slip sheets cms - sharpschoolrandolph.ss5.sharpschool.com/userfiles/servers... · the project...

Drummey Rosane Anderson Inc.Planning ∙ Architecture ∙ Interior Design

August 2012

RandolphSchool and Town Facilities Report & Educational Master Plan

Randolph High School

Community Middle School

Donovan Elementary School

Lyons Elementary School

JFK Elementary School

Young Elementary School

Devine Elementary School

Pauline Maintenance Building

Tower Hill School

School Administration Building

Ch

1

Co

nte

nts

+ A

ckn

ow

led

ge

me

nts

Vis

ion

ing

D

istr

ict-

Wid

e F

ac

ility

Ma

ste

r Pla

n R

an

do

lph

Pu

blic

Sc

ho

ols

R

an

do

lph

, M

A

2

Fra

nk L

oc

ke

r Ed

uc

atio

na

l Pla

nn

ing

F

eb

rua

ry 2

012

AC

KN

OW

LED

GEM

EN

TS

Ra

nd

olp

h S

take

ho

lde

rs

PA

RE

NT

S/C

OM

MU

NIT

Y

Ale

xa

ndra

Ale

xpo

ulo

s

Rand

olp

h C

ham

ber

of

Com

merc

e

Henry

Bre

wste

r

Gre

ate

r Y

outh

Reso

urc

e S

erv

ices, In

c

Jean B

rew

ste

r

Gre

ate

r Y

outh

Reso

urc

e S

erv

ices, In

c

Marc

Cra

ig

Rand

olp

h R

ecre

ation D

irecto

r

Son

ia F

elix

P

are

nt

K

ath

y H

aire

C

om

munity m

em

ber,

form

er

pare

nt

Be

verl

y K

eato

n

The R

ockport

Com

pan

y,

Com

munity

Part

ner

K

en K

nott

G

race C

hurc

h C

om

munity L

iais

on

Jam

ie L

eig

hto

n

Pare

nt

C

hristin

a P

aus

South

Shore

Work

forc

e Investm

ent

Board

R

ev R

on

ald

Ste

ph

enson

C

lerg

y, spri

ng o

f W

ate

r C

hurc

h;

Pre

sid

ent

of

Rando

lph f

or

Haiti

W

illia

m T

hom

pson

Spri

ngb

oard

, A

rea

Ma

nag

er

R

ev.

Vern

ard

Co

ult

er

Gre

ate

r Y

outh

Reso

urc

e S

erv

ices, In

c

Ra

y Y

ance

y

Gre

ate

r Y

outh

Reso

urc

e S

erv

ices, In

c

SC

HO

OL

S S

TA

KE

HO

LD

ER

S

Russell

Cro

n

Rand

olp

h H

igh

Scho

ol P

rin

cip

al

N

aom

i F

edna

Rand

olp

h H

igh

Scho

ol stu

dent

S

ara

Hosm

er

You

ng E

lem

enta

ry S

ch

oo

l P

rincip

al

Daija

Kirkla

nd

Rand

olp

h H

igh

Scho

ol stu

dent

R

obert

Rin

ehart

JF

K E

lem

enta

ry S

choo

l P

TO

Pre

sid

ent

Elle

n T

err

a

PT

O C

ouncil

Pre

sid

en

t

RA

ND

OL

PH

PU

BL

IC S

CH

OO

LS

AD

MIN

IST

RA

TO

RS

C

hristin

e E

vans

Executive D

irecto

r of

Stu

de

nt C

ente

red

Learn

ing

S

teve M

oore

F

inance

Directo

r

Mon

ica R

obert

s

Directo

r F

am

ily +

Com

munity R

ela

tio

ns

Oscar

Santo

s

Sup

erinte

nd

ent

RA

ND

OL

PH

PU

BL

IC S

CH

OO

LS

SC

HO

OL

CO

MM

ITT

EE

ME

MB

ER

S

Keith W

ort

zm

an

Schoo

l C

om

mitte

e

Em

manuel M

ech

a

Schoo

l C

om

mitte

e

Sharo

n S

wa

in

S

choo

l C

om

mitte

e

TO

WN

OF

RA

ND

OL

PH

ST

AK

EH

OL

DE

RS

D

avid

Harr

is

Rand

olp

h F

air P

ractices C

om

mitte

e

Pau

l M

eon

i T

ow

n C

ouncil

Arc

hite

cts

D

RA

D

rum

me

y

Ro

san

e A

nd

ers

on

In

c

Jason B

oon

e

Arc

hitect-

in-T

rain

ing

P

au

l B

row

n

Arc

hitect

Carl F

rancesch

i A

rchitect

Ed

uc

atio

na

l Pla

nn

er

F

RA

NK

LO

CK

ER

ED

UC

AT

ION

AL

PL

AN

NIN

G

306c D

over

Po

int

Rd

D

over,

NH

038

20

617.4

12.7

44

4

ww

w.f

ranklo

cker.

com

Dr

Fra

nk L

ocker

Town of Randolph- School Facilities & Educational Master Plan

August 2012

Acknowledgements

School Committee Members:Marybeth Nearen, ChairSharon E. Swain, Vice ChairAndrew AzerLarry AzerIda GordonEmmanuel MechaKeith Wortzman

Building/Master Plan Sub-committee Members:Andrew AzerLarry AzerRichard BrewerJohn ParisiKeith Wortzman (Chairman)

We also wish to graciously acknowledge Steven Moore (Director of Administration and Finance) and Michael Caliri (Director of Facilities) for their hard work and dedication during this study. We also sincerely thank the entire Randolph School Committee, Town Manager David Murphy and the entire Town Council for their support, dedication and funding of the Master Plan study.

AdministrationDr. Oscar Santos, SuperintendantChristine Evans, Executive Director of Student Centered LearningSteve Moore, Executive Director of Finance and AdministrationMonica Roberts, Director of Family and Community RelationsRussell Cron, Principal - Randolph High SchoolEdward Lee, Principal - Randolph Community Middle SchoolBeth Gannon, Principal - Donovan Elementary SchoolYeu Kue, Principal - JFK Elementary SchoolCindy Sypher-Lopez, Principal - Lyons Elementary SchoolSara Hosmer, Principal - Young Elementary School

Study TeamArchitecture, DRA Architects - Newton, MAMEP/FP Engineers, Consulting Engineering Services - Boston, MAEducational Planning, Frank Locker Educational Planning - Dover, NHAccessibility,Kessler Mcguiness - Newton, MA

page i-3

RANDOLPH PUBLIC SCHOOLS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

August 2012

Randolph School Facilities & Educational Master Plan

Background

The Randolph Public School system is in a period of positive change. Beginning with the implementation of a “Turn-around Plan” in 2008, the appointment of a new, dynamic Superintendent of Schools and the support of a new form of Town Government, the district is making progress in addressing the challenges of recent years.Prior to 2011, the Randolph Public School system had been experiencing a period of declining enrollments. Approximately 30% of eligible school-age children were not attending Randolph’s schools. Also of concern, the High school had been on probationary accreditation status with the New England Association of Schools and Colleges. Student test scores and graduation rates in this diverse community where not as high as the community would have liked; as the Superintendent admitted- some students were “falling through the cracks”. But the Town has been taking steps to address each of these challenges. This study is part of the strategic plan to improve Randolph Public Schools.

In the winter of 2011, the Town Council appropriated $100,000 to conduct this study to assess the condition of Randolph’s school facilities in order to develop both a long-range capital repair program and an educational Master Plan. A Master Plan Sub-committee was formed, a Request For Proposals (RFP) was issued to solicit professional assistance, and in the Spring of 2011 Drummey Rosane Anderson, Inc. (DRA) of Newton Centre, MA was selected to conduct the study.Simultaneously, the Randolph School Department applied for and was awarded a grant from the Nellie Mae Education Foundation (NMEF) to pursue “student-centered learning”. The Nellie Mae Education Foundation’s mission is to stimulate transformative change of public education systems across New England by growing a variety of high quality educational opportunities that enable all learners, especially and essentially underserved

al

he2008,ntendent

of Towns in

systemg school-

s had been he New


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

August 2012

learners, to obtain the skills, knowledge and support they need to become civically engaged, economically self suffi cient lifelong learners. “Student-centered learning” encompasses this approach. Multifaceted, it exposes students to a range of learning opportunities that meet their individual needs and interests in both group and individual settings, and allows them to progress at their own pace in their own way.

Methodology

The study team met with the administration and Master Plan Sub-committee to confi rm the project goals, scope and schedule. It was determined to divide the scope of the Study into two portions:

1. Facilities Assessment2. Educational Programming & Master

Planning

1. Facilities Assessment

The goal of the facilities assessment was to produce a long range capital repair plan; and the primary deliverable of the educational programming phase was a series of master plan options for the Town to consider. The facilities assessment was conducted primarily in the spring and summer of 2011 and the educational programming and planning were performed in the winter and spring of 2012 in order to coordinate with the Nellie Mae process.The Study team compiled information provided by the Director of Maintenance, visited the buildings on several occasions, recorded conditions and met with key personnel from the school district to understand the existing conditions of all of Randolph’s facilities. The information was developed into a spreadsheet format to note items needing attention by system (e.g. building enclosure, mechanical system, etc.) by building and by priority/urgency. Costs were then developed for each repair item for the District’s budgeting purposes.


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

August 2012

2. Educational Programming & Master Planning

The study team evaluated Randolph’s school facilities in regard to their capacity and programmatic accommodation as a fi rst step to developing master plan options. School principals and administrators were interviewed to understand the buildings current needs and challenges. The building’s areas were compared to the Massachusetts School Building Authority (MSBA) area standards; defi ciencies and opportunities were identifi ed.In coordination with the investigation of student-centered learning as part of the Nellie Mae grant, the study team also participated in community meetings and led two visioning sessions to consider the future of Randolph’s educational delivery methods.Based upon these fi ndings and regular discussions with the Master Plan sub-committee, a series of options were developed for the Town’s consideration. These were presented to the School committee and Town Council at the conclusion of the study process.

Findings

The existing conditions of Randolph’s public schools is generally good. The facilities have been well maintained within budgetary limitations and energy improvements have been implemented. However there are some signifi cant defi ciencies- notably handicapped accessibility and some aging mechanical systems that need to be addressed. The total cost of identifi ed capital repairs is approximately $22 Million. Except for the Middle School which has been most recently renovated, these needs occur throughout the district. The Existing Conditions section of this report identifi es items more specifi cally.In terms of educational capacity, Randolph’s schools are in more varied condition- the High school has signifi cant excess capacity, while several elementary schools are slightly over-crowded. The projected total enrollment for Randolph within the next ten years is approximately 2,950. The current capacity of the system is approximately 3,950. This presents both challenges


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

August 2012

and opportunities that were explored in developing master plan options.Programmatically, most schools are currently confi gured to accommodate their needs with minor exceptions. Additionally, options were developed at each level (elementary, middle and high school) to investigate the physical implications and opportunities for implementing student centered learning that grew out of the visioning workshops.

Recommendations

After considering more than ten alternative confi gurations for Randolph’s public schools, the study team, in conjunction with the Master Plan Sub-committee expressed a preference for Option 4B. This option would relocate the Middle School to the High School site, repurpose the current middle school building as an elementary school, redistrict the elementary population into 3 neighborhood schools (Grades 1 to 5), and convert the Lyons school into an Early Education Center for grades pre-K and K. This option requires minimal construction, utilizes the available space at the High School, provides fl exibility to implement student-centered learning and allows the Donovan School to be de-commissioned to save operating costs. The construction cost to implement this option would be approximately $6.3 Million, excluding repair and renovation costs identifi ed as part of the capital repair plan. See the Master Plan chapter of this report for a more detailed description.

would be approximately g repair and renovationrt of the capital repair plan. chapter of this report for a tion.

INSERT: NOTE TO COMMUNITY: (November 3, 2014): Although these are recommendations from the sub-committee, the feedback from the community will assist in determining the next steps.


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

August 2012

Next Steps

The Town of Randolph has an exciting opportunity to positively impact their school facilities for the next generation by continuing the momentum created by this study.We recommend that the Town continue discussions among the School Committee, Building/Master Plan Sub-committee, Town Council and the community in order to arrive at a consensus direction for the future of Randolph Public Schools. The goal of these discussions should be the fi ling of a Statement of Interest (SOI) with the Massachusetts School Building Authority to formally begin the process of considering the future of Randolph High School.We also recommend that the Town utilize the capital repair plan to begin to appropriate funds and implement the most urgent repairs in order to improve accessibility and appropriately maintain their school building assets. Although most all of these improvements can be undertaken regardless of the SOI process, these activities should be coordinated to avoid redundancy and maximize value.


August 2012

Chapter 2

Enrollment Projections


EDUCATIONAL SUMMARY

August 2012

Target Elementary School Enrollments*

* Target enrollments for elementary Schools areprorated based on current percentages. Building Percentage = Current Building Enrollment / Total Current District-wide K-5 Elementary Enrollment. Projected enrollment = Total District-wide K-5 Enrollment * Building Percentage. JFK Elementary is exception. JFK Projected Enrollment = Total District-wide K-5 Enrollment * Building Percentage + PK Projected Enrollment.

Capacity AnalysisDRA also analyzed existing building size in gross square feet relative to MSBA standards for the highest projected enrollment over the next ten years and at least three years out. The analysis is based on the assumption that the existing grade confi guration continues.

The analysis reveals that an undercrowding condition exists at both Randolph High School and at JFK Elementary School. It also reveals that an overcrowding condition exists at Community Middle School, Donovan Elementary School, Lyons Elementary School, and Young Elementary School.


August 2012

AppendixAP-01

NESDEC Enrollment Projection Report

Scho

ol D

istr

ict:

Ran

dolp

h, M

A 2/

7/20

12

Birt

hYe

arB

irths

Scho

ol Y

ear

PKK

12

34

56

78

910

1112

UN

GR

K-1

2PK

-12

2006

421

2011

-12

6721

020

520

925

324

622

226

324

925

119

621

515

220

28

2881

2948

2007

412

2012

-13

6721

023

921

221

124

824

822

926

126

620

416

918

616

08

2851

2918

2008

393

2013

-14

6720

023

924

721

420

725

025

522

727

821

617

614

619

68

2859

2926

2009

384

2014

-15

6719

522

824

724

921

020

925

725

324

222

618

615

215

48

2816

2883

2010

393

(est

.)20

15-1

667

200

222

236

249

244

212

215

255

270

196

195

161

160

828

2328

9020

1140

1(e

st.)

2016

-17

6720

422

823

023

824

424

621

821

327

221

916

916

817

08

2827

2894

2012

397

(est

.)20

17-1

867

202

233

236

232

233

246

253

216

227

221

189

146

177

828

1928

8620

1339

3(e

st.)

2018

-19

6720

023

024

123

822

723

525

325

123

018

419

116

315

48

2805

2872

2014

394

(est

.)20

19-2

067

200

228

238

243

233

229

242

251

268

187

159

165

172

828

2328

9020

1539

5(e

st.)

2020

-21

6720

122

823

624

023

823

523

624

026

821

716

113

717

48

2819

2886

2016

396

(est

.)20

21-2

267

202

229

236

238

235

240

242

234

256

217

187

139

144

828

0728

74

*Pro

ject

ions

sho

uld

be u

pdat

ed o

n an

ann

ual b

asis

.Ba

sed

on a

n es

timat

e of

birt

hs B

ased

on

child

ren

alre

ady

born

Base

d on

stu

dent

s al

read

y en

rolle

d

Year

PK-6

K-5

K-6

K-8

5-8

6-8

7-8

7-12

9-12

Year

sK

-12

Diff

.%

2011

-12

1675

1345

1608

2108

985

763

500

1265

765

2011

-12

2881

00.

0%20

12-1

316

6413

6815

9721

2410

0475

652

712

4671

920

12-1

328

51-3

0-1

.0%

2013

-14

1679

1357

1612

2117

1010

760

505

1239

734

2013

-14

2859

80.

3%20

14-1

516

6213

3815

9520

9096

175

249

512

1371

820

14-1

528

16-4

3-1

.5%

2015

-16

1645

1363

1578

2103

952

740

525

1237

712

2015

-16

2823

70.

2%20

16-1

716

7513

9016

0820

9394

970

348

512

1172

620

16-1

728

274

0.1%

2017

-18

1702

1382

1635

2078

942

696

443

1176

733

2017

-18

2819

-8-0

.3%

2018

-19

1691

1371

1624

2105

969

734

481

1173

692

2018

-19

2805

-14

-0.5

%20

19-2

016

8013

7116

1321

3299

076

151

912

0268

320

19-2

028

2318

0.6%

2020

-21

1681

1378

1614

2122

979

744

508

1197

689

2020

-21

2819

-4-0

.1%

2021

-22

1689

1380

1622

2112

972

732

490

1177

687

2021

-22

2807

-12

-0.4

%

K-1

2 C

hang

e-7

4-2

.6%

See

"Rel

iabi

lity

of E

nrol

lmen

t Pro

ject

ions

" sec

tion

of a

ccom

pany

ing

lette

r.Pr

ojec

tions

are

mor

e re

liabl

e fo

r Yea

rs 1

-5 in

the

futu

re th

an fo

r Yea

rs 6

and

bey

ond.En

rollm

ent P

roje

ctio

ns B

y G

rade

* Proj

ecte

d Pe

rcen

tage

Cha

nges

Proj

ecte

d En

rollm

ent i

n G

rade

Com

bina

tions

*

Ran

dolp

h, M

A P

roje

cted

Enr

ollm

ent

Ran

dolp

h, M

A H

isto

rical

& P

roje

cted

Enr

ollm

ent

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

5000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2021

Enrollment

PK-1

2, 2

001-

2021

His

toric

al

Pro

ject

ed


August 2012

Chapter 7

Master Plan Family of Options

Master Plan

Fam

ilies of O

ptions;

Master Plan

Fam

ilies of O

ptions; a

collabo

rative process

a collabo

rative process

Section

Section 7.0

7.0

Summary

A ra

nge of m

aster plan

options emerged from

a collabo

ratio

n be

tween DRA

and

the Ra

ndolph

Building

Committee

RBC

(Rando

lph Master Planning

Sub

‐Com

mittee), involving interviews with

schoo

l principals,

meetin

gs with

facility managem

ent, and

Edu

catio

n Vision

ing commun

ity worksho

ps.

A to

tal of ten

options evolved

from

the master planning

effort. Not all op

tions are viable, how

ever, an

analysis of a

ll po

ssible scenarios is necessary fo

r a compreh

ensive com

parative process. The

master plan

family of o

ptions develop

ed over the course of several m

eetin

gs with

the RB

C. For each op

tion,

combinatio

nsof

variableswereconsidered

includ

ingreconfiguringgrades

consolidatingexcess

space

combinatio

ns of variables were considered

, including: recon

figuring grades, con

solidating excess space,

centralizing programs (e.g. PK‐K/early ed

ucation and administrative offices), and reno

vatin

g/rebu

ilding/or

decommission

ing scho

ols. Ben

efits and

drawbacks are un

ique

to each scen

ario due

to th

e wide variety of

factors be

ing considered

. A m

atrix for each option was establishe

d to provide

d a fram

ework from

which

bene

fits and draw

backs can be

com

pared and evaluated. W

hile th

ere is not one

master plan

that provide

s ape

rfectsolution,DRA

isrecommen

ding

Option4B

asthepreferredop

tionthat

wou

ldprovideaviable

a pe

rfect solution, DRA

is re

commen

ding

Option 4B

as the preferred op

tion that wou

ld provide

a viable

master p

lan and could significantly im

prove the districts’ acade

mic and

fiscal ope

ratio

ns.

Issues con

side

red while develop

ing op

tion

s:•

Will th

e grade structures of the

schoo

ls rem

ain configured

as they are to

day or will th

ey be

restructured

?•

Will re

districting be

requ

ired?

•Ca

n the po

pulatio

n issues of the

High Scho

ol and

Elemen

tary Schoo

ls be resolved

sim

ultane

ously?

•Will swing space be

requ

ired for reno

vatio

ns?

•What a

re th

e constructio

n tim

elines; d

o projects need to be ph

ased

to avoid disruption to re

gular

operations in

the scho

ols?

A detailed de

scription of each op

tion follows.

Page

Page 77‐‐11

Project D

efinition

Project D

efinition

Section

Section 7.1

7.1

Families of O

ptions

Families of O

ptions

xisting xisting47 Students 47 Students

HS

HS

MS

MS

HS

HS

MS

MS

773

763

409

369

304

329

6 Bu

ildings

6 Bu

ildings ‐‐HS, M

S, 4 ES

HS, M

S, 4 ES

642,40

0 Gross Squ

are Feet

642,40

0 Gross Squ

are Feet

MSB

ATarget

|+116

,200

GSF

MSB

ATarget

|+116

,200

GSF

ExEx2,94 2,94

tion 1 tion 1MS, 4 ES MS, 4 ES

posed posedStudents Students

Don

ovan

Don

ovan

JFK

JFK

Lyon

sLyon

sYo

ung

Youn

gDon

ovan

Don

ovan

JFK

JFK

Lyon

sLyon

sYo

ung

Youn

g

HS Site

HS Site

MS Site

MS Site

HS

HS

MS

MS

733

761

410

392

314

341

36,600

SF

36,600

SF

addition

sad

dition

s

MSB

A Target |

11

6,20

0 GSF

MSB

A Target |

11

6,20

0 GSF

6 Bu

ildings

6 Bu

ildings ‐‐HS, M

S, 4 ES

HS, M

S, 4 ES

679,00

0 Gross Squ

are Feet

679,00

0 Gross Squ

are Feet

Estim

ated

Constructio

nCo

stEstim

ated

Constructio

nCo

st

Opt OptHS, M HS, M

Prop Prop2,951 S 2,951 S

Don

ovan

Don

ovan

JFK

JFK

Lyon

sLyon

sYo

ung

Youn

gDon

ovan

Don

ovan

JFK

JFK

Lyon

sLyon

sYo

ung

Youn

g

HS

HS

MS

MS

410

392

314

341

‐‐70,00

0 SF

70,000

SF

Subtractions

Subtractions

Estim

ated

Con

struction Co

stEstim

ated

Con

struction Co

st

$14.5 M

$14.5 M

6 Bu

ildings

6 Bu

ildings ––HS,MS, 4 ES

HS,MS, 4 ES

549,10

0 Gross Squ

are Feet

549,10

0 Gross Squ

are Feet

733

761

n 1A n 1AS, 4 ES S, 4 ES

HS Site

HS Site

MS Site

MS Site

22ESES

Don

ovan

Don

ovan

Site

Site

JFK

JFK

Site

Site

Lyon

sLyon

sSite

Site

Youn

gYo

ung

Site

Site

Don

ovan

Don

ovan

JFK

JFK

Lyon

sLyon

sYo

ung

Youn

g

6 Bu

ildings

6 Bu

ildings ––HS,MS, 4 ES

HS,MS, 4 ES

60640

0Gross

Squa

reFeet

60640

0Gross

Squa

reFeet

410

392

314

341

Optio OptioHS, MS HS, MS

733

761

383

32,100

SF

32,100

SF

addition

sad

dition

s

Estim

ated

Con

struction Co

stEstim

ated

Con

struction Co

st

$100

k$100

k

Option 2 Option 2HS,MS, 4 E HS,MS, 4 E

3388

HS Site

HS Site

MS Site

MS Site

Don

ovan

Don

ovan

Site

Site

JFK

JFK

Site

Site

Lyon

sLyon

sSite

Site

Youn

gYo

ung

Site

Site

HS

HS

MS

MS

Don

ovan

Don

ovan

JFK

JFK

Lyon

sLyon

sYo

ung

Youn

g

420

733

216

0 SF

0 SF

606,40

0 Gross Squ

are Feet

606,40

0 Gross Squ

are Feet

5Bu

ildings

5Bu

ildings

‐‐HS5K

HS5K‐‐88

410

379

383

285

Estim

ated

Con

struction Co

stEstim

ated

Con

struction Co

st

$20.6 M

$20.6 M

Option 3 Option 3HS, 5 K HS, 5 K‐‐88

HS Site

HS Site

MS Site

MS Site

Don

ovan

Don

ovan

Site

Site

JFK

JFK

Site

Site

Lyon

sLyon

sSite

Site

Youn

gYo

ung

Site

Site

HS

HS

MS

MS

Don

ovan

Don

ovan

JFK

JFK

Lyon

sLyon

sYo

ung

Youn

g

216

733

420

102

190

154

286

140

72

addition

sad

dition

s5 Bu

ildings

5 Bu

ildings ‐‐HS, 5 K

HS, 5 K‐‐88

606,40

0 Gross Squ

are Feet

606,40

0 Gross Squ

are Feet

Estim

ated

Con

struction Co

stEstim

ated

Con

struction Co

st

$6.8 M

$6.8 M

Page

Page 77‐‐22

Project D

efinition

Project D

efinition

Families

ofOptions

Families

ofOptions

Section

Section 7.1

7.1

Families of O

ptions

Families of O

ptions

Existing Existing947 Students 947 Students

HS

HS

MS

MS

HS

HS

MS

MS

773

763

409

369

304

329

6 Bu

ildings

6 Bu

ildings ‐‐HS, M

S, 4 ES

HS, M

S, 4 ES

642,40

0 Gross Squ

are Feet

642,40

0 Gross Squ

are Feet

MSB

A Target |

+11

6,20

0 GSF

MSB

A Target |

+11

6,20

0 GSF

Option 4 Option 4/MS, 3 ES /MS, 3 ES

HS Site

HS Site

MS Site

MS Site

HS

HS

MS

MS

761

737

733

435

0285

0

0 SF

0 SF

addition

sad

dition

s4 Bu

ildings

4 Bu

ildings ‐‐HS/MS, 3 ES

HS/MS, 3 ES

545,50

0 Gross Squ

are Feet

545,50

0 Gross Squ

are Feet

Estim

ated

Con

struction Co

stEstim

ated

Con

struction Co

st

EE2,9 2,9

Don

ovan

Don

ovan

JFK

JFK

Lyon

sLyon

sYo

ung

Youn

gDon

ovan

Don

ovan

JFK

JFK

Lyon

sLyon

sYo

ung

Youn

g


OOHS/ HS/

Don

ovan

Don

ovan

Site

Site

JFK

JFK

Site

Site

Lyon

sLyon

sSite

Site

Youn

gYo

ung

Site

Site

Don

ovan

Don

ovan

JFK

JFK

Lyon

sLyon

sYo

ung

Youn

g

on 4A on 4AS, 2 ES/ S, 2 ES/PKPK‐‐KK

HS Site

HS Site

MS Site

MS Site

HS

HS

MS

MS

761

670

733

518

00

0 SF

0 SF

addition

sad

dition

s4 Bu

ildings

4 Bu

ildings ‐‐HS/MS, 2 ES, 1 PK

HS/MS, 2 ES, 1 PK‐‐KK

487,60

0 Gross Squ

are Feet

487,60

0 Gross Squ

are Feet

269

$6.1 M

$6.1 M


Optio OptioHS/M HS/M

1 P 1 P

Don

ovan

Don

ovan

Site

Site

JFK

JFK

Site

Site

Lyon

sLyon

sSite

Site

Youn

gYo

ung

Site

Site

Don

ovan

Don

ovan

JFK

JFK

Lyon

sLyon

sYo

ung

Youn

g

518

00

Estim

ated

Con

struction Co

stEstim

ated

Con

struction Co

st

$6.3 M

$6.3 M

0 SF

0 SF

addition

sad

dition

s

BBES/ ES/

761

452

733

5 Bu

ildings

5 Bu

ildings ‐‐HS/MS, 3 ES, 1 PK

HS/MS, 3 ES, 1 PK‐‐KK

572,56

2Gross

Squa

reFeet

572,56

2Gross

Squa

reFeet

All Adm

inistrative offices

relocated to JFK

site

*

addition

sad

dition

s

3 ES 3 ES

733

5Bu

ildings

5Bu

ildings

‐‐HS/MSMS

HS/MSMS

3ES

3ES

0SF

0SF

548

269

308

Option 4 Option 4HS/MS, 3 HS/MS, 3

1 PK 1 PK‐‐KK

HS Site

HS Site

MS Site

MS Site

Don

ovan

Don

ovan

Site

Site

JFK

JFK

Site

Site

Lyon

sLyon

sSite

Site

Youn

gYo

ung

Site

Site

HS

HS

MS

MS

Don

ovan

Don

ovan

JFK

JFK

Lyon

sLyon

sYo

ung

Youn

g

451

00

572,56

2 Gross Squ

are Feet

572,56

2 Gross Squ

are Feet

Estim

ated

Con

struction Co

stEstim

ated

Con

struction Co

st

$6.3 M

$6.3 M

269

285

Option 5 Option 5HS/MS, MS, 3 HS/MS, MS, 3

HS Site

HS Site

MS Site

MS Site

Don

ovan

Don

ovan

Site

Site

JFK

JFK

Site

Site

Lyon

sLyon

sSite

Site

Youn

gYo

ung

Site

Site

0331

5 Bu

ildings

5 Bu

ildings HS/MS, M

S,HS/MS, M

S,3 ES

3 ES

534,60

0 Gross Squ

are Feet

534,60

0 Gross Squ

are Feet

0 SF

0 SF

addition

sad

dition

s478

285

HS

HS

MS

MS

Don

ovan

Don

ovan

JFK

JFK

Lyon

sLyon

sYo

ung

Youn

g

Estim

ated

Con

struction Co

stEstim

ated

Con

struction Co

st

$9.2 M

$9.2 M

Page

Page 77‐‐33

Project D

efinition

Project D

efinition

Section

Section 7.1

7.1

Families of O

ptions

Families of O

ptions

xisting xisting47 Students 47 Students

HS

HS

MS

MS

HS

HS

MS

MS

773

763

409

369

304

329

6 Bu

ildings

6 Bu

ildings ‐‐HS, M

S, 4 ES

HS, M

S, 4 ES

642,40

0 Gross Squ

are Feet

642,40

0 Gross Squ

are Feet

MSB

ATarget

|+116

,200

GSF

MSB

ATarget

|+116

,200

GSF

tion 6 tion 6MS, 4 ES MS, 4 ES

HSSite

HSSite

MSSite

MSSite

10,400

SF

10,400

SF

addition

sad

dition

s761

6 Bu

ildings

6 Bu

ildings ‐‐HS/PK

HS/PK

‐‐K, M

S, 4ES

K, M

S, 4ES

652,80

065

2,80

0Gross

Squa

reFeet

Gross

Squa

reFeet

733

269

ExEx2,94 2,94

Don

ovan

Don

ovan

JFK

JFK

Lyon

sLyon

sYo

ung

Youn

gDon

ovan

Don

ovan

JFK

JFK

Lyon

sLyon

sYo

ung

Youn

g

MSB

A Target |

11

6,20

0 GSF

MSB

A Target |

11

6,20

0 GSF


Opt OptHS/ PK HS/ PK‐‐K, K,

HS Site

HS Site

MS Site

MS Site

Don

ovan

Don

ovan

Site

Site

JFK

JFK

Site

Site

Lyon

sLyon

sSite

Site

Youn

gYo

ung

Site

Site

HS

HS

MS

MS

Don

ovan

Don

ovan

JFK

JFK

Lyon

sLyon

sYo

ung

Youn

g

344

354

210

280

652,80

065

2,80

0Gross Squ

are Feet

Gross Squ

are Feet

Estim

ated

Con

struction Co

stEstim

ated

Con

struction Co

st

$8.0 M

$8.0 M

6A6A4 ES 4 ES

10,400

SF

10,400

SF

5Bu

ildings

5Bu

ildings

‐‐HS/PK

HS/PK

‐‐KMS3ES

KMS3ES

733

269


Option Option HS/ PK HS/ PK‐‐K,MS, K,MS,

HS Site

HS Site

MS Site

MS Site

Don

ovan

Don

ovan

Site

Site

JFK

JFK

Site

Site

Lyon

sLyon

sSite

Site

Youn

gYo

ung

Site

Site

HS

HS

MS

MS

Don

ovan

Don

ovan

JFK

JFK

Lyon

sLyon

sYo

ung

Youn

g

addition

sad

dition

s761

380

544

264

5 Bu

ildings

5 Bu

ildings HS/PK

HS/PK

K, M

S, 3ES

K, M

S, 3ES

614,80

061

4,80

0Gross Squ

are Feet

Gross Squ

are Feet

Estim

ated

Con

struction Co

stEstim

ated

Con

struction Co

st

8.0 M

8.0 M

0

All do

llar values

refle

ct 2012do

llars,representconstructio

n costs on

ly, and

do no

t include

soft costs, add

ition

al costs associated with

phased constructio

n, or costs associated

with

programmatic needs.

These costs represen

t prelim

inary investigations. M

ore compreh

ensive investigations to

refin

e scop

e and costs are ne

cessary prior to execution of spe

cific projects.

Page

Page 77‐‐44

Families of O

ptions

Families of O

ptions

ii

Section

Section 7.2

7.2

Baseline Sche

me; Ren

ovate and add on

to ‘right size’ all scho

ols.

Diti

Option 1

Option 1

Description

Option 1 provides a baseline to com

pare alte

rnate op

tions against. This option prop

oses to

maintain

all six schoo

ls, and

right size the curren

t buildings to

meet the

stude

nt pop

ulations and

target

enrollm

ents at the

Elemen

tary Schoo

ls (E

S) and

the Middle Scho

ol (M

S). The un

derutilized

space in

the

HS and JFK scho

ols remain un

changed. All scho

ols in th

e district m

aintain their current grade

configurationandtheprojectedtarget

enrollm

entp

opulations

areaccommod

ated

.configuration and the projected target enrollm

ent p

opulations are accom

mod

ated

.

Summary of grade

con

figuration, stude

nt pop

ulation, and

associated construction

issues: O

ption 1

•Don

ovan

ES: Grade

s K‐5, with

a pop

ulation of 410

stude

nts. Don

ovan

is basically filled to capacity

(MSBA capacity

).•

JFK ES: G

rade

s PK

‐5, w

ith a pop

ulation of 392

stude

nts, capacity

for an

add

ition

al 198

stude

nts

remains.

•Lyon

s ES: G

rade

s K‐5, with

a pop

ulation of 314

stude

nts. Lyons is over capacity by 104 stud

ents,

requ

iring a 17

,900

SF bu

ilding additio

n.•

Youn

g ES: G

rade

s K‐5, with

a pop

ulation of 341

stude

nts. You

ng ES is over capacity by 56

stude

nts,

requ

iringa830

0SF

buildingadditio

nrequ

iring a 8,30

0 SF building additio

n.•

MS: Grade

s 6‐8, with

a pop

ulation of 761

stude

nts. M

S is over capacity by 96

stude

nts requ

iring a

10,400

SF additio

n.•

HS: Grade

s 9‐12, w

ith a pop

ulation of 733

stude

nts. The

HS maintains an excess of 13

0,20

0 SF. S

Page

Page 77‐‐55

Baseline variation sche

me; ‘D

o Nothing

’ excep

t partition off H

S to right size it for the

Option 1A

Option 1A

Section

Section 7.3

7.3

;g

pp

gpo

pulatio

n.

Description

Option 1A

propo

ses to keep all the

schoo

ls con

figured

as they are currently with

the exception of ‘right

‐sizing’ th

e HS for the stud

ent p

opulation. The

excess space at th

e HS, app

roximately 70

,000

SF is

partition

ed off and

made available to be rented

out. Po

ssible te

nants includ

e an

early edu

catio

n center, a non

‐profit organization, or po

ssibly a Charter Schoo

l. Space and facility issues wou

ld re

main at

the othe

r schoo

ls.

Summary of grade

con

figuration, stude

nt pop

ulation, and


issues: O

ption 1A

DES

Gd

K5

ithlti

f410

td

tD

ifilldt

it(M

SBA

•Don

ovan

ES: Grade

s K‐5, with

a pop

ulation of 410

stude

nts. Don

ovan

is filled to capacity

(MSBA

capacity) req

uiring

13 stud

ents to

relocate to

the JFK scho

ol.

•JFK ES: G

rade

s PK

‐5, w

ith a pop

ulation of 392

stude

nts, capacity

for an

add

ition

al 198

stude

nts

remains.

•Lyon

s ES: G

rade

s K‐5, with

a pop

ulation of 314

stude

nts. Lyons re

mains over capacity by 104.

•Youn

gES:G

rade

sK‐5with

apo

pulatio

nof

341stud

ents

Youn

gES

remains

over

capacityby

56Youn

g ES: G

rade

s K5, with

a pop

ulation of 341

stude

nts. You

ng ES remains over capacity by 56

stud

ents.

•MS: Grade

s 6‐8, with

a pop

ulation of 761

stude

nts. M

S remains over capacity by 96

stude

nts.

•HS: Grade

s 9‐12, w

ith a pop

ulation of 733

stude

nts. The

HS is right sized

for the po

pulatio

n.Re

quire

d reno

vatio

ns includ

e: partition off 7

0,000 SF, and

a new

HS entrance.

Page

Page 77‐‐77

New

Lyons Schoo

l Schem

eOption 2

Option 2

Section

Section 7.4

7.4

Description

Option 2 prop

oses to

keep all schoo

ls con

figured

as they are currently with

the exception of building a

new Lyons Schoo

l, alleviating all elemen

tary schoo

l’s sho

rtfalls. The elem

entary schoo

l stude

nts wou

ld

then

be redistribu

ted to right size the elem

entary schoo

ls’ p

opulation and capacity. The

replacem

ent

Lyon

s scho

ol wou

ld be bu

ilt next to the existin

g scho

ol. The

original Lyons cou

ld re

main op

en

(tem

porarily) and

provide

swing space for othe

r scho

ol ren

ovation projects, if n

eede

d. The

HS is not

addressed in th

is option and remains oversized

for the po

pulatio

n.

Summary of grade

con

figuration, stude

nt pop

ulation, and


issues: O

ption 1A

•D

ESG

dK5

ithlti

f410

td

tD

ib

ill

filldt

it•

Don

ovan

ES: Grade

s K‐5, with

a pop

ulation of 410

stude

nts. Don

ovan

is basically filled to capacity

(MSBA capacity

).•

JFK ES: G

rade

s PK

‐5, w

ith a pop

ulation of 379

stude

nts, capacity

for an

add

ition

al 211

stude

nts

remains.

•Lyon

s ES: G

rade

s K‐5, with

a pop

ulation of 383

stude

nts. Lyons is over capacity by 104 stud

ents, a

new68

000SF

Lyon

sScho

olisbu

ilton

thesamesite

(adjacen

ttotheexistin

gscho

ol)

new 68,00

0 SF Lyons Schoo

l is bu

ilt on the same site (a

djacen

t to the existin

g scho

ol).

•Youn

g ES: G

rade

s K‐5, enrollm

ent w

ould be redu

ced to 285

stude

nts. You

ng ES is currently over

capacity, 56 stud

ents wou

ld be redistricted

to JF

K ES.

•MS: Grade

s 6‐8, with

a pop

ulation of 761

stude

nts. M

S is over capacity by 96

stude

nts.

•HS: Grade

s 9‐12, w

ith a pop

ulation of 733

stude

n ts. The

HS contains an excess of 1

30,200

SF.

Page

Page 77‐‐99

Neighbo

rhoo

d scho

ols Sche

me

Description

Option 3

Option 3

Section

Section 7.5

7.5

Description

Option 3 prop

oses to

establish five Pre‐K to 8 schoo

ls and

one

cen

tralized

HS. PK‐6 grades are located

in all the elem

entary schoo

ls, 6

‐8 grade

s are located in all of th

e scho

ols, 9‐12 grades are located in th

e High Scho

ol, and

the Lyon

s scho

ol is decom

mission

ed. This op

tion wou

ld provide

a neighbo

rhoo

d scho

ol fo

r all grade

s, up un

til th

e HS level. Ren

ovations and

mod

ificatio

ns at e

ach of th

e scho

ols are

necessary to accom

mod

ate programmatic changes.

yp

gg

Summary of grade

con

figuration, stude

nt pop

ulation, and


issues: O

ption 3

•Don

ovan

ES: Grade

s PK

‐8, w

ith a pop

ulation of 292

stude

nts. Don

ovan’s pop

ulation is a loose fit

with

capacity

to accom

mod

ate an

add

ition

al 118

stude

nts. Req

uired reno

vatio

ns includ

e; add

ing MS

science labs.

•JFK ES: G

rade

s PK

‐8, w

ith a pop

ulation of 440

stude

nts, JFK’s po

pulatio

n is a loose fit with

the

capacity to

accom

mod

ate an

add

ition

al 150

stude

nts. Req

uired reno

vatio

ns includ

e; add

ing MS

science labs.

•Lyon

s ES: The

Lyons ES is decom

mission

ed, 314

stude

nts are even

ly re

distribu

ted to th

e JFK ES or

the ES at the

MS site.

•Youn

gES:G

rade

sPK

8with

apo

pulatio

nof

212stud

ents

Youn

g’spo

pulatio

nisaloosefit

with

the

•Youn

g ES: G

rade

s PK

‐8, w

ith a pop

ulation of 212

stude

nts. You

ngs po

pulatio


the

capacity to

accom

mod

ate an

add

ition

al 73 stud

ents. Req

uired reno

vatio

ns includ

e; add

ing MS

science labs.

•MS SITE: G

rade

s PK

‐8, w

ith a pop

ulation of 636

stude

nts. The

MS’s po

pulatio

n is close to

being

right

sized for the capacity; it h

as th

e ability to

accom

mod

ate an

add

ition

al 29 stud

ents. Req

uired

reno

vatio

ns includ

e ; to

ilet roo

ms for the PK

‐ES stud

ents.

;•

HS SITE: G

rade

s PK

‐12, with

a pop

ulation of 136

9 stud

ents. The

HS is closer to being

right sized

for

the po

pulatio

n with

capacity

to accom

mod

ate an

add

ition

al 416

stude

nts. Req

uired reno

vatio

nsinclud

e; to

ilet roo

ms for PK

‐K pop

ulation, new

lobb

y/entry for H

S and ES, adjust p

artitions to

accommod

ate larger classroom

s in th

e PK

‐K classes, and

partition off the

HS from

the PK

‐K and

ES.

Page

Page 77‐‐1111

Middle/High Scho

olRe

duction Sche

me‐1

Option 4

Option 4

Section

Section 7.6

7.6

Description

Option 4 prop

oses to

decom

mission

the

Don

ovan

and

Lyons schoo

ls and

redistribu

te th

e stud

ents to

three sites. The

ES po

pulatio

n at th

e MS site grows significantly larger th

an th

e po

pulatio

n at th

e JFK

and Youn

g, re

sulting

in lack of p

arity. The

remaining

schoo

ls are closer to being

right sized

for their

popu

latio

nsTheMiddleScho

olwou

ldbe

relocatedto

theHSsite

Reno

vatio

nsandmod

ificatio

nsare

popu

latio

ns. The Middle Scho

ol wou

ld be relocated to th

e HS site. Ren

ovations and

mod

ificatio

ns are

requ

ired at th

e HS and MS to accom

mod

ate the programmatic changes.

Summary of grade

con

figuration, stude

nt pop

ulation, and


issues: O

ption 3

•Don

ovan

ES: The

Don

ovan

ES is decom

mission

ed, 423

stude

nts are even

ly re

distribu

ted to th

e ES at

the MS site and

the JFK ES. D

onovan

ES prop

erty cou

ld poten

tially be sold.

•JFK ES: G

rade

s PK

‐5, w

ith a pop

ulation of 435

stude

nts. JFK’s pop

ulation is a loose fit with

the

capacity to

accom

mod

ate an

add

ition

al 155

stude

nts. The

re are no programmatic re

novatio

nsne

cessary in th

is option.

•Lyon

s ES: The

Lyons schoo

l is de

commission

ed, 314

stude

nts are even

ly re

distribu

ted to th

e JFK ES

or th

e ES at the

MS site. Lyons ES could be

sold or re

‐purpo

sed.

YES

Gd

K5

ithlti

f341

td

tY

’lti

ifilldt

it•

Youn

g ES: G

rade

s K‐5, with

a pop

ulation of 341

stude

nts. You

ng’s pop

ulation is filled to capacity.

There are no

program

matic re

novatio

ns necessary in

this option.

•MS SITE: G

rade

s PK

‐5, w

ith a pop

ulation of 737

ES stud

ents, the

pop

ulation is right sized

for the

scho

ol. R

equired reno

vatio

ns includ

e; Upgrade

toilets to

accom

mod

ate the ES stude

nt pop

ulation.

•HS SITE: G

rade

s 6‐12, w

ith a pop

ulation of 1494 stud

ents. The

HS is closer to being

right sized

for

thepo

pulatio

nwith

capacityto

accommod

atean

additio

nal291

stud

ents

Requ

iredreno

vatio

nsthe po

pulatio

n with

capacity

to accom

mod

ate an

add

ition

al 291

stude

nts. Req

uired reno

vatio

nsinclud

e; Upgrade

toilets to

accom

mod

ate the MS stud

ent p

opulation, add

MS science labs, add

MS

café, kitche

n, new

entry/lob

by fo

r MS and HS, create HS library from

existing HS cafeteria, create

areaways.

Page

Page 77‐‐1313

MS/HS

Redu

ction Sche

me‐2

Option 4A

Option 4A

Section

Section 7.7

7.7

Description

Option 4A

propo

ses to decom

mission

the

Don

ovan

and

Lyons schoo

ls and

redistribu

te th

e stud

ents to

tw

o sites: th

e MS site and

JFK ES, creating tw

o comparable sized scho

ols for grades 1‐5. The

Pre‐K and

K po

pulatio

ns wou

ld be ho

used

at the

You

ng Schoo

l. The remaining

schoo

ls are closer to being

right

sizedfortheirp

opulations

Reno

vatio

nsandmod

ificatio

nsarerequ

iredat

theHSMSandYoun

gsite

sized for their p

opulations. Re

novatio

ns and

mod

ificatio

ns are re

quire

d at th

e HS, M

S, and

You

ng site

to accom

mod

ate the programmatic changes.

Summary of grade

con

figuration, stude

nt pop

ulation, and


issues: O

ption 4A

•Don

ovan

ES: The

Don

ovan

ES is decom

mission

ed, 423

stude

nts are even

ly re

distribu

ted to th

e ES at

the MS site and

the JFK ES. D

onovan

ES could po

tentially be sold.

•JFK ES: G

rade

s 1‐5, with

a pop

ulation of 518

stude

nts. JFK’s pop


the

capacity to

accom

mod

ate an

add

ition

al 72 stud

ents. The

re are no reno

vatio

ns necessary.

•Lyon

s ES: The

Lyons schoo

l is de

commission

ed, 314

stude

nts are even

ly re

distribu

ted to th

e JFK ES

or th

e ES at the

MS site. Lyons ES could po

tentially be sold.

•Youn

g ES: G

rade

s PK

‐K, w

ith a pop

ulation of 269

stude

nts. You

ng’s stude

nt cou

nt is close being

right

idf

thh

l’it

dld

dt

dditi

l16

td

tR

id

sized for the scho

ol’s capacity

and

cou

ld accom

mod

ate an

add

ition

al 16 stud

ents. Req

uired

reno

vatio

ns includ

e; Upgrade

all toilet roo

ms to accom

mod

ate the early ed

ucations stude

ntpo

pulatio

n.•

MS SITE: G

rade

s 1‐5, with

a pop

ulation of 670. The

pop

ulation is right sized

for the scho

ol. R

equired

reno

vatio

ns includ

e; Upgrade

toilets to

accom

mod

ate the ES stude

nt pop

ulation.

•HSSITE:G

rade

s6‐12

with

apo

pulatio

nof

1494

stud

ents

TheHS’spo

pulatio

niscloser

tobe

ing

HS SITE: G

rade

s 612, w

ith a pop


ents. The

HSs po

pulatio

n is closer to being

right sized

for the capacity and

cou

ld accom

mod

ate an

add

ition

al 291

stude

nts. Req

uired

reno

vatio

ns includ

e; Upgrade

toilets to

accom

mod

ate the MS stud

ent p

opulation, add

MS science

labs, add

MS café, kitche

n, new

entry/lob

by fo


existing HS

cafeteria, and

create areaways.

Page

Page 77‐‐1515

Option 4B

Option 4B

Section

Section 7.8

7.8

MS/HS

Redu

ction Sche

me‐3‐

Description

Description

Option 4A

propo

ses to con

solidate the scho

ol district b

y combining

the HS and MS at th

e HS site,

maintaining

three elem

entary schoo

ls fo

r grades 1‐5; d

ecom

mission

the

Don

ovan

ES, and

con

verting

the Lyon

s into an early ed

ucation center.

The ES at the

MS site and

the JFK ES pop

ulations are com

parable; th

e Youn

g ES is filled to ca pacity

and

althou

gh it has significantly

less stude

nts it provides a neighbo

rhoo

d scho

ol locatio

n. The

remaining

g

gy

pg

gscho

ols are closer to

achieving

the right size for their p

opulations. Re

novatio

ns and

mod

ificatio

ns are

requ

ired at th

e HS and MS to accom

mod

ate the programmatic changes. The administrative bu

ilding

(located adjacent to

the HS) is dem

olishe

d to allow fo

r additio

nal parking

for the MS teache

rs. The

administrative offices are re

located to th

e JFK site.

Summary of grade

con

figuration, stude

nt pop

ulation, and


issues: O

ption 4A

•Don

ovan

ES: The

Don

ovan

ES is decom

mission

ed, 423

stude

nts are even

ly re

distribu

ted to th

e ES at

the MS site and

the JFK ES. D

onovan

ES could po

tentially be sold.

•JFK ES: G

rade

s’ 1‐5, w

ith a pop

ulation of 451

stude

nts. JFK’s po

pulat io


the

capacity to

accom

mod

ate additio

nal stude

nts (num

ber o

f add

ition

al stude

nts contingent upo

n the

reno

vatio

nne

eded

toaccommod

atetheadministrativeoffices)Re

quire

dreno

vatio

nsinclud

e;reno

vatio

n ne

eded

to accom

mod

ate the administrative offices). Re

quire

d reno

vatio

ns includ

e;convert a

pproximately six classroo

ms to adm

inistrative offices.

•Lyon

s ES SITE: Grade

s PK

‐K. The

Lyons schoo

l is converted into an early ed

ucation center. The

popu

latio

n fits tig

htly into th

e scho

ol; h

owever th

e scho

ol layout and

classroom

sizes are

approp

riate for the early ed

ucation program.

•Youn

g ES: G

rade

s 1‐5, with

a pop

ulation of 285

stude

nts. You

ng’s pop

ulation is filled to capacity

g,

pp

gp

pp

y(M

SBA capacity

) req

uiring

56 stud

ents to

relocate to

the JFK ES Schoo

l. There are no

program

matic

reno

vatio

ns necessary.

•MS SITE: G

rade

s 1‐5, with

a pop

ulation of 452. The

pop


the capacity to

accommod

ate and additio

nal 218

stude

nts. Req

uired reno

vatio

ns includ

e; Upgrade

toilets to

accommod

ate the ES stude

nt pop

ulation.

dh

lf

dh

’l

lb

•HS SITE: G

rade

s 6‐12, w

ith a pop


ents. The

HS’s po

pulatio


right sized


cou

ld accom

mod

ate an

add

ition

al 291

stude

nts. Req

uired

reno

vatio

ns includ

e; Upgrade

toilets to

accom

mod

ate the MS stud

ent p

opulation, add

MS science

labs, add

MS café, kitche

n, new

entry/lob

by fo


existing HS

cafeteria, and

create areaways.

Page

Page 77‐‐1717

Option 5

Option 5

Two Middle Scho

ols Sche

me

Description

Section

Section 7.9

7.9

Description

Option 5 prop

oses to

reconfigure the MS grade configuration and po

pulatio

n distribu

tion. The

MS

wou

ld accom

mod

ate grades 5‐8 and

wou

ld be split into tw

o scho

ols; one

at the

JFK and on

e at th

e HS.

Grade

s 1‐4 is propo

rtionally re

distribu

ted am

ong the Don

ovan, You

ng, and

the MS sites. The

Pre‐K and

K po

pulatio

n wo u

ld be located at th

e MS. The

Lyons schoo

l is de

commission

ed and

the stud

ents are

redistribu

ted. The

ES at th

e MS site and

the JFK ES pop

ulations are sim

ilar in size; the

You

ng ES is filled

to capacity

and

has slightly less stude

nts; th

e remaining

schoo

ls are close to

being

right sized

for their

popu

latio

ns. Re

novatio

ns and

mod

ificatio

ns are re

quire

d at th

e HS, M

S site, and

JFK ES to

accommod

ate the programmatic changes. This op

tion also propo

ses to decom

mission

the

Lyons ES.

Summary of grade

con

figuration, stude

nt pop

ulation, and


issues: O

ption 5

DES

Gd

14

ithlti

f331

td

tD

’lti

il

fitith

•Don

ovan

ES: Grade

s 1‐4, with

a pop

ulation of 331

stude

nts. Don

ovan’s pop


the capacity to

accom

mod

ate an

add

ition

al 79 stud

ents. N

o reno

vatio

ns are necessary.

•JFK ES: G

rade

s 5‐8, with

a pop

ulation of 478

stude

nts. JFK’s po

pulatio


the

capacity to

accom

mod

ate an

add

ition

al 112

stude

nts. Req

uired reno

vatio

ns includ

e; Upd

ate all

toilet roo

ms to accom

mod

ate MS stud

ents, and

add

MS science labs.

•Lyon

sES:The

Lyon

sscho

olisde

commission

ed,314

stud

entsareeven

lyredistribu

tedto

theJFKES

Lyon

s ES: The

Lyons schoo

l is de

commission

ed, 314

stude

nts are even

ly re

distribu

ted to th

e JFK ES

or th

e ES at the

MS site. Lyons ES could po

tentially be sold.

•Youn

g ES: G

rade

s K‐4, with

a pop

ulation of 285

stude

nts. You

ng’s pop


(MSBA capacity

) req

uiring

56 stud

ents to

relocate to

the MS Site. The

re are no programmatic

reno

vatio

ns necessary.

•MS SITE: G

rade

s PK

‐4, w

ith a pop

ulation of 577. The

pop

ula tion is a loose fit with

the capacity to

accommod

ate and additio

nal 88 stud

ents. Req

uired reno

vatio

ns includ

e; Upgrade

toilets to

accommod

ate the ES stude

nt pop

ulation.

•HS SITE: G

rade

s 5‐12, w

ith a pop


ents. The

HS’s po

pulatio


right sized


cou

ld accom

mod

ate an

add

ition

al 291

stude

nts. Req

uired

reno

vatio

ns includ

e; Upgrade

toilets to

accom

mod

ate the MS stud

ent p

opulation, add

MS science

labs

addMScafé

kitche

nne

wen

try/lobb

yforM

SandHScreate

HSlibrary

from

existin

gHS

labs, add

MS café, kitche

n, new

entry/lob

by fo


existing HS

cafeteria, and

create areaways.

Page

Page 77‐‐1919

Option 6

Option 6

Centralize Early Education Ce

nter at the

HS Sche

me

Section

Section 7.10

7.10

Description

Option 6 prop

oses to

locate th

e Early Education Ce

nter (P

K‐K) at the

HS Site. Centralizing the PK

‐K

program at the

HS frees up

space at a

ll of th

e elem

entary schoo

ls. A

ll elem

entary schoo

ls (g

rade

s 1‐5)

are right sized

with

out the

need for additio

ns. The Middle Scho

ol req

uires a 10,400

SF additio

n to

accommod

ateMSBA’scapacityrequ

irements

accommod

ate MSBAs capacity re

quire

ments.

Summary of grade

con

figuration, stude

nt pop

ulation, and


issues: O

ption 6

•Don

ovan

ES: Grade

s 1‐5, with

a pop

ulation of 344

stude

nts. Don

ovan’s pop


the capacity to

accom

mod

ate an

add

ition

al 66 stud

ents. N

o reno

vatio

ns are necessary.

•JFK ES: G

rade

s1‐5

, with

a pop

ulation of 354

stude

nts. JFK’s po

pulatio


the

,p

pp

pcapacity to

accom

mod

ate an

add

ition

al 236

stude

nts. No programmatic re

novatio

ns are necessary.

•Lyon

s ES: G

rade

s 1‐5, with

a pop

ulation of 210. Lyon’s po

pulatio

n is filled to capacity

(MSBA

capacity) req

uiring

104

stude

nts to re

locate to

the JFK ES or Don

ovan

ES. No programmatic

reno

vatio

ns are necessary.

•Youn

g ES: G

rade

s 1‐5, with

a pop

ulation of 280

stude

nts. You

ng’s pop


()

dl

h(M

SBA capacity

) req

uiring

61 stud

ents to

relocate to

the JFK ES. N

o programmatic re

novatio

ns are

necessary.

•MS SITE: G

rade

s 6‐8, with

a pop

ulation of 761. The

pop

ulation is at capacity. Req

uired reno

vatio

nsinclud

e a 10,400

SF bu

ilding additio

n.•

HS SITE: G

rade

s PK

‐K & 6‐8, w

ith a pop


ents. The

HS’s po

pulatio

n remains low,

however

itiscloser

tobe

ingrightsized

forthecapacity;itcou

ldaccommod

atean

additio

nal783

however, it is closer to

being

right sized

for the capacity; it cou

ld accom

mod

ate an

add

ition

al 783

stud

ents. Req

uired reno

vatio

ns includ

e; Upgrade

toilets to

accom

mod

ate the PK

‐K stude

ntpo

pulatio

n, add

toilet roo

ms, recon

figure classroo

ms to create 1200

SF kind

ergarten

classroom

s,partition

off HS from

PK‐K scho

ol, n

ew entry/lob

by fo

r MS and PK

‐K schoo

ls, add

PK‐K café/kitche

n,create areaw

ays.

Page

Page 77‐‐2121

Option 6A

Option 6A

Centralize Early Education Ce

nter at the

HS & Close Lyons Schem

e

Section

Section 7.11

7.11

Description

Option 6A

propo

ses to locate th

e Early Education Ce

nter (P

K‐K) at the

HS Site. Centralizing the PK

‐K

program at the

HS frees up

space at a

ll of th

e elem

entary schoo

ls. A

ll elem

entary schoo

ls (g

rade

s 1‐5)

are right sized

with

out the

need for additio

ns. The Middle Scho

ol req

uires a 10,400

SF additio

n to

accommod

ateMSBA’scapacityrequ

irements

Thisop

tionalso

prop

oses

toclosetheLyon

sES;saving

accommod

ate MSBAs capacity re

quire

ments. This op

tion also propo

ses to close the

Lyons ES; saving

on ope

ratio

nal cost and wou

ld gen

erate revenu

e from

the sale of the

prope

rty.

Summary of grade

con

figuration, stude

nt pop

ulation, and


issues: O

ption 6A

•Don

ovan

ES: Grade

s 1‐5, with

a pop

ulation of 380

stude

nts. Don

ovan’s pop


the capacity to

accom

mod

ate an

add

ition

al 30 stud

ents. N

o programmatic re

novatio

ns are

necessary.

•JFK ES: G

rade

s1‐5

, with

a pop

ulation of 544

stude

nts. JFK’s po

pulatio


the

capacity to

accom

mod

ate an

add

ition

al 46 stud

ents. N

o programmatic re

novatio

ns are necessary.

•Lyon

s ES: The

Lyons schoo

l is de

commission

ed, 314

stude

nts are even

ly re

distribu

ted to th

e JFK ES

or th

e Youn

g ES. Lyons ES can po

t entially be sold.

YES

Gd

15

ithlti

f264

td

td

itt

dt

21dd

itil

•Youn

g ES: G

rade

s 1‐5, with

a pop

ulation of 264

stude

nts and capacity to

accom

mod

ate 21

add

ition

alstud

ents. N

o programmatic re

novatio

ns are necessary.

•MS SITE: G

rade

s 6‐8, with

a pop

ulation of 761. The

pop

ulation is at capacity. Req

uired reno

vatio

nsinclud

e a 10,400

SF bu

ilding additio

n.•

HS SITE: G

rade

s PK

‐K & 6‐8, w

ith a pop


ents. The

HS’s po

pulatio

n remains low,

however,itiscloser

tobe

ingrightsized

forthecapacity;itcou

ldaccommod

atean

additio

nal783

however, it is closer to

being

right sized

for the capacity; it cou

ld accom

mod

ate an

add

ition

al 783

stud

ents. Req

uired reno

vatio

ns includ

e; Upgrade

toilets to

accom

mod

ate the PK

‐K stude

ntpo

pulatio

n, add

toilet roo

ms, recon

figure classroo

ms to create 1200

SF kind

ergarten

classroom

s,partition

off HS from

PK‐K scho

ol, n

ew entry/lob

by fo

r MS and PK

‐K schoo

ls, add

PK‐K café/kitche

n,create areaw

ays.

Page

Page 77‐‐2323

slip sheets cms - sharpschoolrandolph.ss5.sharpschool.com/userfiles/servers... · the project...

Documents