At a meeting that began at 6:30 p.m., the Hampden-Wilbraham Regional School District School Committee reviewed a proposed restatement of the districtregional agreement that would update legal citations, add weighted voting to satisfy the one-person, one-vote requirement and change how capital costs are apportioned for leased school buildings used by students from both towns.

The revisions, presented by district legal counsel Dessie, were framed as largely technical updates required to conform the agreement to newer regulations and to reflect current local practice. "This agreement has gone through several iterations of changes based on feedback from the Office of Regional Governance," Dessie said, noting the draft moves some language and clarifies historical amendments to the pact.

Why it matters: The draft contains one provision that several speakers said could have immediate political and financial consequences: new language that would treat a leased school building that houses students from both member towns as if it were district-owned for purposes of capital cost apportionment. That change would shift a portion of capital expense responsibility for Wilbraham Middle School from Wilbraham alone to both towns proportionate to the agreed formula, a point that drew lengthy discussion from committee members and residents.

Summary of proposed changes

- Enrollment language and assignments: The draft clarifies that residents of member towns enrolled in grades 6 through 12 shall attend district schools as designated by the committee, and it consolidates exceptions (for example, special-education placements) into a single exceptions section. Dessie stressed that the fact that some students from a grade may be assigned elsewhere for special-education or programmatic reasons "shall not affect this language."

- Terms and voting: The agreement would explicitly state that elected committee members take office July 1 of the year they are elected and would implement weighted voting as the committeeselected method for complying with the U.S. Constitution's one-person, one-vote requirement. Dessie said the committee will still finalize the precise population-based weights.

- Capital apportionment for leased buildings: The most discussed change appears in the draft's paragraph now labeled 3(e). It says that when the district assigns students from any grades of both member towns to a single building that is a leased facility, "that building will be treated as a district-owned building and capital cost will be apportioned in the same manner as a district-owned building." Dessie said that language was intended to avoid arguments that a small number of out-of-grade or special-placement students would negate an apportionment formula.

- Vocational and other costs: The draft also embeds vocational school costs into the district operating budget and apportions them by the established formula, which Dessie said reflects current local practice rather than the older statutory wording the prior agreement used.

- Assessment options, budgets and debt: The revised agreement includes the statutory assessment method as the default and adds an alternative assessment option based on a three-year rolling average that towns must jointly adopt to use. The budget section was corrected to reflect that a two-thirds vote of the whole committee is required to adopt the budget. The debt-incurring procedure in the draft follows "option one": the school committee may vote to incur debt unless member towns schedule a binding vote to block that debt within 60 days.

- Statutes, regulations and signatories: The draft updates citations (including a reference to M.G.L. ch. 71, section 14C, and to 603 CMR 41.02) and names the school committee and the select boards as signatories to leases.

Concerns voiced by town representatives and residents

Committee members and several residents pressed for clarity on how and when the capital-apportionment provision would trigger and what protections towns would have if they invest capital in a building that is later closed or sold. One resident characterized the central issue as "the elephant in the room," asking directly, "If we have to pay a portion of capital costs, why would we pay capital costs on a building we don't own?" The resident warned that voters would expect a clear explanation of what each town "gets back" for its contributions.

Officials from both towns also debated practical questions: whether the leased/building capital threshold should be the $5,000 definition cited from state guidance (the draft uses $5,000 as the capital threshold taken from applicable regulation), whether lease language or the regional agreement should control differing thresholds, and whether treating the middle school as a district building for capital would be clearer if the building were instead sold outright to the district.

Superintendent Provost and other district staff stressed that the capital needs include items linked to health and safety (doors, windows, HVAC and mold remediation). Superintendent Provost observed that routine deferred maintenance can grow into larger hazards and that pursuing Mass. School Building Authority (MSBA) support remains a parallel strategy to lower net costs.

Process questions and next steps

Dessie and other staff said the town attorneys are working on warrant language and that the committee will bring a revised draft back for the next public School Committee meeting so the committee can consider a vote on the final version and then submit it to the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education for its legal review. "If there aren't any major changes that you'd like us to make, then I think we're on track to make those deadlines," Dessie said.

No formal vote on adopting the revised regional agreement occurred at the meeting. Committee members and attendees asked for additional drafting on where to place the leased-building language in the document and for clearer cross-references to avoid conflicts (for example, between paragraph 3(e) and section 4(d) as drafted).

Votes at the meeting

The only formal action recorded in the transcript was a motion to reconvene in executive session and to adjourn the regular session after that executive session. The motion to move into executive session was made and called for a roll-call vote; the transcript records the motion but does not record the roll-call results.

Ending

Committee members said they want to return to their towns with a clearer explanation they can present to voters. Several speakers recommended emphasizing the health-and-safety priorities in upcoming outreach and showing how capital investments would support students who attend Wilbraham Middle School. The next formal step is a revised draft to the School Committee for a vote and then submission to the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education for final legal review, followed by separate town votes as required by law.