4/10/14

1

• Major  challenges  • No  money    • No  plan  • Socio-­‐economic  and  geographic  challenges  • Previous  plans  focused  just  on  school  closings  and  no  las;ng  buy-­‐in  

• Assessments    • Over  $400  million  in  needs  •   Average  building  age  55  years  old  •   30%  more  space  than  needed  and  not  where  students  were  located  •   Demographic  student  decline    

• Plan  Development/Financial  Solu;ons/Public  Engagement  •   Tax  and  budget  analysis  •   Communica;ons  &  governmental  rela;ons  •   Ci;zen’s  group  community  outreach  •   $5.3  million  in  savings  analysis  •   120  public  mee;ngs  •   Public  informa;on  survey  

Duluth  Schools  Long-­‐Range  Facili;es  Plan  Background  and  Planning  Considera;ons  

�  A  Need  to  Do  Our  Best  for  Our  Children  –  During  more  than  100  mee;ngs  with  ci;zens  throughout  the  community  in  the  past  years  while  developing  the  plan,  in  addi;on  to  calls,  leYers  and  e-­‐mails  to  the  school  district,  we’ve  learned  that  ci;zens  overwhelmingly  support  making  the  changes  necessary  to  improve  educa;onal  facili;es  in  the  most  logical,  future-­‐looking,  and  cost-­‐effec;ve  manner.  

�  A  Need  For  Stability  –  Without  a  long-­‐range  plan,  ques;ons  come  up  about  facili;es  every  year,  and  every  year  someone  may  have  a  different  idea  about  what  to  do.    A  long-­‐range  facili;es  plan  lets  people  know  what’s  going  to  happen  in  the  school  district  years  into  the  future,  and  helps  those  who  maintain  facili;es  use  district  resources  wisely.  

�  A  Need  for  Equity  –  Some  students  go  to  school  in  older  buildings  that  don’t  meet  today’s  educa;onal  needs,  while  some  go  to  school  in  newer  buildings  that  do.    A  long-­‐range  facili;es  plan  will  provide  equity  across  the  district.  

�  A  Need  to  Address  Aging  Infrastructure  –  Facili;es  Management  worked  with  40  analysts  from  18  firms  over  a  6-­‐month  period  to  conduct  a  thorough  analysis  of  all  schools,  averaging  54  years  old,  and  iden;fied  1,600  deficiencies  related  to  such  areas  as  air  and  water  quality,  accessibility,  building  code  compliance  and  more.    

�  A  Need  To  Improve  EducaConal  Adequacy  of  Buildings  –  During  a  six-­‐month  period,  mul;ple  experts  spent  500  hours  inspec;ng  all  school  buildings,  reviewing  the  ability  of  each  building  to  meet  current  educa;onal  programs  and  needs.    All  but  four  of  the  Duluth  Public  Schools  were  found  to  need  some  upgrades.    District-­‐wide,  78  areas  were  iden;fied  as  “not  acceptable.”    Twenty-­‐two  of  the  not  acceptable  rankings  were  in  the  three  high  schools;  the  other  56  were  spread  among  Duluth’s  other  15  schools.    

�  A  Need  to  Address  Declining  Enrollment  –  Former  state  demographer  Hazel  Reinhardt  created  an  in-­‐depth  analysis  of  Duluth’s  enrollment.    K-­‐12  enrollment  has  declined  throughout  the  state  and  na;on  due  in  large  part  to  Genera;on  X  being  smaller  than  previous  genera;ons.    In  Duluth,  K-­‐12  enrollment  declined  25  percent  during  the  past  10  years  to  today’s  enrollment  of  10,140.    This  trend  will  con;nue  un;l  2013,  when  enrollment  will  stabilize  between  8,998  and  9,329.    From  2013  to  2022,  enrollment  is  projected  to  increase  modestly  and  fluctuate  at  around  9,600  students.      

�  A  Need  to  Address  Overcapacity  –  Duluth’s  schools  have  space  to  accommodate  13,478  students.    That  means,  based  on  today’s  enrollment,  the  district  was  opera;ng  buildings  with  30  percent  more  space  than  it  needed.  

Why  Long  Range  Plan?  

Long  Range  Plan  Summary            Pre-­‐Plan:                              Long  Range  Plan  18  school  buildings            13  school  buildings  11  elementary  &  1  K-­‐8            9  elementary  schools  3  middle  &  1  K-­‐8                      2  middle  schools    3  high  schools              2  high  schools  3  administra;ve  buildings          2  administra;ve    buildings  5  unused  proper;es          0  unused  proper;es  

RED  OPTION  

4/10/14

2

Financial  Solu;on  

Proceeds From Surplus Properties: $ 25,000,000 Annual Savings: $5,300,000 x 20 years: $106,000,000

$131,000,000

Plan  amount:  $257  million  in  2007  dollars  ($296  million  with  five  years  of  construcCon  inflaCon)  

In lieu of bond referendum, the financing strategy for Duluth Public School District’s long-range facilities plan utilized the following Minnesota statutes: Alternative Facilities Bonding (123B.59), Lease Levy (126C.40, subdivision 6), and Lease Purchase (465.71).

Savings  Overview  

Project Management Work Scope - 6 years and 13 schools

Projects Type of School Size

2 High School 1,500 -1,700 2 Middle School 950 - 1,100 9 Elementary School 350 - 550

17 Professional Services Agreements 500 Construction Contracts

8000 Payments Processed

Contracts per High School 70

Contracts per Middle School 45

Contracts per Elementary School 40

High School Average Payments 1,100 Middle School Average Payments 850

Elementary School Average Payments 675

Property acquisitions – 64 total including (58 residential homes)

•  Willing sellers with negotiated terms including relocation expenses •  Premium pricing = less opposition = favorable community opinion •  Eminent domain (only required for one critical property)

4/10/14

3

Duluth’s 21st

• Robust, High Quality Curriculum

• Computerized Smart Boards and State-Of-The-Art Classroom Technologies

• Equitable Facility Conditions across District

• Enhanced Safety & Security

• Healthy, Efficient, “Green”

• Designed for Use By Community Members of All Ages

• Long-Term Stability – Right sized

PLAN GOALS

Communica;ons:  120  Public  Mee;ngs  

Facility  CondiCon  

Deferred  Maint.  U;lity  Expense  Repair  Needs  IAQ  Concerns  

Structure/Envelope  ADA  Compliance    Lots/Walks/Fields  Mech/Electrical  Savings  Poten;als  

Our  Homework  Phase  I:  Assessment    Educational Adequacy

Programming Security/Safety Bldg. Capacity

Spatial Relationship Alternative Uses Instructional Aids Classroom Size

Physical Attributes Technology

District Demographics Historic Trends

Projections Ethnic Diversity

School Locations Housing Starts

Competition Economic Study School Locations

Boundaries

4/10/14

4

Note difference between graduating students vs. kindergarten students

DULUTH  PUBLIC  SCHOOLS  2006-­‐2025  

86008800

900092009400

96009800

1000010200

2006 2009 2012 2015 2018 2021 2024

Duluth

Former state demographer Hazel Reinhardt created an in-depth analysis of Duluth’s enrollment future.

4/10/14

5

9 10 11 1223 33 19 22 28 102Geo. Zone

GradeGrand Total

Facility  Assessment  Team  

Duluth Public Schools

1,600 pages estimating near $400M in total cost

4/10/14

6

School  Breakdown  by  Dollars  

Duluth Public Schools

Educa;onal  Adequacy  Preview  

Duluth Public Schools

Communica;ons  Team  

4/10/14

7

Boundaries  

One (Blue) or Two (Red & White) High Schools

2007 Duluth Public Schools Study

Decision Resources, Ltd.

One HS/Strongly5%

One HS4%

Two HS56%

Two HS/Strongly24%

Unsure11%

RED Option Western High School Remodel & Expand Denfeld

1500 Students

Eastern HS Remodel & Expand Ordean

1500 Students

New Western MS Site TBD

1100 Students

Eastern MS Remodel East HS

1100 Students

Lowell Elementary Renew

450 Students

Grant Elementary Remodel & Expand

500 Students

Congdon Elementary Renew

500 Students

New Laura MacArthur On Existing Site

500 Students

New Lincoln/Piedmont Site TBD

450 Students

Stowe Elementary Renew

450 Students

Homecroft Elementary Renew

450 Students

Lakewood Elementary Renew

350 Students

New Lester Park On Existing Site

500 Students

So Far Fair Sailing?

Central HS

4/10/14

8

• The  Board  consciously  elected  to  forgo  a  referendum  based  on  detailed  reports  that  contained  the  results  of  a  public  opinion  survey  (sta;s;cally  accurate  within  +/-­‐  5.5%)  

• 78%  of  the  public  reports  awareness  of  the  long-­‐range  discussions  

• Residents  and  parents  decisively  favored  the  “Red  Op;on”  

• By  very  solid  69%-­‐24%  margin,  residents  favored  the  District  issuing  bonds  to  finance  the  cost  of  new  construc;on  and  renova;on  

• Nearly  8  of  10  residents  report  the  lack  of  an  elecCon  has  very  liGle  impact  on  their  support  levels  for  issuing  bonds.  

 

Public Information Survey

How determined and how vocal are the 2 of 10 residents who feel the lack of an election has much to do with their support for issuing bonds?

How determined and how vocal are the Central HS Alumni, Parents and Students who wanted to save their school?

How determined and how vocal are the not in my back yard residents?

4/10/14

9

What  Students  are  Saying  

“It’s all new. It

’s

absolutely gorgeous.

I’m actually excited to

go here now and to be

in this school”

It’s Godly amazing”

“The whole school, it’s really phenomenal.”

“This is going to be the best

year ever.”

“It’s unfathomable, all of

this. It’s really amazing”

4/10/14

10

Project Tours Photo slides

removed from handout due to size but will be

shown at presentation

Do  it  Again?  –  Do  Differently?  • Referendum  =  single  funding  source  • Longer  ;meframe  to  implement  • District  internal  organiza;on  and  capacity  to  manage  development  and  implementa;on  of  LRFP  • Develop  more  project  detail  prior  to  locking  in  the  cost  of  the  plan  • Proceeds  from  sale  of  buildings  in  financing  strategy  • Would  it  have  goYen  done??  • Program/Construc;on  Management  Approaches  • Media  –  Managing  the  Message  • MDE  –  Review  and  Comment  Process  • Quality  Consultants  and  Program  Advisors  • City  or  local  building  officials  zoning  and  building  safety  • Local  poli;cians  and  regula;ng  en;;es  • MPCA,  MDH,  MNDOA,  DNR,  Army  Corp  of  Engineers,  others  • Be  prepared  for  opposi;on  to  the  plan  or  aspects  of  it  –  plan  responses  • Ini;al  support  can  waiver  when  it  his  home  with  impacts  on  homes  and  students  • Consider  new  technologies  for  photo  documenta;on  of  construc;on  progress  linked  to  plans  (Contracted  Service?)  

     

Do  it  Again?  –  Do  Differently?  Planning  and  Construc;on  Budget  –  consider  a  process  similar  to  State  and  University.  •  Promote   the   need   for   a   long-­‐range   facili;es   plan   (LRFP)   (Hire   firm   to   help   advocate   and  

communicate  reasons?)  

•   Define  and  develop  a  broad  scope  LRFP  (Hire  firm  to  assess  condi;ons  and  deficiencies  of  exis;ng  buildings  and  gather  other  data  they  will  use  in  defining  a  solu;on/s)  

•  Obtain   approval   of   the   broad   scope   LRFP   solu;on   (Number   of   schools,   loca;on,   size   and   grade  configura;on,   new,   renovated,   addi;ons).     (Conserva;ve   es;mates   of   total   cost   based   on   ini;al   project  concepts.)    

•  Obtain  approval  of  financing  for  designing  projects  through  design  development  stage.  (Will   need   to   hire   firm/s   to   create   schema;c   designs   and   to   develop   designs   of   building   projects   and   confirm  property   acquisi;ons   and   regula;on   impacts.)     (Plan   for   these   firm/s   to   be   involved   all   the   way   through  comple;ng   the   construc;on   documents   and   through   construc;on   administra;on.)     (Should   consider   hiring  construc;on   manager   or   general   contractor   at   this   point   to   assist   with   construc;on   es;ma;ng   and   value  engineering.)  

•  Stages  of  design:  Concept,  Schema;c,  Design  Development,  Construc;on  Documents)      

•  Obtain  reliable  construc;on  cost  es;mates  based  on  developed  plans/designs  (Architect/engineers/construc;on   managers,   prepare   reliable   es;mates   of   total   cost   based   on   fully   developed   project  designs.)  (This  is  the  budget  that  will  be  financed  and  serve  as  basis  for  Review  and  Comment.)  

•  Seek   Final   Board   and  Community  Approval/Referendum  of   the   LRFP  financing   to   fully  implement   the   approved   LRFP.   (Complete   construc;on   documents,   close   on   property   acquisi;ons,  construc;on  document  approvals  and  permits,  construc;on  bidding,  construc;on  contracts  and  agreements.  

•  Assure  es;mates   include  appropriate  budget   con;ngencies   and  define   in   advance  how  any   construc;on  con;ngencies  will  be  returned  to  taxpayers  if  not  needed  to  complete  the  approved  and  defined  scope  of  work.  

4/10/14

11

Do  it  Again?  –  Do  Differently?  •  Have  conversa;ons  with  School  Board  to  confirm  process  and  mee;ngs  for  award  of  bids.  •  Resolu;on  for  approval  of  change  orders  –  Prepare  Board  for  this  reality  and  probability  and  also  

the  impact  of  approval  ;ming.  •  Specifically  authorize  Superintendent  or  Director  of  Business  Services  to  award  contracts  (Up  to  

project  budget?)    What  limits?    How  the  Board  should  be  kept  informed  of  changes  in  construc;on/to  contracts  approved  and  their  impact  on  overall  budget  or  con;ngency  amounts  planned.  

•  What  role  does  the  Board  or  members  have  in  developing  and  approving  plans  and  at  what  step  in  the  design  process.    Need  to  define  for  the  Board  the  planning  and  design  process  and  the  standard  milestone  points  in  the  design  process  that  must  be  approved  before  proceeding  with  the  next  phase.  

•  Who  keeps  the  official  record  of  construc;on  contracts  and  agreements?    Who  reviews  and  approves  contracts  and  agreements?    Should  you  develop  standard  amendments  to  AIA  forms  for  both  professional  services  and  construc;on  contracts?    Should  you  have  legal  counsel  help  drat  or  review  agreement  standard  amendments,  or  legal  review  of  every  agreement.    Who  signs  the  agreements  and  changes?    

•  Advance  conversa;ons  with  school  board  and  community  about  ongoing  maintenance  and  repair  of  buildings.    What  will  it  require  to  adequately  preserve  the  LRFP  assets.    Make  sure  there  is  real  and  clear  perspec;ve  and  what  type  of  investment  is  required  for  ongoing  preserva;on  and  upda;ng.  

 

Do  it  Again?  –  Do  Differently?  •  Collec;on  of  Building  M&R  Cost  Profile  data  –  

•   Require  as  part  of    construc;on  contracts  and  architectural  and  engineering  agreements  

 

 

The following pages are provided with permission of Whitestone Research Copy Right Whitestone Research

4/10/14

12