Minutes

May 12, 2004 Master Plan Committee Meeting

Taken by Charles Hill

The meeting started at 7 PM at Myers Corners ES

Dr. Jaeger started the meeting by encouraging committee members to pick up a number of background documents. (Mr. Powell is making a budget presentation at Fishkill ES, but will get here later.)

Agenda has 3 items:

• Facility planning update from the district architect firm, Dodge Chamberlin (Nick Waer)
• Go over visioning results from the last meeting
• Final report process

Architect Report

• Nick Waer reviewed an April 22 infrastructure report that included a building condition survey (BCS) for each school, based on a 2001 report by a different firm, updated to April 2004 prices by Dodge Chamberlin, the most recent (2003) WCSD 5-year plan, and a spreadsheet that totaled the best estimated cost for the BCS ($51 million), the 5-year plan ($15.8 million), and both combined ($66.8, of which $17.6 is the estimate for windows and $1.9 is for roofs). He pointed out that these totals are not recommendations; they are totals from these plans.
• Another page listed and compared BCS and 5-year plan estimates for items that are listed for reasons of health and safety (discussion theme: some health and safety items are more important than others; this classification covers a range of items that are not of equal importance), ADA/code compliance, energy, site work (paving, for example; a district can only receive state aid on paving if the paving is linked to a building project)
• He broke out all 5-year plan items into two categories: WCSD priorities 1 & 2 and priorities 3 & 5, each of which costs out at about $10 million.
• Mr. Abramson observed that most BCS items are the kinds of things a district would normally put out on a bond proposal; that 5-year plan items are more likely to be included in a district budget (painting, for example, or ceiling tiles; maintenance items)

Visioning

• Dr. Jaeger described several sheets. The first showed subcommittee ratings of ten educational considerations/visions discussed at previous meetings.

• Most items were rated as positive (4) to essential (5), on a 1-5 point scale. Percent of subcommittees rating a proposal as essential (5):

o Full/extended day kindergarten = 94%

o Middle/secondary school magnets = 35%

o Learning labs/media studios = 48%

o Collaboration centers = 65%

o Alternative middle and high schools = 56%

o Robust technologies = 48%

o Inclusion classes = 65%

o Career development/service learning = 54%

o Community centers = 56%

o Educational centers for students = 65%

· One committee member described some difficulties of trying to do extended day K or K centers while maintaining the district's tiered bus system. Extended K busing would run into the time of day when all buses and drivers are currently involved in busing the JHS. Discussion ensued; What might alternatives look like? How much do busing needs drive the shape of the K recommendation? The importance of coordinating district transportation needs with the transportation needs (growth, road closings and changes, location and nature of lights, etc) of municipalities within the district

· Dr. Jaeger summarized a meeting last night of members of the different subcommittees to go over the visioning statements and to make some "next step" recommendations:

o Final recommendations must include the following items from Mr. Abramson's scenarios:

§ Small class size

§ Consistent grade configurations among all schools

§ Adequate special education space

§ Adequate space for libraries, fine and performing arts

§ Grade 5 to remain in the elementary schools

o Final recommendations should consider

§ Full/extended day K

§ Space for project based learning, collaboration

§ Opportunities for alternative education opportunities in high schools, and possibly the middle schools

§ Robust technologies (including wireless)

§ Space for exploratory centers at both HS and MS; may require different ways of transporting students (use the LOOP system?, for example)

o Construction

§ Build at least one new ES in the southern part of the district

o Kindergarten.

§ Commit to small class size

§ Pursue the kindergarten center proposal to find ways of making it work or to the point of concluding that it cannot work

o Narrowing the planning (in addition to items already mentioned)

§ Limit the middle schools to grades 6-8

§ Build one middle school; make it a 2-house (750/house) school in the middle part of the district; creates the opportunity to put educational, resource centers within it for student and community use

§ Add on to WJH

§ Expand core facilities at Gayhead

§ Move district administration to Van Wyck

§ Full day K in centers or home schools

§ Phase out modular classrooms

Discussion topics:

· Which of the above are priorities?

· Are they flexible (class size, for example)?

· How do you measure the impact of any of them? (Variation: What is the impact of any one or more recommendations on student performance?)

· Is the district looking for land on which it could build?

· How will the Board of Education look upon the recommendations this committee or Mr. Abramson will make?

· What is the role of enrollment projections in all this?

Communications and discussion of communications issues:

· What is the value of these proposals and how can this value be communicated to the community?

· When do we start communicating with the community? (Some discussion - that we had already gotten started doing this.)

· The communications subcommittee made a recommendation that the district engage a PR firm (noting that this was the approach taken by Arlington CSD).

· Need to address impact on students so that community understands that impact.

· Address historical perspective (Schools didn't do it that way when I was in school, why do you need to do it now?)

· Do we need to know how much community support there is out there before we make recommendations?

Mr. Abramson's report should have 5 areas, according to the superintendent

• Vision for school district to serve our students well
• The district has long range planning goals
• We are parallel planning with the district architect (as mentioned above)
• We have a debt service plan incorporated into the planning
• He will make recommendations about which plans make the most sense

There was consensus broadly on the recommendations made by last night's subcommittee and a belief that they should be incorporated into Mr. Abramson's report

Next meeting: May 26, 7 PM, Myers Corners ES

The meeting ended at 9:25 PM