HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Steering Committee - 06/03/2015STEERING COMMITTEE 3 JUNE 2015
The South Burlington Steering Commi ee held a mee ng on Wednesday, 3 June 2015, at 6:00 p.m., in the
Library of the Tu le Middle School, Dorset Street.
Members Present: City Council: P. Nowak, Steering Commi ee Chair; C. Shaw, H. Riehle, M. Emery, T.
Chi enden; K. Dorn, City Manager; School Board: E. Fitzgerald, M. Lalonde, D. Fleming, J. Bea y; D. Young,
Superintendent of Schools
Also Present: T. Hubbard, Deputy City Manager; J. Stewart, School District; P. Conner, Director of Planning &
Zoning; A. Klugo, B. Chatman, C. Ha er, B. Nowak, J. JPatrick, P. Rouille, J Wilking, P.Cope, P. Burke, P. Engels, A.
Crocker, C. Weed, A. Margulies, C. Sheffield, G. Boudoin, other community members
1. Agenda Review: Addi ons, dele ons or changes in order of agenda items:
No changes were made to the Agenda.
2. Approval of 21 January 2015 Steering Commi ee Mee ng Minutes:
Mr. Shaw moved to approve the Minutes of 21 January 2015 as wri en. Ms. Fitzgerald seconded. Mo on
passed unanimously.
3. Presenta on by representa ves of the Master Planning & Visioning Task Force – Final Report:
Ms. Nowak recognized and thanked all members of the Task Force and noted the outstanding effort they had
put into their work.
Mr. Klugo and Mr. Chatman then presented the report. Mr. Klugo also cited the number of hours put in by Task
Force members and consultants. He noted that not all of the recommenda ons were unanimously supported,
and there will be a minority report. Five of the six components of the report had 100% consensus; there were
2 minority votes on school configura on.
The charge of the Task Force was to consider op ons for the future and to develop consensus on key aspects of
South Burlington’s future. Some of the areas considered in carrying out this
STEERING COMMITTEE
3 JUNE 2015
PAGE 2
charge were: quality of life, economic growth, demographics, school enrollment trends, inequali es, condi on
of facili es, etc. Mr. Klugo stressed that their task was not to recommend a sale or no sale of Central School.
Key components of the report include: 21st century learning, elementary schools, middle schools (either 5-8 or
6-8), sustaining a livable, enjoyable community, a City Center vision (it was noted that the schools own land
that will affect a City Center vision), and State of Vermont repayment obliga ons (the Task Force learned that if
any of the schools are sold, the fund that the State loaned to build the school(s) would have to be repaid. This
could amount to $2,000,000 or more per school.
With regard to 21st Century learning, Mr. Chatman said the Task Force recommenda on is to establish a 21st
Century Learning Commi ee to develop educa onal goals across all grades and to iden fy associated costs.
This Commi ee would consist of professionals, educators, community members, past and present students.
The Task Force recommends that this Commi ee’s work be completed by the end of 2015.
Mr. Klugo said the recommenda ons regarding elementary schools are to consolidate from the exis ng 3
elementary schools to one of 2 configura ons:
#1 – 2 elementary schools: Orchard with grades K-2, and a new school with grades 3-5
#2 – 1 elementary school with grades K-4. The 5th grade would then move to the Middle School which
would undergo some renova ons to accommodate the 5th graders.
The minority votes were for 2 K-4 schools at Orchard School and a new school. Concerns were that this op on
would require more renova ons and doesn’t address inequi es.
The Task Force also recommends establishing a Transi on Commi ee to determine how the consolida on
would happen. Mr. Klugo noted the Task Force did not have a community survey, and the recommenda on is
that the Transi on Commi ee conduct such a survey.
Mr. Klugo stressed that there are as yet no recent appraisals of all the schools. The Task Force recommends
that all appraisals be updated to be sure school values are understood.
STEERING COMMITTEE
3 JUNE 2015
PAGE 3
Mr. Chatman said that one concern at Orchard School is that with a new school being built, both schools would
have to be on a par in order to have equity.
With regard to the Middle School and High School, Mr. Chatman said the Task Force recommends establishing a
commi ee to determine how to implement 21st Century learning recommenda ons. Neither school is
equipped or laid out for 21st Century learning (e.g., problem solving learning). Mr. Klugo drew a en on to a
diagram on how 21st Century learning could take place.
Looking at a “community vision,” Task Force members recommend designa ng Chamberlin and possibly
Orchard School for community or civic uses, depending on which op on is chosen.
Mr. Chatman noted that the Task Force recommends that Central School be designated for redevelopment. The
Task Force suggests that a Central School Redevelopment Commi ee be formed and consist of people with the
appropriate exper se (e.g., finance). They also recommend an RFP to see what the redevelopment poten al is.
With regard to the poten al repayment of State funding, the Task Force recommends that the school district
determine an appropriate path to address this.
Mr. Klugo asked that Steering Commi ee members have comments back to the Task Force in 2 weeks. A final
report will then be dra ed.
Ms. Riehle asked what the thinking was in selec ng Orchard School to con nue as a school and have
Chamberlin as “something else.” Mr. Chatman said there were a number of considera ons including:
Chamberlin has the smallest popula on of all the schools, the land space at Chamberlin could best meet
community needs, Chamberlin has a problem with Airport noise, and Chamberlin is an old building in need of
renova on. Mr. Chatman commented that some mes the cost of sustaining something is more than the cost of
doing something new. Mr. Klugo said there was also a demographic issue. Many homes in the Chamberlin area
are being demolished. Chamberlin might be er serve as a neighborhood “center.”
Ms. Emery said that having her children go to a neighborhood school was a major factor in moving to South
Burlington. She cited the issue of having to transport children to other parts of
STEERING COMMITTEE
3 JUNE 2015
PAGE 4
the city. Mr. Klugo responded that all schools are “community schools.” Whatever site is selected for a new
school could also take poten al development into considera on. He noted that there is s ll a lot of
development going on in the Orchard School area. Mr. Chatman said the Task Force did an overlay of where
children in the schools come from, and many of them don’t come from around the schools they a end.
Mr. Lalonde asked if there will be a cost/benefit analysis for all the op ons. Mr. Klugo said there will. They will
also provide a cost for 21st Century learning. One op on is to do a “modified” 21st Century learning and spend
80% on that and use the rest of the money to update other facili es.
Mr. Fleming asked if any of the recommenda ons are more important than others. Mr. Klugo said the School
District holds the real estate that is important in all of this. The 21st Century learning element is also cri cal. It
will define which schools to keep. A er that, other work can move forward. Mr. Klugo felt the RFP could be
concurrent with a 21st Century learning commi ee.
Ms. Nowak cited the need for extensive community educa on on how the recommenda ons and the numbers
evolved. She added that having a ended some of the mee ngs she could then understand the logis cal sense
of the recommenda ons.
Mr. Klugo stressed that any discussion of costs has to start with “embedded costs.” Then the community can
understand the op ons of inves ng in the current schools or doing something new with the same money. Mr.
Klugo said the Task Force has been looking at the numbers for 8 months; if anything isn’t clear, people should
let them know.
Mr. Shaw asked how much thought was given to pre-K issues. Mr. Chatman said there was a lot of discussion.
There are many private providers who are doing a good job. The district needs to see where the State is going
on this. The Task Force did not include pre-K in figuring beyond what is already exis ng in the schools. Mr.
Klugo added that they don’t know if maintaining the pre-K programs in the school buildings would remove the
obliga on to repay the bonds to the State. Mr. Chatman noted that a pre-K use was one sugges on for
Chamberlin, along with other community ac vi es.
STEERING COMMITTEE
3 JUNE 2015
PAGE 5
Ms. Sheffield said she wasn’t sure the op ons are the best for students and that they serve City Center best.
Another community member asked how the “community feeling” would be maintained with a K-2 school.
Mr. Klugo stressed that this was a school-driven process. Data collec on was done independent of City Center.
Mr. Chatman added that “community” depends on the quality of rela onships regardless of configura ons. He
said there will be challenges, but he believed that the community’s heart and soul is with the kids. He also said
he believes South Burlington doesn’t need 3 elementary schools any more as school popula ons are going
down. Mr. Klugo said the kids will do great. They always do.
Mr. Margulies thanked the Task Force. He felt there is a need for be er “visibility.” He noted that people
believe the schools are the number one reason for living in South Burlington. He asked what the process will
be going forward.
A re red teacher/principal suggested the Task Force consult with other towns that have consolidated
elementary schools. Mr. Klugo said their consultant does this across the country. Mr. Chatman noted there are
larger elementary schools in Vermont that are doing very well.
Ms. Nowak noted the work of the Task Force was not easy. They had 18 4-hour mee ngs. She stressed that
there will be a process that is not decided overnight. She also reminded people that the city does not own the
schools; they are owned by the School District. There would have to be a public vote to sell any school.
People were encouraged to submit comments to the City Manager and/or Superintendent of Schools.
As there was no further business to come before the Steering Commi ee, Ms. Emery moved to adjourn. Mr.
Lalonde seconded. Mo on passed unanimously, and the mee ng was adjourned at 7:15 p.m.
_________________________. Clerk