Regional School District 15 special meeting, date not confirmed yet

56 min · 0 public speakers

This board doesn’t post agenda times. Click a board member to jump to where they first speak; we list only members whose voice our check named. Video length 56 min.

  1. Who spoke · first speaks at
What happened

What happened at this meeting

Board discusses PES and GES ed specs before planned May 26 vote 0:00

  • The board met in a special meeting to discuss the PES and GES ed specs, which need Board of Ed approval for a state grant submission by June 30th. 0:00
  • A staff member said teachers gave feedback earlier in the day and that the narrative would be revised, without changing the size of the building, by the end of the week. 1:19
  • Board members asked about staffing and space assumptions, equipment eligible for state reimbursement and community use of the buildings. 9:49
  • No vote on the specifications was taken; the board's next meeting was set for Tuesday, May 26th, where a vote was hoped for. 55:18

Until Nov 4, lines where a board member takes a side don't name the member. Why →

Item by item (12)
  1. Opening and meeting purpose 0:00
    • The meeting was called to review the PES and GES ed specs with Tecton Architects so the board could approve them for a state grant submission by June 30th. 0:00
    • A staff member said feedback from the meeting was being captured and an amended version with a summary of changes would be prepared by about Thursday. 1:19
  2. Teacher feedback sessions 1:58
    • A staff member said meetings with teachers covered classrooms, specialized education, student support, arts, the Learning Commons, physical education, food service and facilities. 1:58
    • The staff member said more work was needed on the resource rooms, of which there are 3, and on the learning center tied to the Pre-K program. 3:23
    • The staff member said the narrative would add flexibility on items such as cubbies and lockers but the building size would not change. 6:07
  3. Class size and staffing assumptions 9:49
    • One board member said the specifications appeared to underestimate teacher ratios and asked about space for additional nurses if demand required it. 9:49
    • A staff member said the higher end of class size ranges was shown to maximize state reimbursement and that the spaces were based on 504 students. 12:44
    • The staff member said the program boxes represent the 95,000 square foot programmed space for each site, and one board member said the document heading should be modified. 16:06
  4. Enrollment and possible housing development 16:54
    • A speaker asked what could be done if a possible state affordable housing development in Southbury affected enrollment. 17:01
    • A staff member said the MP Planning report would be reviewed, the high enrollment number had been used and designs can show areas for future classroom expansion. 19:33
    • One board member said it would be surprising if a demographer had known about the development, and another staff member said MP Planning did not have it included. 20:59
  5. Pre-K learning center 23:42
    • Steven Suriani asked what a learning center is relative to a classroom and whether the pre-K feedback raised something new. 23:50
    • A staff member said the Learning Center is a specialized education program and the question was whether a pre-K level one is needed. 24:55
    • A staff member said it may fit in the current 3-classroom pre-K structure but a 4th may have to be added. 25:50
  6. Storage, security and scope 26:47
    • Steven Suriani asked about the risk of choosing cubbies or lockers, and a staff member said both options are described so they can be weighed during schematic design. 26:58
    • A staff member said much of the school security follows state-mandated pieces that new construction must contain, such as door locks. 29:13
    • One board member said items such as a kiln room could be misread by the public, and a staff member said options were being added within the scope, not new scope. 30:11
  7. Flexibility and tracking changes 32:53
    • Sharon Attick asked whether spaces could be reconfigured later and what the state expects once the specifications are submitted. 32:53
    • A staff member said the program can be modified and the ed spec revised near the end, but within an identified total square footage. 33:48
    • Sharon Attick asked what would have to give for changes such as a pre-K learning center, and a staff member said changes would be highlighted in red in a spreadsheet. 35:13
  8. Equipment and playgrounds 37:12
    • Heather Dwyer asked whether equipment such as a lift system must be in the ed spec to be eligible for state reimbursement. 37:21
    • A staff member said yes, that the lift was already included in OT/PT and likely should also be in the learning center. 38:29
    • Heather Dwyer asked about playgrounds and ADA accessibility, and a staff member said there are 3 age-appropriate play areas and the equipment is in the budget. 40:14
  9. Flexible room partitions 42:24
    • John Jenusaitis asked whether some rooms could be opened up to make larger spaces. 42:30
    • A staff member said the narrative includes a mix, such as 2 academic coaches' rooms joined by a folding partition. 43:23
  10. Space waiver and other comments 44:57
    • A speaker asked whether the space waiver would be noted in the ed specs, and a staff member said a copy of the special legislation would go to the state project manager. 44:57
    • A speaker said neither town has a community center, so youth sports tend to use the school gymnasiums. 47:01
  11. Community use of buildings 47:22
    • One board member raised securing community space apart from classroom space during after-school events. 47:34
    • A staff member said separation of community-oriented spaces for off-hours use is described in the ed spec. 48:23
    • One board member said they support the building being used as a heating center, and a staff member said warming and cooling centers were included because schools have been used that way. 49:44
  12. Next steps and revision review 53:12
    • A staff member asked whether a spreadsheet with highlighted changes on Thursday or Friday would work for the board. 53:54
    • A speaker asked for a before and after view of the program diagram, and a staff member said that could be done. ~54:10
    • The next board meeting was set for Tuesday, May 26th, at the high school media center at 7:30. 55:18
    • The meeting was adjourned. ~56:13

Written by software from the meeting's transcript and checked sentence by sentence against it.

Other meetings

Other meetings of this board

Video: posted by the district as “Special Meeting of the Board of Education”