- State College Area School District
- Board Meeting Archives 2010-2019
- Board Meeting Agendas/Minutes 2012
Board of Directors
Page Navigation
- State College Area School District Board of Directors
- BoardDocs - View Agendas, Minutes, Policies, and Committees
-
Board Meeting Archives 2010-2019
- Board Meeting Agendas/Minutes 2019
- Board Meeting Agendas/Minutes 2018
- Board Meeting Agendas/Minutes 2017
- Board Meeting Agendas/Minutes 2016
- Board Meeting Agendas/Minutes 2015
- Board Meeting Agendas/Minutes 2014
- Board Meeting Agendas/Minutes 2013
- Board Meeting Agendas/Minutes 2012
- Board Meeting Agendas/Minutes 2011
- Board Meeting Agendas/Minutes 2010
- Board Committees (Agendas/Minutes Archives 2010-2019)
- Board Meetings
Board Work Session Agenda/Minutes 12-17-12
December 17, 2012 Board Work Session
Immediately following the Regular Meeting – Board Room131 W. Nittany Avenue
State College, PA 16801
II. PROJECT SCHEDULE/CALENDAR
III. EDUCATIONAL PROGRAM UPDATE
IV. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT ACTION TEAM
a. MembershipV. OPTION STANDARDS
b. Charge
c. Current Site Evaluationi. Ability to meet programd. Off Site inventory and Evaluation
ii. Pedestrian crossing
iii. Constructability
iv. Otheri. Size (ability to meet program)
ii. Location1. Demographic center (transportation)
2. Regional growth boundaryiii. Building evaluation
VI. BUDGET SETTING PROCESS
VII. DISCUSSION of JANUARY 21, 2013 WORK SESSION
VIII. DISCUSSION of JANUARY 23, 2013 COMMUNITY MEETING
IX. PUBLIC COMMENT
X. ADJOURN
X. ADJOURN
Approved Minutes
December 17, 2012 Work Session
Immediately Following the Regular Meeting – Board Room
131 W. Nittany Avenue
State College, PA 16801
I. Work Session Called to Order
Ms. Fishbaine called the work session to order at 8:58 p.m. Dr. O’Donnell noted there was a lot of information for the work session and reviewed the agenda.
Introduction of presenters:
● John Beddia - (Crabtree, Rohrbaugh) Team Leader and oversees the entire effort
● Paul Taylor - (Crabtree, Rohrbaugh) Director of Education Architect and handles programming
● Jeff Straub - (Crabtree, Rohrbaugh) Project Manager and handles day-to-day
● Todd Smith - (ELA Group)
● Amy Yurko - (Brainspaces) The Educational Planner
● Kelly Tanner - (Brainspaces)
II. Project Schedule/Calendar
John Beddia reviewed the updated calendar/schedule noting the relationships with all the tasks they are working on. He asked that he could leave with insight for the next step, which is the Work Session in January so they can provide topics for serious discussion for preliminary options. He explained that the program will vary through the process, they can provide preliminary cost estimates, can account for all the various items, but the cost estimate will be fine tuned each time we meet. They are looking at option standards, schematic design concepts.
III. Educational Program Update
Amy Yurko is spending two days at the high school working with students and teachers on educational visioning. She toured the building with students, asked to see their favorite place, getting their views, and what spaces inspire them, etc. They are conducting awareness sessions with videos, surveys, and discussed crossing the street. Spoke on update to 2009 educational specifications, communicate inside out process and then results can be viewed. Ms. Yurko responded to a question regarding hearing pros and cons, guiding principles, and the design team creating a set of standards regardless of the site by noting that the feedback on guiding principles understands how goals should be prioritized. Working toward relationships of students-teachers, location of adults for knowing students by name, engaging in powerful learning, and hands on versus lectures. Our students really get it and are really great drivers for the charge.
IV. Community Engagement - Action Team
Dr. O’Donnell discussed the purpose and role of the Community Engagement Action Team that will be an integral part of the high school project’s planning process. The future of the high school must reflect priorities of our community; the success of the project depends on community supporting the outcome identified during the planning process. We need to work together for all to have a clear understanding of what is occurring, so the action team will serve as a liaison for the community members to share their thinking. He reviewed the purpose, charge, expectations, and committee member categories for the Community Engagement Action Team.
Board members discussed what we do to select members if hundreds apply, categories should drive, students never fail to impress when they are involved, how to publicize other than tonight, CACs, PTA/PTO Groups, publish a document explaining what the committee is about, being very clear so there is understanding, purpose to assist the board, doing it right is very important, principles very important years down the road, the role of Delta, serve as a two-way feedback - from the board to community and from the community to board, need a road show so to speak, the communication subcommittee’s role with this, and any further comments should be sent to Jim Leous and Bob O’Donnell in the next few days.
V. Option Standards
The options will shape themselves and the site lags behind many other processes. The design and layouts that meet the criteria are at the top of the funnel, we are much more process oriented right now.
Site evaluation criteria will use Centre Region and District data identifying the acceptable radius from the demographic center. Options of possible sites (existing and new) were shown.
Board members discussed some being outside the growth boundary, the six municipalities, much flexibility right now, pro and cons of going outside the boundary, acreage on Westerly Parkway, guiding principles and comparing things, core differences, athletics facilities, current location most challenged size wise, if certain things do not fit, then it will shake out, and discussion of the DeJong Study.
An option from that study, Option A-2 - two new buildings, has been eliminated. More board discussion on duplication/elimination, be open as possible to all options, look at all possibilities, not designing from scratch, rationale makes sense and can learn we are wrong, grades 9/10 and 11/12 separate. Smaller school models, planning for a high school facility to last at least 50 years, design should be how you want to configure the high school for the future, look at guiding principles - educational issues - practical for programs, LEED Silver, compare apples to apples, need to talk about safety due to the street and that is justification for doing something.
VI. Budget
We have to address each item to put a real cost to things. What we have, what we need, what is payback, and decide which is more important. The influencing factors were reviewed that included: Scope of improvements to maintain PDE Compliance, Building Code/Accessibility, Program Implementation/Level of Renovation, and Regulatory Agency.
Goals and Process
Mr. Beddia explained that adapting and adjusting along the way could be done. The process needs to be flexible and referred to the graphic on the PowerPoint that shows priorities and factors have weights to them. Board members discussed bookkeeping and the payback cycle for LEED, what is the Board’s role, January cost will be provided to each area and we do not know if we are meeting program requirements, and will there be enough description that can help determine the cost and be comfortable with options going to the community. Amy Yurko added that they would like to present the guiding principles prior to the community, they already have information and will introduce at a good time. Board members offered
they were encouraged and liked how we are working so far, surveying is a soft spot, there can be nine different thoughts on what surveying means, we need to understand what we should expect, who and the time period because timing is critical. Principles are key and we need to help the community understand what they are and show how they are used.
VII. January 21, 2013 Work Session
Ed Poprik noted that the information and questions gathered tonight will help form the agenda for the January 21 Work Session. If any board members have further comments or questions they would like addressed, please let Mr. Poprik or Dr. O’Donnell know.
VIII. January 23, 2013 Community Meeting
Mr. Poprik noted that the January 23, 2013 Community Meeting would be held at 7:00 pm, High School South Auditorium, for information and feedback. The meeting has been extended to include an Open House and opportunities for tours are being offered for people to understand our high school. People are welcome to gather at 5:00 - 5:30 pm in the South cafeteria and teachers and students will be giving tours. If people cannot make it that night, they will work on doing a virtual tour. There is a feedback box on the website and will remain there through the process.
IX. Public Comment
The following audience members addressed the Board:
- Mary Marino spoke on the options being taken off the list, could split the community, that option was more widely chosen than moving to a new site, put back on again and let the community decide and questioned why we are looking outside the growth boundary.
-Lee Dilliard addressed the board letting them know he was a realtor and spoke regarding land approximately .5 mile from the high school current location. He referenced Everhart Farm, 157 acres, good land, no sinkholes, and would provide room for everything with ample parking. This could be a new site if everyone would agree.
X. Adjourn the Work Session
Ms. McGlaughlin moved and Dr. Roper seconded to adjourn the work session. All board members present voted aye with voice vote. Ms. Fishbaine adjourned the work session at 11:46 p.m. (Ms. Stahl was absent.)
Submitted by,
Mary Jenn Dorman
Board Secretary
December 17, 2012 Work Session
Immediately Following the Regular Meeting – Board Room
131 W. Nittany Avenue
State College, PA 16801
I. Work Session Called to Order
Ms. Fishbaine called the work session to order at 8:58 p.m. Dr. O’Donnell noted there was a lot of information for the work session and reviewed the agenda.
Introduction of presenters:
● John Beddia - (Crabtree, Rohrbaugh) Team Leader and oversees the entire effort
● Paul Taylor - (Crabtree, Rohrbaugh) Director of Education Architect and handles programming
● Jeff Straub - (Crabtree, Rohrbaugh) Project Manager and handles day-to-day
● Todd Smith - (ELA Group)
● Amy Yurko - (Brainspaces) The Educational Planner
● Kelly Tanner - (Brainspaces)
II. Project Schedule/Calendar
John Beddia reviewed the updated calendar/schedule noting the relationships with all the tasks they are working on. He asked that he could leave with insight for the next step, which is the Work Session in January so they can provide topics for serious discussion for preliminary options. He explained that the program will vary through the process, they can provide preliminary cost estimates, can account for all the various items, but the cost estimate will be fine tuned each time we meet. They are looking at option standards, schematic design concepts.
III. Educational Program Update
Amy Yurko is spending two days at the high school working with students and teachers on educational visioning. She toured the building with students, asked to see their favorite place, getting their views, and what spaces inspire them, etc. They are conducting awareness sessions with videos, surveys, and discussed crossing the street. Spoke on update to 2009 educational specifications, communicate inside out process and then results can be viewed. Ms. Yurko responded to a question regarding hearing pros and cons, guiding principles, and the design team creating a set of standards regardless of the site by noting that the feedback on guiding principles understands how goals should be prioritized. Working toward relationships of students-teachers, location of adults for knowing students by name, engaging in powerful learning, and hands on versus lectures. Our students really get it and are really great drivers for the charge.
IV. Community Engagement - Action Team
Dr. O’Donnell discussed the purpose and role of the Community Engagement Action Team that will be an integral part of the high school project’s planning process. The future of the high school must reflect priorities of our community; the success of the project depends on community supporting the outcome identified during the planning process. We need to work together for all to have a clear understanding of what is occurring, so the action team will serve as a liaison for the community members to share their thinking. He reviewed the purpose, charge, expectations, and committee member categories for the Community Engagement Action Team.
Board members discussed what we do to select members if hundreds apply, categories should drive, students never fail to impress when they are involved, how to publicize other than tonight, CACs, PTA/PTO Groups, publish a document explaining what the committee is about, being very clear so there is understanding, purpose to assist the board, doing it right is very important, principles very important years down the road, the role of Delta, serve as a two-way feedback - from the board to community and from the community to board, need a road show so to speak, the communication subcommittee’s role with this, and any further comments should be sent to Jim Leous and Bob O’Donnell in the next few days.
V. Option Standards
The options will shape themselves and the site lags behind many other processes. The design and layouts that meet the criteria are at the top of the funnel, we are much more process oriented right now.
Site evaluation criteria will use Centre Region and District data identifying the acceptable radius from the demographic center. Options of possible sites (existing and new) were shown.
Board members discussed some being outside the growth boundary, the six municipalities, much flexibility right now, pro and cons of going outside the boundary, acreage on Westerly Parkway, guiding principles and comparing things, core differences, athletics facilities, current location most challenged size wise, if certain things do not fit, then it will shake out, and discussion of the DeJong Study.
An option from that study, Option A-2 - two new buildings, has been eliminated. More board discussion on duplication/elimination, be open as possible to all options, look at all possibilities, not designing from scratch, rationale makes sense and can learn we are wrong, grades 9/10 and 11/12 separate. Smaller school models, planning for a high school facility to last at least 50 years, design should be how you want to configure the high school for the future, look at guiding principles - educational issues - practical for programs, LEED Silver, compare apples to apples, need to talk about safety due to the street and that is justification for doing something.
VI. Budget
We have to address each item to put a real cost to things. What we have, what we need, what is payback, and decide which is more important. The influencing factors were reviewed that included: Scope of improvements to maintain PDE Compliance, Building Code/Accessibility, Program Implementation/Level of Renovation, and Regulatory Agency.
Goals and Process
Mr. Beddia explained that adapting and adjusting along the way could be done. The process needs to be flexible and referred to the graphic on the PowerPoint that shows priorities and factors have weights to them. Board members discussed bookkeeping and the payback cycle for LEED, what is the Board’s role, January cost will be provided to each area and we do not know if we are meeting program requirements, and will there be enough description that can help determine the cost and be comfortable with options going to the community. Amy Yurko added that they would like to present the guiding principles prior to the community, they already have information and will introduce at a good time. Board members offered
they were encouraged and liked how we are working so far, surveying is a soft spot, there can be nine different thoughts on what surveying means, we need to understand what we should expect, who and the time period because timing is critical. Principles are key and we need to help the community understand what they are and show how they are used.
VII. January 21, 2013 Work Session
Ed Poprik noted that the information and questions gathered tonight will help form the agenda for the January 21 Work Session. If any board members have further comments or questions they would like addressed, please let Mr. Poprik or Dr. O’Donnell know.
VIII. January 23, 2013 Community Meeting
Mr. Poprik noted that the January 23, 2013 Community Meeting would be held at 7:00 pm, High School South Auditorium, for information and feedback. The meeting has been extended to include an Open House and opportunities for tours are being offered for people to understand our high school. People are welcome to gather at 5:00 - 5:30 pm in the South cafeteria and teachers and students will be giving tours. If people cannot make it that night, they will work on doing a virtual tour. There is a feedback box on the website and will remain there through the process.
IX. Public Comment
The following audience members addressed the Board:
- Mary Marino spoke on the options being taken off the list, could split the community, that option was more widely chosen than moving to a new site, put back on again and let the community decide and questioned why we are looking outside the growth boundary.
-Lee Dilliard addressed the board letting them know he was a realtor and spoke regarding land approximately .5 mile from the high school current location. He referenced Everhart Farm, 157 acres, good land, no sinkholes, and would provide room for everything with ample parking. This could be a new site if everyone would agree.
X. Adjourn the Work Session
Ms. McGlaughlin moved and Dr. Roper seconded to adjourn the work session. All board members present voted aye with voice vote. Ms. Fishbaine adjourned the work session at 11:46 p.m. (Ms. Stahl was absent.)
Submitted by,
Mary Jenn Dorman
Board Secretary