Little Rock Schools: Stephens Elementary

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL EXHIBIT LIST DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS The following Exhibits, copies of which have been delivered to the Office of Desegregation Monitoring, are submitted in support of LRSD's "Motion to Close Stephens Incentive School" which will be heard on June 7, 1994: 1, Letter from Ann S. Brown to Dr. Henry P. Williams dated February 18, 1994 with attachments
2. Stephens School Relocation Timeline
3 . Fast Track Evaluation Program: School
Stephens Elementary 4. Facilities Study Recommendation Concerning Stephens and Garland schools
5. Computer printout showing cost per occupant to operate various LRSD schools and other facilities
6. Excerpt from facilities study showing estimates for renovation and repair of Stephens school
7. February 24, 1993 letter to Dr. Mac Bernd from Mayor Jim Daily
8, March 9, 1993 letter to Dr. Mac Bernd from Foster Strong, President, The Greater Little Rock Community Development Corporation
9. March 25, 1993 Memorandum to LRSD Board of Directors regarding Stephens site selection. 10. July 28, 1993 Memorandum from John Riggs to Stephens School Site Selection Committee. 11. August 11, 1993 Memorandum from John Riggs to Stephens School Site Selection Committee. 12. Petition of Stephens community residents. Respectfully submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE & CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Street Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 376-2011 By^ Christopher Hell CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing Exhibit List has been served on the following people by depositing copy of same in the United States mail on this 2nd day of June, 1994: Mr. John Walker JOHN WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Sam Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY & JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON & JONES, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol & Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell and Streett First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms Ann Brown Desegregation Monitor Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Elizabeth Boyter Arkansas Dept, of Education 4 State Capitol Mall Little Rock, AR 72201-1071 Christopher Hei Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 376-6200 Fax (501) 371 -0100 February 18, 1994 Dr. Henry P. Williams Little Rock School District 801 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Hank: Enclosed are a number of charts containing information which the Court asked ODM to provide the district. This information should be helpful as you consider a number of issues, particularly those relevant to the future of Stephens and a new LRSD interdistrict school. As the Court requested, the charts show the number of empty seats in the incentive schools, the number of empty seats at King, and the number of children who are enrolled in these schools. To show where LRSD children might most likely be targeted for recruitment to PCSSDs new Clinton Interdistrict School, we have prepared racial balance data on schools in various areas of town and also a chart on the Washington Attendance Zones illustrating the dispersement of children who live in that schools zones but attend elsewhere. We have also used the LRSDs data base and 1993-94 budget to generate additional information which is categorized according to the titles and subtitles of each docmnent. For example, one chart contains information on per-pupil expenditures by elementary school. Earlier this month. Bob Morgan and I met with Russ Mayo and Chris Heller to review the charts in draft form and to stress that our calculations were all based on data given us by the LRSD. We also gave Russ a computer disc containing the student data base from which we developed our charts. We have attempted to make each chart self-explanatory through headings, footnotes, or a brief introduction. However, some of the data may not be as self-evident as we intended it to be. So, please dont hesitate to contact me if we need to be clearer about any aspect of the information. Sincerely yours. t Cid-- "Ann S. Brown cc: Judge Susan Webber Wright Bobby Lester James Smith Russ Mayo All Counsel EXHIBIT 1School Acceptable Balance Otter Creek Jefferson Terry Forest Park Fulbright Pulaski Hts. McDermott Out of Balance Woodruff Mablevale Dodd Western Hills Brady Meadowcliff Chicot Badgett Geyer Springs Wilson Wakefield Bale Fair Park Baseline Watson Cloverdale Incentive Franklin Garland Mitchell Stephens Rightsell Rockefeller Interdistrict Washington King Romine Magnet LRSD Enrollment Showing Available Seats and Excess Capacity Principal Capacity Black White Total 93-94 Black Available Percent of 93-94 93-94 93-94 Percent Seats Capacity Booker Williams Carver Gibbs Carolyn Teeter Francis Cawthon La Dell Looper Virginia Ashley Mac Huffman Lillie Carter Mike Oliver Pat Higgenbotham Julie Davenport Patricia Howse Scott Morgan Mary Menking Jerry Worm Otis Presler Mary Golston Eleanor Cox Gwen Ziegler Willie Morris Levanna Wilson Barbara Means Mary Jane Cheatham Teresa Courtney Frederick Fields Franklin Davis Robert Brown Samuel Branch Lonnie Dean Sharon Davis Anne Mangan Karen Buchanan Sadie Mitchell Lionel Ward Dr. Cheryl Simmons Dr. Ed Jackson Mary Guinn Donna Davis Incentive school capacities reflected in the 1992 Desegregation Plan Totals for Elementary Schools Below Capacity Seats & Percent of Capacity 351 492 515 399 540 374 517 3188 324 515 328 328 467 465 558 257 328 394 492 401 351 390 492 492 6582 544 346 346 298 346 425 141 213 243 200 233 190 262 200 291 318 258 287 208 247 341 504 561 458 520 398 509 1482 1809 3291 41.35% 42.26% 43.32% 43.67% 44.81% 47.74% 51 47% 45.03% 10 -12 -46 -59 20 -24 8 -103 97% 102% 109% 115% 96% 106% 98% 103% 147 311 189 215 .263 306 356 132 208 263 337 225 200 265 353 304 89 177 103 117 134 128 153 57 80 91 110 78 63 78 89 82 236 488 292 332 397 434 509 189 288 354 447 303 263 343 442 386 4074 1629 5703 62.29% 63.73% 64.73% 64.76% 66.25% 70.51% 69.94% 69.84% 72.22% 74.29% 75.39% 74.26% 76.05% 77.26% 79.86% 78.76% 71.44% 88 27 36 -4 70 31 49 68 40 40 45 98 88 47 50 106 879 73% 95% 89% 101% 85% 93% 91% 74% 88% 90% 91% 76% 75% 88% 90% 78% 87% 300 181 215 141 184 240 45 24 15 4 5 100 345 205 230 145 189 340 2305 * 1261 193 1454 86.96% 88.29% 93.48% 97.24% 97.35% 70.59% 86.73% 199 141 116 153 157 85 851 63% 59% 66% 49% 55% 80% 63% 939 692 487 2118 656 517 613 353 2139 16332 2456 451 357 247 1055 321 257 325 170 1073 270 196 87 721 553 334 553 1608 62.55% 64.56% 73.95% 65.61% 218 139 153 510 77% 80% 69% 76% 274 215 270 129 595 472 595 299 888 1961 53.95% 54.45% 54.62% 56.86% 54.72% 61 45 18 54 178 91% 91% 97% 85% 92% 8945 5072 14017 86% 63.82% Printed February 1994 Prepared by the Office of Desegregation Monitoring based upon information supplied by the Little Rock School District UnauditedENROLLMENT IN DOWNTOWN ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS Prepared by ODM February 1994 For the purpose of this document, ODM has identified a downtown elementary school as any elementary school located within these boundaries: east of University, west of Adams Field, north of Fourche Creek, and south of Markham. These boundaries create a rectangular area encompassing the six incentive schools (Franklin, Garland, Mitchell, Rightsell, Rockefeller, and Stephens), three magnet schools (Booker, Carver, and Gibbs), two interdistrict schools (King and Washington), one area school (Woodruff), and the kindergarten classes at Central High School. By using the defined boundaries, some schools outside the downtown area have a few contiguous attendance zones that fall within the downtown area: Bale Elementary has four zones east of University, Fair Park has four zones and a partial zone south of Markham, and Pulaski Heights has one zone south of Markham. Woodruff, which is identified as a downtown school, has one zone north of Markham. However, for the purpose of this document, all zones within the defined boundaries are identified in the downtown area. A list of the zones defined for the purpose of this document as downtown attendance zones is provided. The information used to complete the last nine columns of this document is from the Little Rock School District (LRSD) student enrollment data base as of December 8, 1993. The second column is the October 1, 1993 enrollment reported to Arkansas Department of Education. The capacity figures in the third column are reported from LRSD as the current capacities. The fourth and fifth columns are results of calculations based on enrollment and capacity.LRSD DOWNTOWN ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS School Enrollment Oct 1 Capacity % Filled Available Seats Live downtown but attend outside downtown Total Black White Franklin Incentive 345 544 63 199 270 260 10 Garland Incentive 205 346 59 141 118 117 1 Mitchell Incentive 230 346 66 116 131 127 4 Rightsell Incentive 189 346 55 157 90 87 3 Rockefeller Incentive 340 425 80 85 74 72 2 Stephens Incentive 145 298 49 153 86 86 0 Sub Total Incentive Schools 1,454 2,305 63 851 769 749 20 Booker Magnet 595 656 91 61 N/A N/A N/A Carver Magnet 595 613 97 18 N/A N/A N/A Gibbs Magnet 299 353 85 54 N/A N/A N/A Sub Total Magnet Schools 1,489 1,622 92 133 0 0 0 King Interdistrict 553 692 80 139 90 89 1 Washington Interdistrict Magnet 721 939 77 218 262 253 9 Sub Total Interdistrict Schools 1,274 1,631 78 357 352 342 10 Woodruff (Area) 236 324 73 88 17 15 2 Central Kindergarten 50 50 100 0 N/A N/A N/A Satellite Zones N/A N/A N/A N/A 747 722 25 Contiguous Zones N/A N/A N/A N/A 313 253 60 Grand Total 4,503 5,932 76 1,429 2,198 2,081 117 Live downtown and attend downtown Total Black White 281 190 192 165 238 136 1,202 130 130 102 362 331 406 737 156 46 N/A N/A s 2,503 263 172 177 163 192 135 1,102 116 124 88 328 317 383 700 113 46 N/A N/A 2,289 18 18 15 2 46 1 100 14 6 14 34 14 23 37 43 0 N/A N/A 214 Live outside downtown but attend downtown Total Black White 55 28 27 14 29 22 142 9 271 461 465 198 1,124 217 314 531 75 4 N/A 2,005 6 8 21 17 62 6 140 202 206 83 491 17 65 82 33 4 N/A 750 8 5 80 3 131 259 259 115 633 200 249 449 42 0 N/A 1,255 Note: Incentive school capacities are based on a 20 to 1 ratio in kindergarten through sixth grade, 18 to 1 in programs for four-year-olds, 18 to 1 in programs for three-year- olds, 17 to 1 in programs for trwo-year-olds, and 10 to 1 in the programs for infants.There are seven satellite zones in the downtown area wherein students are assigned and transported to schools outside the downtown area: Brady, Forest Park Jefferson, McDermott, Meadowcliff, Otter Creek, and Terry. However, all students in those satellite zones do not attend the targeted schools. For example, Terry has 138 students identified within the downtown satellite zone (all black) of which 25 attend Terry. The remaining 113 students are assigned to 29 different schools. There are no satellite zones for the downtown area that would result in students being assigned and transported to a school downtown. Targeted School Brady McDermott Forest Park Jefferson Meadow cliff Terry Otter Creek Students in satellite zone Students attending targeted school Students outside targeted school Number of schools students attending outside the targed school 66 33 33 16 180 66 114 23 162 60 102 29 273 71 202 29 191 72 119 32 138 25 113 29 124 39 85 22Incentive School Attendance Zones and Schools Attended Incentive Zone School Attending School Franklin___________________ Garland___________________ Mitchell___________________ Rightsell__________________ Rockefeller_______________ Booker___________________ Carver____________________ Gibbs_____________________ Williams Badgett___________________ Bale Baseline Brady Chicot Cloverdale Elem Dodd Fair Park Forest Park Fullbright Geyer Springs Jefferson M.L. King Mablevale Elem McDermott Meadowcliff Otter Creek_______________ Pulaski Heights Elem Romine Stephens Terry Wakefield Washington Watson__________________ Western Hills Wilson Woodruff Central Kindergarten Fair Kindergarten Parkview Kindergarten Total of Incentive School Zone Blocks i I ! T T T I T ! I - i I cc c s u, o t IO O I S! q> i W ! ib 194
101 51 41 41 101 41 _IL 12! 21 261 31 151 51 01 141 181 161 81 201 7! 2! 351 30! ___r 18! 71 10 12' 1 3i ___0. 11 111 10! 1! 1 21 7i 136i 6i 211 II 0| 2i 3! 01 __4^ 3! 4 3 0 4 6 7 1 1 5 1 109 6' 71 2 6 9' 2\ 31 4 8 539! 14 5 0 81 181 41 1| 21 191 141 11 7 11 141 41 -51 11 01 9 _3L 5j 31 lOi 51 4! 6 12i 5! 15
14! 7' 7\ 01 3! 3! 2! 41 01 9? 1\ 11 0 II 312 318 Ol 11 8! 1291 71 8! 6 31 1| 01 31 21 31 ~6r~ 1! 31 1i 5, 61 131 4! 2'. 31 111 3! 9 0 01 61 6i 291 IT 2. 11 . 41 31 01 01 O I It ' 41 41 31 4 118 8 3 7 1 4 4 2 4 6 3 6 0 1 0 6 1 2 2 4 IO c v -c Q. o W 3 9! 11 Ol 1 0 o o c u tn -0 -o 320 01 2! 31 0! 1 0 9 31 11 3! 1 0 6 3 20 0 1' 3 4 6 2 1 257 2! II i
8! 51 2! 01 151 O' Ih 1. 01 1 0 821 121 2 3 0 51 _L1 51 3! 01 01 200 a c J? S) 25 213 161 132 144 138 33 21 60 22 9 44 14 43 31 8 19 32 52 26 25 69 35 11 76 83 16 39 10 114 53 15 66 2 33 29 35 25 4 4 1946 Printed February 1994 Prepared by the Office of Desegregation Monitoring based on information supplied by the Little Rock School District UnauditedSchools Sending Students to Incentive Schools Incentive School Sending Zone School Franklin_____________________ Garland_____________________ Mitchell______________________ Rightsell_____________________ Rockefeller__________________ Stephens____________________ Badgett______________________ Bale_________________________ Baseline Brady Chicot_______________________ Cloverdale Elem____________ Dodd________________________ Fair Park____________________ Forest Park_________________ Fullbright____________________ Geyer Springs______________ Jefferson____________________ M.L King___________________ Mablevale Elem____________ McDermott__________________ Meadowcliff_________________ Otter Creek_________________ Pulaski Heights Elem_______ Romine_____________________ Terry Wakefield___________________ Washington_________________ Watson_____________________ Western Hills_______________ Wilson Woodruff___________________ North Little Rock____________ Pulaski County Legal Transfer______________ No zone I I I I i I I I I I Total of Students Attending Incentive Schools .c c 194 1 5 01 41 3 0 14 5 6 3 1 1 9 2 - 31 Ti 01 71 201 61 4 31 91 21 9i 3l 21 3i 0! Oi 11 II I 1 336' O c <D c (0 O "O) c: 4a Qi .O) S <b u o K 101 1361 11 11 4l 91 01 61 01 4' 1
1! 31 1 0
0 01 1' 01 0
81 61 2
O' 01 3, O' 4 01 1 2' 0! 0 01 O' 0 51 109 8 3' 1 0 1' 0 3 4l 11 6j 1291 4 0 0 4I II 21 71 4. 204
01 11 2i 31 21 11 61 71 Ti 31 31 20 1i 21 1 0i 11
3
0! 4
2^ Oi 01 Oi 0! I 221! 01 o' o' 3 2 o' 1 ' 0 4' 3! tT 01 81 2! 11 Qi 31 01 0: 31 11 0 1' 0! 01 4- 2 11 1 187' 1181 ZT 81 TT 91 T 61 31 21 81 121 ___ 391 __ 21 ___ 7! 6 61 31 8' 41 311 5i 1! 41 10 1 131 1. O' 380' c (1) c Q. .jU W 10 19 3 0 0 82 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 3 1 1 01 6 1 0 0 1 4 0 5i 0 0 4 1 1 0 01 145 o o _ c X a o Q C co 42 c c O QI o l~ W N 227 170 131 145 133 96 9 41 14 15 19 11 13 15 14 22 15 51 19 3 38 39 35 11 12 25 6 63 12 7 14 16 8 17 8 2 1473 Pnnted February 1994 Prepared by the Office of Desegregation Monitoring based on information supplied by the Little Rock School District UnauditedWashington Attendance Zone Students not at Washington, the Stipulation Magnets or King School 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 12 12 12 17 17 17 17 Central Central Central Central Central Central Central Central McClellan McClellan McClellan 18 18 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 Bale Bale Bale Bale Brady Brady Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett I Badgett Name Class K K K K IK K K K K K K 03 04 05 P4 01 05 01 01 02 02 02 02 02 02 02 03 03 03 04 04 04 04 05 05 05 05 05 05 05 05 05 05 06 06 06 06 06 06 06 06 06 06 06 06 06 Student ID Zone Block 939926 940177 958755 959096 959252 959506 959807 959812 950081 960545 960805 929207 950598 918916 959373 952488 916865 936007 937049 927595 928747 930971 933965 934913 935342 936452 929232 931103 937535 919341 922211 925877 961005 908367 910318 913061 916045 918958 918964 918967 919347 920475 932327 895059 896341 896527 897157 905235 910119 910347 910385 913270I 913968 925876 926004 937531 482 482 481 481 484 481 240 483 124 301 484 481 123 481 220 474 478 240 483 220 240 220 123 240 220 220 240 126 483 220 126 126 123 220 240 220 240 482 123 483 220 220 240 220 124 123 482 240 220 124 126 220 474 126 483 483 Page 1Washington Attendance Zone Students not at Washington, the Stipulation Magnets or King School 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 20 20 20 20 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 23 23 23 23 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 25 25 25 25 Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett McDermott McDermott McDermott McDermott Baseline Baseline Baseline Baseline Baseline Baseline Baseline Baseline Baseline Baseline Baseline Baseline Baseline Baseline Baseline Baseline Fair Park Fair Park Fair Park Fair Park Forest Park Forest Park Forest Park Forest Park Forest Park Forest Park Forest Park Forest Park Forest Park Forest Park Forest Park Forest Park Forest Park Forest Park Forest Park Franklin Franklin Franklin Franklin Name Class Student ID Zone Block 06 K K K K K K P4 P4 P4 P4 P4 P4 01 02 06 06 01 01 02 02 02 03 03 04 04 05 05 05 05 06 K K 01 03 K P4 01 01 01 02 02 03 03 03 03 06 06 06 K K K 01 01 03 03 961311 939897 939944 939946 952423 959551 961273 956706 956789 956798 957014 957442 958430 959481 959478 909989 959477 936945 951189 930498 936457 936467 930382 930884 917043 924017 911525 915454 918878 932095 932096 951930 959515 934286 929357 960765 958854 938480 950814 960294 929108 960292 929935 935767 935783 960649 918997 935784 950740 951261 956384 959345 934018 935131 925116 930446 220 240 220 220 220 125 220 481 240 125 126 483 220 483 483 481 483 240 124 126 124 124 124 478 126 124 124 478 240 481 481 126 478 240 240 126 483 126 124 483 125 483 240 220 126 123 126 126 123 124 220 125 483 482 482 481 Page 2Washington Attendance Zone Students not at Washington, the Stipulation Magnets or King School 25 I 25 I 25 I 25 25 26 26 26 26 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 29 29 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 31 31 Name Class Student ID Zone Block Franklin Franklin Franklin Franklin Franklin Garland Garland Garland Garland Chicot Chicot Chicot Chicot Chicot Chicot Chicot Chicot Chicot Chicot Chicot Chicot Chicot Chicot Chicot Chicot Chicot Chicot Chicot Chicot Chicot Chicot Chicot Western Hills Western Hills Jefferson Jefferson Jefferson Jefferson Jefferson Jefferson Jefferson Jefferson Jefferson Jefferson Jefferson Jefferson Jefferson Jefferson Jefferson Jefferson Jefferson Jefferson Jefferson I Jefferson Cloverdale Elem Cloverdale Elem 03 05 06 K P4 02 K K P4 01 01 01 01 01 01 02 02 02 02 02 02 02 02 03 03 04 05 05 06 06 K K 04 06 01 01 02 02 02 02 02 03 03 03 03 03 04 04 04 04 06 06 06 K 01 01 951919 930447 896347 938615 957032 952489 952490 960770 957595 935182 951670 951917 961153 961239 961470 928428 929776 933656 934065 934387 935564 935766 961152 930745 951869 923996 913547 951872 896357 951672 959482 961295 923304 896342 950885 961465 930524 930525 930865 932094 936961 924292 929835 930397 937012 937277 930572 932018 937851 957844 910115 911236 957846 956673 934242 951957 481 481 124 482 482 474 474 127 220 124 478 123 482 478 240 481 126 484 482 123 240 220 482 126 478 483 123 483 126 478 124 220 220 220 124 483 125 125 125 481 125 124 482 126 220 481 123 220 482 123 127 126 123 220 126 125 Page 3Washington Attendance Zone Students not at Washington, the Stipulation Magnets or King School Name Class Student ID Zone Block 31 31 31 31 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 Cloverdale Elem Cloverdale Elem Cloverdale Elem Cloverdale Elem Dodd Dodd Dodd Dodd Dodd Dodd Dodd Dodd Dodd Dodd Dodd Dodd Meadowcliff Meadowcliff Meadowcliff Meadowcliff Meadowcliff Meadowcliff Meadowcliff Meadowcliff Meadowcliff Meadowcliff Meadowcliff Meadowcliff Mitchell Mitchell Mitchell Mitchell Mitchell Mitchell Mitchell Mitchell Mitchell Mitchell Mitchell Rockefeller Rockefeller Rockefeller Rockefeller Rockefeller Rockefeller Rockefeller' Rockefeller Rockefeller Rockefeller Rockefeller Rockefeller Rockefeller Rockefeller Rockefeller Rockefeller Rockefeller 02 04 05 K 01 01 02 03 04 04 05 05 06 06 06 K 01 01 02 02 02 03 03 04 04 05 06 K 01 02 03 03 03 04 05 05 05 06 K 01 01 01 01 02 02 02 02 02 02 02 02 i03 04 04 04 05 935085 916339 918115 951336 931558 933883 937378 916712 916958 960998 910860 914224 912606 914018 960997 960360 951496 951497 926800 931798 935969 928641 936600 918895 936601 917160 896351 940141 961203 930135 922914 929087 932037 917590 910227 919152 920191 912910 959352 934077 934479 934849 935715 926278 928123 928183 928187 928301 928360 928510 930459 930461 918346 921616 922162 913922 125 483 484 125 126 127 126 482 127 484 484 127 126 124 484 127 124 124 127 483 124 124 481 124 481 127 124 482 240 220 240 482 481 220 220 126 484 125 240 482 482 220 483 220 220 478 220 301 483 301 220 220 124 220 220 220 Page 4Washington Attendance Zone Students not at Washington, the Stipulation Magnets or King School Name Class Student ID Zone Block 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 39 39 39 40 41 41 41 41 41 44 44 44 44 44 44 Rockefeller Rockefeller Rockefeller Rockefeller Rockefeller Rockefeller Rockefeller Rockefeller Rockefeller Rockefeller Rockefeller Rockefeller Rockefeller Rockefeller Geyer Springs Geyer Springs Geyer Springs Geyer Springs Geyer Springs Geyer Springs Geyer Springs Geyer Springs Geyer Springs Geyer Springs Geyer Springs Geyer Springs Geyer Springs Pulaski Heights Pulaski Heights Pulaski Heights Pulaski Heights Pulaski Heights Pulaski Heights Pulaski Heights Pulaski Heights Pulaski Heights Pulaski Heights Pulaski Heights Pulaski Heights Pulaski Heights Pulaski Heights Rightsell Rightsell Rightsell Romine Stephens ' Stephens Stephens Stephens Stephens Wilson Wilson Wilson Wilson Wilson Wilson 05 05 06 06 06 06 06 K K P2 P3 P4 P4 P4 01 01 02 02 02 02 02 02 03 04 06 K K 01 02 02 03 03 04 04 06 06 06 06 06 K K 01 03 05 05 01 04 04 04 06 02 03 04 04 05 06 916520 917227 896368 905240 910579 910629 930206 939636 939895 939176 952196 956808 956973 958660 950305 953072 928204 929152 935764 935765 937347 937348 931438 932294 935781 961082 961083 959811 928486 933344 923617 959509 917620 957969 893243 894270 896417 910527 959005 959100 960511 934154 927548 910809 930496 935180 917504 923334 925326 895902 932736 930750 915829 924742 924360 896432 220 301 220 220 483 220 240 220 478 482 220 220 220 220 478 474 483 474 482 482 482 482 478 482 482 484 484 484 125 124 482 481 124 474 220 220 220 482 478 482 124 474 474 220 126 124 124 483 124 240 474 126 220 220 474 240 Page 5Washington Attendance Zone Students not at Washington, the Stipulation Magnets or King School Name Class Student ID Zone Block 44 44 44 44 44 45 46 46 46 46 46 46 47 47 47 47 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 50 50 50 51 51 51 51 51 51 51 51 51 51 51 51 51 51 51 51 52 52 52 52 52 52 Wilson Wilson Wilson Wilson Wilson Woodruff Mablevale Elem Mablevale Elem Mablevale Elem Mablevale Elem Mablevale Elem Mablevale Elem Terry Terry Terry Terry Fullbright Fullbright Fullbright Fullbright Fullbright Fullbright Fullbright Fullbright Otter Creek Otter Creek Otter Creek Wakefield Wakefield Wakefield Wakefield Wakefield Wakefield Wakefield Wakefield Wakefield Wakefield Wakefield Wakefield Wakefield Wakefield Wakefield Wakefield Watson Watson Watson Watson Watson Watson 06 06 K K K 01 01 01 01 01 04 05 01 02 03 04 01 02 02 02 03 03 04 K 01 06 06 02 02 02 03 03 03 03 04 04 04 05 05 05 06 K K 01 02 03 04 06 06 907223 912946 957974 959908 960923 951862 934208 935650 950854 952103 930414 911752 950976 928038 959669 959670 951921 928039 936097 936420 925592 931927 919839 961394 951013 955199 955201 933364 952129 961258 925000 926057 928808 932135 908112 923295 931269 907724 910429 913208 910438 957988 961259 938481 930250 922739 927950 894474 914000 126 220 125 123 220 484 220 124 125 124 478 124 240 481 478 478 220 474 481 481 220 220 220 220 483 481 481 483 125 126 125 125 483 125 125 124 482 240 124 478 478 125 126 220 220 125 127 127 240 Total Students: 329 Printed February 1994 Prepared by the Office of Desegregation Monitoring based upon information supplied by the Little Rock School District Unaudited Page 6Dept. Name "Western" Little Rock Schools* 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 47 24 20 38 48 30 18 40 Terry Forest Park McDermott Pulaski Heights Fullbright Jefferson Brady Romine * Excluding Williams T otals / Averages LRSD Per Pupil Expenditure by Elementary School 1993-1994 Budget Budget 93-94 $1,145,178.91 $988,864.02 $1,248,156.17 $978,390.22 $1,324,665.59 $1,299,887.52 $1,046,436.40 $1,267,911.36 $9,299,490.19 "Southwestern" Little Rock Schools 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 46 33 51 50 29 52 37 31 22 32 28 44 Mablevale Meadowcliff Wakefield Otter Creek Western Hills Watson Geyer Spnngs Cloverdale Baseline Dodd Chicot Wilson $1,127,741.07 $1,008,936.95 $1,062,990.19 $844,592.87 $846,932.77 $1,131,673.02 $748,975.30 $1,011,782.28 $974,301.85 $834,015.87 $1,550,045.51 $1,144,796.51 PTE 45 37 42 40 47 45 43 45 46 33 41 30 34 43 34 42 41 35 64 40 Enrollment Black Enrollment Black % Per Pupil Budget Spent on Black Children T otals! Averages $12,286,784.19 "Fringe" Little Rock Schools 1 2 3 23 17 19 Fair Park Bale Badgett $867,162.06 $1,117,713.33 $708,951.85 32 43 28 T otals / Averages $2,693,827.24 "Inner Citv" Little Rock Schools* 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 45 35 42 25 36 34 39 26 41 49 Woodruff M L. King Washington Franklin Rockefeller Mitchell Rightsell Garland Stephens Ish $644,242.24 $1,588,019.16 $2,278,100.33 $1,567,895.14 $1,764,565.19 $1,311,925.10 $1,238,154.99 $1,408,766.58 $1,273,272.88 $70,411.25 27 77 90 62 72 50 44 50 46 "Inner City Schools as a Group Incentive Schools Only Woodruff. King & Washington $13,074,941.61 $8,564,579.88 $4,510,361.73 *Excluding Carver,Gibbs and Booker Magnets Total Black Enrollment Black Enrollment in Non-lncentive Schools Black Enrollment in Incentive Schools 561 458 509 398 520 504 397 334 243 200 262 190 233 213 263 247 43 44 51 48 45 42 66 74 $2,041.32 $2,159.09 $2,452.17 $2,458.27 $2,547.43 $2,579.14 $2,635.86 $3,796.14 $496,040.06 $431,818.35 $642,469.38 $467,070.71 $593,552.08 $549,357.23 $693,231.17 $937,647.02 3681 1851 50% $2,526.35 $4,676,271.76 488 434 447 341 332 442 288 386 343 292 509 354 311 306 337 141 215 353 208 304 265 189 356 263 64 71 75 41 65 80 ,72 79 77 65 70 74 $2,310.94 $2,324.74 $2,378.05 $2,476.81 $2,551.00 $2,560.35 $2,600.61 $2,621.20 $2,840.53 $2,856.22 $3,045.28 $3,233.89 $718,703.84 $711,370.29 $801,404.24 $349,230.48 $548,465.50 $903,802.21 $540,926.61 $796,844.08 $752,740.50 $539,825.34 $1,084,118.27 $850,512.66 4656 3248 70% $2,638.91 $8,597,944.01 263 303 189 755 236 553 721 345 340 230 189 205 145 2964 1454 1510 200 225 132 557 147 357 451 300 240 215 184 181 141 2216 1261 955 7372 6611 1261 76 74 70 74% 62 65 63 87 71 93 97 88 97 75% 87% 63% 100% 84% 16% $3,297.19 $3,688.82 $3,751.07 . $3,567.98 $2,729.84 $2,871.64 $3,159.64 $4,544.62 $5,189.90 $5,704.02 $6,551.08 $6,872.03 $8,781.19 $4,411.25 $5,890.36 $2,986.99 $3,256.57 $2,739.83 $5,965.67 $659,438.83 $829,985.15 $495,140.97 $1,987,366.59 $401,286.48 $1,025,176.93 $1,424,997.57 $1,363,387.08 $1,245,575.43 $1,226,364.77 $1,205,399.57 $1,243,837.81 $1,238,148.11 $10,374,173.74 $7,522,712.76 $2,851,460.98 $25,635,756.09 $18,113,043.33 $7,522,712.76 Pnnted February 1994 Prepared by the Office of Desegregation Monitonng based upon inforrnation supplied by the Little Rock School Distnct Based upon Octi, 1993 enrollment data and LRSD 1993-94 Budget Unauditedstudent Counts of Sending and Receiving Schools - LRSD Elementary Grades - Summary Sending Zone School Attending School Badgett ______ Bale __________ _ _____ Booker _ _____ Carvw___________ Chicot 1 Cloverdale Elem D odd _____________ Fair ___________ _ Fran^ FdIxyM____________ _ ____ __ <^er Spongy____ JeflerMn _ __ ML King _ ______ McOermqn ___ Meadowdifl _________ __________ __________ Pulastd Heights Bem Righlsei____________ RockefeKer___________ Ronine_____________ Stephere____________ ____________ W^ehetd WasNngIqn _ We^n HiMs _____ Woodufi Central Kindergarten Fair kmdagarten Hal Kindergarten_____ McClelan Kindergarten Partvrew Kindergarten 106 _ 1 b i Ip 1 11 1 q 2 0 0 0 0' 0 1 b q q q q 0 0 1 0 8 Zq 1 b q 1 Ji 2 ZI q 1 i J 2 158 _q 14 7 _ 4 0 ' 9 _5 5 14 3 _6 3 12 4 5 '0 _7 .1 2 6 0 14 14 Z_ 1 _5 21i _ b 11 12 7 '2 i S 1 _q 0 ' 196 Z's "1 3 8 J2 6 2 2 5 o' _q 11 ' _2 3 'is _q _i 0 3 0 0 _2 _ q 0 _8 Z 111 2 __6 q 0 0 I _ q 3 n izi J _i _i -12 6 _l _4 _2 _7 11 _ 1 b J3 b 3 1 2 0 1 13 2 is 2 ^b J pi 2 5 ' b Grand Total Sendng Schod I 1 li 20 112 _ 4 ^io 269 28 J 3 i _q' _3 1 1 li' _4 0 5 _ii 2 __8 __3 __7 1 0 J2 __1 0 4 'i2 J2 35 Z_1 4 9 i 0 _i^ _q 9 ' 17 1^ _9 190 _1 11 _1 Z i _b 1 to 5 1 7 20 _1 4 0 6 1 -3 6 "j Jq 2 14 ie 12 '0 3 0 b ' 0 1 2 _2 2 li ' J 11 1 146 2 1 1 3 3 1 i 1 .... 4 8 0 2 3 23 0 3 0 _4 b J12 9 it 0 0 1 I I c ? c i q 0 1 b 0 0 0 0 1 b 2 0 0 2 0 1 q 1 b 'i 1 q 0 0 1 b 1 2 135 369 336 361 533 375 276 0 _3" q '13 6 _8 1 i o' 141 9 9 3 1 2 11 lb 2 q 25 6 __2 0 13 0 6 1 li 2 q 8 _41 2 6 i 0 3 0 0 343 1 5 11 5 1^ 0 _2 J2' 265 2 22 b 0 Z 9 11 3 11 __3 3 2 9 1 8 _o __q _2 4 8 0 '2 ii 1 19 1 q b 0 0 2 26 3 lb 15 4 5 0 _0 1] 10 194 16 10" _0 2 '20 7 2 35 _3q 5 1 18 4 4 7 lb 12 3 lo _J1 12 ii io i 1 b 0 2 0 9 0 ' 19 " 44 Zzi 4 _q' _2 5 7 5 336 0 2 _P __0 2 0 26 _3 2 1 10 0 12 21 3 19 q 23 Zl 2 13 JZ 5 b 2 '2 0 4 I 0 4 3 _0 4 2 3 4 6 _ I 7 i 136 1 4 J4 5 0 8 10 6 (rt o I is 1 0 0 2q Z 6 b 4 5 '9 0 _q 0 3 0 q 122 5 I 3 0 0 JO 6 38 2 0 3 8 30 1 9 1 ti o> c 2 1 314 441 539 637 _4 I 1 1 2 14 1 2 J 14 3 4 5 1 J b 0 0 q 2 '0 J2 1 2 4 6 _ 1 J 2 17 J4 4 1 6 q 2 0 b ' 0 0 0 10 1 7 JI 6 2 17 3 39 2 i J 2? 3 2 11 3 3 ' 2 Jo i 1 0 2 0 1 _1 _5 _6 10 2 '0 __7 __5 __3 1 _P _ 1 io 11 253 1 o I 0 2 6 i 5 28 26 i 0 q 0 0 0 3 'q q 0 7 264 0 Zq 7 18 6 7 2 -1 0 2 2 Zl 1 2 2 i ' i 2 b J 1 0 2 2 J 3 _q 0 ~2 J b 0 _i 9 23 q ^4 3 0 0 I b 2 b 312 271 5941 407 397 ! s 1 o & I _6 -I 5 "13 ' ' lb' 1 ' 0 ' 7 _!? _1 7^' Z21 8 1 2 Ji 4 _b 295 q 3 ~~ b 10 8 _ 6 8 6 I12 q ZO b li .JI 5 9 0 1 1 b 0 0 11 _ 0 _i2 6 _P 2 _] 7 ' _4 Jl _ 5 '6 is Ji _7 2 5 5 247 _3 2 6 2 7 0 __1 5 '_7 7 2 2 _6 _ 3 8 0 0 527 450 .1.. J 3 6 '4 ' 7 8 6 9 3 Jl 3 11 J5 5 _ 1 4 9 6 12 J 5 _i5 II 109 _ 7 7 6 7 0 3 3 ' 2 2 JZl _q 2 9 7 II b b 0 1 318 J 3 3 0 2 2 16 sb _9 6 Z1 6 Jl 2 6 3 i 15 Z 1 J0 20 260 1 1 6 3 q 4 4 V1 16 0 6 '2 i 3 3 b 2 1 551 g m w ra 3 0 2 0 3 3 4 1 2* g q '3 2 2 11 6 I 4 S g IX 0 4 2 8 4 3 5 2 7 17 ii I & 55 q ' 1 0 q 9 '0 g- q 0 12 2 _ 6 4 ' 5 q 0 19 10 5 b 6 1 i ~ b 205 2 _ 6 3 " q 3 6 1 ' 3 1 ' i lo 2 1 6 31 ?3 4 2 3 II 0 3 __1 129 7 _ 0 q 6 6 3 q 7 0 4 Z2 7 1 2 2 4 3 '3 3 4 118 II b 6 2 b 24 3 ' 2 3 '2 '0 b 2 4 i i 9 ' b 2 _o 3 _3 3 2 "i i 8 5 3 2 9 q 2 15 5 b ii 7 I 0 1 b I 2 5 4 '16 12 '26 2 '4 " i 2 8 9 3 3 " 0 3 2 2 i 13 3 i i 1 g 2 "7 9 15 12 6 ^2 I 4 1 4 2 _2 " 0 17 7 15 0 8 177 0 2 1 41 0 7 0 q 8 I 19 i 0 I 0 0 327 6 29 i 3 'b 2 i i 4 3 b 0 q 0 1 i 3 4 6 2 b 0 1 0 4 1 19 3b II ' I 0 3 b q "4 12 2 3 0 4 116 1 I4 0 0 b 4 2 _ 4 q 0 q _4 i "b b 323 7 o R) s _52 4 Ii 32 2 23 ' 6 '2 4 9 ' 6 4 13 '4 20 ib 6 4 12 I 3 14 3 31 i 5 4 ' 16 '6 c 1 g I S S 5 q '2 8 PO b 1? 132 5 0 1 4 q 3 " 2 2 3 31 b 2 J 8 q 1 5 _ 0 _q q "it 'q 295 0 6 _1 2 3 I 2 1 i 3 2 J 1 b 5 b b 2 2 J q 0 J 0 Zi 8 q 7 1 2 i _q 12 q Z^'* ^1 _'3 Z 1 1 15 4 3 14 ' 2 "q ' It 3 1 0 _i __4 0 __3 1 4 25 0 17 2 30 2 1 3 0 0 2 4 _2 i 0 ' 0 " i 3 q P q 4 " 4 2 b 2 _ 1 'i J2 0 12 0 10 R c e co a _l ex I b c z o s s OJ s I 1 s 320 257 411 S 1 c 5 3 i 5 3 q q q 0 J 20 t 5 2 q 2 '~o ' 1 1 4 2 i 0 0 1 4 b 2 5 ii i 6 b b 3 '0 1_ 2 0 1 1 b 3 0 190 _7 24 "2 0 i b _q 1 JO 10 216 1 i b 3 _q 1 t 4 1 q 1 b 0 1 b 93 0 q 0 0 0 200 582 457 690 491 290 467 153 1 2 I 2 q 0 J 0 2 t _q q q q q q q 7 b q J J 1 0 1 2 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 P 0 0 J 0 0 0 26 0 0 0 00 11 111 q _1 _1 0 _ q q 0 0 b 30 q 0 i b Z_q 0 _i b 7 0 1 b 0 35 ZJo 0 59 _2 6 6 ' b Z P 0 b 0 _3 q _3 101 " 0 0 3 _0 _b _ 1 7_ 0 "0 _45 b 151 'i __b _ q _'q 0 10 2 J3 _4 _1 ~2 q 02 ' 0 1^ 117 Ip 3 0 Zb i q 0 0 q q 4 1 2 2 2 0 2 q 3 b q 12 2 1 2 q 0 0 1 0 b b Zq 1 " 1 2 b 2 i i 0 b b q 0 184 304 319 Ml 386 595 107 284 261 336 520 204 ^3 500 548 4^ 420 '221 ~345 392 187 335 'M3 448 7M 421 324 473 366 231 50 19 120 2Q 357 785 451 14032 Pnnled February 1994 Prepved by tw Office o< Oesege^aton Montoring based i<ion nfonnakon s^iphed by l>e LiMe Rock School Dtsticl UnaudtedLRSD Black/White Student Count by Zone Block & Attending Schools Zone Block Schools E Attending Schools Badgett Bale Baseline Booker Brady Carver Chicot Cloverdale Elem Bodd Fair Park Forest Park Franklin Fullbright Garland Geyer Springs Gibbs Jefferson M.L King Mablevale Elem McDermott Meadowcliff Mitchell Otter Creek Pulaski HtS- Elem Race BL WH BL wh" BL WH BL WH BL WH BL WH ' BL Whi BL WH BL WH BL WH BL WH BL WH ' BL wh' BL WH BL wh BL_ wh BL WH BL Whi BL WH BL WH BL WH BL WH BL WH ' BL 9 ot i 67 39 1 0 4 2 0 b 1 2 q 0 1 2 P 0 2 2 2 2 p 2 2 2 q 0 p 0 1 b 0 0 p 2 0 0 p 0 p 0 0 b p 0 1 n m 1 i 111 '47 0 8 6 13 __2 5 2 3 1 0 0 9 0 _4 __ __4 __1 12 '2 3 __q _5 1 i 6 6 1 3 3 2 P 0 4 3 4 0 6 0 2 2 9 C LU o ta 0 b _P 0 153 43 11 4 1 ' 6 2 1 __3 5 14 5 1 5 __q 2 __q 5 __q q __q 0 0 __6 __5 __2 0 0 0 2 i 12 3 0 b 0 1 _P __q __3 0 __q e <a p 0 3 0 2 1 2 9 66 74 2 1 2 0 1 b 1 b 2 3 3 '9 2 4 1 0 4 0 2 0 2 '5 2 12 0 i 0 0 5 6 0 0 3 0 1 b 0 o u O 1 0 1 0 J? 6 4 8 3 1 _1 __3 173 96 M ii _ P 3 P 0 P ' 0 o O 1 b _0 b 8 1 1 W 3 i _ 3 e 24 3 147 43 _ 1 ' b _0 b 1 p ' 2 1 ' i g n K n 6 5 c e o 3 1 2 1 ' 0 _1 b 5 6 3 1 0 0 3 '2 26 is 2 b 5 * 3 3 0 4 3 1 J 2 0 1 0 b 0 1 9 1 5 0 1 0 4 3 19 1 P 0 2 2 0 0 6 0 1 2 ' 0 8 '3 1 b 5 0 1 1 1 0 80 66 2 b 0 i 1 b 3 b 0 ' 3 _i i 1 0 0 1 1 b 2 2 0 i 1 b 2 2 4 4 0 0 3 0 b 4 9 3 5 3 5 1 0 1 '0 q 0 66 45 P 9 3 6 2 1 __l 0 2 b 1 "ib 4 6 q 2 p 0 _ 4 i 6 0 2 "o 0 0 3 1 b _5 0 0 b 3 2 4 b 2 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 9 __3 60 205 1 i _4 18 0 0 q 0 4 3 1 8 4 7 3 0 6 10 3 0 1 2 T 0 7 2 0 22 4 _ 3 0 7 3 13 ~2 _ 4 0 5 0 q 0 q 0 13 'i 18 0 190 4 15 'i 6 4 6 0 4 3 20 0 6 1 2 b 33 2 30 b _ 3 2 1 0 18 p 0 6 3 q 0 11 6 26 15 13 2 3 1 _ P 0 2 0 4 1 _4 3 3 2 126 210 _ 9 0 D C n c ra O 0 b _4 0 _p 0 0 b 4 0 0 3 0 P 0 4 0 6 0 _6 1 7 b 1 0 123 '13 1 1 3 6 3 5 1 i q 0 14 12 3 0 2 0 _1 0 6 1 b 4 0 14 0 4 i p 0 8 0 18 0 6 0 _4 0 1 0 D) C c O 0 b --P 0 17 '3 4 2 P 0 3 i 3 2 9 0 0 b p 0 0 0 3 0 p 0 _P 0 ip3 49 _3 2 0 1 q 0 p 2 0 b 8 4 1 b 1 b 2 o It a> o> c E iu 5 3 b q '0 p o 1^ "5 3 3 36 2 _ 1 1 P 0 3 0 5 14 16 _ 0 1 1 8 1 0 __b 5 6 75 239 9 i 1 b 0 1 1 0 _ 6 0 2 ' 0 15 2 q 0 _i b 0 b 14 0 5 0 6 b 10 0 2 b 0 0 1 b 4 i 3 b 1 b 0 b 7 b _16 Q 6 0 245 8 7 0 0 b 3 0 _5 2 IP 0 6 <Q 2 0 b _p 2 6 1 2 4 1 b 5 b J7 11 2p 6 _q i 0 b _ 0 b q 0 p 0 p 0 2 i _P 0 0 b 0 b 139 125 2 b 2 ' 0 o 2 0 1 6 0 3 1' 1 0 I' 1 Q p 5 6 1 6 4 p 1 _p 0 4 3 12 0 8 1 4 3 8 12 6 2 6 1 P 2 2 4 2 2 p 0 109 186 0 0 3 0 q 0 1 x (Q 2 0 b _14 5 _0 0 Ip "2 6 0 _5 4 1 i o u 2 3 0 6 0 4 b 6 1 S o e s 1 b 3 0 Page 1 E LU (/> w 3 0 6 o c P 1 2 5 4 0 6 i 16 '4 5 0 6 b 9 9 i 1 0 & b 6 0 _8 1 3 0 5 0 3 0 1p 0 5 0 5 b 1 i 1 b 4 0 9 ' 0 6 0 1? 1 5 b 5 0 134 113 2 i 2 0 5 5 b 15 0 14 0 104 5 tt "o 6 _ 1 2 8 0 2 0 2 0 11 5 43 7 5 4 6 0 3 b 5 i 1 b 2 b 6 ' 0 3 0 0 1 13 2 33 2i 0 b 16 '0 18 2 71 189 1 i 0 0 1 2 3 0 2 2 q 0 P 0 3 b 0 2 1 5 q 4 1 4 0 b 0 b 2 IZ 5 5 P 5 p 0 4 2 p " 0 P 0 3 0 1 i 8 0 3 0 4 2 6 ' b 1 b 3 b 1 b 4 i 0 b 2 b 1 b 6 0 3^ 1 1 0 p 0 46 13 0 4 b 2 b 3 b 11 b 8 b 3 b 8 0) 1 or 4 ' 0 4 ' ' 0 2 _q. 6 2 4 0 3 0 4 ' 2 3 0 6 b 0 0 1 Q 4 0 0 0 4 b 6 0 3 4 1 0 2 b 2 b 4 0 3 0 2 1 0 3 e c E o or 0 0 5 ' 0 _2 b 6 i 14 '3 10 i o 0 0 1 i 2 b 0 0 19 '5 2 1 1 i 3 0 14 i P 0 0 0 2 b 4 2 0 1 1 2 9 0 p 0 2 0 q 0 3 1 b 0 2 0 2 9 2 0 2 0 1 b 1 b 8 0 5 0 3 0 2 0 9 0 0 0 2 0 15 0 5 b 0 b 11 b 1 0 2 3 4 b 6 10 5 11 5 21 2 0 4 0 9 c u ra g 2 ' b 5 2 8 1 o c 1 b 1 i 6 2 6 3 17 1'4 3 0 0 b 6 9 q 2 4 2 9 3 4 1 2 0 i 4 2 1 i V) (0 g 5 3 1 16 0 30 2 2 0 42 b 22 1 J 0, 0 0 1 2 6 0 1 2 1 PL 6 2 3 2 1 0 0 0 0 4 13 2 0 b 0 0 4 0 6 0 12 0 4 0 15 b 9 b 8 0 3 1 J2 'i 4 0 20 0 9 i c o 13 n g 0 b _2 0 8 2q 8 2 p 0 12 b 28 4 15 5 1 4 0 b 1 b 3 0 4 b 0 b 3 0 q 2 0 2 2 i i E g 0 0 6 0 1 2 4 2 2 0 3 0 2 1 q 2 1 b 1 6 3 -Pj 0 g 0 b 8 4 0 0 4 ib 4 6 9 4 1 0 0 12 3 1 0 1 0 12 1 1 4 2 q 2 0 0 2 6 0 4 0 12 ~b 9 2 3 0 14 26 5 0 0 2 0 3 0 8 0 4- 1 1 1 3 2i ?! 0 1 b 2 0 4 ' 1 0 0 2 2 q 2 2 0 1 b q 0 0 0 3 _9 C e 5 o c 3 o O jn 8 u jj W 1 2 5 9 1 1 0 b 2 9 1 2 1 b 0 b 7 4 q 'i 2 2 0 0 3 g p ' 0 p 0 2 0 0 2 0 p 1 1 0 0 n O) 0) 1 0 1 0 q '1 1 1 q 0 q 0 p 1 0 o z p 0 0 0 p 0 42 46 0 0 51 64 p 0 0 n w O. _ 0 0 0 3 0 0 64 ioo _q 3 65 126 0 0 b^ 01 g Z P 0 0 0 0 0 _1 3 1 0 2 b 2 0 2 o 0 e e o < 135 49 '1^ 63 318 213 253 133 330 265 J48 139 295 0 0 b 0 j 0 0 0 3 b 0 0 p 0 0 0 4 0 1 0 0 b 0 0 Oi 0 0 0 0 p 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 b 0 b 0 0 0 0 1 b 0 i 0 1 3 2 b 0 0 2 0 1 b J 0 J 1 0 0 6 p 0 q 0 q 0 0 0 0 0 q 7 0 b p 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 4. 9t 14-1 0 0 1 Q 6 0 0 0i _Pi -4 18 16! 27 o' 0 0 b 0 1 0 4 q 0 p 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 151 0 '1 p 0 _0 b 0 0 0 o' 2 0 0 3 6 0 b 0 0 1 1 ii 2 0 0 i 1 i 0 0 0 0 0 85 179 ibs 195 '66 164 261 291 '45 233 2ii 178 26 214 89 1?1 129 211 289 334 214 300 178 259 249 2^ 125 J 68 23 1^ 199 189Attending Schools Rightsell Rockefeller Romine Stephens Terry Wakefield Washington Watson Western Hills Williams Wilson Woodruff Central Kindergarten Hall Kindergarten Fair Kindergarten McClellan Kindergarten Parkview Kindergarten Grand Total Zone Schools [Race WH BL WH BL WH ' BL WH BL WH BL WH~ BL WH BL wh' BL- WH BL wh' BL wh' BL WH BL WH BL bl WH WH BL WH BL t) e o 1 0 _ p 0 3 5 0 b 1 b p 0 _0 b 1 0 0 0 2 0 1 _b 0 0 1 b 1 p 0 0 0 1 b 0 9 4 0 0 5 * 9 4 jo 0 0 3 2 1 b 3 8 0 0 JO 0 9 3 6 1 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 _ P 0 0 135 369 c S 0 p" 0 2 ' 1 A 0 o' 0 0 b 3 5 0 4 ^5 5 2 ' 0 6 b p 0 p 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 E 2 p ' 0 _P 1 9 "4 _J 0 7 8 2 0 9 16 P 0 1 b 11 ib 1 i 1 4 0 0 2 _0 0 p ' 0 1 o o "o -P 0 8 4 1 b _g 0 3 ' 1 9 3 4 8 26 7 _6 0 4 b 5 4 0 1 0 1 b p 0 p 0 1 336 361 533 LRSD Black/White Student Count by Zone Block & Attending Schools Zone Block Schools E e ui 1 o O b 2 1 _ J '2 0 1 0 "o 2 0 14 ' 0 JO 8 JO '2 0 0 _ 3 b 0 0 P 0 0 _ p 0 _1 b p ~ 0 0 375 o 0 2 0 2 1 6 15 0 0 _ 1 2 0 0 2 2 _0 0 JO 2 i 9 P P P p 0 P g J 2 276 K (S 10 p ~ 0 1 1 6 0 1 Zp p 3 2 0 3 17 0 0 8 0 6 35 1 i p 6 1 1 2 0 0 P 0 0 343 e 1 5 c e oi -c 3 2 1 3 2 0 0 0 0 1 i 4 0 5 3 p 0 2 Q 2 9 1 b 16 1 1 p 0 p 0 p 0 0 0 4 0 0 4 7 6 JO 0 12 0 1 'b 3 b 0 0 JI b 12 b 11 b 10 0 p p 0 2 4 _P 0 7 _5 16 '5 3 0 9 io _P 0 9 14 0 0 2 0 _7 6 15 2 4 1 0 1 i 2 0 P 0 4 o c 5 (0 O 0 1 0 vt O) c 'C (d c o c 2 441 539 637 J 'o 2 0 10 0 1J "o 1 0 _7 b J ' 0 JJ 0 3 0 _ J 0 5 ' 0 1 P " 0 1 _o 0 0 "b 9 o 0 4 0 2 1 b 1 0 2 0 11 6 3 i 0 1 ~ 0 6 b P 0 2 ' 0 0 p 0 0 0 p 0 0 2 3 0 32 1 2 6 0 1 _1 b 3 0 25 4 3 "o _ 2 0 p io 2 b 1 Q 2 '0 1 b 0 0 2 0 2 0 6 b E o UJ e 5 9 (0 2 b _o 0 A 0 1 0 0 0 p 0 312 271 1 2 2 1 2 0 P 0 _1 0 0 1 b 2 p 2 p 1 b 1 p 2 p 0 0 0 1 b 2 1 21 2 0 0 2 2 1 2 P 0 0 p 0 p 1 594 1 0 0 2 0 0 o <5 u 2 0 8 0 p' 6 3 _5 6 0 -3 9 p ' 0 3 16 0 0 5 " 0 9 _9 5 0 4 5 0 _ p 1 0 0 g 0 0 1 s 2 1 2 2 1 6 407 397 527 Page 2 S d I 0 E e ui 1 4 3 0 1 b 4 i 5 2 4 2 1 i 1 i 4 2 3 6 2 1 1 0 J 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 '3 6 3 0 p 2 4 0 0 0 0 0 2 6 9 'o 5 2 11 p 0 P 0 0 0 5 i 3 0 0 2 n Q. 159 0 "0 2 ' 4 2 1 0 "b 3 2 4 0 1 4 12 4 0 0 6 0 P 2 1 0 J 0 0 J 0 2 0 1 1 450 318 551 O) 1 126 1 e 1 c 0 1 E a 0 2 1 5 2 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 4 3 0 0 0 0 2 0 26 3 -J. OI 101 '17 1 b _o 0 6 b 3 b 18 2 J 0 3 0 22 J 0 39 2 p 0 J 2 n' 0 1 b 11 o: 1 0 6 o: 0 gi t, o! 0 ft aI 0 0 8 4 3 11 1 1 0 P ~0 g p. 0 327 oL-l-: 3i 0 0 0 jO 0 6 0 2 0 ol 6 + 0. 1 1 b 16 '~3 30 0 11 "b 1 ' 6 0 p 0 2 ~ 1 g ' 0 4 Vi a q> W b p _o _g 1 0 b 62 0 12 b 2 0 3 b p 0 _5 0 3 0 3 0 0 6 2 1 1 3 1 85 261 1 b 4 id 0 b 0 0 11 < b _g 0 1 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 237 66 3 4 J 2 1 .. 11- 0 5 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0' - 0 2 j_ p 0 p 0 1 1 _b 4 Q 2 b 0 i 0 1 p 4 0 320 257 411 200 582 c (A n $ b 3 0 26 5 1 ' b _5 0 4 0 16 ~ 0 263' 5 6 0 2 0 4 __i 11 b 1 0 __8 P 0 P 0 3 ' 0 0 457 5 0 1 b 5 0 6 0 P ' 0 0 0 7 4 5 3 235 60 1 " b _6 b w i E i 5 0 0 0 0 1 i c E 8 I c 3 o o 690 1 1 p p p 0 1 p 2 J 0 491 2 '6 0 0 _6 1 1 0 _ 1 i _1 0 87 103 _5 __2 M i 2 0 __p P 0 J P 0 p S 5 0 _ 1" b 3 1 ' 1 ~ is 0 b 7 lb 2' ' b 3 27 2 ~0 _13 '7 16 3 1JJ '72 0 1 __1 _ p 3 P 0 0 5 4 0 0 6 1 '0 4 ' 0 1 b _g 0 0 1 0 0 _ 0 b n S 290 1 1 b p 0 57 36 0 p 0 0 0 _0 0 0 P, p 2 1 6 0 0 0 0 p 0 1 b 4 b p 0 p ~o 0 b p 0 0 0 0 0 0 o Z i 0 b 3 4 0 b 0 1 0 6 p 0 p 35 0 0 0 ' 6 26 33 _ 1 i ) n 9 0 4 9 0 4 0 ' 1 0 g 8 z 0 J 0 p 0 0 0 0 b 0 2 0 467 153 0 8 o fl </) o cn H c c c o' 0 0 0 26 0 6 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 61 0 0 0 1 44 73 0 0 p 3 0 _0 1 0 0 P ' 0 0 1 0 1 b 2 b p 0 1 i 1 b 0 1 0 p 0 0 0 0 b 0 & s 203 _i6g 7 254 '126 243 '92 141 4 238 315 OJO ' 108 _JJ8 212 63 _2O7 117 258 215 267 99 _JJ5 85 50 ___1 ____12 _16 3 _18 2 20 357 7851 45 14032 Printed February 1994 _ led UM Rock based tyon Morrallon s<43^^ by Vw Ufa Rod I 1 "lurwuiiled [ ~ I t r t School DIstid I "11TEL: Jun 02.94 10:35 No.002 P.03 LilUe Rock Scliool Di*tricl Stephens ^r^^Relocation Timely Task Date 1. 2. 3- 4_ Fs. Fiia motion with Court to relocate File revisions to current filings gb Hants from Stephenx Schoc^ miatinq to Stephens which_are------- ~ ~ LRSD Board of Directors & approved 5/18/94 before the courts 5/18/94 5/26/94 Business Case presejtedjothgj^Sg^ggEB^^ Contact the wh-^j-hould be contacted Incl .',?i!*!^?^.^'budget reduction strategy TTotify finance person to include this as a pu ---------------- '5/27/94 Person Williams Williams ~ ~~Willlam5 Ingram 5/27/94 Modeste Williams Neal "Wagner Wagner 5/27/94 5/30/94 6/6/94 6/6/94 building ..>h the Stephens community , community informolion meeting tor. 7. Inventory puiiaing --------- 8 Plan and schedule public meeting 9. 1) parents & students
community groups and churches, media (press release) a: b) c) 10. (neai dnor-to-door delivery ........................................ asking" ^velop letter to Parents and community meeting. 'LlTXo^commJntt^ information meeting at S'r.phcav A'chno/ to answer for a Include invite to community---------- q uest
gns^tch^^^-----------------------------sf^bTE^i^ti55d |..>-i. .He PTA president and ministers.-------------- ----------- Students who do not choose a school ------- with the principal, faculty, and staff , of all students living in the Stephen School meetings.__________ 12. De^gn follow-up plan for 13 Conduct Informational meeting attendance zone and those schedule d ,.naanco zone a) those who attend Stephens School but live outside of the attendance zone mrse Who Xd stephens School but live in the attendance zone
and^ c) tltose Who do not attend Schon/ but live m the attendance zone b) 15.Obtairt' Gciy fir 'ii
?.' iT send notice of relocation and d^e of community information meeting to: community groups and churches. a) b) press release students with announcement and choices asking for 17 Mail letter to parents and --------- -aunn a response by a deadline. Deadline must be after community meeting. Include invite to community information meeting at 57ep/7en.r &/ioo/ to answer questions about choices and the relocation. 1H noiivpr fliers door-to-door, announcing relocation and information meeting, l^implement follow-up plan for students who do not respond to request for their Choice of school______________________________________________ 20. Send assignment notices_____________________________ 21 Mail letter to parents and students (who have not responded to the first letter) with announcement and choices asking for a response with a deadline.-- 22. Remove materials and equipment from school 23. Reroute transportation of students__________________ 24. Secure building______________________________________________ 25. Reassign staff____________________ 26, Send assignment notices__________ * Remaining timeline is based on Court approval. EXHIBIT 2 6I&IQA 6/6/94 6/6/94 6/6/94 6/6/94 6/8/94. 6/15/94 6/20/94 7/6/94 7/29/94 7/29/94 7/31/94 7/31/94 7/31/94 7/31/94 8/1/94 Wiedower Modeste Wiedower Williams Lee Williams Wagner Lee Wagner Ingram Lee Lee Eaton Montgomery ~ Eaton Hurley LeeFAST TRACK EVALUATION PROGRAM
STEPHENS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL I PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
This specific program is the construction of the Inter-District Elementary School. new Stephens It is an aspect of the tridistrict desegregation plan and the section pertaining to inter- -------- The program is to outline all steps necessary to locate and construct the second of two (2) schools in the Little Rock School District. district schools. new inter-district II GOALS
The goal of this program is the successful and timely construction of a new Little Rock School District inter-district elementary school. III - EVALUATION CRITERIA
School The evaluation criteria is the successful completion of the school at the date agreed upon established by the Little Rock District. IV - EVALUATION RESULTS
on time, and The most accurate and successful evaluation result of this program would be the opening and operation of the school, on time, and within the desegregation racial composition as established in the Desegregation Plan. V - OBSTACLES TO GOAL OBTAINMENT
There appears to be numerous obstacles to obtaining the goal of completing this new inter-district school: 1. School location 2. School necessity 3. the Time to design and construct - (The obstacles laid out under this program description deal purely with the physical requirements of locating and constructing the school and not with such administrative matters as theme, program, nor recruitment.) VI RECOMMENDATIONS
This recommendation does not constitute a change to the inter- concept of the Desegregation Plan, but rather requests the addition of a criteria to be considered in the construction new Stephens Elementary School, of the 1. Background
Section III of the Tri-Dlstrict District Desegregation Plan entitled II Inter- Student Choices and EXHIBIT 3Options It district outlines the concept of construction of interschools. Within that concept is the construction of the Stephens Elementary School to be located within the Little Rock School District boundaries, and is to be one of two schools constructed by the District to support this concept. The plan further states that the existing Stephens School would then be closed. The plan does not go into the background nor the rationale nor specifically mentioned any other considerations for the location and construction of the Stephens School other than to support the desegregation effort. Historically, there are two principal considerations that lead a School District to construct a new school: 1) or The student population is such that the present number size of schools in various locations is not capable of supporting the student population
therefore, a new school should be constructed
and, 2) Periodic evaluations dealing with the age and condition of the existing facilities will warrant the construction of new schools to replace facilities that are too costly to repair or expand, or have outlived their usefulness to meet the current educational needs. I am addressing in this recommendation the criteria dealing with plant replacement. By separate study, as submitted to the Board in November of 1993, it has been shown that preliminary figures do not indicate sufficient student population in certain portions of the inner city to warrant adding additional seats through new construction. This is extremely important and is a critical factor in analyzing the total area to be impacted by the construction of a new school. It would lead consolidations, student population. one because to of believe that the overall possible decrease in 2) might require new schools to be constructed convenient to students, and subsequent closure of older, smaller facilities. Objective
more the The objective of this recommendation is to add to the criteria for the construction of the Stephens School, a consideration that reaches beyond desegregation and attempts to encompass the District's financial state with regard to the operation of schools, its need to possibly look at rezoning attendance zones in the inner city to support new construction and the need to look at its need to the age and condition of inner city schools with a view toward replacement where renovation and expansion is ^o^~prhibitive and will not meet the educational goals of the District. 23) 4) In evaluating this objective, we will need to review a general criteria of existing facilities in light of educational programs and present needs, and compare this to anticipated costs to meet current needs and future demands. It is expected that the constiruction and operation of newer, more modern, up-to-date facilities with possible consolidation and staff and the closure of older, more antiquated schools will lead to a more efficiently run financial operation and a program that better meets the students' needs. ImpactAnalysis
The overall program is that of integration. Larger, more modern, up-to-date schools with more innovative programs have a record of better modern attraction of a varied student body than do older, smaller schools who have had to have been haphazardly renovated to meet educational needs. This is generally true throughout the country. It is expected that a new, modern, up-to-date school in the inner city would better attract Pulaski County Students than our present existing facilities. It is expected that a new This impact is predicated on the fact that the end result would be the closure of at least two or more smaller schools with all students attending the new Stephens The risk of considering this concept of school closure of outdated schools to support new plants are two-fold: 1) If we are successful, we could conceivably be too successful, in which case the new school may not be of sufficient size to meet our needs. Careful analysis of census projections must be made and careful rezoning must be considered during the planning stage of this school. 2) The second risk is one of not considering plant within the normal course of action of School. new construction. The continued operation of schools that are becoming outdated and outmoded most definitely causes a rise in operational costs. It is imperative that we consider normal plant replacement of an entire school as well as we consider plant replacemejit of individual items such as heating ventilation units, intercoms, windows, etc., in order to insure that we are operating in a most efficient manner. Resource Analysis
----------------------With the decrease in student numbers in the inner city and the consolidation into larger, more efficiently run schools, they'll most certainly lessen the duplication of instructional efforts as is presently found in teaching in multiple locations. Cutting back on administrative staff is obvious, and maximizing class size will allow -- "----- Cutting back on us to decrease teacher populations. It is expected that operating costs for newer, more modern energy efficient schools will be less than that presently 35) 6) incurred for operating multiple sites of schools as old as 1906. Although a detailed analysis has not been done, the average elementary school cost per occupant for the Little Rock School District is $173.75. There are twelve schools above the average
of these, twelve schools, six are Incentive schools (Franklin, Rightsell, Rockefeller and Stephens). Ish, Mitchell, The District has an average energy cost per elementary occupant of $113, There are fifteen schools that exceed this average
of those, six are incentive schools (Franklin, Garland, Mitchell, Rightsell, Rockefeller and Stephens). average Little Rock School District maintenance cost is The $21,601 per elementary school, eooupent. Eight schools exceeded that average
of those, three were incentive schools (Franklin, Rightsell and Rockefeller), maintenance figure is skewed by the large amount of dollars spent in the past couple of years through bond projects to increase the general maintenance of the schools. The District has no historical data with regard to the operational costs of newer schools
however, theoretical, operational costs can be calculated The once a specified school size Is determined based on the norm. Force Field Analysis
Support of a new elementary school appear to be generally positive within the community
however, this support is over-shadowed by the facters of location and schools possibly identified for closing. is difficult at this time to predict the strength for the new Stephens School without a careful study and much community interface regarding possible closures, identify schools at this time for possible closure, without coupling that identification to the final selected premature. site for the Identification Stephens School, would It To be Data exists showing recommendations based on perceived maintenance costs and age of facilities. C______11^ speaking, the incentive schools date back to 1906 with the last ones being constructed in the late 1950' schools constructed in the 1950's years old. General Implementation Plan
implemented as follows: picked primarily to Generally s. Even are forty-some odd My recommendation would be If the Stephens School site is support the needs of the Desegregation Plan, that will mandate what schools immediately adjacent to that site are considered for plant replacement. on consideration If the Stephens site is picked based of implementation would be: plant 1) replacement. then the Of after having considered 4census block projections and cost analysis of ^chool operations a community effort would begin to gather support for the closing of certain schools. It Is perceived that both goals can be reached, i.e., the one stated in the desegregation plan that the Stephens School would be closed upon construction of the new Stephens School and an analysis of existing plants which could meet both criteria. I make my recommendation so as to offer a consideration for building a new inter-city elementary school based purely on the need to decrease the schools' operational expenditures and to enhance education through modern, and to close outdated up-to-date facilities, new, facilities that are too crowded or too old to meet our current needs. DCE/rlh/ftep 5-10- RECOMMENDATIONS The cost of epb'an'cen.s:hasVeeSes^X^^^^^ - -a.lor or n.u.cc Of specialized rooms that have been prodded and that . necessaiy to bouse the K alternative proposals have been assigned to these schools. buUdi^sseach of abou/eS s?ud clpa'cT^'S "o bnng Its capacity to 600 students. rcqulniM founeen^k^ms'^-??'?^ Garland Schools ,V?nX' capacity of about 600 students. in one new bulldlniVihYSipb^^ :ire'tf,l to Franklin Elementary School a-Kasa a^aeoiiuin tiementaiy to Accommodate King Elementary School Ss" ^S^ddiOoSaUlassmlms."Se.S mSns^f 780 sX?'yf based on the new Carver Magnet _size of rooms under space. Adding the necessaiy circulation mUeSsquare feet of m about 16.000 square fcetifXss aS At S5O S-r /"T 'uld resuk Career Magnet School, the addlTor^X7id^oS SsS OOo?eSS"' ""8 fo upgrading Franklin School, first through the minnru be added the costs for 622.350 and. secondly. the^tobKeS f fSrthe^lm
?'"" *" aiObPt S Frankhn School. These costs can be detSned rno^^ Jee necessary to upgrade parted on the project. The amount of $100 000 ha Jheeirately when architectural studies The total cost is estimated to be $922,350 ' tentatively allocated for the p students is based on the are project. Major enhancement of King Elementanr capacity of 136 students. unLngedX the erJianc^^^ cost $1,187,815. With a The new Carver Magnet School W1 have a co^fmPer student and the like, of about $4,000 per student. construction, equipment, grounds, fees,. Replace Stephens and Garland Schools With a New School The new Carver School has measures of crpaciZs"P?" and using the same classrooms by using the staffe as a muci analysis, of about 568 students Addin? twn would result a oapaXX
XXstl^^^^^^ for spe^al^^d'^K capacity of approximately 600 students. ^Ing the cost of the Carver School The combined budgets for enhancerr^n^ school would cost about $2 500 000 bearmg walls and wood frame. Garland School is constructed with brick It Is suggested that ^^^c^edordyPaSt^e^e^^^^ rt f Garland and Stephens e.xpand the site. abandoned houses that could be secured to EXHIBIT 4-59- Name of School: Stenhens El. (30.954 SF) Update of Estimates of Cost for Renovation of Little Rock Public School Buildings Comments: This school is to be replaced. No further expenditures are recommended at this time.EXHIBIT 5 EXECUTIVE SUWWRY 17/11/92 thru 16/31/93 SYSTEM SITE ID SITE WANE TOTAL COST TO DATE ENERGY COST TO DATE HAINT. COST TO DATE CUSTODIAL COST TO DATE GROSS NUnBER OF OCCUPANTS GROSS I OF SQUARE FEET COST GROSS COST PER OCCUPANT PER SB. FOOT A A A 8 A A A A A A C . A A A A A C A A A C c A A A A A A A A A A A C C A A A A A A A C A A A A A A A A A 154 ADMINISTRATION 861 ADMINISTRATION ANNEl 114 ALTERNATIVE LEARNING TI4 BACKHOE 119 BADGETT 117 BALE 122 BA5ELIIE 116 BOOKER 118 BRADY 858 CAFETERIA DEPT NI4 CARP. SUPPLIES 121 CARVER 881 CENTRAL HIGH 128 CHICOT 831 CLOVERDALE ELEM 115 CLOVERDALE JR HIS CUSTODIAL SUPPLIES 132 DODD 817 DUNBAR 853 EAST SIDE 1982 ELECT. SUPPLIES HU ELECTRONICS SUPPLIES 818 FAIR 123 FAIR PARK S83 FAIR STADIUM 189 FOREST HEIGHTS 824 FOREST PARK 825 FRANKLIN 848 FULBRIGHT 826 GARLAND 837 GEYER SPRINGS 127 GIBBS 111 GILLIAM H86 GROUNDS SUPPLIES H81 H/AC SUPPLIES 812 HALL HIGH 813 HENDERSON 149 ISH 831 JEFFERSON 135 KING 174 KLRE/UALR 162 LEE HI9 LOCKSMITH SUPPLIES 846 HABELVALE ELEN 116 HABELVALE JR 813 HANN 812 HCCLELLAN SI4 HcCLELLAN STADIUM 128 HCDERHOTT 133 HEADOWCLIFF 884 HETRO 834 MITCHELL 68,232.48 23,265.53 45,894.86 192.64 44,579.81 51,624.89 58,161.38 139,843.77 47,137.49 36,575.74 9,662.58 81,743.26 264,448.68 83,662.49 49,191.58 118,345.22 1,878.42 51,461.97 123,298.77 39,167.46 5,815.18 2,316.85 155,882.88 62,524.87 16,315.77 119,645.86 68,965.83 88,258.89 75,738.88 39,122.83 39,974.39 41,796.14 6,159.23 7,468.73 2,835.43 188,429.78 191,217.13 37,478.52 68,674.65 8.88 8.88 38,293.69 2,685.42 62,836.12 71,933.53 222,797.22 ,221,649.65 21,877.83 74,788.62 54,912.12 146,531.77 6G,539.66 51,784.48 13,971.92 33,783.38 1.81 27,248.82 33,437.83 49,929.82 67,681.11 34,689.61 29,686.13 8.88 68,185.41 212,583.58 57,893.11 28,481.81 89,645.79 8.88 33,898.55 183,868.42 31,949.71 8.88 8.88 129,977.19 41,887.79 6,474.94 86,764.87 48,327.83 53,178.83 55,188.82 29,134.18 33,318.38 29,618.86 3,148.87 8.88 8.88 158,165.98 125,813.52 17,254.94 49,116.88 8.88 8.88 25,876.75 8.88 44,763.87 54,588.61 152,139.24 173,851.48 2,187.23 53,327.86 31,864.45 138,614.43 58,957.17 16,517.19 9,238.68 11,386.28 192.64 16,891.85 17,711.27 7,987.69 71,188.11 12,411.71 6,841.46 9,662.51 28,464.16 51,758.16 25,563.78 28,732.49 28,315.67 1,878.42 17,218.23 19,673.22 7,217.75 5,815.18 2,316.85 25,641.61 28,589.42 9,848.83 32,621.88 28,491.82 26,935.46 28,111.21 9,838.64 6,516.93 12,814.47 3,811.16 7,468.73 2,835.43 21,785.83 64,188.55 28,883.96 19,432.88 8.88 8.88 13,188.66 2,685.42 16,848.63 17,346.22 78,538.68 47,613.88 17,889.88 28,843.58 23,788.46 15.836.38 17,459.88 11.89 62.93 4.48 I. II 439.94 475.79 242.79 274.65 26.17 48.15 l.ll 173.71 178.86 215.61 58.11 383.76 l.ll 161.19 549.13 l.ll l.ll 8.81 184.88 287.66 1.18 258.39 146.98 135.88 518.85 157.21 147.88 171.61 8.88 8.88 8.88 478.85 212.96 211.62 124.89 1.88 1.18 36.28 l.ll 424.42 78.71 127.38 984.45 1.18 537.26 147.21 88.96 122.61 I I 446 I 212 321 339 615 398 8 I 589 1,999 535 366 775 I 314 715 I 8 8 915 243 8 787 441 411 538 256 282 333 8 8 8 994 914 187 463 8 8 I 8 518 667 858 985 8 519 448 1,818 264 26,791 26,273 37,361 I 23,414 33,626 51,455 74,531 36,259 38,456 I 61,695 266,823 59,687 33,263 81,894 I 46,712^ 99,397 89,133 I I 131,628 28,867 I 71,137 31,914 68,588 66,892 38,632 41,788 37,237 23,727 I I 152,348 113,212 31,812 43,546 I I 47,951 I 55,568 59,981 113,131 118,425 8 48,121 36,931 129,546 39,283 l.ll l.ll 111.11 l.ll 221.69*- 161.63 171.56 226.19 - 116.1B l.ll l.ll 137.19 132.29 156.38 134.41 152.71 l.ll 165.99 174.86 l.ll
:3 172.1^ 257.31 l.ll 152.13 138.24 195.26 - 142.98 152.82 141.75 125.51 8.81 8.88 8.88 181.52 288.11 288.38 - 142.18 1.18 1.88 8.11 1.18 124.17 117.85 262.11 225.13 1.18 146.78 .124.81 146.53 259.62 - 2.55 1.89 1.21 l.ll 1.91 1.54 1.15 1.87 1.31 1.95 l.ll 1.31 1.99 1.41 1.48 1.45 l.ll 1.18 1.24 1.44 1.18 8.88 1.18 2.17 1.18 1.71 1.91 1.17 1.13 1.81 8.96 1.12 8.26 8.88 1.18 1.18 1.84 1.18 1.58 1.18 8.18 1.81 8.11 1.12 1.21 1.97 1.87 1.18 1.56 1.49 1.13 1.75SYSTEM SITE ID SITE NAME TOTAL COST TO DATE EXECUTIVE SUHHARY 87/81/92 thru 86/38/93 ENER6Y COST TO DATE HAINT. COST TO DATE CUSTODIAL COST TO DATE GROSS GROSS I COST GROSS COST NUHKR OF OF SOUARE OCCtffANTS FEET PER PER SO. OCCUPAMT FOOT C A A C C A A A C A A A . A A A A A A C A C A A A 8 B 8 B A B 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 B 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 - 8 8 8 HB7 ROTOR POOL SUPPLIES 135 OAKHURST 858 OTTER CREEK R28 P.H.SUPPLIES R85 PAIMT SUPPLIES 136 PARKIN/IRC 885 PARKVIEW 888 PLANT SERVICES n83 PLUHB. SUPPLIES 838 PULASKI H6TS ELEM 818 PtRJISKI HSTS JR 885 PtffiCHASINE SBl OUIELEY STADIUM 839 RI6HTSELL 836 ROCKEFELLER 848 ROMINE 119 SAFETY AND SECURITY SB2 scon FIELD H77 SMALL ENGINE REPAIR 811 SOUTHNEST H8B STADIUM SUPPLIES 841 STEPHEMS 864 STUDENT ASSIGNMENT 847 TERRY TB2 TRACTOR 82 TBl TRACTOR 1 TB3 TRACTOR 3 TBS TRACTOR 5 883 TRANSPORTATION V48 VEHICL 48 V81 VEHICLE 1 VIB VEHICLE IB Vll VEHICLE 11 V12 VEHICLE 12 V13 VEHICLE 13 V14 VEHICLE 14 V15 VEHICLE 15 V16 VEHICLE 16 V17 VEHICLE 17 V18 VEHICLE 18 V19 VEHICLE 19 VB2 VEHICLE 2 V2B VEHICLE 28 V21 VEHICLE 21 V22 VEHICLE 22 V23 VEHICLE 23 V24 VEHICLE 24 V25 VEHICLE 25 V26 VEHICLE 26 V27 VEHICLE 27 V28 VEHICLE 28 V29 VEHICLE 29 VB3 VEHICLE 3 2,453.37 7,698.62 62,433.67 127.49 1,772.9B 14,588.65 187,132.64 88,797.85 1,173.48 68,349.37 138,129.83 27,736.84 36,288.33 83,727.71 121,393.38 96,964.85 7,858.78 21,599.81 2,248.62 133,867.83 145.94 54,253.21 11,218.42 62,922.68 5,115.36 2,689.87 2,881.87 2,386.77 68,865.68 39B.73 1,593.95 1,719.44 426.41 447.58 993.55 1,483.97 817.16 511.89 1,828.39 876.28 933.28 473.47 3,449.82 138.24 1,878.78 142.88 2,897.82 692.59 988.82 1,582.28 269.98 492.23 1,839.99 B.BB 4,873.28 47,889.31 8.88 B.BB 18,988.66 159,766.18 29,264.35 B.BB 43,795.84 67,856.48 19,911.82 4,838.21 35,284.16 88,841.13 49,738.47 5,213.89 3,255.74 B.BB 88,843.86 B.BB 37,188.82 8,977.61 43,266.35 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 44,348.32 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.08 2,453.37 3,579.99 15,296.87 127.49 1,772.98 3,591.99 26,815.39 59,269.33 1,173.48 16,279.47 61,792.91 7,773.81 32,258.12 48,257.49 32,369.49 47,191.84 1,844.81 18,343.27 2,248.62 45,586.87 145.94 16,958.29 9 212.41 19,587.53 5,115.36 2,689.87 2,BB1.B7 2,386.77 15,437.76 398.73 1,593.95 1,719.44 426.41 447.58 993.55 1,483.97 817.16 511.89 1,828.39 876.28 933.2B 473.47 3,449.82 138.24 1,878.78 142.88 2,897.82 692.59 988.82 1,582.28 269.98 492.23 1.839.99 8.11 37.43 127.49 8.88 8.88 8.88 551.87 263.37 8.18 274.86 488.52 58.41 8.88 186.86 182.76 42.54 8.88 8.88 8,88 318.78 8.88 186.18 28.48 148.72 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 287.52 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 B 252 353 8 B B 888 B B 379 774 B B 249 361 361 8 B B 67B B 2B9 B 541 8 B B B 8 8 B B B 8 B B B 8 8 B B B B B B 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 I 33,788 36,551 8 8 8 166,477 28,914 I 58,252 73,216 28,914 I 37,638 64,561 42,314 6,881 B.BB 3B.S2 176.87- B.BB B.BB B.BB 218.73 B.BB B.BB 159.23 168.13 b.b| B.BI 336.2i- 1.88 8.23 1.71 1.88 8.88 8.88 1.12 4.25 8.88 1.84 1.78 r.33 8.88 2.23 336.27*^ 1.88 B 8' 82,968 I 268.61 1.88 8.88 8.81 199.88 8.18 2.29 I.IB 8.88 8.88 1.61 8.88 34,384 6,418 45,312 8 8 8 8 259.58*^ 1.58 19,558 8 8 8 B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B 8 B B B B 8 B.BB 116.31 B.BB B.BB B.BB B.BB B.BB B.BB B.BB B.BB B.BB B.BB B.BB B.BB B.BB B.BB B.BB B.BB B.BB B.BB B.BB B.BB B.BB B.BB B.BB B.BB B.BB B.BB -B.BB B.BB 8.88 1.75 1.39 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 3.87 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 e.BI 1.18 l.ll 8.88 1.18 8.88 8.81 8.18 8.88 8.88 8.88 1.81 1.81 8.88 8.81 8.88 i ISYSTEM SITE ID SITE NAME TOTAL COST TO DATE EXECUTIVE SUNNARY 87/11/92 thru 86/38/93 ENERGY COST TO DATE HAINT. COST TO DATE CUSTODIAL COST SRDSS GROSS COST GROSS COST NUHBER OF OF SQUARE TO DATE OCCUPANTS FEET PER PER sa. XCUPAHT FOOT B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B C A ti A h fl A V36 VEHICLE 36 V31 VEHICLE 31 V32 VEHICLE 32 V33 VEHICLE 33 V34 VEHICLE 34 V35 VEHICLE 35 V36 VEHICLE 36 V37 VEHICLE 37 V38 VEHICLE 38 V39 VEHICLE 39 V84 VEHICLE 4 V95 VEHICLE 5 V66 VEHICLE 6 V67 VEHICLE 7 V88 VEHICLE 8 V69 VEHICLE 9 651 WAKEFIELD HU HAREHOUSE SUPPLIES 642 HASHINGTON 852 WATSON 629 HESTERN HILLS 643 WILLIAMS 644 HILSON 845 HOODRUFF 1,763.74 844.38 776.64 349.72 195.21 345.78 248.63 689.12 2,822.59 1,611.39 527.86 165.29 1,866.28 2,249.25 414.41 1,653.45 45,516.23 3,743.72 86,597.63 73,398.25 48,527.55 54,161.86 57,679.73 43,825.84 6.68 6.86 6.88 8.88 8.88 6.88 6.88 8.86 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.68 6.68 8.68 32,592.84 8.68 65,115.52 48,583.42 35,425.18 46,131.21 42,543.48 38,836.61 1,763.74 844.38 776.64 349.72 195.21 345.78 248.63 689.12 2,822.59 1,611.39 527.86 165.29 1,866.28 2,249.25 414.41 1,653.45 12,837.66 3,743.72 21,849.77 24,456.28 12,938.92 13,896.79 15,868.48 12,182.87 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 6.88 8.68 6.68 6.68 6.88 8.68 8.68 8.68 6.68 6.68 6.68 08.53 6.88 432.34 358.55 163.53 133.86 67.85 6.36 6 8 8 6 6 6 8 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 8 6 588 8 822 451 335 499 355 234 e 37,395 8_ 89,688 53,646 41,991 47,266 37,875 38,688 8.88 8.66 8.68 8.66 8.88 8.88 6.68 6.88 8.68 6.68 6.68 8.66 8.68 6.66 8.68 6.86 91.82 6.66 165.35 162.75 1*4.86 166.5j 162.48 183.87*^ 6.88 6.68 6.88 6.68 6.68 8.68 8.68 8.68 8.68 6.88 8.68 6.68 6.68 6.68 6.68 6.68 1.22 6.68 6.96 1.36 1.16 1.15 1.56 1.13 5,251,694.87 3,621,656.78 1,616,918.98 13,118.39 27,888 3,699,811 188.8555 1.4198 sssssu (-71- Beriod: 1949-1960 Table 26 ALTERNATE ESTIMATES FDR RENCVATICN AND REPAIR, STEPHENS INTERMEDIATE SCHOOL, LITHE ROCK PUBLIC SCHOOLS Note: All unit costs, except as noted, are correlated to total square feet of finished building based on estimated ratio of amount of each item in average single story structure of 1949-60 period. All cost figures and quantities are approximate and unit costs are based on early 1981 data. All cost A. BASIC IffiCOMXENDATIONS Category and Task Estinated Lhit Cost Estimated Quantity Estimated Cost Range - $ I. II. Sanitary Replace plunbing fixtures (kitchen not included
serving only) Exterior Replace non-functioning window operators .32-.40 50/lkiit III. Interior Replace asphalt tile remni ning Replace suspended ceilings-1950 Install insulation-1950 bldg Refinish doors, paint walls, i Install new toilet enclosures bldg etc. 1.12 .57 .30 .65-.75/SF 275-300 ea. IV. Electro-Mechanical Replace lighting-1950 & '58 bldgs Replace boiler/air handling units Mise, V. 80% 20-25 40% 12-13,000 SF 18 Stalls 1.49-1.50/SF 12-13,000 SF 1.30-1.55/SF 31,000 Subtotal Building Special Conditions, A/E Fees, Contingency - 30% Ibtal Building Cost per Sq. Ft. 8,000-10,000 1,000-1,250 14,000-15,000 7,500-8,000 3,600-3,900 7,800-10,000 5,000-5,500 16,800-19,500 40,000-48,000 103,700-121,150 31,100-36,350 134,800-157,500 4.35-5.08 Site Work Develop plan for utili2a,tion and landscaping Paving-play areas -basketball area -walks 2.20-2.50/SY EXHIBIT 6 5-6 Acres 2000 SF 12,000 SF 15-1800 SF 1,500-3,000 500 - 600 3,000-3,500 400 - 500-72- Table 26 ALTERNAIE ESTIMATES, STEHIENS INTERMEDIATE SCHDOL (cont'd) V. Category and Task Estimated Ifait Cost Estimated Quantity Estimated Cost Range - $ Site Work (cont'd) Grass Area-seeding -sprinkling Planting trees/shrubs Equipment Lifting Fencing 5500/A 1500/A 7-8,000 3000-3500 1100-1200 10,50-11/LF 2 Acres 3 Acres Basic 1 Set 2 Boles 800 LF @ 6' Subtotal, Site Work Mise and Contingency - 10% Ibtal Site Work 10,000-11,000 4,500-5,000 7,000-8,000 3,000-3,500 2,200-2,500 8,400-8,800 40,500-46,400 4,000-4,600 44,500-51,000 B. LPCRADING "Pie extent of work under (A) is essentially that required to bring the facility ip to reasonable "as is" standards. ~ ' ----- n S, reasonable "as is" standards. In the building the quality of lighting would be the cmly ipgrading resulting but the extent of site inprove- rants reconmended, while basic to a full utilization of an inteimediate level school with comnunity participation, would from the present lack of development. prove an autcmatic upgrading Looking forward to extending the proper role of this school VO extenoing me proper role of this school another 20 years, considerable ipgrading and major replacements would be in view. , present building upgrading to systenwide standards probably would involve converting to fully air conditioned environment which in turn would inply optimal insulation policies. Thus in addition to ceiling ' insulation as in (A), the balance of the buildings' roofs and all window areas should be considered. Ihns in addition to ceiling In any event, it is likely the standard steel sash of the 1950 structure would be replaced with lower maintenance aluminum insulated glazing perhaps and possibly reduced glass area. Consideration of providing a larger sized recreational unit than the limited sized (1800 SF) cafeteria, but for educational and grams, should be part of the ipgrading estimate. coranunity pro- storm drainage or diverting its location could vide grass playfield on the northwest corner of the overall site. pro--73- Table 26 ALTERNATE ESTIMATES, STEPHENS INTERMEDIATE SOEOL (cont'd) B. imiADING (cont'd) Category and Task Estimated Ifait Cost Estimated Quantity Estimated Cost Range - $ I. Sanitary Replace drinking fountains Food service (preparation) II. Exterior Replace all windows, 1950 unit Paint all trim 350-400 ea, Lunp Sum .75-.80/SF III. Interior Carpet all classrooms Refinish interior New toilet partitions IV. Electro-Mechani cal Replace present HV system, except for work under A. 1300-1500/Room As in (A) 3.50-4.30/SF 6 75% 18 25,000 SF Building Subtotal: Mise, Spec Conditions, A/E Fees, Contingency - Add 30% Building TOTAL: Cost per Sq Ft incl A., BASIC REC'S V. New Construction hiulti-purpose gym/stage A/E Fees, Contingency, Equipment 30-35/SF 20% 4-5000 SF Subtotal: VI. Site Work As in (A) Develop play field w/ baseball backstop, etc. - allow for 12" fill Additional lighting Additional equipment Additional planting 7000/Acre 7-8/Cy 1100-1200 ea. Net 3 A 20,000 CF 4 Subtotal, Add'l work Mise, Fees, Contingency, + 15% Total Site Work 2,100-2,400 10,000-35,000 18,000-19,000 1,000-1,200 23,400-27,000 7,800-10,000 5,000-5,500 87,500-107,500 154,800-217,600 46,400-65,280 201,200-282,900 10.80-14.21 120,000-175,000 24,000-35,000 144,000-210,000 40,500-46,400 20,000-22,000 30,000-36,000 4,400-4,800 3,000-3,500 3,500-4,000 32,400-36,000 + 102,900-118,400 15,100-17,600 $118,000-136,000-1^- Ihble 26 ALTERNATE ESTIMATES, STEPHENS INTERMEDIATE SCHDQL (cont'd) SUMMARY OF COSTS Action Required Oode Range of Est Cost in 1981 Dollars A. BASIC RECCWENnATICNS R 134,800-157,500 B. UPGRADING, excluding air conditioning and energy conservation measures R 201,200-282,900 SCBTOTAL-R 336,000-440,400 Equipment E Site Development S 118,000-136,000 Construction C 144,000-210,000 C. TOTAL RENOVATION TOTAL, excluding air conditioning $598,000-786,406 The configuration of Stephens School and its siting are among the poorest of the entire system, Ihere is little or no flexibility to the plan or structure to adapt to substantial alteration such as grouping of classroOTs or expansion. The rooms, however, are good sized squares which can be equipped in numerous ways for varying assignnent. Once rehabilitated this school should serve at its present capacity for another 20-25 years at which point it will be over 50 years and, because of the above constraints, may well prove to be expendable as _ part of the total system. It is very doubtful that such a building would lend itself to the major renovation concept followed at Mitchell, for exanple. Thus it is suggested that in the 2000-2010 period the ^rd will face either demolition or another igjgrading effort to maintain the status quo. aCity of Little Rock Jim Diiley C Mayor City Hill. Room 203 SOO W. Mark him Litll* Rock, AR 72201-142T (SOt) 371-4516 FAX (301)371-4496 I February 24, 1993 Dr. Mac Bernd Superintendent Little Rock School District. 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 cws
.nioN_ Re: Stephens Intmdistrict School Site Selection Dear Dr. Bernd: ADMKSEC. I have been informed by City staff from the Department of Neighborhoods and Planning, that the current Stephens Elementary School located at 3700 W. 18th St. has been selected as the site for the new Stephens Interdisttict School that will open in 1994-95. . .... . , ..................................... We applaud the efforts of the LMD Board and the diligence of the Site Selection Committee in the selection of this site that will provide an innovative and exeiting alternative to not only the Stephens School neighborhood students, but also to other students located in Pulaski County who wish to attend. The City of Little Rock has made a long-term commitment to revitalize and stabilize our older and traditional neighborhoods and by the selection of this new school in the Stephens School area, makes our continued commitment even more important I have taken the liberty to outline some of these programs and housing initiatives that has and will have a tremendous impact on the St^hens School neighborhoods quality of life in the current, as well as, its future realm. Community Development Block Grant/Public Works Projects and Expenditures in the Stephens School Area The Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program defines iu Stephens School CDBG area as bordered on the north by 1-630, on the south by Roosevelt Road, on the east by the Union Pacific railroad traclu and the west by Elm Street. In that area the program has completed reconstruction of 16,939 linear feet of streeu (more than three miles) and 21,700 linear feet of drainage facilities (more than 4 miles) at a total cost of approximately $3,875,805. In addition, the program will reconstruct Maple Street from 25th to Asher Avenue and 26th Street from Pine to Maple within the next year at an estimated cost of $152,000. In the immediate vicinity of Stephens School itself, the improvements include underground drainage along Oak Street and reconstruction of Oak Street from 16th to 19th. The program also reconstructed Valentine from 14th to 18th and placed underground a drainage system that paralleled Valentine. EXHIBIT 7A map depicting these improvements in the first 16 years of the CDBG program is atuched. Housing Revitalization Efforts The City of Little Rock is actively involved in numerous programs to promote the revitalization of neighborhoods similar to the Stephens School area along with its housing stocL We have actively been involved in fostering neighbortiood partnerships and giving long-range planning to these neighborhoods. We have seve:^ programs, jeach design^ to meet the special ne^ in the Stephens School community - these programs include: Save-A-Home The City acquires a house and repairs it to code standards using C.D.B.G. funds, then sells it to a low or moderate income family at cost or below cost. The buyer must be able to secure bank financing to purchase one of these homes. Affordable Housing The City is allowed to build new homes on vacant lots in existing - neighborhoods. These homes are designed and constructed in a manner to keep the sale price low enough to obtain financing by low and moderate income families. (We are currently building (3) homes in the Central High Area.) ReaAal Rehab Funds Funds are made available to provide financial assistance for the rehabilitation of rental property to meet local code standards located within the neighborhood revitalization program area. Homebuyers Group The City assists 40-60 citizens by providing counseling on home purchasing and credit managing skills. Each person will participate in a 12 month consumer education program designed to train them on how to effectively use credit to improve their quality of life through the purchase of a home and/or other retail items that require a good credit history. Homebuyer Assistance Program The City provides financial assistance, paying one-half of the minimal downpayment cost, including insurance and taxes
to assist low and moderate income families in purchasing a home anywhere within the city limits of Little Rock for a house not to exceed $55,000. Community Development Corporations CDC The City along with the banking and business community have developed a public/private partnership to provide assistance to developers and community- based organizations for building/renovating low to moderate income housing and improving commercial services in older neighborhoods similar to the Stephens School area. 2We have garnered the services of the Local Initiative Support Corporation (LlSC) which is a nationally recognized nonprofit organization with a proven track record in community development. With the 1.5 million loan pwl in place, they will provide support in three principal ways: Building neighborhood CDC's capacity through administrative support grants
provide project funding
and working with others to estoblish reliable systems for volume production of housing and other CDC development projccu. The Greater Little Rock CDC has selected the Stephens School neighborhood for their initial project focus that will encompass (12) blocks of housing and vacant lots near the current Stephens School location. The major thrust of their program will be to provide affordable housing opportunities through both rehabilitation and new construction. Leverage Loon Program The City has developed a joint loan program with First Commercial Bank to provide help to low and nnoderate income homeowners to fix up their older Little Rock homes and meet City code standards. Through this joint venture arrangement an applicant, if approved, will receive a below-market interest rate loon. This is a city-wide program. .......Neighbariiood Alert Center -3924 W. 12th aad Cedar - The Neighborhood Alert System/Center is a neighborhood-based center designed for available resources and various City services to be more accessible to the residents of Little Rock. The system/ocatcr serves as a collaborative and concentrated effort between residents, religious groups, businesses, schools, neighborhood and civic organizations, youth groups, and City Hall to improve the conditions and quality of life for its citizens. Even though this Alert Center is located on the northern boundary of the Stq)hens School neighborhood, it serves as the nucleus for existing and pro^xed programs in this area. This center currently has integrated (3) city departments along with their delivery efforts to create positive image of change in this neighborhood. service Department of Neighborhoods and Planning - Offers code enforcement officers, and premise inspectors that are responsible for enforcement of environmental codes, deteriorating homes, abandoned cars and weed lots. Fighting Back InKbtive - Offers Neighborhood Alert Center Facilitators to help coordinate neighborhood-based efforts to alcohol and other drug abuse abatement and alternatives. Little Rock Police Department - Offers community policing to develop a working relationship with neighbors for overall safety and crime reduction. (Currently has 3 foot patrol officers.) Volunteers - The most important element toward the effectiveness and success of the Alert Centers is the neighborhood volunteers. There is a role for all citizens to be a part of the solution in unifying to take back our neighborhoods. 3Intensified/Sy sterna tic Inspection Program This is a program that is just getting started. It requires the code enforcement officer to regularly inspect all properties in this neighborhood for obvious code violations such as improper garbage disposal, abandoned autos, high grass, weeds, litter, and vacant we^ lots. The code officer assigned to this area is responsible for taking the necessary enforcement action to ensure conection of the violations. This program currently includes vacant and abandoned structures. Hopefully, in the future we will have the resources to expand the program to include occupied structures^ Drug House Elimination Program On February 27, 1993 this program will kick-off. It is a comprehensive effort to unite all avail^le resources, including the citizens in this naghborhood, to eliminate drug houses and drug activity in the area. This program includes participation by the Code Enforcement staff, Little Rock Police Department, Fighting Back personnel and citizens. Paiirt Your Heart Out '93 The Stefdiens School neighborhood was selected for this years program. On May 1, forty homes within a 2-3 block radius of Stephens Elementary School will be painted by volunteer citizens from throughout the City. Preceding this event on AprU 17, a neighborhood clean-up effort is being planned. This effort involves all citizens in this neighborhood having City resources available, i.e. dumpsters, knuckle boom trucks, chipper/shredder to assist them in removing discarded furniture and appliances, rutile, trash, etc. from their premises. Again, we applaud your efforts in retaining die school on the current site and we are in full support of the Stephens Interdisthet School Site Selection Committee's recommendation to the LRSD Board. Respectively Submitted, Sun Dailey Mayor JD/TP:sc Attachment DIRECTOR PAC. COOR. cc: Charles Nickerson, Interim City Manager Billy J. Bowles, Assist. Superintendent for Desegregation Doug Eaton, Little Rock School District Lou Caudell Jim Lawson Wendy Salaam Tim Polk MAJNTCNWCE _ CUSTODIAL CONSTRUCTION^ AOMIN. SEC. 4Greater Little Rock Community Development Corporation P. O. Box 192864 Little Rock, Arkansas 72219 Voice Mail (501) 664^3334 March 09, 1993 Dr. Mac Bernd, Superintendent Little Rock School District 810 W. Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Dr. Bernd, Let the record show that The Greater Little Rock Community Development Corporation requests that Stephens Elementary School be redesigned and rebuilt on the same ground that it now occupies. Enclosed is a copy of the revitalization plan for the Stephens School area that was adopted by The Greater Little Rock Community Development Corporation (GLRCDC) last year. (See pages 7, 8, 17 and 18). Maybe it was presumptuous, but we considered it a given that Stephens School would remain as an integral part of this community. The GLRCDC is presently compiling and quantifying remodeling and new construction costs for homes in the neighborhood just north of the school. The presence of Stephens School will be one of our main marketing tools used to encourage families to repopulate this community. Thank you and the Site Selection Committee for allowing us to participate in the selection process and for the sensitivity with which you conducted yourselves at the public meetings. We also appreciate your positive consideration of our request. We are convinced that in years to come history will record that the Little Rock School District did the right thing by rebuilding Stephens School at its present site. Sincerely, --4 Foster Strong, President The GLRCDC cc: Site Selection Committee EXHIBIT 8I THE GREATER LITTLE ROCK COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, INC. I I COOPERATIVE COMMUNITY REVITALIZATION PLAN 1 CHARLES A. JOHNSON, JR. November, 1992 Copyright PendingTHE GREATER LITTLE ROCK COMMUINITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, INC. IGLRCDC) COOPERATIVE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE I 1 Introduction......................................................... Building Community Capacity........................ The GLRCDC............................................ Management Structure................................... Staffing ................................................................. Financial Resources ............................................ Geographical Area Served............................... Housing ................................................................. Initial Target Area .............................................. Community Obstacles to Overcome............ Actions to Overcome Obstacles ................... Coalition Building ............................................. Network Members ........................................... Network Objectives ........................................ Actions to Accomplish Network Objectives Summary ............................................................. APPENDIX Census Tract Map .............................. Midtown Service Area Map ............. Service Area Housing Analysis Map The GLRCDC Board Profile ............... 1 2 4 5 6 6 7 7 8 9 10 10 11 11 13 18 A B C DI I I I INTRODUCTION The primary purpose of this community development plan is to provide a comprehensive procedure for the development of a network of public and private organizations to address the social, economic and housing needs in census tract 13 of Little Rock, Arkansas (see Census Tract Map, p. A, Appendix). The plan outlines a general framework for building a coalition of organizations with specific services, experiences and skills that are needed for the revitalization of the target area. The plan outlines the objectives of the revitalization effort and assigns areas of responsibility for each community network member. A description of the activities and services provided by the network is also provided. I I IBUILDING COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CAPACITY ! 1 Few individual organizations have sufficient capabilities to undertake the revitalization of inner city communities. A cooperative effort among community organizations with social, housing and economic development resources is needed to reverse the deterioration of our inner city communities. The composition of the cooperative network Is determined by the nature of the task, the skills required, and the willingness of organizations to collaborate to achieve together what each cannot do alone. The underlying philosophy of this network is that of connecting specific organizations with social, housing and economic resources to assist the community in revitalizing inner city neighborhoods. I I The first step in establishing a Community Cooperative Network is the identification and recruitment of a kriowledfleable and respected individual or organization to inform and organize organizations and individuals about the networking concept. The network coordinator must build trust and interest among prospective network members. The coordinator acts as an advocate and a broker. The coordinator advocates cooperative efforts arxJ brokers the services of network members to the community. A general framework for developing community cooperative networking requires the following tasks: Gt the prospective network members to talk Establish regular communication among the organizations and those with whom they need to cooperate such as community residents and other service providers. This is done by providing timely information in a way that promotes dialogue and collaboration among organizations. Dialogue also helps each prospective network member to gain mutual respect and overcome the inherent protection of perceived territorial rights. "Organizations arrive at a point of cooperation after a process of relationship-building and in anticipation of mutual gains (Schermerhorn 1979, p. 25). 2* Identify common and individual goals of prospective network members I I I Unless most of the prospective network members perceive benefits to be gained from the network arrangement, they may not participate. Identifying common and individual goals will enable the network coordinator to express the benefits both common and individual to the prospective members. I * Identify resources that each prospective network member is wHiing and able to allocate to the network. I Project planning and implementation strategies can to be developed with the knowledge of the availability of resources. The network coordinator can plan a variety of specialized services that no one organization could possibly afford except through network participation. [ For community groups. Community Cooperative Networks offer an opportunity to become equal partners In revitalizing Greater Little Rock's Inner city communities. I To effectively address the social and housing needs of the target area, the residents must become involved In planning, management and operation of the development activities that impact their lives. I. Community Development Corporations (CDCs) are being developed in American cities and rural areas to empower low income people to address the development needs of their neighborhoods. The formation of a CDC is a significant component to empower the residents of the service area toward development of a community cooperative network. The following CDC objectives and resources will be employed to organize the residents and organizations needed to revitalize the target area. 3THE GREATER LITTLE ROCK COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION. INC. (GLRCDC) I I i I The Greater Little Rock Community Development Corporation was incorporated under the laws of the State of Arkansas as a non-profit organization in November, 1991. In May 1992, the GLRCDC obtained tax exempt status as a 501 (c) (3) non-profit organization from the U.S. Internal Revenue Service. The primary goal of the GLRCDC is to reverse the trend of deteriorating residential and non-residential facilities within the greater Little Rock area. To fulfill its primary goals, the GLRCDC will seek to accomplish the following: To purchase deteriorating residential/nonresidential structures and/or vacant lots for development. I i To sell renovated structures to low-income Individuals arxJ small disadvantaged entrepreneurs. I To develop and rehabilitate residential and non-residential facilities in the area. To recruit small disadvantaged businesses to the commercial service areas. To contract with and/or sponsor the services'of architects, attorneys, accountants, engineers and other professionals in the development of the service area. To contract and/or sponsor managerial and technical assistance to small disadvantaged businesses in the service area. To inform, train and facilitate housing education workshops and other training activities in the service area. To plan, promote and facilitate crime prevention programs for area residents. 4I I I INTRODUCTION i The primary purpose of this community development plan is to provide a comprehensive procedure for the development of a network of public and private organizations to address the social, economic and housing needs in census tract 13 of Little Rock, Arkansas (see Census Tract Map, p. A, Appendix). The plan outlines a general framework for building a coalition of organizations with specific services, experiences and skills that are needed for the revitalization of the target area. I I The plan outlines the objectives of the revitalization effort and assigns areas of responsibility for each communitynetwork member. A description of the activities and services provided by the network is also provided. I 1 I* Identify common and individual goals of prospective network members I Unless most of the prospective network members perceive benefits to be gained from the network arrangement, they may not participate. Identifying common and individual goals will enable the network coordinator to express the benefits both common and individual to the prospective members. * Identify resources that each prospective network member is wMing and able to aNocate to the network. I I I i Project planning and implementation strategies can to be developed with the knowledge of the availability of resources. The network coordinator can plan a variety of specialized services that no one organization could possibly afford excepi through network participation. f I i For community groups. Community Cooperative Networks offer an opportunity to become equal partners in revitalizing Greater Little Rocks inner city communities. 1 To effectively address the social and housing needs of the target area, the residents must become involved in planning, management and operation of the development activities that impact their lives. I. Community Development Corporations (CDCs) are being developed in American cities and rural areas to empower low income people to address the development needs of their neighborhoods. The formation of a CDC is a significant component to empower the residents of the service area toward development of a community cooperative network. The following CDC objectives and resources be employed to organize the residents and organizations needed to revitalize the target area. will 3THE GREATER LITTLE ROCK COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, INC. (GLRCDC) I I J The Greater Little Rock Community Development Corporation was incorporated under the laws of the State of Arkansas as a non-profit organization in November, 1991. In May 1992, the GLRCDC obtained tax exempt status as a 501 (c) (3) non-profit organization from the U.S. Internal Reverrue Service. The primary goal of the GLRCDC Is to reverse the trend of deteriorating residential and non-residential facilities within the greater Little Rock area. To fulfill its primary goals, the GLRCDC will seek to accomplish the following: To purchase deteriorating residenfial/nonresidential structures and/or vacant lots for development. I To sell renovated structures to low-income individuals and smaM disadvantaged entrepreneurs. I To develop and rehabilitate residential and non-residentlal facilities in the area. 1 To recruit small disadvantaged businesses to the commercial service areas. To contract with and/or sponsor the services of architects, attorneys, accountants, engineers and other professionals in the development of the service area. To contract and/or sponsor managerial and technical assistance to small disadvantaged businesses in the service area. To inform, train and facilitate housing education workshops and other training activities in the service area. To plan, promote and facilitate crime prevention programs for area residents. 4BUILDING COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CAPACITY ! i Few individual organizations have sufficient capabilities to undertake the revitalization of inner city communities. A cooperative effort among community organizations with social, housing and economic development resources is needed to reverse the deterioration of our inner city communities. The composition of the cooperative network is determined by the nature of the task, the skills required, and the willingness of organizations to collaborate to achieve together what each cannot do alone. The underlying philosophy of this network is that of connecting specific organizations with social, housing and economic resources to assist the community In revitalizing Inner city neighborhoods. The first step in establishing a Community Cooperative Network is the identification and recruitment of a knowledgeable and respected individual or organization to inform and organize organizations and irtdividuals about the networking concept, The network coordinator must build trust and interest among prospective network members. The coordinator acts as an advocate and a broker. The coordinator advocates cooperative efforts and brokers the services of network members to the community. A general framework for developing community cooperative networking requires the following tasks: * Get the prospective network members to talk Establish regular communication among the organizations and those with whom they need to cooperate such as community residents and other service providers. This is done by providing timely information in a way that promotes dialogue and collaboration among organizations. Dialogue also helps each prospective network member to gain mutual respect and overcome the inherent protection of perceived territorial rights. "Organizations arrive at a point of cooperation after a process of relationship-building and in anticipation of mutual gains" (Schermerhorn 1979, p. 25). 2To plan, promote and conduct youth activities for area youths. To plan, promote and conduct senior citizen activities for area senior citizens. Management Structure To implement the goals of the GLRCDC, a board of directors which reflects the composition of residents within the service area is in place. The board members also bring a wealth of diverse experiences and skills needed to reach the goals of the organization. The GLRCDC is governed by a board of directors, comprised of nine (9) area residents. Each director serves a term of three (3) years. The manner of selection and qualifications of directors is defined arxl controlled by the Bylaws of the Corporation. The directors are nine longtime residents of greater Little Rock who provide knowledge and experience in the areas of consumer credit counseling, real estate, social services and community activities (see Board Profiles, p. D.) They are: I i Foster Strong, President 3514 West 14th Street Little Rock, AR 72204 Pam Abrams, Secretary 5109 W. 11th Little Rock, AR 72204 Felix Thompson, Vice President 5902 Timberview Road Little Rock, AR 72204 Charles A. Johnson, Jr., Treasurer 3907 American Manor Drive Little Rock, AR 72209 Elissa Gross P. 0. Box 500 North Little Rock, AR 72115 Merle Smith 2810 Arch Little Rock, AR 72206 Frank Baugh 4110 W. 21st Little Rock, AR 72204 Robert Aycock 2405 West 13th, Apt. B Little Rock, AR 72202 James Lawson 41 5 Willow North Little Rock, AR 72114 5Under the leadership of this board, the GLRCDC will implement the goals listed in its Articles of Incorporation. Staffing I The GLRCDC is presently without a paid staff. During 1992, the work activities of the GLRCDC has been conducted by the President, Treasurer, other board members and consultants (architects, engineers, market and financial specialists). I During 1993, the GLRCDC expects to receive grant funding that will enable it to employ an Executive Director, Community Developer, and an Administrative Assistant. Technical services will be contracted to architects, engineers and other specialists when needed. Financial Resources I i- During the second quarter of 1992, the GLRCDC received a Community Incentive Grant from the Winthrop Rockefeller Foundation in the amount of $7,500. The grant provides board training and organizational development funds for the GLRCDC. A grant application to the Winthrop Rockefeller Foundation to provide not less than $50,000 for economic development will be prepared during the fourth quarter of 1992. The grant award will enable the CDC to support staff and professional costs in 1993. In August 1992, the organization received a City of Little Rock HOME Program Grant Application and is in the process of completing the grant application. The GLRCDC expects to be designated a CHDO (Community Housing Development Organization) by the city and state governments and qualify to access the 15% set-a-side of city and state HOME Program funds. The GLRCDC will seek to obtain not less than $75,000 from Little Rock's allocation of the HOME Program Grant Funds during the fourth quarter of 1 992. The city grant funds will provide the initial target area with housing development funds. In the first or second quarter of 1993, a State HOME Program Application will be submitted to the Arkansas Finance and Development Authority (AFDA) to obtain up to $500,000 of HOME Grant Funds. The 6I state HOME Grant Funds are projected to provide new construction and rehabilitation financing of housing in civil jurisdictions and unincorporated areas outside the city limits of Little Rock and North Little Rock in Pulaski County. GEOGRAPHICAL AREA OF SERVICE The Midtown neighborhood is located in north central Little Rock and is bounded by 1-630 to the north, Elm Street to the west, Roosevelt Road to the south and Missouri Pacific Railroad tracks to the east. Like other older residential neighborhoods, the Midtown area Is experiencing a general decline and a deterioration of existing Infrastructure and private property. This trend toward a general decline is moving westward from the core city and is the most significant overall issue in the entire area. It is influencing both the physical appearance of the neighborhood and the housing stock. The problem of marginal residential has a strong Impact on the entire area, encouraging encroachment from nonresidential uses (see Service Area Map, p. B, Appendix). - The primary goal of the neighborhood and Its residents should be to preserve and strengthen the residential character of the Midtown neighborhood. A stronger effort must be made by both the city and the residents to help make this goal a reality and reverse the existing decline. ( i ! i The quality of life, including social aspects, is also negatively impacted by the physical deterioration of the neighborhood. The basic neighborhood structure could be greatly improved by the addition of amenities such as sidewalks, community spaces and recreational facilities. Preserving the existing housing stock and constructing new quality housing is critical to the existence of the Midtown area. Three sub-areas within the Midtown region are experiencing unique housing problems will require location specific strategies to achieve the network's housing goals. Housing One of the more serious problems affecting the Midtown area is the rapid deterioration of the existing housing stock. The substandard conditions are having an effect on the physical appearance of the area, and in some instances, the livability of certain neighborhoods within the 7Midtown area. This problem is rapidly increasing and must be abated. Reversing the trend of deteriorating housing is critical to the future of the neighborhood. Programs, such as Code Enforcement and Housing Rehabilitation, are needed to begin the process of improving the neighborhood's housing. Strong housing strategies and programs are needed to ensure a high percentage of home ownership. Home ownership is vital to maintaining stable residential neighborhoods, as a shift to a great number of rental units will continue to add to the deterioration of the housing. Owner occupied units will help strengthen the single family residences as the neighborhood's primary land use. I i f I I. I 1 There are three pockets of substandard housing
two are small subareas but one is of significant size (see Area Analysis Map, p. C, Appendix). These areas should-be identified as priorities for any home Improvement programs that ard initiated in the neighborhood. Some type of visible upgrading in these areas should have a positive effect on surrounding areas and, in turn, the entire neighborhood. The residents of the Midtown area must be made aware that it is possible to upgrade a neighborhood through improved housing conditions. The core of the area offers a good starting point. INITIAL TARGET AREA The GLRCDC plans to initiate revitalization activities in a four square block area beginning on the north boundary of Stephens Elementary School. This enclave is experiencing security problems and physical deterioration. Some of the problems are
gang violence, a disfunctional street system, substandard housing, poor drainage, and vacant lots. Immediate attention given to this area should be an incentive to residents of surrounding neighborhoods to believe that Midtown is of value and should be saved. 8COMMUNITY OBSTACLES TO OVERCOME I I Recognizing the need for "bottom up planning" (community involvement) and implementation of community development activities, the Greater Little Rock Community Development Corporation conducted a community needs assessments workshop in August, 1992. The results were used to formulate a development plan for the initial target area. The needs assessment categorized the problems of the area as follows: Critical Problems: Important Problems: Significant Problems: Crime, (especially illegal drugs). Senior Citizens fear of criminals, lack of effective Police Protection, Community Apathy
I Code Enforcement for Housing and Vacant Lots, Absentee Landlords, Infrastructure Improvements (Streets,curbs,sidewalks, drainage systems)
) Lack of safe and convenient recreational facilities, possible lack of adequate fire protection
Organization Obstacles The Greater Little Rock Community Development Corporation is without a proven track record, therefore it must obtain resourceful and dynamic leadership that can embark on a mission of addressing basic community needs in the service area. The GLRCDC must prove that things can be done and build pride and commitment among area residents. The initial objective of the Greater Little Rock CDC is to successfully undertake the physical revitalization of the Stephen's School neighborhood and reclaim the streets from crime and economic rot. The GLRCDC has identified the following barriers to organization goal attainment: Limited Financial Resources Lack of Professional Staff 9Limited Board Training Lack of Housing Development Experience ACTIONS TO OVERCOME OBSTACLES I Organization Actions A successful Community Development Corporation must build a cooperative partnership among the for-profit sector (financial institutions are of special importance), the public sector (local as well as state government), and the non-profit sector (foundations and other 501 (3)(c) corporations). The GLRCDC will play a catalytic role to build and strengthen its working relationship among these cooperative partners. I Network Actions The identification and recruitment of a respected and trusted network coordinator is crucial to the successful formation of the Community Cooperative Network. The individual or organization must be willing and capable of dispelling mistrust, and apathy among the prospective network members and the area residents. Although Little Rock does not elect its city board of directors by wards. City Board Member John Lewellen has been very active and concerned about inner city issues. He has the political status to bridge the gaps that separate organizations and individuals in their common quest. The GLRCDC will seek to secure the services of Mr. Lewellen as network coordinator. Coalition Building Despite a vast array of government and private programs designed to find solutions and deliver services to low income residents, no single entity has been able to revitalize low income neighborhoods. To overcome the barriers to revitalization of low income neighborhoods, a cooperative effort between the private and public sectors is needed to implement effective projects. 10Community Cooperative Network Members 1 The key participants in the revitalization process are the residents of the targeted areas. A practical approach to empowering low income residents is to give them the opportunity to determine what their communities need, and enable them to share in the task required to successfully implement the project. I i I The development plan for the targeted area requires a cooperative effort among the following entities
Community Residents Area Churches City of Little Rock (Police Deptartment, Fire Department, Housing Authority, Code Enforcement, and Neighborhoods and Planning) Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Worthen National Bank Community Organization for Poverity Elimination (COPE) Senior Citizens Activities Today (SCAT) New Futures for Little Rock Youth Watershed Cornerstone Project Association of Retarded Citizens (ARC) GYST House Urban League of Arkansas Arkansas Power & Light Company Arkla Gas Company Southwestern Bell Telephone Company Community Cooperative Network Objectives The implementation process for the target area has been developed by defining the project's objectives, including those related to the project's financial costs to the GLRCDC. The objectives were identified as follows: Objective 1 Objective 2 Implement crime prevention activities
Provide safe recreational activities and social services for youth
11Objective 3 Objective 4 Objective 5 Provide social services and activities for senior citizens
Increase code enforcement
Develop safe, decent and affordable housing. Next, the objectives were distributed among the network members and a narrative describing how each would be obtained. I In addition to the list of objectives and network members' areas of responsibility, the implementation process has been developed according to the implementation time frames of the objectives and events planned to overcome barriers to development. I A Goal Achievement Matrix (GAM) (Syyed T. Mahmood and Amit K. Ghosh, 1979, part IV, p. 3) has been developed to provide the network members with objectives, task responsibilities, and time frames for the start and completion of each objective. I OBJECTIVE FRAME NETWORK PARTICIPANTS TIME #1 Community Residents City Churches Little Rock Police Department GYST House The Other Way 1993-1994 #4 #5 Community Residents New Futures Watershed Cornerstone (Summer) 1993-1994 COPE, SCAT Central Arkansas Agency on Aging Little Rock Neighborhoods & Planning GLRCDC 12 1993-1994 1993-1994 1993-1995 #2 ^2Urban League (Home Owner Training) Little Rock Neighborhoods & Planning HUD COPE (Weatherization Program) Local Banks Arkansas Power & Light (Entergy) ARKLA Gas Company Southwestern Bell Telephone Company Actions To Accomplish Network Objectives ( . |. ... I The cooperative network will conduct a marketing campaign to gain attention and arouse interest in the revitalization of the service area. Brochures and letters explaining social service availability, housing opportunities and information about the purpose and services of the network will be mailed to residents of the service area. The network will attract and motivate area residents to care about and work to address the neighborhood's problems and inform them about the market advantages of the Midtown area (proximity to the interstate, shopping malls, ' downtown and affordable homes). Objective I: Crime Prevention The Stephens School area has recently experienced gang related activities. The primary gang in the area is the "Oak Street Posse". A cooperative effort between the Little Rock Police, the GLRCDC and neighborhood activists will help to rid the area of drug activity. Other non-profit organizations are necessary to address the drug education and rehabilitation needs of area residents. Initial program activities for this area will be to request that the city provide street lights on high crime streets, increase police presence and assist neighborhood residents in forming crime watch and reporting groups. To decrease crime and gang activity, the network will implement a crime prevention program. The Little Rock Police Department is the designated network crime coordinator. A youth task force will be formed 13 to develop youth programs for the area. The goal of the task force is to work through the city's young people to check the tide of crime and gang activities and to channel this energy to useful purposes. I The networks' Drug Intervention Program will implement drug education training activities targeted to adults and youth in the service area. EducationaJ activities will focus on providing literature and referrals i for drug counseling and treatment. The network will maintain a list of rehabilitation or treatment organizations which provide counseling and rehabilitative programs. The list will contain the following information: 1 Name, address, and phone number of the organization. Types of services provided. Hours of operation, including emergency hours. The contact person's name and phone rximbers. I Fee structure, including insurance coverage. I The drug intervention youth activities will include providing drug free social activities, and community work activities. Weekend social functions will be provided that are properly supervised by adults and security personnel for youths up to 18 years of age. Community work activities such as the Self-Help Paint Program, vacant lot cleaning, and yard maintenance activities will provide minimum wage earning opportunities for service area youth. Adult drug education and training activities will focus on training them to recognize symptoms of drug use and provide intervention training to combat the use and sale of drugs in their neighborhoods. In cooperation with the Little Rock Police Department, GYST House, the Arkansas Alcohol and Drug Abuse Prevention Division and other drug and crime prevention programs in the community, training materials, training facilitators and training activities such as a Drug Awareness Week will be implemented. Priority drug intervention activities will be implemented in the Oak Street area and education and training activities will be conducted at Stephens school. 14Objective 11: Safe Youth Recreation and Social Activities During the summer months, there is little for the youth to do. The lack of excitement, zest, thrills, fun, and challenges have created a dull routine life that has fostered the increased involvement of youth in criminal and other socially undesirable activities. I The cooperative network will begin planning youth activities in the first quarter of 1993. New Futures will be asked to serve as youth activities coordinator. The network will implement educational, recreational and work activities for service area youth. I I I Educational activities will include career exploration and tutorial assistance for summer school youth. Recreational activities will include supervised and organized sports activities such as bowling, skating, swimming, softball and other sports-in which male and female youth can jointly participate. The disadvantaged youth in the service area win be provided work opportunities through the city's Job Partnership Training Program. Some work activities will take place in the service area with youth supporting the network's vacant lot enforcement activities. Emphasis will be placed on recruiting parents and other adults in the service area to participate as mentors, supervisors and other program support roles. Objective III: Senior Citizen Social Service Activities The explosive growth in the older population deserves our special attention. For older residents to maintain independent lifestyles, the network will have to develop a variety of housing alternatives and support systems that address the social needs and health limitations of this group. Many older residents live alone and may suffer from chronic and disabling diseases. The housing and support system needs of these mostly widowed, largely female, often frail elderly are of major concern for the network. Many of their homes are large enough to house a four or five member family, making shared housing a viable alternative that helps residents share expenses while providing them with companionship. Unused space can be converted to accessory apartments which permit the sharing of a house without requiring the merger of two nuclear families. 15For our older residents to retain their independent living status, however, a mix of transportation, social, nutrition, and health services to accompany housing programs is necessary. t Central Arkansas Agency on Aging will be asked to serve as senior citizens activity coordinator. The senior citizens network will plan and implement transportation services to aid older residents with access to supportive services and nutrition programs that provide them with at least one hot meal, frozen, or supplemental meal (with a satisfactory storage life) at least five days during the week. I i The network will provide health education, recreation, and referral services for health and recreational activities. The network will encourage and assist older residents to use the services available to them. ( Objective IV: Code Enforcement Fair Hoosing and Code Enforcement Many of the vacant lots, abandoned and boarded houses are owned by absentee landlords. Priority code enforcement will be directed toward the cleaning of vacant lots and the abandoned and boarded houses in the service area. I The GLRCDC is the designated code enforcement network coordinator and will identify vacant lots that need trash removal and grass cutting. A list of these properties will be compiled, their code deficiencies specified and the list will be presented to the Code Enforcement Department of the city. The city will provide the owners with a formal notice of the code violations and a deadline to make the needed corrections. If the corrections are not made within the specified time, the city or its designated agent will make the corrections and invoice the owner for the services. The network coordinator will also identify abandoned or boarded property in the service area. The network coordinator will request that the city inspect the properties for code violations and provide owners with a formal notification of the code deficiencies. If the owner is low income, elderly, handicapped or disabled, the program counselor will seek assistance from the city to bring the property within code. Other code violators who are unable or unwilling to make needed repairs will be asked to donate the property to the program for removal or repairs. 16Objective V: Safe, Decent, Affordable Housing A Homeowner Training Program is projected to begin during the second quarter of 1993. The Urban League of Arkansas is the designated network homeowner training coordinator for the activity. The training is projected to provide not less than 1 5 participants during the first year. I k ( f I The program will provide participants with credit counseling similar to the loan origination by a rnortgage company. The counseling will analyze a participant's sources of income and liabilities to establish whether the client's financial status is adequate to support the desired loan. A credit report on each participant will be obtained at a cost of five dollars per person. If the participant has credit problems, the program workers will assist the participant toward establishing good credit, writing letters of explanations and/or structuring payment plans. If the income of the participant is inadequate, the program workers will assist the participant in locating a more affordable house. The program will also provide pre-qualification services for people who have not selected a house, but want to know how much they can afford and if they will have problems at the bank. The program will assist participants with completing finance application documents, provide each participant with a bank referral letter and educate clients on the merits of using checking accounts. Housing Development The network will initially concentrate its rehabilitation and housing development efforts in the area bordering Stephens School. The GLRCDC is the designated network housing development coordinator. The area is experiencing a high percentage of deteriorating housing units. The structural conditions are deteriorating faster than other parts of the service area. The network will identify a four square block area adjoining the north boundary of Stephens School within the area, and seek to obtain the cooperation of block home owners. The network will seek to h
This project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.