pre-1028 february 8, 2007 clark-pleasant middle school the clark-pleasant community school...

Pre-1028 February 8, 2007

Clark-Pleasant Middle School

THE CLARK-PLEASANT COMMUNITY SCHOOL CORPORATION

The mission of the Clark-Pleasant Community School Corporation is to provide an educational program that enables students to make positive contributions to society. They should be challenged to excel as responsible lifelong learners, held accountable for setting and achieving personal goals, and develop positive self-esteem




Agenda

1. Introduction of Pre-1028 Design Workshop Process

2. Recap of Building Program (SCOPE) and Basis of Design and Conceptual Design (QUALITY)”

3. Workshop No. 3: “Establish Basis of Budget (COST) and Tax Impact”

4. Stakeholder Concerns, Questions/Answers

5. Next Meeting





1.1 Welcome

1.2 Team Introduction of Workshop Attendees

1.3 CPCSC Board of School Trustees

David Stephenson

Howard Young

Jeff Brinkman

Brian Drake

David Penoff





1.4 CPCSC Administration

Dr. J.T. Coopman, SuperintendentMr. Steve Sonntag, Director of BusinessMr. Jay Wise, Facilities and Project ManagerMr. Jim White, Director of TechnologyMrs. Sondra Wooton, Principal, CPCSC Middle SchoolMr. Brad Arbuckle, Assistant Principal, CPCSC Middle

SchoolMr. Jay Staley, Athletic Director, CPCSC Middle School





1.5 Consulting Team: CSO Schenkel Shultz and Educational Services

Jim Schellinger, AIA – PrincipalJohn Rigsbee, AIA, LEEP®AP – Principal/Project ManagerDr. Rosemary Rehak, LEEP®AP – Educational

Programmer/ PlannerRejan Westfall, LEEP®AP – Project ArchitectDr. Tom Grabill – President, Educational ServicesDr. Donald Dyck – Consultant, Educational Services




1. Introduction of Pre-1028 Design Workshop Process (Continued)

1.6 Project Balance…………………For The Middle School Project

SCOPE(Program

Requirements)

QUALITY(Conceptual/

Basis of Design)

COST(Basis of Budget)

Project Schedule





1.7 Pre-1028 Design Workshop ScheduleWorkshop No. 1: “Establishing the Need, Understanding Stakeholder

Concerns/ Questions and Development of the Building Program (SCOPE)”

Thursday, January 11, 20076:30 p.m. – 8:00 p.m.Clark-Pleasant Middle School

Workshop No. 2: “Develop Basis of Design and Conceptual Design (QUALITY)”

Thursday, January 25, 20076:30 p.m. – 8:00 p.m.Clark-Pleasant Middle School

Workshop No. 3: “Establish Basis of Budget (COST), Tax Impact and Project Timeline”

Thursday, February 8, 20076:30 p.m. – 8:00 p.m.Clark-Pleasant Middle School





1.7 Pre-1028 Design Workshop Schedule (Continued)Pre-1028 Board Board meeting to wrap-up Pre-1028 workshops and

gain Meeting: consensus on the project’s scope, quality, cost and schedule.

Tuesday, February 20, 20076:30 p.m. – 8:00 p.m.Clark-Pleasant Administration Building

1028 and Preliminary 1028 Hearing and the PreliminaryDetermination Determination Hearing.Hearings:

Thursday, February 22, 20076:30 p.m. – 8:00 p.m.Clark-Pleasant Middle School




2. Recap of Building Program (Scope) and Basis of Design and Conceptual Design (QUALITY)”

2.1 Program Summary (SCOPE)

Net Programmed Area

Low High Low High

1. Student Learning Spaces 74,550 sf 1.30 1.35 96,915 sf 100,643 sf2. Performing and Visual Arts Space 18,300 sf 1.30 1.35 23,790 sf 24,705 sf3. Media Center and Technology Spaces 14,700 sf 1.30 1.35 19,110 sf 19,845 sf4. Fitness and Wellness Spaces 56,350 sf 1.30 1.35 73,255 sf 76,073 sf5. Cafeteria/Kitchen Spaces 15,230 sf 1.30 1.35 19,799 sf 20,561 sf6. Administration & Staff Spaces 7,280 sf 1.30 1.35 9,464 sf 9,828 sf7. Common/Interaction Spaces 10,500 sf 1.30 1.35 13,650 sf 14,175 sf8. Facility Management & Support Spaces 13,300 sf 1.30 1.35 17,290 sf 17,955 sf

Sub-Total Net S.F. 210,210 sf 63,063 sf 73,574 sf 273,273 sf 283,784 sf

9. Outdoor Facilities 4,800 sf 1.10 1.10 5,280 sf 5,280 sfTotal Net S.F. 215,010 sf 63,543 sf 74,054 sf 278,553 sf 289,064 sf

* Definition of Grossing Factor:

168 sf 174 sf

Grossing Factor* Gross Building Area

Allowance for all other 'non-program' building areas, such as corridors, stairs, mechanical shafts, wall thicknesses, etc.

Building Areas

Area per Student (not including outdoor facilities)




Programmed1. Student Learning Spaces 632. Performing and Visual Arts Space 53. Media Center and Technology Spaces 04. Fitness and Wellness Spaces 05. Cafeteria/Kitchen Spaces 06. Administration & Staff Spaces 07. Common/Interaction Spaces 08. Facility Management & Support Spaces 0

Sub-Total Teaching Stations 68

9. Outdoor Facilities 0Total Teaching Stations 68

Teaching Stations






ProgrammedTotal Actual

Students 1. Student Learning Spaces 1,622 0.85 13792. Performing and Visual Arts Space 242 0.85 2063. Media Center and Technology Spaces 52 0.85 444. Fitness and Wellness Spaces 0 N/A 05. Cafeteria/Kitchen Spaces 0 N/A 06. Administration & Staff Spaces 0 N/A 07. Common/Interaction Spaces 0 N/A 08. Facility Management & Support Spaces 0 N/A 0

Sub-Total Teaching Stations 1916 1629

9. Outdoor Facilities 0 N/A 0Total Student Capacity 1629

Students Efficiency Factor






Table of Contents• Sitework• Building Structural Systems• Building Exterior• Building Interior• Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning (HVAC) System• Plumbing Systems• Electrical Systems• Technology Systems


2.2 “Basis of Design (QUALITY)” (Reviewed at Workshop No. 2)





2.3 Conceptual Design (QUALITY)





3.1 “Basis of Budget (COST)”

Parameter System

Cost/SF Cost

Substructure 10.00$ 2,105,000$

Structural Frame - Floor Structure 12.50$ 817,500$

- Roof Structure 10.50$ 2,210,000$

Roofing 7.50$ 1,580,000$

Exterior Walls 16.50$ 4,620,000$

Interior Subdivision 12.00$ 3,360,000$

Vertical Circulation 0.50$ 137,500$

Wall Finishes 2.25$ 630,000$

Floor Finishes 4.25$ 1,168,750$

Ceiling Finishes 3.00$ 840,000$

Millwork and Specialties 1.25$ 350,000$

New Middle SchoolEquipment (Excluding Food Service) 4.25$ 1,190,000$

Casework 4.25$ 1,190,000$

Site Development 12.50$ 3,500,000$

Food Service Equipment 2.50$ 687,500$

Fire Protection 2.50$ 687,500$

Plumbing 7.00$ 1,960,000$

HVAC 19.00$ 5,320,000$

Electrical (Excluding Technology) 17.00$ 4,760,000$

General Conditions 2.75$ 770,000$

General Contractor's O/Head & Profit 5.25$ 1,470,000$

Contractor's Performance & Payment Bonds 7.75$ 2,170,000$

TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST 41,523,750$

Average Cost per Square Foot 148.30$




New Middle School (continued)

Total Construction Hard Costs $41,523,750

Project Soft Costs * $12,476,25030% of Construction Costs

Total Project Costs $54,000,000

Project Soft costs include Construction Contingency, A/E Fees, Reimbursable Expenses, Loose Fixture, Furniture and Equipment, Cost of Bond Issuance, Capitalized Interest, Land Acquisition Costs)






Improvements to Existing Middle School

Existing Middle School Improvements

1 Upgrade existing rest rooms to make toilet stalls ADA compliant and to raise heights of wall-mounted lavatories. $90,000

2 Add three (3) janitorial closets. Locations TBD. Locations will be near existing water and sewer. $40,000

3 Add a second entry/exit at cafeteria at location of existing storage room. $30,000

4 Relocate faculty dining area and extend serving lines into existing faculty dining area. $70,000

5 Replace existing central water heater. $25,0006 Paint existing metal roof and metal trim. $90,0007 Complete roof repairs $90,0008 Replace student lockers $175,0009 Band room and choir room addition $1,500,000

10 Miscellaneous Improvements $200,000Total $2,310,000






Total Construction Costs $2,310,000

Project Soft Costs* $690,00030% of Construction Costs


Improvements to Existing Middle School (continued)







Improvements to Existing High School






Total Construction Costs $2,310,000

Project Soft Costs* $690,00030% of Construction Costs


Improvements to Existing High School (continued)








3.2 Tax Impact

Complex Choices

• Capacity for rapid enrollment growth• Program priorities competing with space for enrollment growth• Staff/student safety, disruption and the need for construction in

transition• Rapid residential growth outpacing limited bonding capacity• Construction to handle future growth while trying to maintain stable

debt service fund tax rate• Legislative and economic development actions out of Clark-Pleasant

control





3.2 Tax Impact

• $54,000,000 Lease Rental Bond, issued 2008, 25 year lease term (New MS)• $ 3,000,000 Lease Rental Bond, issued 2009, 25 year lease term (9th Gr. Center)• $ 3,000,000 Lease Rental Bond, issued 2010, 25 year lease term (HS Improve.)• $60,000,000 Total Lease Rental Bonds Proposed

• Assessed Valuation – used 7% annual increase except in 2007; 3% used to account for elimination of inventory tax

• Bond Interest Rates – today’s rate approx. 4 ½%; used 5 ½% estimated for 2008 issue, used 5.75% for 2009 issue and 6.0% for 2010 issue.

Proposed Finance Plan and Assumptions





3.2 Tax ImpactDebt Service Tax Rate for Clark-Pleasant Community School Corporation

0.7542

0.7997 0.7992

0.7505

0.822

0.8594

0.8011

0.7572

0.7075

0.5925

0.8968

$-

$0.10

$0.20

$0.30

$0.40

$0.50

$0.60

$0.70

$0.80

$0.90

$1.00

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

DEBT R

ATE

YEAR

These projected tax rates include all existing debt and the additional debt from the proposed projects. The proposed projects include the construction of a new Clark-Pleasant Middle School, the conversion of the existing Middle School to a 9thgrade center and improvements to the Whiteland Comm. High School

The total Project Cost for the above projects is proposed at $60,000,000.00.





3.2 Tax Impact

0.00301,752,269,4084,705,0002014

0.04691,637,634,9614,705,0002013

0.10521,530,499,9644,705,0002012

0.14261,430,373,7983,791,0002011

0.06781,336,797,9421,835,0002010

Rate ImpactValuePaymentYear

D.S. TaxAssessedPayment

0.00301,752,269,4084,705,0002014

0.04691,637,634,9614,705,0002013

0.10521,530,499,9644,705,0002012

0.14261,430,373,7983,791,0002011

0.06781,336,797,9421,835,0002010

Rate ImpactValuePaymentYear

D.S. TaxAssessedPayment

2008 Middle School Project

Taxpayer Impact





3.2 Tax Impact

0.410.290.160.00302014

6.454.492.540.04692013

14.4710.085.700.10522012

19.6113.677.720.14262011

9.326.503.670.06782010

DS Tax Rate ImpactYear

$200,000 Home$150,000 Home$100,000 Home

Monthly Debt Service Tax Cost for Homeowners

0.410.290.160.00302014

6.454.492.540.04692013

14.4710.085.700.10522012

19.6113.677.720.14262011

9.326.503.670.06782010

DS Tax Rate ImpactYear

$200,000 Home$150,000 Home$100,000 Home

Monthly Debt Service Tax Cost for Homeowners





Why does renovating CPMS into 9th grade center cost $5 million? The initial budget projection in the Taskforce Report was $5 million; however, the scope of the work required has been refined during the Pre-1028 planning process and was reviewed in Workshop No. 3. It is estimated that the total project cost for the 9th grade center will be $3 million.

Projections of tax rates into 2016? The projected tax impact for the middle school, 9th grade center and high school improvements was reviewed in Workshop No. 3. The tax impact charts can be reviewed in the powerpoint that is on the CPCSC website.




4. Stakeholder Concerns, Questions/Answers Franklin Comm. High School came in over budget . . . How are

we going to put in restrictions on building projects? Who watches over our building projects costs? Why can’t local community builders receive the bids? Mr. Jay Wise of the CPCSC oversees all building projects. The key to containing project costs is to properly define the project’s Scope, Quality and Cost upfront. Detailed estimates are then required at the completion of Schematic Design, Design Development and Construction Document phases. CPCSC has had a successful history of completing projects on time and on budget. Local builders are eligible to bid on CPCSC projects but must follow public bidding requirements.




4. Stakeholder Concerns, Questions/Answers What is the timeframe/plan for Pleasant Crossing Elementary?

Pleasant Crossing Elementary School is scheduled to open in the Fall of 2007; however, will need to utilize some portable learning labs initially until the final phase of construction is completed.

What is the interest rate for the $55 million needed for the Middle School? Today the interest rate would be 4.5%; however, since the project will not be bid for over a year, a 5.5% interest rate has been used in the financial projections to allow for rate increases.

Is the interest rate the same for new construction vs. renovation? The interest rate is the same for new construction and renovation.




4. Stakeholder Concerns, Questions/Answers Were the temporary classrooms acceptable to taskforce?

Outdoor learning labs are never the first choice for any school district or taskforce; however, utilizing outdoor learning labs was and is inevitable to address the growth in CPCSC.

What about placing the school’s offices in the temporary classrooms? Placing administrative offices in outdoor learning labs was considered but not recommended due to the limited area being designated for administration vs. classrooms, the desire to minimize reconstruction and the cost associated with same in a new building and due to the fact that the outdoor learning labs are designed as classrooms and are not conducive to administration needs. There is also a significant security concern with having the administration zone remotely located.




4. Stakeholder Concerns, Questions/Answers Will the enrollment plateau in 10 years or continue to climb?

Enrollment is expected to increase significantly over the next 10 years and beyond. However, CPCSC recommends that a demographic study be completed every two years to insure that CPCSC is working from the most current enrollment projections.

How many acres does the school own and where? Room for athletic fields? The site for the proposed Middle School is located at Worthsville Road east of Intermediate School and consists of approximately 94 acres . There is more than enough room for the required athletic fields.





Have the school and City of Greenwood had conversations? T.I.F.? The City of Greenwood will continue to encourage development and, as such, is expected to have T.I.F.’s. Historically, the City of Greenwood has not communicated its development plans or initiatives to CPCSC.

Taskforce did good job . . . Not a parent but biggest request is family can’t get high speed internet . . . What’s best way to be involved? The best way to get involved is to be a regular attendee at the Pre-1028 planning workshops and at future Board meetings. Continually reviewing the CPCSC website is also a way to stay involved and connected.




4. Stakeholder Concerns, Questions/Answers What is offered at the Education & Community Center? Public

meeting space for small and large group meetings is available at the Education and Community Center.

Build conservative buildings in the future . . . Mentioned staircase at WCHS. CPCSC is committed to quality school facilities and believes the community is supportive of this. CPCSC is also committed to “responsible design” and does not endorse overbuilding or educational facilities with costly amenities that do not contribute to student acheivement.




4. Stakeholder Concerns, Questions/Answers How prepared are we to handle full day Kindergarten? CPCSC

is waiting on the outcome from the General Assembly relative to the potential impact and timing of full day Kindergarten. Sawmill Woods could become a Kindergarten center if needed; however, all options will be studied.

Transportation – CPMS student issue . . . Early time to catch bus. The CPCSC redistricting committee is looking at the time, density and distance of transportation as this drives cost. CPCSC works to limit ride time to 1 hour or less. Tiered bussing will continue and start times at schools will vary accordingly.




4. Stakeholder Concerns, Questions/Answers Do the new residential developments have literature in their

model homes to give to parents? This is a developer driven issue. When possible, CPCSC does provide information to developers of residential communities. The CPCSC website information is also provided to developers.

Two High Schools – smaller school size. As a taxpayer, would like to see taxes on Option A vs. Option B. The Taskforce explored the potential to have two High Schools in lieu of one; however, the Taskforce determined this was not feasible not only because of the initial expense and tax impact but, moreover, due to the operating costs of two schools. The Taskforce concluded two High Schools is not feasible.





A list of all the land CPCSC currently owns which it has not developed, and the prices paid for the owned parcels. A summary of the undeveloped land CPCSC currently owns is as follows:

Clark-Pleasant Community School Corporation Land Inventory as of December 31, 2006

Location of Land

Potential Land Usage

Number of Total Acres

Acres Currently

Under Construction

Available, Undeveloped

Acres

Total Amount of Land Purchase*

Stones Crossing & 125W New Pleasant Crossing Elementary (partial)

92.186 -30.11 62.076 $18,843,720

Worthsville Road, E of Intermediate School

Future School Site 78.155 0 78.155 $1,563,100

Worthsville Road, E of Intermediate School (adjacent to land above)

Future School Site 16.07 0 16.070 $321,758

Five Points Road, North of Main Street

Future School Site 31.03 0 31.030 $772,647

Worthsville Road & 250E Future School Site 42.5166 0 42.517 $1,062,915

Tracy Road & Front Street New Operations Building (partial) 109.34 -34.5 74.840 $2,563,590

Total Acres 369,2976 -64.61 304.688 *Does not include title fees, recording fees, attorney costs, etc.





All budgets and final actual expenses for any school system construction project over $100,000 since 1996. A summary of the recent construction projects is as follows. Additional information relative to the budgets and final actual expense for projects over $100,000 is available and can be reviewed by making an appointment with Mr. Jay Wise at CPCSC.• 1997 – Renovated Old BOD for Kindergarten Center

($2,732,150)• 1998-99 – Renovated and Enlarged CPMS ($10,087,450)• 2000 – Renovated South Hallways of Old BOD to include

First Grade Classes – Renamed Sawmill Woods Elementary School ($1,126,380)

• 2001 – Added Bleachers to Football and Softball Fields and Constructed PE Team Building ($724,455)

• 2001-03 – Renovated and Enlarged WCHS and WES ($29,135,201)





All budgets and final actual expenses for any school system construction project over $100,000 since 1996. A summary of the recent construction projects is as follows. Additional information relative to the budgets and final actual expense for projects over $100,000 is available and can be reviewed by making an appointment with Mr. Jay Wise at CPCSC. (Continued)• 2002-03 – Constructed Soccer Fields and Added Lights

($152,950)• 2003 – Constructed APC/VO AG Greenhouse Building

($361,240)• 2003 – Construct Athletic Grounds/Maintenance Building

($86,000)• 2003-04 – Construction Intermediate School for Grades 5-6

($14,311,439)• 2003-04 – Add Portable Learning Labs at CES ($42,644)





All budgets and final actual expenses for any school system construction project over $100,000 since 1996. A summary of the recent construction projects is as follows. Additional information relative to the budgets and final actual expense for projects over $100,000 is available and can be reviewed by making an appointment with Mr. Jay Wise at CPCSC. (Continued)• 2004-05 – Additions and Renovations to CES and BOD

($3,326,000)• 2005-06 – Construction of New Operations Center

($5,929,234)• 2005-06 – Renovations and Additions to Education and

Community Center ($3,642,000)• 2006-07 – Construction of New Elementary School

($17,054,225)





Tax impact studies (if they exist) for the proposed schools/additions found in the Long Range Task Force Report presented in November, 2006 to the School Board. The tax impact for the proposed projects outlined by the Long Range Task Force were reviewed in Workshop No. 3 and are included in Workshop No. 3 power point on the CPCSC website.





The process for determining current bus routes and bus schedules, and information about each bus run (start/end/route, and usual duration of route). The process for determining the bus routes is as follows:

PROCESS FOR DETERMINING BUS ROUTES

The capacities of the buses and the density of student location assist in designing bus routes. Students may only ride their scheduled bus and board/de-board from their assigned shop. If a temporary alternate destination is required, then the student must request a bus pass from his/her home school. Bus routes are created with a maximum ride time of 1 hour and 15 minutes. In the event a bus route does take longer, adjustments will be made to the route to prevent excessive ride times. Bus routes will consist of one building load per bus. No routes will transfer from one building to another with the exception of Break-O-Day and Sawmill Woods. Studies have shown that mixing age groups and grades often lead to high levels of disciplinary issue sand high levels of stress. We believe it is in the best interest of the corporation and the community to keep the students on the buses with their peers. When possible, the transportation department will create 2 tier routes when bell times allow. This process allows one bus to service two schools. Single tier routes will always exist due to time restraints. The buses that serve these single tier routes often can be used as a substitute bus for a morning or afternoon route. This helps the department manage schedules when the substitute driver pool is inadequate. A sophisticated bus routing program facilitates CPCSC to efficiently design, maintain, and monitor routes. This program is accessible by the schools and the community to gain information about bus routes and bus stops.





Information on portable classrooms – which vendors provide these, and what are the prices and features of the portable classrooms. The outdoor learning lab vendor is Williams Scotsman out of Indianapolis. Delivery and set up costs $3,102.00. Monthly rental is $852.00 per month. Knockdown and return freight is $2,071.00. All costs are per unit and each unit features two classrooms. Based on projected use, it is estimated that each unit cost CPCSC approximately $20,000.00.





It appears the school system employs a number of consultants to help it deal with issues related to growth, including the Educational Services Company, and CSO Schenkel Shultz Architects. For each consulting individual or group, we would request:

• The fees being paid to each consultant, by year, and generally itemized (e.g. by date, or type of work) if possible

• A copy of the contract under which the consultant is or has worked for CPCSC

• The qualifications (if possible CV’s or resumes) for the consultants.





It appears the school system employs a number of consultants to help it deal with issues related to growth, including the Educational Services Company, and CSO Schenkel Shultz Architects. For each consulting individual or group, we would request: (Continued)

In keeping with the CPCSC Long Range Plan, CPCSC engaged the services of CSO Schenkel Shultz to serve as Architect on the Pleasant Crossing Elementary School project. CSO Schenkel Shultz, including all engineering, building code, accessibility, acoustical, kitchen and other specialized consultants, fee is $617,500 which is a very competitive fee based on project information available through the Department of Local Government Finance (DLGF).






The services of Educational Services Company (ESC) were engaged for the development of the Long Range Plan developed by the “Decades of Excellence Taskforce”. The fee for these services and the services for all work through the 1028 Hearing Process is $18,000. The demographic study provided through ESC was $6,875.






CSO Schenkel Shultz provided architectural services for the Long Range Plan but did so at no charge to CPCSC. The majority of the Pre-1028 Planning Services are being provided by CSO Schenkel Shultz at no charge to CPCSC based on their long term commitment to CPCSC.






CPCSC has and continues to hire only the most qualified, proven professionals to serve our planning and project needs. Statements of Qualifications can be provided upon request directed to:

Mr. Tom Grabill – ESC: [email protected] Mr. Jim Schellinger – CSO: [email protected]

Contracts for all of the work previously noted are available at the CPCSC Education and Community Center and can be reviewed by contacting Mr. Jay Wise to set up an appointment.





Teacher Pay and qualifications – some of the data with regard to teacher pay appears in various places on the web, we were wondering if it would be possible to have a list of current salaries and qualifications (i.e., educational or extracurricular qualification (BS, MA info) and years experience.) The CPCSC

Master Contract which outlines teacher pay is included on the CPCSC website and the Indiana Department of Education website. If additional information is needed, contact Mr. Steve Sonntag to set up an appointment.

2006-07

Yrs. Exp. # of Teachers (FTE) Salary Totals0 15 $33,579 $503,6851 10 $34,502 $345,0202 17 $35,437 $602,4293 22 $36,360 $799,9204 17 $37,283 $633,8115 13 $38,230 $496,9906 9 $39,254 $353,2867 5 $40,291 $201,4558 4 $41,340 $165,3609 10 $42,363 $423,630

10 8 $43,400 $347,20011 3 $44,524 $133,57212 1 $45,675 $45,67513 1 $46,813 $46,81314 1 $46,813 $46,81315 0 $46,813 $016 0 $46,813 $017 0 $46,813 $018 1 $46,813 $46,813

Totals 137 $5,192,472

0 15 $33,579 $503,6851 10 $34,502 $345,0202 17 $35,437 $602,4293 22 $36,360 $799,9204 17 $37,283 $633,8115 13 $38,230 $496,9906 9 $39,254 $353,2867 5 $40,291 $201,4558 4 $41,340 $165,3609 10 $42,363 $423,630

10 8 $43,400 $347,20011 3 $44,524 $133,57212 1 $45,675 $45,67513 1 $46,813 $46,81314 1 $46,813 $46,81315 0 $46,813 $016 0 $46,813 $017 0 $46,813 $018 1 $46,813 $46,813

CLARK-PLEASANT COMMUNITY SCHOOL CORPORATIONSCATTERGRAM OF TEACHERS WITH BACHELORS DEGREE

2006 - 2007 SCHOOL YEAR





The number of students eating breakfast at school (the totals for each school, if possible for the last three years and free lunch program data (again, just the total for each school in the system for the past 3 years.) The average daily breakfast counts at each school for the last four years is as follows:

School Year 2003-2004 School Year 2004-2005WCHS 34 (3 months) WCHS 57WES 67 CPI 134BES 101 WES 92SWE 35 BES 102SWE 87

School Year 2005-2006WCHS 94 BES 117CPMS 90 SWE 121CPI 137WES 111





The number of students eating breakfast at school (the totals for each school, if possible for the last three years and free lunch program data (again, just the total for each school in the system for the past 3 years.) The average daily breakfast counts at

each school for the last four years is as follows:

(Continued)

Total

F R F R F R F R F R F R F R F R F R F R F R F R F R

BES 2 47 29 45 31 39 26 219

CES 24 4 24 11 24 8 29 8 19 9 160

SWE 34 17 102 44 197

WES 27 12 46 8 40 15 28 7 183

85 33 128 55 117 45 114 54 86 42 759

CPI 94 52 103 40 289

CPMS 85 55 96 50 286

WCHS 87 50 63 46 68 29 59 27 429

1763

BES

CES

SWE

WES

CPI

CPMS

WCHS

CORP

Elem. Total

Corp. Total

Total by Grade

7Kdg. 1 2 3 12

CLARK-PLEASANT COMMUNITY SCHOOL CORPORATIONFree & Reduced Numbers (1-16-07)

8 9 10 114 5 6

35.79%

33.72%

F&R % of enrollment

35.16%

30.28%

45.72%

25.76%

37.74%

32.21%





The number of students for whom English is a Second Language, just a total per school (again, for the last 3 years would be great). The number of students for whom English is a second language is as follows:

ELL-English language learner denotes a bilingual student who is not yet proficient. This student will be assessed a level 1 through 4, or NP (not proficient) or AP (approaching proficient) on our new placement tests. Any of these students can receive English language development services as needed. It follows that our lower level students require more services than our some of our level 3’s and 4’s or our AP students. Higher level students benefit from tutoring, resource help, having tests read, and other services as needed. FEP- Fluent English proficient denotes a bilingual student who is fluent/proficient in English. Those students who turn fluent/proficient during their tenure at CPCSC must be monitored for a period of 3 years. 2004-05 numbers were taken directly from the language minority report for that year. 2005-06 numbers were taken from the language minority report and from student move-ins throughout the spring of 2006 when many students moved into our corporation. 2006-07 numbers represent our current enrollment in preparation for our upcoming language minority report due in March 2007.

2004-05 2005-06 2006-07* ELL FEP ELL FEP ELL FEP CES 4 0 5 27 49 22 WES 5 0 6 4 9 6 BES 6 0 8 11 20 9 SWE 13 0 13 8 19 5 CPIS 15 0 3 19 39 18 CPMS 7 0 11 12 22 7

WCHS 13 0 20 31 85 45

TOTAL-ELL 63 66 243

ELL-English language learner denotes a bilingual student who is not yet proficient. This student will be assessed a level 1 through 4, or NP (not proficient) or AP (approaching proficient) on our new placement tests. Any of these students can receive English language development services as needed. It follows that our lower level students require more services than our some of our level 3’s and 4’s or our AP students. Higher level students benefit from tutoring, resource help, having tests read, and other services as needed. FEP- Fluent English proficient denotes a bilingual student who is fluent/proficient in English. Those students who turn fluent/proficient during their tenure at CPCSC must be monitored for a period of 3 years. 2004-05 numbers were taken directly from the language minority report for that year. 2005-06 numbers were taken from the language minority report and from student move-ins throughout the spring of 2006 when many students moved into our corporation. 2006-07 numbers represent our current enrollment in preparation for our upcoming language minority report due in March 2007.





A brief description of the relationship between CPCSC and the Growing Schools Coalition (are we members of this organization, if so, for how long, what are we spending to be members, and briefly, what is their objective and what outcomes have they been able to achieve to date. Regarding the Coalition of Growing and Suburban Schools, Clark-Pleasant Community School Corporation is a member school corporation along with 24 other Indiana school corporations. The premise of the Coalition is school corporations with growing enrollments have different and unique needs that require special legislative considerations. Therefore, these school districts have banded together to create a politically viable contingency that can have their needs addressed with legislators through a lobbyist. We paid a $2400 membership fee this year to pay the meeting expenses and the cost of the lobbyist’s fees. We feel participating in this group has had a positive effect on legislation geared for these unique school corporations.





Who is conducting the Public Survey? The Winston-Terrell Group is conducting the public survey. They are very experienced and have coordinated similar surveys for numerous Central Indiana school corporations.

How is the survey being conducted? The survey is a telephone survey. Over 1800 calls will be made in an effort to obtain 400 completed surveys.

Who is formulating the questions? The survey questions were developed by CPCSC, ESC, CSO Schenkel Shultz and the Winston-Terrell Group.





What are the survey questions? The survey questions are as follows:

1 Many believe that quality schools result in a better quality of life for communities. Do you agree that having quality schools here in the Clark-Pleasant Community School Corporation can help in retaining and attracting new jobs and help improve the overall climate in the community?

1 – YES, schools make a difference: 2 – NO, schools don’t make that much of a difference: 3 – Undecided/don’t know:

2 The Clark-Pleasant Community School Corporation is ranked as number four among

Indiana’s fastest growing school corporations, with a substantial number (over 1,300) new students in the past five (5) years. Were you aware that the Clark-Pleasant School Corporation had this increase in student enrollment?

1 - YES. 2 - NO:

3 The Clark-Pleasant School Corporation has implemented a series of recent construction projects to handle the increased enrollment and better serve the children in the school district. In the past five (5) years, the School Corporation has constructed an agricultural greenhouse building, renovated and enlarged Whiteland Community High School and Whiteland Elementary School, constructed an intermediate school for fifth and sixth graders, added portable learning labs and constructed a new elementary school. Were you aware of these construction projects that will help address the growing enrollment in the district?

1 – Yes 2 – No 3 – Undecided/Don’t know:





What are the survey questions? The survey questions are as follows: (Continued)





It would be helpful if we had a clear calendar of events in terms of what is upcoming regarding school construction and growth issues. The CPCSC regularly posts information regarding the schedules for planning and construction projects. The Long Range Planning, “Decades of Excellence Taskforce” meetings and all of the Pre-1028 Planning meetings have been posted on the CPCSC website as well as posted in numerous other mediums including the Daily Journal.

It would be helpful is agenda for School Board meeting were published in some way prior to the meetings (preferable at least a week in advance). The CPCSC Board meetings are held the 3rd Tuesday of the month. Meeting agendas are posted on the CPCSC website the Thursday prior to the Tuesday meetings.





The number of baseball and softball fields seems like overkill particularly with the north/south layout of the fields. You might want to show another option without all of the options. The athletic fields illustrated on the initial conceptual design included all fields that could be accommodated over the long term. The site layout has been revised to illustrate only the athletic fields that will be included in the basic scope of work.

I think that it would be a good idea to reduce the Athletic Field to the base design. It seems as though the building is just a small blip on the screen, when I think it is the most important focus of the project. Refer to response to previous question.





When you talk about the base design and the upgrades, how much of that are we looking at? It is a standard procedure to design and bid numerous upgrades and/or additional scope items that may be affordable in a favorable bidding environment. The exact number of these items will be determined in the Construction Document Phase and will not be finalized until actual bids are received.

I would like to think that the priority for options will be based on efficiency rather than aesthetics. Most if not all of the options will be based on increased efficiency, functionality, long term maintenance, life cycle costs, etc. Very few will be tied to aesthetics.





Is the purchase of the property included in this estimate? The price of the private residence adjacent to the Middle School site has not yet been determined, but will eventually be included in the project costs.

If the students have a band performance, where do you anticipate them performing? Currently, the plan is to enhance the gym making it conducive for music and band performances. There is also significant space dedicated to the Music Program and the Large Group Instruction (LGI) space will also be available. However, a dedicated performance hall is cost prohibitive.





I thought originally that the middle school would share space with the intermediate school and that it would be bridged. Site restrictions make this connection very difficult. Consequently, the project team determined it would be better to focus on making the Middle School the best school it can be while designing in accommodations to add a connected Intermediate School in the future.

Can you make this into a joint middle school and intermediate school and would the intermediate school become an elementary school? Consistent with the Taskforce recommendation, it is intended that this will be a Middle School and an Intermediate School with shared infrastructure and shared common support spaces.





I understand there is a strong push in the legislature to do away with property taxes. Could you address that in the next workshop? The CPCSC is unable to address tax issues currently being discussed in the Indiana General Assembly. However, the tax impact of this project based on current tax structures was reviewed in Workshop No. 3 and is included in the workshop’s power point posted on the website.




5. Next Meeting

Pre-1028 Board Board meeting to wrap-up Pre-1028Meeting: workshops and gain consensus on the project’s scope, quality, cost and schedule.

Tuesday, February 20, 20076:30 p.m. – 8:00 p.m.Clark-Pleasant

Administration Building

1028 and Preliminary 1028 Hearing and the PreliminaryDeterminationDetermination HearingHearings:

Thursday, February 22, 20076:30 p.m. – 8:00 p.m.Clark-Pleasant Middle

School

pre-1028 february 8, 2007 clark-pleasant middle school the clark-pleasant community school...

Documents

cpcsc middle school

introduction of pre

design workshop process

conceptual design quality

educational services

meeting slide

basis of budget cost

positive selfesteem