Facilities : 1997 Bond : Background
	Examples of Projects Some Frequently Asked Questions Deciding Where the Money Would be Spent

Timeline: As of August, 1999, all of the bonds have been sold. The total amount of money in the bond budget is $106,670,000.00. The current plans anticipate that all of these funds will be spent by the summer of 2002.

Questions: Anyone with questions about the bond program should be able to contact their school principal for information. Additional information can be obtained from Bill Johnson, Assistant Superintendent for Facilities & Operations (480-484-6143).

Budget: Below is a brief summary of the bond budget. Additional detailed information with regard to individual school projects is being provided on 3D-International's Web site. 3D-International (3D-I) is a construction management firm that the district has hired to manage all of the construction projects being funded by the bond.

New School Construction: Copper Ridge (DC Ranch area) $23,000,000

(Phase I - $19,000,000 Phase II - $4,000,000)

Remodeling of Existing Schools: $63,190,000

Examples of Projects

A brief sampling of the kinds of projects being completed is listed below. A more complete update of school projects will be contained on the Web site (http://www.3di.com/pws) coordinated by 3D-International. Their Web site will continually be updated as new information is obtained.

a. A new school is being constructed in North Scottsdale in the DC Ranch neighborhood. The school has officially been named Copper Ridge School. It is being built in two phases. When both phases are completed, the school will house students in kindergarten through eighth grade. The middle school portion is being built first. This first phase will include the administration, cafeteria, gymnasium and play fields. Once the first phase is completed, we hope to add the elementary classrooms (Phase II) immediately. Phase I is scheduled to be completed in December 2000. We hope to have Phase II finished by August 2001.

b. All-weather tracks: All weather tracks are currently being installed at each of our five high schools. Arcadia H.S., who already has an all-weather track, is having its track resurfaced. Each of the other four high schools should have its new track ready for spring track competition.

c. Replacement of Cochise School: When Cochise School was originally built, all of its buildings were modular structures. They are currently in poor condition. As a part of the bond program, a new facility adjacent to the existing school will be built. This new school is scheduled to open in August 2001.

d. Replacement of portable classrooms: Many of our schools have some outdated portable classrooms. As a part of this bond program, all portable classrooms are scheduled to be replaced with permanent structures. Once the new classrooms are built, the portables will be removed.

e. Upgrading of mechanical systems: Many of the older schools have heating and cooling systems that are completely outdated. As a part of this bond program, we will undertake the replacement of most of the old mechanical systems. This will include new units at campuses like Ingleside, Kiva, Cherokee and Tavan, just to name a few.

f. Renovation of Tavan School: The Board approved a major renovation at Tavan Elementary School. Tavan is the oldest school in the district. Currently, students attend classes on both the north and south side of Osborn Road. After the major renovation, all student classrooms should be on the north side of Osborn and all mechanical systems will be updated.

g. Every campus: Nearly every campus will receive some amount of remodeling. The older schools will receive substantial budgets for remodeling. Newer schools will receive funds for things like increased security. For additional detail regarding the budget and projects for each school site, please refer to the Web site (http://www.3di.com/pws) maintained by 3D-I, the construction management firm coordinating the remodeling work.

Bond Oversight Committee: As part of the commitment to Scottsdale voters that the funds would be spent in a manner consistent with promises made to the community, a Bond Oversight Committee was established. The committee is comprised of individuals who have demonstrated a history of civic involvement. In addition, none of the members have children in any Scottsdale school. That was to ensure that they would be impartial with regard to individual school needs. As a result, they have maintained a districtwide perspective in their efforts to monitor how bond funds are spent.

The members of the Bond Oversight Committee are as follows:

Gary Moriarty, Architect (Chairperson)

Ted Beam, Rural/Metro Corporation

George Bosworth, Equity Residential

Tim Bray, Southwest Community Resources

Bonnie Halley, Scottsdale Chamber of Commerce

Pam Krewson, Arts in Education Council

Wendy Lyons, Scottsdale Health Systems

Robert Peirce, Jr., Scottsdale Association of Realtors

Don Ruff, Bank One Arizona

Diana Smith

Murray Smith, McCormick Homeowners Association

Bill Johnson, Assistant Superintendent

Now that the plan for spending bond funds has been developed and remodeling projects are underway at all of our schools, the Bond Oversight Committee meets on a quarterly basis. Meetings are open to the public. They are held at the Education Center at 3811 North 44th Street in the Board Room. Meetings run from 4:30 P.M. - 6:00 P.M. For those who cannot attend the meetings, the District will post the minutes from the meetings on its Web site (www.susd.org)

Deciding Where the Money Would be Spent

Many people have asked about the process that was used in deciding which projects would be addressed with bond funds. That process began before the ballot was even presented to the public to vote on. Numerous meetings were held at schools and among community groups to prioritize the needs of the district. Well before any preliminary budget was prepared, it was clear that this bond issue would not be adequate to address all the needs of our aging schools. A commitment was made early on that the primary focus of this bond sale should be to focus on the needs of our older schools. Therefore, when anybody looks at the breakdown on how funds were allocated to each school for remodeling, they can easily see that the older schools are receiving considerably more money than the newer schools.

One of the first steps was the development of facility standards. That process began with an initial inventory of existing sites. That study was conducted by The Cunningham Group, an architectural firm specializing in educational settings. With the direction provided by the Cunningham Group, a series of meetings were held to solicit input from staff, students, parents and community members on what standards should guide construction activities in the schools. Approximately a year was spent on the development of the facility standards. These standards now provide guidance on various aspects of the school building, and include recommendations for such things as the size of regular classrooms, art rooms, cafeterias, etc. In addition, they provide guidance on functions such as the desired operational effectiveness of heating and cooling equipment, number of parking places needed, and athletic equity issues for each campus.

Once the standards had been developed, a determination had to made as to how each of our existing schools matched up to the standards. Almost another year was spent evaluating each school campus. A team of architectural firms was hired to visit each school and determine where the school differed from the building standards. Using the services of Pinnacle One, a construction management company, each of the variances from standards was assigned a cost. Using the data received from Pinnacle One, it would take approximately $300 million to correct all of the deficiencies and bring every facility up to the standards that were developed.

Since the bond budget only allowed for approximately $63 million for renovating our schools, a great deal of prioritizing had to be done. Several concepts guided that prioritization process. The original promises made to voters prior the bond election were a major factor. Safety issues at each campus were also given a high priority. It was clearly a consensus that all mechanical systems (heating, cooling, plumbing, etc.) at the schools had to be in proper operating condition. A balance was sought among the different program areas that needed to be upgraded (i.e. fine arts, athletics, etc.).

During the prioritization process, meetings were held with school leadership teams to review the projects that had been identified. Meetings among principals and other staff provided individuals with opportunities to express concerns with the existing facilities. All through the development of the plan, the Bond Oversight Committee actively participated. The Scottsdale School Board met in collaboration with the Bond Oversight Committee to share ideas and to allow public participation on how funds should be spent. The resulting plan was approved by the School Board on Sept. 7, 1999. That plan is now the guiding force for all of the remodeling work to be completed at each site during the next three years.

In subsequent meetings, five architectural firms were approved by the School Board. The five firms are:

Durrant Architects	The Stichler Group
Orcutt/Winslow	Gould Evans
Saemisch DiBella Murphy

The School Board also hired the firm of 3D-International (3D-I) to manage all of the construction projects over the next three years. They have staff assigned to each of the schools and they will maintain the bond budget. On a quarterly basis, they will present updates to the Bond Oversight Committee. In addition, 3D-I is maintaining a Web site (http://www.3di.com/pws). This Web site will provide updated information to the entire public on the status projects and budget information.

Each school has been assigned one of the architectural firms to work with the principal and site leadership team to finalize each of the projects to be completed. They will work closely with that firm until the completion of the remodeling program. Additional information related to specific schools can be found on the Web site created by 3D-I.

Some Frequently Asked Questions

• Who made the determination on which projects were to be funded?

All of us. Principals and other administrators, teachers, staff, students, the Bond Oversight Committee, parent groups, and the Board. This is in addition to the community groups who were involved prior to the promotion and vote on the Bond who made promises to the community on what would happen if they voted for the bond. The plan approved by the Board in September allocated $63,190,000 dollars to remodel our schools. By going to the principal groups with those numbers and plans, the administration tried to involve them as vehicles for sharing with the general public at each school.

• If your school had some priorities that were deemed important, why are they not being funded?

This bond was never promoted as a means to solve or address wish-list items at schools. We never said that schools would choose their projects. This bond, from the very moment the District went out to the public, was designed to raise all schools to a common level of standards. A great deal of time was spent establishing the standards, comparing schools to the standards and deciding which standards could be maintained at all sites. Major categories of expenditures and standards were shared with the voters prior to the measure being approved. It included such matters as mechanical deficiencies (HVAC, plumbing, electrical), security, the replacement of portable buildings with permanent structures, kitchen upgrades, etc. All standards could not be funded, let alone items that were not standards. Many school priorities did not address districtwide standards. In addition, compared to more critical items, many school priorities simply could not be funded with our limited budget.

• Why is there such a wide disparity in the amount of money allocated to the individual schools?

Once again, the funds were promised for bringing all schools up to district standards. The schools vary greatly in how they vary from the standards. There was never any inference that the money would be spent equally among schools. In fact, just the opposite has been the goal. That is, more money needs to be spent on those schools who need the greatest amount of work. By and large, that is the older schools. On the breakdown of expenditures by school and by complex, the plan does a great job of addressing the needs in the older schools over those requests from newer schools.

• Why isn't there more funding to repair more roofs?

Monies from the State through the Students First Capital funding program will be used to augment expenditures from the bond. A major portion of the Students First (Building Renewal) budget will be applied to repair roofs. With these additional monies, all roofs, over the next few years, should be upgraded to meet our standards.

When we looked at what it would take to bring all schools up to the standards, the cost was well over $300 million. We have approximately $60 million to address the most severe issues. We simply have had to prioritize. Hopefully, by focusing our monies on the oldest and most deserving sites and buildings, we can win the support from our community for future bond votes. By understanding this whole picture, we should be able to help all parents and staff realize that we have numerous challenges to address with a rather restricted budget (even though $60 million is a lot.)