Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2019-04-12-SMPAC-min Lexington Public Schools Master Planning Committee Friday,April 12, 2019 from 8:30-10:30 a.m. Central Office, 146 Maple Street Master Planning Committee Members Present: Dr.Julie Hackett Daniel Voss Dr. Maureen Kavanaugh Daniel Abramson Michael Cronin Mark Sandeen Donna DiNisco Marina Levit Kate Colburn Joe Pato Alan Levine (Liaison) Sara Cuthbertson Sandy Beebee (Liaison) Charles Hornig Other Staff Present:Avon Lewis (current LEA President) Materials: • Master Planning Committee Overview • Presentation from Donna DiNisco: "Master Planning Committee Meeting April 12, 2019" The minutes were taken by Maureen Kavanaugh, Director of Planning and Assessment for the Lexington Public Schools. I. Next Steps: Walked members through an overview of the next steps in the Master Planning Process (See "Master Planning Committee Overview") A. Committee will break into three working groups to identify and prioritize strategies to employ when/if enrollment outpaces capacity for short-term growth and long-term growth (i.e. Soft Solutions vs. Brick& Mortar) for each grade level (Elementary, Middle and High Schools) or falls lower than expected. B. Concurrent planning activities (e.g. Facilities capital planning &Town Comprehensive Plan): How do we weave this information in? Important to consider the big picture and other Town needs. 1. Capital/Infrastructure planning: Facilities is working towards updating and creating a longer term capital plan. Although there are key differences between the capital plan and the LPS master plan,there is also some overlap. a) This is a good time to talk holistically. Previous MPC conversations included what kind of outcomes we want.This goes beyond enrollment and class size. Our facilities are a means to an end, but not the end itself. It should allow us to have enough space to avoid overcrowding, but that is not our primary goal in education or facilities management. b) When we consider the capital/systems perspective, we should keep in mind what we want to get out of these systems and what is our standards for performance. We need to constantly consider how our facilities and systems are performing.This would be a way to refine our existing facilities inventory. (1) This group of individuals will not be able to get into all these details, but we can build the framework for it. (2) Could help us answer: How much do we put into an older school, keeping in mind when we might need to replace or otherwise take the building off line? (3) Master Plan report will include an existing conditions sections; this would be one place to incorporate this kind of information. c) Members requested materials/information that would describe facilities conditions (as we know them right now)for each of the working groups; Facilities staff can provide the information we have compiled to date. C. Part of the plan is to periodically review our Master Plan and make adjustments as needed. While facilities completes their capital plan, we can review and make adjustments to the LPS Master Plan, if needed 1. Town is also building a Comprehensive Plan. We might engage in a similar activity. D. Members were assigned to smaller working groups (element, middle and high school) and provided planning templates. Members will meet in their smaller groups before our next meeting to complete templates.The current template focuses on enrollment, but as discussed there may be other lens/criteria for us to consider(e.g.financial impact/context of new high school). II. High School short-term "strategies" sequencing A. LABBB Collaborative Update: Met with LABBB who was very appreciative and supportive of the partnership with Lexington.They do want to stay in Lexington and are willing to participate in the cost of portable classrooms (See slides 8 & 9 for"LABBB Considerations"). Q: Would we move the entire LABBB program to portables? A: Not certain at this time. Currently plan is that they would keep their space in the Math building. Q: What is HUB? A: Community-based work program; students arrive at LHS and take vans into the community to participate in work experiences. With the switch to the later start time,the rest of the student population will arrive at the same time. LABBB is suggesting they can change the pick up location at the high school. This can be revisited/refined as we get close to the start time change Q: Do HUB students spend any of their day at LHS (in classrooms)? A: Need to clarify and gather more information from LABBB to answer this. Q: Is there any talk about moving the LABBB 18-22 program out of the high school? A: Yes,the Superintendent had a conversation with the LABBB Director and they are exploring this possibility. 1. Conducting another review of space utilization for LABBB to better understand their needs. B. Re-purposing/Portable space costing& Implementation/Schedule 1. MPC members noted there are benefits to making these changes sooner rather than later so we can get full use of these portables. 2. Based on the current plan, we can gain 15 classrooms through a variety of space renovations/mining to accommodate growth;this is still short 4-7 classrooms we might need, based on current enrollment projections. a) This does not include LABBB leaving LHS This change could potentially add +5 classrooms. Some of these spaces are small, but do currently have other general education classes this size. 3. LHS Strategies "final considerations" slide 10 displays two possible locations where portables might go (off the science/math buildings and in the back parking lot).This is an either or, not both.These could be used for LABBB or some other purposes. a) Placement of portables should keep in mind space future construction needs for a renovated or new high school, but we won't necessarily have all the information we need to guide this decisions. (1) Portables can be moved.They do not require a deep or permanent foundation. There is a relatively small cost to moving them. 4. Donna DiNisco also talked members through an expansion of commons II. a) Today we are already 100 seats shorts.To make up for this, additional tables are set up in the hallway or eat in the outside in the quad on nicer days. In addition to lunch, breakfast is also a challenge. The proposed expansion would alleviate some of that b) This would be permanent construction. If there was a renovation at some later point (vs. a new high school), this addition would stay. c) Construction would start summer 2020. d) The general concern about the expansion is that we would build something that could be knocked down in 5 to 7 years. However it is difficult to arrive at certainty about what is going to happen (e.g. that we will get MSBA approval or whether there will be a new building or a renovated building or the exact timeline for a new or renovated high school, etc.) Q: Is there any way to make it less permanent? A:The current proposal is as cost effective as it can possible be and would allow for year round use. Q: Could we investigate less permanent, out of the box solutions (e.g.Tent)? A: Superintendent Julie Hackett did use a less permanent tent-like structure in Taunton. This could be a 1 year solution, not a seven year solution. We could take a next step of exploring this further. 5. Slide 15 provides potential cost considerations over the 5 year planning period. It is important to acknowledge these are planning numbers. These are project costs (vs. construction costs). a) Costs associated with commons II expansion includes an assumption that some HVAC infrastructure is needed. b) Projects can packaged separately or bundled; if we do the work simultaneously,we should consider a single contractor. c) Also need to consider the cost of replacing current LHS HVAC system. d) We might not need all 6 portables if we reduce the number of students who attend the Lexington LABBB program (i.e. could go to other sites) or through cost sharing with LABBB. We also want to gather more data about LABBB space needs/utilization. We need to revisit this number (might be high). 6. Regarding decision making, members felt they need more time to refine the proposal, but recognized we can't push off the decision too long. We have some on call architect budget funds (up to $100,000). 7. Keep in mind: Conservation moved setback to 100 feet III. Next Steps: A. Consulting with LABBB regarding utilization of their current space; this would inform any plans for future LABBB space. B. Working groups (elementary, middle and high) will meet before our next meeting.