The URL can be used to link to this page

Dubuque Community School District School Closure OptionsMasterpiece on the Mississippi Dubuque had AN- Amedcachy 1 2007 TO: The Honorable Mayor and City Council Members FROM: Michael C. Van Milligen, City Manager SUBJECT: Report on Proposed Dubuque Community School District School Closure Options DATE: October 12, 2010 Planning Services Manager Laura Carstens recommends the City Council transmit the City of Dubuque's report on the proposed public school closure options being considered by the Dubuque Community School District to the Dubuque Community School District Board of Directors and request that the Board reconsider their decision. In 2009, the DCSD undertook a Facility Study on options for closing, renovating, and building public schools in Dubuque. The school facility closure options comprise a 20- year plan, with implementation approximately five years out. On September 20, 2010, the DCSD School Board held a work session on the Facility Study. At the work session the eight options under consideration were short- listed to three options. In every option Fulton Elementary School and Jefferson Middle School would be closed. Jefferson Middle School has the highest percentage of free and reduced lunch of the three middle schools at 57.6 %. Fulton Elementary School has the second highest of elementary schools at 85.4 %. Neighborhood -based schools require less public and private vehicular transport because a greater percentage of children attending a neighborhood school are able to walk or bike to school. The recent effort to create Safe Routes to School (SRTS) Plan encourages a community partnership that's goal is to foster and encourage children to walk or bike to school by creating safe routes and educating teachers, students and parents. Staff questions whether the analysis considers that fiscal and environmental costs associated with providing additional transportation for students that attend a merged school rather than their neighborhood school. Neighborhood schools foster relationships that can be important in successfully dealing within cultures of poverty. They provide an area for public meetings, parent/teacher 1 conferences, and social gatherings. Downtown schools foster strong neighborhood relationships important to the community. Downtown schools offer after school programs and opportunities for greater parent involvement in their children's education. A merged or consolidated "campus" would limit involvement from parents without convenient access to transportation. Downtown schools are often times the consistent positive influence within distressed and transitioning neighborhoods. The Safe Community Task Force (SCTF) has provided the City Council with a report outlining recommendations aimed at improving the safety of all of the citizens and neighborhoods within Dubuque. Several of their recommendations are relevant to the DCSD's Facility Study. The SCTF encourages community solidarity and supports efforts to increases community involvement. They recommend that neighborhood "town hall" meetings be held to gather citizen input and to promote programs such as education, employment and recreation. Neighborhood schools often serve as de -facto town halls where public meetings and educational programs can be staged. Task force members have noted that educational programs aimed at school children filter back to the parents and other neighborhood residents thus benefiting the entire neighborhood. Also, recreational programs that reduce delinquency are often dependent on access to school gymnasiums and playgrounds. Neighborhood school facilities located in close proximity to the populations they serve also foster local involvement where remote locations may not be as successful. The SCTF stresses the importance of creating a sense of place within Dubuque's neighborhoods. Schools serve as a focal point and center of neighborhood activity that helps create this sense. The SCTF has also reinforced the City's emphasis on sustainability, encouraging efforts to create walkable and bike -able neighborhoods. The task force has recommended that the City's sustainability initiative be advanced by renovating existing buildings and ensuring that they meet current building codes and standards. The SCTF promotes mixed -use neighborhoods and schools along with residential, commercial and institutional uses are a vital part of the mix. Usually, once a school building has been vacated it is difficult to adaptively re -use. The experience of other communities, such as Cedar Rapids, and of other school systems, such as Holy Family Catholic Schools, has been that these buildings tend to sit idle -- creating problems with security, liability, cost, and maintenance. Holy Family Catholic Schools has closed five elementary schools: Holy Trinity, Nativity, Sacred Heart, St. Joseph Key West, St. Joseph the Worker, St. Mary's, and St. Patrick's. These closures have affected the Downtown, North End, and Hill neighborhoods, where all of the schools were located. These areas, which had five elementary buildings operating as recently as 2002, now have only one: Holy Ghost. The proposed DCSD school closings in the Downtown and Hill neighborhoods will only 2 add to the impact of the Catholic school closings. This will cause further disinvestment in these neighborhoods, and likely will be detrimental to the City's neighborhood revitalization efforts. Closing a number of the downtown schools and relocating them will require land acquisition and possible demolition within the community. There are few places within the community that could readily accommodate a large scale school facility without acquiring what may be expensive properties and demolishing what may be relatively more expensive housing stock. The DCSD's analysis of closing schools may not reflect the actual cost of land acquisition and demolition of homes and buildings to create new school facilities and school yards. The City has expended considerable effort to encourage and create downtown housing. The housing is intended to accommodate the office population and other employees and to encourage redevelopment and revitalization of the downtown area. With the potential for additional residents in the downtown area there will be an expectation that school facilities will be located in close proximity to their neighborhoods. The City has also focused homeownership programs in targeted neighborhoods. The school closures could hamper this effort. The 2007 Washington Neighborhood Revitalization Strategy was formulated in an effort to improve the lives of the residents of the Washington Neighborhood. A host of strategies were formulated by the participants in the Washington Neighborhood Visioning Process, many that relate to neighborhood schools and potential school closures. The study group participants developed a neighborhood asset inventory, of which two elementary schools and playgrounds were listed as primary assets. Specifically, the study group participants stressed the need for continuing and expanded after school programs offered at the elementary schools for such activities as football, basketball, and track. They recommended developing a mentor program administered by the schools and an afterschool program that will allow teens to participate. They noted that these after school activities fill the gap from the end of the school day until the parents get home from work. They also stressed the need for summer playground programs. They said that school - related activities such as child care /daycare, senior activities, open gym and sports fairs are key to encouraging citizen participation and neighborhood cohesiveness. They felt that close proximity to school facilities is a key to participation. The study group noted that the neighborhood residents hold the neighborhood schools in high regard. Staff recommends that the DCSD conduct a feasibility study for new construction vs. renovation of neighborhood schools. 3 The DCSD feasibility study of new construction vs. renovation should include full cost accounting, public participation, community planning, site and building analysis, and other elements. Staff has reviewed the input regarding the proposed school closure alternatives gleaned from the enclosed surveys submitted by DCSD elementary school principals. This input is valuable because it is provided by the personnel at the "front lines" of the educational process. These administrators have to operate within the existing facilities framework and work directly with the teacher, student and parent populations. The broad consensus among elementary school principals is to either retain their existing school building and grounds, or if total reconstruction is necessary, to locate the new buildings in the same spot as the existing ones. One principal notes that: "The downtown area needs a school that is easily accessible and within walking distance for families without transportation to ensure that parents can fully participate in their child's education and attend events and meetings even with limited personal transportation ". Another says that, "A neighborhood presence is desirable ". Several principals have questioned the estimated renovation costs for their facilities and recommended a more detailed review of their needs tied to more realistic cost estimates. One principal stated that smaller schools are more intimate and adaptable and are often tucked into relatively quiet neighborhoods. The converse of which is larger schools with a bussed -in population and increased traffic problems associated with the larger student population. The survey appears to reflect that most elementary school principals feel that a neighborhood presence is vital to a quality education that their existing facilities are adequate with the addition of some generally modest improvements and that closing schools in older neighborhoods in the downtown and hill areas is the least sustainable and desirable of the proposed alternatives. The DCSD is formulating a 20 -year plan for the entire school district and all school facilities. In the past, the DCSD has used a community engagement process for developing recommendations for major projects and programs. An extended process involving a series of community stakeholder committees was used to gather input and recommendations on possible sites and facility attributes for the new Prescott Elementary School and the new Roosevelt Middle School and Carver Elementary School. A similar process involving a series of community stakeholder committees was used to gather input and recommendations on long -range planning for school infrastructure funds. These processes serve as models for the 20 -year Facility Plan. While it is critical to assure that DCSD students receive the highest quality education with access to technology and facilities that meet 21 century demands, City staff 4 recommends that those needs be met through the renovation of and /or additions to existing school buildings, or the reconstruction of new schools on existing sites. City staff further recommends an extensive community engagement process for what is to be a 20 -year plan be undertaken by the DCSD. Past DCSD practice can serve as the model for this process. Given the ramifications of potential school closures on parents, students, staff, neighborhoods, and the community as a whole, the DCSD Board should commit to a process that is deliberative, extensive, inclusive, and of sufficient length for meaningful public participation. City staff also recommends the DCSD Board conduct a feasibility study for new construction vs. renovation of neighborhood schools. City staff additionally recommends consideration be given to the costs associated with land acquisition and additional transportation cost for the life of a new building if neighborhood schools were closed as part of this study. concur with the recommendation and respectfully request Mayor and City Council approval. Michael C. Van Milligen MCVM:jh Attachment cc: Barry Lindahl, City Attorney Cindy Steinhauser, Assistant City Manager Teri Goodmann, Assistant City Manager Laura Carstens, Planning Services Manager David Harris, Housing and Community Development Department Director Mark Da!sing, Chief of Police Jerelyn O'Connor, Neighborhood Development Specialist Dubuque Community School Board Larie Godinez, Superintendent, Dubuque Community School District Molly Grover, President and Chief Executive Officer, Dubuque Area Chamber of Commerce Barry Gentry, Director of Government & Events, Dubuque Area Chamber of Commerce Rick Dickinson, Executive Director and Chief Operating Officer, Greater Dubuque Development Corp. Angela Petsche, Executive Director, Washington Neighborhood Development Corporation Dan LoBianco, Executive Director, Dubuque Main Street Bill Callahan, President, Dubuque Initiatives 5 Nancy Van Milligen, President & CEO, Community Foundation of Greater Dubuque Eric Dregne, Vice President of Programs, Community Foundation of Greater Dubuque Kelley Deutmeyer, Executive Director, East Central Intergovernmental Association Rich Running, Executive Director, Dubuque Area Labor - Management Council Safe Community Task Force City of Dubuque Department Managers 6 Masterpiece on the Mississippi TO: Michael Van Milligen, City Manager FROM: Laura Carstens, Planning Services Manager SUBJECT: Report on Proposed DCSD School Closure Options DATE: October 12, 2010 INTRODUCTION This memorandum transmits a report on the proposed public school closure options being considered by the Dubuque Community School District (DCSD) as you requested. Enclosures cc: David Harris, Housing & Community Development Director Jerelyn O'Connor, Neighborhood Development Specialist Phyllis Russell, ICMA Management Fellow F: \USERS \LCARSTEN \WP \DCSD School Closure Options \DCSD report mvm memo.doc Dubuque All- amedca city 1 1 1 1 1 ! 2007 DISCUSSION In 2009, the DCSD undertook a Facility Study on options for closing, renovating, and building public schools. On September 20, 2010, the DCSD Board of Directors held a work session on the Facility Study. At the work session the eight options under consideration were short- listed to three options. The Board has scheduled a community engagement session for October 30, 2010, and a community and non - profit leaders' session for October 13, 2010. The DCSD Board has narrowed the school facility options to Options 2, 3 and 4, as shown on the enclosed chart. All three involve neighborhood school closures, primarily located in the Downtown and surrounding areas. The enclosed report provides a preliminary analysis of the potential effects of the school closures to the neighborhoods surrounding the schools and to the community in general, and recommendations for the planning process for school closures. RECOMMENDATION While it is critical to assure that DCSD students receive the highest quality education with access to technology and facilities that meet 21 century demands, the report recommends that those needs be met through the renovation of and /or additions to existing school buildings, or the reconstruction of new schools on existing sites. The report recommends an extensive community engagement process for what is to be a 20 -year plan. The report also recommends a feasibility study for new construction vs. renovation as described in the enclosed publication from the National Trust for Historic Preservation. REQUESTED ACTION The requested action is for the City Council to transmit the report with the enclosed transmittal letter from Mayor Buol to the DCSD Board of Directors. Masterpiece on the Mississippi Michael Brannon, President Dubuque Community School District 2300 Chaney Road Dubuque IA 52001 RE: Proposed Dubuque Community School District Public School Closures Dear Mr. Brannon, Dubuque krfrid I 2007 Office of the Mayor & City Council City Hall 50 West 13 Street Dubuque, IA 52001 -4864 www.cityofdubuque.org October 19, 2010 This letter conveys the Dubuque City Council's concerns with the Dubuque Community School District's proposed public school closures. These concerns are described in the enclosed report. The City Council understands that the School Board has narrowed the school facility options to three options that involve neighborhood school closures, primarily located in the Downtown and surrounding areas. The enclosed report provides a preliminary analysis of the potential effects of the school closures to the neighborhoods surrounding the schools and to the community in general. The report also offers recommendations for the planning process regarding the proposed school closure options. The report also recommends a feasibility study for new construction vs. renovation as described in the enclosed publication from the National Trust for Historic Preservation. The City of Dubuque and the Dubuque Community School District have long- standing and successful partnerships. The City Council welcomes the opportunity to extend and strengthen these partnerships through the planning process regarding the proposed school closure options. It is respectfully requested that you reconsider your decision to consider only options that lead to the closure of Fulton Elementary School and Jefferson Middle School. Sincerely, Roy D. Buol Mayor Enclosure Service People Integrity Responsibility Innovation Teamwork Report to the Dubuque City Council on Dubuque Community School District Public School Closure Options Fulton Elementary School - North End Neighborhood Prepared by the Planning Services Department City of Dubuque, Iowa October 8, 2010 Masterpiece on the Mississippi Report to the City Council on DCSD School Closures INTRODUCTION This report provides a preliminary analysis on the proposed public school closure options being considered by the Dubuque Community School District (DCSD) in October 2010. This report offers recommendations on the planning process for school closure options. The report was prepared by the City of Dubuque's Planning Services Department with input from other City Departments. BACKGROUND In 2009, the DCSD undertook a Facility Study on options for closing, renovating, and building public schools in Dubuque. The District is exploring possible restructuring of their school facilities that includes eight options. These options range from closing no schools to closing nine schools. Seven of the eight options involve school closures. Central Alternative High School and Jones Hand -in -Hand Preschool are closed already, leaving 18 schools in the DCSD currently. The school facility closure options comprise a 20 -year plan, with implementation approximately five years out. On September 20, 2010, the DCSD School Board held a work session on the Facility Study. At the work session the eight options under consideration were short- listed to the three options highlighted on the enclosed chart: Options 2, 3 and 4. The DCSD School Board packet for the September 20 work session is attached. The packet includes: Minutes of the School Board work session, Elementary School Principals' Input to the Board, DCSD Facility Beliefs, DCSD Facility Study Administrative Recommendations to the Board, and Cost Comparisons of all eight school facility options. A community engagement session is scheduled for October 30, 2010; a community and non - profit leaders session is scheduled for October 13, 2010; and a community web input process has been discussed. DISCUSSION The DCSD School Board has narrowed the school facility options to Options 2, 3 and 4. All three involve school closures. These 3 Facility Study options are described below. Option 2: Option 2 would close Fulton Elementary and Jefferson Middle Schools, renovate five elementary schools (Bryant, Carver, Eisenhower, Kennedy and Lincoln), and construct a new middle school. Estimates are $197.7 million for the project costs and $763,000 in annual administrative savings. This option results in 17 schools. Option 3: Option 3 would close five elementary schools (Bryant, Fulton, Hoover, Lincoln, and Marshall), convert Jefferson Middle School to an elementary school, renovate three elementary schools (Carver Eisenhower and Kennedy) and construct a new elementary school and a new middle school. Estimates are $186.2 million for project costs and $1.37 million in annual administrative savings. This option results in 15 schools. 2 Report to the City Council on DCSD School Closures Option 4: Option 4 would close four elementary schools (Bryant, Fulton, Hoover and Lincoln), convert Jefferson and Washington Middle Schools to elementary schools, renovate three elementary schools (Carver, Eisenhower and Kennedy), and construct two new middle schools. Estimates are $186.2 million for project costs, and $880,000 in annual administrative savings. This option results in 16 schools. DCSD Facility Beliefs The DCS School Board organization's values are found in the attached DCSD Facility Beliefs handout. These values are in four categories: Programs for 21 Century Learners, Increased Opportunities, Fiscal Efficiency, and Sustainability. DCSD Facility Study Administrative Recommendations The DCSD Administrative Recommendations (enclosed) differ from the Facility Study options described above. The DCSD Administration does not recommend converting Jefferson Middle School to either an elementary or middle school, which affects Option 3. The DCSD Administration does not recommend converting Washington Middle School to an elementary school, which affects Option 4. The DCSD Administration recommends the following parameters: maintain neighborhood schools by expanding boundaries but keeping neighborhood together; provide more equitable distribution of diversity (minority and socioeconomic); develop three or four section schools (optimal capacity of 400 -600 students) to address fiscal efficiency and economy of scale; and maintain three middle schools (optimal capacity 650 -750 students). IMPACT ANALYSIS City staff has reviewed the DCSD Board work session packet, DCSD information on students receiving free and reduced lunch, and the distribution of low to moderate income households in relationship to the school service areas. Staff has conducted a preliminary analysis of the potential effects of the school closures on the neighborhoods surrounding the schools and to the community in general. The proposed school closures are primarily located in the Downtown and surrounding areas. City staff has not studied each school closure independently, but we have reviewed the proposed closures in total. Staff has prepared the following general impact analysis and recommendations regarding the proposed school closure options. 1. School Demographics Based on DCSD information on students receiving free and reduced lunch provided in the enclosed chart, City staff prepared two maps depicting the percentage of students receiving free and reduced lunch -- one for the elementary schools and one for the middle schools. As expected, there is a higher percentage of students receiving free and reduced lunch at the downtown and surrounding neighborhood schools. Jefferson Middle School has the highest percentage of free and reduced lunch of the three middle schools at 57.6 %. Fulton Elementary School has the second highest of elementary schools at 85.4 %, second only to Prescott Elementary 3 Report to the City Council on DCSD School Closures School at 86.1%. Both Fulton and Jefferson are scheduled for closure in all three of the options still under consideration by the DCSD School Board. Based on the U.S. Census data, City staff prepared two maps depicting the extent of at least 51% low to moderate income population in relation to the boundaries for the schools -- one map for the elementary schools and one map for the middle schools. As expected, there is a higher percentage of low to moderate income households in the downtown and surrounding neighborhoods. 2. Sustainability: The City of Dubuque is striving to create a green community and employ sustainability measures throughout the building and redevelopment processes. Possible demolition or closure of existing schools and building new schools appears to be the least energy efficient option for school facility restructuring. Each of the proposed buildings to be closed contains embodied energy. In general, demolishing an existing structure and building new is the least energy efficient option. It is possible to retrofit older buildings with energy efficient measures that, on balance, use less energy than building new facilities. The DCSD itself has stressed sustainability stating that they will strive to: "Align to the City of Dubuque philosophy of sustainability ", "Model sustainability in facility decisions ", "Incorporate energy conservation in facility decisions ", and "Incorporate green space and sustainability in long term planning ". 3. Walkable Neighborhoods vs. Transportation: Neighborhood -based schools require less public and private vehicular transport because a greater percentage of children attending a neighborhood school are able to walk or bike to school. The recent effort to create Safe Routes to School (SRTS) Plan encourages a community partnership that's goal is to foster and encourage children to walk or bike to school by creating safe routes and educating teachers, students and parents. Staff questions whether the analysis considers that fiscal and environmental costs associated with providing additional transportation for students that attend a merged school rather than their neighborhood school. Safe Routes to School (SRTS) is a rising international effort to increase safety and promote walking and bicycling to school through engineering, education, enforcement, encouragement, and evaluation. Over the past 30 years, there has been a rise in obesity and physical inactivity in children and adults. In 1969, roughly half of all children walked or biked to school. Now, it is about 15 %. For school trips less than one mile, 29% walk or bike. The Safe Routes to School program in the Dubuque area is taking steps to increase the number of children walking and biking to school by creating a plan for the development of safe routes to school. The proposed school closures run contrary to this planning effort to encourage a healthier lifestyle for school children. 4. Relationships: Neighborhood schools foster relationships that can be important in successfully dealing within cultures of poverty. They provide an area for public meetings, parent/teacher conferences, and social gatherings. Staff would note that 4 Report to the City Council on DCSD School Closures downtown schools foster strong neighborhood relationships important to the community. Downtown schools offer after school programs and opportunities for greater parent involvement in their children's education. A merged or consolidated "campus" would limit involvement from parents without convenient access to transportation. Downtown schools are often times the consistent positive influence within distressed and transitioning neighborhoods. Two maps of the neighborhood boundaries are enclosed — one map that shows their relationship to the elementary schools, and one map that shows their relationship to the middle schools. 5. Safe Neighborhoods: The Safe Community Task Force (SCTF) has provided the City Council with a report outlining recommendations aimed at improving the safety of all of the citizens and neighborhoods within Dubuque. Several of their recommendations are relevant to the DCSD's Facility Study. The SCTF encourages community solidarity and supports efforts to increases community involvement. They recommend that neighborhood "town hall" meetings be held to gather citizen input and to promote programs such as education, employment and recreation. Neighborhood schools often serve as de -facto town halls where public meetings and educational programs can be staged. Task force members have noted that educational programs aimed at school children filter back to the parents and other neighborhood residents thus benefiting the entire neighborhood. Also, recreational programs that reduce delinquency are often dependent on access to school gymnasiums and playgrounds. Neighborhood school facilities located in close proximity to the populations they serve also foster local involvement where remote locations may not be as successful. The SCTF stresses the importance of creating a sense of place within Dubuque's neighborhoods. Schools serve as a focal point and center of neighborhood activity that helps create this sense. The SCTF has also reinforced the City's emphasis on sustainability, encouraging efforts to create walkable and bike -able neighborhoods. The task force has recommended that the City's sustainability initiative be advanced by renovating existing buildings and ensuring that they meet current building codes and standards. The SCTF promotes mixed -use neighborhoods and schools along with residential, commercial and institutional uses are a vital part of the mix. 6. Open space /recreation: Neighborhood schools offer recreational opportunities by providing park and open space, and often work in conjunction with the City Leisure Services Department to develop playgrounds and recreational programs. Oftentimes these areas may be the only park or playground area available to some neighborhoods. 7. Disposition of Building /Property: Usually, once a school building has been vacated it is difficult to adaptively re -use. The experience of other communities, such as Cedar Rapids, and of other school systems, such as Holy Family Catholic Schools, has been that these buildings tend to sit idle -- creating problems with security, liability, 5 Report to the City Council on DCSD School Closures cost, and maintenance. Expansion of existing school buildings and school properties may require acquisition and demolition of adjacent housing. However, demolition of adjacent, often older vernacular housing may be less destructive to the historic character of the neighborhood than demolition of the large -scale historic school structures. Holy Family Catholic Schools has closed 5 elementary schools: Holy Trinity, Nativity, Sacred Heart, St. Joseph Key West, St. Joseph the Worker, St. Mary's, and St. Patrick's. These closures have affected the Downtown, North End, and Hill neighborhoods, where all of the schools were located. These areas, which had 5 elementary buildings operating as recently as 2002, now have only one: Holy Ghost. The proposed DCSD school closings in the Downtown and Hill neighborhoods will only add to the impact of the Catholic school closings. This will cause further disinvestment in these neighborhoods, and likely will be detrimental to the City's neighborhood revitalization efforts. 8. Land Acquisition: Closing a number of the downtown schools and relocating them will require land acquisition and possible demolition within the community. There are few places within the community that could readily accommodate a large scale school facility without acquiring what may be expensive properties and demolishing what may be relatively more expensive housing stock. The DCSD's analysis of closing schools may not reflect the actual cost of land acquisition and demolition of homes and buildings to create new school facilities and school yards. 9. Downtown Housing /Homeownership: The City has expended considerable effort to encourage and create downtown housing. The housing is intended to accommodate the office population and other employees and to encourage redevelopment and revitalization of the downtown area. With the potential for additional residents in the downtown area there will be an expectation that school facilities will be located in close proximity to their neighborhoods. The City has also focused homeownership programs in targeted neighborhoods. The school closures could hamper this effort. 10. Washington Neighborhood Revitalization Strategy: The 2007 Washington Neighborhood Revitalization Strategy was formulated in an effort to improve the lives of the residents of the Washington Neighborhood. A host of strategies were formulated by the participants in the Washington Neighborhood Visioning Process, many that relate to neighborhood schools and potential school closures. The study noted that there are approximately 300 elementary students in the neighborhood. The study group participants developed a neighborhood asset inventory, of which two elementary schools and playgrounds were listed as primary assets. The study group recommended that more family and children - related activities, green space and outdoor activities be provided. They stressed the need for all residents of the neighborhood to have full access to a range of services. The group encouraged social interaction and ample opportunities for education and positive recreational activities for all ages year round. They 6 Report to the City Council on DCSD School Closures asked that public infrastructure be developed to meet the needs of the neighborhood residents. They felt that it is necessary to market housing to young professionals who they felt would be attracted to a walkable, pedestrian friendly neighborhood. Specifically, the study group participants stressed the need for continuing and expanded after school programs offered at the elementary schools for such activities as football, basketball, and track. They recommended developing a mentor program administered by the schools and an afterschool program that will allow teens to participate. They noted that these after school activities fill the gap from the end of the school day until the parents get home from work. They also stressed the need for summer playground programs. They said that school - related activities such as child care /daycare, senior activities, open gym and sports fairs are key to encouraging citizen participation and neighborhood cohesiveness. They felt that close proximity to school facilities is a key to participation. The study group noted that the neighborhood residents hold the neighborhood schools in high regard. 11. Dubuque Comprehensive Plan: The Policy Statement of the Education Element of the 2008 City of Dubuque Comprehensive Plan states that" Education Goals must address the educational and informational needs of all members of the community as life -long learning opportunities are made available at many levels of interest and for all ages and abilities. Education must not be relegated to the schools alone but must become a collaborative experience that joins public and private sector, business and government, parent, teacher, and student in partnerships with one another and our educational institutions. A community's quality of life and ability to attract and retain both economic growth and residents often depends on the quality and quantity of educational facilities and services. The 2008 Comprehensive Plan's Education Goals and Objectives that relate to the school closure options are as follows: Goal 5. To increase the involvement of parents and the community in our schools. Objectives: 5.1 Promote parental and other citizen ownership and participation in the educational system. 5.2 Encourage involvement of parents in helping students to achieve their educational goals. Goal 8. To continue to enhance quality educational facilities in appropriate locations throughout the community to meet changing demographic and development patterns. Objectives: 8.3 Promote enhancing the capability of educational facilities to meet the needs of citizens, as changing demographic projections indicate. 7 Report to the City Council on DCSD School Closures 8.4 Promote a learning environment that utilizes state -of- the -art technologies in each school. 8.5 Encourage existing K -12 schools to have the resources and advantages that new schools receive. Education Goal 5 speaks to the concerns and recommendations that are addressed in the Public Engagement Section below. Education Goal 8 speaks to the concerns and recommendations that are addressed in many of the preceding sections. These goals and objectives also relate to the input from the DCSD elementary school principals summarized below. 12. Feasibility Study for New Construction vs. Renovation: Dr. Larie D. Godinez, DCSD Superintendent of Schools, in responding to an inquiry from Housing & Community Development Director David Harris about the school closings, stated that: "The cost of building new compared to renovation is minimal" Research on the renovation of historic structures indicates that this is not always the case. Staff believes that this statement needs a feasibility study in support. We are not aware of such a study. Staff recommends that the DCSD conduct a feasibility study for new construction vs. renovation of neighborhood schools as described in the enclosed publication from the National Trust for Historic Preservation (NTHP). The study needs to be conducted by an independent consultant with considerable experience in the field. Staff has addressed the concept of giving full consideration to the embodied energy and overall energy efficiency of renovating existing school facilities in the Sustainability section above. The DCSD feasibility study of new construction vs. renovation should go beyond that analysis to include full cost accounting, public participation, community planning, site and building analysis, and other elements described in the enclosed NTHP publication. Staff additionally recommends the DCSD give consideration to the costs associated with land acquisition and additional transportation costs for the life of a new building if neighborhood schools are closed. 13. Elementary School Principal Input: Staff has reviewed, and then summarized the input regarding the proposed school closure alternatives gleaned from the enclosed surveys submitted by DCSD elementary school principals. This input is valuable because it is provided by the personnel at the "front lines" of the educational process. These administrators have to operate within the existing facilities framework and work directly with the teacher, student and parent populations. The broad consensus among elementary school principals is to either retain their existing school building and grounds, or if total reconstruction is necessary, to locate the new buildings in the same spot as the existing ones. Several principals noted that there have been significant and costly expansions and renovations to their facilities recently that have improved comfort and performance and that would go to waste if the school were to be closed. 8 Report to the City Council on DCSD School Closures Most principals said that they feel their facilities are structurally sound and ADA compliant and that the addition of a gymnasium, computer lab, air conditioning or additional playground area would be all that is needed to satisfy the student and teacher needs. Some principals at "landlocked" facilities noted that additional recreation and parking area could be acquired across the street from the school grounds. Regarding sustainability, one principal notes that: "The downtown area needs a school that is easily accessible and within walking distance for families without transportation to ensure that parents can fully participate in their child's education and attend events and meetings even with limited personal transportation ". Another says that, "A neighborhood presence is desirable ". Several principals have questioned the estimated renovation costs for their facilities and recommended a more detailed review of their needs tied to more realistic cost estimates. One principal stated that smaller schools are more intimate and adaptable and are often tucked into relatively quiet neighborhoods. The converse of which is larger schools with a bussed -in population and increased traffic problems associated with the larger student population. The survey appears to reflect that most elementary school principals feel that a neighborhood presence is vital to a quality education that their existing facilities are adequate with the addition of some generally modest improvements and that closing schools in older neighborhoods in the downtown and hill areas is the least sustainable and desirable of the proposed alternatives. 14. Public Engagement: The DCSD is formulating a 20 -year plan for the entire school district and all school facilities. Yet, there is only one comprehensive public engagement session programmed. A long range program of this scale and community impact should warrant a series of interactive neighborhood planning sessions. Additional public engagement sessions should be held in affected neighborhoods and provide the best opportunity for public participation. Much of the downtown and neighborhood school areas have over 50% low to moderate income households. These families may have limited transportation options. They may feel uncomfortable attending a meeting at the Forum. They may be more likely to attend a meeting at their neighborhood school due to its closer proximity and their comfort level with being at their children's school. An extensive community outreach on long -range facility planning would enable those neighborhood residents directly affected by school closures or facility redevelopment to be made a part of the planning process and to provide valuable input. Parents and students and other community leaders would more readily "take ownership" and be more amenable to school district decisions if they felt that they were a part of the process and that their concerns were addressed. 9 Report to the City Council on DCSD School Closures In the past, the DCSD has used a community engagement process for developing recommendations major projects and programs. An extended process involving a series of community stakeholder committees was used to gather input and recommendations on possible sites and facility attributes for the new Prescott Elementary School and the new Roosevelt Middle School and Carver Elementary School. A similar process involving a series of community stakeholder committees was used to gather input and recommendations on long -range planning for school infrastructure funds. These processes serve as models for the 20 -year Facility Plan. Another example for community engagement that can be considered for the Facility Plan is the Safe Routes to School (SRTS) planning process. The first step in the process was to survey parents and students to gather data about the routes children are currently taking to school as well as the impediments to walking or biking. Of the 9,000 surveys that were distributed, 6,800 were returned and compiled. Once this information was input and analyzed, school administrators and members of neighborhood associations were asked to weigh in on problems facing individual schools. Meetings with administrators and neighborhood associations were essential to the development of a list of improvements for the routes most traveled by students on their way to and from school as part of this study. RECOMMENDATION While it is critical to assure that DCSD students receive the highest quality education with access to technology and facilities that meet 21 century demands, City staff recommends that those needs be met through the renovation of and /or additions to existing school buildings, or the reconstruction of new schools on existing sites. City staff further recommends an extensive community engagement process for what is to be a 20 -year plan be undertaken by the DCSD. Past DCSD practice can serve as the model for this process. Given the ramifications of potential school closures on parents, students, staff, neighborhoods, and the community as a whole, the DCSD Board should commit to a process that is deliberative, extensive, inclusive, and of sufficient length for meaningful public participation. City staff also recommends the DCSD Board conduct a feasibility study for new construction vs. renovation of neighborhood schools as outlined in the NTHP publication. City staff additionally recommends consideration be given to the costs associated with land acquisition and additional transportation cost for the life of a new building if neighborhood schools were closed as part of this study. 10 Option 1 2* 3* 4 5 6 7 8 Cost $201 million $197 million $186 million $186 million $204 million $203 million $200 million $198 million Total schools 18 17 15 16 15 14 14 13 Schools closed (in addition to Central Alternative High School and Jones Hand -in- Hand Preschool) Key: Elementary Middle None Fulton Jefferson Bryant Fulton Hoover Lincoln Marshall Jefferson Bryant Fulton Hoover Lincoln Jefferson Washington Audubon Bryant Fulton Hoover Lincoln Sageville Jefferson Washington Audubon Bryant Fulton Hoover Lincoln Marshall Sageville Jefferson Washington Audubon Bryant Fulton Hoover Lincoln Sageville Jefferson Washington Audubon Bryant Fulton Hoover Lincoln Marshall Sageville Jefferson Washington Schools renovated Bryant Carver Eisenhower Kennedy Lincoln Jefferson Washington Bryant Carver Eisenhower Kennedy Lincoln Carver Eisenhower Kennedy Jefferson (converted into an elementary school) Carver Eisenhower Kennedy Jefferson Washington (both converted into elementary schools) None None None None New construction None 1 middle 3 elementary 1 middle 3 elementary 2 middle 3 elementary 2 middle 3 elementary 2 middle 3 elementary 1 middle 3 elementary 1 middle DUBUQUE COMMUNITY SCHOOL DISTRICT *Options selected by DCSD Board at September 20, 2010 work session. (Source: Telegraph Herald, DCSD) SCHOOL F & RIPS ENROLLMENT % F& R AUDUBON 228 270 84.4% BRYANT 114 330 34.6% CARVER 157 561 28.0% EISENHOWER 168 552 30.4% FULTON 258 302 85.4% HOOVER 82 271 30.3% IRVING 212 545 38.9% KENNEDY 120 519 23.1% LINCOLN 250 312 80.1% MARSHALL 171 267 64.0% PRESCOTT 292 339 86.1% SAGEVILLE 69 277 24.9% TABLE MOUND 126 430 29.3% JEFFERSON 358 622 57.6% WASHINGTON 318 681 46.7% ROOSEVELT 286 1166 24.5% HEMPSTEAD 547 1835 29.8% SENIOR 656 1562 42.0% JONES 17 52 32.7% TOTALS 4429 10893 40.7% Kennedy 23.1% ry.mxd._ Carver P'ENNS 32ND Fulton 38.9% 85.4% Table Mound 29.3% Marshall 64% Prescott 86.1% h:ICMO \Schools \F reeReducedElemen plotfiles: FRE.pdf created by NMB 2010.09.27 DtsmLAIMfrt. n nb w comptkd flog the Dubuqu I Area rm Ge t ;ran l bArmal bn System _ D TAWS), whkhIncludes daNCnakdby . a dhtty of Dubuque and County. II n undengad are at Dubuque and partctpanrrg a encra ti l Sued deed the mast current and ecuur c ucyatlahle. DAMS not as n aupplladonot warrant the accuracy ayofthe ,1 harem. uN and agencies or data mnmytad harem. The and tark.yam 1 apencin shalt not ho heldlhbN bran d4K4Ind4a44 Ntd • u,n A eeriuentlg nrir a pu. era.. u fo. refeeable, analn0 this dolt artbeinabdt 30.3% `Hoover Free & Reduced Lunch Percentage By Elementary School Potential Elementary School Closings Elementary Schools Sageville x24:9% h TI I r CITY or DUB Masterpiece on the Mississipin IS ODGEST S`` I.f h:1CMOVSchool re ducedMiddle.mxd 1 piotflles: F • .p (� created b MB 010. JI bISOLAIMER. lnlorma ton was compelled vino the Dubuque A•• oo- hoc Inbrmalkrnsy, � ((JAWS} vat thhcluac d create• bath thee fit Dubuque and Dubuque o nay, Il Is,- • reboil III twluh Me City of 0 ubuyue no amen _ e 6. the most cue rant and a:cur n fpm accuracy n a vat table. COOL, and Ae euPPI leis an not wa Ih� of currency oa Ino maarmalbn nr data melt c l• in y n. The Clef and parllclpattnp aaenc as shall not be held I • tit for any dlrec 1, Indirect Inc Went u l e l cequenll.at pontpue, or paclal d.maoes,whoth er toadeaab urca gable. aneinel out the authorU6dul un.wlharaedua • MI. data or the inobtlily to a this data or out el f any breath of E Roo evelt 7vrliddl - School � Q 46.7% S Middle Schools % Free /Reduced - Middle Schools 24% 57.6% LEGEND Masterpiece on the Mississippi ant Eleme .School ementary School chool h \CMOVSchool.sprion2. ad plotflles: 2_kroAlo,d.pdf created by NMB 2010-09-2 DISCLAIMER. This Information or rising the Dubuque Alva Doogiophic n r System ,050151 which Includes data create by o Co011y of Dubuque and Dubuque County, It is 0 0 bad that while Ole GIN a/ 00001400 lord padicipoOnfl moat avrent and accurate Information 1 di suppliers do not 000.01111e occur, • , • alformalbn or data con/ogled hero,,: agencres shall not be held /sable for consequential. puma., or spacial d.en or unto resewible, ansino out of the aultr000a at UIIOUII .e of this 1.10 or 500 inability la use Ihts data 0l - Hoover Elementary School Table Mound Elementary School PE4NS S Elementary School Low/Mod Income Potential Elementary School Closings Elementary Schools City Limits w/Mod Population at least 51% Kennedy L Carve Elementary Sc S geville Filmentary ;.,. School 4(1 wiipz . • ■ , Alk . , a 0 4 DG OO 52 Tnrcrnr or PAM: .014.220 MIMI L. V,. DAGIS UB Masterpiece on the Miesissippi --- MIDDLE RL:) h\CMOSchooIOjflon2. xd plotfiles: 2 tetiVIQd.pdf created by 1 2010-0 -2 DISCLAIMER. Th. Inter maven tet bung lire Dubuque Adta GoographIc n t Syster toAais wit ten Moludos data create by •o theCIty of Dubuque and Dubuque County. It the City of Dubuque and parttclpa Ana Co cies u moat cut rent and accurate Intotmat km a able. DAGIS and Is suppliers do not Warrant the .ccura adorn or data contain. femur. Th city and patticipatu adenciea shad not be held liable for ony reel. Indirect Iodate at .n,enuential. puntbuta. or special dam a ...theater fa re,te or unforeseeable, analnn out of the author; or unauthorized u at this data or Ina rnSadIry to use !Me data mm Middle School Low/Mod Income Middle Schools Middle School Boundaries City Limits Low/Mod Population at leas Jefferson Middle Sci1POl DY / KEN E a r' uAGIS 0■111/014 OIAGI:16110 If SRAM/ I. Fr= !! Mastennecr on the Mississami • • r MIDDLE RDr PENNS LV IT RAN el h\CMOVSc plotflles: _L Cr . y NM: '',GLthe Dubuque s e bl ■5 151 the Guhullne m tt ,uit. a nd. D u Gil •o y of p ub nal U t' I r nI end ec pp l rent enot u nto hall data de not r l `e h how nn be h. eenuenl Ie, a I ns o i miemva 2.mxd el len was comp ikd GaInformalan velem data crew. yy bath Ir Glly n1 at wink p beg nano. d the lannalan eva1 WHM. 0 4015 and the accuraey 01 currency of the TI 1r. CITY or Elementary School Neighborhood Associations ential Elementary School Closings Neighborhood Associations Hilltop /Ivy League W Bluff Street Historic Bluffs Neighborhood Broadway Extended j Langworthy District C Downtown Neighborhood Council 03 North End Neighborhood ndview Nei Point mentary Schools fuUk for any ddvl, indirerf. inc SJ I opt dal dam ay1. wncII orb re; a DI ire aulhozand DI unaulheriled lal Ste r et South Grandview /Bradley Valley View Neighborhood ags Washington Neighborhoo rte Masterpiece on the Mississippi System teddy 01 hie. DADI9. and oosevel Middle `. h:1CMO1Sehoot 10= Ion2. plotfltes: 2 ksgd.pdf created by NMB 2010 -0• -2 ".:CLAIMER. This 'Mot matron nm the Dubuque Area DooshaphIc n 1 ;.015) w1,c h Includos data create •• by _uuqua and DUbuqua County. It Is n • .. +r. 133 of Dubuque and partwInaIinp 00 0 1 0�the �.t meant and accurst, Infannatian a n do not wananl the assure natwn et data eantaamod herom. Th - City and p211104pat0 . s wp not be held 10030 for any awl. Indirect, 6,0300 al. •eauenllel dumb, a sput1M dam se, who1er foresee. n r ASBUR e City Limits Middle Scho 00 S Jefferson . „. M' 1 Middle School Low /Mod Income Bluff Street Broadway Extended Downtown Neighborhood Council Grandview Neighborhood { Hilltop /Ivy League Historic Bluffs Neighborhoa Langworthy District North End Neighborhood oint Neigh outh Grandview /Bradley alley View Neighborhood Washington Neighborhood 52 r.e - mor a Y9 DUB Masterpiece on the Mississippi Older and Historic Schools: Restoration vs. Replacement and the Role of a Feasibility Study Introduction NATIONAL TRUST FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION' Weighing the pros and cons of renovating an older school or building a new one takes preservation "know- how," experience and creativity. Prevailing assumptions —that a newer school will result in a better education or misperceptions that older school buildings have unfixable flaws —place these schools at risk. The potential for renovation is sometimes dismissed without full consideration of the facts and long -term implications. Central to this decision - making process is the feasibility study, often conducted by an architectural consultant hired by a school district. A feasibility study of the issues involved in renovation is the only tested way to evaluate the fit of an old building for contemporary educational uses. In its most basic form, a feasibility study helps establish if renovation of a historic school is possible, practical and whether it can meet the proposed educational needs. Not simply a cost - benefit analysis, a feasibility study evaluates technology needs and barriers, scheduling to complete a school construction project from start to finish, options and alternatives, and potential implications of decisions to the surrounding neighborhood and community. Potential problems include studies being conducted by architects unfamiliar with renovation, inflated cost estimates for renovation, limited or no community input, a bias against historic, hidden costs not accounted for, and minimal consideration of community impacts. A biased or incomplete feasibility study will not fully inform the general public or school district about all of their options. The checklist below can help identify the factors involved in making the best decision and assuring that a feasibility study is fair, objective and reasonable. It will also assist in identifying "warning signs," questions to ask, and knowing what to look for when challenging the results and projected cost estimates of a feasibility study. Consultants More often than not, school districts hire architects and professionals who know a lot more about designing new buildings than renovating older ones. Not all architects have training, experience or an interest in the subspecialty of rehabilitation. Many architects are unfamiliar with, or sometimes even biased against, renovation options. • Does the consulting architect have experience with renovation and /or specialize in older school renovations? If so, can you review previous work? If not, has the architect consulted with historic preservation agencies and /or specialists? • Are there any inherent conflicts of interest? Is the consultant the likely architect for the new or rehabilitated school? • How was the architect selected? Was it an open -bid process, request for proposals (RFP), or pre- selection? • Is part of any funding assistance from the State and, if so, is there a review or approval process prior to selection of the architect? Full Cost Accounting In addition to the known costs for designing and constructing a new school, there may be other costs to the taxpayers that haven't been calculated. What are the full costs of building on a new site? Often these figures are omitted from the final cost estimate. • If the new school will be built on an undeveloped site, there will be added costs to purchase and develop the land and to build roads, sewers and other infrastructure. Are these figures included in the study? • What is the availability and cost of additional transportation to the new site (i.e. busing)? Will more children be bused to the new school? If so, what are the added costs? Does the centrally- located site offer more options (e.g., walking, biking, transit for upper grade students, etc.)? • If the existing school is planned for demolition, there will be costs to demolish it, abate hazardous materials, and dispose of debris (often 4 to 5% of the overall replacement costs). Were these costs included in the final estimates? • Renovating an existing building general saves 20 to 25% of the cost of new construction as the building shell is retained. Do cost estimates reflect this savings? • If the school is already scheduled for abandonment, are costs to stabilize, maintain and upkeep, secure and dispose of the building included? • What are the indirect costs to the community? How will a vacant, boarded -up school impact the surrounding neighborhood, influence marketability, stability and affect the area's property values? Has a Health Impact Assessment been conducted to see what the impacts will be on students? Have they computed the Toss of recreational facilities to local residents (e.g., those who walk around the school's track, use ballfields, etc.)? • If a school is proposed for a remote, outlying area, what are the additional costs of sprawl that usually follow, i.e. increased transportation costs, infrastructure (roads, sewer, sidewalks, etc.? • Do cost estimates for a building contingency (cushion) accurately reflect unknown or anticipated cost overruns for both rehabilitation and new construction? Building Codes Most existing and even recently built school buildings will not comply with every code provision at the local and state levels. Despite the flexibility of many codes and the potential for waivers, often studies rigidly interpret this compliance, declaring a building unsafe or cost prohibitive to retrofit. • Did the feasibility study investigate and address code compliance options or alternate codes for older buildings in your jurisdiction, such as early warning systems? • If seismic retrofit is applicable and proposed in the study, was an engineer familiar with older and historic buildings consulted? • Can a new addition to an existing school preclude the need for a proposed demolition by meeting programmatic objectives and satisfying modern code requirements? • Have important character defining and historic elements of the school been adversely impacted to satisfy code requirements? If so, were alternatives considered? Public Participation and Community Planning A study conducted behind closed doors does not consider all viewpoints or build trust and support from within the community. • Were there public meetings or charrettes asking what the community wanted? If so, did they allow for community input? For example, were educational specification meetings held so that design professionals could create or update a facility that meets the community's needs? • Was a citizens' or advisory committee formed to help explore the options and issues? • Does the feasibility study consider the community use of the school, such as after - school programs or public meeting space? • Are public meetings inclusive and involve those interested in broad community goals of health, transportation efficiency, and community vitality? • Did the study consider a community's local planning program, zoning, comprehensive or master plan? Did the study take into account the state's concerns as outlined in their overall plan for the state's growth? • Does the study take into account local or state goals of reducing carbon emissions and addressing climate change? • Does the study address review or approval process at the state or federal levels? • Were site visits made to other successfully rehabilitated schools? If so, did this involve a cross - representation of citizens? • Who reviews the feasibility study results and what are their qualifications? Is anyone involved with an expertise or interest in preservation of communities? Cultural and Historic Significance Historic designation will often invoke environmental review requirements that help ensure alternatives to demolition are adequately considered. Conversely, designation could make the project eligible for alternative building code requirements and additional funding sources. • What is the school's significance? Was this accurately reflected within the study? • What is the cultural significance within the community? • Does the study consider the implications of any local, state or national designation, such as any mandatory review process? • Has a district -wide survey been done to assess the most important schools in the community? If so, was this information considered in the study? Funding Considerations The addition or omission of certain expenses may skew the analysis in favor of new construction. For example, the estimate for a new school might not include demolition or site development costs. An accurate and comprehensive cost comparison between renovation and new construction helps level the playing field. • Does the funding source tie the feasibility study to any reviews or requirements? • Is the study accurately considering life -cycle costs and forecasting future costs for both new construction and rehabilitation? Building components deteriorate at different levels and costs fluctuate year by year. A life -cycle analysis that uses a fixed rate of deterioration will lead to inaccurate results. What is the life expectancy of the new facility? What is the life expectancy of the renovated school? • Are funding opportunities, such as matching - grants, associated with historic designation taken into consideration in the final cost estimate? • Does the locality or state have arbitrary formulas mandating or recommending new construction as a certain threshold of spending? If so, is this indicated within the study? Did the study offer information about ways to obtain a waiver from the state if this is a requirement? State recommendations for size considerations are not the same as legal requirements. Site Plan and Building The abandonment of older or historic schools is often justified in terms of their incompatibility with modern educational specifications, such as minimum acreage and classroom size standards. More often than not, these specifications are merely guidelines that can be accommodated by adopting creative solutions. — • Are proposed playing fields or new athletic guidelines influencing the decision? Are these requirements or preferences? Has shared use of athletic facilities (e.g., Parks and Recreation departments, etc.) been fully explored? Have multiple -use options been considered (e.g., middle school and high school share same ballfields ?) • Does the study consider creative partnerships with city park agencies, nearby churches, public transit agencies and other institutions to share playing fields, parking spaces, or transportation services? • How will the new land be acquired? If donated by a developer, what are the implications and have the pros and cons and overall suitability of the site been considered in the study? • Have local or state variances been considered, such as for expansive parking lots or acreage standards? • Does the study account for the relocation of walls or use of hallway square footage to enlarge classrooms? • Have spaces been considered for new uses, such as former libraries for media centers? • Do you have first -hand information? Meaning is the information presented second -hand, and therefore potentially misunderstood or misrepresented? Scheduling Timing is another critical factor when considering any option. Can work be accomplished during the summer months, phased over several years or students housed in temporary quarters? These decisions often impact the viability of rehabilitating a school. • Does the study outline logistics and potential for disruption to students for both rehabilitation and new construction? • What is the total timetable proposed for all options, from start to finish? • Does the study consider creative alternatives such as phasing work? • Measuring building conditions can be a subjective process where older schools are often ranked as "poor" without any objective and quantifiable indicator of measure. An objective rating system and criteria that allow for comparisons between the subject school and others within the same district would be more reliable. What criteria are used for the building conditions evaluation? • Do they reflect age, type of construction, apparent condition and design adequacy, life expectancy, feasibility of renovation, mechanical adequacy? • If school buildings were ranked by excellent, very good, good, fair, poor (or a similar system), does the study provide definitions for each? • What are the credentials of the evaluator? Was the opinion of local administrators, teachers, and students taken into consideration? Educational Programming Standards for school facilities are set by the education agency of each state and vary from state to state. Local school districts also set standards. Sometimes these favor new construction over renovation. • Are educational specifications influencing the outcome of the feasibility study and driving the decision to abandon the historic school? If so, do any state or federal guidelines mandate these or are they produced locally? • Who wrote the program and does it have any inherent biases? • What are requirements versus desirables? Must an elementary school be one -story or is that a preference? • What is the current and projected enrollment for a school? Is overcrowding an issue and will a new school solve this problem? • Can the older school be adapted to accommodate the needed educational programs? If not, does the study outline why and what sorts of spaces are needed. Components of Feasibility Study Before undertaking a study or hiring an architect, determining the scope of a feasibility study is a key step. As each school, community and region is unique, there is no one size fits all approach to conceiving a feasibility study. Instead, on a case -by -case basis, design the feasibility study to reflect your particular needs. A feasibility study has three parts: • Programmatic Fit by Schematic Analysis. Using the same architectural program developed for a new school, a design professional explores ways in which the existing building can be modified to meet the educational needs of the curriculum. The work product is typically a schematic diagram of spaces and rooms overlaid to the current floor plan of the school, by which the extent of change necessary is self evident. Additions that do not fit within existing space are also shown. • Technical Conditions Assessment. An architect and engineering team conducts a system by system analysis of the age, nature, and condition of each component of the existing school (and each episode of constriction of that school) to identify systems with sufficient remaining useful life to warrant retention and continued use. The team then recommends which system will require replacement in whole or in part and which type of system is most appropriate to projected use. • Synthesis and Comparative Cost Estimates. Based on the above two analyses, the design team then prepares an estimate of the cost of renovation and compares that to the cost of new construction from pre - established or published sources. Care must be taken in this cost summary to include even the hidden costs of both options. Common Steps of a Feasibility Study Document existing conditions of building(s) and site against proposed use and programming needs. • Structural systems (including seismic, where applicable). • Building envelope (windows, roof, gutters, etc.). • Compliance with building codes. • Plans and site (ADA accessibility /compliance, parking, transportation, etc.). • Materials and finishes. • Health and life safety (fire systems, lighting, alarm, egress, sprinklers). • Hazardous materials (asbestos, lead paint, contaminated soil, etc.). • HVAC, mechanical, electrical, plumbing. Identify site - specific education specifications. • Sq. ft. analysis for each component of the school. • All classrooms (size, configuration). • Support systems (office, conference, etc.). • Gymnasium /auditorium (capacity, acoustics). • Athletic /recreation needs. • Cafeteria /cafetorium." Identify technology specifications. • Whiteboards, TV, intercoms, telephone, Internet access, network cabling. Identify security specifications. • Surveillance cameras, controlled /points of access. Identify community needs /interest. • Community outreach and public input. • Role of school in adjacent area /community. • Ability to walk or bike to school. Evaluate cultural and historic significance /importance to community. • Eligibility criteria. • Local, state or national historic designation(s). • Physical integrity. • Period of significance for school. Prepare physical feasibility drawings. • Schematic or existing floor plans. • Facade renderings. Present full range of options /alternatives with pros and cons of each. • Renovate? • Renovate with additions? • Replacement onsite with demolition? • New construction on new site with abandonment? • Adaptive use of an existing building for school use? Define scheduling. • Schedule of construction and timing for bringing school back online. • Any phasing. • Need to house students temporarily. Present cost estimates and economic analysis. • Broken down by each option (including initial cost, present value, operating cost, real estate value, and life cycle cost analysis). Make recommendations. • Quantifiable with rationale. Last updated January 2010 About the National Trust for Historic Preservation The National Trust for Historic Preservation works to put renovation of older and historic neighborhood schools on an equal footing with the construction of new schools as an option. We believe that preserving such schools offer numerous benefits to the community including the continued vitality of its older neighborhoods. The National Trust has developed resources to promote the continued use of older and historic schools over the past decade. This fact sheet cites information from various sources, including National Trust publications, A Community Guide to Saving Older Schools, and Why Johnny Can't Walk to School: Neighborhood Schools in the Age of Sprawl, and Helping Johnny Walk to School: Policy Recommendations for Removing Barriers to Community- Centered Schools. For more information, call 202- 588 -6167, e-mail policy @nthp.org, or visit http : / /www.preservationnation.org /issues /historic - schools /. The National Trust for Historic Preservation (www.PreservationNation.org) is a non - profit membership organization bringing people together to protect, enhance and enjoy the places that matter to them. By saving the places where great moments from history—and the important moments of everyday life —took place, the National Trust for Historic Preservation helps revitalize neighborhoods and communities, spark economic development and promote environmental sustainability. With headquarters in Washington, DC, eight regional and field offices, 29 historic sites, and partner organizations in 50 states, territories, and the District of Columbia, the National Trust for Historic Preservation provides leadership, education, advocacy and resources to a national network of people, organizations and local communities committed to saving places, connecting us to our history and collectively shaping the future of America's stories. NATIONAL TRUST FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION' 1785 Massachusetts Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20036 www.PreservationNation.org School Closure Options Dubuque Community School District School Board packet September 20, 2010 work session • Minutes of the School Board work session • Elementary School Principals' Input to the Board • DCSD Facility Beliefs • DCSD Facility Study Administrative Recommendations to the Board • Cost Comparisons of all eight school facility options President Brannon called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. at the Forum with the following members present: Beytien, Brannon, Davis, Krueger, Loeppke, Mennig, Stephens. Additional officers of the Board present: Godinez, Lucas. Executives present: Devaney, Rohn, Puls, Rheingans. Moved (Krueger) and seconded to approve the agenda as submitted. Motion carried 7 -0. Mr. Beytien read the Facility Beliefs approved by the Board on May 17, 2010. Dr. Godinez shared that elementary principals were requested to complete an Elementary Principal Input to the Board of Directors, which includes facility needs, suggestions for the future of their school (i.e. renovate, replace, consolidate), and other facility comments, questions, suggestions. Each elementary school's priorities were reviewed. The Board recessed from 7:00 — 7:12 p.m. Dr. Godinez reviewed the Facility Study administrative recommendationsThe parameters are to maintain neighborhood schools by expanding boundaries but keeping neighborhoods provide for more equitable distribution of diversity; develop 3 or 4 section elementary schools, maintain three middle schools. The Board engaged in discussion regarding options. Board consensus was to present 2, 3 and 4 (with flexibility within each option) for community engagement onOctober30. The principals will be asked to invite their families to guarantee representation on October 30. This' session is open to the public. The purpose of the community engagement process is to provide feedback_to the Board.,to facilitate their facility needs decision - making. A community web input piece was discussed:`' A community:leader session will involve inviting key community and non -profit leaders to the table to preview a video, seek input, and ultimately post information on the District web site including the options and:cost. This.date is to be determined. Dr. Godinez reported on the federal stimulus dollars of $2 2 million over a two -year period to reinstate or create new positions. She reviewed the list `o f proposedi,-positions 12.1 certified and 4.5 non - certified positions restored, 2.5 certified and 9.0 nori.- certified :new positions, and the middle school reading intervention program extended for an additional two;yeais : Funds must be spent by September 30, 2012. President Brannon declared the meeting ad journed at 8:36 p.m. Joni Lucas, Secretary Board of Education DUBUQUE COMMUNITY SCHOOL DISTRICT Board Work Session September 20, 2010 Dubuque • Community 4 2b inspireand charlenge DCSD Facility Study Elementary Principal Input to the DCSD Board of Directors September 20, 2010 School: Audubon Elementary Principal: Andy Ferguson A. Facility Needs (Listed in order of priority): I.) Technology infrastructure and hardware (wireless, mounted projectors, smartboard capabilities, classroom lab, improve our computer:student ratio). 2.) Ability to house a preschool with appropriate facilities and equipment. 3.) Safety issues associated with the neighborhood and the addition of the Bee Branch Project (lighting, fencing, locks on classroom doors, etc.). 4.) Address blacktop resurfacing, parking, and green space issues. Land acquisition needed? 5.) Minor remodeling to main office area, lounge, bathrooms, sinks, and add a commons area for lunch so the gym doesn't need to be shut down for lunch. B. My Suggestions for the Future of this School Facility: (Number the following 1S t , 2nd, and 3 in order of priority) 2 Renovate the existing building - Comments: Do only necessary projects. 4 Replace the existing building - Comments: Not recommended in my opinion. 3 Consolidate by merging this building with one or more other buildings - Comments: Monitor demographic data of any consolidated downtown school plan. See comments below. 1 Other (please explain) Keep building mostly "as is" with limited or reduced renovation projects. Find out what projects are included in the proposed 88,000,000 renovation proposal. Are they all necessary? See comments below. C. Other facility comments, questions, suggestions: Audubon Elementary had an extensive remodeling/renovation project completed in 2002 at a cost of approximately 82.5 mullion. Audubon is a nice facility with climate controlled geo- thermal heating and cooling It is one level so is easily ADA accessible. The structure is sound now that our roof is currently being replaced. I found it somewhat difficult to adequately address and prioritize the needs when the price tag for Audubon renovation was set at $8,000,000 yet when I inquired, nobody could tell me what projects that included. With my limited architectural and construction knowledge, I find it difficult to imagine what would need to be done to Audubon at a cost of $8,000,000. I would encourage the board to look closely at the prices listed for renovation at each of the buildings under each of the options to see if each of the suggestions are necessary. How did Straka - Johnson compile the total cost? What standard did they use to determine what renovation projects were necessary at each building? If the board proceeds with consolidation, I urge the board to be aware of the student population at any new consolidated building to ensure that the demographics are as evenly distributed and representative of other schools in the district. The downtown area needs a school that is easily accessible and within walking distance for families without transportation to ensure that parents can fully participate in their child's education and attend events and meetings even with limited personal transportation. DCSD Facility Study Elementary Principal Input to the DCSD Board of Directors September 20, 2010 n(, °addict/lenge School: Bryant Principal: Vicki Sullivan A. Facility Needs (Listed in order of priority): 1.) Number and size of classrooms, both general and special education, appropriate to student population, educational programming, and required furnishings and equipment 2.) Technology infrastructure extended throughout entire facility with sufficient capability to ensure ready access by students and staff to meet educational program needs — to include both distributed and lab -based computer stations 3.) Accessibility to all areas within the school through elevators, ramps, and design or redesign 4.) Library sized appropriately for student population 5.) Safety and security issues addressed via entry control, interior lockable doors, alarm systems, video monitoring and communication systems 6.) Food service and cafeteria accommodates student population and facilitates scheduling of meal serving (breakfast and lunch) without negatively affecting instruction— separating cafeteria from gymnasium recommended 7.) Climate control provided through adequate natural and artificial lighting, and energy - efficient heating and cooling systems B. My Suggestions for the Future of this School Facility: (Number the following 1 2 and 3 in order of priority) 1S Renovate the existing building - Comments: The renovation of existing space plus new construction of an addition would allow the attendance center to fitnction as a three section PreK -5` school while addressing facility needs listed above. At the same time this option allows Bryant to tnaintain its presence as a South -side neighborhood school. • 3rd 2 nd Replace the existing building - Comments: Consolidate by merging this building with one or more other buildings - Comments: Other (please explain) C. Other facility comments, questions, suggestions: Challenges presented by my 1" suggestion: • Site circulation for pedestrians, bicycles, and vehicle traffic (both bus and automobiles) • Adequate outdoor facilities • Location for instruction during renovation and new construction • Cost 2. v Dubuque - a: >Conut�unity scnools 41111A. Th wiactitre DCSD Facility Study Elementary Principal Input to the DCSD Board of Directors September 20, 2010 School: George Washington Carver Principal: Cindy Steffens A. Facility Needs (Listed in order of priority): 1.) Bathrooms 2.) Multi- purpose room 3.) Art and Music Room 4.) Second Computer Lab 5.) B. My Suggestions for the Future of this School Facility: (Number the following 1 2 " and 3 " in order of priority) Renovate the existing building - Comments. Replace the existing building - Comments: Consolidate by merging this building with one or more other buildings - Comments: Other (please explain) C. Other facility comments, questions, suggestions: The Carver School Community feels VERY fortunate to have the learning environment created by the DCSD board, Forum staff, and Pat Meade. That being said we do foresee some building needs due to the number of students currently enrolled and future projected enrollment. Dubuque -. 4-.Co ,mot, oo a 7binvi li ge DCSD Facility Study Elementary Principal Input to the DCSD Board of Directors September 20, 2010 School: Eisenhower Principal: Nan Welch A. Facility Needs (Listed in order of priority): 1.) Replace existing rooms in the "pods" surrounding the computer lab and library (Please see comments in "Other Facility Comments, Questions, Suggestions"). This is critical. These rooms lack space, ventilation, noise control, and the appropriate environment for learning. 2.) Provide air conditioning. The existing unit in the newer section continually breaks down. The older section cannot sustain an air conditioning unit as it is designed currently because of its architectural design. 3.) Provide technology. The newer section is not even wired for cable. We are wireless, but the configuration of our building is often not conducive to a good connection. 4.) Build a new gym. We have one gym/cafeteria for 550 students. 5.) Reconfigure classrooms and spaces in the newer section to accommodate what has become a primary area with four sections of each grade level and Special Education programs that need unique spaces. B. My Suggestions for the Future of this School Facility: (Number the following 1st, 2 °d, and 3 in order of priority) 2nd Renovate the existing building - Comments: Renovate the existing two pods by reshaping classrooms, adding doors, and adding a gym to the newer section. 1st Replace the existing building - Comments: Replace the older building and reconfigure some of the newer building. Consolidate by merging this building with one or more other buildings - Comments: Other (please explain) C. Other facility comments, questions, suggestions: I believe that Eisenhower's concerns are well known and documented by the architectural study. 1. Specific POD concerns: The "pods" —the six classrooms surrounding the library and the six classrooms surrounding the computer lab are 12 of the most substandard classrooms in the district, I would venture to guess. Following are a list of drawbacks to these rooms • SMALL Eight of the Pod rooms measure approximately 760 feet. Four of the pod rooms measure approximately 713 feet. At this moment we have the following number of students in these classrooms: 3r grade -23 —23- 24 —23 4 grade — 26 —27- 26 —26 5 grade- 22- 21 -24 -22 The size of these rooms are well below the proposed district standard. • NOISE • None of the rooms have doors. Each rooms is open to either the library or computer area. Each room is also open at the back of the classroom to the next classroom, so there is a double dose of noise, from the front of the room and from the back of the room as well as from the univents. Teachers use amplification systems, but without doors, voices easily float from room to room. • POORLY VENILATED All rooms have the loud Univent system at the back of the classroom. Four of the 12 rooms have no access to outside air (no windows or door) • BEAT Although Eisenhower is typically not a school that complains to the superintendent on "hot days ", it is unbearably hot in the pod rooms. There was a study to put air conditioning in pod areas a few years ago, but it was determined that the flat roof could not sustain a unit and we were taken off the "air conditioning list." • POOR STORAGE Teachers are very clever in the arrangement of their classroom and in the storage of their materials. Students do not have lockers. There are hooks at the back of the classrooms for coats, bookbags, etc, making these rooms even smaller. There is poor storage throughout the building. 2. General Building Concerns: • TECHNOLOGY Eisenhower is anxious to move ahead in the area of technology. However, our newer section doesn't even have cable! We await our status in terms of remolding/rebuilding to know how to proceed in terms of adding technology. We feel "stuck" until we know the plan. • GYM Contrary to what some believe, we have ONE gym. This serves as our lunchroom for 550 students and our classroom for PE classes. While the gym is being cleaned, 88 first graders begin PE class in a "small gym ", which measures 1683 square feet . This room has also become our "sensory" area for the 20 students who have been program placed at our school with moderate or severe Autism, and is in use throughout the day. With a building our size, it would be great to have a second gym. • AIR CONDITIONING The air conditioning in the new section fails regularly. There is a Freon leak that no one has been able to find. • GRADE LEVEL CLUSTERING The building was not built as a four section school. Therefore, grade levels cannot be clustered together. In each pod, there are six classrooms, when there should be eight classrooms to accommodate four sections of each grade level clustered together. In the newer section, there are not enough consecutive rooms to cluster four sections of each grade level. Although this section of the building was built to accommodate students with Special Needs, the addition of general education classrooms have taken much of that space and one of our PLP classrooms and two of our Autism programs are in inappropriate spaces and should be returned to the spaces intended for them, if the possibility of additional classrooms for general education students could be created. • TRAFFIC FLOW Traffic flow is terrible, although we have done the absolute best with what we have to work with at this point. Working with our land and lower parking lot area may really reduce frustration. I would ask members of the board to visit Eisenhower at their convenience during the school day to experience the classrooms in the pods at any time. I have asked for the district's consideration to remodel the pods, dating back to 2005, and formally asked, through a letter to John Burgart, for your support in 2008. I so appreciate your thoughtfulness and efforts in helping Eisenhower to attain 21" Century classroom status. DCSD Facility Study Elementary Principal Input to the DCSD Board of Directors September 20, 2010 School: Fulton A. Facility Needs (Listed in order of priority): 1.) Classrooms need appropriate set up for up to date technology. Larger classroom spaces for technology, preschool and music are needed. 2.) Climate Control 3.) Separate cafeteria space/multi - purpose room with kitchen to provide hot breakfast 5 days a week 4.) Replace lighting and flooring 5.) Welcoming ADA entrance Principal: McDonald B. My Suggestions for the Future of this School Facility: (Number the following 1St, 2 and 3 in order of priority) * *This was very hard to choose an order of priority because of many unknown factors. Jean McDonald 2 Renovate the existing building - Comments: Does the $9 million renovation cost inchtde land acquisition on the block? What does $9 million include in a renovation for Fulton? 1 Replace the existing building - Comments: Additional land acquisition in the current location would be needed. A neighborhood presence is desirable. 3 Consolidate by merging this building with one or more other buildings - Comments: A neighborhood school is needed in this area; however, the board needs to consider and address the high percentage of free/reduced lunch, mobility, special education and transportation needs of our families in determining what buildings should be consolidated The board needs to also have a strong plan in place for a smooth transition of staff, students, and families. Other (please explain) Make room for preschool in any renovation or new building. It is an excellent addition to an elementary building. Consider wrap- around care for families. Consider year round school. C. Other facility comments, questions, suggestions: Our building does not have any window screens. 1 have requested them each year we were provided with a list of things that needed to be done to the building. There are security issues on the ground floor and bugs get into the building. Cable has also been on the list for several years and has not been addressed. The computer drops are across the room from where the TV's were installed. The district needs a custodial equipment replacement cycle for snow tractors, floor machines, etc. for each building. Thank you! 1111 %4 T inquire and challenge DCSD Facility Study Elementary Principal Input to the DCSD Board of Directors September 20, 2010 School: Hoover Elementary A. Facility Needs (Listed in order of priority): Principal: Kathleen Haas 1.) Doors on Classrooms (for both instructional and safety purposes). • Classrooms are currently open to inner "pod" areas that are used as community learning space and the library. • Noise from the pods interrupts classroom instruction and vice /versa. • Classrooms are also joined I the back, providing for additional distraction from the classroom next door. • There is no way to conduct a true "lock down" of the building during an emergency, since there are no doors for teachers to close to help separate themselves and their students from potential danger. 2.) Air conditioning/ windows that open (health and safety). • Currently we are supposed to be a secure building, however, with no windows that open, teachers are left to the only available source of ventilation, which is the door to the outside located in each classroom. This poses a safety risk when the doors are either open (someone could enter), or closed (students are getting overheated and unable to focus on. work). 3.) Improved or additional instructional space. • Square up classrooms to make more usable classroom space. • Add lockers in classrooms. • Quiet space (for students with sensory or other needs). • Instructional areas for support staff such as banc, orchestra, ELL, speech GT, OT/PT. These professionals are forced to teach some of our neediest students in an open pod with no dividers to help remove distractions. • Conference room for confidential meetings (Currently no place for IEP or other parent meetings, site council etc). • Testing area • Teacher work room • Teacher's lounge (lunch schedules for staff are staggered, however all staff that have a given lunch period are not able to fit in the lounge at any given time. Having the ability to sit together at lunch helps to form the bonds that are necessary to establish a true community. • Overall appearance...although the building is clean and well maintained by the custodial staff, its design includes very dark wooden beams and low ceilings with few windows for any natural light. Also, dark red "faux brick" floor tiles line the floors of the main hallway through the building. The result is a very dark, outdated and uninviting space. 4.) Separate gym and cafeteria • Our entire school schedule revolves around lunch, since our gymnasium doubles as our cafeteria. • A separate cafeteria could be used as a multipurpose/ community room or group teaching space when not being used for lunch. • New tables and seats that are safe and comfortable for both students and adults (two people were injured last year when the benches "folded up" when they sat down, causing them to fall to the floor. • Tables that are more conducive to teaching and encouraging appropriate social behaviors. 5.) Drive way to ease congestion during arrival and dismissal. • Use additional land to continue Pasadena or cut in from JFK for drop off and pick up area. The current layout creates a bottleneck on St. Anne drive. 6.) Roof and drain spouts • Lack of insulation keeps the building very hot in the summer and very cold in the winter. • Noise level (the sound of rain drowns out the teacher's voice, even when there is only a light to moderate rain). • Water from the rain and snow drains from "scuppers" and splashes from the roof to the ground with no drain spouts. This causes problems, especially when the water freezes on the sidewalks around the building, causing icy and dangerous conditions. B. My Suggestions for the Future of this School Facility: (Number the following 1 St , 2nd, and 3 in order of priority) 2 1 3 Renovate the existing building - Comments: Although I think it would be more cost efficient to replace the current building, renovating the building and adding additional instructional space would make it possible to use the Hoover location and green space for an elementary school. I believe that renovating the building in it's current location would allow additional instructional space to be added. and then allow Hoover School to expand to a 3-4 section school, easing the over crowding situation that we have at the other west end schools. Replace the existing building - Comments: I think that the cost of renovating the building is so close to the cost of replacement that it makes more sense financially to replace the existing building with a more modern, and cost efficient model on the same location. I think that maintaining the same location is important because Hoover School currently has approximately 10 acres of "green space" that the district already owns. This much green space would allow for a new school to be built on. another portion of the property while students continue to attend at the current building (similar to the Prescott building situation). In addition, I think the perception of the location is that it is very "landlocked ", but there are a few solutions that would provide additional access (making Pasadena or JFK throughways). Research indicates that green space is an essential component of elementary school. The amount of green space that the district currently owns at the Hoover site would be astronomical to purchase again at this location or at another site. Although Hoover is currently a "small school" that is primarily because of the limitations of the building. If the building were replaced with something larger, boundaries could be redrawn. There are currently a great number of students living within two miles of Hoover that go to Kennedy. Carver and Eisenhower. Perhaps recreating the boundaries and sending many of the students within the two mile radius to Hoover would allow Kennedy to accept more students from the rapidly expanding Asbury area which it now draws from. This could help to ease the overcrowding issues at Carver and Eisenhower. In my opinion, it makes much more sense financially to build another school on Hoover site that can hem ease this overflow than to add on to Kennedy or Eisenhower which are also older facilities. Completing renovations at Kennedy. Eisenhower and Carver would be much more costly in the long run than one new school on the Hoover School site. Consolidate by merging this building with one or more other buildings - Comments: In reviewing the proposed options, it seems that in consolidating schools, smaller schools may be a way to save money in the long run. I think that in looking at the current locations of many of our schools. there are very few with the amount of green space that Hoover School has. It would be a shame if this piece of property were not used for a school. The neighborhood setting is quiet, with few distractions for students and little traffic flow. It is m understand' i that one + ossible . lan for consolidation would put a new school (consolidating Hoover, Bryant and possibly other schools) on the current Bryant School property. If this were the case, Bryant school would not be able to maintain function as it was rebuilt since the amount of property is so small, the current building would have to be tom down so it could be rebuilt in the same spot. In addition, there is very little green space surrounding the Bryant School location, and although some may be available for purchase in the area it would be more costly than building on the property that the district already owns at Hoover. Other (please explain) C. Other facility comments, questions, suggestions: In addition to the information that I provided above, I would like to address a point of clarification following the last school board work session on August 30, 2010. During this meeting, there was discussion based on the philosophy of neighborhood schools, and the current status of "neighborhood schools" in our district. During this discussion, the number of students bussed to specific schools was brought up. During this discussion, Hoover was mentioned as a school with a high population of students who are bussed from locations or neighborhoods well out of the typical two mile radius. I believe that it was mentioned that Hoover school has "very few" students who attend from neighborhoods that actually surround the school. With that in mind, I wanted to share some information with you regarding the number of students that are within our "neighborhood", which I will classify as students who walk or are dropped off at school since they are within a two mile radius, and the number of students who are bussed to us from neighborhoods beyond a two mile radius from school. Currently, Hoover Elementary School has a total enrollment of 261 students. Of those 261, we have 30 students who ride the school bus, and are attending from neighborhoods beyond our two mile radius. This represents a total percentage of 11.5% of Hoover students, leaving the other 88.5% of our students living within two miles of school and walking to school or being dropped off by parents on a daily basis. We have one school bus that serves these 30 students, with the vast majority of the students that attend Hoover coming from the neighborhood directly surrounding the school. If you have any questions about this information, or if you would like further clarification, please let me know, Dubuque y °s SG� 7b inspire and challenge DCSD Facility Study Elementary Principal Input to the DCSD Board of Directors September 20, 2010 School: Irving Elementary School Principal: Joe Maloney A. Facility Needs (Listed in order of priority): 1.) Additional Bathrooms based on the current enrollment in our building 2.) Panels above windows in the `old" building need to be replaced 3.) Sinks with running water in all classrooms 4.) Preschool playground equipment and additional playground equipment, for K-5 students, to satisfactorily account for the number of students enrolled 5.) Heating and Aix conditioning for entire building (similar to what is in the new addition) B. My Suggestions for the Future of this School Facility: (Number the following 1st, 2n and 3 in order of priority) Renovate the existing building - Conments: Replace the existing building - Comments: Consolidate by merging this building with one or more other buildings Comments: X Other (please explain) Having just completed a multi - million dollar building addition and renovation, I believe our building is now in a good position, moving forward, to serve the district as an elementary building for many years. C. Other facility comments, questions, suggestions: Although we have recently completed our building addition and renovation project, there are still items that were part of that project that have not been completed. It would be my hope that we could take care of those items in the near future to finalize that project. Some of these items include (but are not limited to): flooring that needs to be replaced, Working PA system in all classrooms for safety and security purposes, security cameras to be reinstalled, outside bell system to be reinstalled and new shelving that needs to be replaced. Dubuque ' Co unity Schools Adm To inspire end challenge DCSD Facility Study Elementary Principal Input to the DCSD Board of Directors September 20, 2010 School: JONES Preschool Principal: Susan Meehan A. Facility Needs (Listed in order of priority): I.) Teclmology upgrades- we do not have wireless capability and all of our computers date back to when Jones was a Junior High. Some do not have the capacity to even support basic programs like Boardmaker, and other necessary software. 2.) Sidewalk improvements in front - very dangerous, cracked, and hazardous for entry area, particularly wheelchairs and students with motor and vision impairments. 3.) Fire safety improvements/ upgrades to sprinkler system on top floor. 4.) Mold removal and water proofing in basement level- there is mold and moisture that grows under the paint and is causing bubbling of the paint. 5.) Air conditioning in remaining classrooms. B. My Suggestions for the Future of this School Facility: (Number the following 1 2 and 3 in order of priority) Renovate the existing building - Comments: Replace the existing building - Comments: 1 Consolidate by merging this building with one or more other buildings - Comments: Preschool classrooms located in neighborhood elementary buildings are ideal in some situations. It assists with a much smoother transition for students and families as the children enter their neighborhood -based kindergartens. But the volume of children with the need for specialized programming still exists, and I do not feel that these classrooms can be eliminated entirely from a centralized location (such as Jones) in our district somewhere. We have a wonderful balance right now of regional elementary schools with preschool (Carver, Irving, Prescott, and Fulton) meeting the needs of typical preschoolers in addition to some children with milder disabilities. In addition to the regional preschools, Jones currently serves as the host for children with more severe medical, educational, and behavioral needs in its 8 classrooms. We also benefit from our community preschoolers as well. Jones is a centralized location for necessary support services such as nursing, speech, physical therapy, and occupational therapy for our significantly delayed 3 -5 year olds. Our support providers spend a massive amount of time at Jones and I shudder to think about the amount of travel time that they would have to endure, resulting in loss of services to students if these providers were spread all over our district. Many of our students at Jones receive daily intense speech support and other AEA services. Some require intensive health monitoring due to the young age of the students: for example tube feedings, respiratory assessments, blood sugar evaluations, and other daily multiple nursing services. The complexity of their medical issues is intensified by their inability to verbally communicate their health needs due to their developmental delays and young age. This requires a very different approach to health assessment. It is my feeling that a cluster of classrooms somewhere in our district is ideal because of the support providers involved with these students with significant needs. As we unveil more preschools in our elementary schools, the cluster of preschool classrooms might only need to be 3 or 4, rather than the 8 current Jones classrooms. It is my opinion that there will always be the need for a small cluster of preschool classrooms to provide the capability to meet the needs of our medically fragile children (for example from Hills and Dales) and those on the Autism spectrum needing Structured Teaching. Total isolation from other similar preschool classrooms is detrimental to the physical and educational well -being of our students, and results in less collaboration of service providers such as nursing and AEA. Other (please explain) C. Other facility comments, questions, suggestions: Dubuque , ;'iktcgo lfl ois unitY 7baddnsl DCSD Facility Study Elementary Principal Input to the DCSD Board of Directors September 20, 2010 School: Kennedy Principal: T.J. Potts A. Facility Needs (Listed in order of priority): 1.) Building addition of gymnasium and classroom space with renovations to the existing building (This plan addresses all further items on this list except technology) 2.) Technology components in each classroom as laid out in district 2009 technology plan 3.) Completion of Building air conditioning system(s) 4.) Special Needs classrooms /spaces 5.) B. My Suggestions for the Future of this School Facility: (Number the following 1st, 2 nd, and 3 in order of priority) 2 Renovate the existing building - Comments: Replace the existing building - Comments: Consolidate by merging this building with one or more other buildings - Comments: 1 Other (please explain) We have an architectural study of Kennedy from 2003, updated in 2007, both by Durant. This plan has specifics in terms of additional learninng spaces and renovations of existing spaces. Many of the items that I would put on a suggested list for Kennedy are addressed by this plan. I would love to discuss it with the board. C. Other facility comments, questions, suggestions: Kennedy has less square footage per student than any other elementary building and is one of two buildings that does not fit into the guidelines for square footage suggested by the Straka/Wold Team. We are currently bound to a schedule that is dictated by our Iunch and physical education classes. We are also holding physical education classes in a portable classroom due to the lack of space. Space issues are not new to Kennedy and will not end as we continue to grow each year. An addition of a gymnasium (we currently have a multipurpose room and not a gymnasium) and the classrooms as laid out in the Durant proposal would be a very_positive step. Renovating the current buildings would address our needs in terms of special education, the arts, storage, technology, meeting space, gifted programs, safety and security, and air conditioning. Seeing Kennedy as part of each option 1 -8. my question would be about the timeline for these plans, knowing that an answer to that will come after other decisions have been made. Dubuque �, .. uafty °0 DCSD Facility Study tqh�� Elementary Principal Input to the DCSD Board of Directors September 20, 2010 7b (Mire and challenge School: Lincoln Elementary School Principal: Donna Loewen A. Facility Needs (Listed in order of priority): 1.) Attention to the quality, quantity and capacity of classrooms that allow for the development of teaching teams and utilization of the instructional area to accommodate a variety of student needs and program functions. 2.) LRC (Library and Media Center) is seriously inadequate and space here has been compromised by infiltration of additional programming areas (e.g., E.L.L., G/T program, staff workroom, etc.) over time. Media Center space is tight and provides for only 16 computer stations. Library /Information space ought to occupy a central physical and visual position in the school building, serving as an integral part of each instructional program and an extension of each classroom. 3.) Separation of multi- purpose rooms — cafeteria and gymnasium; both of which ought to be accessible public spaces 4.) Safety (traffic patterns around school; building exits and general circulation in the building) and security (proximity and control of the front door), as well as ADA accessibility 5.) Need for expanded and improved music and art program spaces B. My Suggestions for the Future of this School Facility: (Number the following 1st, 2 °, and 3 in order of priority) 3 Renovate the existing building - Comments: The current Lincoln building was constructed in 1939 as a WPA era structure, While it is solidly built to last, many areas within the building have been "cobbled" and changed from their initial use and appearance. Certain structural features limit the ways in which the current building can be changed to adapt to current and future needs (such as a wide array of technological advances). 1 Replace the existing building - Comments: Retain the neighborhood school of mid -sizes in our district (250 -500 students), thus providing opportunities for students to be well -known to all staff members, to be involved and have leadership opportunities, and to be able to walk to school. Consolidate by merging this building with one or more other buildings - Comments: 1 do not favor the idea of consolidating elementary schools into a larger school strictly as a cost - saving measure, especially when current middle school buildings are being considered as the site. Those buildings are not conducive to the needs of elementary students and the programming they require. 2 Other (please explain) The Program Needs Study (2009)for Lincoln School for which the Board paid outlined a plan for renovation and expansion that would provide for a three - section school, inclusion of space for preschool programming and provide for the diverse learning needs of our students. This would retain the neighborhood school concept and eliminate the need for transportation costs. C. Other facility comments, questions, suggestions: Consider purchase of additional property within the block on which the current Lincoln School sits: Revisit with the City of Dubuque making Nevada Street one -way to increase traffic safety in this school zone. Consider the property on which nearby closed Nativity School sits on Alta Vista Street. Dubuque s v scu AIRIb 7binspireandchatkrige DCSD Facility Study Elementary Principal Input to the DCSD Board of Directors September 20, 2010 School: Marshall A. Facility Needs (Listed in order of priority): Principal: Brenda Mitchell 1.) Add -on to the building to create room for a Pre- school, The need for this has become more apparent with the closing of Trinity Square Daycare and Preschool, which served many students in the Marshall Community. 2.) Add -on to the building to create a Iunchroom/multipurpose room. As the name suggests, this room could serve many purposes, besides lunchroom, such as a community room for before and after school programs and in- school programs such as OT /PT. Plus, the addition of this room would alleviate many issues with scheduling. 3.) Air - conditioning throughout the building - - Or at least in the LRC. It would be wonderful if we could have year -round school. Most staff at Marshall agree that year -round school, or a modified year -round school would help students retain information lost over the summer. 4.) Finish replacing the light fixtures in the building. (Two floors are complete.) 5.) Reconfigure the parking lot and bus /pick -up area. At one time 1 visited with Bob White and also Kris Hall about how to make our lot and/or pick -up area safer for students. Our parking lot is not very big and teachers have to park on the street. They take up room that parents would have to pick -up kids. This is especially noticeable in the winter when lack of snow removal makes the parking on the street much more limited. B. My Suggestions for the Future of this School Facility: (Number the following 1 2 and 3` in order of priority) 1 Renovate the existing building - Comments: (See #1 -5 above) While Marshall School is landlocked; 1 think that additions could be made to make Marshall a 3-section school — much like the architectural drafts drawn for Bryant and Lincoln. I believe Marshall School is in very sound condition, If our school were consolidated, I would be concerned that persons would look upon the need to close Marshall as frivolous because it is in such good condition. In looking at the Facilities Study completed by the Straka/Wold team in January of 2009, Marshall School f alls between the 115 -145 s oot p er stude standard with 137 s Still, some primary grade classrooms need to be up- graded as the area in these rooms is smaller than the area of our intermediate rooms. Putting an addition on; right sizing the classrooms & making the building 3- sections: and upkeep /maintenance work would be well worth the cost to keep Marshall School open. 2 Replace the existing building - Comments: Marshall School is a good location for a school. This is obvious in that we have, since becoming a K -5 school, maintained an average of 250 students each year. With boundary re- alignments and replacing the current school with a 3- section school, this site would benefit students on the north end of town. 3 Consolidate by merging this building with one or more other buildings - Comments: Merging students in this building with another building could be a consideration so long as the building where these north - enders are traveling to is still on the north -end. Placing Marshall students in a school that is not in the neighborhood would be a considerable shock to the culture of the north -end. Marshall School is a true neighborhood school. We onlv have one bus for students with many of these students are located along Peru Road/Terrace Heights /Tanzanite Dr. Families of Marshall School have very strong ties to this area of town and to this school community. Since moving to Dubuque 10 year ago. 1 have observed a fierce loyalty to this school and the surroundinz area. and have learned from persons who don't live in this area that this loyalty to the "north -end" is obvious to them as well.. Other (please explain) C. Other facility comments, questions, suggestions: It is important to bring schools to 21 Century Standards. But, I don't believe that building new schools needs to happen in order to achieve the standards associated with a 21 Century Schools. I, like most, can site many examples of homes that, when maintained and up- graded, are just as good and if not better than many new homes. ` a Dub � �ty DCSD Facility Study ...a1411 0„ Elementary Principal Input to the DCSD Board of Directors �� September 20, 2010 School: Prescott A. Facility Needs (Listed in order of priority): 1.) Maintain the building 2.) 3.) 4.) 5.) Principal: Chris McCarron B. My Suggestions for the Future of this School Facility: (Number the following 1 2 and 3r in order of priority) Renovate the existing building - Comments: Replace the existing building - Comments: Consolidate by merging this building with one or more other buildings - Comments: X Other (please explain) Prescott was built to be a two- section school for PK- 5.1 believe that it should remain a two- section building. This allows for adequate teaching spaces for other support programs such as special education, Titlel, ELL, TAG, counselors, ect. If Prescott is to become a three- section school, there would NOT be adequate spaces for these other programs and would be facing the same struggles that our current buildings are facing in locating appropriate teaching spaces. C. Other facility comments, questions, suggestions: The design of the Prescott School facility strongly facilitates today's learning and could be used as a model for other buildings. Included in the design were many flexible teaching spaces. Today's learning, and the learning of tomorrow, is not centered on the whole group delivery method. Students learn in small groups, and we utilize a variety of people, support teachers, paraprofessionals, volunteers, mentors, and community members to help to support students. The school buildings must maintain places for these smaller instructional groups to take place and places for students to work in collaborative groups. Currently approximately 90% of Prescott's students live below the poverty level. This is significantly higher that most of the schools in our district. The concentration of poverty in a few schools must be examined as we work to restructure our district. Although Prescott is blessed by a very diverse population of students, our 52% minority population does not reflect that of Dubuque's population. All schools would benefit from a more diverse student population! As we restructure, it is important to look to ways in which the diversity that exists in our school is not concentrated just in our building, but all of our schools have a chance to become more diverse. DCSD Facility Study Elementary Principal Input to the DCSD Board of Directors September 20, 2010 School: Sageville Elementary Principal: Bob Burke A. Facility Needs (Listed in order of prioritv): 1. Technology — Update computer lab (larger, air conditioned space is needed), upgrade hardware (computers, mobile devices, mounted LCD projectors & related peripherals) 2. Multipurpose Room addition 3. Remodel existing classrooms to accommodate basic needs (i.e. sink in each room, window blinds that operate) as well as bring up to 21 Century standard 4. Relocate and remodel office to front of building including nurses office with it's own bathroom 5. Elevator 6. Remodel bathrooms 7. Air Conditioning 8. Additional Classrooms (if Sageville were to be a 3 section building) B. My Suggestions for the Future of this School Facility: (Number the following 1st, 2 and 3 in order of priority) 2 Renovate the existing building - Comments: 1 Replace the existing building - Comments: I don't have a strong opinion either way regarding replacing vs. renovating the building. Whatever brings us into the 21 Century in the most cost efficient way would make sense to me. 3 Consolidate by merging this building with one or more other buildings - Comments: Other (please explain) C. Other facility comments, questions, suggestions: I believe it's important to keep Sageville School open as a neighborhood school. Efficiency would increase if it was a 3 section building, but modifications are needed for it to function well as a 3 section building. There are accessibility issues with the current building -- many steps are encountered regardless of where you need to go after entering through the front door. The location of the office in the middle of the building creates a security challenge. The layout of classrooms does not allow for any cross ventilation or air movement. Consequently, when the building heats up in late spring and early fall, it holds the heat for an extended period of time. Air conditioning is needed. The health office is extremely small and does not have a bathroom facility. The lack of a multipurpose / lunch room separate from our gym requires us to shut down our specialist classes during the lunch period including time to set up and clean up. Finally, we are in need of the same technology updating that most other schools in the district are struggling with. Senior High School - General building update i.e. hallways, restrooms, classroom renovations, lighting, ceilings - circulation needs, access to Nora gymnasium - technology in classrooms and building -wide, communications center where students have access to different kinds of media - facilities for arts and athletics are so far behind -Larie asked about cafeteria Start with renovation of existing structure and then concentrate on additions - artificial turf on Dalzell Field would enable more practicing and pe classes -when prompted, she thinks there is not doubt that fields are worst in MVC Conference. Wrestling, weight room, etc. among the worst in the conference. What about band/orchestra? Nothing updated in this area since the building was built in. 1924. Choir room flooded this spring. How many classrooms are air conditioned? Four -She estimates that 1/3 to 1/2 students are active in athletics -If bus barn wasn't there could that provide practice fields? Yes, but she understands there would be much work needed, i.e. underground gas tanks, etc. short-term - parking lot resurfacing Hempstead High School -music suites and auditorium at Hempstead -Lee does not feel it needs to seat the entire student body and is unsure how large it should be but knows that utilizing Roosevelt as a long -term solution is not ideal. - cafeteria expansion and flow - wellness lockers -gym space to provide more practice space - weight room/wrestling room/locker room, i.e. ventilation upgrades - proper front entrance - nurses, guidance and main office area (leakage) - artificial turf at Hempstead's practice field -pool adequate? Kim shared Dan Duclos' notes which indicate more work is needed. Lee feels the recent upgrades have been good and the pool is in the best shape it has been for a long time. Larie said it is inadequate for spectators, no deck space. -50% in athletics and activities Jefferson Middle School - ability to cluster students in houses so they are together - general building update, i.e. chalkboards, flooring, ceilings, lighting, media space limited - handicap access, especially restrooms (small elevator) - entrance for safety issues - nurse's office - locker replacement - railings for safety issues -not an attractive building - renovation vs. building new? — building new seems to be more cost efficient in Phil's opinion — hard to renovate the old building while students are going to school -has two gyms (very adequate) only thing not adequate is spectator seating -7 or 8 inside classrooms are air conditioned Washington Middle School -Wash and Jeff are very similar, would echo everything Phil said -room size - science lab stations - library -low tech technology is very inadequate - houses all together - restroom inaccessibility -music room takes on water whenever it rains -do not have wrestling room, cafeteria is wrestling room - backstage of the auditorium you have to go outside - storage -band room acoustics - inadequate practice field, football field in bad shape -would like to keep neighborhood school and fmds it hard to comprehend how they will educate 640 students during renovation. Would be great to build new on same location but land size would be tight. - different positioning of entrance would alleviate arrival and dismissal congestion - night activities currently have access to entire building - computer lab, library, special ed classroom and office are air conditioned Roosevelt Middle School - numbers (1151 students, bldg capacity is 1096) - additional technology - 8 to 1 ratio for computers - alternative learning program for middle school students - library books Dubuque Community School District Facility Beliefs PROGRAMS FOR 21S CENTURY LEARNERS We believe the Dubuque Community School District should: • Design or renovate educational spaces that accommodate teaching and learning that promote 21St century skills; employability, digital, global, civic, financial and health literacy (see Iowa Core Curriculum) • Incorporate flexible building designs and scalability that accommodate changing programs and technological needs • Support school philosophies that support teacher collaboration and flexible, small group learning communities for students and teachers • Bring all facilities to a safety and security standard • Be a leader in using technology in the educational delivery model INCREASED OPPORTUNITIES We believe the Dubuque Community School District should: • Provide equity in programming and facilities • Provide facilities and infrastructure that enable 24/7 learning • Focus facility improvements based on student need Value all areas of the District in facility decisions Value outdoor and indoor spaces for student learning and development FISCAL EFFICIENCY We believe the Dubuque Community School District should: • Develop community partnerships that maximize facility use • Examine options by the use of cost/benefit analysis • Provide educational environments that allow for fluctuating enrollment(s) • Continually evaluate property needs • Develop formalized program of ongoing maintenance SUSTAINABILITY (meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs) We believe the Dubuque Community School District should: • Align to the City of Dubuque philosophy of sustainability • Use alternative energy resources where possible • Model sustainability in facility decisions • Incorporate energy conservation in facility decisions • Incorporate green space and sustainability in long term planning Revised 5/17/10 Dubuque Community School District Facility Study Administrative Recommendations to the Board of Education Facility Beliefs were used as umbrella for all of our decision - making. parameters = Maintain neighborhood schools by expanding boundaries but keeping neighborhoods together = Provide for more equitable distribution of diversity (minority and socio- economic) = Develop 3 or 4 section elementary schools (optimal capacity of 400 -600 students) to address fiscal efficiency and economy of scale ■ Maintain three middle schools (optimal capacity 650 -750) Options • Eliminate extremes ( #1 and 5 -8) Option 1 o Does not provide any operational or administrative cost savings that could be reallocated to facility needs. o Does not take into consideration balancing of diverse (minority and socio - economic) populations o Does not allow for economy of scale that 3 -4 section elementary schools would address Options 5 -8 o Consolidate the greatest number of buildings (should not consolidate for the sake of consolidation only) o #7 -8 include two middle school configuration • Remain open to development of one or more other plans based on input from stakeholder groups Specific Schools • Do not recommend Jefferson for middle or elementary schools but could use the building for swing space (would need to reconfigure options #3 & #4) • Do not recommend Washington as elementary school (would need to reconfigure option #4) • Replace Jones by expanding neighborhood school preschools as per the DCSD Early Childhood Study (swing space) = Plan for permanent location for ALC ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION: We suggest the Board give careful examination of options 2, 3, and 4 based on reasons provided above and with the following considerations: Decide on a final plan that will be reviewed and revised as needed over time based on most current data and aligned with Facility Beliefs. Develop new boundaries that will address more equal distribution of diverse populations. = Make plan modifications (or consider a new plan not yet generated) based on information gathered from stakeholder input. High . i . both . , s• Constant across all options—renovations and'additions to h high schools Middle Add on to both , "ifi/BrAil e - laCei, , tre , '' Wr'ireffatAz , as ui . nevsi.fipireplabe; ,,;,,,,, g.5. 770. ' ' - 4- ■, '- - ',:7 v - giA .:" .k 4 %M. ' .....4';',; ,.,, •. A:vv. . 4 " ' ,',..:, ' ' " ' ■ - e. ace : 0 e Ail r , so ,Alk , , ., j Po -*le z .' IT ' LI - LT :,.,,,,,--;)'--,..-, :h?:;:!:I.:;, ReplaCeVas . and Jeffwrth 1 new 4.... Repl aceWash andr...0effVvit(i:- tieir....:.:::- Elementary Add on to 5 Add on to 5 Add on to 3, renovate Jeff, build 1 new renovate Wash and Jeff, add on to 3 build-3 neW, s add on to 3 -.': build 3 new,': . add onto 3 .,, build 3 new, ::.. add onto 3 -.: - - build 3 rieW, add onto 3 HS 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 MS 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 Elam 13 12 10 11 10 9 10 0/2/3 Total Schools - 18 17 15 16 15 14 14 13 Old Offline 2 4 7 6 10 11 10 11 tt New Buildings HS/MS/Elem 0/0/0 0/1/0 0/1/1 01210 0/2/3 0/2/3 0/1/3 0/1/3 Option Comparisons Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4 Option 5 Option 6 Option 7 Option 8 Configurations Costs/Savings Grand Total $201,358,357 $197,691,997 $186,268,597 $186,208,517 $204,566,487 $203,890,137 $199,014,487 $198,338,137 Administrative Cost Savings per Year 0 $763,000 $1,375,000 $880,000 $1,116,000 $1,426,000 $1,970,000 $2,280,000 Additional savings may be made through other staff consolidations and operational costs. Dubuque Community School District Facilities Enhanced Global Strategy Cost Overview June 1, 2010 Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4 Option 5 Option 6 Option 7 Option 8 Dubuque Senior 35,685,105 35,685,105 35,685,105 35,685,105 35,685,105 35,685,105 35,685,105 35,685,105 Dalzell Field 8,999,500 8,999,500 8,999,500 8,999,500 8,999,500 8,999,500 8,999,500 8,999,500 Hempstead 32,726,828 32,726,828 32,726,828 32,726,828 32,726,828 32,726,828 32,726,828 32,726,828 ..,. . .:....:.::,..,..;.:,,, - ; H�gh ; SchoolTotalv,...:<<r �..: < 1•' .v i�?;> ".77;4'f,,,,433.,, .� =x:77 :z:«,:. ; .;4.1;�[� ;433:x: 411' 33 ;';�, , ;_ : ; ,4 Tl,; 143 3 1 33 X77;4 1;4 1 . ; -77,4 , Washington Middle School 21,873,510 21,873,510 21,873,510 Roosevelt Middle School 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Jefferson Middle School 19,263,900 0 New Middle School 750 23,515,000 23,515,000 23,515,000 23,515,000 23,515,000 New Middle School 750 23,515,000 23,515,000 23,515,000 New Middle School 1500 41,478,000 41,478,000 :r:: °`:. Middle SchoolT tak: ..::: ::::,41 ;41O..'::,,W645.388 5105 ; ?;: :x.45 8 `.i :";;- 47'030 :!;'!x::47 ' ;',,:47 =030'000.:. ,;:<:;:41.478 000: ::.41 000 Lincoln 9,500,000 9,500,000 Bryant 9,750,000 9,750,000 Irving 393,000 393,000 393,000 393,000 393,000 393,000 393,000 393,000 Table Mound 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Hoover 9,000,000 9,000,000 Carver 707,000 707,000 707,000 707,000 707,000 707,000 707,000 707,000 Kennedy 9,560,000 9,560,000 9,560,000 9,560,000 9,560,000 9,560,000 9,560,000 9,560,000 Eisenhower 14,899,704 15,982,054 15,982,054 14,899,704 15,982,054 14,899,704 15,982,054 14,899,704 Audubon 8,000,000 8,000,000 8,000,000 8,000,000 Prescott 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Marshall 9,500,000 9,500,000 9,500,000 9,500,000 9,500,000 Sageville 2,500,000 2,500,000 2,500,000 2,500,000 0 Fulton 9,000,000 - New Elementary 17,963,000 14,661,000 17,963,000 14,661,000 17,963,000 New Elementary 14,661,000 17,963,000 14,661,000 17,963,000 New Elementary 14,661,000 17,963,000 14,661,000 17,963,000 Jefferson Elementary 8,363,600 8,363,600 Washington Elementary 7,843,780 „:;'::Elementary.Tota) ':, `: ;:1 :::° ••2,809;704;: ` ;:.;74 ;892,054..:,63,468;654 :: :.61y767,084 : :80,125,054 :.'.79,448,704..: -:.80,125;054 • ; .79,448,704 • Grand Total: : ::::. : ::::::::':,::: :• 1201 ;358;547- ;$197,691 $ 186 ;268,597,; , . .$186 ;208 ;517:: $204,566,487 ,$203,890,137... $199,014;487 Dubuque Community School District Facilities Enhanced Global Strategy Cost Overview June 1, 2010 ................. 24 STUDENT 10 I/RENOVATION N/RENOVATION 511VENT ADDITION/ RENOVATIO N HIGH SCHOOLS (c(-12) MIDDLE SCHOOLS (6-5) Dubuque Community School District Facilities Enhanced Global Strategy June 1, 2010 MIDDLE SONOOL GAPACITIES. 2 HOUSE/RAPE = 150 STUDENTS 5 1401.15E/SRADE = 1,125 STUDENTS 4 HousEiGgAve 1,500 STUDENTS ELEMENTARY 501400L5 (K-5) 1 ADD1T ADDIT1 LISRART, GOMPIONS/ CAYeTERIA ADDITION/REIJOVATION (.64 STUDENTS) 151 STUDENT ELEMENTARY SCHOOL. CAPACITIES 2 SECTION = 280 STUDENTS SECTION = 420 srupeN1'5 4 SECTION 560 STUDENTS 5 SECTION = 100 STUDENTS C=GAPACITY . _ . 'ELEMENTARY SPEG1AL EDUCATION REGIONAL °ENTER LOGATIONS OPTION 1 I air311_ Q W-1414:710.3 50 STUDENT Appirtori 5gZik 64 STUDENT ADD1T1011/RENOVATION 100 STUDENT ADPITION/REIJOVAT1014 :W$T011 11EVIPSTEAP •.(C=t,b1) I -VittfROM kgrouga TOTAL DISTRICT K-12 CAPACITY = 10,c165 TOTAL PROJECT GOST5 = $201 .35E 5 .541 LA(ETER1A, 61 THEA(ER TOTAL TOTAL ADVIT1011/RENOVATI0N CAPACITY PROJECT (.22 STUDENTS) 1 UDGET 130 STUDEN ADDITION/ RENOVATIrli STRAKANVOLD TEAM 3,400 S77,411,433 (858 per grade) 2,550 S41,137,410 (85(1 per gracIv) 4,913 S82,809,704 (519 per grade) HIGH SCHOOLS (5-12) MIDDLE 5GrioaLs (b-a) Dubuque Community School District Facilities Enhanced Global Strategy June 1, 2010 ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS (K-5) C=CAPACITY 'ELEMENTARY 5PEC4AL EDUCATION REGIONAL GENTER LOCATIONS LIERARY, C014140115/ CAFETERIA ADDITION/RENOVATION (r64 STIMENTS) Plif3U6IM S H. .•(cii ;551). 95 STUDENT ADDITION/ RENOVAT N MIDDLE SCHOOL CAPACITIES 2 HOUSE/CRAM 150 STUDENTS 5 HOUSE/GRADE = 1,125 STUDENTS 4 SOUSE/GRADE = 1,500 STUDENTS 124 STUDENT ADDITION/RENOVATION 151 sTupENT ADDITICr/RENOVATION ELEMENTARY SCHOOL CAPACITIES 2 SECTION = 250 STUDENTS 5 SECTION = 420 STUDENTS 4 SECTION = 550 STUDENTS 5 saTioN 4 100 STUDENTS OPTION 2 F 14:yg • 50 STUDENT ADDITION 69 STUDENT A ED I TION/RENOVATION 240 5Tuve1ir Apo1n0t4/REt OVATION L. 05 TOTAL PISTRIOT K-12 GAPAOITY = 10,c16 TOTAL PROJECT GO5T5 = $1 It STRAKA/WOLD TEAM TOTAL CAFETERIA, Gym, THEATER ADDIT1011/REIIOVATION CAPACITY (+22 STUDENTS/ 3,400 S77,411,433 (850 per grade) 2,550 545,388,510 (85(1 per grade) 5,013 S74,892,054 (835 per (ude) TOTAL PROJECT COSTS HIGH SCHOOLS (e1-12) MIDDLE SCHOOLS Dubuque Community School District Facilities Enhanced Global Strategy June 1, 2010 MIDDLE CAPAC4TISS 2 HO 5,'&.A25 = 130 STUDENTS HOUSE/GRADE = 1,125 STUDENTS 4 HOUSE/GRADE = j500 STUDENTS ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS (1<-5) LIBRARY, COMMOI 5/ CAFETERIA ADDITIOILIIIENOVATION (.64 STUDENTS) 2 SECTION = 250 STUDENTS 5 SECTION = 420 STUDENTS 4 SECTION = 560 STUDENTS 5 SECTION = 700 STUDENTS C.CAPAGITY • 'ELEMENTARY 5PECIAL EDUCATION REGIONAL CENTER LOCATIONS OPTION 5 • r)u.euauE •••• RENOVATIO 1 110 Ra 45 STUDENT ADDIT CAFETERIA, CiY14, THEATER CAPACITY ADDITIOtI/RENOVAT 01 (t22 STUDENTS) T ELM** v4 50 STU ADDIT 240 STUDENT ADDITION/RV/Di/AWN cl$Anyou A F4,k;AO.Etz TOTAL PISTSIOT K-12 CAPACITY = 10,8c13 TOTAL F'ROJEGT 005TS $1,56),269,5c11 64 STUDENT ADDITION STRAKA/WOLD TEAM TOTAL 3,400 (850 per grade) 2,550 (850 per grade) 4,943 (824 per grade) ENT 011 - .4 , , , : - (0=.:** •t; g:;.f . .; aNhtt,- HAND l=fZ.5: TOTAL. PROJECT SUP6ET S77,411,433 S45,388510 S63,468,654 . 1 I (6= 1 • HIGH SCHOOLS (9-12) MIDDLE SCHOOLS (6-9) Dubuque Community School District Facilities Enhanced Global Strategy June 1, 2010 MIDDLE 501400 21-101.155/6RAP 3 NOUSE/GRAD 4 POUSE/SRAD ELEMENTARY SCF1001-5 (K-5) 0=CAPACITY • 'ELEMENTARY SPECIAL EDUCATION REGIONAL CENTER LOCATIONS LIBRARY, COMMONS/ CAFETERIA AVOITION/REllOYATION • (.54 STUPENTS1 :sNIOR H5. . . . L CAPACITIES E = 150 STUDENTS E = 1,125 STUDENTS E = 1,500 STUDENTS RENOVATIO iP‘0040 ELEmENTARySCHOOL CAPA01TIES_ 2 SECTION = 230 STUDENTS 3 SECTION = 420 STUDENTS 4 SECTION = 530 STUDENTS 3 SECTION = 100 STUDENTS OFTION 4 CAFETERIA, &TM, TREATER ADDITTION/RE0OVATIO1 (+22 511)DENTS)1 1 - '...• HEOP5TE/ - - - .. :•.' H.5. ..' : . ' 6q STUDENT ADDITION/RENOVATION 100 STUDENT ADDInotuReriovAriON t'.:011$0131 tigtgicatA RENOVATION 50 STUDENT ADDITION TOTAL. PI5TRIC K-12 GAFAC.ITY z 10,15S TOTAL. PROJECT C•05TS = $186,205,517 r! STRAKA/WOLD TEAM TOTAL TOTAL CAPACITY PROJECT SUOGET 3,400 S77,411,433 (850 per grade) 2,5511 per grade) 5,003 (334 per grcdc) — S37,030,000 SG! ,7 7.034 HIGH SCHOOLS (-12) MIDDLE SCHOOLS (6-b) Dubuque Community School District Facilities Enhanced Global Strategy June 1, 2010 U5RARY, COMMONS/ CAFETERIA ADDITION/RENOVATION (.b4 STUDENTS) • MIDDLE SCHOOL CAPACITIES 214005E/GRAPE .150 STUDENTS 5 HOUSE/AP E = 1,125 STUDENTS 4 HOUSE/GRADE = 1.500 STUDENTS -- )it1t4::= , ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS (K-5) OUBUQUE : :;SENIOR:. ELEMENTARY SCHOOL. CAPACITIES 2 SECTION = 260 STUDENTS 5 SECTION = 420 STUDENTS 4 SECTION = 560 STUDENTS 5 SECTION = 100 STUDENTS G.OAPAGITY 'ELEMENTARY SPECIAL EDUCATION REGIONAL CENTER LOCATIONS OPTION 5 CAFETERIA, GYM, THEATER ADDITION/RENOVATION (.22 6l0DEIITG) 69 STUDENT ADDITION/RENOVATION 11.5 240 STUDENT ADDITION/RENOVATION —1 Plipille= kfZIA-k TOTAL PISTRIGT K-12 CAF'ACITY = 10:711 TOTAL PROJECT coe = $204,5 66,451 STRAKA/WOLD TEAM TOTAL CAPAGiTY 3.400 (50 per grade) 2',550 (850 per grade) 4,987 (831 per grade) :siiTe ULT TOTAL PROJeGT E3U0GET 577,411,433 547,030,000 S80,125,054 >;'-'15(6':2 HQOVP HIGH SCHOOLS (9 -12) MIDDLE SCHOOLS (6 -5) ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS (K -5) Dubuque Community School District G =GAPAGITY • ELEMENTARy 5PEGIAL EDUCATION REGIONAL CENTER LOCATIONS LIBRARY, GUPMMOIS/ CAFETERIA ADDITION /RENOVATION ( +64 STUDENTS) DUBUQUE SENIOR ,H.5. MIDDLE SCHOOL CAPACITIES 2 HOUSE /GRADE = 750 STUDENTS 5 HOUSE /GRADE = 1,125 STUDENTS 4 HOUSE /GRADE = 1,500 STUDENTS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL CAPACITIES 2 SECTION = 250 STUDENTS 5 SECTION • 420 STUDENTS 4 SECTION = 560 STUDENTS 5 SECTION = 100 STUDENTS OPTION e) 1 .7.0.5.,,„ -ix.,..-4.1,00iL,,,E,.....,,.,-1:z,.1.3..: 4F 'MINN ,q STUDENT ADDITION /RENO.V 100 STUDENT 50 STUDENT ADDITION TIOH ADDITI0lI /RE! OVATION -Er 1=ri i4E la HENIP5TEAD H.S. (G =1,657): TOTAL DISTRICT K -12 CAPACITY = 10,969 TOTAL PROJECT COSTS = 5203,890,131 STRAKA/WOLD TEAM Facilities Enhanced Global Strategy June 1, 2010 TOTAL TOTAL CAFETERIA, GYM, THEATER CAPACITY CAPACITY ADDITION /RENOVATION (r22 STUDENTS) 3,400 S77,411,433 (879 per grade) 2,550 S47,030,000 (850 per grade) 5,019 S79,448,704 (837 per grade) :NIA NIROY0.1., HIGH SCHOOLS (9-12) WDDLE SCHOOLS (6-5) Dubuque Community School District Facilities Enhanced Global Strategy June 1, 2010 MIDDLE SCHOOL 2 HOUSE/GRADE = 5 HOUSE/CRAPE = 4 HOUSE/GRAPE = ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS (K-5) LIBRAR(, COMMONS/ CArETERIA ADDITION/RENOVATION (.&4 STUDENTS) • •:...DUI3VG2I/E ELEMENTARY SCHOOL CAPACITIES 2 SECTION = 250 STUDENTS 5 SECTION = 420 STUDENTS 4 SECTION = 560 STUDENTS 5 SECTION = 100 STUDENTS G=GAF'AGITY 'ELEMENTARY SPEGIAL EDUCATION RE&IONAL CENTER LOCATIONS O O 1 APAOITIES 150 STUDENTS 1,125 STUDENTS 1,500 STUDENTS - 06.0:51e501 0-116.105.144 • 17,s 5TUPENT ADDITION/RV OVATION .,*1409,471 240 5TiVEIIT ADPITIOU/REt OVATIOFI 13cffiro {Y • .1, uele 50 STUDENT ADDITION GAFETERIA, GYM, THEMER ADDITION/RENOVATION (+22 Sruvepas) po,5vyt4- tsbg TOTAL DI5TRICT K-12 CAPACITY = 10, TOTAL. PROJECT COST= $111,014,4E51 STRAKA/WOLD TEAM TOTAL TOTAL. GAPAG1TY PRO...MGT BUDGET 3,400 S77,411,433 (850 per grade) 2,550 (850 per grude) 4,087 (831 per grad :We.; "60F4A 541,478,000 580,125,054 aip,t4:, OEVIL 1=3 ok1V:. HIGH H 00E- ('1-12) MIDDLE SCHOOLS (6-5) Dubuque Community School District Facilities Enhanced Global Strategy June 1, 2010 ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS (K-5) G=CAPAGITY 'ELEMENTARY SPECIAL EDUCATION REGIONAL CENTER LOCATIONS LIBRARY, CO14M04S/ CAFETERIA ADDITION/RENOVATION (.64 STUDENTS) • DUBUQUE SENIOR H.S. (C=1.657) MIDDLE SCHOOL CAPACITIES 2 HOUSE/GRADE = 150 STUDENTS 5 HOUSE/GRADE = 1,125 STUDENTS 4 HOL)55/0RAVM = 1.500 STUDENTS (:-:7 -30 ELEMENTARY SCHOOL CAPACITIES 2 SECTION = 250 STUDENTS 5 SECTION = 420 STUDENTS 4 SECTION = 560 STUDENTS 5 SECTION = 100 STUDENTS OPTION 5 -W0'016_0 , 7:MA7aTi=i1: IA STUDENT A0VITION/RENOVA 4Y friti:ta 50 STUDENT APPirtori T ION 100 STUDENT AVIATION/RENOVATION 1q WM 4:0V HEMPSTEAD • ROOSEVLT .••.: .•• TOTAL DISTRICT K-12 CAPACITY = 10::16c1 TOTAL PROJECT COSTS = $198,558,131 STRAKA/WOLD TEAM TOTAL CAFETERIA, &TV. THEATER IT'T' ITIOU/RENOVAI ION Y (.22 STUDENTS) 3,400 (85(1 per grade) 2,550 (85(1 per grade) 5,019 (8.17 per grade) i - 040f5.40. TOTAL PROJECT IBUOGET 577.411.433 S41,478,000 S79,448,704 (G 21i