Upload
jennifer-barnwell-brogan
View
232
Download
4
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
ARCHITECTURE + ENGINEERING, LLPARCHITECTS ENGINEERS CONNECTED
Facility Master PlanTown Hall Meeting
Meeting 1May 22nd, 2014
Working together with parents and the community Providing a high quality education Creating a safe learning environment
Ensuring each student will be a contributing citizen in an ever-changing diverse and global society
ARCHITECTURE + ENGINEERING, LLPARCHITECTS ENGINEERS CONNECTED
WHY ARE WE HERE? Welcome, Introductions & Background of RUSD
FMP Survey Materials Review of Committee Objectives:
• Subcommittee #1: Educational │ Instruction │ School Configurations │K-12
• Subcommittee #2: Inter-Governmental | Developer Relations | Financing
• Subcommittee #3: Facilities | Parents | Community
Where do we want to go from here?• Potential Learning Models• Potential Grade Configurations• Alternative Delivery Methods• Prepare for Growth• Plan for 21st Century Schools
Closing
ARCHITECTURE + ENGINEERING, LLPARCHITECTS ENGINEERS CONNECTED
STUDENTS FIRST
WHY ARE WE HERE?
“All people have a right to an environment that feels safe and
accepting both physically and emotionally” – RUSD 2009-14 Strategic Plan
“Individuals are entitled to the support and opportunity needed
to realize their own unique potential.” – RUSD 2009-14 Strategic Plan
ARCHITECTURE + ENGINEERING, LLPARCHITECTS ENGINEERS CONNECTED
Classrooms of Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow
1890’s
1990’s
2020’s
?
ARCHITECTURE + ENGINEERING, LLPARCHITECTS ENGINEERS CONNECTED
Subcommittee Recaps:
Subcommittee #1:
Educational │ Instruction │ School Configurations │K-12
ARCHITECTURE + ENGINEERING, LLPARCHITECTS ENGINEERS CONNECTED
Subcommittee #1 Recap: Reviewed pros/cons of RUSD current grade
configuration Assessment indicates RUSD is below “efficient”
capacity, but might exceed capacity in 5-10 years Discussed Academies, enrollment rates and
grade-configuration options• Option A – Reconfigure to K-5, New 6-8, Combine Ripon ES into Ripon HS • Option B – Retain K-8 Configuration, Combine Ripon ES into Ripon HS • Option C – Reconfigure Ripona and Weston to K-5, Retain K-8 at Colony Oak
and Park View and add Athletics, Ripon ES becomes 6-8 Academy, Expand Ripon HS
• Option D – Reconfigure to K-5, Convert Ripon HS to 6-8, Combine Ripon ES to converted 6-8, New HS on Ag Land
• Option E – Reconfigure to K-6, Convert Park View ES to 7-8, Combine Ripon ES into Ripon HS
ARCHITECTURE + ENGINEERING, LLPARCHITECTS ENGINEERS CONNECTED
Subcommittee #1 Recap: Subcommittee #1 Recommends:
A B C D EColony Oak Replacement X X X X XColony Oak Add Athletic Facilities XNew 6-7-8 School New 6-7-8 School XNew 9-12 School on Ag Land New 9-12 School XPark View Add Athletic Facilities XPark View Convert to 7-8 XRipon ES Convert to 6-7-8 Academy XRipon ES/Ripon HS Combine Ripon ES with Ripon HS X X XRipon ES/Ripon HS Combine and Convert to Middle School XRipona Significant Modernization X X X X XWeston Replacement X X X X X
Site ScopeOption
ARCHITECTURE + ENGINEERING, LLPARCHITECTS ENGINEERS CONNECTED
Subcommittee Recaps:
Subcommittee #2:
Inter-Governmental | Developer Relations | Financing
ARCHITECTURE + ENGINEERING, LLPARCHITECTS ENGINEERS CONNECTED
Subcommittee #2 Recap:Reviewed pros/cons of RUSD funding mechanisms:
• State School Facility Program• Federal Funding• General Obligation Bonds• Mello-Roos (Community Facilities Districts)• Parcel Taxes• Developer Fees/Mitigation Agreements• Joint Use Opportunities
Determined that Funding Strategies will be determined by:• Condition of existing facilities• District growth/enrollment trends• District-determined Developer Fee structures
ARCHITECTURE + ENGINEERING, LLPARCHITECTS ENGINEERS CONNECTED
Subcommittee #2 Recap:
10-Year Enrollment projections
ARCHITECTURE + ENGINEERING, LLPARCHITECTS ENGINEERS CONNECTED
Subcommittee #2 Recap: Subcommittee #2 Recommends:
• RUSD partake in an early engagement with local jurisdictions and developers to articulate District needs
• RUSD may also consider pursuing General Obligation bonds that would best fit the District’s needs and to serve the broader community
• RUSD implement a communication and activity plan with local/state/federal agencies
ARCHITECTURE + ENGINEERING, LLPARCHITECTS ENGINEERS CONNECTED
Subcommittee Recaps:
Subcommittee #3:
Facilities | Parents | Community
ARCHITECTURE + ENGINEERING, LLPARCHITECTS ENGINEERS CONNECTED
Subcommittee #3 Recap:State “efficiency standards” and their impact to
facilities & budgets (ADA compliance, electrical costs, etc)
Moderate growth projections in respect to State “efficiency standards”
Discussed grade configuration options• Less of a need as originally thought – possibly push in the 5-10 year mark
Review of Facility Assessments• Most facilities have signage/ADA/Path-of-Travel concerns• Ripona shows most critical infrastructure needs within next 0-5 years regardless of
growth
Administration/Transportation/M&O concerns• Administration building was ‘temporary construction’ 20+ years ago• Transportation is an issue with the District (“Bustodians”)• M&O could have room for efficiency improvements if transportation was not an
issue
ARCHITECTURE + ENGINEERING, LLPARCHITECTS ENGINEERS CONNECTED
Subcommittee #3 Recap: Subcommittee #3 Recommends
• Begin process of locating new Administration Building siteo Consider Multi-Use siteso Consider future transportation demands
• Begin Cost/Benefit Analysis of privatizing transportationo Consider ‘lease’ arrangements with MUSDo Consider possibly sharing Multi-Use site with Administration
• Utilize Facilities Master Plan as a O&M and IT guidebook• Begin process of identifying and adopting identical O&M processes between
schools/district
ARCHITECTURE + ENGINEERING, LLPARCHITECTS ENGINEERS CONNECTED
Your Turn!
Time for Your Questions!
ARCHITECTURE + ENGINEERING, LLPARCHITECTS ENGINEERS CONNECTED
Subcommittee #1 Reviewed pros/cons of RUSD current grade
configuration Assessment indicates RUSD is below “efficient”
capacity, but might exceed capacity in 5-10 years Discussed Academies, enrollment rates and
grade-configuration options• Option A – Reconfigure to K-5, New 6-8, Combine Ripon ES into Ripon HS • Option B – Retain K-8 Configuration, Combine Ripon ES into Ripon HS • Option C – Reconfigure Ripona and Weston to K-5, Retain K-8 at Colony Oak
and Park View and add Athletics, Ripon ES becomes 6-8 Academy, Expand Ripon HS
• Option D – Reconfigure to K-5, Convert Ripon HS to 6-8, Combine Ripon ES to converted 6-8, New HS on Ag Land
• Option E – Reconfigure to K-6, Convert Park View ES to 7-8, Combine Ripon ES into Ripon HS
ARCHITECTURE + ENGINEERING, LLPARCHITECTS ENGINEERS CONNECTED
Subcommittee #2Reviewed pros/cons of RUSD funding mechanisms:
• State School Facility Program• Federal Funding• General Obligation Bonds• Mello-Roos (Community Facilities Districts)• Parcel Taxes• Developer Fees/Mitigation Agreements• Joint Use Opportunities
Determined that Funding Strategies will be determined by:• Condition of existing facilities• District growth/enrollment trends• District-determined Developer Fee structures
ARCHITECTURE + ENGINEERING, LLPARCHITECTS ENGINEERS CONNECTED
Subcommittee #3State “efficiency standards” and their impact to
facilities & budgets (ADA compliance, electrical costs, etc)
Moderate growth projections in respect to State “efficiency standards”
Discussed grade configuration options• Less of a need as originally thought – possibly push in the 5-10 year mark
Review of Facility Assessments• Most facilities have signage/ADA/Path-of-Travel concerns• Ripona shows most critical infrastructure needs within next 0-5 years regardless of
growth
Administration/Transportation/M&O concerns• Administration building was ‘temporary construction’ 20+ years ago• Transportation is an issue with the District (“Bustodians”)• M&O could have room for efficiency improvements if transportation was not an
issue
ARCHITECTURE + ENGINEERING, LLPARCHITECTS ENGINEERS CONNECTED
Thank you!
ARCHITECTURE + ENGINEERING, LLPARCHITECTS ENGINEERS CONNECTED