Facilities Master Plan/ CIP IV Program Overview

Fulton County School District

September 23, 2010

2

Agenda

Program Overview Ed Specifications Update Facility Condition

Assessment Report Educational Adequacy/

Technology Readiness Report

Next Steps/ Facility Masterplan

CIP IV Timeline

2

3 3

Introductions

Don O’Neil, Program Director Sam Mandola, PMP, Project Manager Rosalyn Moore, Project Planner/Coordinator of

Ed Specification

3 3

Mr. Patrick Burke, Chief of Operations

Edward Humble, PhD, Partner In Charge Susan Zoller, Project Director

4 4

Facilities Master Plan/ CIP IV Program

4 4

Edward Humble, PhD, Partner In Charge Susan Zoller, Project Director

5 5

Facilities Master Plan/ CIP IV Program

5 5

Edward Humble, PhD, Partner In Charge Susan Zoller, Project Director

15 15

Facilities Condition Assessment

15 15

Facilities Condition Assessment Report by Sam Mandola

16

Project Overview Conduct a Comprehensive Facility Assessment of all Fulton County School District facilities during the period November 2009 – June 2010

Assess for each school:

Physical condition Educational adequacy Technological readiness Equipment inventory Energy conservation

opportunities

17

Comprehensive Facility Assessment - Objectives

17 17 17

Data

Provide knowledge of existing facilities in terms of physical

condition, educational

adequacy, and technology readiness

Identify current, deficiencies, deferred

maintenance, educational adequacy,

and corrective work required

Forecast cost and future budgets for

educational adequacy, technology readiness,

and capital renewal needs

Forecast Maintenance

18

Comprehensive Facility Assessment - Objectives

18 18 18

Energy

Provide insight into energy consumption

for cost savings

Provide information for future capital

improvement programs

Information Equipment

Conduct equipment inventory and install

bar code labels

19

Project Time Line

Project Kick-Off November 23 – 24, 2009

Pilot Studies (5 Schools) December 7 – 9, 2009

Field Data Collection January 4 – May 14, 2010

Individual School / Site Report Preparation January 11 – June 4, 2010

Comprehensive Assessment Report Preparation June 7 – August 6, 2010

Presentation of Findings to Fulton County School Board September 23,2010

19 19 19

20

107 School and Non-School Sites 15,103,321 Gross Square Feet

58 Elementary Schools 19 Middle Schools 15 High Schools 15 Non-School Sites

Administrative Special Purpose Maintenance Transportation Warehouse

Comprehensive Facility Assessment - Scope

20 20 20

21 21 21 21

Comprehensive Facility Assessment - 5 Parts

Facilities Condition Assessment (FCA) Educational Adequacy Assessment Technology Readiness Assessment Energy Conservation Opportunities Assessment Equipment Inventory and Bar Code Labeling

22

Part 1 - Condition Assessment

Assess the physical condition of each Permanent Buildings Building Systems

Foundations Roofing Exterior walls Windows and doors Interiors Mechanical (HVAC) Plumbing Fire Protection Electrical Site Work

Identify and prioritize Current deficiencies Deferred maintenance Future capital renewal

needs for each school facility

Provide cost estimates for budget planning

22 22 22

23

Part 1 - Condition Assessment - Findings

The school facilities are in overall Good condition. This is primarily attributed to the average age of only 21 years.

The non-school facilities are in overall Poor condition. This is primarily attributed to the average age of 46 years.

Lighting, HVAC and roofing upgrades have extended the useful life of these buildings systems. However, the assessment data reveals that there still are significant needs in HVAC, roofing, and electrical systems.

Building interior systems, including doors, floors, ceilings, and walls finishes, fixed furnishings, and fittings (toilet partitions and accessories, lockers) represent a majority (31%) of deferred maintenance needs. This is attributed to typical wear and tear on these interior systems.

General maintenance and repair of the facilities is very good.

23 23 23

24 24

Part 1 - Condition Assessment - Findings

Measuring Condition: Facility Condition Index (FCI)

Formula: = FCI Needed Repairs ($)

Replacement Value ($)

Example: = 50% FCI Needed Repairs of $5M

Replacement Value of $10M

5,000,000

10,000,000 =

Best Practices for FCI FCI Condition

0 to 15% Good

15.1% - 30% Fair 30.1% - 50% Poor

>50% Unacceptable

Condition Finding #1: Facility Condition Index (FCI) and Rating for Each School

25

Condition Finding #2: Facility Condition Index (FCI) by Facility Type

26

Facility Type Total Current

Deferred Maintenance Cost

Current Replacement Value FCI% Condition

Rating

Fulton County School District $399,560,008 $2,947,196,267 13.56% Good Elementary Schools $178,498,463 $1,167,231,308 15.29% Fair

High Schools $93,461,456 $963,771,035 9.70% Good Middle Schools $52,706,419 $608,701,542 8.66% Good

Non School Facilities* $74,893,670 $207,492,382 36.09% Poor

* Non-Schools are defined as Administrative, Special Purpose, Transportation, Maintenance, Support, or Warehouse type facilities.

Facility Condition Index (FCI) by School and Non-School Types. FCI scores are typically interpreted as, the lower the score, the better the condition of the facility

Condition Finding #3: Distribution by Facility Type

27

Facility Type Number of Facilities GSF % of Total GSF FCI

Elementary Schools 58 6,432,038 42.59% 15.29% (Fair)

High Schools 15 4,486,042 29.70% 9.70% (Good)

Middle Schools 19 3,102,239 20.54% 8.66% (Good)

Non School Sites 15 1,083,002 7.17% 36.09% (Poor)

Total 107 15,103,321 100.00% 13.56% (Good)

The Facility Type is the educational level provided by the facility.

The square foot amounts include all permanent buildings, ancillary buildings, and athletic buildings.

The following table indicates the functional distribution by gross square feet (GSF), the percent of total GSF, and associated FCI for each type of facility and non-school facility.

Condition Finding #4: Facility Age

NCES – National Center for Education Statistics

28

School Characteristics Fulton County NCES

Average Age in years 18 42

Median Date Built 1994 NA

Built before 1950 1% 28.00%

Built between 1950 and 1969 8% 45.00%

Built between 1970 and 1984 11% 17.00%

Built after 1985 80% 10.00%

According to the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), in 1998 the average age of a public school building in the United States was 42 years old.

There are 177 school buildings and additions in FCS portfolio. The average age of these Fulton County school buildings is 18 years, which is 24 years newer than the NCES national average and 19 years newer than the Southeast regional average.

Condition Finding #5: Deferred Maintenance and Capital Renewal Cost Estimates

29

Finding Budget Estimates

Current Period Needs (2010 - 2013) Condition Deferred Maintenance Needs $399,560,008

Total Current Period (2010 - 2013) Deferred Maintenance Needs $399,560,008

Current Replacement Value (CRV) $2,947,196,267

Forecast Period Needs (2014–2022)

Capital Renewal Needs $844,203,181

Total Current and Forecast Period Deferred Maintenance & Capital Renewal Needs (2010 – 2022 $1,243,763,189

The following table summarizes the cost estimates and indices for the Current Period (2010 -2013) condition deferred maintenance needs and the Forecast Period (2014 – 2022) needs.

Notes: •Condition Deferred Maintenances needs reflect order-of-magnitude estimates as of 2010 and represent Current Period (2010 – 2013) deferred maintenance needs. This figure includes building code compliance deficiencies and energy conservation opportunities. Capital Renewal needs for the Forecast Period (2014 – 2022) is excluded. •Current Replacement Value (CRV) represents the hypothetical total cost of rebuilding or replacing an existing facility in current dollars to its optimal condition under current codes and construction methods. •Capital Renewal needs are forecast needs based on the anticipated chronological expiration of the remaining useful life of those building system not yet expired as of 2010. Dollar amounts are order-of-magnitude estimates.

Condition Finding #6: Deferred Maintenance and Capital Renewal Needs by Gross Square Feet (GSF)

30

Needs GSF Estimate Estimate / GSF % of Total

Condition Deferred Maintenance (2010 - 2013) $399,560,008 $26.46 32%

Capital Renewal (2014 - 2022) $844,203,181 $55.90 68% Total 15,103,321 $1,243,763,189 $82.35 100%

Condition Finding #7: Facility Condition Index (FCI) per GSF

31

FCI GSF % of GSF

0–15% 7,840,115 52% 15.1-30% 5,174,893 34% 30.1-50% 1,992,607 13%

>50% 95,706 1% Total 15,103,321 100%

Gross Square Footage figures do not include portable classrooms. This data includes non-school buildings with an FCI average of 36.09 (Poor)

Condition Finding #8: Needs by Facility System

32

Major System Deferred

Maintenance Estimate

% of Deferred Maintenance Estimate

Interior Finishes $ 81,732,460 20% HVAC $ 69,727,738 17%

Electrical $ 60,389,335 15% Site Improvements $ 56,196,299 14%

Roofing $ 26,266,503 7% Interior Construction $ 24,422,035 6%

Equipment & Furnishings $ 23,049,901 6% Plumbing $ 21,139,743 5%

Exterior Enclosure $ 18,304,351 5% Special Construction $ 9,317,393 2%

Site Electrical Utilities $ 3,289,761 1% Site Mechanical Utilities $ 2,628,247 1%

Fire Protection $ 1,732,903 0.434% Foundations $ 546,700 0.137%

Basement Construction $ 433,759 0.109% Conveying $ 275,080 0.069%

Site Preparation $ 78,688 0.020% Stairs $ 16,320 0.004%

Superstructure $ 12,792 0.003% Total $ 399,560,008 100%

The basis of the cost estimates are taken from two sources.

The first source is the 2009 RS Means Square Foot Cost for Construction Estimating Guide which provides the square foot unit cost for each of the facility systems.

The second source of the cost estimates is a local comparison of the RS Means unit cost to the actual cost of construction being paid by Fulton County Schools.

Condition Finding #9: Needs by Deficiency Priority

33

Priority Description Repair Estimate

1 Critical/Immediate Need $545,288 2 Potentially Critical – 12 months $4,762,479 3 Necessary – 2 – 5 years $392,005,336 4 Recommended – 3 – 10 years $2,161,210 5 Does Not Meet Current Code/Standards $85,695

Total $399,560,008

The relatively low figure for Priority 1 – Critical / Immediate needs reveals that critical and safety related work is being managed well by Fulton County Schools.

It is normal for priorities to be reevaluated as financial resources and limits are established. Some Building Code and Energy Conservation Opportunities are considered as deferred maintenance and are included with Priority 3.

Condition Finding #10: Needs by Deficiency Category

34

Category Description Needs Estimate % of Needs Estimate

ILSN List Infrastructure and Local School Needs (ILSN), includes systems level deficiencies previously identified by Fulton County Schools

$169,767,985 42.49%

Critical Repair These are deficiencies that should be considered for remedy within the next 12 months $3,864,107 0.97%

Deferred Maintenance Includes beyond useful life, damaged, broken, failing, inadequate, and other deficiencies $221,656,433 55.48%

Energy Conservation Energy Conservation Opportunities $4,271,483 1.07% Total $399,560,008 100.00%

Categories do not reflect the affordability of needed repairs within the district, nor do they reconcile facility needs with the district’s master plan priorities or educational program objectives.

Additional Building Code Compliance and Energy Conservation Opportunities are identified as Deferred Maintenance.

Condition Finding #11: Needs by Deficiency Distress

35

Distress Description Budget Estimate

Beyond Expected Useful Life The building systems or components have exceeded their design or estimated useful life

$357,783,931

Missing System or component is absent $10,799,003 Inadequate System is insufficient for intended purpose $1,107,489

Failing System functions sporadically or intermittently $24,973,691

Damaged Use or function is impaired or broken $4,895,894 Total $399,560,008

Distress does not reflect the affordability of needed repairs within a district, nor does it reconcile facility needs with a district’s master plan priorities or educational program objectives.

Distress defines those items that are beyond expected useful life, missing, inadequate, failing, or damaged. As shown, most of the needs in FCS are based on systems being beyond expected useful life.

Condition Finding #12: Capital Renewal Needs Forecast

36

Year Capital Renewal FCI 2010 - 13 13.56%

2014 $41,504,881 16.47% 2015 $209,570,714 23.58% 2016 $51,983,905 25.34% 2017 $38,249,117 26.64% 2018 $68,934,022 28.98% 2019 $130,819,270 33.42% 2020 $131,315,862 37.88% 2021 $98,472,147 41.22% 2022 $73,353,263 43.71%

2014 – 2022 Total $844,203,181

37

Condition Finding #12: Capital Renewal Needs Forecast Year

Annual Funding Needed to Maintain Current FCI

(13.56%)

Annual Funding Needed to Improve

FCI to 10%

Annual Funding Needed to

Improve FCI to 5%

2014 $41,504,881 $52,728,837 $68,677,632 2015 $209,570,714 $22,861,623 $239,129,395 2016 $51,983,905 $63,793,927 $80,387,054 2017 $38,249,117 $50,295,328 $67,220,317 2018 $68,934,022 $81,718,589 $98,982,078 2019 $130,819,270 $144,327,650 $161,936,408 2020 $131,315,862 $144,616,959 $162,577,893 2021 $98,472,147 $112,030,129 $130,350,281 2022 $73,353,263 $86,728,402 $105,414,957 Total $844,203,181 $959,101,444 $1,114,676,015

38

Facilities Condition Assessment

38 38 38

QUESTIONS ??

39 39

Adequacy Assessments

39 39

Educational Adequacy/Technology Readiness Report

by Susan Zoller

40

Adequacy Assessments

Assessment of Schools Educational Adequacy Technology Readiness

Analyze How Each Facility Meets Needs

Identify Inadequacies

Create Recommendations and Budget Estimates

40 40 40

41

Educational Adequacy

Scope of Work and Approach: Review district educational

specifications Determine educational needs of

existing facilities Address major components:

Site adequacy

Security

Adequacy of program spaces

Relationship of spaces

Attributes of spaces

Learning environment

Technology infrastructure

41 41

42

Educational Adequacy – General Findings

Many schools include all the facilities necessary to meet most educational needs.

The location of a space is often the issue.

Library/Media Centers not located near classrooms

Main administrative areas not having control of entrances

Public venues – gyms, performing arts – near classroom spaces

Some schools lack storage space to support programs. Some buildings are difficult to supervise with multiple entrances. Schools were designed to support varied learning styles, but

enrollments changed. Many schools have temporary buildings located on site.

43

Educational Adequacy Scores

90+ Good: The facility is designed to provide for and support the educational program offered. It may have minor adequacy issues but generally meets the needs of the educational program.

75-89 Fair: The facility has some problems meeting the needs of the educational program and may require some remodeling.

50-74 Poor: The facility has numerous problems meeting the needs of the educational program and needs significant remodeling or additions.

Below 50 Unacceptable: The facility is unsuitable in many areas of the educational program.

Adequacy Score Definitions

e

Adequacy Finding #1: Adequacy Score Range and Average by Facility Type

44

Adequacy

School Type Minimum Maximum Average

Elementary 58 98 85

Middle 51 85 75

High 59 91 73

Non-Traditional High School 51 76 63 Source: MGT of America, Inc., 2010.

Adequacy Finding #2: Adequacy Score by School

Example:

45

Site Name

Adequacy Score

Elementary Schools Abbotts Hill ES* 87 Alpharetta ES 58 Barnwell ES 69 Bethune, Mary M. ES 84 Birmingham ES* 96

Adequacy Finding #3: Adequacy Percent of Schools by Facility Type

46

* Non-traditional high schools are not included *(

Adequacy Finding #4: Adequacy Percent of Schools by Rating

47

48

Part 2 - Technology Readiness Assessment

Evaluated ability to support technology-based instructional and administrative functions

Evaluated LANs, WANs, computer infrastructure, video distribution, data drops, and other information systems

Part 2 - Technology Readiness - Scores

49

Technology Readiness Score Definitions

90+ Good: The facility has the infrastructure to support information technology.

75-89 Fair: The facility is lacking in some infrastructure.

50-74 Poor: The facility is lacking significant infrastructure to support information technology.

Below 50 Unsatisfactory: The facility has little or no infrastructure to support information technology.

50

Part 2 - Technology Readiness - Findings

Assessments based on the infrastructure standards

developed by Fulton County Schools.

Most schools have technology infrastructure to support the needs of the program.

Of the 93 schools assessed for technology readiness: 33 percent were rated “Good” 51 percent were rated “Fair” 16 percent were rated “Poor”

Adequacy Finding #5: Technology Readiness Score Range and Average

51

Technology

School Type Minimum Maximum Average

Elementary 70 100 87

Middle School 78 100 89

High School 75 100 87

Non-Traditional High School 82 93 87 Source: MGT of America, Inc., 2010.

Adequacy Finding #6: Technology Readiness Score by School Example:

52

Middle Schools Autrey Mill MS* 84 Bear Creek MS 70 Camp Creek MS 66 Crabapple MS 67 Elkins Pointe MS 84

Adequacy Finding #7: Technology Readiness Percent of Schools by Type

53

* Non-traditional high schools are not included *(

Adequacy Finding #8: Technology Readiness Percent of Schools by Rating

54

Needs new table

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Unsat Poor Fair Good

Fulton County School DistrictPercent of Schools by Rating

55

Combined Scores

Combined Scores

Site Condition Adequacy Tech Combined 50% 40% 10%

Elementary School Average 84 85 87 85

Middle School Average 91 75 89 84

High School Average 90 73 87 83

Non-Traditional High School Average 61 63 87 65

District Average 86 80 88 84

56 56

Combined Scores by School Type

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Elementary SchoolAverage

Middle SchoolAverage

High School Average Non-Traditional HighSchool Average

District Average

Condition

Adequacy

Tech

Combined50% 40% 10%

Adequacy Assessments

QUESTIONS ??

57

58 58

Next Steps/ Facilities Master Plan

58 58

Next Steps/Facilities Master Plan by Ed Humble

Next Steps

Enrollment / Capacity / Utilization Combined Review of Needs Prioritization Development of Draft Master Plan Staff / Superintendent / Board

Reviews Presentation of Master Plan

59

Combined Review of Needs

Condition & Adequacy

Improvements Address Capacity Issues School Size Feeder Patterns Administrative Facilities Equity

60

61

Prioritization

SCHOOL NAME

COMBINED SCORE UTILIZATION RECOMMENDATIONS AND PHASES

CURRENT (2009)

PROJECTED (2015) REPLACE RENOVATE ADDITION FOR

CAPACITY NEW SCHOOL

IN AREA BOUNDARY

CHANGE

PHASE COST PHASE COST PHASE COST PHASE COST

School 1 78.26 High High

School 2 77.87 High High

School 3 85.29 High Good

School 4 92.22 High Over

School 5 95.51 Under Over

Total/Average 85.83 258% 301% $ - $ - $ - $ -

Next Steps/ Facilities Master Plan

Questions ??

62

63 63

CIP IV Timeline

63 63

CIP IV Timeline by Patrick Burke

CIP IV Timeline

CIP 4 Timeline by Patrick Burke

64

CIP IV Timeline

Questions ??

65