Clayton Board reviews Paragon long‑range facilities master plan with $94M maintenance estimate, options for new elementary schools

Brad Erwin of Paragon presented the firm’s long‑range facilities master plan to the Clayton Board of Education and the community, summarizing eight to nine months of building assessments, stakeholder engagement and cost estimates.

Paragon’s condition assessment identified roughly $94 million of capital‑improvement and deferred‑maintenance needs across district facilities over the next 15–20 years, with larger projects at Clayton High School and certain elementary campuses. Erwin said the district’s ongoing capital budget covers some routine work but that larger “level 2” and “level 3” options would require community participation through bond financing.

The study breaks projects into three tiers. Level 1 work is standard maintenance and system replacement that can be scheduled; Paragon estimated about $35 million for HVAC replacements across the district over the next 10–20 years. Level 2 options would add targeted additions and selective renovations (Paragon estimated roughly $137 million across identified sites when combining many level‑2 projects). Level 3 would be more comprehensive—substantial demolition and rebuilds that “reset the life of the building” and raise costs. Erwin said example figures included about $27 million for a level‑2 renovation at Glenridge and about $44 million for a level‑3 rebuild at the same site; Clayton High School’s improvements were estimated at about $36.5 million of the district total.

Erwin said the district currently spends about $4 million annually on capital improvements and that the district could issue about $90 million in bonds at current levy levels without a tax increase. He cautioned that the Paragon numbers are order‑of‑magnitude estimates based on 2025 metro construction costs and do not include fixtures, furnishings, equipment, professional fees, permitting, property acquisition or swing‑space costs. Paragon also recommended contingency ranges of 20–35 percent depending on project complexity.

The consultant emphasized recurring themes from community engagement: safety and security, improved air quality and HVAC, more specialized learning spaces for contemporary curriculum, better indoor spaces for school and community events and increased outdoor play and green space at elementary sites. Paragon reported about 1,025 community participants across subcommittees and forums and said the district’s steering‑committee work informed the recommendations.

On elementary schools, Paragon presented two principal paths: extensive renovation (level 2 or 3) on existing sites, or exploring rebuilding on new or consolidated sites. Because most elementary campuses are under the typical 8–10 acres that many modern elementary plans assume, Paragon recommended a feasibility study to compare renovating three existing elementary schools versus constructing two new larger elementary schools (Paragon’s illustrative new‑construction figure was roughly $43 million per new elementary building at about 80,000 square feet and an illustrative $450/sq ft base cost, not including some exclusions noted above).

Erwin also outlined athletic and activities options, including renovating Gayfield and other athletic assets (a level‑2 athletics package was estimated at about $23 million). He proposed further investigation of a land‑swap or partnership with the City of Clayton to relocate high school athletics closer to the high school campus, which Paragon estimated could be a roughly $30 million feasibility/implementation effort if pursued.

Board members and the superintendent asked detailed questions about methodology, building “envelope” definitions, the meaning of the Hawkins‑Lilly appraisal scores and tradeoffs between renovating existing structures versus rebuilding. Paragon responded that the firm documented room‑by‑room conditions (floors, ceilings, HVAC, roofing, windows) and that their facility‑condition assessment (FCA) provides itemized quantities and timing to help the district prioritize and budget.

Dr. Patel and board members emphasized that this presentation is the study phase only and not a request for immediate action; Paragon and the district recommended a next phase of feasibility and design work for select options, continued communication with the City of Clayton on any land or field proposals and public engagement before any bond or ballot decisions.

A follow‑up materials package and the full study will be posted on the district website, Dr. Patel said. Paragon and the board closed the presentation and invited additional questions that will inform the recommended next steps.