Architecture

VOTE ON THE RENEWAL of Our Schools
BUILDING REFERENDUM
Tuesday, February 9, 2010 - 6:00 AM - 9:00 PM
RHS Gymnasium

For More Information about the Plan SEE
THE RENEWAL STARTS NOW! VOTER'S GUIDE

Building Referendum Questions & Answers

The questions and answers listed below were asked through emails and during Board of Education meetings:

Q: What is the total number of newly constructed classrooms district wide? It has to be more than the 33 portables. How many of the 33 portables are currently housing offices?

There are 53 newly constructed classroom spaces proposed. This count includes 4 classroom size spaces labeled as Music Rooms (3) and Art Room (1) at the elementary buildings.
The 33 classrooms of portable construction described in the bond proposal do not include the Administration Building.
There are 2 classrooms of portable construction used for offices at Pulaski and 4 classrooms worth of portable space at the Middle School used for offices.
Of the 33 classrooms of portable space described, the 8 recently constructed rooms at the High School will remain and will serve the Star Academy. 25 portable classrooms are proposed for removal.

Q: What is the cost of a turf field ONLY…not the bells and whistles…vs. doing a grass field (including irrigation etc.)?

The cost of the turf field is approximately $1,100,000 and the cost of a new grass field including irrigation is about $350-$400,000.
The turf field is said to save about $35- $40,000 per year in field maintenance costs so the cost equals out over time and eventually falls in favor of the turf.
The flexibility and consistent performance as well as improved safety are additional factors that must be considered when evaluating the two.
There is no down time for resting the field for turf. Multiple games can be scheduled over consecutive seasons without worry for the condition of the field. There is no delay in playing either during or after a heavy rain and this type of use will not damage the field.

Q: What is the total output from the solar photovoltaic panels (from the EPC as well as the Bond)?

A: Five 10KW arrays are proposed in the Energy Performance Contract. Sixty five additional KW of capacity is proposed in the Bond. 35KW at the HS and 30KW at the MS. 115KW in total is proposed. This would save approximately $23,000 annually in utility costs.

Q: Infrastructure costs for the Garage at Aquebogue are included at $45,000. Would it be cheaper to put up another one?

A: The cost indicated is for roof and window replacements and some masonry repairs. The cost of the roof covering and windows would be about equivalent in a new building. For comparison to a new structure, you would need to add the cost of the demolition of the existing building and the cost of the remaining components of the new building (exterior walls, garage doors, roof structure and decking). Even if you reused the foundation and floor slab, a new building would still cost more than repairing the existing.

Q: On drawing MS6, one of the areas labeled as upper gymnasium should be upper cafeteria.

A: Of the three areas labeled upper gymnasium, one is actually the upper stage. This has been corrected.

Q: Drawing MC2 has a different Pulaski parent drop off than drawing PU-2, which is correct?

A: The parent drop off for Pulaski will be as shown on drawing PU-2. This version was recommended over the other by the Traffic Engineering Consultant.

Q: What are the implications of installing pitched roofs on the additions in lieu of flat?

The additions are generally all designed with low slope (flat) roofs to blend in with the existing building construction which is also typically constructed with low slope roofs. The Cafeteria addition at Pulaski is the only one that differs as the original building has areas with steeply pitched roofing.

The incorporation of pitched roofing at this time would add project costs that are not currently accounted for in the current bond proposal.

Q: Why does the district want to change the grade level organization by eliminating the use of Roanoke as a school (thereby having K-5 elementary schools and a 6-8 middle school)?

A: There are a number of significant reasons for making these changes. It all starts with the fact that our schools are overcrowded, and in the case of Roanoke, no longer suitable for the delivery of current methods of instruction. But most important is our goal of improving student achievement to give the community’s children an opportunity to grow and succeed in the 21st century. Simply put, our current grade level organization at the elementary and middle school level are not aligned with state standards and assessments. This places our students at a disadvantage in terms of student achievement and may unnecessarily hurt student performance. Our children transition to new buildings too many times, which creates psychological stress and hinders our ability to benchmark and work for longer periods of time with students in the quest for higher-level achievement. Our middle school instructional program can be much better in terms of team teaching and group learning – a critical issue for students at this age – but overcrowding has made this impossible.

Q: What should the community expect in terms of state building aid, in light of ongoing financial difficulties at the State?

A: The likelihood is that by our very conservative projections, approximately $25 million will be coming to the district to offset the cost of this project. That is meaningful and realistic for our public to assume. This means that by voting ‘yes,’ the district is bringing millions of dollars into the community to support improvement of the schools. While concerns exist for general state aid funding going forward, building aid for construction projects has never been unilaterally reduced by the Legislature. It was not even part of the recent threatened mid-year reductions by the Governor. So we can confidently project a substantial amount of money coming back into our district to help support our schools, just as the taxpayers of Riverhead have supported other schools around the state with their state tax dollars for many years.

Q: How does the district create a construction cost estimate for this project?

A: Our district is working with a very experienced school architect – BBS Architects and Engineers of Patchogue – and first-rate school construction management firm known as Triton Construction of Garden City. Both of these firms have worked successfully (together and individually) on surrounding projects in districts like Westhampton, Hampton Bays, Longwood, Eastport-South Manor, and many others. For construction projects, school districts must operate under something called the ‘Wick’s Law, which necessitates the use of a General Contractor, four prime contractors for the major trades, and a low-bid process to award work. Triton and BBS create a detailed conceptual estimate based on the existing schematic drawings, the likely construction schedule, ongoing conversations with the State Education Department, and their vast knowledge of the contractor marketplace and regional costs for school construction. Their estimates include the projected costs for all ‘hard construction’ (the likely direct construction costs), plus the soft costs associated with major projects (general construction conditions, cost escalation over the schedule, professional fees, etc.).

Q: Why are there changes represented in square footages and parking counts?

A: The Bond amount of $122,940,000 is based on the information presented as Proposed Bond Components, October 27th, 2009. The information represented in the December 8th agenda is taken from the SEQRA document. It is the same project, but the proposed sizes are increased for the SEQRA approval to protect the District given the schematic nature of the design at this point in time. Should actual existing dimensions vary upon closer inspection during development, the larger footages in the SEQRA approval will permit adjustments to be accommodated. All proposed costs are based on the Oct 27th presentation. There have been no changes made to date after October 27th, 2009.

Q: Why are irrigation systems called for at Aquebogue, Phillips and Riley?

A: These are shown in the SEQRA document as a component of the negative declaration. They are not currently planned or included in the costs shown in the October 27th presentation.

Q: Why is parking given as much attention as educational space?

A: Parking is seen as a serious problem district wide that needs to be addressed. Simply when describing the site, it is a major component of describing the solution. When you move on to the building plans, the explanation of the space takes precedence.

Q: Why the changes in cost: $99 million in July 2009 to $122.9 million in October 2009?

A: The history of the Board’s four-year discussion of the scope of the project is as follows:

In June of 2008 the project was $240 million at the completion of the full scope second scheme solution. The decision to reduce this to essentials achieved a $141 million dollar solution in January of 2009.

The Board then directed BBS to try to get the cost below $100 million which brought about the July 2009 solution. It was then determined that too much scope was removed to achieve this cost level, and the Board requested that some scope be reinstated. The Board agreed on the current scope presented in August of 2009 at nearly $123 million to be presented at the October 2009 meeting.

Q: At what rate are the funds to be borrowed and what is the period of repayment?

A: It has been estimated that the funds will be borrowed at 5% with a 23 year repayment period.

The following is an answer from the District’s bond counsel:

"The applicable law does not provide authority for the Board of
Education to set a rate of interest or amortization period limit in the
bond proposition, and we know of no school district on Long Island or elsewhere that has sought to do so. The actual rate of interest and amortization period for any bonds issued by the School District to finance the proposed $122,940,000 capital project would be determined in the future at the time of sale of such bonds. Prior to such time, the School District can only estimate, as apparently it has, what the interest rate and amortization period will be based upon the information and expert advice it receives from the State Education Department and its financial advisor, respectively."
(William J. Jackson, Esq. - Hawkins Delafield & Wood LLP)

Q: What is the focus of the building improvements? Are there changes in how the buildings look?

A: Where necessary or required, our buildings will be expanded to address overcrowding and/or insufficient program space, in addition to having basic building infrastructure (roofs, windows, etc.) upgraded. While additions will change how some buildings are seen from the street, there are no strictly ‘cosmetic’ changes included in this bond.

Q: Since we are building additional space, the budget includes money for furniture, right?

A: Yes, the budget includes money for built-in furniture like cabinets and lab tables in the science labs, student and teacher desks and chairs in clssroom spaces, marker boards and tack boards. In addition, furniture currently in use will be re-used.

Q: Is more space needed because the buildings are overcrowded?

A: Emphatically so. Our school buildings were overcrowded 20 years ago, and have remained overcrowded since. Even though enrollment dipped somewhat in the current year and staffing reductions were made to reflect this decrease, our schools are still terribly overcrowded.

Q: What are the educational reasons for making sixth graders a part of the middle school?

A: There are several issues here, the most important being that the district wants to operate a true 6-8 middle school, which is the common structure for schools in New York State. A true 6-8 middle school makes it easier for our teachers to operate with continuity in accordance with acceptable practices and standards for middle school instruction. Students will be taught in grade-appropriate ‘pods,’ avoiding any issues with respect to ‘older vs. younger’ students in this environment.

Q: Can the Alternative HS be housed on the ground floor of the Roanoke building?

A: While it might be possible, it is neither cost-effective nor appropriate. The STAR program would be operated out of the relatively new modular facilities on the grounds of the HS to optimize this investment. Fundamentally, the program needs to have easy access to the HS for its resources (i.e., library and gyms/fields), in addition to being available to mainstream students back into the regular HS program.

Q: What are the benefits to a synthetic field, and how will it be used?

A: It is important to understand that a synthetic field – by now quite common in most high schools – provides a district with the ability to schedule and operate many more teams/practices/programs because the field is not limited by weather conditions, does not require rotation to keep grass healthy, and can endure the wear & tear of constant use. This field will be used for football, soccer, field hockey and lacrosse.

Q: Are we establishing a new maintenance plan when our new facilities are completed?

A: The district already does a great job maintaining its facilities. The problem is that our facilities are overcrowded, and many basic building systems require replacement. These are not maintenance issues – they are circumstances that simply must be addressed. Our district conforms to State requirements for submission of long range plans, and our Facilities Director and his staff will be working with all district vendors to certify and monitor warranties on new products, along with budgeting and scheduling for regular maintenance as we do now.

Q: Does this project provide enough funding to address the district’s needs?

A: Yes, though it should be understood that the $123 million figure is actually substantially lower than originally projected. A number of projects are not being included in this bond because we are trying to strike a balance between the most pressing priorities and the community’s willingness and ability to support the project. So while we would have liked to create a larger bond, we believe the project that will be put before voters is already quite substantial, and represents a reasonable and appropriate investment in our schools.

Q: Can the district raise some of the money privately to upgrade our schools?

A: No. These schools represent an ongoing investment on the part of our community, one that we are compelled to take care of with forethought and appropriate budgeting. Private fundraising for school construction is simply not feasible, especially with the scale of needs we have in a district of our size.

Q: The district must be working with experienced professionals on the bond process. Who are we contracted with?

A: Bond Counsel (legal representation) is provided by Hawkins, Delafield and Wood, one of the largest bond firms in New York. Financial advisory services are provided by Munistat of Port Jefferson, a company that works primarily with schools and municipal agencies.

Q: Can you explain any technology issues associated with the bond funding?

A: The district already maintains its own network infrastructure, and we have both a Technology plan and existing (and ongoing) funding in the budget for technology acquisition (hardware and software). Since technology evolves so rapidly, there is no technology component in this long-range bond, with the exception of the expansion of the network into the expanded facilities.

Q: Is it true that Pulaski has a mold problem in the gym, and is this being corrected?

A: There is no mold problem, and thus no part of the bond is associated with this.

Q: Will the middle school lose a technology room in the process of adding a music room?

A: Yes, but that’s because it is not needed. Tech is integrated across all curriculum areas, and a second dedicated classroom is not needed.

Q: Can you explain the new parent drop-off at Pulaski? Is it on the street?

A: All drop-offs take place on the school property, not on the street. Cars would enter off North Griffing, not Pulaski, and exit onto Osborne. This plan has been developed via the recommendations of a traffic engineer.

Q: Will all of our schools be in conformance with code at the end of the project?

A. All schools will conform to State Education Department code requirements at the end of this project, including fire safety and Americans with Disabilities Act requirements.

Q: Does this include all of the HVAC systems?
A: We will be in conformance with all SED regulations and codes with regard to ventilation and fresh air.

Q: Can you explain a little about the portables?

A: We have 33 of these temporary structures throughout the district. Portables typically have a 5-10 year lifespan, but in Riverhead, we have some portables that are more than 20 years old. The oldest portables date back to 1966 (Pulaski Street) and 1970 (Middle School). They were meant to be a bridge to permanent construction, not to function as permanent housing for our students. They post a substantial security risk for us in that we are unable to lock down our campuses in the case of emergencies, and our campuses essentially are unsecure with students moving in and out of the buildings all day. All portables, with the exception of the new ones for the STAR program at the HS, will be removed in this plan.

Q: New infrastructure means the district is saving money on utilities, right?

A: Yes. More efficient building systems will lower our consumption rates and make our schools ‘greener’.

Q: Is it possible that we won’t need all of the money that the district is asking for?

A: Yes. If we do come in under budget, that money, if borrowed, will be returned to the general fund to pay down the debt or, if not yet borrowed, simply won’t be tapped.

Q: Is there a direct correlation between the environmental condition of the schools and the learning that takes place there?

A: Yes. A very scholarly overview of this concern was presented by by Riverhead resident Kathleen Wojciechowski at the October 27th Board of Education Meeting. See Impact of Inadequate School Facilities on Student Learning.

Q: Will the trees by the athletic field area by the District Office remain?
A: Some of the trees will be preserved, but not all.

Q: Why can’t we just add a fourth floor to the Roanoke Avenue building?

A: The size of the existing property is insufficient by State Education Department standards to support any increase in school population. As it stands now, the 3.5 acre parcel is only one half the size required to support the number of students currently being serviced on the site. This also would not solve other dysfunctional issues with the existing building, such as the tiny classrooms, no cafeteria or kitchen, and a small gymnasium in the basement of the building.

Q: Wouldn’t it be less expensive to put a third floor on the middle school and high school?

A: The existing structural systems of the high school, middle school, and Roanoke are not specifically designed to add on an additional floor; therefore, the additions if they were to be added above the existing building would need to completely bridge the width of the existing buildings. This would actually increase the overall cost of the structural components (i.e., concrete and steel) dramatically.

Q: How much power will be generated by the installation of the solar photovoltaic installation on the buildings? What is that output worth in purchased power saving?

A: Five 10KW arrays are proposed in the Energy Performance Contract. Sixty five additional KW of capacity is proposed in the Bond. 35KW at the HS and 30KW at the MS. 115KW in total is proposed. This would save approximately $23,000 annually in utility costs.

If you factor in the LIPA rebates that would be received and the State aid applicable to these systems, the payback period ranges between 12 – 16 years.

Utility cost savings, although a benefit is not the main reason for providing the photovoltaic systems.

The proposed photovoltaic systems will help to reduce the dependence on fossil fuels (foreign oil). They will also help to protect the environment by contributing to the reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. Solar power helps to ensure a more sustainable future. It is a completely renewable resource and it is 100% clean. It does not pollute the environment or contribute to global warming.

The installation of these systems will also be a tool to assist in teaching the next and future generations about the importance of clean energy solutions. There are educational programs that can be installed along with the systems whereby the attributes are monitored, and the students can see in simple terms how much energy is being saved. The savings are converted to environmental offsets representing savings of items, such as gallons of gasoline, barrels of oil, pounds of CO2, number of trees, and pounds of coal.

The introduction of Green solutions will create a healthier learning environment, a healthier planet and will help to preserve natural resources. Students will learn to think and live in a sustainable way and save money, too.

The total amount allotted to the photovoltaic component in relation to the overall project is less than 1% of the project. A small investment for what is potentially a large step in the right direction.

Q: What’s going to happen to the money in the Capital Reserve Fund?

A: The money is going to be used to complete projects (eg., kitchens). Kitchens are being designed and approved right now and will be built with the Capital Reserve Funds—not the Building Referendum funds. (This question was addressed previously. See Board of Ed Questions on Rumor Response Board for details.)

Q: Can you give me a specific breakdown of the classrooms and their use?

A: The following information is provided in response to questions concerning classrooms and space:

Rooms required for moving out of basements and closets.

Rooms not originally designed as educational space are typically being captured for use as support space. This fills the void for programs that did not exist when the building was originally designed
Through a series of meetings held between the District Administration, the Board of Education, and the Building Administrators, it was determined that, at the elementary level, each building should have fourteen support spaces. The sizes for these spaces have been determined by the number of students they service or by their specific function.
Riley has 8 of the 14 spaces in specific rooms. 5 of the 8 are in substandard spaces (closets)
Phillips has 14 spaces but 6 of them are sharing space and 5 of them are in substandard spaces (closets)
Aquebogue has 8 of the 14 spaces. Four are in the basement and 4 are in shared spaces
Roanoke has 9 of the 14 spaces.
Spaces not accounted for above are served by classes being held on stages, in stage wings, hallways, storage areas, etc.

Rooms required for replacement of inadequate existing classrooms.

The District has as one of its goals the elimination of the portable classrooms. There are 33 of these temporary classrooms.
Part of the justification for closing Roanoke is the inadequacy of the existing classrooms. 14 of the 15 classrooms in the existing building are well below the size standards for classroom space today.
The construction of the 10 new science classrooms at the HS is serving the dual function of replacing the portable classrooms and replacing outdated, undersized (inadequate) existing science rooms.

Rooms required for grade level consolidation.

5 classrooms at Aquebogue and 5 at Riley in addition to the two Music rooms at these two buildings are to support the 5th grade
The movement of the 5th grade to Phillips is satisfied by the replacement of the portables and the class size adjustments to District policy for the K-4 rooms
Pulaski is already bigger than Roanoke so the movement of the 5th grade into this building is accommodated without adding rooms
The movement of the 6th grade to the Middle School requires about 15 classrooms worth of space. 8 of these rooms are proposed to be in existing classrooms therefore 7 of the new rooms are for the grade level configuration at the MS. These same new rooms are also serving part of the dual function of replacing the 10 portable classrooms.

Rooms required for increased population.

The Riley building is currently operating in an overcrowded state and has taken away classrooms for Art and Music to satisfy the need for regular classrooms
The peak elementary population is 150 more students than today. This would require 6 classrooms at 25 students per room
The 6, 7, 8 population at its peak will also be just about 150 students more than today’s population. This would require 5 classrooms at 30 students per room.
The High School population at its peak will be 114 students more than today. This would require 4 rooms at 30 students per room.
This totals 15 rooms for increased population.

We are building a total of 48 new classrooms district wide. This correlates to the replacement of 33 portable classrooms and the need for 15 classrooms for growth.

Q: What is the construction cost per square foot?

A: The conceptual estimate for new construction overall project cost ranges from $403 to $445 per square foot. It must be emphasized that the numbers provided are for the conceptual estimate for new construction overall project cost. The project has not been designed yet.

Q: In what order will the buildings be built?

A: Construction is slated to start in March 2011 at the Middle School, Pulaski Street School, and the elementary schools. Work would then follow at the High School and on the fields in March 2012.

Q: Is this a long lasting fix?

A: Yes, according to our current demographic studies, this should meet our needs in terms of student population for the foreseeable future.

Q; Why are we voting in February instead of in May?

A: Voting now allows us to capture one full building cycle, saving us about 4% of cost escalation and allowing us to finish the project one full year sooner. If we wait until May, we will miss that cycle, costing us much more than the costs associated with a special election.

Q: Is there a backup plan if this project is defeated?

A: No. The project was already reduced dramatically in scope and cost from the initial phases. It now represents the baseline needs for the Riverhead School District. If the project is not successful, the Board will have to analyze defeat in the context of voter turnout, closeness of the vote, etc. before deciding what to do next.

Building Referendum

Latest News

1/19/10

SEE THE RENEWAL STARTS NOW! VOTER'S GUIDE - English / Spanish

10/30/09

10/27/09

Building Referendum

Latest News

1/19/10 SEE THE RENEWAL STARTS NOW! VOTER'S GUIDE - English / Spanish

10/30/09

10/27/09

1/19/10

SEE THE RENEWAL STARTS NOW! VOTER'S GUIDE - English / Spanish