School Facilities Ad Hoc Committee — Portland, ME
Date: 2016-11-08

School Facilities Ad Hoc Committee
 Committee Co-Chairpersons
 Marnie Morrione, Chair, Portland Board of Education ∙ Ethan K. Strimling, Mayor
David Brenerman, District 5 City Councilor Nicholas M. Mavodones, At-Large City Councilor
Justin Costa, District 4 City Councilor Sarah J. Thompson, At-Large Board of Education
Stephanie Hatzenbuehler, District 4 Board of Education Anna Trevorrow, At-Large Board of Education



 Tuesday, November 8, 2016
 5:00pm – 7:00pm
 City Hall – Council Chamber

 Agenda
 1. Review and approval of 10/6 Committee meeting minutes

 2. Walk-through of financial questions
 a. Jim Saffian, Bond Counsel
 b. Brendan O’Connell, City Finance Director

 3. Set topic areas for upcoming Committee meetings
 a. Committee recommendations (11/17, 11/28)
 b. Public hearing on Committee recommendations (12/2)




389 Congress Street/www.portlandmaiane.gov/tel.207-874-8941/tty.207-874-8936/fax.207-874-8669
 School Facilities Ad Hoc Committee
 Committee Co-Chairpersons
 Marnie Morrione, Chair, Portland Board of Education ∙ Ethan K. Strimling, Mayor
David Brenerman, District 5 City Councilor Nicholas M. Mavodones, At-Large City Councilor
Justin Costa, District 4 City Councilor Sarah J. Thompson, At-Large Board of Education
Stephanie Hatzenbuehler, District 4 Board of Education Anna Trevorrow, At-Large Board of Education



 Thursday, October 6, 2016
 5:00pm – 7:00pm
 Casco Bay High School – 2nd Floor

 Meeting Minutes & Notes

The meeting began at 5:16pm.
Attendance:
Mayor Strimling, School Board Chair Marnie Morrione (Committee Co-Chairs)
Superintendent Xavier Botana
Councilors: David Brenerman, Justin Costa, Nicholas Mavodones
School Board Members: Stephanie Hatzenbuehler, Sarah Thompson, Anna Trevorrow
Deputy City Manager Anita LaChance
Special Assistant to the Mayor Jason J. Shedlock

Mayor Strimling began the meeting by welcoming the Committee members and the public and letting
the attendees know the purpose of the evening. This meeting would consist of a school-by-school
analysis, led by representatives of Oak Point Associates, the architectural firm that developed with
Buildings for Our Future plan. Additional questions would be recorded and addressed at a later
meeting. Specific questions about the financial impact and bonding strategies would also be addressed
in depth at a future meeting.

Tyler Barter from Oak Point Associates led the Committee through an in-depth presentation on the
reasoning behind the proposed school renovation costs (presentation incorporated into the meeting
minutes). The following questions/concerns/statements were raised as Mr. Barter walked through his
presentation:

 1. Is the 5% that is outlined in the proposed budget for contingency adequate?
 a. Yes, that is standard among the industry.

 2. A concern was raised that 20 hours/week is not adequate for a Project coordinator.

 3. Other than the regular “Clerk of the Works” is there a need for an “Educational Clerk of the
 Works” to with the principal and staff during construction?

 1
4. When does the “Project Coordinator” begin work?
 a. During design development.

5. What is “maker space?”
 a. Maker space is essentially a “messy room” dedicated for students to build things and
 perform experiments. It typically has non-porous flooring and sinks.

6. Do other elementary schools have locker rooms?
 a. Yes, the recently renovated elementary schools do have locker rooms.

7. Has there been any exploration of aggregating Pre-K classrooms, rather than having them in
 each school?
 a. No, this has not been contemplated, as Pre-K is most successful when it is in
 communities that show the need, avoiding having parents to travel out of their
 communities to bring their child to class.

8. Is there a possibility to using more space at Ocean Avenue to house additional Pre-K classes?
 a. It would cost an additional $1 million to add a second floor to Ocean Avenue in order
 to house additional Pre-K classrooms. And this would not meet the need of having
 accessible Pre-K in communities across the city.

9. The Board of Education should take a formal vote on the expansion and the locations of Pre-K
 classrooms.

10. A concern was raised about leaving off the second floor for the Presumpscot renovation (which
 would limit the capacity to 307 learners) because of historic enrollment volatility and ignoring
 the future enrollment needs due to planned development in the neighborhood.

11. The costs for asbestos abatement could be reduced from the Longfellow budget because of
 ongoing summertime remediation that will take place before the commencement of renovation.

12. The mechanical costs are elevated at Longfellow because the school is a three-story building,
 as well as the fact that it shares a heating system with Deering High School.

13. Which is the preferred option: outfitting Longfellow with its own heating system, or upgrading
 the Deering System to efficiently and adequately serve both schools?
 a. Both options have their benefits and drawbacks, but upgrading one system would mean
 that future maintenance would only need to be performed on one system, likely lowering
 future costs.

14. Why are the reconfiguration fees so high at Longfellow?
 a. Ensuring the entrances is ADA-accessible as well as the installation of the elevator are
 major contributors of the elevated cost.

15. What are the costs of the ADA-accessibility items at Longfellow?
 a. Oak Point will attempt to put together an estimate, though a hard and fast number is
 difficult to attain. There are a number of structural and mechanical changes that are
 entailed in the entire building, with those changes playing a role in ADA issues as well.


 2
 So while it might be difficult to ascribe exact costs, an attempt will be made to give as
 accurate an estimate as possible.

16. The District will find out in January if they received the State Revolving Loan Fund award for
 the elevator mechanical work at Longfellow. If the award is granted, that approximately $1
 million can be backed out of the Buildings for Our Future proposal.

17. Reports of the benefits of open and flexible space have been met with a change of course calling
 for the need of more privacy at Reiche. Which is built into the budget and which is best for
 student learning? What caused the change from open spaces to more partitions?
 a. Movable partitions and the ability to have flexible space is built into the budget, as is
 daylighting, upgraded interior lights and acoustical improvements. The Superintendent
 along with the educators at Reiche have found that a hybrid approach that provides the
 opportunity to have the open space Reiche is known for as well as the ability to partition
 off sections for more focused learning and privacy when deemed necessary.

18. Will the ceiling stay the same at Reiche?
 a. While the ceiling will structurally stay the same, the lights will be upgraded and lowered
 as well as acoustical treatments added.

19. Can operable partitions, such as the ones contemplated for Reiche, be added at Longfellow?
 a. Yes

20. A concern was raised about flexible space, regarding the premise that if it is incorporated into
 one school, it should be incorporated into all schools if it is indeed the optimal design. The
 Board of Education should think about how buildings are being used with an eye toward equity.

21. We need a cost/benefit analysis of the solar domestic hot water planned for Reiche.

22. We need a breakdown of the cost for the lighting and acoustics at Reiche.

23. Why is the generator pad and conduit listed as a non-equity item at Lyseth but not the other
 schools?

24. What is the city’s plan to fund the grounds improvements at Lyseth? What has been approved
 for actual construction?
 a. The city has in its CIP improvements to the fields and parking lot on the Lyseth/Lyman
 Moore campus. More information will be provided on actual planning and
 implementation.

25. Based on the footprint and design at Lyseth, if the proposed second floor is eliminated, the
 school would need to have a smaller gymnasium.

26. According to shifting state guidelines, an elementary school-sized gymnasium would be smaller
 than that at Ocean Avenue school.

27. We need a breakdown of the sizes at all of the elementary school gymnasiums in the district.

28. We need a breakdown of the technical amendments to the proposal from what the Board
 submitted to the Council and what is currently in front of the Ad Hoc Committee.

 3
 29. Why isn’t the playground at Presumpscot being upgraded as a part of the Builds for Our Future
 proposal?
 a. The equipment on the playground at Presumpscot are relatively new, but if
 enhancements are deemed necessary, they will be explored.

The minutes of the September 12th meeting of the School Facilities Ad Hoc Committee were approved
unanimously.

The meeting adjourned at 7:06pm.


Submitted by Jason J. Shedlock, Special Assistant to the Mayor & Council




 4

School Facilities Ad Hoc Committee
 Committee Co-Chairpersons
 Marnie Morrione, Chair, Portland Board of Education ∙ Ethan K. Strimling, Mayor
David Brenerman, District 5 City Councilor Nicholas M. Mavodones, At-Large City Councilor
Justin Costa, District 4 City Councilor Sarah J. Thompson, At-Large Board of Education
Stephanie Hatzenbuehler, District 4 Board of Education Anna Trevorrow, At-Large Board of Education



 Tuesday, November 8, 2016
 5:00pm – 7:00pm
 City Hall – Council Chamber

 Meeting Minutes & Notes

The meeting began at 5:04pm.
Attendance:
Mayor Strimling, School Board Chair Marnie Morrione (Committee Co-Chairs)
Superintendent Xavier Botana
Councilors: David Brenerman, Justin Costa, Nicholas Mavodones
School Board Members: Stephanie Hatzenbuehler, Sarah Thompson, Anna Trevorrow
Deputy City Manager Anita LaChance
Special Assistant to the Mayor Jason J. Shedlock
City Finance Director Brandan O’Connell
Bond Counsel Jim Saffian

Mayor Strimling and Board Chair Morrione began the meeting by welcoming the Committee members
and the public and letting the attendees know the purpose of the evening. This meeting would consist
of a review of the financial section of the master question and answer document, which can be viewed
in its entirety at http://www.portlandmaine.gov/1803/School-Facilities-Ad-Hoc-Committee. Mayor
Strimling also noted that as it was Election Day, without objection, the Committee would endeavor to
finish their work by approximately 6:30pm.

Brendan O’Connell, City Finance Director and Jim Saffian, Bond Counsel, were available to present
more detailed information and answer Committee members’ questions.

The minutes of the October 6th meeting of the School Facilities Ad Hoc Committee were approved
unanimously.

The following questions/concerns/statements were raised as the Committee proceeded with the
meeting:

 1. If Portland residents vote to approve a bond, is that decision final and irreversible?

 1
 a. The Council can vote to rescind the bonding language.

2. While it is permissible for the Council to move to amend the City’s bonding guidelines (to raise
 the bond limit) it may have an impact on the City’s financial rating. The current guidelines were
 developed through an extensive process.

3. Regarding previous cycles of major capital investments in schools, as debt is retired, new
 projects have been added, though this did not happen consistently. It was noted that it is not
 necessarily wise, however, to simply add debt when debt retires; a fuller look at the city’s
 financial picture should occur.

4. When bonding for our schools, would it make more financial sense to do it all at once, or
 separately?
 a. It would be more efficient to bond at once, though a drawback to that approach is
 bonding will close the window on the possibility of state subsidy.

5. Can we be general enough in our referendum language to allow for room to use state funds for
 projects instead if and when they become available?
 a. The state would likely take a restrictive view of any attempt to both bond locally as well
 as seek state funding. The state would withdraw consideration for funding any project,
 however broadly defined, that is voted upon at the local level.

6. Can we only bond for a portion of a project, and apply for state funding for the rest of the cost?
 a. While technically this scenario might be a possibility, the state would likely take a dim
 view of any attempt to bifurcate the process. It was further noted that it would be
 difficult to do this, since the state process involves numerous demands that are not
 present when a project is funded locally. It was stated that we should commit to decide
 one way or another and be as clear and direct as possible to the voters and to the state
 during this process.

7. Bonding can occur over the course of multiple years, pause if need be or action can be taken to
 rescind the bonding decision and approach the state based on financial conditions and other
 factors that may affect the city, the schools, and their budget.

8. Questions were raised on the responsible party of the narrative portions of the answers provided
 to the Committee.
 a. Numbers were received by, and answers were reviewed by, the Finance Director. A
 working group of consisting of Deputy City Manager LaChance, Mayor Strimling,
 Board Chair Morrione and Superintendent Botana have been meeting regularly to
 develop all answers, including the finance-focused examples discussed at the current
 meeting.

9. After discussion on the topic, a desire was expressed to get an official memo from the Finance
 Director answering the questions, rather than the working group writing the answers. It was
 further noted that the bonding amount would be paid back over 20 years.
 a. Brendan O’Connell stated that he would formulate a memo in response to this request.

10. There was a request for the assumptions used to develop the financial answers to be clearly
 articulated in writing, including information on scenarios, valuations, other impacts on the tax
 rate, etc.

 2
 11. There was a concern that the financial assumptions were based on a scenario that included items
 that have not been historically funded. A desire was expressed to see a realistic financial
 projection based on the premise of the current level of CIP funding. It was further noted that
 which it’s results will likely align with current requests, any new capital improvement needs
 based on the school facilities assessment (a first draft to be reviewed mid-November) are not
 yet included in any CIP requests.

 12. The Committee discussed the apparent scheduling conflicts that are arisen surrounding the two
 previously-scheduled and upcoming Committee meetings. Mayor Strimling stated that new
 meetings date options would be submitted to the Committee for their review.


The meeting adjourned at 6:35pm.


Submitted by Jason J. Shedlock, Special Assistant to the Mayor & Council




 3