School Facilities Ad Hoc Committee — Portland, ME
Date: 2016-07-25

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, July 25, 2016
 5:00pm – 7:00pm
 City Hall – Council Chamber

 Agenda
 1. Public comment on school facilities (5:00pm – 6:00pm)

 2. Discussion of questions & requests for information (6:00pm – 6:30pm)
 a. Review minutes from 7/18 Council Workshop
 b. Explore questions from public comment
 c. Additional committee member questions for future consideration

 3. Organizational tasks (6:30pm – 7:00pm)
 a. Schedule upcoming meetings of the committee
 b. Discuss potential meeting topics




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, July 25, 2016
 5:00pm – 7:00pm
 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. The first half was scheduled
to be a public hearing on school facilities issues. The second half was reserved for Committee Members
to discuss previously-voiced questions as well as raise questions based on testimony and other input.
The Committee was also slated to schedule its next few meetings.

 1. Public comment on school facilities
 a. Jeanne – Protect Our Neighborhood Schools
 i. Supportive of proposal
 ii. Maintenance is an investment
 iii. Security, safety and structure issues must be addressed
 iv. We’ve relied on the state to fund our school facilities, now it’s time
 for the city to step up
 v. We are losing neighborhood schools
 b. Jessica – Longfellow & Lincoln Parent
 i. Supportive of proposal
 ii. We have to talk about buildings in the context of education
 iii. Schools now do more:
 1. Breakfast

 1
 2. Special needs
 3. ELL
 4. Social workers
 5. ADA issues
 6. Computers/technology
 iv. Geography should not dictate educational experience
 v. Middle and high schools need renovations too but we shouldn’t
 wait for that to be determined; families will leave Portland
 vi. More delays will mean more money in the future
c. Emily – Presumpscot Employee, Reiche Parent
 i. Supportive of proposal
 ii. Environment is key to learning
 iii. Flexibility in classroom spaces is critical
 iv. The new windows at Presumpscot changed the learning experience
 for students and teachers; needs to happen at all four schools
 v. Modulars at Presumpscot are too small, walls too thin
 vi. Constant rearranging of classrooms in modular is expensive and
 disruptive
 vii. Committee and Council must be bold
d. Isabella – Reiche Student
 i. Supportive of proposal
 ii. The lights at Reiche make it tough to learn
 iii. It’s very noisy
 iv. There are leaks in the roof in the library, where tarps direct water to
 a trash can
e. Lea – Reiche & Portland High Parent
 i. Supportive of proposal
 ii. Stress in a child’s learning environment can impact education and
 emotional problems
 iii. We must show that we value kids so that they value education
f. Michelle – Presumpscot Parent
 i. Supportive of proposal
 ii. Community schools instill a sense of community among people and
 families
 iii. Closing schools and redistricting impacts the personal touch at
 community schools that kids need for growth
 iv. If son had to go outside of his community school, would have been
 enrolled in private school
 v. Has this just come down to money?
 vi. This must not be decided by the Committee or Council, but the
 voters
g. Brian – Reiche Parent
 i. Supportive of proposal
 ii. Investment in schools says something to parents that they and their
 kids are valued
 iii. Investing may entice parents to move into Portland
 iv. Investing may entice quality educators to choose and/or stay in
 Portland
 v. We can attract more diversity and young parents
h. Steven

 2
 i. Opposed to proposal
 ii. Citizens cannot afford $70 million
 iii. Glad that voters will not decide this in November; it needs more
 analysis
 iv. Portions of proposal are not education-related
 1. Roads
 2. Parking Lots
 3. Ballfields
 v. Lack of detailed, broken-out plans
 vi. Passing bond will give School Board a blank check
 vii. Demographic data shows that we are not gaining young families
 with kids
 viii. We should not be building additional floors at Presumpscot &
 Lyseth
i. Emily – Reiche Parent
 i. Supportive of proposal
 ii. Parents want to be helpful in this process; used as a resource
 iii. Reiche has many problems
 1. Dark & no natural light
 2. Loud
 3. Noise is a challenge for ELL
 4. Extremely hot temperatures make it difficult to focus and
 learn
 iv. 22nd Year of school facilities study, seventh task force – it’s time to
 get the job done
 v. 82% Of school construction nationally is funded locally, not the
 state
 vi. The state cannot be counted on for all of our facilities needs
 vii. It’s time to let the voters decide
j. Glen – Presumpscot Parent
 i. Supportive of proposal
 ii. Equity is important; some schools have gotten resources and others
 have not
 iii. We cannot rely on the state to set up and help, we need to take
 responsibility locally
 iv. $70 million is not a blank check – it’s a $70 million check
 v. Portland has waited a long time to be able to decide on this issue –
 put it to voters
k. Matthew – Architect
 i. Supportive of proposal
 ii. Oak Point did the job they were asked to do and did it well
 iii. Modern spaces are needed for modern learning
 1. Art
 2. Music
 3. Technology
 4. Gymnasium
 iv. The $70 million number was thoughtfully studied and generated
 based on the needs and parameters set
l. Carrie – Longfellow Parent
 i. Supportive of proposal

 3
 ii. Stayed in Portland because of diversity
 iii. Our schools have exceptional people in unacceptable facilities
 iv. Son receives special services – spaces are not adequate for him
 v. Parents are fleeing the city to the suburbs because of the schools
 vi. It’s time for action, our kids deserve better
 m. Channing – Reiche Parent
 i. Supportive of proposal
 ii. Family actually moved so that their child could go to Reiche
 iii. Upon visit – there was a ‘heaviness’ at Reiche
 1. Kids were hunched over
 2. Poor lighting
 3. Tiny windows
 iv. The lights are very hot and not well controlled
 v. It rains into the library
 vi. Presumpscot is tiny and there’s not enough space
 vii. We must move forward with this proposal now to give the kids a
 fair shot at a good education
 n. Katrina – Teacher
 i. Supportive of proposal
 ii. Has been in various schools in Portland and notices the differences
 between them.
 iii. Learning environment counts
 o. Caroline – Presumpscot Parent
 i. Supportive of proposal
 ii. Hopes the Committee takes into account the incredible work done
 at Presumpscot
 1. Expeditionary learning
 2. Integration of ELL
 iii. Do not move kids out of community schools
 1. Maintain connection to communities

2. Discussion of questions & requests for information
 a. Review minutes from 7/18 Council Workshop
 i. Suggested edit: correct the name of Davis Demographics
 ii. Endeavor to have the answers to the questions outlined by the end
 of August
 b. Explore questions from public comment/additional questions for future
 consideration
 i. Councilor Brenerman
 1. Have the leaks at Reiche been repaired by the City?
 a. Yes (K. Alves – City of Portland)
 b. We will follow up with the Superintendent as well to
 get an update on this issue. (Mayor Strimling)
 ii. Councilor Mavodones
 1. Do the schools have code violations? Where are they?
 2. Can we get a list of schools in the Portland School District
 since the 1970s?
 3. Do our schools meet learning standards? What are the test
 results?


 4
 4. Are there non-education items in this proposal? If so, what
 are they?
 5. Does Presumpscot have a Pre-K class in a closet with
 skylights?
 6. What were the parameters given to Oak Point by the School
 Board?
 7. Can we get a top-level description of the curriculum?
 8. Will the proposed school renovations meet the curriculum if
 it changes?
 9. Is there a level of autonomy in curriculum that ensures
 building specific approaches?
 10. What are the tax rates in Portland’s surrounding
 communities?
 iii. Mayor Strimling
 1. What is the age of the surrounding communities’ schools?
 2. How many new elementary schools are there in surrounding
 communities?
 3. What is the enrollment in the surrounding communities’
 schools?
 4. How many families left Portland public schools for
 neighboring jurisdictions’ schools?
 5. What have other communities done re: local vs. state
 funding?
 iv. Board Chair Morrione
 1. Have other communities in Maine bonded for their schools?
 2. What is the local vs. state school facilities spending in
 Maine?
  v. Board Member Thompson
 1. How many students have we lost of Charter schools? Online
 schools?
 vi. Board Member Hatzenbuehler
 1. Were smaller schools turned into larger schools, or vice
 versa?
 2. Can we find out why families left Portland schools?
 3. The definition of equity should be explored. What does it
 mean when we use the word “equity?” Does each school
 have what it needs to serve its students? We must be sure
 we are using the same working definition.
vii. Councilor Costa
 1. We need a clear understanding on how the wording of the
 bond proposal and referendum impacts the state and our
 ability to be flexible with future state funding.
 a. Should it be four questions?
 b. How can we word it to ensure the best flexibility to
 position us to take advantage of the largest amount
 of available funds?
 2. What are the major things that we’ve bonded that we’ll be
 retiring debt for the next 15 years?
viii. Board Member Trevorrow


 5
 1. What are the benefits and challenges of neighborhood
 schools?
 2. What percentage of school renovation is funded via the state
 vs. locally in Maine?
 ix. Board Member Thompson
 1. Can we get the list of Capital Improvement Plan requests by
 the School Board (including things that were not funded)
 over the last 15 years?
 x. Councilor Brenerman
 1. Which of the seven studies in 22 years have actually
 reached the council? The Finance Committee? How many
 stayed with the Board of Education?
 2. What is the percentage of students who walk to Lyseth? Do
 a majority of kids walk to neighborhood schools?
 3. If Reiche is staying an open concept school, what is Oak
 Point doing to address the dark/noisy complaints, which
 have been present since it was built? Does Reiche need
 separate classrooms?
 xi. Board Member Hatzenbuehler
 1. Some city streets have become barriers for children to walk
 to school because of traffic/accidents. Are there any other
 barriers for children walking to school?
 xii. Councilor Brenerman
 1. What renovations have already been done that are still a part
 of the proposal?
 a. Oak Point has removed all work already completed.
 (M. Morrione – School Board)
 xiii. Councilor Costa
 1. What programmatic changes have been made based on the
 current state of the facilities? (e.g. Pre-K in a closet at
 Presumpscot?)
 xiv. Mayor Strimling
 1. What programmatic things can occur if we perform the
 proposed renovations? What additional programmatic
 functions can we do that we aren’t doing now?
 xv. Board Member Thompson
 1. We need to compile the appropriate documents to get to the
 committee for their review. We must rely on subject matter
 experts to answer the questions with raw data and
 documentation.
 xvi. Board Chair Morrione
 1. The Oak Point proposal is what’s in front of this committee,
 it is this committee that is tasked to suggest changes and
 adjustments to the facilities proposal. We must stay
 contained to the question of facilities, and avoid addressing
 programmatic issues.

3. Organizational tasks
 a. Schedule upcoming meetings of the committee/discuss potential meeting
 topics

 6
 1. Mayor Strimling
 a. The Committee now has the proposal and any
 changes will trigger sending the proposal back to the
 Board of Education for their review and approval. It
 will then go to the Council’s Finance Committee,
 then to the full Council.
 b. The first month of the process is designed to be
 focused on fact finding, including a tour of the
 schools and then an in-depth presentation on each
 school by Oak Point.
 c. Identified questions will be addressed in as much
 detail as possible by the end of August.
 d. The next meeting will be a tour of Presumpscot and
 Lyseth on August 3rd at 5pm (beginning at
 Presumpscot). All tours and meetings will be open to
 the public.
 e. The committee will be polled for their availability
 for the Longfellow/Reiche tour.
 f. Oak Point will present to the Committee on August
 30th from 5-7pm.

The meeting adjourned at 6:38pm.


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




 7