Grand Forks Public Schools Facilities Meetings to Engage the - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

▶
grand forks public schools facilities meetings to engage
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

Grand Forks Public Schools Facilities Meetings to Engage the - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Jul 25, 2023 92 likes •510 views

Grand Forks Public Schools Facilities Meetings to Engage the Community Ad Admin inis istrativ ive P Plannin ing T Team Dr. Terry Brenner, Superintendent Mr. Jody Thompson, Associate Superintendent Ms. Catherine Gillach, Assistant

slide-1
SLIDE 1

Grand Forks Public Schools Facilities Meetings to Engage the Community

Ad Admin inis istrativ ive P Plannin ing T Team

  • Dr. Terry Brenner, Superintendent
  • Mr. Jody Thompson, Associate Superintendent
  • Ms. Catherine Gillach, Assistant Superintendent
  • Mr. Scott Berge, Business Manager
  • Ms. Amy Bartsch, Chief Academic Officer
  • Ms. Tracy Abentroth, Human Resources Director
  • Ms. Tracy Jentz, Communications Coordinator
  • Mr. Chris Arnold, Buildings and Grounds Director
slide-2
SLIDE 2

Scheduled Meetings Dates / Times / Venues

  • September 5th
  • 6:30 – 8:30 p.m.

Valley Middle School

  • September 10th
  • 6:30 – 8:30 p.m.

Discovery Elementary School

  • September 16th
  • 6:30 – 8:30 p.m.

Grand Forks Central High School

  • September 19th
  • 6:30 – 8:30 p.m.

Viking Elementary School

  • September 26th
  • 6:30 – 8:30 p.m.

Wilder Elementary School

slide-3
SLIDE 3

Scheduled Meeting Format

There will be a large group gathering space and then smaller breakout rooms for small group conversation and feedback. Support from administrative colleagues (principals, APs, directors) will be enlisted to serve as resource people along with Cabinet administrators. The presentation will be recorded and uploaded on District website (www.gfschools.org).

slide-4
SLIDE 4

Agenda

6:30 p.m. - Dr. Terry Brenner, Superintendent

  • Welcome, thank you, purpose, and norms
  • Pre-K-12 Education Model Committee Themes (safety, equity, learning spaces)
  • Flood recovery, “newness,” and 22.5 years later
  • Homeland Security audits and future costs
  • Public input helps define District decisions

6:40 p.m. - Rob Schwartz, Demographer (via Zoom)

  • Overview of demographic data
  • Heat map concept to show neighborhood growth / decline
  • Discussion of over, under, and at capacity schools highlighting the “sweet spot” for

efficiencies 7:10 p.m. - Scott Berge, Business Manager

  • Overview of budget and cost per student (District average and school actual)
  • Cost per building and efficiency - sweet spot for efficiency (3-5 section schools)
  • Salary / Benefits per teacher comparison
  • Comparative taxing entity data between Grand Forks to other "Big Five"

7:20 p.m. - Chris Arnold, Buildings and Grounds Director

  • District project priorities
  • Deferred maintenance costs
  • Average age of schools

7:30 p.m. - Dr. Terry Brenner, Superintendent

  • Introduction of small group feedback session
  • Use of ThoughtExchange portal for feedback
  • Administrators as resource people
slide-5
SLIDE 5

PLANNING FOR THE FUTURE

18/19Enrollment Analysis

Presented on April 17, 2019

Visualizing Success

Condensed Version Functional Capacity Updated May 2019

slide-6
SLIDE 6

2

Past, Current, Future Enrollment

What Does This Mean

❑ Enrollment Change – Overall enrollment increase anticipated

▪

Demographic changes in older parts of the community must be monitored

❑ Increases based on continued development opportunities and demographic change ❑ District increases by nearly 350 students (4.5%) (+0.5% to +1.4% a year) ❑ Elementary increases by about 10 students (+0.3%) (-1.7% to +1.0% a year) ❑ Middle School decreases by nearly 30 students (-1.5%) (-2.5% to +2.5% a year) ❑ High School increases by over 350 students (+14.5%) (+2.0% to +6.5% a year)

Source: Grand Forks Public Schools and RSP SFM & Demographic Models

slide-7
SLIDE 7

3

❑ Red areas depict highest density of

students, Gray as lowest student density

❑ Overlapping points (2 or more students) are

handled using a weighting of coincident points

❑ This analysis helps with understanding

student population and geographic proximity to schools

❑ Some new areas do not necessarily

lead to similar yield rates of like developments

Student “Heat” Density

slide-8
SLIDE 8

Growth Areas

❑ Identifies where development activity

is happening (Green)

❑ Identifies possible areas that could

develop (Yellow and Purple)

❑ The market and property owners

desire to build guides the timing of development

❑ Other properties not shown might

develop while some shown might not develop

❑ The new lift station being planned

south of 62nd Ave SE and west of Belmont Road will allow for areas south

  • f 62nd Ave SE to be served for new

developments at some point in the near future

❑ A key element to monitor will be how

infill developments happen in the core area and how that will impact household choices where they reside

4

slide-9
SLIDE 9

5

Elementary Projections

Capacity shown in table is from the RSP Capacity Analysis to determine the Functional Capacity for each school

Functional Capacity Analysis Integration

Exceed RSP Functional Capacity Lower than 70% RSP Functional Capacity

School Student Location 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 Ben Franklin Res/Att 318 307

Capacity 336

Reside 345 347 359 358 345 345 339 337 346 331 336 337 335 344 329

Grades K-5

Attend 356 352 355 365 343 Century Res/Att 434 422

Capacity 484

Reside 473 491 473 478 471 481 467 459 451 456 462 443 435 427 432

Grades K-5

Attend 664 442 435 450 447 Discovery Res/Att 433 446

Capacity 448

Reside 374 402 442 460 482 494 499 515 546 594 480 480 496 527 575

Grades K-5 (Open 15/16)

Attend 369 440 448 463

  • J. Nelson Kelly

Res/Att 416 452

Capacity 448

Reside 452 437 436 446 471 466 447 446 422 412 470 450 449 425 415

Grades K-5

Attend 514 422 421 434 474 Lake Agassiz Res/Att 381 349

Capacity 444

Reside 444 443 436 437 409 416 423 423 437 449 384 391 391 405 417

Grades K-5

Attend 463 410 402 398 377 Lewis and Clark Res/Att 154 162

Capacity 224

Reside 183 187 197 174 175 173 168 170 163 163 201 190 192 185 185

Grades K-5

Attend 212 231 232 203 197 Nathan F. Twining Res/Att 207 195

Capacity 579

Reside 227 228 198 207 196 196 188 186 184 194 203 197 195 193 203

Grades K-5

Attend 244 246 209 221 205 Phoenix Res/Att 207 183

Capacity 224

Reside 258 266 249 248 205 202 195 184 181 180 196 188 177 174 173

Grades K-5

Attend 239 254 236 227 198 Viking Res/Att 296 325

Capacity 224

Reside 323 336 354 368 385 392 397 413 419 408 347 350 366 372 361

Grades K-5

Attend 324 309 314 317 338 West Res/Att 89 55

Capacity 112

Reside 121 105 106 106 76 76 71 67 71 70 74 85 81 85 84

Grades K-5

Attend 173 169 148 142 90 Wilder Res/Att 183 159

Capacity 112

Reside 238 251 245 228 203 198 186 181 185 182 173 152 147 151 148

Grades K-5

Attend 129 177 186 192 169 Winship Res/Att 81 82

Capacity 224

Reside 94 80 84 104 94 86 84 84 83 85 199 201 201 200 202

Grades K-5

Attend 214 192 201 217 211 ELEMENTARY TOTAL 3,199 3,137

Capacity 3,859

Reside 3,532 3,573 3,579 3,614 3,512 3,525 3,464 3,465 3,488 3,524 3,525 3,464 3,465 3,488 3,524

Grades K-5

Attend 3,532 3,573 3,579 3,614 3,512 Past School Enrollment Future Enrollment By Student Attendance Future Enrollment By Student Residence

Source: RSP & Associates, LLC - March 2019 (Capacity Update May 2019)

slide-10
SLIDE 10

6

Elementary Projections

Capacity shown in table is from the RSP Capacity Analysis to determine the Functional Capacity for each school

Functional Capacity Analysis Integration

Exceed RSP Functional Capacity Lower than 70% RSP Functional Capacity

TABLE EXPLAINATION: There is student choice when examining the student data Using Ben Franklin Elementary as an example:

  • In 2018/19 345 K-5 students resided in the 18/19 its elementary attendance area
  • In 2018/19 343 K-5 students attended the school
  • In 2018/19 307 of the 345 K-5 students resided and attended the school
  • The difference of the 307 Reside/Attend and the 343 Attend K-5 enrollment comes from one of

the other Grand Forks Public school elementary buildings

School Student Location 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 Ben Franklin Res/Att 318 307

Capacity 336

Reside 345 347 359 358 345

Grades K-5

Attend 356 352 355 365 343 Century Res/Att 434 422 Past School Enrollment

slide-11
SLIDE 11

7

Secondary Projections

Functional Capacity Analysis Integration

Exceed RSP Functional Capacity Lower than 70% RSP Functional Capacity Capacity shown in table is from the RSP Capacity Analysis to determine the Functional Capacity for each school

School Student Location 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 Elroy Schroeder Middle Res/Att 413 432

Capacity 653

Reside 414 436 427 448 455 457 452 436 458 473 487 473 457 479 494

Grades 6-8

Attend 485 471 448 463 483 Nathan F. Twining Middle Res/Att 76 78

MS Capacity shown at ES

Reside 67 62 68 76 78 85 81 84 78 73 86 84 87 81 76

Grades 6-8

Attend 70 66 71 82 79 South Middle Res/Att 493 515

Capacity 701

Reside 490 471 505 536 556 576 605 610 588 568 588 638 643 621 601

Grades 6-8

Attend 584 567 571 558 568 Valley Middle Res/Att 563 573

Capacity 559

Reside 539 566 597 632 635 646 620 617 582 585 603 562 559 524 527

Grades 6-8

Attend 371 431 507 589 594 Grand Forks Central High Res/Att 831 813

Capacity 1,183

Reside 1,022 1,063 1,030 1,035 989 998 1,092 1,106 1,118 1,134 1,006 1,070 1,084 1,096 1,112

Grades 9-12

Attend 887 930 969 1,022 997 Red River High Res/Att 909 907

Capacity 1,316

Reside 1,080 1,098 1,137 1,132 1,110 1,157 1,203 1,236 1,287 1,327 1,080 1,149 1,182 1,233 1,273

Grades 9-12

Attend 1,119 1,133 1,119 1,065 1,033 Community High Res/Att 6 10

Capacity 113

Reside 5 4 5 6 10 6 7 7 7 7 75 83 83 83 83

Grades 10-12

Attend 101 102 84 86 79 ELEMENTARY TOTAL Res/Att 3,199 3,137

Capacity 3,859

Reside 3,532 3,573 3,579 3,614 3,512 3,525 3,464 3,465 3,488 3,524 3,525 3,464 3,465 3,488 3,524

Grades K-5

Attend 3,532 3,573 3,579 3,614 3,512 MIDDLE TOTAL Res/Att 982 1,598

Capacity 1,913

Reside 1,510 1,535 1,597 1,692 1,724 1,764 1,758 1,747 1,706 1,699 1,764 1,758 1,747 1,706 1,699

Grades 6-8

Attend 1,510 1,535 1,597 1,692 1,724 HIGH TOTAL Res/Att 1,746 1,730

Capacity 2,612

Reside 2,107 2,165 2,172 2,173 2,109 2,161 2,302 2,349 2,412 2,468 2,161 2,302 2,349 2,412 2,468

Grades 9-12

Attend 2,107 2,165 2,172 2,173 2,109 DISTRICT K -12 TOTALS Res/Att 5,927 6,465

Capacity 8,384

Reside 7,149 7,273 7,348 7,479 7,345 7,450 7,524 7,561 7,606 7,691 7,450 7,524 7,561 7,606 7,691

Grades K-12

Attend 7,149 7,273 7,348 7,479 7,345

Source: RSP & Associates, LLC - March 2019 (Capacity Update May 2019)

Past School Enrollment Future Enrollment By Student Attendance Future Enrollment By Student Residence

slide-12
SLIDE 12

8

Secondary Projections

Functional Capacity Analysis Integration

Exceed RSP Functional Capacity Lower than 70% RSP Functional Capacity Capacity shown in table is from the RSP Capacity Analysis to determine the Functional Capacity for each school

TABLE EXPLAINATION: There is student choice when examining the student data Using Elroy Schroeder Middle as an example:

  • In 2018/19 455 6-8 students resided in the 18/19 its middle school attendance area
  • In 2018/19 483 6-8 students attended the school
  • In 2018/19 432 of the 483 K-5 students resided and attended the school
  • The difference of the 432 Reside/Attend and the 483 Attend 6-8 enrollment comes from one of

the other Grand Forks Public school middle school buildings

School Student Location 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 Elroy Schroeder Middle Res/Att 413 432

Capacity 653

Reside 414 436 427 448 455

Grades 6-8

Attend 485 471 448 463 483 Nathan F. Twining Middle Res/Att 76 78 Past School Enrollment

slide-13
SLIDE 13

9

Projection Notes

Project Clarification:

❑ Past Enrollment is shown three different ways:

  • 1. Reside (Based on where a student Resides in relation to the attendance area –

includes Open Enrollment)

  • 2. Attend (Based on what school the student is attending)
  • 3. Reside/Attend (Subset of Reside to know how many of the Reside attend the school

based on the attendance area they are assigned to)

❑ Projections are shown two ways:

  • 1. Reside (Based on where a student Resides in relation to the attendance area:

Includes Open Enrollment)

  • 2. Attend (Based on where the student may likely attend – Includes Open Enrollment)

❑ Capacity ▪

Provided by district administration

▪

Should be annually examined to ensure appropriate education space is available

▪

Create additional space in emerging growth areas, inclusive of new neighborhoods surrounding land the school district owns

❑ Other Items ▪

Enrollment Grade Configuration in Student Forecast Model (K-5, 6-8, 9-12)

▪

Open enrollment trends are assumed to follow district policy and will continue like those trends

slide-14
SLIDE 14

Grand Forks Public Schools Finance and Mill Levy Updates

Scott Berge, Business Manager

  • Nearly the entire operating deficit in 2018-2019

was related to significant emergency facility needs.

  • Preliminary 2019-2020 budget includes $2.5 million

for construction expenditures.

  • Master Facility Plan recommendations are $5-7

million spending per year over the course of 10-15 years.

  • Grand Forks Public Schools' mill levy for facilities is

significantly lower than comparable school districts.

slide-15
SLIDE 15

Continuing to operate status quo is not sustainable:

General Fund Balance Trend – 2% to 3% growth in revenues and expenses; $2.5 to $3 million annual capital expenditures

$20,163,953 $19,444,235 $18,396,147 $18,096,222 $13,946,222 $10,857,972 $8,214,291 $6,040,123 $4,361,884 $3,207,559 2014-2015 2015-2016 2016-2017 2017-2018 2018-2019 2019-2020 2020-2021 2021-2022 2022-2023 2023-2024

General Fund Balance

ENDING GENERAL FUND BALANCE Projection

A healthy fund balance is 15-20% of total expenditures; 15% would be $18 million by the end of 2023-2024; $0 spend on facilities during all five years would be needed to achieve a healthy fund balance.

slide-16
SLIDE 16

GRAND FORKS PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT

ELEMENTARY SCHOOL OPERATIONAL COST COMPARISON

TOTAL SQ FT Student Enrollment As Of February 28, 2019 Students Sections Students Sections Students Sections Students Sections Students Sections Students Sections Students Sections Students Sections Students Sections Students Sections Students Sections Students Sections Kindergarten 45 3 71 4 78 4 77 4 72 4 32 2 33 2 71 4 25 2 31 2 535 31 Grade 1 71 4 74 3 69 3 83 4 65 4 29 2 33 2 68 3 21 1 27 1.5 40 2 580 30 Grade 2 43 2 81 4 64 3 91 4 57 3 34 2 33 2 51 3 15 1 23 1.5 34 2 526 28 Grade 3 58 3 76 3 78 4 66 3 60 3 38 2 39 2 41 2 18 1 30 2 30 2 534 27 Grade 4 58 3 80 4 92 4 78 4 55 3 34 2 33 2 47 2.5 21 1 36 2 30 2 564 30 Grade 5 61 3 55 3 87 4 75 3 57 3 26 2 30 2 53 2.5 25 1 30 2 45 2 544 28 TOTAL 336 18 437 21 468 22 470 22 366 20 193 12 201 12 331 17 100 5 171 11 210 12 3,283 172

  • Avg. Students per Class

Salary & Benefits Cost / Student Sq Ft / Student Students / Classified Staff Students / Total Staff Utilities Expense Utilities / Student

Total Costs / Student

$34,882 $67,788 $40,251 $37,954 $286 $262 $153 $193 $58,361 $124,925 $122,554 $71,917 $70,506 5.9

$10,629 $11,351 $10,171

$217

$9,075 $10,315 $8,622 $7,682 $11,154 $11,922 $13,996 $9,078 $17,861

$181 $337 $122 $380 $275 $166 $47,027 $34,919 $711,084 $174 $17,481 16.8 13.2 18.4 20.4 12.7 14.3 6.8 5.9 6.9 8.0 5.4 5.0 4.2 7.3 3.3 11.4 8.5 20.1 7.7 14.7 12.3 5.4 5.0

Phoenix

$10,354 $11,185 $9,954 161 185 198 145 162 179 274 115 326 157 144 174 $8,901 $10,029 $8,360 $7,529 $10,962 $11,741 $13,659 $8,956

West West Wilder Winship TOTAL Ben Franklin Century Discovery Kelly Lake Agassiz Lewis & Clark

15.55 17.50 19.09 18.67 20.81 21.27 21.36 18.30 16.08 16.75 19.47 20.00

Viking

34,541 55,000 38,219

Wilder Winship TOTAL

54,000 81,050 92,750 68,345 59,146 572,739 32,600 26,792 30,296

Ben Franklin Century Discovery Kelly Lake Agassiz Lewis & Clark Phoenix Viking

slide-17
SLIDE 17

Larger class sizes and more sections

  • f each grade tend

to be more cost efficient.

GRAND FORKS PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT

ELEMENTARY SCHOOL OPERATIONAL COST COMPARISON

TOTAL SQ FT Student Enrollment As Of February 28, 2019 Students Sections Students Sections Students Sections Students Sections Students Sections Students Sections Kindergarten 45 3 71 4 78 4 77 4 72 4 32 2 Grade 1 71 4 74 3 69 3 83 4 65 4 29 2 Grade 2 43 2 81 4 64 3 91 4 57 3 34 2 Grade 3 58 3 76 3 78 4 66 3 60 3 38 2 Grade 4 58 3 80 4 92 4 78 4 55 3 34 2 Grade 5 61 3 55 3 87 4 75 3 57 3 26 2 TOTAL 336 18 437 21 468 22 470 22 366 20 193 12

  • Avg. Students per Class

Salary & Benefits Cost / Student Sq Ft / Student Students / Classified Staff Students / Total Staff Utilities Expense Utilities / Student

Total Costs / Student

$34,882 $286 $262 $153 $193 $58,361 $124,925 $122,554 $71,917 $70,506

$9,075 $10,315 $8,622 $7,682 $11,154 $11,922

$181 $174 16.8 13.2 18.4 20.4 12.7 6.8 5.9 6.9 8.0 5.4 5.0 11.4 161 185 198 145 162 179 $8,901 $10,029 $8,360 $7,529 $10,962 $11,741

Ben Franklin Century Discovery Kelly Lake Agassiz Lewis & Clark

18.67 20.81 21.27 21.36 18.30 16.08

34,541 54,000 81,050 92,750 68,345 59,146

Ben Franklin Century Discovery Kelly Lake Agassiz Lewis & Clark

slide-18
SLIDE 18

All schools with two sections or less in each grade average 15.5- 17.5 students and are among the highest cost to operate per pupil.

GRAND FORKS PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT

ELEMENTARY SCHOOL OPERATIONAL COST COMPARISON

TOTAL SQ FT Student Enrollment As Of February 28, 2019 Students Sections Students Sections Students Sections Students Sections Students Sections Students Sections Kindergarten 33 2 71 4 25 2 31 2 535 31 Grade 1 33 2 68 3 21 1 27 1.5 40 2 580 30 Grade 2 33 2 51 3 15 1 23 1.5 34 2 526 28 Grade 3 39 2 41 2 18 1 30 2 30 2 534 27 Grade 4 33 2 47 2.5 21 1 36 2 30 2 564 30 Grade 5 30 2 53 2.5 25 1 30 2 45 2 544 28 TOTAL 201 12 331 17 100 5 171 11 210 12 3,283 172

  • Avg. Students per Class

Salary & Benefits Cost / Student Sq Ft / Student Students / Classified Staff Students / Total Staff Utilities Expense Utilities / Student

Total Costs / Student

$67,788 $40,251 $37,954 5.9

$10,629 $11,351 $10,171

$217

$13,996 $9,078 $17,861

$337 $122 $380 $275 $166 $47,027 $34,919 $711,084 $17,481 14.3 4.2 7.3 3.3 8.5 20.1 7.7 14.7 12.3 5.4 5.0

Phoenix

$10,354 $11,185 $9,954 274 115 326 157 144 174 $13,659 $8,956

West West Wilder Winship TOTAL

15.55 17.50 19.09 16.75 19.47 20.00

Viking

55,000 38,219

Wilder Winship TOTAL

572,739 32,600 26,792 30,296

Phoenix Viking

slide-19
SLIDE 19

Ele lementary ry N Nort rth Dak akota Cl Clas ass S Size Com Comparison

Grand Forks tends to have smaller class sizes at the low and high ends compared to other

  • districts. The impact results

in additional facilities and additional staffing costs.

School Kindergarten First Second Third Fourth Fifth GF Average 15-20 17.26 14-25 19.66 14-23 19.13 14-27 19.78 15-23 19.12 13-26 19.09 Fargo Range from 14.9-22 (try to cap at 23) Range from 14.9-22 (try to cap at 23) Range from 14.9-22 (try to cap at 23) Range from 14.9-22 (try to cap at 23) Range from 14.9-22 (try to cap at 23) Range from 14.9-22 (try to cap at 23) W.Fargo 16- 25 16- 25 19- 25 16- 27 16- 28 15- 29 Mandan 23.4 22 20.2 21 23.5 21.3 Minot 13- 25 14- 25 13- 24 18- 25 15- 30 14- 27 Bismarck 15-22 16-23 17-22 16-22 16-25 16-27

slide-20
SLIDE 20

ND ND D Departm tment O t Of Public Instruct ction D Data: Instruct ctional S Salaries es a and d Benefi fits ts

Smaller average class sizes in Grand Forks equate to higher salary and benefit costs per student, even though average salaries in Grand Forks are the lowest of the comparable districts.

ADM Salary & Salary & Salary & Salary & Average Salary Total Benefits Benefits Benefits Benefits Other Teachers Teachers Support Support Teachers Licensed Admin

  • Avg. Daily

Membership

Per Pupil Per Pupil Bismarck 13,453 $ 93,157,994 $ 6,925 $ 11,429,414 $ 850 $ 60,286 $ 67,316 $ 117,180 Fargo 11,667 $ 91,945,695 $ 7,881 $ 10,703,459 $ 917 $ 60,782 $ 70,554 $ 120,689 West Fargo 10,785 $ 73,809,990 $ 6,844 $ 14,752,985 $ 1,368 $ 49,802 $ 59,344 $ 110,575 West Fargo - Adj - District pays employee portion of TFFR $ 56,433 $ 67,245 $ 125,297 Minot 7,671 $ 59,508,651 $ 7,757 $ 5,055,145 $ 659 $ 60,094 $ 72,316 $ 118,092 Grand Forks 7,530 $ 61,199,474 $ 8,127 $ 7,560,322 $ 1,004 $ 55,283 $ 63,106 $ 115,210 GF 1st GF 2nd GF 5th GF 5th GF 5th

Total Salaries & Ben. Per Pupil

(Teachers & Support staff) Bismarck $ 7,775 Fargo $ 8,798 West Fargo $ 8,211 Minot $ 8,416 Grand Forks $ 9,131

slide-21
SLIDE 21

32.82 27.35 53.98 12.00 23.50 BISMARCK FARGO WEST FARGO GRAND FORKS MINOT

Building & Sinking Fund Mill Levy Comparison

slide-22
SLIDE 22

$15,788,340 $10,792,741 $19,928,780 $2,858,332 $4,945,997

Total Building & Sinking Fund Mill Levy Revenue

Bismarck Fargo West Fargo Grand Forks Minot

slide-23
SLIDE 23

$1,174 $925 $1,848 $380 $645

Total Building & Sinking Fund Mill Levy Revenue Per Pupil

Bismarck Fargo West Fargo Grand Forks Minot

slide-24
SLIDE 24

$3,716 $5,213 $4,563 $3,100 $3,114

Total Property Tax Revenue Per Pupil 2017-2018

Bismarck Fargo West Fargo Grand Forks Minot

slide-25
SLIDE 25

Mill Levy Comparison

32

17% 53% 18% 10% 2%

Fargo

County School City Park Other

25% 31% 31% 13% 0%

Grand Forks

County School City Park Other

14% 46% 25% 15% 0%

Bismarck

County School City Park Other

17% 46% 25% 9% 3%

West Fargo

County School City Park Other

18% 40% 33% 9% 0%

Minot

County School City Park Other

slide-26
SLIDE 26

Grand Forks Public Schools Facilities

Chris Arnold, Director Of Buildings And Grounds

slide-27
SLIDE 27

Timeline of Facilities

1950–1969

Large build up of school facilities due to population growth

1970–1997

Slow growth in facilities

1997

Flood damages several buildings

  • Results in new construction

(South and Phoenix)

  • Demolition/sale of several sites

(Lincoln/South/Belmont)

  • Large influx of Federal dollars

Today

Most facilities demand investment

  • Average Age: ES: 49 yrs., MS: 48

yrs., HS: 72 yrs.

  • Mechanical systems require

major overhaul due to end of life

  • Structural systems at failure

resulting in high maintenance costs

slide-28
SLIDE 28

National School Facilities Trends

1989 over half of K-12 institutions were obsolete Average age per 1998 NCES survey: 46 years

  • ld

25% of schools pre-date 1950

GFPS 10.5%

50% of all schools were built from 1950- 1969

GFPS 52.6%

15% were built from 1970-1984

GFPS 5.2%

10% were built after 1985

GFPS 21%

https://nces.ed. gov/surveys/frss /publications/19 99048/

slide-29
SLIDE 29

Grand Forks School Facts

  • Elementary schools (11)
  • Average age: 1970
  • Total square footage: 566,819 sq. ft.
  • Total deferred maintenance: $25M
  • Investment vs building value: 28.6%
  • Middle schools (3)
  • Average age: 1971
  • Total square footage: 362,511 sq. ft.
  • Total deferred maintenance: $18M
  • Investment vs building value: 21.1%
  • High schools (3)
  • Average age: 1947
  • Total square footage: 638,325 sq. ft.
  • Total deferred maintenance: $21M
  • Investment vs building value: 13.2%
  • Twining
  • Age: 58 yrs.
  • Total Square footage: 108,000 sq. ft.
  • Total deferred maintenance: $12M
  • Investment vs building value: 98.7%
  • Deferred Maintenance from 2017 Report: Approx. $76M
slide-30
SLIDE 30

Equitable Buildings

  • Accessibility
  • Elevators / Bathrooms / Hallways / Egress
  • ADA Compliance
  • HVAC
  • Air Conditioning / Fresh Air Make-up
  • Reliable heating systems
  • Poor comfort control
  • OSHA Standards
  • Electrical
  • Insufficient power for IT systems
  • Cannot support HVAC expansion
  • Space
  • Gymnasiums / Lunchrooms / Common Areas / Child Drop-Off / Pick-Up
  • Most sites have limited land
slide-31
SLIDE 31

Case Study: Valley MS

Situation Limited bathroom facilities that have ADA accessibility, multiple floors, and poor egress access for wheelchairs. Background

  • Constructed in 1954 multiple 1960’s

additions.

  • ADA code: non – existent during

construction

  • Students/staff have worked with existing

facilities

Assessment

  • Insufficient amount of ADA accessible restrooms and

signage

  • One bathroom provides space but is non-complaint with

today’s code

  • Elevator is a LULA
  • Limited space onboard and outside doorways
  • Multiple level space does not provide area of refuge for

wheelchair user

  • Travel distances in building result in time away from class

to use restrooms

  • Lower A bathroom over 500’ from common areas

(gym/lunchroom)

Recommendation

  • Large scale Renovation
  • Update plumbing systems $1-2M
  • Update HVAC: $4.5M
  • Update Electrical/Sprinklers/Fire: $1M
  • Estimated Building Replacement Cost: $24M
  • Deferred Maintenance Needed: $7.7M
  • Investment vs. Building Value: 32%
slide-32
SLIDE 32

Safe Buildings

  • Secure Entrances
  • Should have controlled entry into office area
  • Provide egress for students / staff inside
  • Security Cameras
  • No cameras at elementary levels
  • Limited at middle levels
  • Access control systems
  • Provide immediate lockdown during events of interior/exterior doors
  • Connect critical systems together (cameras / door access / mass

notification)

  • Provide link to local law enforcement
  • Fire Alarm systems
  • Most do not have modern technology (strobes / horns / speakers)
  • All but one do not have mass notification systems
slide-33
SLIDE 33

School Building Priorities

  • Concepts to consider
  • How to calculate Replacement vs. Remodel
  • Consider age of structure(s)
  • Calculate useful life
  • Total replacement value vs. remodel costs
  • % should remain below 40%
  • Operation and maintenance costs
  • Staffing or sq. ft. Vs. student load
  • Obsolescence
  • Needs to support current education model (mission)
slide-34
SLIDE 34

Past Facilities Projects (2017-2019)

  • Winship HVAC Replacement: $1M
  • Carpet Replacement at multiple sites: $150K
  • Replace Chiller Compressor at Grand Forks Central HS: $70K
  • Replace LULA’s at Grand Forks Central and Valley: $160K
  • Replace fire alarm at Elroy Schroeder: $130K
  • Repair exterior finishes at multiple sites: $125K
  • Remove damaged smokestack at Lewis and Clark: $50K
  • Install Generator at the Mark Sanford Education Center: $35K
  • Install new roof at Viking (west side only), roof repair on Nathan Twining gym: $200K
  • LED light upgrade at Nathan Twining: $60K
slide-35
SLIDE 35

Past Facilities Projects (2017-2019)

Replace flooring at multiple schools: $500K Replace skylight at RRHS (library only): $210K Replace 25 heat pumps at RRHS: $250K Replace makeup air unit at RRHS: $80K Replace boilers/controls for gym addition at GF Central: $1M Replace exterior brick at Central: $100K Replace bleachers at Central: $140K New lot at Executive Corners property: $280K Replace boilers at Schroeder: $340K Replace gym lighting at South (LED conversion): $15K Replace all interior clocks at Phoenix and South: $35K Replace exterior windows at Ben Franklin (SW corner

  • nly): $120K

Replace lighting at Century with LEDs: $25K Replace relocatables at Viking: $500K Repair EFIS on gymnasium addition: $25K Upgrade elevator controls at Lewis and Clark: $55K

slide-36
SLIDE 36

Years 1-5

slide-37
SLIDE 37

Years 6-10

slide-38
SLIDE 38

Years 11-15

slide-39
SLIDE 39

Project Priorities

  • Year 1-5
  • South and Phoenix Boiler Plant Replacement: $1M
  • Grand Forks Central Chiller Plant Replacement: $1M
  • Ben Franklin Exterior Window Replacement: $400K
  • Century HVAC Replacement (Boilers / Controls / Chiller): $2.65M
  • Ben Franklin HVAC Replacement: $4.2M
  • Valley Remodel (all mechanical systems): $7.2M
  • South Chiller Plant Replacement: $500K
  • Nathan Twining Remodel (all mechanical systems): $12M
  • Red River Heat Pump Replacement: $2M
  • Red River Skylight Replacement: $500K
slide-40
SLIDE 40

Small Group Activity Questions

WHAT DO YOU VALUE / LIKE BEST ABOUT OUR SCHOOLS AND OUR DISTRICT OVERALL AS A SYSTEM? WHAT CAN WE IMPROVE UPON? WHAT ARE SOME IMPORTANT ISSUES TO CONSIDER AS WE PLAN FOR HOW WE MAINTAIN AND IMPROVE OUR FACILITIES IN THE YEARS TO COME? BASED ON THE PRESENTED INFORMATION AND THE MAJOR FISCAL CHALLENGES FACED BY THE DISTRICT, WHAT ARE YOUR THOUGHTS OR QUESTIONS FOR THE SCHOOL DISTRICT AND SCHOOL BOARD?