Rezoning Study -Committee Meeting 2- November 15, 2011

Rezoning Study-Committee Meeting 2-

November 15, 2011

WelcomeTo

nigh

t’s

Age

nda • 6:00 - 6:15 Welcome & Introductions

• 6:15 - 6:45 Update on school choice / transfers and K-5 planning focus

• 6:45 - 7:30 Present baseline options and give overview of scenarios and homework

• 7:30 – 7:50 Selection of Chair / Co-Chair

• 7:50 - 8:00 Discuss Next Steps and Adjourn

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat13 14 15 16 17 18 19

Committee Meeting6:00-8:00 pm

20 21 22 23 24 25 26

27 28 29 30 December 1 2 3

4 5 6 7 8 9 10

11 12 13Committee Meeting6:00-8:00 pm

14 15 16 17

November - December 2011: Upcoming Events

WelcomeTo

nigh

t’s

Obj

ecti

ves Tonight’s Objectives

#1. To update the committee on latest conversations regarding school choice / transfer

#2. To present updated handouts, baseline options, and homework

#3. Select Committee Chair / Co-Chair

Update on School Choice/Transfers

Planning focus is based on kids living in the school zones.

Planning for transfer rates and school choice is not incorporated into the committee’s work

Once school zones are recommended and adopted by the School Board, they will determine how school choice and out

of zone transfers are handled.

Rezoning Study Project Goals

1. Richmond Public Schools is building new schools as part of the “Building a Better Richmond” program.a) 2 new elementary schools opening in January 2013b) 1 new middle school opening in January 2014c) 1 new high school opening in January 2015

2. Richmond Redevelopment and Housing Authority is slated to build a new Overby-Sheppard Elementary school on the existing site. Planning and implementation is not in control of RPS and is uncertain.

3. Changes in demographics and population over time have created imbalances in building utilization amongst various schools within the district.a) Some are over utilized while others are underutilized

4. Many of the buildings are in need of modernization or replacement, and there could be potential consolidation opportunities which can better save on costs.

5. These factors have created the need to take a comprehensive look at the existing Richmond Public School zones and facilities.

Why

We’

re H

ere

Project Objectives

Balance Building Utilization

Minimize the impact on students

Use major roads and natural boundaries whenever feasible to define attendance zonesW

hy W

e’re

Her

eGuiding Principles / Criteria

Maximize walkability

Establish clear feeder patterns and continuity

Make all efforts to ensure efficient system of school bus transportation

Make all efforts to establish contiguous zones

Make all efforts to minimize the split of identifiable community components such as apartments and subdivisions.

Why

We’

re H

ere

Guiding Principles / Criteria

K-5 Grade Focus1. Best practices are to rezone based on students who live in the

zone.

2. This committee will be charged with developing zones based on the students living in the zone and to not focus on transfer rates.

3. The district has a series of PK centers around the district, and allows VPI classes in buildings where there is space.

4. Because of this, the committee will be focused on K-5 as a priority for Elementary zones.

1. K-5 Student densities vary when looking north vs. south of the river. • Total K-5 living south of the river is 5,510 and the total seats

south of the river are 6,410 (based on functional capacity)

• The total number of students vs. seats south of the river is 86% of functional capacity (Low Target).

• Total K-5 living north of the river is 5,309 and the total seats north of the river are 7,352 (based on functional capacity)

• The total number of students vs. seats north of the river is 72% of functional capacity (Low Target).

2. Since K-5 is the focus at the elementary levels, Pre-K students were not counted nor was Pre-K center capacity calculated.

3. K-5 functional capacity figures and target capacities will allow room for VPI classes in areas where there is room.

Elementary Target Capacities:

Elementary Target Capacities:

• MS Target Capacity = Total 6-8 in district (4,569)/ RPS Functional Capacity (6,044) = 76%

• HS Target Capacity = Total 9-12 in district (5,458)/ RPS Functional Capacity (6,191) = 88%

Middle/High School Target Capacities:

Middle/High School Target Capacities:

School Name Low Target (88%) High Target (Functional Cap)ADULT CAREER DEVELOPMENT CENTER 616 700ARMSTRONG HIGH 1,021 1,160FRANKLIN MILITARY ACADEMY 620 704GEORGE WYTHE HIGH 1,109 1,260HUGUENOT HIGH 1,056 1,200HUGUENOT HIGH (NEW) 1,232 1,400JOHN MARSHALL HIGH 939 1,067OPEN HIGH 194 220PATRICK HENRY SCHOOL OF SCIENCE AND ARTS 176 200RICHMOND ALTERNATIVE 308 350RICHMOND COMMUNITY HIGH 658 748THOMAS JEFFERSON HIGH 1,148 1,304

RPS High School Capacity Targets 2011-2012

School Name Low Target (76%) High Target (Functional Cap)ALBERT HILL MIDDLE 469 617BINFORD MIDDLE 402 529ELKHARDT MIDDLE 429 564FRED D. THOMPSON MIDDLE 700 921HENDERSON MIDDLE 701 922LUCILLE M. BROWN MIDDLE 629 828MARTIN LUTHER KING JR. MIDDLE 532 700MARTIN LUTHER KING JR. MIDDLE (NEW) 608 800THOMAS C. BOUSHALL MIDDLE 656 863

RPS Middle School Capacity Targets 2011-2012

Current Elementary Live In Utilization:

School Name Low Target* High Target** Current K-5 Live In

High Utilization

BELLEVUE ELEM. 305 423 74 17.49%BLACKWELL ELEM. 544 632 639 101.11%BROAD ROCK ELEM. (NEW) 559 650 341 52.46%CHIMBORAZO ELEM. 436 605 603 99.67%CLARK SPRINGS ELEM. 268 372 461 123.92%E.S.H. GREENE ELEM. 339 394 406 103.05%ELIZABETH D. REDD ELEM. 436 507 474 93.49%FAIRFIELD COURT ELEM. 388 539 465 86.27%G.H. REID ELEM. 581 676 588 86.98%GEORGE MASON ELEM. 433 601 445 74.04%GEORGE W. CARVER ELEM. 557 773 455 58.86%GINTER PARK ELEM. 318 441 507 114.97%SOUTHAMPTON ELEM. 461 536 438 81.72%J.E.B. STUART ELEM. 333 463 277 59.83%J.L. FRANCIS ELEM. 504 586 472 80.55%JOHN B. CARY ELEM. 318 441 155 35.15%LINWOOD HOLTON ELEM. 426 592 442 74.66%MARY MUNFORD ELEM. 338 470 361 76.81%MILES JONES ELEM. 509 592 475 80.24%OAK GROVE NEW. 559 650 368 56.62%OVERBY-SHEPPARD ELEM. 357 496 297 59.88%J.B. FISHER ELEM. 378 439 103 23.46%SUMMER HILL/ RUFFIN ROAD ELEM. 583 530 90.91%SWANSBORO ELEM. 291 338 302 89.35%WESTOVER HILLS ELEM. 353 410 374 91.22%WILLIAM FOX ELEM. 356 495 239 48.28%WOODVILLE ELEM. 462 641 528 82.37%

RPS Elementary School Capacity Targets 2011-2012 Current Elementary Zones

1. Everything is DRAFT through most of this project. Expect that the options will change per committee work.

2. Committee will have the ability to create their own options through use of black and white “sketch maps” that we have available for you.

3. Options balance building utilization, but require review from committee to evaluate community impacts and other issues (busy roads, splitting neighborhood, etc).

4. Think about making hybrids of various options. Combine parts of various maps that you like into a new option.

Notes about Options

Baseline Options:

School Name Low Target* High Target** Option 1 K-5 Live In

High Utilization

BLACKWELL ELEM. 544 632 588 93.04%BROAD ROCK ELEM. (NEW) 559 650 631 97.08%CHIMBORAZO ELEM. 436 605 547 90.41%CLARK SPRINGS ELEM. 268 372 320 86.02%E.S.H. GREENE ELEM. 339 394 391 99.24%ELIZABETH D. REDD ELEM. 436 507 481 94.87%FAIRFIELD COURT ELEM. 388 539 465 86.27%G.H. REID ELEM. 581 676 614 90.83%GEORGE MASON (K-2)/ BELLEVUE ELEM. (3-5) 737 1024 583 56.93%GEORGE W. CARVER ELEM. 557 773 562 72.70%GINTER PARK ELEM. 318 441 331 75.06%SOUTHAMPTON ELEM. 461 536 328 61.19%J.E.B. STUART ELEM. 333 463 381 82.29%J.L. FRANCIS ELEM. 504 586 570 97.27%JOHN B. CARY (K-2)/ FOX (3-5) ELEM 674 936 394 42.09%LINWOOD HOLTON ELEM. 426 592 442 74.66%MARY MUNFORD ELEM. 338 470 361 76.81%MILES JONES ELEM. 509 592 559 94.43%OAK GROVE NEW. 559 650 625 96.15%OVERBY-SHEPPARD ELEM. 357 496 395 79.64%SWANSBORO ELEM. 291 338 328 97.04%WESTOVER HILLS ELEM. 353 410 395 96.34%WOODVILLE ELEM. 462 641 528 82.37%

RPS Elementary School Capacity Targets 2011-2012 Elementary Option 1

Note: In ES Option 1, Summer Hill and J.B. Fisher Elementaries are discontinued

Baseline Options:

School Name Low Target*

High Target**

Option 2 K-5 Live In

High Utilization

BELLEVUE ELEM 305 423 280 66.19%BLACKWELL ELEM. 544 632 588 93.04%BROAD ROCK ELEM. (NEW) 559 650 603 92.77%CHIMBORAZO ELEM. 436 605 403 66.61%CLARK SPRINGS ELEM. 268 372 307 82.53%E.S.H. GREENE ELEM. 339 394 376 95.43%ELIZABETH D. REDD ELEM. 436 507 481 94.87%FAIRFIELD COURT ELEM. 388 539 465 86.27%G.H. REID ELEM. 581 676 676 100.00%GEORGE MASON ELEM. 433 601 439 73.04%GEORGE W. CARVER (K-2)/ FOX (3-5) ELEM 557 773 756 97.80%GINTER PARK ELEM. 318 441 331 75.06%J.E.B. STUART ELEM. 333 463 372 80.35%J.L. FRANCIS ELEM. 504 586 539 91.98%MUNFORD (K-2)/ JOHN B. CARY (3-5) 656 911 534 58.62%LINWOOD HOLTON ELEM. 426 592 442 74.66%MILES JONES ELEM. 509 592 572 96.62%OAK GROVE NEW. 559 650 625 96.15%OVERBY-SHEPPARD ELEM. 357 496 452 91.13%SOUTHAMPTON ELEM. 461 536 364 67.91%SWANSBORO ELEM. 291 338 321 94.97%WESTOVER HILLS ELEM. 353 410 365 89.02%WOODVILLE ELEM. 462 641 528 82.37%



Baseline Options:


High Target**

Option 3 K-5 Live In

High Utilization

BELLEVUE ELEM 305 423 418 98.82%BLACKWELL ELEM. 544 632 603 95.41%BROAD ROCK ELEM. (NEW) 559 650 621 95.54%CLARK SPRINGS ELEM. 268 372 328 88.17%E.S.H. GREENE ELEM. 339 394 391 99.24%ELIZABETH D. REDD ELEM. 436 507 471 92.90%FAIRFIELD COURT ELEM. 388 539 465 86.27%G.H. REID ELEM. 581 676 603 89.20%GEORGE MASON (K-2)/ CHIMBORAZO (3-5) ELEM. 868 1206 704 58.37%GEORGE W. CARVER ELEM. 557 773 562 72.70%GINTER PARK ELEM. 318 441 331 75.06%J.E.B. STUART ELEM. 333 463 381 82.29%J.L. FRANCIS ELEM. 504 586 516 88.05%LINWOOD HOLTON ELEM. 426 592 442 74.66%MARY MUNFORD ELEM. 338 470 361 76.81%MILES JONES ELEM. 509 592 578 97.64%OAK GROVE NEW. 559 650 642 98.77%OVERBY-SHEPPARD ELEM. 357 496 395 79.64%SOUTHAMPTON ELEM. 461 536 401 74.81%SWANSBORO ELEM. 291 338 338 100.00%WESTOVER HILLS ELEM. 353 410 346 84.39%WILLIAM FOX ELEM. 356 495 394 79.60%WOODVILLE ELEM. 462 641 528 82.37%



Current Middle/High Live In Utilization:


High Target**

Current MS 6-8th Live In

High Utilization

ALBERT HILL MIDDLE 469 617 348 56.40%BINFORD MIDDLE 402 529 211 39.89%ELKHARDT MIDDLE 429 564 460 81.56%FRED D. THOMPSON MIDDLE 700 921 656 71.23%HENDERSON MIDDLE 701 922 668 72.45%LUCILLE M. BROWN MIDDLE 629 828 578 69.81%MARTIN LUTHER KING JR. MIDDLE (NEW) 608 800 956 119.50%THOMAS C. BOUSHALL MIDDLE 656 863 692 80.19%

RPS Middle School Capacity Targets 2011-2012 Current Middle School Zones


High Target**

Current HS 9th-12th Live In

High Utilization

ARMSTRONG HIGH 1,021 1,160 1376 118.62%GEORGE WYTHE HIGH 1,109 1,260 1213 96.27%HUGUENOT HIGH (NEW) 1,232 1,400 1272 90.86%JOHN MARSHALL HIGH 939 1,067 1097 102.81%THOMAS JEFFERSON HIGH 1,148 1,304 500 38.34%

RPS High School Capacity Targets 2011-2012 Current HS Zones

Baseline Options:


High Target**

Option 1 6-8th Live In

High Utilization


RPS Middle School Capacity Targets 2011-2012 Middle School Option 1


High Target**

Option 2 6th-8th Live In

High Utilization



Baseline Options:


High Target**


High Utilization




High Target**


High Utilization


RPS High School Capacity Targets 2011-2012 High School Option 1

Baseline Options:


High Target**


High Utilization




High Target**

Option 2B 9th-12th Live In

High Utilization


RPS High School Capacity Targets 2011-2012 High School Option 2B

Baseline Options:


High Target**


High Utilization



Committee Homework

1. Review the baseline options and meeting 2 handouts.

2. Fill out an option scoring table for the December 13, 2011 meeting.

You can email the entire committee by sending an email to:

[email protected]

Option Scoring Table:

Question 1:Does the option balance building utilization across

the City?

Question 2:Are zones defined by major

geographic features (i.e. roads and other natural

boundaries) ?

Question 3: Does the option

maximize walkability whenever possible?

Question 4:Does the option

have transportation

efficiency?

Total

Option #ES 1ES 2ES 3

MS 1MS 2MS 3

HS 1HS 2HS 3

Please rate each option from 1 to 3 based on how it meets the Redistricting Guidelines and other criteria for redistricting.

Remember to focus on the entire option as a whole when scoring as opposed to one individual area. A score of 1 would least meet the criteria, and a score of 3 would best meet the criteria.

Question Number: Location:1 Meeting 2 Handout, pages 3-8 (Utilization)2 Map Handouts, Wall Maps, Online Map 3 Map Handouts, Wall Maps, Online Map 4 Map Handouts, Wall Maps, Online Map Options Maps

Reference Suggestions:Material:

Options TablesOptions MapsOptions Maps

Select Chair / Co-Chair

See you next meeting on December 13, 2011!

Same time, same place

Reco

mm

ende

d Pr

oces

s &

Tim

elin

e fo

r Re

zoni

ng(I

n M

onth

s)Aug. '11 Sept. '11 Oct. '11 Nov. '11 Dec. '11 Jan. '12 Feb. '12 Mar. '12 Apr. '12 May '12 June '12

TASK I: Demographic StudyTASK II: Capacity DevelopmentTASK III: Redistricting Criteria / Guideline Development

Data CollectionData Analysis / AssimilationInternal Logistics Planning with RPSCommittee Application DevelopmentCommittee Application Review / SelectionBackground Report DevelopmentBaseline Options Development

Community Forum #1 (4 locations): Present Project Process, Criteria, Timeline, and Redistricting Objectives to Community.

Information meeting to public, without public comments.

Sept. 22-23, 2011

Oct. 4-5, 2011

Rezoning Meeting Series 1 - Orientation Oct. 25, 2011

Rezoning Meeting Series 2 - Review Background Data, Introduce Baseline Options Nov. 15, 2011

Rezoning Meeting Series 3 - Discuss Background Data & Baseline Options, Q&A Dec 13, 2011

Rezoning Meeting Series 4 - Options Development, Prepare for Community Forum #2 Jan 10, 2012

School Board Process Update Feb 6, 2012Community Forum #2 (3 locations): Present Preliminary Rezoning

Options to Community for Comment/Feedback Feb 15, 2012

Rezoning Meeting Series 5 - Options Development Feb 28, 2012

Rezoning Meeting Series 6 - Options Development, Prepare for Community Forum #3 Mar 13, 2012

Community Forum #3 (3 locations): Present Updated Rezoning Options to Community for Comment/Feedback Mar 27, 2012

Rezoning Meeting Series 7 - Review Forum Results, Begin Recommendations Apr 17, 2012

Rezoning Meeting Series 8- Finalize Recommendations & Prepare for Board Presentation May. 8, 2012

Presentation of Final Recommendations to the Board of Education May 21, 2012School Board Public Hearings May 29 & 31, 2012School Board Vote on Recommendations June 18, 2012

TASK IV: Rezoning

Proc

ess

& T

imel

ine

for

Rezo

ning

(In

Mon

ths)

September 6 School Board Presentation

September 22 Community Meeting 6:30-7:30 p.m.

Holton Elementary School

September 23 Community Meeting 8:00-9:00 a.m.

Thompson Middle School

October 4 Community Meeting 6:30-7:30 p.m.

Chimborazo Elementary School

October 5 Community Meeting 6:30-7:30 p.m.

Thomas Jefferson High School October 10 Committee Applications Due October 18 Notify Committee Members of Selection

October 25 Committee Meeting 6:00 – 8:00 p.m.

Richmond Technical Center

November 15 Committee Meeting 6:00 – 8:00 p.m.


December 13 Committee Meeting 6:00 – 8:00 p.m.


January 10 Committee Meeting 6:00 – 8:00 p.m.


February 6 School Board Work Session

4:00 p.m.

February 15 Community Meeting 6:30 – 7:30 p.m.

Thompson Middle School

February 28 Committee Meeting 6:00 – 8:00 p.m.


March 13 Committee Meeting 6:00 – 8:00 p.m.


March 27 Community Meeting 6:30 – 7:30 p.m. Richmond Technical Center

April 17 Committee Meeting 6:00 – 8:00 p.m. Richmond Technical Center

May 8 Committee Meeting 6:00 – 8:00 p.m.

Richmond Technical Center May 21 Rezoning Presentation to School Board

May 29 School Board Public Hearing on Rezoning Proposal

6:30 p.m. George Wythe High School

May 31 School Board Public Hearing on Rezoning Proposal

6:30 p.m. John Marshall High School

June 18 School Board Vote on Rezoning Proposal

Documents

Rezoning Study -Committee Meeting 2- November 15, 2011