Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021-05-21-SMPAC-rpt (Master Plan SC Presentation)Lexington Public Master Facilities I Master Planning Advisory Committee Presentation to School Committee May 25, 2021 4 - PLAN AND INNOVATE l AAD Kt104ATIER RefineSUSTAINABLE CHANGE. improve our schook and district -wide structures, Ed to managing innovation and promofing lasting change. 0 . unity ka - - 7 F.= W WS 1W 4 _ KM VW t a� QTV3-. k om ta 0V Wim.. __ _ b . ._ gar = � r ,a: ��� —.t By Ap ril 2021, fi n I and b i d the � � _ '_ z , .� `LP S 1 O -Year Master " and the `LPS Master PI ann[ omp nd1urn", to ensure that the school system's priorities are clearly defi ned, and there 'Is a clear process in place to pedod i callf review enrol [met,, unanticipated changes, and ongoing capital needs. MASTER PLANNING ADVISORY B EMs_ _GG MEMBERS Daniel Abramson, Architectural Historian Sandra Beebe, Capital Expenditures Committee Kathryn Colburn, School Committee Dave Coelho, Assistant Superintendent for Finance and Operations Sara Cuthbertson, School Committee Michael Cronin, Director of Public Facilities Donna DiNisco, DiNisco Design Julie Hackett, Superintendent of Schools Charles Hornig, Planning Board Representative Maureen Kavanaugh, Director of Planning and Assessments Kathleen Lenihan, School Committee Avon Lewis, Lexington Education Association Alan Levine, Appropriation Committee Marina Levit, LPS Parent Joe Pato, Select Board Richard Perry, Lexington Housing Authority Mark Sandeen, Select Board Dan Voss, Sustainable Lexington NES%SLY PPE T EIt MEMBERS Carissa Black, LPS Parent and Lexington SEPAC and LexSEPTA Co -Chair Michael Schanbacher, Architect and Planning Board Representative "We believe that "learning is a collective endeavor that involves students, educators, families, and the community. We all join in partnership with the common goal of providing the highest quality education for our students. In doing so, we recognize that each of us represents different communities, roles, and perspectives. " ^ LEXINGTON MASTER PLANNING PROCESS PLAN DESIGN Reviewing our charge Reviewing our community and district values and goals • Coming to consensus on plan features and elements ANALYSIS STRATEGY DEVELOPMENT Formed working groups by level and considered what might we do if: • Enrollment is as projected • Enrollment is lower than projected • Enrollment is higher than projected • Current facilities: • Inventory & space analysis • Conditions & maintenance needs • Enrollment trends and projections • LPS educational program and vision for the future • Our history of redistricting & student assignment • Current land holdings, opportunities for swaps or acquisition • Financial projections and analysis • Desired facilities performance standards • Given initial findings, deeper dive into the LHS facility ITERATIVE REVIEW AND FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS See here for meeting materials & minutes Ted hn-ca- Mast -e- D-ann-na Doc--ment developed u by DiNisco Design 0 LIPS Master Planning Compendium 1: INTRODUCTION AND PLAN HIGHLIGHTS II: WHO ARE WE AND WHAT DO WE BELIEVE? III: DEFINING THE PROBLEM IV: LPS FACILITIES AND STUDENT ASSIGNMENT V: STUDENT ENROLLMENT & TRENDS VI: SUMMARY OF ADVISORY COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS VII. STRATEGIES PRIORITIZED BY GRADE SPAN, ENROLLMENT PRESSURE, AND ASSOCIATED COSTS VIII: FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION IX: NEXT STEPS AND ONGOING REVIEW After careful analysis of the aforementioned information, the Lexington Public Schools Master Planning Advisory Committee found: 1. Lexington High School is the most critical priority in terms of LPS building projects until 2030. 2. Review of enrollment data indicates that while we focus on the high school, we do not anticipate a need for major expansions at the elementary and middle school level. However, LPS should still have a clear set of strategies that can be used in all buildings should trends shift and overcrowding occur. These are described in Section VII, "Strategies Prioritized By Grade Span, Enrollment Pressures, And Associated Costs. 3. In anticipation of new information and acknowledgment of evolving conditions, LPS should strive for a flexible master planning process that includes ongoing review of key reports and other information. JYII: STRATEGIES PRIORITIZED BY GRADE SPAN, ENROLLMENT PRESSURE, AND ASSOCIATED COSTS Preschool and Elementary (Grades PK -5) AK -5 Current Conditions A, noted above, the current data suggest that enro[Iments at the elementary levet were relatively stable prior to the pandemic, declining only in the last year. No new space is needed currently at the elementary level due to the substantial additional K-5 space made available by Lexington Children's dace moving out of Harrington, Elementary School. and the opening blithe new Hastings Elementary School with significantly more classroom sections avaiiabte than in previous years, Elementary school enrollments need to be carefully monitored for unanticipated episodes of enrollment growth. Elementary Enrollment. Lower than Projected If future elementary enrollment is €ower Than projected, it would allow al`s o=ass sizes to fit within School Committee policy c_uide3nes. A significant decrease in the enrollment opens up the possibility that either the Bridge or Bowman elementary School, two of our oldest school buildings, quid be closed temporarily for renovation, saving the Town the oasts of performing required repairs and improvements while the school remains in service. Pltematively, if the enrollment decreases to the point that one of the six elementary schools is no longer needed. it could be used as swing space if another school €s being considered for replacement or renovation. In order for school consolidation to occur, there must be suffident capacity at the other five elementary schools to accommodate the residua enrollment at a parElcular school Including the district -wide special education program that is housed at that sohooi. White there are many ways that school consolidation could be managed, it remains unlikely that the district would have such a haductica in enrollment in the foreseeable future based upon the current enrollment forecasts and trends, Elementary Enrollment., As AnticlWed if the enrollment follows the anticipated profile, there aril be stifficlent capacity within the existing facilities to accommodwe the enrollment. Strateaies such as flexible assignment or rodistrourig should be considered as necessary in order to balance enrollment with the capacity of each school. The capacity at the existing schools tends to match the anticipated enrollment with tittle to no underutilized space at any of the facilities given current class size guidelines. Elementary Enrollment; Higher than Projected If future enrollment is higher than expected, strategies other than redist=toting or flexible assignment must be considered. Redistricting and flexible assignment are stopgap measures Given these findings, the Lexington Public Schools Master Planning Advisory Committee makes the following recommendations and comments. (a) MPAC review indicates that no new space is presently needed at the preschool or elementary level, nor is it likely to be needed for several years. However, elementary school enrollments must be carefully monitored for opportunities to replace aging facilities in the event of more dramatic enrollment declines or for another episode of unexpected enrollment growth. (b) MPAC review indicates that no new space is presently needed at the middle school level, although enrollments may stay near or just over capacity for several years. Similar to the case of elementary school enrollments, middle school enrollments should be carefully monitored. (c) In light of current and projected LHS enrollments being substantially higher than a reasonable estimate of the school's capacity, the Master Planning Advisory Committee strongly endorses the plan to increase the size of the high school facility by replacing it with a new building or by completing a comprehensive renovation with additions. The district will continue reviewing key reports and other information relevant to capital planning decisions and publish a brief update no less than two times a year (January and June). Ongoing Indicators Annual review of LPS enrollment & projections Population trends based on Town census Annual Town and LPS budgets Anticipated programmatic curricular/pedagogical shifts Anticipated programmatic changes in special education LPS strategic planning updates Mechanical systems review & replacement plan General space utilization inventory and facilities update (e.g. major renovations to existing facilities or new construction since last review) Housing and development trends (e.g. updated information related to housing inventory, occupancy rates, permits and teardowns, new development, sales, changes to zoning) Annual review of Town's land holdings Sustainability policies and requirements, including adherence to the Town of Lexington Integrated Building Design & Construction Policy Updates from Town Comprehensive Plan Updates from Town's Capital Plan Questions?