TO:
FROM:
Bill Wallace, Chair
SUBJECT: Facility Recommendations to the Board
The facility recommendations are in response to the
Committee’s Mission Statement, dated
HIGH SCHOOL
ANSWER: Committee consensus is to keep the high school at its current location.
Criteria for High School Campus:
1. Ensure
campus is an integral part of the
2. Contain short and long term (“lifetime”) costs
3. Preserve options (secure necessary property)
4. Allow for flexible use of site over the years to help ensure a high performing school
5. Avoid/mitigate undesirable land uses next to school
ANSWER: (For both a conventional high school as well as a school-within-a-school):
i. Studies say 600 to 900 students
ii. Beth VanderVeen says 1000 to 1250 students for current high school site
i. 1250 students for current high school campus (w/o West View or other additional property)
ii. 1600 students for current high school campus plus additional property. Adding West View land only would require additional high school facilities / portables and likely would lose on site play fields to maintain current programs.
3. Approximately when should a second high school be established?
ANSWER: A second high school is very roughly estimated to be needed:
a. Approximately the year 2014 if no additional property is added to the current high school campus.
i. Assumes a second high school is needed when the current high school population reaches 1250 students. The base enrollment used for the high school in 2004 is 1,100 students.
ii.
Assumes an average enrollment increase of 16
students/year at the high school based on the July 2002 demographic study of
the
i. Assumes a second high school is needed when the current high school population reaches 1600 students. The base enrollment used for the high school in 2004 is 1,100 students.
ii.
Assumes an average enrollment increase of 16
students/year at the high school based on the July 2002 demographic study of
the
ANSWER: Assuming enough property is available for the high school campus to accommodate 1600+ students, a second high school campus will likely not be needed for a few decades. Therefore the committee felt there would be plenty of time in the future to further study this question.
ANSWER: No, not with on-site play fields
ANSWER: Yes
If yes, approximately when?
ANSWER: 2006 to 2010 based on a preliminary draft of Phase I & Phase II site plan developed for committee’s use
ANSWER: Yes, it is now part of high school campus.
ANSWER: Yes. The 30-year transportation cost to bus students to off site playfields for 12 sports/year is estimated at $2 ½ million. Adding land purchase and development costs for new playfields brings the total cost, including bus transportation, to an estimated $4 million.
ANSWER: Yes, a minimum of approximately 10 additional acres is needed
ANSWER: (Based on a needs assessment prepared by Beth VanderVeen and Mike Curl)
Phase I (2004 to 2008)
Gym/locker room
Weight Room
Tennis courts
Portables
Cafeteria/Fine Arts Classrooms/Bldg.
Parking
Playfield space
Phase II
Classrooms
CTE programs space (career, technical, ed.)
Parking
Playfield space
Phase III Phase IV
More classrooms Second high school
Administration space
Counseling space
7. Should the new weight room planned for the high school be built as scheduled? (Current budget allocation is $800,000)
ANSWER: No. A new weight room should be included with a new high school gym/locker room complex. Recommend placing an interim facility, ASAP, for use as a weight room during the interim period.
8. Should the school district develop a long range site development plan (Master Plan) for the high school campus? (It takes approximately 6-8 months to complete once started)
ANSWER: Yes. It will be an invaluable planning and communication tool for the Board and the community, especially in light of the scarcity and high cost of available land for schools. (NOTE: If at the time a site development plan is done it is unclear whether additional property will be added to the high school campus, there may need to be two alternatives – one with the existing campus only and one with additional property).
9. Should
ANSWER: Replaced with a new school on existing or different site.
It is more cost effective to build a new school rather than renovate the current facility. A significant renovation of the current facility is necessary in the next couple of years at an estimated cost of $7 to 8 million based on 1999 facilities assessment. However, this site is in a flood plain (like L.U.) which requires that all school buildings be elevated adding more cost – thus making it more cost effective to build a new facility rather than remodel.
10. When should the next elementary school (replacement for West View) open?
ANSWER: Soon, preferably no later than 2008, based on need
to replace
11. Should the new
gym planned for
ANSWER: No, since the elementary school needs to be replaced with a new school within the next few years (possibly in a different location). Recommend placing an interim facility for use as a cafeteria/multiple use space, or gym (which ever is most cost-effective) during the interim period.
12. What size should the next elementary school be? (425 or 675 students/school?)
ANSWER: Assuming
a. Academic criteria – Local principals and studies say 2 or 3 classes per grade level is optimum. Going to 4 or more classes per grade level would be too large. Principals say if go to 675 student-size school, it is critical to proportionally add the necessary staff support (counselors, secretaries, etc.).
b. Economic criteria (based on current experience with L.U. and other District elementary schools.)
i. Construction costs/student is less for larger school, primarily due to costs of land and bond.
ii. Operating costs per student is about the same for both size schools.
c. Other criteria.
i. Public perception – Since West View School needs to be replaced, increasing the size by 50% will accommodate the needed additional student capacity (i.e. “two birds with one stone”.)
13. Demographically
where should the replacement for
ANSWER:
a. Ideally, within one mile
(walking distance) of existing
b. If the replacement school is constructed within ¼ mile of the high school, existing programs that exchange students between the two schools between classes can be maintained.
c. The replacement school should be located at a site with:
i. Low traffic flow but easily accessible
ii. Low noise
iii. Lower risk from major traffic accidents along I-5
iv. Existing infrastructure, in close proximity, to reduce costs
EXISTING FACILITIES IMPROVEMENT LIST
14. Are there any recommended changes to the current funded facilities improvement list?
ANSWER: Yes. The recommended changes are as follows:
a. Rather than build a new weight room at the high school, establish an interim facility ASAP with existing budget (see question # 7)
b. Rather
than build a new gym at
establish an interim facility ASAP with existing budget. (see question #11).
c. To prepare for high school portion of bond:
i. Make land purchase decision ASAP
ii. Develop “abbreviated” Ed Specs (to begin process)
iii. Develop Master Plan and budget costs (see question # 8)
iv. Develop a prioritized list of buildings/space needs by phases (see question #6)
v. Assemble components needed for high school portion of bond
d. To
prepare for
i. Make land decision ASAP (possible purchase)
ii. Develop Master Plan and budget costs
iii. Assemble components needed for elementary school portion of bond
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR NEXT BOND
15. What school district property and facility needs should be considered for the next bond?
ANSWER:
a. The Committee’s recommended priorities (in order) at this time are:
1. Secure property for the high
school and
2. West View Elementary School replacement
3. High school building/space needs
b. Before this question can be answered any further, responses to question
14 (c and d) above need to be addressed.
COMMUNICATIONS
16. How can the Facilities Study Committee assist the Board communicate facility issues and needs with the community?
ANSWER:
a. Dr. Jones will write an article for the school district newsletter and/or the Argus to explain the existence of the Facilities Study Committee and the process to date.
b. The
Committee will ask the Board at their