Transcript Welcome! Community Facility Meeting

Welcome!
Board Work
Session
Monday, March 30, 2015
5:30-7:30
DOB Aspen
Community Process Goal
• Great Falls Public Schools is
embarking on a facility planning
process to ensure that our school
buildings are viable educational
institutions for many years to come.
• The Board desires community input as
it embarks upon this process.
To Date and Beyond…
2009: Facilities Task Force
2011-2012:
GFHS Master Plan Task Force
$8.1M McKinstry Energy Project
2013:
GFHS Funding Sub-Committee
November 4, 2013: Board Work Session to Review GFHS
November 11, 2013: Board directive for a community process for discussion about all buildings
2014-2015:
STEP 1: Communicate Facility Concerns…February 25 (Staff and Community)
SURVEY RESULTS
STEP 2: Generate Ideas to Address Facility Concerns
Community Informational Meetings:
Monday, March 2 – 5:30–7:30 pm – Roosevelt gym
Tuesday, March 10 – 5:30–7:30 pm – Longfellow cafeteria
Wednesday, March 25 – 5:30-7:30 pm – GFH Auditorium
STEP 3: Discuss Ideas and Next Steps
Board Work Session:
Monday, March 30, 5:30-7:30 - Aspen
STEP 4: Conduct Public Survey?
Hire a survey consultant
April
STEP 5: Determine Next Steps
Board Work Session:
Monday, May 11, 6:30 – 8:30 – Aspen (After Board meeting)
Tonight’s Agenda
• Reviews of information gained from community
meetings
• Public Comment
• Board Planning
o Pros and Cons
o Options
• Public Comment
• Survey?
• Next Steps
IDEAS TO ADDRESS
INCREASING
ENROLLMENT AND
PRESCHOOL
• Assistant Superintendents Ruth Uecker & Tom Moore
• Director of Student Services Dale Lambert
• Director of Curriculum & Instruction Chris Olszewski
Increasing Enrollment Concerns:
 Projected Increased Enrollment trends
 Classroom size– “Functional Capacity” and overloaded classrooms
o Enrollment increase is most urgent in Elementary schools. Middle and
High Schools have capacity to handle projected growth.
 Grade level configuration of schools (PK-12)
o Neighborhood Schools Concept
o The current middle school team concepts are working well
o Maturity level and behavior of students must be considered
Elementary Enrollment K-6
Elementary Enrollment
Grades K-6
5900
5800
5700
5600
5500
5400
5300
5200
5100
Overload Trend
K-6 Overloaded Classrooms
90
80
80
70
60
60
62
56
50
50
50
38
40
30
20
10
0
2008-09
2009-10
2010-11
2011-12
2012-13
2013-14
2014-15
Kindergarten Enrollment
Kindergarten Enrollment
920
900
892
884
880
865
860
851
862
851
840
820
812
808
798
800
800
802
793
780
766
760
740
720
700
2002-2003 2003-2004 2004-2005 2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-2013 2013-2014 2014-2015
Projected Kindergarten Enrollment
Numbers
• 2014: 892 Actual Enrollment
• 2015: 871
• 2016: 924
• 2017: 863
• 2018: 886
• 2019: 930
• 2020: 930
School
CJ
LC
LN
LF
+100HS
LY
ML
MO
MV
RV
RS
SC
SS
VV
WT
WH
SK
EMS
NMS
CMR
GFH
PGEC
Totals
Potential
Classroom Accredited
s
Max Capacity
22
554
26
654
20
503
29
26
26
20
19
21
18
21
22
21
33
17
19
45
42
73
95
59
674
730
654
654
503
478
528
453
528
554
528
830
428
478
1350
1260
2190
2850
1770
18477
Functional
Overload Capacity:
Oct 1
Plus/Minus Plus/Minus
Max
70%
70% Enrollment Functional
70%
Capacity Accredited Overload (2014)
Capacity Overload
642
388
450
310
78
140
758
458
531
433
25
98
583
353
409
432
-79
-23
846
758
758
583
554
612
525
612
642
612
962
496
554
1350
1260
2190
2850
1770
19917
511
458
458
353
335
370
318
370
388
370
581
300
335
945
882
1533
1995
1239
12940
593
531
531
409
388
429
368
429
450
429
674
348
388
945
882
1533
1995
1239
13951
416
397
482
314
326
448
313
433
452
403
498
257
102
729
754
1445
1369
217
10530
95
61
-24
39
9
-78
5
-63
-64
-33
83
43
233
216
128
88
626
1022
2410
177
134
49
95
62
-19
55
-4
-2
26
176
91
286
216
128
88
626
1022
3421
Increasing Enrollment Ideas:










Grade Configuration Options:
o Pre-3, 4-6, 7-8, 9-12 option
o K-2, 3-4, 5-6, 7-8, high school
o 6th grade in one location
o Grades 5-6 one location
o Grade 6-8 configuration(
school within school
concepts for 6th graders)
o Grades 7, 8, 9 configuration
Boundary changes
Keeping neighborhood schools
o Students, staff build
relationships earlier
o Students with siblings provide
support in many areas (i.e. walk
together to school)
o Transportation/travel issues will
be reduced by being close by
o Small neighborhood schools
desirable
Build on to Meadowlark
Build on to Sunnyside
Build on to East and North Middle
Schools
Open Skyline as an elementary
o Build a wing onto Skyline
Open Lowell as elementary
Repurpose Roosevelt
Build new school buildings




o Rebuild Longfellow was
discussed
o Build elementary south of
Meadowlark
o Build on the Little Russell
location
o Building new high school
 Schools share stadium
 Share swimming pool
 CTE programs
rd
Open 3 Middle School
o West – was built as a middle
school
o Move West elementary to
Skyline building(will require
addition)
o Paris -Alternative/middle
school
o Co-habitat middle
school with
alternative school
o Skyline – Middle School
(would need remodeling)
Mega Elementary Buildings – 5
buildings in one (1500+ students)
Repurpose GFHS to accommodate
administration offices and other
programs
DOB to become pre-school
Questions:






How does Great Falls compare to the growth rates in Montana, Pacific NW?
What configurations are best for student growth and development?
What properties are available for building?
- the district has a number of smaller properties
- not all are conducive for school locations
Early Edge – if it passes into law, what would we do for Pre-K increases?
When moving 6th grade back down to elementary 10 years ago, how did the
environment change?
- it did change dynamics of behaviors and atmosphere
- it also showed gains in growth academically
How would moving 6th grade up affect sports? (i.e. Heisey vs. school sponsored)
Pre-K Concerns:



Greater concern about 4 year olds mixed in with older students as compared to moving 6th grade to
middle school
Putting Pre-K back into schools wouldn’t’ be the best approach because many elementary schools
don’t have facilities designed for 3-4 year olds (i.e. bathrooms, playgrounds)
With every elementary building, we will have emotional connections
o However, we are limited by many factors here at Roosevelt and other buildings
Pre K Opportunities:



Would like to see Pre-K expansion happen
There is such value in the Pre-K program – there is a noticeable difference between students who did
or did not attend Pre-K
Right now, there is a waiting list for Pre-K
o Headstart’s waiting list is around 100
Pre K Options:








It would be nice for parents to have more regional approaches
o It is difficult for some parents to travel/transport to and from the Skyline location
There are strengths from a centralized location
o Supports for students, teachers
o Additional services (i.e. Library, support services, personnel)
There are many benefits to the one-stop shop of the services provided by the Early Childhood
Coalition
With the number of students now and increase in projections, it would make sense to build some
new elementary buildings, regional Pre-K
Space is limited – can we do swap-land options with the city?
Purchase land?
There is a huge benefit for having Pre-K placed inside the elementary schools
o Transportation
o No transition to Kindergarten school
o Contained in their local neighborhoods
o One less transition for young students
o Begin building relationships sooner
o Ability to walk with siblings
o Supports family structure
Options for Regional Pre-K’s:
o Skyline – northwest
o Lowell – northside/eastend (not a lot of traffic)
o West
o Little Russell
o Paris
IDEAS TO ADDRESS
CRITICAL BUILDING
NEEDS AND
TECHNOLOGY
• Director of Buildings and Grounds Shaun Hammatt
• Director of Technology Jeff Patterson
The Buildings
•
Pre-School—Skyline Center
•
o 31 IDEA students
o 69 Title 1 students
o Headstart
o Parent Participation Pre-School
o County Extension Agency
3 High Schools
o CMR
• 1446 students
o GFHS/Fieldhouse/S. Campus
• 1369 students
o PGEC
• 204 students
•
15 Elementary Schools
o 257 students to 498 students
o 5814 students
•
Buildings and Grounds at
Lowell
•
Little Russell Storage
•
•
•
District Office Building
Annex
Buildings and Grounds Shop
•
Warehouse
•
Paris Gibson Square (leased)
•
2 Middle Schools
o 1483 students
Total of 28 buildings
Great Falls Public Schools
School Building History
BUILDING
CENTRAL SCHOOL/PARIS
GIBSON SQUARE
ROOSEVELT
GREAT FALLS HIGH SCHOOL
WHITTIER
LOWELL
RUSSELL
PARIS GIBSON
LINCOLN
LONGFELLOW
WEST ELEMENTARY
LEWIS & CLARK
EAST MIDDLE SCHOOL
ADMINISTRATION BUILDING
ANNEX
MEADOW LARK
MORNINGSIDE
RIVERVIEW
SUNNYSIDE
VALLEY VIEW
CHIEF JOSEPH
SACAJAWEA
LOY
WAREHOUSE
CHARLES M. RUSSELL
MOUNTAIN VIEW
SKYLINE
NORTH MIDDLE SCHOOL
BISON FIELDHOUSE
GROUNDS SHOP
GFHS - SOUTH CAMPUS
DATE
BUILT
Age
1896
1928
1931
1938
1939
1939
1948
1951
1952
1952
1953
1957
1959
1959
1960
1960
1960
1960
1960
1962
1962
1963
1964
1965
1970
1970
1970
1979
1989
1998
119
87
84
77
76
76
67
64
63
63
62
58
56
56
55
55
55
55
55
53
53
52
51
50
45
45
45
36
26
17
Average Age of
School Buildings =
57 years old
Decades of Buildings:
1890’s
1
1920's
1
1930's
4
1940's
1
1950's
5
1960's
9
1970's
4
1980’s
1
1990’s
1
Critical Infrastructure Concerns
• By Category: Asbestos, Asphalt, Boilers, Floors,
Cement, Doors/Locks, Electrical, Elevator, Fire
Alarms, HVAC, PA/Notification Systems, Painting,
Plumbing, Remodel, Safety, Structural, Technology,
Water, Windows, Other…
• By School
• By major repair items vs. maintenance items
• Identified timing of major need:
o 0-2 years (purple)
o 3-5 years (red)
o 6-10 years (yellow)
o 10+ years (orange, green, blue)
• Identified estimated costs (verified)
• Doing work as we speak…
Total
Chief Joseph
Lewis & Clark
Lincoln
Longfellow
Lowell
Loy
Meadow Lark
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
0-2
226,290
1,049,387
-
3-5
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
540,628
90,000
1,038,326
90,000
-
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
6-10
1,157,627
300,000
225,000
585,582
-
Morningside
Mountain View
Riverview
Roosevelt
Sacajawea
Sunnyside
West
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
126,050
205,867
248,705
40,000
-
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
62,526
504,593
376,624
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
350,000
217,073
312,493
217,073
205,127
296,624
$
476,050
$
205,867
$
279,599
$ 1,065,791
$
257,073
$
205,127
$
673,248
Valley View
Whittier
Skyline
East
North
CMR
GFHS*
Paris Gibson
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
113,334
325,000
2,722,726
322,965
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
701,138
610,000
1,453,171
5,352,490
1,323,675
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
225,000
568,747
225,000
1,175,000
2,461,272
451,594
2,225,000
710,130
$
225,000
$
568,747
$
225,000
$ 1,989,472
$ 3,071,272
$ 2,229,765
$ 10,300,216
$ 2,356,770
Totals
$
5,380,324
$ 12,143,171
$ 11,908,342
11 & beyond
$126,000?
$$$????
* GFHS has its own study that identifies needs up to $55,000,000
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Building
1,383,917
540,628
390,000
2,312,713
90,000
585,582
-
$ 29,431,837+
Safety Needs
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Cameras
Line of Sight
Doors and Locks
Lighting
Limited Access
Alert Systems
Fire Alarms
• Safety category: Total: $315,993
Vacant Property
North of Skyline School
20 Acres
South of Skyline School
1.12 acres Immediately across the street.
Ayrshire Property
40 acres south of Great Falls.
Rancho Grand Vista
10 acres south of Meadowlark Elementary School
Mountain View Elementary
1.63 acres south of Mountain View Elementary
Loy Land- 2 tracts
Directly west of Loy Elementary
30 acres are currently being used for soccer complex.
10 acres are vacant.
CONCERNS:
 With the understanding of the critical needs, what can our taxpayers afford?
 Do not “band-aide” repairs if plan to last for another 50 years. Do it right.
 Safety concerns need to be priority #1.
 GFHS open space is limited. Parking is a huge issue.
 CMR is settling. Needs some kind of multipurpose space.
 Every school needs work and a plan.
OPPORTUNITIES:
 As address buildings, need to consider the future of Career and Technical Education programs and be sure to
consult the Advisory Committees for advice
 Parkdale will be a viable low-income housing development for years to come. Enrollment from this
neighborhood will continue to be stable
 All buildings must be considered in upgrade funding
 New buildings offer opportunities for energy and maintenance savings that will pay for themselves for years
to come…could realize $8 million dollars in energy efficiency savings over 40 years which equals almost half of
an new elementary building cost
 While not a standalone reason to bond, interest rates are low making more of the money available for
projects
 Upgrades and new buildings add value to our community, neighborhoods and kids
 Technology must be considered in all upgrades and/or new construction
 Need a specific plan and then publicity
OPTIONS:
 Build some new buildings
o Explore a variety of sites city-wide
o Match sites to growing and predicted enrollment OR super-sized elementaries
o Possibly 2 elementary schools
 Roosevelt—new location
 Repurpose or tear down Roosevelt
 Lowell Site (one level)
 Longfellow
 Don’t put $2M into the repairs…not going to cut it for 50 years
 Need good engineering studies to build on the current site
 Open Skyline as an elementary school
o Preschool?
 Sunnyside addition
o UGF married student housing
o Castle Pines addition
o Talus Apts. (MV)
 New high school…nice, but…
 On the newest buildings, determine maintenance items and long-term repair items and do them
Tidbits:
 A legitimate business expense: 3% of replacement cost = annual facility expenses
o @$200 sq/ft x 1.9M sq ft. approximately $400M worth of buildings
o 3% of $400M = $12M
 25% of population are in GF school buildings during the day for 180 days per year
 $30M/$400M = 7.5% about the same as $25,000 kitchen for a $300,000 home
IDEAS TO ADDRESS
FACILITY FUNDING
• Director of Business Operations Brian Patrick
• Community Connections Manager Dave Crum
Categories
•
•
•
•
•
Process
Interest Rates
Other Financing Options
Building Reserve vs Bonding
Programming
Process
•
•
•
•
Hire a consultant
Develop a strategy to gain community support
Develop a strategy to pass a bond issue
More time is needed to study needs and educate
the community on the importance of proposed
rates
Interest Rates
• Take advantage of low rates now
• Don’t allow low interest rates drive the project
• Explain the difference between Market Value and
Taxable Value when presenting cost information
Other Financing
• Private Donations
o Major Gifts for Naming Rights (Policy)
o Major Gifts that provide enhancements
• Check for Federal Support
• Investigate grants and other forms of funding
Building Reserve vs.
Bonding
• Educate the public on the differences between the
advantages and disadvantages of each option
Programming
• What are the educational needs going to be in the
next 10, 20, 30, 40, and 50 years
• Study student demographics
• Develop 5, 10, 15, and 20 year plan for upgrading
facilities
• Expand Career and Technical education program
• Is the ground stable enough at Longfellow to rebuild a school building on that site. If so, does the
building need to be as big?
• It is important to show long term planning
• Do not re-purpose Great Falls High School!
Public Comment
Board Discussion
THANK YOU SO MUCH!
The CHALLENGES
of today make
OPPORTUNITIES
for tomorrow!
Modern Educational Environments
• Academic
o Science, Technology, Engineering, Math (STEM)
• Science lab needs
• Computer labs
• Career & Technical Education…
o Career and Technical Education (CTE) Programs at the middle school and high
school levels give students skills and experiences in growing fields such as
Industrial Technology (welding, carpentry, automotive), Health Sciences (Med
Prep), Culinary and Textiles/Interior Design, and Business/Computer Science
education.
• Co-curricular
o Auditoriums and stages
• GFHS seating
• Both technology advancements
• Extra-curricular
o Gym access
o Memorial Stadium
• Track
• Field
• Seating
Costs are unknown at this time
Technology
• GFPS believes that the effective use of
technology supports student
achievement as it prepares students
for the pervasiveness of technology in
the world they will live and work.
• GFPS is dedicated to ensuring students
learn the knowledge and skills they
need to succeed in an increasingly
global, technology infused, modern
workplace.
Technology Concerns
Increasing costs:
• Over the last decade, GFPS has made significant
investments in hardware, software, infrastructure,
professional development, and support services.
• Currently, GFPS funds technology investments via a
$225,000 perpetual annual technology levy, via Erate and since the passage of the operational levy
in 2014, $300,000 for software subscriptions.
• The costs of these investments continue to
increase.
• All GFPS buildings were built before the
proliferation of technology. They are not equipped
to handle the requirements of a technology rich
environment that schools must be.
Technology Concerns
Other Concerns:
• Fast and reliable wifi is a concern in some schools. The
construction of some schools is so dense that wifi
solutions are challenging.
• The age of the GFPS phone system is a concern. GFPS is
tasked with finding a replacement communication
system which will undoubtedly incur additional costs.
• The refresh schedule is not adequate. Currently GFPS is
on a 7.5 year refresh schedule. This is added to
refurbished machines that are already 2 years old when
the District purchases them.
• There is also a concern regarding the number of
cameras buildings are installing. As the technology
changes, there needs to be a plan to refresh the
cameras and related technology.
• The number of devices is expanding. This requires
additional technical support as well as the need for
professional coaching for the staff so that the devices
are utilized to best support teaching and learning.
Building Reserve
• Budgeted = Board Adopted
• Restricted = There are constraints on the fund that are
EXTERNALLY imposed by the state constitution and legislation
• Funded by $ remaining from a previous building
project levy.
• Fund balance on June 30, 2014 = $211,123
• Designated to spend balance for safety related
facility projects.
Building Fund
• Non-Budgeted
• Restricted = There are constraints on the fund that are
EXTERNALLY imposed by legislation
• Used for foreseen and unforeseen building
issues across the District
• Revenue can be generated from the sale or
rental of property and/or insurance
settlements and restitutions.
• Fund balance on June 30, 2014 = $1,059,795
• Determining facility needs at this time and will
utilize these funds for priority items.
Capital Improvement
(One Time Only Deferred Maintenance)
• Non-Budgeted
• Restricted = There are constraints on the fund that are
EXTERNALLY imposed by legislation
• Used for foreseen and unforeseen building
issues across the District
• Revenue generated from a one-time payment
from the Montana legislature for facilities.
• Fund balance on June 30, 2014 = $718,642
• Determining facility needs at this time and will
utilize these funds for priority items.
Impact Aid
• Non-Budgeted
• Restricted = There are constraints on the fund that are EXTERNALLY
imposed by legislation (revenue)
• May be used for a variety of purposes. Using for
staff salaries as well as unforeseen costs.
• Federally funded to mitigate the impact of
federally connected students (military & low
income housing)
• Fund balance on June 30, 2014 = $9,738,095
• Less allocation due to sequestration and fewer
federally connected students.
• Anticipated expenditures: security, staffing,
technology and facilities
GFHS Task Force Estimates
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
HVAC
$ 7,000,000
Electricity/Lighting
$ 4,416,000
Plumbing/Sinks/Toilets $ 552,000
Windows
$ 2,415,000
Connector (enclosure, commons, food service,
new office area)
$ 8,900,000
Parking
$ 975,000
Shop
$ 6,000,000
Classroom upgrades
$27, 500,000
TOTAL
$57,758,000