February 6, 2006

To: Elementary Facilities Task Force Committee

From: Jane Wellehan

Re: Notes for EFTF meeting of January 25, 2006

The EFTF met on January 25, 2006. In attendance were committee members Jason Toothaker (chair) MaryJo O’Connor, Dick Paulsen, Doug Sherwood Michelle Hedrich, Kevin Mallory, Ellen Alcorn, Marysue Morrison, David Turner, Ed Suslovic, Liz Holton, Michelle Butterfield, and Jane Wellehan. Steven Scharf, Joanne Coyne from the West End News were also present.

The meeting started with a couple quick thoughts that varying people thought they had failed to voice earlier. One question was what would happen to West School if the new school were built on the St. James Street site. Also, the question was raised about whether the group should be talking about a K-8 for the new school.

MaryJo quickly answered both concerns. The school system still needs West School for the students that are in attendance. They need a lot of space, and there are over 50 students at West. K-8 is an interesting possibility, but Superintendent O’Connor felt it should be considered for the next building project, after this school is built.

Jason wanted to review another plan, proposed by Steven Scharf and prepared by Kevin Mallory, which can be called Reconfiguration Plan #7. This plan called to Close Clifford, and not rebuild, just redistrict all Clifford Students.

Reconfiguration Plan #7: Close Clifford Do not rebuild/redistrict all students
Pros	Cons
Needs to be considered for full review of all options	Lose State funding ($10-12 million dollars) and a chance to build a new school to replace aging Elementary School in Portland
	Breaks up successful learning community

This plan was rejected by the group, as Portland Elementary Facilities have some real needs to update, and the city would lose an opportunity to get over $10 million in State Aid.

The group agreed to a “straw vote” with each person on the committee getting 3 dots to indicate their preferred plans. This was not a binding vote, but based on the results, the group thought that the plans with the most dots would be the best plans to bring forward to the public. The plans are restated below, with 1, 2 and 6 being the most popular, followed by 4 and 5. Plan 3 was rejected from the group, as (along with the new plan 7) it had the least support.

Reconfiguration Plan #1: Close Clifford Close Presumpscot Build a new elementary school on the old Baxter Site
Pros	Cons
School Size Low	Transportation
Site Size ample	Takes Both Schools out of natural neighborhoods
Keeps diversity ideal	Equity issue not addressed
Centrality – off busy street	Incorporates only 88 students from Clifford, only benefiting a small portion of the Clifford population
Doesn’t displace youth programs	2 “disadvantaged” schools into more prosperous/private school neighborhood
Can build new school while students stay in current school

Reconfiguration Plan #2: Close Clifford Close Presumpscot Build a new elementary school on Douglas Street
Pros	Cons
Location is central; good playing fields	Would need to bus Presumpscot students across town (Tukey’s Bridge)
Keeps 2/3 of Clifford students and nearly all of Presumpscot students together	Bus trip length for some students very long
School Size	Loss of open space at Douglas Field
Can build new school while students stay in current school	Leaves District 4 without an elementary school
	School Size

Reconfiguration Plan #6: Close Clifford Close Reiche Build a new elementary school on the Douglas St. site
Pros	Cons
Addresses lack of economic diversity at Reiche School	School Size – large enrollment (+500)
Transportation access better than Reiche	School/Community services no longer on same site for Reiche students
Location is central; good playing fields	Large numbers of students taking bus
Economic prudence for bundles (Reiche is next major renovation)	Transportation to/from after school activities would be more difficult for former walkers at Reiche
Current Reiche School facility could still be utilized after school gone	Leaves Presumpscot with a very small student population
West End private school parents may send their kids to a new school
Addresses needs of Reiche students for a better physical learning environment (ie walls)
Keeps both Clifford and Reiche school populations largely intact
Can build new school while students stay in current school
Based on Long-term planning, would most easily facilitate future consolidation in District

Reconfiguration Plan #4: Close Clifford Close Presumpscot Build a new elementary school on the Presumpscot site
Pros	Cons
School Size	Incorporates only 12 students from Clifford; new building mostly Presumpscot (248), Lyseth (126)
Keeps Presumpscot neighborhood school intact	Congestion in area
Reduces Lyseth to a more ideal student population	Industrial area an issue
Presumpscot has a growing population (3.5% from 2000 to 20005; new housing developments in area)	Leaves Reiche as (still) an economically challenged population
	Limits flexibility in long term planning

Reconfiguration Plan #5: Close Clifford Close Longfellow Build a new elementary school on the Douglas St. site
Pros	Cons
School Size
Many walkers; 2 abutting communities	Lose “campus” opportunity w/ DHS and LMS
Location is central; good playing fields	Lose a centrally located School
Increase for Longfellow in Economic Diversity	Decrease for Clifford in Economic Diversity
Can build new school while students stay in current school	Leaves Reiche as (still) an economically challenged population

We discussed how many potential plans should be brought to the public, but all agreed that we have been very thorough in reviewing possibilities, so if someone asked about a plan not presented, an intelligent response was readily available.

A discussion about concerns over consolidating Reiche into a new school ensued. Most felt that a more economically diverse school has a better chance for success. All were concerned about the needs of the Reiche School population. The fact that they were #23 on the State’s list for funding clearly indicates that there are some big problems (the open format most frequently cited) with Reiche. Many felt that it was very logical to address these issues with this next “bundle”, and get both Reiche and Clifford the facility these 2 schools need to succeed.

Ellen Alcorn, School Committee Chair, suggested that any/all potential plans should be reviewed by the State before any of them are presented to the public, as some quite possibly would not meet their criteria for funding.

Ed Suslovic reminded all of us that when we go out into the community to talk about the plans, it needs to come back to us leading with the reasons for the plan: the increased fiscal efficiency of the plan, the increased equity for all students, and the better opportunities for educational programming.

Other concerns were whether or not we could build on the Douglas St. site (whether the city would grant the land for school use) and whether or not we could build on the Baxter site (not where the school was currently, as this building might be kept) the concern being damaging the woods.

The next meeting was set for Wednesday, February 8^th, 4pm, PATHS.

Respectfully submitted,

Jane Wellehan