Facilities Board Workshop November 15, 2018 Agenda Section 1 - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Facilities Board Workshop November 15, 2018

Agenda ● Section 1 - Presentation Overview ● Section 2 - Enrollment vs. Capacity Analysis ● Section 3 - Facility Master Plan ● Section 4 - School Site Projects ● Section 5 - School Facility Funding ● Section 6 - Funding and Needs Analysis 2

Section 2 - Enrollment vs. Capacity Summary 3

Section 2 - Enrollment vs. Capacity 4

Section 2 - Enrollment vs. Capacity 5

Section 2 - Enrollment vs. Capacity 6

Section 2 - Enrollment vs. Capacity 7

Section 2 - Enrollment vs. Capacity 8

Section 3 - Facilities Master Plan Facilities Master Plan • Purpose • Process • Conceptual Plans 1. Dublin Elementary School 2. Frederiksen Elementary School 3. Murray Elementary School 9

Section 3 - Facilities Master Plan A. Purpose Why a Facilities Master Plan? The Facilities Master Plan helps the District and Public to Define and Prioritize the projects to be done district-wide and on a site ‐ by site basis, in order to maximize Matching Funding and use the Taxpayer’s Money in the best possible way. Dublin Unified School District recognizes several challenges that it must face during the next decade: ● Providing school facilities for all students appropriate to a 21st Century education; ● Providing facilities to accommodate increased enrollment in the District, through both new residential construction in formerly undeveloped areas, enrollment changes, and infill development in existing residential areas; ● Providing clean functional school sites (including infrastructure and educational technology) to provide educational equity throughout the District ● Securing the required funding to meet all of the above. 10

Section 3 - Facilities Master Plan B. Process The process of creating a comprehensive Facilities Master Plan includes input from multiple stakeholders and data. 11

Section 4 - School Site Projects C. Conceptual Plans • Dublin Elementary School Quattrocchi Kwok Architect • Frederiksen Elementary School ATI Architect • Murray Elementary School Lionakis Architect 12

Section 4 - School Site Projects Dublin Elementary Quattrocchi Kwok Architect 13

14

Assessment - Site • Poor supervision from current administration location • Aged & damaged hardscape, lack of shade • Accessibility - path of travel needs significant upgrading • Parking and drop-off inadequate to meet current and future load • Canopies need repair • Need outdoor learning areas for the courtyard buildings 15

Assessment - Architecture • Roofing, exterior beams decaying • Window system, louvers in poor condition • Accessibility of restrooms need upgrading • Library, admin, multi-use, and support services too small • No obvious serious structural safety concerns 16

Assessment – Other Consultants • Roof repair and maintenance needed • Increase emergency lighting, Upgrade telecommunication cabling • New compliance fire alarm notification system • Need carbon monoxide & smoke detector in every classroom • No accessible loading zone at drop-off area • New Mechanical Units needed at many locations • Upgraded electrical service likely 17

18

19

Section 4 - School Site Projects Frederiksen Elementary ATI Architect 20

FREDERIKSEN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ATI ARCHITECTS + ENGINEERS, INC. NOVEMBER 15, 2018 21

BOARD APPROVED SITE CONCEPT FREDERIKSEN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 22

BOARD APPROVED SITE CONCEPT FREDERIKSEN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 23

FACILITY NEEDS ASSESSMENT FREDERIKSEN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 24

FREDERIKSEN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 25

COMMUNITY MEETING FEEDBACK FREDERIKSEN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 26

CURRENT SCOPE OF WORK FREDERIKSEN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 27

AERIAL VIEW FREDERIKSEN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 28

REPLACEMENT SCHOOL – CONCEPT FREDERIKSEN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 29

Q & A 30

Section 4 - School Site Projects Murray Elementary School Lionakis Architect 31

DUBLIN UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT NOVEMBER 15, 2018 MURRAY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL COMMUNITY MEETING ARCHITECTURE ENGINEERING PLANNING INTERIORS GRAPHICS SUSTAINABILITY 32

AGENDA • Introductions • Need for Additional Buildings • Program Review • Original Master Plan • Presentations & Feedback • New Site Design Goals • New Site Plan Options • Proposed Timeline 33

NEED FOR ADDITIONAL BUILDINGS • Growth in enrollment – Expecting significant number of additional students by August 2020 – Not enough Primary Grade Classrooms – Not enough Kindergarten Classrooms – Multipurpose Building is too small – Already not enough parking / drop-off 34 MURRAY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL

PROGRAM COMPARISON 35 MURRAY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL

LEGEND EXISTING BUILDING EXISTING BUILDING RELOCATED PROPOSED CLASSROOMS PROPOSED SUPPORT PROPOSED RESTROOMS SITE PLAN – PREVIOUSLY PROPOSED MASTER PLAN MURRAY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 36

37

38

39

40

COMMUNITY MEETING • For the Community-at-Large – August 30, 2018 – Shared planning to date – Gathered input on current site issues – Heard feedback on proposed plan 41 MURRAY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL

REVISED GOALS / SITE DESIGN PARAMETERS • Based on site investigation and site stakeholder & community-at-large input: – Create a “street frontage” on western edge of the site – Increase length of drop-off & number of parking spaces – Place main entry at “top” of site – Make buildings single-story – Stay away from neighbors’ property to extent possible – Maintain northern & western neighborhood access points 42 MURRAY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL

REVISED SITE PLAN – REPLACE EXISTING & ADD NEW 43 MURRAY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL

SCHEDULE • Both options: ‒ Involve phased construction ‒ Start construction in fall of 2019 ‒ Assume use of pre-fabricated buildings to deliver new Classrooms in time for fall of 2020 ‒ Assume new Multi-purpose Building is constructed using conventional construction • Option 1 completes all phases in December of 2022 • Option 2 completes all phases in time for fall of 2022 44 MURRAY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL

45

Section 4 - School Site Projects D. Project Summary 46

Section 5 - School Facility Funding What Options Are Available To Fund Our Facilities? ● Developer Fees ● State Bond Measure ● Local General Obligation Bond Measure (GO Bond) ● Certificates of Participation (COP) 47

Section 5 - School Facility Funding Developer Fees ● State law gives school districts the authority to charge fees on new residential and commercial developments. ● Our current residential fee is at Level II and is $11 per square foot. ● Commercial fee is currently $.61 per square foot. ● Developer fees can be used to house growth due to development. 48

50

COP Financing 51

COP Financing ▪ An asset (usually a school site) is used to secure a lease. ▪ A non-profit financing corporation is used as lessor – provides upfront payment (COP proceeds) in exchange for initial lease from District. ▪ The District leases back property for annual lease payments. ▪ The non-profit corporation assigns lease payments to a trustee to pass on to COP holders. ▪ Sources of repayment include: ▪ General Fund ▪ Developer Fees ▪ Adult Education or other specific fund ▪ Special Taxes ▪ Ultimate security for the COPs is the District’s General Fund. Characteristic GOBs COPs Voter Approval Required? Yes No Repayment Source Taxpayers District sources Use of Funds Capital projects, limited by bond language Capital projects as identified by District Board Repayment Term Up to 40 years, but no longer than 120% of Useful life of project useful life of project 52