Westside Junior High School site

Site Evaluation and Study V/ 'Stside Junior High School L.\ 'e Rock School District > August 1, 1991 CHILCOTE CARTER GASKIN BOGART & NORCROSS Architects I Engineers STUDY/EVALUATION OF EXISTING WESTSIDE JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL BUILDING AND SITE This study is prepared to assist the Little Rock School District in determining the feasibility of retrofiting the existing school versus demolition and new construction on the site for an elementary school to accommodate approximately 650 students from 4 year olds. Kindergarten and grades 1-6. The results of this study/evaluation are presented in a format in accordance with our proposal outlined in our letter of July 17, 1991, based on information contained in a request for proposal from the Little Rock School District dated July 9, 1991. A. Structural Evaluation and Basic Modifications Required Existing school consists of two separate buildings of three levels each. Structural systems vary within each buildin, g from floor to floor. In most instances columns are reinforced concrete with floor construction consisting of reinforced concrete flat slabs and in some areas, concrete joists with tile fiUer between. In some instances there are concrete beams with one-way slabs while in others, metal pan, concrete joists span between concrete beams. The roof system consists primarily of wood frame structure with 2 x 8s at 16" on center supporting 1x6 wood decking. Lesser portions of the roof system consist of: - Heavy steel trusses supporting wood framing above the gymnasium with wood frame clerestory windows providing illumination. - Light steel bar joists using chicken wire support for concrete fill. Interior walls appear to be 12" masonry with one inch plaster each side. All interior walls appear to be load bearing. While interior walls could be added to sub-divide the existing rooms, no interior walls can be removed other than on the top floor since they are load bearing. The possibility exists for the removal of certain interior walls at the third level, provided the appropriate roof framing is utilized spanning between the outside and major corridor walls. This does severely limit the flexibility in changing interior configurations to more appropriately accommodate elementary classrooms. The resistance to wind loading would take precedence over seismic factors in Little Rocks seismic Zone 1. The buildings appear very stable, with minimal evidence of settlement or cracking. Major structural considerations, other tha.n the new roof smcmre, would be the requirement to add an elevator for both the east 3 west handicapped accessibility and the additicn of two fire s requirements. uilcm: drs to 25 . m: ide fcr .s:c :x: 1B. Evaluation of Feasibility of Meeting Current Fire and Life Safety Codes, and for Provision of Handicapped Accessibility to the Building The building is considered to be Type II construction. If sprinkled, this structure could contain unlimited square footage per level or unlimited heights. If the building were sprinkled, two fire stairs would be required to provide for the required exiting from both buildings. Without sprinkling, three stairs would be required
however the main monumental stairway on the east side of the east building could be enclosed to provide for the third exit way. One elevator would be required for each building since changes of level by stairway are now required to move horizontally between the two buildings. Handicapped accessibility would be limited to grade level entrances and elevators utilized to provide access to the various levels between the buildings. C. Evaluation of the Buildings Ability to Accommodate an Elementary School and of the Sites Ability to Accommodate Nevp Construction in Related Areas for an Elementary School. Existing buildings contains 84,870 gross square feet of enclosed space, exclusive of court yards. First level of entire east building is approximately 1/2 level below grade. It would be necessary to "tunnel" north and south out of the building to provide grade-level access for 4 year old, Kindergarten, and 1st grade students. The lower level of this building could be modified to accommodate the areas necessary for these age children, including those areas where access would be required. The area of this level appears adequate to accommodate the Media Center (Library), Cafeteria, and Music Areas. Four year olds. Kindergarten, and 1st graders would not be allowed accessibility to the Auditorium, Multi-purpose, P.E., Pal, Gifted and Talented or Art Areas in accordance with State Department of Education requirements that these age youngsters not be allowed above grade level elevations. Request for deviations from this requirement have historically been rejected by the Little Rock Building Code officials and the Board of Appeals. Modifying thi lower level of the building to accommodate 4 year old Kinderganen and 1st grader facilities would reduc square feet per room resulting in many small, odd-si som: e rooms be onr
h 909 2The site does not conform to the minimum requirement of acreage for an elementary school however this requirement has been waived consistently by the State Department of Education in the Little Rock area. The school existed in the area before many of the commercial and residential siuToundings, therefore current set-back requirements are undetermined at this time. The existing building and site relationships limit the amount of outside play area however a total of the interior courts and the existing grounds appear to provide the minimum playground space requirements. While parking might be arranged for after-school events on adjacent property through cooperative efforts, general parking available for staff appears to be inadequate with existing building configuration. Four alternate configurations are presented for new structures in the 70,000- 75,000 foot range in accordance with information previously provided by the Little Rock School District. One drawing is provided showing possible modifications of the existing building to provide for the program requirements. The reduced prints provided for our review of the two buildings are of different scales and we are providing new drawings of the three levels of both buildings at the same scale for clarification of study comments. Many of the substantial modifications required to accommodate an Elementary School would not be required if the building was upgraded to current standards for Junior High level students. Several items of significance might be utilized elsewhere if the building is to be demolished, i.e.: the auditorium seating is in remarkably good shape and appear to be useful without refinishing, entablature and frieze trim at main entrance, stone urns at monumental stair - all have intrinsic values as memorabilia. Since the major corridors are twelve foot wide and requirements are for eight foot corridors, a 2 deep storage area could be constructed on each side of the corridor. This would also provide "pockets" for out-swinging classroom doors and "excess" circulation space could provide supplementary classroom and general storage area or house lockers. 3D. General Cost Analysis between Renovation of Existing Building and Construction of New Two Story Facility 1. Renovation No portions of the electrical, heating, ventilating or plumbing systems are salvageable. Electrical distribution would be through the generous space above the ceilings on each floor and surface mounted on the walls, after the removal of the existing ceiling systems and prior to stripping and furring the existing masonry walls. The utilization of metal supported accessible ceilings would allow for new lighting throughout the building. HVAC could be introduced by the utilization of duct work in the generous above-ceihn^ spaces, however it would appear to more appropriate to utilize hot and chill water distribution from central boiler and chillers to individual room units to provide the required comfort. All plumbing risers, major drain lines and all new fixtures would be required as well as additional toilet rooms to provide for minimum requirements. New food service equipment and support systems would be required. We estimate the installation of new MEP systems in the existing structure to cost $1,250,000. We estimate the total cost of renovation and reconstruction required within the existing facility to cost between $2,250,000 and $2,500,000. 2. New Two-Story Facility A new two-story Elementary School constructed on this site will require grade level access, an elevator to accommodate the handicapped, controlled outside play areas, and can be expected to cost approximately $47.50 a square foot for a total cost between $3,300,000 and $3,500,000. A flat site, sufficiently large to accommodate the square footage requirements and related facilities for an Elementary School on one level could allow ccnstrucdon costs to bs reduced to appr square foot. iy $40 per ix: 4Current data indicates that life-cycle maintenance and operational costs escalate in instances where there is dilution of building system qualities and energy and quality construction considerations are compromised. We estimate that demolition of the existing structure would cost $110,000. Additional site preparation is not being considered since the exact configuration of a new facility is as yet undetermined. The existing site has a fall of approximately 11 foot along Marshall Street, from north to south
approximately 3-4 foot fall from north to south along Wolfe Street and is approximately level east to west along 13th Street. Therefore grade-level access and egress could be easily provided if the site were reconfigured closer to the existing, surrounding grades without the loss of tress around the perimeter of the site. E. Summary of the Four Major Factors in the Study and Recommendations 1. Structural Integrity The roof structure must be entirely replaced and some minor patching of concrete slabs will be required where reinforcing steel is exposed. Other than this the building appears to be sound and stable with little or no evidence of settlement or deterioration. New window and doors together with the new roof structure and roof would restore the building envelope. 2. Code Compliance and Handicapped Accessibility Sprinkling of all three levels of both buildings is required. The addition of two elevators is required. The construction of two fire towers is required. The above plus the installation of completely new mechanical and electrical systems and fire and smoke alarm/detection systems would bring the building into compliance with current codes with the exception of parking provisions. 53. Ability to comply with State Department of Education Standards and to be Modified for Practical Classroom Utilization. As can be seen from the sketches indicating possible reconfiguration of the existing building (particularly the lower level for 4 year olds, Kindergarten and 1st graders) even with extensive modifications and the introduction of "tunnels" out to grade, the building still provides questionable classroom configuration for students 6 years old and under and can not provide for participation of these ages occurring above the first floor (assemblies, special education areas, etc.) and seriously compromises the function of the school for 4 to 6 year old students. 4. Economic Considerations The building can be renovated for approximately $1,000,000 less than demolition and subsequent new construction on the same site and this can be accomplished in less time. The necessity to review all decisions with all the appropriate agencies, resolve the obvious concerns regarding 6 years and under age children confined to the first level and the compromises required to meet bare minimum room size standards would require substantial planning time. Development of food service and the many other support areas that would be required to be located on the first floor with the resulting traffic flow impacts would also necessitate much evaluation and study time, cutting into the time gained by starting with a substantial building shell. Architect/Engineer fees would fall in the 10% range for renovation work. 5. Recommendations We suggest that even if the building were renovated successfully, the heritage of this school maintained, money and time saved, the resulting facility would be a substantial compromise to education standards and functions, and the best interest of the School District and its patrons would not be served. We believe that if this is a desirable location for an Elementary School, the long-range benefits of appropriate new construction outweigh the economic advantages of renovation of this existing facility. 6I ff o a a a 7^ I F T1 3-0 "1 f/ J v I 3 L 7 I44u si-. d 'i I I nz I -i* lT e JL 4 Tf I 0 0 o 9 0 a 'r 0 Q r. ti I x) I y l'=b-Hi feXI^TtNC^ Puootx, peA^ L.^<4. Or><-. oSr- WG^TSiog-Jri-.H-IMH- school t- ilr^h\ op-Tl-^ ToTn^ sF - S4-
\oo.6o S iril UjG<
'TSlOS- Jrt-. hh<oAr <ic44-.ou-' NorX-TUr , J i' fi L,. I If L J L r* J ! li J 'Zl' u li A ir L J" 5 I ] (pTH <2> Fn-ooA- P c-A^ LcaJ*X^ 'tKr-tx- 'Z.Z,^ oo P t \aJ&<t'TSiD&'J/T-. kKot+- Sc-*+oo|_ . r ^<^o' -t-
7 7I ofvrH- / U. low I %oo Sin? j u. 5%o I I I I CoIcA|U~T , IXtO loSu Ito ' 4Xr.. I (a\l. J v l^T loSo %oo i too g>^4 i 'll?, HAVrtt Ko -p-iwin CoOC^ NVjitC, Lao<U< .fi 4lo KT U'i r Ek^+. J C/>ry<roM <:> $ I 5 s I '. I I T I I s 56 AOM^^ s I '\'fc Mi<3iA tMPV . J c r I b'H^ H&Va/ Fvooi<. PlAtsJ_______ L<.vt3L On-c^ ulesTs^'oe i^'+ scrFoo - f So' I I Ho^T(4-.\ INC 114-1- o. i^a b Cr b OSS tslevJ r- I ihS-A% o : I I SToo. it \'bo ! ! I l I C-ou*JX M-T [BS AjtfiToiuuM c.roo TA fag. C JUt [14V r A<*--T %4r 1.4^ b & e> lis?' oo- Pl>a^ vjesTSloe r= so't jaauM <
chool^ fsj O /^'T~ / II tl!i- 1140. tiH 1.45 e> 'll & fc 4 TH 1159 I I '=ltx> 1 1 6Za-cjo4'f ~ 15 3'^ 1 Q N 11 loTrt Soo t-w T5O 5^0 pl [ I w/ Of A u= )> <.Ty- bKJ c<x>cT XAiuo UTrt ^50 ope4 TO A0OlT>->i^M 5TH v4V 5T4 B4S- fe ?TH I I I ^l ^TAi-e Nv^ Fcoo'^ FLAtvI J'A-. *^+0^1' l*-=5o'i '7/S'^A I H o/2 tf4144U 7 5^.Ga. J,. .GJ. k r 7 O) T !7S^3ar ..^^,-74?. TL|Tf. B I'l 4>3<. JAh i' jii K I I o > o ,2 ^Ac^to^C c>A "Vcaz* JTTW VJGtT?106 l= 9O' Mv$ - or-= f HtJLK 1^0*1 1(^ 5V. Cou, Cor\$^lv^ <* ^> {*^ L*. Io $ 2%O* 54" 5 ITS 'i-/T-l/'\ 1 IH +1 o O I j+ r I & i& I X Hi 6\T -siifAU.^ f^7 H 4- mw uiun 1 I 1 J o 3I < ?c-K-oot. ieess*. > U2-SP 1. r I X (? '1. I pToit, ( & c> l%o -'<t c I ? I B Ic. I 4 $ 5 t 4 n I 7 f t fjo A-T rt ^Cof^N AVc^.i/tA I 1 ^A4-t^'4or- 1 C^-Vk . /"cL Hti+st. tv 1st IS." & fo ^.6 . .^ .s,- 2?' 4 l5T UT \ST. wisjss sfo> I I fUa-Ih-i Coov-4y<Kvtk. T I 1 r I 1 4-
p- f'j.'. k- :---------- Connp.LuU , 'L^ <3 I P. -^s- '.,'X K I ! I :U I Cr r y ^'\- pAt. o U N D Q <6 CJ! V , I I 1 I I J o 3 Lnrrn I^TH- 5T ujiin ^J&W Sorioou - UP-SP 4. ^f'fcooS T' WCSTlioe JO-.H-iWH-siTt r^.^' 5?' t I I NoP-THI -4ii3A" I & & 1 IrA I G-To. t,S-OCAJ ai^aacaeEMgyi^ r wwK^ *a I wrvisfJi!**' -rii' 's'lk 44U c >'A.'r'fA-io 74k t 1 ! 4K C *r'' 4-hA I fc-Hx ^-Tk +k C44\ no ^. HEW ^g>H-ooU LA-SO L*mU TwJa v4e5T<<oe J A.. $iT6^ r^r* I I I K CxUM p i T ^.r. L. A Lb/ec two U/&5-r*it:e IlE I L^-51^ Hl^H -blT^ L. ^44 2> S L -z. liUlllll I I tt { 1 t lJe?E.-rH14-th >'n rase, ComP. Ae-r SP.ER sp.ee> SF.Ecj :!5SSS3Sa^<ieS!STJiKE^e3aiSf5395?: I I J 6104- 1 -TH-k k coJu, ------------------ rr^ 4rR. x ^^fTFroejo^q l-rfz. I <I 3!t fc fXc. -/ 5 o 2 I 4 inrm KJ hl&O 4^e>looL L\fe^.ok>./^lTE.'PLfcJ'> e=-e>oi ' To-Ya^ ^P, - / I 1 fc> I t 3 J I 5 !=> T + b Jk I 1 I slew scHbot kIo^'th 1*^ I "ll?f>h\ t I tJanuary 17, 1992 CENTRAL HIGH NEIGHBORHOOD ---------------r INC. "J--------------- "Weve Got Heritage? Ms. O. G. Jacovelli President Little Rock School Board 6622 Gold Court Little Rock, Arkansas 72209 Dear Ms. Jacovelli: The undersigned residents of the Central High neighborhood and patrons of the Little Rock School District hereby submit for consideration by the Little Rock School Board an alternative proposal for the development of an interdistrict school in the Central High neighorhood. We propose creation of a two-campus educational facility--the Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Educational Park--as the centerpiece of a neighborhood redevelopment initiative. Our proposal also would enable Ish Elementary School to remain in operation as an incentive school, an approach supported by patrons of Ish. The School Board's response to this proposal should be directed to Ethel Ambrose, president of the Central High Neighborhood Association, who can be reached during the day at 370-5950. 7^/z. Qi. Ms. Jacovelli 1/17/92 Page 2 cc: Little Rock School Board Members Dr. Ruth Steele Ann Brown Sam Jones John Walker Steve Jones Richard RoachellDr. Proposal to create the Martin Luther King, Educational Park Jr. and Neighborhood Redevelopment Initiative Submitted to the Little Rock School District by residents of the Central High Neighborhood January 17, 1992 BACKGROUND In its heyday during the'first half of this century, 'the area of Little Rock now known as the Central High neighborhood was served by three public schools: - Centennial School, an elementary school built in 1888
- West Side Junior High School, built in 1917
and - Little Rock Central High School, which opened in 1927. Only one of these schools--Central High--remains in operation in what now is a predominantly low- and moderate-income neighborhood. Children who live in the neighborhood presently are assigned to a variety of schools. Residents of the Central High neighborhood believe the neighborhood would benefit enormously from the existence--once again--of additional educational facilities.Page 2 In accordance with the Desegregation Plan, the Little Rock School District (LRSD) has proposed locating a new interdistrict school, the King Elementary School, in the Central High neighborhood, utilizing the one-square-block (2.2 acre) site of West Side Junior High School at 14th and Marshall Streets. While residents are enthusiastic about the prospect of the neighborhood again being served by an elementary school, the Central High Neighborhood Association (CHNA) opposes the LRSD's plan as proposed. Members of CHNA believe the West Side site is too small for a 696-student elementary school, particularly one that must attract some 250 white students from the Pulaski County Special School District in order to meet desegregation requirements. In addition, members of CHNA, along with historic preservationists and other concerned Little Rock citizens, oppose the demolition of the historic West Side Junior High building, an irreplaceable resource that is an asset to the Central High neighborhood and should be incorporated into revised plans for a Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Educational Park," which canand should--serve as the centerpiece for a badly-needed neighborhood redevelopment initiative.Page 3 DE. MARTIN LUTHER KING. JR. EDUCATIQNAI^ PARK Residents of the Central High neighborhood advocate creation of a new educational facility, named for Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. , which would include a rehabilitated West Side Junior High building and construction of a new school building on the former site of Centennial School at 15th and Wolfe Streets. The new building should serve as the downtown early childhood center, providing facilities for pre-schoolers (6 weeks-3 years), 4-year- olds, kindergarteners, and Ist-graders. The West Side Junior High building should be rehabilitated and converted to use for grades 2 through 6. Additional land, in blocks located adjacent to the West Side and Centennial sites, should be acquired to make certain the new educational facility has adequate space for playground areas and parking. Centennial site/Earlv Childhood Center The Centennial School site, located one block south and one block west of West Side Junior High, is bounded by 15th, 16th, Wolfe, and Battery Streets. The site presently is owned and maintained by the City of Little Rock as a public park, but CHNA believes the loss of the park, now frequented primarily by drugPage 4 dealers, would be more than outweighed by the benefits the neighborhood would derive from construction of an early childhood center. CHNA further believes the City would return the Centennial School site to the LRSD for the proposed educational use. center Finally, CHNA believes construction of an early childhood could be funded with the $1 million savings the LRSD would realize by rehabilitating the West Side Junior High building rather than demolishing it and constructing a new school on that site. Constructing an early childhood center on the Centennial site would take the place of the LRSD's current proposal to convert Ish Elementary School, an incentive school, into an early childhood center. The closing of Ish as an incentive school, which would entail reassigning Ish students to Rightsell and Mitchell Elementary Schools, is opposed by Ish patrons and would become unnecessary if an early childhood center were built on the Centennial site. West Side Junior Hiah/Grades 2 thrQuqh._ The West Side Junior High building, a landmark since 1917 in the Central High neighborhood, is structurally sound and a viable candidate for rehabilitation--as acknowledged by the LRSD's own study of the building, prepared last summer by the BlassPage 5 architectural firm. The Blass study further indicates that rehabilitating West Side would cost approximately $1 million less than demolishing it and building a new school. (As noted above. this $1 million savings would build--or at least go a long way toward building--an early childhood center on the Centennial site.) The major obstacle to the rehabilitation of West Side as an elementary school resulted from safety requirements that prohibit children 6 years old and under from occupying anything but grade- level space. Limiting the West Side building to use by children between the ages of 7 and 12 (grades 2 through 6) would solve this problem. The rehabilitation of the historic West Side building. in conjunction with construction of an early childhood center, also would constitute a major turning point for a neighborhood where disinvestment, deterioration, and demolition have been the norm for nearly three decades. The LRSD could lead the way in a neighborhood redevelopment initiative that would dovetail with neighborhood programs presently being developed by the City of Little Rock and major lending institutions.Page 6 Acquisition of Additional Land for Plavgrounds and Parking The Central High Neighborhood Association obviously is sensitive to the problems inherent in acquiring land occupied by houses in order to provide sufficient space for school playgrounds and parking. Nevertheless, CHNA believes additional land could be acquired, with cost, in any of minimal displacement of residents and at modest : several blocks adjacent to the West Side and Centennial sites where many houses are some lots already have been cleared. vacant and condemned and The likeliest candidates for whole or partial acquisition appear to be: - Block bounded by 13th, 14th, Battery, and Wolfe Streets
- Block bounded by 14th, 15th, Battery, and Wolfe Streets
- Block bounded by 14th, 15th, Wolfe, and Marshall Streets. The north end of the block directly south of the Centennial School site also contains several vacant and condemned houses on lots which might be acquired to expand the site for the early childhood center.Page 7 NEIGHBORHOOD REDEVELOPMENT INITIATIVE In conjunction with creating the Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Educational Park, the LRSD should become a leader in efforts already underway to stabilize and revitalize the Central High neighborhood. The City of Little Rock has designated the neighborhood a target area for revitalization efforts and is developing a "model block" program on Dennison Street just north of Central High School. A community development corporation (CDC) created by Worthen Bank is expected to operate in the neighborhood, and the "Paint Your Heart Out" program, spearheaded by First Commercial Bank, will improve the appearance of selected houses in the neighborhood. The Central High neighborhood also will be one of the areas investigated by the Local Initiatives Support Corporation (LISC) as a potential site for a neighborhoodbased CDC. Rather than working at cross purposes with neighborhood residents, the LRSD should become active in helping the neighborhood by: - soliciting input from residents on the design of new and rehabilitated educational facilities, including cooperating in efforts to create neighborhood meeting space and a branch library
- helping to develop a master plan for the neighborhood's redevelopment (a major part of which should be information on thePage 8 LRSD's plans not only for the West Side and Centennial sites but also for Central High School)
- assisting neighborhood residents in working with the City of Little Rock and financial institutions on creating programs aimed at rehabilitating existing housing stock and constructing new affordable housing on vacant lots in the neighborhood. SU14MARY There is rich potential for the development of a true schoolneighborhood partnership in the Central High area. Such a partnership could develop quality education for the children of this inner-city neighborhood and at the same time improve'the quality of life for children and adults through improved housing and reduction in crime. Such a partnership would be in the spirit of what Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. stood for and would benefit the entire city.TO
cz FROM: SUBJECT: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST K-ARKH-AM STREET b'c - Ruth S. Stesle, Superintendent of Schools SELECTION OF WEST SIDE SITE FOR CONSTRUCTION OF AN INTERDISTRICT SCHOOL For many months the Little Rock School District has engaged in discussion and inquiry regarding the selection of a site for one of the interdistrict schools approved in the Desegregation Plan. Even as early as Aubrey McCutcheon's tenure as special master in this case, the West Side site was toured and viewed as at least one possibility to be considered when new schools were constructed in the central part of the city along the 1-630 corridor. Later, on June 29, 1989, the Board adopted a resolution to deed West Side to the State Health Department. Costs associated with asbestos removal and other concerns prevented the Health Department from taking possession of the building. What follows is a chronology of the process since March 20, 1991, by which the parties have reached agreement that an interdistrict school should be located on the West Side site. DATE EVENT OUTCOME March 20, 1991 Hearing on School in local District Court The Court was informed that West Side was one of 4 possible sites for construction of a new interdistrict school.* (see fax p.l5) March 21, 1991 Receipt of Court order from Judge Wright Construction at Forest Heights Jr. High could not begin until "...the Court receives notice from LRSD that a site for Stephens (King) has been selected and approved by all parties, along with definite rationale. plans, site and dates for acquisition. and anticipated dates for the school's construction. completion and opening." (see Fax p.8, 9, 10, 11)A r.sw Ki lc Elementary School in downtown Little Rock (14th & Marshall). (See fax p.l2) May 30, 1991 Letter from Chris Heller to the parties and the desegregation monitor The parties and the monitor were notified of our intention to begin asbestos removal and demolition of West Side. The parties and the monitor were asked to notify Mr. Heller if they had any questions or July 19, 1991 Official notification to the Court from Mr. Heller regarding West Side August, 1991 Review of Preliminary study by architectural firm regarding construction of West Side. November 4, 1991 Letter from Dr. Randall L. O'Donnell from ACH regarding its interest in purchasing West Side. concerns actions. response. about There these was no The Court was informed that all parties had agreed to the construction of an interdistrict school II at 14th & Marshall Streets near Arkansas Children's Hospital in Little Rock. II The Court was told that construction would begin no later than June 1992 and be completed no later than August 1, 1993. (see fax p. 5, 6) After discussion of possible renovation, a determination was made that a new school would be necessary for the student population which the school would serve. Conversation between Dr. Steele and Dr. O'Donnell regarding the timing of the request to purchase West Side in light of other events having taken place since March.O V r. to zucrs to discuss plans for King. that the Tns raspcnse was land area small and we could was not initiate construction in the middle of the lot. However, we would attempt to save scroll as much of the work and other building trim as possible and incorporate that into the building design. November 7, 1991 Second letter from Dr. O'Donnell regarding the building of a new King school on the old West Side site. Dr. O'Donnell committed the support of Arkansas Children's Hospital to the District in the event that a building was constructed, (see letter November 7) November 8, 1991 Meeting with Ann Brown and Bob Morgan to discuss interdistrict school sites. The issue was raised by Ms. Brown that problems pertaining to the use of the King site, e.g., parking, would need to be addressed to the Court's satisfaction prior to the District approval to go receiving forward with the project. proposal A for consideration of Woodruff a s one o f the interdistrict schools was discussed. November 11, 1991 Meeting with Ms. Ambrose's committee and Doug Eaton Mr. Eaton was shown pictures of some of the trim items and agreed to buy and incorporate them into the construction of the building.pat
CUTCCMP ^-3 _ November 19, 1991 by the Ce High Neig' :cc-i T -3 Association to request renovation of West Side and stoppage of demolition plans. Special Board meeting to discuss the concerns of the Central High Neighborhood Association.M C . X J I U X -* I k X\J1 X* X s, t 4*J >.<. SR.TCMCU M. rR.DAV. R.A, . 9. CLARK OBt* V. L'O*'^. *'* IVLIAM M. SUTTOn. R.A, A-ea **. HooPE vwOM M, cise-A-*, j-.. oc o. > C'.u. rBIDAT, EIDHEDGE A CLAEK A rARTNERSHIB QF INOIVIOUALS ANO PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS ATTORNEYS AT LAW CIIT >. BMArci*. 1' N tC *411: 3500 FIRST COWMEROIA:. au'uONO WiLl'ah m. oriff THQmaS n. rose, IN III, OM Cl. S. MOORC .M 1. f iC.-< :l.272Ou 4 -io. Oi-27 S.-iiA' AMS c. c >.O-A OWN .A- AUX a. CCN-aH !. , A. AHRT W. tun Ka, >. A. . WTC KUI F F N la ftCT. J R.. R. AM eft COWARb WARR. , BHikXiR mauCOM. R.A. AMES M. SIMOSON, R.A. lERCOiTrt A CAtLCTT. R.A. AMES M. SAXTOr4. A. . SHERNCRB RU9*CLL lit )ONXI,O M. BAOON. A.A. riLLIAM TMOMAB AMTCR. MLTKR a, RAUL0ON |l. R.A. lAARY K. COPLIN, P.A. liOHARO 0. TATLOR, P.A. lOSCRH 0, MUPSf. JR.. R.A. LIEAOCTW 4. ROSBCN, R.A. :KRiaTORHER MELLCR. R * 'o^ -i-O ! h. iHARLXa 9CMWn0. .ir. SeOTT H. rUCKCR JOHN OUAYTON ANfiOt.RH OUY ALTON WAOC RRlOe e. AARONCR TUOHAfl MECX J, WICHACL PIOKCNO TONIA R. JONCS OAVie 0. WIL9OM JCFFRCY H. MOOr eOJHBCX WILU'AM 4. SMITW WILLIAM A. ELOnCO^e. JRi WILLIAM L. TERRY WILLIAM L. PATTON, JR.. P. WITR IR* . Dr. Ruth Steele Superintendent Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 370-1506 Re
Westside Junior High School Dear Dr. Steele
I am writing to provide you a chronology of the process by which the parties agreed that an interdistrict school should be located at the Westside Junior High School site. ~ 'g At a hearing on Kdicu 20, 1951, I told the district court that LRSD and the other parties were considering four potential interdistrict school sites: The Philander Smith Campus
the Stephens school site
the King The following day, the March 1991 school site
and the Westside school site. . . _ district court ordered that construction at Forest Heights Junior High School could not begin "until the Court receives notice from the LRSD that a site for Stephens has been selected and approved by all parties, along with definite plans, rationale, and dates for sits acquisition and anticipated for school's dates the Copies of the relevant pages construction, completion and opening. of the transcript of the March 20, 1991 hearing and the Match 21, 1991 order are attached. In LRSD filed a proposed desegregation plan on May 1, 1991. that plan, the first interdistrict school to be built in LRSD is called "King" rather than "Stephens". The plan says that LRSD "proposes to build a new King Elementary School in downtown Little -.A copy of the relevant page of II Rock (14th and Marshall Streets). the May 1, 1991 proposed desegregation plan is attached. H On May 30, 1991 I wrote to the other parties in this case, with a copy to the Monitor, to notify them of LRSD's intention "tou n. ot.uuux ^1 M M begin asbestos removal and demolition of the old Westside Junior - st'.-ar the rartiss 2*.d the Monitor to notify me ir C 9 Ci iO urr tha senco- A .1' old Westside Z 0 C Z. 5 school ta Icca cr. July IS,
f ar. inter-dis at 14th & Kar ii We Streets, near Arkansas Children's Hospital, in Little Rock also notified the court that construction would begin no later than June, 1992 and be comoleted no later than August 1, 1993. A copy completed fl of the "Notice of Site Selection and Construction schedule" is attached. As you know, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled last week that "no retreat should be approved" from the requirement that the parties operate "the agreed number of interdistrict schools according to the agreed time table". Slip Op. November 14, 1991, p. 5. 7 9 I recall touring Westside during Aubrey McCutcheon's tenure as . . > * L - 5^ _ 1 m-U yii 1 AS 1 nrre special master in this case, but I have not located any pleadings, . z,-------ju.j _iwhich specifically concern other than those described above, -------- The present status is that all Westside Junior High School. xs parties have agreed to the location of an interdistrict school at the Westside Junior School site and the district court has been formally notified of that agreement. Yours very trulv Christo: er slier CJH/k Enc.1 i ' i y y i M y : i 0 0/0^X4 / 'O OM i r 1 RJi L n dUUUMX VX5> TRSCHEV H. FRIOAr, F. s. CVaRR IBCRT V. L'OHT. B.A. LLtAM H. button. F.A FKIDAY, ErDEEnOS * CXXEK PARTNERSHIP OP INOtvlOUALS ANO PROFESSIONAL ASSOC!ATIONS .M C> W. ICC. B eo < attorneys at law 2000 R:R3T COWmCRCIAL BVILDm<3 TC wes- CA*i*Ov 0AN< e. ,C^ 8. M9<8AC C-' I C. A
Z U? 722Ot-J * 5^1 H A, dC!- kRVW. auRK. A. NI8SCT, JR., .A. KMC8 CDWARO hARRK. RHlUkl* MAUCOM, R.A. hMO M.aiMR8OH, R.A. CRCO<TM n. dATUlTT. R.A. LMCa H. SAXTOH, r.a. hcrmcro RusatuL III ONAUO H, BACONt R.A. IbUIAM tMOMAa BAXTCA. .A. AbTC" A. RAUVaON H, R-A. aRRV K. CORVIN. R.A. IQHARO O. TatVOR. R.A. OaCRH 8. MVRST. JR.. VJZABCTM J. rObbCN. MRI3VORHCR MKVLtR, R.A. May 30, Mr. Sam Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY & JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock', AR 72201 Mr. John Walker JOHN WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Re: 7S 2
-** * T 7 . t. tA pO -SL-** J. LS a4CNN H. CHARVCB O3e><WBN9. JR. marrt a. viort aeOTT H. TWCKCR JOHN CVAVTON ranOOvRm OUT AVTOH WAOC RRtCS C. 9ARON CO THOMAS R. HCCKS J. MICHACV RiQKCNS TONIA JONCB OaVIS D. WIVSQN JCRRRBT H. M9ORC WtVViAM SMITH WtVVIAM A. <VBRE0OG. JR., B. WILLIAM Li terry WILLIAM L Ratton, jr., r.a. 0*1 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON & JONES, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol & Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell MITCHELL & ROACHELL, P.A. 1014 West Third Little Rock, AR 72201 Interdistrict School 370-1506 r nxi^Ai M U 4 d S a ' Dear Counsel
In accordance with our agreement that the Westside Junior High School site will be the location of a new interdistrict elementary school, the Little Rock School District intends to begin asbestos removal and demolition of the old Westside Junior High School, LRSD will also hire an architect to begin planning the new school so that we can be sure the school will open on the date set forth Please let me know if you have in our proposed desegregation plan. any questions or concerns about these actions. Yours very truly/' Christopher, Heller CJH/k cc: Ann Brown Chip JonesXX Xy yX uy
xo O'OMl J/0.
X4/ rniUAi LA MK.'l -*-* L K :>cnooi uist w~ 1^005 V, IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EA3TE31I CTSTRIC OF ARKANSAS iSION LR-C-82-8S6 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL Uli ,1.9 1991 I ,1 1 -.K DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS NOTICE OF SITE SELECTION AND CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE For its notice, the Little Rock School District (LRSD) states: 1. The parties have agreed that the first interdistrict school constructed in LRSD should be called "King" rather than "Stephens" because the present Stephens school site is under consideration for the location of the second interdistrict school. which would logically be named "Stephens". 2. LRSD hereby notifies the court that a definite site for the location of the King Interdistrict school has been selected and approved by all parties. That site is the old Westside school site located at 14th & Marshall Streets, near Arkansas Children's Hospital, in Little Rock. The site is presently owned by the Little Rock School District. The construction of King I p ii B J J u M X n < X' n\Ji .M O interdistrict School will begin no later than June 1992 and be 1 p cc than Au: c. fc. 1532 . c< Iha Kino Interdistrict LITTL2 ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE & CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Street Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 376-2011 Christopher Hell CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Selection I certify that a copy of the foregoing Notice of Site and construction Schedule has been served on the following by depositing copy of same in the United States mail on this 19th day of July 1991: Mr. John Walker JOHN WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Sam Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY & JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON & JONES, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol & Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 So^oetlan 2 li ly yi oy: IB '0501 37B:
147 FRIDAY LAW FIRM L R School Dlst 1^007 Mr. Richard Roachell MITCHELL & ROACHELL, P.A. IC 14 West Third a arr C of Ksn i tor Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 9 Christopher Heller bUAloo 3 ii-iy-yi Uy: IB O'BDi 3702147 tKlUAi LA" HK.'l L K SCHOOL UI St 1^)008 0 5 r COJST filed Mi.? 2 1 ^53J '8A* L. V. CCL C J NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL district no. 1, et al. DEFENDANTS KRS, LORENE JOSHUA, et al. INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, et al. INTERVENORS Q R-P E R Bafor* the Court ia a motion filed by plaintiff Dittla Rock school District (LRSD) seeking approval of construction projects at eight schools. On March 20, 1991 the Court held a hearing on this motion to discuss each construction project and its impact on the desegxegation plane. Construction projects at Rightaell Incentive School, Mitohell incentivs School, Cloverdale Junior High School, Cloverdale Elementary School, Geyer Springs Elementary School, Woodruff Elementary School, and Western Hille Elementary sohool are approved. However, the Court is concerned that at least some of the projectB reveal a certain lack of foresight as to the long range consequences of increasing the capacity of these schools. For example. the plaintiff states in paragraph 19 of its notion that "[n]o change in the assignment of students to Geyer Spring* . . . will result from the construction project." This assertion is contradicted by language in the following paragraph which indicates that students Who reside in the schools attendance zona will oooupy only 65% of the school * s capacity, thus1 i' 11 y 1 '00 Mi .J/0^14/ r Ki PAI LA nK.n L K i>cnooi uist 009 r.ec*^ s:. 5 C3 id* .- ar.i: by tbn 3 3 nsr.: cJ s-
a. O i2 u y
i / ( / 1 / r a : i .4 M 4 acconunodatecf at neJ.^jibarlng' l^akaflsld Slaniatitafy Schaal which is presently operating at 99% capacity" (smphasis added). The Court expressed similar concerns during the hearing over the expansion at Woodruff which, after grandfathering ends, will be filled to only 60% capacity by etudenta raaiding in the eehools attendance zone. The propriety of expanding the capacity of a particular school always must be evaluated within the larger context of the desegregation plans and with a view to both imroadiate and long term impact. Since the settlement plan specifies that ''[s)tudents will be assigned to the Elementary Academies by attendance zones," LRSD Settlement Plan, Vol, II at 1 (zlsS) , a proposal to expand the capacity of any school must be made with a clear understanding of how ths new capacity will be used and where the students populating the additional space will coma from. The parties to will present to the Court at the end of March 1991 a document delineating proposed "adjustments" between the settlement and Tri-District plans. in view of the construction already underway (without ths prior knowledge or approval of ths Court), the Court expects the March transition document to reflect that much oaraful thought has been given to the proposed changes in school capacity. Thadocument must demonstrate clearly the link between any proposed changes in school capacity and (1) the c.Ed V X V* identified needa which justify the capaolty expeneion, (3) the specifio, anticipated use of the expanded apace, and (3) how attendance zones will be redrawn to aaaure that "all LRSD students , Xr_'' r The c curs or s.:. can b3 c nt in a sd 1 a a e fc a 5 34 tGlying on this provision of the plan and know with certainty which school their children will attend, the court expects that there will ba aojne redrawing of attendance zones so that the proposed changas in school oapaoity logically align with attendance zones end with the numbers of students reaaonably anticipated through M- to-M and desagragation tranefora. However, the Court admonishes the LRSD that, as is the case with busing, the burden of changing schools due to redrawn attendance zones should not fall disproportionately upon black children. The proposed construction at yorast Haights Junior High School will be approved contingent upon (1) inolusion in the March 1991 transition document of the specifie information requested above as it rslates to expansion at Forest Heights and (3) the sBleotion of a definite site for the location of the stephene interdistri^ school. Construction at Foreat Heights may nob begin until the Court receives notice from ths lrsd that a site for steohens has _ -- . _ ' " ~ - been selected and approved by all parties, along with definite P2>n, rationale, and dates for site acguialtion and anbioipated dates for the schools oonstruation, oomplgbion, and opening. If, after a reasonable time, the parties cannot agree on the 3uy
i / ii lyyi *0*0 Ui 0/D.:i4/ rKIUAl LA** MKM -*->-> L K ijcnooi VIST l^uil . / :n tsph-87iJl X?. i ar, nay 'pttitiori the Court rc_ , :.cr. X?.o Qz ft *t.pcr.x a-.. soil / IT IS SO 0KD2KSD thia ^7day of Haroh, 1991. UNZTED STATEB DISTRICT Jti DSS -4- a11 ly yi oy: IS 1'5(11 37B2147 FRIDAY LA'V FIRM L R School Dlst 1^012 Vr ifl uae- it aa the Ingtegucfeienal -*u. rd a: ch a o 1y-e a-a-nr 19^-01 Stephens and King It is proposed that the District relocate Stephens Elementary near the 1-630 corridor between 1-30 and University Avenue. The new Stephens will house prekindergarten through sixth grades and will have a capacity of -free 96 students.* It sexrves as an Interdistrict School. The new Stephens will be easily accessible to downtown office workers, state department employees and University Medical Center personnel. The Little Rock School District also proposes to build a new King Elementary School in downtown Little Rock CLlth and Marshall Streets). The facility, in anv case,., would be located in the general area along 1-630 between 1-30 and University Avenue. In addition to being an Interdistrict school, an attraction for this school will be its early childhood program and childcare facilities. This location is expected to seirve as a natural magnet for individuals who work within governmental and business centers of Little Rock. *Include5 four-vear-old program Res 02231, 02232 Page 25811 ly-Hi uy: IS 'O'si.ii jzei'i-iz tKiUAl LAW HK.'l L K scnooi DI st 1^1013 ghe pag^iea-hove had diacuaaiona wifeh pealtoga J The new_Kinq School should be constructed in time for use beginning with the 1993-94 school year. 3'h e ,QfiM Stephens School should be constructed for use beginning with I the 1994-95 school year. I Re
02232 I Page 2591 ii y y i i.iy: I.*! 'QOlJl
j7b
'147 FRIDAY LA" FIRM L R School Dlst 1^014 55 area that wo ware considering far that school. When the plan th^h stop
e:i .or ik -.3 District Court ordsr was i.-i 3y January 2nc we . had the Tri-Diatrict Plan, which also called for the -- a look at the capacity question and the enlargement of incentive schools and the location of a new school in central or east Little Rock. So, at some point, I had some discussions with folks from th Monitoring Office and the parties, and at some point 10 there was a general consensus that even before the Court of 11 Appeals order in December, that a school at the Philander Smith 12 campus would be appropriate under either plan, and since we were 13 essentially waiting for the Court of Appeals to rule and not 14 really pursuing the site location for either plan, we thought 15 we'd go ahead and work towards that one school, because that 16 seemed to ba the one thing that could be dona in terms of 17 construction which would work under either plan. 18 We did as this memo shows, we did have an architect 1$ do several drawings of how a Stophens school would fit on th 20 Philander Smith campus, and talked with President Titus at 21 Philander Smith about that proposal, but we werent -- wo were 22 really, I guess, a little bit premature in what we did. We 23 didn't work out an agreement. We're still now trying to do 1 I 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 w a li r <i
e c u e G , ef f tl a wn
i s . 1 I i i I I i I 24 that, and we've got three other sites identified, as well, which 25 could potentially bo used to build one or both of those schools.1119-91 09:19 0501 3762147 FRIDAY LAW FIRM --* L R School Dlst 56 015 1 An:J the other three are ths present Stephens Schoo 1 location, 1 E 1 t Kins Schoo 1 I coition, r.s prise.' Westsica I I 4 i I But theres even some consideration now of perhaps a I 5 project, if we could reach an. agreement with Philander, of a 6 school on the Philander Smith campus which would ba combined 7 with the school on the Westside site with primarily early 8 childhood through some young grade at the Westside site, and the 9 upper elementary grades at the Philander site, because Dr. .Titus 10 has said that his goal is to make that school a very strong 11 teaching school, a teacher education school, and we think that 12 gives us some optimism that we might be able to reach a joint 13 use agreement. 14 15 16 there. THE COURT: Well, I see some interesting prospects I now have some concerns that 1 really want to just call concerns. Some of them will be expressed in the form of 17 questions to you, but others are really just concerns that I 18 want you to talk with Miss Hart and Miss Brown about, because 1$ they arise from difficulties I have with the Settlement Plan 20 21 22 23 24 25 that I'm supposed to be implementing. is grandfathering. And one of these concerns And I'm not going to go into the details right now, but Miss Brown has researched this and has given me a I memo that Im sure she will share with you on ths difficulties of determining grandfathering under the Plan, and when it ends. and also sibling preference in grandfathering. I Iii'iy ai '0'51.11 3 7 (5-.HZ FKID.IV LA"' FIRM L R School DIst 1^016 1.1 y
19 S7 i And It is not easy, and I don't think that reasonable : 1 > c u K 1 don't think five reasonable people co I. i read these previsions and all come up with the same conclusion about just what they mean, And so, what I would suggest you do is meet with the other parties and determine what it means and put it in, maybe, your modified Settlement Plan or any other stipulation you might give me that would be incorporated in that Plan so our school patrons will know. just think that that's one thing parents want to know. 10 And 1 personally don't care what it is but, you know, 11 when the deadline is or when youre going to cut it off, but as 12 13 a parent. I know I'd like to know whenever it is, other parents would, too. And I am sure And so, if you can just get together J 4 5 6 7 8 9 I I 1 I 14 on that, it would be good. 15 MR. HELLER? And the intent was - I have talked with 1 6 Ann Brown about that, and I agree that you can't find a cutoff 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 date in the Plan. Our intention, I know, was -- it says, "those presently enrolled in the schools." So our intention was whan the Plan was approved, those presently enrolled there could stay! there, but I think we can do better in the modification to make it clear that that is a onetime event which occurred on December 12th and it's not going to be continued. THE COURT: Okay. preference, sama thing. But anyway, the sibling I believe I brought up sibling 25 preference in the Aerospace Magnet Hearing and, again, this is\ f I DECEIVED NO'/ -4 1S93 OHi-i'CE Randall L. O'Donnell. Ph.D. Chief Executive Officer Betty A. Lowe. M.D. Medical Director Phillip K. Gilmore. M.S.. MH A Administrator Dwight Hyde. C.PA Chief Financial Officer Larry C. Woodard Director of Development and Community Affairs Blanche Moore Director of Institutional Relations Paul Fitzgerald, Ph.D. Director of Planning & Clinks William J. Bogle Ella Christopher. R.N. Scott Gordon. LC.S.W. Associate Administrators Board of Trustees Doug Brandon President Diane Mackey Vice President James E. Gaston Secretary Robert L Shults Treasurer Charles B. Whiteside III Immediate Past President Joanna Seibert. MD. Chief of Staff Guy Amsler. Jr. Brenda Ashmore John Bale. Jr. Walt C. Bennett David M. Clark Hillary Rodham Clinton Stuart Cobb Wayne Cranford Robert G. Cress Craig Douglass Harry C. Erwin III Herschel H. Friday Betty Gilbert Gerald F. Hamra Mrs. Robert Hickman Dick Holbert MA. Jackson. M.D. Betty A. Lowe. M.D. Chuck Meyer Mrs. Malcolm Moore Kathy Murphy Robert D. Nabholz Randall L. O'Donnell. Ph.D. Bill Puddephatt Skip Rutherford Larry C. Wallace Harry P. Ward. MD. SOOA^arshaii Street, Little Rock, Arkansas /2202-3591, (501) 320-1100 November 4, 1991 Ruth S. Steele, Ed.D., Superintendent Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR Dear Dr. Steele: Arkansas in 72201 Children's Hospital (ACH) has long held an interest obtaining the West Side Junior High School building property as a logical southern completion of our campus. you know, the and As we have had a variety of informal discussions over years regarding possible options for us to obtain property from the Little Rock School District (LRSD). events suggest that your efforts to build a new King tary School have picked up speed
final request of you to consider selling this Recent Elemen-and, thus, we are making a the Vest building and property to Arkansas Children's Hospital Side and constructing the new elementary school on another site within the 1-630 corridor. Our interest has many aspects including, servation among others, preto Little of a building of historical note and significance Rock, and various ACH programs. conversion of this space for use by We are prepared to meet at your convenience to explore purchase of this property. Please call me to let us whether property. or not we can. together. work to preserve our know this I look forward to hearing from you very soon. Sincerely, Randall L. O'Donnell, Ph.D. Chief Executive Officer cc: Little Rock School Board Members Emeritus John H. Bale Stanley M. Bauman, Jr. Willis W. Johnson William R, Meeks Louis Rosen Frank D. White A major teaching affiliate of the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences Randall L O'Dcrneil, Ph.D. Qbef E.-.scutivc Oncer Betty A. Lowe, M.D. A^edkai Director Phillip K. Gilmore, M.S., MH A Auministrator Dwight Hyde. C.PA Otief Financial Officer Larry C. Woodard Director of Oevebpment and Community Affairs Blanche Moore Director of Institutional Relations Paul Fitzgerald, Ph.D. Director of Planning & CSnia William J. Bogle Ella Christopher, RH. Scott Gordon, LCS.W. Associate Administrators Board of Trustees Doug Brandon President Diane Mackey Vice President James E Gaston Secretary Robert L Shults Treasurer Charles B. Whiteside HI Immediate Past President Joanna Seibert, M.D. Qii^ of Staff Guy Amsler, Jr. John Bale, Jr. Walt C. Bennett Kathy Bentley David M. Clark Hillary Rodham Clinton Wayne Cranford Robert G. Cress Hany C. Erwin III Tern' Erwin Herschel H. Friday Gerald F. Hamra Mrs. Robert Hickman Dick Holbert I'AA Jackson, M.D, Betty A Losve, M.D. Mahlon Martin Chuck Meyer Mrs. Malcolm Moore Kathy Murphy Robert D. Nabholz Randall U O'Donnell, PhD. Bill Puddephatt Skip Rutherford Phil Schmidt Lany C Wallace Hany P. Ward. M.D. Rosie Wilson % iV^fshali Sa LiSSe Reck, .Vkansas 122.Q2 ?,5i\, (501) 320-1100 November 7, 1991 Ruth S. Steele, Ed.D., Superintendent Little Rock School District. 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Dr. Steele: In follow-up to our phone conversation yesterday afternoon and my letter to you of November 4, I understand that there may be no other option to the Little Rock School District building the King Elementary School at the old West Side Junior High site. I assure you that, should that be the case, Arkansas Children's Hospital would be very supportive of your improving that property. We certainly would be pleased to cooperate in bringing this improvement to our neighborhood. Let us know if there IS assistance we can offer in arriving at a solution. Sincerely, any Randall L. O'Donnell, Ph.D. Chief Executive Officer RLO: jcin Emerftus John H. Bale Stanley M. Bauman, Jr. Willis W. Johnson William R. Meeks Louts Rosen Frank D. White A major teaching affiliate of the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences
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.