INTRODUCTION
The Goodrich Area Schools Board of Education set the foundation for a Facility Planning Committee to be organized to develop a priority list of options to improve the High School and other district facilities for their consideration. An application was made available to community members and staff to sign up for this committee. The FPC held its first meeting on March 8, 2007, followed by meetings held on March 15, March 22, March 29, April19, April 24, April 26 and a final meeting on May 17. The application response to serve on the committee was outstanding! No one was turned down and the committee was a diverse representation of Goodrich. Included in the committee were community members with children in the schools, without children in schools, senior citizens, business members, a student, booster club representation and representation from both the administration, teaching and support staff. We averaged over 55 people at each of our first four meetings and a total of 61 community members attended the majority of our meetings.
During the first meeting, the process was explained and the charge for the committee was given. The committee members were able to tour the high school that night. Subsequent meetings provided tours of the other district buildings.
Three community members stepped forward to serve as tri-chairs. They are Trevor Alward, Brenda Mahalak and Doug Tetmeyer. We thank them for their leadership. At each meeting were representatives from the Fanning Howey Architectural firm and Wolgast Construction Managers to serve as consultants and resources for the committee. Supt. Hart and her central office staff were also available for their input and expertise. A special thanks to Joy Moll, the administrative assistant to the Superintendent, for her wonderful support and assistance
COMMITTEE STUDY GROUPS
The FPC decided to break into five distinct committees to be able to review the needs of each unit and to prioritize and add their input and suggestions to the study. The committees were for the High School, Middle School and Oaktree elementary, Technology, Athletics and Reid Elementary and the Bus Garage. Each study group was asked to have a member serve as leader and someone to record information. Each study committee was given a ‘starter? list of needs that was developed by Wolgast Corp. as a beginning point for discussion. Each group was encouraged not to be limited by that list and to be creative in their discussions. No costs of the various needs were available to the committee at this point. The main reason is that costs shouldn’t deter the needs at the development point of the discussion. Later on in the process, each committee received preliminary cost figures of individual items under consideration. The groups met for several hours over March and April and have developed a priority listing for consideration by the Board of Education. The committee also heard a presentation on how and why a bond in Goodrich would extend the debt obligations of the district and not increase annual taxes for taxpayers. In addition, the committee received a draft of the board vision statements, were encouraged to add to that list of vision statements, were provided ‘concept? drawings by the architects for any new additions to the district facilities they requested and received clarification on what a bond can purchase and what it cannot be used for to meet legal standards.
THE PROCESS
The process was strong community involvement that would provide the Board of Education with an in depth analysis of the ‘needs? for the district facilities. Originally, the BOE suggested an initial cost range of $17 million to $20 million that covered the minimal needs for updating the buildings. The process was designed to look at both basic needs and the original cost range clearly indicated that level of financial need. However, the committee went a step further and creatively looked at the ‘wants? of the district and community in addition to the basic needs. You will see that the technology and athletics projects recommended by the committee were both creative and met the charge of the committee to ‘provide a priority list of options to improve the High School and other district facilities for your consideration?. Keep in mind that the costs estimated for the many projects would be considered on the high level, as they are first level estimates. Once the board decides on the priority needs and the district employees become further involved, specific costs will be determined and the estimates will be more realistic. A complete list of priorities from each committee is attached to this report. You will find the committee listed their priorities according to the following levels:
Each committee was asked to rank the priorities as follows: Give each item a 1 for their ‘top priority?, 2 for their ‘middle level priority? or a 3 for their ‘low priority
The following is a brief description of each subcommittee and the recommendations and priorities of each group for the Board of Education. You will find a statement from each committee, and a preliminary cost figure and any other issues they desired to Board of Education to consider for a future bond and to improve the district facilities.
HIGH SCHOOL
The High School subcommittee considered many issues and factors when making and prioritizing recommendations for improvements to the Goodrich High School. The school district, especially the high school, is the main hub of our community. The high school is the final educational opportunity Goodrich students experience before venturing into the world of work or higher education. With this in mind, we looked at the journey students make through the different schools in the district. Reid Elementary is a wonderful place for our kindergarten through second graders to start. While it is an older building, it is functional and will improve upon implementation of the Reid subcommittee’s recommendations. From there, students move on to Oaktree, then the Middle School. Both of these buildings are newer with many modern features. After graduation from eighth grade, students move on to Goodrich High School. The high school meets most of the basic needs but does not raise the standards set by Oaktree and the Middle School. We feel that the high school should feel more like a step up the ladder of educational evolution, rather than a step into the past. Many of the high schools features are original issue and now show their antiquity. Our recommendations are meant to bring out our beloved high school into the twenty-first century.
Our recommendations fall into five main categories with a fair amount of overlapping. The categories are:
‘Educational Needs- Goodrich must keep pace and even excel in meeting the
educational needs of students present and future. Math, science, language, social
studies, and fine arts must be taught in the best possible environment to prepare
our citizens of the future.
‘Security Needs- With events like Columbine, Sept. 11 and Virginia Tech in our
recent history, security issues are a priority, even in seemingly safe, secure
environments.
‘Growth-Even though Goodrich Schools? growth has flattened in recent years,
we must be ready for future, inevitable growth.
‘Aesthetics and Comfort- Many studies show that environment is an important
factor in the learning process. Natural light, comfortable gathering spaces, and
general appearance of the facilities plays a major role in this process. Aesthetics
also build school pride, develop a sense of belonging, and motivate students to
attend and achieve their potential.
‘Maintenance- Many of the physical components of the school have outlived
their reasonable life expectancy. Others, while functional, are not energy efficient
and cost the district thousands of unnecessary dollars per year.
These recommendations are not, by any means, all encompassing. We feel that they do, however, address the majority of needs in the present and near future.
Preliminary costs for #1 High Priority needs $ 20,668,835
Preliminary costs for #2 Middle Priority needs $ 1,455,140
Preliminary costs for #3 Low Priority needs $ 852,878
MIDDLE SCHOOL and OAKTREE ELEMENTARY
These two buildings were combined into one committee because both buildings were the ‘newer? of the district facilities and had the fewer needs. As the focus group, the committee was an assembly of caring individuals including teachers, maintenance workers, parents and community members. We kept in mind practicality, fiscal responsibility, and future of the schools, aesthetics, community usage and the attraction of the district to prospective homeowners/developers. Values were placed on each item taking into account must have items related to the structure, safety, educational value, and items that were not absolutely necessary. While there were a wide range of opinions and ideas; in the end we all agreed on the list that is being presented. An additional suggestion for a Motor Rm. (separate) designed but not included in costs at this time. A new gym, classroom, storage and breakout room would enhance Oaktree. The Middle School would gain a new computer lab and maintenance building and additional minor renovations.
Preliminary costs for #1 High Priority needs $ 3,456,442
Preliminary costs for #2 Middle Priority needs $ 882,582
Preliminary costs for #3 Low Priority needs $ 357,825
ATHLETICS
The Athletic committee thought ‘out of the box? and applied a more aggressive vision of needs for the district and community. A Field House complex with weight room, community fitness center, new gym, indoor storage, indoor suspended jogging track and the ability to increase the wrestling room size took on a major facility improvement. In addition, outdoor needs that would include an 8 lane track, football field with artificial turf for both football and soccer and seating for 4,000, along with new concessions stands, bathroom facilities, concrete bleachers with storage and locker rooms and sports complex entrances for all sports (iron fencing, gates and arches). Relocating the softball field, weight and cardio equipment are also included. The recommendation for a new Athletic complex, estimated at $7 million, is one of the creative additions that increased the projected costs of the project, exceeding the beginning suggestion by the Board of Education for a bond in the $17-20 million range for basic improvements.
Preliminary costs and priority lists are included in the High School totals
REID ELEMENTARY AND BUS GARAGE
Our committee struggled with a larger and more global concept. Do we put a lot of money in the oldest facility in the district or minimal amount of renovation in the event the Board of Education has a long-term plan for the building? This was obviously a decision not in the parameter of our FPC charge, but one that led the committee to make three recommendations. One, we realize the cost would be prohibitive at this time but the top priority would be to build a new elementary buildings and use the Reid building for Community Education, Board of Education, Administration Offices, etc. Two, we have provided a priority list of needs IF the decision is to keep Reid Elementary for more than 10 years before a replacement would be recommended and three, a minimal priority list of needs if the district intended to bring the issue of replacing Reid up in the next 3-5 years.
Preliminary costs for #1 High Priority needs $ 918,528
Preliminary costs for #2 Middle Priority needs $ 749,788
Preliminary costs for #3 Low Priority needs $ 177,625
TECHNOLOGY
Curriculum driven technology is essential at Goodrich Area Schools so the committee looked at technology needs we wanted to make sure that it included these benchmarks:
? All technology must be educational driven and integrated with curriculum plan.
? The curriculum plan will incorporate the vision of the technology plan.
? Training and staff development must be included when technology is purchased.
? The districts technology plan must continue to be updated to meet the state
requirements in addition to curriculum.
? The Technology purchased must move forward looking into the next 8-10 years.
The last bond for Goodrich was June, 2000. At that time each school was given a technology budget that totaled $1.7 million. The amount allocated for the HS and Reid was not sufficient. Since the last bond seven years ago, all of the buildings need to be brought up to the standard of the MS, which is the most updated technology building in the district. The committee stated that without knowing what the buildings would really look like or what renovations will be taking place, it would be hard to talk about each space or room in detail. The committee proposed setting a district standard in classrooms, computer labs, technology rooms and the cabling infrastructure within the buildings. These standards are included in the support materials of this report.
Preliminary costs for #1 High Priority needs $ 6,172,812
Preliminary costs for #2 Middle Priority needs $ 0
Preliminary costs for #3 Low Priority needs $ 0
NOTE: The amount listed is for the entire technology recommendations for the district and not included in each building total. It is listed separately to show the major need for technology enhancement for the Goodrich schools.
FINANCIAL IMPACT ON COMMUNITY
The Facility Planning Committee heard presentations and information on the financial impact of the recommendations on the community. It was shown that while the annual tax amount would not increase for the Goodrich taxpayer, the length of the tax indebtedness would be extended. Roughly, the indebtedness would be extended approximately three years for each $5 million of renovations/improvements.
Priority #1 Priority #2 Priority #3
High School-Preliminary Costs $ 20,668,835 $ 1,455,140 $ 852,878
Middle School/Oaktree Costs $ 3,456,442 $ 882,562 $ 357,825
Reid Elementary/Bus Garage $ 918,528 $ 749,788 $ 177,625
Technology K-12 $ 6,172,812 $ 0 0
SUMMARY
The FPC has provided a comprehensive facility improvement package for the consideration by the Goodrich Board of Education. The FPC understands that the BOE may accept, reject or modify the recommendations. It is clearly above the minimal amount for the basic needs of the district. It does represent a clear vision of what ‘this committee? perceives as the needs for continued EXCELLENCE in the Goodrich Area Schools. While addressing the basic needs, the committee kept a keen eye on fiscal responsibility, creativity, priorities, community involvement and specifically, that the recommendations were for the current and future students of the school system. School districts must be competitive in the future as all schools are and will continue to be competing for students. Having outstanding physical facilities, coupled with the high level of teaching found in the Goodrich Area Schools, would only enhance the already high academic standing the district has in the State of Michigan.
The following community members attended the majority of the Facility Planning Meetings:
Tom Alward Michael Ellis Karen Melton Katie Zito
Trevor Alward Brian Fleming Laurie Moncrieff
Amy Aylmer Bob Foreback Lynne Morisette
Tami Baker Robert Francis Jay Perkins
Steve Barker Linda Giza Carol Powers
Cindy Bell Betty Griffiths Mel Reimel
Rochelle Bila Bryan Grogan Scot Reneaud
Edward Bretzloff Dan Hartley Carla Reyes-Calkins
Kelly Bretzloff Lori Haught Dawn Robb
Craig Burnett Jo Anne Hatto Amy Slagle
Debbie Cottrell Lesley Hildebrand Dave St. Aubin
Tena Czap William Hill Jennifer Sweet
Cathy Danz Linda Jackson Doug Tetmeyer
Roger Deaton Hank Landsgaard Sally Urbain
Catherine Doll Amie Losee Dawn Van Fleteren
Jeff Duval Brenda Mahalak Niki Wiederman
Karen Eickhoff Barbara Marinack Paul Witek
Kevin Eikey Al Martus Fritz Wolff
Lisa Eikey Doug McAbee Nikki Young
Robert Elizondo Jennifer McKenzie Mark Ziskie
STANDARDS FOR TECHNOLOGY IN THE CLASSROOMS, LABS, NETWORK/INFRASTRUCTURE AND GENERAL BUILDING ITEMS
Standard for Classsrooms
1 video projector in all teaching spaces connected to teaching computers, cabling to projectors
1 data/voice cabling 4-6 connections to rooms
1 telephone in all areas
1 laser printer in designated areas
1 teacher PC./Laptop
1 student PC’s 3-6
2 DVD/VCR combo units
1 interactive white board if fixed in classroom locations (will require power and location to board)
1 sound reinforcement system
1 document camera
1 video streaming to the desktop (must have video streaming system in place)
1 wireless access building wide
2 indirect lighting for classrooms
2 audio link to class sound system
Standard for Computer labs
1 standard computer labs in each building per building needs (need architectural space)
1 multi-function labs w/digitizers for art and cad; w key boards and sound systems for playback/recording
1 30-32 computers in labs
1 video projector in all computer labs
1 video projectors in all teaching spaces connected to teachers computers/cabling to projectors/audio/video
1 data/voice cabling
1 telephone in all areas
1 laser printer in all labs color and black and white
1 teacher PC/laptop combo
1 DVD/VCR combo unit
1 interactive white board if fixed in classroom locations, will require power and location for board
1 sound reinforcement system
2 document cameras
2 video streaming to the desktop, must have video streaming system in place
2 wireless access building wide
Network and Infrastructure
1 network switch replacement plan
1 file server replacement(4-6 servers)
1 wireless access deployment (wireless switch solution)
1 centralized file server with architectural space
1 fiber optic cable between telecommunications rooms
1 update of UPS systems in technology closets
1 larger technology closet (need architectural space)
1 bonding of technology closets and equipment (needs electrical to tie grounds together)
1 voice data and video cabling update
1 update mechanical and electrical system in technology closets
1 computer replacement
1 video streaming solution (server based)
1 optional VOD server (Video on Demand)