Marta McAllister Posted September 10, 2010 Report Share Posted September 10, 2010 Proceedings of the Planning and Development Committee School District No. 2, Yellowstone County High School District No. 2, Yellowstone County Billings, Montana June 7, 2010 CALL TO ORDER Chair Kathy Aragon called the meeting to order at 5:15 p.m. on Monday, June 7, 2010, in the Board Room of the Lincoln Center. Committee members in attendance were Chair Kathy Aragon, Trustee Fox, Sandra Abraham, Doug Armknecht, Margaret Aukshun, Deana Elder, Amy Griffin, Krista Hertz, Josi Wilgus, and Kathy Olson, Elementary Executive Director. Members absent were Jennifer Molk. Also in attendance were Trustee Kemp, Trustee Stroebe, and Trustee Wardell. COMMUNICATION FROM THE PUBLIC Hearing no communication from the public, Chair Kathy Aragon moved to the next agenda item. PROPOSED EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Kathy Aragon reviewed the proposed executive summary, which included: - List of schools opened, closed, and built since 1970 - Census tract map - Free and reduced count by school - Historical school by school enrollment and school by geographical area grouping - Elementary District attendance breakdown - OPI Historical Enrollment, Elementary, Middle School and High School - Historical Census Data 1970 Forward - Mass Index – Historic Trends - Density of Under 5 Population by Census Tracts - City versus County Map Overlay - City of Billings Community Development Division – Billings Housing Needs Assessment (average median income, population statistics, average sales price by area) - City of Billings – Substantial Amendment to the 2008-2009 Consolidated Plan – Neighborhood Stabilization Program (affordability gap for Yellowstone County, Areas of Greater Need and Tax Increment Districts - Yellowstone County Elementary School Districts - Davis Demographics Summary Kathy Aragon said additional information could be added to the draft document before the final approval as there are questions and concerns that have been raised by Committee members that need to be answered. Below are answers to the questions and concerns submitted by Krista Hertz regarding the executive summary, which include: 1. We have closed several traditional neighborhood schools but it doesn't indicate reopening neighborhood schools. We have included a couple of documents that show re-openings, we will also be including the Rimrock property in the educational capacity documents. 2. I think the bussing of students past their neighborhood school and kindergarten students (similar to the sister school concept) being bussed should be addressed or referred to somewhere. We have included both historical bussing, boundaries, and boundary changes. A community discussion will need to take place when we get to the bigger picture with an official re-boundary process – with consideration of closed or reopened schools will need to take place. This report is to give the reader a big picture of district and city demographics. Many children are bussed past their closest schools in both the areas where we have closed schools and where our newest schools are and it is my hope that we will address this big picture with the help of Davis Demographic software and be able to concurrently minimize bussing costs (transportation) which is the 3rd largest expense of the district. With the sprawl of the city our transportation costs have increased. 3. I don't think it is fair to say enrollment has remained flat for 22 years. The chart demonstrates that enrollment has gone through peaks and valleys. The closing of schools was during a "valley". Significant growth, such as last year of 300 students is the enrollment of some current elementary schools. Relatively flat is most accurate. As you can see with the newest document that was added from OPI, BPS had 17,000 in 1970 and has less than 16,000 today. We have added a chart of peaks and valleys since 1987. 4. What is the "process" set for closing, re-boundary and opening schools? I think this is the larger question and is strategic planning dealing with this? It would be great to have a process developed based on data, etc. A great next step and our software from Davis Demographics should enable us to come up with several options that the district and community can review, discuss and debate. 5. I understand that the city drives where housing and development will go. I believe the city has set a precedence and the District is following it. It is the city's choice to annex subdivisions and bring utilities there, for example the new fire station built at 54th and Grand. Isn't Kathy Olson on the city's committee? Yes, The city is realizing the costs as we have spread over a larger area but if we work together we can save taxpayer money, improve education , health, transportation and access to schools. Yes. It is my understanding that Kathy receives information on annexations and development but I am not aware that we are engaged together in a planning process. I have served as the city/county liaison for the board over the past few years and I know there would be great benefit to both in working collaboratively. 6. The tax increment districts are discussed. I am concerned that we don't include and do not have a map that includes the proposed or submitted subdivisions. (Maybe I missed it? I know we asked Candy for it and she said this can tell you where growth will happen in the future.) I am concerned that there is not mention of this. For instance, across the street from Arrowhead Elementary is a new subdivision for 30 or more homes that started this spring and already has 3 homes under construction. It is being marketed as a family friendly subdivision with affordable housing for the family making at or above the median family income. If half of the homes are purchased by families with 2 kids, where are 30 more kids going to fit into Arrowhead? This is a classroom. I know there is growth in other areas of town with proposed subdivisions, such as the Heights and South Side. How does the completion of Shiloh Road affect future housing? Is this our concern? I would really like to see the issue of submitted subdivisions included. Some may not be actually built or started for years but it is part of a long term strategy. The data shows that the overall enrollment has not changed in 40 years and the city is growing larger and older; many houses do not have children; therefore it is critical to collect census data and update this report annually to look at trends by area and most importantly density data. If the city is to grow in a healthy sustainable manner, planning (by reviewing historical trends, current and projected trends with consideration for changes in policies) and integrative planning between city and school will be essential. Affordability has been a large factor in housing for families. Please see the Neighborhood Stabilization Report that is included in the document – Appendix I which explains the “affordability gap” (difference between what people can afford to buy and the median price of housing that is on the market). The affordability gap is expected to more than double by 2020, this will dictate in large part where our families live as you may see in the data on percent of free and reduced by school (appendix G). 7. What will the data from Davis Demographics tell us? What is the timeline and should we include this? They are an outside third party? I have asked for a full scope of work from Davis Demographics. In June, Superintendent Copps, signed a contract with Davis Demographics. It is my understanding that they have a software tool that will aid in re-districting/re-boundary. By looking at today’s enrollment data, possible boundary considerations and more they may help us as we move to the next phase of creating a long term capital improvement plan to maintain, update and refurbish our school buildings. The data may provide invaluable input on helping us look at our schools throughout town as we work toward developing measurable criteria from which to measure our progress in education. The district has owned the Davis Demographic software for several years. 8. I would like to see somewhere where the educational considerations are addressed? This is what really drives a school. We discussed space in schools in length at a meeting. For example how does federally mandated programs affect us now, how has changes in accreditation standards affected us? Have the federal mandates for special education and intervention programs made an impact on education space in schools today compared to 20 years ago? Are state accreditation standards (student to teacher ratios) the same as they were 20 years ago? We have included Educational capacity for 2008-2009 and 2009-2010 and discuss in the executive summary the many factors that drive a school’s space needs including all-day kindergarten, bussing, closures, opening, out of school enrollment, etc. Kathy Aragon said Part 2 of the Planning and Development Committee charge will be to examine the district facilities and educational concerns within those facilities. Kathy Aragon suggested that some of the concerns and questions expressed may overlap into Part 2 of the Planning and Development Committee charge and may be addressed at that time. Kathy Aragon announced David Demographics will give a presentation on June 17, 2010 in the Board Room at Lincoln Center. Kathy Aragon passed out a list of web-sites to access for additional information in addition to the agenda packet information. APPROVAL OF THE APRIL 12, 2010 MINUTES Mary Jo Fox made the following motion with a second by Sandy Abraham. Motion to approve the April 12, minutes as presented in the agenda. Those voting in favor were Trustee Aragon, Trustee Fox, Sandra Abraham, Doug Armknecht, Margaret Aukshun, Deana Elder, Amy Griffin, Krista Hertz, and Josi Wilgus. The motion passed unanimously. Adjournment There being no further business Kathy Aragon adjourned the meeting at 8:45 p.m. Kathy Aragon, 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.