The Beloit community should know that the proposed referendum has in fact been a very long time in coming.
It has been thoroughly vetted benefiting from extensive review and refinement by multiple, succesive administrations of school boards over many years as far back as 1998.
Each of these school board administrations have been aware of and involved in the evolution and refinement of the proposal before us today. At each stage these individuals have had the opportunity to help shape what we have today. To a large extent it was being crafted well in advance so that we could be as as ready-to-go as possible when the right time presented itself.
We believe, all things considered that best time has presented itself.
- Interest rates are at historic lows.
- The states contribution offsetting expense is opportune and there’s no guarantee on future levels.
- The same dollar spent in construction contracts goes further now than it has in years nor will likely be available much longer.
We agree with the school board members that we together as a community elected to plan for our communities best interests, that now is when we’ll get the most for our limited and hard-earned dollars.
We truly appreciate current hard times. Each of us individually are feeling the pinch too. If however we push this off for later we’ll most likely end up with much less costing us considerably more. Worst case, we risk ending up with nothing… potentially for a long time to come.
These are only the subset of meetings/events dealing with shaping the referendum.
Click on the dates below to open
February 28, 2012Administrative Team/Bray Architects
Continue to fine tune building plans/design
February 28, 2012Special Board Meeting
10. Facilities Update – Referendum
February 14, 2012Special Board Meeting
11. Referendum Update
February 13, 2012Administrative Team/Bray Architects
Continued review of building plans – fine tune
January 31, 2012Special Board Meeting
3. Referendum Financial Overview
5. Referendum Building Plans
6. Construction Options
7. Review of Facilities Plan for Aldrich, McNeel and Memorial
January 24, 2012Special Board Meeting
10. Facilities Update
January 10, 2012Special Board Meeting
17. Facilities Planning Update
January 10, 2012Finance
8. Facility Maintenance Analysis
January 9, 2012Joint Meeting Board of Education and Beloit City Council
Presentation on each of the Proposed Facility Changes
December 20, 2011Business Meeting
V. Superintendent’s Reports to the Board
A. Proposed Referendum
IX. Business/Action Items
H. Initial Resolution Authorizing General Obligation Bonds in an Amount Not to Exceed $70,000,000.
I. Resolution Providing for a Referendum Election on the Question of the Approval of an Initial Resolution Authorizing the Issuance of General Obligation Bonds in an Amount Not to Exceed $70,000,000.
December 19, 2011Administrative Team/Bray Architects
Review plans, presentation information
December 12, 2011Administrative Team/Bray Architects
Review progress to date
December 8, 2011Equality
IV. Referendum Presentation
December 6, 2011Special Board Meeting
4. Pool Deficiency Presentation
6. Referendum Planning Timeline & Discussion
December 6, 2011Finance
7. Kitchen Facility & Equipment Needs Now Compared to Proposed Referendum
8. Facility Maintenance Analysis
9. Roofing Inventory and Replacement Plan
November 10, 2011 (7:00 pm)District Administrator’s Public Listening Session
Cunningham Elementary School
November 9, 2011 (5:00 pm)District Administrator’s Public Listening Session
Beloit Memorial High School
November 9, 2011 (10:30 am)District Administrator’s Public Listening Session
Beloit Public Library
November 8, 2011Special Board Meeting
14. Facilities Planning
October 25, 2011Special Board Meeting
12. Facilities Referendum
October 11, 2011Special Board Meeting
6. New Elementary Configuration Update
11. Facilities Planning
September 27, 2011Special Board Meeting
Facility Planning and Vision
September 13, 2011Bray Architects – Board Meeting
Presents to board old plans developed
August 16, 2011Administrative Team/Bray Architects
Conceptual Design meeting
August 9, 2011Special Board Meeting
8. Facility Planning and Vision
August 8, 2011Bray Architects
Bring plans from work dating back to 2008
July 2011Administrative Team
Reviews past studies/finding
January 4, 2011Special Board Meeting
5. K8 and Other Configuration Discussion
December 14, 2010Special Board Meeting
9. K8 and Other Configuration Discussion
November 23, 2010Special Board Meeting
8. Long Term Enrollment, Facility and Financial Discussion
9. K-8 Magnet Model
June 23, 2009Special Board Meeting
Members present: J. Acomb, J. Everson, M. Henderson, T. Johnson, M. Ramsdail and S. Scharmer. Member absent: J. Winkelmann
Larry Bray, from Bray Architects, reviewed the executive summary report on the facilities study requested by the board in 2008. Everson moved approval of the final payment of $8,250 to Bray Architects for the district facility study. Seconded byHenderson. Motion carried.
June 23, 2009 – Bray Executive Summary
To facilitate the study, a series of workshops and presentations were conducted with administrators and the Board of Education.
- January 8, 2008 – Workshop
- March 6, 2008 – Workshop
- April 23, 2008 – Workshop
- May 23, 2008 – Committee Meeting
- May 28, 2008 – Committee Meeting
- June 12, 2008 – Workshop
- July 22, 2008 – Board Presentation
- August 7, 2008 – Administrative Meeting
- August 21, 2008 – Administrative Meeting
- September 16, 2008 – Administrative Meeting
- October 9, 2008 – Workshop
- November 4, 2008 – Board Presentation
- December 17, 2008 – Administration Meeting
- January 20, 2009 – Board Presentation
The executive summary addressed the following areas:
- School Enrollment Projections
- Space Need Assumptions/Guidelines
- Space Needs Analysis
- Educational Plan Options
- Engineering Reports/ADA Upgrades/Façade Repairs
- Beloitmemorial High School Natatorium Evaluation
- Appendix (floor plans for options presented to Board of Education on January 20, 2009 – Conceptual drawings were developed to illustrate potential design solutions for further evaluation of a selected option. The building layout should not be viewed as the final solution for the option.)
January 20, 2009Special Board Meeting
Board members: J. Acomb, P. Charles, J. Erikson, A. Oselio, M. Ramsdail, S. Scharmer and J. Winkelmann
Larry Bray, Bray Architects reviewed the assumptions used in developing the four proposals that were presented. Members asked clarifying questions on the closing of schools, adding of space, impact of SAGE classrooms, K-8 structure, current grade configurations and potential savings. Members are looking to see an improved educational environment and/or long term operational efficiencies, saving money over time. Members asked questions about the size of buildings and what is the optimal size for buildings. Members want to look at short term and long term building maintenance plans and the corresponding costs and potential savings with those schools which could be closed. Long term investment in the city will help the community understand the benefits of whatever proposal is brought forth. Members concluded that a special board workshop needs to be scheduled to discuss the educational programming options and meeting with the city to discuss the partnership for the natatorium proposal.
DeWayne Wepking, Ramaker and Associates, explained the Virginia Graeme Baker Pool and Spa Safety Act and what it would take to bring the pool in compliance. It was noted that the current pool is on borrowed time. A new pool will be designed for a 50 year life expectancy. A variance could be requested for a temporary fix to the drain system. It was suggested by a couple of board members and administrators meet with city officials and parks and recreation committee to discuss the pool options and cooperative effort as well as the rowing facility. Members discussed the pros and cons for an operating budget referendum. The issue may be considered on the survey that is being developed for the 2009-10 budget.
January 20, 2009Bray Associates Architects
Space Program and Planning Assumptions
- Student projections; plan to continue SAGE
- Need to do something with high school swimming pool
- Reduce operational/maintenance costs district-wide
- Phased construction approach to reduce initial costs
- Continue neighborhood schools with more energy efficient schools
- Proposal 1–PK-5/6-8
- Proposal 1A–PK-5/6 with a new building
- Proposal 2 PK-8
- Proposal 2A–PK-8 with a new building
Beloit High School Natatorium
- Virginia Graeme Baker Act (VGBA)
- Diving Well at new pool
- Decision process for either existing pool modernization or new pool construction.
December 17, 2008Bray Associates Architects – Administrative Planning Meeting
- Based on 2018-19 Enrollment Projections
- Proposal 1–$83,910,000
- Proposal 2–$70,860,000
Existing School Information
Modified Proposals Dated December 17, 2008 and based on PK-12 Population of 7300-7400 Students
- Pre-K-5/6 Options
- PreK-8 Options
November 18, 2008Special Board Meeting
Board members: J. Acomb, P. Charles, J. Erikson, A. Oselio, M. Ramsdail, S. Scharmer, and J. Winkelmann
Lisa Voisin from Robert W. Baird and Associates, financial consultants, shared a summary of financing scenarios for a referendum bond borrowing and an example of what a financing plan could look like. Voisin emphasized the flexibility of how financing plans can be structured and the importance of the district’s bond rating.
November 8, 2008Bray Associates Architects, Inc.
Since Last Meeting
- Middle School Concepts
- Completed ADA/Building Facade Studies
- Use Todd as Administrative Center and close Kolak
- 10 year solutions–900 sq. ft. classrooms, separate gym/cafeteria
- Phased building program
Beloit High School Natatorium Comparison
- Modernize Existing
- New Facility
- DNR Approvals
- Community Presentations
- Refine Designs/Cost Estimates/Scope of Work
- Prepare Executive Summary of Findings
November 4, 2008Bray and Associates
Bray and Associates retained Ramaker & Associates to perform and evaluation of the Natatorium for the purpose of documenting the improvements necessary to modernize the facility.
- Ramaker and Associates – Natatorium Evaluation Study
- Project #13469 – Report/Summary (Pg. 9 Recommendations)
- The natatorium evaluation determined that the swimming pool and pool mechanical systems are physically worn out, operating beyond useful life and may have deficiencies as it pertains to the current swimming pool codes and standards.
November 4, 2008Special Board Meeting
Board members: J. Acomb, P. Charles, J. Erikson, A. Oselio, M. Ramsdail, S. Scharmer, and J. Winkelmann
Larry Bray presented the facilities master plan. Members asked questions on different size and grade level configuration. DeWayne Wepking reviewed the BMHS natatorium study emphasizing that the current pool is well beyond its expected life.
October 9, 2008Bray Associates Architects, Inc.
Middle School Design Concepts
- Option A–renovate cafeteria/gym; new two-station gymnasium; second floor 7th and 8th grades; revise entrance office, 6th grade and art rooms
- Option A1–Same as above with expanded three-station gym
- Option B–Same as Option A1 with performance area and new locker room addition
- Cafeteria expansion with new administrative offices and secure entrance vestibule; renovate existing office, music, art, health and classroom; Upgrade sound system, seating, lighting and acoustical treatment in auditorium
- Discussion of Swimming Pool–renovation plan; space program for new pool
- Discussion with Johnson Controls
August 28, 2008Memorandum from Larry Bray
RE: School District of Beloit–Bray Project No. 2915
Review Elementary School Proposals
Proposal 1–build out of 7 schools, Gaston remains open with no work; Close 4 buildings–Hackett, Royce, Todd and Wright
Proposal 2–Full build out of 6 schools, additions/renovation of Morgan; Gaston and Todd remain open with no work, close 3 buildings–Hackett, Royce and Wright
Proposal 3–Full build out of McLenegan, additions/renovation at Burdge, Converse, Cunningham, Morgan and Robinson; Gaston, Hackett, Royce, Todd and Wright remain open with no work. No schools closed
Proposal 4–Full build out of 4 schools, additions/renovation at Converse, Cunningham and Morgan; Gaston, Royce and Todd remain open with no work. Close 2 buildings–Hackett and Wright
Proposal 5–Full build out of 7 schools; Converse and Robinson become 4K-8 buildings; Gaston, Royce and Todd remain open with no work; Close two buildings–Hackett and Wright
Also looked at ADA assessment; Building Envelope Study; Middle School Design Concepts; Pool and locker room renovation budget; Meeting with district and Johnson Controls; Meeting date with administrative team/committee input or listening sessions.
August 21, 2008School District Building Plans
Option A–Full Build out of all 12 Elementaries
- 4K-5th grade classrooms
- IMC renovation
- Computer Lab
- New Gym
- Office Space
- Special Ed Rooms
- Kitchen Space
Option B/C and PK-8
- 5 buildings PK-5
- Burdge, Converse, Cunningham, Morgan, Robinson
Converse, Cunningham, Robinson
Converse and Robinson
August 2008Presentation to the Board
Board members: J. Acomb, P.Charles, J. Erikson, A. Oselio, M. Ramsdail, S. Scharmer, and J. Winkelmann.
Bray presents complete sets of floor and site plans for all elementary schools. Plans address:
- Increased rooms
- Art & Music rooms
- Increased parking
- Increased gym space
- Technology upgrade
- New office space
- Student drop off areas
July 22, 2008Special Board Meeting
Members present: J. Acomb, P. Charles, J. Erikson, A. Oselio, M. Ramsdail, S. Scharmer and J. Winkelmann
Nortier introduced Larry Bray who presented their facilities study to date. Members talked about impact of operating costs, alternative configurations, and class size alternative (i.e. Sage). Members expressed interest in looking for restructuring for improved efficiencies and a possibility of green design.
May 28, 2008Bray Architects – Elementary Planning Session
- Number of classrooms per Grade (2 yr/5 yr API models)
- SAGE classroom size – same as regular room
- Number of students per classroom
- ’98 study beginning point 4K-5
- Program flexibility
- Review need for separate gyms/cafeterias
- Music/Art dedicated space – space for specialists
- Neighborhood school concept
- Phased in meaningful building improvements
- Partnering with Headstart, community medical/dental, family, afterschool
- 4K-5 6-8 9-12
- 4K-3 4-6 7-8 9-12
- 4K-8 9-12
- 4K-3 4-8 9-12
4K-3 4-6 option/Classroom Chart
- 4K-3 learn to read
- 4-6 read to learn
- Shared gym/cafeteria and music/art
4K-3 is possible given school size and capacity
Attempt to pair 4K-3 (2) school with 4-6 (1) building; move specialists and support unique programs
2: 4-6 buildings on east/west
Relieve Pressure of Capacity @6-7-8 buildings
- Kolak as a school?
- Was Royce designed for a second floor?
- Cost to “do nothing”
May 13, 2008Finance Transportation & Property Committee Meeting
Committee members: J. Winkelmann and S. Scharmer.
Member absent: K. Thompson.
Bray Architects Facility Study Update
A study for the committee was provided by U.W. Madison, Sarah Kemp, with information on the enrollment projections she developed as part of the facility study. Matt Wolford, Architect at Bray and Associates, reviewed progress of the study to date as well as some of the assumptions made. The committee will consider how to present some of this information and next steps to the board.
Bray Project#2915 – May 13, 2008
Tasks completed to date included: engineering review of all 12 elementary schools, enrollment projects completed by UW Madison, and multiple planning meetings on site with staff.
Current planning ideas and guidelines include: establishing the number of classrooms per grade level, investigating different grade configuration and impact on existing facilities (includes intermediate school model), reviewing need for separate spaces (gymnasium, cafeteria, music and art and specialists), and series of public meetings after next planning session scheduled for May 28, 2008.
April 23, 2008Bray Architects
Elementary School Planning Session
- Planning parameters/Design guidelines – Elementary
- Preliminary space needs analysis – site size, enrollment projections
- Committee recommendation – May ’98
- Reduction in the number of elementary school buildings…at a minimum, one school on the west side, one school on the east side should be closed
- A new school should be built on each side of town, replacing an existing facility. These new buildings should include all of the recommended features including a new gym.
- All remaining schools should be upgraded, including all of the educational quality upgrades with the exception of a new gymnasium.
- Maintain number of sections district wide
- Discussion/Decision making
- School size/program/equity
- Classroom square feet
- Separate gym/cafeteria
- Separate art/music
- Special education per school/district wide
- Staff planning/resource
- Site Size
- Expansion potential
- Lack of green space
- Soft/hard play areas
- Safety issues – separate cars/busses
- Grade configuration/Neighborhood schools
March 5, 2008Bray Architects
Elementary School Planning Session
- Gain better understanding of space utilization and student capacity for existing elementary schools
- Capabilities (counts)
- Planning parameters/guideline for Elementary School Study – strengths and weaknesses
- Develop space program as a template to analyze current elementary schools – space utilization/capacity
February 8, 2008Bray Architect Work Session
Facility Master Plan
- Assessment of existing master plan
- Educational space/capacity analysis and solutions
- School safety and building review
- Operation review
- Community development
January 22, 2008Special Board Meeting
Board members: J. Acomb, P. Charles, J. Erikson, J. Klett, K. Thompson and J. Winkelmann. Members absent: S. Scharmer
Winkelmann presented the finance committee’s recommendation of Bray Associates to conduct the development of a facilities master plan for the district. Winkelmann moved approval of Bray Associates. Seconded by Acomb. Motion carried.
January 17, 2008Bray Associates
Facilities Master Plan – Describing experience in developing master plans for K-12 public school similar size district.
December 2007Architect Bids – Facility Master Planning
Master facility plan schedule for facility master planning – not to exceed $50,000
Epstein Uhen Architects
Fee Proposal – $92,000 ($20,000 reimbursable expense) – Net $72,000
Potential additional $7,500
Fixed Fee of $60,000
September 25, 2007Special Board Meeting
Board members: J. Acomb, P. Charles, J. Erikson, J. Klett, S. Scharmer, K. Thompson and J. Winkelmann
Jeff Hanke updated the board on the progress toward finding a solution to the BMHS pool losing water.
November 7, 2005Finance, Transportation & Property Committee
Members present: J. Winkelmann, J. Klett, and K. Thompson
Also present: G. Stenstrom, S. Scharmer, R. Nortier, P. Kiefert
Five Year Capital Improvement Budget Proposal
Brooks reviewed the five year capital improvement budget proposal. Winkelmann explained that the committee is looking for key items for a facilities plan. The top 8, 10 or 12 items for each school including furniture and equipment replacement. Thompson moved to approve the capital improvement proposal to be considered by the interim co-superintendents for final budget distributions for facility investment as a beginning of a long term building protection strategy. Seconded by Klett. Motion carried.
April 19, 2005Special Board Meeting – Workshop
- Call to Order
- Approval of Agenda
- Discussion of Facilities Needs and Plans
June 2004Potter Lawson | Cunningham Elementary School Concept Study
Study included estimated project costs forCunninghamElementary Schoolexpansion concept. For comparison, they also estimated costs for a new elementary school for 600 students.
April 2004Workshop – D. Hartstern Presentation on Possible Referendum/Facility Needs
Presentation included capacity issues (Cunningham new construction/renovation, needing more classrooms and fewer sites and out of the box alternatives), improvement to existing facilities (major upgrades/additions of all elementary schools, asphalt reconstruction, traffic flow reconstruction at two middle school sites, auditorium update at high school and technology area ventilation).
Also presenting were: Mike Gordon of Potter Lawson Architects with a review of 1998 facilities study and a report of the Cunningham expansion model, and Vincent Lyles of Robert W. Baird on Beloit’s current debt, debt service tax rate, estimate of maximum bond issue with debt service comparable to recent years, impact of property value growth and referendum plan of action (background information).
February 3, 2004School Board Workshop
- Call to Order
- Approval of Agenda
- Graduation Requirements
- Cunningham Facility Study
- Crossing Guards
January 4, 2000Memo from Dick Peterson, Assistant Superintendent to Dr. Bette Lang, Superintendent
Sent in Board Packet February 2, 2001 for February 6, 2001 board meeting.
Elementary Facility Options
The Board of Education asked for an updated analysis of possible options that could be implemented to improve our elementary school facilities. Growth in selected areas of the school district, aging buildings, increased maintenance costs; instructional changes, environmental concerns and the need to modernize facilities have prompted this analysis.
The Board of Education has not identified at this point any one definitive plan, but rather asked that options be developed based on three broad assumptions. First, there is an interest in reducing the number of elementary sites if at all possible. Maintaining twelve elementary sites has not proven to be cost effective in terms of the utilization of personnel or fiscal resources. The consolidation of schools would eliminate or reduce staff travel, reduce administrative and support costs, provide flexibility in balancing class sizes or meeting the special needs of students, and allow us to better focus our limited resources.
The second interest was to relocate the administrative functions and the myriad of educational programs currently housed at the Kolak Education Center to more appropriate locations. The Kolak Center would be closed and possibly sold. The elimination of the Kolak Center and the creation of a new administrative center would reduce costs, improve efficiencies of operations and provide for the most appropriate use of space. The placement of the educational programs at existing school sites would also prove to be cost effective as well as the best interest of staff and students.
The third interest was to remodel and expand existing sites to accommodate the students relocating as a result of the consolidations, and creating additional space to address the changing population requirements and new growth. It was also the intention that any building scheduled for expansion would be extensively remodeled to bring the facility up to an acceptable level.
Option one addresses all three of the Board’s interests. It reduces the number of school sites by one and eliminates the Kolak Education Center as a district facility. The option also calls for the remodeling and expansion of the Robinson Elementary School and the Burdge Elementary School as well as the construction of a new Morgan elementary School. Option one would allow for the development of early childhood centers one each side of town. The estimated cost is $20,400,000.
Option two calls for the reduction of two elementary schools, but does not address the future of the Kolak Education Center/The Roosevelt Building. Option two would require building additions on Todd and Merrill to accommodate the closing of Wright. It would also require building an addition on Burdge and the construction of a new Hackett to accommodate the closing of Royce. The estimated cost is $24,500,000.
Option three would eliminate the KEC/RB facility and relocate it to McLenegan. McLenegan would be maintained as a school as well as an administrative center. It would require building an addition at McLenegan and remodeling of the existing facility. The estimated cost is $8,250,000…..
Option four eliminates three elementary schools by placing all of our elementary schools on a four track year around school program…….Option four would require some remodeling of the site, plus the installation of air conditioning….the net savings per year is estimated at $377,000. This option may not be viable under the State open enrollment laws.
(Each option presented included a facility change, cost estimate, potential savings, estimated savings, estimated annual cost and property tax impact including mill rate and tax levy.)