THE SCHOOL BOARD OF ST. LUCIE COUNTY
Special Meeting - August 26, 2003
MINUTES
The School Board of St. Lucie County held a special meeting in the School Board Room on August 26, 2003 at
approximately 4:30 p.m.
PRESENT:
DR. JOHN CARVELLI, Chairman
Member Residing in District No. 3
MS. CAROL A. HILSON, Vice Chairman
Member Residing in District No. 2
DR. SAMUEL S. GAINES
Member Residing in District No. 5
MRS. KATHRYN HENSLEY
Member Residing in District No. 4
DR. JUDI MILLER
Member Residing in District No. 1
ALSO PRESENT:
MR. MICHAEL J. LANNON, District Superintendent
NEW HIGH SCHOOL DESIGN CONCEPT WORKSHOP
Chairman Carvelli opened the meeting and referred to the agenda prepared by Mr. Marty Sanders, Executive Director of
Facilities & Maintenance. There were six areas for discussion: 1) Reuse of Plans or Special Design; 2) Site Layout
Configuration; 3) Athletic Programs; 4) Educational Specifications; 5) Building Design, and 6) Budget Considerations.
Mrs. Hensley commented that it would be difficult for the Board to decide on a design until it had chosen a site. The
curriculum was unknown at this time and that should drive the design of a school. Dr. Carvelli agreed to delay discussion
on item #1.
Mr. Lannon stated that when staff got to a point where classrooms would be discussed, they would involve educational
professionals to work on the design. In terms of an overall design, Mr. Lannon asked board members to tell staff what
they wanted--single story, spread campus or courtyard. The planning would move from form to function and then the
right people would come up with the function--that would require multiple meetings.
Other comments from board members included
Don’t spread it out from a fiscal and safety perspective; cut down on
supervision needs.
Review what multi-story buildings would cost.
Size could range from 1800 to 2000 students. Consider smaller learning
communities.
Land was at a premium and would be the largest cost.
Need genuine meetings where suggestions are considered. Need teacher input.
Don’t leave process too open ended. Need guidelines so people can work
creatively while still considering affordability of building.
The Board’s job is to help with RFP guidelines.
When planning a previous school design, there was some curriculum planning
that actually was put into the design but wasn’t utilized once the school was
built. That was a problem the Board needed to consider and not repeat.
Suggested RFP say the Board wanted a design process to include educators,
building representatives and guidelines. What about community-based process?
Districts needed something less fluid with it came to the specifics when they go
out in the real world. The Board would have to build several schools unless DOE
gave information on what will or will not change. The long-term effect is the most
difficult to deal with. Hopefully DOE will understand the need for specificity.
The design needed to be able to compete. Look at wireless sound, lighting,
easily supervised security systems. Use technology with potential to grow in
the future.
Need a national law on equity.
As programs are developed, look at workforce (use Dept. of Labor stats).
Develop standards and options to match children and what they can do.
Look at the definition of a magnet school.
Look at Fort Pierce Central High and Fort Pierce Westwood High (prototypes).
Mr. Sanders stated the development of educational specifications was crucial more so than what the school would look
like. As well as recognizing there was a need for flexibility, the district had to design under a new constitutional
amendment--can’t build large classrooms but need maximum flexibility when the next rule changes. The district had to
build schools for fifty years.
Mrs. Hensley asked if a K-8 would meet the projected growth for the next ten years or would another elementary school
be needed. Mr. Sanders indicated that DOE numbers underestimated growth in the district and the cohort survival
method did not include all demographics of people moving here. The district needed to have a DOE forecast. The district
will need two high schools, 2 middle schools and some additional elementary student stations due to class size reduction.
The question of using prototype schools was discussed. During the year, staff would have lots of demographic work to
do. With class size reduction, it was almost impossible to plan using different FISH requirements. Districts needed more
direct assistance for facility planners.
It appeared there was consensus on the maximum size of 2000 - 2500. It was suggested that under chosen programs
should not be duplicated. Staff was asked to develop some views of types of plans and the Board would look at them.
Look at comprehensive study to include extra curricular programs, student needs, gender equity. Bring plans back with
costs attached.
Dr. Gaines was pleased to hear that the district had 21st century people on board. There would always be funding
problems and restraints but it was time to build whatever is necessary for the district’s students.
Discussion ended and Chairman Carvelli adjourned the workshop at approximately 5:55 p.m.