construction/renovation decisions

Construction/Renovation decisions

Review of Feasibility Study of 2010 and preview of moving forward

May 5, 2014

Why we started the study

No room in any buildingPossible impact of BRAC

Demographic shift within districtSecurity issues at several schools

Energy inefficiencies, particularly at Smith MSMiddle school facilities needed upgradingDebt service coming to end..good timing

Opportunity to meet PRESENT needs and set stage for FUTURE developments in education

How we developed the study

• Interviews for choice of architect (April 30, 2008)

• Collected information on needs– Kick-off meeting with board (May 28, 2008)– Public meetings (June 12 and Oct 21, 2008)– Meeting with school district staff– Meeting with administration (building and district)

• Consider all options, including grade configuration, in discussions

16 Premises established for feasibility study(1-8)

1. Lower floor of Smith MS is remote from rest of building2. Shared facilities between Clermont and Swift create logistical

problems3. Quarryville has very small classrooms4. School facilities should help us address education for the next 20

years5. We want to promote a “small school” feeling6. Consider land that we already own that could accommodate a

new building, if that becomes an option7. Be aware of any financial burdens these plans would put on the

district8. Any option should help us address technological and

programming advances that could occur

16 Premises established for feasibility study(9-16)

9. Security at Smith MS, Swift MS, Clermont and Quarryville must be improved10. Smith and Swift middle schools must be updated related to MPE systems, education spaces, assembly spaces11. Capacity in all buildings must be increased12. Transportation must be straight-forward13. Proved for ”Southern end” elementary growth while remaining flexible for future shifts14. Provide flexibility in facilities to meet future needs15. Consider staffing efficiencies16. If possible, address the issue of the district administration building is at full capacity.

Demographic StudyShelby Stewman – Carnegie Mellon

• Report out on Aug. 29, 2009• 5 scenarios

– 1) +100 (+148 elem; +116 MS) **– 2) +27 (+52 elem; +62 MS)– 3) +456 (+211 elem; +184 MS)– 4) +323 (_178 elem; +155 MS)– 5) +145 (+87 elem; + 89 MS)

• BRAC has minimal effect• Natural growth = app 150• **”sewage leads the way”…biggest wild card is new home

construction..no accounting for families replacing senior citizens in already constructed houses.

Along the way, we…

• Looked at what we thought education would look like in 20 years

• Looked at all options to address present and future needs

• Discussed a variety of grade configurations• Brought several options to board for review and

revision• Recognized the need to be flexible in design to

address future issues.

Option 8

• 1 middle school on the Smith site• Clermont would be expanded• Slight redistricting to open up room at other

elementary schools• Some special education programs could be

moved from Providence• Security issues would be addressed

What we found…

• Impact of BRAC would be minimal (assuming construction levels remain the same)

• Student enrollment, based on info at the time, would most likely remain fairly stable throughout the district, but could still have shifts within the district

• A reconfiguration of buildings, rathat than grade levels, would be a benefit to the students of the district

• Our present building situation severely restricts out development of programs

Timeline summarized

• Started process in April 2008• Demographic study covered 10 year project (2008-

2018)• Architect interviewed administrators, public, board

and staff to look at needs• Options were reviewed by board• Options were reduced• Decision made• End of Feasibility Study; beginning of implementation

Post-Feasibility Study

• Had site surveys done to provide accurate information• Hired Jim Lewis to proceed with design drawings to

give board better handle on costs and phasing options• Met with Jim Lewis several times to provide specifics

for design drawings• Possible beginning of PlanCON process• Board wanted options in phasing to decide the next

steps leading to renovation and construction

Points considered in discussion of implementation

• What is the minimal plan to fix up and not prepare for the future? (the $10 million option)

• What items on the maintenance and capital projects list would be deferred or eliminated with the implementation of Option 8?

• How can we phase this in so that we do not incur any more debt than we presently are handling and still get done what is needed?

Scenario II matches best, but …

YEARElementary Actual Shelby

Middle Actual Shelby

HS Actual Shelby

Total enrollment Actual Shelby

2008-09 1640 1640 891 891 1274 1274 3805 38052009-10 1614 1644 887 909 1290 1236 3791 37892010-11 1658 1646 884 922 1200 1198 3742 37662011-12 1670 1626 876 945 1180 1226 3726 37972012-13 1686 1634 887 956 1171 1208 3744 37982013-14 1697 1668 842 925 1130 1228 3661 3821

1689 872 1281 3842

Comparison of Shelby and Actual

Curriculum/Program changes affecting spatial needsPart 1

• Increased sections of Extended-day kindergarten• IU classes hosted by district (some have been taken

over by district…adding autistic support)• Video production classes• Expansion of FFA programs• Expansion of fitness curriculum• Addition of computer labs• Technology department expansion• Research skills curriculum (Library/lab)• Foreign language growth


• Tutoring programs (Keystone Exams increasing need)• RTII (now in all elementary schools…small group areas….parent conference

areas..)• SAVE program (alternative education)• Reading specialists’ instructional spaces• Development of gifted program, especially at high school (major development

impact at all levels)• ESL programming in all buildings (numbers and need for services increased)• SHS Career Center• Instructional spaces for Speech therapists• Instructional spaces for occupational therapy• Instructional spaces for physical therapy• Life skills programs at elementary, middle and high schools (requires full-size

classroom at each level)• Emotional support classrooms at elementary and high school level (discussion on

middle level need)


• Elementary multiple disabilities classroom (very large classroom, or two classrooms per level needed)

• Early intervention classroom (moved from Providence to Quarryville)• SAP meeting spaces• Probation office at high school• Ponessa meeting rooms at each buildingAnd since 2010:• Additional classroom to accommodate growing class size in

elementary schools• Additional spaces needed for related arts which are added to

accommodate growing sections at elementary level• Tutoring required for Keystone Exams performance• Online instruction facilities

The development of a plan• May 2011: Lewis and Associates were hired to develop a plan for one

middle school at Smith Middle School site, in accordance with Option 8

• June 2012: Lewis and Associates propose a design that involves a second building in front of present Smith building to address needs. Two buildings would be connected with a bridge, and the space between buildings provides ample bus parking and secure location of students involved in outdoor activities.

• June 2012: We submit PlanCon A and B to PDE to ensure we will be in queue, in case PlanCON reimbursement moratorium is lifted.

• November 2012: through several conversations with Jim Vogel from PDE we addressed a review of our PlanCON Submission to the state to their satisfaction.

Board Resolution

• The Board passed a resolution committing the funds presently collected for debt service to be allocated to a special fund earmarked for building costs (June 2013)

• The Board saw an analysis of options for funding (Tim’s report)

Zero Millage June 2012 & April 2014Zero Millage Impact Study June 2012 - Wrap around dated Sept 2014

5 yr Increment

Avg Coupon change

Zero Reimbursement 15% Reimbursement

Years Amount Avg coupon Reimb Differential Amount Avg coupon

10 24,280,000 3.34 4,290,000 28,570,000 3.34

15 32,680,000 3.80 5,770,000 38,450,000 3.80 0.46

20 38,945,000 4.15 6,885,000 45,830,000 4.15 0.35

25 43,525,000 4.41 7,695,000 51,220,000 4.41 0.26

Zero Millage Impact Study April 8, 2014 - 2018 borrowing5 yr

Increment Avg Coupon

change

Zero Reimbursement 15% Reimbursement

Years Amount Avg coupon Reimb Differential Amount Avg coupon

5 13,680,000 1.65 2,418,624 16,098,624 1.65

10 24,970,000 2.64 4,414,696 29,384,696 2.64 0.99

15 33,750,000 3.25 5,967,000 39,717,000 3.25 0.61

20 40,325,000 3.68 7,129,460 47,454,460 3.68 0.43

2016 Cash Projection & 2014 Current Rates Assumed on Out year Bonds

Borrowing Term - Maximum at Zero Mills

Cash - Capital

Reserve5 10 15 20

2016 7,000,000 13,680,000 24,970,000 33,750,000 40,325,000

2017 ? 10,000,000 13,680,000 24,970,000 33,750,000 40,325,000

2018 ? 13,000,000 13,680,000 24,970,000 33,750,000 40,325,000

Cash - Capital

Reserve5 10 15 20

2016 7,000,000 20,680,000 31,970,000 40,750,000 47,325,000

2017 ? 10,000,000 23,680,000 34,970,000 43,750,000 50,325,000

2018 ? 13,000,000 26,680,000 37,970,000 46,750,000 53,325,000

Movement of portions of the plan• January 2013: portions of weight room floor break through to

classrooms below• February-March 2013: after efforts to address weight room

issues, the board decides to look at more permanent options…..Quarryville Elementary school’s entrance becomes a focus at this point as well

• April 2013: Lewis and Associates are hired to present a plan to address the weight room issue and to develop a more secure entrance to QE

• August 2013: Lewis and Associates presents a plan to the board

• September 2013: After discussion on Sept. 9, a vote on Sept. 16 gave Lewis the go-ahead to proceed with the projects.

How do we proceed?• Reviewed process• Reviewed decisions• Reviewed plans and proposals• Reviewed finances• Reviewed past and present needs• Now:

Are there needs that should be prioritized?Is there a preferred time frame to follow?Are finances determined by phasing, or phasing by

finances?Have any of the premises driving the decision changed?

construction/renovation decisions

Documents