The Ames School Board will hold a special meeting Monday April 22, 2013 at the Crawford Educational Services Center at noon.
The primary topic on the agenda is to hold a public hearing on the sale of the Roosevelt property. The board will also act on a motion to rent storage space over the next few months. The agenda is below:
As stated above, the meeting is set to start at noon Monday April 22, 2013.
Dr. Dave
As noted in below, the board will be meeting in a couple of special sessions to handle technicalities connected to the sale of the Roosevelt property.
Due to an error in publication notifications for the sale of the Roosevelt Property, we will need to hold a special Board meeting tomorrow at 5:00 p.m. The only item will be to set the Public Hearing and Conveyance of Property on April 22 at noon. (5 minutes)
Another special meeting is needed on Monday, April 22 at noon for the public hearing and conveyance of property.
Both meetings at Crawford.
Dr. Dave
The Ames School Board is holding a series of public gatherings to share committee work and board discussion to date regarding elementary boundaries.
With new and remodeled schools coming on-line in 2014 and 2016, the School Board created an ad-hoc subcommittee to study the location of elementary boundaries. Having reported to the school board recently, the subcommittee is holding a series of meetings open to the public.
Given the focus is elementary boundaries, the meetings are being held in coordination with PTO meetings. The schedule is below. As of this point, the meetings at Edwards and Meeker have been held which leave four additional meetings.
| Edwards PTO 4/4/13 6:30 pm
Location: Edwards Media Center |
Sawyer PTO 4/16/13 6:30 pm
Location: Sawyer Media Center |
Meeker PTO 4/4/13 6:30 pm
Location: Meeker Media Center |
Fellows PTO 4/9/13 7:00 pm Location: Fellows Media Center |
Mitchell PTO 4/10/13 6:30 pm Location: Mitchell Media Center |
Northwood & Community 4/11/13 6:30 pm Location: Crawford Ed Services, Conference Room B |
ALL sessions are open to the public. If you are unable to attend a meeting at your nearest building’s PTO meeting, please attend another. The meeting scheduled for April 11, 2013 at the Education Services Building (Crawford) is intended as a public meeting for all others who would like to hear about and offer input on the elementary boundaries.
Elementary Boundary Website
A website has been set up to share information. The site is also being used in the PTO presentations. The URL for the site is below:
https://sites.google.com/a/ames.k12.ia.us/elemboundary/
Input on Elementary Boundaries
The website has several pages, one of which has a means for the public to offer feedback on the boundaries. On the page for PTO presentation, at the section with questions used as conversation starters, is an electronic means of sharing input. The URL to the PTO page is below:
https://sites.google.com/a/ames.k12.ia.us/elemboundary/pto-presentation
Of course, input can be sent to the Superintendent or Board members as well. The board members on the subcommittee are Rodney Briggs and David Putz.
Excel Files Used by Sub-Committee
Also available are the Excel file and data used by the sub-committee to review options. The file can be sent upon request by emailing the district’s Board Secretary whose email address is below:
Data Analysis Tool Available upon Request Karen.Shimp@ames.k12.ia.us
Grandfathering Policy
Likely the topic of most interest in the first two meetings has been the discussion surrounding the possibility of the district instituting a “grandfathering” policy. To date, what is being considered is the creation of a standard policy stating that when a school comes on-line students within its boundaries will be assigned to attend their “boundary” school.
What the board is considering is a policy that would allow students in 4th grade going into 5th grade the year the school opens to stay with the students and staff they have had for their final elementary year. The website has a page devoted to “grandfathering” –
https://sites.google.com/a/ames.k12.ia.us/elemboundary/enrollment-options
– which includes an example which will actually be impacting one of the school board member’s families.
Closing
The intent of the meetings, website and asking for feedback is to gathering input prior to making a decision. The goal as expressed at the board table is to make the decision regarding boundaries in advance of the school coming on-line (2014 & 2016) so families can plan and adjust as best meets their needs.
I would encourage all to attend a meeting and/or review the website. If you have thoughts or feedback, please offer them. IMPORTANT – In order to have time to sift through the feedback prior to presenting results back to the board as a whole, input is being taken through April 22, 2013.
Dr. Dave
At the March 11, 2013 regular meeting of the Ames School Board, the audit report for the FY2012 (2011-2012 school year) was presented.
In addition to the report (below), a summary presented was given to the board. Both the report and the presentation are below:
Feel free to contact me, or the district’s CFO if you have any questions.
Dr. Dave
The Ames school board will hold a special meeting this coming Monday to vote on construction contracts for work on the Miller site.
Having approved the awarding of the work to Woodruff, Kruck and DeVries at their March 11th, 2013 meeting, the board will be voting on the final contracts at the meeting. The agenda is below and the supporting materials is available on the school board meetings page.
The meeting is set for Monday March 25, 2013 in Conference Room B of the district’s Educational Services Center (Crawford). As there are action items on the agenda, there will be a public forum should any member of the public wish to comment.
Dr. Dave
As mentioned in the last post, the school board received a joint letter from the Citizens for Roosevelt Park and the Preserve Roosevelt group. Since having received that letter in early January, there has been quite a few folks who have contacted the school board in support of not auctioning off the building. Below is one such email – used with permission of the sender.
Email Text – Letter of Support
Dr. Dave
NOTE: I was asked to encourage folks to check out the links in the email to see what really is possible if we don’t rush our decisions.
Dear School Board et al:
I’d like to thank you all for taking the time to engage Ames citizens in the planning process for Roosevelt School, and would like you to further consider the positions of the groups Preserve Roosevelt and Citizens for Roosevelt Park, particularly regarding the idea of Requests for Proposals as opposed to the immediate idea of jumping to a bidding process. I think the RFP process could be a valid way to further explore redevelopment possibilities for both the building and the proposed park.
As someone who’s practiced in the field of historic preservation for the past 20 years, both here in Iowa and on the east coast, I think Ames needs to think carefully before demolishing this important piece of history. As a local resident who walks past the building EVERY DAY and as a taxpayer, I value this building as something which also contributes aesthetically to my environment, and am concerned about the quality of construction of WHATEVER is eventually built on the site. New construction these days rarely uses the quality of materials exhibited in the Roosevelt School. I also believe that the PRESERVATION of EXTANT STRUCTURES is one of the MOST ECOLOGICALLY SENSITIVE ways to build. Contrary to popular belief, it does not have to be the most expensive way to build. And it definitely saves resources and reduces the carbon footprint of development.
There are many other communities rehabbing local schools. Just because they aren’t in Iowa doesn’t mean we can’t learn from them. Please take some time to investigate these important examples!
Emerson School in Denver:
Many examples in Pennsylvania:
General Guidelines for School Rehabilitation:
http://www.nps.gov/tps/standards/applying-rehabilitation/its-bulletins/ITS20-Schools-Conversing.pdf
I know the city and the school board would probably just like to “get this over with”, but I hope you will continue to investigate further and continue in dialog with the community and affiliated community groups. I appreciate your efforts to do so thus far.
Sincerely,
Heidi Hohmann
1018 Brookridge Ave
Ames, IA 50010.
P.S. We might recall when President Jischke at ISU wanted to tear down Memorial Hall–a movement which was eventually stopped by President Geoffrey. That rehabilitated building is now –once again–a wonderful piece of the ISU campus, both functional AND serving purposes it didn’t previously. Can we have another Win-Win situation at Roosevelt School? It only happens when we think big and act on some convictions.
If you recall, the school board discussed the disposal of the land and buildings on the Roosevelt. When the board conversation ended, the board was in the middle of discussing a timeline for an auction for the school building. The Real Estate Liquidation Committee recommended a timeline of just a few weeks, with a minimum offer of $150,000. It’s position at the time was that if an offer was not forth coming, the building should be demolished.
Joint Letter
Since that meeting in December, the board received a joint letter from the Citizens for Roosevelt Park and the Preserve Roosevelt group. The letter is below as well as in pdf format. RFP Roosevelt School – Letter from CFRP and Preserve Roosevelt Group
The letter asks the board NOT to use an auction process – rather, they ask that an RFP process be used. They believe this approach will be the most transparent and “…is in the best interest of the neighbors and community…” They also suggest a number of stipulations:
The letter goes on to point out the city’s expressed willingness to take on space for a park and the Historic Preservation Commission’s offer of expertise and assistance.
Comment
I will share I am pleased to see groups such as these coming together to express interest in a process and outcome that is beneficial to all parties. I only hope the board chooses to select a process and timeline that allows that to happen.
Dr. Dave
TEXT OF JOINT LETTER
To: Ames Community School Board
From: Citizens for Roosevelt Park and the Preserve Roosevelt group
Re: RFP process for the Roosevelt School site
Date: Jan 3, 2013
Imagine a few short years from now, you drive past 921 9th Street. Instead of the now vacant property, you see families enjoying a newly developed park in the green space east of the building. They are running, swinging, playing soccer or just enjoying the beautiful day. Next to them is a beautifully restored building housing a number of families of all types and ages. They enjoy the location, the Ames urban core, and its many amenities close enough for walking or biking and decreased dependence on cars. Several have children who attend the Ames School District. The school district no longer owns the property and has saved half a million dollars in demolition costs. The community has retained a significant historic building. The neighborhood has gained new neighbors with a building use compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. On Sunday evenings a concert of live music permeates the area while one and all enjoy the new site development. Wouldn’t you be proud to say you were a part of making this win-win solution happen for the community of Ames?
Together, the Citizens for Roosevelt Park group and the Preserve Roosevelt group, ask you to consider establishing a request for proposals (RFP) process as you move forward with actions concerning the Roosevelt School property. The Citizens for Roosevelt Park is a diverse group dedicated to preserving a large park at the former Roosevelt school site in central Ames. The Preserve Roosevelt group is devoted to the preservation and reuse of the historic school building located at 921 9th Street in Ames. These two groups are joining together in this request because they share common goals and beliefs. One of those beliefs is that an RFP, as a transparent process, (not an auction) is in the best interest of the neighbors and community and will yield the best result for all including the Ames Community School District (ACSD).
We believe such an RFP should include the following stipulations:
1. A minimum of a 1.27 acre contiguous public park space (the current grassy field to the east of the building). More park space is highly desired if it does not prevent reuse of the building.
2. Reuse of the historic school building in a way that is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and which would preserve the historical integrity of the building.
3. A specific closing date for both the City (conveyance directly from the ACSD to the City) to take over park space and for a new owner to assume ownership of the building and remaining land space.
4. No developer-initiated contingencies.
With a unanimous vote, the Ames City Council expressed “a willingness to accept as much land as possible” and to work cooperatively with neighbors to plan and develop such a park (Council meeting of Nov 27th). The Ames Parks and Recreation Commission has indicated that they will prioritize funding for the development of the neighborhood park. Additionally, the Historic Preservation Commission for the City of Ames has offered their expertise and assistance in regard to the historic building (letter of Sept 21). These bodies have planning expertise that can be valuable to the ACSD in this situation. We believe the RFP process would result in a win-win result for all parties.
Benefits to the ACSD:
1. An expedient, clear and precise process
2. A reasonable financial return
3. Community-focused decision making and decision-making that is amenable to maintaining ACSD student enrollment (park spaces recruit and retain young families in our Ames neighborhoods and historic buildings contribute to sense of place)
Potential developers benefit by clearly articulating their need for landscaping and parking spaces for successful reuse of the site. The community of Ames benefits with resolution to a long-drawn out controversy. Parties and citizens involved can begin rebuilding trust and communication. The community of Ames gains a neighborhood park and neighbors retain the historic use of the open area for a playground, gathering space, and summer Sunday concerts. The community of Ames benefits by retention and reuse of a historic building that is one of many contributing to a sense of place within the City of Ames. The neighborhood gains a building usage that is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. There are numerous sustainability benefits. All parties involved benefit from community-focused decision making.
Respectfully submitted,
for Citizens for Roosevelt Park for Preserve Roosevelt Group – Stacey Ross and Anneke Mundel
for Preserve Roosevelt Group – Erv Klaas, Sue Crull, and Sharon Wirth
http://www.citizensforrooseveltpark.org http://www.preserveroosevelt.org
Per notification from the Superintendent, classes at Northwood will be cancelled for Monday January 14, 2013.
The reason is a broken water line. So folks are aware, after the repair, it may take up to 18 hours of testing to ensure the water is bacteria free.
FYI – There is no state requirement at the preschool level that this day be made up.
Dr. Dave
Over the past week I have shared my thoughts on the use of Roosevelt Elementary as the new home for the district’s central administrative staff. I have also shared a very small number of examples of emails the board received in support of the same.
To summarize the dozens of emails into a few bullet points wouldn’t do justice to the heart-felt encouragement for keeping the building in public hands. The vast majority spoke specifically to using Roosevelt for central administration and a few spoke to preserving space for a community green space or park. What I can say it that, as of the time of this post, I have received no public comment – email, phone call, or conversation – that supported moving the district’s central administrative team to 24th street (of course I may, now that I mentioned it).
Independent of the outcome of Monday’s vote on the matter, I would like to thank those who took the time to contact board members on this issue. I truly do appreciate the time and, for many, the effort it took to write – especially knowing the opinions you were sharing may not be well received.
It is my hope the board takes time to discuss the matter in more detail tomorrow night and that the input from the public is heard.
Dr. Dave
PS – The board is making its decision on this matter at our next meeting, December 3rd. If anyone knows of individuals who would like to share their thoughts with the school board, please encourage them to do so soon, or perhaps come to Monday’s meeting and offer your thoughts during the open forum portion at the very beginning of the meeting.
Here are portions of another email sent to school board members in support of using Roosevelt for the district’s administrative building.
Long-Time Resident’s Letter to School Board
Roosevelt School represents much to its neighborhood, given its central location. No architectural expert has found ANYTHING wrong with the building. It has stature, and it lends character to Ames.
Historical preservation is a goal, not just to save money by using older structures. It gives a sense of time, tradition, and permanence.
Contrary to the image perpetuated by Ames boosters, there are only a few buildings that symbolize permanence. A city of any repute should have more than nondescript buildings which reflect the satisfaction of those making decisions or constructing buildings to save money or just put up an edifice which will last a generation. That was what happened with the now-closed middle school. Some foolish previous school board got building plans from Arizona. One wonders what they were smoking???
We have a few churches and buildings on the ISU campus which are noteworthy, but Ames mostly seems like a bus station. It has had a transient character, given the nature of the university. Most buildings in Ames are desperately insignificant. But for a # of reasons to numerous to mention here, Ames is beginning to have an inch of urban character. That is a great joy to many of us who worked hard to make this little place a better place to live and work. We have scars and wounds to show for our efforts.
Refurbishing the Roosevelt building as an administrative center would highlight these developments. I am surprised that we have plans for an administrative building at the whopping price of $5 + million. That seems high to me. I am surprised that these plans have proceeded apace without many of the district’s patrons realizing what the administration intends.
I would not quarrel with the decision to have a better administrative facility. Districts of the stature of Ames have better facilities. But a new expensive building is not exactly what the patrons of this district had in mind when they approved a bond issue for elementary schools.
We desperately need to root, anchor Ames with buildings to reflect the past, and we have too few of them presently.
Cordially
Dr. Dave
PS – The board is making its decision on this matter at our next meeting, December 3rd. If anyone knows of individuals who would like to share their thoughts with the school board, please encourage them to do so soon, or perhaps come to Monday’s meeting and offer your thoughts during the open forum portion at the very beginning of the meeting.
As mentioned in the last post, one of the difficulties faced in weighing options for the location of the district’s administrative building has been the differences in the alternatives. This post will lay out the costs for renovating Roosevelt and compare them to the 24th street site being proposed.
APPROACH IN STRUXTURE REPORT
In the report the board received at its November 5th meeting ( ACSD School Board Mtg – 11-05-12 – Exhibit D-1 – Location of Facilities for Administration and Facility Planning and Management ), the approach for remodeling was to renovate the original portion of the building. As shared previously, the architect felt:
The original structure of this building (Roosevelt) is beneficial to an adaptive reuse project because of its internal post and beam system. Interior walls can be completely removed and the space reconfigured.
The addition on the building was to be demolished and rebuilt. This would allow for the creation of spaces for a board room and a conference room. So all 21,000 sq ft should be easily adaptable to whatever use is needed.
ASSUMPTIONS IN THE 21,000 sq ft ESTIMATE
The work then turned to creating an estimate for ending up with 21,000 sq ft of space on the Roosevelt site. As I am not an architect, I worked with Struxture’s cost estimates. I then made some assumptions:
RESULTS
A link to a pdf is below and a jpeg is shown below:
By adjusting the size of the building space added to bring the total space on the Roosevelt site to 21,000 total costs at an estimated $5,555,128. This is comparison to $5,407,325 estimated for the 24th street site. This puts the estimates within $147,803 of each other. This is approximately 2.7% higher than the estimate provided for the 24th Street site.
CONCLUSION
If the comparison of options is closer to an “apples-to-apples” comparison, the costs are quite close. To me, this means the decision on locating the district’s central administrative staff should be based on factors other than cost.
Dr. Dave
PS – The board is making its decision on this matter at our next meeting, December 3rd. If anyone knows of individuals who would like to share their thoughts with the school board, please encourage them to do so soon, or perhaps come to Monday’s meeting and offer your thoughts during the open forum portion at the very beginning of the meeting.
INTRODUCTION
The school board is voting on where to place its administrative building at the upcoming meeting December 3, 2012. This is one in a series of posts exploring the topic.
OBSERVATIONS
One of the first things to be careful with is the exhibit you are using to pull numbers.
The first exhibit provided information on costs for using various sites for central administrative offices. And the second expanded to include costs for including Planning, Facilities & Maintenance staff (FP&M) in the new admin building. All costs shown are total project costs.
Exhibit F-1 – INFORMATION ON SITES (without FP&M)
| Site |
Roosevelt |
24th Street |
Crawford |
| Size |
19,800 sq ft |
15,500 sq ft |
22,000 sq ft |
| Cost |
$4,833,103 |
$4,344,120 |
$4,517,645 |
| Cost/sqft |
$244.10 |
$280.27 |
$205.35 |
Exhibit D-1 – INFORMATION ON SITES (with FP&M)
| Site |
Roosevelt |
24th Street |
Crawford |
| Size |
24,230 sq ft |
21,000 sq ft |
26,700 sq ft |
| Cost |
$6,293,551 |
$5,407,325 |
$6,379,479 |
| Cost/sqft |
$259.74 |
$257.49 |
$238.93 |
DIFFERENCES
| Site |
Roosevelt |
24th Street |
Crawford |
| Cost |
$1,460,448 |
$1,063,205 |
$1,861,834 |
| Cost/sqft |
+ $15.34 |
- $22.78 |
+ $33.58 |
DISCUSSION
In the September 24th exhibit, assuming the district did not want to house PF&M staff with central office staff, the total costs for each of the options were within $490,000 of each other. Looking at per square foot cost Crawford would have been the least expensive, followed by Roosevelt, then 24th street.
The November 5th exhibit showed a wider range of total costs with a high of nearly $6.4 million to a low of $ 5.4 million. Looking at per square foot cost, Crawford remained the lowest, with 24th and Roosevelt groups close together in 2nd and 3rd
These numbers generate a lot of questions. Things like – if Crawford is too small and the September Exhibit puts the cost of 22,000 sq ft at $4,517,645 why is it better to spend $5,407,325 for 21,000? Isn’t that $889,680 more for 1,000 less square feet?
As was mentioned by the facilities committee, all of the sites are quite different. With that, each site will bring its own challenges. As mentioned at the board table, efficiency in design likely accounts for most of the above difference.
As I mentioned at the board table, one of the key differences between the Roosevelt and 24th street options is the difference in size of space created. As mentioned earlier, the square foot costs were with $2.25 of each other. The question is – What would be the total costs if we looked at a closer “apples-to-apples” comparison?
In the next post I will use Struxture’s report and estimates to compare an estimate to remodel Roosevelt to a total of 21,000 sq ft which matches to size of the admin building on 24th street (with PF&M) which is being acted on at Monday’s meeting.
Dr. Dave
PS – The board is making its decision on this matter at our next meeting, December 3rd. If anyone knows of individuals who would like to share their thoughts with the school board, please encourage them to do so soon, or perhaps come to Monday’s meeting and offer your thoughts during the open forum portion at the very beginning of the meeting.
In the previous post, I mentioned a member of the public sending the board a note regarding something in Struxture’s report. Having asked and gotten permission to share the email, it is presented below.
Dr. Dave
PS – The board will be making a decision on this matter at our next meeting, December 3rd. If anyone knows of individuals who would like to share their thoughts with the school board, please encourage them to do so soon, or perhaps come to Monday’s meeting and offer your thoughts during the open forum portion at the very beginning of the meeting.
Dear School Board Directors,
I am e-mailing today with concern about the comments made by StruXture when evaluating Roosevelt for the administration facility. The use of a historic structure definitely overrides the concern about many small columns. Looking at StruXture’s projects on their website, only one looks “historic”. StruXture just does not have experience with older buildings. What StruXture sees as problems would not be problems for experienced preservation architects.
RDG has 21 projects listed under preservation on their website. Please look at the columns in the photos of Morrill Hall on the RDG Planning and Design website,
http://www.rdgusa.com/projects/iowa-state-university-morrill-hall
. As you will note, the office complex for the Center for Excellence in Learning and Teaching (CELT) in Morrill Hall and also the museum have many small columns. The columns are not a problem. Morrill Hall has received many awards and was in much worse condition when the rehabilitation project started than is Roosevelt. I am very familiar with the Morrill Hall project and the rehabilitation is wonderful. Please take a few minutes and walk through Morrill Hall on the ISU campus to see for yourself what can be done with the planning of an experienced restoration architectural firm. Morrill Hall is open weekdays from 7:30 to 5:30, the CELT office is open 8 to 5, and the museum is open 11 to 4.As for StruXture’s suggestion that the “newer part of Roosevelt be removed based on conditions and the overall cost to remedy water and structural damage to the lower levels” is very short-sighted as to what can be done with older buildings. You should have seen the basement of Morrill Hall before renovation! The basement in Morrill now is dry and houses the museum storage area for many works of art because the problems were fixed.
The current media center in Roosevelt would make a perfect meeting room for the board and community groups. Maybe it could also be used as a high tech classroom for teacher training. A new addition is not really needed. Although StruXture thought Roosevelt was too large, Dr. Taylor always has said that they have ways to use more space. Save the cost of demolition of the “newer” part of Roosevelt and let an experienced architect plan the rehabilitation of Roosevelt to meet the district’s administration needs.
In the Facilities Committee meeting of Sept. 19, the issue of “unpredictable life expectancy and less efficiency for work and energy usage” were suggested as drawbacks. According to preservationists who toured the building, Roosevelt is well built and “has certainly another 100 years of life.” According to preservationist Sam Erickson, “these buildings are incredibly energy efficient, they are sound, they are wonderful structures and they were built to last.”
I feel it is very appropriate to use a historic school building for the administration facility. It could be restored into a beautiful building with a modern interior to suit the needs of the district. Using Roosevelt would keep a presence for the district in the middle of the city and also honor a building that played an important part in the district’s history as well as an important part in the city’s history.
INTRODUCTION (read only if this is your first post on the subject)
Per the running conversation, the school board is going to decide where to place the district’s administrative offices. The current recommendation from the Facilities Committee is to place it up on 24th street and include the Planning, Facilities & Management (PFM) staff in a new building. The administration building would join the Facilities & Maintenance (F&M) building and the vehicle storage building with the athletic fields up on 24th street.
OBSERVATIONS
One of the issues captured in the matrix is the mention of pillars in Roosevelt. This is tied to the design of the building. In an earlier report from Struxture, the firm actually discussed tearing down the “newer” portion of the building and then mentioned the lack of open-spans for larger space needs. In the latest report, the firm recommends tearing down the addition and replacing it – allowing for open space.
A member of the public read the report and sent the board an email (I will share the email in the next post) on the issue of pillars and pointed out they aren’t necessarily a hindrance. The board was sent a link with photos of Morrill Hall on the ISU campus. The shots show the beautiful work that was done in renovating the building.
http://www.rdgusa.com/projects/iowa-state-university-morrill-hall
As is apparent in the images, wonderful and functional spaces can be developed – both to house offices as well as larger open space needs such as a conference room or board room.
DISCUSSION
I did ask at the board table why the “issue” of pillars was still in the matrix, though no clear explanation was discussed. I’ve come to believe that one’s view on this could be impacted by perception of the current condition of the building. I think the statement made by the architect says it best:
The original structure of this building (Roosevelt) is beneficial to an adaptive reuse project because of its internal post and beam system. Interior walls can be completely removed and the space reconfigured.
Enough said.
So it appears we know Roosevelt is suitable for renovating for use as the district’s administrative building, the question is whether board members see the value in doing so.
Dr. Dave
PS – The board will be making a decision on this matter at our next meeting, December 3rd. If anyone knows of individuals who would like to share their thoughts with the school board, please encourage them to do so soon, or perhaps come to Monday’s meeting and offer your thoughts during the open forum portion at the very beginning of the meeting.
As stated in an earlier post, I am sharing portions of emails from folks who have expressed support for using Roosevelt Elementary as the location for the district’s new administrative building.
An Email from a Retired 30-Year Educator to the School Board
Dear Ames School Board Member,
There are three important points I wish to make, as you contemplate facility decisions; they concern the KEEPING of Roosevelt and the possible re-location of the Ames Schools Administration building:
1. The historic Roosevelt building affords our community a very important education history, moment-in-time. It has played an important part, additionally, in the social and cultural life of Ames.
Architecture, like other visual arts, speaks about Us, As A Community.
It tells a story.
It says something about who we have been and who we are.
And by not demolishing Roosevelt, but rather, keeping it and re-purposing it as our education ‘hub,’- the Administration Building – allows the Ames community to “read the chapters of our history.”
A great many of Ames Citizens feel that it is important to preserve this aspect of our community heritage….taxpayers, former students, architects, construction engineers, community activists, etc. The building’s ties to Iowa State, architecture and the importance of education to this city, in general, are major.
2. The fact that the Roosevelt building is on the National Register of Historic Places is weighty. It was centrally built, in 1924…the ‘central’ significance ought be carried forward to a centrally-located administration building.
Re-purposing it for our administration building, would be retaining this building’s ‘sense of place.”
3. The science community, world-wide, recognizes ‘sustainability,’ by preservation and re-purposing, as necessary in lessening our carbon footprint. New building construction creates nearly twice as much greenhouse gas emissions than restoring an existing building. Additionally, re-purposing Roosevelt lessons the negative effect on emissions, water and resources. As an educationally entity, our school system should be a practicing example.
You are an elected leader; it is incumbent on you to consider the residents and the community at large, to understand science, and to be a leader in sustainability.
Your support to retain and re-purpose Roosevelt will allow the people Ames to keep this chapter of our past, to be good stewards of our environment – and add continuity with our educational future.
I strongly urge you to support keeping Roosevelt ‘in our school’s visual history’ by re-purposing Roosevelt for use as the district’s Historic Administration Building.
I appreciate your consideration of the information.
Dr. Dave
As stated in an earlier post, the school board is contemplating where to locate the district’s administrative offices. The current recommendation from the Facilities Committee is to place it up on 24th street and include the Planning, Facilities & Management (PFM) staff in a new building. The administration building would join the Facilities & Maintenance (F&M) building and the vehicle storage building with the athletic fields up on 24th street.
OBSERVATIONS
One of the pieces of input from the public regarding the placing of administration next to the F&M building and vehicle storage was concern about safety. Concern was raised about putting that much equipment and vehicle traffic in an area where kids and families need to go.
I do think that safety is something that should be considered. Whether it be trying to squeeze everything on any of the sites (Willson-Beardshear, Crawford, Roosevelt or 24th street), I don’t think it wise to put all three buildings together.
DISCUSSION
The board was told that education programs like Head Start could be placed in the Northwood pre-school center. While this is possible, I’m not sure it is wise to assume space will be available given the overall elementary building plan allows for growth from 15 units to 20 units. (Each elementary is being designed to add a unit if needed.)
Whether educational programming occurs within a proposed building on 24th street or not, kids and families will travel to the building for access to staff and services. Given there are areas with less traffic and fewer pieces of heavy equipment to dodge, placing admin on 24th street along with the Facilities & Maintenance (F&M) building and the vehicle storage building certainly would not be my first choice.
I think locating central administration on the Roosevelt site in a quieter neighborhood and away from the Facilities & Maintenance (F&M) and the vehicle storage buildings would be a much safer option.
Dr. Dave
PS – The board will likely be making a decision on this matter at our next meeting on December 3rd. If anyone knows of individuals who would like to share their thoughts with the school board, please encourage them to do so soon.
At Monday’s (11-05-12) regular school board meeting the board discussed where to locate the district’s administrative offices. The Facilities Committee brought forward a recommendation to place the district’s administrative staff, including the Planning, Facilities & Management staff in a new building to be located on 24th street. The exhibit is presented in the exhibit below:
The administration building would join the Facilities & Maintenance building, the vehicle storage building and the athletic fields up on 24th street. This concept was presented in a document presented previously to the board by Struxture Architects.
Of the four locations considered, both Willson-Beardshear and Crawford (where admin is currently) were eliminated due to size. Roosevelt was eliminated in larger part due to the negatives listed in the matrix and cost.
As time allows, I will work through the matrix and some of the comments made at the board table regarding using 24th street.
MAP
To put location in perspective, below is a boundary map of the district with the 24th street location highlighted:
OBSERVATIONS
The suggested location would put administration north of every school in the district except the preschool (current and future). This makes little sense to me given this will increase the distance staff must travel when compared to a site located among the schools.
Second thing to point out is that if the board is going to consider the population served in weighing the decision on where to locate administration, it needs to look at the whole district, not just the northern slice.
DISCUSSION
I believe equitable public access to administration is critically important. Perhaps my use of “central” administration in the title of this post exposes my belief that administrative offices should provide equitable access to staff and services to the entire district – something the 24th street sit does not provide.
While the 24th street location may be close to a couple of population groups, using population as a reason actually argues against the location.
Putting administration on 24th street will; 1) put the building north of all 5 elementary buildings, the middle school and the high school, 2) add travel (and possible reimbursement costs) for staff and deliveries (reproduction is housed in admin) and 3) create inequitable public access to administration, staff and services as well as any programming offered at the facility.
From the perspective of population, access and potential associated costs, the Roosevelt location is a more logical choice. I don’t support placing administration on 24th street.
Dr. Dave
PS – The board will likely be making a decision on this matter at our first meeting in December. If anyone knows of individuals who would like to share their thoughts with the school board, please encourage them to do so soon.
Toward the end of the last Monday’s regular school board meeting (11/19/12), one of the board members acknowledged folks who had been writing in support of Roosevelt for the district’s new administration building and that he wanted folks to know he had been getting them. Several folks who have written to me have commented on not getting responses from board members, so I personally appreciated his effort to let folks know he had been getting input.
As I have reflected on the emails, phone calls and conversations I have had from folks on this issue, I thought (as time allowed) I would share portions of some of the emails that have come in. As with anything I will post, they are used with the author’s permission.
A Email from an Ames Resident to the School Board
I am writing to ask you to consider renovating Roosevelt School to use as a new Administration Building.
I know many people who believe the School Board should use an existing building in the interests of historic preservation and sustainability. Even if the costs of renovation and building new are fairly close, those out-of-pocket cost estimates do not include the less tangible costs to the environment of disposing of all of the old building materials only to replace them with new. Ames is striving to be an environmentally friendly town; I hope you will serve as a model of sustainable behavior to the students, the parents, and other community members as you make this important decision.
People in Ames are quite justifiably proud of our city hall, which is a repurposed former school, and also of the YSS downtown building, which is another repurposed building, in this case a municipal building. If you have ever travelled to Europe you know that the sense of history those cities offer is a main attraction to tourists. In the US, being a newer country, we do not have centuries-old buildings, especially here in Iowa. So we should care for and preserve those older structures we do have, particularly when they are notable enough to be included on the National Historic Register, as Roosevelt School is.
Another reason for the School Board to consider this alternative very seriously is that it would be seen as a very healing and gracious action for you to take. For reasons I do not begin to understand Roosevelt school has been a source of contention. Keeping the building and not using it as a school, but using it for community purposes, would be a win-win for the community. Those who did not want it re-opened as a school win. Those who value the cultural and social history embedded in the building would win as well. The neighborhood around Roosevelt is centered on that building and adjacent green space. If the building is sold, the space immediately adjacent may be used very differently than it is now. The community there has already lost its school. Even though I do not live there, I would hope the community may be able to maintain its well-used and widely-shared civic green space. They have created a wonderful locus of activity, caring, and sharing for one another. That neighborhood serves as a model for the entire town, in my opinion. And neighborhoods are another aspect of local governance which Ames claims to promote and take pride in.
As they say in real estate, it’s all about location, location, location. Putting a new building on the north end of town sends a very different signal to the community members than does renovating a building centrally located, situated in a very close-knit neighborhood, near downtown and ISU. I think the School Board wants to send a message of inclusiveness rather than of efforts to be separate from the community. The Roosevelt location sends that message of inclusiveness and caring about all of the Ames community quite strongly.
I do not know if the Administration building funding will require another bond issue. If so, I believe you could probably raise the money much more easily if you are renovating an existing building than if you build entirely new. The public did pay not that long ago for renovations to Crawford, a school closing that met with some public resistance. I do not know if the public will want to build yet another new building, while the School board is closing and or demolishing existing buildings. I think preserving a much-loved and historic structure would be a much easier sales job. And not only would you make your public relations task easier, you would be taking a more sustainable approach to an historically significant building, and would be helping to preserve and strengthen one of Ames’s most venerable and active neighborhoods.
Thank you for your attention.
As time allows prior to a board decision, I will try to post other emails and some of my thoughts on the location of the district’s administrative offices. I expect this will be determined at the board’s next regular meeting so anyone with thoughts on the matter should share them soon.
Dr. Dave
The school board will gather at at 5pm at Crawford Monday November 26th to conduct interview for the construction manager work to be done on the new elementary school on Miller avenue.
The board will work through interviewing five different firms. Per the agenda, the schedule of interviews is:
The general format will allow for a presentation by the firm not to exceed 20 minutes which will allow at least 10 minutes for the board to ask questions.
As noted on the agenda: The public is welcome to observe, but the audience will not participate.
Dr. Dave
If you have been following any of the facilities discussion tied to use of property, you have likely heard a lot of discussion of “single-family” homes. So why is this the case?
The Ames school district is surrounded by other school districts. As has been discussed many times on this blog, the district’s annual operating budget is determined primarily be a simple equation Annual Budget = Number of Students x Cost per Student What this means is that Ames can’t expand the amount of property in the school district. For the annual budget to go up, either we need more students or more $ per student.
A previous board discussed land use with the city and asked the underlying zoning for land owned by the school district should be low-density, suitable for single-family homes – thus increasing the chance for more students.
The question, of course, is whether the school board should consider how land would be used as it deliberates on unneeded property.
From a financial perspective, there are two aspects: funds from sale of the land and the operating funds generated by students moving in. (At this point, I’m not discussing property tax generated because land value gets added to the total tax base in Ames ( and difference in use would be very minor) and total funds generated are not determined by the tax base.)
There are too many combinations to explore them here – lets look at one for illustration. Let’s consider OPTION 1 – land used solely for high-end college student housing (no K-12 children) and OPTION 2 – land used for single family homes.
Land Purchase Price:
K-12 Students Moving in:
Looking at the revenue generated over 20 year period,
| OPTION 2 | |||
| Year | Land | Operating $ | Total |
| 0 | $1,000,000 | 0 | $1,000,000 |
| 1 | 0 | $30,000 | $30,000 |
| 2 | 0 | $60,000 | $60,000 |
| 3 | 0 | $90,000 | $90,000 |
| 4 | 0 | $120,000 | $120,000 |
| 5 | 0 | $150,000 | $150,000 |
| 6 | 0 | $180,000 | $180,000 |
| 7 | 0 | $210,000 | $210,000 |
| 8 | 0 | $240,000 | $240,000 |
| 9 | 0 | $270,000 | $270,000 |
| 10 | 0 | $300,000 | $300,000 |
| 12 | 0 | $300,000 | $300,000 |
| 13 | 0 | $300,000 | $300,000 |
| 14 | 0 | $300,000 | $300,000 |
| 15 | 0 | $300,000 | $300,000 |
| 16 | 0 | $300,000 | $300,000 |
| 17 | 0 | $300,000 | $300,000 |
| 18 | 0 | $300,000 | $300,000 |
| 19 | 0 | $300,000 | $300,000 |
| 20 | 0 | $300,000 | $300,000 |
| $1,000,000 | $4,350,000 | $5,350,000 |
Comparing this to Option 1′s $2,000,000 in land and nothing in operating funds, two things stand out.
Now one could easily argue that some K-12 students could move in under Option 1. While true, the number of K-12 students would be considerably less. With that in mind, one could use the chart above to estimate operating funds generated by using the “difference” in the number of K-12 students. So if there are 50 more students in Option 2 $4,350,000 more in operating $ is generated over 20 years. That number is $3,480,000 with 40 students and $2,610,000 with a difference of 30 students.
Given the past history of tight operating budgets, periodic large cuts to operating budgets and the demonstrated impact having K-12 students move into the district, it seems clear the use of land needs to be part of the discussion the school board has regarding the sale of property.
Dr. Dave
Theme: Rubric. Blog at WordPress.com.
