• DLR Group provided a review of the EFMP process: what it is and is not.
• The group engaged in a conversation about the 2018 Facilities Committee Report.
• The Core Team reviewed the concepts that will be taken to the community for feedback.
• The community engagement plan (materials and survey) will be finalized at the April 12th Core Team meeting.

• Three scenarios were reviewed and the pro/con list for each scenario was finalized.
• DLR Group provided a sample phasing and timeline document to the Core Team.
• The Building Our Future Together website has been updated in preparation for the April feedback sessions.

• As a whole group, we reviewed the hypothetical options from the prior session.
• Team members engaged in a “where I stand” discussion about new construction vs. renovation. Most members are leaning toward new construction for some elementary schools and renovation of other schools.
• Team members engaged in a “where I stand” discussion about the best number of elementary schools for BPS101. Team members discussed whether the correct number is six or less than six. The options brought forward for feedback will allow others (community and staff) to provide their input on this topic.
• Administration and DLR group will incorporate the Core Team’s feedback into different options for a master plan. The Team will refine the options prior to brining them to the community for feedback in April.

• We divided into three groups. Each group reviewed a hypothetical option that could serve as the framework for a master plan.
• Each group provided pros and cons for their option.
• The Core Team reviewed the timeline for the remaining work. The goal is to present the master plan to the Board of Education in May.
• Community input will be solicited in April before the final recommendation is made.

• The Core Team and the Board of Education participated in small group discussions.
• Each member renewed their commitment to doing something to improve the facilities.
• All members contributed to the “why” behind the need for improvement.
• The committee discussed the pros and cons of the different levers that can be utilized in creating the master plan. The levers include boundary changes, renovations, replacements (new construction), additions, decommissions, and time.

• We welcomed new members to the Core Team!
• High level cost estimates were shared for the concepts that have been created. We are going to be working together to develop and evaluate options that align with the educational vision and Guiding Principles and are fiscally responsible.
• There is a high cost related to deferred and anticipated maintenance of school buildings throughout the district.
• Prioritization of needs will be paramount.

• We looked at concepts for Rotolo Middle School and considered features of both to be included in a new concept.
• The concepts are addressing building- and site-related circulation and congestion issues; site concepts are addressing bus staging and drop-off, parent pick-up/drop-off and staging, parking and access to the track and fields.
• We are keeping the community in mind by maintaining and creating spaces for community access and use.
• We are engaging new and reengaging former Core Team Members for additional perspective as we move forward.

• We discussed bringing additional members to the Core Team prior to the next phase, including members of the BPS101 Capital Projects Committee and recommendations from current Core Team members, as well as reengaging former Core Team members.
• Conceptual plans for BHS include opportunities to open up the interior of the building to create more engaging, student-centered spaces with a focus on collaboration, putting learning on display, and enabling opportunities for more fun in learning.
• Conceptual plans for BHS teacher spaces include creating better flow and allowing for more openness and natural light to offer a space where teachers want to work and collaborate.
• Navigability and interior traffic flow for students is improved in the conceptual plans for BHS.
• Conceptual plans for BHS include increasing space at the most desirable elective programs to allow for more students to engage with these programs.

• The direction for conceptual plans feels positive, with Guiding Principles around safety and security clearly demonstrated.
• Inherent uncertainty around future enrollment is of concern, especially related to the potential financial impact of classroom additions.
• Flexibility of spaces and the provision of collaborative space are major themes in all elementary school plan concepts reviewed.
• Access to secured outdoor learning spaces is shown at many of the elementary schools and is favored by the group.

• We discussed current and projected enrollment – what it might look like using different projection lines, and what facility needs are relative to enrollment and specific programs.
• We were able to see some detailed concepts developed using input and data from prior phases!
• Despite all that is going on in the world today, we’re still moving forward!

• Facility Condition Assessments (FCAs) were completed and compiled with district reports to determine the level of deferred and anticipated maintenance needs for each building.
• We discussed budgeting recommendations from the “State of Our Schools: America’s K–12 Facilities” report.
• We will be considering the cost of projects, current building conditions and educational programming needs to determine whether it is better to renovate or build new.
• An update was provided on enrollment projections – enrollment fluctuations are unknown as it relates to the impact of the pandemic.
• We are in Phase 4 of the EMFP and DLR Group is in process of developing concept options for each school.

RJAC

• The goal of this Educational Master Facility Plan (EMFP) process is to be as transparent as possible with the community.
• The community is invited to attend the ‘Global Perspectives’  open house on Thursday, September 26^th.  There will be more community meetings in the future.
• There are many stakeholders with a wide variety of experiences on the Core Team and this team is responsible for helping the District shape the EMFP.
• This planning process will take 12-16 months to complete from beginning to the final recommendation to the Board of Education.
• When it comes down to it…our mission is all about the kids!

BHS

• We toured Batavia High School.  It hasn’t changed much since the 1980s and needs much more flexibility based on how students learn today.
• The High School’s physical space is limiting what the staff, teachers, and students can do; but they are being innovative with what they have.
• We want to ensure there is enough program space so that students who want to participate in programs are able to do so.
• We are doing activities to keep all stakeholders in mind; including their feelings and how a successful master plan might look to them in the future.
• We considered the entire district when participating in a SCOC (Strengths, Challenges, Opportunities, Concerns) Analysis.

LWS

• We discussed how to better communicate internally with teachers and externally with the community and parents.
• This was the first time we discussed things not to touch (or change) in the Educational Master Facility Plan (EMFP).
• We had alignment on large themes that need to be addressed as part of the EMFP.
• We learned how we got to this point, so we can make better decisions.
• We learned that, as a whole, we want to stay true to our community identity as we move our schools toward future equity.

Tours

6:00 pm

GMW

• The Core Team took a tour of Grace McWayne School (GMS) to provide perspective on the District’s current buildings and compare with other BPS101 schools toured to-date.
• Core Team members went on tours to other local districts and debriefed on building features that provided inspiration in space types and programs, as well as things that may not work, in BPS101.
• The outside local tours reaffirmed what the Core Team and other stakeholders are looking for with regard to spaces, furniture, flexibility and building features.
• A lot of sites toured featured hands-on learning, sustainable design features, spaces in support of SEL and spaces for staff.
• The Core Team is cognizant of both student and staff needs and making sure voices from both stakeholder groups are acknowledged during the EMFP process.

5:00 pm

JBN

• Learned about the needs of the Boosters, Buffs and Stage feedback on existing spaces/facilities
• Preliminary Enrollment Projections were presented
• The needs of the District were revisited and fine-tuned
  • An activity was conducted to develop the Guiding Principles for the EMFP

3:00-5:00

Virtual Mtg.

• Progress continues for the EMFP, despite COVID-19.
• Updates to Furniture, Fixtures & Equipment (FFE) will be considered within recommended EMFP options.
• We are finalizing Phase 3 – Programming, which is understanding the gap analysis that exists – what the needs are and where BPS101 schools may fall short.
• We were able to look at tangible program needs and plan analyses for each building.
• We still need to maintain good communication with community, students and staff, although it has become more difficult.

3:30-5:30

Virtual Mtg.

• We reviewed photos of K-12 facilities and engaged in an activity to determine preferences.
• We agreed that traditional classrooms are not conducive to 21^st century classroom learning environments.
• We recommitted to our Guiding Principles.
• We agreed that flexibility and variety in our spaces is a priority.

• We reviewed descriptions of space types and a common language for how various spaces are called throughout the district has been developed.
• We reviewed images that align with belief statements around how spaces should be perceived and used in BPS101 schools.
• We are getting close to reviewing plan concepts for each of the schools.