Welcome!Board Work

SessionMonday, March 30, 2015

5:30-7:30DOB 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-CommitteeNovember 4, 2013: Board Work Session to Review GFHSNovember 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 ConcernsCommunity 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 StepsBoard Work Session: Monday, March 30, 5:30-7:30 - Aspen

STEP 4: Conduct Public Survey? Hire a survey consultantApril STEP 5: Determine Next StepsBoard 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 Planningo Pros and Conso 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

2003-2004 2004-2005 2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-2013 2013-2014 2014-20155100

5200

5300

5400

5500

5600

5700

5800

5900

Elementary Enrollment Grades K-6

Overload Trend

2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-150

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

50

38

56

50

6062

80

K-6 Overloaded Classrooms

Kindergarten Enrollment

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

700

750

800

850

900

950

766

798808

793800 802

812

851

884

851

865 862

892

Kindergarten Enrollment

Projected Kindergarten Enrollment Numbers

• 2014: 892 Actual Enrollment• 2015: 871• 2016: 924• 2017: 863• 2018: 886• 2019: 930• 2020: 930

School

Potential Classroom

sAccredited

Max Capacity

Overload Max

Capacity

Functional Capacity:

70% Accredited

70% Overload

Oct 1 Enrollment

(2014)

Plus/Minus Functional Capacity

Plus/Minus 70%

OverloadCJ 22 554 642 388 450 310 78 140LC 26 654 758 458 531 433 25 98LN 20 503 583 353 409 432 -79 -23LF +100HS 29 730 846 511 593 416 95 177LY 26 654 758 458 531 397 61 134ML 26 654 758 458 531 482 -24 49MO 20 503 583 353 409 314 39 95MV 19 478 554 335 388 326 9 62RV 21 528 612 370 429 448 -78 -19RS 18 453 525 318 368 313 5 55SC 21 528 612 370 429 433 -63 -4SS 22 554 642 388 450 452 -64 -2VV 21 528 612 370 429 403 -33 26WT 33 830 962 581 674 498 83 176WH 17 428 496 300 348 257 43 91SK 19 478 554 335 388 102 233 286EMS 45 1350 1350 945 945 729 216 216NMS 42 1260 1260 882 882 754 128 128CMR 73 2190 2190 1533 1533 1445 88 88GFH 95 2850 2850 1995 1995 1369 626 626PGEC 59 1770 1770 1239 1239 217 1022 1022Totals 674 18477 19917 12940 13951 10530 2410 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

Open 3rd 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 studentso 69 Title 1 studentso Headstarto Parent Participation Pre-

Schoolo County Extension Agency

• 15 Elementary Schools o 257 students to 498 studentso 5814 students

• 2 Middle Schoolso 1483 students

Total of 28 buildings

• 3 High Schoolso CMR

• 1446 studentso GFHS/Fieldhouse/S. Campus

• 1369 studentso PGEC

• 204 students

• Buildings and Grounds at Lowell

• Little Russell Storage

• District Office Building• Annex• Buildings and Grounds Shop

• Warehouse

• Paris Gibson Square (leased)

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

Great Falls Public Schools

School Building History

BUILDINGDATE BUILT Age

CENTRAL SCHOOL/PARIS GIBSON SQUARE 1896 119ROOSEVELT 1928 87GREAT FALLS HIGH SCHOOL 1931 84WHITTIER 1938 77LOWELL 1939 76RUSSELL 1939 76PARIS GIBSON 1948 67LINCOLN 1951 64LONGFELLOW 1952 63WEST ELEMENTARY 1952 63LEWIS & CLARK 1953 62EAST MIDDLE SCHOOL 1957 58ADMINISTRATION BUILDING 1959 56ANNEX 1959 56MEADOW LARK 1960 55MORNINGSIDE 1960 55RIVERVIEW 1960 55SUNNYSIDE 1960 55VALLEY VIEW 1960 55CHIEF JOSEPH 1962 53SACAJAWEA 1962 53LOY 1963 52WAREHOUSE 1964 51CHARLES M. RUSSELL 1965 50MOUNTAIN VIEW 1970 45SKYLINE 1970 45NORTH MIDDLE SCHOOL 1970 45BISON FIELDHOUSE 1979 36GROUNDS SHOP 1989 26GFHS - SOUTH CAMPUS 1998 17

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

0-2 3-5 6-10 11 & beyond BuildingChief Joseph $ 226,290 $ - $ 1,157,627 $ 1,383,917 Lewis & Clark $ - $ 540,628 $ - $ 540,628

Lincoln $ - $ 90,000 $ 300,000 $ 390,000 Longfellow $ 1,049,387 $ 1,038,326 $ 225,000 $ 2,312,713

Lowell $ - $ 90,000 $ - $ 90,000 Loy $ - $ - $ 585,582 $ 585,582

Meadow Lark $ - $ - $ - $126,000? $ -

Morningside $ 126,050 $ - $ 350,000 $ 476,050 Mountain View $ 205,867 $ - $ - $ 205,867

Riverview $ - $ 62,526 $ 217,073 $ 279,599 Roosevelt $ 248,705 $ 504,593 $ 312,493 $ 1,065,791 Sacajawea $ 40,000 $ - $ 217,073 $ 257,073 Sunnyside $ - $ - $ 205,127 $ 205,127

West $ - $ 376,624 $ 296,624 $ 673,248 Valley View $ - $ - $ 225,000 $ 225,000

Whittier $ - $ - $ 568,747 $ 568,747 Skyline $ - $ - $ 225,000 $ 225,000

East $ 113,334 $ 701,138 $ 1,175,000 $ 1,989,472 North $ - $ 610,000 $ 2,461,272 $ 3,071,272 CMR $ 325,000 $ 1,453,171 $ 451,594 $ 2,229,765

GFHS* $ 2,722,726 $ 5,352,490 $ 2,225,000 $ 10,300,216 Paris Gibson $ 322,965 $ 1,323,675 $ 710,130 $ 2,356,770

Totals $ 5,380,324 $ 12,143,171 $ 11,908,342 $$$???? $ 29,431,837+

* GFHS has its own study that identifies needs up to $55,000,000

Safety Needs

• Cameras• Line of Sight• Doors and Locks• Lighting• Limited Access• Alert Systems• Fire Alarms

• Safety category: Total: $315,993

Vacant PropertyNorth of Skyline School20 AcresSouth of Skyline School1.12 acres Immediately across the street.Ayrshire Property40 acres south of Great Falls.Rancho Grand Vista 10 acres south of Meadowlark Elementary SchoolMountain View Elementary1.63 acres south of Mountain View ElementaryLoy Land- 2 tracts Directly west of Loy Elementary30 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 re-

build 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

• Academico 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-curricularo Auditoriums and stages

• GFHS seating• Both technology advancements

• Extra-curricularo Gym accesso 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 ConcernsIncreasing 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 E-rate 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 ConcernsOther 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