Report: ''Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study Executive Survey,'' 3D/International, Volume I

Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study Executive Summary Introduction, Recommendations, Cost Factors Demographic Study Summary Tabulations Educational Facility Study, Attendance Zone Options Facility Perceptions Summaries and Public August 30,1995 Volume No 1 Prepared By: 3D/ International Facilities Master Planning, Program Management, Engineering, Strategic Planning, Architecture & Interior Architecture Educational Planning Consultants Educational Consultants The Grier Partnership DemographersCOPY 18 OF 30 I B II II II P P D H B Ba II RECESV^ //J i' BOARD OF DIRECTORS A SEP 4 7 1995 41? ' S'/? oo. c oo LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Office of Desegregation Monitoring A 1994/1995 A A Linda Pondexter President Fuller Junior High P.O. Box 8601 Little Rock, Arkansas 72216 (501)490-1503 ii i| 39) Oo 3 3 3 o 3 W A Patricia Gee Vice President 8409 Dowan Drive Little Rock, Arkansas 72209 (501) 562-0571 oo aft) 3I A A Judy Magness Secretary 708 Hall Drive Little Rock, Arkansas 72205 (501) 666-0923 I I 3 A Stephanie Johnson 8701 130, Apartment 206 Little Rock, Arkansas 72209 (501)340-6681 I I A Dr. Katherine Mitchell Shorter College 604 Locust Street North Little Rock, Arkansas 72114 (501)374-6305 ) laio* A T. Kevin OMalley Arkansas Board of Review Tower Building - Suite 700 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 324-9038 O II
A 1 John A. Riggs J. A. Riggs Tractor Company P.O. Box 8601 Little Rock, Arkansas 72203 (501) 570-3528 A ?I Superintendent of Schools Dr. Henry P. Williams Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)324-2000 I 1 a 11 a FACILITIES MASTER PLAN STUDY TEAM II oo. c oo LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT II 1995 a 33 o o 3 o3 3 S' o3 a ti 3D/lnternational Facilities Master Planning, Program Management, Engineering, Strategic Planning, Architecture & Interior Architecture 112 East Pecan Suite 2350 San Antonio, Texas 78205 (210) 227-2500 oo n ao 3 n II Educational Planning Consultants Educational Consultants TASA Building 406 East 11th Street Austin, Texas 78701-2617 (512) 477-6361 y aa The Grier Partnership Demographers 6532 East Halbert Road Bethesda, Maryland 20817 (301)229-4454 ' m - a /.I c s*o 0 1n Cromwell Architects Engineers Facility Sunzey Manager 101 South Spring Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)372-2900 II a Matrix IV Architects, Incorporated Facility Survey Manager 100 South Main Street Suite 408 Little Rock, Arkansas 72202 (501) 376-7326 n!? James Mitchell Architects Facility Survey Manager 5117 Sherwood Road Little Rock, Arkansas 72225-1364 (501)661-9322 ?I A FACILITIES MASTER PLAN STUDY RESOURCE TEAM 3 O Q. C O o 1994/1995 tai Little Rock School District Dr. Russell Mayo Associate Superintendent Doug Eaton Director of Facilities 3D s o 3 o3 a3 (U O3 W / Charles Neal Director of Procurement a Leon Modeste Special Assistant to the Superintendent o o 21 os 3 a Mark Millholen Comptroller a Suellen Vann Public Information c 4 ifl Lucy Lyon Media 5 J Dennis Glasgow PTA Representative a Marie A. McNeal Learning Resource Center d iDr. Patty Kohler Exceptional Children m a o 39 d Susan Chapman Exceptional Children d Gene Parker, Jr. English Community Resources d Chris Heller Attorney for the District Debbie Glasgow President PTA Council Tim Polk Neighborhoods and Planning Mark McBryde Senior Vice President iNf 1: ? I Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I 3 a Table of Contents Executive Summary 8 CL I O a H Facilities Master Plan Study Little Rock School District 30 O o o 3 3 Q 3 3* o 3 W a a Tabs Introduction Introduction Pages 1-5 a -3 1 a Recommendations Basis Conditions of Existing Buildings Financial Condition of District Demographics Survey Findings School Attendance Zones Closures of Facilities Initiatives Page 1 Page 1 Page 2 Page 2 Page 3 Page 4 Page 5 Page 6 a a a a a Cost Factors General Cost Estimates By District Cost Priorities Inflation Options Funding Tables: Cost Summaries by Groups and Priorities Unit Cost of Renovation Cost Options Option M Option T Option C Analysis of Discontinued Use Demographics Executive Summary Page 1 Page 1 Page 1 Page 2 Page 2 Page 2 ' if ri I ' o o sa n fi) a o 5 4 e 4 m a c s 0 3 9 Educational Study Education and Facility Evaluations Capacity Utilization Page 1 CST-1, Pages 1-3 CST-2, Pages 1-2 CST-3, Pages 1-5 CST-4, Pages 1-4 CST-5, Pages 1-3 CST-6, Pages 1-3 CST-7, Page 1 Pages 1-4 Pages 1-2 Pages 2-3 Page 3 sit < i? Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I a School Size School Assignment Impact of Middle School Organization Tables: Projections Value Scores Closures The Middle School- Planning For Young Adolescents Tables: Ranking Evaluation Capacity Utilization Ratios Distribution of M to M Building and Site Areas Pages 4-6 Page 6 Page 6 Tables 1-4, Pages 7-10 Tables 5-6, Page 11-12 Table 7, Page 12 Pages 1-5 Table ES-1, Pages 1-2 Table ES-2, Pages 1-2 Table ES-3. Pages 1-2 Table ES-4, Pages 1-2 Table ES-5, Page 1 Table ES-6, Pages 1-2 a Attendance Zones General Table AZ-1 Maps: Pages 1-2 Pages 1-9 a a a Option M, Elementary Schools Option M, Exhibit Option M, Junior High Schools Option M, Senior High School Option T, Elementary Schools Option C, Elementary Schools Option C, Junior High Schools A A A A Facility Summaries Badgett Elementary Bale Elementary Baseline Elementary Booker Arts Magnet Elementary Brady Elementary Carver Magnet Elementary Cloverdale Elementary David 0. Dodd Elementary Fair Park Elementary Forest Park Elementary Franklin Incentive Elementary Fulbright Elementary Garland Incentive Elementary Geyer Springs Elementary Gibbs International Studies Magnet Elementary Ish Incentive Elementary Jefferson Elementary M.L. King Magnet Elementary Mablevale Elementary McDermott Elementary Page 01 Page 1 Page 2 Page 3 Page 4 Page 5 Page 6 Page 7 Page 8 Page 9 Page 10 Page 11 Page 12 Page 13 Page 14 Page 15 Page 16 Page 17 Page 18 Page 19 Page 2 3 8 Q. C O o a 0 O o 3 3 o 3 a. 0 5 3 (0 o o a 0 a q S' m a I 1111 S' ,, I 3 0 i
ILittle Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I If a If a fl fl dddd Meadowcliff Elementary Mitchell Incentive Elementary Otter Creek Elementary Pulaski Heights Elementary Rightsell Incentive Elementary Rockefeller Incentive Elementary Romine Interdistrict Elementary Terry Elementary Wakefield Elementary Washington Magnet Elementary Watson Elementary Western Hills Elementary Williams Magnet Elementary Wilson Elementary Woodruff Elementary Cloverdale Jr. High Dunbar Jr. High Forest Heights Jr. High Henderson Junior High Mablevale Jr. High Mann Magnet Jr. High Pulaski Heights Jr. High Southwest Junior High Alternative Learning Center Metropolitan Vocational Technical Center Central High School J. A. Fair High School Hall High School McClellan High School Parkview School Administration Building Administration Building Annex Cashion Building Plant Services Purchasing Safety and Security Transportation Page 20 Page 21 Page 22 Page 23 Page 24 Page 25 Page 26 Page 27 Page 28 Page 29 Page 30 Page 31 Page 32 Page 33 Page 34 Page 35 Page 36 Page 38 Page 40 Page 42 Page 43 Page 44 Page 46 Page 48 Page 50 Page 52 Page 56 Page 58 Page 60 Page 62 Page 65 Page 67 Page 69 Page 71 Page 73 Page 74 Page 75 O a c o 6 33 (0 o o 3 3 Q 3 Q. O 3 M oo a ttn oS S F i m ' a 0 o T, 03 2r Il N d Public Perception Survey Strategy Results Table: Page 1 Page 2 fl Survey Graph Exhibits I Page 3 i 1 Introduction Recommendations Cost Factors '*~?9rnhtc Study Educational g^aa&ieoAMfc SI Zones 1^9 BBI Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3DZI INTRODUCTION: In February 1995, the Little Rock School District (LRSD) engaged the services of 3D/lntemational to perform a facilities assessment of approximately 50 school buildings including high schools, jr. high schools, and elementary schools. The scope of services was later expanded to include a facilities survey of the Districts administrative buildings. (30) oo 3 A3 3 tt w ) To accomplish the survey goals, 3D/lntemational engaged the services of five team members: K Eunice Grier of The Grier Partnership provided demographic studies and information. oo a tt o& 3 Ben Graves of Educational Planning Consultants contributed the educational facility ratings along with studies and information on school sizes and the middle school concept. ? B To assist in gathering survey information on individual school sites, three local architectural firms joined the 3D/I team: Cromwell Architects Engineers Matrix IV Architects, Inc. James Mitchell, Architect 9 ^3 B Assessment Goals: Goals of the Project were: am If: C s o I Survey Existing District Facilities I II n On-site facilities surveys were conducted for all the school sites and the administrative buildings as listed in the RFP and as later added to the project scope. Original survey sheets, with annotations, reflect the general conditions encountered and list deficiencies, including life safety and code compliance issues. These surveys are included in a series of volumes identified by school or administrative building. Summaries of this information are included in this volume. * i: I The survey reports established a priority listing relating to time of implementation for the improvement of all deficiencies including HVAC, grounds, mechanical/electrical, and athletic facilities. An evaluation of each building was conducted and a scoring system established to provide ranking of facilities based on the condition of the facility and its site. This ranking is presented along with a separate evaluation result performed by the educational consultant, Ben Graves. Each evaluation and ranking has been based on a 1000 point scoring system. pI Page 1 u I Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I H Determine Educational Capacity n Each building has been analyzed and evaluated not only the building, but also the to determine the capacity of spaces within the building based on their who^'iTb^ number of studen'ts I n Pf*'' summary of current adjusted operating capacity detailed information is provided under each school tab. Survey Demographic Data 33 s O 3 3 ( 3 Q> fl i (A I < 11 The demographic study focused on trends since 1987 to the current oeriod with projections include populatioS k? V changes in school attendance zones and birth rates In addition, the economic factors, growth of the Pblaski CounVv construction trends, and national economic trends werp economic trends were considered. area, o o a Tl fil I 3 If ^ "^ster plan study was provided as a basis for the development of recommendations ......... and additions. zone options. of building improvements new construction, and school consolidations and attendance J si a Recommend Overall Capital Improvements a This report includes a projected cost of El th/fpriNtip a projected cost of capital improvement needs based on the facilities survey, school capacities, and demographic analysis. Included is a recommendation structured for implementation includes estimated costs to bring the schools with the educational mission of the District. over a period of 10 years. This to a level of quality consistent m I a i
S d I Consistent with the scope of this include estimates provided by the District'for hazardous material abatement, and ADA compliance. These cost estimaVpQ were previously provided to the District by others. project,^ projected costs used in this report 'oof replacements, asbestos and Provide an Executive Summary and Recommendation N If i: I Options and recommendations relate to meet the changing needs of the city and have Desegregation rio,,. ,c ,epon aiso includes scS elementary, middle or junior highs, and high general courses of action for LRSD to considered the impact of the Plan. The report also includes I I Recommendations are included for: new facilities, renovation and/or expansion of existing facilities, school consolidations student population General recommendations are also included for existinq Dislnct (ac,l,l,es with regard to their capabilities of providing for smairTroup and redistribution of I Page 2 Ia B Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3DZI B instruction, large group requirements, special educational services, physical education, general administrative requirements, and community needs. BB The analyses have considered: current educational programs offered by the District, its desegregation initiatives, the directions in which the school system is moving, the use of alternative learning settings, the development of new educational programs, desired staffing ratios, new technology, and federally-funded programs as these issues impact upon utilization of building space within the District. fl Assessment Process: <393 OO 33 (9 3 fi) O 3 M I The approach to assessing Little Rock schools has been in three phases: fl Phase 1 - Organization and Planning fl 1J Following the award of contract in February, 3D/I initiated a fact-finding meeting with representatives of the Little Rock School District to ascertain the parameters of the overall master plan study. During this meeting an approach was selected, contacts were established, and the general logistics of the survey were developed utilizing both 3D/I and LRSD resources. oo % w s o5 I 4 Cl fl At this meeting, plans for the charrette were established and attendees were selected to represent all aspects of the District's education program: population, census, and objectives. II 1 fl It was also determined that community involvement would be through the auspices of PTA councils, community town meetings, and public input surveys. Resources were established to interface with these activities. I' m rt Program Definition Charrette On March 10 the one-day Program Definition Charrette was held in the Administrative Board Room at District offices with the following attendance. fl fl fl 3D/I Core Team: Gene Rutherford, Program Manager Glenna Peterson. Project Resource Barbara Trammell, Project Administrator and Communications Ben Graves, Educational Consultant Eunice Grier, Demographer Joe Johnson, Survey Coordinator and Planner Bill Woodsmall, Mechanical Engineer Ron Ross, Survey Team Leader N * i! fl LRSD Administrative Representatives: Dr. Russel Mayo, Associate Superintendent Doug Eaton, Director of Facilities Charles Neal, Director of Procurement Leon Modeste, Special Assistant to the Superintendent I a I I i I Page 3 I I p I II n Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I a Mark Millhollen, Comptroller Suellen Vann, Public Information Chris Heller, Attorney for the District II I II LRSD Educational Program Representatives: Lucy Lyon, Media Dennis Glasgow, PTA Representative Marie A McNeal, Learning Resource Center Dr. Patty Kohler, Exceptional Children Susan Chapman, Exceptional Children Gene Parker, Jr., English 3) S O 3 3 <0 3 Q. 0) o 3 W M n II a City of Little Rock Tim Polk, Neighborhoods and Planning The charrette included discussion to identify programs, build constructive communication, determine methods and procedures, establish logistics, and anticipate problems and solutions. This all-day meeting provided the initial opportunity for client-consultant team building. The agenda included a thorough description of the process being implemented and provided a forum for dialogue among staff and core team members. In addition, presentations and discussions were held on: the City of Little Rocks long-range plan and desegregation issues
construction trends
and legal ramifications/expectancies of LRSDs court order. It also included assignment of LRSD resources for the core team, established points of contact, and definition of communication goals. [ EM EM The charrette provided several hours of direct interface among core team members and LRSD personnel to better understand conditions in Little Rock as well as available resource centers of information pertinent to the study. Milestone dates were confirmed and the general housekeeping issues to effect an orderly start of the survey was accomplished. I I I IM Phase 2 - Inspections and Surveys: EM The core team met prior to the charrette to develop a definitive understanding of each participant's role. Following the meeting a general critique of the d charrette process was held, dates were established for team training and the model survey exercise, and participants set goals and deadlines for each phase of their responsibilities. d Team Preparation: Model Survey Exercise Following the charrette, the survey teams were formed and on March 20, a presurvey workshop that included LRSD staff was held. The session, led by 3D/I project resource, Glenna Peterson, was held to familiarize team members with forms and procedures, and to provide general information regarding the survey process. Page 4 o o a n tt S o 5 I t II J m a 3 fit si ( I: h 1fl fl Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I fl Following the workshop, the two teams conducted a complete walk-through and facilities survey of the Bale Elementary School. This effort served as a laboratory project and was critiqued following its completion to allow for any fine-tuning of the forms or process before proceeding to other school locations. fl fl Facility Site Survey During the period from March 20 through May 4, the two survey teams completed the facilities survey at all school locations. The resulting forms are included in this report as a part of each school summary. 33 A O O 3 3i fl fl Educational Facility Survey During the same time period (March 20 through May 2), core team member, Ben Graves, (EPC) conducted similar educational evaluations of each school building. This survey establishes the condition of the space, its present use, and other pertinent data required to render an opinion of adequacy, capacity, and utilization. Q. a>o 3 W 4 fl The facility survey instrument used on this project has been tested for its effectiveness by use in a significant number of projects throughout the United States. Its scoring is based on a 1000 point system to generally bracket the facilities into four groups. I fl Scores from the educational survey provide three areas of comparison
1) within an individual school, each feature can be compared with established norms or minimal standards
2) for the entire district, schools have been sorted according to characteristic features, and 3) a graphic profile is included for each facility as a summary reference. I fl fl Capacity and Utilization: Analysis of Facilities During the educational facility survey process, information was gathered to provide the following evaluation criteria
1. Educational adequacy of facility. ,'l fl 2. Current use of space. 3. Current operational capacity. fl 4. Current utilization fl The work described above has been completed and is included under the appropriate school tab. Demoqraphic Survey 3D/I team member, Eunice Grier of The Grier Partnership, has completed the demographic survey of the LRSD area and her analysis is provided with this report. fl The study considers the impact of recreation
zoning
city planning: highway construction
economic projections, and the effect of residential, commercial, and industrial developments on public school facilities. h i
h I Page 5 oo a ! ttn I Iih J1 ma I I o. I 3 Mi I d d Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I d Since the basis of the demographic study is district-wide and is the predicate for projections with suggested realignment options, it has been included in its entirety in this volume. d d d Community Involvement 3D/I core team member Barbara Trammell worked closely with LRSD staff member Suellen Vann to develop a survey that would allow input from parents, neighbors, and employees. This form was distributed through the school system via students and made available to the general public at town meetings and through a mailing to neighborhood groups. A summary of the district-wide data gathered is included with this executive summary and the responses and comments particular to the individual schools are located with the site-specific information. 3D o o o 3 3 o 3 Q O 3 W d Phase 3 Analysis and Reporting d Review and Consistency of Survey Data During this final phase, core team members reviewed the findings of each task area to ensure accuracy, consistency, and completeness. Trends were d reviewed, "what-if scenarios were examined for the purpose of providing recommendations and/or options that would best serve the students in the Little Rock School District. d This process was employed to integrate the facility, education, and demographic survey data to provide continuity. d d District-wide Summary Report This volume summarizes the findings and evaluations of schools and administrative facilities, the cost to correct deficiencies, construction costs for new facilities, school and administrative consolidations, and options for realignment of school attendance zones. I 1 d The following Page 7, of this section, entitled "ORGANIZATION OF REPORT, HOW TO READ IT' is included as a tool to help the reader move through the various sections and better understand the logic of the text, tables and maps. The index also locates topics for convenience. d d Page 6 o o a w a o S / ^3 m i! LI n a Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I a ORGANIZATION OF REPORT HOW TO HEAD IT a ORGANIZATION The Demographic Survey, Educational Survey, and Facility Survey, each are investigatory endeavors that lead to recommendations and options. The cost factors are estimates of the cost to renovate and repair existing facilities and provide additions a or new construction based on the options considered. Recommendations are the M resulting conclusions of investigation of population and enrollment trends, the condition of existing facilities, costs to the district, and other factors observed during the facility master plan process. 33 S O 3 3 Q 3 Q. fi) O 3 W The Executive Summary of this report has been organized in the following manner: II Tab_____________ Introduction Recommendations Cost Factors Demographic Study Educational Study Attendance Zones Facility Summaries Public Perception Surveys Description_______________________________ A brief introduction of the process Recommendations for action Cost of Implementing recommendations Summary of demographic study materials Study of school size, capacity, impact of middle schools and the number of required facilities Zone configuration options with maps and tables Summaries of each facility with itemized cost priorities Summary results of public opinions o o a S' a g 3 fl n a a d m - c a Demographic details are provided in Volume 2. Facility details are provided in Volumes 3 through 13. f ! ' fl d d TIPS School Sizes and Number Required Are located under the Educational Study tab in the Executive Summary These include the trends of population and student enrollment forecasts with the resulting quantity of schools required displayed on three bracketed size ranges as set out on tables 1-3. ! I: d d Attendance Zone Options The attendance zone options are located under the Attendance Zone tab in the Executive Summary and describe the sizes of existing schools and their present capacity. These include recommendations for additions to increase their capacities, based on a projected enrollment capability of the area. These options have been illustrated by the Summary table AZ-1, Option M, T, and C maps. This information is located in the Attendance Zone section, as well as Tables CST-4, 5, and 6 in the Cost Factor section. i Page 1a a Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I II a School Closures and Other Uses The attendance zone options, illustrated on the maps described above, indicate schools recommended for closure, which have been based on condition, location, size, and cost to renovate or repair the facility. These factors were a part of the evaluation^ score and ultimate ranking of the facilities which are found under the Educational Summary tab in tables ES-1 and ES-2 and illustrated on Table CST-7 under the Cost Factors tab. a a Facilities available for other uses, are schools that are recommended for functions other than their initial purpose, generally because of the surplus of facilities in a particular attendance zone area. Table CST-7, under the Cost Factors tab illustrates these facilities and recommendation No 5, under the Recommendations tab elaborates on these buildings. 3) o o o 3 3 <0 3 fi> O 3 > a a a a d Cost Factors Tables CST-4, 5, and 6 show ethnic composition for each school in each option studied with resulting total enrollment capability used. The operating capacity of each school is subtracted from the enrollment capability to produce a difference (delta) in capacity which is shown. A negative number indicates additional capacity is required, and a positive number indicates that sufficient capacity is available. The negative capacity numbers are then multiplied by the factor of 107 (square feet required per student) and result in a deficit area expressed as a negative number in square feet required. These space requirements are multiplied by a assumed cost factor of $65 per square foot for additions to buildings or $55 per square foot for new building construction. Totals of costs for each option for renovation additions and for new school construction are carried forward to the summary sheets Table CST-3 under the appropriate option. I d Cost Factors Table CST-3 indicates the cost of renovating each facility, except those recommended for closure which appear as a gray line with costs removed. d d This data comes from Table CST-1 and is summarized near the bottom of (CST-3 Page 2) at the line labeled TOTAL BASIS AMOUNT. The amount under each column, totals and priorities, is then added to the cost of each option, including escalation, from table CST-3, Pages 3, 4, and 5 to obtain the total projected cost of each option by totals and priorities. d Cost Factors Table CST-1 indicates the cost of renovating every facility currently in the Little Rock School District, whether recommended for closure or not. This cost summary has been organized by type of schools and includes the seven administrative facilities within the district. This is the basis of the data used to develop the total cost under each of the three options (Options M, T, and C) presented within Table CST-3. Page 8 o o fa a o w I'rt' m a c s I 3 ' ii n 3 * J?a a II Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I The line total entitled SUBTOTAL SCHOOLS & ADMIN on page 2 represents total costs as a whole and priorities 1-5, in their respective columns. To this number is added those estimates of costs, provided by the district, for ADA, Roof Replacement, and Asbestos Abatement, by facility, which produces non-escalated costs in each column. H a H A A A Escalation Impact is summarized at the bottom of Page 2, is developed in depth on Page 3, and projects the total program costs (renovations of existing facilities) from one through ten+ years by whole and by priority. These numbers do not include new construction cost estimates or options, which are developed in CST-3. Implementation of the Plan The Facilities Master Plan Study has been approached as a study of the facts and data available regarding the Little Rock School Districts facilities, projected enrollments, and needs, over the next 10 years. This information has been summarized with options and priorities for consideration and implementation by the Board and its Administration. The logistics of the implementation, are therefore dependent on policy decisions of the Board and were not a part of the study. The plan, however, considered implementation in the development of its options and recommendations and is viable, if executed in a careful systematic manner following an implementation schedule. This schedule is dependent on four undetermined factors: 33 ( O o 3 3 < 3 a w o' 3 (A o o & m S o s 1. A 2. 3. A 4. Approval of available options {which could involve adjustment of the selected option to meet boa nd policy.) Acceptance by the Court (the plan and the selected option). Acquisition of Financing (adequate to support the plan or meaningful components of the plan). Selection of an implementor (Skilled in development of capital schedules and programs along with district counterpart) ^4 4 I m I : a . A I '/I I .It I ' I AT A *<10 3 'i I 1*1 A A <1 N A 5? 3 7 Page 9Cost Factors .1 r . X 6 f-' I I I I a -> - I I J I* .1 ' e Recommendations t . . a fl Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I fl RECOMMENDATIONS Basis of Recommendations The 3D/I team approached the facilities master plan task with four specific targets: 1) assessment of facilities and the cost of implementation, 2) assessment of a demographics and changes in population and enrollments, 3) analysis of all school capacities with their current and projected utilization, and 4) alignment of the study with the desegregation court order components. Each step of the survey was undertaken with attention to these factors. 2' 9 fl Therefore, conclusions have been thoroughly considered, reconsidered, and evaluated with the resulting recommendations and options being in harmony with and influenced by the four specific targets outlined above. An implied directive, and perhaps the most important, influencing recommendations is What is in the best interests of the children being served." o o Ji w I By Conditions of Existing Buildings I fl As the 3D/I teams visited and noted the conditions of over 50 individual buildings, it became very obvious that the District is in need of a substantial preventive maintenance plan, endorsed and supported by the Board of Directors. The I 7^ 4 40 fl d consequences of failing to implement such a plan, are a cycle of never-ending unchecked damage and deterioration. Lack of a substantial preventive maintenance does not serve the public, and creates the appearance of frequent calls on funds with no visible results. I I 4 fl d Experience has shown that institutions that consider their facility improvement requirements too costly to be accomplished, continue to allow the depreciation of their assets by lack of action. On the other hand, institutions that have addressed their capital needs in a manner that the public could support and at the same time have established a preventive maintenance program are able to manage the facility issues and maintain their assets. I I I 1 jni ' a 4 C 'iBL 0 1 i I ri fl The secret to this success is the establishment of an escrow funding account where the unspent dollars remaining from the annual maintenance budget accrue to the Preventive Maintenance Escrow Fund without penalty to the next years budget negotiation process. This eliminates the historical urgency of spending to justify the budget, typical of most institutional and government entities. The annual contribution to this fund is established by the Board of Directors as a sinking fund with sufficient policy directives to protect it from any other non related uses and pet programs. Where this is an established procedure, the system works. Major capital replacement cost can be dealt with without affecting operating budgets as well as unexpected costs such as storm damage etc. it * N Si g I, An important element of preventive maintenance is an effective housekeeping system. Whether out-sourced or in-house, custodial services should be directed by the physical plant department, but accountable to the school principal. The teams observed that I Page 1fl fl Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I fl where the principal took an active role in ownership of his or her facility custodian and maintenance functions were improved and the facility presented a more appealing environment to students, staff, and the public. fl fl Recommendation Number 1 is the establishment of a preventive maintenance program with a policy-protected escrow funding account that is incrementally funded each year, as a part of the annual budget process, but not used for normal day to day maintenance items. Disbursements from this account could have board oversight to insure its designed purpose. fl Financial Condition of the District During the course of the public meetings and subsequent meetings with the Districts fl financial representatives, the revenue shortfall was thoroughly discussed. The fl presumable reason for this shortfall is tied to the simple axiom of too much cost, too little income. This apparently results from a low utilization of the Districts physical plants and a high cost of education due to the various special programs established as a result of the current desegregation plan and the high cost of administering that program. other considerations may be the traditional concern of the ratio of fl administrators to the number schools and students. Since District budgeting of operations was not one of the tasks of the 3D/I team, no detailed analysis has been made as a part of this facilities master plan. However, it is important to note that the recommended closure and alternate use of certain facilities, based on condition and enrollment factors, could have a positive affect in reducing the operating costs of the school district while improving the quality of the basic facilities. z' 3 o o a "n 0) I 3 a ) < m a c Recommendation Number 2 is the establishment of a capital program through the sale of bonds supported by an adjusted millage program that accomplishes, in the shortest period practical, the renovation, repair, and proposed new construction of the Districts schools and administrative facilities. (Five years is the optimum building period for a project of this nature.) Refer to the cost projections set out under the Cost Factors tab. o I I 3 I I i / Based on the recent opinion of the Arkansas Attorney General, it would appear that a capital improvement millage issue could be accomplished on its own merits. Notwithstanding this opinion, it is recommended that any millage brought before the public should include a major capital improvement package as an element as well as the seed for the Preventive Maintenance Escrow Fund. Demographics During the course of examining the population changes and the influences of economic factors operating in the Little Rock area and their affect upon the families living in the LRSDs enrollment area, it became evident that sufficient information for projection was not readily available. Due to the lack of established reporting zones, (District enrollment blocks and federal census tracts do not align.) it is difficult to measure the migration and school attendance of potential students living within District boundaries. Page 2 J S iiLittle Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I "!* =.? "f on the day o, school enrollment each year. Historical detailed records of this &., for past years, thus making detailed projections by attendance blocks enrollment were not available difficult. . Recommendation Number 3 is the formation of a database, maintained by nictnrt ___. .............. the district, consisting of a survey of school-aged children residing in the a vanous areas of the district and updated on an annual basis. This database should also include specific details of those children who attendance block as well schools. are students by as those leaving the district to attend other 2 9 An additional record to facilitate using this information is an annual a accounting of students entering LRSD on the M to M program. The magnet shadow-zone attendance should also be recorded and tracked. While this recommendation involves personnel and effort on an annual o o & tt I t a basis, its benefit would be invaluable in budgeting, long-range planning, and the resultant capital decisions. I i a Survey Findings and Desegregation Plan a At the beginning of the facilities master plan study, the importance of the court order for desegregation was emphasized and has remained as a key factor in planning and ha s master plan study. The components of the court^order are basically summarized as follows
a A. Basis of Facility Needs: Trends in student population Trends in staffing Impact of trends on demographics geographies student assignment zones B, Analysis of Facility Resources: Capacities Location Campus size Special features Limitations c. Additional Factors For Proposed Facilities Use: (five to ten year plan) District goals and objectives Desegregation requirements (includes interdistiict obligations) Decisions criteria for facility actions Identification and analysis of options Proposed facility changes Page 3 I u 3 4 , m o % t'r I 'H o JI ' h'- 5? n IILittle Rock School District Facilities Master Plan study 3D/I M Impact of programmatic changes (i.e. middle schools) Reassignment of students (' (impact on enrollment and racial I 1 I I Burden of busing on students Impact on financial stability D. Includes
balance at receiving schools) ^amination of buildings used for administrative Requisite plan modification Community involvement All of the applicable aspects of the this master plan assessment process space court order have been considered and addressed programs, double funding, and other incentives plan, were proposals of the district '-UI laiueieu ano aooressed as nT understand that many of the special currently a part of the desegregation approved by the court in years past. Current the population shifts and the continuing decrease i --------- in enrollment of white In Also, the burden of bussing and disruption of the <.......... childs home environment created by to these problems, options unitary status for Little Rock School District based of education currently being offered an appeal to the court for program to systematically complete on continuing the quality to students, a capital improvement renovation, upgrading, and the constmction of new sohccis in the areas reoommentied by ms Sport as the preventive maintenance plan to adequately on a continuing basis. as well maintain these facilities Itudenirfn^^V'J provided for all attendance areas along with a unified available to every student with sufficient flexibility gifted and talented, accelerated and program of education and opportunities through magnet school programs. School Attendance Zones As a part of the master plan study, zones, closure of schools, and and capital program analysis, the school attendance recommended construction of new facilities were given Page 4 I 1 I 2 Q o o a & g 4 g ^4 ft 0 I m & I fig 3 & 3 M If II fl Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I fl thorough consideration. One common element that emerged was the recommended closure of seven elementary schools and one junior high school, over a period of time, with additions and new construction resulting in the consolidated attendance zones. fl Three options were developed to examine the effective linkage of elementary to junior and senior high schools. This process also considered the effect of middle schools when the sixth grade is moved from elementary school and the ninth grade is shifted to the high school. Attendance zone options considered were
2 fl Option M where the recommended closure of elementary and junior high school distributed students to existing facilities with the least disruption to the district. Under this option, the current split attendance zone system would remain. I 2 ' 9 Option T considered the effect of trying to align the current attendance blocks and schools, both existing and new, into a zoning system aligning with the federal census tracts. This option was found to be difficult and of questionable value based on the current census tract configurations. o o 21 w S o S fl Option C considered the corridor approach where the major highways, railroad tracks, river, and other physical barriers created natural divisions of the city. This approach largely developed a method of attendance zones that allowed students to attend an elementary school within reasonable I o J I L fl distance from their home. This option provides a more cohesive school/home environment although enrollment ethnic ratios under this plan 8 1 reflect the makeup of the area surrounding the school. To offset this fl imbalance, however, the burden of bussing is reduced and the magnet shadow zones are utilized. I m a c SI fri o 3 fl As the system progresses from elementary through junior high or middle school to senior high, the number of options decline and are less distinctive. However, tracking from elementary to senior high can be clearly defined. 'I fl fl fl In addition to the eight schools recommended for closure, four additional elementary schools are not used, generally because of a surplus of schools in a particular attendance zone. These facilities, at the Boards discretion, could remain in operation with modifications to adjacent school enrollment assignments. The recommendation, however, is that a more efficient use of the districts inventory and personnel would eliminate these facilities as active schools. Recommendation Number 5 is the closure of seven elementary schools and one junior high school along with four additional elementary schools to be slated for alternate uses by the district and the community. These closures and reassignment of functions are predicated on the premise that the alterations, additions and construction of new school or schools is accomplished as a part of the plan. Savings resulting renovation expenses and reduced, if not eliminated, operating expenses can significantly reduce the cost of new construction. Reduced operating expenses, even with Page 5 ii hi o li IS 3 7 iffl fl Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I i inflation, can retire the capital debt on paper, assuming these savings are not spent elsewhere. fl Recommendation Number 6 is the consultants opinion, that of the options considered, Option C is preferred. The preference is based on fl considerations of the school experience for the children, a more- favorable opportunity for parent participation, development of community identities, diminished burden of bussing, comparable cost to the district, and the more effective value to the public. 2* Q Recommendation Number 7 notwithstanding, the consultants Recommendation Number 5, is the formation of a representative committee of the board of directors, the administration, the court, and the public, to consider each of the options, evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of each and effect a conclusion that best serves the children of the Little Rock school system in their pursuit of the learning experience. o o a w & o S b fl Initiatives <G 'll a J I fl In every dynamic community, city, and state the importance of education is placed high on the list of priority considerations. Decisions of businesses considering localities for establishing their home or branch office is always influenced by the available school system serving the area and the level of education offered. This is true of elementary schools through colleges. 5 1'^ 1 m a fl Little Rock has suffered in this area due to the unfortunate political decisions of the past and the fact that it remains under the courts desegregation management. While the level of education has substantially improved in all schools (the outstanding reputation of Central High School is a good example), the stigma of operating without unitary status tends to cast a shadow over the quality of the school system, whether it is deserved or not. I ' A I 11 B 2 S. I* I N During the course of the survey, the 3D/I team found a positive attitude among most of the faculty and patrons which was demonstrated by the public opinion survey responses representing almost 20 percent of parents and employees of the district. Considerations yet to be developed are alternate uses of facilities recommended for closure. Possible uses include: neighborhood library and learning center sites. community centers, and neighborhood alert centers. Since these types of uses require city and citizen support, both actively and financially, two initiatives are recommended for consideration. Recommendation Number 8 is that initiatives be taken to reverse decreasing enrollment patterns by active, visible involvement of a task force to promote and support the Little Rock School District, its academic program, its capital needs, the possibility of adult continuing education programs for the community, the support of preventive maintenance, and Page 6 8, I Ffl fl fl fl fli Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I support of unitary status. A part of this recommendation is the formation of a representative committee of the city, board of directors, district administration, and patrons to actively pursue a feasible plan for the alternative use of those facilities recommended for closure and other uses. This plan should provide for a use that benefits the community, is supported by the taxpayers, and does not become a burden to either the district or the city. These facilities, at the Boards discretion, could remain in operation with modifications to adjacent school enrollment assignments. The recommendation, however, is that a more efficient use of the district's inventory and personnel would eliminate these facilities as active schools. Recommendation Number 9 is a deliberate effort, on the part of the Board of Directors, of the Little Rock School District, to cultivate and encourage a representative group of leaders and professional men and women in the Little Rock community to become interested and involved in the activities of the district in its guidance of the education process and policies. This would include important committee assignments, PTA offices, and, if elected, service on the Board. In addition to the dedicated board members of today, this effort would continue the development of community awareness and respect of the school system and be a positive building block for the boards of tomorrow. These recommendations are offered with the sincere thought that their implementation will enhance the stature and improve the operation of the Little Rock School District as well as improve the credibility of the district as perceived by the public. I fl Page 7 2 Q -I o o a 9 & o 9 r '1 R fl If fl I I ni 1 a 'll 3 9 N O I 9* i
n 3 7 JCost Factors Study Zones oauvnniHrwv * . 11 k r II ' (T h h I hP' r rI I i r 11 1 J J * Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I H COST FACTORS N General a a a The facilities survey conducted at fifty schools and seven administration buildings was limited to a period ranging from a partial day to two days per facility, depending on its size and condition. The projected estimate of cost, therefore, becomes an order of magnitude estimate that deals with broad base cost allowances to correct deficiencies described in broad terms. Detailed specificity and quantification was not permitted within the scope and time allowed, however, it is believed that the estimates portray an accurate allowance of cost that the district should expect in executing corrections and updates to the conditions found. In some cases, conditions found warranted further study or detailed structural solutions and these were so noted in the field notes and summarized under the tab Facility Summaries. Cost Estimates Provided by LRSD 2| 3 S y I 8 a a H 8 8 a a a 8 While the cost of asbestos and hazardous materials abatement, roofing repair and replacement, and ADA compliance were provided to the district as a result of studies that preceded this contract, allowances have been included in the estimated costs tables, as provided by LRSD. to more clearly define the scope and magnitude of capital cost requirements. With the exception of the cost of asbestos and hazardous materials abatement, these costs have been removed, along with other estimated costs, provided by 3D/I, in the following studies showing the affect of school closures. It was assumed that abatement would be the responsibility of the district regardless of disposition of the facility. Cost Priorities Facility surveyors approached the examination of each building with a pre-established priority index, district wide: Priority #1 Priority #2 Priority #3 5 m ! I 11 I & I ^8 0 Included life safety issues, serious code compliance issues and those critical items and others that need to be accomplished during the first year. Table CST-1 assumes this work will occur between 1995 and 1997. Brackets that work that needs to occur in the second and third years Table CST-1 assumes this work will occur in 1998. Brackets that work that the surveyors felt could be extended to be done in a 3 to 5 year period. Table CST-1 assumes this work will occur between 1998 and 2001. Page 1 N tf i i! i: a n 3 I 9 * fi & I-? rLittle Rock School District Facilities Master Plan fl Study 3D/I fl Priority #4 Brackets that work that the surveyors felt could be extended to be 521?JCST.1 assumes this win occur between 2001 and 2006. fl Priority #5 Includes all technology updates. -- This basically provides conduit communication outlets, cable racks, cabling t coaxial wiring, and associated items, except equipment, to provide communication and interactive teaching system a state-of-the-art dHu interactive teaching system. TABLE CST-1 "O 2011
however, ih 2 fl todays information explosion, it is likely that these earlier installation. needs will dictate an 0 Inflation fl iltXl^c'sriTav^:^'^'??! loearing in the summary set out fl during each priority phase. such as adding or removing schools from total should be adjusted to reflect those changes. project totals If the order presented in those priority phases is changed consideration, then the inflation factor Additions and New Construction 1 ii J ^'13 I I Xm7MdinL*''a7?'' 'I''"" 1" d^dhlished far both additions to cron construction. The unit costs used for thP S P" ^or new construction and structures. Both amounts are bX on 95 dollar values, and the inflation formula should be applied as may be appropriate. construction. I Table CST-2 provides a * summary of unit costs for each of the 50 schools - ' '"rt ^0'"19 redUiring renovation and replacement work These unit co'sts can be indicators of when new constniction Is preferred to renovation 0^ and 7 I 'I t'il is i 1 3 J s. A Options Funding While it was not within the presented under this tab in Tables CST-3 CST-4 and CST scope of this report to establish a detailed funding program ft nhta nod Xi________ri* ... . Stai'lmDr^ve??' feasibill^^f'TecimmZ^^ahOT capital improvement program approaches. , along with the District financial officer, available within a realistic millage rate. 3D/I consulted with the Stevens Company to explore and examine realistic possibilities Using prelirninary broad-based estimating assumptions, $1 514 M per mil oer vear for s to 7 years have bean considered as a workabte c^p,isf base Lm which mis Page 2 f I 11 " .1 N 1 'Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I program can be executed. While it is our understanding that the property values and taxing base has been relatively flat in the Little Rock area while inflation has risen, the District feels the need to request millage increases to offset the increased costs of operations. I This report recommends that either a capital improvement millage request and resulting bond issue or a dual-purpose millage request covering both capital and operating costs be effected. Operating cost increases without improvement of physical facilities, would be less likely to receive enthusiastic support from taxpayers. The most effective approach to the improvement schedule set out in this report would be a single bond issue approval for renovation, improvements, and new construction that could be accomplished within a 5-year period with the sale of bonds occurring in stages during that same period. I 4 It is also important that a capital program, when executed, unilaterally covers work in all attendance zones throughout the District. To have the least impact on the operation of schools, new school construction and major renovations to buildings temporarily taken out of service should occur prior to general renovation work throughout the District. Those schools slated for closure could serve as temporary facilities during the building program. e i Careful attention and prioritization should be exercised if the district elects to undertake a project of less magnitude than is set out in this report to avoid new work that must be destroyed to later accomplish delayed priorities. The detailed programming of projects and the resultant cost estimating, accomplished by architects and program managers, during the course of the Districts capital program is the first step that needs to be taken before design is completed or construction contacts are awarded. ' a Professional management of the capital endeavor should be considered to provide economy in contracting, less disruptive scheduling, and in come cases pre-purchasing and value engineering options available to the school district. nI? 3 S' i
r > s 4 Page 3H Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I EM ICOST SUMMARY OF BUILDINGS Renovation and Repair, Existing Buildings Little Rock School District Table CST-1 TYPE OF SCHOOL EM EM IM iM I HI NO HIGH SCHOOLS NAME 1 CENTRAL (Main Building) (Gymnasium) (Library) (Quigley Stadium) Subtotal Central TOTAL BASE COST Idas $4,790,209 $290,617 $201,263 $481,629 $5,763,718 2 3 4 5 McClellan J.A.FAIR HALL PARKVIE\A/ (Building 1) _______ (Building 2) (Building 3) Subtotal Parkview TOTAL HlOH SCHOOLS $3,489,032 $1,725,309 $2,182,064 $724,389 $24,087 $89,396 $837,872 $13,987,995 VOCATIONAL TECHNICAL SCHOOL 6 METROPOLITAN Total VTS $3,488,387 $3,488,387 JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOLS 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 PRIORITY 1 1-2 Years 1995-1997 PRIORITY 2 3 Years 1998 PRIORITY 3 3-5 Years 98-2001 PRIORITY 4 5-10 Years 2001-2006 PRIORITY 5 10-15 Years 2008-2011 PRIORITY TOTALS No Escalation DIST SITE NO $2,942,332 $77,225 $51,905 $153,017 $3,224,480 $579,059 $411,771 $453,800 $6,690 $0 $0 $8,690 $4,677,800 $412,381 $412,381 $922,092 $172,597 $10,158 $69,536 $1,174,383 $1,397,303 $235,246 $800,095 $314,469 $24,087 $19,621 $358,177 $3,965,204 $505,588 $605,688 $172,319 $7,328 $3,616 $162,128 $345,393 $1,076,795 $454,968 $404,394 $967 $0 $0 $967 $2,284,516 $1,567,873 $1,567,873 $0 $33,467 $0 $0 $33,467 $18,586 $77,696 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $129,750 $3,567 $3,567 $753,466 $0 $135,580 $96,948 $985,994 $415,286 $545,629 $523,775 $400,263 $0 $69,775 $470,038 $2,940,722 $996,969 $998,969 $4,790,209 $290,617 $201,263 $481,629 $5,763,716 $3,489,032 $1,725,309 $2,182,064 $724,389 $24,067 $89,396 $837,872 $13,997,994 $3,488,387 $3,488,387 1 12 8 2 5 $5 $27 4 1 'Jl <1 CLOVERDALE_________________ DUNBAR FOREST HEIGHTS_____________ HENDERSON MABELVALE MANN MAGNET ( Building #1) __________________(Building tf2) PULASKI HEIGHTS (Building #1) __________________ (Building #2) __________________ (Building #3) SOUTHWEST________ ________Total Junior High Schools ALTERNATE LEARNING CENTER ALC Total ALC ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS t 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 BADGETT BALE ^SELINE booker MAGNET BRADY CARVER MAGNET CHICOT CLOVERDALE DAVID O DODD FAIR PARK_______ forest PARK franklin________ FULBRIGHT $687,389 $3,855,668 $2,410,310 $845,431 $2,263,241 $930,224 $484,276 $926,119 $74,076 $619,988 $1,483,632 $14,580,354 $1,183,270 $1,183,270 $666.504 $1,200,466 $1,111,915 $892,564 $476,919 $378,889 $0 $461.989 $954,119 $714,626 $752,687 $1,845,175 $484,019 $228,836 $1,476,235 $822,810 $219,472 $277,011 $99,054 $21,565 $43,756 $12,890 $233,662 $18,690 $3,453,981 $415,614 $415,614 $145,216 $341,296 $156,719 $154,780 $220 $5,026 $0 $45,062 $12,275 $35,836 $91,391 $214,024 $26,102 $73,850 $533,350 $632,646 $105,842 $819,091 $70,719 $348,274 $379,487 $12,786 $120,624 $468,791 $3,565,459 $474,524 $474,524 $145,305 $423,784 $351,026 $25,820 $170,862 $121,554 $0 $56,127 $183,633 $538,790 $373,162 $626,040 $43,096 $228,017 $1,442,690 $722,897 $191,157 $944,741 $326,736 $37,185 $211,865 $11,088 $35,202 $548,199 $4,701,777 $133,401 $133,401 $279,738 $150,163 $402,280 $472,862 $68,787 $45,033 $0 $241,614 $474,315 $47,995 $190,839 $650,595 I $129,202 $0 $86,423 $6,415 $0 $24,526 $125,146 $26,257 $111,557 $5,211 $220,540 $182,264 $790,338 $40,658 $40,658 $21,651 $178,047 $8,001 $1,557 $0 $1,332 $0 $0 $127,580 $0 $0 $136,192 $71,761 $156,684 $316,970 $223,542 $328,960 $197,872 $306,569 $50,996 $179,454 $32,101 $9,960 $265,669 $2,068,798 $119,074 $118,074 $74,594 $107,175 $193,869 $237,544 $108,027 $205,943 $0 $139,166 $156,315 $92,005 $97,295 $218,324 $213,856 $687,369 $3,855,668 $2,410,310 $845,431 $2,263,241 $930,224 $484,276 $926,119 $74,076 $619,988 $1,483,632 14,680,354 $1,183,270 $1,183,270 $666,504 $1,200,466 $1,111,915 $892,564 $347,917 $376,889 $0 $481,989 $954,119 $714,626 $752,687 $1,845,175 $484,019 Table CST-1 Page 1 15 7 9 13 16 3 am 10 11 14 19 17 22 6 18 21 27 31 32 23 24 25 48 f'o 3 ( J N J{?f i: 2 2* - h I 'll r l 'N 3s r3- J Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I ICOST SUMMARY OF BUILDINGS Renovation and Repair, Existing Buildings Little Rock School District Table CST-1 TYPE OF SCHOOL fl fl fl NO 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 NAME GARLAND GEYER SPRINGS GIBBS MAGNET ISH JEFFERSON MARTIN L KING MABELVALE McDermott_______ MEADOWCLIFF MITCHELL_________ MARTIN L KING OTTER CREEK PULASKI HEIGHTS RIGHTSELL ROCKEFELLER ROMINE TERRY WAKEFIELD WASHINGTON WATSON__________ WESTERN HILLS WILLIAMS MAGNET WILSON___________ WOODRUFF ADMINISTRATION BUILDINGS Total Etementary TOTAL BASE COST 1996 $1,373,658 $321,017 $215,003 $656,776 $1,814,531 $239,042 $1,568,674 $689,136 $1,138,095 $579,516 $239,042 $674,313 $1,389,146 $645,652 $399,444 $1,660.421 $498.742 $1.238,092 $313,822 $937,532 $650,067 $723,963 $933,698 $212,098 $29,271,352 PRIORITY 1 1-2 Years 1995-1997 $63,502 $36,657 $5,446 $10,800 $953,937 $0 $334,844 $94,614 $71.174 $139,245 $0 $48,281 $302,995 $61,724 $133,487 $233,762 $96,792 $126,957 $7,607 $308,388 $89,413 $211,937 $23,358 $37,892 PRIORITY 2 3 Years 1998 $620,356 $96,646 $12,684 $328,091 $601,600 $0 $474,776 $208,177 $921,415 $258,663 $0 $422,872 $429,235 $264,764 $11,695 $499,837 $194,583 $734,402 $7,206 $252,213 $304.581 $294,576 $440,444 $11,315 PRIORITY 3 3-5 Years 98-2001 $431,070 $51,671 $39,627 $216,525 $120.203 $0 $561,070 $231,863 $27,798 $37,943 $0 $86,664 $175,058 $58,917 $48,492 $89,765 $60,406 $253,058 $12,597 $205,311 $316,702 $67,012 $198,818 $38,301 PRIORITY 4 5-10 Years 2001-2006 $26,034 $2,588 $38,364 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $650,913 $2,540 $4,489 $0 $0 $5,537 $0 $101,260 $3,476 PRIORITY 5 10-15 Years 2006-2011 $230,695 $133,255 $116,662 $101,360 $138,791 $239,042 $197,964 $154,481 $117,706 $143,666 $239,042 $116,496 $481,858 $260,247 $205,770 $186,123 $144,419 $119,186 $266,212 $171,619 $133,834 $150,437 $169,818 $121,114 PRIORITY TOTALS No Escalation $1,373,658 $321,017 $215,003 $656,776 $1,814,531 $239,042 $1,568,674 $689,136 $1,138,095 $579,516 $239,042 $674,313 $1,389,146 $645,652 $399,444 $1,660,421 $498,742 $1,238,092 $313,822 $937,532 $850,067 $723,963 $933,698 $212,098 $4,621,163 $10,449,353 $6,482,514 $1,383,323 $6,205,997 $29,142,350 ) DIST SITE NO 26 37 27 49 30 35 46 20 33 34 35 10 38 39 50 40 47 51 42 32 29 43 44 45 < rj r 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ADMINISTRATION ADMINISTRATION ANNEX________ CASHION BUILDING TRANSPORTATION PLANT SERVICES PURCHASING SAFETY/SECURITY _____________Total Administration SUBTOTAL SHOOLS & ADMIN $597,648 $539,715 $117,330 $247,707 $498,894 $272,004 $387,874 $2,661,172 $66,182,630 $274,848 $54,724 $17,576 $47,649 $53,716 $41,951 $20,563 $511,026 $14,091,965 $110,770 $54,714 $19,625 $47,959 $126,004 $24,594 $313,590 $697,256 $19,657,383 $128,376 $172,268 $32,380 $113,938 $215,840 $115,296 $34,671 $812,769 $15,982,850 $1,981 $187,670 $27,469 $12,736 $39,574 $26,403 $759 $296,693 $2,644,228 $81,673 $70,339 $20,280 $25,425 $63,760 $63,760 $18,292 $343,530 $12,677,090 $597,648 $539,715 $117,330 $247,707 $498,894 $272,004 $387,874 $2,661,173 $66,063,629 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 : I a II03 district estimates_________ ADA COSTS ROOF REPLACEMENT ASBESTOS ABATEMENT ______ total SHOOLS & ADMIN N2 Sn escalation impact COST escalation e 4%/ YEAR L $6,386,000 $3,462,000 $3,185,000 $77,205,630 $1,386,000 $674,000 $1,587,000 $17,738,965 $1,000,000 $261,000 $1,500,000 $22,418,383 $1,000,000 $406,000 $17,388,850 $1,000,000 $1,425,000 $5.069,228 $1,000,000 $686,000 $0 $14,363,090 $5,386,000 $3,452,000 $3,087,000 $76,978,529 I? 3 2 $77,206,530 1 Year 1995 $3,088,221 $80.293,751 $17,738,966 1-2 years 1995-1997 $1,447,500 $19,186,464 $22,418,383 3 Years 1998 $2,799,249 $26,217,632 $17,388,860 3-5 Years 2000 $3,767,345 $21,166.195 $5,069,228 5-10 Years 2005 $2,434,468 $7,603,696 $14,363,090 10-15 Years 2010 $11.504,023 $25,867,113 $76,978,629 $21,952,685 $98,931,113 Table CST-1 Page 2
1 I i
I u Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I ICOST SUMMARY OF BUILDINGS Table CST-1 fl Renovation and Repair, Existing Buildings Little Rock School District TYPE OF SCHOOL fl fl fl fl fl fl [fl fl NO NAME ESCALATION DETAIL 4- 1 1 1996 ___ 2 1997 3 1998 ____4 1999 ____5 2000 6 2001 7 2002 ____8 2003 9 2004 ___10 2005 11 2006 ___ 12 2007 ___ 13 2008 14 2009 15 2010 i TOTAL BASE COST 1995 PRIORITY 1 1-2 Years 1995-1997 PRIORITY 2 3 Years 1998 PRIORITY 3 3*5 Years 98-2001 PRIORITY 4 6-10 Years 2001-2006 PRIORITY 5 10-16 Years 2006-2011 PRIORITY TOTALS No Escalation $3,088,221 $80,293,751 $709,669 $18,448,523 $737,941 $19,186,464 $767,459 $19,953,923 $798,157 $20,752,080 $830,083 $21,582,163 $863,287 $22,445,449 $897,818 $23,343,267 $933,731 $24,276,998 $971,080 $25,248,078 $1,009,923 $26,258,001 $1,050,320 $27,308,321 $1,092,333 $28,400,654 $1,136,026 $29,536,680 $1,181,467 $30,718,147 $1,228,726 $31,946,873 $896,736 $23,315,118 $932,605 $24,247,723 $969,909 $25,217,632 $1,008,705 $26,226,337 $1,049,053 $27,275,391 $1,091,016 $28,366,406 $1,134,656 $29,501,063 $1,180,043 $30,681,105 $1,227,244 $31,908,349 $1,276,334 $33,184,683 $1,327,387 $34,512,071 $1,380,483 $35,892,554 $1,435,702 $37,328,256 $1,493,130 $38,821,386 $1,552,855 $40,374,241 $695,664 $18,084,404 $723,376 $18,807,780 $752,311 $19,660,092 $782,404 $20,342,495 $813,700 $21,156,196 $846,248 $22,002,443 $880,098 $22,882,541 $915,302 $23,797,842 $951,914 $24,749,756 $989,990 $25,739,746 $1,029,590 $26,769,336 $1,070,773 $27,840,109 $1,113,604 $28,953,714 $1,158,149 $30,111,862 $1,204,474 $31,316,337 $202,769 $5,271,997 $210,880 $5,482,877 $219,315 $6,702,192 $228,088 $5,930,280 $237,211 $6,167,491 $246,700 $6,414,191 $256,568 $6,670,758 $266,830 $6,937,589 $277,604 $7,215,092 $288,604 $7,503,696 $300,148 $7,803,844 $312,154 $8,115,998 $324,640 $8,440,638 $337,626 $8,778,263 $351,131 $9,129,394 $674,624 $14,937,613 $597,505 $15,535,118 $621,405 $16,166,523 $646,261 $16,802,783 $672,111 $17,474,895 $698,996 $18,173,891 $726,956 $18,900,846 $756,034 $19,656,880 $786,276 $20,443,155 $817,726 $21,260,881 $850,435 $22,111,317 $884,453 $22,995,769 $919,831 $23,915,600 $956,624 $24,872,224 $994,889 $26,867,113 i DIST SITE NO r Table CST-1 Page 3 J '! 2' a :1 e-3 5J ac o 5) N O 3 ( fl II I If j I J?Ha fl fl Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan 3DZI fl UNIT COST OF RENOVATION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Table- CST-2 TYPE OF SCHOOL PERMANET fl NO HIGH SCHOOLS NAME CLASSRMS AREA TOTAL COST COST $/SF fl fl fl 1 2 3 4 5 CENTRAL_____________________ HALL___________________________ PARKVIEW______________________ J.A.FAIR_________________ _______ McCLELL^_____________________ TOTAL HIGH SCHOOLS VOCATIONAL TECHNICAL SCHOOL 6 METROPOLITAN TOTAL VTS JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOLS 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 111 59 61 49 48 328 55 55 266,823 152,340 166,477 131,628 118,425 835,693 129,546 129,546 $5,763,718 $2,182,064 $837,872 $1,725,309 $3,489,032 $13,997,995 $3,488,387 $3,488,387 $21.60 $14.32 $5.03 $13.11 $29.46 $26.93 2* 3ml CLOVERDALE___________________ DUNBAR________________________ FOREST HEIGHTS_______________ HENDERSON____________________ MABELVALE_____________________ MANN___________________________ PULASKI HEIGHTS_______________ SOUTHWEST____________________ TOTAL JR HIGH SCHOOLS 37 41 35 51 27 51 36 44 322 81,894 99,397 70,137 103,212 59,981 113,013 73,216 82,968 683,818 $687,389 $3,855,668 $2,410,310 $845,431 $2,263,241 $1,414,500 $1,620,183 $1,483,632 $14,580,354 $8.39 $38.79 $34.37 $8.19 $37.73 $12.52 $22.13 $17.88 a ALTERNATE LEARNING CENTER ALC 27 37,360 $1,183,270 $17.88 ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 BADGETT________ BALE____________ BASELINE________ BOOKER_________ BRADY CARVER MAGNET CHICOT CLOVERDALE DAVID O DODD FAIR PARK FOREST PARK FRANKLIN_______ FULBRIGHT GARLAND GEYER SPRINGS GIBBS ISH JEFFERSON MARTIN L KING 14 21 open space 38 24 31 open space 18 open space 12 19 42 26 25 17 18 22 23 23,404 33,626 50,455 74,530 36,259 61,695 59,687 33,263 46,712 28,867 31,914 68,500 66,892 38,632 41,780 37,237 31,802 43,546 75,000 $666,504 $1,200,466 $1,111,915 $892,564 $476,919 $378,889 $0.00 $481,989 $954,119 $714,626 $752,687 $1,845,175 $484,019 $1,373,658 $321,017 $215,003 $656,776 $1,814,531 $239,042 $28.48 $35.70 $22.04 $11.98 $13.15 $6.14 $0.00 $14.49 $20.43 $24.76 $23.58 $26.94 $7.24 $35.56 $7.68 $5.77 $20.65 $41.67 $3.19 i TABLE-2 Page 1 i m ac & 3 ii ! iU NIT COST OF RENOVATION little rock school district TYPE OF SCHOOL PERMANET NO NAME fl fl 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 MCDERMOTT MABELVALE MEADOWCLIFF MITCHELL________ OTTER CREEK PULASKI HEIGHTS RIGHTSELL ' ROCKEFELLER ROMINE_________ TERRY__________ WAKEFIELD WASHINGTON ' WATSON________ WESTERN HILLS WILLIAMS_______ WILSON_________ WOODRUFF CLASSRMS 25 28 25 15 20 21 19 30 28 26 23 46 25 21 25 24 23 AREA 48,020 55,568 36,931 39,200 36,551 58,252 37,630 64,561 42,314 45,312 37,395 89,800 53,846 41,991 47,200 37,075 38,000 TOTAL ELEMENTARY 774 1,693,447 TOTAL ALL SCHOOLS ADMINISTRATION BUILDINGS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ADMINISTRATION________________ ADMINISTRATION ANNEX________ CASHION BUILDING______________ TRANSPORTATION______________ PLANT SERVICES_______________ PURCHASING___________________ SAFETY/SECURITY Total Administration 1,479 3,342,504 26,790 26,273 6,418 20,914 20,914 6,000 19,500 126,809 Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan 3DZI Table- CST-2 TOTAL COST $689,136 $1,568,674 $1,138,095 $579,516 $674,313 $1,389,146 $645,652 $399,444 $1,660,421 $498,742 $1,238,092 $313,822 $937,532 $850,067 $723,963 $933,698 $212,098 $29,032,310 $61,099,046 $597,648 $539,715 $117,330 $247,707 $498,894 $272,004 $387,874 $2,661,172 COST $/SF $14.35 $28.23 $30.82 $14.78 $18.45 $23.85 $17.16 $6.19 $39.24 $11.01 $33.11 $3.49 $17.41 $20.24 $15.34 $25.18 $5.58 $22.31 $20.54 $18.28 $11.84 $23.85 $45.33 $19.89 TABLE-2 Page 2 zl i 4 a 51 1 c :il & o C a Ji !r 5o 3 B N Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I ri ri COST SUMMARY OF BUILDINGS By Options and Priorities Little Rock School District Table CST-3 TYPE OF SCHOOL NO HIGH SCHOOLS 1 (CENTRAL NAME I (Mam Building) (Gymnasium) (Library) (Quigley Stadium) Subtotal Central 2_ 3 I McCLELWN iJ,A.FAIR 4 (HALL 5 (PARKVIEW T T 1 TOTAL BASE COST 1995 $4,790,209 $290,617 $201,263 $481,629 $5,763,718 PRIORITY 1 1-2 Years 1995-1997 PRIORITY 2 3 Years 1998 PRIORITY 3 3-5 Years 98-2001 PRIORITY 4 5-10 Years 2001-2008 PRIORITY 5 10-15 Years 2006-2011 PRIORITY TOTALS No Escalation DIST SITE NO $2,942,332 $77,225 $51,905 S153.Q17 ! $922.092 t $172,597 I $10,158 ! $69,536 I 53.224,4fl0 I $1,174,383 | $172,319 $7,328 $3,618 $162,128 $345,393 I T I I SO $33,467 $0 $0 $33,467 I $753,466 SO $135,580 $96,948 $985,994 $4,790,209 $290,617 $201,263 $481,629 $5,763,718 1 Q (Building 1) (Building 2) (Building 3) Subtotal Parkview TOTAL HIGH SCHOOLS VOCATIONAL TECHNICAL SCHOOL 6 I metropolitan T 1 Total VTS JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOLS____________ 7 (CLOVERDALE_________________ 8 (DUNBAR______________________ 9 (FOREST HEIGHTS_____________ 10 (HENDERSON__________________ 11 IMABELVALE__________________ 12 'MANN MAGNET ( Building#!) I__________________(Building #2) 13
PULASKI HEIGHTS (Building#!) ' _________________( Building #2) (Building #3) ! 14 I SOUTHWEST__________________ Total Junior High Schools i ALTERNATE LEARNING CENTER I 15 lALC Total ALCI $3,489,032 $1,725,309 $2,182,064 $724,389 $24,087 $89,396 $837,872 $13,997,995 I $3.488.367 $3,488,387 $687,389 $3,855,668 $2,410,310 $845,431 $930,224 $484,276 $926,119 $74,076 $619,988 $1,483,632 $12,317,113 I $1.183.270 $1,183,270 $579,059 $411,771 5453,800 58,690 $0 SO 58.690 $4.6n.800 i T I I i T $1,397,303 $235,246 $600,095 $314,469 $24,087 $19,621 $358,177 $3,965,204 I $1,078,795 $454,968 $404,394 $967 $0 $0 $967 $2,284,516 $18,588 $77,696 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $129,750 I T T 5415,286 $545,629 5523,775 $400,263 $0 $69,775 $470,038 $2,940,722 $3,489,032 $1,725,309 $2,182,064 $724,389 $24,087 $89,396 $837,872 $13,997,994 12 8 2 5 $5 $27 I $412.381 $412,381 I $505.588 ( $505,588 J___________ i 1 i J S228.836 I T $1,476,235 I $822,810 $219,472 i $99,054 521,565 $43,756 $12,890 $233,662 518.690 $3,176,970 1 t $1.567,873 I $1,567,873 ! $3,567 $3,567 $996,969 $998,969 $3.488.387 $3,488,387 I 4 TQ
I 5415,614 $415,614 $73,850 $533,350 $632,646 $105,842 $70,719 $348,274 $379.467 $12,786 $120,624 $468,791 $2,746,368 $474.524 $474,524 ! $228,017 1 $1,442,690 +i I 1 $722,897 $191,157 $328,736 537.185 $211,865 $11.088 $35,202 $548.199 I $3.757.036 $133,401 $133,401 i 1 so $86,423 $8,415 $0 $125,146 $26,257 $111,557 $5,211 I 5220,540 $182,264 $765,812 $40,658 $40,658 I7 $156,684 $316,970 $223,542 $328,960 $687,389 $3,855,668 $2,410,310 $845,431 J. I $306,569 $50,996 $179,454 $32,101 $9,960 $265,689 $1,870,926 I $119,074 $119,074 $930,224 $484,276 $926,119 $74,076 $619,988 $1,483,632 12.317.113 $1,183,270 $1,183,270 15 7 9 13 16 3 10 11 14 m I a Pl N O a M 12^* i I ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS 16 :badgett 17 :BALE 18 IBASELiNE 19 BOOKER MAGNET 20 iBRADY___________ 21 'CARVER MAGNET 22 iCHlCOT 23 CLOVERDALE 24 DAVID O DODD 25 iPAIR PARK________ 26 I FOREST PARK 27 FRANKLIN 28 I FULBRIGHT_______ 29 1 GARLAND_________ 30 (GEYER SPRINGS 31 'GIBBS MAGNET $666,504 $1,200,466 $1,111,915 $892,564 $476,919 $378,889 $0 S481.989 $954,119 $752,687 $1,845,175 $484,019 $321,017 $215,003 I St i
5145,216 5341.296 5156,719 5154.780 $220 55.028 so $45,062 $12,275 19 17 22 6 18 21 27 31 32 23 24 25 48 26 37 27 $666,504 $1,200,466 $1,111,915 $892,564 $476,919 $378,889 SO $481,989 $954,119 $74,594 $107,175 $193,889 $237,544 $136,713 $205,943 so S139.186 $156,315 $21,651 $178,047 $8,001 $1,557 $0 51,332 $0 $0 $127,580 $279,738 $150,163 $402,280 $472,862 $76,074 $45,033 SO $241,614 $474,315 5145,305 ( $423,784 S351.026 $25,820 j $263,912 $121,554 $0 $56,127 I $183,633 I I?, 3 21 s .4M $91,391 $214,024 $26,102 $373,162 $626,040 $43,098 I $190,839 $650,595 $129,202 I SO $136,192 $71,761 $97,295 $218,324 $213,856 $752,687 $1,845,175 $484,019 I $36,857 $5.446 $96,646 $12.684 $51,671 $39 827 $2,588 $38,364 $133,255 $116,682 $321,017 $215,003 Table CST-3 Page 1 Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3DZI COST SUMMARY OF BUILDINGS By Options and Priorities Little Rock School District Table CST-3 TYPE OF SCHOOL NO 32 33 34 NAME ISH___________ JEFFERSON MARTIN L KING 35 ! MABELVALE 36 i McDermott 37 38 39 40 41 42 MEADOWCLIFF MITCHELL_______ MARTIN L KING OTTER CREEK PULASKI HEIGHTS RIGHTSELL 43 [ROCKEFELLER 44 I ROM INE 45 ItERRY 46 [WAKEFIELD 47 iWASHINGTON 48 [WATSON__________ Tg [western hills 50 [WILLIAMS MAGNET 51 iWILSON IWOODRU^ ADMINISTRATION BUILDINGS_______ Total Administration SUBTOTAL SHOOLS & ADMIN TOTAL BASE COST 1995 PRIORITY 1 1-2 Years 1995-1997 PRIORITY 2 3 Years 1998 PRIORITY 3 3-5 Years 98-2001 PRIORITY 4 5-10 Years 2001-2006 PRIORITY 5 10-15 Years 2006-2011 PRIORITY TOTALS NoEscalition DIST SITE $239,042 $1,568.674 5689,136 $1,138,095 $239,042 $674,313 $1,389,146 $645,652 $399,444 51.660,421 $498,742 $313,822 $937,532 $850,067 $723,963 5933.698 Total Elementaryi $22,682,055 ' $2,661,172 $56,329,991 $0 $334,844 $94,614 $71,174 $0 $48,281 5302,995 561.724 $133,487 $233,762 $96,792 $7,807 $308,388 $89,413 5211,937 $23,358 $3.252,993 $511,026 $12,446,784 I I7 T IT $0 $474,776 $208,177 $921,415 so $422.872 5429.235 I $264.764
$11,695 : 5499,837 [ $194,583 I I TI $7,206 $252,213 5304.581 5294.576 S440.444 $7.449.167 $697,256 $15,838,106 t T so $561,070 i $231,863 IT i i $27,798 $0 $86,664 $175,058 $58,917 $48,492 $89.785 $60,406 $12,597 $205,311 $316,702 $67,012 $198,818 $5.344.706 $812,769 $13,900,301 T T I X $0 $0 so so ITI $239,042 $197,984 $154,481 $117,708 $239,042 $1,568,674 5689,136 $1,138,095 DISTRICT ESTIMATES__________ ADA COSTS :ROOF REPLACEMENT__________ ASBESTOS ABATEMENT TOTAL SCHOOLS & ADMIN I I OPTIONS OPTION M escalation Deduct District Costs TOTAL BASIS AMOUNT option t escalation option c escalation $5,386,000 $3,452,000 $3,185,000 $68,352,991 ($1,223,000) $67,129,991 I $12,821,275 TOTAL PROJ, COSTI TOTAL PROJ, COSTI S3.198.051 $83,149,317 $24,259,575 $3,655,583 $95,045,149 __________________ ' 519,317.245 __________________ ' 53,457,869 total PROJ, COST! $89.905.125 51,386.000 5674.000 51,685.000 $16,191,784 51.000,000 $261,000 $1,500,010 $18,599,116 $1,000,000 $406,000 I $15.306.301 ($1,223,000) $14,968,784
so ' 51.270,373 ! $16,239,157 SO 51,541.862 $18,599.116 $15.306.301 ~S12.821.275~r 52.877,060 ' $34.297.451 I $13,412.985 $3.602.387 $16.510,646 i $35.614,489 i so ! $1,913,413 $16,882,197 I $12,584,805 i $4,526.826 $35,710,748 SO 53.316,155 $18.622,456 58,537,530 54.816,234 $28,660,065 $6,732,440 56.317,360 $28,356,101 I $0 SO $0 so so $650,913 $2,540 $0 SO $5,537 SO $101,260 $1,347.324 $296,593 $2,583,704 $1,000,000 $1,425,000 $5,008.704 $5.008.704 $0 52.405.401 $7,414,105 $2,309,060 $3.434,366 $10,752.150 SO 54,564,758 $9,593,462 I [ T t I $239,042 $116,496 $481,858 $260.247 $205,770 $186,123 $144,419 $286,212 $171,619 5133,834 $150,437 $169,818 $5.287,865 $343.530 $11,561.085 $1,000,000 5686,000 SO $13,247,085 $13.247.085 $0 S10.610 167 $23.857.252 SO $14.713,150 $27.960.235 so 520.328.367 $33,575,452 $239,042 $674,313 $1,389,146 $645,652 $399.444 $1,660,421 $498,742 $313,822 $937,532 $850,067 $723,963 $933,698 ,682.055 $2,661,172 $56,329,991 $5,386,000 $3,452,000 $3,185,010 $68,352,991 S12.821.275 520.479,155 $100,430,421 I NO 49 30 35 46 20 33 34 35 10 38 39 50 40 47 51 42 32 29 43 44 45 ($1,223,000) $67,129,991 1 ! $24,259,575 | I $28.108.019 i T $119.497.585 [i $19,317,245 $37.670.724 $124,117,960 + il_ p- Table CST-3 Page 2 2l J .J 11 1 ma ' 2. Jo I? 3 I < 1 fl Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I fl fl fl fl I COST SUMMARY OF BUILDINGS By Options and Priorities Little Rock School District Table CST-3 TYPE OF SCHOOL NO______________ OPTION M NAME I ADDITIONS____________________ I NEW SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION :total option cost ESCALATION IMPACT iCOST I ESCALATION @ 4%/ YEAR ESCALATION DETAIL TOTAL BASE COST 1995 $5,417,945 $7.403.330 $12,821,275 i PRIORITY 1 1-2 Years 1995-1997 PRIORITY 2 3 Years 1998 PRIORITY 3 3-5 Years 98-2001 PRIORITY 4 5-10 Years 2001-2006 PRIORITY 5 10-15 Years 2006-201i PRIORITY TOTALS Ho Escalation SO I 55.417,945 I $7,403,330 1 $12,821,275 I 1T 1 r SO SO $0 $5,417,945 $7,403,330 $12,821,275 ! DIST SITE NO J 1 $79,951,266 1 Year 1995 53,196,051 $83,149,317 $14,968,784 1-2 years 1995-1997 $1,270.373 $16,239,157 $31,420,391 3 Years 1996 52.877,060 $34,297,451 I_____________ ! 11 $3,198,051 19961 $71,551,042 ___ Z 1997 31 19981 4| 19991 ___ 5I_ 20001 if 20011 zzr 20021 81 20031 ol 20041 101 20051 ___11l_ 2006 i M. 20071 13l 20081 141 20091 ___1^ 20101 t I I $15,306,301 I i 3-5 Years S 2000 ' 53.316,155 ! I $18,622,456 | $5,008,704 5-10 Years 2005 52,405.401 $7,414,105 !I $13,247,0'35" ! 10-15 Years I 2010 i 510,610.167 I $23,857,252' $79,951,266 $20,479,155 $100,430,421 I nl $598,751 , $16,790,536 $671,621 $1,256,816 $612,252 $19,855,932 I $15,918,553 I $794,237 I $636,742 $17,462,157 : $20,650,169 $698,486 i $18,160,643 ! $726.426 I $826,007 : $21,476,176 I $859.047 I $18,887,069 I $22,335,223 I $755,463 $893,409 i $19,642,552 j $23,226.632 $785,702 I $929,145 $16,555,296 I $662,212 $17,217,507 $688,700 $17,906,208 $716,248 $18,622,456 $744,898 I
$20,426,254 j $24,157,777 ! $19,367,354 $817,130 $966,311 $774,694 1 S21.245.364 I 525,124,086 3849,815 51,004,964 522,095,199 526,129,052 : 520,142.048 I I 5805,682 i
520,947.730 5883,808 i 522,979,007 1 5919,160 , $1,045,162 j 527,174,214
$1,086,969 I 5837,909
521.785.640 5871,426 523,896.166 528,261,163
522,657,065 $955,927 524,854.094 5994,164 ' 525.848,258 : $1,033,930 i 526.882,189 51.075,286 527,957.476 $1,118,299 529.075.775 51.130.447 i 529.391.630 $1,175,665 5906,263
523.563,348 5942,534 ' $30,567,295 I $24,505,882 j $1.222.692 531.769.967 51,271.599 $33,061,586 51.322.463 534.384,050 5980.235 : 525.486.117 I 51.019,445 526.505.562 . 51.060,222 527.565.784 $200,348 $5,209,052 $208,362 $5,417,414 $216,697 $5,634,111 $225,364 $5,859,475 $234,379 $6,093,854 $243,754 $6,337,608 $253,504 $6,591,113 $263,645 $6,854,757 $274,190 $7,128,948 $285,158 $7,414,105 $296.564 57.710.670 $308,427 $8,019,096 5320,764 58.339.860 $333,594 $8,673,455 $346,938 59.020.393 $529,883 $13,776,968 $551,079 $14,328,047 $573,122 $14,901,169 $596,047 $15,497,216 I I t 1 MF $619,889 $16,117,104 $644,684 $16,761,789 $670,472 $17,432,260 $697,290 $18,129,551 $725,182 $18,854,733 $754,189 $19,608,922 $784,357 $20,393,279 $815,731 $21,209,010 $848,360 $22,057,370 $882,295 $22,939,665 $917,587 $23,857,252 Table CST-3 Page 3 h m 4 I Q N O 2* :i
5? I 1 II 1 COST SUMMARY OF BUILDINGS Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I Table CST-3 fl By Options and Priorities Little Rock School District TYPE OF SCHOOL fl fl fl fl fl fl TOTAL BASE COST NO OPTION T NAME 1995 PRIORITY 1 1-2 Years 1995-1997 PRIORITY 2 3 Years 1998 PRIORITY 3 3-5 Years 98-2001 PRIORITY 4 5-10 Years 2001-2006 PRIORITY 5 10-15Years 2006-2011 PRIORITY TOTALS No Escalation DiST SITE NO lADDITIONS !NEW SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION total option cost $13,666,575 $10,593,000 $24,259,575 $8,116,485 $5,296,500 T 1 ESCALATION IMPACT iCOST I t ESCALATION @ 4%/ YEAR ESCALATION DETAIL I I L $0 I $13,412,985 ! $3,241,030 $5,296,500 $8,537,530 i $2,309,060 I $2,309,060 $0 $13,666,575 $10,593,000 $24,259,575 i I I i 1 1996 2 1997 ___ 3 1998 4 1999 5 2000 I T T T IT T iT iT iT 6l 2001 7 20021 ___ 8I_ 20031 ___ 9 2004 __ 10 2005 11 2006 12 2007 i| TT __ 13[ 20081 __ 14 2009 J. T tsi 20101 BASE COST $91,389,566 1 Year 1995 $3,655,583 $95,045,149 $3,655,583 $3,655,583 PRIORITY 1 I PRIORITY 2 i PRIORITY 3 I PRIORITY 4 PRIORITY 5 $14,968,784 1-2 years I $32,012,101 I 1995-1997 I $1,541,862 i 3 Years 1998 $3,602,387 I i T $23,843,831 3-5 Years 2000 $4,816,234 I $7,317,764 5-10 Years 2005 I $13,247,085 TOTAL 1-5 $91,389,566 2I fl $16,510.646 I $35,614,489 | $28,660,065 i $3,434,386 I $10.752.15'0 I 10-15 Years 2010 $14,713,150 I $27,960.235 $28,108,019 $119,497,585 I i $598,751 $1,280,484 $23,577,759 i $28,454,698 $943,110 $24,520,869 I $980,835 ! $1,138,188 $29,592,886 i $1,183,715 I $25,501,704 ! $30,776,601 $1,020.066 $1,231,064 I $953,753 I $22,739,393 $909,576 $23,648,969 $945,959 I $24,594,927
$983,797 I I $26,521,772 i $32,007,666 $25,578,724 1 $1,060,871 I $1,280,307 $1,023,149 $27,582.643 j $33,287.972 i $26,601,873 ' ! $1,103,306
$28,685,949 ' $1,147,438 i $29,833,387 I $1,193,335 $1,331,519 $1,064,075 ! $34.619,491 ] $27.665.948^ ~ ! $1,384,780 i $1,106,638 ' $36,004,271 $1,440,171 I $31,026,722 ! $37,444,441 i $1,241,069 $32,267,791 ' $1,290,712 I $33,558,503 $1,342,340 $1,497,778 I I $26.772.566 I $1,150,903 ! $29,923,490 1 I $1,196,940
$38,942,219 1 $31,120,429 $1,557,689 $40,499,908 $1,619,996 : $1,244,817 i $32,365,246
$1,294,610 $292,711 $7,421,658 $296,866 $7,718,524 $308,741 $8,027,265 $321,091 $8,348,356 $333,934 $8,682,290 $347,292 $9,029,582 $361,183 $9,390,765 $375,631 $9,766,396 $390,656 $10,157,052 $406,282 $10,563,334 $422,533 I $34,900,843 $42,119,904 1 $33,659,856
$10,965,867 $1,396,034 $1,684.796 I $1,346,394 I $36,296,876 | $43,804,700 $35,006,250 $1,451,875 $37,748,751 $1.509.950 $39,258.702 $1,570,348 $1,752,188 $1,400,250 $439.435 $11,425,302 $457,012 : $45,556,868 I $36,406,500 $1.822.276 T $1,456,260 i $47,379,164 ! $37,862,761 $1,895,167 $1,514,510 $40,829,050 I $49,274,330 I $39,377,271 I $11 882,314 $475,293 1 $12,357,606 $494,304 i $12,851,911 $529,883 $19,384,616 $775,385 $20,160,001 $806,400 $20,966,401 $838,656 $21,805,057 $872,202 $22,677,259 $907,090 $23,584,349 $943,374 $24,527,723 $981,109 $25,508,832 $1,020,353 $26,529,186 $1,061,167 $27,590,353 $1,103,614 $28,693,967 $1,147,759 $29,841,726 $1,193,669 $31,035,395 $1,241,416 $32,276,811 $1,291,072 $33,567,883 1ir III II ma I T I Table CST-3 Page 4 I' 3 & s i:}t i: I r 1 I. a a a a a a COST SUMMARY OF BUILDINGS By Options and Priorities Little Rock SchooL District TYPE OF SCHOOL NO OPTION C NAME jADDITIQNS____________________ (NEW SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION ! total option cost I ESCALATION IMPACT I t IcOST lESCALATION @ 4%/ YEAR ESCALATION DETAIL 1 19961 21 19971 19981 4? 19991 20001 6 2001 7 20021 ___8|_ 20031 91 20041 101 2005) 11( 20061 I2I 20071 131 20081 __ 2QQ9| __1^ 2010
TOTAL BASE COST 1995 I i Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I Table CST-3 $15,127,125 $4,190,120 $19,317,245 BASE COST $86,447,236 1 Year 1995 $3,457,889 $89,905,125 $3,457,889 $3,457,889 i I PRIORITY 1 1-2 Years 1995-1997 PRIORITY 2 SYears 1998 PRIORITY 3 3-5 Years 98-2001 PRIORITY 4 5-1OYaars 2001-2006 PRIORITY 5 10-15 Years 2006-2011 PRIORITY TOTALS No Escalation $0 PRIORITY 1 $14,968,784 1-2 years 1995-1997 $1,913,413 $16,882,197 I $598,751 $32,866,542 : $1,314,662 ' $34,181,204 I 51.367,248 DIST SITE NO I $8,394,685 I $4,190,120 f i $12,584,805 I I PRIORITY 2 i P$31,183,921 I I 3 Years 1998 $4,526,826 1 T $6,732,440 1 $6,732,440 PRIORIPr 3 $22,038,741 3-5 Years 2000 $6,317,360 $35,710,748 I $28,356,101 $1,247,357 i $40,189,576 ! $1,607,583 ( $41,797,159 ! $1,671,886 [ T $881,550 I i I SO $0 i PRIORITY 4 1 PRIORITY S I S5.008.704 I 5-10 Years 2005 $4,584,758 $9,593,462 I i $13,247,085 10-15 Years 2010 $20,328,367 I T $200,348 ! $32,001,979 I $10,357,400 $1,280,079 $414,296 $33,282,058 I $10,771,696 $1,331,282 1 $430,868
$35,548,452 | $43,469,045 $34,613,340 [ $11,202,564 S1.421.938 I $1,738,762 $1,384,534 $448,103 I $33,575,^ i I $36.970.390 I $45.207.807 j $35,997,874 j $11,650,666 I i S1.478.816 i S1.808.312 $1,439,915 ' $38,449,206 | 547,016.119 j $37,437,789 I S1.537.968 ! $39,987,174 I S1.599,487 541,586,661 i $1,663,466 I $1,880,645 $1,497,512 i $48,896,764 | $38,935,300 i I $1,955,871 I $50,852,635 ! $2,034,105 $1,557,412 $40,492,712 $1,619,708 i $43.250,128
$52,886.740 i $42,112,421 $1,730,005 I $2,115,470 $1,684,497 ! $44 980.133 i $55.002.210 I $43,796,918 i $1,799,205 : $46,779.338 : $1,871,174 i S48.650.511 ' $1,946,020 I $50,596,532 52.023,861 ! $52.620,393 $2,104,816 554,725.209 ! S2.189.008 $2,200,088
557,202,298 ' $2,288,092 $1,751,877 $45,546.795 $1,821,952 $59.490,390 $47,370,746 $2,379,616 I $1,894,830 $61,870,006 I $49,265.576 I $2,474,800
$64,344,806 ' $2,573,792 $66.916,596 S2.676.744 I $56,914,217 : $69,595,342 $1,970,623
$51,236,199 $2,049,448 $53.285.647 ! $2,131,426 ! $55,417,073 I $466,027 $12,116,693 $484,668 $12,601,360 $504,054 $13,105,415 $524,217 $13,629,631 $545,185 $14,174,817 $566,993 $14,741,809 $589,672 $15,331,482 $613,259 $15.944.741 $637,790 j $16.582,531 I $663,301 ! S17.245.832 $669,833 ! $17,935.665 $529,883 $27,059,069 $1,082,363 $28,141,432 $1,125,657 $29.267,089 $1,170,684 $30,437,773 $1,217,511 $31,655,283 $1,266,211 $32,921,495 $1,316,860 $34,238,355 $1,369,534 $35,607,889 $1,424,316 $37,032,204 $1,481,288 $38,513,493 $1,540,540 $40,054,032 $1,602,161 $41,656,193 $1,666,248 $43,322,441 $1,732,898 $45,055,339 $1,802,214 $46,857,552 I $15.127,125 $4,190,120 $19,317,245 I I TOTAL 1-5 $86,447,236 $37,670,724 $124,117,960 ...... I II i! Table CST-3 Page S 1 7 I ir *1 m a 3 & I. Io ' b* S
3 f > Iia Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I a a a ATTENDANCE ZONE COMPOSITION (ATTENDANCE ZONE MODIFIED) LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHOOL OPTION "M BADGETT BALE BASELINE BOOKER MAGNET BRADY CARVER MAGNET CHICOT CLOVERDALE DAVID O DODD FAIR PARK FOREST PARK FRANKLIN FULBRIGHT GARLAND GEYER SPRINGS II (REVISED) (REVISED) (REVISED) (CLOSED) (REVISED) (CLOSED) Table CST-4 Bi ui X I- 9 UI X X o 3 m _J o X u 3 m z UJ o x UJ Q. in 3 _l X X 3 tn O < X < o o z < X UJ X o u iZ UJ Q < I- _t UJ Q z o m X UJ X X a> o < UJ X < X S? o (O tn O o O z UJ X X S? io o CO o u X m z o o 5 UJ z Elementary z< 9 ffl 56 49 138 129 101 143 104 89 257 239 268 442 160 138 395 368 369 585 65% 64% 65% 65% 73% 76% 200 152 152 143 74 69 141 129 162 268 281 25 21 353 328 26 61 104 179 118 358 335 421 395 173 156 194 137 171 449 418 287 255 313 226 379 379 270 510 478 495 464 314 285 356 405 452 474 439 640 583 339 287 483 47% 44% 70% 70% 85% 85% 55% 55% 54% 34% 38% 95% 95% 45% 44% 92% 79% 78% 223 223 345 345 414 414 660 660 471 471 500 523 523 448 448 350 350 350 418 418 A12 472 584 584 297 331 331 63 85 -50 -23 45 -171 92 201 500 13 45 -Al -16 36 65 -6 13 -34 -2 33 -56 1 -42 44 -152 6,741 9,095 -5,350 -2,461 4,815 -18,297 9,844 21,507 1,391 4,815 -5,029 -1,712 3,852 6,955 -642 1,391 -3,638 -214 3,531 -5,992 107 -4,494 4,708 -16,264 subtotal $159,965 $1,189,305 $111,280 $236,470 $1,057,160 $2,754,180 $0 TABLE CST-4 PAGE 1 5 J !( y m o. Ps o 1 h. }> N J? 2 =' S i
* :i s? 3 3 ILittle Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I ATTENDANCE ZONE COMPOSITION fATTENDANCE ZONE MODIFIED) Table CST-4 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHOOL OPTION "M GIBBS MAGNET ISH JEFFERSON MARTIN L KING MCDERMOTT MABELVALE MEADOWCLIFF MITCHELL OTTER CREEK PULASKI HEIGHTS RIGHTSELL ROCKEFELLER ROMINE TERRY WAKEFIELD II (CLOSED) (CLOSED) (REVISED) (CLOSED) (REVISED) (REVISED) (REVISED) (CLOSED) a: UJ X o iu X S u 3 m O 340 7 4 231 167 153 170 155 11 336 306 254 235 18 14 27 26 34 32 557 408 106 250 590 u 3 m 2 lU U UI Q. 42% J: o < Q. < U o z < O' LU Q. o 351 351 459 Ui 3 -I Q. X 3 Ui + u iZ UJ o < LU a -131 u. io IO Z O Ui EC UJ a iu Ui o < UJ O' < -14,017 2 u. <2 IO IO 5 (0 O u O 2 LU K m O U O' m z o u g z Q ni Elementary y J 5- J 1 I 462 465 169 302 356 315 316 278 317 160 135 92 80 316 306 222 204 390 368 229 282 394 469 469 466 578 523 468 486 433 328 496 441 346 315 334 320 249 230 424 400 786 690 500 99% 99% 36% 52% 68% 67% 65% 64% 97% 32% 31% 27% 25% 95% 96% 89% 89% 92% 92% 29% 41% 79% 617 617 524 524 542 542 463 463 283 376 376 394 394 264 264 426 426 424 424 545 545 539 148 148 58 -54 19 74 -23 30 -45 -120 -65 48 79 -70 -56 177 196 0 24 -241 -145 15,836 15,836 6,206 -5,778 2,033 7,918 -2,461 3,210 -4,815 -12,840 -6,955 5,136 8,453 -7,490 -5,992 18,939 20,972 0 2,568 -25,787 -15,515 subtotal $375,570 $452,075 $389,480 $1,008,475 $2,225,600 I $0 ! I m a c ^9 3 TABLE CST-4 PAGE 2 l i it ! S' ! t I J n 3 " ri ST aLittle Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I ATTENDANCE ZONE COMPOSITION (ATTENDANCE ZONE MODIFIED) LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHOOL OPTION "M" WASHINGTON WATSON WESTERN HILLS (REVISED) WILLIAMS MAGNET WILSON WOODRUFF (CLOSED) PROPOSED NEW SCHOOL PROPOSED NEW SCHOOL Table CST-4 09 3 _l Q. It 3 09 O' UJ z I-o tu Z g u 3 m o < Q. < O o z o uiZi Q it u3 m _i < I-o z UI u It UI Q. UI a. O < 1- ui o Z o m a: UI Q. IL mo < UI It < U. IS m <o @) O o O z UI O' U. io5 IO (0 o u It 09 z o o g UJ z 16 15 110 107 122 119 202 199 60 28 449 666 574 i,21 414 193 186 682 589 537 521 315 305 98% 97% 80% 79% 61% 61% 801 801 505 505 350 350 119 212 -32 -16 35 45 12,733 -3,424 -1,712 3,745 4,815 Elementary $111,280 287 274 85 489 473 145 59% 58% 59% 515 426 426 328 515 -63 A,7 183 -6,741 -5,029 19,581 $326,885 614 642 96% 0 -642 -68,694 $3,778,170 167 616 27% 0 -616 -65,912 subtotal total elementary schools $438,165 $5,417,945 $3,625,160 $7,403,330 $7,403,330 I 3 ? 1 TABLE CST-4 PAGE 3 J n Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I H fl fl fl * I p ATTENDANCE ZONE COMPOSITION (ATTENDANCE ZONE MODIFIED) LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHOOL OPTION "M CLOVERDALE DUNBAR FOREST HEIGHTS HENDERSON MABELVALE MANN MAGNET PULASKI HEIGHTS SOUTHWEST OPTION "M CENTRAL FAIR HALL McClellan II II (CLOSED) Table CST-4 loU
X o ui X 2 o 3 m O X o 3 m z LU U X LU X X < o o z LU Q. o m _i Q. X 3 W + u lZ LU a < I-LU Q zo X LU a. iZ co < IU X < u. co IcOo @ co O u o z LU Of u. CO IO IO IO <) co o o a: co z o u2 LU Z 2l ml Jr.High School 127 200 139 129 255 222 247 209 148 657 741 585 517 452 574 685 542 415 784 941 724 646 707 796 932 751 563 84% 79% 81% 80% 64% 72% 73% 72% 1^% 1000 1000 1046 1046 1268 1268 1221 1221 737 216 59 322 400 561 A12 289 470 174 ^1 a 7 I ir I... m a I C ' Fsi u^-51 B3 314 295 281 313 416 378 591 535 730 673 872 848 57% 56% 68% 63% 935 935 935 971 971 935 205 262 99 123 total jr. high schools $oT $0 High School if S'if "i
575 496 251 2M 404 333 211 212 1030 1164 579 491 533 420 882 755 1605 1660 836 733 937 753 1093 1027 64% 70% 69% 67% 51% 56% 81% 74% 2255 2256 1206 1206 1389 1389 1157 1157 651 596 370 473 452 636 64 130 I? 3 * I TABLE CST-4 PAGE 4 11 ATTENDANCE ZONE COMPOSITION (ATTENDANCE ZONE MODIFIED) LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I Table CST-4 M la SCHOOL OPTION "MII PARKVIEW MAGNATE SUMMARY OPTION M COSTS ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOLS SENIOR HIGH SCHOOLS TOTALS q: tu z I-O UJ sZ 365 u 3 m ie. o3 m 435 -1 O H 800 z lU u lU Q. 54% <0 3 Q. z 3 (0 O < Q. < O o z < z UJ Q. O g Z UJ Q 4 H UJ Q Z o 0) oe UJ Q. Z to o i) < UI z U. J2 o (O @ (0 o o o z lU q: u. to IUO) too u z 0) z O o UJ Z 3fl 991 191 total high schools High School $oT $0 i I I ADDITION $5,417,945 SO ________ $0 $5,417,945 NEW $7,403,330 $0 _______ $0 $7,403,330 $12,821,275 IT , ma 0'sir
M 'I S' P1 1 TABLE CST-4 PAGE 5 H fl Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I fl fl fl fl fl fl fl ATTENDANCE ZONE COMPOSITION (A TTENDANCE ZONE MODIFIED) LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHOOL OPTION "WI BADGETT BALE BASELINE BOOKER MAGNET BRADY CARVER MAGNET CHICOT CLOVERDALE DAVID O DODD FAIR PARK FOREST PARK FRANKLIN FULBRIGHT GARLAND GEYER SPRINGS II (REVISED) (REVISED) (REVISED) (CLOSED) (REVISED) (CLOSED) Table CST-4 q: UJ I o UJ H X 5 o < m < I-O O < m z lU o b: tu Q. 56 49 138 129 101 143 200 152 152 143 74 69 141 129 162 268 281 25 21 353 328 26 61 104 104 89 257 239 268 442 160 138 395 368 369 585 65% 64% 65% 65% 73% 76% 179 118 379 270 47% 44% > O < Q. < O o z < a: UJ Q. O 223 223 345 345 414 414 660 660 471 471 Ui 3 a. q: 3 Ui g UuJ. a 4 UJ Q z o co q: UJ 0. LL mo < UJ er < u. tuo> O oO z IB q: u. io2 () o u a: I- (0 z o o 5 UJ z zl 3ffl Elementary 63 85 -50 -23 45 -171 92 201 6,741 9,095 -5,350 -2,461 4,815 -18,297 $159,965 $1,189,305 S 9,844 21,507 !i I m fl 358 335 421 395 173 156 194 510 478 495 464 314 285 356 70% 70% 85% 85% 55% 55% 54% 500 523 523 448 448 350 350 350 500 13 45 -47 -16 36 65 -6 1,391 4,815 -5,029 -1,712 3,852 6,955 -642 $111,280 bl 3> j 2s S' * :i: I' 137 171 449 418 287 255 313 226 379 405 452 474 439 640 583 339 287 483 34% 38% 95% 95% 45% 44% 92% 79% 78% 418 418 472 472 584 584 231 13 -34 -2 33 -56 1 -42 1,391 -3,638 -214 3,531 -5,992 107 -4,494 $236,470 J? 91 n 331 331 44 -152 4,708 -16,264 subtotal $1,057,160 $2,754,180 $0 TABLE CST-4 PAGE 1 1 Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I ATTENDANCE ZONE COMPOSITION (A TTENDANCE ZONE MODIFIED) LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Table CST-4 fl fl fl q: UJ X i- O UJ isC O < _l m fl SCHOOL OPTION "M X 5 lx: o m < I- o z UJ o O' UJ Q. a < a. < o o z < a: UJ Q. O II fl GIBBS MAGNET ISH (CLOSED) JEFFERSON 340 250 590 42% (CLOSED) martin l king McDermott (REVISED) MABELVALE MEADOWCLIFF MITCHELL (CLOSED) OTTER CREEK (REVISED) PULASKI HEIGHTS RIGHTSELL (REVISED) rockefeller ROMINE terry (REVISED) WAKEFIELD (CLOSED) 351 351 459 CO Z) 0. q: X tn o u. UJ Q < UJ Q Z' o m a: UJ Q. uZ Oi o < UJ Q < u. 52 u3 co O o o Z UJ Qi -131 -14,017 U. 55 U) () <n O o q: (D Z o o 5 UJ z z n Elementary 7 f S 7 __4 2n 27^ 167 153 170 155 11 336 306 254 235 18 14 21 26 34 32 557 408 106 462 465 169 302 356 315 316 nz 317 469 469 466 578 523 468 486 433 328 99% 99% 36% 52% 68% 67% 65% 64% 97% 617 617 524 524 542 542 463 463 283 148 148 58 -54 19 74. -23 30 -45 15,836 15,836 6,206 -5,778 2,033 7,918 -2,461 3,210 -4,815 $375,570 m a Fl 0 3 It 160 135 92 80 316 306 222 204 390 368 229 282 394 496 441 346 315 334 320 249 230 424 400 786 690 500 32% 31% 95% 96% 89% 89% 92% 92% 29% 41% 376 376 394 394 264 264 426 426 424 424 545 545 539 -120 -65 48 79 -70 -56 177 196 0 24 -241 -145 -12,840 -6,955 5,136 8,453 -7,490 -5,992 18,939 20,972 0 2,568 -25,787 -15,515 $452,075 $389,480 $1,008,475 subtotal $2,225,600 $0 TABLE CST-4 PAGE 2 o :> 8*' ii 5? 3 f IILittle Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I ATTENDANCE ZONE COMPOSITION TTENDANCE ZONE MODIFIED) LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT a: lU I 1- O UJ o < _i m < Q. < O o z Table CST-4 SCHOOL OPTION "M I s o 3 CD < O Z. UJ o UJ Q. < O' UJ Q. O II WASHINGTON WATSON fl WESTERN HILLS (REVISED) 16 15 110 107 122 119 666 574 427 414 193 186 682 589 537 521 315 305 98% 97% 80% 79% 61% 61% 801 801 505 505 350 350 WILLIAMS MAGNET WILSON WOODRUFF 202 199 60 287 274 85 489 473 145 59% 58% 5Q% 515 426 426 328 (CLOSED) PROPOSED NEW SCHOOL PROPOSED NEW SCHOOL 28 449 614 642 96% 0 167 616 27% 0 co 3 Q. O' 3 OJ + o u. UJ Q lU Q 119 212 -32 -16 35 45 515 -63 47 183 z O co O' UJ iL co o < UJ a: < u. to h-m O o O z UJ O' 12,733 -3,424 -1,712 3,745 4,815 -6,741 -5,029 19,581 -642 -68,694 -616 -65,912 subtotal total elementary schools u. >o lo co O O O' la z. O CJ 5 UJ z Elementary $111,280 $326,885 $3,778,170 I 21 I I 3 3 J i S' m I I . ( $438,165 $5,417,945 $3,625,160 $7,403,330 $7,403,330 I 9 :i ! ws S' ' I? 3 I TABLE CST-4 PAGE 3 15 Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I d 1 d d d ATTENDANCE ZONE COMPOSITION (A rrEND4NCe zone MODIFIED) LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHOOL OPTION "M CLOVERDALE DUNBAR FOREST HEIGHTS HENDERSON MABELVALE MANN MAGNET Pyi^SKI HEIGHTS SOUTHWEST II (CLOSED) tn Table CST-4 OPTION "M II CENTRAL FAIR HALL McClellan O' LU X I- o iu X s O < _1 m > O < Q. < O o z X _l Q. q: X tn o iu Q z Q tn O' LU LU tn o' u. io O o- o < _i m < O z LU O K LU 0. < a: LU OL o < ui Q < LU Q < LU <2 o o o z LU a: tn o o q: tn z o o LU z ml Jr.High School 127 200 139 129 255 222 247 209 148 314 295 281 313 575 496 257 242 404 333 211 272 657 741 585 517 452 574 685 542 415 416 378 591 535 1030 1164 579 491 533 420 882 755 784 941 724 646 707 796 932 751 563 730 673 872 848 1605 1660 836 733 937 753 1093 1027 84% 79% 81% 80% 64% 72% 73% 72% 74% 57% 56% 68% 63% 64% 70% 69% 67% 57% 56% 81% 74% 1000 1000 1046 1046 1268 1268 1221 1221 737 935 935 935 971 971 216 59 322 400 561 472 289 470 174 935 205 262 99 123 total jr. high schools $o7 $0 High School IT I I m a fl -"o 3 a ) S!) I 2256 2256 1206 1206 1389 1389 1157 1157 651 596 370 473 452 636 64 130 5 n I TABLE CST-4 PAGE 4 ATTENDANCE ZONE COMPOSITION fl fl fl fl fl fl fl (A TTENDANCE ZONE MODIFIED) LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHOOL OPTION "M II PARKVIEW MAGNATE SUMMARY OPTION M COSTS ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOLS SENIOR HIGH SCHOOLS TOTALS Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I Table CST-4 o: UJ X o LU X 5 3 m _1 < o 365 435 800 o 3 ffl z LU O LU Q. 54% > o < Q. < O o z < CH LU Q. o 991 m 3 Q. X 3 (0 u. 52 in m O LU Q < _i UJ Q 191 Z O (0 Q LU Q. LU <n o < LU Of < u. to io (D l) to o o O z UJ K VJ O o q: ta z o o 5 LU Z High School 1 total high schools ADDITION $5,417,945 $0 $0 $5,417,945 $0 1 5- 3 I 1 NEW $7,403,330 $0 $0 $7,403,330 $12,821,275 TABLE CST-4 PAGE 5 IF i m J O' ' II* I *^1 a ' r- M l1 bl J 5? 3 f I fl 'I Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I d ri ri ATTENDANCE ZONE COMPOSITION (ATTENDANCE ZONE MODIFIED) LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHOOL OPTION "C BADGETT BALE BASELINE BOOKER MAGNET BRADY CARVER MAGNET CHICOT CLOVERDALE DAVID O DODD FAIR PARK FOREST PARK franklin FULBRIGHT GARLAND GEYER SPRINGS II (REVISED) REVISED) (REVISED) (REVISED) (CLOSED) (REVISED) (REVISED) (CLOSED) (REVISED) Table- CST-6 m UJ z O uj z CJ < -I m < I- O o < m I- z lU o tn UJ 0. > o < 0. < o o z I < UJ O. O 3 U O. or 3 CO O iZ UJ o < ui Q z o co z UI 0. tn o < UJ tn 4 u. 2 to co O <J O z LU O' X lA 1 co O o O' CO z O o 5 UI Z: 0 1 fll Elementary 66 66 138 137 101 145 104 292 257 247 268 186 170 358 395 384 369 331 61% 82% 65% 64% 56% 200 300 152 90 89 141 221 162 268 516 25 47 353 380 26 61 152 179 55 379 355 47% 15% 358 386 510 476 70% 81% 438 173 227 194 137 202 449 612 2Z1 48 313 226 548 527 314 448 356 405 718 474 659 640 428 339 287 700 83% 55% 51% 54% 34% 28% 95% 93% 45% 11% 92% 79% 78% 223 223 345 345 414 414 660 471 471 613 523 523 Tas' 448 350 350 350 53 -135 -50 -39 45 83 -14,445 -4,173 8,881 $938,925 $271,245 92 116 12,412 13 47 -79 36 -98 5,029 -8,453 -10,486 $549,445 $681,590 9 * a S m a F a s S' o S. I f 3? ot! i
* : J 418 418 472 472 584 584 297 13 -300 -2 -187 -56 156 -42 1,391 -32,100 -214 -20,009 -5,992 16,692 -4,494 $2,086,500 $1,300,585 s? 3 ? II I 331 331 44 -369 4,708 -39,483 $2,566,395 TABLE CST-6 Pagel Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I fl fl fl fl fl fl fl ATTENDANCE ZONE COMPOSITION (ATTENDANCE ZONE MODIFIED) LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHOOL GIBBS MAGNET ISH JEFFERSON MARTIN L KING OPTION "C II (CLOSED) (CLOSED) MCDERMOTT MABELVALE MEADOWCLIFF (NOT USED) MITCHELL (CLOSED) OTTER CREEK PULASKI HEIGHTS (NOT USED) RIGHTSELL (REVISED) ROCKEFELLER (REVISED) ROMINE (REVISED) > <0 -I . Qi 3 VI Table- CST-6 TERRY WAKEFIELD (CLOSED) Qi UJ I I- O ul z 5 ii o < _l tn < O st- o 5 (D Z UJ O Z UI 0. o < a. < o o z < Qi UJ a. O 351 2 u. UJ Q < UJ Q__ 351 340 250 590 42% 459 -131 7 147 462 459 469 606 99% 76% 617 617 148 11 297 419 167 187 170 11 336 304 254 18 20 21 88 34 94 557 399 106 169 83 356 217 316 317 160 66 92 316 531 777 587 390 536 229 87 394 466 502 523 404 486 328 496 370 346 334 551 249 675 424 630 786 486 500 36% 524 58 17% 68% 54% 65% 97% 32% 18% ^21% 95% 96% 89% 87% 92% 85% 18% 79% 524 542 542 463 22 19 138 -23 283 376 376 -45 -120 6 394 48- 264 -70 Z o Oi Qi UJ a. iL (O e>: < UJ i subtotal 6,206 2,354 2,033 14,766 -2,461 -4,815 -12,840 642 5,136 -7,490 264 -287 -30,709 426 426 424 424 545 545 539 All -249 0 -206 -241 59 39 18,939 -26,643 0 -22,042 -25,787 6,313 4,173 u- co S3 (O (O O o O z lU Q $8,394,685 | u. io IO M- I/} O o O' to z o o S UJ z^ $0 Elementary $1,996,085 $1,731,795 $1,432,730 TABLE CST-6 Page 2 2 in 1 r } i !! m a Pb o 3 a i
ff ) st yji s I? 3 ?fl fl Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I fl ATTENDANCE ZONE COMPOSITION (ATTENDANCE ZONE MODIFIED) LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Table- CST-6 fl co 3 _1 a tn 3: tn fl fl SCHOOL WASHINGTON fl WATSON WESTERN HILLS WILLIAMS MAGNET WILSON (NOT USED) WOODRUFF (CLOSED) PROPOSED NEW SCHOOL OPTION "C fl CLOVERDALE DUNBAR FOREST HEIGHTS HENDERSON MABELVALE MANN MAGNET (CLOSED) PULASKI HEIGHTS q: LU z 1- o I S 16 98 110 22 122 182 o < m 666 667 6,21 419 193 394 < I O 002 765 031 441 315 576 202 287 489 60 83 127 195 139 19 255 609 247 174 148 314 110 281 85 145 635 718 Je:: o r 5 o Z: lU o : tu Q. 98% ilV 80% 95% 61% 68% 59% 59% 88% 657 602 585 746 452 462 685 433 415 784 797 126, IZZ 101 1071 932 607 563 84% 76% 81% 98% 64% 43% 73% 71% 74% 416 473 591 730 583 872 57% 81% 68% o < 0. < a (3 Z
< o: lU 0. o 801 801 505 505 350 350 515 426 328 o Z LU o < lU Q___ 119 36 -32 64 35 -226 -63 183 712 z O co a: LU Q. Z o @ < LU q: < 12,733 3,852 -3,424 6,848 -24,182 76,184 subtotal total elementary 1000 1000 1046 1046 1268 1268 1221 1221 737 216 203 322 281 561 197 289 614 174 23,112 21,721 34,454 30,067 60'.027 21,079 30,923 65,698 18,618 u. 52 io IO IO 500 955 955 971 225 372 99 24,075 39,804 10,593 u. 52 lO (O w @ CO O o o z LU q: co O o O' t- co z o o S lU Z
$1,571,830 $6,732,440 $15,127,125 $4,190,120 $4,190,120 $4,190,120 Jr.High School TABLE CST-6 Page 3 2 9 ni J I I m a ag W o S o 3 n I .r yl! I? I ? Mi 1I fl Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I fl fl fl ATTENDANCE ZONE COMPOSITION (ATTENDANCE ZONE MODIFIED) LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHOOL SOUTHWEST K in z g in H Z 5 264 ic:: o tn 582 O ? >- 846 Z' o 3 ffl z LU O z UJ z 69% > n 3 _1< n. z <0 Table- CST-6 < Q. < O O z 2 E tu Q z O co Of tu iL u> o < q: lU 0, o 971 < H- -I lU Q__ 125 < lU z 13,375 z w io o @ to O o O z lU z u. 52 io o O o Z: or Z' O o 5 tu Z: total jr. high schools $0 $0 7 I rl SUMMARY OPTION C COSTS ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOLS SENIOR HIGH SCHOOLS (Uses same as Option M) TOTALS ADDITION $15,127,125 $0 ________$0 $15,127,125 NEW $4,190,120 SO _______$0 $4,190,120 $19,317,245 TABLE CST-6 Page 4 ft J I I m I ft n c B r c r l1 "I ts 5? 3 J r, a Little Rock school District Facilities Master Plan 3D/I ANALYSIS OF DISCONTINUED USE OF Mr - LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PROPERTIES Table CST-7 Bl FACILITY NAME OPTION M OPTION T OPTION c COST or RENOVATION FACILITIES RECOMMENDED FOR CLOSURE FAIR PARK ELEMENTARY GARLAND ELEMENTARY ISH ELEMENTARY JEFFERSON ELEMENTARY $714,626 $1,373,658 $656,776 $1,814,531 ri MITCHELL ELEMENTARY WAKEFIELD ELEMENTARY $579,516 $1,238,092 8* e e e s i a J 1 1 i WOODRUFF ELEMENTARY $212,098 MABLEVALE JR. HIGH SCHOOL $2,263,241 total reno costs $8,852,538 m a 1 c 1 o * tt 0 0 FACILITIES AVAILABLE FOR OTHER USES * WILSON ELEMENTARY $933,698 s "X MEADOWCLIFF ELEMENTARY $1,138,095 II MABELVALE ELEMENTARY PULASKI HEIGHTS ELEMENTARY $1,389,146 RIGHTSELL ELEMENTARY $645,652 i
total reno costs $4,106,591 The four facilities listed as "not used " on tables following the revised attendance zone maps are available for alternate uses such as administrative functions, special programs, community uses, and lastly, closure if no other purpose is found. I? These schools initially provide , temporary locations for students from schools where extensive renovation or additions occur during the capital improvement process. Table CST-7 PagelWOTE^ StuW Educational ' AZ*<iuaMvw Zones ,^f^ '^MN^flMe-' ItLittle Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 30/1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY DEMOGRAPHIC STUDY The demographic study focuses on trends since 1987, when the Little Rock School District absorbed 7,000-plus pupils and several schools formerly in the Pulaski County Special School District. At that time or thereafter numerous other changes were made, including altering attendance zones, designating magnet and incentive schools, and adding pre-kindergarten classes. A 1988 study, which was based on 1987 data and lacked reliable data on recent enrollment trends in the newly added territory, nonetheless projected 1990 enrollments within -0.8 percent and 1994 enrollments within -1.5 percent. The projections made this year are based on better data with fewer uncertainties. The new projections indicate a continued slow decline, bringing a loss of about 3,600 pupils or 14.3 percent by the 2005-06 school year. All three school levels will lose, with the high schools having the highest percentage drop (21.7 percent or 1,121 pupils), and the junior highs the second highest (18.6 percent or 1,090 pupils). The elementary schools will have the smallest percentage drop, 9.7 percent. However, because the elementary enrollments exceed those in the junior and senior highs combined, the numerical decline at this level is projected to be 1,379. i Among the 35 elementary schools, 19 are projected to lose 25 percent or more of their enrollment by 2005, among which eight will lose 50 percent or more. A total of 23 schools, two-thirds of the total, will lose to some degree. The remaining 12 will gain, six by 25 percent or more, and three of these by 50 percent or more. I m ' o Three of the eight junior highs will lose 25 percent or more of their pupils, with one dropping by 54 percent. None will gain, but two will lose by only fractions of one percent. Similarly, no high school will gain. Two of the five will lose by over 25 percent, with one of these dropping by 51 percent. One will lose by only four percent. 3 V r f The racial composition of the District as a whole will remain close to its present level at 67 percent Black. However, assuming no change in policies or in the current attendance zone boundaries, the racial makeup of many individual schools will change much more. N K s if "i: J All projections are fallible, since none comes from a crystal ball. All assume the continuation of current or presently foreseeable trends and policies. The longer the time period involved, the greater the likelihood that unforeseeable events may alter the outcome. The smaller the area for which they are made, the more likely that unpredictable localized changes may invalidate them. The success of past projections does not guarantee similar results in the future. Our projections are offered with these caveats. 3 ? ! i These projections reflect recent history. Like most school systems in established 1 central cities, the Little Rock School District has been watching its enrollments Page 1 ILittle Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3DZI decrease. As recently as 1980 it had more than 20,000 pupils in a land area about two-thirds of the present District. After the 1987 gYain, enrollments returned at once to a slow decline ~ losing more than 1,600 pupils or 6.1 percent in the next seven years. Both white and Black pupils have decreased in most years since 1987. While Blacks made a small gain of 103 pupils over the seven-year period, this increase would not have occurred without the addition of pre-kindergarten in 1991. Whites declined by 2,096. Pupils of other races have increased, but still are less than 3 percent of the total. Although the Black proportion has increased slightly, it has remained between 64 and 65 percent for the past six years. The losses have been especially large in the high schools, where enrollments have dropped by 19.9 percent or about 1,300. Most of the decrease was before 1991, however. Recent years have seen less change and even some small transitory gains. Junior highs have lost by 5 percent or 306 pupils over the entire seven years, but this reflects an initial loss of nearly 1,000 followed by some recovery. The elementary schools have lost the fewest pupils, only 98, but were helped by the addition of prekindergarten in some schools and by growth in kindergarten enrollments. Grades 1 to 6 have lost. 1 r I Individual schools have varied widely in the extent and direction of enrollment change. In general, the gainers have been those that drew their pupils predominantly from neighborhoods in the west and northwest of the city, while the losers have more often drawn from the central and eastern sections. Four of the five high schools have lost, the sole exception being Fair. Five of the eight junior highs have lost, while the remaining three have gained - one, Mann, growing by 29 percent, but the other two increasing only slightly. 1 m I t A total of 20 elementary schools have lost enrollments, including two that were closed. The remaining 17 have gained. Both King and Washington have more than doubled in size, while Carver has increased by 62 percent and Rockefeller by 39 percent. Most of the other gains were modest. I I r What impact have these changes had on the basic objectives of the desegregation plan? The evidence suggests that the District, despite strenuous efforts, may be even farther from achieving its goals than in 1987. In three of the five high schools, both Blacks and whites have declined in number
in the other two. Blacks have increased while whites decreased. The span between the highest and lowest Black percentage has grown from 17.6 percent points to 21.9. 1 N if si' ii g The eight junior highs were close to meeting the criteria for racial balance in 1987. The overall span from highest to lowest percent Black was 17.8 points. Four of the eight were less than three percentage points, plus or minus, from the District-wide figure. li while four more were within seven points. Since then, both racial groups have j? increased at two schools, both races have fallen at one, Black enrollments have gained while whites have fallen at three schools, and the reverse has occurred at one. The overall span from highest to lowest percent Black is now 26.5 points. 1j I Page 2 f ( Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I The elementary schools, with their smaller attendance areas, have proven even more difficult to keep in balance. In 1987 only a dozen were able to meet the criterion of no more than 60 percent of one race or the other. All four magnet schools met the even more demanding requirement of 45 to 55 percent Black, but none of the incentive or interdistrict schools met the plans requirement and only eight of the rest met the 60 percent requirement. The latest figures show all four magnet schools still in compliance, and a few of the rest have improved. But the span from lowest to highest percent Black has increased from 44.6 to 56.4 percentage points. ii Many people believe that the private schools have drawn off many of the white children whose presence would help to maintain racial balance. This view is difficult to confirm or to counter with hard numbers, since current data on private schools are hard to come by. Data from the 1990 Census, however, indicate that at that time about 7,900 children in the City of Little Rock attended private schools, an increase of about 900 since 1980. During the same period, the public schools lost about 3,100 pupils. Census data prepared especially for the US Department of Education show that among children enrolled in any school, either public or private, in the Little Rock School District, about one-fourth were attending private school in 1990 and nearly nine out of ten were white. n I I ri The highest rates of private school attendance are found in areas to the northwest of the city center, where population growth, especially white growth, has been most rapid and incomes are often high enough to afford private tuition. So while the increase in private school attendance can account for only a fraction of the public schools recent loss, it is also true that many white parents who might otherwise have sent their children to the public schools may have enrolled them in private schools instead. A number of factors influence the course of school enrollments. One of the most important is overall population change. The city of Little Rock whose boundaries are now nearly contiguous with those of the Little Rock School District, has grown throughout the 20th century. Without annexations, however, the 11 percent gain of the 1980s would have turned into a small loss. In addition, this gain was made up almost entirely of adults. m ril 'u ,4 The number of children of school and preschool age remained almost constant during the 1980s, making it highly unlikely that enrollments could grow during the 1990s unless there is a fairly large influx of new young families to the city. So far, this does not seem to be materializing. The City government expects Little Rock to grow slowly if at all over the next few years, with a continuing shift in balance from east to west. N P I Metroplans projections bear this out, indicating continued losses in the east and the central core, with new growth mainly to the west and northwest. The School District seems unlikely to benefit unless its boundaries are further enlarged. University of Arkansas projections indicate that if recent migration patterns continue, Pulaski Countys total child population will decline, with the loss occurring mainly among white children and the racial balance shifting somewhat as a result. A disproportionate share of the losses will be suffered by the city. i? 3 n Page 3H M Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3DZI H The Little Rock economy, with a solid backbone of government, medical facilities, and educational institutions, has proven highly resistant to economic downturns, but seldom grows rapidly. Continued slow growth is likely for the foreseeable future. Residential construction within the city has been down recently, but in any event does not seem likely to bring in many young families in the foreseeable future. fl fl fl fl 3 ( I fl '1 fl m a t? 0 jl 1 r JI N 2 s Page 4 if i
g 3 r i 7n an * ------ Educational AStcriuoitCv Zonas p" r h' I h h r I I . J ... ) . r- I 1 "1 r Ifl fl Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I fl EDUCATIONAL STUDY The educational study of the Little Rock School District was confined by the contract to those features of the buildings that support the educational process
the capacity of each school building and its utilization
considerations of school size
and the organization of the middle/junior high school grades. As a result of the condition survey, the impact of recommended school closures to attendance zones and ethnic composition were considered. I Education and Facility Evaluations fl The educational facilities survey, examined each building relative to its mission to house and support the educational process. Utilizing a survey process tested for its effectiveness by use in a significant number of projects throughout the United States, building scoring was based on a 1000 point system to generally bracket the facilities into four groups. I I : t Group 1 consists of schools with a point value score of 900-1000 and relates to buildings which were highly satisfactory. Group 2 with a point value score of 700-900 relates to buildings that are generally acceptable but require further study of their component parts to establish a level of repair and updating required to meet policy and code standards. Group 3 with a point value score of 600-700 relate to buildings that are in substantial need of rehabilitation and upgrade. The final category. Group 4, with a point value score of 400-600 relates to buildings requiring a complete re-study of the facility before conclusions can be reached. Buildings with score values less than 400 are generally recommended for abandonment. c ri' I A similar evaluation process based on a 1000 point score was conducted by the facility engineers and architects and addressed a subjective impression from the surveyors during the course of their examination of the building (Evaluation No. 1) as well as a weighted score based on the asset value measured in dollars required to correct the deficiencies found (Evaluation No. 2). The latter utilized the CSI cost format basis through the 16 divisions where the greater the cost and deficiency correction requirements, the lower the score. Both the educational and facility scores were then averaged to develop the rank order for elementary schools, junior high schools, and senior high schools. This rank order was one of the considerations in determining recommendations for school consolidations and alternate uses. III" o ii ii 4 i I 3 1* While the evaluation guidelines were extensive, they are basically summarized as: Structural Features: Foundations, exterior walls, windows, roof (information supplied by LRSD), floor structure, interior walls, ceilings the operating plan, and appearance. Safety and circulation which included the type, condition, and location of stairs
corridors
number of location of exits
fire protection
and general safety. 1 J i Page 1 .p 1' Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I Mechanical Features
Air conditioning and heating (including type and condition of system)
ventilation system
temperature and ventilation efficiencies
mechanical room
and controls. Plumbing facilities
Toilet room adequacy and conditions
water facilities
drinking fountains
individual room installations
showers and special equipment. Electrical Services
Power installation and control
communication and ll - Signal system
alarms-and jexit lights
general and special room installations
and electrical safety. Illumination
Number and type of fixtures
quality and quantity of illumination
controls
and effect. Educational Features
administrative spaces. Instructional rooms
special rooms
general areas
and 1 I Operational Features
Suitability for educational program
flexibility
economy of effort (circulation, supervision, and access)
general and instructional storage
pupil lockers
acoustical conditions
custodial facilities
energy systems
and accommodations for the physically handicapped. I Site
Adequacy and development
drainage, lighting, security, recreational equipment, and landscape. Tables ES-1 and ES-2 at the end of this tab provide ranking and evaluation score summaries for individual school buildings. xn r. Capacity The operating capacity and its dynamic nature of school buildings is often misunderstood when one considers the school room merely as a space. Factors that govern capacity are
regulatory, grade level, policy, and function. Each of these affect a given area and volume of space. A multi-purpose room, for example, would probably be too small to serve as a gymnasium (in both in area and volume) but too large to meet the needs of a classroom. -4 ! 2 ! ( if i 5 21 I 3 H A classroom space of a given size when functioning as a mathematics class could tolerate a larger capacity than if the same space were converted to a laboratory. A more subtle example is the same given space regulated by the grade level or special education requirements. Thus, the dynamics of classroom use can easily generate a different capacity from year-to-year depending on the program assignments. For the purposes of this study, the accepted procedure for developing a schools capacity begins with the determination of the number of pupil stations assigned in accordance with standards and policy to each and every classroom. Pupil stations occurring in portable/trailer facilities were subtracted from the total number of pupil stations recorded for each school. This procedure produced the number of permanent pupil stations that could be accommodated in
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.