School Enrolment/School Capacity
Committee of the Whole Board Meeting
May 27, 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 Monday, May 27, 2013 at 6:45 p.m.
H. Brown, Chair
B. Milligan, Student Trustee
Ruth Bailey, Accommodation Review Facilitator
Krishna Burra, Supervisor of Safe and Caring Schools and Assistant to the Director
Dave Fowler, Manager of Facility Services
Barb Fraser-Stiff, Superintendent of
Richard Holmes, Supervising Principal
Brenda Hunter, Director of Education
Darlene Kirkpatrick, Recording Secretary
Shawn Lehman, Supervising Principal
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, Trustees and staff to the meeting. She reported that regrets were received from Student Trustee Yun.
Trustee Brown apologized for the insufficient seating this evening, noting that at two previous meetings we had arranged to have the meeting telecast in another meeting room. She said that at those previous two meetings, we did not have many members of the public in attendance, and therefore, we stopped this arrangement. She indicated that we would be prepared for the next meeting to have sufficient seating.
Approval of Agenda
Trustee Murray stated that Item 3(iv) Discussion of Implications for Secondary Programming in Model 7 was regarding the outstanding motion on the floor with regard to the removal of Model 7 from consideration.
Trustee Jackson referred to Items 3(iv) an 3(v) regarding Discussion of Implications for Secondary Programming in Model 7 and Discussion of Implications for the Intermediate School in Model 7 and asked that Trustees have the same detailed analysis for the remaining models.
MOVED BY Trustee Jackson, seconded by Trustee Goodfellow, that the agenda, as distributed, be approved.–Carried
Conflict of Interest
No Trustee declared a conflict of interest.
Trustee Brown stated that as we begin tonight’s meeting, she wished to clarify some facts with regard to recent media and commentary remarks. She said that Trustees are well aware of these expectations, but for our gallery she drew to their attention that Trustees have a right and a role, whether they represent a rural or an urban jurisdiction to look at and speak to what they feel is best for students and the whole system. She remarked that as she mentioned in earlier opening remarks – Look at the big picture, not just their elected area. She said that every Trustee, no matter their riding, has an obligation to act in the best interests of all students of the Board.
Trustee Brown said that personal attacks for Trustees are truly inappropriate, uncalled for in this situation, and disappointing. She advised that every Trustee has been following this accommodation process very closely, as they have done with previous ones. Each Trustee is taking their role very seriously doing their job in putting forth ideas and asking for added input and clarification in a professional manner. Trustee Brown said that she applauds them for their interest and dedication in sparking valuable discussion regarding the various models.
Trustee Brown reported that in every other accommodation review area, all Trustees, both rural and urban, have been equally involved in the deliberations and decision-making, including decisions to close schools, consolidate or transfer students or to build new. All voices have been equally valuable and respected. She said that this is the case for this review as well.
Trustee Brown said that personal attacks by members of the public through social and traditional media on individual Trustees who bring forward differing ideas and viewpoints are not helpful to this complex situation.
Trustee Brown asked Trustees to continue to focus on the data before us, as we continue our deliberations.
Trustee Chadwick thanked Trustee Brown for making her remarks. She said that she had written something similar. She echoed that there seems to be a lack of respect for the hard work that Trustees have put into this process. She commented that she was dismayed to see the community target a colleague for suggesting a possible option and asking for more information. She said that she was disturbed by the intimidating tone of some e-mails which are at times accusatory and bullying.
Trustee French said that there has been lots of e-mail traffic since our last meeting; some very supportive and recognizing the need for change and just asking for an end to the process, and others less positive or professional. She said that she is going to make some comments as “that woman from Napanee” as she has been called in a number of contacts, as is her right as an equal member of this Board. She said that she is appalled that there is so little understanding and respect for our municipally-elected role.
Trustee French said that she recalls in quite recent years, her eight colleagues from across the region and beyond the City, including Kingston Trustees, who some now feel are the only Trustees who should be a part of the decision for the schools under review, when they spent many hours and discussion making a decision that affected Napanee schools, noting we had a good outcome together. She remarked that this same group of nine was similarly engaged in decisions about schools in the North of our Board. She advised that she also heard reference to us needing to keep other schools like Bayridge SS and LaSalle SS out of our consideration of solutions, as we now are to limit our thoughts only to those sites in the Kingston downtown, not even the recent elementary PARC decision in
the city. Trustee French said that she hopes this does not alienate the five Trustees in these other parts of Kingston and the rest of the Board. She noted that these same Kingston schools are happy to stress they are full, but who are they full of? She indicated students from all nine of our electoral areas because of the programs we have placed there to prop up these sites in recent years, including students from Napanee. She commented, “So you are happy to accept our students, but you do not want their elected representatives to have a say?”
Trustee French cautioned her colleagues around the table as they consider all options and are potentially swayed by intense e-mail pressure that evolved from “save our schools” to simply “save KC” and recall the pleas that we have heard that KC will welcome all students from other schools into their open and accepting environment, but she is fearful for our students in other schools if they are not from the City, if this is how KC supporters see “their community.”
Trustee French said that she has yet to voice if KCVI is in fact the site that she might suggest to close, but has certainly supported that at least one site must. She stated that we need to only remember the reasons why we started this process. She said that if we have gone through these countless hours, with our communities, students, staff, to keep the same buildings open, when we know the programming and accommodation realities that moving programs around alone will not sufficiently solve, it is a huge waste.
Trustee French commented that she recalls PARC members pleading with Trustees to not simply accept Senior Staff recommendations, but to think outside the box, noting that Trustees have done that with ideas related to community hubs, ideas that consider future and more current enrolment figures as they have become available, and opportunities to create campus-like facilities in fewer buildings, but it seems that some in the public meant this only if it supported their specific wish.
Trustee French said that the models we have created are not black and white, but concepts that will be developed to reflect the configuration of facilities we can support. She remarked that her clear vision at this point is that at least one building must close. She stated that over years of declining enrolment, wherever the secondary schools are, we need less of them. She said that with hundreds less students now, we must do what is hard but responsible and recalibrate the buildings we have for the longer-term to ensure vibrant programs for our students. Trustee French stated that Models 5, 2 and 7 offer this possibility, and so aside from political pressure and what has become sheer bullying tactics, let’s focus on creative options that will direct staff to
design composite programming locations and community partnerships.
Trustee Goodfellow stated that all of the statements by her fellow colleagues have been eloquent and she supports them. She said that as soon as she sees e-mails with personal attacks, she does not read them. She commented that she attended a school closing event for Sharbot Lake High School, and that she was welcomed. She said that she hopes that we do not end up turning this into a city versus country battle. She said that all Trustees keep the best interests of all students in mind when making decisions. She said that personal attacks are not fair and are not helping the public’s cause.
Trustee Jackson said that these are different times and emotions run high. He said that he and his Trustee colleagues are of the mindset that we need to craft a good solution that will address all of our concerns, and one that hopefully all Trustees will agree to. He said that this is not an easy process.
Business Arising from the May 16, 2013 Minutes
Discussion of a K-12 Model
Trustee Brown advised that the K-12 Model was not discussed at the last meeting because Trustees wanted the Trustee who brought this model forward to be in attendance when it was discussed.
In response to a question from Trustee Chadwick, Trustee Beavis stated that he brought this suggestion forward because of declining enrolment in that section of the city. He said that there is a similar situation in the North, as Granite Ridge will be a K-12 school. He said that this model would satisfy people in the QECVI catchment area of having a high school in that area. He said that we also have received funding for a new elementary school for Kingston North. He said that he would like to see a new elementary school built into a new secondary school on the QECVI property as a K-12 school.
In response to a question from Trustee Murray, Director Hunter said that we would have to go back to the Ministry for approval, if we wanted to use the elementary school funding we have received, and allocate it to a secondary school.
Trustee Chadwick stated that her concern is about programming opportunities for secondary students. She said that she knows that the students in QECVI struggle to get courses for the pathways they need. She said that because we are located in the city, we have abilities to have a larger school population together, and are able to offer a wider range of program opportunities.
Director Hunter stated that there is a difference in the school at Sharbot Lake in that it is a mini composite school. She said that the number of sections and the number of pathways at Sharbot Lake are: 8.45 in the workplace section, 11 in the college section, 9.5 in the university section, and 9 in the open section. She said that there are multiple stacked classes, and many choices to be made. She said that there are opportunities for independent learning to mitigate the challenges. She said that they do not have a full range of programs.
Facilitator Bailey said that the elementary school parents in the Kingston North PARC did not want their children in elementary schools together with the secondary students at QECVI. She said that the Kingston North elementary parents wanted to keep Grade 7 and 8 students in elementary schools. She said that the property at QECVI was one possible location put forth by the PARC as a location for an elementary school. She said that at one point a member of the PARC asked that this location be removed, and that was defeated. She said that having a new elementary school there was a completely separate motion that PARC members brought forward. She indicated that they believed it was acceptable because of the large size of the site. Parents were not in favour
of having or attaching an elementary school as part of QECVI.
MOVED BY Trustee Beavis, seconded by Trustee Jackson, that the Limestone District School Board build a new K-12 school on the QECVI property.
Trustee Chadwick stated that she is opposed to this model as it does not offer students the programming needs that they are asking for. She said that students love their school, but they cannot get the courses they need.
Trustee Jackson commented on the complexity of running a K-12 school on this site. He suggested that Model 4 might be a possible component that could make it more financially viable. He said that there would be some economies in administration for one site. He said that there is some programming in Model 4.
Trustee Murray stated that she likes the idea of an elementary school on the QECVI site, but she cannot support a K-12 model.
Trustee French stated that a K-12 school works well for the Board in certain areas. She said that we heard from the QECVI community that some students have to go a year without a particular course, and that we need to respond to that. She said that she does not want us to be limited to the QECVI property. She said that she supports the notion of a hub at QECVI. She said that the model described bringing community partnerships into the QECVI building and bringing some components to support Focus programs is good. She said that she would like to keep that option open.
Trustee Jackson indicated that the Innovation Park sites are problematic. He said that he believes the Memorial Centre site to be the most problematic of all sites, commenting that the site would need a zoning change. He spoke to the complexities of the site, noting that the site may have brownfield areas.
Trustee French stated that she would like to talk more about what the terms “hub” “campus” and “composite school” mean. She suggested that a hub is about a site we have involved to structure certain programming. She suggested that campus meant a grander combination of programs or number of sites.
Trustee Jackson stated that we have to make the meaning of the terms clear.
Trustee Jackson requested a recorded vote.
The non-binding vote was as follows:
YEAS: Trustee Beavis, Trustee Crawford, Trustee Jackson (3)
NAYS: Trustee Brown, Trustee Chadwick, Trustee French, Trustee Goodfellow, Trustee Murray, Trustee Ruttan, Student Trustee Milligan (7)
The binding vote was as follows:
YEAS: Trustee Beavis, Trustee Crawford, Trustee Jackson (3)
NAYS: Trustee Brown, Trustee Chadwick, Trustee French, Trustee Goodfellow, Trustee Murray, Trustee Ruttan (6)
The motion was LOST.
Discussion on the Implications for the New Elementary School in Kingston North if Placed on the QECVI Property
Trustee Crawford asked if there would be any negatives for the Ministry in not naming the site where the new elementary school is to be located in Kingston North. Director Hunter said that in the past when Trustees made initial proposals, the proposals indicated on a site to be determined. She said that there would be no negatives for the Ministry around not deciding the location where the new elementary school is to be built.
Trustee Chadwick stated that there is another model on the floor to build a new school and to request funding. She indicated that if the Board agrees with Model 5, and looks for a site for a new secondary school, that may impact where we would be interested in placing an elementary school.
Trustee Jackson said that he does not have a fixed view about where the new elementary school should be located. He indicated that he believes the site should be serviced. He said that he likes the idea of having a school on the QECVI site. He said that he would like more feedback from Senior Staff.
Trustee Ruttan said that this discussion is pivotal not only to North Kingston, but also to the model we have which discusses building a new school. She said that we need to know the location. She asked about the process to start identifying properties that are available to the Board. She said that perhaps QECVI is the only site we have because we own the property.
Manager Toms reviewed the information contained in the walkability charts that he distributed. He said that staff met with City staff to determine site servicing ability and site zoning.
Director Hunter said that with regard to the request regarding information around availability, she did speak with City staff about the Cook’s Arena site to try to determine whether it would be available for any proposed schools. She said that they indicated that they did not have any particular plan for the site, and that they would welcome ideas related to that site.
Director Hunter reported that she had been informed that discussion regarding the availability of the Memorial Centre site took place at the Parks and Recreation Committee level. She said that she understood the City was considering relocating the Annual Kingston Fair and the the barns would possibly be moved.
Manager Toms indicated that with regard to Innovation Park (North), the site is owned by Novelis, and the owners there said that if the Board is interested in the site then a proposal should be made and they will discuss it with us. He said that he has not had any confirmation from the Innovation Park (South) site.
Trustee Crawford asked if there has been more dialogue between Board administration and City staff about Council’s objection to the Memorial Centre site being used. Director Hunter stated that she did meet with City staff, but no application or outreach to purchase the site has been made. She said that she had a conversation with City staff to provide Trustees with information related to the availability of sites.
Trustee Chadwick stated that she does not believe the Innovation Park sites make sense, noting that one is in close proximity to LCVI and the other is adjacent to QECVI. She said that she is intrigued by the properties the City owns. She said that Model 5 provides an opportunity to eliminate the perceived divide with regard to those living north and those living south of Princess Street. She indicated that the Memorial Centre site is close to the downtown area, and the property may be closer to Princess and Division Streets; it is four blocks from KCVI, close to Queen’s University, there’s a track and skating rink on the site. She said that the Memorial Centre site holds real potential.
Trustee Jackson stated that he believes the Innovation Park sites to be problematic; there may be delays in obtaining an Official Plan Amendment and a zoning change, as well as costs for servicing the sites. He said that he believes that the Memorial Centre site is the most problematic. There was discussion about saving the site. He said that the remaining southwest corner of the property may be available to us, and perhaps if the City was in the throes of developing the Memorial Centre site, there may have been possibility for a new school to be placed there. He commented that it may take a long time to construct a school there if there were delays in obtaining approvals from the City. He said that the Kingston Agricultural Society has a long-term lease on
that property. He commented that the Cook’s Arena site may also be complicated, as there may be a brownfield area there, and an environmental assessment of the site may have to be completed. He said that the LCVI and QECVI sites are left, and that the Board owns both of these sites. He said that these sites are located in residential zones that easily allow a school to be built there. He said that he is not enamored with new construction.
Trustee French stated that she would be interested in exploring the Memorial Centre site further, as she believes the site holds viability.
Trustee Beavis asked that the meaning of brownfield be provided at the next meeting, as well as information as to what could be built in a brownfield area.
Trustee Murray stated that as a resident of the City of Kingston she has worked hard in her community to keep the Memorial Centre site. She said that we have worked hard to foster partnerships and for us to build a school on that site would not help with our partnerships.
Trustee Chadwick commented that we are not the City. She said that it is not our decision to make. She said that the location of where a site should be is predicated on the assumption that we are in favour of building a new school.
Trustee Ruttan said that she sees this as an opportunity. She said that she believes Trustees need to hear a real answer about the availability of City sites. She said that she sees a partnership to create an incredible learning environment for our students. She said that is something that needs to be explored and we need to have a definitive answer from the City.
Trustee Jackson suggested that if we are looking at new construction, we need to consider time lines. He said that some sites would be problematic. He said he is in favour of getting feedback from staff with regard to brownfield implications and a development schedule.
MOVED BY Trustee Chadwick, seconded by Trustee Beavis, that the Director engage in discussion with the City of Kingston with regard to the availability of the Memorial Centre site and the Cook's Arena site for the construction of an elementary and/or secondary school.
Director Hunter asked if the mover and seconder were proposing that staff request City Council to have a discussion and vote on it, or were they directing further conversation with staff.
Trustee Chadwick stated that it would be first staff to staff and that Director Hunter could be directed by the Chief Administrative Officer at the City as to how to proceed. She said that if it requires a letter from the Chair of the Board, then that could happen.
Director Hunter stated that she has asked about the steps for the availability of those sites to be ascertained. She said that the answer was that the Board would make a request to City Council.
Trustee Jackson indicated that it is useful to have discussion to get a clear indication of time lines for an Official Plan Amendment, Zone Change and Site Plan Control approval, as well as the time lines if there were appeals.
Trustee French asked if these were the only two sites owned by the City that we are considering. She said part of the decision-making on this model would be a location. Director Hunter advised that she had inquired if the City had any other locations, and they indicated not at this time. She said that the other sites staff explored had other issues – St. Mary’s and the old train station. She said that she has not made outreach to private companies.
Trustee Jackson requested a recorded vote.
The non-binding vote was as follows:
YEAS: Trustee Beavis, Trustee Brown, Trustee Chadwick, Trustee Crawford, Trustee French, Trustee Goodfellow, Trustee Murray,
Trustee Ruttan, Student Trustee Milligan (9)
NAYS: Trustee Jackson (1)
The binding vote was as follows:
YEAS: Trustee Beavis, Trustee Brown, Trustee Chadwick, Trustee Crawford, Trustee French, Trustee Goodfellow, Trustee Murray,
Trustee Ruttan (8)
NAYS: Trustee Jackson (1)
The motion was Carried.
The Chair called a recess at 8:15 p.m. for 15 minutes. The meeting reconvened.
Further Information and Discussion Regarding Potential Sites for a New Secondary School and the New Elementary School
Trustee Chadwick mentioned that our co-terminus board is undergoing an accommodation review also, saying that they have a number of properties that they are reviewing in the north end and Kingscourt area.
Director Hunter stated that the Algonquin and Lakeshore Catholic District School Board’s accommodation review is slightly behind ours, and that theirs may carry on into the fall. She said that she believes their elementary school sites are approximately the same size as ours or smaller.
Discussion of Implications for Secondary Programming in Model 7
Trustee French stated that she believes that Model 7 is not really different from Models 5 and 2. She said that it is about how we structure it. She indicated that she is not sure when we can discuss the configuration of a campus, hub or composite school, but that her wish for secondary programming was more of the same. She indicated that it was implied that there would be a large number of students at a school in Model 7. She said that if we are looking at 1,200 regular programming students, what does the programming look like in that setting. She said that would present incredible opportunities for students for programming; our students could choose whatever courses they wish. She asked what programming would like for that number of students, and is
there enough of a difference in programming options for a two school secondary model or one school model.
Trustee Chadwick commented on the student population size, proposing that the school would not be a mega-school. She said that our co-terminus board has two high schools in the City of Kingston.; one with a student population of approximately 1,230 students (Holy Cross) and the other with a student population of approximately 1,129 (Regiopolis-Notre Dame). She said that with a larger student body, we could offer more programming opportunities for students.
Trustee Jackson stated that he believes that the difference between a two-school model and one-school model is not dramatic. He said that he does not believe that a one-school model is interesting from a programming perspective. He said that he has a hard time putting everything into one location.
Trustee Ruttan stated that she is grappling with Model 7. She said that when we say one school, she does not believe that it means one building. She said that she sees in this model different programming happening in different buildings under a one-school title. She said that she sees two buildings, with one building having “x” programming and another building having “x” programming and students going back and forth to get whatever they need from whatever building they need. She indicated that she sees this as a campus model. She commented on putting all Focus programs in one building and all regular students in another building.
Trustee French commented that Model 7 is a version of Model 2 in that Model 2 has more than one building, but it is how we structure these buildings for programs – such as including one intermediate school and QECVI an alternate education centre in the plan for sites. She stated that she believes that a composite school is one location and is different as one part of these models. She remarked that in trying to look ahead we should look at how we structure programs in a way that makes sense for the future. She said that this could be a campus model that still requires two buildings. Trustee French commented that enrolment is based on projections and so we also need to be able to respond to actual secondary and elementary students in the future. She said that
this is what she hoped to raise for discussion when Model 6 was first presented. She said that she sees composite sites as providing all programming opportunities, and we can structure that to come up with more opportunities for students in fewer sites. She suggested that Trustees adopt that as the meaning of the term “campus”. She remarked that Models 7 and 2 are similar to her.
Student Trustee Milligan stated that one of the things he likes about a hub school is that there is extra space at the school, and if we need that space in the future, we could use it.
Trustee Murray commented that what stands out for her is that in Models 2 and 5 the schools are named and there is closure of a school and that the school is KCVI. She said that there has been a lot of discussion on the merits of keeping a school in the north end. She spoke to the merits of keeping KCVI open. She said that KCVI is the oldest operating secondary school in Ontario; it is the Board’s highest achieving secondary school; it is at capacity; it is in the downtown area; it provides our students with an opportunity to grow in the downtown community; partnerships are only now being realized; it has been starved of maintenance funds as a result of inadequate funding. She said that she supports the idea that the “greenest” buildings are the ones still
standing. She said that Model 4 allows us to respond immediately without waiting.
Trustee Chadwick stated that in response to Student Trustee Milligan’s statement, we would fill space more with students if we look at Model 2. She said that in response to Trustee Murray, she said that the 2013 projections for KCVI are 885, and if we take out Streetsmart we get 752 in the school that has a capacity of 1,243. She said that none of the schools in the review are full, and that is why we are involved in this process.
Trustee Jackson indicated that the problem with Model 7 is that you cannot avoid building and financing it. He commented on the building delay aspect. He spoke in favour of Model 4.
Student Trustee Milligan stated that he does not see much for regular programming students in Models 1 and 2.
Trustee Ruttan stated that she is grappling with Model 7. She said that we have not identified where the school campus could be in Model 7. She said that she understands that we are talking about presence in the north end. She said that in the campus model, it could have many buildings. She said that when she thinks of Model 7 she thinks of two buildings, and that she would like to get to two buildings with one heading.
Trustee Jackson stated that he is not enamored with new construction. He said that he believes the campus model needs to be flushed out further.
Trustee French indicated that the challenge for her is that we continue to see questions about why we would close a full school and not repair the building. She said that new construction does not mean demolition. She commented that she has not seen the Board demolish any of the schools it has previously closed. She said that we have made clear to the provincial government that the new funding model does not work for us. She said that in this solution, we have to plan for what happens during the transition. She said that we cannot come up with four sites in the end. She said that she is open to whatever sites are suggested for closure. She said that what we call it and where we place programs will roll out over time by staff. She said that
Trustees want what is best too. She said that if we choose Model 4 as the end plan, then by the time we turn around we will be back into the same situation. She suggested that Trustees must look at other models.
Discussion Re: Implications for the Intermediate School in Model 7
Trustee Jackson stated that we need to discuss the implications for Calvin Park Public School and Module Vanier more. He commented that programming at Calvin Park Public School has been successful, commenting that the Choices at 7 programs have been a big draw. He commented that we are recommending a Grade 7-12 model in the east end.
Trustee French said that the intermediate piece is significant. She commented that we have referenced a French review in other PARCs, noting that this review is a large component of the intermediate question in movement and variation we have seen. She said that we need to look at where French fits in and what we do to plan for these programs.
Trustee Murray commented on the Full-Day Kindergarten program rolling out to its final year, indicating that we have seen growth in the young population. She said that if there were to be considerations of an intermediate school, we need to get rid of some of the portables in the elementary schools.
Trustee Jackson indicated that the French Immersion issue has not been addressed that well. He said that we adopted a recommendation to investigate that in further detail. He commented on the growing demand for French Immersion.
Trustee Ruttan stated that we need to decide if we would incorporate Grade 7 and 8 students into one intermediate school or if we incorporate Grade 7 and 8 students into a secondary school environment.
Trustee French stated that in previous accommodation reviews, two recommendations were brought forward, one if the Board received funding for a new school, and then an option if the Board did not receive funding for a new school. She said that in the end a brand new school facility is not a bad thing. She suggested a back-up plan similarly be considered and that Trustees formulate thoughts around what is option 1 and what is option 2.
Trustee Chadwick stated that the models have suggestions around programming. She said that there is interest in providing composite schools.
Trustee Jackson stated that Trustees need to start thinking about an “A” and “B” option. He said that he is having a hard time in understanding how new construction will work.
Trustee Jackson suggested that Models 2, 4 and 5 be discussed further.
Agenda Topics for the June 3, 2013 SE/SCC Committee of the Whole Board Meeting
MOVED BY Trustee Chadwick, seconded by Trustee Beavis, that the following information be provided at the June 3, 2013 SE/SCC Committee of the Whole Board meeting:
- Infor mation related to Brownfields
- Update on implementation of motion to engage the City of Kingston regarding availability of Memorial Centre Site and Cook’s Arena Site
- Review of Models 2, 4 and 5
Future Meeting Dates
The next meeting of the SE/SCC Committee of the Whole Board will be held on Monday, June 3, 2013, at the Limestone Education Centre, 220 Portsmouth Avenue, Kingston, at 6:45 p.m. If needed, additional meetings will be held June 10 and June 17, 2013, following Committee of the Whole Board (Budget) meetings. The meetings will be held at the Limestone Education Centre, 220~Portsmouth Avenue, Kingston.
School Enrolment/School Capacity Committee of the Whole Board to Rise and Report
MOVED BY Trustee Jackson, seconded by Trustee Crawford, that the School Enrolment/School Capacity Committee of the Whole Board rise and report.–Carried
MOVED BY Trustee Goodfellow, seconded by Trustee Murray, that the meeting adjourn at 9:40 p.m.–Carried