Long Range Plan Minutes November 27, 2006

Long Range Plan Review Committee
Minutes
November 27, 2006

Members in Attendance:
Harry Amend* Jim Ferguson Doug Jaworski Jill Neal Tami Stroud
Rosie Astorquia* Scott Fischer* Mary Larson Vern Newby* John Swallow
Jeff Bengtson Lana Hamilton Erin Lenz Dave Patzer Dianna Walde
Steve Briggs* Chris Hammons Bryan Martin* Joel Palmer
Mike DeLong Katie Harris David Miller Lori Smith

*Ex-officio members

Guests: Amy Evans, Teresa Runge, Roger Snyder

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

Approval of October Minutes:
Motion by Lana Hamilton, second by Jill Neal to approve the October 23, 2006 minutes, approved unanimously.

Approval of New Committee Members:
Motion by Rosie Astorquia, second by Mike DeLong to ratify, from the Nominating Committee, the seven new Long Range Planning Committee members (Lana Hamilton, Chris Hammons, Katie Harris, Mary Larson, Jane Curtis, Tami Stroud and Lori Smith) and forward this recommendation to the School Board, approved unanimously.

Superintendent’s Report – Harry Amend:
Harry reported that 125 stakeholders were identified in the community last summer which have been supportive of the school district over the past several years. The Long Range Planning Committee and Levy Steering Committee members are included on this stakeholder list. Quarterly newsletters are being sent out to everyone on that list. The second newsletter will be mailed out in the middle of the week. Harry provided the committee with this letter for their review. He asked them to let him know of any corrections and/or additions to the letter at the end of the meeting.

District Report – Steve Briggs:
Steve reported that the District has completed the first reporting period for its formula funding and will not find out the results from the State until February 15th. There is an increase over our projections (1 - 1½% growth). There will be an amended budget presentation in January. The 2002 S.P.F.L. work is just about complete with only a few loose ends left to be tied up on the Ramsey project as well as some technology funds. He will report back to the committee with the final amount of remaining monies from this S.P.F.L.

Board of Trustees Report – Vern Newby:
Vern reported that the State School Boards conference occurred in Boise a couple of weeks ago. High school reform financing concerns were discussed. There will be a legislative reception tomorrow night at Riverbend Professional/Technical Academy.

Sorensen Elementary Discussion:
Harry stated that the role of the Long Range Planning Committee has historically been to act as a sounding board and to make recommendations to the Board of Trustees. At the last Board meeting held on November 20th, the majority of the meeting was spent listening to comments from the community regarding the future of Sorensen Elementary. At the end of the meeting the Board asked the administration to do two things, to start developing an accurate base of data (financial, enrollment, etc) and to take this issue to the Long Range Planning Committee for discussion. Harry also stated that Amy Evans, Teresa Runge and Roger Snyder (Sorensen advocates) were invited to this meeting tonight to give their input and participate in the dialogue. The Board will be meeting regarding Sorensen Elementary again on December 18th in order to allow enough time for this committee to meet a couple of times. Harry feels that it will take a number of Board meetings in order to receive all the information and to come to a decision.

The committee was provided with three handouts which were elementary enrollment data for the last 10 years, the preliminary analysis of annual cost savings in the event Sorensen was closed and a graph showing the growth comparison of elementary schools in the north versus the south. Steve explained these handouts to the committee and pointed out that the numbers include involuntary transfers, voluntary transfers and out-of-district students. The following comments and/or questions were made by the committee:

• When will we receive the rest of the information? We would like to receive this information prior to the December 13th meeting.
• Amy Evans will be the contact person for Sorensen.
• Noted the decrease of enrollment in the southern schools (handout) and that is makes sense to look at an opportunity to possibly consolidate, but why was Sorensen chosen over other schools such Bryan or Borah? Prior to choosing Sorensen, why was this not put before this committee or the Board?
• Can we give input in regards to alternative uses for Sorensen?
• How many students are involuntarily transferred out of Sorensen?
• Have the attendance zone changes affected the numbers?
• Research supports smaller schools. This discussion is different than 6 years ago, you are now talking about consolidation (reducing elementary schools from 10 to 9). A few months ago you asked the voters to build a new elementary in order to add capacity and now you are talking about reducing capacity when elementary enrollment is going up. Voters are not supporting facility levies and what is going to happen to those kids, where will they be absorbed? Are you looking at portables?
• In regards to absorbing students, in prior meetings regarding the S.P.F.L., remodeling Winton was discussed which would increase capacity in the south. In the minutes from last year, there are comparisons of the facilities and sites.
• Is the hope that in closing Sorensen, a facility levy will be passed in order to build a new elementary school where the growth is? Are you saying to the taxpayers that Sorensen is not in a convenient location so you want a new school in a growth area?
• Losing an asset such as Sorensen is going to have some repercussions (asset we are abandoning). Need to find another use for it.
• As the Sorensen advocates, is your hope to keep Sorensen open indefinitely? Do you see it as a good site? Are you a proponent of remodel and/or relocation? What is your long range hope for Sorensen?
• Love small schools but they are not cost effective. We are not losing capacity unless we divest of the building. This is not a new question (Sherman, Franklin, Harding, etc.)

Steve discussed the cost savings handout. If Sorensen were to close, the staff would be reassigned and if the District did not have the same level of burden on the maintenance and utilities piece there would be over $400,000 in annual cost savings. The following comments and/or questions were made by the committee:

• How many of the classroom aides would follow the students? Would this be savings to the District? Need a breakdown of the aide positions.
• Where does the building rank as far as wear and tear durability in relationship to the other buildings?
• Are the maintenance costs if the building is not being used (moth balled)?
• Need an itemized breakdown of the maintenance costs for the last 5 years.
• The transportation costs are needed.
• If there is growth, there will be costs associated with it.
• As the District sits today, what is its optimum capacity ability in the elementary schools?
• How many empty classrooms are there now? Are they completely empty or being used for other purposes?
• Need an inventory of portables.
• Where would the Sorensen students go?
• What is the long term prognosis for the Hayden site? Could it be sold to generate money?
• If Sorensen is closed, should we be looking at some values as marketable real estate and entering that into the equation?
• Sorensen is very valuable to the downtown community.

Harry reported that the District has developed a questionnaire and is asking for input from both the staff and community in developing the components and amount of the replacement Maintenance and Operations Supplemental Levy. This questionnaire will be available on the District’s website beginning on Monday. The campaign will begin after the Christmas break.

A special meeting was scheduled for Wednesday, December 13th at 4:30 p.m. at Midtown to continue this discussion. The meeting will last as long as necessary and a third meeting could be scheduled, if needed.

Adjournment:
The meeting was adjourned at 6:10 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Cheri Beard
Administrative Secretary

Home