Index of Documents with Narrative
Index and Description of Documents Compiled for the Brookside Redevelopment Project
Documents 1-4 were generated during the exploratory phase of the full-day kindergarten feasibility study worked on during the 2013-14 school year. The Board of Education and the Superintendent created three sub-committees. The first committee assessed the curriculum and instructional opportunities that a full-day kindergarten program creates. The second committee assessed the space requirements and the different options for the development of a full-day kindergarten program. The third committee assessed the community demand for and desire to have a full-day kindergarten program.
Document No. 1 was the product of the full-day kindergarten exploratory committee. This report describes the work of the committee and outlines what the academic program could look like with the development of full-day kindergarten. In the presentation, the committee describes its thoughts on how the physical space can promote learning. These “Hopes/Dreams/Wishes” were considered by the facilities subcommittee as they assessed different building options.
Document No. 2 was presented in March 2014 and describes the areas considered by the facilities subcommittee. The subcommittee assessed physical space requirements, staffing implications, and other cost considerations. During this process, the District engaged SEI Design to assess how these space demands could fit into our existing buildings given the key parameters established by the Board:
a. Maintain current grade level configuration (K-2 considering Pre-K-2) and avoid another building transition for our youngest students
b. Avoid redistricting
The subcommittee recommended further exploration of the following two options:
1) Expand and redesign Council Rock
2) Expand and renovate Brookside School
It is important to note that the capital cost illustrations included in this presentation were for illustration purposes only and were not based on any preliminary budget figures provided by the architects or financial consultants.
Document No. 3 was a product of the facilities subcommittee. It represents a conceptual drawing that supports the feasibility of expanding and redesigning Council Rock. This document does not represent a recommendation by the subcommittee, but rather a product of the committee’s work showing what the potential could be.
Document No. 4 was the second option presented by the facilities subcommittee. As with the CRPS conceptual design, this rendering does not represent a recommendation but simply evidence that the Brookside site was a viable option to explore further.
After the Board considered the work of the full-day kindergarten exploratory committee, it directed the Superintendent to further develop a plan to implement full-day kindergarten. In response, the Superintendent issued a request for proposal to further evaluate the two building options presented by the exploratory committee. The District issued a RFP to have an architectural/engineering firm critically evaluate the pros and cons of each site in an objective “apples to apples” comparison.
Document No. 5 is the request for proposal that was issued to multiple architectural and engineering firms. The user of this document can see the scope of services requested to objectively evaluate each site option.
Document No. 6 is what the Board of Education considered at its meeting on Sept. 30, 2014. It outlines the recommendation to engage SWBR Architects as the architectural/engineering firm to conduct the school feasibility study.
After being awarded the contract, SWBR evaluated the pros and cons of the Council Rock and Brookside sites. SWBR presented this report at the Board of Education meeting on Dec. 9, 2014. We have included a video below so community members can watch this presentation.
Pages 68 – 70 of Document No. 7 provides the “Apples to Apples” comparison between the two sites. In summary, Brookside was noted as having a more attractive site with room for future infrastructure expansion and two points of entry and egress; being the better option for construction phasing without disruption to current academic program; providing greater opportunity for sustainable design; and more options for school community engagement. When considering the mechanical/electrical/plumbing systems, Council Rock had greater advantages due to current systems being more modern. However, with a gut and rehabilitation of Brookside and the installation of all new mechanical systems, future operating costs have the opportunity to be less. Overall, in the architects’ professional judgement, Brookside had 30 advantages of the 49 areas evaluated.
After carefully considering the evaluation by the architects and discussing several phasing approaches to offset the significant tax impact that the project may have, the Board entered into a pre-referendum contract with SWBR to further evaluate the development of the Brookside site. The pre-referendum work consists of the following scope:
Coordination of building aid analysis with SED
Facilitation of stakeholder meetings
Facilitation of agency meeting (County, Town, etc.)
Facilitation of staff input meetings
Participation in public presentations
Facilitation of public input meetings
Assistance with presentation of building concepts
Amending conceptual floor plans
Updating conceptual estimates
Submit Letter of Intent to SED
Preparation of large-scale presentation boards
Preparation of 3-D and photorealistic renderings and/or fly-throughs
Coordination of traffic impact analysis
Coordination of storm water analysis
Coordination of SEQR process
Preparation of Wetlands Report
Coordination of Archeological Finding Summary
Document No. 8 outlines an anticipated timeline for the pre-referendum work. The District will be aggressive in soliciting stakeholder feedback and the schedule will be flexed to ensure that all perspectives are carefully considered. Based on the progress of the project, the Board of Education will ultimately decide whether it will be ready to put to vote in May 2016.
Document No. 9 presents the financial impact of phasing the project to maximize state aid. Based on how the State Education Department aids capital projects, the District evaluated a phasing approach whereby the District could complete a portion of the project, maximize aid, and then complete the remaining scope of work when the aid maximums are reset in five years. This would require us to renovate the interior of the Brookside, move one grade over – then wait five years and move the remaining two grades to Brookside. The District would be required to staff and operate two buildings during this five-year period. This would be disruptive to our academic program and would add significant operating costs to the General Fund budget. In addition, deferring any portion of the construction work would inflate project completion costs and expand the gap between State Aid reimbursements and actual construction costs.
Whenever a District requests State Aid to construct new space, the State Education Department requires updated enrollment projections. They will not aid any new space should they determine that the District has capacity in the existing facility. Document No. 10 includes the projections.
An attorney from Harris Beach gave a presentation on the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) at the Nov. 17 Board of Education meeting.
Architects from SWBR gave a presentation on where they are in the pre-referendum process at the Dec. 1 Board of Education meeting. A video of the presentation is available here (starts at the 15-minute mark).
The Brighton Central School District held its first Brookside Redevelopment Community Input Meetings on December 8, 2015. Dr. Kevin McGowan provided some background and explained the decision-making process.
The Brighton Central School District sent out a mailing in January that answered questions about the project and invited the community to upcoming Community Input Meetings
Architects from SWBR gave a presentation on the preliminary cost of the Brookside Redevelopment Project and an overview of the green rating systems and awards available for the project.
The Brighton Central School District held its second set of Brookside Redevelopment Community Input Meetings on January 28, 2016. The meeting provided background information on the project, the cost and potential impact on taxpayers, and an overview of environmental and sustainable design programs available to the District.
The Brighton Central School District sent out a mailing in February that answered questions about the project and invited the community to the upcoming Community Input Meeting.
The Brighton Central School District held its third set of Brookside Redevelopment Community Input Meetings on February 29, 2016. The meeting provided background information on the project and answered questions from community members.