River Valley Elementary Consolidation Fact Finding Committee

Transcription

1 River Valley Elementary Consolidation Fact Finding Committee November 28 th, 2011

2 Table of Contents 1.0 Purpose of the Committee Committee Members Arena Members Lone Rock Members Plain Members Spring Green Members District Assistants (Resources) Information Collected (Internal & External) Pro s & Con s of Each Elementary School Arena Pro s & Con s Lone Rock Pro s & Con s Plain Pro s & Con s Spring Green Pro s & Con s Pro s & Con s of a Consolidation School Pro s Con s Potential Savings of a Consolidation School Table 1 Estimated Cost Savings Table Table 2 Estimated Cost Savings Table Footnotes Potential Costs of a Consolidation School Potential Impact on Property Taxes General Public Comment from all Enrollment Areas Nov-11 Page 1

3 1.0 Purpose of the Committee The River Valley School Board asked for a committee to be formed to gather the facts on an elementary hub school. This committee was formed of four representatives from each enrollment area. One of the representatives was to be a respective village board member, one a PTO member and the other two members at large from the community. The committee met twice in June before the committee members were actually confirmed. It was very clear from the beginning that this committee would not be making any major decisions nor making any recommendation to the school board. We were strictly responsible to gather facts and present these finding to the school board in an organized manner for them to decide what s best for the district. 28-Nov-11 Page 2

4 2.0 Committee Members 2.1 Arena Members: Joannie Harrington Monica Reeve Lisa Kjos Joanne Licari-Brown 2.2 Lone Rock Members: Herman Kaldenberg Molly Kasten Valarie McCauley Andy Harrah 2.3 Plain Members: Al MacKenzie Tim Johnson Michael Weiss Connie Price 2.4 Spring Green Members: Jess Hisel JD Galindo Mike Spude Minute taker Mark Nelson Chairperson 2.5 District Assistants (Resources): Jamie Benson (RV Superintendant) Brian Krey (RV Office and Financial manager) 28-Nov-11 Page 3

5 3.0 Information Collected The committee requested a large amount of data including but limited to the following: May 2010 River Valley School District Advisory Survey Results Open Enrollment In and Out Data Basic Elementary School Data by school Utility costs breakdown by school Staff breakdown by school Cost per Student breakdown by school Enrollment breakdown by school Enrollment History from 1998 to current Layouts of all elementary schools including square footage values Birth Rates from Anticipated staffing for school year Report from Focus on Energy study on areas of opportunity by school Breakdown of RV school district technology costs Breakdown of major maintenance and building projects schedule RVSD Financial Future Manifesto (The Team of Ten) Report Discussions with Superintendents of Riverdale and Dodgeland School District Estimated Net savings for a Hub school from the Administrative Team New construction cost estimates by square foot from contractors 28-Nov-11 Page 4

6 4.0 Pros and Cons of each Elementary School 4.1 Arena Elementary Pros Cons Currently Sage Funded Safety Located near a highway Smaller class sizes, better rapport Older boiler Located closer to Madison for commuting Close to Wisconsin Heights #2 on utility and staff costs Oldest school, efficiency purposes Has availability for more students Sewer bill is abnormally high Good PTO Roof replacement schedule is coming due Internet costs are high 4.2 Lone Rock Elementary Pros Currently SAGE funded Has availability for more students Has a high birth rate Large playground area Safety good secluded area Security system Has more classrooms than Plain and Arena Cons Higher staff cost per student Internet costs are high Roof replacement schedule is coming due Lower sq. footage per classroom Higher cost/student with staff and utilities 4.3 Plain Elementary Pros Newest school of the 3 smaller schools Has availability for more students Lowest utility costs Lower maintenance costs Lower cost to upgrade, new technology Newer roof Second lowest cost per square foot Cons Low birthrate Internet costs are high No SAGE funding Low enrollment Only two bathrooms Potential boiler repair in near future 4.4 Spring Green Elementary Pros Newer school Lowest internet costs Consistent birth rates Consistent attendance Full attendance New Roof Proximity of other schools Configurable walls in some rooms Large Playground Low cost per square foot for utilities Large focus on energy opportunities CPU s are newer than other schools Lowest cost per student (utility and staff costs) Cons Little room for additional students Close parochial school Close to High School (possible bad habits) 28-Nov-11 Page 5

7 5.0 Pros and Cons of a Hub School 5.1 Pro s - Consolidate Human resources Teaching, Admin and Support Staff - Reduce Cost - Better use of current facilities - More efficient operation. - Easier to manage staff and scheduling - Potentially larger class size 5.2 Con s - Potential degradation of property values in communities where schools were closed. - Longer bus rides for children - Loss of community jobs - Maintenance Costs remain with unused/unsold buildings - Unknown cost to build/add-on to Hub School 28-Nov-11 Page 6

8 6.0 Potential Savings of a Hub School River Valley Elementary Consolidation Fact Finding Committee Estimated Net Savings - Closure of Arena, Lone Rock and Plain Elementary Schools Estimated Low Total Estimated High Total Admin. Est. Totals a) Utilities $74,000 $96,000 $74,000 b) Food Service $32,000 $44,000 $57,000 c) Secretarial $45,000 $67,500 $112,500 d) Custodian $50,000 $100,000 $53,500 e) Technology $4,800 $4,800 $4,800 f) Staff Travel $8,349 $8,349 $8,349 g) Building Coordinator $12,000 $12,000 $12,000 h) Annual Maintenance $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 i) Special Education Asst. $0 $0 $38,000 j) Teaching Assistants $43,000 $43,000 $102,000 Sub Total $299,149 $405,649 $492,149 Class Staff Savings $73,500 $73,500 $73,500 Total Annual Savings $372,649 $479,149 $565,649 Table 1 - Table depicting 3 separate estimated cost savings * Footnotes (Low) * Footnotes (High) * Footnotes a) Up keep on unused buildings (22k) and increased expense for new building (50k) a) Up keep on unused buildings (0k) and increased expense for new building (50k) a) Up keep on unused buildings (22k) and increased expense for new building (50k) b) Adjusted to 2 cooks 3 servers. b) Adjusted to 2 cooks 2 servers. b) Adjusted to 1 cook position and 3 food servers, $8K/server c) Adjusted to keep 4 total elementary secretaries. (net 2 out) d) Adjusted to keep 4 custodians (net one out) c) Adjusted to keep 3 total elementary secretaries. (net 3 out) d) Adjusted to keep 3 custodians (net 2 out) e) Leave as is. e) Leave as is. e) Leave as is. f) Leave as is. f) Leave as is. f) Leave as is. g) Leave as is. g) Leave as is. g) Leave as is. h) Double size for new Hub school will add additional maintenance cost (30k) i) Do not consider as a cost reduction j) Net reduction of (1) salary position h) Double size for new Hub school will add additional maintenance cost (30k) i) Do not consider as a cost reduction j) Net reduction of (1) salary position Table 2 - Footnotes correspond to associated estimated cost savings c) Adjusted to keep 2.5 total elementary secretaries. (net 2.5 out) d) 0 custodians, hire 2 full time cleaners at $104K annually h) Double size for new Hub school will add additional maintenance cost (30k) i) Adjusted to keep 2 of 3 special education assistants (net 1.0 out) j) Reduce 4 teaching assistants ($172K) hire library media specialist ($70K) 28-Nov-11 Page 7

9 The estimated cost savings were broken down to 3 separate estimates. The low estimate is a conservative approach taken by the committee. The high estimate is a more in-depth approach to cost savings. The Administrative Estimated Totals was presented to the committee per Brian Krey. 7.0 Potential Costs for a Hub School We consulted several construction contractors who have experience building schools. The estimates we received were very consistent in the $175 - $200 per square foot depending on how many extras or upgrades were involved. The lower estimate was for a very basic school. Because we are not experts in the construction field or in laying out a school floor plan, we used the high end of this estimate to make sure it would cover all the auxiliary costs such as playground, parking lots, furnishings, and other items which may not be included in the lower estimate. For these reasons, we will use $200 / ft 2 for our costing exercise. Based on an average square footage per child and our current attendance levels, the calculated required size for a Hub school is 96,000 ft 2. Add a 50,000 ft 2 addition to existing Spring Green Elementary School 50,000 ft 2 x $200 / ft 2 = $10,000,000 Build a new 96,000 ft 2 Hub Elementary School 96,000 ft 2 x $ 200 / ft 2 = $ 19,200, Nov-11 Page 8

10 8.0 Potential impact on Property taxes Impact on Taxes Worksheet.pdf 28-Nov-11 Page 9

11 9.0 General Public Comment from all enrollment areas Concern for loss of teaching jobs: Discussed that total compensation numbers include benefits and that sometimes the perception is that teachers are overpaid. Comment made that if their school is consolidated, they would move out of district. Comment made if Transportation is a wash or if transportation cost would increase. (Brian Krey will bring that analysis to next meeting) Tim Harrington - Concern with savings projections, open enrollment, if we do a 3.2% is a cost of 1MM cost per year. No savings. Can't believe transportation is a wash. Worried about 10 years from now with the advent of a virtual school. Concerned with the impact of the district and see it best as a wash. Also expressed his interest in cuts in other areas and not at the elementary level. Charter school concern with resources being spent on charter and what the long term cost and effect the charter school will have on budget. Concerned with poverty communities losing the schools in their communities with very low parental support. A Hub decision will continue to make that situation worse. Also it seems contrary to the growing population of Arena and the community is attached to this district. Who is going to speak for the children. Worried about small children riding with older kids. Don't break up the marvelous staff that has created educational excellence in this community. Arena leads the area in population growth and it will continue to grow. Worry about the size of population in a hub school. Very concerned with losing a school and jeopardizing growth for the community. Will you get the synergy that you expect with a Hub school or will some of those costs come back. Not opposed to a hub school and the central idea is good because it will allow me flexibility in terms of where I could live. Idea of open teaching concept to look at for possible cost savings. Review Nursing costs. I would continue to be a part of my daughters education where ever the school get's located. Concerned with the charter school and it's draw off of district enrollment and to see how the charter progresses before we make a brick and mortar decision. Paul Cummings Concerned over the optimistic staff cuts and stated that he thought that the staff levels from a new consolidated school would actually increase. There were also concerns about the volunteer firefighters and EMS of the affected school closing towns. It was expressed that there would be difficulty in finding volunteers to fill the positions and the Village of Avoca was used as an example. 28-Nov-11 Page 10