Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
July 2015 Page | 1
HPISD FACILITIES ADVISORY COMMITTEE FINAL REPORT JULY 2015
BACKGROUND
Process The HPISD School Board assembled a group of 21 community members as the Facilities Advisory Committee and tasked them with developing a recommendation to address the facilities needs of the District going forward. Over a one-‐year period, the Committee spent more than 75 hours in meetings. The Committee toured every campus, studied current and historical demographic reports, reviewed information provided by the District’s bond counsel, architect and traffic expert, and gathered input from the HPISD administrative staff and Board members. In reaching its final recommendations, the Committee was committed to the following goals: • Addressing the current and future academic needs of HPISD students in a way that
continues the District’s tradition of excellence, which is a hallmark of the community and crucial to its property values
• Providing long-‐term solutions and flexibility for the forecasted growth of HPISD’s student population
• Taking maximum advantage of current opportunities to save taxpayers money in the long run due to today’s favorable economic conditions, the historically low interest rates on bonds, and the one time opportunities presented in building a fifth elementary school
Committee Members Maryjane Bonfield Syd Carter Jenifer Cody Jerry Grable Houston Hunt Mark Jaudes Blythe Koch
Gail Madden Polly McKeithen Anne McPherson Mary Meier Gage Prichard Stewart Rogers Mario Santander
Brad Schwall Michael Selby Doug Thompson Randy Touchstone Lee Wagner Caroline Williams Bobby Womble
The Committee members represent a broad spectrum of the HPISD community. Their ages range from 36 to 78 years of age. They have lived in the District anywhere from 10 to 68 years. They all have children who attend or have attended HPISD schools. Four members have grandchildren currently attending HPISD schools.
July 2015 Page | 2
IDENTIFYING THE FACILITIES NEEDS Based on the extensive due diligence described above, the Facilities Advisory Committee identified and analyzed the following facilities needs that must be addressed:
1. Current overcrowding 2. Foreseeable future growth 3. Needs of today’s students
CURRENT OVERCROWDING The District’s campuses are currently operating at or over capacity. The District needs a facilities plan that will alleviate the current overcrowding.
Current
Capacity Current
Enrollment % Utilized
Elementaries 2644 2740 104% Armstrong 593 578 98% Bradfield 666 720 108%
Hyer 703 740 105% UP 682 702 103%
MIS 1,100 1,103 100% HPMS 1,100 1,098 100% HPHS 2,000 2,106 105%
The District’s campuses are experiencing the impact of overcrowding in the following ways. Elementary Schools Oversized classes. Many classes have more than the state limit of 22 students per class, and the rest are at or just below that limit. Currently, the District’s elementary schools have the following number of classes over the state mandated limit.
Number of Classes over State Limit
Total Number of Classes
Percent of Classes over State Limit
Armstrong 3 28 11% Bradfield 12 32 38% Hyer 3 34 9% UP 11 32 34% Total 29 126 23%
No classroom space remaining. All 4 schools are currently utilizing all of their classrooms. There are no rooms available for additional classes at any of the schools; therefore, there is very little room for additional elementary students without attaining more waivers to go over the state limit. University Park is actually short on classrooms and is, therefore, using the auditorium as their music classroom this year. There are also no classrooms available to implement the foreign language program that the Board has approved.
July 2015 Page | 3
Undersized classrooms. Due to the age of our elementary school facilities and the overcrowding noted above, many classes are held in rooms that are undersized. State guidelines call for elementary classrooms to be at least 800 sq. ft. for grades K-‐1, and 700 sq. ft. for grades 2-‐4. Over two-‐thirds of our current elementary classrooms fall short of these recommended square footages. They are undersized by an average of 100 sq. ft., but some are as much as 200 sq. ft. under the appropriate size. Lack of Flex Space. There is not adequate flexible learning space for group collaboration, individual testing, conferences, etc. Some rooms that were used for these functions in the past have been converted to classrooms due to student population growth. These activities, including things like parent-‐teacher conferences and TPRI testing, are currently taking place in closets, hallways and doorway vestibules. Split specials classes. Because there are more than 5 sections per grade, all elementary schools split the 6th and 7th sections for special classes (Art, Music, Library, PE), yielding class sizes of 26-‐30. Two classes attend PE simultaneously, resulting in 52-‐60 PE students sharing the gym at once. These class sizes limit the activities that can be done in these classes and the participation that each student can have. Limited outdoor space. The preferred acreage for 600-‐700 student elementary schools is at least 10 acres. The District’s elementary sites range from 4.1-‐6.2 acres. Outdoor space is already at a premium on such small sites, and it has become increasingly limited for student use over the last two decades due to multiple expansions of the facilities. Hyer, in particular, has challenges due to the configuration of its green space. The school’s field is no longer large enough for soccer games, and the lack of field space means that PE and recess often cannot be outside at the same time, forcing PE to remain in the gym with 55-‐60 students at a time. Undersized auditoriums. Auditorium seating capacities range from about 300 to 400, while current student populations are over 700 at three of the campuses (and near 600 at Armstrong). Grade levels are 115-‐150 students, so auditoriums can currently accommodate only about 1-‐2 grade levels at a time for school assemblies, or one grade level at a time when parents are in attendance. Stages are very small, accommodating only about half of a grade level on risers for performances. The remaining students are crammed on the floor, stairways, etc., while seating for parents is extremely limited. For schools with as much parental involvement as the District has, the auditoriums are very limiting. The only alternative gathering space for student assemblies is the gym, and Armstrong must use the field outside. Inadequate Administrative Space. Administrative spaces do not accommodate the staffing needs of the larger student bodies that exist today. Many offices are located in closets. Conference room space is limited, if not non-‐existent. Inadequate Cafeteria Space. There is no cafeteria space to spare. Tables are full and there is no space for additional tables. Aisles between tables are extremely tight, creating difficult passage. Because of structural columns and fewer windows, Bradfield and University Park’s cafeterias feel substantially smaller and more crowded. Lunches currently run from 10:45/11 until 1:00 on all campuses. Parking/Traffic Flow. Parking is very limited on all campuses, resulting in street parking for teachers and parent volunteers. There is also limited space for carpool queuing. Lines back up well beyond the school property. Hyer is unable to run a functioning carpool line at all, due to the placement of its handicap parking spaces. Many parents at Bradfield and UP park on surrounding streets and walk their child to school because carpool queuing is so bad.
July 2015 Page | 4
Lack of Storage. Storage needs are not currently met and many items are being stored in hallways. MIS/HPMS No classroom space remaining. All classrooms are in use; 7 HPMS teachers must “float,” meaning they do not have permanent classrooms of their own, but instead can only use classrooms as they become available during another teacher’s conference period. Three HPMS classes are currently located on the MIS side because there are no rooms available on the HPMS side of the building. Oversized classes. Class sizes range from 25-‐34 students, with about 60% over 25 students and 17% over 30 students. Lack of Flex Space. Flexible learning space needed for collaborative and individualized learning, testing, and conferences is so limited that many of these activities often take place in hallways. Inadequate athletics and fine arts space. 70% of students at HPMS participate in athletics, 75% participate in foreign language instruction, and 90% participate in fine arts programs. Consequently, locker rooms, language labs and fine arts spaces have been pushed to capacity. Undersized auditorium. The auditorium seats about 800 students; therefore, the student bodies of approximately 1,100 each cannot fit in the auditorium at one time. It is almost impossible to have a function in the auditorium even for one grade where parents are in attendance; most parents have to stand in the back or around the sides. Inadequate Administrative & Counseling Space. Administrative and counseling spaces do not accommodate the needs of the larger student bodies that exist today. Parking/Traffic Flow. Traffic is congested at drop off and pick up times, and parking is inadequate. Lack of Storage. Storage needs are not currently met and large items such as furniture and laptop carts must be stored in hallways. HPHS No classroom space remaining. All classrooms are shared by multiple teachers. About 32 teachers “float,” meaning they do not have a permanent classroom of their own. Oversized classes. Core classes average 28 students, instead of remaining below the ideal 25 student maximum. Undersized classrooms. Many classrooms (particularly science labs) are far too small for these large class sizes. Lack of Flex Space. Flexible learning space needed for collaborative or individualized learning is so limited that many of these activities take place in hallways or actually cannot take place at all for lack of space. High school classes today involve much more small group work and collaboration among students and teachers than in the past. Centralized areas for teachers with surrounding student work areas are needed for such activities.
July 2015 Page | 5
Inadequate athletic locker rooms and training facilities. Locker rooms and training facilities are well over capacity with many sports teams sharing small spaces. Softball uses an old storage room as a locker room. Wrestling is in a small, outdated basement area. Undersized fine arts spaces. The band hall, choral hall and other fine arts spaces have nearly twice as many students as they were intended to accommodate. Undersized hallways and stairways. Undersized hallways and stairwells cause constant traffic jams and poor traffic flow within the school. Inadequate Administrative Space. Administrative spaces do not accommodate the staffing needs of the larger student bodies that exist today. Parking/Traffic Flow. Traffic is congested at drop off and pick up times, and parking is inadequate.
FORESEEABLE FUTURE GROWTH The District faces considerable student population growth in its future and needs a facilities plan that will allow its schools to accommodate this foreseeable growth. Past Growth HPISD has experienced steady growth over the last 25 years, growing by an additional 3,000 students. This is a 73% increase and equates to about 1,000 new students every 10 years. On average, the District gains about 1,000 students every 10 years.
Prior to 2010, HPISD experienced slow steady growth rates of less than 1% per year. However, in recent years, growth has been as high as 2.8% per year. On average over the last 10 years, the growth rate has been about 1.45% per year. The District’s current student population is 7,038, of which 2,731 (39%) are elementary students, 2,201 (31%) are MIS/HPMS students, and 2,106 (30%) are HPHS students. Overall student density is .68 students per single family home
4,091
4,925
5,842 6,172
6,448 7,092
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
8,000
1989 1994 1999 2004 2009 2014
HPISD 25 Year Historical Enrollment
July 2015 Page | 6
(SFH), accounting for about 90% of the student population, with another 10% living in multi-‐family/apartment housing. Foreseeable Growth through 2023 The 2014 Demographic Study projects that the District’s student population will continue growing significantly for the foreseeable future. By 2023, the student population is forecasted to reach the numbers below.
Enrollment Projections in 2023 Provided by Demographers
Scenario Annual Growth Rate
Student Density (# per SFH)
Total Students Elementary MIS/
HPMS HPHS
Low Growth 0.88% 0.74 7788 2930 2354 2503 Most Likely 1.38% 0.77 8137 3091 2460 2586 High 2.38% 0.84 8890 3400 2683 2807
*Students per SFH assumes about 90% of students live in SFH Historically, looking at the demographic studies conducted in 2004 and 2010, student population growth has not only exceeded the “most likely” projection provided by demographers, but has also exceeded the high-‐range projections in certain cases. Therefore, the Committee believes it is prudent to consider the “most likely” as well as the “high” projections.
Foreseeable Growth Beyond the Year 2023 While the 2014 Demographic Study addressed growth through 2023, the Committee does not believe that the District’s population will suddenly stop growing in 2023. Therefore, the Committee also looked at what student populations and densities per single-‐family household (SFH) would be if the growth rates in the 2014 Demographic Study were extended over a longer period of time.
4000
4500
5000
5500
6000
6500
7000
7500
1995 2000 2005 2010 2014
Stud
ents
Comparison of Demographic Projec_ons to Actual Enrollment
Moderate Enrollment Projecion High Enrollment Projecion Actual Enrollment
July 2015 Page | 7
Growth Rate 10 Years 2025
15 Years 2030
20 Years 2035
Low Growth (.88%) Total Students 7926 8282 8654 Students/SFH .75 .79 .82
Most Likely (1.375%) Total Students 8362 8953 9586 Students/SFH .79 .85 .91
High then Tapering Total Students 9170 9519 9881 (2.377% for 10 yrs, .75% for yrs 11-‐20)
Students/SFH .87 .90 .94
Moderate High Total Students 8828 9688 10631 (1.876%) Students/SFH .84 .92 1.01
High (2.377%) Total Students 9318 10479 11785 Students/SFH .88 .99 1.12
*Students per SFH assumes about 90% of students live in SFH Furthermore, the Committee compared the projected student densities (students/SFH) shown in the table above with the current student densities in similar high-‐performing districts such as Carroll ISD (.88) and Lovejoy ISD (1.01). In considering possible student densities in the future, the Committee noted that if the percentage of single-‐family homes with students increased from today’s 38% to 55%, the District’s overall student density ratio would be .99 students per single-‐family household, making the total student population approximately 10,477 students. While no one knows where HPISD’s student population will top out, the Committee thinks considering student densities in this range is prudent, given several factors that indicate continued growth in the future: (1) the overall growth of the DFW metroplex and the high-‐performing nature of HPISD, (2) only about 35% of all HPISD households currently have school-‐aged children, (3) 20% of households are occupied by 65+ year olds and (4) 1,910 single-‐family homes (about 20%) were built before 1954 and are worth less than $800,000. Planning for Future Growth In light of the foreseeable future growth, the Committee believes that the District cannot be shortsighted in its facilities planning. A short-‐term solution would require taxpayers to pay for both an immediate solution as well as future ones, and would not take advantage of today’s historically low interest rates. The Committee believes that pursuing a long-‐term solution today will save taxpayers money in the long run. Also, short-‐term solutions cause considerable and repeated disruption to students and citizens. Therefore, the Committee believes HPISD’s facility plan should address expected growth for a 15-‐20 year time frame. The Committee believes that this time frame requires accommodation of approximately 9,400 students (3,600 elementary students, 2,900 MIS/HPMS students, 2,900 HPHS students). The Committee also believes that any improvements made as part of this plan should allow for expansion beyond 9,400 students if necessary.
Campus Proposed Capacity Percentage of Students Elementaries 3630 39% MIS/HPMS 2848 30% HPHS 2880 31% Total 9358 100%
July 2015 Page | 8
NEEDS OF TODAY’S STUDENTS
The District’s facilities fall short in providing the type of learning environments that today’s students need. In 2012, the District assembled a study team made up of parents, students, teachers, administrators, and university professors to create a profile of the “learner and educator for the future.” In early 2014, the District’s Curriculum and Instruction Department and each school’s principal identified the following facilities requirements in order to fully meet the needs of the “learner and educator for the future.”
• Pod classroom arrangements at elementary and intermediate schools • Dynamic learning spaces for various group sizes and configurations • Mobile furniture; clustered and flexible seating • Project rooms with worktables and supplies for creating • Teacher workrooms designed for collaborative planning • Multi-‐use spaces for students, staff and community • Quiet areas for thinking and reflecting • Defined interest areas and learning centers within classrooms • Integrated, cutting-‐edge technology • Accessible materials and storage • Opportunities to connect with the outdoors for health, fitness and academic
exploration • Safe and secure buildings
While touring the District’s existing facilities, the Committee observed students and teachers already engaging in the type of collaborative and individualized learning and instructing that characterizes the “learner and educator for the future.” Classes are collaborating with other classes, either of the same grade-‐level or a different grade-‐level. Students are receiving individualized instruction in smaller groups, some receiving tutoring and others receiving accelerated instruction. Students are often working in small groups together and are often utilizing technology, either individually or in groups. However, the Committee also observed that the District’s existing facilities do not adequately accommodate the collaborative and individualized activities that characterize today’s students. Such activities require space to spread out, places to sit other than the usual desk or table, and work spaces that can accommodate groups larger and smaller than a single class. Due to the lack of working space in the District’s facilities, these activities are currently happening on the floors of classrooms and hallways, as well as in vestibules and closets. The Committee believes these activities will continue to increase in the future, and more conducive spaces for these activities are needed for HPISD to best meet the needs of today’s students. Not only do the District’s existing facilities not have needed flexible learning spaces for collaborative and individualized learning but they have notable room for improvement in the areas of technology, security and ADA accessibility. Education today requires integrated technology throughout school buildings as well as more heightened security than it did in the past and accessibility for all students.
July 2015 Page | 9
ADDRESSING THE FACILITY NEEDS
OVERVIEW
To best address the current overcrowding, the expected growth of the District’s student population and the needs of today’s students as discussed above, the Committee recommends the following:
• Elementary Schools. Build a fifth elementary school; rebuild Bradfield, Hyer and University Park; renovate Armstrong commensurate with other elementary schools; update technology.
• MIS/HPMS. Construct classroom additions on each side of building; move parking underground; renovate band hall, boys and girls locker rooms, and administrative and counseling offices; update technology; make life cycle improvements.
• HPHS. Construct classroom additions at both the Northwest location (current teacher parking lot) and in the current natatorium location; widen congested hallways in existing portions of school; relocate the Seay Tennis Center to the property behind existing parking garage; build a new Multi-‐Sport/Administrative facility in current Seay Tennis Center location; relocate natatorium to this new Multi-‐Sport/Administrative facility; renovate under the home side of Highlander Stadium; provide additional surface parking; update technology; make life cycle improvements.
• Land Acquisition. Purchase additional land if and when it becomes available for future facility expansion, primarily around HPHS and MIS/HPMS.
ELEMENTARY RECOMMENDATIONS More specifically with respect to the elementary schools, the Committee recommends building a fifth elementary school with capacity for 770 students, rebuilding Bradfield, Hyer, and University Park to have capacity for 770 students each, and renovating Armstrong to have capacity for 550 students and update its interior commensurate with the other elementary schools. This would give the District a total capacity of approximately 3600 elementary students. Fifth Elementary School A fifth elementary school is essential to accommodating the forecasted growth in the elementary school population. Without it, all 4 existing elementary schools (including Armstrong) would have to accommodate 770-‐850 students in the next 10 years, and 770 students is already beyond the ideal size of an elementary school. A 5th elementary school will relieve the overcrowding currently being experienced in the existing elementary schools, but it alone cannot also absorb the forecasted growth for the long term. The existing four elementary schools must also have increased capacities in order for the District to accommodate long-‐term growth.
July 2015 Page | 10
Armstrong The Committee recommends renovating Armstrong to a student capacity of 550. Armstrong is not a good candidate for capacity beyond 550 at this point in time. It is currently located in the area with the lowest student density, so adding another section would increase the school’s already sprawling boundaries even further, meaning many people would be zoned to Armstrong despite living closer to another elementary school. Furthermore, Armstrong has the most limiting campus in terms of the amount of land available for an addition without necessitating a road closure. The proposed renovations to Armstrong include:
• An addition on the east side, which will add new foreign language, art and music classrooms, as well as enlarged administrative space
• Interior renovations, to right size existing classrooms, provide flexible learning spaces, renovate the hallway leading to the cafeteria and update the auditorium
• Technology upgrades and life cycle improvements will also be made. The Committee did consider whether Armstrong should be rebuilt rather than renovated; however, Armstrong is already the newest, most efficient elementary campus with the fewest under-‐sized classrooms in the District. Furthermore, Armstrong can be sufficiently renovated to meet its facility needs for approximately 23% of the cost of rebuilding it. Also, as discussed above, Armstrong’s smaller land mass and the lower student density surrounding it do not make Armstrong a viable candidate for rebuilding to increase its student capacity beyond 550. Also, unlike the other existing elementary schools, Armstrong’s surrounding outdoor spaces for PE and recess have not been encroached upon by additions to the school building. Bradfield, Hyer & University Park The Committee recommends rebuilding University Park, Bradfield and Hyer to 770 student capacities, each with underground parking. The Committee recommends that the new buildings be designed to maximize outdoor space and carpool queuing efficiency and should
2,644
3,080
2,000
2,200
2,400
2,600
2,800
3,000
3,200
3,400
3,600
Capacity vs Growth Scenarios
2023 Moderate Growth 3,092)
2023 High Growth (3,378)
Current Enrollment (2,734)
Capacity After Building 5th & Only Update
Sizing Others
Current Capacity
July 2015 Page | 11
also allow for future expansion, if necessary. The Committee recommends that the architecture of each building retain elements of the original buildings and reflect the style of the original buildings and the surrounding neighborhood, as much as possible. The 5th elementary school should be built first and should be used to house the students of University Park, Bradfield and Hyer for one-‐year intervals while their respective schools are rebuilt. The Committee recommends that the Board consider offering transportation for these students to the 5th elementary school, specifically for Bradfield students, in light of the greater distance they will travel. Why Not Renovate Bradfield, Hyer and University Park? The Committee engaged in extensive analysis and discussions comparing plans to renovate versus rebuild Bradfield, Hyer and University Park. However, after much due diligence and consideration, the Committee concluded that renovating these schools was not the prudent course of action for the following reasons. Quality – Renovations would not be able to solve several existing issues. Common spaces such as cafeterias and auditoriums would still be cramped and inadequate. Buildings already take up too much land on sites that are 40-‐60% smaller than what is typical for schools of this size. Renovations would take up even more precious land. The buildings would be brought closer to the street, eliminating the historical facades and front lawns they enjoy today, and the ability for 700+ students to use the remaining outdoor space for recess and PE would be even more challenging and restrictive than it is today. Parking and carpool queuing issues would remain. Also, the layout of the schools would be far from ideal and would not provide the type of truly state-‐of-‐the-‐art, flexible and efficient learning environments that will last long into the future. Comparative Cost – Renovating these schools would cost, on average, close to 50% of the cost of rebuilding. The total cost to rebuild all three schools is about $55 million more than renovating them to the same size. This equates to about $250 in annual taxes on a $1 million home, and the end result of rebuilding will be far superior. Flexibility for the Future – Renovations would essentially max out the buildings and preclude future expansions at these schools. The only remaining option to accommodate future growth at these schools would be to acquire land by eminent domain. Rebuilding, on the other hand, provides flexibility for accommodating capacity beyond 770 students if it were ever needed. One-‐time Opportunity – Rebuilding these schools now takes advantage of a one-‐time opportunity to use the 5th elementary school to house students while rebuilding an existing school. In the future, there will not be the same opportunity to rebuild a school without having to acquire additional land by eminent domain because there will be no place to house the students. Rebuilding now maximizes the land currently available to the District. Long Term Cost Savings – Rebuilding these schools now is likely to save taxpayers money in the long run. Interest rates are at an all-‐time low and rebuilding now does not require the purchase of additional land for these campuses. In 10 years, rebuilding just one of these schools could cost $85 million with the cost of additional land and increased construction costs. That does not even account for the higher interest expense that would likely be incurred and would be on top of the millions of dollars that would be paid for renovations today. In addition, new buildings will be more efficient and less expensive to operate than renovated buildings would be. Less Disruption to Students – Renovations would require significant work during the school year, which would cause major disruption to students. Rebuilding requires the student bodies
July 2015 Page | 12
to travel further to the 5th elementary school for one year, but the student bodies will be able to remain intact and have a top quality and undisrupted learning environment for the year. What if Growth Does Not Happen as Forecasted? The Committee considered the risk if the District were to rebuild Bradfield and University Park, anticipating significant growth and that growth does not materialize. In this scenario, if the HPISD elementary population never reaches the forecasted numbers and tops out at a much lower elementary population of around 3000 students, HPISD would have spent approximately $85 million more to rebuild Bradfield, Hyer and University Park than it would have had it only updated these schools. However, HPISD would have three new schools instead of three old schools that have been patched together over time. The three new schools would have appropriate parking, carpool flow, etc. and be more energy efficient buildings. The utility costs for running these new schools would be less than such costs would have been if the schools had only been renovated. And all five schools could be more equally sized around 600 students, which is closer to the ideal for an elementary school. Our schools would then have extra rooms available for flexible learning space, instructional space, grade-‐level libraries, storage, conferences, office space, etc. No available space in schools would be likely to go to waste. (Also, it is not normative for elementary schools to operate as close to maximum capacity as our elementary schools have done over the last two decades.) The Committee does not believe the decision to rebuild Bradfield, Hyer and University Park would be regretted, even if growth is not as high as forecasted.
However, on the flip side of this equation, if the HPISD elementary population reaches the highest forecasted numbers but we do not plan for such numbers, our elementary schools will be at capacity again within 10-‐15 years and will continue to struggle with the same issues of parking/traffic, inadequate cafeteria space, inadequate auditoriums, limited flex space, limited green space and aged/inefficient buildings. HPISD will again be faced with solving the same overcrowding issue that it has been trying to solve since 1990, except we will no longer have options without having to purchase additional land and possibly exercise eminent domain rights. The District will have to return to the taxpayers again to pass an additional large bond. Taxpayers would end up paying significantly more in this scenario. (Note: With the cost of land and higher construction costs, a new school could cost $85 million in 10 years, and that is without the additional interest expense that would likely be incurred. The District bond experts conservatively predict that even waiting just 5 years before passing a $100 million bond could cause the total debt service to increase by as much as $28 million.) The Committee believes that this scenario would be much worse, and therefore, planning for higher growth and rebuilding Bradfield, Hyer and University Park is the more prudent path given the current environment. Specific Needs Identified for Larger Campuses (accommodating 770 students) In studying and discussing current issues with the District faculty, administration and architect, the Committee recognized that 7-‐section elementary campuses (770 students), particularly on sites as small as those in HPISD, have some critical requirements to function effectively. The Committee recommends that these needs be taken into consideration for any elementary campus of 770 students or more:
• Underground parking to provide adequate parking for staff and volunteers without cannibalizing valuable outdoor space needed for students.
• Two art rooms and two music rooms, to avoid specials classes of 26-‐30 students. • Two gyms, to account for multiple PE classes attending simultaneously (52-‐60 students
at a time). • Larger cafeterias than existing schools have, to comfortably accommodate all students
within typical lunch hours.
July 2015 Page | 13
• Larger assembly/performance space to accommodate assemblies and grade level performances with parents in attendance.
• Larger administrative spaces than existing schools have, to accommodate the staffing needs of a larger student body.
MIS/HPMS RECOMMENDATIONS The Committee recommends constructing classroom additions on MIS and HPMS, moving parking underground, renovating the performing arts, athletics and administrative areas, upgrading technology and making life cycle improvements. The net impact of these changes will create functional capacity of about 1,360 at MIS and 1,488 at HPMS, for a total campus-‐wide functional capacity of about 2,848 students. This assumes that functional capacity is 85% of total capacity, which is based on current program usage. The following is a more detailed list of the new construction and renovations proposed for the MIS and HPMS campuses. MIS / HPMS Campus
• Move east surface parking lot under the field. This will also provide underground storage.
• Tennis courts and play area will then be moved to the current surface parking to allow space for a classroom addition on the MIS end of the building.
• Make technology upgrades and life cycle improvements.
MIS • Build a 3-‐story addition to the east of the existing MIS wing. This will create 2 pods per
floor for a total of 6 pods (24 classrooms). Two pods will be used to house the first floor pod classes displaced by the reconfiguration of admin, counseling and special ed/ESL classes (described below). The remaining 4 pods will be used to alleviate current overcrowding (reducing class sizes to 25:1) and allow for future growth.
• Move special education and ESL classrooms (10), small offices (5), large office space (for 10 people), ARD conference room and speech rooms (2) to existing first floor pod spaces (2). (These pods will be replaced by newly constructed classrooms on the east end of the MIS side.)
• Move counseling center to adjacent area (replacing special education classrooms, offices, and conference room). This will allow adequate space for counseling offices, storage, filing room, work space, testing rooms, and conference rooms.
• Expand office space into existing counseling center. • Convert three classrooms on MIS side (second floor) into flex space for MIS. These are
currently being used for HPMS classes, which will move back to the HPMS side.
HPMS • Build a 3-‐story addition to the south and west of the existing HPMS wing.
o On the first floor, this will add 13 classrooms. After relocation of existing classrooms, this will net 7 classrooms and 2 flex spaces on the first floor of the HPMS side. This space will be used for LOTE classrooms, multimedia/yearbook/newspaper, electives and added core sections as needed.
o On the second floor, this addition will add 13 classrooms. After relocation of existing classrooms (including 3 from the MIS side), this will net 7 classrooms and 2 flex spaces on the second floor of the HPMS side. This space will be used for an added eighth grade team.
July 2015 Page | 14
o On the third floor, this will net 8 classrooms and 1 flex space. This space will be used for an added seventh grade team and elective/support classes.
• Expand office space into existing workroom and clinic space. • Expand workroom and clinic space into two existing HPMS classrooms adjacent to the
office on the HPMS side. These classrooms will be replaced with the newly constructed classrooms on the HPMS side.
• Expand band hall to the south, adding instrument storage and ensemble rooms. This will displace girls’ locker room.
• Expand boys’ locker room to the south. • Relocate girls’ locker room to the south of the expanded boys’ locker room. • Replace storage shed, moving it underground or to the south of the competition gym.
HPHS RECOMMENDATIONS In making recommendations for the high school, the Committee seeks to provide the necessary facilities for the District’s quality of education and programming for high school students in the long-‐term. In order to accommodate approximately 2,900 HPHS students, the Committee recommends constructing additions at both the Northwest corner (current teacher parking lot) and in the current natatorium location of the high school, widening congested hallways in existing portions of school, relocating the current Seay Tennis Center to the property behind the parking garage, building a new Multi-‐Sport/Administrative facility in the current Seay Tennis Center location, relocating the natatorium to this new Multi-‐Sport/Administrative facility, renovating under the home side of Highlander Stadium, providing additional surface parking, upgrading technology, and making life cycle improvements.
Classroom Addition on Northwest Corner of Building (current teacher parking lot) This addition will provide contiguous expanded fine arts space (band hall, orchestra and choirs), additional academic space and underground space. The Committee recommends that it be a 3 floor building with an underground level “shelled out”, in order to maximize the utility of the last piece of open and contiguous land to the school building. This will allow for 15 classrooms, 2 flex labs, 1 resource space and 1 flexible learning space on each of the two floors above ground level, with the third floor “shelled out” to provide additional space in the future. The Committee also recommends this Northwest Addition be designed in such a way that it could serve as a connector for expansion to the north, should that be needed in the future. Classroom Addition at Current Natatorium Location The Committee recommends demolishing the natatorium space in order to make room for contiguous academic space in its place. This space should also be 3 floors with an underground level, which will allow for 6 classrooms on both the underground level and 3rd floor, and 8 classrooms on both the 1st and 2nd floors. Each of the 3 floors and the underground level will have 1 flex lab space. The Committee also recommends that this work include expansion of the main hallway in that area of the school. Interior Renovations Once the new classroom additions are completed, there will be renovations to widen hallways behind the auditorium and leading to the gyms, and create a new main staircase behind the auditorium. This will open up major thoroughfares in the building which are significant bottle-‐necks and safety issues today.
July 2015 Page | 15
Relocate Seay Tennis Center The Committee recommends that the Seay Tennis Center be relocated to the unused parcel of land behind the existing parking garage, in order to allow for the construction of a new Multi-‐Sport/Administrative facility. The new Seay Center will be rebuilt as a single level space with 3 courts. New Multi-‐Sport/Administrative Building & Natatorium The Committee recommends the construction of a new Multi-‐Sport/Administrative facility connected to the Multipurpose Facility across the street from Highlander Stadium. This will provide much needed locker rooms, weight rooms, training space and team meeting space for baseball, softball, wrestling and boys and girls soccer, golf, cross country and track. The building will also have a natatorium on the bottom floor and will provide athletic offices and meeting space for district-‐wide use. It will be a 3-‐floor building, built to the same height of the Multipurpose Facility (43 feet). Parking The Committee recommends acquiring land as it becomes available around the high school for surface level parking. Highlander Stadium Renovations The Committee recommends renovations to Highlander Stadium to update bathrooms and locker rooms, and to address accessibility issues, including the addition of accessible seating in the student section. Other Recommendations for HPHS Facilities
• Provide funds for a 20-‐year refurbishment of classrooms, common facilities, athletic facilities and technology needs in the existing high school building to accommodate approximately 3000 students.
• Stage the work for interior renvoations to the existing high school building to begin as soon as the newly constructed classrooms become available, in order to minimize the level of disruption to high school function.
• Evaluate closing Grassmere permanently and/or purchasing Grassmere to ensure student safety as they cross to the new Multi-‐Sport/Administrative Building.
• Provide funds to address issues/concerns raised in the 2013 security assessment as well as any issues raised by new construction.
July 2015 Page | 16
LAND ACQUISITION RECOMMENDATIONS
If the HPISD student population ever exceeds 9,400 students, the options for expansion on existing campuses will be extremely limited, and additional land will be needed to accommodate further growth. At the elementary school level, while expanding a newly built Bradfield, Hyer, University Park or fifth elementary school would be possible, it would not be preferable given the fact that student populations over 770 are beyond the ideal range for an elementary school size. Significant expansions to Armstrong would be difficult without closing a road. Therefore, if the student population in the District were to grow beyond 9,400 students, it is possible that a kindergarten center or sixth elementary school would need to be investigated, necessitating additional land. At MIS and HPMS, administrators have advised that taking the school to a capacity beyond 2,900 would be far from ideal, and would make it one of the largest middle school campuses in the country. Therefore, if the student population in the District were to grow beyond 9,400, it is possible that another middle school campus would need to be investigated, necessitating additional land. At HPHS, there is no more land contiguous to the school for future classroom additions. The next move if growth were to exceed 9,400 may be to move athletic facilities (e.g. gym space, football field, softball, tennis, etc.), which would necessitate additional land. For these reasons, the Committee believes it would be prudent for the Board to investigate acquiring additional land if and when it becomes available, in order to provide options and flexibility for the future. Robin Hood has prevented the District in the past from having funds to acquire land when it becomes available; therefore, the Committee recommends including money in the bond to provide the Board with the flexibility and ability to take advantage of land acquisition opportunities as they arise.
July 2015 Page | 17
COST AND TIMING
COST Total Bond Package The total projected cost of the bond that would include each of the Committee’s recommendations is approximately $358 million, plus issuance costs. The following chart details the projected costs for each element of the Committee’s recommendations.
Outstanding Debt The Committee considered the District’s current outstanding debt and its capacity to handle additional debt. If the District passes a $358 million bond, its total debt will be approximately $451 million. The Committee and the District’s bond counsel believe that HPISD can handle this level of debt. HPISD has a “Aaa” credit rating from Moody’s Investors Service which is reflective of the District’s sizeable and notably wealthy tax base, healthy financial operations and favorable debt
Elements of Recommended Bond Package
Projected Cost (in millions)
Elementary Schools $139.8 New 5th Elementary $29.4 Rebuilding Bradfield, Hyer & University Park $103.5 Armstrong $6.9 MIS / HPMS $38.3 Renovate Expand MIS/HPMS $32.0 Parking/Site Modifications $6.3 HPHS $83.1 New Parking/Land Acquisition $23.3 Classroom Additions $44.5 Interior Renovations/Life Cycle $15.3 Extra-‐ and Co-‐Curricular Activities $29.9 Multi-‐Sport/Administrative Building & Natatorium $19.9 Seay Tennis Center $4.7 Highlander Stadium Renovations $5.3 Technology Updates $3.8 Land Acquisition $45.0 New 5th Elementary Land $20.0 Other $25.0 Subtotal $339.9 Maintenance $10.0 Contingency 2.5% $8.5 TOTAL PROJECTED COST* $358.4 *not inclusive of issuance costs
July 2015 Page | 18
profile. The District’s debt burdens are currently modest as a percentage of total assessed property value. The District’s amount of debt per taxable property value will remain lower than most comparable districts.
* $455.5 million bond that was recently passed by Garland ISD has been included as part of Garland’s total debt. ** Assumes HPISD’s 2015/16 taxable assessed property valuation will be approx. $13.750 billion, which reflects an 8.5% increase over 2014/15 as estimated by bond counsel. Tax Rate The Committee considered the effect of a $358 million bond, plus issuance costs, on the District’s tax rate. Depending on the final interest rate, timing and structure of the bond issues, the District’s tax rate will increase from $1.118 to approximately $1.2280-‐$1.2905 in 2017-‐2018. This tax rate could step down in the years following as some of the District’s existing debt is paid off. HPISD will still maintain a tax rate lower than it has had during portions of the last decade.
HPISD HISTORICAL TAX RATES
YEAR 04/05 05/06 06/07 07/08 08/09 09/10 10/11 11/12 12/13 13/14 14/15
TAX RATES $1.61 $1.53 $1.3557 $1.0367 $1.09 $1.11 $1.115 $1.1342 $1.1342 $1.1267 $1.1181
Furthermore, HPISD will continue to have one of the lowest tax rates in the metroplex, even after the bond.
0% 1% 2% 3% 4% 5% 6% 7% 8% 9% 10%
Lovejoy ISD Frisco ISD Spring ISD Allen ISD
Garland ISD* Irving ISD
Mesquite ISD Friendswood ISD
Carroll ISD HPISD w/ Bond**
Dallas ISD Coppell ISD
Richardson ISD HPISD currently
Debt per Total Assesed Property Value
July 2015 Page | 19
The Committee also took note of the fact that HPISD continues to offer its taxpayers a local homestead exemption of 20%, which is higher than any other school district in Dallas, and is in addition to the standard $15,000 homestead exemption. Only two other school districts in Dallas County offer an additional homestead exemption at all, and theirs is only 10%. In 2014, this exemption saved the average taxpayer approximately $2,700 per year. Overall Tax Increase to Homeowners The Committee considered the impact that a $358 million bond will have on an individual taxpayer. Assuming a $358 million bond, the taxes on a $1 million home will increase by approximately $900-‐$1385 per year ($75-‐$115 per month) in 2017-‐2018. The exact numbers depend on when the debt is issued and how the debt is structured, including whether it is issued at fixed or variable rates. In addition, these numbers could decrease in the years following, particularly in 2019 and 2028 when some of the District’s existing debt is paid off. For taxpayers 65+ years old, there is a ceiling on school property taxes, so their taxes will not increase as a result of a bond as long as they remain in their home and do not make major improvements to their home. Cost of Additional M&O Expenses The Committee considered the impact the proposed plan will have on the District’s annual maintenance and operation expenses once all construction is completed in 2020. The overall M&O expenses for the District will increase due to the additional square footage at each of the campuses; however, additional state funding received as a result of student population growth will help to offset the increased M&O expenses for the District. Also, the newly rebuilt Bradfield, Hyer and University Park will be more efficient than renovated buildings would be, and will, therefore, have lower utility expenses.
$1.00 $1.10 $1.20 $1.30 $1.40 $1.50
Highland Park ISD Dallas ISD
Carrollton-‐Farmers Branch Garland ISD*
Grapevine-‐Colleyville ISD Ferris ISD
Richardson ISD Lancaster ISD
Duncanville ISD Mesquite ISD Sunnyvale ISD
Irving ISD Coppell ISD
Grand Prairie ISD De Soto ISD
Cedar Hill ISD
2014-‐15 District Tax Rates in Dallas County
* Garland ISD tax rate is 2015-‐16 estimation based on recent passage of $455.5 mil bond.
July 2015 Page | 20
TIMING The Committee considered the timing of the proposed construction and renovation projects. Most projects will begin in January 2016 and last anywhere from 1 to 3 years. All projects will most likely be completed by the fall of 2020. With respect to the elementary schools, the new 5th elementary will be completed by Fall 2017 and then be used to house the student bodies of Bradfield, Hyer and University Park for one-‐year intervals each, while each school is rebuilt (sequencing to be determined). The new 5th elementary will be populated with a new student body of its own in Fall 2020. With respect to MIS/HPMS, the construction projects will start in Fall 2016 and most likely be finished by Spring 2018. At HPHS, construction will start in June 2016 and most likely be complete by Spring 2019.
July 2015 Page | 21
CONCLUSION The District currently has some very unique opportunities with the availability of land for a 5th elementary school and historically low interest rates. The Facilities Advisory Committee recommends that the District take full advantage of these opportunities by proposing a bond that will address facilities needs and growth for the long term (at least 15-‐20 years). The Committee does not think that now is the time to put another band-‐aid on overcrowding or to only plan for the next 10 years. The Committee’s proposal is bold and will be the largest bond ever put forward in this community. However, the Committee believes its proposal is the most cost effective and prudent option in the long term because it will take advantage of today’s favorable interest rate environment, and should avoid the need for additional large-‐scale bonds in the next 10-‐15 years when interest rates, construction costs, and the cost of land are likely to be much higher. The Committee also believes that its proposal provides the most sensible plan for allowing for growth beyond what this bond will address, as it opens doors for future expansion, rather than tying the District’s hands on its campuses.
