BOARD OF EDUCATION

PRESENTATION

M AY 2 1 , 2 0 1 9

AG E N DA

AGENDA+ PROCESS TIMELINE

+ MASTER PLAN DELIVERABLES

+ EDUCATION SPECIFICATIONS

+ FACILITY SPECIFIC ANALYSIS

+ SURVEY RESULTS

+ COST ESTIMATES

+ NEXT STEPS

2018

COMMUNITY INPUT

2019OCTOBER NOVEMBER DECEMBER JANUARY FEBRUARY MARCH APRIL MAY JUNE JULY AUGUST SEPTEMBER OCTOBER NOVEMBER DECEMBER

Community EngagementOpen House

#1

Ongoing Online Surveys Ongoing Online Surveys

Public Comment Period

Visioning Meeting

Identify community needs Gather feedback OCT. 29

PCSD Strategy Community Engage-

ment Future of Learning Summit

Define Guiding Principles andreview current

approach

OCT. 30 NOV. 6

Community EngagementOpen House

#2

FEB. 27 & FEB. 28Present options &

RecommendationsAPR. 16

MAY 21

GuidingPrinciplesMeeting

Define how we teach,what we teach, and

who we teach

5:30-7:30Park City High School

PCCAPS Space

5:30-7:30Park City High

School PCCAPS Space

5:30-7:30Park City High School

PCCAPS Space

5:30-7:30Park City High School

PCCAPS Space

5:30-7:30Park City High School

PCCAPS Space

DEC. 6

EducationalVisioningMeeting

Identify key spaces for

learning

DEC. 18

Key SpacesMeeting

Update on key spaces and spatial concepts work

Input on key topics such as grade alignment and class size

JAN. 15

Spatial Concepts Meeting

Develop Space Lists

Task Force Topic Meetings

FEB. 12

Programing & Space

RequirementsMeeting

Review teaching approach and spaces

MAR. 12

Educational Specifications

Meeting

Discuss Master Plan Options

5:30-7:30Park City High School

PCCAPS Space

APR. 17

Options & Recommenda-tions Meeting

Review final recommendations

for the plan

MAY 21

WE AREHERE

CommunityForum

Online Survey Available

Cost Estimating

of Prioritized Options

School Board Meeting

Educational Master Planning Effort Complete

PCSD Process begins

School Board Meeting

T I M E L I N E

P C S D M A S T E R P L A N

+ How we teach + Analysis and detailed information

+ Facility Educational Suitability Analysis- Does the facility fit our vision

+ Facility Current Conditions Analysis- Remaining useful life & maintenance

+ Master Plan Decisions- Grade alignment- School sizes- Locations

+ Master Plan Implementation- Phasing & costs

EDUCATION

SPECIFICATIONS

FACILITIES

MASTER PLAN

MASTER PLANDOCUMENT

REPORT

APPENDIX

P C S D M A S T E R P L A N

ED SPEC MASTER PLAN

10

PARK CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT MASTER PLAN // EDUCATIONAL SPECIF ICATIONS

PEOPLE, PLACE AND PROCESS

EMOTIONS

ELEGANT EXECUTION

REAL WORLD EXPERIENCE

LEARN FROM MISTAKES

OVERCOMINGOBSTACLES

VALIDATION

ACCEPTANCE

MOVEMENT

FLEXIBILITY

HANDS ON

PERSONAL-IZATION

HANDS ON

The excitement was palpable as Superintendent

Jill Gildea opened the Future of Learning Summit

at the Park City School District offices. Joined by

Board members, staff, teachers and community

members, the Planning Team made sure that

students were in the mix to provide insight

and input.

Thanking participants for their service and

commitment, the superintendent kicked-off the

meeting by encouraging everyone in the room

to contribute thoughtfully to the discussion and

think innovatively as to how to provide learning

environments that prepare students for the

modern workplace and life. Their collective

purpose for the day was simple: Capture their

hopes and dreams for the future and develop a

first draft of a set of guiding principles for design.

In the first exercise, participants were asked

to discuss their life’s most powerful learning

experiences. Their answers were varied and

enlightening:

• There was a strong foundation of caring.

• A mentor focused on my strengths.

• Somebody took a chance on me.

• I felt empowered.

• There was direction, yet freedom.

• I learned with, and from others.

• I felt I was in over my head, but supported.

• I was outdoors.

• It was hands-on, nitty-gritty and linked to my

life’s work and passions.

• I was connected to my heritage and culture.

Several themes emerged as the group discussed

the future of learning in Park City.

THE FUTURE OF LEARNING SUMMIT OCTOBER 30, 2018

11

PEOPLE, PLACE AND PROCESS

Working first in table groups, summit members produced several draft sets of guiding principles.

They next presented their ideas to one another and the concepts for guiding principles were

printed on note cards. The cards were then placed on a large blue wall along one side of the

room, after which student delegates arranged the ideas by topic. Ultimately each participant

placed value on guiding principle concepts using color-coded dots.2

2 The Future of Learning Summit Voting Results.

44

PARK CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT MASTER PLAN // EDUCATIONAL SPECIF ICATIONS

PLANNING & DESIGN

A Learning Community comprises a small group

of learning studios configured around a common

space that includes both collaborative student

areas and shared teacher teaming and storage

rooms. Learning Communities in the elementary

schools should be organized by grade level,

providing flexibility, where possible, to account

for changes in student population. The

configuration of the learning community should

form a useable common space that functions as

much more than a hallway to classrooms.

A variety of activities will occur in the common

space including large group gatherings, small

group break-out/spread out space, and project

work. The common space should be designed

for clear visibility from the learning studios so

teachers can always observe students.

LEARNING COMMUNITY

45

PLANNING & DESIGN

KEY ELEMENTS• Four to six learning studios

• Large common space:

- Sink and counter space with soap and

paper towel dispenser

- Presentation space with dry erase

wall surface and monitor or projection

capability

- Variety of tables and comfortable

seating arrangements in addition to

clear floor space

• Small group conference rooms

(4 to 6 people)

• Student display/exhibit

• Teacher teaming/conference room

(6 to 8 people)

• Share teacher work/prep room

• Shared teacher storage room

• Single-occupant faculty restroom

• Single-occupant student/family restroom

if group restrooms are not within or directly

adjacent to learning community

• Vestibule with doors that connect

the learning community to outdoor

learning space

• Natural light and views, direct preferred

Photo 1 - Solana Ranch Elementary School, San Diego, California / Photo 2 & 3 - John F. Kennedy Elementary School, Schiller Park, Illinois

1

2

3

P C S D M A S T E R P L A N

FACILITIES MASTER PLAN

14

PARK CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT MASTER PLAN // FACIL IT IES MASTER PLAN

FACILITIES MASTER PLAN

CATEGORY # SF

Administration 1 1,656

Art 1 559

Classrooms 27 24,023

Collaboration 9 1,432

Computer Lab 4 1,448

Food Service 1 1,511

Media Center 1 2,926

Multipurpose 1 5,507

Music/Stage 2 1,538

Other 1 139

Special Ed 1 772

STEM 1 563

Support 17 2,631

Restroom 16 1,895

Teacher Prep 9 2,594

Net Square Feet 49,194

Gross Square Feet 58,824

FACTOR2018 SCORE

2015 SCORE

Building Condition/ Educational Environment

5.9 5.64

Safety & Code Compliance 5.1 5.67

Facility Maintainability 6.5 6.6

Facility Site 5.8

Total Facility Assessment 6.0

SPACE UTILIZATION FACILITY ASSESSMENT SCORE

* THE FULL ASSESSMENT IS AVAILABLE IN APPENDIX XX

STUDENT DEMOGRAPHICS

PROJECTED NEW STUDENTS

STUDENT DEMOGRAPHICS

15

FACILITIES MASTER PLAN

SCALE: 1”=20’

PARK CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT MASTER PLAN // FEBRUARY 12 , 201 9

M C P O L I N E L E M E N T A R Y S C H O O L - F L O O R P L A N

CLASSROOMS

SPECIAL EDUCATION

COUNSELING

ADMINISTRATION

CAFETERIA / MULTIPURPOSE

COLLABORATION / BREAK OUT

MUSIC/THEATER

ART

COMPUTER LAB / CODING

LAB / MAKER SPACE / CTE

MEDIA CENTER

FITNESS / LOCKERS

TEACHER PREP / WORK / OFFICE

FOOD SERVICES

SUPPORT

RESTROOMS

5TH GRADE5TH GRADE

4TH GRADE

5TH GRADE 5TH GRADE

4TH GRADE 3RD GRADE 3RD GRADE

3RD GRADE 3RD GRADE

3RD GRADE 3RD GRADE

KINDER KINDER KINDER

KINDER

PRESCHOOL

PRESCHOOLSPED2ND GRADE 2ND GRADE

2ND GRADE 2ND GRADE

1ST GRADE 1ST GRADE

1ST GRADE 1ST GRADE

PLATFORM

AFTER SCHOOL

PACE

TEACHER LOUNGE

CLASSROOM

SCALE: 1”=20’

PARK CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT MASTER PLAN // FEBRUARY 12 , 201 9

M C P O L I N E L E M E N T A R Y S C H O O L - F L O O R P L A N

CLASSROOMS

SPECIAL EDUCATION

COUNSELING

ADMINISTRATION

CAFETERIA / MULTIPURPOSE

COLLABORATION / BREAK OUT

MUSIC/THEATER

ART

COMPUTER LAB / CODING

LAB / MAKER SPACE / CTE

MEDIA CENTER

FITNESS / LOCKERS

TEACHER PREP / WORK / OFFICE

FOOD SERVICES

SUPPORT

RESTROOMS

5TH GRADE5TH GRADE

4TH GRADE

5TH GRADE 5TH GRADE

4TH GRADE 3RD GRADE 3RD GRADE

3RD GRADE 3RD GRADE

3RD GRADE 3RD GRADE

KINDER KINDER KINDER

KINDER

PRESCHOOL

PRESCHOOLSPED2ND GRADE 2ND GRADE

2ND GRADE 2ND GRADE

1ST GRADE 1ST GRADE

1ST GRADE 1ST GRADE

PLATFORM

AFTER SCHOOL

PACE

TEACHER LOUNGE

CLASSROOM

P C S D F U T U R E O F L E A R N I N G S U R V E Y

SURVEY RESULT:Q1.

16.1%

68.6%

15.3%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

All Pre-school/early learning students housed in onecentral location

Pre-school/early learning students housed in theirneighborhood elementary schools

Pre-school/early learning students have a choicebetween elementary schools or one early learning

center that serves the entire district

Percent Responses

In regards to Pre-School/Early Learning, do you prefer: (choose one)

n=1054

P C S D F U T U R E O F L E A R N I N G S U R V E Y

SURVEY RESULT:Q2.

51.0%

24.7%

22.2%

2.2%

0% 20% 40% 60%

K-5 grades in elementary school and 6-8 grades inmiddle school

K-6 grades in elementary school and 7/8 grades inmiddle school

K-4 grades in elementary school; 5/6 grades housedtogether and 7/8 grades housed together

K-8 grades together

Percent Responses

In regards to K-8 education, which grade alignment solution do you prefer?

n=1,087

P C S D F U T U R E O F L E A R N I N G S U R V E Y

SURVEY RESULT:Q3.

84.9%

8.8%

6.3%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%

Yes

No

I don't know

Percent Responses

Do you agree that 9th grade should be included in high school?

n=1,097

P C S D F U T U R E O F L E A R N I N G S U R V E Y

SURVEY RESULT:Q4.

54.1%

18.1%

27.8%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

One high school at the current location

Two high schools – one at current location and one in new location to be determined

One high school in current location with the addition ofa smaller specialty high school (CTE Focus)

Percent Responses

Assuming 9th grade is included in high school, do you prefer:

n=1,083

P C S D F U T U R E O F L E A R N I N G S U R V E Y

SURVEY RESULT:Q5.

+ Developmentally appropriate grade separation: 277 respondents

+ Student health & wellbeing: 60 respondents

+ Smaller class sizes: 60 respondents

+ Cost: 50 respondents

In your opinion, what is the most important thing for the District

to consider in regards to grade alignment decision making?

P C S D F U T U R E O F L E A R N I N G S U R V E Y

SURVEY RESULT:Q6.

2.68

0 1 2 3 4 5

Average Response

How strongly would the overall cost of grade alignment influence your decision? n=961

P C S D F U T U R E O F L E A R N I N G S U R V E Y

SURVEY RESULT:Q7.

87.6%

0.6%

13.2%

12.0%

12.1%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Parent

Student

Teacher

District employee

Community member

Percent Responses

Please help us with some demographic information. Are You:

n=1,095

C O S T E S T I M AT E

COST ESTIMATE EXAMPLE

PROJECT ESTIMATE CONSTRUCTION CONTROL CORPORATION 5/14/2019

PROJECT NAME……...…..PARK CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT EARLY LEARNING CENTER BUILDING

ARCHITECT…..….….…..…GSBS 50,000 SFSTAGE OF DESIGN…..…..MASTERPLANNING

CSI # DESCRIPTION QTY UNIT UNIT COST TOTAL

02 EXISTING CONDITIONS 0.7% 1.96$ 98,235$ 03 CONCRETE 4.2% 12.35$ 617,482$ 04 MASONRY 1.8% 5.35$ 267,345$ 05 METALS 9.4% 27.81$ 1,390,253$ 06 WOODS & PLASTICS 2.8% 8.41$ 420,413$ 07 THERMAL & MOISTURE PROTECTION 7.9% 23.39$ 1,169,526$ 08 DOORS & WINDOWS 3.7% 10.87$ 543,646$ 09 FINISHES 10.6% 31.41$ 1,570,595$ 10 SPECIALTIES 1.0% 3.11$ 155,400$ 11 EQUIPMENT 0.0% -$ -$ 12 FURNISHINGS 0.0% -$ -$ 13 SPECIAL CONSTRUCTION 0.0% -$ -$ 14 CONVEYING SYSTEMS 0.0% -$ -$ 21 FIRE SUPPRESSION 1.4% 4.05$ 202,575$ 22 PLUMBING 2.2% 6.66$ 333,000$ 23 HVAC 13.1% 38.85$ 1,942,500$ 26 ELECTRICAL 8.7% 25.81$ 1,290,375$ 27 COMMUNICATION 4.5% 13.32$ 666,000$ 28 ELECTRONIC SAFETY & SECURITY 2.0% 6.05$ 302,475$ 31 EARTHWORK 0.0% -$ -$ 32 EXTERIOR IMPROVEMENTS 4.2% 12.54$ 627,150$ 33 UTILITIES 0.9% 2.78$ 138,750$

SUBTOTAL 79.1% 234.71$ 11,735,720$ GENERAL CONDITIONS 5% 4.0% 11.74$ 586,786$ BONDS & INSURANCE 2% 1.7% 4.93$ 246,450$ OVERHEAD & PROFIT 4% 3.4% 10.06$ 502,758$ DESIGN CONTINGENCY 15% 11.9% 35.21$ 1,760,358$ TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST 100.0% 296.64$ 14,832,072$

Plan Check Fees 48,450$ Building Permit 74,539$ 1% State Permit Fee 745$ Utility Connection Fees and Impact Fees TBDFurniture Fixtures & Equipment 10% 1,483,207$ A/E Fees 6% 889,924.31$ Reimbursables 45,597$ Geotechnical 15,000$ Commissioning Agent 50,000$ Survey 5,000$ Project Management Fees TBDOwner's Construction Contingency 10% 1,483,207$ Special Inspections & Testing 0.75% 111,241$ TOTAL PROJECT COST 19,038,983$

LOCATION……….…..……..PARK CITY, UT

BUILDING COST SUMMARY

Page 1

P C S D M A S T E R P L A N

NEXT STEPS

G R A D E A L I G N M E N T - S C H O O L O P T I O N S

4 Neighborhood Elementary SchoolsEarly Learning Center

PRE-K

A

4 Neighborhood Elementary Schools

B

Neighborhood School + Early Learning Center

C

PROS CONS

RELATIVE COST: $$$$

OPTION A: OPTION B: OPTION C:

+ Collaboration between preschool teachers

+ Opportunity for wrap-around community

services

+ Opportunity for community partnerships

+ Age appropriate design

+ Maximizes early identification of children

with extra needs

+ Requires a new building

+ Requires busing of PK students

RELATIVE COST: $$$$ RELATIVE COST: $$$$

+ Students in neighborhood schools

+ Additions to incorporate age

appropriate design

+ Requires additions at all elementary

schools

+ Limits partnership potential

+ Opportunity for wrap-around services

+ Opportunity for community

partnerships

+ Age appropriate design

+ Students in neighborhood schools

+ Maximizes early identification of

children with extra needs

+ Requires a new building

OROR

G R A D E A L I G N M E N T - S C H O O L O P T I O N S

4 Neighborhood Elementary Schools

1 Middle School 2 Middle Schools4 Neighborhood

Elementary Schools

K-5, 6-8

Alignment Option A:

A

RELATIVE COST: $$$$

+ Utilizes existing elementary

schools

+ Does not require redistricting

+ Maintains current balance of DLI

programs

+ May require additions to two or

more schools

+ Limits opportunities for growth of

PK in neighborhood schools

K-5 = 2,183 TOTAL STUDENTS (AVG. 545/SCHOOL)

PROS CONS

6-8 = 1,349 TOTAL STUDENTS

RELATIVE COST: $$$$ RELATIVE COST: $$$$

+ Limits busing distance

+ Reuses Ecker

+ Could reuse Treasure location

+ Builds community sense of

belonging

+ Minimizes transitions

+ Middle School redistricting

+ Potential remodel/replacement of

Treasure or New Middle School

+ Reuses Ecker

+ Minimizes transitions

+ Builds community sense of belonging

+ Addition to Ecker

+ One year of additional busing

+ Long distance busing for three years

6-8 = 1,349 TOTAL STUDENTS(AVG. 674/SCHOOL)

OR

G R A D E A L I G N M E N T - S C H O O L O P T I O N S

4 Neighborhood Elementary Schools

1 Middle School 5 Neighborhood

Elementary Schools

K-6, 7-8

Alignment Option B:

B

RELATIVE COST: $$$$

+ Reuses Ecker

+ Room for expansion of neighborhood PK

+ One fewer year of busing

+ Minimizes transitions

+ Does not build community sense of belonging in Middle School

+ One new elementary school

+ Redistricting

+ Imbalance in DLI program

K-5 = 2,623 TOTAL STUDENTS (AVG. 525/SCHOOL)

PROS CONS

7/8 = 909 TOTAL STUDENTS

G R A D E A L I G N M E N T - S C H O O L O P T I O N S

4 Neighborhood Elementary Schools

7 Neighborhood

Elementary Schools

K-8

Alignment Option C:

C

RELATIVE COST: $$$$

+ Students in neighborhood schools longer

+ Reuses Ecker as K-8

+ Maintains DLI approach

+ Three fewer years of busing

+ Minimizes transitions

+ Builds community sense of belonging

+ Two new elementary sites (if reuse Ecker)

+ Two new schools (if reuse Ecker)

+ Significant remodel of all schools including Ecker

+ Limits diversification to 9th grade

+ Significant redistricting

K-8 = 3,532 TOTAL STUDENTS (AVG. 504/SCHOOL)

PROS CONS

G R A D E A L I G N M E N T - S C H O O L O P T I O N S

4 Neighborhood Elementary Schools

2 Middle Schools4 Neighborhood

Elementary Schools

K-4, 5/6, 7/8

Alignment Option D:

D

2 Middle Schools

One Campus

+ No new elementary schools

+ No additions to elementary schools

+ Room for expansion of neighbor-

hood PK

+ Transition to diversity earlier

+ No redistricting

K-4 = 1,802 TOTAL STUDENTS(AVG. 450/SCHOOL)

5/6 = 832 TOTAL STUDENTS7/8 = 909 TOTAL STUDENTS

PROS CONS

RELATIVE COST: $$$$RELATIVE COST: N/A RELATIVE COST: $$$$

+ Reuses Ecker

+ New building on Ecker Site

+ Additional transition

+ Long distance busing for four years

+ One year of additional busing

+ Does not build community sense

of belonging

+ Reuses Ecker

+ Minimizes transitions

+ Potential remodel/replacement of Treasure or New Middle School

Builds community sense of belonging

+ Redistricting

+ One additional year of busing

+ Limits diversification

5-8 = 1,730 TOTAL STUDENTS (AVG. 865/SCHOOL)

OR

G R A D E A L I G N M E N T - S C H O O L O P T I O N S

1 High School + Specialty HS

(CTE - Focus)

2 High Schools1 High School

9-12

A B C

PROS CONS

RELATIVE COST: $$$$

OPTION A: OPTION B: OPTION C:

+ Promotes diversity and inclusion

+ Supports student choice

+ Centralizes all programs offered by

PCSD

+ Facilitates interdisciplinary teaming

+ Requires transportation to a central

location

+ All traffic concentrated in one location

RELATIVE COST: $$$$ RELATIVE COST: $$$$

+ Provides a school location closer to

population density

+ Distributes traffic impact to two locations

+ Requires a new building

+ Divides programming between two

schools

+ Requires PCSD to manage and staff for

two facilities

+ Limits diversification

+ Could utilize existing Treasure

building/location

+ Could expand CTE offerings

+ Promotes partnerships

+ Could include 6-12 option

+ Requires a new building/extensive remodel

+ Requires PCSD to manage and staff

for two facilities

+ Limits diversification

OR OR

BOARD OF EDUCATION

PRESENTATION

M AY 2 1 , 2 0 1 9