Docstoc

RECOMMENDATIONS

Document Sample
RECOMMENDATIONS Powered By Docstoc
					Facility Advisory Committee

                     Section 3




RECOMMENDATIONS




                          19
20
SUMMARY

The following is a summary of the committee’s recommendations with key aspects of the
reasoning behind each. It is just a snapshot of the recommendations. Please refer to the
detailed individual recommendations for each school that follow this summary.

1.    Close Springfield Middle School 2011
      • Move ∼140 students to Hamlin in 2011
      • Move ∼160 students to Briggs in 2011
      • Retain the SMS facility and retrofit to open as an elementary school in 2012

      Rationale
      • The previous facility committee was concerned about declining enrollment and
         asked the school district to look at the viability of schools that are significantly under-
         enrolled.
      • The school is located on the west side of Springfield where enrollments have
         declined and are projected to continue to decline.
      • The school’s 300-student enrollment and current budget levels make it difficult to
         provide a comprehensive middle school instructional program and does not allow for
         the flexibility in scheduling that a larger student body supplies.
      • At current enrollment and budget levels the school cannot provide and maintain a
         comprehensive elective program.
      • SMS is a Title I school in federal sanctions. Mandated student-tutoring programs by
         third-party companies are draining district Title I funds. Closure would allow those
         funds to be used for more district students across multiple schools.
      • Title I funds will be reduced next year because some were received through
         temporary ARRA funding that is expiring. Eliminating the SMS federal sanctions
         would lessen the impact of the reduced Title funding on district students in other
         schools.
      • Approximately 40 students have elected to attend middle schools other than SMS in
         light of the federal sanctions. The district must provide the transportation of those
         students to their chosen schools.
      • Relocating approximately 140 SMS students to Hamlin and approximately 160 to
         Briggs would bring those two middle schools to the target enrollment identified as
         needed to offer a fully comprehensive middle school instructional program.
      • The SMS facility is in good condition and is considered to be worth reusing.
      • The school has a capacity of 550 students and could be reused as a K-5 facility with
         an estimated one-time investment of $75,000-$150,000 in retrofits.

2.    Close Mohawk 2011
      • Send Mohawk students to Yolanda
      • Mothball facility for future use

      Rationale
      • The previous facility committee was concerned about declining enrollment and
         asked the school district to look at the viability of schools that are significantly under-
         enrolled.


                                                                                              21
          • Mohawk has been losing students during the past 10 years and enrollment is not
              projected to grow significantly.
          •   Mohawk’s current enrollment of 64 students make it difficult to offer the same type of
              educational program options and services offered in schools closer to target
              enrollment.
          •   Staffing is currently three teachers and will be reduced in the future unless
              enrollment or budget increases significantly, creating classes with up to three grade
              levels of students (e.g., K-2 or 3-4-5, etc.).
          •   The cost per student at Mohawk is significantly higher than the district’s average
              cost for educating elementary students.
          •   High-needs students and special education students cannot be served at a small,
              rural school and have to be bused to larger, in-town schools for services.
          •   Lack of a high-speed, fiber-optic connection to the district’s network makes web-
              based instructional technology and assessment difficult, including required state
              testing.
          •   Space is available at Yolanda for the Mohawk students. Increasing the Yolanda
              enrollment would move it closer to the target enrollment number and support a more
              efficient use and greater pooling of resources that will benefit both current Yolanda
              students and the added Mohawk students.
          •   The original wing has several infrastructure challenges, but the newer wing is in
              good condition. The investment of a new roof for both portions of the building is
              badly needed, dependent upon what the district determines as the buildings future
              use.
          •   Due to its viability for future use as a school or other district facility, the committee
              found there to be multiple reasons for mothballing the Mohawk facility, including:
              mothball the entire building (or only the newer portion) for possible future use if
              enrollment, development, or district program needs require, or in case of the
              possibility of the consolidation of Springfield and Marcola students into the Mohawk
              facility.
          •   The change in transportation costs will be negligible, but the time on the bus for
              students will increase.

3.        Close Goshen 2011
           • Send Goshen K-5 students to Centennial
           • Send Goshen 6-7-8 students to Hamlin
           • Dispose of property
          Rationale
          • Currently Goshen is a K-8 school with 87 students. (K-5: 61 students, 6-8: 26
             students). There are 2.5 FTE certified classroom teachers for K-5 and 1.5 FTE
             certified classroom teachers for the 6-8 middle school program.
          • The previous facility committee was concerned about declining enrollment and
             asked the school district to look at the viability of schools that are significantly under-
             enrolled.
          • Staffing and grade level configurations make it difficult to provide a comprehensive
             middle school program and the necessary instructional minutes to meet grade level
             standards at both the elementary and middle school level.
          • High-needs and special education students cannot be served at a small, rural school
             and have to be bused to larger, in-town schools for services.

     22
     • West-side elementary schools have the capacity to absorb Goshen K-5 students.
         An increase in the number of students at Centennial will move it to the target
         enrollment level, supporting a more efficient use and greater pooling of resources
         that will benefit both current Centennial students and the added Goshen students.
     •   Hamlin has the capacity to absorb Goshen 6-7-8 students.
     •   The cost per student at Goshen is significantly higher than the district’s average cost
         for educating elementary students.
     •   Goshen site has a sewage lagoon that requires ongoing costs related to Department
         of Environmental Quality (DEQ) discharge issues and significant maintenance
         requirements.
     •   The Goshen facility has been identified as having a number of capital improvement
         needs, including concerns with drainage and other potential water infiltration issues,
         roof replacement of the upper wing, heating unit replacement, asbestos flooring
         replacement, and window and siding replacement.
     •   The increase in transportation costs will be negligible, but there will be an increase in
         student ride time.

4.   Close Camp Creek 2011
     • Send Camp Creek K-5 students to Walterville.
     • Dispose of property
     Rationale
     • Camp Creek’s current enrollment of 54 students makes it difficult to offer the same
        type of educational program options and services offered in schools closer to target
        enrollment.
     • The previous facility committee was concerned about declining enrollment and
        asked the school district to look at the viability of small schools that that are
        significantly under-enrolled.
     • Staffing is currently three teachers and will be reduced in the future unless
        enrollment and budget increases significantly, creating classes with up to three
        grade levels of students (e.g., -K-2 or 3-4-5, etc.).
     • High-needs and special education students cannot be served at a small, rural school
        and have to be bused to larger, in-town schools for services.
     • The cost per student at Camp Creek is significantly higher than the district’s average
        cost for educating elementary students.
     • Lack of a high-speed, fiber-optic connection to the district’s network makes web-
        based instructional technology and assessment difficult, including required state
        testing.
     • The Camp Creek facility has been identified as needing improved classroom
        ventilation, roof replacement, radiant floor piping under the slab, window
        replacement, asbestos flooring replacement and other capital improvement needs
        that will require significant investment in the near future.




                                                                                            23
5.        Move Walterville 6-8 students to Thurston Middle School (Retain Walterville as K-
          5 Elementary School)

          Rationale
          • Walterville sits at the mid-point of its boundary area and a school in this geographic
             area is needed. Students already travel distances to attend and the school serves
             too many students while there is no space available in the east side elementary
             schools.
          • Walterville’s current enrollment of K-5 students is 148. The enrollment would be
             increased with the addition of 54 K-5 students from Camp Creek. Although it will not
             meet the target enrollment the shift will support increased and more efficient use and
             greater pooling of resources that will benefit both current K-5 Walterville students
             and the added Camp Creek students.
          • Walterville’s current enrollment of 25 students in grades 6-8 does not provide a
             comprehensive middle school instructional program.
          • Thurston Middle School has space to absorb the 25 Walterville middle school
             students. The increase of students keeps Thurston Middle School within the target
             enrollment range.
          • Some middle school Walterville students are currently bused into town for part of the
             day for services and programs not available at the rural school. This creates
             additional costs and loss of instructional time for those students.
          • Recent investments of a new roof, new Heating Ventilating and Air Conditioning
             system, and a boiler make the building more cost-effective to maintain and provide a
             more comfortable learning environment for students and staff.
          • Issues that remain to be addressed are potential flooding, septic and water issues.
6.        Consolidate Brattain and Moffitt Elementary Schools to Create a New Elementary
          School in 2012.
          • Close Moffitt Elementary School
          • Close Brattain Elementary School
          • Consolidate K-5 students from Moffitt and Brattain to create a new school
          Rationale
          • The district could create a new elementary school in the Springfield Middle School
             building by combining Moffitt and Brattain students.
          • Moffitt’s current enrollment of 289 would be combined with 157 of Brattain’s students
             to create a new elementary school that would meet the district’s targeted size for
             providing a comprehensive elementary instruction program.
          • The 25 Brattain students who live on the east side of Mohawk Boulevard and north
             of Main Street would attend Maple to avoid requiring these 25 students to cross a
             main thoroughfare to reach school. This would also increase Maple’s enrollment and
             take advantage of open capacity in a brand new facility.
          • Moffitt is an older school facility with school design problems, such as poor day-
             lighting, no breakout instruction space and a gym/cafeteria combination.
          • Moffitt also has serious capital improvement needs, including: galvanized piping
             under the slab, roof replacement, asbestos floor replacement and window
             replacement. It has been identified as the facility with the highest need in the district.
          • The facility committee identified Moffitt as needing to be demolished because the
             capital improvement needs are too great and too costly.

     24
     • The Moffitt building should be demolished and the property retained for the future re-
       building of Hamlin Middle School.
     • Brattain has both facility and site challenges related to housing an elementary
       school, including: small classrooms and lack of breakout spaces for instruction,
       along with a site that is only slightly larger than two acres (10 acres is the preferred
       minimum for an elementary school) and has no on-site parking.
     • Springfield Middle School is still a quality facility deemed to have useful life
       remaining and addresses the committee’s desire to maintain an elementary school
       in the downtown Springfield core.

7.   Adjust School Boundaries to Address Recommendations
     • Adjust the following school boundaries in 2011:
         o Centennial’s attendance area would be expanded to incorporate the Goshen
             attendance area for K-5 students.
         o Hamlin’s attendance area would be expanded to incorporate the Goshen
             attendance area for 6-8 students.
         o Yolanda’s attendance area would be expanded to incorporate the Mohawk
             attendance area for K-5 students.
         o Walterville’s attendance area would be expanded to incorporate the Camp
             Creek attendance area for K-5 students.
         o Hamlin Middle School and Briggs Middle School attendance areas would be
             expanded to incorporate portions of the Springfield Middle School attendance
             area.
         o Adjust boundaries to have two middle schools feed into each high school in
             order to keep school cohorts together. Briggs and Hamlin will feed into
             Springfield High School. Thurston Middle School and Agnes Stewart Middle
             School will feed into Thurston High School. This will begin with the 8th graders
             in the Class of 2012. Retain the current open enrollment policy between the two
             high schools.
     • Adjust the following school boundaries in 2012:
         o Adjust southeastern Brattain boundary (east of Mohawk Boulevard and north of
             Main Street) and send 25 students to Maple.
         o Combine the remaining section of the Brattain attendance area and the Moffitt
             attendance area to form a new elementary school to be housed in the
             Springfield Middle School building.
     • Revisit boundaries looking district-wide in 2013 to determine if additional
        adjustments are needed.

8.   Extend Priority Enrollment for Parents of Students in Impacted Schools
     • Extend transfer application time frame from the typical January 31 deadline to March
        4 to allow adequate notice to students/families at schools that may be impacted by
        the recommendations.
     • Give priority preference to requests from students currently on approved transfer
        requests, students at schools that are being closed or consolidated and younger
        siblings of students already enrolled in the school.
     • Limitations to approval of transfer requests received by March 4:
        o Parent must provide transportation for student(s).
        o There must be space available in the desired school and grade level.
     • Develop an outreach to communicate with impacted parties/parents and schools.

                                                                                           25
           • Give incoming Brattain kindergarten students living in the section of the Brattain
              boundary on the east side of Mohawk Boulevard which will be moved to the Maple
              attendance area in 2012 the opportunity to enroll at Maple in the fall of 2011.

9.         Capital Improvement Funds
           • Funds generated from the sale of land, buildings and other real property will be used
             for other facility-related land and capital purchases as well as capital improvements
             at district facilities.
           • It is the Committee’s majority view that monies generated from the sale of land,
             buildings, and other real property recommended in this report be used to the extent
             possible to implement the capital improvements that are also recommended or to
             fund other land acquisition or capital improvements needs as they arise. Monies
             generated from the sale of property should not be used as one-time supplements to
             the operational budget but instead recommends a “capital for capital” strategy to the
             Board at this current time.

10.        Capital Improvement Priorities
           • Capital investments to reduce operating costs.
           • Prioritize investments to facilities that have been deemed to have 10 or more years
             of use left.
           • Capital improvement projects priority themes include: maintaining and protecting the
             shell, building infrastructure, energy efficiency, heating and ventilating (including
             indoor air quality), health and safety (including fire sprinklers), advancing technology
             and facility program improvements.
           • Look to surplus, demo, or replace older and smaller school facilities (especially in
             areas with significantly low enrollment) with new, high-performing school facilities
             that are located in high enrollment areas that can meet our current instructional
             model and serve our target enrollments of students.
           • Do not invest in current portable buildings and look to demo/surplus old and
             underutilized portable buildings. Replace portables that are integral to the schools’
             instructional program with future bond revenue such as the TMS & SHS portables.
           • Replacing Hamlin Middle School is a priority.
11. Future Bonding
    • The district should pursue a bond no later than 2015.
    • Priorities for a future bond include: the replacement of Hamlin Middle School; the
       construction of a new school in the Jasper-Natron area (if growth and development
       leads to increased student enrollment in that area of town); and other capital
       improvement projects aligned with capital improvement themes and ten-year priorities
       recommended by the committee.
    • The amount of a new bond measure should be driven by need and public support.
    • The current $1.00 per $1000 assessed value target for bonding is not necessary if
       need and public support drives the request. It is likely that the request will be greater
       than $1.00 per $1000 assessed value to meet the school construction and capital
       improvement priorities identified by the committee. The committee reviewed a wide-
       range of options that would levy anywhere from $34M to $81.5M to meet the identified
       priorities. These totals were based on a range of $1.00 - $1.50 per $1000 of assessed
       value.


      26
12. School Construction Excise Tax
    • The committee received a presentation on the 2007 law change allowing school
      districts to levy a School Construction Excise Tax.
    • The school construction excise tax provides an additional tax on new square footage
      (either new construction or new addition).
    • A decision on this option is determined by the School Board.
    • Resources must be dedicated to capital projects/construction fund. Allowable
      expenditures include: acquisition of land; construction, reconstruction or improvement
      district facilities; acquisition or installation of equipment and furnishing; or payment of
      obligations to finance or refinance capital improvements.
    • The committee did express concerns that the resources levied by this option were not
      significant in comparison to the level of need and that bonding was likely the best
      option to raise enough resources to address the level of need.
    • The committee reviewed this information but didn’t come to a recommendation on
      whether the district should exercise this option.

13.    Use of District Space
      • Relocate programs currently sited in less-than-desirable spaces.
      • Relocate programs from spaces with additional costs to the school district (e.g., the
        Memorial Building).
      • Relocate programs currently located in the 42nd Street facility and Moffitt to position
        those facilities to be surplus / demolished.
      • Relocate non-district programs currently located in district schools that are in need of
        more space to house district students.
      • Relocate programs currently located in high-maintenance portable classrooms that are
        nearing or past the end of their useful lives; completely de-invest in portable units.
          o Units at the core of the instructional program should be maintained until funding
              is available to replace them with a stand-alone classroom unit.
          o Units that are under-utilized or non-integral to the instructional program should be
              demolished.
          o District programs housed in portable units should develop an exit strategy for
              relocation in a different facility.
      • The Brattain facility has a sound structure and is worth maintaining. The recent
        investments in a new roof, asbestos abatement and floor tile replacement also make
        the facility worth keeping. The building might be used more appropriately for other
        district programs rather than as an elementary school.
      • The Brattain facility could be used to house alternative programs and programs
        serving smaller numbers of students who could benefit from the smaller classrooms.
        There are many programs throughout the district that are in inadequate spaces that
        would benefit from new space in the Brattain school facility.

14. Pleasant Hill’s Jasper-Natron Boundary / SPS Goshen Boundary
    • Approach Pleasant Hill School District about a boundary trade between the Pleasant
       Hill School District’s Jasper-Natron boundary and SPS Goshen boundary.
    • Greater alignment of the district’s boundaries with those of the City of Springfield and
       WPRD will allow the many shared programs offered to SPS students to be more
       inclusive of the children and families living within the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB)
       but outside the SPS service area (e.g., library services, afterschool recreation
       programs, etc.).

                                                                                            27
     • Due to the proximity of these respective boundary areas to each district’s schools it is
       believed that both districts will realize long-term transportation costs savings as a
       result of this shift.
     • Any shift will likely have to address some sort of “grandfathering” clause that would
       allow students to complete their schooling in their current district if they so choose.
       This recommendation could include phase-in language.




28
Springfield Middle School

Recommendation:

The committee recommends that the district close Springfield Middle School after the
completion of the 2010 - 2011 school year and that current students be sent to either Hamlin
(approximately 140 students) or Briggs (approximately 160 students) middle schools. The
committee further recommends that the district maintain the school building and property for
future use as a K – 5 school.

Background:

Springfield Middle School was built in 1950 and has capacity for 550 students. Currently the
school enrolls only 300 sixth through eighth grade students and enrollment is projected to
continue declining to reach an estimated 292 students by the 2015 – 2016 school year – a
trend seen in many other West Springfield schools. Under the current declining enrollment and
budget challenges, the school is unable to provide a comprehensive middle school
instructional and elective program. See Appendices A and D.

For example, the students also have fewer options for electives than at the larger middle
schools. Currently Springfield Middle has eliminated the wood shop program and has more
limited fine and performing arts options than at other schools. These options will remain
unavailable as enrollment and available resources continue to decline. Furthermore, the school
no longer has an assistant principal to support student achievement, staff performance and
student discipline.

Springfield Middle is currently subject to federal sanctions due to its failure to meet the
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) requirements (AYP is a federal requirement that schools
meet certain academic achievement levels for all student groups).1 The sanctions require the
school’s Title 1 funds be used for student tutoring programs currently provided by third party
companies or require that students be given the option to attend other middle schools. There
are currently 40 students who have elected to attend a middle school other than Springfield
Middle and Title I funds must also be used to cover the cost of those students’ transportation to
other schools.

A portion of Springfield Middle’s current funding is provided by federal Title I funding.2 Title I is
a federal grant that school districts receive based on poverty levels. Schools are allotted Title I
funds to provide additional certified and classified staffing as well as dollars for professional
development, supplies, and parent involvement activities. The amount of funds each school
receives is based on the school’s free and/or reduced lunch count. Currently, any Springfield
elementary school above 39 percent free and/or reduced lunch receives Title I funds and
services. All elementary schools, except Mohawk, receive Title I funds as do Springfield
Middle, Hamlin Middle, and the two K-8 schools: Walterville and Goshen.

1
  Paige, Rod. “Key Policy Letters Signed by the Education Secretary or Deputy Secretary.” U.S. Department of Education.
July 2002. <http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/secletter/020724.html>.
2
  “Improving Basic Programs Operated By Local Educational Agencies (Title I, Part A).” U.S. Department of Education. 12
January 2011. <http://www2.ed.gov/programs/titleiparta/index.html>.

                                                                                                                 29
Title I is designed to provide “booster” instruction, effective early intervention support, and
targeted instruction to help children catch up with their grade level peers. Adequate space is
necessary in order for staff to deliver targeted instruction in group settings. Groups occur in
classrooms, common areas and other small instructional spaces. Most schools provide only
additional reading instruction through Title I services; however, a few provide math as well.
The amount of services schools can provide is based on how far they can stretch their dollars.
Without Title I services, schools would face increased challenges on how to provide booster
instruction to children who often come to school lacking the academic readiness skills to be
successful to perform at grade level.

With the closure of Springfield Middle School, the sanctions would no longer be in effect and
the Title I funds currently used for transportation and third-party tutoring could be used to help
provide more effective early intervention support and targeted instruction to students across
the district.

Additionally, Title I funds will be reduced across the district next year because some Title I
funding provided by the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act will expire at the end of the
current school year; eliminating the cost of the Springfield Middle sanctions would lessen the
impact of reduced Title I funding on students in other schools.

The students who currently attend Springfield Middle School can be placed in Hamlin and
Briggs middle schools. See Appendix L. The enrollment at each school would change to the
following:

Send approximately 140 6 – 8 Springfield Middle School Students to Hamlin:

              •   Hamlin 6 – 8 Students:                        443
              •   Hamlin 6 – 8 Enrollment with Goshen:          469
              •   SMS 6 – 8 Students:                           140
                                                                            New Enrollment: 609

Send approximately 160 6 – 8 Springfield Middle School Students to Briggs:

              •   Briggs 6 – 8 Students:                        439
              •   SMS 6 – 8 Students:                           160
                                                                            New Enrollment: 599

According to a thorough space assessment (see Appendix D), Hamlin and Briggs middle
schools have the capacity to take on additional students. The new enrollment at Hamlin and
Briggs will bring both schools within the target enrollment. This will allow all students at these
schools to benefit from increased resources for instructional and elective courses. It will also
support the schools’ grade-level teaming structure and other types of scheduling to create a
“school-within-a-school” environment that will allow for individual academic interventions and
support to students at all academic levels.

The Springfield Middle School facility is considered by the committee to be in good condition
and viable as a future elementary school facility. In 2008, the facility received a new roof for
the gym and cafeteria areas and new, more energy efficient windows throughout. In order to

   30
serve as a future elementary school, the building will need one-time investments of
approximately $75,000 - $150,000 in retrofits, which is significantly less than the cost to
improve the elementary schools it would replace. These retrofits include: the addition of hooks
and cubbies for each classroom and adjusting the heights of counters in the library, front office
and cafeteria. The facility does not currently include a playground appropriate for elementary
students; the playground structure currently located at Moffitt Elementary will be removed and
reinstalled at Springfield Middle School, at the same time Crime Prevention Through
Environmental Design fencing will be installed to ensure the safety of students and any other
necessary enhancements to the grounds in order to bring it up to current district standards will
be performed. To see a full list of necessary retrofits for Springfield Middle School, see
Appendix O.




                                                                                            31
32
Mohawk Elementary School
Recommendation:

The committee recommends that Mohawk Elementary School be closed after the completion
of the 2010 – 2011 school year and the current students be enrolled at Yolanda Elementary
School. The committee further recommends that the facility be mothballed for future use.

Background:

Built in 1963, the enrollment at Mohawk Elementary School is currently 64 students; the
previous Facilities Advisory Committee was concerned about declining enrollment at Mohawk
as well and asked that the district evaluate the viability of schools that are significantly and
consistently under-enrolled. Mohawk has been losing students during the past 10 years and
enrollment is not projected to grow significantly, leaving it considerably below its 150-student
capacity. See Appendices A and C for enrollment and capacity information.

Staffing at Mohawk is currently at only three classroom teachers and will be reduced in the
future unless enrollment or available resources increase significantly. For example, with only
two teachers, the school would have classes with up to three different grade levels of students
(e.g., K – 2 or 3, 4, 5, etc.).

With such a small number of students, the school is unable to provide the same type of
educational programs, services and resources found at schools closer to target enrollment. For
example, students who need additional reading instruction, beyond the basic classroom
reading program, are unable to receive the same level of intervention or acceleration services
as those students in a school with more staff and more targeted instruction.

Another example of a challenge for small schools is the need to create an instructional model
where the teacher is responsible for two or more grade levels. It is difficult for the classroom
teacher who has responsibility for more than one grade level to provide the necessary
instructional minutes to meet grade level standards.

With limited resources it is difficult to meet the needs of all students because there can be a
large discrepancy in what each child needs for academic success. In addition to these limited
resources, high-needs and special education students cannot be served at a small, rural
school with fewer staff and, consequently, must be bused to larger elementary schools with the
necessary specialists and staff available.

In Springfield Public Schools, the average 2009 – 2010 cost, based on audited budget
numbers, to educate an elementary student is $4,760 (see Appendix E). This number includes
direct instructional and programming costs controlled at the site, such as site-based
administration, teaching staff, educational assistants and educational supplies.




                                                                                            33
Mohawk is one of four schools that do not fall within the standard deviation of $500 of the
average elementary school cost. The cost to educate a Mohawk student in the same year is
$8,199.

                          Sept. 30, 2009         2009 – 2010               Average Per
                           Enrollment           Audited Budget             Student Cost
        Elementary            5,024              $23,913,007                  $4,760
         Mohawk                 60                $491,960                    $8,199


According to the 2009 – 2010 audited budget numbers, the average cost of utilities,
maintenance and custodial services at the elementary level was $2,485,026 district-wide. The
totals provided for maintenance and custodial do not include the instructional totals provided
above.

Mohawk Elementary School’s cost of these services per square foot in 2009 – 2010 was $3.94
per square foot and $1,254.68 per student – more than twice the average per student (see
Appendix F).


                                                 2009 – 2010               Average Per
                           Square Feet
                                                Audited Budget             Square Foot
        Elementary            694,962             $2,485,026                  $3.56
         Mohawk                19,100              $75,281                    $3.94


                                                 2009 – 2010               Average Per
                            Enrollment
                                                Audited Budget             Student Cost
        Elementary             5,024              $2,485,026                   $494
         Mohawk                 60                 $75,281                   1,254.68


An additional complication shared by rural schools is the lack of a fiber-optic high-speed
connection to the district’s network. Without this high-speed connection, which is unavailable in
the Mohawk Elementary School area, it is difficult to use web-based instructional technology
and assessment tools, including state-mandated Oregon Assessment of Knowledge and Skills
(OAKS) testing. The increasing trend toward online instruction and web-based assessment will
make this a growing factor for rural schools.

The students who currently attend Mohawk can be served at Yolanda Elementary School. The
enrollment at Yolanda would change to the following:

Send K – 5 Mohawk Elementary School Students to Yolanda Elementary School:

             •   Yolanda K – 5 Students:                             351
             •   Mohawk K – 5 Students:                              64
                                                                           New Enrollment: 415



   34
According to a thorough space assessment (see Appendix C), Yolanda Elementary School has
the capacity to take on additional students and still maintain key school components identified
to deliver quality education (see Appendix B). As enrollment is increased at Yolanda, the
school is moved closer to target enrollment, supporting a more efficient use and greater
pooling of resources that will benefit both current Yolanda students and the added Mohawk
students (see Appendix L).

The change in transportation costs will be negligible, but there will be an increase in the time
students spend on the bus. The current average bus ride for Mohawk students is 40 minutes
and will increase to an average of 53 minutes with the transfer to Yolanda (see page 81).

The original Mohawk Elementary School was constructed in 1963 with an addition constructed
in 1990. The facility has several infrastructure challenges including widespread roof leaks, lack
of Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) improvements (both interior and
exterior) to ensure the safety of students during the school day, and siding in need of
replacement (see Appendix I). The newer portion of the facility, however, is in better condition
– pending the replacement or repair of the current roof (see Appendix H).

Due to its viability for future use as a school or other district facility, the committee found there
to be multiple reasons for mothballing the Mohawk facility, including: mothball the entire
building (or only the newer portion) for possible future use if enrollment, development, or
district program needs require, or in case of the possibility of the consolidation of Springfield
and Marcola students into the Mohawk facility.

Costs associated with mothballing Mohawk include $5000 per year in utilities and maintenance
to keep the building in good repair, which is significantly less than the $20,803 in-use cost for
the 2009 – 2010 school year (see Appendix F). Plus the one-time cost of $10,000 - $15,000 to
extend the life of the current roof for 3 – 5 years in order to protect the building’s outer shell.

The investment of roof repair or replacement is badly needed, and is estimated to cost
$160,000, if the district determines that the building continues to be used for educational
purposes; however the committee recommends that investments only be made on buildings
with greater than 10 years of ongoing student use left (see Appendix O).




                                                                                                35
36
Goshen School
Recommendation:

The committee recommends that Goshen School be closed after the completion of the 2010 –
2011 school year and the current K – 5 students be enrolled at Centennial Elementary School,
while the 6 – 8 students be enrolled at Hamlin Middle School. The committee further
recommends that district dispose of both the facility and property.

Background:

Built in 1949, the enrollment at Goshen School is currently 87 students; the previous Facilities
Advisory Committee was concerned about declining enrollment at Goshen as well and asked
that the district evaluate the viability of schools that are significantly and consistently under-
enrolled. Due to the overall decline in enrollment trends, the number of students projected to
attend the elementary school in the coming years does not increase beyond the potential for
up to 102 students, leaving it considerably below its 150-student capacity (see Appendices A
and C).

Staffing at Goshen currently allows for only 1.5 middle school classroom teachers for 26 6 – 8
grade students. It is virtually impossible for one and a half staff members to provide a
comprehensive middle school program and provide the necessary instructional minutes to
meet grade level standards. Staffing will likely be reduced further in the future unless
enrollment and available resources increase significantly.

With such a small number of students, the school is unable to provide the same type of
educational programs, services and resources found at schools closer to target enrollment. For
example, students who need additional reading instruction, beyond the basic classroom
reading program, are unable to receive the same level of intervention or acceleration services
as those students in a school with more staff and more targeted instruction.

Another example of a challenge for small schools is the need to create an instructional model
where the teacher is responsible for two or more grade levels (and in Goshen there is a K, 1, 2
class). It is difficult for the classroom teacher who has responsibility for more than one grade
level to provide the necessary instructional minutes to meet grade level standards.

With limited resources it is difficult to meet the needs of all students because there can be a
large discrepancy in what each child needs for academic success. In addition to these limited
resources, high-needs and special education students and English Language Learners (ELL)
cannot be served at a small, rural school with fewer staff and, consequently, must be bused to
larger elementary schools with the necessary specialists and staff available.

In Springfield Public Schools, the average 2009 – 2010 cost, based on audited budget
numbers, to educate an elementary student is $4,760 (see Appendix E). This number includes
direct instructional and programming costs controlled at the site, such as site-based
administration, teaching staff, educational assistants and educational supplies.




                                                                                              37
Goshen is one of four schools that do not fall within the standard deviation of $500 of the
average elementary school cost. The cost to educate a Goshen student in the same year is
$6,166.

                          Sept. 30, 2009        2009 – 2010             Average Per
                           Enrollment          Audited Budget           Student Cost
        Elementary            5,024             $23,913,007                $4,760
          Goshen                94               $567,511                  $6,166

According to the 2009 – 2010 audited budget numbers, the average cost of utilities,
maintenance and custodial services at the elementary level was $2,485,026 district-wide. The
totals provided for maintenance and custodial do not include the instructional totals provided
above.

Goshen School’s cost of these services per square foot in 2009 – 2010 was $3.35 per square
foot and $929.64 per student – nearly twice the average per student (see Appendix F).

                                                2009 – 2010             Average Per
                           Square Feet
                                               Audited Budget           Square Foot
        Elementary           694,962             $2,485,026                $3.56
          Goshen              26,073              $87,387                  $3.35


                                                2009 – 2010             Average Per
                           Enrollment
                                               Audited Budget           Student Cost
        Elementary            5,024              $2,485,026                 $494
          Goshen               94                 $87,387                 $929.64

The K – 5 students who currently attend Goshen can be placed in Centennial Elementary
School and the 6 – 8 students can be placed in Hamlin Middle School (see Appendix L).

The enrollment at Centennial would change to the following:

Send K – 5 Goshen School Students to Centennial Elementary School:

             •   Centennial K – 5 Students:                   391
             •   Goshen K – 5 Students:                       61
                                                                         New Enrollment: 452

The enrollment at Hamlin would change to the following:

Send 6 – 8 Goshen School Students to Hamlin Middle School:

             •   Hamlin 6 – 8 Students:                                         443
             •   Hamlin 6 – 8 Students (with the addition of 140 SMS Students): 583
             •   Goshen 6 – 8 Students:                                         26

                                                                         New Enrollment: 609

   38
According to a thorough space assessment (see Appendices C and D), Centennial Elementary
School and Hamlin Middle School have the capacity to take on additional students and still
maintain key school components identified to deliver quality education (see Appendix B). As
enrollment is increased at Centennial and Hamlin, the schools will meet target enrollment
levels, supporting a more efficient use and greater pooling of resources that will benefit both
current Centennial and Hamlin students and the added Goshen students.

The change in transportation costs will be negligible, but there will be an increase in the time
students spend on the bus. The current average bus ride for Goshen students is 31 minutes
and will increase to an average of 43 minutes with the transfer of K – 5 students to Centennial
and 6 – 8 students to Hamlin (see page 81).

The Goshen facility has been identified as having a number of capital improvement needs and
site issues (see Appendices H and I).

The capital improvement needs include:
   • Poor site drainage;
   • Potential water infiltration in the lower classroom wing;
   • Roof replacement on the upper classroom wing;
   • Heating unit replacement in both classroom wings;
   • Asbestos flooring replacement in both classroom wings;
   • Window replacement in both classroom wings; and
   • Siding replacement in both classroom wings.

In addition, the Goshen site has a sewage lagoon that requires ongoing costs related to
Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) discharge issues, human resource time and
significant maintenance requirements, including:
    • DEQ permits;
    • Sludge depth studies;
    • Ongoing treatment costs; and
    • Stormwater infiltration costs.

The highest potential cost of maintaining the sewage lagoon is biosolids (waste sludge)
removal. The district is required to measure the depth of the accumulating sludge annually. As
waste accumulates in the lagoon, it will eventually rise to the point where removal is required.
Removal of the waste requires an approved plan from the DEQ and a specialized contractor
with the necessary equipment. Conservative estimates for the cost of waste removal from the
Goshen lagoon begin at $250,000.




                                                                                            39
40
Camp Creek Elementary School
Recommendation:

The committee recommends that Camp Creek Elementary School be closed after the
completion of the 2010 – 2011 school year and the current students be enrolled at Walterville
School. The committee further recommends that district dispose of both the facility and property.

Background:

Built in 1949, the enrollment at Camp Creek Elementary School is currently 54 students; the
previous Facilities Advisory Committee was concerned about declining enrollment at Camp
Creek as well and asked that the district evaluate the viability of schools that are significantly
and consistently under-enrolled. Due to the overall decline in enrollment trends, the number of
students projected to attend the elementary school in the coming years does not increase
beyond a potential for up to 55 students, leaving it considerably below its 100-student capacity
(see Appendices A and C).

Staffing at Camp Creek is currently at only three classroom teachers and will be reduced in the
future unless enrollment or available resources increase significantly. For example, with only
two teachers, the school would have classes with up to three different grade levels of students
(e.g., K, 1, 2 class or 3, 4, 5 class, etc.).

With such a small number of students, the school is unable to provide the same type of
educational programs, services and resources found at schools closer to target enrollment. For
example, students who need additional reading instruction, beyond the basic classroom reading
program, are unable to receive the same level of intervention or acceleration services as those
students in a school with more staff and more targeted instruction.

Another example of a challenge for small schools is the need to create an instructional model
where the teacher is responsible for two or more grade levels. It is difficult for the classroom
teacher who has responsibility for more than one grade level to provide the necessary
instructional minutes to meet grade level standards.

With limited resources it is difficult to meet the needs of all students because there can be a
large discrepancy in what each child needs for academic success. In addition to these limited
resources, high-needs and special education students cannot be served at a small, rural school
with fewer staff and, consequently, must be bused to larger elementary schools with the
necessary specialists and staff available.

In Springfield Public Schools, the average 2009 – 2010 cost, based on audited budget numbers,
to educate an elementary student is $4,760 (see Appendix E). This number includes direct
instructional and programming costs controlled at the site, such as site-based administration,
teaching staff, educational assistants and educational supplies.

Camp Creek is one of four schools that do not fall within the standard deviation of $500 of the
average elementary school cost. The cost to educate a Camp Creek student in the same year is
$7,929.


                                                                                             41
                           Sept. 30, 2009        2009 – 2010             Average Per
                            Enrollment          Audited Budget           Student Cost
        Elementary             5,024             $23,913,007                $4,760
        Camp Creek               62               $491,610                  $7,929

According to the 2009 – 2010 audited budget numbers, the average cost of utilities,
maintenance and custodial services at the elementary level was $2,485,026 district-wide. The
totals provided for maintenance and custodial do not include the instructional totals provided
above.

Camp Creek School’s cost of these services per square foot in 2009 – 2010 was $5.24 per
square foot and $1,073.70 per student – more than twice the average per student (see
Appendix F).

                                                 2009 – 2010             Average Per
                            Square Feet
                                                Audited Budget           Square Foot
        Elementary            694,962             $2,485,026                $3.56
        Camp Creek             12,697              $66,570                  $5.24


                                                 2009 – 2010             Average Per
                            Enrollment
                                                Audited Budget           Student Cost
        Elementary             5,024              $2,485,026                 $494
        Camp Creek               62                $66,570                 $1,073.70

An additional complication shared by rural schools is the lack of a fiber-optic high-speed
connection to the district’s network. Without this high-speed connection, which is unavailable in
the Camp Creek Elementary School area, it is difficult to use web-based instructional technology
and assessment tools, including state-mandated Oregon Assessment of Knowledge and Skills
(OAKS) testing. The increasing trend toward online instruction and web-based assessment will
make this a growing factor for rural schools.

The students who currently attend Camp Creek can be placed in the Walterville School (see
Appendix L).

The enrollment at Walterville would change to the following:

Send K – 5 Camp Creek School Students to Walterville School:

             •   Walterville K – 5 Students:                   147
             •   Camp Creek K – 5 Students:                    54
                                                                          New Enrollment: 201

According to a thorough space assessment (see Appendix C), Walterville School has the
capacity to take on additional students and still maintain key school components identified to
deliver quality education (see Appendix B). As enrollment is increased above 200 students at
Walterville, the school becomes a more viable option, supporting a more efficient use and
greater pooling of resources that will benefit both current Walterville K – 5 students and the
added Camp Creek students.

   42
The committee deemed Walterville as worthy of continued investment into the facility and
recommended that it should remain open as a K – 5 program. The committee does not
recommend closing the school for several reasons, including: the facility sits in the middle of its
expansive boundary area and there is no room for this number of elementary students in East
Springfield schools. Also, students already travel great distances to attend Walterville – many
from east of Leaburg and the school serves more students than any of the other rural schools
(see Appendices A, C and D).

There will be an increase in transportation costs and there will be an increase in the time
students spend on the bus. The current average bus ride for Camp Creek students is 20
minutes and will increase to an average of 32 minutes with the transfer to Walterville (see page
81.)

The Camp Creek facility has been identified as having a number of capital improvement needs
and site issues (see Appendices H and I).

The capital improvement needs include:
   • Improved classroom ventilation (currently non-compliant with facility codes);
   • Roof replacement;
   • Radiant floor piping under the slab;
   • Window replacement; and
   • Asbestos flooring replacement.

One of the most urgent capital improvement needs is ventilation. Classroom ventilation is
currently non-compliant with building codes and causes a build-up of CO2, which can affect
students and staff. This occurs because the current heating and ventilating system does not
have outside air dampers and re-circulates the same air instead of bringing in fresh, outside
filtered air. Currently, the only way to lower the levels of CO2 is to open classroom windows,
which also brings in particulate matter such as allergens.

Additional issues with the site include:
  • Non-Americans-with-Disabilities-Act (ADA)-compliant staff restroom;
  • Non-ADA-compliant stage access;
  • Non-code compliant parking (less than required)
  • Non-code compliant boiler room fire-rated wall;
  • Non-code compliant kitchen hood system;
  • Galvanized well water system piping; and
  • Ongoing maintenance to the septic system.

Another high priority is replacing the aging galvanized piping under the floor slab. When
galvanized piping comes in contact with earth, it deteriorates due to a chemical reaction with the
soil. It also accumulates rust inside the pipe, which restricts flow and causes it to lose pressure.
There are several components to replacing the galvanized piping with new materials: flooring
must be torn up and any asbestos abated; the concrete slab must be cut-through and torn-up in
many areas; the dirt underneath must then be excavated and temporarily removed from the site.
Once the new piping is in place, the hole must be filled and the slab and floor re-built. This
project is cost-prohibitive in light of the current available resource.



                                                                                             43
44
Walterville School
Recommendation:

The committee recommends that current sixth through eighth grade students at Walterville
School be transferred to Thurston Middle School, after the completion of the 2010 – 2011
school year.

Background:

Walterville School’s current enrollment of 24 students in grades 6 – 8 does not provide a
comprehensive middle school program (see Appendix A).

Staffing at Walterville currently allows for only one middle school classroom teacher and it is
virtually impossible for one staff member to provide a comprehensive middle school program
and provide the necessary instructional minutes to meet grade level standards.

The enrollment at Thurston Middle School would change to the following (see Appendix L):

Send 6 – 8 Walterville School Students to Thurston Middle School:

              •   Walterville 6 – 8 Students:                  25
              •   TMS Students:                                555
                                                                           New Enrollment: 580

According to a thorough space assessment (see Appendix D), Thurston Middle School has the
capacity to take on additional students and still maintain key school components identified to
deliver quality education. As enrollment is increased at Thurston, the school stays within target
enrollment level, supporting a more efficient use and greater pooling of resources that will
benefit both current Thurston Middle School students and the added Walterville students.

The enrollment at Walterville School will change to the following (see Appendix L):

Send K – 5 Camp Creek Elementary School Students to Walterville School:

              •   Camp Creek K – 5 Students:                   54
              •   Walterville K – 5 Students:                  147
                                                                           New Enrollment: 201


As enrollment of elementary students is increased at Walterville, the school is will be able to
support a more efficient use and greater pooling of resources that will benefit both current
Walterville School elementary students and the added Camp Creek students.

The change in transportation costs will be negligible. There are already several students in the
Walterville attendance area that are bused to in-town schools. There will be an increase in the
time students spend on the bus: the current average bus ride for students that attend
Walterville is 48 minutes and will increase to an average of 75 minutes with the transfer to
Thurston Middle School (see page 81).

                                                                                             45
The committee deemed Walterville as worthy of continued investment into the facility and
recommended that it should remain open as a K – 5 program. The committee does not
recommend closing the school for several reasons, including: the facility sits in the middle of its
expansive boundary area and there is no room for this number of elementary students in East
Springfield schools. Also, students already travel great distances to attend Walterville – many
from east of Leaburg and the school serves more students than any of the other rural schools
(see Appendices A, C and D).

In addition, the transfer of Camp Creek’s elementary students will bring greater resources to
provide more targeted instruction and interventions than Camp Creek and Walterville
elementary students are currently able to receive at their individual schools.

Recent investments of a new roof, new Heating Ventilating and Air Conditioning system, and a
boiler make the building more cost-effective to maintain and provide a more comfortable
learning environment for students and staff. Facility challenges that remain to be addressed
are potential flooding, septic and water issues (see Appendices H and I).




   46
Brattain Elementary School
Recommendation:

The committee recommends that Brattain Elementary School be closed after the completion of
the 2011 – 2012 school year and the current students be enrolled at a new elementary school
in the current Springfield Middle School facility. The committee further recommends that the
facility be kept for future use as potential office or program space to house the multitude of
district and partner programs that are currently located in inadequate spaces.

Background:

Built in 1925, the enrollment at Brattain Elementary School is currently 187 students; the
previous Facilities Advisory Committee was concerned about declining enrollment at Brattain
as well and asked that the district evaluate the viability of schools that are significantly and
consistently under-enrolled. Due to the overall decline in enrollment trends, the number of
students projected to attend the elementary school in the coming years does not increase
beyond the potential for up to 193 students, leaving it considerably below its 275-student
capacity (see Appendices A and C).

In addition to an enrollment below school capacity, the building is an older building and has
both facility and site challenges related to housing an elementary school, including:
    • Smallest classrooms in the district (less than 800 square feet);
    • Lack of breakout instructional space;
    • Site is only slightly larger than two acres (ten is the preferred minimum for an
       elementary school);
    • Small common spaces and hallways;
    • Limited administration space;
    • Limited playing fields; and
    • No on-site parking.

In Springfield Public Schools, the average 2009 – 2010 cost, based on audited budget
numbers, to educate an elementary student is $4,760 (see Appendix E). This number includes
direct instructional and programming costs controlled at the site, such as site-based
administration, teaching staff, educational assistants and educational supplies.

Brattain is one of four schools that do not fall within the standard deviation of $500 of the
average elementary school cost. The cost to educate a Brattain student in the same year is
$5,948.

                           Sept. 30, 2009         2009 – 2010             Average Per
                            Enrollment           Audited Budget           Student Cost
       Elementary              5,024              $23,913,007                $4,760
        Brattain                193                $1,147,886                $5,948

According to the 2009 – 2010 audited budget numbers, the average cost of utilities,
maintenance and custodial services at the elementary level was $2,485,026 district-wide. The
totals provided for maintenance and custodial do not include the instructional totals provided
above.

                                                                                             47
Brattain Elementary School’s cost of these services per square foot in 2009 – 2010 was $5.19
per square foot and $745.79 per student (see Appendix F).

                                                    2009 – 2010           Average Per
                            Square Feet
                                                   Audited Budget         Square Foot
        Elementary            694,962                $2,485,026              $3.56
         Brattain              27,746                 $143,937               $5.19


                                                    2009 – 2010           Average Per
                            Enrollment
                                                   Audited Budget         Square Foot
        Elementary             5,024                 $2,485,026              $494
         Brattain               193                   $143,937              $745.79

The students who currently attend Brattain can be placed in a new elementary school in the
current Springfield Middle School facility. The enrollment would be the following:

Send K – 5 Brattain Elementary School Students to a new elementary school:

              •   Moffitt K – 5 Students:                      289
              •   Brattain K – 5 Students:                     187
              •   25 Brattain Students to Maple:               (25)
                                                                           New Enrollment: 451

Brattain’s current enrollment, minus 25 students who live east of Mohawk Boulevard and north
of Main Street, would be combined with 289 of Moffitt Elementary School’s students to create a
new elementary school that would meet the district’s targeted size for providing a
comprehensive elementary instruction program and include more of the components identified
to deliver quality education than the current facility (see Appendix L).

Travel time for Brattain students would remain virtually unchanged: the Springfield Middle
School facility is located at the mid-point of the Brattain and Moffitt attendance areas and those
students who are located more than .99 miles from the Springfield Middle School facility are
already bused to their current elementary school.

Although its structure is sound, it does not meet many of the design components desirable in a
21st Century school. It is cost-prohibitive to add the space it would take for all the key
components and to house target enrollment.

There are several school-use facility needs if Brattain continues to be used as an elementary
school (see Appendices H and I):
   • Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) accessibility improvements;
   • Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) improvements;
   • New intercom system;
   • Kitchen equipment replacement;
   • And window replacement.
   • Non-compliant parking (87 spaces required, only 4 available);
   • And a non-code-compliant kitchen hood system.

   48
By consolidating Brattain and Moffitt students into the Springfield Middle School facility, the
students will gain access to many key components and other features lacking at the Brattain
facility, including:
    • Larger classrooms;
    • More classrooms;
    • CPTED entrance;
    • Card keys and security cameras;
    • Large library space;
    • Dedicated music space;
    • Natural daylighting;
    • Large hallways and common spaces;
    • Larger stage for student performances;
    • Built-in wireless network and other technology infrastructure;
    • Kitchen equipment in better condition;
    • Larger, improved and more visible administrative space; and
    • Off-street parking.

There are many district and partner programs currently located in facilities that are identified as
surplus, portables identified to be disposed of, non-district buildings that the district pays rent
on, or housed in other inadequate spaces. The Brattain facility can be used to house several of
these programs and will allow for improved program space. This was a key consideration in
the committee’s recommendation to change the use of this facility.

Costs associated with changing the use of the Brattain facility from an elementary school to
hosting other district programs depends on the programs chosen for relocation; however
parking must be added for any combination of options. The estimated costs to add parking
range from $15,000 – $125,000; the lower cost option involves re-striping the current asphalt
play surface to serve as a parking lot, while the more costly option involves retaining the
asphalt play area (to serve the neighborhood and re-located programs) and building a new
parking lot on the current open green space area (see Appendix O).




                                                                                             49
50
Moffitt Elementary School
Recommendation:

The committee recommends that Moffitt Elementary School be closed after the completion of
the 2011 – 2012 school year and the current students be enrolled at a new elementary school
in the current Springfield Middle School facility. The committee further recommends that the
facility be demolished and the site kept for future replacement of Hamlin Middle School.

Background:

Built in 1950, the enrollment at Moffitt Elementary School is currently 289 students. Due to the
overall decline in enrollment trends in west Springfield, the number of students projected to
attend the elementary school in the coming years does not increase beyond the potential for
up to 294 students, leaving it considerably below its 400-student capacity (see Appendices A
and C).

In addition to an enrollment below school capacity, the building is an older building and
possesses several design flaws such as poor day-lighting, no breakout instruction space, and
a gymnasium / cafeteria combination. These issues create difficulty in meeting the program
needs of an elementary school.

The students who currently attend Moffitt can be placed in a new elementary school in the
current Springfield Middle School facility. The enrollment would be the following:

Send K – 5 Moffitt Elementary School Students to a new elementary school:

              •   Moffitt K – 5 Students:                      289
              •   Brattain K – 5 Students:                     187
              •   25 Brattain Students to Maple:               (25)
                                                                           New Enrollment: 451

Moffitt’s current enrollment would be combined with 162 of Brattain Elementary School’s
students to create a new elementary school that would meet the district’s targeted size for
providing a comprehensive elementary instruction program and include more of the
components identified to deliver quality education than the current facility (see Appendix L).

Travel time for Moffitt students would remain virtually unchanged: the Springfield Middle
School facility is located at the mid-point of the Moffitt and Brattain attendance areas and those
students who are located more than .99 miles from the Springfield Middle School facility are
already bused to their current elementary school (see page 81).

By consolidating Moffitt and Brattain students into the Springfield Middle School facility, the
students and staff will gain access to many key components and other features lacking at the
Moffitt facility, including:
   • Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) entrance;
   • Card keys and security cameras;
   • Large library space;
   • Dedicated music space;

                                                                                            51
   •    Natural daylighting;
   •    Separate gymnasium and cafeteria;
   •    Large common spaces;
   •    Larger stage for student performances;
   •    Built-in wireless network and other technology infrastructure; and
   •    Larger, improved and more visible administrative space.

Moffitt Elementary School has been determined by the committee to be the “neediest” facility in
the district. The committee has determined that the building should be demolished because the
capital improvement needs are too great and too costly (see Appendices H and I).

According to the 10-Year Capital Improvement Plan, the building is in need of several items,
including:
    • A new roof;
    • A new potable water system;
    • Window replacement;
    • Classroom lighting upgrades; and
    • Asbestos flooring replacement.

The site is also in need of Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) parking lot improvements.

Additional issues identified by the district maintenance department include:
  • Replacement of galvanized piping under the slab;
  • Non-ADA-compliant ramps and handrails;
  • Non-ADA-compliant staff / adult restroom;
  • Non-ADA-accessible stage;
  • Non-code-compliant gymnasium egress; and
  • A non-code-compliant kitchen hood system.

Replacing the aging galvanized piping under the floor slab is a high priority at Moffitt. When
galvanized piping comes in contact with earth, it deteriorates due to a chemical reaction with
the soil. It also accumulates rust inside the pipe, which restricts flow and causes it to lose
pressure. There are several components to replacing the galvanized piping with new materials:
flooring must be torn up and any asbestos abated; the concrete slab must be cut-through and
torn-up in many areas; the dirt underneath must then be excavated and temporarily removed
from the site. Once the new piping is in place, the hole must be filled and the slab and floor re-
built. This project is cost-prohibitive in light of the current available resources.

Prior to demolition the district would perform a thorough salvage of usable materials for other
facilities throughout the district. These materials include:
    • Boilers and pumps;
    • Heating units;
    • Lighting and ballasts;
    • Furniture;
    • Kitchen equipment;
    • White boards;
    • Fire alarms;
    • Intercom system;
    • Metasys controllers;

   52
   •   Security sytem;
   •   Plumbing fixtures;
   •   Playground equipment; and
   •   Network Equipment / Computers.

The large capital items can be relocated to fill other immediate capital improvement needs in
the district, such as the boilers, heating units and intercom system. Smaller on-going
maintenance items, such as replacement of light fixtures and security alarm devices, will also
be relocated. In an era of diminished resources, relocation of these materials will save tightly
budgeted maintenance dollars.

Many of the resources in the school will be relocated to the new elementary school in the
Springfield Middle School facility, such as playground equipment, furniture, white boards, etc.

Estimated costs associated with demolishing and abating the asbestos in the facility range
from $190,000 - $200,000 (see Appendix O). The committee strongly recommends demolition
due to the ongoing costs of the urgent and increasingly complex maintenance requirements.
The committee expressed concerns about the district keeping the facility and it getting filled
with other uses and the liability and costs remaining.

After demolition, the site will be preserved as a future footprint for a replacement of Hamlin
Middle School. The ability to construct a replacement school where the Moffitt facility is
currently located will allow the district to perform construction while minimizing the impact on
Hamlin students during that period.

The committee identified the replacement of Hamlin as the top-priority for a replacement
school as part of a future bond measure recommended for no later than 2015.




                                                                                             53
54
Boundary Adjustments
Recommendation:

The committee recommends that in-district boundaries be changed to reflect the other
recommendations included in this report. Furthermore, the committee recommends that all
district boundaries be re-evaluated in 2013 to determine if additional adjustments are needed.

Background:

The in-district boundary changes identified in this report include:

   •   2011 – 2012 School Year
          o Centennial Elementary School’s attendance area will expand to incorporate the K
             – 5 Goshen School attendance area.
          o Hamlin Middle School’s attendance area will expand to incorporate the 6 – 8
             Goshen School attendance area.
          o Yolanda Elementary School’s attendance area will expand to incorporate the
             Mohawk Elementary School’s attendance area.
          o Walterville School’s attendance area will expand to incorporate the K – 5 Camp
             Creek attendance area.
          o Hamlin Middle School and Briggs Middle School attendance areas will expand to
             incorporate their assigned portions of the Springfield Middle School attendance
             area.
          o Adjust the high school boundaries to have two middle schools feed into each
             high school in order to keep student cohorts together (e.g., Briggs and Hamlin
             middle schools will feed into Springfield High School and Agnes Stewart and
             Thurston middle schools will feed into Thurston High School). The eighth grade
             class of 2012 will begin the “clean feeder” program; however, the current process
             for open enrollment policy between the high schools should be retained.
   •   2012 – 2013 School Year
          o Combine the attendance areas of Brattain and Moffitt elementary schools to form
             a new attendance area for the elementary school to be located in the current
             Springfield Middle School facility.
          o Maple Elementary School’s attendance area will expand to incorporate the
             approximately 25 Brattain students who live east of Mohawk Boulevard and north
             of Main Street.

See Appendix L & M.




                                                                                          55
56
Priority Enrollment Extension

Recommendation:

The committee recommends that the typical January 31 deadline for student transfer
applications be extended to March 4 in 2011 to provide adequate notice to students and
families in schools potentially impacted by the recommendations. In addition, the
committee recommends that priority preference be given to requests from students
currently on approved transfer requests, students at schools that are being closed or
consolidated and younger siblings of students already enrolled in the school.

The limitations associated with school transfers will not change. Transfer requests can
only be approved when there is space available in the desired school and grade level,
and parents must provide transportation for their student(s).

Students who live in the section of the Brattain attendance area identified as east of
Mohawk Boulevard and north of Main Street and who will begin kindergarten at Brattain
Elementary School in the fall of 2011 will have the choice of enrolling at Maple
Elementary School instead. This section of the Brattain attendance area is
recommended to transfer to the Maple attendance area beginning the 2012 – 2013
school year. This recommendation would allow parents to send their kindergartners to
Maple one year early.

Background:

See page 73 for more information.




                                                                                          57
58
Capital Improvement Funds
Recommendation:

It is the committee’s majority view that any proceeds from the sale of land, buildings or other
real property recommended in this report should be placed in a separate fund dedicated to
land purchase and capital improvement projects for facilities in a “Capital for Capital” strategy.
Priorities for land purchases and facilities improvements should be drawn from the
recommendations within this report or used to address capital needs that may arise. The
committee is keenly aware of the current operation funding issues facing the district but
recommends the “Capital for Capital” strategy to the Board at this time.

Background:

The capital projects funds are used to address facilities needs and perform repairs as they
arise. The district’s 10-Year Capital Improvement Plan outlines $18.4 million in high priority
needs projects and $28 million for a replacement middle school alone, with more than an
additional $18 million in medium to low priority needs (see Appendix I).

The previous three Facilities Advisory Committees have repeatedly recommended to the
school district that any proceeds from the sale of land or facilities be used for other district land
and facilities:

2006: “The committee strongly recommends that any proceeds from selling or developing sites
continue to be dedicated for future land needs versus other district operational budget needs.

2002: “The district should reuse any monies of value created from the sale or trade of real
estate and/or real properties to be used in advance of the goals of these recommendations,
especially site acquisition or land exchanges. The district should maintain the discipline of
trading or selling property for property (capital fund) and not using the proceeds from the sale
of property for General Fund purposes.”

1991: “The district should reuse any monies created from the sale or trade of properties to help
advance the basic recommendations of this report, especially the site acquisition and capital
improvement projects for facilities.”

This fund has seen a dramatic reduction in available dollars during the last three years,
resulting from district facility priorities and unanticipated facility needs. The Capital Projects
Fund is intended as a reserve account for unexpected major facilities issues that arise. It
cannot fund all of the most urgent and unmet needs of the district’s facilities, much less fund
the medium-to-low priority projects. It is important that the district reserve these funds to
address one-time capital projects needs.

These are one-time funds and the committee has made recommendations in this report that
require one-time costs related to facility needs. The committee suggests that the capital
improvement fund be used to cover some of these one-time costs but not to use these funds to
offset ongoing operational costs.



                                                                                                59
In addition to the district’s 10-Year Capital Improvement Plan, one significant priority for use of
funding derived from the sale of land (e.g., Rainbow Property, 42nd Street Property, Camp
Creek Property, Goshen Property, etc.) is paying off the Qualified School Construction Bonds
(QSCB) that were acquired for the purchase and development of land for a future school; this
is in-line with the committee’s “capital-for-capital” recommendation (see Appendix P).




   60
Capital Improvement Priorities
Recommendations:

The committee strongly recommends making capital investments that reduce ongoing
operating costs in order to better utilize resources for district needs. This includes, but is not
limited to, projects that increase the energy efficiency of facilities and that reduce ongoing
maintenance costs. Furthermore, large-scale capital improvement projects should be
prioritized for facilities that have 10 or more years of use remaining.

The committee identified the following capital improvement project priority themes to protect
the district’s and community’s investment:
   • Maintaining and protecting the shell;
   • Building infrastructure;
   • Energy efficiency;
   • Heating and ventilating (including indoor air quality);
   • Health and safety (including fire sprinklers);
   • Advancing technology; and
   • Facility school program design improvements.

At the same time the district is prioritizing its funding for facilities with long-term use, it should
completely de-invest in portable classroom units and surplus or demolish the underutilized
units and replace them with permanent structures where they are integral to a school’s
instructional program. The recommendation for “Use of District Space” (see page 67) includes
more specific recommendations and information regarding portable classroom units. See
Appendix J for more detailed information on the districts portable units.

In addition, the committee recommends that the district look to surplus, demolish or replace
older, smaller school facilities (especially in areas with significantly low enrollment) with new,
high-performing school facilities in high enrollment areas that can meet the current instructional
model and target enrollments.

Background:

As part of its 2006 Facilities Plan, the school district hired the architectural firm of Dull Olson
Weekes to review school facilities and make recommendations on high, medium and low
priority needs for each facility. The district’s facilities department has maintained and updated
this list as ongoing documentation of facility needs; however, the potential exists for a systems
failure or changing district priorities that would supercede current items on the list as a new
capital improvement priority (see Appendix I).

At the request of the committee, district facilities department staff ranked the 16 elementary
schools according to building condition and whether, from a facilities perspective, the building
had long-term viability as a school (see Appendix G). The committee then requested that
facilities department staff list some of the problems faced by the highest-need elementary
schools. Major facilities issues range from non-compliance with current Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements and non-compliance with current building codes to building
systems in need of significant repair or replacement. For example, Moffitt Elementary has non-
ADA compliant ramps, handrails, staff restrooms and a non-accessible stage area; non-

                                                                                                 61
compliant gym egress and kitchen hood system; and needs a new roof, abatement and
replacement of asbestos floor tiles, and replacement of the galvanized water piping and
sewage piping under the building slab. To see detailed lists of facilities issues for Brattain
Elementary, Camp Creek Elementary, Goshen School, Moffitt Elementary, Mohawk
Elementary and Walterville School, see Appendix H.




   62
Future Bonding
Recommendation:

The committee recommends that the district seek another bond no later than 2015 to address
key facilities needs and priorities. The dollar amount of the bond should be driven by capital
improvement needs and public support rather than by the artificial $1.00 per thousand of
assessed value limit guidance used on the previous bond measure.

Priorities for a future bond measure are:
   • Hamlin Middle School: Replace Hamlin Middle School on the current Hamlin / Moffitt
        site. Hamlin is in need of major infrastructure improvements to maintain its long-term
        viability as a school. Its location in the heart of downtown Springfield and proximity to
        athletic fields, potential for co-curricular improvements, and main Springfield
        thoroughfares make it an ideal school site.
   • Jasper-Natron School: Develop and build on the Jasper-Natron site if growth and
        development in Southeast Springfield, especially the Jasper-Natron area, is substantial
        enough to require an additional K – 5 or K – 8 school.
   • Evaluate Older School Facilities: Consider replacing older facilities with infrastructure
        problems that do not meet 21st century school design standards in areas where there is
        a high enough population to meet target enrollment.
   • District-Wide Benefits: Each school should be included in any future bond measure to
        ensure the benefits truly reach each area of the community whether through a school
        replacement or other capital improvement project.
   • Capital Improvement Priorities: Priority should be given to projects aligned with the
        capital improvement themes and ten-year priorities recommended elsewhere by this
        committee (page 61).

Background:

Each Oregon school district’s debt capacity is established by Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS)
328.245; a district that teaches grades K – 12 may issue an aggregate amount up to 7.95
percent of the Real Market Value of all taxable properties within the district as reflected in the
last certified tax roll per the Measure 5 Real Market Value. Prior to issuing any debt, however,
a district must receive approval from its community in the form of a vote.

Springfield Public Schools currently has an open General Obligation Debt capacity of
$516,447,089. The district’s current outstanding General Obligation Debt is $53,280,000. The
debt included in the $53 million figure is the remainder of the 1994 and 2006 bond measures.
The remainder of debt from the 1994 bond measure has a final maturity date of October 15,
2014. In 2016, the current tax rate of approximately $1.00 per thousand of assessed value will
fall to $0.78 per thousand of assessed value – this will give the district an opportunity to pursue
a bond measure.




                                                                                              63
The committee reviewed a wide range of options to levy anywhere from $34 million to $81.5
million to meet identified priorities; these totals are based upon a range of $1.00 to $1.50 per
$1000 or assessed value.

Please see Appendix P for more detailed information regarding the districts current General
Obligation Bonds and future bonding capacity. In addition, Appendices G, H and I outline
facilities with high-to-low needs elementary schools, current major facilities needs by site, and
the district’s 10-year Capital Improvement Plan and Appendix Q outlines recommended bond
projects.




   64
School Construction Excise Tax
Recommendations:

The committee reviewed information related to the School Construction Excise Tax
option, but did not form a recommendation regarding whether the district should
exercise this option.

Background:

The School Construction Excise Tax provides revenue for capital improvements through
an additional tax on new square footage (either new construction or additions). The
revenue generated can be used for the acquisition of land, construction, reconstruction
or improvement of district facilities, acquisition or installation of equipment and
furnishings, and payment of obligations to finance or refinance capital improvements
(see Appendix R).

The school board must make the decision to pursue the excise tax option prior to
entering into an Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) with the local government. The
committee did express concerns that the resources levied by this option were not
significant in comparison to the level of need and that bonding was likely the best option
to raise enough resources to address the level of need.




                                                                                        65
66
Use of District Space
Recommendations:

This committee recommends that centralized district programs be relocated based on the
following priorities:
    • Relocate programs and services currently housed in less-than-desirable spaces;
    • Relocate programs from spaces that incur additional costs to the district, such as the
       Memorial Building;
    • Relocate programs currently in the 42nd Street facility and Moffitt elementary to position
       those facilities to be surplus or demolished; and
    • Relocate non-district programs currently located in district schools that are in need of
       additional space to house district students.

Furthermore, the committee strongly recommends that the district completely de-invest in
portable classroom units: units at the core of the instructional program should be minimally
maintained until funding is available to replace them with stand-alone classroom units; units that
are under-utilized, used as storage, or not an integral part of the instructional program should be
surplused / demolished; and district programs housed in portable classroom units should
develop an exit strategy for relocation in a different facility.

Background:
There are program offices and student services located in inadequate and non-centralized
spaces throughout the district (see Appendix K). Some of these locations do not provide enough
space to meet program needs while others incur rental costs. Providing more adequate space
that will come closer to meeting program needs will assist these programs in better serving
students and families. District staff will need to work with these programs to determine the
details of implementation. With so many programs and needs this recommendation represents
only the first step toward meeting the need of these programs and services.

Sixteen portable units are currently in use throughout the district ranging from 16 to 40 years in
age. Many of the portable units are nearing or have surpassed the end of their useful lives and
will soon require increasing amounts of investment to maintain their usability. Each unit is
currently in need of at least some roof, siding and ramp repair with more than half also in need
of flooring repairs. Two of the portable units currently located at Springfield Middle School
contain district programs that could potentially be housed elsewhere if space is made available
in other facilities. The rest of the portable units are in use by the schools at which they are
located and some do not have space within the original school building to relocate the
classrooms and programs currently housed in the portable units (see Appendix J).

Constructing stand-alone classroom structures that include their own restroom and utility access
will allow the district to replace the aging portable units without incurring the prohibitive costs
(typically required with the construction of building additions or renovations that require building-
wide improvements) to upgrade the existing structure. For example, the committee recommends
replacing the portables at Thurston Middle School with a five-classroom stand-alone structure
that has its own restrooms, hallways, storage, and space for breakout instruction (see Appendix
Q).




                                                                                              67
68
Pleasant Hill School District’s Jasper-Natron Boundary / SPS
Goshen Boundary
Recommendation:

The committee recommends discussing a possible district boundary adjustment with the
Pleasant Hill School District to adjust portions of both school districts’ boundaries for greater
efficiencies. Currently, both school districts are operating buses in the identified areas to
transport a very small number of students. In these days of diminishing budget resources, the
committee feels it is a good time to talk about ways to be more efficient.

Background:

It has been a preference of the district, along with TEAM Springfield partners such as the City
of Springfield and Willamalane Park and Recreation District (WPRD), and Chamber of
Commerce leadership to educate Springfield children in Springfield Public Schools.

Greater alignment of the district’s boundaries with those of the City of Springfield and WPRD
will allow the many shared programs offered to SPS students to be more inclusive of the
children and families living within the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) but outside the SPS
service area (e.g., library services, afterschool recreation programs, etc.). The proposed
boundary adjustment with Pleasant Hill would be a step in this direction.

The proposed portion of the Goshen attendance area to be traded to the Pleasant Hill School
District is much closer geographically to Pleasant Hill. Likewise, the section of the Jasper-
Natron area proposed to become part of SPS is much closer to existing and future-planned
SPS schools. There are transportation duplications for both of the areas involved. Both SPS
and Pleasant Hill operate buses in those areas now. This would simplify transportation for
both districts. For example, many of the students in this portion of the Goshen attendance
area have applied for and received out-of-district transfers to the Pleasant Hill School District
because of its proximity. It is for these reasons that the committee believes this
recommendation may be well received by families in the Goshen attendance area.

Area 1:

       The southeast portion of Springfield is one of the largest areas of developable land
       within the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) in the state of Oregon. While most of the
       Jasper-Natron tract lies within the Springfield Public Schools boundary, there is a small
       section (shaped like a boot) that lies inside the Pleasant Hill School District boundary.
       With the Jasper-Natron tract of land, there are currently 10 residential addresses that
       are both inside the Springfield UGB and outside of the Springfield Public Schools
       boundary. To understand the area under discussion, the UGB boundary at this point
       follows Jasper Road. There are 19 additional residences that lie directly on the other
       side of Jasper Road and therefore lie outside the UGB. We estimate that there are 20-
       25 students represented in these 29 residences (see Appendix N).




                                                                                             69
Area 2:

        In the far southern section of the Goshen boundary area (in the area that lies east of
        Interstate 5 and south of Highway 58), there are 18 students currently attending Goshen
        School. Currently, both Springfield Public Schools and Pleasant Hill School District are
        operating buses in this area. In fact, both operate buses along Mathews Road. The
        proposed property trade would place all of Mathews Road within the Pleasant Hill
        School District (see Appendix N).

The recommended property trade would more closely align the Springfield Public Schools
boundary with the current UGB by incorporating the current UGB as well as anticipating future
growth in adjacent areas.

The trade could also result in transportation efficiencies for both school districts. The portion of
the Goshen attendance area represents students who currently spend 54 minutes on their ride
to and from school. The recommendation to close Goshen would add 12 minutes to their ride.
The boundary transfer has the potential of shortening their time on a bus.

Additionally, it is likely that any shift in school boundaries will need to address a “grandfather”
clause that would allow students to complete their schooling in their current districts, if they so
choose.




   70

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:17
posted:8/1/2011
language:English
pages:52