Madison Metropolitan School District
Madison, Wisconsin

Art Rainwater, Superintendent
BOARD OF EDUCATION
Minutes for Long Range Planning
September 13, 2004
Doyle Administration Building
545 West Dayton Street, Room 103
Madison, Wisconsin

Long Range Planning Committee meeting was called to order by Chair Ruth Robarts at 5:45 p.m.

MEMBERS PRESENT: Carol Carstensen, Ruth Robarts, Johnny Winston, Jr.

MEMBERS ABSENT: None

CITIZEN MEMBERS PRESENT: Dawn Crim; Joan Eggert; Jill Jokela; Oliver Kiefer, Student Representative; Jeff Leverich; Lucy Mathiak; Pat Mooney; Lena Song, Student Representative; Jan Sternbach; Dr. Xa Xiong

OTHER BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Bill Clingan, Bill Keys, Shwaw Vang

STAFF PRESENT: Sue Abplanalp, Jennie Allen, Jane Belmore, Diane Crear, Mary Gulbrandsen, Jack Jorgensen, Kurt Kiefer, Doug Pearson, Roger Price, Joe Quick, Art Rainwater, Mary Ramberg, Barbara Lehman - Recording Secretary

1. Approval of Minutes

It was moved by Carol Carstensen and seconded by Johnny Winston, Jr. to approve the minutes of the Long Range Planning Committee meeting dated August 30, 2004. Motion unanimously carried.

2. Public Appearances

There were no public appearances.

3. Announcements

There were no announcements.

Ms. Robarts the committee to consider Items 9 and 10 first. There were no objections from the committee members.

9. It is recommended that students residing in the Ripp attachment attend Crestwood Elementary, Jefferson Middle, and Memorial High Schools.

(Packets included recommendations, maps, data for school assignments from 2004 annexations, and the legal documentation. Copies are attached to the original of these minutes.)

It was moved by Carol Carstensen and seconded by Johnny Winston, Jr. that students residing in the Ripp attachment attend Crestwood Elementary, JeffersonMiddle, and MemorialHigh Schools. Motion unanimously carried.

10. It is recommended that students residing in the Meriter attachment attend Huegel Elementary, Toki Middle, and Memorial High Schools.

(Packets included recommendations, maps, data for school assignments from 2004 annexations, and the legal documentation. Copies are attached to the original of these minutes.)

It was moved by Johnny Winston, Jr. and seconded by Carol Carstensen that students residing in the Meriter attachment attend Huegel Elementary, Toki Middle, and Memorial High Schools. Motion unanimously carried.

Items 4-6 were taken up together.

4. 1999 Maintenance Referendum

5. Criteria for Prioritization of Maintenance Items for the Next Five-Year Maintenance Plan

6. Recommendations regarding the 2005-2010 Maintenance Plan

(Packets included a memorandum relative to a facility assessment (9/13/04); construction history; and a referendum project list. Copies are attached to the original of these minutes.)

Doug Pearson was asked to summarize the memorandum relative to the facility assessment.

Discussion: Confirmed that roughly $38.5 million has gone into maintenance from 1999-2005. Written materials focused on elementary schools. Still have four schools that have antiquated fire alarm systems. Each of the Assistant Superintendents has $50,000 for minor improvements. The Blue Ribbon Task Force looked at improvements and maintenance issues. The last referendum was structured to address infrastructures in the buildings. Confirmed that there are no building code violations but, if any changes are made, it forces the new codes to be implemented; becomes cost prohibitive in old buildings. Everything has been completed in the referendum with the exception of the list of $566,100. Asbestos is a continuing management program and is part of project costs. There is a full inventory of where asbestos is and it is monitored on a regular basis. Improvements were defined. Maintenance and repair were defined. Confirmed that there is $3.2 million left for maintenance and repair only.

Ms. Robarts noted that agenda items 4-6 are contained in the memorandum.

Discussion: Projects showing no actual costs were done in-house with a minimal material cost and some were financed. There was a question about why so much work was done by outside contractors. There was some discussion about the impracticality of maintaining enough staff to do the large projects that come in peaks and valleys. Mr. Pearson described the difficulty in bringing in 60-70 trades people into a building and managing that kind of temporary staffing levels. Maintenance work could never be done with current staffing and there are union issues. There was discussion about whether these kinds of issues are within the scope of the Long Range Planning Committee versus having enough information to know whether an additional $20 million referendum is needed. Any questions from the committee members can be e-mailed to Mary Gulbrandsen and copied to the rest of the members. Staff will respond as to how much time particular requests will take.

Discussion continued on the issue of district staff talking about work they could have done that got contracted out and whether there were other options besides maintaining a large staff of trades workers. Mr. Price gave some additional information about the district's trades people and hiring in the last five years, union pay rates, supervision and coordination of projects, and stretching the $3.2 million from the regular budget as far as possible. A question was answered about how a project becomes a project and the use of engineering analyses.

A comment was made that there is a perception that the last referendum would catch things up versus having to come back again for maintenance. The Board lived up to its commitment to increase the maintenance budget $.5 million every year up until this year. The Long Range Planning Committee is working toward developing a 3 5 year maintenance plan.

The committee calendar shows that a decision does not have to be made on the referendum until January 5 but shows an October 4 date for building additions, boundary changes, etc. There was additional discussion about the time frame for Leopold and getting the official Third Friday Enrollment figures, completion of the walk-throughs and the fact that maintenance was ready to present. The construction of a new building on the Leopold site is driving the calendar if it is to open in January of 2007 or delay until the fall of 2007.

Shwaw Vang arrived at 6:35 p.m.

Decisions cannot be made until the committee has reviewed enrollment, boundary changes, etc. There was a comment made about what the committee should have been doing last year. Leopold is a separate issue that would be paid for with a bond but would still require a referendum. It was requested that the next Long Range Planning Committee meeting include a presentation on the Leopold situation and the language of the Board's decision on Leopold and the enrollment data. Ms. Robarts agreed that the committee could get the information but she did not want to spend time on a presentation. The next meeting would be informational with no decisions. The full Board could vote that night if going into October was pushing the timeline too far. She was interested in keeping the committee on a two-week schedule. It was not certain that boundary changes would be necessary at this point but some capacities are changing. There was a request to go through the capacity numbers with Ms. Gulbrandsen.

There was some discussion about what should be taken up at the September 27 meeting: building use; options, boundary changes, closings, etc. Ms. Gulbrandsen noted that the capacity numbers could be ready for the 27th but the five-year projections would not be ready until early November. A question was raised about how staff in the buildings perceives that central office people do not know what is going on in the schools. It was requested to have the capacity numbers and anecdotal information about how the schools perceive that. Every single floor plan has been labeled and has been converted to a formula. Attempts are made to look at the schools the same but there are nuances. All the principals have seen it but they are not the ones who complain. It was also requested to have information on the high schools and demographic data, low income student enrollment and what that means. Disparities among the high schools should be included for the committee's information. It was noted that making boundary changes for the high schools is done at the elementary school level.

There was a suggestion that the parent groups be notified from each school to inform them of the activities of the Long Range Planning Committee and to gain their feedback. Ms. Robarts noted that the web site is not yet up but that word of mouth was working. There has been some difficulty getting names of the parent group members.

Ms. Robarts stated that the next meeting on the 27th would be to receive information related to capacities, boundary changes, etc. Projections and enrollment data will not be available yet and last year's data cannot be used. The next maintenance meeting would probably wait until the end of October to look at the timing issues and other issues involving a referendum. The recommendation will stay at $27 million.

FOLLOW UP: Show in-house v. outside contractor work.

7. As of 9/9/04 Elementary Enrollment for the 2004-05 School Year

(Packets included elementary school preliminary enrollments as of the fifth day of school. A copy is attached to the original of these minutes.)

Ms. Robarts reiterated that the counts were very preliminary. The Superintendent distributed updated counts for all levels as of today (a copy is attached to the original of these minutes). He indicated that everything is staffed correctly right now.

8. Communication Plan for 2004-05 Long Range Planning Committee Activities

(Packets included a memorandum from the Public Information Office. A copy is attached to the original of these minutes.)

Ms. Robarts noted that as soon as possible, there will be an icon on the MMSD web site called Long Range Planning. It will go to the beginning of this year's set of meetings, including the agendas and any attachments associated with each agenda item. Ms. Gulbrandsen noted that it should be up within the next couple days. Ms. Robarts hoped to stop delivery to everyone's home with packet materials and would try to have regular meeting times around 6 p.m. She did not favor meeting on other nights of the week.

11. Other Business

There was no other business

12. Adjournment

It was moved by Johnny Winston, Jr. and seconded by Carol Carstensen to adjourn the meeting at 7:12 p.m. Motion unanimously carried.

bl