MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING –
PRESENT: Chairperson Anne Larner,
Vice-Chairperson Susan Albright, Gail Glick, Patricia Kellogg, Marc Laredo,
Nancy Levine, Leslie Schneider, Dori
Zaleznik, Mayor David Cohen
ALSO
PRESENT: School Committee elect Susan Heyman
and Reenie Murphy
ABSENT: student representatives
OPEN SESSION
At
MOTION: It was
moved, by roll call vote, to convene in executive
session for the purpose of discussing matters related to
collective bargaining.
If passed, the Committee will reconvene in open session at
(Levine
- Glick)
8 - 0 - 1
(Absent for vote: Mayor Cohen)
ROLL CALL VOTE BY WARD:
Ward I, "yes" (Glick); Ward II, "yes" (Albright);
Ward III, "yes" (Larner); Ward IV,
"yes" (Levine); Ward V, "yes" (Kellogg); Ward VI,
"yes" (Schneider); Ward VII, "yes" (
CALL TO ORDER
Chairperson Anne Larner called the meeting to order at
PUBLIC COMMENT
Mary O'Neill, Newtonville, talked about how both the music and athletic
departments at Newton North have been instrumental in her children's
educational experiences. Had it not been
for the theater department in particular, her daughter would have been at
risk. She urged the Committee to Support
Option C2 "plus" for the high school project, as it best meets the
needs of all students and preserves these important programs, as well as the
culture of the
school. If they
fail any group of students in this decision they fail all. If this new plan involves a delay in their
vote, she urged them to take the time to consider it carefully.
Al Cecchinelli,
Nonantum, feels that there are still too many
questions to be answered before a decision can be made on the high school
plan. He too urged the Committee not to
rush this process.
Margaret Doris, Newtonville, does not feel that any of the hybrid options
meet their needs. In one students must go outside the building to get from one side
of the theater stage to the other. In another
the building is too spread out for appropriate passing time. All the hybrids retain the auditorium and
pool, which need to be replaced. Any
renovation project is going to have unanticipated surprises and delays. While the pool and auditorium may not
eligible for state reimbursement in the new high school, it is important to put
that into perspective. These facilities
are not just for school use, but are used for both public and private
functions. Neither will meet the
projected lifespan of the new addition in the hybrid models and will have to be
replaced within the decade. She hopes
they will not continue to pour money into this building, but rather cut their
losses and build a new school.
Peter Kronberg,
Newton Centre, Chair of the Equity Committee of the
PTO Council, stated that issues around equitable distribution
of resources in the elementary schools with regard to disparate fundraising by PTOs has been under discussion since 1988, when the
first Elementary Equity Committee was formed.
It has long been acknowledged that there are inadequate resources for
technology related expenditures. An
exception was made for this area for private donations from PTOs
to supplement the funding in order for
Anatol Zukerman,
produce a smaller footprint, thereby less encroachment on
the fields, as well as a lower cost.
Alderman Kenneth Parker
thanked the Committee for all their hard work throughout this process. They have shown good leadership and are
asking the right questions. The
information, reports, and documents from various sources continues
to grow. He suggested they look back at
the criteria developed by the Newton North High School Citizens' Task Force
(meeting educational objectives, aesthetic appeal, financing feasibility,
construction feasibility, timetable, disruption, useful life, community
acceptance) and evaluate the options against these measures. With regard to meeting educational
objectives, a new school would have more flexibility to create modern
teaching/learning spaces and a common area that would promote community. It would also provide a cleaner, safer, and
healthier environment, as it would not be constrained by the exiting
structure. In terms of aesthetic appeal,
in his opinion the current building looks like a prison and additions to that
structure will not change that feeling.
With regard to finances, a new school is quite feasible without an
Override and he would be happy to go into more detail with anyone who is
interested. As for construction
feasibility and timetable, there would be far fewer obstacles with a new
building and it would be a quicker process than working on an occupied
structure. With regard to disruption and
useful life, it would be less disruptive to the learning process and would
certainly last longer since it is a new building. Finally, in terms of community acceptance,
the two myths, which he would like to dispel, are that they would be less
likely to get reimbursement through the School Building Assistance Program
(SBAP) for a new school and that they would not be able to have a pool or small
theater. First, there is no way of
knowing what exactly SBAP will approve without submitting the request. Secondly, while they may not be reimbursed
for the pool or theater, that certainly does not preclude
STUDENT REPRESENTATIVES'
DISCUSSION
None.
RECOGNITIONS
None.
APPROVAL OF SCHOOL COMMITTEE
MEETING MINUTES
MOTION: It was
moved to approve the School Committee special
meeting
minutes of
(Schneider -
Albright)
unanimous
REPORTS
AFFIRMATIVE ACTION REPORT
Superintendent Jeffrey
Young announced that they are doing slightly better this year in terms of
diversifying staff, but have not picked up the pace to the extent they would
like. The percentage of teachers of
color has increased from 9.5% to 10% and they will continue their efforts in
this area.
DISCUSSION ITEMS
CONTINUED DISCUSSION ON
Anne Larner
announced that they will begin this discussion with some comments from the
Mayor, who will report on last week's meeting with the SBAP. Following those remarks they will discuss the
current information prepared by the architect and project manager and then will
engage in discussion on the options.
Mayor Cohen began by
reviewing the history of the process since the decision was made to halt the
original plan and establish the High School Task Force, which has led them to
where they are to date. He then talked
about the importance of SBAP support for any project. In the meeting with SBAP last week, they presented
Options C2, D1 and C2 "plus", as well as the new high school
option. Fortunately, SBAP did not close
the door on the new high school plan and even asked for additional information. He believes this is an opportunity that they
did not anticipate. Therefore, he would
suggest at this point that the Committee decide upon the best hybrid and
compare that with the new high school in terms of the standards they have
previously discussed. They should then
make a judgement on how much value added the new high
school provides. If they feel it is
worth that cost, they should ask SBAP for approval for that plan. If it is denied, they will have a very good
option left on the table to pursue.
Anne Larner
thanked the Mayor for his update. The
next discussion will focus on a request that the Committee made to the
architects to update the cost of the new high school to include equal program
space for some core facilities, particularly in the areas of athletics and
theater. These were not in the original
plan that was developed some time ago.
This way they would be comparing comparable programs in the options vs.
new school.
Dick Amster,
DRA, discussed the adjustments to the pieces of the program that would not have
been included per reimbursement guidelines.
The square footage becomes 460,300 for the new school and the total
project cost is $108,968,000; not including synthetic track and field,
bleachers or removal of the stadium.
Jeff Young noted that the
architect and project manager are working on an Option E (or what has been
referred to as Option C2 "plus"). This option will combine some of
the positive aspects of C2 and D1 and address concerns that were raised at the
public hearing. He listed the 14 issues
that should be addressed:
• compact design
that will facilitate circulation
• front entrance on
• attractive facade
• design that is not
overpowering to adjacent neighbors
• plan where
cafeteria and library are located near hub of the school
• adequate program activity to draw cross traffic on
• sufficient light and air
• additional space
for construction that might lighten density of building
• maximize acreage for athletic field design
• flexible space for
program changes, smaller learning communities,
teacher workspace and future expansion
• parking - # of
spaces and site amenities
• sense of wholeness
to final product
• minimal disruption
to existing schools and fields while student occupy
building and a safe construction project
• enhanced space for theater and music
Anne Larner
added another issue and that is the need to be sure that no program ends up
with awkward problems, such as the case with the theater in the option that
requires people to go outside the building to move from stage left to stage
right.
Susan Albright would like
them to be mindful of the surrounding community and traffic patterns. She also mentioned a concern about the
awkwardness of the courtyards and how that space would be used.
Gail Glick noted that with
respect to the criteria of teacher workspace, all of the hybrids reached a
"good" category, but the new school option received an
"excellent" rating. She asked
that they try to reach that higher rating in this area in the development of
Option E.
Dori Zaleznik stated that in
addition to developing the best hybrid possible, she hopes they can also expand
their thought-process in terms of the new school, so that they end up with the
two best possible scenarios. That way, if
they decide that the new school is their objective but are denied by SBAP, the
fallback plan will not be a second-rate selection.
Anne Larner
agreed that now that SBAP has not shut the door on the notion of reimbursement
for a new high school, they have the ability to be more creative and spend more
time thinking about that concept.
Patty Kellogg is pleased
that they are developing another option because she had concerns about both C2
and D1. D1 has more natural lighting but
has problems with some of the core spaces not being central to the
building. She also worried about the sun
having to get high enough to have an evaporation impact on a dark, wet
area. In C2 her concerns have to do with
the depth of the building and the construction disruption that would occur with
the connection between the old and new areas.
She is also very excited that SBAP has not excluded the possibility of a
new building.
Nancy Levine wants to be
sure that the new high school option will embody all of the program space that
was being considered in the hybrids, including a pool and sufficient space for
the theater program.
Dick Amster
replied in the affirmative.
Marc Laredo is pleased
that the new school preference remains on the table. Those who spoke about this plan at the public
hearing provided exceptional reasons for this preference. If funding is available for a new high school
he would like to see them head in that direction because it provides all the
attributes they are seeking while posing minimal disruption. However, he understands that they need to
develop an equally good option as an alternative.
Anne Larner
asked the Mayor to begin working on a financing plan.
Mayor Cohen commented that
whatever the ultimate decision is on this matter, they need to be assured that
the final product will be far superior to the original plan and that the
building will realize their vision of what a 21st century educational facility
should offer. This is the largest
financial undertaking ever made by the City.
In terms of the funding plan, they have already put in place a tool that
will not only provide for the funding of the high school project, but also
$4,000,000 annually commencing in 2006 for other important capital needs on the
school and municipal sides. He asked the
architect about the timeline for providing the information.
Carl Franceschi
responded that a two-week timeline should be sufficient for them to take the
criteria and develop some progress sketches.
The Mayor added that he
can have a financial analysis developed within that timeframe as well.
There was some discussion
about the need for additional public meetings after the new plans have been
developed and the fact that they would be running into the holidays. It was decided to hear the presentation at the
12/8 School Committee meeting and then give people time to review and digest
the information and commence with further deliberations again in January.
Susan Albright stated that
with all the talk of a possible brand new building for Newton North, she hopes
that at some future point they can re-look at Newton South to see if there were
things that might have been passed over in the first round.
Leslie Schneider would
like some additional information on the cost estimates, as she has seen
documents regarding costs of building other new high schools that are much
lower.
Dick Amster
noted that the
Leslie Schneider is aware
of another building in
Mayor Cohen hopes the
numbers are conservative because projects usually tend to come in higher than
bid once unanticipated items arise, which seems to invariably be a part of any
construction project.
Dick Amster
responded that the prices were approached in a conservative fashion and are consistent with their experience at Newton South.
DISCUSSION OF TRANSPORTATION
& USER FEES
Nancy Levine, Chairperson
of the User Fees Subcommittee, presented the report of the Subcommittee's
work. The information attempts to
provide the group with a snapshot of where they are to date on this matter and
considers both short and long-term issues.
The Committee will need to have discussions and a vote on this prior to
the budget, which apparently is going to be as difficult, if not more so, than
last year. If the Committee ultimately
decides not to recommend a continuation of the fee, in order to be responsible
they will need to direct the Superintendent to make up the $365,000 in another
area.
Anne Larner
suggested they discuss both the philosophical issues around fees in general,
but at the same time prepare recommendations to make it more user
friendly/equitable, should they decide it is necessary to retain the fee. In order to accomplish this task, they need
to understand how people are using the system.
Ridership only speaks to the numbers and not
the specific situations. Collecting data
on this is critical in order to understand all the nuances.
Nancy Levine stated that
the Subcommittee discussed the use of surveys, but was concerned that it would
be a daunting task to complete in a timely fashion. They have heard from a number of people about
specific issues and would continue to encourage others to contact them as well.
Susan Albright asked about
individual bus tickets as an option.
Nancy
Levine stated that similar to half-year passes or one-way tickets, this is
another option that can be discussed, but should be considered once they have
collected the appropriate data rather than simply tweaking the policy to make
it more user-friendly without complete information. She mentioned that the play date issue was
addressed immediately because it was easy to handle administratively. One of the problems with the implementation
of this policy was that it occurred on short notice at the end of the school
year. People were continuing to sign up
well into the fall. It is expected that
if they decide to continue charging fees, they will have sufficient time to
notify parents and proceed with the administrative process in a much earlier
timeframe.
Susan Albright mentioned
that there is a long history of paying for transportation in
Anne Larner
stated that it is difficult to look at solutions without the key data they need
to collect on how the system is being used.
Marc Laredo added that in
addition they need to look at any administrative problems that have been
created through the institution of fees and what they have actually
gained. The philosophical issue of fees
in general is what they need to decide early, so that the Superintendent can
begin to work that into the budget. The
piece about fine-tuning can be subject to ongoing dialogue.
Anne Larner
noted that data collection is a time-consuming process, so it makes sense to
begin as soon as possible.
Reenie Murphy suggested that they include data on what
other systems are doing in this area.
Anne Larner
stated that they can update last year's data from other communities.
Dori Zaleznik mentioned that
in addition to sampling the current users, in order to get a true
representative view it is important to include those who decided not to
participate this year. In addition,
there are new riders who have come on board since the opening of routes closer
to the school. They have to remember
that by going back to the previous system they would be disenfranchising some
families who have taken advantage of the new routes.
Jeff Young stated that
there is nothing good about user fees and they have only been instituted
because of a fiscal crisis. The Mayor
will be releasing the revenue projections next week, at which time they will be
forecasting what it will cost to maintain a basic level of effort. When the size of the gap is apparent, that is
going to have to inform their thinking.
They may be able to fine-tune the policy as best they can, but the
notion of fees in general is solely related to funding and choices around
tradeoffs.
Anne Larner
asked if there was any information on changes in traffic patterns connected
with bus service.
Dori Zaleznik had suggested a
blue zone survey of principals, but the Subcommittee did not feel that was
appropriate because there was no baseline data with which to compare. She also suggested checking police reports
for increased number of "fender-benders" at these sites, but that
also may not have sufficient baseline data.
Susan Albright suggested
asking the principals to provide some anecdotal information around increased
traffic at their schools. This
information does not have to be precise.
Gail Glick believes that
increased traffic at the schools can be less scientific and more observational,
but some of the other data needs to be more specific.
Susie Heyman
asked if they know the percentage of ridership of
families who were previously ineligible but now have that opportunity under the
new system.
Sandra Guryan,
Assistant Superintendent for Business, Finance & Planning, believes the
numbers are between 150-175 students who purchased passes under the new system
that were previously ineligible, which is less than 10%.
Marc Laredo commented that
eliminating the bus fee does not necessarily preclude these families from
continuing to have the service, but will depend upon the numbers and how buses
are utilized.
Leslie Schneider commented
on the loss of the Nexus bus for Newton South students, which has caused a
great hardship. She would like that to
be factored into their data.
Dori Zaleznik mentioned that
the Subcommittee talked about the notion of only busing those that they are
required to bus by law as a way of realizing substantial savings, which would
be students in grades 1-6 over two miles from school. While there is value in at least costing this
option out, there are many drawbacks as well, including safety and increased
traffic at the schools.
Jeff Young noted that they
costed this out last year and can take another look
at that material.
Nancy Levine also
addressed the issue of other fees, which was investigated last year. One area was the use of school buildings
rental fees, which will continue to be reviewed. Another area that was explored was a drama
fee, which the Committee decided was simply targeting another specific
group. If anyone has any other
suggestions, she asked that they forward them to the Subcommittee.
Jeff Young asked for
clarification on what the Committee desires in terms of data collection and
also what framework they are planning to use in order to come to a decision.
Dori Zaleznik feels that the
discussion at the next meeting should focus on the philosophical issue of fees;
if there are any other options that could spread them around in a more
equitable manner; and if they believe the money gained is worth the effort. In January, they can take their vote based on
these discussions. Depending on the result of that vote, they can initiate the
information-gathering process at that time.
Anne Larner
agrees because at that point it will also be in the context of the Mayor's allocation.
ACTION ITEMS
CONTINUED DISCUSSION/VOTE ON
EQUITY REPORT
Patty Kellogg presented
the Elementary Equity Committee proposals for policy implementation and the
recommendations that she and Susan prepared based on the discussion at the last
meeting.
#1 - to broaden the definition of technology for
which PTOs can fundraise to include periphery and
infrastructure costs:
She explained what would
fall under the definition of peripherals, which would be treated as non-equity
items. She then provided some examples,
such as computer drops, Internet connection devices, switches and wiring
panels, but not permanent wiring in a building.
It is recommended to approve this policy given the discussion at the
last School Committee meeting.
MOTION: It was
moved to broaden the definition of technology for which PTOs
can fundraise to include periphery and infrastructure costs:
(Levine -
8 - 0 - 1
Absent for vote: Mayor Cohen
#2 - to permit PTO fundraising for professional
development that promotes PTOs working together in
support of technology implementation.
Patty Kellogg stated that
based on the School Committee's discussion at the last meeting, the
recommendation is not to support this policy because these costs are
traditionally borne by the system and it should continue to be their
responsibility.
Dori Zaleznik wished to
acknowledge their understanding of the PTOs intent
that this would be an offering of something to the entire teaching staff and
not solely for one school. However, she
agrees that it becomes a slippery slope and does not make her comfortable.
Gail Glick mentioned that
they are not trying to tie the hands of PTOs, but
rather work cooperatively for what is in the best interest of students.
Anne Larner
added that it also places responsibility on the Committee to make certain
choices and support technology in the budget even when funding is scarce.
MOTION: It was moved not to permit PTO fundraising
for
professional development.
(
8 - 0 - 1
Absent for vote: Mayor Cohen
#3 - to establish a central technology fund, which
will be endowed with a percentage of money in excess of a target amount raised
and approved by individual PTOs. The target will be consistent with the Newton
Public Schools' technology plan, as well as state standards for elementary
school technology. The Committee will
establish a subcommittee, with representatives of the School Committee,
administration, and PTO Council, to recommend methods to implement this policy
to be approved by the full Committee.
Patty Kellogg noted that
this item posed a more complex issue in their deliberations at the last School
Committee meeting.
Marc Laredo stated that
while this is a laudable goal, he cannot support the recommendation because he
does not feel it represents or is consistent with what the Equity Committee
originally was striving to achieve.
Reenie Murphy mentioned that professional fundraisers
have indicated that people tend to focus fundraising on their neighborhood
schools.
Susan Albright feels that
a good case can be made against PTO funding for any area of technology, because
the system should be providing this money.
She is concerned that inequities that already exist are going to be
further exacerbated.
She would like to see a
committee formed that could address these issues and work toward a solution
that would lead to equity among the schools without destroying the fundraising
capabilities of the PTOs.
Nancy Levine believes in
the goal of sharing because there are schools in the system
that do not have the capacity to raise enough money to significantly
impact their technology resources.
However, it is only natural that people are invested in their neighborhood
schools. From a practical standpoint,
she fears that if this policy were in place, communities might only fundraise
to the limit of what is allowed for their school, which is not going to solve
the problem. The current policy at least
allows the system to free up its limited funds to supplement schools who have less funding for this area.
Susie Heyman
stated that technology needs are here to stay and are ongoing because the tools
become obsolete quickly. They have more
technology in the schools as a result of PTO fundraising than they would have
had with just the school budget. They
should look for an exit strategy, which would involve the system taking
responsibility in this area, both through the operating budget and in the
creation of some central systemwide fundraising
mechanism. There are many other things
that PTOs can do to enhance schools and they should
be taking this burden from them and placing it where it rightfully belongs.
Dori Zaleznik views this as a
two-pronged issue. She suggested forming
a committee comprised of members of the school Committee, PTO Council, and
administration, to examine the issue of equity in general. The other topic would address fundraising for
technology, which is not under the umbrella of the individual schools, such as
an endowment fund, grants, and building a consistent amount into the operating
budget.
Susan Albright reminded
the Committee that they consistently vote on accepting various donations to the
system and if they feel there is an inequitable distribution, they are supposed
to address that concern. Technology
fundraising is only exacerbating the problem.
She does not see how they can institute an exit strategy for at least
the next several years given the fiscal situation they face. She views this as their having three
choices: 1.) form a subcommittee that
would study the issue and make recommendations; 2.) cease fundraising entirely;
or 3.) choose to incorporate funds in the budget into the elementary schools
for technology. In her opinion,
continuing along the current path only makes them part of the problem.
Marc Laredo commented
that, unfortunately, like many other revenue sources, they have come to depend
on PTO fundraising in this area. If they
take away these resources they have to decide how they can be replaced. While he agrees in spirit with the notion,
his concern is with the specific proposal before them this evening. A centralized mechanism for funding certainly
deserves further consideration, but he does not feel the sharing aspect of this
proposal is going to achieve anything and, in fact, could hamper their
efforts.
Gail Glick is intrigued by
the idea of a subcommittee that can explore all these issues and provide some
needed guidelines and oversight. She
would like it to be charged with as broad an overview as possible, so that it
can explore a variety of areas and options.
Reenie Murphy mentioned that while inequities still
exist, they were greater three years ago.
Fundraising has actually helped equalize the playing field because the
school system has filled in the gaps.
Susan Albright stated that
while it is fair to say the picture has changed, she would not necessarily
agree that it is or ever will be equitable.
MOTION: It was
moved to create a subcommittee comprised of
representatives
from the School Committee, PTO Council,
and
administration, to engage in a review of current
fundraising policies in technology, as well as other areas,
in
relation to equity.
(Zaleznik - Kellogg)
Discussion:
Gail Glick wondered if
they could broaden the mission to not only reviewing where they are to date and
how they got there, but also exploring avenues of moving forward to develop
proposals to be discussed by the School Committee.
Anne Larner
expressed concern that broadening it might open the door to a request for
advice on some type of technology endowment, which she would like to see come
directly from the Committee itself. She
would prefer something akin to Susie's comments about an exist strategy and
believes it could get complicated to tie the two together into the charge of
the subcommittee. She would like to
remove the technology piece if they prefer to broaden the scope of the charge.
Susie Heyman
wondered if they should form a subcommittee of the School Committee to be
charged with bringing back a plan, because it is time that they take ownership
of fundraising as a policy issue.
Marc Laredo does not
believe the makeup of the committee is as important as the charge, which should
be a specific task, with set deadlines, even if they are only progress
reports. He suggested they defer the
notion of forming this subcommittee until they have had the opportunity to
define its mission.
Dori Zaleznik does not view
the motion as excluding a separate subcommittee of the School Committee to deal
with the issues of resuming ownership of fundraising. The two areas do not need to be mutually
exclusive.
Anne Larner
noted that the Committee is scheduled to discuss the issue of an endowment at a
future meeting after the first of the year.
Vote on motion to create
subcommittee: 2 - 6 - 1
In
favor: Kellogg,
Zaleznik
Opposed: Albright, Glick,
Larner, Levine, Schneider
Absent
for vote: Mayor Cohen
MOTION FAILS
REQUEST FOR APPROPRIATION
FROM
Jeff Young noted that this
is their annual request to obtain funds for school technology through the
e-rate reimbursement program and the particulars are outlined in tonight's
material.
MOTION: It was moved to approve the use of
$45,745.00
from
the e-rate reimbursement for technology,
as
outlined in the memorandum of
(Levine
- Zaleznik)
8
- 0 - 1
Absent for vote: Mayor Cohen
VOTE TO APPROVE GRANT
MOTION: It was moved to accept the grants totaling
$196,897.00,
as
outlined in the memorandum of
(Zaleznik - Levine)
8
- 0 - 1
Absent for vote: Mayor Cohen
COMMUNICATIONS
Nancy Levine mentioned that
she forgot her notes on the Massachusetts Association of School
Committees/Massachusetts Association of School Superintendents (MASC/MASS)
conference, so she will report on that at the next meeting.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Alderman Stephen Linsky addressed the Committee regarding the high school
project and urged them to stay the course, as this is an evolving
discussion. He is impressed by their
deliberations and the project continues to get better with every discussion. They are not in a crisis mode and have
already accomplished one of the major parts of the project, which is to
equalize the high school population.
They need to take the time to make a decision that will be in the best
interest of all students. There are many
on the Board who will support the Committee if this process is done right. He also feels the community will support the
final decision because it will have been done correctly. With regard to fees, in doing the data
collection, it will be important to determine if there has
been any changes in the usage of transportation as a result of the
policy. Parking and traffic are major issues that he constantly hears about
from his constituents, particularly at the high school level.
Alderman Leonard Gentile
congratulated the Committee on having reached a successful conclusion to the
contract negotiations, which is very important in such difficult financial
times. He wished them further success as
they now strive to complete a longer-term deal.
With regard to their discussions about technology, there are times when
it is appropriate for the School Committee to request supplemental
appropriations from the Board of Aldermen and he would encourage them to
explore this route. The City is in good
fiscal standing at this time and this could be one way to ease the burden on PTOs. Finally, with
respect to the high school project, while he understands the need to move
forward and get this issue resolved, he agrees with Alderman Linsky that they should take whatever time is necessary to
do what is best for the long-term interests of the City. He provided some history on the opening of
the fourth middle school (Oak Hill). Its
current location -- directly across from another middle school -- is far from
ideal and was due to poor planning around projected enrollments and school
closing decisions. He is determined not
to let anything like this happen again.
When the Task Force voted 20 in favor of the hybrid option and 4 in favor
of a new school, much of that had to do with the anticipated level of state
reimbursement. When the question was
posed as to how they would vote if the level of reimbursement was equal, those
numbers changed to 13 favoring the hybrid and 11 the new school. He is pleased to see that the new school
option is
now getting serious consideration. He has been hearing from some fiscally
conservative constituents, who were opposed to the Override, expressing the
desire to get this project right. There
is a lot of support in the community even if they end up with a more expensive
option, as long as it is money well spent.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned
at