FCPS Rock Creek School Replacement and Final Site Selection Design Meeting #5 Notes

07 December 2017 FCPS Rock Creek School Replacement and Final Site Selection Design Meeting #5 Notes Meeting Date: 07 December 2017 9:30 AM FCPS Central Office Building Current Design Phase: Site Selection Attendees: FCPS Educational Planning Team Roger Fritz Director Construction Management Brian Staiger FCPS Construction Management Beth Pasierb Supervisor of Facilities Planning Mary Malone Principal Rock Creek School Keith Harris FCPS Executive Director Carol Breeze FCPS Special Education Programs Rachel Ablondi Parent of Rock Creek Student Amy Boehman Pollitt FCPS ACT Team Leader Steve Buckley Frederick County Gov. OTPT Sara Scovitch OTPT Therese Pelicano FCPS Transportation Manager Ted Gardner Director of Technology Infrastructure Design Team Sandra Carpenter Becker Morgan Group Kori Purdum Matheis Proffitt & Associates 5.0 Project Status Updates a. Area Summary Update (Note: No revisions proposed since the last meeting) i. Current Base Bid Ed Spec Area = 81,103 GSF ii. All co located spaces have been removed from the scope of work. iii. Potential Add Alternate Ed Spec Area = 17,221 GSF iv. All four of the add alternates (Greenhouse, Future Capacity, Parks & Rec Gymnasium, and Alternative Education Program) are currently pending design funding approval from the Board of Education. This will be voted on during the Dec 13 meeting. Once design funding is approved, then additional discussion can be had regarding the program needs for the alternates. Inclusion of the Alt Ed program is still pending review because of implications with

Design Meeting #5 Notes Rock Creek School Replacement PAA Project #17 22 Meeting Date December 7, 2017 Page 2 of 4 regulatory compliance. Once the final site is selected, then Parks & Rec can provide a more definitive answer as to whether they are interested in partnering with FCPS on a community use gym. v. Total Base Bid + Add Alternate Ed Spec Area = 98,324 (still reflects only 3 alternates, does not include Parks & Rec Gym SF) b. Budget Update (Note: No revisions proposed since the last meeting) i. Total Project Budget (including soft costs) = $46,959,762 ii. Total Site, Testing, & Construction Budget = $37,070,262 c. Schedule Update Architect provided a brief project schedule overview. There are no proposed schedule changes since the last meeting. d. LEED Update No updates since the last meeting. e. Summary of Activities for the past Four Weeks i. Site existing conditions exhibits and site concepts were refined and finalized. ii. Site rubric scoring was completed. iii. Site selection recommendation was provided to the Board of Education. iv. Site visit conducted to River Terrace School in DC on December 5. 5.1 General/Admin. Beth Pasierb reported that the State did not want feasibility study submitted previously without the site selected, but they did ask a month or so ago when FCPS met with them for FCPS to go ahead and submitted it. The study is currently under review by the State. The project is included in request for local planning approval. 5.2 Site Selection and Design a. The final site exhibits and concepts were reviewed. Ballenger Creek Middle was presented and some discussion was had regarding overall site design and scoring considerations. The design team tried to level the playing field by using consistent site parameters for all sites where possible. For instance, the site buildable areas generally exclude the paved play areas. This method was chosen because if the paved play areas are disturbed as part of the new school development, then they will need to be replaced in kind elsewhere on site, which means that an equivalent amount of area would need to be set aside for that use. In the interest of time, it was determined that the committee should review the two highest scoring sites in the most detail. The Walkersville and Monocacy sites scored the highest, within 1 point of each other so they were reviewed in depth. b. Overview of rubric scoring. The scores for Walkersville and Monocacy were discussed. The architect explained how some of the scoring was derived and explained scores for a few criteria that were of interest to the committee. Scoring was based on the detailed point distribution that was developed by the committee at the very beginning of this phase of the project. Beth Pasierb mentioned that Walkersville Middle is located in a wellhead protection area and that this will need to be considered as part of the development plans, she thinks that it is possible that any new SWM facilities may need to be lined. Beth asked about opportunities for inclusion and shared spaces on

Design Meeting #5 Notes Rock Creek School Replacement PAA Project #17 22 Meeting Date December 7, 2017 Page 3 of 4 the various sites she wondered if this still a strongly desired design feature? It is, and should be highlighted as part of the presentation to the Board, including discussion of features that could be shared between Rock Creek and the existing building on campus. There was some discussion about how close the scores ended up for Walkersville and Monocacy and the tolerance for error in scoring. Some members of the committee felt that the two sites basically were tied and should be evaluated or put to a tie breaker based upon the criteria that seemed most important to student success. Because of the timing of the Board deadline and missing our last regular design team meeting due to the Thanksgiving holiday, the design team s recommendation was already made to the Board. The recommendation was to select Walkersville Middle based strictly upon its receiving the highest rubric score. The site selection recommendation s executive summary does discuss the fact that both Walkersville and Monocacy would be appropriate sites due to the available land area and overall site features and strengths. c. Parking requirements does the 160 number need to be updated for Future Capacity add alternate inclusion? (2017 12 07) Ran out of meeting time prior to getting to this item will table this for a future meeting to discuss site planning. 5.3 Building Design Ed Spec Overview a. Discuss Future Capacity spaces verify if they are to be base bid versus add alternate? This will impact their layout. (2017 12 07) Ran out of meeting time prior to getting to this item will review at next meeting during Ed Spec discussion. b. Review River Terrace Site visit likes, dislikes, and overall impressions. (2017 12 07) Didn t have time for a full discussion of the River Terrace visit, however the attached PDF of the meeting PowerPoint presentation has some photos from the visit for review and future discussion. c. Discuss things to think about for next meeting main agenda topic will be Ed Spec discussion. (2017 12 07) Kori distributed the Space Summary pages from the Ed Specs which outline the basic spaces and square footages to be provided in the new facility. She also passed out a comparison chart from the feasibility study showing how the existing Rock Creek building room square footages compare to the proposed Ed Spec square footages. The next meeting will focus on reviewing the specific spaces, adjacencies, square footages, and program needs. 5.4 Two Week Projection a. Site Selection Recommendation presentation to Board of Education on December 13. b. Prepare for Educational Specifications verification. 5.5 Public Comment No Public Comment was made.

Design Meeting #5 Notes Rock Creek School Replacement PAA Project #17 22 Meeting Date December 7, 2017 Page 4 of 4 The next meeting is scheduled for 21 December 2017 at 9:30am at Rock Creek School, in the Library. This summarizes the topics discussed at the meeting. Please review and address any comments and corrections to the Architect within 5 days of receipt of these minutes. Kori Purdum Matheis, RA, LEED AP BD+C Distribution via email all attendees and Design Committee Members Attachments: PDF of Meeting Presentation

ROCK CREEK SCHOOL REPLACEMENT AND FINAL SITE SELECTION

PROJECT STATUS UPDATES Area Summary Update Current Base Bid Ed Spec Area = 81,103 GSF All co-located spaces have been removed from the scope of work. Potential Add Alternate Ed Spec Area = 17,221 GSF (includes 3 alts, but Alt Ed is under review) Two of the four add alternates (Greenhouse and Future Capacity) are currently pending final approval. Acceptance of the other two alternates, Alternative Education Program and Parks & Rec Gymnasium, are still under review. Total Base Bid + Add Alternate Ed Spec Area (3 Alternates only) = 98,324 Budget Update Total Project Budget (including soft costs) = $46,959,762 Total Site, Testing, & Construction Budget = $37,070,262 FCPS Project Information Webpage: http://www.fcps.org/facilities/rock-creek-school

PROJECT MILESTONES Site Selection Recommendation & Ed Spec Updates to Board of Education December 1, 2017 Board of Education Reviews Site Recommendation & Ed Spec Updates December 13, 2017 Site Selection to State Clearinghouse January 2018 Site Selection & Ed Specs to IAC March 2018 Schematic Design to IAC May 2018 Design Development to IAC Prior to November 1, 2018 Construction Documents to IAC August 2019 Project out for Bids, Stage 1 October 2019 Start Site Construction February/March 2020 Project out for Bids, Stage 2 February/March 2020 Start Building Construction July 2020 School Ready for Occupancy - August 2021

SITE SELECTION PROCESS NEW NEW NEW MAP OF 7 POTENTIAL SITE LOCATIONS

EXISTING SITE AERIAL FIELDS BUILDABLE AREA = 10.7 ACRES LOW PT 300.0 HIGH PT 326.0 BALLENGER CREEK MIDDLE

POTENTIAL SITE CONCEPT Opportunities: Good possibilities for meaningful connection between Middle School and Rock Creek school building and site amenities. Rock Creek car and bus traffic is well separated. Construction costs are anticipated to be lower than most other sites. Compromises: Development will leave little space on site for future expansion of either school. Trade-offs may need to be made between program elements i.e. achieving Rock Creek programmed parking capacity or retaining existing Tennis Courts. Proposed remaining athletic field space is fairly limited for a Middle School program. There are some traffic congestion concerns along Ballenger Creek Pike. Site does not have access to public transportation and has only average access to vocational and employment opportunities and community services. Site has longer than average travel times to locations in the northern end of the County. BALLENGER CREEK MIDDLE

EXISTING SITE AERIAL BUILDABLE AREA = 6.6 ACRES HIGH PT 294.0 LOW PT 264.0 DEARBOUGHT SITE

POTENTIAL SITE CONCEPT Opportunities: Site can be developed to optimize function for Rock Creek School without needing to consider the needs of a co-located school on site or impacts of construction on an existing school. Public transportation access is readily available. All three vocational and employment opportunities are located in close proximity and there are multiple categories of community services within walking distance. Compromises: Site will not fit all program elements and leaves no room for future expansion. There is no other school building on site and no school within walking distance to provide regular and convenient inclusionary opportunities. On-site circulation will be difficult due to single shared entry/exit point and lack of space for separated bus loop and parking areas. Fiber telecom service is not readily available and will need to be extended at high cost to serve the site. DEARBOUGHT SITE

EXISTING SITE AERIAL LOW PT 278.0 FIELDS BUILDABLE AREA = 7.8 ACRES HIGH PT 302.0 THOMAS JOHNSON MIDDLE

POTENTIAL SITE CONCEPT Opportunities: Good possibilities for meaningful connection between Middle School and Rock Creek school building and site amenities. Rock Creek and existing building car and bus traffic are well separated. Existing bus loop can be utilized with little or no modification, queuing space accommodates the largest number of buses with best opportunity for covered loading/unloading zone of all sites. Public transportation access is readily available. All three vocational and employment opportunities are located in close proximity and there are multiple categories of community services within walking distance. Site is more centralized within the County and has shorter average travel times than most other sites. Compromises: Development will leave little space on site for future expansion of either school. Trade-offs may need to be made between program elements i.e. achieving Rock Creek programmed parking capacity or retaining existing forestation areas (if impacted, these would need to be replaced or have fees paid if not replaced). Proposed remaining athletic field space is extremely limited for a Middle School program. Limited right-in, right-out Rock Creek parking access is not optimal. THOMAS JOHNSON MIDDLE

EXISTING SITE AERIAL LOW PT 308.0 EXIST. PUBLIC SANITARY LINE WITH EASEMENT FIELDS BUILDABLE AREA = 10.92 ACRES HIGH PT 340.0 MONOCACY MIDDLE & ELEMENTARY

POTENTIAL SITE CONCEPT Opportunities: Site is shared with both a Middle School and an Elementary School. FCPS Career and Technology Center and Frederick Community College are directly across Opossumtown Pike from the site, which makes this the only site with close walkable proximity to other students from ages 3-21 for full integration opportunities. Buildable area size allows for all program elements to be included and provides lots of design flexibility to optimize site and building layouts, plus allows flexibility for future expansion. Rock Creek car and bus traffic are well separated. Public transportation access is readily available. All three vocational and employment opportunities are located in close proximity. Site is more centralized within the County and has shorter average travel times than most other sites. POTENTIAL BASE BID BUILDING FOOTPRINT Compromises: Costs are anticipated to be higher than average due to larger work area, the need to improve traffic flows on the existing site, and potential off-site improvements. It is possible that car and bus traffic may not be able to be fully separated from both the Elementary School and Middle School depending upon final site circulation design. New development reduces available field space. Adequate field space will still be provided for school use, however community use field space will decrease from the existing. MONOCACY MIDDLE & ELEMENTARY

EXISTING SITE AERIAL LOW PT 300.0 BUILDABLE AREA = 7.1 ACRES FIELDS MID PT 310.0 ALAN LINTON BLVD HIGH PT 320.0 TUSCARORA ELEMENTARY

POTENTIAL SITE CONCEPT Opportunities: Good possibilities for meaningful connection between Elementary School and Rock Creek school building and site amenities. Compromises: Development will leave little space on site for future expansion of either school. Trade-offs may need to be made between program elements i.e. achieving Rock Creek programmed site amenities or providing adequate athletic fields for the existing school. Proposed remaining athletic field space is fairly limited for an Elementary School program. Existing elevation change creates major accessibility challenges. Site does not have access to public transportation and has only average access to vocational and employment opportunities and community services. Site has longer than average travel times to locations in the northern end of the County. TUSCARORA ELEMENTARY

EXISTING SITE AERIAL BUILDABLE AREA = 15.3 ACRES FIELDS LOW PT 264.0 EXIST. GAS EASEMENT HIGH PT 590.0 VALLEY ELEMENTARY

POTENTIAL SITE CONCEPT Opportunities: Buildable area size allows for all program elements to be included and provides lots of design flexibility to optimize site and building layouts, plus allows flexibility for future expansion. Rock Creek car and bus traffic are well separated. Development has minimal impact on existing school site amenities, very few components will be lost. Site area will allow for plenty of space for construction access and staging. 1 SOFTBALL Compromises: Existing elevation variations and slopes create accessibility challenges. Site does not have access to public transportation and is farthest away compared to all sites considered from vocational and employment opportunities and community services. Site has longer than average travel times to locations in the northern end of the County. Transportation costs are higher and bus travel times longer than most other sites considered. Sharing of play areas is difficult due to central low point and potential wetlands. Relocated athletic fields are remote from the existing school. VALLEY ELEMENTARY

EXISTING SITE AERIAL EXIST. PUBLIC SANITARY LINE LOW PT 294.0 BUILDABLE AREA = 13.08 ACRES FIELDS HIGH PT 308.0 EXISTING LIBRARY WALKERSVILLE MIDDLE

POTENTIAL SITE CONCEPT Opportunities: Buildable area size allows for all program elements to be included and provides lots of design flexibility to optimize site and building layouts, plus allows flexibility for future expansion. Public transportation access is readily available. All three vocational and employment opportunities are located within average proximity. There are multiple categories of community services within walking distance. Accessibility will be more easily achieved than on most other sites due to lack of steep slopes. Walkersville Elementary School and Walkersville High School are located southwest along W. Frederick Street, only about a mile away, providing some additional integration opportunities with varied grade level students. Compromises: Proposed remaining athletic field space is fairly limited for a Middle School program. Site circulation is not optimal due to existing constraints and the need to mix buses and cars. Site is not as centrally located in the County as those located in the City of Frederick. Sharing and layout of play areas and fields is not optimal due to relationship of the new building to the existing and access to the loading/service area that must remain. WALKERSVILLE MIDDLE

SITE RUBRIC SCORING

SITE RUBRIC SCORING

SITE RUBRIC SCORING

SITE RUBRIC SCORING

SITE RUBRIC SCORING

ED SPEC SITE ELEMENTS Bus drop-off under covered walkway for 6 buses at a time and queuing for 19 buses in the bus drop-off area. Car drop-off space with covered walkway for 2 cars and space to allow for car queuing. Car parking at a minimum for 220 160 cars to include faculty, staff, partners and visitors. There shall be a greater amount of handicap parking spaces than required by code located at the main entrance of the school to help facilitate student pick up and drop off. All of the parking spaces are for the ultimate build-out of the school. If add alternates are not accepted, this number could fluctuate. Grass or synthetic surface accessible play field of a minimum size of 50x50yds (150 x150 ). Three hard paved play areas of a minimum size of 40 x40. The two hard paved play areas that are designated for the younger students may be adapted for activities that would require a hard surface, such as a walking track or an area to ride adapted bikes. The third hard paved play space that is designated for the older students shall have space for students to play basketball. Two soft play areas with play structures. Areas are to be provided for both lower and upper grade sized students with separation between the two. Surface should allow accessibility and structure should be designed for wheelchair access. Shaded outdoor play area that could be used for a classroom with permanently installed seating and worktables. Secure walking path that connects all elements of the outdoor program. The path should facilitate independence and create experiences and interactions with the natural environment. Pathway could be contiguous with the internal pathway system of the school. Pathway should allow for walking, wheelchairs, and some ride on vehicles such as tricycles.

RIVER TERRACE SCHOOL

RIVER TERRACE SCHOOL OFFICE HEALTH ENTRY

RIVER TERRACE SCHOOL SENSORY ROOM

RIVER TERRACE SCHOOL POOL LOCKERS

RIVER TERRACE SCHOOL MOVEMENT ROOM

RIVER TERRACE SCHOOL ART MEDIA STORE OFFICES

RIVER TERRACE SCHOOL LIFE SKILLS

RIVER TERRACE SCHOOL CORRIDORS

RIVER TERRACE SCHOOL CORRIDORS

RIVER TERRACE SCHOOL WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT

RIVER TERRACE SCHOOL OUTDOOR PLAY AREAS

RIVER TERRACE SCHOOL OUTDOOR COURTYARD

ROCK CREEK SCHOOL REPLACEMENT AND FINAL SITE SELECTION QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS