Facilities Planning Community Update February 2018 1
AGENDA LONG RANGE FACILITIES PLANNING Tonight we will discuss: TIMELINE ● Background & Process ● Needs ● Options reviewed ● FAC’s preliminary recommendation & an additional consideration ● Preliminary costs & tax impact ● Key issues & potential next steps 2
BACKGROUND & PROCESS 3
LONG RANGE FACILITIES PLANNING 4
PHASE 1: LONG RANGE FACILITIES PLANNING 2015 Long Range Facility Planning Committee LONG RANGE FACILITIES PLANNING TIMELINE Recommendations: 1. Accept District ‐ wide facility study 5
PHASE 1: LONG RANGE FACILITIES PLANNING 2015 Long Range Facility Planning Committee LONG RANGE FACILITIES PLANNING TIMELINE Recommendations: 2. Guidelines for Phase 2 a. Develop grade configuration to create predictable and realistic transitions for students. b. Maximize existing space within District Buildings while maintaining manageable sized schools. c. Develop a capital maintenance plan that addresses immediate and long ‐ term needs and ensures facility equity for all schools. d. Create a plan for surplus real estate, where revenue is generated for the District or the properties are effectively repurposed. e. Create central location for competition and reduce the use of municipal facilities . 6
PHASE 1: LONG RANGE FACILITIES PLANNING 2015 Long Range Facility Planning Committee LONG RANGE FACILITIES PLANNING TIMELINE Recommendations: 3. Proceed to Phase 2 and engage architectural and construction management firms to support the LRFPC and implement the above recommendations. 7
2016 OPERATING REFERENDUM Facilities planning put on hold due to 2016 operating referendum: LONG RANGE FACILITIES PLANNING TIMELINE ● Operating vs. Debt referenda ○ Operating authority to exceed revenue limits for day ‐ to ‐ day expenses ○ Debt authority to borrow for large capital / construction projects ● 2016 operating referendum of $2.6 million is paying for the following: ○ 2015 ‐ 2016 Budget deficit $850,000 ○ Curriculum $275,000 annually ○ Technology $300,000 annually ○ Personnel $450,000 annually ○ Equipment Purchases $225,000 annually ○ Facility Maintenance $500,000 annually 8
PHASE 2: LONG RANGE FACILITIES PLANNING 9
FACILITIES ADVISORY COMMITTEE CHARGE FAC Charge Approved August 23, 2017 LONG RANGE FACILITIES PLANNING TIMELINE FAC Charge: Key Responsibilities 1. Review background & data 2. Analyze facilities options 3. Assess costs and tax impact 4. Prepare preliminary recommendations in advance of community survey 5. Prepare final advisory report to the Board Report monthly to the Monona Grove Board of Education 10
FAC MEMBERS 2017-18 MGSD Facilities Advisory Committee Paul Ament, Monona Rachelle Miller, Monona David Peterson, Cottage Grove Brandon Buell, Cottage Grove Randy Munn, Monona Jon Russell, Cottage Grove Jack Henrich, Cottage Grove Romar Nelson, Cottage Grove Ann Tieman, Monona Pat Howell, Monona Rebecca Ninke, Cottage Grove Jake Vetter, Cottage Grove Robb Kahl, Monona Mary O’Connor, Monona John Weinberger, Monona Meg Kramarz, Monona Jo Oyama Miller, Monona Jason McCutchin, Cottage Grove Patty Parrott, Cottage Grove The FAC wishes to recognize the service and contribution of Diane Wiedenbeck of Cottage Grove, who served on the 11 Committee prior to her passing earlier this year.
CONSULTANTS Eppstein Uhen Architects (EUA) Planning & Design including Facilities Study J. H. Findorff & Son (Findorff) Construction Management including Budgeting & Capital Maintenance Planning PMA Financial Network (PMA) Financing including Tax Impact Projections Vandewalle & Associates (Vandewalle) Growth & Enrollment Projections including Long Range Growth Study 12
PROCESS The Facilities Advisory Committee Has: • Met seven times over four months • Reviewed background materials, including work of LRFPC • Analyzed enrollment projections and facilities needs • Reviewed & discussed seven options and associated costs • Narrowed to a preliminary recommendation • Written a preliminary report to the Board 13
FACILITIES NEEDS 14
NEED - ADDITIONAL CAPACITY 525 additional students over last 10 years 15 *Actual enrollment includes MG21 students and excludes offsite TK4 students.
NEED - ADDITIONAL CAPACITY Projected growth of over 700 students over next 10 years 525 additional students over last 10 years ** *Actual enrollment includes MG21 students and excludes offsite TK4 students. 16 **Projected enrollment excludes MG21, offsite TK4 and early childhood students. Projections assume that all increases in the 4K student population due to residential growth will attend an onsite District 4K program and that all increases in the 9 ‐ 12 grade population due to residential growth will attend the high school, not MG21.
OPEN ENROLLMENT ● Current 4K ‐ 12 Enrollment ‐ 3075 resident / 377 non ‐ resident ● School districts may only deny applications if space is not available ● Board currently accepts only minimum number of new applications as required by law ● Board policy gives preference to siblings, but only if space is available ● Open enrollment benefits: ○ Additional Revenue (if space available) ○ Helps maintain class size consistency 17
NEED - ADDITIONAL CAPACITY 18
NEED - ADDITIONAL CAPACITY The Next Five Years ● Glacial Drumlin over capacity today ● Taylor Prairie over capacity in 2019 ‐ 20 ● Cottage Grove over capacity in 2021 ‐ 22 ● HS enrollment can be managed by limiting open enrollment 19
NEED - PRIORITY CAPITAL MAINTENANCE 20
NEED - RENOVATIONS Modernization & Flexibility ● Update classrooms ● Additional spaces that can be used for multiple purposes ● Expanded core spaces (IMC, gymnasium, cafeteria) 21
NEED - RENOVATIONS 22
NEED - OUTDOOR ATHLETICS Primary Challenges ● Existing athletics facilities in disrepair ● Shortage of on ‐ site athletics facilities ● Teams spread throughout community sites 23
OPTIONS 24
CURRENT CONFIGURATION 25
OPTION CONFIGURATIONS Seven Options Explored Similarities ● Place 5th grade at the elementary level, district ‐ wide ● Construct new elementary school school in Cottage Grove ● Renovate existing school sites ● Update and consolidate athletic facilities ● Fund the full $16.4 million in priority capital maintenance needs Differences ● Grade Transitions vs. Neighborhood Schools ● Grade configurations ● Utilization of Maywood 26
PRELIMINARY RECOMMENDATION 27
PRELIMINARY RECOMMENDATION Summary of Preliminary Recommendation ● Additional Capacity : Expand 4K ‐ 8 capacity to meet long ‐ term enrollment projections ● Capital Maintenance : Address $16.4 million in priority capital maintenance ● Renovations : Renovate existing schools to update classrooms, create more modern and flexible learning environments, expand core spaces, and create more equity between schools ● Athletics : Update existing facilities and centralize practice and competition fields to reduce the use of shared facilities An additional consideration at grades 4K-2 28
PRELIMINARY RECOMMENDATION 29
ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATION 30
PRELIMINARY RECOMMENDATION Build on District-Owned Property ● Adjacent to Glacial Drumlin School ● Approximately 40 acres ● Purchase approved at October 4, 2017 MGSD Annual Meeting 31
PRELIMINARY RECOMMENDATION New Elementary (Grades 3 - 5) ● Located on district ‐ owned land ● 10 sections per grade level ● Capacity for approximately 700 ● Approximately 126,500 square feet 32
KEY CONSIDERATIONS 33
MAYWOOD Maywood is not a viable option. ● Limited capacity ○ Capacity for approximately 300 students ‐ insufficient to meet projected long ‐ term enrollment growth ● Higher operating costs ○ Opening Maywood as District school is a two ‐ school solution ○ Means approximately double the operating costs and operating tax impact ● Higher remodeling costs ○ Options that involved Maywood were the most expensive ○ Maywood costs are especially high on a per square foot basis 34
MAYWOOD Maywood is not a viable option. ● Programmatic limitations ○ Opening Maywood as a District school would mean keeping Monona middle school student in Monona ‐ either at Maywood or Winnequah ○ Difficult to provide comprehensive middle school programming to 250 students ● Enrollment growth is projected to be in Cottage Grove ○ Additional capacity is needed in Cottage Grove, not Monona ○ Opposed to bussing elementary students outside of home community 35
NICHOLS and MGHS Nichols is currently in use. ● Currently houses MG21 Charter School and the District Office ● Inadequate capacity for multiple additional grade levels MGHS is under capacity but should be monitored. ● Projections suggest MGHS resident enrollment will near capacity in approximately 10 years ● Space exists on site for a future addition 36
CONSEQUENCES OF INACTION Consequences of doing nothing: ● Projected over ‐ capacity in three of five buildings in the next five years ● Strain on students and staff due to overcrowding ● Deterioration of District buildings ● Increase in construction and financing costs ● Additional deferred maintenance costs 37
PRELIMINARY COSTS AND TAX IMPACT 38
Recommend
More recommend
