know, it's it's akin to that of the renovate is new in that you don't know what you're going to what you're going to find. And so there's there's high risk for for cost to go up as well as for additional disruption essentially. >> Yes. Yeah. And and we always put in higher contingencies on a renovation project than we do on new construction >> because again, you know, typically once you're out of the ground in
036new construction, there really shouldn't be many surprises. You know, you might find something underground, you know, a boulder, whatever, something that's buried that the geotech missed. But yeah, typically your exposure on new construction is less than renovation. and and and then you're you're even getting less >> um the result is you're going to be even less in in um aligned with the EDS specs than you would be even as renovate is new if you're doing a small R. >> Correct. Because the the renovate is new still anticipated with with SLAM put together demolishing portions of the building recreating larger portions of the building. >> Correct. opening up the building in in those where you had interior windowless spaces, creating openings so you can um have courtyards and daylight to those spaces. So it really followed
037it took the the edspec to heart and said these are all the spaces we need to accommodate adjacencies. So the edspec was being addressed now, >> right? Might you have an existing space even in the big R that you know this room in the EDS spec's supposed to be a thousand square feet and and maybe it's 950 in the big R. Sure. Because for 50 square feet does it make sense to tear down a wall and move it a foot and a half? No. But you would be much more aligned with the edspec. Absolutely. the the little R project does not do anything to address the educational needs, adjacencies, and some of the systemic issues of that building from a program standpoint. >> Thanks, Scott. Sorry, I just want to clarify a little bit that
038what like what you just mentioned because at the beginning you said you reviewed the 2017 facilities condition assessment and it doesn't include any programmatic upgrades or what was >> right but then you also add the 2019 study >> so which does include programmatic upgrades >> some yes correct >> okay so I'm just trying to get a sense of is this raw number. It's It's more than just repairs only. It has some It does actually have some programmatic upgrades. >> It it did as far as the science room wing. Yes, it is does, but it it was not doing nearly the extent of the work. Um and again, I I you know, I'm not sure if there was an edspec at that time what those discussions were with Silver Petraeli. Um, but it it certainly doesn't
039address the full EDSspec, but it but it was yes, it was adding on some additional programmatic things like the front entrance and the science wing. >> So, it's not really updating a 2017 number. It's more updating including 2017 2019 figures. >> The Yeah, the 20 the 2019 here. Let me show if I can share again for a moment. Um, here we go. So, the the 2019 had had all of these numbers in in this. So, this was their sort of additional thoughts of of what they would need to do in 2019. hallway reconfigurations. Um, you know, again, the science rooms, music art renovations, cafeteria stage demolition, stage addition. Um, all those are in this $37 million number. And then this items from the facility condition assessment, these are not included in these totals, but I
040felt that that was also important. They were listing that here. So, that should be part of the the overall Okay, >> so this was this was addressing these specific improvements, not wholesale improvements throughout the entire facility, but at the time these were identified as very specific needs >> in the in the option one estimate along with folding in the facility condition issues. >> And is there a number here of just repairs only? because I don't know if there are some people in our town who really just want to know what are the cost of the actual repairs. So the 2017 study only >> you could take that and escalate it. But again the the as I as I stated when I you know began the discussion I would not base a project moving forward on
041a on an evaluation that's 9 years old because there's most likely a number of systems and components that are now reaching the end of their useful life that weren't identified back in 2017. So that's really I I understand your your desire for that, but we don't have the information to provide you that number. >> Well, I just didn't know if Well, because theoretically this the information this one as as Michael just mentioned the 100 million number is also in an accurate number because it really as you mentioned if we want to pursue this we need an updated facilities assessment. So, do you have But in your report, did you have just the repairs only number or it included the 2019 updates? >> It included the 2019 update. >> Yes. >> But I think, you know,
042ultimately, I guess it's really a matter of trying to evaluate what you get for your money. um and you know what the end result is and what may be left to you know and and and it's a it's a it's a tricky discussion but you know again if you don't do a full renovation you know what what's lurking behind the walls you know what are the you know can we get another 10 15 years you know and and you know I really couldn't couldn't tell you that one way or another. Um, are there other questions or comments? I I think um all of this is helpful information because as we all know we're headed for a tri board meeting. So um I will send this over as well to the board of selectmen and the
043board of finance. Um it's a kind of another astounding number. Um, the small R. Uh, okay. I'm going to make a little joke. A joke. The small R has a really big font. How's that? Come on. We used a really big font on this small R. Okay. Um, all right. Are there any uh comments or questions for Scott? Again, I think he has done a great job of letting us know. He's building off of old reports. Yes. Um he's escalating numbers. Yes. He's outlined what's in what's not to the best of his ability. Um and compared it in terms of the applesto apples language that he was using. Um I asked him to do that because I noticed that in the renovate and the build new the pool was just sort of left. You know
044the renovation and the new building didn't connect to the pool. So, I figured it would be just trying to make it apples to apples. There's no value judgment here about the pool. It's just if it's going to be in all of the estimates, that's one thing. Or not in any of them. So, um that's why I asked him to take the pool out. >> Deb, but can I can I make one more emphasis? This report is nine years old. >> Nine years. there are many many many many more things that are probably in need of repair in the school as well. um because you know our budgets have continually kicked the can down the road and so it's not um 2017 it's 9 years of other things that might need in repair and you know
045at this time it's just not feasible to do a new study and if we did a new study the costs could be much greater than they are right now. Yeah, but I I do think that it's just it's helpful. It's another piece of the puzzle and we get a sense of scale and a sense of what's involved in the sense of how complicated and then what's known and what's not. So, I think it's it's still valuable information. Um, and again, I think we're going to a tri board meeting and I think that's our next step. I don't think we need to get into um anything further than that in terms of making any kind of um assessments or um editorial comments or decisions or anything like that. I really think our next step is the
046tri board meeting. >> And I just want to add as somebody who felt like this information was really important for me to analyze the full picture, I just want to thank everyone and I want to thank Scott. I want to thank Deborah or Deborah because I'm looking at your your caption. >> It's okay. I like I like my full name. It's okay. >> I want to thank everyone for taking the extra time to examine this because I do think it's important. >> Yeah. And I I think you know it was and is a good piece of information to have. It's another I'm just looking at it as a big puzzle and this is another piece. So, I appreciate the fact that you asked the question have uh the copies of the documents so I can
047ask Jod to to forward them to the other uh board of finance and board of selectman. Okay. All right. Anything else? All right. Well, again, thank you, Scott, and thanks to all the board members. And if you mle things over and you have other questions, send them to Phil, and you know, we keep sort of funneling them when it's appropriate to Scott. So, thank you. >> All right, let's move along. >> So, thanks, Scott. You don't have to stay for our policies unless you're gone. >> Don't have to ask him twice. >> I know. Okay, here. heard policies and poof. >> All right. Well, for those of us die hards here, um these are secondread policies and um I don't know um if anyone had anything to add. I notice um and I think we
048brought this up when we were talking about the minutes. Some of them have been pulled simply based on some of the questions that came in. So, the policy committee can look at those. Yes, Nicole had two of them that she had questions on. Deb, you had several of them. They have all been pulled off of the >> off of the agenda for this for this meeting. >> Okay, great. >> Um I just I I hate to bring it up, but I had one more small piece and that's under um regulation 6142.3, the suicide prevention education. There was some question about whether it should go with another policy. I I was a little confused about um the regulation versus the policy or should it appear twice or one place or the other. Um >> so I
049was just a little confused about that. But apart from that, um I think in the regulation since we now have an anonymous reporting system, I wonder if we could reference that at least in the regulation language because it's another kind of avenue, another tool. >> Sure, we could do that. That's the regulation 6142.3. >> Yeah, that goes with 5141.5. Yeah. And I only see it I I personally would think the regulation only needs to to appear once and where it goes I leave to the committee. It's the same regulation. It's just showing up in two different places. One for students and one for personnel. That's why it has a 500 series and a 600 theories. Is correct? Am I correct on that Erica? >> Yes. And we moved a little section from the student from
050the staff series to the student I'm sorry. Yes, we moved a piece from the student section to the staff section on professional learning so that they it was more clearly defined. So, Deb, you'd like us to pull this and add something on the um the reporting system. >> Um that that's just my suggestion. I don't know how other board members feel or if it's something that could >> Sorry, can you just direct me to the page? My my only um the only reason why I'm reluctant. So I want to just clarify what you want to do is just um these like as we can see with the AIDS policy these policies last years and years and years and years and so I just am wondering if we reference something a reporting whatever if that becomes
051stale quicker than the policy is my only concern. >> Yeah. Well, again, it just seems like if we're going to um reference teacher training and teacher awareness and students that in the regulation, I'm not suggesting putting it in policy, but put it in the regulation language. >> Which um >> which is, you know, just as a tool >> which page number I'm on in the PDF. >> Which page number? >> Oh, um I don't know. I'm sorry. I I pulled the copy of it. So >> wait I can find I'm right now I'm on callier so I have to it'll take me a while to find it >> and I'm on board book okay which which was it the reg >> it's regulation 6142.3 it's the last of the updates >> where's Oh I don't
052know that I mean if if everyone's fine with that I just saying like it's even if it's a regulation there's this regulation still stays on as long as the policy and who knows these policies are going to stay I presume long after Erica is here and who knows when they're going to get updated again so it just might it just might be conceal information which is all I'm saying so >> okay >> but I obviously I am in favor of giving people information I'm just wondering if website is something that's more readily updatable. >> Um, we could also include it in the school-based handbooks under the section because I think there is a requirement for school-based handbooks relative to some policies. I don't know if suicide prevention is one, but the schoolbased handbook might be
053a place where we can talk about um the anonymous reporting system and its use so that it appears in each one of our school-based handbooks for parents or where it's developmentally appropriate. Mhm. Yeah, I understand and I understand the getting stale idea that there are lots of forms in our regulations that also get updated continuously. >> Okay. >> So, that's all that's my only point. So, I'll leave it to the policy committee. Whatever you guys deem best is fine with me. I just wanted to bring it up. I had a question on I think it's this policy when I read it Saturday and it says to create it like a safe environment. I think it's the same policy where they use that language not to complicate matters but where in the volumes of our policies
054and regulations do we define safety? Does it have a a overarching definition that's complete or is it safe? I don't know. I think it's an opportunity to sort of define what safe means for for the school district. Maybe that's a different discussion. Um, okay. So, I understand what you're saying. I'm just trying to figure out where you're trying to put that or or ask us to look at it. >> Right. I I don't have it in front of me. I >> Okay. Yeah. >> I was like, "Oh, makes sense. Have a safe environment so you don't stress young people that are already pretty stressed out, right? But what is considered safe?" Right? Then I'm looking for that and there's nowhere I can find anywhere that there's a comprehensive definition safe. But I don't know if
055you address it here or you go this is actually a really good future discussion that what really constitutes a safe school. I I actually Peter I mean Deb I'll I'll defer to you on that but Peter I actually think that's a good conversation for a larger topic because if I think about the word safe I think that might be in the vision or mission statement of the school district or I think it's if you it's I think the word safe is used a lot. So if we care so much about safety what does that mean? So that that would be my counter to are we just talking about it in a policy or are we talking about it as a school district and our value of safety >> I think. >> Okay with that. I
056just I just like to see it defined somewhere so everyone kids parents teachers staff parents taxpayers us we know what safe means. >> Okay. No I I kind of agree with Nicole that it's a con it's a concept. Um, so where best to put it, maybe the policy committee should consider it andor the mission statement andor the vision statement andor the goals. And how's that, Erica? What do you what do you advise here? Yeah, when I think about safe, I'm I'm thinking about that new legis legislation specific to um safe schools, safe school climates. Um and that the policy and and regulations that was mandated by the state department of education. Um you know, from a self-safety perspective, we have the suicide prevention. It appears in a lot of what we do. We also have
057like the safety and security relative to you know possession and use of drugs and alcohol or weapons or um other actions. I think it continuously appears in different policies relative to the context of the policy. So, it's something we can bring to the I'll bring it to the committee and we can explore it and um think about how um the board wants to define it or incorporate it into a larger vision or mission. >> And safe is also it's it's relative to the document it's in. It does. Safe is not like a single word like make a right turn or those are several words. But in other words, what I'm trying to say is safe is contextual. So how are you going to possibly define the word safe in every context that could potentially be
058used? You're opening a p Pandora's box. Are you physically safe? Are you emotionally safe? Do you feel safe? What I feel safe and what you feel safe that I think Erica, go for it. But I think you are trying to define something that is contextual and personal. >> Yes, that's why I referenced all those different policies. It appears in all those different contexts. So I I hear your point, David, and agree with it. >> Peter and Nicole, you can you should work out. Let us know what you find. >> Well, no. I mean I mean I'm one who loves define terms but if you define safe why don't we define nurturing it it's >> that's contextual as well >> right so but I guess well what I would argue in terms of bigger picture but
059it's not about the policy is we should be we should be working towards each student's feeling of safety whatever that is because they should feel supported by the resources that we're providing them but that's not something we need to talk about in policy. So, I do think it could be individualized. I think Eric and Tina probably feel that way, too. >> Okay. Well, how about if we leave this with Erica >> to figure out if it's addressed enough or clearly enough, if it needs a definition anywhere, everywhere, or nowhere. Um, and you can have that existential discussion and then take it to whichever committee you feel best can address it and or bring it back to the whole board. >> All right. >> I think I think it's an interesting question. >> Bring it to
060safety committee. We'd love to play with the word safety. >> And there's a safety committee. There's that, too. Okay. >> All we do is we work on what does safe mean? It's all we've been doing. >> Safe enough, >> right? Yeah, then it becomes a matter of degrees. Okay. Um All right. So, is there a motion for the >> policy comments? >> Oh, you do? Okay. Sorry, Nicole. Go ahead. >> Um so, of course, I have a comment to P61712, students with disabilities, preschool students with disabilities. So, um just explaining it a little so the policy committee can take it back. Um, so first of all, there's a typo in the first reference to the IDEIDA in that first paragraph. It's the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. It currently says individual individuals with disabilities act.
061Just add education there. Um, and that act requires that school districts provide special education to students starting at the age of three. and that our policy says that um at that bullet point one that the practices of our district are that we need to locate and identify all preschool children be between the ages of three and five with disabilities. Um which is what we're supposed to be doing legally. The the preamble says that the board shall maintain an early intervention program for preschool age children identified through birth to age three screening process. And so I would vote to strike that the identify. So I I think it should just read the board shall maintain an early intervention program for preschool age children. um like under regulations imposed by the IDA because get having them identified
062through the birth to three process is one way of identifying but as you see in bullet point in number one you actually have to locate and identify all preschool children. So if a parent who has a three and a halfyear-old who never went to birth to three who for a I mean for whatever reason cuz they didn't they didn't suspect their child had a disability or their child had a traumatic brain injury for whatever reason they're at three and a half they're still eligible to come to our preschool program if they're identified and evaluated. So I would that's why I would propose striking that from the first paragraph. >> Okay. Can you just summarize that in a very one sentence? I hear your rationale. I just I want I was listening. I didn't want to
063like read the policy try to find the spot. I wanted to listen to your rationale. >> Also, if you want to talk about it later and call me later, I'm happy to do so. I just wanted to provide the full details so that if when you go back to the polic if you're discussing this in policy committee meeting tomorrow then you can understand my rationale for why I want to delete it cuz it's um I think by practice our ELC fills their program through birth to three. And so that's why it's probably written like that because we have this program to um have early intervention for preschool age children identified through birth to three. That's probably the main way we get our special ed students in preschool. But it's really not the only way. And
064legally, as point one says, we actually have to identify locate and identify all preschool children with disabilities and provide them with special education. So I gave the example that you may have never gone through birth to three and then age three and a half or age four a parent suspects their child has a disability and asks the district to evaluate them. If they're determined to be a child with a child with a disability then they're then you educate them and they go to the ELC. So I just meant birth to three is not the only way they come to our program and it's also legally can't be the only way they come to our program. So that's why I would just propose striking it because the more accurate statement is in bullet point one. But
065again, you're not looking at it in front of you. So if you want to call me about it. >> No, I am. I'm looking at it now. >> I am. So the board shall maintain an early intervention program for preschool children identified through the screening process. No, you're saying strike birth to three screening process. Yeah, it's just children identified as >> disable just this is a mandatory policy and and I used a model policy >> it and so I just want to make sure I'm understanding correctly because if I'm striking something out of a required mandated policy for which I used a model I just want to go back >> for I'm actually surprised that it was the model >> because the coming from birth to three >> yeah I don't know maybe That's why
066number number one is there too because it opens it up right there as well. I'm not sure but I just wanted to make sure I understood so that when I go back to check against the model policy andor consult with legal that I understand your point so I can clearly articulate it. My point is if I'm a parent of a 3 and 1/2year-old or a four-year-old who is recently diagnosed with disability but did not go to birth to three and I'm looking at this policy to see if my child can go to the ELC. It's really not that clear to me because I'd say well my child didn't go to birth my child didn't receive birth to three. >> I understand what you're saying. Well, no. So, I'm just saying if you wanted to like
067ask legal like it's like well FaceTime video. >> What if a parent who didn't I'm just saying if a parent of a 3 to 5year-old who did not go through birth to three and had their child evaluated in a different way comes to the district. >> Yes, we that's what I'm trying to clarify. >> Yeah. So, locating and identifying all preschool children. You're saying just open it up. get rid of the birth to three because it's not the only avenue for which students are identified. >> Right. >> Okay. Got it. >> And then my other one is just um again for also for English language learners um where is that? So okay so which I know >> 172.5. >> Okay. Yeah. So I know you got this as a model policy. So, it's going to
068be a model policy that applies to they're trying to have it apply to all the school districts in Connecticut, some of which have a lot of multilingual learners and ours our school district does not and I don't anticipate that it will in the foreseeable future when we have this policy. So, my only recommendation is just to eliminate references to bilingual education because I don't know if we're ever going to do that. Whereas other school districts who have high numbers or why Eric you think we'll have bilingual instruction? Well, if you you only need 20 students in a particular language that and then you have to offer a bilingual program and you have a year to study it and two years to implement it. So, >> I would just leave it there. If it applies, applies.
069If it doesn't, it doesn't. Yeah. >> I thought there was like no possibility we'd ever have. >> No. No. You think that, but you'd be surprised. Yeah. The number is 20 students. >> Okay. >> So, yeah, I would just leave it there. And if it applies, it applies. And if it doesn't, it doesn't. But at least we're safeguarded with it. >> Okay. >> Any other points, Nicole? >> No. >> Okay. All right. Um, it sounds like we should pull policy 6171.2, the preschool one, and and double check and rewrite that language regarding identification process. I'm not sure you want to do that right now because I think it it does take a couple of sets of eyes um on that Erica. >> Yes. >> Um and the suicide prevention education regulation um because it is
070a regulation. If you wanted to add it at some point, fine. If you don't want to add the um anonymous reporting system, then don't worry about it. So, I don't know that I would pull it. I would just talk it over in the committee and if you need to redo it, then you can bring it back. Got it. >> Well, just to be clear, we need to pull it for tonight because the motion can't include the approval of the policy as it stands. >> Right. Right. And if but Okay. Yeah. Do it either way or just keep it as is. And if you want to add it, then you just bring us an update. That's all. >> Yeah. Why don't we keep it as it is? We'll get the policy through and then the committee
071can talk about if we want to add it and then we just bring it back with the added language for reapproval. >> Yeah. Okay. So, is there a motion again with the idea of um taking the policy 6171.2 back to the committee? So, pulling it tonight. >> I have the motion. I was trying to make notes. So, Jody, should I just go with the changes noted one or say that? You could just say the change is noted and in the description I will make a note that 6171.2 is being brought back to the committee and is not being approved. >> Okay. Thank you. Easy. >> Yes. Much easier, >> right? Okay. Move at the Western Board of Education accept the policy and or regulation updates with the changes noted. >> Is there a second? >>
072A second. Thanks, Lisa. All in favor? >> I. >> Any opposed? All right. Thank you very much. The next item on the agenda um is a proposed meeting schedule for next year. And it's neither option one nor option two, which we saw at our last meeting. It is now option three. And thanks to Jody um uh and Erica and sort of me wrestling with uh the desire to have more meetings but not too many meetings and the desire to have some more in person but not to make it um uh too ownorous for anyone. What I have done is added special meetings in five different months. I think it's September, October, March, and May. The rest of the months remain with one regular meeting. Those five months remain with a special meeting or there's a
073special meeting there to be used if we need it. And I anticipate either um discussions that, you know, we just need to keep up with or perhaps there's a topic that we want to have an extended discussion about. So, we'll use it if we need it and we won't if we won't, but at least they're on the calendar. So, that was what I tried to accomplish and thank you, Jody, for walking it through. Um, any comments? Okay. Is there um do you want more time to think about it or is there um appetite for emotion? I'm good with emotion. It's we meet multiple times these months anyway. So I think really what we're doing is we're just making the date certain so we're not playing doodle pole >> during these months. So >> you're holding
074specific dates for special meetings if needed. >> Yeah. I I I guess my my only question was some of the special meetings didn't say whether I guess we would decide at that time whether they would be remote or in person. Is that >> Yeah, >> we can we can flex those. Okay. All right. >> Right. The concept was put it on your calendar. >> You're noted you're now blocking this time off and then at the if you're going to use the meeting, you can determine whether it's going to be in person or remote. But just keep in the back of your mind that this could be an in-person meeting. So block it off on your calendar. >> Got it. Okay. >> Okay. That was the concept behind the method to my madness as I was
075coming up with these. >> Wow. Julie being patient with me. So, thank you, Joey. >> And you'll also notice in January the 6th and the 7th is highlighted. Those are going to be used for the budget ad um the budget presentations. We're shifting the schedule just a little bit. Instead of doing it right after we come back from December break, there's a few days gap in between. You're going to have just one simple budget presentation and then you're going to start your Q&As's the following week instead of the day after which will give you a little bit of time to digest the material because you will have just received all of your books. So that was the idea behind that. Okay. Is there a motion? >> Yes. >> Move that the Weston Board of Education
076approve the 2026 2027 meeting schedule as discussed. >> Is there a second? >> Second. >> Thanks, Lisa or Peter. Thank you. All in favor? Any opposition? All right. Thank you. Um, >> we'll make sure that this gets posted with the town, so we're in compliance now. >> Oh, okay. >> Uh, the next big scheduled meeting is the, uh, trib meeting. I guess, um, the place is still to be determined, but it is at 700 p.m. I think that that will probably be in person. I mean, I haven't heard officially, but uh the board of selectman I'm just going off the fact that the board of selectman meeting meetings are more often in person than not. So, I'm just um maybe just sort of raising awareness here that this may well also be in person, but
077that's not uh that's not known for sure yet. Am I right, Jody? >> Yes, they are leaning towards an in-person meeting and it will most likely be held in the library back room. I was trying to get our um our li our library for it in the middle school, but unfortunately it's being used for another meeting at that time. So, they're going to host it in the library where they did the speakup. >> Okay. >> Jody, what is the other meeting at the middle school library? >> It's actually project challenge. >> Okay. >> They're they're having something for project challenge and because they have to set up the day before and they take down the day after, I wasn't able to get the room because I did offer it up for that. Yeah. No, I
078was more worried like is this a competing meeting? >> No, no, I shouldn't have used the word meeting. I should have used event instead. But yes, that's why. >> But Art Jam is that evening, too. But I think that >> Yeah, Art Jam ends at 6:30. That would have been a little more doable because I could have just moved artwork to the back. But because with Project Challenge, they use the room and they actually set up and they the children don't come back until the the following morning to take all of their things away. I we can't move. We won't have enough time to move everything and get set up in time for the your meeting. >> No, that's fine. >> Okay. Um, is there a motion to adjurnn? >> So moved. >> Thank you,
079David. Second. Thank you, Lisa. All in favor? >> I. >> All right. Thank you very much for everyone and we'll see you soon. Bye >> bye. >> Thank you all. >> Thank you. Have a great night.