Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Capacity Study topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Bray Architects presents capacity study; Onalaska board says study is a planning tool, not a closure plan
Summary
Bray Architects told the Onalaska School District board that an "educational capacity" analysis shows elementary capacity between 572 and 653 students and high-school utilization near a 75% target; the board heard the report and was urged to use it as a planning baseline rather than a recommendation to close or reconfigure buildings.
The Onalaska School District board heard a facilities capacity briefing May 11 from Matt Wolford of Bray Architects, who said the firm’s work measures ‘‘educational capacity’’—how buildings serve current programs and schedules—rather than the larger building-code occupancy numbers.
Wolford told the board that the elementary-level educational capacity for the district is roughly 572 to 653 students, and that middle- and high-school capacity modeling uses a utilization assumption (about 75 percent) to reflect specialty-room scheduling. ‘‘This is an educational capacity study, not code capacity,’’ Wolford said. He added that the study does not treat special-education placements as fixed seats because many students are mainstreamed and numbers can change year to year.
Ben (district staff) introduced the presentation and said the study is intended to give the board a baseline for future conversation about boundaries, programs and potential new offerings such as an all-abilities program. Wolford emphasized that the analysis is a snapshot: districts commonly update capacity studies when program offerings, attendance areas or grade configurations change.
Board members asked how the study treats specialty spaces, gym and music rooms and why some spaces are not counted as core classroom capacity. Wolford explained that elementary schedules (art, music, physical education, lunch) limit the extent to which those specialty spaces can be treated as additional core capacity, while middle and high schools can reuse rooms across periods and therefore rely on utilization rates in the model.
Wolford also noted an estimated high-school capacity range approaching 1,000 to nearly 1,200 students when using a 75 percent utilization rate for core classroom types. He told the board the work is intended to help district leaders make deliberate choices about program placement and facility investments, not to recommend closures. ‘‘This will change, and it’s very normal for clients to call in year 2 or year 4 or year 6 and say, new program, change in attendance area, change in grade configuration. Can you update this?’’ he said.
Next steps discussed included using the study results when the district considers boundary changes or new program placements, and flagging items that may need follow-up analysis or updated enrollment forecasts.
The presentation was delivered during the board’s agenda item 11 and drew discussion but no formal action to change buildings or configurations.
