1

BOARD OF EDUCATION Attachment: Discussion 12 PALO ALTO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT Date: 02.23.16

TO: Glenn “Max” McGee, Superintendent FROM: Bob Golton, Bond Program Manager SUBJECT: Addison Elementary School Donation STRATEGIC PLAN INITIATIVE Budget Trends and Infrastructure RECOMMENDATION Subject to the results of discussion at this Board of Education meeting, it will be recommended at the next meeting that the Board of Education approve: 1. The scope of the “Addison Project” as provided below 2. Accepting a generous contribution from an Anonymous donor, in the amount of $1,330,000

for pre-construction activities for the “Addison Project” 3. The pre-construction budget for the “Addison Project” 4. The architect agreement with Gelfand Partners for pre-construction services 5. The contract for pre-construction project management services with fs3/Hodges 6. The architect agreement with Gelfand Partners for Conceptual Designs for the other

elementary schools and a budget transfer from the elementary school reserve to fund this contract.

BACKGROUND In early March 2015, a representative of Pacific Foundation Services (PFS) approached District staff, saying that the firm represented an anonymous potential donor who was interested in supporting a facilities upgrade at Addison from the existing temporary modular buildings to a permanent school building. The dialogue expanded over the next two months to include the current undersized older library and the multi-purpose building. And, in fact, there was encouragement to examine additional improvements. By early May, PFS asked about the next step in the process. The response was that a conceptual design was needed and the cost was quoted at $25,000, the usual amount for the PAUSD elementary school conceptual designs. The donor indicated they would be willing to cover the cost of the conceptual design. On May 26, 2015, the District received a remittance letter and check in the amount of $25,000 from the Goldman Sachs Philanthropy Fund (GSPF) for a planning grant for a site masterplan. The letter stated that the donor has a donor-advised account at GSPF and both the person recommending the grant and the source of the funds were shown as “Anonymous”. It was made clear at that time by PFS that the donor had no commitment to make further donations.

2

The District retained Gelfand Partners, the architect for the three previous Strong Schools Bond elementary school projects. Through discussions, the team and PFS agreed that a master plan could be completed by November. To that end, a number of site based visioning working group meetings, site meetings and a family workshop were held at Addison. By November 2015, the collective vision coalesced to the point that the architect, Gelfand Partners, produced a conceptual design booklet. A copy of this booklet is provided as Attachment 1. Discussions with PFS, the donor’s representative, regarding the scope of the planned build-out project continued in December and January. The conceptual design booklet was presented to the donor’s representative who shared that the donor was pleased that the plan incorporated feedback from students, teachers, staff, and parents. The representative also made clear that the donor had no feedback about the proposed build-out and deferred to the school community to determine what makes most sense for the school. The representative also shared that the donor appreciated and supported the need to balance the improvements at the school with the principle of progressive parity. We had a detailed discussion about the work that had been completed at Duveneck, Ohlone and Fairmeadow; about the community value in BP 7110 of a flex space; what work had been previously discussed for the elementary schools; and the board approval process. The donor’s representative indicated the donor continued to be interested in funding improvements to Addison but not on the scale (or amount) of the conceptual design booklet that the architect prepared following the brainstorming sessions. The conversations have been very positive and the entire process has been extremely collaborative. 1. APPROVE THE SCOPE OF THE “ADDISON PROJECT” For PAUSD construction projects, the conceptual design approval would include review of the scope of project, location of buildings and the anticipated project budget. The scope of the project and the building placement are in fact presented here for approval. However, the anticipated project budget is simply presented for information. The reason is as follows. The total budget for project is $16,959,766. However, the donor will not make a gift for the full budget at this early stage and has instead made a first gift for the pre-construction tasks. Because the donor’s gift is from a donor advised fund at GSPF, they are unable to make a pledge for future gifts (for tax reasons, donor advised funds cannot make pledges). The donor and district have discussed and agreed that the district is not making a commitment to fund the project. The proposed scope of the Addison Project is as follows: Addison School currently has six K-5 portable classrooms on the Middlefield side of campus. This is a small site and the footprint of the portables causes a significant reduction in usable site area. The current library and administration wing at Addison is located in the interior of the school site. This is a poor location for a variety of reasons and undersized to serve the current Addison population. The multipurpose building has not been modernized and is undersized in that it does not accommodate the full school population.

3

The proposed $16,959,766 million project addresses these issues through a new two story administration and library building, the relocation of classroom uses into a renovation of the administration/library wing, and the construction of a new three classroom/flex rooms building built as a permanent building. The current multipurpose building will be replaced with a modern larger facility. Landscape improvements will include an expansion of play space at the current portable location, redesign of the courtyard to expand usefulness to the adjacent classrooms, and a new courtyard at the new classroom/flexible space wing.

Attachment 2 provides a Power Point illustration of this scope. Attachment 3 provides for information regarding the $16,959,766 budget for this scope. Approval of the scope of this project is recommended. The budget is simply provided for information. 2. APPROVAL OF A DONOR CONTRIBUTION IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,330,000 The District has received an Award Letter for $1,330,000 from the Goldman Sacks Philanthropy Fund (Attachment 4). District staff has been working with Harold Freiman of Lozano Smith extensively on award language. The language in the Award Letter is acceptable to both District staff and this attorney. Board Policy 3290, Gifts, Grants, and Bequests is also attached (Attachment 5), as is the draft of AR 3290 (Attachment 6). This potential donation exceeds $50,000 and therefore under the draft language of AR 3290 requires Board of Education approval. The donation of $1,330,000 includes all activities up to and including bidding the project, but NOT the award of the project to a contractor or any other expenses incurred after contract award. Staff prepared this budget and therefore is comfortable that this amount will be sufficient to fund the pre-award activities. According to the current project schedule, the Board can expect to review progress as follows:

Schematic Design June 2016 DSA Submittal February 2017 Authorization to Bid November 2017 Award of Contract February 2018

Approval of this donation is recommended 3. APPROVAL OF THE PROJECT PRE-CONSTRUCTION EXPENDITURE BUDGET Attachment 3 also shows the $1,330,000 budget for pre-construction expenditures. This budget was prepared by District staff and accepted by the donor. Approval of this budget is recommended.

4

4. CONTRACT WITH GELFAND PARTNERS, INC. Architectural services are required for schematic design, design development, the production of construction plans and work with DSA to obtain approval. Gelfand Partners has done all of our elementary school work for this bond and has done this project scope analysis. It is recommended that they continue with this project. The Gelfand Partners contract is Attachment 7. It is recommend that the Gelfand Partners contract for this project be approved. 5. APPROVE A CONTRACT FOR PROJECT MANAGEMENT WITH FS3/HODGES Project management services are required, associated with the schematic design, design development, the production of construction plans and work with DSA to obtain approval. Fs3/Hodges has provided these services for this bond. It is recommended that they provide the services for this project also. The Fs3/Hodges contract is Attachment 8. It is recommended that the fs3/Hodges contract for this project be approved.

6. APPROVE A CONTRACT WITH GELFAND PARTNERS FOR CONCEPTUAL DESIGNS FOR OTHER ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS

Assuming this Addison Project is approved and further that it is funded when the project bids are received in late 2017, Addison will be the fourth elementary school to have its portables replaced and a two-story building placed on campus. Addison will be the first elementary school to have its multi-purpose building replaced or renovated. As information, both of these upgrades (portables replaced and multi-use building expanded) were planned at Hoover and the Board received a conceptual design for discussion in November 2010. There was solid logic for doing Hoover with this Strong Schools Bond. Hoover was not addressed by the previous bond since the school was not in existence when that bond measure was approved by the voters and so not listed in the bond language. However, that 2010 design, like Addison’s, did not provide for additional classrooms, and at that point in time, the Board was very concerned about providing for elementary enrollment growth. Therefore, the Hoover conceptual design never was brought back for action. In fact, essentially all of the remaining available elementary money was transferred to an elementary reserve, which including the funds budgeted for Garland, currently is $60.3 million, pending a decision on opening a new elementary school. If Greendell/525 San Antonio is opened, at an estimated cost of perhaps $40 million, that will leave approximately $20 million available for other projects. So, priorities will have to be established for this bond and another bond will be required to address all the remaining elementary schools. However, conceptual design work will have been done at the other seven schools and Greendell, and updated at Hoover.

5

It is recommended that a contract be issued to Gelfand Partners at an estimated cost of $148,000 for this work. A proposal from that firm is provided as Attachment 9. Further, it is recommended to fund this contract by a transfer of $148,000 from the elementary school reserve in the Strong Schools Bond Program.

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37