rusd townhall meeting1v.2 1

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


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


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


Classrooms of Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow

1890’s

1990’s

2020’s

?


Subcommittee Recaps:

Subcommittee #1:

Educational │ Instruction │ School Configurations │K-12


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


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



Subcommittee #2:

Inter-Governmental | Developer Relations | Financing


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


Subcommittee #2 Recap:

10-Year Enrollment projections


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



Subcommittee #3:

Facilities | Parents | Community


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


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


Your Turn!

Time for Your Questions!


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


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


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


Thank you!

rusd townhall meeting1v.2 1

Documents