Your browser does not support JavaScript!
May 2, 2013 - School Enrolment/School Capacity Minutes
School Enrolment/School Capacity Committee
May 2, 2013

A meeting of the School Enrolment/School Capacity Committee of the Whole Board was held in the Barry C. O’Connor Board Room at the Limestone District School Board Education Centre, 220 Portsmouth Avenue, Kingston, on Thursday, May 2, 2013 at 6:00 p.m.
Present Trustees:
H. Brown, Chair
G. Beavis
H. Brown
H. Chadwick
E.  Crawford
L. French
A. Goodfellow
D.  Jackson
B. Milligan, Student Trustee
P.  Murray
S.  Ruttan
Present Staff:
Ruth Bailey, Accommodation Review Facilitator
K. Burra, Supervisor of Safe and Caring Schools, and Assistant to the Director
Richard Holmes, Supervising Principal
Brenda Hunter, Director of Education
Darlene Kirkpatrick, Recording Secretary
Andre Labrie, Superintendent of Human Resources
Norah Marsh, Superintendent of Education
Alison McDonnell, Supervising Principal
Roger Richard, Superintendent of Business Services
Karen Smith, Communications Officer
Wayne Toms, Manager of ITS and Planning Officer 
Trustee Brown chaired the meeting.  She called the meeting to order, welcoming our guests in the gallery.  She reported that regrets were received from Student Trustee Yun.

Conflict of Interest

        No Trustee declared a conflict of interest.

Approval of Agenda

MOVED BY Trustee Goodfellow, seconded by Trustee Beavis, that the agenda, as distributed, be approved.–Carried

Business Arising from the April 29, 2013 Minutes

Waiting List at KCVI

Director Hunter indicated that she had gathered information related to questions around the waiting list at KCVI, and also that information with regard to LCVI.  She stated that KCVI gets around 30 students wanting to attend the regular grade 9 program from out of area, and LCVI typically gets around 20.  She said that the Principals at both schools reported that there usually are specific reasons attached to why a student may want to attend a school from out of boundary, noting that some reasons may be for a specific program or course; for some it may be because of a social, emotional/behavioural or experiential need for change, or it could be as simple as wanting to attend with certain peers.  Director Hunter indicated that both schools reported taking approximately 8 to 10 students for the 2012-2013 school year (KCVI 10 and LCVI 8 or 9), based on agreement with the home schools and Principal, and after consultation with the Elementary Principal and/or any other level of investigation deemed appropriate.  She stated that when a student applies to attend an out-of-boundary school, they are advised in June to register at their own school, as decisions are not typically made until August, except in special cases for some of the reasons described above.  She said that many on the waiting list do not proceed, but return to their own schools.

        Director Hunter advised that at KCVI, there is no waiting list for French Immersion students; all French Immersion students are taken.

        Director Hunter advised that the IB program is handled in a different way.  Approximately 90 students applied for 60 capped spaces, and the admissions are based on testing results.  She indicated that hence, if one wanted to consider this a waiting list, it would be based on the way admissions to this district program occur.

One School Option

        Ms. Bailey distributed preliminary information about a one secondary school model.  She reviewed the enrolment information at KCVI for 2011-2012, and indicated that the information listed for LCVI and QECVI was provided for in the same way.  Ms. Bailey stated that there is a total of 183 students from outside the Central Kingston catchment area, noting that the estimate is that about three-quarters of the students are in special programs.  She stated that special program students also participate in some regular programs.

        Ms. Bailey reviewed the LCVI capacity information at LCVI, noting that there are 1,404 secondary school spaces.  She said that the capacity does not include three classrooms used for daycare leased space.  She also reviewed the school to community space and enrolment at LCVI, QECVI and KCVI.  She said that if the total School to Community enrolment and space required is removed from the total enrolment and the LCVI capacity, the result is:  total enrolment (2005-85) 1,920 and the total capacity is: (1,404-105) 1,299.

        Ms. Bailey reviewed the impact and comments, as follows:

  • The enrolment in 2011-2012 was 621 secondary students above LCVI’s capacity (1920-1299).
  •         Module Vanier and Calvin Park P.S. would require accommodation
  •         Module Vanier enrolment in 2011-2012 was 172, with 8 classes.
  •         Calvin Park P.S. enrolment in 2011-2012 was 383, with 15 classes.
  •         Total 555 students and 23 classes
  • The Calvin Park building has an elementary student capacity of 587.  This capacity is based on 23 students per classroom.  However, elementary grade 7 and 8 classrooms in LDSB are organized on an average of 26 students.  Therefore, the Calvin Park building could house approximately 662 elementary students.  There are 25 teaching spaces plus a Special Education space for 12 students and a resource centre.
  •         Module Vanier and Calvin Park P.S. could be accommodated in the Calvin Park building as one school with one administration (Principal and Vice-Principal), one office area and a shared resource centre.  The number of grade 7 and 8 students would tax the gym schedule and spaces would need to be renovated for a dance studio and for a music room.
  •         Concerns were raised by the public and some PARC members related to the level of exposure of the Module Vanier students to English if placed in the same building as Calvin Park P.S. students.
  •         Some secondary students in the regular program from outside the Central Kingston catchment area (total of approximately 260 students) may elect to return to the school in their residential catchment area.  This would reduce the enrolment of the school(s).
Project Enrolments

Assumptions related to projected enrolments are listed below:

1.      Streetsmart and Second Chance programs for students under 21 will continue at approximately the same percentage relationship to the total under 21 regular program, reported by Baragar, as in 2011-2012, i.e. Streetsmart (121/732) at 16.5% and Second Chance (134/653) at 20.6%;

2.      The IB program English student enrolment will continue with approximately the same enrolment as in 2011-2012.

3.      Focus programs will decrease in number and enrolment due to the general decline in students across the district.  It is projected that the enrolment by 2017 will be about two-thirds to one-half of the 2011-2012 enrolment.

        At this time this information has not been incorporated into the Baragar projections (rows 1,12 and 22 in the table listed in the information distributed).

        However, to calculate the Focus Program enrolment (rows 7, 19 and 27 in the table) the number used in the table for 2013 and 2015 is decreased from the 2011-2012 number by 10% and 25% respectively and by 33% for the years 2017 and following.  To accommodate for the fact that the Focus Program students come from across the district and the enrolment lost to the total school will only be a portion of the enrolment decline in the Focus Program, 50% of the decline has been subtracted from the regular program number.

E.g.    If there were 60 Focus program students in 2011-2012 and if there was a decline of half of the enrolment by 2017 there would be 30 students.

        However, about 50% of these students live in the Central Kingston area (15 of the 30) and it is assumed that they would return to the school in Central Kingston.

        Therefore, the loss in enrolment to the school is 15 students not 30.

4.      Secondary LEAP, Challenge, AP, English IB and the International Programs will continue with approximately the same enrolment as 2011-2012.

5.      The School to Community programs will continue to require the same space as used at present, five classrooms.

6.      It is assumed that about one-third or 33% of regular program students from outside the Central Kingston catchment area would return to the secondary school of their residence catchment area (Total: 260 x 33% = 86).

        Ms. Bailey reviewed the projections for one secondary school, at each of the schools, KCVI, LCVI, and QECVI.

        Ms. Bailey also reviewed the LCVI capacity information that was distributed.  She reviewed the following information:

Possible Program Changes that would Reduce Enrolment

1.      If a grade 7 and 8 French Immersion/Extended program and a secondary French Immersion/Extended program were located in Kingston East, based on 2012-2013 enrolments, this would initially reduce the French enrolment of the intermediate school by approximately 23 grade 9 students.  These numbers assume the phasing in of the secondary program and French boundary changes to mirror the LaSalle SS catchment boundary, i.e. inclusion of French students from Storrington, Joyceville and Glenburnie along with École Sir John A. Macdonald.

2.      If one or more Choices at Seven programs were relocated to other elementary schools in the City then the enrolment of the intermediate school would be reduced by about 36 to 140 students.

3.      If four to six Focus programs were located at the alternative school (hub) at QECVI, the secondary school enrolment would be reduced by 70 to 110 students.

How a One-Secondary School and a One-Intermediate School Model Might Work

1.      Apply for funding for an addition to both LCVI and the Calvin Park building.  Close KCVI and QECVI as regular secondary schools and relocate all secondary students to LCVI.  Relocate Module Vanier and Calvin Park PS to the Calvin Park building.  Develop QECVI as an alternate education centre (hub).

•     LCVI addition would be for about 340 students and would be approximately 30,000 square feet.  It could include: special program spaces, such as a second wood shop, a cafeteria, a radio broadcasting studio, a gymnasium, and an auditorium, as well as regular classroom space.
•     The Calvin Park building addition could include a new double gymnasium, a dance studio, music room and science lab.
•     The QECVI alternate education centre could include space for Second Chance, major components of Limestone School of Continuing Education, Educational Services, the Aboriginal School, International Education, the Training Centre and warehouse and some Focus Programs.

2.      Apply for funding for a new secondary school for 1600 students and an addition to the Calvin Park building.  Develop QECVI as an alternate education centre (hub).

•     Relocate the secondary students to KCVI and QECVI temporarily;
•     Demolish LCVI and build a new school on the site – 3 storey building with spaces needed for the Focus Programs as well as an auditorium;
•     Consolidate Module Vanier and Calvin Park Public School into a dual track intermediate school in the Calvin Park building.
•     The Calvin Park building addition could include a new double gymnasium, a dance studio, music room and science lab.
•     The QECVI alternate education centre could include space for Second Chance, major components of Limestone School of Continuing Education, Educational Services, the Aboriginal School, International Education, the Training Centre and warehouse and some Focus Programs.


Given the number of students and the types of programs that would be located at LCVI and the Calvin Park building there would be an impact on transportation.  There would be some efficiencies for Tri-Board Student Transportation because all students are going to the same location, but there would also be an increase in traffic congestion due to the large number of buses that will be in the area.  In the morning there could be some staggering of arrival but at the end of the day all of the buses would be there at the same time.  If a new school was built, some allowances may be possible in the placement and design of the new building that would address some of the busing issues.  As well, a bus area could possibly be created at the Calvin Park building that circles the building next to the fence line.

Sports Fields:

The fields on the LCVI property would need to be retained and some of the green space on the Calvin Park building site developed for sports activities.  As well, the students located at the LCVI /Calvin Park complex would be within easy walking distance of:

  • The Winston Churchill P.S. field, presently used by KCVI (2 km);
  •         The City soccer fields behind Polson Park PS (700 m);
  •         The Queen’s University fields and facilities behind McArthur College (1.5 km); and
  •         The track and facilities at the Kingston Memorial Centre (2 km).
Superintendent Richard reviewed the following information:


One-School Option
Projected Reduction in Operating Expenditures for One-School Option with Alternate Education Centre





Other Support Staff


Utilities, Operations, Maintenance, etc.

Operational Savings

Salaries and Benefits

$   671,500


$   227,500  

Indirect Costs (Operations, Maintenance, etc.)

$   120,000

Operational Savings from QECVI Alternative Site

$   550,300

Total Operational Savings


        Superintendent Richard reported that the projected operational savings noted above do not include the elimination of the ReCAPP capital liability of approximately $26,000,000.
Trustee Goodfellow asked if the almost $1.6 million in total operational savings would be annually.  Superintendent Richard stated that is correct.

        Trustee French asked if any costs for renovations to make adjustments for the different ideas suggested were included.  Superintendent Richard noted that no costs for renovations are included.  He said that the Board would have to make a request to the Ministry of Education for capital funding for renovations.

        Trustee Chadwick thanked Senior Staff for doing this work in three days.  She said that the one-school option is quite interesting.  She said that the option addresses a couple of things that the community is interested in – using QECVI as a community hub, and the idea of being able to build on to a school.  She said that Senior Staff have presented a viable option rather than new construction.

        Trustee Jackson thanked staff for the work they have done on short notice.  He said that he believes this to be a complex solution.  He commented that there are a number of qualitative assumptions in putting this option together.  He said that this option talks less about walkability for the whole city and a lot more about busing.  He said that the sustainability issue would give him some significant pause.  Trustee Jackson indicated that the other assumption is about students going back to their original schools.

        Trustee Chadwick stated that the LCVI/Calvin Park building site is across the street from a major City of Kingston transportation hub.  She said that the site is in a residential neighbourhood, and we need to consider that there would be a lot of busing going in and out from the site.

        Director Hunter stated that she appreciates Trustee Jackson’s comments related to assumption for the return of out-of-area students.  She said that students have to have approval to attend an out-of-area school.  She commented that if this was eliminated, we would start with Grade 9 students having to attend their home schools.  She said that we would not likely choose to move current out-of-area students from their out-of-area schools.

        Trustee French referred to the map that showed the areas for the three schools.  She said that transportation is a concern because of the volume of traffic; however, a large number of students would not require transportation because of the central location of the site.  She indicated that a majority of students would reside within walking distance.

        Trustee Ruttan thanked Senior Staff for their work, indicating that a one-school option would be something the Board could move towards for the future.  She said that she does not believe that we are ready for a one-school option at this time.

        Trustee Jackson stated that he also believes that a one-school option would be a bit into the future.  

        Trustee Murray said that she is concerned about the assumption of walkability, and she drew strong caution to the assumption that many of the high school students would walk to school.

        Trustee Beavis stated that he is having concerns about this proposal.  He said that when looking at what students need, we have to look at the walkability issue.

        Trustee Jackson mentioned that at the Environmental Sustainability Advisory Committee (ESAC) meeting, Committee members talked about planning for future and existing schools, and as part of that discussion, they talked about active features that we would put into green schools.  He indicated that we might have to seek other partnership opportunities.  He indicated that a presentation on the Walking School Bus program was presented at ESAC, saying that he believes that the matter of how to encourage active transportation is a growing interest in the City.

        Trustee French stated that the biggest implication Trustees should be concerned about is what happens to programming for students.  She asked if anyone had thoughts on regular programming for students.

        Director Hunter indicated that Senior Staff are presenting information as requested rather than advocating in any way.  She said that under this model, all programming for all three pathways would be available for students.  She commented that this would resolve Senior Staff’s concerns around small numbers of students in independent sites.  She remarked that there would have to be discussion around other locations for some specific programs.

        Trustee French said that from what we are hearing, programming options would grow because there would be more students there, and therefore, we could offer more programming options.

        Ms. Bailey displayed the boundary maps for KCVI, LCVI and QECVI.  Ms. Bailey indicated that Appendix F of the Senior Staff Follow-Up Report includes walking distance information.

        Trustee Beavis stated that it is difficult to make any decisions when he does not know where a new school would be located, and until that time, he could not determine walkability issues.
        Trustee French stated that we are hearing interest in the rehabilitation of buildings and the one-school option provides another alternative for the Board to rehabilitate the buildings it has.  She said that rehabilitation for existing buildings would impact on ReCAPP.  She indicated that she is interested in the business case components and what that would look like.  

        Chair Brown called a ten-minute recess at 7:30 p.m.  The School Enrolment/School Capacity Committee of the Whole Board meeting reconvened at 7:40 p.m.

School Enrolment Projections Going Forward

        Manager Toms reviewed the Central Kingston Secondary School Enrolment Projections going forward.  Manager Toms presented projections provided by The Ammendolia Group done in October 2011, as well as the LDSB projections for October 2011, October 2012 and October 2013.  The LDSB projections are based on the October 31st actual enrolment data for October 2010, October 2011 and October 2012 respectively.

        Trustee French asked why there was a change in 2013.  Manager Toms indicated that it is because the actual enrolment in 2013 was below the projections of both 2011 and 2012.

        In response to a question from Trustee Jackson, Manager Toms stated that the forecasts have not been weighted.  In 2011, the projections were prepared in the spring of 2011.  Manager Toms stated that they vary because we later received more information about what actually happened with the population.  He said that the Ammendolia Group met with the City about future developments and where the growth was when they prepared their projections.

        Trustee Murray cautioned that these projections are unpredictable.  She said that they are prepared on what we believe will happen.

        Trustee French stated that in terms of declining enrolment, we have a number of other secondary schools to be concerned about across the region.  She said that whatever decision is made, it will be critical.  She said that a one-school option has potential for some movement of students around the region.  She said that what we do with this area will set a precedent for what we do in other areas.

        Trustee Jackson stated that we are focusing on the Central Kingston three secondary schools, but other urban schools will be impacted by the decision.

Senior Staff Feedback on the One Plan for Possible Alternate Use

        Director Hunter stated that at the last meeting, Senior Staff were asked to provide feedback on the one plan for possible alternate use of QECVI, including some Focus programs, some programs from the Limestone School of Community Education (LSCE), as well as administrative staff and Educational Services being moved to QECVI.  She stated that Senior Staff will positively implement any model selected by the Board, and they will do so without reservation, and make it work to the best of their ability.

        Director Hunter commented that staff recognizes the advantages of Second Chance and some of Limestone School of Community Education (LSCE) being placed in the QECVI building.  She said that staff liked the idea of the students having access to regular physical education facilities, and acknowledge that if QECVI is closed as a regular high school, there may be a short-term increase in the number of students wishing to attend the hub, that there may be a need for a possible different or additional programming, and that QECVI would be an ideal location for such services, as it is intended to serve students from that area.

        Director Hunter commented that at the moment, we have placed our alternative school programs off-site in order that they be separate from regular student populations.  While the building itself may be acceptable to alternate students if they are the only students there, being associated with regular student populations may or may not be off-putting to the alternate students.  Director Hunter reported that some of this was articulated in Senior Staff’s Follow-Up Report in the section about the alternative schools.

        Director Hunter advised that with regard to administration and Educational Services or others, moving an administrative group there, such as Educational Services may make sense as well, especially if the Calvin Park building is to be fully needed for students, or if it is going to be disposed of altogether.  Director Hunter stated that moving the Board Office is not cost effective, acknowledging that the current building certainly does not fully meet current needs.

        Director Hunter stated that Senior Staff liked the leasing possibilities, although they acknowledged they will most likely be cost neutral.  She said that the leasing possibilities could support the community in varied important ways.  Senior Staff acknowledged that in the long run, the capital renovation and equipment costs will still be an issue, as renovations become very expensive in these old buildings where asbestos and non-code wiring and plumbing exist.

        The Director stated that moving some Focus programs gave rise to some healthy discussion including both some observations and concerns.  The staff felt most significantly that it is preferable to retain Focus programs in a school with regular students where they would be part of the rich social fabric of a school.  They would have regular access to a full range of support services – guidance, student success, full administration, etc. , and would have access to a wide range of peers, extracurricular clubs and intramurals.  Director Hunter stated that for some students, Focus programs are an exploration into a career path and staying within the school context would likely be preferable for them.  She said that some students may not want to leave a regular school setting and some students may not be comfortable attending school only with alternate program students; this might reduce applications to those Focus programs.  Director Hunter indicated that the programs located with the alternate programs may become to be thought of as programs for at-risk students.  She commented that some of the technology opportunities that currently appeal to broad profiles of students could potentially be stigmatized by the association with the alternative programs, making them less appealing for some students who would otherwise gravitate to an alternative experience.  She remarked that for some students who are at-risk or disengaged, Focus programs can provide a healthy alternative.  She stated that the Senior Staff has concerns about placing those students already in alternative schools, where close association to students who are already significantly at-risk are the only peer group for activities such as intermurals, potentially sending them into a further disengagement from a regular school environment, pushing them further at-risk.  Director Hunter commented that Senior Staff acknowledged that it may be that in some cases a Focus program in a non-regular environment may be a good option.  For example, the PASS program may be a great choice to join ‘hub’, the BCIP who is not on campus a great deal, and possibility others.  The Director stated that Focus programs may increase the transitions for some students who might be taking Focus programs in their own school.  She said that in general, Senior Staff believes that partially at-risk students and non-at-risk students are better in a full school environment in a regular school with other students.

        Director Hunter commented that the more space we lock off, the more we save.  She said that the more students in a site, the greater the need for on-site administration, and the usual array of student services, such as attendance, guidance, counselling, and student success support.  She said that this would further reduce the savings that could be gained by locking off parts of the building.

        Director Hunter stated that it is not possible to clarify if there would be any additional transportation costs or savings, but they would not likely be local costs.

        The Director remarked that in conclusion, Senior Staff prefers to see most Focus programs and most students in the same school as other students and programs, and believes that this is the healthiest environment for most students and the best way to attract a variety of students to Focus programs.
        The Director stated that in a two-school model, there would be room for all or most Focus programs.  In a one-school model, there would be a possible need for Focus programs in other locations.   She said that having acknowledged these concerns, Senior Staff concluded that if Focus programs were installed at the QECVI hub with the alternate school programs, then putting in a blend of programs that might attract a heterogenous population of students would be preferable to only placing certain technology programs there in order to reduce the potential for social stigma for those programs or for those students who would attend.

        Superintendent Richard stated that Senior Staff believes that moving QECVI to an alternate education centre with the other two schools operating as secondary schools, the Board would realize savings of approximately $500,000, which is about 50% of the amount if QECVI closed totally and not used.  

        Director Hunter indicated that if we needed to put in additional staff, we would lose some of these savings.  

        Trustee Jackson stated that he appreciates those comments.  He said that although there is some flexibility, we want to be more thoughtful about targeting a mix of programs.  He suggested that further thought be given as to what that mix might be.

        Trustee Murray asked if we had the statistics with regard to the numbers of students in Focus programs in the three secondary schools, and how many of them are taking Focus program at a school located outside their residential catchment area.  Ms. Bailey said that there is some information included in the Senior Staff Report that lists the Focus programs and the school students come from.  She indicated that Table 16 in the Senior Staff Follow-Up Report provides information for the Board to examine the areas to see what the features are at each school (page 41).

        Trustee Ruttan stated that because of the acreage of the QECVI property, we should keep it.  She said maybe it would be better to have more of the space closed off to maintain savings.  Superintendent Richard stated that the more space that is closed off, then the more the Board saves in cleaning and lighting the building.  He said that if Trustees did go with that option, it is about finding the right balance.

        Director Hunter stated that leasing school space does not usually generate new revenue.  However, if the Board decided to follow-up to bring residential units on that part of the property, the Board could generate revenue.

        Trustee Jackson stated that the Trustees must decide what that judicious mix would be.  He said that he was pleased to see the detail in the information.  He suggested that more time be given to develop the scenario further, suggesting that the focus be narrowed down.  He asked what the judicious mix would be if we are not streaming.

        Director Hunter stated that Senior Staff’s recommendation would put very few Focus programs at the QECVI site.  She said that, in general, Senior Staff thinks it is better to have Focus programs in schools.

        Chair Brown expressed appreciation to staff and Facilitator Bailey for all of their work.  She said that Trustees appreciate all of the information that has come forward this evening, and in such a short time.

Trustee Discussion

        Student Trustee Milligan stated that we need to focus our attention on the one-school model again.  He said that there are a few questions that Senior Staff needs to report back on, but he believes we should be focusing on the one-school model.

        Trustee Chadwick stated that she is interested in trying to recall the PARC discussion around the one-school option.  She said that if there is some reference to it, she would be interesting in seeing what the PARC Committee thought about it.

        Trustee Jackson stated that he believes Trustees need to digest the one-school model, as well as the public.  He suggested that this evening’s reports be posted on the Board’s website as well.  

        Trustee Murray stated that it is difficult to talk about programming when we do not know what the size of a school we will be looking at.  She said we need to make these important decisions.

        Student Trustee Milligan suggested that Trustees begin talking about the options now.

        Trustee Murray stated that Senior Staff is following Trustee direction and Trustees keep asking for more and more information.  She said that she believes Trustees have the options on the table.  She said that they cannot discuss programming until they know what type of building we will have.

        Trustee Jackson stated that Trustees are moving towards a decision.  He said that more and more information is being clarified.  He said that Trustees were presented with a substantive report this evening, and they need time to digest the information.  He said that he would like to hear what the public has to say.

        Trustee Chadwick stated that she believes a substantive conversation needs to begin.  She said that she would like to suggest that she does not believe a three-school option is viable, in terms of programming for students and given the information that Trustees have been presented with tonight.

        Trustee Crawford said that she does not agree with the one-school option.  She said that she believes that all three schools should remain open.

        Trustee French stated that she could not support a three-school option.  She said that she has sat on previous PARCs, and we have had to make some changes given that the populations and communities have changed.  She said that her priority is programming, as that is how our students will be successful in the future.  She said that we have to get to a new way to provide programming for students.  She suggested that perhaps at the next meeting, Trustees could begin to review the recommendations.

        Trustee Goodfellow stated that she does not believe that the Bard can afford to have three secondary schools within walking distance from each other.  She said that it is very difficult to provide programming for a small number of children.  She said that she does not believe that a three-school model is an option.

        Trustee Ruttan stated that she is less committed to ruling something out right now.  She said that she would like staff to create a visual outlining the options for the next meeting.

        Trustee Beavis stated that he agrees that Trustees have to make a decision, but he wants to have all of the information he needs in order to do so.

        Trustee Jackson stated that he agrees with Trustees Ruttan and Beavis’ comments.  He said that he believes that the visualization aspect is a good idea.  He said that there are a number of recommendations that are not contentious, such as the idea of community hubs, and perhaps we can move forward with them.

        Trustee Murray asked about timelines for a business case to be presented to the Ministry of Education.  Superintendent Richard stated that he has not heard anything definitely.  He said that we expect to hear some time in May or June from the government asking us to update our capital list.  He said that any decision on that would be later in the year, or even next year.

        Chair Brown stated that Trustees have made good comments, but in talking about visuals, Trustees need to do some of that work on their own.

        Trustee Chadwick stated that Trustees have to be mindful of what this is doing to our community, and the community deserves a decision.

Future Meeting Dates

        The Director is to distribute to Trustees, a list of potential meeting dates between May 15th and June 19th, for future SE/SCC Committee of the Whole Board meetings.  Future meetings will begin at 6:00 p.m. (where possible), and will be held at the Limestone Education, 220 Portsmouth Avenue, Kingston.

        Following discussion, Trustee Brown suggested that perhaps a SE/SCC Committee of the Whole Board meeting could be held May 27th, immediately following the Committee of the Whole Board (Budget) meeting.

Other Business

        MOVED BY Trustee Jackson, seconded by Trustee Chadwick, that unrelated items be added to the agenda in Private Session.—Carried

Recess to Private Session

MOVED BY Trustee Jackson, seconded by Trustee French, that the Board recess at 8:40 p.m. for five minutes to reconvene in Private Session at 8:45 p.m.–Carried

Committee of the Whole Board

MOVED BY Trustee French, seconded by Trustee Goodfellow, that the Board resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole Board in Private Session at 8:45 p.m.–Carried


H. Chadwick, Chair

G. Beavis

H. Brown

E. Crawford

L. French

A. Goodfellow

D. Jackson

P. Murray

S. Ruttan

Request for Proposal for Transportation

        Superintendent Richard provided an update with regard to the Request for Proposal for bus routes.  He advised that the tender closes May 15, 2013.

Director’s Update

        Director Hunter provided a staffing update.

School Enrolment/School Capacity Committee of the Whole Board to Rise and Report

MOVED BY Trustee Jackson, seconded by Trustee Goodfellow, that the School Enrolment/School Capacity Committee of the Whole Board rise and report.–Carried


MOVED BY Trustee Goodfellow, seconded by Trustee Jackson, that the meeting adjourn at 9:10 p.m.–Carried