Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Report - August 19, 1981 PH (9)n fi t 'c. � � - :, _. , Y t i _ � +. �,.:� i �� __ _. ._ _ - '_k.-: 1 e: �t •';, BEFORB THE BW OF TRUSTEES OF THE LODI UNIFI L DISTRICT OF THE O xKff OF SAN JOAQUIN, STATE OF CALIFORNIA RESOLUTION NO. 81-32 DECLARATION OF IMPACTION WHEREAS, the development of new residential property results in the demand for additional school facilities; and WHEREAS, the Governing Board has made every feasible effort to provide permanent facilities; and WHEREAS, the financial ability of the District to provide for permanent facilities is limited or non-existent, and the constnxtion of new residences and the resultant increase of numbers of pupils continues; and WHEREAS students generated by new residential construction in the attendance areas already full create an immediate need for interim classroom solutions, and such solutions require capital expenditures or implementation of undesirable alter- natives by the District; and WHEREAS,_ the District has considered and acted upon such options as (1)presentation to the voters of bond measures to provide capital funds for school housing,. (2) temporary buildings, (3) double session, (4) bussing, (S) school atten- dance boundary realignment, and has considered, and for good and sufficient reasons chosen not to act upon, (6) year-round school attendance and (7) extended day pro- grams {hilt school); and WHEREM, the City of Lodi has enacted Ordinance No. 1149. -the City of Stockton has enacted Ordinance No. 309S-C.S., and the County of San Joaquin has enacted Ordinance No. ZS74 as mitigation measures to assist school districts to reduce the impact of new home construction; and W E;REAS, the aforementioned Ordinances require residential developers to participate in the cost of interim solutions necessitated by the overcrowding of existing classroom facilities due to new residential construction; and WHEREAS, this Board has reviewed the content of the master Site Capacity Table prepared by staff, a copy of which is attached hereto, and has approved said report for public distribution; THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED that the Lodi Unified School District declares impaction in these school attendance areas affected by current and proposed development plans, to wit: Clements Elementary School Attendance Area Elkhorn Elementary School Attendance Area (including Oakwood) Heritage Elementary School Attendance Area Lakewood Elementary School Attendance Area Lawrence Elementary School Attendance Area Davis Elementary School At'.endance Area Live Oak Elementary School Attendance Area Needham Elementary School Attendance Area Leroy Nichols Elementary School Attendance Area Vinewood Elementary School Attendance Area Parklane Elementary School Attendance Area Reese Elementary School Attendance Area -1- Washington Elementary School Attendance Area Mbrada Middle School Attendance Area Senior Elementary Middle School Attendance Area Woodbridge Middle School Attendance Area Houston Middle School Attendance Area Lodi High School Attendance Area Tokay High School Attendance Area BE IT RRTM RFMLVED that the Superintendent be, and he hereby is, directed to transmit a certified copy of this resolution and the accompanying staff report to the City Councils of Lodi and Stockton and the Board of Super- visors of the county -of San Josugin.for the consideration and concurrence following public hearings before their respective bodies. PASSED AND ADOPTED this, 4th day of August, 1981, by the following vote of the Board of Trustees, to wit: AYES: MES: ATTEST: clerk Board of Trustees -2- JOM President Board of Trustees Vq 4 � »°» © \ \� r L LODI UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT Board of Education John Vatsula, President Ann -Johnston, Vice -President Laurel Wisenor, Clerk George Abrahamson Robert C. Bail Herbert Buck, Jr. Bonnie Meyer Administration Ellerth E. Larson, Superintendent Tom Bandelin, Assistant Superintendent Ronald Alsup, Assistant Superintendent Richard L. Ehrhardt, Facility Planner Bill Cox, Administrative Director of Business Services Ralph Wetmore, Administrative Director of Personnel C. I. Baranoff, Consultant LODI UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT Facilities and Planning July 30, 1981 TABLE OF CONTENTS. .1. Resolution No. 81-32 Declaration of Impaction . . . . . . . . . 1-2 2. 1981-82 Impaction Mitigation Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 EXHIBITS 3. District Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ._ 4 4. .Masten School Capacity Table . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 5. Option for Handling Growth in Areas of Impaction . . . . . . . 6-7 6. Projected Additional Growth From Subdivisions in Affected Attendance Areas .- . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . 8-11 7. Map —Development in North Stockton Area . . . . . 12 S. Subdivision Map Key . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 9. Map - Development in Lodi Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 10. Map - Development in Lockeford Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 11. Correspondence to County Superintendent of Schools Regarding Dependence Upon School Bonds in the Aftermath of Proposition 13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16-17 12. Recommended Master Plan Priorities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 13. Project Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 14. Impaction Fee and Expense to Date . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 15. Projected Enrollment - 1981-1987 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 LODI WIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT 815 West Locke£ord Street Lodi, California 95240 DECLARATION OF MAQIUN . October 10, 1978 Revised July 30, 1981 BY The Staff of Facilities and Planning and C. I. Baranoff LODI UNIFIED SC[WL DISrRICr Facilities and Planning July 30 1981 1981-82 i14PACTION MITIGATION PLAN Based on a, projected increase in enrollment of 900 students in 1981-82_, the District will implement the.following plan,. -subject to receipt of revenue --specifically as it is resolved by the Courts. I. Continue to lease from the State of California thirty-two (32) .portable classrooms presently located at six (6) sites within the District. $ 64,000.00 II. Develop, and lease the "Maki -School" in the Colonial Estates North; Subdivision. 160,000.00 III. Lease or lease -purchase sixteen (16) portables for placement at various locations with furniture and equipment. 230,000.00- 104 00WG �00- -3- I Ir- -Ll%F 116 2c EXHIBITS Revised July 1981 P4rpanent Existing Classrooms LODI UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT Facilities and Planning Master.School Capacity Table District Interim's Portable Instructional Extra pacityLoad Classrooms Cs Extended Capacity w e y 4i~ ari: QAC I! Elementary Schools: Cl- -to 3 0 1QS 12 120 91 12 103 Davie 20 0 343 47 590 615 69 684 Davis -Mini 0 0 0 180 *Jan 0 0 0 Elkhorn 7 6 405 105 &510 837 531 1,368 Elkhorn -Mini 0 0 0 240 *240 0 0 0 Henderson 4 0 108 12 120 0 0 0 11tritage 18 0 833 47 580 524 1,114 1,638 Lakewood 17 0 478 102 .Safi 542 257 '799 Lawrence 7 0 lio 20 240 213 131 344 Live Oak 11 2 1383 35 420 334 107 441 Lockeford 7 2 975 25 300 241 20 267 Needham 14 6 395 35 430 469 0 469 Leroy Nichols 20 0 S60 SO 610 648 253 901 Oakwood 0 6 162 240 *402 368 30 � 398 Park Lane 9 6 113 445 *720 798 428 1,2" Ray 4 0 138 12 180 101 0 101 Reese 17 0 478 42 520 464 40 A4 Tokay Colony 4 1 163 15 180- 148 0 148 Turner 3 0 82 8 90 45 0 45 Venice Ring 2 0 55 S 60 0 0 0 Victor Pinewood 9 18 0 0 273 SGS 25 133 300 640 233 574 0 281 233 35A Washington 21 0613 SS 670 605 30 b3S IT 6,760 1,892 8,652 7,856 3,303 11,159 - Middle 6chools: nonstoa(1-0) 13 0 351 39 390 359 15 374 -lloz s , 12 1 353 159 %S10454 160 614 senior 110"at ry 32 3 943 105 1.050 1,042 1,244 x,286 ibodbridje 17 1_ _ . _ 606 228 834 3 � i 474 477 2,610 2,461 _ 1,647. 4r 1, �- tz; Hijb Schools: Lodi Bial Sdiool 4 2,167 197 2,3" 11955 308 2.263 °Tokay H1g1: 6ehool 2 2,151 438 *2,Sa6 2,224 1,312 3a16 4 t1wt'Cy 1111110 Sciaol -210 .....4.__ 210 314 0 314 10 4,528 632 5,160 4,493 1,620 "tits 13 621 39001 16,422 14,810 6,570 21,380 ldasedect►s (Mibi-Sathool i State Portabl+4s) v _ OPTIONS BOAI'UMEG tDiOiTPii IN ARBAS OlP AtctON temsnt: The school district believes in the concept of neighbor- bood schools and will aske every reasonable effort to provide education in the elementary grades in the immediate neighborhood of the pupil; for pupils In. grades._7 and S. instruction will be provided in the general ares; for pupils in the high schools, instruction will be provided at the school of sas3gwaat which -will be generally the closest of the two -major high schools. As growth continues and attendance areas become impacted, the district will cossider or has considered the following alternatives to neighborhood schooles 1. Dual losdins of all schooli throughout the district. The district has adopted an equal loading policy which will cause all schools throughout the district within a given grade span to house the same proportim of students relative to -capacity. Equal loading is -a concept that works well in an urban -area but provides extraordinary long bus rides for students when the are* of Impaction. and --growth is sub- stantially removed from the area where classrooms are available. 2. sus, sing. Bussing is used as an interim process to -implement tits equal load policy. The board finds that no pupil should be bussed froerhis- attendance area, - but if, necessary, never more then 10 miles from the "full" school tothe school of redirection. 3. Double sessions. Double- sessions in the primary grades retain; the sae amount of ttme. In each of the instructional sections, double sessions are perceived se being disadvantageous to the students attending school in the p.a. shift. The fabric of society rejects the concept of young children being in school from 12:30 p.m. to 5:00 p.s. followed by what say be an extended period of time on the school bus. Older children (above grade 4) lose a significant amount of instructional time through the device of double sessionst and it is perceived as being totally un- acceptable as other than an extremely short Lora measure for pupils other than K-3. 4. mactended day programs. Programs in the early morning or in the late afternoon say be devised to utilise a highschool plant at above normal carrying capacity. Such programs are found to have relatively small pupil/parent interest, are not conducive to integration with established bussing schedules, and are not viable answers to impaction. 5. Twoorary buildings. Temporary buildings are the next best answer to permanent buildings to the questions posed by school impaction and growth. It is the feeling of the germing board that soma twenty to twenty-five percent of total elassxoom space at an elementary or middle school should always be in portWej to provide long range flexibility. Portable buildings have -6- been used in the district extensively and would continue to be utilized in any balanced program of building. District funds are not available to purchase needed portable classrooms to meet student growth. b. School boundary realignment. This device has been used to accomodate growth in an immediately adja- cent attendance area. Hhere growth is scattered or substantially removed from school houses with room available, realignment is ineffective. With the growth rate of the several attendance areas in this district, boundary realignment is not a viable permanent solution beyond that already accom- plished. 7_. Year-round schools. Year round school education has the potentiality of increasing available classroom space by twenty to twenty-five percent. The district has studied YRS and has determined that it is not a viable solution to the question of pocket growth removed a distance from available school houses. 8. Financial resources. The traditional methods of raising funds to build. school houses include the passing of bond issues or of tax override measures. Legal opinion subsequent to the passage of Proposition 13 has indicated that such measures= -are no longer valid. S. nterix extra load. Long term class load factors are twenty-seven pupils at grades K-3, and twenty-eight pupils at grades 4-8; however, it -has been necessary because of lack of space to load the classrooms at an average of thirty pupils on an interim basis. 10. Emergency school classes. Assembly Bill No. 8, signed by the Governor on July 24, 1979, enacted the Emergency School Classroom Law of 1979. tinder this Law, Lodi Unified School District has received thirty-two (32) portables for use in 1981-82. These buildings are subject to recall by the State of California should there be greater need elsewhere in California. -7- s .e I UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT D a� Facilities and Planning Revised June 30, 1981 Projected Additional Growth from • L - Lodi Subdivisions in Affected Attendance Areas: S - Stockton C - County -SCHpDL ATrEMM M AREA AREA SUBDIVISION PRaJECTED ADDITIONAL STUDENTS Elkhorn S Colonial Estates North 160 S Stonewood Estates 2S0 S Golden Bear 10 S Single Tree Estates 7 S Sussex.Gardens 86 S Harpers Ferry 8 S . Davis Oaks- 10 531 Lakewood C Woodbridge Greens 64 C Ferrero Subdivision 52 L Rivergate 60 L Burlington Manor 10 C Country View Estates 64 C Fairway Estates Parklane S Fox Creek 35 S Claimant Place 198 S Cimarron 70 S Zinfindel Estates 1-2 428 Morada C Norada Estates North 15 C Oak Creek 19 S Fox Creek 17 S Claimant Place 6S C Greenwood Estates 2 C Mosher Manor 20 C Gnekow 4 C Morada West 16 C Norada Place 2 0 Tokay }sigh L Beckman Ranch 42 L Matthews - Diablo Meadows 8 S Colonial Estates North 80 S Bear Creek Estates 12 S Stonewood Estates 125 L (Lodi South) Summerfield 18 S Zin�indel 62 L Winchester Acres 15 L Southeast Lodi--Johnson-Tandy 517 L Wood Brook 18 L Grupe - Lake Shore Village 92 L Cambridge Place 23 S Golden Bear 5 S Single Tree Estates 3 S Sussex Gardens 43 C Morada Estates North 1S L English Oaks 6 & 7 10 -8- SLWIVISION 'okay High -(cont.) C Oak Creek 19 L Stonebrook 8 L Bergu dy Village 8 S Fox Creek 17 S Clairmont Place 65 C Greenwood Estates 2 -C Mosher Manor 20 S Cimarron 40 L The Oaks - Grupe 12 C Gnekow 5 C Morada Place 2 C Morada West 27 S harpers Ferry 4 -S Davis Oaks 5 Lodi High L Homestead Manor 14 L Sun West 8 L Rivergate 30 -C Lambert -Village 15 L Burlington Manor 5 C Fairway Estates 4 L Colony Ranch 43 L Mbkelumne Village 26 L Mffllswood 17 C Woodbridge Greens 32 C Country View Estates 33 L Homestead Oaks 5 L Aaron Terrace 4 L Sanguinetti Park 15 C Ferrero Subdivision 26 L Pinewood Court 3 L Las Caritas 23 303� Senior Elementary S Colonial Estates North 80 S Bear Creek Estates 12 S Stonewood Estates 168 S Golden Bear Estates 10 S Single Tree Estates 5 S Sussex Gardens 43 L Beckman Ranch 42 L Matthews - Diablo Meadows 8 L The Oaks 12 L Homestead Manor 14 L Sun West 8 S Cimarron 40 S Harpers Ferry 4 S Davis Oaks 5 L (Lodi South) Summerfield 18 L Aaron Terrace 3 L Winchester Acres i5 -9- Live Oak Leroy Nichols Woodbridge IN L Southeast Lodi - Johnson -Tandy 517 L Wood -Brook 17 L Lake Shore Village - Grupe 99 L Cambridge Place 23 S Zinfindel 63 L Las Casitas 23 L Bergundy Village 8 L Stonebrook 7 L English oaks 6 & 7 10 1,254` C Nbrada Estates North 30 C Oak Creek 37 C Mosher Manor 40 07 L Beckman Ranch 84 L Matthews - Diablo Meadows 18 L The Oaks 24 L -(Lodi South) Summerfield 37 L -Winchester Acres 30 L Wood Brook 35 L Stonebrook 15 L English Oaks, Units 6 & 7 10 3 L Rivergate 30 L Burlington Manor 5 C Fairway Estates 4 L Colony Ranch 34 L Nbkelu ne Village 26 L Millswood 16 L Homestead Oaks 5 C Country View Estates 32 C Woodbridge Greens 32 L Sanguinetti Park 15 C Ferrero Subdivision 26 L Pinewood Court3 � 8 S Bear Creek Estates 30 L Grupe - Lake Shore Village 183 L Homestead Manor 29 L Sun West lb L Aaron Terrace 7 L Las Casitas 46 281 Heritage L Southeast Lodi - Johnson -Tandy 1,030 L Cambridge Place 68 L Bergundy Village 16 -10- 1,114 xqn-.aaeu v++rssw.[:H:.a:+eo.swat eaa.waa.:w.c:.<> • n`�w�^',.•xyax �as, r' .:, ,�:. _ =S 70L lTl' CE AREA AREA SUBDIVISION PROJECTED ADDITICNAL SnADENPS `Loekeford/Clemits C Lambert Village 32 Mistoe C Lambert Village is Eno Reese L Millswood 40 L Pinewood Court 7 -Lawrowe L Colony Rich 69 _= L homestead Oaks 10 L Makelu ne Village 52 -131 Davis C Greem%mod Estates 4 C Gnekow 7 C Morada West S4 C Morada Place 4 9 Washington L Sanpinetti Park 30 V -T OTi W-14- I. R. -St -•4 ., - t4 4. Rivergate, 5. Nbkelumae Village 6. SanVAnetti Park 7. Colony Ranch a. Millswood 9. Homestead Oaks 10. Homestead Manor 11. Sun West 12. -Aaron Terrace 13. Lake Shore 14-. Bec)cman'Ranch 15. Diablo Meadows 16, Woodbrook 17. Lodi South - Summerfield Ia. Southeast Lodi 19. Winchester Acres or Winchester Oaks 20. Coimtry View Estates 21. Cambridge Manor 22. La Casitas 23. Bergundy Village 24. English Oaks Manor - Unit 6 25. English Oaks Manor - Unit 7 26. Pinewood 27. Stonebrook 28. Stonetree 29. Ferrero Subdivision -13- f r%i AAk ■ r�- GERALD A. SNERw/N COUNTY cou"64% MICHAEL M. GARRIGAN Cotter otsUTY Cou"TT coup"L PATRICK M. CURRAN cuter 09PUTT COUNTY CQ~L G OMCC OF THE COUNTY COUNSEL. COUNTY OF SAN JOAQUIN COURTNOUSC 222 CAST wC§CR AVCNUC STOCKTON. CALIFORNIA 95202 Ttu~ftc Mot& toot aost June 13, 1978 Dr. Gaylord A. Nelson County Superintendent of Schools County of San Joaquin Courthouse - Fourth Floor Stockton, Ca. 95202 Re: School Bonds Dear Dr. Nelson: YICNASL "COScw wwT. COU.Tt co...ct Tt11StNC9 S. Denlac=Y NWT. I/ C...T1 COW"" MTS/CIA M. /StDc1NCS newtv e..w.n e.6..cu P"64 CSOD11 "VV" COVtltt IIASI( F. OSNSCLA* ochres evwtt Co..*" CNASLtt T. TNOM►IbOM Nwt. C�W~v C.U.694. 060S09 14 CUNN/MQ00401 .Cwt. CO~V cow"*\ SiDtCCA A. DAVM .cwTT COUwt. COuw.ti- ►SAtNI T. DSUNO. JS .cwt. col. -I C.IW046 As you may be aware, -County Counsel Gerald Sherwin recently provided Richard -Cherry, Superintendent of Manteca Unified School District,with a --memorandum opinion dealing with the -affect of Proposition- 13 _on. future _school bond elections. We have been asked to provide this information to all school district*- in the= County and herewith submit same to you for distribution. Generally speaking, the issue is whether Proposition 13 prohibits a school bond election. Although that measure does not specifically address the subject, the answer for all practical purposes is "yes". Proposition 13 adds Article XIII A to the Constitution. Section 1(a) " of that Article provides that the maximum rate of taxes levied against any real property may not exceed one percent of the full cash value of such property. The one percent so levied is apparently to be distributed among all the taxing jurisdictions within the County within which the property is located. Section 1(b) expressly excepts from this limitation "ad valorem taxes or special assessments to pay the interest and redemption charges on any indebtedness approved by the voters prior to the time this section becomes effective". Mr. Sherwin advised Superintendent Cherry that a November bond election in the Manteca Unified School District would not benefit from the exception provided by Section 1(b). Although much of Proposition 13 is a state of considerable uncertainty which may be resolved only by court action or legislative clarification, it appears to us at this time that the one percent limitation may not be increased in order to finance school bond measures, even though such measures maybe approved -16- a o� Dr. Gaylord A. Nelson June 13,1978 Page Two by the requisite percentage of voters residing in the school district. In practical terms, school districts will be competing with other taxing entities on a pro rata basis for the fixed amount of dollars generated by the one percent limitation. At this time -it would appear that the most that could be accomplished by a bond measure would be to increase slightly the proportion, of such monies to which school districts would be entitled. In the -event that this pro rats competition for limited tax dollars becomes reality, it is unlikely that sufficient taxes could be levied for the benefit of a school district to satisfy the requirements of the Education Code for the payment.of bonds. Specifically, Education Code Section 15250 provides in pertinent.part: "The tax shall not be less than -sufficient to pay the interest on the 'bonds -as -it becomes - due and to provide a .-sinking fund -for. the -payment of the principal on or before Aatur ty and: may include an allowance for an annual reserve, established -for the -purpose-of avoid-ing fluctuating tax levies. Thetax- shams `be suffiieient to _provide funds for the payment of the interest on the bonds. as it becomes due and also such part_of the principal and interest as is to become due before the proceeds of a tax levied at the time for making the next general tax levy can be made available for the pay- ment of the principal and interest." As a result of the foregoing discussion, and in the absence of specific legislative action in this area, it would appear that the advancing of a school bond election measure would be of little benefit to a school district as the law stands now. MFO:jgs -z�- Very truly yours, GERALD A. SHERWIN County Counsel By MARK F. ORNELLAS Deputy County Counsel RECOMS MID MASTER PLAID PRIORITIES YilASE I - 1981-82 Sell Millswood School Site Proceed with Special Education Development Center Application for funds `prepare State Building -Program Application. for: A.- Stonewood EstateElementary D. Claremont Elementary 0. Holt Elementary D. Grupe Elementary E. Elkhorn Middle School Service Center or Transportation-Satelkite-Operation RDP/C--Adult Education Center Established at Lincoln. School PHASE II - 1983-87 Sell, trade, or retain English -Oaks. Prepare State Building Program Application fora A. Southern High School --lot Phase: B. Morada Middle School Expansion C. Johnson -Tandy Elementary D. I -S West --or Equivalent Elementary (Addition to Parklane and Oakwood) NOTE: Projects in Phase II may be advanced to Phase I schedule should financing become more readily available or other events lead to changes. -18- I PROJECT INFORMATION PHASE I Millwood School Site Or4ginally 34 acres was acquired by the Woods School District for a future Middle School. In 1978, 14 acres were sold. Based on current projections, the need for the remaining acreage is less now. Therefore, this site becomes surplra and is recommended for disposal. Special Education Development Center (Leroy F. Greene Lease Purchase Fund) As the District moves to satisfy the mandated needs of Special Education, it becomes amore evident that the responsibility of educating students. in a.develop- ment center must bs a local responsibility. This program is considered in that it can be eligible under the Leroy F. Greene Lease -Purchase Law. The most probable location for this program is to make modification at Washington School. It is assumed .that the district will be -"given" the Trainable Mentally. Retarded facility now -at Dorothy Mahin School by the County. -Otherwise, another similar facility will be necessary. Stonewood Estate Elementary (Leroy F. Greene Lease.Purchase Fund) An 11 acre site has been reserved just south of Bear Creek and vest of Thornton Road: It iw-planned for an elementary school using the "Victor Plan", togtther with s multi-purpose building and additional permanent and relocatable_clawarooms. Claremont Elementary (Leroy F. Greene Lease Purchase Fund) The developer has reserved approximately 10 acres in the Claremont subdivision Just nest of Normandy Village. Planned improvement includes the -building designed in the "Victor Plan", plus a multi-purpose building and permanent andlacatale-classrooms-. Holt Elementary (Leroy F. Greene Lease Purchase Fund) This would be a school designated in the.Colonial Estates neighborhood north of Sasser Lane. Presently, no site is designated. However, a large land parcel owned by the Holt family would be studied for an 8 to 10 acres school site. Planned Improvement includes the building designed in the "Victor Plan", plus a multi- purpose building and permar.?nt and relocatable classrooms. Grupe Elementary (Leroy F. Greene Lease Purchase Fund) A school site southwest of the Lakeshore development would need to be considered and developed. Planned improvement includes the building designed in the "Victor Plan", plus a multi-purpose building and permanent and relocatable classrooms. Elkhorn Middle School (Leroy P. Greene Lease Purchase Fund) Preliminary discussion has occurred with the Beck organization to trade the present Elkhorn School site for 20 acres southwest of that location. The exchange would provide for the continued use of the Elkhorn School until Stonewood Estates and Bolt Schools were operational. The plan would require the construction of a comprehensive middle school for 750 students. Service Center Facility (Local Funding) The planned acquisition of the Rappyholme site is the preferred approach. However, the alternative of developing a transportation yard at Nichols can be considered as an interim solution. ROP/C-Adult Education (Local and Categorical Funding) The plan provides for developing at the Lincoln School sites facilities for the ROP/C classroom and related office and service facility for the ROP/C- Adult Education Programs. =19- IMPACTION FEE "IRAN'° INOM AS OF 5/81 imi Ste& COUNly 1979-80 (COPE) Relocation of Portables -- Oakwooc Parklane Tokay High School I9W-81 EMERGENCY PORTABLES Lease Payments- to State =I; vv x ppment. 1981-82 PORTABLE LEASE PAYME?M Encim6ered o� « -20- Jum 30, 1981 $ 73,952.00 413,600-.00 16,631.00 $ 508,183.00 $ 100,000.00 $ 60,142.00 141,400.00 64,000.00 $ 36S,542.00 $=142,641.00 N Cµ lifaAt►1 Ott/C[ of LOL44 ASSISTa0Ct PNJWM NWMLNW POR tACUZrf WASM PLAN Iter "*M NiTO+Ct L002� COY. r 848 .7QAgRtIM �rt�lutlo,t Iro_ 19/7 [~ A o 19 L Fil TAT most* 1 0 61r "04111 AVERME CHANGE 61-82 82-83 PROJECIEO ENADILMENT 83-84 8445 8S-86 86-87 'IE"" R 2 :•• S 6 K-6 8449 6959 9472 10116 10801 11491 t 7--8- 2367 2638 2887 27+45 2963 3111 10 li 12 TOTAL 9-U 4643 W0 5M $43 3751 GOW TOTAL N14R lout 15,"S 16,367 17,440 18,4% 19,517 20,682 'msµ CHANGE SPECIAL E0. PUPAS (isrest [rneaAn[rT) 848 902 1,073 1,056 1,021 1,165 PUP IL UNITS - CONTINUATION N. L 1 J MIs". not. tOPOL 043. AEM. „TA Pvt. "4&-* *&V3 It[M. A[ca March 1980 822 lyl -37 6 April. 1980 . � ._. 903- EMI 28 is may 1980 9" UM TOTAL 2 _ 142 13 AVERAGE ATTENDANCErout r 18) 148 TOTAL 207 X uITIST[,.oLL10111 MADE ENROLL. x EST. AOA GRADE ENROLL. 1 EST. AOA K 1320 1280 K .9t 1-3 3802 3688 T-3 3i 3722 4-6 2119 1-8 9.17 9-12 31'tC. to. 1 246 SPEC. 10. _------ ---- — 10 T NI GM 1T n0kr1 "Ta. mot till -2 faculivi 0101cia11 a .t