board of trustees meeting - helenaschools.orgbondinfo.helenaschools.org/wp-content/uploads/... ·...

Wednesday, June 25, 2014 Ray Bjork Learning Center

5:30 p.m.

Board of Trustees Meeting

Helena Public Schools Board of Trustees Meeting June 25, 2014

1

Table of Contents Page Number

Elementary Bond Summary 2

New Jim Darcy Elementary 3

Consolidate Central Elementary and Bryant Elementary 8

Renovate Warren Elementary 18

Technology Centers 23

Middle Schools 39

Financial Analysis 42

Demographics 49

Deferred Maintenance Projects 55

School Maps 63

Timeline 65


2

Elementary Bond Initiative Summary

The Board of Trustees at the June 4, 2014 meeting asked for an analysis of an Elementary Bond proposal that included the following:

1. Jim Darcy Recommendation:

a. Construct a new school at existing Jim Darcy site to a 4-3 class configuration to meet enrollment needs

b. Adjust boundaries with Rossiter

2. Central-Linc./Bryant Consolidation Recommendation:

a. Consolidate Bryant and Central on a site to be determined.

b. Build a new school to a 4-3 class configuration to meet enrollment needs.

3. Warren Elementary School Recommendation:

a. Renovate Warren at existing site to a 4-3 class configuration to meet enrollment needs.

4. Technology Centers Recommendation:

a. Provide a technology center at each elementary and middle school.

5. Middle Schools Recommendation:

a. Delay significant changes to the middle school facilities at this time. b. Address the bonding needs for the middle school during the high school bonding

phase.

Total Cost: $48,136,128 to $48,606,728 - depending on site selection

Notes:

Student Data: Student counts are as of May 22, 2014, unless otherwise indicated. These figures change daily during the school year as families move or leave Helena, and many move within our district resulting in a change in school attendance.

Estimated Costs: The financial estimates are presented in more detail within this report and are inclusive of full costs to renovate or build schools.

All figures presented are for the June 25, 2014 presentation with the expectation that a bond election will be held in the fall of 2014.


3

Jim Darcy Elementary School

Recommendation

x Construct a new school at existing Jim Darcy site to a 4-3 class configuration to meet enrollment needs.

x Adjust boundaries with Rossiter

Rationale

x Year Built: 1965 x Year Annexed to Helena School District: 1985 x Additions to Building : 1969, 1977 x Facility Square Footage: 24,365 x Site Size: 6.82 acres x Boundary area: 30 square miles x West School Feeding Capital High x Enrolled Students: 311 x Students within Boundary: 547 x 2022 Forecast Enrollment Change: -0.03%

(Source: Student Data; Power School Edulog 5/22/2014, Cropper Demographics 4/2013)

The Jim Darcy community currently has 547 K-5 students living in its boundary. At this time the school is serving 311 students with the remaining 236 being bused to 10 schools across the district; the majority of students (144) attend Rossiter. In 2012, Jim Darcy added a kindergarten class to reduce the number of kindergarten students being bused long distances to attend other district schools. As a result a third 1st grade was added the following year. A third 2nd grade will be added in the fall of 2014. This growth has transformed Jim Darcy from a 2-2 section school to a 3-2 section school. Adding these K-3 classroom sections eliminated the overflow of approximately 60 students bused out of boundary. At this point only students in grades 3, 4 and 5 are overflowed to other schools. Please note, however, some K-2 students from Jim Darcy attend other schools, by parent choice, not due to overflow. Currently the school operates with three modulars for classrooms and library. The addition of classrooms cannot continue beyond this third grade cohort because Jim Darcy’s common spaces, such as restrooms, cafeteria, gym, music and library, already stretched to capacity, will be insufficient.


4

School can continue to operate in the current facility while constructing a new Jim Darcy School. However, the playground and parking will have to be altered during construction. The current site is 6.82 acres. The proposed bond will include purchasing four acres to the east side of the property, raising the total to 10.82 acres. Additionally there is a 1.3 acre park adjacent to the north bringing the total usable area to 12.12 acres. The goal is to build a 500 student school (4-3) to meet the needs of the attendance area. Additionally Jim Darcy’s new construction will have four rooms for future expansion, such as bubble classes and the possibility of pre-kindergarten.

Boundaries The goal of expanding the capacity of Jim Darcy to 500 students is to enable the total North Valley K-5 student population to attend either Rossiter or Jim Darcy. Currently there are 547 K-5 students living within the Jim Darcy boundary, with 332 attending. 357 students live within the Rossiter boundary, with a total of 470 students attending the school. Both Jim Darcy and Rossiter schools would then have a combined capacity of 1,000 seats to serve the 904 students who live within the two attendance areas. When factoring in the Cropper Demographic forecast, the two schools would have capacity to educate students within these two boundaries into 2022. The boundary areas for Jim Darcy and Rossiter could be realigned and could be completed during the construction phase. Adjustment of boundaries will require input from the two affected school communities, considerations for “grandfathering” current students/families and a timeline for implementation. Once realignment of boundaries occurs, it could take up to six years for full implementation.

Current Busing

x Students residing in the Jim Darcy attendance area are served by eight buses x Five bus routes serve Jim Darcy and overflow to Rossiter x Three bus routes carry overflow students to other schools. Eight buses utilize the

Broadwater transfer point to transport students to their final school of attendance.

Projected Busing

x Jim Darcy School served by 3 buses x Average ride time 25-35 minutes x Elimination of three overflow buses to city x Elimination of Broadwater transfer point


5

x Reduction of up to two bus routes for Jim Darcy to Rossiter overflow, dependent upon potential Jim Darcy and Rossiter attendance boundary modifications

x Elimination of 3-5 bus routes at approximately $55,000 per bus x The county and state have identified the Lincoln Road, North Montana and I-15

ramp area as a focus project within the transportation plan. The current Jim Darcy site location and size increase are considerations within this segment of the north valley plan as it relates to increased private vehicle trips and non-motorized amenities. Traffic volumes, vehicle speed, turning movements, trail and crosswalk locations are key components under consideration. Other considerations include road improvements and bus stop location consolidation in the county as a whole to enhance student safety, road maintenance and a reduction in student ride time durations.

x When all K-5 students are able to attend Jim Darcy and Rossiter, it is estimated that the District could eliminate five bus routes. Each route costs approximately $54,000 for a total of $270,000 per year savings. The transportation fund is a distinct permissive levy to support busing costs. Although the savings cannot be transferred to the district’s operational fund, the transportation savings will result in lower taxes. Projected transportation savings is based on students’ attendance at schools within their boundary areas. Students who attend out of boundary schools will not be eligible for busing unless it is a district placement

Utilities The existing Jim Darcy site has water rights and water to operate the new 500 capacity school. Wastewater treatment is provided through an agreement with an adjacent subdivision.

Technology Until the new facility is completed in 2016, additional computers will be placed in the school as needed and allowed by infrastructure capabilities to provide parity with the schools that will benefit from the technology centers targeted for 2015.

Site Size

o Existing acreage: 6.82 o Purchased acreage: 4 o County Parkland: 1.3 o Total Site: 12.12 Acres


6

Timeline o Bond Election: October 2014 o Construction Begins: April 2015 o School opens: Fall 2016

JIM DARCY TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS $13,390,000

Land Acquisition 680,000

Design 1,477,350

Furniture, Fixtures and Equipment 1,336,650

Contingency 1,407,000

TOTAL PROJECT BUDGET $18,291,000


7


8

Central-Linc. Elementary / Bryant Elementary Consolidation Recommendation

x Consolidate Bryant and Central on a site to be determined x Build a new school to a 4-3 class configuration to meet enrollment needs

Rationale

Central Bryant Lincoln Site Year Built 1914 1938 Additions to Building 1921 1973,

1977

Facility Square Footage 41,268 25,658 Site Size 3.56 1.93 4.53 High School Feed HHS HHS HHS Enrolled Students 257 213 0 Students within Boundary 172 150 71 Montessori Students 55

(24 from attendance area)

0 0

2022 Forecast Enrollment Change

+3.2% -6% N/A

Source: Student Data: Power School Edulog 5/22/2014. Cropper Demographics 4/2013

Bryant and Central are two of the smallest K-5 schools with facilities that demand immediate attention.

The Central School facility was deemed unsafe for student occupation and condemned in March of 2013. The students were moved to the Lincoln campus for the remainder of the year and continue to be educated at this site. The Lincoln campus had served as an elementary school until 1998 at which time it was closed due to declining enrollment. The Project for Alternative Learning’s high school students were educated at Lincoln from 1999 until the Central crisis necessitated temporarily moving Central elementary students back to the Lincoln site. The high school students were relocated to the Front Street Learning Center, whose occupants were shifted to various locations within the district. On July 16, 2013, the Board of Trustees approved building a school to reopen on the Central site.


9

The Bryant building presents myriad challenges including inadequate ventilation, excessive heat and cold (classroom temperatures can range from 50-100 degrees over the course of the school year), bathrooms and water fountains on main floor only, no ADA accessibility to special education and mental health support which are located in the basement.

With a combined total enrollment of 470 and 385 students living within the two boundaries, consolidation of these two schools is recommended for both physical reasons, such as proximity, enrollment and the need for an upgraded facility and for academic reasons. Educational research on poverty supports diversifying the socioeconomic density of a high poverty school stating it will boost academic achievement for students. According to Richard D. Kahlenberg in his article “From All Walks of Life” in the Academic Educator, winter 2012-13, “There is a serious body of evidence demonstrating that socioeconomic integration is one of the most important tools available for improving the academic achievement and life chances for students”. For the current 2013-14 school year, Bryant is considered a 100% Free and Reduced school and Central is 51%.

Location Options The most pressing question of this proposal is where to build the school. In this proposal there are three options for consideration. 1. Central site using existing facilities. 2. Central site removing all facilities and building new on the NE corner, replicating the

historic features of the building. 3. Lincoln site.


10

Central Existing Central New Location Lincoln

Historic Preservation

Within a historic district

Within a historic district City Permit needed to demolish and relocate. City Commission approval needed – this is a 3 to 5 month process.

N/A

Exterior/Interior Gut interior and retain exterior

Deconstruct Archway and reconstruct on new facility

N/A

7th Avenue Gym Remodel and upgrade to code

Tear down and rebuild within new facility

N/A

Traffic Work with city to create one-way on 7th Ave for ease of bus drop-off/pick up zone

Four man-made boundaries with railroad tracks, Cedar Avenues, Montana Avenue and the Interstate

Parking On-site parking on North East lot

On-site parking on East side of lot

Adequate space for bus pick-up and drop off zones

City parking available across Cruise St.

Utilities All three sites utilize city services Construction Begins Immediately,

building is evacuated

Immediately, building is evacuated

Immediately, will not disrupt students

Walk-zone 141 students 71 students Partner Proximity to City Park, Capitol,

museums, library, businesses, etc. City Park

Site Size Acres

3.56 3.56 School Property 4.531 City Park - 4.159 Total 8.69


11

Historic Preservation

o Central � The Central School Building and the 7th Avenue Gym were upgraded from

properties within a National Register Historic district to properties that are listed individually on the National Registry. The district has discussed numerous options and alternatives for the Central School site with the city planning department and historic preservation officer, including site visits to identify challenges. Based on these conversations, it is the district’s understanding that the Historic Preservation Standards apply when the property owner is receiving Federal Funds for the project— tax credits, a license, permit or for demolition of a listed National Register property. In the event that the selected option for either or both of these buildings is renovation and addition, and no federal grant funds are received for the project, the Historic Preservation Commission would act in an advisory capacity with their recommendations binding only when a formal regulation applies. Should demolition of either or both of these buildings be selected, City of Helena Code: Title 3 - CHAPTER 15 REVIEW PROCESS FOR DEMOLITION OF HISTORIC BUILDINGS would be required. Following the review and public comment period, the final decision as to whether to approve or deny the application to allow demolition resides with the City Commission. The time estimated to complete the process is 3 to 5 months and has been included within the timeline for this project if selected. Demolition will also require the district to follow the requirements of MCA 20-6-603 – Trustees authority to acquire or dispose of sites and buildings.

o Lincoln � The Lincoln building is not listed on the National Register of Historic

Places and is not in a Historic District. These discussions with the City will be held should the district construct a new school on this site and demolish the existing structure. Demolition will require the district to follow the requirements of MCA 20-6-603 – Trustees authority to acquire


12

or dispose of sites and buildings.

Current Busing Students who reside in the Central and Bryant attendance areas are served by two primary route buses and two transfer point buses. These buses must use the transfer point at Jefferson because transporting overflow students from numerous schools requires use of multiple buses and creates overlapping routes.

Projected Busing The consolidation of these two schools would require minimal busing changes. Currently bus routes are in place to transport Central students to the Lincoln site. If the decision to locate at Central is made, different routes would be programmed to accommodate Bryant students, but no additional buses would be needed.

x Central Site – Projected Busing o Central /Bryant served by two buses

� Average ride time 25 to 35 minutes � Bus times will not be affected one way or the other based on

school location. 95% of the students live within three miles of either location. A bus can make approximately 15 stops at two minutes per stop on a route and still maintain a 25 to 35 minute run. The key factor is to run arterial routes and eliminate the need for transfer points.

o The district and city have discussed potential road closures and traffic flow modifications associated with a potential building program at the Central School site. Potential loading zones, parking and street crossings are conceptualized; however detailed options cannot be solidified until the building location on this site is identified.

x Lincoln Site – Projected Busing o Power School data demonstrates that the Bryant School students who

ride the bus to school have a slightly lower tardy and attendance rate of students who walk to school, indicating that busing has not been a significant deterrent to school attendance for this student population.

o The district and city have discussed traffic flow and pedestrian


13

considerations for a school located at the Lincoln campus. Application has been made to the city to vacate the east leg of Chestnut that terminates on the district’s property and an alley to the north. The adjacency of the Lincoln Park is a consideration that could be used to enhance traffic flow, non-motorized corridors and parking to minimize impacts to the neighborhood and improve safety if a larger school were to be constructed on it.

Other Considerations The current Central site is strategically located in the center of Helena providing multiple opportunities with easy and walkable access for student enrichment. Options include Mount Helena, the Holter Museum of Art, the Capitol Complex, the Myrna Loy and Civic Center and other historic sites. This site offers potential for future boundary adjustments because of its central location in the heart of Helena. The Lincoln site offers a large campus with adjacent city park.

Roughly 70 of the 470 potential students live within the walk-zone; all others would have to be offered busing.

Technology Until the new facility is completed in 2016, additional computers will be placed in the schools as needed and allowed by infrastructure capabilities to provide parity with the schools that will benefit from the tech centers targeted for 2015. Boundary Realignment Once a site selection is made, adjustments to the Bryant and Central school boundaries will be made. Although the general guideline is to consolidate the two schools, exceptions may occur to balance school enrollments and facility limitations. In summary, the boundary realignment will be completed during the construction phase so that the students know which school they will be attending beginning fall 2016 for the academic year. Timeline Bond Election: October 2014


14

Construction Begins: April 2015 School Opens: Fall 2016

Estimated Cost

Location Central Existing Central New Lincoln

Construction $13,321,000* $13,100,000 $12,950,000

Design 1,397,760 1,375,500 1,359,750

Furniture, Fixtures and Equipment

1,264,640 1,244,500 1,230,250

Contingency 1,331,200 1,310,000 1,295,000

TOTAL PROJECT BUDGET

$17,305,600 $17,030,000 $16,835,000

*The Central Existing option cost has been adjusted for inflation since first presented in February 2014.


15


16


17


18

Warren Elementary School

Recommendation

x Renovate Warren at existing site to a 4-3 class configuration to meet enrollment needs.

Rationale

x Year Built: 1968 x Additions to Building: 1977, 1993 x Facility Square Footage = 29.138 x Site Size=10.59 acres x East School Feeding Helena High x Enrolled Students = 303 x Students within Boundary =364 x 2022 Forecast Enrollment Change = +3.2% (Source: Student Data; Power School Edulog 5/22/2014, Cropper Demographics 4/2013)

The Warren community currently has 364 K-5 students living in its boundary and the enrollment is projected to increase by 3%. At this time the school serves 303, 10 students from out of boundary and 80 students are currently bused to all other schools in the district, excluding Jim Darcy. A small percentage attends East Helena Schools. The attendance determinations are so varied that students living next door to one another may attend different schools. It is not uncommon for students to be bused past one or more schools to reach the school in which they are enrolled. Warren has three sections of K, 1st and 2nd grades and two sections of 4th and 5th. It is a continual struggle to maintain the flow of students through the grades. A bottleneck occurs when three classes of 2nd graders with a maximum of 60 students must flow into the 3rd grade with an allowable maximum of 56 students. Not only can the facility not serve the number of students enrolled as they move from one grade to the next, it also cannot serve the number of students who live within its boundaries. The circumstance necessitates trying to shrink class numbers, while at the same time there is a waiting list for students to attend. Physical space is inadequate for the current number of students served. For example, its gym capacity is 240 students; a school assembly requires exceeding that capacity by 63 students. Its library is the smallest in the district. The Special Education, counselor, school psychologist, social service coordinator and speech and language staff are required to share a single room with two small offices.


19

Warren will be a complex renovation because students will remain in the school while construction occurs. This is not new to school construction; strategy will ensure the renovation has minimal impact on student academics by using temporary modular classrooms and/or double shifts of construction work during non-educational times, such as summer, weekends and holidays. Additionally, the old Warren school (not currently in use) will be demolished to accommodate the renovation. Five-acres to the north of the current facility will be purchased. Although the additional acreage is not necessary for the renovation, it is a prudent investment for the current and future use. Boundaries

No boundary realignment needed. Current Busing Students residing in the Warren School attendance area are served by two direct routes and one overflow bus. Students who attend city schools due to overflow ride on a middle school bus route to Jefferson where a transfer is made to buses to get them to their schools of attendance. Six transfer buses are utilized at Jefferson to accomplish this.

Projected Busing

x Warren School served by two buses

x Average ride time 30 to 35 minutes

x Elimination of the Jefferson transfer point

x One to three city transfer buses would be eliminated between city schools at approximately $55,000 per bus.

x The district, county and state are currently pursuing improvements to non-motorized transportation components in the Warren area as they relate to increased development to the north. Traffic speed, turning movements, trail and crosswalk locations are key components of improvements in progress. Other considerations include road improvements and bus stop location consolidation in the county as a whole to enhance student safety, road maintenance and a reduction in student ride time durations.


20

x The transportation fund is a distinct permissive levy to support busing costs. Although the savings cannot be transferred to the district’s operational fund, the transportation savings will result in lower taxes. Projected transportation savings is based on students’ attendance at schools within their boundary areas. Students who attend out of boundary schools will not be eligible for busing unless it is a district placement.

Utilities Warren is outside of the area where city water and sewer services are provided. A previous application to connect Warren to city water from the Missouri River Treatment plant was denied as the school site is outside of the city’s urban growth area. Domestic and irrigation water are provided by two separate onsite wells owned and operated by the district. Wastewater treatment is currently provided by two separate septic systems. One of these systems is reaching the end of its service life. These systems do not have the capacity to meet the expanded Warren student and staff population associated with the proposed project. The installation of a Sequencing Batch Reactor system for treating wastewater is proposed and included within the project cost estimates. Fire protection water capacity is not available on the site and is not currently available in the proximity. The installation of fire suppression wells and storage capacity will be required for the proposed construction. The cost for this system is included within the project cost estimates under consideration. Technology Until the new facility is completed in 2016, additional computers will be placed in the school as needed and allowed by infrastructure capabilities to provide parity with the schools that will benefit from the tech centers targeted for 2015.

Other Considerations The district met with the County Historic Preservation officer at the Warren site to review the structure that is no longer actively used for educational purposes. This building is not heated and is used for overflow storage. The initial review by the historic preservation officer indicated this buildings existence could be documented followed by demolition. Demolition will also require the district to follow the requirements of MCA 20-6-603.


21

Site Size o Existing Acreage: 10.59 o Purchased Acreage: 6.05 acres o Total Site: 16.64 acres

Timeline

o Bond Election: October 2014 o Construction Begins: April 2015 o School Opens: Fall 2016

TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS $7,474,000 Land Acquisition 86,000 Design 793,800 Furniture, Fixtures and Equipment 718,200 Contingency 756,000 TOTAL PROJECT BUDGET $9,828,000


22


23

K-8 Technology Centers Recommendation Provide technology center at each elementary and middle school Rationale To ensure our students are college and career ready requires that the District strategically invest in technology beginning in the elementary school. Computers serve as an essential instructional tool to aid in the academic achievement of our students. Various technology platforms, such as wireless devices and computer labs, can optimize a student’s learning experiences. Overall, the District’s technology infrastructure is lacking, especially in the elementary schools. We are dramatically investing in the installation of a robust wireless system in all facilities K-12 across the District for completion by fall 2014. In addition, hundreds of tablets were purchased for student use. These mobile devices provide students flexibility to learn anywhere, anytime. The recent curricular investments for math and English language arts utilize computer-based modules with SuccessMaker already demonstrating positive results in math achievement. Computer labs provide students another technology platform for whole classroom instruction. They also provide more reliable connectivity and eliminate challenges with battery charging associate with wireless tablets. Unfortunately, in most cases our current elementary and middle school facilities do not have the infrastructure or the space to allow renovation of existing facilities to add a Technology Center. None of our eleven elementary schools had a lab at the beginning of the 2013-14 school year. By the end of this academic year, computer labs were operating in five schools, but not all are in appropriate spaces designed for computer use. Three labs comprise space carved out of teacher workrooms and a library while two labs are in open classrooms. The proposed Technology Centers will be located in a modular placed on the school site. Using modular construction for the Tech Centers is advantageous because they are solidly constructed and offer the necessary physical attributes that few of our elementary schools have. Centers will have the electrical, Internet connectivity, ventilation and thermal control required to maintain technology at peak performance. Technology Centers with 30 computers


24

and teleconferencing capabilities will be placed at, Broadwater, Hawthorne, Kessler, Jefferson, and Smith. Centers with 60 computers and teleconferencing capabilities will be placed at Four Georgians, Rossiter, and C.R. Anderson. HMS has an existing room within the facility that will be renovated into a Tech Center.

Current Technology Proposed Technology Central Elementary School School is empty TBD Broadwater Elementary School One classroom/modular

Tech Lab Bryant Elementary School School will be closed Four Georgians School Carved out space to build

limited computer lab Two classroom/modular Tech Lab

Hawthorne School One classroom/modular Tech Lab

Jefferson School Carved out space to build limited computer lab

One classroom/modular Tech Lab

Jim Darcy Incorporated in the new building

Kessler Elementary School Carved out space to build limited computer lab


Lincoln Elementary School TBD Rossiter Elementary School Carved out space to build

limited computer lab Two classroom/modular Tech Lab

Smith Elementary School Carved out space to build limited computer lab


Warren Elementary School Incorporated in the building renovation

C.R. Anderson Middle School Have a computer lab Two classroom/modular

Tech Lab Helena Middle School Have a computer lab Existing room will be

renovated into a Tech Center.


25

Timeline

It will take one year from the time of the bond passage to establish Technology Centers. Providing a bond passes this fall 2014, installation will be by fall of 2015.

Construction Costs $1,678,560 Design 176,249 Furniture, Fixtures and Equipment 159,463 Contingency 167,856 TOTAL COST $2,182,128

K 8 Technology Center - Supplemental Information

Problem Statement

The current school facilities do not support technology centers because of lack of: x Available space x Environmental Controls / Heating Ventilation and Air Conditioning x Necessary power x Network connectivity

The District is becoming more dependent on reliable and consistent technology for instruction, additional assistance, and assessments; the need for appropriate facilities is increasing. Until last fall, no elementary school had a computer lab. Since then Smith, Jefferson, Four Georgians, Rossiter, and Kessler utilized what little space they had to build meager computer labs. The labs at Jefferson and Rossiter are very small and do not have the space for a complete class of students to use the computers at the same time. None of the labs have adequate ventilation and/or air conditioning, and as such the rooms quickly become uncomfortably warm. The District invested in cost effective upgrades to network and electrical capacity at these four elementary schools. However, due to many factors, this level of upgrades is not financially viable when considering rooms that can seat a class at a time, that have the necessary network and power capabilities, and have a comfortable environment.

Proposal Intent


26

The intent of the Technology Center component of the bond proposal is to provide an appropriate collaborative space for the inclusion of new technology and multimedia capabilities as a tool for student achievement. The space includes areas where students can work collaboratively or individually, connect through video conferencing to others around the district or around the world, and be inspired. Two of these technologies will open up a new toolset for instructors. By integrating the video conferencing system and interactive projectors, instructors will have the ability to record their instruction allowing students to review or participate in classroom instruction from anywhere at any time.

What is Included

The bond proposal is for the construction, upgrade of facilities, or modular to house a Technology Center. This includes network wiring and power to each of the devices from a central point within the Technology Center. The proposal also includes a network connection back to the existing building. It also includes Heating Ventilation and Air Conditioning within the facility for providing a comfortable space for the students. Furniture to include tables, chairs and fixtures to include lighting, whiteboards/whiteboard painted surface, clocks, telephone, network equipment cabinet and multimedia sound systems are also included in the bond proposal.

What is Not Included

The Technology Center component of the bond proposal does not include any computing devices or monitors, network switching equipment, printers, interactive projection systems, or video conferencing systems. These devices will be purchased from the existing technology budget. No additional funds will be requested.

Frequently Asked Questions

Why build labs and not just purchase mobile devices? The Helena Public School District believes that labs and mobile devices are complementary to each other; it is about using the right tool at the right time for the right job. Mobile devices are great at content consumption, but not necessarily the best for content creation. Not all instruction, assistance, or assessment applications are available on mobile devices. Additionally, we have found that small screens are harder


27

for students, or not supported when using some assessment applications. If the goal is 21st Century, why install 1990’s technology? The concept of 21st Century is not about the technology as much as it is about how the technology is used and integrated into learning. While we continue to research and implement other new technologies, hard-wired desktops are still one of the most reliable solutions out there. The district just installed a state of the art wireless system, why go back to wired networks? Wireless networks are similar to radio stations or even cell phones, and are susceptible to interference and places where the radio waves just cannot get through. While we are making every effort to ensure reliable wireless coverage in all district owned facilities, it is still not as reliable as wired network connectivity. We also upgraded the wireless network because we are committed to supporting complementary technologies, not just hard wired labs. What are some of the other reasons that school principals are asking for labs versus mobile carts? The main reason is reliability of the solution for an entire classroom. As we studied the use of the mobile carts, we found a number of the following issues:

x Not all of the devices are charged, or they are inconsistently charged x Devices run out of battery during the lesson x Devices may need to be used all day, but require a charging period during a 7

hour day x Time needed between having to get the mobile devices from the cart and then

putting them back x Problems staying connected to the network x Carts themselves are large, can be hard to move around, and there is little

space is many of the classrooms to house them or plug them into power for charging

What about the schools that have already built computer labs as part of school/parent

partnerships? The District will provide additional computing resources. It will be up to the school to

determine how to best continue using the existing resource.


28

With the price of mobile devices being so low, why does Helena School District insist on spending more money on desktops? We believe that while the options are getting better, over the life of the desktop, in general it is cheaper than a mobile device to operate. We are expecting a life cycle of a desktop to now average about 7-10 years of life. At a cost of around $750 for a desktop with monitor and three year warranty, that comes to about $75 per year. Mobile Devices such as the current version of iPad are about $499 with a one year warranty with 3-4 years of life or about $125 per year. Chromebooks are cheaper at around $379 with a one year warranty and a 4 year life expectancy, but we do not yet know how long the battery is expected to last. It is very possible that the battery may shorten the life expectancy to 2-3 years. Batteries in laptops usually begin to fail at holding a full charge in just 18 months. What technological equipment will be in the centers? As identified earlier in the proposal, no technology equipment will be purchased using funding provided by the bond. The following electronic devices are proposed as of June 25th, but with the rapid change in technology, these devices will likely be replaced with better equipment.

x Desktop Computing Device (30 or 60 devices) x Monitor, minimum 21.5inch LED, non-touch enabled (30 or 60 devices) x Enterprise Class Wireless Access Point(s) 802.11a/b/g/n/ac access point x Enterprise Class Network Switching 10/100/1000 with 10 Gbps uplinks (48 / 96

ports) x Battery backup system to power network equipment. x Business Class Interactive Projector x Business Class High Definition Video Conferencing System (Camera and

Microphone) x Business Class High Speed Color Printer

Detailed Proposal

Rebuilt / Renovated Schools – Jim Darcy, Warren, and any other school(s) determined by the Board to be rebuilt or renovated will not receive a Technology Center building as part of this proposal. The Technology Center at those schools will be included and integrated into the new building, and as such will be included in the construction costs for the schools. Each of these schools will be provided with space, power, network wiring, and environmental controls for up to 60 student computing devices, printer,


29

video conferencing system, and collaborative area with an interactive projector. This configuration allows for two classes to utilize the technology simultaneously along with a few extra devices as needed. Four Georgians, Rossiter, and C.R. Anderson Middle School – With the number of classrooms in these schools, the proposed Technology Center will provide the space, power, network wiring, and environmental controls for 60 student computing devices, printer, video conferencing system, and collaborative area with an interactive projector. This configuration allows for two classes to utilize the technology simultaneously along with a few extra devices as needed. Helena Middle School – Helena Middle School has the space available to integrate their Technology Center within the building. The proposal includes upgrading the power, network wiring within the space, and the environmental controls for 30 student computing devices, printer, video conferencing system, and collaborative area with an interactive projector. All Other Elementary Schools – The Technology Center component of the bond proposal for remaining elementary schools includes the construction of a facility to provide the space, power, network wiring, and environmental controls for 30 student computing devices, printer, video conferencing system and collaborative area with an interactive projector. This configuration allows for an entire class to use the space, while providing a few extra devices as needed.


30


31


32


33


34


35


36


37


38


39

Middle Schools

Recommendation x Delay significant changes to the middle school facilities at this time x Address the bonding needs for both the middle and high schools during the second

phase

Rationale

The middle schools and high schools should be placed in the same bond period, allowing for time to comprehensively analyze facilities, enrollment and staffing as they relate to both a bond and the operational budget.

C.R. Anderson and Helena Middle School issues that need to be addressed—quality of facilities, staffing and enrollment, are interrelated and are affected by the K-5 and 9-12 systems.

x Quality of Facilities: Both C.R. Anderson and Helena Middle School buildings need a

substantial amount of work. The Helena Middle School boiler needs full replacement, necessitating students to be out of the school for a year. Roof repair/replacement are also immediate needs. Other areas of concern are electrical, plumbing, ADA standards and site deficiencies. The ability to do a partial renovation or upgrade is hampered by the real concern — once the project gets started, where/when does it stop? Additionally, it is quite possible that the city would require compliance with other codes. A previous estimate of $10 million for targeted renovations would not address all needs and may not substantially improve the educational environment in terms of classroom space, thermal control and ventilation.

Facility educational adequacy: When moving more students from East to West we must consider that Helena Middle School has fewer classrooms of adequate size (most are approximately 650-670 square feet), one gym with limited locker room space and a site that offers very little green space for students. The lack of thermal control in individual classrooms and the limited number of restrooms indicate shifting the population is not viable. Although CR Anderson has its share of deficiencies, it does have larger classrooms, environments not as susceptible to temperature extremes and more green space.

x Staffing: Staffing at the middle schools has decreased over the past several years.

Teaming, in which four core educators teach the same group of students, (school within a school concept) has been compromised and most exploratory classes have


40

been cut. The principals have identified a solution by adding four full time employees (FTE) to Helena Middle School and eight FTE at C.R. Anderson, which would occur by making staffing increases an educational resource priority. This staff increase would reinstitute teaming and restore some of the exploratory and elective courses, like foreign language, art, or career pathways. If HHS enrollment expands to 750 or 800, it would require eight FTE as well.

x Enrollment: The number of students enrolled in each school is uneven. Although

the Mosaic Plan identified the overcrowding at C.R. Anderson as one of the top five facility issues, no other data indicates that we are in a “crisis” mode. Academics, discipline issues, and attendance at C.R. Anderson are all on par with Helena Middle School, as well as with other middle schools across the state. Anecdotally, comments from parents are complimentary of C.R. Anderson. Initial apprehension about sending their children into a larger school is abated; the actual experience is positive. Currently, parent choice is practiced with 96 students from C.R. Anderson boundary area attending Helena Middle School.

o The options to balancing enrollment between the two middle schools are:

� Option A: Redraw the East/West boundary causing an elementary school to send students to two different middle schools.

� Option B: Change the feeder high school for one elementary school from east to west.

o The obstacles to balancing enrollment between the two middle schools are numerous. After balancing middle school enrollment is obtained through shifting students to Helena Middle School from C.R. Anderson -- Do students go back to Capital or continue to Helena High School?

� If the students feed-back into Capital, relationships and peer groups established in the middle schools would be disrupted in the high school.

� If the students continue to Helena High School, it exacerbates the imbalance in the high school enrollments. If 150 students are moved to Helena Middle School (50 per class in Middle School), the accumulated increase in students attending Helena High School would be 200, creating a 400 student swing in high school enrollment as Capital would drop to 1,150 and Helena High would increase to 1,750.


41

o A possible solution to this subsequent problem would be to send North Jefferson students, about 50 per class, from Helena High School to Capital. Although these students are not “in-district” and attend because we allow them to do so, for years they have been our students and their attendance is a large part of the culture at Helena High School.


42


43

Elementary Estimated Operational Costs Bond Proposal for Jim Darcy, Warren, and Central-Linc./Bryant Consolidation

June 25, 2014 The Board of Trustees at the June 14, 2014 meeting asked for an analysis of an Elementary Bond proposal that included the following components:

1. Jim Darcy a. Construct a new school at existing Jim Darcy site to a 4-3 classroom configuration

to meet enrollment needs. 2. Central-Linc./Bryant Consolidation

a. Consolidate Bryant and Central on a site to be determined with a 4-3 classroom configuration to meet enrollment needs.

3. Warren Elementary School a. Renovate Warren a 4-3 classroom configuration to meet enrollment needs.

Below is the summary impact to the District’s Operational Budget to consolidate Central and Bryant, including a transitional period:

Staffing will remain constant as the enrollment is forecast to be stable. There will be a time of transition as students will be grandfathered at their original school. The District is planning on four additional FTE teachers during this transitional time. These positions will slowly phase out as all students will eventually be attending their neighborhood schools. The District has been preparing for transitional costs and in 2013 the Trustees approved a multi-district agreement with a projected balance of $1.4 million by the 2016-17 school year.

Warren, Jim Darcy, City schoolProposal

Actual Staffing standard Additional Savings from Net Change DollarTotals for 4/3 staff needed Bryant closure Additional Staff Cost (Savings)

Administrative 3.0 3.0 - (1.00) (1.0) (88,000) Teachers 41.0 63.0 22.0 (12.00) - * - Counselor 2.0 3.0 1.0 (0.70) 0.30 17,700 PE 2.2 3.0 0.8 (0.60) 0.20 11,800 Music 2.2 3.0 0.8 (0.60) 0.20 11,800 Library 3.0 3.0 - (1.00) (1.00) (59,000) Secretary 3.0 6.0 3.0 (1.00) 2.00 76,000 Custodian 6.0 9.0 3.0 (2.00) 1.00 39,400 Staffing Costs 62.4 93.0 30.6 (18.90) 1.70 9,700

Current / Costs Costs 4-3 School 3 New 4-3 SchoolsUtilities 100,275$ 48,432$ 145,295$ 12,568$ Grounds/Maint 60,649 34,012 102,036$ 31,896

44,464 9,700

TOTAL Ongoing Operational Costs 54,164

(32,452)$ (9,491)

Savings from Byant Closure

Total Staffing CostsTotal Utilities, Grounds/Maint Cost Yearly Increase


44

Annual Transitional Costs Teachers: 4 Average Wages and Benefits: $59,000 Total Transitional Costs/Year: $236,000 The estimate for the increased operational costs to the Elementary General Fund is based on the following assumptions:

1. The site selection options for Central-Linc./Bryant at the Central site or at Lincoln do not have a significant difference in the operational costs.

2. The most conservative cost alternative or assumption has been used when more than one alternative exists. What this means is that the bottom line should not be worse but it could be better.

3. These estimates assume that the General fund revenue remains at the current level. Although this is a projection for the increased costs in the Elementary General Fund four years from now, potential school district funding increases are dependent on a political legislative process that cannot be predicted. A statute mandates a biennial inflationary adjustment in funding schools, which may or may not occur.

4. General Fund revenue components remain and are funded at the current level. There are several variables in the funding: per ANB, entitlement, per educator, data for achievement, Indian Education for All, Achievement Gap, At Risk, special education per amounts, and local revenues.

5. Wages/Benefits (92% or $30,128,179) – it is assumed that the percentage of wages and benefits will remain at the same percentage share of the general fund total. 85% of district employees are covered by union contracts; so that the wages are subject to negotiation between the unions and trustees. The annual adjustment is part of the traditional negotiations. An assumption of a percentage increase or freeze can be construed as directing negotiations prior to discussions with the various unions. All staff will be open for contract negotiations for wages in fiscal years beginning in 2016.

6. Retirements (amount included in above wages/benefits) – annually the district budgets a line item for retirement payoff costs. The number of retirements in the elementary district can range from 5 to 16.

7. Utilities – 3% or $918,550. This amount is assumed to remain constant. 8. All other operation and maintenance (Resource) items – 5% or $1,797,514. It is

assumed that the per student allocation to the buildings for supplies, books, minor equipment, copying, etc. and the allocation to other departments will remain constant.

9. This estimate is for the additional operation costs to the Elementary General Fund with the proposed changes for Jim Darcy, Warren, and a City elementary school.


45

10. Costs related to this proposal for other funds such as the Transportation and Bond funds are included in other sections of this document. State law requires that these other funds be used to account for the transportation and bond activity such as principal and interest payments.

11. It is assumed that the number of district-wide classroom teaching staff will remain constant because the number of students is projected to remain constant. By returning displaced students Jim Darcy and Warren schools, the enrollment at other City elementary schools will decrease and the district will transfer teacher FTE to locations where the students attend as they do now.

12. For this specific scenario, the number of specialists and support staff are projected to increase slightly.

13. Other than the Bryant Building, no other district buildings are slated to be closed. Projected utilities are based on an average of the Four G’s and Rossiter costs.

In summary the expansion of two schools (Jim Darcy, Warren) and consolidation of two schools (Bryant and Central) will increase expenditures by $54,164. This is a worse-case scenario, as other factors such as lower utilities and fewer campuses is likely to also produce savings.


46


47


48


49

ELEMENTARY AND MIDDLE SCHOOL FACILITY SNAPSHOT

(as of June 25, 2014)

SCHOOL

ANNEXED

SITE SIZE

(ACRES)

YEAR BUILT

ADDITIONS

FACILITY SQUARE

FEET Broadwater 2.46 1942 1949, 1970 37,487

Bryant 1.93 1938 1973, 1977 25,658 Central 3.56 1914 1921 41,268

Four Georgians

8.63 1977 56,948

Hawthorne 2.11 1921 30,745 Jefferson 3.85 1948 1977, 2013 34,965 Jim Darcy July 1, 1985 6.82 1965 1969, 1977 24,365

Kessler

July 1, 1995

5.98

1935

1948, 1956, 1958, 1967,

1990

28,498

Rossiter 31.5 1966 1977 43,793 Smith 11.66 1966 1977 47,498

Warren July 1, 1985 10.59 1968 1977, 1993 29,138 Helena Middle

14.7 1935 1994 136,626

C.R. Anderson

9.73 1959 1965, 1992 114,581


50

Student Enrollment Data Elementary Schools

(as of May 22, 2014)

Whe

re S

tude

nts L

ive

Where Students Attend School

ES Live-Attend Matrix

Tota

l Liv

e-In

Broa

dwat

er

Brya

nt

Cent

ral

Four

Geo

rgia

ns

Haw

thor

ne

Jeffe

rson

Jim D

arcy

Kess

ler

Ross

iter

Smith

War

ren

Live

-in, A

tten

d O

ut

Total Enrollment 281 213 257 492 244 261 332 259 470 288 303 Broadwater 196 134 6 1 11 14 2 16 1 10 1 62 Bryant 213 7 150 20 3 5 8 1 17 2 63 Central 172 4 4 127 3 6 18 3 3 4 45 Four Georgians 544 37 13 19 411 25 10 5 6 13 4 1 133 Hawthorne 173 9 1 2 3 141 2 11 4 32 Jefferson 237 6 3 34 2 1 160 1 3 27 77 Jim Darcy 547 12 8 9 22 15 10 311 6 144 8 2 236 Kessler 228 16 2 4 5 15 2 174 6 2 2 54

Rossiter 357 6 5 4 15 11 4 10 7 288 7 69 Smith 220 9 11 15 4 2 19 1 159 61 Warren 364 10 4 11 6 1 19 1 5 23 284 80 Trinity District 75 26 1 1 4 5 30 3 4 1 Out of District 74 5 5 10 7 4 7 3 4 19 10 Live-Out, Attend-In 147 63 130 81 103 101 21 85 182 129 19

students living in, attending in are designated in white


51

Elementary School Demographic by High School Feeder

(as of May 22, 2014)

School

West (CHS) or

East (HHS) Feeder School

Enrolled Students

Students

Living Within Boundary

2022 Forecast Enrollment Change

per Cropper Demographics

Broadwater* West (CHS) 281 196 -5.10%

Bryant East (HHS) 213 213 -6.00%

Central* East (HHS) 257 172 3.20%

Four Georgians West (CHS) 492 544 2.00%

Hawthorne West (CHS) 244 173 -7.90%

Jefferson East (HHS) 261 237 3.20%

Jim Darcy West (CHS) 332 547 -0.03%

Kessler West (CHS) 259 228 1.60%

Rossiter West (CHS) 470 357 1.80%

Smith* East (HHS) 288 220 -1.00%

Warren East (HHS) 303 364 3,20%

Helena Middle East (HHS) 675 563 1.9%

C. R. Anderson West (CHS) 1018 912 .8%

*Montessori


52

Montessori Student Locations (as of Spring, 2014)

Montessori/

Reside Broadwater

Bryant

Central

Four Georgians

Hawthorne

Jefferson

Jim Darcy

Kessler

Rossiter

Smith

Warren

Trinity

East Helena

Jefferson County

Broadwater County

TOTAL

Broadwater 8 2 4 10 2 3 2 10 2 3 1 7 2 1 0 57

Central 1 1 24 3 3 9 2 1 2 2 2 0 1 3 1 55

Smith 3 3 0 0 2 13 0 0 2 30 4 1 1 1 0 60

Total 12 6 28 13 7 25 4 11 6 35 7 8 4 5 1 172


53

2013-14 Free & Reduced Eligibility Will be Used in 2014-15 Title I Calculations

(as of October, 2013)

*Above Enrollments may vary slightly from the Student Enrollment Official Free & Reduced data collected in October 2013 for OPI

School Total Enrollment*

Total Number Low Income

Percent Low Income

Broadwater 281 140 49.8% Bryant 222 222 100.0% Central 247 126 51.0%

Four Georgians 495 145 29.3% Hawthorne 259 97 37.5% Jefferson 257 82 31.9% Jim Darcy 335 75 22.4%

Kessler 254 87 34.3% Rossiter 480 205 42.7%

Smith 304 136 44.7% Warren 330 169 51.2%

C R Anderson 1031 367 35.6% Helena Middle 654 361 55.1%

Capital High 1324 470 35.5% Helena High 1607 797 48.5%

Elementary Total 3464 1484 42.8%

Middle School Total 1685 728 43.2% High School Total 2931 1267 43.2%

District Total 8080 3478 43.0%


54

Elementary Schools

Attendance / Tardy Charts

2013 – 2014 School Year

Attendance Walk Zone

Attendance Bus Eligible

Attendance Free & Reduced Lunch All

Broadwater 94.54 94.90 93.52 Bryant 93.23 94.19 N/A Central 93.76 92.60 90.65

Four Georgians 95.04 94.17 91.96 Hawthorne 95.24 93.06 92.13 Jefferson 94.34 94.76 93.27 Jim Darcy 97.40 95.16 93.43

Kessler 95.77 94.18 91.53 Rossiter 96.13 94.69 93.01

Smith 94.82 94.39 92.28 Warren 93.74 94.41 93.06

Total 94.61 94.38 92.55

Tardies Walk Zone

Tardies Bus Eligible

Broadwater 4.84 3.54 Bryant 4.34 2.94 Central 3.27 4.62

Four Georgians 3.28 3.73 Hawthorne 4.38 4.73 Jefferson 3.65 3.80 Jim Darcy 0.5 4.66

Kessler 4.81 5.42 Rossiter 3.63 4.57

Smith 4.58 4.16 Warren 3.60 4.42

Total 4.02 4.30


55

Deferred Maintenance Projects

BROADWATER Site Improvements

Water service isolation valve replacement

$20,000

Curb/Sidewalk replacement

$12,500

Drainage improvements

Asphalt Replacement

$8,500

Fencing

$15,000

Playground Improvements (equipment/turf/irrigation)

$42,000

Life/Safety Codes

Fire Alarm System

$48,750

Roofing

Roofing/Insulation/Seismic

$232,000 Heating and Ventilation (current single boiler)

Boiler replace and Asbestos Removal (incl air test) In progress Electrical

Upgrade Service & load balance

$32,000

Panels/outlets/ground

$18,000

Plumbing

fixtures and isolation valves

$32,400

Flooring (Partial)

Entry Mats, Tile and Carpet (asbestos removal)

$22,000

SUBTOTAL

$463,150

BRYANT (2 year look ahead)

As needed in next two years Sidewalk/Retaining Walls failure points

$125,000

SUBTOTAL

$125,000

FOUR GEORGIANS

Site improvements

Playground Improvements (equipment/fence repair) $15,000

Asphalt - Seal Coat & repaint

$13,500

Life/Safety Codes

Fire Alarm System

$48,600

Roofing


56

Roofing/Insulation

$685,000

Heating and Ventilation

Digital Controls

Boiler Replacement

$238,000 Electrical

Relocate & Upgrade Service for reception relocate

$12,000

Expand Circuits

$24,600

ADA

Restroom Upgrades/fixtures/finishes/ADA

$29,600

Exit Door Hardware

$14,000

Interior Door Hardware (Security function)

$24,680

Flooring (partial)


$22,500

SUBTOTAL

$1,127,480

HAWTHORNE

Site improvements

Sidewalk/Retaining Wall/Stair (repair/replace) $44,000

Asphalt

$58,900

Fencing (replace/repair)

$9,850

Playground Improvements/drainage $48,600

Life/Safety Codes

Fire Alarm System

$33,400

Roofing (Library & Modular)

Roofing/Seismic/Asbestos/gutters $44,600

Electrical

Upgrade Service and Load Balance $12,500

Panels/outlets/Grounds $25,500

Plumbing

Restroom Upgrades/fixtures/finishes/ADA $8,800

Piping(supply and waste) repairs and isolation $17,900

Building Envelope

Exterior Stucco repair $42,250

Exterior doors

$26,000

Flooring (partial)

Entry Mats, Tile and Carpet (asbestos removal) $18,500

SUBTOTAL

$390,800

JEFFERSON

Site improvements


57

Sidewalk (Additional) $9,850

Asphalt

$39,850

Fencing

$28,500

Playground Improvements (equipment/turf/retaining walls) $32,000

Drainage Improvements (partial)

$27,500

Life/Safety Codes

Fire Alarm System

In progress 2014

Asbestos removal

$54,000

Roofing

Roofing/Seismic/Asbestos/insulation $179,560

Heating and Ventilation (critical)

Boiler Replace

In progress 2014

Structural Upgrades (included with roof) Electrical

Panels/outlets/Grounds $24,500 Plumbing


Piping(supply and waste) (Isolation valves $24,600

Building Envelope

Exterior Paint/Stucco repair $42,250

Flooring (partial)

Entry Mats, Tile and Carpet (asbestos removal) $28,750

SUBTOTAL

$500,160

JIM DARCY (2 year look ahead)


$125,000

SUBTOTAL

$125,000 KESSLER

Site improvements

Parking Lot/bus loading

$263,000

Playground Improvements (equipment/turf/irrigation) $35,820

Roofing (partial)

Roofing/Insulation/Seismic

$175,000



58

Digital Controls

$71,500

Rest Room Exhaust

$13,400

Gym Relief Air

$37,000

Structural Upgrades

Joist/Beam Repair 1938 building materials only

In progress 2014

Electrical

Upgrade Service and Load Balance

$28,400

Panels/outlets/Grounds

$29,700

Plumbing


$11,000

Piping - repairs and Isolation valves

$14,700

Flooring (partial)


$23,500

SUBTOTAL

$703,020 LINCOLN (2 year look ahead)


$125,000

SUBTOTAL

$125,000

ROSSITER

Site improvements

Permanent Flood Protection

$110,450

Staff Parking Lot/Drainage (west) $294,750

Sidewalk $9,200

Asphalt (playground) $38,500

Playground Improvements (equipment/turf/irrigation/ADA) $42,500

Roofing

Roofing/Insulation/Asbestos/structural $784,000

Structural Upgrades

CMU to deck connections (1966 building) $68,000 Electrical

Panels/outlets/Grounds $37,600


59

Plumbing


Building Envelope

Exterior doors

$48,000

Flooring (partial)

Entry Mats, Tile and Carpet $28,000

SUBTOTAL

$1,365,350

SMITH

Site improvements

Parking Lot asphalt repair & overlay

$145,000

Playground Asphalt replacement

$61,000

Playground Improvements (equipment/turf/irrigation/ADA) $33,500

Life/Safety Codes

Fire Alarm System

$38,700

Roofing (partial)

Roofing/Insulation/

$486,000

Roof Connections/Sheathing/Gym Deck @ reroof

$336,105


Rest Room Exhaust

$23,500

Replace Boilers(2) - partial for building

$343,000

Electrical

Upgrade Service and Load Balance

$27,500


$29,800

Intercom/Clock/Bells

Plumbing


$19,500

ADA (also included in other costs)

Upgrade Elevator

$98,500

Flooring (partial)


$39,500

SUBTOTAL

$1,681,605

WARREN (2 year look ahead)


$125,000


60

SUBTOTAL

$125,000

C.R. ANDERSON

Site improvements

Parking Lot/bus loading

$543,000

Sidewalk/curb

$48,500

Life/Safety Codes

Fire Main supply isolation valve @ curb

$21,400

Door Hardware

$89,000

Roofing (partial)

Roofing/Insulation/Seismic (N addition and Main buildings) $550,000


Univent freeze protection

$44,000

Structural Upgrades

Shear Wall Upgrades

$25,000

expansion joints and Tuck Point

$78,600

Electrical

Load Balance

$43,700


$67,000

Plumbing


$19,600

Piping & Isolation Valves

$45,000

ADA

accessibility to building

$24,000

door hardware

$17,400

Elevator upgrades

$190,000

Flooring (partial)


$65,000

SUBTOTAL

$1,871,200

HELENA MIDDLE

Site improvements

HMS NE Parking lot revisions/asphalt (ADA to Auditorium) $122,500

Sidewalk/curb

$37,400

SE field drainage and restoration

$57,640

Asphalt Seal coat & stripe

$14,000

exterior paint

$47,500

Life/Safety Codes

Fire Main supply isolation valve

$18,500

Fire Alarm Replacement

$67,500


61

Roofing (partial)

Roofing/Insulation/Seismic (gym)

In progress 2014

coat main Roof (2014)

In progress 2014

Re-roof main building and 1994 addition (2017)

$510,000


Boiler Repairs - asbestos, retube, burner

$298,000

Univent freeze protection

$13,800

Structural Upgrades

Install angles in basement

$6,500

Remove clay tiles in boiler room ceiling

$9,500

Electrical

Load Balance

$48,000


$78,500

Plumbing


$55,000

Piping & Isolation Valves

$38,300

ADA

Elevator upgrades

$136,000

Flooring (partial)

Entry Mats, Tile and Carpet

$45,000

SUBTOTAL

$1,603,640

Ray Bjork RAY BJORK

Site improvements

Fencing

$10,000


Replace single Boiler

In progress 2014

Electrical


$4,900

Plumbing


$11,400

Piping

$17,500

Flooring (partial)


$51,500

SUBTOTAL

$95,300


62

Annual Maintenance Allocation District Wide

Equipment, minor repairs,

fire inspection, environmental

$150,000 per Year

9 years $1,350,000

Total Estimates *

$11,651,705

* Includes $125000 each for Jim Darcy, Central/ Lincoln, Bryant and Warren for next 2 years.


63

School Maps


64

board of trustees meeting - helenaschools.orgbondinfo.helenaschools.org/wp-content/uploads/... ·...

Documents