Since there have been different ideas about using Doyle to solve some of the district’s space/funds problems, I thought I would list the questions that occur to me as I consider next steps.
1.Locate the Affliated Alternatives (at Brearly) in Doyle:
a. How much space will AA need?
b. What will be the cost of remodeling to accommodate students?
c. What about cafeteria and gym space?
d. Where would we move the staff that must leave Doyle to make room for the students?
e. What is the cost of the move and of remodeling the new space?
2.Sell or lease Doyle
a. Where would central office staff be located?
b. What is the cost of the move?
c. What is the cost of remodeling the new space?
d. What are the out-of-pocket costs (travel, time, etc) of locating Doyle staff in more than one location?
e. What is a realistic expectation of the money generated by a long-term lease?
f. What is a realistic expectation about the amount Doyle would bring if sold?
g. If there is development potential, why haven’t there been proposals for the district/UW parking lots behind Doyle?
e = get, head
Dive into said
Carol,
You’ll find a lot of answers to your questions in a memo to the east task force: http://www.madison.k12.wi.us/boe/longrange/0506/east/20051222/Doyle_Analysis.pdf.
The cost to build a gym and cafeteria in Doyle for the Affiliated Alternatives would be a little more $300,000, according to the memo.
The link above includes the period at the end of the sentence, so it doesn’t work. Try this link:
http://www.madison.k12.wi.us/boe/longrange/0506/east/20051222/Doyle_Analysis.pdf
I now hope that the extremely detailed memo to the east task force finally puts an end to the nonsense regarding moving MMSD from the Doyle building.
Dear Marjorie,
I’m afraid that what you see as an extremely detailed analysis looks less than complete to me. It makes some huge assumptions and fails to provide cost/benefit analyses of different options. For example, it appears to assume that the same number of downtown staff will move, that current space is efficiently allocated, and that there are zero changes in square footage required should administration move.
In addition, the provided remodeling cost per square foot is not associated with any information on the type of work that would be done, although it does appear to incorporate an extreme case scenario. The engineers confirming memo is cursory at best and is of little value.
Finally, the district has a surprisingly poor grasp of information on the rules and regulations related to work with historic structures. Outside of the fact that the building is a city landmark, most of what has been asserted thus far cannot be verified in a review of the practice of local, state, or federal agencies that deal with historic buildings.
For people who actually live on the East side, a proposal to close the Doyle building is far from nonsense if it helps to make full use of district facilities and keep neighborhood schools open. The option also has appeal to people throughout the district.
For that reason, I am pleased to see Carol’s post and look forward to her adding the idea to a future board agenda so that the public can have a full vetting of the proposal, complete with verifiable information.
It’s terrific to see a “Teacher of the Year” weigh in, Marjorie. Keep posting!
Lucy
I’d like to point out that the memo referenced above was not given to the East Task Force until the very end of the last meeting–people were actually up from the table and putting coats on. Personally, I’d been asking since September for info on the Doyle building, as I felt it important to look closely at ALL MMSD facilities. The memo, as Lucy suggests (and despite its impressive size), only poses more questions for me, not the least of which is to question who derived these numbers, and how. If anything, it offers a first step toward the kind of analysis that should’ve been on the table since day one…