gcnc may 2016 final report

Growth and Capital Needs Committee Report

Presented to Dr. Mark Hatchell, Superintendent

May 16, 2016

1

To: Dr. Mark Hatchell, Superintendent From: Karin Reynolds, Deputy Superintendent Tom Gregory, Chief Financial Officer Re: Growth and Capital Needs Committee Recommendations Date: May 16, 2016

Executive Summary On behalf of the Growth and Capital Needs Committee (GCNC), we provide in this Executive Summary and report the work of the GCNC as they sought to address their charge, delineated specifically in the attached report which begins on page 4 of this document. Meetings and membership of the GGTF: The GCNC membership consisted of 29 members and 11 ad hoc members: over the course of two years, with this year’s active membership made up of:

Co-facilitators, Deputy Superintendent and Chief Financial Officer; Three principals (elementary, middle, and high); Two charter school representatives; Eight parents who are not District 20 staff members (four elementary and four

secondary); Three teachers (one elementary, one middle, and one high); Three patrons at large (those who do not have children attending any District 20 schools); Three classified staff members (one school-based; one non-school based; and one

classified administrator); Three students (currently sophomore or juniors); and, Three representatives who are developers, business leaders, community leaders, or

architects who live or work in District 20. Attendance of members was exemplary, and many members look forward to joining any teams that will be formed next year to support the next step in a bond decision-making process. The committee held meetings from October, 2015 – May, 2016. Agendas and minutes from the meetings are posted to the District 20 website as are all documents that serve as appendices to the full report from the GCNC. GCNC Collaborative Input Model for decision making and meeting protocol: The District 20 Collaborative Input Model and norms established at our first meeting guided our work. The inclusion of input from all stakeholders was crucial to the committee. Therefore, we often shared updates of our work and pending recommendations with different groups. The complete report delineates the specific opportunities provided for community member updates and feedback.

2

Charge of the GCNC: The Growth and Capital Needs Committee (GCNC) is charged by the superintendent to study district needs and issue findings and recommendations related to new construction, facility additions, per pupil school improvement dollars, capital renewal/improvement, and district infrastructure technology needs. The committee will use the collaborative input model to guide its work. Recommendations from the GCNC: These recommendations with rationale are included and detailed in the attached full report, but for executive summary brevity, the GCNC recommends the following in response to the five areas with which they were charged: Recommendation for New Construction: Based on reports from local developers, demographers, and a tour of new construction sites on April 23, 2016, the GCNC recommends that the district is in need of the following additional schools in order to accommodate enrollment growth in District 20.

Two or three elementary schools One middle school One high school An Innovation and Learning Center

Recommendations for Facility Additions and Remodels: Each school and department presented capital needs to the GCNC. In general, projects were categorized as either major remodels/additions to the school and/or grounds or nonstructural projects that would update, add, enhance, or improve the learning environment for students. The focus of Facility Additions and Remodels is on the former. Following a forced matrix process, the top 26 priorities were determined by the GCNC; specific results are delineated in the full report attached. Recommendations for Per Pupil School Improvement Dollars Per Pupil School Improvement Dollars represents a funding mechanism by which capital funding is provided to each school within the district through a formula. Each school principal convened a committee of stakeholders who best reflect his/her community. Typically, school committees were comprised of 6-10 members and represented parents, teachers, staff, non-parent community members, school administration, and, in the case, of high schools, students were included. Each School Site Improvement Committee (SSIC) identified capital needs of the school facility and grounds and then presented these needs in the form of prioritized capital projects to the Growth and Capital Needs Committee (GCNC). In general, projects were categorized as either major remodels/additions to the school and/or grounds or nonstructural projects that would update, add, enhance, or improve the learning environment for students. The focus of Per Pupil School Improvement Dollars is on the latter. As such, the committee recommends the following fairness formula for the distribution of Per Pupil School Improvement Dollars: (Specific age factors for each school are included in the full report.) School Allocation = [0.5 * (enrollment * $/Pupil) + 0.5 * (Sq. Ft. * $/Sq Ft)] * Age Factor

3

Recommendations for Capital Renewal/Improvements The GCNC agreed with many of the recommendations made by the 2007 Growth and Capital Needs Committee in this area as this is the category that addresses the needs that are cost prohibitive to schools as they would fall outside of the Per Pupil School Improvement Dollars. The highest priority for the GCNC is that all schools need to have equal and equitable basic resources such as electrical, air conditioning, bathrooms, and safety issues met to the same levels. The GCNC also recommends that the district consider a scheduled maintenance plan as well as an every-five-year external audit of facilities to support needs in this area, particularly for the oldest of District 20 schools. Recommendations for District Infrastructure Technology Needs Technology infrastructure projects are defined as projects that will have district-wide impact on increasing throughput by which data is sent and received, enhancing safe access to information by students and staff, increasing data security, equalizing student access to information across the district, and allowing all students and staff to be more productive learners and workers. The GCNC believes that district infrastructure is important as it impacts all kids and all teachers, and they understand that the infrastructure is a good expenditure of bond dollars because it does not need continual updates as would such things as technological gadgets that require constant updating. Specific projects that need attention are delineated in priority order in the attached full report.

4

Academy District 20 Complete Report of Recommendations from the

Growth and Capital Needs Committee May 16, 2016

I. Background: A long range capital facilities committee was commissioned in 2006 by the superintendent to evaluate both immediate and long term capital needs of the district. The committee met over a twelve month period to project needs for new construction, remodels/additions, per pupil building (PPB) projects, facility audit (FA) projects, technology infrastructure, and school per‐pupil technology (PPT) needs. On March 15, 2007, the committee reported their findings and recommendations to the Board of Education. However, the committee’s recommendations were never acted upon because, shortly after their recommendations were formally presented the economy deteriorated and the housing market crashed (2008). This resulted in the absence of new construction, reduced property values, increased unemployment, and the “great recession.” After review of recommendations presented by the Long Range Capital Planning Committee in 2007, current master plans, visible new housing construction, enrollment projections, current capital renewal and capital improvement needs, and access to capital funding and impact on taxpayers, the Chief Financial Officer recommends placing a bond question on the November 2016 ballot. Based on financial modeling, the district would ask voters to authorize the board to issue tax‐exempt municipal bonds. Current modeling anticipates the district will be able to issue $160 million in early 2017 and any remaining amount(s) in 2020 or later. A capital planning committee should be assembled immediately to review needs, understand financial allowances and limitations, determine capital project needs, and propose construction timelines. II. Committee Charge: The Growth and Capital Needs Committee (GCNC) is charged by the superintendent to study district needs and issue findings and recommendations related to new construction, facility additions, per pupil school improvement dollars, capital renewal/improvement, and district infrastructure technology needs. The committee will use the collaborative input model to guide its work. III. Committee Members: Members were selected through an application process following an invitation to apply that was sent to stakeholders via 20Alert on October 6, 2015. Approximately 75 stakeholders submitted applications. Applications were then screened by facilitators and the District 20 Public Information Officer. In an effort to be inclusive of all stakeholders, membership was selected based on the following:

Co-facilitators, Deputy Superintendent and Chief Financial Officer; Three principals (elementary, middle, and high); Two charter school representatives; Eight parents who are not District 20 staff members (four elementary and four

secondary);

5

Three teachers (one elementary, one middle, and one high); Three patrons at large (those who do not have children attending any District 20 schools); Three classified staff members (one school-based; one non-school based; and one

classified administrator); Three students (currently sophomore or juniors); and, Three representatives who are developers, business leaders, community leaders, or

architects who live or work in District 20. Members of the GCNC:

Name Role School/location School Armacost, Kathy D-20 Parent LHS Braden, Ralph Community Leader Chura, Megan D-20 Parent WRES EVMS Coulter, Gary Community Leader/D-20 Patron Goyden, Kelly D-20 Staff/Teacher LHS Hardin, Cindy D-20 Staff/Classified Administrator Transportation Hare, Vernita D-20 Patron WRES Henderson, Francine D-20 Student LHS Henkel, Ryan D-20 Student DCCHS Hollm, Kim D-20 Patron PIES Mohr, Tammie D-20 Staff/Teacher WRES Olson, Dan D-20 Staff/Principal AAHS Pacione, Matt D-20 Staff/Teacher DCCMS Palmer, McKenzie D-20 Student DCCHS Paradkar, Vish D-20 Parent DCCES DCCHS Priessman, Jackie D-20 Parent FES Reitwiesner, Henry D-20 Staff/Staff Specialist Facilities Schoen, Ruth D-20 Staff/Classified PHES Schumaker, Patrick D-20 Staff/Principal CTES Scott, Tony D-20 Staff/Principal CMS Sibley, Anthony D-20 Patron FHES Stanforth, Robin D-20 Staff/Classified Special Education Stejskal, Jason D-20 Parent RCES TMS Taylor, Vicki D-20 Parent PCHS Temby, Will Community Leader/D-20 Parent/DAC MRMS RHS Tubb, David D-20 Staff/Administrator TCA VanGampleare, Mark D-20 Staff/Administrator TCA Walls, Jackie D-20 Parent/DAC PCHS Zamborelli, Stephen D-20 Parent ATES DCCMS The following ad-hoc members were present to listen, to share ideas from the perspective of the teams that they lead, and to assist in answering questions of members of the GCNC.

6

Name Role Anderson, Nanette D-20 Public Information Office Bissell, Mark D-20 Executive Director for Facilities Field, Susan D-20 Assistant Superintendent for Learning Services Grady, Brian D-20 Executive Director for Security and Transportation Gregory, Tom D-20 Chief Financial Officer and GCNC Co-Facilitator Kooser, Shelley D-20 Chief Information Officer Krajcovic, Anne D-20 Assistant to the Superintendent and GCNC note-taker Peak, David D-20 Assistant Superintendent for Human Resources Reynolds, Karin D-20 Deputy Superintendent and GCNC Co-Facilitator Stephens, Greg D-20 Contracting Officer Warhoe, Linda D-20 Director of Budget & Planning IV. Meeting dates and times: The committee convened on following dates; all meetings were from 5:30 – 8:00 through February 9th and from 5:30 – 8:30 beginning on February 23rd at the Rampart High School Tech Wing presentation meeting room: Date Activity October 27, 2015 Regularly scheduled meeting – Information sharing and discussion November 10, 2015 Regularly scheduled meeting – Information sharing and discussion December 8, 2015 Regularly scheduled meeting – Information sharing and discussion January 5, 2016 Regularly scheduled meeting – Information sharing and discussion January 26, 2016 Regularly scheduled meeting – SSIC presentations February 9, 2016 Regularly scheduled meeting – SSIC presentations February 23, 2016 Regularly scheduled meeting – SSIC presentations March 8, 2016 Regularly scheduled meeting – SSIC presentations March 29, 2016 Regularly scheduled meeting – SSIC presentations April 12, 2016 Regularly scheduled meeting – SSIC presentations April 23, 2016 Saturday facility tours (7:45 – 3:00) April 26, 2016 Regularly scheduled meeting – Information sharing and discussion May 2, 2016 Public Forum (5:00 – 6:00) May 10, 2016 Regularly scheduled meeting –Finalize draft recommendations V. Communication Linkages:

The Growth and Capital Needs Committee wishes to acknowledge the many stakeholders who were involved with this process as well. In order to provide opportunities to hear concerns and solicit feedback from all stakeholders, the following opportunities were held for community member input:

A public forum was held on May 2, 2016 and was attended by approximately 70 citizens. All GCNC work is published on the Academy District 20 website. Additionally, the following stakeholder groups were provided GCNC discussion updates

and the opportunity to offer input after hearing of the GCNC work during standing meetings:

7

o Academy Education Association meetings: 10/6/15, 11/3/15, 3/1/16, and 5/3/16 o Superintendent’s Student Advisory Council meetings: 10/6/15, 12/3/15, and

4/7/16 o Parent Sounding Board meetings: 10/6/15, 11/4/15, 2/3/16, and 5/4/16 o Teacher Communication Council meetings: 10/6/16, 11/4/15, 3/2/16, and 5/4/16 o Principals during monthly level meetings and K-12 meetings o Superintendents Communication Council meetings: 10/6/15, 11/4/15, and 3/2/16

The input of all of these groups and individuals was invaluable to the final recommendations made by this task force. IV. Charges and recommendations:

While the Executive Summary briefly notes the final recommendations of the Growth and Capital Needs Committee, this report includes the recommendations, specifics about the discussion that lead to the recommendations, as well as feedback from the committee that speaks to the areas that need to be considered by both the Board of Education as well as District 20 leadership going forward. Please note, recommendations appear below by category in the same order as listed in the charge, not necessarily in order of priority. Recommendations for New Construction Based on reports from local developers, demographic data (Appendix A), and a tour of new construction sites on April 23, 2016, the GCNC recommends that the district is in need of the following schools in order to accommodate enrollment growth in District 20.

Two or three elementary schools One middle school One high school An Innovation and Learning Center

Specific to the recommendations for these additional sites, the GCNC advises the following: The GCNC is cognizant that the addition of new schools would alleviate the many requests by School Site Improvement Committees for more classrooms and large meeting spaces, such as cafeteria expansion needs. Regarding a K-12 location: There is consensus among GCNC members that a K-12 location for three of these buildings would be most cost effective and efficient, and they further suggest that the addition of a pool attached to a high school site would be a better use of capital dollars than would a free standing swimming complex as hoped for by some community members. Nevertheless, the GCNC cautions that a pool should not be a priority if it is added at the expense of needed capital improvements to other sites across the district. As with the cost of a pool, the GCNC is similarly cautious about building another stadium on the K-12 site as they would like to see funds that would be required for such an addition be spent on the needs of existing schools first.

8

Regarding elementary schools: Beyond one elementary school in the most needed area, one or two more elementary schools could be built on sites dedicated by developers. Regarding middle schools: There are currently two possible site options for middle schools: one at the current site of Chinook Trail Elementary and the second further east at the site of a planned K-12 campus. It would be most cost effective to place a middle school at the Chinook Trail site already designed for such an addition. Regarding an Innovation and Learning Center (ILC): The GCNC suggests that if an ILC does not result from the construction of a new site. Instead, the ILC be added to an existing building or repurposed existing building, become a part of the K-12 campus, or that consideration be given to purchasing an existing commercial building with appropriate outdoor play space and parking. Recommendations for Facility Additions and Remodels Each school and department presented capital needs to the GCNC, including The Classical Academy charter school (see also recommendations for Per Pupil School Improvements Dollars for detail). In general, projects were categorized as either major remodels/additions to the school and/or grounds or nonstructural projects that would update, add, enhance, or improve the learning environment for students. The focus of Facility Additions and Remodels is on the former. Each presentation included itemized lists of capital needs. After each meeting, facilitators recorded each of the requested projects and presented it to the GCNC at the beginning of the subsequent meeting. In all, 120 projects that were requested by schools and departments qualified as addition/remodel projects (see Appendix B for complete lists of projects). On Saturday, April 23, 2016 the GCNC divided into five groups with each group assigned to visit and tour approximately seven school sites. Through these tours, every school and non-school site was toured. After finishing the tours, each of the five tour groups evaluated and prioritized the projects relative to the sites they visited. From this evaluation, the 26 highest priority facility addition and remodel projects were identified. At the April 26, 2016 GCNC meeting, these 26 projects were prioritized using a forced decision matrix. At the conclusion, each of the individual matrices were tabulated and then aggregated. The result is a prioritized list of the top 26 addition and remodel projects across the district. As such, the committee recommends the following Facility Addition and Remodel projects for consideration:

Site Project Description Score Group Rank Douglass Valley ES

Install air cooling system throughout school 619 1

Air Academy HS Remodel/rebuild building "B" 525 2 Liberty HS Construct a 20 classroom addition to include a

presentation room; rooms for construction trades, automotive repair, culinary arts, medical fields, computer programming, cyber security, and performing and visual arts; enlarged commons and additional restrooms

479 3

High Plains ES Upgrade electrical capacity to school 463 4 Frontier ES Upgrade electrical capacity to school 453 5 Air Academy HS Remodel Library to 21st Century library 396 6

9

High Plains ES Remodel main office to increase visibility and reception area (safety)

383 7

Antelope Trails ES Upgrade electrical capacity for school 366 8 Challenger MS Remodel facility to reconfigure available space for

auditorium 359 9

Foothills ES Construct 4,000 sq. ft. addition to building to house four classrooms to replace existing 2 modulars

352 10

Challenger MS Construct auxiliary gym/create additional teaching space in gym (current auxiliary gym is used for storage)

346 11

Timberview MS Remodel main entry to improve visibility 329 12 Rockrimmon ES Construct walls to enclose open classrooms 322 13 High Plains ES Remodel library by removing interior walls, installing

windows, and relocating computer lab to library 305 14

School in the Woods

Construct permanent facility to replace current modulars for both SITW students and TRACKS students

305 15

Chinook Trail ES Construct/install magnetic hallway doors and 1st and 2nd floor academic hallways

299 16

Aspen Valley Campus

Remodel basement of high school to create classroom space for shop and consumer family education

271 17

New Opportunities Program

Replace existing modulars (2) with new modulars (if new facility not possible)

271 18

Aspen Valley Campus

Construct cafeteria on north side of high school 270 19

Maintenance Facility

Upgrade electrical capacity to facility 256 20

Aspen Valley Campus

Remodel Multi-purpose space to include retractable bleachers, sound, and projection system

252 21

DCC HS Create additional classroom space 247 22 Transportation Construct additional exit from current lot to access

Woodmen Rd 244 23

DCC MS Create additional classroom space 237 24 Pioneer ES Relocate kinder playground to back of school & repurpose

for outdoor classroom 222 25

Academy Endeavor ES

Replace carpeted gym floor with wood 152 26

Knowing that these items listed above rose to the top of hundreds of competing needs, additional comments from the GCNC regarding facility additions include the following:

The facilities audit that is being completed by an outside entity at this time must be compared to the needs and priorities that have been addressed throughout this report of recommendations in order to address the needs of aging buildings specifically.

If a K-12 is built, the need for classroom space at existing high schools should be reduced, so the needs of older buildings can be moved up nearer to the top of this list.

Recommendations for Per Pupil School Improvement Dollars Per Pupil School Improvement Dollars represents a funding mechanism by which capital funding is provided to each school within the district through a formula. Each school principal convened a committee of stakeholders who best reflect his/her community. Typically, school committees

10

were comprised of 6-10 members and represented parents, teachers, staff, non-parent community members, school administration, and, in the case, of high schools, students were included. Each School Site Improvement Committee (SSIC) identified capital needs of the school facility and grounds and then presented these needs in the form of prioritized capital projects to the Growth and Capital Needs Committee (GCNC). In general, projects were categorized as either major remodels/additions to the school and/or grounds or nonstructural projects that would update, add, enhance, or improve the learning environment for students. The focus of Per Pupil School Improvement Dollars is on the latter. Direction to the GCNC was to create a fairness formula that allocates funding to each school. As a starting point, members were informed of the fairness formula that was recommended by the 2007 Long Range Capital Facilities Committee and was part of the 2001 bond, a formula that included a per-pupil dollar amount, school enrollment, and a school age factor. GCNC members discussed other factors that might be important considerations in a fairness formula. In addition to enrollment, considerations such as facility size (square footage), demographics, a more differentiated age factor, and ability to access alternate funding sources such as fundraising and rental revenues were discussed. As a result, seven different formulas were developed and evaluated (Appendix C). In the end, the members did not reach consensus on any of the seven options. However, consensus was reached that a fairness formula must include equal consideration for enrollment and school size (square footage), an age factor that represents more differentiation between the oldest school and newest schools than was present in any of the seven options presented, and establishing a minimum amount. Additionally, age factors assigned to schools should only be the same if schools are of the same age, and the assignment of age factors should represent more of an exponential model than a linear model. As such, the committee recommends the following fairness formula for the distribution of Per Pupil School Improvement Dollars: School Allocation = [0.5 * (enrollment * $/Pupil) + 0.5 * (Sq. Ft. * $/Sq Ft)] * Age Factor The committee understands the amounts allocated per pupil and per square foot will be factors determined by the board of education as they consider cost projections for all projects. However, in order to illustrate the impact of the age factor, dollars per pupil, and dollars per square foot, the committee includes an example of what for each school would look like if the formula included a per pupil amount of $350/pupil and a per square foot amount of $3.00/Ft2 (Appendix C). The committee recommends the following age factors:

School Age Factor Douglass Valley ES 4.00Air Academy HS 4.00Challenger MS 3.50Rockrimmon ES 3.00Foothills ES 2.25High Plains ES 2.25Rampart HS 1.95School in the Woods 1.90Frontier ES 1.85

11

Eagleview MS 1.80Aspen Valley MS 1.80Pioneer ES 1.75Liberty HS 1.75Timberview MS 1.70Explorer ES 1.65Woodmen – Roberts ES 1.60Antelope Trails ES 1.55Prairie Hills ES 1.50Academy On-line HS 1.40Mountain Ridge MS 1.35Aspen Valley HS 1.35Academy Endeavor ES 1.30Academy International ES 1.30Pine Creek HS 1.30Edith Wolford ES 1.25The da Vinci Academy ES 1.00Home School Academy 1.00Mountain View ES 1.00DCC ES 1.00DCC MS 1.00DCC HS 1.00Briargate Pre School 1.00Chinook Trail ES 1.00Ranch Creek ES 1.00Academy Calvert K-8 1.00

Finally, the GCNC is cognizant of the fact that, should an Innovation and Learning Center be approved, many programs will not be in need of the same levels of per pupil dollars. Recommendations for Capital Renewal/Improvements Projects that fall into the Capital Renewal/Improvements Recommendations category are those that are cost prohibitive to a Per Pupil School Improvement Dollars project list, would not typically fit the category of remodels and additions, and are in excess of available capital reserve funds. Such projects might include roof replacement, HVAC systems, adding a parking lot, asbestos removal, ADA compliance issues, etc. A new audit with a subsequent project list will be completed prior to the next bond. While, in the previous bond, these dollars represented 8.7% of total bond dollars, this GCNC feels that this percent may need to be higher in the next bond election as a result of growth in capital needs over time. The committee supports continuing the Facilities Audit program as part of the next bond, and they believe that it will be clear that capital renewal and improvement needs must be addressed so all schools have the same basic necessities even before we build new schools, allocate per pupil bond dollars, and consider additions and remodels. The highest priority for the GCNC is that all schools need to have equal and equitable basic resources such as electrical, air conditioning, bathrooms, and safety issues met to the same

12

levels. The GCNC also recommends that the district consider a scheduled maintenance plan as well as an every-five-year external audit of facilities. Recommendations for District Infrastructure Technology Needs Technology infrastructure projects are defined as projects that will have district-wide impact on increasing throughput by which data is sent and received, enhancing safe access to information by students and staff, increasing data security, equalizing student access to information across the district, and allowing all students and staff to be more productive learners and workers. The GCNC believes that district infrastructure is important as it impacts all kids and all teachers, and they understand that the infrastructure is a good expenditure of bond dollars because it does not need continual updates as would such things as technological gadgets that require constant updating. As such, the following technology infrastructure projects require funding from a bond authorization (in priority order):

1. Update wiring/cabling infrastructure a. Approximately 8,400 “drops” need to be updated b. Certain sites higher priority than others c. Five priority levels have been defined

2. Increase bandwidth (40Gb) a. Replace core network switches b. School/site switches and routers c. School/site date port upgrade to 1Gb PoE d. Firewall upgrade

3. Fiber routed/connect to Edith Wolford 4. Increased security of D20 Network

a. Ensure Internet of Things (IOT’s) are upgraded if they attach to the network 5. Wireless Upgrade

a. 802.11 AC with one access point per classroom 6. Systems/Software replacement

a. Oracle ERP system (end-of-life) b. District-wide Content/Learning Management System c. Digital student records archival system to replace paper

7. Fiber routed/connection and ShoreTel phones upgrade to School in the Woods Additional Recommendations Not included in the categorical recommendations above that specifically address the charge are several important items the GCNC would like the Superintendent and Board of Education to consider. In no specific order, these items include:

The GCNC recommends the board convene a citizen oversight committee for accountability of bond proceed expenditures should a bond question be approved by voters in November.

The GCNC recommends using the in-process facilities’ audit to guide decisions regarding the expenditure of capital renewal funds.

The GCNC recommends bringing all school facilities to a comparable/standard level.

13

The GCNC recommends striking a balance between addressing the needs of existing/older schools with planning for new schools.

The GCNC recommends the following to be sustained from the 2001 bond program, as recommended by the Long Range Capital Facilities Committee in 2007:

o Construction Management Team; o Community Bond Oversight Committee; o The Per Pupil School Improvement Dollars program and community involvement

in decision making; o Flexibility of timelines: to take advantage of cost projections and bond issuance

timeline so that bonds may be sold as capacity allows (see Appendix G for mill levy projection information);

o Communication efforts: (1) educate community resulting in support, specifically around choice issues, new growth numbers, (2) presentations to staff and community, (3) establish a citizen’s committee to promote bond election; and,

o Balance specificity with flexibility in bond ballot question. The GCNC supports the Long Range Capital Facilities Committee recommendations

from 2007 as follows: o Sound organization and communication between facilities department,

construction management team, and IT; o Construct facilities to LEED standards and make energy efficiency and

renewable/alternative energy a priority in design; o Limit the use of long term debt to purchase short term assets; o “Catching-up” all schools up to a defined level of adequacy; o Understand scope of projects when developing cost estimates, such as asbestos

mitigation, etc.; o Understand total cost of ownership (TCO) and life-cycle costs associated with

projects so that future maintenance needs are planned for (“keep-up”); and, Understanding of costs associated with technology projects – especially in schools (e.g., HVAC and electrical needs associated with the installation of new equipment).

Additional Information This report cannot detail the tremendous breadth and depth of the committee’s discussions, nor the level of education and information received by members. Many topics were discussed multiple times, always accompanied by pertinent questions and insight. A brief summary of the nearly 50 hours of work is provided to give context to the recommendations. Meetings agendas and minutes are attached as Appendix D. After introductions, explanation of process (using the Collaborative Input Model), and establishing social norms, in October the committee received a presentation (Appendix E) explaining mill levies, assessed valuation, assessments rates, school property tax determination and components, and historical Academy District 20 tax levy data. This financial information gave foundation and background as to why the district would consider a ballot question for bonding authorization in 2016. Also shared were acceptable uses for bond proceeds.

14

In November, the GCNC learned of School Site Improvement Committees (SSIC) being established at each school charged with identifying capital needs for their individual schools. Following department presentations, each SSIC would later present the results of their work to the GCNC (Appendix F). Also in November, the committee received the Residential Analysis Report (Appendix A) prepared annually using data gathered from city approved master plans and data provided by local developers. Through this report, committee members learned that the approved master plan includes nearly 23,000 planned residential units in District 20 that have not been built and that these nearly 23,000 units will generate an estimated 11,600 students. To answer the questions of when and at what rate construction is expected, representatives from three local development companies updated the committee on currently planned units, current build rates, and projected build rates. From this information, in December and January the committee received projections for both housing unit completion and resulting student generation (Appendix A). Projections expect new construction in the school district to yield approximately 3,700 students by 2022, and a total of nearly 5,000 students by 2025, with the balance of 6,600 to come after 2025. In December and January, GCNC members also received state statutes regarding open enrollment and city ordinances regarding school impact fee requirements for residential developments. January also included capital needs presentations from the district departments of Learning Services, Technology, Facilities/Maintenance, Transportation, and Security. The committee then allocated the next six meetings to hearing presentations from SSIC’s. Committee members followed these presentations by dedicating Saturday, April 23, 2016 to tour of each of the 36 district facilities, each tour lead by a site administrator. Remaining meetings through May included discussing recommendations within each of the five project categories of new construction, facility additions, per pupil school improvement dollars, capital renewal, and technology infrastructure. In addition, the GCNC was updated regarding the inclusion of The Classical Academy charter school if a bond question is included on the November 2016 ballot.

In summary, GCNC members expressed appreciation for having the opportunity to learn about capital needs across the district and feel honored to have been a part of this process which resulted in them providing recommendations about current and future school needs and the challenges of meeting these needs. One member shared the following which represents the comments frequently shared by other members, “The district is poised for significant growth. Careful planning for new schools and facilities is needed. Also, critically important is the need to have a sustainable approach to maintain and upgrade new and existing facilities and infrastructure.” Another member stated, “It was an enlightening experience to understand the needs of the school district.” Finally, another member shared, “ASD20 is a growing, high performing, and dynamic large school district. It is clear that the BOE, when considering a new bond issue, must find equilibrium between the accommodation of inevitable enrollment growth and the upgrade of aging infrastructure…” See Appendix H for final thoughts from all committee members.

15

Committee Evaluation of Process As per the Collaborative Input Model, members evaluated the committee’s process. This evaluation and feedback can be found in Appendix I. Minority Report(s): The Collaborative Input Model was used to reach consensus; there was one minority report and it is attached to this report.

Minority Report from Jackie Walls In the 2016 GCNC meetings, on the topic of new construction, we did not reach consensus on the recommendation for New Construction. I disagree with the recommendation to build a new High School. My recommendation is D20 forego a new high school and instead increase the resources provided to existing schools and facilities to fund drastically needed repairs and upgrades. I agree with committee’s conclusion that there is a need for a bond to support D20 resource requirements. I also agree with the committee’s recommendations on Technology Needs, Facility Additions, and Capital Improvements. I agree in principal to the recommendations on Site Improvements, with the caveat that repairs receive a much higher priority in D20 resource planning, and funds that would be applied to construction of the new high school are otherwise allocated to individual schools for maintenance and repairs. The committee agreed that with unlimited resources, D20 could support essential repairs to existing schools and construction of all the preferred schools. The documentation and financial analysis failed to justify the need for a new high school at the expense of repairs and upgrades to the existing facilities. Reports from demographers indicate 1600 new Elementary age students in the next 8 years. We all agree we should build 2-3 Elementary schools to accommodate East and North side growth. The materials presented to the committee failed to make the same sound argument supporting the high school. On the contrary, the presentations to the committee showed that if the number of out-of-district students was reduced to allow for in-district student increases, the existing high schools could support growth if funded for repairs and upgrades. As a committee member, I judged that it was a foregone conclusion that reducing the number of out-of-district students was not in the trade-space, which eliminated many possible compromises and courses of action to accommodate repairs to existing schools and increase in capacity of D20 high schools. The statistics supporting the argument for a new high school were not well scrutinized, nor was the data analyzed to a sufficient fidelity to soundly support the new high school. Materials presented revealed four of our five high schools currently accept 20-30% out of district student to reach capacity. That represents nearly 1300 students. Demographers anticipate 1000 new high school students in the next 8 years. As the need on the East side of the district grows, schools could reduce the number of out-of-district students they accept to support in –district growth and maintain enrollment numbers. I do not refute that D20 may need a new school in the future. But by reducing the number of out-of-district students and applying bond funds to repair of existing schools, we can postpone the new high school, accommodate in-district growth within the limitation of the proposed bond funds.

As written in the recommendation, a new high school would constructed at the expense of our existing high schools, which in the end decreases the overall quality of D20 effectiveness. Each of our D20 high schools submitted requests for much needed improvements and additions totaling about $75-80 million collectively. Individual school

requests include upgrades and repairs to bring schools to standards conducive to safe and productive learning, innovative construction ideas to increase the effectiveness of existing high schools and creation of additional classroom space to accommodate growth. An additional D20 high school exacerbates critical budget pressures to maintain existing schools by redirecting funds from essential repairs. Additionally, a new high school creates increased pressure on scarce maintenance budgets by increasing the overall need for facility maintenance dollars without a corresponding increase in the overall D20 budget, further reducing resources for repairs to existing schools. The bond will not provide enough funding to repair the existing schools, construct a new school, and accommodate the increased facility requirements for a new school. Though the work of the committee was very productive, and resulted in sound recommendations for many areas of the committee’s charter, I am not satisfied that the argument for a new D20 high is supportable, given the needs of the existing high schools. Without additional analysis and assessment of D20 projection for student growth and existing school needs. I am convinced that it is in the best interest D20 students that the bond be approved, that we forward recommendations as determined by the GCNC Committee, with the exception of the construction of the new high school.

Appendix A

Contents:

A. Residential Analysis Report, November 10, 2015

B. Residential Analysis Report, March 29, 2016

C. Five-year residential growth projection with student yield

projections

D. Seven-year residential growth projection with student yield

projections (revised after developer presentation on 12/8/15)

1

Presented by Tom Gregory, CFOfor Don Smith, Planning Consultant

Colorado Springs Economic Outlook

The following comments regarding the Colorado Springs Economic Outlook are summarized from an article by Wayne Heiman in the July 13, 2015 edition of the Colorado Springs Gazette. Gradual improvement of the Colorado Springs economy the rest of this year and somewhat faster growth in

2016. Fort Carson’s loss of only 365 soldier’s during recently announced cuts was very positive. Concerns remain regarding the possible cut of 30,000 more troops by the Army in October of this year if the

automatic cuts in the federal budget under sequestration happens as scheduled October 1. Local economy is producing about 5,000 new jobs per year but the population is still growing faster than

job creation. However, it is the closest that it has been to keeping up with population growth since at least 2000.

New Mayor John Suthers and his efforts to build a good relationship with City Council members will help efforts to convince local businesses to expand and for new businesses to locate in Colorado Springs.

The area could benefit from a round of military base closing in 2017 because of the value of the training opportunities offered by Ft. Carson and the Pikes Peak region.

A 10% increase in new housing is anticipated in 2015 and 2016 mostly due to the dwindling supply of existing homes and continued low mortgage rates.

6

7

Commercial Construction Activity In The District Some of the major commercial development projected, currently underway or completed during 2015 in our district are as follows:

Colorado Crossing future remains unknown and will need to be monitored due to the single familyattached and multifamily units included in the original development plans for this project.

The Renaissance Hotel at I25 and Intequest Parkway remains approximately 70% completed. Development plans to convert the convention area of the hotel to a water park have been submittedto the city planning department.

The major shopping center proposed in the northern part of the district, Copper Ridge, was renamed Polaris Pointe. Plans for the Colorado Grand Hotel and water park have been submittedto city planning.

A new Drury Hotel has been completed in the Interquest Marketplace. Several small commercial developments are being constructed near the Bass Pro shop. A proposed

ATT retail store and a bank have been identified in this project. CB & Potts is now open near Bass Pro.

8

New retail center southwest of Interquest and Voyager called Interquest Commons is developinginfrastructure and some office/commercial space.

Improvements and additions to the Shops At Briargate are continuing. Highlands at Briargate shops and restaurants southwest of Briargate Parkway and Chapel Hills Drive.

Preliminary work was scheduled to start in the summer of 2015. Additional commercial development is underway on the southeast corner of Northgate and Voyager.

Planned Ace Hardware and a strip mall. Black Squirrel Office Park is planned for the southeast corner of Ridgeline and Voyager. Preliminary plans

call for office space, restaurant and bank. Overdrive Raceway is planned northwest of the intersection of Spectrum Loop and Tracker Drive near Bass

Pro. Indoor racetrack. Mountain Vistas at Briargate is an office development northeast of Union and Lexington. Academy Gateway is a commercial development planned for the northwest corner of Northgate Boulevard

and Struthers Road. A new dental office is planned southeast of Voyager and Middle Creek Parkway.

Student Generation Models

The model used to student generation in the future has combined the data generated by the district in the annual residential development document and the student enrollment projections developed by the district’s demographer. This should provide a more accurate projection of new students in future

years.

Percent of Design Capacity Standard

90% of the architects design capacity for elementary schools.

85% of the architect’s design capacity for middle and high schools.

Student Yield Planning Standards

Academy 20 Student Yield Planning Standards By Housing Unit Type

School Type Single Family-Detached Single Family-Attached Multifamily

Elementary 0.346 0.171 0.035

Middle 0.173 0.085 0.017

High 0.231 0.114 0.023

Total 0.750 0.370 0.075

9

Master Planned Units – Remaining to Build (LHS)

10

Liberty HS Attendance Area Remaining Unbuilt Units Student Generation Development Single Family‐d Single Family‐a Multi Family Total Units ES MS HSLa Bella Vita ‐ ‐ 278 278 9.7 4.7 6.4

Wolf Ranch 3,874 1,007 1,765 6,646 1,574.4 785.8 1,050.3

Presidio/Family Place ‐ 56 ‐ 56 9.6 4.8 6.4

Grand Peak/Destination Research ‐ 50 ‐ 50 8.6 4.3 5.7

Prairie Vista Apts ‐ ‐ 204 204 7.1 3.5 4.7

Taos at Woodmen 2 ‐ ‐ 2 0.7 0.3 0.5

Woodmen Vistas 4 ‐ ‐ 4 1.4 0.7 0.9

Sterling Ranch 2,950 ‐ ‐ 2,950 1,020.7 510.4 681.5

Lodge at Black Forest ‐ ‐ 328 328 11.5 5.6 7.5

Panorama Heights ‐ ‐ 500 500 17.5 8.5 11.5

Saddletree Village 65 ‐ ‐ 65 22.5 11.2 15.0

Residences at Cottonwood Creek ‐ ‐ 482 482 16.9 8.2 11.1

Cumbre Vista Apartments ‐ ‐ 204 204 7.1 3.5 4.7

TOTAL 6,895 1,113 3,761 11,769 2,707.6 1,351.4 1,806.1 5,865.1

Master Planned Units – Remaining to Build (PCHS)

11

Pine Creek HS Attendance Area Remaining Unbuilt Units Student Generation Development Single Family‐d Single Family‐a Multi Family Total Units ES MS HSColorado Crossing ‐ 800 800 1,600 164.8 81.6 109.6

Villages at College Creek ‐ ‐ 210 210 7.4 3.6 4.8

Sorrento 284 ‐ ‐ 284 98.3 49.1 65.6

Cordera 786 ‐ 440 1,226 287.4 143.5 191.7

Alexan at Cordera ‐ ‐ 156 156 5.5 2.7 3.6

Le Bellezza at Pine Creek 8 ‐ ‐ 8 2.8 1.4 1.8

Pinecrest 5 ‐ ‐ 5 1.7 0.9 1.2

Apartments at Briargate ‐ ‐ 260 260 9.1 4.4 6.0

North Fork 750 132 ‐ 882 282.1 141.0 188.3

Cathedral Pines 80 ‐ ‐ 80 27.7 13.8 18.5

Black Forest Reserve 120 ‐ ‐ 120 41.5 20.8 27.7

Seclusion 28 ‐ ‐ 28 9.7 4.8 6.5

Sanctuary in the Pines 390 ‐ ‐ 390 134.9 67.5 90.1

Bison Ridge #4 51 ‐ ‐ 51 17.6 8.8 11.8

TOTAL 2,502 932 1,866 5,300 1,090.4 543.8 727.1 2,361.3

Master Planned Units – Remaining to Build (DCCHS)

12

Discovery Canyon HS Attendance Area Remaining Unbuilt Units Student Generation Development Single Family‐d Single Family‐a Multi Family Total Units ES MS HSFlying Horse Ranch 1,509 319 ‐ 1,828 576.7 288.2 384.9

The Farm 600 ‐ 464 1,064 223.8 111.7 149.3

Monument Ridge ‐ ‐ 100 100 3.5 1.7 2.3

Morning View 49 ‐ ‐ 49 17.0 8.5 11.3

Wildwood Ridge 3 ‐ ‐ 3 1.0 0.5 0.7

Promontory ‐ 66 ‐ 66 11.3 5.6 7.5

Stone Crossing @ Middle Creek 228 ‐ ‐ 228 78.9 39.4 52.7

Stonewater @ Northgate 37 ‐ ‐ 37 12.8 6.4 8.5

Northgate Estates 54 ‐ ‐ 54 18.7 9.3 12.5

Hwy 83 & Shoup 1,750 ‐ ‐ 1,750 605.5 302.8 404.3

New Life Apartments ‐ ‐ 344 344 12.0 5.8 7.9

Apartments @ Interquest Marketplace ‐ ‐ 264 264 9.2 4.5 6.1

TOTAL 4,230 385 1,172 5,787 1,570.4 784.4 1,048.0 3,402.9

Master Planned Units – Remaining to Build

13

*NOTE: These numbers represent 100% build‐out of the current (2014) master plan. Build‐out is assumed to be 20 –25 years. Balancing enrollment through boundary re‐alignment is not assumed above.

LHS, PCHS, DCCHS Attendance Areas Remaining Unbuilt Units Student Generation Area Single Family‐d Single Family‐a Multi Family Total Units ES MS HSLHS 6,895 1,113 3,761 11,769 2,707.6 1,351.4 1,806.1

PCHS 2,502 932 1,866 5,300 1,090.4 543.8 727.1

DCCHS 4,230 385 1,172 5,787 1,570.4 784.4 1,048.0

TOTAL 13,627 2,430 6,799 22,856 5,368.4 2,679.6 3,581.2 11,629.3

Current Educational Specifications for SchoolsElementary Schools @600 = 8.9 Schools*

Middle Schools @1000 = 2.7 Schools*

High Schools @1350 = 2.7 Schools*

School Sites Identified—Current StatusElementary:

Site Number

Map Code Site Name Comments

1 A Wolf Ranch On master plan-no conveyance agreement. Future funding needed.

2 B Wolf Ranch On master plan as part of Pre-K-12 campus-no conveyance agreement.Future funding needed. Restrictive traffic notes on the original master planhave been removed.

3 C Cumbre Vista Site is owned by the district. Future funding needed.

4 D North Fork On master plan-no conveyance agreement. Future funding needed.

5 I HWY 83/Shoup Site on old master plan-no conveyance agreement. Future funding needed.PreK-8

6 E HWY83/ Shoup Site on old master plan-no conveyance agreement. Future funding needed.PreK-5

7 F Sanctuary in thePines

On the approved master plan-no conveyance agreement. Future fundingneeded

8 G Sterling Ranch This area is currently being master planned in the county. Potentialsignificant impact on district. Future funding needed. PreK-5 site.

9 J Sterling Ranch This area is currently being master planned in the county. Potentialsignificant impact on district. Future funding needed.PreK-8 site.

10 K The Farm District has a signed Letter of Intent with La Plata regarding the futureelementary school site in The Farm. 14

Middle School:

Site Number


1 H Chinook Trail Future funding needed to complete 6-8 area.

2 B Wolf Ranch On master plan as part of K-12 campus-no conveyance agreement. Futurefunding needed.

3 I HWY 83/Shoup Site on old master plan-no conveyance agreement. Future funding needed.Restrictive traffic notes on the original master plan have been removed.

4 J Sterling Ranch This area is currently being master planned in the county. Potentialsignificant impact on district. Future funding needed. PreK-8 site.

15

High School:

Site Number


1 B Wolf Ranch On master plan as part of K-12 campus-no conveyanceagreement. Future funding needed. Restrictive trafficnotes on the original master plan have been removed.

16

Questions?

17

Don Smith Planning Consultant Office: 719/234-1222 Cell: 719/492-4972

Residential Planning Summary‐‐Long Range Capital Committee‐‐3‐29‐20161

Residential Planning Summary March, 2016

Residential Planning Summary‐‐Long Range Capital Committee‐‐3‐29‐2016 2

2015: 2,963‐‐most since 2006

2016: YTD February: 470 SF Units‐‐ +45% over 2015 YTD and +26% over the last 3 year average


2015: Lodge @ BF 328 and La Bella Vita (BG at Powers)278.

2016: Creekside @ RR 103, New Life 344, Interquest MP 264, Residences @ Cottonwood Creek 200, Cumbre Vista 204 and Lofts @ Briargate(Telstar APTS.) 300

Future: 5,181


Developer Projection Versus Actual Built Accuracy 2007‐2014

Single Family Units 93.5%

Single Family Attached (Duplex, Townhome) 75.0%

Multifamily 74.8


Biggest contributor to the increase is property being converted to multifamily use.

Colorado Springs Economic Outlook

The following comments regarding the Colorado Springs Economic Outlook are summarized from an article by Wayne Heiman in the July 13, 2015 edition of the Colorado Springs Gazette. Gradual improvement of the Colorado Springs economy the rest of this year and somewhat

faster growth in 2016. Fort Carson’s loss of only 365 soldier’s during recently announced cuts was very positive. Concerns remain regarding the possible cut of 30,000 more troops by the Army in October of

this year if the automatic cuts in the federal budget under sequestration happens as scheduled October 1.

Local economy is producing about 5,000 new jobs per year but the population is still growing faster than job creation. However, it is the closest that it has been to keeping up with population growth since at least 2000.

New Mayor John Suthers and his efforts to build a good relationship with City Council members will help efforts to convince local businesses to expand and for new businesses to locate in Colorado Springs.

The area could benefit from a round of military base closing in 2017 because of the value of the training opportunities offered by Ft. Carson and the Pikes Peak region.

A 10% increase in new housing is anticipated in 2015 and 2016 mostly due to the dwindling supply of existing homes and continued low mortgage rates.


SUMMARY: Gradual improvement for the balance of 2015 and somewhat faster growth in 2016.


Colorado Crossing is currently under contract with closing expected this spring. Original development plan included 800 TH units plus 800 MF units.

Commercial Construction Activity In The District

Some of the major commercial development projected, currently underway orcompleted during 2015 in our district are as follows:

Colorado Crossing future remains unknown and will need to be monitoreddue to the single family attached and multifamily units included in the originaldevelopment plans for this project.

The Renaissance Hotel at I25 and Intequest Parkway remains approximately70% completed. Development plans to convert the convention area of thehotel to a water park have been submitted to the city planning department.

The major shopping center proposed in the northern part of the district,Copper Ridge, was renamed Polaris Pointe. Plans for the Colorado GrandHotel and water park have been submitted to city planning.

A new Drury Hotel has been completed in the Interquest Marketplace. Several small commercial developments are being constructed near the Bass

Pro shop. A proposed ATT retail store and a bank have been identified in thisproject. Chick-fil-a

CB & Potts is now open near Bass Pro.


New retail center southwest of Interquest and Voyager called Interquest Commons is developinginfrastructure and some office/commercial space.

Improvements and additions to the Shops At Briargate are continuing. Highlands at Briargate shops and restaurants southwest of Briargate Parkway and Chapel Hills Drive.

Preliminary work was scheduled to start in the summer of 2015. Additional commercial development is underway on the southeast corner of Northgate and Voyager.

Open—Sprouts Market. Planned--Ace Hardware and a strip mall. Black Squirrel Office Park is planned for the southeast corner of Ridgeline and Voyager. Preliminary

plans call for office space, restaurant and bank. Overdrive Raceway is planned northwest of the intersection of Spectrum Loop and Tracker Drive near

Bass Pro. Indoor racetrack. Mountain Vistas at Briargate is an office development northeast of Union and Lexington. Academy Gateway is a commercial development planned for the northeast corner of Northgate Boulevard

and Struthers Road. A new dental office is planned northeast of Voyage and Middle Creek Parkway. Kum ‘n’ Go planned on the northeast corner of Research and Chapel Hills ViewHouse Restaurant is planned for Woodmen and Campus Drive

Student Generation Models

Percent of Design Capacity Standard

90% of the architects design capacity for elementary schools.

85% of the architect’s design capacity for middle and high schools.

Demographer’s Academy District 20 Student Yield Planning Standard By Housing Unit Type

Students Single Family-Detached Single Family-Attached Multifamily

Elementary 0.346 0.171 0.035

Middle 0.173 0.085 0.017

High 0.231 0.114 0.023

Total 0.750 0.370 0.075


Eight Year New Residential Projections From Major Developers In The District‐‐November 2015Note that all of the major residential developments in the district are east of I25 and all but 2 follow Powers Boulevard

Single Family Detached Units

La Plata LLC. 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 TOTALS Remaining

Cordera 80 100 100 105 100 100 110 91 786 0

North Fork 25 110 115 130 140 125 105 0 750 0

The Farm 13 65 70 75 70 65 65 65 488 112

Voyager/Ridgeline

Nor'wood

Wolf Ranch 110 121 135 148 163 179 110 110 1,076 2798

Classic

Flying Horse 113 117 99 104 100 100 100 100 833 676

Sterling Ranch 0 0 110 110 110 110 110 110 660 2290Volmer‐1 mile N of Black Forest and Woodmen RemainingTOTALS 341 513 629 672 683 679 600 476 4,593 5876 56.1%


Single Family Attached

Nor'wood 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Wolf Ranch 35 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 315 692

Remaining

TOTALS 35 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 315 692 68.7%


Multifamily

La Plata LLC 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Cordera 0 0 175 0 0 200 0 65 440 0

North Fork 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 132

The Farm 0 0 0 300 0 0 0 0 300 164

Remaining

TOTALS 0 0 175 300 0 200 0 65 740 296 28.6%Residential Planning Summary‐‐Long Range Capital Committee‐‐3‐29‐2016 12

Total Students Elementary 1,667Generated By Middle School 833These Developments High School 1,112 3,612

New Schools Needed

Design Utilization Utilization Schools

Capacity Factor Capacity Needed

Elementary 600 0.90 540 3

Middle 1,000 0.85 850 1

High 1,350 0.85 1,148 1


School Sites Identified—Current Status‐‐‐ElementarySite

NumberMap Code Site Name Comments

1 A Wolf Ranch On master plan-no conveyance agreement. Future funding needed.2 B Wolf Ranch On master plan as part of Pre-K-12 campus-no conveyance agreement. Future

funding needed. Restrictive traffic notes on the original master plan have beenremoved.

3 C Cumbre Vista Site is owned by the district. Future funding needed.4 D North Fork On master plan-no conveyance agreement. Future funding needed.5 I HWY 83/Shoup Site on old master plan-no conveyance agreement. Future funding needed.

PreK-86 E HWY83/ Shoup Site on old master plan-no conveyance agreement. Future funding needed.

PreK-57 F Sanctuary in the

PinesOn the approved master plan-no conveyance agreement. Future fundingneeded

8 G Sterling Ranch This area is currently being master planned in the county. Potential significantimpact on district. Future funding needed. PreK-5 site.

9 J Sterling Ranch This area is currently being master planned in the county. Potential significantimpact on district. Future funding needed.PreK-8 site.

10 K The Farm District has a signed Letter of Intent with La Plata regarding the futureelementary school site in The Farm.


Site Number


1 H Chinook Trail Future funding needed to complete 6-8 area.

2 B Wolf Ranch On master plan as part of K-12 campus-no conveyance agreement. Futurefunding needed.

3 I HWY 83/Shoup Site on old master plan-no conveyance agreement. Future funding needed.Restrictive traffic notes on the original master plan have been removed.

4 J Sterling Ranch This area is currently being master planned in the county. Potentialsignificant impact on district. Future funding needed. PreK-8 site.


School Sites Identified—Current Status‐‐‐Middle School

Site Number


1 B Wolf Ranch On master plan as part of K-12 campus-no conveyanceagreement. Future funding needed. Restrictive trafficnotes on the original master plan have been removed.


School Sites Identified—Current Status‐‐‐High School

Questions?


Five Year Projection, based on information provided by developers, major developments onlyBy AREA of DISTRICT

EAST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total

Single Family‐detached

Cordera (La Plata) 80 100 100 105 100 100 585.0

North Fork (La Plata) 25 110 115 130 140 125 645.0

Wolf Ranch (Nor'wood) 110 121 135 148 0 0 514.0

Sterling Ranch 0 0 0 0 0 672 672.0

Elementary 74.4 114.5 121.1 132.5 83.0 310.4 835.9

Middle 37.2 57.3 60.6 66.3 41.5 155.2 418.0

High 49.7 76.5 80.9 88.5 55.4 207.2 558.1

Single Family‐attached

Wolf Ranch (Nor'wood) 35 40 40 40 0 0 155.0

Elementary 6.0 6.8 6.8 6.8 0.0 0.0 26.5

Middle 3.0 3.4 3.4 3.4 0.0 0.0 13.2

High 4.0 4.6 4.6 4.6 0.0 0.0 17.7

Multi‐family

Cordera (La Plata) 0 0 175 0 0 200 375.0

Elementary 0.0 0.0 6.1 0.0 0.0 7.0 13.1

Middle 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 3.4 6.4

High 0.0 0.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 4.6 8.6

East ‐ Sudent Yield

Elementary 80.4 121.4 134.1 139.4 83.0 317.4 875.6

Middle 40.2 60.7 66.9 69.7 41.5 158.6 437.5

High 53.7 81.0 89.4 93.0 55.4 211.8 584.4Total ‐ East 174.2 263.1 290.4 302.1 180.0 687.8 1897.5

North 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total

Single Family‐detached

Flying Horse (Classic) 113 117 99 104 0 0 433.0

The Farm (La Plata) 13 65 70 75 70 65 358.0

Elementary 43.6 63.0 58.5 61.9 24.2 22.5 273.7

Middle 21.8 31.5 29.2 31.0 12.1 11.2 136.8

High 29.1 42.0 39.0 41.3 16.2 15.0 182.7

Multi‐family

The Farm (La Plata) 0 0 0 300 0 0 300.0

Elementary 0 0 0 10.5 0 0 10.5

Middle 0 0 0 5.1 0 0 5.1

High 0 0 0 6.9 0 0 6.9

North ‐ Student Yield

Elementary 43.6 63.0 58.5 72.4 24.2 22.5 284.2

Middle 21.8 31.5 29.2 36.1 12.1 11.2 141.9

High 29.1 42.0 39.0 48.2 16.2 15.0 189.6Total ‐ North 94.5 136.5 126.8 156.8 52.5 48.8 615.8

Grand Total Students 268.7 399.6 417.2 458.8 232.5 736.5 2513.2

Tom G format ‐ by Area 12/7/2015

Seven Year Projection, based on information provided by developers, major developments onlyBy AREA of DISTRICT (REVISED)

EAST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Total

Remaining Units after

2022Single Family‐detachedCordera (La Plata) 80 100 100 105 100 100 110 91 786 ‐

North Fork (La Plata) 25 110 115 130 140 125 105 0 750 ‐

Wolf Ranch (Nor'wood) 110 121 135 148 163 179 110 110 1076 2,798

Sterling Ranch 0 0 110 110 110 110 110 110 660 2,290

Elementary 74.4 114.5 159.2 170.6 177.5 177.8 150.5 107.6 1132.1 1,760.4

Middle 37.2 57.3 79.6 85.3 88.7 88.9 75.3 53.8 566.1 880.2

High 49.7 76.5 106.3 113.9 118.5 118.7 100.5 71.8 755.8 1,175.3

Single Family‐attachedWolf Ranch (Nor'wood) 35 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 315 692

Elementary 6.0 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8 53.9 118.3

Middle 3.0 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 26.8 58.8

High 4.0 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 35.9 78.9

Multi‐familyCordera (La Plata) 0 0 175 0 0 200 0 65 440 ‐

Elementary 0.0 0.0 6.1 0.0 0.0 7.0 0.0 2.3 15.4 ‐

Middle 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 3.4 0.0 1.1 7.5 ‐

High 0.0 0.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 4.6 0.0 1.5 10.1 ‐

East ‐ Sudent YieldElementary 80.4 121.4 172.1 177.4 184.3 191.7 157.4 116.7 1,201.4 1,878.8

Middle 40.2 60.7 86.0 88.7 92.1 95.7 78.7 58.3 600.3 939.0

High 53.7 81.0 114.8 118.4 123.1 127.9 105.0 77.9 801.9 1,254.2

Total ‐ East 174.2 263.1 372.9 384.6 399.6 415.3 341.1 252.9 2,603.6 4,072.0

Tom G format ‐ by Area REVISED 12‐17‐15

North 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Total

Remaining Units after

2022Single Family‐detachedFlying Horse (Classic) 113 117 99 104 110 110 110 110 873 636

The Farm (La Plata) 13 72 70 75 70 65 65 65 495 105

Stone Crossing 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 18 228 ‐

Elementary 43.6 65.4 58.5 61.9 62.3 60.6 60.6 60.6 473.3 256.4

Middle 21.8 32.7 29.2 31.0 31.1 30.3 30.3 30.3 236.7 128.2

High 29.1 43.7 39.0 41.3 41.6 40.4 40.4 40.4 316.0 171.2

Single Family‐attachedFlying Horse (Classic) 18.0 24.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 162 157

Elementary 3.1 4.1 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 27.7 26.8

Middle 1.5 2.0 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 13.8 13.3

High 2.1 2.7 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 18.5 17.9

Multi‐familyThe Farm (La Plata) 0 0 0 300 0 0 0 164 464 ‐

Elementary 0 0 0 10.5 0 0 0 5.74 16.2 ‐

Middle 0 0 0 5.1 0 0 0 2.788 7.9 ‐

High 0 0 0 6.9 0 0 0 3.772 10.7 ‐

North ‐ Student YieldElementary 46.7 69.5 61.9 75.9 65.7 64.0 64.0 69.7 517.3 283.2

Middle 23.3 34.7 30.9 37.8 32.8 32.0 32.0 34.8 258.3 141.5

High 31.2 46.4 41.3 50.5 43.9 42.7 42.7 46.5 345.1 189.1

Total ‐ North 101.2 150.6 134.2 164.2 142.4 138.7 138.7 151.0 1,120.7 613.8

Grand Total Students 275.4 413.7 507.1 548.7 542.0 554.0 479.7 403.9 3,724.3 4,685.9

REVISED 12‐17‐2015

Tom G format ‐ by Area REVISED 12‐17‐15

Appendix B

Contents:

A. List of 120 addition/remodel projects requested by school

committees and departments

B. Priority ranking performed by each of five tour groups for the

schools/sites they visited – based on results of forced decision

matrix evaluation (resulted in identification of 26 highest priority

projects)

C. Priority ranking of the 26 highest priority projects – based on the

results of a forced matrix evaluation

DRAFT Remodel/Addition ProjectsGrowth and Capital Needs Committee

April 2016

Project Number

Site Project

1 Facility/Maintenance Install electronic security gate at maintenance yard

2 Facility/Maintenance Install fire protection system at maintenance facility

3 Facility/Maintenance Construct additional restrooms in aux. buildings

4 Facility/Maintenance Pave unpaved parking areas of maintenance yard

5 Facility/Maintenance Upgrade electrical capacity to facility

6 D20 Stadium @ LHS Replace turf (include lines for field hockey)

7 D20 Stadium @ LHS Construct press box above east bleachers

8 D20 Stadium @ LHS Remodel/Improve to public restrooms, team rooms, concession area, sound system, and perimeter fencing

9 Stadium at PCHS Remodel/Improve stadium to host events (construct home/away bleachers, team rooms, restrooms,

concessions, handicap parking, replace turf, resurface track, and fencing)

10 All School Sites Install at least one synthetic surface playfield at each school

11 High School Sites Install synthetic turf at all HS baseball and softball diamonds

12 Transportation Develop adjacent 5 acres for parking (site work, paving/striping, fencing, security gate, electrical, lighting)

13 Transportation Construct additional exit from current lot to access Woodmen Rd

14 Transportation Install electronic security gate at entry/exit to current lot

15 Transportation Construct addition to current facility to include (training space, restrooms, additional repair bay, larger break

room)

16 Transportation Construct new facility at adjacent 5 acres to include (training space, restrooms, additional repair bay, larger

break room)

17 Learning Services, AOHS, H.S.A.,

et. Al.

Construct a new facility to house existing programs (Home School Academy, NOP, AOHS, Calvert k‐8, SWAP,

Bridges, Credit Recovery, Challenger Learning Center)

18 Security Replace portables radios, mobile radios, base radios, repeaters, and VoIP emergency communication system

19 Security Replace/expand current security cameras, buzz‐in systems, and card readers at doors

20 New Opportunities Program Replace existing modulars (2) with new modulars (if new facility not possible)

21 Home School Academy Install portable sound system, risers, wood activity floor, hydration station, updated playground, and classroom

sinks at EAC (if new facility not possible)

22 School in the Woods Construct permanent facility to replace current modulars for both SITW students and TRACKS students

23 Woodmen‐Roberts ES Install handicap ramp/walkway from lower parking lot to grade of entrance

24 Foothills ES Construct 4,000 sq. ft. addition to building to house four classrooms to replace existing 2 modulars

25 Rockrimmon ES Remodel/enlarge main office to allow space for all office staff

TG ‐ Remodels Additions 1

Project Number

Site Project

26 Rockrimmon ES Construct walls to enclose open classrooms

27 Rockrimmon ES Enlarge parking lot to provide additional parking

28 Rockrimmon ES Remodel building to include computer lab (30 students)

29 Rockrimmon ES Construct kindergarten playground

30 Edith Wolford ES Connect school to district fiber optic network

31 Douglass Valley ES Install air cooling system throughout school

32 Mountain View ES Remodel Pod areas to create flexible learning environments

33 High Plains ES Upgrade electrical capacity to school

34 High Plains ES Replace classroom unit ventilators with central HVAC system

35 High Plains ES Remodel library by removing interior walls, installing windows, and relocating computer lab to library

36 High Plains ES Relocate staff workroom/lounge to increase accessibility and efficiency for teachers

37 High Plains ES Remodel main office to increase visibility and reception area (safety)

38 High Plains ES Construct walking/running track and softball diamond to existing playfield

39 Frontier ES Replace classroom unit ventilators with central HVAC system

40 Frontier ES Upgrade electrical capacity to school

41 Frontier ES Install fire suppression system

42 Pioneer ES Relocate kinder playground to back of school & repurpose for outdoor classroom

43 Pioneer ES Replace aging modulars with new modulars

44 Pioneer ES Construct walking/running track and "gaga ball" stall to playfield

45 Prairie Hills ES Connect fire alarms in portables to main building system

46 Prairie Hills ES Replace perimeter split rail fencing

47 Explorer ES Construct 6 classroom addition for preschool, art studio, STEM center, and Spanish Lab (removing modulars)

48 Academy Endeavor ES Replace flooring in classrooms

49 Academy Endeavor ES Replace carpeted gym floor with wood

50 Academy Endeavor ES Replace classroom projectors and TVs with smart TVs

51 Academy Endeavor ES Install synthetic turf playfield

52 Antelope Trails ES Install synthetic turf playfield

53 Antelope Trails ES Install automatic lowering/rising basketball hoops in gym

54 Antelope Trails ES Upgrade electrical capacity for school

55 Antelope Trails ES Remodel front office for visibility, safety, and efficiency

56 Antelope Trails ES Replace original countertops and cabinets in classrooms

57 Antelope Trails ES Remodel/update restrooms

58 Academy International ES Remodel/update all restrooms

59 Academy International ES Remodel front office for visibility, safety, and efficiency


Project Number

Site Project

60 Academy International ES Update heating/cooling systems in chalets

61 Chinook Trail ES Construct magnetic hallway doors and 1st and 2nd floor academic hallways

62 Chinook Trail ES Install panic buttons in principal's office

63 Ranch Creek ES Add modular classroom space for growth

64 Ranch Creek ES Construct expansion tractor shed storage area

65 da Vinci Academy Construct doors & walls at classrooms that are not enclosed (adjust HVAC. Lighting, etc.)

66 da Vinci Academy Remodel community area into lunchroom

67 da Vinci Academy Enclose upper mezzanine areas

68 da Vinci Academy Install poured in place surface at preschool playground

69 da Vinci Academy Install ceiling for story pits in neighborhoods 1 and 4

70 da Vinci Academy Install synthetic turf playfield

71 da Vinci Academy Install handicap ramp/walkway to main entrance

72 da Vinci Academy Construct office for PE teacher

73 da Vinci Academy Construct storage pace for drama

74 Challenger MS Construct addition to building for auditorium (if CLC is not relocated to new facility)

75 Challenger MS Remodel facility (if CLC is relocated to new facility) to reconfigure available space for auditorium

76 Challenger MS Construct auxiliary gym/create additional teaching space in gym (current auxiliary gym is used for storage)

77 Challenger MS Install all weather track

78 Eagleview MS Remodel Library to 21st Century library (walls, furniture, electrical, flooring)

79 Eagleview MS Replace Gym lockers

80 Eagleview MS Construct additional parking near football field

81 Eagleview MS Construct fieldhouse at football field (water, electrical, restrooms, storage)

82 Eagleview MS Install bleachers at football field

83 Mountain Ridge MS Construct addition to building for performing arts, multi‐purpose room, and classrooms

84 Mountain Ridge MS Install synthetic turf at football field

85 Mountain Ridge MS Expand parking area north of building to add spaces and improve traffic flow

86 Timberview MS Remodel main entry to improve visibility

87 Timberview MS Install all weather track

88 Timberview MS Install synthetic turf at softball field

89 Timberview MS Expand parking /delivery area near kitchen

90 Timberview MS Construct addition to cafeteria and add second floor above for storage

91 Aspen Valley Campus Remodel Multi‐purpose space to include retractable bleachers, sound, and projection system

92 Aspen Valley Campus Construct cafetorium on west end of middle school

93 Aspen Valley Campus Construct cafeteria on north side of high school


Project Number

Site Project

94 Aspen Valley Campus Create library at middle school

95 Aspen Valley Campus Remodel basement of high school to create classroom space for shop and consumer family education

96 DCC ES Construct addition to cafetorium

97 DCC ES Install synthetic turf to playground area

98 DCC ES Remodel library storage room into instructional space (include HVAC needs)

99 DCC MS Create additional classroom space

100 DCC MS Construct auxiliary gym

101 DCC MS Remodel science rooms and equip as labs

102 DCC MS Install all weather track

103 DCC HS Create additional classroom space

104 DCC HS Construct auxiliary gym

105 DCC HS Expand parking lot/increase number of parking spaces

106 DCC HS Construct fieldhouse at football field (water, electrical, restrooms, storage)

107 DCC HS Install synthetic turf at football field

108 DCC HS Install perimeter fence around school and athletic fields

109 Air Academy HS Remodel Library to 21st Century library

110 Air Academy HS Install synthetic turf at stadium field

111 Air Academy HS Remodel building "B" (option A)

112 Air Academy HS Tear down and reconstruct building "B" (option B)

113 Liberty HS Construct a 20 classroom addition to include a presentation room; rooms for construction trades, automotive

repair, culinary arts, medical fields, computer programming, cyber security, and performing and visual arts;

enlarged commons and additional restrooms

114 Pine Creek HS Construct auxiliary gym

115 Pine Creek HS Construct an 8 classroom addition to building and remove modulars

116 Pine Creek HS Remodel digital/tech pods to include design, electrical, wiring/cabling, printing area, think space, and furnishings

117 Rampart HS Install synthetic turf at track or football field

118 Rampart HS Remodel racquet ball/multi‐purpose room area to incorporate climbing wall and additional athletic/PE space

119 Rampart HS New furniture/learning stations throughout building

120 Rampart HS Remodel PE offices


Forced Matrix Summary DataCentral Group

Project Number Site Project Description

Member A

Member B

Member C

Member D

Member E

Group Total

Rank Order

60 Academy

International ES

Update heating/cooling systems in chalets

14 14 11 17 13 69 149 Academy Endeavor

ES

Replace carpeted gym floor with wood

9 15 15 14 15 68 295 Aspen Valley

Campus

Remodel basement of high school to create classroom space for shop and

consumer family education 17 15 18 12 1 63 391 Aspen Valley

Campus

Remodel Multi‐purpose space to include retractable bleachers, sound, and

projection system 13 11 16 15 6 61 458 Academy

International ES

Remodel/update all restrooms

18 16 4 8 13 59 593 Aspen Valley

Campus

Construct cafeteria on north side of high school

13 11 17 11 4 56 659 Academy

International ES

Remodel front office for visibility, safety, and efficiency

14 15 6 3 16 54 722 School in the

Woods

Construct permanent facility to replace current modulars for both SITW

students and TRACKS students 8 16 11 7 10 52 850 Academy Endeavor

ES

Replace classroom projectors and TVs with smart TVs

6 6 13 11 14 50 992 Aspen Valley

Campus

Construct cafetorium on west end of middle school

16 13 9 10 1 49 1021 Home School

Academy

Install portable sound system, risers, wood activity floor, hydration station,

updated playground, and classroom sinks at EAC (if new facility not

possible) 9 5 13 13 4 44 1130 Edith Wolford ES Connect school to district fiber optic network 0 0 7 19 17 43 12116 Pine Creek HS Remodel digital/tech pods to include design, electrical, wiring/cabling,

printing area, think space, and furnishings 4 7 10 6 11 38 1348 Academy Endeavor

ES

Replace flooring in classrooms

9 7 0 5 15 36 14115 Pine Creek HS Construct an 8 classroom addition to building and remove modulars

3 9 5 8 4 29 159 Stadium at PCHS Remodel/Improve stadium to host events (construct home/away bleachers,

team rooms, restrooms, concessions, handicap parking, replace turf,

resurface track, and fencing) 5 5 7 1 9 27 1694 Aspen Valley

Campus

Create library at middle school

9 3 2 8 4 26 1751 Academy Endeavor

ES

Install synthetic turf playfield

2 2 6 3 9 22 18114 Pine Creek HS Construct auxiliary gym 2 1 1 0 5 9 19

Frequency

Central Group Summary 4/28/2016

Forced Matrix Summary DataEast Group

Project Number

Site Project DescriptionMember

AMember

BMember

CMember

DMember

EGroup Total

Rank Order

45 Prairie Hills ES Connect fire alarms in portables to main building system 18 18 13 16 17 82 1

61 Chinook Trail ESConstruct/install magnetic hallway doors and 1st and 2nd floor

academic hallways17 17 13 18 8 73 2

62 Chinook Trail ES Install panic buttons in principal's office 15 17 11 18 8 69 3

20New Opportunities

Program

Replace existing modulars (2) with new modulars (if new facility not

possible)19 11 1 19 18 68 4

13 Transportation Construct additional exit from current lot to access Woodmen Rd 16 10 16 6 19 67 5

86 Timberview MS Remodel main entry to improve visibility 16 17 11 11 12 67 614 Transportation Install electronic security gate at entry/exit to current lot 12 16 15 7 16 66 7

113 Liberty HS

Construct a 20 classroom addition to include a presentation room;

rooms for construction trades, automotive repair, culinary arts,

medical fields, computer programming, cyber security, and performing

and visual arts; enlarged commons and additional restrooms

13 14 11 6 14 58 8

6 D20 Stadium @ LHS Replace turf (include lines for field hockey) 10 14 7 11 13 55 9

12 TransportationDevelop adjacent 5 acres for parking (site work, paving/striping,

fencing, security gate, electrical, lighting) 4 10 18 12 10 54 10

15 TransportationConstruct addition to current facility to include (training space,

restrooms, additional repair bay, larger break room)7 6 17 8 10 48 11

8 D20 Stadium @ LHSRemodel/Improve public restrooms, team rooms, concessions, sound

system, and perimeter fencing10 7 10 13 2 42 12

7 D20 Stadium @ LHS Construct press box above east bleachers 10 5 6 14 1 36 13

90 Timberview MS Construct addition to cafeteria and add second floor above for storage 6 6 8 4 11 35 14

16 TransportationConstruct new facility at adjacent 5 acres to include (training space,

restrooms, additional repair bay, larger break room)7 2 19 2 3 33 15

87 Timberview MS Install all weather track 3 8 4 9 4 28 1688 Timberview MS Install synthetic turf at softball field 2 5 5 9 5 26 17

47 Explorer ESConstruct 6 classroom addition for preschool, art studio, STEM center,

and Spanish Lab (removing modulars)1 7 3 0 11 22 18

89 Timberview MS Expand parking /delivery area near kitchen 4 1 2 4 8 19 1946 Prairie Hills ES Replace perimeter split rail fencing 0 0 0 1 0 1 20

Frequency

East Group Summary 4/28/2016

Forced Matrix Summary DataNorth Group


Member A

Member B

Member C

Member D

Member D

Member E

Member F

Committee Total

Rank Order

74 Challenger MSConstruct addition to building for auditorium (if CLC is not relocated

to new facility) 31 30 24 32 37 35 36 225 1

75 Challenger MSRemodel facility (if CLC is relocated to new facility) to reconfigure

available space for auditorium 30 31 24 31 36 33 35 220 2

76 Challenger MSConstruct auxiliary gym/create additional teaching space in gym

(current auxiliary gym is used for storage) 25 37 24 30 35 33 32 216 3

54Antelope Trails

ESUpgrade electrical capacity for school

23 26 32 28 29 33 22 193 4

2Maintenance

FacilityInstall fire protection system at maintenance facility

21 19 37 37 25 35 18 192 5

5Maintenance

FacilityUpgrade electrical capacity to facility

17 20 36 35 22 32 22 184 6

55Antelope Trails

ESRemodel front office for visibility, safety, and efficiency

37 4 30 28 29 28 26 182 7103 DCC HS Create additional classroom space 32 31 11 23 27 24 33 181 899 DCC MS Create additional classroom space 34 27 13 23 18 26 36 177 9

1Maintenance

FacilityInstall electronic security gate at maintenance yard

32 15 27 36 24 17 17 168 10

3Maintenance

FacilityConstruct additional restrooms in aux. buildings

23 16 35 33 24 9 23 163 11105 DCC HS Expand parking lot/increase number of parking spaces 29 35 5 18 12 27 30 156 12101 DCC MS Remodel science rooms and equip as labs 24 30 11 9 28 21 30 153 13

77 Challenger MS Install all weather track 21 30 25 29 26 9 3 143 14

96 DCC ES Construct addition to cafetorium 18 28 1 24 18 16 30 135 15104 DCC HS Construct auxiliary gym 24 34 3 19 16 10 26 132 16

57Antelope Trails

ESRemodel/update restrooms

10 10 32 26 0 20 28 126 17

66da Vinci

AcademyRemodel community area into lunchroom

20 26 21 1 3 23 31 125 18100 DCC MS Construct auxiliary gym 22 34 2 20 15 9 23 125 19

65da Vinci

Academy

Construct doors & walls at classrooms that are not enclosed (adjust

HVAC. Lighting, etc.) 31 26 19 0 20 26 1 123 20

4Maintenance

FacilityPave unpaved parking areas of maintenance yard

9 11 34 33 11 4 20 122 21

Frequency

North Group Summary 1 4/28/2016


Member A

Member B

Member C

Member D

Member D

Member E

Member F

Committee Total

Rank Order

Frequency

32Mountain View

ESRemodel Pod areas to create flexible learning environments

19 4 33 16 8 30 11 121 22

52Antelope Trails

ESInstall synthetic turf playfield

7 13 21 14 34 9 17 115 23107 DCC HS Install synthetic turf at football field 16 15 6 13 31 14 16 111 24

98 DCC ESRemodel library storage room into instructional space (include HVAC

needs) 34 0 9 22 11 26 7 109 2597 DCC ES Install synthetic turf to playground area 9 17 0 23 32 10 11 102 26

106 DCC HSConstruct fieldhouse at football field (water, electrical, restrooms,

storage) 19 23 6 13 14 7 20 102 27

108 DCC HS Install perimeter fence around school and athletic fields13 16 9 11 13 17 23 102 28

102 DCC MS Install all weather track 17 21 5 15 21 5 9 93 29

71da Vinci

AcademyInstall handicap ramp/walkway to main entrance

17 4 18 6 7 37 0 89 30

56Antelope Trails

ESReplace original countertops and cabinets in classrooms

5 9 28 11 9 1 18 81 31

70da Vinci

AcademyInstall synthetic turf playfield

1 5 15 5 31 9 7 73 32

68da Vinci

AcademyInstall poured in place surface at preschool playground

2 15 17 3 16 13 5 71 33

53Antelope Trails

ESInstall automatic lowering/rising basketball hoops in gym

4 9 27 15 3 1 11 70 34

67da Vinci

AcademyEnclose upper mezzanine areas

9 17 19 2 7 14 2 70 35

73da Vinci

AcademyConstruct storage pace for drama

5 5 14 8 3 20 10 65 36

72da Vinci

AcademyConstruct office for PE teacher

10 8 13 7 2 7 10 57 37

69da Vinci

AcademyInstall ceiling for story pits in neighborhoods 1 and 4

3 2 17 4 5 13 4 48 38

North Group Summary 2 4/28/2016

Forced Matrix Summary DataSouth Group


Member A

Member B Member C

Member D

Group Total

Rank Order

35 High Plains ESRemodel library by removing interior walls, installing windows, and

relocating computer lab to library 18 20 15 20 73 133 High Plains ES Upgrade electrical capacity to school 20 16 17 13 66 237 High Plains ES Remodel main office to increase visibility and reception area (safety) 16 13 18 16 63 341 Frontier ES Install fire suppression system 5 7 32 19 63 440 Frontier ES Upgrade electrical capacity to school 19 18 7 15 59 5

42 Pioneer ESRelocate kinder playground to back of school & repurpose for outdoor

classroom 12 11 15 17 55 6

36 High Plains ESRelocate staff workroom/lounge to increase accessibility and efficiency

for teachers 17 16 5 14 52 743 Pioneer ES Replace aging modulars with new modulars 14 14 14 9 51 834 High Plains ES Replace classroom unit ventilators with central HVAC system 8 9 10 15 42 9

83 Mountain Ridge MSConstruct addition to building for performing arts, multi‐purpose room,

and classrooms 5 13 11 11 40 1039 Frontier ES Replace classroom unit ventilators with central HVAC system 7 13 4 14 38 11120 Rampart HS Remodel PE offices 14 9 8 7 38 12119 Rampart HS New furniture/learning stations throughout building 12 11 8 3 34 13

85 Mountain Ridge MSExpand parking area north of building to add spaces and improve traffic

flow 8 8 10 6 32 14

118 Rampart HSRemodel racquet ball/multi‐purpose room area to incorporate climbing

wall and additional athletic/PE space 10 9 10 2 31 15117 Rampart HS Install synthetic turf at track or football field 6 8 3 7 24 1644 Pioneer ES Construct walking/running track and "gaga ball" stall to playfield 5 2 9 6 22 17

38 High Plains ESConstruct walking/running track and softball diamond to existing

playfield 3 4 3 8 18 18

84 Mountain Ridge MS Install synthetic turf at football field4 3 2 7 16 19

63 Ranch Creek ES Add modular classroom space for growth 7 5 2 1 15 2064 Ranch Creek ES Construct expansion tractor shed storage area 0 0 6 0 6 21

Frequency

South Group Summary 4/28/2016

Forced Matrix Summary DataWest Group


Member A

Member B

Member C

Member E

Group Total

Rank Order

31 Douglass Valley ES Install air cooling system throughout school16 16 16 13 61 1

111 Air Academy HS Remodel building "B" (option A)15 15 14 15 59 2

109 Air Academy HS Remodel Library to 21st Century library 11 11 13 14 49 3

23Woodmen‐Roberts

ES

Install handicap ramp/walkway from lower parking lot to grade of

entrance 13 13 12 9 47 4

24 Foothills ESConstruct 4,000 sq. ft. addition to building to house four classrooms to

replace existing 2 modulars 10 14 10 12 46 5112 Air Academy HS Tear down and reconstruct building "B" (option B) 11 0 15 16 42 626 Rockrimmon ES Construct walls to enclose open classrooms 8 11 9 9 37 728 Rockrimmon ES Remodel building to include computer lab (30 students) 12 10 7 7 36 827 Rockrimmon ES Enlarge parking lot to provide additional parking 9 8 6 7 30 925 Rockrimmon ES Remodel/enlarge main office to allow space for all office staff 6 5 5 11 27 1029 Rockrimmon ES Construct kindergarten playground 2 7 8 7 24 11110 Air Academy HS Install synthetic turf at stadium field 4 3 11 2 20 12

78 Eagleview MSRemodel Library to 21st Century library (walls, furniture, electrical,

flooring) 0 9 4 5 18 1380 Eagleview MS Construct additional parking near football field 4 5 2 4 15 14

81 Eagleview MSConstruct fieldhouse at football field (water, electrical, restrooms,

storage) 6 6 0 0 12 1579 Eagleview MS Replace Gym lockers 0 2 3 3 8 1682 Eagleview MS Install bleachers at football field 3 1 1 1 6 17

Frequency

West Group Summary 4/28/2016

Final Ranking ‐ Highest Priority ProjectsRemodels and Additions

Project Number Site Project Description Group 1Group 1 Ranking

Group 2Group 2 Ranking



All Group total

All Ranking

31 Douglass Valley ES Install air cooling system throughout school 122 2 170 1 185 1 142 2 619 1

111 Air Academy HS Remodel building "B" (option A) 142 1 145 3 94 8 144 1 525 2

113 Liberty HS

Construct a 20 classroom addition to include a presentation room; rooms for

construction trades, automotive repair, culinary arts, medical fields, computer

programming, cyber security, and performing and visual arts; enlarged

commons and additional restrooms

112 3 131 5 122 4 114 3 479 3

33 High Plains ES Upgrade electrical capacity to school 74 12 156 2 125 3 108 6 463 4

40 Frontier ES Upgrade electrical capacity to school 72 14 145 4 127 2 109 5 453 5

109 Air Academy HS Remodel Library to 21st Century library 107 4 125 6 63 20 101 10 396 6

37 High Plains ES Remodel main office to increase visibility and reception area (safety) 46 20 125 7 101 5 111 4 383 7

54 Antelope Trails ES Upgrade electrical capacity for school 52 19 124 8 84 14 106 7 366 8

75 Challenger MSRemodel facility (if CLC is relocated to new facility) to reconfigure available

space for auditorium93 8 119 9 93 9 54 22 359 9

24 Foothills ESConstruct 4,000 sq. ft. addition to building to house four classrooms to

replace existing 2 modulars106 5 77 15 76 17 93 11 352 10

76 Challenger MSConstruct auxiliary gym/create additional teaching space in gym (current

auxiliary gym is used for storage)93 7 99 12 85 12 69 16 346 11

86 Timberview MS Remodel main entry to improve visibility 33 25 115 10 89 10 92 12 329 12

26 Rockrimmon ES Construct walls to enclose open classrooms 74 13 94 14 71 18 83 14 322 13

35 High Plains ESRemodel library by removing interior walls, installing windows, and relocating

computer lab to library59 17 111 11 82 16 53 24 305 14

22 School in the Woods Construct permanent facility to replace current modulars for both SITW

students and TRACKS students76 11 94 13 88 11 47 25 305 15

61 Chinook Trail ESConstruct/install magnetic hallway doors and 1st and 2nd floor academic

hallways63 16 57 20 94 7 85 13 299 16

95 Aspen Valley Campus Remodel basement of high school to create classroom space for shop and

consumer family education78 9 42 24 47 25 104 8 271 17

20 New Opportunities Program Replace existing modulars (2) with new modulars (if new facility not possible) 96 6 49 22 82 15 44 26 271 18

93 Aspen Valley Campus Construct cafeteria on north side of high school 66 15 48 23 98 6 58 21 270 19

5 Maintenance Facility Upgrade electrical capacity to facility 43 21 54 21 57 24 102 9 256 2091 Aspen Valley Campus Remodel Multi‐purpose space to include retractable bleachers, sound, and

projection system58 18 66 19 62 21 66 18 252 21

103 DCC HS Create additional classroom space 39 22 75 16 59 22 74 15 247 22

13 Transportation Construct additional exit from current lot to access Woodmen Rd 77 10 17 26 84 13 66 19 244 23

99 DCC MS Create additional classroom space 35 24 73 18 65 19 64 20 237 24

42 Pioneer ESRelocate kinder playground to back of school & repurpose for outdoor

classroom37 23 73 17 58 23 54 23 222 25

49 Academy Endeavor ES Replace carpeted gym floor with wood 26 26 31 25 28 26 67 17 152 26

TG

Appendix C

Contents:

A. Summary data for the seven fairness formula considered. Also

include is data for the fairness formula (an eighth option) that was

endorsed. Data for endorsed formula is highlighted in green.

School Improvement FormulasCost Allocation

Dollars/Pupil= $350 Dollars/Sq Ft= $3

Dollars/Pupil = $350 Dollars/Ft2= $3 Enrollment = 60%, Sq Ft = 40% Enrollment = 40%, Sq Ft = 60% FINAL

School Year

Age

Factor ‐

4 Tiers

Age

Factor ‐

6 Tiers

Age

Factor ‐

LinearAge Factor ‐ Exponential

Projected

Enrollment Total Ft2

Formula

Option A

Formula

Option B

Formula

Option C

60/40 enrollment to Sq

Ft with 6 age tiers (BLACK)

60/40 with linear age factors (RED)

40/60 enrollment to Sq

Ft with 6 age tiers (BLUE)

40/60 with linear age factors (GREEN)

50/50 with exponential age factor School

Academy Calvert Online (k‐5) 2015 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 95 1,440 $33,250 $4,320 $18,785 $21,678 $21,678 $15,892 $15,892 $18,785 Academy Calvert Online (k‐5)

Academy Endeavor ES 1998 1.50 1.25 1.30 1.30 530 53,227 $278,250 $239,522 $258,886 $218,966 $227,724 $212,511 $221,011 $224,368 Academy Endeavor ES

Academy International ES 1998 1.50 1.25 1.30 1.30 590 51,323 $309,750 $230,954 $270,352 $231,860 $241,134 $218,727 $227,476 $234,305 Academy International ES

Antelope Trails ES 1992 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.55 355 49,562 $186,375 $223,029 $204,702 $201,037 $201,037 $208,367 $208,367 $211,525 Antelope Trails ES

Briargate Preschool 2005 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 140 $49,000 $0 $24,500 $29,400 $29,400 $19,600 $19,600 $24,500 Briargate Preschool

Chinook Trail ES 2007 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 610 75,914 $213,500 $227,742 $220,621 $219,197 $219,197 $222,045 $222,045 $220,621 Chinook Trail ES

Discovery Canyon ES 2005 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 515 ‐ $180,250 $0 $90,125 $108,150 $108,150 $72,100 $72,100 $90,125 Discovery Canyon ES

Douglass Valley ES 1958 2.00 2.25 2.25 4.00 305 43,720 $213,500 $262,320 $237,910 $262,157 $262,157 $273,141 $273,141 $475,820 Douglass Valley ES

Edith Wolford ES (1954/2004) 1999 1.50 1.25 1.25 1.25 315 58,060 $165,375 $261,270 $213,323 $169,778 $169,778 $185,760 $185,760 $177,769 Edith Wolford ES (1954/2004)

Explorer ES 1989 1.75 1.50 1.60 1.65 475 50,480 $290,938 $265,020 $277,979 $240,489 $256,522 $236,046 $251,782 $262,094 Explorer ES

Foothills ES 1981 1.75 1.75 1.80 2.25 415 44,646 $254,188 $234,392 $244,290 $246,269 $253,305 $242,310 $249,233 $314,087 Foothills ES

Frontier ES 1985 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.85 420 53,660 $257,250 $281,715 $269,483 $267,036 $267,036 $271,929 $271,929 $284,882 Frontier ES

High Plains ES 1981 1.75 1.75 1.80 2.25 275 41,846 $168,438 $219,692 $194,065 $188,939 $194,337 $199,190 $204,881 $249,512 High Plains ES

Home School Academy (K‐5) 2005 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 290 $101,500 $0 $50,750 $60,900 $60,900 $40,600 $40,600 $50,750 Home School Academy (K‐5)

Mountain View ES 2004 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 580 53,500 $203,000 $160,500 $181,750 $186,000 $186,000 $177,500 $177,500 $181,750 Mountain View ES

Pioneer ES 1987 1.75 1.50 1.65 1.75 410 52,220 $251,125 $274,155 $262,640 $223,146 $245,461 $227,094 $249,803 $262,640 Pioneer ES

Prairie Hills ES 1993 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 450 54,860 $236,250 $246,870 $241,560 $240,498 $240,498 $242,622 $242,622 $241,560 Prairie Hills ES

Ranch Creek ES 2007 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 550 55,500 $192,500 $166,500 $179,500 $182,100 $182,100 $176,900 $176,900 $179,500 Ranch Creek ES

Rockrimmon ES 1972 2.00 2.00 2.00 3.00 355 37,648 $248,500 $225,888 $237,194 $239,455 $239,455 $234,933 $234,933 $355,791 Rockrimmon ES

School in the Woods (4th only) 1984 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.90 78 6,028 $47,775 $31,647 $39,711 $41,324 $41,324 $38,098 $38,098 $43,115 School in the Woods (4th only)

The da Vinic Academy 2004 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 425 56,500 $148,750 $169,500 $159,125 $157,050 $157,050 $161,200 $161,200 $159,125 The da Vinic Academy

Woodmen‐Roberts ES 1990 1.75 1.50 1.55 1.60 359 49,100 $219,888 $257,775 $238,831 $201,465 $208,181 $207,960 $214,892 $218,360 Woodmen‐Roberts ES

Elementary School Subtotal 1994 8,537 889,234 $4,249,350 $3,982,809 $4,116,080 $3,936,892 $4,012,422 $3,884,525 $3,959,766 $4,480,982 Elementary School Subtotal

Academy Calvert Online (6‐8) 2015 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 45 ‐ $15,750 $0 $7,875 $9,450 $9,450 $6,300 $6,300 $7,875 Academy Calvert Online (6‐8)

Aspen Valley Campus (7‐8) 1986 1.75 1.50 1.70 1.80 48 6,106 $29,400 $32,057 $30,728 $26,111 $29,592 $26,566 $30,108 $31,606 Aspen Valley Campus (7‐8)

Challenger MS 1965 2.00 2.00 2.15 3.50 860 106,789 $602,000 $640,734 $621,367 $617,494 $663,806 $625,240 $672,133 $1,087,392 Challenger MS

Discovery Canyon MS 2005 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 925 ‐ $323,750 $0 $161,875 $194,250 $194,250 $129,500 $129,500 $161,875 Discovery Canyon MS

Eagleview MS 1986 1.75 1.50 1.70 1.80 930 137,135 $569,625 $719,959 $644,792 $539,793 $611,765 $565,565 $640,973 $663,215 Eagleview MS

Home School Academy (6‐8) 2005 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 95 $33,250 $0 $16,625 $19,950 $19,950 $13,300 $13,300 $16,625 Home School Academy (6‐8)

Mountain Ridge MS 1997 1.50 1.25 1.35 1.35 1150 115,720 $603,750 $520,740 $562,245 $475,455 $513,491 $461,620 $498,550 $506,021 Mountain Ridge MS

Timberview MS 1988 1.75 1.50 1.60 1.70 1120 114,320 $686,000 $600,180 $643,090 $558,576 $595,814 $543,864 $580,122 $624,716 Timberview MS

Middle School Subtotal 1993 5,173 480,070 $2,863,525 $2,513,669 $2,688,597 $2,441,078 $2,638,119 $2,371,955 $2,570,986 $3,099,324 Middle School Subtotal

Academy Online HS 1995 1.50 1.25 1.40 1.40 55 1,440 $28,875 $6,480 $17,678 $16,598 $18,589 $12,865 $14,409 $16,499 Academy Online HS

Air Academy HS 1959 2.00 2.25 2.25 4.00 1350 243,362 $945,000 $1,460,172 $1,202,586 $1,294,952 $1,294,952 $1,410,866 $1,410,866 $2,405,172 Air Academy HS

Aspen Valley Campus (9‐12) 1997 1.50 1.25 1.35 1.35 102 16,600 $53,550 $74,700 $64,125 $51,675 $55,809 $55,200 $59,616 $57,713 Aspen Valley Campus (9‐12)

Discovery Canyon High School 2005 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1200 371,457 $420,000 $1,114,371 $767,186 $697,748 $697,748 $836,623 $836,623 $767,186 Discovery Canyon High School

Liberty HS 1987 1.75 1.50 1.65 1.75 1590 194,640 $973,875 $1,021,860 $997,868 $851,202 $936,322 $859,428 $945,371 $997,868 Liberty HS

Pine Creek HS 1998 1.50 1.25 1.30 1.30 1500 195,410 $787,500 $879,345 $833,423 $686,865 $714,340 $702,173 $730,259 $722,300 Pine Creek HS

Rampart HS 1983 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.95 1635 213,100 $1,001,438 $1,118,775 $1,060,106 $1,048,373 $1,048,373 $1,071,840 $1,071,840 $1,181,261 Rampart HS

High School Subtotal 1989 7,432 1,236,009 $4,210,238 $5,675,703 $4,942,970 $4,647,413 $4,766,133 $4,948,994 $5,068,984 $6,147,997 High School Subtotal

Grand Total 1993 21,142 2,605,313 $11,323,113 $12,172,181 $11,747,647 $11,025,383 $11,416,674 $11,205,474 $11,599,736 $13,728,304 Grand Total

Age Factor ‐ 4 Tiers Year

Age

Factor Year

Age

Factor

Built prior to 1978 2.00 1958 ‐ 1959 2.25 1958 ‐ 1959 2.25

Built between 1978 and 1990 1.75 1965 ‐ 1972 2.00 1965 ‐ 1972 2.00

Built between 1991 and 2000 1.50 1981 ‐ 1985 1.75 1981 ‐ 1985 1.75

Built after 2000 1.00 1986 ‐ 1993 1.50 1986 ‐ 1993 1.50

1995 ‐ 1999 1.25 1995 ‐ 1999 1.25

2004 ‐ 2016 1.00 2004 ‐ 2016 1.00

GCNC ‐ TG 5/10/16

Appendix D

Contents:

A. Growth and Capital Needs Committee Meeting Agendas and

Meeting Minutes

GROWTH AND CAPITAL NEEDS COMMITTEE Tuesday, October 27, 2015

5:30 – 8:00 PM – RHS Tech Wing AGENDA

I. Who are we? 5:30 – 5:50 Welcome Introductions

II. Dinner Break 5:50 – 6:00

III. What are we about to do? 6:00 – 6:20

Review of Collaborative Input Model

IV. How are we going to do it? 6:20 – 6:40

Norms Review of notebook Review of logistics

V. What is a bond? Why do we care? 6:40 – 8:00

Bond 101 Fast Facts – Talking Points Past to present

VI. Next meeting: November 10th, 5:30 – 8:00 at RHS Tech Wing

GCNC – 10/27/15 Meeting Notes page 1 of 4

Growth and Capital Needs Committee October 27, 2015 Meeting Notes

Introductions were made. Karin Reynolds, Deputy Superintendent, congratulated and thanked the 29 members explaining they competed with 75 applicants to serve on this committee. Review of Collaborative Input Model Karin reviewed the model used for District 20 task forces and committees; this is a superintendent charged committee. Revisions: Section 3 on page 1. Change last bullet from “to the stakeholders” to “to the superintendent” Karin reminded the committee of the charge in the Collaborative Input Model (CIM) as she shared the purpose of the committee: “A capital planning committee should be assembled immediately to review needs, understand financial allowances and limitations, determine capital project needs, and propose construction timelines.” Karin explained members were selected to best meet the needs of the committee. After review with the committee, there were no changes to membership or ad hoc membership. Meeting dates, “regularly scheduled meetings” for this committee are also noted in the CIM. Please note there is a Saturday date set aside to tour facilities. No changes to the CIM suggested. Final version will be provided and the draft copy may be discarded. GCNC Norms

1. All voices heard 2. Consensus 3. Respectful of competing needs 4. Focus on topic at hand/charge 5. Complete homework assignments 6. No sidebar conversations 7. Start and end on time 8. Silence cell phones 9. Confidentiality about deliberations 10. No question is stupid 11. No predispositions to outcomes

Committee will revisit these norms at the start of each meetings. Committee agreed to share email and phone numbers inside the committee. Review of Notebook Karin reviewed the contents of the committee notebooks.


Review of logistics Tom Gregory, Chief Financial Officer, reviewed the two included reports found in Section 5 includes previous committee reports. He explained the notebook is for members to use as they will, and they should feel free to change order to suit individual needs. He also explained that we saved supply funds by using recycled notebooks. Section 6 will be distributed later. Includes aggregated statistics for each facility in the district. Section 7 includes statutes and assessed values, mill levy history. Bond 101 Tom Gregory shared a handout and spoke about what the bond discussion is and why it’s happening. The Board of Education will ultimately decide on whether there will be an item on the ballot. He explained how the assessed value (taxable value) is determined; he explained Gallagher and TABOR.

A member asked if we have property that is not taxed. o Yes, includes schools and churches. Ten years ago the schools district could offer

business incentive agreements to attract business to attract businesses to the city. The state eliminated that ten years ago. D20 has none, all have been eliminated.

Tom explained mills and mill levies. The Board of Education has control over the Override Levy and the Bond Levy. Mr. Gregory reviewed what bond funds can be used for by statute, in section 7. He pointed out that this list includes assets that will be around a long time; it does not include staff salaries or textbooks. Charter schools are included by law, in any bond discussion/approval. Tom explained the chart in section 7 reflecting current and projected tax collections. Shaded column D is projection for assessed value, D20 prefers to be conservative in debt. Questions/Comments:

Dr. Gary Coulter said the message is that D20 has been so successful in attracting new homes and businesses; he spoke to “the magic of management” that says that resources should match requirements. Don’t do it just to keep the mill levy up; because we are growing fast, the requirement is there for the added expenditures in order to keep the quality up to provide our students with a quality education. Dr. Coulter said the important thing is D20 maintaining its quality; the good news is we can provide the resources to meet that requirement without increasing property tax.

o Tom said meeting the need piece will be a focus. Pockets of growth in the district creates the need piece. He explained the needs were there in 2007, but the capacity was not there.

Vicky Taylor said the last time she learned the average bond was 7‐8 years for growing districts.


Jackie Walls asked about non‐District 20 residents who choice in but don’t pay for any of this?

o Vicky Taylor responded that if we fill a seat we get per pupil funding for that seat. If you have extra seats in the schools, students from anywhere add per pupil operating funds. So you either have an empty seat or you bring in funds. When Chinook Trail opened there were only 60 homeowners in the neighborhood, and we all paid taxes for that.

What do we get for students on the AF Academy, since we receive no property taxes from federal property?

o Tom said the Academy is 20% of the land mass of the district. There is a federal program that tries to replace some of the funds. About 20% of our students are from parents who are federal employees and work on federal property, there is no tax from that employee either.

What is the Per Pupil Operating Revenue (PPOR) o $6140

Fast Facts – talking points Handout created by Tom Gregory, Karin Reynolds, and Nanette Anderson, Public Information Officer, was distributed. Karin explained we will talk further about enrollment, choice students, etc. at future meetings. Karin reviewed the “By the Numbers” facts included on the handout. Past to present Other thoughts for the good of the group/questions? Karin asked what else came up that members might need to know more about at a future time. The members responded with the following:

New construction: there is a large tidal wave of maintenance and repair that are needed. Life cycle of HVAC units, etc. make sure they’re not just thinking about new construction.

o Tom said the charge includes maintenance, etc. as equal components. Schools will present their needs, technology needs, maintenance needs. Karin said we will look at what did not get done from last time.

Vicky Taylor said we need to look at capacity and what buildings take. Where the needs are based on level, kids, and grades

o We can have a conversation about portables Can we get back to the tax? What will it do to my tax bill if it fails? Show the actual

impact. o Karin reminded the group their charge is not to put the question on the ballot;

they recommend where to spend the funds. Vicky Taylor – asked, what do we need? There is no pool at DCC. Need to talk about

where there is room to put facilities. Last time we had to go with seats vs. facilities. Sounds like a lot of this is east vs west. If we reshuffle boundaries, would that change?


o Karin said boundaries is not in our charge. Often a boundary conversation follows a successful bond election for new schools.

Are sustainability initiatives any part of this? o Karin said they may be a part when talking about capital construction, perhaps

how can we save money and natural resources. Tom said this committee could recommend sustainable things for new construction.

Will we have models of elementary, middle and high school costs? o Yes

Will this committee deal with the southern part of the district, keeping older neighborhood schools relevant and up to date.

o Karin said every school will have a committee that will come in with recommendations to keep themselves relevant/what their needs are. Tom said the schools decide their needs and this committee could add to the list.

What went well?

o Appreciate vegetarian diet o Mr. Gregory’s presentation and lesson

Need more of:

o More heat o Hear Don Smith’s presentation early on

Karin said there will be a place on the D20 website that all can see committee documents. http://www.asd20.org/committees/ggtf/Pages/default.aspx Next meeting: November 11, 2015 Attendance: Kathy Armacost, Gary Coulter, Kelly Goyden, Cindy Hardin, Vernita Hare, Francine Henderson, Ryan Henkel, Kim Hollm, Tammie Mohr, Dan Olson, Matt Pacione, McKenzie Palmer, Vish Paradkar, Jackie Priessman, Henry Reitwiesner, Ruth Schoen, Patrick Schumaker, Tony Scott, Anthony Sibley, Robin Stanforth, Jason Stejskal, Vicki Taylor, Will Temby, David Tubb, Mark VanGampleare, Jackie Walls, Stephen Zamborelli Absent: Ralph Braden, Megan Chura Ad Hoc Members: Nanette Anderson, Mark Bissell, Susan Field, Brian Grady, Tom Gregory, Shelley Kooser, Anne Krajcovic, David Peak, Karin Reynolds, Greg Stephens, Linda Warhoe

GROWTH AND CAPITAL NEEDS COMMITTEE Tuesday, November 10, 2015


I. Dinner and Reflection – Karin 5:30 – 5:45 Complete feedback sheets as gathering and getting dinner. Complete the following sentences:

o Since the last meeting, I’ve been thinking about … o I would like to know more about …

II. Superintendent welcome – Dr. Mark Hatchell 5:45 – 5:55

III. Members not in attendance last time – Karin 5:55 – 6:00

IV. Sharing feedback and questions since last meeting – Karin 6:00 – 6:30

Individual reflection sharing New documents for notebooks

o Final CIM o Norms o Other

V. School Site Improvement Committees – Karin/Tom 6:30 – 6:45

VI. Residential Development Analysis – Don Smith 6:45 – 7:30

VII. Update 2007 New Construction Components – Tom Gregory 7:30 – 7:55

VIII. Meeting Closure: plus/delta – Karin/Tom 7:55 – 8:00

o Homework – read section 5 of notebook

IX. Next meeting: December 8th, 5:30 – 8:00 at RHS Tech Wing


Growth and Capital Needs Committee November 10, 2015 Meeting Notes

Karin Reynolds, Deputy Superintendent and GCNC Co‐facilitator, welcomed members to their second meeting. She handed out feedback sheets and asked that members complete the following two sentences. Members’ feedback is included below, and some was shared and discussed during the meeting:

Since the last meeting, I’ve been thinking about … o Demographics o Capacity of schools

New schools v existing school expansion o How to incorporate LEED certification & alternative energy into our budgets and

plans o Changing floor plans & needs for older schools o Ways to positively promote the growth (space) needed to staff & community

that will give students a stronger educational support in core areas. o What types of improvements our current schools might be in need of o Would new building (schools) take into account only projected growth in D20 or

also choice students (estimated) from other districts? o Will every school present? o Mill Levy/own property tax/future property tax in D20 o Future residential growth D20 o Current & future funding o D20 growing too fast o How are we possibly going to decide how to divvy the spoils of this endeavor?

(provided we do accomplish what we set out to do) o How this committee will go and what I can do to contribute. o How everything we talked about works (such as bonds/levies) o Everything? I have done additional research of “Mills” and the work that needs

to be done to accomplish our goal. It’s all very exciting and I feel lucky to be a part of all of this.

o The bond issue o Needs in security and transportation. o 175 M to 200M sounds good at first, but I fear the needs will outweigh the funds

we can potentially get. o My excitement for the district and students it serves as we consider the pursuit

of a bond election. o The cost of construction. o Balancing needs. o Funding:

What are the current funding available for schools? What are the funding shortfalls that leads us to this?


o Growing needs of school districts & funding necessary to elevate the quality of education.

o All the needs of my building & whether or not they will be met with a new HS building on the table.

o How to balance the needs of an aging school district (infrastructure) with the needs of a growing district (enrollment). Lots of needs and a limited budget.

o Enrollment and how I’ve noticed it in my school. o I wasn’t at last meeting, sorry! I didn’t know I was on the committee! o The # of projects/inputs that all the schools will have. o Public perception of out of district choice and its impact on this work. o The capital projects list.

I would like to know more about …

o The development analysis o Portables v brick and mortar o Deferred maintenance or needs for all existing buildings o Future school sites, what is owned by D20 & promised o Building capacities & areas of future growth (building development) o The entire process of how we decide who gets what. o How the process & use of the money is put into action. o I am not sure, yet o How this process will evolve with getting us all to a consensus? Can it be done? o Can a member of this committee also be a member of a school site improvement

committee? o The needs per school site and department (I know this will be forthcoming.) o New school site selection. o How we allocate funds. o How to prioritize. o Funding (streams of funding) o Specific needs for each school. o Future proofing our schools. o How we decide which schools get what/how much money. o Will each school submit a capital “wish list” or do they have a budget guideline

to adhere to? o School & site project requests. o I am anxious to participate & learn more about it! o The district level projects being considered and what portion of the $200 M will

that take. o I am interested in what each building principal is requesting. I know we’ll get

there. Also district’s capital “new school” plans. o How the decision is made to distribute funds between non‐educational (non‐

school) departments like transportation, IT, security, facilities, HR.


Superintendent welcome – Dr. Mark Hatchell welcomed the committee. He knows this is important work, and he appreciates the service of the members. Karin introduced the two members not in attendance last month. Sharing feedback and questions since last meeting ‐ Karin shared the new document provided including the final CIM (Collaborative Input Model), committee norms, member contact list, and State Statutes on choice. School Site Improvement Committees Karin and Tom Gregory, District Financial Officer and GCNC Co‐facilitator, explained the provided schedule for schools and departments to present to the GCNC. Residential Development Analysis Tom provided a handout and gave a presentation created by Don Smith, District Planning Consultant. Update 2007 New Construction Components Tom reminded the committee that they will need to address new construction elements in their recommendations to the superintendent. May include number of new schools and what levels (ES, MS, HS, other), but not necessarily timelines or floorplan designs. Reminder to GCNC: Homework – read section 5 of notebook. Karin reminded members of the committee website so that they could to view and have quick access to committee documents. http://www.asd20.org/committees/gcnc/Pages/default.aspx Next meeting: December 8, 2015, 5:30 – 8:00 at RHS Tech Wing Attendance: Kathy Armacost, Ralph Braden, Megan Chura, Kelly Goyden, Cindy Hardin, Vernita Hare, Francine Henderson, Ryan Henkel, Kim Hollm, Tammie Mohr, McKenzie Palmer, Vish Paradkar, Jackie Priessman, Henry Reitwiesner, Ruth Schoen, Anthony Sibley, Robin Stanforth, Jason Stejskal, Vicki Taylor, Will Temby, David Tubb, Mark VanGampleare, Jackie Walls, Stephen Zamborelli Absent: Gary Coulter, Matt Pacione, Dan Olson, Patrick Schumaker, Tony Scott Ad Hoc Members: Mark Bissell, Susan Field, Brian Grady, Tom Gregory, Anne Krajcovic, David Peak, Karin Reynolds, Greg Stephens, Linda Warhoe Absent: Nanette Anderson, Shelley Kooser

GROWTH AND CAPITAL NEEDS COMMITTEE

Tuesday, December 8, 2015 5:30 – 8:00 PM – RHS Tech Wing

AGENDA

I. Dinner and Reflection 5:30 – 5:45 Complete feedback sheets as gathering and getting dinner. Complete the following sentences:

o Since the last meeting, I’ve been thinking about … o I would like to know more about …

II. Sharing feedback, answers, and questions from and since November meeting 5:45 – 6:00

III. Developers 6:00 – 6:45

Mike Ruebenson Doug Stimple Ralph Braden

IV. Near term/short term growth projections 6:45 – 7:05

V. District-wide Facility data 7:05 – 7:25

VI. Recommendations Long Range Capital Facilities Committee in 2007 7:25 – 7:50

(From Section Five of Notebook – November Homework)

VII. Planning for SSIC presentations beginning in January 7:50 – 7:55

VIII. Plus/Delta 7:55 – 8:00

IX. Next meeting: January 5th, 5:30 – 8:00 at RHS Tech Wing


Growth and Capital Needs Committee December 8, 2015 Meeting Notes

Karin Reynolds, Deputy Superintendent, welcomed all and asked that members complete the feedback sheets. We will share these reflections at each meeting as time permits.

Since the last meeting, I’ve been thinking about … o Looking forward to hearing schools presentations o How little money will be left over after new schools built o All new construction on east side of town o The presentation from the school we’ve been waiting for o Reviewing 2007 Capital Needs Report o School security needs in today’s world o The chance we run into another market downturn o Where we can build additions to gain high school seats o If we can build another pool facility – where do we have room (land) or space? o How excited I am to hear all the schools’ presentations o How will everyone’s voice be heard with regard to which schools get

remodels/more classroom space? Will we vote? Majority rules? Whoever speaks loudest?

o Why Pine Creek lost that football game o Construction costs o Construction management team development size & scope o Design/bid vs Design Build – construction bid methods o Projects that need to be worked on. Putting together needs to present. o Wants vs needs and how we can tell them apart o What guidelines each school has as their committees convene to identify their

capital needs … Is it a wish list exercise, and we (GCNC) have to discern a cut‐off point for their priorities?

o The growing neighborhoods and where the new schools will be! Great meeting! So interesting!

o Silly question: are we for sure going to get the monies to make this all go? What if the bond doesn’t pass?

o Current funding/expenditures o Programs that were promising but are not now o Programs that are not successful & how we can redirect the specific funding to

new or other areas o Past programs/investments that were unsuccessful – failed with last bond o Why not get rid of the choice program?

What are the benefits? Do the benefits outweigh the cost?

o School and department committees preparing their presentations for our committee


o 2007 long range capital facilities report & 2001 long range capital expenditure report

o Answered ‐ When was the last facilities audit? o How eye‐opening when you live on west side where everything is build out to

see all development on E side of I‐25

I would like to know more about … o What were the shortfalls with last bond??? o Real numbers of out of district kids each school and from where, so sophomores

& juniors or 4th & 5th still count please. o The rationale behind the locations of the newly proposed schools. o What direction we’re taking to determine how much $ each school will get to

budget with. o Is it possible for everyone to share which projects are near & dear to their hearts

so we all understand the passion behind their opinions on particular subjects? o How #1 priority (and below) maintenance & repair projects are determined &

kept current. o Why difference between design capacity & utilization capacity? o For longer projects, e.g. HS how do you project inflation? o LEED/Sustainability costs impacts o The proposed schedule for new schools. Where would they be built first, etc. o Cost of new construction vs remodel/add on’s o How did the district manage emergency capital needs issues during and after the

recession? o Has ASD20 done any benchmarking of large, successful bond issues in other

cities, districts, etc.? o What can we do instead of portables? o How to prioritize? o When is an elementary school too big (number of students)? o Has the district ever had a bond issue not pass? o Do we need to create a plan if it does not pass? o What’s been completed since last bond? o Operations & Maintenance/Capital expenditures budgets & schedules o Expenditures & current funding o To what efforts would we design/operate our facilities in sustainable ways? o Education specific updates o How are perimeters for school districts determined? o Answered – Which projects from p. 14 of 2007 report were actually completed? o Why do we accept out of district students when enrollment capacity is above

what certain schools actually have?


Sharing feedback, answers, and questions from and since November meeting – no concerns, Anne will post to the website. All members fine with norms so far. Karin asked members to feel free to add to the green sheets throughout tonight’s presentations and turn in after meeting. Also there is a parking lot for post it note questions and ideas. Tom Gregory, District Financial Officer, shared two handouts. One is the estimate of enrollment at district build out. Tom narrowed the years to the next five and by east and north parts of the district. Don Smith, Planning Consultant, asks this information of developers every year. There are some changes to the zero numbers; Tom will share an updated version at the next meeting. The second handout showed the city ordinance on park and school fees for developers. This is what land dedication is based on. Developers Mike Ruebenson, COO with La Plata Communities shared information about development from his perspective. Power Point attached.

There will be about 1500 homes in Cordera at build out; they are currently at 783, so just past the 50% mark. Could be complete in 2020 but could be another year or two. He guesses the numbers in the handout are a little conservative. Two multifamily sites are planned, one projected to be done in 2018.

Northfork at Briargate – lots of demand. More of a ‘non‐amenitized’ community, and a reachable price point for those wanting to come into D20. There are a total of 700+ homes, at about a 5‐6 year projections rate. Strong demand. Construction to start next year. These are in the city. No homes sold in Cordera for less than 300k; North Fork should start at mid 200k and range to mid 300K.

The Farm ‐ new development this year north of the troubled hotel at Interquest. The shuttered hotel is the one to be turned into a water park. Higher price point than Cordera. Multifamily site is questionable, and 300 single family units planned.

Number one amenity they offer to customers over clubhouses etc., is District 20. Members of the GCNC asked the following questions – followed by Mr. Ruebenson’s responses: What resources are used to project?

They use a metro studies firm. In The Farm, specifically, they hired a firm specializing in market study. They also use history. It gets challenging with adding another option in the price point. Will see about a 15% increase this year. Summit Economics projects/estimates about another 10% increase.

Census? They do not use the census as they don’t focus on that too much. Tom G. said the

district does use student yield rates to create an average on housing units (no regards to price points). Tom said each house in D20 produces older children. Similar to Lewis Palmer, not D11, Harrison, or Widefield where younger children are predominant. Price point has a lot to do with it.

Where are buyers coming from? Most from in state. Now seeing more of a “move up” buyer. Some activity from Denver.


Any projections to where Powers will connect to I25? Through Flying Horse.

Doug Stimple, CEO and one of the owners of Classic Homes (developer of essentially all of Flying Horse) shared his perspective:

One of their primary focuses in Colorado Springs is in Flying Horse, 1500 acres, north of New Life and PPCC.

Have put about 1200 residences (3000 residents) in Flying Horse over last 10 years. They gave 80 acres (only 40 required) for the K‐12 campus idea that is now DCC. Averaging about 120 to 140 units a year. From 800‐1000 units left to be completed in 6‐

7 years if economy remains good. Another project, Sterling Ranch, will start to produce in 2017, first 1500 units inside D20,

splits with D49. Working on a few infill projects, mostly age targeted, with little projected impact on

D20. What’s lowest price in Flying Horse?

Hard to get in for less than 350K, average is 600K. Who is buying?

Combination age targeted (tends to be people downsizing) is about 25% and growing. Have a very large LDS population, tend to be young, large, wealthy families. 15‐20% affiliated with Denver.

Foreclosure rate? Almost nonexistent; this is a demographic that almost never loses homes. In bleakest

time had about 7‐8 total. Any plans to go east?

Most is located in county. Have 500 acres in Shamrock Ranch, east of 83 and old Northgate. A portion in D20, large lots 2.5‐5 acres.

Powers coming though? They spent 2 years and 750k trying to convince the city that it shouldn’t be done and got

nowhere. They are not on the hook to build Powers; it’s a state transportation obligation. They did widen Northgate. Leary of Powers project; it has to go through mouse land. In 2004 dollars it will cost 120 million, and there is no current public funding for it. Will give 160 acres right of way, but not until the agreement is ready. In Northgate annex agreement they had a timeline that if they had not identified the location of Powers they were going to have to buy it. Classic has no time limit. The Scott Hall Field of Dreams was sold to city years ago, there are potential road access issues to be determined.

Ralph Braden, Wolf Ranch, shared the following:

Ralph spoke about the land dedication handout. The big projects give land, the smaller ones give money. There is also utilities included.


Ralph gave a brief history of the economy, and shared that Wolf Ranch sold 8 lots at its low year. Projections are on the conservative side because of that.

Wolf Ranch was originally annexed as part of Briargate north of Cottonwood Creek and projected about 6000 units. The master plan permits a higher number. They just crossed the 1200 units, most single family. One townhouse project. Single family detached cost from 350k to 500k. Townhomes at about 200‐225k per unit. Anticipate they will continue to deliver townhome product. Not sure about apartments, not projected now.

School is projected at southeast part of Wolf Ranch where 80 acres has been dedicated for future K‐12.

Master plan is grand design, what may happen that would/could significantly change the single family detached to something different?

There could be a scenario, if people can’t afford the price points, would perhaps take a dramatic shift. He anticipates the areas will continue to build out as planned.

Tom shared that he will update the numbers document. He wanted GCNC to hear the projections from the developers. There is still construction happening after 2020; that’s just how far were going out with numbers on the current document As we’re building, are we seeing exodus, are people moving out?

Ralph sees them staying, they offer a downsize unit (low maintenance). Sees people moving into the district from other districts now that they are more able to. West side elementary schools are maintaining, no significant growth or decline, reflects stability.

Is 2020 far enough out to be comfortable with? If bond passed the first building would not be ready until 2019.

Tom said the fastest it could open is 18 months for elementary from bonds sold, 24 months for middle school and 36 months for a high school. The earliest a school could be opened and serving kids is fall 2018. Tom will see if we can go beyond 2020 but each year we go out data is less reliable.

This is the last meeting presenting information and answering questions as we will begin to focus on presentations from schools and departments. When the developers dedicate land, is it up to the district to accept, can they negotiate?

Ralph said in the past he and the superintendent have driven the sites to determine best location.

As the district sees its needs, can the negotiation still occur based on the district’s needs? Tom said the sites do change based on needs; for instance, they may go from K‐12 to K‐

8 site. We are fortunate that we have good developers and have been able to negotiate. Also, some of the utilities, etc. come into the negotiations. We could ask while they are doing grading work, if they can help level off school spots. Developers work with the


city on park sites adjacent to school sites. Sometimes they can dedicate a school site and adjacent park site.

Near term/short term growth projections Tom explained the enrollment and projections handout. The first few columns are design capacity and utilization capacity, these are different. A member commented we have a lot of kids, and we must look at things we didn’t get accomplished last time that need to be attended to. District‐wide Facility data Are there any schools that cannot take modulars?

Tom does not know of any but sometimes if a wet portable is needed, the water and sewer lines can become very costly, space can prevent it. Mark Bissell, Executive Director of Facilities, said there is always space to fit a modular. It costs about $100k.We typically purchase them.

Do we have a long term goal to get rid of them? Some of them are aging. We’ve purchased 4‐5 in last few years. Nice thing is it’s quick and affordable. In most larger school districts, it’s not uncommon to see modulars. Tom keeps track of where it’s getting close: CT, RC, DCC elementary, DCC middle, MRMS, TMS, DCC high, LHS, PCHS, and RHS are all at or above utilization capacity number.

Is there sharing at DCC because of shared spaces?

No, as enrollment grows it removes that capability. D20 has 25,063 students, the blue bar on handout represents non charter school students. TCA has purchased the old Mountain View elementary and is paying on that. TCA owns all the rest of their facilities. There are no students in TCA modulars for security purposes; they are all admin offices, etc. It can be attractive to add on to a building through permanent construction or a modular, but what’s forgotten is there is a core facility. The core facilities don’t expand because you add on. Café and auditorium are still the same size. Tom said the committee will see excitement from the schools. During the field trips we will learn the building shortfalls. Libraries with lots of books, shared cafeterias and gyms, narrower hallways.

When was last facility audit? 2000with a follow‐up in 2004. Recommendations Long Range Capital Facilities Committee in 2007 (From Section Five of Notebook – November Homework) Section 5, page 12. We give value to the work of the previous committee. Tom reviewed the recommendations. The new construction recommendations of 3 things, none have been built. Remodels/additions – been able to do minimal work from capital reserve funds.


Per Pupil Building is now called School Site Improvement. Projections on attachment E is all the recommendations, not just schools. Includes district facilities, security needs, technology needs – all at district level. Tom shared technology components, the good news is it’s all pretty much taken care of now. The fiber is pretty much done, much of the recommended work is done. Similar buckets, but be clear on the school money and the other more significant projects that compete against all other projects.

Did schools have the opportunity to present to the previous committee? Yes they did. Every school had an opportunity to present last time some did not by choice.

Planning for SSIC presentations beginning in January Vicki Taylor said last time we knew what our bottom line was; we knew seats needed. We knew the needs and took the buckets and figured out what needs to be done and what to cut. Jackie Walls said there is a group of parents saying that we should fix what we have now rather than build new. Tom said that, starting in January, it will be all the schools and departments presenting their needs. When they’re done, we will revisit the new construction needs. Vicki said there is a balance of addressing new and existing needs. Jackie said the Parent Sounding Board (PSB) is saying the bond is a done deal and four new schools would be built. Karin said the message at PSB was exactly what we’ve heard from developers, needs and sites…nothing is a done deal as the question about whether the BOE will seek a bond in 2016 hasn’t even been determined – they await feedback from this group. When you hear these things, members can help correct misinformation. A member asked if a K‐12 building is less costly than an elementary, middle and high school. Tom affirmed that was true. Karin said the schools know their per pupil dollars won’t be enough to pay for additions or swimming pools. Their focus is on capital needs such as things like paint, new flooring, playgrounds, risers, etc. Section 9 is the school site improvement committees (shared last meeting). You will have a handout prior to the school and department presentations. Karin will send an outlook invitation or email on the field trip dates, Saturday April 23. Tom reminded the GCNC members that it is okay if they’re not sure about what’s to come. . The next several meetings will be different, and members will learn a lot about needs and hopes. Take notes; after that we will do group work. There will be tools to help us get to a decision making process.


Vicki suggested it would be helpful if we had talking points to use when people ask about our work. Karin said we can bring talking points next time to share. No decisions have been made. GCNC documents housed at http://www.asd20.org/committees/ggtf/Pages/default.aspx Next meeting: January 5, 2016, 5:30 – 8:00 at RHS Tech Wing Attendance: Kathy Armacost, Ralph Braden, Gary Coulter, Kelly Goyden, Cindy Hardin, Vernita Hare, Francine Henderson, Ryan Henkel, Kim Hollm, Tammie Mohr, Dan Olson, Matt Pacione, Jackie Priessman, Henry Reitwiesner, Patrick Schumaker, Tony Scott, Anthony Sibley, Robin Stanforth, Jason Stejskal, Vicki Taylor, Will Temby, Jackie Walls, Stephen Zamborelli Absent: Megan Chura, McKenzie Palmer, Vish Paradkar, Ruth Schoen, David Tubb, Mark VanGampleare Ad Hoc Members: Nanette Anderson, Mark Bissell, Susan Field, Brian Grady, Tom Gregory, Anne Krajcovic, David Peak, Karin Reynolds, Greg Stephens, Linda Warhoe Absent: Shelley Kooser


Tuesday, January 5, 2016 5:30 – 8:00 PM – RHS Tech Wing

AGENDA

I. Dinner 5:15 – 5:30

II. Sharing feedback, answers, and questions and talking points 5:30 – 5:45

III. Preparing for department presentations 5:45 – 6:00 Discussion of handouts

i. Fact sheets ii. Presentation note-taking

iii. Capital projects completed and in-complete

IV. Instructional Technology presentation 6:00 – 6:30

V. Facilities presentation 6:30 – 7:00

VI. Transportation presentation 7:00 – 7:30

VII. Learning Services presentation 7:30 – 7:55

VIII. Closure 7:55 – 8:00

IX. Next meeting: January 26th, 5:30 – 8:00 at RHS Tech Wing


Growth and Capital Needs Committee January 5, 2016 Meeting Notes

I. Dinner Karin Reynolds, Deputy Superintendent, welcomed all and reminded all no reflection sheets will be completed on the nights we have presentations. If you have questions please post in the “Parking Lot.” II. Sharing feedback, answers, and questions and talking points Karin asked that members carefully read the reflection summary sheet. These are the comments from the green reflection sheets members filled out from Oct., Nov., and Dec. The second section of that handout is answers to the questions members asked. Tom Gregory, District Financial Officer, is offering a bond finance session for those interested to learn more about school finance. Tom said there were questions about alternatives, operating dollars, etc. This meeting would address those questions. We will set a meeting date and Karin will invite the GCNC. III. Preparing for department presentations Tom Gregory, District Financial Officer, explained the department presentation the committee will hear tonight. Tom shared a revised seven year projection going out to 2022. This is used to build enrollment projections. • Discussion of handouts

i. Fact sheets – on each site. Tom explained the fact sheets on transportation, facilities, and the EAC. Members will receive one of these for every department that has a facility on the night of that presentation. They are all formatted the same, all have an aerial photo and facts on it. Any dollars included on these information sheets are in that year dollars. Insurance replacement value is getting at today’s dollars. ii. Presentation note‐taking ‐ Tom said it would be helpful to take notes. All the handouts you receive are yours, not to be turned in. It may be 3‐4 months before we start talking about the information you hear tonight. iii. Capital projects completed and incomplete ‐ Two handouts shared. Projects done with annual operating dollars. DM = Deferred Maintenance (repair/paint…) CI = Capital Improvement CR = Capital Renewal (something being removed and upgraded)

Question:

What have schools been asked for? o In October a document went to each site asking for capital needs.


Talking Points document was shared. Please use when talking to community and share as needed. Gary Coulter said it important to be able to realize what is a priority 1 and a true safety need. If you don’t make sure each school is speaking the same language, it’s hard for the GCNC to make recommendations. Tom said if a need is a true health and safety need, it should be on the priority 1 list. Tom said inside of priority 1 there will be a scale as well. Tom invited the committee to ask questions and remember that we get to do field trips in April and see things that have been discussed. For each of the teams providing presentations below, handouts were provided on which members could take notes, and all handouts and minutes will be on the website. IV. Instructional Technology presentation Shelley Kooser, Chief Information Officer, introduced Steve Endicott, IT Director, and Scott Harrison, Network Engineer. PowerPoint and proposal summary shared and attached to these notes. Questions:

BYOD, will the infrastructure be there to implement? Shelley said yes, and each site will have a strategy to meet the needs. The infrastructure presented tonight is based on all students having a device (either student or parent provided).

o Shelley said numbers are estimated over the next 6‐8 years, the long term part of the bond funds.

Ralph asked about the operational costs of this kind of things. It’s not like sticks and bricks.

o Shelley said fiber has a use life of forever. With the infrastructure it’s the cost of doing business to ensure we have the capacity for students to learn and teachers to teach in the 21st century world.

Karin reminded all to post any questions that we don’t have time to discuss this evening on the parking lot. V. Facilities presentation Tom presented in place of Mark Bissel. Mark Bissell actually retired, after working for 39 years. He’ll return in Feb. to finish the school year. According to PERA rules he is taking the month of January off, and during that time, he had many plans but went skiing and tore his Achilles tendon. Henry Reitwiesner, Construction and Environmental Services Supervisor, spoke to the facilities management compound needs. 40+ employees are responsible for maintaining the 35 facilities. Tom explained the water line work going at facilities; it shares a line with Challenger Middle School; it has broken 5 times and was repaired over the winter break.


Tom explained this is the needs of the facility compound, not the district wide facilities. Tom spoke to the needs of the District 20 football stadium at Liberty High School, and a hope for a district stadium at Pine Creek High School. Tom explained one of the reasons for building the other stadium at Pine Creek is that there are no existing homes nearby that would object to stadium lighting. In addition, Tom shared that access to Air Academy High School is a problem. Tom explained the need for artificial turf at baseball fields, and this would allow other sports to use the same field. Tom spoke again about the list of capital projects. We would need to look at the cost and what could be afforded if bond dollars become available and what can be afforded on an annual basis. The GCNC needs to think about what is an appropriate level of funding to benefit the students and taxpayers of the district. The current list includes projects totaling 99 million. Pages 4&5 of the document that he provided speak to 21 projects highlighted; they are coded DW which is district wide. These items may be under the school lists when they present, so members may see some duplication. Without duplication this list takes the district from 98 million to 70 million. GCNC should rely on the 70 million number, reflecting no or minimum duplication. Questions:

Synthetic surfaces have come in the news as cancer causing, have we looked at validity of that?

o Tom said that testing on these fields indicates that the level of carcinogen research outside of NBC news reports is that it is perfectly safe. Manufacturers would not make it available if it were dangerous; vast majority says it’s safe. It has been around 15 years since this turf was installed, and it has been heavily used the last 5‐10 years. This replacement process would be gradual; vendors compete for the bids. Would not be able to do all in even two summers, probably 3‐5 years. We have not talked about the order this may happen. Would start with the fields where competition would happen. Competition size fields cost about $400‐500,000 total cost.

D20 stadium, switch fence from 6‐8 feet? o This is for unauthorized use more than vandalism; if we don’t this creates a

liability issue. VI. Transportation presentation Cindy Hardin, Director for Transportation, and Brian Grady, Executive Director for Security and Transportation, presented. Choice transportation is provided for out‐of‐district on a space available basis; students would need to get to the hub site. Transportation fee – they collect about $400,000 and do see it increasing over time. Transportation budget is $700,000. We turn away many field trip requests. Adding another sport, field hockey, will also put a strain on transportation. VII. Learning Services presentation Dr. Susan Field, Assistant Superintendent for Learning Services, explained this department includes curriculum, assessment, and special education, and preschool. Dr. Field shared the list


of schools and programs that need a permanent location that would like to be housed together in a new Academy 20 Innovation and Learning Campus. We have seen steady growth in each of the programs like AVP and Home School Academy (HSA). Questions:

What is the Village at Pine Creek? It is a 9th grade blended learning program that includes an online curriculum and project based learning that brings students to the school.

Dr. Field said there is no cost estimate for this yet; she will pull together cost estimates as we get closer to determining the bond question. Some of this would give space back to the schools that are providing space for programs now. (For example, Challenger Learning Center is housed at Challenger Middle School and HSA space could go back to preschool.) There is no space identified yet. Tom mentioned perhaps The Farm might dedicate space to this.

Gary Coulter asked about the safety of modular as they seem like more of a liability than an asset. This is a primary reason TCA moved all students to buildings and administration to modulars.

o Brian Grady said modulars are less safe, but the mass shootings/tragedies are not happening in modulars. Gary asked if there is a rationale for D20 to minimize modular, and whether we can be sure that they can hear all communications. Brian said he would verify.

VIII. Closure Karin shared that Superintendent Mark Hatchell is sending a midyear update to the community tomorrow, and because there is mention of the work GCNC is doing, Karin shared a copy with GCNC. IX. Next meeting: January 26th, 5:30 – 8:00 at RHS Tech Wing GCNC documents are housed at http://www.asd20.org/committees/ggtf/Pages/default.aspx Attendance: Kathy Armacost, Ralph Braden, Megan Chura, Gary Coulter, Kelly Goyden, Cindy Hardin, Vernita Hare, Tammie Mohr, Dan Olson, Matt Pacione, Jackie Priessman, Henry Reitwiesner, Patrick Schumaker, Anthony Sibley, Robin Stanforth, Jason Stejskal, Will Temby, David Tubb, Mark VanGampleare, Jackie Walls, Stephen Zamborelli Absent: Francine Henderson, Ryan Henkel, Kim Hollm, McKenzie Palmer, Vish Paradkar, Ruth Schoen, Tony Scott, Vicki Taylor Ad Hoc Members Present: Nanette Anderson, Dr. Susan Field, Brian Grady, Tom Gregory, Shelley Kooser, Anne Krajcovic, Dr. David Peak, Karin Reynolds, Greg Stephens, Linda Warhoe Absent: Mark Bissell


Tuesday, January 26, 2016 5:30 – 8:00 PM – RHS Tech Wing

AGENDA

I. Dinner 5:15 – 5:30

II. Processing Presentations from 1/5/16: Biggest learnings/biggest needs 5:30 – 6:00 Instructional Technology Facilities Transportation Learning Services

III. Security presentation 6:00 – 6:30

IV. The Classical Academy presentation 6:30 – 6:45

V. EPP/NOP presentation 6:45 – 7:00

VI. Home School Academy presentation 7:00 – 7:15

VII. School in the Woods presentation 7:15 – 7:30

VIII. Closing the Loop: Parking Lot questions 7:30 – 8:00

IX. Next meeting: February 9th, 5:30 – 8:00 at RHS Tech Wing


Growth and Capital Needs Committee January 26, 2016 Meeting Notes

I. Dinner

Karin Reynolds, Deputy Superintendent, welcomed all and asked that members pair up with another and review their own notes on the presentations from the last meeting.

II. Processing Presentations from 1/5/16:

Biggest learnings/biggest needs ‐ Members paired up and reviewed their notes from the presentations already heard. They wrote biggest learnings and biggest needs, and they shared big ideas about what resonated with the large group as follows:

Instructional Technology o General infrastructure, wiring, huge needs, bandwidth, fiber to School in the

Woods (SitW) and Edith Wolford Elementary. o What do they want? What part paid by budget and what part by capital funds o Something to replace Oracle, and asked if this a re compete. Tom said it would

be.

Facilities o When we consider that we’ll be two fiscal years out without knowing what they

have listed as level one requirements, we may not know what’s already taken care of. There are needs that the bond would have to cover.

o Facilities building itself and security of the lot is just a chain link fence with padlock.

o Aging of D20 stadium. o Artificial turf sounds intriguing.

Transportation o Extra exit, access point. o Undeveloped area of current facility, need to expand to hold more buses as D20

grows. o Having a facility with space for all to use the restrooms. o Could they bring in a second shift to get away without expanding building? o Bus replacement/replenishment not appropriate for bond issue. Tom agreed

that this would not be covered in bond dollars.

Learning Services o Some place to put programs would be beneficial. o Good to see domino effect of freeing up other space at other buildings that

would be housed in a new space. o Where education is going, LS seems very on top of it, very impressive. One

member wants to give them all the money.


Karin said we will continue to do this debrief at the start of future meetings following presentations from the meeting prior to remind ourselves of requests and needs. The following departments and programs provided presentations at this meeting, and their presentations are attached to the website/minutes as well as briefly summarized with questions asked.

III. Security Presentation

Brian Grady, Director for Transportation and Security, reviewed the department needs. Vicki Taylor said it sounds like we need an annual tech replacement plan. Brian agrees that we should have capital reserve to replace this equipment; it was all put in at the same time and will all fail at the same time. He said this is in discussion.

Are you able to use used parts for repair? Yes, we have an IT professional that does much of the repair work.

Radio replacement? The FCC will dictate when that happens, they have to give you a five year notice.

Intruder alarms? Yes, we have motion detectors, fire alarms, and card readers, these have a longer life.

New school security costs not included in building cost? Yes, it could be included, just a reminder that is all gets wrapped in. New buildings would be built to current education standards, current ADA code, etc.

IV. The Classical Academy Presentation David Tubb, Director for Operations, and Mark VanGampleare, CFO, presented TCA needs.

What % of D20 students are TCA? 15%

What services are you purchasing from D20? Three security personnel, a majority is IT services.

Ralph would like a tutorial in the operational funding. Where does TCA fit into D20 funding plan, especially on bond issue? Resolved by statute, charters are required to be considered in any bond, have to be included in discussion, whether to fund is up to the district.

Beyond PPR, does TCA share mil levy finding? Yes, based on a percentage of enrollment.

Debt of 55 million is secured with assets

1100 are out of district students

Russ Sojourner, TCA CEO, was introduced. V. EPP/NOP Presentation

Dr. Jim Smith, Executive Director for Learning Services, introduced Frank Kmilek, math teacher. Frank presented on the needs of the New Opportunity Programs. A student, Olivia Morton, presented her story at the expulsion program and the Partnership Academy.


Does it have to be a stand‐alone building? No, could be kids with a variety of needs including some under court supervision. The program does not take out‐of‐district kids.

How do people find out about these programs? How many are expelled? About half are expelled.

Do we market the difference between this program and Aspen Valley? Currently smaller student teacher ratio and individualized instruction in the EPP/NOP programs. Aspen Valley is a school, and the EPP/NOP program is not – students who attend the NOP program are students in other schools as well.

From Olivia’s example, seems they are hitting it out of the park with this program. On the financial side, do you have numbers? Not yet.

VI. Home School Academy presentation

Jolynn Patterson, Home School Administrator, gave an overview and needs of the Home School Academy (HSA) and the Tracks program held at SitW.

Is Tracks held in the portable? Yes, the old Teachout Center. SitW has one classroom in the portable and HSA has one.

How many students per day? About 100, they come one day a week.

Funded by PPR like other district students; for the one day a week attendance D‐20 gets 50% of the state funding.

What would be your increase in enrollment if you have the space? Historically for last eight years the HSA has grown by 10%. Tom explained the program grew as we added days to the program; now that the program is at all five days, no more days are available to add.

K‐8 students, are you comfortable with the grades of students in other programs being together? They’ve talked about it and are comfortable with sharing with other programs such as EPP/NOP. Karin said students in an expulsion program would always be separated from other students.

Over 50% are out of district students. The HSA supports home school families across the Pikes Peak area.

Gary Coulter said the original STEM became STEAM (to include Arts). As you look at Academy of Arts, look for ways to integrate the Arts and do cross pollination. Jolynn said they have that conversation often.

VII. School in the Woods presentation

Jon Wuerth, Coordinator and one of the co‐founders of School in the Woods, presented on the program and the safety, security, and sustainability needs. Currently have 78 students.

Vicki Taylor asked what kind of square feet they are taking about. Jon said that they need more than they currently have, enough to accommodate the classrooms and a multipurpose room.

Could we look at current education specs to see what square footage and green construction costs? We’ll also need to see a bottom line.


Do we have permission from the county for expansion? Tom said there is a plan for water coming in. Vicki said it’s a good thing to know. Water and septic costs are higher. Tom said much of this exists in the 2006 work.

How many can you handle without negative impact on the land? If we grow the program you will begin to impact. Don’t want too many students; it can create too much of an impact.

VIII. Closing the Loop: Parking Lot questions

There was an extra optional meeting on school finance last week, eight GCNC members attended. Tom would like to talk about the capital finance also and will try to fit that in to the GCNC meetings.

Parking lot questions – a handout with responses was provided.

Tom shared the updated enrollment projections document. The chart with a three year look at in and out‐of‐district enrollment and one table speaks to the typical school enrollment based on Oct. 1 count information.

The other chart is the Pikes Peak area choice information as well as programs in D‐20; 18,557 students in El Paso County choose to go to school outside their districts.

IX. Next meeting: February 9th, 5:30 – 8:00 at RHS Tech Wing GCNC documents are available at http://www.asd20.org/committees/ggtf/Pages/default.aspx Attendance: Kathy Armacost, Ralph Braden, Megan Chura, Gary Coulter, Kelly Goyden, Cindy Hardin, Vernita Hare, Francine Henderson, Ryan Henkel, Kim Hollm, Tammie Mohr, Dan Olson, Matt Pacione, McKenzie Palmer, Vish Paradkar, Henry Reitwiesner, Patrick Schumaker, Tony Scott, Anthony Sibley, Robin Stanforth, Jason Stejskal, Vicki Taylor, Will Temby, David Tubb, Mark VanGampleare, Jackie Walls, Stephen Zamborelli Absent: Jackie Priessman, Ruth Schoen Ad Hoc Members Present: Nanette Anderson, Dr. Susan Field, Brian Grady, Tom Gregory, Anne Krajcovic, Dr. David Peak, Karin Reynolds, Greg Stephens, Linda Warhoe Absent: Mark Bissell, Shelley Kooser


Tuesday, February 9, 2016 5:30 – 8:00 PM – RHS Tech Wing

AGENDA

I. Dinner 5:15 – 5:30

II. Processing Presentations from 1/26/16: Biggest learnings/biggest needs 5:30 – 6:00 Security The Classical Academy EPP/NOP School in the Woods Home School Academy

III. Woodmen Roberts ES presentation 6:00 – 6:15

IV. Rockrimmon ES presentation 6:20 – 6:35

V. Foothills ES presentation 6:40 – 6:55

VI. Edith Wolford ES presentation 7:00 – 7:15

VII. Douglass Valley ES 7:20 – 7:35

VIII. Academy Calvert K-8 7:40 – 7:55

IX. Closing the Loop: Parking Lot questions, etc. 7:55 – 8:00

X. Next meeting: February 23rd, 5:30 – 8:00 at RHS Tech Wing


Growth and Capital Needs Committee February 9, 2016 Meeting Notes

I. Dinner

Karin Reynolds, Deputy Superintendent, welcomed all and asked that members pair up with another and review their own notes on the presentations from the last meeting.


Biggest learnings/biggest needs ‐ Members reviewed their notes from the presentations already heard. They discussed biggest learnings and biggest needs as follows.

Except for TCA all affected a very small demographic and all were asking for large numbers.

TCA has 15% of the D20 students, they are the largest and highest performing charter school in the state; TCA students consistently outscore other D20 students on assessments. They don’t have access to the funding support the rest of schools do. They do have a very legitimate claim to some reasonable percentage of whatever bond is brought forward, as the pre‐eminent charter in the state.

SITW, modular is getting old, and it seems to be very popular program.

Security – important to invest in radios and modular security.

We will work to put together estimates of capital improvement costs for programs and schools.

Challenge the district to look at some way to fund updates as a regular refresh for security, etc.

Karin reminded the group about “buckets” of requests and what schools have been asked to do in their presentations. Schools will present a “wish” list of things that they need to further enhance sound instruction. There are no breaks tonight as six schools are presenting. Parking lot questions:

1. Cost for a bus? $110,000 fully equipped. They come from different buckets. 2. Are we holding presentation to 15 min? We are staying as close as possible,

some were scheduled to be longer initially. Schools will be 15 minutes only with 5 minutes in between.

A member said they are listening for legitimate requirements that have emerged as the district has grown, not wish list items. The natural growth we’ve had plus the anticipated growth is what we should look for.


Karin explained schools have put together committees that explore the capital needs they have that their own budgets cannot cover. We don’t know where this will go. The reality is that if all the money goes to the new growth (east side) why would the west side school communities support it as they have their own needs as well? Tom Gregory reminded the GCNC members that we do need the support of the entire D‐20 community to pass a bond should the Board decide to move forward with this ballot issue. Tom Gregory said the schools should answer, “I wish we had or I wish we could…” The GCNC doesn’t place judgment on the requests. We allocate in the fairest way possible to share the dollars. Capital needs that school or their budget cannot cover belong in bucket A. The kinds of things needed are legitimate ones that they need to operate more effectively and efficiently. If schools are not real clear in their presentations, we should ask what is in bucket A and Bucket B – those things that 1 ‐ What they need to continue to do the work 2 ‐ To support today’s educational needs 3 ‐ Enrollment – do we need more schools, look at needs

The following schools provided presentations at this meeting, and their presentations are attached to the website/minutes as well as briefly summarized with questions asked. III. Woodmen Roberts ES presentation

Presentation posted on GCNC website. V. Foothills ES presentation

Presentation posted on GCNC website. IV. Rockrimmon ES Presentation

Presentation posted on GCNC website. VI. Edith Wolford ES presentation

Presentation posted on GCNC website. VII. Douglass Valley ES presentation

Presentation posted on GCNC website. VIII. Academy Calvert K‐8 Online School presentation

Presentation posted on GCNC website. IX. Closing the Loop: Parking Lot questions

Collaborative input model: Karin asked committee to consider the revisions.

Recommend extending the end time of the meetings to add 30 minutes and end at 8:30. All agreed to changed end time to 8:30.


BOE communication linkage ‐ update given to the school board at their 2nd meeting of each month.

Changed May 5 to a regular meeting and moved the public forum to May 10th.

Karin and Tom will put the items requested by sites and departments in the buckets for the group to reference as presentations continue. PPR dollars will be represented in, Bucket A, and Bucket B will represent those capital needs that go beyond the PPR possibilities. The dollar amounts will be important, so they will do what they can with the estimates.

Tom said there is a need for time to address questions around the following, and we will do that at the next meeting.

o Capital planning o Capital funding o Survey results

A member expressed their opinion that when the GCNC “racks and stacks” the requests with a forced matrix after last presentations the people in the room should be Tom Gregory, Karin Reynolds, and the GCNC; principals and administrators that have a ‘dog in the fight’ should not be included. Karin said ad hoc members won’t be a part of the decision making. She shared that all other people in the room are voting members and representing specific stakeholder groups, so they do need to be a part of decision making and have a voice in it.

Schools presenting next meeting include Mountain View ES, High Plains ES, Frontier ES, Pioneer ES, Prairie Hills ES, and Explorer ES.

A member suggested that, regarding buckets A & B, the GCNC could suggest there are a lot of things in column A that are safety concerns. Tom said no principals would be discouraged if the funding source recommendations from the GCNC did not come from their Bucket A money, but rather Bucket B. The GCNC may certainly move items from column A to B.

A member mentioned the theme of items needed in older buildings include furniture, paint, and bathrooms. The GCNC can pull those items off and list as more of a priority.

A member expressed a concern about 1.5 estimate for HVAC, and asked if funds were mismanaged that they need this.

A member asked about accountability for taxpayers that would be in place to ensure that what we say we will use bond dollars for will really be used for those purposes. Tom shared that a recommendation that came from the 2001 & 2006


groups is an oversight committee to oversee funds, and it is assumed that this GCNC will make the same recommendation should a bond issue pass.

X. Next meeting: February 23rd, 5:30 – 8:30 p.m. at RHS Tech Wing GCNC documents are available at http://www.asd20.org/committees/ggtf/Pages/default.aspx Attendance: Ralph Braden, Megan Chura, Gary Coulter, Kelly Goyden, Cindy Hardin, Vernita Hare, Francine Henderson, Ryan Henkel, Kim Hollm, Tammie Mohr, Dan Olson, Matt Pacione, McKenzie Palmer, Vish Paradkar, Jackie Priessman, Patrick Schumaker, Tony Scott, Robin Stanforth, Jason Stejskal, Vicki Taylor, Jackie Walls, Stephen Zamborelli Absent: Kathy Armacost, Henry Reitwiesner, Ruth Schoen, Anthony Sibley, Will Temby, David Tubb, Mark VanGampleare Ad Hoc Members Present: Dr. Susan Field, Brian Grady, Tom Gregory, Anne Krajcovic, Dr. David Peak, Karin Reynolds, Greg Stephens, Linda Warhoe Absent: Nanette Anderson, Mark Bissell, Shelley Kooser

GROWTH AND CAPITAL NEEDS COMMITTEE Tuesday, February 23, 2016


I. Dinner 5:15 – 5:30

II. Processing Presentations from 1/26/16: Biggest learnings/biggest needs 5:30 – 5:50

Woodmen Roberts ES presentation Rockrimmon ES presentation Foothills ES presentation Edith Wolford ES presentation Douglass Valley ES Academy Calvert K-8

III. Parking Lot questions/comments, etc. 5:50 – 5:55

IV. April Field Trip discussion – tour priorities 5:55 – 6:00

V. SSIC Presentations Mountain View ES 6:00 – 6:15 High Plains ES 6:20 – 6:35 Frontier ES 6:40 – 6:55 Pioneer ES 7:00 – 7:15 Prairie Hills ES 7:20 – 7:35 Explorer ES 7:40 – 7:55

VI. Annual Capital Budget 8:00 – 8:15

VII. Negative Factor 8:15 – 8:25

VIII. Closure: 8:25 – 8:30 Next meeting: March 8th, 5:30 – 8:30 at RHS Tech Wing


Growth and Capital Needs Committee February 23, 2016 Meeting Notes

I. Dinner

Karin Reynolds, Deputy Superintendent, welcomed all and asked that members pair up with another and review their own notes on the presentations from the last meeting as they share big ideas from last meeting’s presentations.


Biggest learnings/biggest needs ‐ Members reviewed their notes from the presentations already heard. They discussed biggest learnings and biggest needs as follows.

Lack of clarity on some items as far as what buckets projects come from.

Need a minimum standard of quality for any school in our district; it is clear that some have big needs and some don’t.

Trouble differentiating between operating funds and capital improvement funds, and what is and what isn’t.

Need to look at a rotating facelift for the schools so they don’t get to the shape of Douglass Valley.

Don’t replace the whole fleet of buses at once; have a rotating schedule.

Basic needs of schools is incredible, makes you realize it’s quite a process.

Do we establish reserves out of the bond for these things? Tom Gregory, Chief Financial Officer, said there was no intentional plan for this in the past. Each project does have a contingency with it and if not used the contingency is swept up, bundled, and allocated for additional projects

If we have five schools that need carpet, do we use one bid or do they each do their own thing? Tom said it depends on timing. The purchasing department does shepherd the process, and if projects can be packaged into a single bid to benefit from economies of scale, we certainly do that.

Karin spoke to the handouts that were distributed this evening. Karin said we will continue to update the bucket handout that was distributed this evening following other presentations. She pointed out the interim report that went to the Board on February 18. An updated version of the Collaborative Input Model was also shared. The changes were as follows: extending the meetings by 30 minutes, changing two meeting dates, and regular reporting to the Board of Education during the second meetings of each month.

III. Parking lot questions and comments:

Foothills: o How many classrooms? 22 total: 13 grade level classrooms, 4 specials

classrooms, 1 literacy classroom, 3 special education classrooms, and 1 counseling room.


o How many square foot building area? This will be answered in the document that Tom provides prior to each SSIC presentation.

Edith Wolford: o Why was modern furniture purchased instead of standard school

furniture? To replace terrible furniture that is 12 years old seems like mismanagement to me. A member who was on the building committee when they decided on furniture indicates that they looked at several different styles before deciding. It was important for teachers that the previous chairs didn’t stack, so they wanted something that could go on the desks so the custodians could vacuum at night. Previously, the teachers had been moving chairs each night so floors could be vacuumed. As for the desks, they thought the slide out drawers would be handy; at the time they were. Apparently, with the use over the past 12 years, they have worn out on the tracks, so they do tend to fall out more than they did originally.

Douglass Valley: o Has the district considered replacing the school with a new facility off

base? Yes, and it will not happen as it is a neighborhood school – it is not simply on the AFA. It brings complications, but there are a lot of kids who need a school on the base. Seems like the building may have reached its useful life, but a tour would help determine how well it works educationally.

If schools have portables is it fair to say that for the most part the reason they have portables is that they have exceeded their building capacity? Yes, it is fair to say that this was true at one time, and is usually true for HS’s and MS’s. The addition of some specials and programmatic issues and changes over time might be the reason that more space is needed at ES’s. It’s not always about capacity and enrollment.

Theme – Bathrooms. All schools built after 1980’s or 1990’s need updated bathrooms.

Theme – Painting and flooring for all older buildings.

Theme – New desks and chairs for all older buildings.

Some of the questions… the same question to every presenter is wasting time. Karin explained the minutes would not include the questions asked of the schools after their presentations. All presentations will be posted on the web.

IV. April Field Trip discussion – tour priorities Karin requested members to note preferences for school tours on a post‐it note so that she can try to make specific requests work for all members.


V. SSIC Presentations The following schools provided presentations at this meeting, and their presentations are posted on the website. Mountain View ES presentation

Presentation posted on GCNC website. High Plains ES presentation

Presentation posted on GCNC website. Frontier ES Presentation

Presentation posted on GCNC website. Pioneer ES presentation

Presentation posted on GCNC website. Prairie Hills ES presentation

Presentation posted on GCNC website. Explorer ES presentation

Presentation posted on GCNC website. Tom Gregory, Chief Financial Officer, explained many schools have adjoining city parks that can be shared‐use per a Joint Use Agreement. Some schools also benefit from building rental income. A member mentioned that for students to use these parks they have to have a permission slip for each student when they cross the school boundary line to the park. Tom said many joint use facility agreements can have unintended consequences. A member asked about utilization versus design capacity. Tom explained that the disconnect is the lower number is the realistic number for the building. Buildings built to hold the number of students at one time, but reality is when students go to specials (art, music, PE, computers) their classroom is vacant and as programming and instructional delivery methods change, expectations for space also change. A member asked what relevance the design capacity has. Another member said we pay architects, and since we are the customer, why can’t they design the building to be used to meet our needs. Tom explained schools were built with no space for specials; for example, art was on a cart. Meeting space/pullout space and foreign language in elementary did not exist in the 1970’s, 80’s, and 90’s. Also, neighborhoods grow and the building no longer fits. A member suggested that we now tell the architects what we need. VI. Annual Capital Budget Tom presented on the district’s annual capital budget (presentation attached).

Transportation Fund is not buying buses, transportation budget is 6 million plus student fees generates $450,000.

A member asked about transportation requirement. It is not a requirement, it is a service we provide.


A member asked how you prioritize these. Tom said there is a committee that meets about roofs, boilers, fire suppression systems, etc. Also, if you replace a boiler you gain savings over a long period of time. Same with artificial turf fields.

The district’s annual capital budget is about $2.5 million. Of this, $1.0 million goes to replace buses every year and $750,000 is obligated to repay debt (through December 2105). This means there is about $750,000 available annually to take care of our remaining vehicles and all of our facilities. It is a very tight budget.

VII. Negative Factor Tom explained the term negative factor. The term was actually coined by D20. Tom explained how some schools have access to more funds than others. Some schools have building rental, and the school keeps 80% of the rental revenue collected. Some schools don’t have additional funding. Also, the state has no funds to provide; a legislator stated that school districts are going to need to solve the financial issue locally. A member asked if anyone has anyone extrapolated from 2000 on the effects of Tabor. Tom said the state has the calculation. For D20 it has no impact because in 2002 we had the de‐Brucing. Nearly all school districts have de‐Bruced, but the state has not. Tom said constitutional spending requirements and the revenue line will cross in about three years in Colorado. At that point something will have to be done. The USAF Academy does not cover any maintenance costs for the two schools on the base. A members explained the tech refresh funds come from the Impact Aid fees that we get for having two schools on the Academy. We do get additional security from the Air Force for those schools that reside within the Academy’s gates. Tom said we are fortunate that our schools are relatively new. The oldest is 1950s with most having been built in the late 70’s, 80’s, and 90’s. We are a relatively young district. Amount of debt we can take on is 280 million range but we don’t have the ability to pay in back given our tax base and tax limitation. We are still thinking about $220‐230 million. VIII. Closure Adjourned at 8:15 p.m. Next meeting: March 8th, 5:30 – 8:30 p.m. at RHS Tech Wing GCNC documents are available at http://www.asd20.org/committees/ggtf/Pages/default.aspx Attendance: Kathy Armacost, Ralph Braden, Gary Coulter, Kelly Goyden, Cindy Hardin, Vernita Hare, Francine Henderson, Kim Hollm, Tammie Mohr, Dan Olson, McKenzie Palmer, Vish Paradkar,


Jackie Priessman, Henry Reitwiesner, Ruth Schoen, Patrick Schumaker, Tony Scott, Anthony Sibley, Jason Stejskal, Vicki Taylor, Will Temby, David Tubb, Jackie Walls, Stephen Zamborelli Absent: Megan Chura, Ryan Henkel, Matt Pacione, Robin Stanforth, Mark VanGampleare Ad Hoc Members Present: Nanette Anderson, Brian Grady, Tom Gregory, Anne Krajcovic, Dr. David Peak, Karin Reynolds, Greg Stephens, Linda Warhoe Absent: Mark Bissell, Dr. Susan Field, Shelley Kooser

GROWTH AND CAPITAL NEEDS COMMITTEE Tuesday, March 8, 2016


I. Dinner 5:15 – 5:30

II. Processing Presentations from 2/23/16: Biggest learnings/biggest needs 5:30 – 5:50 Mountain View ES High Plains ES Frontier ES Pioneer ES Prairie Hills ES Explorer ES


IV. April Field Trip assignments 5:55 – 6:00

V. SSIC Presentations Academy Endeavour ES 6:00 – 6:15 Antelope Trails ES 6:20 – 6:35 Academy International ES 6:40 – 6:55 Chinook Trail ES 7:00 – 7:15 Ranch Creek ES 7:20 – 7:35 The daVinci Academy School District 20 7:40 – 7:55

VI. Surveying our community – past and future 8:00 – 8:25

VII. Closure: 8:25 – 8:30 Next meeting: March 29th, 5:30 – 8:30 at RHS Tech Wing


Growth and Capital Needs Committee March 8, 2016 Meeting Notes

I. Dinner

Karin Reynolds, Deputy Superintendent, and Tom Gregory, Chief Financial Officer, welcomed all and asked that members pair up with another and review their own notes on the presentations from the last meeting as they share big ideas from last meeting’s presentations.


Biggest learnings/biggest needs ‐ Members reviewed their notes from the presentations already heard. They discussed biggest learnings and biggest needs as follows:

High Plains has a 491 capacity but has 250 students, what is design capacity? The design capacity is 515.

Bathrooms

Additional infrastructure needs to support improved technology in current schools

Furniture, moveable to support learning environment (classrooms & learning space)

Age of schools is clearly a determinant in the capital needs.

Empty space in some buildings indicates that capacity is higher than what is in there. Can we combine learning services needs into one building such as this instead of building a new facility? Karin and Tom shared that, as enrollment increases and boundaries might need to change, this may not be true.

Are there some schools decreasing in size? Would district commit to keeping the school or combining? Will there always be a neighborhood school? Karin and Tom addressed this and said that there has not been a conversation about this as the district is committed to neighborhood schools as it is to its choice philosophy.

2.5 million per year in maintenance with 8% going to deferred is not much. III. Parking lot questions and comments:

Tom addressed the parking lot questions.

How many schools in the district need new or updated electrical? o Due to the addition of portables and technology changes, six schools

currently would benefit from and electrical capacity upgrade.

What’s Facilities doing to address the maintenance issues? (painting, etc.) o Facilities staff completes work orders daily on a variety of requests from

schools, as well as perform routine and preventative maintenance. Large painting projects are outsourced to vendors, but interior painting is the responsibility of the school custodial staff and Building Manager.


Painting is ongoing and never a “completed project” across all 38 district facilities. It is essential for building level staff to perform routine functions within the building.

Need to compare what was recommended in the 3/07 report with what they want now.

o The 2007 report is available in your notebook for comparison.

How many schools need to have their fire alarm systems all together? (remote rooms, trailers)

o Ten portables remain unconnected to the main building alarm system.

It sounds like we need a paradigm shift – instead of making schools responsible for these repairs, use our big economies of scale to do better maintenance and repairs. How do we make that change in approach? Who needs to allow that to happen – so we go from “per pupil” to “priority projects” district wide?

o Whether the approach used is a per pupil funding approach or a project based approach, appropriate funding of k‐12 schools in Colorado remains the significant obstacle.

IV. April Field Trip assignments

Karin shared the schedule and asked that if a member does not plan to attend, please let her know. Karin confirmed that the group touring Challenger Middle School will go through Challenger Learning Center. An administrator will be available at the sites to guide the tour. The three principal members will lead the tours of their own schools.

V. SSIC Presentations

The following schools provided presentations at this meeting, and their presentations are posted on the website.

Academy Endeavour ES presentation

Presentation posted on GCNC website. Antelope Trails ES presentation

Presentation posted on GCNC website. Academy International ES Presentation

Presentation posted on GCNC website. Chinook Trail ES presentation

Presentation posted on GCNC website. Ranch Creek ES presentation

Presentation posted on GCNC website. The da Vinci Academy ES presentation

Presentation posted on GCNC website. Tom clarified one presentation by sharing that the city water restrictions were the reason fields suffered and were not watered adequately. We are still watering fields if the irrigation is there. At Antelope Trails there is only the school field in the area, no park, so the school play field is


used heavily by the community resulting in no relief for the field. At Rampart High School, the athletic fields are protected by fences so there is relief for the fields and they are in good shape for athletics. Fencing the fields is to keep vehicles off; fields are accessible to people to use appropriately. We have a responsibility to provide a safe field. Tom said there is a cost to making an appropriate environment for testing complete with isolated and quiet rooms. Questions:

A member asked about The da Vinci Academy, sounds like the open design is now a nightmare. How big a security issue is it?

o Mr. Grady shared that we can lock out the exterior and the perimeter. When it was built it didn’t look like they considered security. The kindergarten classrooms have doors. The requests would change the fundamental nature of the school. Adding walls and doors change HVAC needs. What is the cost to renovate? This information is on the list from the first meeting.

A member asked about the cost and durability of turf fields. o The life of a field is about15 years; at one time a football field had a 12 year

payback time, now it is closer to a 10 year payback time on that size field. Scaled bigger or smaller field size would change that. Cost is $450,000 for inside a high school track. Cost was $50,000 to do turf at Edith Wolford after the fire. We do reuse some of our artificial turf; have reused turf from AF Academy or Sky Sox; and we also reuse concrete pads for batting cages.

If replacing furniture there is a chance other schools might reuse the older furniture. o One school cannot sell their discards to another school; it can be

given/accepted.

New school themes include inadequacy of outlets and rains causing water to come into the building. We should make sure we take these lessons learned to new buildings.

o We have 35 principals with insight on flexible space and furniture, turning projectors.

Karin shared the article about the Flying Horse project from the Gazette business section. Karin reminded us of the GCNC charge, to study district needs and make recommendations related to five things:

1. New construction, 2. Facility additions, 3. Per pupil school improvement dollars, 4. Capital renewal/improvement, and 5. District infrastructure technology needs.


VI. Surveying our community – past and future Tom said in October we hired an outside organization to conduct a sentiment poll asking how the community feels about a possible bond on the November ballot. The questions were pretty high level, such as respondents were asked how they feel about the schools, and whether they feel that the schools have capital needs. Responses indicated strong support for capital improvements, strong sentiments for capital improvements for all schools, and strong sentiment for building new schools. There was also community interest in alternative programs and a strong understanding of the relationship between schools and property values. Tom reported that the pollster was amazed at the strength of the results. He said comparing our results to other districts around the state that we should go for a bond election in the fall as school district proposals pass at a higher rate in presidential race years. When asked what impact no tax increase would make in passing this bond, 50% of respondents say it would influence them, and 50% said it would have no impact on their vote. Questions:

Since timing right, is it worth looking at higher bond amount? o Tom suggested that, based on projections we are limited to what we can take

on, next year; that would be $230,000,000. We could ask voters to approve a billion dollars and justify it, but voter sentiment changes a lot, at some point the voters would have no appetite.

It is counterintuitive that 190 polled at a lower rate than the 225 number. Why? o Tom indicated that he isn’t sure why. Last year Boulder polled at 500 million;

they polled twice as much as the 300 million question. Tom reminded the GCNC members that, after we make recommendations, they go to superintendent. Then a second poll goes out about the projects recommended to gauge support language around those themes. The previous ballot question will be provided to the GCNC prior to finalizing our recommendations as well. Tom said a board resolution drives the ballot. If the board agrees to this, that’s what we are held accountable for. It will be highly published. We would have an oversight committee to look at all proposed projects including the per pupil building funds. They look at consolidations for group buys. Most of what the GCNC recommends may happen, but may be rearranged based on polling. Tours

A member asked if it might be better for small groups to travel to level schools instead of by feeder in order to, for example, look at all high schools for a better comparison. Another member suggested that this is not a competition; it’s an evaluation. Better to keep small groups touring to feeder systems to understand communities.

What about alternative dates for those who want to see other sites? If you wish to see a school not on your list Henry will be available to guide.

Adjourned at 8:32 p.m.


Next meeting: March 29th, 5:30 – 8:30 p.m. at RHS Tech Wing GCNC documents are available at http://www.asd20.org/committees/ggtf/Pages/default.aspx Attendance: Kathy Armacost, Ralph Braden, Megan Chura, Gary Coulter, Kelly Goyden, Cindy Hardin, Vernita Hare, Ryan Henkel, Kim Hollm, Tammie Mohr, Dan Olson, Matt Pacione, Henry Reitwiesner, Patrick Schumaker, Tony Scott, Anthony Sibley, Robin Stanforth, Jason Stejskal, Vicki Taylor, Will Temby, David Tubb, Mark VanGampleare, Jackie Walls Absent: Francine Henderson, McKenzie Palmer, Vish Paradkar, Jackie Priessman, Ruth Schoen, Stephen Zamborelli Ad Hoc Members Present: Dr. Susan Field, Brian Grady, Tom Gregory, Shelley Kooser, Anne Krajcovic, Dr. David Peak, Karin Reynolds, Greg Stephens, Linda Warhoe Absent: Nanette Anderson, Mark Bissell

GROWTH AND CAPITAL NEEDS COMMITTEE Tuesday, March 29, 2016


I. Dinner 5:15 – 5:30

II. Processing Presentations from 3/8/16: Biggest learnings/biggest needs 5:30 – 5:45 Academy Endeavour ES Antelope Trails ES Academy International ES Chinook Trail ES Ranch Creek ES The daVinci Academy


IV. April Field Trip assignments 5:55 – 6:00

V. SSIC Presentations Challenger MS 6:00 – 6:15 Eagleview MS 6:20 – 6:35 Mountain Ridge MS 6:40 – 6:55 Timberview MS 7:00 – 7:15 Aspen Valley Campus 7:20 – 7:35 Academy Online HS 7:35 – 7:55

VI. Debrief presentations from this evening 8:00 – 8:10

VII. Residential Development Analysis Reminder (Don Smith) 8:10 – 8:25

VIII. Closure – update about remaining agendas 8:25 – 8:30 Next meeting: April 12th, 5:30 – 8:30 at RHS Tech Wing


Growth and Capital Needs Committee March 29, 2016 Meeting Notes

I. Dinner

Karin Reynolds, Deputy Superintendent, and Tom Gregory, Chief Financial Officer, welcomed all and asked that members pair up with another and review their own notes on the presentations from the last meeting as they share big ideas from last meeting’s presentations.


Biggest learnings/biggest needs ‐ Members reviewed their notes from the presentations already heard. Individuals discussed biggest learnings and biggest needs as follows:

TdVA design at time was innovative, now a detriment to security. How the committee can look far enough ahead is a challenge.

Is flexible learning space a fad?

Why is security not handling security and safety issues/needs with buildings instead of schools worrying about then?

Need to spend a large portion of bond on bringing schools up to level instead of spending on new schools. Plenty of things need to be done.

Spend the dollars as close to the students as possible.

Do we have a minimum standard set for our school facilities? We need to bring them all up to that set standard before building new schools that meet those standards as well. Tom said the minimum standard is dynamic over time. It is impossible to keep every building as new as new buildings. We could take a large chunk of money and bring all schools up to the level, but the new schools built will still be a different/higher level. A member said there are thousands of items we are to prioritize, and this will be very hard for the committee. Tom said it will not be so difficult as the GCNC can make recommendations about themes and big ideas as they prioritize. A member said the problem is there are too many schools below level. Catch up, keep up, get ahead is the best approach to have something for everyone. Can this committee come up with a catch up, keep up, get ahead strategy? While outside of the charge for the GCNC, Karin said that this concern/idea can be mentioned in the report.

A member said we will need to identify a process and have a follow up committee to discover lessons learned on what held up, etc.

April Field Trip assignments

Karin shared the final schedule and asked members to let her know if they will not be attending as we need to get right sized vehicles for the number of passengers.


III. Parking lot questions and comments: Karin addressed the following parking lot question. Do we have schools that are overfull but are still taking out of district choice kids? (e.g.

Liberty, Mountain Ridge, Chinook, and others)

o We do have schools that are considered at capacity that have out‐of‐district choice

students enrolled. The closer to capacity a school, the less choice students they

take. Nevertheless, the choice decision making is complex for these reasons:

1. A school might have room in a specific grade or level or program when an OOD

student seeks enrollment, and we will take the student as the year begins.

2. We do not ask ODD students to leave a school should we reach capacity during

the time of their enrollment. That is, a student might enter a school in

kindergarten when there was space, but the school may have increased in

enrollment during his/her years there, and the student remains.

Tom addressed the following parking lot questions. Do we have a figure to fix the maintenance problems – leaking roofs, walls, electrical, etc. –

not cosmetic repairs?

o Members of the GCNC were issued a document that includes all items currently

identified by staff as capital renewal and maintenance needs. Additionally,

members receive a handout for each school that yields facility statistics as well as

the identified projects (from the aforementioned list) for that individual school.

How long do we do we have to get repairs done by a school building? (Chinook Trail water

problems and others)

o Timing is dependent on projected life expectancy, failure, health, safety, cost,

whether or not repairs can be accomplished during the school year, and funding

available. In the case of Chinook Trail, the general contractor responsible for

original construction was asked to identify the issue/s and take corrective action.

Routine work orders are expected to be resolved within 30 days.

Chinook Trails – structure rating fair / daVinci – structure poor. Why?

o The da Vinci Academy had minor structural problem (now resolved), excessive

concrete cracks in flooring, and exterior exfoliating of concrete. Additionally the

rating is impacted by the school’s request to have interior walls erected to enclose

each classroom. Chinook Trail’s rating is above da Vinci’s as the issues are less

significant, but include the water issues (see above) heating balance and water

delivery system.

Do we get separate state funding for ADA programs? i.e. Da Vinci Academy ramps etc.

o Colorado does not allocate funds for ADA improvements or any other capital need.

Compliance to the various building codes is funded by operating revenue, and with

voter approval, bond proceeds. The state does offer a competitive grant program to

address capital projects (the BEST program). Although TCA has received some

capital funding, no other D20 school has received money.


A member asked if the GCNC would see a validated assessment on each building from the independent audit that is currently out to bid. Tom said it may not be done in time that the GCNC makes its recommendations as the process just started. The GCNC will make recommendations without it based on all that they have discussed and heard during presentations this year. Tom said when we get to the recommendations piece there are ways to word that will give guidance to the future should the Board and superintendent be considering the audit alongside the recommendations. Karin said the value of this committee is listening to principals and developers, and seeing buildings. Karin explained to the GCNC that they’d be hearing from Don Smith later this evening on residential development analysis, similar to the presentation Tom gave when the GCNC started meeting, but with some new information. V. SSIC Presentations

The following schools provided presentations at this meeting, and their presentations are posted on the website.

Challenger MS

Eagleview MS

Mountain Ridge MS

Timberview MS

Aspen Valley Campus

Academy Online HS Debrief presentations from this evening KR asked for quick ideas on what they heard tonight:

Bathrooms

Stages

Flooring

Security cameras

Turf

Tracks

Aluminum decking around portables Questions:

A member said we started these programs that have morphed into something else different than the original vision. Tom and Karin reminded them that, as demographics and student needs change, we need to be responsive.


A member asked how many security cameras are in place at schools. There are 585 total, breakdown by site as follows:

AAHS 51

AES 15

AIE 9

ATE 9

AVHS 6

CMS 22

CTE 16

DCC 82

DVE 8

EAC 16

EES 11

EMS 24

EWE 8

FES 11

FHE 10

HPE 11

LHS 54

MRMS 19

VI. Residential Development Analysis Reminder (Don Smith) Don has done this analysis for the district for many years. He explained this was done last spring but now includes updated information from builders. Presentation is posted on the GCNC website. Don explained student generation models and developer projections for eight years.

Adjourned at 8:41 p.m. Next meeting: April 12th, 5:30 – 8:30 p.m. at RHS Tech Wing GCNC documents are available at http://www.asd20.org/committees/ggtf/Pages/default.aspx Attendance: Kathy Armacost, Ralph Braden, Gary Coulter, Kelly Goyden, Cindy Hardin, Ryan Henkel, Kim Hollm, Tammie Mohr, Dan Olson, Matt Pacione, McKenzie Palmer, Henry Reitwiesner, Patrick Schumaker, Tony Scott, Anthony Sibley, Robin Stanforth, Jason Stejskal, Vicki Taylor, Will Temby, Mark VanGampleare, Jackie Walls, Stephen Zamborelli Absent: Megan Chura, Vernita Hare, Francine Henderson, Vish Paradkar, Jackie Priessman, Ruth Schoen, David Tubb Ad Hoc Members Present: Nanette Anderson, Mark Bissell, Dr. Susan Field, Brian Grady, Tom Gregory, Anne Krajcovic, Dr. David Peak, Karin Reynolds, Greg Stephens, Linda Warhoe Absent: Shelley Kooser

MVE 8

PCHS 52

PES 12

PHE 10

RCE 12

RHS 45

RRES 10

SITW 0

SMSP 4

Stadium 1

TdVA 10

TMS 20

TRANS 5

WRE 10

WHSE 4

Total 585

GROWTH AND CAPITAL NEEDS COMMITTEE Tuesday, April 12, 2016


I. Dinner 5:15 – 5:30

II. Parking Lot questions/comments, etc. 5:30 – 5:40

III. April Field Trip assignments 5:40 – 5:45

IV. SSIC Presentations 5:45 – 8:00 DCCES DCCMS DCCHS AAHS LHS PCHS RHS

V. Review the 2001 and 2006 committee recommendations 8:00 – 8:10

VI. Formula considerations for per pupil capital needs (Bucket A) 8:10 – 8:30

Forced matrix process for field trips

VII. Homework: Discussion during this meeting will be provided to you electronically for completion and submission to Karin and Tom electronically by noon on Monday, April 25.

Given today’s sample per pupil funding formulas shared by Tom, which formula would you

recommend or with what modifications?

Consider the document regarding remodels and additions (Bucket B) that we discussed today. Based on that, you will receive a forced matrix for the schools you will visit on April 23 so that you can complete it and send it back electronically to Karin and Tom by noon on Monday, 4/25.

Review growth data, developer information, residential analysis, and other future needs

discussions we have had, and determine what you feel the new construction needs may be. Come prepared with your recommendation about new construction for discussion at our April 26th meeting.

Remaining Meetings: Saturday, April 23rd, 8:00 – 3:00 School Tours

Tuesday, April 26th, 5:30 – 8:30 at RHS Tech Wing Monday, May 2nd, 5:00 – 6:00 public forum at the EAC Tuesday, May 10th, 5:30 – 8:30 at RHS Tech Wing


Growth and Capital Needs Committee April 12, 2016 Meeting Notes

I. Dinner and Processing Presentations from 3/8/16:

Karin and Tom welcomed all. II. Parking lot questions and comments:

Karin addressed the following parking lot question.

If we move all of the alternative programs out of EAC, what will go there? o Currently, the Home School Academy and Academy Online HS are using

space in the EAC. The AOHS uses two offices and a small (10x10) foyer to operate the program. The Home School Academy currently uses three classrooms and two offices. If they were to vacate, the space could be repurposed for additional pre‐school space, meeting rooms, interview rooms, office space, and storage space.

Why/How does Timberview support Elem lunches? o All middle schools and high schools include “base” kitchens. “Base”

kitchens are equipped and sized to prepare food not only for the schools in which it is housed, but also several elementary schools. After preparation in the base kitchen, food is transported to elementary schools across the district. Elementary school kitchens have limited equipment and space for food preparation (“prep” kitchens).

Can we have copies of Don Smith’s presentation? o Don Smith’s presentation will be posted to the committee website.

A member asked how many security cameras are in place at schools. There are 585 total, breakdown by site as follows:

AAHS 51 AES 15 AIE 9 ATE 9 AVHS 6 CMS 22 CTE 16 DCC 82 DVE 8 EAC 16 EES 11

EMS 24 EWE 8 FES 11 FHE 10 HPE 11 LHS 54 MRMS 19 MVE 8 PCHS 52 PES 12 PHE 10

RCE 12 RHS 45 RRES 10 SITW 0 SMSP 4 Stadium 1 TdVA 10 TMS 20 TRANS 5 WRE 10 WHSE


III. April Field Trip Assignments Karin reminded all of the plans for the Saturday, April 23 school/site tours, and she asked members to let her know if they would not be able to attend. Karin also pointed out the homework assignments on the agenda and the remaining meeting dates.

IV. SSIC Presentations The following schools provided presentations at this meeting, and their presentations are posted on the website.

Discovery Canyon ES presentation

Presentation posted on GCNC website. Discovery Canyon MS presentation

Presentation posted on GCNC website. Discovery Canyon HS Presentation

Presentation posted on GCNC website. . Air Academy HS presentation

Presentation posted on GCNC website. Liberty HS presentation

Presentation posted on GCNC website. Pine Creek HS presentation

Presentation posted on GCNC website. Rampart HS presentation

Presentation posted on GCNC website. V. Review the 2001 and 2006 committee recommendations

Tom shared a handout showing three options for formulas. He explained the differences between the options and the options used by the previous, 2001, committee.

Option A is the one used by the last committee, and it is based on enrollment and the age of the building. Option B is based on size of the building and the age of the buildings Option C takes into consideration both options A and B

Tom said the GCNC may think of another option. He explained the age factor used by the previous committee. He explained the data shown uses the original construction date for the schools, not the date of remodels or additions. The school board will determine the dollar amounts. Some of the requests may be able to be funded through this, i.e. bathrooms, carpet, and minor electrical needs. This is a one‐time computation, can be ‘catch up’ money. Questions/Comments:

A member remarked that every older school is getting into such a deep hole. It seems we need to make sure the bottom number is adequate to get the school


back to where it should be. Karin said this could be a statement made in the recommendations the GCNC makes to the superintendent.

A member said the beauty of this is it provides a second bite of the apple to hit some of the critical needs like those of AAHS.

One member shared that his initial gut is that Option C is the best way to go. o Tom said the five buckets are not accidental; we are trying to balance

needs since every school has them. Also, the needs of new development creating increased enrollment must be addressed. The deferred maintenance is another piece, technology is another. The structure provides dollars in each area.

What about the other programs and schools such as the online, the expulsion school, etc.?

o They don’t have square footage so there is no way to allocate. This is for bucket A, per pupil. The new Learning and Innovation Center could be a new construction bucket, the School in the Woods new building could be in the remodel and addition bucket. A recommendation around this will be looked at tonight, the 2001 recommendation was a paragraph and a half.

Remodels/addition handout: Tom shared that this is just his best attempt; he did include the high school requests. Tom put the larger projects that fit under remodels/additions; he got the number down to 120 from over 300. The ones highlighted in green are the ones that fit better in this category. Tom is just trying to save members time; he requested that members email him if they see something with which they don’t agree. Project 10 is for all school sites, so each school requesting artificial turf would not be listed out separately.

VI. Formula considerations for per pupil capital needs (Bucket A)

Tom explained the forced matrix process to be used during the field trip. Tom will provide a forced decision matrix to each person for the specific school they will visit before the Saturday field trips. This will help prioritize the Bucket B items. Each person will complete their own forced matrix, to be turned in to Tom and Karin by noon on Monday, April 25th so the detail is ready for the meeting on the 26th. Karin said they will provide an electronic version of the forced matrix to all. Next step is prioritizing the “winners.”

Tom suggested that it may get to a point where the Board may realize some savings from projects once they begin; they could then pull the GCNC prioritized list and fund some of the remaining prioritized projects.

Item 3 on the homework is to get at new construction needs.

Next time we meet, on Saturday, April 23rd, please make sure on that whoever is leading your group knows if you plan to join or leave the tours late or early. Meet at the transportation center at 7:40 a.m., bring lunch, we will have water and snacks.


A member pointed out that it will be important to factor in the effect the new construction would have on remodels. Tom said we’d discuss this further, so more to come on this one.

VII. Homework: Discussion during this meeting will be provided to you electronically for completion and submission to Karin and Tom electronically by noon on Monday, April

25.

Given today’s sample per pupil funding formulas shared by Tom, which formula would you recommend or with what modifications?

Consider the document regarding remodels and additions (Bucket B) that we discussed today. Based on that, you will receive a forced matrix for the schools you will visit on April 23 so that you can complete it and send it back electronically to Karin and Tom by noon on Monday, 4/25.

Review growth data, developer information, residential analysis, and other future needs discussions we have had, and determine what you feel the new construction needs may be. Come prepared with your recommendation about new construction for discussion at our April 26th meeting.

Adjourned at 8:30 p.m. Remaining Meetings: Saturday, April 23rd, 8:00 – 3:00 School Tours

Tuesday, April 26th, 5:30 – 8:30 at RHS Tech Wing Monday, May 2nd, 5:00 – 6:00 public forum at the EAC Tuesday, May 10th, 5:30 – 8:30 at RHS Tech Wing GCNC documents are available at http://www.asd20.org/committees/ggtf/Pages/default.aspx Attendance: Kathy Armacost, Ralph Braden, Megan Chura, Gary Coulter, Kelly Goyden, Cindy Hardin, Vernita Hare, Francine Henderson, Ryan Henkel, Tammie Mohr, Dan Olson, McKenzie Palmer, Henry Reitwiesner, Tony Scott, Anthony Sibley, Robin Stanforth, Jason Stejskal, Vicki Taylor, Will Temby, David Tubb, Mark VanGampleare, Jackie Walls, Stephen Zamborelli Absent: Kim Hollm, Matt Pacione, Vish Paradkar, Jackie Priessman, Ruth Schoen, Patrick Schumaker Ad Hoc Members Present: Nanette Anderson, Dr. Susan Field, Brian Grady, Tom Gregory, Anne Krajcovic, Dr. David Peak, Karin Reynolds, Greg Stephens, Linda Warhoe Absent: Mark Bissell, Shelley Kooser

Growth and Capital Needs Committee Site Visit Schedule

Saturday, April 23, 2016

Rev. 4/17/16 (kr)

Reminders:

1. Be comfortable – lots of walking, and bring your own lunch. 2. Meet at the Transportation Warehouse site (7408 Duryea Road at 7:40 AM). We will have pastries and coffee

for you to grab on your way out. We will have snacks in vehicles.

Groups Schools Time Committee Members West Group Douglass Valley ES 8:00 – 8:45 Brian Grady (963‐6473) Air Academy HS 9:00 – 10:00 Kim Hollm

Woodmen Roberts ES 10:15 – 11:00 Gary Coulter

Rockrimmon ES 11:15 – 12:00 Dan Olson

Foothills ES 12:15 – 1:00 Jackie Priessman

Eagleview MS 1:15 – 2:15 Andy Sibley

New Developments 2:15 – 3:00 Robin Stanforth

South Group High Plains ES 8:00 – 8:45 Susan Field (213‐3703) Rampart HS 9:00 – 10:00 Vernita Hare

Frontier ES 10:15 – 11:00 Ryan Henkel

Pioneer ES 11:15 – 12:00 Tammie Mohr

Mountain Ridge MS 12:15 – 1:15 Vicki Taylor

Ranch Creek ES 1:30 – 2:15 Linda Warhoe

New Developments 2:15 – 3:00

East Group Transportation/Warehouse/EPP/NOP 8:00 – 9:00 Shelley Kooser (499‐9349) Prairie Hills ES 9:15 – 10:00 Nanette Anderson

Explorer ES 10:15 – 11:00 Kathy Armacost

Timberview MS 11:15 – 12:15 Cindy Hardin

Liberty HS 12:30 – 1:30 Patrick Schumaker

Chinook Trail ES 1:45 – 2:30 David Tubb


Central Group Academy Calvert K‐8 8:00 – 9:00 Karin Reynolds (499‐9859) Academy Endeavour ES 9:15 – 9:30 Vish Pradakar

Aspen Valley Campus 9:45 – 10:30 Will Temby

Home School Academy 10:30 – 10:45 Mark VanGampleare

Academy International ES 11:00 – 11:45 Stephen Zamborelli

Pine Creek HS and AOHS 12:00 – 1:00

Edith Wolford ES 1:15 – 2:00

School in the Woods 2:15 – 2:30


North Group Mountain View ES 8:00 – 8:45 Tom Gregory (499‐1481) Challenger MS 9:00 – 10:00 Ralph Braden

Facilities/Maintenance 10:15 – 11:00 Matt Pacione

DaVinci Academy 11:15 – 12:00 Henry Reitwiesner

Discovery Canyon Campus 12:15 – 1:15 Tony Scott

Antelope Trails ES 1:30 – 2:15 Jason Stejskal

New Developments 2:15 – 3:00 Jacki Walls

GROWTH AND CAPITAL NEEDS COMMITTEE Tuesday, April 26, 2016


I. Dinner 5:15 – 5:30

II. Welcome and objectives for tonight’s discussion and 5/2/16 public forum 5:30 – 5:40 The Growth and Capital Needs Committee (GCNC) is charged by the superintendent to study district needs and issue findings and recommendations related to new construction, facility additions, per pupil school improvement dollars, capital renewal/improvement, and district infrastructure technology needs.

III. School/site and new construction tour debrief and recommendations 5:40 – 7:10

Small group debrief of site tours (60 min.) o Review decision matrices o Create a “final” matrix

Large group report out/discussion (30 min.)

IV. Per Pupil Formula discussion/decision-making 7:10 – 8:00 Data requested regarding impact on all schools and total $$ (5 min.) Small group discussion (30 min.) Large group discussion (15 min.)

V. New construction discussion/decision-making 8:00 – 8:30

Small group discussion (30 min.)

VI. Closure in small groups – we will use the May 10th meeting to address the other parts of the charge

and finalize recommendations.

The Growth and Capital Needs Committee (GCNC) is charged by the superintendent to study district needs and issue findings and recommendations related to new construction, facility additions, per pupil school improvement dollars, capital renewal/improvement, and district infrastructure technology needs.

Remaining Meetings: Monday, May 2nd, 5:00 – 6:00 public forum at the EAC Tuesday, May 10th, 5:30 – 8:30 at RHS Tech Wing


Growth and Capital Needs Committee April 26, 2016 Meeting Notes

Karin reminded all of the charge: The Growth and Capital Needs Committee (GCNC) is charged by the superintendent to study district needs and issue findings and recommendations related to new construction, facility additions, per pupil school improvement dollars, capital renewal/improvement, and district infrastructure technology needs. Karin advised the GCNC of the following as they began their small group work.

1. Remember that we are answering the What, not the How … 2. Consider: What do Dr. Hatchell and the Board need to know about what you have seen,

heard, and considered regarding your charge? 3. Your recommendations are a place for them to start. 4. We are trying to bring objectivity to something that is subjective.

The GCNC norms were shared again with the small groups:

1. All voices will be heard. 2. Consensus will be our decision making process. 3. We will be respectful of competing needs. 4. We will focus on topic at hand/charge. 5. We will complete homework assignments. 6. We will not have sidebar conversations. 7. We will start and end on time. 8. We will silence cell phones. 9. We will be confidential about deliberations. 10. We agree that no question is a stupid question. 11. We agree that we will not be predisposed to outcomes.

Tom explained that members will receive data when they break into small groups tonight. He explained the projects may be put in buckets where they could best compete. Tom clarified that the square footage on the sheet does include modular buildings.

Group Processing of Site Tours Small groups debriefed site tours and reported out about their feedback around the following: Shared two or three big ideas from the concerns, and prioritized 26 remodel additions that rose to the top of their matrices after the school tours. (Results compiled from all groups are attached to these minutes.)

Per Pupil Formula discussion/decision‐making Small groups debriefed site tours and reported out about their feedback around the question: Which formula would you recommend, or with what modifications? (Results compiled from all groups are attached to these minutes.)


New construction discussion/decision‐making Following review of growth data, developer information, tours of new construction sites, residential analysis, and other future needs discussions we have had, how would you define our new construction needs? (Results compiled from all groups are attached to these minutes.) Large group Questions/Discussion following small group sharing: Discussion of how Option C might have different weights (focus on enrollment or square footage?). The group seemed to be in consensus about this option if the weighting were adjusted. Major discussion points:

Age or enrollment gets more? It’s a linear scale for age.

70/30 too drastic, favor more to 60/40 with enrollment over sq. footage.

Argument for square footage – if you have a larger roof or more classrooms your needs are more.

Put the money where the kids are.

Philosophy of not putting money into small schools, the age factor would offset that.

You can’t treat all schools as the same, some get much more on building rentals. (Is this an issue of annual process changes that need to change v. bond dollars spent?)

Four Title 1 schools – probability is they don’t have the monetary resources to support the kids (through PTO) so we need to categorize their needs to be a baseline for Title 1 schools that brings them back to equity in terms of available cash.

o Karin explained that Title 1 schools do receive federal funds.

A member is fine with Option C and okay with 60/40, but would like to see a higher factor for older schools.

o You can’t solve entire older vs. newer issues. The school board has another way to balance things out. Tom said the ballot question is shorter, the companion resolution piece outlines the things.

All members agreed they like Option C, along with taking the three things into account. Tier age factor differently or linear track.

A members wants an economic factor added (Title 1). With no rental or PTO support – make recommendation to look at that. Also discuss a bond oversight committee and make that recommendation.

What about online schools? There is not currently as much need. o GCNC can make a recommendation that online could be included in an

Innovation Center and get space. Adjourned at 8:40 p.m. Remaining Meetings: Monday, May 2nd, 5:00 – 6:00 public forum at the EAC Tuesday, May 10th, 5:30 – 8:30 at RHS Tech Wing GCNC documents are available at http://www.asd20.org/committees/ggtf/Pages/default.aspx


Attendance: Kathy Armacost, Ralph Braden, Megan Chura, Gary Coulter, Cindy Hardin, Vernita Hare, Kim Hollm, Tammie Mohr, Dan Olson, Matt Pacione, McKenzie Palmer, Vish Paradkar, Jackie Priessman, Henry Reitwiesner, Patrick Schumaker, Tony Scott, Anthony Sibley, Robin Stanforth, Jason Stejskal, Vicki Taylor, Will Temby, David Tubb, Mark VanGampleare, Jackie Walls, Stephen Zamborelli Absent: Kelly Goyden, Francine Henderson, Ryan Henkel, Ruth Schoen, Ad Hoc Members Present: Dr. Susan Field, Brian Grady, Tom Gregory, Anne Krajcovic, Shelley Kooser Dr. David Peak, Karin Reynolds, Linda Warhoe Absent: Nanette Anderson, Mark Bissell, Greg Stephens

5/2/2016

1

ChargeThe Growth and Capital Needs Committee (GCNC) is charged by the superintendent to study district needs and issue findings and recommendations related to new construction, facility additions, per pupil school improvement dollars, capital renewal/improvement, and district infrastructure technology needs. The committee will use the collaborative input model to guide its work.

5/2/2016

2

MembershipThree principals (elementary, middle, and high);Two charter school representatives; Eight parents who are not District 20 staff members (four

elementary and four secondary); Three teachers (one elementary, one middle, and one high); Three patrons at large (those who do not have children

attending any District 20 schools);Three classified staff members (one school-based; one non-

school based; and one classified administrator); Three students (currently sophomore or juniors); and,Three representatives who are developers, business leaders,

community leaders, or architects who live or work in District 20.

12 Meetings To Date October 27, 2015November 10, 2015December 8, 2015January 5 and 26, 2016February 9 and 23, 2016March 8 and 29, 2016April 12, 23, and 26, 2016• Final meeting is May 10, 2016

All from 5:30 – 8:30 at the Rampart High School Technology Presentation Room

5/2/2016

3

Process

Local DevelopersNew Housing Projections

Enrollment Projections

Ordinance and Statutory

Compliance

Tax and Finance

“Choice” Enrollment

Technology Infrastructure Needs

Facilities & Maintenance Dept./Facility Audit

Public Forum

Growth & Capital Needs

CommitteeSuperintendent &

Board of Education

Inputs Recommendations Decisions

School Site Improvement Committees (SSIC)Each school principal formed a committee that represented

students, faculty, staff, parents, and neighborhood patrons of the school and school programs.Each committee was charged with identifying and prioritizing the

capital needs of the school facility and then presenting needs to the GCNC. Recommended capital projects will result in a physical improvement

that will benefit the school for many years.Projects could include long term technology improvements, not

computers or mobile devices, such as iPads.The main focus of the school committee was to identify school

improvement projects that would likely not otherwise be funded or be highly prioritized on a district maintenance/capital improvement list. For instance, the committee might consider new/different flooring, paint, furnishings, playfield improvements, stage lighting/sound, etc. School committees have all presented.

5/2/2016

4

Communication PlanMinutes are posted on the District 20 website. Facilitators will regularly inform the superintendent of the

committee’s progress. One interim written report to the superintendent and board. One public forum Additional stakeholder groups will be updated monthly as

follows:Principals Superintendent’s CabinetParent Sounding BoardDistrict Accountability CommitteeSuperintendent’s Student Advisory CouncilTeacher Communication CouncilClassified Liaison CommitteeSuperintendent’s Communication Council

Information Shared and DiscussedIt’s been 15 years since the last bond issue passed in 2001

Enrollment is 7,000 more students than in 2001.The Jan 1, 2015 approved city master plan includes nearly

13,000 unbuilt residential units. Local developers conservatively estimate 6,250 of these will be constructed by 2022. This translates to approximately 3,800 new students by 2022 (4,800 by 2025). The balance of 6,750 units are anticipated for completion after 2022 (and translate to approximately 4,700 additional students).Only the Academy District 20 Board of Education can

declare, by passing a resolution, that the district will have a ballot question for a bond for November 2016.

5/2/2016

5

Information Shared and Discussed What is a bond? What does bond money buy? How do

districts finance bonds? Academy District 20 last asked voters to approve a bond in 2001 for $163 million. Legally, bond funds are only for capital construction and capital equipment. (Infrastructure, building improvements, furniture, technology)

Presentations by representatives of three major developers confirmed that the housing market is improving and construction in developments in the north and east portions of the district expect to continue a high rate. The addition of new residential units is expected to add more than 3,800 new students to the district in the next seven years (2022).

Information Shared and Discussed By city ordinance, developers proposing to build

new homes must dedicate land or pay fees in lieu of land for schools and parks. Developers in Academy District 20 generally dedicate land for school sites.

The district does not legally accept the sites until the district has funding to construct schools and intends to use those sites. Although several future school sites have been platted, the district only owns one of the sites.

5/2/2016

6

Common QuestionsQ: Which schools are experiencing the most pressing needs for space?A: Current data indicates that the most pressing need for

additional space to accommodate growth will be in the high schools and east side schools. If a bond is approved in November 2016, the earliest a new high school could open is the fall of 2020.

Q: What about students who are “choiced” in to our schools?A: State law requires Colorado public schools to enroll

students on a space available basis. As the number of in-district students increases, the district will accept fewer and fewer out of district students.

Common QuestionsQ: Won’t a new school stretch resources?A: Opening a new school requires additional resources

for such things as utilities, maintenance, transportation, and core staff. Per pupil funding determined by the state follows every student enrolled in the district. Therefore, any new school generates its own additional funding for teaching staff and most support staff. The district already has staffing formulas for teachers, counselors, etc., that would follow students to any new facility. Also, growth that is occurring throughout the district will require additional resources for transportation to existing schools.

5/2/2016

7

Common QuestionsQ: Will principals at existing schools be able to keep all of the successful programs they have implemented and will they be able to expand innovative and supportive programs that benefit students?A: Yes! (assuming the state does not further reduce k-12

funding)

Q: Will all Academy District 20 schools benefit if voters approve a bond in November?A: Yes, bond dollars for capital needs will be distributed to every

school based on a formula driven by the age of the building, needs identified by each School Site Improvement Committee, and needs identified by a combination of the district facilities department and a third party audit.

Why Now?Existing capital needs and enrollment growthProperty values are recovering and new

construction is accelerating resulting in an increased assessed valuation (tax base). Tax base growth is anticipated to continue.By statute, the district must levy fixed mills toward

the School Finance Act and must levy mills for abatements. The balance of the 60.216 mills is dedicated to mill levy override collection and to debt service collection (determined by electorate).

5/2/2016

8

Why Now?The combination of an increasing tax base and

principle debt reduction over the last 8 years is timed such that the district could meet many capital needs within the same tax levy that has existed since 2004 (requires voter approval).If the board decides not to be on the ballot or they

decide to be on the ballot but the ballot issue fails, the levy may decrease beginning in 2017. Capital needs would not be addressed.In 1999 the district total levy was capped at 60.216

mills (approximately 6%) and remains in place. The district must pay for both operations and capital within this tax levy.

Draft Recommendations Under DiscussionWhat is the right number of schools we will need to accommodate growth? We’re considering new construction based on projections from developers and demographers. What is the right formula to use for the per pupil funds that will go to each school? We’re considering facility age, enrollment, square footage, and demographics.

5/2/2016

9

Draft Recommendations Under DiscussionWhat are the additions and remodels that need to occur? We’re considering both the school presentations, school tours, and new construction tours as we make this recommendation.What are the capital renewal needs and how much money can be allocated? What technology needs must we address?

In the end …The committee’s only goal is to make

recommendations to Superintendent Dr. Mark Hatchellby May 2016 regarding each of five categories: new construction, per pupil school improvement dollars, capital renewal/improvement, remodels and additions, and district infrastructure technology needs.The superintendent can accept all or part of the

recommendations from the committee.Only the Academy District 20 Board of Education can

declare, by passing a resolution, that the district will have a ballot question for a bond for November 2016.

5/2/2016

10

Questions?Please write comments and questions on notecards even if you have a chance to ask them this evening so that we can capture them to share with the full GCNC on May 10th.

Thank you for your attendance and a reminder …Please visit the GCNC website to get more specific detail

about the work of the committee

Please contact Tom Gregory, Chief Financial Officer, or Karin Reynolds, Deputy Superintendent, with subsequent questions.

• Tom Gregory, [email protected], 234‐1200

• Karin Reynolds, [email protected], 234‐1200

GROWTH AND CAPITAL NEEDS COMMITTEE Tuesday, May 10, 2016


The Growth and Capital Needs Committee (GCNC) is charged by the superintendent to study district needs and issue findings and recommendations related to new construction, facility additions, per pupil school improvement dollars, capital renewal/improvement, and district infrastructure technology needs.

I. Dinner 5:15 – 5:30

II. Debrief of public forum and stakeholder meetings 5:30 – 5:45

Feedback received on 5/5/16 Powerpoint received on 5/5/16

III. Discussion of 4/26/16 small group feedback

Formalizing recommendations and comments o Review Per Pupil Formula Draft 5:45 – 6:15 o Review Remodels/Additions Draft 6:15 – 6:30 o Review New Construction Draft 6:30 – 7:15

IV. Remaining recommendations – small group 7:15 – 8:00

Capital renewal/improvement District infrastructure technology needs

V. Large group debrief 8:00 – 8:20

VI. Closure – summary statement 8:20 – 8:30


Growth and Capital Needs Committee May 10, 2016 Meeting Notes

Karin explained the agenda and gave a debrief of the May 2nd public forum and the stakeholder meetings. The feedback received at the public forum and stakeholder meetings was sent to the GCNC on 5/5/16, and it is attached to these minutes with final updates of responses. This document, too, is posted on the website. In addition, the PowerPoint shared at the public forum was sent to the GCNC on 5/5/16 is posted on the GCNC website. Reminder of the GCNC charge: The Growth and Capital Needs Committee (GCNC) is charged by

the superintendent to study district needs and issue findings and recommendations related to

new construction, facility additions, per pupil school improvement dollars, capital

renewal/improvement, and district infrastructure technology needs. The committee will use

the collaborative input model to guide its work.

The GCNC next discussed the 4/26/16 small group feedback to move further toward formalizing recommendations and comments this evening. Karin reminded again that the GCNC must focus on the WHAT not the HOW. Review Per Pupil Formula Discussion: Age factor ‐ the GCNC believed four tiers was not enough at the last meeting. Tonight Tom provided a draft with six tiers and a draft with more than six tiers (liners) for consideration, seeking consensus. Discussion followed and members shared following comments:

After review of formulas, the following was agreed upon: 50% enrollment 50% square feet linear age factor (with even more distinction around this that Tom will develop and send with report.)

Additional comments: o Can we establish a minimum for these newer facilities? AC (does it need the full

amount), H.S.A., Briargate Preschool, AOHS o If innovation and learning …. Linear age factor: if we are fixing deterred maintenance

then linear age factor increase is not important. o 50/50 linear/exponential greater difference between minimum and maximum age

and between schools.


Review Remodels/Additions Discussion: Tom and Karin shared results of GCNC forced matrix from the last meeting, and reminded members that this will be included in the final GCNC report. Discussion followed and members shared both the following comments:

Agreement with forced matrix results

Additional comments: o Building B at AAHS – clarify matrix ….#6 – awareness of AFA regulations o DVES o Something needs to be done to building B at AAHS o Came to the top of 100’s of competing needs. o Importance of audit to make decisions about deferred maintenance. o If (formula) … then … (deferred maintenance) o Facilities audit needs to be compared to the needs and priorities that we

address. o Existing schools get as much recognition as new schools (health and safety first) o Move up the needs for older schools (for each school). o Catch up. o HPES and CMS – multiple items indicated older schools need things. o Need for balance o Need to use the facility audit to ensure that older schools’ needs are met.

Tom shared that there will be many appendices to the report. Almost any document the GCNC has received will be included. Karin explained to the group that the report will be emailed to them for review and revision, but no new ideas not discussed this evening should be introduced during that email communication. All agreed. Review New Construction Discussion Karin reviewed the small group feedback from the last meeting, and she summarized what she and Tom tallied as a result of small group and individual feedback. Discussion about the pro’s and con’s of pools, new construction, meeting the needs of aging schools, the need for balance, and other capital needs ensued, but, in the end, all agreed to the following big ideas:

Elementary school – 2/3

Middle school – 1

High school – 1

Innovation and Learning Center (ILC)

Pool, if attached to a school


Discussion followed:

Leasing and rental issues to be addressed for equity

New Construction Additional comments: o CTES and MS – 2 middle schools o K‐12 o Combined savings with K‐12 o ILC – can an existing building be purchased (outdoor space and parking) o Can ILC be added to a building that exists or is being built? o Opportunities for collaboration with the city for community park next to K‐12 with

no additional cost for schools to use. o Can we afford a pool? o Do we need another stadium if we build a high school? o Remember that an additional high school would alleviate the need for additional

classroom space. o The reverse is true as well. o Clarify the way choice works OOD and ID – people need to understand. Have an

FAQ. Karin asked Tom to share District 20’s commitment to TCA should a bond be approved in November. Tom spoke about TCA and this bond. He reminded the group that David Tubbs presented to the GCNC long ago. The idea is that District 20 doesn’t compete TCA projects against non TCA projects. If a bond were to pass, TCA would be allocated money. It would be similar to last bond. Issuances of bonds happen over time. Whether TCA gets the funds at each issuance or all at once is negotiated between the D20 BOE and the TCA BOE. Legal issues, with tax proceeds and relationship between TCA and the taxpayers of D20. i.e. TCA wants to take $X to go to the old Mountain View Elementary (now TCA Central). TCA owns it all, so what is the legal obligation between TCA and D20 taxpayers if they improve the place. It only becomes an issue if TCA were to close the doors. So essentially TCA would get a dollar amount. Tom said the board has the challenge to figure out how to react to all of the capital needs; the tough part is balancing. The GCNC does not have to do this, the elected officials do this. Remaining recommendations that were not discussed at the last meeting were addressed in small groups and then the large group: Capital renewal/improvement ‐ Tom explained the small groups will talk about the things that are not remodels/additions or new constructions. We call them capital renewal. Large group discussion following small group processing resulted in the following: Capital Renewal/Improvements:

Agreement with the statement from 2007 report with the following ideas included: o Use facilities audit to meet biggest needs to determine % (more/less than 8.7%?)

% follows needs. o Optimize capital reserve fund.


o Take care of aging facilities. o Deferred maintenance needs to be addressed so all schools have the same basic

necessities before we build new schools, PPB, and additions and remodels. Examples: electrical, AC, bathrooms, fire suppression, safety/entrance ways.

o Highest priority – levels the playing field with all schools. o Scheduled maintenance instead of FA. o Strike specifics. o Strike 8.7%. o Recommendation for rotating audit every five years. o Let facilities determine frequency. o No modifications.

District infrastructure technology needs ‐ this is the other bucket need. Discussion followed and members shared both the following comments as well as the comments shared on the attached document that highlights the recommendations for all five buckets. Members were given a statement from the 2007 report to the Board, and asked to review it to determine if it represents current need still. Shelley said in the 2007 recommendations they talked about the PPT for technology. We’ve moved away from the ebb and flow of bond funds replenishing technology. There is now a consistent amount provided to schools annually. Large group discussion following small group processing resulted in the following: District Infrastructure Technology Needs:

Agreement with the statement provided with the following additional thoughts: o Awareness of need for technology safety. o Importance of LMS o All seem to be priorities that will bolster the district. o High impact for kids and teachers. o Prescribed schedule. Some internal/external recommendations. o Guarantee for follow through. o What do we want to finance for 20 years? o Infrastructure is the priority. o Not top priority with band money. o Ok to swap as is. o Ensure

Tom reminded the GCNC members that, the recommendations will be polled. He pointed out that, historically, transportation and facility department needs do not poll well. A member asked to not forget a bond oversight committee. The GCNC broke into small groups. Group work attached. Closure – summary statement


Karin shared two questions and asked members to respond on the paper that they were provided. Their responses will be included in the report, and they are included at the end of these minutes. Tom said with the 2007 committee (since the bond was still being spent) spent time on what did we do well implementing the bond? He asked the committee members to report on what should stay the same, etc. Karin also asked members to write a final paragraph to the final report to the Superintendent and to the BOE. What is it that they need to know? Ralph thanked Tom and Karin for their excellent facilitation. When asked, Tom said we could do another bond financially in 8‐10 years. Karin said they GCNC would receive a draft report of the recommendations by tomorrow (Wednesday, 5/11) midnight. Members are to respond within 24 hours. Then GCNC would receive another updated report to read through sometime this weekend. Adjourned at 8:30 p.m. as members finished their summary statements. Remaining Meetings: none! GCNC documents are available at http://www.asd20.org/committees/ggtf/Pages/default.aspx Attendance: Kathy Armacost, Ralph Braden, Megan Chura, Gary Coulter, Kelly Goyden, Cindy Hardin, Vernita Hare, Francine Henderson, Ryan Henkel, Kim Hollm, Dan Olson, Matt Pacione, McKenzie Palmer, Vish Paradkar, Jackie Priessman, Henry Reitwiesner, Patrick Schumaker, Anthony Sibley, Robin Stanforth, Jason Stejskal, Vicki Taylor, Will Temby, David Tubb, Mark VanGampleare, Jackie Walls, Stephen Zamborelli Absent: Tammie Mohr, Ruth Schoen, Tony Scott Ad Hoc Members Present: Nanette Anderson, Mark Bissell, Dr. Susan Field, Brian Grady, Tom Gregory, Anne Krajcovic, Shelley Kooser, Dr. David Peak, Greg Stephens, Karin Reynolds, Linda Warhoe Absent:


Growth and Capital Needs Committee

Final Thoughts

May 10, 2016

1. When you consider the Long Range Capital Facilities Committee report from 2007,

specifically page 2, on which the last committee reported what needed to be sustained and

what needs to be improved, what would you recommend to the superintendent and the

BOE?

We need to continue to work towards improving existing facilities.

Establish Bond Oversight Committee; find funding source (outside bond funds) for

security department; address building rental inequities (i.e. AAHS); establish regular

maintenance needs for all buildings. Do not wait for bond $ ‐ there should be a regular

schedule for all maintenance (e.g. roof replacement schedule).

Remove as many modular classroom buildings as possible; repair deficiencies reported

in audit and facilities management department; remodel older facilities to our

“standards”; build new to accommodate current and future students. The decision

making phase felt a little rushed.

Sustain – communicate and educate community are most important! Improve – keep all

items listed with “work toward bringing all schools up to a defined level of adequacy”

being top on my list. Emphasis should be on this issue prior to new construction

consideration.

Bond Oversight Committee; maintenance schedule for all facilities that allows for

continuing maintenance and limiting amount of deferred maintenance; function of new

facilities is key – architecture should enhance the function, not hinder it (da Vinci, DCC);

CM team to manage construction; standardized educational specification for all new

construction – set a standard for all our facilities!

Work toward bringing all schools up to a defined level of adequacy; fix older buildings

and bring them up to speed to all other schools.

I feel all the bullet points are appropriate for the bond issue coming forth.

The two lists are already comprehensive. Somehow, there needs to be a way to

communicate to the various individual school communities why the certain projects

“made the cut” vs. those that didn’t. You do not want concerned parents thinking that

their school’s needs were ignored.

Oversight committee; educate and communicate with community; balance fixing

old/current with building new; construct for cost vs sustainability; construct for function

over form; bring all schools up to a minimum level.

First two bullet points are mandatory (construction management team and CBEOC);

maximum transparency to community is mandatory; designing for LEED is important;


bring ALL schools up to a defined level of adequacy (also called educational

specifications); reconvene the committee one time after facilities audit has been

distributed to discuss what we learned from the audit that was really surprising.

The largest goal that needs to be sustained is bringing all the schools up to the same

level of adequacy so we can have a fair yet competitive learning environment for all

students.

I agree with the last recommendation.

The creation/updating of a facilities oversight committee to ensure that all buildings

maintain a district standard, as all facilities need “checkups” routinely and no routine

timetables have been meeting any guideline.

I would recommend an oversight committee to ensure that taxpayers’ monies is spent

accordingly and no fraud, waste and abuse takes place.

To be sustained – communication, presentation to staff and community; To be improved

– use of technology in teaching and learning. Sustained life cycle replacement funding

(TCO). Improved physical safety for students and staff.

I agree that we need to continue to carry out the goals/plans from the 2007 committee

specifically as it pertains to technology, we need to have a better understanding of what

technology is worth investing in because it will “stand the test of time” and what

technology will be improved quickly and be rendered obsolete.

Citizen committee to promote bond; over communicate

Sustained: update wiring/cabling infrastructure – security; improved: fire wall upgrading

No changes to recommend

I recommend to fix and keep up the current schools first; then we need to build new

schools to fit the growth in our district. We have so many needs in our current schools

that need priority before we do anything else.

Sustain: great list! Keep as is! Items to improve: need better communication about how

“choice” really works; bring all schools up to a minimum level of facility adequacy.

Construction Management Team; Bond Oversight Committee; spend money closest to

the students; establish committee to promote bond election.

It appears to me that the district needs to educate our community about two items.

Please focus on 1) choice students and how they have minimal impact on our growth

and how full the schools are; 2) the growth that is expected to come. Growth coming in

four to five years seems to be a difficult concept to understand.

The BOE and superintendent should strongly consider bringing all outdated/aging

schools up to a benchmark standard before any and all new schools and facilities are

built.

Efforts to educate community resulting in support; establish citizens committee to

promote bond election; work towards bringing all schools “towards” adequacy;

Construction Management Team.


2. You have spent about 40 hours in discussion about capital needs in District 20. Please write

the final concluding/summary paragraph for our report to the superintendent, and,

ultimately, the Board of Education and community.

If budgets were unlimited, it would be possible to fund all new construction, all building

improvements, all special projects along with safety, security, transportation and

athletics. Unfortunately budgets are not unlimited, so the most important issue is to

bring all schools up to a basic standard. All students deserve a clean, fully operational,

safe school in which to learn. Secondly, Quality over Quantity. Expanding our secondary

schools to accommodate growth is a better model than building another high school. Be

faithful stewards of taxpayer dollars by creating world class school facilities!

There is a huge need for capital improvement needs in our district. This is not just for

the construction of new schools to accommodate growth. Excluding the new schools

built with funds from the 2001 bond issue, all of our buildings (schools, maintenance

facility and transportation) are in desperate need of repairs, updates and 21st century

improvements. To be fiscally responsible to the D20 taxpayers we not only provide new

buildings for our growth but we need to bring our older facilities up to date.

It has been a pleasure serving on this committee, and especially getting to meet and

know parents, students, staff and others throughout the district. Very good facilitation

by Karin and Tom.

In conclusion, after spending many hours in meaningful discussion, this committee

respectfully recommends to our superintendent, board of education and community at

large that this bond is needed first and foremost to maintain our current buildings and

thereafter to address the continued growth within the district in order to keep this

school district at the high level of distinction that we as community members have come

to expect.

ASD20 continues to be a top tier district in the State of Colorado despite the condition

of its facilities. Existing facilities must be brought up to a minimum standard to continue

to provide top class, safe education to our children. Concurrently, overcrowding at our

schools also needs to be addressed to provide safe schools. It has been over 15 years

since this district passed a bond and now every facility has needs, whether due to age or

growth and development. Thank you for this opportunity to participate in keeping our

district a top one in our state!

I recommend the board takes a serious look at building new schools in addition to

improving our older schools/outdated buildings. Take into consideration our prioritized

list of improvements as we have spent countless hours discussing how they would

benefit students, teachers and our D20 community as a whole.

Sitting here all year has opened my eyes to the complex needs of schools. I feel we are

behind in updating our older schools due to the Great Recession, but need to keep up

with growth in new areas. I feel the Liberty area is in danger of getting “shut out” and


perceived as the less fortunate unable to draw quality families if some improvement

isn’t made – marketing all HS makes D20 strong. Bells and whistles are nice (pool/ice),

but we have too many other items. I feel the board also has an inside track on the future

priorities – closing small schools like High Plains if growth continues and as areas age. I

hope the board considers all the recommendations but I recognize they have more

expertise in their area. Thanks for letting me serve!

ASD20 is a growing, high performing and dynamic large school district. It is clear that the

BOE, when considering a new bond issue, must find equilibrium between the

accommodation of inevitable enrollment growth and the upgrade of aging

infrastructure. With respect to aging facilities, it is important to establish a minimum

standard for each instructional environment in the district. Health, safety and keeping

pace with technological advancements must be the district’s highest priority.

There are far more needs in our district than funds available. Rough choices will have to

be made, but here must be a balance in fixing deferred problems with building new

schools. Focus must be on the kids in the classrooms vs. on the field or in the water.

Need increased focus on annual maintenance and repair.

Committee was well managed and all members did their homework and took their jobs

very seriously; lack of a facilities audit (up front) was a hindrance; lack of a defined set of

priorities (evenly applied across all schools) led to unnecessary confusion.

This committee worked to bring an acceptable level of safety, health and an improved

learning environment that will continue to make Academy School District 20 one of the

best districts in the state.

It is apparent that there are great needs within our school district. Our old facilities need

to be upgraded and we need new schools. It is vital that we balance both needs.

District 20 is a forward‐thinking community of educated and well rounded individuals

who strive to ensure the future generations will thrive in leading the region in all areas,

social, intelligence, health and industry.

Our older facilities need to catch up to our new facilities codes. Front safety/hazard

items to ADA ramps at some schools. Scheduled maintenance needs to take place

accordingly. We have to rethink the open‐enrollment program, not the choice, when it

comes to overcrowding in our schools. I believe our recommendations were appropriate

for this bond issuance.

It was an enlightening experience to understand needs of the school district. Dire needs

of older schools for upgrades related to health, safety & technology. The district is

poised for significant growth. Careful planning for new schools, facilities is needed. Also

critically important is the need to have a sustainable approach to maintain and upgrade

new and existing facilities and infrastructure.

On the order of priorities of what needs to get done with a limited budget: a) putting

money into older schools (DVES, SITW, LHS, AAHS); b) building a new high school.


This district has a history of educational excellence. Prioritizing/balancing the needs of

new construction and existing facilities is a challenge the BOE will need to accept.

It is important to focus on updating old schools and creating a standard for future

schools. Many of the older schools are in need of serious remodeling/fixing. Though size

and enrollment are important the older schools seem to be struggling more. Education

becomes impossible without that basic structure and needs.

Well thought out process. I have no changes to recommend. Tom and Karin were superb

as facilitators.

I would recommend to fix the current schools and make sure we have a standard level

of acceptance for which each school operates. We will need new schools but fixing and

improving our current schools must be one of the top‐most priorities.

In closing, I would like to affirm the work of the GCNC. We took this responsibility very

seriously. In our opinion, we have provided you everything necessary to take the final

steps of laying out exactly what will happen when this bond passes.

The Growth and Capital Needs Committee gathered information from all schools,

departments and outside sources. Actual site visits were conducted at all schools and

facilities. All of the information was reviewed and evaluated. Recommendations were

made to ensure that schools are brought up to acceptable standards. Also,

recommendations were made to provide for growth that is already taking place in the

district.

The district has many needs. Developing a multipronged approach makes an attempt at

relieving the most critical areas. Growth is coming and District 20 has a reputation of

early preparation. Bringing our older schools up to match our newer ones was a strong

wish of the GCNC. I wish the board the Wisdom of Solomon to make the difficult

decisions facing the district.

District 20 is a great school district, but is/or will face a great challenge with regards to

future growth. I feel we need to address both growth and upkeep of our current schools

in a manner that is beneficial to all.

If the bond issue is floated and subsequently approved: new construction is critical.

Without new schools, current schools become overcrowded and real estate values will

decline; vision to meld cap reserve $, annual building $, and bond proceeds to

accomplish the biggest bang; establishing the allocations among the five buckets to

maximize potential of voter approval.

Appendix E

Contents:

A. Historical and projected assessed value (tax base) and debt data

B. Presentation: Mill levy explained, examples of residential and non-

residential school property tax calculations, historical and

projected assessed valuation and mill levy

Academy District 20Debt and Debt Capacity Data

A B C D E F G

School Year

Tax Collection

YearAssessed

ValuationAV Change

(%)

June 30 Outstanding

Principal Debt20% AV Debt

Limit 20% AV Debt

Available 1999-00 *2000 $743,913,300 16.33% $113,239,820 $148,782,660 $35,542,8402000-01 2001 $787,024,560 5.80% $102,019,820 $157,404,912 $55,385,0922001-02 *2002 $910,433,150 15.68% $161,974,820 $182,086,630 $20,111,8102002-03 2003 $940,712,390 3.33% $172,105,053 $188,142,478 $16,037,4252003-04 *2004 $915,102,190 -2.72% $176,527,688 $183,020,438 $6,492,7502004-05 2005 $938,910,890 2.60% $165,485,325 $187,782,178 $22,296,8532005-06 *2006 $1,019,543,140 8.59% $203,642,483 $203,908,628 $266,1452006-07 2007 $1,070,618,360 5.01% $212,879,788 $214,123,672 $1,243,8842007-08 *2008 $1,281,691,140 19.72% $203,523,258 $256,338,228 $52,814,9702008-09 2009 $1,315,656,650 2.65% $192,479,463 $263,131,330 $70,651,8672009-10 *2010 $1,401,074,400 6.49% $178,434,463 $280,214,880 $101,780,4172010-11 2011 $1,394,305,270 -0.48% $161,745,226 $278,861,054 $117,115,8282011-12 *2012 $1,303,656,770 -6.50% $149,660,405 $260,731,354 $111,070,9492012-13 2013 $1,302,804,250 -0.07% $139,104,508 $260,560,850 $121,456,3422013-14 *2014 $1,308,708,900 0.45% $131,181,697 $261,741,780 $130,560,0832014-15 2015 $1,335,029,420 2.01% $119,091,405 $267,005,884 $147,914,4792015-16 *2016 $1,432,791,730 7.32% $107,014,341 $286,558,346 $179,544,0052016-17 2017 $1,461,447,565 2.00% $95,414,999 $292,289,513 $196,874,5142017-18 *2018 $1,566,964,079 7.22% $82,724,999 $313,392,816 $230,667,8172018-19 2019 $1,598,303,361 2.00% $71,254,999 $319,660,672 $248,405,6732019-20 *2020 $1,646,252,462 3.00% $59,359,999 $329,250,492 $269,890,4932020-21 2021 $1,679,177,511 2.00% $47,019,999 $335,835,502 $288,815,5032021-22 *2022 $1,729,552,836 3.00% $34,159,999 $345,910,567 $311,750,5682022-23 2023 $1,764,143,893 2.00% $26,109,999 $352,828,779 $326,718,7802023-24 *2024 $1,817,068,210 3.00% $17,729,999 $363,413,642 $345,683,6432024-25 2025 $1,853,409,574 2.00% $11,029,999 $370,681,915 $359,651,9162025-26 *2026 $1,909,011,861 3.00% $5,674,999 $381,802,372 $376,127,3732026-27 2027 $1,947,192,098 2.00% $2,894,999 $389,438,420 $386,543,4212027-28 *2028 $2,005,607,861 3.00% $0 $401,121,572 $401,121,5722028-29 2029 $2,045,720,018 2.00% $0 $409,144,004 $409,144,0042029-30 *2030 $2,107,091,619 3.00% $0 $421,418,324 $421,418,3242030-31 2031 $2,149,233,451 2.00% $0 $429,846,690 $429,846,6902031-32 *2032 $2,213,710,455 3.00% $0 $442,742,091 $442,742,0912032-33 2033 $2,257,984,664 2.00% $0 $451,596,933 $451,596,9332033-34 *2034 $2,325,724,204 3.00% $0 $465,144,841 $465,144,8412034-35 2035 $2,372,238,688 2.00% $0 $474,447,738 $474,447,7382035-36 *2036 $2,443,405,849 3.00% $0 $488,681,170 $488,681,1702036-37 2037 $2,492,273,966 2.00% $0 $498,454,793 $498,454,7932037-38 *2038 $2,567,042,185 3.00% $0 $513,408,437 $513,408,4372038-39 2039 $2,618,383,029 2.00% $0 $523,676,606 $523,676,6062039-40 *2040 $2,696,934,520 3.00% $0 $539,386,904 $539,386,904

*Bolded years reflect collections based on reassessment.

R:\Finance\16-17 Budget Development\Bond Planning\Mill Levy Projection 5-5-2016

Tonight’s Topics

I. Assessed Value

II. Mill and Mill Levy

III. Property Taxes (examples)

IV. Assessed Value and Mill Levyi. A look back, a look ahead

Assessed Value, Mill Levy, and Property Taxes

Assessed Value is the taxable value of a property upon which property taxes are calculated.

• Residential Assessment Rate = 7.96% of market

• Non‐residential Assessment Rate = 29% of market


• In Colorado, the constitution requires 55% of statewide property tax come from non‐residential properties and 45% come from residential properties. (“Gallagher” amendment).

• Assessment rates are to be defined and adjusted annually by the legislature to maintain this ratio.

• Gallagher requires adjustments to the residential rate (non‐residential fixed) for compliance.

• Potential (and recent) conflict between Gallagher and TABOR – if the residential rate needs to be increased.


Assessed Value Calculations (examples)Residential PropertyMarket value = $250,000 (established by County Assessor)

Assessed value = Market value x Assessment rate

= $250,000 x .0796

= $19,900

Non‐residential PropertyMarket value = $250,000 (established by County Assessor)

Assessed value = $250,000 x .2900

= $72,500


What is a Mill?A mill is a number used in establishing/calculating property tax• A mill is a number equal to one thousandth (.001).

• One mill is equal to one‐tenth of one percent (0.1%).

• Ten mills are equal to one percent (10 mills = 1.0%).

What is a Mill Levy?Also known as a millage rate, it the property tax rate used to determine property tax liability.


Mill Levy & School Property TaxesAcademy District 20 has four components to the mill levy:

School Finance Levy ‐ Set in statute at 26.952 mills (2.6952%)

Abatement Levy – Determined by El Paso County (variable in year)

Override Levy – Additional revenue approved by voters ($26,750,862)

Bond Levy – Revenue to meet debt service determined by repayment schedule

Total of all four cannot exceed 60.216 mills, established by District 20 voters in 1999.


School Property Taxes (certified for collection in 2015)School Finance Levy 26.952 (fixed)

Abatement Levy 0.519 (non‐flexible)

Override Levy 20.036

Bond Levy 12.709

Total Levy 60.216

*Each levy is certified by board resolution annually in December


School Tax Liability (certified for collection in 2015)Tax liability = assessed value x mill levy

For a $250,000 residential property,Tax Liability Components are:

$19,900 x 0.026952 = $536.34 (school finance)

$19,900 x 0.000519 = $10.32 (abatements)

$19,900 x 0.020036 = $398.72 (override)

$19,900 x 0.012709 = $252.91 (bond)

$19,900 x 0.060216 =$1,198.29 (total)


School Tax Liability (certified for collection in 2015)Tax liability = assessed value x mill levy

For a $250,000 non‐residential property,Tax Liability Components are:

$72,500 x 0.026952 = $1,954.02 (school finance)

$72,500 x 0.000519 = $37.63 (abatements)

$72,500 x 0.020036 = $1,452.61 (override)

$72,500 x 0.012709 = $921.40 (bond)

$72,500 x 0.060216 = $4,365.66 (total)

$0

$500,000,000

$1,000,000,000

$1,500,000,000

$2,000,000,000

$2,500,000,000

0.000

10.000

20.000

30.000

40.000

50.000

60.000

Assessed Valuation

Academy District 20 Assessed Value and Mill Levy Table ‐with NEW MONEY BONDS

Mills

Assessed Value

Tax Collection Year(*based on reassessment)

Projected DataActual Data

$0

$500,000,000

$1,000,000,000

$1,500,000,000

$2,000,000,000

$2,500,000,000

0.000

10.000

20.000

30.000

40.000

50.000

60.000

Total Program Levy Assessed Valuation


Mills

Assessed Value



$0

$500,000,000

$1,000,000,000

$1,500,000,000

$2,000,000,000

$2,500,000,000

0.000

10.000

20.000

30.000

40.000

50.000

60.000

Total Program Levy Abatement Levy Assessed Valuation


Mills

Assessed Value



$0

$500,000,000

$1,000,000,000

$1,500,000,000

$2,000,000,000

$2,500,000,000

0.000

10.000

20.000

30.000

40.000

50.000

60.000

Total Program Levy Abatement Levy Override Levy Assessed Valuation



Mills


Assessed Value

$0

$500,000,000

$1,000,000,000

$1,500,000,000

$2,000,000,000

$2,500,000,000

0.000

10.000

20.000

30.000

40.000

50.000

60.000

Total Program Levy Abatement Levy Override Levy Bond Levy Assessed Valuation



Mills


Assessed Value

$0

$500,000,000

$1,000,000,000

$1,500,000,000

$2,000,000,000

$2,500,000,000

0.000

10.000

20.000

30.000

40.000

50.000

60.000

Total Program Levy Abatement Levy Override Levy Bond Levy New Debt Levy Assessed Valuation



Mills


Assessed Value

Questions?

Appendix F

Contents:

A. Summary table of all requested projects by School Site

Improvement Committees

B. Presentation of needs for The Classical Academy charter school

Growth and Capital Needs CommitteeSummary of School/Dept. Needs

School/Program/Department Per Pupil Formula (non‐competitive) Non‐formula (competitive)Bucket "A" Bucket "B" Estimated Cost

Facilities ManagementFacilities Management

Compound

‐ Install security cameras & exterior lighting

‐ Install electronic security gate at yard entrance/exit

‐ Install fire protection system

‐ Replace existing fuel pumps with new

‐ Construct additional restrooms in auxiliary building/s

‐ Pave all unpaved parking lot areas

‐ Upgrade electrical capacity to compound

D20 Stadium at LHS ‐ Replace field turf ‐ include lines for field hockey

(on behalf of HS principals) ‐ Construct press box on east side of stadium

‐ Improvements to stadium including upgrading public restrooms, expanding team

rooms, renovating concession stands, replacing sound system, installing 8' perimeter

fence

PCHS Stadium ‐ Remodel PCHS athletic facility to serve as additional stadium

Install bleachers on both E and W sides

Seating capacity less than D20 Stadium @ LHS

Construct team rooms, storage, and restrooms

Replace turf and resurface track

Construct press box, tickets booth, and space for concessions

School Grounds ‐ Install Synthetic surface at least one playfield at every school

‐ Replace high school softball and baseball fields with synthetic surface (in part or whole)

Deferred Maintenance/CR/CI ‐ Allocate funding to address the highest priority capital Improvement, capital renewal,

and deferred maintenance projects

Table of Requested Projects 1 Updated 5/15/2016



TransportationParking Lot ‐ Expand parking areas into adjacent 5 acre parcel to meet current and future needs. To

Include:

Install perimeter fencing and parking lot lighting

Provide electrical power at each parking space to plug in block heaters

‐ Replace/repair/restripe pavement in existing lot

‐ Provide additional exit from lot onto Woodmen Road 150,000

‐ Install electric security gate at entrance/exit to lot 20,000

Facility/building ‐ Increase square footage of current building or build new in adjacent 5 acre parcel to

include:

7,900,000

Training room space

Restrooms

Additional repair bay

Larger break room

‐ Replace existing flooring in current building

Learning ServicesInnovation & Learning Campus ‐ Construct facility to house current programs that operate out of "temporary" space

‐ Could be an addition to an existing or new facility sized to accommodate the Home

School Academy, New Opportunities Program, Academy On‐line HS, Calvert K‐8 On‐line,

School to Work Alliance Program, Bridges Program, Credit Recovery Program, Challenger

Learning Center, and professional library

‐ Facility will need student cafeteria for breakfast and lunch, playgrounds, physical

activity space, performing arts space, office space, flexible learning space, parking,

separate entry, and classroom space sufficient to serve all programs.




Information TechnologyWiring Infrastructure ‐ Updated wiring and drop locations in all sites 4,600,000

Increase Bandwidth ‐ Increase bandwidth to 40GB 3,500,000

‐ Replace all core network switches, new switches and routers at all sites, Update data

ports to 1GB PoE at all sites, upgrade firewall

Wireless ‐ Upgrade wireless at all sites, to include one access point per classroom

Fiber ‐ Extend Fiber to Edith Wolford and School in the Woods

Phone System ‐ Extend/implement Shoretel system to School in the Woods

Systems ‐ Replace Oracle Enterprise system (forced upgrade to fusion product nearing)

‐ Content/Learning Management System

‐ Student Records Archival (electronic/digital storage solution)

Safety and SecurityRadio System ‐ Replace portable radios, mobile radios, base radio, radio repeaters, VoiP system for

emergency communication

579,000

School Security ‐ Replace security cameras, phone/intercom buzz‐in systems, and card readers 1,500,000

New Opportunities Program & Expulsion ProgramFacility ‐ Permanent facility for NOP staff and students ‐ Could be included with proposed facility

to house other district programs (see Learning Services)

‐ NOP and Expulsion Program need new modulars if a permanent facility is not provided

Academy Calvert k‐8 SchoolFacility ‐ Permanent facility for staff and students ‐ Could be included with proposed facility to

house other district programs (see Learning Services)

‐ Existing space does not allow for performing arts, sciences, and visual art that the

school would like to offer

The Classical AcademyCapital Needs ‐ Various needs identified totaling $37 million 37,000,000




Home School AcademyFacility ‐ Permanent facility for ARTS Academy and STEM and for the Tracks Program.

‐ Propose the ARTS Academy and STEM could be included with proposed facility to

house other district programs (see Learning Services)

‐ Propose the Tracks Program is included in any planning of a new/permanent facility for

School in the Woods

‐ If ARTS Academy and Stem are to remain at the EAC, the need is for a portable sound

system, updated playground, risers, wood floor for dance et al, hydration station, and

sinks installed in classrooms

School in the WoodsFacility ‐Construct permanent facility to house approximately 100 students. Propose to also

house the Tracks Program

Woodmen Roberts Elementary School

‐Mounted projectors/TVs ‐Repair/replace asphalt play court surface

‐Outdoor classroom ‐Handicap accessible lower parking lot (remove stairs and install sidewalk/ramp)

‐Stage curtain and lighting

‐Resurface preschool playground

‐Snow blower for snow removal

Foothills Elementary School ‐Replace coat hooks/shelving with cubbies ‐Replace existing modulars (x2) with a 4,000 sq. ft. permanent addition to the building to

house the four classrooms currently made available in modular buildings

1,800,000

‐Repaint interior

‐Replace classroom counters, cabinets, and sinks

‐Replace bathroom flooring, stalls, and fixtures

‐Replace carpet

‐Replace student desks, chairs, tables

‐Replace sound system in gym/stage area

‐Replace cafeteria tables

‐Replace room divider (rm 211‐212)

‐Replace exterior doors

‐Add windows to interior doors




Rockrimmon Elementary School

‐Replace classroom cabinets ‐Enlarge main office to allow space for all office staff

‐Replace classroom furniture ‐Enclose classrooms

‐Replace bathroom toilet partitions ‐Improve access (i.e., install ramps) to classrooms with stairs

‐Upgrade interior lighting ‐Enlarge parking lot to provide additional parking

‐Replace carpet flooring in Gym (with non‐carpet) ‐Paint exterior of building

and carpet flooring in Art room ‐Fix drainage issues at exterior of building

‐Improve parking lot lighting ‐Replace decking on modular

‐Improve landscaping ‐Upgrade electrical and wiring for technology

‐Add keyless entry system to more entrances ‐Remodel building to include a computer lab to house 30 students

‐Replace stage curtain and sound system for ‐Remodel modular to create more flexible use

performances ‐Add kindergarten playground

‐Install hydration stations ‐Repaint interior

Edith Wolford Elementary School

‐Update computer lab, remove wall & cabinets ‐Install ADA accessible path to playfield In progress

and purchase new mobile desks ‐Resurface and restripe asphalt in parking lot and play courts

‐Replace classroom furniture ‐Repair/replace gutters over cafeteria

‐Replace flooring throughout building ‐Bring fiber connectivity to school

‐Install wall/ceiling mounted projector/s in gym

‐Repaint gym walls

Douglass Valley Elementary School

‐Improve storage in classrooms ‐Install air cooling system

‐install white/SMART boards in classrooms ‐Upgrade interior lighting

‐Replace countertop in classrooms

‐Update bathrooms, stalls, flooring, auto fixtures

‐Replace windows and blinds throughout

‐Improve entrance ‐ overhead structure

‐Repaint Interior and exterior

‐Remove asphalt, replace with flower beds




Mountain View Elementary School

‐Create flexible learning environments (moveable wall,

quieter testing areas, maximize storage, OT work space)

in pod areas

‐ Correct erosion and drainage issue at playfields

‐ Create 21st Century Library by removing kiva, ‐ Install handrails at steps in front of school and at steps leading to CMS

installing flexible furniture/shelving, and upgrading

technology

‐ Remove and replace sound system and install acoustic

panels in Gymnasium

High Plains Elementary School ‐ Replace classroom furniture with more flexible kind ‐ Upgrade electrical capacity to school

‐ Install video monitors in classrooms ‐ Replace unit ventilators with HVAC system

‐ Replace flooring throughout ‐ Replace atrium windows and repair roof

‐ Relocate storage units and dumpster areas ‐ Reconfigure LMC by removing interior walls, install windows for natural light, relocate

computer lab to LMC

‐ Add outdoor classroom (seating, teaching area, and

greenery)

‐ Relocate staff workroom and lounge to increase accessibility and efficiency for

teachers

‐ Remodel main office area to create reception area

‐ Update marque at front of building and install another

at rear of building

‐ Add track and softball diamond to play area

‐ Increase/enhance outdoor lighting and security cameras

Frontier Elementary School ‐ Replace flooring throughout ‐ Replace unit ventilators with HVAC system

‐ Replace wood paneling on walls ‐ Replace entry doors

‐ Repaint interior ‐ Upgrade electrical capacity to school

‐ Replace student furniture ‐ Install fire suppression system

‐ Install sound amplification systems in classrooms

‐ New sound system, lighting and flooring in theatre

‐ Replace library furniture

‐ Update lighting in library

Pioneer Elementary School ‐ Replace flooring throughout ‐ Relocate kinder playground to back of school and repurpose current playground for an

outdoor classroom

‐ Create 21st Century library by replacing furniture with

flexible/moveable furniture, and create useable floor

space at story pit

‐ Add "gaga ball" stall and walking track to playfield

‐ Reconfigure main office to allow visibility of front

entry

‐ Replace aging portables or remove and add onto school




Prairie Hills Elementary School ‐ Replace flooring and repaint throughout interior ‐ Connect fire alarms in portables to building system

‐ Replace all lighting with LED inside and out ‐ Install energy efficient doors and windows

‐ LED monitors in all classrooms ‐ Replace clock and PA system

‐ New cafeteria tables ‐ Widen dumpster area to fit three bins

‐ New classroom furniture ‐ Replace perimeter fencing

‐ Replace window blinds ‐ Replace skirting and paint portables

‐ Install acoustic panels in gym

‐ Replace tools and equipment (vacuums, snow

blowers)

Explorer Elementary School ‐ Replace lunchroom tables ‐ Construct a 6 classroom addition to the school (replacing portables) to house preschool

center, art studio, STEM center, Spanish Lab

‐ Replace carpeting throughout building

‐ Replace health room furniture

Academy Endeavor Elementary School

‐ Replace classroom furniture for students and adults ‐ Replace flooring in classrooms

‐ Replace portable chairs (folding chairs used for large

school events

‐ Replace current gym flooring with wood

‐ Purchase and install storage shed to support portable

classrooms

‐ Replace projectors and mounted TVs in classrooms with Smart TVs

‐ Install synthetic turf playfield

‐ Replace wood decking and ramps at portables with aluminum




Antelope Trails Elementary School

‐ Mount interactive projectors in classrooms ‐ Install synthetic turf playfield

‐ Replace classroom furniture that provides for flexible

arrangement and use

‐ New risers for school performances

‐ Purchase tablet storage devices for all classrooms ‐ Install automatic lowering/rising basketball hoops in gym

‐ Replace current library shelving with moveable

shelving that can be rearranged easily

‐ Upgrade electrical capacity for school

‐ Replace classroom chalkboards with whiteboards ‐ Renovate front office for safety and efficiency

‐ Install a new dividing wall between stage and gym ‐ Remove wallpaper and paint walls

‐ Purchase and install a new digital marquee ‐ Replace original countertops and cabinets

‐ Install a mounted projection system and remote

control screen for gym

‐ Renovate bathrooms to include auto faucets and flushers

‐ Replace worn flooring throughout building

‐ Xeriscape grounds

‐ Extend playground fence to block parking lot

‐ Portable ‐ improve bathroom spaces

‐ Install drip irrigation system in garden

‐ Replace damaged concrete/asphalt

‐ Repair exterior of portables

‐ Replace lighting with LED

‐ Replace damaged ceiling tiles

‐ Install sink in resource room

‐ Relocate kiln room

Academy International Elemtary School

‐ Install mounted ceiling projectors in all classrooms ‐ Improve instructional lighting in classrooms

‐ Upgrade classroom and gym sound systems ‐ Renovate all restrooms

‐ Replace classroom furniture with flexible use kind ‐ Replace flooring throughout the building

‐ Replace playground equipment and surface ‐ Reconfigure front office to improve sight of front entry

‐ Replace library furniture with flexible use kind ‐ Update heating/cooling and windows in "chalets"

Chinook Trail Elementary School

‐ Install walking/running track at NW corner of

property

‐ Install magnetic doors (fire corridor) at 1st and 2nd floor academic wings

‐ Install synthetic turf playfield at NW corner of

property

‐ Install PA speakers in offices and intervention rooms

‐ Improve instructional environment (add cubbies,

bulletin boards, chairs)

‐ Install panic buttons in principal's office

‐ Restore color to exterior stucco of building




Ranch Creek Elementary School

‐ Improve art room acoustics ‐ Add modular space for growing neighborhood

‐ Replace carpeted gym floor with wood floor ‐ Expand tractor shed

‐ Add/improve teacher storage space ‐ Add interior and exterior security cameras

‐ Add equipment to playground ‐ Add more electrical outlets

The da Vinci Academy ‐ Replace laptop labs ‐ Construct/install walls to enclose classrooms, including plans for doors, lighting,

electrical outlets, and HVAC modifications

‐ Replace movement room floor ‐ Replace lighting in classrooms on east side of building

‐ Create flexible learning space in computer lab (maker

space)

‐ Allow for natural light

‐ Replace student furniture in all classrooms ‐ Modify community area to make into lunchroom

‐ Purchase five SMART Boards for story pits ‐ Add divider/walls/ceiling to upper mezzanine areas

‐ Install/replace stage curtain ‐ Install celling for story pits in neighborhoods 1 and 4

‐ Install blinds/frosted glass in classrooms ‐ Paint exterior of building

‐ Install magnetic white boards in classrooms ‐ Improve intercom system

‐ Add storage to neighborhoods ‐ Install poured surface to Pre‐k/kinder playground

‐ Add theatre/movement room office ‐ Fix storm water/drainage issues on east side of building

‐ Improve landscaping ‐ Install synthetic play surface at playfield

‐ Upgrade lighting for performances ‐ Install handicap access to main entry

‐ New flooring in art room ‐ Wall‐off tech area

‐ Paint foyer and update furniture in entry ‐ Upgrade classroom electrical systems

‐ Repair/update kitchenettes ‐ Replace deteriorated bricks on front steps

‐ Repair fireplace ‐ Create PE office

‐ Add storage for drama ‐ Add storage space for drama

‐ Gazebo type cover for picnic area ‐ Replace divider between movement room and stage

‐ Repaint interior brick walls

‐ Relocate marquee to driveway for better visibility

Challenger Middle School ‐ Replace flooring ‐ Remodel/add to building to provide an auditorium setting

‐ Update windows (and cove rings), and doors ‐ Create additional teaching space in Gym (current auxiliary gym is used to store large

equipment)

‐ Replace Furniture ‐ Install and all‐weather track

‐ Update bathrooms

‐ Install/expand air cooling system to include remaining

5 classrooms

‐ Install whiteboards in all classrooms

‐ improve outside lighting




‐ Sound proof wall between drams and vocal music

rooms

Eagleview Middle School ‐ Replace carpet throughout building ‐ Convert library to a 21st century library (glass wall dividers, flexible use furniture,

flooring, redefine electrical to support mobile devices)

‐ Install short throw projectors in all classrooms ‐ Install more security cameras inside and outside

‐ Install more electrical outlets throughout school ‐ Improve outside lighting

‐ Replace classroom furniture ‐ Replace gym lockers

‐ Remove wall paper and repaint 6th grade area ‐ Install/upgrade PA system

‐ Add partitions to stage ‐ Add parking near football field

‐ Add doors to certain areas of 6th grade area ‐ Construct fieldhouse at football field (water, restrooms, electric, storage)

‐ Install digital clocks in classrooms ‐ Install bleachers at football field

‐ Window repair/replacement

‐ Paint trim in/around main building

‐ Add sidewalk to rear of building

‐ Replace staff furniture

Mountain Ridge Middle School ‐ Remodel main foyer for improved visibility ‐ Construct an addition to building to house performing arts area, multi‐purpose room,

and classrooms

‐ Remodel/update bathrooms ‐ Install synthetic turf at football field

‐ Replace carpet ‐ Expand parking area north of building to allow redefining of traffic flow

‐ New marquee in front of building

‐ Add more bleachers to gym

Timberview Middle School ‐ Replace student and teacher furniture ‐ Replace doors on all exterior entrances

‐ Update all bathrooms ‐ Reconfigure main entrance for improved visibility

‐ Reconfigure the courtyard area outside of the

cafeteria

‐ Replace decking on portables with aluminum

‐ Install security cameras ‐ Install all weather track at football field

‐ Replace classroom carpet ‐ Install synthetic turf at softball field

‐ Replace bleachers in main gym ‐ Repave parking lot and circle drive

‐ Connect band room to band portable ‐ Expand parking/delivery area near kitchen

‐ Update heating/cooling in portables ‐ Replace windows

‐ Xeriscape the front of the school ‐ Expand cafeteria and add second floor above for storage

‐ Paint in/out as needed




Aspen Valley Campus ‐ Create Greenhouse/garden space at middle school ‐ Redesign multi‐purpose space to include retractable bleachers and fixed projections

and sound systems.

‐ Create outdoor physical education/activity space on

east side of middle school

‐ Middle school cafetorium addition on west side of school

‐ Renovate highs school field area (physical education) ‐ High school lunchroom enclosure

‐ Create adequate library space at middle school

‐ Basement renovation to create instructional space for shop/consumer family education

Academy On‐line High School ‐ Permanent facility to house the Village Program, Extended Studies Program, and On‐

line Program (in conjunction with other district programs)

Discovery Canyon Elementary ‐ Add sound enhancement to classrooms ‐ Cafetorium expansion

Install mounted stools in bathrooms ‐ Add synthetic turf to playground area

‐ Purchase risers for performances ‐ Improve drainage at kinder playground

‐ Replace furniture, document cameras, and tack strips ‐ Add HVAC to library storage room and remodel for a useable teaching space

Discovery Canyon Middle ‐ Science room furniture ‐ Additional classroom space

‐ Install speaker system for projectors in classrooms ‐ Construct/add auxiliary gym

‐ Install scoreboard at football field ‐ Reconfigure science rooms to science lab rooms

‐ Paint interior walls ‐ Install all weather track

‐ More staff parking

‐ Reconfigure parking for improved traffic flow

Discovery Canyon High ‐ Add outdoor seating for athletic events ‐ Additional classroom space

‐ Upgrade lighting and sound in auditorium ‐ Construct an auxiliary gym

‐ Upgrade gym floor and AV system in gym ‐ Increase number of parking spaces

‐ Upgrade classroom technology ‐ Construct field house at athletic area (water, electric, restrooms, storage)

‐ Expand storage areas ‐ Install synthetic turf at football field

‐ Add hand dryers to restrooms ‐ Install perimeter fencing around school/athletic fields

‐ Construct an outdoor classroom




Air Academy High School ‐ Remodel/upgrade bathrooms ‐ Upgrade wireless technology capability 300,000

‐ Update auditorium sound system ‐ Complete deferred maintenance projects previously identified 5,900,000

‐ Install new windows in "A" and "B" buildings ‐ Remodel Library to a 21st century library 1,000,000

‐ Replace student furniture ‐ Install Synthetic turf at stadium field 450,000

‐ Install floor drains in science rooms ‐ Remodel "B" Building 3,750,000

‐ Paint classrooms ‐ Tear down and reconstruct "B" building 13,500,000

‐ Resurface gym floors

‐ Install additional water fountains/hydration stations

‐ Provide additional storage in classrooms

Liberty High School ‐ Replace lighting throughout building (LED) ‐ Construct a 20 classroom addition to include a presentation room, construction trades

room, automotive repair shop, culinary arts room, medical field room, computer

programming and cyber security classrooms, performing and visual arts rooms, enlarged

commons/cafeteria, and additional restrooms.

20,000,000

‐ Replace carpet throughout building

‐ Pave overflow parking

‐ Replace PE and athletic lockers

‐ Upgrade electrical and technology capacity

‐ Install synthetic turf at baseball and softball fields

Rampart High School ‐ Update main restrooms ‐ Install synthetic turf at track or football field 450,000

‐ Replace athletic and PE lockers ‐ Remodel Racquet ball/multipurpose room area to incorporate climbing wall and

additional athletic/PE space

‐ Update science labs ‐ New furniture/learning stations throughout building

‐ Outdoor Projects ‐ Replace manual bleachers in gym (the larger set)

‐ New projectors in classrooms

‐ Replace projection screen in auditorium

‐ Update/renovate PE offices

Pine Creek High School ‐ New bleachers for current and proposed gyms ‐ Construct an auxiliary gym

‐ Murals on gym walls ‐ Add an 8 classroom addition to building to replace portables

‐ Reconfigure current gym ‐ Improvements to current athletic field complex to make it a true stadium (install

home/away bleachers, team room complex, restrooms, handicap parking, press box,

fencing, and ticket booth, as proposed by facilities dept.)

‐ Replace or resurface current gym floor ‐ Remodel digital/tech pods to include design, electrical, wiring/cabling, printing, think

space, and furnishings


BACKGROUND PAPER

ON

THE CLASSICAL ACADEMY’S CAPITAL NEEDS

PURPOSE

Discuss charter school vs traditional school differences, the history of The Classical Academy (TCA), TCA’s current enrollment and real property, and TCA’s capital growth program and future needs.

CHARTER SCHOOLS VS TRADITIONAL SCHOOLS

- A charter school is a tuition-free public school designed with a specific focus (e.g. STEM, performing/fine arts, vocational trade)

- Approximately 103,000 students enrolled in charter schools in Colorado in AY 15-16 – represents nearly 12% of state’s K-12 population

- Finances: receive the same PPF as traditional schools; however, charters pay for land, facilities, operating costs, and district services from their PPR -- Result: most charters must fund raise through outside sources (i.e. non- district, state and federal) to meet budgets -- TCA’s current debt (bond and mortgage): $54.8M --- Result: ~14% of TCA’s budget goes toward debt management

TCA HISTORY

- Started by 9 families in 1997 with a focus on classical curriculum and character education

- Started with K-6 and added a grade each year -- In modulars next to D20 Stadium/Liberty HS (Scarborough Dr)

- North Campus K-12 initial build-out completed in 2002 (included brick & mortar and 12 modulars)

- First graduating class (34 students) in 2004 - Central Campus purchased in 2004 from D20 (former Mt View ES) - East Campus moved to current site and construction finished in 2009 - Continued North Campus build-out in 2012 (all students moved into brick

& mortar; retained 4 modulars for administration) - Sold Scarborough property in 2014

CURRENT ENROLLMENT AND REAL PROPERTY

- Total current enrollment: 3,747 (14.9% of D20’s 25,117 students) - Three campuses, seven schools: 1 HS (9-12), 1 JH (7-8), 3 ES (K-6), 1 home

school (K-8), and 1 secondary concurrent enrollment w/PPCC (7-12) -- Total square footage: 345,802 sq ft -- Total acreage: 87.7 acres

CAPITAL GROWTH PROGRAM & FUTURE NEEDS

- Priority rubric: -- 1: safety/security deficiency or mission impact on student learning -- 2: capital repair/replacement or deferred maintenance -- 3: capital improvement

- Currently funded or partially funded capital projects -- Central Campus renovation and addition – Priority 1, $7M (funded) --- Tenant improvement: remediate asbestos, install air conditioning, install fire sprinkler, renovate cabinets/counters/sinks, new paint & carpet, energy efficient windows, remove 50+ exterior doors, ADA --- Addition: 2-story building with 15 classrooms to replace 6 modulars, repave parking lot, construct perimeter carpool lanes/road -- North Campus baseball/softball field – Priority 1, $1.5M (majority funded) --- Competition field (turf) for baseball, softball, discus, and shotput --- Lights, bleachers, press box, and paved parking unfunded -- East Campus modular – Priority 2, $90K (funded) --- Administrative/college counseling office space

- Immediate future needs: -- North Campus Elementary Multi-purpose Gym – Priority 1, $6.5M --- Current conditions: ---- 1,715 K-12 students currently share one gym – leads to overcrowding, injuries, and scheduling conflicts ---- Four K-12 PE classes share the gym concurrently each period ---- Gym is routinely scheduled for athletic practices/events and PE from 6 am-10 pm 5-6 days/wk; occasionally rent other facilities ---- Due to space and equipment constraints, wrestling team practices in school cafeteria ----- Cafeteria, which supports all 1,715 students, is in a portion of the school library ---- Gym also functions as band/choir concert venue – on those days, PE classes have study hall or relocate to hallways, cafeteria, etc.

--- Proposal: ---- Construct multi-purpose elementary gym west of existing gym ---- The facility would also include a raised stage, elementary cafeteria, wrestling room, and receiving/copy center ---- High school and junior high would continue to share current gym -- North Campus Auditorium – Priority 1, $9.5M --- Current conditions: ---- The only facility capable of hosting band and choir concerts (all grades) and high school assemblies is the gym ------ PE and athletics “kicked” out during these times ---- All theater productions (and many practices) must be held off- campus (e.g. Wasson HS, Colorado Springs Charter Academy) ----- Incurs additional costs and student/staff safety issues --- Proposal: ---- Construct auditorium (with associated practice rooms and storage area) on northeast side of existing gym -- North Campus Secondary Cafeteria/Library buildout – Priority 1, $4.2M --- Current conditions: ---- Elementary, Junior High, and High School all share a single cafeteria in a portion of the school library ----- Tight lunch window seating/serving 1,700 students ----- Creates noise disruptions and disturbances in library --- Proposal: ---- Construct a cafeteria on the east side of the existing gym for the high school and junior high and convert the current cafeteria to planned library space -- North Campus Additional Parking Lot – Priority 1, $850K --- Current conditions: ---- Parking for students and staff is currently at 95-100% capacity on any given day (477 parking passes, 480 parking spots) ---- For athletic events and special events (e.g. concerts, graduation, Grandparents’ Day) we exceed capacity --- Proposal: ---- Construct 125 spot parking lot above existing detention pond -- Review of projected costs of immediate needs: Elementary multi-purpose gym $6.5M Auditorium $9.5M Secondary cafeteria/library buildout $4.2M Added parking lot $850K Total $21.05M

Campus Project Due* Estimate PriorityNorth Asphalt elementary new base and top layer 2017 150,000$ 2North Asphalt secondary new base and top layer 2017 225,000$ 2North Athletic field road, curb, gutter, landscaping 375,000$ 2North Athletic field turf 2019 650,000$ 2North Boiler replacement 2020 250,000$ 2North IT switches upgrade 200,000$ 2North IT wireless upgrade 95,000$ 2North Replace carpet or put in polished concrete 2018 275,000$ 2North Paint exterior of building 2020 50,000$ 2North Roof replacement 2017 200,000$ 2North Traffic upgrade right turn lane 500,000$ 2North Traffic upgrade 2 lanes in and 2 lanes out 250,000$ 2North Administration/Operations/Staff facility 7,000,000$ 3North Athletic field press box, concessions, locker rooms 925,000$ 3North Baseball/softball field upgrades 1,250,000$ 3North Landscaping 250,000$ 3

Central Perimeter road carpool drive asphalt 100,000$ 2Central Athletic field turf, lighting, fencing, and bleachers 1,250,000$ 3Central Softball area upgrade 500,000$ 3

East Athletic field turf 2024 550,000$ 2East Roof 2024 200,000$ 2East Athletic field lighting, fencing, bleachers 350,000$ 3

Misc Activities vehicles 250,000$ 3

*Due dates are for capital repair/replacement or deferred maintenance items

North Campus Total 12,645,000$ Central Campus Total 1,850,000$ East Campus Total 1,100,000$ Miscellaneous 250,000$

15,845,000$

-- Additional capital needs by campus:

CONCLUSION

TCA’s current total projected capital need is just under $37M. While TCA is a single entity, it is composed of seven distinct schools whose facility needs are similar to those of other D20 schools. TCA gains efficiencies through shared facilities on the same campus; however, there are still deficiencies (e.g. individual gyms, cafeterias, and auditoriums) that are basic to all D20 elementary, middle, and high schools. TCA’s needs are in line with D20’s baseline level to meet the educational needs of students while maintaining acceptable standards of safety and security.

Appendix G

Contents:

A. Bar graph representation of historical school property tax

components and values and projected school property tax

components (based on future assessed valuation assumptions)

$0

$500,000,000

$1,000,000,000

$1,500,000,000

$2,000,000,000

$2,500,000,000

0.000

10.000

20.000

30.000

40.000

50.000

60.000

Total Program Levy Abatement Levy Override Levy Bond Levy Assessed Valuation

Academy District 20 Assessed Value and Mill Levy Table

Mills

1mill = .001

= .1% Assessed Value

(dollars)



Appendix H

Contents:

A. Questions and comments received from participants of stakeholder

meetings on May 2, 2016 (Public Forum), May 4, 2016 (Academy

Education Association and Teacher Communication Council), and

May 5, 2016 (Parent Sounding Board).

B. Final thoughts of Growth and Capital Needs Committee members

May 2016 page 1 of 7

Growth and Capital Needs Committee Public Forum Feedback

May 2, 2016 34 cards were collected – those that were signed and seeking feedback, will be contacted by Tom and/or Karin, but we’ve removed names for this document. There were approximately 68 attendees, approximately 15 of whom were GCNC members. Questions and comments from the public are in black font. Responses/answers from Tom and Karin are in blue italics

Accountability of Bond Money: 1. If expenditures of this revenue are not found on the state‐required “transparency report” then

how can the public access the records you keep for the public “bond money expenditures”? And what “records retention” schedule is used?

Response: Expenditures of 2001 bond proceeds were expended prior to requirements of transparency, so they will not be found on the website. The 2001 Bond Oversight Committee gave regular reports to the Board of Education from 2001 to 2008. This information is available through Board minutes and packets. We use the Colorado Archivists Retention Manual to guide our practices.

2. And, how/where can the “records retention schedule” the District uses be accessed by the public? Response: The manual can be found on the Colorado.gov site at the following link: https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/sites/default/files/SchoolsRMManual.pdf

It sounds like there is a lot of concern about “choice in students” need to be limited.

Before building a new high school, are there plans to take Air Academy off the base? This will be important to address while trying to pass a new bond.

No – there are no plans to remove current schools from the AFA grounds.

How will online classes and concurrent enrollment in college change our needs for high school

facilities? Enrollment in our own online high school is 51 full‐time students, and it has increased by 14 students since opening in 2009. Concurrent enrollment courses will not impact high school facility needs as these courses are offered at our facilities, or the students are at our facilities for the majority.

Have you considered the aging population on the west side and northern end of D20 affects our future high school needs? Yes. Projecting for future enrollment is based on average household student yield. For this reason, household differences wash out in the larger population. The average represents a reliable measure of central tendency.


Adding an additional junior high or high school without adding an additional pool or ice rink is irresponsible. The school district needs to increase sports availability.

As it stands, there are two pools for six or seven high schools. We need more water, any new school needs a pool.

We have five high schools that field swim teams and two pools.

Why should D20 taxpayers pay for a new high school just so it can be filled with out of district students? (The 1300 out of district high school students equals one school.) If a new high school is built, it would serve District 20 resident students who reside, primarily, in the boundaries established for the school. The purpose of a new school would be to serve growth in the district.

Fix our schools before building new ones!

Why wasn’t all committee members and board members at this public forum to hear the public concerns? Committee members and the Board will be updated about public feedback shared that the meeting.

We are desperately in need of more pool space for our kids. Currently 5 high schools share 2 pools. The 2 pools are not maintained properly (at least the Rampart pool.) Our pools meet all requirements for health and safety.

Will the bond renewal list out specifically how the funds will be spent? How will transparency of those be done? Yes, if the Board determines to participate on the ballot, they would formally approve a project list. All resolutions of the Board are available to public and they are communicated through Board meetings, websites, public stakeholder meetings, etc.

I am supportive and would like to offer support. In my opinion there was not enough convincing offered in the presentation. Would like to see more of the assessments and demo studies. I can help with construction cost estimates and with community outreach. The information requested here can be found on the D‐20 website at the following link: https://www.asd20.org/committees/gcnc/Pages/default.aspx

Is district taking into account online and home school growth? Limiting choice students? I do not support a new high school being built. If this is part of the plan I will campaign against the bond. Projecting for future enrollment is based on average household student yield. For this reason, household differences wash out in the larger population. The average represents a reliable measure of central tendency. Currently we take choice students per state law on a space available basis.


I DO NOT SUPPORT A NEW HIGH SCHOOL BEING BUILT.

Please address previous capital needs not met. Why does Pine Creek not have a swimming pool? I was told money was spent on other projects. Is this true? If so, perhaps building a pool should be put on the needs list as we only have 2 pools for 5 schools.

A swimming pool for PCHS was not on the 2001 bond project list.

Where are you obtaining information for material pricing and availability? What process is in place to make adjustments to budget after increases occur? We are getting pricing from local architects and general contractors. Annual inflationary factors will be applied to projects that won’t occur immediately.

I am interested in seeing a total list and dollar amount for proposed projects vs the total amount expected from a bond initiative. Thank you! If the bond question is placed on the ballot, there will be a list of projects, project costs, and anticipated bond proceeds.

I am very interested is seeing more swimming pool space for our district ideally an aquatic center capable of hosting a state tournament. Thank you!

Swimming Pool; 5 high schools; 2 pools; D11 every school has 1; Revenue generation; Rental opportunities – USA swimming “Pool time” practices and meets CHSAA state meet.

District 20 currently has 5 + TCA so 6 high schools sharing 2 outdated pools. On average 50 students per high school go out for swim team. (Air Academy had 70+ on their girls’ team.) 300+ students sharing a total of 10 lanes – when you take away 1 lane each for diving. These 2 pools are overused and way too crowded. D2 needs more water! It was said that there were plans @DCC to add a D20 swimming pool but it was cut from the budget. Before we add additional aux gyms to schools, we need to look at the demand for swimming pool(s). Like VMAC up in Denver. Would like a response and would like to get involved on a district level for the swimming pool need. Tom said this would not be a priority but this needs to be investigated and evaluated.

Ensure a consideration be made for an additional aquatic center be built with a new high school to allow development and growth of swimming in District 20 schools

Question – Where are we on paying off the bond from 2004 (? YR) Are we on track?

Bonds that were issued in 2004 will be paid off in 2024. We are on track for all debt service/bond payments.

Question – Why had D20 not invested in the trades in our high schools? Vocational development is a need for Colorado Springs as college is not for all.


These courses are offered through our Area Vocational Program, but please know that the charge of the GCNC is not to discuss programmatic and curricular issues.

When will the June 2 report be available on the website? The formal report will be posted to the website on June 3. However, the May 10th GCNC minutes will contain draft recommendations discussed at that meeting, and, as with all other GCNC meeting minutes, these will be posted within four days of the meeting.

The taxpayer who had a concern about “choiced in” students… Are all “choiced in” students’ families non‐taxpayer? Perhaps it would help to split that out. I choice into a different school, but live in this district. So makes his point less dramatic. Students who choice into District 20 but live outside of the district are not District 20 taxpayers. However, each student, whether they live in or out of the district brings 100% of the per pupil revenue determined by state statute. This revenue helps to fund the courses and programs offered in D20.

Was the school site improvement committee inclusive of D20 preschool staff?

No

Will D20 preschools benefit if the bond passes? If they are associated with an elementary school and located on a school site, they may be part of the SSIC recommendations.

Has D20 accepted “The Farm” development as a potential elementary school site and will the school include a preschool? Our preschools are full! The Farm site remains an option as a school site. Preschool decisions are made by the Learning Services team and the principal at the appropriate time.

Almost all D20 preschool programs are at full capacity. What is the plan for new programs/schools across the district? Preschool decisions are made by the Learning Services team and the principal at the appropriate time.

Thanks you for your hard work! There are so may conflicting priorities and needs. I appreciate all of your time and hard work

How does the school district intend to hold choice students (out of district) to pay into the district they are attending? Please limit out of district choice students.

By law the district cannot charge out‐of‐district students tuition for attending our schools. They do pay all appropriate student fees. We limit out‐of‐district choice students when space is not available.


May I humbly request that you place The Classical Academy capital improvement (4 listed on other notecard) as top priority?

Elementary gymnasium Multipurpose room

HS auditorium (oh we need an auditorium!) If the bond issue is on the ballot, The Classical Academy will share in bond proceeds. Thank you for your service! We are so many in this room who trust and respect your work. May I

humbly request four ginormous needs for The Classical Academy? Top Priority needs 1. High TCA Auditorium K‐12 usage 2. Secondary cafeteria (K‐12 currently eating in what should be our library) 3. Elementary gymnasium * multipurpose (cafeteria) space 4. More parking space Thanks you for giving these your consideration for our TCA students.

The Classical Academy will determine projects and priorities. As a concerned citizen I also do not support funds going to build a new high school. If a high school

is included in the bond measure, I will not support it. Limit the choiced in student population? Why should we pay for choice students? Is the committee requiring the board put in writing where they intend the bond monies to be spent? It needs put in writing because in the past monies have been diverted and we are tired of the lies and lack of transparency.

All students contribute to the annual student count; the student count, then, determines annual funding amounts that pay for school operations. The GCNC is charged with making recommendations around capital needs for bond money expenditure, but they have mentioned that they will recommend a Bond Oversight Committee as well. The Board will put in writing how they intend to spend bond monies. Also, there are a number of people that are willing to be part of a community oversight committee. The committee wants written limitations and guidelines as to where the money can be spent. Will the committee recommend a community oversight committee be put in place should the bond pass? Answered – yes

1. written limitations and guidelines on the spending for this bond 2. I want a community oversight committee to oversee spending. 3. If they are not going to do the above I will fight this bond.


Growth and Capital Needs Committee Parent Sounding Board Feedback

May 4, 2016

9 cards were collected – none of the comments required response. There were approximately 35 parent attendees. Questions and comments from the public are in black font. Responses/answers from Tom and Karin are in blue italics

We need a high school now. Can’t wait until 2020.

Challenger is overcrowded. Will the new construction help that? If there is a new middle school built, or boundaries are redrawn.

School in the Woods is a great program. Are there plans to expand it? It’s too premature to answer this as all needs are being addressed.

I served on my school’s SSIC, and I am very supportive and appreciate the GCNC involving the community. How can I volunteer?

There will be opportunities to volunteer in the future.

I’m tired of my kids being bussed. East of Powers needs at least one elementary, one middle, and one high school. How much will the district save on bussing?

Too early to determine as boundaries need to be considered.

Why will it take so long for a new high school? Liberty is already full. Planning, design, procurement, and construction for a new high school typically takes 36 months.

RCES and LHS are already overcrowded. What will you do if the recommendations of the GCNC or Board is to not go forward?

Assuming this question is about new schools, there will not be any if the Board does not endorse or support new construction.

I am glad money will go to all schools, but the east side is part of the district too. We need new schools now.


Growth and Capital Needs Committee Teacher Communication Council Feedback

May 4, 2016 4 cards were collected – no comments or questions requested personal responses. There were approximately 28 attendees. Questions and comments from the public are in black font. Responses/answers from Tom and Karin are in blue italics At different levels, how is the work/projects prioritized?

Projects are not prioritized by level. All projects, regardless of level (elementary, middle, and high), are compared and prioritized by individual members and then aggregated.

Liberty needs more space! I do hope our needs will rise to the top or close to it.

There was unrest on a Facebook group about building new schools without repairing older schools. I was glad to know that all of the committee documents were online, so I pointed them toward the website.

There is no requirement or expectation for the committee to choose between building new schools or repairing/upgrading older schools. They may recommend both.

Will all schools receive something no matter how small? The intent of the “per pupil” formula is to make sure all schools receive something.

GCNC Final Thoughts 5/10/16 page 1 of 5

Growth and Capital Needs Committee

Final Thoughts

May 10, 2016

You have spent about 40 hours in discussion about capital needs in District 20. Please write the final

concluding/summary paragraph for our report to the superintendent, and, ultimately, the Board of

Education and community.

If budgets were unlimited, it would be possible to fund all new construction, all building

improvements, all special projects along with safety, security, transportation and athletics.

Unfortunately budgets are not unlimited, so the most important issue is to bring all schools

up to a basic standard. All students deserve a clean, fully operational, safe school in which to

learn. Secondly, Quality over Quantity. Expanding our secondary schools to accommodate

growth is a better model than building another high school. Be faithful stewards of taxpayer

dollars by creating world class school facilities!

There is a huge need for capital improvement needs in our district. This is not just for the

construction of new schools to accommodate growth. Excluding the new schools built with

funds from the 2001 bond issue, all of our buildings (schools, maintenance facility and

transportation) are in desperate need of repairs, updates and 21st century improvements.

To be fiscally responsible to the D20 taxpayers we not only provide new buildings for our

growth but we need to bring our older facilities up to date.

It has been a pleasure serving on this committee, and especially getting to meet and know

parents, students, staff and others throughout the district. Very good facilitation by Karin

and Tom.

In conclusion, after spending many hours in meaningful discussion, this committee

respectfully recommends to our superintendent, board of education and community at

large that this bond is needed first and foremost to maintain our current buildings and

thereafter to address the continued growth within the district in order to keep this school

district at the high level of distinction that we as community members have come to expect.

ASD20 continues to be a top tier district in the State of Colorado despite the condition of its

facilities. Existing facilities must be brought up to a minimum standard to continue to

provide top class, safe education to our children. Concurrently, overcrowding at our schools

also needs to be addressed to provide safe schools. It has been over 15 years since this

district passed a bond and now every facility has needs, whether due to age or growth and

development. Thank you for this opportunity to participate in keeping our district a top one

in our state!

I recommend the board takes a serious look at building new schools in addition to improving

our older schools/outdated buildings. Take into consideration our prioritized list of

improvements as we have spent countless hours discussing how they would benefit

students, teachers and our D20 community as a whole.

Sitting here all year has opened my eyes to the complex needs of schools. I feel we are

behind in updating our older schools due to the Great Recession, but need to keep up with

growth in new areas. I feel the Liberty area is in danger of getting “shut out” and perceived


as the less fortunate unable to draw quality families if some improvement isn’t made –

marketing all HS makes D20 strong. Bells and whistles are nice (pool/ice), but we have too

many other items. I feel the board also has an inside track on the future priorities – closing

small schools like High Plains if growth continues and as areas age. I hope the board

considers all the recommendations but I recognize they have more expertise in their area.

Thanks for letting me serve!

ASD20 is a growing, high performing and dynamic large school district. It is clear that the

BOE, when considering a new bond issue, must find equilibrium between the

accommodation of inevitable enrollment growth and the upgrade of aging infrastructure.

With respect to aging facilities, it is important to establish a minimum standard for each

instructional environment in the district. Health, safety and keeping pace with technological

advancements must be the district’s highest priority.

There are far more needs in our district than funds available. Rough choices will have to be

made, but here must be a balance in fixing deferred problems with building new schools.

Focus must be on the kids in the classrooms vs. on the field or in the water. Need increased

focus on annual maintenance and repair.

Committee was well managed and all members did their homework and took their jobs very

seriously; lack of a facilities audit (up front) was a hindrance; lack of a defined set of

priorities (evenly applied across all schools) led to unnecessary confusion.

This committee worked to bring an acceptable level of safety, health and an improved

learning environment that will continue to make Academy School District 20 one of the best

districts in the state.

It is apparent that there are great needs within our school district. Our old facilities need to

be upgraded and we need new schools. It is vital that we balance both needs.

District 20 is a forward‐thinking community of educated and well rounded individuals who

strive to ensure the future generations will thrive in leading the region in all areas, social,

intelligence, health and industry.

Our older facilities need to catch up to our new facilities codes. Front safety/hazard items to

ADA ramps at some schools. Scheduled maintenance needs to take place accordingly. We

have to rethink the open‐enrollment program, not the choice, when it comes to

overcrowding in our schools. I believe our recommendations were appropriate for this bond

issuance.

It was an enlightening experience to understand needs of the school district. Dire needs of

older schools for upgrades related to health, safety & technology. The district is poised for

significant growth. Careful planning for new schools, facilities is needed. Also critically

important is the need to have a sustainable approach to maintain and upgrade new and

existing facilities and infrastructure.

On the order of priorities of what needs to get done with a limited budget: a) putting money

into older schools (DVES, SITW, LHS, AAHS); b) building a new high school.

This district has a history of educational excellence. Prioritizing/balancing the needs of new

construction and existing facilities is a challenge the BOE will need to accept.

It is important to focus on updating old schools and creating a standard for future schools.

Many of the older schools are in need of serious remodeling/fixing. Though size and


enrollment are important the older schools seem to be struggling more. Education becomes

impossible without that basic structure and needs.

Well thought out process. I have no changes to recommend. Tom and Karin were superb as

facilitators.

I would recommend to fix the current schools and make sure we have a standard level of

acceptance for which each school operates. We will need new schools but fixing and

improving our current schools must be one of the top‐most priorities.

In closing, I would like to affirm the work of the GCNC. We took this responsibility very

seriously. In our opinion, we have provided you everything necessary to take the final steps

of laying out exactly what will happen when this bond passes.

The Growth and Capital Needs Committee gathered information from all schools,

departments and outside sources. Actual site visits were conducted at all schools and

facilities. All of the information was reviewed and evaluated. Recommendations were made

to ensure that schools are brought up to acceptable standards. Also, recommendations

were made to provide for growth that is already taking place in the district.

The district has many needs. Developing a multipronged approach makes an attempt at

relieving the most critical areas. Growth is coming and District 20 has a reputation of early

preparation. Bringing our older schools up to match our newer ones was a strong wish of

the GCNC. I wish the board the Wisdom of Solomon to make the difficult decisions facing

the district.

District 20 is a great school district, but is/or will face a great challenge with regards to

future growth. I feel we need to address both growth and upkeep of our current schools in a

manner that is beneficial to all.

If the bond issue is floated and subsequently approved: new construction is critical. Without

new schools, current schools become overcrowded and real estate values will decline; vision

to meld cap reserve $, annual building $, and bond proceeds to accomplish the biggest bang;

establishing the allocations among the five buckets to maximize potential of voter approval.

Appendix I

Contents:

A. Committee Evaluation Data

1

Growth and Capital Needs Committee Evaluation May, 2016

Directions: As per our Collaborative Input Model, committee members agreed that they would reflect on the following at the completion of their work. Please respond to the following questions in as much detail as you would like. Your comments will be helpful as we move forward. SA = Strongly agree with the statement A = Agree with the statement NS = Not sure D = Disagree with the statement SD = Strongly disagree with the statement 1. The task force followed the charge from the superintendent. (SA) (A) (NS) (D) (SD) 1 = 10 2 = 1 3 4 5 Comments:

Thanks to the intentional facilitation of Karin and Tom, the task force members were periodically guided back to the charge from the Superintendent. This was critically important given the vast deviations that could have occurred with this significant topic.

I believe we stuck to it and stayed on track! Yes I strongly agree that the committee followed the charge from the superintendent. We were reminded our charge several time! As much as we tried to do more, we were

reminded to stay in our charge!!! 2. The facilitator was skilled at building consensus for the outcome. (SA) (A) (NS) (D) (SD) 1 = 10 2 = 1 3 4 5 Comments:

Karin is masterful with facilitation. And, once again, brought a large, diverse group of individual stakeholders together when it mattered most. The final report and recommendations are proof of her efforts.

I learned so much! The co-facilitator worked wonderfully as a team to help explain the charge for the

committee and the process. Karin and Tom did a terrific job in building consensus and keeping the committee on task. Yes I strongly agree that Tom and Karin were very good not only at bringing us to a

consensus but in educating us in the process.

2

Yeah Karin! I am always amazed how all of this comes out! The first forced matrix made me plot some of the largest needs against each other. I would have rather had it spread out a bit so that the schools that were in the most need, whatever that is, were not put up against each other.

3. The task force members followed the Collaborative Input Model. (SA) (A) (NS) (D) (SD) 1 = 8 2 = 3 3 4 5 Comments:

The vast majority of the task force members followed the CIM and guidance from Karin and Tom throughout the process.

For the most part we followed the CIM. Sometimes we veered into other topics like Choice how to implement everything. Hard to follow 100%.

I thought that the group was respectful of each other. The longer we worked together, the more so!

A few had their own “no new school agenda”, 4. The task force successfully completed the task as evidenced by a final report and recommendations to the superintendent? (SA) (A) (NS) (D) (SD) 1 = 10 2 = 1 3 4 5 Comments:

Yes, the final report and supporting recommendations are comprehensive and accurately reflect the task force’s work.

Very nicely written final report. Yes I strongly agree the task force completed the task as evidenced by a final report and

recommendation to the superintendent. I feel that all of our thoughts and collaborative suggestions are represented in the final report

5. What needs to change about process if committee work in this area continues?

Nothing needs to change regarding the process; however, I would encourage the continued reinforcement of the group norms periodically throughout the task force’s work.

I wouldn’t change anything. I felt that my opinion mattered and I was well respected along with my questions were answered. I did feel a little rushed toward the end but everything was communicated well.

Nothing major. It was a little difficult to be in a committee with so many members, but I understand why we had this many representatives.

Very little needs to change. I thought our charge was clear but from the comments of others, I think that they felt as though they were going to offer more specific direction and recommendations at the end of the process.

Concern on vocal former board member attemps to run over committee.

3

Process is refined and no changes are recommended. I don’t feel the Principals were adequately prepared for our tours. They didn’t know what

we had on our sheets to view for our consideration. Therefore, some of their presentations took us to irrelevant places.

If committee work in this area continues I believe more time needs to be allotted for the completion of the forced matrix process. Following school tours, we had sufficient time to complete the first forced matrix; however, once those projects were ordered and we were asked to complete another forced matrix I was not able to spend the time I would have liked to complete the task in a thorough and well thought out manner. In addition, I would recommend all task force members be allowed to tour all schools not just a select group as I believe in the forced matrix process we naturally prioritized projects at schools we visited over those we did not.

Perhaps give some thought about the forced decision matrix so that the great needs are not competing against each other.

Also, the schools might spend more time on the “B” bucket list. More information on costs and needs of the schools would have been helpful. Some

additional education about their needs and monies set aside for deferred maintenance. Better grouping for comparisons related to costs would have felt more reasonable to due comparison judging.

6. What needs to stay the same about process if committee work in this area continues?

Continue to utilize a collaborative input model to ensure that there is clarity of purpose with specific goals, outcomes, timelines, etc.

I would keep it the same. Maybe reduce the total number of members? Much of what was done was excellent and well-considered. I liked that every voice was

allowed to be heard and respected throughout the process. Past recommendations from final report and good cross section of committee members’

backgrounds. Continue with collaborative input model and build consensus with the group members. If committee work in this area continues I believe the process, in general, should remain the

same. Loved listening to the schools, the tour was important

7. Other comments?

Karin and Tom did an outstanding job facilitating this task force! They provided a terrific framework from which to review and assess a significant amount of information, yet come to consensus in order to generate a meaningful set of recommendations for the Superintendent and Board of Education to consider.

I think Karin and Tom did an excellent job leading us through this whole process! We had several folks on our committee who would start having conversation that was moving us in the wrong direction and Karin would respectfully steer us back on track. Both always made each person feel important and that everyone’s input was valid and worthwhile. Very well done!!!

4

Thank you for the opportunity to serve on this committee! What an awesome learning experience it has been.

Karin and Tom did an excellent job facilitating the process. Anne K did an outstanding job meeting all the committee’s needs well as handling wants.

She showed great grace and patience to this diverse group. The process was inclusive and followed the charge given to the committee by the

superintendent. It was a pleasure to be a part of this important work for the future of our district.

Anne K did a great job of supporting the committee with meals and supplies. I am very honored to have been chosen to be a part of this task force. I think Karin and Tom

did a great job of chairing this committee and moving us through the process. I look forward to being a part of the next phase, if I am called upon to do so, should Dr. Hatchell and the BOE decide to move forward with a bond issue on the November ballot.

It felt very unfair to make comparison judgements on the needs for schools or departments that I did not personally get to visit. As mentioned, Transportation and Facilities rarely fares well in those comparisons and there are some inherent reasons that happens during the process that was used.

Great job – this is an example of how something like this should be conducted.

Appendix J

Contents:

A. External Audit Report of District Facilities

gcnc may 2016 final report

Documents