Mr. Rief reported on the Progress Report made on behalf of the Committee to the District School Board, noting that a summary of meeting schedules was presented, the Committee's philosophy/intent was clarified for the Board, timelines were acknowledged, and enrollment projections were discussed. Mr. Rief also noted that he intended to present all minutes of the Committee's meetings to the Board.
Ms. Welsh was scheduled to report on Alternative Schools/Magnet Schools, but her presentation was delayed to a future meeting date in order to enable her to receive information from other schools she had requested. In particular, she stated that there was one model school in Massachusetts which was supposed to be forwarding information to her. Ms. Welsh asked if any Committee members had suggestions for schools to contact for information. Mr. Schoonmaker stated he would try to get information from the Seattle School District on alternative/magnet schools, as he thought some existed in the greater Seattle area.
Next, the list of questions from the NEASC accreditation study was discussed. Mr. Everngam noted that the NEASC questions and checklist approaches facilities from an essentially curriculum standpoint. Mr. Rief noted that if the NEASC accreditors find any shortcomings in facilities, that those shortcomings should be the focus of the Committee's work. Mr. Everngam stated that during the last NEASC visit, certain ADA improvements, including an elevator, were suggested. Mr. Rief pointed out that the NEASC checklist may be valuable to any building consultant retained by the Committee in the future. The Committee members reached a consensus decision to read the list at their leisure, and then go over it with Mr. Everngam at a later date.
Mr. Kennedy then reviewed the enrollment projections prepared by the Long Range Planning Committee ("LRPC"). He noted that last year's projections does not include tuition students, but that information on Deerfield students was available elsewhere. He stated that the LRPC was working on the current year's report and that it should be ready by the end of summer or early fall. Mr. Kennedy also noted that this year's projections should not vary much from last year's projections, perhaps 2%. He stated he would feel comfortable with the Committee using last year's projections. Mr. Rief expressed concern with the defensibility of using last year's projections. Both Mr. Penniman and Mr. Everngam stated that they would be surprised if the numbers projected varied by 10 students from last year's projections.
Ann Welsh noted the need to build any additions larger not to accommodate tuition students but to have a buffer for future population growth. Mr. Kennedy agreed with this analysis. Ms. Welsh noted that if extra space were available, tuition students could be used to fill the gap. Mr. Penniman stated that it was cheaper to build a structure bigger than needed in the first place, than to continually be adding on as needed. He pointed out Moharimet as an example of this concept.
Housing starts and incoming migration of families with students were discussed. Mr. Rief questioned if the enrollment projections should be sought through the year 2010 for the Committee's purposes. Mr. Penniman suggested that the present data plus 100 students should be the number used to design any space changes at the high school. Mr. Lewis stated that he felt community consensus that 700-800 enrollment projection for the high school is valid. Mr. Rief asked whether, with a 740 peak enrollment projection from the LRPC, if this Committee should project beyond to 850. Mr. Penniman thought this was a good idea, and again pointed out the expense of continually adding space as it becomes needed Mr. Everngam noted the District's knowledge of what programs would be like at the High School at increments of 550 students, 650, 750 and 850.
Ann Welsh noted that at sometime, someone in the District had suggested that an optimal size for a high school was 600 and noted that the Committee should have an answer for recommending a larger high school.
Once again, the Committee reached a consensus opinion that the high school enrollment projection, for facilities expansion purposes, would be 850 students.
Mr. Lewis asked if the projections included special needs students. Mr. Everngam replied that when any plan is done, special needs students/space would be factored in.
Mr. Penniman asked if the core size of the high school would be 1.5 times the size of the projected enrollment. Mr. Rief agreed that the core size should be based on a factor times the projected enrollment of 850. Mr. Everngam cautioned that the Committee should only consider a core size that the site is able to support- i.e. don't build a core which size cannot be matched by classroom expansion on the site. Mr. Everngam noted that the relationship between classroom and core size should be linear. Mr. Aber asked why the core had to be targeted to a particular student body size, and why the core could not be justified solely on programmatic needs. Mr. Everngam answered that the gymnasium is easily projected based on enrollments, but that office space and special needs space is not so easily projected. Mr. Rief stated that it would be logical to cite the number of teaching stations needed for 850 students rather than to simply that the core is sized for 1150 students.
Mr. Lewis noted that members of the community want the high school size to support AP classes.
Ms. Welsh stated she was not convinced the site would support 1150 students and that by the time the high school gets to those numbers, all the other schools will have problems. Mr. Everngam noted that the present high school building design was meant to be a "throw a way," not to last forever in any event.
Finally, Mr. Everngam reviewed the Request For Proposals (RFP) sent out. He handed out a list of the firms to which the RFP was sent. Mr. Everngam stated that the firms were chosen based on repeated recommendations from administrators and contractors whom he had contacted. Mr. Rief stated the next step was to consolidate the list to three firms. Mr. Everngam suggested a subcommittee to sort through the firm's qualifications. He stated he would be happy to suggest a firm, but felt like the Committee needed to do the selection at arm's length. Mr. Schoonmaker noted the subcommittee would need to meet between July 1 and July 10 in order to choose the firms to interview at the scheduled meeting. Mr. Rief, Mr. Schoonmaker and Jen Hogan agreed to form the subcommittee to review the following firms' qualifications:
Any other member of the Committee would be able to review the letters after 4:00 on July 1, 1996.
Future meeting dates were set for July 10 at 6:30 p.m (interview of design firms selected), and July 17 at 7:00 p.m.. It was noted that on July 16, the School Board would ratify the design firm selected.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:10 p.m.
Recording Secretary,
Eileen L. Koehler
Commons
Schools
Newsstand
Library
Voting Booth
Soapbox
Last update on 29-Mar-99 at 11:08 PM.
http://www.orol.org/schools/orhs/orgs/space_needs/minutes_960626.html
This page is edited by David K. Taylor. Please send questions or comments to editor@orol.org.