Construction/Renovation decisions

1. Construction/Renovation decisions Review of Feasibility Study of 2010 and preview of moving forward May 5, 2014

2. Why we started the study No room in any building Possible impact of BRAC Demographic shift within district Security issues at several schools Energy inefficiencies, particularly at Smith MS Middle school facilities needed upgrading Debt service coming to end..good timing Opportunity to meet PRESENT needs and set stage for FUTURE developments in education

3. How we developed the study • Interviews for choice of architect (April 30, 2008) • Collected information on needs • Kick-off meeting with board (May 28, 2008) • Public meetings (June 12 and Oct 21, 2008) • Meeting with school district staff • Meeting with administration (building and district) • Consider all options, including grade configuration, in discussions

4. 16 Premises established for feasibility study(1-8) • Lower floor of Smith MS is remote from rest of building • Shared facilities between Clermont and Swift create logistical problems • Quarryville has very small classrooms • School facilities should help us address education for the next 20 years • We want to promote a “small school” feeling • Consider land that we already own that could accommodate a new building, if that becomes an option • Be aware of any financial burdens these plans would put on the district • Any option should help us address technological and programming advances that could occur

5. 16 Premises established for feasibility study(9-16) 9. Security at Smith MS, Swift MS, Clermont and Quarryville must be improved 10. Smith and Swift middle schools must be updated related to MPE systems, education spaces, assembly spaces 11. Capacity in all buildings must be increased 12. Transportation must be straight-forward 13. Proved for ”Southern end” elementary growth while remaining flexible for future shifts 14. Provide flexibility in facilities to meet future needs 15. Consider staffing efficiencies 16. If possible, address the issue of the district administration building is at full capacity.

6. Demographic StudyShelby Stewman – Carnegie Mellon • Report out on Aug. 29, 2009 • 5 scenarios • 1) +100 (+148 elem; +116 MS) ** • 2) +27 (+52 elem; +62 MS) • 3) +456 (+211 elem; +184 MS) • 4) +323 (_178 elem; +155 MS) • 5) +145 (+87 elem; + 89 MS) • BRAC has minimal effect • Natural growth = app 150 • **”sewage leads the way”…biggest wild card is new home construction..no accounting for families replacing senior citizens in already constructed houses.

7. Along the way, we… • Looked at what we thought education would look like in 20 years • Looked at all options to address present and future needs • Discussed a variety of grade configurations • Brought several options to board for review and revision • Recognized the need to be flexible in design to address future issues.

8. Option 8 • 1 middle school on the Smith site • Clermont would be expanded • Slight redistricting to open up room at other elementary schools • Some special education programs could be moved from Providence • Security issues would be addressed

9. What we found… • Impact of BRAC would be minimal (assuming construction levels remain the same) • Student enrollment, based on info at the time, would most likely remain fairly stable throughout the district, but could still have shifts within the district • A reconfiguration of buildings, rathat than grade levels, would be a benefit to the students of the district • Our present building situation severely restricts out development of programs

10. Timeline summarized • Started process in April 2008 • Demographic study covered 10 year project (2008-2018) • Architect interviewed administrators, public, board and staff to look at needs • Options were reviewed by board • Options were reduced • Decision made • End of Feasibility Study; beginning of implementation

11. Post-Feasibility Study • Had site surveys done to provide accurate information • Hired Jim Lewis to proceed with design drawings to give board better handle on costs and phasing options • Met with Jim Lewis several times to provide specifics for design drawings • Possible beginning of PlanCON process • Board wanted options in phasing to decide the next steps leading to renovation and construction

12. Points considered in discussion of implementation • What is the minimal plan to fix up and not prepare for the future? (the $10 million option) • What items on the maintenance and capital projects list would be deferred or eliminated with the implementation of Option 8? • How can we phase this in so that we do not incur any more debt than we presently are handling and still get done what is needed?

13. Scenario II matches best, but …

14. Curriculum/Program changes affecting spatial needsPart 1 • Increased sections of Extended-day kindergarten • IU classes hosted by district (some have been taken over by district…adding autistic support) • Video production classes • Expansion of FFA programs • Expansion of fitness curriculum • Addition of computer labs • Technology department expansion • Research skills curriculum (Library/lab) • Foreign language growth

15. Curriculum/Program changes affecting spatial needsPart 2 • Tutoring programs (Keystone Exams increasing need) • RTII (now in all elementary schools…small group areas….parent conference areas..) • SAVE program (alternative education) • Reading specialists’ instructional spaces • Development of gifted program, especially at high school (major development impact at all levels) • ESL programming in all buildings (numbers and need for services increased) • SHS Career Center • Instructional spaces for Speech therapists • Instructional spaces for occupational therapy • Instructional spaces for physical therapy • Life skills programs at elementary, middle and high schools (requires full-size classroom at each level) • Emotional support classrooms at elementary and high school level (discussion on middle level need)

16. Curriculum/Program changes affecting spatial needsPart 3 • Elementary multiple disabilities classroom (very large classroom, or two classrooms per level needed) • Early intervention classroom (moved from Providence to Quarryville) • SAP meeting spaces • Probation office at high school • Ponessa meeting rooms at each building And since 2010: • Additional classroom to accommodate growing class size in elementary schools • Additional spaces needed for related arts which are added to accommodate growing sections at elementary level • Tutoring required for Keystone Exams performance • Online instruction facilities

17. The development of a plan • May 2011: Lewis and Associates were hired to develop a plan for one middle school at Smith Middle School site, in accordance with Option 8 • June 2012: Lewis and Associates propose a design that involves a second building in front of present Smith building to address needs. Two buildings would be connected with a bridge, and the space between buildings provides ample bus parking and secure location of students involved in outdoor activities. • June 2012: We submit PlanCon A and B to PDE to ensure we will be in queue, in case PlanCON reimbursement moratorium is lifted. • November 2012: through several conversations with Jim Vogel from PDE we addressed a review of our PlanCON Submission to the state to their satisfaction.

19. Board Resolution • The Board passed a resolution committing the funds presently collected for debt service to be allocated to a special fund earmarked for building costs (June 2013) • The Board saw an analysis of options for funding (Tim’s report)

20. Zero Millage June 2012 & April 2014

21. 2016 Cash Projection & 2014 Current Rates Assumed on Out year Bonds

22. Movement of portions of the plan • January 2013: portions of weight room floor break through to classrooms below • February-March 2013: after efforts to address weight room issues, the board decides to look at more permanent options…..Quarryville Elementary school’s entrance becomes a focus at this point as well • April 2013: Lewis and Associates are hired to present a plan to address the weight room issue and to develop a more secure entrance to QE • August 2013: Lewis and Associates presents a plan to the board • September 2013: After discussion on Sept. 9, a vote on Sept. 16 gave Lewis the go-ahead to proceed with the projects.

23. How do we proceed? • Reviewed process • Reviewed decisions • Reviewed plans and proposals • Reviewed finances • Reviewed past and present needs • Now: Are there needs that should be prioritized? Is there a preferred time frame to follow? Are finances determined by phasing, or phasing by finances? Have any of the premises driving the decision changed?