Master Plan Support Project

Transcription

1 Master Plan Support Project FINAL REPORT SUBMISSION TO PRINCE GEORGE S COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS June 2015 Volumes 1-3

2 Table of Contents Volume No PREFACE 1.2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1.3 BACKGROUND / PURPOSE 1.4 METHODOLOGY AND FINDINGS WFCI Scoring Methodology and Summary Findings Educational Adequacy Methodology and Summary Findings Utilization Methodology and Summary Findings Project Defi nitions and Costs - Methodology 1.5 SYNTHESIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

3 Table of Contents Volume No PLANNING AREA REVIEW GUIDE 2.1 PLANNING AREA REVIEWS Volume No MAPS 3.2 APPENDICES

4 Table of Contents Volume No PLANNING AREA REVIEW GUIDE - SUPPLEMENT 4.1 CONSIDERATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5 PRINCE GEORGE S COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS MASTER PLAN SUPPORT PROJECT REPORT VOLUME NO. 1

6 Table of Contents Volume No PREFACE 1.2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1.3 BACKGROUND / PURPOSE 1.4 METHODOLOGY AND FINDINGS WFCI Scoring Methodology and Summary Findings Educational Adequacy Methodology and Summary Findings Utilization Methodology and Summary Findings Project Defi nitions and Costs - Methodology 1.5 SYNTHESIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

7 SECTION PREFACE 1.1 PREFACE JUNE

8 PRINCE GEORGE S COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS MASTER PLAN SUPPORT PROJECT PREFACE In October 2014 Prince George s County Public Schools (PGCPS) engaged Brailsford & Dunlavey, Inc. (B&D) along with Perkins Eastman Architects (PEA) and other subconsultants (together, the project team) to provide comprehensive planning services in support of its ongoing facility master planning efforts. This project, referred to as the Master Plan Support Project (MPSP), included assessments of school utilization and educational adequacy, the development of metrics to weight existing facility condition data, and the creation of a comprehensive analytical model that integrates the three aforementioned factors to generate capital improvement project (CIP) and modernization project sequencing recommendations. In response to requirements from the state of Maryland, the project team provided a draft utilization report in December 2014, the results of which are updated and finalized herein. In addition, this final report includes recommendations related to capital projects, budgeting, sequencing, boundary changes, school closures, and other master planning actions. These recommendations do not represent the plans or proposals of the chief executive officer (CEO) of PGCPS, but rather recommendations that the project team is making based on the results of its work. This MPSP Final report is comprised of three volumes. Volume One contains the comprehensive final report and recommendations, Volume Two the detailed work plans for forty planning areas, and Volume Three consists of the maps and appendices. B&D would like to thank the following PGCPS individuals who provided insight and comments throughout the process: Sarah Woodhead, Director of Capital Programs Rupert McCave, CIP Officer - Department of Capital Programs Elizabeth Chaisson, Facilities Planner - Department of Capital Programs Johndel Jones-Brown, Director of Pupil Accounting & School Boundaries Rhianna McCarter, Department of Pupil Accounting & School Boundaries Sameano Porchea, Department of Pupil Accouting & School Boundaries Deanna Newman, Independent Planning Consultant to PGCPS - Public Pathways, LLC The core project team that completed this project included Brailsford & Dunlavey, Perkins Eastman Architects and Applied Management Engineering. The team was comprised of the following individuals: Jay Brinson, Regional Vice President, Brailsford & Dunlavey Chris Dunlavey, President, Brailsford & Dunlavey Douglas Kincaid, President, AME Erika Lehman, Senior Associate, Perkins Eastman Architects BRAILSFORD & DUNLAVEY INSPIRE. EMPOWER. ADVANCE.

9 SECTION PREFACE Sean O Donnell, Principal, Perkins Eastman Architects Beth Penfield, Senior Project Manager, Brailsford & Dunlavey Tyler Specht, Project Analyst, Brailsford & Dunlavey Additional subconsultants who supported the project were: Peter Forella, Project Manager, Forella Group cost estimating Peter Furst, Planner, Urbanomics GIS mapping Tina Lund, Principal, Urbanomics - GIS mapping William Richardson, Program Manager, Educational Systems Planning technology consulting As with any master planning process, data and knowledge is limited and assumptions are made as to probable future conditions. For the MPSP this includes but is not limited to the physical condition of buildings, building current and desired future functional use, applicable local, state, and federal guidelines and standards, and projected enrollment figures. As such: 1. The analyses, recommendations, observations, and conclusions contained in this study represent the professional opinions of the B&D project team with such opinions based on: a. Original research conducted using primary, secondary, and tertiary sources b. Information provided by Client, and c. The project team s professional experience 2. This study has been prepared for Client s internal decision making purposes only and is valid only for the sole and specific purpose stated herein as of the date of this report; it may not be used for any other purpose or by any other party for any purpose. 3. This study is intended to be used in whole and not in parts. Separation of any part from the whole may skew information or interpretation and is, therefore, not allowed. 4. The project team relied extensively on information provided by Client. B&D accepted this information as accurate and performed no independent verification to confirm validity. Examples include but are not limited to: a. In many cases engineering judgment was used to determine what deficiencies might be impacted by project work implemented since the 2012 Parson s FCI Report based upon project scope descriptions provided by PGCPS and the accuracy of those adjustments JUNE

10 PRINCE GEORGE S COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS MASTER PLAN SUPPORT PROJECT are professional opinions based solely upon the facility condition data provided by PGCPS. b. The calculation of facility utilization relied upon existing floor plans provided by PGCPS. These floor plans were assumed to be scaleable and proportionally accurate. 5. The project team performed its work using industry and public information that is deemed reliable, but whose accuracy cannot be guaranteed. B&D makes no recommendation and provides no warranty as to such information s accuracy or completeness. Examples include but are not limited to: a. Educational Adequacy assessments were conducted based upon visual observations and resulted in general characterizations made by project staff utilizing the common survey tool developed specifically for this project. These observations do not reflect detailed engineering analysis, testing, or inspections. 6. B&D makes no assurance and provides no guarantee that results identified in this study will be achieved. Economic and market conditions, management action or inaction, and implementation timing, as well as other important circumstances, often do not occur as planned and such deviations can be material. 7. The success of the project, including achieving any financial goals presented herein, will depend in large part on the operator s competencies and performance, which B&D has no control over. The project team has assumed that the operating management team will be highly competent. 8. The project team expresses no opinion on legal or financial matters or any other specialized knowledge beyond the specific analyses conducted for this report. 9. B&D s obligations to Client for this study are solely corporate and no B&D owner, officer, director, employee, agent, contractor, or controlling person shall be subject to any personal liability whatsoever to any person nor will any such claim be asserted by or on behalf of any other party or person relying on this report BRAILSFORD & DUNLAVEY INSPIRE. EMPOWER. ADVANCE.

11 SECTION 1.2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1.2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Overview Project Background Methodology and Findings Synthesis and Recommendations Next Steps J U N E

12 PRINCE GEORGE S COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS MASTER PLAN SUPPORT PROJECT OVERVIEW The Master Plan Support Project (MPSP) was established to provide Prince George s County Public Schools (PGCPS) with the documentation and recommendations needed to update the FY2016 Educational Facilities Master Plan (EFMP) with a comprehensive long -range plan for addressing its extensive backlog of school facility needs. To do this, PGCPS engaged Brailsford and Dunlavey, Inc. (B&D) along with Perkins Eastman Architects (PEA) and other subconsultants (together, the project team). The MPSP project team enhanced existing facility condition data by creating a weighted facility condition index (WFCI) to prioritize specific building system deficiencies and collected facility functionality data related to educational adequacy and school utilization rates. Ultimately, the MPSP final report synthesizes the prioritized school construction and renovation projects, school condition and functionality data, and PGCPS mission-based goals and objectives into an objective, comprehensive, and achievable plan. Synthesizing the massive quantity of information collected for this project required the project team to apply a unique strategy that organized the school district into 40 distinct planning areas. This approach allowed the team to address local facility needs while concurrently developing a prioritized program implementation sequence that addressed the overall needs of the district s large and diverse resident population. The plan identifies and addresses several significant issues, including: Significant overutilization of schools in the northern portions of the county, particularly at the middle and high school levels; Significant underutilization of schools in the central and southern portions of the county, particularly at the elementary school levels; and Widespread facility condition and functionality concerns, especially in middle and elementary schools in the central and southern portions of the county. Upon completing its analyses, the project team recommends the initiation of a comprehensive 20-year, $8.5 billion modernization program that includes renovating or replacing 132 existing schools, building eight new schools, adjusting multiple school boundaries, and closing or consolidating 29 schools. The recommended program balances school utilization, addresses all facility condition issues, minimizes school district operating costs, and provides PGCPS with facilities that will support student achievement for many years to come. The recommendations outlined in the plan will more more than triple PGCPS current annual capital expenditures. Maintaining the status quo will force PGCPS to defer some required work for years or make significant reductions in scope, which only delays the inevitable need, assures that repairs will be more expensive, and causes the untenable abandonment of its mission-based principles. PGCPS and the county have many difficult decisions to make and much is unknown about public willingness to embrace such an aggressive course of action. However, the level of need in the county has reached a critical point and it is clear to the project team that PGCPS should begin working immediately on next steps to implement the MPSP recommendations B R A I L S F O R D & D U N L A V E Y I N S P I R E. E M P O W E R. A D V A N C E.

13 SECTION 1.2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY PROJECT B ACKGROUND Maintaining an inventory of more than 200 facilities over almost 500 square miles of land in neighborhoods that include urban core areas, new suburban developments, and older rural communities is a significant challenge for Prince George s County Public Schools (PGCPS). With the majority of buildings being over 40-years old and not modernized to the latest standards, PGCPS must allocate the majority of its limited annual capital project funding to projects that address deficiencies in aging facilities. This approach forces PGCPS to be reactive to critical issues, which are often unpredictable, and prevents the school district from implementing a proactive approach that focuses on creating schools for the future. Best practices in school maintenance support the comprehensive modernization of school buildings every years. Although consistent, routine, and regular maintenance of building systems can extend a building s life span, most major systems reach the end of their useful lives and fail or become inefficient after 30 to 35 years. Additionally, changes in teaching styles and content, new technologies, and, for many schools, multiple unrelated additions, require redesign and upgrading of the teaching and learning spaces. Modernizing to like new standards requires replacing all major systems, rightsizing and equipping all classrooms and core spaces, installing state-of the-art technology, and improving site conditions. The PGCPS Department of Capital Programs creates, and updates annually, an Educational Facilities Master Plan (EFMP), which is the planning tool used to establish program needs and priorities. The EFMP serves as the basis for prioritizing projects in the Capital Improvement Program (CIP). Each year the PGCPS Capital Programs staff submits the EFMP, an annual CIP, and a six-year CIP to be reviewed and approved by the local board of education. The facility evaluations and associated analysis conducted by the project team for the MPSP provided the objective data needed to determine individual project needs while PGCPS goals and initiatives provided the foundation for the development of comprehensive of planning strategies. Application of the planning strategies allowed the project team to develop a comprehensive set of recommendations designed to best align future school facilities with PGCPS mission. PGCPS must take these recommendations and determine how best to integrate them into its long-term capital planning program. J U N E

14 PRINCE GEORGE S COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS MASTER PLAN SUPPORT PROJECT METHODOLOGY AN D FINDINGS FACILITY CONDITIONS In 2012, a Parsons Engineering report stated that the total cost of repairs for PGCPS outstanding building deficiencies was $2.13 billion. The Parson s assessment reported these repair needs in the form of a Facility Condition Index (FCI) based upon the following formula: FCI = Current Cost of Repairs Replacement Value PGCPS recognized that the FCI quantifies deficiencies by the cost to replace or correct them without considering that some deficiencies are more difficult to correct or have a greater impact on the school s learning environment. To correct for this concern, PGCPS requested that the project team use the Parson s data to develop and vet a weighted FCI (WFCI) that considers health and safety issues, the degree to which corrections are readily achievable in isolation (i.e. not in modernization or replacement), and other important factors. Weighting Methodology The project team analyzed attributes of the FCI data collected by Parsons to determine how they could be used in the WFCI process. It was determined that two attributes from the data, deficiency category and priority were reflective of criticality and appropriate for weighting the FCI. Rating characteristics were also developed by analyzing the impact on learning and the difficulty of repair/replacement of specific building elements based on their Uniformat Code 1. Using a scale of one-10, ratings were assigned to each Uniformat code category based upon its specific characteristics related to the four attribute categories: Deficiency Category Priority Impact on Learning Difficulty of Repair/Replacement The difficulty of repair attribute was weighted the highest because of the extensive disruption to school operations caused by correcting the associated deficiencies. The impact on learning attribute was also strongly weighted because of the contribution to educational outcome. The other two attributes were weighted much lower because there is not a normal distribution of the data associated with these attributes, since roughly 90 percent of the FCI data is clustered into two subcategories. 1 The code, developed by the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), is a standard for classification of building elements and related site work, and provides a hierarchy of organizing data in a building at various levels of detail B R A I L S F O R D & D U N L A V E Y I N S P I R E. E M P O W E R. A D V A N C E.

15 SECTION 1.2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY All schools WFCI scores were ranked from one to 159, with one having the highest score of all schools and 159 having the lowest. Instead of ranking or prioritizing the distribution of all schools one-by-one or on a scale of one to 100, the entire portfolio of schools was prioritized into 25 separate groupings to align the results with the priority scores developed for educational adequacy. The final WFCI priority scores range from one to 25 with lower scores being indicative of worse facility conditions. Summary of Findings The weighting methodology described above produced the following conclusions: 1. Weighting the 2012 FCI data had a significant impact on the relative ranking of schools based on facility conditions, causing 92% of schools to move at least one spot in the rankings and 17% to move 10 or more places. These moves indicate that the weighting process was effective in differentiating schools based on their unique system deficiency profiles. 2. On average, regional schools have the highest WFCI scores, followed closely by schools in the Southern and Central Regions. Northern schools, on average, have the lowest WFCI scores. 3. All regional schools, regardless of type, in addition to middle schools in the Southern and Central Regions, have the highest average WFCI scores, indicating higher overall levels of facility condition needs. AVERAGE WFCI SCORES BY REGION AND SCHOOL TYPE North Central South Regional FIGURE 1.2.1: Average WFCI scores by region and school type Elementary School Middle School High School 4. Concentrations of deficiencies in high priority systems are linked to higher WFCI scores and several school types have concentrations of deficiencies in systems that are difficult to repair. These J U N E

16 PRINCE GEORGE S COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS MASTER PLAN SUPPORT PROJECT findings have significant implications on the types of projects that must be undertaken to correct the problems. EDUCATIONAL ADEQUACY An educational adequacy assessment is the evaluation of a school facility s ability to support defined standards as outlined in the district s educational specifications. The assessment details the degree to which a school facility can provide and support educational functions that meet the district s mission, goals, and standards for learning environments. It identifies local needs and develops a gap analysis that compares existing facility conditions to the ideal standards and provides a score for each component. These scores informed one part of the methodology used by the project team to make modernization recommendations. The overall educational adequacy score is comprised of three components: the campus, the individual, and the space adequacy scores. Campus Assessment The campus assessment is an evaluation of the entire school building and site based on the requirements outlined in the educational specifications. Thirty-five (35) factors at each school were evaluated within the following six categories for this assessment: 1. Site circulation and accessibility 2. Exterior spaces 3. Building configuration 4. Corridor and common space configuration 5. Technology and supporting infrastructure 6. Safety and security Individual Spaces Assessment The individual space assessment evaluates similar characteristics as the campus assessment, but at an individual space level. The individual space assessment questions are the same for primary and secondary schools; however, the space type classifications vary between the primary and secondary schools. Nineteen (19) factors were evaluated within the following six subcategories for all capacity classrooms, specialty spaces, and shared spaces: 1. Internal organization and anicillary spaces 2. Furnishings 3. Lighting quality 4. Acoustics 5. Air quality B R A I L S F O R D & D U N L A V E Y I N S P I R E. E M P O W E R. A D V A N C E.

17 SECTION 1.2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 6. Room technology and supporting infrastructure Space Adequacy The space adequacy assessment compares the number of learning spaces and total square footage of such spaces to the requirements set in the district s educational specifications (Ed Specs), and is expressed as a percentage of space compliant out of the total space required. Space adequacy is measured in three categories: capacity-driving spaces, specialty spaces, and shared spaces. Space adequacy illustrates if a school has too many or too few classrooms, and indicates if those spaces are too small or large. Scoring and Prioritization Campus and individual space assessments evaluate the compliance of existing spaces to the educational specifications. The adequacy score is calculated as a percent compliant out of a total possible score by subsection. The following figures indicate the rating categories applied to the scores from each assessment: Campus and Individual Space Assessment Ratings Space Aadequacy Rating Rating Range A Range B Color Key Rating Range A Range B Color Key Excellent % Satisfactory % Borderline % Poor % Deficient % FIGURE 1.2.2: Campus and Individual Space Assessment Rating Scale Excellent %+ Satisfactory % Borderline % Poor % Deficient % FIGURE 1.2.3: Space Adequacy Rating Scale An additional step was taken to establish a prioritization of the subcomponents. For example, a deficiency in lighting quality may have greater importance than a deficiency in air quality. To establish priority scores for each of the three educational adequacy components, the project team applied a leveling factor to the rating categories (excellent to deficient). Five leveling factors were developed in close consultation with PGCPS leadership to ensure the priorities were closely aligned with the district s goals and objectives. Priority scores between one and 25 were developed for each assessment subcategory by combining the leveling factor with the rating category shown below: FIGURE 1.2.4: Leveling Factor J U N E

18 PRINCE GEORGE S COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS MASTER PLAN SUPPORT PROJECT The priority score for each educational adequacy component (campus assessment, individual spaces, and space adequacy) is simply an average of its respective subcomponent priority scores. Similarly, the overall educational adequacy priority score is simply an average of the priority scores for each of the three main components. Summary of Findings The educational adequacy methodology described above produced the following conclusions: 1. Based on the established rating scale, the range of priority scores indicates that PGCPS schools, on average, have borderline educational adequacy with widely varied results at the component level from school to school. 2. Campus assessment priority scores revealed that site circulation and accessibility scores were most frequently the lowest, with several school types averaging poor or nearly poor, particularly in Southern Region schools. Building configuration scores were also very low, with poor ratings concentrated in secondary schools across the county. 3. Individual space priority scores revealed that schools districtwide tend to have issues with furnishings, technology, and classroom air quality. 4. Of the three educational adequacy component scores, space adequacy had the widest range of results and frequently had a more significant impact on overall educational adequacy scores at the individual school level than did the other two components. SCHOOL UTILIZATION Methodology The project team started its work in October 2014 by gathering floor plans and school capacity and enrollment data for all buildings. The team reviewed existing State-rated Capacity (SRC) data tables and used floor plans provided by the district or, where floor plans were not available, acquired egress plans to use as a template. As a part of the existing data review, the team established whether a school was based on a prototype and also classified it by type (elementary, middle, high, pre-k-8 or regional). Over the course of five weeks, the project team surveyed 193 schools, evaluated the current use of each, and identified room names, numbers, teacher s names, and other pertinent data. The team checked the existing conditions against the existing floor plans and noted where there were significant discrepancies. The updated information was uploaded into Building Information Modeling (BIM) software so the team could B R A I L S F O R D & D U N L A V E Y I N S P I R E. E M P O W E R. A D V A N C E.

19 SECTION 1.2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY document each specific area within every building and assign room labels and other functional attributes for analytical purposes. The project team built an Excel model where the BIM information, enrollment projection data, and State of Maryland school capacity calculation requirements 2 were entered. Formulas to account for allowable capacity adjustments were developed to address the appropriate allocation of specialty classrooms and resource spaces. Once completed, the model created revised school capacities (SRCs) and updated utilization rates for each school. Summary of Findings The school utilization methodology described above produced the following conclusions: 1. Utilization rates are highest in the Northern Region, followed by the Central and then Southern Regions. 2. Utilization is in most critical condition in Northern Region middle schools and regional Early Childhood Centers (ECCs) with projected average utilization rates of 132% and 147%, respectively. 3. All school types are overutilized in the Northern Region and projected to be underutilized in the Southern Region. 4. In the Central Region, elementary schools are underutilized, while middle and high schools are projected to be within the targeted range. 5. Regional specialized education centers and alternative schools are all projected to be below targeted utilization rates while regional specialty program schools are projected to be within the targeted range. 6. Analysis of established State Rated Capacities (SRC) for each school resulted in minimal change (less than 5%) across all school types and regions. 2 The State Interagency on School Construction s (IAC) Appendix 102A was used as a guideline for calculating SRC. J U N E

20 PRINCE GEORGE S COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS MASTER PLAN SUPPORT PROJECT PROJECT DEFINITIONS AND COST ESTIM ATING The project team utilized the facility condition, educational adequacy, and school utilization data to define the baseline project needs at each facility and organize schools into project groupings based on similar characteristics. Upon analyzing the type of work needed across the district, the project team developed four major project definition categories and applied the appropriate one to each school based on its needs. The project team was careful to align the scopes within these categories with existing standards used by the state of Maryland to establish funding eligibility. Summaries of the four baseline project types are: Full Renovation or Replacement: This project type includes a comprehensive upgrade to, or replacement of, all building systems, equipment, and furnishings in addition to comprehensive site work improvements and all work required to address ADA and building code compliance. In order to complete the extent of work required, PGCPS may elect to renovate the building in place or replace it with a new facility 3. Limited Renovation: This project type includes any school that requires the replacement of five or more building systems and minor reconfigurations to only a small portion of the building. In many cases limited renovations involve extensive work but are distinguished from a full renovation because the majority of interior walls remain in original locations and improvements to exterior building systems such as roof, window, and exterior walls are not required. System Replacement: This project type includes any school that requires the replacement of one or more systems but does not meet the criteria for a limited renovation. As noted in the educational adequacy findings, fixed furnishings and equipment were consistently the biggest problem across all school types and, therefore, all system replacement projects include upgrades to classroom fittings (casework, marker boards, tack boards, etc.), AV, and technology. Other: 3 A comprehensive feasibility study should be undertaken by PGCPS prior to initiating work to determine the most effective solution B R A I L S F O R D & D U N L A V E Y I N S P I R E. E M P O W E R. A D V A N C E.

21 SECTION 1.2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This category is for projects that do not fit into one of the other three project types. In most cases, newer schools in need of an addition rather than a renovation are in this category, as are buildings slated for demolition. A professional estimator then developed detailed cost estimates for all projects. Estimates included total costs reflected in 2015 dollars. The estimator provided detailed cost sheets for 107 schools, which were used to determine project costs for the remaining schools and for any subsequent changes to the baseline project types. The baseline projects were developed to quantify the work needed at each school to bring it into alignment with the board-approved educational specifications, address identified facility condition deficiencies, and provide adequate space to accommodate FY2020 projected enrollment. The baseline projects were developed without consideration of the impact of a single project on its neighboring schools or the affect that other master planning actions, such as boundary changes, may have on the school s project needs. That next step is discussed in the following section. SYNTHESI S AND RECOMMEND ATIONS In collaboration with PGCPS, the project team synthesized facility condition, educational adequacy, and utilization findings into a comprehensive school facility modernization program designed to support and advance the school district s educational mission. The planning process began with the detailed review of existing district goals, standards, and guidelines. The project team s understanding of this information was then refined through strategic visioning and engagement sessions with PGCPS representatives, stakeholders, and community members. The result of these meetings was the creation of mission-based principles and logistical considerations that were used to guide the development of specific planning strategies. These strategies were generated to develop comprehensive capital project recommendations and master planning actions that are grounded in site-based data and are aligned with the long-term strategic goals and vision of PGCPS. PGCPS GOALS, STANDAR DS, AND GUIDELINES The foundation of the MPSP planning strategies is existing PGCPS goals, standards, and guidelines covering topics such as school size considerations, academic requirements, and other facility-related considerations such as school utilization standards. This information provides the basis for the review and analysis of facility needs and formulation of project recommendations and planning strategies. These goals, standards, and guidelines are described in formalized documents that were refined and clarified for the project team through strategic visioning and engagement sessions with PGCPS stakeholders. Following is a summary of the documents and processes utilized to clarify the goals and standards. J U N E

22 PRINCE GEORGE S COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS MASTER PLAN SUPPORT PROJECT FY2015 Educational Facilities Master Plan (EFMP): This document was developed to prioritize projects for the (six-year) Capital Improvement Plan. The plan calls for PGCPS to commit to a strategic vision for creating a more efficient and effective system for consolidating, closing, modernizing, renovating, constructing, and maintaining facilities. Core components of the EFMP include developing more effective and efficient school sizes, recommended grade configuration changes, and school utilization policies. Educational Programming Initiatives: PGCPS has established goals related to secondary school reform, special education inclusion, and other neighborhood and regional specialty programs. Most of the reform initiatives are accounted for in the board-approved educational specifications that were used for the educational adequacy assessments. For the others, PGCPS provided the MPSP team with supporting documentation to aid in the planning process. Strategic Visioning Session: The project team facilitated a strategic visioning session with PGCPS leadership that covered topics related to educational adequacy, space priorities, community needs, equity of investments, and school district operations. Community Engagement Sessions: The project team held three community meetings to explain the purpose of the MPSP and present findings based upon initial assessments. Meeting participants were engaged in roundtable discussions and encouraged to provide feedback related to the MPSP. Planning Workshops: The project team and PGCPS representatives engaged in four planning workshops to review findings, consider potential project impacts, evaluate alternative scenarios, and clarify planning strategies in proactive and iterative ways. PLANNING PRINCIPLES AND STRAT EGIES PGCPS goals, standards, and guidelines provided the project team with direct guidance on how facility needs should be evaluated based upon size, capacity and utilization, grade configurations, program offerings, adequacy of spaces, and square footage needs. Planning strategies developed for the MPSP were derived from two key components: a set of mission-based principles and a list of logistical considerations. The mission-based principles serve as guidelines for implementation of the district s longterm vision and are one of the critical outcomes from the planning workshops. The logistical considerations were used to inform the team s methodology for reviewing site-based needs and formulating project recommendations and priorities that meet the district s immediate and long-term goals B R A I L S F O R D & D U N L A V E Y I N S P I R E. E M P O W E R. A D V A N C E.

23 SECTION 1.2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Mission-based Principles: The MPSP recommendations must: Support student achievement and PGCPS s mission. Minimize operating and capital costs. Focus on at-risk facilities. Consider the equitable distribution of project funds. Maintain neighborhood schools. Complete the program in years. Logistical Considerations: The MPSP recommendations must consider: The impact to the immediate community during construction. Land acquisition timelines. The sequencing and selection of closures and consolidations. Construction market and school district implementation capacity. Annual funding constraints and means to maximize state funding eligibility. Core Planning Strategies To address the varying, and often competing, needs of such a large school district, the project team utilized five core planning strategies that were developed to accommodate the mission-based principles and logistical considerations. The five strategies are: 1. Use planning areas to: o Review logistical impacts and establish local sequencing; o Optimize use of school facilities; o Evaluate geographic distribution; o Distribute Specialized Services and Specialty Programs; and o Evaluate transportation impacts. 2. Focus investments on facilities over 15 years old. 3. Use objective data and tools to support recommendations and sequencing within planning areas. 4. Modernize receiving schools prior to sending students from over-enrolled schools or schools to be closed. 5. Align project recommendation categories with state requirements. Final Program Sequencing and Delivery Strategy The team developed a recommended sequencing strategy for all projects needed to achieve each planning area s program goals. These strategies were often driven by urgent existing conditions, such as severe overutilization, severe underutilization, or significantly poor physical condition. The sequencing J U N E

24 PRINCE GEORGE S COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS MASTER PLAN SUPPORT PROJECT recommendations and the logic that supports them are described in the planning area reports in Volume Two of this document. Once the planning area sequencing schedules were completed, the team then developed an overall prioritization strategy that organized planning areas into the following priority groups: Priority 1: Areas with critical systems failures. Priority 2: Areas that are critically utilized. Priority 3: Areas with one or more severely overutilized schools where construction is the required solution. Priority 4: Areas with one or more severely overutilized schools where master planning action could be an alternative to a capital investment. Priority 5: Areas with overall critical WFCI scores. Priority 6: Areas with one or more schools with a severe WFCI score. Priority 7: Balance of planning areas. AGGREG AT E RESULTS AN D RECOMMENDAT IONS After applying the planning and prioritization strategies, the project team developed a detailed 20-year, $8.5 billion modernization program that addresses all deferred capital improvements and ensures all schools are educationally appropriate per the latest standards and guidelines. The recommended modernization program includes 140 capital projects sequenced over twenty fiscal years starting in 2017 and requires on average $425 million annually over the life of the program. This program will provide an optimized portfolio with balanced utilization rates achieved via multiple boundary realignments and specific school closure recommendations. The $8.5 billion program costs are comprised of $5.5 billion in direct project costs, $2.3 billion in escalation costs, and $700 million in other program costs. The distribution of the 140 projects by project type, along with their associated costs in 2015 dollars is provided in Figure below. As shown, over 80% of the B R A I L S F O R D & D U N L A V E Y I N S P I R E. E M P O W E R. A D V A N C E.

25 SECTION 1.2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY projects are full or limited renovations, but the program also recommends the construction of eight new schools and the closure of 29 existing facilities. Program Recommendations Category of Project** Project Costs* Project Counts Full Renovation or Replacement $3.4 billion 77 Limited Renovation $1.2 billion 39 System Replacement $178 million 11 Other $82 million 5 New School $583 million 8 Total: $5.5 billion 140 *Costs do not include annual escalation **Categories include costs for additions where recommended FIGURE 1.2.5: Modernization Program Project Categories and Distribution The capital program recommendations are broken down into three CIP cycles as show in Figure below. The majority of overutilization issues are addressed by the end of cycle one and all but two of the 40 planning areas have at least one project started by Duration Projects Program Costs Cycle Fiscal Years Started Completed Cycle 1 (year 1 - year 6) Cycle 2 (year 7 - year 12) The distribution of projects across the Northern, Central and Southern Regions is detailed in Figure below. Value of Projects Started* Ave. Total Cost per FY Total Costs Occuring** $2.1 billion $307 million $2 billion $2.3 billion $470 million $3.1 billion Cycle 3 (year 13 - year 20) $1.1 billion $392 million $3.4 billion $5.5 billion $8.5 billion *Reflects the total value of projects started within this cycle according to their 2015 un-escalated project costs. **Costs reflect project costs per fiscal year, escalated accordingly, as well as recommended other program costs. FIGURE Program Information by CIP Cycle The larger quantity of projects in the Northern Region is necessitated by the significant J U N E

26 PRINCE GEORGE S COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS MASTER PLAN SUPPORT PROJECT overutilization issues that require the implementation of construction projects. The greater quantity of underutilized schools in the Central and Southern Regions allowed the project team to frequently recommend alternatives to construction such as boundary adjustments or closures. Cycle 1 ( ) Cycle 2 ( ) Region Count Value* Count Value* North 20 $1 billion 22 $876 million 15 $495 million 57 $2.4 billion Central 12 $659 million 15 $514 million 7 $223 million 34 $1.4 billion South 6 $275 million 16 $638 million 7 $246 million 29 $1.2 billion Regional 7 $186 million 11 $304 million 2 $52 million 20 $0.5 billion Total: 45 $2.1 billion 64 $2.3 billion 31 $1.0 billion 140 $5.5 B School Type Count Value* Count Value* Count Cycle 3 ( ) Count Value* Count Value* Elementary 20 $564 million 40 $1 billion 20 $367 million 80 $1.9 billion Middle 14 $932 million 5 $278 million 5 $261 million 24 $1.5 billion High 4 $444 million 8 $718 million 4 $337 million 16 $1.5 billion Regional 7 $186 million 11 $300 million 2 $52 million 20 $0.5 billion Total: 45 $2.1 billion 64 $2.3 billion 31 $1.0 billion 140 $5.5 B *Reflects the total value of projects started within this cycle according to their 2015 un-escalated project costs. FIGURE 1.2.7: Cycle 1, 2, 3 Program Information Distributed by Region and School Type Program Total Value* Count Value* PROGRAM OUTCOMES Program Outcomes The outcomes of this modernization program align with the strategic goals and mission of PGCPS by correcting all deferred capital improvements and ensuring all schools are educationally appropriate per the latest standards. The modernization program will optimize the district s portfolio by balancing utilization rates while minimizing operating costs, maintaining neighborhood schools, and improving access to specialty academic and special needs programs for students. The MPSP puts forward aggressive recommendations that more than triple the current annual capital expenditures. The plan acknowledges that maintaining the status quo does not align with the achievement of the principles PGCPS described throughout this project. The maintenance of current funding levels will force PGCPS to defer some required work for years, which only ensures that repairs will be more expensive, or reduce scopes significantly, which will cause untenable compromises of mission-based principles. In the end, the 20-year, $8.5 billion program is the most logical option to overcome utilization challenges, address facility condition issues, minimize school district operating costs, and provide long-term support for student achievement. The plan achieves all of the objectives as quickly and economical as practical. PGCPS and the county have many difficult decisions to make and much is unknown about public B R A I L S F O R D & D U N L A V E Y I N S P I R E. E M P O W E R. A D V A N C E.

27 SECTION 1.2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY willingness to embrace such an aggressive course of action. However, the level of need in the county has reached a critical point and it is clear to the project team that PGCPS should begin working immediately on next steps to implement the MPSP recommendations. NEXT STE PS Achievement of the goals identified for this project will require not only approval and advancement of the overall plan and recommendations herein, but development of next steps to ensure that the recommendations are pursued pragmatically and with mitigation of the many potential risks involved. The seven initiatives outlined below, while possibly not comprehensive, should guide PGCPS as it continues with the Master Plan Support Project. 1. Public Dissemination and Engagement: Present and explain the plan to the district s residents; incorporate their feedback. 2. Comprehensive Boundary Study: Conduct a detailed study of MPSP recommendations for balancing school utilization to validate and finalize an implementation strategy. 3. Implementation Plan: Refine the plans for project definition, planning, and implementation within the program. 4. Capital Plan: Refine the budgeting tools and assumptions necessary to fund capital expenditures from a viable financing structure. 5. Individual Project Feasibility Studies: Conduct individualized project planning with detailed consideration of site- and school-specific needs, design opportunities, and budget parameters. 6. School Closure(s) Process: Apply the defined public process for consideration and approval of school closures to those schools recommended for closure in the plan. 7. Plan Updates and Refinement: Regularly update and refine the plan as feedback, new planning information and strategic direction from PGCPS is received. J U N E

28 PRINCE GEORGE S COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS MASTER PLAN SUPPORT PROJECT 1.3 BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE Introduction State Planning Requirements Recent Facility Planning History MPSP: Purpose, Goals, and Scope B R A I L S F O R D & D U N L A V E Y I N S P I R E. E M P O W E R. A D V A N C E.

29 SECTION 1.3 BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE INTRODUCTION Maintaining an inventory of more than 200 facilities over almost 500 square miles of land in neighborhoods that include urban core areas, new suburban developments, and older rural communities is a significant challenge for Prince George s County Public Schools (PGCPS). With the majority of buildings being over 40-years old and not modernized to the latest standards, PGCPS must allocate the majority of its limited annual capital project funding into projects that address deficiencies in aging facilities. This forces PGCPS to be reactive to critical issues which are often unpredictable and prevents the school district from implementing a proactive approach that focuses on creating schools for the future. Best practices in school maintenance support the comprehensive modernization of school buildings every years. Although consistent, routine, and regular maintenance of building systems can extend a building s life span, most major systems reach the end of their useful lives and fail or become inefficient after 30 to 35 years. Additionally, changes in teaching styles and content, new technologies, and, for many schools, multiple unrelated additions, require redesign and upgrading of the teaching and learning spaces. Modernizing to like new standards requires replacing all major systems, rightsizing and equipping all classrooms and core spaces, installing state-of the-art technology, and improving site conditions. STATE PLANNING REQUI REMENTS As a part of the State of Maryland s Public School Construction Program, the Interagency Committee on School Construction (IAC), reviews projects and allocates state funding to support public school construction in local districts. As a part of this larger program, PGCPS and other local school districts annually submit required planning documents to the Maryland Department of Planning (MDP) and the IAC. The PGCPS Department of Capital Programs creates, and updates annually, an Educational Facilities Master Plan (EFMP), which is the planning tool used to establish program needs and priorities. The EFMP serves as the basis for prioritizing projects in the Capital Improvement Program (CIP). Each year the PGCPS Capital Programs staff submits the EFMP, an annual CIP, and a six-year CIP to be reviewed and approved by the local school board. In the fall, the CIP is then submitted to the state IAC. After review and discussion with representatives from each school district, the IAC staff recommends action on each project listed in the annual Capital Improvement Program request to the Interagency Committee. In December, the committee holds a special hearing to allow the school districts to appeal the IAC staff recommendations. The committee, after reviewing the staff recommendations and the information presented at the hearing, forwards its recommendations to the Board of Public Works. The Board of Public Works holds a public hearing in J U N E

30 PRINCE GEORGE S COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS MASTER PLAN SUPPORT PROJECT January for school districts to appeal the recommendations of the Interagency Committee. Changes to the Capital Improvement Program, as recommended by the committee, are generally approved by the Board of Public Works in January. The board generally reconvenes to respond to appeals in April, after the state legislature has approved the capital budget and the level of state funding for the following fiscal year, to respond to appeals. A compelling case for the need to modernize academic facilities is critical to moving forward with the PGCPS academic strategic plan. The Master Plan Support Project and other planning efforts to date serve to support these planning efforts. RECENT FACILITY PLANNING HISTORY PARSONS REPORT In 2008, Parsons 3D/International (Parsons) conducted a General Facility Condition Assessment on all district schools. The purpose of this assessment was to help PGCPS define capital renewal and deferred maintenance funding requirements and this work involved gathering information such as make, model, and installation dates of various building systems such as foundation, structural, roofing, and heating, ventilation, and air condition (HVAC). The Parsons report and associated data was updated in 2012 and at that time, identified over $2 billion in facility repairs at existing schools for these major building systems. With a current average annual funding of $130 million, this $2 billion backlog of capital renewal and deferred maintenance projects would not be cleared for over 20 years. Additionally, the project costs addressed in the Parsons report do not address facility overutilization and mission and function based upgrades or expansions. EDUCATIONAL SPECIFIC ATIONS In 2014, PGCPS began the development of local educational specifications (Ed Specs) for both primary and secondary schools. The Ed Specs serve as the school facility standards and they were designed to reflect space standards, spatial requirements, design philosophy, and to serve as the link between the educational program and school facilities. In February 2015, the Ed Specs were formally approved, allowing them to be used as benchmarks for the evaluation of existing facilities as well as informing future project plans. MASTER PLAN SUPPORT P ROJ ECT In 2014 it was determined that a Master Plan Support Project (MPSP) would be beneficial to assist the PGCPS s Capital Programs staff in reviewing needs and prioritizing projects with the goal of establishing a strategic vision that creates an efficient and effective modernization program to address condition as well B R A I L S F O R D & D U N L A V E Y I N S P I R E. E M P O W E R. A D V A N C E.

31 SECTION 1.3 BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE as mission and function. The project team was engaged to provide services related to existing data review and synthesis, new data collection and analysis, and the prioritization and sequencing of project recommendations that include selective consolidations or closures, modernizations, minor renovations or additions, and high quality maintenance to ensure exceptional learning environments for the district s children. As a result, the MPSP presented here recommends a comprehensive modernization program based upon objective criteria and addressing PGCPS goals and objectives to for proactively improve its schools to new standards. The MPSP is to be used by PGCPS to inform future state required formal capital improvement plans and other local and state level planning documents. MPSP: GO ALS, PURPOSE, AND SCOPE The Master Plan Support Project was established as a major planning study to evaluate existing data, collect new data on current conditions, and synthesize this information into recommendations for the development of a comprehensive program based on objective criteria. PURPOSE AND GOALS Overall, this data driven and goal oriented approach for the MPSP seeks to understand how PGCPS s existing facilities currently perform and what improvements need to be made across the school district relative to mission, condition, and function. Mission To inform what data is collected and how it is analyzed and synthesized, it is important to understand the strategic goals and objectives of the school district. In other words, understanding PGCPS s targeted new reality ensures data collected appropriately measure the gaps to achieving these goals and objectives. The foundation for this is the board of education s safe and supportive schools goal and the PGCPS Department of Capital Programs mission to: Deliver educationally-appropriate and correctly-sized facilities that preserve fiscal investments Provide sustainable, safe, and healthy environments conducive to teaching and learning Support major academic initiatives conducive to high student achievement: o Expand language immersion programs o Expand pre-kindergarten o Implement career academies o Integrate special education services The MPSP carefully integrated these goals and objectives into all assessments and considered them throughout the synthesis and recommendation development process. The project team worked J U N E

32 PRINCE GEORGE S COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS MASTER PLAN SUPPORT PROJECT collaboratively with PGCPS staff and leadership as well as engaged with the community to ensure further understanding of these goals and objectives. Ultimately, a set of mission-based principles, logistical considerations, and planning strategies were developed and applied to inform the project sequencing and program recommendations. MPSP will also be used to make decisions on school closures, boundary changes, and other important planning recommendations. Condition Facility conditions are a significant factor in analyzing the capital program needs and addressing the overall goal of safe and healthy environments conducive to teaching and learning. As such, they help inform what solutions are needed to bring existing systems to modernized, like new conditions. To support this factor, the project team reviewed and analyzed existing facility data from the 2012 Parsons Facility Report for the purposes of developing a Weighted Facility Condition Index (WFCI) and informing project recommendations and program priorities. Function In addition to deteriorating conditions, over time buildings begin to no longer meet functional standards due to changes in teaching styles and content, new technologies, and design standards. Thus, understanding how facilities support their intended functions is also a critical consideration when analyzing capital program needs. To support this factor, buildings were evaluated for educational adequacy, capacity, and utilization. Educational adequacy evaluates buildings based on their ability to meet PGCPS educational program needs. The project team performed educational adequacy assessments on schools built before 1999 and assessed room quantities, sizes and characteristics were evaluated against approved program specific standards. Utilization specifically looks at existing space use and calculating State-Rated Capacity (SRC) and comparing to projected enrollments. SCOPE SUMM ARY The facility evaluations and associated analysis provided the objective data needed to determine individual project needs while PGCPS goals and initiatives provided the foundation for the development of comprehensive planning strategies. Ultimately, the MPSP final report provides a process for prioritizing school construction and renovation projects based upon the synthesis of the school condition and functionality data collected with the mission-based objectives enunciated by PGCPS and its stakeholders B R A I L S F O R D & D U N L A V E Y I N S P I R E. E M P O W E R. A D V A N C E.

33 SECTION 1.4 METHODOLOGY AND FINDINGS 1.4 METHODOLOGY AND FINDINGS Introduction 1.4.1: Weighted Facility Condition Index Methodology and Findings o Methodology o Summary of Findings 1.4.2: Educational Adequacy Methodology and Findings o Methodology o Summary of Findings 1.4.3: Utilization o Methodology o Summery of Findings 1.4.4: Project Definitions and Costs Methodology o Methodology J U N E

34 PRINCE GEORGE S COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS MASTER PLAN SUPPORT PROJECT INTRODUCTION The project team was charged with the synthesis of existing data as well as collecting new data for the purposes of developing options and provide input to the establishment of priorities for the improvement of PGCPS school facilities. Overall, this data-driven and goal oriented approach seeks to understand how PGCPS s existing facilities currently perform and what improvements need to be made across the school district relative to mission, condition, and function. With these factors driving the approach, PGCPS school facilities were assessed specifically for these categories of need and the associated data helped inform the development of project recommendation and comprehensive program based on objective criteria. This section provides a detailed review of the project team s approach for this data collection process, review, and assessment. Specifically, it reviews the methodology and findings for the Weighted Facility Condition Index, Educational Adequacy, and Utilization components of the MPSP. DATA ORGANIZATION To understand broader, countywide trends the project team consistently reviewed data by two characterizations: region and school type. These characterizations of data are repeated throughout the report and often are used as a basis of comparison. REGION The project team divided the county into three regions based on the established geographic planning areas from the June 2014 Educational Facilities Master Plan (EFMP). These designations are loosely geographic in nature and are referred to as the Northern Region, Central Region, and Southern Region. SCHOOL TYPE The inventory of school facilities includes neighborhood and regional schools. Enrollment at neighborhood schools is based upon established boundaries. The project team characterized these schools further into elementary, middle, and high schools. Regional schools have specific enrollment criteria that draw from larger county geographical regions, and these schools are grouped separately from neighborhood schools. For the purposes of this report, the project team generally did not further distinguish regional schools by grade level. Regional schools are often denoted with an asterisk (*) within data tables B R A I L S F O R D & D U N L A V E Y I N S P I R E. E M P O W E R. A D V A N C E.

35 SECTION 1.4 METHODOLOGY AND FINDINGS S E C T I O N W E I G H T E D F A C I L I T Y C O N D I T I O N S I N D E X METHODOLOGY BACKGROUND PGCPS completed a condition assessment of schools in The condition assessment data was captured in Parsons proprietary software system, ecomet. In 2012, Parsons performed an update of the data in ecomet. These updates incorporate the results of PGCPS projects funded or completed between 2001 and 2013 that would have remedied some of the facility deficiencies identified in the system from the 2001 effort. The Parsons assessment calculated a Facility Condition Index (FCI) as: FCI = Current Cost of Repairs Replacement Value The revised 2012 Parsons report calculated the total cost of PGCPS repairs at approximately $2.13 billion and a replacement value at approximately $4.29 billion, for a system-wide average FCI of.50 which is more commonly reported as an FCI of 50. PGCPS recognizes that the FCI quantifies deficiencies by the cost to replace or correct them without considering some deficiencies are more difficult to correct, or have a greater impact on the school s learning environment. Therefore, PGCPS requested that the MPSP project team use the Parsons data to develop and vet a Weighted FCI (WFCI) to consider health and safety, the degree to which corrections are readily achievable in isolation (i.e. not in modernization or replacement), and other factors to be determined through this assignment. NORM ALIZING THE DATA TO 2015 Projected facility system renewals identified in ecomet for were not originally included as deficiencies exported by PGCPS to the project team and, therefore, did not impact reported FCI scores. It was determined that these projected system renewals should be added to the export as deficiencies in order to update the reported FCI scores to a baseline of It was also determined that any deficiencies in the ecomet export remediated by projects completed or funded in were to be removed prior to updating the FCI calculation. PGCPS provided information on county- and state-funded projects for that corrected some of the existing deficiencies in ecomet. The project team and PGCPS jointly reviewed these projects and J U N E

36 PRINCE GEORGE S COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS MASTER PLAN SUPPORT PROJECT made adjustments to existing deficiencies remedied by the project scope. In many cases, engineering judgment was used to determine what deficiencies might be impacted by the scope of work provided, and the accuracy of those adjustments are professional opinions based on the available information. The final set of data used by the project team is more reflective of the current conditions than the 2012 ecomet data without any updates. The following are process notes that describe actions taken based on the project data provided. Additions to Deficiencies - Renewals Projected for Using the report writing function in ecomet, all the system renewal projections for were exported and added to the deficiency list for the associated building in the deficiency export. Therefore, those renewals will increase the FCI for the associated buildings. Budget Adjustment versus Complete System Replacement If a project specifically stated the scope was a complete system replacement, the total dollar amount in ecomet for that system deficiency was deducted without regard to the project amount. If a project did not specifically state it was replacing the complete system but the project dollar amount was greater than the ecomet, the full amount of the ecomet deficiency was deducted. If the project did not specifically state it was replacing the complete system but the project dollar amount was significantly lower than the ecomet deficiency amount, then only the project amount for that deficiency was deducted. Completed systemic replacements will reduce the FCI for the associated building. Pod Conversions and Renovations The project descriptions for pod conversions and renovations provided, for the most part, the square footage of the impacted area and the building(s) associated with the work. The percentage of the building impacted by the project was calculated by using the square footage of the project and the associated square footage of the building. Deficiency amounts were reduced strictly based on the percentage of square footage being renovated. Taking into consideration that the spaces being modified were typically classrooms, the project team selected the deficiencies in the Uniformat Codes that were likely impacted by the work. A reduction of each deficiency selected was made based on the percentage of the project to the building (ex: 10,000 sq. ft. renovation of 100,000 sq. ft. building = 10%). These deficiency deductions did not necessarily reflect the project budget however, completed projects will reduce the FCI for the associated building B R A I L S F O R D & D U N L A V E Y I N S P I R E. E M P O W E R. A D V A N C E.

37 SECTION 1.4 METHODOLOGY AND FINDINGS Projects with No Corresponding ecomet Deficiency (Based on Uniformat Code) There were instances where a project scope covered replacement of a system or systems but there were no ecomet exported deficiencies or system renewals before 2016 associated with the project scope. Adjustments were not made to reflect those project scopes; therefore, no impact on the 2015 FCI was identified. No Specific Assets in ecomet. The Uniformat Codes provide a standard for categorizing components/systems of a constructed asset. A building does not include all the assets on a campus. For example, a tennis court contains some systems that are similar to a building, such as lighting, plumbing, fencing and pavements. Recreational assets were not specifically addressed in ecomet, so any of the projects associated with those types of assets were not addressed because those projects do not impact the building s FCI. WEIGHTING METHODOLOGY OVERVIEW In parallel with the normalization of the ecomet data to 2015, the project team analyzed attributes 1 assigned to deficiencies in ecomet to determine how they could be used in the WFCI process. It was determined that two attributes from ecomet data were reflective of criticality and appropriate for weighting the FCI. These attributes are the deficiency category and the priority. It was also determined that additional rating characteristics could be developed by analyzing their impact on learning and the difficulty of repair/replacement of specific building elements based on their Uniformat Code. Using a scale of one-10, ratings were assigned to priority, deficiency category, and Unifomat Codes/Assemblies (reflective of impact on learning and difficulty of repair/replacement). These ratings were applied to the deficiency costs in ecomet, then normalized the data by weighting priority, deficiency category, impact on learning, and difficulty of repair/replacement to calculate a WFCI. ecomet ATTRIBUTES The project team began by reviewing output reports in PDF format from ecomet that were provided by PGCPS. The initial review identified three attributes that are assigned to each deficiency in ecomet that had the potential for use in the algorithm for the weighted FCI. These were deficiency category, distress, 1 The data attributes included in ecomet were assigned by Parsons as part of the 2012 FCI update. Details are available in Parsons report at J U N E

38 PRINCE GEORGE S COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS MASTER PLAN SUPPORT PROJECT and priority. PGCPS provided direct access to ecomet which enabled our team to export all deficiencies in the system for PGCPS and perform some analysis. In reviewing the three attributes, the percent of the total deficiency cost for each attribute was calculated as shown in the following figures: Deficiency Categories Percent Distress Percent ADA/Accessibility 1.74 Appearance 0.30 Building Integrity 0.67 Capital Renewal 6.17 Compliance 0.45 Critical Repair 0.00 Differed Maintenance Environmental 1.05 Functional Adequacy 0.35 Renovation/Renewal 0.11 FIGURE : Deficiency Categories, ecomet Beyond Useful Life Damaged 0.01 Failing 0.04 Inadequate 1.85 Missing 0.00 FIGURE : Distress Categories, ecomet Priority Percent 1. Critical/Immediate Need Potentially Critical-12 months Necessary years Rocommended years Does Not Meet Current Code/Standards 1.89 FIGURE : Priority Categories, ecomet Based on a review of these attributes and how they were used in the ecomet data structure, it was determined that the priority and distress attributes were synchronized, and separating them as criteria did not provide any additional data clarification. Therefore, deficiency category and priority were the two ecomet attributes considered in weighting each of the deficiencies. The definition of the priority categories is evident based on the descriptions provided in the figure above. The definitions of the deficiency categories from ecomet are: ADA/Accessibility - System does not meet current accessibility Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) standards or does not provide adequate accessibility into, out of, or within a facility. Appearance - System condition does not meet aesthetic expectations, quality of appearance, and maintenance best practices B R A I L S F O R D & D U N L A V E Y I N S P I R E. E M P O W E R. A D V A N C E.

39 SECTION 1.4 METHODOLOGY AND FINDINGS Building Integrity - System does not meet standards for building structure or envelope integrity. Capital Renewal Future renewal requirements for building systems as they reach the end of their expected useful life. (The category of deferred maintenance is more commonly used.) Compliance - System does not meet building or life safety code standards. Critical Repair System is non-functional and impacts overall building function or may impact human safety. Deferred Maintenance System to be replaced because it is damaged, broken, inadequate, beyond its service life, or needs remediation. Environmental - System or component has issue regarding asbestos-containing building materials (ACBM), indoor air quality (IAQ), chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), poly-chlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), lead-based paint, air quality, and/or water quality. Functional Adequacy - System does not function as required for acoustics, lighting, temperature control, and/or space/educational adequacy. Renovation/Renewal Projected system replacement updated to reflect renovation. UNIFORM AT CODE WEIGH TING The Uniformat II Code, which is the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) standard for classification of building elements and related site work, provides a hierarchy of organizing data in a building at various levels of detail. The project team evaluated two other attributes assigned to each deficiency; the Uniformat Code and the assembly name assigned in ecomet. In ecomet, deficiency information is further defined by the assembly name that identifies the material or other information on the system or component being replaced. The project team exported this information and identified all Uniformat Codes and descriptions used in the ecomet data at the deficiency level. This is provided in column A of Appendix Ratings were developed to reflect the difficulty of repair or replacement for each Uniformat Code or assembly, as shown in column B of Appendix An additional rating was also assigned to each assembly reflecting the daily impact that the system/element of the building has on the education outcome, which is referenced as Impact on Learning in column C. Using a scale of high / medium high / average/ medium low / low, ratings were assigned to impact on learning and difficulty of repair based on industry studies, consultation with PGCPS educational and facilities representatives, and the project team s engineering experience. The following provides excerpted entries from Appendix 3.2.1: J U N E

40 PRINCE GEORGE S COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS MASTER PLAN SUPPORT PROJECT FIGURE : Difficulty to Repair Rating The rating for impact on learning was selected based on a planned repair or replacement and did not consider an unscheduled failure because almost all complete failures would have a negative impact on the learning environment. The rating is reflective of the consolidated opinions of members of the Facilities Advisory Committee (FAC), based on two review meetings and a questionnaire provided to the group. Appendix provides the detailed questionnaire results from members of the FAC. DEVELOPING THE WFCI Applying the numerical value to the associated rating for each of the four attributes is the key component to development of the WFCI. The ten deficiency categories made a rating scale of one-10 a logical method of assigning ratings to each of the four attributes. Assigning the ratings for the 10 deficiency categories required a review of the ecomet data and the definitions of the categories used by the team that developed B R A I L S F O R D & D U N L A V E Y I N S P I R E. E M P O W E R. A D V A N C E.

41 SECTION 1.4 METHODOLOGY AND FINDINGS the ecomet database. Because nearly 90 percent of the data is deferred maintenance, it was assigned a rating of six, while critical repair, building integrity, environmental, and compliance were given higher ratings. Appearance, capital renewal, and renovation/renewal rated at the lower end of the scale. The deficiency category ratings are shown in Figure below. Deficiency Categories Rating Appearance 1 Capital Renewal 2 Renovation/Renewal 3 ADA/Accessibility 4 Functional Adequacy 5 Differed Maintenance 6 Environmental 7 Compliance 8 Building Integrity 9 Critical Repair 10 FIGURE : Deficiency Categories Rating Scale Assigning the numerical value for the priority attribute was evident by the descriptions provided; however, the project team adjusted the rating for Does Not Meet Current Code/Standards to be higher than Recommended-3-10 Years based on a review of the data that identified that a majority of code/standard deficiencies were related to ADA compliance. The impact on learning ratings were straightforward, weighting high impact as a 10 and low impact a two. Difficulty of repair/replacement was rated as high as 10 and as low as two to reflect the disruptions anticipated in performing the work on the operation of the school. The ratings for these three attributes are shown below in figures Impact to Learning High 10 Medium High 8 Average 6 Medium Low 4 Low 2 FIGURE : Impact to Learning Rating Scale Rating Difficulty of Repair/Replacement Rating High 10 Medium High 8 Average 6 Medium Low 4 Low 2 FIGURE : Difficulty of Repair/Replacement Rating Scale Priority Rating 1. Critical/Immediate Need Potentially Critical-12 months 8 3. Necessary years 6 4. Rocommended years 4 5. Does Not Meet Current Code/Standards 2 FIGURE : Priority Rating Scale J U N E

42 PRINCE GEORGE S COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS MASTER PLAN SUPPORT PROJECT The deficiency costs associated with the Uniformat systems in each of these attribute categories was multiplied by the above rating values and summed for each building, then divided by 10 times the total replacement value of the building to normalize the data. The figures below demonstrate the process for a typical school building: FCI Adjusted for ecomet Deficiency Category Deficiency Category Rating ADA Appearance Bldg Intgr Cap Ren Compliance ecomet Def Costs $263,541 $747,063 $5,397,119 $213,775 Def Costs X Rating Rating $1,054,164 $6,723,571 $10,794,238 $1,710,201 Critical Rpr Def Mant Environment Func Adq Reno/Renew Total ecomet Def Costs $539,297 $912,653 $8,073,448 Def Costs X Rating $3,235,782 $6,388,568 $29,906,524 Replacement Value of Building from 2012 ecomet Data $13,857,756 FCI Adjusted = (Total Def Costs x Rating)/Replacement Value x 10) 0.22 FIGURE : Deficiency category attribute weighting FCI Adjusted for ecomet Priority Priority Rating Total ecomet Def Costs $7,809,907 $263,541 $8,073,448 Def Costs X Rating $46,859,444 $1,054,164 $47,913,608 Replacement Value of Building from 2012 ecomet Data $13,857,756 FCI Adjusted = (Total Def Costs x Rating)/Replacement Value x 10) 0.35 FIGURE : Priority category attribute weighting FCI Adjusted for Impact on Learning Impact on Learning Rating High Med High Average Med Low Low Total ecomet Def Costs $1,105,024 $1,520,909 $1,761,499 $3,118,511 $567,505 $8,073,448 Def Costs X Rating $11,050,240 $12,167,274 $10,568,994 $12,474,045 $1,135,010 $47,395,563 Replacement Value of Building from 2012 ecomet Data FCI Adjusted = (Total Def Costs x Rating)/Replacement Value x 10) $13,857, FIGURE : Impact on Learning category attribute weighting B R A I L S F O R D & D U N L A V E Y I N S P I R E. E M P O W E R. A D V A N C E.

43 SECTION 1.4 METHODOLOGY AND FINDINGS FCI Adjusted for Difficulty of Repair/Replacement Difficulty of Repair/Replacement Rating High Med High Average Med Low Low Total ecomet Def Costs $2,003,748 $2,117,040 $1,314,066 $2,537,717 $100,877 $8,073,448 Def Costs X Rating $20,037,484 $16,936,318 $7,884,393 $10,150,869 $201,755 $55,210,819 Replacement Value of Building from 2012 ecomet Data FCI Adjusted = (Total Def Costs x Rating)/Replacement Value x 10) $13,857, FIGURE : Difficulty of Repair/Replacement category attribute weighting Once the previous calculation was performed for all four weighting factors (priority, deficiency category, difficulty of repair/replacement, and impact on learning), the resulting values were weighted as follows: Attributes Weighting The difficulty of repair attribute was weighted the highest because of the extensive disruption to school operations caused by correcting the associated deficiencies. The impact on learning attribute was also weighted high because of the contribution to educational outcome. The ecomet attributes were both weighted much lower because there is not a normal distribution of the data associated with these attributes, since deferred maintenance and priority three, necessary- two-five years, both represent roughly 90 percent of the data. Impact on Learning 0.30 Difficulty of Repair 0.50 Deficiency Categories 0.10 Priority 0.10 FIGURE : Attribute Weighting Applying these weightings to the individual adjusted FCI for each attribute and summing the total results in the WFCI for each building. WFCI = [(Impact FCI X Weighting) + (Difficulty FCI x Weighting) + (Def Category FCI x Weighting) + (Priority FCI x Weighting)] x100 J U N E

44 PRINCE GEORGE S COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS MASTER PLAN SUPPORT PROJECT Attributes Weighting Adjusted FCI Weighted Impact on Learning Difficulty of Repair Deficiency Categories Priority Total WFCI 36 ecomet FCI 58 FIGURE : Example WFCI Calculation APPLICATION OF THE WFCI The weighting formula was applied to 159 schools for which FCI data was made available. Generally, the data was available for all schools constructed prior to 1999 and a complete list is provided in Appendix As will be discussed in the subsequent section, weighting of the four attribute categories allowed the project team to evaluate the impact the process had on the relative level of need at each school and to further define and label building systems for the purpose of establishing project needs at each school. WFCI PRIORITIZATION After weighting the FCI scores, the schools were sorted by their WFCI scores and ranked from one-159, with one having the highest WFCI score of all the schools and 159 having the lowest. Instead of ranking or prioritizing the distribution of 160 schools one by one, or on a scale of one-100, the portfolio of schools was prioritized in 25 separate groupings in order to align the results with the priority scores developed for educational adequacy. In order to normalize the distribution of the entire portfolio of WFCI scores evenly and in a statistically significant manner, a scale of 0-53 was used because the lowest WFCI score for any school was 0.27 while the highest was Choosing this method divided the 159 schools into 25 groupings with the expectations of each having an average of six-seven schools. However, to distribute the portfolio quantitatively, the inverse function of a normal continuous probability distribution was used. Simply put, each school s WFCI score was compared to the WFCI scores of the entire portfolio, the portfolio mean, and the portfolio standard deviation using a unique probability calculation for each of the 25 groupings. Statistically speaking, this inverse function returned the appropriate WFCI score such that, with a specific unique probability, a normal random variable using portfolio mean and portfolio standard deviation takes on a value less than, or equal to, the specific WFCI score calculated using that probability. Using this syntax, we first applied probabilities to each grouping and distributed the probabilities of each grouping according to a bell-shaped curve, with the total area under the curve equal to one B R A I L S F O R D & D U N L A V E Y I N S P I R E. E M P O W E R. A D V A N C E.

45 SECTION 1.4 METHODOLOGY AND FINDINGS To complete this exercise, the schools were placed into groupings by dividing the total area under the curve (of 1.0) by 25, which created a new grouping every.04 or approximately every 2.12 increase or decrease in WFCI score from or (53/25). Once the 25 ranges were calculated, all 159 schools WFCI scores were distributed into the grouping with the appropriate WFCI score range. The resulting placement established the WFCI priority score for each school. The figure below shows the WFCI priority scores associated with the WFCI score range groupings. WFCI Score Range WFCI Priority Score WFCI Score Range WFCI Priority Score FIGURE : WFCI priority scores based on associated WFCI score range groupings J U N E

46 PRINCE GEORGE S COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS MASTER PLAN SUPPORT PROJECT SUMMARY OF FINDINGS PGCPS engaged the project team to apply a weighting factor to the 2012 Parson s facility condition index (FCI) scores for the purpose of better differentiating known systemic deficiencies and to then apply the results into a rubric for the prioritization of future capital projects. The process used to weight the existing facility condition data resulted in a weighted facility condition index (WFCI) score and a WFCI priority score for each school. The WFCI score provides PGCPS with the ability to rank all schools from based strictly on an evaluation of the WFCI results. The WFCI priority score places the schools into a normalized distribution of 25 groupings, allowing PGCPS to combine WFCI priority results with the educational adequacy priority results (discussed in the subsequent section). The data collected from PGCPS and that subsequently developed by the project team allows for a comprehensive analysis of the WFCI scoring. This analysis will focus first on the impact and efficacy of the WFCI methodology and, second, on the actual results county-wide and on a school-by-school basis. WEIGHTING IMPACT AND EFFICACY Appendix at the end of this report provides a comparison of the facility condition rankings for the 159 schools included in this analysis. Figures and below include a list of the 10 worst FCI and WFCI scores, respectively. In both cases, Cherokee Lane Elementary School is listed as the school with the worst overall score and eight of the 10 worst schools, based on FCI, remained in the top 10, based upon WFCI. SCHOOL NAME Region 2012 Parsons FCI 2012 Rank Cherokee Lane ES North Margaret Brent Regional Regional Woodmore ES Central Rose Valley ES James E. Duckworth South Regional Regional Clinton Grove ES South Thomas Clagget ES Central William Beanes ES South Longfields ES Central John Hanson Montessori Regional FIGURE : 10 highest Parsons FCI schools SCHOOL NAME Region 2015 B&D WFCI 2015 Rank Cherokee Lane ES North Longfields ES Central Robert Goddard Montessori ES Regional Clinton Grove ES South Margaret Brent Regional Regional Woodmore ES Central Rose Valley ES James E Duckworth South Regional Regional Fort Washington Forest ES South Lamont ES North FIGURE : 10 highest B&D WFCI schools As shown in the figures below, there is an even stronger correlation among the best scores with both the FCI and WFCI having the same 10 schools listed and only one minor position change B R A I L S F O R D & D U N L A V E Y I N S P I R E. E M P O W E R. A D V A N C E.

47 SECTION 1.4 METHODOLOGY AND FINDINGS SCHOOL NAME Region 2012 Parson s FCI 2012 Rank Oxon Hill HS South Adelphi ES North Carmody Hills ES Central Laurel ES North Doswell E. Brooks ES Central Berwyn Heights ES North Bradbury Heights ES Central Carole Highlands ES North Greenbelt MS North Dodge Park ES Central FIGURE : 10 lowest Parsons FCI schools SCHOOL NAME Region 2015 B&D WFCI 2015 Rank Oxon Hill HS South Adelphi ES North Carmody Hills ES Central Laurel ES North Doswell E. Brooks ES Central Berwyn Heights ES North Bradbury Heights ES Central Carole Highlands ES North Dodge Park ES Central Greenbelt MS North FIGURE : 10 lowest B&D WFCI schools When viewed comprehensively, weighting of the FCI appears to have had little impact on the average ranking of schools when organized by school type and region. As shown in the chart below, the vast majority of school types across all regions only showed an incremental change in the average rankings. Only high schools in the Central Region showed a significant drop with an average decrease in rank of just over five places. FIGURE : Average change in ranking However, averaging the results associated with changes in rank is misleading because the total value of system deficiencies does not change, which means that for every positive change in system rank there must be a balancing negative change. Data from our assessment proves this to be the case, as the sum total of positive and negative rank changes across all schools balances out to zero 2. In fact, 77 schools had a negative rank change (rank lowered from 2012 FCI to 2015 WFCI) and 66 schools had a positive 2 Total positive rank changes totaled 428 and total negative rank changes total -428, as shown in Appendix J U N E

48 PRINCE GEORGE S COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS MASTER PLAN SUPPORT PROJECT rank change. Therefore, it is more important to look at the quantity of rank changes taking place and evaluate which schools, or school types, had the most significant changes. The data show that nearly 91% of the 159 schools to which the WFCI was applied moved at least one ranking position. Of greater significance is the fact that over 45% of schools moved five or more places in the rankings and just under 20% moved 10 or more places. Furthermore, application of the weighting algorithm to the FCI scores impacted all school types in all regions. As shown in figure below, there were schools that made significant moves upward or downward in the rankings across all school types and in all regions of the county, with the most significant negative moves in Central Region middle schools and the most significant positive moves predominantly in elementary schools across the district. This means that application of the weighting factors to the existing FCI data was effective in causing broad re-prioritization of the schools, regardless of type or region. FIGURE : Ranking change movement summary WFCI RESULTS An evaluation of WFCI scores by region shows that, on average, regional schools have the most significant facility-condition-related concerns, followed by schools located in the Southern and Central Regions. Northern Region schools have the lowest average WFCI scores, meaning that facility condition concerns are less prevalent there than in the other regions. To further underscore the previously-discussed impact of weighting the FCI, figure shows that a WFCI places greater emphasis on Southern Region schools than did the FCI, indicating that schools in this region have a greater concentration of building deficiencies in systems with the prioritized attributes 3 than do schools in the other regions. 3 From the previous section Impact on Learning, Difficulty to Repair, Deficiency Category, and Priority B R A I L S F O R D & D U N L A V E Y I N S P I R E. E M P O W E R. A D V A N C E.

49 SECTION 1.4 METHODOLOGY AND FINDINGS FIGURE : Average FCI and WFCI scores by region (all school types) A closer examination of the WFCI scores shows that regional schools, regardless of type, and Southern Region middle schools have the highest WFCI scores. Central Region middle schools and elementary schools in the Southern Region represent the next highest grouping of average WFCI scores. Middle schools in the Northern Region, on the other hand, have by far the lowest average WFCI scores in the county, and elementary and high schools in the north also average among the lowest WFCI scores. Although these results are only averages, and individual WFCI scores vary widely, it is important to recognize that regional schools are on average in worse condition than other school types and that the Southern Region has a higher concentration of schools with high priority facility condition needs than do the Central or Northern Regions of the county. FIGURE : Average WFCI scores by region and school type J U N E

50 PRINCE GEORGE S COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS MASTER PLAN SUPPORT PROJECT As discussed previously, the WFCI scores for all schools were distributed into 25 statistically-balanced groupings in order to establish a WFCI priority score for the purpose of combining the WFCI results with the educational adequacy results. As shown below, the WFCI priority scores are strongly correlated, although inversely 4, to the WFCI scores. Regional schools and middle schools in the Southern and Central Regions have the lowest priority scores while Northern Region schools along with Southern Region high schools have the highest WFCI priority scores. FIGURE : WFCI scores and WFCI priority scores by region and school type For the purpose of better understanding what is driving the higher WFCI scores at certain schools, the project team also evaluated the percentage of building deficiencies concentrated in systems with high ratings in the difficulty of repair and impact on learning attributes. As summarized in the figure below, the team labeled building systems with difficulty of repair and impact on learning ratings greater than six (6) as the highest priority. Systems with a difficulty of repair rating greater than six (6) but an impact on learning rating equal to, or less than, six (6) were labeled as difficult to repair/replace. Systems with a difficulty of repair less than six (6) and an impact on learning greater than six (6) were labeled as impact on learning. 4 Lower WFCI priority scores indicate worse building conditions. A priority of one is a lower score and represents worse facility conditions than a priority of B R A I L S F O R D & D U N L A V E Y I N S P I R E. E M P O W E R. A D V A N C E.

51 SECTION 1.4 METHODOLOGY AND FINDINGS The project team was careful to ensure there were no systems overlapping groups. All systems that did not fit into these categories were labeled as Other. Groups System Grouping HP System Grouping DRR System Grouping IMP System Grouping OTH Group Name FIGURE : Building System Rating Priority Highest Priority Difficulty Repair/Replacement Impact on Learning Other/Rest Difficulty of Repair Impact on Learning Deficiency Priority >6 >6 >=6 >=6 >6 <=6 >=6 >=6 <6 >6 >=6 >=6 Other/Rest As expected, schools with the greatest concentration of deficiencies in the highest priority, difficulty of repair, and impact on learning categories also had the highest WFCI scores. Middle schools in the Southern Region, which are already noted as having the highest WFCI scores, have by far the greatest concentration of deficiencies in the highest priority systems in addition to having the highest concentration of deficiencies in systems with high impact on learning and difficulty to repair ratings. Similarly, northern schools, which have the lowest WFCI scores, have the lowest concentration of deficiencies in the highest priority systems. Other important considerations identified in the figure below include: Despite low overall average WFCI scores, high schools in the south have a high concentration of their deficiencies in systems that are labeled difficult to repair. This could have significant implications on final project recommendations for schools in this region (discussed in a later section). The high WFCI scores in Central Region middle schools appear to be driven predominantly by a high concentration of deficiencies in systems that have an impact on the learning environment. It is probable that these schools will have correlated educational adequacy problems. FIGURE : Ranking change summary J U N E

52 PRINCE GEORGE S COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS MASTER PLAN SUPPORT PROJECT SUMM ARY OF FINDINGS 1. Weighting of the 2012 FCI data had a significant impact on the relative ranking of schools based on facility conditions, causing 92% of schools to move at least one spot in the rankings and 17% to move 10 or more places. This indicates that the weighting process was effective in differentiating schools based on their unique system deficiency profiles. 2. On average, regional schools have the highest WFCI scores, followed closely by schools in the Southern and Central Regions. Northern Schools, on average, have the lowest WFCI scores. 3. All regional schools, regardless of type, in addition to middle schools in the Southern and Central Regions, have the highest average WFCI score, indicating a higher overall level of facility condition needs. 4. Concentrations of deficiencies in high priority systems are linked to higher WFCI scores and several school types have concentrations of deficiencies in systems that are difficult to repair. This has significant implications on the types of projects that must be undertaken to correct the problems B R A I L S F O R D & D U N L A V E Y I N S P I R E. E M P O W E R. A D V A N C E.

53 SECTION 1.4 METHODOLOGY AND FINDINGS S E C T I O N E D U C A T I O N A L A D E Q U A C Y METHODOLOGY INTRODUCTION An educational adequacy assessment is the evaluation of a school facility s ability to support defined standards as outlined in the district s educational specifications. The assessment details the degree to which a school facility can provide and support educational functions that meet the district s mission, goals, and standards for learning environments. It identifies local needs and develops a gap analysis that compares existing facility conditions to the ideal standards and provides a score for each component. These scores inform one part of the methodology used by the project team to make modernization recommendations. The overall educational adequacy score is comprised of three components: the campus, the individual, and the space adequacy scores. The following information provides a summary of the methodology used to formulate the educational adequacy score. The methodology includes data collection, building assessments, prioritization of data, generation of educational adequacy scorecards, and creation of project write-ups based on the scorecards. An overall analysis of the results is included at the end of this section. EDUCATIONAL SPECIFIC ATIONS In February 2015 the district approved educational specifications (Ed Specs) for both primary and secondary schools. As stated by the district, Ed Specs are designed to clearly describe the various learning activities to be housed in the school, their spatial requirements, appropriate locations within the building or the site, and any special requirements that a designer or a facility planner would need to consider. The district also states the specifications should serve as the link between the educational program and school facilities. The project team used the Ed Specs, along with PGCPS administrative support, to develop a customized educational adequacy survey for primary and secondary schools, which included campus and individual space assessments. Schools were evaluated against the appropriate survey based on school type. Certain schools, such as Pre-K-8 or those housing regional specialty programs, do not fall into a specific category, so they were assessed using a combination of both surveys. J U N E

54 PRINCE GEORGE S COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS MASTER PLAN SUPPORT PROJECT DATA COLLECTION AND SCORECARD GENERATION Over the course of nine weeks, six survey teams performed campus and individual space assessments at 163 schools, collecting nearly 627,000 data points that drive the educational adequacy scoring. During each site tour and individual space assessment, teams would spend a few minutes asking principals and teachers about interior air quality and heating and air conditioning systems performance. They typically asked if there was any other pertinent information they wanted to share. This information allowed teams to gather additional data not apparent by initial observation. Each team observed environmental context clues while touring, such as windows open during the winter because the unit heaters were overheating the space or posters, paint, and papers peeling off walls because of recurring humidity issues. Typically, teams would speak with administrative staff to discuss site circulation and other features not readily obvious when walking the school. The project team used QuickTap Survey software to collect data during the site walks. The survey was preloaded onto ipads, which were then issued to the assessment teams. The survey software allowed the assessor to choose one of the following three responses for each survey question: Yes: The space fully meets the requirements of the Ed Specs. Some: The space meets some of the requirements of the Ed Specs. No: The space does not meet the requirements of the Ed Specs. The assessor performed the individual space assessment, detailed below, for each learning space. To maximize the functionality of the tool, some survey questions did not apply to all learning spaces. If they did not, the assessor left these questions blank. Blank answers did not influence the educational adequacy final result. All data were uploaded to a single server and used to generate a school-specific educational adequacy priority scorecard. The scorecard was calculated by rating each campus and individual space subcomponent as excellent, satisfactory, borderline, poor, or deficient. An example scorecard is shown in Figure FIGURE : Educational Adequacy Scorecard B R A I L S F O R D & D U N L A V E Y I N S P I R E. E M P O W E R. A D V A N C E.

55 SECTION 1.4 METHODOLOGIES AND FINDINGS SCHOOL-SPECIFIC REPORTS Using the scorecard data, the team wrote a brief report that documented the results. The reports focused specifically on any subcomponent earning a rating of deficient, poor, or borderline. Under each rating, the assessor described negative attributes of that subcomponent only in order to focus solely on areas of concern. Each of the 163 schools assessed by the project team was documented in this manner. The write-ups were created to document critical information that could only be observed in person. Many assessors reported similar findings; therefore, to provide consistency across all reports, the project team developed common phrases to describe similar observations. All write-ups are included with the planning area reviews in Volume Two of this report. CAMPUS AND INDIVIDUAL SPACE ASSESSMENTS As mentioned in the introduction, the educational adequacy score is comprised of three components: the individual, campus, and space adequacy priority scores. All ratings are based solely on the district-approved survey questions. The full survey is located in Appendix CAMPUS ASSESSMENTS The campus assessment is an evaluation of the entire school building and site based on the requirements outlined in the educational specifications. There are six subcategories for this assessment: 1. Site circulation and accessibility: Assesses vehicular and pedestrian accessibility of the building and site. This includes evaluating areas of the building that were inaccessible for a person with a physical disability and whether bus and passenger vehicles have separate and dedicated loading and unloading zones. 2. Exterior spaces: Evaluates the outdoor playfields and equipment. It assesses if the school is equipped with age-appropriate equipment and adequately-sized fields, as defined in the Ed Specs. 3. Building configuration: Evaluates if the building s organization is appropriate and effective compared to the clearly defined space adjacencies and proximity relationships from the Ed Specs. This section also assesses if spaces intended for community use can be physically isolated from the rest of the building to prevent unauthorized after-hours access. 4. Corridor and common space configuration: Reviews corridor spaces throughout the building and evaluates if they have the proper equipment, fixtures, lighting, and informal learning space. J U N E

56 PRINCE GEORGE S COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS MASTER PLAN SUPPORT PROJECT 5. Technology and supporting infrastructure: Evaluates each school s technological infrastructure. The project team received this data from the information technology department of Prince George s County Public Schools. 6. Safety and security: Evaluates the physical equipment and technology installed at the school. The team reviewed for exterior light fixtures, exterior cameras, an easily-identifiable main entrance, secure exterior doors with appropriate locking hardware, blinds on exterior windows, interior lockable classroom doors, and a phone-intercom system in all instructional and support areas. INDIVIDUAL SPACE ASSESSM ENTS The individual space assessment evaluates some similar characteristics as the campus assessment, but at an individual space level. The individual space assessment questions are the same for primary and secondary schools; however, the space type classifications vary between the primary and secondary schools. Secondary schools have wider varieties of capacity-driving spaces, such as band, science, and fitness rooms. At the primary level, the capacity-driving spaces are grade level classrooms and self-contained special needs spaces. The project team defines capacity-driving spaces the same way the State Board of Education does for purposes of calculating State-rated Capacity. Specialty spaces only exist in primary schools. Specialty spaces in a primary school include the gymnasium, music art, and the like. Shared spaces in all schools are comprised of spaces such as the larger assembly areas, computer labs, and resource rooms. The six subcategories for the individual space assessment include: 1. Internal organization and ancillary spaces: Evaluates the basic physical infrastructure and size of each space, along with the presence of required ancillary spaces or adjacencies. Typical infrastructure evaluated included the presence of sinks and bathrooms in the primary rooms 2. Furnishings: Evaluates basic fixed and loose furnishings required for each space. Types of fixed furnishings include cubbies, cabinets, tack or marker boards, and shelving. 3. Lighting quality: Evaluates a space s natural and artificial lighting qualities. The presence of windows with exterior views and levels of lighting control are noted. 4. Acoustics: Evaluates how well the space mitigates internal and external noise. Window air conditioning units, unit ventilators, HVAC systems, or lighting systems can all be sources of internal noise. An external noise assessment typically evaluates how well the space is insulated from noise from adjacent spaces B R A I L S F O R D & D U N L A V E Y I N S P I R E. E M P O W E R. A D V A N C E.

57 SECTION 1.4 METHODOLOGIES AND FINDINGS 5. Air quality: Evaluates if the room temperature is comfortable and controllable, if there are adequate amounts of fresh air, and if there are any noticeable humidity or moisture issues. 6. Room technology and supporting infrastructure: Evaluates the presence of an interactive whiteboard, audio-visual equipment, and sufficient power and data outlets to support the space s program requirements. The project team conducted the individual space and campus assessments described above to determine educational adequacy compliance. Comprehensive inspections or facility audits performed by qualified professionals in numerous disciplines may be required to understand fully the physical condition of any school. CALCULATING SPACE AS SESSMENT ADEQUACY SC ORES Campus and individual space assessments evaluate the compliance of existing spaces to the educational specifications. The adequacy score is calculated as a percent compliant out of a total possible score by subsection. Each question has a possible score of one, three, or five points. These scores relate, respectively, to No, Some, and Yes responses made by the assessor. As mentioned in the previous section, blank answers do not affect the assessment scores. The assessment populates both a score per classroom and a score per subcomponent Classroom Marker boards and tackable wall surfaces are provided as required. FIGURE : Example Assessment Scores Fixed Furnishing Fixed furniture and equipment such as cubbies, base/wall cabinets, itinerant stations, and other specialty equipment is provided as required. Loose furnishings provided support the programmatic requirements identified within the Ed Specs. Total Possible Total Earned Yes - 5 Yes - 5 Yes Yes - 5 No -1 Some Some - 3 Yes - 5 Blank 10 8 TOTAL Educational Adequacy Score: 80% Example 1: Fixed Furnishings Category In the example shown in Figure , three questions apply to classroom 207. With a maximum five-point score, the total possible score for this classroom is 15 (3 x 5 = 15). The same is true for classroom 208. J U N E

58 PRINCE GEORGE S COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS MASTER PLAN SUPPORT PROJECT Question three does not apply to classroom 209; therefore, the maximum possible points is ten (2 x 5 = 10). The total points possible are 40 ( = 40). The total points earned are 32. The resulting score is 80% (32 / 40 = 80%). Adequacy scores range from 0% to 100%, with 0% being the worst, meaning the space is not compliant with any of the educational specifications requirements. Figure explains the five ratings based on the adequacy scores earned. Campus and Individual Space Assessment Ratings Rating Range A Range B Color Key Excellent % Satisfactory % Borderline % Poor % Deficient % FIGURE : Campus and Individual Space Assessment Rating Scale SPACE ADEQUACY ASSESSMENT The space adequacy assessment compares the number of learning spaces and total square footage of those learning spaces to the requirements set in the Ed Specs. This score is calculated as the percentage of space compliant out of the total space required. Space adequacy is measured in three categories: capacity-driving spaces, specialty spaces, and shared spaces. Space adequacy illustrates if a school has too many or too few classrooms, and indicates if those spaces are too small or large. The following examples depict an elementary school with too few capacity-driving spaces and a lack of total square footage to support its program requirements. This example displays a space adequacy score of 71%, meaning that only 71% of the required space exists in the building s current configuration. Room Type Required Spaces Existing Spaces Difference Capacity-Driving Qty Total SF Qty Total SF Qty Total SF Pre-Kindergarten Kindergarten st Grade nd Grade rd Grade th Grade th Grad Special Education - Self Contained Generic Classroom Subtotal 33 32, , ,361 FIGURE : Example Space Adequacy Calculation Percent of Ideal 71% B R A I L S F O R D & D U N L A V E Y I N S P I R E. E M P O W E R. A D V A N C E.

59 SECTION 1.4 METHODOLOGIES AND FINDINGS A space adequacy score can be greater than 100%, which indicates a school has excess space. A score of 0% is the worst, meaning the space is not compliant with any of the Ed Specs. Figure delineates the five ranges of scores. Space Aadequacy Rating Rating Range A Range B Color Key Excellent %+ Satisfactory % Borderline % Poor % Deficient % FIGURE : Space Adequacy Rating Scale PRIORITY SCORING Although the educational adequacy component scores do provide a direct assessment of a facility s compliance with the Ed Specs, they do not establish an effective means by which to prioritize one component or, for that matter, any of its subcomponents. An additional step was taken to establish a prioritization of the subcomponents - that is, to determine, for example, if a deficiency in lighting quality is of greater importance than, say, a deficiency in air quality. To establish priority scores for each of the three educational adequacy components, the project team applied a level factor to the previously-established ratings categories (excellent to deficient). The following five level factors were developed in close consultation with PGCPS leadership to ensure the priorities were closely aligned with the district s goals and objectives. The priority levels decrease in importance, with level one being the most important and level five the least. Level 1: All items or elements that affect life safety and/or in need of critical repair Level 2: All items or elements that affect building capacity and utilization Level 3: All items or elements that are essential to the learning environment Level 4: All items or elements that enhance but are not essential to the learning environment Level 5: All other items or elements not included in levels 1-4 The project team, again in close consultation with PGCPS leadership, then applied the levels to each of the educational adequacy subcomponents as follows: J U N E

60 PRINCE GEORGE S COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS MASTER PLAN SUPPORT PROJECT Component 1: Campus Assessment Sub-category Level Site Circulation and Accessibility 1 Exterior Spaces 2 Building Configuration 2 Corridor and Common Space Configuration 4 Technology and Supporting Infrastructure 2 Safety and Security 1 FIGURE : Campus Assessment Priority Levels Sub-category Component 2: Individual Space Assessment Capacity-Driving Spaces Specialty Spaces Support and Admin Spaces Shared Spaces Level Level Level Level Internal organization and ancillary spaces Furnishings Lighting quality* Acoustics* Air Quality* Room technology and supporting infrastructure FIGURE : Individual Spaces Assessment Priority Levels Component 3: Space Adequacy Sub-category Level Capacity-Driving Spaces 1 Specialty Spaces 2 Shared Spaces 2 Support and Admin Spaces 4 FIGURE : Spaces Adequacy Priority Levels The final step in establishing the priority score for each of the subcomponents is to combine the level factor with the rating category. Priority scores can range between one and 25, with one indicating the highest level of urgency and 25 the lowest. The scoring is explained visually in Figure , below. If, for example, a subcomponent receives a rating of deficient and is a level four, the priority score for that component is four. However, a subcomponent with a rating of satisfactory and a level five priority would receive a priority score of 20. FIGURE : Level Factor The priority score for each educational adequacy component (campus assessment, individual spaces, and space adequacy) is simply an average of its respective subcomponent priority scores. Similarly, the overall educational adequacy priority score is simply an average of the priority scores for each of the three main components B R A I L S F O R D & D U N L A V E Y I N S P I R E. E M P O W E R. A D V A N C E.

61 SECTION 1.4 METHODOLOGIES AND FINDINGS SUMMARY OF FINDINGS This section provides a summary of results from the educational adequacy assessment. The primary metric available for analysis is the overall educational priority, which is composed of three separate comprehensive scores: campus priority, individual space priority, and space adequacy priority. All three scores are calculated based on existing facility conditions, and space adequacy results are formulated based on school year 2020 projected student enrollments. The summary results are presented by school type and region. School types include grade configuration distinction (i.e., ES, MS, or HS) and geographic region. All Pre-K through eight schools are included in the elementary results. All regional schools are shown as an independent group. These schools draw students from around the county, thus their scores should not be averaged into the region where they reside. RESULTS EDUCATIONAL ADEQUACY PRIORITY BY TYPE AND REGION Figure illustrates that the range of average educational adequacy priority scores for most school types is 14 15, with regional high schools being the notable outlier with an average priority score of 11. Based on the established rating scale, this range of priority scores indicates that PGCPS schools, on average, have borderline educational adequacy. The concentration of average scores around a center point is statistically predictable when working with such a massive collection of data, and the borderline rating indicates that there are numerous individual stories to be told. The project team witnessed many schools with several very strong features and only one or two deficiencies, and many with the reverse FIGURE : Average Educational Adequacy Priority Scores J U N E

62 PRINCE GEORGE S COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS MASTER PLAN SUPPORT PROJECT condition. The priority scores for individual schools ranged from 10 to 19 which supports observations in the field. Schools receiving the 10 lowest and highest educational adequacy priority scores are included in the figures below and a complete list of all scores is included as Appendix Lowest EA Priority Scores School Name EA Priority Score 10 Highest EA Priority Scores School Name EA Priority Score *Annapolis Road Academy Alternative HS 10 *H Winship Wheatley ECC 19 *Tall Oaks Vocational HS 10 Andrew Jackson Academy 19 William Paca ES 10 Benjamin D. Foulois Academy 18 *Croom HS at RICA 11 Benjamin Tasker MS 18 Beacon Heights ES 11 Eleanor Roosevelt HS 18 Glenn Dale ES 11 Gwynn Park MS 18 John H. Bayne ES 11 Kenmoor MS 18 Kettering MS 11 Patuxent ES 18 Nicholas Orem MS 11 Robert Frost ES 18 Phyllis E. Wiliams ES 11 Robert Goddard Montessori ES 18 Samuel Chase ES 11 Scotchtown Hills ES 18 FIGURE : School with the 10 Lowest and Highest Priority Scores The variation at the school level makes it important to understand how scoring among the regions and school types differs for each of the three educational adequacy components. Figure provides an overview of the average educational adequacy component scores and shows how different the composition of the average educational adequacy priority scores can be. FIGURE : Average Educational Adequacy and Component Priority Scores B R A I L S F O R D & D U N L A V E Y I N S P I R E. E M P O W E R. A D V A N C E.

63 SECTION 1.4 METHODOLOGIES AND FINDINGS Central Region elementary schools, for example, have an overall priority score of 15 and component scores that are all in the range. Middle schools in the Southern Region, on the other hand, also have an overall priority score of 15 but have component scores ranging from 12 to 18. Figure also shows that regional high schools generally have the lowest overall educational adequacy scores, driven primarily by deficient space adequacy scores. The data also reveal that, on average, Northern Region elementary and middle schools have the lowest space adequacy priority scores and that Southern Region schools, particularly at the secondary level, have the highest space adequacy scores. These findings are likely correlated to school utilization rates which are discussed in a separate section. Aside from the noticeable variation in average space adequacy scores, averages among the other educational adequacy components are generally clustered around the range, which indicates a need to more closely evaluate the scores that comprise the campus-wide assessment and individual space assessment priority scores. CAMPUS ASSESSMENT PRIORITY SCORES The initial review of campus assessment priority scores indicates that average scores range from 12 to 16 across the district. The variation of average scores within a region is not significant enough to identify the greatest needs. The same is true when assessing by school type. FIGURE : Average Campus Assessment Priority Scores Since the averages of campus assessment priority scores are so closely clustered, it is beneficial to go deeper into the data and look at the component scores to see a more detailed picture of a school s conditions. The data summarized in Figure highlights the scores for particular components of the evaluation by region and school type. J U N E

64 PRINCE GEORGE S COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS MASTER PLAN SUPPORT PROJECT Site circulation and accessibility scores were most frequently the lowest, with several school types averaging scores considered to be poor or very close to it. Notably, all Southern Region school types had poor site circulation and accessibility priority scores. In some cases, poor scores in this category were the result of constrained sites in densely populated areas; however, the most frequent reason was that schools were designed to completely different standards decades ago. Building configuration scores were also very low, with poor ratings concentrated in secondary schools across the county and all school types receiving no better than borderline scores. The lowest building configuration scores are indicative of the need to make significant floor plan modifications in order to more closely align the schools with standards established in the Ed Specs. It is also telling that school types with the lowest building configuration scores are also among the oldest in the district. In fact, 86% of schools with building configuration priority scores of seven or lower are over 30 years old, as compared to 68% of all school facilities. FIGURE : Average Campus Assess Priority Scores It is important to point out that the highest average priority score among the campus assessment subcomponents occurred in the area of safety and security. Although there were frequent cases of specific elements missing at individual schools, the overall results indicate that key elements such as exterior lighting and communication systems were present and functional to current standards at most schools. Similarly, the technology and supporting infrastructure subcomponent received satisfactory ratings or better in all school types, regardless of region, which is reflective of recent investments made in that area by PGCPS. INDIVIDUAL SPACES PRIORITY SCORES B R A I L S F O R D & D U N L A V E Y I N S P I R E. E M P O W E R. A D V A N C E.

65 SECTION 1.4 METHODOLOGIES AND FINDINGS The individual spaces priority score is an average of three sub-categories: capacity-driving scores, specialty classroom scores, and shared spaces scores. There are six data points that make up each of these three subcategories. This is the most individualized data input because each learning space in every school received an assessment and score. When averaged, there is little variation in the individual spaces priority scores from one school type to another. However, an evaluation of the six specific evaluation points that comprise the priority scores for the capacity-driving spaces reveals a wide variety of strengths and deficiencies, dependent upon the school type and region. The data show that fewer school types averaged poorer (or worse) educational adequacy scores for elements evaluated in the classrooms than they did for elements evaluated within the campus assessment. In fact, only two of the specific evaluation pointsclassroom furnishings and classroom technology and supporting infrastructurereceived a poor average priority score in one of the school types. The poor classroom furnishings scores occurred in several school types and, in fact, none of the school types received a priority score in this area better than borderline. This indicates a widespread need for classroom casework and storage upgrades across the district. Classroom technology received a poor rating in Central Region middle schools and borderline scores in five of the other school types. Poor ratings in classroom technology scores typically resulted from the lack of necessary instructional audio visual equipment and the appropriate wiring to make the equipment convenient for teachers to use routinely. FIGURE : Average Individual Space Assessment Subcomponent Priority Scores by Region and School Type (Capacity Rooms Only) It is also important to point out that although none of the school types averaged a poor air quality score, all but one of the school types averaged a borderline rating. Field teams frequently noted significant air quality issues related to temperature and/or humidity in multiple schools across the district. Regional schools are J U N E

66 PRINCE GEORGE S COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS MASTER PLAN SUPPORT PROJECT noted as having the lowest average air quality priority scores which indicates the likely need for significant heating and cooling system improvements in these facilities. Importantly, this corresponds with the low weighted facility condition index (WFCI) priority scores indicated at these school types in the previous section. The highest average individual space scores for capacity classrooms occurred consistently within the categories of classroom acoustics and lighting quality. A very close third for the best scores occurred in the category of internal classroom organization. The project team used these data points to identify deficiencies and strengths on a per-school basis as a way of informing individualized project recommendations. SPACE ADEQUACY PRIOR ITY SCORES The final input that composes the overall educational adequacy priority score is the space adequacy priority score. Average space adequacy priority scores for the various school types and regions range from five to 20. The four regional high schools are prominent outliers with an average space adequacy priority score of five. Notably, all are special program or alternative education high schools. Generally, elementary and middle schools in the Northern Region have the worst average scores, while high and middle schools in the Southern Region have the best. Northern Region middle schools are noted as having the worst space adequacy priority schools among all neighborhood school types. FIGURE : Average Space Adequacy Priority Scores by Region and School Type B R A I L S F O R D & D U N L A V E Y I N S P I R E. E M P O W E R. A D V A N C E.

67 SECTION 1.4 METHODOLOGIES AND FINDINGS Space adequacy is comprised of scores from the capacity-driving, specialty, shared, and support/administrative spaces. As described earlier, specialty spaces do not apply to secondary schools. An evaluation of the county-wide data for each of these three subcomponents to space adequacy reveals valuable information about prevalent themes by region and school type. The data summarized in Figure indicate that regional high schools and Northern Region middle schools average the worst scores in all four of the subcomponent categories, while Southern Region middle and high schools average the best. FIGURE : Space Adequacy Subcomponent Average Priority Scores Regional high schools have deficient scores for all three subcomponents, which is caused predominantly by the fact that these schools operate unique programs and were evaluated based on the standard for a typical high school. Because of this, low space adequacy scores in regional school types are less of a concern than their low WFCI priority scores noted in the previous section. Northern Region middle schools have the worst space adequacy scores among neighborhood schools, with poor ratings in two of the three room categories. School utilization rates are the likely cause of these scores and while the impact on the available teaching spaces is significant, the prioritization suggests that the lack of support spaces is urgent. In fact, the findings show that, on average, Northern Regional middle schools provide less than 50 percent of the required support and administrative spaces based on projected 5 enrollments. Specialty spaces are indicated as having the lowest average priority scores in all elementary schools, regardless of region, which indicates a district-wide problem with a lack of dedicated space for specialty instruction in areas such as art and music. In many cases the schools do have rooms that were originally dedicated for these specialty uses only to have overcrowding force their use as traditional classroom 5 Enrollment projections for school year 2020 inclusive of grade realignment. See utilization section for additional details. J U N E

68 PRINCE GEORGE S COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS MASTER PLAN SUPPORT PROJECT spaces. This is likely to be the case in Northern Region elementary schools where the average score for capacity (or classroom) spaces nears satisfactory but the other subcomponents average priority scores near the poor range. On the other hand, many schools simply lack these important instructional spaces. Study results indicate that approximately thirty percent of PGCPS elementary schools have one or fewer dedicated specialty spaces, which is significantly less than the four spaces required by the Ed Specs for a typical 500-student school. Several school types had borderline shared space priority scores that hovered close to a poor rating. Shared spaces include several rooms that are essential to the delivery of individualized instruction and student collaboration (such as resource rooms) and the study findings reveal that only two school types provide an average of 100% or greater of the required shared spaces. According to Figure , all Northern Region schools, along with high schools in the Central Region, provide an average of no more than about 80% of the shared spaces required in the Ed Specs. With overutilization an issue in many of these schools, these spaces are often repurposed into capacity-driving spaces, which negatively affects the learning environment of the students. FIGURE : Average Percent of Shared Spaces Provided Compared to Ed. Spec. Requirements The detailed space adequacy information available for each school allowed the project team to identify the required area needed to house the projected number of students for each school in the district based on the Ed Specs standards. This directly translated into specific project recommendations on a school-byschool basis, which is discussed in a subsequent section of this report B R A I L S F O R D & D U N L A V E Y I N S P I R E. E M P O W E R. A D V A N C E.

69 SECTION 1.4 METHODOLOGIES AND FINDINGS Based on the established rating scale, the range of priority scores indicates that PGCPS schools, on average, have borderline educational adequacy with widely varied results from school to school, at the component level. The individualized data collected for each school in the three educational adequacy component categories (campus assessment, individual spaces, and space adequacy) revealed several important trends and allowed for development-specific project recommendations. Campus assessment priority scores revealed that site circulation and accessibility scores were most frequently the lowest, with several school types averaging scores considered to be poor or very close to it, particularly in Southern Region schools. Building configuration scores were also very low, with poor ratings concentrated in secondary schools across the county. Individual space priority scores revealed that districtwide, schools tend to have issues with furnishings, technology, and air quality in the classrooms. The poor classroom furnishings scores occurred in several school types and indicates a widespread need for classroom casework and storage upgrades. Classroom technology scores were poor in Central Region middle schools and borderline in several other school types, typically resulting from the lack of necessary instructional audio-visual equipment. Air quality scores were borderline across the district with the lowest scores occurring in regional schools, which also had the lowest WFCI priority scores. Field teams frequently noted significant air quality issues related to temperature and/or humidity in multiple schools across the district. Of the three educational adequacy component scores, space adequacy had the widest range of results and frequently had a more significant impact on overall educational adequacy scores at the individual school level than did the other two components. Northern Region middle schools have the worst space adequacy scores among neighbhorhood schools, with poor ratings in two of the three room categories evaluated. Specialty spaces are indicated as having the lowest average priority scores in all elementary schools, regardless of region, which indicates a problem districtwide with a lack of dedicated space for specialty instruction in areas such as art and music. Several school types had borderline shared space priority scores that hovered close to a poor rating. Shared spaces include several rooms that are essential to the delivery of individualized instruction and student collaboration (such as resource rooms) and the problem was most evident in all Northern Region schools along with high schools in the Central Region. J U N E

70 PRINCE GEORGE S COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS MASTER PLAN SUPPORT PROJECT Because space adequacy results are derived based on projected enrollment figures, there is a strong correlation between higher school utilization rates and lower scores B R A I L S F O R D & D U N L A V E Y I N S P I R E. E M P O W E R. A D V A N C E.

71 SECTION 1.4 METHODOLOGIES AND FINDINGS S E C T I O N U T I L I Z A T I O N M E T H O D O L O G Y A N D F I N D I N G S METHODOLOGY INTRODUCTION A utilization analysis studies how efficiently facilities are used and how well they meet the space needs of the school district. Understanding the existing utilization is a critical step in a comprehensive master planning effort to understand the needs of each facility and the school district as a whole. The Educational Facilities Master Plan provides the preferred range of utilization for schools to operate within. The goal of studying the utilization is to understand the current use of each school in order to re-calculate its Staterated capacity (SRC). This analysis was performed to set a new baseline SRC for each school. In addition, the requirements of House Bill 1107, Chapter 147, Section 3, PGCPS required the submission of an interim utilization study of the county s schools. A draft Interim Utilization Report was submitted in December 2014, and was updated in April It is important to note that subsequent to the draft Interim Utilization Report, the projected enrollment numbers were updated. After detailed reviews with Pupil Accounting and School Boundariesthe office within PGCPS that is responsible for enrollment projectionsthe project team determined that for the purpose of master planning efforts moving forward, it would use the updated 2020 enrollment projections that were particularly focused on two changes to the projections. The first change was related to the realignment of the sixth grade from elementary to middle school enrollments. As the board of education had already approved a transition to a sixth eighth grade middle school model, the team determined that the planning efforts should address those changes in the projected enrollments. In the report, you will often see this being referred to as post-grade level realignment figures. Figure , shows the reduction in the number of elementary students and the increase in the number of middle school students. The second change was the use of full time equivalent (FTE) enrollments. The original figures used in the Interim Utilization Report had enrollment projections based on total number of enrolled students or headcount. In the revised projections two half-time students (for example, two half-day pre-k students) will count as one FTE. This distinction is important in understanding utilization based on how a building is occupied throughout the whole day. J U N E

72 PRINCE GEORGE S COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS MASTER PLAN SUPPORT PROJECT The SRC calculation does not change based on this updated data. It does, however, impact the utilization rates so a change will be seen as this final report is compared to the interim report from April FIGURE : Projected Enrollment Comparison Chart As a part of the FY2015 Educational Facilities Master Plan, PGCPS established the following preferred utilization guideline and objective: Guideline Five: Maintain an optimal student occupancy rate of between 80% - 95% of the SRC. This guideline addresses the need for PGCPS to become more efficient at using its large inventory of school buildings. To support this guideline, the project team analyzed the utilization of the existing school buildings and reported each one s current SRC and utilization rates. The team collected and synthesized data for the entire county so that an objective and fair analysis can be made. In reviewing the data, the range of percent is referred to as the targeted range and is considered an optimal school utilization. A significantly over-utilized school would be one that has a utilization of over 120 percent, and a significantly under-utilized school would be one with a utilization of under 70 percent B R A I L S F O R D & D U N L A V E Y I N S P I R E. E M P O W E R. A D V A N C E.

73 SECTION 1.4 METHODOLOGIES AND FINDINGS The project team used three major steps to establish the SRC and then evaluated the SRC against the projected enrollment to establish utilization rates. DRAWINGS AND DATA COLLECTION The project team started its work in October 2014 by gathering data on the previously-reported SRCs, enrollment data, and floor plans for all buildings. The team reviewed the previous SRC data tables and used floor plans provided by the district or, where floor plans were not available, acquired egress plans to use as a template. As a part of the existing data review, the team established whether a school was based on a prototype and then classified it by type (elementary, middle, high, pre-k-8, or regional). One important component in calculating the capacity of the schools is to understand the area of each room. In a majority of cases that information was not obtainable in the available plans. The team took the existing AutoCAD or PDF plans provided by PGCPS and created a building information modeling (BIM) plan for each school. These new plans associate data with specific rooms. Having entered this data into the BIM, the team could then document specific areas and assign departments and other functional attributes to them. This process not only benefited this study, but will also allow future updates to the data as the program moves forward. The project team noted that very few of the floor plans provided by the county were detailed, scaled, or dimensioned drawings. Most were single-line PDF plans without any scale or dimension, so the survey teams had to verify a few existing building dimensions in each school to establish the proper scale. In some instances, the team used Google Maps and other similar tools to cross-check building sizes. This study s scope did not include, nor did the time allow for, full surveying of existing conditions. The project team assumed that the floor plans provided were proportional, but a margin of error should be considered since surveyors could not consistently correlate the field dimensions with the PGCPS plans. FIELD SURVEYS Over the course of five weeks, the project team surveyed 193 schools, evaluated the current use of each, and identified room names, numbers, teacher s names, and other pertinent data. The team checked the existing conditions against the floor plans provided and noted where there were significant discrepancies. Team surveyors also recorded data about mobile construction and relocatable classrooms. While relocatable classrooms do not count toward a school s SRC, tracking the number of them can be useful to show patterns of over-utilization. Many buildings contain shared spaces that are used by other programs outside of typical school functions. In cases where these spaces were housed in rooms that were likely designed as part of the school building, J U N E

74 PRINCE GEORGE S COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS MASTER PLAN SUPPORT PROJECT the project team surveyed those uses and identified them in the school s area summary. If a memorandum of understanding exists for a program to occupy a specific portion of a school, that has been noted. In some instances, the schools share their buildings with programs that are clearly purpose-built for the non-school function. In such cases, the team confirmed that the function still existed, but did not evaluate those spaces. STATE-RATED CAPACITY The Maryland Public School Construction Program (PSCP) established an SRC formula for calculating the capacity of public school buildings. The SRC is then used to determine: The utilization rate, by comparing the enrollment or projected enrollment to the SRC. If a school building is over-capacity (utilization/ enrollment exceeds the SRC). If a school building is under-capacity (utilization/ enrollment is less than the SRC). If an addition or a new school is justified, and/or If there might be improved utilization in a geographic area within the school system through boundary realignments, school consolidation, and/or closures. The project team followed the Interagency Committee on School Construction s (IAC s) Appendix 102A to determine the SRC of a facility. The number of classrooms is multiplied by the state-approved class size. Room Capacity Chart The chart below indicates the approved capacity by room type: Elementary Secondary Use PreKindergarten/ Head Start Kindergarten Grades 1-5 Grades 6 (in elementary) Special Education General or Specialized Career Technology Alternative Programs Number of Students Number of Students x x x 0.85 FIGURE : Room Capacity Chart A room should be counted toward capacity if it is used by students 50% or more of the normal school day and is at least 550 square feet in an elementary school and at least 500 square feet in a secondary school. Rooms that meet these space requirements are considered classrooms. In both elementary and secondary schools, a certain number of shared classrooms are used as resource rooms and are not counted toward B R A I L S F O R D & D U N L A V E Y I N S P I R E. E M P O W E R. A D V A N C E.

75 SECTION 1.4 METHODOLOGIES AND FINDINGS capacity. For elementary schools, non-capacity resource rooms include shared specialty spaces such as gym, art, music, computers, and special education pull-out, as well as classrooms for English as a second language (ESL) instruction. In secondary schools, resource rooms include shared specialty spaces such as special education pull-out, in-school suspension, and the like. The SRC will fluctuate year to year depending on changes in programs and grade structure. The School Utilization Report Table (Appendix 3.2.4) includes two capacity numbers. First is the official SRC. This is the capacity that the State of Maryland approved for a given school as of May The second capacity is the SRC that was calculated as a result of this study. The columns in the report table are defined as follows: STATE-RATED CAPACITY CLASSROOM S Pre-K: Pre-Kindergarten classrooms. This count includes Head Start, EEEP, or other early childhood programs K: Kindergarten classrooms Elem: Elementary school classrooms for grades 1-5 Grade Six: Grade six classrooms in elementary schools. (If a grade six classroom is in a pre K-8 school or middle school, it will count as a secondary school classroom.) Sec: Classrooms for students in grades 6-12 Sp Ed: Any self-contained special education room where students receive services outside of the general education setting for more than 60% of the school day Career Tech: Career technology education rooms Alt: Any alternative, self-contained, approved program where students have been removed from the general educational program with limited to no interaction with students in the regular education programs for several weeks or months Gym, Sec: Gymnasiums are counted as capacity drivers only at the secondary level. NON-CAPACITY SPACES Small Resource Spaces: Shared rooms that are 550 square feet or less in an elementary school and 500 square feet or less in a secondary school. These rooms may be used by small groups of students throughout the day and are not counted toward school capacity (for example: speech) Other Large Resource Classrooms/Teaching Spaces: In elementary schools, art, music, gym, and elementary science labs. These rooms do not count toward capacity. Relocatable/Temporary: Temporary exterior structures. These classrooms are not counted toward school capacity, but are noted for information. J U N E

76 PRINCE GEORGE S COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS MASTER PLAN SUPPORT PROJECT ADJUSTMENTS Depending on its size, the state s regulations allow for each school to have a certain number of non-capacity resource rooms. In order to equitably account for these spaces in all schools, the project team applied a formula to each school to deduct from the quantity of capacity rooms 6. This calculation allows for every school to include an appropriate allocation of specialty classroom and resource spaces. Elementary/ PK-8: This column counts the number of rooms deducted from elementary and PK-8 schools. Secondary (Middle/High): This column counts the number of rooms deducted from secondary schools. Following are the formulas used to calculate adjustments: Elementary and Pre-K thru 8 Schools Qty. of full-sized rooms in building (over 550 Sq. ft.) Name If 21 or fewer If If 30 or more Art Music PE Resource rooms If no separate gym deduct 1 full-sized room 0 If fewer than 3 small spaces between sq. ft. deduct 1 full-sized room If fewer than 4 small spaces between sq. ft. deduct 1 full-sized room If no separate gym deduct 1 full-sized room If fewer than 5 small spaces between sq. ft. deduct 1 full-sized room Maximum deduction of rooms over 550 Sq. Ft. FIGURE : Elementary School Adjustment Formulas Middle and HighSchools Name If 49 or fewer If If If 90 or more Resource rooms Maximum deduction of rooms over 550 Sq. Ft. 1 plus 2,000 sq. ft. either in small spaces (under 500 sq. ft.) or classrooms FIGURE : Secondary Schools Adjustment Formulas Qty. of full-sized rooms in building (over 500 Sq. ft.) 2 plus 2,000 sq. ft. either in small spaces (under 500 sq. ft.) or classrooms 3 plus 2,500 sq. ft. either in small spaces (under 500 sq. ft.) or classrooms 3 plus 3,000 sq. ft. either in small spaces (under 500 sq. ft.) or classrooms The total number of rooms indicated in the Elem and Sec columns of Appendix are net of the deductions reported for that particular school B R A I L S F O R D & D U N L A V E Y I N S P I R E. E M P O W E R. A D V A N C E.

77 SECTION 1.4 METHODOLOGIES AND FINDINGS CAPACITY CALCULATION S Current enrollment September 30, 2014 Projected enrollment September 30, 2020 SRC (official): Number currently on record with the state for the building capacity SRC (as studied): Proposed new SRC based on the current observed use and the appropriate deductions Current utilization (as studied): Current enrollment as compared to the as studied SRC Project utilization (as studied): Projected enrollment as compared to the as studied SRC. J U N E

78 PRINCE GEORGE S COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS MASTER PLAN SUPPORT PROJECT SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Following is a summary of the data contained in the utilization table in Appendix of this report. Two of the key metrics available for analysis are school utilization rates and availability of seats. Both metrics are reported based on current and projected enrollments. For this report, six-year post-grade level realignment projected enrollments (2020) are used based on data received on February 12, All school utilization rates are calculated by dividing current and future (2020) enrollments by the updated SRC figures. Availability of seats is calculated by subtracting current and projected enrollments (2020) from the updated SRC calculations. The percentage change in SRC is shown graphically below. An important note is that the enrollment projections changed between the draft report from December 2014 and the current, final data. In all charts, the regional schools have been removed from the county-wide calculations. Regional schools are those that have specific admission criteria so their enrollments are controlled at the district level. These schools have been summarized as a group below the county-wide summary and are broken down by school type B R A I L S F O R D & D U N L A V E Y I N S P I R E. E M P O W E R. A D V A N C E.

79 SECTION 1.4 METHODOLOGIES AND FINDINGS NEIGHBORHOOD SCHOOLS SUMMARY SCHOOL UTILIZATION R ATES In both the current and projected utilization tables, the Central Region middle and high schools hover around the targeted percent utilization, while the elementary schools remain below the target. The Southern Region s current utilization for elementary schools is within the targeted range; however, middle and high schools are below the targeted utilization. The projected utilization for the Southern Region is consistently below the targeted range. The Northern Region s consistently well above the targeted range for elementary, middle, and high schools and is projected to remain above the target. When comparing current to projected utilization, a consistent rise in the middle schools can be seen. This is due, in part, to the realignment of middle schools from seventh-eighth grade schools to sixth-eighth grade schools across the county. This impacts elementary schools as well and a drop in their projected enrollment is noted. The most significant impact appears to be for the middle schools located in the Northern Region where a 26 percent increase in average utilization is projected. FIGURE : Regional Average Utilization Rates by School Type J U N E

80 PRINCE GEORGE S COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS MASTER PLAN SUPPORT PROJECT AVAILABILITY OF SEATS Another way of looking at school utilization is by examining open seats. The chart below compares the number of current and projected open seats by school type and planning region. Significant shortfalls in all grade levels are projected in the Northern Region, which is consistent with the utilization statistics shown above. The Northern Region is projected to have total shortfall of over 5,500 seats by There is an overall increase in open seats projected in the Southern Region; however, the quantity of open seats in middle schools will dip slightly due to grade level re-alignment. There is a small projected decrease in open seats at the high school level in the Central Region, and a larger projected decrease in open seats in Central region middle schools; again related to grade level realignment. The Central Region is projected to continue to have a significant surplus of elementary school seats. FIGURE : Current and Projected Open Seats by School Type by Region B R A I L S F O R D & D U N L A V E Y I N S P I R E. E M P O W E R. A D V A N C E.

81 SECTION 1.4 METHODOLOGIES AND FINDINGS STATE-RATED CAPACITY CHANG ES As part of this utilization study, the project team re-evaluated the SRC on most schools within the facility inventory. The current evaluation of SRC considers the current use of the space and accounts for the accepted number of support spaces each school should contain. This study found a mix of increases and decreases to the proposed SRC figures across the district, as shown in Figure In several cases where the SRC had a significant increase, the change is explained by the alignment of as utilized special education rooms with the approved quantity. In some cases, the SRC changes are impacted by current school construction/renovation and should be re-examined after construction is complete. A majority of the changes in SRC can be attributed to the decision to take the allotted deductions for shared specialty resource rooms. Across all regions at all school types, the percent change remained less than 5 percent. FIGURE : Average Percent Change in SRC J U N E

82 PRINCE GEORGE S COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS MASTER PLAN SUPPORT PROJECT REGIONAL SCHOOLS SUMMARY The county has over 20 schools where enrollment is controlled at the county level. These schools do not specifically relate to utilization for a planning region. The charts below indicate utilization and open seats for two categories within the regional schools. Early childhood centers (ECC) and specialized education schools are not considered in the utilization analysis. These schools fulfill the district s need to properly provide for students with special needs and, therefore, need to be planned for based on different criteria. The charts below show the specialty program schools and the alternative educations school. Specialty programs schools (SP Program) include Montessori, language-based, talented and gifted, and creative performing arts programs. While the utilization at these schools varies somewhat from program to program, enrollment in these programs is projected to increase and, on average, utilization rates will be well within the targeted range by Other regional schools include alternative education schools and vocational high schools; these are projected to remain underutilized. FIGURE : Regional Schools Utilization by Type B R A I L S F O R D & D U N L A V E Y I N S P I R E. E M P O W E R. A D V A N C E.

83 SECTION 1.4 METHODOLOGIES AND FINDINGS FIGURE : Regional Schools Open Seats by Type When reviewing utilization across the district, the following observations were made: Utilization rates are highest in the Northern Region, followed by the Central and then Southern Regions. Utilization is in most critical condition in the middle schools in the Northern Region with a projected 132 percent utilization rate, and in regional ECCs with a utilization rate of 147 percent projected. All school types are over-utilized in the Northern Region and projected to be underutilized in the Southern Region. In the Central Region, elementary schools are under-utilized, while middle and high schools are projected to be within the targeted range. J U N E

84 PRINCE GEORGE S COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS MASTER PLAN SUPPORT PROJECT Regional specialized education centers and alternative schools are all projected to be below targeted utilization while regional specialty program schools are projected to be within the targeted range. Analysis of SRC resulted in minimal change (less than 5 percent) across all school types and regions. A series of maps were developed to give a graphic representation of the utilization analysis. Maps 3.1.1a through 3.1.1c indicate the average utilization rate of each planning area and are color-coded with red being over-utilized and blue being under-utilized. Looking at the whole county, one can see a concentration of over-utilization in the Northern Region and under-utilization in the Southern Region. When reviewing the three utilization maps, there is an excess of schools in the region where fewer people live (Southern Region) and a need for additional capacity in the Northern Region where increasingly more people are living. This basic observation feeds into the detailed analysis and master planning effort to determine exactly what is needed and where it should be placed B R A I L S F O R D & D U N L A V E Y I N S P I R E. E M P O W E R. A D V A N C E.

85 SECTION 1.4 METHODOLOGIES AND FINDINGS S E C T I O N P R O J E C T D E F I N I T I O N S M E T H O D O L O G Y A N D F I N D I N G S PROJECT DEFINITIONS METHODOLOGY OVERVIEW Over the course of four weeks the project team evaluated facility conditions, educational adequacy, utilization, and other existing data for schools in order to define the baseline project needs at each facility. The detailed information available for each school allowed the project team to address the specific needs at each school and organize the schools into project groupings based on similar characteristics. Upon analyzing the type of work needed across the district, the project team developed four major project definition categories and applied the appropriate one to each school based on its needs. The project team was careful to align the scopes within these categories with existing standards used by the state of Maryland to establish funding eligibility. Detailed cost estimates were then developed by a professional estimator for the baseline projects to include total project costs for each school in 2015 dollars. These baseline projects for each school were developed to convey the work needed at each school to bring it into alignment with the board-approved educational specifications, address identified facility condition deficiencies, and provide adequate space to accommodate the number of students projected to be enrolled in The baseline projects were developed without consideration for the impact of a single project on its neighboring schools or for the affect that other master planning actions, such as boundary changes, may have on the school s project needs. That step was taken during the next stage in the process and is discussed in Section 1.5. EVALUATION OF PROJECT NEEDS The project team used detailed facility condition data made available by PGCPS from the assessments performed by Parsons in addition to the educational adequacy and utilization data discussed in the previous sections to develop detailed project requirements for each school. 7 The complete list of schools for which baseline project definitions were developed is included as Appendix , MPSP Assessment and Project Definition Checklist. J U N E

86 PRINCE GEORGE S COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS MASTER PLAN SUPPORT PROJECT FACILITY CONDITION D ATA The FCI data provided by PGCPS includes tremendous detail on building deficiencies organized by specific building systems. The project team organized the deficiencies at each school into 21 system types, primarily based on the embedded Uniformat code information. However, in order to ensure consistency with state definitions for systems and system types, the team combined a few of the Uniformat level two systems. A summary list of the 21 systems is provided here in Figure , but a more detailed list of the systems and the included Uniformat subsystems is provided in Appendix Summary Uniformat Systems Ceilings Interior construction Communication Interior finishes Conveying Lighting and branch wiring Electric service Plumbing Equipment Roofing systems Exterior doors Site paving and sidewalks Exterior walls Site utilities Fire protection Substructure HVAC distribution, controls, and testing Superstructure Interior fittings Windows FIGURE : Summary of Uniformat Systems B R A I L S F O R D & D U N L A V E Y I N S P I R E. E M P O W E R. A D V A N C E.

87 SECTION 1.4 METHODOLOGY AND FINDINGS Using the total value of the deficiencies provided by Parsons for each of the systems, the project team determined if the extent of required work warranted a complete replacement. The project team established the need to replace an entire system in one of two ways: 1. If the cost of the system deficiency exceed 66 percent of the typical replacement value 8 for the entire system. 2. If 66 percent or more of the system deficiency costs were in categories labeled as having an impact on learning or difficult to repair 9. The project team developed a model to expedite the process of evaluating system replacement needs. A sample worksheet from that model is available for review in Appendix The quantity of building systems that required full replacement established the building blocks for determining which type of project was needed at the school. EDUCATIONAL ADEQUACY AND UTILIZATION DATA After evaluating the facility condition data the project team also reviewed the educational adequacy reports and space adequacy worksheet created for each school. 10 The educational adequacy reports, which are provided for each school in Volume Two of this document, alerted the project team to the need for additional work related to building reconfigurations, technology upgrades, fixed furnishings and equipment upgrades, and site improvements, among other things. The educational adequacy reports also proved valuable in assessing systems that were very close to exceeding the thresholds discussed above to see if there were any noted field conditions that were likely the result of a failing system. In addition to supplementing project requirements, the project team evaluated the school s space adequacy worksheets to assess if any additions were needed to accommodate the projected enrollment 11. The space adequacy worksheets, which are also provided for each school in Volume Two, provide detail on the size and type of additions needed at each school. The recommended additional square footage included in the worksheets is established by the space capacity models included in the board-approved educational specifications and is designed to bring school utilization into the ideal ranges discussed in the utilization section. It is important to note that the square footages included in the worksheets are net requirements and that the project team applied a 1.3 gross-up factor to account for corridors and exterior walls when calculating the final size of the addition. 8 Typical replacement value was established by school type via evaluation of FCI data for the entire portfolio. 9 Please refer to the WFCI methodology section for an explanation of impact on learning and difficulty to repair categories. 10 Please refer to the educational adequacy methodology section for an explanation of the reports and space adequacy. 11 School year 2020 enrollment projections provided by PGCPS. J U N E

88 PRINCE GEORGE S COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS MASTER PLAN SUPPORT PROJECT PROJECT DEFINITION C ATEGORIES Using the above information, each school was assigned one of four possible project types: full renovation or replacement, limited renovation, system replacement, or other. If the need for an addition was established then that descriptor was added to the baseline project type. As discussed above, the system replacement recommendations derived from the facility condition data established the building block for each project definition. Following is a description of the work included in each of the four project types: Full Renovation or Replacement: This project type includes a comprehensive upgrade to, or replacement of, all building systems, equipment, and furnishings in addition to comprehensive site work improvements and all work required to address ADA and building code compliance. In order to complete the extent of work required, PGCPS may elect to renovate the building in place or replace it with a new facility 12. To qualify for this category schools needed to meet the following criteria: 1. Four out of six of the most difficult to repair systems in need of replacement. The following six building systems were deemed as the most difficult to repair based on the standard established in the WFCI section: electric service, fire protection, HVAC distribution, HVAC generating systems, lighting and branch wiring, and plumbing. 2. Identified need for comprehensive reconfigurations or extensive additions to comply with educational adequacy standards or to accommodate projected enrollments. Reconfiguration includes the demolition and reconstruction of interior walls to accommodate changes to interior layouts. In most cases the project team used its best judgment to evaluate the extent of required interior configuration modifications based on a review of the floor plans, the educational adequacy reports, and the space adequacy assessments. If a school were deemed to need an addition that was 50 percent or greater of the current school square footage, and met the requirements of item one, it was also recommended for full renovation. Limited Renovation: This project type includes any school that requires the replacement of five or more building systems and minor reconfigurations to only a small portion of the building. In many cases limited renovations involve extensive work but are distinguished from a full renovation because the majority of interior walls remain in original locations and improvements to exterior building systems such as roof, window, and exterior walls are not required. All limited renovation projects include upgrades to classroom fittings (casework, marker boards, tack boards, etc.), AV, technology, and interior finishes. Limited renovations are assumed to occur 12 A comprehensive feasibility study should be undertaken by PGCPS prior to initiating work to determine the most effective solution B R A I L S F O R D & D U N L A V E Y I N S P I R E. E M P O W E R. A D V A N C E.

89 SECTION 1.4 METHODOLOGY AND FINDINGS within the existing building and, therefore, the extent of site work required is typically minimized to the items identified in the educational adequacy reports (parking, site circulation, and/or play area upgrades). System Replacement: This project type includes any school that requires the replacement of one or more systems but does not meet the criteria for a limited renovation. As noted in the educational adequacy findings, fixed furnishings and equipment were consistently the biggest problem across all school types and, therefore, all system replacement projects include upgrades to classroom fittings (casework, marker boards, tack boards, and the like), AV, and technology. Other: This category is for smaller projects that did not fit into any of the above project types. In most cases, this classification was assigned to newer schools that did not need a project but were in need of an addition. Some buildings slated for demolition were also included in this group. COST ESTIMATING The project team used the services of Forella Group, LLC to develop detailed cost sheets for 107 schools and took the results from those estimates to derive project costs for the remaining schools and for all changes to baseline project types. A sample cost estimate for each project type is available for review in Appendix Hard Costs: These costs include all costs associated with physical construction of the building and any necessary site improvements. The project team provided the estimator with a detailed description of the project needs for each school including systems to be replaced, the size of any additions, and the extent of interior reconfigurations needed. The project team and the cost estimator worked closely with PGCPS to establish assumptions for typical construction specifications on major building systems and for site allowances in order ensure consistency across the portfolio. The average hard costs per square foot derived from the cost estimates for each of the three major project categories and additions are shown below in Figure Project Type: Avg. Cost per Square Foot (in 2015 dollars) Full Renovation or Replacement $214 Limited Renovation $195 System Replacement $93 Other $278 FIGURE : Average Hard Costs per Square Foot (in 2015 dollars) J U N E

90 PRINCE GEORGE S COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS MASTER PLAN SUPPORT PROJECT Soft Costs: These costs include indirect costs necessary to implement the project, such as professional service fees for design, engineering, and inspections. This category also includes items such as insurance costs, permitting fees, and utility connection fees. The project team relied on the estimator s professional experience and data from recently completed projects in Prince George s County to establish percentages for these costs. Although each soft cost line item was calculated separately, the total amounts to an additional 17.5 percent of the project hard costs. Other Vendor and Owner Costs: Items included in this category include furniture, audio visual equipment, IT equipment, owner operating expenses, and logistics. Owner operating costs account for the impact of construction on normal school operations which may include utility, staffing, or transportation cost increases. Logistical costs include an allowance to cover moving expenses, project phasing and preparation of swing space 13. As with the soft costs, these items were calculated separately, but in aggregate they amount to an additional 11.5 percent of the project hard and soft costs. The final component included in the cost estimates is a 20 percent project contingency to account for the risk associated with project budgeting that occurs at the master planning level. At the time of these estimates detailed project scopes have not been developed and further evaluation of building and site conditions is required to develop more accurate project budgets. As is discussed in Section 1.5, the project team recommends that PGCPS conduct detailed feasibility studies to develop project scopes that will align with master plan budgeting requirements and owner requirements. An allowance for escalation, which accounts for risks associated with increasing construction costs over time, is not included in these projectlevel estimates. Instead, escalation is accounted for at the program level and is discussed in Section 1.5. As mentioned at the outset, the project definitions were initially established without consideration for the impact of a single project on its neighboring schools or for the effect that other master planning actions, such as boundary changes, may have on the school s project needs. The following section describes the planning process undertaken by the project team to organize the schools and use the data collected to establish a sequence for implementation of the projects. Throughout that process dozens of revisions were made to the initial project descriptions, primarily to account for proposed shifts in student enrollments to balance school utilization across the portfolio. By using the cost averages established herein and the space adequacy tables, the project team was able to quickly evaluate the cost impacts associated with multiple planning scenarios at an individual school and recommend the best option for PGCPS. 13 Swing space is a term to describe the relocation of students to a temporary location during the construction period B R A I L S F O R D & D U N L A V E Y I N S P I R E. E M P O W E R. A D V A N C E.

91 SECTION SYNTHESIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 1.5 SYNTHESIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS PGCPS Goals, Standards, and Guidelines Planning Principles and Strategies Aggregate Results and Recommendations J U N E

92 PRINCE GEORGE S COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS MASTER PLAN SUPPORT PROJECT INTRODUCTION In collaboration with PGCPS, the project team synthesized facility condition, educational adequacy, and utilization findings to develop a comprehensive school facility modernization program designed to support and advance the school district s educational mission. The planning process began with the detailed review of existing district goals, standards, and guidelines. The project team s understanding of this information was then refined through strategic visioning and engagement sessions with PGCPS representatives, stakeholders, and community members. The result of these meetings was the creation of mission-based principles and logistical considerations that were used to guide the development of specific planning strategies. These strategies were generated for the purpose of developing a comprehensive set of capital project recommendations and master planning actions that are grounded in site-based data and are aligned with the long-term strategic goals and vision of PGCPS. These recommendations include school specific projects and their associated capital costs as well as school closures and consolidations, boundary changes, and other planning considerations. Volume 4 will review detailed project-specific recommendations within individual planning area reports B R A I L S F O R D & D U N L A V E Y I N S P I R E. E M P O W E R. A D V A N C E.

93 SECTION SYNTHESIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS PGCPS GOALS, STANDARDS, AND GUIDELINES The foundation of the MPSP planning strategies is existing PGCPS goals, standards, and guidelines covering topics such as school size considerations, academic requirements, and other facility-related considerations such as school utilization standards. This information provides the basis for the review and analysis of facility needs and formulation of project recommendations and planning strategies. These goals, standards, and guidelines are described in formalized documents that were refined and clarified for the project team through strategic visioning and engagement with PGCPS stakeholders. The project team worked directly with a core group of PGCPS representatives to review progress and provide comment on preliminary findings and results. These representatives included staff from Capital Projects and Pupil Accounting and School Boundaries. Additionally, a Facility Advisory Committee of PGCPS leadership was convened at critical intervals to review preliminary results and provide strategic guidance and input to ensure program recommendations were made in alignment with existing goals and initiatives. This section explains the mission-based principles and logistical considerations that make up the planning strategies the project team applied to arrive at the project recommendations. Specific explanations include: FY2015 Educational Facilities Master Plan Educational programming initiatives Strategic visioning session Community engagement sessions Planning Workshops THE FY2015 EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES MASTER PL AN The FY2015 Educational Facilities Master Plan (EFMP) was developed by the district to prioritize projects for the , six-year Capital Improvement Plan. The EFMP calls for the district to commit to a strategic vision for creating a more efficient and effective system for consolidating, closing, modernizing, renovating, constructing, and maintaining facilities. The Master Plan Support Project s objective is to expand upon this plan and as such, the project team reviewed the plan and utilized the district s information to develop the planning principles and strategies. J U N E

94 PRINCE GEORGE S COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS MASTER PLAN SUPPORT PROJECT Within the EFMP, the following goals, standards, and guidelines are outlined: Effective and efficient school size Grade reorganization patterns School utilization / capacity policies Educational programming initiatives Staffing ratios and school-based budgeting Nutrition, wellness, and physical education Transportation policies and safe routes to school Information technology policies The following section provides a brief review of the key goals, standards, and guidelines used to develop the planning principles, logistical considerations, and strategies for this report. Please refer to the full EFMP document for full details. 1 Effective and Efficient School Size The EFMP provides facility guidelines and objectives for desirable school size ranges by school type. These ranges allow schools to maximize operating budgets and ensure that all students have access to similar high quality programs while maintaining a learning environment that is safe, flexible, and student centered. The size guidelines create a more consistent inventory of neighborhood school buildings, and include the following: Guideline 1: Renovate, build, or replace elementary schools to an optimal capacity of between 411 to 822 students. (Optimal capacity is three to six classrooms per grade in a kindergarten through fifth grade school.) Guideline 2: Renovate, build, or replace middle schools to a capacity of between 600 to 1200 students. (Optimal capacity is two or three strands of 375 students per strand in grades six through eight, which equals 750 to 1,125 students.) Guideline 3: Renovate, build, or replace high schools to a capacity of between 950 to 2600 students. Objective: Reduce the number of elementary schools in the county with SRCs of 411 students or fewer. 1 The FY2015 EFMP can be found on the Capital Programs website at B R A I L S F O R D & D U N L A V E Y I N S P I R E. E M P O W E R. A D V A N C E.

95 SECTION SYNTHESIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Grade Reorganization Patterns The EFMP provides the preferred grade configuration for the organization of neighborhood schools. The preferences are pre-k through fifth, pre-k through eighth, sixth through eighth, and ninth through twelfth. As of the publishing of the EFMP, the majority of middle schools in the county are configured appropriately with grades six to eight; however, most do not serve all of the sixth grade students within their geographic feeder patterns since many elementary schools are also configured with grade six. The school board has adopted an educational initiative to transition sixth grade students from elementary schools to middle schools. This transition is occurring as space becomes available and is largely dependent on increasing capacity in middle schools. Guideline 4: Reorganize all neighborhood elementary schools for Grades pre-k/k through fifth. Objective: Develop long-range plans to increase middle school capacity where needed to allow for the full implementation of the preferred grade configurations. School Utilization / Capacity Policies The EFMP provides the preferred range of utilization for schools to operate within. Underutilization of schools represents a challenge for the district since it places a burden on the operating budget to manage more space than enrollment requires and prevents the district from receiving funding from the state for capital projects. Underutilization is also a strain to program operations, as funding associated with enrollment levels at a school may not reach thresholds to support specialty teachers. Overutilization also represents a challenge by requiring portable classrooms and, in more extreme cases, burdening core spaces such as dining, administrative, and bathroom facilities. Guideline 5: Maintain an optimal student occupancy rate between percent of the Staterated Capacity (SRC). Objective: Future planning efforts in the area will be determined following the outcome of the Master Plan Support Project. EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMMING INITIATIVES The EFMP describes several PGCPS educational programming initiatives that affect facility needs and utilization, such as secondary school reform and special education inclusion initiatives, as well as other neighborhood and regional programs. These initiatives provide context for the master planning recommendations. The following section describes each initiative briefly. J U N E

96 PRINCE GEORGE S COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS MASTER PLAN SUPPORT PROJECT The board-approved Education Specifications (Ed Specs) 2 provide the ideal space program guidelines per school type for future renovation and construction projects. Each specification was developed in support of the EFMP s stated initiatives and reflects the associated spaces needed for the academic programs; therefore, the Educational Adequacy survey directly examined each building for gaps in its associated spaces. The project team s understanding of the needs associated with these initiatives was also informed through workshop discussions and other materials provided by PGCPS. This additional information expanded on the needs of these initiatives, such as the Department of Special Education Program Specifications and Specialty Programs report, which was presented to the Board of Education in March Materials for both of these programs can be found in appendices and SECONDARY SCHOOL REFORM In 2010, an aggressive program was initiated to ensure that all students would be college- and/or careerready upon graduation and to offer courses and programs that have proven track records. To support this program, high schools will need to modify existing classrooms and in some instances, provide additional classrooms to support their intended career academies. These spaces are reflected in the educational specifications and the educational adequacy assessments. The resulting project recommendations align high schools with these future program requirements. SPECIAL EDUCATION INCLUSION PGCPS is committed to educating students with disabilities with their non-disabled peers in the least restrictive environment possible; therefore, the following specific objectives are considered within the master planning support project: Maintain centrally located C. Elizabeth Reig Regional School as the only regional Special Education Center for more severely disabled / medically fragile students. Relocate the services provided at Margaret Brent Regional School, James E. Duckworth Regional School, and Tanglewood Regional School to neighborhood schools according to grade level. Adjust the distribution of services provided in neighborhood schools to meet ideal classroom count goals outlined in the Department of Special Education Program Specifications provided in appendix The Educational Specification Prototypes can be found on the Capital Programs website at B R A I L S F O R D & D U N L A V E Y I N S P I R E. E M P O W E R. A D V A N C E.

97 SECTION SYNTHESIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OTHER NEIGHBORHOOD AND REGIONAL SPECIALTY PROGRAMS There are two types of enhanced educational offerings beyond those described above: (1) School-based (In-boundary): Whole schools programs that serve a neighborhood population where every child within the school boundary participates. Examples are: International Baccalaureate (IB) Primary and Middle Years, Arts Integration, STEM/STEAM, and some Language Immersion. (2) Selection-based (System-wide): These programs are offered regionally to students from a larger geographic area. They may be a whole school program or a program within a school (sometimes referred to as co-located). Students must submit an application, audition, test, and/or take part in a lottery. Examples include Montessori, International Baccalaureate (IB) Diploma Program, Career Academies (High School), Talented and Gifted Centers, Creative and Performing Arts (CPA), and Visual and Performing Arts (VPA). For the purposes of this plan, the following specific objectives identified by district staff were considered during the master plan support project due to their direct impact on space utilization and the need to identify space: Expansion of the Talented and Gifted (TAG) Center program to an additional elementary school location. Incorporation of two new International Secondary Schools for English Language Learners with one located in the Northern Region near the Langley-Park area and the other co-located in Largo High School in the Central Region. Creation of a new Early Childhood Center in the Southern Region. STRATEGIC VISIONING SESSION Following the in-depth review of existing district goals, standards, and guidelines, the project team facilitated a strategic visioning session with the Facility Advisory Committee. The purpose of the session was to provide the team with a better understanding of how the district views its goals in terms of their strategic value. The session did not modify the district s mission or introduce new values and goals, but simply expanded upon and provided a deeper understanding of existing vision, goals, and principles. Outcomes of the discussion informed the assessment methodology and weighting of data as well as the development of the planning principles and strategies. J U N E

98 PRINCE GEORGE S COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS MASTER PLAN SUPPORT PROJECT The visioning session covered the following topics: Educational adequacy and priority of space Community context and equity of investments Organizational and operational paradigm The following summaries briefly describe the outcomes of the discussion that helped guide the project team s formulation of the planning strategies: Educational Adequacy and Priority of Space o o o Comprehensively modernize PGCPS facilities that support learning. Emphasize facility designs that support flexible and collaborative spaces capable of supporting robust district-wide program offerings and improving student control over individualized learning processes. Improve architectural quality of school facilities due to its positive impact on student learning and teacher and staff retention. Community Context and Equity of Investments o o o o Consider the judicious use of public funds. Maximize investments to have the largest impact possible on the specific school selected and the surrounding community. Enhance the accessibility to specialized and specialty programs and services. Balance the need to keep neighborhood schools with the need to reduce portfolio size. Organizational and Operational Paradigm o o o o Investments should minimize operating costs thru thoughtful design. Make all schools as flexible as possible to support a variety of programs and community needs. Tailor only those spaces with highly specific uses or programs. Incorporate professional planning spaces, collaborative learning areas, and interchangeable classroom types to support a floating teacher model to make buildings more efficient. Overall, these desired outcomes support the mission of providing safe and effective schools that are educationally appropriate and meet local, state, and national educational standards B R A I L S F O R D & D U N L A V E Y I N S P I R E. E M P O W E R. A D V A N C E.

99 SECTION SYNTHESIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS COMMUNITY ENG AG EMENT SESSIONS The project team engaged with the community to review preliminary assessment findings and seek input on the planning efforts. The purpose of the community meetings was to introduce parents, stakeholders, and county residents to the district s MPSP and engage them in active conversation about its design. The meetings yielded qualitative information for the project team by identifying sensitivities and concerns, providing feedback, and uncovering issues regarding the MPSP. With the assistance of PGCPS staff, the project team organized three community meetings in March These meetings were intentionally spread across the county in the Northern, Central, and Southern regions. The goal was to solicit broad feedback from a wide range of parents, stakeholders, and residents. The three meetings were held at the following sites: Central Region - Charles H. Flowers High School on Tuesday, March 10, 2015, from 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. Southern Region - Oxon Hill High School on Wednesday, March 11, 2015, from 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. Northern Region - Northwestern High School on Thursday, March 19, 2015, from 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. PGCPS and the project team explained the purpose of the MPSP and how it is intended to evaluate ways to prioritize school construction and renovation projects through assessing schools in three critical areas: mission, condition, and function. The initial assessment findings at the time of the meetings were presented to the community. See appendix for the meeting materials and detailed summary. Participants at each meeting were given opened-ended questions to respond to in roundtable groups. A project team moderator led each group to help guide the conversations. The questions were developed in coordination with PGCPS. The moderator also encouraged tangential issues to be discussed to help spark dynamic conversation. Each community was actively and openly engaged. Generally, similar themes emerged from the discussions at the three meetings. Participants stated they want to maximize parental, stakeholder, and resident participation in the MPSP process and would like a community review board to ensure their needs are addressed. Participants also believe that PGCPS needs to build new, safer, and better facilities to prepare students for success. They stated that new facilities should feature the latest amenities, technology, and learning labs. Language immersion programs, STEM and STEAM programs, and an institution dedicated to performing arts should also be priorities. Another theme focused on equity and feelings that future projects should be equally distributed and not just localized in one region. Overall, an overarching theme expressed by a J U N E

100 PRINCE GEORGE S COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS MASTER PLAN SUPPORT PROJECT majority of all participants was that if PGCPS wants to become a world-class school system, it needs to make the proper investments that reflect that commitment. PLANNING WORKSHOPS The project team engaged with PGCPS representatives in a series of four planning workshops for the purposes of synthesizing the assessment data and findings with the goals and objectives into a set of comprehensive master planning recommendations for all schools. These sessions allowed the project team to develop master planning scenarios based upon objective data as well as a series of planning principles and considerations. The workshops included representatives from the core work group and Facilities Advisory Committee with representatives from Facilities, Pupil Accounting and School Boundaries, Special Education, and Specialty Programs. The workshops were intended to be iterative and deliberative as they built upon the internal knowledge of the staff representatives as well as the planning expertise of the project team. The project team presented further developed analysis and recommendations at each of the workshops and the discussions and review of findings ultimately led to the mission-based principles, logistical considerations and planning strategies described in detail in the following section. The agenda topics were as follows: Workshop No. 1: Review of Vision, Objectives, and Goals Review of Condition Data Analysis: Baseline Projects and Prioritization Review Audience: Capital Programs and Pupil Accounting and School Boundaries staff Workshop No. 2: Utilization Analysis: Observations and Considerations and Potential Project Impacts Program Implementation Strategies Audience: Capital Programs and Pupil Accounting and School Boundaries Staff Workshop No. 3: Utilization Analysis (continued): Observations and Considerations and Potential Project Impacts Academic Initiatives: Facility Needs and Objectives Audience: Facility Advisory Committee w/ Academic and Special Education Representatives Workshop No. 4: Mission-based Principles and Logistical Considerations Planning Strategies and Program Recommendations Audience: PGCPS Leadership B R A I L S F O R D & D U N L A V E Y I N S P I R E. E M P O W E R. A D V A N C E.

101 SECTION SYNTHESIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS PLANNING PRINCIPLES AND STRATEGIES The district s goals, standards, and guidelines provided the project team with direct guidance on how facility needs should be evaluated based upon size, capacity and utilization, grade configurations, program offerings, adequacy of spaces, and square footage needs. Projects should be comprehensive and meaningful, but considerate of operational needs. Keeping this in mind, the project team developed a set of five strategies to guide the planning process. The strategies were derived from two key components: a set of mission-based principles and a list of logistical considerations. The mission-based principles serve as guidelines for implementation of the district s long-term vision and are one of the critical outcomes from the planning workshops. They are the consolidation of the master planning guidelines, academic initiatives, and community input. Additionally, the project team developed a list of logistical considerations to inform the team s methodology for reviewing site-based needs and formulating project recommendations and priorities that meet the district s immediate and long-term goals. MISSION-BASED PRINCIPLES Recommendations derived via the Master Plan Support Project must: Support student achievement and PGCPS s mission. Minimize operating and capital costs. Focus on at-risk facilities. Consider the equitable distribution of project funds. Maintain neighborhood schools. Complete the program in years. Support student achievement and PGCPS s mission. Above all, project recommendations and priorities must support student achievement and PGCPS s mission to provide safe and effective schools that are educationally appropriate and meet local, state, and national education standards. The project team used the board-approved educational specifications to evaluate existing facility needs and develop project recommendations that represent the district s vision of ideal, modernized schools. J U N E

102 PRINCE GEORGE S COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS MASTER PLAN SUPPORT PROJECT Minimize operating and capital costs. Project recommendations and priorities must focus on optimizing the portfolio and balancing underutilized and overutilized spaces. Utilization rates are evaluated to determine if schools meet minimum school size thresholds that support efficient use and effective operations. Specific planning recommendations may involve boundary adjustments, such as sending students from schools that are overutilized to ones that are underutilized. In cases of significant underutilization, this may mean closing a facility. Closures reduce the size of the portfolio and the amount of square footage that needs to be maintained on an annual basis, as well reduces the capital investments needed to address building deficiencies. Focus on at-risk facilities. Schools with physical conditions that put daily operations at risk need to be priorities within the master plan recommendations. Examples of such facilities include those that require regular emergency work or maintenance work that can no longer correct issues without major capital investment. Consider the equitable distribution of project funds. Project recommendations must be objective and data-driven. The detailed assessment data allows the project team to recommended project types such as full renovation, limited renovation, or system replacements based upon a detailed review of existing conditions and functional data. This approach ensures the equitable and consistent development of appropriate project budgets while being sensitive to the judicious use of funds. Additionally, the prioritization of projects is informed by evaluating a local area s need relative to the diverse set of needs across the district. Maintain neighborhood schools. When considering portfolio optimization actions, such as sending and receiving students, it is important to maintain schools that are walkable and have coherent boundaries. Adjusting boundaries significantly at schools where few students are transported would affect the cohesiveness of these communities and programs, as well as increase transportation costs. Complete the program in years. This mission-based principle is grounded in the desire for PGCPS to establish a stabilized routine of major capital projects that replaces or updates a predictable percentage of facilities on an annual basis. Additionally, by completing the program in 20 years, PGCPS will be able to focus on the 31 facilities not included in this program 3 which will need upgrade work by that time. Finally, there is a philosophical desire 3 See Appendix for list of complete list of schools that do not have project recommendations as part of this assessment B R A I L S F O R D & D U N L A V E Y I N S P I R E. E M P O W E R. A D V A N C E.

103 SECTION SYNTHESIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS to ensure that a student entering the school system starting in school year 2017 will attend at least one modernized school before graduating from high school. This principle provides a goal for the project team to use in balancing project design and construction schedules over time. LOGISTICAL CONSIDERATIONS In addition to the mission-based planning principles, numerous logistical considerations were developed to ensure the comprehensive program can be implemented reasonably. The MPSP recommendations must consider: The impact to the immediate community during construction. Land acquisition timelines. The sequencing and selection of closures and consolidations. Construction market and school district implementation capacity. Annual funding constraints and means to maximize state funding eligibility. Impact to immediate community during construction. In order to minimize the impact to a local community during construction, a logistical consideration is that no more than one major project should be under development at one time, unless extenuating circumstances, such as severe overcrowding, dictate otherwise. This rationale is due to the disruption construction activities can have on a community, as well as the need to plan for swing space, which is the temporary housing of a school program while a facility is under construction. Two schools in proximity to each other would likely compete for use of the same swing space. Land acquisition timelines. If a school project requires new land, its schedule and sequencing considerations must be sensitive to the time required for site acquisition. Selection and sequencing of closures and consolidations. Closure and consolidation recommendations must be made carefully and substantiated with mission-based planning principles and logistical considerations. The project team determined which underutilized schools should be closed and how their students should be reassigned to other schools. To make these determinations, the team reviewed school locations, accessibility needs, physical conditions, potential transportation impacts, and other circumstances. J U N E

104 PRINCE GEORGE S COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS MASTER PLAN SUPPORT PROJECT Construction market and school district implementation capacity. The district also needs to take into account the number of projects that can be reasonably supported by the local construction market (e.g., design professionals, construction companies, skilled trade labor, etc.), as well as its internal capacity to implement a large program (e.g., procurement, contracting, project management, planning, accounting, and finance capabilities). This consideration relates to dollar volume as well as the number of major projects occurring at once. Annual funding constraints and means to maximize state funding eligibility. In addition to balancing the construction market and internal implementation capacities, the district also needs to consider how to maximize state funding eligibility. To ensure eligibility, the project team formulated project recommendations and facility needs within categories that align with state definitions. Additionally, projected project timelines align with the state review process. Annual funding constraints are unknown at the time of this report; however, the project team modeled project sequencing to arrive at annual funding levels that best address all of the mission-based principles and logistical considerations. CORE PLANNING STRATEGIES In order to address the varying, and often competing, needs of such a large school district, the project team utilized five core planning strategies that were developed to accommodate the mission-based principles and logistical considerations. The five strategies are: 1. Use planning areas to: o Review logistical impacts and establish local sequencing; o Optimize use of school facilities; o Evaluate geographic distribution; o Distribute Specialized Services and Specialty Programs; and o Evaluate transportation impacts. 2. Focus investments on facilities over 15 years old. 3. Use objective data and tools to support recommendations and sequencing within planning areas. 4. Modernize receiving schools prior to sending students from over-enrolled schools or schools to be closed. 5. Align project recommendation categories with state requirements B R A I L S F O R D & D U N L A V E Y I N S P I R E. E M P O W E R. A D V A N C E.

105 SECTION SYNTHESIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Strategy 1: Use of planning areas. The project team organized the county into 40 planning areas to ensure that individual capital projects and related master planning activities are implemented in coordination with nearby schools and to make certain that the mission-based principles are applied equitably across the district. These planning areas represent small groupings of schools of the same grade level by general geographic location. For elementary schools, these groupings typically represent three to six schools that share common communities. Middle and high schools are typically grouped by region (Northern, Central, Southern). Maps 3.1.2a through 3.2.2c show all of the planning areas and the introduction to Volumes 2 and 4 both provide a list of all schools with their corresponding planning area. Organizing the schools in this manner allowed the project team to conduct a focused review of each facility in terms of the mission-based principles and logistical considerations, and make project recommendations that provide the most optimal solution for that planning area. A detailed review of local facility conditions and needs, distribution of specialized services and specialty programs, logistical and transportation impacts, sequencing requirements, and overall geographic distribution and portfolio optimization was conducted to inform all recommendations. Each grouping of schools was reviewed in a disciplined and deliberate manner by asking the following questions: Which schools are projected to be severely 4 over utilized? What is the optimal solution for such schools (e.g., a capital investment like an addition, send students to adjacent school(s), or a combination of both)? Which schools are projected to be severely 5 underutilized? What is the optimal solution for these schools (e.g., downsize during renovation work, receive students, or close and consolidate students)? What is the ideal school size for the future population? What can the current building accommodate? What major spaces, such as a gymnasium or an auditorium, are currently missing and would need added to accommodate enrollment or grade configuration changes? What are the potential site constraints if increasing square footage is necessary to support the projected enrollment? 4 For the purposes of this study, a severely overutilized school is defined as being greater than 120%. 5 For the purposes of this study, a severely underutilized school is defined as being less than 70%. J U N E

106 PRINCE GEORGE S COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS MASTER PLAN SUPPORT PROJECT Strategy 2: Focus investments on facilities over 15 years old. Educational adequacy data and the application of the WFCI was only done for schools constructed prior to 1999 because newer schools were assumed to be in much better condition and more closely aligned with current educational adequacy standards. Additionally, these schools are not immediately eligible for state capital project funding and, therefore, capital projects are not recommended for them as part of the MPSP. However, for many of these schools the project team did recommend master planning activities, including the realignment of school boundaries. Strategy 3: Use of objective data and tools support recommendations and sequencing within planning areas. The project team prioritized projects based on the critical needs, projected enrollments, existing conditions, and logistical considerations within the planning areas. The team made extensive use of the WFCI and educational adequacy priority scores, as well as the utilization and space adequacy data collected for each school, to help determine the sequencing of capital projects within each planning area. These same data points were also evaluated in aggregate to better understand the prevailing needs within each planning area and to provide a means by which planning areas could be compared to one another. The results of these analyses and the resulting implementation and sequencing strategies are detailed in the next section. Strategy 4: Modernize receiving schools prior to sending students from over-enrolled schools or schools to be closed. When developing the sequencing of projects within a planning area, the project team was deliberate in its efforts to ensure that students being asked to move to a new school would attend a school in better condition than their current facility. This strategy is intended to drive a geographically-equitable distribution of capital investments across the county and ensure that the start dates for major capital projects are also distributed in an equitable manner. Strategy 5: Align project recommendations categories with state requirements. The project definitions methodology section of this report explained that the State of Maryland provides guidelines for funding eligibility based upon specific project scope definitions. The project team developed baseline project needs for all schools included in this study and established project types based upon the state funding guidelines. As the project team evaluated each school within the context of its planning area, the project types were frequently modified to accommodate the enrollment balancing strategies. In some cases, the baseline project type was downgraded due to reduced future enrollment needs or, in other situations, upgraded to allow for more students. In all cases, the revised project recommendations were defined within the same project categories and based upon the definitions established within the baselines B R A I L S F O R D & D U N L A V E Y I N S P I R E. E M P O W E R. A D V A N C E.

107 SECTION SYNTHESIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FINAL PROGRAM SEQUENCING AND DELIVERY STRATEGY The project team employed two levels of sequencing to inform the final program recommendation: internal to each planning area and overall prioritization of the planning areas. Overall, the application of these strategies allowed the project team to sequence projects over the course of the recommended program. When delivered, the projects will provide optimal solutions to critical issues across the district. INTERNAL PLANNING AREA SEQUENCING The team developed a recommended sequencing strategy for all projects needed to achieve each planning area s program goals. These strategies were often driven by urgent existing conditions, such as severe overutilization, severe underutilization, or significantly poor physical condition. Examples of some possible sequencing scenarios are: Severe overutilization of numerous schools in one planning area may lead to the recommendation to build a new school. This new construction project may need to occur first to rebalance enrollments across all schools in an area. A significantly poor WFCI, underutilization, or a challenging site location may indicate that a school is a candidate for closure. To redistribute students from a closing school, the district would first need to construct additions at two nearby schools and revise boundaries. The sequencing recommendations and the logic that supports them are described in the planning area reports in the following section. Each internal sequencing recommendation is made relative to the individual planning area and denoted in ascending order as by letters ( A, B, C, D, or E ). PRIORITIZATION OF PL ANNING AREAS Once the planning area sequencing schedules were completed, the team then developed an overall prioritization strategy to address the district s most critical projects first. The planning area priority levels are as follows: Priority 1: Areas with critical systems failures. These planning areas include at-risk buildings which are identified as those with significant documented maintenance issues that impact student learning and that are a significant drain on the annual maintenance budget. These schools have conditions that put daily operations at risk and generally require regular emergency work or maintenance work that can no longer correct issues without major capital investment. Planning areas 34, 37, and 40 are in this prioritization category. J U N E

108 PRINCE GEORGE S COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS MASTER PLAN SUPPORT PROJECT Priority 2: Areas that are critically utilized. These areas are where the projected utilization for all schools within the planning area averages 120 percent or greater. In these situations, the only solution is the construction of new schools and/or substantial additions to existing schools. This priority grouping also includes projects already in the existing CIP. Planning areas 3, 12, 15, 17, and 38 are in this category. Priority 3: Areas with one or more severely over utilized schools where construction is the required solution. This category includes planning areas with at least one individual school that is severely over utilized and the only solution available to resolve the problem is a capital project rather than a master planning action such as a boundary adjustment. Planning areas 2 and 36 are in this category. Priority 4: Areas with one or more severely over utilized schools where master planning action could be an alternative to a capital investment. This category includes those planning areas with at least one severely over utilized school where a capital investment is the recommended solution, but where a master planning action, such as a boundary adjustment, could be an alternative. The project team distinguished this category from priority 3 since a temporary and/or permanent solution to an individual school s severe overutilization could be put in place operationally. Planning areas 5, 7, 9, and 35 are in this category. Priority 5: Areas with overall critical WFCI scores. This category includes planning areas not covered by priorities one through four above where facility life cycle analysis data indicate system replacement needs are imminent. Those planning areas with an overall average WFCI priority score of seven or below are included in this category. This category, as well as the next, occur after the priorities addressing utilization because if a building or system failure were to occur, capacity exists within the planning area to provide a temporary or permanent solution by relocating students to another facility. Planning Areas eight, 21, 29, and 32 are in this category. Priority 6: Areas with one or more schools with a severe WFCI score. This category includes the remaining planning areas with at least one school with a WFCI of 5 or below. Ten planning areas are in this category: 10, 16, 18, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, 31, and B R A I L S F O R D & D U N L A V E Y I N S P I R E. E M P O W E R. A D V A N C E.

109 SECTION SYNTHESIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Priority 7: Balance of planning areas. All remaining planning areas that did not meet the criteria for priorities one through six are included in this priority group. A common theme of these planning areas is that a master planning action to help balance utilization and optimize the portfolio could occur prior to the investment of any capital dollars for physical facility upgrades. While this grouping has the lowest priority level, there are still schools with significant needs and the planning effort initiates, at least one project within every planning area in the first ten to twelve years of the recommended modernization program. Thirteen Planning Areas are in this category: One, four, six, 11, 13, 14, 19, 20, 22, 23, 28, 32, and 39. This prioritization strategy organizes the planning areas by critical needs while addressing the required sequencing of work to achieve a balanced planning area. Organizing the planning areas by critical need addresses a goal of focusing on at-risk facilities and conditions while maintaining the sequential relationships within each planning area. This approach minimizes operating and capital costs and addresses the logistical considerations. By ensuring that all planning areas sequences start in the first half of the capital program, there will be a natural and equitable distribution of projects and funds across the school district. The next section of this report provides the detailed results and comprehensive program recommendations resulting from the application of the planning and prioritization strategies. Volume two includes individual reports for each planning area, a summary of the key observations and considerations, a comprehensive list of recommended implementation activities, and the associated capital investment recommendations for each school in the district. J U N E

110 PRINCE GEORGE S COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS MASTER PLAN SUPPORT PROJECT AGGREGATE RESULTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS PROGRAM OVERVIEW Applying the planning and prioritization strategies, the project team developed a detailed 20-year, $8.5 billion modernization program that addresses all deferred capital improvements and ensures all schools are educationally appropriate per the latest standards and guidelines. The recommended modernization program includes 140 capital projects sequenced over twenty fiscal years starting in 2017 and requires on average $425 million annually over the life of the program. This program will provide an optimized portfolio with balanced utilization rates achieved via multiple boundary realignments and specific school closure recommendations. The $8.5 billion total program value is a function of the direct project costs for the 140 recommended capital projects, annual escalation to these project costs, and incorporating other program level costs such as capital labor and contingency. The following section provides an overview of these costs as well as overall program outcomes and recommended detailed next steps. Category: Project Costs Project Escalation Program Costs Total: Value $5.5 billion $2.3 billion $0.7 billion $8.5 billion FIGURE 1.5.1: Modernization Program Cost Categories B R A I L S F O R D & D U N L A V E Y I N S P I R E. E M P O W E R. A D V A N C E.

111 SECTION SYNTHESIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS PROJECT COSTS REVIEW Project Types The project types range from new schools and full renovations to building additions and small system replacements. These projects were developed strategically by the project team to address needs identified during the assessments and data analyses, as well as through the application of the mission-based principles and logistical strategies established during the planning area reviews. Budgets were developed for each of the 140 school projects. The value of total direct costs for these projects are estimated at $5.5 billion in 2015 dollars. See volume four of this report for detailed budget information. The project team identified 77 PGCPS schools that need a full renovation and/or replacement due to poor physical condition or functional deficiencies that cannot accommodate projected enrollments or meet space adequacy requirements. The next largest category of projects is limited renovations, which also addresses the physical needs of buildings but on a more modest scale. Together, these two categories of projects make up 83% of the 140 capital projects. The project team also recommends eight new schools within the portfolio: Elementary schools: Two in the Northern Region and one in the Central Middle schools: Three in the Northern Region High schools: Two in the Northern Region Program Recommendations Category of Project** Project Costs* Project Counts Full Renovation or Replacement $3.4 billion 77 Limited Renovation $1.2 billion 39 System Replacement $178 million 11 Other $82 million 5 New School $583 million 8 Total: $5.5 billion 140 *Costs do not include annual escalation **Categories include costs for additions where recommended FIGURE 1.5.2: Modernization Program Project Categories and Distribution J U N E

112 PRINCE GEORGE S COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS MASTER PLAN SUPPORT PROJECT Regional and School Type Distribution All schools in the Central Region but one elementary school are required to address capacity and utilization needs. The elementary school is recommended as a centrally-located replacement for two underutilized schools that are proposed for closure. These recommendations will optimize the elementary school s size, associated program offerings, and operations. When the 140 capital project costs are broken down by region and school type, they are largely reflective of each region s share of the portfolio, as well as identified needs. The larger number of projects in the North Region is reflective of that area s projected capacity needs while the breakdown by school type is largely reflective of each school type s share of inventory square footage. Region Cost* % Type Cost* % North $2.4 billion 44% Elementary $2.0 billion 36% Central $1.4 billion 25% Middle $1.5 billion 27% South $1.2 billion 21% High $1.5 billion 27% Regional $0.5 billion 10% Regional $0.5 billion 10% Total: $5.5 billion $5.5 billion *Costs do not include annual escalation FIGURE 1.5.3: Modernization Program Project Distribution by Region and School Type Project Duration and Cash Flows Assumptions The project team s program recommendations are reflective of typical project durations and escalation. Each project s budget is broken into a logical cash flow according to typical schedule milestones and associated durations for planning, design, and construction activities. The following rates were applied to each project s total projected cost to arrive at annual funding levels. Project Duration Project Type Years Yr 1 Yr 2 Yr 3 Yr 4 Total Full Renovation or Replacement 4 5% 10% 45% 40% 100% Limited Renovation 3 5% 15% 80% 100% System Replacement 2 30% 70% 100% Other 2 30% 70% 100% New School 4 5% 10% 45% 40% 100% *Categories include additions where recommended Annual % of Project Budget FIGURE 1.5.4: Modernization Program Project Distribution by Project Type and Associated Project Durations and Annual Cash Flow Assumptions B R A I L S F O R D & D U N L A V E Y I N S P I R E. E M P O W E R. A D V A N C E.

113 SECTION SYNTHESIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Escalation Assumptions Accounting for construction escalation is critical to the mitigation of future cost exposures due to changes in market conditions, such as increases in construction materials or labor. Escalation was applied by fiscal year to project costs originally estimated in 2015 dollars. The escalation calculation factors: Project start year and duration Project costs by fiscal year Annual escalation rate Following the recommendation of the program s cost estimator and its review of national and regional industry trends, the project team used an annual 3.5% escalation rate. This rate was applied to the individual fiscal year project costs according to the year they are projected to occur within. For example at a baseline level, a $100 million, full renovation project would have costs occurring in four fiscal years: $5 million in year 1, $10 million in year 2, $45 million in year 3, and $40 million in year 4. If this project started in 2020, annual escalation calculation of year 1 costs would consider five years of escalation at a rate of 3.5 percent; annual escalation calculation of year 2 costs would consider six years of escalation at a rate of 3.5 percent and so on. When accounting for all 140 projects over the twenty-year program, there is approximately $2.3 billion in anticipated escalation over the life of the program. OTHER PROGRAM COSTS The project team s recommendations also include program contingencies not associated directly with individual school projects, but are part of larger program needs or unforeseeable future needs. One such contingency is capital labor, which includes the internal and/or external support staff needed to implement the program. Depending on further assessment of required resource needs, this labor may include project management, procurement, financial, and legal services needed for project management, accounting, and controls. Compliance expense is another category of contingency. This expense covers future facility changes that may be required by governmental agencies, but are outside the scope of the individual projects. Mandates may come from changes to local policy and/or state and federal regulations and may include projects such as storm water management, sustainability, security, or accessibility upgrades. J U N E

114 PRINCE GEORGE S COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS MASTER PLAN SUPPORT PROJECT Lastly, the program contingency category includes funding for unforeseeable conditions or needs outside of individual project construction contingencies. For example, a sudden population growth may require an additional school to support capacity needs or a major academic program change. Each of these program cost categories was calculated at 3% of total projects costs occurring each fiscal year, when accounting for the sequencing of all 140 projects over the twenty-year program, this totals $700 million over the life of the program. OTHER M ASTER PLANNIN G ACTIONS The modernization program includes recommendations for other master planning actions that do not involve capital projects directly and, therefore, have no associated project costs included within the $5.5 billion in direct project costs. These actions include boundary adjustments, such as receiving students at a school built within the last fifteen years that does not currently require a major capital investment, or closures and consolidations. A majority of schools are impacted by proposed boundary adjustments and the sending and receiving of students. Those recommendations are described in detail in the planning area reports. The project team identified twenty-nine (29) school facilities as candidates for closure and consolidation with other existing programs to support optimization of the portfolio over the twenty-year program. The closures support the balancing of utilization across the portfolio and, in particular, help consolidate small, undersized elementary schools. Each closure recommendation will need to follow PGCPS policy and further study and engagement. These twenty-nine closures represent approximately $616 million in program savings over a 20-year period by eliminating the need to invest in capital projects for those buildings. If these projects were included, unescalated project costs would total $6.1 billion. The following closures are recommended: Elementary Schools: 2 North, 13 Central, 11 South High Schools: 1 Central, 2 South Please refer to the planning area reports in Volume 2 and Volume 4 for the detailed analyses supporting these recommendations B R A I L S F O R D & D U N L A V E Y I N S P I R E. E M P O W E R. A D V A N C E.

115 SECTION SYNTHESIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS PROGRAM IM PLEMENTATI ON TIM ELINE Implementation of the program is recommended to occur over a twenty-year period at an average investment of $425 million a year. The project team modeled a detailed sequencing and funding plan over this time period to confirm the ability to complete all 140 capital projects and comply with mission-based principles and planning strategies. Projects were distributed across the twenty years according to the planning area and program wide sequencing strategies described earlier in this section. On average, this program timeline assumes 25 active projects in some stage of progress each fiscal year, with a range of 10 to 37 active projects at any one time. Required funding levels to support these activities vary over time, according to the stage of projects occurring each fiscal year and their relevant cash flow. The program will begin slowly to allow for project ramp up, with required year 1 (2017) funding of $48.7 million. CIP Cycles The capital program recommendations are broken down into three CIP cycles. The first two cycles represent typical six-year CIP durations while the third captures the final eight years of the program. These three cycles help inform how the modernization program can be implemented and managed over time. It is important to note that project durations may span two cycles. A project may start towards the end of a cycle and complete in the beginning of the next cycle. Duration Projects Program Costs Cycle Fiscal Years Started Completed Cycle 1 (year 1 - year 6) Cycle 2 (year 7 - year 12) Cycle 3 (year 13 - year 20) FIGURE 1.5.5: Program Information by CIP Cycle Value of Projects Started* Ave. Total Cost per FY Total Costs Occuring** $2.1 billion $307 million $2 billion $2.3 billion $470 million $3.1 billion $1.1 billion $392 million $3.4 billion $5.5 billion $8.5 billion *Reflects the total value of projects started within this cycle according to their 2015 un-escalated project costs. **Costs reflect project costs per fiscal year, escalated accordingly, as well as recommended other program costs. J U N E

116 PRINCE GEORGE S COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS MASTER PLAN SUPPORT PROJECT Cycle 1 Based upon the project team s analysis and understanding of critical needs, the program s first cycle is focused on alleviating capacity issues district wide, especially at the middle school level. During these first six years, 45 projects valued at $2.1 billion in direct project costs will be started, which represents 39% of the total program and an average of 23 active projects per fiscal year. During this cycle, all regions and school types receive projects and half of the planning areas have at least one active project. By the end of the first cycle in 2022, 26 of the 45 projects should be completed, with the balance being completed in the first few years of the second cycle. The cycle 1 projects will cost $2.1 billion and require average annual investments of $334 million to fund all direct, escalation, and program level costs. Only planning areas 11 and 14 do not start projects by These areas only have two capital projects each, which begin in years 2027 and Cycle 2 Cycle 2 focuses on conditions and consolidations, in addition to the continued alleviation of overutilization. During this second phase, 64 projects valued at a total of $2.3 billion in direct project costs are recommended to be started, which is 41% of the total program. The average number of active projects each year in this cycle increases to 34. By 2028, 56 additional projects should be completed, bringing the total completed to 82, which is 75% of the projects started during the first two cycles and 58% of the total capital projects. Total funding for this cycle increases to $3.1 billion or $512 million annually, inclusive of all direct, escalation and program level costs. Cycle 3 Cycle 3 completes the program over its eight years. The final 31 projects will be stared in the first six years of this cycle, with direct project costs valued at $1.1 billion or 20% of the total program budget. This cycle s average number of active projects each year decreases to 19, with the last six projects closing out in the final two years, 2033 and B R A I L S F O R D & D U N L A V E Y I N S P I R E. E M P O W E R. A D V A N C E.

117 SECTION SYNTHESIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Cycle 1 ( ) Cycle 2 ( ) Region Count Value* Count Value* Cycle 3 ( ) Program Total Count Value* Count Value* North 20 $1 billion 22 $876 million 15 $495 million 57 $2.4 billion Central 12 $659 million 15 $514 million 7 $223 million 34 $1.4 billion South 6 $275 million 16 $638 million 7 $246 million 29 $1.2 billion Regional 7 $186 million 11 $304 million 2 $52 million 20 $0.5 billion Total: 45 $2.1 billion 64 $2.3 billion 31 $1.0 billion 140 $5.5 B School Type Count Value* Count Value* Count Elementary 20 $564 million 40 $1 billion 20 $367 million 80 $1.9 billion Middle 14 $932 million 5 $278 million 5 $261 million 24 $1.5 billion High 4 $444 million 8 $718 million 4 $337 million 16 $1.5 billion Regional 7 $186 million 11 $300 million 2 $52 million 20 $0.5 billion Total: 45 $2.1 billion 64 $2.3 billion 31 $1.0 billion 140 $5.5 B *Reflects the total value of projects started within this cycle according to their 2015 un-escalated project costs. FIGURE 1.5.6: Cycle 1, 2, 3 Program Information Distributed by Region and School Type Value* Count Value* The distribution of projects across the Northern, Central and Southern Regions is detailed in Figure The larger quantity of projects in the Northern Region is necessitated by the significant overutilization issues which require the implementation of construction projects. The greater quantity of underutilized schools in the Central and Southern regions allowed the project team to more frequently recommend alternatives to construction such as boundary adjustments or closures. J U N E

118 PRINCE GEORGE S COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS MASTER PLAN SUPPORT PROJECT Cycle 1 ( ) Detail As outlined previously, cycle 1 ( ) represents 45 active projects. The start year for these 45 projects are sequenced across the six fiscal years. The project duration, cash flow assumptions, and escalation calculation are applied to each and annual project costs allocated accordingly across the succeeding fiscal years. Twenty-six projects should be completed by 2022 and the remaining 19 projects that begin in cycle 1 will be completed in cycle 2. As previously mentioned, the project team recommends that program costs, such as capital labor, compliance, and program contingency, be included to implement the modernization program on an annual basis. When these costs are included, the total costs projected to occur through 2022 is $2 billion. The 19 ongoing projects will require $752 million within cycle 2 to complete all projects started within cycle 1. No. of Projects: Active: Completed: Per Project Duration: Cycle No. 1: Ongoing into Cycle 2 FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 FY22 FY23 FY24 FY (13) FY17 - FY20 (1) FY17 - FY21* (4) FY18 - FY21 (5) FY19 - FY22 (1) FY20 - FY21 (1) FY20 - FY22 (8) FY20 - FY23 (1) FY21 - FY22 (1) FY21-23 (3) FY21 - FY24 (1) FY22 - FY24 (6) FY22 - FY25 Annual Project Costs w/ Escalation: $44,633 $105,219 $471,244 $571,144 $312,049 $335,389 $267,800 $274,299 $148,535 Sub-Total Other Program Costs: Total Annual Costs: $4,017 $9,470 $42,412 $51,403 $28,084 $30,185 $24,102 $24,687 $13,368 $48,650 $114,689 $513,656 $622,546 $340,133 $365,574 $291,902 $298,986 $161,903 $2,005,249 $752,791 *5-year duration includes additional project ($'s in $1,000) FIGURE 1.5.7: Cycle 1 Program Detail B R A I L S F O R D & D U N L A V E Y I N S P I R E. E M P O W E R. A D V A N C E.

119 SECTION SYNTHESIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS As with any master planning process, assumptions are made regarding probable future conditions. In the case of the MPSP, these assumptions pertain largely to the condition of buildings, their desired future functional uses, applicable guidelines and standards, and projected enrollment. The project team s analyses were based upon reasonable assumptions, original research, information provided by PGCPS and other reliable sources, reasonable analytical techniques, and professional judgment. Economic and market conditions, enrollment changes, and implementation timing, as well as other important circumstances, often do not occur as planned and such deviations can be material. To mitigate these conditions, the project team recommends that PGCPS review the findings of this report during the annual state required planning process. PROGRAM OUTCOMES The outcomes of this modernization program align with the strategic goals and mission of PGCPS by correcting all deferred capital improvements and ensuring all schools are educationally appropriate per the latest standards. The modernization program will provide an optimized portfolio with balanced utilization rates that minimizes operating costs while maintaining neighborhood schools and improving access to specialty academic programs and for special needs students. PORTFOLIO OPTIMIZATION AND PROGRAM DISTRIBUTION Implementation of the recommended modernization program will improve the capability of PGCPS to deliver high-quality academic programs countywide. Project recommendations included within the program contain strategies to distribute academic programs equitably throughout the district. In addition, planning areas were used to evaluate the geographic distribution of specialized education services and specialty programs. The distribution of specialty programs, such as language immersion and creative and performing arts, supports student achievement by allowing a diversity of educational pedagogy to be accessible to students across the county. The ability to serve special needs students is a core part of the PGCPS mission. The project team, with support from PGCPS staff, evaluated the distribution of specialized education services throughout the district and recommend distributing such services to a greater number of schools. The core objective of these shifts is to advance the goal of serving all students in the least restrictive environment. Appendix describes the redistribution recommendations. Based on the current facility portfolio size, the annual PGCPS maintenance and operations budget is approximately $3.00 per square foot, which is well below the national average of $4.42 per square foot6. The program recommends a reduction in overall portfolio square footage, which if PGCPS maintains the 6 According to a national survey issued in January 2009 as part of the 38 th Annual Maintenance & Operations Cost Study for Schools prepared by American School & University Magazine. J U N E

120 PRINCE GEORGE S COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS MASTER PLAN SUPPORT PROJECT same annual spending on maintenance and operations, will result in an increase to $3.62 square foot. This increase will allow PGCPS to service its facilities better and reduce the future risks of deferred maintenance. Once the 20-year program is completed, many old facilities will be replaced so PGCPS should be able to normalize its building renewal and maintenance schedules. One of the major driving factors in the analysis of PGCPS needs was building utilization rates. Overutilization and underutilization both create negative impacts on the system. Underutilization creates cost impacts by forcing PGCPS to continue maintaining and operating more facilities than are needed. Overutilization creates cost impacts due to the extensive need for relocatable mobile educational units. Negative impacts on students are seen in both situations. Program offerings are frequently reduced in underutilized areas. Overutilization often creates unsuitable student to teacher ratios and conversion of program spaces to educational uses. This program recommends balancing portfolio utilization across the 20-year program period. As shown below, once completed the program results in a 63-percent increase districtwide in ideally-utilized schools and a 38-percent decrease in underutilized and overutilized schools. Furthermore, the program recommendations resolve the critical overutilization concerns in the northern portion of the county and the critical underutilization concerns in the central and southern portions of the county. FIGURE 1.5.8: Districtwide Comparison of Current Utilization to Proposed Utilization at Program Completion B R A I L S F O R D & D U N L A V E Y I N S P I R E. E M P O W E R. A D V A N C E.

121 SECTION SYNTHESIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FIGURE 1.5.9: Comparison of Current Utilization to Proposed Utilization at Program Completion by Region PROJECT DISTRIBUTION One goal of the proposed modernization program was creating an equitable distribution of projects throughout the district. The final recommendations do not include an equal number of projects in each region; however, the proposed project implementation and sequencing approach is equitable in that it focuses on areas of critical need first and impacts planning areas in all regions evenly throughout all phases of the program. The plan addresses population changes across the county by putting buildings where the people are. Maps 3.1.3a through 3.1.3f show how projects are distributed throughout the region over the 20-year program. The maps show graphically the growth of fully modernized facilities and illustrate that it is important to focus on the overall outcome of strong and supportive schools across the entire school system over the particular dollar value associated with any one project. J U N E