School Facilities Ad Hoc Committee — Portland, ME
Date: 2016-10-06

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 - 195 Allen Avenue
 Room 200

 Agenda
 1. Review and approval of 9/12 Committee meeting minutes

 2. School-by-school space and cost analysis

 3. Set topic areas for upcoming Committee meetings
 a. Financial impact (11/2)
 b. Committee recommendations (11/8)
 c. Public hearing on Committee recommendations (TBD)




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



 Monday, September 12, 2016
 5:00pm – 8:00pm
 City Hall – Council Chamber

 Meeting Minutes & Notes

The meeting began at 5:03pm.
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 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 address
the majority of the questions and answers asked by Councilors and Committee members and developed
since the Buildings for Our Future proposal was forwarded to the City Council. Representatives from
the School Department and Oak Point Associates would be available to address clarifying questions.
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.

The minutes of the August 30th meeting of the School Facilities Ad Hoc Committee were approved
unanimously.

The following questions/concerns/statements were raised as the Committee walked through the
Question & Answer document:

 1. Can we receive grants for outdoor learning spaces?
 • While attempts are made to secure private funding for outdoor learning spaces, the
 grants are oftentimes very small (as in the case of the Ocean Avenue grant project).



 1
2. Do outdoor learning spaces include playgrounds?
 • No

3. Why is Lyseth and Presumpscot slated to get middle school-sized gyms?
 • Factors involved in making decisions about gym size included equity (what
 other schools, including the new Hall School, have) as well as afterschool uses,
 community uses, needs of the neighborhood and proximity to other suitable
 facilities.
 • Recommendation to possibly rethink the gym size and the savings that might
 occur

4. What is the rationale used to renovate rather than close schools?
 • Answer as currently written focuses on one example rather than overarching
 approach.

5. We need final clarification on the standards used to design restrooms in elementary schools.

6. What other previous options were explored or studied, other than and before the three
 renovation scenarios that the School Board considered when they forwarded the current
 proposal?

7. What actual action was taken on the possibility of combining Lyman Moore? Based on what
 information?
 • The School Board did not take formal action
 • More information needed from the community charrette that touched on the
 issue

8. What specific items are needed and what are the costs to “maintain the character” of the
 Longfellow façade?

9. What does it mean that the Pre-K classroom was “temporarily shifted” at Presumpscot?
 • Current enrollment meant that a classroom could be used and the Pre-K
 classroom could be moved from a closet space. Future enrollment can lead to a
 need to utilize the classroom space for a grade level and result in displacing the
 Pre-K class.

10. Clarification is needed of current space usage that was not designed for educational
 purposes. (e.g. Using corridors for classrooms, education in hallways/closets, etc.).

11. Enrollment projections for the four schools in question need to be broken out, with prior
 years of data to compare trends.

12. What would the cost saving be to redesign the space and eliminate the proposed second
 floor at Presumpscot?

13. Questions were raised of equity vs capacity. Is there a way to even out school enrollments?
 • The Enrollment Management Plan has been in place and has shifted students
 based on geography, enrollment and capacity
 • Ability to have needed flexible educational space is important

 2
 • Impacts to families because of geography and siblings at schools is critical to
 any change in boundaries

14. What would a closing Presumpscot scenario really looks like (including capacity and
 possible modifications at other schools, bussing students out of their neighborhoods, etc.)?

15. When was the last time the School Board officially acted upon redistricting as well as
 enrollment management?

16. What has been the official action on expanding Pre-K?
 • The board has endeavored to add a classroom per year until the need for
 universal Pre-K is met
 • Acting affirmatively on a policy would commit future budgets to add both
 money and classroom space
 • Suggestions that the School Board not rely on plans or goals, but a definitive
 policy on Pre-K

17. If we redistrict, would there still be a need for modular classrooms?
 • Without renovation, and even contemplating redistricting, there would still be a
 need for modular classrooms

18. A more detailed answer is needed on the closing and combining of smaller schools into
 larger ones, including enrollment numbers.

19. How do we know how many Portland students transfer to other schools?
 • Records transfer requests and April enrollments are used to identify this data

20. Why did we wait so long to address ADA issues at Longfellow?
 • Cost was a factor, as well the legal ability to transfer children in need to ADA-
 accessible buildings
 • Payson Park Title IX issue impacted budget

21. Can we separate out ADA items in the proposed budgets?
 • At this point in the project design and budgeting phase, it would be difficult to
 separate out all ADA-compliance items

22. Are the sprinklers currently at Reiche in any way in violation of code?
 • No

23. Who makes the rules for developing a new State funding priority list?
 • The Commissioner for the Maine Department of Education develops them and
 the Legislature approves it

24. Who decided to add two more schools to this round’s state funding list?
 • The State Board of Education

25. We must be careful at working any bond proposal so we do not disqualify ourselves for
 state funding. Are we sure we have that flexibility?


 3
 • Bond Counsel reports that we can work any proposal with the flexibility to adjust
 if state funding becomes available
 • Bond Counsel is requested to be present at the Committee’s future finance-
 focused meeting

 26. We need more complete information about prior school studies and costs. Have any of
 these four schools currently being studied come to the Council before?

 27. Where does eating as well as holding Physical Education classes in the classrooms occur?
 • Lunch is served in classrooms at Longfellow
 • Physical Education occurs in classrooms at all four schools in question

 28. We need a listing of potential educational and community opportunities that present
 themselves if we renovate that is not currently possible.



The meeting adjourned at 7:50pm.


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




 4
 Buildings for Our Future: 2016 Update




October 6, 2016
Buildings for Our Future
The schedule above assumes a March, 2017 referendum date. A referendum that occurs after this
has the potential to delay the construction of each school by a year and increasing the overall project
budget.




 Project Schedule
Data sources: Turner Construction cost index, R.S. Means


 Buildings for Our Future
80.00%
 Increase in Construction Costs 2005-2022

70.00% 67.68%
 64.20%
 60.60%
60.00% 57.32%
 53.94%
 50.94%
 48.16%
50.00%
 45.16%
 43.81%
 39.21% 39.60%
40.00% 36.02% 35.66%
 33.50%
 32.07% 31.89%

30.00%
 22.49%

20.00%
 13.84%

10.00%
 5.19%


 0.00%
 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022




 Buildings for Our Future
• Final project order has not been determined

• Budgets were run through escalation factors using “least
  expensive first / most expensive last” and “most expensive first /
  least expensive last” scenarios and the total cost difference (due
  to escalation was approximately $500,000

• A “schedule mid-point” escalation factor of 18% has been used
  in the following budgets in order to provide an average
  escalation factor for scheduling flexibility


 Buildings for Our Future
Presumpscot Elementary School
Presumpscot Elementary School
Budget description Section “A-Construction”




 Presumpscot Elementary School
Budget description Section “B-Administrative Costs and Reserves”




 Presumpscot Elementary School
Budget description Section “C-Fees and Services”




 Presumpscot Elementary School
Presumpscot Elementary School
Longfellow Elementary School
Longfellow Elementary School
Budget description Section “A-Construction”




 Longfellow Elementary School
Budget description Section “B-Administrative Costs and Reserves”




 Longfellow Elementary School
Budget description Section “C-Fees and Services”




 Longfellow Elementary School
Longfellow Elementary School
Reiche Community School
Reiche Community School
Budget description Section “A-Construction”




 Reiche Community School
Budget description Section “B-Administrative Costs and Reserves”




 Reiche Community School
Budget description Section “C-Fees and Services”




 Reiche Community School
Reiche Community School
Lyseth Elementary School
Budget description Section “A-Construction”




 Lyseth Elementary School
Budget description Section “B-Administrative Costs and Reserves”




 Lyseth Elementary School
Budget description Section “C-Fees and Services”




 Lyseth Elementary School
Lyseth Elementary School

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