Adams 14 School District Facilities Master Plan
•
INTRODUCTION
1-5 MASTER PLANNING PROCESS
1-6 VISION
ENROLLMENT &
CAPACITY
FACILTIES
1-6 SCHOOL DISTRICT STRATEGIC PLAN
•
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1-7 DEMOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS & ENROLLMENT
PATTERNS
1-13 EDUCATIONAL PLANNING
1-22 FACILITIES BY SCHOOL
EDUCATIONAL
PROGRAM
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)
Table of Contents
Adams 14 School District Facilities Master Plan
1-2
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
Adams 14 School District Facilities Master Plan
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.
1-3
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.
Introduction
Adams 14 School District Facilities Master Plan
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, the District
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.
1-4
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 tenyear 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:
1. Demographics/ enrollment analysis and projections
2. Educational Planning – curriculum models translated
into educational criteria and plan diagrams
3. Facility condition assessments (built on the Colorado
Department of Education (CDE) assessments)
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
These tasks were each performed by sub-committees
directed by an overall Steering Committee formed by
District and Consultant Team members.
Introduction
Adams 14 School District Facilities Master Plan
1-5
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
Adams 14 School District Facilities Master Plan
1-6
Student Generation Rates
Long-Term
Enrollment
Forecasts
and Facility
Future student
populations
are projected
using Requirements
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
Adams 14 Student Generation Rates by
all the homes that are platted, subdivided or
Unit Type:
allowed by a comprehensive plan but are not
2004; 2006 & 2009
yet built. This information is used by Adams 14
for long-term facility capacity and site planning,
0.700
and in addition helps us determine the types,
0.600
number and location of schools needed.
0.500
As shown in Table 4, students who reside in
0.400
mobile homes and multifamily units have
0.300
increased considerably in recent years, while
0.200
there is relatively little change in both multi0.100
family and single family type units. The term
student generation rate used in Table 4 means
Mobile Multi-family
Single
Single
the number of students generated from the
Home
Family
Family
various types of housing. The historic data from
Attached Detached
our consultants, Strategic Resources West
(SRW), indicates that other Denver Metro Area
schools and other Front Range Communities
2004
2006
2009
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:
Adams 14 School District Facilities Master Plan
1-7
Table 4. Adams 14 Historical and Recommended Planning Yields
2009
Unit Type
Mobile Home
Multifamily
Single Family Attached
Single Family Detached
Student Generation Rates: 2009
Elementary
Middle Senior High
0.334
0.122
0.155
0.324
0.108
0.119
0.307
0.116
0.127
0.295
0.126
0.160
Total
0.610
0.552
0.550
0.580
2006
Unit Type
Mobile Home
Multifamily
Single Family Attached
Single Family Detached
Student Generation Rates: 2006
Elementary
Middle Senior High
0.274
0.106
0.090
0.168
0.062
0.060
0.308
0.107
0.129
0.291
0.130
0.152
Total
0.471
0.290
0.544
0.573
Unit Type
Mobile Home
Multifamily
Single Family Attached
Single Family Detached
Student Generation Rates: 2004
Elementary
Middle Senior High
0.226
0.102
0.071
0.197
0.064
0.064
0.271
0.137
0.115
0.291
0.136
0.147
Total
0.399
0.325
0.523
0.573
Weighted Average
Unit Type
Mobile Home
Multifamily
Single Family Attached
Single Family Detached
Student Generation Rates: Weighted Average
Elementary
Middle Senior High
Total
0.278
0.110
0.105
0.493
0.230
0.078
0.081
0.389
0.296
0.119
0.124
0.539
0.292
0.130
0.153
0.575
Recommended
Unit Type
Mobile Home
Multifamily
Single Family Attached
Single Family Detached
Student Generation Rates: SRW
Recommended
Elementary
Middle Senior High
0.275
0.110
0.115
0.200
0.080
0.070
0.300
0.120
0.120
0.295
0.130
0.155
2004
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)
Total
0.500
0.350
0.540
0.580
Note: Student generation rates exclude preschool students.
Adams 14 School District Facilities Master Plan
1-8
Figure 1
Future Housing
Units by:
Existing
New
Unit Type
Mobile Home
Multifamily
Single Family Att.
Housing
Comp. Change in: .
Units Zoning
Plan Units Percent
1,634
75
75
0.0%
1,080
461
183 (278)
-60.3%
1,099
447
442
(5)
-1.1%
Single Family Det.
Total
7,143
10,956
1,659
2,642
1,390
2,090
(269)
(552)
-16.2%
-20.9%
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.
Adams 14 School District Facilities Master Plan
1-9
Table 5. Adams County School District 14 Long-Term Student Potential
Long-Term Estimated Students from Existing Housing*
Elementar
y
449
216
330
2,107
3,102
Middle
180
86
132
929
1,327
Senior
High
188
76
132
1,107
1,503
Total
817
378
593
4,143
5,931
Total w/
PK
891
427
643
4,536
6,496
1,340
1,665
6,341
6,939
Out of District^
126
68
238
^: Held at 2009 level.
Grand Total
3,228
1,395
1,741
*: Based upon recommended student generation rates.
455
478
6,386
6,974
Unit Type
Mobile Home
Multifamily
Single Family – Att.
Single Family – Det.
Total In District
Oct. 2009 Actual
3,336
Potential Additional Students from Future Housing
Unit Type
Mobile Home
Multifamily
Single Family – Att.
Single Family – Det.
Total In District
Elementar
y
21
37
133
410
600
Middle
8
15
53
181
257
Senior
High
9
13
53
215
290
Total
38
64
239
806
1,146
Total w/
PK
41
72
259
883
1,254
Total Future Students by Housing Type
Unit Type
Mobile Home
Multifamily
Single Family – Att.
Single Family – Det.
Total In District
Elementar
y
470
253
462
2,517
3,702
Middle
188
101
185
1,109
1,583
Senior
High
197
88
185
1,323
1,792
Total
855
442
832
4,949
7,078
Total w/
PK
931
499
901
5,418
7,750
Out of District
126
68
238
432
478
Adams 14 School
District
Facilities
Master Plan
Grand Total
3,828
1,651
2,030
7,510
8,228
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 longterm 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.
1-10
Student Capacity Schools to Fill
Table 6. Adams County School District 14 Long-Term Enrollment and
Capacity Comparison
Permanent
Facility
Excess Capacity
(Enrollment)
School Type
Enrollment:
Schools
Fall 2009 Build Out
Capacity
Fall 2009
Build Out
Elementary Schools:
Alsup
559
799
459
(100)
(340)
Central
579
555
460
(119)
(95)
CLA
341
NA
333
(8)
NA
Dupont
540
736
397
(143)
(339)
Hanson
338
181
276
(62)
95
Kemp
370
508
306
(64)
(202)
Monaco
435
478
355
(80)
(123)
Rose Hill
394
444
415
21
3,556
3,701
3,001
(555)
(1,033)
Total Elementary
(29)
Middle Schools:
Adams City MS
691
856
595
(96)
(261)
CLA
131
NA
167
36
NA
Hanson
143
77
173
30
96
Kearney MS
525
650
580
55
1,490
1,583
1,515
25
(235)
1,665
1,792
1,523
(142)
(269)
203
NA
180
(23)
NA
Total Middle
(70)
Senior High Schools:
Adams City HS
Lester Arnold HS
Adams
Facilities
Master
Plan
Total Sr. High14 School
1,868 District
1,792
1,703
(165)
(89)
Elementary:
Kemp ES (smallest K5)
Central ES (largest K5)
Middle:
Adams City MS
Capacity
*
per Smalles
Grade
t Largest
306
51
NA
NA
460
77
NA
NA
595
198 3.89
2.59
Kearney MS
580
193 3.79
2.52
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
Senior
High (ACHS)
381
1.97or about1.92
305 students
in Kindergarten1,523
through sixth
grade
51
*:students
Roundedper
to nearest
grade. five.
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.
1-11
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
Adams 14 School District Facilities Master Plan
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 longterm 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.
1-12
The Educational Planning process comprised the following
three phases:
•
•
•
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.
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.
Executive Summary: Educational Planning
Adams 14 School District Facilities Master Plan
1-13
“To improve student achievement so that 80% of
students assessed will be on grade level by 2014 by
ensuring that each classroom has a dynamic,
standards-based teacher who provides powerful 21st
century learning experiences to all students”. Adams
County School District-14 Strategic Plan. Nov 2008.
Empowering
Teachers
Collaborative
Environments
Neighborhood
Schools
Goal 1: Empowering Teachers
Intent: Provide structured support to enable teachers to be
a dynamic, standards-based presence in the classroom.
•
•
•
•
•
•
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
Executive Summary: Educational Planning Goals
Adams 14 School District Facilities Master Plan
1-14
Goal 2: Collaborative Environments
Goal 3: Neighborhood Schools
Intent: Facility has to reflect the vision of student-centered
teaching, active learning, and cooperative groups through
effectively engaging students and creating energy, action
motivation.
•andTeacher
collaboration
• Student collaboration
• SPED collaboration
• Inviting environments that support creativity,
expression and demonstration
• Learning and interaction beyond the classroom walls –
pods, teaming centers, alcoves
Intent: Providing structures that encourage schoolcommunity connections.
• Welcoming architecture
• Safety and security
• Early education consolidation (with SPED
component)
• Respect pride in neighborhood schools, especially
at the middle schools
Facility Impact:
• Classroom design
• Specialized spaces
• Library Media Center (LMC)
• Instructional technology (IT) and communication
• Inviting environments
• Equipment and furniture
• Storage/display
• Student engagement
Facility Impact:
• School size
• Safety and security
• Student engagement
• Traffic/entrances/exits
• Parents/community
• Curb appeal
• Early Childhood Center
Executive Summary: Educational Planning Goals
Adams 14 School District Facilities Master Plan
1-15
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
Adams 14 School District Facilities Master Plan
1-16
Elementary Core Instructional
THREE (3) ROUNDS : 450 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.
K
FOUR (4) ROUNDS : 600 STUDENTS
PS
K
K
1
1
1
1
PS
PS
1
3
2
3
2
3
TN
2 SPED
TN 5
SPED
CONNECTION TO
SHARED
INSTRUCTIONAL &
COMMON AREAS
5
4
4
5
4
4
4
ONE (1) ROUND:
150 STUDENTS
6 TEACHING STATIONS
1 TEACHER NEIGHBORHOOD
1 PRESCHOOL (OPTIONAL)
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
K
K
2
2
TN
3
3
TN
5
PS
K
K
SPED
2
2
SPED
3
3
5
5
5
1
4
4
CONNECTION TO
SHARED
INSTRUCTIONAL &
COMMON AREAS
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
Adams 14 School District Facilities Master Plan
1
1-17
Middle School Core Instructional
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
CLUSTER (by Grade Level):
140 STUDENTS (@25-28 Students/CR)
SCIENCE
CR
CR
TUTORING
COLLABORATION
TOILETS/
ZONE
SUPPORT
CR
Grade 7
Grade 6
Grade 6
TN
TN
Grade 8
Grade 8
CONNECTION TO
SHARED
INSTRUCTIONAL &
COMMON AREAS
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
Grade 7
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
Executive Summary: Educational Design Criteria
Adams 14 School District Facilities Master Plan
1-18
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 UNITS
OPTION 1: CORE INSTRUCTIONAL AREA REPLACEMENT
Core Instructional Middle
2 Clusters per Grade Level
50,100 SF
62,625 SF
(6 Clusters = 840 Students)
Executive Summary: Educational Design Criteria
Adams 14 School District Facilities Master Plan
1-19
450 Students
600 Students
24,950 SF
31,250 SF
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
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 Instructional Area
Classrooms
Teacher Neighborhoods
CORE INSTRUCTION
OPTION 2: REPLACEMENT SCHOOLS (Area Summary Option 2: ELEMENTARY SCHOOL)
Shared Instructional Area
Support (Non Instructional) Areas
Executive Summary: Educational Design Criteria
Adams 14 School District Facilities Master Plan
1-20
750-840 Students
Core Instructional Area
50,100 SF
Classrooms
Teacher Neighborhoods
CORE INSTRUCTION
OPTION 2: REPLACEMENT SCHOOLS (Area Summary Option 2: MIDDLE SCOOL)
Shared Instructional Area
Library Media Center
7,200 SF
“Exploratory” Learning Areas
13,600 SF
Art, Music, Media--Tech, Business-Career
SPED Suite
Physical Education
4,500 SF
18,600 SF
Support (Non Instructional) Areas
Administration
3,800 SF
Counseling
Commons (with Perf. Platform, Kitchen)
Building Support
775 SF
10,100 SF
Seats 300
2,750 SF
PROGRAM AREA
111,425 SF
BUILDING TOTAL (P.A. x 1.25)
139,281 SF
Executive Summary: Educational Design Criteria
Adams 14 School District Facilities Master Plan
1-21
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.
Executive Summary: Facilities
Adams 14 School District Facilities Master Plan
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.
1-22
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.
Executive Summary: Facilities
Adams 14 School District Facilities Master Plan
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.
1-23
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.
1.
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.
2.
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.
3.
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.
4.
Substantial renovation of the building would have to
include the high cost of hazardous materials
abatement and demolition.
5.
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.
6.
The potential to improve the community and team
with a commercial or institutional partner, if the right
buyer and use can be found.
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.
1.
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
Adams 14 School District Facilities Master Plan
1-24
2.
3.
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 roof tied into
existing
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
Adams 14 School District Facilities Master Plan
1-25
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
Adams 14 School District Facilities Master Plan
1-26
Master Plan Recommendation
Additional Considerations:
1.
ACHS site and undeveloped property to help provide
funding.
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.).
2.
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.
3.
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.).
4.
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.).
5.
Replace remaining elementary schools in this
manner based on priorities for facility condition and
community equality.
6.
Since Hanson is newest of the elementary schools,
convert or replace as a district-wide Preschool
facility.
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.
7.
At District Service Center, provide for additional staff
parking and space for bus driving skills training in
place of existing
softball field.
Executive
Summary:
Facilities
Adams 14 School District Facilities Master Plan
1-27
Executive Summary: Existing Feeder System
Adams 14 School District Facilities Master Plan
1-28
Executive Summary: Transitional Feeder System
Adams 14 School District Facilities Master Plan
1-29
Executive Summary: Future “Ideal” Feeder System
Adams 14 School District Facilities Master Plan
1-30
Adams 14 School District Facilities Master Plan
1-31