September 1, 2022 Agenda
1. Preliminary report from Motz Engineering on building and building system conditions of MLS
and YS Middle/High School.
2. Preliminary report from Ruetschle Architects on educational adequacy findings at Mills Lawn
and the MSHS, as well as a draft master plan for a possible solution.
3. Questions and discussion on reports.
4. Motz recommendations regarding ESCOs: (Energy Service Companies) which develop
energy performance proposals to fund mechanical, electrical and architectural systems
replacements and repairs. This can provide an additional funding source for project
improvements with the load paid back by future energy savings.
5. Agenda planning for October meeting. Let’s confirm dates of next facility committee meetings
for October 6, November 3, December 1, 2022.
(These are future meeting agenda items:
Ongoing discussion regarding Motz and Ruetschle preliminary reports
==Next steps on ESCO Exploration.
== School Visits. Narrow a list of school facilities to visit.)
- Motz Engineering firm presents the scope of their work and work plan.
- Mike Ruetschle presents his approach to planning for deep renovation and new construction.
- Prioritization list of building experts regarding maintenance needs of the current buildings.
- User list of prioritized needs.
- Space Utilization Study.
- Prioritization of deep renovation and new construction list.
facility committee presentation
Maintenance Plan Advisor
- Powerpoint from Jay McGrath His thoughts regarding MPA
- Interview Committee share thoughts on interview of three MPAs that occurred on 6/6/2022.
Facilities needs reports updates
- Michael Slaughter (Doc)
- David Roche
- Gerry Papania
- Richard Zopf
- Judith Hempfling (Doc on modular classrooms)
Maintenance prioritized needs discussion
Draft list of Identified deep renovations, enhancements needs
- Mike Ruetschle
Discuss Visit to Oakwood schools to observe Permanent Improvements and discuss with Facilities Manager.
Facilities Committee May 2022 Update
Minutes of the Facilities Committee meeting - April 7, 2022 (Dorothée Bouquet)
Takeaways from the Users’ Survey - May 5, 2022 (Dorothée Bouquet)
Quantitative results of the Users’ Survey - May 5, 2022 (Dorothée Bouquet)
Observations from the Builders’ Work - May 9, 2022 (Judith Hempfling)
IT and Related Infrastructure Report - May 2, 2022 (Michael Slaughter, Craig Conrad, Scott Fife, Judith Hempfling)
MMS/HS Building Envelope & Roof Report - May 3, 2022 (David Roche)
MMS/HS Property Inspection Report - May 3, 2022 (David Roche)
Location: Mills Lawn School Graham Conference Room
Harvard Schools For Health Foundations for Student Success
Agenda May 5, 2022 @ 7PM
- Facility Users Reports
- Facility Experts Reports
- Maintenance Plan Advisor RFQ
- Review Facilities Committee Charge
- Next Steps
- Facilities Committee Charge
- MPA RFQ
- Addendum to RFQ
- FC Users Questionaire
- FC User Report
- FC Experts Report
School Board Facilities Committee
April 7, 3022 @ 7 p.m. - 9 p.m.
Present (alphabetical order): Dorothee Bouquet, Craig Conrad, Scott Fife, Chris Hamilton, Judith Hempfling, Terri Holden, Brian Mayer, Gerry Papania, Mike Ruetschle, David Roche, Kineta Sanford, Michael Slaughter, Megan Winston.
Excused: Jay McGrath, Jack Hatert
Absent: Richard Zopf
Members of the public: Diane Chiddister, Kathy Adams, Carlos Landaburu
Judith Hempfling is welcoming the group.
Judith Hempfling reminded everyone that our lawyer specified that we have to follow Sunshine Laws: we cannot deliberate outside of this meeting. We cannot send out emails to the whole group. We cannot have a majority of this group (more than 7) communicating outside of meetings.
We want to make sure that everyone has an opportunity to speak/participate. Let’s not dominate the conversation.
We are having a Channel 5 crew to record our meetings so that the public can follow along.
David Roche; Kineta Sanford; Brian Mayer; Gerry Papania; Craig Conrad; Michael Slaughter; Judith Hempfling, Dorothee Bouquet; Scott Fife; Chris Hamilton; Mike Ruetschle; Terri Holden, Megan Winston
Review Proposal and Answer Questions
Judith: “Our Facilities Committee proposal is a living document. This committee is information-gathering, not decision-making”.
No questions, no comments.
Resources: Document Depository
Dorothee and Scott Fife explained what is included in the depository
What is a Permanent Improvement Plan
Mike Ruetschle: “A PIP would approach the facilities question differently by looking at the conditions of the systems and look at what needs to be replaced and to prioritize over time. It is important to look at cost and see what 1-mil, 2-mil, 3-mil, 4-mil per year would address what needs and in which order.”
Scott Fife: “A PIP exists independently of what we do with whether we maintain or build new, because one PIP needs to exist for any sort of facilities. Dr. Holden will agree that schools constantly need to adjust the maintenance budget to the ever-shrinking state-allocated budget.”
What is a Maintenance Plan
Judith Hempfling: “Mike Ruetschle recommended that we hire an MPA, who are engineers, who would organize and prioritize needs for maintenance. Our superintendent, treasurer and lawyer are drafting the RFQ proposal. Mike Ruetschle will be advising us in the hiring process and the committee work.”
The Role of Mike Ruetschle
Mike Ruetschle: “I was hired in 2016 in the first attempt (version 1.0) to address the facilities. Mario Basora asked me to serve in 2019 with the following Facilities Task Force. I hope to help where the committee will decide that maintaining will not be advantageous, and we need to add new pieces to our facilities.”
Gerry Papania: “Will you be advising how any new maintenance will impact our need to meet new building code?”
Mike Ruetschle: “How deep will we go and what will be the trigger? For instance, what triggers a new for a storm shelter” I can help in some of those areas. Some of those, we will need to field together. Another new building code requirement are a building-wide fire-alarm system (voice-enunciated system), and a sprinkler system. But we are not looking at a change of use. This will remain an educational building.”
Assignments for Building Users
Judith explains that members will be doing work between meetings.
Judith Hempfling: “We need to have a detailed list of identified needs by the users (teachers and staff), prioritized. We have a floor plan with room numbers and we could deploy a questionnaire to be filled out for each room by the teachers. The administrators could review the needs for the common space. Building experts could chim in.”
Brian Mayer: “We could do a Google Form”
Judith Hempfling: “Building experts would then review the information gathered”
Megan Winston: “To protect our staff’s time, we could look at the building experts to design a questionnaire.”
Terri Holden: “How about they list broader systems for teachers/staff ?”
Michael Slaughter: “I would be interested in visiting rooms with teachers to hear what they like/need in their classrooms”
Mike Ruetschle: “There is a document from 2019 that already asked some of the questions, from students’ and teachers’ perspective”
Dorothee Bouquet: “I will design the first draft of the questionnaire.”
Chris Hamilton: “Will the teachers be around and available during the summer to participate in this process?”
Terri Holden: “Until last week of May”
Judith: “Our goal is to gather that info before the staff is off work”
David Roche: “We want to be careful about how we influence the answers through the language of the questions.”
Space Utilization Study
Mike Ruetschle: “This is a tool that can help us renovate during the school year without available swing spaces. It lets us know if we have flex-space. If we don’t have space, we need to lease modulars (which is costly). You might find that some space are underutilized.”
David Roche: “Will people be moving all of the time?”
Gerry Papania: “This work was done for the high school. Do we need to repeat it?”
Mike Ruetschle: “I can provide the form, with every classroom and every class period,”
Terri Holden: “Are we talking about tracking the use of each room, or alternative replacement rooms?”
Assignments for Building System Experts
Create Teams of Two or Three Building System Experts and Divide Up
Judith suggest that Scott Fife and Michael Slaughter could work as a team about Technology and Electric system, fire protection, security, life safety
Judith explained that Craig Carter and Craig Conrad are very familiar with the facilities. The building experts will meet with Craig Carter to gather information on each system.
For Exterior Envelopment (door, windows, roof): David Roche and Chris Hamilton, Bob Brecha
Plumbing, Mechanical, HVAC: Gerry Papania, Richard Zopf, Bob Brecha
ADA/Accessibility, Furnishings, Floors, Interior finishes: Richard Zopf, Chris Hamilton
Playgrounds, parking and site conditions: Gerry Papania, Craig Conrad
Mike Ruetschle: “How do we handle the assessment of abatement of hazardous materials?”
Terri Holden: “OFCC might have given us estimates for the 2020 costs sets”
Mike Ruetschle: “We have reports (OFCC assessment report HERA report from 2017) and the committee might decide it’s beyond the scope of our expertise”
Craig Conrad: “We should have a book for each building that tells us where asbestos is. We need to think of lead in the water”
Dorothee Bouquet: “Should we consider the needs for the Board’s office?”
Terri Holden: “We struggle to make our current offices meet our needs, but priority is on our students and staff.”
Terri Holden gives an update on the process of hiring an MPA. A deadline is coming up for the RFQ to come out on April 12th, a pre-proposal meeting is scheduled to meet on April 21st and a final deadline for the applications to be turned in by May 3rd.
Gerry Papania: “Are we going to look at the potential for photo-voltaic panels?”
Chris Hamilton: “ What is the timeline for this work?”
Judith: “A MPA will be helping us get the work done. And some of that information won’t take long to gather.”
Building Systems to Take Responsibility For Being Well Informed.
Review OFCC Report
Review Fanning Howey Report
Review Documents in the Depository Regarding the Condition of the School Facilities
Review Information Provided by School District Maintenance Supervisor
Review Maintenance Records
Review Samples of Maintenance Plans Online.
Meeting adjourned at 8.23pm.
- Dorothee Bouquet, School Board Vice President
- Judith Hempfling, School Board Member
- Terri Holden, Superintendent
- Jay McGrath, Treasurer
- Jack Hatert, Middle/High School Principal
- Megan Winston, Mills Lawn Principal
- Kineta Sanford, Mills Lawn Teacher
- Brian Mayer 5th-12th Instrumental, Music Teacher
Building/Building System Experts
- Craig Conrad: 20 Year Maintenance Supervisor, Yellow Springs School District
- Chris Hamilton: Aerospace Engineer, Facilities Task Force, Parent
- Gerry Papania: Civil Engineer, Industrial Facilities, Chair of YS Energy Board
- David Roche: Building Inspector, Commercial and Residential
- Michael Slaughter: Electrical Engineer, IT Professional
- Richard Zopf: Construction, Building Systems
- Scott Fife, Centerville School Administrator, Experience with PIP at CS
- Task Force Charge (2019) and Committee Members
- Facilities Task Force Assessments
- Survey Results
- OFCC (Ohio Facilities Construction Commission)
- School District Tax Information (2019)
- Community Forums
- Facilities Task Force Meetings
- EEA Costs
- Building Assessments
- Anderson’s Ohio School Law Manual (2019 Edition): School Buildings and Property
- Facilities Transparency Webpage (Text Only)
- Community Advisory Team (CAT) Meetings
School Facilities Task Force Charge - 2019
The School Facilities Task Force is charged with doing the following for our school district:
Determining what we want our schools to deliver for our students in the next 50 years.
Determining the needs of our current facilities.
Determining the disconnect between our current facilities and the facilities needed to deliver the education our students need over the next 50 years.
Creating a plan of action for addressing the facility needs identified.
Getting feedback from the community about the draft plan.
Finalizing a plan with community input and presenting it to the Board of Education.
Sharing the final plan with the community in meetings and in writing.
Ian Sherk (student)
Julia Hoff (student)
Ex Officio Members
Mike Ruetschle, Architect
TJ Turner, YS Schools
Mario Basora, YS Schools Superintendent
Terri Holden, Incoming Superintendent
- 2019 Fanning Howey Full Report
- 2019 May 15 Physical Assessment
- 2019 May 15 Educational Assessment
- 2018 Engineering Assessment Shell Meyer
- 2019 YSHS/MS Physical Assessment With Priorities
- 2019 Mills Lawn Physical Assessment With Priorities
- Highest Priority Improvements
- Prioritized List of Improvement with Cost Estimates
- Permanent Improvement Fund and General Fund Maintenance and Capital Improvement Expenditures: Chart 1
- Permanent Improvement Fund and General Fund Maintenance and Capital Improvement Expenditures: Chart 2
- Maintenance and Capital Improvement Total All Dollars: Chart 3
- Utility Statistics 12/31/20
- Enrollment Projection 12/4/20
- Maintenance Repairs History - 2013
- Maintenance Repairs History - 2014
- Maintenance Repairs History - 2015
- Maintenance Repairs History - 2016
- Maintenance Repairs History - 2017
- Maintenance Repairs History - 2018
- Maintenance Repairs History - 2019
- Maintenance Repairs History - 2020
The Ohio Facilities Construction Commission administers several programs that provide state assistance to school districts in the acquisition, construction, and renovation of classroom facilities. Each of those programs is centered on the development of a Master Facility Plan that addresses the entire facility needs of a school district. The programs listed on this chart include the Classroom Facilities Assistance Program (CFAP), the Exceptional Needs Program (ENP), and the Expedited Local Partnership Program (ELPP).
Calculation of Project Funding Shares and the Use of Ranking Percentiles
A school district’s priority for state assistance from the OFCC is based on the district’s three-year average “adjusted valuation per pupil,” as calculated by the Department of Education. Under that calculation, the district’s taxable “valuation per pupil” is modified by a factor reflecting the income of the district’s taxpayers. (A district’s valuation is the total value of all property in the district as assessed for tax purposes.) All districts are annually ranked from lowest to highest average adjusted valuation per pupil and placed in percentiles. A district’s percentile ranking determines when the district will be served by CFAP. Also, for most districts, the portion of the basic project cost paid by the district is equal to its percentile ranking. For example, a district ranked in the 20th percentile would pay 20% of the cost and the state would pay the remaining 80%. For some districts, the district portion of the project cost is calculated under an alternative formula based on the district’s existing permanent improvement debt. In this alternative formulation, relative wealth is also a factor. OFCC is required by law to use the higher of the two calculation methods for the district’s local share.
- Ohio School Design Manual - Volume 2, 2018
- Ohio School Design Manual - Volume 1 , 2019
- Ohio School Design Manual - Volume 2 , 2019
- Smart School Siting - Facts Sheet
- 2019 Opinion of Probable Costs
- Project Enrollment for 2025-26
- FINAL Enrollment Report - April 7, 2021
- Mills Lawn Elementary Middle with 2020 Cost EEA
- Mills Lawn Elementary Middle with 2021 Cost EEA
- Yellow Springs High with 2020 Costs EEA
- Yellow Springs High with 2021 Costs EEA
- Alphabetical Eligibility Ranking Lists FY22
- Ranking Eligibility Ranking Lists FY22
- DRAFT Master Plan Options
- ELPP - DRAFT New K-12 - 2020 Cost Set
- ELPP - DRAFT 1 New K-12 2021 Cost Set
- ELPP - DRAFT K-12 Demo/Reno/Add -_2020 Cost Set
- ELPP - DRAFT K-12 Reno/Add - 2020 Cost Set
- ELPP - DRAFT 2 Reno/Add K-12_2021
- ELPP - DRAFT 3 Reno/Add K-12_2021
- ELPP - DRAFT 1 K-12 Demo/Reno/Add - 2021 Cost Set
- ELPP - DRAFT 2 K-12 Demo/Reno/Add - 2021 Cost Set
- Assessment Cost Guidelines 2021
- Combined Income Tax and Property Tax Supported Borrowing
- Revenue By Added Tax Percentage
- Comp Income Tax History
- Current Property Tax Annual Cost
- Proposed Property Tax Annual Cost
- Total Comparative Tax Rate
- OSBA Understanding Levies Fact Sheet
- School District Tax Information
- School District Tax Options Overview
- Levy Expirations as of March 2019
Julia Hoff (student)
|TJ Turner, YS Schools Board Member|
Mario Basora, YS Schools Superintendent
Terri Holden, Incoming Superintendent
Ian Sherk (student)
Mike Ruetschle, Architect
MARCH 18, 2019
- March 18 Meeting
- Overall Plan For Meetings
- Levy Pass-Fail Votes
- Dates For Task Force Meetings As Of March 19
- Recommended Dates For Meetings
MAY 1, 2019
- Enrollment Projections
- Bondamount Scenarios and Projections
- Yellow Springs Tax Rates Compared To Other School Districts
- Revenue By Added Tax Percent
- Open Enrollment Historical Numbers
- Other Borrowing Options
- Combined Income Property Tax
- Levy Expirations as of March 2019
MAY 15, 2019
- Meeting Presentation
- Meeting Notes
- 2019 YSHS/MS Physical Assessment With Priorities - Draft
- 2019 Mills Lawn Physical Assessment With Priorities - Draft
May 22, 2019
- Drawing: Proposed Floor Plan
- Drawing: Proposed Front Entry Secure Vestibule
- Drawing: Proposed Extended Learning Area
- Existing One-Year Utility Costs
Student, Staff, Faculty Focus Group:
- Student Questions MLS
- Custodian Questions MLS
- Teacher Questions MLS
- Student Questions MMS/YSHS
- Teacher Questions MMS/YSHS
2020 - Small Community Meetings
Community Advisory Team
- January 21, 2021 - Community Advisory Team Agenda and Presentation
- February 4, 2021 - Community Advisory Team Agenda and Presentation
- February 18, 2021 - Community Advisory Team Agenda and Presentation
- February 25, 2021 - Community Advisory Team Agenda and Presentation
- March 17, 2021 - Community Advisory Team Agenda and Presentation
Chapter 6: School Buildings and Property
“A board of education may dispose of real and personal property held by it in its corporate capacity only in the manner prescribed by statute (ORC 3313.41). Other than certain limited powers granted with respect to the disposal of surplus goods, boards of education have no authority to donate or give school property to any private person, public corporation, or agency.” (6.10; p. 581)
“A board of education may sell real or personal property; it may make an even exchange of real property it owns for real property owned by another person or entity; it may trade real estate it owns as part of the purchase price for another parcel of real property….” (6.10; p. 582)
“The statute provides that when a board of education decides to dispose of real or personal property exceeding ten thousand dollars in value, it must sell such property at public auction, after giving at least 30 days’ notice thereof by publication in a newspaper of general circulation, or by posting notices thereof in five of the most public places in the school district in which the property is situated.” (6.11; p. 585)
“Real estate may be offered for sale as an entire tract or in parcels.” (6.11; p. 586)
“Although the statute provides that the property ‘shall be sold’ at public auction, there is no requirement that a board of education must accept the highest bid, or any bid, at an auction held pursuant to RC 3313.41. If the board, in the exercise of its discretion, finds that no acceptable bids have been received, it may reject any and all bids made on the property.” (6,11; p. 586)
“Boards of education are permitted to sell real or personal property at a private sale in four situations. These are: (1) where the value of the property does not exceed $10,000; (2) where the property has been offered for sale at a public auction at least once, and has not been sold; (3) where the buyer of the property is a municipal corporation, county, township, school district, or other public entity enumerated in the statute; and (4) where the property is being disposed as part of a trade or exchange….It should be noted that, with respect to private sales of real property to other political subdivisions, the sale may be ‘upon such terms as are agreed upon.’ This language in the statute suggests that, unlike other sales, private sales to other political subdivisions may be on terms other than cash. It has also been interpreted to allow sales for less than market value, or even for a nominal sum, where the board finds that a public interest is being served.” (6.12; p. 587)
“A question may arise as to whether a board of education is authorized by law to sell real or personal property on terms other than cash. With one limited exception, it would appear that no such authority exists, and that a sale of school property in return for a note and mortgage, land contract, or other commitment to make installation payments is unauthorized and contrary to law.” (6.13; p. 588)
“An exception to the above rule exists with respect to sales of property to other political subdivisions of public agencies…..Therefore sales of public property on terms other than cash would appear to be constitutional where the buyer is another political subdivision or other “public entity.” (6.13; p. 589)
“If a permanent improvement of a school district is sold, the proceeds must be (a)
used to retire any debt incurred with respect to the property (with any excess placed in the district’s capital and maintenance fund for the acquisition of instructional technology) or (b) placed in a special fund for the construction or acquisition of permanent improvements. A ‘permanent improvement’ is defined as any property, asset, or improvement having an estimated life or usefulness of five years or more, including land and other interests in real property.” (6.14; p. 590)
Anderson’s Ohio School Law Manual; 2019 Edition
Kimball H. Carey of Bricker & Eckler LLP
OUR COMMITMENT TO COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT + TRANSPARENCY
The process to plan and implement a Facilities Master Plan can be a long and arduous one. As a community pillar and a central piece of what makes our community so strong, we are approaching this process with a commitment to open communication and transparency with our community.
As part of that commitment, this page has been created to share, in the open, information that the District and the Community Advisory Team is using to create a Facility Master Plan that is:
- Educationally Fantastic
- Financially Responsible
- Community Supported
This page is intended to share both a historical perspective of where the process has been as well as provide a continually updated page with the most current facts and information. We invite you to download, read, analyze and ask questions about any of the information provided to you on this page.
WE‘RE BEGINNING BY UNDERSTANDING WHERE WE’VE BEEN IN THE PAST
ISSUE NO. 1: BUILDING MAINTENANCE
Coming off of the previous bond issue defeat, a primary theme that the District heard was that the buildings had not been properly maintained. Included in this section are links to maintenance and capital improvement expenses since 2013.
Since 2013, close to $2,143,000 has been spent on repairs and maintenance, an average of $267,875 per year. Each year, this amount exceeds the limits of the taxpayer permanent improvement levy, meaning funds must be diverted away from the classroom to complete the repairs. On average, between 33-50% of maintenance costs are paid for by the General Fund and you will find those totals included in each year.
In short, the District’s contributions to maintaining the facilities exceed what taxpayers directly contribute to this cause. Further maintenance expenses would require an additional tax levy.
CONTRIBUTIONS OF OUR FACILITIES TASK FORCE
The Facilities Task Force, between early 2019 and through early 2020, examined a variety of information to address the District’s facilities challenges. Their list of priorities reflected the need to address maintenance issues with a series of smaller projects.
The State of Ohio provides school Districts with a Facility Assessment of each of its active buildings. The Facilities Task Force sought out a third party architecture and engineering firm to complete an additional assessment to verify and expand on those results. Links to all of these 3rd Party Assessments are available using the light-blue buttons in this section.
In the 3rd Party’s Executive Summary in 2019, the architecture and engineering firm wrote of the HS/MS:
The total renovation costs to provide a comparable learning environment to a new building today would be approximately $19,798,360. A new building of this size would cost approximately $19,192,650 at today’s cost of $258.56 per square foot. When comparing these two costs, the result to renovate Yellow Springs High School/McKinney Middle School to provide a facility equitable to a new school today, it would cost approximately 103 percent of the cost of a new building.
And of the Mills Lawn School, the architecture and engineering firm shared in its Executive Summary:
The total renovation costs to provide a comparable learning environment to a new building today would be approximately $11,784,798. A new building of this size would cost approximately $12,242,246 at today’s cost of $258.69 per square foot. When comparing these two costs, to renovate Mills Lawn School to provide a facility equitable to a new school today, it would cost approximately 96 percent of the cost of a new building.
From these assessments, the Facilities Task Force created a list of the highest priority improvement projects by school. The published report of the Facilities Task Force’s priorities is included in the light-blue buttons in this section.
This group’s priorities were heard by the District at the Board Meeting on February 13, 2020,. The District increased its improvement and maintenance budget by $80,000 to more than $350,000 in FY2020 to begin to address some of the most pressing issues that impacted students.
WHERE DO WE STAND RIGHT NOW?
Since the Facilities Task Force completed its work and made its suggestions for improvements, the District has learned of two new factors to consider in finalizing a comprehensive Facilities Master Plan.
The State of Ohio’s funding offer has increased to 26% of the cost of new construction.
The District is able to enter into a different program to receive funding (the Expedited Local Partnership Program) than previously considered.
To create this Facilities Master Plan, the District has assembled two teams:
1. COMMUNITY ADVISORY TEAM
Assembled to review and consider various master plan options, financial implications, and educational impacts.
CLICK HERE TO VIEW ALL OF THEIR MEETING PRESENTATIONS
2. EDUCATIONAL VISIONING TEAM
Assembled to chart the course for educational delivery, future curriculum goals, and the spaces need to achieve this comprehensive vision of the future.
CLICK HERE TO VIEW ALL OF THEIR MEETING PRESENTATIONS
In addition to these community meetings, the District has begun the process of updating information for current construction bidding markets and current school enrollment.
In December of 2020, the District received its 10-year Enrollment Projection. This document is used to ensure that facilities are right-sized for the number of students expected in the coming years. This Enrollment Projection document is provided included in this section’s dark-blue buttons.
An update has been made to the State’s Facility Assessments for each school building, similar to what was provided to the FacilitiesTask Force.
The Ohio Facilities Construction Commission (OFCC) has provided three different scenarios that they would co-fund with the District. The Community Advisory Team is considering the Pros-Cons of each of the three scenarios and an “Option Zero” which is the recommendations of the Facilities Task Force from February 2020. The Community Advisory Team may also add new options to consider.
The cost set used in these three scenarios has been updated by the OFCC as well to better reflect current construction bidding amounts for 2020. You may see differences in costs due to rising construction inflation year-to-year.
Additionally, the Community Advisory Team will be hosting Community Forums to provide updates and seek community feedback on:
- February 18
- March 4
- March 17
You can always make your voice heard by CLICKING HERE to submit your thoughts or questions.
Enrollment Projection Data
Mills Lawn New Assessment
HS/MS New Assessment
OFCC’s 3 Master Plan Options
Detail: Option 1
Detail: Option 2
Detail: Option 3
Detail: Option 0
© 2021 - SHP + Yellow Springs Schools
- Facility Task Force Assessments
- Community Forums
- Survey Results
- Design Documents
- Building Assessments
- Operational Building Costs (2018-19)
- 2017 OFCC Assessment Summary
- 2017 OFCC Assessment Mills Lawn ES-MS
- 2017 OFCC Assessment McKinney MS-YSHS
- Zip File Including:
- Board Meeting 17-11-09
- Construction Manager Selection Pre-Proposal Meeting_18-04-18
- Board Meeting 18-05-24
- Board Meeting 17-12-14
- Drawings Proposed Extended Learning Area
- Drawings Proposed Site Plan
- Drawings Proposed Overall View
- Drawings Proposed Floor Plan
- Drawings Proposed Front Entry Secure Vestibule
- Drawings Low Resolution.