Present: Elizabeth Riley-Gergin, Harold Clement, Roger Hulne, Kate Otto, Tom Magnan, Veronica Wittek, Brady Randolph, Dan Roth, Brittany Randolph

Absent: Woodsyn Lynes, Karen Lehmen, & Jenna Kadlec

Agenda:

Introduction and Roles - Representatives from SDS Architects and project management firm Market & Johnson were introduced, as well as Prescott School Board members Pat Block and Vicki Rudoph.  Representing district staff were Dr. Spicuzza, Superintendent, Mike Hoikka, Facilities and Grounds, Andrea Herzan, Communications Specialist and Katy Hillebrand, Executive Assistant. Members of the Facility Advisory Committee (FAC) introduced themselves and explained their interest in serving on the committee..

Objectives/Goals - Members were given an overview of the FAC’s purpose and eventual desired objective of the committee - to develop three options for board consideration on the scope of work and the estimated costs for each option.

Background & Process - SDS Architect Chelsea Vorce presented a detailed explanation of the SDS and Apex Engineering analysis of MES, MIS and MS which began in early 2019. Maintenance needs of each building were identified and separated into three-year increments over the next 10 years (1-3, 4-6, 7-10). In early 2020, SDS developed two pathways for stakeholders to consider through a community survey in October of 2020. Respondents indicated they were not ready to invest in the scope of a $22M project or needed more information, but would be willing to consider a referendum less than $16M.

Repairs & Maintenance Items - Participants reviewed the Master Maintenance Menu (MMM) which was categorized into “above-line” vital needs: high-priority maintenance, classroom environment,  safety, code and accessibility), “mid-line” needs to address energy and cost savings, and “below-line” needs (annual general maintenance and needs recommended for a larger-scale project) into numerous sections for clarity and prioritization:

Tasks & Evaluation Methods - FAC members divided into three groups; each group evaluated one of the three buildings’ needs as identified on the MMM and in a PowerPoint visual representation.  Groups were tasked to consider how they would prioritize their building’s maintenance issues and were tasked to create a list of evaluation criteria.

Whiteboard Evaluation Criteria - Brainstorming

• Safety of children
• Structural integrity of buildings
• Future proof of buildings
• ADA Compliance
• Prioritization of implementation
• Best use of space

Takeaways: The FAC completed a closing activity to express what they had learned, something that ‘squared’/agreed with their ideas prior to the meeting and something still “circling” or in question/concern.. The latter responses are compiled below:

• What are the timelines of the projects?
• How long will some of the maintenance updates last?
• What sort of energy costs are involved?
• What is the Long-term Master Plan?
• Floor plan analysis?
• What referendums have failed in the past and why?
• What are the funding sources to help with the initiative?
• Why do we need to go to a referendum?
• What does the district plan to do with the schools and student placement?
• Need to see cost evaluation from SDS’s 2019 study
• Need to keep the committee focused on the big picture and not get bogged down in the details
• What is the master plan and future use of each school?
• Where will the money come from?
• Master plan and future use of each building
• What is the district’s financial picture?
• Referendum timeline
• Future student use of each building

Review Schedule & Upcoming Meeting - The next meeting is scheduled for September 8, 2021, at the Malone Elementary School. Members are strongly encouraged to tour all three facilities to see identified maintenance needs firsthand. Each FAC member was assigned the task to field five questions from community members for the September 8th meeting.