CONSULTING GROUP Hamilton County Schools Facilities Master Plan March 3, 2020 MGT Consulting Group Hamilton County Schools AGENDA MGT Consulting Group 01 Priorities 02 Data 03 Community Engagement 04 Strategic Recommendations 05 Questions & Answers Kai?Law- 0 Priorities VISION Mission Statement To create pathways to bright futures for all students in our community, by helping to equip them with the skills, knowledge and supports required to realize their full potential. Hamilton County Schools will become the fastest improving district in Tennessee. May 15, 2019 MGT Consulting Group Why does this plan support the HCS vision? 1997 Merger of Chattanooga Public Schools and Hamilton County Schools Spring 2017 1999 1937 Tyner HS built Summer 2019 Initiated discussion of facility needs Facility Master Plan developed, focused on conditions of buildings Develop Preliminary Look at Facilities Master Plan, focused on efficiency Revised Master Plan Winter focused on academics, 2019 efficiency & community Fall 2019 Spring 2019 Conduct Community Engagement Developed understanding of academic goals & building condition Spring 2020 Potential School Board Adoption of 10-Year Plan 5 MGT Consulting Group HCS Future Ready 2023 Strategic Plan Efficient & Effective Operations Establish long-term plan for facilities maintenance and capital improvements. …Our community has clearly articulated a desire for modernized buildings that are inviting spaces for students and staff. There is also population growth anticipated in the Chattanooga area that will necessitate additional school facilities to avoid further overcrowding in certain areas of the county. The district must create a capital plan to get ahead of these issues and respond to the community demand for modern facilities. Action Steps: • Develop a comprehensive building/maintenance plan to address deferred maintenance needs and create welcoming learning environments for all students. • Create a long-term capital plan that accounts for anticipated growth across the district and creates a roadmap for new school construction, consolidation, and closures over the next 5-10 years. MGT Consulting Group 6 HAMILTON COUNTY’S COMMUNITY VISION Participants expressed an interest in providing opportunities for academic excellence equitably throughout the district. Participants shared a strong preference for renovating existing facilities in order to retain their neighborhood school. Participants indicated a strong appreciation for small schools because of the close relationships with teachers. Participants recognized the need for action to address facilities issues, but they also were concerned that the community and its decision-makers will not provide the support needed to ensure implementation of a facilities master plan. MGT Consulting Group 7 Hamilton County has a shared Academic Vision The Master Plan is designed to support this vision through support of: • Implementing 21st Century learning environments • Provide safe and secure spaces to support all students • Provide improved access to magnet and CTE programs throughout all of Hamilton County • Strive for high quality environments that maintain community access • Achievable and efficient projects that support the growth of the community MGT Consulting Group 8 The Main Issue The utilization, deferred maintenance, and condition of schools in Hamilton County is not sustainable: • Capacity is a decision, not a definition • Programmatic use of a school determines its instructional capacity, not its square footage • Program drives the use of individual rooms. • Grade configuration also drives the use of individual rooms, and, therefore, the programmatic use of the building. • Square footage is appropriate in other settings, e.g. fire marshal or architectural design, but not when determining how to utilize a building for educational purposes • Environments are to support learning and support a safe and healthy environment for all students MGT Consulting Group Reinvest in students This is your opportunity! • Create 21st Century learning spaces • Provide equitable access • Focus on student’s and the community's future MGT Consulting Group W1 1 1.. I I 93> :29me Gather and report data: Project Goals • Facility functionality and condition • Capacity and utilization • Facility operating costs • Community Input and Feedback • Educational trends and impact • Develop priorities • Create possible scenarios and budgets • Develop short- and long-range recommendations for planning MGT Consulting Group - Historical PKI 2 Enrollment and Projection Hamilton County,? School District Historical and Forecastecl Enrollment SQDUD 40,000 SEEDS EDDE HIDE HIDE LIDE SIDE EIDE EEUE EEUE LEUE ?l?Historical Enrollment +Forocastod Enrollment MGT Consulting Group Utilization Results 2018/19 Grade Band Low High Average Elementary 51% 128% 93% Middle 51% 104% 75% Middle/High 53% 90% 81% High 55% 119% 84% UTILIZATION > 110 95 - 110 80 - 95 70 - 80 < 70 MGT Consulting Group DESCRIPTION Inadequate Space Approaching Inadequate Space Adequate Space Approaching Inefficient Use of Space Inefficient Use of Space 14 2028 Projected Utilization InefficientInefficient Use of 17% UseSpace, of Space, 17% Approaching Inadequate Space, 17% Inadequate Space, 17% Approaching Inefficient Use13% of Approaching Inefficient Use of Space, Space, 13% Approaching Inadequate Inadequate Space, 17% Space, 17% Inefficiency Goal: Move Inefficient Use of Space and Approaching Inefficient Use of Spaces schools to Adequate Space. MGT Consulting Group Adequate Space, 35% Adequate Space, 35% Space Goal: Move Inadequate Space and Approaching Inadequate Space schools to Adequate Space. 15 Facility Assessment Educational Suitability and Technology Readiness GENERAL CLASSROOMS Prepared for Hamilton County Department of Education Final System Component Description What to look For March 18, 2019 Spatial Configuration (immovable): Dons ll support the Instructional program Classrooms should have llex-ble spaces lor group learning li htin A ro rrate natural Ir ht I: levels? The rooms should pr0v-de an and stimulating 8 pp 8 Envrronment Acoustics: Are there impediments to hearing the teacher? Is there envrronment lor learning norse transler between (Iassrooms7 HVAC/lemperature: Is there proper ventilation and conustent and adequate climate control? Aesthetics: Are the room lrn-shes/equ-pment worn and/or dated? EXCEL: 90 100 ol the roomls) meet standards GOOD: 80 89?s 01 the roomls) meet standards The rooms should meet the square tootage standards Size K'l: 85? 5? with ?lnl? FAIR: 79% 0! the roomls) meet standards 1'51350 5? POOR: 50 ol the roomls) meet standards 6'11275?35? UNSAI: (so-s ol roomls] meet standards Locat'o The rooms should be appropriately located lor the A room that Is appropriately located and Shlf?ldf?d from name I program producing azl-v-tres or lunctrons Storage: Permanent casework and space lor teaching mJlP'ldlS and records Fixed Equipment: One wall ol cabinets in K-S only, counters at age appropriate height, units In and lst. a locked wardrobe cabinet There should be l0(hnologv 4?0urpmt?nl appropriate to the program Visual and audio alarm system every classroom at Hilson Storage/Filed Yhe rooms should have adequate storage space and lued Equip eduupment appropriate to the program Examples of general classrooms: MGT Consulting Group Facility Assessment Four Assessments • • • • Building Condition Grounds Condition Educational Suitability Technology Readiness One Combined Score (50/30/10/10 Weighted Average) for prioritization purposes MGT Consulting Group 17 FaCIlity Assessment Reports HAMILTON GT 0 9 Building Condition Assessment mm.? . Wu School Name: Allen ES Condition Score 81.61 HAMILTON 3 ng Name: Main Repair Budget: $3,630,419 Year Built: 2002 Building Condition Assessn GER 257730 Uniformat Category Rating Score Repair Budget Comment Stories: 1 HAMILTON School Name: Allen ES . . Substructure 2.23 $161,128.94 Bldg' Name; main Foundations 7.23 $161,128.94 Building A1010 Standard Foundations Good 3.56 579,310.00 Uniformat Category Rating Score Rep 91030 Slab on Grade Good 3.62 581,818.93 Name? . Sher! 25.46 $1,676,660.89 Bldg. Name: Blil,? interior Finishes 13.17 52% Supersirucl?ure 11 56 $257 443 90 C3020 Floor Finishes Good 4.89 81E C3030 Ceiling Finishes Good 4.81 51E 81010 Floor Construction Good 0.89 519,292.65 81020 Roof Construction Good 10.62 $232,651.24 Uniformat Category Rating Score Re; Services 29 35 $1,324 Ericiosti're 10.48 $961,427.00 Plumbing 3-93 543C 82010 Exterior IWalls Fair 6.16 $822,928.41 There are areas arou nd this building which have excessive Equipment and Furnishings 0-16 5 02010 Plumbing Fixtures Fair 3.05 54E deterioration due to water penetration. ?-15 5 B2020 Exterior Windows Good 3.94 582,812.48 E1020 institutional Equipment 600d 0'16 02020 Domestic Water Distribution 600d 0-45 5] 32030 Exterior Doors Fair 0.38 550,236.10 There are some door panels around this building that have excessive 02040 Rain Water Drainage Fair 0.48 SE wear due to direct exposure to the elements. Roofing 3.42 $457,739.99 12-77 5559 33010 Roof Coverings Fair 3.42 $452,239.99 There are areas with suspected failure in flashing and fascia that is D3000 COOHHE Generating 5239025 500d 3-13 SE evident in the water damage found on some 0fthe walls and soflits. 03010 Energy SUPPIY Good 3-38 33020 Roof Openings we 0.00 $0.00 D3020 Heat Generating Systems Good 2.50 03040 Distribution Systems Good 3.13 SE Interiors ?'12 545439133 03050 Terminal Package Units WA 0.00 interior Construction 4.95 $170,885.88 D3060 Controls and Instrumentation Unsat 0.00 52' 51010 Partitions Good 3'30 $359522 D3020 Systems Testing and Balancing Good 0.63 C1020 Interior Doors 600d 1'11 524181051 Fire Protection 2.15 54? C1030 Fittings Fair 0.54 522,480.14 There are small amounts of graffiti which the clea and 04010 Sprinklers Good 1.86 $4 repair has wornthe ?nish from the panel causng early deterioration. D4020 Sta ndpipes Good 029 5 interior Finishes 13.17 $293,405.20 Eiecl?rimi 10.46 523:] C3010 Wall Finishes Good 3.47 522,358.62 05010 Electrical Service and Distribution Good 0.69 5] 1021522019 Page 1 of 3 05020 Lighting and Branch Wiring Good 2.23 516 05030 Communications and Security Good 2.48 ,196.42 05090 Other Electrical Systems Good 0.06 $1,393.85 1021522019 Page 2 of 3 10/15/2019 Dage 3 of 3 MGT Consulting Group Facility Assessment Results Assessment Low High Average Building Condition 44% 97% 76% Educational Suitability 42% 94% 72% Technology Readiness 48% 100% 82% Grounds Condition 16% 96% 71% Estimated cost does not include or account for costs associated with adding capacity or costs savings associated with school closure. Cost estimate does not include additional costs from inflation due to project phasing. MGT Consulting Group COMBINED SCORES > 90% 80 - 89 70 - 79 60 - 69 < 60 DESCRIPTION Excellent/Like New Good Fair Poor Unsatisfactory 19 Percent and Count of Schools by Assessment Type and Score Rating 100% 6 5 6 14 90% 15 80% 31 25 29 17 70% 60% 24 50% 14 15 40% 21 19 30% 10 18 18 20% 12 15 9 10% 10 9 Cond Suit 13 7 6 0% Tech Unsat MGT Consulting Group Poor Fair Good Site Combined Excellent 20 Building Condition Score 100% 1 5 1 90% 1 5 80% 2 70% 17 5 60% 50% 3 4 3 40% 3 30% 10 1 3 20% 10% 5 0% 1 ES Elementary School 2 2 MiddleMS School MS/HS MS/HS School Unsat MGT Consulting Group 2 Poor Fair HighHS School Good Excellent No Zone Magnet, CTE, Dawn, Washington Alt Schools Non-Instuctional Service & Office Buildings Education Suitability Score 100% 3 80% 1 2 90% 1 11 2 4 70% 1 60% 6 50% 8 5 40% 30% 1 20% 10% 3 9 3 1 2 7 1 1 0% ES School Elementary MiddleMSSchool MS/HS MS/HS School Unsat MGT Consulting Group Poor Fair Good Excellent Magnet,HSCTE, Dawn, Washington Alt Schools No Zone Service & Office Buildings Technology Readiness Score 100% 90% 2 2 5 80% 2 20 70% 3 60% 3 50% 40% 3 6 2 30% 4 3 2 2 20% 1 4 10% 4 2 1 1 HS High Schools Service & Office Buildings 0% ES Elementary School MS MS/HS MS/HS School Middle School Unsat MGT Consulting Group Poor Fair Good Excellent No Zone Site Score 100% 1 2 90% 8 1 3 80% 2 2 70% 11 60% 3 1 3 2 1 50% 1 7 40% 3 30% 2 4 20% 3 11 10% 3 1 MiddleMSSchool MS/HS MS/HS School 1 0% ES School Elementary Unsat MGT Consulting Group Poor High HS Schools Fair Good Excellent NoCTE, Zone Dawn, Magnet, Washington Alt Schools Non-Instuctional Service & Office Buildings Combined Scores 100% 2 1 2 90% 1 2 80% 2 70% 18 4 2 60% 4 50% 2 40% 10 3 30% 3 4 20% 5 1 10% 3 1 ES School Elementary MSSchool Middle 1 1 HS High Schools Zone Dawn, Magnet,NoCTE, Washington Alt Schools 0% MS/HS MS/HS School Unsat MGT Consulting Group Poor Fair Good Excellent 25 -nozzcz_4<\ .Nun. An Engaged Community Community Engagement PUBLIC INPUT December 2019: 5 different locations/3 nights Response to efficient plan, open forum, opportunity for crowd feedback with clicker response January 2020: 2 different locations/2 nights Response to updated Master Plan, Breakout sessions Focus Groups December 2019: 2 focus groups, parents January 2020: 4 focus groups (2 teachers & principals, 1 hearing from magnet school parents & 1 from recommendations of school board members) Online Surveys (2) 4,569 respondents completing every question MGT Consulting Group COMMUNITY FEEDBACK December 2019 Participants expressed an interest in providing opportunities for academic excellence equitably throughout the district. Participants shared a strong preference for renovating existing facilities in order to retain their neighborhood schools. Participants indicated a strong appreciation for small schools because of the close relationships with teachers. Participants recognized the need for action to address facilities issues but were concerned that the community and its decision-makers will not provide the support needed to ensure implementation of a facilities master plan. MGT Consulting Group 28 ADDITIONAL COMMUNITY FEEDBACK January 2020 Support equitable academic environments throughout the county to include safe learning environments, sense of community. Favored interested in high academic standards providing a small student to teacher ratios to support intimate environments. Support Tyner middle and high school new and merger. Favorability to the investment into Normal Park providing renovation and update. Recognize need to address deficiency issues of academic environments but there is a concern there won't be community support. MGT Consulting Group 29 Magnet Programs will remain, effort is to improve environments and increase capacity to offer opportunity to more Hamilton County residents….. ADDITIONAL COMMUNITY FEEDBACK January 2020 CONTINUED… Concern of unknown locations… • CCA to be located in close adjacency to downtown Chattanooga arts resources • CSLA need for improved academic environments • CSAS to be located centrally to support access by families MGT Consulting Group 30 Strategy Recommendations by Region Recommendations by Western Region Site Name Size (Acres) Weighted Building Condition Score Sequoyah HS 57 83% Allen ES 15 82% Daisy ES See Soddy Daisy High 86% Loftis MS See McConnell 82% McConnell ES 50 75% Middle Valley_Ganns ES 17 97% N. Hamilton County ES 130 73% Sale Creek MS_HS 12 88% Soddy Daisy HS 65 75% Soddy Daisy MS 35 66% Soddy ES 9 91% Dupont ES 13 63% Hixson ES 17 78% Big Ridge ES 22 84% Hixson HS 43 72% Hixson MS 26 89% Alpine Crest ES 17 68% Nolan ES 259 90% Red Bank ES 25 85% Red Bank HS 37 72% Combined Score Key Red Bank MS 15 89% Rivermont ES 10 62% COMBINED SCORES DESCRIPTION Signal Mountain MS_HS See Nolan Elem. 89% Excellent/Like Thrasher ES > 90% 17 New 78% 80 - 89 Good 70 - 79 Fair 60 - 69 Poor < 60 Unsatisfactory Suitability Score Technology Score 77% 94% 58% 84% 42% 86% 72% 68% 76% 67% 71% 73% 63% 62% 61% 94% 68% 79% 82% 82% 94% 42% 93% 68% 83% 98% 80% 58% 51% 95% 68% 73% 90% 54% 98% 73% 95% 63% 56% 100% 90% 85% 98% 85% 88% 48% 90% 78% Unsatisfactory/Poor Fair Number of schools: 5 Number of schools: 9 MGT Consulting Group Combined Grounds Score Score (50/30/10/10) 80% 87% 90% 69% 64% 96% 86% 90% 70% 74% 88% 70% 67% 70% 56% 89% 68% 90% 88% 76% 90% 60% 90% 65% Good/Excellent 81% 87% 78% 79% 61% 93% 74% 81% 77% 66% 85% 68% 74% 74% 66% 92% 70% 86% 86% 76% 91% 55% 90% 73% Number of schools: 10 2018-19 K-12 Enroll 299 494 377 614 514 784 374 542 1,156 412 459 313 425 496 887 653 290 650 558 793 579 317 1,294 564 2028 K-12 Projected Enroll MGT K-12 Capacity (Excl Portables) MGT 2018-19 Utilization MGT 2028-29 Projected Utilization 297 480 62% 62% 514 590 84% 87% 334 423 89% 79% 588 737 83% 80% 524 635 81% 83% 818 869 90% 94% 400 459 81% 87% 618 671 81% 92% 1,192 1,526 76% 78% 348 654 63% 53% 495 531 86% 93% 342 351 89% 97% 419 473 90% 89% 504 473 105% 107% 1,018 1,167 76% 87% 732 839 78% 87% 287 320 91% 90% 752 734 89% 103% 539 702 79% 77% 864 1,147 69% 75% Projected Utilization Key 600 839 69% 71% 427 UTILIZATION 392 81% DESCRIPTION109% 1,412 1,700 76% 83% > 110 Inadequate Space 601 95 - 110 545 Approaching 104%Inadequate Space 110% 3 80 - 95 70 - 80 < 70 9 12 Adequate Space Approaching Inefficient Use of Space Inefficient Use of Space 33 Allen ES 15 82% Daisy ES See Soddy Daisy High 86% Loftis MS See McConnell 82% McConnell ES 50 75% Middle Valley_Ganns ES 17 97% N. Hamilton County ES 130 73% Sale Creek MS_HS 12 88% Soddy Daisy HS 65 75% Weighted Soddy Daisy MS 35 66% Building Soddy ES 9 91% Site Name Size (Acres) Condition Dupont ES 13 63% Score Hixson ES 17 78% Sequoyah HS 57 83% Big Ridge ES 22 84% Allen ES 15 82% Hixson HS 43 72% Daisy See Soddy 86% HixsonESMS 26Daisy High 89% Loftis See McConnell 82% AlpineMS Crest ES 17 68% McConnell 50 75% Nolan ES ES 259 90% Middle Valley_Ganns ES 17 97% Red Bank ES 25 85% N. Hamilton 130 73% Red Bank HSCounty ES 37 72% Sale CreekMS MS_HS 12 88% Red Bank 15 89% Soddy DaisyESHS 65 75% Rivermont 10 62% Soddy Daisy MS MS_HS 35Elem. 66% Signal Mountain See Nolan 89% Soddy ES ES 9 91% Thrasher 17 78% Dupont ES 13 63% Hixson ES 17 78% Big Ridge ES 22 84% Hixson HS 43 72% Hixson MS 26 89% Alpine Crest ES 17 68% Nolan ES 259 90% Combined Score Key Red Bank ES 25 85% Red Bank HS 37 72% COMBINED SCORES DESCRIPTION Red Bank MS 15 89% > 90% Excellent/Like New Rivermont ES 10 62% 80 - 89 Good Signal Mountain MS_HS See Nolan Elem. 89% 70 - 79 Fair Thrasher ES 17 78% 60 - 69 Poor < 60 Unsatisfactory 94% 58% 84% 42% 86% 72% 68% 76% 67% Suitability 71% Score 73% 63% 77% 62% 94% 61% 58% 94% 84% 68% 42% 79% 86% 82% 72% 82% 68% 94% 76% 42% 67% 93% 71% 68% 73% 63% 62% 61% 94% 68% 79% 82% 82% 94% 42% 93% 68% 98% 80% 58% 51% 95% 68% 73% 90% 54% Technology 98% Score 73% 95% 83% 63% 98% 56% 80% 100% 58% 90% 51% 85% 95% 98% 68% 85% 73% 88% 90% 48% 54% 90% 98% 78% 73% 95% 63% 56% 100% 90% 85% 98% 85% 88% 48% 90% 78% Recommendations by Western Region Unsatisfactory/Poor Fair Number of schools: 5 Number of schools: 9 MGT Consulting Group 87% 87% 90% 78% 69% 79% 64% 61% 96% 93% 86% 74% 90% 81% 70% 77% 74% 66% Combined 88% 85% Grounds Score Score 70% 68% (50/30/10/10) 67% 74% 80% 81% 70% 74% 87% 87% 56% 66% 90% 78% 89% 92% 69% 79% 68% 70% 64% 61% 90% 86% 96% 93% 88% 86% 86% 74% 76% 76% 90% 81% 91% 70% 77% 60% 55% 74% 66% 90% 90% 88% 85% 65% 73% 70% 68% 67% 74% 70% 74% 56% 66% 89% 92% 68% 70% 90% 86% 88% 86% 76% 76% 90% 91% 60% 55% 90% 90% 65% 73% Good/Excellent Number of schools: 10 494 377 614 514 784 374 542 1,156 412 2018-19 K-12459 Enroll313 425 299 496 494 887 377 653 614 290 514 650 784 558 374 793 542 579 1,156 317 412 1,294 459 564 313 425 496 887 653 290 650 558 793 579 317 1,294 564 514 590 84% 87% 334 423 89% 79% 588 737 83% 80% 524 635 81% 83% 818 869 90% 94% 400 459 81% 87% 618 671 81% 92% 1,192 1,526 76% 78% 2028348 63% MGT 654 MGT MGT53% 2028-29 K-12495 531 86% 93% K-12 Capacity 2018-19 Projected Projected 342 (Excl Portables) 351 Utilization 89% 97% Utilization Enroll419 473 90% 89% 297 480 62% 62% 504 473 105% 107% 514 590 84% 87% 1,018 1,167 76% 334 423 89% 79% 732 839 78% 87% 588 737 83% 80% 287 320 91% 90% 524 635 81% 83% 752 734 89% 103% 818 869 90% 94% 539 702 79% 77% 400 459 81% 87% 864 1,147 69% 75% 618 671 81% 92% 600 839 69% 71% 1,192 1,526 76% 78% 427 392 81% 109% 348 654 63% 53% 1,412 1,700 76% 83% 495 531 86% 93% 601 545 104% 110% 342 351 89% 97% 419 473 90% 89% 504 473 105% 107% 1,018 1,167 76% 87% 732 839 78% 87% 287 320 91% 90% 752 734 89% 103% Projected Key 539 702 Utilization 79% 77% 864 UTILIZATION1,147 69% DESCRIPTION75% 600 839 69% 71% > 110 Inadequate Space 427 392 Approaching 81% Inadequate Space 109% 95 - 110 1,412 1,700 76% 83% 80 - 95 Adequate Space 601 545 Approaching 104% Inefficient Use 110% 70 - 80 of Space 3 < 70 9 12 Inefficient Use of Space 34 Recommendations by Region Western Region Close: • Soddy Daisy MS, move to current Daisy ES • Alpine Crest ES, move students to Dupont ES • Rivermont ES, move students to Dupont ES Renovation and Additions: • Big Ridge – Renovate & Add Capacity (150) • Thrasher ES – Renovate and Add capacity (400) • Soddy ES – Rename Soddy Daisy ES, Accommodate Students from Daisy ES, Renovate and Add capacity (377) New Construction: • Dupont ES – Demolish & build new K-5 ES (1200 capacity) Repurpose: • Daisy ES – Renovate and Convert to Soddy Daisy MS, see Soddy ES for new location of Daisy ES students MGT Consulting Group 35 Recommendations by Region Western Region (continued) Renovate: • Sale Creek MS/HS – Original part of building • North Hamilton County ES • Soddy Daisy HS • McConnell ES • Hixson ES • Hixson HS • Red Bank HS Other: • Loftis MS – Address grounds deficiencies No Changes: • Allen ES • Middle Valley ES • Hixson MS • Signal Mountain MS/HS MGT Consulting Group • Red Bank ES • Red Bank MS • Sequoyah HS 36 Recommendations by Southern Region Site Name Bess T. Shepherd ES Hillcrest ES Harrison ES Lakeside ES CSLA (K-8) Stem I & II East Side ES Tyner Academy (HS) Tyner MS Woodmore ES East Ridge ES East Ridge HS East Ridge MS Spring Creek ES Dalewood MS Hardy ES Calvin Donaldson & Annex (ES) Clifton Hills ES East Lake ES East Lake MS (Academy) Howard HS Orchard Knob ES Orchard Knob MS Barger ES Brainerd HS CSAS Ctr For Creative Arts_Chatt HS Normal Park (Lower) COMBINED SCORES Normal Park (Upper) Battle Academy ES > 90% Brown Academy ES 80 - 89 Lookout Mountain ES 70 - ES 79 Lookout Valley Lookout Valley 60 - MS/HS 69 Dawn Program < 60 Washington Alternative Weighted Building Condition Score Size (Acres) 11 78% 1 N/A 1 N/A 1 66% 36 44% 90% 10 88% 22 57% 10 47% 10 71% 11 88% 33 59% See East Ridge High 71% 16 75% 21 69% 1 86% 9 77% 13 78% 4 87% 5 83% 40 84% 7 86% 16 57% 9 48% 53 63% 13 56% 34 63% 3 63% DESCRIPTION 8 68% 3 90% Excellent/Like New 3 89% Good 4 77% Fair 15 82% 33 80% Poor 10 60% Unsatisfactory 18 83% Suitability Score Technology Score 68% N/A N/A 63% 63% 66% 70% 70% 69% 66% 81% 76% 64% 58% 79% 80% 75% 52% 75% 77% 73% 80% 76% 61% 74% 64% 72% 52% 57% 93% 86% 58% 60% 71% 60% 59% 85% N/A N/A 88% 78% 98% 98% 75% 83% 63% 90% 88% 65% 88% 98% 98% 98% 90% 98% 95% 74% 98% 90% 73% 100% 70% 65% 58% 67% 93% 83% 65% 55% 75% 85% 90% Unsatisfactory/Poor Fair Number of schools: 16 Number of schools: 7 Combined Score Key MGT Consulting Group Combined Grounds Score Score (50/30/10/10) 76% N/A N/A 69% 49% 80% 80% 16% 39% 65% 70% 34% 57% 67% 85% 80% 90% 76% 79% 77% 90% 88% 57% 46% 40% 60% 30% 60% 64% 80% 90% 62% 90% 90% 43% 73% Good/Excellent 75% N/A N/A 67% 54% 83% 83% 58% 56% 68% 84% 64% 67% 70% 77% 85% 80% 71% 84% 82% 80% 86% 66% 54% 68% 60% 63% 59% 64% 90% 87% 68% 73% 78% 61% 75% Number of schools: 11 2018-19 K-12 Enroll 514 290 413 393 452 277 575 506 464 274 959 815 672 627 344 425 414 570 540 597 986 468 441 398 601 1,034 583 465 325 368 231 157 288 325 N/A N/A 2028 K-12 Projected Enroll MGT K-12 Capacity (Excl Portables) 534 299 458 321 473 298 602 489 494 243 1,061 842 722 666 357 410 409 651 647 705 1,115 491 481 386 654 1,044 655 489 UTILIZATION 358 396 > 110 16095 - 110 134 80 - 95 297 70 - 80 312 < 70 N/A N/A 18 MGT 2018-19 Utilization MGT 2028-29 Projected Utilization 518 99% 103% N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 432 91% 74% 344 131% 137% 409 68% 73% 639 90% 94% 761 66% 64% 688 67% 72% 423 65% 57% 914 105% 116% 1,003 81% 84% 694 97% 104% 702 89% 95% 667 52% 53% 603 70% 68% 446 93% 92% 468 122% 139% 513 105% 126% 572 104% 123% 854 115% 131% 576 81% 85% 678 65% 71% 347 115% 111% 1,085 55% 60% 1,506 69% 69% 731 80% 90% 365 128% 134% DESCRIPTION 652 50% 55% 432 85% 92% Inadequate Space 455 51% Approaching Inadequate Space 35% 257 61% 52% Adequate Space 320 90% 93% Approaching Inefficient Use of Space 608 53% 51% Inefficient Use of Space 294 N/A N/A 188 N/A N/A 7 7 Projected Utilization Key 37 Tyner Academy (HS) Tyner MS Woodmore ES East Ridge ES East Ridge HS East Ridge MS Spring Creek ES Dalewood MS Hardy ES Site Name Calvin Donaldson & Annex (ES) Clifton Hills ES East ES Bess Lake T. Shepherd ES East LakeES MS (Academy) Hillcrest Howard HarrisonHS ES Orchard LakesideKnob ES ES Orchard Knob MS CSLA (K-8) Barger ESII Stem I & Brainerd East Side HS ES CSAS Tyner Academy (HS) Ctr ForMS Creative Arts_Chatt HS Tyner Normal ParkES (Lower) Woodmore Normal Park East Ridge ES(Upper) Battle Academy East Ridge HS ES Brown Academy East Ridge MS ES Lookout Mountain ES Spring Creek ES Lookout Valley ES Dalewood MS Lookout Hardy ESValley MS/HS Dawn Program Calvin Donaldson & Annex (ES) Washington Alternative Clifton Hills ES 22 57% 10 47% 10 71% 11 88% 33 59% See East Ridge High 71% 16 75% Weighted 21 69% Building 1 86% Size (Acres) Condition 9 77% Score 13 78% 4 87% 11 78% 5 83% 1 N/A 40 84% 1 N/A 7 86% 1 66% 16 57% 36 44% 48% - 9 90% 53 63% 10 88% 13 56% 22 57% 34 63% 10 47% 3 63% 10 71% 8 68% 11 88% 3 90% 33 59% 3 89% See East Ridge High 71% 4 77% 16 75% 15 82% 21 69% 33 80% 1 86% 10 60% 9 77% 18 83% 13 78% East Lake ES 4 87% East Lake MS (Academy) 5 83% Howard HS 40 84% Orchard Knob ES 7 86% Orchard Knob MS 16 57% Barger ES 9 48% Brainerd HS 53 63% CSAS 13 56% Ctr For Creative Arts_Chatt HS 34 63% Normal Park (Lower) 3 63% COMBINED SCORES DESCRIPTION Normal Park (Upper) 8 68% Battle Academy ES 3 90% > 90% Excellent/Like New Brown Academy ES 3 89% 80 - 89 ES Good Lookout Mountain 4 77% 70 - 79 Fair Lookout Valley ES 15 82% Lookout Valley MS/HS 33 80% 60 - 69 Poor Dawn Program 10 60% < 60 Unsatisfactory Washington Alternative 18 83% 70% 69% 66% 81% 76% 64% 58% 79% Suitability 80% Score 75% 52% 75% 68% 77% N/A 73% N/A 80% 63% 76% 63% 61% 66% 74% 70% 64% 70% 72% 69% 52% 66% 57% 81% 93% 76% 86% 64% 58% 58% 60% 79% 71% 80% 60% 75% 59% 52% 75% 77% 73% 80% 76% 61% 74% 64% 72% 52% 57% 93% 86% 58% 60% 71% 60% 59% 75% 83% 63% 90% 88% 65% 88% 98% Technology 98% Score 98% 90% 98% 85% 95% N/A 74% N/A 98% 88% 90% 78% 73% 98% 100% 98% 70% 75% 65% 83% 58% 63% 67% 90% 93% 88% 83% 65% 65% 88% 55% 98% 75% 98% 85% 98% 90% 90% 98% 95% 74% 98% 90% 73% 100% 70% 65% 58% 67% 93% 83% 65% 55% 75% 85% 90% 16% 58% 39% 56% 65% 68% 70% 84% 34% 64% 57% 67% 67% 70% 85% 77% Combined 80%Score 85% Grounds Score 90% 80% (50/30/10/10) 76% 71% 79% 84% 76% 75% 77% 82% N/A N/A 90% 80% N/A N/A 88% 86% 69% 67% 57% 66% 49% 54% 46% 54% 80% 83% 40% 68% 80% 83% 60% 60% 16% 58% 30% 63% 39% 56% 60% 59% 65% 68% 64% 64% 70% 84% 80% 90% 34% 64% 90% 87% 57% 67% 62% 68% 67% 70% 90% 73% 85% 77% 90% 78% 80% 85% 43% 61% 90% 80% 73% 75% 76% 71% 79% 84% 77% 82% 90% 80% 88% 86% 57% 66% 46% 54% 40% 68% 60% 60% 30% 63% 60% 59% 64% 64% 80% 90% 90% 87% 62% 68% 90% 73% 90% 78% 43% 61% 73% 75% Recommendations by Southern Region (continued) Unsatisfactory/Poor Fair Number of schools: 16 Number of schools: 7 Combined Score Key MGT Consulting Group Good/Excellent Number of schools: 11 506 464 274 959 815 672 627 344 2018-19 K-12425 Enroll414 570 540 514 597 290 986 413 468 393 441 452 398 277 601 575 1,034 506 583 464 465 274 325 959 368 815 231 672 157 627 288 344 325 425 N/A 414 N/A 570 540 597 986 468 441 398 601 1,034 583 465 325 368 231 157 288 325 N/A N/A 489 761 66% 64% 494 688 67% 72% 243 423 65% 57% 1,061 914 105% 116% 842 1,003 81% 84% 722 694 97% 104% 666 702 89% 95% 2028357 667 52% MGT MGT MGT53% 2028-29 K-12410 603 70% 68% K-12 Capacity 2018-19 Projected Projected 409 (Excl Portables) 446 93% 92% Utilization Utilization Enroll651 468 122% 139% 647 513 105% 126% 534 518 99% 103% 705 572 104% 123% 299 N/A N/A N/A 1,115 854 115% 131% 458 N/A N/A N/A 491 576 81% 85% 321 432 91% 74% 481 678 65% 71% 473 344 131% 137% 386 347 115% 111% 298 409 68% 73% 654 1,085 55% 60% 602 639 90% 94% 1,044 1,506 69% 69% 489 761 66% 64% 655 731 80% 90% 494 688 67% 72% 489 365 128% 134% 243 423 65% 57% 358 652 50% 55% 1,061 914 105% 116% 396 432 85% 92% 842 1,003 81% 84% 160 455 51% 35% 722 694 97% 104% 134 257 61% 52% 666 702 89% 95% 297 320 90% 93% 357 667 52% 53% 312 608 53% 51% 410 603 70% 68% N/A 294 N/A N/A 409 446 93% 92% N/A 188 N/A N/A 651 468 122% 139% 647 513 105% 126% 705 572 104% 123% 1,115 854 115% 131% 491 576 81% 85% 481 678 65% 71% 386 347 115% 111% 654 1,085 55% 60% 1,044 1,506 69% 69% 655 731 80% 90% 489 365 128% 134% DESCRIPTION 55% 358 UTILIZATION 652 50% 396 432 85% 92% > 110 Inadequate Space 160 95 - 110 455Approaching 51%Inadequate Space 35% 134 257 61% 52% 80 - 95 Adequate Space 297 320 90% 93% 70 - 80 Approaching Inefficient Use of Space 312 608 53% 51% < 70 Inefficient Use of Space N/A 294 N/A N/A N/A 188 N/A N/A 18 7 7 Projected Utilization Key 38 Recommendations by Region Southern Region Close: • Normal Park (Upper) -Move students to CCA building, see additions • Normal Park (Lower) -Move students to CCA building, see additions • Lakeside ES – Close site • Tyner MS – Close site • CSAS – Close site – Program to move to Brainerd HS Site • Clifton Hills ES – Close site • Dawn Program – Close site, relocate exception education program Additions: • Harrison ES – Add capacity for 200 • Bess T. Shepard ES – Renovate, add capacity for 300 • Spring Creek ES – Renovate, add capacity for 300 • Calvin Donaldson ES – Renovate, add capacity for 100 • Normal Park (old CCA site) – Renovate, add capacity for 280 add grades 6-12 (total K-12) MGT Consulting Group 39 Recommendations by Region Southern Region (continued) New Construction: • Orchard Knob MS – Demolish existing building and construct new 1000 capacity MS • Tyner MS/HS – Demolish existing building and construct new 1500 capacity MS/HS • New CTE center - Demolish existing Barger building. Build new CTE center on site • New ES (replace Clifton Hills) - Build new 1000 student K-5 school • New ES – Build new 1000 student K-5 on CSLA site • Brainerd HS – New school for 800 students on Dalewood site (Dalewood students to Orchard Knob) • CSLA – Add K-5 & 6-12 programs at new location, new capacity 1300 students. • CCA – Add K-5 & 6-12 programs at new location, new capacity 1300 students. • CSAS – Add K-5 & 6-12 programs at new location, new capacity 1300 students. MGT Consulting Group 40 Recommendations by Region Southern Region (continued) Renovate: • Bess T Shepherd • Calvin Donaldson • East Ridge MS – move 100 students to East Hamilton MS • East Ridge HS • Lookout Valley ES • Lookout Mountain ES • Woodmore ES • Spring Creek ES • Lookout Valley MS/HS, address capacity by rezoning students from Howard HS • Washington Alternative – Repurpose. Relocate alternative program to Hillcrest ES building. • Hillcrest ES – Repurpose as alternative program MGT Consulting Group 41 Recommendations by Region Southern Region (continued) Other: • Battle Academy ES – Convert to K-2 building • Brown Academy ES – Convert to 3-5 building No Changes: • Howard HS • STEM • Orchard Knob ES • Hard ES • East Ridge ES • East lake ES • East Lake MS MGT Consulting Group 42 Recommendations for the Eastern Region Site Name Size (Acres) Brown MS Central HS Hunter MS Ooltewah ES Ooltewah HS Ooltewah MS Snow Hill ES Wallace A. Smith ES Apison ES East Brainerd ES East Hamilton MS_HS Westview ES Wolftever ES Hamilton Co. HS (Harrison Bay Voc.) Weighted Building Condition Score See Central High 75% 51 74% 49 84% 31 88% 45 79% 47 74% See Hamitlon Co. High 82% 31 89% 42 88% 21 87% 80 88% 15 89% See Ooltewah Middle 90% 62 63% Suitability Score Technology Score 72% 70% 82% 91% 67% 73% TBD 74% 81% 83% 85% 83% 85% 72% 68% 88% 83% 100% 63% 95% TBD 70% 98% 100% 100% 88% 98% 83% Combined Grounds Score Score (50/30/10/10) 90% 61% 72% 80% 66% 66% 60% 90% 79% 89% 74% 90% 85% 80% Unsatisfactory/Poor Fair Good/Excellent Number of schools: 0 Number of schools: 5 Number of schools: 8 Combined Score Key COMBINED SCORES > 90% 80 - 89 70 - 79 60 - 69 < 60 DESCRIPTION Excellent/Like New Good Fair Poor Unsatisfactory MGT Consulting Group 75% 73% 82% 89% 72% 75% TBD 83% 86% 88% 87% 87% 89% 70% 2018-19 K-12 Enroll 494 838 803 995 1,525 796 502 631 546 1,070 1,666 545 579 99 2028 K-12 Projected Enroll MGT K-12 Capacity (Excl Portables) 548 791 922 1,367 1,860 941 511 589 597 1,267 1,875 550 689 N/A 648 839 1,117 1,017 1,511 951 N/A 702 630 1,089 1,917 522 626 375 4 MGT 2018-19 Utilization MGT 2028-29 Projected Utilization 76% 100% 72% 98% 101% 84% N/A 90% 87% 98% 87% 104% 93% 26% 85% 94% 83% 134% 123% 99% N/A 84% 95% 116% 98% 105% 110% N/A 4 4 Projected Utilization Key UTILIZATION > 110 95 - 110 80 - 95 70 - 80 < 70 DESCRIPTION Inadequate Space Approaching Inadequate Space Adequate Space Approaching Inefficient Use of Space Inefficient Use of Space 43 Recommendations by Region Eastern Region Additions : • Wallace A. Smith ES – Renovate to address suitability deficiencies, add 250 capacity New Construction: • New ES – new ES likely needed in southern part of Apison region to accommodate growth, 1,200 student capacity Repurpose: • East Hamilton HS – repurpose as East Hamilton HS following completion of East Hamilton MS in 2020. Renovate: • Brown MS • Central HS • Ooltewah MS MGT Consulting Group • Ooltewah HS • Hamilton County HS 44 Recommendations by Region Eastern Region (continued) Other: • Hunter MS – address grounds deficiencies No Changes: • East Hamilton MS • Apison ES • Wolftever ES • Westview ES • Ooltewah ES • East Brainerd ES • Snow Hill ES MGT Consulting Group 45 Recommendations for Phase 0 PHASE SITE NAME NEW CONSTRUCTION/ ADDN FOR CAPACITY RECOMMENDATION SCHOOL TOTAL PHASE 0 0 CSLA (K-12) 0 0 New site for CSLA Lakeside ES 0 Harrison ES Relocate CSLA program to new school at new site New site Close, students to new Harrison. Addition, balance utilization with Hillcrest and Lakeside. 1,300 200 PHASE 0 RECOMMENDATIONS TOTAL MGT Consulting Group $ 11,000,000 $ $ - $ 3,000,000 $ 14,000,000 46 Recommendations for Phase 1 PHASE SITE NAME NEW CONSTRUCTION/ ADDN FOR CAPACITY RECOMMENDATION SCHOOL TOTAL PHASE 1 1 Alpine Crest ES 1 1 1 1 1 Clifton Hills ES Normal Park (Lower) Normal Park (Upper) Rivermont ES East Ridge HS 1 East Ridge MS 1 New ES, replacement for Clifton Hills 1 New ES site, Clifton Hills replacement 1 New elementary school on CSLA site (K-5) 1 New downtown site for CCA 1 Orchard Knob MS (includes Dalewood) 1 1 Tyner Academy (HS) Tyner MS 1 Wallace A. Smith ES 1 CCA / New Normal Park 1 New School for CCA 1 Dupont ES 1 New Apison region elementary site Close, merge with Dupont and Rivermont at DuPont site Close, students to new school (Clifton Hills site) Close, students to renovated CCA site Close, students to renovated CCA site Close, students to new Dupont Renovation Renovation, balance utilizaiton with East Hamilton MS New, students from Clifton Hills, balance utilization with Eastlake New site, verify Clifton Hills location New ES, students from E. Brainerd ES, Woodmore, Eastridge, and Barger New site Replace with New MS, balance utilization with Dalewood and East Lake Replace to 6-12, students from Tyner MS Close, students to new Tyner 6-12 Renovation Suit Only and Addition, balance utilization with Ooletwah ES Repurpose, Renovation for Normal Park, Renovate and Addition new K-12. New School K-12 program. New/Replace, consider land purchase. Students from Alpine Crest and Rivermont. New site $ $ $ $ $ 1,000 1,000 1,200 1,500 300 280 1,300 1,200 PHASE 1 RECOMMENDATIONS TOTAL MGT Consulting Group - $ 31,311,400 $ 10,501,400 $ $ 35,421,600 - $ $ 35,421,600 - $ $ $ 49,808,700 74,287,500 - $ 13,955,600 $ $ 37,501,300 46,048,100 $ 42,505,900 $ $377,859,437 47 Recommendations for Phase 2 PHASE SITE NAME NEW CONSTRUCTION/ ADDN FOR CAPACITY RECOMMENDATION SCHOOL TOTAL PHASE 2 2 Bess T. Shepherd ES 2 Woodmore ES 2 2 2 2 2 2 Hamilton Co. HS (Harrison Bay Voc.) Hillcrest ES Lookout Mountain ES McConnell ES Sale Creek MS_HS Big Ridge ES 2 Brainerd K-12 (New CSAS) 2 2 2 2 2 2 Dalewood MS (New Brainerd) Hixson ES Hixson HS Loftis MS Lookout Valley ES N. Hamilton County ES 2 Ooltewah MS 2 Thrasher ES Renovation Renovation, balance utilization with East Ridge and Barger Renovation, Regional CTE Ctr Repurpose, Renovation Renovation Renovation Renovate old section of building (66%) Renovation and addition Repurpose to CSAS, New Campus for CSAS students K-12. Brainerd students to new school at Dalewood site. New Brainerd HS Renovation Renovation, new gym Renovation Grounds Only Renovation Suit and Tech Only Renovation Renovation, balance utilization with New East Hamilton MS. Renovation and Addition, balance utilization with Nolan $ 6,238,400 $ 7,478,600 150 $ $ $ $ $ $ 9,789,200 12,857,460 7,153,100 8,253,700 5,518,200 11,936,600 1,300 $ 54,056,900 800 $ $ $ $ $ $ 33,265,800 8,642,900 50,736,100 1,820,700 2,092,400 6,122,300 $ 11,718,700 $ 23,124,200 400 PHASE 2 RECOMMENDATIONS TOTAL MGT Consulting Group $260,805,260 48 Recommendations for Phase 3 PHASE SITE NAME NEW CONSTRUCTION/ ADDN FOR CAPACITY RECOMMENDATION SCHOOL TOTAL PHASE 3 3 Barger ES (New regional CTE) 3 Soddy Daisy MS 3 Calvin Donaldson & Annex (ES) 3 New Apison region ES (Evaluate) 3 3 Brown MS Central HS 3 Daisy ES (New Soddy Daisy MS) 3 Howard HS 3 3 Hunter MS Lookout Valley MS/HS 3 Ooltewah HS 3 3 Red Bank HS Soddy Daisy HS 3 Soddy ES 3 Spring Creek ES 3 Washington Alternative Closed/Repurpose as New Regional CTE Site. Fine arts students to new CCA, Neighborhood students to new ES at CSLA/Woodmore Close, students to new Soddy Daisy MS on Daisy ES site. Renovation Balance utilization with East Brainerd, Wolftever, Bess T Shepherd Renovation Renovation Renovation, Repurpose to Soddy Daisy MS, students to Soddy Daisy ES In Progress and Addition, balance utilization with Lookout Valley MS/HS Renovation Grounds Only Renovation, Balance utilization with Howard HS Renovation, balance utilization with East Hamilton MS/HS Renovation Renovate Rename Soddy Daisy ES and Addition, students from Daisy ES. Renovation and Addition, balance utilization with Eastridge. Renovation, Repurpose and relocate $ 18,994,000 $ - $ 6,249,100 $ 42,505,900 $ $ 9,733,500 16,562,800 $ 13,674,200 $ 11,435,200 $ $ 2,105,100 8,903,700 $ 25,048,500 $ $ 22,041,100 21,904,700 377 $ 14,689,400 250 $ 18,148,200 $ 7,896,300 1,200 250 PHASE 3 RECOMMENDATIONS TOTAL MGT Consulting Group $239,891,700 49 Summary by Phase PHASE SITE NAME RECOMMENDATION NEW CONSTRUCTION/ ADDN FOR CAPACITY SCHOOL TOTAL PHASE 0 PHASE 0 RECOMMENDATIONS TOTAL $14,000,000 PHASE 1 PHASE 1 RECOMMENDATIONS TOTAL $376,763,100 PHASE 2 RECOMMENDATIONS TOTAL $260,805,260 PHASE 3 RECOMMENDATIONS TOTAL $239,891,700 ALL PHASES TOTAL $891,460,060 PHASE 2 PHASE 3 MGT Consulting Group 50 Summary Action Quantity Schools 11 CSLA, New ES (Clifton Hills), New ES (CSLA site), Orchard MS (Dalewood students), Tyner HS/MS, CCA, Dupont (Alpine Crest & Rivermont students), New ES (Apison region), CSAS (Brainerd site), Brainerd HS (Dalewood site), Regional CTE (Barger site) Renovation 27 East Ridge HS, East Ridge MS, Normal Park (CCA), Bess T Shepherd ES, Woodmore ES, Hamilton Co. HS, Hillcrest (repurpose), Lookout Mountain ES, McConnell ES, Sale Creek MS/HS (66%), Hixson ES, Hixson HS (new gym), Loftis MS (grounds) , Lookout Valley ES, N Hamilton Cty ES, Ooltewah MS, Calvin Donaldson, Brown MS, Central HS, Daisy ES (new Soddy-Daisy MS), Howard HS, Hunter MS, Lookout Valley MS/HS, Ooltewah HS, Red Bank HS, Soddy Daisy HS, Washington Alt (repurpose) Increased Capacity (Addition/Renovation) 6 Harrison ES, Wallace A Smith, Big Ridge ES, Thrasher ES, Soddy ES (Daisy ES students) rename Soddy Daisy, Spring Creek ES New Location/Sites 4 CSLA, CCA, New ES (Apison region), CSAS Closed Sites 9 Tyner MS, CSAS, Alpine Crest, Rivermont, Lakeside ES, Normal Park (Upper), Normal Park (Lower), Dawn Program, Soddy Daisy MS New Building MGT Consulting Group 51 What Does Change Look Like? Inefficient Use of Space, 13% Approaching Inadequate Space, 2% Approaching Inefficient Use of Space, 8% Inadequate Space, 0% MGT Consulting Group 52 What Does Change Look Like? 100% 2 2 80% 18 20% 0% 2 2 4 60% 40% 1 1 4 10 4 5 3 1 ES MS 1 Unsat Poor 2 2 MS/HS Fair Good 3 3 1 1 HS No Zone Excellent Elementary School MGT Consulting Group Middle School MS/HS School High Schools Magnet, CTE, Alt Schools 53 MGT Consulting Group CONSULTING GROUP THANK YOU 54