Clayton board hears long-range facilities options, designers outline elementary, high school and athletics scenarios

Design teams for Clayton School District presented preliminary concepts and community feedback Wednesday night in an update on the district's long-range facilities master plan, laying out three options for each elementary school, an addition for career and technical education at Clayton High School and three alternatives for consolidating athletics facilities. No formal construction decision was made; district leaders said community engagement and a survey will guide next steps toward a potential bond vote in April 2026.

The presentation summarized recent engagement: three elementary workshops, two high-school workshops, a community forum on Sept. 10 and building tours planned for October. “We had our design team. They went over and they shared the early preliminary design work for our elementary schools,” a district official said during the update. Designers emphasized that options are preliminary and will be refined with public input.

Designers described the elementary options as variations of renovation-plus-addition and full rebuild. At Captain Elementary, workshop participants favored a larger-footprint, three-story option that avoids a public right-of-way on the west side of the site and would require phased construction. A second option keeps the existing two-story building and supplements it with a two-story new wing; that approach would leave less playground space than the three-story scheme, presenters said.

For Glenridge Elementary, three options differ mainly in use of the lower level: two options keep classrooms off the lower level while a third places special-subject spaces such as art and music there. Workshop attendees ultimately gravitated to an option that consolidates additions at the rear of the building to preserve the front façade.

At Merrimack Elementary, workshop participants favored a smaller footprint option that preserves more play area by renovating the existing cafeteria and placing a smaller new gym and stage on the main level.

At Clayton High School, designers showed a one-story CTE wing addition to provide dedicated spaces for geometry and construction, a shop area, robotics practice and equipment storage, and accessible vestibules off the back drive. The plan includes renovations to the performing-arts area to reduce HVAC noise for band, orchestra and choir, add backstage ADA and equipment lifts, replace auditorium seating and expand the lobby.

Design teams also presented three athletics scenarios. Scenario 1 would concentrate multiple stadiums and turf fields adjacent to Adzick Field while preserving some fields at Gay Field and Wyedown; presenters warned about circulation and parking constraints at Adzick. Scenario 2 would use a single, larger stadium and retained some Gay Field use. Scenario 3 consolidates the district’s primary stadium and track at Gay Field, converting the current parking lot into a pedestrian gathering zone and moving parking north of the stadium.

Designers and board members discussed the trade-offs among renovation vs. new construction for older elementary buildings, durability of mechanical systems, accessibility and site limitations. Asked whether renovations would extend remaining useful life, a design lead said renovations that replace mechanical, plumbing and electrical systems and add new construction can extend a building’s useful life “for decades,” though some exterior enclosure upgrades in older buildings may still lag new-construction insulation levels.

Board members and the design team also discussed artificial turf as an alternative to grass at Wyedown. Designers said grass there is difficult to maintain because it sits over a parking-deck structure and receives heavy use. They noted trade-offs between pesticide and herbicide use for natural turf and plastic-based microplastics and rubber infill on synthetic systems, and mentioned hybrid synthetic-natural systems and organic infill options as newer approaches.

District staff said the survey launching the next day will include both telephone and online components and will be open for two weeks. Presenters repeatedly emphasized the schedule: final ballot language would need to be ready in January if the district pursues an April bond vote. “If that is to occur in April, then you need to finalize your ballot language in January,” a design lead said.

The district did not take a vote on construction or a bond at Wednesday’s meeting. Board members asked for more cost comparisons and lifecycle information and asked designers to return with refined options after the upcoming community engagements.

Next steps include two more community engagement forums in October and November, additional workshops and building tours, publication of preliminary designs on the district website and refinement of options based on survey results and feedback. The design team said it will return to the board with updated cost ranges and final recommended scenarios for public consideration.

Community members and board members will have several opportunities to review and comment before the board is asked to adopt ballot language and a construction plan.