Community Forum #2 October 6, 2015 Welcome to the Community Forum - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

MASON PUBLIC SCHOOLS Community Forum #2 October 6, 2015

Welcome to the Community Forum Introductions  Board of Education  Steering Committee

Steering Committee Ralph Beebe Lance Delbridge Susie Disselkoen Jon Droscha Ronald Drzewicki Liz Evans Dennis Fanson Shelly Fanson Cortney Ford Pete Hanover Doug Klein Dan McConeghy Kerry Minshall Ted Moore Christopher Mumby Lisa O’Connor Mike Prelesnik Jodi Somerville Chris Waltz - Chair

Welcome to the Community Forum Introductions continued…  GMB Architecture, Skillman Corporation, MooreTrosper Purpose of Forum The purpose of the Community Forum is to discuss options and generate discussion for the improvement of the district’s facilities, technology, and transportation.

PROGRESS TO DATE  District-wide Strategic Planning started in December of 2014. A Task Force was formed and met on May 19 th and 20 th to compile first draft of Strategic Plan. Three areas of greatest need were identified;  curriculum, instruction and assessment  facilities  technology  GMB Architecture, Skillman Corporation, and MooreTrosper engaged in March  Facilities audit and staff survey conducted in spring  Facilities Audit and Staff Survey report to Board of Education on June 29 th  Board of Education directs superintendent to form a Steering Committee to examine building needs and develop a scope of work  First meeting of Steering Committee in July  Building Improvement Community Survey conducted in September

STEERING COMMITTEE DISCUSSIONS  Review of facilities audit and staff survey  Facilities are aged and need upgrades  Safety, security and technology improvements are needed  Review of district’s financials and all capital improvement options  Growth of the community  Dart and Jackson National Life expansions  Overcrowding of the elementary schools  All three elementary schools are over capacity  Enrollment growth projected to be 1-1.5% annually  Need for a new building to lower the size of the three elementary schools  Limited space and land for growth  ALL of the district’s buildings should get much needed upgrades and renovations  Potential May 2016 Bond proposal

The committee considered several options. Some were… Move 5 th Grade to Middle School K-1 New Building High School Reopen Cedar Make Street Current Build a School Elementary New Schools Building Bigger

NEED – CHANGE THE VISION  21 ST CENTURY LEARNING  DYNAMIC LEARNING SPACES  SAFETY AND SECURITY

FACILITY AUDIT  Objective analysis of existing facility conditions  All buildings: elementary schools, middle, and high schools; James C. Harvey Center; and transportation center  Assess site, life safety, building structure and envelope, interior function and environment, mechanical and electrical  Planning tool for future facility investment

FACILITY AUDIT  Executive Data Summary  Students Served: 3,350  Average age of Original Construction: 53 years (1962)  Number of Additions and Renovations: 12  Average age of Additions and Renovations: 38 years (1977)  Total District Building Area: 540,000 square feet  Facility Audit Needs : $34 million * *does not address educational delivery, technology, athletic fields, land, buses

FACILITY AUDIT  Weaknesses:  Lack of security – None at the main entry and corridor arrangement creates hidden spaces. Unsecured remote main entry Exterior entry to art, Portable classroom music, kindergarten remote from building

FACILITY AUDIT  Weaknesses:  Too small instructional and operational areas – Every child receives instruction in at least one space that is too small to be physically safe and conducive to educational delivery.  Non-ADA amenities Elementary School cafeteria / Access to kindergarten, art, Below grade, small art room gymnasium / auditorium music and parking lot

FACILITY AUDIT  Weaknesses:  Deteriorating site and building conditions Bus lot asphalt condition Evidence of moisture in block wall Deteriorating exterior finishes

FACILITY AUDIT  Weaknesses:  Water and structural damage  Failing mechanical equipment and poor air quality Evidence of leaking roof Evidence of mechanical issues Masonry wall crack

POSSIBLE SOURCES OF REVENUE GENERAL FUND REVENUE: Money provided annually to the district based on per- pupil state aid is designed to pay for day-to-day operating expenses. It is NOT intended to address capital needs such as improving school buildings or large scale technology improvements. SINKING FUND: A district may establish a sinking fund to provide funding on a pay as you go basis for capital improvements and repairs to facilities. However, sinking fund revenue can not be used for technology, buses or equipment. MPS currently levies a 1.0 mill sinking fund.

Continued…… NON-QUALIFIED BONDS: Unlimited non-qualified bonds may be issued for a period of one to 30 years. It requires an affirmative vote of the electors. Bond proceeds can be used for all types of capital improvements, technology purchases, and buses. MPS currently levies 3.70 mills to pay off current bond debt. OTHER SOURCES: A district can use proceeds from the sale of land or buildings, monetary gifts, donations, or grants. FOUNDATIONS: School foundations can donate money to be used for capitol improvements and technology purchases.

Bond and sinking fund dollars allow more general fund dollars to be spent in the classroom  Bond dollars used to improve the school facilities increases efficiency of the buildings. The general fund avoids expensive costs for repairs and utility and operational costs are minimized.  Bond dollars used to purchase buses relieves the general fund of that expense. This school year, $62,500 is being spent on the leasing of 5 buses. That cost will continue to increase in the next few years.

Bond and sinking fund dollars allow more general fund dollars to be spent in the classroom  Bond dollars used to purchase computers/technology relieves the general fund of that expense. This year, $130,000 of technology purchases were postponed. Next year we expect to spend over $100,000 on technology related expenses just to keep up.  Sinking fund dollars are essential to pay for the continual maintenance of our facilities. Loss of sinking fund dollars would significantly impact the dollars we have for the classroom.

Sinking Fund  Current we levy 1.0 mills for the sinking fund. The sinking fund millage expires in December of 2016. 2013 MAJOR REPAIRS COST High school classroom remodel $164,364 PA system 18,899 Paving of parking lots 51,100 Pole barn for maintenance equipment 71,238 Pottery room remodel 27,117 Tennis court repairs 29,768 Tile and carpeting 32,345

Sinking Fund 2014 MAJOR REPAIRS COST HVAC and uninvent repair $202,932 HS classroom remodel 69,477 Paving of parking lots 47,241 Pole barn project 95,461 Pottery room remodel 41,835 MS and HS track repairs 19,300 Roof replacement 39,562 Doors and windows replacement 33,691 Chiller repairs 29,615

Sinking Fund 2015 MAJOR REPAIRS COST Roof replacement and repair $204,013 HVAC and uninvent repair 106,872 Paving of parking lots 45,060 MS and HS track repairs 35,000 Door replacement 22,265 HS Parking lot lights 25,405 Well repairs 5,902 Heat pump 14,643 Concession room repairs 6,278

Debt service millage rate history

School District Fund Debt Sinking Fund Debt Total Haslett Public Schools 2.0283 8.3300 10.3583 Dewitt Public Schools 10.0000 10.0000 Holt Public Schools 10.0000 10.0000 East Lansing Schools 1.2860 8.0950 9.3810 MASON PUBLIC SCHOOLS Bath Community School District 1.0000 8.0000 9.0000 County of Ingham, State of Michigan Williamston Community Schools 1.0000 7.9800 8.9800 COMPARISON OF DEBT SERVICE/CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT Okemos Public Schools 0.9919 7.0000 7.9919 MILLAGE RATES OF LANSING AREA Waverly Community Schools 7.4000 7.4000 SCHOOLS Leslie Public Schools 7.3900 7.3900 (Per 2014 Continuing Disclosure Reports) Eaton Rapids Public Schools 7.0000 7.0000 January 5, 2015 Pewamo-Westphalia Community Schools 7.0000 7.0000 St. Johns Public Schools 7.0000 7.0000 Grand Ledge Public Schools 0.8000 5.0000 5.8000 Mason Public Schools - Present 1.0000 3.7000 4.7000 Lansing School District 1.5000 2.3400 3.8400 Dansville Schools 1.0000 1.7700 2.7700 Average 7.4132

Millage Generation  Value of Home State Equalized Value(SEV) Millage Cost to Taxpayer Revenue for District ESTIMATES $100,000 $50,000 1.0 mills $50 per year $25.4 million $100,000 $50,000 2.0 mills $100 per year $50.8 million $100,000 $50,000 3.0 mills $150 per year $76.2 million $100,000 $50,000 4.0 mills $200 per year $101.6 million

Question and Answer  Work in groups of 5-6  Brainstorm a list of questions for the presenters  Pick “top three” questions  Recorder – Steering Committee member  ANSWERS TO FOLLOW

In Closing….. NEXT STEPS:  Information will be shared and discussed by Steering Committee  Information will be shared with Board of Education  Board of Education votes on a possible Bond Proposal scope of work on December 14, 2015  Stay tuned…more information will be shared by the district THANK YOU!!!