Conducting a Facilities Condition Assessment as Part of Your Capital Planning. FEFPA July 5, 2011

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "Conducting a Facilities Condition Assessment as Part of Your Capital Planning. FEFPA July 5, 2011"

Ellen Moody
5 years ago
Views:

1 Conducting a Facilities Condition Assessment as Part of Your Capital Planning FEFPA July 5, 2011

2 Agenda Introduction History and Goals Process Physical Condition Analysis and Ranking Educational Adequacy Analysis and Ranking Technology Survey Room Use Survey

3 History and Goals Clermont Umatilla MS

4 Process Physical Condition Ranking Educational Adequacy Ranking Technology Survey

5 Building Envelope Site HVAC Roofing Age PHYSICAL CONDITION ASSESSMENT

6 Physical Condition Assessment School Name: Beverly Shores ES School ID: 0031 Building Envelope Building Exterior Windows Condition Value Exterior Doors Condition Value Exterior Walls Condition Value Condition Value Average 3 Poor 4 Poor 4 Good Fair 3 Fair 3 Good Fair 3 Poor 4 Good Fair 3 Fair 3 Good Poor 4 Poor 4 Good Fair 3 Fair 3 Good Good 2 Good 2 Good Good 2 Good 2 Good Good 2 Good 2 Good 2 2.0

7 Grading Criteria LCSB Condition Assessment Guidelines Condition Value Recommended Action 1. Very Good 1 = Very Good (Asset has no defect; appearance is as new) A. Clean Remove debris, stains, surface rust 2. Good 2 = Good (Asset exhibits superficial wear and tear, minor defects, minor signs of deterioration to surface finishes; but does not require major maintenance; no major defects exist.) B. Adjust Tighten system components, align doors 3. Fair 3 = Fair (Asset services are functional, but require attention; uncorrected, will result in premature failure or accelerated deterioration of component or system.) C. Remove Graffiti, inoperable systems 4. Poor 4 = Poor (Asset is in poor condition; critical deficiencies affecting function; requires significant attention; services are functional but falling often.) D. Repair Return components back to service 5. Unacceptable 5 = Unacceptable (Asset has deteriorated badly; serious structural problems; elements are broken, services are not performing; significant major defects exist.) E. Replace Deteriorated beyond repair, repaint F. No Action Leave as is

8 Physical Condition Assessment School Name: Fruitland Park ES 2/23/10 HVAC Building Unit Type of Equipment MFG MFG Date Condition Value Recommend Action Estimated Life Cycle Remaining Replacement Year 1 Chiller Trane F AHU-1 CW air handler Trane E AHU-2 CW air handler Trane E Package unit Carrier E Package unit Carrier E MAV 1 Package unit Weather King E Package unit Carrier E Package unit Carrier E Package unit Carrier E Package unit Carrier E Package unit Trane F

9 Elementary Schools Facility Condition Score School Average Age Building Envelope Roofs HVAC Site FCI Clermont Seminole Springs Cypress Ridge Eustis Eustis Heights Fruitland Park Groveland Beverly Shores Spring Creek Treadway Astatula Rimes Early Learning Center Lost Lake Triangle Villages Leesburg Round Lake Umatilla Pine Ridge Tavares Mascotte Minneola Grassy Lake Sawgrass Bay Total Average

10 Building Age EUSTIS HIGH SCHOOL BUILDING SQUARE FEET YEAR BUILT AGE AVERAGE BUILDING AGE = 25.7 YEARS CAMPUS BUILDING STUDENT MAJOR % VALUE STATIONS RENOVA- TION ADJUSTED BUILDING AGE 1 44, % , % , % , % , % , % , % TOTAL 155, %

11 Middle Schools School Average Age Building Envelope Roofs HVAC Site Facility Condition Score FCI Clermont Umatilla Tavares Eustis Oak Park Mount Dora Windy Hill Carver East Ridge Total Average High Schools School Type Average Age Building Envelope Roofs HVAC Site Facility Condition Score Eustis Curtright 9th South Lake HS East Ridge HS Tavares HS Leesburg HS Eustis HS Mount Dora HS Umatilla HS Total Average FCI

12 Building Analysis School Name Build Design Use Building Envelope HVAC Roofing Site Sum of CVs Rank Build Age Beverly Shores 3 Primary Classroom (K-3) Teacher Resource Rooms Clermont MS Eustis ES 5 7 Primary Classroom (K-3) Intermediate Classroom (4-8) Classrooms, Grades 1-2, Teacher Planning Classrooms, Grade 3, PE Coach Office, Math Book Storage Administration Administration/ Main Office Dining Area Dining Jr High Gymnasium Gymnasium Eustis Heights ES 8 Intermediate Science Demo Primary Classroom (K-3) Group Restrooms Intermediate Classroom (4-8) Science Classrooms w/ Labs Classrooms, K & Grade Boys & Girls Restrooms Classrooms, Grade

13 Square Feet Comparison - 75% Safety and Security 5% Site 5% Performance Indicators 10% Furniture and Equipment 5% EDUCATIONAL ADEQUACY ASSESSMENT

14 Educational Adequacy Assessment Capacity Total Facilities Capacity List NSF FISH Actual NSF % of Desired STANDARD CLASSROOMS 24 Primary Classroom , ,813 39,944 84% Classroom/Academic 24 Storage, Material 100 2, Storage, Outside 50 1, Storage, Student Toilet, Student 60 1,440 Subtotal 1,132 27,168 8 Intermediate Classroom 858 6, Storage, Material Storage, Outside Toilet, Student-Male Toilet, Student-Female Subtotal 1,078 8,624 MUSIC 1 Elementary Music 1,000 1, Reference Storage, Material Practice, Music Subtotal 1,270 1,270

15 Educational Adequacy Assessment Safety and Security - Single Point of Entry, fencing, cameras, circulation management Site Parking, vehicular/pedestrian separation, fields and play areas Performance Indicators - Lighting (natural and artificial) Temperature/ ventilation Acoustics Finishes (floors, carpet, worn-out ) Furniture and Equipment

16 Elementary Schools Summary % of the State Guidelines Other Criteria 2009 FISH 2014 Enrol Proj Proposed Capacity * * Media Center Dining Admin Weighed total (SF)* Safety/ Security Site Classrooms Performance Furn & Equip Educ adeq score Clermont ES % 56% 46% 44% 41% 2% 1% 6% 3% 53% Eustis ES % 31% 73% 100% 46% 4% 1% 6% 3% 60% Cypress Ridge % 84% 41% 66% 46% 3% 5% 6% 5% 65% Eustis Heights / % 59% 50% 65% 48% 4% 5% 6% 3% 66% Treadway % 82% 71% 87% 52% 2% 5% 6% 5% 70% Rimes % 100% 100% 92% 50% 3% 5% 8% 5% 71% Beverly Shores % 100% 100% 96% 66% 4% 5% 2% 2% 78% Fruitland Park % 73% 64% 100% 63% 3% 4% 4% 4% 78% Grassy Lake % 70% 90% 55% 56% 5% 5% 8% 5% 79% * Percent X.75 ** 1: Capacity exceeds projected enrollment : Capital Plan includes an addition 3: Other

17 Middle Schools Summary % of the State Guidelines Other Criteria FISH 2014 Proposed * EnrolProj Capacity * Media Weighed Safety/S Center Dining PE Admin total (SF) ecurity Site Classrooms Performance Furn & Equip Educ adeq score Umatilla MS % 85% 42% 88% 58% 53% 4% 3% 4% 3% 67% Mt Dora MS % 99% 87% 82% 68% 52% 3% 4% 6% 5% 70% Oak Park % 94% 65% 100% 92% 62% 3% 5% 4% 2% 76% Windy Hill MS % 86% 81% 95% 100% 58% 4% 5% 8% 5% 80% Clermont MS % 98% 100% 100% 84% 69% 2% 3% 4% 3% 81% Eustis MS % 89% 75% 79% 97% 64% 5% 5% 4% 5% 83% Tavares MS % 89% 81% 87% 98% 66% 5% 5% 6% 3% 85% East Ridge MS % 92% 99% 100% 77% 62% 5% 5% 10% 5% 87% Carver MS % 88% 100% 100% 100% 70% 5% 5% 10% 5% 95%

18 High Schools Summary % of the State Guidelines Other Criteria FISH 2014 Proposed EnrolProj Capacity * * Media Weighed Safety/S Center Dining PE Admin total (SF) ecurity Site Classrooms Performance Furn & Equip Educ adeq score Curtwright Ct % 78% 100% 100% 96% 60% 4% 5% 4% 1% 74% Tavares HS % 56% 86% 100% 100% 66% 4% 5% 4% 4% 83% Umatilla HS % 77% 74% 100% 100% 59% 4% 5% 10% 5% 83% Leesburg HS % 58% 86% 100% 100% 67% 4% 5% 8% 3% 87% Eustis HS % 82% 100% 100% 100% 68% 4% 4% 8% 4% 88% South Lake HS % 77% 100% 100% 100% 70% 5% 5% 6% 3% 89% Mt Dora % 88% 100% 93% 100% 70% 4% 5% 10% 5% 94% East Ridge HS % 66% 100% 100% 100% 70% 5% 5% 10% 4% 95%

19 TECHNOLOGY SURVEY

20 Technology Survey Elementary Schools Classrooms Document Cameras Units % LCD Projectors Units % Interactive Slate or Airliner Units % Interactive White Boards (SMART, Mimio, etc.) Units % Student Response Systems (Clickers) Units % Sound Enhancement Units % Astatula % 8 18% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 1 2% 0 Beverly Shores % 20 51% 0 0% 6 15% 0 0% 4 10% 0 Clermont % 26 87% 0 0% 9 30% 0 0% 12 40% 0 Cypress Ridge % % 0 0% 3 9% 1 3% 14 42% 0 Eustis % 20 80% 1 4% 1 4% 1 4% 3 12% 0 Eustis Heights % 35 81% 3 7% 3 7% 2 5% 2 5% 0 Computer on Wheels (COW) Fruitland Park % 22 56% 0 0% 11 28% 0 0% 0 0% 5-12 unit Grassy Lake % % 0 0% 2 4% 0 0% % 0 Groveland % % % 0 0% 0 0% % 1-24 unit

21 Technology Survey High Schools Classrooms Document Cameras LCD Projectors Interactive Slate or Airliner Interactive White Boards (SMART, Mimio, etc.) Student Response Systems (Clickers) Sound Enhancement Computer on Wheels (COW) Units % Units % Units % Units % Units % Units % East Ridge % % 0 0% 11 11% 0 0% 42 42% 2-25 units Eustis % 36 72% 1 2% 5 10% 1 2% 0 0% 2-24 unit Eustis Annex- Curtright % 18 82% 2 9% 1 5% 1 5% 4 18% 2-12 unit Leesburg % % 4 4% 16 16% 6 6% % 4-10 unit; 5-24 unit Mount Dora % % 0 0% 14 22% 0 0% % unit; 2-10 South Lake % 64 66% 2 2% 5 5% 0 0% 22 23% unit Tavares % 55 83% 0 0% 4 6% 6 9% 4 6% 3-24 unit Umatilla % 25 56% 0 0% 4 9% 0 0% 0 0% 0

22 ROOM USE SURVEY

23 Actual vs. FISH Room Use

24 Questions/ Next Steps

Tumwater University School District Budget Myths Bond Project Update. February 2016 Mel Murray, Director of Capital Projects John Bash, Superintendent

Tumwater University School District Budget Myths Bond Project Update February 2016 Mel Murray, Director of Capital Projects John Bash, Superintendent Construction Update $136,000,000 in bonds approved