NESD Board of Education Meeting Date: April 16, 2019

Topic: North East School Division – 10 Year Capital Plan

MEETING AGENDA ITEM INTENT ☒ Board Meeting ☐New Business ☐Information ☐Committee of the Whole ☐Board Strategic Direction ☒Decision ☐Audit Committee Meeting ☒Monitoring or Reporting Items ☐Discussion ☐Information Items ☐Correspondence

BACKGROUND

In December 2018, the Ministry of Education issued a new manual: Capital Manual for Saskatchewan School Divisions. According to this manual:

• “School divisions should prepare and maintain a 10-year capital plan that is focused on future needs for capital projects and priorities. The long-term capital plans should be submitted and reviewed by the board of education on an annual basis for the purposes of updating the forecast of expenditures and to determine the requirements and action to be taken with respect to the current plan.”

• “Long-term capital plans typically remain valid for five years unless significant changes occur. If there are significant changes from the previous year’s long-term capital plan, a revision should be submitted to the board of education for review.”

• “Some examples requiring a revised plan would be: *Significant changes in educational programming requiring facility modifications. *Large scale changes in enrolment projections over the 10-year window of the long-term capital plan. *Proposed reconfigurations of schools, and *Other significant events that potentially affect investment decisions in facilities. *New information with respect to the condition of facilities.”

The capital plans are to be submitted to the Ministry of Education upon request. At this point, there has been no request.

Jeff Zenner, Manager of Facilities, drafted the North East School Division 10-Year Capital Plan. At the March 25, 2019 Committee of the Whole meeting, Jeff reviewed the plan with the Board in detail.

CURRENT STATUS

Please find attached the North East School Division 10-Year Capital Plan. After the plan has been approved by the Board, it will be posted to the website of the North East School Division.

RECOMMENDATION Proposed Board Motion: That the Board approve the North East School Division 10-Year Long-term Capital Plan (2020-21 to 2029-30).

PREPARED BY DATE ATTACHMENTS Jeff Zenner, Manager of Facilities Wanda McLeod, Superintendent of Business Administration

April 8, 2019 NESD 10 Year Long-term Capital Plan

10-Year Long-term Capital Plan

(2020-21to 2029-30)

Approved By the Board of Trustees:____________

North East School Division

Box 6000 402 Main Street

Melfort, Saskatchewan S0E 1A0 Ph: (306) 752-5741

www.nesd.ca

10-Year Capital Plan Introduction Each year, school divisions across the province are required to submit a Three-Year Capital Plan to the Ministry of Education. All school divisions are also required to have a 10-Year Capital Plan on file that is approved by the School Board as per Policy Long-Term Capital Planning. At a minimum, this 10-Year Capital Plan must be updated every five years. The 10-Year Capital Plan for the North East School Division is included on the following pages. Some things should be noted when reading the document, including the following:

1. The Top Three Capital Plan is a list of capital priorities that the Division would like the Ministry of Education to fund. The Top Three is a list submitted to the Government for consideration in its infrastructure planning process. The list submitted is based on the greatest needs in the School Division. On a provincial basis, the Government decides which projects are approved for funding and when the projects will go ahead.

2. The School Division does not receive annual funding that it can use to construct new schools or do major renovations to an existing school. The School Board cannot requisition funds from taxpayers to pay for new schools or major renovations. If projects do not receive approval from the Ministry of Education, the School Division cannot move forward with construction.

3. While the plans are referred to as a Three-Year and 10-Year Capital Plan, that does not mean that all, or any, of the projects will actually be approved or completed within that timeframe. Sometimes it takes many years for a project to be approved, even if it is ranked at the top of the School Division’s Top Three Capital Plan.

4. While the plan includes scheduled start dates, end dates, and costs, those are estimates and suggestions

only. The dates are determined based on how quickly the Division wants to move forward with the project and how quickly construction could start if the project was approved immediately. The dates also reflect any work that has already been done to move the project forward, such as negotiating a location with a municipality. The suggested dates and costs are used to help the Ministry of Education assess the project and determine whether or not to approve it. If, and when, the Ministry approves a project, it will determine the actual timelines and budget for that project.

If you have any questions about the North East School Divisions 10-Year Capital Plans, please feel free to contact the Division Office in Melfort.

STRATEGIC PLAN OF THE BOARD

1. Preamble to the Strategic Plan

The North East Board of Education has established this four year strategic plan as a major component of its governance policies and leadership vision. It is intended that this plan will provide a flexible blueprint to direct the activities of the Board in its mandate as an elected board of education.

2. Vision Statement

Our vision is education in a culture of excellence.

3. Mission Statement

Our mission is to ensure every student has the opportunity to succeed.

4. Guiding Principles Success in the North East School Division is achieved through the following shared values.

Commitment to be your Best: We are committed to the pursuit of excellence and the achievement of one’s personal best. Responsible: We are committed to individual and organizational accountability. Inclusive: We are committed to a culture of mutual respect which is responsive to the diversity among people. Cooperative: We are committed to collaborative relationships fostered by open communication. Ethical: We are committed to conducting ourselves with integrity and compassion.

5. Goals to Achieve the Vision/Mission

Our school division goals are: 1. Our students and staff support and feed the body, emotions, mind and spirit to increase a sense of

well-being, connectedness and resilience, and to improve student achievement.

2. Our students exit kindergarten ready for learning in grades 1 to 3.

3. Our students are at or above grade level in reading, writing and math.

4. Our First Nations and Métis students are resilient, successful in learning, and graduate on time.

Area Utilization & Enrollment 10 Year Projections School utilization reflects the number of students in a school with regard to the school’s capacity. The capacity of a school is the number of students a school can accommodate, and is typically based on a school’s instructional area. Displayed as a percentage, a school is considered at capacity when its utilization rate is 100 per cent. The utilization of schools is used for funding purposes and to guide the ministry in its capital plan for the province. The ministry calculates utilization rates for all capital-funded schools to determine the allocation of relocatables, the prioritization of major capital requests, and the amount of plant operation and maintenance funding by school division.

Utilization = PreK-12 Enrolment × 100% Capacity

Year

Arbo

rfiel

d

Bjor

kdal

e

Car

rot R

iv. E

lem

Car

rot R

iv. H

igh

Gro

nlid

Hud

son

Bay

Nai

cam

Star

City

Porc

upin

e Pl

ain

Whi

te F

ox

Willi

am M

ason

2016/17 88 37% 55 23% 96 90% 171 56% 70 33% 341 79% 219 60% 86 33% 235 72% 88 34% 142 56% 2017/18 83 34% 51 22% 89 90% 160 53% 47 22% 345 79% 194 53% 81 32% 227 70% 88 34% 148 59%

2018/19 81 34% 52 22% 87 88% 164 54% 32 15% 335 77% 202 56% 74 29% 226 69% 91 35% 155 62% 2019/20 78 32% 55 23% 82 84% 163 54% 34 16% 327 75% 202 56% 73 28% 219 67% 90 35% 159 63% 2020/21 70 29% 58 24% 83 84% 161 53% 35 16% 329 76% 208 57% 62 24% 218 67% 89 34% 157 62% 2021/22 68 28% 57 24% 85 86% 160 53% 35 16% 326 75% 205 56% 57 22% 214 65% 80 31% 150 60% 2021/23 67 28% 56 24% 84 85% 160 53% 36 17% 330 76% 208 57% 60 23% 216 66% 79 30% 143 57% 2021/24 65 27% 56 24% 84 85% 163 54% 36 17% 330 76% 212 58% 56 22% 211 65% 74 29% 144 57% 2021/25 66 27% 55 23% 84 85% 161 53% 33 15% 329 76% 209 58% 56 22% 205 63% 76 29% 145 58% 2021/26 60 25% 57 24% 85 86% 154 51% 30 14% 331 76% 207 57% 56 22% 200 61% 71 28% 142 56% 2021/27 58 24% 57 24% 86 87% 151 50% 32 15% 328 76% 206 57% 61 24% 202 62% 74 28% 138 55% 2021/28 58 24% 55 23% 86 87% 146 48% 35 16% 323 74% 205 56% 60 23% 196 60% 76 29% 140 56% 2021/29 51 21% 51 22% 86 87% 148 49% 38 18% 326 75% 205 56% 63 25% 189 58% 81 31% 137 54% 2021/30 52 22% 51 22% 86 87% 151 50% 44 20% 327 75% 207 57% 64 25% 187 57% 88 34% 132 52%

Cen

tral P

ark

Wag

ner

LP M

iller

Tisd

ale

Elem

TMSS

Brun

swic

k *

Mau

de B

urke

**

Rey

nold

s *

MU

CC

298 99% 195 70% 453 49% 341 99% 447 77% 261 119% 182 96% 245 98% 594 77% 2016/17

323 108% 197 71% 498 54% 324 93% 443 76% 259 118% 189 99% 244 98% 617 80% 2017/18

313 104% 209 75% 493 53% 315 91% 435 74% 242 110% 201 93% 235 94% 609 79% 2018/19 304 101% 232 83% 449 49% 302 87% 436 75% 228 103% 201 93% 231 92% 613 80% 2019/20 293 98% 245 88% 447 48% 294 85% 432 74% 219 100% 198 92% 234 93% 617 80% 2020/21

285 95% 248 89% 453 49% 290 84% 418 72% 219 99% 188 87% 230 92% 621 81% 2021/22

292 97% 234 84% 457 49% 286 83% 409 70% 206 93% 198 92% 223 89% 630 82% 2021/23 290 97% 223 80% 482 52% 299 86% 386 66% 209 95% 194 90% 218 87% 639 83% 2021/24 289 96% 216 78% 484 52% 296 86% 389 67% 216 98% 185 86% 216 86% 653 85% 2021/25 290 97% 223 80% 499 54% 295 85% 390 67% 217 99% 187 87% 219 88% 656 85% 2021/26 292 97% 220 79% 497 54% 294 85% 374 64% 217 99% 188 87% 219 87% 664 86% 2021/27 292 97% 219 79% 495 54% 295 85% 364 62% 218 99% 189 88% 219 88% 664 86% 2021/28 292 97% 220 79% 482 52% 297 86% 358 61% 220 100% 188 87% 220 88% 670 87% 2021/29 293 98% 220 79% 466 50% 297 86% 356 61% 222 101% 188 87% 220 88% 662 86% 2021/30

Facility Condition Index (FCI) The Ministry of Education has tasked Ameresco Canada, a company specializing in facility assessment services, with assessing the conditions of all schools. Facility Condition Assessment reports completed in 2015 by Ameresco capture the condition of system components in a school building. Systems include architectural, mechanical, electrical and plumbing elements of a building. The components of these elements are inspected and assessed to identify the remaining service life to determine when a component’s life cycle will be completed and replacement necessary. This process determines when components of a school building will require replacement and the estimated costs associated with that replacement. These replacement costs represent the renewal needs of the building. Condition Assessment Reports and an inventory of renewal needs by school year are stored in a database called Asset Planner that AMERESCO hosts. The FCI is a comparative indicator of the relative condition of facilities. FCI is expressed as a ratio of the cost of remedying maintenance deficiencies needs (deferred maintenance) to the current replacement value (CRV). FCI provides facility managers a method of measurement to determine the relative condition index of a single facility or group of facilities. The replacement cost is calculated based on the Ministry of Education’s current standards for building schools. The Facility Condition Index (FCI) represents a tool for identifying the relative condition of a building with respect to its size. The higher the percentage FCI, the worse the condition of the building based on its renewal needs. When reviewing school’s FCI rating, it’s important to remember that the FCI does not include items such as: asbestos abatement, accessibility needs, safe schools’ initiatives, requirements due to upgrades to the building code or program needs.

Facility AGE FCI Facility AGE FCI

Arborfield School 71 26% Porcupine Plain Comprehensive School 7 0% Bjorkdale School 59 31% Reynolds Central School 56 25% Brunswick School 64 21% Star City School 60 21% Carrot River Elementary School 41 15% Tisdale Elementary School 51 20% Carrot River High School 62 41% Tisdale Middle & Secondary School 39 19% Central Park Elementary School 13 0% Wagner School 57 27% Gronlid Central School 59 34% White Fox School 55 19% Hudson Bay Community School 3 0% William Mason School 55 15% L P Miller Comprehensive High School 49 24% Administrative Office 57 1% Maude Burke Elementary School 16 4% Melfort Maintenance Building 3 0% Melfort & Unit Comprehensive Collegiate 52 13% Nipawin Bus Shop 44 1% Naicam School 58 7% Tisdale Transportation Services 67 2%

Analyzing Capacity Utilization Rate, Age and Facility Condition Index(FCI) For planning purposes to identify schools below 70% Capacity Utilization, and schools with a Facility Condition Index above 20%, the X – Y scatter chart is divided into quadrants. The lower right quadrant identifies schools with an FCI above 20% and a Capacity Utilization rate below 70%, the highest priority schools requiring attention from a Capital Planning perspective. The lower left and upper right quadrants identify slightly lower priority schools as they are either underutilized or the facility is in poor condition. The upper left quadrant represents schools with facilities in good condition and operating near or above Capacity Utilization.

Abor

BJ

Brwk

CRES

CRHS

CP

Gron

HB

LP

MB

MUCC

Naic

PP

Reyn

Star

TES

TMSS Wag

WF

WMS

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45%

Util

izat

ion

Rate

Facility Condition Index

Utlization vs FCI for year 2020

Priority High Priority

Above chart shows only 5 schools are under 50 years of age. Schools that are in the quadrant High Priority are older than 50 year with a FCI higher than 20%.

Abor

BJ

Brwk

CRES

CRHS

CP

Gron

HB

LP

MB

MUCC

Naic

PP

ReynStar

TES

TM

Wag

WF

WMS

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45%

AGE

FCI

Age vs FCI for year 2020

PriorityHigh

Priority

Major Capital Process There are policies and guidelines that been developed by the Ministry of Education in collaboration with education sector partners to achieve accountability and best practices in the planning, design and completion of approved major capital projects. For key phases in the capital construction/major renovation of school division facilities:

Phase 1: Pre-Design Phase 2: Design Development Phase 3: Request for Proposal (RFP) & Contract Preparation Phase 4: Construction & Close-out

The following flowchart serves as a framework for these guidelines and provides an overview of the major capital project process.

Summary The Board has used the following as its guide in the preparation of the 2020-2029 Capital Plan, within this overall 10-Year Capital Planning document.

• A review of the Mission, Vision, and Values of the School Division

• The School Division’s previous Capital Planning priorities

• Past Enrollment and Utilization Data • School Facility Audits – Date?

School Facility Estimated Cost Carrot River K-12 School $ 19,070,000 Joint-use Project of 5 Schools Pre-K -6 Consolidation & MUCC renovation

$ 46,690,000

LP Miller/Wagner Modernization & Consolidation, Grade 4-12

$ 15,850,000

Enrollment trends have been considered in the development of all of the proposed Capital Planning Priorities in this document. Based on current projections, we have developed this 10-Year Capital Plan to ensure that requirements for students’ spaces not only take into account the anticipated 10-year enrollment trend, but also anticipate continued trends, beyond the 10-year projections, based on currently available information. North East School Division’s Capital Plan:

• Ensures schools are right-sized for the educational needs of our students; • Addresses programming needs and the responsible leveraging of existing infrastructure in

our communities through the modernization and right-sizing of existing facilities; • Addresses student safety both within and outside of school buildings; • Provides facility space to meet the provincial small class initiative; • Provides educational spaces that will meet the needs of 21st Century learners.

TOP THREE CAPITAL REQUESTS

Estimated Capital Cost: $19,070,000 Hard Construction Cost: $14,442,000 | Soft Costs & Taxes: $4,628,000 |

Project Summary The project would see the demolition of existing high school general office, IA shop, classrooms but keeping the gym & mechanical room and build new administration & classrooms around gym. This would amalgamate the student population of the Carrot River Elementary and High Schools as well as Arborfield into one facility, gaining the benefit of one larger, modern facility. All of these existing schools require such extensive renovations that a new school is the best solution, both financially, as well as from a health and safety perspective. Key points

• Full Feasibility Study completed in May 2015 with periodic structural engineering site inspections. See report for more details.

• Project is site ready, no need to purchase land. • This has been on the top 5 in the Ministry’s Top Ten Capital list for multiply years. • Solve many building code issues in all 3 schools, address the high FCI & deferred maintenance

in 3 buildings. • Major structural damage to high school putting students & staff at risk, area closed off making

this area of school unusable.

Carrot River Elementary School Infrastructure Building ID: 920004 FCI: 15.0% Replacement Cost: $5,050,000 Grade Configuration: Current: K-4

Proposed: K-12 Area:

Current: 1,747 m2 Proposed: n/a

Enrollment: 2018: 89 2019: 87

Capacity: Current: 120 (90% Utilization) Proposed: n/a

Carrot River High School Infrastructure Building ID: 920005 FCI: 41.0 % Replacement Cost: $12,900,000 Grade Configuration: Current: 5-12

Proposed: K-12 Area:

Current: 4,437m2 Proposed: 4,295m2

Enrollment: 2018: 160 2019: 164

Capacity: Current: 305 (54% Utilization) Proposed: 305 (85% Utilization)

1.0 Carrot River School Consolidation

Project Summary Arborfield School constructed in 1947 and currently houses students from grades K-12. The project would see the consolidation of the school with Carrot River elementary and high school students. This would amalgamate the student population gaining the benefit of one larger, modern facility. All of these existing schools require such extensive renovations that a new school is the best solution, both financially, as well as from a health and safety perspective. Key points

• **No Consolidation** Estimated Modernization Project Cost: $2,737,500 • New build would solve many building code issues in the school, address the high FCI & deferred

maintenance items. Major modernization is needed in Arborfield as everything in the school has reached the end of the life cycled.

Arborfield School Infrastructure Building ID: 920001 FCI: 26.0% Replacement Cost: $9,155,530 Grade Configuration: Current: K-12

Proposed: n/a Area:

Current: 3,168 m2 Proposed: n/a

Enrollment: 2018: 83 2019: 81

Capacity: Current: 241 (34% Utilization) Proposed: n/a

1.1 Carrot River School Consolidation

Project Summary Within the City of Melfort the majority of NESD’s facilities were built in the 1950s, there are significant upgrades and repairs required to meet current building codes and modern educational standards. Reynolds School and Brunswick School have been identified as the oldest facilities requiring the largest improvements in order to manage future growth and offer a modern learning environment. All of these existing schools require such extensive renovations that a new school is the best solution, both financially, as well as from a health and safety

perspective. This scenario would include a closure of both Brunswick and Reynolds schools, consolidating students into a new Pre-K-6 elementary school. This would include decommissioning both Brunswick and Reynolds Schools, along with the modernization to MUCC. This scenario would be a joint-project with MUCC, which would result in a capital cost savings. With low enrollment and high FCI’s in two neighboring communities, Gronlid and Star City this would be a timely opportunity to have these school consolidate with the Melfort schools. Key points • Strategic Facilities Plan was completed in February 2017 for the Melfort & area educational facilities, see report for more details • The total net present value of this option would be $37,650,000 when taking into consideration the costing methodology

identified in the full report of the Melfort Strategic Facilities Plan. • Estimate 8% savings for joint project • A joint use partnership project with MUCC, Town, College, Division Office • Solve many building code issues in the school, address the high FCI & deferred maintenance items and

major modernization is needed in all five schools as everything has reached the end of the applicable life cycles.

• Project is site ready, no need to purchase land. • Brunswick is currently not housing its Pre-k class, which is at Reynolds. Project would help with

student transition into Kindergarten

Estimated Capital Cost: $46,690,000

2.0 Joint use Partnership Consolidation & Renovation; MUCC, Brunswick, Reynolds, Gronlid & Star City

Melfort & Unit Comprehensive Collegiate Infrastructure Building ID: 920011 FCI: 13.0% Replacement Cost: $40,269,292 Grade Configuration: Current: 7-12

Proposed: 7-12 Area:

Current: 13,934 m2 Proposed: 20,357 m2

Enrollment: 2018: 617 2019: 609

Capacity: Current: 768(80% Utilization) Proposed: 1300

Estimated Deferred Maintenance Costs: $6,034,000 Key Points

• The proposed modernization will address outstanding safety and security issues, including a number of Building Code compliance issues at this facility.

• This modernization will address the high FCI and deferred maintenance items, including full mechanical/electrical upgrades.

• This modernization will address energy efficiency shortfalls in the existing facility. • The proposed modernization will address a critical lack of sight-lines and supervision at the school entrance.

**No consolidation** Estimated Modernization/Deferred Maintenance Project Cost: $6,034,050 Reynolds School Infrastructure Building ID: 920014 FCI: 25.0% Replacement Cost: $7,753,876 Grade Configuration: Current: PreK-6

Proposed: PreK-6

Area: Current: 2682 m2 Proposed: n/a

Enrollment: 2018: 244 2019: 235

Capacity: Current: 250(98% Utilization) Proposed: n/a

**No consolidation** Estimated Modernization/Deferred Maintenance Project Cost: $2,230,000

2.1 Joint use Partnership Consolidation & Renovation; MUCC, Brunswick, Reynolds, Gronlid & Star City

Reynolds cont. Key Points

• New build will address the high FCI and deferred maintenance items, including full mechanical/electrical upgrades. All systems have exceeded their lifespan.

• School has many plumbing issues including all of the existing sewer lines that feed the east wing have corroded away under the concrete slab. Currently, all sewer in that area is pumped over head. Under slab duct work fills with water in spring.

• The large gym glu-lams beams are nearing there life cycle, in 2012 steel base plates where installed as the bases on the columns where rotten. Annual visual inspection is conduced looking at cracks in the wood beams and columns.

• If consolidation does not happen and a major modernization is needed and will address outstanding maintenance items, including a full mechanical/electrical system upgrade at the school.

Brunswick School Infrastructure Building ID: 920003 FCI: 21.0% Replacement Cost: $8,028,426 Grade Configuration: Current: K-6

Proposed: PreK-6 Area:

Current: 2778 m2 Proposed: n/a

Enrollment: 2018: 259 2019: 242

Capacity: Current: 220(118%

Utilization) Proposed: n/a

**No consolidation** Estimated Modernization/Deferred Maintenance Project Cost: $1,938,900 Key points

• Built in 1954, the school is the oldest school in Melfort. • New build will address the high FCI and deferred maintenance items, including full mechanical/electrical

upgrades. All systems have exceeded their lifespan. • In 2010 classroom heat ventilator where install as the existing main air handler has reached the end of the life

cycle and this was the only economical solution for the short term. A lot of the school’s halls & entrances are on electric heat making the school very inefficient to operate.

• The existing Reception desk does not have a view of the front entrance to the school, which creates an on-going security issue at the facility. There is currently no regular supervision of the main entrance to the school, which can allow visitors to the school to enter the gym unnoticed.

• Due to capacity issues, prekindergarten is at another school.

2.2 Joint use Partnership, Consolidation & Renovation; MUCC, Brunswick, Reynolds, Gronlid & Star City

Gronlid School Infrastructure Building ID: 920007 FCI: 34.0% Replacement Cost: $5,762,665 Grade Configuration: Current: K-8

Proposed: n/a Area:

Current: 1,994 m2 Proposed: n/a

Enrollment: 2018: 47 2019: 32

Capacity: Current: 213(15% Utilization) Proposed: n/a

**No consolidation** Estimated Modernization/Deferred Maintenance Project Cost: $2,253,200 Key Points

• New build will address the high FCI and deferred maintenance items, including full mechanical/electrical upgrades. All systems have exceeded their lifespan.

• The existing reception desk does not have a view of the front entrance to the school, which creates an on-going security issue at the facility. There is currently no regular supervision of the main entrance to the school, which can allow visitors of the school to enter and circulate unnoticed.

Star City School Infrastructure Building ID: 920013 FCI: 21.0% Replacement Cost: $7,074,725 Grade Configuration: Current: K-12

Proposed: n/a Area:

Current: 2,448 m2 Proposed: n/a

Enrollment: 2018: 81 2019: 74

Capacity: Current: 257(29 % Utilization) Proposed: n/a

**No consolidation** Estimated Modernization/Deferred Maintenance Project Cost: $1,710,200 • The existing reception desk does not have a view of the front entrance to the school, which creates an on-

going security issue. There is currently no regular supervision of the main entrance to the school, which can allow visitors of the school to enter and circulate unnoticed

• In the gym, the glu-lams beams are nearing the end of their life cycle, beams show sign of cracks and are monitored with engineering inspections.

2.3 Joint use Partnership, Consolidation & Renovation; MUCC, Brunswick, Reynolds, Gronlid & Star City

LP Miller Comprehensive School Infrastructure Building ID: 920009 FCI: 24.0% Replacement Cost: $36,341,778 Grade Configuration: Current: 7-12

Proposed: 7-12 Area:

Current: 12,575 m2 Proposed: 13,000 m2

Enrollment: 2018: 498 2019: 493

Capacity: Current: 925(53% Utilization) Proposed: 800

Estimated Capital Cost: $15,850,000 Project summary Constructed in 1969, L. P Miller Comprehensive School houses students from grades 7-12 in the town of Nipawin, with low utilization and high FCI rating, the school is in need of a major modernization. A Value Scoping Session or Study could be completed to identify the required project scope and budget, once the Division is aware of the placement of this project on the Ministry’s provincial priority listing . The proposed modernization will address outstanding safety and security issues, including a number of Building Code compliance issues at this facility. This modernization will address the high FCI and deferred maintenance items, including full mechanical/electrical upgrades and will include energy efficiency shortfalls in the existing facility. Consolidation with the Wagner Elementary School will include a significant right-sizing to bring the school capacity into line with anticipated future enrollment and address extremely low utilization rates. Scope should include but is not limited to a new gymnasium and services to accommodate the elementary grades and exterior playgrounds. Many of the existing high school classrooms will be renovated for the elementary grades. The proposed modernization will allow for the development of a learning commons area, to enhance programming for literacy and numeracy; and a series of collaborative learning spaces to facilitate programming in support of inspiring education mandates. Estimated Deferred Maintenance Costs: $9,420,000 Key points

• A Value Scoping Session or Study could be completed to identify the required project scope and budget, currently only deferred maintenance items have been identified.

• The proposed modernization will address outstanding safety and security issues, including a number of Building Code compliance issues at this facility.

• This modernization will address the high FCI and deferred maintenance items, including full mechanical/electrical upgrades and will address energy efficiency shortfalls in the existing facility.

• This modernization will include a significant right-sizing to bring the school capacity into line with anticipated future enrollment and address extremely low utilization rates.

• The proposed modernization will address a critical lack of sight-lines and supervision from Administration at the school entrance.

3.0 LP Miller & Wagner Consolidation Modernization & Renovation

Wagner School Infrastructure Building ID: 920019 FCI: 27% Replacement Cost: $7,909,936 Grade Configuration: Current: 4-6

Proposed: 4-6 Area:

Current: 2,737 m2 Proposed: 2,737 m2

Enrollment: 2018: 197 2019: 209

Capacity: Current: 278 (75% Utilization) Proposed: n/a

**No consolidation** Estimated Modernization/Deferred Maintenance Project Cost: $2,359,200 Project summary Serving the community of Nipawin, both LP Miller Comprehensive School and Wagner School are shown to be in good condition, though both school facilities are somewhat dated in their availability of open and collaborative learning environments. School is not suffering from low utilization rates but needs to be addressed at LP Miller to ensure the long-term sustainability and viability of operations and maintenance, as well as educational programming for the community. Key points

• The existing reception desk does not have a view of the front entrance to the school, which creates an on-going security issue at the facility. There is currently no regular supervision of the main entrance to the school, which can allow visitors of the school to enter and circulate unnoticed.

• This consolidation will address the high FCI and deferred maintenance items, including full mechanical/electrical upgrades and will address energy efficiency shortfalls in the existing facility.

• A value scoping session for Nipawin should be carried out to properly establish scope and budget.

3.1 LP Miller & Wagner Consolidation Modernization & Renovation

Bjorkdale School Infrastructure Building ID: 920002 FCI: 31 % Replacement Cost: $6,415,805

Grade Configuration: Current: K-12 Proposed: K-12

Area: Current: 2,220_m2 Proposed: 2,220 m2

Enrollment: 2018: 51 2019: 52

Capacity: Current: 237(22% Utilization) Proposed: 237

Estimated Capital Cost: $2,150,000 Project summary Original built in 1959 with additions to the school in 1964, 1975, 1989, it serves Kindergarten to grade 12 students. With a high FCI rating and deferred maintenance items, a modernization is well of needed. The existing reception desk does not have a view of the front entrance to the school, which creates an on-going security issue at the facility. There is currently no regular supervision of the main entrance to the school, which can allow visitors of the school to enter and circulate unnoticed. This modernization will address outstanding maintenance items, including a full mechanical/electrical system upgrade.

4.0 Bjorkdale School Modernization

White Fox School Infrastructure Building ID: 920020 FCI: 19% Replacement Cost: $ 6,291,535 Grade Configuration: Current: K-9

Proposed: K-9 Area:

Current: 2,177 m2 Proposed: 2,177 m2

Enrollment: 2018: 88 2019: 91

Capacity: Current: 258 (35% Utilization) Proposed: 258

Estimated Capital Cost: $1,291,000 Project summary Constructed in 1963, the White Fox School houses students from grades K-9 at its White Fox, Saskatchewan location. School has a low utilization rate but has maintain a level enrollment over that past many years. Many of the interior finishes and fixtures are at their life cycle end. Washrooms need to be completely renovated and all plumbing redone. School has no building management systems so a complete electrical & mechanical upgrade would find some easy energy savings.

5.0 White Fox School Modernization

Naicam School Infrastructure Building ID: 920012 FCI: 7.0 % Replacement Cost: $11,791,209 Grade Configuration: Current: K - 12

Proposed: K - 12 Area:

Current: 4,272 m2 Proposed: 4,272 m2

Enrollment: 2018: 194 2019: 202

Capacity: Current: 363(56% Utilization) Proposed: 363

Estimated Capital Cost: $895,000 Project summary The Naicam School was built in 1960 with many additions in 1962, 1965, 1986, 2001, 2004, and 2005. The school has a rather low FCI but needs modernizations to most of its classroom spaces. The renovation would develop education support for the 21st century learning environments. The facilities require upgrades to the building envelope and interior finishes, electrical upgrade would develop some energy savings with respect to the infrastructure condition.

6.0 Naicam School Modernization

William Mason School Infrastructure Building ID: 920021 FCI: 15 % Replacement Cost: $ 7,814,566 Grade Configuration: Current: K - 12

Proposed: K - 12 Area:

Current: 2,791 m2 Proposed: 2,791 m2

Enrollment: 2018: 148 2019: 155

Capacity: Current: 251(62 % Utilization) Proposed: 251

Estimated Capital Cost: $1,175,000 Project summary Located in the town of Choiceland, the school was built in 1963 with additions in 1966 and 1995. The school is absent of the program spaces found in newer schools including a gathering space, team teaching areas and break out spaces, therefore, limiting teaching and learning opportunities. The electrical system of the school is outdated and does not support 21st century learning. Electrical upgrades are required, many of panels are full and have limited expandability. School modernizations are needed to bring the school up to an enjoyable learning environment, many components paint, flooring, ceiling, etc are at end of their life cycle.

7.0 William Mason School Modernization

Tisdale Elementary School Infrastructure Building ID: 920017 FCI: 20 % Replacement Cost: $ 9,143,967 Grade Configuration: Current: PreK - 5

Proposed: PreK - 5 Area:

Current: 3,164 m2 Proposed: 3,164 m2

Enrollment:

2018: 324 2019: 315

Capacity:

Current: 346 (91% Utilization) Proposed: 346

Estimated Capital Cost: $1,975,000 Project summary The building was originally built in 1967 with an additional portable added in 2006. The school is in relatively good condition. During the wetter years, the crawlspace and the under slab duct work have moisture issues. Concrete slab has dropped a little on the inside south west corner, continue to monitor. The school is lacking of the program spaces found in newer schools including a gathering space, team teaching areas, break out spaces, therefore, limiting teaching and learning opportunities. Electrical upgrades are required, many of panels are full and have limited expandability.

9.0 Tisdale Elementary School Modernization

Tisdale Middle & Secondary School Infrastructure Building ID: 920018 FCI: 19 % Replacement Cost: $ 27,989,672 Grade Configuration: Current: 6-12

Proposed: 6-12 Area:

Current: 8,801 m2 Proposed: 8,801 m2

Enrollment: 2018: 443 2019: 435

Capacity: Current: 584 (74 % Utilization) Proposed: 584

Estimated Capital Cost: $5,745,000 Project summary The building was originally built in 1979, however structural repairs were undertaken in 1994 and a new addition to the school was completed in 1997. Some the building elements are reaching the end of their life cycle, office needs modernization for a more efficient work flow. There is opportunity for some water, heating and electrical efficiency savings throughout the building. School modernization is needed; life cycle replacement of components that are at the end of the forecasted service life (visual boards, lockers, painting, flooring, etc).

8.0 Tisdale Middle & Secondary School Modernization