HomeMy WebLinkAbout2019-01-11-SMPAC-min Lexington Public Schools Master Planning Committee
Friday,January 11, 2019 from 8:30-10:30 a.m.
Samuel Hadley Public Services Building,Training Room#221, 201 Bedford Street
Master Planning Committee Members Present
Dr.Julie Hackett Marina Levit
Dr. Maureen Kavanaugh Sara Cuthbertson
Peter Rowe Charles Hornig
Michael Cronin Daniel Voss
Donna DiNisco Daniel Abramson
Kate Colburn Richard Perry
Kathleen Lenihan
Joe Pato Alan Levine (Liaison)
Sandy Beebee (Liaison)
Lexington High School Staff Present:Andrew Stephens, Kevin Kelly, Chris Bouchard, Avon Lewis (current
LEA President)
The minutes were taken by Maureen Kavanaugh, Director of Planning and Assessment for the Lexington
Public Schools.
Enclosures:
•January 4, 2019 meeting minutes
• Updated Strategies list
• Existing LHS floor and site plans
• Summit II Debt Service& Budget Summitt II Slide Show
Corresponding powerpoint presentation available and referenced below
I. Updated LHS Space Summary based upon max future enrollment of 2,640 compared to
MSBA Space Guidelines(Slide 4 of powerpoint)
A. This provides an analysis of what the program is today, not necessarily our future plans
for high school programing
B. Max enrollment based on 10 year projection
C. Although these numbers suggests there is a shortage of special education space,this has
not been major of topic of discussion to date; something to look into and think about for
the future
D. Although the field house is large, the physical layout (e.g. its round, has multiple floors)
might limit how we could repurpose this space
E. This analysis and our enrollment projections suggest we need a larger building in the
future
F. Word of caution: MSBA provides formula to begin analysis of our space needs;This will
give us an estimate of approximate size, but this needs to be refined with more detail
that includes specific related to LHS programming
1. MSBA is also in the process of revising their formulas for middle and high
schools with a more modern secondary education in mind (e.g. project based
learning); we think they will discuss this during their February board meeting.
G. Growth possibilities: Working with MSBA, we cannot just build 10% more above the
projections; we need to justify the space we build with specific program plans; as we
think through these details, we could design these spaces for flexible use
H. In terms of planning, suggest we focus first on what our HS program might look like in
the future; Based on this consider what kind of spaces do we need, how flexible can
these space be and then work
II. Continued discussion of LHS space"strategies"
A. Starting with impressions from LHS staff:
1. Thinking of the 7-9 classrooms we need (this does not include the science rooms
we have already planned for, but still acknowledge these numbers are minimum
we would need); we believe we can get a portion of these rooms through space
mining, but also need to employ another strategy(e.g. portables)
a) To keep in mind: as enrollment increases, other aspects of our
population also generally increases (e.g. staff,who need planning and
work spaces, ELL population); space needs do not just equate to general
education classrooms
b) Also need to keep in mind existing time on learning challenge; need to
address this; could potentially mean that we need to reduce open
campus allowances; this means more students on campus at a time
(1) If we were asked to fully comply with these requirements, LHS
faculty estimate this could mean 8-10% increase in students in
our classroom at all times
c) Specific science disciplines need access to water; portable sinks were
not an adequate solution for this in the past
d) MPC members expressed a preference for portable (Life span not more
than 10 years) over modular construction (life span —25 years)and will
be thinking about future plans for a new or renovated high school in
their placement, if needed
2. To address teacher planning needs, thinking about adopting a Clarke approach
with a teacher work room, but will need to talk to teachers about any further
plans for their work spaces
3. Rm 713 (current math office space) could perhaps also accommodate some
faculty from other departments with better furniture
a) Not certain this space is big enough to accommodate both departments;
maybe some, but not a complete solution
(1) How many staff presently using? 25 - pretty full already
(2) Physics teachers have closet-size offices; moving them out of
these would not necessarily help as these spaces are not easy to
re-purpose to address our other needs
4. Modulars for ILP3 (between science and math buildings):this is another very
small program and underutilized space; logical area to take a closer look at for
possible consolidation of program space or space swaps to open up space for
other LHS needs
a) Very difficult to predict how big the future cohort might be. However, for
the short term this might be a possibility
b) Program is relatively new(only 3-4 years old)
c) Some inclusion, but far less than ILP1 or I1-132; the program being
situated in the high school provides some inclusive experience (arriving,
walking through the halls with their peers)
d) Not all students stay in the program for the all 4 years; MPC member
reported feedback from one family suggested program was not working
for them and preferred an out-of-district program;
(1) The outplacements are expensive, so not necessarily a fiscal
advantage to this outcome
(2) What is the outplacement alternative? Specialized care
(3) Could we create an "out placement" in town if these students
are generally being placed out?Would need to find space and
better understand other costs associated with doing so
e) Do other high schools have this kind of program?Yes
5. LABBB space: currently a number of smaller spaces, but could remove the walls
to create larger classroom
6. Current IT rooms (which we are moving to CO) could become office space and
then other office space could then be converted to a classroom
a) Could we take the partition out of these rooms and make this a
classroom?Yes this is a possibility.
7. Another large teacher prep room in the main building could also be repurposed
into a classroom
8. ILP2 (main building):judged to be an underutilized space; 5 spaces total;4 out of
the 5 are currently used for ILP2 for a very small program; students in the
program are also mainstreamed for much of the day, leaving the space empty
for significant portions of the day
9. Also ILP1 in world language building (intended to be mainstreamed for all of
their classes throughout the day); currently using this space for resource
instruction, students are more often included in the general education classes;
only using this space approximately 25%of time; could we engage in better
room sharing to use this?
B. New suggestion: could we add portables for office space?And then repurpose the
former offices for classroom space?
1. Depends on the location; if they are too far,this space will not be as functional
as we hope
2. Also must consider two different construction expenses in this scenario-to
repurpose existing offices into classrooms and adding the portables for new
office space
3. Some teachers have carts they have to move around; if the distance it has to be
moved is too far, it will be difficult for staff to get to their classes on time
C. Strategy suggestion: think about opening space in each building;to prevent spreading
departments across too much of the campus?
1. There isn't necessarily the same opportunities for space in all the buildings (e.g.
science)
D. If we have to add portable/modulars,we may not need to take all these spaces,
especially if doing so is going to cause undue hardship or seriously compromise to our
programming; if spaces aren't being used, we should use them, but if we cause new
challenges or make complicated changes, we add little value
E. More discussion is needed on how to manage pressure on core spaces (e.g. cafeteria,
gym); LHS faculty thinking of this and have some ideas
1. Four lunches vs 3 lunches? 3 out of the 4 scheduling options developed by the
LHS scheduling committee make it impossible to have 4 lunches;the only option
that did allow this is very unlikely to be selected
F. Worthern Rd triangle? Is this usable for anything?
1. DiNisco will look into it, but not promising
G. When thinking about special education spaces,we need more consultation with special
education (why were these space created in the first place? How are the programs
currently functioning)
1. Generally not thinking we would move programs out, but seems reasonable to
revisit what the space needs of the program based upon current and short term
needs
2. Agreement that an inclusive environment with peers is the goal for these
students
H. High school staff will take another pass at the list of potential short term strategies and
share their recommendations next meeting
III. Alan Levine,appropriation liaison, provided a brief presentation of tax/financial impacts
A. See corresponding powerpoint; highlights include:
1. Property taxes main source of revenue for towns
2. When a project is approved,the impact lasts for the term of the bonds used to
pay for the project (typically 30 years;this means the debt service would go for
30 years)
3. Project costs can also come at the cost of other projects and town needs
4. Very large projects (over 20 million dollars) almost always done via debt
exclusions
5. Cost of building has increased significantly since the late 1990s; (e.g. new
Hastings is$65 million versus new Fiske was$13 million); also reimbursements
were more generous then
6. Other projects to keep in mind: police station in the pipeline;there had been
talk of community center addition on Pelham property, which has since been
dropped, but this may come up again;this would be on top of a high school
replacement or renovation
7. When repaying, interest is very high in the beginning and then near 0 at the end;
inflation another factor; this means the payment is much higher the first 5-10
years (not like a home mortgage); if the town did structure the debt more like a
home mortgage,the overall interest paid would be higher
8. Provided a sketch of the kind of impact on median residential tax bill (with
caveats related to the assumptions that had to be made, such as approximate
project costs and assumptions about borrowing); intended to help MPC think
about how project proposals and Town spending decisions could impact
taxpayers;
9. Need to think of the whole picture when we make our recommendations; not
too early to think about high school
10. Slide 4 from Budget Summitt II - includes a graph as a useful summary of overall
debt service picture
B. MPC reactions:
1. With the picture in mind, Lexington limited on what other big projects can be
put on the table (i.e. those requiring a debt exclusion)
a) Expecting a debt exclusion for police station this December
2. Wondering with the current projects on the table, how are we doing to build up
the capital stabilization fund?
a) When we make relatively small draws of the stabilization fun (e.g. $8
million), are we keeping this bigger picture in mind?
b) Currently projecting this fund to be exhausted with the projects that are
already underway; won't be available for high school, but this is not set
in stone
(1) See History of Capital Stabilization Fund Slide from Budget
Summit II
3. Challenge we always have is to accommodate the broad range of interests in
town
4. MPC seeking to give conscious consideration of costs
5. MPC members expressed a need to start publicizing with the issues/needs are as
it is going to take time for the community to internalize this
6. The Master Plan we are developing is also a communication device
a) As such it should acknowledge the anticipated public
objections/concerns and how we've attempted to address these
b) Should also be transparent about the full range of alternatives that were
considered and why these were ruled out
C. With the respect to the high school - new high school replacement vs. renovation/build
out of existing building?
1. This would be evaluated during the feasibility study; we won't be able to
determine this up front
2. Need to revisit LHS heating system
IV. LHS Draft MSBA Statement of Interest: Dr. Hackett walked MPC members through elements of
the SOI and our draft response (available in enclosure)
A. Includes list of MSBA priorities; all important; we believe 7 out of the 8 apply to us
1. Our application emphasizes both overcrowding and condition of building
B. The application does limit how much explanation/text we can provide; we must be
succinct in our narratives
C. Submitting at the end of the month; Dr. Hackett will share final submission when
available
D. On the radar of the Town boards and Town Manager(who have to vote and sign off on
this)
V. Approval of last meeting's minutes(January 4)
VI. Possible Future Agenda Items:
A. LHS SOI update
B. Discuss LHS short-term "strategies": Recommendations from staff