leadership to conduct a comprehensive assessment of schools and - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

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.

50-79 Years

Bingham Bissett Cherokee Cowden Delaware Disney Field Fremont Glendale Hillcrest Holland Mann Parkview Pershing Pittman Pleasant View Portland Sequiota Shady Dell Sherwood (Prior) Twain Watkins Weller Westport Wilder

FACILITY AGE

80 Years or Older

Bowerman Boyd Campbell Central Doling Jarrett Phelps Pipkin Reed Robberson Rountree Study Sunshine Tefft Weaver Williams York

<10 Years

Sherwood Harrison Hickory Hills

6%

10-19 Years

McBride McGregor Shining Stars EC Wilson’s Creek

7%

20-49 Years

Carver Gray Jeffries Kickapoo Truman

9% 46% 31%

Hickory Hills Sherwood McGregor Wilson’s Creek Harrison Carver McBride Shining Stars EC Truman Gray Jeffries Kickapoo Mann Sequiota Wilder Cowden Pittman Glendale Fremont Weller Parkview Shady Dell Bingham Pershing Twain Field Cherokee Westport Bissett Delaware Watkins Disney Sherwood (Prior) Hillcrest Holland Pleasant View Portland Bowerman Campbell Sunshine Williams Phelps Weaver Pipkin Study Jarrett Reed Tefft Doling Rountree Boyd York Central Robberson

HIS ISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE

FACIL ILIT ITY MASTER PLANNING 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

Process

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

• n the average weighted score of these four factors.

Good/Excellent (80-100)

Fremont Harrison Hickory Hills Sherwood Weaver Weller Westport Wilson’s Creek

15%

Fair (70-79)

Carver Central Cherokee Disney Glendale Gray Holland Jeffries Kickapoo McBride McGregor Parkview Phelps Pleasant View Sequiota Shady Dell Shining Stars EC Study Truman Watkins Wilder

39%

Unsatisfactory/Poor (<70)

Bingham Bissett Bowerman Boyd Campbell Cowden Delaware Doling Field Hillcrest Jarrett Mann Pershing Pipkin Pittman Portland Reed Robberson Rountree Sherwood (prior) Sunshine Tefft Twain Williams York

46%

ASSESSMENT RESULTS

FACILITY MASTER PLAN OPTIONS

 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

Master Plan Drivers

Maintain Current Grade Configuration

OPTIO ION 1 CHARACTERISTICS

 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

• f 70 or less except where facilities can be combined.

 Address specific program needs at high schools with combined

scores between 70 – 80.

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 F FACIL ILIT ITY CHANGES

Current Grade Configuration

OPTIO ION 1 BUDGET

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

Current Grade Configuration

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

• f 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

 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.

Elementary/Middle Combined 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 F FACIL ILIT ITY CHANGES

Elem lementary/Middle le Co Combined Ca Campus

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

OPTION 1 Current Grade Configuration OPTION 2 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

BUDGET SUMMARY

Comparison of Options

Costs are estimated in 2016 dollars

DELIVERING THE PLAN

PHASE 1 $150+ Million THE PLAN $300+ Million PHASE 2 $150+ Million TIMEFRAME 10-12 Years

DELIVERING THE PLAN

$100,000 home = $46 per year additional taxes Monthly increase = $3.84

24¢

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

Number of Schools

5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

Unsatisfactory/Poor Fair Good/Excellent (<70) (70-79) (80-100)

Combined Score Categories

Status Quo Take Action

MGT of America identified the funds required to increase “fair” sites with Combined Scores between 70-79 to 85. Estimated Investment $31,253,100 with investments for individual sites ranging between $1.1 million to $4.6 million.

Board of Education Meeting November 1, 2016 Update

SITE

Disney Elementary Gray Elementary Holland Elementary Jeffries Elementary McBride Elementary Truman Elementary Carver Middle Cherokee Middle Phelps Center Shady Dell Early Childhood Shining Stars Early Childhood Study Alternative Center

• Collect community feedback regarding which
• ption is preferred from community members,

parents, staff and students.

• Board of Education adopt a Facility Master

Plan providing guidance for planning.

TIMELINE

In Process TBD

• Design potential bond projects and Board of

Education vote on bond project proposal.

• Taxpayer consideration for the bond proposal.
• Implementation of the projects if bond issue passes.

Facility master plan decisions will impact SPS students for generations to come. Your feedback will help our Board of Education make decisions that benefit all students.

Submit your questions to communications@spsmail.org.

FAQs are listed at plan.spsk12.org

PROVIDE YOUR FEEDBACK

plan.spsk12.org