1. Romeo Community Schools ELEMENTARY BUILDING FACILITY REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION April 6, 2009

2. ENROLLMENT INFORMATION

3. ENROLLMENT BY LEVEL 2006 - 2008

4. FALL 2006 & 2008 K-5 ENROLLMENT Student Change & % Change SchoolEnrollment Fall 2006 Enrollment Fall 2008 StudentChange%Change Amanda Moore 383371(12)(3)% Croswell384336(48)(12.5)% Ham-Par342340(2)0% Hevel4224725012% Indian Hills 438422(16)(3.6)% Washington469450(19)(4)%

5. SOUTH & NORTH END ELEMENTARY ENROLLMENT CHANGES Increase of 2% Loss of 6%

6. Romeo Community Schools Enrollment Trends

7. FALL K-12 ENROLLMENT PROJECTED THROUGH 2015 Loss of 9%

8. FALL K-5 ENROLLMENT PROJECTED THROUGH 2015

9. Current Enrollment By Grade (3/9/09) (down 38 students from Fall 2008) AMCRHPHEVIHWATOTAL K4968461045072389 1664869778179420 2564853737679385 3524957647878378 4545760836077391 5586464747456390 TOTAL3353343494754194412353

10. Building Factors for Consideration  Amanda Moore  Croswell  Hamilton-Parsons  Hevel  Indian Hills  Washington

11. CRITERIA FOR DECISION-MAKING 1. Impact on Students/Families 2. Impact on Pre-K Programs 3. Geographic / Site Consideration 4. Physical Plant Condition 5. Budgetary Considerations

12. CRITERIA FOR DECISION-MAKING 6.Space Utilization/Facility Re-allocation 7.Transportation/Operation Costs 8.Delivery of Curriculum 9.Other Contractual Factors – Staffing, Equity, etc.

13. Amanda Moore Elementary  Increased transportation routes/costs to bus students to other buildings (additional busses required)  Largest walking population; more students walk to AMES than to other buildings

14. Croswell Elementary  Largest capacity  Large percentage of students walk here  High student achievement

15. Hamilton-Parsons Elementary  Large attendance area; entire student population is bussed to HP  Location excludes viability for alternative use  Increased transportation routes/costs to bus students to other buildings (additional busses required)  Our newest MI Exemplary Blue Ribbon School

16. Hevel Elementary  Newest, most updated facility  Largest current student enrollment (475)  Small percentage of students walk; majority of students are bussed here  Attendance area from 26 Mile Rd. to 32 Mile Rd. Additional bussing would be required to close Hevel  82% of students reside south of 29 Mile Rd.  Our newest MI Exemplary Blue Ribbon School

17. Indian Hills Elementary  Most potential for enrollment increase in this area  88% of students reside south of 29 Mile Road  Few students walk here; majority of student population is bussed to IH

18. Washington Elementary  Large growth area; major re-assignment of students would impact all other buildings  Need to relocate 440 students to the north (95% students south of 27 Mile Road)  Other south end schools have no room for growth (Hevel 475, Indian Hills 418)  Alternate use for building not as feasible

19. After the Administrative Council reviewed and analyzed the enrollment data, the declining enrollment’s financial impact on the District, the possible alternative uses for each building, and the projected building capacity at each building, it made a consensus decision that a north end elementary building be considered for closure.

20. BUILDING CONDITION CRITERIA 1. Site Area 2. Infrastructure 3. Classroom / Instructional Space 4. Office / Administrative Space 5. Floor Plans 6. Flexibility of Building 7. Unique Features

21. Middle Cities/SEMCOG Population Projections  Southeastern Michigan will have 142,000 fewer school-age children (Ages 5-17) in 2015 than there were in 2005 (SEMCOG)  The 2 factors used in the forecasting are birthrate & migration  Macomb County school districts are forecasted to decline 8% between 2008-2015 with the Romeo School District forecasted to decline 9% during that time period

22. Middle Cities Forecasted Population for the ROMEO SCHOOL DISTRICT (By Age Group) AGEGROUPFall2008Fall2010Fall2015%Loss Ages 5-17 (School-Age)5,6575,4365,128(9%)

23. MAPS WITH BOUNDARY LOGISTICS BUILDING CLOSURE SCENARIO INFORMATION

25. ENROLLMENT CAPACITY BUILDING CLOSURE SCENARIO INFORMATION

26. CAPACITY OF EACH BUILDING School Fall 2006 Fall 2008 2009 Before Closing Building Capacity K-5* AM383371364448 CR384336330560 HP342340334476 HE422472464560 IH438422414560 WA469450442504 Total2,4382,3912,3483,108 * computed using 28 students per available room

27. Classroom usage BuildingK-5 Classrooms Available Spec ed, music, art, reading, other Number of Classrooms* Amanda Moore 16420 Croswell20*727 Hamilton Parsons 17320 Hevel20424 Indian Hills 20424 Washington18321 * MIPPS classrooms would have to be eliminated

28. STAFFING CHANGES BUILDING CLOSURE SCENARIO INFORMATION

29. STAFF REDUCTIONS BY AREA AMCRHPHEVIHWA Administrator1.01.01.01.01.01.0 Counselor.5.5.5.5.5.5 Reading Clinician 1.01.01.01.01.01.0 K-5 Teaching (District-wide)2.02.02.02.02.02.0 Food Service 1.51.51.51.51.51.5 Clerical Support 1.751.751.751.751.751.75 Custodian222222 Noon Aides HrsHrsHrsHrsHrsHrs

30. Budgeted Cost Savings Elementary$ Administrator1.0146,488 Counselor.550,449 Reading Clinician 1.062,251 K-5 Teaching & Suppl. (district wide) 2.0209,594 Food Service 1.524,872 Clerical Support 1.7589,147 Custodian1.067,800 Noon Aides 18,656 Supplies/Utilities86,786 Total756,043

31. BUILDING INFORMATION & OPERATIONAL COSTS

32. Building size BuildingOriginalConstruction Square Footage Number of Rooms* Amanda Moore 197061,59924 Croswell195165,35030 Hamilton Parsons 197561,35624 Hevel200272,19629 Indian Hills 196564,33424 Washington195157,90325 * Includes libraries, multi-purpose rooms, art rooms, as well as regular classrooms and other special facilities

33. OPERATIONAL COSTS 2007/08 Building Electric, Gas, Water/Sewage Cost Per Square Foot Amanda Moore $86,307$1.40 Croswell$90,415$1.38 Hamilton Parsons* $65,920$1.07 Hevel$109,599$1.52 Indian Hills $67,408$1.05 Washington$67,277$1.16 * Figure does not include water/sewage as Hamilton Parsons is on a well system.

34. Transportation Costs BuildingCost Amanda Moore $52,272 Croswell$24,288 Hamilton Parsons $64,944 Hevel$59,664 Indian Hills $68,640 Washington$38,016

35. Amanda Moore Sinking Fund Projects Completed Since 2000  Rooftop units replaced (5)  Boiler replacement  Updated toilet rooms (gang)  Water line to Science Center  Tile in kitchen and gym hallway  Fencing  Concrete sidewalk replacement  Basketball court  Other miscellaneous projects

36. Croswell Sinking Fund Projects Completed Since 2000 New water main from street to building Replacement of windows and invents in south wing. Replacement of boilers in east wing Roof replacement of section 1 Roof restoration of sections 4,5,6,7 Concrete sidewalk replacement Fencing Replacement of play pads Other miscellaneous projects

37. Hamilton Parsons Sinking Fund Projects Completed Since 2000 Water treatment system Update toilet rooms (gang) Replacement of play pads Driveway replacement Fencing Concrete sidewalk replacement Driveway lighting Other miscellaneous projects

38. Hevel Sinking Fund Projects Completed Since 2002 Concrete sidewalk to sub Fencing Irrigation system Other miscellaneous projects

39. Indian Hills Sinking Fund Projects Completed Since 2000 Stairway to playground Update toilet rooms (gang) Replacement of bus loop Floor tile Fencing Concrete sidewalk replacement Other miscellaneous projects

40. Washington Sinking Fund Projects Completed Since 2000 Update toilet rooms (gang) Basketball court Ceiling Tile Roof replacement Fencing Main entry security Concrete sidewalk replacement Other miscellaneous projects

41. RECOMMENDATION CRITERIA Pivotal criteria for closing Croswell 1. Building Condition -age of building -air conditioning -general condition of building 2. Geographic / Site Consideration -opportunity for alternative uses -ability to expand / reconfigure -size of site

42. RECOMMENDATION CRITERIA Pivotal criteria for closing Croswell (cont’d.) 3. Space Utilization -Central location for other programs -Flexibility of building 4. Operational Expenditure Impact -maintenance of a newer building

43. RECOMMENDATION The Administrative Council is recommending that Croswell Elementary School be closed as a K-5 building at the end of the 2008-09 school year, using building space for alternative programs (including Pre- school, ECDD, GSRP and MIPPS) and central administration. The Administrative Council is recommending that Croswell Elementary School be closed as a K-5 building at the end of the 2008-09 school year, using building space for alternative programs (including Pre- school, ECDD, GSRP and MIPPS) and central administration.

44. UTILIZATION PLAN FOR CROSWELL 1. Properly maintain the facility -grounds, roof, building needs -grounds, roof, building needs 2. Relocate Central Offices to Croswell 3. Relocate Pre-K/Early Childhood Programs to Croswell 4. Continue community access (RHS, Parks & Recreation, etc.)

45. TRANSITION PLANNING Transition Planning (currently underway) 1. Communicating promptly 2. Welcoming activities for students & parents 3. Assisting staff with transitions to new buildings & assignments

46. CLOSING COMMENTS  Parents & community members contributed input through parent club meetings, RCS Community Forums, and RCS Board of Education meetings (January to present).  This decision was respectfully made with the best interests of the students, families, staff and taxpayers of the Romeo Community School District in mind.