DGSD SIOUXFALLS REPORT 06-08-2018 vFINAL · Sioux Falls School District 6/8/2018 Facilities Task Force Report--Final 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The population of the Sioux Falls region is

FACILITIES TASK FORCE REPORT--FINAL SIOUX FALLS SCHOOL DISTRICT

JOE DOOVAN [email protected]

FINAL

JUNE 8, 2018

Sioux Falls School District

6/8/2018 Facilities Task Force Report--Final 1

FACILITIES TASK FORCE REPORT--FINAL

LETTER FROM THE TASK FORCE

The Sioux Falls School District's mission is “to educate and prepare each student to succeed in a changing world.” Toward that end, the district has been the educational home to thousands of Sioux Falls residents over the years and has served the community well for generations. As the city continues to flourish as a vibrant economic engine for the region, the success of the city and the school district has created a situation in which school district enrollments are increasing significantly.

Because of this growth, the Sioux Falls School Board has addressed numerous facility-related challenges, including the need to increase capacity to avoid school overcrowding and continue ensuring that every student in the district has the opportunity to receive a top-notch education. Considering this challenge, the school board developed a process for investigating its facility needs that not only considers the district's strategic plan but also includes the entire district community in the search for thoughtful and long-term solutions to facility-related challenges.

After engaging in a comprehensive strategic planning effort in 2017, the board studied the district's current enrollment and past enrollment trends. Using multiple methods, the board projected future enrollment and analyzed current facility use. The board then held a series of community engagement sessions that outlined the district's past, current, and projected enrollment. Three sessions were held in March 2018, and community members were encouraged to provide feedback.

In the second phase of its engagement effort, the school board sought the assistance of a community-led facilities task force. The task force conducted four meetings, evaluated the needs of the district, and considered solutions. The task force conducted four meetings, evaluated the needs of the district, considered feedback from staff focus group sessions and community listening sessions, and considered solutions.

This document is the final report of the task force’s work. It outlines the needs that were considered, the process used by the task force, and a list of solutions agreed upon by task force members. This document was drafted by Joe Donovan of Donovan Group. The Donovan Group is a communications and community engagement firm focusing on education. Mr. Donovan and the Donovan Group have no formal or financial connection to any solution presented in this report. The Donovan Group’s fees have been paid by the district.

Although the board is not bound by the recommendations of the task force, it does expect to use them as it pursues the next steps.

As the task force concludes its work, it wishes to thank the board for the opportunity to serve the community. Thanks also to district staff for your professional, thoughtful, and timely assistance.

Sincerely,

Sioux Falls School District Facilities Task Force



EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The population of the Sioux Falls region is growing, and so is the enrollment of the Sioux Falls School District. The district has seen a 20 percent increase in enrollment in the last decade and expects a 10 percent increase in the next decade. At the same time, the district has numerous other facility-related needs requiring our attention. While the district's facilities have served the community well for many years, attention must be paid now to ensure that what has made the district so successful in the past continues into the future.

To address these issues, the Sioux Falls School Board sought to engage the entire school district community in a discussion about the district's needs in an effort to receive feedback from the community and, ultimately, to develop a solution.

The process began this winter with three engagement sessions held throughout the district in which community members were encouraged to participate. These events included a brief presentation by district staff and a facilitated conversation with community members. Similar sessions were held with district staff.

Following the engagement sessions, the board invited 30 community members from across the district to participate in a facilities task force, which met four times. During the meetings, task force members received information about the city’s growth, the district’s growth, some additional needs of the district, and some potential solutions.

The task force received a formal charge from the school board and was asked by the board to develop a set of recommendations to be presented to the board. Members also considered feedback from staff focus group sessions and the community engagement sessions. This document is the task force’s final report.

While board members were encouraged to attend task force meetings, they did not voice their opinions and did not vote on task force items. District staff served the task force as information resources, and Joe Donovan from the Donovan Group assisted the task force in following a process and in writing the final report. Public notices were posted for all meetings of the task force and community members were given an opportunity at the conclusion of every meeting to publicly address the task force.

In their deliberations, the task force considered feedback from the community engagement sessions, addressed the need to ensure all students in the district, regardless of their home address, had access to quality educational spaces, and established consensus by the end of the second task force meeting about building more schools to accommodate new students. Most of the task force’s work was not about whether to recommend building a new school or schools to the board, but rather about the number of schools to be built, where they should be located, and what dollar amount to recommend to the board for a possible September referendum.



Members of the task force agreed that a student's home address or the school a student attends should not dictate the educational opportunities or service options available and lauded efforts by the school board to ensure equity across the district.

Task force members returned over the course of their time together to their concern about Whittier Middle School. Members were told the school has an approximate useful lifespan of a decade, after which time the school should be replaced.

Task force members received information and asked questions about the recent land donation proposal made by Sanford Health. Task force members agreed they should not weigh in on the donation proposal. Instead, they considered a general location for the construction of a school or schools. In addition, task force members repeatedly mentioned the need for the board to redraw boundaries after the passage of a referendum, and they validated the school board’s plans to conduct a transparent, community-led process after the passage of a September 2018 referendum.

During their deliberations, task force members spoke about embarking on a 10-year plan and recommended that the School Board continue to form similar task forces at regular intervals to stay ahead of enrollment growth, equity needs, and the need to renovate buildings. They also spoke about adhering to a 24.3:1 student-to-teacher ratio and agreed that the maximum high school enrollment should be 1,800 students, the maximum middle school enrollment should be 1,000, and the maximum elementary enrollment should be 600.

Finally, throughout the task force meetings, members expressed their desire to recommend fiscally responsible solutions. Task force members felt responsible for finding solutions posing the least burden to community members, especially seniors and others on a fixed income.

The following are the task force’s recommendations:

• A new middle school should be constructed on the school district’s southeast side. The school should be built as soon as possible, and opened in 2021, if possible, or 2022.

• The school board should use a robust and transparent engagement effort, similar to the one the task force used, to establish new school boundaries within the district.

• A new high school should be constructed on the school district’s northwest side. The school should be built as soon as possible, and opened in 2021, if possible, or 2022. However, the school should maintain the district’s north-to-south boundaries to provide balanced student populations.

• The school board should consider the land gift made by Sanford Health to determine whether the location is appropriate for a new high school.

• The total amount the board should spend on all of the projects is $190 million. The resulting bond levy should be partially offset with a reduction in the current capital outlay fund levy. The combined bond and capital outlay levy should not exceed $3.00. That will represent a net increase



of $.13 per $1,000 of taxable value. The approximate annual tax increase on the average home in Sioux Falls ($185,000 taxable valuation) would be $24 per year or $2 per month.

• In addition to constructing the new schools, the board should address necessary facility needs based on the list that was prioritized through the survey. This list is included in its entirety in an addendum to this report.

• A new elementary school should be built and opened by 2024, with a location to be determined by population growth.

• The board should begin to prepare for the eventual replacement of Whittier Middle School through land acquisition at the existing location.

INTRODUCTION

The Sioux Falls School District has successfully met the needs of thousands of students over the years, and has been an educational home for generations of graduates. While its facilities have been well maintained, and a 1997 referendum provided funds to ensure equality of educational spaces across the district, the district’s newest high schools were built before significant increases in student enrollment. Washington High School was built in 1992, Roosevelt High School was built in 1991, and Lincoln High School was built in 1965. The district’s oldest school, Whittier, is approaching its 100th birthday.

Although the district's students, staff, and graduates have been well served by current facilities, the Sioux Falls School District faces challenges due to increases in enrollment. The district’s enrollment is expected to continue increasing significantly in the foreseeable future. The district has seen a 20 percent enrollment increase during the last decade, and it expects a 10 percent increase over the next decade.

Currently, Kindergarten through second-grade enrollment is 478 students beyond the district’s middle school building capacity. Kindergarten through third-grade enrollment is 1,144 students beyond the current high school building capacity.

Clearly, many of the district’s schools are over capacity, and they will become overcrowded if action is not taken now. Moreover, while the district’s facilities are well maintained, several of the school buildings still require costly maintenance and updates.

The school board developed a comprehensive community engagement plan to engage the school district community in a discussion about the district’s needs and to find the most appropriate solution(s). The effort began in March 2018 with a series of staff and community engagement sessions that were held throughout the district in addition to some focus group sessions.

In each of the sessions, detailed later in this report, efforts were made to provide participants with facts about the district’s enrollment trends and projections and to answer questions about those trends and



projections. Feedback from community engagement sessions was also solicited and reviewed to assist the board in finding a solution.

Based on the information provided, the board then enlisted the assistance of a facilities task force. Toward that end, the board assembled a group of 30 community members to review the needs of the district and create solutions that would be formally presented to the board. The 30-member task force, which represents the rich diversity of the district community, was assembled and presented with a formal charge, which outlined its duties and the scope set by the board. This charge provided helpful parameters regarding the work of the task force, and it ensured there were no wasted efforts. At the conclusion of the process, the task force was asked to present a formal report to the board consisting of a series of recommendations. This document is that report.

The task force was structured to operate separately from the board and the district. School board members were able to attend the task force meetings, but they were encouraged not to participate. Similarly, district staff was asked to present information and be an available resource to the task force, but they could not vote. The staff was available to explain the needs of the district, validate solutions proposed by the task force to ensure they were actionable, and assist in deliberating upon various solutions. Joe Donovan assisted in ensuring the agreed-upon process was maintained, drafted a report for the task force, and staffed the task force, as needed.

The task force worked within the parameters of the process and held four meetings. A draft report was presented to the task force before the group’s fourth meeting. During the final meeting, task force members reviewed a draft report, suggested changes to it, and ultimately voted to accept it based on the proposed changes.

The task force’s meetings were open to the public, and community members present were invited to provide comments. In addition, the local news media reported updates, and information was posted on the district’s website.

In the following sections, an abbreviated history of the district’s facilities is provided, followed by a review of school-specific needs.

FACILITY NEEDS

The Sioux Falls School District serves approximately 21,000 students. The district has 23 elementary schools (grades K-5), five middle schools (grades 6-8), and three traditional high schools. In addition, the district has an alternative high school, a project-based-learning high school (New Technology High), and a Career and Technical Education Academy. School boundary assignments in the Sioux Falls School District are made according to the residence of the parent(s)/guardian(s).

The district’s enrollment has grown over the years and is expected to increase significantly in the foreseeable future. The district has seen a 20 percent increase in enrollment in the last decade and expects a 10 percent increase in the next decade. Currently, there are 478 more students enrolled in Kindergarten, first grade, and second grade than are enrolled in sixth, seventh, and eighth grades.



Moreover, there are 1,144 more students currently enrolled in Kindergarten, first grade, second grade, and third grade than are enrolled in ninth, tenth, eleventh, and twelfth grades. Clearly, many of the schools are over the recommended capacity levels, and they will become overcrowded if the district does not act now.

The district uses a combination of methodologies to determine enrollment projections. Factors include Minnehaha County birth rates, cohort survival rates, open enrollment, and other factors. Historical projections have been more than 99 percent accurate, on average.

Based on these projections, enrollment will increase to nearly 25,000 by 2023.

In keeping with a 24.3:1 student-to-teacher ratio and a maximum high school enrollment of 1,800 students, a maximum middle school enrollment of 1,000, and a maximum elementary enrollment of 600, it is clear that many of the district's buildings are already at or approaching capacity.

The district’s schools remain safe, are well maintained, and are in compliance with the district guidelines established in 1997 by the community task force to ensure equitable facilities that allow current students to access a top-notch curriculum with outstanding educators. However, the projected future increase in enrollment requires us to act now to ensure that we can continue to meet the needs of current and future students.

The growth of the Sioux Falls School District’s enrollment mirrors growth in the communities it serves. In 2000, the population of Sioux Falls was 124,158. That number is expected to grow to 185,100 by 2020 and to 233,200 by 2035.

At the county level, Minnehaha County had a total population of 148,281 in 2000. That number is projected to reach 199,362 by 2020 and 268,980 by 2035. For Lincoln County, the numbers are smaller, but the growth percentage is even higher. In 2000, Lincoln County had a population of 24,121. The population is projected to reach 71,525 by 2020 and 138,025 by 2035.

The impact of dramatic increases in enrollment is significant and not always easily noted. Enrollment growth can lead not only to overcrowding in classrooms, but also to overcrowded hallways, cafeterias, and other parts of the school. This can cause safety concerns.

The less obvious result of fast-growing enrollments is a change in school climate and fewer opportunities for students to participate in extracurricular activities.

PROCESS

The school board continued its engagement with the community through a series of sessions taking place in March 2018 throughout the district.

In each of the three sessions, efforts were made to provide community members with facts about the district’s enrollment trends and projections, answer questions from community members about those



trends and projections, and solicit feedback to assist the board in finding solutions to the district’s problems. Based on the information provided, the board enlisted the assistance of a facilities task force. In creating this task force, the board sought to assemble a group of leaders to review the needs of the district and create solutions that will be formally presented to the school board. Although the board is not bound by the recommendations of the task force, it expects to use their proposals as it pursues the next steps.

Board members were encouraged to attend task force meetings, but they did not weigh in on the deliberations. School board members wished to ensure the task force remained neutral so it could consider possible solutions with new eyes and a fresh perspective when it weighed the district’s needs.

The school board presented the task force with a formal charge regarding what it wished the task force to accomplish, along with the acceptable scope relating to the work of the task force. It is important to note the task force did not consider boundaries. It was not asked to redraw boundaries, even if it suggested building a new school or adding capacity to an existing school. Similarly, the board will address financing.

As noted previously, the task force was meant to work separately from the board and the district administration. School board members and administration attended task force meetings and presented information, but they did not vote or participate. Staff was available to validate solutions offered by the task force to ensure they were actionable.

TASK FORCE MEETINGS—IN BRIEF

As noted, the Sioux Falls School District Facilities Task Force held four formal meetings. All meetings were held at the district’s Instructional Planning Center. Below is a review of the meetings to date.1

Meeting 1–April 16, 2018: This meeting included a review of the charge from the board, introductions, norms for how the task force would do its work, a review of roles, and a review of task force deliverables.

Task force members received binders with the names of all participants, norms for engagement, and roles. A general, high-level review of the needs was presented to the group, and district staff answered questions.

1 Additional information about each meeting, including presentations and handouts, can be found here: http://www.sf.k12.sd.us/our-district/vision-and-mission/facilities-planning



Meeting 2–April 30, 2018: During this meeting, members took a deep dive into the needs of the district. After presentations from the district and the City of Sioux Falls representatives, task force members had an opportunity to ask questions of district staff and to discuss various needs. Of particular note, the task force reflected on repeated feedback from the sessions about teacher satisfaction, student achievement, and diversity.

By the end of the meeting, the co-chairs led a conversation to begin establishing consensus regarding the highest-priority needs. During the meeting, task force members discussed the need for equity across the district, and as a result, task force members agreed on ratios and buildings sizes that ultimately led to the task force’s recommendations regarding new schools. This information assisted district staff in developing solutions within the task force’s parameters.

Meeting 3–May 16, 2018: The third meeting provided an opportunity for task force members to deliberate on possible solutions based on the needs presented in the second task force meeting.

District staff created a series of possible solutions and presented them to the task force members. During the meeting, the task force members had a very robust conversation. By the end of the meeting, the task force’s proposed solutions started to take shape, forming the basis of the early version of the final report. Specifically, task force members agreed on what new schools should be built, the general locations for the new schools, and a suggested cost range for a referendum based on tax impacts.

Meeting 4–May 30, 2018: During the final meeting, members reviewed a draft of this report, offered some changes to improve the draft, and agreed on impact numbers for a recommended referendum. On June 11, 2018, task force members will formally present the final draft of this report to the school board.

DIALOGUE

During their time together, the task force members engaged in thoughtful dialogue which covered a range of ideas and options. Although this dialogue gave way to the proposed solutions included later in this report, the members believe that a summary review of the dialogue should be included in this report to illustrate how the solutions were formed.

The following are some of the ideas discussed during the task force meetings.

1) Increased capacity: After considering the enrollment and population trends, as well as future projections, task force members quickly established consensus by the end of the second task force meeting about building more schools to accommodate new students. Most of the task force’s work was not about whether to recommend building a new school or schools to the board, but rather the number of schools to be built, where they should be located, and what dollar amount to recommend to the board for a possible September referendum.



2) Equity: Throughout the task force's deliberations, issues related to equity repeatedly came up. Members agreed that a student's home address or the school that a student attends should not dictate the educational opportunities or service options available.

In 1997, the school board received approval from voters for a referendum that provided significant equity across the district. This effort was lauded by current task force members. As the task force continued its work in keeping with the charge provided by the school board, equity was a central concern and was one of the lenses through which members viewed their work.

3) Whittier Middle School: Task force members returned over the course of their time together to their concern about Whittier Middle School. Members agreed a school in the Whittier area is vital. Moreover, members expressed concern about the school’s age and asked whether the school currently meets the needs of students and meets the district’s equity standards. Members were told that while the school is old, it has been updated and meets the district’s equity standard. Moreover, district staff shared their opinion that the school has an approximate useful lifespan of a decade, after which time the school should be replaced. Members discussed the need to begin the process of replacing Whittier on or very near its current site.

4) Land donation: Task force members received information and asked questions about the recent land donation proposal made by Sanford Health. Task force members agreed that they should not weigh in on the donation proposal. Instead, they considered a general location for the construction of a school or schools. In addition, task force members felt that the board should not feel an obligation to take the gift but should instead ensure future schools are built in the best locations possible.

5) Boundaries: Although task force members repeatedly mentioned the need for the board to redraw boundaries after the passage of a referendum, they validated the school board’s plans to conduct a transparent, community-led process after the passage of a September 2018 referendum.

6) Ten-year plan: During their deliberations, task force members spoke of their embarking on a 10-year plan and recommended that the School Board continue to form similar task forces at five-year intervals to stay ahead of enrollment growth, equity needs, and the need to renovate buildings.

7) Ratios and school sizes: In their conversations, task force members spoke to a need to adhere to a 24.3:1 student-to-teacher ratio. They also agreed that the maximum high school enrollment should be 1,800 students, the maximum middle school enrollments should be 1,000, and the maximum elementary enrollment should be 600. The ratios and maximums were critical in the task force’s determination of the need for schools.

8) Financial responsibility: Throughout the task force meetings, members expressed their desire to recommend solutions that were fiscally responsible. In fact, the word responsible came up repeatedly. Task force members felt responsible for finding solutions that did not pose a significant burden to community members, especially seniors and others on a fixed income.



Additionally, task force members also discussed the need for a solution that was fiscally responsible in terms of providing enough capacity for new students; they did not want the board to approach voters with another referendum within a few years of this potential referendum.

RECOMMENDATIONS

When creating its recommendations to the board, task force members focused on three key questions: (1) What schools should be built or renovated? (2) Where should the schools be located? and (3) What parameters should the task force encourage the school board to stay within regarding the cost of the projects? The lenses through which these questions were answered included student achievement, teacher job satisfaction, and facility operating efficiency.

The following are the task force’s recommendations:

• A new middle school should be constructed on the school district’s southeast side. The school should be built as soon as possible, and opened in 2021, if possible, or 2022.

• The school board should use a robust and transparent engagement effort, similar to the one the task force used, to establish new school boundaries within the district.

• A new high school should be constructed on the school district’s northwest side. The school should be built as soon as possible, and opened in 2021, if possible, or 2022. However, the school should maintain the district’s north-to-south boundaries to provide balanced student populations.

• The school board should consider the land gift proposal made by Sanford Health to determine whether the location is appropriate for a new high school.

• The total amount the board should spend on all of the projects is $190 million. The resulting bond levy should be partially offset with a reduction in the current capital outlay fund levy. The combined bond and capital outlay levy should not exceed $3.00. That will represent a net increase of $.13 per $1,000 of taxable value. The approximate annual tax increase on the average home in Sioux Falls ($185,000 taxable valuation) would be $24 per year or $2 per month.

• In addition to constructing the new schools, the board should address necessary facility needs based on the list that was prioritized through the survey. This list is included in its entirety in an addendum to this report.

• A new elementary school should be built and opened by 2024.

• The board should begin to prepare for the eventual replacement of Whittier Middle School through land acquisition at the existing location.



ADDENDUMS: NAMES OF PARTICIPANTS

• Nan Baker (co-chair)

• Vernon Brown (co-chair)

• Rich Aguilar

• Deana Barth

• Dana Berg

• Erin Bosch

• Cathy Clark

• Mike Cooper

• Mark Cotter

• Dave Dancler

• Martin DesLauriers

• Darcy Dunker-Muller

• Brian Grady

• Jeff Herbert

• Jennifer Hoeisng

• Kari Kiesow

• Deb Koski

• Angela Lammers

• Katrina Lehr-McKinney

• Ann Madson

• Marcus Mahlen

• Jack Marsh

• Theron McChesney

• Dr. Diana Messick

• Susan Quello

• Brian Reilly

• Mary Scheel-Buysse

• Sarah Stokes

• Sharon Schulz-Elsing

• Thomas Verhey



ADDENDUM: TASK FORCE CHARGE

The Sioux Falls School Board provided the task force with the following review of the district’s current reality and issued a charge. These items framed the work of the task force.

District’s Current Reality

• Crowding on the west side of the district • Middle school enrollment plus 478 comparing current K-2 to current 6-8 • High school enrollment plus 1,144 comparing current K-3 to current 9-12 • Roosevelt High School and Memorial Middle School enrollment over capacity • Schools that are over capacity using space not designed for current use • Project-based-learning high school (New Tech High) in nontraditional space • Aging middle school (Whittier) built in 1922 • Changing educational landscape • Open enrollment (into and out of the district: in +1,062; out -403; net +659) • Intradistrict transfers (within the district: 770 HS, 258 MS) • 10-15 percent of student body is mobile • Inconsistent and insufficient funding from State of South Dakota • Capital outlay limitations as the result of 2017 legislation

Board Charge

• Solutions aligned to the district’s mission, vision, and strategic priorities • Solutions are fiscally responsible • Solutions adhere to the district facilities standards • Solutions are prioritized • Solutions provide creative ways to develop flexible learning spaces in schools to allow for multiuse 21st-

century learning spaces • Solutions allow the district to expand or contract with enrollment shifts • Solutions that may include boundary changes adhere to board policy regarding length of time students

are allowed to ride the bus • Solutions ensure all buildings are safe, secure, and welcoming environments • Solutions will be considered only after all community input from engagement sessions and the website

have been reviewed

Desired Results

• Equitable opportunities across the district • District capacity is flexible so it can expand and contract with enrollment shifts • Schools have enough properly sized learning spaces to accommodate all enrolled students (capacity) • A building’s character is warm and welcoming, creating a place where students, staff, and community

want to be • The building environment inspires while reflecting the culture of the institution



• History shall be honored in the spaces • All school buildings will offer modern, flexible learning spaces • Furniture that is flexible, varied, and engaging will be available at all schools • Educational spaces support individualized learning • Buildings will be flexible enough to change with evolving curriculum and enrollment numbers • Indoor environments will be supportive of teaching and learning; this includes temperature, humidity, air

quality, etc. • All primary learning spaces will have natural light • Properly sized and outfitted spaces will be provided for specialized program offerings • Staff will have appropriate meeting and collaboration spaces • Facilities are able to meet needs for extended learning opportunities (number of hours/days per year)

ADDENDUM: FEEDBACK FROM COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT SESSIONS

Based on written feedback from the community engagement sessions, task force member Theron McChesney created a word cloud, below. Words that appeared in the written feedback with greater prominence appear in a larger font in the word cloud. The task force wishes to thank Mr. McChesney for his efforts in creating this image.

ADDENDUM: RESULTS OF TASK FORCE SURVEY

In addition to challenges presented by growing student enrollments, the district also has a number of maintenance issues that require attention. In an effort to prioritize 14 building maintenance projects, task force members were given a survey. Members were asked to rank each of the fourteen items in priority order. Items with the highest priority item were given a ranking of "1." Those with the lowest priority were given a ranking of "14."



It is important to note that these items are related to the maintenance of existing buildings and are not related to needs associated with district enrollment growth.

Each item received a weighted ranking according to the priority assigned to it. The following is a prioritized list of the projects with their weighted scores.

• Purchase land for future Whittier Middle School replacement (estimated cost: $4.7 million): rank of 1; weighted score of 262

• Security/ADA projects – entrance redesign, exterior restrooms at high schools, stairs/elevator (estimated cost: $4.8 million): rank of 2; weighted score of 249

• Add six classrooms to Horace Mann Behavior Site (estimated cost: $2.6 million): rank of 3; weighted score of 202

• Rebuild Cleveland Elementary School gym to meet standards (estimated cost: $5.7 million): rank of 4; weighted score of 192

• Expansion of Memorial Middle School music area (estimated cost: $1.2 million): rank of 5; weighted score of 176

• Gym expansion at John F. Kennedy Elementary School, converts current to multipurpose, and MP to music (estimated cost: $3.9 million): rank of 6; weighted score of 155

• Head Start screening, garage/storage expansion at Central Services (estimated cost: $2.2 million): rank of 7; weighted score of 149

• Purchase land for future Lowell Elementary School replacement (estimated cost: $3 million): rank of 8; weighted score of 142

• Band/music addition at Jane Addams Elementary School (estimated cost: $660,000): rank of 9; weighted score of 136

• Multipurpose room/gym improvements at Hayward Elementary School (estimated cost: $570,000): rank of 10; weighted score of 135

• Gym expansion at Robert Frost Elementary School (estimated cost: $785,000): rank of 11; weighted score of 127

• Physical education/coaches area, training rooms, storage at Roosevelt High School & Washington High School (estimated cost: $3.4 million): rank of 12; weighted score of 120

• Purchase land for playground/parking at Jane Addams Elementary School (estimated cost: $1.4 million): rank of 13; weighted score of 115

• Purchase land for additional parking at Sonia Sotomayor Elementary School (estimated cost: $750,000): rank of 14; weighted score of 45

Documents

DGSD SIOUXFALLS REPORT 06-08-2018 vFINAL · Sioux Falls School District 6/8/2018 Facilities Task Force Report--Final 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The population of the Sioux Falls region is