Facilities Task Force

USD 490 FACILITIES PLAN
IMPORTANT QUESTIONS & ANSWERS

Q: WHAT IS THE PLAN?
A: When all phases are complete, the current middle school will be replaced and the five elementary schools condensed to three new neighborhood schools:
• Phase I includes a new middle school at a new location, and one new three-section, PreK-5 elementary on the current Skelly site. Approximate date of this phase is 2011-2013.
• Phase II builds two new three-section PreK-5 elementary schools at central and northeast locations. Approximate date for this phase is 2016-2018.
Q. WHY ARE IMPROVEMENTS NEEDED?
A. Our facilities are aging and no longer meet the needs of our students as we prepare them for success in a 21st century global environment.

Issues include:
• Students need learning spaces that meet the needs of 21st century education. Spaces should have flexibility to allow for various types of instruction, the ability to support future technology, and science labs that fit current and future instructional needs.
• Improve academic performance by moving to neighborhood pre-kindergarten through 5th grade schools to create fewer building transitions. Studies also show improved academic performance in learning environments that are designed for 21st century instruction.
• Efficient use of space and the elimination of costly ongoing maintenance for “end of life” building systems can lower long-term operating costs.
• Provide adequate areas for physical education, practice and parking, and meet ADA requirements.
• Eliminating mobile classrooms improves both safety, security and the equitable quality of learning environments.

Q. WHAT IS THE BENEFIT OF CHANGING TO PRE-K - 5TH GRADE SCHOOLS?
A. Feedback from school families indicates a desire for neighborhood elementary schools to provide more continuity and one schedule for multiple grade levels. Additionally, fewer transitions for students will provide greater opportunity for academic advancement due to closer alignment to state standards and assessments and more opportunity for peer modeling/mentoring.
Q. WHAT WILL HAPPEN TO THE VACATED BUILDINGS?
A. No buildings will be left vacant or used as storage. The middle school will be repurposed for community or public use and the auditorium will remain available for use by the community. Discussions have begun with two possible purchasers. Skelly will be demolished after the new building is completed. Washington will either be sold, demolished and the land sold for residential development, or re-purposed if it will decrease facility costs elsewhere.
Q. WHY NOT BUILD THE FIRST NEW ELEMENTARY SCHOOL WHERE THE GROWTH IS?
A. Skelly is the one school that has adequate acreage to allow for immediate replacement without disrupting school. Also, there is already a PreK-5 school in the NE where more growth is occurring, so this allows us to move toward having all PreK-5 schools sooner, which is a major goal of the Facilities Task Force and the Board of Education.
Q: WHAT WILL THE PLAN COST ME AND MY FAMILY?
A: Phase I would result in a monthly increase in property taxes of approximately $4.30 on a $50,000 home or $8.59 on a $100,000 home. A similar increase could be anticipated for Phase II.
Q: WHAT ARE SOME ADVANTAGES OF PASSING A BOND ISSUE IN TODAY'S FINANCIAL MARKET?
A: With today's low interest rates, the Qualified School Construction Bond financing option (estimated to save $3.725 million on the financing), 6% state aid to help retire the bonds, and low construction bids, the cost of improving our schools and the education of our children may never be more affordable.
Q: WHY NOT REMODEL THE EXISTING BUILDINGS?
A: Multiple barriers proved costly to “fix” resulting in long-term compromises and inefficiencies. Barriers included small sites, traffic safety, infrastructure, utilities, technology, security, relocation during construction, and structural limitations for reconfiguration to 21st century classroom needs. As an example, the cost analysis to renovate EMS is 75% or more of the cost of completely new construction at a new location with adequate space.
    Middle school estimated cost comparison:
   Renovate w/needed addition....$22 million*
   Renovate without addition…..$15.5 million*
   Build new on new site……….…$20.6 million*
   (* construction costs only)
Q: WHERE CAN I LEARN MORE?
A: Patrons may contact the USD 490 Administration Office, 316-322-4800, for more information.

Facilities Task Force Minutes
Wednesday, May 5, 2010
EXTEND High School, 6:00 p.m.

Members in attendance: Dave Sundgren (Co-Chair), Rod Luehrs, Jennifer Ryan, Oral Taylor, Gene Kimble, Gina Meyer, Janet Baker, Kathy Miller, Sue Ellen Walker, Curtis Beer, Debi LaForge, Mark Hart, Jamie Jellison, Amy Clites, Dacia Young, Bobbi Eaton, April White, Cyndi Reid, Keri Hadley, Miles Harvey (Ex-Officio), Mike Browne (Ex-Officio), Kim McCune (Ex-Officio), Susan Holthaus (Ex-Officio), Stan Ruff (Ex-Officio), Linda Johnson (Ex-Officio), Shari Hatfield (Ex-Officio), David Wagner (Ex-Officio), Norm Wilks (Ex-Officio), Sue Givens (Ex-Officio), Jackie Clark (Ex-Officio)

Also in attendance: PKHLS - Vince Haines, David Stewart

Welcome – Vince Haines reviewed the April 6th meeting and outlined the goals for the meeting.

Information Campaign—
Facilities Information Teams—Building principals gave a brief overview of what their buildings have done so far with their information campaigns. All said they were showing the PowerPoint presentation before concerts and handing out campaign brochures to attendees. The kiosk boards are also on display at school events and placed in prominent locations in the school buildings. Several principals have scheduled parent information meetings. Miles Harvey has placed links to the PowerPoint and the brochure on his Wiki page. Suggestions for future opportunities included: showing the PowerPoint in a computer lab on Play Day and before the end-of-year awards programs, sending flyers home to parents, have tables set up at Walmart, Dillons and the YMCA, displaying kiosk boards and making brochures available at graduation, and making “Ask Me About Our Schools” buttons that Task Force members could wear in public. At the district level, plan information has been included in the staff newsletter, the May Focus on 490 which is inserted in the Times and Shoppers Guide, and a link is on the district’s web site.

Frequently Asked Questions—Members said the questions raised so far about the facilities plan include: what is the possible location for the new middle school, what are examples of why the group chose to build new versus remodel, who is interested in buying the middle school, what will it cost taxpayers, and will there be an auditorium in the new middle school.

Middle School Site Committee—Dave Sundgren reminded Task Force members that it is not in the best interest of the district or our taxpayers to publically identify sites until the BOE has made its final decision. He reported that the Site Committee is currently researching four possible sites for a new middle school to see what would be the best deal and best location for the entire community. He said that as they do the research they must keep in mind as well sites for the two new elementary schools proposed in Phase II. Sundgren said it would be 30-60 days before the committee finishes the research and makes a recommendation to the BOE.

Information Campaign Opportunities/Assignments—
1.   DVDs—It was suggested that the district create a DVD movie that includes virtual tours of the buildings. These DVDs could be given to patrons at information booths set up in the community or to patrons who visit our buildings.
a.   Assignments—District administrators will write the script. Doug Jensen will be district liaison for the project. Gene Kimble and Cyndi Reid will be the on-camera tour guides. Jackie Clark will put the link to the movie on the district’s web site.
2.   Saturday “Live” Tours—The Task Force decided to offer live tours of the buildings at 9:00 a.m. each Saturday morning in June.
a.   Assignments—David Wagner will be the district liaison for this piece of the campaign. Coordinating this effort will be Kathy Miller, Debi LaForge, Mark Hart, Jennifer Ryan, Amy Clites, Bobbi Eaton and Dacia Young.
3.   Buttons—“Ask Me About Our Schools” buttons will be made available to Task Force members to wear in public.
a.   Assignments—Jackie Clark will design the buttons. Sue Ellen Walker will make the buttons.
4.   Band Regalement—Members suggested that Band Regalement would be an excellent opportunity to provide information to our public. It was suggested that before the performance Task Force members move through the audience so that attendees could personally ask them questions.
a.   Assignments—Not assigned at this time. District administration will seek volunteers for this task.
5.   Life Enrichment Group—Jamie Jellison will check on the possibility of presenting the plan to this group.
a.   Assignments—Jamie Jellison and Amy Clites.
6.   Wallet Cards—DLR Group will provide Task Force members with wallet cards that contain the bullet points of the campaign.
7.   Information Booths—The group decided to set one date that booths will be set up outside Dillons, Walmart, Sutherlands and YMCA. It was suggested that the booths have a sign with wording such as “Ask Us About Our Schools.”
a.   Assignments—
i.   Dillons—Jennifer Ryan, Debi LaForge and Jamie Jellison
ii.   Walmart—Not assigned/Sue Givens will ask the Task Force for volunteers
iii.   Sutherlands—Not assigned/Sue Givens will ask the Task Force for volunteers
iv.   YMCA—April White, Sue Ellen Walker and Kay Moore
8.   Civic Organizations—Task Force members will ask to be included on civic organizations’ meeting agendas.
a.   Assignments—
i.   Rotary—Dave Sundgren and Oral Taylor, May 26, 2010
ii.   Kiwanis—Dave Sundgren and Oral Taylor, May 13, 2010
iii.   Lions Club—Unassigned
iv.   Soroptimists—Debi LaForge and Bernie Spradling
v.   El Dorado Inc.—Dave Sundgren and Oral Taylor, May 20, 2010
vi.   El Dorado Chamber of Commerce—Gene Kimble and Jackie Clark, May 11, 2010
vii.   Canvassing local businesses to see who would be willing to display brochures—Kathy Miller and Janet Baker
9.   Printed Materials—Jackie Clark will be the district liaison. Task Force members can request of her copies of the brochure to hand out to patrons they meet.
10.   Channel 7—Jackie Clark will check on access to this local TV channel (running the movie or PowerPoint).

Second Phone Survey—The target date for the second phone survey is July 2010.

Next Meeting—Sue Givens will set another meeting of the Task Force in early June.

Facilities Task Force Minutes
Tuesday, April 6, 2010
El Dorado High School
6:00 p.m.

Members in attendance: Dave Sundgren (Co-Chair), Dan Ingalls, (Co-Chair, BOE Member), Rod Luehrs, Connie Worley, Jennifer Ryan, Oral Taylor, Gene Kimble, Bev Love, Gina Meyer, Janet Baker, Mark Van Buren, Kathy Miller, Amie Oltman, Shane Krause, Sue Ellen Walker, Darla Stewart, Sherry Hermreck, Brad Long, Van Pooler, Curtis Beer, Debi LaForge, Mark Hart, Ed Gard, Bernie Spradling (BOE Member), Vicki Coash (BOE Member), Miles Harvey (Ex-Officio), Mike Browne (Ex-Officio), Kim McCune (Ex-Officio), Susan Holthaus (Ex-Officio), David Wagner (Ex-Officio), Norm Wilks (Ex-Officio), Sue Givens (Ex-Officio), Jackie Clark (Ex-Officio)

Also in attendance: PKHLS - Vince Haines, David Stewart; DLR Group - Teri Kramer, Kevin Greischer

Welcome - After a welcome, Superintendent Sue Givens outlined the goals for the meeting.

Agenda Items
Review of Task Force’s Work To Date–Vince Haines and David Stewart reviewed the key factors behind the group’s decision to build a new middle school over renovating the present middle school. In addition, they talked about tax credits for renovating the building and repurposing the middle school.

Construction Cost Estimates – The Task Force’s recommendation to the BOE was for a two-phase facility plan (to build a new middle school and one new elementary school in Phase 1 and to build two new elementary schools in Phase 2). The Task Force recommended spending $36 million for projects in Phase 1 requiring about a 10 mill increase/$10 per month property tax increase for owners of homes valued at $100,000.

Director of Fiscal and Support Services Norm Wilks provided mill levy estimates for an increased bond amount because some patrons had asked about doing upgrades to all elementary buildings and the middle school at the same time. Wilks said that if the target amount for a bond issue were raised to $45 million, for example, the bond and interest mill levy would increase approximately 13.25 mills making the district’s total mill levy almost 65 mills. He said that $45 million would not provide all the facility improvements recommended by the Task Force. He estimated the cost of a $45 million bond issue to owners of a $100,000 home to be approximately $15 per month.
•   A Task Force member pointed out that with this plan the district would still have 5 elementary schools when three larger elementary schools would be more efficient and allow K-5 grades at all buildings.
•   Another member said the reason the group selected the Skelly site as the location for the first new elementary school was because the district owned enough land there to build a new building and the new school could be built on that site without interrupting the education of the children attending the present Skelly School.

Discussion of Middle School Renovation vs. Building a New Middle School– Task Force members discussed the pros and cons for both building a new middle school and renovating the present building.
•   A Task Force member noted that renovating the middle school would require a major interruption of the educational program for the 440+ students who attend EMS. The architects said it could be done with a lot of reorganization of classrooms and a number of mobile classrooms.
•   Another member reminded the group that renovation of the building would not solve the insufficient parking, traffic safety and playground issues.

Vince Haines and David Stewart provided conceptual estimates for middle school renovation vs. new construction. They based their new estimates on bids recently returned on a middle school renovation project underway at Independence (KS) Middle School. It was noted that there are some structural differences between the Independence Middle School and El Dorado Middle School. For example, Independence Middle School has wider corridors and wider classroom structure.

Conceptual Estimates for New vs. Renovation (based on the new Independence Middle School bid figures and includes inflation numbers for when our projects would go out for bid) —

√ Renovation of Existing Building (remodeling existing space only/no additions) = $15,193,945.50
Under this plan some classrooms may not be larger. There may not be adequate special education classroom space. Dependent upon design, the number of classrooms could be reduced. The existing building would be made better.

√ Renovation of Existing Building (with 3 additional general classrooms and 3 discovery/activity areas and some administration space) = $21,944,414.50
This plan calls for additions of 26,900 square feet of space at a cost of $5,111,000.

Both renovation plans would take $4,048,200 to upgrade Capital Needs/ADA (fire alarm system, general electric/lighting, HVAC control system, clock/CCTV/phone, ADA and windows).

√ New Middle School on New Site (partial program – 1 less art room, no drama room, no Family and Consumer Science room, 1 less computer classroom, and no practice field or track) = $20,593,265.47
This plan requires some sacrifices to get down to the bond capacity recommended by the Task Force.

√ New Middle School on New Site (Full Program) = $26,103,860.78

Not included in either new construction estimate are land costs (purchased out of Capital Outlay) or an auditorium.

New vs. Renovation/El Dorado Middle School Bullet Points:
•   New school would be a single story building constructed on a 24-acre site (approximate).
•   Present building is 98,000 square feet, about 27,000 square feet shy of what a new building with a full educational program would be.
•   New building site would include site accommodations for traffic safety and adequate parking.

Tax Credits — Kevin Greischer said DLR has direct experience with Independence Middle School using Tax Credits. He said there are certain requirements for any renovation project using Tax Credits. He said the district could be reimbursed 20-25% of the dollars spent on a renovation project. He estimated the net benefit of tax credits on a project our size would be around $1.5 million. He said a district would probably need to hire someone to work with the State Historical Society and the bank that sells the tax credits. He said qualifying for tax credits does not necessarily reduce the mill levy to taxpayers, as it is a rebate to the USD after the bond issue.

Other Discussion — Superintendent Givens addressed a patron’s concern that the Task Force has a large number of members who are school employees. In attendance at this meeting were 14 people who are not USD 490 employees and nine who are employees. Also attending were 10 Ex Officio non-voting members (BOE members and administrators).
•   Members pointed out that there is nothing wrong with having employees on the Task Force as they are taxpayers and many have children in our schools. They said it is important to sell the plan to USD 490 employees first. It was said that staff members have a lot to gain and a lot at stake in the long-range facilities proposal.

Replacement Cost Index (RCI) — The architects provided the replacement cost index for renovation vs. new construction. They said the RCI for renovating the middle school without any additions is 75.2% of a new building with partial program. The RCI for renovation of EMS with additions is 106% of the cost of a new building with partial program.

Vote on Renovation vs. New — When asked to reiterate their preference, 95% of the voting members of the Task Force preferred to build a new middle school at an estimated cost of $20.6 million (partial program with 4 fewer classrooms and no practice field, track or auditorium).

Requests from Members for Additional Information—
1.   What would the operating/maintenance costs for a new middle school be compared to the operating/maintenance costs for the present building?
2.   If we delayed construction, what would financing/building costs be in the future due to inflation and rising interest rates?
3.   What is the percentage of USD 490 staff members who are potential USD 490 registered voters compared to the percentage of staff members on the Task Force?

Information Campaign Suggestions —
1.   Have the repurposing plan for the buildings set with letters of intent for their use on file before a bond campaign.
2.   Be able to specify a site for new construction.

Facilities Task Force Minutes
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
El Dorado High School
6:00 p.m.

Members in attendance: Dave Sundgren (Co-Chair), Dan Ingalls, (Co-Chair, BOE Member), Rod Luehrs, Connie Worley, Jennifer Ryan, Cheri Ogle, Oral Taylor, Dacia Young, Gene Kimble, Bev Love, Kirstie Towner, Gina Meyer, Janet Baker, Kristie Randall, Keri Hadley, Mark Van Buren, Kathy Miller, Amy Oltman, Amy Clites, Shane Krause, Sue Ellen Walker, Darla Stewart, Bernie Spradling (BOE Member), Jim Waugh (BOE Member), Miles Harvey (Ex-Officio), David Wagner (Ex-Officio), Norm Wilks (Ex-Officio), Sue Givens (Ex-Officio), Jackie Clark (Ex-Officio)

Also in attendance: PKHLS - Vince Haines, David Stewart; DLR Group - Teri Kramer, Brad Kiehl

Welcome - After a welcome, Vince Haines reviewed the Task Force’s work to date and the agenda for the evening.

Agenda Items
Renovation vs. New Middle School –Brad Kiehl reviewed key factors behind the discussion to build a new middle school over renovating the current building. He talked about the political factors involved in the decision as well as long-term utilities and maintenance costs for a new building versus a renovated building. He shared a list of pros and cons for new vs. renovation. In addition, he provided a matrix that objectively evaluated the present middle school’s site, environment and sustainability compared to possible new site factors. Kiehl estimated the cost to renovate El Dorado Middle School to be $22.01 million based on costs to renovate items such as the heating and air conditioning system, electrical and lighting, security, windows, restrooms, classrooms, hallways, fire alarms, and ADA compliance that would be required by code. He estimated the cost to build a new middle school (all on one level) to be $20.6 million. He said this cost does not include land purchase or a new auditorium because the present EMS auditorium would be available.

Information Campaign – Teri Kramer summarized the results of the patron phone survey. She said the survey showed that almost 69% of our patrons knew little about the Task Force’s proposed plan to improve elementary and middle school facilities. She said the survey also identified target areas for education about the plan such as our school families. Kramer outlined an information campaign for distributing information to vested and non-vested voters.

The group brainstormed venues for distribution of information including site council and PTO meetings, school events, presentations to civic organizations, the district’s web site, wallet cards, social media and the local newspaper. It was suggested that school principals identify information campaign leaders in their buildings. Task Force members were asked to let Superintendent Givens know if they would like to help with the campaign at a particular school. Volunteers are being sought who are willing to make presentations at school events or to community organizations. Also, Kramer asked for a volunteer(s) to organize the presentations and the presentation calendar. She said the campaign would occur during the months of April, May and June. Superintendent Givens will email Task Force members seeking volunteers for the information campaign.

Next Meeting – Tuesday, April 6, 2010, 6 p.m. at El Dorado High School, Room 109

Board of Education accepts task force’s recommendation to adopt a phased plan for facilities improvements
The USD 490 Board of Education (BOE) has accepted the Facilities Task Force recommendations regarding a proposed phased plan to improve district elementary and middle school facilities. The Facilities Task Force was formed as a result of the goals established in the district’s strategic plan. Goals established for the middle school include providing spaces that support 21st century teaching practices and addressing issues related to physical education spaces, energy inefficiencies, safety and parking. Goals at the elementary level include creating equity and consistency in educational opportunities while maintaining neighborhood schools.

After exploring facility needs for nearly one year, the task force representatives recommended the following at the December BOE meeting:

• Build a new middle school and one new 3-section elementary school in Phase One
• Build two new 3-section elementary schools in Phase Two (4-5 years after Phase One is complete)

The Task Force’s phased plan reduces the number of elementary schools from five to three, 3-section schools, and returns the elementary schools to a Pre-K through Grade 5 configuration.

The group recommended that bond debt for Phase One be limited to $36 million, which is estimated to be an increase of 10.35 mills or $4.96/month on a $50,000 home and $9.92/month on a $100,000 home.

The task force recommended building the new middle school in the northeast area of El Dorado. In addition, they recommended building the first new elementary school on the Skelly School site. According to task force members, the Skelly campus is large enough to build a new elementary school on site, while the existing school remains open during construction.

At their December 14th meeting, the Board of Education directed administration to do the following:

- Invite finance counsel to the January BOE meeting to review financing options and timelines.
- Work with the task force to secure the services of a polling company to conduct a phone poll determining patron support following informational meetings. Results will be presented prior to the February BOE meeting.
- Begin investigating potential locations for new construction and develop a set of uses for repurposing the existing middle school.

The task force will meet in early January to develop a community information plan in preparation for the patron telephone survey.

Facilities Task Force Minutes
Thursday, January 7, 2010
El Dorado High School
6:30 p.m.

Members in attendance: Dave Sundgren (Co-Chair), Dan Ingalls, (Co-Chair, BOE Member), Van Pooler, Darla Stewart, Rod Luehrs, Connie Worley, Jennifer Ryan, Cheri Ogle, Oral Taylor, Judy George, Curtis Beer, Dacia Young, Sherri Engels, Gene Kimble, Bev Love, Kirstie Towner, Gina Meyer, Bobbi Eaton, Janet Baker, Jim Shum, Kristie Randall, Amy Seeber, Dacia Young, Wayne White, Ed Gard, Keri Hadley, Mike Browne (Ex-Officio), Bernie Spradling (BOE Member), Vicki Coash (BOE Member), David Wagner (Ex-Officio), Norm Wilks (Ex-Officio), Sue Givens (Ex-Officio), Jackie Clark (Ex-Officio)

Also in attendance: PKHLS - Vince Haines, David Stewart; DLR Group - Teri Kramer, Kevin Greischer

Welcome - After a welcome, Vince Haines reviewed the agenda and goals for the evening.

Agenda Items
Review of December 3rd Meeting – The team discussions from the last meeting were reviewed as well as the task force’s presentation to the Board of Education on December 14th.

Telephone Survey – The Board of Education has hired Patron Insight to conduct a telephone survey of 400 USD 490 registered voters. The surveyors will ask patrons 15 questions designed to discover the following information:
—   Is the tax increase level appropriate?
—   Does the community approve of the plan?
—   Does the community know about the Facilities Task Force?
—   Is there support for moving from five to three elementary schools?
—   What impact does the stadium issue have on the task force’s long-range plan?
—   Feedback?
There will be several open-ended questions to obtain feedback from the community. The research company would provide feedback to the Board of Education at the February 8th board meeting.

Site Evaluation Example Matrix– The architects shared a matrix which when completed will help rank possible sites for a new middle school. Task force members ranked site selection criteria in order of importance to themselves. Eighty-one percent of the group responded that a new middle school should be located on the best site, regardless of location. Eighty-five percent said all possible sites should be considered.

Repurposing Possibilities – Task force members brainstormed repurposing possibilities for the present middle school and elementary buildings.

Community Information Sessions – The task force decided the best date for community information sessions would be Monday, January 18th at El Dorado Middle School. (School will not be in session on that date.) They suggested three times during that day—from 7:30-8:30 a.m., from 12:00-1:00 p.m. and from 5:30-6:30 p.m. It was decided that the district would create a walk-through video of the middle school and elementary buildings that could be shared during the information sessions. Attendees would receive information about the task force’s work and would have an opportunity to ask questions and provide written feedback. The architects asked the group for volunteers to help at the three information sessions. In addition, the group brainstormed ways to get the word out about the January 18th public information sessions.

Bond Campaign Organization – The architects reviewed how a 10-week bond campaign might be organized including the duties of various sub-committees. They asked task force members to think about campaign committees they would be interested in joining. The committee structure will be e-mailed to all task force members. The architects also shared a sample Bond Promotion Calendar.

Next Meeting – The date of the next Facilities Task Force meeting has not yet been set. Members will be notified by e-mail and regular mail.

Facility Task Force Minutes
Thursday, December 3, 2009
El Dorado High School
6:30 p.m.

Members in attendance: Dan Ingalls, (Co-Chair, BOE Member), Mark Hart, Van Pooler, Brad Long, Darla Stewart, Debi LaForge, Rod Luehrs, Shane Krause, Connie Worley, Jennifer Ryan, Charleene Ogle, Oral Taylor, Judy George, Curtis Beer, Dacia Young, Sherri Engels, Kathy Miller, Mark Van Buren, Jen Coslett, Gene Kimball, Jeanne Evans, Julie Zirfas, Mike Browne (Ex-Officio), Bernie Spradling (BOE Member), Vicki Coash (BOE Member), Jim Waugh (BOE Member), David Wagner (Ex-Officio), Doug Jensen (Ex-Officio), Julie Jensen (Ex-Officio), Norm Wilks (Ex-Officio), Sue Givens (Ex-Officio), Jackie Clark (Ex-Officio)

Also in attendance: PKHLS - Vince Haines, David Stewart; DLR Group - Brad Kiehl, Teri Kramer and Kevin Greischer; George K. Baum – Steve Shogren

Welcome - After a welcome, Vince Haines reviewed the agenda for the evening.

Agenda Items:
Review of November 5th Meeting – The team discussions from the last meeting were reviewed.

Financial Status – Bond Counsel Steve Shogren said that based on 2008 Mill Levies USD 490 had the second lowest levy in the county and was ranked fourth lowest in the tri-county area. Shogren said to get the best interest rate possible our district should try to keep our debt at or below 35% of our assessed evaluation. Shogren noted that our assessed evaluation has increased each year, therefore, we could have additional bonding capacity over the next eight years.

In addition, Shogren talked about phased referendums. He said there is a danger of not getting to do all projects because of inflation, increases in interest rates, etc. Shogren also addressed using sales tax to retire debt. He said the City would have to agree to any increase in sales taxes. He reminded the committee that it is a great time for districts to consider capital improvement needs because of the current low interest rates, the state aid program still in place to help retire the bonds, and due to the slowness in the construction market bids on projects are coming in under estimated budgets.

Workshop Teams — The architects presented four Master Plan Options for consideration. Committee members were divided into four teams. The teams were asked to provide positive and negative feedback on each of the plans. All four teams agreed that a new middle school should be the primary focus. By consensus, the group agreed on a phased plan in which a new middle school and one new 3-section elementary school would be built in Phase 1 with two additional elementary schools to be built during Phase 2 (4-5 years later).

Next Meeting — Oral Taylor and Gene Kimball volunteered to present recommendations to the Board of Education at the board’s December 14th meeting. Committee members were urged to attend the meeting.

Facility Task Force Minutes
Thursday, November 5, 2009
EXTEND High School
6:00 p.m.

Members in attendance: David Sundgren (Co-Chair), Dan Ingalls, (Co-Chair, BOE Member), Mark Hart, Amy Seeber, Van Pooler, Brad Long, Steve Funk, Darla Stewart, Ed Gard, Bev Love, Debi LaForge, Rod Luehrs, Grant Helferich, Shane Krause, Kirstie Towner, Connie Worley, Janet Baker, Diana Conrad, Jennifer Ryan, Charleene Ogle, Oral Taylor, Jim Shum, Sue Ellen Walker, Judy George, Mark Utech, Curtis Beer, Gina Meyer, Kristy Randall, Wayne White, Dacia Young, Sherri Engels, Kathy Miller, Mark Van Buren, Keri Hadley, Linda Johnson (Ex-Officio), Kim McCune (Ex-Officio), Stan Ruff (Ex-Officio), Susan Holthaus (Ex-Officio), Bernie Spradling (BOE Member), Vicki Coash (BOE Member), David Wagner (Ex-Officio), Norm Wilks (Ex-Officio), Sue Givens (Ex-Officio), Jackie Clark (Ex-Officio)

Also in attendance: PKHLS - Vince Haines, David Stewart; DLR Group - Brad Kiehl, Teri Kramer, Kevin Greischer and Ken Graham; George K. Baum – Steve Shogren

Welcome - After a welcome, Vince Haines reviewed the agenda for the evening.

Agenda Items
Review of October 15th Meeting – Attendees were reminded that the district’s K-5 enrollment is projected to be 1,045 five years from now. At the October meeting, the group responded to a number of questions about which PreK-5 plans they felt the community would support. On October 15th the group also discussed the utilization factors for each of the plans presented and they talked about the plan they would favor.

Financial Impact Analysis – Bond Counsel Steve Shogren presented a comparison of mill levies in Butler, Harvey and Sedgwick Counties. He said that based on 2008 Mill Levies USD 490 had the second lowest levy in the county and was ranked fourth lowest in the tri-county area. Shogren said that it is a great time for districts to consider capital improvement needs because of the current low interest rates, the state aid program that is still in place to help retire the bonds, and due to the slowness in the construction market bids on projects are coming in under estimated budgets. He presented several scenarios showing how future bond debt might be “wrapped around” the district’s existing bond debt. Shogren said a $20 million bond, for example, would require an estimated 5.26 mills resulting in an estimated additional cost of $60.49/year or $5.04/month to owners of a $100,000 home. He estimated that the district’s debt capacity for best bond efficiency to be about $36 million (an estimated mill increase of 10.35 mills; additional cost of $9.62/month for owners of a $100,000 home).

Workshop Teams- Committee members were divided into four teams. The teams were asked to look at the big picture rather than the details of what the schools would look like. They discussed uses for our present sites and looked at academic solutions for our community. They talked about the cost difference between building new schools vs. remodeling our present buildings. The group also talked about possible sites for new facilities.

Each team reported their findings to the entire committee. One group felt the middle school had the greatest needs. Another group felt it would cost too much to build or remodel all the buildings at once; they suggested phasing the plans in over time. A third group said they started out talking a lot about the elementaries but changed their focus to the middle school. The last group said they felt “neighborhood schools” is a selling point.

Next Meeting— At the next meeting the architects will bring some general plans back for further discussion. The architects asked committee members to have conversations with their neighbors about the discussion that occurred at the meeting. The next meeting will be December 3, 2009 at 6:30 p.m. in EHS commons.

Superintendent Sue Givens thanked the committee members for their time and efforts on behalf of the district and our students.

Download pdf of the PowerPoint presentation here.

Facilities Task Force Minutes
Thursday, October 15, 2009
EXTEND High School
6:30 p.m.

Members in attendance: David Sundgren (Co-Chair), Van Pooler, Brad Long, Cindy Phillips, Steve Funk, Jeanne Evans, Darla Stewart, Ed Gard, Bev Love, Debi LaForge, Rod Luehrs, Grant Helferich, Shane Krause, Kirstie Towner, Mike Browne (Ex-Officio), Connie Worley, Amie Oltman, Janet Baker, Diana Conrad, Gene Kimball, Jennifer Ryan, Charleene Ogle, Oral Taylor, Jim Shum, Sue Ellen Walker, Mary Good, Bernie Spradling (BOE Member), Vicki Coash (BOE Member), David Wagner (Ex-Officio), Norm Wilks (Ex-Officio), Sue Givens (Ex-Officio), Jackie Clark (Ex-Officio)

Also in attendance: PKHLS - Vince Haines, David Stewart; DLR Group - Brad Kiehl, Teri Kramer, Kevin Greischer and Ken Graham

Welcome - After a welcome, Brad Kiehl provided a review of the agenda for the night. Kiehl said the goal of the meeting would be to provide direction to the architects for elementary options the group would consider at a future meeting.

Agenda Items:
Review of September 10th Meeting – A final report on building utilization using enrollment analysis was presented, omitting modular classrooms and providing numerical quality values with 85% capacity being the industry standard for maximum efficiency. The group was reminded that the Board of Education’s strategic plan set a goal of 20 students per classroom. One presentation slide showed that using the current classroom numbers and the student/teacher ratio four out of the five elementary schools are operating at 93% to 131% of capacity. Three additional slides were reviewed showing the committee’s perception of the student/teacher ratio which indicated an indecisiveness of whether it’s a strength, weakness or average and then the perception of the physical facilities for the elementary and middle schools with an indication that approximately 96% feel they need extensive improvement with more than half feeling they need total replacement.

PreK-5 Facilities Discussion

• Current Enrollment—The elementary (PreK-5th grade) enrollment on September 21, 2009 was 1,024 students.

• Design Capacity—Design capacity is based on the desired student/teacher ratio or a desired square footage per student based on programs. Building Capacity is the maximum number of occupants allowed. Schools that exceed design capacity see an increase in wear and tear on the building. Buildings that are under-enrolled are less efficient. The group discussed support for all new elementary facilities versus support for a combination of new and renovated buildings.

• PreK-5 Elementary Models—The group looked at models for elementary schools (based on a student/teacher ratio of 20:1).
Model 1: 2-Section PreK-5 Building, design capacity of 240 students per building, approx. 59,500 square feet, 12 classrooms per building. (2-sections translates to two classrooms per grade level)
Model 2: 3-Section PreK-5 Building, design capacity of 360 students per building, approx. 67,000 square feet, 18 classrooms per building.
Model 3: 4-Section PreK-5 Building, design capacity of 480 students per building, approx. 74,700 square feet, 24 classrooms per building.

• Enrollment Projection—The elementary enrollment is projected to be 1,045 five years from now. Using this number, the district would need five 2-Section schools, or three 3-Section schools or two and a half 4-Section schools.

• Plan Options—
Plan A: five 2-Section schools, would operate at 87% utilization
Plan B: three 3-Section schools, would operate at 97% utilization
Plan C: three 4-Section schools, would operate at 73% utilization
Plan D: combination of two 4-Section schools and one 2-Section school, would operate at 87% utilization.
Also discussed: one elementary with at least 10 sections per grade level

Open Discussion— PreK-5 Elementary Models - The group prioritized the options. Plan A received 17% of the vote. Plan B received 18% of the votes. Plans C and D each received 21% of the votes and “Different” received 23% of the vote. The architects said the goal is to get a consensus on the best plan for the district, a plan that could be supported by the community. The architects also shared drawings of our current sites.

Next Meeting— The next meeting will be November 5, 2009. At that meeting the group will discuss a timeline for the project and financial considerations for the project. The middle school needs assessment would be discussed at a future meeting as well.
October 15th Facilities Task Force Meeting PowerPoint Presentation Download Now

Facilities Task Force Minutes
Thursday, September 10, 2009
Extend High School
6:00 p.m.

Members in attendance: Clara White, Mark Utech, David Sundgren (Co-Chair), Shane Krause, John Peiffer, Wayne White, Jen Coslett, Kirstie Towner, Mike Browne (Ex-Officio), Connie Worley, Amie Oltman, Janet Baker, Dacia Young, Kathy Miller, Diana Conrad, Sherri Engels, Mark VanBuren, Gene Kimball, Amy Seeber, Jennifer Ryan, Charleene Ogle, Kelly North, Oral Taylor, Jim Shum, Sue Ellen Walker, Bernie Spradling (BOE Member), Margaret Way, Mary Good, Karen Patterson, David Wagner (Ex-Officio), Norm Wilks (Ex-Officio), Sue Givens (Ex-Officio)

Also in attendance: PKHLS - Vince Haines, David Stewart; DLR Group - Brad Kiehl, Teri Kramer, Kevin Greischer, and Ken Graham

Welcome - After a welcome and review of activity since the last meeting by the architectural firms, Brad Kiehl provided a review of the agenda for the night.

Agenda Items
Beginning the Master Plan – The master plan will two parts, the overall district plan and site specific plans. The District-Wide Master Plan involves the following components:
o   Evaluate existing facilities
o   Review of educational programs
o   Review and/or development of facility standards (baseline)
o   Review demographic data and trends
o   Capacity evaluations
o   Educational suitability review
o   Financial analysis (with bonding company)
o   Schedule of implementation

Site Specific Master Plans contain a different set of components:
o   Creates and evaluates options
o   Review of educational programs
o   Evaluate existing and projected enrollment
o   Detailed conditions analysis
o   Options for facility rejuvenation
o   Factors and evaluation criteria

Review the May 7th Meeting¬ – Consensus as well as rating results by the facility task force, based upon initial and existing impressions, were reviewed as follows:
•   Space equipment, utilities/technology – rated as average
•   Academic performance – rated average
•   Class size – listed as both a weakness and strength
•   Current site assessment
o   Members indicated a preference for replacing Jefferson, Grandview, and the middle school (with 85% supporting replacement of EMS, but indicating maintaining the auditorium as important)
o   Improvements were the member preference for Lincoln, Skelly, and Washington
•   Planning priorities (what are the most important factors to consider)
o   Academic impact – 25%
o   Operation efficiency – 21%
o   Non-academic impact (transitions: attendance areas and feeder systems) – 19%
o   Political impact/intangibles – 17%
o   Lowers first cost (capital investment required) – 17%

Review of Current USD Infrastructure - Current facility assessments as evaluated by an independent study of the architectural firms using industry standards as comparison were highlighted for the group in a summary document showing each school’s ratings in a cross section of factors. Modular classrooms were removed from the calculations as an undesirable. Factors assessed included site square footage, acres, date constructed, building square footage, total classrooms, occupied classrooms, enrollment, percent of utilization, square footage per student, and student ratio per classroom. Ratings of 1-5 (with 5 being highest) were then applied per school on four factors: site; environment; sustainability, and; overall. A final report on building utilization using enrollment analysis was presented, again omitting modular classrooms and providing numerical quality values with 85% capacity being the industry standard for maximum efficiency.

Discussion then followed of several topics generated by the task force: wants versus needs; whether comparisons with area districts are needed, and; a reminder that the strategic plan of the BOE dictates a move to K-5 neighborhood schools versus the current attendance center configuration.

Perceptions - The task force was then asked to evaluate whether their perceptions have changed after being presented with the information gathered from the facility assessment. Three questions were posed:

1) Is student teacher ratio in the district a strength, weakness or average? Member responses were:
   Strength – 36%
Weakness – 40%
Average – 24%
2) Are elementary physical facilities adequate, or do they need improvement, need extensive improvement, or need replacement? Responses indicated:
   Adequate – 0%
   Need Improvement – 4%
   Need Extensive Improvement – 44%
   Need Replaced – 53%
3) Are the middle school physical facilities adequate, or do they need improvement, need extensive improvement, or need replacement? Responses indicated:
   Adequate – 0%
   Need Improvement – 4%
Need Extensive Improvement – 13%
Need Replaced – 83%

Additional task force discussion followed with the general consensus being the group should consider all options then determine the best fit for our community in both educational need and financing.

Next Steps – The architects will begin a study of educational adequacy beginning with teacher and administrator interviews.

The next meeting will be scheduled near the end of October with a Tuesday date preferred and Thursday as a second option. Monday, Wednesday and Friday meetings were not indicated as good dates for the majority of members. It is anticipated there will be a couple of meetings before the holidays.

PowerPoint (pdf version) of 5/7/09 Task Force Meeting
(Download Now)

Facilities Task Force Minutes
Thursday, May 7, 2009
EXTEND High School
6:00 p.m.

Members in attendance: Dan Ingalls, Co-Chair, Dave Sundgren, Co-Chair, Vicki Coash (BOE Member), Jim Waugh (BOE Member), Bernie Spradling (BOE Member), Kristy Randall, Wayne White, Mark VanBuren, Gina Meyer, Jim Shum, Rod Luehrs, Diana Conrad, Connie Worley, Sherry Hermreck, Cyndi Phillips, Deb LaForge, Allison Barkus, Judy George, Curtis Beer, Sherri Engels, Ed Gard, Charlene Ogle, Janet Baker, Matt Rehder, Kelly North, Kathy Miller, Karen Patterson, Jen Coslett, Oral Taylor, Julie Zirfas, Shane Krause, Jeanie Evans. Ex-Officio Members in attendance: David Wagner, Norm Wilks, Sue Givens, Jackie Clark.

Members not in attendance: Nancy Roberts, LaTisha Compos, Ayanna Rice, Morgan Metcalf, Tonya Cogan, Leon Leachman (BOE Member), Jobi Wertenberger, Sherri Burke, Mary Martha Good, Kari Hadley, Valecia Vogts, Mike Ward, Gene Kimble, Clara White, Amy Seeber, Mark Utech, Dacia Young, Greg Buster, Karlee Maitland, Jennifer Brown.

Also in attendance: PKHLS—Vince Haines, David Stewart; DLR Group—Teri Kramer, Brad Kiehl, Kevin Greischar

Welcome—Vince Haines of PKHLS Architecture provided background information about PKHLS and DLR Group. He said that information about consensus building and understanding our community would be on the agenda. He reminded task force members that the Elementary Configuration Team and the Facilities Task Force had been combined and will work together to complete the facilities study.

DLR Group and PKHLS Discussion Items—
Community Engagement—DLR Group suggested that we hold community conversations to engage the community in planning, to study the facts that are challenging the BOE and in turn to recommend a course of action to the BOE. They said bond campaigns are successful when campaigns are district led and community supported. They also suggested that we build a plan that meets the needs of the community and the district; define cost-effective long-term facility solutions; build trust with the community; seek advice from a financial advisor; build support with people in the community who do not have a vested interest; and eliminate patron apathy.

Successful Bond Issue Approach—DLR Group representatives suggested that we hold community conversations, build consensus, develop a master plan, and educate patrons. To be successful DLR Group said the district should run a dual path campaign. (Path one, run by the district, targets the vested voters or school-based informers. Path two, run by the bond committee, targets patrons and the community.) They also suggest the tax pain threshold is factored into the solution and the masterplan. DLR Group suggests the District conduct a survey to know what the community wants and expects from its schools, making sure the issue is perceived to be about education and students, and that the committee is confident the bond issue will pass prior to the vote. DLR Group stated successful campaigns are focused, organized and proactive. They suggest we avoid summer elections and said the ideal time is between Thanksgiving and Christmas for bond referendums. In addition, they said a successful campaign educates likely voters with the tangible benefits of voting YES and the consequences of a NO vote. For a bond issue to be successful and backed by the Community, DLR Group stated the importance that the entire school board is in support and active in the campaign.

Perceptions—DLR Group/PKHLS representatives spent time polling the group on their perceptions of the district. They suggested that some voters make choices based on perception rather on actual experience in our schools.
They surveyed the task force and identified these perceptions: USD 490 educational opportunities are limited due to facilities (space, equipment, utilities and technology); limited infrastructure; limited access to programs due to space constraints; visitors from out of district see deteriorating buildings with limited space, therefore, their perception of our district is “bad.” Another perception of the district is that our student to teacher ratio is high. However, district-wide the ratio is 20:1. Another perception is that students prefer to transfer to one elementary school over the others, however, transfers are equal across the district. DLR Group/PKHLS also surveyed the group’s perceptions of each school in the district. Some comments included concerns about safety and security on campuses where modulars are in place and where there are traffic flow issues. The middle school was perceived to be of historical significance to the community.

Preliminary Goal Setting—The task force identified the following priorities for our facilities: safe and secure, appropriate for 21st century programs, efficient floor plans, and more space for programs.

The group said to maintain the “El Dorado Feel” when planning for the future instructors and administrators should live in the community and the district must continue (and increase) volunteer involvement and provide space for them in our facilities. The Task Force Committee also said the district should value existing traditions, change the perceptions of our schools, maintain lower student/teacher ratios, define the meaning of “neighborhood schools” and the “El Dorado Feel.”

Task force members said the district could do a better job planning for future growth by evaluating the last bond issue and by involving our community on committees and task forces.

The group gave almost equal value to the following facility planning priorities: maximum building operational efficiency, non-academic student impact, academic student impact, community political intangibles and lowest first cost possible.

Next Steps—DLR Group and PKHLS representatives said the next steps would be to complete facility assessments this summer, do a demographic analysis with growth and population trends, study the educational adequacy of current facilities and study enrollment projections. They will look at educational programs and space needs as well as at equity and parity in all schools. They said, if necessary, site-specific needs would be identified and planned for.

Next Meeting—The Facilities Task Force will meet with PKHLS and DLR Group representatives in early August (a Tuesday or Thursday) to look at the data and analysis developed this summer.

**The District has provided a link on their website to keep the community and its patrons up to date on the progress of this study effort.
**The PowerPoint presentation for this task force meeting has been converted to a pdf for reference. Results of member input and comments are noted throughout the presentation. Please go to www.eldoradoschools for a copy of the pdf.

Facilities Task Force Minutes
Saturday, March 7, 2009
EXTEND High School
8:00 a.m.

Members in attendance: Dan Ingalls, Co-Chair, Dave Sundgren, Co-Chair, Vicki Coash (BOE Member), Kirstie Towner, Sherri Engels, Gina Meyer, Rod Luehrs, Judy George, Tonya Cogan, Jim Shum, Clara White. Jim Clennan, Mary Martha Good, Ed Gard, Van Pooler, Kelly North, Shane Krause, Debi LaForge Sue Ellen Walker, Brad Long, Dacia Young, Jennifer Ryan, Mark VanBuren, Jen Coslett, Dave Slayton, Oral Taylor, Janet Baker, Kathy Miller, Wayne White, Amy Seeber.
Ex-Officio Members in attendance: David Wagner, Norm Wilks, Sue Givens, Jackie Clark.
Members not in attendance: Grant Helferich, Mark Utech, Gene Kimball, Allison Barkus, Kristy Randall, Louise Tharp, LaTisha Campos, John Scanlon, Leon Leachman, Kim McCune, Miles Harvey, Stan Ruff, Doug Jensen, Julie Jensen, Mike Browne, Amy Clites, Linda Johnson, Keri Hadley, Jennifer Brown, Jeanne Evans, Mark Hart, Morgan Metcalf, Larry Nuckolls, Scott Rickard, Nancy Roberts, Ayana Rice, Mike Ward.

Architect Interviews—Committee members heard presentations from seven architect firms. Each firm shared examples of their work, explained the bond election process, the bond campaign and community consensus building, and they talked about the qualifications of their staff members.

• Goosen Livingston Associates, Inc (Wichita) — representatives: Tom Montgomery, Eric Eakins, Kirk Jurgensen, Ryan Craft.
• Howard and Helmer Architects (Wichita) — representatives: Ken Helmer, Rod Sondergard, Jeff Sherrard.
• Hanney & Associates Architects (Wichita) — representatives: Martin Hanney, Jenny Hanney.
• PKHLS Architects / DLR Group (El Dorado / Kansas City) — representatives: Vince Haines, David Stewart, Kevin Greischar, Brad Kiehl, Teri Kramer.
• Wilson & Company Engineers & Architects (Salina) — representatives: Bill Davis, John Plumer, Craig Grosser, Colleen Martinez.
• HTK Architects (Topeka) — representatives: Charles Smith, Elizabeth Johnson.
• PBA (Wichita) — representatives: Ed Klock, Allan Milbradt, Craig Stranathan.

Team Vote—After the interviews were complete, team members voted for their top three firms. After the votes were tabulated, Dan Ingalls announced that the three names that would be submitted to the Board of Education are: Howard & Helmer Architects, PKHLS / DLR and Wilson & Company.

The Board of Education will interview the three firms on Monday, March 30th beginning at 5:30 p.m.

Facilities Task Force Minutes
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
Administration Office
5:30 p.m.

Members in attendance: Dan Ingalls, Co-Chair, Dave Sundgren, Co-Chair, Vicki Coash (BOE Member), Leon Leachman (BOE Member), Wayne White, Larry Nuckolls, Clara White, Shane Krause, Mark VanBuren, Allison Barkus, Janet Baker, Dacia Young, Jennifer Ryan, Mike Ward, Jen Coslett, Louise Tharp, Kelly North, Amy Seeber, Mark Hart, Kathy Miller, Jennifer Brown, Grant Helferich, Debi LaForge, Jim Clennan, Sue Ellen Walker, Mark Utech, Gene Kimball, Van Pooler, Dave Slayton, Ed Gard, Scott Rickard, John Scanlon, Jim Shum, Sherri Engels, Kirstie Towner, Mary Martha Good, Rod Luehrs, Judy George, Keri Hadley and Gina Meyer. Ex-Officio Members in attendance: Mike Browne, Amy Clites, David Wagner, Norm Wilks, Kim McCune, Stan Ruff, Julie Jensen, Sue Givens, Miles Harvey, Linda Johnson, Doug Jensen, Jackie Clark.

Members not in attendance: Kristy Randall, Nancy Roberts, LaTisha Compos, Ayanna Rice, Jeanne Evans, Morgan Metcalf, Tonya Cogan, Oral Taylor.

Also in attendance: Curtis Beer, Paul Christner.

Welcome—Co-chair Dan Ingalls welcomed everyone to the meeting and reviewed the purpose of the task force: to conduct a study to address efficiency, educational impact, and community support for improvements to or replacement of current elementary and middle school buildings.

Timeline/Tasks—Co-chair Dave Sundgren reported that it would take about one year to complete the committee’s tasks. He said the first tasks would be to review a 10-year enrollment study and issue Requests for Proposals for architectural services to guide the study and any pursuant projects. The architectural presentations will be scheduled Saturday, March 7, 2009 beginning at 9:00 a.m. (The meeting is tentatively scheduled at El Dorado Middle School Cafeteria.) The purpose of this meeting would be to screen the proposals to three finalists for BOE consideration. He said that the task force’s work would accelerate in late April or early May.

Building Tour Information—Director of Operations David Wagner provided building spec sheets, enrollment data and floor plans for the five elementary schools and the middle school. He said the elementary schools were built in the 1950s and the middle school was completed in the 1930s.

Comments from Superintendent—Superintendent Sue Givens supplied responses to questions regarding:
•   Jefferson is a Kindergarten through second grade building. Skelly is a Pre-Kindergarten through second grade building. Washington and Lincoln are third through fifth grade buildings and Grandview is a Kindergarten through fifth grade attendance center.
•   She said the most successful bond issues are ones where everybody learns as much as they can about the school district and the district’s needs.
•   Givens asked members to call the building administrator if they need more information about a particular building.
•   Regarding a question about the architect’s services, she said that the architects would identify our needs and then work with the committee to develop a proposal on how to address those needs. She said the architects typically are not paid until a bond issue is passed.
•   When asked if the district had already identified specific needs/goals, she said that one goal identified by the Board of Education through their Strategic Planning process is to return all elementary schools to Kindergarten (or Pre-Kindergarten) through fifth grade attendance centers. She said the district wants to have fewer transitions for students.
•   Regarding the selection of an architectural firm, Givens said the BOE would look for a group that the community can trust and has a record of successful school bond projects. She said the district would conduct background checks on each of the finalists.
•   Givens said the task force plan should address safety needs including adequate parking and the safe flow of traffic around the buildings.
•   She said that the district does not own any undeveloped property.
•   She reminded the group that all-day kindergarten has doubled the number of classrooms needed for kindergarten classes. She said that where the pre-school programs are located would be one of the tasks assigned to the Elementary Configuration Team.

At 6:15 p.m. the group boarded buses to tour the elementary buildings and the middle school facility. Some members of the Elementary Configuration Team joined the tour.

Grandview Tour—Kim McCune, Principal (322-4830)
Grandview has three mobiles; largest rooms are a kindergarten classroom and the library; lack of space for volunteers to work one-on-one with students; extremely small kitchen-no space for a dishwasher or storage; lack of parking for staff and visitors; lack of storage in classrooms; plumbing issues; gym doubles as cafeteria.

Lincoln Tour—Miles Harvey, Principal (322-4850)
Lincoln is built on three levels causing issues for students and adults with handicaps or mobility issues; plumbing issues; the original Early Childhood classroom and the library were later additions to the building; no mobiles located at Lincoln; heating issues on the lower (east) level; hallways are cold (not temperature controlled); gym doubles as cafeteria.

Jefferson Tour—Amy Clites, Principal (322-4840)
The media center is in a mobile; two of the kindergarten classrooms have inadequate space; thermostats for some classrooms are located in the classroom next door; a tornado-ready study determined that Jefferson (as well as the other four elementary buildings) has a chimney stack that could be a challenge in a high wind storm or tornado; the stage houses the music classroom; art and P.E. are taught in the gym/cafeteria; plumbing issues; water pressure is minimal; breakers trip frequently; traffic issues are significant with parents double parking or students walking across traffic.

Skelly Tour—Linda Johnson, Principal (322-4860)
Stage is not walled off and volunteers use the stage to work one-on-one with students; there is a waiting list for all early childhood classrooms; early childhood and 4-year-old programs have AM and PM classes; not enough restrooms; there are three mobile units on the Skelly campus; the deck between two of these units is slick when wet or icy; music and art are offered in one of the mobiles; kindergarten classrooms are undersized; new lighting and ceilings in hallways provide better lighting and more appealing appearance.

Washington Tour—Stan Ruff, Principal (322-4870)
All classrooms are roughly the same size except for a special education classroom that is undersized and the literacy lab which is the original larger kindergarten classroom; one older mobile unit is used for music and art classes; the library is two classrooms combined; P.E. and band are conducted in gym/cafeteria; ceiling tiles are beginning to fall in the gym/cafeteria.

El Dorado Middle School—Mike Browne, Principal (322-4820)
Every room and space is utilized at EMS; three levels; over 150 students use the lunchroom at a time; campus is landlocked-little room for expansion; parking is inadequate for activities; nurse’s office bathroom is not ADA compliant and there are sewer issues; difficult to supervise students on the stairways and some hallways; difficult to maintain constant temperature with old boiler; steam pipes installed in the 1930s; difficult to find replacement parts of heating system components; window air-conditioners are loud; corridors are not heated or cooled; windows do not stay up when opened for air circulation; trash trucks and delivery trucks in alley between wings are loud; plaster coming off many of the walls; lockers are breaking and parts are no longer available; inadequate science facilities; windows leak air; classrooms are different sizes; auditorium has been remodeled but plaster is coming off walls; there are soft spots in the stage floor; the auditorium has no storage and the stage curtains are deteriorating; the health room/speech teacher’s room is the old sports equipment room which houses a loud ice machine; boys’ and girls’ locker rooms need to be updated; the gym has concrete seating; the concession stand is in the stands; the gym scoreboards are going out and goals are becoming difficult to raise and lower; a P.E. class is often held in the hallway if two P.E. classes need the gym at the same time.

Next Meeting—Saturday, March 7, 2009, 9:00 a.m. to hear the architects’ proposals. Location TBA.

Parent/Student Links

Weather Forecast

Mission Statement

El Dorado Public Schools

The mission of USD 490 is to prepare all students to succeed in the 21st Century. All stakeholders are committed to high-performing schools. To this end, the school district dedicates all its resources.

Adopted October 8, 2007

Parent/Student Links