Referendum Review and Report. School Board Meeting, July 11, PDF Free Download

Referendum Review and Report School Board Meeting, July 11, 2016

Presentation Outcomes Board members will: be informed of information requested from the June 27 Board Study Session; provide direction on the Initial Facility Planning Goals; provide direction on the partnership with Nexus; and provide direction for future planning and the July 18 Study Session.

June 27th Board Study Session - Recap Review of May 24th Referendum Debrief Information requested by board members in order to move forward with referendum planning: Updated student enrollment and trends Nexus Solutions contract and clarifications Community engagement strategies Potential referendum timelines and options Short-term options to address capacity needs

Initial Facility Planning Goals 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Devise capacity expansion for additional 1,500 K-12 students by 2021 (growth rate of 250 per year) Include core spaces expansion where needed Incorporate & furnish small group breakout/21st century learning spaces into all schools Ensure all elementary schools would have dedicated art, music & computer lab Create equity between elementary schools regarding size, amenities & quality of learning environment Plan elementary schools around 5 sections Determine future locations for SAGE, LODL, CID and ALC programs

Enrollment Update

Historical and Current Enrollment Trends

PLHS is the 6th Largest High School in Minnesota 1 Wayzata High School 3237 2 Minnetonka Senior High School 3089 3 Eden Prairie Senior High School 2925 4 Blaine High School 2851 5 Champlin Park Senior High School 2696 6 Prior Lake High School 2562 7 Anoka High School 2359 8 Maple Grove Senior High 2271 9 Roseville Area Senior High School 2226 10 Eastview Senior High School 2223 Source: MN Dept. of Education

Nexus Solutions Contract and Clarifications

Historical 1. District was coming off of 6 years of district budget reductions a. b. c. Required a fiscally responsible plan to address district-wide facility and maintenance needs District did not qualify for Alternative Facilities Funding Health & Safety Funds, Capital Funds, and Deferred Maintenance Funds were not sufficient to cover the needs of 11 buildings, the school grounds and fields. It was important to the School Board that the comprehensive facility improvement plan had options that did not increase tax rates for taxpayers. 3. In 2012, ICS and Nexus Solutions participated in the RFP process 2. a. b. They were the identified organizations that could develop a comprehensive facility improvement plan, inclusive of engineering services and financial options. The district facilities committee participated in the formal presentations and recommended Nexus Solutions

School Board & Facility Committee Meeting Dates

Historical - 2012 Contract 1. 2. 3. 4. Once selected, Nexus Solutions worked with district administration, staff and School Board to develop a comprehensive needs assessment of our district s facilities. From the needs assessment, a comprehensive plan was created to address Project A and Project B priorities. To date, all Project A needs have been completed, as well as several Project B needs. The District achieved the desired outcomes, which was a comprehensive long-term facility maintenance plan, without an increase to the tax rates.

Comprehensive Facility Improvement Plan Recap 1. 2. 3. 4. Capital needs identified, prioritized and funded Projects completed on time and under budget Building efficiency improved a. Annual savings b. Based on statewide energy tracking data, PLSAS utility consumption in lowest quartile of MN school districts Fiscally responsible use of local taxpayers money a. Comprehensive plan implemented with no increase to local tax rate. PLSAS spends $1,800/student less than other metro school districts b. Minimum Change Orders (industry average 5-8%) 0.75% Actual Change Order/Total Project Costs

Historical 1. 2. As work began on the Comprehensive Facility Improvement Plan, the District also worked with Nexus Solutions to develop a facility solution at PLHS to address overcrowding. Through lease-levy authority, the District constructed the addition at PLHS and 2 turf fields. a. b. c. d. e. 33,000 square feet addition 15 Classrooms, including Science Labs 21st Century Flexible Space Common Areas Special Education Classrooms and Spaces Dan Patch Stadium and Laker Field

Performance Contract (MN Statute 123B.65) Improvements: $3.1M Lamp & Ballast Retrofits, Occupancy Sensors, Exterior LEDs Building Envelope Weatherization Water Use Efficiency Variable Speed Pump & Fan Retrofits Controls Sequence Optimization Pool Covers & Ventilation Control Kitchen Hood Control Benefits: Self-Funding Projects Reduce Utility Expenditures Reduction in Operation & Maintenance Expenses

Health & Safety Projects (MN Statutes 123B.57/59) Improvements: $13.9M Correct Electrical and OSHA Hazards Replace Outdated Fire Alarm Equipment Increase Ventilation in Buildings to Current Indoor Air Quality Guidelines Cooling of Grainwood Gym Recommissioning of Edgewood, Glendale, Jeffers, Redtail HS Fire Damper Replacement Asbestos Abatement as Necessary Benefits: Improved Indoor Air Quality Greatly Improved Occupant Comfort Reduced Maintenance Expense of Renewed Infrastructure

Deferred Maintenance (MN Statute 123B.591) Improvements $6.0M Boiler Plant Replacements: Five Hawks Hidden Oaks Twin Oaks Westwood District Service Center Steam-to-hot water conversion Replace worn-out mechanical equipment (pumps, fans, etc.) Galvanized Plumbing Replacement at HOMS

Deferred Maintenance Improvements (Continued) Roofing and Window Replacement at DSC Major Masonry Fixes at Five Hawks & DSC New Flooring, Ceilings, and Paint at Five Hawks, HOMS, TOMS Doors at Westwood, HOMS, Five Hawks Benefits: Reduced Operations & Maintenance Expenses Renewed Building Infrastructures

Architectural & Safe Schools Improvements (MN Statute 123c.44) Improvements $1.7M Bus Entrance Vestibule, Expanded Activities Office, Additional Foods Lab at HS Additional Science Room & Expanded Computer Lab at Twin Oaks Added Instrument Storage at Middle Schools Benefits: Improved Circulation Pattern Expanded Class Schedules

Architectural & Safe Schools Improvements Improvements (Continued): Enclose Media Center Classrooms at Five Hawks Created Secured Entrances at HOMS, Westwood, Grainwood Expanded Access Control and Security Camera Systems Benefits: Enhance Occupant Safety Improve Quality of Learning Environment

High School Addition (MN Statute 126.40) Improvements $8.4M: 225 student Addition to HS Incorporate 21st Century Learning Spaces Expanded Freezer and Reconfigured Storage/Cashier Area Benefits: Alleviate Overcrowding at High School Expansion of Science Curriculum Improve Quality of Learning Environment

Turf Projects (MN Statute 126c.40) Improvements $3.7M: Expand Laker Field add Synthetic Turf for District and Youth Organization Use Add Synthetic Turf to Dan Patch Stadium Relocate Old Scoreboard to Laker Benefits: Improved Safety of Surfaces District Collaboration with Youth Athletic Organizations Field Condition does not Deteriorate with Extensive Use

Critical Group B Projects Improvements $1.79M: Replace TOMS Heating & Water Plants Replace TOMS Galvanized Plumbing Eliminate Pneumatic Controls at TOMS Replace TOMS Office AHU New Secure Entrance at TOMS Resurface Dan Patch Track ADA Access to Laker Field Benefits: Cost Savings when Constructed with Group A Addressed Pending Deferred Maintenance Improved Student Safety

What did we pay Nexus and how do their fees compare? 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Shamus O Meara, MN Attorney Specializing in School Construction Contracts, states: Total Owner Costs (Soft Costs): 15-20% of Project Budget Kraus Anderson recent estimates for Metro Area school construction: 13-19% Minnesota State Colleges & Universities (MnSCU), recent RFP soft costs: 29% Former Superintendent Dr. Sue Ann Gruver wrote to the Board in 2012: Regardless of which company we select, the total fees paid are going to be similar; typically fees range between 15-20%. a. Nexus Solutions: Program Budget: $34,758,166 Nexus Services: $ 5,376,583 b. Fee Percentage: 15.5% Nexus Solutions received $3.1M for Performance Contracting for work that was completed by Nexus Solutions staff. a. Guaranteed annual savings: $250,000. The bond payments are off-set by the guaranteed annual savings. By comparison, Redtail Ridge Elementary fees for services in 2007 were 15.9% For less money, we have received systems with the lower lifecycle cost, minimal change orders (0.75%), and single-source accountability.

Frequently Asked Questions - FAQ s

FAQ s regarding Nexus Solutions 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 2015 contractual overview of the Nexus Agreement What would be the impact if the district did not work with Nexus Solutions? Why does the district s contractual agreement state that the documents are owned by Nexus Solutions? What is Nexus Solutions role with liability requirements? How does the District work with Nexus Solutions to select other professional services? What is the fee structure listed in the agreement with Nexus Solutions, including district managed projects?

2015 Contractual Overview of the Nexus Agreement 1. 2. 3. 4. Within the contract sections, sub-section components are interrelated and will be considered in its entirety as we work through the components of the contract. The contract only pertains to the development and implementation of referendum projects. The contract does not pertain to the previous work on the Comprehensive Facility Improvement Plan. Remaining Project B work was developed under the previous agreement with Nexus Solutions. The current 5 year contract was unanimously approved by the school board on October 8th, 2015.

Contractual Overview of the Nexus Agreement Section 1 Overview: This section is meant to be historical and states that the district had gone through a selection process, which it did in 2012 School districts are not required to bid for Professional Services, which includes Consultants Based on that previous selection process and the positive experience the District had with Nexus in previous projects, the District is contracting with Nexus Solutions Nexus Solutions is to develop and implement a Long-Range Facilities Plan utilizing a three-phase approach. The District is currently in Phase II.

Contractual Overview of the Nexus Agreement Section 2 Overview: Scope of the Work This section defines that the work is outlined in Three Phases Purpose of Phases I and II is to have Nexus Solutions formulate a long-range facilities plan for the school district. Purpose of Phase III is to implement the long-range plan once it has been approved, pending school board approval. Once in Phase III, approval is inclusive of Nexus Solutions role in the work and utilization of services of sub-consultants

Contractual Overview of the Nexus Agreement Section 3 Overview: Price and Payment Terms This section provides an overview of compensation regarding the three phases. The agreement between Nexus Solutions and the School Board outlines the fee structure for the three phases, including phases or components of the project should the board not agree to proceed with implementation. Should the School Board not proceed with Phase III, the district would receive a bill for services rendered in Phases I and II.

Contractual Overview of the Nexus Agreement Section 4 Overview: Ownership of Documents: The purpose of this section provides clarification regarding the planning documents regarding the Long-Range Facilities Plan. Nexus Solutions retains full ownership of the documents in Phase III. The School District is entitled to keep electronic and hard copies of the work products, including plans, specifications and construction documents. The School District and Nexus Solutions agree to the work product created in Phase I and II for the implementation of Phase III.

Contractual Overview of the Nexus Agreement Section 5 Overview: Term and Termination: The agreement may be terminated upon not less than 14 days written notice should either party fail to substantially perform in accordance with terms of the agreement. The agreement shall expire three years after Nexus Solutions receives the written notice to proceed with Phase III work from the School Board or the School Board approves and receives funding from the Phase III work, whichever occurs later. The agreement may be extended beyond the original three-year term upon mutual agreement from both parties. The timeline for Phase III is considered to be three years.

Contractual Agreement - Cost references based on Budgeted, not Actual Costs 1. The district s agreement focuses on setting budgets and then requiring Nexus Solutions to provide us with a price guarantee. If bids come in higher than the budget, Nexus Solutions is responsible for redesigning the project to get it back on budget, at their expense. 2. To ensure Nexus Solutions does not pad the budget upfront, the budgets were reviewed by Administration, Facilities Committee, and the School Board. 3. If the construction bids come in under budget, the District realizes that savings. 4. Through this process, change orders will be minimized, which is a financial benefit to the district. Change orders on previous projects were 0.75%

What would be the impact if the district did not work with Nexus Solutions? 1. The district has a 5-year agreement with Nexus Solutions which was Board approved in October, 2015. a. b. 2. 3. Phases I and II are considered to be 1-2 years Phase III is considered to be 3 years All concepts and drawings in Phase I and II are owned by Nexus and could not be utilized by the district or another vendor in developing a solution to address district growth. As a result, the district would need to restart the Facilities review and conceptual design process.

What is Nexus Solutions role with liability requirements? 1. Nexus Solutions is responsible for the design of the work and the scope of work is limited to professional services. 2. The referendum projects are not based on it a design-build concept, nor is Nexus Solutions a general contractor. 3. The reference to work means the work that will be conducted by trade contractors. The trade contractor work will be publicly bid and awarded to the lowest responsible bidder. 4. The trade contractor work will be contracted directly to the school district and the trade contractor will carry the liability for their work. 5. Building construction equipment is bid separately from contractor work. a. The district realizes savings by not paying taxes on the equipment.

How does the District work with Nexus Solutions to select other professional services? 1. On behalf of the District, Nexus prequalifies architects. 2. The District then may interview and select an architect who will be a sub-consultant to Nexus Solutions. 3. Ultimately, the District is holding Nexus Solutions accountable for the designs, so it s reasonable that that they have some control over who is hired. 4. The District has been very satisfied with the consultants that Nexus Solutions has hired for previous projects.

What is the fee structure listed in the agreement with Nexus Solutions, including district managed projects? 1. The District has had extensive construction projects over multiple years and as a result, we have recognized that not every project will utilize every professional service. 2. Instead of having a blanket fee across the entire referendum project, the District required Nexus to provide their fees on an a la-carte basis. 3. In essence, the District only purchases the services it needs and uses per project listed in the referendum.

What is the fee structure listed in the agreement with Nexus Solutions, including district managed projects? 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. This does not mean the fees can be added together; in other words, you cannot add the Program Management fee (2.25%), Architectural fee (7.95%), Engineering fee (8.95%), Commissioning fee (2.5%), and Construction Management fee (5.75%) to get a combined fee of 27.4%. Each fee is applied only to the work that it pertains to. The exact same fee schedule was used for the 2012 projects and the total percentage was 15.5% (typical industry range is 15-20%) Furthermore, Nexus hires subconsultants that the District would otherwise need to hire and manage. Nexus has not submitted any reimbursable expenditures to date.

What is the fee structure listed in the agreement with Nexus Solutions, including district managed projects? 1. 2. District Managed projects are only the projects on the referendum list that could be managed by district staff. Any other projects the district undertakes outside of the referendum, including the current deferred maintenance bonding items, are not part of the agreement and are not subject to the agreement. Nexus Solutions would earn 1% on district managed projects listed in the referendum only if we utilize them to assist us with things such as preparation of bid documents, oversight of the bidding process, and award of subcontracts.

FAQ s Regarding the Recent Referendum 1. 2. 3. 4. Can we build an elementary building more economically and similar to nonpublic or charter entities? What are core spaces and why do we need to add them to our current buildings? Why did the facility plan include 6 gyms at PLHS? How did the technology levy portion of the referendum offset operating costs in the recent referendum?

Can we build an elementary building more economically and similar to non-public or charter entities? Public Schools adhere to The Guide for Planning School Construction Projects in Minnesota (MDE): http://education.state.mn.us/mdeprod/idcplg? IdcService=GET_FILE&dDocName=003121&RevisionSelectionMethod=latestReleased&Rendition=primary Charter Schools and Non-Public Schools are exempt from MDE requirements Public schools are: Built for longevity and sustainability Utilized by the public almost 24/7 Designed to serve student populations w/specific needs (CID, ELL) Equipped to serve lunch Equipped with gymnasiums for curricular and co-curricular programs

What are core spaces and why do we need to add them to our current buildings? Core spaces are areas outside of classrooms that support academics. These areas are needed to support learning throughout the school day. Lease Levy Funding can only be used for classroom spaces. Core space examples include: Cafeteria & Kitchen Space Locker Rooms Staff Offices Conference Rooms Student Lockers Parking

Curricular/Co-Curricular Space Comparisons High Schools Building Enrollment # of Courts # of Students Per Court # of Locker Rooms Dance Studio Intramural Programs Gymnastics Onsite Eden Prairie 2800 10 280 10 + + + Hastings 1475 5 295 6 - - - Chanhassen 1700 6 283 4 + + + Hopkins 1800 8 225 8 + + + Original PLHS 2000 4 500 7 - + - PLHS 5 Court Ctr. 3150 9 350 9 + + + PLHS 6 Court Ctr. 3150 10 315 9 + + +

How did the technology levy portion of the referendum offset operating costs in the recent referendum? Students Devices Classroom Sets Replacement Plan Instructional Digital Content Staff Hardware Replacement Plan Classroom Technology Families/District/Sites District Software District Hardware Infrastructure Staffing Site Safety Enhancements Total Costs = $2,500,000/year If the referendum would have passed, the district would have received approximately $2.125 million per year through a 10-year technology levy, which would have provided a dedicated funding source for classroom technology, while freeing up operating dollars for a new elementary school and other building additions.

Community Engagement Strategies

Community Engagement Snapshot Communications Audience Reach Emails: 400 Comment Cards: 40 Community Survey: 400 (random sample) Four Input Sessions: 235 Staff & Community Presentations: Approx. 2,000 stakeholders Site Teams: 100 volunteers reaching 1,000s of stakeholders

Community Engagement Snapshot

Community Engagement Options Ask our community both formally through an anonymous phone survey and listening sessions and informally through conversations and gatherings - why they voted no or why they didn t vote at all. Analyze voting records from the secretary of state to see if there are voting patterns we should learn from. For example: did our parents vote? If not, why not? Develop a facilities task force with broad community representation to review our growth needs and help us identify an alternative solution or solutions to address those needs. Continue to be fiscally responsible with the funds we have, doing the best we can for our taxpayers and students under these difficult circumstances.

Potential Referendum Options and Timelines

Potential Timeline for Possible November 2016 Election July 11, 2016 Board reaffirms the Initial Facility Planning Goals and Nexus Partnership Board directs administration to come back on July 18th with referendum proposal options July 18, 2016 Board Study Session Discuss referendum proposal options Discuss operating levy options Establish community engagement options August 8, 2016 Referendum Proposal Approved by School Board (Regular Board Meeting) August 15, 2016 Comprehensive Facilities Plan - Review and Comment to MDE August 22, 2016 Board approves resolution to call the election (Deadline to call the election is August 25, 2016) August-Nov. Communication Campaign

Short-Term Options to Address Capacity Needs

If The Referendum Does Not Pass The School Board has determined that if the referendum does not pass, without additional funding: Class sizes would increase Growth would continue to add pressure on schools Elementary attendance boundaries may need to change due to school crowding Our ability to maintain classroom technology and innovative programming would be limited We would not be able to improve security at all buildings

Short-Term Options and Planning 1. 2. Monitor student enrollment, relative to existing classroom space a. b. c. Class sizes may increase at some school sites Evaluate In-District transfer requests Monitor Open Enrollment requests, process, and assignments d. Plan for La ola del lago (LODL) to move to Grainwood Elementary or expand to WestWood Elementary in 2017-2018 Examine and Plan in 2016-2017 for school attendance boundary and start times changes to implement in 2017-18 a. 3. Implement and Assess Year 1 of Digital Learning Plan. a. 4. Collaborate with City of Savage and City of Prior Lake to update housing starts and community growth projections. We will be limited in our ability to expand new hardware and software at the classroom level. Maintain current systems for school security. a. Limited ability to expand or update.

Presentation Outcomes Board members will: be informed of information requested from the June 27 Board Study Session; provide direction on the Initial Facility Planning Goals; provide direction on the partnership with Nexus; provide direction for future planning and the July 18 Study Session.

Discussion School Board Meeting, July 11, 2016

Referendum Review and Report. School Board Meeting, July 11, 2016