HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015-10-27-SC-minLSC Meeting Minutes of 10.27.15 approved 2.23.15 1
LEXINGTON SCHOOL COMMITTEE
Tuesday, October 27, 2015
School Administration Building, Lower Level Room 2
146 Maple Street
PRESENT: Jessie Steigerwald, William Hurley, Margaret Coppe, Judy Crocker
ABSENT: Alessandro Alessandrini
Also present: Alex Gentile, Minuteman; Elaine Ashton, Precinct 1
The Minutes were taken by Jessie Steigerwald.
Call to Order and Welcome: The meeting convened at 1:13 p.m.
Ms. Steigerwald called the meeting to order, and introduced committee members.
Public Comment
There were no public comments at the beginning of the meeting. Later in the meeting
Ms. Elaine Ashton, Precinct 1, asked to be recognized with a question. Mr. Gentile also
asked clarification question later in the meeting.
Agenda: Special Town Meeting Preparation – Review of Presentation Material
Ms. Steigerwald distributed updated copies of the draft memo that was a work in process
to answer questions from the Capital Expenditure Committee (“CEC”) and
Appropriation Committee (“AC”). Mr. Rod Cole, CEC and Mr. Andrei Radelescu-
Banu, AC, had gathered questions from their committees and compiled them. Mr. Cole
and Mr. Radelescu-Banu are working on writing the reports for Special Town Meeting
and there is limited time to provide them with information to have things as accurate as
possible before the report is finished. In addition, Ms. Colburn (AC) and Ms. Hai (CEC)
had posed questions. Some questions raised had not been answered by the full
Committee in prior meetings and the purpose of today’s meeting was to allow discussion
by members so the report would reflect the Committee’s view.
The draft document referred to by members during the meeting was titled “School
Committee Memo to Rod Cole and Andrei Radelescu-Banu, 10.27.15 / Draft.”
Ms. Steigerwald asked members to address specific more general policy matters first –
and that if any members could remain to review the document more closely, it would be
helpful. The priority was determining what the committee wished to do on specific
topics so that the view of the committee could be captured in the document: Pelham,
Lexington High School (“LHS”), elementary class size for planning purposes, middle
school team numbers and sizes, Plan B if the projects did not gain support from Town
meeting, potential impacts and alternatives.
Ms. Steigerwald updated members about meeting earlier in the week, on Monday
October 26, 2015, with Jill Hai (CEC Chair), Dr. Czajkowski, Maureen Kavanaugh, Ms.
Crocker and Ms. McDonough. Questions raised in this meeting and in the email from
Mr. Cole, Mr. Radelescu-Banu and Ms. Colburn were reviewed with members.
LSC Meeting Minutes of 10.27.15 approved 2.23.15 2
One key question from CEC was around the elementary class size that would be the unit
of measure for planning purposes. CEC wondered why the 21.5 was used by DiNisco,
whether an earlier 21 and fraction was significant, or if the change was purposeful, and
whether a rounded number of 21 or 22 could be useful. In the Monday meeting, several
questions were generated that required further confirmation (number of teams, size of
teams, impact of different class size units for planning) and Dr. Czajkowski said Ms.
Steigerwald should get in touch with Mr. Goddard, Ms. Sugita and Ms. Kavanaugh for
answers in preparation for today’s meeting. Ms. Steigerwald shared the updated
information with members. There had been one question about teams at Clarke and Ms.
Monaco had confirmed that information. Ms. Sugita reviewed needs for special
education space at Harrington if Lexington Children’s Place re-located. Mr. Goddard
said he would be available after 3:00 p.m. if the Committee had further questions.
Pelham:
Members discussed the potential uses for Pelham. Mr. Goddard provided DiNisco’s
evaluation for members to review. There was a question raised about whether if Pelham
were purchased, would it require a special vote of School Committee or Town Meeting
to take the property for use by the school system, or would it immediately be permitted.
This would need more information from the Selectmen.
Other questions about Pelham:
1. If the building permits ten classes, and if two pre-fabricated spaces were added,
would they be for classroom use, or specialists?
2. Could the building be in use by August 2017?
3. What would a Plan B be if the building could not be used by that date?
4. What were the construction costs? One estimate had been $12.9 million, another
was $15 million. What did this range cover? (Members agreed to pass these
questions to Mr. Goddard.)
Other comments and discussion points:
From earlier estimates, the Fiske addition project was estimated at $14.3 million and
would provide 3 classroom spaces plus other spaces. Members compared and discussed
the $12.9 million or $15 million estimate for 12 classrooms and other spaces at Pelham
on a per classroom basis, vs. as a whole project. Members discussed. Another area
discussed was the time frame for the proposed projects at Pelham. Would the estimated
costs enable the facility to last for five years as a school? Longer?
Question for Mr. Goddard: if pre-fabricated units at Bridge and Bowman could yield six
classrooms, would it be 4 classrooms + 2 art/music spaces? Suggestion to ask
administration to confirm, and if accurate, to prepare slide to show $12.98 cost at
Pelham would include pre-fabricated units plus site work and technology and security.
Ongoing Capital Projects: 10.27.15.4 “Deferred FY2016 and Proposed FY2017 to FY2020
Capital Requests.” The CEC recommended we note capital projects that were already
being carried as part of the 5-year plan. Mr. Goddard sent a document for today that
lists these projects. Members reviewed the list and had some questions and comments.
LSC Meeting Minutes of 10.27.15 approved 2.23.15 3
It was agreed to note the cost of these projects was already anticipated. The science
classrooms are one example.
General approach to addressing K-12 facilities and Lexington High School:
Members considered how to comment on LHS facility as it also is in need of additional
space and more significant work. Mr. Hurley noted that when he was on CEC Estabrook
and Lexington High School were the top two priorities. Ms. Crocker stated that in 2002
when the Harrington and Fiske schools replacement plns were being developed, the
order for: (1) Harrington and Fiske; (2) Estabrook and Bowman; (3) Hastings and
Bridge. Mr. Hurley suggested possibly in fall 2020 future School Committee could re-
evaluate LHS after elementary and middle school projects are complete.
Middle School teams:
In the 10/20/15 DiNisco report it said Clarke had nine teams now. In a different report
Clarke was noted as having ten teams. By email Ms. Monaco confirmed there were ten
teams at Clarke this year but that it was a combination of 9 full teams and 1 half team.
There are 3.5 teams for grade 6, 3.0 teams for grade 7, 3.0 teams for grade 8. Mr.
Goddard confirmed by email that they had tested Clarke enrollment up to 862 and
Diamond up to 968 for a total of 1830, the mid-point of the Enrollment Working Group
(“EWG”) forecast. He also confirmed that Clarke was currently at 864 students, with 91
students per team. The administration was discussing an average team size of 85.
Elementary Class Size:
On elementary class size, several charts were distributed to members (listed at the end of
these minutes in “Materials”), including materials prepared by Ms. Kavanaugh to show
the average class size during the 2014-2015 academic year, projections and capacity
figures. SMMA, MSBA and DiNisco all have different approaches. MSBA’s guideline
is 23. DiNisco used 21.6 at one point.
Members reviewed a chart comparing two possible scenarios for elementary enrollment
and how the class size used for planning purposes impacted the total number of
classrooms required. These figures are imperfect as the numbers look across the system
at all six elementary schools and actual enrollments may differ, so there is no way to
know whether an individual school might have a “bubble” year within the student
population and the need for an additional classroom (or the converse, a school where
one grade had a lower distribution and did not require a 4th section in a particular grade).
There was further discussion and consensus was reached on using 22, slightly higher
than 21.5, but lower than MSBA guidelines.
If total number of
elementary students is:
and the target
class size is …
we anticipate need #
classrooms…
… round to …
3,100 22 140.9 141
3,100 21.6 143.5 143 or 144
3,100 21.5 144
If total number of
elementary students is:
and the target
class size is …
we anticipate need #
classrooms…
… round to …
3,192 22 145 145
LSC Meeting Minutes of 10.27.15 approved 2.23.15 4
3,192 21.6 147.7 148
3,192 21.5 148.46 148 or 149
If Town Meeting does not support plan, what would be next steps or a “Plan B”?
At elementary, we could pursue leasing additional standard modular spaces. Higher
class sizes. Loss of dedicated specialist space. At middle schools, for Clarke, consider
fitting some number of leased spaces. For Diamond, same – fit some number of leased
spaces to ease the overcrowding or provide specialist spaces. In summary, reconsider
leasing temporary spaces for short-term relief. Would ask Dr. Czajkowski for her
priorities and principals’ priorities for where spaces are most needed for general
education, special education and specialists in this scenario.
At 2:36 Ms. Coppe left the meeting.
The rest of the meeting was a paragraph by paragraph review of the draft document to
incorporate comments and updates based on the earlier discussion.
There was a recess from 3:05 to 3:29.
Some changes noted were: Page 1: Note address LHS 2019 or 2020; Page 3:
Harrington 528 – 570; Page 3: Confirmation of the figures in charts; Page 7: If only 10
classrooms are ready, a lower number of students will be redistributed to that school.
Updated draft will be circulated with watermark “pending admin. review”.
At 4:21 Mr. Hurley moved to adjourn the meeting. Ms. Crocker seconded the motion.
At 4:21 the meeting was adjourned.
Meeting Materials: Agenda; -HO.10.27.15.1 K-5 Capacity Analysis FY16 to FY20 as of
10/26/15, prepared by Ms. Kavanaugh;“Draft Potential Costs for Multiple School
Projects” prepared by Pat Goddard, Director of Facilities” dated 10/27/15; “School
Committee Memo to Rod Cole and Andrei Radelescu-Banu, 10.27.15 / Draft” Prepared
by Jessie Steigerwald; HO 10.27.15.4 “Deferred FY2016 and Proposed FY2017 to
FY2020 Capital Requests”; Materials handed out at October 20, 2015 School
Committee meeting were also referenced by some members during the meeting, as were
email messages from Mr. Goddard, Ms. Kavanaugh and Ms. Monaco (sent to Ms.
Steigerwald): -K-5 Capacity Analysis FY16 to FY20 as of 10/20/15, prepared by
Maureen Kavanaugh -10/20/15 Memo from Maureen Kavanaugh to School Committee,
Dr. Czajkowski - Lexington Public Schools FY16 Snapshot of Enrollment as of October
1, 2015- Untitled chart prepared by administration depicting number of students from
2008 – projection for 2020, listing range of number of required classrooms- 10/20/15
“School Committee Multiple Schools Construction Project” presentation Prepared by
DiNisco Design
Place on Consent Agenda 2.23.16
Voted Approved by the School Committee 2.23.16