Board of Education Regular Meeting Gro rowth M Management R Review September 18, 2014 Growth Management Review 1
Agenda 1. Foundational Information 2. Capital Plan Considerations (What) 3. Financial Considerations (How) 4. Why now? 5. How is this plan different from the 2012 proposal? 6. Boundary Lines 7. Proposed Timeline 8. Guiding Questions Growth Management Review 2
Foundational Information Growth Management Review 3
Growth Management Review Foundational Information Capacity and Enrollment by Building • Func unctional Actu ctual Build lding Diffe ference Cap apac acity Enrollm llment Rising Star** 184 156 28 Pathfinder 334 404 (70) Siegrist 596 554 42 Paxton** 390 425 (35) Barry 521 633 (112) -217 start of this year PCMS 623 627 (4) -103 end PCHS 1044 1110 (66) of last year Growth Management Review 4
Growth Management Review Foundational Information 5500 55 00 5000 50 00 Enrollment 45 4500 00 40 4000 00 3500 35 00 30 3000 00 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Low Projection from 2010 Study 3368 3499 3629 3760 3891 4022 4152 4283 Medium Projection from 2010 Study 3404 3565 3732 3905 4084 4269 4460 4657 High Projection from 2010 Study 3520 3721 3932 4153 4384 4625 4876 5137 Actual 2011 to 2014 with New Projections 3549 3665 3711 3782 3908 4007 4133 4230 Growth Management Review 5
Growth Management Review Foundational Information Financial reality • $500 4000 ions 3900 illio $480 in Mil 3800 $460 ion in 3700 $440 atio 3600 aluat Assessed $420 3500 Val Valuation Assessed V $400 3400 Enrollment $380 3300 As Growth Management Review 6
Growth Management Review Foundational Information Voting Population Demographics (2012) • – 3,321 Votes Cast in 2012 – 2,542 North of KCI (76.5%) – 779 South of KCI (23.5%) Survey Results from 2013** • ** The remaining percentage indicated the idea would make no difference or “don’t know”. Growth Management Review 7
Growth Management Review Foundational Information Areas for expansion on property currently owned by • the district – Duncan Property – Pathfinder planned expansion Growth Management Review 8
Growth Management Review Foundational Information Rising S Star E Eleme ementary by t the n e numbers – Over 60 60 years old – 27, 7,00 000 square feet – 5. 5.78 78 acre site – Brokers Opinion of Value (provided by Zimmer): • Sales Comp Approach: $405 $405K t to $540 $540K • Land Value Approach: $3 $377K 7K t to $4 $440K 40K (less 30K for demo) – Estimated short term (5-7 years) renovation cost (provided by Hollis and Miller Architects): $583K $583K – Estimated cost of total renovation: $7.2 .2 m million on – Estimated cost of Building New Comparable: $6.9 m milli llion Growth Management Review 9
Growth Management Review Foundational Information Rising S Star E Eleme ementary annu annual al o operating ng p premium If Rising Star were a “wing” on a larger, more efficient elementary school of 550 to 700 students we could avoid paying an annual premium associated with inefficiencies directly correlated to economies of scale. – Approximately $18 180,000 t 0,000 to $250,000 0,000 per year due to • Very conservative estimate • Inefficient staffing due to small size • Transportation (staging, ride times, fuel costs) • Maintenance and repair cost and time • Food Service Staffing • Traveling Teachers Growth Management Review 10
Growth Management Review Foundational Information Platte County High School Master Plan • Growth Management Review 11
Growth Management Review Foundational Information Grade span configuration operating • inefficiencies and inconveniences PCHS PCH 9-12 PCMS PCM 6-8 Ba Barry 3-8 South campus North campus Paxton Pax 4-5 Sie Siegrist 1-3 Pathf hfinder K-2 Ris isin ing Star St ar K Growth Management Review 12
Growth Management Review Foundational Information When considering WHY HY we must have an action plan: • – Overcrowding – Enrollment growth outpacing tax base growth – Population demographics and survey results – Current property assets – Cost-benefit analysis of Rising Star – Master plan for PCHS – Feeder system analysis Let’s consider WHAT AT we should do about it…… Growth Management Review 13
Capital Plan Considerations (What) Growth Management Review 14
Growth Management Review Capital Plan Considerations (What) New Elementary in Platte City to allow for closure of • Overview: Rising Star and Annexation of Paxton by PCHS An expansion Light renovations of Paxton to allow occupancy by • project that PCHS – first step that fits into a master plan for PCHS improves operating To address Barry and Pathfinder overcrowding: • efficiency while – Pathfinder expansion providing – Improve grade span alignment adequate – Improve schedule for parents instructional space through new facility construction, repurposing existing facilities and facility closure Growth Management Review 15
Growth Management Review Current Feeder System PCHS PCH 9-12 PCM PCMS 6-8 Barry Ba 3-8 South campus North campus Pax Paxton 4-5 Sie Siegrist 1-3 Pathf hfinder K-2 Ris isin ing Star St ar K Growth Management Review 16
Growth Management Review Possible Feeder System Transition PCH PCHS Paxton Pax 9-12 (PCH PCHS A S Annex) 9-12 PCMS PCM 6-8 Barry Ba 4-8 South campus North campus Siegrist Sie New E ES Pathf hfinder K-5 K-5 K-3 Ris Ris isin isin ing ing Star St St Star ar ar K - Growth Management Review 17
Financial Considerations (How) Growth Management Review 18
Growth Management Review Financial Considerations (How) 20-year Lease Purchase Finance paid for by a Capital • Project Fund Levy of approximately $0.38 to $0.50 tax increase (currently finalizing high-level budget) Operating needs are still being determined, but • improved efficiency and higher Assessed Valuation numbers may eliminate this need – If needed in the future, can ask on a separate question Growth Management Review 19
Why now? Growth Management Review 20
Growth Management Review Why now? Capacity issues will not go away and are projected to • worsen Construction costs are projected to increase • Finance costs are projected to increase • Kicking expansion “down the road” will only • compromise services and, ultimately, cost more to take care of later Experiencing a temporary elementary growth plateau • (especially in the North) making now the time to close Rising Star and expand PCHS by annexing Paxton Continued operation of Rising Star will require • unjustifiable capital investment even for a short-term plan Growth Management Review 21
How is this potential plan different from the 2012 proposal? Growth Management Review 22
Growth Management Review How is this potential plan different? Larger project • Adequate Smaller tax increase • Learning Space More efficient use of existing operating dollars • Smaller – Closes Rising Star Tax Increase – Eliminates transportation staging due to grade span feeder system Improved – Larger elementary buildings allow for more efficient staffing, Efficiency reduce student transitions, and enhance relationships Sunset provision • Sustainable Removes miscellaneous components such as parking • Feeder Systems lot, tennis courts, preventative maintenance, etc. and that Reduce focuses on addressing over capacity Transitions Growth Management Review 23
Boundary Lines Growth Management Review 24
Growth Management Review Boundary Lines The process • Northern attendance area • North/South considerations • Choice? • Growth Management Review 25
Proposed Timeline Growth Management Review 26
Growth Management Review Proposed Timeline September • – Regular Meeting (Growth Management Review) 9/18 – Work Session? – Open Forum? October • – Regular Meeting (Continue Discussion) 10/16 – Work Session? – Open Forum? November • – Regular Meeting (Survey Review) 11/20 – Work Session? December • – Regular Meeting (Adoption of Resolution) January • – File with Board of Elections Growth Management Review 27
Guiding Questions Growth Management Review 28
Growth Management Review Additional Information Needed What information provided needs clarification? • What additional information would you like to see? • What data would you require that has not been • presented? Growth Management Review 29
Recommend
More recommend
