Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015-01-15-SMPC-min 4'7"° '"°"I'' x TOWN OF LEXINGTON Ad hoc School Master Planning Committee (AhSMPC) APPo'L I4' Minutes Date January 15, 2015 Place and Time- School Administration Building,Upper Level Conference Room, 8 00 A.M. Members Present Judy Crocker, Co-chair, School Committee Bill Hurley, Co-chair, School Committee Paul Ash, Superintendent of Schools, Patrick Goddard, Director, Department of Public Facilities (DPF) Jon Himmel, Permanent Building Committee (PBC) Peter Kelley, Board of Selectmen(BoS) Carl Oldenburg, PBC Members Absent None Liaisons Present Rod Cole, Capital Expenditures Committee Alan Levine, Appropnation Committee Liaisons Absent Mollie Garberg, Appropnation Committee Svmmes, Maini, and McKee Associates (SMMA) Phil Porcelli, Educational Planner Joel Seeley, Project Manager Kate Jessup Others Present Jessie Steigerwald, School Committee Mark Barrett, DPF Kate Colburn, Lexington Parents Advocacy Group (LPAG), Fiske Elementary School(Fiske)parent; Sandy Beebee, LPAG Kathleen Lenihan, Clarke Middle School Parent Teacher Organization,Lexington High School Parent Teacher Student Association, LPAG Bettina McGimsey, Sidewalk Committee and Parent Teacher Association-Parent Teacher Organization Presidents' Council, Ashley Waring, LPAG Lin Jensen, Hastings Elementary School(Hastings), Diamond Middle School (Diamond) and Lexington High School (LHS)parent; Alison Stevens, Bowman Elementary School parent Recording Secretary Sara Arnold Mr Hurley opened the meeting at 8.01 a.m The School Committee opened its meeting immediately following. 1 Update and Discussion Regarding Phase III Master Plan Mr Hurley reported on his meeting with the Town Meeting Members Association Executive Board(TMMA Board)regarding the Phase III Master Plan. The TMMA Board had many questions and recognized that there is a price tag of approximately $120 0 million for replacing Hastings and renovating other schools to accommodate the Enrollment Working Group's (EWG's)projected five year school enrollment. The TMMA Board recommended that the Town avoid overbuilding,but also stressed that the Town should not under-build. Mr Levine discussed the importance of developing a plan that allows flexibility a plan that would include phases,with the first phase addressing the most pressing immediate needs and future phases that would be periodically reassessed based on future enrollment experience He discussed the challenges associated with funding the projects and getting the taxpayers to support a debt exclusion ovemde for the schools as well as a new fire station and police station,which are also critical Town needs If overreaching results in the rejection of a debt exclusion override, the Town would be faced with a major challenge It was noted that 64% of Lexington households do not have school age children. It was also noted that some parents feel that the recent renovations at Bndge and Bowman Elementary Schools (Bndge and Bowman)were inadequate and that the new Fiske and new Hamngton Elementary Schools (Hamngton) are not large enough, they do not want a"band aid" approach to the current needs. Mr Goddard discussed Option 9, the group of projects identified at the last meeting of this Committee for meeting the projected enrollment demands Previous analyses had focused on the midpoint of the enrollment projections He provided charts and graphs depicting the impact on available classroom space if Option 9 is implemented over five years and how the results correlate with 90% and 50% of the enrollment projections Additional comments included the following: • Just adding classrooms to a school adds demands on its core spaces (ie, the spaces needed for a cafeteria and to support programs such physical education,music, art, and special education) it is not just a matter of adding more classrooms to address enrollment increases, core space must also be expanded. This is of particular concern at Bridge, Bowman and Hamngton. • Because the Massachusetts School Building Authority(MSBA) recently did not advance Lexington 's Statement of Interest(SOI) for State financial assistance in rebuilding Hastings,the Town must decide whether to rebuild the school without the subsidy or continue to submit SOIs with the hope that it will eventually be approved. Although there were different levels of intensity expressed by committee members regarding the likelihood of future approval, there was skepticism that the project would be approved in the next few years The following comments were made The difference between undertaking the project with and without MSBA approval is approximately $18 0 million. By waiting to get an answer, the projected costs of this project continue to increase due to inflation. By waiting to get an answer, the Town would have more enrollment data to help determine the optimum size of the project. • Prior to the EWG's identification of the currently projected enrollment numbers, the rebuilding of Hastings was understood by residents and staff to be the next large school project. This commitment should continue to be considered. • The cost of rebuilding Hastings to accommodate the elementary level demand is an expensive approach per additional student as compared to adding prefabncated units at Bridge and Bowman or"bnck and mortar" additions at Harrington,but it does accomplish other School Committee master plan objectives • Hastings needs to be rebuilt irrespective of the enrollment projections, the school is outdated, meaning that education programs are compromised and safety elements need to be enhanced. • The pre-kindergarten program can be located at either Hastings or Hamngton or a separate site without any detrimental impacts on the education quality of the program. • The stress on the pre-kindergarten program is immediate the Town can use some square footage in the school administration building for the overflow without triggering a need to upgrade that building,but this can only be a temporary solution. It was generally agreed that the middle schools have a critical need for additional space, and this need can be addressed by the Option 9 projects or perhaps exclusively at Diamond Middle School. A variety of alternatives for sequencing and tweaking the elementary school projects in Option 9 were discussed in an effort to minimize the financial impacts while meeting the educational needs of the students Ideas included the following components • Minimally use leased modular units at Bridge and Bowman to address the immediate overcrowding at these schools, something needs to be done for these schools as soon as possible • Do not install prefabncated units at Bridge and Bowman without addressing the core space limitations,promising to expand core space in the future is not a guarantee It is better to postpone this project than to do it in two phases • Rebuild Hastings as quickly as possible,without a State subsidy, and make it large enough to address the most pressing needs at the elementary level. • Enlarge the Option 9 "bnck and mortar"project at Harrington. • Wait to see if enrollments increase more than expected before advancing a building addition at Fiske this is a challenging site for expansion. • Design a two phase school project for Hastings and determine at a later date whether both phases are needed. • Move the pre-kindergarten to a pre-fabricated facility behind Harrington, this might reduce the need for a bnck and mortar addition at Harrington. It was noted that this would require some additional staff, and there would be some cost in reconfigunng Harnngton's current pre- kindergarten rooms into general education classrooms. • Include the pre-kindergarten program when rebuilding Hastings, this might reduce the need for a bnck and mortar addition at Hamngton. Again, there would be some cost in reconfigunng Harnngton's current pre-kindergarten rooms into general education classrooms. It was discussed that funding of the next phase of design would be the best way to further determine which of the above ideas or other ideas would be the best way to proceed. There was discussion about this Committee's role and how to proceed. It was suggested that the future process mostly involves the policy makers Mr Hurley indicated a desire to meet with a small group of representatives from key committees/boards, including the finance committees It was agreed that a small group was needed to clearly define the options and identify the financial implications to help the School Committee make its recommendations Mr Poinelli agreed to work with this group and provide the data for the options discussed at this meeting Two suggestions were made to respond to concerns about the limited time available to prepare a warrant for a Special Town Meeting to be held before the spnng Annual Town Meeting • Create a broadly worded article that allows for considerable flexibility • Hold a Special Town Meeting after the spnng 2015 Annual Town Meeting rather than before it. 2. Next Meeting. The draft Phase III report is available and should be reviewed. The next meeting is on January 22nd 3 Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 10.20 A.M. These minutes were approved on January 22, 2015 Materials distributed/used at the meeting. Public Meeting Agenda, October 30, 2014, AhSMPC SMMA PowerPoint slides School Committee, Option 9 Discussion SMMA Spreadsheet Option 9 Schedule Option 9 with Middle and High EWG Elementary Enrollment Forecast, Charts and Graph, January 15, 2015,prepared by Mr Goddard Option 9 with Bridge and Bowman Downsized to 24 Classrooms, Charts and Graph, January 15, 2015, prepared by Mr Goddard 3