"CLOSURE _ CONSOLIDATION LONG RANGE PLAN "
CLOSURE & CONSOLIDATION LONG RANGE PLAN DEVELOPMENT TASK FORCE Meeting Minutes March 19, 2009 Present: Principal Reps: Teacher Reps: Patti Beacham, Steve McLaughlin Citizen/Parent Reps: Cindy Gerhardt Ed Support Reps: Donna Blackmon School Board Reps: Gary Bergosh, Norma Brittain, Carl Reeves, Joe Jones, Evelyn Nachman Home Builders Assoc: Pat Kozma C&I Reps: Paul Fetsko, Marcia Nowlin Operations Reps: Chuck Peterson, Ron Peacock, Eric Fritz HR Reps: Jerry Caine Finance Reps: Barbara Linker I. Introduction Mr. Fetsko greeted the committee and explained that numerous staff meetings were occuring simultaneously and that many of our district committee members were required to attend those. II. Background There was a time for questions and concerns. Q – Before we finalize our decision to move any ESE parameters to “Considerations”, will Mr. Ziolkowski have an opportunity to weighin his thoughts? A – Mr. Fetsko and Mr. Dennis will consult Mr. Ziolkowski before the final vote for approval. III. Approach Work continued to specifically define assessment ranges for remaining metrics. Facility: “Facility Age” – Mr. Peacock pointed out that age is not always relevant to operating cost. For example, R.C. Lipscomb is one of our newest elementary facilities, but has a higher operating cost than Sherwood, which is one of our oldest sites and relatively lower in cost to operate. Q – Is this due to the size of the facility? A – No, operating costs also include maintenance costs, such as painting and repair. Closure & Consolidation Long Range Plan Development Task Force March 19, 2009 Minutes Mr. Peterson recommended that caution be used when determining status according to cost to operate. Many of our schools have equipment and facilities, such as the pool at B.T. Washington, that cause the cost of operation to be higher than others without the same amenities. He also pointed out that maintenance costs will fluctuate from year to year, since schools who have received painting or repairs will not require those costs in the years following such maintenance. The committee was presented with two documents, the End of Year Report 20072008 and the Analysis of School Operating Cost. The last document also included administrative and support salaries and benefits. Mrs. Linker also pointed out that total cost per square foot is used to calculate operating cost. Q – Is there a reason some of these schools are higher on the chart? A – Some schools have a higher population of ESE students and may have more sophisticated equipment to maintain. Q – Are the salaries prorated in the operating costs? A – No. After Mr. Fritz suggested the use of the WFTE cost per student and adding the maintenance costs to the operating costs, Mrs. Linker explained that those costs were already included in the final figure. “Facility Condition” Q – When considering safety violations, how likely is it that these would come into the dialogue when discussing the closing of a facility? A – It’s very likely that it would be considered, but keeping in mind that all wood frame structures are always in violation, as is copper wiring. Most of our older facilities deal with these issues. Q – Is there a way to know about major violations that would give a school an indicator for this assessment? A – The district receives notification of all safety violations. Q – Should we have all three indicator colors, or should any violations be considered red? A – If the committee wishes, one indicator can be used. After much discussion and debate, the committee decided to move this metric to “Considerations” and use “Facility Age” as a set parameter, with facilities under 40 years of age as green, from 4050 years as yellow, and all facilities over 50 years, red. The committee revisited the parameter “Level of Parent Involvement”. After lengthy discussion on the how to measure this metric, as well as the relevance to the decision to close and consolidate, the committee decided to move this parameter to “Considerations” as well. Closure & Consolidation Long Range Plan Development Task Force March 19, 2009 Minutes Q – Are we assuming that all of these metrics have equal weight? A – At this time, that is the assumption. We will not know exactly until we begin to run each school through the rubric. IV. Wrapup The committee asked that each parameter be addressed by the department/director that would assess and measure them. Mr. Fetsko explained that this task may take more than a few days to implement, and asked if the committee would be willing to postpone the next meeting until April 2, 2009. The committee agreed. Mr. Dennis and Mr. Fetsko will work on making changes to the rubric and submit all revised documents to committee members. Next meeting: · April 2, 2009 Additional meetings will be scheduled as needed. Meeting adjourned. Closure & Consolidation Long Range Plan Development Task Force March 19, 2009 Minutes