2014 CDP/CIP Capacity Development Plan Capital Improvement … · 2019-05-31 · Stakeholder Group Forum #1 (12/17) Stakeholder Group Forum #2 (1/6) 8 total meetings . 4 ... – Special

1

Framework

2014 CDP/CIP Capacity Development Plan Capital Improvement Plan

School Board Action January 23, 2014

2

Agenda • Introduction • Process • Preliminary Feedback • CDP/CIP Framework

3

Process CIP Framework Development (Sept. – Jan. 2014) 2 School Board Work Sessions – (9/19, 12/2) 2 School Board Monitoring Items – (10/10, 11/19) 2 School Board Information Items – (12/5, 12/19)

Pre-CIP Community Engagement (Dec. - Jan. 2014) Stakeholder Group Forum #1 (12/17) Stakeholder Group Forum #2 (1/6)

8 total meetings

4

Preliminary Feedback • Feedback forms completed by the FAC

members and stakeholder group leaders • Capacity planning questions for ES, MS and HS • No decisions have been made yet

5

Stakeholder Groups • Over 14 Stakeholder groups represented

– Advisory Council on School Facilities and Capital Programs (FAC) – Advisory Council on Instruction (ACI) – Arlington Montessori Action Committee (AMAC) – Arlington Special Education Advisory Committee – Arlington Special Education PTA (SEPTA) – Budget Advisory Council (BAC) – Arlington County Council of PTAs (CCPTA) – Arlington County Civic Federation (CIVFED) – Master Planning Committee (MPC) – Multimodal Transportation and Student Safety Special Committee – PTA presidents – Special Education Parent Resource Center Parent Liaison Group – Sustainability Advisory Committee (SAC) – And others….

6

Core Feedback Questions 1. What is your level of comfort with the

following non-capital strategies? 2. Do you think APS should construct a new

school or build additions to existing schools? 3. What do you think the maximum seating

capacity should be? 4. What program would you prefer if a new

school were to be a Choice School?

7

Non-Capital Feedback Results

APS might consider the following non-capital strategies to relieve overcrowding at the ELEMENTARY school level. Please indicate your level of comfort with the following strategies. Options Stakeholder Groups FAC Increasing class size 83% uncomfortable 64% comfortable Adjusting schedules and utilization factors 54% comfortable 83% comfortable

Creating year-round schools 61% comfortable 42% comfortable Relocating programs 76% comfortable 92% comfortable Teaming elementary schools 75% comfortable 75% comfortable Leasing/sharing available space in adjacent facilities 72% comfortable 92% comfortable

8


Do you think APS should build the second new ELEMENTARY school as currently under consideration, or build additions to existing schools to alleviate overcrowding? Answer Choices Stakeholder Groups FAC

Build the second new elementary school at the Kenmore/Carlin Springs site

45.81% 16.67%

Build the second new elementary school at another site

13% 25%

Build additions to existing schools 25.80% 33.33%

Other (please specify) 15.48% 25%

9


Do you agree with reevaluating the second new ELEMENTARY school?

Answer Choices Stakeholder Group FAC

Yes 48.41% 83.33%

No 29.94% 16.67%

Unsure 21.66% 0%

Other (please specify) 0% 0%

10


If APS were not to build a second new ELEMENTARY school at the Kenmore/Carlin Springs site (Southwest quadrant), what quadrant do you think should be considered? Answer Choices Stakeholder Groups FAC

Northwest 16.67% 36.36%

Northeast 21.43% 18.18%

Southwest, other than Kenmore/Carlin Springs site

30.16% 18.18%

Southeast 31.75% 27.27%

11


The average ELEMENTARY school in Arlington County has approximately 547 seats. If APS were to build additions to existing schools, what do you think the maximum seating capacity of an elementary school should be?

Answer Choices Stakeholder Groups FAC

600 seats 45.89% 16.67%

650 seats 33.56% 50%

700 seats 11.64% 16.67%

750 seats 8.90% 16.67%

12


APS might consider the following non-capital strategies to relieve overcrowding at the MIDDLE school level. Please indicate your level of comfort with the following strategies.

Options Stakeholder Groups FAC

Increasing class size 81% uncomfortable 58% comfortable

Adjusting schedules and utilization factors 67% comfortable 100% comfortable

Creating year-round schools 63% comfortable 58% comfortable

Leasing/sharing available space in adjacent facilities 68% comfortable 100% comfortable

13


Do you think APS should build a new MIDDLE school, or build additions to existing MIDDLE schools to alleviate overcrowding?


Build a new middle school 42.11% 66.67%

Build multiple additions to existing middle schools 40.79% 16.67%

Other (please specify) 17.11% 16.67%

14


The average MIDDLE school in Arlington County has approximately 970 seats. If APS were to build additions to existing MIDDLE schools, what do you think the maximum seating capacity should be? Answer Choices Stakeholder Groups FAC

1,000 seats 40% 33.33%

1,200 seats 38% 58.33%

1,350 seats 7.33% 8.33%

1,500 seats 2.67% 0%

Other (please specify) 12% 0%

15


APS might consider the following non-capital strategies to relieve overcrowding at the HIGH school level. Please indicate your level of comfort with the following strategies. Options Stakeholder Groups FAC

Increasing class size 76% uncomfortable 75% comfortable Adjusting schedules and utilization factors 72% comfortable 100% comfortable

Creating year-round schools 64% comfortable 67% comfortable Expanding virtual class offerings and developing 24/7 learning 55% comfortable 83% comfortable

Expanding partnerships with higher education institutions 91% comfortable 100% comfortable

Leasing/sharing available space in adjacent facilities 77% comfortable 100% comfortable

16


Multiple capital strategies may be needed to alleviate overcrowding at the HIGH school level. Which of the following capital options would you prefer? Answer Choices Stakeholder Groups FAC

Build a new non-comprehensive high school (1,000 seats)

39.16% 41.67%

Build additions to existing comprehensive high schools

44.06% 33.33%

Other (please specify) 16.78% 25%

17


The average HIGH school in Arlington County has approximately 1,900 seats. If APS were to build additions to existing HIGH schools, what do you think the maximum seating capacity should be? Answer Choices Stakeholder Groups FAC

2,100 seats 56.20% 25%

2,300 seats 20.44% 41.67%

2,500 seats 11.68% 8.33%

Other 11.68% 25%

18


What program would you prefer if a new non-comprehensive HIGH school were to offer a special academic focus?


Advanced Placement 14.49% 0%

Immersion 2.17% 0%

International Baccalaureate (IB) 14.49% 0%

STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math) 53.62% 66.67%

Other (please specify) 15.22% 33.33%

19

CIP/Framework 1. Introduction 2. Enrollment Growth 3. Debt Capacity 4. Finance 5. School Board Direction 6. Framework Components 7. Capacity Development/Capacity Planning Process 8. Capital Projects 9. Minor Capital/Major Maintenance (MC/MM) 10. Non-Capital Strategies 11. Action Plan for Relocatable Classrooms 12. Strategies for Most Immediate Capacity Needs

20

1.0 Introduction • CDP/CIP Framework

– No decisions yet made

• CDP/CIP will ensure that APS continues to: – Provide optimal learning environments (Goal 4) – Meet the needs of the whole child (Goal 5) – Address growth in enrollment

• Community Engagement Process • Slated for adoption in June 2014

21

2.0 Enrollment Growth 2.1 1,772 more elementary school students in 2018, plus another 497 students by 2023 2.2 1,328 more middle school students in 2018, plus another 630 students by 2023 2.3 1,007 more high school students in 2018, plus another 1,972 students by 2023 2.4 Uneven distribution of growth through the various school attendance zones

22

3.0 Debt Capacity 3.1 Achieve the greatest return on investment by addressing the most critical needs for new seats within available debt capacity 3.2 Create new seats by means of both capital construction expenditure under the CIP and non-capital strategies funded from the operations budget under the CDP 3.3 Recognize the value of relocatable classrooms as both vital to capacity development and a hedge against constructing too many seats should enrollment decline in the future

23

4.0 Finance 4.1 Provide an analysis of APS debt capacity under various funding scenarios to determine the ability of APS to fund future construction projects and the timelines for doing so 4.2 Assess potential for capital funding from alternative sources such as public/private and higher education partnerships 4.3 Optimize the value of existing assets 4.4 Ensure continuation of the capital reserve

24

5.0 School Board Direction 5.1 Do not plan a new comprehensive high school comparable to the three existing high schools because there is no APS land available to do so and acquisition of appropriate property, if possible, would reduce APS debt capacity to construct new seats 5.2 Consider non-boundary options to balance capacity among the three comprehensive high schools at least until the means for addressing high school enrollment growth have been determined 5.3 Reevaluate the second new elementary school proposed in the 2012 CIP to be constructed on the Kenmore Middle School/Carlin Springs Elementary School campus in the 2014 CIP

25

6.0 Framework Components 6.1 APS Strategic Plan for 2011-2017 6.2 Alignment with Arlington County Government’s planning for SMART growth 6.3 Agreement between Arlington County Government and APS on joint-use of facilities 6.4 APS Progressive Capacity Planning Model developed in 2010

26

Framework Components 6.5 More Seats for Students community engagement process created during the 2012 CIP planning process 6.6 Priorities established during the 2013 Community Survey on Boundaries for seven elementary schools in North Arlington 6.7 Capital projects included in the 2012 CIP: 6.8 Addition/renovation for 225 students at Ashlawn Elementary School, currently under construction

27

Framework Components 6.9 New elementary school on the Williamsburg Middle School campus, scheduled to start construction in early 2014 6.10 Addition/renovation for 225 students at McKinley Elementary School, currently in planning/concept design 6.11 Addition/renovation for 225 students at Arlington Traditional School, scheduled to commence planning/concept design in mid-2014

28

Framework Components 6.12 Second new elementary school proposed in the 2012 CIP to be constructed on the Kenmore Middle School/Carlin Springs Elementary School campus to be reevaluated in the 2014 CIP

29

7.0 CDP / CIP Process 7.1 Capital projects to be funded within available debt capacity 7.2 Minor Capital/Major Maintenance Projects to be funded within available debt capacity 7.3 Non-capital strategies to be funded from operations budget 7.4 Action plan for relocatable classrooms 7.5 Strategies to address immediate needs at schools with most critical capacity needs

30

8.0 Capital Projects 8.1 Address most critical capacity shortfalls 8.2 Continue to address growth in elementary school enrollment 8.3 Reevaluate construction of second new elementary school 8.4 Develop options and locations to address middle school enrollment growth 8.5 Develop options and locations to address high school enrollment growth

31

Capital Projects 8.6 Evaluate relocation and/or expansion of existing programs and facilities necessitating new construction to address middle and/or high school enrollment growth 8.7 Develop options for growth at the Arlington Career Center 8.8 Evaluate potential of existing APS sites for new construction to address middle and/or high school enrollment growth

32

Capital Projects 8.9 Develop criteria that the School Board will use to evaluate possible locations for new construction 8.10 Evaluate relocation of School Board and administrative offices from Education Center to leased space 8.11 Align with Arlington County Government’s planning for SMART growth particularly for land use, transportation, recreation and open space, environmental sustainability and joint-use of land and facilities

33

9.0 Minor Capital/Major Maintenance

9.1 Identify major maintenance investment needs for APS facilities, such as repair and/or replacement of HVAC, roofing, and building envelope systems 9.2 Identify opportunities to supplement the MC/MM fund 9.3 Evaluate performance contracting and funding methods to advance goals for energy and environmental performance

34

10.0 Non-Capital Strategies 10.1 Increasing class size 10.2 Adjusting schedules and utilization factors to increase number of periods during school day 10.3 Creating year-round schools 10.4 Expanding virtual class offerings and developing twenty-four/seven learning 10.5 Relocating programs, creating school-within- school programs and changing admissions / transfer policies to address uneven enrollment growth

35

Non-Capital Strategies 10.6 Teaming among elementary schools to address uneven enrollment growth among elementary schools 10.7 Improving utilization of existing middle and high schools as has already been implemented and will continue to be implemented at elementary schools 10.8 Expanding partnerships with higher education institutions 10.9 Leasing/sharing available space in adjacent facilities

36

11.0 Action Plan for Relocatables

11.1 Evaluate/verify need for relocatables at each school 11.2 Identify potential locations for future installation of relocatables 11.3 Comply with new storm water regulations 11.4 Comply with parking ordinance 11.5 Balance reduction of site amenities 11.6 Integrate relocatables better with their sites 11.7 Enhance relocatables and the spaces around them as learning environments

37

12.0 Most Immediate Capacity Needs

APS will analyze enrollment projections to identify and address the schools with the most immediate capacity needs in a tiered approach by fiscal year.

38

Community Engagement Process Phase 1 / February 2014

• Open Community Forum • FAC Ambassadors meet with PTAs • Elementary / Middle school options

Community Meeting Twitter Town Hall Community open house with FAC ambassadors • Middle / High school options

Community Meeting Twitter Town Hall Community open house with FAC ambassadors

39

Community Engagement Process Phase 2 / March 2014

• FAC Ambassadors meet with PTAs • Elementary / Middle school options

Community Meeting Twitter Town Hall Community open house with FAC ambassadors • Middle / High school options

Community Meeting Twitter Town Hall Community open house with FAC ambassadors

40

Community Engagement Process Phase 3 / April 2014

• FAC Ambassadors meet with PTAs • Open Community Forum for feedback and refinement of

elementary, middle, and high school options

41

School Board Process APRIL • FY2015-24 CDP/CIP Work Session MAY • May 13: FY2015-24 CDP/CIP Work Session #1 • May 20: FY2015-24 CDP/CIP Work Session #2 • May 27: FY2015-24 CDP/CIP Work Session #3 JUNE • June 5: School Board’s Adopted FY2015-FY2024 CIP – Information Item • June 10: CIP Work Session #4 • June 17: School Board’s Adopted FY2015-FY2024 CIP – Action Item

42

OPEN COMMUNITY FORUM

Date: Wednesday, February 5th, 2014 Location: Washington-Lee High School Auditorium Time: 7:30 p.m. to 9:30 p.m.

43

Thank You

???

Documents

2014 CDP/CIP Capacity Development Plan Capital Improvement … · 2019-05-31 · Stakeholder Group Forum #1 (12/17) Stakeholder Group Forum #2 (1/6) 8 total meetings . 4 ... – Special