School Facilities Ad Hoc Committee

School Facilities Ad Hoc Committee Committee Co-Chairpersons Marnie Morrione, Chair, Portland Board of Education ∙ Ethan K. Strimling, Mayor David Brenerman, District 5 City Councilor Nicholas M. Mavodones, At-Large City Councilor Justin Costa, District 4 City Councilor Sarah J. Thompson, At-Large Board of Education Stephanie Hatzenbuehler, District 4 Board of Education Anna Trevorrow, At-Large Board of Education Monday, July 25, 2016 5:00pm – 7:00pm City Hall – Council Chamber Meeting Minutes & Notes The meeting began at 5:03pm. Attendance: Mayor Strimling, School Board Chair Marnie Morrione (Committee Co-Chairs) Superintendent Xavier Botana Councilors: David Brenerman, Justin Costa, Nicholas Mavodones School Board Members: Stephanie Hatzenbuehler, Sarah Thompson, Anna Trevorrow Deputy City Manager Anita LaChance Special Assistant to the Mayor Jason J. Shedlock Mayor Strimling and Board Chair Morrione began the meeting by welcoming the Committee Members and the public and letting the attendees know the purpose of the evening. The first half was scheduled to be a public hearing on school facilities issues. The second half was reserved for Committee Members to discuss previously-voiced questions as well as raise questions based on testimony and other input. The Committee was also slated to schedule its next few meetings. 1. Public comment on school facilities a. Jeanne – Protect Our Neighborhood Schools i. Supportive of proposal ii. Maintenance is an investment iii. Security, safety and structure issues must be addressed iv. We’ve relied on the state to fund our school facilities, now it’s time for the city to step up v. We are losing neighborhood schools b. Jessica – Longfellow & Lincoln Parent i. Supportive of proposal ii. We have to talk about buildings in the context of education iii. Schools now do more: 1. Breakfast 1  2. Special needs 3. ELL 4. Social workers 5. ADA issues 6. Computers/technology iv. Geography should not dictate educational experience v. Middle and high schools need renovations too but we shouldn’t wait for that to be determined; families will leave Portland vi. More delays will mean more money in the future c. Emily – Presumpscot Employee, Reiche Parent i. Supportive of proposal ii. Environment is key to learning iii. Flexibility in classroom spaces is critical iv. The new windows at Presumpscot changed the learning experience for students and teachers; needs to happen at all four schools v. Modulars at Presumpscot are too small, walls too thin vi. Constant rearranging of classrooms in modular is expensive and disruptive vii. Committee and Council must be bold d. Isabella – Reiche Student i. Supportive of proposal ii. The lights at Reiche make it tough to learn iii. It’s very noisy iv. There are leaks in the roof in the library, where tarps direct water to a trash can e. Lea – Reiche & Portland High Parent i. Supportive of proposal ii. Stress in a child’s learning environment can impact education and emotional problems iii. We must show that we value kids so that they value education f. Michelle – Presumpscot Parent i. Supportive of proposal ii. Community schools instill a sense of community among people and families iii. Closing schools and redistricting impacts the personal touch at community schools that kids need for growth iv. If son had to go outside of his community school, would have been enrolled in private school v. Has this just come down to money? vi. This must not be decided by the Committee or Council, but the voters g. Brian – Reiche Parent i. Supportive of proposal ii. Investment in schools says something to parents that they and their kids are valued iii. Investing may entice parents to move into Portland iv. Investing may entice quality educators to choose and/or stay in Portland v. We can attract more diversity and young parents h. Steven 2  i. Opposed to proposal ii. Citizens cannot afford $70 million iii. Glad that voters will not decide this in November; it needs more analysis iv. Portions of proposal are not education-related 1. Roads 2. Parking Lots 3. Ballfields v. Lack of detailed, broken-out plans vi. Passing bond will give School Board a blank check vii. Demographic data shows that we are not gaining young families with kids viii. We should not be building additional floors at Presumpscot & Lyseth i. Emily – Reiche Parent i. Supportive of proposal ii. Parents want to be helpful in this process; used as a resource iii. Reiche has many problems 1. Dark & no natural light 2. Loud 3. Noise is a challenge for ELL 4. Extremely hot temperatures make it difficult to focus and learn iv. 22nd Year of school facilities study, seventh task force – it’s time to get the job done v. 82% Of school construction nationally is funded locally, not the state vi. The state cannot be counted on for all of our facilities needs vii. It’s time to let the voters decide j. Glen – Presumpscot Parent i. Supportive of proposal ii. Equity is important; some schools have gotten resources and others have not iii. We cannot rely on the state to set up and help, we need to take responsibility locally iv. $70 million is not a blank check – it’s a $70 million check v. Portland has waited a long time to be able to decide on this issue – put it to voters k. Matthew – Architect i. Supportive of proposal ii. Oak Point did the job they were asked to do and did it well iii. Modern spaces are needed for modern learning 1. Art 2. Music 3. Technology 4. Gymnasium iv. The $70 million number was thoughtfully studied and generated based on the needs and parameters set l. Carrie – Longfellow Parent i. Supportive of proposal 3  ii. Stayed in Portland because of diversity iii. Our schools have exceptional people in unacceptable facilities iv. Son receives special services – spaces are not adequate for him v. Parents are fleeing the city to the suburbs because of the schools vi. It’s time for action, our kids deserve better m. Channing – Reiche Parent i. Supportive of proposal ii. Family actually moved so that their child could go to Reiche iii. Upon visit – there was a ‘heaviness’ at Reiche 1. Kids were hunched over 2. Poor lighting 3. Tiny windows iv. The lights are very hot and not well controlled v. It rains into the library vi. Presumpscot is tiny and there’s not enough space vii. We must move forward with this proposal now to give the kids a fair shot at a good education n. Katrina – Teacher i. Supportive of proposal ii. Has been in various schools in Portland and notices the differences between them. iii. Learning environment counts o. Caroline – Presumpscot Parent i. Supportive of proposal ii. Hopes the Committee takes into account the incredible work done at Presumpscot 1. Expeditionary learning 2. Integration of ELL iii. Do not move kids out of community schools 1. Maintain connection to communities 2. Discussion of questions & requests for information a. Review minutes from 7/18 Council Workshop i. Suggested edit: correct the name of Davis Demographics ii. Endeavor to have the answers to the questions outlined by the end of August b. Explore questions from public comment/additional questions for future consideration i. Councilor Brenerman 1. Have the leaks at Reiche been repaired by the City? a. Yes (K. Alves – City of Portland) b. We will follow up with the Superintendent as well to get an update on this issue. (Mayor Strimling) ii. Councilor Mavodones 1. Do the schools have code violations? Where are they? 2. Can we get a list of schools in the Portland School District since the 1970s? 3. Do our schools meet learning standards? What are the test results? 4  4. Are there non-education items in this proposal? If so, what are they? 5. Does Presumpscot have a Pre-K class in a closet with skylights? 6. What were the parameters given to Oak Point by the School Board? 7. Can we get a top-level description of the curriculum? 8. Will the proposed school renovations meet the curriculum if it changes? 9. Is there a level of autonomy in curriculum that ensures building specific approaches? 10. What are the tax rates in Portland’s surrounding communities? iii. Mayor Strimling 1. What is the age of the surrounding communities’ schools? 2. How many new elementary schools are there in surrounding communities? 3. What is the enrollment in the surrounding communities’ schools? 4. How many families left Portland public schools for neighboring jurisdictions’ schools? 5. What have other communities done re: local vs. state funding? iv. Board Chair Morrione 1. Have other communities in Maine bonded for their schools? 2. What is the local vs. state school facilities spending in Maine? v. Board Member Thompson 1. How many students have we lost of Charter schools? Online schools? vi. Board Member Hatzenbuehler 1. Were smaller schools turned into larger schools, or vice versa? 2. Can we find out why families left Portland schools? 3. The definition of equity should be explored. What does it mean when we use the word “equity?” Does each school have what it needs to serve its students? We must be sure we are using the same working definition. vii. Councilor Costa 1. We need a clear understanding on how the wording of the bond proposal and referendum impacts the state and our ability to be flexible with future state funding. a. Should it be four questions? b. How can we word it to ensure the best flexibility to position us to take advantage of the largest amount of available funds? 2. What are the major things that we’ve bonded that we’ll be retiring debt for the next 15 years? viii. Board Member Trevorrow 5  1. What are the benefits and challenges of neighborhood schools? 2. What percentage of school renovation is funded via the state vs. locally in Maine? ix. Board Member Thompson 1. Can we get the list of Capital Improvement Plan requests by the School Board (including things that were not funded) over the last 15 years? x. Councilor Brenerman 1. Which of the seven studies in 22 years have actually reached the council? The Finance Committee? How many stayed with the Board of Education? 2. What is the percentage of students who walk to Lyseth? Do a majority of kids walk to neighborhood schools? 3. If Reiche is staying an open concept school, what is Oak Point doing to address the dark/noisy complaints, which have been present since it was built? Does Reiche need separate classrooms? xi. Board Member Hatzenbuehler 1. Some city streets have become barriers for children to walk to school because of traffic/accidents. Are there any other barriers for children walking to school? xii. Councilor Brenerman 1. What renovations have already been done that are still a part of the proposal? a. Oak Point has removed all work already completed. (M. Morrione – School Board) xiii. Councilor Costa 1. What programmatic changes have been made based on the current state of the facilities? (e.g. Pre-K in a closet at Presumpscot?) xiv. Mayor Strimling 1. What programmatic things can occur if we perform the proposed renovations? What additional programmatic functions can we do that we aren’t doing now? xv. Board Member Thompson 1. We need to compile the appropriate documents to get to the committee for their review. We must rely on subject matter experts to answer the questions with raw data and documentation. xvi. Board Chair Morrione 1. The Oak Point proposal is what’s in front of this committee, it is this committee that is tasked to suggest changes and adjustments to the facilities proposal. We must stay contained to the question of facilities, and avoid addressing programmatic issues. 3. Organizational tasks a. Schedule upcoming meetings of the committee/discuss potential meeting topics 6  1. Mayor Strimling a. The Committee now has the proposal and any changes will trigger sending the proposal back to the Board of Education for their review and approval. It will then go to the Council’s Finance Committee, then to the full Council. b. The first month of the process is designed to be focused on fact finding, including a tour of the schools and then an in-depth presentation on each school by Oak Point. c. Identified questions will be addressed in as much detail as possible by the end of August. d. The next meeting will be a tour of Presumpscot and Lyseth on August 3rd at 5pm (beginning at Presumpscot). All tours and meetings will be open to the public. e. The committee will be polled for their availability for the Longfellow/Reiche tour. f. Oak Point will present to the Committee on August 30th from 5-7pm. The meeting adjourned at 6:38pm. Submitted by Jason J. Shedlock, Special Assistant to the Mayor 7