DRAFT Facility Planning Components for Annual Capital ...

Insular ABC’s Phase 3

DRAFT Facility Planning Components for Annual Capital Improvement Program Updates American Samoa November 2018

Insular ABCs Phase 3 November 2018 Facility Planning Components for Annual Capital Improvement Program Updates – American Samoa

i

Contents 1. Introduction ............................................................................... 1

Key terms used in this report: .................................................... 2

Functional Adequacy .................................................................. 2

2. Existing Conditions ..................................................................... 3

3. Territory Population Assessment ............................................... 4

4. School Facility and Grounds Needs ............................................ 7

A.P. Lutali Elementary School ........................................................ 8

Afonotele Elementary School ...................................................... 10

Alataua II Elementary School ....................................................... 12

Alofau Elementary School ............................................................ 14

Aua Elementary School ................................................................ 16

Coleman Elementary School ........................................................ 18

Fagaìtua High School ................................................................... 20

Faleasao Elementary School ........................................................ 22

Fitiuta Elementary School ............................................................ 24

Lauliì Elementary School ............................................................. 26

Leàtele Elementary School ......................................................... 28

Leone High School ........................................................................ 30

Leone Midkiff Elementary School ................................................ 32

Lupelele Elementary School ......................................................... 34

Manuà High School ..................................................................... 36

Manulele Elementary School ....................................................... 38

Masefau Elementary School ........................................................ 40

Matafao Elementary School ......................................................... 42

Matatula Elementary School ........................................................ 44

Mt. Alava Elementary School ....................................................... 46

Nuùuli Polytech High School ....................................................... 48

Olomoana Elementary School ...................................................... 50

Olosega Elementary School ......................................................... 52

Pavaiaì Elementary School .......................................................... 54

Samoana High School ................................................................... 56

Siliaga Elementary School ............................................................ 58

Tafuna Elementary School ........................................................... 60

Tafuna High School ...................................................................... 62

5. School Facility Master Planning – Background/ Process ......... 64

Vision and Goal Setting ................................................................ 67

Community Engagement .............................................................. 67

Project Selection and Prioritization ............................................. 68

Prioritization Committee Selection Process ................................. 69

6. School Standards and Facility Adequacy Considerations ......... 70

Modernization needs ................................................................... 70

Example Space Requirements (GDOE 1999 Ten Year Capital

Facilities Plan Standards) ............................................................. 71

New Construction and Renovation .............................................. 72

Educational Specifications. ...................................................... 72


ii

Example Resources for Facility Requirement Calculations ...... 73

Cost Effectiveness ........................................................................ 73

Example Resources for Life-Cycle Cost Analysis ...................... 74

Future-Proofing ............................................................................ 74

Tropical Construction ................................................................... 75

Example Resources for Tropical Construction

Recommendations ................................................................... 75

References ....................................................................................... 76

Acronyms CEFPI - Council of Educational Facility Planners

CIP - Capital Improvement Program

EAMS - Enterprise Asset Management System

Ed Specs - educational specifications

LCCA - Life-cycle cost analysis

M - million

M&R - maintenance and repair

O&M - operations and maintenance

sf - square feet

UFC - Unified Facilities Criteria

WCCUSD - West Contra Costa Unified School District


1

1. Introduction

This working document establishes foundational school facility Capital Improvement Program (CIP) planning components that can be updated

annually to provide local decision makers with high level facility-need information regarding the current state of the school facility inventory

(e.g., existing facility conditions and functionality, enrollment trends, and overall school CIP needs) to provide timely information for budgeting

and project sequencing.

In addition to CIP planning, Section 7 of this document outlines recommendations for larger-scale planning efforts (i.e., master planning) that

should be conducted on a recurring basis (e.g., every five to ten years). Related efforts include the definition and vetting (or reconsideration) of

facility standards (e.g., facility requirements for each school level: elementary, middle/junior high, and high school), population projections and

demographic analysis, and planning factors that should be informed by and agreed upon through broader public engagement such as CIP

prioritization criteria.

A component of optimizing operations and maintenance (O&M) practices, and establishing

reasonable funding streams, is planning for overall facility improvement needs, including large

expenditures for major repair/replacement, or new construction (i.e., CIP projects) as well as

smaller (often more abundant) maintenance and repair (M&R) projects. CIP projects often take

years to plan and implement, whereas M&R projects are ongoing operational (i.e., current year)

expenditures. Accordingly, CIP needs and funding are budgeted separately from ongoing M&R

needs. Over time, regular M&R work that is deferred over a long period of time accumulates and

turns into a bigger problem, requiring CIP projects to correct the larger issues.

Facility master planning helps establish the standards and goals to which facility adequacy is

assessed, while CIP planning helps advance a continuously fulfilled cycle of facility investment by

analyzing enrollment trends, school capacity, facility life cycles, and facility needs. Ideally, capital

projects are adequately budgeted in advance so they do not compete for limited operational or

M&R funds.

Existing Conditions/Functionality:inventory-wide deferred maintenance and

renewal concerns

Enrollment Trends and Educational Requirments:

recent shifts and anticipated changes

School CIP Needs: capacity, facility adequacy, and

related CIP needs

CIP Cycle:

initial research

procuring design funds

planning and community outreach

design and preparation of construction documents

procuring construction funds

preparing construction documents

obtaining entitlements and necessary approvals

construction

[Several years from planning to completion]


2

Adequately funding CIP projects and M&R is affected by varying

economic conditions, evolving technology and educational/

programmatic needs, shifting enrollment patterns, investment and

redevelopment patterns, aging facilities, shortfalls in legislative

appropriations, and other challenges beyond a school district’s

control. As CIP funds become available, the facility plan can help

school districts:

Identify short-term projects (i.e., renewal that can be

addressed with minimal lead-time) and long-term projects

(i.e., new facilities or major renovations with a longer lead-

time)

Align appropriated CIP funds to short or longer-term

projects as appropriate

Provide equitable distribution

Key terms used in this report:

DM – deferred maintenance: the total cost of needed

repairs for work that should have been performed but was

delayed for a future period

CRV or cost – current replacement value: the total sum of

estimated costs for elements assessed (at system, building,

school, island, or insular area levels)

FCI – facility condition index: the DM percentage of total

CRV (at all levels); this calculation can help identify the

magnitude of particular problems regardless of cost

DM estimates, based on approximate building values derived from

locally adjusted cost components, were estimated for reporting and

planning purposes only and are not meant to determine exact

building values or project costs.

Functional Adequacy In addition to DM and FCI, functional adequacy or educational

adequacy assessment of existing spaces is a critical metric for

considering facility condition.

Functional adequacy assessment helps identify programmatic needs

of a facility, a school, or school district and will also help determine

how well a school or building will support educational program

needs if repaired or renovated or if, instead, replacement is

warranted. Full functionality assessment is extensive and can be

customized to focus on particular desired program upgrades.

Programmatic upgrade goals should be defined through a master

planning effort (see Section 5). For the purposes of this report,

functional adequacy metrics were limited to critical spaces, safety,

and healthful learning space/conditions:

Classroom sizes – dimensions and general sizing

Core spaces (e.g., caf., gym, media ctr) – present and

adequately sized

Restrooms – quantity and location of facilities are adequate

for student population and school staff

Technology/electrical – adequate power outlets/data lines

Indoor Environmental Quality – air quality, lighting/natural

light, acoustics provide a comfortable learning environment

Outdoor activity facilities – desired places for child play and

learning activities are present

Separation of pedestrian, bus and parking – conditions

support safe and efficient pedestrian and vehicle movement

Future assessment of functional adequacy and associated CIP needs

can be revised based on updated master planning requirements.


3

2. Existing Conditions

Total deferred maintenance for the American Samoa Department of Public

Works (ASDPW) is estimated to be $11.65 million (M), escalated to 2018

dollars, for the 28 schools managed by ASDPW.

Highest DM totals

1. Tafuna High School

2. Fagaìtua High School

3. Matafao Elementary School

Capital Investment Needs Comprehensive documentation of existing repair, code compliance, and

capacity needs are required to ascertain not only a larger scale

understanding of existing needs, but also to set priorities that can guide

ongoing investment. This report identifies inventory-wide repair needs and

is intended to be used to create holistic campus improvement plans.

The Facility Master Plan visioning process is required to determine and build

agreement on future educational goals and related facility needs. The

standards for which can then be used to evaluate the adequacy of current

spaces. Sample considerations include: assessing each campus’ spatial

availability for expansion, functional relationships, potential adaptation of

spaces, structural suitability for expansion or modernization, potential

retrofits required by code.

$0.0 $0.5 $1.0 $1.5 $2.0

Afonotele ES

A.P. Lutali ES

Mt. Alava ES

Masefau ES

Alataua II ES

Lauliì ES

Leatele ES

Aua ES

Siliaga ES

Olomoana ES

Matatula ES

Faleasao ES

Fitiuta ES

Olosega ES

Manulele ES

Pavaiai ES

Lupelele ES

Nu'uuli Polytech HS

Alofau ES

Tafuna ES

Manu'a HS

Leone Midkiff ES

Coleman ES

Leone HS

Samoana HS

Matafao ES

Fagaìtua HS

Tafuna HS

Deferred Maintenance ($M; 2018)

2018 dollars in millions (M)


4

3. Territory Population Assessment

Based on United Nations population estimates and

projections data, “World Population Review” estimates

that American Samoa's 2018 population is 55,679,

compared to the official census figure of 55,467 in 2010

representing an annual growth rate of approximately 0.05

percent (World Population Review 2018). Figure 1 shows

School-age Population Projections for American Samoa

through 2050, which indicates a slow decrease in school-

age population over the foreseeable future (slight

downward trend for elementary school enrollment).

Figure 2 shows actual K-12 public school enrollment. This

chart also shows a slow decrease no significant change in

enrollments over the period from 2011 to the 2018 school

year. It is noted that the 85 student enrollment for Fagalii

Elementary School is included in the enrollment total for

the 2018-2019 school year, the first year open for this

school. Enrollment information is pending for the 2015-

2016 and 2017-2018 school years.

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

20

00

20

02

20

04

20

06

20

08

20

10

20

12

20

14

20

16

20

18

20

20

20

22

20

24

20

26

20

28

20

30

20

32

20

34

20

36

20

38

20

40

20

42

20

44

20

46

20

48

20

50

Census School-age Population Projection

Elementary High

Figure 1 - U.S. Census Bureau population projection (2010) – American Samoa

Figure 2 - Actual enrollment from 2011 through 2019

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2016-17 2018-19

School Enrollment (28 schools)

ES HS


5

Figure 3 shows the percent change in American Samoa’s village

populations from 2000 to 2010, indicating interspersed increases

and decreases. Capacity assessments for this report compare gross

square feet per student (to capture other supporting facilities, e.g.,

office, cafeteria, auditorium, media center, circulation, restrooms),

with national gross area per student averages, as reported by the

Council of Educational Facility Planners (CEFPI 2007).

Capacity estimates are shown with red, orange, and green dots in

Figure 4 (red = over capacity, orange = within range, green = under

capacity). Under capacity schools are mostly limited to those in the

Manua Islands, with the exception of Afonotele Elementary

School. Schools within the capacity range are mostly located in the

eastern district, and most schools are identified as overcapacity,

which may indicate the limited availability of supporting facilities,

not necessarily classroom crowding.

The demographic and capacity information seem contradictory,

but suggest that even though enrollments are generally

decreasing, many American Samoa schools may lack the

supporting facilities that are present at other schools. Per national

averages.

Figure 3 - U.S. Census Bureau’s 2010 Percent Change in Population


6

Figure 4 - Locations of over- and under-capacity public schools

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

125%

150%

175%

200%

225%

250%

275%

Fiti

uta

ES

Man

u'a

HS

Olo

sega

ES

Fale

asao

ES

Afo

no

tele

ES

Mas

efau

ES

Leat

ele

ESA

lofa

u E

SM

atat

ula

ES

Olo

mo

ana

ESA

.P. L

uta

li ES

Mt.

Ala

va E

SSi

liaga

ES

Sam

oan

a H

SN

u'u

uli

Po

lyte

ch…

Faga

`itu

a H

SLa

uli`

i ES

Mat

afao

ES

Au

a ES

Tafu

na

ESLe

on

e H

STa

fun

a H

SLu

pe

lele

ES

Man

ule

le E

SA

lata

ua

II E

SP

avai

ai E

SC

ole

man

ES

Leo

ne

Mid

kiff

ES

School Percent Capacity

18%

23%59%

PrimaryUnder Capacity (4)

Within Range (4)

Over Capacity (14)

17%

83%

SecondaryUnder Capacity (1)

Within Range (0)

Over Capacity (5)

Figure 5 - Percent Capacity by School (lowest to highest)


7

4. School Facility and Grounds Needs

This section summarizes the larger repair and CIP needs throughout

the public school inventory. Potential for school expansion and

consolidation include (percentages indicate percent capacity):

School Expansion (limited to schools over 200 percent capacity) 1. Leone Midkiff ES: 263%

2. Coleman ES: 260%

3. Pavaiai ES: 254%

4. Alataua II ES: 248%

5. Manulele ES: 241%

6. Lupelele ES: 225%

7. Tafuna HS: 209%

8. Leone HS: 205%

9. Tafuna ES: 202%

School Consolidation (limited to schools under 50 percent capacity) 1. Fitiuta ES: 33%

2. Manu'a HS: 36%

3. Olosega ES: 46%

Major Repair/Replacement [pending discussion with DPW; e.g., cafeteria expansions, RR

additions]

Site Improvement Projects 1. Lupelele Elementary

2. Manulele Elementary

3. Masefau Elementary

4. Matafao Elementary

5. Matatula Elementary

6. Mt. Alava Elementary

7. Nu'uuli Polytech High

8. Olomoana Elementary

9. Pavaia'i Elementary

10. Samoana High

11. Siliaga Elementary

12. Tafuna Elementary

13. Tafuna High

14. A.P. Lutali Elementary

15. Faleasao Elementary

16. Fitiuta Elementary

17. Manu'a High

18. Olosega Elementary

School-Specific Condition Summaries – Assumptions

The school-specific condition summaries provided in Section 4 are

based on the 2013 building condition assessments (August 2013)

with some updates to address work completed to date. In the

future, these data points can be taken from the Enterprise Asset

Management System (EAMS) to capture current conditions.

DM estimates and facility replacement values were updated to 2018

dollars for inclusion in this report:

Cost Replacement Value was based on March 2013 dollars

and escalated to September 2018 dollars using the

“NAVFAC Building Cost Index” (used because this represents

a middle range between other indices e.g., RS Means and

Census Construction Price Indexes)

Deferred Maintenance costs were based on Sept 2015

dollars and escalated to Sept 2018 dollars

School by school conditions are summarized on subsequent pages

of Section 4.


8

A.P. Lutali Elementary School Maximo Site AS02024

Island: Aunu`u

Facility Conditions:

Deferred Maintenance Estimate: $107k

Replacement value (2018 $): $902k

Facility Condition Index: 11.9

Number of Buildings: 7

Floor Area: 7,303 SF

Campus Size: 0.56 acres http://insularabcs.org/School/Summary?id=AS02024

Functionality Assessment:

[preliminary considerations; pending master plan input]

Spaces are adequate Yes No Adequate Bldg. Issues

Classroom sizes Core spaces (e.g., caf., gym, media ctr) Restrooms Technology/electrical Indoor Environmental Quality Outdoor activity facilities Separation of pedestrian, bus and parking

Capacity:

School Actual

AS ES Average

2017-18 Enrollment 73 316

Number of Classrooms 13 29

Students per Classroom 5.6 10.9

Square Feet per Student 100 101

0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18

03-Admin/Cafe/Comp Lab 0022

04-Classroom 0021

05-Classroom 0020

07-Restroom

02-Restroom 0023

A.P. Lutali ES FCI

776

752 756

709695

719

2012-2013 2013-2014 2014-2015 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18

Enrollment


9

Figure 6 - A.P. Lutali Elementary School

Legend

FCI = 0.0-0.1

FCI = 0.1-0.15

FCI = 0.15-0.5

FCI = 0.5-1.0

5

4

3

7 2


10

Afonotele Elementary School Maximo Site AS01001

Island: Tutuila








Functionality Adequacy: [preliminary considerations; pending master plan input]



Capacity:

School Actual

AS ES Average





0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30

05-Classroom, office 0070

03-Classroom

01-Assembly Hall 0066

02-Classroom

06-Kitchen/Cafe 0069

07-Restroom 0071

Afonotele ES FCI

413

532 505

413 420 400

2012-2013 2013-2014 2014-2015 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18

Enrollment


11

Figure 7 - Afonotele Elementary School

Legend

FCI = 0.0-0.1

FCI = 0.1-0.15

FCI = 0.15-0.5

FCI = 0.5-1.0

5

2

3

7

6

1


12

Alataua II Elementary School Maximo Site AS01002

Island: Tutuila



Replacement value (2018 $): $1,456k





Functionality Assessment (Educational Adequacy): [preliminary considerations; pending master plan input]



Capacity:

School Actual

AS ES Average

2017-18 Enrollment 171 316




0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12 0.14 0.16

02-Classroom 0420

04-Classroom 0418

15-Classroom 0414

03-Classroom 0419

05-Cafeteria 0417

06-Classroom 0416

01-Admin/Comp Lab 0421

08-Restroom 0415

Alataua II ES FCI

792

854

913

810788

768

2012-2013 2013-2014 2014-2015 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18

Enrollment


13

Figure 8 - Alataua II Elementary School

Legend

FCI = 0.0-0.1

FCI = 0.1-0.15

FCI = 0.15-0.5

FCI = 0.5-1.0

1

2

3

4 5 6

8

15


14

Alofau Elementary School Maximo Site AS01003

Island: Tutuila







Campus Size 1.17 acres http://insularabcs.org/School/Summary?id=AS01003





Capacity:

School Actual

AS ES Average

2017-18 Enrollment 143 316




0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40

01-Classroom

07-Office 0033

05-Classroom 0032

11-Classroom 0037

09-Classroom 0030

10-Kitchen/Class room 0035

03-Cafeteria 0036

06-Classroom 0034

04-Office/ECE 0040

13-MEP Infrastructure

Alofau ES FCI

547

433

532 561 578 583

2012-2013 2013-2014 2014-2015 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18

Enrollment


15

Figure 9 - Alofau Elementary School

Legend

FCI = 0.0-0.1

FCI = 0.1-0.15

FCI = 0.15-0.5

FCI = 0.5-1.0

1

5

6

7

8

9

11 10

3

4

2


16

Aua Elementary School Maximo Site AS01004

Island: Tutuila












Capacity:

School Actual

AS ES Average

2017-18 Enrollment 402 316




0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25

13-Classroom

14-Classroom

15-Gym/Admin

02-Classroom

01-Classroom

04-Restroom

Aua ES FCI

648625 632

552 558

602

2012-2013 2013-2014 2014-2015 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18

Enrollment


17

Figure 10 - Aua Elementary School

Legend

FCI = 0.0-0.1

FCI = 0.1-0.15

FCI = 0.15-0.5

FCI = 0.5-1.0

2

4

3

11 12

1

8

5

9

6

7

10


18

Coleman Elementary School Maximo Site AS01005

Island: Tutuila












Capacity:

School Actual

AS ES Average

2017-18 Enrollment 568 316



Square Feet per Student 77.8 101

0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80

18-Restroom 0122

06-Classroom 0111

07-Classroom 0108

23-Classroom/Admin 0118

04-Classroom 0109

14-Classroom 0114

05-Classroom 0110

09-Classroom 0104

24-Classroom 0102

19-Restroom 0119

01-Classroom 0117

22-Cafeteria 0113

10-Classroom 0100

13-Classroom 0112

21-Kitchen 0106

11-Classroom 0101

03-Classroom 0115

08-Classroom 0107

16-Admin.

02-Restroom 0116

Coleman ES FCI

693

728717

700681

703

2012-2013 2013-2014 2014-2015 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18

Enrollment


19

Figure 11 - Coleman Elementary School

Legend

FCI = 0.0-0.1

FCI = 0.1-0.15

FCI = 0.15-0.5

FCI = 0.5-1.0

1 23

2 3 5

6

7

6

9

6

10

6

14

6

19

6

18

6

4

8

22

6

11

6

16

6

24

6

21

6

20

6 12

6

13

6


20

Faga`itua High School Maximo Site AS01006

Island: Tutuila


Deferred Maintenance Estimate: $1,035k










Capacity:

School Actual

AS HS Average

2017-18 Enrollment 500 690




0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40

01-JROTC 0058

02-Covered Walkway

03-Gymnasium 0057

10-Restroom 0055

06-Classroom 0054

11-Open Fale

07-Kitch./Cafeteria

08-Library/Comp Lab 0056

04-Classroom

05-Admin/Classroom 0052

09-Classroom 0050

Faga`itua HS FCI

531521

492

479489 492

2012-2013 2013-2014 2014-2015 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18

Enrollment


21

Figure 12 - Faga`itua High School

Legend

FCI = 0.0-0.1

FCI = 0.1-0.15

FCI = 0.15-0.5

FCI = 0.5-1.0

1

3

10

9

6

7

11

4

2

5

8


22

Faleasao Elementary School Maximo Site AS03025

Island: Manua












Capacity:

School Actual

AS ES Average





0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25

04-Classroom 0568


05-Classroom 0565

03-Classroom 0567

01-Classroom 0563

06-Teacher Res/Principal 0566

Faleasao ES FCI

271 272266

230 230

270

2012-2013 2013-2014 2014-2015 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18

Enrollment


23

Figure 13 - Faleasao Elementary School

Legend

FCI = 0.0-0.1

FCI = 0.1-0.15

FCI = 0.15-0.5

FCI = 0.5-1.0

1

6

3

2 5

4


24

Fitiuta Elementary School Maximo Site AS03026

Island: Manua












Capacity:

School Actual

AS ES Average





0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35

04-Classroom 0584

01-Classroom 0587


02-Teacher Res/Principal 0586

Fitiuta ES FCI

469478

440 439428

435

2012-2013 2013-2014 2014-2015 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18

Enrollment


25

Figure 14 - Fitiuta Elementary School

Legend

FCI = 0.0-0.1

FCI = 0.1-0.15

FCI = 0.15-0.5

FCI = 0.5-1.0

1

2

3

4

6


26

Lauli`i Elementary School Maximo Site AS01007

Island: Tutuila












Capacity:

School Actual

AS ES Average

2017-18 Enrollment 169 316



Square Feet per Student 67.5 101

0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35

07-Classroom 0042

05-Classroom 0043

06-Kitchen

03-Admin./Library

02-Classroom 0045

09-Cafeteria

08-Classroom 0044

04-Restroom 0046

Lauli`i ES FCI

343 342 339

320

304

329

2012-2013 2013-2014 2014-2015 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18

Enrollment


27

Figure 15 - Lauli`i Elementary School

Legend

FCI = 0.0-0.1

FCI = 0.1-0.15

FCI = 0.15-0.5

FCI = 0.5-1.0

2 3

8

4

9

6

7 5


28

Le`atele Elementary School Maximo site AS01008

Island: Tutuila












Capacity:

School Actual

AS ES Average





0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25


04-Classroom 0088

06-Kitch./Cafe

05-Classroom 0090

02-Restroom 0093

03-Storage

10-Assembly Hall

Le`atele ES FCI

543531

494

535

507

493

2012-2013 2013-2014 2014-2015 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18

Enrollment


29

Figure 16 - Le`atele Elementary School

Legend

FCI = 0.0-0.1

FCI = 0.1-0.15

FCI = 0.15-0.5

FCI = 0.5-1.0

1

2 3

6

5 4

10


30

Leone High School Maximo Site AS01009

Island: Tutuila












Capacity:

School Actual

AS HS Average

2017-18 Enrollment 756 690




0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60

17-Classrooms

12-Restroom 0447

14-Classroom 0448

09-Classroom 0444

04-Open Fale

01-Gymnasium 0450

10-Classroom 0445

11-Classroom 0446

15-Classroom 0449

05-Classroom 0440

16-Admin 0443

07-Kit/Cafe 0442

03-JROTC 0439

19-Covered Walkway

Leone HS FCI

752

713 721

676

641657

2012-2013 2013-2014 2014-2015 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18

Enrollment


31

Figure 17 - Leone High School

Legend

FCI = 0.0-0.1

FCI = 0.1-0.15

FCI = 0.15-0.5

FCI = 0.5-1.0

1

14 17

15

12 11

10

16

7

4

6

5

2

3

19


32

Leone Midkiff Elementary School Maximo Site AS01010

Island: Tutuila












Capacity:

School Actual

AS ES Average

2017-18 Enrollment 797 316




0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40

18-Covered Walkway

16-Classroom 0436

11-Classroom 0422

17-Restroom 0437

09-Classroom 0425

10-Classroom 0427

13-Classroom 0426

15-Classroom 0429

08-Classroom 0423

14-Classroom 0428

12-Classroom 0424

03-Classroom 0432

05-Classroom 0430

01-Classroom 0434

02-Open Fale

07-Admin/Library 0433

04-Restroom 0431

06-Classroom/Kitchen 0435

Leone Midkiff ES FCI

1,128

1,106

1,176

1,1171,106

1,129

2012-2013 2013-2014 2014-2015 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18

Enrollment


33

Figure 18 - Leone Midkiff Elementary School

6

16

2 1

7

11

8

Legend

FCI = 0.0-0.1

FCI = 0.1-0.15

FCI = 0.15-0.5

FCI = 0.5-1.0

9

10

5

4

3 12

13

14 15

17


34

Lupelele Elementary School Maximo Site AS01011

Island: Tutuila












Capacity:

School Actual

AS ES Average

2017-18 Enrollment 635 316




0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50

06-Classroom

02-Classroom 0393

01-Classroom 0394

11-Classroom 0400

09-Covered Walkway

04-Classroom 0392

10-Cafeteria 0399

15-Classroom 0385

03-Classroom 0391

13-Classroom 0387

17-Classroom 0386

18-Classroom 0390

14-Kitchen 0384

12-Classroom 0388

08-Admin 0396

16-Classroom 0389

05-Restroom 0398

07-Restroom 0395

Lupelele ES FCI

906 936 979

811 843 849

2012-2013 2013-2014 2014-2015 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18

Enrollment


35

Figure 19 - Lupelele Elementary School

Legend

FCI = 0.0-0.1

FCI = 0.1-0.15

FCI = 0.15-0.5

FCI = 0.5-1.0

3

4

2

1 6

8 7

5

16

12

13 17

18 14

15

10 11

9


36

Manu`a High School Maximo Site AS03027

Island: Manua







Campus Size 2.01 acres http://insularabcs.org/School/Summary?id=AS03027





Capacity:

School Actual

AS HS Average





0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45

04-Gymnasium 0577

05-Restroom 0578

12-Covered Walkway

10-Kit/Cafe/RR/Science 0575

11-Project Bldg

08-Classroom 0574


06-Open Fale

09-Classroom 0576

02-Teacher Housing 0580

03-Teacher Housing 0579

01-Teacher Housing/Storage

Manu`a HS FCI

438 456 454425

369 387

2012-2013 2013-2014 2014-2015 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18

Enrollment


37

Figure 20 - Manu`a High School

Legend

FCI = 0.0-0.1

FCI = 0.1-0.15

FCI = 0.15-0.5

FCI = 0.5-1.0

10

9

12

8 7

6

4

5

11

1

3

2


38

Manulele Elementary School Maximo Site AS01012

Island: Tutuila












Capacity:

School Actual

AS ES Average

2017-18 Enrollment 913 316




0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18

04-Classroom/Cafe 0231

08-Classroom 0229

09-Classroom

05-Classroom 0230

02-Restroom 0232

01-Classroom 0234

06-Restroom 0228

15-Classroom 0224

16-Classroom 0225

17-Classroom 0220

10-Classroom 0221

12-Classroom 0226

14-Classroom 0223


Manulele ES FCI

1,842

2,643 2,647

1,767 1,699 1,630

2012-2013 2013-2014 2014-2015 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18

Enrollment


39

Figure 21 - Manulele Elementary School

Legend

FCI = 0.0-0.1

FCI = 0.1-0.15

FCI = 0.15-0.5

FCI = 0.5-1.0

10

12

1

2

3

4

5

8

9

17

16

6

13 14

15

11


40

Masefau Elementary School Maximo Site AS01013

Island: Tutuila












Capacity:

School Actual

AS ES Average





0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18

01-Kitchen/Cafe

03-Classroom

04-Restroom

Masefau ES FCI

257255

247 248

244241

2012-2013 2013-2014 2014-2015 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18

Enrollment


41

Figure 22 - Masefau Elementary School

Legend

FCI = 0.0-0.1

FCI = 0.1-0.15

FCI = 0.15-0.5

FCI = 0.5-1.0

1

3

4


42

Matafao Elementary School Maximo Site AS01014

Island: Tutuila












Capacity:

School Actual

AS ES Average

2017-18 Enrollment 518 316




0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20

15-Classroom/Kitch/Cafe

04-Restroom

07-Classroom

13-Classroom

06-Classroom

08-Classroom

16-Classroom/Office

09-Classroom

12-Classroom

03-Classroom

11-Classroom

05-Classroom

17-Comp Lab/Library

02-Admin/Offices/Spec Ed

Matafao ES FCI

556596 611

531 515 490

2012-2013 2013-2014 2014-2015 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18

Enrollment


43

Figure 23 - Matafao Elementarry School

Legend

FCI = 0.0-0.1

FCI = 0.1-0.15

FCI = 0.15-0.5

FCI = 0.5-1.0

3

2 5

6 8

7 9

4

11 13 16

17

15

12

10

18 14


44

Matatula Elementary School Maximo Site AS01015

Island: Tutuila












Capacity:

School Actual

AS ES Average

2017-18 Enrollment 142 316




0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25

01-Classroom

02-Classroom

03-Classroom/Office/Library

04-Kit/Cafe/Restroom

Matatula ES FCI

83

145124

39

154171

2012-2013 2013-2014 2014-2015 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18

Enrollment


45

Figure 24 - Matatula Elementary School

Legend

FCI = 0.0-0.1

FCI = 0.1-0.15

FCI = 0.15-0.5

FCI = 0.5-1.0

1

3

2

4


46

Mt. Alava Elementary School Maximo Site AS01016

Island: Tutuila












Capacity:

School Actual

AS ES Average





0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12 0.14

08-Classroom/Restroom

05-Classroom

04-Classroom

03-Classroom

02-Classroom

07-Kit/Cafe/Office/Library

01-Classroom

06-Restroom/Storage

Mt. Alava ES FCI

506 505

498

513

501503

2012-2013 2013-2014 2014-2015 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18

Enrollment


47

Figure 25 - Mt. Alava Elementary School

Legend

FCI = 0.0-0.1

FCI = 0.1-0.15

FCI = 0.15-0.5

FCI = 0.5-1.0

2

1

3

4

5 6

8

7


48

Nu`uuli Polytech High School Maximo Site AS01017

Island: Tutuila












Capacity:

School Actual

AS HS Average

2017-18 Enrollment 342 690


Students per Classroom 10 12.8


0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50

05-Welding Shop 0535

02-Classrooms

09-Offices/Classrooms

04-Various Trades/Admin 0532

10-Classroom

06-Kitchen/Cafe

07-Classroom


08-Restroom 0534

03-Classroom

Nu`uuli Polytech HS FCI

891 925990

864 870 822

2012-2013 2013-2014 2014-2015 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18

Enrollment


49

Figure 26 - Nu`uuli Polytech High School

Legend

FCI = 0.0-0.1

FCI = 0.1-0.15

FCI = 0.15-0.5

FCI = 0.5-1.0

8 5

6 7

4

1

9 2

3

10


50

Olomoana Elementary School Maximo Site AS01018

Island: Tutuila












Capacity:

School Actual

AS ES Average





0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30

08-Admin/Comp Lab 0012

07-Classroom 0015

09-Library

10-Cafeteria

06-Classroom 0013

05-Kitchen/Classroom 0014

04-Classroom 0016

03-Classroom 0017

02-Restroom 0018

Olommoana ES FCI

778

681

729741

680

711

2012-2013 2013-2014 2014-2015 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18

Enrollment


51

Figure 27 - Olomoana Elementary School

Legend

FCI = 0.0-0.1

FCI = 0.1-0.15

FCI = 0.15-0.5

FCI = 0.5-1.0

8

9 6 10

5 7

4 3

2


52

Olosega Elementary School Maximo Site AS03028

Island: Manua












Capacity:

School Actual

AS ES Average



Students per Classroom 9 10.9


0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35

02-Classroom 0601

05-Classroom 0595

01-Classroom

03-Classroom 0600

06-Classroom/Lib 0596

08-Office/ECE 0598

09-Principal's House

07-Restroom 0597


Olosega ES FCI

257

275 277 274279

301

2012-2013 2013-2014 2014-2015 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18

Enrollment


53

Figure 28 - Olosega Elementary School

Legend

FCI = 0.0-0.1

FCI = 0.1-0.15

FCI = 0.15-0.5

FCI = 0.5-1.0

3

1

2

5

6

7

8

9

4


54

Pavaia`i Elementary School Maximo Site AS01019

Island: Tutuila












Capacity:

School Actual

AS ES Average

2017-18 Enrollment 1,095 316




0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50

08-Spec.Ed

05-Classroom

03-Classroom 0377

07-Classroom 0374

11-Cafe 0382

04-Classroom 0376

06-Classroom 0373

21-Restroom 0375

01-Classroom 0378

16-Classroom 0365

13-Classroom 0370

14-Classroom 0368

17-Classroom 0367

18-Classroom 0369

19-Classroom 0371

15-Classroom 0366

12-Restroom

20-Kitchen 0372

10-Library

09-Admin

02-Covered Walkway

Pavaia`i ES FCI

1,065 1,068

1,172

1,088

1,152

1,111

2012-2013 2013-2014 2014-2015 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18

Enrollment


55

Figure 29 - Pavaia`i Elementary School

Legend

FCI = 0.0-0.1

FCI = 0.1-0.15

FCI = 0.15-0.5

FCI = 0.5-1.0

16

5

3 4

6

7

9 8

11 10

1 15

14

17 18

13

19

20

12

21

2


56

Samoana High School Maximo Site AS01020

Island: Tutuila












Capacity:

School Actual

AS HS Average

2017-18 Enrollment 988 690




0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25

10-Kitchen/Cafeteria 0174

06-Classroom 0170

01-Gymnasium 0165

02-Classroom/Science 0166

13-Restroom 0168

04-Classroom 0169

09-Office 0172

08-JROTC 0173

03-Classroom 0167

07-Classroom 0180

Samoana HS FCI

311338

310 296259 243

2012-2013 2013-2014 2014-2015 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18

Enrollment


57

Figure 30 - Samoana High School

Legend

FCI = 0.0-0.1

FCI = 0.1-0.15

FCI = 0.15-0.5

FCI = 0.5-1.0

1

2

3

4

6

10

8 9

13

7

5


58

Siliaga Elementary School Maximo Site AS01021

Island: Tutuila












Capacity:

School Actual

AS ES Average

2017-18 Enrollment 180 316




0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80

06-Covered Walkway

04-Classroom 0463

03-Kitchen/Cafeteria 0464

05-Restroom 0462

01-Library/Special ED 0460

02-Comp Lab/Office

07-Abondoned Classroom

Siliaga ES FCI

436

458463

416

435 437

2012-2013 2013-2014 2014-2015 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18

Enrollment


59

Figure 31 - Siliaga Elementary School

Legend

FCI = 0.0-0.1

FCI = 0.1-0.15

FCI = 0.15-0.5

FCI = 0.5-1.0

3 6

4

5

7

2

1


60

Tafuna Elementary School Maximo Site AS01022

Island: Tutuila












Capacity:

School Actual

AS ES Average

2017-18 Enrollment 857 316




0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60

08-Classroom 0357

09-Classroom 0359

04-Classroom

05-Classroom 0360

03-Classroom/Admin

11-Covered Walkway


07-Classroom 0358

12-Car Shelter

06-Office/Restroom 0363

10-Restroom

Tafuna ES FCI

644 672 656601 611

437

2012-2013 2013-2014 2014-2015 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18

Enrollment


61

Figure 32 - Tafuna Elementary School

Legend

FCI = 0.0-0.1

FCI = 0.1-0.15

FCI = 0.15-0.5

FCI = 0.5-1.0

1

2

6

9

5 11

7 8

4

3

10 12


62

Tafuna High School Maximo Site AS01023

Island: Tutuila


Deferred Maintenance Estimate: $1,484k










Capacity:

School Actual

AS HS Average

2017-18 Enrollment 1,196 690




0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60

02-Classroom 0333

06-Classroom 0332

05-Classroom

19-Covered Walkway

23-Classroom 0335

01-Kitchen/Cafe/Music Room

14-Classroom 0325

03-Classroom 0334

08-Classroom 0338

09-Restroom 0336

07-Restroom 0331

12-Classroom 0330

04-Gymnasium 0337

16-Classroom 0320

10-Classroom 0326

13-Classroom 0328

17-Classroom 0321

11-Classroom 0329

15-JROTC 0324

18-Classroom 0322

Tafuna HS FCI

548

516

547

508516

534

2012-2013 2013-2014 2014-2015 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18

Enrollment


63

Figure 33 - Tafuna High School

Legend

FCI = 0.0-0.1

FCI = 0.1-0.15

FCI = 0.15-0.5

FCI = 0.5-1.0

14

12

11 13

4

5

1

2

6

7

8

3 23

19

15 18

16 17

10

9


64

Demographics

5. School Facility Master Planning – Background/ Process

School facility master planning is the process by which a school district determines its programmatic

goals, future facility needs, evaluates alternative solutions, and creates viable action plans for

execution. The master plan sets the standards that guide facility investments and is informed by

various inputs (e.g., condition and functionality assessments, population trends and projections,

and educational program goals) as well as public input that builds understanding of needs and

limitations. Because of the evolving nature of these inputs, the master plan should be seen not as a

static document, but a process that requires regular updates.1 It is the comprehensive conclusion of

three interconnected components: facilities, educational programs and demographics. Altering one

element directly affects the relationship with the other two. Together these three components

make up the Facilities Master Plan as seen in Figure 36.

Facilities: platforms that support educational programs and shelter students; facility evaluation

considers:

Condition: indoor air quality, thermal comfort, acoustics, lighting, maintenance adequacy2

Design: size, types of spaces, functional relationships of spaces, aesthetic qualities

Utilization: physical capacity, time usage, access, shared-use opportunities

Programming: Territory standards, administrators and local decision makers shape school

curriculum that determines which educational programs public schools provide. School facilities

must meet the unique requirements of a school’s curriculum to improve overall education.

Demographics: student enrollment trends and population projections; informs individual schools

program capacity (i.e., the number and size of certain facilities) and future investments.

1 School District Master Planning: A Practical Guide to Demographics & Facility Planning. (Carey, 2011) 2 Facility conditions have been proven to affect standardized test scores, graduation and attendance rates, and teacher retention rates. (Barrett, 2015)

Facility master plan

goals, standards, and processes

facility investment needs/priorities

informed alternatives analysis

holistic, objective investment

decisions

Figure 34 - Master Plan Components


65

A facility master plan defines standards to which adequacy can be assessed (e.g., conditions, code compliance, functional adequacy) and

priorities assigned. Intensive evaluation and a public vetting process establishes standards and improvement strategies.

A community’s vision is a starting point to set expectations of what the school facilities will be (e.g., energy efficient, able to incorporate/utilize

latest technology, adaptable workspaces, healthful…) and serves as a basis for program and facility design goals. These standards then inform

policies for condition requirements such as equipment, infrastructure, code compliance, capacity thresholds, student-teacher ratios,

redistricting, bussing and other equity concerns. Prioritization criteria for CIP investments are determined in relation to the policies and

standards established by the master plan, and set the foundation for objective decision making which can reduce conflict related to funding

decisions. The master plan is informed by separate studies (e.g., special assessments for conditions or code compliance, sustainable

Facility Data

•Assess school facilities for condition, code compliance, utilization and functional adequacy

•Project school enrollments and classroom capacity

Steering Committee

•Stand up a committee with parents, teachers, principals and DOE administrators

•Define educational vision and goals

•Set curriculum and facility standards

•Determine physical and monetary resources

Public Workshops

•Conduct community survey

•How will existing and new facilities manifest the vision within a physical space?

•Determine existing neighborhood assets that can be used to lessen campus requirements

Final Plan

•Set capital improvement goals and priorities

•Identify and rank projects

•Create a plan that combines educational goals, demographics, and facility assessments into an achievable response to capital improvement needs


66

maintenance procedures, implementation plans for long-term vision-plan-based inventory renewal) that may be revised apart from the master

plan and referenced accordingly.

The West Contra Costa Unified School District (WCCUSD), in California, provides a model process for vision and goal setting, community

engagement, and establishment of CIP prioritization criteria.

Figure 35 - Example Planning Process for the WCCUSD Long Range Facilities Master Plan (WCCUSD 2016) *LCAP – Local Control and Accountability Plan for goal setting and resource allocation (California Department of Education https://www.cde.ca.gov/re/lc/)

https://www.cde.ca.gov/re/lc/


67

Vision and Goal Setting Keeping the end goal in mind during the Long Range Facilities Master

Plan process is important to ensuring that each step in the process is

building toward the established goal.

As an example, the WCCUSD Master Plan end goals were to:

The focus here is on establishing objective and equitable criteria and

applying these criteria to define a project sequencing plan and

measurable implementation strategy.

Community Engagement Community engagement contributes to the success of the facility

planning process because residents can add their ideas and concerns

and build awareness of related challenges or complicating factors

that may limit what projects the school district can accomplish.

Example focus areas:

1. What type of improvements will have the most impact on

students and communities?

2. What criteria should be used to prioritize the sites?

3. Individual input on the priority school sites.

The location of community meetings is important for capturing a

representative sample of the population, and efforts should be made

to hold meetings in each area (e.g., each high school, or middle

schools where needed). The entire community should be invited, and

fliers could be sent to every student to ensure that meetings are well

advertised.

The WCCUSD Master Planning process also included district-wide

and school-site –specific surveys to start the establishment of

prioritization criteria.

Identify the order in which projects on the 21 Priority School Sites would be completed using

a priority list based on equitable, measurable criteria.

Define construction projects with budgets on all 21 Priority

School Sites using the results of the site assessments, community input and District-wide capacity

and utilization.

Establish an implementation time-line for project completion.

•Start with a presentation to outline the Facilities Master Plan process, the reason for community engagement and the establishment of the Prioritization Committee. A paper survey would be distributed to all attendees as a way to obtain more input and address District-wide comments.

DISTRICT-WIDE SURVEY

•More than one round of Community Meetings should be expected, and attendance may vary through the process. The first meetings will gather input from the District-wide survey. Comments on the survey questions can be addressed in the second round of meetings, and a second survey can be used to drill down into concerns related to specific school sites. Attendees may represent more than one school, and, in these cases, would need to fill out more than one survey (e.g., up to three). Comments about specific school sites would be collected to inform later analysis of project selection and prioritization.

SCHOOL SITE SPECIFIC SURVEY


68

Project Selection and Prioritization Scarce CIP funding limits the number of projects that can be addressed each fiscal year. Developing a set of sequencing criteria to evaluate and

prioritize proposed CIP helps to identify the highest needs and build strategies to address them. The WCCUSD master plan process included first

creating a carefully selected citizen-based “prioritization committee” (comprised of parents, teachers, principals and DOE staff). The committee

worked with an initial list of criteria that would be applied equally to all sites without discussing individual site needs. They created draft

selection criteria and weighting that would prioritize projects, and vetted the criteria until they reached consensus. The committee then

presented their recommendation to the Board of Education for final approval. Table 5-1 shows

the output of WCCUSD’s criteria selection and weighting process.

Table 5-1 - Output of WCCUSD’s criteria selection and weighting process

Criteria Metric Weight

Number of Years since Last Improvement

The dollars spent per student since 1991, including bond funds, plus State matching funds

6

Functionality Assessments scores prepared by Darden/iep2 6

Seismic Needs Structural reports were prepared for the District in 2002 will be used

5

Age of School Age of the original school building on a site 5

Physical Condition Assessment scores prepared by Darden/iep2 5

ADA Compliance Assessment ADA sub-scores prepared by Darden/iep2

4

Completed Phases of Design Scale: No Design, MP, SD, DD, CD, DSA 4

Economically Disadvantaged Area Median Income of the Census Track 3

Eligible for State Funding Any State funding 2

% Of Enrollment ESL, Foster, or Low Income

LCAP unduplicated count 2

Lack of Technology Infrastructure IT Grading 2

Over or Nearing Capacity Utilization using capacity without portables 1

The output of these criteria and metrics produce many data types on a range of scales. To be

able to produce one system to compare the criteria, each metric was scored on a 1 to 10-point

scale. The top and bottom of the range was established to allow the maximum amount of

variance between the lowest score and highest score without reverting to odd intervals such

Create prioritization committee

Draft selection criteria and weighting

Reach consensus

Final approval by Board of

Education

Figure 36 - Process for establishing project prioritization criteria (WCCUSD 2016)


69

as decimal points.

Table 2 - Criteria, metrics, and assignment of weights used for project prioritization

Criteria

# of Years since Last Improve-

ments

Function Score

Seismic Needs

Age Condition

Score ADA Score

Completed Plans

Economically Disadvan-taged Area

Technology Infrastructure

Eligible for State Funding

Percent of Enrollment ESL, Foster,

or Low Income

Over or Nearing Capacity

Metric Dollars spent/

student

Assessment score

Seismic Report Priority

Building Age

(permanent)

Assessment score

Assessment score

Design stage of campus

improvement plans

Median household income ($)

Technology Department

Ranking

Eligible for a state funding program

2015-16 WCCUSD

LCAP

Utilization without

portables

10 Points

Under 5,000

Under 33 1 Before 1945

Under 25 Under 15 DSA

Approval Below 42K 1 Yes 95-100% 371% +

9 Points 5K-10K 33-36 1946-1951 25-30 15-20 42K-50K 90-95% 340-370%

8 Points 10K-15K 36-39 2 1952-1957 30-35 20-25 CD 50K-58K 2 85-90% 310-340%

7 Points 15K-20K 39-42 1958-1963 35-40 25-30 58K-66K 80-85% 280-310%

6 Points 20K-25K 42-45 3 1964-1969 40-45 30-35 DD 66K-74K 3 75-80% 250-280%

5 Points 25K-30K 45-48 1970-1975 45-50 35-40 74K-82K 70-75% 220-250%

4 Points 30K-35K 48-51 4 1976-1981 50-55 40-45 SD 82K-90K 4 65-70% 190-220%

3 Points 35K-40K 51-54 1982-1987 55-60 45-50 90K-98K 60-65% 160-190%

2 Points 40K-45K 54-57 5 1988-1993 60-65 50-55 Master Plan 98K-106K 5 55-60% 130-160%

1 Point 45K-50K 57-60 1994-1999 65-70 55-60 106K-114K 50-55% 100-130%

0 Points Over 50K 61+ No

Report Past 2000 71+ 61+ No Design 115K+ No Under 50%

Under 100%

Prioritization Committee Selection Process As previously noted, the committee nominees for the WCCUSD Master Plan were carefully selected. All were well-established members of the

community that understood the need to create equitable school facilities, the critical importance of the work, and the amount of time and

participation the process would require. As a part of the committee selection process, each nominee filled out an online survey concerning their

background, their relationship to the District, and their interest in serving on the Committee. The survey included a question concerning

sequencing criteria and asked participants to rank a list of potential sequencing criteria generated through community and DOE meetings to help

inform the committee selection and criteria ranking process.


70

6. School Standards and Facility Adequacy Considerations

Modernization needs Over the past 20 years, educational environments have undergone enormous change, driven by shifting expectations and requirements from

educators, parents, communities, and regulators. As educational demands and building standards have changed, many of the more than 100,000

public school facilities that were once considered to be adequate for teaching and learning now are considered to be woefully inadequate and

even unsafe. (State of Our Schools 2016)

One of the three main components of a successful facility master plan is education programming. An educational adequacy assessment

evaluates how well a school is equipped to deliver the current curriculum. The major challenge with addressing educational adequacy is that

programmatic needs change quicker and more often than facilities are built or renovated. An educational adequacy assessment helps facility

planners determine whether it is more viable to renovate a facility or replace it (Dejong & Richter 2016).

Key considerations include:

Indoor Environmental Quality (e.g., air quality, lighting/day

light, sound/acoustics)

ADA accessibility

Flexibility of spaces (opportunities for alternative uses for all

spaces, to reduce the amount of time that spaces are

unused, e.g., media center instead of a library and

computer room; adaptability of spaces, e.g., collapsible

walls, drop-down electrical outlets, adjacency to outdoor

learning spaces)

Electrical and other building infrastructure (e.g., cooling and

dehumidification) to support the integration of technology

in schools for instruction and administration

Energy efficiency and cost effective operations

Life cycle cost analysis for materials and equipment

(including operational costs in addition to capital outlays)

Safety and security measures (for natural and manmade

risks; use as shelters)

Student/teacher as well as student/restroom ratio goals

(right size classrooms)

Outdoor places for children to play and learn (e.g., health

and environmental education) (State of Our Schools, 2016)

The assessment can be broken down by the type of space being

analyzed:

Core Academics (classrooms, science labs)

Special Education (life skills, VOC, resource rooms)

Visual Arts (art, drawing, painting, media)

Performing Arts (music, band, drama)

Physical Education (locker rooms, weight room)

Shared Spaces (Gym, cafeteria, media center)

Site (parking, circulation, landscaping)

(Dejong Richter 2016)


71

Example Space Requirements (GDOE 1999 Ten Year Capital Facilities Plan Standards) For example, Guam Department of Education specified space types and quantities in their 1999 Ten Year Capital Facilities Plan. These definitions

serve as a sound starting point for considering facility requirements for various school types and student populations. Quantities for each facility

type are determined based on program capacity. Space requirements are listed by school level with area requirements shown in square feet (sf):

Elementary:

General Classrooms – 900, 1150, or 1250

Multipurpose – 1250

Special Education – 1400 or 810

Itinerant – 330

Administrative – 3600

Faculty Center – 840

Cafetorium – 5500

Custodial – 330

Library – 6000

Computer – 900

Play Area Grades 1-2 – 40,000

Kindergarten – 5000

Play Area Grades 3-5 – 72,000

Middle:

General Classrooms – 900

Science Classrooms – 1600

Special Education – 810

Special Classroom – 900

Itinerant – 330

Band – 3580

Arts & Crafts – 1920

Home Economics – 1900

Industrial Arts Combined – 3390

Choir Room – 2200

Music Common areas – 400

Library/media center – 7100

Administration center – 5000

Cafetorium – 6500

Kitchen – 2800

Lab/Computer room – 1800

Custodial – 660

Faculty Center – 3500

PE Locker Shower – 6200

Volleyball courts (standard)

Basketball courts (standard)

Public restrooms (requirements based on program capacity)

Restrooms (requirements based on program capacity)

Field Equip storage

Softball Field (standard)

High:

Academy – 900

Science – 2120

Biology – 1940

Language – 900

Lab – 890

Art – 2500

Band – 3670

Choral – 1770

Music common – 670

Special ED – 810

Special ED self – 1880

Itinerant – 330

Library Media – 8600

Computer Resource – 1800

Administrative – 5800

Dining – 7600

Kitchen – 3400

Student Center (based on school size)

Faculty – 840

ROTC – 1000

Maintenance – 1000

Custodial – 400

Gym – 17700

Locker/Shower – 8600

PE Locker – 6400

Football field facilities – 3200

Weight rooms – 1200

PE Class – 900

Training room – 900

Concession stand – 400

Restrooms – 400

Athletic Office – 350

PE office – 250

Basketball courts (standard)

Tennis courts (standard)

Baseball field (standard)

Softball field (standard)

Combined football, track, soccer (standard)


72

Setting limits for classroom size, and analyzing capacity, should consider grade level/ages of student, proposed use of the space (e.g.,

skills/trades training, special education), and number of teachers/assistant teachers present.

As a frame of reference, for public schools, the average number of students per teacher (i.e., student/teacher ratio) varied from 22.3 in 1970,

17.2 in 1989, 15.3 in 2008, to 16.1 in 2014 (for comparison, the student/teacher ratio for private schools was 12.2 in 2014). The average class

size in 2012 was 21.2 students for public elementary schools and 26.8 students for public secondary schools (IES/NCES Fast Facts).

Program capacity compared to current or projected enrollment provides a simple percentage calculation that can show over or under capacity

conditions and help inform CIP decisions.

GDOE’s facility requirements provide the foundation for space planning. Considerations for new construction and renovation should further

consider other educational specification guidance, cost effective material selections, and, to the extent possible, “future proofing schools” or

creating spaces that minimize operational management needs and that can be modified easily to support evolving educational program and

design preferences as well as integrating technological advances.

New Construction and Renovation Educational Specifications. Having codified educational specifications (Ed Specs), or facility design requirements, can help guide facility planning to ensure that types and

quantities of spaces adequately meet the school and school district’s educational program needs. Ed Specs can also provide a basis for design

review and approval for planned investments. These can be flexible and adapted as appropriate based on the school district’s goals, objectives,

policies and community input that determine the educational program and define the following:

1. Enrollment of the school and the grade level configuration.

2. Emphasis in curriculum content or teaching methodology that influences school design.

3. Type, number, size, function, special characteristics of each space, and spatial relationships of the instructional area that are consistent

with the educational program.

4. Community functions that may affect the school design.

Other factors for facility planning include: site layout, playground and field areas, delivery and utility areas, future expansion, placement of

buildings, classrooms/specialized classroom areas, laboratories, gymnasium and associated facilities, auxiliary areas, lighting, acoustical,

plumbing, year-round education, ADA, and child care (CDE 2008).


73

Example Resources for Facility Requirement Calculations and New School Siting • Council of Educational Facility Planners International, Calculating School Capacity: http://www.brainspaces.com/PRES/BrainSpaces-

PRES_2007-1006_Capacity-CEFPI.pdf

• California Department of Education Facility Design: https://www.cde.ca.gov/ls/fa/sf/

• Georgia Department of Education, Guideline for Square Footage Requirements for Educational Facilities:

https://www.gadoe.org/Finance-and-Business-Operations/Facilities-

Services/Documents/4%20%20Guideline%20for%20Square%20Footage%20Requirements%20051012.pdf

• Center for Cities and School, University of California Berkeley, School Facilities Cost Calculator:

http://citiesandschools.berkeley.edu/uploads/21csf_CC+S_School_Facilities_Cost_Calculator_User_Guide.pdf

• National Institute of Building Sciences, Whole Building Design Guide

o Elementary School: https://www.wbdg.org/building-types/education-facilities/elementary-school

o Secondary School: https://www.wbdg.org/building-types/education-facilities/secondary-school

• United States Environmental Protection Agency’s School Siting Guidelines and Tool

o School Siting Guidelines: https://www.epa.gov/schools/view-download-or-print-school-siting-guidelines

o Smart School Siting Tool: https://www.epa.gov/smartgrowth/smart-school-siting-tool

Cost Effectiveness School districts typically separate their capital and operating budgets and therefore have little incentive to factor in the long-term cost of a

building when making decisions about its design and construction. However, to reduce the total cost of owning a building while ensuring its

quality, it is necessary to balance the initial design and construction costs with the cost of lighting, ventilating/cooling, repairing and otherwise

operating and maintaining the facility.

Life-cycle cost analysis (LCCA) is a method for assessing the total cost of facility ownership. It takes into account all costs of acquiring, owning,

and disposing of a building or building system. LCCA is especially useful when project alternatives that fulfill the same performance

requirements, but differ with respect to initial costs and operating costs, have to be compared in order to select the one that maximizes net

savings. For example, LCCA will help determine whether the incorporation of a high-performance HVAC or glazing system, which may increase

initial cost but result in dramatically reduced operating and maintenance costs, is cost-effective or not (WBDG 2016).

Measuring material and equipment performance over time (i.e., percent of expected useful life realized) will help inform life-cycle cost analysis.

Given budget limitations and the high wear and tear experienced at schools, knowing which materials perform best over time will help inform

investments (i.e., determining which materials or equipment to use for new construction or major repair/ replacement). Asset performance can

be measured via work orders (e.g., the number and frequency of service requests with a CMMS), and tracking installation dates and percent of

http://www.brainspaces.com/PRES/BrainSpaces-PRES_2007-1006_Capacity-CEFPI.pdf

http://www.brainspaces.com/PRES/BrainSpaces-PRES_2007-1006_Capacity-CEFPI.pdf

https://www.cde.ca.gov/ls/fa/sf/

https://www.gadoe.org/Finance-and-Business-Operations/Facilities-Services/Documents/4%20%20Guideline%20for%20Square%20Footage%20Requirements%20051012.pdf

https://www.gadoe.org/Finance-and-Business-Operations/Facilities-Services/Documents/4%20%20Guideline%20for%20Square%20Footage%20Requirements%20051012.pdf

http://citiesandschools.berkeley.edu/uploads/21csf_CC+S_School_Facilities_Cost_Calculator_User_Guide.pdf

https://www.wbdg.org/building-types/education-facilities/elementary-school

https://www.wbdg.org/building-types/education-facilities/secondary-school

https://www.epa.gov/schools/view-download-or-print-school-siting-guidelines

https://www.epa.gov/smartgrowth/smart-school-siting-tool


74

expected useful life realized will help round out the analysis. Additionally, tracking utility costs at the building level could also help compare

usage rates to identify inefficiencies and report real saving of any investments in energy conservation measures.

Example Resources for Life-Cycle Cost Analysis • National Institute of Building Sciences, Whole Building Design Guide; Life-Cycle Cost Analysis (LCCA):

https://www.wbdg.org/resources/life-cycle-cost-analysis-lcca

• Florida Department of Education, Life Cycle Cost Guidelines for Materials and Building Systems for Florida's Public Educational Facilities:

http://www.fldoe.org/core/fileparse.php/5599/urlt/0074672-lccgmbsfpef.pdf

Future-Proofing A future-proof facility anticipates and supports educational change without expensive remodeling. It is inherently a flexible building that can be

used as appropriate today, but allows future reinterpretation and reassignment of programs and functions (Locker 2007).

Creating facilities that offer flexibility for future uses may be done via regular upgrades and improvements, not necessarily new construction.

Some considerations during CIP planning:

• Anticipate change. Most participants in school design processes have a tendency to define needs based on current educational practices,

not anticipated future practices.

• Be critical. Many states have lists of spaces to be used as a basis of school construction. Most lists have frozen traditional educational

practices into the names and sizes of spaces.

• Think flexibility not specificity. Ask that every space conceived have several alternate uses. Name rooms broadly to encourage future

reinterpretation instead of using narrow terms that lock them into a fixed use.

• Think mitten not glove. A good long lasting building is not a tight fit to a single idea of school, but a platform or container that allows

“wiggle room” and lets school evolve. A future-proof facility must support several ideas of educational delivery. Chances are, since

change is usually step change, any future facility will be asked to serve those several ideas simultaneously.

(Locker 2007)




75

Tropical Construction As noted throughout the ABCs initiative, coastal and tropical environments cause various building systems to degrade faster than schools in the

continental U.S. due to salt in the air, cyclone or other strong wind events, solar radiation, and humidity levels. These factors, along with

generally higher material and utility costs, lead to above average operating expenses, and the need for special facility planning considerations.

Unified Facilities Criteria (UFC) 3-440-05N, Tropical Engineering, is intended for use as a guide by designers and engineers who are responsible

for the preparation of plans and specifications for construction in the tropics with the intent of upgrading the quality of design and construction

in order to extend the economic life of facilities in tropical environments. Recommendations therein can help identify materials, design

specifications, as well as construction and maintenance methods

Example Resources for Tropical Construction Recommendations • Unified Facilities Criteria (UFC) 3-440-05N - Tropical Engineering: http://www.wbdg.org/ffc/dod/unified-facilities-criteria-ufc/ufc-3-440-

05n

http://www.wbdg.org/ffc/dod/unified-facilities-criteria-ufc/ufc-3-440-05n



76

References

CEFPI date. Council of Educational Facility Planners International, Creating Connections: The CEFPI Guide for Educational Facility Planning:

https://creatingconnections.a4le.org/

Dejong Richter 2016. Boise Independent School District Educational Adequacy Assessment, Executive Summary. May 16, 2016. Accessed October

2018 at: http://www.dejongrichter.com/boiseschools/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2016/06/Educational_Adequacy_report.pdf

DeJong-Richter 2018. Facility Master Planning: http://www.dejongrichter.com/our-services/facility-master-planning/

FLDOE 2010. Life Cycle Cost Guidelines for Materials and Building Systems for Florida's Public Educational Facilities; Accessed October 2018:


Filardo 2016. State of Our Schools: America’s K–12 Facilities 2016; a joint publication of the 21st Century School Fund, Inc., U.S. Green Building Council,

Inc., and the National Council on School Facilities. Washington, D.C.: http://www.21csf.org/best-

home/docuploads/pub/331_StateofOurSchools2016.pdf

CDE 2008. Re-Visioning School Facility Planning and Design for the 21st Century, Creating Optimal Learning Environments, Roundtable Discussion;

California Department of Education, School Facilities Planning Division.

IES/NCES (n.d.). Fast Facts; Institute of Education Sciences/National Center for Education Statistics: https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=28

Locker 2007. Future-proofing Schools, By: Frank Locker, PhD, AIA, REFP. Accessed January 2015 at: http://www.schoolfacilities.com/

WBDG 2016. National Institute of Building Sciences, Whole Building Design Guide; Life-Cycle Cost Analysis (LCCA). Access October 2018:


DOD 2006. Unified Facilities Criteria (UFC) 3-440-05N - Tropical Engineering; 16 January 2004; including change 2, 28 November 2006:


U.S. Census 2010. 2010 Census Island Areas. Retrieved October 2018, from United States Census Bureau:

https://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/2010_census/press-kits/island-areas.html

WCCUSD 2015. West Coast Contra Unified School District. Demographic Analysis & Facility Capacity Study. September 4, 2015. Accessed October 2018:

https://www.wccusd.net/cms/lib/CA01001466/Centricity/Domain/40/WCCUSD%20Demographic%20Analysis%20and%20Facility%20Capacity

%20Study%20-%209-4-15.pdf

https://creatingconnections.a4le.org/

http://www.dejongrichter.com/boiseschools/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2016/06/Educational_Adequacy_report.pdf

http://www.dejongrichter.com/our-services/facility-master-planning/


http://www.21csf.org/best-home/docuploads/pub/331_StateofOurSchools2016.pdf

http://www.21csf.org/best-home/docuploads/pub/331_StateofOurSchools2016.pdf

https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=28

http://www.schoolfacilities.com/



https://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/2010_census/press-kits/island-areas.html

https://www.wccusd.net/cms/lib/CA01001466/Centricity/Domain/40/WCCUSD%20Demographic%20Analysis%20and%20Facility%20Capacity%20Study%20-%209-4-15.pdf

https://www.wccusd.net/cms/lib/CA01001466/Centricity/Domain/40/WCCUSD%20Demographic%20Analysis%20and%20Facility%20Capacity%20Study%20-%209-4-15.pdf


77

WCCUSD 2016. West Coast Contra Unified School District. Master Plan. August 12, 2016. Accessed October 2018:

https://www.wccusd.net/cms/lib/CA01001466/Centricity/Domain/1417/WCCUSD_MasterPlan_Final_081216.pdf

World Population Review 2018. American Samoa Population 2018. Accessed November 2018:

http://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/american-samoa-population/

https://www.wccusd.net/cms/lib/CA01001466/Centricity/Domain/1417/WCCUSD_MasterPlan_Final_081216.pdf

http://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/american-samoa-population/

DRAFT Facility Planning Components for Annual Capital ...

Documents

Transcript of DRAFT Facility Planning Components for Annual Capital ...