slide1 n.
Download
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Table of Contents PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Table of Contents

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 31

Table of Contents - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 121 Views
  • Uploaded on

INTRODUCTION 1-5 MASTER PLANNING PROCESS 1-6 VISION 1-6 SCHOOL DISTRICT STRATEGIC PLAN EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1-7 DEMOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS & ENROLLMENT PATTERNS 1-13 EDUCATIONAL PLANNING 1-22 FACILITIES BY SCHOOL 1-27 COMPREHENSIVE RECOMMENDATIONS SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Table of Contents' - amy


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
slide2

INTRODUCTION

  • 1-5 MASTER PLANNING PROCESS
  • 1-6 VISION
  • 1-6 SCHOOL DISTRICT STRATEGIC PLAN
  • EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
  • 1-7 DEMOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS & ENROLLMENT PATTERNS
  • 1-13 EDUCATIONAL PLANNING
  • 1-22 FACILITIES BY SCHOOL
  • 1-27 COMPREHENSIVE RECOMMENDATIONS
  • SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS
  • 2-1 DEMOGRAPHICS
  • 2-23 EDUCATIONAL PLANNING BY SCHOOL
  • 2-41 FACILITIES (INDIVIDUAL SCHOOLS)
  • 2-157 SITE AND CIVIL
  • APPENDIX
  • 3-1 DEMOGRAPHICS
  • 3-10 EDUCATIONAL PLANNING (INDIVIDUAL SCHOOLS)

ENROLLMENT & CAPACITY

FACILTIES

EDUCATIONAL PROGRAM

Table of Contents

slide3

Our Students and Staff

A state and nationally recognized leader in innovative education, Adams 14 has 464 teachers, 38 administrators and 347 support staff, for a total of 847 full and part-time employees. We are proud to be the second largest employer in Commerce City. Adams 14 is an affirmative action equal opportunity employer. We offer an extensive staff development program, providing employees opportunities for support, growth and renewal.

Total Enrollment 6,702

77% Hispanic

18% Anglo

3% African American

2% American Indian

Economic Considerations

Adams 14 serves Commerce City, a largely industrial suburb of Denver. The area is comprised almost entirely of low income residents as evidenced by the high percentage of students on the free or reduced lunch program. To their credit, the citizens of the District passed an $84.6 million bond issue in November of 2006 that funded the construction of the first new building in the district in over 40 years, a state-of-the art replacement High School with a Community College component aimed at keeping potential student drop-outs in school by offering job training at the school. The remainder of the bond money was used to add new Kindergarten classrooms and air conditioning to all of the District’s Elementary Schools. Previously, no elementary school classrooms in the District even came close to meeting the state standards for square footage of 1,000 SF.

Located seven miles north of downtown Denver, Adams 14 serves approximately 7,000 students and 33,000 residents in the historic community of Commerce City, Colorado.

Student academic success is the number one priority for Adams 14, as a result, we focus our energy and resources on providing quality first time instruction. In addition, Adams 14 is proud to offer opportunities to enhance the lives of our students. From quality music and art programs in every school to 21st century technology access throughout the District, Adams 14 is committed to providing leading edge learning in its schools.

We serve students at:

  • Alsup Elementary School (Alsup)
  • Central Elementary School (Central)
  • Dupont Elementary School (Dupont)
  • Kemp Elementary School (Kemp)
  • Monaco Elementary School (Monaco)
  • Rose Hill Elementary School (Rose Hill)
  • Hanson PreK-8 School (Hanson)
  • Adams City Middle School (ACMS)
  • Kearney Middle School (KMS)
  • Adams City High School (ACHS)
  • Lester Arnold High School (Lester Arnold)
  • Sanville Preschool
  • STARS Early Learning Center (Preschool)
  • Community Leadership Academy (CLA - charter school)

Introduction

slide4

Age of Facilities

Except for the new replacement High School, all of the District’s schools are reaching their life expectancy. Most were built in the 1950’s. Obviously, buildings of this age suffer from a range of physical deterioration and fail to meet modern code and construction standards. Likewise, the fundamental design of these old buildings fails to meet current teaching needs and methodologies. Given the District’s primary mission to improve student achievement, this shortcoming is no less important than maintaining the buildings’ envelopes and systems.

Nearly all of the schools’ physical shortcomings have been addressed to some degree by the District’s maintenance programs over the years, keeping the schools safe and relatively functional for students and staff. As might be expected, physical building repairs have been the focus of most of the improvements, rather than the educational needs. Technology upgrades are the exception to this rule. Other educational shortcomings, like small, inflexible classroom sizes and lack of storage and teacher collaboration space, are more difficult to overcome given the bearing wall construction used for these schools.

  • District Maintenance
  • It is important to note that Adams 14 has maintained and upgraded its schools incrementally over the years. None are in crisis condition; although the roofs of several are caught in an annual cycle of ongoing repairs. Complete replacement is the only reasonable option to end the cycle of rising maintenance expenditures. Roof replacements would include the addition of insulation, which would in turn decrease annual operating costs for heating and cooling these buildings.
  • Planning for the Future
  • The common age of the buildings poses a particular dilemma for future planning because the District must confront the need for replacement of nearly all of its school buildings at the same time. That time is now. However, wholesale replacement over a short time frame is not a realistic financial option. Nor is it a wise one, theDistrict does not want to face this same dilemma 50 to 60 years from now. The question of how to provide modern facilities for all of the District’s students in as equitable a fashion as possible over the next decades is one we will address in the Recommendations portion of this report. For now, suffice it to say that a simple formula of building one replacement school a decade or so, will not suffice.
  • Financial Stewardship
  • The building upgrades have always been undertaken with the intention of good stewardship. The District puts students needs first. Adams 14 is waiting to hear about the status of an American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) grant application submitted last year to secure funds for a roof replacement at one of its schools.

Introduction

slide5

Master Planning Process

  • The Strategic Facilities Master Plan (SFMP) process was undertaken in the spring of 2010 to continue work begun with the District’s Comprehensive Appraisal for District Improvement (CADI) and as a prerequisite for BEST Grant applications. The SFMP has the long-term goal of projecting the District’s facilities improvements over a ten-year planning horizon, and the short-term goal of being completed in 90 days to meet the BEST Grant application deadline of April 9, 2010.
  • To meet this aggressive schedule, three normally subsequent tasks were tackled concurrently:
    • Demographics/ enrollment analysis and projections
    • Educational Planning – curriculum models translated into educational criteria and plan diagrams
    • Facility condition assessments (built on the Colorado Department of Education (CDE) assessments)
  • These tasks were each performed by sub-committees directed by an overall Steering Committee formed by District and Consultant Team members.
  • The final step of the SFMP, Prioritization and Recommendations, had to be taken sequentially after completion of the first three.
  • Tasks identified:
    • Project Kick-Off
    • Educational Program Vision, as it relates to facilities
    • Educational Facility Standards, as it relates to CDE and the strategic goals and educational vision of the District
    • Demographic Analysis and Trends
    • Site Needs Assessment, Facility Conditions and Educational Suitability
    • Community Engagement
    • Financial Analysis
    • Prioritization and Recommendations

Introduction

slide6

Inspire: The students are inspired by a belief in a bright future.

Educate: Teachers and Parents educate children to be citizens of the world.

Empower: Through education, we empower students for success.

Adams County School District-14 Strategy Map

Vision: School District Strategic Plan

slide7

Long-Term Enrollment Forecasts and Facility Requirements

Future student populations are projected using the build out of known and potential housing units as provided by Adams County and the Cities of Commerce City and Thornton. The term build out is defined as full construction of all the homes that are platted, subdivided or allowed by a comprehensive plan but are not yet built. This information is used by Adams 14 for long-term facility capacity and site planning, and in addition helps us determine the types, number and location of schools needed.

As shown in Table 4, students who reside in mobile homes and multifamily units have increased considerably in recent years, while there is relatively little change in both multi-family and single family type units. The term student generation rate used in Table 4 means the number of students generated from the various types of housing. The historic data from our consultants, Strategic Resources West (SRW), indicates that other Denver Metro Area schools and other Front Range Communities have higher student generation rates in single family units, but lower student generation rates in mobile home and multifamily units. The “spike” in 2009 student generation rates in mobile home and multi-family units is believed to be a reflection of the State’s and Metro area’s weak economy and the greater affordability of these types of housing units:

slide8

Births within Adams 14 have increased in recent years in both absolute terms and our proportionate share of total births within Adams County. Consequently, more children are residing within Adams 14’s boundaries and accordingly our student enrollments should go up. Even so, it is SRW’s opinion that student generation rates for lower priced housing units tend to be inversely related to economic conditions. Thus, as the economy improves, student generation rates will likely decline from the 2009 level and more closely approximate the suggested planning rates.

Thus, according to the City’s new Comprehensive Plan, housing stock within the District could increase by nearly 2,100 homes or about 19 percent from the existing number of units. This would require removing existing housing from selected areas of the District, primarily in the Rose Hill Elementary School area south of 56th Avenue and east of Kearney Street (see Figure 1).

As mentioned earlier, future housing potential within Adams 14 is scattered and is, for the most part, limited to individual lots. In fact, the Comprehensive Plan recently approved by Commerce City would further diminish that potential by more than 500 homes. (1)

slide9

Figure 1

Based upon the above housing potential and student generation rates, Adams 14 could add another 1,150 Kindergarten through 12th grade students over and above the long-term expectation from existing housing (see Table 5). If that is true, our student population would be about 7,510 students. From those 7,500 students, more than 3,800 would be in the elementary grades (K - 5), about 1,650 would be in the middle school grades (6 – 8) and about 2,030 would be in high school (grades 9 – 12). Implications follow regarding school capacities and planning for future facilities.

slide10

Future Facility Needs

The above student expectations are also broken down by elementary school attendance area to assist with planning school capacity needs. This approach suggests that long-term capacity requirements will be higher than current permanent facility capacity and varies by school attendance area. (See Table 6.)

Again, the homes that would generate the additional future students will likely build very slowly since most new construction would be on infill lots. The majority of future homes to be built would be in the Alsup attendance area north and west of the South Platte River. Although these units could generate quite a few students, the closer proximity of schools in other districts suggests that many of these students may enroll out of district and not attend Alsup, Adams City Middle School or Adams City High School. Thus, it will be prudent to monitor housing construction and enrollment over time to gauge how many students will be realized from this area.

Feeder system capacity balance. Adams14 schools have a wide range of capacities within each school level; a characteristic that may result in less efficient ways to house students. For example, when families move into an area, many parents want to know which schools their children will attend. Furthermore, many parents would prefer that their children progress through the grades with their friends and that they not be separated when they continue to the next school level, e.g. from elementary to middle school. Using the schools below, this situation would likely result in an imbalance of enrollment capacity for each school type, thus creating the need to split attendance boundaries as students graduate to the next school level, or resulting in either inefficient use of a building or overcrowding.

slide11

Table 6 shows that Kemp Elementary School has the smallest capacity of any elementary school and Central Elementary School has the largest capacity. Kemp has space for about 305 students in Kindergarten through sixth grade or about 51 students per grade. Central’s capacity is about 460 students or 77 students per grade. Adams City and Kearney Middle Schools have nearly the same total capacity so there is little difference in the capacity per grade. If all elementary schools were built to the same capacity as Kemp it would take 3.89 elementary schools to fill Adams City MS. In comparison, it would only take 2.59 elementary schools if they had the capacity of Central. From an efficiency perspective, it is apparent that such imbalances can cause scheduling difficulties and inefficient or more costly operating expenses. This capacity differential increases the potential of uneven student distribution among the schools, and thus, increases the potential of underutilized or over utilized facilities.

slide12

Summary and Recommendations

Enrollment at all three school levels is expected to exceed facility capacity over the next few years. However, interim capacity enhancement measures, such as continued use of modular classrooms, may be a cost-effective strategy for the near term. It is suggested that the District prepare for future enrollment expectations by developing a strategy for accommodating enrollment that includes both interim and long-term solutions that are acceptable to its community. It is strongly recommended that the District study its desired school sizes by level and develop educational specifications that will guide facility capacity and school site location planning in the future. A second recommended step is to identify gaps in facility locations, e.g. in the northwest, to determine if a potential school site(s) central to that student population might make economic sense.

The data suggests that about 1.90 middle schools are required to fill ACHS to its capacity of 1,500 students. However, total middle school capacity approximates 1,175 students or 391 students per grade (excludes CLA and Hanson), which is greater than the 375 students per grade capacity at Adams City HS. We believe that potential overcrowding can be eliminated or diminished because some students will enroll at Lester Arnold High School, and regrettably, if history is an accurate indication of the future, student attrition will lessen our high school population, particularly in the upper grades.

The effects of Hanson and the charter school are not shown; the above narrative has been provided to illustrate the cause and effect of various factors on student enrollment. This type of analysis is essential in Adams 14’s long term planning process. Strategic Resources West believes that Adams 14 would benefit from a comprehensive facility capacity planning system. Such a review could lead to more efficient use of facilities as well as greater patron satisfaction. Preparing a comprehensive educational specification for each school level and then aligning the capacities could accomplish this goal.

Adams 14 Facilities Master Plan

slide13

The Educational Planning process comprised the following three phases:

In the recommendations, the components of each type of facility, Elementary and Middle, are discussed individually and square footage areas are described for each component. At the end of each model, the total summary and grossing factor areas (additional areas required for corridors, toilet rooms, mechanical and janitor closets, etc.) can be found.

It is important to note that in the Recommendations, optimal classroom size is addressed. Under the school program descriptions, the typical components and programs housed in these classrooms and the rationale used to come to these conclusions are described. These ideal class sizes are based on recommended CDE standards, and it is the recommendation of the Educational Planning Committee to attempt to comply as closely as possible with these standards. The inclusion of this information and its impact on demographic projections is described in the demographic section.

Application of the educational design criteria was evaluated on the ability to reasonably achieve the educational model goals in any given existing facility. Some facilities, due to restrictive site areas or limiting adjacency issues, were considered on an individual basis and the intent of the program was incorporated to the extent possible.

  • Visioning and goal setting
  • Facility evaluation with respect to educational program delivery
  • Recommendations through educational design criteria

The recommendations contain graphic and verbal descriptions of spaces and their relationships to adjacent spaces. The purpose of these diagrams is to understand the necessary proximity, prototypical arrangement, and components that make up a specific group of spaces that would be found together.

In developing these recommendations, the intent is to create a diagram which can be “overlaid” on the existing buildings to determine what pieces are missing from the ideal program model. With this process, consideration is given to logical displacement of programs occurring in existing spaces that could be moved to create the ideal program model. In many instances, such as classroom size, existing classrooms at 800 SF would be increased to 900 SF to meet the ideal model classroom size. For this reason, it is crucial to replace the core instructional spaces. In planning the replacement instructional spaces, these recommendations could be used to suggest total areas that would provide the educational environment determined ideal for the Adams 14 School District.

Executive Summary: Educational Planning

slide14

Goal 1: Empowering Teachers

Intent: Provide structured support to enable teachers to be a dynamic, standards-based presence in the classroom.

“To improvestudent achievement so that  80% of students assessed will be on grade level by 2014 by ensuring that each classroom has adynamic, standards-based teacher who provides powerful 21st century learning experiences to all students”.Adams County School District-14 Strategic Plan. Nov 2008.

  • Dynamic instructional practices
  • Expect greatness from the teachers and students
  • Standard based teaching practices and outcomes
  • Clarity in expectations
  • Align daily lessons to the curriculum
  • Engage students constantly
  • Facility Impact:
  • Adaptability/flexibility
  • Classroom design
  • Teacher “Neighborhoods”
  • Project-based teaching
  • Storage /display

Empowering Teachers

Collaborative Environments

Neighborhood Schools

Executive Summary: Educational Planning Goals

slide15

Goal 2: Collaborative Environments

Intent: Facility has to reflect the vision of student-centered teaching, active learning, and cooperative groups through effectively engaging students and creating energy, action and motivation.

Goal 3: Neighborhood Schools

Intent:Providing structures that encourage school-community connections.

  • Welcoming architecture
  • Safety and security
  • Early education consolidation (with SPED component)
  • Respect pride in neighborhood schools, especially at the middle schools
  • Facility Impact:
  • School size
  • Safety and security
  • Student engagement
  • Traffic/entrances/exits
  • Parents/community
  • Curb appeal
  • Early Childhood Center
  • Teacher collaboration
  • Student collaboration
  • SPED collaboration
  • Inviting environments that support creativity, expression and demonstration
  • Learning and interaction beyond the classroom walls – pods, teaming centers, alcoves
  • Facility Impact:
  • Classroom design
  • Specialized spaces
  • Library Media Center (LMC)
  • Instructional technology (IT) and communication
  • Inviting environments
  • Equipment and furniture
  • Storage/display
  • Student engagement

Executive Summary: Educational Planning Goals

slide16

Educational Design Criteria

The purpose of the educational design criteria is to provide Adams 14 with a tool that defines educational concepts, in order to inform future building design.

During the Master Planning process, the educational design criteria were developed for elementary and middle schools. Key features for high schools were also discussed, the focus for which was evaluating the new high school from an educational delivery standpoint. These design criteria were developed by the Educational Planning Committee through a series of worksessions. The primary focus of these committees was that curriculum should drive the development of the design criteria. The committee also addressed the impact of community needs and developed criteria that reflects the unique identity and culture of the community and its educational vision.

During this process, definition of critical factors such as growth impact, changes occurring in current facilities, and the following list of items were addressed:

  • Philosophy and objectives of the School District
  • Services to students, teachers and the community
  • Organization of schools and core instructional spaces
  • Methods of instruction
  • Program of studies
  • Desired environment (interior and exterior)
  • Utilization of space

Executive Summary: Educational Planning

slide17

Elementary Core Instructional

THREE (3) ROUNDS : 450 STUDENTS

FOUR (4) ROUNDS : 600 STUDENTS

The diagrams are not intended to be building plans, but a guide for developing those plans. They suggest configurations and adjacencies that support the educational design criteria.

PS

PS

K

K

K

1

K

K

K

K

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

2

SPED

2

2

TN

PS

PS

TN

TN

TN

3

3

5

5

3

3

3

3

SPED

3

5

4

4

2

4

4

4

2

2

4

4

5

5

SPED

SPED

5

5

ONE (1) ROUND:

150 STUDENTS

6 TEACHING STATIONS

1 TEACHER NEIGHBORHOOD

1 PRESCHOOL (OPTIONAL)

CONNECTION TO SHARED INSTRUCTIONAL & COMMON AREAS

CONNECTION TO SHARED INSTRUCTIONAL & COMMON AREAS

9 Classroom Pairs @ 2,100 SF 18,900 SF

2 Preschool @ 1,000 SF 2,000 SF

2 Teacher Neighborhood 2,850 SF

2 SPED Classroom 1,200 SF

PROGRAM AREA 24,950 SF

12 Classrooms Pairs @ 2,100 SF 25,200 SF

2 Preschool @ 1,000 SF 2,000 SF

2 Teacher Neighborhood 2,850 SF

2 SPED Classroom 1,200 SF

PROGRAM AREA 31,250 SF

Executive Summary: Educational Design Criteria

slide18

Middle School Core Instructional

CLUSTER (by Grade Level):

140 STUDENTS (@25-28 Students/CR)

4 CLASSROOMS @ 1,000 SF 4,000 SF

2 TUTORING SPACES @ 75 SF 150 SF

1 SCIENCE CLASSROOM 1,200 SF

1 SCIENCE PREP 300 SF

1 SCIENCE STORAGE 200 SF

1 COLLABORATION ZONE 900 SF

SUPPORT SPACES 650 SF

TOTAL 7,400 SF

The diagrams are not intended to be building plans, but a guide for developing those plans. They suggest configurations and adjacencies that support the educational design criteria.

CR

SCIENCE

CR

CR

TUTORING

COLLABORATION ZONE

CR

TOILETS/ SUPPORT

Grade 6

Grade 6

TN

TN

Grade 7

Grade 7

Grade 8

Grade 8

TWO (2) CLUSTER PER GRADE LVL:

NO. OF STUDENTS 750-840 Students

CLUSTER AREA 44,400 SF

TEACHER N’HOOD 5,700 SF

TOTAL 50,100 SF

CONNECTION TO SHARED INSTRUCTIONAL & COMMON AREAS

Executive Summary: Educational Design Criteria

slide19

OPTION 1: CORE INSTRUCTIONAL AREA REPLACEMENT

Elementary Middle

Classroom 900 -1,000 SF 900 -1,000 SF

Classroom “Pair” 2,100 – 2,500 SF --

Teacher Neighborhood 1,425 SF 2,850 SF

Core Instructional Elementary Program Area Building Area (P.A. x 1.25)

2 Rounds - 300 Students 15,625 SF 19,532 SF

3 Rounds - 450 Students 24,950 SF 31,188 SF

4 Rounds – 600 Students 31,250 SF 39,063 SF

Core Instructional Middle

2 Clusters per Grade Level 50,100 SF 62,625 SF

(6 Clusters = 840 Students)

CORE UNITS

Executive Summary: Educational Design Criteria

slide20

OPTION 2: REPLACEMENT SCHOOLS (Area Summary Option 2: ELEMENTARY SCHOOL)

450 Students 600 Students

Core Instructional Area 24,950 SF 31,250 SF

Classrooms

Teacher Neighborhoods

Shared Instructional Area

Library Media Center 4,120 SF 4,520 SF

Art Room 1,200 SF 1,200 SF

Music Room 1,200 SF 1,200 SF

SPED Suite 2,400 SF 2,400 SF

Physical Education 3,950 SF 3,950 SF

Support (Non Instructional) Areas

Administration 2,660 SF 2,660 SF

Cafeteria (w Performance Platform) 3,350 SF 4,100 SF

Kitchen 1,200 SF 1,400 SF

Building Support 2,150 SF 2,750 SF

PROGRAM AREA 47,180 SF 55,430 SF

BUILDING TOTAL (P.A. x 1.25) 58,975 SF 69,288 SF

CORE INSTRUCTION

Executive Summary: Educational Design Criteria

slide21

OPTION 2: REPLACEMENT SCHOOLS (Area Summary Option 2: MIDDLE SCOOL)

750-840 Students

Core Instructional Area 50,100 SF

Classrooms

Teacher Neighborhoods

Shared Instructional Area

Library Media Center 7,200 SF

“Exploratory” Learning Areas 13,600 SF

Art, Music, Media--Tech, Business-Career

SPED Suite 4,500 SF

Physical Education 18,600 SF

Support (Non Instructional) Areas

Administration 3,800 SF

Counseling 775 SF

Commons (with Perf. Platform, Kitchen) 10,100 SF Seats 300

Building Support 2,750 SF

PROGRAM AREA 111,425 SF

BUILDING TOTAL (P.A. x 1.25) 139,281 SF

CORE INSTRUCTION

Executive Summary: Educational Design Criteria

slide22

Facilities

The fundamental and critical problem facing the District is the fact that most (10 out of 12) of their schools were originally built 50 years or more ago. The common life expectancy of buildings from the decade of the 1950’s is 50 - 60 years. These two facts suggest that the substantial renovation or replacement of nearly all of the District’s schools is imminent. Our examination of the schools and the CDE assessments largely support this conclusion.

While Adams 14 has done a commendable job maintaining these facilities over the years, the District’s limited funding and rapidly growing maintenance needs (due to the common age of its facilities) have combined to create a looming crisis. Unlike many districts, Adams 14 has continued to set aside an annual maintenance fund for capital repairs even though state law no longer requires it. Adams 14 annually sets aside significant funds for its capital reserve fund to keep these aging buildings safe and operational for their students and staff.

In November 2006, the community passed a bond issue that funded the construction of a replacement facility for the District’s only comprehensive high school – Adams City High School. In an effort to stem its rather high drop-out rate, the District partnered with local community colleges and businesses to include space in the new school for entry-level college programs. Adams City High also has a school-based health clinic in the building. The District’s only other high school is Lester Arnold Alternative High serving drop-outs and other students re-entering school. The District and community did not limit the scope of the bond money to the new high school. They apportioned some of the bond money to each of the elementary schools for new full-day Kindergarten classrooms and another portion to the middle school for science room upgrades. In addition, air conditioning was added to all of the schools. These improvements often required electrical system upgrades and enabled basic safety improvements, like new fire access roads.

It had been 10 years (1996) since this economically disadvantaged community had passed a school bond issue and the District responded with wise and equitable use of the funds granted, spreading the benefit throughout the District. But the District has not stopped there. It has executed a performance contract with Siemens for upgraded irrigation systems, thermal solar, HVAC controls, IGV-VFD conversion, lighting and plumbing for all of its older schools. Furthermore, the District has applied for an AARA grant for replacement of Kearney Middle School’s roof – one of the worst in the District. This is the story of a district searching every avenue for ways to serve its students and community.

Executive Summary: Facilities

slide23

This spring Adams 14 completed a community survey to gauge the viability of a mill levy increase to fund rising operational expenses and a school bond issue to fund capital improvements. The results showed support for the mill levy, but not for the school bond issue.

The largest facility concern is the deteriorating condition of school roofs across the District. Numerous annual repairs and quick patch jobs have minimized substantial damage. Nonetheless, the increasing frequency and extent of repairs clearly indicate that full replacement is a better use of funds than the endless cycle of patching. Yet, the District chose to aim higher than comprehensive roof replacements for the 2006 school bond issue. Providing new and well-conditioned learning environments were, and are, seen as trumping roof replacements for two main reasons. First, the new classroom space and air conditioning have a more direct effect on student achievement than new roofs would. Second, the District can continue to repair the old roofs with capital reserve funds for a while longer. However, the amount of those funds would not begin to address the shortage of classroom space or the addition of air conditioning, which makes the classrooms more bearable in warm weather and removes a major distraction from student learning.

Along with the physical deterioration of 50+ year-old buildings, there are parallel instructional shortcomings incumbent with buildings of this era. Over 75% of the elementary school classrooms are under the acceptable square footage for classrooms with 25 students (25 x 35 = 825 SF). Most are above the 600 SF CDE minimum square foot requirement, but class sizes would need to average 20 -21 students for most of these classrooms to meet the SF/student guideline. Our master planning work with the District Educational Planners came back to this classroom size issue repeatedly as an obstacle to implementing modern instructional methods. Enlarging nearly every elementary school classroom in the District is a daunting challenge in itself. Further complicating the situation is the fact that all of the school buildings are masonry bearing wall construction – making incremental expansions completely impractical. Likewise, removing a dividing wall between two classrooms would usually yield more than the needed square footage and a room proportion unfavorable for teaching (well off CDE’s guideline of 1:1.3). This approach would require internal columns or other substantial structural alterations, as well.

Another common and crucial instructional shortcoming is the lack of teacher collaboration space in the buildings. The Educational Planning Subcommittee sees the addition of

collaboration space as indispensible for the implementation of their instructional improvements plan. Since the convenient location of such a space is essential to its use, the bearing wall construction of the schools again poses a serious limitation on its implementation.

Executive Summary: Facilities

slide24

ISSUES

The District needs to make a decision regarding the disposition of the old Adams City High School (ACHS) property. After long deliberation, we believe Adams 14 should sell the property for the following primary reasons – the same ones that led to the decision to seek a new site for the new ACHS a few years ago.

  • Substantial renovation of the building would have to include the high cost of hazardous materials abatement and demolition.
  • Some of the athletic facilities on the site have beneficial use to other members of the community. For instance, the District is currently renting the use of the football stadium to a local soccer club.
  • The potential to improve the community and team with a commercial or institutional partner, if the right buyer and use can be found.
  • The location directly adjacent to the busy Highway 85 is not a safe one for a school. The site is mostly adjacent to commercial and industrial uses that generate, and benefit from, the high traffic volumes and easy vehicular access.
  • The existing building, originally constructed in 1939 (with classroom addition in 1952 and cafeteria and field house with gym and pool addition in 1960) is in poor condition and is further deteriorating since the District decommissioned it and moved into the new Adams City High School (ACHS) in the fall of 2009.
  • The building organization with several additions and remodels is not well-suited for any modern educational use without substantial remodeling and building envelope and systems upgrades.

The District and the master planning team have considered an overall facilities approach of ongoing remodels, renovations and incremental additions to its old school buildings and sites. This would respond directly to the community’s common preference for equitable distribution of school improvements. Nonetheless, we have concluded that new, or substantially new, buildings are needed for the following reasons.

  • The 50-60 year-old masonry bearing-wall construction buildings, while sound structurally, are difficult and expensive to renovate. One example – failing plumbing located inside the masonry walls is impossible to replace without substantial and costly demolition and repair of the walls. Subsequently, most piping replacements have taken the approach of abandoning the old pipe in the walls and installing the new piping on the face of the interior walls.

Executive Summary: Facilities

slide25

New roof tied into existing

  • 2. The impracticality of enlarging the mostly undersized classrooms (95% of the elementary and 61% of the MS) again due to the masonry bearing wall construction.
  • The conviction that the flexibility to accommodate new teaching methodologies can only be achieved by larger classrooms and less restrictive arrangements than are offered by the current narrow double-loaded corridors.

New wall & foundation

Making two [2] Classrooms into one larger room does not comply with CDE (State) length-to-width ratio.

Masonry walls make incremental expansion fiscally inefficient

Executive Summary: Facilities

slide26

Due to the age of the school facilities, all have the following common problems:

Roofs have exceeded their lifespan and are in deteriorated condition. The District incurs constant costs for repairs after any rain or snowstorm. They have incurred damaged ceilings, flooring, ductwork, casework, lesson plans, documents, etc.

Recommendation: Full roof replacements with a modified bitumen roof material allowing maintenance by District personnel, along with added roof insulation for better energy conservation.

Roof fascias, roof overhang soffits, gutters and downspouts all need varying percentages of maintenance, repairs and or replacement.

Recommendation: Replacement or maintenance of components in satisfactory condition to include cleaning and painting. Full replacement of all components would likely need to occur with full roof replacements. Fascias would have to modify to accommodate the additional insulation thickness.

Interior carpet finishes are mostly worn, dirty and deteriorating. Vinyl composition tile floors are overall in better maintained condition. Areas were observed where the VCT was in need of striping and waxing.

Recommendation: Replacement with a good commercial grade carpet. Some schools have asbestos tile encapsulated under numerous layers of carpet. Ideally all layers would be removed and asbestos tile abated.

Classroom cabinetry and countertops are typically part of the original building construction, showing the 50+ year age. Some original porcelain sinks exist along with some replacement stainless steel sinks that are typically in deteriorated condition. Many classrooms have drinking fountain bubblers mounted adjacent to sinks. These drinking fountain bubblers in the classrooms are not standard practice today and are not allowed in classrooms used for Art and Science per Colorado State Regulations for Schools.

Recommendation: Replacement of base and upper cabinets and countertops along with tall teacher storage cabinets with plastic laminate faced cabinets and countertops. New stainless steel sinks, faucets and deletion of the drinking fountain bubblers.

Poor storm water drainage exists at numerous locations around all of the school facilities.

Recommendation: Along with the gutter and downspout maintenance some redirection of storm water away from entries, exits and pedestrian paths should be done. This could include some re-grading, repaving and installing some trench drains to direct storm water away from the buildings. Refer to the Facilities Site evaluations in this document.

Executive Summary: Facilities

slide27

Master Plan Recommendation

  • Replace Kearney MS on its current site with a new 800 student facility. (Design and construct new building, demo existing building then re-build displaced fields, parking etc.).
  • Turn Hanson back into a PreK-5 program and move Hanson’s 6-8 grades into new Kearney and backfill vacated space in Hanson with students from Alsup.
  • Build a new replacement school for ACMS to accommodate 750-800 students. (Design and construct new building, demo existing building then re-build displaced fields, parking etc.).
  • Build a new replacement school for Monaco to accommodate 500 students to feed ACMS. (Design and construct new building, demo existing building then re-build displaced fields, parking etc.).
  • Replace remaining elementary schools in this manner based on priorities for facility condition and community equality.
  • Since Hanson is newest of the elementary schools, convert or replace as a district-wide Preschool facility.
  • At District Service Center, provide for additional staff parking and space for bus driving skills training in place of existing softball field.
  • Additional Considerations:
  • ACHS site and undeveloped property to help provide funding.
  • Pros:
  • Meets future enrollment projections
  • Meets modern education requirements
  • Replaces aging buildings
  • Takes one of the worst facilities in terms of maintenance and repairs off the table and reduces the number of aging facilities vying for limited repair funds.
  • Cons:
  • Replaces only one school at a time when nearly all schools are deteriorating – the rest of the schools cannot afford to wait for their turn.

The following charts show the existing District feeder system and its transition to the future “ideal” system.

Executive Summary: Facilities