# Liddell v. BOARD OF EDUC. OF CITY OF ST. LOUIS, MO.

> District Court, E.D. Missouri · September 3, 1987 · 674 F. Supp. 687

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/1521491

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, E.D. Missouri
- **Decided:** September 3, 1987
- **Citations:** 674 F. Supp. 687; 1987 WL 3853
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Judges:** Limbaugh
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/1521491

## Opinion text

674 F.Supp. 687 (1987)
Craton LIDDELL, et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
The BOARD OF EDUCATION OF the CITY OF ST. LOUIS, MO., et al., Defendants.
No. 72-100C(5).
United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, E.D.
September 3, 1987.
Joseph McDuffie, William P. Russel, St. Louis, Mo., for Liddell plaintiffs.
Michael Middleton, Columbia, Mo., Wayne C. Harvey, St. Louis, Mo., Craig M. Crenshaw, Jr., Jeremiah Glassman, U.S. Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Caldwell and NAACP.
James J. Wilson, St. Louis City Counselor, St. Louis, Mo., for City of St. Louis.
Michael Fields, Asst. Missouri Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, Mo., for State defendants.
Kenneth C. Brostron, Stephen Cooper, Lashly Baer & Hamel, St. Louis, Mo., for City Bd. defendants.
Joseph R. Neimann, Eric Schmitz and Timothy R. Kellett, St. Louis, Mo., for Special School Dist.
Shulamith Simon, St. Louis, Mo., amicus curiae.
Anthony J. Sestric, St. Louis, Mo., for Ronald Leggett (Collector of Revenue).
Warren M. Brown, Jay Moody, Lake St. Louis, Mo., for Budget Review Committee (BRC).
Tracy Libros, Director, Magnet Review Committee, St. Louis, Mo., for Magnet Review Committee (MRC).
Susan Uchitelle, Director, VICC—Wright School, St. Louis, Mo., for Voluntary Interdistrict Coordinating Council (VICC).
James Dixon, Exec. Director, Committee on Quality Educ., St. Louis, Mo., for Committee on Quality Educ. (CQ).
Mary Bremner, Exec. Director, St. Louis, Mo., for Desegregation Monitoring & Advisory Committee (DMAC).
Ralph Beacham, Exec. Director, Florissant, Mo., for Metropolitan Coordinating Committee (MCC).
William Knaak, Exec. VP, Convergent Systems, St. Paul, Minn., for Vocational Educ. Advisory Council (VEAC), Bi-Racial Monitoring Team (BRMC).
James Leroy Jones, St. Louis, Mo., Jay Willows, Director, GAMM Project, LaBelle, Mo., for Vocational Educ. Advisory Council (VEAC).
E.J. Williams, Superintendent, New Orleans LA School Dist., New Orleans, La., for Bi-Racial Monitoring Team (BRMT).
Charles Werner, St. Louis, Mo., Robert Bartman, Asst. Com'r, Dept. of Elementary & Secondary Educ. Jefferson City, Mo., for Nat. Educ. Ass'n (NEA).
*688 Andrew J. Minardi, Joseph Ferry, St. Louis, Mo., for St. Louis County defendants.
Robert G. McClintock, St. Louis, Mo., for Ladue School Dist.
George J. Bude, St. Louis, Mo., for Clayton, Hancock Place, Brentwood and Bayless School Districts.
Kenneth V. Byrne, St. Louis, Mo., for Valley Park School Dist.
Donald J. Stohr, James Erwin and R.J. Robertson, St. Louis, Mo., for Parkway School Dist.
Douglas A. Copeland, Robert W. Copeland, St. Louis, Mo., for Webster Groves and Rockwood School Districts.
John Gianoulakis, Mark Bremer, St. Louis, Mo., for Ritenour, Pattonville and Mehlville School Districts.
Richard Ulrich, James Sanders, St. Louis, Mo., for Maplewood and Richmond Heights School Districts.
Frank Susman, Norman C. Parker, St. Louis, Mo., for Ferguson-Florissant School Dist.
Edward E. Murphy, Jr., Garry E. Selzer, St. Louis, Mo., for Riverview Gardens School Dist.
Robert P. Baine, Jr., St. Louis, Mo., for Hazelwood School Dist.
Henry D. Menghini, Robert J. Krehbiel, Evans & Dixon, St. Louis, Mo., for Lindbergh and Affton School Districts.
Bertram Tremayne Jr., St. Louis, Mo., for Kirkwood and University City School Districts.
Darold E. Crotzer, Jr., St. Louis, Mo., for Normandy, Wellston and Jennings School Districts.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
LIMBAUGH, District Judge.
It was the best of times for the St. Louis city school system. The coveted Triple AAA rating bestowed by the Missouri Department of Education has again been received. A quality education is generally provided for all the city children attending public schools. A sound faculty of teachers and principals are dedicated to use their utmost talent in developing the skills of their students. Parents and friends are caring more about the children and are beginning to work with the educators in the business of youth education. The breadth of educational opportunity is unlimited.
An impressive black principal of an all black primary school and his remarkable first assistant stated "our goal is to make certain these children learn to communicate and when they leave our school for middle school, they can."
A white principal of a mixed middle school remarked that "these students are now being exposed to sophisticated educational experiences and they will be equipped to take their place in this competitive society."
A high school principal observed that "our teachers are back to the basics with their students, but a huge variety of other educational opportunities exists."
Throughout the system, remedial programs are administered to those students with learning disabilities and devoted teacher after teacher provide tender care for these youngsters giving them "something to hang on to."
Enrichment programs are evident and are receiving increased attention. It is amazing to enter a room in which a dozen or more fifth graders are each performing an assignment on their Apple-type computers.
An air of friendly but strict discipline pervades the system. Respect is being instilled. When the principal enters the room in some delightful primary schools, the children rise and acknowledge in animated voices, "Good morning Ms. ______."
There is great pride among the middle and high school students. Their excellent art work is everywhere. They are striving to keep their schools clean and presentable. Custodial staffs are attentive to their duties. School spirit abounds. In many difficult situations, racial problems are alleviated and the number and intensity of racial incidents remains low.
*689 Parents and relatives are coming to school meetings and are working with the teachers in seeking the best educational interests of the children. On Saturdays and after hours, some parents can be seen with the children painting the walls of school buildings with paint and equipment they provide themselves.
Vocational education is virtually unlimited. Students can receive special training in every field imaginable. A young black female has just finished a difficult welding assignment done with a highly sophisticated computer system. Others are in aviation mechanics or are using all trades to build a house (within the school confines), or are developing beautician skills or a host of other things. A middle school has its own radio broadcasting network.
Teachers, principals and administrators, generally, have worked diligently to promote a sound integrated school system and much progress has been made. It is a good school system.
But, it was also the worst of times for the St. Louis city school system. [*] The schools have not received major repairs in the memory of most of the staffs. Roofs leak in over half the schools. The leaks receive only temporary attention. In classroom after classroom, in gymnasiums, in libraries and study halls and in cafeterias, water is everywhere. It drips from the ceiling, down the walls and even from light fixtures.
Cans, buckets and other receptacles are all over. A sixth grader in a reading class leans over in her chair to avoid the steady drip of water going into a bucket at her feet.
Some of the plumbing is intolerable. On one occasion in a school when the water was flushed from a urinal, portions came down a wall in the room below, while a devoted teacher was attempting to teach her students in that room.
Ceiling tile in many rooms no longer exists or is so permeated with water that it hangs perilously. Plaster falls to the floor sometimes placing the student or teacher in some danger.
Paint peels from many walls and exposes the plaster or wall board and sometimes the studs.
Many buildings are old and dilapidated and were designed for education seventy-five years ago. Some have no gymnasiums. Others have gymnasiums, but the ceilings are only seven or eight feet high. In many schools, a student must bend or duck going from some rooms to others to avoid hitting exposed pipes or mechanical supports.
In the face of this deplorable and impossible situation, those in charge use bandaids to cover gaping wounds and, with some hypocrisy lament the lack of funds to conduct a necessary structural overhaul of the city school buildings as being the sole basis of their inaction.
And, too, without addressing them, the school system has its other problems and deficiencies as do all metropolitan schools.
This opinion, therefore, addresses the capital improvement problems of the city integrated and non-integrated schools as well as those of the existing magnet schools and those which may reasonably be needed in the foreseeable future.
Although this case was filed in 1972, the physical condition of the schools was not considered until the so-called Settlement Plan was approved and later accepted by the Court. No attempt will be made here to recount the history of the events leadings to the enactment of the Settlement Plan as it has been adequately reviewed in Liddell v. Board of Education of City of St. Louis, 567 F.Supp. 1037 (E.D.Mo.1983), *690 and Liddell v. State of Missouri, 731 F.2d 1294 (8th Cir.1984).
The Settlement Agreement basically was an attempt to address previous determinations of this Court and of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, that the defendant Board of Education of the City of St. Louis (City Board), and State of Missouri defendants were liable because of their establishment and maintenance of a racially segregated public school system within the City of St. Louis. The remedy for the liability was ordered in 1980 by this Court, (Meredith, J.), Liddell v. Board of Education, 491 F.Supp. 351 (E.D.Mo.1980). The order directed the implementation of a mandatory, intradistrict desegregation plan within the City of St. Louis public school system, and the development and submission of plans involving voluntary interdistrict transfers between suburban school districts and the St. Louis city school district.
Following the 1980 order, the Court approved two interdistrict transfer plans (the 12(a) voluntary plan and the 12(b) vocational education plan). The 12(c) Settlement Plan was approved in 1983 in Liddell v. Board of Education of City of St. Louis, 567 F.Supp. 1037 (E.D.Mo.1983). This was done after a fairness hearing in which all parties had complete opportunity to present evidence and the point of view of each.
The physical condition of existing schools following the Settlement Agreement (Settlement Agreement and Settlement Plan are used interchangeably), was first addressed by the appellate court in Liddell VII, 731 F.2d at 1318 (decided February 8, 1984). As noted in Liddell VII, p. 1318, the Settlement Agreement suggested the age and condition of the city schools. [1] The Court in Liddell VII, at p. 1318, also observed that over the years, the school board has attempted unsuccessfully to raise funds to provide for school improvements. [2]
In approving the 12(c) Settlement Plan, Liddell, supra, 567 F.Supp. 1037 , the District Court (Hungate, J.) [3] ordered that:
(b) The City Board shall submit to its voters, on or before February 1, 1984, a proposed bond issue of an amount determined by the City Board as sufficient to meet those of its capital improvement needs as are deemed necessary to meet its constitutional obligation to desegregate the city's public schools; (and) (c) Should that bond issue fail to obtain the two-thirds majority vote required by state law, the court will consider an appropriate order to obtain the funds deemed sufficient to meet the capital improvement needs of City Board in complying with its constitutional obligation to desegregate the city's public schools.
Liddell supra, 567 F.Supp. at 1056 and Liddell VII, supra at 1318.
Following the District Court's order, the City Board formulated a building program with a total cost of $127,000,000.00 with one-half of the total to be financed by the issuance of $63,500,000.00 in City Board bonds. Ostensibly, the other one-half was to be paid by the State of Missouri.
The bond issue was presented to the voters on November 8, 1983 and 55% of the voters approved the issue. Eighty-four percent of the voters in the predominantly black wards voted for the issue, but 65% of the voters in the predominantly white wards voted against it. The bond issue was defeated because it failed to receive a *691 two-thirds majority. Liddell VII, supra at p. 1319.
Following the February 8, 1984 Liddell VII decision a bond issue identical to the one defeated on November 8, 1983 was again submitted to the voters on June 5, 1984. It, too, was defeated with a voting pattern similar to that in the 1983 election.
The Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit specifically held in Liddell VII, supra, at p. 1319 "that the State had an obligation to pay one-half of the costs of the capital improvements program necessary to restore the city facilities to a constitutionally acceptable level ..." The Court of Appeals in Liddell VII, supra, at p. 1319 also directed,
On remand, therefore, the City Board should promptly identify the projects to be undertaken, estimate the cost of each project, and set a reasonably detailed schedule for the completion of each project. The projects having the highest priority must be scheduled for completion at the earliest possible date. To that end, the City Board should consider the desirability of a referendum on a bond issue which can be initiated at a very early date, and subsequent bond issue for those projects to be built in later years. The State will pay one-half of the cost of preparing the detailed plans and schedules.
As soon as the City Board has prepared the new plans, estimates and schedules, it shall submit them to the Budget Review Committee, discussed infra Section VI, and then to the district court. When the District Court has approved them, a new bond issue shall be submitted to the voters. If it is defeated again, the District Court shall determine how the improvements shall be funded. See infra Section V.
Following the decision in Liddell VII of February 8, 1984, the District Court directed the United States Magistrate to conduct an evidentiary hearing and recommend the legal standard to be applied in ascertaining the desegregation-related costs of a capital improvements program for the schools operated by the Board of Education in the City of St. Louis. After extensive hearings, United States Magistrate Noce filed his report and recommendation on October 17, 1984, H(3422)84. Although a standard was not set out with specificity, Magistrate Noce noted that there ought to be no distinction in the basic quality and educational usefulness of the capital facilities of the non-integrated schools, the integrated schools, the magnet schools, or any capital asset necessary to spport any remedial program. Districtwide, the capital facilities must be brought to a uniform minimum level of educational utility. No specific order of the District Court was ever entered approving or disaffirming the findings of the Magistrate.
During the same period of time, the City Board determined that professional assistance would be needed in the capital improvement area to follow the mandate of Liddell VII, so as to enable it to "identify the projects to be undertaken, estimate the cost of each project and set a reasonably detailed schedule for the completion of each project." Liddell VII, at 1319.
The professional assistance needed would include engineers and architects who could survey the approximate 150 schools in the system and make recommendations to the City Board and to the Court. While discussions were being carried out between the State and the City Board concerning the procedure to be followed to employ professional assistance, Judge Hungate was relieved of the responsibility of handling this case and on February 1, 1985, Judge Limbaugh was appointed as the successor to Judge Hungate.
On March 20, 1985, the State and the City Board reached an accord and agreed to prepare jointly an invitation to submit bids to employ architects and engineers to make the necessary evaluation of the capital improvement problem. The parties agreed to share the cost equally for the preparation of detailed plans and schedules. L(122)85. On April 15, 1985, the Court approved the agreement of the State and the City Board and ordered the parties to file a joint report on the status and *692 findings of the facilities study no later than August 15, 1985. L(160)85.
During this period, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit rendered Liddell VIII on March 26, 1985. Liddell v. Board of Education of City of St. Louis, 758 F.2d 290 (8th Cir.1985). That Court in addressing the capital improvement problem determined that "the district court shall on remand direct the City Board to prepare promptly a building program, not to exceed $40,000,000.00 to meet the most urgent capital needs of the district, with emphasis on the all-black schools and the magnet schools." The appellate court then directed the district court to conduct a hearing in order to determine that all projects in the program are necessary to cure constitutional deficiencies in the City Board's facilities. If the district court determined that question in the affirmative, it was directed to order the City Board to submit a bond issue of up to $20,000,000.00 to the voters which was to be matched by the State. If the bond issue failed, then the appellate court stated that "the district court shall enter a judgment against the City Board in the amount determined and in an equal amount against the State." The appellate court determined further that "we recognize the need for long-term planning, and that should proceed, but the needs of the all-black schools appear to be so obvious that they should be met at the earliest possible time." The Court then went on to address further suggestions as to a capital improvement plan as to new magnet schools authorized under the Settlement Agreement.
The appellate court did not explain the basis on which it had arrived at a total of $40,000,000.00 but apparently, it was calculated on the basis of a recommendation of the financial advisor that a bond issue of $20,000,000.00 would have continued the debt service levy for the City Board at a rate which was required to retire a 1964 bond issue in 1984. Liddell VIII, at 302.
The decision in Liddell VIII caused some concern as well as confusion to the new Judge who had just been assigned the 13-year old complex litigation for a period less than two months and to the parties as well. At that point, the parties had agreed on the mechanics for obtaining professional help to determine the proper method for meeting the criterion in the capital improvements area of all of the city schools within the guidelines of Liddell VII. It finally became apparent that the mechanics and the cost for preparing a building program for $40,000,000.00 to meet urgent capital needs of the district with emphasis on all-black schools and the submission of the program to the Budget Review Committee, the holding of a hearing for the purpose of determining that the projects in the plan are necessary to cure constitutional deficiencies and the ultimate submission of a bond issue for one-half of that cost, would require not much less effort than if the planning was directed to the entire school system. After consultation with counsel for the parties, it appeared more feasible to attack the problem as a whole for it would be a duplication of effort and cost to plan for urgent needs utilizing an uncertain sum of $40,000,000.00, all the while duplicating this effort with a long-range plan.
Accordingly, this Court read all of the opinions of the Court of Appeals in pari materia and determined that the proper function of the district court would be to urge the planning to continue to apply to the school system as a whole as this plan would produce costs obviously in excess of $40,000,000.00 and as the framework for the payment of these costs had been established by the spirit and intent of Liddell VII and the other decisions of the appellate court.
The engineering firm of Zurheide-Herrmann in St. Louis, Missouri was employed and it began the facility study of all of the City Board schools. This study was necessary for long-range planning with respect to all schools and would have been equally necessary in addressing the specific $40,000,000.00 program set out in Liddell VIII. Obviously, a study of all the schools must be made before it could be determined what "the most urgent capital needs of the district, with emphasis on the all-black schools" were.
*693 As the Zurheide-Herrmann study progressed, the lack of cooperation of the City Board and the State became evident, as was noted in an order of the District Court on August 30, 1985. L(446)85. In that order, the District Court directed that after the Zurheide-Herrmann facilities study is filed, the Court would hear oral arguments and accept briefs regarding the issue of the applicable standard to be utilized in an ultimate determination as to which capital improvements are desegregation-related. After the Court determined the applicable standard, the parties were then directed to propose a detailed capital improvement program pursuant to the standard and those needs addressed by the Zurheide-Herrmann study. The Budget Review Committee was to consider the proposal and the arguments of the parties, and then report its findings to the Court and all parties were entitled to provide input for the benefit of the Court in making an ultimate decision. This Court announced its ambitious plan to have a proposal to submit to the voters with respect to a bond issue in early 1986.
On September 13, 1985, in response to requests by both the City Board and the State, the Court stayed the time requirements relating to capital improvements because of the requests by the City Board to propose a bond issue of $155,300,000.00 on the November 5, 1985 ballot. At that point, it was represented that the city administration and other influential entities were prepared to support this issue which the City Board felt would be adequate in and of itself to address the overall capital improvement needs of the city school system. As the Zurheide-Herrmann study had still not been completed, and as nothing could proceed further without the benefit of that study, the District Court stayed the original schedule.
The November 5, 1985 bond issue of $155,300,000.00 was defeated with 56.2% approving the issue when 66 2/3 was required. Only 33% of the registered voters voted and in the predominantly white wards 31% voted in favor of the issue and in the predominantly black wards 88% voted in favor of the issue and 74% voted in favor of the issue in the mixed wards. Only 26% of the registered voters voted in the predominantly white and black wards, and 36% of the registered voters voted in the mixed wards.
On November 14, 1985, shortly after the election, the Zurheide-Herrmann study was filed. It contained over 50 pages of recommendations with well over 6,000 pages of supporting data.
After the study was filed, the Court addressed the schedule which had been on hold, pending the election. On January 10, 1986, a standard was established for determining what capital improvements are desegregation related. L(680)86. In setting out that standard, the Court considered the findings of Magistrate Noce on October 17, 1984, H(3422)84, the briefs and arguments of all of the participating parties, all other relevant information in the case file and the opinions of the Court of Appeals involving this case. This Court noted that "capital improvements are part of the remedial effort to eliminate the effects of a dual-system. The purpose of the total desegregation plan is to remedy the vestiges of segregation and to attract and maintain white students. The goal is to provide `quality, integrated educational opportunities to black and white students alike.'" Liddell VIII, at 304.
This Court continued by finding that "everyone agrees that the physical condition of many city schools is in a deplorable state. Thirty years of neglect by the City Board cannot be condoned; however piecemeal repairs will not promote the desegregation effort. Equal educational opportunity mandates that district-wide, capital facilities must be improved. There are limitations in achieving a uniform minimum level of educational utility. The city schools must meet the basic requirements of safety and health standards in order to enhance the appeal of the city schools, especially to suburban white students. Additional renovation work must be necessary for the implementation of the approved 12(c) programs."
The Court then set the standard, perhaps in an simplistic way, by holding that "summarily, *694 desegregation-related capital improvements are those expenditures necessary for the city schools to fulfill the bare minimum requirements of the St. Louis city safety and health codes, and to provide the facilities necessary to implement the 12(c) programs." This Court then directed the City Board to propose a desegregation-related capital improvements plan without regard to a fixed monetary amount. The City Board was further directed to give top priority to the non-integrated schools and the intra-district magnet schools, to have a school-by-school breakdown similar to the Zurheide-Herrmann report format, to consider demographic trends and all other areas which would conform to the standard announced. L(680)86.
Again, the enormity of this directive was obvious. It was equally obvious that a same or similar type of directive would have been necessary to carry out the specific $40,000,000.00 mandate set out in Liddell VIII. In addition, it became apparent that substantial time would be needed to meet the District Court's directive, but the end result anticipated was thought to overcome the necessary delay. Accordingly, the City Board was to comply with the District Court's order, L(680)86, on or before May 1, 1986, and all interested parties were to respond to the proposal on or before May 16, 1986. L(734)86.
In this Court's order, L(680)86, certain guidelines for the capital improvements plan were stated. The guidelines were to be met with the data collected in the Zurheide-Herrmann facilities study. These guidelines suggested that top priority be given to nonintegrated and intra-district magnet schools, that consolidation of enrollments be considered with closing of small schools, that there be rehabilitation of buildings presently in operation only, that low priority be given to schools which probably should close within the next five years, and that plan standards be in compliance with minimum local, state and federal health and safety requirements and codes.
In response to the order, L(680)86, the City Board filed its so-called "680 Plan" on May 1, 1986. In general, the plan provided for the rehabilitation of 127 buildings for approximately $145,000,000.00. The City Board plan used as its source material the Zurheide-Herrmann report, as well as the so-called "Billingsly Report" and the "Winsor Model". The Billingsly Report forecasts four population scenarios for the City of St. Louis. The Winsor Model is an educational prototype used to formulate plant-classroom capacity and sets standards of educational requirements for physical improvements.
The 680 Plan is based upon a projected enrollment in the City of St. Louis in 1990 of 53,399 students. This number is somewhat misleading, as it fails to account for the 10,000 approximate transfer students which could serve to reduce the resident student population to 43,399 persons. The 680 Plan of the City Board also utilizes a lower pupil-teacher ratio than that required by Liddell IX, which will be addressed later, or those set out in AAA requirements. Finally, the Winsor Model prototype allows for extremely generous space allocations. Otherwise, the 680 Plan basically adheres to the guidelines set forth in L(680)86.
There were various responses to the City Board's 680 Plan by the parties, some of which were favorable and others of which were not.
The Court finds that the projected population figure of the 680 Plan is, in fact, flawed because the student population estimate did not account for the 10,000 students transferred from the City to the County, and the pupil/teacher ratios conflict with the directives of Liddell IX. The Winsor Model is impractical when applied to an old urban school district.
Unfortunately, the Court finds that certain data in the Zurheide-Herrmann Report is flawed. There are some serious inconsistencies in the unit costs which will be addressed later. In addition, the recommendations of the 680 Plan, based upon Zurheide-Herrmann data can be considered extravagant. For illustration, suggestion was made that all boilers in a building which were old should be replaced whether or not they were in good working condition.
*695 In addition to the 680 Plan calling for an approximate $145,000,000.00 expenditure, the City Board also projected a long-range facilities plan whereby all schools in the system should be rehabilitated in accordance with the data set out in the Zurheide-Herrmann Report for $420,000,000.00. This figure included 10% for architect costs, as well as a 5% built-in inflation cost. At least 150 buildings were involved in this proposal.
The State of Missouri chose not to analyze the Zurheide-Herrmann data or the City Board's 680 Plan, and instead, it proposed an alternative in response to the directives of L(680)86. The State's plan, L(1047)86, assumed that the 1985-1986 enrollment of city students would remain stable, and then projected a 1990 enrollment of 42,298 persons. This reflected the magnet school enrollment and the city to county transfer students. The State plan rejected the Winsor Model, and used AAA standards in calculating the classroom capacity required. The State proposed that only 67 schools be rehabilitated for a cost of approximately $44,000,000.00. The State's plan did utilize Zurheide-Herrmann unit costs, however, it eliminated certain projects which it considered to be non-desegregation related. These involved energy efficient items, accoustical ceilings, fluorescent lighting, landscaping, removal of graffiti, handicap-accessibility items in the form of elevators, etc. The plan also did not provide for fees for architects, engineers or contingencies.
During the late summer and early fall of 1986, the Court conferred with representatives of the State and the City Board for the purpose of attempting to reach some accord as to various aspects of the problem. Thereafter, the Court was prepared to address the issues and make a final determination.
During this time, the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit rendered an opinion referred to as Liddell IX, 801 F.2d 278 , which was issued September 5, 1986. In that opinion, the Court noted that several bond issues had been submitted to the voters and rejected. The Court then directed "that upon receipt of this opinion, the Board of Education of the City of St. Louis shall prepare a capital improvement program for the non-integrated elementary and middle schools which is estimated to cost not more than $40,000,000.00. It shall provide for the replacement or complete rehabilitation of the buildings and grounds of those non-integrated elementary and middle schools which (1) are in the worst physical condition and (2) are so located that the best available demographic studies indicate that they will continue to serve students for the foreseeable future. This program should be presented to the district court within thirty (30) days of the receipt of this decision. (The parties have advised this Court that a comprehensive study and report of repairs to the entire school system has already been accomplished.) Thereafter, the District Court shall promptly either approve the program as submitted, or make such modifications in the program as it feels necessary to carry out the mandate of this Court. At the earliest possible date after such approval, a bond issue for the sum of $20,000,000.00 shall be submitted to the voters of the City of St. Louis. If the voters fail to approve the issue by the required majority, the District Court shall follow the course set forth in this Court's en banc opinion in Liddell VII, 731 F.2d at 1323 , as reiterated in Liddell VIII, 758 F.2d at 302 ." This directive in Liddell IX obviously created a substantial dilemma to the District Court as well as to the parties involved. The parties had spent $800,000.00 for the Zurheide-Herrmann study, the District Court had established a standard for the parties to follow and various plans had been submitted in response to the standard and the data in the Zurheide-Herrmann Report. At the time of the issuance of Liddell IX , the District Court was in the process of preparing an order which would address the capital improvement program for the entire city district and the proper methods of financing the project. Liddell IX , on the other hand, gave specific directions for handling the matter on a piecemeal basis.
On October 6, 1986, in response to Liddell IX , the City Board filed a $40,000,000.00 *696 capital improvement site selection plan. The plan envisioned renovation costs of seven middle schools, and eight elementary schools, which were non-integrated and the data used as to the cost was that included in the Zurheide-Herrmann study. Other parties responded to the City Board's plan, L(1093)86, and the dilemma was then placed squarely in the District Court.
This Court reasoned that even the specific mandate of Liddell IX could not be carried out with any more rapidity that the overall school plan, the solution for which was also before the District Court.
Accordingly, the District Court, on October 17, 1986, directed that an evidentiary hearing be held on December 8, 1986, for the purpose of having available for testimony and questioning representatives of Zurheide-Herrmann and others who have been instrumental in collecting and preparing the data and the material in the various plans before the Court. This Court stated in the order, L(1113)86, that the information needed to make a final determination as mandated by Liddell IX , as well as the other decisions of the appellate court, is contained in the Zurheide-Herrmann facilities study, L(598)85, City Board's desegregation related capital improvements plan, L(852)86, the City Board's long-range facilities plan, L(857)86, the State's response to these documents, L(1047)86, and the City Board's $40,000,000.00 capital improvement site selection plan, given in response to Liddell IX , L(1093)86.
The evidentiary hearing was held when scheduled and at the beginning of 1987 the District Court began the task of making a final resolution of the capital improvements problem, keeping in mind the directives of all of the decisions of the Court of Appeals.
Beginning on April 22, 1986, and on sporadic occasions since that time, the Court personally visited representative schools in the system. At the time this opinion is written the Court will have been in and examined 43 of the schools involved. These include representative schools in the primary, middle and high school level and integrated, non-integrated and magnet schools. During these visitations, the Court has examined the physical facilities, observed classroom teachers and students and had personal conversations with principals and members of their staff, teachers, students and maintenance staff personnel. In addition, the Court has observed at least 20 other schools from the outside without an intimate examination of the interior.
The Court has also directed its financial advisor, Warren M. Brown, Chairperson of the Budget Review Committee (BRC), and his associate Jay Moody, to gather certain material and data for the benefit of the Court from the Zurheide-Herrmann report and other documents on file in this case. In particular, Brown and Moody were directed to inspect all of the schools in the system, analyze the Zurheide-Herrmann Report, project enrollment and consider budgetary requirements for capital improvements. The Court has carefully reviewed all of the appellate decisions in this case, as well as the District Court findings concerning capital improvements, the City Board proposals as well as those of the State of Missouri and the responses of all of the parties to those proposals, the evidence adduced at the capital improvements hearing, and all other pertinent matters in the file of this case relating to capital improvements. With that review and after the Court's personal examination of representative schools and after conferences with Warren Brown and Jay Moody concerning their assignment, the Court is now ready to enter findings of fact upon which an order can be entered.
In its order, L(680)86, this Court stated its intention to approve a district-wide plan for facilities rehabilitation, based on the following standard for desegregation-related capital improvements: The order:
1. Gives top priority to nonintegrated and intradistrict magnet schools.
2. Encourages consolidation of enrollments and closing of small schools. [4]
*697 3. Includes only buildings which are now in operation.
4. Abandons or gives low priority to schools which probably should close in the next five years.
5. Requires a plan of work which describes each particular facility improvement in detail (i.e., renovation or rehabilitation work on an existing building).
6. Includes projects which meet St. Louis health and safety codes.
7. Provides facilities necessary to implement approved 12(c) programs.
In response to the order L(680)86, the Board filed its Desegregation Related Capital Improvements Plan, L(852)86 (Plan 680), which met in part and exceeded in part the provisions of the order L(680)86. The Board's response to the order contains two proposals. The Plan 680, L(852)86, restates the Board's Zurheide-Herrmann (ZH) costs for rehabilitating 127 buildings, taken from L(598)85. The Plan 680, costing $145,000,000 is presented as a subset of a comprehensive long-range facilities plan, the second part of which would cost another $145,000,000 plus escalation costs. [L(857)86]. The Board has left out capital costs for 17 current and future 12(c) magnets, pursuant to L(680)86, which are subject later to 100 percent state financing. It contends that the entire plan is essential to meet desegregation objectives. The Plan 680 conforms to the Board's interpretation of the order L(680)86 which the Board believes is too restrictive.
The State's response to the order L(680)86 and to the Board's plan recites each of the elements of the Court's standard, shows how the Board allegedly exceeds it, and proposes an alternative plan to meet the State's interpretation of the order. [L(1047)86]. The State concedes an obligation to help pay for capital improvements which are needed to meet desegregation objectives, not those which generally upgrade the educational system. The State analyzed the validity of ZH improvement recommendations by visiting a sample of 40 schools. The State's architectural consultants reported that ZH unit costs for construction projects in the schools visited were reasonable. The State agrees with many projects proposed by the Board but rejects others as unnecessary to meet Court standards. The State agrees that 67 of the 127 buildings proposed by the Board should be rehabilitated (using State-approved projects). The State also accepts the Board's Billingsley enrollment projections for the year 1990 as a basis for planning.
Architects, engineers and educators who have inspected the Board's facilities find them to be fundamentally sound although in a condition of deterioration. The Court agrees with this concensus opinion. As a practical matter, these soundly constructed buildings should be the base point from which facilities improvements proceed. The most productive approach is to start from today's realities and to move forward constructively to rehabilitate existing facilities. Further, the cost of the plan to rehabilitate buildings currently in use is within the Board's financial means, as detailed later in this opinion.
Recognizing the urgent need for prompt action to rehabilitate existing school facilities in St. Louis, as noted in the Settlement Agreement, Section IV, 9-12, H(2217)83, and in numerous orders and related filings, this Court's approved capital improvements plan embraces the following objectives:
1. Provide completely rehabilitated buildings and grounds for a sufficient number of nonintegrated, magnet, integrated, and special school facilities to house enrollments projected for the foreseeable future.
2. Provide sufficient classroom space to accommodate projected enrollment in accordance with (1) court-mandated pupil/teacher ratios in nonintegrated schools and magnets and (2) current pupil/teacher ratios in integrated schools, which now exceed AAA accreditation requirements.
*698 3. Make space available to accommodate court-approved 12(c) programs such as (1) preschool rooms, kindergartens, libraries, art, music and physical education facilities, and special education rooms in all schools; (2) enrichment labs and schools of emphasis in nonintegrated schools; (3) computer labs in nonintegrated middle and high schools.
4. Consolidate enrollment, housing students in larger buildings which are in sound operating condition.
5. Provide a planning and reporting system for completion of all needed capital projects and for continuing maintenance of physical school plant.
6. Set aside a stream of revenue to meet the Board's obligation to fund capital expenditures needed to restore, repair, maintain, or enhance existing facilities. Provide matching State funding for all desegregation-related capital improvements.
7. Make funds available at the earliest possible date so that the most urgent work can begin promptly.
8. Provide for a continuing flow of revenue to be applied to desegregation-related capital projects and to the ongoing maintenance of facilities after improvements are completed.
The Court's plan is detailed under the following nine identified issues:
(1) the target year for planning;
(2) the projected enrollment to be used for planning purposes;
(3) the 12(c) programs to be accommodated;
(4) the capacity of presently operating schools;
(5) consolidation of facilities;
(6) the number of buildings needed to house projected enrollments;
(7) the construction projects approvable as desegregation-related;
(8) the budgeted cost of rehabilitation and reconfiguration projects; and
(9) the method of financing the proposed plan.
Target Year for Projections
What is an appropriate target year for estimating Board enrollments for the purpose of determining plant capacity needed to meet constitutional requirements? This section of the plan summarizes the parties' positions as compared with Court guidelines.
Directions from the Courts
The Court directed the City Board to conduct a long-range study of the City Board's plant facilities, `especially in light of possible changes that may occur throughout the course of this remedial effort in student and staff populations, as well as in specialized educational programs.'
L(680)86, page 2.
... [B]uildings closed as of this date are not to be considered for renovation. The vitality of open schools must be closely scrutinized in light of declining enrollment as pointed out in Liddell VII ... Schools with low enrollments, which in all reasonable probability should close in the next five years, are good candidates for consolidation and the capital improvement needs for some should be abandoned or prioritized accordingly.
Id., page 7.
Nonintegrated elementary and middle schools planned for rehabilitation should be "so located that the best available demographic studies indicate that they will continue to serve students for the foreseeable future."
Liddell IX, 801 F.2d at 284 .
With regard to determining the facilities needed to reach a 20:1 pupil/teacher ratio, "planning should assume that by 1990, fewer than 15,000 black students will be attending non-integrated schools in the city."
Liddell XII, 823 F.2d at 1254.
The Board uses the year 2000 as its target year for enrollment projection. The Board believes that redevelopment in the city, improvements to school facilities and K-12 curriculum revisions toward the year 2000 will revitalize the educational program in the public schools. Significant enrollment increases will result. To plan for the *699 short-term will not embrace long-run upward trends in enrollment. Therefore, the year 2000 has been selected for program, enrollment, and plant improvement planning. If enrollment gains do not materialize, proposed plans can be scaled down over the proposed four-year construction period without disadvantage to the plant improvement program.
The State chooses the year 1990-91 because it believes that enrollment projections beyond five years are speculative and because the desegregation-related capital improvements program should not be concerned with growth which may occur independent of any past constitutional violation. The last victim of the dual system will graduate in 1991. The State accepts Billingsley's 1990 enrollment number using the "most optimistic scenario."
This Court and the Eighth Circuit have repeatedly used the phrase "foreseeable future" in connection with capital improvements. A five-year limit (from 1986) was set in Order L(680)86. The Eighth Circuit utilized the school years 1989-1990 and 1990-1991 as target years with regard to enrollments in the interdistrict magnets and the nonintegrated schools. All these factors suggest a target year of 1990. The Court finds that for planning purposes, with regard to capital improvements, the year 1990 provides the most reasonable target year for projected enrollment analysis. Beyond 1990 is simply too speculative.
Enrollment Projection
What is a reasonable estimate of the enrollment to be served in the target year 1990-91, taking into account demographic changes and the relocation of students under the Settlement Plan?
Directions from the Courts.
"Planning and scheduling are important in view of the expected decline in enrollment."
Liddell VII, 731 F.2d at 1319 .
The Board shall plan to improve those nonintegrated elementary and middle schools so located that the best available demographic studies indicate that they will continue to serve students for the foreseeable future.
Liddell IX, 801 F.2d at 284 .
The goal must be to have 2,000 more students in interdistrict magnets by 1987-88 and a total of 6,000 by 1989-90.
Liddell IX, at 282.
... planning should assume that by 1990 fewer than 15,000 black students will be attending nonintegrated schools in the City.
Liddell XII, 823 F.2d at 1254.
The Board projects its target year 2000 local enrollment at 61,995 (including 3,930 county transfers). The enrollment projections used in the Plan 680 are from the 1984 Phase I report, "Population Analysis: St. Louis Public Schools," by Billingsley Consultants. Four population scenarios, with attendance enrollment scenarios, were developed. The projections ranged from continued decline to stabilization followed by moderate growth. The 680 Plan uses the most optimistic scenario of stabilization followed by moderate growth. Billingsley employed a projection technique which extracted public school enrollment from projected total school-age population, based on an assumed "capture ratio." For 1990, Billingsley Consultants project 51,584 in its "most optimistic" scenario, assuming stabilization plus moderate growth. [L(848)86, population analysis, pages 19-20]. Billingsley clearly states that its enrollment projections do not account for interdistrict transfers. But, the Board's Plan 680 states that interdistrict transfers have been removed. The Board then adds 1,815 county-to-city students, deriving a total of 53,399 for 1990. The Board's projection does not appear to deduct city-to-county transfers. [L(852)86, page 18]. This fact was later confirmed at the evidentiary hearing held in December, 1986.
The State accepts the Board's 1990-91 enrollment projection data produced by Billingsley, L(848)86, and shown on page 19 of the Plan 680 and page 27 of the State's filing. Billingsley projected a local enrollment of 51,584 for the 1990-91 school year. When adjusted for interdistrict transfers, the net city enrollment would be 40,574, *700 according to the State. The State also uses current enrollment data to project enrollment, based on the 1985-86 total of 51,236. The State assumes that the 1985-86 enrollment will remain stable through 1990-91. The State then reduces total current enrollment to reflect additional city-to-county transfers and increased magnet school enrollment. After adjustment for these factors, the State predicts that 42,298 children will need to be housed in all St. Louis public schools in 1990-91. [L(1047)86, page 13].
Dr. Brown's enrollment projection for 1990 is based upon a technique he refers to as the "cohort survival method." He believes that this technique is much more realistic than the methods employed by the City Board and the State. Neither of those techniques takes into account the City Board's long-term enrollment history. Neither technique considers student survival rates which may be statistically derived from the City Board's actual experience. He believes that student survival rates will be influenced by improved learning opportunities through quality education programs, magnet schools and interdistrict transfers. He further believes that the Billingsley enrollment projections are skewed because they are based on total population estimates in the city for five-year periods 1970 to 2000. [L(848)86, pg. 14]. The trend has been steadily downward since 1950. ( Id., at 10).
Dr. Brown's projection procedure, the cohort survival method, recognizes the actual retention rate of first grade enrollment as it has moved through the grades since the school year 1971-72. [5] This historical rate is applied to first grade enrollments which will produce enrollments in all grades through the year 1990-91. He extracted his data from the following sources:
1. The Board's annual October enrollment reports required by paragraph 14 of the district court order of May 21, 1980.
2. Kindergarten enrollment for the years 1971-80 as reported by the Board to the State Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE). Enrollment for the years 1980-86 was obtained from the Board's annual October enrollment reports.
3. First grade enrollment for the years 1971-1986 as reported by the Board to the DESE.
4. Interdistrict transfers as reported by VICC.
5. Vocational interdistrict transfers as reported by MCC.
The enrollment projection derived from the cohort survival method indicates that 44,737 will need to be accommodated in St. Louis schools in 1990-91. Dr. Brown recommends that facilities be provided to house 31,261 regular students (5,301 in grades 9-12 plus 24,960 in grades K-8); 12,876 magnet students (4,530 local students in grades 9-12, 7,103 local students in grades K-8, plus 1,243 students from county districts); and 600 vocational students. [6]
Since 1980, there has been an increasing interchange of students between St. Louis and suburban schools as a result of desegregation court orders. Interdistrict transfers will have a significant impact upon student assignments and housing. Liddell IX established the goal of at least 2,000 additional students in interdistrict magnets by the opening of the 1987-88 school year and a total of 6,000 students in these magnets by the 1989-90 school year. The goal is 40 percent white students from the county. Interdistrict magnet enrollment also *701 reduces the classroom space needed in both regular integrated and nonintegrated schools. Housing provided for students attending interdistrict magnets reduces the housing needed for regular enrollment.
The Court has carefully reviewed the enrollment projections of the City Board, the state and Dr. Brown and the various methods employed to calculate these projections. It appears to this Court that the most reliable estimate is derived via the cohort survival method. This procedure for analysis accurately makes allowance for students who have transferred in and out of city schools since 1980. It is also the only procedure which tracks actual enrollment prior to 1980 and adjusts the historical enrollment trend for the effects of the desegregation programs. The Court finds that this method provides the most realistic basis for a 1990 enrollment projection. Accordingly, the Court accepts a 1990 enrollment forecast of 44,737 City students.
Accommodating 12(c) Programs
What Settlement Plan 12(c) programs must be provided for in rehabilitated schools? The allocation of space for the 12(c) programs is an important factor in determining available physical plant capacity.
Directions from the Courts.
"Additional renovation work must be necessary for the implementation of the approved 12(c) Programs." L(680)86, page 6. "(The) model standard that the (ZH) engineering firm created ... is a higher standard than this Court has pronounced or will accept."
Id., at page 8.
The Board uses the Winsor Model in making its capacity projections. The model provides space for the Board's year 2000 curriculum, which includes all 12(c) program requirements. L(852)86, pages 10, 16, 20-29. It contends that its 680 Plan does not include all programs, in the absence of building additions. But it does not specificaly show the program requirements by budget function as required in L(680)86.
The State claims that the Board's proposal contains elements which exceed 12(c) needs, such as elementary foreign language rooms, computer literacy labs in integrated schools, handicapped access, counseling offices for high schools and middle schools, expanded facilities for counselors, nurses, security guards, middle school science rooms, and excess storage space. However, the State used the Winsor capacity estimates in assigning its 1990-91 enrollment to buildings.
The courts have clearly enumerated 12(c) programs which require space allocations in nonintegrated and/or integrated schools. In analyzing plant capacity space has been allowed both nonintegrated and integrated schools for art, music and physical education rooms; all-day kindergarten rooms; preschool rooms; special education rooms; and libraries. Also, space has been set aside for 12(c) programs implemented in the nonintegrated schools only, as follows:
1. Rooms for school of emphasis labs and enrichment labs in elementary, middle and high schools. [7]
2. Computer labs in high schools and middle schools.
Analysis of Plant Capacity
What school building capacity will be required to house projected enrollment in St. Louis schools by the target date? Is the capacity of presently operating schools adequate?
Directions from the Courts.
Consolidation of the city school district is the key to an effective capital improvements program. The vitality of open schools must be closely scrutinized in light of declining enrollment. Schools with low enrollments which will probably be closed in the next five years should be *702 abandoned or given a low priority for renovation.
L(680)86, page 7.
Nonintegrated elementary and middle school classrooms should have P/T ratios of 20/1 by 1987-88, excluding remedial and compensatory program staff.
Liddell IX, 801 F.2d 280 -281.
Integrated and nonintegrated high schools should have P/T ratios meeting AAA Standards (35/1). Integrated elementary and middle schools should have ratios of 30/1.
Id., at 281-282 .
Magnets should have the same P/T ratios as nonintegrated schools.
Id., at 283-284 .
The requirements of Liddell VII (i.e. P/T ratios of 20:1 in nonintegrated elementary and middle schools) are to be met at the earliest possible time.
Liddell XII, 823 F.2d at 1254.
(2) Even though the goal of twenty to one may not be fully achieved in the 1987-88 school year, it is apparent that some reduction in class size in the nonintegrated elementary and middle schools can be made at the beginning of the 1987-88 school year by making more efficient use of classrooms in the elementary and middle school buildings.
Liddell XII, at 1254.
In determining the facilities needed to reach the twenty to one pupil/teacher ratio in the nonintegrated elementary and middle schools, the parties are to assume — and accomplish as a fact — that by the 1990-91 school year, an additional 5,500 black city students will be attending county schools, that by the same year an additional 2,750 black city students will be attending magnet schools in the city, and that there will be some space available for additional black students in the integrated comprehensive schools. Thus, unless demographic factors clearly indicte otherwise, planning should assume that by 1990, fewer than 15,000 black students will be attending nonintegrated schools in the city.
Liddell XII, at 1254.
(4) The record reveals that many of the nonintegrated elementary and middle schools are very small. For example, sixteen nonintegrated elementary schools have enrollments of fewer than 250 students per school, with an average enrollment of 170 students. The record also reveals that many of the nonintegrated elementary and middle schools are poorly maintained and located and would be very expensive to rehabilitate.
In its long-term planning for the nonintegrated elementary and middle schools, the City Board should carefully consider closing the smaller, poorly maintained and poorly located nonintegrated elementary and middle schools and consolidating the students in either new or existing buildings that are well located and designed specifically to meet a pupil/teacher ratio of twenty to one, the goal being to achieve significant operating savings while providing the students with suitable facilities.
Liddell XII, at 1254. ( See Liddell XII, footnote 1 regarding consolidation).
The Board states that the necessary reconfiguration required to accommodate all Settlement Plan programs will cause a drastic reduction in pupil capacity of each school. It assumes that program fitness has been minimally and essentially described in the Winsor Model. L(852)86, page 14. Building capacities, present and future, listed in the Plan 680 are based upon the Winsor Model. The Board downgrades a number of schools to a lower capacity category because the Order, L(680)86, precludes building additions which provide Winsor-model facilities. Id., page 22. The Plan 680 shows inadequate building capacity by the year 2000. The unhoused enrollment is expected to be: elementary, 9,200 (page 63); middle, 637 (page 46); high school, 530 (page 35).
The State uses the Board's own building capacity data as shown in the Plan 680 to show that future enrollments can be housed in fewer buildings. These capacities allow for libraries, music, art and other special rooms and for generous storage space. They also provide for some programs *703 which the State claims are unrelated to desegregation. L(1047)86, page 11 and Attachment 1.
The State's capacity projections also assume that provision of classrooms — other than in nonintegrated schools — to house students in ratios lower than required by AAA standards is not required for desegregation purposes. If it is done, the State contends that the local board should pay for the extra classrooms needed to meet desired class sizes. Most of the Board's proposed 12(c) reconfiguration is not required for desegregation. Id., pages 30-34. The Board's class size goals (K-15/1; elementary—20/1; middle—20/1; high school — 25/1) in all schools greatly exceed Liddell IX mandates, AAA standards and suburban school ratios.
Dr. Brown's analysis of capacity focuses on the facilities needed to house anticipated regular enrollment in integrated and nonintegrated schools, K-12, by the year 1990-91. The procedure for determining available spaces differs for each level of instruction: high school, middle school, and elementary school. The data base for determining available school building capacity is the current number of schools serving students in instructional programs in the 1986-87 school year. Closed schools are not considered, per L(680)86.
The P/T ratio used by Dr. Brown in assigning classroom space in the integrated elementary and middle schools is 26/1. Although this P/T ratio is below the AAA standards as required by Liddell IX, Dr. Brown chose to keep this P/T ratio in his calculations because it is consistent with the capacity analyses used by the City Board and the State; and many of these schools are already at or near this P/T ratio. He further chose to accept the City Board's capacity estimates for the eight regular high schools currently in operation (integrated and nonintegrated). These capacity estimates are based on a P/T ratio of 28/1, which also exceeds AAA accreditation and Liddell IX requirements. He created a new model for the nonintegrated elementary and middle schools to account for the P/T ratio of 20/1 as mandated by Liddell IX and XII.
Dr. Brown's capacity analysis concludes that a surplus of instructional space will exist at all levels. [8] He surmises that by 1990-91, there will be a surplus capacity in the regular high schools of 8,007; equivalent to 285 classrooms. In the integrated middle schools, a surplus of 86 regular classrooms will remain in 1990. A surplus of 99 classrooms will remain in the nonintegrated middle schools in 1990. Finally, he concludes that an excess of 75 regular classrooms will remain in 1990 in the integrated elementary schools and an excess of 53 regular classrooms in the nonintegrated elementary schools. He further found present intradistrict magnet capacities to be adequate. Since the Magnet Panel is currently studying all magnets, capacities in the Settlement Plan magnets were not considered. There is abundant space available for vocational education (O'Fallon) and for the three special program schools: Gallaudet, Gratiot and Michael.
City Board's Plan 680 assumes the same P/T ratio in all schools. This is inconsistent with the directives of Liddell IX and XII. The Winsor Model prototype is an unrealistic model for facilities planning within the purview of Court requirements for desegregation. The St. Louis City school system is an old urban school system. None of its facilities could ever approximate the Winsor Model. The Winsor Model is an idealistic contemporary educational facility. The City Board's facilities are structurally sound old buildings. Simply because they are not new does not mean they are not usable. This Court and the Eighth Circuit have repeatedly stressed the rehabilitation and utilization of existing buildings. This is the main thrust of a capital improvements plan for the St. Louis City school system. The Winsor Model impairs realistic planning, which should begin with conditions as they now exist. For example, the downgrading of schools' capacities for minor inconsistencies with the Winsor Model(s) eliminates about 900 classroom spaces from the City Board's original *704 capacities. L(852)86, pgs. 21-28. Such effects from using the Winsor Model directly conflicts with Liddell XII's directives for consolidation of facilities and more efficient use of classrooms. The Winsor Model is unacceptable for capital improvements planning for the St. Louis City school district.
The class size standards used by the State in L(1047)86, p. 41, to determine building capacities are essentially the same as those cited by the Eighth Circuit. However, the State's use of City Board's capacity estimates is inadequate because it does not adjust for the pupil/teacher ratios required by Liddell IX. Furthermore, the State has consolidated too compactly to meet a reasonable estimate of 1990-91 enrollment and valid 12(c) program goals.
The Court finds that Dr. Brown's capacity analysis provides the most reasonable basis for capital improvements planning. It takes into account current capacity data, enrollment distribution trends, Court-mandated pupil/teacher ratios, [9] and housing of approved 12(c) programs. It adhers to this Court's and the Eighth Circuit's advertisements regarding efficient use of classroom space. Foremost, existing school buildings are shown to possess the capacity to house students in the near future. With realistic rehabilitation, present buildings can be turned into the educational facilities required by the Courts and expected by the teachers, students and parents in St. Louis City.
Consolidation of Facilities.
How shall the current school facilities be consolidated so that maximum effective use may be made of buildings needed in the foreseeable future?
Directions from the Courts.
Consolidation ... is the key to an effective capital improvements program ... Buildings closed as of this date are not to be considered for renovation ... Schools with low enrollments which in all reasonable probability should close in the next five years are good candidates for consolidation and the capital improvement needs for some should be abandoned or prioritized accordingly.
L(680)86, page 7.
The Board ... shall prepare a capital improvement program for the nonintegrated elementary and middle schools ... provid[ing] for the complete rehabilitation of the buildings and grounds of those ... schools which are (1) in the worst physical condition, and (2) are so located that the best available demographic studies indicate that they will continue to serve students in the foreseeable future.
Liddell IX, 801 F.2d at 284 .
The record reveals that many of the nonintegrated elementary and middle schools are very small. For example, sixteen nonintegrated elementary schools have enrollments of fewer than 250 students per schools, with an average enrollment of 170 students. The record also reveals that many of nonintegrated elementary and middle schools are poorly maintained and located and would be very expensive to rehabilitate.
Liddell XII, 823 F.2d at 1254.
In its long-term planning for the nonintegrated elementary and middle schools, the City Board should carefully consider closing the smaller, poorly maintained and poorly located nonintegrated elementary and middle schools and consolidating the students in either new or existing buildings that are well located and designed specifically to meet a pupil/teacher ratio of twenty to one, the goal being *705 to achieve significant operating savings while providing the students with suitable facilities.
Liddell XII, at 1254. ( See, Liddell XII, footnote 1 regarding consolidation).
The Board believes that 149 of its current inventory of 151 school buildings — operating and closed — will be needed to house students in the year 2000. L(852)86, p. 27. Further, additional buildings will be needed to accommodate anticipated enrollment, staff ratios and 12(c) programs.
The State contends that the entire 1990-91 St. Louis public school enrollment in integrated, nonintegrated, intradistrict magnets and Settlement Plan magnets can be housed in 67 school buildings. L(1047)86, pgs. 35-38.
When addressing the issue of consolidation, the Court considered three factors:
(1) What facilities should be removed from service;
(2) How reconfigurations can be used to provide for all program needs;
(3) What actions are needed to offset the loss of space resulting from consolidation and closing of school buildings.
After reviewing the City Board's 680 Plan, the alternative City Board plans, the State's plan, and consultation with Dr. Brown, and on-site visits, the Court determines that the following action is necessary to reduce plant capacity to provide a better cost-effective school system while still providing a quality education.
1. Close seven elementary schools whose condition makes rehabilitation impractical. These are: Adams, Hodgen, Arlington, Carver, Field, Harrison and Irving. Due to their age, condition of deterioration, and limited site space, these schools should be phased out of operation over the next two or three years as declining enrollment permits. Students should be reassigned to facilities with excess capacity as soon as a reasonable reassignment plan is developed. Meanwhile, only minimal improvements to provide weatherproof, functional educational facilities should be undertaken as necessary.
The discontinuance of Adams and Hodgen as integrated elementary attendance centers would reduce plant capacity by 27 classrooms. However, after additions proposed later in this section, the excess capacity of integrated elementary schools will permit expansion of court-approved preschool centers among neighborhood schools. Thus, no new integrated elementary schools are indicated in the foreseeable future.
The discontinuance of five nonintegrated elementary schools will reduce capacity as follows:
School Classrooms Lost
Carver (Old section not counted
in room allocation chart)
Arlington 11
Field 14
Harrison 14
Irvin 15
__
54
This loss of capacity must be offset by additions to existing facilities.
2. Consolidate elementary enrollment by closing eight small, noncontiguous branch schools as attendance centers. The fixed costs of their continued existence are excessive. These are: Cook Branch, Farragut Branch 1, Farragut Branch 2, Hamilton Branch 1, Hamilton Branch 2, Hempstead Branch, Mitchell Branch and Williams Branch.
The City Board's 680 Plan proposed discontinuing the use of these branch schools (as regular elementary schools) except it listed Dunbar Branch and omitted Mitchell Branch. The City Board further proposed using these branch schools as preschool centers. The Court has included Mitchell Branch in its closing list because this school is a small underenrolled noncontiguous branch school. However, Dunbar Branch is not included in the Court's list because it is located on the Dunbar Site and is considered a part of the Dunbar School.
Concerning preschool centers, the Court is convinced that the Board's anticipated preschool population (2,400 students) can be housed in neighborhood elementary schools by 1990-91. First, the proposed *706 P/T ratios for the preschool program—15 pupils per classroom per day — exceed the standards of the present court-approved preschool program. Second, using neighborhood schools for preschool programs consolidates a number of small buildings (eight classrooms each) as preschool centers. Although nine of these buildings are currently available to house children, the Board chooses now to use them for other purposes. The current preschool program is housed in neighborhood elementary and middle schools. The Board's Plan 680 would reopen these nine schools which could be, but are not now used to house children. There will be enough capacity in 1990 for continued housing of an expanded preschool program in regular school buildings. Housing the preschool program in regular neighborhood schools rather than in isolated small buildings has many advantages in addition to enrollment consolidation. One important advantage is closeness. Children would have to travel farther to 20 small preschool centers than to neighborhood elementary and middle schools. Preschool children attending regular neighborhood elementary schools would be advantaged by plant accommodations and staff services such as the following: an experienced leadership staff, art and music specialists, nurses, counselors, social workers, security guards; library and audio-visual services; physical education and lunchroom facilities. Preschool staff would also have clerical staff and office equipment available. Therefore, the present pattern for preschools should be continued.
3. Close the Franklin School where the City Board's Management Center magnet is located. Franklin is an old building with a low enrollment, located in an area largely surrounded by commercial buildings. Since this is not a court-approved interdistrict magnet, rehabilitation of this magnet site would not be considered desegregation-related.
4. Close Longfellow as an attendance center. The Court recommends that consideration be given to moving the Honor Arts program to Central High School (where the VPA magnet is now located). The Court believes that Central has sufficient capacity to house this program and the curriculum of this part-time magnet could be enriched by its incorporation in a visual and performing arts context.
The Court is well aware that it is ordering the closing of 16 buildings including approximately 154 classrooms. In order to offset this reduction of plant capacity, the following steps should be taken:
1. Construction of new elementary gymnasium facilities and reconfiguration of current playrooms (where full-size gyms are not now available). Considerable amount of instructional space will be opened by the reconfiguration of existing playrooms. [10]
2. Reinstate two elementary schools by adapting two nonintegrated middle schools such as Ford and branch and Turner and branch. Since these middle schools served as elementary schools prior to 1980, minor changes would only be necessary. Approximately 43 additional elementary schools would thus be made available.
3. Construct 12-classroom additions to each of four nonintegrated elementary schools. These schools are: Carver, Herzog, Lexington and Lowell. Four additions, each providing twelve (12) classrooms, would increase nonintegrated elementary capacity by 48 classrooms.
Although Court Order L(680)86 did not provide for the construction of additions, the Court must now reconsider this matter as a part of the necessary consolidation and reconfiguration process. The additional construction, as set out here, would reap substantial benefits at minimal cost. These additions, therefore, will become a part of the capital improvement plan.
Substantial data reveals that the physical education facilities in 19 nonintegrated schools, 17 integrated schools, and seven magnet schools are inadequate for present-day physical education programs. The playrooms in these 43 schools are not comparable to gym facilities found in the county *707 districts. By providing adequate gyms, this plan not only accommodates current physical education program needs, but it also makes space available for assemblies and parent meetings, and community use. Further, it would greatly improve management of students during inclement weather. Existing playrooms may then be reconfigured to provide additional instructional space, thereby increasing the capacities of the schools affected. (Also, lunchroom space is provided as needed by use of some playrooms.) Reconfiguring 51 present playrooms in these 43 schools to provide additional instructional space, consistent with the need for safe pupil access, will make each school more efficient in size.
Available data also indicates that surplus middle school space will exist in the near future while elementary space may be tight. Readapting Ford and Turner to elementary schools makes excellent use of available space.
Carver, Herzog, Lexington and Lowell are four nonintegrated elementary schools that will have low capacity after needed nonclassroom space is set aside. They have sites large enough to accommodate new classroom wings. These wings are cost-effective measures which will increase instructional space capacity.
After these steps are taken, the St. Louis City School District's capacity should exceed its anticipated classroom needs for regular integrated and nonintegrated schools, current intradistrict and 12(c) magnets, and special and vocational schools. Reallocation of excess space district-wide will open up elementary school space for preschool centers. Excess capacity in the high schools will become available for other uses. At least four of the eight regular high schools should become available for magnets, middle schools, or administrative space. The current regular high school enrollment could be housed in five of the larger schools. Additional attrition may release one more. The most obvious candidates for other use are: Soldan, Northwest, McKinley and Vashon. Smaller high school buildings could be reconverted to middle school centers of from 600 to 1,200 students. This would make possible closing some middle schools, thus permitting the release of additional elementary or magnet space. Two groupings of geographically close middle schools appear to have sufficient capacity to release one building in each group for other use: Group 1—L'Overture, Mullanphy, Grant and Fanning; Group 2—Nottingham and Dewey.
Consolidation of facilities is no longer avoidable by the City Board. Current and projected enrollments do not justify the number of facilities in operation. It simply is not fiscally prudent or educationally sound to spread limited resources so thin. Underenrolled and underutilized buildings are an enormous financial drain on the City Board. Cutting back on the number of facilities in operation is a reasonable and feasible first step to minimizing the waste of limited resources.
Number of Buildings
How many schools will be needed to house estimated enrollment on the target date? This portion of the plan addresses the number of buildings to be rehabilitated in order to accommodate the target enrollment, given adjustments to current plant capacity discussed previously.
Directions from the Courts.
Settlement Plan 12(c) magnets are a totally separate matter.
L(680)86, page 7.
Buildings closed as of this date are not to be considered for renovation.
Id.
Nonintegrated and magnet schools need earliest attention. Settlement Plan magnets are to be considered separately from other schools.
Liddell VIII, 758 F.2d 302 -303.
The Board shall prepare a capital improvements program for the nonintegrated elementary schools and middle schools which is estimated to cost not more than $40 million. (Liddell IX).
In determining the facilities needed to reach the twenty to one pupil/teacher ratio in the nonintegrated elementary *708 and middle schools, the parties are to assume — and accomplish as a fact — that by the 1990-91 school year, an additional 5,500 black City students will be attending county schools, that by the same year an additional 2,750 black City students will be attending magnet schools in the City, and that there will be some space available for additional black students in the integrated comprehensive schools. Thus, unless demographic factors clearly indicate otherwise, planning should assume that by 1990, fewer than 15,000 black students will be attending nonintegrated schools in the City.
Liddell XII, 823 F.2d at 1254.
(4) The record reveals that many of the nonintegrated elementary and middle schools are very small. For example, sixteen nonintegrated elementary schools have enrollments of fewer than 250 students per school, with an average enrollment of 170 students. The record also reveals that many of the nonintegrated elementary and middle schools are poorly maintained and located and would be very expensive to rehabilitate.
In its long-term planning for the nonintegrated elementary and middle schools, the City Board should carefully consider closing the smaller, poorly maintained and poorly located nonintegrated elementary and middle schools and consolidating the students in either new or existing buildings that are well located and designed specifically to meet a pupil/teacher ratio of twenty to one, the goal being to achieve significant operating savings while providing the students with suitable facilities.
Liddell XII, at 1254.
The Board lists an inventory of 151 school buildings (counting Marshall and Marshall Branch as two units) in the Plan 680 and other filings. In the original ZH plan, the board shows an inventory of 151 buildings scheduled for renovation, reconfiguration and additions at a total cost of $320,960,655. [L(598)85, pages 32-37]. These schools are listed in the index pages which appear in numerous places in Board filings L(598)85 and L(852)86.
The Board currently operates a total of 126 schools, including six Settlement Plan magnets, to house a 1986-87 enrollment of 48,319 in integrated, nonintegrated, magnet, vocational and special schools. There are 25 schools not being used to house students in instructional programs:
School used for adult education: Clark Branch I.
Schools used for administrative offices: Busch, Curriculum, Clark Branch II, Emerson Branch, Euclid Branch, Field Branch, Kennard.
Schools leased for non-Board use: Gardenville, Howard Branch, Simmons Branch, Smith, Williams Branch II.
Schools Closed: Benton, Fremont, Monroe, Carr, Carr Lane Branch, Charless, Clinton Branch, Howard, Lindenwood, Maddox, Riddick, Windsor.
In the Plan 680 the Board indicates its intention to use a total of 145 of its schools for instructional purposes through the year 2000. The Board schedules 128 schools for rehabilitation (counting Marshall and Branch as two units), including nine reopened branch schools proposed as preschool centers. Six Settlement Plan magnets, plus Soldan — removed from the rehabilitation list per the Board's interpretation of L(680)86 — will continue in operation. Also, 10 closed schools are set aside for future Settlement Plan magnets.
The Board proposes to reopen 20 schools which are not now being used to accommodate students in instructional programs. Busch — now housing offices — is proposed, but not budgeted, for use as a relocated academic/athletic middle school magnet. (Hamilton Branch would become a preschool center.) Nine branches not housing students are proposed as preschool centers. Ten closed schools are proposed as future 12(c) magnets.
In addition to the 145 schools proposed for regular and magnet instruction, Curriculum and Kennard would house administrative offices. Gardenville would remain leased as a community center. The net result of Plan 680 is consolidation of three schools, two of which are up for sale: Carr School and Carr Lane Branch.
*709 The Board states that consolidation of schools cannot be accomplished because of the following factors: additional population growth; the requirements of the Year 2000 Curriculum Plan; the addition of 20 pre-schools; and a proposed district-wide reduction of P/T ratios to 20/1 except in integrated high schools (25/1). Further, if the Court restricts the Board's proposed reconfigurations and additions by enforcing the provisions of L(680)86, needed building additions would be left out. Then, 24 new schools would be needed to house enrollment in the year 2000 at an additional cost of $141,000,000.00. L(852)86, p. 27.
The State suggests that, by consolidating attendance centers and using the biggest and best buildings in St. Louis, the entire 1990-91 regular and magnet public school enrollment could be housed in 67 buildings. Such consolidation would meet constitutional requirements through more effective utilization of buildings. Any additional buildings used to provide more instructional space should be rehabilitated through use of local funds. The State includes six current 12(c) magnet facilities in its proposal (contrary to L(680)86) on the grounds that they will house St. Louis students, thus reducing facilities needed for integrated and nonintegrated schools. L(1047)86, pp. 35-38. The State assumes that pre-school children can be accommodated in existing elementary schools. Its list of 67 schools does not take into account four special schools now in operation.
After review of the submitted plans, review of the Zurheide-Herrmann data and consultation with the financial advisor, this Court finds that a total of 111 buildings on 106 campuses should suffice to accommodate projected enrollment in the foreseeable future at P/T ratios and with the instructional resources required by the Settlement Plan and the courts. The school closings, rehabilitation of plants, additions, and reconfigurations proposed herein will completely rehabilitate St. Louis public school buildings, providing facilities comparable to those in participating school districts. According to the analysis herein, a total of 111 schools—of which 104 would be scheduled for rehabilitation—will meet the requirements of the order L(680)86 and related orders of the Eighth Circuit. The remaining seven are court-approved 12(c) magnets (including Euclid Branch) which are to be refurbished and financed in a separate plan.
The following is a list of buildings which this Court considers obsolescent. Relevant Zurheide-Herrmann data reveals these buildings to be poorly maintained and located and too expensive to rehabilitate. These buildings are to be eliminated from the City Board's inventory as soon as possible.
Current Use
Adams K-5
Arlington K-5
Benton Closed
Carr Closed
Carr Lane Branch 1 Closed
Charless Closed
Clinton Branch 1 Closed
Field K-5
Fremont Closed
Hodgen K-5
Harrison K-5
Howard Closed
Howard Branch Leased
Irving K-5
Longfellow Honors Art
Maddox Closed
Monroe Closed
Riddick Closed
Simmons Branch 1 Leased
Smith Closed
Williams Branch 2 Leased
The following is a list of buildings which the Court recommends the City Board retain in its inventory as a hedge against unforeseen enrollment expansion. All are in sound condition and could be rehabilitated at a reasonable cost. These buildings could be utilized by the City Board as offices or leased while future demographic trends unfold.
*710
Full-sized Schools Current Use
Busch Offices
Curriculum Offices
Gardenville Leased
Franklin Management magnet
Kennard Closed
Lindenwood Closed
Windsor Closed
Branch schools (8 classrooms)
Clark 1 Adult education
Clark 2 Offices
Cook 1 Grades K-4
Emerson 1 Offices
Farragut 1 Grades K-2
Farragut 2 Offices
Field 1 Preschool
Hamilton 1 Grades K-5
Hamilton 2 Grades K-5
Hempstead Grades K-5
Mitchell 1 Grades K- 5
Williams 1 Grades K-5
Summarily, the approved number of schools earmarked for desegregation-related capital improvements and total recommended inventory for the St. Louis City School District is as follows:
Schools recommended for rehabilitation 104
Approved Settlement Plan Magnets 7
___
Total facilities recommended for 1990-91 111
Schools to be retained and used for purposes
other than instruction 19
Schools to be eliminated from inventory 21
___
Total current inventory 151
Construction Projects Proposed for Budgeting
What construction projects are necessary to meet court-approved standards for complete rehabilitation of buildings and grounds? This section of the plan discusses desegregation-related construction work required for rehabilitation of those facilities to be continued in operation for the foreseeable future. The units of work become the basis for budgeting and scheduling the facilities improvement program.
Directions from the Courts.
Projects should fulfill the bare minimum requirements of the St. Louis city safety and health codes.
L(680)86, p. 7.
A facility improvement is renovation or rehabilitation work on an existing building.
Id.
The Court will not accept construction of a new building or annex.
Id.
If the project involves a facility modification in order to provide a suitable environment for a specific desegregation activity, the Board should identify the Plan budget function which requires the improvement.
Id.
All needed physical improvements, including those which are desegregation-related, cannot be built at once. The projects having the highest priority must be scheduled for completion at the earliest possible date.
Id., p. 8.
The Zurheide-Herrmann model standard is higher than this Court has pronounced or will accept.
Id.
The City Board is to prepare promptly a building program not to exceed $40,000,000.00 to meet the most urgent capital needs of the district, with emphasis on the all-black schools and the magnet schools.
Liddell VIII, 758 F.2d at 302.
The Board shall provide for the replacement or complete rehabilitation of the buildings and grounds of those nonintegrated elementary and middle schools which (1) are in the worst physical condition and (2) will serve students in the foreseeable future according to the best demographic studies available.
Liddell IX, 801 F.2d at 284 .
The Board includes all construction projects proposed in its original 1985 Zurheide-Herrmann facilities study fitting the Court's standard in L(680)86. It uses the BOCA-PM code to justify a broad range of cosmetic, mechanical, structural, electrical, *711 exterior, safety and site projects. L(852)86, pp. 12-16; addendum B.
The State objects to use of the BOCA code, arguing that it is too broad and vague. The State claims that the Board's proposal exceeds the bare minimum health and safety requirements and includes expenditures which are not desegregation-related. The State accepts Zurheide-Hermann unit costs as reasonable and agrees with many projects proposed by the Board (for the 67 schools it accepts for renovation): roofs; exterior walls; windows; doors; some classroom lights; fire alarms; sprinklers; corrective mechanical work; necessary electrical work; and health/safety items. It disagrees with other kinds of projects: site work; heating and ventilating; lights for nonclassroom areas; energy conservation; building interior painting; floors; ceilings.
The State also demurs from participation in landscaping, replacement of paving and equipment, new acoustical ceilings, removal of graffiti, facilities for handicapped persons, provision for computer rooms, counseling offices for middle and high schools, and Winsor Model standards such as elementary foreign language. L(1047), pp. 18-25.
The Order L(680)86 states that desegregation-related capital improvements are those costs needed to fulfill the bare minimum health and safety code requirements. The Board's Plan 680 goes farther than that, proposing improvements in eight areas, based on a broad interpretation of the BOCA code. Although the Plan 680 exceeds the Court's definition of standards, the proposals may approach the Liddell IX statement, "replacement or complete rehabilitation of buildings and grounds in nonintegrated elementary and middle schools ..." 801 F.2d at 284 . It appears that the requirement of "complete rehabilitation of buildings and grounds" includes more Zurheide-Herrmann projects than the State accepts, but it does not suggest new buildings, additions to every facility, elaborate internal reconfiguration and unnecessary mechanical work. It appears to support the L(680)86 standard with a more generous interpretation of basic minimum standards. On the other hand, the State's proposal is too limited, both as to the number of buildings to be refurbished and the number of projects proposed. The State's plan would not thoroughly rehabilitate enough buildings to house even its own conservative enrollment projections.
Upon request, the financial advisor provided the Court with an analysis of cost data. [11] This cost analysis revealed significant discrepancies in the project cost data supplied by the Zurheide-Herrmann facilities study and relied upon both by the City Board and the State. The discretion left to the individual engineering firms resulted in substantially different cost estimates for various work projects:
1. Differences in the kind of project listed as needed for rehabilitation. (One firm did not allow any funds for staff parking; another provided for new parking in six of eight schools surveyed.)
2. Differences in the amounts of funds allocated to similar kinds of projects. (One firm surveyed six elementary schools and recommended an average of $107,487.00 for tuckpointing; another surveyed seven schools and recommended an average of $8,069.00 for tuckpointing.)
3. Differences in the standards applied in recommending work projects. (Various A/E firms recommended from 40 to 70 foot-candles for multipurpose classrooms as a basic lighting standard).
4. Differences in the unit costs assigned to identical projects. (Costs per square foot for kindergarten reconfiguration vary from $.17 to $57.71).
5. In some cases it appears that buildings were not thoroughly inspected before reports were submitted. (One firm recommended completely new lighting after taking a foot-candle reading in one room only).
6. One can find boilerplate narrative which has no relationship to the particular *712 school surveyed. (One firm used the same paragraph on fire alarms for each school surveyed, but it budgeted from $0 to $28,500.00 for fire alarms).
Parameters for determining repair, replacement or new installation are lacking. Even if the Court were to order full implementation of all the work projects in the facilities study, the buildings would be left in substantially differing states of repair.
Since the State accepted the Zurheide-Herrmann unit costs as reasonable, the Court instructed the financial advisor to focus on the Plan 680 cost data and to make adjustments to remove extreme discrepancies. He recommended the following adjustments:
1. Since new parking was proposed for only 24 of the 108 sites surveyed, new parking construction should be disallowed.
2. "New sodding" should be eliminated. New sodding was recommended for only four (4) schools.
3. Since Ford, Farragut and Marshall schools have recently received roof repairs, there should be removal of roof repair costs of $383,518.00 from the proposed expenditures. Corresponding reduction for any other roofs repaired since the Zurheide-Herrmann report was filed should be made.
4. Amounts requested for gutters and downspouts should be disallowed due to recent repair work by City Board.
5. Amounts for tuckpointing in excess of $50,000.00 per building should be disallowed. The various engineering firms proposed a total of $2,399,531.00, an average of $30,373.00 per building, for tuckpointing 79 buildings. Less than $20,000.00 for tuckpointing was proposed for each of 33 buildings. No tuckpointing was proposed for three buildings.
6. The amount proposed for new lighting fixtures should be reduced by 35%. City Board proposed new lighting fixtures for 99 schools at a cost of $10,842,104.00. New lighting was not proposed for nine schools. The various surveying firms used at least four different lighting standards and reported substantially different foot-candle readings. A reduction of 35% would still provide new light fixtures needed to meet City Board's lighting standard in all buildings and provide for cleaning, replacing, and repairing diffusers, replacing louvers and replacing inoperative fixtures.
7. Among the 108 buildings surveyed, $0 was proposed for fire alarm systems in 27 buildings, and $15,000.00 or less was proposed for repair or total replacement of fire alarm systems in 51 buildings. Due to extreme variances (e.g. some firms proposed over seven times as much as others for replacement of fire alarm systems in schools of similar age and size), amounts in excess of $15,000.00 per building should be disallowed.
8. Under the heading "electric service", $0 was proposed for 20 buildings, and $50,000.00 or less was proposed for 68 buildings. Amounts in excess of $50,000.00 per building should be disallowed for the remaining buildings.
9. The City Board requests 26 new boilers at a cost of $1,352,800.00. Presently all boilers are in working condition. $10,000.00 should be budgeted for repairs at each of the 26 schools.
10. Energy conservation projects, i.e. all items with a payback in energy cost savings, should be eliminated from the capital improvements budget. These items include the amounts listed under the category "energy conservation", new outside automatic dampers, new air return systems and replacement of noninsulated glass. With energy conservation projects, there is a cost payback in the form of reduced operating costs for energy. There is no practical, concise, equitable procedure to account for and reimburse the State for its half of operating cost savings resulting from energy conservation measures paid out as one-time capital outlay expenditures.
11. The expenditure of $291,500.00 for elevators (handicapped person access) should be disallowed since it was proposed only for four (4) out of 108 schools surveyed.
*713 12. The expenditure of $85,500.00 for wheelchair lifts at only six (6) schools should be disallowed.
The Court has carefully reviewed these deducted items and concurs with the recommendations. Items such as employee parking do not conform to this Court's standard for desegregation-relatedness. Other high cost items for isolated placement such as new sodding, elevators and wheelchair lifts are excessive. If lighting and heating is in a good state of repair, there is no need to fix or replace the systems. Wholesale replacement of boilers or lights, in working condition, only because of age is a waste of funds. Finally, with respect to the energy-conservation projects, to budget these expenditures as desegregation-related and to require joint State and City Board funding, would allow the City Board to recover not only its investment, but also that of the State. The Court finds such projects to be commendable and would recommend to the City Board to carry out these energy conservation projects on its own since it will reap the benefits in the long run; however, funds for these items will not be allotted in this facilities plan.
In a capital improvement project of the magnitude contemplated here, some attention must be given to the possibility of encountering an asbestos problem. At the hearing, the Court discussed this with all counsel off the record. Thereafter, the City Board made further investigation and after consultation with school personnel and members of the Zurheide-Herrmann firm, reported to the Court on January 6, 1987.
A primary concern regarding asbestos in schools is with "friable" asbestos-containing materials. Those in turn are materials applied to ceilings, walls, structural members, piping, boilers, ductwork and the like, which, when dry, may be easily crumbled, pulverized or reduced to powder. In that state, those materials may emit asbestos fibers, which present a potential health hazard.
In 1978 and 1979, the St. Louis Public Schools voluntarily initiated inspection and abatement action with respect to asbestos found in the schools. During that period, extensive amounts of potentially hazardous asbestos materials were removed from some five school buildings. The St. Louis Public School system was one of the first school systems in the country to voluntarily initiate action concerning asbestos. The St. Louis Public Schools generated certain records with respect to the inspection and handling of asbestos in that time period.
In 1983, the federal EPA notified the St. Louis Public Schools concerning certain statutory and regulatory requirements related to asbestos, resulting from the federal Toxic Substances Control Act. The St. Louis Public Schools at that time were advised that those regulations required all school districts in the country to inspect school facilities for friable asbestos containing building materials, to maintain records of the findings, to provide custodial employees with a guide for reducing asbestos exposure, and to notify parent-teacher organizations, or parents, of those inspection results.
In response to the EPA, the St. Louis Public Schools initiated inspections of the school facilities, and prepared and submitted inspection reports to the EPA. Discussions concerning those findings likewise were held with the EPA. The inspections revealed that all school facilities contained boiler and pipe insulating materials containing asbestos. However, as confirmed by the EPA, boiler and pipe insulating materials normally do not present a health hazard if they are properly maintained, because those materials generally are provided with protective coverings and wrappings. When those protective coverings are damaged or wear out, certain corrective action then is advisable. As a result, it was determined that asbestos containing materials with protective coatings, such as boilers and pipes, would be monitored and repaired or removed as deemed necessary, whenever a potential health hazard was determined to be present.
The inspections likewise revealed friable or potentially friable asbestos containing acoustical and insulating materials at some *714 seven school facilities. Based on discussions with the EPA, and with outside consultants, certain abatement actions were recommended and implemented at that time.
The St. Louis Public Schools have continued to monitor the condition of asbestos in the boilers and pipes, and the EPA has undertaken certain inspections of the school facilities since 1983 to determine on-going compliance with the Toxic Substances Control Act. As necessary, the EPA has pointed out any existing problems, for example, the posting of asbestos notices in all required places in a school facility. Apparently, the EPA has expressed no significant concerns in connection with those subsequent inspections.
The St. Louis Public Schools are engaged in on-going inspections and necessary corrective action, primarily with respect to the boilers and pipes, and have prepared and retained required reports and records. The necessary remedial action has been undertaken primarily by outside contractors. Apparently, during the Zurheide-Herrmann survey of the school facilities no asbestos hazards requiring corrective action were found.
The Court finds, therefore, that there is no discernable problem with asbestos not now being monitored and handled properly by the City Board. Should an asbestos problem arise in the implementation of the project contemplated by this opinion, the Court will review it at that time and make additional findings and orders as may be necessary to resolve the difficulty.
Recommended Capital Projects Budget
The Board's attorney pointed out cogently in closing remarks at the December 1986 hearing that the capital decisions facing the Court deal with budgeting, not with precise financial commitments. In that same vein, the proposed budget herein is to be considered as a tool for planning and action. It has been carefully developed, with the goal of precise estimating. A well-prepared budget is a policy statement which defines priorities and sets limits in the allocation of scarce financial resources. Actual experience — specifically, developing plans and specifications and awarding construction contracts — will certainly modify cost allocations within the constraints of the basic budget structure. Some costs will be higher and some lower than original estimates. The Court believes that this budget provides generously for all projects to rehabilitate, reconfigure and add to the school buildings needed by the Board in the foreseeable future.
Directions from the Courts.
Each project should describe a particular facility improvement in detail. A `school-by-school' breakdown, similar to the (ZH) report format, is preferable.
L(680)86, p. 7.
"... the Board of Education of the City of St. Louis shall prepare a capital improvement program for the non-integrated elementary and middle schools which is estimated to cost not more than $40,000,000.00"
Liddell IX, 801 F.2d at 284 .
The Board estimates (ZH) costs of "code requirements" (rehabilitation only) of 127 buildings in the 680 Plan to be $98,713,511.00 exclusive of design costs (10%). L(852)86, page 98. It derives the $144,000,000.00 price tag as follows:
Rehabilitation of 127 schools $ 98,713,511
12(c) reconfigurations 10,032,097
Magnet reconfigurations 3,736,118
10 percent design fee 11,248,179
____________
$123,729,905
Construction escalation at
five percent annual rate $ 21,023,710
____________
$144,753,615
Additionally, the Plan 680 estimates new construction to accommodate projected enrollment increases and building additions necessary to accommodate 12(c) and interdistrict magnets to cost $144,840,062. The capital cost estimated in the Plan 680 totals $289,593,677. The Plan 680 suggests the Court may wish to approve capital funding at $210,406,615 for the first four years. Later, in L(857)86, the Board estimates the total cost of its Long-Range Facilities Plan at $420,630,007.00 (p. 97).
Within this total, the Board's estimate of (ZH) costs for rehabilitation of 37 elementary *715 and 14 middle, nonintegrated schools can be derived from data in its Appendix B. That cost, for rehabilitation only, is $39,186,868.00 exclusive of design fees, reconfiguration and escalation. This would fall within limits ($40,000,000.00) suggested by Liddell IX for early action.
The State believes that necessary rehabilitation on 67 buildings will cost $44,638,830.00. The State's cost data is difficult to allocate with respect to the nonintegrated elementary and middle schools because the State's cost extrapolation applies to all 67 schools it believes to be sufficient for the near future.
Two other capital improvements programs, within the $40,000,000.00 parameters set forth by Liddell IX, were submitted to the Court for consideration. The Committee for Quality Education's (CQ) proposal suggested rehabilitating (to code requirements) 30-35 nonintegrated schools in the "worst physical condition." L(1176)86. The City of St. Louis suggested rehabilitating approximately 27 nonintegrated elementary schools to meet code requirements; set aside approximately $4,000,000.00 for quality education programs-related capital improvements; and renovate or newly construct no more than three (3) schools to approximate the Winsor Model. L(1198)86.
Working with the financial advisor, the Court developed the district-wide capital outlay budget outlined herein which will rehabilitate 104 buildings, including five contiguous branch schools and Soldan High School. Seven court-approved 12(c) magnets are omitted. [12] Thus, although 111 schools are recommended for housing projected enrollment in the near future, only 104 are proposed for rehabilitation at this time. The City Board's own cost-data, with minor modifications, has been utilized. This budget adds a 10% design fee to the basic costs of rehabilitation, reconfiguration, and additions. The Court-approved budget for capital improvements totals $114,717,941.00.
The following attached tables outline this budget: Table VIII shows a breakdown of budgeted costs by type of school and by major project categories. Table IX lists each of the 104 schools proposed for renovation according to its date of construction and allocates a budget for each school by major project category. Table X shows a summary of the original Plan 680 project costs which were reduced, as discussed previously.
*716
TABLE VIII
Summary of Recommended Capital Improvements Budget
Rehabilitation and New Construction
Description Elementary Middle School High School Special Magnets Total
Site work $ 1,983,981 $ 722,802 $ 442,014 $ 138,317 $ 138,317 $ 3,969,932
Building envelope 6,407,101 4,387,087 2,396,974 902,636 2,518,263 16,612,061
Building interior 8,620,261 2,698,547 5,807,044 989,185 2,945,899 21,060,936
Mechanical 1,328,541 1,026,602 1,944,624 39,669 759,287 5,098,723
Electrical 6,046,675 3,424,848 3,838,520 444,148 2,289,008 16,043,199
Health, safety, handicap 4,924,424 2,297,720 1,289,771 717,791 1,682,802 10,912,508
New construction
Gyms 13,500,000 0 0 0 2,625,000 16,125,000
Classrooms 6,223,360 0 0 0 0 6,223,360
9% escalation to update
ZH 1984 data to 1985 0 0 1,414,704 0 353,301 1,768,005
Convert regular classrooms
to special education rooms 540,000 540,000
Convert playrooms to classrooms 1,390,000 0 0 0 180,000 1,570,000
Magnet reconfiguration 4,365,314 4,365,314
___________ ___________ ___________ __________ ___________ ____________
$50,964,343 $14,557,606 $17,133,651 $3,231,746 $17,857,191 $104,289,038
10% design fee 5,096,434 1,455,761 1,713,365 323,174 1,784,719 10,428,903
___________ ___________ ___________ __________ ___________ ____________
Totals $56,060,777 $16,013,367 $18,847,016 $3,554,920 $19,641,910 $114,717,941
*717
TABLE IX
Recommended Capital Improvements Budget—Distribution of Project Categories by School
New Construction 9%
Building Building Health, Safety, Energy Escalation
School Site Work Envelope Interior Mechanical Electrical Handicap Conservation Gym Classrooms 1984 to 1985 Total
Irving $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0
Adams 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Carver 27,546 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,555,840 1,583,386
Hodgen 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Froebel 91,212 144,724 150,398 25,718 92,767 125,137 0 375,000 0 1,004,976
Harrison 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Eliot 88,714 230,827 233,447 16,713 111,833 123,940 0 375,000 0 1,180,474
Jackson 11,676 96,286 131,094 3,600 181,624 144,505 0 0 0 568,785
Arlington 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sherman 9,541 102,061 180,044 3,600 174,007 160,805 0 375,000 0 1,005,058
Marshall and Branch 25,156 214,611 316,374 95,070 224,782 141,842 0 0 0 1,017,835
Field 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Wyman 38,060 89,225 117,747 35,100 182,692 149,029 0 375,000 0 986,853
Emerson 58,993 92,585 131,060 87,020 148,361 114,157 0 375,000 0 1,007,176
Clay 76,834 195,768 151,876 30,106 119,302 158,815 0 375,000 0 1,107,701
Cote Brilliante 21,880 126,948 270,524 25,014 184,417 127,720 0 375,000 0 1,131,503
Hempstead 93,917 120,246 290,771 109,930 211,585 137,410 0 375,000 0 1,338,859
Shepard 76,045 156,320 238,585 14,938 130,474 153,183 0 375,000 0 1,144,545
Farragut 42,497 58,418 123,162 47,400 139,069 126,133 0 375,000 0 911,679
Henry 32,364 175,388 138,840 600 210,394 172,580 0 375,000 0 1,105,166
Sigel 75,775 144,406 238,018 59,619 190,726 113,772 0 0 0 822,316
Clark 24,522 99,410 238,043 53,713 130,689 98,046 0 375,000 0 1,019,423
Lafayette 31,800 128,296 124,638 42,000 125,359 71,721 0 375,000 0 898,814
Baden 28,608 90,860 148,888 38,900 117,748 120,680 0 375,000 0 920,684
Oak Hill 60,475 141,610 178,915 16,588 115,749 130,158 0 375,000 0 1,018,495
Walnut Park 41,333 191,151 122,726 16,000 111,671 91,480 0 375,000 0 949,361
Meramec 63,602 97,363 140,318 14,982 78,617 60,657 0 375,000 0 830,539
Ashland 49,400 176,963 238,037 12,425 145,633 176,913 0 375,000 0 1,174,371
Ashland Branch 20,981 155,971 62,712 1,700 29,196 47,528 0 0 0 318,088
Mann 99,662 177,438 234,658 20,821 128,494 159,182 0 375,000 0 1,195,255
*718
Dunbar 43,487 168,412 135,808 48,807 188,708 103,931 0 375,000 0 1,064,153
Dunbar Branch 6,073 62,197 26,994 36,650 32,138 23,246 0 0 0 187,298
Mark Twain 2,456 154,097 202,360 4,163 113,976 86,641 0 375,000 0 938,693
Laclede 49,865 163,369 408,907 20,138 133,353 77,126 0 375,000 0 1,227,758
Scruggs 93,645 104,196 184,577 21,932 137,399 100,027 0 375,000 0 1,016,776
Cupples 42,525 112,688 242,445 23,193 107,545 100,026 0 375,000 0 1,003,422
Hamilton 28,419 106,112 197,346 39,000 175,728 81,128 0 375,000 0 1,002,733
Roe 66,433 36,679 53,677 4,500 12,400 103,979 0 375,000 0 652,668
Buder 18,208 55,573 221,765 34,527 139,099 116,707 0 375,000 0 950,879
Woodward 27,888 40,637 110,296 22,389 111,237 120,579 0 375,000 0 808,026
Walbridge 31,556 193,356 277,472 29,731 132,743 112,594 0 0 0 777, 452
Lowell 26 ,448 93,124 118,480 20,251 109,839 78,829 0 375,000 1,555,840 2,377,811
Shenandoah 26,410 48,995 48,799 42,126 115,515 72,733 0 375,000 0 729,578
Scullin 46,074 221,011 172,408 39,919 85,978 49,659 0 375,000 0 990,049
Cole 5,361 90,748 190,598 11,744 138,260 13,418 0 0 0 450,129
Gundlach 58,088 135,556 281,484 16,919 151,373 71,881 0 375,000 0 1,090,301
Herzog 26,794 102,116 125,336 7,575 66,660 97,642 0 375,000 1,555,840 2,356,963
Garfield 7,872 162,488 112,402 12,150 82,170 77,420 0 375,000 0 829,502
Banneker 10,701 93,885 215,662 37,244 118,956 61,366 0 0 0 537,814
Mitchell 6,719 273,718 122,445 1,500 89,519 77,095 0 0 0 570,996
Mitchell Branch 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Peabody 26,433 162,041 192,861 10,488 14,139 86,499 0 0 0 492,461
Carr Lane 51,828 202,305 269,335 6,188 145,983 72,557 0 0 0 748, 196
Jefferson 55 ,040 233,822 303,818 56,081 137,793 77,254 0 0 0 863,808
Lexington 6,020 66,623 66,403 2,500 80,555 31,593 0 375,000 1,555,840 2,184,534
Bryan Hill 29,045 116,478 137,708 17,269 140,420 125,081 0 375,000 0 941,001
Williams Branch 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Cook Branch #1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Hamilton Branch #1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Hamilton Branch #2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Hempstead Branch 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Farragut Branch #1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Farragut Branch #2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
__________ __________ __________ __________ ___________ ___________ _______ ___________ _________ ______________
Subtotal,
Elementary $1,983,981 $ 6,407,101 $ 8,620,261 $1,328,541 $ 6,046,675 $ 4,924,424 0 $13,500,000 $6,223,360 $ 49,034,343
__________ ___________ ___________ __________ ___________ ____________ _______ ___________ __________ ______________
*719
Webster $ 32,958 $ 143,112 $ 50,452 $ 72,550 $ 223,912 $ 114,416 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 637,400
Blow 23,952 78,817 182,603 62,500 175,714 163,743 0 0 0 687,329
Fanning 14,309 75,634 157,112 68,100 138,849 127,338 0 0 0 581,342
Dewey 32,926 51,273 124,620 72,300 218,793 97,411 0 0 0 597,323
Long 22,761 150,444 169,565 83,200 175,696 129,196 0 0 0 730, 862
Grant 10 ,213 112,430 140,956 47,600 112,892 102,023 0 0 0 526,114
Simmons 37,882 275,203 130,420 109,050 106,142 168,771 0 0 0 827,468
Mullanphy 53,821 298,911 181,275 91,800 275,994 135,414 0 0 0 1,037,215
Columbia 16,217 128,182 110,088 71,000 102,290 96,381 0 0 0 524,158
Clinton 5,019 102,103 182,902 15,200 100,230 98,387 0 0 0 503,841
King 24,687 132,322 212,975 57,041 98,118 101,799 0 0 0 626,942
Turner 22,510 214,474 84,672 4,438 40,158 85,601 0 0 0 451,853
Turner Branch 31,751 175,006 71,554 49,319 56,475 74,558 0 0 0 458,663
L'Ouverture 37,840 251,238 163,168 96,100 322,232 96,287 0 0 0 966,865
Nottingham 6,000 255,799 32,429 12,850 68,089 33,864 0 0 0 409,031
Blewett 48,609 252,078 84,070 19,988 292,082 6,244 0 0 0 703,071
Washington 25,920 202,581 54,335 3,050 132,857 52,048 0 0 0 470,791
Stevens 35,304 35,300 196,198 16,438 121,181 45,101 0 0 0 449,522
Cook 35,521 112,882 69,874 2,525 42,256 138,980 0 0 0 402,038
Ford 495 58,687 44,063 6,932 93,057 80,109 0 0 0 283,343
Ford Branch 64 80,827 17,922 3,257 30,313 30,016 0 0 0 162,399
Langston 137,745 395,092 27,341 24,800 82,523 30,147 0 0 0 697, 648
Williams 6 ,579 57,446 69,792 7,388 53,649 67,112 0 0 0 261,966
Hickey 9,240 247,280 57,596 16,300 209,634 76,671 0 0 0 616,721
Stowe 30,934 251,744 47,501 2,294 96,997 77,683 0 0 0 507,153
Yeatman 19,545 248,222 35,064 10,582 54,715 68,420 0 0 0 436,548
__________ ___________ ___________ __________ ___________ ___________ _____________ ____________ __________ ____________
Subtotal, Middle $ 722,802 $ 4,387,087 $ 2,698,547 $1,026,602 $ 3,424,848 $ 2,297,720 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 14,557,606
__________ ___________ ___________ __________ ___________ ___________ _____________ ____________ __________ ____________
Beaumont $ 87,889 $ 73,548 $ 795,440 $ 257,646 $ 719,033 $ 164,969 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 188,867 $ 2,287,392
McKinley 44,023 338,722 314,273 212,077 463,639 164,678 0 0 0 138,367 1,675,779
Northwest 18,452 29,778 249,778 24,686 215,186 246,084 0 0 0 70,556 854,520
Roosevelt 46,052 177,675 725,967 143,868 327,981 162,332 0 0 0 142,549 1,726,424
Southwest 77,759 407,407 668,959 104,306 351,816 224,564 0 0 0 165,133 1,999,944
Sumner 33,824 172,698 822,567 628,151 454,735 143,902 0 0 0 203,029 2,458,906
Vashon 78,092 472,778 1,357,416 472,564 730,345 20,229 0 0 0 281,828 3,413,252
Soldan 55,923 724,368 872,644 101,326 575,785 163,013 0 0 0 224,375 2,717,434
__________ ___________ ___________ __________ ___________ ___________ _____________ ____________ __________ __________ ____________
Subtotal, High $ 442,014 $ 2,396,974 $ 5,807,044 $1,944,624 $ 3,838,520 $ 1,289,771 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $1,414,704 $ 17,133,651
__________ ___________ ___________ __________ ___________ ___________ _____________ ____________ __________ __________ ____________
*720
Central VPA $ 34,558 $ 244,681 $ 502,339 $ 336,819 $ 447,419 $ 154,666 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 154,843 $ 1,875,325
Cleveland NJROTC 292,185 553,565 569,824 95,302 508,972 185,239 0 0 0 198,458 2,403,545
Health Care 0 143,151 35,917 0 54,304 48,739 0 0 0 282,111
Math/Science 3,494 55,326 154,485 33,288 84,500 158,069 0 0 0 489,162
Metro 25,697 78,035 67,113 0 33,036 89,172 0 0 0 293,053
Management Center 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Enright CJA 109,357 220,815 166,513 16,219 244,475 236,768 0 0 0 994,147
Madison 10,110 144,996 249,870 71,000 132,650 109,239 0 375,000 0 1,092,865
Mallinckrodt 9,851 115,092 259,916 606 16,974 79,375 0 375,000 0 856,814
Wade 16,204 58,234 140,684 13,406 119,211 99,849 0 375,000 0 822,588
AAA Academy 20,012 72,610 39,317 0 42,199 37,565 0 0 0 211,703
Ames 29,259 168,909 50,782 4,919 104,682 59,079 0 0 0 417,630
Euclid 4,677 107,832 168,277 104,263 121,766 98,699 0 0 0 605,514
Shaw 67,038 223,240 121,504 35,100 163,992 81,656 0 375,000 0 1,067,530
Stix 19,170 109,579 153,654 20,938 118,031 93,516 0 375,000 0 889,888
Waring 29,080 139,831 150,377 23,107 75,066 82,436 0 375,000 0 874,897
Wilkinson 12,126 82,367 115,327 4,320 21,731 68,735 0 375,000 0 679,606
__________ ___________ ___________ __________ ___________ ___________ _____________ ____________ __________ __________ ____________
Subtotal, Magnets $ 682,818 $ 2,518,263 $ 2,945,899 $ 759,287 $ 2,289,008 $ 1,682,802 $ 0 $ 2,625,000 $ 0 $ 353,301 $ 13,856,378
__________ ___________ ___________ __________ ___________ ___________ _____________ ____________ __________ __________ ____________
O'Fallon $ 80,521 $ 623,680 $ 652,152 $ 0 $ 181,177 $ 541,270 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 2,078,800
Continuing Ed. 46,080 72,004 104,447 8,825 65,970 9,497 0 0 0 306,823
Gallaudet 8,884 52,515 74,943 17,800 78,563 81,447 0 0 0 314,152
Michael 2,832 154,437 157,643 13,044 118,438 85,577 0 0 0 531,971
Longfellow 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
__________ ___________ ___________ __________ ___________ ___________ _____________ ____________ __________ ____________
Subtotal, Special $ 138,317 $ 902,636 $ 989,185 $ 39,669 $ 444,148 $ 717,791 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 3,231,746
__________ ___________ ___________ __________ ___________ ___________ _____________ ____________ __________ ____________
Totals $3,969,932 $16,612,061 $21,060,936 $5,098,723 $16,043,199 $10,912,508 $ 0 $ 16,125,000 $6,223,360 $1,768,005 $ 97,813,724
Reconfigure playrooms to instruction rooms 1,570,000
Regular classrooms to Special Education 540,000
Magnet reconfiguration 4,365,314
____________
$104,289,038
10% design fee 10,428,903
____________
$114,717,941
*721
TABLE X
Recommended Deductions from Desegregation-Related
Capital Improvements Plan, L(852)86, April 1986
Description Elementary Middle School High School Special Magnets Total
Sodding $ 34,391 $ 52,000 $ 12,369 $ 0 $ 13,250 $ 112,010
New parking 380,000 62,500 0 0 52,500 495,000
Tuckpointing 401,878 33,367 0 0 21,355 456,600
Noninsulated glass 198,754 274,047 0 7,379 60,793 540,973
Roofs 159,728 223,790 0 0 0 383,518
Gutters/downspouts 82,425 26,665 1,576 8,700 2,910 122,276
New boilers 567,800 640,000 0 42,000 103,000 1,352,800
New air dampers 699,610 73,640 0 0 63,000 836,250
New air return 785,351 268,150 0 0 106,000 1,159,501
Fire alarm 180,700 144,810 0 70,000 25,000 420,510
Replace lights 1,979,158 976,084 640,687 118,025 358,853 4,072,807
New electrical service 744,000 89,000 0 0 5,000 838,000
Elevators/lifts 180,500 100,500 103,500 0 96,000 480,500
Energy conservation 1,330,893 1,157,347 793,434 111,101 557,262 3,950,037
Building closures 6,442,043 0 0 526,869 815,903 7,784,815
___________ __________ __________ ________ __________ ___________
Totals $14,167,231 $4,121,900 $1,551,566 $884,074 $2,280,826 $23,005,597
FINANCING THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS BUDGET
The capital improvements budget calls for a total expenditure of $114,717,941.00 to rehabilitate 104 school

[Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.]

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/1521491. Public record. Not legal advice.