Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - Steering Committee - 11/05/2019AGENDA SOUTH BURLINGTON STEERING COMMITTEE (Joint meeting of the City Council and School Board) FREDERICK H. TUTTLE SCHOOL LIBRARY 500 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT Steering Committee 7:00 PM _____ __ Tuesday, November 5, 2019 1.Welcome 2.Pledge of Allegiance 3.Agenda Review: Additions, deletions or changes in order of agenda items 4.Comments and questions from the public not related to the agenda 5.*** Approval of Steering Committee Minutes: •5/8/2019 •10/28/19 6.Meeting and discussion with members of the South Burlington House Delegation andChittenden County Senate Delegation regarding State legislative matters of interest to the City and School District 7.Update on Community Center, 180 Market Street project 8.Future agenda topics 9. Schedule next meeting date 10. Other business 11. Adjourn. Respectfully Submitted: Kevin Dorn, City Manager Draft minutes for Steering Committee Meeting, May 8, 2019 1. Communications and trust between the City and the School District Consensus of three top priorities and action points identified and approved included: • redesign format and intent of Steering Committee Meetings • improve communication with public • address communication gaps and processes Discussion of possible action steps followed. Generally there was agreement that clearer purpose and goals for Steering Committee meetings should aim for (1) understanding impact of decisions by each body, (2) understanding context and priorities for each body that influence decisions, (3) earlier and more timely identification of issues Suggestions to improve Redesign of Steering Committee Meetings included: • Greater frequency, particularly regarding big issues that impact both city and district, e.g. City Center and new high school/middle school • Meetings become working sessions versus simple updates • Exchange of pre-meeting materials so that everyone can come prepared and potential notification regarding questions that might arise that may require additional preparation by either party • Development of official minutes, to be approved by both bodies, that document key decisions and major points of discussion of agenda items • Greater clarity of agenda items and priorities and equal opportunity for both parties to set agenda items and determine priorities • Inclusion of experts, when appropriate, to help facilitate understanding impacts • Transparency through open and public meetings, utilize executive session when appropriate Suggestions to Reduce Communication Gaps and Improve Processes between meetings included: • Request that City Manager and Superintendent meet regularly and share concerns, agreements, questions, issues etc. with one another and with council and board through some kind of documentation that is approved by both City Manager and Superintendent before it is shared with council and board • Assure that senior leadership/staff communicate sooner and perhaps more frequently • Make sure that there is always appropriate and adequate representation at working meetings between city and district • Avoid joining social media conversations and refrain from electronic communications between board and council except for agenda preparation and scheduling • Rely on improved website postings by City and District to inform the public and limit social media use to steering community members to official documents like minutes and agreements • Official minutes of joint meetings approved by both parties and posted quickly Commented [ME1]: I didn’t hear this. • Alert the other body of items on the agenda for regular public meetings that might impact the other body and send representation from one body to the public meetings of the other body when relevant topics are going to be discussed Suggestions to improve Communication with Public included: • Council should review District’s social media policy and develop one • Make available official documents and minutes in timely way • Communicating potential problems for parents and other public members ahead of time- shared responsibility for District through school outreach and City with school personnel 2. 180 Market Street- update and discussion of pending storm water issues The Council Chair relayed a report made by Justin Rabidoux to the council at its meeting on Monday, May 6, regarding a meeting that took place on Friday, May 3 between two storm water engineers engaged by the City and the District as part of the definitive agreement, two independent storm water engineers retained by the District, and Tom DiPietro, Stormwater Superintendent for SB. Justin was not in attendance at the meeting but relayed his understanding of its outcome to the city council. The 5 engineers discussed and concluded that a joint system addressing current and future state/local permit requirements located under the grass area to the southeast of the RMCS parking lot is a potential solution for all parties. The Council believed this to be a bona fide option. The School Board Chair responded that their engineers were not authorized to conclude anything at this stage. The District’s engineers had been given a scope of work that included meeting with the City to determine its stormwater obligations and constraints at 180 Market Street, understanding more fully the needs of the RMCS property both now and in the future, and providing a range of possible solutions including the advantages and disadvantages of each. The Chair also expressed surprise that the engineer’s meeting took place without anyone from District leadership in attendance and that the meeting was reported out at the city council meeting even though the report was not on the agenda. The Chair listed six requirements that need to be addressed before any action can occur. The District’s position is that any solution must address 6 components. 1- minimize land impact, 2-respond to all obligations from storm water regulations, 3-include other ideas for mitigation, 4-address both storage and treatment requirements, 5-address the drainage pipe and 6-address the 25-year hydraulic standards. The School Board will take up the issue at its next meeting, May 15. Several Council members expressed the need for a quick turnaround in order to avoid additional cost and disruption to the school and a timely completion of the facility. The meeting adjourned at approximately 9 pm. STEERING COMMITTEE 28 OCTOBER 2019 The South Burlington Steering Committee held a meeting on Monday, 28 October 2019, at 7:00 p.m., in the Library of the South Burlington High School. City Council Members Present: H. Riehle, City Council and Steering Committee Chair; T. Barritt, T. Chittenden, M. Emery, D. Kaufman School Board Members Present: E. Fitzgerald, Chair; B. Burkhardt, A. Henry, M. Lalonde, B. Minier; D. Young, Superintendent of Schools Also Present: T. Hubbard, Deputy City Manager; L. Nadeau, R. Fitzgerald 1. Agenda Review: Members agreed to consider item #6, the Master Plan Update prior to the tour of the schools. 2. Comments & Questions from the Public not related to Agenda items: No issues were raised. 3. (previously #6) Update on Master Planning/Visioning: Ms. Burkhardt reviewed the three phases of master planning in which the School Board engaged as follows: Phase 1: A study of infrastructure Phase 2: The educational vision and options Phase 3: Pre-bond vote concepts, current plans (still in progress), sustainability (including an approach to net zero), and next steps Mr. Fitzgerald then reviewed the history of studies which led to decision to focus on a new Middle School and a new High School. He stressed that both buildings have been well maintained but are at the end of their useful lives. Significant renovations are needed including operational systems (HVAC, electric, plumbing, etc.), handicapped accessibility, hazardous materials, safety concerns (including parking lots and building access), and trigger code related work (sprinklers, seismic accessibility). Mr. Fitzgerald said that to address these concerns would cost millions of dollars and would have no educational benefit for students. STEERING COMMITTEE 28 OCTOBER 2019 PAGE 2 Mr. Fitzgerald noted that a number of building concepts were studied including placing the buildings on separate locations and doing infrastructure only at the Middle School, but it was determined that a full rebuild of the both schools would be the least disruptive to students. He then showed a rough site plan indicating how the schools could be rebuilt while schools continue in operation. The estimated cost for the rebuild of both schools is $209,000,000. Mr. Fitzgerald said there is still another year of design work to be done after the bond vote. Building would begin in February 2021. Mr. Fitzgerald then reviewed the design features of the proposed new buildings. He showed the new entrance to the complex with a bus loop, drop-off site, and parking areas. The playing fields would be in front of the buildings. A separate recreation area would be available to the public. The Middle and High School would be connected and would share a kitchen and boiler room. The buildings would, however, have separate entrances. There would be a separate entrance for the Athletic Center. The Middle School would be 2 stories; the High School would also be 2 stories but with a 3rd story academic wing. The buildings would be oriented for the best solar orientation. Mr. Fitzgerald then reviewed proposed floor plans for the Middle School. He noted that the student wings can be closed off from the rest of the building. The design will allow teachers to collaborate (Mr. Fitzgerald showed current conditions which make collaboration difficult) The library would be on the second floor between the 2 academic wings. The library would also have a third floor presence for more quiet work. Mr. Fitzgerald then showed photos of the Shelburne Middle School which they did a few years ago and which everyone loves. The design features clusters organized with classrooms around a common center area. Each “house” has its own identity. The proposed design would link areas that are separated today such as Science, Math and Technology. It would also provide more natural lighting. Mr. Fitzgerald showed a photo of a classroom a gym without natural lighting. A member of the audience felt the photos did not accurately represent conditions because all of the lights in those rooms were turned off. STEERING COMMITTEE 28 OCTOBER 2019 PAGE 3 Mr. Fitzgerald then showed visions for science rooms (with movable tables, power in many areas, collaborative spaces), a tech fabrication lab (with space for larger materials), phys ed spaces (with natural lighting and space for parents to watch activities), and a new theater area with 750 seats (current facility has only 450). Mr. Fitzgerald then showed a photo of the overcrowded high school cafeteria and noted that unlike most Vermont towns, South Burlington is increasing in school population. He then showed a “could be” cafeteria design. The Athletic Center would include a rubberized track, movement center, a weights and cardio center, lockers, trainers’ room. Mr. Fitzgerald reviewed the sustainability goals of the proposed buildings as follows (he noted that cost estimates reflect sustainability goals): 1. LEED certification goal 2. Net zero energy ready 3. Demolition materials would be recycled 4. Buildings solar ready 5. Low-flow plumbing fixtures 6. Efficient HVAC systems 7. High-performance building envelope Mr. Fitzgerald noted that the School District has hired a separate cost estimator to be sure of the accuracy of costs estimates. At the end of December, the School Board will decide on the amount of the bond vote. There will be community outreach in January and February followed by the vote in March. Ms. Emery cited the impact of this proposal on taxes and didn’t feel the plan was sustainable. She was concerned that so much money has been spent just to get to this point. She noted that people are talking of leaving the community once their children are out of school because taxes are so high. She said the schools have been turning out awesome students with imperfect structures. She did not feel that the School Boards arguments were compelling enough for the voters to support the proposed expenditure. Ms. Burkhardt said she understands the concerns of the taxpayers and noted that the School Board has hired a financial advisor in the hope of lowering interest rates, raising the bond STEERING COMMITTEE 28 OCTOBER 2019 PAGE 4 rating, etc. She stressed that this is an investment and without this proposal, they would be spending millions of dollars to “limp along.” She also stressed that if they don’t think about educational aspects now, they are short-changing the community. Ms. Fitzgerald said the alternative would be to be looking at a series of $5,000,000 and $10,000,000 bonds over the years with nothing of educational value for students. Ms. Emery cited the excellent faculties in both schools. She stressed that she wants students to succeed, but she was concerned with what this proposal will mean for families. She noted the State does not provide any funding for educational buildings, so that every cent of this would have to come from residents. She also felt there are ways for things to be done that would be amazing but would not cost $209,000,000. Superintendent Young noted that just one elevator project took 2 years to accomplish and was very disruptive to school programs. He also cited the need to consider equity issues. Mr. Chittenden said the community cares about schools and he is hearing from a lot of people who support the proposal. He fully supports it and will vote for it. Mr. Nadeau asked about high school enrollment projections. Ms. Burkhardt explained demographic updates that are done every two years. There are now 925 students in the high school. The projection is that there will be 125 more within 10 years, followed by a leveling off. Mr. Barritt said the key elements in each of the schools he went to were staff, place, students. He added that even in a “dark shop,” they made nice things. He was not sure if he could support the proposal. A member of the audience felt the presentation was biased. He was opposed to the paradigm of learning. He said that with a 20-year bond with simple interest, it would result in a 36% tax increase before income sensitivity. Supt. Young noted they are going for a 30-year bond. Those present then toured the High School Building. 6. 180 Market Street Update: Ms. Riehle invited School Board members and the public to the ribbon cutting for Market St. which will take place on 13 November, 11 a.m. STEERING COMMITTEE 28 OCTOBER 2019 PAGE 5 Ms. Fitzgerald noted that the new entrance to Central School has been staked out. 7. Future Agenda Topics: Ms. Riehle noted the next Steering Committee meeting will be on 5 November with the city’s Legislators. Supt. Young said the School Board has brainstormed some items and asked the city to provide its input. 8. Other Business: No other business was presented. Mr. Minier moved to adjourn. Mr. Chittenden seconded. Motion passed unanimously, and the meeting was adjourned at 9:17 p.m.