SCOTTS VALLEY UNIFIED

 SCHOOL DISTRICT

Superintendent’s Facilities Committee

Report and Recommendations

Contents

1. Committee Purpose, Process, and Scope

2. Scotts Valley Middle School

Site feasibility

Alternative sites

Expansion opportunities

Facility layout options

            Building options

            Construction phasing and operational continuity

3. Vine Hill and Brook Knoll Elementary Schools

            Multipurpose rooms

            Replacement of portables

4. Independent Study and District Office needs

5. Cost Estimates and Options

6. District Bonding Capacity and Bond Election Considerations

            Bonding capacity

            Supporting arguments for a bond election

            Timeline and other considerations

7. Recommendations

Appendix 1 – cost estimates

Appendix 2 – residential bond payment estimates

Referenced Figures / pictures – separate file

1. Committee Purpose and Process

As per the Scotts Valley Unified School District 2006-07 Strategic Plan, a Superintendent’s Committee was convened during the fall of 2006 to investigate potential solutions to the District’s facility issues.  Membership consisted of staff and community members who had expertise, interest and willingness to participate over the period of time necessary to delve deeply into District needs and options, including investigation of resources available to solve facility problems. The following people have served on the Committee, meeting approximately every two weeks since November, 2006:

              Patricia Kelban, Chief Business Official, SVUSD (Committee Chair)

              Steve Ando, Deputy City Manager, City of Scotts Valley

              Chuck Comstock, City Manager, City of Scotts Valley

Mark Collishaw, Parent, President, Saramark, Inc.

Peg Edwards, Teacher, Independent Study Program, SVUSD

Joe Espinola, Member Board of Trustees, SVUSD

              David Heald, President/CEO, Santa Cruz County Bank

              Jill Hitchman, Parent, Analyst for County Supervisor Mark Stone

              Mary Lonhart, Principal, Scotts Valley Middle School

              Gary Redenbacher, Attorney, Redenbacher & Brown, LLP

              Sue Roth, Vice President, SVUSD Board of Trustees

Steve Russell, Planning Director, City of Scotts Valley

Michael Shulman, Parent, Member of Scotts Valley Planning Commission

Susan Silver, Superintendent, SVUSD

Glenn Soma, Parent, Senior Project Manager &  Principal, TICO Construction

John Waite, Waiteworks, Inc., Supervisor of M&O, SVUSD

The charge of the Committee was to consider the major facility needs of the district and recommend to the Board of Trustees a plan for leveraging District resources to meet the needs in the most effective way possible. Facilities issues were defined as follows:

• Aging middle school (built in 1941) on a site considered undersized per State guidelines
• Lack of multipurpose rooms and limited play area at the elementary sites
• Lack of contiguous space for the Independent Study program
• Substantial annual lease payments for aging portables ($125K at the elementaries plus $26K at the middle school), using a funding source of diminishing future capacity
• Substantial annual lease payment ($47,500) for a District Office that is less than adequate

This Committee was not asked to address facility needs at the high school, since repairs are currently in process with funds received through the litigation process and/or pending with the State Allocations Board.

2. Scotts Valley Middle School 

Feasibility of the Current Site

Guidelines from the State recommend a minimum 15 acres for a middle school site. The current site is 9.6 acres. See Figure 1 (middle school aerial view). As an existing site, there would be no state-imposed restriction against rebuilding on the site (whereas if a new site is selected, additional acreage would likely be required, probably 15 acres or more). Acknowledging that the current site is “undersized” per these standards, the subcommittee explored alternative sites as well as potential site expansion opportunities and site utilization efficiency options.

Alternative Sites

District files were consulted to consider alternative (larger) sites that had been considered in the past, either for building a new middle school, the new high school, or a third elementary school. Those options had been eliminated at the time for a variety of reasons. The Committee did not find that conditions had changed relative to these other sites to the extent that would warrant reconsideration at this time. However, two new options were considered:

1. Valley Gardens Golf Course: This site would provide an opportunity to expand the size of the campus, with the cost of the land partially offset by sale of the current middle school site. There are several issues that pose a challenge for timely resolution. These include the timeline and mitigation requirements for environmental impacts (insects, flowers, soils, transportation/circulation), constraints (legislative and financial) on that portion of the property not used for the middle school, and the financial offset and timeline for disposition of the current middle school site (which would require rezoning). Because of the various entities and issues involved in such a project, the Committee felt that a new middle school could not be built on the golf course property any time soon, and that some of these issues might not resolve in such a way that the plan could ever become a reality. The Committee does not recommend this option.
2. Swap the Middle School and Vine Hill School campus sites: Since Vine Hill School is adjacent to Siltanen Park, the playing fields could be made available during the school day. On a practical level, this would appear to sufficiently expand the size of the middle school campus. Vine Hill School would then be moved to the current middle school site, which is of adequate size for an elementary school campus. However, this option requires major renovation and/or rebuilding two entire schools rather than the middle school alone, and having to house students from two sites elsewhere while construction occurred. Moving the middle school from its more central location and having both elementary schools in the southerly portion of the District also creates some geographic / demographic imbalances. Altogether, the Committee does not perceive the potential positives to outweigh the negatives, and thus does not recommend this option.

Site Expansion Opportunities

Two properties adjacent to the current middle school site on Bean Creek Road provide opportunity for expanded acreage.

1. The first property is a one-acre parcel across Bean Creek Road on Scotts Valley Drive, zoned for commercial use but currently housing a small residential dwelling. The Committee believes that this parcel presents a good acquisition opportunity. A property appraisal has not been conducted; however, the Committee is of the opinion that there is limited alternative development opportunity for this parcel (under current or foreseeable market conditions). The primary purpose of the acquisition would be to provide parking for staff and parents, relieving the larger contiguous property of this burden and opening it up for curricular purposes.
2. The second property is the mobile home park fronting Scotts Valley Drive and contiguous to the current middle school site. This two-acre parcel is also zoned commercial (although it serves functionally in a residential capacity). A property appraisal has not been conducted; the Committee is of the opinion that the value would likely be based on the current rental income, as there would not appear to be any specifically viable alternative development or use opportunity for this parcel (under current or foreseeable market conditions). There are multiple opportunities associated with this property acquisition, including (1) siting of additional buildings (if needed); (2) additional playing fields; (3) student drop-off; and (4) parking.

The Committee is of the opinion that acquisition and gradual amortization of the current mobile home property use is both feasible and appropriate. Under this plan, the District would become landowner / landlord for the existing mobile home residents. As space leases expire, they would not be renewed (or, during the earliest stages, renewed for only a limited timeframe). This would allow the current residents to transition to alternative sites or alternative housing, in a relatively flexible timeframe. There may be opportunities to partner with the City of Scotts Valley (through its Redevelopment Agency authority) to assist in the residential relocations. While the spaces are still occupied, the District would be collecting rent that could be used to either offset bond fund payments or serve other District financial needs. The Committee did not explore possible legal constraints associated with such a revenue stream.

It is possible that, upon full acquisition and development of the contiguous two-acre mobile home parcel, the District may find the one-acre parcel (across Bean Creek Rd) to be ”surplus” relative to the functional needs of the District. If so, it would be a sellable asset or could be used to house a district office.

For both of the above properties, the Superintendent has alerted the current property owners that the District may have an interest in property acquisition. The correspondence simply disclosed the District's current efforts to investigate opportunities associated with the middle school and did not express any specific plans or offers. Direct contact of this type should help avoid potential damage to any subsequent negotiations that could occur if the owner’s first notification came through the media.

Site Layout Opportunities

The current middle school site includes 26 classrooms each of approximately 1,000 square feet.  Site analysis and preliminary CAD drawings show that comparable classroom space can be constructed in three, 2-story structures. These structures, along with a fourth, can all fit within the southwest rectangular corner of the current site closest to the Scotts Valley Drive / Bean Creek Road intersection. See Figure 2 (middle school building cluster). Gymnasium and cafeteria facilities could then be sited adjacent to the current oak tree grove (preserving the major trees), with the remainder of the site left open for playing fields. As discussed above under “Site Expansion Opportunities,” the relocation of parking (and its associated traffic circulation requirements) in combination with the clustering of 2-story structures will provide for expanded playing field space relative to the current site layout.

The specific layout of the buildings in the southwest corner of the site can also accommodate functional linkages and possible expansion into the adjacent two-acre parcel (the current mobile home site).

The Committee also recognizes that the installation of artificial turf fields, while representing a significant initial investment, has been demonstrated to provide not only financial payback (reduced water consumption and maintenance) but also considerable school and community benefits through their ability to withstand multiple and continuous uses without damage. Eliminating play field “downtime” serves as a virtual expansion of available space. Given the additional high value placed on water conservation in Scotts Valley, this “green” infrastructure element ranks very high on the Committee’s recommendation for consideration.

Building Options

Based on preliminary cost comparison estimates, site visits, review of literature, discussion with industry members and consultants, and previous District history, the Committee strongly recommends pre-engineered modular classrooms as providing the best blend of function, cost, quality, reliability, and speed of construction. Regional districts that have chosen pre-engineered buildings include Campbell Union, Santa Clara, San Rafael, Dublin, Napa Valley, and Livermore. The buildings are DSA pre-approved and include lengthy warrantees, employing materials more resistant to mold concerns and generally requiring less maintenance over their 40+ year rated life cycle. The Committee believes that the Scotts Valley community will appreciate this focus on functionality, flexibility, and financial prudence.

Figures 3 - 8 show a sampling of pre-engineered school facilities.

To enhance the community aesthetics and provide for greater use customization, the Committee recommends an architecturally designed, “stick-built” structure (to house school administration, the library, and media functions) located along the Scotts Valley Drive frontage. The façade facing the public rights-of-way would be attractive and express a positive visual appeal to the community. An archway or similar key architectural feature facing the corner could also serve as the principal entryway into the classroom quadrangle.

There may be opportunities associated with both the pre-engineered and stick-built structures to incorporate “green” building techniques and other operating efficiency measures such as passive and/or active solar heating, and low- and no-water plumbing fixtures. These infrastructure design elements are a good environmental model for students and community, and should provide operating cost efficiencies that will free up funds for other District operational needs (with no commensurate decrease in State funding). It is likely that initial costs of “green” alternatives will be higher, however. The Committee is uncertain as to whether the District (as a public entity) would be eligible for grants, rebates, or other incentives commonly made available for the installation of “green” building elements. If not, there still may be opportunity for District “partners” (SVEF, PTA, City of Scotts Valley, etc.) to qualify and serve as sponsor for any separable elements of the construction (such as artificial turf fields).

The Committee also recommends that the Board consider using a relatively new method of construction called “Design-Build.”  Design-Build has only recently become available to school construction and is presently limited to projects in excess of $10,000,000 although there is legislation pending that would reduce this to $2,500,000.  Design-Build has the distinct advantage of eliminating much of the risk of escalating costs.  This is because the builder is responsible for the design.  If the builder fails to anticipate an aspect of construction, it is responsible for the additional cost rather than the district.  Design-Build also allows the school district, within certain guidelines, to work with the builder of its choice rather than going strictly with the lowest bid. 

Construction Phasing and Operational Continuity

Using the potential combination of pre-engineered and stick-built construction noted above, the Committee has been informed that construction of the campus would likely require between 12 – 18 months. It appears feasible to use the existing hardscape of the campus (along the northeast property border) as a temporary site for relocated portable classrooms. This would allow the campus buildings in the southwest corner to be demolished and the new structures built, without full displacement of academic activities from the site. Whether a sufficient amount of playing field area can be safely used during the construction activity is uncertain at this stage. Phasing could also possibly retain use of the existing gymnasium until the new gymnasium becomes available. Further study of the timing of activities, along with relocation options, is needed.

3. Vine Hill and Brook Knoll Elementary Schools

Multipurpose Rooms

The Committee recognizes the need for multipurpose buildings at each of the elementary schools, for assemblies, indoor physical education activities and indoor eating during inclement weather. These facilities can also serve the larger Scotts Valley community during non-school hours for other recreational or social activities. As with the proposed middle school classrooms, pre-engineered structures appear to be the best choice here as well.

The Committee recommends a 3800 square foot design with raised plate height (12 – 16 feet), plus a stage and kitchen area that push the overall footprint to 4800 square feet. The Committee did not conduct a detailed site analysis to develop recommendations as to optimal location for the multipurpose rooms.

Replacement of Portable Classrooms

The District is paying approximately $7,400 for each of sixteen portable classrooms under lease for 2007-2008. The District owns fourteen additional portables, of varying age and condition. Lease funding is from the Development Impact Fee (DIF) account. That account currently has a reserve of approximately two years, but as property development slows and build-out nears, there will be a steady reduction in fund replenishment. Using bond financing to construct permanent classrooms will allow the District to utilize the dwindling DIF funds for smaller-scale facility improvements for many years to come. Alternatively, the District could choose to incrementally reduce the overall bond amount by allocating some portion of the current DIF reserves toward the construction project.

Beyond the financial issues, installing permanent (pre-engineered) classrooms to replace the aging portables at the elementary schools allows for both better site layout and improved site aesthetics. The opportunity to construct two-story pre-engineered classroom buildings would also free up additional acreage for playing fields at each school. The Committee did not conduct a detailed site analysis to develop recommendations as to optimal location for new classroom structures.

The Committee recognizes that the focus and emphasis for the bond campaign must be the middle school. However, the multipurpose rooms for the elementary schools represent a small increment of the overall project cost and should help broaden the support for the measure (both within and beyond the school-based demographic). The replacement of portables with permanent classroom structures is a financial inevitability that the Committee believes makes more sense now than later. Bundling these features with the middle school reconstruction allows the District and the community to address most of its major facility funding and construction needs at one time.

4.  Independent Study and District Office Needs

Independent Study

When the Committee began its work in the fall of 2006, the Independent Study (IS) program was housed at Brook Knoll and two non-contiguous areas of the high school campus. Enrollment in the IS program has dwindled somewhat; some believe that the enrollment will increase if the program is housed in one location. The Committee was asked to consider buildings, probably on the high school campus, that could house the program. Since that time, the program has been moved to contiguous spaces at the high school, so there is no immediate need to resolve this issue. At some time in the future, the program may expand or increased high school enrollment could necessitate the use of these rooms for the regular high school program. At that point, the issue would again present itself. Should bonding capacity remain following resolution of middle and elementary school issues, permanent housing for the IS program should be considered.

District Office

The current District Office lease for 3700 square feet costs $47,500 annually. The space is insufficient and forces some district employees to be housed at other sites. This cash out-of-pocket would cover approximately $750K of bond funding (30 years @ 4.8%), representing two-thirds the anticipated cost for an optimally sized (5000 square feet) facility. If a district office is included in the overall bond package, the funds currently used for lease payments could be re-allocated to classroom, educational, or other purposes.

As with the IS program situation discussed above, the need for district-owned offices is not immediate, but should be a long-term goal in order to increase productivity, build equity and save money. The facility could meet office needs as well as contain spaces for district-wide meetings, training, and record storage. A district office facility could conceivably be located contiguous to the middle school (on one of the two adjacent properties discussed above) or on one of the other campuses.

5. Cost Analysis and Options

The Committee has gathered preliminary cost estimates for the various building components. These are provided in Appendix 1, with separate tables for the middle school and elementary school. The components that the Committee believes are separable are shown with individual cost estimates, for the Board’s convenience. For the middle school, cost comparisons are shown for pre-engineered, standard (stick-built), and a hybrid that uses pre-engineered buildings for all but the admin/library/media center component.

6. District Bonding Capacity and Bond Election

Bonding Capacity

The Committee recommends a Proposition 39-based facilities bond. This financing mechanism requires a 55% voter approval rate, an explicit list of the intended uses of the bond funds, and establishment of a bond oversight committee to monitor expenditures. Once the bonds are sold, the funds must be used within three years. Bonds may be issued in separate increments over time, however. This both allows for more effective project management and for increases in assessed value to be absorbed.

There are several options related to the types and terms of bonds that may be issued under Prop 39, with the choice of bond affecting the payment schedule over time. The Board should seek input and guidance when the time comes to make this decision. For discussion purposes, the Committee obtained preliminary estimates for the District’s bonding capacity. These figures are based on the current aggregate assessed value of taxable properties within the District, a conservative (3.59%) extrapolation forward over the next 12 years of the annual assessed value growth rate from the past seven years (7.12%), and the limitations associated with Proposition 39. The total bonding capacity of the District over this time period is estimated to be approximately $57M. This bonding capacity would appear to be more than ample to cover all of the Committee’s identified project components.

Appendix 2 translates various project ‘packages’ into estimated annual and monthly bond payments for Scotts Valley district homeowners over a range of assessed property values, using a simple parcel tax concept. These figures are for discussion purposes only and would vary based both on the type of bond issued and future property developments, transfers, and other adjustments to the underlying assessed value.

Supporting Arguments for a Bond Election

The success of a bond campaign often relies on the availability of relatively simple and compelling arguments. The Committee has developed an initial set of bullet points to support its recommendations and serve as responses to frequently asked questions:

• The current middle school site is fully under the control of the District and there are no ownership or environmental constraints or unknowns that will interfere with construction of a new school at this site.
• The neighbors of the current site know and understand it as a middle school. They can have no expectation that it would not continue to be used as a middle school, nor will any other neighborhood need to acclimate to a middle school.
• Construction of a new school will cause disruption for one or two school years, but we hope to maintain the majority of school activities at the site, safely, even during construction.
• The use of pre-engineered buildings for the majority of the site provides a very high level of cost certainty.
• The use of a design-build project plan places all financial risk on the general contractor and not on the District.
• The inclusion of an architecturally designed building along the frontage of the site, at only a modest increased cost over a pre-engineered building, can enhance the overall aesthetics of the project and thereby garner some additional support from the general public.
• While the existing middle school site is considered small per the State’s guidelines, it has served the Scotts Valley community adequately over the years. A better site layout, including the use of two story classroom structures, will greatly increase the availability of playing field space.
• The properties adjacent to the current middle school site provide some potential for expansion of the site and hence increased opportunity for an optimal site design.
• In pursuing acquisition of the adjacent properties, the District will commit itself to working cooperatively with the current property owners and residents to minimize adverse impacts on individuals.
• Construction of new facilities provides the District with many opportunities to reduce ongoing maintenance costs, including those associated with energy and water consumption.
• The District gave serious consideration to alternative sites for the middle school, and concluded that the community is best served by a bond issue that is backed by considerable certainty as to both the site location and construction costs that are only achievable by staying at the present site.
• The addition of multipurpose rooms to each of the elementary school sites is a long overdue and recognized need.
• The replacement of aging leased and owned portable classrooms with pre-engineered permanent classrooms at the elementary schools will greatly improve the quality of the facilities and the effective use of our limited school sites.
• The replacement of leased portable classrooms with permanent (bond-financed) structures eliminates the District’s financial vulnerability to reduced development activity as the City nears build-out.
• A definitive list of construction projects whose cumulative expense falls well within the District’s legal bonding capacity allows the district to proceed with a bond election campaign that requires only a 55% approval.
• The cost estimates for all of the proposed improvements can be financed by a single bond measure that is within the District’s eligible bonding capacity. This should complete the desired major construction for Scotts Valley Schools for many years to come.

Timeline and Other Considerations

The Committee is of the opinion that the June 2008 ballot is the earliest target for managing a successful bond campaign. If successful, site preparation activities could commence during the summer with the expectation that some portion of the new facilities could be available for use by the start of the Fall 2010 school calendar. The Committee recognizes that the timeline is dependent on the DSA approval process, and the logistics for student housing during construction have not yet been analyzed.

7. Recommendations

The Committee recommends that the District Board:

1. Invite public input on the Committee’s report

2. Hire the necessary consultants to:

• Conduct appropriate community surveys to ascertain the level of public support for the Committee’s recommended school facility improvements,
• Validate and solidify the cost estimates for the desired project components,
• Solicit input from bond counsel regarding bond type and term options
• Make a formal recommendation back to the Board regarding the project scope, timeline, and ballot measure particulars.
• Provide guidance to the Committee for establishing a bond election campaign committee and selection of an appropriate consultant to guide the committee through the process.

To view figures 1-8 click appropriate number below:

        Figure #1 - Middle School aerial view

       Figure #2 - Middle School building cluster

      Figure #3 - Building exterior one story

      Figure #4 - Building exterior two story

     Figure #5 - Classroom interior

     Figure #6 - Library interior

     Figure #7 - Multipurpose room interior

    Figure #8 - Gym interior

APPENDIX 1 – CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATES

APPENDIX 1 – CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATES

APPENDIX 1 – CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATES

APPENDIX 1 – CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATES

APPENDIX 2 – Project Costs vs. Residential Bond Payments