Grafton November 9 and 10, 2016 Community Listening Sessions - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

November 9 and 10, 2016

Community Listening Sessions

School District of

Grafton

Welcome

Facilities Planning Drivers

▪ Grafton Elementary School is in need of immediate replacement ▪ Gain efficiencies for our budget as well as collaboration opportunities for staff ▪ Improve safety and security at each building ▪ Create learning spaces that are flexible for growth & prepare students for future success ▪ Science facilities

▪ Haven’t been updated since 1971 ▪ Project Lead the Way biomedical science was added in 2013-2014

Facilities Planning Drivers

▪ 2013-2014

▪ PLTW: Principles of Biomedical Science (102 students enrolled)

▪ 2014-2015 ▪ PLTW: Principles of Biomedical Science (54 students enrolled - with a wait list) ▪ PLTW: Human Body Systems (47 students enrolled)

▪ 2015-2016

▪ PLTW: Principles of Biomedical Science (49 students enrolled – with a wait list) ▪ PLTW: Human Body Systems (48 students enrolled – with a wait list)

▪ 2016-17 *new teacher added to teach PLTW: PBS

▪ PLTW: Principles of Biomedical Science (86 students enrolled) ▪ PLTW: Human Body Systems (64 students enrolled) ▪ PLTW: Medical Interventions (24 students enrolled) ▪ PLTW: Biomedical Innovations (6 students – this is the final, capstone class)

Facilities Planning Drivers

▪ Need to upgrade our Technical Education classrooms ▪ STEM curriculum adoption ▪ Two engineering courses have been added in the past two years

▪ Introduction to Engineering (2015 - 31 students / 2016 - 19 students) ▪ Principles of Engineering (2015 - 29 students / 2016 - 38 students)

▪ Need to upgrade our facilities for students with significant cognitive disabilities ▪ Handicap accessibility needs to be addressed at all schools ▪ A 6th-12th grade school would better utilize resources than a 7th-12th grade facility ▪ The Village of Grafton surveys show people choose Grafton as a community to live in

because of a strong school system

▪

2013 - #1 reason 2014 - #1 reason 2015 - #3 reason

REVIEW OF THE PROCESS

▪ Prior to April 2016

▪ District-wide facilities assessments and study began in earnest in early 2012. ▪ During 2012, complete assessments of all district facilities were completed by Plunkett

Raysich Architects and Kapur and Associates. Their reports, issued in the summer of 2012, identified short, mid and long range maintenance needs in excess of $20 million.

▪ Most pressing needs were immediately addressed in 2013 and 2014. In total, the

District has spent more than $3.5 million over the last four years on these maintenance items.

▪ Recognizing continued ongoing needs, the Board issued a formal request for proposal

to area experts in the summer of 2014 to facilitate further study of our facilities needs.

▪ In December 2014 the Board selected Hoffman Planning, Design and Construction to

assist in our continued evaluation of our facilities. Upon its engagement, Hoffman conducted its own assessments of district facilities.

REVIEW OF THE PROCESS

▪ The first Grafton Citizens Facilities Committee, consisting of approximately 50 members

selected from the community, was formed in the spring of 2015. This committee met throughout the summer and fall of 2015 to evaluate our facilities needs and to identify

• ptions for consideration.

▪ This committee explored 10 options to address facilities needs - ranging from

completing only remaining maintenance items with a cost of approximately $20 million to a $60 million option that built a new middle school at the current GES site and a new elementary school on the Kennedy site.

REVIEW OF THE PROCESS

▪ From these 10 options and the recommendation of the Citizens Facilities Committee,

the Board ultimately elected to go to referendum in April of 2016 to spend $49.5 million. Question 1 of the referendum was to spend $47.5 million to:

▪ Address the maintenance items at all locations ▪ Build a new 7th and 8th grade middle school on the current GES site ▪ Convert Kennedy Elementary and Woodview Elementary to primary schools housing

4K to 2nd grade

▪ Convert JLMS to an elementary school housing 3rd to 6th grades. ▪ Question 2 of the referendum was to spend $1.8 million to replace and/or upgrade

• utdoor athletic facilities consistent with study results conducted by Point of Beginning.

▪ The April 2016 referendum failed. Question one failed on a 45% to 55% vote and

question two failed by a narrower margin of 48% to 52%.

REVIEW OF THE PROCESS

▪ Unfortunately, the outcome of the April 2016 referendum did not change the facilities

needs in the district. Regardless of the vote, the needs remained and the Board endeavored to move forward with finding an alternative solution.

▪ Recognizing the viability of GES as a critical factor in any plans moving forward, the

Board initiated a detailed assessment of these facilities using internal resources and the Sigma Group. Initial conclusions reached indicated that the cost to repair and maintain this facility would rival the cost to build new.

▪ Eager to better understand where the community stood on the referendum process, the

failed referendum, and facilities in general, an Ad-Hoc Facilities Committee of the Board was formed.

▪ Throughout June, this ad-hoc committee conducted five listening sessions at various

locations throughout the community.

▪ At the end of June, the Board established Fund 46 with the goal of having 1 million

dollars available for capital improvements by July 2021. There is currently $360,000 in Fund 46 with $100,000 to be added in the 2016-2017 budget.

REVIEW OF THE PROCESS

▪ In July of 2015, at the suggestion of the Ad-Hoc Facilities Committee, the Board

decided to form a new Facilities Advisory Committee to continue the study and analysis

• f District facilities.

▪ Rather than selecting committee members at large, as was the case with the first

Citizens Facilities Committee, the Board asked interested community stakeholders to complete a simple application to serve on the committee noting interest and qualifications.

▪ Two questions were posed to serve as guidance in making committee selections: ▪ Why are you interested in serving on the facilities committee? ▪ What are your qualifications for membership on the committee? (Please describe

your specific abilities, qualities and/or experiences that would be beneficial to the committee.)

▪ In total, 55 community members applied to serve on the committee. Twenty members

were selected based upon their application. In addition, eight staff members and three Board members were selected to serve on the Facilities Advisory Committee.

FACILITIES ADVISORY COMMITTEE

Community Membership

Casey Didier Matthew Lempke Sarah Paque Eric Ellison Jeff Martyka Jim Schmit Craig Gunderson Bob Meier John Scott Carl Hader Steve Nauta Brian Starr Colleen Jordan David Nestler Dave Tarasewicz Pam King Stephen Oakes Kyle Thompson Tom Lawrence Todd Ovard

District Representation

Topher Adams Kevin Deering Fran Grant Kate Hardt Scott Mantei Jeff Nelson Jamie Scofield April Shanks

Board Members

Mark Koehler Paul Lorge Clayton Riddle

REVIEW OF THE PROCESS

▪ Committee Meeting #1 – Bringing Everyone Up-To-Speed

▪ Review age and current capacity of schools ▪ Review enrollment trends ▪ Review of existing conditions of schools and identified maintenance

items

▪ Review of programmatic needs ▪ Review financial information of district ▪ School finance basics ▪ State aid basics ▪ What methods for funding are available to the district? ▪ Review April 2016 information

REVIEW OF THE PROCESS

▪ Committee Meeting #2 – Questions from April 2016

Referendum

▪ Status of 2000 Referendum projects ▪ Impact of current legislation on construction costs ▪ Alternative use of existing adjacent facilities ▪ Multiple referendum questions

▪ Committee Meeting #3 – Communications

▪ Develop community communications plan ▪ Methods of communication ▪ Responsibilities

REVIEW OF THE PROCESS

▪ Committee Meeting #4 – Review Potential Options ▪ Committee Meeting #5 – Review Potential Options ▪ Committee Meeting #6 – Review Potential Options

▪ Review preliminary diagrams ▪ Review phasing requirements ▪ Review capital costs and operational costs ▪ Suggested revisions to options

THREE CAMPUS OPTION $44,977,540

CURRENT NEW THREE CAMPUS OPTION

Grafton Elementary (2 sections EC/4K-5th) Deconstruct and reclaim site Kennedy Elementary (2 sections 4K-5th ) Kennedy Elementary (3 sections EC/4K-5th ) Woodview Elementary (2 sections EC/4K-5th) Woodview Elementary (3 sections EC/4K-5th) John Long Middle (all students 6th-8th) John Long Middle (all students 6th-8th) Grafton High (all students 9th-12th) Grafton High (all students 9th-12th) New District Maintenance Building

TWO CAMPUS OPTION $51,331,841

CURRENT NEW TWO CAMPUS OPTION

Grafton Elementary (2 sections EC/4K-5th) Deconstruct and Provide Expansion Space Kennedy Elementary (2 sections 4K-5th ) Remodel for District Administration Woodview Elementary (2 sections EC/4K-5th) Woodview Primary (all students EC/4K-5K) John Long Middle (all students 6th-8th) John Long Elementary (all students 1st-5th) Grafton High (all students 9th-12th) Grafton Middle / High (all students 6th-12th) New District Maintenance Building

Example Financing Plan - $47.3 Million

▪ Debt Issuance ▪

$27.3 Million in 2017

▪

$10 Million in 2018

▪

$10 Million in 2019

▪ Each debt issuance paid off over 20 years ▪ Average interest rate is 4.25% ▪ Interest payments would total $26.3 million dollars

29

30

Projected Tax Impact for 2018

31

$150,000 $250,000 $350,000 Current Debt Decrease ($109.50) ($182.50) ($255.50) New Debt Increase $258.00 $430.00 $602.00 Net Increase Annual $148.50 $247.50 $346.50 Net Increase Monthly $12.38 $20.63 $28.88

Questions?

32