OASD Facilities Planning

1
OASD Facilities Planning

• Attendance Area Team
• Recommendations
• July 30, 2007

2
Team members

• Dr. Ron Heilmann Chair
• Peter Cernohous - ASC
• Phil Marshall - ASC
• Tom McDermott - BOE/ASC
• Lisa McLaughlin - ASC
• Dennis Remington - ASC
• Samantha Smith CRT
• Judy Urben CRT
• Warren Utecht ASC

• Darryn Burich/David Buck
• Janna Cochrane
• Scott Colantonio
• Paul Redemann
• Chet Wesenberg

3
Questions

• Are there any factors that were not considered
  when this area was proposed that should now be
  considered and, if so, could another attendance
  area better address these factors?
• What is the immediate and ten-year impact of the
  proposed boundary shift in the attendance area
  contained in this resolution on students and
  families within the area, on present and future
  neighborhoods within the area, and on the schools
  students in the area will attend?

4
Meetings
5
Eight boundary options were evaluated on these
factors

• Does it accommodate future West side growth?
• Is it a K-12 solution?
• Is it the right number of students?
• Is additional busing required?
• Will this require additional boundary shifts
  beyond K-3 / 4-8 shifts to accommodate West side
  growth?
• Does it widen the socioeconomic gap between high
  schools?
• Does it abut North side feeder boundaries?

6
Option A Option B
7
Option C Option D
8
Option E Option F
9
Option G Option H
10
Option I
11
Status quo

• The current grade and building configuration
  would not score well if assessed against the
  seven factors.

12
Two events affected the assessment of the
boundary options

• The facilities plan scenario was modified two
  fewer buildings were closed.
• Geocoding of all OASD students by residence was
  completed providing more accurate assessment of
  boundary changes.

13
Public comment and web feedback centered on

• Concern about children driving past their
  neighborhood school to get to a new school.
• Concern about a small number of children being
  sent to a different feeder school than their
  peers.
• Home values declining due to attendance area
  changes.
• New housing development slowing due to students
  being sent to a more distant school.

14

• Proposed boundary area E not producing the
  numbers of students forecast

15
The original boundary option was proposed based
on the following assumptions

• Residential community growth is mostly to the
  West - balloon factor of the water boundaries and
  commercial and institutional land reserves
  forcing the growth west
• Development has slowed down
• There is a need to feed growth areas into North
  side schools to avoid continually chasing
  boundaries

16
The team worked from these premises

• Green Meadow, Oaklawn, Lincoln, and Smith will be
  closed.
• K-3, 4-8 will be implemented.

17
Answers to questions assigned to team

• Q Are there any factors that were not
  considered when this area was proposed that
  should now be considered and, if so, could
  another attendance area better address these
  factors?
• A No, but the number of children impacted and
  the distance of children from their school were
  considered.

18

• Q What is the immediate and ten-year impact of
  the proposed boundary shift in the attendance
  area contained in this resolution on students and
  families within the area, on present and future
  neighborhoods within the area, and on the schools
  students in the area will attend?

19
Impact of boundary options

• The team narrowed the options before assessing
  impact. Immediate and ten-year impact were
  identified for options
• B D
  F

20
The ASC/CRT provided clarification.

• Q Can the Attendance Area Team recommend a
  boundary option that would require construction
  above and beyond that already needed?
• A Responses centered on the current economic
  situation and suggested a boundary option that
  increased costs would not meet the overall
  objectives of the facilities plan. The boundary
  option should not be a cost driver.

21
Immediate impact

• A

22
Ten-year impact

• A

23
Based on the rating of the boundary options and
their impact, we recommend