Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2018-10-12-SMPAC-min Lexington Public Schools Master Planning Committee Friday, October 12,2018 from 9:00-11:00 a.m. Samuel Hadley Public Services Building,Training Room#221, 201 Bedford Street Master Planning Committee Members Present Dr.Julie Hackett Joe Pato Dr. Maureen Kavanaugh Dan Voss Peter Rowe Marina Levit Michael Cronin Sara Cuthbertson Donna DiNisco Charles Hornig Kate Colburn Daniel Abramson Kathleen Lenihan Richard Perry Alan Levine (Liaison) Sandy Beebee (Liaison) The minutes were taken by Maureen Kavanaugh, Director of Planning and Assessment for the Lexington Public Schools. I. Approval of last meeting's minutes II. MSBA/SOI for LHS. Provide examples of previous/other SDI's. Dr. Hackett(Superintendent) and Donna DiNisco reviewed what a Statement of Interest(SOI) entails and shared an example from the Taunton Public Schools. A. They pointed out that there can be confusion between SOI and other components of MSBA application. SOI is the statement of the problem. SOI is the first step of the MSBA process. This submission includes gathering relatively straight-forward technical information. The Director of Public Facility inputs this information and would submit in January(when the process opens next).This goes to MSBA for consideration, among many other SOls submitted across the state. One new aspect is that they now ask districts to indicate which project is of most priority(if submitting more than one project). B. If MSBA thinks the project ranks high enough to be included in their capital pipeline, they send an invite to enter an eligibility period. MSBA has indicated they generally do not reject projects once entered into the eligibility process, but there is not guarantee. C. The next step is a feasibility study,through which we would explore a variety of options related to this specific project. D. The educational program comes much later(about a year into the process), but should always be thinking of this in the back of our minds. E. Dr. Hackett is going to do a walkthrough of LHS with MSBA staff today. This is an opportunity to give them a visual and tactile experience of the current conditions. F. Detailed enrollment is not part of the discussion this early in the process (other than to state that this is one of reasons we are submitting a SOI). If we are invited to continue, the MSBA would provide us a set of enrollment projections based on their methodology. We would also have an opportunity to submit additional information if we felt their projection wasn't accurate or described the whole picture. G. If we are not invited this year, we would have to reapply next year. H. Accelerated repair is another MSBA program (for a "mini capital project"). We would consider this for replacing the Bridge roof when the time comes. I. Question: Does our participation in other projects (Hastings) impact our next submission? A: It depends on who else submits in a given year. Currently there are a few districts that have multiple projects funded. Another component is capacity of the community and whether there appears to be community support for the projects. J. Question: If we are invited in, does the clock start ticking on any debt exclusion and when would this have to occur? A: Yes, but the timeline is relative lengthy(within 3 or 4 years). K. Question: How much input does the town have on the timeline? A.There are MSBA requirements that dictate timeline.The eligibility period is a maximum of 270 days. Once we get into feasibility, we have a maximum of 30 months to complete the feasibility study and schematic design. After the MSBA votes to approve, we have 120 days to obtain local funding. L. Question: What is the Master Planning Committee's (MPC) role in statement of interest? 1. A.The committee does have input, particularly how members feel about this project and prioritization against other needs we might have. The high school was impetus for revisiting the master plan and determining how this project would impact our other school needs. We want to comprehensively consider our needs. MPC would continue regardless of MSBA process. It is important to remain fluid. MSBA involvement would give us options. Enrollment will be a major driver of plans. There have been a number of projects at the elementary and middle school level and the town has been delaying LHS for a while. The SOI does not lock us in. We have opportunities to change our plans. III. Enrollment Projections. Maureen Kavanaugh presented historical enrollments, preliminary projections and projection methodology and next steps. A. Based on the presentation,the group discussed the need for short and long term solutions and to complete current projects in process (LCP and Hastings). B. In terms of additional analysis,we would like to apply capacity numbers for each school to enrollment numbers to determine the shortfalls/surplus in the existing facilities. C. Important to keep in mind that projections are not destiny and may change. IV. Educational Program requirements relating to space needs. Presentation from Donna DiNisco. Group discussions followed. Highlights included: A. When thinking of 21ST century learning environments, we should think of a variety of learning spaces,flexible spaces, STEM needs,technology integration need, etc. B. When we review educational program requirements we will look at special education. Important to understanding the capacity of the buildings. C. Updating the existing program will help us know where we are to today and what adjustments remain to "right size" schools. D. MPC members liked the Montgomery county model for the master plan. E. Other models for larger districts focused on facilities. Assessment of facilities needs/capital improvements would include predictable maintenance (e.g. roof, HVAC). Should we conduct a similar inventory of education program, laying out major maintenance projects, including the expected life spans of those elements? 1. In doing so, we have an opportunity to apply a lens towards environmental impacts and energy efficiency. How do we define the lifespan of these physical facilities in relation to the outcomes we want? If we know a certain system will fall below our expected outcomes in X years,that would be when we want to replace it. F. General question posed by members for future consideration: 1. What information has already been collected and can be weaved into our planning. 2. What real estate do we have? If we need more, we should be clear about that in the master plan. 3. What is the buildable outdoor space on each of our existing facilities (i.e. how much room do we have to expand)? V. Community involvement/outreach. Superintendent added new blog to the district website and will add in MPC materials, including agendas and meeting materials. She has also provided updates at school committee meetings and will continue to do so. I. Next Meeting(November 20th at 8:30 am): we will review existing site capacity, existing building capacity, available town owned sites, enrollment projections compared to existing capacity and possible solutions for shortfall in capacity.