|
Explain the
process which led to the decision to build a new school.
Public discussion and planning for the Bond began in 2004 with the creation
of the Capital Improvement Planning Committee (CIPC) to advise the Board
of the long-term facility needs of the district. This committee included
district staff and community members from all the municipalities in the
District. The committee worked for approximately 18 months to compile
data and evaluate the conditions of BVSD facilities. These meetings were
open to the public and the work of the committee was shared publicly in
local newspapers and regular updates to the Board of Education.
To solicit feedback from the community regarding its values and
priorities concerning BVSD facilities, the district held a series of
charrettes in the district high schools prior to formalizing the EFMP.
These charrettes were widely publicized and the community was invited.
Attendees were surveyed for their opinions. Details of the survey methods
and results are found in the Educational
Facilities Master Plan (EFMP).
On April 27, 2006 at a Board of Education work session, the CIPC
presented to the Board a preliminary version of the EFMP totaling $317
million which included the rebuild of Columbine Elementary. To make the
proposal palatable to the voters, the Board asked the committee to reduce
the overall proposal below $300 million. The reduced proposal, which was
finally approved by the Board and the voters, included a version of the
Columbine project which was scaled back from a rebuild to a remodel.
In March 2007, Bennett, Wagner and Grody Architects (BWG) were assigned
to the Columbine project. Upon examining the scope of work for the
project, evaluating the budget and investigating the facility, BWG came
to the same conclusion of the CIPC which was the Columbine building
should be replaced. The district asked BWG to conduct an in depth
evaluation of the school to guide decision making moving forward. A copy
of this report is attached. Upon receiving the report, and with the
identification of additional funding from the sale of Washington
Elementary, the Board asked the Citizens Bond Oversight Committee (CBOC)
to consider amending the EFMP to provide a new building for Columbine
Elementary. CBOC supported this proposal and brought to the Board the
proposed amendment which was approved by the Board on September 9, 2008.
Explain the
decision making related to location, size and structure of the new
building.
At this time the only decision that has been made is a new school will be
built and it will be located on a different footprint. At the first DAT
meeting the architect introduced some of the preliminary thinking related
to the possible size, location and type of structure for the new
building. These ideas were presented as items that will need further
discussion by the DAT. The architects ideas evolved from the constraints
presented by the site, the budget and the district. The district has
stated from the time the Board made the decision to rebuild Columbine the
current students would remain in the existing building during
construction. There are several reasons the district feels this is
prudent:
- The population at Columbine is high needs and
therefore more sensitive and more significantly affected by
disruption. Allowing students to stay in the existing building
presents the least disruption to learning, which is the districts
number one priority. The size, topography and configuration of the
site allow for the new building to be constructed before the
existing, is demolished
- There is a financial cost to either housing
students in portables onsite or relocating them to another district
or non-district building. In addition, no other district building
that could house the students has been identified.
- It is anticipated that relocating students would
have a significant negative impact on the enrollment for Columbine.
For these reasons, the architects were informed that the new building
would be on a different footprint on the Columbine site. The specific
location of that footprint is still to be determined.
The total budget for the Columbine project is $12.1 million and the
construction budget is $9.4 million. Additional funding has not been
identified at this time. Considering the budget and BVSD’s Educational
Specifications, the architects have determined the new building will be
approximately 53,000 sf.
To cost effectively construct a building of that size and retain adequate
open space onsite, the architects have considered a two-story structure.
This is still open for discussion with the DAT.
Loss of view and
open space will negatively affect property values and impact views of
current residents.
Neighbors on all sides of the school property will be affected by the
construction of a new school building. The likely result will be the
increase in property values related to living next to a modern and
desirable school. The site will continue to have green, open areas. The
locations of these areas, like the specific location of the new school,
are yet to be determined through the DAT process. The membership of the
Columbine DAT was deliberately chosen so there was adequate stakeholder
representation. The impact of this school on the neighborhood is a factor
that will be considered as the process progresses. There is neighborhood
representation on the team to make sure those perspectives are
considered.
What if you build
it and they all come and the school is not large enough to accommodate
everyone?
The preliminary thinking regarding the size of the school is to initially
build a facility to support an enrollment of 450 which could be expanded
in the future to accommodate a larger enrollment up to 550. Core spaces
such as the IMC, cafeteria and gym will be sized to accommodate the
larger enrollment. The number of classrooms to be built initially will
support 450. Staff feels this is a prudent approach. Given the fact that
every school in the district experiences both in- and out-migration, it
is unlikely the school would ever reach 100 percent capacity with 100
percent attendance area students.
Why was a proxy
not allowed to attend the DAT meeting in the place of a team member with
a schedule conflict?
As the DAT works together, the group develops a body of knowledge of the
project. One-time attendees would not share this same level of
understanding and would not provide the same value in their
participation. The decision not to allow a proxy was not intended to
exclude input but to keep the group focused and productive. We believe we
are providing adequate access to the process through public comment at
DAT meetings, audience feedback forms provided at meetings and DAT email.
The public also is able to keep up with what happens at meetings through
the meeting minutes which will be posted online.
|
