Hermiston School District

Executive Summary Presentation September 18, 2007

Long Range Facilities Planning Committee

Agenda

LRFPC Charge and AccomplishmentsEstablished Facts & AssumptionsPopulation Forecasts and Building CapacityStatus of Current Facilities and RecommendationsReview Anticipated Cost EstimatesPlanning For Growth Capacity Estimates

LRFPC Charge

MISSION STATEMENT LRFPC, 05’

“To identify and report to the Board the most appropriate, affordable options to accommodate increased student enrollment, while continuing to provide quality learning experiences for children.”

PURPOSE LRFPC, 05’

“The committee will research and develop a comprehensive plan to be presented to the School Board in the fall of 2007.”

LRFPC AccomplishmentsFall 2005: •Long Range Facility Planning Committee established from earlier Planning for Growth Committee.

Fall 2005: •Board adopts committee’s Mission Statement and Purpose.

Winter 2006: •Investigated current school capacities (Brandon Report).•Created an inclusive Capacity Report (based on Brandon Report, local district evaluations, and learning environment considerations).•Established a Priority List of Issues to be studied by the group.

Winter/Spring 2006: •Board contracts with Absolute Engineering, LLC for a comprehensive Building Evaluation Report.

ContinuedSpring 2006:Presented at the April Board Work Session the following accomplishments of the committee’s work:•capacity study impact•research on cost estimates for new construction•engineer report findings•District land holdings (41.3 acres adjacent to Desert View and 15 acres on Theatre Lane)•current status of the district’s bonded indebtedness

Spring 2006:•Board established membership criteria: 3-Board Members, 1-Budget Committee Rep., Superintendent, 3-Principals (K-5, 6-8, 9-12), 3-Teachers (K-5, 6-8, 9-12), 3-Classified Employees (K-5, 6-8, 9-12), 8-Parents (1 from each school), 2-At large reps. appointed by the Board, and 1-Representative from the city(Mayor).

Fall 2006:•Elected officers (committee chairman and secretary).•Performed “walk-throughs” of the district facilities.•Researched and reviewed Medford and Bend’s LRFP Committee accomplishments and recommendations.•Analyzed and discussed the Brandon Capacity Studywith respect to optimal student learning environments.•Established subcommittees focused on Building Capacity, Boundaries, Building Conditions, and Communication.

ContinuedWinter 2006:•Discussed possibilities and usefulness of a comprehensive population research study.•Surveyed staff to gather feedback on functionality of current buildings.•Discussed Harris Survey and how it related to facility planning and bond implications.•Improved communication of the committee’s work to patrons, including website improvements.•Researched operating and maintenance costs for all school buildings.•Reviewed successful school bond campaigns.

Spring 2007:•Proposed that the School Board contract with an architect to serve as a consultant to assist the committee with analysis and coordination of information and to provide assistance with the preparation and presentation of the committee’s report to the School Board. •Charted and reviewed a thoughtful, long-term building replacement and renovation schedule based on the engineer’s study and useful building lives.

Winter 2006:Board contracts with PSU for population research study.

Spring 2007:Board contracts with Dull, Olson, Weeks Architects, Inc. for consulting services.

ContinuedSummer 2007:•Mapped out potential building projects for bond consideration.•Establish Facts and Assumptions.•Reviewed population projections and capacities based off of the PSU midline study.•Crafted building renovation and construction recommendations.•Reviewed anticipated cost estimates for capital construction projects.•Established potential construction schedule scenario.•Reviewed bonding capacity for Hermiston and potential tax impact.

Fall 2007:•Presentation to the Board of Directors.

Agenda

LRFPC Charge and AccomplishmentsEstablished Facts & AssumptionsPopulation Forecasts and Building CapacityStatus of Current Facilities and RecommendationsReview Anticipated Cost EstimatesPlanning For Growth Capacity Estimates

Facts & AssumptionsPage 1 of 2

All students deserve a high quality learning environment.Hermiston’s population growth and student yield will proceed generally in line with the “mid-line” scenario described by the PSU Study. (~1000 student increase by 2016-2017)Existing modular classrooms have exceeded their useful lives and are in need of replacement.Modulars are an acceptable solution for short term enrollment fluctuations.Modular classrooms being used as permanent classroom space should be replaced with permanent capacity solutions.Construction costs will escalate at a predictable/reasonable rate of 4% per year.

Facts & AssumptionsPage 2 of 2

Desired elementary school capacity: 450-550 with expansion capability to accommodate potential programs such as full day KG and extended day learning opportunities.Desired MS capacity: 750-900.There should be no change in existing school program configurations [Elem(K-5)→ MS(6-8)→ HS(9-12)].Boundary changes may be required to accommodate growth in outer years.Existing district properties are sufficient and appropriately sited to serve expected district needs for the next ten years.Construction recommendations should take into account the current delivery models for district-wide programs (TAG, ELL, SPED).

Agenda

LRFPC Charge and AccomplishmentsEstablished Facts & AssumptionsPopulation Forecasts and Building CapacityStatus of Current Facilities and RecommendationsReview Anticipated Cost EstimatesPlanning For Growth Capacity Estimates

Enrollment ForecastsForecast NumbersLow = 5,280 students (+504)

Middle = 5,776 students (+1000)

High = 6,381 students (+1605)

477606/07

Growth vs Capacity (Elementary)

200021002200230024002500260027002800

06-07 07-08 08-09 09-10 10-11 11-12 12-13 13-14 14-15 15-16 16-17

Enrollment Trends Capacity (inc mod) Capacity (exc mod)

Capacity Surplus

Capacity Deficit

Growth vs Capacity (Middle Sch.)

10001050110011501200125013001350140014501500

06-07 07-08 08-09 09-10 10-11 11-12 12-13 13-14 14-15 15-16 16-17

Enrollment Trends Capacity (inc mod) Capacity (exc mod)

Capacity Surplus

Capacity. Deficit

Agenda

LRFPC Charge and AccomplishmentsEstablished Facts & AssumptionsPopulation Forecasts and Building CapacityStatus of Current Facilities and RecommendationsReview Anticipated Cost EstimatesPlanning For Growth Capacity Estimates

LRFP Building Renovate/Replace Timeline

ArmandLarive

Sunset Elem.

Rocky Heights

West Park

High. Hills(1)

D.O. Bld. C

Maint.(Old)

D.O. A/B

Sand Stone

Maint.

High. Hills (2)

Desert View

Herm. H.S.

Maint.W.H.

ARMAND LARIVE MIDDLE SCHOOL

BUILDING DATAOriginal Construction Date: 1936Locust Wing Addition: 1946Building Additions: 1962 & 1968Building Addition (Cosmetics): 1994Approximate Square Footage: 87,850 SFModular Square Footage: 1,792 SFDeveloped Ground: 4 Acres Roof/Truss Sagging Creating Standing Water

Foundational Instability

Structural Instability

ARMAND LARIVE MIDDLE SCHOOLRECOMMENDATION:

Architect Rating and Findings: 38 Points - Replacement RecommendedDemo and build new middle school on the south Desert View property site.

PROJECT BREAKDOWN:Demolition of Existing BuildingConstruction of new Middle School

Severe Structural Problems

SUNSET ELEMENTARY SCHOOLBUILDING DATAOriginal Construction Date: 1957Building Additions: 1968Approximate Square Footage: 47,500 SFModular Square Footage: 3,584 SFDeveloped Ground: 2 Acres

Roof/Truss Sagging Creating Standing Water

Structural Sagging of Concrete Trusses

ADA Compliance and Access Problems

SUNSET ELEMENTARY SCHOOL

RECOMMENDATION:Architect Rating and Findings: 46 Points – Major Renovation/ReplacementDemo and build new elementary school in same location.

PROJECT BREAKDOWN:Demolition of Existing BuildingNew Elementary School

Structural Sagging

ROCKY HEIGHTS ELEMENTARY SCHOOLBUILDING DATAOriginal Construction Date: 1962Building Additions: 1968 & 1977Approximate Square Footage: 40,062 SFModular Square Footage: 3,584 SFDeveloped Ground: 9 Acres

Structural Sagging Resulting in Standing Water and Roof Leaks

Failing Plumbing System Resulting in Problems

ROCKY HEIGHTS ELEMENTARY SCHOOLRECOMMENDATION:

Architect Rating and Findings: 52 Points – Major Renovation/ReplacementDemo and build new elementary school in same location.

PROJECT BREAKDOWN:Demolition of Existing BuildingNew Elementary School

Failing Plumbing/Mechanical System

WEST PARK ELEMENTARY SCHOOL

BUILDING DATAOriginal Construction Date: 1950Building Additions: 1957, 1968, & 1977Approximate Square Footage: 51,315 SFModular Square Footage: 3,088 SFDeveloped Ground: 6 Acres

Drainage/Groundwater Problems Structural Problems

WEST PARK ELEMENTARY SCHOOLRECOMMENDATION:

Architect Rating and Findings: 58 Points – Major Renovation/ReplacementDemo and build new elementary school in same location.

PROJECT BREAKDOWN:Demolition of Existing BuildingNew Elementary School

HIGHLAND HILLS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL

BUILDING DATAOriginal Construction Date: 1980Approximate Square Footage: 43,620 SFModular Square Footage: 3,584 SFDeveloped Ground: 7 Acres

HVAC Upgrades Needed

New Roof Needed

HIGHLAND HILLS ELEMENTARY SCHOOLRECOMMENDATION:

Architect Rating and Findings: 74 Points – Minor Renovation NeededVarious interior/exterior upgrades and improvements.

PROJECT BREAKDOWN:Improved cooling/controls/air flow into classrooms Fire Alarm Upgrades

District Office Upgrade

Replace existing 2 modular buildings and complex C with a permanent structure.

Current Facilities are Past Useful Life Expectancy Facilities Under-sized For Need: Above, Vault at Capacity

Agenda

LRFPC Charge and AccomplishmentsEstablished Facts & AssumptionsPopulation Forecasts and Building CapacityStatus of Current Facilities and RecommendationsReview Anticipated Cost EstimatesPlanning For Growth Capacity Estimates

Construction Cost AssumptionsConstruction Costs (2007)

Elementary = $210/sq ft (Desert View was $109/sq ft in 2001)Middle School = $220/sq ft

School SizeElementary = 110 sq ft/studentMiddle School = 120 sq ft/student

Demo and Abatement Costs (2007)$25/sq ft

Other Potential Costs to ConsiderStandard Project Contingency = 8%Furnishings Allocation = 5%Cost Inflation = 5-8% per year (last 4 years)Other Soft Costs (SDC fees, permits, architect fees, etc)

Site Recommendation Proposed CostsTheater Lane Construct New ES Facility (55,000 sq ft) $12,000,000

Demolition of Current Facility $2,000,000 Construction of New MS Facility (99,000 sq ft) $22,000,000 Demolition of Current Facility $1,500,000

Construction of New ES Facility on current site (55,000 sq ft) $12,000,000 Demolition of Current Facility $1,500,000 Construction of New ES Facility on current site (55,000 sq ft) $12,000,000 Demolition of Current Facility $1,500,000 Construction of New ES Facility on adjacent site (55,000 sq ft) $12,000,000 Fire Alarm Upgrade $30,000 Heating/Cooling Upgrades $250,000 Replacement District Office $3,000,000 Maintenance Complex Renovation $75,000 Removal/Demolition of Modular Facilities $100,000

$79,955,000

Highland Hills ES

Total (2007 Dollars)

District Wide

Armand Larive MS

Sunset ES

West Park ES

Rocky Heights ES

Priority Projects (2007 dollars)

Site Original Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 71.000 1.040 1.082 1.125 1.170 1.217 1.265

Theater Lane ES $12,000,000$2,000,000 $2,530,600

$22,000,000$1,500,000

$12,000,000$1,500,000

$12,000,000$1,500,000 $1,622,400

$12,000,000

Highland Hills ES $280,000 $291,200Maint Dept. $75,000 $78,000

$100,000 $104,000$3,000,000 $3,795,900

$1,687,290$13,498,320

$14,599,800

Project Totals $89,992,285

$14,599,800

$1,824,975

Inflation Rate (4%)

District Wide

Armand Larive MS

Sunset ES

West Park ES

Rocky Heights ES

$22,880,000

$12,480,000

Cost Impacts with Inflation (priority projects)

Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7Begin Theater Lane ES

CompleteOccupy

Demo/Begin SS Replacement Project (Students Occupy ALMS)

Complete SS Replacement Project

Occupy

Demo/ Begin West Park Replacement Project(WP Students Occupy ALMS)

Complete WP Replacement Project

Occupy

Begin Rocky Heights Replacement Project

Complete RH Replacement Project

Occupy/Demo existing structure

Occupy Demo ALMS

Elementary Sites

MS Sites

Begin ALMS Replacement

Project

Complete

Boundary A

djustments M

adePotential Timeline

Agenda

LRFPC Charge and AccomplishmentsEstablished Facts & AssumptionsPopulation Forecasts and Building CapacityStatus of Current Facilities and RecommendationsReview Anticipated Cost EstimatesPlanning For Growth Capacity Estimates

Planning for Growth: With Proposed Capital Construction

Schools Current Capacity w/ Mod

Proposed Capacity

Total Capacity

Projected Enrollment in 2016

Over / (Under)

DV 470 470 2809 2693 (116)

HH 489 339

RH 489 450-550

Sunset 527 450-550

WP 513 450-550

New Elem. 450-550

ALMS 621 750-900 1505 1391 (114)

SSMS 705 705

High School 1885 1885 1885 1715 (170)

Growth vs Capacity (Elementary)With Proposed Construction

210022002300240025002600270028002900

06-07 07-08 08-09 09-10 10-11 11-12 12-13 13-14 14-15 15-16 16-17

Enrollment Trends Old Capacity New Capacity

Capacity Surplus

Capacity Deficit

Growth vs Capacity (Middle Sch.) With Proposed Construction

1000

1100

1200

1300

1400

1500

1600

06-07 07-08 08-09 09-10 10-11 11-12 12-13 13-14 14-15 15-16 16-17

Enrollment Trends Old Capacity New Capacity

Capacity Surplus

Cap. Deficit

Conclusion