Joint Facilities & Grounds and Communications Meeting Agenda/Notes - July 6, 2016

 

 

July 6, 2016 Joint Facilities and Grounds and Communications Committee Meeting Notes
11:30 a.m. - Meeting Room A - Panorama Village Bldg.
240 Villa Crest Drive
State College, PA 16801

I.      Call to Order
Ms. Fishbaine called the joint meeting of the Board Facilities and Grounds and Board Communications Committees to order at 11:41 a.m. With the joint meeting and some extra people present, introductions were done.
Present: Amy Bader, Vern Bock, Randy Brown, Amber Concepcion, Mary Jenn Dorman, Dan Duffy, Penni Fishbaine, Ed Fuller, Ed LeClear, Jim Leous (connected by phone), Mary Kay Montovino, Bob O’Donnell, Jason Perrin, Ed Poprik, Chris Rosenblum, Jeff Straub, Laurel Zydney

A copy of all materials distributed to board members for discussion is included with the official notes, unless otherwise indicated.

II.      District-Wide Facilities Master Plan (DWFMP), Elementary Focus
Update of Forums
Mr. Brown provided an update for the upcoming forums: July 18 at Ferguson Township Elementary, August 15 at Mount Nittany Elementary, September 19 Mount Nittany Middle School all to be held at 7:00 p.m. Dr. O’Donnell added that new communications will go out to SCASD employees and families.

July 18 Forum Agenda
Mr. Poprik provided a recap reviewing prior master planning years 1999, 2001, 2004, 2009 and 2014 with the recommendations/conclusions regarding elementary school projects. This information will be used during the Open General Session of the Forum. Committee members discussed: Houserville/Lemont (HO/LE) plan to close LE and combine both since the 2001 Master Plan; there was an extensive discussion on school size in 1999; there was deliberation on the approach for large school vs. small school; different renovations, and there could be an addition to Ferguson Township (FT). Act 1 of 2006 came into play with planning; new board members were seated in 2007; and Mount Nittany Elementary (MNE) and FT were put forward
and then the High School. Mr. Poprik added that in 2001, the High School was the main focus, not elementary schools and Corl Street (CS) and FT were carry overs. A request was made to have a handout available at the Forum with this information; it is good history.

Student Enrollment/School
Dr. O’Donnell introduced Dr. Fuller and referred to the Elementary School Enrollments and School Size Report. He asked board members present, what information the Board would like? They can refine and add more if wanted. He then referred to the chart on Page 4 showing current SCASD School Capacity, Recent Enrollment and a projection for 2022. Shelby Stewman did projections, had prepared three scenarios with his projections and Dr. O’Donnell used the middle one to do the 2022 projection. Committee members discussed: Stewman not looking at migration to charter schools, more kindergarteners entering, the end of August being the best time to look at numbers, other grades shift in or out of District, need to present charter information at the Forum, should color code to further show actual and projection, having capacity around the District, there are more classrooms available compared to the capacity, and most Districts build capacity for 80 or 90 percent. Doing 90% could cause the need to redistrict more frequently. We should not build beyond what we need, Dr. Fuller added that if a student shifts often, it can be a detriment to the student. We do not want to redistrict all the time, the need to make the best decision and the total number of students divided by the number of classrooms is 20.5 students/classroom.

Cohort Elementary School Enrollments
Dr. O’Donnell noted that the cohort schools were the ones used over recent years and he added Upper St. Clair for the sake of their elementary sizes. They spoke on looking at other schools in University towns, need to add the percentage of low income families, enrollments from 2014/15 data and all other data used should be the same, and there needs to be text on this for
explanation for the public.

Dr. O’Donnell spoke on research and the three reports on class-size and socio economics that play into this as well. There are others to consider. He noted there is a policy for classroom size and asked if there was a desire for other information. They would find others and noted it could lead to different conclusions with different studies. Out of the three reports he spoke about: Fowler, W. & Walberg, J. (1991), Leithwood, K. & Jantzi, D (2009) and Stevenson, K. (2006), Dr. Fuller thinks the best study is Leithwood due to not being state specific. Committee members discussed: school size vs. class size, usually do not see large schools with small classes or small school with large classes, our District having paraprofessionals in our K2 classrooms, having two or three classes/grade level, the number of classes that should be per grade level and the total number of students it would be. Need to look at broad range: Special Education and the effect on size vs. other interventions; having smaller schools and only certain programs; need to know the number of faculty; and the effect is smaller than improving teacher quality. There is no return or investment to make schools smaller here, Corl Street is the low end and Park Forest Elementary is the high end. Spoke on parent involvement, socioeconomic status, not all parent involvement being effective helping with homework or being in PTO, and walking to school. Dr. O’Donnell noted they have not really talked with the Board regarding flexible learning opportunities but some discussion has occurred on the Elementary School Model, the updated schools including flexible learning opportunities (small group instruction and large group instruction spaces), and considerations for a science lab per school (focus for the intermediate grades) and a separate gymnasium. Mr. Poprik noted that today, they are showing a multipurpose room and not the separate cafeteria and gymnasium.

III.      Public Comment
Mr. Brown suggested that Mr. LeClear (Borough Representative) and Mr. Straub (CRA) should have the opportunity to speak next. Mr. LeClear noted that the assessment data is very off since it has not been done since 1994. There is very little change over in College Heights and that area has more value. Dr. Fuller explained research shows with elementary schools and high school is that they return to very small and return to very large. It would be helpful to have this in a handout also. Dr. O’Donnell spoke on interfacing with municipalities, calling developers directly to obtain any further information for demographers to have the most correct information.

Mr. Straub reported he would share updated floor plans at the Forum with a PowerPoint presentation, still in process and will continue for next month. Right now, they need to make some assumptions and spoke about the eight sections. Three sections on Radio Park (RP) and Houserville (HO) and two on Corl Street (CS) that matches up to current District capacity. He reviewed the refinements to RP, Houserville and CS and it was noted that this should come to the full Board before being presented at a Forum. Mr. Straub spoke on site surveys, geothermal, well tests, geotechnical (rocks) but no wetlands, and he will be meeting with municipalities. He added that the Grants are to be awarded this Friday. Committee members discussed: preparing for current population, adjustments can be done to the buildings, look at class size / school / grade, check about redistricting, the equitable use of resource / student, the average cost/student in elementary, staffing at the core curriculum level, the specials in each school, would need to use an average for all records, need to make known what goes on at each school, how programming interfaces here, “high achieving school” due to population, need to know percentage of special needs students, percentage of low/reduced lunch and percentage of speech and occupational therapist. It would be good to have another handout for this information.

Dr. Fuller left at 1:15 p.m.

Cost Analysis
Mr. Brown is working on five options for different configurations but will not be complete for July. Some may not be appropriate for us but this was a good basis to start. He noted that this is NOT our information but a good format to use and shows total operating savings. Discussed: Being impressed with the amount of work on the tables, the size of classes by the number of students in schools, not how many but the support system needed, some schools might need more support staff, excellent ideas with buildings, and the set up of excess capacity.

Mr. Straub left at 1:35 p.m.

Mr. LeClear asked if there were any questions and noted the Borough is willing to make the zoning work for the CS site. There is a strong desire to keep CS and the Borough Council has the same sentiment. He spoke on the linkage or partnership and they will help Green Tree and Holmes Foster with the work that would be going on. He spoke on rentals, any property could convert, there is no limit of dwellings that would be rentals, but there are occupancy limits and he explained. Committee members spoke on the families of the future, not reducing flexibility, the walking urban environment, and effects on neighborhoods. Ms. Fishbaine thanked Mr. LeClear for the information.

IV.     Tools for Option Selection
Mr. Brown noted this is being prepared and will not be ready for July.

V.       Development of Flyer and talking points
There will be a couple different ones and Mr. Brown noted throughout the discussion where the committee members thought one would be needed. A general flyer, very clear and all on the same page. The student data would be another handout. Ms. Concepcion left the meeting at 2:20 p.m.

VI.     Update for Memorial Field
Mr. Poprik noted that Weber Murphy Fox completed meetings with stakeholders. They will now be working on schematic design options. Weber Murphy Fox should have a discussion publicly this fall at one of the Board meetings and it will most likely be in October.

VII.     High School
Mr. Poprik noted that the future tour of project planned for September could be pushed up to late summer if people were interested. He would check again for the interest to do so.

VIII.    Future Agenda Items
Future Forum Topics
Mr. Brown noted they will add what was discussed today and will also provide a brief PowerPoint beginning with the Breakout Points. There will not be as many breakout points as the past Forums, maybe three different rooms. There will be more specific information, discussion of goals and talking points.

IX.      Public Comment
There was no specific public comment since the “members of the public” offered their comments during the discussion of each item.

X.       Adjournment
Ms. Fishbaine adjourned the joint meeting of the Facilities and Grounds, and Communications Committees at 2:10 p.m.

Submitted by,

Mary Jenn Dorman
Board Secretary