Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014-11-20-SMPC-min 4'7"° '"°"I'' x TOWN OF LEXINGTON Ad hoc School Master Planning Committee (AhSMPC) APPo'L I4' Minutes Date November 20, 2014 Place and Time- School Administration Building, Lower Level Conference Room 2, 8.00 A.M. Members Present Paul Ash, Superintendent of Schools, Judy Crocker, School Committee Peter Kelley, Board of Selectmen(BoS) Patrick Goddard, Director, Department of Public Facilities (DPF) Jon Himmel, Permanent Building Committee (PBC) Carl Oldenburg, PBC Bill Hurley, School Committee Members Absent None Liaisons Present Rod Cole, Capital Expenditures Committee Glenn Parker for Alan Levine, Appropnation Committee Liaisons Absent Mollie Garberg, Appropnation Committee Semmes, Maini, and McKee Associates (SMMA) Phil Poinelli, Educational Planner Joel Seeley- Project Manager Samantha Farrell, Alex Pitkin Kate Jessup Others Present Mark Barrett, DPF Kate Colburn, Lexington Parents Advocacy Group(LPAG), Gretchen Reisig, LPGA, Ashley Waring, LPAG Sandy Beebee, LPAG Christina Lin, Bowman Parent Teacher Association, Kathleen Lenihan, Clarke Parent Teacher Organization, Lexington High School Parent Teacher Student Association, LPAG Recording Secretary Sara Arnold Dr Ash started the meeting at 8.02 A.M.and asked Ms Crocker to lead the discussion. Ms Crocker welcomed Mr Hurley,who is replacing Ms Steigerwald as a School Committee representative on this Committee, and asked SMMA to provide its update 1 SMMA Update on Phase III Master Plan Mr Poinelli recommended starting Phase III by looking at the Lexington Public Schools as a single entity rather than individual schools with capacity problems Using a PowerPoint presentation,he shared thoughts on how Phase III should progress,beginning with a focus on the elementary level, as follows • 21st century thinking should be incorporated into future plans, Estabrook Elementary School (Estabrook)provides the Town with a sample of such a facility • Redistncting is expected to be a part of any solution for accommodating the projected enrollment. • School choice has not been discussed in any of this Committee's meetings,but this is an option offered in some school districts • Equity among the schools has been identified as an important goal by the Lexington School Committee,but that does not necessarily translate into comparable building size for each school. • This Committee has enrollment projections for five years from now using two different methods The 10 year projections at the elementary grades have a larger degree of variance than the other projections The committee directed SMMA to proceed with a 10 year projection for elementary school using 500 students,which equals 3,525 total elementary students, and a 10 year projection for middle schools using 255 students,which equals 1,872 total middle school students Mr Cole, a member of the Enrollment Working Group, suggested that it is best to use the five year projections and then monitor actual enrollment and adjust accordingly It was generally agreed that there should be a plan that allows for future expansion if the schools experience continued growth. Mr Poinelli reviewed options for grade configurations Lexington currently has one location for pre- kindergarten students,kindergarten through grade 5 students are in six buildings, grades 6 through grade 8 are in two buildings and grades 9 through 12 are in the high school complex. He identified six alternatives to this configuration, and AhSMPC members suggested some additional options Classroom space is generally maximized when serving students in one grade in the fewest possible buildings,but Dr Ash noted other considerations • The cost of transportation is increased. • Frequent transitioning to new buildings is considered disruptive for students and their families • Having older role models within a building is generally considered a positive experience for students • Education program implementation may be negatively impacted if a configuration limits what can be done and/or requires duplicating services at multiple buildings. Mr Poinelli discussed the potential for building expansions at the six elementary schools He noted that if an addition is located where there is now a playing field, this may impact recreation space Also,just adding classroom space may put stress on the cafeteria and music and art rooms Ms Farrell discussed regulatory considerations, such as wetland restrictions, and physical constraints, as follows. • Bowman Elementary School(Bowman) Wetlands, flood plains, and hydric soils make it extremely difficult to expand the building footprint. If the area east of the building,which is now used for a playing field, is temporarily used as a staging area during construction,it will have to be converted to wetland when construction is complete,which means the permanent loss of a playing field. • Bridge Elementary School. Although available space is limited, the environmental constraints are not as confining as at Bowman, there could be an addition if some of the play structures were moved. • Estabrook. There are currently extra classrooms at Estabrook, the need for adding space is not envisioned for the foreseeable future • Fiske Elementary School. The site is narrow, creating some challenges A second story over the kindergarten classrooms could be investigated for adding classrooms This option would likely require removal of the kindergarten classrooms An addition could be placed either where there is currently parking or where there is a play structure • Harrington Elementary School(Harrington) This is the single largest developable area, there are few physical constraints A second story over the kindergarten and/or prekindergarten classrooms could be investigated for adding classrooms This option would likely require removal of the kindergarten or prekindergarten classrooms Moving the pre-kindergarten program out of this building would result in three additional classrooms. It was noted that the Lowell Street/Maple Street/Winchester Drive intersection near Harrington is currently stressed—adjusting schedules might be a necessary mitigation measure • Hastings Elementary School (Hastings) There are some wetlands,but if a new building is approved,based on the existing conditions site information made available to SMMA, the site likely could accommodate a three story school comparable to Estabrook. It was reported that the Massachusetts School Building Authority,which is reviewing applications for school building grant requests, including Lexington's for replacing Hastings, took no action at its November meeting Their next meeting is in mid-January,which is now the earliest Lexington will learn whether its application will be accepted. Dr Ash reported having supplemented the application with updated enrollment data that was generated by the Enrollment Working Group, thus demonstrating the town wide overcrowding in the schools Regarding the School Administration Building, Mr Poinelli suggested that office space could be leased for school administration needs, and a new school could replace the current building. An example of this was suggested by Dr Ash when he noted that if Lexington were to adopt a configuration that put kindergarten through grade 4 into its elementary schools and put grades 5 through 8 into its middle schools,the new school could be a third middle school. Mr Poinelli reported on 12 acres of School Department land located off of Laconia Street that is in in a residential area. For this site to be considered for a new school, it would be necessary to include a privately owned parcel that is surrounded by school property Another option is to use this space for playing fields if such fields are lost at any of the schools because of expansion. Mr Poinelli discussed the process of"right sizing"the current elementary school buildings Using Lexington's class size policy, this involved identifying the number of classrooms in a school and assuming 23 students per classroom for grades 1-5 and 18 students per kindergarten. Assuming three to four sections per grade at each school and removal of the pre-kindergarten program from these buildings, the Town-wide shortfall for the elementary schools is currently 243 students This increases to 271 based on the enrollment projections for five years hence This exercise indicates that some schools should have fewer students and some should have more than are currently being accommodated. Mr Pitkin further discussed the potential right sizing of the schools He presented seven options involving various school additions,use of existing classrooms and the size of a redone Hasting School. Each option included an anticipated population capacity for all schools. The capacities ranged from 271 students to 665 students Other concerns expressed during the discussions included. • Finding swing space dunng construction projects will be a challenge where will Hastings students go if a new school is built • The current School Administration Building was once considered to be an option for future swing space needs,but if it is replaced with a permanent school, this will be lost. • In three years,the middle schools are going to need additional space practical solutions need to be identified because these may impact the elementary school configurations • As the schools grow, so do the needs for special education, art and music space • The finance committees are working on FY2016 budget needs and could use some ballpark estimates to use in this process There is a budget summit meeting on January 11' It was generally agreed that SMMA needs to narrow the options based on the recommended enrollment numbers (an increase of 268 students in five years and 500 in ten years), 90% capacity, and redistricting to utilize available classroom space The options should incorporate flexibility SMMA was also asked to develop an option for a four or five section school at Hastings 2. Future Meetings. SMMA was asked to do some high level data modeling for this Committee to use as a planning tool at the next meeting on December 4' Dr Ash agreed to look at the schedules of the various boards and committees that need to evaluate the School Committee's request for a special town meeting As discussed in material he distributed to the Committee, Mr Cole asked that this Committee clearly identify goals to be used in evaluating options that are developed dunng this process. He suggested that without such goals, the process will be cumbersome and less effective than it should be 3 Minutes Approval of Minutes was postponed. 4 Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 10.30 A.M. These minutes were approved on December 4, 2014 Materials distributed/used at the meeting. Public Meeting Agenda, October 30, 2014, AhSMPC SMMA PowerPoint slides Lexington Public Schools, Ad hoc Schools Master Plan Committee, Elementary Concepts, November 20, 2014 PowerPoint Memo from Mr Cole to the AhSMPC, November 20, 2014 3