HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 04-12-2016 - 1 - Review Chapel Hill Carrboro City Schools (CHCCS) and Orange County Schools (OCS) Priorities for the Potential Bond Referendum Funds 1
ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: April 12, 2016
Action Agenda
Item No. 1
SUBJECT: Review Chapel Hill Carrboro City Schools (CHCCS) and Orange County
Schools (OCS) Priorities for the Potential Bond Referendum Funds
DEPARTMENT: County Manager's Office
ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT:
A. CHCCS Materials Bonnie Hammersley, County Manager,
B. OCS Materials (919) 245-2300
PURPOSE: To gain a more complete understanding of school capital priorities and projects
that may be funded through the bond referendum and to prepare for the joint meeting with the
Boards of Education on April 26, 2016.
BACKGROUND: At the March 22, 2016 meeting, the Board of Commissioners considered a
third-party review and prioritization of school capital projects. The Board rejected that process
in favor of a more collaborative discussion with the School Districts about proposed capital
improvements and their prioritization. The Board expressed interest in learning more about the
scope, cost, and schedule of the proposed projects as well as the reasons for prioritizing certain
capital projects over others. This process was discussed in greater depth during the School
Collaboration meeting on March 23, 2016 where participants agreed that a more engaging work
session format would ease the exchange of information and ideas about the various capital
projects contained in each District's assessment of school capital needs.
The April 12 work session is intended to facilitate this exchange of information and ideas. The
administrative and elected leadership of each of the Districts will be invited to be seated with the
Board of Commissioners during the discussion of each District's proposed capital projects and
priorities. Once each district has participated in a discussion, the Board of Commissioners will
have an opportunity to deliberate among themselves in preparation for the joint meeting with the
Boards of Education.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: This abstract is to provide information to the Board of County
Commissioners. As such there is no additional financial impact.
SOCIAL JUSTICE IMPACT: The following two Orange County Social Justice Goals are
applicable to this agenda item:
• GOAL: ENABLE FULL CIVIC PARTICIPATION
Ensure that Orange County residents are able to engage government through voting and
volunteering by eliminating disparities in participation and barriers to participation.
2
This exchange of information will better inform policy makers and the public about projects and
priorities that may be funded through the bond referendum for school capital projects.
• GOAL: CREATE A SAFE COMMUNITY
The reduction of risks from vehicle/traffic accidents, childhood and senior injuries, gang
activity, substance abuse and domestic violence.
Many of the proposed school capital projects include construction elements that would improve
school safety and security.
RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends that the Board review the information as
provided and consider the goals and policy priorities in the upcoming budget deliberations and
bond referendum discussions.
ATTACHMENT A 3
00.4
>i of /4 , a
fi • ,,,, Orange County Schools
jokholopide 1.1101 111 1111 1111 I II I
VIII I�II��IVmo mrou�mmioi�io "" 1444
OCS Facility Recommendations
• 2013 Facilities Assessment reflected needed repairs/replacements/additions in excess of$160M
as of the date of the assessment.
• OCS receives approximately$2.6M for capital funding annually.
• Of the$160M overall needs, OC Board of Education prioritized projects to funding levels of$50,
$60 and $70M,with projects in the following areas given highest priority:
o Safety;
o Replacement of antiquated and failing mechanical equipment that would exceed normal
CIP funding capabilities;
o Cedar Ridge High School classroom wing addition;
o Replacement of Transportation facilities;
o Upgrade and replacement of food service facilities and equipment.
• Phase 1 projects per the attached sheet would be completed assuming a $50M allocation of the
potential 2016 bond.
• Unfunded projects would be addressed if higher allocation from potential 2016 bond were
allocated and/or through future CIPs.
• Based on approved CAP Certificates to date, OCS has adequate elementary and middle school
capacity for the current 10-year CIP period. The Cedar Ridge classroom addition will address the
needed high school capacity, which is projected to reach SAPFO capacity by 2022. A
planning/constructing/opening period of approximately three years is anticipated.
• Replacement and consolidation of Transportation facilities is included in the OCS Phase 1
request, but is envisioned as a joint project with CHCCS. OCS is the recognized LEA for
Transportation for both OCS and CHCCS(State only recognizes one per County). The 1950's
vintage Transportation facilities for both CHCCS and OCS are woefully inadequate. Some buses
will not fit and still close the bay doors, for example.
• Potential bond funds will allow OCS to divert future pay-as-you-go CIP funds to other critical
projects addressed in the Facilities Assessment, but not included in Phase 1.
4
Orange County Schools Facilities Assessment Priorities 2015
Prioritization for
Location Scope of Work Est.Cost Potential Bond Funding
Phase 1: Assumes$50M
potential bond funds allocation
A.L.STAN BACK --Replace antiquated/failing mechanical systems;
MIDDLE --Address building infrastructure and major
maintenance issues;
--Upgrade and replace antiquated and
non-compliant food service facilities and $4.6 M* Phase 1
equipment;
--Upgrade Science classrooms to DPI standards;and
--Implement Safe Haven International(SHI)safety
recommendations*
CAMERON PARK --Replace antiquated/failing mechanical systems;
ELEMENTARY --Upgrade and replace antiquated and non- $1.2M* Phase 1
compliant food services facilities and equipment;
--Address building infrastructure issues;
--Implement SHI safety recommendations*
CEDAR RIDGE --Upgrade Science classrooms to DPI standards;
HIGH SCHOOL --New classroom wing increases capacity by 500 $14.7 M* Phase 1
students
--Implement SHI safety recommendations*
CENTRAL --Replace antiquated/failing mechanical systems;
ELEMENTARY --Upgrade and replace antiquated and non-
compliant food services facilities and equipment;
--Address building infrastructure issues;
--Implement SHI safety recommendations*
C.W.STANFORD --Upgrade and replace antiquated and non-
MIDDLE compliant food services facilities and equipment;
--Upgrade Science classrooms to DPI standards; $440,000* Phase 1
--Implement SHI safety recommendations*
EFLAND-CHEEKS --Replace antiquated/failing mechanical systems;
ELEMENTARY --Upgrade and replace antiquated and non-
compliant food services facilities and equipment;
--Major renovation of office area to address safety $3.3M * Phase 1
issues;
--Address building infrastructure issues;
--Implement SHI safety recommendations*
GRADY BROWN --Upgrade and replace antiquated and non-
ELEMENTARY compliant food services facilities and equipment; $1.4 M* Phase 1
--Address building infrastructure issues.
--Implement SHI safety recommendations*
GRAVELLY HILL --Implement SHI safety recommendations* Phase 1
MIDDLE
HILLSBOROUGH --Upgrade and replace antiquated and non-
ELEMENTARY compliant food services facilities and equipment;
--Replace antiquated/failing mechanical systems; $3.6 M* Phase 1
--Create enclosed building connectors for safer
student movement throughout the campus;
--Implement SHI safety recommendations*
NEW HOPE --Replace antiquated/failing mechanical systems
ELEMENTARY ---Upgrade and replace antiquated and non- $1.5M* Phase 1
compliant food services facilities and equipment;
--Implement SHI safety recommendations*
*All safety/security funding included in "District-Wide Safety" total
**Transportation facility estimate assumes TBD funding contribution by CHCCS.
5
Orange County Schools Facilities Assessment Priorities 2015
ORANGE HIGH --Upgrade and replace antiquated and non-
SCHOOL compliant food services facilities and equipment;
--Replace antiquated/failing mechanical systems;
--Address major building infrastructure and $8.2 M* Phase 1
maintenance issues;
--Implement SHI safety recommendations*
PARTNERSHIP --Implement SHI safety recommendations* Phase 1
ACADEMY
PATHWAYS
ELEMENTARY --Implement SHI safety recommendations* Phase 1
DISTRICT-WIDE --Implement SHI safety recommendations. $2.7 M Phase 1
SAFETY
TRANSPORTATION --Joint project with CHCCS: Replace two 1950's
vintage facilities with co-located,code-complaint
operations and maintenance base.OCS is the LEA of $9 M** Phase 1
record with the State of NC for Transportation
services.
Total Phase 1 Projects for Proposed 2016 Bond $52,140,000**
Major OCS Projects Unfunded at$50M
Allocation Level
Efland-Cheeks --Classroom expansion wing to accommodate $2.7M Unfunded
Elementary expected growth from growth in western Orange
--Pre-K addition
Orange High --Replace Ag Building $3.7 M Unfunded
Central --Media center expansion $700,000 Unfunded
Elementary
Various schools --HVAC system replacements identified in 2013 $4,544,000 Unfunded
Facilities Assessment and not included in Phase 1
Various schools --Infrastructure and major maintenance identified
in 2013 Facilities Assessment and not included in $500,000 Unfunded
Phase 1
Unfunded OC Board of Education Priority Projects $12,144,000
*All safety/security funding included in "District-Wide Safety" total
**Transportation facility estimate assumes TBD funding contribution by CHCCS.
6
a ATTACHMENT B
RRBORO
6, CITY S C I-1 0 0 n... S
Date: April 7, 2016
To: Travis Myren, Deputy County Manager
From: Todd LoFrese, Assistant Superintendent for Support Services
Re: April 12, 2016 Work Session
The district welcomes the opportunity to provide information and answer questions that
County Commissioners may have regarding our potential bond projects, our prioritization
of older school renovations, and our Capital Improvement Plan. As discussed, the district
would like to submit the following documents for next week's work session.
• Older facilities 4 page handout
• Older facility recommendations (project sheets)
• Considerations of centralized Pre-K
Thank you and please let me know if you have any questions.
Phase 1 Projects Rationale HAPEL HILL- 7
Chapel Hill High School CCARMORO
• significant disrepair and deferred maintenance
• building has chronic flooding,moisture and mold issues CITY SCHOOLS
• inadequate educational spaces,including severely antiquated science labs
• aeentirecampusHV Csysemnres eplaet Older Facility Recommendations and the 2016-26 CIP
• the entire campus HVAC system needs replacement
• profound security concerns including:multiple access points,outdated security system,and hard to monitor entrances
• major traffic and pedestrian conflicts that cause congestion,busing delays,and safety issues Key Elements of Older Fa c i I i t Recommendations
• pery asiveADAissuesthroughoutthecampus (included in the 2016-26 CIP Recommendations)
• scale of project requires significant financial investment(bond appropriate)
Glenwood Elementary School • The recommendations are for a comprehensive pro-
• provides a solution to continue safe operations for the next 10 years gram that focuses on the district's 10 oldest schools.
• addresses safety and security concerns by providing a secure entrance `' -
• addresses handicap accessibility and appropriate restrooms -+ i • Facility recommendations include:
• addresses flooding,moisture,and mold issues hr ✓ correction of building code violations;
• provides for repairs to existing infrastructure , ✓ improved safety by consolidating operations
• Glenwood Elementary's continuance after 10 years is uncertain
F'i c $ and controlling entry;
PreK Center/Phoenix Academy/Lincoln Center ✓ indoor air quality deficiencies and health con-
• provides a comprehensive facility to support early childhood education - cerns addressed;
✓ improved access to educational resources ✓ replacement of malfunctioning mechanical equip-
✓ improved services for students r ment;
✓ disadvantaged student supports ll� I ✓ relief of traffic congestion problems and pro-
• returns existing space back to elementary schools and allows for phasing of other projects viding pedestrian access;
• provides the greatest increase in capacity ✓ deconstruction of some inefficient buildings;
✓ 189 Elementary School seats
✓ 100 High School seats Wit,•, ✓ accessibility for all students and staff;
• provides Phoenix Academy High students with appropriate and supportive facilities,including a biomedical lab - ✓ extending the life of the schools an additional 50
• provides desperately needed additional space for students with mental health needs and for students who need a smaller educa- years;and
tional environment ✓ providing educational facilities that meet Orange
• provides a community meeting space and a Black/education history museum -WS;
• provides renovations and A/C to the existing gymnasium County school construction standards.
• addresses moisture and mold concerns (S. „/.
• addresses handicap accessibility issues Implementation of the recommendations eliminate
• frees up future capital funding to address other school capital needs mobile classrooms(also in need of renovations)
• provides appropriately-sized administrative space on the second floor,reducing total expenditures to a small fraction of the total - / while providing additional student capacity.
anticipated CHCCS bond funding allocation ,
✓ Elementary school capacity increase=555.
✓ High school capacity increase=155.
Next Phase Projects
Phase II,to begin in 3-4 years: Improvements at Ephesus,Estes Hills and Seawell Elementary Schools and Phillips Middle School. . "-�� • Increased student capacity would result in deferment
These improvements provide the second most positive impact to capacity.These improvements will hopefully be funded by long range j, of new elementary school and high school additions
funds Orange County has planned for the district's new schools. 0-- well beyond the 10-year CIP window.
ii ii, S ✓ Delays nearly$57.6 million in projected capital-Phase III,to begin in 4-7 years: Improvements at Carrboro and Frank Porter Graham Elementary Schools and at Culbreth Middle \ expenditures.
School.These projects are currently unfunded. It is hoped that future funding sources will be identified to complete all the projects. ? r ✓
Delays significant operational increases with
••■••■ 0._.- opening a new school.
v r'
Bond funds and future capital funds directed to the ill
r — r 10 oldest schools will make available CIP(Paygo)
V.4 revenue for needed maintenance at district's"newer"
schools s
schools that are 20-30 years of age.
kdditional Details of Older School Facility Recommendations (by Phase/School) 8
Project Na Phase(funding source) Estimated Cost Health/Life Safety/Code A Capacity Positively Impacts Security Upkeep/Maintenance Completed Project Will Meet
$/Broken Infastructure OCStandards
Glenwood Elementary Address water infiltration issues
•(maintain existing buildings,provide 1 • Accessible bathrooms maintenance and repairs
secure lobby and front entrance, $940,000(District Fund Balance) $ ' • Correct chronic flooding,moisture and mold issues no increase yes no year solution) no
address health/safety concerns and
•
handicapped accessibility) Correct fire/life safety/egress/code concerns
• Address pedestrian/vehicular conflicts,separate bus/car drop off locations,
Chapel Hill High appropriate queuing lengths
(deconstruction and replacement • HVAC replacement for indoor air quality major renovations to remaining
of an existing building,renovation 1 • Address water infiltration issues facilities provide long-term yes
of remaining buildings,new secure (2016 Bond) $52.41 million • Provide handicapped accessible main entrance and improved access throughout campus 105 seats yes maintenance solution (eliminates reliance on mobiles)
lobby and front entrance,greater con- • Correct fire/life safety/egress/code concerns (up to 50 year solution)
nectivity of existing buildings) • Correct chronic flooding,moisture and mold issues
• Provide safe science labs
PreK/Phoenix Academy Hip;
Lincoln Center • HVAC replacement for indoor air quality
(deconstruction and replacement • Provide handicapped accessible main entrance and improved access throughout campus
189 el entary major renovations to remaining
em
of existing buildings,renovation of 1 • Address pedestrian/vehicular conflicts,separate bus/car drop off locations. facilities provide long-term yes
remaining buildings,PreK centraliza- (2016 Bond)
$22.62 million appropriate queuing lengths 50-100 high yes maintenance solution (eliminates reliance on mobiles)
tion,Phoenix Academy expansion, • Correct moisture and mold issues school (up to 50 year solution)
administrative workspace on second • Correct fire/life safety/egress/code concerns
floor)
• Correct chronic moisture and mold issues
Ephesus Elementary major renovations provide
(renovation,new secure lobby and 2 • Correct fire/life safety/egress/code concerns long-term yes
front entrance,additional space per (request access to planned new $155 •4 million • Provide handicapped accessible main entrance and improved access throughout campus 137 seats yes maintenance solution (eliminates reliance on mobiles)
OC standards) schools funds) • Address pedestrian/vehicular conflicts,separate bus/car drop off locations, (up to 50 year solution)
appropriate queuing lengths
Seawell Elementary • Correct flooding,chronic moisture and mold issues
(deconstruction and replacement 2 • Correct fire/life safety/egress/code concerns major renovations to remaining
of an existing building, (request access to planned new $15.74 million • Provide handicapped accessible main entrance and improved access throughout campus 119 seats es facilities provide long-term yes
g g' (� p pPe p g P yes solution (eliminates reliance on mobiles)
of remaining buildings,new secure schools funds) • Address pedestrian/vehicular conflicts,separate bus/car drop off locations,
lobby and front entrance) appropriate queuing lengths (up to 50 year solution)
Estes Hills Elementary • Correct flooding,chronic moisture and mold issues
(deconstruction and replacement 2 • Correct fire/life safety/egress/code concerns major renovations to remaining
of an existing building,renovation facilities provide long-term yes
g g, (request access to planned new $16.73 million • Provide handicapped accessible main entrance and improved access throughout campus 58 seats yes maintenance solution (eliminates reliance on mobiles)
of remaining buildings,new secure schools funds) • Address pedestrian/vehicular conflicts,separate bus/car drop off locations, (up to 50 year solution)
lobby and front entrance) appropriate queuing lengths
• Correct flooding,chronic moisture and mold issues
Phillips Middle major renovations to remaining
2 • Correct fire/life safety/egress/code concerns
(renovation provides additional pro- facilities provide long-term
gram space per OC standards,new (request access to planned new $9.4 million • Provide handicapped accessible main entrance and improved access throughout campus no increase yes maintenance solution yes
secure lobby and front entrance) schools funds • Address pedestrian/vehicular conflicts,separate bus/car drop off locations, (up to 50 year solution)
appropriate queuing lengths
Carrboro Elementary • Correct flooding,chronic moisture and mold issues major renovations to remaining
(deconstruction and replacement • Correct fire/life safety/egress/code concerns
3 facilities provide long-term yes
of an existing building,renovation (unfunded future capital) $1355 million • Provide handicapped accessible main entrance and improved access throughout campus 52 seats yes maintenance solution (eliminates reliance on mobiles)
of remaining buildings,new secure • Address pedestrian/vehicular conflicts,separate bus/car drop off locations, (up to 50 year solution)
lobby and front entrance) appropriate queuing lengths
I' • Correct flooding,chronic moisture and mold issues major renovations to remaining
repo,auon -I 3 facilities provide long-term
( pro\is c:,nnc:,cc urc (unfunded future capital) $5.48 million • Correct fire/life safety/egress/code concerns no increase yes yes solution yes
lobby and front entrance) • Provide handicapped accessible main entrance and improved access throughout campus (up to 50 year solution)
no increase
(capacity
major renovations to remaining
Culbreth Middle 3 • Correct fire/life safety/egress/code concerns increase facilities provide long-term yes
(renovation,except for science lab) (unfunded future capital) $5.8 million occurred as yes maintenance solution (this school currently meets of recent Orange County Standards)
science wing (up to 50 year solution)
addition)
`' _ " CARRBORO ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
s.. F , • f:. �, ," CURRENT CONDITIONS:
V4 ; ~ ` { - L • One mobile unit on-site
,,,� a Jp. ,_ ., -, 4 .,,. ; • 100 classroom wing has dead-end corridors and does not meet
i'•' +,� BLDG TIS• i& 4.;
'- ' -(..,:t the current NC State Building Code•? -- Ti,,,- R OVATIs vQ' ,,...-
�ll �� • Administration area, cafeteria, kitchen and staff support spaces
1w. ) \ �� N-A CL• ►'OM .-,. are too small
i b WIN`` • Program deficiencies - art room and 5 smaller classroom spaces
y',' .' BLS / • Existing queueing for parent drop-off occurs on Shelton Street
.;�v;. �.�� R O�►•TIC.. . g q g p p
NE • Stacking traffic onto the public right of way is a safety concern
' :; �, &A• 1 / ��� • Aging mechanical system
+�°�- ‘�,� ���P • Campus-style layout lacking connection from main building to
$.' ' NE :kS 1Q / f ;,' the multipurpose building
DROP-
'" \� ., > l nt>> STUDENT/PARLNT 4• • Modular walls between classrooms causing noise transfer
14, i,_ DROP OFF
between classrooms
k . . 40 '''''-.R <
Year Built: 1957
IR
` . r-',1 Additions: 1964, 1989
1 Last Renovation: 2011
! ,� Area 61,562 sf
` Ti Acres: 17.7
it tit y4 �.. -„ - ' -.,. -�_ w. _ •' ` -; - r Student Capacity (per SAPFO): 533 Students
1 ' :$ '`'A- . ..w. . i. ..� 2013 ADM: 468 Students
Construction: Precast concrete frame with brick infill and
RECOMMENDATIONS built-up roof
• Eliminates life safety issues in Building 100 by deconstruction
and building new academic wing
• Provide a new administration suite main entrance • -
• Moves queuing off of the road -
• Connects all existing building internally r� '
• Renovate all existing buildings - �� - E'�E �-41 IN
• Increase capacity by 52 seats. �— -
zJ�.- .-
I
HITS T ORO
MOSELEYARC C S
,,, CITY SGhIOULS
r 4 CHAPEL HILL HIGH SCHOOL
CURRENT CONDITIONS: 10
{ = -.fM1 • Deteriorated facility conditions
• Building "A" houses most of the classrooms and science rooms
A . ,, that are smaller than the School Construction Standards
S- � ; iy,-} k . " '' 0 • Fourteen mobile units on-site housing 9 academic classrooms,
;r*, Ridge, 2 Blue Ribbon classrooms, & 2 health classrooms
y--:
r T :� s IN
4 ' '= 4 , ,f in per,, F �4. ` • Drama, dance, wrestling, & weight rooms are significantly fil
k .•.• • undersized
4.:;' ..W! i, ° . vfibi . - re 1
n '� • Staff support space is undersized and inefficiently configured
yr EDIA - �. A.
- s$ CLASSROOM CENTER k '-'. L ' • Campus-style layout lacking connection between the four
WING
DROP 4 f R UIO0ING+C buildings
..� '- =" �`� • Major site drainage issues wi,
'' "` - BUI ►1NG D �,4 , • Main entrance is not ADA accessible
�1 x' URDINGB • Ramp between Main Building "A" and A2 does not meet Code
r-S+j ke NOVAT4QN' VAT• I N.
-sr .. I • Aging mechanical systems causing humidity issues
'; -` Year Built: 1965
-` �I; - ` Additions: 1969, 1973, 1975,1983, 1990, 1994, 1996, 1997, 2003
: 1..' ' lk I Last Renovation: 2007
', Area: 256,406 sf
i _ i � T
.. M— Acres: 87.4
# I _ ; . ''1 n— Student Capacity (per SAPFD): 1520 Students
2013 ADM: 1,432 Students
Constructio : Load-bearing concrete block&steel frame
RECOMMENDATIONS _
• Deconstruct Building A and construct an addition to house ` ' ' ^j .,- - `` ~'� -
I
the current program spaces as well as the deficient program . —!!
spaces .. �: �.:6� �.r
• Create a new accessible and secure main entry for students, _ :'F-. '" "" _ =
staff and visitors. ''� r; ; , a
• Address the oldest building on the high school campus and the ,, - _ -
major mechanical issues. ...� �' 4� ,LU
.-=:�=
• Connects more of the campus internally ;r
• Renovate all existing buildings ` - „. `- 1 , , ; :
z
• Eliminate mobiles on site „, M'
HITS Togo
MOSELEYARC C S
,`; ciry sGI-IOOi_ s
CULBRETH MIDDLE SCHOOL
CURRENT CONDITIONS: 11
y, • Operating slightly over capacity
• No mobile units
r - - ,__. .'141.4' on NEW ADMIN/ • Six science classroom addition under construction
L .Y • Additional staff support space needed
• Location of administration suite presents security concerns
• Modular partition walls between classrooms allow sound
- MILBUILDING SCIEN E transfer between classes
RENOVATION WING. etki • Water infiltration issues into the lower level Band room
• Major damage to EIFS on exterior of building
%, igiv, ..,
a
ALI r \\' Year Built: 1968
,` I Additions: 1977, 1988, 1989, 1997, 1999, 2001
�F`F "�*!R!C f ,,
Last Renovation: 2013
A ,,
_� _�.1,- :* l}; ' ,;�, tE t • !!r Area: 108,058 sf
Acres: 35.4
'N,, , ,,\ _ A A. ''` �... Student Capacity (per SAPID): 670 Students
2013 ADM: 696 Students
Construction: Load-bearing CMU wall construction
RECOMMENDATIONS
• Renovate existing building. la Corley redfoot architects.,
1.7S -1 0::,.--:.--,-f—':::..9 I.
;, _ rP* --H--- ii 1
,- mil .,,, ' c r i _in F
��
li
ELE R HITS T �ofta
MOS YA C C S
i'y
i� , C I 1 Y s cf-ICi;I l_ $
=' - -I EPHESUS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
'"= f 12
CURRENT CONDITIONS:
•' • Seven mobile units on-site housing Pre-K, music, ESL, &
,� �1 administration/guidance offices
- • Administration area & cafeteria/kitchen are too small
�. RENOVATE • Additional classrooms, science project room, music classroom,
• CCLA-S ,ROOM WING '� NEW CLASSROOM .
WING & administration/staff support spaces are needed
i • Main entrance through the atrium does not provide a secure
�` ``* and easily monitored entry point
• • Interior layout of existing building is inefficient, many
1 • 1 classrooms have no windows
— REORGANIZE ,_ f' • Aging mechanical system
_ �� INTERIOR LAYOUT _ ,
•' `'. - -- 1; =' Year Built: 1971
NEW MAIN ENTRY .V4 ti , - 4- Additions: 1975. 1989
0 Last Renovation: 2012
� ii ti: t Area: 66,952 sf
---� - .'+ • .., Acres: 13.4 Ilk v,
■ — 4- Student Capacity (per SAPFO): 448 Students
^; 2013 ADM: 441 Students
�''-4
, , •M
_ Construction: Load-bearing CMU wall construction
RECOMMENDATIONS N -
• Renovate & reorganize the layout of the main building f
• Relocate the administration suite to the street front & provide '
a new secure, main entry �: _ _ .,,_
• Provide additional program space to eliminate mobiles & bring ' a
Cr 014'llire2 .1111611111.11 1: A __,:k
school up the space standards
• Increase capacity by 137. , _
HITS Togo
MOSELEYARC C S
,,, G I T Y S C H O O L S
- . 7- - - - - R, �°, -�.-r#(;) ESTES HILLS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
.�I
O ■ _ _ CURRENT CONDITIONS:•
- f° • Two mobile units on-site housing Pre-K and a science room
• . � `�" ULT • RP SE , *' • Most classrooms are 28 to 33% smaller than the current School
_ �. ,• 'rJ',-,._! I R.11•VA\ION ,�, .
r Construction Standards program
►- ' ° '` _ • Program deficiencies, including 4 smaller classroom spaces,
�� 2 STORY` �� 'a���'"'��' ` , .11 ) . administration and staff support spaces
- :,5-8,- � � e � p p p SHARED BUS LO P ,ASSROOM 'i ,�:: • Classrooms in the 1957 building exit to exterior breezeways and
\BUILD G ?: ' r �ik are not secure
.� O� O NOVA •■ t +
oMRE ". • Aging mechanical system
•� I r NO�AT/a 1 __ • Queuing forces stacking in the public right of way
r y 1r. :: Al IN SUITE �' ,
-�•A.A1N ENT' ,
(� � � ,. Year Built: 1957
REN � �F��� ;�-+-' Additions: 1986, 1998
�LLLtrllitU�t _ I Last Renovation: 2011
t
Area: 58,442
- Acres: 33.1
-t' Student Capacity (per SAPFO): 527 Students
• - . 2013 ADM: 499 Students
.`-, ;. .� .x- - . Construction: Load-bearing CMU walls with brick veneer &
built-up roof over a poured-gypsum deck.
RECOMMENDATIONS
t --
• Provide an administration addition at front to provide necessary -- -
staff space as well as a secure main entry ''~ -�t.►.¢ _ .
• Classroom wing deconstruction and addition at rear of the AM::
school including Pre-K classroom ,—. ' -/-2:NW. r4. ..,..)00
• Enclose breezeways to connect all classrooms with interior ��, ,,.
corridors �� ''r,�� . �; K iiiii1TT I
• Realign the parent drop-off and combine the bus loop with _ µy uo, - ��' �� ' •
Phillips Middle School to eliminate stacking on Estes Drive `" J - `f
• Connect internally most of the campus f
• Eliminate mobile classrooms ,. ----4"__�
• increase capacity by 58 seats -
HITE Togo
MOSELEYARC C S
,,, G I T Y S 0 F-I00 L S
_ FRANK PORTER GRAHAM ELEMENTARY
6.*`, 14
• r •- . - -. - i.•, - ' ■ 0. CURRENT CONDITIONS:
fj F 44 • Magnet Spanish dual-language school
;. • • Two mobile units on-site
��'` 4 - III
'�- ' Kitchen, dining, & staff support areas are too small 1.
• Existing reception area is in a large open lobby that is not secure
�l ��� _ • Water infilitration issues in Building 5
�'' N "-.'--- " _
7 • Campus style layout
f J BLDG 1 h' �_ _•
• mechanical system
•x .. 1 ' 4 r -71-t----- RENOVATION - -1 --- Aging Y
* f BLDG - --- - - .-i :ENOV
.' __� RENOVATION
- 1
--- /l r L BLDG 3 F
DG ','•ENOVATIO .. Year Built: 1969
-I NOVAT} " 1 Additions: 1977, 1989
_ . l' . t - Last Renovation: 2012
.. -. 'r. ' �. r 4. l
Area 68,513sf
, 4. •'.¢ ,, ir. Acres: 9.8
f r. +++ ,t
x ' Student Capacity (per SAPFO): 538 Students
°+ r 2013 ADM: 491 Students
k�� Construction: Load bearing CMU walls with brick veneer;
- built-up roof over a poured-gypsum deck& pre-cast exterior wall
- - construction
RECOMMENDATIONS
• Construct addition for expansion of administration and
dining/kitchen. - Ip ������ .
• Provide more prominent front door and secure main entrance - f;-I=- :=r } - --___
• Renovate existing buildings. -- � �,� -- �� �~
n., -'4 1 1 1
- __ _ __--..4„;,aw-- _:11LE 1_,g` ' -
hhiiiiik,
L R HITS T R T
MDSE EYA C C S
5r1y
i„, , C l 1 Y S cf-ICi;I i_ $
_ GLENWOOD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
w
y . 15
,,;' ��. , !'�' . ^j, .. " CURRENT CONDITIONS:
4rt lir,er • Operating over capacity
r * • Oldest school in the district
,; • Five mobile units on-site housing 1st & 2nd grade classes
-t" -
4;, - q4 _ • _:/ ■ • Basement level rooms are substandard and being used for
• = a ., .. - kindergarten, exceptional education & staff offices
' 71 •,'-'" _a education area, media
aI .. _ • Administration area, cafeteria, physical
..`' , r. �. In► center, & staff support areas are too small
F. �* - T (Eta = • Existing administration suite is undersized and spread out
• .��' ' ' --- - -- __ Mai �- M1 -• .' .-., '�
I. .,- , Lack of staff toilet rooms
,,,'ti }�' z • Aging mechanical system
Year Built: 1952
- '' ; 4IN]` Additions: 1959, 1986
G�/ 1 ,_. N8 ~ Last Renovation:w.,; D
;* �;;, c z Area: 55,372 sf
'1417.�`P«:. -i: ac. '•4 Acres: 9.6
_ '� r ;. ,, _•� Student Capacity (per SAPFO): 423 Students
•Ite _ ; • 2013 ADM: 513 Students
t__ ., ¢ -;= •A. Construction: Load-bearing brick in the original building and
- CMU wall construction in the later additions
RECOMMENDATIONS
. ' :-_,,,i'll'iLl --i-' ''..1.-- ' 7.— -'611.111.. -I -1;111" . _.,
• Maintain existing buildings k '
• Provide small administrative addition and necessary staff space
• Provide secure main entrance
Ali - . e°!.' 0
......*: __:_ -_, -,,.- .. I '■.
�� ate►_. --
HITS T OK)
MOSELEYARC C S
X: GI TY SCHOOLS
LINCOLN CENTER
1 R CURRENT CONDITIONS: 16
,' • Inefficient layout for departments
y` • { GYM 1 ,-..i„
` 'C • Lack of sufficient space for all central office personnel
:�±_,�r 1 • Aging mechanical system creating major humidity issues
, , r. RENO
-� _ �1. I" , vv P 61'' •
I 41.1.- ; • Lack of necessary parking
% 4 PRE-K J 2 ACADEMY* , + • • Lack of Professional Development space
I PLAYGRO/114D 1 BRIDGE
i - r t \ * .\\ 7 ' - ROGRA,‘
C ��� .E W�7 E } C R t " ,
�•A::44iS! �> N,i PRE-K CE TEV y
W/2N❑ FLOOR
A G 1''' - •;' Year Built: 1950
,• IVE OFF E 4 '� ' ' Additions: 1977 (Maintenance building)
• .. <.:.s` �,. °' Last Renovation: Phoenix Academy- 2008
ti • . -
Area: Lincoln Center-33,731 sf
A- SI " Phoenix Academy 5,622 sf 44.1
x
Maintenance Building- 22,388 sf
i Acres: 12.8
ti L Construction: Load-bearing CMU walls
. • 4 • ::
- r�+^�rJ fig,. `,1 r. ;w
. •r
RECOMMENDATIONS .
• Deconstruct the existing Lincoln Center building and Phoenix -- •:_ -..2--
Academy. Gymnasium & maintenance building to remain " '
• Construct a building to house both Pre-K program & new central _ - _,„„, --;,-,-- ,. --- - --' ! ` -
office _==____,. '�'�'` _ -- r ;i I 3d A
p building Academy -- _. -=__ __ g L -- 9. .
• Construct separate buildin to house Phoenix Academ & Fr
PHILLIPS MIDDLE SCHOOL
0 CURRENT CONDITIONS: 17
:; ,,t9,;; . • No mobile units
' " 4.p° - f • Art education & musics aces and a foreign language classroom
,,r k : -. p g
��'ly:, -;` a ../04..14_,.,,... ` ' nr. are deficient
Try , '" • Existing main entrance is not secure ft
''"} :> •` •� • ' / .n -t L.:.,,,,, • Major water infiltration issues in the basement
1' ;. , .i _1 , '.- • Aging mechanical system
4 •
EW 2
■ FINE ARTS 0, BUIL" G ,d;
WIN RENOVATI0 'r_AA
•
NEW PARKING : 6 {, SHARED BUS LOOP Year Built: 1962
}, \ a Additions: 1978, 1990
•
� Last Renovation: 2011
', Area: 109,498 sf•;``;. ; - Acres: 33.1
. Student Capacity (per SAPFD): 706 Students
' #' !''.' • 2013 ADM: 659 Students
-
7 ' -' Construction: Steel frame construction with brick veneer
j 6 a.
i ,�' ;‘ '- ..- :rte ,A- exterior walls and load bearing masonry walls at the gymnasium g._ f k _ ' . .<'• - 'f- .e.. - and concrete retaining walls at the lower level
RECOMMENDATIONS
• Renovate existing building tis ' -
• Provide additional program space to meet space standards, -:
including increasing the administrative suite to provide a secure ----- —,
main entry 1- - !
• Provide new queuing configuration =--__ �� i
A,i;
tr ——
_r, 111011111D.r-1 4111116k1 .1
HITS T HILL
MOSELEYARC C S
,;, CITY SGhIOULS
SEAWELL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
CURRENT CONDITIONS:
Y
Operating over capacity
-� ,. �- • Six mobile units on-site housing classroom space
,..r
• Opera• Administration area, physical education area & staff support
',� - ' 3 areas are too small
'w i • Media center support spaces are lacking
,i ;� " • Lack of storage rooms
FIRE LANE �� • Aging mechanical system
l; .=5 • Campus-style layout with classrooms exiting to the exterior
i1,, TRY 'le., ' • Aging kitchen equipment
iiisn_45.4 •'aM IN/DI ING eR: •
Exterior structural remediation needed at one of the classroom
+ BLDG
'• R NDVATI/ 5 pods
` • Year Built: 1969
LOWLER BUILDING - A % Additions: 1975, 1989
RENOVATION y �� ;_
•
II -_y- ' 4\' Last Renovation:
i' .. 41 t. , � Area: 58,629 sf
t '�'. 87.5•
' ,-** Acres:
P ,•" .t Student Capacity (per SAPFO): 466 Students
S; ..,. 2013 ADM: 539 Students
Construction: Load bearing brick construction appears to be the
— — " '' A} t main structural system for the original building and load bearing
CMU and steel frame construction for the 1989 addition
RECOMMENDATIONS r^''w
dite •
�- -
1 ea 'rim,
• Deconstruct the five classroom pods. �' ., . "
• Renovate the existing administration/dining building & Lowler - w , - . -
Building. -
• Eliminate use of mobiles as classrooms - . • Y - , 4411,I
`1
• Provide additional program space to meet space standards & 4 l ��� _ '� ; _
replace deconstructed classroms (do not increase kitchen). ---_ �--f �� '"
• Increase capacity by 119. - - I
or. ,- _ _
r
HITS T �ofto
MOSELEYARC C S
X: GI TY SGI-100LS
19
: ,ORO
� *it CITY SCHOOLS
TO: Todd LoFrese, Assistant Superintendent
FROM: Bill Frenzel, Director, Preschool Services
Thea Wilson, Coordinator, Preschool Intervention
DATE: January 18, 2014
RE: PreK Center
We were asked to develop a list of advantages and disadvantages for our current model of PreK
classrooms in every elementary school, and for a PreK center that would house all or nearly all PreK
classrooms.
Current Model
The current model has 20 PreK classrooms with at least one in every elementary school. Four
schools have one classroom, five schools have two classrooms, and two schools have three
classrooms. Four of the twenty classrooms are system level special education settings, seven
classrooms are structured as inclusive, with up to four children with IEPs placed for their special
education services in these classrooms with typically developing peers, and nine are "regular" PreK
classrooms. Four of these "regular" classrooms are designated for dual language instruction. The
vast majority of children served in the Prek/Head Start program meet multiple risk criteria.
Advantages
• Location in elementary schools has increased visibility of the PreK program and general
support for the work being done.
• Increased conversation and coordination between PreK teachers and kindergarten teachers
strengthens both programs.
• Joint supervision between the PreK/Head Start director and building principals has increased
administrative support.
• School resources are often made available to the PreK classrooms, enriching the PreK
experience for those children.
• Families and staff feel more a part of the school in which they are located and often participate
in school-wide initiatives and activities.
• Pairing a system level classroom with an inclusive classroom offers opportunities for inclusion
and for individual children moving easily to a less restrictive setting when appropriate.
Disadvantages
• Joint supervision between the PreK/Head Start director and building principals means
20
teachers often must manage multiple demands that do not always easily complement each
other.
• Lack of a same assignment peer in schools with only one classroom means less opportunity
for quality PLC work.
• Lack of a peer with the same kind of challenges in schools with classrooms with different
structures (ex, dual language/non-dual language; system level/non-system level) means less
opportunity for quality PLC work and peer-to-peer consultation.
• Providing targeted and more intensive curriculum and/or classroom management support to
classrooms with new teachers or teachers with new challenges is more difficult.
• When schools become overcrowded, moving PreK classes is often one of the first alternatives
considered. This movement can be disruptive to the program and involves added expense
and staff time for the PreK program and for the Maintenance Department to meet the more
restrictive requirements of child care licensing
• Logistical problems complicate the offering of extended care in all classrooms while
maintaining child/staff ratios.
• Local Travel expenses are greater for management team and intervention staff who must
travel to 11 different sites, and for classroom staff who travel to another site to provide
extended care coverage.
• District bus transportation expense is increased to provide transportation for children with IEPs
to 11 different classrooms in 5 different schools
• Children often are not placed at their home school due to uneven number of classrooms at
each school and funder priorities for which children are placed and served.
PreK Center Model
A PreK center would localize preschool services to a central location.
Advantages
• Increases teacher collegiality and support, both informal and through better utilization of PLCs.
• Increases ability to provide staff development, both program-wide and targeted.
• Increases ability to provide supervision and support through the teacher observation and
evaluation process, and more consistent evaluation of PreK teaching staff.
• Eases accessibility issues that are of concern at several schools.
• Increases ability to utilize alternate funding sources (ex, Title I, NCPreK).
• Provides savings due to increased efficiencies in providing extended care.
• Provides savings due to decreased travel for management staff, classroom staff providing
extended care, and special education staff providing related services.
• Increases staff time availability due to less time spent traveling between sites.
• Provides savings due to decreased bus transportation requirements for children with IEPs
being transported to one location rather than five.
• Increases efficiency of providing food services for preschoolers at one location rather than
eleven
Disadvantages
• Decreases visibility of the PreK program in the elementary schools may lead to decreased
awareness of the work being done, and support for the program in general.
21
• Support provided by individual schools to PreK classes would no longer be available (ex. use
of the gym, visits to the school media center and visits by the school librarian, collaboration
with literacy coach).
• Increases need for work around transition to kindergarten when children are not already
housed in an elementary school.
• Decreased sense of"belonging" to the school district program among PreK teachers, staff,
and families.
Additional thoughts comparing our current model and a Pre-K Center (added 3/14/2014)
Major advantages of PreKs in elementary schools.
1. PreK-K collaboration
o But:
i. Degree and nature of collaboration varies from school-to-school. At some
schools that collaboration is not deep.
ii. More effective collaboration can be built by first building program-wide
expectations and parameters for collaboration.
2. School and district support for program.
o But:
i. School support and degree of integration into school life varies from school to
school due to movement, facility limitations, etc.
3. Parents' sense of"belonging" to a school and to the school system.
o But:
i. Excluding Dual Language classes, only 48% are enrolled at home school
(including Dual Language classes--64%)
Major advantages of PreKs in a PreK center.
Program implementation
o monitoring of curriculum and other district initiatives by PKHS management team
(expertise in early childhood education, 3-5)
consistency of supervision
o observation/evaluation cycle completed by director
o monitoring of staff at one site rather than 10 or 11
Increased administrative support to classrooms and teachers
o novice teachers and teacher new to the district
o classrooms with same structure (System level, inclusive, regular)
Intra-program collaboration
o within PLC groups
o IEP teams--all at one location
22
o program-wide meetings
o greater support for current singleton classes (peers and administrative)
• 4 only one PreK class at that school
• 8 classes no class with same structure at that school
Improved communication across program
Improved accessibility particularly for motor involved children
Advantages for parents
o targeted parent involvement opportunities
o more equitable availability of extended care
Cost savings
o bus transportation--$
o staff travel--$
o staffing of extended care--$
o staff time lost to inter-school travel--$