|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Pleasanton Unified School District officials are set to evaluate the “benefits, drawbacks and financial implications” of several proposed alternative options for the planned grades 4 and 5 school at Donlon Elementary during the Board of Trustees regular online meeting Tuesday, starting 7 p.m.
Staff has recommended building the school as planned and submitting plans to the Division of the State Architect for approval, but the Board will also consider three more options that evening.
One of the alternatives would mean not building the school at all, which district staff said in a report “would not solve the current overflow problem and not meet the district’s objectives.” The other options would add classrooms and facilities to existing PUSD sites to either accommodate attendance area students or make adjustments to the elementary school boundary.
One of PUSD’s marquee projects funded through the $271 million Measure I1 bond, the Board started to reconsider moving forward with plans and asked staff to reevaluate the E-10 school back in spring.
The request to look at alternatives was prompted because “enrollment growth has not developed in the same pattern than originally projected when E-10 was planned,” according to the district.
Enrollment for students in TK through grade 5 is expected to reach 6,453 by next school year, and grow to about 6,552 in 2025 – 2026 (without the East Pleasanton Development). There are about 5,950 students currently enrolled in grades TK – 5 this year.
“While some of this dip may be a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, the expected enrollment growth has not materialized and should be considered in the reevaluation,” staff said.
The E-10 site would house about 500 students and, when combined with the current school, “would be able to handle the students in the Donlon boundary” area, which is also the district’s most impacted.
Staff noted a $13 million construction expense increase since the school was originally planned that has required “reducing other project scopes and using outside bond funds” besides Measure I1. The current estimate for building the new school is $48.3 million.
Operating costs of a new school are “the other factor that requires reevaluation,” staff said.
PUSD currently operates nine elementary schools, with between 560 to 760 students at each site. Critical basic operational costs such as administrative and support staff are an estimated $850,000; staff said the district “must also consider this added long term cost into its decision making.
“This district is currently projected to be in deficit spending and will require further reduction in 2023/24 when the new school is planned to open. Adding the additional operational costs to the budget will further exacerbate the district financial situation,” staff added.
Option B would add capacity to Donlon, Lydiksen and Fairlands, and thereby reduce student overflow without boundary changes, but also leave certain schools “underutilized” and “would result in future enrollment imbalance with some schools will be under capacity while others will be at near full capacity.”
Though less costly than building the E-10 school, staff said option B would result in “greater support to some schools and inefficiencies in the smaller enrolled schools” and still be more expensive than option C.
A boundary change and increased capacity as proposed in option C would eliminate the need for a new school, provide reduced operating costs, and leave more funding available for other Measure I1 projects.
Boundaries in the five elementary sites in the north area of the district — Donlon, Fairlands, Walnut Grove, Alisal, and Mohr — would be adjusted “to develop balanced schools and to add capacity where needed for current and future enrollment growth,” though are yet to be determined.
Staff said this alternative would have “the least impact to any one school and provide greater flexibility for future changes” and “Measure I1 funds could be used to improve multiple schools and would result in balanced operational costs.”
There are “possible impacts to some school routes” and sites with new facilities, however, staff cautioned.
After reviewing the information, the Trustees are expected to provide staff with direction on submitting plans to the state in fall, providing further analysis of the alternatives, and putting the project on pause for “more detailed analysis before a final decision on an option is made.”
Construction is slated to begin next fall, if the project proceeds as planned.
In other business
* As Alameda County nears completion of 14 days in the red tier of the state’s COVID-19 monitoring system, PUSD is gearing up to reopen for select students to participate in a small cohort supervision pilot program. The Trustees will hear an update on preparation efforts Tuesday night.
Counties in the red tier may reopen schools for general education students in small cohorts after submitting a plan that meets certain public health criteria, but the final decision to reopen is left to school districts.
The state approved public schools in Alameda County last week to reopen effective Oct. 13, but PUSD told the Weekly that local schools are not reopening for the general student population at the moment and that the district is “still focused on the work in meeting the requirements.”
A staff presentation planned that evening states “there are no 100% safe options” moving forward, and “we must understand/appreciate the complexity of these decisions, if we are to move forward productively/avoid mistakes.”
Health and safety measures being taken include the use of personal protective equipment by staff and students such as face masks, making soap dispensers or hand sanitizer available in every classroom and common space, and adhering to cleaning and disinfection protocols.
One of the bigger concerns in recent staff discussions, classroom ventilation systems have been recently upgraded, with units being adjusted for maximum fresh air intake (50%). All elementary schools are completed, while the middle and high school campuses are on track to finish before the end of the month.
The district is also in the process of upgrading air filters to MERV 13 filters, and air purifiers will be installed in select classrooms.
Once schools reopen for in person learning, the California Department of Public Health will require closure and 14 days of quarantine if 5% of both students and teachers in either a school or classroom test positive for COVID-19, or if 1 in 4 schools in a district has a 5% positive rate.
PUSD is still messing around and can’t seem to make any sane decisions!! Quit stalling and Build that new school, it’s not going to get any cheaper! Just like the “stack and pack” housing our planning commission seems to favor so does the PUSD, just keep stacking and packing our kids and maybe nobody will notice.
This proposal ignores the fact the board indicated they would not bond the $35MM if they did not build a new “school”. It also ignores that building onto existing schools cuts playground space, library space, and multi-purpose usages. It also adds staff to some sights which would add costs. Finally, it ignores the RHNA implications of something in the range of 4,800 new housing units. The district should either build this school or “give back” the $35MM and try for more than $35MM in funding in their next attempt at a bond.