A team of seasoned facility planning experts from MGT of America worked in collaboration with SPS leadership to conduct a comprehensive assessment of schools and other buildings.
To be successful in providing for the needs of all learners, we must work together to match needs to resources. The purpose of a facility master plan is: • To develop a long-range vision for facilities that will best support our students' current and future educational needs. • To provide high quality learning environments for all students .
FACILITY AGE 20-49 Years Carver Gray 50-79 Years Jeffries Kickapoo Bingham 80 Years or Older Truman Bissett Bowerman Cherokee Boyd 9% Cowden Campbell Delaware Central Disney Doling Field Jarrett Fremont Phelps Glendale Pipkin 10-19 Years Hillcrest Reed McBride Holland Robberson McGregor Mann Rountree Shining Stars EC Parkview Study Wilson’s Creek Pershing Sunshine Pittman Tefft 7% Pleasant View Weaver Portland Williams Sequiota York Shady Dell Sherwood (Prior) 31% <10 Years Twain Sherwood Watkins Harrison Weller Hickory Hills Westport Wilder 6% 46%
HIS ISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE Central Boyd Jarrett Robberson Tefft Pipkin York Reed Doling Study Rountree Westport Fremont Bowerman Bissett Weller Campbell Delaware Parkview Sunshine Watkins Shady Dell Glendale Williams Disney Bingham Phelps Sherwood (Prior) Pershing Weaver Hillcrest Twain Holland Field Pleasant View Cherokee Portland Mann Jeffries Hickory Hills Kickapoo Gray Truman McGregor Carver Sequiota Wilson’s Creek Sherwood McBride Wilder Harrison Shining Stars EC Cowden Pittman
FACIL ILIT ITY MASTER PLANNING PROCESS
Process Assess & Score Facilities Building Condition Site Condition Educational Suitability Technology Readiness Public Engagement & Community Collaboration Interactive public community meetings Online survey Develop Options Option 1- maintain current grade configuration Option 2- elementary/middle combined campus
SCORE Building Condition (50 points) Based on amount of deferred maintenance in buildings’ major systems. Educational Suitability (40 points) Based on how well the facility supports educational programs. Site Condition (5 points) Based on amount of capital needs or deferred maintenance at site (driveways, walkways, parking lots, playfields, fencing, etc.). Technology Readiness (5 points) Based on capability of existing infrastructure to support information technology and associated equipment. Each building was assigned a combined score based on the average weighted score of these four factors.
ASSESSMENT RESULTS Unsatisfactory/Poor (<70) Bingham Fair (70-79) Bissett Bowerman Carver Central Boyd Cherokee Campbell Good/Excellent (80-100) Cowden Disney Fremont Glendale Delaware Harrison Doling Gray Hickory Hills Holland Field Sherwood Jeffries Hillcrest Weaver Jarrett Kickapoo Weller McBride Mann Westport Pershing McGregor Wilson’s Creek Parkview Pipkin Phelps Pittman Portland Pleasant View 15% Sequiota Reed Robberson Shady Dell Shining Stars EC Rountree Study Sherwood (prior) Truman Sunshine Watkins Tefft Twain Wilder Williams York 39% 46%
FACILITY MASTER PLAN OPTIONS
Master Plan Drivers Maintain fiscal responsibility Provide district-wide program equity Expansion of pre-school opportunities Address schools with highest needs combined score of 70 or less specific program needs at high schools with combined score between 70 – 80 projected utilization over 110% and under 70% Consistency in school size to the degree possible Consistency in grade level alignment to the degree possible
Maintain Current Grade Configuration
OPTIO ION 1 CHARACTERISTICS Current Grade Configuration Grade configuration to remain as it is currently. Construction of new/renovated middle/K-8 schools featuring capacities of 850 – 1,000 students. New/renovated elementary schools featuring capacities of 500 – 600 students. Replacement or renovation of schools with a combined score of 70 or less except where facilities can be combined. Address specific program needs at high schools with combined scores between 70 – 80.
OPTIO ION 1 F FACIL ILIT ITY CHANGES Current Grade Configuration 2 new middle schools (Pipkin, Reed) / 1 new K-8 (Pershing) 1 K-8 renovation (Pleasant View) 5 new elementary schools (2 in Hillcrest attendance area, Bingham, Bissett/York, Rountree/Delaware) 7 elementary additions (Field, McGregor, Sunshine, Sequiota, Truman, Weaver, Weller) 8 elementary renovations (Cowden, Field, Sunshine, Mann, Pittman, Sequiota, Twain, Wilder) Improvements at all high schools 600 student pre-school expansion Repurpose surplus buildings
OPTIO ION 1 BUDGET Current Grade Configuration OPTION 1 BUDGET ESTIMATES K-8 Schools $227,842,400 9-12 Schools $70,860,600 Pre-school $16,000,000 TOTAL $314,703,000 Costs are estimated in 2016 dollars
Elementary/Middle School Combined Campus (Schools identified as combined campuses are provided as examples and could change as final plans are developed.)
OPTIO ION 2 CHARACTERISTICS Elementary/Middle Combined Campus New/renovated middle and elementary/middle combined campuses New/renovated elementary/middle combined campuses featuring capacities of 800 – 1,050 students – K-5 capacity of 300 - 350 – 6-8 capacity of 500 – 700 New/renovated elementary schools featuring capacities of 400 – 500. Replacement or renovation of schools with combined score of 70 or less, except where facilities can be combined. Address specific program needs at high schools with combined score between 70 – 80.
OPTIO ION 2 COMBINED CAMPUS Concept Example
OPTIO ION 2 POTENTIA IAL ADVANTAGES Elementary/Middle Combined Campus Two independent schools, with separate identities, on one campus creates convenience and access. Opportunities to share spaces otherwise unavailable. Easier transition for students from elementary to middle school due to familiar environment. Reduced building area and shared mechanical systems. Reduced site costs, i.e. total drive lanes, bus loops and parking.
OPTIO ION 2 F FACIL ILIT ITY CHANGES Elem lementary/Middle le Co Combined Ca Campus 4 new elementary/middle combined campuses (Robberson-Reed*, Boyd IB-Pipkin IB*, Portland-Jarrett*, Pershing) * Schools identified as combined campuses are provided as examples and could change as final plans are developed. 1 K-8 renovation/addition (Pleasant View) 3 new elementary schools (Bingham, Bissett/York, Williams) 3 elementary additions (Rountree, Sunshine, Twain) 10 elementary renovations (Cowden, Field, Mann, Pittman, Rountree, Sequiota, Sunshine, Twain, Watkins, Wilder) Improvements at all high schools 600 student pre-school expansion Repurpose surplus buildings
OPTIO ION 2 BUDGET Elementary/Middle Combined Campus OPTION 2 BUDGET ESTIMATES K-8 $217,883,800 9-12 $70,860,600 Pre-school $16,000,000 TOTAL $304,744,400 Costs are estimated in 2016 dollars
BUDGET SUMMARY Comparison of Options OPTION 1 OPTION 2 Current Grade Configuration Elem/Mid Combined Campus Grades K-8 $ 227,842,400 $ 217,883,800 Grades 9-12 $ 70,860,600 $ 70,860,600 Pre-school $ 16,000,000 $ 16,000,000 TOTAL $ 314,703,000 $ 304,744,400 Costs are estimated in 2016 dollars
DELIVERING THE PLAN PHASE 1 $150+ Million THE PLAN TIMEFRAME $300+ Million 10-12 Years PHASE 2 $150+ Million
DELIVERING THE PLAN 24¢ $100,000 home = $46 per year additional taxes Monthly increase = $3.84
TAX COMPARISON Public School District Debt Service Exceeds SPS Nixa $1.07 $0.52 Republic $0.94 $0.39 Willard $0.93 $0.38 Logan-Rogersville $0.87 $0.32 Ozark $0.85 $0.30 Lebanon $0.84 $0.29 Strafford $0.70 $0.15 Branson $0.70 $0.15 Springfield $0.55 $0.00
ACTION vs. STATUS QUO Combined Score Categories 45 40 Number of Schools 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Unsatisfactory/Poor Fair Good/Excellent (<70) (70-79) (80-100) Status Quo Take Action
Board of Education Meeting November 1, 2016 Update SITE MGT of America identified Disney Elementary the funds required to Gray Elementary increase “fair” sites with Holland Elementary Jeffries Elementary Combined Scores between McBride Elementary 70-79 to 85. Truman Elementary Carver Middle Cherokee Middle Estimated Investment Phelps Center $31,253,100 with Shady Dell Early Childhood investments for individual Shining Stars Early Childhood Study Alternative Center sites ranging between $1.1 million to $4.6 million.
TIMELINE • Collect community feedback regarding which In Process option is preferred from community members, parents, staff and students. • Board of Education adopt a Facility Master Plan providing guidance for planning. • Design potential bond projects and Board of Education vote on bond project proposal. TBD • Taxpayer consideration for the bond proposal. • Implementation of the projects if bond issue passes.
Recommend
More recommend
