°Â¾±»åé²Ô ES Repurposing
As part of the Surplus Property Repurposing Process established by Â鶹¹û¶³´«Ã½ ISD, staff have completed Step 1 (Data Collection) and Step 2 (Scoring and Evaluation) for the °Â¾±»åé²Ô Elementary School site.
Four potential reuse options were evaluated (tap/hover over each to learn what information is included in each category):
- Adaptive Reuse without Improvements
- Adaptive Reuse with Improvements
- Long-term Ground Lease
- Fee Simple Sale
Using the district’s 100-point scoring framework, Adaptive Reuse without Improvements ranked highest, demonstrating the strongest overall alignment with district priorities, financial sustainability, and long-term flexibility.
Step 1: Data Collection and Key Findings
The district gathered and reviewed information to better understand this property and evaluate possible future uses. The materials below were used to assess each option and inform the scoring.
Click on each category to view the full report:
- Historical Evaluation
Step 2: Scoring and Evaluation
Each reuse option was evaluated across the following categories (hover over each to learn what information is included in each category):
Scoring Matrix
| Scoring Category |
25-21 Very Well Aligned Minimal Tradeoffs |
20-16 Well Aligned Minor Tradeoffs |
15-11 Moderate Alignment Some Tradeoffs |
10-6 Low Alignment Notable Tradeoffs |
5-0 Poor Alignment High Risk or Cost |
Score Interpretation |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Market & Site Logistics | Highly desirable property with excellent development or reuse potential with no significant constraints. |
Attractive site with solid demand and few barriers. |
Average marketability and usable site conditions. |
Some potential but major constraints. |
Poor location, hard-to-develop or reuse site, zoning or environmental barriers, little market demand. |
A site may receive a low score for adaptive reuse if building A site may receive a low score for ground lease or sale if |
| Community Impact | Broad community support and strong public-serving impact with strong partner interest. |
Strong alignment with community needs but fewer potential partners. |
Some community benefits but also tradeoffs and moderate partner interest. |
Mixed community value, limited public benefit and partner interest. |
Significant community opposition or displacement concerns. Minimal or no partner interest. |
A site may receive a low score for adaptive reuse if such A site may receive a low score for ground lease or sale if |
| Financial Impact & Risk | Major long-term financial benefit and low implementation risk. |
Good revenue potential with manageable implementation risk. |
Financially neutral or manageable. Does not generate meaningful revenue but does not strain resources. |
Financially difficult or uncertain and strains District resources or forfeits benefit of asset appreciation. |
Large ongoing costs with little revenue potential and high implementation risk. |
A site may receive a low score for adaptive reuse A site may receive a low score for ground lease or |
| Flexibility & Optionality | Maximum future flexibility and reversibility. Few or low challenges to execute. |
Preserves future options for the District with some time restrictions. Manageable challenges to execute proposal. |
Some ability to adapt later with moderate time restrictions. Moderate challenges to execute proposal. |
Limited future adaptability or many challenges to execute proposal. |
Locks the District into a hard-to-reverse or difficult to execute proposal. |
A site may receive a low score for adaptive reuse A site may receive a low score for ground lease or |
| School Name | Adaptive Reuse Without Improvements | Adaptive Reuse With Improvements | Long-Term Ground Lease | Fee Simple Sale |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| °Â¾±»åé²Ô | 85 | 75 | 70 | 50 |
Step 2 Results
- Market Analysis: The site is located in an area with stable demand and opportunities for community-focused uses. Market conditions support adaptive reuse as a practical and context-sensitive approach.
- Entitlement Study: Adaptive reuse is feasible under current conditions though adjustments may be required depending on specific use. Community engagement will remain important for all potential uses.
- Facility Condition and Maintenance Needs Assessment: The facility requires continued maintenance with aging systems. Reinvestment may be necessary to enable successful reuse in the long term.
- Public and Community Partner Engagement: Community feedback emphasized the importance of preserving services provided to this historically underserved area. Adaptive reuse would maintain space for community partners to ensure future uses provide local benefit.
- Historical Evaluation:No known historical designation for this site; however, community identity and past use may support reuse over redevelopment.
The highest scoring option for °Â¾±»åé²Ô Elementary School is Adaptive Reuse Without Improvements with a score of 85 out of 100.
Click here for more detailed scoring assessments
Next Steps
- Step 3: Financial Review and Staff Recommendation – Conduct a financial review incorporating district budget considerations, capital needs, and revenue requirements. Develop a staff recommendation based on scoring results and financial context. While scoring identifies options that are most aligned across evaluation criteria, the financial review may result in a different recommended option based on districtwide budget considerations and revenue needs.
Community members are encouraged to share feedback on the evaluation and scoring through the . The survey will remain open until May 25, 2026. - Step 4: Board Consideration – Present the final recommendation to the Board of Trustees for consideration and action.
Recommendation Pending
A preliminary staff recommendation for this site is still being developed and will be posted as soon as it is available.