Minutes

June 15, 2004 Master Plan Committee Meeting

Taken by Charles Hill

The meeting started at 7:10 PM.

Mr. Powell stated that the meeting's purpose is to finalize the draft report to the Board. The report goes in the Board packet this Friday.

• Presentation to the Board is June 21. Presenters:

o Ray Healey on transitional space.

• Paul Abramson on the report
• Dr. Jaeger
• Michele Moloney
• Mr. Powell
• He will request a construction manager.
• The committee will become a pre-referendum committee.
• The Board has been investigating a property purchase, substantial in size, centrally located, with water and sewer. No other details can be released at this time.
• There have been various emails about the report. Key topics:
• Role of technology

o Vision

Discussion of the draft

• A discussion ensued regarding technology; for example, regarding computer labs - Will wireless and portable technologies lead to the elimination of computer labs and therefore create space? Is any statement about technology and the space computers take up going to be a red flag? Should the report present "technology" as an issue that has impacted space use in the district rather than imply it is a "problem" - and put it second in the report, behind the demands of special education.

• Regarding visioning: discussion around the interrelationship between facilities and programs. For example, that expanding/upgrading facilities creates program opportunities/flexibility. Alternatively, that if you don't say what expanded facilities will be used for at the outset, then people may not accept the concept that facilities need to be expanded. Underlying concerns: Build a school? Build a junior high? Don't build an elementary school? Create kindergarten centers? Don't build anything? Add on to buildings? And so on.

• A fluctuating discussion: that the report has an elementary school component (which may involve kindergarten centers, or building a school, or something else); that secondary enrollments are still going up; that the alternative school may play a role; that high schools may need to move to more flexible scheduling (9 or 10 period day, for example).

• How do you cost out the various scenarios? Currently, the numbers are not expressed as dollars. Should they be? Or is it premature to focus on dollars (because they may change, once planning gets detailed) and better to focus on relative costs (that is, that one scenario costs twice a different one)? If the report does not show dollar figures for scenarios, should it (could it) also not show infrastructure or operating costs at this time?

• What is happening with the report? Presented to the Board and then moved to another committee, or a variation on this committee. What then? What is the relationship between its recommendations and the infrastructure recommendations previously made by the district architect? The report to the board should include references to those recommendations as well as to other topics discussed by the committee.

• Should the committee endorse the report before its presentation to the Board? General agreement that it represents the key needs discussed by the committee, the manner the committee reviewed/assessed those needs, and that scenario one most closely meets those needs.

The meeting ended around 9 PM