HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015-10-05-SC-minLSC Meeting Minutes 10.5.15 – Approved by LSC on 3.8.16 1
LEXINGTON SCHOOL COMMITTEE MEETING
Monday, October 5, 2015
S. Hadley Public Works Building, Room 221
201 Bedford Street
PRESENT: Chair Jessie Steigerwald, Alessandro Alessandrini, Judy Crocker, Bill
Hurley
Superintendent Dr. Mary Czajkowski
ABSENT: Margaret Coppe
ALSO PRESENT: Interim Finance Director Ian Dailey, Director of Facilities (DPF) Pat
Goddard
The meeting minutes were taken by Judy Crocker.
At 4:34 pm, the Chair called the meeting to order.
There were no public comments.
Agenda:
Multi-School Capital Plan: Preparation for Special Town Meeting
a. Plan updates on Pre-K, Elementary, and Middle School Projects
Mr. Goddard reviewed the update given by the architectural firm DiNisco Design at the
October 1 Permanent Building Committee (PBC) meeting. DiNisco is moving forward
with Clarke and Diamond projects. On October 4, DiNisco and the Conservation
Commission toured the sites and discussed the wetlands as they relate to the site projects.
Also, the proposal brought forward by Bond Brothers was accepted for the Construction
Manager project. Currently, the contract language for the preconstruction services is
being evaluated.
Diamond ILP Program
The PBC also receive information requested by Mr. Hurley on re-examining the proposed
ILP space at Diamond. The new proposal for $1.3 million involves two floors and has
less square footage than the original $2.0 million plan. Mr. Hurley inquired as to why the
proposal is designed for 2500 square feet when the Director of Special Education reports
that the program only requires 1400 square feet. Goddard reported that the larger space is
the most efficient to build and in its design. Clarke currently has 741 square feet and is
overcrowded. Mr. Hurley also questioned why the approximately 1,400 cannot be
constructed on one level for far less than the $1.3 million recommended by DiNisco. Mr.
Hurley stated he would not
support moving Clarke’s ILP program to Diamond if that is the case, and ask to double
the existing 700 sq ft. currently at Clarke. Mr. Alessandrini was concerned that the
Selectmen need to approve the middle school projects. Ms. Crocker reported that they
had at their September 21 meeting. Superintendent Czajkowski stated that the middle
LSC Meeting Minutes 10.5.15 – Approved by LSC on 3.8.16 2
schools have no other space to reallocate and that there is no Plan B fallback plan to the
current plan that involves additions at both schools.
Calendar of Upcoming Special Town Meetings (STM) – reviewed by Ms. Steigerwald.
• November 2 – STM #2
• November 9 – continuation of STM #2
• November 16 – Town Meeting Member Association information session
• December 2 – STM #1
Reconsolidation of the estimate figures will be available November 6-10 for the various
boards and committees.
b. Request funds to prepare Pelham Road presentation
Mr. Goddard reviewed DiNisco Design’s October 2 memo. This outlined the additional
services request for the preliminary feasibility study for the Pelham property. The scope
of work includes a 12 section K-5 school for 260 students, design basis narrative of
existing conditions and possible re-use of systems, and preliminary site exploration. The
fixed fee for these services is $21,000. Reimbursable expenses include preliminary soil
analysis using online resources, an environmental plan, and a topographical survey if
permission is granted by the owners prior to purchase. The fee for these services is
$50,000.
The current expected two-year timeline to perform the necessary renovations prior to
student occupancy affords more time to identify what the district needs for space. Thusly,
the building’s 10 classroom spaces may be expanded to 12 by either subdividing current
space o expanding the building footprint.
The Committee will need to provide feedback on the programming and scope of the
building use as well as how extensive any renovations of building systems should be.
Mr. Goddard addressed the question of why any building improvements are being
designed only to add 5 years to the life of the Pelham building by reiterating that it is not
being renovated to have a 20-year lifespan. 5 years is the short-term projection period
based on the Enrollment Working Group (EWG) figures. After 5 years, the building can
be re-evaluated based on the state of actual enrollment figures and the additional district
capacity gained with the opening of a new Hastings.
Motion:
Ms. Crocker moved to approve an appropriation of $71,000 to finance the feasibility
designer services from DiNisco Design, specifically for the scope of work and
reimbursable expenses as described in its October 2, 2015 memo to the Town of
LSC Meeting Minutes 10.5.15 – Approved by LSC on 3.8.16 3
Lexington. Mr. Hurley seconded and the vote was 3-1 (Alessandrini).
Ms. Crocker and Mr. Goddard will attend the October 5 Selectmen’s meeting. Mr.
Goddard summarized that the Enrollment Working Group’s work is based on projections
and as such requires the need for flexibility. The Pelham property will be associated with
a range of expenses, based on when work to the building will be undertaken. For
example, the roof and the steam unit ventilation system are not an immediate but a future
need. The later is reliable but has its drawbacks. The same system is currently at
Hastings, Diamond, and the high school.
c. Update on Operating Expense Projections and Discussion of Relationship with Capital
Plan Projections
Dr. Czajkowski reviewed the discussion from the Selectmen and School Committee chair
meeting held on October 4 and the work that she and Mr. Dailey have done in preparation
for the October 8 Summit 1.
The DRAFT Summit 1 Lexington Public Schools FY2017-19 Three Year Budget
Projections included examining projected costs above and below the line along with basic
assumptions. The former represents the current level of service less 3 union settlements
(salary and wages, expenses) and the latter staffing and material expenses associated with
anticipated enrollment growth (percentage change in enrollment and its affect on FTE,
salary and benefits).
With every 1% of student enrollment growth, it is anticipated that an additional 14 FTE
will be needed. This includes general education teachers and support staff. For FY17, this
represents an additional 29 FTE without program improvement requests. The staffing
needs will be compounded as time moves forward. Based on EWG projections, by 2019
it is estimated that an additional 60 FTE will be needed to meet the academic needs of the
increased student population. In FY19, all union contracts will be need to be renegotiated.
Below the line expenses and assumptions for Lexington Children’s Place (FY17), Pelham
property costs and middle school projects (FY18), and Hastings without MSBA funding
(FY19) were presented. These were based on school salaries, facilities salaries, and
facility expenses and did not include elementary world language projections. FY17-FY19
budget summary projections were also reported and their percentage change trended from
6.97% to 6.53% respectively.
A FTE by Category chart exhibited the sources of teacher and support staff needs
expected to be tied with the anticipated rising enrollment. FY17 is projected to require an
additional 30.52 FTE followed by 20.4 in FY18 and 23.21 in FY19. It was suggested that
to maintain a level service budget, these FTE needs can be met by either the reallocation
of existing resources or the reduction of programs.
Dr. Czajkowski introduced a new approach for Lexington’s Summit process by listing
key policy issues that face the district. These included:
LSC Meeting Minutes 10.5.15 – Approved by LSC on 3.8.16 4
• enrollment growth
• building capacity
• maximizing existing space/capacity
• redistricting
• service levels for various programs
• financial implications of the above
Given the multiple school capital projects and the growing enrollment demands on the
operating budget, she questioned how the district can expect to deliver the same level of
services in the future while being sustainable. Lexington has a robust history of receiving
program improvement requests. For example, recently she received a request to form a
high school crew team. These may need to be frozen.
At the Summit, the municipal expenses and needs will be presented in addition to the
schools. The impact of absorbing another 600 students over the next 5 years must be
taken into account. Discussion points included that it will be a challenge to sustain our
current service level over the next 5 years pending Town resources; it may have been a
bad idea to move the LCP out of Harrington regardless of regulatory requirements; all of
the funds necessary for municipal and school services come from the same taxpayers;
understanding the full picture allows this Committee and others to make better choices.
Ms. Steigerwald gave a special thank you to Dr. Czajkowski and Mr. Dailey for their
thoughtful and detailed work for the October 4, October 5, and Summit meetings.
Elementary World Language will be on the October 20 Committee meeting given the
information learned today.
d. Formulate Warrant Requests
Ms. Crocker inquired if the LHS HVAC system needs should also be included in this
funding package. It is listed in the 5-year school capital plan and will also need to be
financed thru a debt exclusion. Ms. Steigerwald would like to further discuss LHS in the
context of the School Master Plan and the architectural firm SMMA’s options for future
LHS options and building envelop needs at the October 20 Committee meeting. The CEC
would also like to better understand how the high school fits into the Master Plan. Mr.
Hurley questioned the need to deviate from a preK-8 plan to now include the high school.
STM #1 is for school articles and STM #2 is for Town articles.
STM #1 articles include:
Article 2: Design development funding for Clarke and Diamond
Article 3: Design development funding for Hastings, Harrington and Fiske
Article 4: Land acquisition and site improvements for the Pelham property
Article 5: Engineering site study for traffic movement between Pelham property, the
Community Center, Marrett Rd and Massachusetts Avenue
LSC Meeting Minutes 10.5.15 – Approved by LSC on 3.8.16 5
5:40pm Adjourn: On a motion made by Steigerwald and seconded by Crocker, the
School Committee voted unanimously 3-0 to adjourn at 5:40pm.
Materials:
• October 2 memo from DiNisco Design to Town of Lexington
• DRAFT Summit 1 Lexington Public Schools FY2017-19 Three Year Budget
Projections
• School Capital Plan project budget sheet
Place on Consent Agenda for SC Approval 3.8.16
Voted Approved by the School Committee 3.8.16