coen Posted December 4, 2008 Report Share Posted December 4, 2008 School District No. 2, Yellowstone County High School District No. 2, Yellowstone County McKinley Task Force Billings, Montana Call to Order The McKinley Task Force Committee of School District No. 2, Yellowstone County and High School District No. 2, Yellowstone County, Montana held a Neighborhood meeting at McKinley School, 820 North 31st Street, Billings, Montana, on Tuesday, November 18, 2008. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. Chair Kevin Odenthal called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Committee members present were: Lisa Dubeau, Kristen Graves, Amy Griffins, Jeffrey Kay, Kevin Odenthal, Sara Olsgaard, Elizabeth Perius, Mark Restad, Julie Seedhouse, Anne-Marie Wade, Shannon Westerman, and Heather Zindt. Ex-Officio Members present were: Bert Reyes and Sandra Mossman. CTA Architects Engineers representatives present were: Keith Rupert, Karen Kelly and Lisa Gilmore. Communication From the Public Jim and Cec’e Bentler, Barbara Bryan, Angie Cormier, David Goodridge, Ed Gulick, Jerry Hansen, Harrison, Jennifer, and Ludlow Howe, Sandra Hunter, Gerald Kessler, Shauna Kerr, Kevin and Ana Kooistra-Manning, Davis Sonkong, Willie Thomas, Tom Tollefson, and Tammy Winters. McKinley School Neighborhood Meeting Approximately one hundred people were in attendance for the Neighborhood Meeting at McKinley School. Chair Kevin Odenthal explained the charge that was given to the McKinley Task Force by the Board. Kevin Odenthal outlined the talking points for the meeting. Keith Rupert and Karen Kelly from CTA Architects provided background information on McKinley School site. Keith Rupert noted that suggestion and comments from the neighborhood meeting will help them with the planning of McKinley school. Keith Rupert presented the current standard versus square feet per student standards. The optimal square feet per student are 110–140. Keith Rupert and Karen Kelly reviewed national standards and the Orchard standards adopted by the Board. A question was asked if there is any data that makes a direct correlation between the national standards and better education. Lesley Gilmore, historic preservation architect from CTA provided background on how historical value is determined. Lesley Gilmore explained that a building can be deemed for its historical value by the actual structure and its societal contribution. Keith Rupert posed the following preparation questions to the public present at the meeting: 1. What are the most important or positive aspects of McKinley Elementary School that you believe should be preserved? 2. What are the most serious shortcoming of the building and site? 3. Is the lack of parking a serious impact on the neighborhood or a serious problem to users of the school? 4. Should we build a new school or remodel and add onto the existing building? Public comments to the posed preparation questions are as follows: - Keep the historic integrity of the architect of the building - McKinley is rich with tradition - Keep the old - Like the sense of pride in the history - Not trend of new schools - Add on to preserve original building - Community uses the lot for children to play - Playground serves as a neighborhood park - School fits in with the feel of the neighborhood - Do not want a cookie cutter school look - Do not build for expanded enrollment - Streets too narrow for buses - Keep enrollment small and the size of actual classrooms small - Open rooms so they do not have isolated spaces - Bigger does not always mean better - Determine education needs over operational costs - Larger schools means more busing - Smaller schools for superior educational sound learning - Title 1 schools should not be mega schools - Do not get stuck in standards - Site is too small for bigger school - Do not reduce playground space - Provide a designated safe busing and parent pick up and drop off spot - Separate gym and lunch room - Place administration office at the front of the school - Designate a clear entrance - Design inviting entrance with landscaping - Add grass to playground area - Change style of the fence surrounding McKinley - Un-board the windows to allow for natural light - Separate teachers bathrooms - Build bathrooms on each level - Build so that maintenance can be provided properly - Keep exterior of existing building the same - Keep the fire slide - Build classrooms with space to teach - Go green in design - Use cutting edge technology - McKinley school is located in an area where teachers can walk their students downtown for field trips, etc. - Do not try to match other schools The public discussed the Boards decision to ask for a Bond issue during an economic crunch. There was discussion regarding when the Board would ask for a Bond issue. Due to past voting history, the public finds it concerning that the Board has not set a specific date for a bond issue before asking for public input and if public input will be considered. Increasing enrollment at the elementary level was discussed. There was discussion as to the actual increasing enrollment numbers. It was noted that McKinley school has a history of an enrollment between two hundred and sixty and three hundred and twenty five students. It was suggested that seventy five additional students or approximately three more classrooms would not result in a huge school. Public comment asked if additional land acquisition is an option. Keith Rupert suggested that due to the surrounding area being a residential area makes it difficult to acquire more land. There was discussion regarding the Boards long term facility plan. Using the Boards enrollment standard for building or renovating elementary schools there were questions as to whether neighborhood schools will be closed as bigger elementary schools are built. There were questions as to why the enrollment standard had been adopted by the Board. Sandra Mossman explained the driving force is due to operational costs and instructional excellence. It was suggested that McKinley not be listed on the national historic register before remodeling is done due to cost and time constraints. The consensus of the public present was to remodel and add on the existing building. A consensus was also determined that parking was not a serious problem. The meeting adjourned at 9:20 p.m. Adjournment Kevin Odenthal, Chair Brenda Cross, Recorder Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.