Pembina Hills Regional Division No. 7

Long Range Capital PlanConsultation Meetings – January &

February, 2006

Agenda

• Key messages of the Capital Plan• Background information• Criteria used for the analysis• Findings

– Student enrolment trends– Plant operations & maintenance funding– Small schools by necessity– Criteria used for each school

Agenda (cont.)

• Priorities for facility preservation &/or right-sizing– Small schools by necessity– Mainstream schools

• Priorities for facility retirement (short & long range)

• Stakeholder Consultations & Vetting• Questions/Feedback

Key Messages of the Capital Plan

• PHRD has lost in excess of 1000 students since 1995– As a result, there are 970 excess students spaces

– Current utilization rate = 69% (85% in 1995)

– We’ve downsized staff by 55 teachers, but have not reduced any space

• System challenge, with excess space in nearly all schools– Not just a small school or big school issue

Key Messages of the Capital Plan

• Without a system utilization target rate of 85% it will be difficult to receive any funding for major renovations in our schools

• Peace River School Division started a similar process in 2000 & has since received funding for 4 renovations, worth millions of dollars

• We do not have to reach 85% before we get funding for ‘right sizing’ & modernization – we only need to have a firm plan on how to get there

Key Messages of the Capital Plan

• The Capital Plan is a working plan & could be adjusted as events unfold

• Schools slated for eventual retirement or consolidation could operate for many years, if enrolments allow the school to remain financially viable & the building does not require any major repairs

• The Board of Trustees of PHRD adopted the Long Range Capital Plan in draft form at their December 14, 2005 Regular Board Meeting and is targeting March 15, 2006 for final ratification

Background Information

• The Long Range Capital Plan overview based on following:– PHRD Facility & Program Viability Study prepared by

former Superintendent of Schools S. Schmold in November of 2004

– School Condition Analyses prepared by The Workun Garrick Partnership Architecture & Interior Design Inc. in June of 2005

– Report on School Population Projections in PHRD by Nichols Applied Management, completed in November of 2005

Criteria Used For The Analysis

• Current & anticipated student enrolments, & the effect on utilization rates & operating costs

• Variations in plant operations & maintenance support from the province for mainstream schools vs. ‘small schools by necessity’

• Age, condition, anticipated service life & preservation potential of each facility

Findings

Student Enrolment Trends

• Student enrolments are in decline across rural Alberta, due to a demographic shift

• It is anticipated that school-aged student numbers will continue to diminish at a rate of 1.0% to 1.5% per year, until approximately 2018

Historical and Projected School-Aged Population (4-18)Alberta, 1990 - 2026

520,000

540,000

560,000

580,000

600,000

620,000

640,000

660,000

Population Growth -- Municipalities Contained within Pembina Hills Regional Division Compared to Alberta

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

0

500,000

1,000,000

1,500,000

2,000,000

2,500,000

3,000,000

3,500,000

Regional Estimate Alberta

Plant Operations & Maintenance Funding

• Provincial formula for PO&M support was recently modified, eliminating gross floor area as a factor

• Funding is now primarily a function of student enrolments, sparsity of population & distance from major urban centres

• Province has created an exception for ‘small schools by necessity’, to minimize the impact of this change on rural school boards.– Funding for these facilities will be provided as though they are

85% utilized (ie. at maximum operating capacity)– This has increased viability of many rural schools, from a PO&M

standpoint (this has no effect on educational/instructional viability, which must be considered independently)

Small Schools by Necessity

• Enrolments < 290 students AND• Located at a distance > 25 km to another school• A school can still qualify as ‘small by necessity’ if

there are other schools within a 25 km radius, provided the other facilities are at or above their operating capacity (85% of fixed capacity), or the grade levels at these schools are non-aligned

PHRD had the following schools funded as ‘small by necessity’ in 2004/05

• Busby School• Dapp School• Dunstable School• Eleanor Hall School• Fort Assiniboine School• Jarvie School• Meadowview School• W.R. Frose School• Vimy School

Remaining schools do not qualify as ‘small schools by necessity’ & should therefore be considered

‘mainstream facilities’

• Barrhead Composite High School

• Barrhead Elementary School

• Neerlandia Public Christian School

• R.F. Staples Secondary School

• Swan Hills School

• Westlock Elementary School

Capital Plan

• Because the division’s facilities are now supported under fundamentally different operational formulas, the long range capital plan will be divided into 2 streams:– Small Schools by Necessity Schools– Mainstream Schools

Criteria Used for Each School

• Age & Condition, which takes into account life cycle status & preservation potential– E (excellent); G (good); M (marginal); P (poor)

• Utilization rate @ September 30, 2005• Efficiency of floor plan, which considers overall

regular classroom area for the student population served, & efficiency of layout– E (excellent); G (good); M (marginal); P (poor)

• Excess capacity, based on operational capacity of the facility less actual student enrolment

Small Schools by Necessity

Age/

Condition

Util.

Rate

Efficiency Excess

Capacity

Busby School M 57% G 44

Dapp School G 62% G 49

Dunstable School M 76% E 8

Eleanor Hall School (1) E 78% E 15

Fort Assiniboine M 53% M 81

Jarvie School G (2) 62% G 22

Meadowview School M 50% G 36

Vimy School P 28% M 88

W.R.Frose School G 61% G 54

Total SSBN Excess 397

1. Assessment based on having a new facility in place by Sept/07

2. Jarvie School requires re-roofing, but structure is sound & in good condition. Analysis does not consider the 1967 portable

Mainstream Schools

Age/

Condition

Util.

Rate

Efficiency Excess

Capacity

Barrhead Composite High School

G 69% M 195

Barrhead Elementary School G/M (3) 66% M 169

Neerlandia Public Christian School

M 118% M (63)

R.F. Staples Secondary School G 71% G 162

Swan Hills School G/M(4) 65% M 102

Westlock Elementary School M 84% G 8

Total Excess - Mainstream 573

Total Excess Capacity 970

3. The 1975 section of BES requires modernization

4. The 1960/1962 sections of the Swan Hills School requires modernization

Priorities for Facility Preservation &/or Right-Sizing – Small Schools by Necessity

• The following ranking of priorities have been determined for the draft long range capital plan, together with respective rationales – Please note – schools listed under priorities #4-

#7 are facilities that are listed for eventual retirement, pending future enrolment patterns & geography of PHRD

Priorities for Facility Preservation &/or Right-Sizing – Small Schools by Necessity

1. Fort Assiniboine School

Marginal condition, marginal efficiency, low utilization. Should be right-sized, including a review of grade configurations – which would be a catalyst for major modernization

2. W.R. Frose School Good condition, low utilization. Should be right-sized

3a. Dapp School Good condition, low utilization. Should be right-sized or consolidated

3b. Jarvie School Good condition, low utilization. Should be right-sized or consolidated

Priorities for Facility Preservation &/or Right-Sizing – Small Schools by Necessity

4. Busby School Marginal condition, old facility, low utilization. Should be monitored on a yearly basis for deterioration, & considered for disposal

5. Dunstable School Good condition, mainly old facility, good utilization & efficiency. Should be monitored on a yearly basis for deterioration, & considered for disposal at end of its service life

6. Meadowview School Marginal condition, old facility, low utilization. Should be monitored on a yearly basis for deterioration, and considered for disposal

7. Vimy School Poor condition, old facility, low utilization. Should be disposed of

Priorities for Facility Preservation &/or Right-Sizing – Mainstream Schools

1. Barrhead Composite High School

Good condition, low utilization, marginal efficiency. Should be right-sized to improve operational costs, & re-planned to improve instructional efficiencies

2. Westlock Elementary School

Marginal condition, high utilization. Should be fully modernized

3. Barrhead Elementary School

Good condition, low utilization. Should be right-sized to improve operational costs

4. Neerlandia Public Christian School

Marginal condition, partly old facility, high utilization, marginal efficiency. Oldest portions should be demolished, replaced & expanded to suit enrolments. In terms of age, this school could be placed at a higher ranking, however right-sizing of the Barrhead campus needs to occur first.

Priorities for Facility Preservation &/or Right-Sizing – Mainstream Schools

5. Swan Hills School Good condition, partly old facility, marginal utilization & efficiency. Should be right-sized to improve utilization & eliminate sections of facility that are old & require extensive upgrades

6. R.F.Staples Secondary School

Good condition, marginal utilization. Candidate for future right-sizing

NOTES:

1. Eleanor Hall School will re-open as a new facility in 2007. It will not require work in the foreseeable future; therefore it has not been included in the rankings

2. Pembina Hills Regional Division No. 7 will submit parallel capital plans for provincial consideration, dealing with each stream of facilities independently

Priorities for Facility Retirement (Short & Long Range)

• The following facilities will be considered for disposal, pending the ongoing status of their physical plant, & subject to meeting the criteria for school closure prescribed in Board Policy 903

Priorities for Facility Retirement (Short & Long Range)

1. Vimy School Poor condition, old facility, low utilization. Should be disposed of

2. Meadowview School Marginal condition, old facility, low utilization. Should be monitored on a yearly basis for deterioration, and considered for disposal

3. Busby School Marginal condition, old facility, low utilization. Should be monitored on a yearly basis for deterioration, & considered for disposal

4. Dunstable School Good condition, mainly old facility, good utilization & efficiency. Should be monitored on a yearly basis for deterioration, & considered for disposal at end of its service life

Stakeholder Consultations & Vetting

• Meet with the principal of each school to review the overall capital plan, explain the provincial operational funding formula & how demographic shifts are impacting the School Division’s budgets, & enlist them in the consultation process

• Meet with the staffs of each school for briefing & explanation purposes, & to elicit feedback

• Convene public consultations in each community to explain the capital plan & to elicit feedback

• Collect & consider feedback from the stakeholder groups• Make adjustments to the capital plan that are deemed

reasonable• Convene public information sessions in each community to

outline final conclusions• Target date for adoption of the Long Range Capital Plan –

March, 2006

Questions/Feedback