Category Archives: SPLOST

Dunwoody HS & Peachtree MS – Secondary Schools Study Position

Posted on September 16, 2016 by | 23 comments

I appreciate the time and effort the Dunwoody Cluster elementary, middle and high school councils and foundations put into this decision on such short notice.
The Dunwoody High School Council is recommending Option B with 600 seats added to DHS. Option B is the “Split Feeder” option, so the school council is requesting Option B be modified to include $17 million for an addition to PCMS to avoid the split feeder.
Key Takeaways – Facilities Study – Round 3 Meetings
Round 3 – Secondary School Facility Planning And Feasibility Study
Facilities Planning Online Survey Results to Date
Pro & Cons – Options From The Secondary School Planning Study

There has been a lot of discussion in recent weeks about three options that have been presented by Dekalb County School System to deal with the growing student population in our middle and high schools.  A recommendation has been requested from the school councils at Dunwoody High and Peachtree Middle.  If you are busy and don’t want to read the full justification, please click the link below to an online survey and select Option B.https://goo.gl/forms/kSFTQLhRzoTUObSr2
Why Option B?
1.      When representatives from PCMS, DHS, and elementary schools throughout our cluster met to discuss these options, we were all still learning about the options, but there was a unifying ideal of keeping our Dunwoody kids at Dunwoody High School.  Options A & C send roughly 30% of the kids currently zoned to DHS to either a new Sequoyah High School in Doraville or to Chamblee HS.  No decisions have been made at this time as to where those kids will come from, but the process would surely not be a fun one for our community.  Option B keeps our attendance zone intact.
2.      Option B comes  with a $23,000,000 investment in Dunwoody High School.  Options A & C come with $0 for schools in the Dunwoody cluster.  (Note that there are other pockets of eSPLOST money that could go to our schools, but this is the only category being discussed by the school system at this time.)  DHS is full of amazing teachers, kids, and parents who make the DHS community great, but aspects of the facility are limiting.  As a Council last year we realized the toil involved in getting even small investments in our school.  Throughout the year we pushed to get an adequate supply of functioning lockers for the kids, signage on the front of the school with our name on it, and more than one functioning copier in the school for teachers.  Progress was made, but the journey shed light on the difficulty involved in getting things done.  This option presents a unique opportunity for a significant portion of eSPLOST money to be dedicated to our cluster.  This investment will be a long term improvement to DHS, helping our growing student population for years to come.
3.      Does this mean 600 more kids at DHS? NO, it does not.  The projection is that in 2022, with the increasing student population in our attendance zone, DHS population will be 2,093 students.  Today there are 1,826 students.  The problem is that our capacity is only about 1,500 students.  The improvements will increase the school capacity to 2,100 students, eliminating the need for trailers, floating teachers, and addressing long-standing facility limitations.
4.      What about parking?  The open retention pond in the parking area can be buried and paved over, substantially improving the parking situation, even with more kids.  We are pushing for this to be a priority.
5.      What is the proposed variation that impacts PCMS?  The problem with all of the options presented is that they send a significant number of middle school kids out of Dunwoody.  The variation proposes that PCMS also receive an addition to handle the extra capacity there, taking the same approach as the high school.
6.      What about the budget?  Option B is $7,000,000 under budget.  Option A is $77,000,000 over budget.  Option C is $54,000,000 over budget.  The school system seems confident that they can find more money for other options but ultimately that is going to take from other things in the school system.
A summarized list of pros/cons from a Dunwoody perspective (along with room for comment) has been posted here:
http://dunwoodyschooldaze.blogspot.com/2016/09/pros-and-cons-of-dekalb-school.html
Stepping back from the details of this issue for a moment, all of these options have some good aspects for Dunwoody and the impact for Dunwoody is less with any of them than what much Dekalb County Schools will see.  We are also ultimately at the hands of the final superintendent recommendation and School Board approval.  Our community will continue to make our schools great regardless of the option selected, but it is the opinion of the DHS and PCMS School Councils that the benefits of this modified Option B far outweigh those of the other options.
Please don’t forget to go back to the link at the top and complete the survey.
Chad Griffith, DHS Council Chair
On behalf of DHS Council
Allegra Johnson, PCMS Foundation Chair
On behalf of PCMS Foundation

 

23 Comments

Posted in SPLOST

Evolution of Facility Planning & Feasibility Study Options

Posted on September 14, 2016 by | 2 comments

The options coming from the secondary (middle and high school) facility planning and feasibility study have evolved from round to round. I asked the school district to help us understand how the options have evolved into what we are looking at now in round 3.

Dan Drake
Dan Drake

Dan Drake is the Director of Planning and SPLOST Programming for the DeKalb County School District.
The Planning Department is responsible for the estimates of future enrollment for all schools within the school system. Planning also coordinates with local governments on the future housing development and its impact on the current and planned school facilities. Additionally, Planning provides support to Transportation Department (for bus routing), Plant Services (portable classroom placement), public safety (crossing guards), and other departments, as requested. Finally, the Planning Department provides support to the schools in their work on Safe Routes to Schools programs, including mapping and analysis of location of children relative to the schools.

Joshua Williams
Joshua Williams

Joshua Williams is the Chief Operating Officer for DeKalb Schools.
He is responsible for the day-to-day operational management of fleet, transportation, facilities management, school nutrition, and business service operations. Additionally, he oversees and directs the District’s $1+ billion E-SPLOST capital improvement program to include establishing and managing capital planning and budgets, technical design guidelines, contractor/vendor pre-qualification, selection and contract administration, construction operations, and administrative management.
Mr. Drake and Mr. Williams help us understand the evolution from Round 2 options to Round 3 options of the Secondary School Facility Planning & Feasibility Study.
Round 2 of the study had estimated costs for the various options ranging from $96M to $173M. Round 3 options range from $163M to $247M. Can you tell us about the evolution from Round 2 options to Round 3 options?
The primary differences in the cost of options between the options presented to the Regional Steering Committees for comment (in June 2016) and the options presented at the Round 3 public meetings (August 23 and 25) are:
1. Enhanced estimates of costs for additions and land purchase. The options presented to the Regional Steering Committees did not factor in the high estimated cost of purchasing land in the area around Sequoyah MS. Additionally, professional architects evaluated the schools at which additions were being proposed to determine an estimated cost for additions that included the need to expand core spaces such as cafeterias and media centers. This more accurate estimation of costs for additions was incorporated in the options presented at the Round 3 public meetings.
2. Better accounting for student movement when maintaining 1-to-1 feeder patterns. The options presented to the Regional Steering Committees did not as meticulously take into account the need to always move middle and high school students in direct proportion to each other in order to maintain strict 1-to-1 feeder patterns. As this was corrected in the development of the options presented at the Round 3 public meetings, we recognized a need for more capacity to allow for the inefficient balancing of middle and high school students in a cluster due to maintaining 1-to-1 feeder patterns.
3. Every option involves building at least one new facility. New facilities cost more than additions, and two of the four options presented to the Regional Steering Committees did not include building any new facilities, only additions. One of the primary pieces of feedback from the Regional Steering Committees, as well as previous rounds of public engagement, was the desire of the community to “not put a band-aid on the problem” (by only building additions) and to use all available properties in the overcrowded areas to re-lieve capacity. Based on this, all options presented at the Round 3 public meetings include building at least one new facility on DCSD property.
4. Better understanding of attendance area constraints in the Clarkston cluster. Upon further review, it was determined that none of the options presented to the Regional Steering Committees presented a realistic solution for projected overcrowding in the Clarkston cluster while maintaining a 1-to-1 feeder pattern. Much of the population in the Clarkston cluster is located close to the high school facili-ty. Adjusting attendance areas to relieve Clarkston HS (assumed within the previous options) would result in the feeder MS, Freedom MS, being located outside the cluster. To correct for this, large additions to Clarkston HS and Freedom MS had to be added in Option A and Option C in the options presented at the Round 3 public meetings, raising the estimated cost of those options.
5. Reduction of the future District-wide redistricting necessary for the lowest cost option presented to the Re-gional Steering Committees. That option would have required redistricting efforts that would have disrupt-ed every cluster in the District, and would have completely abandoned a 1-to-1 feeder pattern. This option was soundly rejected by the Regional Steering Committees due to the disruption it would cause.
The Projects (Referendum Focus Area) estimated $170M for New Facilities and Additions + $60M for 2 new elementary schools. Will these new options take us over budget? Can we pay for all of this plus the other referendum focus areas with SPLOST V monies?
Options A and C presented at the Round 3 public meetings will cost more than the $170 million available from the 2017-2022 E-SPLOST funds. Option B would leave only an estimated $7 million for all other new facility and additions projects for elementary, middle, and high schools. Any recommendations from the Secondary School Facility Planning and Feasibility Study would need to be prioritized along with all other new facility and additions needs at all schools in the District under the Building SPACES Initiative’s development of the E-SPLOST project list. If all recommendations from the Second-ary School Facility Planning and Feasibility Study are to begin implementation within the E-SPLOST 2017-22 timeframe, additional revenue sources (beyond E-SPLOST V) would need to be found.

2 Comments

Posted in SPLOST