HEALTHY KIDS HEALTHY SCORES - Learning Landscapes · 2014-12-06 · feasibility. The HKHS study is aimed at identifying the components of a school district’s food system and what

HEALTHY KIDSHEALTHY SCORES

Economic Feasibility Study 2012

3

Table of Contents

1. Executive Summary 2. Study Introduction 2.1. Overview 2.2. Project Leaders 2.3. Description of Key Partners 2.4. Financial Information3. Overview of Existing Conditions 3.1. Precedents 3.2. Denver Public Schools 3.3. Fruit and Vegetable Purchases (Consumption) 3.4. Land Availability 3.5. DPS Production 3.6. Kitchens 3.7. Food Processing4. Methodology and Assessment 4.1. Land Analysis 4.2. Food Production Analysis 4.3. Kitchen Assessment 4.4. Food Processing Analysis 4.5. Legal Implications 4.5.1. Liability 4.5.1.1. Food Borne Illness 4.5.1.2. Governmental Immunity 4.5.2. Structure of Business Agreements 4.5.2.1. OverviewofFarmerQualifications 4.5.2.2. Contractual Protections 4.5.2.3. Insurance 4.6. Summary of Assessment and Proposed Model5. Economic Model and Analysis 5.1. Production Model 5.2. Seasonal Fresh Production Viability 5.3. Processed Produce Viability 5.4. Social&EconomicsBenefits 5.5. Summary6. Conclusion and Next Steps7. Resources8. Appendices A. StudyDefinitions B. Study Assumptions C. Documents I. Farm Land Analysis II. GIS Methods & Database III. CSAP results IV. CSAP score card V. Food Purchases and Production Estimates VI. Monthly usage for DPS fresh produce VII. Modular Food Hub Costs and Equipment VIII. DPS Food and Safety Protocol IX. Bond Figures X. Food Production Chart D. Bios

4

in fruit and vegetable purchases from 2009-2010. Several variables resulted in this dramatic increase including the addition of 99 salad bars with appropriate staff training and the Garden to Cafeteria (GTC) program where participating school gardens grew 1,200 pounds of fresh food for the cafeteria. DPS-Food and Nutrition Services (FNS) was also awarded a grant from School Food FOCUS in 2009, to focus on identifying local food sources to shift some of the produce purchases to CO products. DPS spent roughly $3.2 million dollars on 4.3 million pounds fresh and processed produce during the 2010-2011 school year, with $432,382 or 505,000 pounds purchased from Colorado vendors. The opportunity to buy local was apparent in 2010-2011, the first full year of the new local purchasing efforts. DPS-FNS purchased 380,223 pounds of fresh Colorado grown fruits and vegetables from local farms. Additionally, as of part of the Learning Landscape program, a pilot farm program was launched at two elementary school sites, Bradley International and McGlone Elementary Schools.

This feasibility study used the goals set forth by DPS in a number of documents including the DPS Denver Plan, the DPS Health Agenda 2015, coordinated school health initiatives and its direction to address the needs of the whole child. This study has found that incorporating contract production farming on a combination of school and vacant sites with modular food processing/mobile kitchen units and school-kitchen improvements to support production levels system wide is the most economic approach to serving the locally grown produce to the entire district.

Farming methods, including irrigation techniques, were examined to see which provided the highest quality produce and the production levels necessary to feed the district. Intensive production farming, supported by drip irrigation presented itself as the most economical model. Drip irrigation uses less than half of the water necessary to water the same acreage of sod and production farming provides the amount of fresh produce needed to generate a cost-savings and feed the district. Additionally, an innovative farming model that employs contract

1. Executive Summary

Can Denver Public Schools (DPS) implement and sustain a replicable, economically viable urban agriculture model focused upon supplying all its own fresh fruits & vegetables? Thanks to a grant from the Colorado Health Foundation (TCHF), Healthy Kids Healthy Scores (HKHS) explores this question by conducting a comprehensive economic feasibility. The HKHS study is aimed at identifying the components of a school district’s food system and what options DPS has in becoming a self-sustaining, district-wide food system. The study examined land availability for farm sites, performed asset assessments for food processing capacities, performed a legal analysis and ran an economic analysis to determine if the model presented would provide a return or cost-savings for DPS as well as provide all of the students in the district with healthy, local produce choices.

DPS is an urban school district serving 80,000 students. Almost 60% of the student population is Latino/Latina, 72% of the student body qualifies for free and reduced lunches and 30% of those children are overweight ( [DPS], 2011). DPS is the 2nd largest landowner in the City and County of Denver, next to the City, with 3,690 acres of property. According to the Geographic Information Systems (GIS) technology used in this study, DPS has approximately 144 acres of underutilized land that could potentially be used for food production. This underutilized land consists of approximately 97 acres of vacant land owned by DPS and 47 acres at actual school-sites.

During the 2010-2011 school year, DPS served 8.5 million lunches and purchased over 4.3 million pounds of fruits and vegetables, a 50% increase

5

Executive Summary

farmers through DPS-FNS to work the land but have no ownership of the produce itself, allows DPS-FNS to control what is grown based on its annual usage and only pay contracted fees to grow the produce. This is the recommended model for farmers working on DPS production farms. Non-profits and for-profit farmers have historically been modeled to maintain ownership of the produce in order to generate revenue and provide for the surrounding communities through Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) programs or through sales at Farmers’ Markets. The student and community connection generated from the non-profit and for-profit models is essential, as they can provide food to individual schools and they are dedicated to food education and access. They simply differ from production farms using contract farmers in that they are not farming on a production scale that could help feed the entire district and they often depend on outside funding sources to sustain their model.

With over 47 acres of underutilized land at school-sites and approximately 97 acres of vacant land, DPS has several options for growing food. Two categories of produce were identified to fulfill a large percentage of DPS’ fruit and vegetable usage. The first category is seasonal fresh, which will be consumed fresh and the second is processed, which will processed for long-term storage. Taking the short growing season, the variable climate, and DPS-FNS current usage of produce on their menus into consideration, 35 varieties of vegetables and melons were identified as seasonal fresh produce and 11 varieties were identified for processing. Our analysis showed that on only 18 acres of land, DPS could provide 41% of the seasonal fresh produce served to DPS students, providing over 1.3 million 4-ounce fruit and vegetable servings to the cafeteria. This is equivalent to the number of fruit and vegetable servings DPS provides over 27 days. By growing these seasonal fresh vegetables and melons on DPS land, DPS-FNS would experience a $9,000 annual cost savings when compared to purchasing these same produce items through their contracted vendor.

Food Processing was introduced to the district as an essential, but lacking, component of the

district’s food system if the goal is to re-localize the purchasing of processed produce. DPS purchased 1.3 million pounds of frozen and canned produce in 2010-2011 and only 124,000 pounds were bought from Colorado vendors. There are many types of processing facilities to choose from and they can be outfitted to fulfill most processing demands. Facilities can be centralized or decentralized, school-based or modular/mobile. Because of Denver’s short growing season, the processing facility would only be used for approximately 4 months, assuming it is only processing produce grown on DPS land. The operational cost for those four months along with the cost to grow the produce resulted in an average processed product cost of $3.00 per pound compared the $0.85 per pound DPS currently pays. Based on this finding, it is recommended that DPS invest in multi-purpose modular food hub/mobile kitchen units that can be used throughout the entire year to recover the cost to self-process. These units resemble a semi-truck trailer, they can be moved from location to location and each unit can be outfitted to support any processing and cooking needs. The number of units purchased would depend on how many acres DPS is farming and how many pounds of produce those acres are yielding. It is recommended that DPS start with modular/mobile units in phase one and when production volumes reach a capacity that demands it, move into phase two, a centralized, full-service processing facility.

HKHS focuses on supporting student achievement through health in the DPS System. Led by Professor Lois A. Brink the team includes, the Colorado Center for Community Development (CCCD), Real Food Colorado, F.A.R.M. and Agriburbia. Partners include DPS Facility Management and DPS-FNS. Together, we are working to provide a sustainable source of fresh, affordable organic produce to DPS students, reduce water consumption, provide an outdoor classroom/laboratory for experiential learning, provide the opportunity to develop young farmers, reduce costs for grounds maintenance, and improve the health of the children who are learning, playing and eating at our schools.

6

2. Study Introduction

2.1. Overview: Colorado’s childhood obesity is increasing at the second highest rate in the nation. The two leading causes of obesity are poor diet and inadequate physical activity (TCHF, 2009). To increase opportunities for physical activity for its students, by 2012 DPS will have spent almost $50 million to redevelop all of its elementary schoolyards. Studies to date have shown that these improved school yards or Learning Landscapes have lead to statistically significant levels of increased physical activity (Brink et al., 2010). Research also suggests that integrating multiple holistic programs - nutrition and physical activity - will have a greater chance of reducing obesity (American Academy of Pediatrics, 2006). With the goal of impacting school nutrition, the Colorado Center for Community Development (CCCD) conducted a DPS district-wide urban agriculture feasibility study to determine the capital improvements, change in policies, and development of protocols necessary for the district to sustain and implement a replicable, economically viable, urban agriculture model focused on supplying all its own fruits and vegetables.

Urban agriculture can be defined as the practice of cultivating, processing and distributing food in and around an urban or city-like setting (Bailkey & Nasr, 2000). Urban agriculture is increasing in prevalence throughout the nation because of its numerous potential advantages including food security, food safety, lower food costs, reduced transport-related energy consumption, increased fresh produce consumption, and countless health benefits. Less than 1% of the food consumed in the Denver metro-region is actually being produced in Colorado and about 82,500 Denver residents live in food-insecure areas with about 20% of Denver residents facing food and health deficits (TCHF, 2009). Enhancing the local food system not only has the potential

to decrease dependency on outside food sources and to capture those resources locally, it could also increase exposure and access to fresh fruits and vegetables for all residents. An urban agriculture program for DPS also offers an excellent opportunity within DPS to create a holistic HKHS program that is aligned with the following districts goals:

• DPS Denver Plan and its direction to address the needs of the whole child.

• DPS Health Agenda 2015 and coordinated school health: nutrition, physical activity, direct health services, mental health services, health promotion to staff, safe and healthy school environments, family and community involvement in healthy activities, and health education.

• School Performance Framework addressing school performance in terms of student achievement and overall organizational strength.

• Facility Management Vision to provide state of the art educational environments through innovation and continuous improvement.

The potential of sustainable school farms builds on several current DPS programs. First, is the collaboration of school and community garden programs, which includes the DPS School Garden Coalition and GTC program. Over half of DPS elementary schools have gardens creating educational and nutritional opportunities for students. The DPS School Garden Coalition coordinates over 60 school gardens. The GTC program is a unique opportunity for DPS students to grow fresh fruits and vegetables in their school gardens with the aim of supplying some of their harvest to the school

7

Study Introduction

cafeterias to be used at lunch service. GTC has helped establish food safety protocols to maintain acceptable DPS-FNS food standards. Second, DPS Learning Landscapes schools that include gardens have less vandalism and generate greater school/community involvement in using, maintaining and managing schoolyards. Lastly, DPS’s first critical step towards a school farm program is a pilot study that began in the fall of 2011 at two DPS elementary schools McGlone and Bradley International. These pilot programs along with this HKHS study have revealed the following:

• Land capacity exists for DPS to grow its own produce.

• FNS lacks local producers with current market rates.

• DPS site-based and food-hub facilities have inadequate storage for increased fresh produce and spikes in Colorado’s growing season.

The HKHS project is an economic feasibility study of a school district’s food system. The study examines:

• Land Availability

• Kitchen and Food Processing Capacities

• Legal Implications for food system localization

• Economic Impact and Feasibility

HKHS, funded by TCHF, is the first phase of a larger study needed for DPS. The remaining phases include evaluating the pilot program at McGlone and Bradley International elementary schools, developing an integrated program of school gardens and urban agriculture and developing an assessment tool to

measure program outcomes for all project facets. The third phase would integrate agriculture into DPS academic curriculum as well as health, wellness and nutrition and physical education and determine feasibility/capital improvements needed to extend the Colorado growing season and provide fresh produce throughout the school year.

2.2. Project Leaders

1. Professor Lois A. Brink - Full Professor of Landscape Architecture and Director of Learning Landscapes. Professor Brink serves as principal investigator and has helped Denver Public schools leverage millions of dollars for schoolyard capital improvement projects.

2. Julia Erlbaum (Real Food Colorado) - Julia is creating sustainable infrastructures to help bring locally grown products to schools and community through local food hubs.

3. Erin Fiene (Colorado Center for Community Development) – Project Manager, Urban Planner, and Researcher for the University of Colorado Denver Food Systems Research Group.

4. Andy Nowak (Slow Food Denver, Real Food Colorado) - Co-Director of the Seed To Table School Food Program, member of the CO Farm to School Task Force, Community Liaison for the DPS FOCUS project, and Chef instructor for the DPS Scratch Cooking Boot Camp.

5. Quint Redmond (Agriburbia) - Quint is a Landscape Architect and Planner who is an expert in integrating food production as an integral element in community design, social network and financial viability of

8

the neighborhood. Agriburbia is currently overseeing the DPS urban farm pilot program.

6. Jeffrey John (F.A.R.M) - Jeffrey L. John is a recent graduate of the University of Denver, Sturm College of Law where he received his J.D. and a Certificate in Environmental and Natural Resources Law. Jeffrey specializes in agriculture policy, urban sustainability, as well as health and nutrition policy.

2.3. Description of Key Partners

Denver Public Schools: Facilities Management – Mission: to provide a safe, clean, and quality educational environment for all DPS students and staff; quality customer service both internally and externally, and to promote operations that are environmentally and economically efficient, effective and sustainable. Facility Management manages over 13.5 million square feet of enclosed building space in 152 facilities and approximately 1887 Acres. Denver Public Schools: Food and Nutrition Services (FNS) provides meals to all DPS students. We recognize that well-nourished children are better equipped to learn. Providing healthy food and nutrition education are the key ingredients in educating students to make choices that will develop into life-long healthy eating habits.

2.4. Financial information

As an entity of the University of Colorado Denver, CCCD is funded through multiple sources including research grants, professional services agreements and community development grants. Current funding sources for CCCD include: LiveWell Colorado, DPS, National Institutes of Health, contracts with underserved urban and rural communities for Design Consultation Services, and the College of Architecture and Planning. Past funding sources include but are not limited to: Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Denver Office of Economic Development, the Department of Local Affairs, Colorado Physical Activity and Nutrition Program, and the Gates Foundation.

The Colorado Health Foundation will serve as the single funding source for the School Farm Feasibility Study. The long-term funding goal is to secure capital improvement dollars through a 2012 general obligation bond to implement the recommendations derived from this feasibility study.

9

Study Introduction

10

3. Overview of Existing Conditions

3.1. Precedents: Approximately 60 million children attend public K-12 Schools and half receive National School Lunch Program (NSLP) meals (U.S. Department of Agriculture Food and Nutrition Service [USDA-FNS], 2011). Forty-five states have at least one Farm-to-School program. Overall there are 2,200 Farm-to-School programs including over 8,900 schools in 2,100 school districts. This is about 15% of all school districts across the country (Poyta et al., 2002). The 2008 Farm Bill amended the NSLP to allow schools, through the Child Nutrition Program, to apply geographic preferences when procuring unprocessed foods (USDA-FNS, 2007). This means that the school district is encouraged to purchase unprocessed locally grown and locally raised agricultural products. It is the district’s decision how to define “local,” and the legal definition of “unprocessed” allows for some chopping, peeling, dicing, freezing, and bagging of produce (USDA-FNS, 2012). Also, creative and imaginative initiatives like “power peas” and the Denver School Garden Coalition are changing the way children think about and behave around food (Cornell University, 2011). DPS has an opportunity to be at the leading edge of these innovations in school food policy with a robust district-based food production program of its own.

Federal law requires that schools serving meals through the NLSP 1) obtain two food safety kitchen inspections per year, 2) keep proper records of the inspections, and 3) maintain proper sanitation and health standards that follow all applicable state and local and regulations (Code of Federal Regulations [C.F.R.], Title 7 §§210.13 - 210.15 & §220.7, n.d.). The NLSP, which was created by the National School Lunch Act, neither expressly authorizes nor prohibits the use of school-grown produce by school cafeterias (National Policy & Legal Analysis Network to Prevent

Childhood Obesity [NPLAN], 2011). However, support for school gardens and school-grown food is illustrated by requirements for the Secretary of Agriculture to provide competitive grants for Farm-to-School programs (Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act [Senate Bill 3307], 2010). From a legal standpoint the federal government encourages the creation and implementation of Farm-to-School programs across the country (C.F.R., Title 7 § 210.1, n.d.).

At the state level, there are no specific state legal requirements addressing food safety requirements for school gardens or school farms. Each state adopts its own law governing the retail of food and each state has patterned laws on a Model Food Code (MFC). Colorado’s retail food code can be found in rules and regulations promulgated by the Department of Public Health and Environment Consumer Protection Division (C.C.R. Title 6, §1010-2, 2007). Additionally, there is nothing in Colorado’s Retail Food Establishment Rules and Regulations that expressly precludes a school from implementing any type of school-based food production project nor are there any provisions that prevent school cafeterias from using produce grown on school grounds. The rules and regulations simply require that “Food shall be obtained from approved sources that comply with the applicable laws relating to food and food labeling,” (C.C.R. Title 6, §1010-3, 2007). Thus, the Colorado Rules and Regulations do not place any restrictions on produce grown on farms or gardens located on school-grounds. Farmers and schools undertaking a school-based food production project, providing food to cafeterias, are expected to follow the best food safety practices and to have a reliable food safety plan in place that reduces the risk of food borne illnesses.

In 2010, the Colorado State Legislature passed the Farm to School Healthy Kids Act. This act declared “it is in the best interests of Colorado’s children… to develop a more robust and self-sustaining agricultural sector that promotes healthy foods at schools … especially the school meal programs, in order to improve child nutrition and strengthen local and regional agricultural economies,” (C.R.S.

11

Overview of Existing Conditions

§ 22-82.6-102, 2011). The act also created a Farm-To-School Task Force to encourage connections between farmers and school districts and to help school districts support locally grown fresh produce instead of cheaper processed foods. This state law along with the Smart Start Nutrition Program (C.R.S. § 22-82.7, 2011) and the Child Nutrition School Lunch Protection Program (C.R.S. § 22-82.9, 2011) establish the policy support for these programs at the state level.

The USDA has also stated that schools may serve food grown in school gardens as part of their reimbursable school lunch programs (C.F.R., Title 7 § 210.1, n.d.). The USDA has not issued its own protocols for school gardens and school farms, however the USDA website on “School Garden Food Safety” refers to safe gardening protocols developed by the University of Maryland Extension Food Gardening Network, the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, and the University of Connecticut College of Agriculture and Natural Resources Cooperative Extension Service (USDA-Child Nutrition Program, 2012). The most important aspect of these federal guidelines is that coordination with responsible gardeners and farmers is key to developing safe growing procedures. Requisite knowledge of soil conditions, land use history, water sources, use of soil amendments, and animal control measures is also crucial for creating adequate standards. The Colorado State University Extension Service also provides a reliable source for guidance for federal programs applied specifically to Colorado.

Processing is relatively new to school districts, which for years have relied on outside processors to provide canned and frozen foods. There are no national, state or local precedents that fully engage the food system at a district-wide level as this study does for DPS. Although this study is the first of its kind, other districts and schools are involved in the garden to cafeteria program at various scales. National models for aggregation and distribution include a local food hub in Charlottesville, Virginia and one in New North Florida. The local food hub in

Charlottesville is a non-profit local food distribution model that does not process at this time. They purchase food from more than 40 local farmers and distribute it to schools, hospitals, institutions, markets and restaurants. The hub works with farmers and buyers to coordinate growing and match supply with demand and has an educational farm that produces more than 6 acres of organically grown food for distribution. The New North Florida hub Jackson County, FL is a cooperative farm group targeting fresh, healthy agricultural products for local school districts. The farm group manages marketing, handling, processing and delivery of agriculture products grown by participating local small farms. They support the needs of local small farm operators through profits generated by value-added business operations, including processing. The hub grows, processes and delivers approximately 50,000 to 60,000 pounds of greens a month developing additional lines of fruit and vegetables for production.

Local precedents for food aggregation include Greeley-Evans Weld County 6 and Colorado Springs District 11 in Colorado. Greeley-Evans Weld 6 received a $260,000 grant from Colorado Health Foundation to facilitate implementation of central kitchen upgrade. This has allowed them to upgrade their central kitchen/warehouse to include centralized production for center of the plate and produce products. With the centralized facility they hope to expand their ability to purchase and handle more Farm to School products. Colorado Springs District 11 is in the process of developing a central produce “hub” facility that would allow centralized aggregation of local and non-local produce products and includes processing, storage and distribution to school sites.

12

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Elementary

K-8

K-12

Middle

High (traditional)

Charter

Other

Intensive Pathways

Number of Schools

Types of DPS Schools 2010-2011

59,36373%

22,50727%

DPS '11-'12 Free and Reduced Lunch Membership vs. Paid

Free and Reduced

Paid

Based on our literature review there are no true comparative models at the national, state or local level with production farms on district-owned sites. Various Farm-to-School models have surfaced across the nation but no one has kept the food system within the district. Keeping the production and processing within the district has great advantages and, as a system, could prove to be self-sustainable. Some of the advantages include:

• Provides a sustainable source for fresh affordable organic produce to DPS and the community

• Reduces water consumption from present bluegrass irrigation

• Provides an outdoor classroom/laboratory for experiential learning in math and science

• Serves as a business incubator providing the opportunity to develop young farmers

• Provides a model to develop scaled agricultural opportunities ranging in size from 1 - 5 acre farms

• Acts as an impetus to develop on site waste recycling and large scale composting programs

• Reduces costs for grounds maintenance and increase health of the schoolyard by eliminating use of chemical fertilizers and herbicides across the entire school grounds

• Develops a dynamic model for developing urban farms on public land everywhere

3.2. Denver Public Schools: DPS is an urban school district serving all residents of the City and County of Denver, Colorado. As illustrated in Figure 1, DPS has 162 elementary, middle, high and charter schools. Figure 2 shows that approximately 72% of the district’s total student body qualifies for free and reduced lunches and 30% of DPS students are overweight. DPS serves 81,870 students and 60% of the student population is Latino/Latina, see Figure 3.

DPS serves 8.5 million lunches annually. Currently DPS purchases over 4.3 million pounds of fruits and vegetables, 2.99 million pounds of which are fresh fruits and vegetables, each year. Over the past few years, DPS and FNS have worked to provide healthy food and nutrition education so all students will have the opportunity for success in the classroom, in their daily lives and to set the foundation for healthy lifestyles as they grow and mature (DPS, 2011).

13

Figure 4

Figure 3

0.8% 3.3%

14.5%

58.0%

20.3%

0.2%

2.9% DPS Demographics 2011

American Indian or Alaska Native

Asian

Black or African American

Hispanic

White

Native Hawaiin or Other Pacific Islander

Two or More Races

0 1,000,000 2,000,000 3,000,000

Total Fresh Produce Purchased

Total Processed Produce Purchased*

Pounds

DPS Total Produce Purchases '09-'10 vs. '10-'11

DPS '10-'11

DPS '09-'10

*processed produce includes frozen and canned items

0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000

CantaloupeHoneydew

WatermelonCarrot- nante

Broccoli (including frozen mixed veg.)Cucumber- slicing

Tomato- large, Celebrity(diced, salsa, sauce)Lettuce- romaine

CeleryLettuce- Mesculin

Lettuce- iceberg (shredded)Cauliflower

Pounds

Top 12 Fresh Produce Items Consumed by DPS Students Annually

Seasonal Fresh Predicted to be Provided by HKHS

DPS Annual Fresh Usage ('10-'11)

DPS Annual Fresh Usage ('09-'10)


3.3. Fruit and Vegetable Purchases (Consumption): During the 2009-2010 school year, DPS-FNS ordered 1.1 million pounds of fresh and 1 million pounds of processed fruits and vegetables. The top 5 fresh produce items ordered were apples, oranges, kiwi, lettuce and carrots. The top processed items included apples, peaches and fruit cocktail. DPS more than doubled their fresh produce purchases in the 2010-2011 school year, purchasing over 2.99 million pounds of fresh fruits and vegetables. Figure 4 represents DPS produce purchases and Figure 5 shows the items purchased most in years 2009-2010 versus 2010-2011. Several variables added to the dramatic increase of fresh produce purchases that year. During the 2010-2011 academic year the “Back to the Future with Scratch Cooking” program was launched to provide the necessary training for kitchen crews, approximately 650 staff members, to prepare the fresh, whole produce for the salad bars and placed salad bars in 85 school cafeterias. As of the 2011-2012 school

14

Figure 6

Figure 7

Figure 8

0

500,000

1,000,000

1,500,000

2,000,000

2,500,000

3,000,000

3,500,000

Total Fresh Total Processed*Po

unds

Fresh vs. Processed Produce Purchased by DPS

DPS Fruits & Vegetables ('09-'10)

DPS Fruits & Vegetables ('10-'11)

*processed produce includes frozen and canned items

2,995,352

380,224

1,806

0 500,000 1,000,000 1,500,000 2,000,000 2,500,000 3,000,000 3,500,000

Fresh Produce Purchased

Fresh Produce Purchased from CO

Fresh Produce Purchased from DPS*

Pounds

Total Pounds of Fresh Produce Puchased by DPS 2010-2011

*School gardens, Sprout City Farms and Agriburbia

1,324,572

124,943

0

0 400,000 800,000 1,200,000 1,600,000

Processed Produce Purchased Nationally

Processed Produce Purchased within CO

Processed Produce Grown on DPS Land

Pounds

Total Pounds of Processed Produce Purchased by DPS '10-'11

year, the number of salad bars have increased from 85 to 108 salad bars in 99 schools.

Additionally, the GTC program began in 2010, with 14 school gardens growing food for their cafeteria. The GTC program produced over 1,200 pounds of fresh produce sold to cafeterias. Furthermore, Youth Farmers’ Markets were held at 32 different sites within the district. Over 23,080 pounds of fresh produce from the school gardens and local farms was sold to the school community. Finally, DPS-FNS having been awarded a grant from School Food FOCUS in 2009, began to focus on identifying local sources for fresh fruits and vegetables, Colorado-raised or processed meats, and milk and dairy products. In 2010-2011, the first full year of the new local purchasing efforts, DPS-FNS purchased 380,223 pounds of Colorado grown fruits and vegetables from local farms. Figures 6-10 illustrate the fresh and processed purchases by DPS-FNS.

DPS-FNS currently purchases from a number of national vendors. Overall, there are two categories of fruits and vegetables purchased, fresh and processed. Fresh produce is consumed fresh, like what is found in a salad bar and processed vegetables come frozen or canned. DPS spent roughly $3.2 million dollars on fresh and processed produce during the 2010-2011 school year, with $432,382 purchased from Colorado vendors. The opportunity to capture the dollars spent and keep them within the district exists with the introduction of urban farms.

15

Figure 10

Figure 9

$2,674,862.98

$304,772.45

$0 $1,000,000 $2,000,000 $3,000,000

Total Fresh Produce Purchased

Fresh Produce Purchased from CO

Total Cost

Total Cost of Fresh Produce Purchased by DPS Compared to Cost of Fresh Produce Purchased from CO Farms ('10-'11)

$572,086.36

$127,610.32

$0 $200,000 $400,000 $600,000

Total Processed Produce Purchased

Processed Produce Purchased within CO

Total Cost

Total Cost of Processed Produce Purchased by DPS Compared to Cost of Processed Produce Purchased from CO Farms ('10-'11)


3.4. Land Availability: Although respected and typically adhered to, the local Denver zoning code, which normally affects parties developing land within the City and County of Denver, does not apply directly to DPS. The school district’s board of education has specific powers to take and hold real and personal property; to lease or rent real property; to determine the location of each school site, building, or structure; to construct, erect, alter, or remodel buildings and structures; and to sell and convey district property (C.R.S. § 22-32-110(1)(c), 2011). However, local land use codes, fire codes, and building codes apply to the school district’s plans for development when feasible (C.R.S. § 22-32-124(1)(a), 2011). As far as foodservice facilities

are concerned, a board of education in the State of Colorado may establish, maintain, equip, and operate a foodservice facility and any such food service facility shall be deemed to be an integral part of the program of the district (C.R.S. § 22-32-120(1)(a), 2011). This also applies to all charter schools (C.R.S. § 22-32-120(1)(b), 2011).

The board of education is required to consult with and advise in writing the local planning board or other local authorities with jurisdiction over the property. The board is also required to submit a site development plan for review and comment to the planning commission or governing body prior to construction of any building or structure (C.R.S. § 22-32-124(1)(a), 2011). These same restrictions and requirements also apply to charter schools (C.R.S. § 22-32-124(1.5)(a), 2011).

16

Figure 11

147

50

18

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160

Total Acres of DPS Vacant and School-based Land

Total Acres of DPS land within Identified Target PopulationNeighborhoods

Total Acres of Farm Land Needed to Grow Seasonal FreshProduce

Acres*figures do not include athletic or play fields

Potential Acreage for DPS Seasonal Farms

DPS is the second largest landowner in the City and County of Denver, next to the City with roughly 3,690 acres. GIS technology was used to import aerial photos of all DPS sites in order to identify permeable and non-permeable surfaces. Non-permeable surfaces include: buildings, parking lots, asphalt/concrete play areas and public right of way. Permeable surfaces include grass, dirt, pea gravel, woodchips etc. A total of 293 acres of permeable surface area at school sites and vacant parcels was identified. The next wave of refinement included vetting the data by the following criteria:

1. Minimum farm site on schools was set at 1 acre, with an additional 15% land for ancillary purposes.

2. Avoid dedicated athletic fields and tracks at each middle and high schools

3. Maintain at least 1 acre of general purpose play-field at elementary schools

4. Confirm with DPS planning purposed projects: i.e. solar farm, building expansions, sale of vacant lots etc.

Figure 11 shows the amount of land available and needed for farms within DPS. Based on this analysis, approximately 47 acres are available on school sites and 97 acres are available on DPS-owned vacant land. Available land includes both irrigated and non-irrigated surfaces. In order to achieve commercial scale or production farming we have identified DPS sites that can host various sizes of farms ranging from 1-2 acres, 2-3 acres and 3 or more acres. Because it is most economically viable to farm on 1 acre and above, there is some flexibility when deciding where to put farms. DPS can situate various farms throughout each of the 5 District regions, all of which have at least two sites with more than 1 acre available, and can therefore reach the entire district. The final determination of which site will be selected will be determined by the DPS Board of Education in collaboration with Facilities Planner or Assistant Planner.

3.5. DPS Production: In 2011, DPS purchased 1,806 pounds of produce from school gardens and farms. The urban farm pilots, farmed by Agriburbia, had its first harvest late in the season with 31 pounds

17


and to refrigerate the fresh produce exposed the inadequacies of the facilities in many of the school kitchens. For example, to wash the whole produce many kitchens have to use their three-compartment wash sink first thing in the morning before any chemicals are used. Although this practice is allowed by the Health Department, the lack of a dedicated produce sink puts a stress on the kitchen staff. In addition, the limited refrigeration available across the district forced the warehouse to add another delivery day each week to the schools to deliver fresh produce.

3.7. Food Processing: In 2011, DPS-FNS decided to reduce the amount of canned produce purchased annually and focus on frozen produce due to the increased nutritional value and reduced sodium levels in frozen foods. DPS relies on pre-packaged frozen items because they cannot freeze produce in their own kitchens at this time. Currently, DPS does not process its own food. The staff has been trained to prep the food being served in the cafeteria for that day but DPS still relies on pre-packaged processed items at this time. The potential to process food within the district is appealing to DPS-FNS and because food processing is an essential component to re-localizing the food system, it has been included in this district-wide food system study.

of spinach. The Denver Green School, farmed by Sprout City Farms, provided 575 pounds of produce during the 2010-2011 school year and the GTC Program provided 1,200 pounds of fresh produce from gardens across the district. The same laws and regulations apply to cafeteria food obtained from school gardens and school farms. DPS is experienced in NLSP food regulatory compliance and is well equipped to create and enforce similar standards for food obtained from school gardens and school farms. With the onset of school-based produce entering DPS, cafeteria’s protocols, for accepted food safety practices and food safety plans that address the potential risk of food borne illnesses and environmental contamination, are being developed. These guidelines include employee training for proper food safety management, documentation of farm practices consistent with the USDA’s Good Agricultural Practices (GAP), Good Handling Practices (GHP), and a well-developed hazardous food response plan. In terms of irrigation, the current farms typically use drip irrigation, although not exclusively, and the school gardens typically rely on hand and broadcast watering methods. Because of the various farming practices occurring throughout DPS, the annual production per square foot varies greatly by model.

3.6. Kitchens: DPS has 124 kitchens categorized in three tiers according to use. Prep1 Kitchens prepare food for students at that school only and account for 69% of kitchens. Prep2 Kitchens are in 13% of the schools and prepare food for its students and for at least one other school. Lastly, Carry In Kitchens (18%) receive the majority of its food from another site. Kitchen facilities are a determining factor in kitchen staff efficiency to handle, clean and store fresh produce. FNS discovered this early on with the “Back to the Future” program that provided the necessary training for kitchen crews to prepare the fresh, whole produce for the salad bars, to follow recipes for casseroles, entrée items and cold preparations such as sandwiches. However, the kitchen facilities quickly became the determining factor on how efficient the kitchen staff could handle, clean and store the fresh produce. The need to wash the whole produce, to cut whole produce

18

Table 1

DPS Region School-Site Vacant Land1 7 02 11.7 253 6.3 114 21 555 1.3 6

Total 47.3 97

Land Availability (acres)

4. Methodology and Assessment

4.1. Land Availability: As mentioned in the existing conditions, DPS is the second largest land owner, next to the City and County of Denver, in the City of Denver. In an effort to grasp the land availability for potential urban farms, we used a Geographic Information System (GIS). The City and County of Denver and DPS provided the original shape files for the HKHS feasibility study. When opened in GIS, these files provide a map of Denver and DPS and include information such as: location, parcel boundaries, irrigation, roads, district boundaries etc. In order to focus in on site characteristics of the DPS parcels, the GIS team geo-referenced aerial images from GoogleMaps and created a GIS layer with each DPS asset, school and vacant site. This allowed the land for each school and vacant site to be digitized into permeable and non-permeable surfaces. Non-permeable surfaces include: buildings, parking lots, asphalt/concrete play areas and public right of way. Permeable surfaces included grass, dirt, pea gravel, woodchips etc. The playground equipment was also removed from the digitally defined area to provide the first round of “potentially farmable land”. The next step was to remove all athletic fields for high schools and middle schools and remove one acre of active play fields from all elementary schools (See Appendix C.I.). Any site that contained approximately one or more acres of land after this vetting process was included in the final calculations for total amount potentially farmable land within DPS. The methodology and data dictionary for each GIS layer used and created can be found in Appendix C.II.

Once the sites with more than one acre of farmable land were identified, they were divided up into 1-2 acre, 2-3 acres and 3 or more acre sites. This was done to further organize how much land was available and to help inform where the best locations were in each DPS region. DPS has 5 regions within the District. Because this is a district-wide study, it is important that each region have at least one farm.

19

§̈ ¦70

Col

fax

Ave

Speer B

lvd

Colorado Blvd

Quebec St

Peña Blvd

Broadway

Federal Blvd

Alam

eda

Ave

Brighto

n Blvd

Sheridan Blvd

§̈ ¦25

£ ¤6

1

325

4

01

2Mile

s

Lege

nd DP

S_R

egio

ns

DP

S P

arce

ls

Den

ver P

ublic

Sch

ool R

egio

ns

Methodology & Assessment

Hea

lthy

Kid

s H

ealth

y Sc

ores

Den

ver P

ublic

Sch

ool R

egio

ns

20

To further increase the overall impact of the farms and to compliment the HKHS goal of improving academic achievement and access to healthy food, we defined three under-served target populations: Underperforming CSAP school, populations with 80% of higher free and reduced lunch rates, and populations living in Food Deserts. CSAP information was provided by the DPS’ Office of School Reform and Innovation (See Appendix C.III). The data identifies two categories, proficient and non-proficient, and each school has a percentage of students in each category based on their CSAP scores (See Appendix C.IV.). To define which schools are underperforming, the study determined that schools with 50% or more students testing at a non-proficient level would be considered underperforming. This information was then translated into GIS and

the distribution of underperforming schools was mapped, as shown on the maps on pages 21-26. We found that 67% of DPS schools have 50% or more students testing at non-proficient levels. For the purpose of this study, we have categorized schools with 50% or more students testing at a non-proficient level as underperforming. Additionally, schools with a population of 80% or higher receiving free and reduced lunch as well as those located in food deserts were also identified as target populations based on food access barriers presented in those communities. These communities have poor access to fresh and healthy foods, which make them great candidates for urban farms that can help engage children in the food production process, provide the children with fresh produce during school and in time, help feed the community.

21

Colorado Blvd

Broadway

25

1

3

00.

51

Mile

s

>80%

Fre

e or

Red

uced

Lun

ch

Food

Des

ert2

DPS

Reg

ions

Pote

ntia

l Far

m L

and

- Vac

ant

Elem

enta

ry C

atch

emen

t

Exis

ting

Urb

an F

arm

s

Pote

ntia

l Far

m L

and

- Sch

ool S

ite

Acc

ordi

ng to

US

DA

2

, City

and

Cou

nty

of D

enve

r, C

olor

ado

Dep

artm

ent o

f Tra

nspo

rtatio

n1

Sou

rce:

Den

ver P

ublic

Sch

ools

Par

cels

bas

ed e

xclu

sive

ly o

n da

ta p

rovi

ded

by D

PS

1

Site

Cha

ract

eris

tics

1 to

2 a

cres

2 to

3 a

cres

> 3

acre

s

< 10

acr

es

> 10

acr

es

CSA

P 20

10-2

011

Resu

lts%

of S

tude

nts

Not

Pro

�cie

nt<

5050

to 5

9.9

60 to

69.

970

to 7

9.9

> 80

Und

erpe

rfom

ing

scho

ols

de�n

ed a

s th

ose

with

> 5

0% te

stin

g at

a n

on-p

ro�c

ient

leve

l


Hea

lthy

Kid

s H

ealth

y Sc

ores

Reg

ion

1: P

oten

tial F

arm

land

22

Broa

dway

Fede

ral B

lvd

Alameda Ave

Sher

idan

Blv

d

6

2

0 0.5 1Miles

>80% Free or Reduced Lunch

Food Desert 2

DPS Regions

Potential Farm Land - Vacant

Elementary Catchement

Existing Urban Farms

Potential Farm Land - School Site

According to USDA2

, City and County of Denver, Colorado Department of Transportation1Source: Denver Public Schools

Parcels based exclusively on data provided by DPS1

Site Characteristics

1 to 2 acres

2 to 3 acres

> 3 acres

< 10 acres

> 10 acres

CSAP 2010-2011 Results% of Students Not Pro�cient

< 5050 to 59.960 to 69.970 to 79.9> 80

Underperfoming schools de�ned as those with > 50% testing at a non-pro�cient level

Healthy Kids Healthy ScoresRegion 2: Potential Farmland

2323

Colfa

x Av

e

Colorado Blvd

Broadway

25

1

3 00.

51M

iles

>80%

Fre

e or

Red

uced

Lun

ch

Food

Des

ert2

DPS

Reg

ions

Pote

ntia

l Far

m L

and

- Vac

ant

Elem

enta

ry C

atch

emen

t

Exis

ting

Urb

an F

arm

s

Pote

ntia

l Far

m L

and

- Sch

ool S

ite

Acc

ordi

ng to

US

DA

2

, City

and

Cou

nty

of D

enve

r, C

olor

ado

Dep

artm

ent o

f Tra

nspo

rtatio

n1

Sou

rce:

Den

ver P

ublic

Sch

ools

Par

cels

bas

ed e

xclu

sive

ly o

n da

ta p

rovi

ded

by D

PS

1

Site

Cha

ract

eris

tics

1 to

2 a

cres

2 to

3 a

cres

> 3

acre

s

< 10

acr

es

> 10

acr

es

CSA

P 20

10-2

011

Resu

lts%

of S

tude

nts

Not

Pro

�cie

nt<

5050

to 5

9.9

60 to

69.

970

to 7

9.9

> 80

Und

erpe

rfom

ing

scho

ols

de�n

ed a

s th

ose

with

> 5

0% te

stin

g at

a n

on-p

ro�c

ient

leve

l


Hea

lthy

Kid

s H

ealth

y Sc

ores

Reg

ion

3: P

oten

tial F

arm

land

24

70

Colfa

x Av

e

Colorado Blvd

Quebec St

Peña Blvd

BroadwayBrighto

n Blvd

25

34

01

2M

iles

>80%

Fre

e or

Red

uced

Lun

ch

Food

Des

ert2

DPS

Reg

ions

Pote

ntia

l Far

m L

and

- Vac

ant

Elem

enta

ry C

atch

emen

t

Exis

ting

Urb

an F

arm

s

Pote

ntia

l Far

m L

and

- Sch

ool S

ite

Acc

ordi

ng to

US

DA

2

, City

and

Cou

nty

of D

enve

r, C

olor

ado

Dep

artm

ent o

f Tra

nspo

rtatio

n1

Sou

rce:

Den

ver P

ublic

Sch

ools

Par

cels

bas

ed e

xclu

sive

ly o

n da

ta p

rovi

ded

by D

PS

1

Site

Cha

ract

eris

tics

1 to

2 a

cres

2 to

3 a

cres

> 3

acre

s

< 10

acr

es

> 10

acr

es

CSA

P 20

10-2

011

Resu

lts%

of S

tude

nts

Not

Pro

�cie

nt<

5050

to 5

9.9

60 to

69.

970

to 7

9.9

> 80

Und

erpe

rfom

ing

scho

ols

de�n

ed a

s th

ose

with

> 5

0% te

stin

g at

a n

on-p

ro�c

ient

leve

l

Hea

lthy

Kid

s H

ealth

y Sc

ores

Reg

ion

4: P

oten

tial F

arm

land

2525

Colfa

x Av

e

Speer Blvd

Colorado Blvd

Broadway

Ala

med

a Av

e

Brighto

n Blvd

6

5

00.

51

Mile

s

>80%

Fre

e or

Red

uced

Lun

ch

Food

Des

ert2

DPS

Reg

ions

Pote

ntia

l Far

m L

and

- Vac

ant

Elem

enta

ry C

atch

emen

t

Exis

ting

Urb

an F

arm

s

Pote

ntia

l Far

m L

and

- Sch

ool S

ite

Acc

ordi

ng to

US

DA

2

, City

and

Cou

nty

of D

enve

r, C

olor

ado

Dep

artm

ent o

f Tra

nspo

rtatio

n1

Sou

rce:

Den

ver P

ublic

Sch

ools

Par

cels

bas

ed e

xclu

sive

ly o

n da

ta p

rovi

ded

by D

PS

1

Site

Cha

ract

eris

tics

1 to

2 a

cres

2 to

3 a

cres

> 3

acre

s

< 10

acr

es

> 10

acr

es

CSA

P 20

10-2

011

Resu

lts%

of S

tude

nts

Not

Pro

�cie

nt<

5050

to 5

9.9

60 to

69.

970

to 7

9.9

> 80

Und

erpe

rfom

ing

scho

ols

de�n

ed a

s th

ose

with

> 5

0% te

stin

g at

a n

on-p

ro�c

ient

leve

l


Hea

lthy

Kid

s H

ealth

y Sc

ores

Reg

ion

5: P

oten

tial F

arm

land

26

70

Col

fax

Ave

Speer Blvd

Colorado Blvd

Quebec St

Peña Blvd

Broadway

Federal Blvd

Ala

med

a Av

e

Brighto

n Blvd

Sheridan Blvd

25

6

1

3

25

4

01

2Mile

s

>80%

Fre

e or

Red

uced

Lun

ch

Food

Des

ert2

DPS

Reg

ions

Pote

ntia

l Far

m L

and

- Vac

ant

Elem

enta

ry C

atch

emen

t

Exis

ting

Urb

an F

arm

s

Pote

ntia

l Far

m L

and

- Sch

ool S

ite

Acc

ordi

ng to

US

DA

2

, City

and

Cou

nty

of D

enve

r, C

olor

ado

Dep

artm

ent o

f Tra

nspo

rtatio

n1

Sou

rce:

Den

ver P

ublic

Sch

ools

Par

cels

bas

ed e

xclu

sive

ly o

n da

ta p

rovi

ded

by D

PS

1

Site

Cha

ract

eris

tics

1 to

2 a

cres

2 to

3 a

cres

> 3

acre

s

< 10

acr

es

> 10

acr

es

CSA

P 20

10-2

011

Resu

lts%

of S

tude

nts

Not

Pro

ficie

nt<

5050

to 5

9.9

60 to

69.

970

to 7

9.9

> 80

Und

erpe

rfom

ing

scho

ols

defin

ed a

s th

ose

with

> 5

0% te

stin

g at

a n

on-p

rofic

ient

leve

l

Hea

lthy

Kid

s H

ealth

y Sc

ores

Pote

ntia

l Far

mla

nd W

ithin

the

Den

ver P

ublic

Sch

ool D

istr

ict

2727


4.2. Farm Production: Due to the nature of food-systems, they can function on any size scale and can be as simple as production -> consumption and as complex as production -> processing ->storage->transportation->storage->distribution->consumption. Because of this, the first step, or phase of multiple phases related to food production includes: a deep analysis of seasonal production. Greenhouses or other methods of extending the growing season are not included in this study but this does not mean that they are not great options for school districts. For this analysis the study focuses on what can be grown in season, how much the land the district has and how much land is needed to accommodate the seasonal production farming necessary to help feed the district.

Agriburbia provided the production analysis and innovative farming model based on their current projects and over 10 years of extensive high-performance farming research, and the production levels, liability, and water usage associated with them. Because of Agriburibia’s expertise, organic production-farms with drip-irrigation and intensive growing plans were chosen for the district-wide approach to food production.

With the farming model determined, we looked at production farming as it relates to land needs. Based on Agriburbia’s experience with urban production farming, the minimum space required to grow a reliable volume of produce for production is one acre. In order to support that acre, the urban farm should include:

• 25% of the land to lay fallow each year for rotation

• 75% of the land in production

• Assumed production yield of 60%

• An additional 15% of land for ancillary uses such as vehicle access, paths, buffers, and fencing.

Therefore, for every one-acre of production DPS will need a total of 1.15 acres of land. This number is essential for calculating the land to production ratio and may also help determine what items to grow based on land available. This organic or naturally grown farming model with drip irrigation has an average production rate for mixed produce of .5 pounds per square foot which results in a predicted annual production rate of 21,780 pounds per acre .

Figure 12

28

0

20000

40000

60000

80000

100000

120000

140000

160000

180000

200000

January February March April May June July August September October November December

Poun

ds

Months

HKHS Farm Production (Fresh) vs DPS Purchase (Fresh)

Farm Production (Fresh)

DPS Purchase (Fresh)

In order to begin production planning under this model, all of the usage numbers provided by DPS-FNS for both fresh and processed produce were gathered and reviewed. Based on this information, the study defined two types of produce, “seasonal fresh produce” and “fresh produce for processing”. The “seasonal fresh produce” refers to produce consumed fresh from the salad bar for example. “Fresh produce for processing” refers to fresh produce grown to be processed and stored. Usage numbers were provided on an annual and monthly basis and used to identify what seasonal fresh items can be grown and what produce could be grown for processing (frozen) in Denver, Colorado, given the growing season and cost effectiveness. As a result, fruit trees and small fruits (i.e. apples, peaches, berries) were excluded completely from this study. A select variety of 35 fresh, vegetables, fruits and melons and 11 processed fruits and vegetables were chosen to be included in study (See Appendix C.V). The fresh produce for processing assortment was determined based on what can be grown to freeze directly (i.e. corn, peas, broccoli) and what can be grown as ingredients to process and then frozen (i.e. salsa, tomato sauce).

It was decided that the best approach to analyze farming seasonal fresh produce and farming for processed products would be to do it independently of one another. For seasonal fresh produce, seasonality was applied to the data showing DPS-FNS monthly usage of fresh produce, see Figure 13 and Appendix C.Vi. This provided the usage during the months that fresh seasonal produce could be grown. The seasonal fresh volumes were then used in the formulas to calculate the amount of land needed to grow the produce consistent with the seasonal fresh demand. For the processed produce, the annual volumes of canned or frozen produce used by DPS were converted to volumes of pounds, which helped determine how much fresh produce would be needed to make a can or package of processed food. Standard recipes for the selected processed products were used to calculate the volume of produce needed to make the volume of processed product used.

Figure 13

29

Fresh: Arugula, Basil, Beans, Bok Choy, Broccoli, Green Cabbage, Red Cabbage, Savoy Cabbage, Napa Cabbage, Cantaloupe, Carrots, Cauliflower, Celery, Corn, Cucumber, Honeydew, Kale, Mesculin Lettuce, Romaine Lettuce, Green Onion, Yellow Onion, Parsley, Peas, Green Bell Peppers, Red Bell, Yellow/Orange Bell, Potato, Spinach, Winter Squash, Zucchini, Tomatillos, Large Tomatoes, Small Tomatoes, Watermelon

For Processing: Basil, Beans, Broccoli, Carrots, Cilantro, Corn, Garlic, Yellow Onions, Peas, Jalepenos, and Large Tomatoes

HKHS Types of Produce: Grown Fresh and For Processing

0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 140,000

Tomato- large, Celebrity (diced, salsa, sauce)Corn- sweet

Beans- green, bushPepper- jalepeno (including canned salsa)

PeasBroccoli (including frozen mixed veg.)

Onion- yellow (salsa & sauce)Carrot- nante

Cilantro (canned salsa)Garlic (salsa & sauce)

Pounds

Total Processed Produce Predicted to be Provided by HKHS


The volume of produce in pounds was needed for both seasonal fresh and processed was used to calculate the amount of land needed to grow the required volumes. The model calculations consider:

• Variety of produce being grown

• Expected yield per square foot for each variety of produce

• Land needed for rotation so that all-natural / organic growing methods may be used

• Total number of high quality calories being produced

In 2010-2011, DPS-FNS increased their fresh produce purchases by 1.89 million pounds and increased their processed purchases by just over 300,000 pounds compared to 2009-2010. In 2010-2011, DPS-FNS purchased 827,000 pounds of the 35 elected seasonal fresh items from multiple national vendors during the Denver harvest season. DPS could potentially grow 41% or 341,000 pounds of that seasonal fresh produce demand on only 18 acres of DPS land. DPS-FNS also purchased 692,000 pounds of the 11 items, shown in Figure 14 and listed in Table 2, that were identified to grow for processing. We have concluded that on only 28 acres of DPS land and with an average of 40% waste resulting from processing, DPS could grow 609,000 pounds needed to produce 350,000 pounds of processed goods, which would account for over 50% of DPS’ processed food demand.

Figure 14

Table 2

30

Produce Sinks: Summary data from the DPS kitchen assessment shows that altogether, there are 68 produce sinks across the district. The assessment showed that 16 additional school sites have the space to install a new produce sink. DPS-FNS estimated that each sink would cost $3,000 with $800 in labor costs to prepare the area for the sink. Installation of produce sinks at all 16 sites would cost $60,800.

Refrigeration: The Kitchen Assessment looked at the amount of refrigeration currently in the DPS Kitchens and what were the needs of the more refrigeration. Forty-four DPS kitchens currently have a functioning walk-in and that 19 other kitchen sites have room for a new walk-in. DPS-FNS estimated that a new walk-in would cost $15,000, $800 for prepping the area (usually an old dishwasher that is no longer working and will be torn out), $800 for wiring and $300 for prepping the roof for exhaust. Installation of 19 walk-ins at $16,000 each would cost $321,100. Finally, 57 schools need more refrigeration but do not have room for a walk-in. In this case, DPS-FNS has identified room in these kitchens for a stand-alone Reach-in Refrigerator. At $2,500 each, 57 Reach-ins would cost $142,500.

Wiring: Many of the DPS kitchens have inadequate wiring to handle increased electrical needs, such as walk-ins and refrigerators. The Kitchen Assessment looked at how many kitchens would need additional wiring to increase the amperage in the kitchens for additional refrigeration. Based on some recent rewiring jobs, DPS-FNS estimated that the wiring would cost on the average $1,000 per school site and the assessment showed that a total of 70 school sites would need additional wiring at a total cost of $70,000.

4.3. Kitchens: A DPS-FNS Area Supervisor conducted an assessment of DPS kitchens in 2012, see Table 3. DPS-FNS targeted three main features for the assessment: 1) refrigeration needs, 2) produce sinks, and 3) additional electrical outlets for any refrigeration needs. To achieve this assessment, each of the 9 supervisors were contacted and interviewed regarding each kitchen they are responsible for. If the supervisor had questions concerning the needs of a kitchen, then a phone call was made to the kitchen manager. A spreadsheet was created that listed every school and what they needed from the above list. The spreadsheet of raw data was organized by elementary, middle and high school levels. The Area Supervisor supplied costs to install refrigerators, produce sinks and new electrical lines.

Key Questions-

• What equipment is needed for school kitchens to handle fresh, whole produce?

• What changes in refrigeration is needed to store fresh produce?

• What are the additional electrical requirements that are needed to support these infrastructure fixes?

DPS Kitchen Assessment Results: DPS-FNS classifies their school kitchens into one of three categories: A Prep1 Kitchen, Prep 2 Kitchen, and a Carry In Kitchen (see Appendix A). Usually a Carry In Kitchen will prep the fruit and vegetables it needs for the salad bar but receive the entrée and baked items from another school. The 124 school kitchens that were part of the Kitchen Assessment were classified by school type. The data is divided by the type of school (elementary, K-8, middle, high and charter) and the type of kitchen. Prep1 Kitchens represented the largest classification with 85 schools or 69% of all school kitchens. Prep2 Kitchens (13%) and Carry-in Kitchens (18%) each represented less than 20% of the total DPS kitchens.

31

Prep1 Prep2 Carry in Sink $3,000Elementary 54 4 15 -prep area $800K-8 10 3 1 Walk-in $15,000Middle 8 4 0 -prep area $800High 8 4 1 -roof prep $800Charter 2 1 4 -wiring $300Total count 82 16 21 Reach-in $2,500

School WiringDedicated Room for Walk-in Room for Sufficient Need more Will needProd Sink Prod Sink Walk-in Refrigeration Refrigeration More Wiring

Elementary 33 10 12 11 19 54 51K-8 12 2 9 2 7 7 7Middle 8 2 10 4 3 8 5High 10 2 11 2 8 3 3Charter 2 0 2 0 3 4 4Total Count 65 16 44 19 40 76 70

Cost/each $3,800 $16,900 $2,500 $1,000Total Cost $60,800 $321,100 $190,000 $70,000

Produce Sinks Walk-ins Refrigeration

Cost per Kitchen Item

DPS Kitchen Assessment 2011

Type of Kitchens


• Season extension allows DPS to harness ear-ly harvest products outside of the school year that can be utilized in meals during the school term. This may directly impact season sensi-tive local products that are often unavailable when the school year begins.

• Value added processing in Denver County would uniquely situate DPS as there are lim-ited produce processors in Denver and state-wide.

• Coordination: management and coordination of supply chain logistics—from farm to Hub to buyers.

• Distribution: coordinated distribution of prod-ucts to purchasers.

4.4. Food Processing: Because food processing for long-term storage is not currently practiced within DPS, the concept of food hubs was introduced with this study. There are two types of school-based food hubs, Centralized and Decentralized. Centralized school food hubs offer an integrated approach by including produce processing within central kitchen functions that includes aggregation, processing and distribution of locally grown food. Centralized hub facilities are typically classified as full-service processing facilities that can provide the following:

• Aggregation: central drop off/pick-up point for produce products from multiple sources, such as various farms throughout the district.

• Storage/Processing: a permanent space with equipment that allows food storage; can in-clude processing in both minimal and season extension form.

32

Centralized Food Hubs: A cost analysis was performed for a centralized food hub, both a remodel an existing building and a new build, and a decentralized school-based or modular food hub option. Using the Colorado Springs D11 “Irving Center” school hub as a model, which includes demolition and remodel of building approximately 4200 square feet, it was determined that based on a ballpark estimate, the total cost of potential build-out of an existing underutilized school facility would be $540,000. This includes walk-in freezer and cooler and processing equipment and is supported by external supply chains such as produce distributors. This is only one example and the cost of retrofitting an existing building for use as a fresh-cut facility is highly dependent on the pre-existing characteristics of the structure. Some of the most important characteristics to consider when looking for an appropriate site are:

• Size of facility – The building should be within the size range that is appropriate to the project.

• Insulation/building material - The building should be of durable construction and should be insulated or capable of being insulated. Optimum internal temperatures are 35-42 degrees Fahrenheit.

• Loading docks – For the scale of this project, the building should have at least one receiving dock and two shipping docks. If the additional cold storage for wholesale distribution is incorporated at this facility, there should be a separate loading dock to access this space.

• Access to water/sewer – The building must have access to good quality water and be connected to the sanitary sewer.

• Flexible interior space - Within the building, it should be possible to tear down and/or construct walls in order to create the optimum space for the different rooms (Yellow Wood Associates, Inc. & Boyd, 2004).

The cost for new construction, for a full-service facility 14,764 sqft to 20,000 sqft, can range from $105.81/sqft ($1,563,860 for 14,765 sqft) to $100.18/

Decentralized facilities are smaller processing facilities that often perform minimal processing, which includes: receiving, rinsing, cutting, and refrigeration. Decentralized facilities are spread throughout the district or region to fulfill processing needs. More often than not, decentralized school facilities are not equipped to handle all of the mid- to large-scale minimal processing volumes a school district demands.

In an effort to determine what assets DPS had for potential food hub location, DPS Planning Department created a list of available assets within the district. These assets included empty school buildings, underutilized school kitchens, and warehouses. Tours of each asset were taking and the properties were reviewed for the possible installation of a food hub facility. After touring all facilities, the findings were reviewed by the HKHS team and with DPS-FNS. Priority was given to those assets that not only had good food processing potential but also those located near potential farm land. Originally, the Food System Model was presented as follows:

1. DPS would have multiple farms ranging in size, starting at 1 acre, with a presence in each of the 5 Regions of DPS School District with a full-service, centralized food hub for processing.

OR

2. Multiple farms ranging in size, starting at 1 acre, with a presence in each of the 5 Regions of DPS School District, that service multiple decentralized food hubs that would also be spread throughout the 5 regions of DPS.

33

Production Overhead $4,000.00 1. Sanitation Wages + Costs 2. 4 months = 80 days of work

QA Department + Supplies 3. Maintenance Department + Parts 3 Workers Laundry Costs $13 /hour Utilities and Waste Handling Costs 30% BenefitsGeneral & Administrative Overhead $4,000.00 8 hours/day Salaries - General, Office 4. Office Expenses + Supplies 2 Vans Telephone 3 hours/day/van Insurance $15 /hour Labor 20% BenefitsTruck Driver $8,640.00 5. Van MaintenanceProcessing Staff $32,448.00 15% Fuel Cost

Production Management staff $35,750.00 6. Fuel CostTransportation $3.50 gallonVehicle Maintenance $1,512.00 1 tank/day/vanFuel $10,080.00 18 gallons/tankTOTAL FIXED COSTS $96,430.00 7. Total of 350,811 lbs of Produce to Process

Operating Cost for DPS Processing Assumptions for Operating CostsFixed Costs (4 months)Processing will take place over 4 months

Processing Staff will include 80 days of:

Van Drivers will include


time before delivery. For operations that have established production runs and delivery appointments, the space needed can be quite small. Dry product storage can also be incorporated into this area. This area should also include a loading dock for the finished product.

• Maintenance Shops – It is important to have separate areas to work on equipment and store cleaning chemicals, etc. Due to health and safety considerations, these areas need to be separate from the main production facility.

• Offices and Employee Areas – An office for the production manager is usually included in the building design. In addition, there should be space for employees to store personal items and to have lunch or take breaks.

sqft. ($2,003,600 for 20,000 sqft) according to a Preliminary Feasibility Study of a Fresh-Cut Produce Processing Facility for Madison, Wisconsin (2004). The building and costs would need to include:

• Receiving Area and Cold Storage – The product is received at the loading dock and transferred to cold storage.

• Production Room – This area contains the equipment line. A typical configuration allows for the equipment line to be set up in a straight line to allow for a unidirectional flow of product from the receiving area to the finished product storage.

• For facilities that cater to specialty products on demand, there will be a certain amount of space in the production room devoted to custom hand preparation of products.

• Future Expansion Area – It is general practice to include additional space in the facility to accommodate expansion. Usually this space is adjacent to the production room to allow for additional equipment lines to be added.

• Finished Product Storage and Shipping – The size of the finished product storage is determined primarily by the length of storage

Table 4

34

60% % of food resulting from processing660 lbs/hour x 4 hours = 2640 lbs/day

2,640 lbs raw = 1584 lbs processed/day4 months of processing = 80 days

126,720 lbs of total processed deliverables211,200 lbs of raw can be processed in 4 months/modular

Assumptions 1. Processing % based on butternut squash 2. Processing lbs based on minimum processing 3. Processing capacity based on 4 hour day of manual prep and 4 hours of machine cutting

Modular Minimal Processing/Modular Unit

Another type of decentralized food hub is the modular food hub. The modular food hub analyzed for this study is outfitted within a semi-truck trailer that has dual purposes: processing and distribution. If desired, these trucks can also be outfitted with kitchens to function as mobile kitchens. Being that the modular unit is built on wheels, it can remain at one location as long as it is needed but it can then be moved to and from farm locations or centralized warehouses. Modular food hubs can also be outfitted to support minimal processing or full-service processing. These modular food hubs can cost anywhere between $40,000-$200,000 depending on size, processing capacity, and equipment (See Appendix C.VII.).

In order to determine what type of processing DPS would need and what type of facility is most suitable, we analyzed what was going to be grown, the acres needed to produce the processed food demand DPS must fulfill, how much each of those acres would produce weekly, the capacity of a modular food hub to process pounds of food per week, and the annual operating costs of the hub itself.

Using Agriburbia’s yield projection of .5 pounds per square foot, it was determined that on 28 acres of land over 609,000 pounds of produce could be grown, which equates to just over an average of 7,623 pounds per day for the 80 days, see Table 5. With a staffed modular food hub 5 days/week, the hub is able to process 2,640 pounds per eight hour day, see Table 6. Therefore, DPS would need 3 modular units that supported minimal processing and freezing to fulfill the processing demands set forth by the projected production yields.

The cost to operate the food hub described above is approximately $96,430 for four months, or 80 school-

Decentralized Food Hubs: A cost analysis was conducted to determine how much capital would be needed to introduce food processing into DPS. An alternative to a centralized processing model is the decentralized model. Two types of decentralized hubs were looked at for DPS processing: an asset/school-based food hub and a modular food hub.

The decentralized asset/school-based food hub would utilize existing school kitchens, before and/or after school hours, but also include any kitchen improvements necessary to process food. These kitchens improvements can be designed to support minimal processing or full-service processing depending on processing needs of the district. Minimal processing includes rinsing, slicing, chopping, and refrigeration. According to the Center for Ecoliteracy’s “Rethinking School Lunch” (2011), “Construction costs average about $300 per square foot to remodel an existing building on school grounds. If new building construction is a metal warehouse-style shell, a typical school-site shell building might cost between $100 and $125 per square foot. The average cost to build an on-site district kitchen from scratch is $425 per square foot.”

Table 5

35

Total Acres for Processing Production 28Total Square Feet in 28 Acres 1,219,680Agriburbia's projected yield per square foot (lbs) 0.5Total lbs yielded per season on 28 acres 609,840Total number of processing days per season 80Total processing capacity per day (lbs) 2,640Total lbs yielded for processing per day 7,623

Production Yield and Processing Capacity

Total number of Modular Processing units needed/day 3


4.5. Legal Implications for DPS Farm-to-School Program: This synopsis provides an overview of the key legal issues involved with introducing a district-wide food system including school-based gardens and farms, a district-wide food processing system, and food distribution plan for DPS. This overview is not meant as an exhaustive analysis of all possible legal and policy issues, but is intended to highlight areas of primary concern for the school district, facilities management team, and food procurement team. This section of the HKHS Project explores the feasibility of a localized food system for DPS and the following legal analysis focuses on the feasibility of such a program given the regulations and policies at the federal, state, and local level.

Some Farm-to-School programs, including school gardens, have started producing food and providing locally grown, unprocessed fresh fruits and vegetables, to school cafeterias. Some Farm-to-School programs also include locally produced meat, poultry, and dairy products. Different legal issues may develop as DPS expands plans for a school-based food system, however for this overview, all of the legal issues discussed in the following analysis are related to the growing, harvesting, and delivery of unprocessed fruits and vegetables to DPS-FNS (C.R.S. § 25-5-410, 2011).

4.5.1. Liability: Fears surrounding liability risk are often the primary reason school districts are hesitant to pursue school-based food production. Liability concerns with school gardens and school farms usually involve risks of injury, death, or damages

days. As illustrated in Table 6, 80 days was used to calculate the cost of staffing and operating the processing hub. A significant amount of processing can be done in 80 days, but it is not ideal to have an asset go under-utilized for a large percent of the year. Thus, the inclusion of the mobile kitchen is a great option for modular food hubs, especially those located in areas with shorter growing seasons. The modular food hub, mobile kitchen combination expands the use of the asset and most importantly can be used year round to supplement existing DPS revenue streams such as:

1. Reimbursable breakfast lunch and dinner programs

2. Summer Feed programs

3. Fundraising and Catering

4. Shared use or rental by other districts

Including a mobile kitchen into a modular food hub not only supplements existing revenue streams, it provides additional point-of-sale options for students during breakfast, lunch, and dinner and therefore increases the participation because you can feed more students. The modular processing hub/mobile kitchen could be used during school events, to deliver meals to various schools, to provide high school students with on-site options and homeless students with additional healthy dinner options. Once modular food processing units reach a maximum number according to the district and processing capacity is capped, the next phase would be building a permanent centralized processing facility.

Table 6

36

condition present, which could otherwise result in legal action.

Both schools and farmers should be well aware of the risks a strict liability regime can have on their operations. While both may argue that they were not responsible for the unsafe conditions, the school and farmers could still be held liable for injuries and damages caused by another party, if the party who created the harm is unable to pay for the costs of court awarded damages or for some other reason cannot be brought before the court (C.R.S. § 13-21-402, 2011).

4.5.1.2. Governmental Immunity and Limits on Liability: The Colorado Governmental Immunity Act grants governmental immunity for governmental entities including DPS for “injuries that lie in tort or could lie in tort,” (C.R.S. § 24-10-102, 2011). Public schools and charter schools are both protected by this statute (King v. United States, 1999). However, this immunity does not extend to all lawsuits. Governmental immunity protection is automatically waived if a “dangerous condition” exists on the premises which give rise to the action. Elements of a “dangerous condition” as defined by Colorado law are (1) a physical condition of a facility, which creates 2) an unreasonable risk to the health or safety of the public, that (3) is known to exist or should have been known to exist, and is (4) proximately caused by a negligent act or omission. The governmental immunity provided for school districts provides strong protection against any lawsuit caused by negligence so long as a dangerous condition is not present.

Another statute that could provide liability protecton for DPS is the Colorado Recreation Liability Act. This statute limits the liability held by owners of

caused by eating food grown at the school farms or gardens. Also, both farmers and schools are concerned about possible injuries that may occur during a field trip or activity on farm grounds. While these situations present valid concerns, both farmers and schools can take steps to minimize the risk and associated liability.

Standards for holding a particular party liable differ depending on who and what caused the injury. Typically, the accuser must first show a legal responsibility or “duty of care,” and next a foreseeable failure must be identified. Failure to act with as much care as an ordinary reasonable person in a similar situation is called negligence. Other situations discussed below will hold parties to a higher or lower legal standard.

4.5.1.1. Food Borne Illnesses: Generally, liability risks associated with food obtained through school-based food production are no different from liability risks associated with food sold by any other establishment. Both schools and farmers are liable for injury, death, or damages caused by food obtained through school-based food production under the legal doctrine of “strict liability” or liability without fault. Strict liability makes all parties involved in the production, distribution, and sale of food potentially liable for injuries caused by consumption of that food. A possible limitation to this liability is the “Innocent Seller” provision under Colorado Law (C.R.S. § 13-21-402, 2011). This provision provides that “No product liability action shall be commenced or maintained against any seller of a product unless said seller is also the manufacturer of said product or the manufacturer of the part thereof giving rise to the product liability action,” (C.R.S. § 13-21-402, 2011). This limitation on liability provides protection to a school district that has no dangerous or unsafe

37


Is it most likely that liability for food borne illness will fall upon the farm service provider unless some dangerous conditions exists on the premises that is the responsibility of the school district to correct. While there are many reasons why liability risk may discourage school districts from pursuing school-based food production, DPS holds liability for similar activities already conducted during regular business. Both Facilities Management and Food and Nutrition Services have certain expertise and experience for limiting these risks, and the benefits of school farms and gardens can far outweigh any additional risk incurred by the school district.

For school-based food production, these regulations are relevant to the school district if the district is directly employing farm workers. If, as discussed below, the school district is hiring an independent company to manage or conduct services on the school-owned farmland, that company will be required by law to adhere to all federal labor standards relevant to their business.

4.5.2. Structure of Business Agreements: There are two primary options to structure the necessary business agreements for on-site school-based food production. The first model is similar to a small production farm at the Denver Green School, operated by Sprout City Farms, a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization. The second is a structure similar to the two DPS pilot project farms at Bradley and McGlone Elementary Schools. The non-profit business model provides significant opportunities to build direct connections between the farm, the school administration, and the wider community. Sprout City Farms has gained widespread community support, the Green School’s administration has helped develop a bottom-up growth strategy, and together both have been able to target the school’s specific needs.

The pilot project farms at Bradley International and McGlone Elementary Schools are being farmed by Agriburbia, a private agriculture construction

recreational property for offering their property to the public free of charge (C.R.S. § 31-41-103, 2011). While this statute is not relevant to the liability incurred for food grown on school property, it applies directly to liability incurred when holding field trips, providing community kitchen space, or having after-school recreational activities. As long as DPS permits or invites, without charge, any person to school property for recreational purposes the school may be relieved of liability as long as there is no intentional or wanton negligence (C.R.S § 31-41-102(5), 2011).

DPS may also limit their general liability by including exculpatory clauses in community-use contracts or farming service contracts. An exculpatory clause is a provision in an agreement where one party is relieved of liability created by another party’s action or omission. This provision in an agreement may include a promise not to bring legal action against the school for damages created outside of the school’s control. From the farmer’s perspective, it will be important that DPS agree to maintain safe conditions and prevent unauthorized access to crops.

Required insurance for farm service providers is a final layer of protection that DPS can employ to limit liability exposure. The purchase of insurance will not waive governmental immunity provided by the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act.

To protect against liability, it is most important to avoid negligence. In Colorado, liability for negligence is created when a duty of care is breached, an injury occurs, and the injury is proximately caused by the breach of duty. The concept of negligence normally turns on whether the responsible party has acted with reasonable care under the circumstances. When determining whether or not the standard of care provided was reasonable, courts will consider the type of risk involved, the foreseeability of the injury weighed against the social utility of the school’s conduct, the burden of guarding against the harm and the consequences of placing this burden on the school (Smith v. City and County of Denver, 1986).

38

standards for all farming activity. DPS will determine which of the vendors, who are in this case farmers, will be awarded food production contracts based on defined farmer standards like the ones above. DPS contractor farmers will be required to follow DPS food safety guidelines to ensure a reliable standard of care for DPS products and reduce the risk of illness (See Appendix C.VIII.). FNS will pay the farmers and reimburse Facilities for irrigation costs and irrigation system maintenance based on the percent of land the farms use. The farmer will harvest and transport the produce to the FNS warehouse for receiving and distribution to the schools. Schools will receive the produce and depending on the type, will clean and prepare the produce for their school in the school kitchen. A maintenance plan between FNS and Facilities Management would also have to be drafted. This would reimburse Facilities Management for a percent of the irrigation and system maintenance costs based on the square footage of farms. When hiring contract farmers, DPS-FNS would pay a flat annual fee per acre for the farmer to plant, grow, harvest and operate the land. There are two separate farming costs bundled into the overall cost to farm, the cost to farm production land and the cost to maintain fallow land.

4.5.2.1. Overview of qualifications: It is recommended that DPS require professional farming by qualified farmers. A brief description of the qualifications for the professional farmers is:

1. Proper Business Entity Formed. This includes:

• Limited Liability Company, Corporation or S Corporation

• Private for Profit (They will be taking direct revenue payments, not able to do that as a non-profit)

• Managing member(s) are

and operation firm. These pilot farm projects are structured under an independent contractor agreement. The practical differences between the two business models are important to identify, however, the paid-maintenance model appears most feasible for a district-wide food system that uses school-based gardens and farms to feed the entire district.

The nonprofit model presents significant obstacles at the district level. These obstacles include a reliance on outside fundraising for the nonprofit organization to maintain financial stability, unique circumstances for community support in different school locations, difficulties coordinating with the needs of other schools in the district, and a reliance on volunteer participation. The Sprout City model has been welcomed with great support at the Denver Green School, however when considering the needs of the entire district, this study has analyzed a paid-maintenance business model that can meet the production needs of the school district more completely, establish a more financially stable business model, and provide a more reliable labor force as well as a consuming agent, DPS.

The paid-maintenance model, or independent contract service model will rely on DPS to hire an outside business to maintain the farm, raise fruits and vegetables, harvest produce, and deliver food to FNS. Currently, this business model is recommended by this feasibility study. Under this business model, DPS remains the sole owner of the farmland and the farm’s produce. The independent contractor hired to maintain the farm is subject to the same insurance requirements as other organizations hired by the school district and the business shares liability and risks associated with the farm. In this model, FNS owns the produce and therefore determines what will be grown and if menu changes are necessary or desirable. DPS will provide a set of guidelines and

39


• Ability to own / lease minimally mechanized equipment

• Knowledge of human resource regulatory requirements for hired labor

• Ability to screen, hire, manage multiple farm crews for seasonal work

• General landscape / green industry knowledge and experience

This business model presents opportunities for DPS Grounds and Maintenance to save on land maintenance costs while DPS Food and Nutrition Services saves on overall food costs. This business model may not present the same beneficial opportunities for community engagement as compared to the Sprout City model, however it better addresses the needs of the entire district by coordinating with multiple sites and establishing a reliable and stable work force paid for by DPS-FNS. Therefore, the recommended business model for DPS regarding school-based farms is the paid-maintenance model. The following sections address contractual protections available to DPS when structuring these business agreements and insurance guidelines for both the district and the independent contractor.

4.5.2.2. Contractual Protections: There are two primary ways the school district can transfer, share, or limit their risk associated with school-based food production. The first is to agree on a contractual indemnification clause in the paid-maintenance business agreement. DPS already uses similar exculpatory clauses in community-use agreements for after-school programs utilizing school facilities. The DPS Community-Use Exculpatory Clause states, “The permittee agrees to indemnify, defend and hold harmless [School District] against any and all damages to property or injury to, or death of any persons, including property or employees of [School District] from all claims, of or by anyone whomsoever, in any way resulting from or arising out of the operations in connection herewith including operations of and acts or omission of employees or agents of the permittee,” (DPS, n.d.).

appropriately qualified. (See Education)

• Ability to provide documentation to prove company solvency as requested

• Insured or insurable as follows:

o General Liability $2,000,000.00 Each Occurrence Limit

o General Liability $4,000,000.00 General Aggregate Limit

o Auto Liability $1,000,000.00

o Workman’s Comp (Statutory Requirements)

o E & O (Error’s and Omissions)

o Additional farm policy including coverage for food born illness (Potential)

2. Management Qualifications

• Education / Experience

o Bachelors in natural resource related or physical sciences (agronomy, horticulture, landscape architecture, geology, biology, etc.)

o Irrigation design or installation certification from recognized organization (i.e. Irrigation Association, ALCC)

o 3-5 years experience farming

o Knowledge and experience growing a minimum of five separate specialty crops

o Proven ability to manage a farm that is a minimum of one acre in size

• Food handling guidelines in place following GAP / GHP standards

• Training and compliance on food handling practices for employees

40

DPS should check with their insurance carrier to find out specifically what types of risks and injuries are covered if a school enters into a community-use arrangement, lease, rental agreement, or service agreement. The purchase of insurance will not waive sovereign immunity or increase liability limits under the CGIA (C.R.S § 24-10-104, 2011).

4.6. Summary of Assessment & Proposed Model: Keeping production and processing within the district has great advantages and as a system, could prove to be self-sustainable. Some of the advantages include:

• Provides a sustainable source for fresh affordable organic produce to DPS and the community

• Reduces water consumption from present bluegrass irrigation

• Provide an outdoor classroom/laboratory for experiential learning in math and science

• Serves as a business incubator providing the opportunity to develop young farmers

• Provides a model to develop scaled agricultural opportunities ranging in size from 1 - 5 acre farms

• Act as an impetus to develop on site waste recycling and large scale composting programs

• Reduces costs for grounds maintenance and increase health of the schoolyard by eliminating use of chemical fertilizers and herbicides across the entire school grounds

• Develops a dynamic model for developing urban farms on public land everywhere

For these provisions to be enforceable under Colorado law, the signers to the contract must make a reasonably “informed decision,” meaning that both parties reasonably understand the function of the clause. The contract clause should include a detailed description of the activities covered under this provision. Colorado has recently modified anti-indemnity laws pertaining to construction agreements to limit a party from transferring responsibility for its own negligence onto another party (C.R.S. § 13-21-111.5, 2011). This anti-indemnification law does not directly apply to the paid-maintenance model considered here, however, if the parties consider separate agreements for construction, renovation, repair, and other construction, this law should be referenced during contract negotiations.

4.5.2.3. Insurance: The second way for DPS to transfer, share, or limit the risk associated with school-based food production is to agree on additional insured coverage with the paid-maintenance provider. Additional insured coverage can provide benefits to the school district that are not available under indemnification. First, additional insured coverage will include DPS in the maintenance provider’s liability policy giving DPS direct rights under that policy. Next, additional insured coverage can provide broader coverage than an indemnification provision, potentially including coverage for negligence on the part of the school district, and thus circumventing any state anti-indemnification statute or case law. DPS employs an additional insured provision in its community-use agreements. The provision states, “Applicant will provide its own insurance, listing DPS as an additional insured for $1,000,000. Otherwise, applicant will need DPS to provide insurance at an additional cost. Insurance must be attained and secured at the time of permit processing,” (DPS, n.d.).

41


Asset mapping of shuttered schools, underutilized kitchens, and warehouses revealed existing infrastructure options for potential food hub locations. After conducting site inspections of the potential food hub location priority was given to those assets that not only had suitable food processing potential but also those located near potential farm land. The study recommendation is that DPS utilize as much school-site land as possible and supplement farming on large vacant parcels to maintain a strong connection with the students. Farms should range in size, with the smallest increment being 1 acre. Farms should be scattered across all 5 DPS Regions and supported by decentralized food hubs, the number depends on how much land is being farmed. Kitchen improvement must occur before the HKHS program can be launched. As mentioned previously, these funds for kitchen improvements have been incorporated into the 2012 General Obligation Bond. If this bond does not pass in the fall of 2012 other funding sources must be secured. The same applies to the capital improvements needed to farm sites.

DPS has the capacity to implement an extensive urban program that could potentially capture 41% of DPS seasonally fresh produce demand through site-based farming and capture 50% of DPS processed vegetable demand. In summary, the recommended model is:

1. Adopt the paid-maintenance model, or independent contract service model where DPS hires an outside business to maintain the farm, raise fruits and vegetables, harvest produce, and deliver food to FNS. DPS contracts would be through FNS.

2. Maximize land use by developing design/construction guidelines for hi-yield production-organic farms with drip-irrigation and intensive growing plans.

3. Create a balance of school site farms and larger vacant parcel farms with emphasis on sites located in food-insecure neighborhoods and schools with underperforming test scores.

4. Use a decentralized modular food hub/mobile kitchen system for year-round use, increased student reach, and minimal processing and storage to fulfill the processing demands set forth by the projected production yields.

42

5.1. Production Model: Under a paid-maintenance model, DPS-FNS would pay a flat annual fee per acre for the farmer to plant, grow, harvest and operate the land. DPS-FNS would also own the produce and therefore determine what will be grown. DPS-FNS will provide a set of guidelines and standards for all farming activity. DPS-FNS will determine which of the vendors, who are in this case farmers, will be awarded food production contracts based on defined farmer standards like the ones outlined in section 4.5.2.1. DPS-FNS will pay the farmers and reimburse Facilities Management for irrigation costs and irrigation system maintenance based on the percent of land the farms use. The farmer will harvest and transport the produce to the FNS warehouse for receiving and distribution to the schools. Schools will receive the produce and depending on the type, will clean and prepare the produce for their school in the school kitchen.

DPS-FNS contractor farmers will be required to follow DPS-FNS food safety guidelines to ensure a reliable standard of care for DPS products and reduce the risk of illness. One of the GHP requirements is that fresh produce be refrigerated for at least 6 hours. HKHS produce would be delivered within 3.5 hours of harvest and necessary items will be refrigerated for 24 hours before it is distributed to schools. For every acre of farm land, 75% would be dedicated to active farming and 25% would be dedicated to fallow lands for crop rotation. For the purposes of this study the cost for farming is $0.68 per square foot. This number is based on Agriburbia’s farming model and cost to farm. A water and irrigation system maintenance cost of $0.04 per sq. ft. is included in this cost to cover DPS Facilities Management pro-rated costs that are part of the larger schoolyard maintenance plan. It is anticipated that production rates for mixed produce once farm sites are fully functional will be .5 pounds per sq. ft. (Agriburbia, 2012).

With the introduction of urban farms, DPS-Facilities Management would experience cost-savings associated reduced water use, vandalism and maintenance. One area of cost-savings comes from the conversion of sod areas to farm land. On school sites where there is surplus field area of 2

5. Economic Model

The assessment recommends a production-scale, paid maintenance urban farm model for DPS. This section tests the economic viability of the recommended model to determine the capital improvement costs, operating costs and cost-savings DPS could realize. The initial costs to construct fields, upgrade kitchens, and invest in food hubs are proposed as capital improvements; or those which would be included in a General Obligation Bond or funded by outside sources. These field construction costs cover kitchen upgrades, the cost to purchase food hubs and the necessary land preparations to create “Plant Ready” farms including:

• Fence• Water• Electricity• Car access• Soil Amendments

The cost associated with farm preparation is approximately $35,000/acre if a water tap exists. It would cost DPS approximately $630,000 to prepare the 18 acres of Seasonal Fresh production land and approximately $980,000 to prepare the 28 acres of farm land needed to grow produce for processing.

These costs, along with the costs associated with the kitchen upgrades and food hubs, can be found in Appendix C.IX. Because the capital improvement costs are assumed to be covered by external sources in this study, this analysis is focused on operational costs versus cost-savings. In summary, DPS could potentially realize three types of benefits:

• Produce cost savings for Food and Nutrition Services

• Operational cost savings for Facility Management

• Increased local job opportunities

43

Expenses & Revenue Unit Price

($) Qty Unit Total ($) Active Farming 18 acres

Contract Farming 0.68 784,080 SF $533,174

Water Use 0.02 784,080 SF $15,682

System Irrigation Maint 0.02 784,080 SF $15,682

GRAND TOTAL $564,538

Produce (Current DPS $)

Cost to Purchase Fresh Produce ('10-'11) 1.68 341,436 LB $573,613

Cost Savings (FNS) $9,075

Assuming 100% of land was converted from SODWater Use 0.0600 784,080 SF $47,045

Repair /vandalism 5000.00 10 LS $50,000

Fertilize, Aerate, Mow 0.13 784,080 SF $101,930

Annual DPS Maintenance Savings $208,050

Total Cost Savings for DPS $217,125

Fresh Produce Viability

DPS Maintenanace Savings

Assumptions: Active farming includes a mix of the following land uses: production land, anxcillary land and fallow land. The average cost per lbs of fresh produce for DPS is $1.68, Contract Farming includes land operations, planting, growing harvesting and delivering, the cost for dripp irrigation farming is 7 gallons per square foot and the cost for watering sod is 18.5gallons per square foot.

24%

76%

Current Percentage of Seasonal Fresh Produce ('10-'11)

Total Percentage of SeasonalFresh Purchased from withinColoradoTotal Percentage of SeasonalFresh Purchased by DPS

*"Seasonal Fresh" refers to those items that can be grown in CO and consumed fresh

41%

59%

Total Percentage of Seasonal Fresh Produce

Total Percentage of SeasonalFresh Produce Predicted to beGrown by HKHSTotal Percentage of SeasonalFresh Produce Purchased byDPS ('10-'11)

*"Seasonal Fresh" refers to those items that can be grown on DPS land and consumed fresh

Economic Model & Analysis

or more acres of sod, the water saving can reach 9.5 gallons per sq. ft., as sod requires 18.5 gallons of water versus 7 gallons for farm fields. Based on the proposed allocation of school versus vacant property this could potentially be a savings in excess of $37,000 annually. Active farming/gardening requires regular site visits which has been observed on school-sites to reduce vandalism. With 10 school-farm sites this cost savings could be as much as $50,000.

Determining the added value of local organic produce was not part of this study but is an important aspect of DPS farming and has added benefits for students. It is also an important aspect for capturing the 28% of students who currently are not on the free and reduced lunch program. Schools report a 3 to 16 percent increase in school meal participation when farm fresh food is served, thus bringing more funds into the schools. This increase in paid lunches could result in additional profit to FNS and will require further study. The HKHS program would bring organic food to the district which is an important selling point to parents and would be a strong marketing strategy for increasing paid lunch sales. Figures 15 and 16 represent the percentage of seasonal fresh produce currently purchased from Colorado and the increase in local food production and supply under the HKHS model.

Figure 15

Figure 16

Table 7

44

Acres Processing Waste

Total Production post-processing (lbs)

28 40% 350,811

Expenses & Revenue Unit Price

($) Qty Unit Total ($) Active Farming 28 acres

Contract Farming 0.68 1,219,680 SF $829,382Water Use 0.02 1,219,680 SF $24,394

System Irrigation Maint 0.02 1,219,680 SF $24,394

GRAND TOTAL $878,170

Produce (Current DPS $) Cost to Purchase Fresh Produce ('10-

'11) 1.68 350,811 LB $589,362Production Loss (FNS) -$288,807

Cost of ProcessingWhat DPS pays now (2010-2011) 0.85 350,811 LB $298,189What DPS would pay with HKHS 3.00 350,811 LB $1,052,433

Total loss w/ HKHS -$754,244

Assuming 100% of land was converted from SODWater Use 0.06 1,219,680 SF $73,181

Repair /vandalism 5,000.00 15 LS $75,000

Fertilize, Aerate, Mow 0.13 1,219,680 SF $158,558

Total DPS Maintenance Savings $306,739Total Loss for DPS -$736,312

Total production (lbs)

609,000

DPS Maintenance Savings

Fresh Grown for Processing Viability

Assumptions: Assumptions: Active farming includes a mix of the following land uses: production land, anxcillary land and fallow land. The averagecost per lbs of fresh produce for DPS is $1.68, Contract Farming includes land operations, planting, growing harvesting and delivering, the cost for dripp irrigation farming is 7 gallons per square foot and the cost for watering sod is 18.5 gallons per square foot. The average waste that results from processing is 40%.

production-scale urban farms were introduced on DPS land.

5.3. Processing Viability and Model: While the paid maintenance model is economically viable for seasonal fresh produce, this assessment indicates that processing food grown on DPS property is not economically feasible; it does not result in a cost-savings for DPS-FNS. On average, food processing results in about 40% of each pound wasted. Therefore, more acreage is needed to grow for processed produce. In order to grow enough produce to provide the 50% or 350,000 pounds of processed food that DPS demands, farmers would have to grow approximately 609,000 pounds of produce. In order to grow this much produce, DPS would need to dedicate 28 acres of farm land for processed goods. In this case, because of the cost to farm and the product loss associated with processing, DPS-FNS would experience a $289,000 loss just to grow the food. The only cost savings would be realized by Facilities Management who, with 28 acres converted, could save $306,000, assuming each acre was converted from sod. Table 8 details these figures and the associated assumptions.

Next, the model looked at the costs associated with processing. After looking at various models, it was recommended that DPS-FNS adopt a modular food hub processing model because modular food hubs

5.2. Seasonal Fresh Production Viability: Currently, DPS sources 24% of their seasonal fresh produce from Colorado farmers. If 18 acres of land were made available for farming, DPS could grow 41 % of its Seasonal Fresh Vegetable and melon demand, see Figure 16. Assuming the cost per square foot to farm is $0.68, the total cost to farm the 18 acres needed to provide 41% of DPS seasonally fresh produce is $564,538. Using the current average DPS-FNS purchasing price of $1.68/lb., DPS- FNS services would realize a $9,000 cost-savings, as detailed in Table 7. If during the initial seasons of operation, DPS were to waive the $0.04 for water and system maintenance, the savings would increase to $40,000/year. The margin will also increase if the cost to farm is reduced. Additionally, assuming each farm was converted from sod, DPS-Facility Management would experience a $208,000 cost savings generated from reduced water use, maintenance and vandalism. Overall, DPS would see a cost savings of $217,000 if 18 acres of

Table 8

45

4 Months or 80 days of Processing

Total Variable Total Fixed Total Costs Cost to Process/lb Fresh Produce Direct labor Indirect

$878,169.70 $40,700 $12,210

Production Overhead $4,000.00 1. Sanitation Wages + Costs 2. 4 months = 80 days of work

QA Department + Supplies 3. Maintenance Department + Parts 3 Workers Laundry Costs $13 /hour Utilities and Waste Handling Costs 30% BenefitsGeneral & Administrative Overhead $4,000.00 8 hours/day Salaries - General, Office 4. Office Expenses + Supplies 2 Vans Telephone 3 hours/day/van Insurance $15 /hour Labor 20% BenefitsTruck Driver $8,640.00 5. Van MaintenanceProcessing Staff $32,448.00 15% Fuel Cost

Production Management staff $35,750.00 6. Fuel CostTransportation $3.50 gallonVehicle Maintenance $1,512.00 1 tank/day/vanFuel $10,080.00 18 gallons/tankTOTAL FIXED COSTS $96,430.00 7. Total of 350,811 lbs of Produce to Process

Total Acres for Processing Production 28 60% % of food resulting from processingTotal Square Feet in 28 Acres 1,219,680 660 lbs/hour x 4 hours = 2640 lbs/dayAgriburbia's projected yield per square foot (lbs) 0.5 2,640 lbs raw = 1584 lbs processed/dayTotal lbs yielded per season on 28 acres 609,840 4 months of processing = 80 daysTotal number of processing days per season 80 126,720 lbs of total processed deliverablesTotal processing capacity per day (lbs) 2,640 211,200 lbs of raw can be processed in 4 months/modularTotal lbs yielded for processing per day 7,623 Assumptions

Processing will take place over 4 months

Assumptions: DPS benefits - 30%, Variable Costs based on Wisconsin study, Fresh produce cost = cost to grow the produce, and Packaging cost per lb was reduced based on not shipping across the country

1. Processing % based on butternut squash, 2. Processing lbs based on minimum processing, 3. Processing capacity based on 4 hour day of manual prep and 4 hours of machine cuttingTotal number of Modular Processing units needed/day 3

Variable CostsPackaging

$23,680

Operating Cost for DPS Processing Assumptions for Operating CostsFixed Costs (4 months)

Seasonal Production for Produce Grown for Processing and Processing Costs

Annual Production Capacity on 28 acres (lbs) = 350,811

Production Yield and Processing Capacity

Processing Staff will include 80 days of:

Van Drivers will include

Modular Minimal Processing/Modular Unit

$954,760 $96,430 $1,051,190 $3.00


costs less than a centralized facility, it can moved from farm-site to farm-site, and it can function as a part of the distribution system. The modular food hub recommended is outfitted within a semi-truck trailer and includes minimal processing equipment such as a: refrigerator, freezer, grill, steam table, water system, and storage cabinets. The harvest season here in Denver is only about 4 months long, which means that for four months out the year, the unit would be used primarily as a food-processing hub. Based on figures provided by DPS-FNS including: production overhead, general and administrative overhead, drivers, processing staff, management, and transportation costs, the total fixed costs for 4 months of processing is $93,430. This does not include the cost of the hub, which can range from $40,000 to $200,000 depending on equipment selection and design preferences. In terms of processing capacity, one modular food hub, outfitted for minimal processing, has a processing

capacity of approximately 660 pounds an hour or 2,640 pound per day. Therefore, this processing hub could provide processing for 211,200 pounds of produce per season. Using the farming method outlined in this study that produces an average of 21,780 pounds per acre annually. One modular unit at this capacity would meet the processing needs for just fewer than10 acres of production land. If all 28 acres of produce grown for processing produced at 60% production levels, DPS would need to invest in 3 modular units in order to support the average daily yield as you can see from Table 9.

When calculating the total cost per pound to process, the operating costs, including the variable and fixed costs associated with the hub, are added to the cost to grow the produce. The total cost for DPS-FNS to process under this model is $3.00 per pound. Currently, DPS-FNS pays an average of $0.86 per pound of processed food, which means it would cost DPS-FNS more than three times as much

Table 9

46

options and homeless students with additional healthy dinner choices.

Once production levels grow beyond the consumption demand of the district, the opportunity to generate additional revenue presents itself and the school district could explore the following:

1. Selling to other school districts – standards are the same and districts already do this.

2. Selling to hospitals/health care facilities that serve food

3. Selling to the surrounding community and parents

4. Increasing food program participation within the district by offering a higher quality of food

5.4. Social and Economic Benefits: Social and economic benefits are a result of localizing the food system for more than just the DPS Administration. According to Agriburbia, each acre can employ 1-2 full-time employees. If each of the 18 acres of seasonal fresh land was farmed, it alone could generate between 18-36 full-time employment positions. With this opportunity comes a lot of responsibility and it is recommended that DPS require professional farming by qualified farmers, as mentioned earlier Overview of Qualifications. Food Processing would also open up job opportunities for current staff and new-hires. One manager would be needed to manage the processing hubs and an average of 3 people would be needed to work the processing hub per 8-hour day during the 4 month harvest season. If the modular unit was also used as a mobile kitchen, the number of jobs would increase depending on use.

to grow and process its own produce within the district. Overall, by farming for the 350,000 pounds of processed produce and processing those pounds within the district, the loss for DPS-FNS is $754,000.

Understanding the overall loss for DPS-FNS is too great to move forward under this model, a few recommendations were made that could recover some of the added costs associated with land and processing. First, different varieties of crops need more land than others. Corn for instance, accounted for 17 acres of land in this study; that is over 60% of the land for 46% of the total yield (See Appendix C.X.). Selecting crops that produce a higher yield on less land may reduce the loss associated with growing produce for processing. Additionally, due to the added-value associated with providing students with fresh, organic produce, it is recommended that DPS-FNS include a mobile kitchen in with each of the modular food hubs. Although cost-savings were not calculated out, including a mobile kitchen into each of the modular food hubs would take the unit from a 4 month operation to a year round asset and could supplements existing revenue streams including:

1. Reimbursable breakfast lunch and dinner programs

2. Summer Feed programs

3. Fundraising and Catering

4. Shared use or rental by other districts

A modular food hub/mobile kitchen would provide additional point-of-sale options for students during breakfast, lunch, and dinner and would therefore increase the participation based on the fact that DPS would be able to feed more students. The modular processing hub/mobile kitchen units could be used during school events, to deliver meals to schools, to provide high school students with on-site lunch

47


With regard to food processing a system-wide financially sound approach has not yet been developed. This study recognizes that there are three critical issues that must be addressed to create a financially viable FNS processed food program. First is the high cost of fresh produce. Second is the large percent of waste that increases the cost per pound even more. Third is the amount of down time for the food processing hub and the loss of revenues. We suggest that FNS start with a small-scale approach with one modular unit that would allow FNS to operate without needing additional operation costs or staff. Surplus fresh produce bought below market rates could be processed thereby avoiding the high cost for DPS fresh produce. This would allow FNS to determine the actual percentage of waste per item and focus on items that have a lower percentage of waste when processed. Much of the processing can be done in 80 days, but it is not ideal to have an asset go under-utilized for a large percent of the year which is why the inclusion of the mobile kitchen is a great option for modular food hubs, especially those located in areas with shorter growing seasons. The modular food hub/mobile kitchen combination expands the use of the asset and most importantly can be used year round to supplement existing DPS revenue streams and provide additional point-of-sale options for students during breakfast lunch, and dinner and therefore increases the participation because you can feed more students. Once modular food processing units reach a maximum number according to the district and processing capacity is capped, the next phase would be building a permanent centralized processing facility.

There are also environmental benefits associated with re-localizing the DPS food system including, but not limited to a reduced carbon footprint. In this phase of the study, we were not able to include an urban farm carbon footprint calculation but we anticipate a reduction given the smaller district-wide distribution system that would be put into place.

Social benefits are difficult to qualify at times, but we believe farms can enhance student health as a result of improved nutrition and farm engagement. Also, the potential for added educational experiences such as student farm-interns and/or an agricultural program would only enhance the benefits associated with DPS farms.

5.5. Summary: Our findings conclude that FNS could develop a financially viable site-based urban farm program with the potential to capture 41% of its seasonally fresh produce. We also believe that this approach could increase paid lunches by as much as 20% bringing in secondary profits for FNS. In order to accomplish this DPS would need to do the following:

• Improve Kitchens to handle added volumes of fresh produce (with or without the GOB dollars).

• Develop a phased program of farm improvements (with or without the GOB dollars).

• Develop the design standard and paid-maintenance guidelines for farm contractors.

• Secure up front funding that allows the first 2 – 3 years of farming to not negatively impact FNS.

48

6.Conclusion and Next Steps

One way to improve students’ academic achievement is by providing healthy and nutritious food options to satisfy hunger and nourish the body. With limited funding a local food system can be achieved. Food system development can be achieved in various ways. One option is to start with a small-scale, break-even approach and focus on production sites supported by an appropriately outfitted food hub/mobile kitchen. As revenue is needed and support and investment grow, assuming a larger-scale approach will provide a greater yield, reach, and in time, a cost savings or profit with a fully operational processing hub and distribution system. Another option would be to do a complete build-out of the farm land, and based on production estimates, invest in modular units or a centralized facility.

As you can see from this economic feasibility study, growing seasonal fresh items that will be consumed fresh during harvest season is a feasible action plan for DPS-FNS. As it stands right now, and based on the figures used in this study, processing at a full capacity does not prove to be a feasible economic choice. It is important to note that each fruit and vegetable has its own unique production ability and the yield will most often change from year to year and also change by farmer or farming method. If different products were chosen, yield estimates and processing waste would vary. Additionally, DPS will still have to purchase fresh food out of Denver’s harvest season to supplement the annual demand for fresh fruits and vegetables to fill the salad bars and serving demands. DPS will also continue to purchase fresh and processed fruit and vegetables, meat, grains and dried beans that cannot be grown on DPS property or in the region itself.

The goal is to look at the food system as a whole and utilize cost savings from one area to supplement or add to another. For example, if you have a cost savings in production, use it to support distribution until you can make each system self-sustainable and economically viable. FNS can become their own governance for the district’s food system this way. A program such as HKHS supports the urban farming and processing initiative because it promotes healthy lifestyle choices for students, it leverages existing DPS assets, such as land, water, buildings, and staff to minimizing the cost of build-out, It can capture a significant portion of the total caloric need of the district and because money will be captured by the district which can be used to further support food and nutrition initiatives.

Although the study took a comprehensive look at the DPS food system, the study did have a number of limitations. Production numbers and the cost to farm were based on one farming method and only accounted for the typical Colorado growing season. It is advisable to evaluate the actual production yields coming from the DPS urban pilot farms and current gardens to further inform production capacity, numbers that were not available at the time of this study. Additionally, the season can be extended with green houses, hoop houses, etc. This would not only elongate the growing season and increase local production; it would also introduce another educational element into schools as a place for vocational training. We noted that processing results in 40% waste, this number could potentially be offset by implementing composting within the district.

As stated in the study introduction, there are additional phases of the HKHS project, and these phases place these issues under analysis. Phase two is to conduct a preliminary evaluation of the

49

Conclusion & Next Steps

pilot program at McGlone and Bradley International elementary schools as well as the other gardens/farms in DPS to calculate actual yields in pounds per square foot. The goal is to then develop an integrated program between school gardens and urban agriculture. A comprehensive assessment tool that measures program outcomes for all project facets in order to capture the impact garden have on school cafeterias, carbon footprint reductions, children’s knowledge of food and how it can impact their academic achievement and overall health. Finally, protocols would be developed for the distribution of surplus food to the community and other institutions such as school districts, hospitals, etc. Phase Three would introduce curriculum that would help integrate agriculture into the current academic curriculum such as health, wellness and nutrition and physical education. This phase would include an assessment tool aimed at determining overall impact of exposure to healthy food and farming as well as the feasibility/capital improvements needed to extend the Colorado growing season, to implement composting initiatives and to ultimately provide fresh produce throughout the entire school year.

An effort such as this takes collaboration from the administration, students, organizations and the community. Food is an essential part of all our daily lives. It is said that we are nearly two generations removed from knowing where our food comes from and how to grow it, so it comes as no surprise that obesity is taking over our youth. In DPS alone, 30% of students are obese. Denver Public Schools is already taking steps to reclaim the health of their students. Schools are hosting extra-curricular cooking classes for students and parents, DPS-FNS no longer serves chicken fingers and is working to purchase the majority of their processed items frozen, rather than canned. Each DPS elementary school has a new Learning Landscape playground and over half of DPS schools have a school garden.

With all of these efforts underway, DPS has set a strong foundation for taking the next step into localizing their food system and providing students with healthy options as they develop into the leaders of our future generations.

50

American Academy of Pediatrics. (2006). Active healthy living: Prevention of childhood obesity through in-creased physical activity. Pediatrics, Official Journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics, 117(5). doi: 10.1542/peds.2006-0472

Bailkey, M., & J. Nasr. (2000). From brownfields to greenfields: producing food in North American cities. Com-munity Food Security News., Fall1999/Winter 2000: 6.

Brink, L., Nigg, C., Lampe, S. M. R., Kingston, B. A., Mootz, A. L., van Vliet, W. (2010). Influence of schoolyard renovations on children’s physical activity: The Learning Landscapes Program. American Journal of Public Health, 100(9), 1672-1678. American Public Health Association. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2009.178939

Center for Ecoliteracy. (2004-2012). Answers to basic facilities questions. Retrieved from http://www.ecolitera-cy.org/essays/answers-basic-facilities-questions

Center for Ecoliteracy at the David Brower Center. (2010). Rethinking school lunch, A planning framework from the Center for Ecoliteracy. Rethinking School Lunch Guide, (2nd ed.). Berkeley, CA: Learning in the Real World. Retrieved from http://www.ecoliteracy.org/sites/default/files/uploads/rethinking_school_lunch_guide.pdf

Center for Ecoliteracy at the David Brower Center. (2011). Oakland Unified School District feasibility study, Ex-ecutive Summary. Retrieved from http://www.ecoliteracy.org/sites/default/files/uploads/shared_files/RSL_Oak-land_Feasibility_Summary.pdf

Code of Federal Regulations, Title 7 § 210.1 (ref. to United States Code, Title 42 § 1751).

Code of Federal Regulations, Title 7 §§210.13 - 210.15; and 7 Code of Federal Regulations §220.7.

Colorado Farm to Market. (2012). Fresh cut produce. Retrieved from http://cofarmtomarket.com/raw-agricultur-al-products-product-samples/fresh-cut-produce/

The Colorado Health Foundation. (2009). Healthy Schools: Key to a Healthier Colorado. The Colorado Health Foundation.

Colorado Retail Food Establishment Rules and Regulations, Colorado Code of Regulations, Title 6, §1010-2 (2007).

Colorado Retail Food Establishment Rules and Regulations, Colorado Code of Regulations, Title 6, §1010-3 (2007).

Colorado Revised Statutes § 13-21-111.5 (2011).Colorado Revised Statutes § 13-21-402 (2011).Colorado Revised Statutes § 22-32-110(1)(c) (2011). Colorado Revised Statutes § 22-32-120(1)(a) (2011).Colorado Revised Statutes § 22-32-120(1)(b) (2011).

51

Resources

Colorado Revised Statutes § 22-32-124(1)(a) (2011).Colorado Revised Statutes § 22-32-124(1.5)(a) (2011).Colorado Revised Statutes § 24-10-102 (2011).Colorado Revised Statutes § 24-10-104 (2011).Colorado Revised Statues § 25-5-410 (2011). Colorado Revised Statutes § 31-41-102(5) (2011). Colorado Revised Statutes § 31-41-103 (2011).

Cornell University Food and Brand Lab. (2011). Smarter lunchrooms. Retrieved from http://foodpsychology.cornell.edu/research/smarter-lunchrooms.html

The Culinary Institute of America. (1996). Christian Chefs Fellowship, Fruit and vegetable yields. The New Professional Chef, (6th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. Retrieved from http://www.christianchefs.org/charts/yields.html

Dane County Planning and Development Department. (2011). The Southern Wisconsin food hub feasibility study. Retrieved from http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/getfile?dDocName=STELPRDC5097196

Denver Public Schools. (n.d.). DPS community use of school facilities procedures. Retrieved from http://schooluse.dpsk12.org/DPSCommunityUsePolicy

Denver Public Schools, Communications Office. (2011). Newsroom. Retrieved from http://communications.dpsk12.org/newsroom/55/

Diamond, A., & Barham, J. (2012). Moving food along the value chain: Innovations in regional food distribu-tion. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Marketing Service. Retrieved from http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/getfile?dDocName=stelprdc5097504

“Farm-to-School Healthy Kids Act,” Colorado Revised Statutes § 22-82.6-102 (2011).“Farm-to-School Healthy Kids Act,” Colorado Revised Statutes § 22-82.7 (2011).“Farm-to-School Healthy Kids Act,” Colorado Revised Statutes § 22-82.9 (2011).

Global Agrisystem Pvt. Ltd. (n.d.). Individual quick freezing. Project Profiles- MP Agros. Retrieved from http://mpstateagro.nic.in/ProjectReportspdf/INDIVIDUALQUICKFREEZING.pdf

Growing Farm to School Programs Act of 2010, Senate Bill 3123, 111th Cong. (2d Sess. 2010).

Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010 (Senate Bill 3307), § 243 “Access to Local Foods: Farm to School Pro-gram” (amending United States Code, Title 42 §1769(g)).

Hickenlooper, J.W., & Urbina, C.E. (2011). A Q & A for Colorado school food purchasing. Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, 1-6. Retrieved from http://realfoodcolorado.com/wpcontent/uploads/2011/12/FAQ_Geographic_Preference_School-Food_11_7.pdf

52

King v. United States, 53 F. Supp.2d 1056 (D. Colo. 1999).

McAleese, J.D., & Rankin, L. L. (2007). Garden-based nutrition education affects fruit and vegetable consump-tion in sixth-grade adolescents. Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 107(4), 662-665. Elsevier B.V. doi: 10.1016/j.jada.2007.01.015

National Policy & Legal Analysis Network to Prevent Childhood Obesity. (2011). Serving school garden pro-duce in the cafeteria. Public Health Law and Policy. Retrieved from http://www.phlpnet.org/childhood-obesity/products/school-garden-produce

North Dakota Department of Agriculture. (n.d.). Mobile food processing unit. Retrieved from http://www.nd.gov/ndda/program/mobile-food-processing-unit

Poyta, S. M., Hirsch, D. A., Johnson, R. M., Loretto-Domer, D. J., Allmang, K. D., Curry, J. L., De Hart, M. L., et al. (2002). Government organization. 2002 Census of Governments, 1(1). U.S. Census Bureau. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Printing Office. Retrieved from http://www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/gc021x1.pdf

Regional Food Policy Council & University of Washington. (2011). Food hubs, Central Puget Sound food system assessment. Food Hubs, 6. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Marketing Service. Retrieved from http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/getfile?dDocName=STELPRDC5097197

San Jose Unified School District. (n.d.). Central kitchen, 24. Retrieved from http://www.sjusd.org/pdf/School_Construction/MeasureF/IPPLAN/Central_kitchenPg24.PDF

Smith v. City and County of Denver, 726 P.2d 1125, 1127 (Colo. 1986).United States Code, Title 29 § 201.

U.S. Department of Agriculture Child Nutrition Program. (2012). Implementing farm to school activities, food safety. U.S. Department of Agriculture. Retrieved from http://healthymeals.nal.usda.gov/

U.S. Department of Agriculture Food and Nutrition Service. (2000). Menu planning in the National School Lunch Program. International Journal of Food Sciences and Nutrition. U.S. Department of Agriculture. doi: 10.3109/09637484809144457

U.S. Department of Agriculture Food and Nutrition Service. (2007). Legislative history related to farm to school, 1-3. U.S. Department of Agriculture. Retrieved from http://www.fns.usda.gov/cnd/F2S/pdf/F2Sleg_history.pdf

U.S. Department of Agriculture Food and Nutrition Service. (2011). The National School Lunch Program. Re-trieved from http://www.fns.usda.gov/cnd/lunch/AboutLunch/NSLPFactSheet.pdf

U.S. Department of Agriculture Food and Nutrition Service. (2012). Farm to school, FAQs- Procurement. U.S. Department of Agriculture. Retrieved from http://www.fns.usda.gov/cnd/f2s/faqs_procurement.htm#11

53

Resources

U.S. Department of Agriculture Food Safety and Inspection Service. (n.d.). Food safety and antimicrobial residues in food animals, food safety definition. U.S. Department of Agriculture. Retrieved from http://www.fsis.usda.gov/oppde/animalprod/presentations/Residue/tsld003.htm

Yellow Wood Associates, Inc. & Boyd, D. (2004, July). Preliminary Feasibility Study of a Fresh-Cut Produce Processing Facility for Madison, Wisconsin. Retrieved from http://danedocs.countyofdane.com/webdocs/PDF/foodCouncil/20040910_caff_feas_study.pdf

54

HKHS Study Definitions

Unprocessed or Minimal Processing: For the purpose of agriculture products in the fruit and vegetable area, schools participating in federally subsidized programs are allowed to apply a Geographic Preference (GP)to the purchases of unprocessed, local foods when choosing a vendor.

The following definitions would be applicable to DPS Food Hub facilities as it matters to procurement practice for unprocessed or minimal processed products: Agriculture products must maintain their “inherent character:” whole, cut, sliced…fresh or frozen can be acceptable methods within minimal processing. USDA rules that this does include frozen vegetables, including a combination of local products, such as carrots, broccoli and cauliflower; and portion sized or single-serving bags, such as apples or carrots.

Full-Processing: Agriculture products that no longer retain their inherent agriculture products and have undergone a full cooking process. For the GP option, USDA has determined that canned products do not maintain their inherent character and therefore are not included in the geographic preference option.

Center of the Plate - generally refers to the meat protein product of a meal.

Paid Maintenance – Labor force that is hired much like landscapers or contracted labor.

Plant ready – Two options: 1. With soil amendments 2. Without Soil Amendments and the following is on-site:

Fence Water Electricity Car access

DPS Region – DPS is segmented into 5 different geographic regions

Prep1 Kitchen - a school kitchen that prepares food for only the students in that school.

Prep2 Kitchen - a school kitchen that prepares food for students in that school AND for students in at least one other school. DPS has a shuttle van fleet that transfers the food from one school to another school on a daily basis.

Carry-In Kitchen - A school kitchen that receives its food daily from another school. A Carry-In kitchen will usually prep its own fruits and vegetables for the salad bars but will receive its entrée and baked goods from another kitchen.

Modular Food Hub – can consist of a mobile commercial kitchen on wheels allowing for full kitchen service with customization to include full processing of produce items for season extension through freezing and reefer trailers that can be used as post-harvest/processing cold and frozen storage facilities. Both modular components can be placed temporarily on properties to allow ease of access to large farm production and immediate processing needs. Units can remain as companion pieces to a centralized hub – depending on production and phase of project.

Appendix A: Definitions

55

Geographic Preference -- The 2008 Farm Bill directed the Secretary of Agriculture to encourage institutions operating Child Nutrition Programs to purchase unprocessed locally grown and locally raised agricultural products. Simply put, the geographic preference helps schools purchase locally grown foods.

Definition Source: A Q&A for Colorado School Food Purchasing, School Food Procurement and Geographic Preference, 11/7/2011

IQF--Individual Quick Freezing (IQF) is the latest technology available in freezing and has made it possible to preserve and store raw fruit and vegetables in the same farm-fresh condition for more than a year, with the color, flavor and texture of produce remaining as good as fresh from the farm. In IQF, each piece is frozen individually using technique of fluidization resulting in freezing of fruit and vegetables only in 10 to 12 minutes which otherwise takes at least 3 to 4 hours or even more in the blast freezer. This results into better texture and there is no lump/ block formation and the product is free flowing. One does not have to thaw or defrost the whole packet to take out only a portion, and the rest will remain frozen till required again. Quick freezing is at present the only process whereby virtually all the properties of most foodstuffs can be preserved. The important feature of this process is ultra-rapid freezing to very low temperatures (-30°C to - 40°C) designed to halt the activities of the microorganisms that cause decay and deteriorate foodstuffs.

Definition Source: http://mpstateagro.nic.in/Project%20Reports%20pdf/INDIVIDUAL%20QUICK%20FREEZING.pdf

Fresh Cut Produce-- Fresh produce that has been peeled and/or cut for the consumer is considered “processed food” as defined by the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 321(gg)). Thus fresh-cut processors of fruits and vegetables are subject to the Colorado Good Manufacturing Practices (GMP) regulations. Colorado requires packaged, fresh cut produce and ready-to-eat salad mixes to be processed in an approved GMP-compliant facility or licensed retail food establishment.

Definition Source: http://cofarmtomarket.com/raw-agricultural-products-product-samples/fresh-cut-produce/

Food Safety-- A suitable product which when consumed orally either by a human or an animal does not cause health risk to consumer.

Definition Source: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/oppde/animalprod/presentations/Residue/tsld003.htm

Appendix A: Definitions

56

Healthy Kids, Healthy Scores Assumptions

Economic Assumptions

This Economic Model assumes that all capital investments in land and infrastructure are already in place (funded by the general obligation bond or outside funders) – The numbers used in this study do not include the costs associated with:

Farm land preparation o Cost for school fields 35K/acre (figure provided by Agriburbia) o Cost for vacant 75K plus tap 65k

Fence Water Electricity Car access Soil Amendments (if needed)

Food hub purchasing and outfitting Facility/Kitchen Improvements

Costs do include: Labor Utilities General and administrative overhead Transportation Production overhead

Prices: All costs or pricing used in this feasibility study are based on 2012 dollar amounts.

The average cost per pound of fresh produce for DPS is $1.68, based on 2010-2011 purchases.

The cost for drip irrigation farming is 7 gallons per square foot (Agriburbia’s model) and the cost for watering sod is 18.5 gallons per square foot (DPS cost).

Modular Food Hubs: could include produce processing unit equipment such as: Large Prep Sinks, Buffalo/"Bowl" Choppers, Continuous Feed Food Processors, Large Steam Jacketed Kettles, Large Ice Vats, Walk-in freezer, Blast Chillers, Cook Chill System.

Water and Maintenance: System Irrigation Maintenance - Assuming the average school site is 3 acres and the annual cost (from DPS) to repair/replace the Blow Out System ($800), the Mainline ($1200) and the Backflow ($1000) equals $3000 annually/3 acre school site. Therefore the average cost per acre for irrigation is $1000 and the cost/square foot for system irrigation is $.02

Appendix B: Assumptions

57

Farming/Production Assumptions

Farming: The farming method used in this feasibility study is unique to Agriburbia. The yield estimates are based on Agriburbia’s previous yield numbers and projections.

Contract Farming Costs: Table 6.1 and 6.2 use a contract farm cost of $0.68 which is based on Agriburbia's cost to Farm. Contract farming costs and water usage can vary depending on farming method and will ultimately be set by DPS.

Farming Note: Other farming methods can be used to farm but production yields in pounds/square foot numbers were not available so the feasibility of additional farming methods were not calculated. This study has used numbers from one farmer and these numbers may not accurately reflect the yields other farmers can produce, whether that be more or less.

Yield Estimates: Yield estimates are based on a 60% production level which allows for crop failure due to natural occurrences such as hail, high winds, seeds not taking, flooding, etc.

Active Farming: includes a mix of land uses including 75% production land (crops growing) and 25% fallow (allows for crop rotation) land. An additional 15% of an acre is needed for ancillary (paths and access points) purposes.

Contract Farming: includes land maintenance, planting, growing, harvesting and delivery to FNS warehouse.

Food Services

Production needs: calculated using the following assumptions about processed foods purchased by DPS

Assuming mixed vegetables consisting of equal parts broccoli, corn, carrots, peas Assuming 4.5 lbs of corn in the husk will equal 1quart of cut kernels. 1 quart of cut kernels equals 1.5 lbs. (4.5 lbs/1.5 lbs=3) Multiply kernels lbs by 3 for cob

lbs needed. Used 7lbs of produce per #10 can - average amount per information provided Basic tomato sauce and salsa recipes used to calculate volumes for totals

Produce: Produce will be arriving to the school kitchens with 48-72 hours of harvest off the school farms thus assuring high levels of freshness and nutritional value


58

Employment Assumptions

Assumptions for Modular Food Hub Operating Costs

1 Processing will take place over 4 months 2 4 months = 80 days of work 3 Processing Staff will include 80 days of:

3 Workers 13 $/Hour 30% Benefits 8 hours/day

4 Van Drivers will include

2 Vans 3 hours/day/van

15 $/hour

20% Benefits 5 Van Maintenance

15% Fuel Cost

6 Fuel Cost $3.50 gallon

1 tank/day/van 18 gallons/tank

7 Total of 350,811 lbs of Produce to Process


59

Hea

lthy

Kid

s H

ealth

y Sc

ores

Sch

ool S

iteIrr

igat

ed T

otal

Fie

ld A

rea

(Acr

es)

Res

erve

d P

lay

Are

a (A

cres

)

Pot

entia

l Fa

rmLo

catio

ns(A

cres

)

DP

S R

egio

nFo

od D

eser

t>8

0% F

ree

or R

educ

ed

Lunc

hTo

tal /

Reg

ion

Vac

ant S

iteS

ite A

rea

(sqf

t)A

rea

of F

arm

able

Acr

esR

egio

nTo

tal/R

egio

n

1Y

1.45

899

01.

0000

01

0.90

11

5161

47.1

4612

611

.849

12

2Y

2.36

243

11.

3624

31

0.81

02

6417

5.97

7751

1.47

328

23

Y0.

8372

340.

8372

340.

8372

341

351

0966

.393

305

11.7

302

225

4Y

3.83

715

03.

8371

51

7.04

449

9839

.646

932

11.4

747

311

.474

75

Y1.

9568

31

0.95

683

20.

969

510

1120

.766

468

2.32

141

46

Y3.

3352

21

2.33

522

20.

931

652

0952

.981

491

11.9

594

47

Y2.

1478

71

1.14

787

20.

928

762

7672

.765

147

14.4

094

48

Y4.

1062

91

3.10

629

28

2039

88.2

8434

24.

6829

34

9Y

0.96

3759

00.

9637

592

965

4871

.680

038

4.26

289

410

Y2.

2325

51

1.23

255

20.

978

1025

6547

.436

807

5.88

952

411

Y0.

8209

060

0.82

0906

211

5042

10.2

2906

611

.575

14

5512

?1.

1160

50

1.16

605

20.

934

11.7

312

2306

00.0

1638

55.

2938

55

13Y

3.06

415

12.

0641

53

0.87

413

4611

7.86

9774

1.05

872

56

14Y

4.19

302

04.

1930

23

0.93

56.

2697

.98

97.9

805

15Y

3.58

473

12.

5847

34

0.87

316

Y2.

4335

51

1.43

355

4Y

es0.

947

17Y

2.52

975

11.

5297

54

0.90

818

Y3.

4494

81

2.44

948

40.

805

19Y

2.02

764

11.

0276

44

0.92

720

Y3.

4734

71

2.47

347

4Y

es0.

963

21Y

4.53

582

2.53

580

422

Y2.

7519

81

1.75

198

423

Y3.

0604

41

2.06

044

4Y

es0.

927

24Y

1.94

777

10.

9477

74

25Y

3.37

011

2.37

010

421

.16

26Y

1.25

883

01.

2588

35

Yes

1.26

NO

TES

: *S

choo

ls 0

in th

e R

eser

ved

Pla

y A

rea

Fiel

d ha

ve b

een

draw

n to

sca

le o

n th

e M

ap in

GIS

, so

no a

dditi

onal

land

nee

ded

to b

e re

mov

ed *

*Sch

ools

with

1 in

the

Res

erve

d P

lay

Are

a Fi

eld

are

elem

enta

ry s

choo

ls th

at n

eed

at le

ast 1

acr

e of

pla

y fie

ld s

pace

DP

S V

acan

t Lan

d fo

r Pot

entia

l Far

ms

DP

S P

oten

tial F

arm

able

land

Tota

l Pot

entia

l Far

m L

and

at S

choo

l-site

s (A

cres

)47

.45

Appendix C.I: Documents

60

Methodology for Urban Farm Feasibility Study

Purpose: the intent of this study is to determine the amount of suitable land and facilities available to DPS for the production, processing, and storage of produce. The goal is to grow 100% of the produce that DPS currently consumes on DPS-owned land. See S:\Everything Else\Projects\Healthy Kids Healthy Scores\GIS Data\Methodology\HenkleUrbanFarmFeasibilityStudy.doc and .ppt for additional background and explanation of methodology for this project.

Properties were grouped into three categories, and polygons drawn around suitable field areas for potential urban farms:

1. Schools: A minimum play area was established for each school class; sites which did not meet the minimum play area requirement were dropped from the acreage total. In the case of elementary schools, play areas/potential farm areas were spatially allocated on each school site based on renderings of Learning Landscapes projects, CAD drawings, and the expertise of Lois Brink. The Learning Landscapes folder is located at S:\Everything Else\Projects\LL Schoolyards. Sites which did not meet the minimum criteria of at least one acre of play area and one acre of potential farmland were excluded.

a. Elementary: 1.0 acres reserved b. Middle (including K-8) and High – hand drawn on aerial photos based on

meeting with Justin Saylor and John Andrew with DPS athletics 2. Vacant land 3. Support

a. Administrative b. Warehouse: to serve as potential food distribution sites c. Shuttered Schools: to serve as potential food distribution sites

Data Sources: The main data folder can be found in S:\Everything Else\Projects\Healthy Kids Healthy Scores\GIS Data

1. Parcel data was provided by DPS, apparently derived from data provided by the Denver C&C Assessor; this data not publicly available from the Denver C&C FTP server at least as of 10/25/11.

2. Denver Water provided a shapefile folder (DPS_SCHOOLS_IRR_EXP) of the results of an irrigation audit several years past; it is useful for identifying smaller landscaping areas, but is obsolete for many larger play areas.

3. Miscellaneous reference data (e.g. streets, county boundaries) was obtained from the Denver C&C FTP server and CDOT.

4. Google Earth held the most current and highest resolution imagery; to draw polygons of field areas, an image of the area containing Denver streets centerlines was saved (via “Save as…”), then georeferenced in ArcMap and saved as a *.tif file. All site-specific aerial image files are stored in S:\Everything Else\Projects\Healthy Kids Healthy Scores\DPS_Aerial_Images

Appendix C.II: Documents

61

5. Further GIS data was obtained from the S:\Everything Else\Projects\Bond\BOND GIS geodatabase on the, and used for reference purposes.

Modified Files:

Preferred Vacant Farmland: vacant land larger than 1 acre in one of the 5 DPS regions

Existing_Urban_Farms: Based on three existing farms at DPS sites as of 11/1/11.

DPS_Preffered_Farmland: any school with one or more acres (few exceptions if land was limited in that region) of potential farmable land available, within a food desert, high free and reduced lunch >80%, underperforming CSAP schools. Polygons of suitable farm area were drawn in such a manner as to exclude reserved play areas and maximize contiguous farmland. The areas of these polygons were added to Preferred Vacant Farmland area totals in order to derive

Dennis_E12: Derived from outline of existing facility CAD drawing provided by DPS and parcel and rights of way shapefile

CentralFoodHubs: Locations were chosen based on meeting with Theresa Hafner with DPS Food and Nutrition Services. Locations were preferred because of its proximity to transportation and building infrastructure.

ModularFoodHubs: Locations were chosen based on meeting with Theresa Hafner with DPS Food and Nutrition Services based on wanting one modular food hub for each of the 5 DPS regions.

CSAP Results: Derived by joining table of results of CSAP scores provided by DPS with elementary school catchment shapefile provided by DPS.

%_Free_Lunch: Derived by joining table of participation in Free and Reduced Lunch program provided by DPS with elementary school catchment shapefile provided by DPS.

Food_Deserts: Derived by joining table of USDA Food Deserts to 2010 US Census tracts shapefile.

DPP_Regions (School_Dist_Dissolve.shp): Derived from *.pdf of DPS administrative divisions (AKA “Regions”) and an election district shapefile.


62

Preferred_Vacant_Farmland.shp ID 3-digit DPS School Code

Elem_Text Site name

Shape_Leng Perimeter of site in feetShape_Area Area of site in square feet

Area_Acres Area of site in acres

DPS_Preffered_Farmable_upd112811.shp Name Site nameType Abbreviated school type, e.g. “ES” for elementary schoolSurf_Type Type of surface, e.g. grassArea Area of surface in acresCode Four-digit school code (assigned by CCCD)Irrigated_ Indicates whether site has irrigation based on Denver Water audit (DPS_SCHOOLS_IRR_EXP.shp)PotableH2O Determines whether site uses reclaimed water via DPS recycled_water_sites.shp fileEquiv_Class Determines type of school: e.g. elementaryKitchen Determines kitchen characteristics

Division Indicates DPS region in which school site lies

CentralFoodHubs.shp Division Indicates DPS region in which school site lies

Source: Modified from DPS parcel data of shuttered schools and warehouse space

Sitename Name of site

ModularFoodHubs.shp SchoolName Name of school site for modular food hub location

Source: Created by CCCD via meetings with DPS based on schools with sufficient space and need

Division Indicates DPS region in which school site lies

Elementary_Catchment.shp Elem_School Elementary School NameElem_NUM/ID 3-digit DPS School CodeFree Lunch Fractional participation in free or reduced lunch program, 1=100%

Elementary School Catchment.CSAPperfor Lists schools as either "Underperforming" or null

Food_Desert_clip.shp GEOID10 Full census tract number including state, county, and tract codesHU10 2010 Housing UnitsPOP 2010 Population

Urban Food Desert per USDA urban definition

Existing_Urban_Farms.shp Name Site nameType Abbreviated school type, e.g. “ES” for elementary schoolSurf_Type Type of surface, in this case urban farmArea Area of surface in square feetCode Four-digit school code Irrigated_ Indicates whether site has irrigation based on Denver Water audit (DPS_SCHOOLS_IRR_EXP.shp)PotableH2O Determines whether site uses reclaimed water via DPS recycled_water_sites.shp fileEquiv_Class Determines type of school: e.g. elementaryKitchen Determines kitchen characteristics

shuttered_sch_division.dbf SchoolName Site nameSource: modified from DPS data; table lists shuttered schools by DPS division Division DPS division (1-5)

All_Sites_Merge.shp Alt_Num Alternative 3-digit DPS School CodeAlt_Name Alternative site nameShape_Length Perimeter of site in feetShape_Area Area of site in square feetAcreage Area of site in acresElem_Number Elementary 3-digit DPS School CodeElem_Name Elementary site nameMiddle_Num Middle 3-digit DPS School CodeMiddle_Nam Middle site nameHigh_Num High 3-digit DPS School CodeHigh_Name High site name

surface_typology_merge1.shp ID 3-digit DPS School CodeName Site nameType Abbreviated school typeSurf_Type Surface typeArea Area of site in acresCode 4-digit school code (assigned by CCCD)

Data Dictionary for Healthy Kids Healthy Scores Urban Farm Feasibility Study

All files are projected in NAD 83 HARN Stateplane Colorado Central FIPS 502 (feet)

Source: Created by CCCD by joining the USDA Food Desert designation table to year 2010 census tract boundaries. Clipped approximately to the City and County of Denver boundaries. (Note USDA Food Desert data is based on year 2000 Census tracts. While tract boundaries have not changed within the Denver C&C, the same cannot be said on a state or national level.)

Source: Created by CCCD via photointerpretation and meetings with DPS

Historical Shapefiles: (used to develop current iteration of land assessment; no long displayed) Significant Attribute Description

Source: Merges all DPS property types (Alternative, Elementary, Middle, High School, Vacant properties)

Source: Created by CCCD via photointerpretation. Includes all potentially farmable areas for all existing school sites, with no area restrictions. Created by merging several surface typology layers.

Active Shapefiles: (Residing in current land assessment map; contain modified attribute tables) Significant Attribute Description

Source: Modified from DPS vacant parcel data. Site selection based on consultation with CCCD, DPS, and Agriburbia and considers CSAP performance, participation in free and reduced lunch programs, and food deserts.

Source: Created by CCCD via photointerpretation. Site selection based on consultation with CCCD, DPS, and Agriburbia and considers CSAP performance, participation in free and reduced lunch programs, and food deserts. All sites contain at least two acres of potential field area, at least one of which is usable as an urban farm. For elementary sites, at least one acre is reserved for play; for middle and high school sites, reserved area was determined on a case-by-case basis by DPS. See "Healthy Kids Healthy Scores, DPS Aerials and Site Plans, October 2011" notebook for documentation.

Source: Created by CCCD by joining a table containing schools in the "Underperforming" CSAP rating and participation in free or reduced lunch program to an elementary school catchment area shapefile provided by DPS



63

Irrigated_ Indicates whether site has irrigation based on Denver Water audit (DPS_SCHOOLS_IRR_EXP.shp)Fields_w_1acre_removed.shp ID 3-digit DPS School Code

Name Site nameType Abbreviated school typeSurf_Type Surface typeArea Area of site in acresCode 4-digit school code (assigned by CCCD)Irrigated_ Indicates whether site has irrigation based on Denver Water audit (DPS_SCHOOLS_IRR_EXP.shp)PotableH2O Determines whether site uses reclaimed water via DPS recycled_water_sites.shp fileRsrvdPlayA Reserved play area (one acre elementary, all others 0)RmngPlayA Remaining play area (total field area minus reserved)Equiv_Clas Non-abbreviated school type

Fields_w_2acre_removed.shp ID 3-digit DPS School CodeName Site nameType Abbreviated school typeSurf_Type Surface typeArea Area of site in acresCode 4-digit school code (assigned by CCCD)Irrigated_ Indicates whether site has irrigation based on Denver Water audit (DPS_SCHOOLS_IRR_EXP.shp)PotableH2O Determines whether site uses reclaimed water via DPS recycled_water_sites.shp fileRsrvdPlayA Reserved play area (two acre elementary, all others 0)RmngPlayA Remaining play area (total field area minus reserved)Equiv_Clas Determines type of school: e.g. elementaryDivision Indicates DPS region in which school site lies

Fields_no_MSHS_2acre_removed.shp ID 3-digit DPS School CodeName Site nameType Abbreviated school typeSurf_Type Surface typeArea Area of site in acresCode 4-digit school code (assigned by CCCD)Irrigated_ Indicates whether site has irrigation based on Denver Water audit (DPS_SCHOOLS_IRR_EXP.shp)PotableH2O Determines whether site uses reclaimed water via DPS recycled_water_sites.shp fileRsrvdPlayA Reserved play area (two acre elementary, all others 0)RmngPlayA Remaining play area (total field area minus reserved)Equiv_Clas Determines type of school: e.g. elementaryDivision Indicates DPS region in which school site lies

Fields_no_MSHS_2acre_removed.shp ID 3-digit DPS School CodeName Site nameType Abbreviated school typeSurf_Type Surface typeArea Area of site in acresCode 4-digit school code (assigned by CCCD)Irrigated_ Indicates whether site has irrigation based on Denver Water audit (DPS_SCHOOLS_IRR_EXP.shp)PotableH2O Determines whether site uses reclaimed water via DPS recycled_water_sites.shp fileRsrvdPlayA Reserved play area (two acre elementary, all others 0)RmngPlayA Remaining play area (total field area minus reserved)Equiv_Clas Determines type of school: e.g. elementaryDivision Indicates DPS region in which school site lies

Surface_w_Insuf_Area_Sites_Rmvd.shp ID 3-digit DPS School CodeName Site nameType Abbreviated school typeSurf_Type Surface typeArea Area of site in acresCode 4-digit school code (assigned by CCCD)Irrigated_ Indicates whether site has irrigation based on Denver Water audit (DPS_SCHOOLS_IRR_EXP.shp)PotableH2O Determines whether site uses reclaimed water via DPS recycled_water_sites.shp fileRsrvdPlayA Reserved play area (two acre elementary, all others 0)RmngPlayA Remaining play area (total field area minus reserved)Equiv_Clas Determines type of school: e.g. elementary

Vacant1_LL.shp Area_Acres Area of site in acresSource: Denver Public Schools; vacant parcels owned by DPS according to Learning Landscapes geodatabase Division Indicates DPS region in which school site lies

Vacant2_assessor.shp Owner Identifies parcel owner (DPS by various names)Source: Denver Public Schools; vacant parcels owned by DPS according to Denver C&C assessor Division Indicates DPS region in which school site lies

Source: Removes all Middle and High school sites from Fields_w_2acre_removed.shp

Source: Removes all Middle and High school sites from Fields_w_2acre_removed.shp

Source: Removes all elementary school sites from surface_typology_merge1.shp with less than 1.25 acres of play area. This is an obsolete selection criteria.

Source: Removes all elementary sites from surface_typology_merge1.shp with a combined field areas of less than one acre.

Source: Removes all elementary sites from surface_typology_merge1.shp with a combined field areas of less than two acres (one acre for reserved play, one acre minimum for farm).

64


Counties.shp

Source: Colorado Department of Transportation

major_streets_and_highways.shpSource: City and County of Denver

Street_mod_source.shp

Source: City and County of Denver; contains all local roads, major roads, and highwaysElementaryCatchment.shpSource: Denver Public SchoolsDPS_Regions.shpSource: Adapted from Denver Public Schools map and election district data

DPS_Parcels_Final.shpSource: Adapted from Denver Public Schools information, which is in turn based on Denver C&C Assessor data. Contains all developed DPS propertiesDennisE12.shpSource: Adapted from Denver Public Schools map and photo interpretation

DPS_SCHOOLS_IRR_EXP.shp

Source: Denver Water audit; designates irrigated areas for most DPS properties

recycled_water_sites.shp

Source: Denver Public Schools; designates fields irrigated with recycled (non-potable) water

undev_sites_sourc.shpSource: Denver Public Schools; lists all major undeveloped DPS properties

undev_sites_source_modut.shpSource: Denver Public Schools; lists all major undeveloped DPS properties (edited by CCCD to exclude

St l t III/S d l t)closed_sites_source.shpSource: Denver Public Schools; lists all shuttered DPS properties GIS_dpsmap_highsites_fc.shpSource: Denver Public Schools; lists all high schools

MS_sites_merged.shpSource: Denver Public Schools; lists all middle schools

elementary_sites_source.shpSource: Denver Public Schools; lists all elementary schools

alt_sites_source.shpSource: Denver Public Schools; lists all alternative (charter) schools

Reference Shapefiles: (Used or previously used in land assessment map for reference purposes; generally unmodified)

city_owned_parcels_for_DPS.shpSource: Denver Public Schools; vacant parcels held by Denver C&C pending transfer to DPS

vacant_parcels_upd.shpSource: Denver Public Schools; vacant parcels held by Denver C&C pending transfer to DPS

Photo interpretation was based Aerial Imagery obtained via Google Earth. The satellite pass for all imagery occurred on May 4, 2011. Imagery was georeferenced by (1) converting Denver street data from the City and County of Denver to a *. kml file in ArcToolbox, (2) importing said feature into Google Earth, (3) exporting the resulting image as a *.jpg of a particular site, taking care to ensure that at least four street intersections were visible, (4) importing and georeferencing the image in ArcMap by matching at least four intersections in the raster file to the original street intersections in vector format, and (5) rectifying the image into a new *.tif file using the naming convention SiteName_Aerial1.tif.

Aerial Imagery: Source and Georeferencing Methods

65

Proficient (A or P) Not Proficient (PP, U, or NS)172 Greenlee Elementary School 29.8% 70.2%177 Denver Green School 48.7% 51.3%185 Kunsmiller Creative Arts Academy 41.3% 58.7%186 Mathemathics & Science Leadership Academy 28.4% 71.6%188 Cole Arts and Science Academy 28.9% 71.1%189 Trevista ECE-8 at Horace Mann 21.9% 78.1%190 Place Bridge Academy 24.9% 75.1%194 William (Bill) Roberts K-8 School 71.6% 28.4%195 Pitt-Waller K-8 School 42.3% 57.7%196 Omar D. Blair Charter School 59.0% 41.0%197 Howell K-8 School 30.5% 69.5%199 Archuleta Elementary School 44.1% 55.9%201 Academia Ana Maria Sandoval 58.7% 41.3%203 Asbury Elementary School 71.1% 28.9%205 Valdez Elementary School 33.2% 66.8%206 Ashley Elementary School 23.8% 76.2%207 Barnum Elementary School 30.5% 69.5%208 Barrett Elementary School 25.0% 75.0%209 Beach Court Elementary School 81.1% 18.9%210 Lowry Elementary School 64.9% 35.1%211 Odyssey Charter Elementary School 77.1% 22.9%212 Wyatt Edison Charter Elementary School 41.6% 58.4%213 Bradley Elementary School 60.8% 39.2%214 Bromwell Elementary School 90.2% 9.8%215 Brown Elementary School 57.7% 42.3%216 Bryant Webster Dual Language ECE-8 School 44.3% 55.7%217 Carson Elementary School 82.7% 17.3%218 Cheltenham Elementary School 31.4% 68.6%219 Colfax Elementary School 37.7% 62.3%220 College View Elementary School 31.5% 68.5%221 Columbian Elementary School 32.5% 67.5%222 Columbine Elementary School 40.6% 59.4%223 Cory Elementary School 89.4% 10.6%224 Cowell Elementary School 35.3% 64.7%225 Polaris at Ebert Elementary School 96.9% 3.1%226 Denison Montessori School 57.4% 42.6%227 Doull Elementary School 37.8% 62.2%228 Eagleton Elementary School 36.5% 63.5%230 Edison Elementary School 71.5% 28.5%231 Ellis Elementary School 44.9% 55.1%235 Grant Ranch K-8 School 65.0% 35.0%236 Marrama Elementary School 55.1% 44.9%237 Fairmont K-8 School 33.0% 67.0%238 Fairview Elementary School 31.9% 68.1%240 Force Elementary School 34.9% 65.1%241 Garden Place Elementary School 38.9% 61.1%242 Gilpin Elementary School 19.9% 80.1%243 Godsman Elementary School 30.9% 69.1%244 Goldrick Elementary School 41.4% 58.6%246 Gust Elementary School 46.3% 53.7%248 Harrington Elementary School 32.3% 67.7%249 Johnson Elementary School 22.4% 77.6%250 Knapp Elementary School 35.4% 64.6%251 Hallett Fundamental Academy 55.6% 44.4%252 Lincoln Elementary School 76.3% 23.7%253 Westerly Creek Elementary School 80.0% 20.0%254 McMeen Elementary School 55.3% 44.7%256 Oakland Elementary School 24.6% 75.4%257 Montclair Elementary School 55.6% 44.4%258 Greenwood K-8 School 42.7% 57.3%259 Moore K-8 School 47.5% 52.5%260 Munroe Elementary School 33.3% 66.7%261 Newlon Elementary School 35.4% 64.6%262 Palmer Elementary School 55.6% 44.4%263 Park Hill School 64.9% 35.1%264 McKinley-Thatcher Elementary School 51.2% 48.8%266 Pioneer Charter School 29.0% 71.0%269 Sabin World School 51.5% 48.5%270 Charles M. Schenck (CMS) Community School 24.3% 75.7%271 Schmitt Elementary School 38.1% 61.9%275 Smith Elementary School 18.7% 81.3%

School Number School NameCSAP 2010-11 Results (Percentage)

65

Appendix C.III: Documents

66

276 Steck Elementary School 94.5% 5.5%277 Stedman Elementary School 32.4% 67.6%278 Steele Elementary School 78.3% 21.7%279 Slavens K-8 School 89.8% 10.2%280 Swansea Elementary School 31.7% 68.3%281 Teller Elementary School 65.6% 34.4%282 Green Valley Elementary School 37.4% 62.6%283 Traylor Elementary School 61.6% 38.4%284 University Park Elementary School 76.5% 23.5%285 Valverde Elementary School 27.8% 72.2%287 Castro Elementary School 29.9% 70.1%289 Whittier K-8 School 38.9% 61.1%290 Maxwell Elementary School 33.2% 66.8%292 Amesse Elementary School 33.7% 66.3%293 Ford Elementary School 23.9% 76.1%294 Holm Elementary School 49.9% 50.1%295 Kaiser Elementary School 47.8% 52.2%296 Samuels Elementary School 45.6% 54.4%297 Centennial K-8 School 46.8% 53.2%298 Southmoor Elementary School 76.6% 23.4%299 McGlone Elementary School 21.2% 78.8%327 Northeast Academy Charter School 24.8% 75.2%328 Highline Academy Charter School 72.6% 27.4%330 Cesar Chavez Academy Denver 40.5% 59.5%405 Grant Middle School 37.6% 62.4%406 Hamilton Middle School 66.6% 33.4%407 Hill Campus of Arts and Sciences 55.8% 44.2%408 Kepner Middle School 25.2% 74.8%410 Lake Middle School 26.9% 73.1%412 Merrill Middle School 29.0% 71.0%413 Morey Middle School 67.7% 32.3%415 Rishel Middle School 16.9% 83.1%416 Skinner Middle School 42.4% 57.6%417 Smiley Middle School 33.6% 66.4%418 Henry World School 41.7% 58.3%419 Martin Luther King, Jr. Early College 24.8% 75.2%423 Bruce Randolph School 22.4% 77.6%424 Noel Middle School 24.4% 75.6%425 Denver School of the Arts 80.1% 19.9%426 KIPP Sunshine Peak Academy 47.0% 53.0%428 West Denver Prep - Federal Campus 60.1% 39.9%429 West Denver Prep - Harvey Park Campus 67.0% 33.0%431 Denver Center for International Studies 70.3% 29.7%438 Denver School of Science and Technology MS 79.3% 20.7%439 Manny Martinez Middle School 21.5% 78.5%441 Venture Prep 26.1% 73.9%443 Denver School of Science and Technology: GVR Campus 74.2% 25.8%444 West Denver Prep - Lake Campus 54.5% 45.5%445 West Denver Prep - Highland Campus 51.7% 48.3%446 Girls Athletic Leadership School 55.2% 44.8%448 Lake International School 37.9% 62.1%450 Abraham Lincoln High School 19.0% 81.0%451 East High School 57.8% 42.2%452 George Washington High School 42.3% 57.7%453 John F. Kennedy High School 34.1% 65.9%455 North High School 19.0% 81.0%456 South High School 21.2% 78.8%457 Thomas Jefferson High School 39.6% 60.4%458 West High School 14.0% 86.0%459 Montbello High School 13.5% 86.5%461 Denver Center for International Studies 55.6% 44.4%463 Bruce Randolph School 20.1% 79.9%464 Manual High School 22.5% 77.5%469 Martin Luther King, Jr. Early College 39.6% 60.4%473 Florence Crittenton High School 18.0% 82.0%475 Denver School of the Arts 78.3% 21.7%477 P.R.E.P. (Positive Refocus Education Program) Middle School 10.1% 89.9%478 Ridge View Academy Charter School 17.7% 82.3%479 Colorado High School Charter 1.6% 98.4%481 Denver School of Science and Technology HS 71.9% 28.1%483 Life Skills Center of Denver 6.9% 93.1%484 Online High School 34.9% 65.1%485 Southwest Early College Charter School 25.9% 74.1%


67

487 Escuela Tlatelolco School 18.9% 81.1%488 Academy of Urban Learning 8.3% 91.7%496 Venture Prep 23.8% 76.2%497 Justice High School Denver 3.0% 97.0%498 KIPP Denver Collegiate High School 33.1% 66.9%602 Emily Griffith Opportunity School 24.2% 75.8%604 Summit Academy 9.1% 90.9%605 CEC Middle College of Denver 58.6% 41.4%671 P.R.E.P. (Positive Refocus Education Program) High School 4.6% 95.4%672 P.S.1 Charter School 10.3% 89.7%682 Contemporary Learning Academy High School 5.0% 95.0%707 ACE Community Challenge Charter School 4.1% 95.9%NB: The scores is a composite of Reading, Writing, and Math sections of the 2010-11 CSAP test. Therefore, each student may contribute as many as (3) scores for each school. Also note that the scores are not disagregated by grade. Provided by the Office of School Reform and Innovation, Denver Public Schools


68

Content Area Grade UnsatisfactoryPartially

Proficient Proficient AdvancedReading 3 150-465 466-525 526-655 656-795

4 180-516 517-571 572-670 671-9405 220-537 538-587 588-690 691-9556 260-542 543-599 600-695 696-9707 300-566 567-619 620-715 716-9808 330-577 578-631 632-723 724-9909 350-584 585-641 642-738 739-995

10 370-606 607-662 663-746 747-999

Spanish Reading 3 300-481 482-512 513-575 576-7404 300-505 506-536 537-591 592-790

Writing 3 150-392 393-464 465-532 533-6804 190-413 414-484 485-553 554-7305 220-417 418-497 498-575 576-7806 230-422 423-512 513-599 600-8407 240-429 430-538 539-628 629-8908 250-433 434-555 556-650 651-9109 260-435 436-562 563-671 672-930

10 270-458 459-577 578-689 690-950

Spanish Writing 3 250-447 448-498 499-574 575-7504 300-495 496-531 532-595 596-790

Mathematics 3 150-334 335-418 419-509 510-7004 180-382 383-454 455-537 538-7805 220-421 422-493 494-561 562-8006 240-453 454-519 520-588 589-8307 280-486 487-558 559-613 614-8608 310-520 521-576 577-627 628-8909 340-547 548-601 602-651 652-920

10 370-561 562-626 627-691 692-950

Science 5 300-428 429-507 508-568 569-9008 300-458 459-506 507-578 579-900

10 300-468 469-506 507-580 581-900

Performance Level Scale Ranges for CSAP Assessments

Updated July 18, 2008

CDE-Student Assessment Unit 1

Appendix C.IV: Documents

69

SELE

CTE

D C

RO

PS (a

nnua

l Lbs

)

HK

HS

SEA

SON

AL

FRES

H (l

bs)

% o

f Sea

sona

l Fr

esh

prov

ided

by

HK

HS

DPS

Usa

ge A

nnua

l (lb

s) F

RO

ZEN

DPS

Usa

ge

Ann

ual (

lbs)

C

AN

NED

HK

HS

Ann

ual

PRO

CES

SED

(lbs

) D

PS F

resh

and

Pro

cess

ed U

sage

(lbs

) TO

TAL

Tota

l/lbs

CO

/lbs

Tota

l/lbs

CO

/lbs

Aru

gula

128

810

0%8.

00B

asil

- Ita

lian

larg

e le

af (C

anne

d sa

uce)

329

329

329

100%

333

333

662.

00B

eans

- gr

een,

bus

h50

3030

100%

61,8

2461

,824

61,8

54.0

0B

ok C

hoy

9090

100%

90.0

0B

rocc

oli (

Incl

udin

g fro

zen

mix

ed v

eg)

23,2

4562

,730

18,8

1930

%5,

396

5,39

624

,215

.00

Cab

bage

- gr

een

6,04

59,

870

2,65

02,

665

27%

2,66

4.90

Cab

bage

- re

d10

,390

18,8

374,

975

1,88

410

%1,

883.

70C

abba

ge -

Sav

oy10

521

021

010

0%21

0.00

Cag

gabe

- N

apa

120

180

180

100%

180.

00C

anta

loup

e45

,115

102,

445

79,6

1068

,638

67%

68,6

38.1

5C

arro

t - n

ante

58,4

8025

74,6

4016

,167

20,8

9928

%4,

268

4,26

825

,167

.20

Cau

liflo

wer

23,8

7538

,000

6,84

018

%6,

840.

00C

eler

y40

,550

41,6

503,

749

9%3,

748.

50C

ilant

ro (C

anne

d sa

lsa)

00

2,02

82,

028

2,02

8.00

Cor

n - s

wee

t44

3535

3510

0%53

,610

28,9

3882

,548

82,5

83.0

0C

ucum

ber -

slic

ing

35,2

9522

,770

57,6

7510

,110

18,4

5632

%18

,456

.00

Gar

lic (S

alsa

& s

auce

)0

674

674

674.

00H

oney

dew

29,4

7577

,050

53,9

3570

%53

,935

.00

Kal

e25

2596

9610

0%96

.00

Lettu

ce -

iceb

erg

shre

dded

34,8

6038

,640

7,81

012

,751

33%

12,7

51.2

0Le

ttuce

- M

escu

lin81

,120

40,5

2012

,584

19,8

5549

%19

,854

.80

Lettu

ce -

rom

aine

1,18

825

246

,536

14,4

2631

%14

,426

.16

Oni

on -

gree

n45

436

128

118

27%

117.

72O

nion

- ye

llow

(Sal

sa &

sau

ce)

14,1

5512

,725

2,49

93,

690

29%

4,89

04,

890

8,58

0.25

Par

sley

- Ita

lian

flat l

eaf

402

21

60%

1.20

Pea

s70

8080

100%

24,6

8024

,680

24,7

60.0

0P

eppe

r - G

reen

Bel

l18

,545

8,62

511

,010

3,45

03,

633

33%

3,63

3.30

Pep

per -

Jal

apen

o (In

clud

ing

cann

ed s

alsa

)0

32,2

5432

,254

32,2

54.0

0P

eppe

r - R

ed B

ell

1,40

054

810

826

348

%26

3.04

Pep

per -

Yel

low

/Ora

nge

Bel

l4,

036

3,79

24,

036

100%

4,03

6.00

Pot

ato

- bak

ing

400

33,8

007,

280

9,80

229

%9,

802.

00S

pina

ch8,

767

8,76

716

,640

3,87

26,

822

41%

6,82

2.40

Squ

ash

- Win

ter,

Aco

rn,B

utte

rnut

, Car

niva

l, D

elic

ata

5,75

35,

753

2,07

136

%2,

071.

08S

quas

h - Z

ucch

ini,

Gre

en, P

lato

140

140

4,97

51,

239

1,79

136

%1,

791.

00To

mat

illos

7010

1010

0%10

.00

Tom

ato

- Lar

ge, C

eleb

rity

(Dic

ed, s

alsa

, sau

ce)

40,2

5252

,859

15,8

5830

%11

9,91

611

9,91

613

5,77

3.70

Tom

ato

- Sm

all,

Che

rry

360

612

126

8013

%79

.56

Wat

erm

elon

48,7

6840

,428

74,6

7632

,904

49,2

8666

%49

,286

.16

Tota

l Lbs

:52

3,00

681

,032

827,

733

195,

423

341,

436.

0241

%87

,954

262,

857

350,

811

692,

247.

02

1all carrots, including

bab

y2Fo

r DPS th

ese were slicing

tomatoe

s, in

clud

es so

me chop

ped

3includ

es so

me chop

ped

4Fo

r DPS th

is was called "m

ixed

lettuce"

5shredd

ed lettuce

6includ

es sh

redd

ed cab

bage

7includ

es so

me shredd

ed cab

bage

8includ

es grape

tomatoe

s also

.9Includ

es Bab

y, Ju

mbo

and

Shred

ded

10Includ

es both yello

w and

orang

e be

ll pe

ppers

2010

-201

1

DPS

A

nnua

l Fre

sh U

sage

(lbs

)

Fresh Prod

uce Pu

rcha

sed by

DPS

Ann

ually

2009

- 20

10

D

PS

Ann

ual F

resh

Usa

ge (l

bs)

Total A

nnua

l lbs, including

Processed

, provide

d by

HKH

S

Appendix C.V: Documents

70

Month Week

1 0 16,7082 0 16,7083 0 16,7084 0 16,7085 0 16,7086 0 16,7557 0 16,7558 0 16,7559 0 16,755

10 0 18,06211 0 18,06212 0 18,06213 0 18,06214 0 19,54415 0 19,54416 0 19,54417 0 19,54418 0 7,75319 2,005 7,75320 2,405 7,75321 2,560 7,75322 2,595 7,75323 2,230 6,30024 20 6,30025 50 6,30026 50 6,30027 130 25828 1,490 25829 1,590 25830 1,590 25831 3,290 25,94132 7,725 25,94133 17,250 25,94134 71,470 25,94135 84,965 25,94136 81,020 40,19637 17,565 40,19638 11,885 40,19639 9,660 40,19640 6,405 19,38041 4,600 19,38042 4,550 19,38043 4,300 19,38044 0 19,38045 0 18,66246 0 18,66247 0 18,66248 0 18,66249 0 9,72750 0 9,72751 0 9,72752 0 9,727

Total 341,400 866,928

4,800

184,700

120,130

19,855

0

0

160,785

96,902

74,649

38,908

October

November

December

September

83,539

67,021

72,248

78,175

38,764

25,198

1,032

April

May

June

July

August 129,707

0

9565

2,350

DPS Fresh Produce Purchases vs HKHS Farm Production

DPS Purchase (LBS)

January

February

March

Farm ProductionSeasonal Fresh

0

0

0

Appendix C.VI: Documents

71

Ope

ratio

n Ty

peSt

ruct

ure

Size

Pote

ntia

l Str

uctu

re C

ost

24' M

obile

Pro

duce

Tra

iler

24'

$62,

000*

44' M

obile

Coo

king

Tra

iler

44'

$120

,000

*

Equi

pmen

tO

verv

iew

Imag

eLi

nks:

Equi

pmen

t Siz

e/O

utpu

tEs

timat

ed

Equi

pmen

t Cos

tAd

ditio

nal M

ater

ials

Cos

t

Berk

el V

acuu

m P

acka

ging

Mac

hine

Berk

elM

odel

s45

0Aan

d55

0Aar

ere

liabl

eflo

orm

odel

vacu

umpa

ckag

eac

hine

sde

sign

edto

mee

tmos

thig

h-vo

lum

efo

odse

rvic

epo

rtion

cont

rol,

prod

uct

stor

age

and

food

reta

ilne

eds.

The

units

offe

ra

spac

ious

stai

nles

sst

eel

cham

ber,

pow

erfu

l,hi

ghqu

ality

pum

pan

dtw

ose

alba

rsth

atpr

ovid

ea

high

inte

grity

doub

lese

alw

ithel

ectri

ccu

t-off.

Both

mod

els

offe

ran

anae

robi

cga

sflu

shto

mai

ntai

npr

oduc

tco

lor

inth

eva

cuum

pack

age,

exte

ndsh

elf

life

and/

orto

prov

ide

api

llow

-pac

kse

alto

prot

ectt

hepr

oduc

t.U

nits

are

sim

ple

to o

pera

te a

nd m

aint

ain.

Mac

hine

vacu

umse

aloc

curs

anyw

here

betw

een

1to

99se

cond

s/pe

rba

g.C

onse

rvat

ive

assu

mpt

ion

is3

min

utes

tose

alpe

r1

Gal

lon

(est

.3.

5lb

s)Va

cuum

Pouc

hes

(incl

udes

man

uall

abor

plus

mac

hine

use)

=20

pouc

hes

perh

ourw

itha

tota

l out

put o

f 70

lbs/

hour

.

$11,

967.

50

3M

ilVa

cuum

Pouc

hes

for

the

Berk

el55

0Aco

me

inth

efo

llow

ing

size

s an

d co

sts:

8” x

10”

$.0

5 Ea

10” x

12”

$.0

7 Ea

12” x

14”

$.1

0 Ea

14” x

16”

$.1

3 Ea

16” x

24”

$.2

3 Ea

Stea

m J

acke

tted

Kettl

e

Stea

mja

cket

edke

ttles

offe

rultr

aef

ficie

nthe

attra

nsfe

r,un

iform

heat

ing

and

supe

rior

prod

uct

hand

ling.

Stea

mja

cket

edke

ttles

offe

rfa

ster

cook

ing

times

beca

use

two

third

sof

the

cook

ing

surfa

ceco

mes

into

cont

act

with

the

prod

uct

ata

muc

hlo

wer

tem

pera

ture

.In

addi

tion,

accu

rate

tem

pera

ture

cont

rols

elim

inat

eco

nsta

ntm

onito

ring

and

rese

tting

.Fo

ods

won

’tbu

rnor

scor

chan

dyo

uca

nho

ldpr

oduc

tat

asi

mm

erw

ithou

tov

erco

okin

g.Ti

lting

mod

els

mak

espr

oduc

than

dlin

gsi

mpl

e.C

lean

upis

easy

sinc

efo

odis

n’tb

urne

dor

over

cook

edlik

e st

ock

pots

.

The

40ga

llon

kettl

eis

equi

pped

with

(3)

sepa

rate

six

gallo

nba

sket

sth

atha

ngin

side

the

kettl

ew

hile

blan

chin

gyo

urpr

oduc

e.M

ost

vege

tabl

esar

ebl

anch

edfo

r2-

3m

inut

es,

pota

toes

for5

min

utes

.Onc

eth

ebl

anch

ing

isco

mpl

eted

the

bask

ets

are

lifte

dou

tof

the

kettl

ean

dch

illed

inon

eof

the

thre

eba

sins

inth

eth

ree

basi

nsi

nk.

Assu

min

gyo

uha

veex

traba

sket

sfil

led

and

read

yfo

rbl

anch

ing

itis

safe

toas

sum

eth

atap

prox

imat

ely

200

gallo

nsof

prod

uce

or14

0ga

llons

of p

otat

oes

can

be b

lanc

hed

per h

our u

tiliz

ing

one

40

gallo

nke

ttle.

1ga

llon

ofra

wpr

oduc

teq

uals

appr

oxim

atel

y3.

5to

4lb

sof

raw

prod

uctf

ora

tota

lof7

00lb

sto

800

lbs

offin

ishe

d pr

oduc

t.

$8,2

22

Con

tinuo

us F

eed

Food

Pro

cess

ors

Con

tinuo

us-fe

edfo

odpr

oces

sors

lets

oper

ator

ssl

ice,

dice

and

chop

fast

erw

hile

still

deliv

erin

gco

nsis

tent

resu

lts.

Larg

e-si

zefe

edho

pper

sel

imin

ate

prec

uttin

gan

den

able

the

proc

essi

ngof

aw

ide

varie

tyof

prod

ucts

,inc

ludi

ngco

ntin

uous

cutti

ngof

long

prod

ucts

such

as

carr

ots

and

cucu

mbe

rs.

Hob

art F

P150

(Hop

per S

ize-

Full)

: 840

lbs/

hour

$3,3

15

X-G

reen

Pro

duce

Saf

ety

Syst

em

The

X-G

reen

™Sy

stem

auto

mat

ical

lyin

ject

sa

was

hso

lutio

nin

toa

cold

,ag

itate

dba

than

dre

mov

espe

stic

ides

,wax

,soi

l,an

dba

cter

iafro

mpr

oduc

e.Th

eX-

Gre

en™

Syst

emis

anen

tire

food

safe

typr

ogra

m,

com

plet

ew

ithre

porti

ngan

dtra

ceab

ility

feat

ures

topr

otec

t the

hea

lth a

nd s

afet

y of

you

r cus

tom

ers.

Vege

tabl

essu

chas

broc

coli,

caul

iflow

er,

carr

ots,

pepp

ers

and

squa

shre

quire

onav

erag

ea

2m

inut

ew

ash

cycl

ein

the

X-G

reen

Mac

hine

.The

capa

city

ofth

em

achi

neis

1ca

seof

prod

uct

per

rinse

.Ba

sed

onav

erag

ing

two

rinse

cycl

esev

ery

5m

inut

esyo

urpr

oduc

tion

rate

wou

ldbe

24ca

ses

ofpr

oduc

t per

hou

r, or

192

cas

es p

er 8

hou

r shi

ft.R

oot

vege

tabl

esre

quire

a7-

8m

inut

erin

sepe

riod,

whi

chw

ould

aver

age

7-8

case

spe

rho

uror

appr

oxim

atel

y60

case

s of

pro

duct

per

8 h

our s

hift.

FitA

ntiB

acte

rialF

ruit

&Ve

geta

ble

Was

h=

$130

-$15

0pe

r5

gallo

nco

ntai

ner.

Each

cont

aine

rw

illse

rve

appr

oxim

atel

y20

days

(bas

edon

a8-

hour

prod

uctio

nsc

hedu

le).

Cos

tpe

rda

y/pe

r5

gallo

n co

ntai

ner =

$7/

day.

**Pr

oduc

t Pot

entia

l: Pr

oces

sing

and

free

zin

Gre

en P

eas,

Bro

ccol

i, C

arro

ts, a

nd C

orn

on th

e C

obs

(pot

entia

lly c

orn

kern

els)

*Mod

els

are

not c

usto

miz

ed w

ith p

rodu

ce p

roce

ssin

g eq

uipm

ent a

nd re

pres

ents

gen

eral

pric

ing

asso

ciat

ed w

ith m

obile

com

mer

cial

kitc

hens

.

Mod

ular

Foo

d H

ub E

quip

men

t

Mod

ular

Foo

d H

ub C

osts

and

Equ

ipm

ent

Mod

ular

Foo

d H

ub C

ost

Opt

iona

l Fea

ture

*Pro

duce

Pro

cess

ing

Uni

t Equ

ipm

ent:

Larg

e Pr

ep S

inks

, Buf

falo

/"Bow

l" C

hopp

ers,

Con

tinuo

us F

eed

Food

Pro

cess

ors,

Lar

ge S

team

Jac

kete

d Ke

ttles

, Lar

ge Ic

e Va

ts, W

alk-

in fr

eeze

r, Bl

ast C

hille

rs, C

ook

Chi

ll Sy

stem

.

Proc

esse

d

Descrip

tion:

http://w

ww.hob

artcorp.com/produ

cts

/foo

d‐prep

/foo

d‐processors/con

tinuo

us‐fe

ed/

Specs:

http://w

ww.web

stau

rantstore.com/sp

ecshee

ts/425

FP15

01.pdf

Descrip

tion/Spec:

http://berkelm

etro.com

/spe

cs/berkel/4

50a

‐550

a.pd

f

Descrip

tion/Spec:

http://w

ww.dukem

fg.com

/produ

cts/x‐

gree

n.aspx?category=WEB

SITE

_SUB_

PRO

DUCE

_XGRE

EN

Descrip

tion/Spec:

http://w

ww.dukem

fg.com

/produ

cts/x‐

gree

n.aspx?category=WEB

SITE

_SUB_

PRO

DUCE

_XGRE

EN

Appendix C.VII: Documents

72

SCHOOLFOODANDSAFETYPROTOCOLForDPS2012

FoodProductionProcedures‐PersonalHygiene

1) Handwashing‐Allemployeeswillwashhandsthoroughlyatthefarmsitebeforeparticipatinginproductionactivitiesandalsoafterlunchorbathroombreaks.

2) Employeeswillusebathroomsattheschoolsortraveltoanearbybathroomandwillwashhandsthoroughlyafterwards.

3) Opencutswillbecoveredwithabandageandgloveandtheglovewillbereplacedifitgetstorn.

4) Ifanemployeeisshowingvisiblesignsofillness,diarrhealdisease,infectionsoropenwounds,theemployeemustreporttothesupervisorandwillnotparticipateinproductionactivities.Thesupervisorneedstoverifythattheemployeeishealthybeforegoingbacktowork.

5) Nofood,drinkorsmokingisallowedinthefields.Allbreaksaretobetakenawayfromthefieldandwheretheproduceishandled.

6) Applicationofanypesticideorherbicidewillfolloworganicprotocolswithproperlytrainedpersonnel.

FoodProductionProcedures‐Harvest

1) EmployeesworkingonsitemustadheretoPersonalHygienestandards(above).

2) AllHarvestBinsaremadeofhardplasticthatiseasilycleanablewithsmoothsurfacesandarenotporousandmustbewashedbeforeuseforharvest.

3) AllequipmentusedduringharvestingandtransportationistobecleanedandsanitizedusingFDAapprovedproductsbyfarmstaff.

4) Equipmentshouldnotbeusedforanyotherpurposeduringharvestoranyothertime.

5) Ifnecessary,employeeswillbeissuedapairofdisposableharvestingglovestobeusedduringharvest.Theglovesprotecttheemployee’shandsandhelptoeliminateanycontaminantsthatmightpassfromthehandstotheproduce.

6) Ifanemployeeisinjuredwithacutduringharvest,employeemusttakethefollowingsteps:a. Stopharvestingimmediately.b. Disposeofanyproducethatmayhavebeencontaminatedwithblood.c. Attendtowound‐washandbandage.d. Ifwoundisminorandbandaged,employeemaycontinuetoharvest

wearingadisposableglove.e. Ifwoundissevere,employeewillseekmedicalattentionandstop

harvesting.f. Onlypotablewatertobeusedforfieldwashingproduce.g. Usecompanyprovidedhoseifconnectingtohosebib.

Appendix C.VIII: Documents

73

FoodProductionProcedures‐WashingProduce1) Producewillberinsedinasanitizedtubofclean,cool,potablewater.2) Producewithvisiblesignsofdirt,suchasrootvegetables,willbehand‐

rubbedtoremoveasmuchdirtaspossiblewithoutdamagingtheouterskin.3) Leafygreenproducewillberinsedtwice,intwoseparatewashbinsand

drainedbeforepackaging.4) Allproduceafterrinsingwillbedrainedbeforetransporttothecustomer.5) Washwaterwillbechangedwhenvisiblydirty,whennoticeablywarntothe

touchorafterithasbeenusedtowashtwovarietiesofproduce.6) Drycleaningmethods,includingbrushing,scrapingandblowingair,maybe

usedwithwater‐sensitiveproduce,suchasberries,orproducewhereatemperaturedifferentialmayexistbetweentheproduceandthewater,suchasmelons.

7) Cleanandsanitizewater‐contactsurfacessuchasdumptanksandwashtanksasoftenasnecessarytoensuretheprotectionoftheproduceagainstpossiblecontamination.

FoodProductionProcedures‐Packaging

1) Allsurfacesaretobekeptcleanandclearofdebris.2) Onlypotablewatertobeusedforfieldproduce.3) Allbinsmustbewashedtobeusedforfieldproduce.4) Mostproduceisdelivereddirectlyinopenbins,sonoadditionalpackagingis

required.5) Producewillbedeliveredinpreviouslycleanedandsanitizedcontainerand

placedonacleantarporpalletinthevehicle.6) Producedeliveredinbagswillbepackagedinsanitarybagsprovided.7) Produceharvested,packagedanddeliveredisthoroughlytracked:

a. DateofHarvestb. LocationofHarvestc. Volumeofeachproductharvested.d. Lotnumberisassignedtopackage.e. Lotnumberistrackedtoshowwhereproducewasharvestedandwhich

clienttheproduceasbeendeliveredanddateofdelivery.FoodProductionProcedure:Distribution

1) Companyvehiclesareusedfordelivery.2) Vehiclesaremaintainedandcleanedonadefinedschedule.3) Employeesdeliveringproducemustadheretopersonalhygienestandards.4) Visualinspectionofthevehicleisdonetoinsurethattherearenoapparent

contaminants.5) Producewillnotbeinthetemperaturedangerzoneforlongerthan3½

hoursfromharvesttodeliverytotheDPSwarehouseandplacementintheDPSwarehousecooler.Producewillberefrigeratedfor24hoursbeforebeingdistributedtotheschools.

6) Producewillberejectedif:a. Thereareanysignsofmold.


74

b. Therearesignsofinsectorrodentactivity.c. Therearepuncturemarksorcracksthatmayallowpathogenstoenter

theproduceitem.d. Theitems(particularlylettuce,leafygreensorgreenonions)havevisible

signsofdecayordamage.e. Theitemisunusuallylimp.

7) Foodsthatareotherwisedeemedunacceptable.8) DPSwarehousestaffareresponsibleforcheckingintheproducedeliveryand

notingwhichproduceitemswerereceived,whicharerejectedandwhyonthedeliveryticketorinvoice.


75

Type of ImprovementHKHS -acreage

HKHS - Fully Funded 11'

3.5% in per year

Soft Costs(18%)

ConstructionContingency

(10%)

Sub - Total Soft Costs + Cont. TOTAL

School-Based Fields8 DPS School Sites 10 $350,000.00 $362,250 $65,205 $36,225 $101,430 $463,680

Vacant Fields2 Vacant Sites 10 $350,000.00 $362,250 $65,205 $36,225 $101,430 $463,680

Modular Food Hubs1 for FNS 1 $110,000.00 $113,850 $20,493 $11,385 $31,878 $145,728

Kitchen Improvements0 $641,900.00 $664,367 $119,586 $66,437 $186,023 $850,3890 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $00 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Capital Improvements

$1,923,477

HKHS Seasonal Fresh Production Land Bond Costs 4.23.2012

Capital Improvements for Land Only

$927,360

Total Bond Request

$1,923,477

Grand Total

Appendix C.IX: Documents

76

TCH

F - H

KH

S ST

UD

Y**

Land

nee

ded

to p

rodu

ce 1

00%

of v

olum

e of

sel

ecte

d pr

oduc

ts b

ased

on

DPS

usa

geFR

ESH

USA

GE

BA

SED

ON

SEA

SON

ALI

TY

SELE

CTE

D C

RO

PSD

PS U

sage

Ann

ual

(lbs)

Fre

sh

DPS

Usa

ge A

nnua

l (lb

s) S

EASO

NA

L FR

ESH

(tota

l * p

erce

nt)

% o

f ALL

fres

h to

tal

base

d on

SE

ASO

NA

LITY

DPS

Usa

ge

Annu

al (l

bs)

FRO

ZEN

DPS

Usa

ge

Annu

al (l

bs)

CA

NN

ED

DPS

Usa

ge

Annu

al (l

bs)

TOTA

L PR

OC

ESSE

D

(can

ned

& fr

ozen

)

DPS

Usa

ge

Annu

al (l

bs)

TOTA

L

Who

lesa

le

Prod

uctio

n (g

ross

$)

FRES

H

Who

lesa

le

Prod

uctio

n (g

ross

$)

PRO

CES

SED

(RA

W)

DPS

cur

rent

Pr

icin

g(g

ross

$)

FRES

H

Aver

age

Who

lesa

le

DPS

cur

rent

(gro

ss $

)PR

OC

ESSE

D

(FR

OZE

N)

Aru

gula

88

100%

8.00

$30

$30

Bas

il - I

talia

n la

rge

leaf

(Can

ned

sauc

e)32

932

910

0%33

333

366

2.00

$2,2

21$2

,248

$2,9

61$2

83B

eans

- gr

een,

bus

h30

3010

0%61

,824

61,8

2461

,854

.00

$68

$139

,104

$68

$52,

550

Bok

Cho

y90

9010

0%90

.00

$236

$236

Bro

ccol

i (In

clud

ing

froze

n m

ixed

veg

)62

,730

18,8

1930

%5,

396

5,39

624

,215

.00

$51,

235

$14,

691

$51,

188

$5,4

68C

abba

ge -

gree

n9,

870

2,66

527

%2,

664.

90$3

,797

$3,7

97C

abba

ge -

red

18,8

371,

884

10%

1,88

3.70

$2,6

84$2

,684

Cab

bage

- S

avoy

210

210

100%

210.

00$2

99$2

99C

agga

be -

Nap

a18

018

010

0%18

0.00

$405

$405

Can

talo

upe

102,

445

68,6

3867

%68

,638

.15

$102

,957

$102

,957

Car

rot -

nan

te74

,640

20,8

9928

%4,

268

4,26

825

,167

.20

$19,

593

$4,0

01$2

2,78

0$4

,441

Cau

liflo

wer

38,0

006,

840

18%

6,84

0.00

$20,

110

$26,

813

Cel

ery

41,6

503,

749

9%3,

748.

50$7

,085

$9,4

46C

ilant

ro (C

anne

d sa

lsa)

00

2,02

82,

028

2,02

8.00

$0$6

,084

$1,7

24C

orn

- sw

eet

3535

100%

53,6

1028

,938

82,5

4882

,583

.00

$26

$185

,733

$26

$77,

368

Cuc

umbe

r - s

licin

g57

,675

18,4

5632

%18

,456

.00

$20,

763

$24,

916

Gar

lic (S

alsa

& s

auce

)0

674

674

674.

00$0

$506

$573

Hon

eyde

w77

,050

53,9

3570

%53

,935

.00

$80,

903

$80,

903

Kal

e96

9610

0%96

.00

$180

$180

Lettu

ce -

iceb

erg

38,6

4012

,751

33%

12,7

51.2

0$1

9,12

7$1

9,12

7Le

ttuce

- M

escu

lin40

,520

19,8

5549

%19

,854

.80

$74,

456

$79,

419

Lettu

ce -

rom

aine

46,5

3614

,426

31%

14,4

26.1

6$3

2,45

9$3

2,45

9O

nion

- gr

een

436

118

27%

117.

72$8

8$8

8O

nion

- ye

llow

(Sal

sa &

sau

ce)

12,7

253,

690

29%

4,89

04,

890

8,58

0.25

$5,5

35$7

,335

$5,5

35$4

,157

Par

sley

- Ita

lian

flat l

eaf

21

60%

1.20

$5$5

Pea

s80

8010

0%24

,680

24,6

8024

,760

.00

$240

$74,

040

$240

$19,

153

Pep

per -

Gre

en B

ell

11,0

103,

633

33%

3,63

3.30

$5,4

50$3

,197

Pep

per -

Jal

apen

o (In

clud

ing

cann

ed s

alsa

)0

32,2

5432

,254

32,2

54.0

0$0

$48,

381

$23,

810

Pep

per -

Pob

lano

(Chi

lis)

012

,000

12,0

0012

,000

.00

$0$1

8,00

0$1

0,20

0P

eppe

r - R

ed B

ell

548

263

48%

263.

04$3

95$3

97P

eppe

r - Y

ello

w/O

rang

e B

ell

4,03

64,

036

100%

4,03

6.00

$6,0

54$4

,964

Pot

ato

- bak

ing

33,8

009,

802

29%

9,80

2.00

$22,

055

$22,

055

Spi

nach

16,6

406,

822

41%

6,82

2.40

$17,

909

$13,

645

Squ

ash

- Win

ter,

But

tern

ut, C

arni

val,

Del

icat

a5,

498

1,97

936

%1,

979.

28$2

,227

$1,3

06S

quas

h - Z

ucch

ini,

Gre

en, P

lato

4,97

51,

791

36%

1,79

1.00

$2,3

51$1

,487

Tom

atill

os10

1010

0%10

.00

$15

$15

Tom

ato

- Lar

ge, C

eleb

rity

(Dic

ed, s

alsa

, sau

ce)

52,8

5915

,858

30%

119,

916

119,

916

135,

773.

70$2

3,78

7$1

79,8

74$3

2,98

4$1

05,3

20To

mat

o - S

mal

l, C

herr

y61

280

13%

79.5

6$2

69$1

28W

ater

mel

on74

,676

49,2

8666

%49

,286

.16

$27,

723

$25,

629

Tota

ls:

8274

7834

1,34

4.22

87,9

5426

2,85

735

0,81

169

2,15

5.22

$552

,734

$679

,996

$572

,370

$305

,047

Acre

s:

USA

GE

IN P

OU

ND

SVA

LUE

Assu

mpt

ions

• A

ssum

ing

mix

ed v

eget

able

s co

nsis

ting

of e

qual

par

ts b

rocc

oli,

corn

, car

rots

, pea

s• A

ssum

ing

4.5

lbs

of c

orn

in th

e hu

sk w

ill e

qual

1qu

art o

f cut

ker

nels

.• 1

qua

rt o

f cut

ker

nels

equ

als

1.5

lbs.

(4.5

lbs/

1.5

lbs=

3) M

ultip

ly k

erne

ls lb

s by

3 fo

r cob

lbs

need

ed.

• Use

d 7l

bs o

f pro

duce

per

#10

can

- av

erag

e am

ount

per

info

rmat

ion

prov

ided

• Bas

ic to

mat

o sa

uce

and

sals

a re

cipi

es u

sed

to c

alcu

late

vol

umes

for t

otal

s

PRO

DU

CTI

ON

PLA

NN

ING

NO

TE:

Estim

ated

num

bers

bas

ed o

n pe

rform

ance

of c

rops

on

othe

r site

s an

d cu

rren

t mar

ket v

alue

for p

rodu

ce.

Num

bers

sub

ject

to c

hang

e ba

sed

on s

peci

fic s

ite c

ondi

tions

, wea

ther

con

ditio

ns a

nd m

arke

t.

NO

TE:

SEAS

ON

AL F

RES

H p

rodu

ctio

n is

app

roxi

mat

ely

40%

TSR Ag

ristructio

n, LLC

8/9/20

12

Appendix C.X: Documents

77

SELE

CTE

D C

RO

PS

sq ft

nee

ded

(60%

pro

duct

ion

and

25%

cro

p ro

tatio

n)SE

ASO

NA

L FR

ESH

sq ft

nee

ded

(60%

pro

duct

ion

and

25%

cr

op ro

tatio

n)PR

OC

ESSE

D

sq ft

nee

ded

(60%

pro

duct

ion

and

25%

cro

p ro

tatio

n)TO

TAL

PR

OD

UC

TIO

N(lb

s)SE

ASO

NA

LFR

ESH

(tota

l * p

erce

nt)

PR

OD

UC

TIO

N(lb

s)ac

coun

ts fo

r w

aste

dur

ing

proc

essi

ngFR

OZE

N

PR

OD

UC

TIO

N(lb

s)ac

coun

ts fo

r was

te

durin

g pr

oces

sing

CA

NN

ED

PR

OD

CU

TIO

NA

nnua

l (lb

s) T

OTA

LPR

OC

ESSE

D(c

anne

d &

froz

en)

PR

OD

UC

TIO

NA

nnua

l (lb

s)

TOTA

LA

rugu

la63

.77

63.7

78

8B

asil

- Ita

lian

larg

e le

af (C

anne

d sa

uce)

2,36

0.22

2,38

8.91

4,74

9.13

329

333

333

662

Bea

ns -

gree

n, b

ush

49.5

011

4,25

0.75

114,

300.

2530

69,2

4369

,243

69,2

73B

ok C

hoy

185.

6318

5.63

9090

Bro

ccol

i (In

clud

ing

froze

n m

ixed

veg

)41

,401

.80

16,5

00.9

757

,902

.77

18,8

197,

500

7,50

026

,319

Cab

bage

- gr

een

1,46

5.70

1,46

5.70

2,66

52,

665

Cab

bage

- re

d1,

036.

041,

036.

041,

884

1,88

4C

abba

ge -

Sav

oy11

5.50

115.

5021

021

0C

agga

be -

Nap

a59

4.00

594.

0018

018

0C

anta

loup

e22

6,50

5.90

226,

505.

9068

,638

68,6

38C

arro

t - n

ante

34,4

83.6

88,

309.

8042

,793

.48

20,8

995,

036

5,03

625

,935

Cau

liflo

wer

5,64

3.00

5,64

3.00

6,84

06,

840

Cel

ery

6,41

6.00

6,41

6.00

3,74

93,

749

Cila

ntro

(Can

ned

sals

a)0.

0027

,885

.00

27,8

85.0

00

2,02

82,

028

2,02

8C

orn

- sw

eet

105.

0074

2,93

2.00

743,

037.

0035

160,

830

86,8

1424

7,64

424

7,67

9C

ucum

ber -

slic

ing

8,45

9.00

8,45

9.00

18,4

5618

,456

Gar

lic (S

alsa

& s

auce

)0.

002,

780.

252,

780.

250

674

674

674

Hon

eyde

w17

7,98

5.50

177,

985.

5053

,935

53,9

35K

ale

132.

0013

2.00

9696

Lettu

ce -

iceb

erg

30,0

56.4

030

,056

.40

12,7

5112

,751

Lettu

ce -

Mes

culin

65,5

20.8

465

,520

.84

19,8

5519

,855

Lettu

ce -

rom

aine

47,6

06.3

347

,606

.33

14,4

2614

,426

Oni

on -

gree

n97

1.19

971.

1911

811

8O

nion

- ye

llow

(Sal

sa &

sau

ce)

2,02

9.64

2,68

9.50

4,71

9.14

3,69

04,

890

4,89

08,

580

Par

sley

- Ita

lian

flat l

eaf

6.60

6.60

11

Pea

s13

2.00

40,7

22.0

040

,854

.00

8024

,680

24,6

8024

,760

Pep

per -

Gre

en B

ell

4,99

5.79

4,99

5.79

3,63

33,

633

Pep

per -

Jal

apen

o(In

clud

ing

cann

ed s

alsa

0.00

52,3

32.1

252

,332

.12

038

,060

38,0

6038

,060

Pep

per -

Pob

lano

(Chi

lis)

0.00

19,4

70.0

019

,470

.00

014

,160

14,1

6014

,160

Pep

per -

Red

Bel

l36

1.68

361.

6826

326

3P

eppe

r - Y

ello

w/O

rang

e B

ell

5,54

9.50

5,54

9.50

4,03

64,

036

Pot

ato

- bak

ing

16,1

73.3

016

,173

.30

9,80

29,

802

Spi

nach

22,5

13.9

222

,513

.92

6,82

26,

822

Squ

ash

- Win

ter,

But

tern

ut, C

arni

val,

Del

ic8,

164.

538,

164.

531,

979

1,97

9S

quas

h - Z

ucch

ini,

Gre

en, P

lato

1,47

7.58

1,47

7.58

1,79

11,

791

Tom

atill

os82

.50

82.5

010

10To

mat

o - L

arge

, Cel

ebrit

y(D

iced

, sal

sa, s

a26

,165

.21

197,

861.

4022

4,02

6.61

15,8

5811

9,91

611

9,91

613

5,77

4To

mat

o - S

mal

l, C

herr

y13

1.27

131.

2780

80W

ater

mel

on45

,178

.98

45,1

78.9

849

,286

49,2

860.

00To

tals

:78

4,11

9.46

1,22

8,12

2.69

2,01

2,24

2.16

341,

344.

2219

8,04

733

6,11

853

4,16

487

5,50

9A

cres

:18

.00

28.1

946

.19

PRO

DU

CTI

ON

IN P

OU

ND

SA

CR

ES N

EED

ED

TSR Ag

ristructio

n, LLC

8/9/20

12

Appendix C.X: Documents

78

Healthy Kids, Healthy Scores Bios

Lois Brink (UCD)Lois Brink holds a Bachelors of Environmental Design and a Masters in Landscape Architecture from the University of Pennsylvania. Prior to joining UCD in 1988, Professor Brink spent ten years in private practice in Philadelphia and Denver. During her twenty years at UCD she spent five years as department chair of the landscape architecture program. Her research interests have spanned a diverse array of landscape interests including mine land reclamation, new community development, and ecological design. Learning Landscapes, a 49 million dollar initiative that has improved 97 public schoolyards for community and educational use, has been her primary research during the past 15 years.

Colorado Center for Community Development (CCCD) – University of Colorado DenverCCCD is a research center that is committed to collaborating with communities to improve the places we live, work and play. We partner with rural and urban communities, conducting applied research to enhance the built environment, promote civic engagement, and create healthier, more sustainable communities. Our multidisciplinary approach is rooted in shared knowledge and collaboration, and bringing the “top down” and the “bottom up”. We employ a diverse teaching, research, and learning environment in which graduate students gain valuable design and community development experience, while communities receive the planning, design, and civic engagement assistance they need to support more sustainable, healthy lifestyles. CCCD has two complimentary areas of expertise, Healthy Communities and Design and Planning. CCCD conducts applied research in the areas of environmental health and community development for urban centers, rural and small towns, and counties within Colorado. Through our programs, we employ a multidisciplinary platform to build sustainable, healthy communities by developing partnerships in business, economic development, public administration, social justice and public health.

Erin Fiene (CCCD)Erin Fiene has a Masters in Urban and Regional Planning (MURP) from the University of Colorado Denver and is currently a Project Manager and Evaluations Coordinator for the Colorado Center for Community Development. She specializes in the interconnectedness of health and the built environment. She works on various studies/projects aimed at understanding, evaluating and creating healthier environments, educational spaces, and equitable systems of access pertaining to nutritious food and physical activity. As an urban system analyst, gardener, and researcher, she aims to equip communities with options and the ability to make healthier lifestyle choices.

Real Food Colorado (RFCO)Real Food Colorado (RFCO) is a local food group focused on the development of infrastructures, processes and systems that allows meaningful connections between small to mid-sized producers and their institutional purchasers. RFCO’s end goal is to develop a network of various collaborative partners to improve health and nutrition of Colorado citizens and ensure that our local farms prosper and thrive for generations to come while developing economic benefit for all Coloradans.

Julia Erlbaum (RFCO)Julia Erlbaum’s entrance into the farm to table arena was ultimately motivated by her gut. Utilizing her natural entrepreneurial instincts and parlayed her 20 years of corporate business development and management, marketing, and communication skills and established Real Food Colorado (RFCO), a Colorado-based local food system development organization addressing infrastructure and processes needs in Farm to School (FTS) and Farm to Institution (FTI) marketplaces. For the past two years, RFCO has collaborated with Colorado school districts in FTS program development, specifically in creating sustainable and effective methods allowing access and use of more locally grown and raised foods in the school meal system.

Appendix D: Bios

7979

Andy Nowak (RFCO)For the past 10+ years, Andrew Nowak has been the Project Director for Slow Food Denver’s Seed to Table School Food Program. He has been involved in the growth of the STT program from four school gardens to more than 50 school sites. Chef Nowak has helped to develop a Youth Farmers’ Market program that appeared in 32 school sites last year and received funding from the CO Department of Agriculture to implement the YFM model in food deserts in Denver. In addition, Andrew developed the protocols and procedures for the Garden to Cafeteria program that allows students to grow produce for the school lunch program. For the past four years, Andrew has been the community partner for Denver Public School’s School Food Learning Lab, helping the District source local foods for the cafeteria, to train the school kitchen staff how to scratch cook and to implement salad bars throughout the district’s cafeterias. In 2011, Andrew has joined with Real Food Colorado to promote the development of Farm to School programs throughout Colorado. In 2010, Andrew was appointed to the Colorado Farm to School Task Force. On the National level, Andrew is a Hall of Fame Chef with Share Our Strength’s Cooking Matters program and was one of 6 chefs invited to the White House to help develop the Chefs Move to Schools Program. Chef Nowak has been a culinary professional for over 30 years. He earned his Ph.D. in Psychology at the University of Iowa. Andrew is supported by his wife Lisa of 26 years and his activities are tolerated by his two children, Nick (20) and Sarah (17).

Jeffrey L. John Jeffrey John is a recent graduate of the University of Denver, Sturm College of Law where he received his J.D. and a Certificate in Environmental and Natural Resources Law. Jeffrey specializes in agriculture policy, urban sustainability, as well as health and nutrition policy.

Agriburbia® In today’s climate of soaring gas prices, international conflicts, concerns about food availability, quality and security, there are many opportunities emerging in sustainable land development. Agriburbia® re-integrates food production into the human habitat while engaging all the current sustainable development best practices. Agriburbia® achieves this by implementing an economic development model that considers not only transportation and shelter but food and nutritional supply as well.

Agriburbia® integrates food by focusing on agriculture as the centerpiece of both new and existing communities. This fully sustainable concept improves quality of life by combining the best aspects of rural living with the advantages of urban conveniences and cultures. The result is improved agriculture, healthier people, enhanced sustainable development practices and the enrichment of the residents, tenants, and guests with these Agriburbia® mixed-up developments.

Matthew (Quint) Redmond (Agriburbia)Matthew C. “Quint” Redmond holds a Bachelor of Science from Tulane University, a Master of Urban and Regional Planning and a Master of Landscape Architecture from the University of Colorado, Denver . He is an expert in integrating food production as an integral element in community design, social networks and the financial viability of the neighborhood. Agriburbia is currently overseeing the DPS urban farm pilot program.

Jennifer Redmond (Agriburbia)Jennifer has a Master of Urban and Regional Planning (M.U.R.P.) from the University of Colorado – Denver and a Bachelor of Science, in Biology with a Minor in Environmental Planning from Bloomsburg University of Pennsylvania. Ms. Redmond is the co-founder of TSR Agristruction and Agriburbia®. She grew up on a farm in Pennsylvania and moved to Colorado to attend the University of Colorado Denver where she earned her Masters in Urban and Regional Planning degree. While attending UCD she met her husband and business partner Quint Redmond. Together they have created a company that focuses on creating the infrastructure for intensive, local, all-natural farming. Ms. Redmond manages the farm operations for the company which currently consists of 10+ acres of urban farms up and down the Front Range. Management of the farms includes everything from selecting seed, growing starts, planting the fields, harvest, sales and delivery to restaurants, institutions, and individuals. Her passion for growing healthy, natural produce stems in part from her efforts to provide the best food for her family which includes two young boys who love to help in the field!

Appendix D: Bios