Agenda - 09-23-2002 - 1 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

APPROVED 8!19102 15—perhaps in December— so that the technical committee could wrap that into their information. Steve indicated that he thinks we could have exceptional children and any State changes by November 15. Alice noted that since we have talked about the difference between building capacity and programmed capacity, it-might be good to track both. Steve cited examples (such as year round schools)where there would be differences between building and programmed capacities. John Link noted that the entire school community understands building capacity and that they will understand the nuances about program capacity after you explain why. Lisa recapped what she understands as the process for changing stated building capacity. John said that's when you get into discussion in the CIP- schools identify something as programmatically important, but the BOCC needs to sign off because they are responsible to find money to pay for additional seats. Submittal in and of itself does not necessarily constitute approval. Bill Mullin pointed out another twist: if you convert a kindergarten class to something with 10 students, that's understandable - but if you take a non-capacity classroom (like lab or music room) and convert it to a regular classroom, does your capacity then go up? Alice noted we may have difficulty finding funds to build more space if there are big swings in capacity. Steve pointed out that SAPFO numbers must be legally defensible. As soon as you deny the first CAPS, you'll have a legal action and will need to fall back on DPI standards. Lisa said that as a school board member, she would not want to go up and down in capacity from year to year. She would want to be very clear that there is justification for a change that is basically permanent. Craig agreed, saying there must be a rational basis and a good paper trail of the reasoning. Dana noted that if there's any suggestion you've changed capacity when development requests are coming in, you've got problems. That argues-for having an established date by which you report capacity every year. She prefers using the best 1 of 2 months, but is willing to live with November 15 so the MOU doesn't have to go around to everybody for change. Perhaps leave it for now and change it in the future if needed when the next group of changes have to be circulated. Alice explained that she had talked extensively with County Attorney Goof Gledhill who insisted that November 15 is the day to use for annual reporting purposes. " Rod explained the staff interest in using 40th day figures because that's a number both school systems use and report. Also, the first School facilities Task Force selected that figure in its recommendations. That said, we can live with November 15—it's not a big enough issue to have to have all bodies review the MOU (which cites the November 15 date) again. Craig said the technical group will look at both 2d month and November 15. If a change is needed, then we could perhaps make that change in the first year. There was then