School Board Special Call Meeting: 9-10-25

001order. >> I will now turn it over to Mr. Cloud. >> The colonel has requested to participate in today's meeting from a remote location by electronic means because of a personal matter. In order to do that, a public body has to have a policy that would allow it, which the school board does. That's policy BDD. And certain things have to be established on the record. And then the public body has to vote to allow the member to participate in that fashion. So, I'm going to ask Colonel a couple questions to establish for the record uh as to what the nature of the personal matter is and also where he is participating from. And then I will turn the meeting back over to the chair and the clerk to conduct a roll call vote of the

002other members of the board, not the colonel, to allow him to participate in today's meeting from a remote location by electronic means. So, Colonel, can you hear me? >> Yes, sir. Mr. Cloud. >> All right. Would you state for the record the nature of the personal matter that requires you to participate remotely today? I am out of town to participate in a military honors event. >> And give us a rough idea as to where you are participating from. >> I am attending the meeting from my uh lodging in Alabama. >> All right. With that, I'm going to turn the meeting back over to the chair and the clerk for a motion and then a vote to allow the colonel to participate in tonight's meeting from the remote location. After that, he can take part in

003the meeting just as if he was physically present. >> Can I get a motion to allow the colonel to um appear at the meeting remotely? Uh, Mr. In has made the motion and it's been seconded by Miss Thomas. Any discussion? >> All right, Miss Tanner, please call the role. >> Bassine, >> Buffalo, >> Inch, >> Martin. >> Thomasro, >> I. >> Motion passes. Miss Tanner, will you please call the full role? >> Bassine >> Buffalo in >> Martin. Pollson >> present. And could the chair speak a little louder? >> Yes. >> Thomas, >> thank you. >> The Caligura here. >> At this point, I would like to um ask Dr. Paul to make a statement. >> Sure. Uh good evening uh madam chair de collegeero vice chair Thomas members of the board community members present

004and those online. Uh tonight as we continue our work on school consolidation planning I want to introduce a new option option five that has been added for consideration. This option reflects the feedback we've heard from our community and it represents a more deliberate and thoughtful approach, one that directly aligns with the board goals and the measures outlined in our strategic plan. Option five begins with two initial consolidations. First, St. Helena with Southside STEM, which would allow Berkeley Early Childhood Center to move to a better facility. Second, Ocean Air with Ocean View, Bay View, and Mary Calcott Elementary Schools, which would allow Willoughby Early Childhood Center to move to a better facility. If approved and following a formal public hearing, these changes would be implemented beginning in the 26 27 school year as the first part

005of the consolidation plan. While that transition is planning is taking place, a full study on all other school boundaries and attendance zones would take place and be completed by the spring of 2026 before finalizing the timeline for the remainder of the consolidation and closure plans which would commence the following school year 2728. In making these updates, it honors community voices while ensuring that academic achievement and educational planning remain at the forefront of our decisions. It is also designed to support our long-term goals of deconentrating poverty and creating equitable out opportunities for all students. This option also continues to allow for community engagement, not just through the steering committee, but across the city, promoting transparency and building stronger buyin for the decisions ahead. Specifically, option five removes Monroe Elementary from the closer list with plans to

006place additional students in the building. keeps Gent school in place for the moment while recognizing that reszoning may create a future opportunity for a better facility and future growth. Adds the possibility of building a new JCO facility model after Southside STEM Academy potentially housing a citywide program in the future. Creates the opportunity to expand Lake Taylor High School to include a comprehensive CTE program and a true alternative education program connecting students to rigorous programs. allows the creation of a professional development center at Lynenwood to strengthen staff learning. And importantly, it allows us to review zoning across the entire division so we can recreate the composition of all schools in ways that best meet the needs of our community and most importantly our students. In short, option five provides the board and the community with a

007path that is responsive, forward-looking, and grounded in both academic planning and equity. It sets a pace of closures that allows for thoughtful, sustainable decisions that will serve our students and our city well into the future. I'm looking forward to the continued conversation as we move this important work forward. Thank you, Madam Chair. >> Thank you. >> At this point, >> Pollson has a question. >> Oh, at this point, I'd like to open up for questions and concerns. Um, Colonel, >> I missed the first part of Dr. Paul's uh introduction about the community input for this uh new option five. When and where was that collected? >> So this is responsive to the community input that was already collected and then there would be further community input when we talk about the resoning process. >> Why

008is it so late being coming forward to be a new option? So there was discussion there was a a a 2 by two with two board members at administration to talk about other oper options and opportunities. Um that was also based off board conversation that we had last week. >> And those two um board members were the 2 by two yesterday. >> That's correct. >> It was u Miss Bassine and Mr. Right. Yeah, it's on your calendar. Thank you. I just didn't know if you had another 2 by two. >> No, sir. >> Um, that's all at this moment. I do have further questions in the moment. >> Okay. Thank you. or members, would anyone like to speak to this proposal or to any other proposals? Miss Mine, >> Madam Chair, >> um, thank you.

009>> Speak up a little bit. Put your mic a little closer. >> Thank you. Thank you, uh, for recognizing me. Um, so yeah, last week we left, you know, the the administration brought forth four options um, based on the community feedback as Dr. Paul just mentioned and we talked about as a board, you know, what else? We didn't we didn't actually have deliberation around what those options are, what we liked, what we thought were pros and cons of those options and really thinking about it from a student centered perspective. Um, and then looking back at all the community feedback that we've received, especially around attendance zones and boundaries and being deliberate in um in the process, you know, the any one of us had the option of talking to Dr. P coming together with the

010full board uh to talk about another option if we had another option or things that we didn't like about option one through four. And so that's what um I brought forward to Mr. Dr. Paul and Mr. Inch and we kind of worked through it and thought through what are some things that we can do and can't do. And we we after what an hour and a half of like really talking through some of these things logistically and um from an academic standpoint, we kind of ca we came up with this option that we felt like uh best address the needs of the community, best address most importantly the needs of our students and allowed us the time to do this well um versus in a rushed manner. So that's what this option represents. >> And

011just wanted to give that back drop since um I know Colonel Pollson just asked about that. And also to point out that the boundary work that is being proposed in this plan will be um will be done by the spring of 26 so that we can move forward in fall of 27 with additional school closures. >> Right. >> Have something to say. Um the four options that we had last week um and you all came up with the fifth option. two board members. It's seven board members. Um so that's not going to fly with me at all. Um that's the reason why we having the meeting tonight >> to come up and we was coming up with another option like I said last week and we looked at the four option that on the table

012um present on the table maybe we can come up with an option after looking at all that come up with something different. What y'all did yesterday was a little underhanded cuz nobody even knew anything about y'all was meeting. >> No, no. >> Well, that was so easy. >> Go ahead. Go ahead. >> Yes. So, we we left last meeting. Any any one of us can come up. That was that's what tonight is for is for us to review an option. This is just another proposal. If there are things that you don't like about it, right now is the time for seven of us to come forward with any recommendations. Last week, all seven of us were here. We had the opportunity to bring forward any recommendations. There was nothing that was brought forward during the

013meeting. >> But that's why we having a meeting tonight. So, what y'all did yesterday, you didn't have to do. You could have just waited. >> This is an option that we drafted to bring forward to the full board for year. What was the special meeting call >> for for you? >> So now so now we have five options instead of four to consider and we introduced option five tonight because it is a new option. >> Madam chair. >> Yes sir. >> Thank you. >> So I just want to make sure we get it clear. There is no undermine. I'm operating full transparency operating at uncompromising integrity. >> No you're not in and that's your opinion on that. Um however what I will say is last week we were presented with four options. This board was

014here the public heard those options and then also it was also echoed that we can come with another option. myself and board member Pine, we came together as board members that any other jurisdiction in the Commonwealth would do that to do a 2 by two because if you have more than two members, guess what? It's considered a meeting. And then we met with Dr. poll to go over another further option that helped deconentrate poverty, slow down the transition so it's not a big interruption to families while also addressing equity and academic excellence at the epicenter of this opinion. That's just y'all two opinions. >> And so that's why we're here today to talk about that. You could schedule a 2 by two with with also Tiffany with Dr. Paul, but if I was there, it's

015considered a meeting. So we didn't do anything underhanded. We spoke with him about a recommendation on what our brains and our minds put together based on the data that has been provided to us. That's what we're supposed to do as board members, come up with solutions and we came up with solutions for our community. So, I would echo that here. We come up with some more if you do not like these five. >> Um, the colonel has had his hand up, so I want to um first acknowledge the colonel. Do you have a question? >> I I have a statement here for you. Uh, one of the special call was for the board to meet to come up with a plan like the vice vice chair said from the four options. Okay. Now you have

016five. Now you have six. I just emailed you each option number six that I was working on and was going to present. So it's now there for your uh consideration. I can put it on board docs. Um, >> Ken, could you please email that to Karen so that she can post it to board? >> Emile it to the board to Dr. Paul, Mr. Freillley, Karen Tanner. >> Okay. She she needs to post that onto board docs. >> Now, anything further, Colonel? >> Yes. I I I believe this um option five if we're we're going to talk about that now or do I need my comments later? >> Um I think I'm going to I am going to have us go through each of the options for pros and cons and then we will get to

017five and we will get to six. >> Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Uh uh Miss Moore Buffalo. Hello. >> Uh I I just want to share, you know, >> I just want this board to understand that each and every one of us has the opportunity to to bring forth a recommendation or ideas around any of these options. Um to for the spirit of thinking that Mr. and Miss Bassine just went in some dark alley and came up with the fact that they were going to meet with Dr. Paul to come up with another option is just so far out there. Um we we all um have an opportunity to come up with alternative options. We left here yes uh last week and and I think it was said we need to make our own option.

018Well, they took the initiative to do that. And so in the spirit of trying to be proactive board members, you know, we don't knock each other for trying to be proactive and doing what's best for kids. That's not why we're here. So let's just stay, you know, above board and stop going below board. >> That's all I Thank you. >> That's all I need. >> All right. So let's move on. Let's revisit option one. Um terms of pros and cons. Um, it I'm going to start with a pro. It does um it does meet the criteria set by city council um in terms of closing 10 schools. But I'd also like to say a con is upon further review, it is not a option that can work in the timeline that was originally given. So

019does anybody want to speak to option one? Anybody want to speak for or against it at this point? >> Uh I I'll Madam Chair. >> Yes, sir. So, I did have an opportunity to review over the draft recommendations for option one. Um, while I think they are they are good sound recommendations to a to a certain extent, I do see that option one it slows the sinquation a little bit until the end um of 2033, but it also prolongs our students still being in underperforming schools. And one of our go board goals is to ensure that every child goes to a highquality school. >> And so that's why I'm not voting or never never would be in for option one because it while it does meet the city council's goal and I believe that the

020other options um some of the other ones recommended tonight would do that as well and it does have a cost savings but it is delayed. If you do look at the amounts as much as it costs us to close the schools and then just keeping the students in low performing schools, we're looking at Lynenwood PB Young. I I want to make sure that we address academic success, student centered success as the first and biggest thing and set that as the basis and it's I don't see it in this one. Would anyone else like to speak for or against option one? >> Madam Chair, I appreciate the effort that was put forth to create option one uh with the information and data that was made available to this steering committee to come up with that list.

021Um, as far as option one through three, um, you know, they all or to four, what is lacking is that, well, there's a couple things that in these plans, it dictates where children are going to move to without doing a wholesale look at the boundaries and attendance zones, which I think is a huge miss. So, for me, that's an issue. Um, and I've shared that in previous meetings. basically every time um we've had one with Mr. Sturts. Um the other thing, and I I shared this with Dr. P, there there are a couple hills that I am gonna die on, which I'm using that phrase, is that I am not um I am not going to vote in support of displacing a whole school community for another uh particularly at James Monroe. Um, I appreciate

022the effort to look at ways of doing priority enrollment and um, there just isn't enough room to do that where it would benefit a majority of the students at that school. Um, and those are the conversations that um, I was grateful to have with Dr. Paul and his team um, to kind of work through some of those things and questions that I had. And so with that um, you know, that is not something that I can support. And so um that is and that is present in all three of the other all four of well all three of the options except for four. Um the other thing is is you know the goal from for the last 10 years that we've had uh been doing this educational planning work creating socioeconomically diverse schools has been

023one of the top goals and it's part of our non-negotiables. It's part of um you know if we are going to raise academic achievement and have it be at the center this plan these plans don't highlight that or align with that as far as I can see. So that is that is my challenge with these options. >> Dr. Um I agree with um Miss Bassine in the in the concept of putting one student body into a school and then loading another. I think um and that is why I um would like to potentially delay the Gent and Monroe elementary school. So putting the gent children in the program in the um elementary school and then displacing the Monroe students. I I absolutely am against that. And so what I would prefer to do is to

024delay that in the timeline until we can come up with a solid plan to combine the two programs on the on the Anybody else have anything to say about option one? Now option two changes the timeline but the result is the same as option one. The biggest difference between option two and option three it's when we would relocate students to Ruffner from PB Young. Otherwise, um the options are very similar. Uh right, I'm not speaking out of turn. Otherwise, options two and three are very very similar. >> Young PB Young is Yeah, PB Young is uh >> right. Flip. >> Yeah, flip on a timeline. >> Anyone like to speak to option two? And I'd like to put option two and three out together since they are so similar. Any pros or cons to option

025two? Uh, Colonel, >> when we're giving our opinions now, we're we're not voting. We're just uh doing a straw poll and I'm trying to >> Yeah, I'm just trying to foster discussion about the different options to put out there the pros and cons and talk through what we like about a plan or what we do not like about a plan. >> Okay. Thank you. >> So for me between the two options I prefer option three. Although um again we are displacing the Monroe community which I have deep reservations about. Um and I do think that what we have missed all along is school boundaries and reallocating the the schools to where students live inside the district. And I feel that that work, that boundary work needs to be done in conjunction to even thinking about

026a school closure or consolidation. Like we know the schools that have the worst FCIs. We know the schools that we we want to consolidate or close, but I think we need to be looking at our boundaries and and uh this plan does not neither of the plans speak to that. Do you have a comment? >> How did you know? >> Because I can read your body language. >> You can read my body language. I tell you, I like to be able to keep it keep it that way, I guess. Madam Chair, recognize me? >> Yes. >> All right. Awesome. So before option five was put onto the table and I had a opportunity to thoroughly review the options 1 2 3 and four, I was um coming to this meeting with option three because and

027just a few things that I saw it did balance the urgency of meeting the city council's needs and the capacity to addressing a lot of our high schools that have I high FCIs such as PB Young, Terton, Larmore, I'm sorry, Lynenwood but it's not as an extreme pace as option two. So this is a little bit of a slower pace. Now also it also addresses academic achievement which is one of our board goals and ensuring that we make sure student centered academic achievement. It takes a lot of our students from academically challenged schools and we put them in more high performing schools. So that was the one I looked at as well. um and it did offer a cost savings benefit a lot more than option one. However, after um looking at those options and

028then at our previous board meeting, being able to put forth another option and meeting in good faith with my board colleagues and meeting in faith with my colleague, we came up with a fifth solution. Um, I'll go into details on the fourth one when Madam Chair recognizes me for that on the reasons why I did not go for that and um, making sure we take care of our community. >> Anyone else like to speak to option two or three? >> All right, let's move on to option four. I'm sorry. Did you say option three? >> We were speaking of both option two and option three. Did you have any comment on two? >> I have a comment on option three. >> Oh, please share. >> Okay. I that was my first choice. I like the

029uh the order and the fact that it was uh the order that they they had the schools in were in an appropriate order, but I think that they can be compressed a little bit so that the task can be ended earlier um by a couple years and that's why I developed option six. >> Okay. I'll talk to six, but I just wanted to say that my option six came from three and because that was the best option I saw at as I reviewed the four. >> Okay. Well, I'm going to have you introduce option six when we get to that option. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Any other comments on option two or three? I will say that initially option three was the option of the four that I was leaning towards, but now that

030there are two other options on the table, I'm I'm reserving judgment at this time. Option four was developed to address many of the concerns expressed by the community. Um, and would anyone like to speak to option four as to why it's a good option or potentially why the option is not good or feasible? I do know that Dr. poll you had shared some challenges >> uh with option four. One of the challenges would be you know moving around um some of this the the the prek from Monroe um in order to fit Lynenwood into Monroe. Another challenge is it doesn't meet the the goal of um really recalibrating our SCES at school divisions. Um it in some instances it might exasperate that a little bit. The socioeconomic status of our our student population um was

031another challenge that this this did not um did not do as well as options one, two or three. >> Anybody have any thoughts on option four concerns? I agree with um Dr. Madam Chair, I agree with Dr. Paul. Um it doesn't address the um social economic things that we need to address immediately um for our students um for our students and overall for our families that will address overall of our community's health. So I I I was I want to keep getting open. So that will always be my option. That's why I think option five is a great one. Um but I I think this one doesn't really we got to get to student success. That's the main thing. And I just don't see option four being able to address that. I need to address

032that as a center and then we can work off of everything else. But we got to get our children back to where they need to be. I don't know if you've seen the recent report cards u the nation put out for each community. But neither here nor there, but option four just wasn't the best one for me. >> I think option four does not address some of the board goals at all. Um, therefore, it's I don't believe it to be a feasible option. >> Shared your concerns. It was already like off my >> Any other thoughts, comments before we move on to option five? Option five was a hard copy was provided at the beginning of the meeting. This option closes uh and moves early childhood programs next year and moves St. Helena into Southside

033STEM. um focuses on our early childhood centers and then it still has the list of closures. Um but it's it has put off the exact timing based on reszoning doing a full resoning. But the my understanding is that we would still continue to close schools in 2728. Close the first round in 2627 but we would continue to close in 2728. Um so who would like to speak pros and cons of this option? Miss Bassine. >> Madam Chair, I also want to point out that while um there isn't a timeline for how many schools um would close, you know, 27 28 um what it does allow is for the boundary and attendance zone work. I mean, the the main piece of this is that we're not putting out here right now where students are going without

034that. So that's the real big difference in this option versus what we see in the other options including option six is that we're allowing the administration um working with the consultants to do a full boundary plan before determining where students will go which will give us a more real picture of what the capacity and utilization may look like in the school division. Um and I don't know if Dr. Paul, if you want to speak to what the potential is of how many schools may close each year. You know, you know, I think only you can really speak to that, but um I I do want to point out though that it the the biggest difference in this plan versus the others is that it allows the boundary and attendance zone work to be done and

035complete and um thought done thoughtfully. And and just to answer your question, Mr. Bassine, some of that would depend also on, you know, the both both all all the plans, you know, rely on some some rebuilds as well. And it would depend on the rebuild of Jay Cox as well as the Lake, you know, Lake Taylor High School's uh the CTE comprehensive program to be able to make those those moves. Um, and then it would just really we could thoughtfully do a division plan of when it is best to move the students um, based off of what the reszoning looks like across the division and and have time to think through that. >> So, a solid number I I really couldn't answer each year. Uh, it it possibly could speed up the process um, you

036know, when when you do a resoning like this. Um, but I wouldn't know until I have the hard data in front of me. But it wouldn't slow down the process. >> It would not slow down the process. >> Would you say that um that like broadly speaking the timeline would remain relatively similar to what we've seen in the other options? I mean, I know you just mentioned speeding up potentially, but >> yeah, it wouldn't be longer than that. >> It wouldn't be longer than what excuse me, any of the first four options have. Um because you you notice when those were presented also we put some pause timeline in there for the rebuilds to happen. So the same thing would have to happen when when a new timeline is developed based off the resoning. >>

037I have been saying to myself and asking other people why we weren't doing the resoning work at the beginning of this process. So I am in support of resoning first and closing second, but that resoning work would be finished in the spring and we would be able to continue to close schools um fall of 2027. Uh my only concern is if we finish the resoning work in the spring and we're closing schools in fall of 27, have we given that school community enough time um to understand that change? >> So if I may, that would that would give us an entire year. So we would do the we would do the actual hearings in the fall of 26 for a fall of 27, you know, change. So we would have actually more time that we're

038proposing the other options this way. >> That is true. So, um, thank you, um, board member, um, Bassine, um, for your knowledge and historical knowledge of this, um, information and data. And I've been able to take a look at it and look at where our scores are, look at our FCIs, and listen to the community input that we've had at various times. And this tells the community has said one thing. Yes, this has to happen, but let's slow it down. And so I think that this option five, it addresses that the good faith that we are closing uh consolidating schools because we know budgetarily we need to do that. And this also meets the needs of our community saying let's slow the progress and like you said, many have mentioned redistricting and making sure that

039we also add that in there. So that will help deconentrate the poverty that is in our city. And we know poverty is one of the greatest things that is affecting public education. And I believe that this is a sound option that has been put forth. Um and I do like that it has those dates to be determined. They will still be in that closing list, but we will determine that based off the needs of our families and our communities at that time. So, I I I support um option five um as it is. >> Um I'm a little confused. Um was didn't um Mr. Curtz say that we need I mean he he gave us the heat map of where our students are so we have an idea of where that is. So um I

040remember his recommendation was that we talk about the schools first and then the reasonzoning. >> So if I if I may madam chair. >> Yes sir. >> So and that's correct. So this this option does so if you recall at the last board meeting, one of the things I had also mentioned was, you know, the the steering committee did great work for us and and and they looked at all the data and they came up with a list of of buildings that that were really the ones that that we probably not don't need to have in our inventory anymore. This follows that recommendation still allows for reszoning to happen before we do, you know, where the students are going from those buildings. So the buildings on here are the ones that were the highest FCI

041or you know others that were determined that we didn't need on the inventory from the community input from the committee. >> So the reasonzoning plan would essentially reszone by removing these schools correct from the portfolio and reszone based on the remaining schools. >> Correct. And based off the heat map and based on where everybody lives now. Um I did is is the research I could I know you know the the the one who would have overseen any reasonzoning in the past has has been more than 22 years because it was longer than than he's been here since we've done anything with resoning. So it's decades since we've done anything and we know our population in the city has changed and shifted in in the decades. So, it really is time to look at a full

042resoning um process and and what better time than if we're looking to consolidate schools. >> And Dr. Paul, with this option, this will address a lot of our areas that are challenged with poverty and helping to deconentrate it and focus on student success. >> So, I I I I'll say a cautious yes to that. If you remember, Mr. St also said in his presentation, you know, we can't fix it all with school zoning, but we can do better. So, this does better. It would allow us to do better. >> Okay. >> All right. Cool. >> Other thoughts, concerns? >> I was just going to say this is the opportunity to to um it better because we can't change the landscape of our city, but we can sure put effort in changing the landscape. like you

043said, concentrated poverty in our in our schools and reshape what that looks like in the city of Norfol. So, I like option five, but I'm I'm waiting to hear what Conor uh Colonel Pollson says about option six. So, >> and I just um Madam Chair, just want to um um just add one thing and Colonel, I'll let you um have your um go at it. Um because I I definitely want with any option making sure that we keep on the committee so that they can still provide that valuable input because they are a vital asset that we need to make sure that we hear because we can't hear all the people's p pulse and what's going on. But I I thank them and I want to just keep them on through all of it. >>

044One thing that I noticed is that um Gent and Monroe are not on option five. >> Right. Right. There there is a caveat that as we go through the redistricting and zoning process that there's the potential of perhaps finding a better space for Gent Elementary. So it doesn't mean that that program might not be moved in the future. Just not set to be moved at this point. >> That's correct. And and Monroe will be a part of the resoning. And so we'll we'll virtually add students at Monroe. So when you say Monroe will be part of the resoning, so is that still being because I don't see them on this plan. >> Yes. So basic the sorry the these the buildings here would just basically we would uh take them off our inventory and reszone

045based off the schools that remain. So Monroe would still remain on our inventory and we would reszone with Monroe as a school. a lot of concerns that our our gent parents that have been >> but I but I I do think it's important to notice it doesn't mean that the Gent program isn't going to move at some point. It's just not set to move >> right now. Colonel Colonel, >> before you end, there's a discussion going back and forth there and I realize it, but before we jump to six, I would like to comment on five. Thank you. >> Yes, please do. >> You have a comment for five? >> Oh, um, yes. Um, option five is you said it has u requires a reszoning but that can't occur until after the school closures and

046cons consolidations are finalized. Our uh uh consultant Mr. Struts told us that continuously and over that makes option five a red herring and not an effort but an effort to delay. There is no specific timelines delineated for the events for after school year 256 27 and all those marked are marked to be determined. This is not a facilities plan nor a plan for educational success. It is a diversion driven by political alliances that has no positive scholar outcome. That's why I submitted six. As a reminder, the city council passed a resolution in March warning if the closures are not implemented in a timely manner, they may shift NPS to categorical funding, thus giving council more direct control over the appropriations to offset losses from underused buildings. A board email correction. A the board received an

047email earlier today from the council person who echoes that warning. Again, it would be foolish for the school board to ignore the clearly stated expectations of our funding body. If MPS were to return to categorical funding, it would be negatively impact our ability to manage our budget. It has the potential to provide our funding body the ability to make key decisions for us. Another risk with the categorical funding is it allows larger than necessary year end reversions that could have been captured for NPS. Unfortunately, it appears that there the uh the option five is not supported by datadriven recommendations, but rather it seeks to costly delays that will impact our scholars outcomes. Look at the big picture. What events do we have that would cause this to delay advantage? the superintendent search, future political elections,

048our pay raise. What what why do we want to delay? We have a window right now to make a thoughtful phase decision that aligns with our consultants findings and preserve our financial independence. I urge us to move forward without delay. The real question is, does the board have the political will to act or will we yield to self-interest? We already have the data. We've had it for years. We need to make a logical decision. From the production of Hamilton, there's a saying. It says, "I'm not going to throw my shot. Let's not throw ours away. Let's reject delays and move forward with diligence and support our scholars and not fail them again as we did on June 11th. I yield the floor. >> Thank you for your your your comments, Colonel. >> Um would anyone

049else like to >> speak? Take you want to tag it first, >> Madam Chair. Yes, ma'am. May I >> I'm extremely disappointed in this conversation. I first I want to say I would like to know from the min what delay is being caused by option five. Is there a delay being caused by option five? >> So there without a timeline being on here, there's no definitive. However, when we have the resoning, our our plan is to follow the same timeline as the other options. Um the only delay would be on any rebuild of Jay Cox or another school where we might need space. Other than that, um uh there wouldn't be a delay compared to the other options. That's not the the purpose that that we put forth in this option. While I um and

050I'm going to call it for what it is, orchestrated attempt to make it appear as if there is something underhanded happening here. This is an option that is absolutely rooted in data in historical uh information that has been provided by the consultants over the last decade has been uh vetted with our schoolboard goals at the front and center in alignment with our non-negotiables and strategic plan. and whoever I mean if you have another option bring it forward >> provide another option which would be option >> and we're going to talk about it >> and then I mean >> but I I have nothing else to say like this is this just >> madam chair >> crazy >> yes sir >> so I I do have something to say um I believe civility is should always

051be at the hallmark Mark, so I'm going to keep it very simple. Um, I don't take the any of the acca accusations that a board member says this is politically motivated. This is not. This has been backed up by data that addresses the issues with urgency. Addresses it with with a sense of we need to address that we have too many schools and not enough children to address to fill them. and we have a city council that has other projects that they do need to take care of, but also they need to take some of these schools off cuz it is costing us a lot of money. Um, this takes in making sure that we address student success and making sure we help address that our students are not achieving in low performing schools. So,

052I just take resentment and I find it very pre presidential for a a board member to put out those accusations. Tanya and I came together as board colleagues with any district would do in our commonwealth to put forth our knowledge that we have both in this community backed up by the information provided by the paid consultant of Norfol public schools and also by the data that that consultant by their education competency and experience has put forth and we have put forth a viable option that is root rooted in nothing but integrity, transparency, and making sure that our students are the success. I am sick and tired of people accusing people of political posturing and allegations. That is not what is going on here. We need to stop. We need to come together. We are role

053models for our children and our childrens need to see that we are addressing this urgency now and we have an option. If you have one, put it on the floor. Do your homework, put it on the floor. If not, then you come and you find one that works and then we make sure we get this done. We need to get it done and we need to move on so that we can keep focusing on North Public Schools and our families. That is all I have to say to that, Madam Chair. >> And that's why we're having a meeting now so we all can get together and come up with an option if we cannot agree with these um what is it? Six options on the table. >> Got to hear my hand. Madam Chair, >>

054Martin, >> I I'd really like to stick to the business at hand and not have these big staged um that should be handled in private. Um and of course to um Mr. Paulson's um uh account he did put a plan on the table you know um option six and also that the um this plan is you know it's it has a timeline to a point and so it is not complete and there is we we do still need to work on our trust between the two governing bodies of the city and so I I wouldn't completely blow that off. I think, you know, we this shows that we're not going to be making a decision tonight because we don't have a real timeline in front of us if we were choosing this option. There's still

055a lot of work to be done. So, um I just think that political arguments or disagreements out of this conversation and and get refocused on So >> I I still for me I do not like that we do not have dates but I do like this option because we are redistricting as part of the comprehensive plan. just simply saying that we're moving students from one school to another when it might not make sense based on where they live and the proximity to their school I think is I think is shortsighted. So, um, you know, with this plan, I'd like for us to be able to say we the, you know, we will continue to close one to two schools per year and maybe it's five in one year. Maybe we redistrict and we see how

056things flow in and we can say, "Oh, we can close five schools next year because we're moving all these students to other places." So this actually gives us the greatest ability to do the work quickly. Unfortunately, it doesn't it doesn't satisfy what has been prescribed for us, what has been asked of us. But I still think that the redistricting portion is incredibly important here and reszoning our students to the right schools so they're not on buses driving past two middle schools to go to a third middle school. >> Um Dr. Martin. Well, and but that that also goes to what I previously was trying to get clarification on without these dates and what's put here. It says um to uh TBD follow following full resoning proposal also goes against our um consultants recommendation to again

057um close consolidate the schools and then focus on the reasonzoning. But I think personally I do believe it's better to identify the schools and reszone and then figure out the lowhanging fruit when you have students where it doesn't seem to make a entire sense like what school they get reszoned to. Because if we move these 10 schools or nine schools out of our portfolio and then we reszone based on what we have left, we'll see where the students need to go, >> right? And to just make a blanket statement that we're going to move this entire student body to this other school and close the first school doesn't take into account where they actually live in the city and what would make sense wise for that particular student in that particular neighborhood. So, I would

058like to see some dates around option five, but I am in support of option five. Um, can put dates and and quite frankly like we can say like the two schools that we identified as closing first, we can >> in there. Yeah, they're there. >> And it and it but it it doesn't preclude us to close Tarlton in 20 2728 or to also close Norview in 2728. Nothing about this re reszoning plan precludes us from closing what schools need to be closed in what years. Um, it might guide us a little bit to change the timelines, but I think we could still establish timelines. >> Madam Chair, I still I still see this as incomplete because again, Gent and Monroe are not accounted for. >> Well, well, in this plan, Monroe stays a school. it'll

059get the resoning will fill up Monroe because right now we have Taylor basically at full capacity and large fund at 52% capacity. So reszoning will help Taylor and it will also help to fill up Monroe and ideally Larchmont. I'm just saying it's just not on this on this right. This needs to be >> it needs to be on paper. Okay. Yeah. thoughts. >> Oh, Colonel. Thank you, >> Colonel. >> Yes, thank you. I think we should look at this from a different perspective instead of options. We give the school division the schools we want closed, what we want them to do with it, and a timeline and let them handle the task. The more that we get into the um sequence, the harder it's going to be. let them work it out. We can then

060come up with the resources to help make sure that it's done on that timeline that we give them. This right now we're going back and forth or this school, that school. We're too much in the weeds. I believe if we look at it from a different approach, I think we could be more successful. That's my suggestion. Thank you. Madam Chair, could you >> just suggest option five? >> Yeah, that's what I'm conf I'm confused about too. Uh, Miss Bassine, >> I just wanted to point out that that recommendation that Colonel Pollson just made is recommendation is option five where you have the you have a list and >> have a time frame >> and you let the >> administration do the boundary work the consult and do all that and come up with a real

061comprehensive plan >> understanding that we expect these closures to be done within the next decade. >> Correct. Chair, if I may, you know, with with option five, when we look at option three, which was the other preferred option prior to to most board members, it had an end year of 2034. So if we just put, you know, to be completed by 2034 with school closures each year, then I mean then that that gives us the freedom to be able to do what the colonel said and kind of what the idea of this plan was to to look at, okay, these are the schools that the board says yes, these are the ones that we know we don't want on our roster anymore. Um, in administration, your responsibility is to give us a list of how

062this is going to happen. We already know the first ones because it's dated. So that we can, you know, part of the proclamation from the city council was or the resolution was has to start in the 26 27 school year. This holds to good faith with that and then by the spring we develop a timeline that would go through the years, but we could put an end date on it so that you know, you know, if it gets to vote at the next meeting, the resolution that the board votes on could have that end date in it. And just like Colonel Pollson said, um it would it would follow that and give us a timeline and give us the freedom to come back after working on a zoning plan to the board. And and just

063as a reminder to the the board and the community, again, this is just the first part. Any school closure requires a public hearing for the zoning and everything else. So all the details have to be mapped out before we do that public hearing. So that that gives us the time to come back and be able to do that work. Colonel, would you like to introduce option six and talk about how it is different from previous options? >> It it is actually option three, but it's condensed by about three years. That's the only difference. Well, there's a couple of things that have been moved around, but I moved everything up so it could be done swiftly, it could be done properly, and it could be done in a shorter amount of time and not have uh

064but there were a couple slots in option three where there was a couple a school year where there was no activity going on and I can't remember off the top of my had which year it was, but we should be moving at a a brisk pace each school year and doing it um in in a quicker manner than we're contemplating. Again, I go back to what Mr. Stur said that you can't do the resoning until after everybody has moved. You won't know ahead of time. >> So, If I'm not mistaken, option three had some had a year had some time built in because we were looking at rebuilding schools. >> So if the biggest option is the difference between the options is the timing, then this option doesn't give us the time needed to rebuild

065some existing schools. I I tried to keep everything in uh my suggestion um paired up. In other words, like when they closed uh one school and repurposed it, those always stayed together because they have to be done in the same year. But the other individual schools, I look more at which ones are the ones that we are admitting are the the worst schools, one of them being Terlton. Uh and and it should be at the forefront of what we're doing. and and we can have more than one school or two schools, excuse me, buildings, one or two buildings a year could be closed, but we are seeming to want to not do that. And so that's why my option six is a little more aggressive. But we we can do it. We just have to

066all come to agreement. But uh that it's whichever way we're going to do it, we're going to do it. My last suggestion of just letting the school figure it out, I think it's the easiest for everybody because then we don't have to come back and when something goes arai, we don't have to worry about it. The school can do that. The the division, they can figure it out. They'll be the people on the ground and uh we can just make sure that they meet our overall objective on whatever year from now that everything has been done except the things that are preset for CIPs and for buildouts and rebuilds. Those are some things we can't really control. We can to some degree, but there are some things that we cannot. So, let's just let the

067school division do this, >> which is option five. >> Well, no, because you don't have anything set in there and you're wanting to do the reszoning um study before everybody has moved. >> Well, we would Dr. I mean, Mr. Stur said that's not the way to do it. Mr. Freley speak to that. >> Yes. >> Good evening. >> Let me talk about resoning. So, we already have a purchase order signed. Reszoning is already in the works. I you know that's from the jump. Um all we need is the 10 schools. Once we have the 10 schools, they can start on the resoning. And so that's in play right now. But we have to have the 10 schools to reszone. And we're going to reszone elementary, middle, and high all at once. So all the feeders.

068So that's not something that separates any of these choices. Number five is not different for because we're going to now zone. We've always had that in the plan. As far as moving forward, we need the list of schools to close and then they can reszone. And and you know when I think of resoning I'm thinking about transportation as well. This can relieve some pressure on transportation. You know human resources, financial resources, transportation, all these things. Um so Mr. Freley, I'm glad you said that because we have the schools they purchase order ready to go um for the study. And I if if the only thing that's missing on this chart is dates, then put the dates up there. I mean, that's what I'm hearing >> and in the get stuff kind of indicate that there

069as well. But other than that, I keep hearing the same thing really that we're we're all kind of agreeing to the same thing without the little nuance that you know, little thing details that needs to go on this chart. >> I don't I don't feel comfortable voting on this until we have those details. >> Oh, we're not I'm just saying >> Oh. Oh, I I understand. But >> I provided the other two board members with a detailed analysis of option one, two, and three. I can h I have copies tonight if you all would like to see those. I know the other two shared in those discussions already. >> I bought them just in case it came up. >> Can we can we do those digitally on board docs so that they're available to the

070community at the same time? Mr. Thank you very much. >> I can forward that to Karen in about two minutes from my cell phone and then I'll hand them to you guys if that's acceptable. >> Yes. Thank you. >> You all have any other questions? But and we can close as many schools as you want. You tell me to close 10 in one year, I'll make it happen. >> We don't want that. >> We are talking about people and not robots. >> Madam Chair, >> so let me just clarify. So >> what I'm hearing from you, Dr. Martin, is that option five is missing dates for you, >> like dates of school closures. um that I mean and I've said over and over again the what are we doing about the gent program in more

071in Monroe >> um and initially at the early one of my first comments this evening was potentially delay that well not let's see I'd like for again from the first comment that Tanya had made was um we are in agreement that we don't want to displace students for another student population. And so I think that that really needs to be worked out and I I I know these these um anyone associated those two schools about what's to be decided and so I'd like to >> So what I understand and I'm going to let Dr. >> So I appreciate that Dr. Martin. So in this plan, Monroe would not absorb Gent because Monroe would remain an elementary school and it would it would during the zoning process, we would add student population there because we know

072Monroe doesn't have as many students as it can have. But we can put the caveat on here that during the resoning process, if there is a facility that's better for Gent, there's still a possibility that Gent would get moved in the future. Um, but Monroe would remain an elementary school. Monroe would not be absorbing Gent. So, it's not even on the table anymore. Um, on option five, Monroe does not does not become a different program. We're not displacing any students. We're going to add students into that building through a resoning process. But we'll put a caveat on here about the the like the line I read when I opened that, you know, through the resoning if there's a possibility where there's a different placement for Gent in the future, that will still be looked at.

073>> I appreciate that. >> Yeah, absolutely. Sure. >> Other comments? Dr. uh Colonel Pollson. >> Uh yeah, I was going to comment on six. I can explain my logic for everyone or why I selected the items the way I did. >> Okay, please do. >> You ready? >> Yes. The first year 26 27 there are 1 2 3 4 five schools that would close two that would be repurposed. That seems like a lot in numbers but it moves quickly. Uh they are the same um as in option three where it says where the students are going. All that remains the same. I didn't change their destinations. Then in 2728 there will be three closures and two repurposes and then we're pretty much done until the CEP and uh Lake Taylor is done in in the

074out years and those may change but in two school years we could do the majority of the transfers uh the closures and move on to bigger and better things. >> Sure. >> Absolutely. >> Um, option six definitely wouldn't work, Mr. Paulson, because we lose the trust in the community. I'm talking about the students, the parents, the stakeholders, the teachers, the principles, the whole NPS. We said from the beginning, what was it? One to two schools a year. So, we can't come and say five to six schools. That's not going to cut it. >> So, that definitely will not work. >> Okay. Thank you for your input >> and and and that's for which I I you're coming through. It's there's a lot of echo. So, what school were you talking about specifically? >> I wasn't

075talking about the school. I was talking about the schools in your option six of closing or repurposing five to six schools in one year. >> They're very aggressive. We're talking about students, people, and we're not talking about what Tiffany >> robots. Robots. >> And I and I worry that we won't do the work to prepare and plan to the best of our ability if we are hurrying through the process. >> Yeah. The repurposing is is both of them uh are for uh changing from elementary to ECC's. U I had asked the question I think before could you do more than one in a year and the answer was yes. So that's why I only have two repurposes in uh 2627 and uh in 2728. There's only four schools really that we're looking to repurpose. And

076as far as the closure, if you look at the number of students uh where they're the smallest, the the uh impact on all the services you talked about, the the teachers, the principles, the administrators, uh etc., etc. It it was counted for before I just moved them to closer together. Thank you. Uh, Miss Moore Buffalo Conson. >> Yes. >> Can you share your thinking around um Jay Cox Elementary School year 29 to 31? >> Those are what are on the uh the plan already. This is the exact thing that's on uh uh option three was those years. No, I'm I'm reading instead of building this site new because it is so close to the new Richard Bowling, is there a way to build a new 38 STEMbased school on the Lynenwood site? Maybe have a

077partnership with the Elizabeth River project. That that was a comment I got from uh a constituent u on that and that's why I put it there was something I I got >> okay >> it didn't influence my my thinking of leaving the rebuild for Jay Cox in 2931 Hold on. >> Now, as I understand it, our 10day count showed a decrease in the number of elementary school students. Is that correct, Dr. Paul? >> Correct. Just shy of 200 from last year's 10day count to this year's 10day count. But we'll have a 30-day count which will give us better numbers, >> but not before the projected vote. >> We owe it to everybody to um not rush this process. I know it's been a long time coming, but it's really just been put in our laps.

078And I think we just need to go back to the table and come up with a great plan that's going to benefit our babies. That's what we need to do cuz right now we all cannot agree upon these six plans. So I think we need to go back and take the six plans together and just take them apart and then bring them back together and come with a plan that's going to suit North public schools. Well, well, yeah. I'm sorry. Dr. Martin, let me speak and then I was gonna say that's I I like what um Miss Thomas is saying because I would have liked to had more of a hands-on walk through some scenarios u approach to this. >> Well, I do have a question to pose to the board. Um are we in

079agreement about the school closures? Are we in agreement about the schools that need to be closed? I mean, can I take a straw poll? >> So, are we agreeing with these schools? These schools that we have here? >> Yes. Do we >> I mean, some are being closed as schools and then repurposed. So, >> right. But okay, I take I take that statement back. Do we agree about the building closures of which buildings need to be closed? Can we come to any kind of consensus on the identified buildings and whether or not we agree that those buildings need to be closed? >> Madam Chair, I just want to point out that the buildings that would be closed differ in options. Um particularly option five does not include the closure of Gent. Um so that is

080something leaves it on the table for the future. Right. But but as far as the list of schools, I'm just pointing out that the options differ in in which schools are >> right. But that's but as far as I can tell, that's the only difference. Am I am I incorrect consolidating? And >> I had two lists with schools. >> I think we need to come to together and come up with 10 schools that we're going to close. board members. >> Let's do that right now. >> That's why we're here. That's why we're having this meeting. >> Not necessarily in the order we coming with, but we just going to have 10. >> Correct. >> Right. >> Okay. Um so am looking at at the plans um one that is in all the plans >> that

081building is sinking into the swamp and I understand it would take So, do we all take a vote on each school? >> Well, I think I think we can come to try to come to consensus to identify the schools that [Music] So, do we all agree Charlton needs to be closed? >> Colonel, would you agree that Carolton needs to be closed? >> Okay. I as I understand it, you you're going to uh we're going to announce or not announce but uh try to uh come to a consensus on which ones we're going to close. Correct. >> Correct. and just 10 or we going to pick 12 and then in case we don't agree on our >> we're going to go we're going to use the lists that were initially provided to us all of the

082lists and we will start with those schools on that list. So the question >> on which which list >> on all four of the options? >> All four of them. Okay. >> Five six of the options. I'm sorry I button has been on every single list. Are we in agreement that Tarlton needs to be closed? >> Oh, you want to say something? >> No, I'm just like yes. >> It might be easier. You want us to object? Anybody object to Terlton being closed? >> There's agreement. Um, Norview Elementary School. Anyone object to the closure of Norview Elementary School. >> Done. object to the closure of PB Young. >> Um, I do only because of what school you're moving them to. Are we ready? Are we ready for that? >> So, I think >> they're going

083to Rougher. >> Not necessarily. Because when we're looking at a full reszone, it may not be Ruffner anymore. We're looking to see if we can because a lot of the community feedback was around not placing the babies at >> where they going Jacobs. >> We we depends on on the resoning. >> That's not a good option either. >> I'm not saying it it is. I'm saying we'd have to look at the full resoning plan. Once we have the 10 schools, we'd come back with a resoning plan that the board would still have to vote on. >> I'm not with PB. >> We have one objection with PB. >> All right. Graanby Elementary School. >> We have agreement that Graanby should be closed. Do we have anybody who disagrees with the closure of Graanby? >> I

084know that's close to your heart, >> but in terms of it it condition >> we previously talked about rebuilding it before this conversation came about, >> right? And let's let's >> definitely in its current state, it's not >> right. and and we really need to focus on closing the buildings. Not we're not closing out students or just closing a building that is housing students not educationally appropriate for them to be um Madison and open campus at Easton. about closing that on here option five. >> Option five. >> That and that is contingent though on I don't know if Dr. Paul if you want to clarify that. Yeah, that would be contingent on uh being able to fund the alternative program to move to Lake Taylor High School >> and that was the one that was

085put on when Monroe was taken off for option five. >> All right, so let's look at the EC. Um, the idea was to close Willoughby Willoughby, close the building at Willoughby, but move the program to Ocean Air. That seems to be on all of the proposals. So, are we comfortable with closing the building of Willoughby and moving the program to Ocean Air? have a problem with that. Second one with the ECC's closing the building of Berkeley moving that program to St. Helena because of the condition of >> condition is so bad. Why would we move other babies in the school? >> We're not moving anyone into Berkeley. >> I thought you said ECC is going to St. Helena. >> Berkeley ECC. Does the Berkeley have other programs other than the ECC? >> The Berkeley, we

086would close the ECC Berkeley and move them to St. Helena. >> Okay. But if St. Helena is so bad, why would we move other kids into the building? So why not try to repurpose St. Helena and keep the kids there instead of sending them to Campastella? and move to prek the campus. >> The you know when when again this was this was a part of the work of the the committee that came back to us and they looked at all the data pieces and this was a community input that created this. So again, the the bottom line is it's a it's it turns out it's a board vote that does everything, but that was the recommendation of the committee was to move because there's room at Southside STEM to move St. Helina into give them

087a better building, a better facility, and then Berkeley Early Childhood a better building because St. Helena is in better condition Berkeley. >> I don't know about that. So I'm just not understanding the logic of moving a set of kids out of the school mode needs to be just redone and you're going to move other kids in the building. I just don't >> Well, do we agree that Berkeley needs to be closed? The building of Berkeley needs to be closed. >> I'm a little lost. So >> what document are we looking at? >> I am all different in front of me and I am looking at the schools that were slated for closure >> because we because like the first part of this process is to identify to make sure that we identify the schools that

088needed to be closed. I have it. Yes. >> Do I have it? This one. Okay. >> Thank you. Yes, ma'am. So, I'm cross- referencing multiple options here in terms of identifying the schools, >> but I mean I I do agree with Miss Thomas is that um talking about it's almost it's uh FCI is way too high to St. Helena. >> Yeah. >> Better option for where Berkeley goes. would like to see a better option for where Berkeley if it is. >> It just does it and and of course by the time depending on where that is in the timeline it could be potentially worse. Right. So >> technically based on yeah >> the school is like across the street from you know the STEM academy. So you wouldn't be, you know, taking the parents out

089of their norm. I mean, right there, >> but moving the St. Helena students to >> uh moving ECC the STEM >> because it's like right across the street. >> Thomas, are you suggesting keeping St. Helena St. Helena >> as it currently is and just not >> as it currently? No. >> Okay. So, that's what I'm trying to get clarity on. >> No, it needs to be redone. It needs some fixing, but I'm saying you just moving the whole family out of school. Yes, ma'am. Yes, ma'am. >> Because you think about the teachers and the students just like with any other school we're talking about. But I think this school right here is just it doesn't make sense to move them out and then you bringing somebody in. But the school is so bad. I don't

090think that's fair at all. Dr. Paul, so kids leaving going into St. Helena, we're talking about smaller kids. So there is a requirement to go in and do some repurposing in the school because it has to be um equipped for our little ones. So we're all all of that. So those things will be done to welcome those those students to the new building. So, it's not like they're going in that building as is. There are things that need to be done for those kids to go in that building. >> There'd be furniture upgrades and restroom upgrades and to make sure that we can accommodate the the younger students. Correct. >> Work done to the FCI at St. Helina >> there. Is there is it on the CIP, Mr. Freley, for anything at St. right now.

091Madam Chair, um is there is there space at Southside STEM Academy to um absorb Berkeley ECC and St. Helena or No. >> No, we couldn't do both of them there. >> So, another option would be to move >> the the buildings are FCI. They're very similar FCI's right now. 1's 71, one's 69. Um the that that could be an option where then you're you're displacing less. So you would move St. Helena into Southside and keep Berkeley where they are >> and St. Alina is very close to Southside. Correct. >> St. So Berkeley like like Miss Thomas saying, Berkeley is literally around the corner. You can if you look at the right angle, you can see Southside stem and then uh St. St. Helen is about 1.1 miles down the road from Berkeler. >> Yeah. Mhm.

092Throw a rock to Miss Buffalo Rock to >> So it seems like I'm proposing that we have to do something. So either we move St. Helena into Southside STEM and close St. Helina or in that way we would keep Berkeley where they are or we could do the double swap of moving St. Helina into Southside STEM and moving Berkeley over which financially to me since their FCIs are so similar and Berkeley is already set up for early childhood it doesn't make financial sense to me. This is just me and I can be wrong. So, please tell me to move those students at all. >> Yeah. >> Right. >> Okay. But but 69 and 7 one are basically a statistical tie. So, how about I'm going to throw this out there. the option of keeping Berkeley

093where it is and moving St. Helina into Southside and closing St. Helina. Anybody have any thoughts on that option? I'm really struggling here because I mean those are all the schools right on the map way over there. I just wanted I really I >> bring it over here. >> You need to >> we put it we put it in front of the podium. >> Really like to see >> put it in front of the podium. >> Different when you're driving down the street, but um >> Miss Msine, did you have something a comment? >> Yeah, I just um so just in terms of >> it's a huge map. >> Um envisioning uh the long-term goals for ECC's. So is there opportunity for expansion at Berkeley ECC if >> ECC is not a capacity right now?

094>> Okay. >> Um we So I believe those buildings are very similar in size as well. >> Okay. >> So it >> that's what I thought but yeah >> that would be a fair a very fair recommendation would to be leave leave Berkeley where they are move St. Helena students to Southside STEM and close the facility at St. Helena. >> Okay. And can you elaborate on um what or maybe Mr. Fail like what the thought process originally was to move Berkeley ECC >> that I think that the main contributor there was the FCI that that Southside STEM or sorry St. Helina is in a nominal better condition than Berkeley Berkeley is. However, you know, with the funding for the upgrades to restrooms and furniture and stuff that Berkeley wouldn't need, you know, some of that

095could go into >> Berkeley's conditioning. later on. >> Can you, Mr. Fairley, can you turn it so everybody can see it? >> The top is towards your feet. That would be great. >> Yep. That way all of us can kind of see it evenly. >> Yep. >> All right. So, >> read off your proposal again, Madam Chair. My proposal is that we move St. Helina into Southside STEM, leave Berkeley where it is, and then close St. Helina and potentially the money saved from not moving Berkeley to St. Helina could help with the FCI. potentially. I'm not, >> but it seems like >> why move the cheese if we don't have to move the cheese, right? Like something else. >> If if if it's a wash either way, then why uproot a program and move it?

096>> Move it. >> What do you all think about that? >> You have any objections to that? Just a second. >> Just a second. >> Purpose St. Helena, right? >> Yeah, I do. >> What's the What's the >> I'm just I'm just thinking if you was moving >> Yeah. >> some kids into that building anyway and you was going to repurpose or do whatever you was going to do, why you can't leave the school the way it is and repurpose as >> well because we Dr. Paul said we cannot support the number of So if Miss Thomas, if I can ask a clarifying question. So you're you're recommending the possibility of moving Berkeley's early childhood into Southside St. >> We'll have two schools around here, >> right? And then and then so leave St. Helina

097as is and move Berkeley's ECC over to Southside STEM. And one of my comments to that would be a lot of the research that's gone into the consolidation efforts is the count in a middle in an elementary school and wanting around 500 students per elementary school so that we can make sure programmatically we're able to offer everything we can offer. And St. Helina, they don't have the capacity to hold that many students there. So that would be that's the justification of why St. Helina was was moved originally into Southside STEM is because it's it's such a small school. I think they're at around >> 232 kids. >> That was as of last year. >> But one reason why people moved away and don't want their kids in that school because the way the school is

098that school is a mess. I wouldn't want my kids in there neither. So if you repurpose a school and build it up, trust me, the enrollment will go up. >> If if we have to also remember here, we we are going to as a board have to make compromise that we may we're going to have to take some compromises and go after the greater good. Um St. Helena moving would give it a much better facility. Um, I would look to administration to tell us what can be done about culture at Southside STEM that people are concerned with. >> There's been a new principle there. I think that's changed immensely. >> The culture is still not wonderful at all. So, what we talking about moving the kids at what part of this process? >> Well, we're

099just identif we're just identifying schools. We we said that we needed to identify the school >> cuz we need to get that school right in the inside culture wise before we move another school into that school, right? >> Cuz it's going to be a disaster. >> One of the other indicators if you I gave you all the big analysis. >> If you'll look at the uh the one where we're talking about the major indicators we reviewed, currently Berkeley ECC needs $13 million worth of priority work and St. Helena only needs 8 million. That was another factor we weighed. Um there was less needed for major improvements to make. >> So even though the FCIS are off by about 0 2 and a half >> will certain things inflate the FCI faster when you make the

100changes like HVAC, new roof, new windows, those things lower $5 million difference. >> We're talking 8 million to to for St. Helina and 13 million for Berkeley. 5 million. Yes, ma'am. >> So $5 million. >> That was one of the factors as well. And then slight difference in >> and as you guys know, the city only gives us 3 million a year for CIP work. >> So $5 million is a year and a half's worth of CIP budget. >> Yes, ma'am. >> Also um have some staffing challenges at St. Helena as well. >> Berkeley >> and Berkeley. I will say though, St. Helena is fully staffed this year >> with no no long-term subs. They do have a couple associate teachers, but I was actually I was over there this morning and she is fully

101staffed. >> It is uh Mr. I was just going to say and Berkeley does have vacancies, high teacher vacancies there that I was looking at personally. >> So now that we have that extra piece of information about the $5 million differential in getting the schools where they need to be, >> those are for every that's in the analysis sheets I shared with you. We have a breakdown for the elementary, the high schools, the middle schools, the hybrids, and the ECC's. All of that is in that packet I gave to you all just a few minutes ago. >> All right. Well, let's try to come to some sort of consensus. >> Yes, Colonel. >> Oh, go ahead. I'm sorry. Sorry, I I acknowledge you. >> I don't think he can hear you, >> Colonel. >> Okay.

102Thank you. Could could you recap which ones uh have been like I say mutually agreed upon for closure at this point. >> Willoughby Norview and Grand. >> Wait, wait, wait. Okay, I missed Willoughby. I was That's the one I was kind of looking for. I figured it would be at the top, too. Okay. So, Willby, Carolton, Norview, >> and Grand. >> What about PB Young? >> We haven't gotten there yet. >> We had one objection to PB Young. >> So, >> all right. >> So, we're actually down then to four. >> So, we have we have five. We have PB Young with one objection. I have I have Willby Norview and >> Carolton >> and PB Young >> that is dependent that is contingent on on Lake Taylor. So that is not something we can

103make a decision at at this moment. >> There were no objection >> but there were no objections on that one. Norview Graanby >> and that's it. >> Terlton Norview Grandanby PB Young with one objection. >> Okay. PB that's five. >> Yes. >> Thank you. >> Okay. So, Knowing what we now know about the state of Berkeley versus St. Helina and also knowing that we have to close a facility in that area. Correct? I'm not speaking out of it's back on the table to move Berkeley into St. Helina and move St. Helina to Southside STEM because of the difference in the cost that it would take to back to the original one >> to St. Alina and then Selena >> not just moving it would be repurposed but there is a $5 million differential in terms

104of what the work that needs to be done at St. Helina longterm versus the >> both of them are are are facilities that are not in the best of shape, >> right? >> But St. Helena is a it's a lot less than >> it's a lot less money to fix it than it is to fix Berkeley. >> That money was assigned by our architects that did the full review of all of our buildings. That was their projected cost. So I know we have one objection for Miss Thomas to moving Berkeley to St. Helina and St. Alina into Southside STEM. >> That was just based off the conditions of the school. >> Just basically moving saying the school is so bad, but you're going to move ECC. I think why not move ECC and keep St.

105Helena where it is so you don't uproot and all this other things. if you going to put money into the school anyway, >> right? But the idea is in terms of costsaving measure, it's going we can't operate Berkeley, St. Helina, and Southside STEM in that area. >> But you wasn't you're going to close ECC. >> That's what we're discussing, >> right? I was saying move ECC into um STEM Academy. >> That's a K8 school. So you want to make >> prek why you can't put them in put kindergarten in there. >> We have one prek. >> But doesn't the ECC also do prek3 >> and would that be the best option to put prek3 in a school that's K8? >> Were you going to try to move prek from um PB Young into Ruff? >>

106Some of them kids all going to go to Rufflin. So you can't say they're not cuz some of them >> prek four. I'm saying we move >> that prek three and four. What's the difference? PreK was moving to Rough >> PreK was never moving to Ruffner. >> PreK wasn't going to move to Ruffner. >> Where's PreK going then? >> PreKate would have been re reszoned. >> So you can move babies all the way from they was going to Jay Cox cuz Jay Cox has prek >> JCox or another school nearby or Monroe even where there's but other other areas. But we weren't going to put prek over at um at at Ruffner. But you have kindergarten over there. >> Okay. >> Babies is a baby. >> So, we have one objection to that movement. Do

107we have any other objections to that? >> Not ready to object to much right now because I still feel like we have a lot to discuss. So, >> right. Well, we we but we have to move forward. So, we're I'm simply trying to have us identify the schools that are going to be closed. So, I'm going to say Berkeley because we have one objection. Berkeley would do that movement that has been already proposed. So, Daniel will be repurposed but Berkeley will be closed. >> All right. >> To meet the needs of the Berkeley students for their accommodations. >> Purposing ocean air that is on all the plants. >> We close Willoughby. We have to do that. purposing ocean air is on the table based on zoning. >> I mean, we have a projection into the

108first three things, but I mean, technically, now that we're going to reszone everything, >> we'll do it based, but they will fit in that area. >> Three schools within a mile or so of it. as you can see in the analysis just so everybody knows how to read this sheet. So the first column is the FC well the the capacity. It's it's listed by the current number of students. The second number is the capacity. The percentage is the current utilization. And then the other school assigned to it is the same thing. And then when we move those students into that school, it'll it shows the change by total number of students as well as the the new utilization. >> Madam Chair, >> yes, ma'am. >> I just I don't want to distract I don't want

109to be distracted by the receiving schools piece because I think we've all agreed that let the boundary work dictate what the receiving schools are going to be. >> Yes. >> Yeah, >> I appreciate that. I'm just referencing that when we do the boundaries, it'll be the closest schools and those are the three closest schools. I >> threw that out. >> Now, let's talk about his hand up. >> I'm sorry, Colonel. Thank you guys for keeping us. >> What about Lynenwood? >> I was about to get to Lynenwood. >> Haven't discussed it yet. That was my next one. So, >> so Lynenwood, >> it appears that we are moving the students out of Lynenwood regardless and either repurposing it for a professional development center for the school system or just closing it and giving it back

110to the city. I would like to put forward the idea of repurposing Lynenwood for a professional development center for the school system and not turning it back over. Um yeah, and going back to earlier it was mentioned that we had we have a um a partnership with the Elizabeth River project and all of the investments that have been made there and to have the you know the orchard and um all all the work and it's still very much you know an educational center inside and out right and with the gardening and everything the gardening program which has been really wonderful for the students. Um, I really would like to protect Lynenwood and keep it as a professional development center. >> I agree with her. >> Okay. So, Colonel, do you understand what was on the

111tables to repurpose Lynenwood into a professional development center and not give that back to the city? >> Okay. I I couldn't quite hear all that. There was a lot of echo of sound like something in the background. So, the idea is to repurpose Lynenwood into a professional development center for the school system. >> Okay. Are we going to get any documentation that will support that cost? >> I'm sure Dr. Paul can uh share what the school division has paid in cost at hotels and things like that holding professional development. I'm sure having a a Lynenwood repurposed for a professional development center will save the district tons of dollars. I'm sure of that. >> Long range, it would be a cost savings for the division because any large meeting we have to have now, we have

112to have offsite um principal meetings, assistant principal meetings. There are several that we have um that that we do have to contract out and pay for. Um, and it would be it would be limited amount of work to be done there, you know, to to to set it up for what we would need. Um, to start with, >> how much is it a year to run Linderwood? >> The cost I'm talking building and how much are we spending on uh rented rooms, etc. somewhere else because these schools, the buildings, they're larger. Uh they may not uh give us a return or on our investment. >> That's my concern. We I we we have not talked about that at all, >> but I think it needs to be a factor we should uh think about. One

113of the documents that was uploaded into the board docs gave a breakdown of the costs and the average utility costs that were taken and it was over a two-year period. You know, I know it's been a few years since it's been done, but it was around $100,000 for the utility cost. The staffing cost would come out because it would be it would be staffed with um folks that we have staffed in other buildings right now. So, it would be, you know, the the the root cost would be $100,000 a year to keep. Like Dr. Martin said, there are um there are items on that campus that have been built out over years that would be still useful. Um and it would be, you know, many divisions our size have some kind of a professional development

114center um to be able to host u meetings even when we do regional meetings. There's when we're doing them during the school day, there's limited places where we have where we can offer space for a regional meeting. So would you say that we c can and have spent near $100,000 a year on rental space? >> Without the numbers in front of me, I I can't give the exact figure, but it is not inexpensive to hold a meeting at at a hotel. >> We would need one custodian there, which is probably 30. So, we're talking about keeping the building going at a cost of about $130,000 a year, >> give or take. >> That doesn't, you know, account for deferred maintenance. When things break down, we have to replace. >> Yes, ma'am. >> I I just

115wanted to echo I mean, one of the things I've consistently said is that I want to keep Lynenwood in our portfolio um for not just profess professional development, but like Dr. Martin said as, you know, potential environmental educational hub. Um, and also, you know, while we're talking about closing schools, we also have to be careful about not closing too many too fast because our population, what other districts are seeing that are right sizing, they're also seeing, you know, enrollment picking up. And so, and why they while they've given back a lot of buildings, they're like, wait, we need to maintain some buildings. So that's one that I think um we need to keep in our portfolio. So I support um what Dr. Martin has shared and >> Oh, I'm sorry. >> Do we have consensus

116on repurposing Lynon? >> I have another question. >> Oh, absolutely. >> So you're saying the students are going to go to Will? >> Wait, they're going to be reszoned. So we >> What school? That's what I'm asking. Well, that depends on the reasonzoning, but what would be the potential reszone schools? What are close to Lynon? One >> Willard has a potential >> JC is close. Right across the street, >> right? >> Yeah. J Cox. It depends on where you are because if you go back the other way, Willard is close depending on where you are. >> And if you go street JC is closed zoning, that's why the zoning piece is so important. And I also point out so one of the one of the things and this is um as part of the reser

117resoning boundary plan I mean coming up with some guiding principles about what would guide that would include um that you know that we are creating u concentrating poverty and that we are creating enhanced learning environments for every student. So that also has to be taken. It's not just what's in close proximity, >> right? What would provide trade up opportunities for our students? >> Well, closeup have a lot to do with it. A lot of parents don't drive. >> So you setting our babies up for failure. If they miss the bus, how they going to get to school? If something happened in school and the parent got to get there real fast, how are they going to get there to get their child from school? the the directive that we're going to do our but but

118we can't cure everything in the Southwest. >> We inherited that, y'all. We can't fix all that. Okay. >> I want that to be a later school. We're gonna move on. >> All right. So, we've got repurposing Lynenwood without any major. >> Yes, Colonel. >> Okay. Back back to to Lindwood. I hope we didn't leave that yet. Uh, I still think the co we should have some information about the cost because we we announced to everybody that what it costs $800,000 a year to maintain a >> elementary school which includes lots and lots of things that won't be in use when there's the uh population is uh reduced to teachers and training etc like that. But we still have to have staff. We still have to have somebody that's actually the cost the cost >> I

119think you missed this hasn't been done. I think you missed the part of the conversation where they were talking about the cost of um I got really loud of um of repurposing Lynenwood and it would be about $100,000 a year for utilities and the addition of a janitor which can custodian. I am so sorry I used the wrong words. I apologize um for a custodian and that staffing that building would not cost any additional money to the division because people who are currently located at other locations would move to Lynenwood. So we're looking at a cost of let's say $140,000 a year to keep that building operational. taking out any major >> any major fixes that has to go on in the >> 10,000 is a fair estimate for deferred maintenance. >> But if if

120we we advertise that we have $500 million in deferred maintenance that hasn't been done, how much of that belongs to Lynenwood that we would have to do? I again we're just dealing with general numbers. I I think we should see or I would like to see something that shows what what you're spending now for costs for lodging. Uh the meals are going to are are not uh included, but the the costs that would uh be associated with a building >> priority homes, you know, whatever, but not the food cost, transportation or anything like that. All right. Well, we we just discussed $140,000 a year to keep the building going. It needs $16 million in deferred maintenance, but it also provides educational programs on its land that is invaluable to Norfick public schools in the community.

121So I guess my question would be can we get a cost of what we spent over you know an average cost over the last three years of what we've spent when we had to go offsite. >> Sure. >> To compare that to the $130,000 a year that would cost to keep the building going. >> Yes. because we have to do principal meetings, assistant program specialist. There's a lot of meetings. >> I mean, it's it's a lot of meetings that you're paying it probably it probably isn't $130,000 a year, but it could be. Um, but it is still significant and also the >> also over time >> over time and over time we would be saving those that money as well. Madame Chair, if you um most school divisions our size have some kind of professional

122development center for um PD and and meetings and things like that. So, this is not something that's out of the box, but it's it's it's common for school divisions our size to have a facility like that. >> Got a great cafeterium, a huge one that we could have large group meetings in >> for big kids, >> for any any people. I'm just >> so retain madam chair >> retain Lynenwood. >> So no I'm fully in support of that retain and making sure our teachers have the PDS building that they need. Um so I wanted to just further um go on to that. So but we still have the conditions that if we need a population boom we could reconvert it back into elementary put it back on. So, so we're keeping it >> we're keeping

123it in our portfolio, but we're just not using we're saving the money by not using it as an elementary school. >> All right. Just want to make sure you're right. >> So, on most plans I see that we have rebuilding JCOS. Are we in agreement that that still needs to be done? board member bassin and madam chair board member bassin and I we had um we had just mentioned to um Dr. Paul in our meeting that um with Jay Cox maybe have it the size of um Southside STEM Academy. So, what grades are you going to service with Jay Cox? >> Want to build it the size of Southside? >> I mean, we >> The plan was still to keep it a a PK5 school right now. Just if there were >> have a big

124building like Campella >> if there were if if there were uh possibility to to add citywide programming to it. That's why part of the discussion >> got the space there. So yeah. >> Okay. Now we need to talk about Chesterfield. Okay. So, right now, let's let's talk about CEP to close the current the the on the table is closing the current SEP facility and repurposing Chesterfield for the CEP student population but and closing the CEP facility. So on almost every plan these go hand in hand. >> And Chesfield is going where >> it will be reszoned >> to where? >> Well, one of the plans talks about Jay Cox and Richard Bowling, but I guess after we do the whole resoning process, that could additionally that could also be altered. >> Could be ankle side.

125could be in Engleside. >> Yeah, >> it just depends on where you live in that current school district. >> And just so everybody knows, when they do a grid code change, they're not perfectly square. they can be kind of shaped. >> Yes, ma'am. >> Um I you know CEUP um and where to house it was one of the concerns that I did raise with Dr. pole um because it's currently in the old Richard Bowling which was it's been there much many years longer than it was ever supposed to be there. Um and so my concern is that we have you know put CSEP in buildings that have been largely inadequate you know for for our students and I had raised the question of um are there any other buildings that we could put CEP in

126or anywhere else you know any of our neighboring cities since it is a regional program >> and that's yeah how many students um use that is in CEP cuz Chesterfield is not a big school but I think it's too big for >> CEP has a small program. >> Yeah, >> they have small class sizes at CEP. It would it would fit over Chesterfield. The other option would be though if if we were to move forward with developing an alternative program at Lake Taylor, you'd also have the Madison Easton building as well. >> So yeah. So, and and I appreciate your explanation of why um keeping CEP in Norfolk is beneficial for us, especially as we're the fiscal agents for CEP. >> Um, >> and we do have a good amount of students who attend CEP

127as well. So, having them locally, there are babies anyway. Having them in the division, I think, is >> important. Um, so with that, you know, I still would like for the division, the administration to consider other building options that are in better condition and like you said, if there's some opportunity with the re with the boundary changes that there's a building that opens up in better condition, um, that we consider that for sees. We're we're doing an electrical upgrade at Chesterfield and and we're going to do the roof in about a year. So there is work Chesterfield will be upgraded to accept the C subP students >> Phil that was part of our 5-year CIP plan. >> Yeah. And as some of y'all know, the Broad Creek project has been on hold for six years

128because we've overextended our expected stay at uh the old Richard Bowling. >> So the question is right now whether the old Richard Bowling is on this list, right? Is that correct? Right. >> So that's for CE. Yeah. So, do we want to relocate CET? >> Yes. >> Question. >> Out of that building. Yes. >> Would like to close the old James Monroe. >> Correct. >> No. Old Richard. Richard Bully. Richard Bowling. Sorry. >> Yes. >> Too many schools. >> It's getting close to my bedtime. >> Oh, I know. I know. I'm sorry. Um, so closing rich old Richard Bowling should be on this list. >> Yes, ma'am. >> We've been referring to it as C7. >> Yeah, closing. Closing reloc Okay. But we don't Yeah. Here I see old Richard Bowling. Okay. So, we in

129agreement that that facility Old Richard Bowling needs to be closed and the CEP needs to be relocated. Are any major objections to that? Could you repeat that please? >> That we will close the old Richard Bowling facility which currently houses CEP and move CEP into a better facility which might which at this point is identified as Chesterfield Academy. >> Okay. >> All right. Thank you. It it it didn't identify the building. It just says CEP facility. It didn't use the term Richard Bowling. >> The old Richard Bowling. Yeah, that I was confused on that as well. So that's been clarified. >> CE just call we just call the building CEP even though it is the old Richard Bowling. >> Okay. So CE old Richard Bowling will close and at this point it is slated for

130>> what about ocean air? >> Repurpose of ocean air. We already discussed the repurpose of Ocean Air when we talked about the ECC's that Ocean Air needs to be repurposed if we close Willoughby because the Willoughby program needs to move into there. >> I mean, is that going to be done? We talked about closing uh the Willoughby. >> Yes, we already discussed closing Willoughby. and Ocean Air. >> That gives us We're up to seven, by the way. >> Yeah, I've got my >> Yes, I have I have eight. >> Yeah, I think I have eight. >> Yeah, I have eight. >> I got 10. >> Well, I I haven't counted. I haven't I haven't counted. >> I Sorry. I have eight. Then a nine would be Madison Eastston and 10 would be the rebuild of

131Jay Cox, but that's not closing a building. >> Oh, I do have rebuilds in there. Yeah. So the 10 would be NTC would be the next. >> So at this point, Chesterfield Academy will be repurposed >> SC. >> Oh, you're counting Lynon Wood. >> Oh, yeah. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. >> So what's the reason? >> School building. >> What's the reason again? What is it? Low. The children um the enrollment is low. Is that one of them? >> Yes, ma'am. the um you can see what the enrollment is on the first analysis sheet. >> It's right here. >> 308 >> right here. >> We have six schools that are low in 308 students. >> Five of those are just low 200. >> And all all six of those schools are in this plan. >> This one

132>> and that's the main that's the reason the main reason here. And so see these blue >> and how much a year they run Chesterfield with the students in there. >> Um we only have to do the deferred maintenance that CEP uh is a independent um budget. So what 10,000 a year is generally what we spend per building on deferred maintenance. Broken sinks, broken toilets, stuff like that. But it creates an opportunity for the city to develop that 12 acre property to finish up the Broad Creek project and they're very interested in moving forward with that. That's a housing issue. >> It was supposed to be one year. The problem is there is no available real estate in Norfol. I spoke to to the senior director of real estate for the city of Norfol. There

133is no available. >> So we're moving Chesape out so the city could get >> CEP. >> We we are closing the old Richard Bowling which we refer to as CEP and moving that program. We are suggesting to move that program into Chesterfield and then moving the Chesterfield kids into what is probably going to be two new buildings. Coleman Place uh the new JC Cox >> or Engleside >> or Engle >> just put brand new air conditioning and brand new roof on. We've we put a $6 million in Engleside in the last year and a half. I can't tell if Colonel Pollson has his hand. Colonel, I'm sorry. Thank you for keeping me honest. I just see him doing something. >> Colonel, did you have a comment? >> Yes. Um, I may have missed it, but

134what about Gent and Monroe? >> We have not discussed Gent or Monroe. Well, not in this particular round. >> Two low low hanging fruit is closed vote. If we could move forward on Lake Taylor, we're good. >> Yeah, I've got that. Um, so >> the other other thing that needs to happen in tandem is renovating >> Lake Taylor High School to be able to accept uh NTC Norfick Vocational Center students and so renovating Lake Taylor to making it uh comprehens a comprehensive CTE high school and then closing the north NTC but those things have to be decided together. Are there any objections to that? Can I just add, Madam Chair, just it's actually kind of the trifecta if if we if we still went with the Madison East as well, building up Lake Taylor to

135be the comprehensive CTE and building a strong alternative education center for our students at the same time. Um then then that would be the Madison East and NTC. >> So we would close close both Madison and NTC then, >> correct? And they would move to Lake Taylor. So, we're not just talking about moving NTC. We're also talking about >> redesigning alternative >> redesigning our alternative education program. >> Yes, Miss >> Okay. So, so you're proposing um putting the alternative ed center in Lake Taylor High School. Is that >> So, I I would I would say that it would be an addition to Lake Taylor. So, it's it's at Lake Taylor. um similar so a neighboring division has a an alternative center um Renaissance Academy and it's the building is actually subdivided and it offers it's

136able to offer you know a different program to the alternative ed students which which you know we Madison at at Eastston is is doing the job but it's not doing the job I think we can do better for our students >> absolutely and I'm looking forward to that alternative ed discussion that we're gonna have at some point. Um, but I just wanted to be sure that I was understanding what the >> So, what is on the table is turning Lake Taylor into a comprehensive CTE high school that also houses our alternative education programs and closing Madison and NTC. But those Those three things have to be decided together. >> Madison at East, right? >> Madison at East, I'm sorry. >> Any any concerns or thoughts about that? you repeat that again because you mentioned three

137things and I sure >> first we will redevelop Lake Taylor High School into a comprehensive CTE high school which will also house our alternative education programming. Once that is done, the VOTE or the NTC building will be closed as well as Madison at Houston. So that will be two buildings closing for the price of one >> remodeled building. We got a two for one deal in this one. >> Well, actually, >> so we also have open campus at Easton. >> It would be part of the alternative program. >> I I just group them together as underneath alternative programming. >> Right. But one of I I say all that in context of this is that I just I want to be sure that open campus is not intertwined with Madison as it's not a disciplinary >>

138correct >> you know it's not a program for um you know it's an alter it's a alternative or non-traditional option for students to recover credit and to you know >> right all alternative >> high school but in a different >> all alternative education is not discipline based. It's an alternative form of education. So, it would include open campus. It would include credit recovery. Could include overage for grade. There's several things that could be included in a true alternative education program. >> Dr. Martin, >> um you bring your mic closer because won't be able to hear you. >> Actually, I think I forgot what I was going to say because I was listening. Um >> Oh, yes. So, um, for me the in the renovations and having all these wonderful programs going on in Lake Taylor,

139>> I would really like to see um >> Sorry. I I was I I would really like to see some windows, you know, just things to make it more a welcoming environment and and and I think that would go a long way with attracting the students to that building. So, you know, we're we're in the midst of a study with the comprehensive CTE program and they're they've they've paused the meeting where we wanted to have for where they are with the planning process so that it doesn't get clouded with the work being done right here right now. Um, but you know, I know in one of the renditions that was seen early on, you know, it opens up all the stairwells. you know, it makes it a much more open building and much more inviting

140building um you know, in the process >> and even um beautifification of the outside of the building. >> It does. It includes >> wonderful. Okay. Thank you. >> Absolutely. >> Okay. >> So, I think we're in agreement about those moves. I don't hear any >> any objections. Now, to circle So to circle back around, um, an option on the table is to leave James Monroe as is and redistrict to increase the student population at that school. and redistricting is necessary in that part of the city considering the what is going on at at Taylor being um too full. Well, with the with the addition of their inclusion programs, just not having the space that they need even though there are seats available. Um and we would not move the Gent program into James Monroe. However,

141and this is a big however, we we reserve the right to move Gent to a better facility if one becomes available in the whole redistricting process. as we are redistricting and we see where uh enrollment, you know, what schools are we put our students into, if a if a better option comes to the table for Gent, then the Gent program will potentially be moved in the future. >> It doesn't mean that. So for the Mory for the my families, it doesn't mean that Gent is necessarily staying there forever. for the Gent families. It It means that you're not up for building closure at this time, but it's conceivable that in the future um a better location where the school would where the program would be able to grow and attract more students uh would be

142would be a positive outcome. So to make it clear, Gint is not a part of this plan. >> Would not be a part of this plan at this time. >> So So I may just for the community's sake, you know, maybe put withdraw Gent as a closure just so that it's clear for everyone that Gent is not being closed at this time. >> That's what I just said. >> No, that's what But I'm saying put it on the list. Yeah. >> Yeah. put put it in writing. >> But I but I would also say with the caveat that if through the redistricting process if we find a better space for that program that potentially the program could be moved in the in the next few years. >> What? Okay. You contradicting yourself now. >> No,

143I'm not. I'm saying I'm saying I'm saying on our on our current plan it is the building is not up for closure. However, we don't know how the redistricting process is going to shake out. >> You know, it may turn out that there is >> a building that we were not even thinking of that would be a better alternative for the Gent program, but we don't know that. >> That's still not right. You're saying they're not part of this plan, but yet you're saying it can be a part of the plan. >> I'm saying that it's potentially down the road they they could be part of the plan. I don't want to I don't want to put out there to either the Mory families or the Gent families that this is definitely happening or definitely

144not happening. It's just not happening now because we'll we'll get concern on both sides about wanting to be able to have those full athletic fields versus, you know, staying in the building where we know the building is the building can't get bigger. The footprint of the school can't get bigger. And in order to grow that program, which is a very successful program, we would eventually have to find another facility for that program. That is what I am saying. >> I'm staying out with it. But okay. >> So that is the list. >> That's what >> the suburban park. I didn't hear that mentioned. >> That's not up to you. for for this at this point it is not on the list for rebuild. The only school that is on the list for rebuild is Jake

145Cox Elementary and Lake Taylor for renovation. >> So how many closures do we have now? >> And then one and one repurpose >> and one repurpose. We have four repurposes >> renovations. >> We're going to repurpose ocean. >> We only have seven closures. >> No, we have nine closures. >> Yes. >> Um >> Oh, counting counting uh the CEP in the future and NTC in the future. >> Yes, absolutely. Where's the 10th one? >> Don't have 10 on this plan because we are repurposing Lynenwood. Closing it as a school. So, we are cost we are saving money running it as a school, but we are keeping it in the portfolio. a if we ever needed another school and b to use it as a professional development center which we very much need in this division.

146>> I still want us I'd like to see some uh financial data to support that because I don't I can't calculate that in my mind. >> Okay. >> I don't have any data to look at. That's what I'm >> Dr. Paul is going to provide us with some data >> to the whole board. Correct. >> Yes. To the whole board >> when he gets those numbers. >> So we have successfully identified the schools. Um, and I I believe that moving with the 26 to 27 options from option five to get us started along with redistricting with the understanding that the rest of these closures will take place by what was it? 2034. >> That's what we said. >> That the remaining closures and consolidations will take place by 2034 with the goal of closing one

147to two schools per year is our plan. At least at least at a minimum one to two schools per year by 2034. >> Yes, ma'am. Um, I've said this a few times, really laying out a timeline for these schools to be able to celebrate the history of the schools that they're in and bodies are introduced to each other ahead of time and all of that is >> they're welcomed that the whole don't want anything to be rushed >> very emotional for a lot of >> Adele put your mic in front of you please we can't hear you >> okay >> so as um without repeating everything I was just say reiterating that we need to be very intentional in the leaving of one school and um and merging of these student populations and making sure

148that we're very sensitive to how emotional it can be we consider creating committees based made up of administrators parents community members ers and staff. >> Yeah. So, I'm listed on um you know that was shared last week that was on the list of saying that each school would have their own committee and we would we would assist with that work um to make sure that the communities are joined together that you know if there's a field day or other events the new schools are invited to come over there um through this whole process um >> yeah under the assurances >> the ice cream diplomacy. Hey, >> we're all for it. And you know, and you know, when I'm out and about visiting schools, when principles ask questions, especially if I'm in a school that's on

149this list, that's you know, they're equally as concerned. Dr. Barton, they want to make sure that they have the time to make sure that they can acclimate before students just show up at their doorstep so that families are aware how welcome they are. >> All right. So I think we have come up with a plan that everybody can feel good about that addresses the needs. Um it has it has a timeline. Uh the timeline will be the timeline of the exact schools will be of after the first set of closures in uh will be determined by the spring of 2026 at the latest. >> Correct. Um but the plan is in 2027 to close at least one to two schools per year through 2034 or less time if that is all that is needed. >>

150Correct. >> But that we will use redistricting to figure out we'll take those take these schools out of the portfolio and redistrict accordingly. Any comment, final comments or concerns? >> Okay, go ahead, Colonel. >> I'm I'm opposed to plan five or option five. It is not definitive enough. You We have talked about it. and and it still is not projecting movement or correction movement in closing of the schools as as it advised that we needed to do that. Number two, this uh agreement or whatever you want to call it between um uh Monroe and Gent. Uh I'd like to see it in writing. U because it does not sound like there's going to be positive movement there. Uh something that was going to happen and now it's not. I'm I I object to that. >>

151You do you believe that? I'm sorry. Let me clarify question a clarifying question. Do you believe that G against building should be closed and the program should be moved into Jason Row because the option that we have on the floor now does not do that. Do you do you believe that Monroe needs to be redistricted out of Monroe and that the Gent program has to go into James Monroe because that is in this option is not on the table. There could be another place for it to go, but it should the again facility should move, >> right? Which is which is actually what we just previously discussed. >> That's in the future. We >> Well, that that wouldn't that the future I mean the future as in we'd have to see how the resoning shakes

152out before we could make a decision about that. So it may be in this plan. >> It may be. It may be in addition to this plan. >> Okay. You said it wasn't. So let's make it clear. >> Okay. So the plan as it stands today, let's put the caveat that come spring of 2026, get movement could be back on the table based on redistricting. >> Mr. Stewart said you can't do that until after everybody's moved. So if they're not moved, Well, he never he never said that. Um, Mr. Freley, can you speak to that? >> We need the schools that will close identified definitively once >> I'm sorry. We need >> I'll get it right. We need the schools that are going to close to be definitively identified once we have that list. and

153and we've all just agreed to two preks, four elementaryaries, votech, cept at the old Richard Bowling and Madison alternative. So that's nine schools. Once we give that to him, then they could start redistricting. As you all know, um, VOTE CE and Madison and the two preks really aren't going to affect the redistricting. The only thing that's really going to affect the redistricting are the four elementary schools because they're the ones that have doile placements. So, it shouldn't be that complicated to get this resoning do house stuff done. But once we have those locked in, I can get David's team moving. >> Thank you for the clarification. >> Yes, ma'am. And even if you all decided to close again, it's not a doile school. So that's not going to hold us up for the redistricting. >>

154Right. Gent can be decided on later because it is not part of the redistricting process, >> one of our six. >> Does that clear that up for you, Colonel? It's uh you you've uh mentioned it, but I'm still not uh confident u that I have enough information to agree at this point or to for it to be uh assumed that I'm going to agree. >> Okay. Okay. Fair enough. Fair enough. >> Thank you. >> Any other comments or concerns at this point? We do have a plan that we can vote on. There are some clarif clarifi points of clarification that need to be addressed before the vote next week, but we have identified the school slated for closure >> tonight. Um, and so if there are no other comments or concerns, >> what I will

155Oh, we don't. >> No, we do not have a closed session. >> It is. >> I don't know. Maybe I was I was probably looking at the wrong board docs. >> Probably looking at next week's. All right. Well, then >> I think congratulations are in order. >> Meeting is >> good work everybody.