Long Range Plan Minutes January 8, 2007

Long Range Plan Review Committee
Minutes
January 8, 2007

Members in Attendance:
Harry Amend* Mike DeLong Katie Harris Jill Neal* Tami Stroud
Rosie Astorquia* Jim Ferguson Doug Jaworski Vern Newby* Dianna Walde
Hazel Bauman* Scott Fischer* Mary Larson Dave Patzer
Jeff Bengtson Lana Hamilton Erin Lenz Joel Palmer
Susan Clayton Chris Hammons Bryan Martin* Pam Pratt*
Jane Curtis Russ Hansen David Miller Lori Smith

*Ex-officio members

Welcome:
Dave Patzer called the meeting to order at 4:35 p.m. The meeting was held at the Midtown Center meeting room.

Approval of Minutes:
Motion by Lana Hamilton, second by Jeff Bengtson to approve the November 27, 2006 minutes, approved unanimously. Motion by Jeff Bengtson, second by Jane Curtis to approve the December 13, 2006 minutes, approved unanimously with one minor change indicating that Pam Pratt is an ex-officio member.

Roundtable Discussion to develop Sorensen input for the Board:
Dave stated that the goal of tonight’s meeting is to forward a recommendation to the Board regarding whether Sorensen Elementary should remain open or if it should close. Cheri was at the computer and as the committee members came up with the pros and cons they were typed and projected onto the screen. The committee was provided with a lot of information at the last meeting. They requested more time to review the information and bring back questions and/or comments to this meeting. The following comments and/or questions were made by the committee:
• What would the projected savings ($400,000) for closing Sorensen be used for? This would be decided by the Board and administration. The District made $2,100,000 worth of cuts last year and would like to re-invest it back into the programs.
• What is the goal of closing a school? The District needs to show that they are prudent with the dollars they have in order to receive more support from the community for the dollars that we need.
• Test scores, socio-economics and small schools were discussed.
• If the levy fails, are we right back here again? We would not start over. If the Board decides to keep Sorensen open and the levy fails twice, Sorensen would be on a long list of important things that would be in jeopardy.
• It is an emotional issue but quite a few people are in favor of closing Sorensen (cost savings, economy of scale, declining student enrollment in the south, growing enrollment in the north and west, etc.)
• If Sorensen remains open, the facility needs to be discussed. The building was built in 1959. There is asbestos in the building and eventually it will need to be removed (not an issue right now). The plumbing, water piping and electrical are okay but if something breaks a lot of times the parts are no longer available and they have to be replaced. When the State comes next month to do their inspection, the building will do very well but they are getting tougher. We make sure that all students and staff are safe in all the buildings. The long term expenses are huge. A big concern associated with this building is ADA.
• Do we have to be ADA compliant? Who is the governing body of this? The governing body is the Office of Civil Rights. If someone files a complaint that they have been denied access to a public facility, an investigation is done and then they can come back and tell you that it has be fixed immediately. There are 3 schools that have elevator issues.
• The site is not adequate for an elementary school (play area). It was not originally designed to be an elementary school.
• Why do we need to do this since the Board has all of the information? The role of the Long Range Planning Committee is to take the time to have these conversations and the Board wants the input in order to help them make a decision.
• Political fallout will result whether the school remains open or if it is closed (2 sides to the issue).
• What about accreditation? Accreditation looks at a broad scope (programs, staffing, certification, etc). The site and facility is only about 1/10th of the input into the accreditation. You could completely fail in that category and still be accredited.
• We would not lose staff and children. Sorensen is a building (too expensive) and those students can be absorbed into the other schools and they will be happy.
• There is political support for maintaining the facility where it is at. Closing the school could affect our partnerships with other entities. We can’t ignore this.
• The distance between the downtown schools was discussed.
• There have been discussions about providing low to medium income housing in the downtown core.
• Hopefully, before the Board makes a decision, we will receive projections and some specific data on this housing in the downtown area. Where in the downtown area will these be built?
• The other 9/10’s of the district don’t have a passion to keep the school open. Does the community really know our facilities? We have toured the buildings, including Sorensen, and know what they are all about. They may feel differently if they did the same.
• The Indigo school will possibly be closing in the spring. These students could be coming to the downtown schools. Are you taking those students into account?
• If we were to close the school and then needed to re-open it in 2-3 years, would we have to spend a lot of money to bring it to code? Generally the turning point on a building is the occupancy. If you change it to a different occupancy, then you would have to comply with the code standards. If you kept it as an elementary school, there is grandfather language in the code.
• The timing stinks and it is portraying a negative image for the District. The credibility of the District is being compromised.
• Yes the site is poor, but what about our programs? Where is the alternative? This decision should be made 2-3 years from now. It is too short sighted.
• We have waited 5 years for the growth to return and it hasn’t. The Attendance Zone Committee has also been looking at this.
• Closing Sorensen displaces students but keeping it allows us to have an enrollment cushion. Ideally it would be great to upgrade Winton, build a larger school and combine Sorensen and Winton.
• This is the first real attempt at starting a magnet school. We need to give it an opportunity.
• The magnet school concept was discussed.
• Long range is like a chess game. If Winton was rebuilt, where would the children go (displaced during construction)? Closing Sorensen eliminates one of the pieces of the chessboard.
• Will the Board be making a decision on the future of Sorensen in February? We can’t guarantee that the decision will be made by February but it is our goal to have this decision made soon in order to move forward with the levy planning.
• The boundary overlap in the downtown schools is a problem. If Sorensen was eliminated, it spaces out the schools better.
• It is cheaper to build a new school rather than upgrade an old building. Need to build a new school where the growth is.
• The gym is used by the City of Coeur d’Alene Recreation Department. Where would they go? To other schools.
• There is a lot of political support to keep the school open. It would be a great time to get help financially for an alternative use such as a magnet school. This would be a win-win solution.
• Are there any city/federal funds available to keep inter-city schools open? Can you apply for grants? We need to look into that. You can have interagency agreements where money exchanges hands.
• Can’t this be included as a line item on the ballot? Yes, it is a possibility.
• The Board and Long Range Planning needs to make the decision. They are the most informed on this issue.
• The downtown schools need to do something different to attract children.
The committee agreed to have an advisory vote by ballot. They were asked to write down open or close. There were 18 voting members in attendance. In accordance with the By-Laws, Jill Neal was unable to vote because this is her 5th year on the committee. Dave Patzer collected all the ballots and read each vote out loud and Harry tabulated it on the board. 10 committee members were in favor of keeping Sorensen open and 8 members were in favor of closing the school. Dave will give a report to the Board on Tuesday. He will provide them with the pros and cons that were put together tonight as well as the results of the advisory vote. David Miller and the Sorensen staff will give a presentation on the magnet school proposal.

Stakeholders Meeting:
Harry reminded everyone of the Supplemental Maintenance & Operations Levy Community Input Forum from 7:00-9:00 p.m. on Thursday, January 11th at the Human Rights Institute. He thanked everyone for their time and all their hard work.

Next Meeting:
The next Long Range Planning meeting will be held on Monday, February 26, 2007 at 4:30 p.m. at the Midtown Center meeting room.

Adjournment:
The meeting was adjourned at 6:50 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Cheri Beard
Administrative Secretary

Home