Minutes
April 14, 2004 Master Plan Committee Meeting
Taken by Charles Hill
Mr. Powell handed out Mr. Abramson's April 6 interim report and Dr. Jaeger's Framework for Master Plan Analysis
The
district has been using a state-mandated 5-year facilities plan/building
conditions survey. Nick Waer, the district architect described the context and
history behind this kind of plan. This kind of analysis often leads the
district to develop a proposal that goes to the voters. Some items may be
placed within the ordinary contingent budget.
Mr.
Powell handed out a chart and a table showing the district's debt service from
the 2003-4 through the 2011-12 school years. Both he and Michele Moloney
described the bonding process. The district and its bond counsel will consult
about any possible building proposal with a goal of having the long-range costs
spread across the years so that the debt service costs in any one year are not
significantly out of line with others. He also discussed various strategies the
state has used to spread out its building aid payments.
Dr.
Jaeger described his framework as a tool for examining strengths and weaknesses
of each of Mr. Abramson's scenarios. The committee will then split into
subcommittees to go over various educational visions that have come up in past
discussions.
Mr.
Abramson went over each scenario briefly. These are described in more detail in
the minutes from prior meetings.
Dr.
Jaeger went over the "visions" feedback form in his handout. The
visions concerned the following:
The
scale for these visions ranged from 1 (do not include) to 3 (neutral) to 5
(essential)
Subcommittees
spent time discussing each of the ten "visions".
April
28 meeting: