Simsury School Facilities Master Plan · 4/23/2019 · presentation to board of education...

SCHOOL FACILITIES M A S TE R P L A N & R E C O N F I G UR A T I O N S TUD Y

P R E S E N TA T I O N TO B O A R D O F E D UC A T I O N

04.23.2019

ARCHITECTS Tecton

SIMSBURY PUBLIC SCHOOLS / AG E N D A

1. INTRODUCTIONS

2. OUTLINE GOALS OF THE PROJECT

3. DEMOGRAPHIC STUDY & PROJECTIONS

4. EXISTING CONDITIONS – INITIAL FINDINGS

5. CONDITIONS SUMMARY

6. NEXT STEPS, Q & A

~11-S8u~ • P~ LS ~u'-'7'70"""''""

Tecton ARCHITECTS

INTRODUCTIONS / A C O L L AB O R AT I V E AP P R O AC H

SIMSBURY PUBLIC SCHOOLS

Matthew Curtis

Burke LaClair

Steve Twitchell

Neil Sullivan

Erin Murray

Sue Homrok – Lemke

Betsy Gunsalus

Katie Wilde

Andrew O’Brien, Principal

Scott Baker, Principal

Beth Hennessy, Principal

Mike Luzietti, Principal

Meg Evans, Principal

Steve Matyczyk, Principal

Maggie Seidel, Principal

Superintendent of Schools

School Business Manager

Supervisor of Buildings and Grounds

Director of Personnel

Assistant Superintendent for Teaching & Learning

Assistant Superintendent of Pupil Services

Director of Elementary Curriculum & Student Assessments

Executive Assistant

Simsbury High School

Henry James Memorial School

Central School

Latimer Lane School

Squadron Line School

Tariffville School

Tootin’ Hills School

~11-S8u~ • P~ LS ~u'-'7'70"""''""

Tecton ARCHITECTS

INTRODUCTIONS / A C O L L AB O R AT I V E AP P R O AC H

CONSULTANT TEAM

TECTON ARCHITECTS Architecture & Programming

Jeff Wyszynski, AIA Ed Widofsky, AIA Stephen Melingonis, AIA Alison Fredericks, Assoc. AIA

MILONE & MACBROOM SZEWCZAK ASSOCIATES Demographic Projections Structural Engineering Patrick Gallagher, AICP Peter Celella, PE

CES FUSS & O’NEILL – CIVIL ENGINEERING

MEP Engineering Site, Civil, Landscape, Planning

Derek Bride, PE Ron Bomengen, PE, LEED AP, Associate

ARCHITECTS Tecton

GOALS OF THE PROJECT/ M AS T E R P L AN F O R T H E F U T U R E

• Analysis of Existing Conditions & Educational Needs

• Identify capital Improvements & Maintenance

requirements

• 10 year prioritized plan, sustainable approach to address

facility and educational needs

• Review Demographics

• Develop Alternative Configurations for the district

• Engage community & explore responsive solutions

• Long Range Master Plan for community

ARCHITECTS Tecton

COMMUNICATION/ K E E P I N G T H E L I N E S O P E N

• District Leadership Meetings

• Meeting Dates: 3rd Wednesday each month, 11 a.m., BOE offices.

• BOE Progress Presentation

• April 23, 2019 @ 7 p.m.

• Facilities & Enrollment Task Force Meeting

• Demographics & Existing Conditions Review

• Tentative Date scheduled for mid-May

• Public Forum & Workshop

• Demographics & Existing Conditions Review

• Tentative Date scheduled for June 5th @ 7pm

DEMOGRAPHIC PROJECTIONS SUMMARY PRESENTATION

L - ,L-

~!~ MILONE & MACBROOM

~ :


SCHOOL PLANNING EXPERIENCE

IN CONNECTICUT

About MMI

▪ Interdisciplinary firm of planners,

demographers, engineers, scientists

and landscape architects

headquartered in Cheshire, CT.

▪ More than 20 Facility Studies over

the last 5 years for school systems

ranging from 800 – 21,000

Students.

▪ Enrollment Projections

▪ Facility Master Plans

▪ Redistricting and

Reconfiguration Plans

Births from 1996 to 2018 350

300 287 285 282

250

200

150

100


Demographics Takeaways

The Town has experienced modest population growth in recent years, growing by 3.4% between 2010 and 2017.

• Population growth is highest in the Route 10/202 corridor and is has been driven by recent housing construction.

• DOT Projections show continued modest population growth for the foreseeable future.

The Town’s population is aging

• Median age increased from 41.7

years old in 2010 to 44.7 years old

in 2017.

Births have increased in recent

years.

• Birth cohorts corresponding with

the next four kindergarten classes

are larger than the last five years – range from 180 to 195.


Housing Takeaways

▪ Significant multi-family construction in recent years. An additional 484 units are in the pipeline for developments currently approved and under construction.

▪ Multi-family construction is concentrated in the Latimer, Central, and Squadron Line District.

▪ Recent multi-family construction has, on average, produced 0.14 students per unit.

▪ Single-family construction has yet to rebound from the Recession.

▪ Rental housing tends to produce a more transient student population compared to owner-occupied homes. The highest concentrations of rental housing are in Tariffville and Weatogue.

▪ Home sales have recovered since 2011, but have yet to return to pre-recession levels.

■ ■ ■ ■

■ ■ ■

■


300 250

Housing Permits

Simsbury Housing Permits, by Type: 1997-2018 YTD

250

200

150

100

50

0

59 73 68

34 26 36

71

24

85 60

19 10 3 14 18

99 99

176

93

64

Single-Family Multi-Family Total

Source: Connecticut DECD, Annual Housing Permits

2018 YTD is from Jan to Aug

▪ According to the U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey (ACS), the number of housing units in Simsbury increased by 7.8% between 2010 and 2017.

▪ Average of 150 new housing units per year over the last five years, driven by multi-family construction.

▪ Single-family construction has yet to rebound from the Recession.

▪ 2018 YTD housing permits were the second highest, with 189 housing permits, and several months of data yet to be included.

189


Recent and Planned Housing

Name Type School District

Proposed

Units Built Units

Occupied

Units Status

Mill Commons Apartments Central 88 88 80 Complete

Mill Pond Crossing Townhouses Central 20 20 18 Complete

Dorset Crossing Apartments Squadron Line 168 168 148 Complete

Kings Ridge Apartments Latimer 24 24 21 Complete

The Ridge at Talcott Mountain Apartments Latimer 282 0 0 Under Construction

Aspen Green Apartments Latimer 181 151 141 Under Construction

Cambridge Crossing Single-Family Squadron Line 79 7 0 Under Construction

Highcroft Place Apartments Central 252 200 158 Under Construction

Mansion at Chestnut Hill Apartments Central 5 0 0 Under Construction

Carson Way Single Family Central 74 31 28 Under Construction

Meadow Wood Development Single-Family Squadron Line 296 0 0 Approved

32 Iron Horse Boulevard Apartments Central 135 0 0 Planned

Total All Developments 1,604 689 594

Data provided by the Town of Simsbury Planning Department and Simsbury Public Schools

• In recent years, 689 new units have been built – mostly multi-family apartments. An additional 484 units are in the pipeline for developments currently approved and under construction.

• Phased construction of these units is likely to occur over a multi-year period.

• Meadow Wood Development was approved in 2007 and has yet to move forward to construction.

• 32 Iron Horse Boulevard project is not yet approved.


Student Generation from Housing

Recent Developments

Name Occupied Units

Total

Enrollment

(10/1/2018)

Enrollment per

Occupied Unit Status

Mill Commons 80 9 0.11 Complete

Mill Pond Crossing 18 5 0.28 Complete

Dorset Crossing 148 23 0.16 Complete

Kings Ridge 21 3 0.14 Complete

Aspen Green 141 26 0.18 Under Construction

Highcroft Place 158 14 0.09 Under Construction

Carson Way 28 5 0.18 Under Construction

Total All Developments 594 85 0.14

• Currently just under 600 occupied units producing 85 SPS students as of 2018, or 0.14 students per unit.

• Up to 50% of students who move into these developments are existing SPS students.

▪ A higher number of units does not directly translate to a higher enrollment of students. Price points, unit size and type also factor into average enrollment.

▪ Single-family housing yields more students per unit than multi-family housing.

▪ Multiple bedrooms and cheaper price points for multi-family homes generally yield more students per unit. Higher end multi-family units typically produce few students.


Enrollment Trends

CJ • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • □

•

■ •


Enrollment Trends: District

District Enrollment Trends from 2001 to 2019

6,000 4,958 4,973 4,995 5,018 5,014 4,957 4,917 4,908 4,838 4,731 4,647 4,501 4,330 4,254 4,133 4,110 4,039 4,018

2,706 2,732 2,727 2,710 2,698 2,612 2,562 2,507 2,435 2,348 2,235 2,188 2,075 2,048 1,983 1,976 1,976 1,989

824 778 804 850 805 790 816 838 827 805 792 748 727 739 710 690 658 610

1,428 1,463 1,464 1,458 1,511 1,555 1,539 1,563 1,576 1,578 1,620 1,565 1,528 1,467 1,440 1,444 1,405 1,419

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

K-6 7-8 9-12 Total

Data provided by Simsbury Public Schools

• Most recent enrollment peak was 5,018 students in 2005-06.

• Elementary school enrollments peaked in 2002-03 at 2,732 students and declined by 27.2% since then – however, enrollments have leveled off over the last four years.

• Middle school enrollments peaked in 2004-05 at 850 students and have steadily declined by 28.2% since then. 2018-19 middle school enrollment is lowest in recent memory.

• High school enrollment peaked at 1,620 students in 2011-12 and have declined by 12.4% .

• Enrollment of Simsbury residents in private, parochial, or magnet schools has been relatively stable over the last few years.

Enrollment Trends: Elementary

Elementary School Enrollment: 2012-13 to 2018-19

379 378

444 408

659

582

286

420

373300

400

500

600

700

□----------------------□ T T


248200

2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19

Central Latimer Squadron Line Tariffville Tootin Hills

▪ Every elementary school experienced a decline in enrollment between 2012-13

and 2018-19, although the rate of decline varied.

▪ Central School experienced the smallest decline at just -0.3%.

▪ Tariffville (-13.3%), Squadron Line (-11.7%), and Tootin’ Hills (-11.2%) experienced the

largest declines.


Enrollment Projections

- - -

-

-

DODD


Projections Building Blocks

Starting Data

Critical to the overall accuracy of the

projections, as each year builds upon the last.

District Projections

Town of

Simsbury Births

Historic

Enrollment

Trends

Obtained from CT Obtained from SPS

DPH and CT SDE

Geolocated

Enrollment

Data

Geolocated

Birth Data

Individual School Projections

Obtained from CT DPH Obtained from SPS

and address matched and address

matched

Projection Assumptions

Several projection models are developed by applying

different persistency ratios to building blocks

5 Year 3 Year 3 Year Average Average Weighted Blended

Demographic and Housing Data

Used to inform model selection

Unemployment

(Town, Region)

Home Sales

(1 family,

condos)

Women of

Child Bearing

Age + Fertility

Rates

Housing Permit

Activity

& Multipliers

Population

Projections &

Development

Capacity


Projections Primer

Cohort Survival Method

▪ Based on Cohort Survival Methodology ‐ Standard method for enrollment projections.

▪ Methodology accepted by CSDE School Construction Projects (CGS 10‐283).

▪ The Cohort Survival Methodology relies on observed data from the recent past in order to predict the near future.

▪ Methodology works well for stable populations, including communities that are growing or declining at a steady rate.

▪ Student generation from approved housing developments are added to the base enrollment projections.


Projections Primer

Persistency Ratios

▪ Persistency ratios are calculated from historic enrollment data to determine growth or loss in a class as it progresses through school system.

▪ Persistency ratios account for the various external factors affecting enrollments, including housing characteristics, residential development, economic conditions, student transfers in and out of the system, and student mobility.

▪ Housing construction is accounted for in the persistency ratios.

▪ Persistency Ratio of 1.0 means cohort size remains the same; 1.05 means the cohort size increases by 5%, or a cohort of 100 grows to 105 the following year.

▪ Changes in population, housing stock and tenure, and economic conditions help explain persistency ratios.

▪ Full-day kindergarten began in 2012-13. Years prior to 2012-13 were not used for B-K and K-1 persistencies.


Persistency Ratios

Year Birth-K K-1 1-2 2-3 3-4 4-5 5-6 6-7 7-8 8-9 9-10 10-11 11-12

Est of

Migration (1-7

to 2-8)

Elem

Migration (K-5

to 1-6)

2002-03 1.232 1.118 1.003 1.016 1.025 1.029 0.995 0.972 0.982 0.936 0.969 0.973 0.979 0.29% 2.98%

2003-04 1.352 1.137 0.929 1.020 1.037 1.019 0.981 1.000 1.011 0.950 0.988 0.974 0.962 -0.14% 1.72%

2004-05 1.177 1.161 0.972 1.042 1.027 1.061 0.984 1.041 1.002 1.003 0.983 0.953 0.976 1.87% 3.89%

2005-06 1.294 1.099 0.987 1.015 1.018 1.002 0.995 1.011 1.002 0.962 0.990 0.983 1.000 0.43% 1.71%

2006-07 1.213 1.095 0.997 1.008 0.977 1.023 0.988 1.000 1.011 0.986 0.988 0.984 1.009 0.04% 1.18%

2007-08 1.317 1.149 1.026 1.038 0.972 1.016 1.024 0.993 0.993 0.968 0.981 0.990 1.011 0.81% 3.32%

2008-09 1.155 1.168 1.014 1.028 1.040 1.021 1.005 1.019 1.017 0.983 0.972 0.995 1.015 2.05% 4.15%

2009-10 1.251 1.160 1.006 1.014 0.981 0.990 1.026 1.010 1.009 0.981 1.020 1.011 1.012 0.53% 2.36%

2010-11 1.235 1.141 1.038 1.018 1.031 1.017 1.003 1.000 1.015 0.951 1.000 0.995 1.045 1.64% 3.64%

2011-12 1.178 1.079 1.016 1.009 1.040 1.035 0.992 0.997 1.010 0.998 0.978 1.000 1.034 1.39% 2.60%

2012-13 1.276 1.173 1.057 1.019 1.033 1.017 0.976 1.000 0.992 0.909 0.973 1.000 0.998 1.08% 3.63%

2013-14 1.392 1.127 1.008 1.025 1.031 0.980 0.959 0.997 0.983 0.995 0.986 0.974 0.995 -0.43% 1.54%

2014-15 1.266 1.056 1.058 1.086 1.021 1.012 1.006 1.006 1.035 0.952 0.979 0.986 1.031 2.98% 3.72%

2015-16 1.347 1.061 1.045 1.017 1.045 1.017 1.000 1.012 1.031 0.948 0.985 0.971 1.050 2.29% 2.93%

2016-17 1.489 1.076 0.996 1.086 1.064 1.000 1.020 1.042 1.000 0.975 0.997 1.006 1.063 2.85% 3.82%

2017-18 1.573 1.061 1.000 1.069 1.004 1.028 0.990 1.010 1.026 0.951 1.022 0.989 1.054 1.84% 2.51%

2018-19 1.605 1.097 1.043 1.029 0.993 1.040 0.972 1.013 1.013 0.966 1.024 0.997 1.050 1.34% 2.62%

Kindergarten through 12th Grade Persistency Ratios by School Year: 2002-2003 to 2018-19

▪ Generally, classes grow slowly as they matriculate through the system (PRs slightly higher than 1.0).

▪ Estimate of migration tracks changes in grades 1-7 one year compared to grades 2-8 the following year – Stable in-migration over

the last few years ranging from 1.3% to 3%.

▪ Elementary migration is higher, with an average of about 3% over the last five years.


Birth-K Persistency Ratios

Birth and Kindergarten Trends

400

350

300

250

200

150

100

50

0

363 351 342 332

Half Day Kindergarten

317

Full Day Kindergarten

302 291

275 269 268 242

225 245

262 262

231 225

258

287 285

253

282

245 249 238

221 215 196 192

207 191

176166 167 164 167

Births (5-Years Prior) Kindergarten Enrollment

▪ Since full-day kindergarten began in 2012-13, Birth-K persistency ratios have

averaged 1.42 – or 142 kindergarteners for every 100 births 5-years prior.

▪ As the number of births has declined, the Birth-K persistency ratio has risen – indicates

a larger share of Kindergarteners moved to town before enrolling in kindergarten.

▪ Birth-K persistency rose to 1.61 in 2018-19.


------- -~. -- --'41::-----------------

Birth Projections

Simsbury Actual and Projected Births: 2008 to 2023

179

204

225

166

207

167

176 164 167

181 195

184 190

206

100

120

140

160

180

200

220

240

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023

est proj. proj. proj. proj. proj.

Birth Projections Model Assumptions

▪ Three birth projections models

developed for the three enrollment

projection models – align with final five

years of kindergarten projections.

▪ Medium model assumes births

remain at similar levels as last five

years averaging ~185 to 204 per

Variable

Low

Projections

Medium

Projections

High

Projections

County Unemployment 4.8% to 5% 4.4% to 4.7% 4% to 4.7%

Single-Family Home

Sales 320 to 353 363 to 385 370 to 425

Single-Family + Condo

Sales 410 to 461 473 to 485 480 to 525

Projected Births 179 to 180 185 to 204 190 to 225

year.


Districtwide Projections

Simsbury Public Schools Actual and Projected K-12 Enrollment:

5,000

4,500

4,000

3,500

3,000

4,502

3,9903,9643,9643,9584,0174,0584,083 4,1384,185

to

4,018 4,1334,1104,039 4,286

4,013

4,8384,7314,647

4,501 4,3304,254

2001-02 2028-29Historic Projected

High Medium Low Historic

Medium projections model most closely aligns with underlying demographic, housing, and economic trends

▪ Medium model is best supported by underlying demographic, housing, and

economic data – assumes continuation of recent conditions.

▪ Districtwide enrollment is projected to drop slightly over the next four school to a low

of 3,958 in 2022-23.

▪ After 2022-23, enrollment is projected to increase by about 8%, reaching 4,286 by

2028-29.

D D D


Districtwide Projections (Medium)

Enrollment Projections, by Grade: 2018-19 to 2018-29

School YearBirth

YearBirths K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 PK K-6 Total 7-8 Total 9-12 Total K-12 Total

PK-12

Total

2018-19 2013 167 268 283 290 249 294 289 316 303 307 343 335 364 377 101 1,989 610 1,419 4,018 4,119

2019-20 2014 181 272 289 287 308 254 301 287 323 307 296 348 334 384 101 1,998 630 1,362 3,990 4,091

2020-21 2015 195 284 293 293 305 314 260 299 293 327 296 300 347 353 101 2,048 620 1,296 3,964 4,065

2021-22 2016 184 277 306 297 311 311 321 258 306 297 315 300 299 366 101 2,081 603 1,280 3,964 4,065

2022-23 2017 190 286 299 310 315 317 318 319 264 310 286 319 299 316 101 2,164 574 1,220 3,958 4,059

2023-24 2018 206 300 308 303 329 321 324 316 326 267 299 290 318 316 101 2,201 593 1,223 4,017 4,118

2024-25 2019 185 278 323 312 321 336 328 322 323 330 257 303 289 336 101 2,220 653 1,185 4,058 4,159

2025-26 2020 190 286 300 327 331 327 344 326 329 327 318 261 302 305 101 2,241 656 1,186 4,083 4,184

2026-27 2021 194 282 308 304 347 338 335 342 333 333 315 322 260 319 101 2,256 666 1,216 4,138 4,239

2027-28 2022 199 290 304 312 323 354 346 333 350 337 321 319 321 275 101 2,262 687 1,236 4,185 4,286

2028-29 2023 204 297 313 308 331 329 362 344 340 355 325 325 318 339 101 2,284 695 1,307 4,286 4,387

Source: MMI Projections based on a 5-year persistency ratios for BK and 3-year persistency ratios for K-1 through 11-12

Assumes stable Pre-K enrollment of 101 students and stable Open Choice enrollment

Years projected based on preliminary birth data

Years projected based on partial year birth data

Years projected based on projected birth data

---------· --------~- ........... _.,._ .. -1►-------

j


Elementary Projections (Medium)

Simsbury Public Schools Actual and Projected K-6 Enrollment: 2001-02 to

3,000

2,750

2,500

2,250

2,000

1,750

1,500

2028Historic -29 Projected

2,435 2,348

2,2352,188

2,2562,2622,284

2,1642,2012,2202,241 2,0752,048

1,9831,9761,9761,989 2,0482,081 1,998

Medium Medium projections model

▪ Elementary enrollments have already bottomed out.

▪ Projections show steady increase in elementary enrollment over the next five

years as larger birth cohorts enter kindergarten.

▪ A more modest increase is projected for the last five years of the projections horizon.

Elementary Projections (Medium)

Elementary School Projections (K-6): 2018-19 to

2028-29

582

683

600

700

500 495408

378 436

248 255

373

415

200

300

400

CL----------------□

C2Ji-----------D r r r


2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2025-26 2026-27 2027-28 2028-29

Central Latimer Squadron Line Tariffville Tootin' Hills

Medium projections model

▪ Fastest growth projected at Latimer (21.3%), Squadron Line (17.4%) and Central

(15.3%), the three districts with the greatest housing construction activity.

▪ Modest growth projected at Tootin’ Hills over the first five years of the projections.

▪ Tariffville projected to stay generally stable over the next decade, growing by just 2.8%.

------------ , -- --- , ---.._. _, --


Middle School Projections (Medium)

Simsbury Public Schools Actual and Projected 7-8 Enrollment: 2001-02 to

900

850

800

750

700

650

600

550

500

630 620 603

574 593

653 656 666

687 695

827 805 792

748 727 739

710 690

658

610

2028-29 Historic Projected

Medium Historic Medium projections model

▪ Middle School enrollment projected to decline by 5.9% over the next four years,

reaching 574 students by 2022-23.

▪ Beginning in 2023-24, Middle School enrollment begins to rebound, reaching 695

students by 2028-29.

........ ........ --.... ,, ,____ ---------


High School Projections (Medium)

Simsbury Public Schools Actual and Projected 9-12 Enrollment: 2001-

1,800

1,700

1,600

1,500

1,400

1,300

1,200

1,100

1,000

1,3621,2961,280

1,2201,223

1,1851,186 1,2161,236

1,307

1,5761,578 1,620

1,5651,528

1,4671,4401,4441,4051,419

02 to 2028-29 Historic Projected

Medium Historic Medium projections model

▪ High school enrollments projected to decline by 16% over the next 7 years.

▪ Rebound in high school enrollments to begin in 2026-27 as larger middle school

classes begin moving up to 9th grade.

EXISTING CONDITIONS INITIAL FINDINGS

ARCHITECTS Tecton

CURRENT STATUS/ WO R K C O M P L E T E D S O F AR

• Collection of existing conditions

• Collected & scanned drawings, reports, utilities bills, etc.

• Walkthroughs of facilities January, March, April

• Analysis of physical deficiencies

• Proposed recommendations to remediate

deficiencies

• Programmatic Discussions

• Stakeholder interviews & walkthrough of facilities ~ March & April

• Assessment of physical environment impacting education

• Develop current and future needs

–

EDUCATIONAL ASSESSMENT • Alignment with core beliefs

• Strategic goals and vision for curriculum

• Interviews & Assessment

• Physical constraints that affect education

• What works well now?

• What doesn’t work?

• Goals and vision

• Average Class Size

• Site Logistics concerns, challenges, etc.

• Trends in Education that are missing

• Biggest Areas of concern

• Existing space vs. new space

• Priorities

ARCH I TECTS

SIMSBURY SCHOOLS / F AC I L I T I E S O V E R V I E W

BUILDING YEAR BUILT CURRENT

AGE

CUR.

ENROLL.

GRADE

CONFIG. (E) SF AREA

TARIFFVILLE 1925, 1959,

1986, 2009

94, 60, 33,

10 246 K-6 39,398

TOOTIN’ HILLS 1954, 1958,

1995, 2000

65, 61, 24,

19 370 K-6 57,184

SQUADRON LINE 1969 50 578 PK-6 91,361

LATIMER LANE 1962, 1996 57, 23 405 K-6 39,398

CENTRAL SCHOOL 1913, 1950,

1997 106, 69, 22 375 K-6 60,909

HENRY JAMES

MEMORIAL

1957, 1959,

2000, 2019 62, 60, 19 610 7-8 146,020

SIMSBURY HIGH

SCHOOL

1968, 1982,

2005 51, 37, 14 1419 9-12 303,541

N OT E S : (1 ) YE A R BU I LT ~ C OMPLE T ION D A T E

(2 ) S F A R E A I S BA SE D U PON A SSE SSOR IN FOR MA T ION A N D E X I S T IN G C ON D I T ION S D OC U ME N T S PR OVID E D

ARCHITECTS Tecton

FORMAT/ E X I S T I N G C O N D I T I O N S

On site walkthrough, general observations and analysis of conditions

1. Site – overall layout, accessibility, code, useful life condition, safety/security,

parking, sidewalks, lighting, drainage, utilities, and fields

2. Structure – type, code, useful life, condition, identification of specific concerns

3. Architecture – code, accessibility, life safety, useful life, condition, safety/security

a) Exterior - roofs, walls, soffits, windows, doors, and features of the building

b) Interior – finishes (doors, walls, ceilings, millwork, fixtures, lighting)

4. Building Systems Survey – code, life safety, useful life of equipment, comfort &

control

a. Plumbing

b. Mechanical

c. Electrical

d. Fire Protection & Alarms

e. Safety / Security

ARCH I TECTS


Identification & Prioritization (Scale 1 to 5) A ranking for each item was given from 1-5 to indicate the priority of attention required. A ranking of 1 indicates a material requiring prompt attention, while a ranking of 5 indicates the material is in good condition and does not require maintenance or replacement. Accessibility compliance is identified as (A)

2 1

A

EXISTING CONDITIONS INVENTORY & ANALYSIS

TARIFFVILLE SCHOOL (TSJ •·•

8. SUMMARY&. ANALYSIS

8.1 School & Foclllty Doto

The School:

Type-·

Er.-oHmenl(2011)

s1aff(appro1t):

Elementa 2'8

70

!r.-allmen1(10yrproje,,;:tlon): ~'='°~-N11t11,v0Hm11ntehong• · • 12

loeallon{lnlown): norttleost end

The Faclll

TotolBulldingAtHi{Sf): 39.398Sf

Sll• N•o {ac:re1); 4.41 acres Sloriei(gbovegrc,de-);

luNdlng / Framing Moter1cil1· moron . steel

concrete.woo

Split-lev.l / ramp1flnl•lorl ~="°='~ Slalrs (inl• lo1):

lo;"• menl;

Menanlne(IN'ehanlcal)

CrawlSpoee / l\!nnel1:

Modulars (clauraam1):

Audlofy&ulldlng1;

fuNADACampMance

ves. 2.56ASF

es. storo e

ba.eboll bad :


TARIFFVILLE SCHOOL (TS) K •

11 . SUMMARY I ANAi YS!S EXISTING CONDITIONS INVENTORY & ANALYSIS

B.3 Conditions Rankings TARIFFVILLE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL (TS) K •

B.33 CHECKLIST & RANKINGS D. f.l::!.QIQ..lQQ

Ranking· 1 Vef'f Poor [VP) Require'> prom 0 .2 SHe 2 J>oor[P] Moymquire o tlentio 3 Fo,r JFI Moyfl!tqul re c f!ention 4 Good [GI MOVleQv~e ollenti s VefYGood (VGJ Doe1 no t re

Exterior

~oollng

Walkways / lite stairs

l andscaping

EPDM membrone PVCmembrone FJogilr.g / jolnl! Aluminum guitars/ Fo~io trim Masonry - Brick Clad ding , vinyl Trim Joinh (B<Adingor e Wollrnovn t1:1d lil<l u

Av i<i liofy BViloing[1J t oa ding areo Dvmpst1:1r Endosur Silc l ghtlng lflxlvlc C0 IChl:>osin !OQS Cotchbminstrvc!


TARIFFVILLE SCHOOL 11sJ • •


Summary Analysis, Ranking, Photos, Diagrams

BUILDING

TARIFFVILLE

n:ur:::n w · • ma • ·~•-llfflfflllll§Hh+E 1925, 1959. 1986, 2009

94, 60, 33, 10

246 K-6 39,398

Tecton ARCH I TECTS

EXISTING CONDITIONS/ T AR I F F V I L L E E L E M E N T AR Y S C H O O L

Site Review and Analysis

1. Access Drives

2. Roadways/Parking

3. Pedestrian Walks

4. Loading/Receiving

5. Grass & Paved Play

6. Playgrounds

7. Storm Drainage

8. Perimeter / Fencing

9. Lighting


Parking Capacity

Dumpster Access

Drainage @ Play

Perimeter Fencing

Access/Parking

Wildlife @ modulars

1

2

3

4

5

6 1

2

3

4

5

6

5

Key Site Items

BUILDING

TARIFFVILLE


94, 60, 33, 10

246 K-6 39,398

Tecton ARCH I TECTS

BUILDING

TARIFFVILLE 1925, 1959, 1986, 2009

94, 60, 33, 10

246

,.

Tecton ARCH I TECTS

K-6 39,398


~11-SSu~

ii i~ s.: ~ P~ LS. ~~~·r,10~ ··~

BUILDING Tecton TARIFFVILLE

1925, 1959, 94, 60, 33, 246 1986, 2009 10 K-6 39,398

ARCH I TECTS

S C H O O L

Structure

• Original – wood joist

construction, bearing wall

• Additions – steel framed,

tectum deck

• Exterior steel canopy in need

of repairs/replacement

Architecture

• Not ADA compliant

• No access to 2nd floor

• Antiquated and inefficient

storage in classrooms

• Access to modulars through

Gymnatorium

• Roof and roof drainage

improvements required

• Original construction requires

envelop repairs – repointing

EXISTING CONDITIONS/ T AR I F F V I L L E E L E M E N T AR Y

~11-SSu~

ii i~ s.: ~ P~ LS. ~~~·r,10~ ··~

BUILDING

TARIFFVILLE


94, 60, 33, 10

246 K-6 39,398

Tecton ARCH I TECTS


Mechanical

• New Heating Plant 2009

• New and Old Systems

• Limited Air Conditioning

Electrical

• New Electrical Service 2009

• New Generator 2011

• New and Old Distribution

Systems

Fire Protection & Alarm

• Full Sprinkler System 2009

• Full Fire Alarm System 2009

• Safety/Security

• Full Perimeter Cameras

• Entry Station at Main Door

-

TARIFFVILLE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL

1. ADA accessibility (second floor classrooms)

2. Upgrade toilet facilities

3. Envelope Repairs & Gym canopy removal

4. Replace modular or remove wildlife

5. Address drainage issues in the grass field and playground areas

6. Address parking, provide access control, and remove spaces directly adjacent to building

7. Mechanical upgrades to unit vents and provide AC

8. Programming Add flexible intervention, specialized

educational space, efficient storage, and replace modular with permanent construction

BUILDING YEAR BUILT CURRENT CUR. GRADE

AGE ENROLL. CONFIG. (E) SF AREA Tecton

TOOTIN ' HILLS 1954, 1958, 65, 61 , 24, 1995, 2000 19

ARCH I TECTS 370 K-6 57,184

EXISTING CONDITIONS/ T O O T I N H I L L S E L E M E N T AR Y S C H O O L


1. Access Drives

2. Roadways/Parking

3. Pedestrian Walks



6. Playgrounds

7. Storm Drainage


9. Lighting


Stair Improvements

Catch Basins

Drainage at play

Perimeter fencing

Curbing

Access Control to site

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

6

6

Key Site Items

BUILDING YEAR BUILT CURRENT CUR. GRADE

AGE ENROLL. CONFIG.

TOOTIN ' HILLS 1954, 1958, 65, 61 , 24, 370 1995, 2000 19 K-6

(E) SF AREA

57,184

a

a a a a

Tecton ARCH I TECTS

TOOTIN ' HILLS 1954, 1958, 65, 61 , 24, 370 1995, 2000 19 K-6 57,184


BUILDING Tecton TOOTIN ' HILLS 1954, 1958, 65, 61 , 24, 370

1995, 2000 19

ARCH ITECTS K-6 57,184

S C H O O L EXISTING CONDITIONS/ T O O T I N H I L L S E L E M E N T AR Y

Structure

• Original - Steel frame with

tectum style decking

• Additions – Steel frame with

metal decking

• Basement foundation walls

sound however water

penetration an issue

Architecture

• Relatively minor ADA

compliance issues at stage

and classrooms

• Building envelope in need of

renovation – replace single

pane windows, caulk joints,

flashings, entrance doors

• Inefficient and antiquated

classroom storage in areas

• Gymnatorium in need of

renovation, flooring in

particular

• Building circulation a

challenge, some cases go

outside to reduce travel

BUILDING Z1Pil'i'!l1■3 · • • I ••••·• -··iiF+M Tecton TOOTIN ' HILLS 1954, 1958, 65, 61 , 24, 370

1995, 2000 19

ARCH ITECTS K-6 57,184

S C H O O L EXISTING CONDITIONS/ T O O T I N H I L L S E L E M E N T AR Y

Mechanical


• New and Old Systems

• Old Steam Distribution


Electrical

• New Electrical Service 2000


• New and Old Distribution

Systems



• New Fire Pump 2000


Safety/Security



-

TOOTIN’ HILLS ELEMENTARY

1. ADA accessibility


3. Replace single pane windows

4. Repair/review pitch of sanitary line in 2000 Addition


6. Address parking and provide access control

7. Add ventilation to 1954 portion of building

8. Programming Add flexible intervention, specialized educational space, efficient storage

BUILDING M•i·lil'i1iiiEUlrllBMbifi-i·ii·M Tecton ARCH ITECTS

SQUADRON LINE 1969 50 578 PK-6 91 .361

EXISTING CONDITIONS/ S Q U AD R O N L I N E E L E M E N T AR Y S C H O O L


1. Access Drives

2. Roadways/Parking

3. Pedestrian Walks



6. Playgrounds

7. Storm Drainage


9. Lighting


Bus/Parent Flow

Dumpster/Access

Outdoor storage

Remote play

Fencing

Drainage

Access Control

1

2

3

4

5

6

1

2

3

4

5

6

1

Key Site Items

77

BUILDING M•i·lil'i1iiiEUlrllBMbifi-i·ii·M SQUADRON LINE 1969 50 578 PK-6 91 .361

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Tecton ARCH ITECTS

BUILDING Tecton ARCH I TECTS

SQUADRON LINE 1969 50 578 PK-6 91 ,361


BUILDING YEAR BUILT

SQUADRON LINE 1969

CURRENT AGE

50

CUR. GRADE ENROLL. CONFIG.

(E) SF AREA Tecton ARCH I TECTS

578 PK-6 91 .361

E L E M E N T AR Y S C H O O L EXISTING CONDITIONS/ S Q U AD R O N L I N E

Structure


steel joist framing, gypsum

deck roof, metal

deck/concrete floor slabs

Architecture

• Not ADA compliant, ramp

does not meet code, no

easy fix


renovation – replace areas

with single pane windows,

roof approaching 20 years

• Original folding partitions

between classrooms

consistent challenge

• Lack of natural daylight in

corridors, low artificial lighting

levels



particular

• Ramp connector often

congested with students to

and from core areas

BUILDING M•i·lil'i1iiiEUlrllBMbifi-i·ii·M Tecton ARCH ITECTS

SQUADRON LINE 1969 50 578 PK-6 91 .361

E L E M E N T AR Y S C H O O L EXISTING CONDITIONS/ S Q U AD R O N L I N E

Mechanical


• Original Distribution

Systems

• Exhausted Building, Old

Design


Electrical

• Original Electrical Service

1969


• Old Distribution Systems


• No Sprinkler System

• Limited Heads From

Domestic Water

• New Full Fire Alarm System

2017

Safety/Security



–

-

SQUADRON LINE ELEMENTARY

1. Replace folding partitions between educational spaces,

provide adequate storage

2. ADA accessibility ramps and/or elevator for access

3. Significant need for upgrade to toilet facilities

4. Install fire protection system

5. Replace single pane windows

6. Replace gymnasium flooring


8. Address parking, provide access control, and remove spaces directly adjacent to building


BU ILDING Mli·lil·\1!!it■IIIII--PHl·iiil·E Tecton ARCH I TECTS

LAflMER LANE 1962. 1996 57. 23 405 K-6 39,398

EXISTING CONDITIONS/ L AT I M E R L AN E E L E M E N T AR Y S C H O O L


1. Access Drives

2. Roadways/Parking

3. Pedestrian Walks



6. Playgrounds

7. Storm Drainage


9. Lighting


LAflMER LANE 1962. 1996 57. 23 405 K-6 39,398


4

Key Site Items

1

2

3

4

5

6

1

2

3 5

6

7

8 7

8

Entry identification

ADA / Stair

Play area drainage

Parking lot capacity

Loading drainage

Access Control

Student bus queue

Access Control


LAflMER LANE 1962. 1996 57. 23 405 K-6 39,398


BU ILDING Tecton ARCH I TECTS

LAflMER LANE 1962, 1996 57, 23 405 K-6 39,398

E L E M E N T AR Y S C H O O L EXISTING CONDITIONS/ L AT I M E R L AN E

Structure


steel framing, poured

gypsum deck roof.

• Addition – steel frame with

metal joist framing & roof

deck

Architecture

• Not ADA compliant, requires

ramp for access to west side

of building, sometimes travel

on exterior


renovation – replace areas

with single pane windows,

caulk joints, flashings



particular

• Inefficient and antiquated

classroom storage in areas,

locker storage in need of

replacement

• Building circulation a

challenge, sprawling plan,

travel time an issue

BU ILDING YEAR BUILT CURRENT CUR. GRADE

AGE ENROLL. CONFIG. {E) SF AREA Tecton

ARCH I TECTS

LAflMER LANE 1962, 1996 57, 23 405 K-6 39,398

E L E M E N T AR Y S C H O O L EXISTING CONDITIONS/ L AT I M E R L AN E

Mechanical

• Original Heating Plant 1962

• Original Distribution

Systems

• Exhausted Building, Old

Design


Electrical

• Original Electrical Service

1962

• No Generator

• Old Distribution Systems

• Fire Protection & Alarm

• No Sprinkler System

• Limited Heads From

Domestic Water

• New Full Fire Alarm System

2012

Safety/Security



-

LATIMER LANE ELEMENTARY

1. ADA accessibility


3. Install fire suppression system


5. Address parking and provide access control

6. Prepare for replacement of electrical distribution


BUILDING


1997 106, 69, 22

m•+PiiHRE Tecton ARCH ITECTS

375 K-6 60,909

EXISTING CONDITIONS/ C E N T R AL E L E M E N T AR Y S C H O O L


1. Access Drives

2. Roadways/Parking

3. Pedestrian Walks



6. Playgrounds

7. Storm Drainage


9. Lighting

BUILDING


1997 106, 69, 22

m•+PiiHRE 375 K-6 60,909

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Tecton ARCH ITECTS


8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1 3

Key Site Items

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Parent Drop/Pick Up

Bus Loop

Pedestrian Walks

ADA parking/access

Catch basin repair

Dumpster mods

Secure play area & access

Tree/Arborist review

BUILDING


1997 106, 69, 22 375

Tecton ARCH I TECTS

K-6 60,909


BUILDING


1997 106, 69, 22

m•+PiiHRE Tecton ARCH ITECTS

375 K-6 60,909

S C H O O L EXISTING CONDITIONS/ C E N T R AL E L E M E N T AR Y

Structure

• 1913 – wood framed,

bearing wall. 1950 – Steel

joists at roof, concrete Ts at

floor, wall bearing. 1997 – steel framed with wood attic

trusses.

Architecture

• Use of basement in original

building should be

considered for non

educational program

• Envelop repairs at cafeteria

roof

• Envelop repairs – roof

flashing and trim repairs 1997

classroom addition

• Remove and/or relocate

mechanical/electrical

equipment currently located

in classrooms

• Portions of the building – music, office, and 1913

classrooms not ADA

accessible

BUILDING


1997 106, 69, 22 375

Tecton ARCH I TECTS

K-6 60,909

S C H O O L EXISTING CONDITIONS/ C E N T R AL E L E M E N T AR Y

Mechanical

• Two Heating Plants 1997 &

2005

• Original Vintage

Distribution Systems

• Various HVAC System

Types


Electrical

• Good Electrical Service

1997

• No Generator



Fire Protection & Alarms


• New Fire Alarm System

2012

Safety/Security



–

CENTRAL ELEMENTARY

1. Improve parent and bus drop off

2. Provide access control to site

3. Improve pedestrian access to building

4. Contemplate reuse of underutilized basement for other use (non educational)

5. Upgrade toilet facilities in basement

6. Modify mechanical equipment/systems that reside in

educational spaces

7. Programming provide additional flex classroom space,

smaller group meeting, intervention and special needs space.

BUILDING

HENRY JAMES MIDDLE

Eli·lif,i1ii·Klii•IIIRMP!ii·i·ii·E 1957, 1959, 2000, 2019

62, 60, 19 610 7-8 146,020

Tecton ARCH I TECTS

EXISTING CONDITIONS/ H E N R Y J AM E S M E M O R I AL S C H O O L


1. Access Drives

2. Roadways/Parking

3. Pedestrian Walks



6. Playgrounds

7. Storm Drainage


9. Lighting

BUILDING

HENRY JAMES MIDDLE


62, 60, 19 610 7-8 146,020

0 0

•' 0 0 0 0

Tecton ARCH I TECTS


5

Key Site Items

1

2

3

4

5

6

1

2

1

36

5

3

Paving replacement

Regrade parking

ADA entry repairs

Access control

Perimeter fencing

Repair/replace site amenities & provide secure barriers

4

BUILDING

HENRY JAMES MIDDLE 1957, 1959, 2000, 2019

62, 60, 19 610

Tecton ARCH I TECTS

7-8 146,020


BUILDING

HENRY JAMES MIDDLE


62, 60, 19 610 7-8 146,020

Tecton ARCH I TECTS

M E M O R I AL S C H O O L EXISTING CONDITIONS/ H E N R Y J AM E S

Structure

• Original construction is steel

frame, tectum roof, metal

deck/concrete floor slab.

Additions are steel frame,

open web steel joist framing,

metal deck/concrete slab

Architecture

• Additions and renovations

ongoing

• Some toilet facilities are in

need of upgrades for ADA

and finishes

• Some classroom

millwork/storage is not ADA

compliant nor efficient and

should be replaced

• Some areas of ceiling tile

replacement

• Original kitchen layout and

equipment in need of

upgrades

• Acoustical concerns at

administrative area

BUILDING

HENRY JAMES MIDDLE 1957, 1959, 2000, 2019

62, 60, 19 610

Tecton ARCH I TECTS

7-8 146,020

M E M O R I AL S C H O O L EXISTING CONDITIONS/ H E N R Y J AM E S

Mechanical





Equipment


Electrical


2000

• No Generator




• Partial Fire Protection

System

• To be Completed in

Newest Phase


Safety/Security



–

HENRY JAMES MEMORIAL

SCHOOL

1. Ongoing additions and renovations

2. Renovate toilet facilities

3. Parking and access drive pavement upgrades

4. Security upgrades at exterior of cafeteria

5. Roofing upgrades and or replacement

6. Performing Arts program isolated improvements

7. Kitchen upgrades

BUILDING

SIMSBURY HIGH SCHOOL

n:mn·:::, i •m:taEmlBI 1w.1111111nm1111m_l+M!f-F 1968, 1982,

2005 51 , 37, 14 1419 9-1 2 303,541

Tecton ARCH I TECTS

EXISTING CONDITIONS/ S I M S B U R Y H I G H S C H O O L


1. Access Drives

2. Roadways/Parking

3. Pedestrian Walks



6. Playgrounds

7. Storm Drainage


9. Lighting

BUILDING



2005 51 , 37, 14 1419 9-1 2 303,541

Q Q

,,. Q '

Q Q Q Q

Tecton ARCH I TECTS


1

7

6

2 4

4

3

Key Site Items

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Sidewalk ramps

Drainage at track

Drainage at building

Paving replacement

Remove/Trim Trees

Drainage at modular

Bleacher replacement

3

2

5

~11-SSu~

ii i~ s.: ~ P~ LS. ~~~·r,10~ ··~

BUILDING



2005 51 , 37, 14 1419 9-1 2 303,541

al■ •• Tecton ARCH I TECTS


~11-SSu~

ii i~ s.: ~ P~ LS. ~~~·r,10~ ··~

BUILDING


1968, 1982, 2005

Tecton ARCH I TECTS

51 , 37, 14 1419 9-1 2 303,541


Structure

• Original construction is steel

frame, poured gypsum roof

deck, precast planks at the

floor. Additions are steel

frame, metal deck and

concrete floor slab, non

bearing walls.

Architecture

• Moisture concerns at south

wall of original construction

@ Band Room / Auditorium

area

• Lockers along with

supporting toilet facilities are

in need of replacement

• Consider replacement of

modular classrooms

• Existing ramp not ADA

compliant (adj. to gym.)

• Roof & insulation(option)

replacement and/or

upgrades

BUILDING


1968, 1982, 2005

51 , 37, 14 1419

Tecton ARCH I TECTS

9-1 2 303,541


Mechanical

• Good Heating Plant 2005

• Mostly Heating and

Ventilating Systems


• Upper Floors Get Very Hot

Electrical


2005

• Two Generators

• Good Distribution Systems

Mostly 2005




Safety/Security




1. Mechanical ventilation modifications to 3rd floor

2. Drainage improvements to south façade/footings

3. Improve site drainage at drop off/pick up

4. Renovate locker facilities

5. Art Suite ventilation improvements

6. Bleacher upgrades and or replacement

7. Improvements to site drainage at fields

8. Existing ramp non compliant

NEXT STEPS

ii P~ l5 ·~·

Tecton ARCHITECTS

NEXT STEPS/ WH AT T O E X P E C T

1. Summarize findings of condition study

2. Mtg with Facilities & Enrollment Task Force

3. Hold Public Forum on Progress (Demographics & Existing

Conditions)

4. Prioritize needs – Immediate, mid-range, long term

5. Develop options for reconfiguration ~ Spring/Summer

6. Review options with community & state ~ Fall

7. Finalize master plan & prioritize project(s) ~ Fall

ARCHITECTS Tecton

COMMUNICATION/ K E E P I N G T H E L I N E S O P E N

• District Leadership Meetings

• Meeting Dates: 3rd Wednesday each month, 11 a.m., BOE offices

• Ongoing Facilities & Enrollment Task Force Meetings

• Upcoming Forums

• Review of Existing Conditions

• Potential Options for the Community

• Preferred Options for Consideration

• Summary of 10 Year Master Plan & First Phase

• Create Email for Public Comments

• Create Social Media Page & Webpage

Tecton ARCHITECTS

THANK YOU

SCHOOL FACILITIES M A S TE R P L A N & R E C O N F I G UR A T I O N S TUD Y

P R E S E N TA T I O N TO B O A R D O F E D UC A T I O N

04.23.2019

Simsury School Facilities Master Plan · 4/23/2019 · presentation to board of education...

Documents

Transcript of Simsury School Facilities Master Plan · 4/23/2019 · presentation to board of education...