Facilities Master Plan Steering Committee Report

Presented to the Hyde Park Central School District Board of Education

December 9, 2004

Carole A. Pickering, Superintendent of Schools

Lorelei Case, Assistant Superintendent for Business

David Kuckuk, and Matthew Monaghan, The Thomas Group

I. History and Overview

Hyde Park can proudly boast of its history and commitment to public education. Franklin Delano Roosevelt's father served on our Board of Education, and a local story tells that young Franklin had to mind his father's horse while Roosevelt, Sr. conducted school business. Years later, FDR built and dedicated two elementary schools and a brand new high school. This was accomplished through a combination of federal and local resources generated by his personal passion and belief in public education and his love for Hyde Park. Approximately sixty-five years ago these three schools were pro-gressive and "state-of-the-art."

Today, though still beautiful, they are worn and suffering from lack of attention to repair and upkeep. In this context it is incumbent upon us, the school staff and citizens of Hyde Park, to continue the legacy of FDR.

It is our civic and democratic responsibility to provide a quality education for Hyde Park's 21st century students. We can do no less than to become actively involved in the unending relay of human possibilities and to carry our grand history forward. We must do for our children what FDR and this community did for its students of Hyde Park sixty-five years ago.

In the Spring of 2003, a broad-based steering committee was established to re-view the key issues and needs surrounding facilities repair, renovation and possible ex-pansion due to current overcrowding (120% of capacity). The Hyde Park Facilities Steering Committee (HPFSC) met regularly to address all aspects of the problem and to identify possible solutions. Input was sought from citizens throughout the community. The Thomas Group, an architectural firm, was contracted to work with district staff to develop a comprehensive analysis of problems, needs and possible options.

II. Goals & Objectives

In September 2004 the HPFSC narrowed these options to four. Estimated cost and the tax impacts were then calculated for financial modeling purposes only. Early in the process, goals and objectives were developed and used as guidelines throughout:

1. To produce a long range comprehensive facilities plan that would provide guidance in major renovations of our existing buildings and new instructional fa-cilities;
2. To consider appropriate instructional space for the educational process as the community experiences student-community growth;
3. To consider and support equitable programming for all students throughout our school district
4. To consider specific physical facilities that promote student learning and par-ticipation in science, instructional technology, fine arts and athletics.
5. To provide safe and secure learning facilities for students, employees and parents;
6. To provide a process/opportunity for all interested community members to participate in the planning and design process of this master facilities project;
7. To provide and encourage a process that is mindful of the fiscal realities of this community and its taxpayers.

III. Key Considerations

Key considerations were determined and discussed at length. No stone un-turned! No consideration undebated! These key issues were:

1. Educational program needed for 21st century students (learning standards, resources, opportunities, and space requirements);
2. Handicapped accessibility in all buildings;
3. Cost/tax impact;
4. Benefits for citizens and the community;
5. Maintenance of the FDR era schools and the age of buildings;
6. Demographics: Current overcrowding and future needs based on residen-tial development and the Western Suffolk BOCES Demographic Study;
7. Grade Configuration (all options considered from both academic and "neighborhood schools" perspective;
8. Minimal redistricting (desire for least disruption);
9. Positive impact on overall educational program.

IV. Master Planning Process

In the context of goals, objectives and key considerations, the Facilities Steering Committee gathered information, reviewed existing instructional programs, analyzed current building usage and overcrowded conditions, and considered the demographic study produced for the district by Western Suffolk BOCES. Community input was broad and deep.

Through a lengthy democratic process, fifteen options in four major categories were considered and agreed upon for further study and analysis:

On September 14, 2004 the HPFSC further reduced and modified these options based on positive educational advantages and cost:

Pros and cons were listed for each option, as well as estimated cost for financial modeling purposes only. In every model and option, neighborhood schools and educa-tionally sound grade configurations and realignments were a prime consideration, along with financial impact.

All needs and associated cost estimates were based on current student enroll-ment (+/- 4,650) and included the projections of the demographic study done by West-ern Suffolk BOCES approximately two years ago. Based on the number of Hyde Park residential units permitted at that time, 600 additional students have been predicted to enroll in the Hyde Park Central School District over the next eight years.

V. Proposed Three-Phase Plan

The three-phased plan addresses the issues that the committee deemed important. The plan respects the historic character of the existing buildings. Long-range maintenance and repair programs have not been in place. All the district's buildings re-quire major renovations and alterations due to years of lack of attention. The committee agrees that "band aid" fixes are out of the question. All three phases place a priority on respecting the historic nature of the buildings, caring for existing buildings, and address-ing building deficiencies in their entirety.

The district has not been ADA compliant. The law required districts throughout the state to address accessibility concerns by July 1995. Phase one of the three-phase plan addresses accessibility issues throughout the district. The plan includes ramps to get into the buildings, as well as chair lifts and ramps. The committee understands the seriousness of noncompliance and the obligation to address all children's needs so that they can participate in all educational opportunities.

The district is struggling to meet education needs for the 21st century. Science and technology programs require specific learning spaces. Phase two includes science, technology, arts areas, and general instructional space.

The three-phase proposal supports neighborhood schools. The renovation of all schools, the restoration of the historic buildings, and construction of a 21st century learn-ing wing at FDR will meet the needs of 21st century students and bring a renewed pride to the community.

VI. Proposed Master Plan Recommendation

Presented by David Kuckuk, The Thomas Group

Each of the components of the Proposed Master Plan provides an overview of the committee's recommendation. The recommendation is truly a Master Plan and identifies how the district should address its educational facilities to support educational excellence in Hyde Park.

This recommendation is one of the most thoughtful approaches to master plan-ning that I have seen, avoiding the tendency to simply "do a building project," recogniz-ing that Hyde Park is in a dynamic, changing period and that an effective plan must not only provide answers to current issues but also must provide a framework for well-managed and cost-effective responses to future needs.

Several things are worth noting:

• You have good buildings; worn but sound; well located. The proposed Master Plan respects the investment the community has made in these buildings and provides a way for all of them to continue to serve for the 21st century;
• The proposed plan continues some of the strongest traditions of education in Hyde Park (like neighborhood elementary schools) and pro-vides an educationally sound framework for the future, based on good education, not just facilities;
• The plan does one of the most crucial things a good plan can do: pro-vides flexibility for the future without overbuilding or "taking a guess" at things that are not clear today.

The Master Plan Recommendation falls into three components:

The three phases are overlapping, recognizing that they don't "stop and start" but occur in an ongoing way. The planning has been coordinated so that what is done in early phases supports future phases (i.e., so that nothing that is "done" needs to be "undone" in the future).

As the committee looked at the district's needs, it became apparent that some were more pressing, more urgent, than others. This first phase IS proposed as a build-ing project, as the needs are clearly defined. [refer to the extensive handout list.]

Phase 1

The proposed Phase 1 project would benefit every single building in the district, addressing the most immediate of these needs (although by no means all of them) in several broad areas:

• Accessibility: The need for students, teachers, parents, and others of all physical abilities to access the buildings readily and with dignity. The district has dealt with these issues on a case-by-case basis, but the basic legislation (ADA ) has been in place for well over a decade and both the state and affected individuals are expecting more thor-ough solutions. Carrying out this work also sets the stage for future work on the facilities, as the state will now require that ADA work be completed as part of any building project.
• Upgrading existing building systems: As we have shared with the Board and community in our Facilities Evaluation presentation, many of the mechanical, electrical, plumbing, and heating systems have sim-ply worn out, or are at/beyond their expected useful life. This leads to constant, expensive maintenance, less-than-ideal circumstances for students and teachers, and, at worst, the potential for life-safety prob-lems when certain systems (fire alarms, bells, communications, light-ing) may not function properly.
• Removal of potentially dangerous materials to clear the way for fu-ture work without risk to students, teachers, neighbors. Materials are currently managed under the AHERA regulations to avoid risks but will need to be dealt with before any major work can be done.
• Site issues, where safety concerns for students and staff exist and where drainage issues cause potentially damaging problems with ex-isting buildings.

To deal with these immediate needs, the committee recommends the Board con-sider a building project to be presented to the voters of the community as soon as pos-sible, perhaps as early as next March. If it were voted on at that time, some work could begin (after engineering, approvals, and bidding) as early as next fall and be completed by the end of 2006. Based on the list distributed out tonight, the project would have a total maximum (not-to-exceed) cost of $10.7 million, virtually all of which would be sub-ject to state building aid.

Phase 2

Phase 2 is the "BIG" piece of the Master Plan, as it establishes an educationally and fiscally sound model for how the district will use its facilities into the foreseeable future.

• FDR existing
• FDR additions
• Haviland
• Elementaries
• District Offices

VII. Where Do We Go From Here?

The HPCSD Facilities Steering Committee will continue its work immediately fol-lowing discussion and approval of the proposed recommendation by the HPCSD Board of Education. Though the committee's work over the past fifteen months has been long, arduous and, certainly, tedious at times, we have only just begun to all roll up our sleeves.

The scope and design of Phase 2 must be designed and developed. The pro-jected financing, tax and state aid impact must be clearly articulated. Simultaneously, continuous input from our schools and broader community must be sought systemati-cally and comprehensively.

Leaders from our five towns and school district must establish a working relation-ship and dialogue. A discussion of mutual concerns and benefits has to be ongoing, including the impact of residential growth and development.

As a whole community of which the HPCSD schools are essential and central, we are obligated to find the vision and will to carry forward the Roosevelt legacy. Our children deserve nothing less.

HPCSD Master Plan Phase Description

October 28, 2004

PHASE 1 - ADA / Health and Safety Upgrades $10,700,000

This phase of the Master Plan would address the Hyde Park Central School Districts immediate infrastructure needs, including upgrades for ADA, Health and Safety, and NYS Building Code violations at each building throughout the district.

A vote on a Bond Referendum to fund this phase will take place on Tuesday, March 15 at Haviland Middle School. The polls will be open from 6am until 9pm.

Return to HPCSD Home Page

Back