Your browser does not support JavaScript!
July 7, 2009 - School Enrolment/School Capacity Minutes
School Enrolment/School Capacity Committee
July 7, 2009

A meeting of the School Enrolment/School Capacity Committee was held on Tuesday, July 7, 2009, at 7:00 p.m., in the Board Room at the Limestone Education Centre, 220 Portsmouth Avenue, Kingston.
Present Trustees:
A. Goodfellow, Chair
G. Beavis
H. Brown
H. Chadwick, Vice-Chair
E. Crawford
L. French
D. Jackson
B. McLaren
P. Murray
Present Staff:
Marg Akey, Supervising Principal
Ruth Bailey, Accommodation Review Facilitator
Glen Carson, Manager of Facility Services
Jane Douglas, Communications Officer
Barb Fraser-Stiff, Superintendent of Education
Richard Holmes, Supervising Principal
Brenda Hunter, Director of Education
Darlene Kirkpatrick, Recording Secretary
Peter Lynch, Manager of Financial Services
Norah Marsh, Superintendent of Education
Dale Midwood, Supervising Principal
Roger Richard, Superintendent of Business Services
Wayne Toms, Manager, ITS
Beth Woodley, Supervising Principal and Executive Assistant    
        Chair Goodfellow called the meeting to order.  She said that the purpose of this meeting is to receive an addendum report from Senior Staff related to the Greater Napanee accommodation review process regarding Sandhurst, H.H Langford, and Westdale Park Public Schools.  She stated that this report, which Trustees received last Friday, is an addendum to the Senior Staff’s previous report of April 8, 2009, that is included as Appendix A to the package they received and that is in front of them.

        Chair Goodfellow reported that the April 8, 2009 report was the Senior Staff’s follow-up report to the public meeting of March 30, 2009.  She advised that the April 8th follow-up report requested additional time for staff to gather further data in order to address comments and questions which arose at the public meeting.  She said that staff worked hard to gather more detailed specific information on a variety of topics in order to support Trustees in their decision-making.

        Chair Goodfellow said that the Senior Staff Follow-up Report Addendum is a lengthy and comprehensive report, noting that it will take us time to go through the report.  She stated that it is important to keep in mind that the soonest that the Board may approve any decisions related to this accommodation review is at the regular October Board meeting which will be held October~14, 2009.  She commented that this seems like a long time away, but all non-instructional days, including all of July and all of August, cannot be included in the time lines outlined Board Policy 15 (School Accommodation).

        Chair Goodfellow said that this time line gives the School Enrolment/School Capacity Committee ample opportunity to digest data, request any additional information, and discuss issues and options, before making any recommendations to the Board.

        Chair Goodfellow said that Trustees should not feel pressured or compelled in any way to arrive at any conclusions this evening.  She reported that the PARC Facilitator, Ruth Bailey, will begin the process this evening by walking us through the information sections of the report, allowing for questions along the way.  She said that due to the magnitude of the report, that Trustees should feel free to ask information and clarification questions as we move through the report, noting that Mrs. Bailey, the Director and staff will do their best as always to respond to questions.

Approval of Agenda

        Chair Goodfellow stated that she has an item to be added to the agenda under Other Business.  Trustee Jackson indicated that he has an item he would like added to the agenda under Other Business also.

        MOVED BY Trustee Crawford, seconded by Trustee McLaren, that the agenda, as amended, be approved.–Carried

Senior Staff Follow-Up Report Addendum

        Mrs. Bailey stated that she would provide as much information as requested to assist Trustees in making a decision at some point in the future.  She said that Senior Staff and support staff worked hard in preparing the follow-up report addendum.  Mrs. Bailey reviewed the Senior Staff Follow-up Report Addendum, regarding accommodations at H. H. Langford Public School, Sandhurst Public School and Westdale Park Public School.

        Mrs. Bailey reported that Section A outlines the Objective, Section B outlines the Areas Re-Examined and Section C outlines the Support Documents Used or Developed for this Report.  She advised that Appendix C is a list of the articles focused on small schools research that were reviewed.  She said that the articles were submitted or referenced in the input received from the public.  The research in the articles was of varying quality.  Only three of the articles were peer reviewed, i.e. the research was subjected to the scrutiny of others who are experts in the same field and one of these focused on materials prior to 2000.

        Mrs. Bailey advised that Appendix A is the Senior Staff Follow-Up Report of April 8, 2009 and Appendix B is a snapshot of the class organization and class size information.  She indicated that Appendix C is a list of the research focused on small schools, and Appendix D talks about Tri-Board Student Transportation Services information.  She said that the Tri-Board Student Transportation Services and the Facility Services information is not contained in separate appendices, but would be included in the report.

        Mrs. Bailey reported that Appendix E includes information that was requested from Colbourne & Kembel, Architects Inc. comparing the relative costs of constructing a single 700 pupil school with the construction of two smaller schools of 300 and 400 students.

        Mrs. Bailey said that Section D of the report outlines the Observations Related to the Re-Examined Areas.  She advised that Options 1A, 1B and 1C relate to the building of one school.  She said that in Options 1A, 1B, 1C and 2 all three schools would be closed.  The options vary in the number of new schools to be built and the attendance location for the students from Sandhurst P.S.

        Option 1A:      Build one school, located in south Napanee near the golf course, for all students from Sandhurst, H.H. Langford and Westdale Park Public Schools.

        Option 1B:      Build one school, in south Napanee near the golf course, for all of the students from Westdale Park P.S. and H.H. Langford Public School and about 50% of the students from Sandhurst Public School.  About 50% of the students from Sandhurst would be relocated to Bath P.S. (Exact number of students dependent on bus routes.)

        Option 1C:      Build one school, in south Napanee near the golf course, for all of the students from Westdale Park and H.H. Langford Public Schools. Almost all of the Sandhurst P.S. students would be re-located to Bath P.S. (The exact number of students is dependent n the bus routes which will be designed to minimize the ride time for students.)

        Option 2:       Build two school, one on the current site of Westdale Park P.S. and the second on property in either North or South Fredericksburgh.

        Trustee Murray said that in Options 1A, 1B and 1C, the proposed site is near the golf course in Napanee, and Option 2 is the only option where property in either North or South Fredericksburgh is an option.  She asked why that was proposed in only Option 2.

        Mrs. Bailey stated that came about from the original PARC and original Senior Staff reports, noting that was how the options were developed.  She said that at that particular time, the one school options looked at a site south of Napanee.  She said that both the PARC and Senior Staff believed it was important to have the new school located on municipal services.  She said that municipal services would be available for that site, and no other site was brought forward at that time.

        Mrs. Bailey referred to Section D 1. Students and Program.  She reviewed the following information related to Option 1 - One School as follows, noting that in each of the options below the figures quoted include all of the students that will be attending the new school as well as all of the students at Bath Public School:

Option 1A – No students being re-located to Bath P.S. resulted in the formation of a total of 41 classes (new school and Bath P.S.), four of which were split grade classes.  The class sizes ranged from 17 to 29 with a class size median of 22 and a mean of 22.71 students.

Option 1B – With 50% of the Sandhurst P.S. students transferred to Bath P.S. there was a total of 41 classes (new school and Bath P.S.), seven of which were split grade classes.  The class sizes ranged from 18 to 28 with a class size median of 22 and a mean of 22.71 students.

Option 1C – With almost all of the Sandhurst students transferred to Bath P.S. there was a total of 41 classes (new school and Bath P.S.), ten of which were split grade classes.  The class sizes ranged from 19 to 28 with a class size median of 21 and a mean of 22.71 classes.

The projected staff was approximately the same for each of the three option organizations and included 49.3 teachers, 3 administrators and 8.15, 8.25 and 8.55 non-teaching staff respectively.  The estimated staffing expenditure was:

Option 1A – $4,792.792
Option 1B – $4,790,430
Option 1C – $4,771,517

        Mrs. Bailey said that the point of doing this was to pick a point in time, and we picked 2011-2012 as the targeted time for the new school or schools.  She said in order to have a rural comparative as to what this would look like, we had to pick a point in time.  She advised that the Human Resources Department was consulted for staffing purposes.  Mrs. Bailey said in doing this particular year, the information reflects that particular point in time.  She said that enrolment changes.  The information is based on projections.

        Mrs. Bailey said that the non-teaching staff took into account a secretary, caretaker and an educational assistant allotted to the Resource Centre.

        Trustee Chadwick referred to split grades, noting that in the model where the students are not moving to Bath P.S., it states there are no split grades at Bath P.S.  Mrs. Bailey said that this is the projection at this point in time.  She said, however, that if any students, even as little as two children, were added that would be a different picture.

        Mrs. Bailey reported as follows:

  •         The basic programs and services delivered would be the same.
  •         The one school option would provide a grouping of students at the grade 7 and 8 level large enough to warrant the exploration of offering one of the district Choices at Seven program.
  •         One or more of the classroom may be equipped for special programming, e.g. Science, Technology or the Arts.  (This is not shown in the report from Colbourne & Kembel, Architects Inc. as only classroom space was included.)
  •         Special education services are usually organized more effectively in schools with larger enrolments.  The Student Support Teacher can group students with similar support needs and thereby increase the number of students serviced and/or the frequency and length of service.  As well, the time of the centralized itinerant services staff such as the Behaviour Team, the School to Community Team, Psycho metrist and Speech an Language is used increasingly for seeing students not travelling.
  •         With the increase in the size of the staff at a school comes a wider variety of interests, skills and talents that can be shared with the students in class and through a potentially wider offering of extracurricular activities.
  •         In the document Planning and Possibilities: The Report of the Declining Enrolment Working Group it is recommended that “the government require services and agencies it funds to consider the use of available school space in local communities before they build, purchase, or lease other space”. (page 39) As well as seeking out partners to use excess capacity, it seems reasonable to expect that the Board would also consider this possibility.
        Trustee French said that she appreciates that the Board cannot promise programs.  She asked if it would be an option to include from a process perspective, that we would want special programs to be part of the planning.

        Director Hunter said that Trustees can direct staff in any way, and if they directed that a program be placed there, then staff would have to place a program there.  She said that for the LEAP and Challenge programs, the Board looks at service delivery across the district.  We want equity of access for all students in the Board.

        Trustee Brown said that during the PARC meetings, this was certainly given great emphasis and priority among PARC members in their recommendations.

        Mrs. Bailey reviewed the following information related to Option 2 – Two Schools:

  •         The organization resulted in the formation of 42 classes.  Twelve of the classes were split grades.
  •         The classes ranged in size from 17 to 29 students with a class size median of 21 and a mean of 22.17 students.
  •         The projected staffing would include 50.71 teachers, 3.55 administrators and 10.25 non-teaching staff.  The expenditure for 2011-2012 is estimated at $5,057,644.
  •         Both of the schools would receive the same basic programs and services for all of the students.
  •         With smaller numbers of students, there potentially would be increased opportunities for students to participate on school teams an in extracurricular activities, to demonstrate leadership skills and to receive recognition and awards.
        Mrs. Bailey said that compared to Option 2, the one school option results in an estimated annual savings of $265,852 for Option 1A, $277,214 for Option 1B, and $286,127 for Option 1C, due to the additional staffing required in Option 2.

        Mrs. Bailey referred to Section D, Item 2, Small School Articles and noted that all but two of the small school research articles were noted in the input phase of the process.  She said that a list of the articles reviewed are included in Appendix C.  She said that schools are complex and the teaching learning dynamic is complex.  It has lots of factors that impact on it. She said that the articles talked about conditions that need to be present, and indicated that what is recognized is that a school is the people in it and supporting it, not the building.

        Mrs. Bailey referred to Section D, Item 3, Transportation and indicated that some of the information in this section will be found in Appendix D.  She said that more information about transportation is included in the body of the report.

        Mrs. Bailey reviewed the transportation information related to Options 1A, 1B, 1C, and 2 on page 6 of the report.  She said that the Manager of Tri-Board Student Transportation Services had indicated that no matter what option is chosen, some bus routes will have to be reconfigured to minimize ride times.  She said that the increases in ride times listed in the information are maximum times, and the ride times may be somewhat less than what is indicated in the report, and that maximum ride times will apply to a small number of students.

        In response to a question by Trustee Murray, Superintendent Richard said that the potential for additional costs in transportation would be three or four years down the road, and if those are the changes made.  He said that transportation is different is other parts of the budget.  He said that if a need is shown as has been in the E&E Review, and if the Board fits the criteria then the costs for transportation would be covered by the Ministry.

        Trustee French requested that because transportation times are a major concern that arose during the PARC meetings, and all options show an increase in bus times, that a more thorough analysis be done.  She said that another piece is that the bus size contributes to the length of time of the bus ride as a large bus requires more time to pick up more children.

        The Director stated that in discussions with Manager Wowk, he indicated that for those children who live close to Adolphustown, he would use small buses to express transport those students to school.  She said that Manager Wowk did ensure that the outside times would
be for extreme examples.  She said that a few students may live on the outskirts of the geographical catchment areas.

        Trustee Brown stated that with regard to the issue of small bus transportation, she is pleased to hear that the students would be transported from point A to the school, not point A to a pick-up location.  She said that would be an added cost to put on a mall bus.  The Director said that the extra costs are included in the report.
        In response to a question from Trustee Jackson, Mrs. Bailey said that the additional net cost for Option 1A would be $109,889, Option 1B would be $99,902, Option 1C would be $100,724.  She referred to page 32 of the report and reviewed the additional mileage costs.

        Trustee Jackson indicated that he would like to see some of the assumptions with regard to sensitivity.

        Trustee Murray said she would like the number of students who walk to the school included.

        Trustee Chadwick stated that if we show the model taking children home to school, it is not an issue to get funding for transportation.  Superintendent Richard said that this is correct.

        Mrs. Bailey reviewed the information related to Option 2, Two Schools as listed on pages 6 and 7 of the report.

        Mrs. Bailey referred to Section D, Item 4, Facilities, and advised that Facility Services staff consulted with the Cataraqui Regional Conservation Authority (CRCA) concerning the possibility of building on sites in North and South Fredericksburgh owned by the Town of Napanee.  She said that they also reviewed the sizes of the pieces of land.  Mrs. Bailey reported that CRCA confirmation is only obtained through a formal application and building plan.  She said that the Board would have to received approval from the CRCA before a building permit was issued.

        In response to a question from Trustee Brown, Superintendent Richard said that we have not investigated what the land costs would be.  He said that the costs would depend on the actual size of the site.  He said that he would bring that information back to Trustees.  Superintendent Richard said that when the Board is dealing with a sale or purchase it is confidential information.  He said that the information he brings back would come from staff, it would not include how much a person would be willing to sell their land for.  He said that the money to purchase land would be taken from the sales of the school properties, and that information would not be included in the cost.

        In response to a question from Trustee French, Mrs. Bailey said that the three properties under consideration are all located immediately south of the Napanee Golf Course and James Street area.  She referred to Appendix F, Maps.  She said that municipal services would be available subject to the installation of said services, and the estimated cost is $150,000.  She said that cost is to take services from the area of James and Sarah Street to the land that Board staff have been considering.  Superintendent Richard said that it is his understanding that the $150,000 would pay to bring the full piping system up to the potential property.

        In response to a question from Trustee French, Manager Carson said that he had asked a local construction firm to provide the estimate, and the estimate includes the actual size of the water main and sewers to build a school that has a sprinkler for fire protection.

        In response to a question from Trustee Brown, Superintendent Richard said that the $150,000 is an estimate, a firm figure has not been confirmed.

        In response to a question from Trustee Jackson, Director Hunter said that the recommendations concerning the North or South Fredericksburgh sites came out of PARC discussions.  Superintendent Richard said that there are no sites within servicing of sufficient size and location to the Board.

        In response to a question from Trustee Chadwick asking what the approximate size for the three sites south of Napanee were, Superintendent Richard said that staff will get those numbers.  He reported that there is one large site, one is more limited because of space and one is right across from James Street.

        Trustee Chadwick asked if there would be a site staff would recommend.  She asked staff to comment on the water and septic near the flood site in North and South Fredericksburgh.

        Manager Carson said that he would recommend a site in an area south of Napanee that would not be below seven acres.  He said that all of the sites being considered in the area south of Napanee meet our requirement of size.  He commented that one site has a challenge for buses.

        In response to comments from Trustee French regarding Option 2, Mrs. Bailey said that the CRCA staff alerted Board staff to the fact that a large flood plain area crosses both of the potential sites with the North Fredericksburgh raising the greatest concern.  She said that gaining approval from the CRCA to build a school on the sites may be problematic especially related to putting in the water and septic system.

        Mrs. Bailey said that the potable water for both sites in North and South Fredericksburgh must be obtained either by drilling a well with sufficient flow rates to service a school or by tapping into the Town of Greater Napanee’s raw water delivery services, which would need to be negotiated with the Town.  She said that a water purification system would need to be constructed and operated for a school built on either of these sites.  In addition, if the raw water source was used, the services of a certified water operator, in accordance with Ministry regulations, would be required.  

        Mrs. Bailey advised that the construction of a water storage tank for fire fighting purposes would be required for both of the rural sites.  The estimated cost of the tank is $12,000.

        In response to a question by Trustee Jackson, Manager Carson reported that in the past the Board has had an agreement with the Town of Napanee for untreated water for H.H. Langford Public School, noting that the Board paid a small percentage for the water.  He said that when the new safe drinking water regulation came into effect, that meant that the water treatment that we were previously doing had to be upgraded significantly.  He said that if the Board entered into an agreement with the Town of Napanee for raw water delivery service, we would install a water treatment system and part of the purchase transaction with the Town would include the use of the Town’s water operator for the inspections.

        In response to a question from Trustee Jackson, Manager Carson advised that the Town of Napanee’s water is pumped from Lake Ontario in front of the Ontario Hydro Plant.  

        In response to a question from Trustee French, Superintendent Richard stated that the Town of Napanee does not want anyone tapping into their raw water system because of liability issues.   He said that representatives from the Town of Napanee are prepared to go back to Town Council so that the Board would be allowed to draw raw water from the Town of Napanee for the school only.  They have an understanding that they do not allow anyone to draw well water off their system.

        Director Hunter said that Town representatives are willing to discuss water engineering services, but their ability to support does not include the provision of any funding.

        Trustee Chadwick referred to the situation regarding playing fields.  She indicated that similar to some agreements where there are parks used by children, they are maintained by the municipality.  She said that she assumed the meeting was with staff at the Town of Napanee.

        Director Hunter said that the meeting was with staff and the Mayor of the Town of Greater Napanee.

        Trustee French said that the options talk about demolition.  She said that she appreciates we would want to keep the playing field.  She said that there is also a library on one site.  She asked what would be demolished and what would not.  

        Manager Carson said that the existing building on the North Fredericksburgh site would be demolished because frontage and access to the road would be needed.  He reported that there is an agreement with the Town for the use of the field, noting that the fields are mostly ball diamonds.  He said that if the Board said it is not to be baseball diamonds then we would have to take out the fields.

        Manager Carson said that for the South Fredericksburgh site, the Town indicated that it wants to keep its garage there, and that they want to maintain the building in front part of the South Fredericksburgh hall.  He advised that section of property was not available to the Board.  He said that perhaps the Board and Town would come to a mutual agreement that the Board would take over the building and maintain the library.  He said that would have to be negotiated with the Town.  He said that is why addition property is needed for the South Fredericksburgh hall building.

        Mrs. Bailey stated that in South Fredericksburgh, the Town owns two sites which are separated by land owned by a private citizen.  She said that if that piece of property can be purchased then the site would be almost 16 acres it total.

        In response to questions by Trustee French, Manager Carson stated that the storage tank is there to pump water for fire hydrant services.  He said that the sprinkler system falls under another regulation and he could provide information about that for the next meeting.  He said that we did have sprinklers in three rural schools, with Loughborough being one and Perth Road being another.

        Mrs. Bailey reviewed the information in Section D, Item 4.2 Building Space Allocation and Expenditure.  She said that the report from Colbourne & Kembel, Architects Inc. outlines the building space allocations and expenditure for a 300, 400 and 700 pupil school.  She advised that additional school costings were added for schools of 670 pupils and 630 pupils.

        Mrs. Bailey said that all of the schools would have the required number of classrooms as well as basic spaces for a gymnasium, library, special education space, meeting room, office space, building operation rooms, kitchen, change rooms, staff room and storage space.  The number and/or size of the spaces differ with the increase in the number of students served.

        Mrs. Bailey explained the gross-up factor as listed in Appendix E.

        Trustee French stated that since the number of classrooms is based on the number of students, and funding is also, we do not have the flexibility to designate the use of classrooms.  We would have additional rooms to put larger groupings of students together.

        The Director said that Trustee French’s comment is correct, and in most of the schools there is not a dedicated room.

        Mrs. Bailey said that the total estimated cost of building the two schools in Option 2 is $15,946,884, noting this represents an initial building cost that is about 25% higher than the construction costs in Option 1A which accommodates the same group of students.  

        Trustee Jackson asked what the actual cost to renovate Bath Public School would be.  Superintendent Richard stated that we did not do an estimate on what would be done at Bath Public School.  He said that if Trustees chose the option to have the students at Sandhurst Public School to attend Bath Public School, then the money received follows the students.  He said that money could be used to upgrade Bath Public School.  He advised that Bath Public School is not a Prohibitive to Repair school.

        In response to comments by Trustee French, Mrs. Bailey stated that the numbers in the architect’s report is about the building, not about equipping it inside.  She said that there would be additional costs to equip the building.  She said that the money from the sales of the properties could be used to equip the building.

        In response to a question by Trustee French, Mrs. Bailey said that the cost per square footage in the various options are different because they relate to economies of scale.  She said that it is least costly to build a larger building.

        Trustee Chadwick requested that more detailed information about the funding for the renovations at Bath Public School be provided.  She asked if the funding provided for new pupil places being used for the students at Sandhurst going to Bath would be significant.

        Mrs. Bailey reviewed Section D, Item 4.3, Furniture and Equipment; Item 4.4, Revenue from Sale of Property; and Item 5, Partnerships.

        In response to a question, Mrs. Bailey said that the Town would the like library on the South Fredericksburgh site to continue to operate or be incorporated into the plans for a new school. She said that the Town would maintain the library; however, they may like it to be part of the new school.

        Manager Carson said that the Mayor was adamant that the library be maintained on the existing site, but they did not get into discussions as to how that would be done.

        Director Hunter stated that at the meeting, municipal representatives did not request or express an interest in having a new library built or in having to fund a library at the new school.  They want to keep the library on that site.  She said that the Town does not desire to build a new library.

        Mrs. Bailey advised that the Lennox & Addington Resources for Children (LARC) currently leases space from the Town of Greater Napanee on the North Fredericksburgh site being considered in Option 2.  She reported that the Executive Director was contacted and indicated that the agency was looking to locate closer to the Town, and she believed that LARC would be interested in entering into negotiations with the Board for the lease on a site that as located in south Napanee.

        In response to comments by Trustee Jackson, the Director stated that there are situations locally where there are partnerships with other agencies, commenting at the partnership at Bayridge Public School.  She said that when other agencies have a direction to build, before they start to do so they look to fill up each other’s spaces.  She said that the other agencies interested would need to bring funding, and we would need to bring out money.

        In response to a question by Trustee French, Superintendent Richard said that the Board would have to explore where it would get funding for capital projects.

        The Director said that there is clearly direction that there be seamless opportunities for students to come into school.  She said that in the recommendation section we would add a specific recommendation to implement as many of the early years recommendations as we can in the confines of our fiscal responsibility.  She said that the Ministry is providing funding for both junior kindergarten and senior kindergarten, and they expect us to build for kindergarten children to attend full time.

        Trustee Brown said that at the moment there is no extra space in our costing for any lease.  She said that we do not have the space at this time.

        Director Hunter said that enrolment may ebb, noting that it may flow so at times there will be classroom space available.  She said that there is no additional funding to built extra space for a daycare.

        Discussion regarding capital funding for daycare space occurred.

        Chair Goodfellow called a five-minute recess at 8:45 p.m.  Trustee McLaren withdrew from the meeting, sending her regrets as she was not feeling well.

        The meeting resumed at 8:50 p.m.

        Mrs. Bailey reviewed Section E, Option Suggestion from Public Input.  She indicated that at the public meeting held by the School Enrolment/School Capacity Committee on March 26, 2009, input was received, primarily from the Sandhurst area, requesting that no action to close the schools in the study area.  She advised that in responding to this input, it was important to return to the reasons that the Greater Napanee PARC was established, reviewing the excerpts from the January 9, 2008 SE/SCC meeting.

        Trustee French stated that she appreciates why the people not involved in the process suggested that no action be taken.  She said it was important that a message be communicated to the public outlining why taking no action was not an option.  She said to turn down funding for a new school is a huge mistake.

        Trustee French asked what the implications around a delay would be.  She said that there are different impacts for the different sites, especially if we consider Bath Public School.

        Superintendent Richard said that the Ministry indicated back in 2007 when the guidelines of PTR were released, that boards had 24 months from planning approval to starting construction.  He said that the Ministry does not want school boards sitting on the money, or they will send it to another board.  He said that this was part of “Shovels in the Ground” to get the economy going.  He said that it is not really an option to delay too much.

        Trustee French suggested that we could start to construct a school on the Westdale Park site, and delay building the other school.

        The Director stated that we could explore that situation.

        Trustee Chadwick said that she recognizes and appreciates the comments by the public at that time.  She said that this is a very emotional process.  She said that it is part of the Trustees’ duty to make a decision based on what they believe is best at the time.  She commented on the high Facility Condition Index at Sandhurst Public School.  She said that there is a limited amount of money to invest in or schools annually.  She said that were we to delay moving the children, we would not need as much money right now, but there would be the issue of a smaller school needing a lot of money for repairs.  She said that we would have to weigh that and transportation costs.  She said that we have to take the information we have right now with the projects and make a decision based on that situation.

        Trustee French said that we cannot lose the opportunity, but what are the implications for a one-year delay for that site.  The delay is to take time to get through the options.  She said that we need to justify to the community what is not possible because she said that she wants the community to understand the implications of not doing anything.  She suggested that there be more information about the PTR initiative.  She said that she wants the community to understand the implications as each year goes on of doing nothing.  She said that she wants the community to understand whatever decision Trustees make.

        Director Hunter indicated that information about the development of the PTR process with specific information about those schools in the study area would be provided at the next SE/SCC meeting.

        In response to comments by Trustee Jackson regarding communicating the final decision to the community and including some key points, Mrs. Bailey referred to Section F, Summary of the information, Organized by Option indicated that it includes some salient points.

        Trustee French stated that in the Colbourne & Kembal report, they talk about the elements included in their price.  She said that when there are specific costs referred to in the chart, they are not included in what the architect gave as a total.

        Mrs. Bailey stated that the demolition costs are not found in the architect’s report.  The architect’s report covers the section on page 16 regarding building facilities.  She said that information on building facility will be found there.  She said that the demolition costs came from Manager Carson’s department which was received from the experts that they consulted with regarding the cost.

        In response to comments by Trustee French, Mrs. Bailey said that anything listed as an additional cost is not included in the architect’s report.  She said that information about site generator for the sprinkler system is included under the Fire Safety information.

        Mrs. Bailey advised that the annual expenditure information on page 17 of the report is a snapshot picture, with more detailed information contained in the body of the report.  She said that capital expenditures are mostly one-time costs.  She said that the location excludes the land purchase costs.  She said that the construction costs should read project costs and they come from the architect’s report.

        Mrs. Bailey said that it is anticipated that the transportation cost increases incurred would be covered by the transportation grants from the province.

        Trustee Chadwick stated that in the initial staff report the amount looked at for following the Sandhurst students who would go to Bath Public School was $1.77 million, and she suggested that be included in the report.  Superintendent Richard stated that he would provide information concerning a plan as to how the money that follows the students to Bath Public School may be spent.

        In response to comments by Trustee French, the Director stated that Bath Public School is not a PTR school and funding from the Good Places to Learn grant could be used to support renovation work at Bath Public School, if there was not enough from the money that followed the students from Sandhurst Public School.

        Mrs. Bailey advised that the recommendations are included in Section G.

        Chair Goodfellow stated that Trustees have a lot of information to digest and she suggested that the recommendations be discussed at a future SE/SCC meeting.

        Trustee French asked if another public meeting could be held, noting, however, that she would not like to jeopardize the process.  The Director advised that the government has sent a revision to the Accommodation Policy and she does not think there is anything substantively different.

        In response to comments from Trustee Chadwick, the Director said that this Board is completely transparent and we have an obligation to protect the process.  She said that she would provide the information to Trustees.

        In response to comments by Trustee Jackson regarding the academic research on large vs. small schools, Superintendent Marsh said that there is very little research on peer reviewed school size to academic achievement.  She said that the information on this matter was researched, and many of the articles that were reviewed were not peer reviewed.

        Trustee Chadwick stated that she recognizes this was a massive amount of work, and she appreciates the way it was presented to Trustees this evening.

        Director Hunter stated that she knows this is not an easy task for Trustees.  She said that staff are doing their best to get as much good data for Trustees as they possibly can.

Other Business

        Trustee Jackson stated that the City of Kingston is discussing district vs. at-large elections, and Trustees have not been mentioned in their discussions.  He suggested that we may want to offer input to the City on this matter before it makes its decision.

        Trustee Beavis stated that he would not want at-large elections for Trustees.

        Trustee Crawford said that she has her personal opinion and she does not believe at-large elections are best.  She said that she does not believe that the school board should take a position on a City issue.  She said that the Limestone District School Board does not just cover the City.

        Trustee Chadwick stated that she does not believe that Trustees should take a position.  She said that the Algonquin and Lakeshore Catholic District School Board does run at-large elections.  She asked that if they change and we don’t, does the school board become responsible for the costs associated with the election.

        Trustee Brown stated that she prefers we do nothing because we are a large district and a number of municipalities are included in that large district.

        Chair Goodfellow asked about establishing a date for the Trustees’ Retreat.  The meeting was established for Tuesday, August 24, 2009, at 2:00 p.m., at the Limestone Education Centre.

Date of Next Meeting

        The date of the next meeting is yet to be determined.  It was noted that the next meeting would likely take place in late August or early September.


        MOVED BY Trustee Beavis, seconded by Trustee Murray, that the meeting adjourn at 9:40~p.m.–Carried