Facilities Process Overview (updated through 2/2007)

To-date:
An outline of the public meetings during which facilities issues have been discussed is as follows:

• Five year Life Safety report on maintenance issues across District schools updated from Fall 2004.
• Completed construction work was deleted and current needs added.
• Additional priority list of capital projects across buildings generated by Principals.

• Comprehensive 5 year enrollment study by Dr. John Kasarda first reviewed by Board
• Many questions raised about District 36 trends, future growth factors,and forecasted enrollment by school.
• Board asks Business manager for additional information on specific projects identified in October by the Principals.

• Board begins discussion about scope of facilities work to be undertaken, as well as the need for objectives and an overall plan to guide decision-making.

• Board reaches consensus on objectives for future facilities decision-making.
• Maintenance Objective: To maintain aging buildings for safety and efficient spending.
• Capital Projects Objective: To sustain the educational excellence of a high quality program, balanced by fiscal constraint.
• Board asks Superintendent to investigate feasibility and to outline cost/benefits of a confirmatory study by a second demographer to clarify outstanding questions regarding enrollment projections,

• Board reviews all identified maintenance projects and agrees on a working project list of $11.7MM across all five school buildings.

The breakdown of maintenance spending needed by school is
Skokie                                    $ 7.1MM             60.7%
Greeley                                  $ 1.2MM             10.3%
Crow Island                           $ 1.5MM             13.2%
Hubbard Woods                   $ 1.1MM               9.6%
Washburne                            $ 0.7MM               6.2%
                                                $11.7MM              100%

• Superintendent updates Board on feasibility of second demography study. Second demographer affirms the methodology used by Dr. Kasarda and recommends refinements next Fall.

• Board conference call to demographer, Dr. John Kasarda, to clear up outstanding questions regarding study methodology, housing turnover assumptions, and trends affecting other area districts.
• Board decides not to order second fully developed study at this time.

• Board discusses views on potential enrollment growth and reaches consensus to use Dr. Kasarda’s “B” scenario for planning purposes regarding buildings’ space needs.
• “B” scenario calls for increasing enrollment from the current 2,094 to a peak of 2,167 students in 2010-11, with a slight contraction thereafter. 
• Board agrees that in analyzing any potential space expansions, the flexibility of the space will be a key consideration and space needs specifically assessed for reaching peak enrollment different from planned by the “B” projection.
• Board discusses action plan to study potential building additions, identifying opportunities for community, parent and teacher input, multiple options for consideration and an estimated timeline for decision-making.

• Board hears recommendations from the Business Manager regarding capital improvement projects across the District including the use of fans vs. air conditioning for classroom cooling, additional staff restroom facilities at Hubbard Woods, reconfiguring existing all-purpose space at Crow Island, replacement of windows at Skokie, and a timed lock system for Washburne.
• Technology needs are also reviewed for capital implications.
• Space needs are described for Washburne and Greeley on the basis of the current student population.  Many questions are raised to inform further Board discussion about discretionary items at the May 23rd Board meeting.

• Board creates two working sub-committees, one for Washburne and one for Greeley, to further define space needs and criteria, work with the architect on plans to be developed, and to outline pros/cons of space options considered and present to the Board for decision-making.
• Sub-committee members are:
• Washburne: Becky van der Bogert, Shelley Clark, George Reigle, Dan Schwartz, Board members Pete Cruikshank, Penny Lanphier, and Bob Linn, Teachers Dave Cooper, Bob Rzeszutko and Kathy Lee, Parents Beth Boehrer, Jane Huels, and Michelle Wasielewski.
• Greeley: Becky van der Bogert, Shelley Clark, George Reigle, Susan Hugebeck, Board members Susan Harris, Jeff Hoch, and Anne Kelly, Teachers Joyce McCaffrey and Merle Scharmann, Parents Mary Haak and Mitchell Petersen.

• Sub-committee organization meeting at Washburne, open to the public to tour the building, hear the conceptual space needs presented to the Board, understand previous work done, and outline the scope/timing of the sub-committee’s work going forward.

• Sub-committee organization meeting at 7pm at Greeley, open to the public, to tour the building, hear the conceptual space needs as presented to the Board, understand previous work done and outline the scope/timing of the sub-committee’s work this summer.

• All parent/community meeting at 7pm at Greeley to tour the building, hear overview of space needs as presented to the Board, provide general information and receive input. Open to the public.
• Meeting participants raised questions about the average square foot size of Greeley classrooms vs. current size guidelines, whether the Board had considered redistricting students out of Greeley to relieve crowding, whether portables were warranted at current enrollment levels, and about the balance of outdoor and indoor space if an addition is constructed.

• All parent/community meeting at 7pm at Washburne to tour the building, hear overview of space needs as presented to the Board, provide general information and receive input. Open to the public.
• Meeting participants asked questions about what possible additions to Washburne have been considered in the past, how middle school programming has changed at Washburne over time and how that has affected the space needs/configuration, what the effect of removing Foreign language and other teachers from a dedicated classroom has on program delivery, and whether increasing student numbers have impacted elective choices and/or scheduling.

• Board discusses/refines capital improvement project list for all five schools.  Greeley and Washburne sub-committees give update as part of the regular Board meeting at Greeley School (7:15 start).
• Update (5/25/22006):
• Washburne and Greeley subcommittees update the Board as to their individual brainstormed options list and thoughts on decision criteria to evaluate potential space options. Next steps are for the respective Principals and Business Manager to give direction to the architect to investigate space options.
• The Board reviewed the list of proposed capital improvements by school and endorsed the addition of classroom fans across the District, a second staff bathroom at HWS, timed locks and storage for Washburne.
• The Board also discussed necessary capital spending in the area of technology and endorsed a series of wiring, cooling, clean power panel, and back-up generator projects to ensure the safe and reliable operation of District network computers. (See Project List for more details).

• Principal Dan Schwartz summarized the brainstormed decision criteria for new space at Washburne as falling within four categories: 1) how well educational needs are met; 2) how well community needs are met; 3) compliance with codes/laws; and 4) architectural feasibility. He reiterated the needs for additional science labs, special education classrooms, fine arts and new gymnasium spaces.
• Options considered but discarded were: filling in the courtyard, building a third floor, building underground, reconfiguring Little Theater, building in the terrace area, and tearing down/starting over.
• Washburne Sub-Committee members reviewed four conceptual architectural plans for room usage, programmatic needs and fit with decision criteria. The group asked questions regarding individual room size vs. current standards, space flexibility, resulting building flow after additions, and potential construction disruptions for the neighbors and students/staff. As part of giving feedback to the architects, direction for refinements to the plans was given. New plans with preliminary costing are expected for the next meeting.

• Principal Susan Hugebeck overviewed Greeley’s need for four additional classrooms plus an above ground lunchroom to serve the current student population. She summarized the brainstormed decision criteria as falling within the same categories as shown above for Washburne.
• Options considered but discarded were building underground, building a third floor, building above the custodial area, constructing a new school. Options still being explored include: building in the courtyard, building underneath the overhang, and reconfiguring the basement space.
• Greeley Sub-committee meeting members reviewed three conceptual plans and discussed each drawing’s fit with the decision criteria. Placement and safety of the office and main entrance were discussed as well as ADA compliance issues. Matters of both building heritage and space flexibility arose and the group assembled asked the architects to refine the first two conceptual plans and to redraw another specific option, all with associated costs for the next sub-committee meeting.

• At the regular Board Meeting, principals of both Greeley and Washburne Schools updated the Board as to the conceptual plans under consideration. The Board understands that neither sub-committee is pursuing plans for a new school replacement at this time.

• Washburne Sub-Committee members reviewed three architectural plans which all add new gymnasium space and reconfigure existing space for additional science and music areas. All three plans fully meet the programmatic and academic classroom needs for the foreseeable future. Preliminary costs range from approximately $16 million to $18 million for the plans as currently drawn. The sub-committee began to frame pros and cons for each individual plan.
• A plan that could be an overlay to any of the three schematics under consideration was reviewed. It connects the North and South wings and improves the building’s traffic flow as well as moves the front office forward for better visitor control and improved building safety.
• The sub-committee plans to meet again in September to finalize the rationale for each plan to be brought forward to the Board.

• Greeley Sub-Committee members reviewed three architectural plans all of which add an above-ground lunchroom and three classrooms as well as change the position of the office/main entrance. All three plans make Greeley fully ADA accessible. The first plan entails building underneath the overhang while the second plan demolishes the current overhang space and adds a new two-story wing. The third plan takes off the entire back half of Greeley School, improves building flow, and adds two new full-size kindergarten classrooms on top of the stated lunchroom/classroom needs. Preliminary costs range from approximately $ _million to __million including demolition expenses. The construction disruption inherent in the three plans range from minimal by building under the overhang to the most caused by taking off the back half of the school (third option). Plans two and three would most likely need to be staged and scheduled around the school year, as many learning spaces would be impacted. The sub-committee outlined other pros and cons for each option.
• The sub-committee will meet again in September in preparation for bringing the plans forward to the Board and for gathering community input.

• As part of the regular Board meeting, both Washburne and Greeley Principals recapped the above space discussions with their sub-committees and the Board examined each of the drawn options in detail. The Board asked a lot of questions around Washburne’s more extensive program needs and the resulting efficiencies built into all three existing plans. For example, by building a new gym addition, which also functions as an all school meeting place, existing space is reconfigured for needed music instruction. Moving music into dedicated space and out of the cafeteria frees up necessary eating space as enrollments grow. Constructing standard size science labs frees up smaller classrooms for use as special education resource rooms. Dan Schwartz pointed out that these academic needs were first identified 10 years ago as the reopening of Skokie was being considered with continued strong enrollments since that time exacerbating the space crunch caused by lack of dedicated instructional areas.
• The Board reviewed the highly preliminary cost estimates for each space option using a dollar per square foot range. Questions were asked about the trade-offs inherent in a less costly option for Washburne that adds the requisite KW, music and science space to meet current students’ needs.
• The Board discussed the need to draw the community into its planning process and ask for specific feedback on the space options being considered. It is important to solicit different parts of the voting public (e.g., preschool parents, current parents, school neighbors, New Trier parents and empty nesters) for their thoughts and questions. Communication vehicles to encourage participation at late September/early October meetings were discussed. More work on scheduling these meetings and drafting communication such as an all-Village mailing, Learners article and Winnetka Talk notices will be ongoing this summer. The Set/Oct timing should allow time for necessary consideration of community input and plan revisions as necessary. The Board does not plan to make its decision about the Washburne and Greeley additions until its October 24th monthly meeting.
• The Board also heard from Liz Hennessey from William Blair about broad financing parameters and conceptual costs associated with a 20-year construction bond of various amounts. This discussion was the first of many to work through possible costs to the taxpayer for the maintenance, capital improvement and new space projects under consideration for the District. No financing decision may be made until the full cost of the capital program is known, following a Board decision regarding the space additions later this Fall.

Community Voices Heard: Neighborhood Meetings
  • September 21, 2006 @ Greeley School
  • September 25, 2006 @ Crow Island
  • October 4, 2006 @ Washburne
  • October 10, 2006 @ Skokie
  • October 12, 2006 @ Hubbard Woods

Neighborhood meetings were held at all five schools to gain input from parents and community members on building addition plans for Greeley and Washburne schools. Superintendent Becky van der Bogert, Principals Dan Schwartz and Susan Hugebeck , Board members, and District architects from Green Associates also gave an overview of the District-wide maintenance needs in addition to the space issues. In the course of the presentation, those in attendance asked questions about the following issues:

General:

• What is the right balance between sustaining the educational program and maintaining fiscal restraint?
• Will these addition plans be sufficient if the enrollment projections are incorrect?
• Does building standard size classroom spaces necessitate increases in class sizes?
• How do you plan for elementary students who have not even been born yet?
• How soon will the work be completed and what is the phasing schedule?
• How will construction be managed to minimize student disruption?
• Why aren’t Crow Island and Hubbard Woods getting new lunchrooms too?
• What data do you have that points to whether children are better educated now with new technology than without it?

• Can the new science labs be added AND maintain the team proximity of classrooms that is a Washburne hallmark?
• What will the room usage rates be for the new Band and Orchestra spaces as well as the combined gym/all purpose space at Washburne?
• What is the participation/room usage for CW band and orchestra, CW science and all-school meeting space?
• How will water displacement issues be resolved with greater coverage of the Skokie Washburne play field?

• What are the accessibility issues at Greeley?
• Can new space be added to Greeley and preserve the current courtyard area?
• What are the security benefits to changing the entry ways?

• What are the causes of growth in the special ed student pop/needs? What is our relationship with North Suburban Special Education District? How does the reimbursement work for building a NSSED classroom?
• Is the District mandated to support inclusion of special education students?
• Do the enrollment projections include increased numbers of special education students and do the proposed space plans allow for any of these increases?

• How will the bond be structured? What will the taxpayers vote on?

• Decision-Making Timetable:
• Finish public input phase, refine plans, and receive additional requested information by October 20th.
• Based on final plans, Board to decide GR and CW space options at October 24th Board meeting.
• Given scope/timing of the work, Board to discuss how to balance annual maintenance transfer amount ($600,00) vs. bond financing amount in Nov.
• Board to work with financial advisor on bond structure, amount and ultimate taxpayer cost through January.
• Board to approve final language and bond amount in January, 2007 for inclusion on April, 17, 2007 ballot.

• Documents to Review:
• Architect’s final perspective on how many trailers would be needed at GR and CW to meet current student needs and an assessment of trade-offs; an estimation of District office square footage needs and an analysis of potential rental cost and availability; summary of functional trade-offs between options; articulation of safety considerations of changing entryways.
• Review of technology plan elements at October Board meeting,
• Phased District work plan for maintenance and potential additions,
• Incorporation of any modifications to work specs (e.g., technology) before bond amount finalized.

• The Board heard an update on technology capital needs from District’s Technology Coordinator, asked questions and discussed new costs/projects for inclusion in referendum. This more comprehensive review identified the need for fiber backbone replacement, upgraded wiring/switches at all schools, greater installation support and wireless mobile computers. As a result of the update, technology projects approved now total $2.2MM, with further deliberation needed for the $.4MM mobile labs. Throughout the year, the Board will receive updates from the 31 member Technology Task force comprised of District technology personnel, administrators, teachers, Board members and community members around technology use and opportunities across the District, especially as related to instruction.

• The Board reviewed its outstanding issues (30) list generated at the Sept. Board meeting and discussed items related to the safety and security of the proposed new entryways; the revised plans for both Greeley and Washburne incorporating the public’s feedback from the previous month.

• The Board decided on a revised Option 3 for the Washburne addition with an estimated cost of up to $22.5 million, including the new entryway configuration that enhances security/control and traffic flow throughout the building. The team configuration of classrooms is maintained even with the addition of four new full-size science labs and the addition is a 3 station gym with adjoining locker rooms, which is the most cost-effective to build and provides space for other needs within the existing building.

• The Board decided on Option 2A for the Greeley addition, revised after input concerning the importance of preserving the quiet space provided by Willoughby Woods.  The chosen option adds two new classrooms adjacent to the existing courtyard, adds a 1st floor multipurpose/lunch room and an NSSED classroom off the playground.  The school’s entry is moved to its original location for better security/control and more efficient use of office space.  Costs are estimated around $9 million for this addition.

• The District Technology Coordinator updated the Board as to current usage of mobile labs at our elementary and middle schools and provided the expected improvement in the student usage ratio should the recommended mobile lab units be included in the referendum spending total.  She also reviewed a meta-analysis of research findings that indicate that increased use of technology results in enhanced student-teacher interaction and observed problem solving skills.  Linking classroom results to technology use is an area of emerging research and piqued interest given the Gates Foundation’s and others’ increase in school technology funding.  Questions followed.

• Business manager Shelley Clark updated the Board as to the discussion she and architects Green  Associates’ had with various Village officials concerning permit approvals, drainage, design and construction issues related to the proposed expansion plans at Greeley and Washburne.  She sketched out the timeline and necessary work plan to effect a Summer, 2007 start for both projects.  She and the architects will be working aggressively to ready the plans to be in a position to bid out construction contracts as soon as possible pending successful passage of the referendum.  If the referendum is successful, the intent is to maximize use of summer break construction in both 2007 and 2008.  All construction and renovation across buildings is projected for completion by Summer 2009.  major projects planned include:
• Summer 2007 and ongoing  – Greeley addition, Washburne gym, and interior renovations
• Summer 2008 – Washburne entry, begin Skokie window replacement, new Skokie and CI ventilation systems, update Greeley bathrooms/floors and redo HWS roof
• Summer 2009 – Finish Skokie window replacement

• Elizabeth Hennessey of William Blair & Co. reported on referendum financing options for the District, with a 20 year bond amortization assumed.  Given the expected projects’ phasing and timing, the Board plans to issue one bond following referendum passage to fund all projects.  Therefore voters will see one referendum question on the ballot that describes the total funding need for identified projects.  The key structuring question remaining is how level (or not) the debt repayment schedule should be: the more delayed the repayment terms are, the greater the total interest paid by the taxpayers is over time, while lowering the up front cost paid by current taxpayers.  More discussion will take place based on final financing numbers in January.

• A technology consultant’s review of current District instructional technology was discussed.  The report will help benchmark progress over time for instructional results and identifies areas of improvement for strategy development.  After more discussion, the Board decided to include the additional mobile lab units in the Technology sub-total of the referendum spending amount.

• Green Associates provided an overview of possible sustainable design project areas of interest to consider.  The Board prioritized exploring a green roof for Washburne, lighting, high efficiency insulation, and alternative storm water systems during the development of final plans.  These priorities would contribute to a healthier building or improve drainage.  A roughly 15 year payback period is estimated for the energy cost savings and the potential for solar heating grant monies via the state will be investigated.

• Green Associates updated its progress on the plans for Greeley and Washburne and outlined next steps for forwarding a building application for review by the Village in February.  Discussion ensued about the benefits of a “green roof” at Washburne as well as a projected payback.

• With final cost estimates in-hand, the Board discussed the total dollar amount of  the bond referendum for voter approval in April and decided on a $47.3 million request for the previously identified maintenance, technology and space needs.  Language for the ballot question was also approved and will be forwarded to Cook County as required.
• The Board also heard again from Elizabeth Hennessey from William Blair about possible bond structures for the $47.3 million amount and after much discussion, the Board approved a 20 year repayment option which results in an estimated increase of about $246 per $10,000 of taxes paid, beginning with the Fall, 2008 installment.

Contact Us: facilities@winnetka36.org