2011 Comprehensive Facility Assessment Report

2011 Comprehensive Facility Assessment Report

DeKalb County School System

June 2011

2011 Comprehensive Facility Assessment Report for DeKalb County School System

92PAGE 1 OF 92

Table of Contents

FOREWORD ................................................................................................................... 2

1.0 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................... 3

2.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................... 4 2.1 Facility Condition Assessment ............................................................................................................ 4

2.2 Educational Adequacy Assessment .................................................................................................... 5

2.3 Technology Readiness Assessment ................................................................................................... 5

2.4 Capacity and Utilization Assessment .................................................................................................. 5

2.5 Combined Scores for Schools: Condition, Educational Adequacy, and Technology Readiness Assessments ............................................................................................................................................. 6

2.6 Cost of Improvement ........................................................................................................................... 7

2.7 Conclusion ........................................................................................................................................... 8

3.0 ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY AND APPROACH .............................................. 9 3.1 Facility Condition Assessment (FCA) Methodology .......................................................................... 10

3.2 Educational Adequacy and Technology Readiness Assessments Methodology ............................. 12

3.3 Demographics, Capacity and Utilization Assessment Methodology ................................................. 14

3.4 Energy Conservation Analyses Methodology ................................................................................... 23

4.0 FINDINGS ............................................................................................................... 24 4.1 Facility Condition Assessment (FCA) Findings ................................................................................. 25

4.2 Educational Adequacy and Technology Readiness Assessment Findings ...................................... 47

4.3 Demographics, Capacity and Utilization Assessment Findings ........................................................ 65

4.4 Energy Conservation Analysis Findings ........................................................................................... 81

4.5 Combined Condition, Educational Adequacy, and Technology Readiness Findings ....................... 86

APPENDICES Appendix A – Scope of Work

Appendix B – Terms and Definitions

Appendix C – Facility Assessment Reports

Appendix D – Educational Adequacy and Technology Readiness Guidelines

Appendix E – Educational Adequacy and Technology Readiness Scoring Criteria

Appendix F – Costing Method Development


92PAGE 2 OF 92

Foreword The following report was prepared by Parsons Commercial Technology Group (Parsons) and MGT of America, Inc. (MGT) for the DeKalb County Board of Education, presiding over the DeKalb County School District, but commonly referred to as the DeKalb County School System or DCSS. The goal and purpose of this report is to provide DCSS with a summary of the results and findings of the Comprehensive Facility Assessment Project, including deferred maintenance and capital renewal needs, educational adequacy, and technology readiness of each facility, as well as a calculated capacity of each facility. The overall conditions of the facilities are ever-changing due to many variables, including newly occurring deficiencies, new building construction, repairs, renovations, and updated cost estimates. The findings and figures contained within this report are estimates and based on data collected at the sites as of March 2011.

Members of the DeKalb County Board Of Education District 1 – Ms. Nancy T. Jester District 2 – Mr. Donald E. McChesney District 3 – Ms. Sarah Copelin-Wood District 4 – Mr. H. Paul Womack Jr., Vice Chair District 5 – Mr. Jesse "Jay" Cunningham Jr. District 6 – Mr. Thomas E. Bowen, Chair District 7 – Ms. Donna G. Edler District 8 – Dr. Pamela A. Speaks District 9 – Dr. Eugene P. Walker

Key Staff of the DeKalb County School District Mrs. Ramona Tyson, Interim Superintendent Mr. Robert Moseley, Deputy Chief Superintendent School Operations Ms. Barbara Colman, Interim CIP Operations Officer Mr. Steve Donahue, Executive Director of Plant Services Mr. Michael Worthington, Director of Facilities Mr. Daniel Drake, Director of Planning and Forecasting Mr. Carlton Parker, CIP Program Director Mr. Joshua Williams, Project Manager

Administrative and Instructional Complex


92PAGE 3 OF 92

1.0 Introduction As part of its mission to provide the highest quality facilities, effective maintenance, continuous improvement, and plan for the future, DeKalb County School System (DCSS) contracted with Parsons to conduct a comprehensive facility condition assessment (FCA) and master planning project. Parsons selected MGT, a nationally recognized firm in the field of K-12 educational adequacy, capacity and utilization, and technology planning, as a team member to conduct the necessary assessments and develop the 10-year facilities master plan. The work included:

Conducting a comprehensive assessment of each DCSS facility to identify needs for immediate repairs, deferred maintenance, and capital renewal of major building or site systems;

Evaluating the educational adequacy and technology readiness of each instructional facility; and

Gathering and analysis of facility capacity and utilization data to define current and future student space needs.

The goal of this work is to identify what short term (2011-2012) and longer term (2013-2022) improvements are needed in these areas for each school or non-school facility; and to utilize this information, along with other district input, to produce a District Facility Master Plan.

This report outlines the assessment data gathered by Parsons and MGT during the period of September 2010 – March 2011 and includes both on-site physical inspections and evaluations and detailed interviews of DCSS principals, teachers, administrators, and maintenance personnel. The specific scope of work and associated project objectives are detailed in this report.

Due to the complex nature of the work, the physical condition assessment of the buildings and grounds was performed separately from the educational adequacy assessment. Both assessments required the use of specially-trained personnel and two separate and distinctive methods and approaches to the work. This report addresses each assessment separately and also combines the data using a statistical methodology that will allow us to develop priorities in the next phase of the project.

Parsons personnel conducted the physical condition assessment of the buildings and grounds and prepared the overall findings in this report. In addition, Parsons utilized the local knowledge and expertise of the maintenance and operations departments at DeKalb County School System and Parsons’ DeKalb-based Program Management Team to assist in development of the individual facility assessment reports and the findings in this document. MGT personnel conducted the educational adequacy and technology readiness evaluations, and prepared the findings and reports associated with these parts of the work.

The project included the assessment of all 151 school, non-school, P-12, and vacant/closed sites, totaling 14,396,754 gross square feet throughout DeKalb County. Included in most of these assessments were the permanent educational/teaching buildings, site and ground features, athletic fields, athletic facilities, and other permanent administrative, maintenance, warehouse or other ancillary buildings, such as storage or equipment buildings. No assessment of temporary or portable buildings was made.

The findings in this report are based on Parsons’ and MGT’s standard approaches, methods, and techniques, and nationally recognized standards used to evaluate and assess the physical condition of school facilities, as well as the educational adequacy and technology readiness needs of public school facilities.

Individual assessment reports for each school and non-school facility are located in Appendix C, including Facility Condition Assessment Reports, Educational Adequacy Reports, and Technology Readiness Reports.


92PAGE 4 OF 92

2.0 Executive Summary This report contains the results of the facility condition assessment, educational adequacy assessment, technology readiness assessment, and capacity and utilization assessment for the buildings and grounds at DeKalb County Schools. The report is intended to be a planning tool and it is meant for use as a technical document to assist the DeKalb County Board of Education in making decisions needed to achieve their short and long term facility goals. The report contains data and exhibits meant to objectively describe the findings and summarize the results of this study against known K-12 engineering and educational standards.

The results and findings are strictly a measure of the data and information obtained during the course of the field work processes and the application of that information into a standard format used to present the results. Below is a summary of the findings:

2.1 Facility Condition Assessment The school facilities and their associated buildings and grounds received an overall score that

shows them as being in overall “Fair” physical condition. These findings are remarkable for a public school system with an overall average age of 41 years and indicative of the DeKalb County School System commitment to providing safe and quality facilities for their students, staff, and programs. According to the National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES), DeKalb County School schools are 1 year younger than the national average of 42 years and four years older than the US Southeast regional average of 37 years.

The non-school facilities, which are the athletic stadiums and other facilities used as administrative, special purpose, transportation, maintenance, support, or warehouses, and their associated buildings and grounds, are in overall “Poor” condition. These findings are primarily attributed to overall average age of 45 years for these facilities.

Of the 151 school, non-school, P-12, and vacant/closed DCSS facilities assessed, 24 percent of the facilities are in “Good” condition, 21 percent are in “Fair” condition, 32 percent are in “Poor” condition, and 23 percent are in “Unsatisfactory” condition.

The overall Facility Condition Index (FCI) of 24.19 and rating of Fair condition is indicative that overall general maintenance and repair of the facilities is good for a facility inventory with the average age of 41 years.

Improvements to the middle and high school facilities over the last five to ten years have extended the useful life of many buildings systems. However, the assessment data identified significant needs in HVAC, pluming, interior finish, roofing, exterior window, and parking and pedestrian paving systems for most facility types.

Combined, the building exterior closure systems (windows and doors), roof coverings, plumbing systems, HVAC systems, electrical systems, interior systems (doors, floors, ceilings, and wall finishes), fixed furnishings (cabinets and counter tops), and fittings (toilet partitions and accessories, lockers, white boards) represent a majority (70 percent) of the total backlog of current deferred maintenance needs. This is primarily attributed to the relatively short life cycle and the typical wear and tear placed on these high demand systems.


92PAGE 5 OF 92

2.2 Educational Adequacy Assessment The educational adequacy assessments were based on the educational guidelines developed by

DeKalb County Schools and MGT through discussions with district staff and a review of educational programs in place throughout the District.

The assessments show that many facilities do an excellent job of meeting the educational needs of the programs housed at the site. In other facilities, spaces are either missing, do not meet the size guidelines, do not have appropriate adjacencies, or are missing storage or fixed equipment.

Of the facilities assessed, 8 percent were rated “Excellent”, 24 percent were rated “Good”, 28 percent were “Fair,” 32 percent were “Poor”, and 8 percent were rated “Unsatisfactory” in terms of their adequacy to support the educational program.

2.3 Technology Readiness Assessment The technology readiness assessments were based on the infrastructure guidelines developed by

DeKalb County Schools.

The assessments show that most schools have technology infrastructure to support the needs of the program.

Of the facilities assessed for technology readiness, 16 percent were rated “Excellent”, 22 percent were rated “Good,” 49 percent were rated “Fair,” 8 percent were rated “Poor”, and 5 percent of were rated “Unsatisfactory.”

2.4 Capacity and Utilization Assessment The Capacity and Utilization analysis shows that there is excess capacity district wide; however,

the rate of utilization varies a great deal with some areas having a high percentage of excess capacity while other areas having a high degree of over utilized schools. Decisions will need to be made based on different conditions around the District.


92PAGE 6 OF 92

2.5 Combined Scores for Schools: Condition, Educational Adequacy, and Technology Readiness Assessments The assessment data, information, and findings detailed in this report are derived from standard processes of collecting, recording, and reporting. For this report, an additional statistical analysis was used to combine all the assessments and create one score which may be more readily understood by individuals who are not as familiar with the assessment process.

The table below shows a weighted average score for each school type. To derive the Combined Score, the Condition Score was weighted 50 percent, the Educational Adequacy Score was weighted 40 percent, and the Technology Readiness Score was weighted 10 percent to create the Combined Score which totals 100. Similar to a score that a teacher would use with a student, a high Combined Score is indicative of better overall findings.

Using this scoring approach, the average district-wide combined score for all DeKalb County Schools is 70 which mean the facilities have an overall “Fair” rating. Some schools have physical condition, educational, and/or technology needs that require improvements to meet the needs of children and to maintain and improve the current facilities.

Facility TypeNumber

By Type

Facility Condition

Score (50%)

Educational Adequacy

Score (40%)

Technology Readiness

Score (10%)

Combined Score

DeKalb County School System 151 75.81 69.23 75.59 70.14 Elementary Schools 84 67.64 69.48 77.54 67.87

Middle Schools 21 84.22 78.33 78.69 80.65 High Schools 24 83.38 65.45 75.98 74.54 Non-Schools 8 61.66 N/A N/A N/A P-12 Facilities 4 49.07 60.24 62.70 54.49

Vacant / Closed Facilities 10 43.76 56.98 44.59 51.97

Source: Parsons and MGT of America, Inc., 2011


92PAGE 7 OF 92

2.6 Cost of Improvement The cost of improvement includes current deficiencies1 and budget estimates that include condition,2 deferred maintenance3 needs, educational adequacy and technology readiness 4 needs, and forecasted capital renewal5 needs for all assessed facilities6 at each school or non-school facility. The assessment information and findings in this report addresses the facility needs for two time periods, the Current Period (2011 – 2012) and the Forecast Period (2013 – 2022). The Current Period includes facility needs identified for the years 2011 – 2012 and includes the repair, replacement or modifications to the current physical condition, educational adequacy, and technology readiness needs of the assessed facilities. The Forecast Period includes the 10 years following, 2013–2022, and includes forecast capital renewal facility needs based on the chronological expiration of the useful life of the systems for each assessed school. The following table summarizes the district-wide budget estimates for facility needs.

Finding Budget EstimateCondition Deferred Maintenance Needs (2011 - 2012) $768,574,380

Educational Adequacy Needs (2011 - 2012) $356,946,000Technology Infrastructure Readiness Needs (2011 - 2012) $15,334,000

Total Current Facility Needs (2011 - 2012) $1,140,854,380

Capital Renewal Needs (2013 - 2017) $394,590,651Capital Renewal Needs (2018 - 2022) $563,196,625

Total Forecast Capital Renewal Facility Needs (2013 - 2022) $957,787,276

Grand Total Current and Forecast Facility Needs (2011 - 2022) $2,098,641,656

As can be seen in the preceding table, the budget cost estimates to resolve and remedy the Current Period (2011 - 2012) deficiencies associated with deferred maintenance, educational adequacy, and technology readiness needs is $1,140,845,380. Additional Forecast Period (2013 – 2017 and 2018 - 2022) capital renewal needs are estimated at $957,787,276. The estimated grand total for the period 2011 – 2022 is $2,098,641,656.

Special Note regarding the Current Needs Budget Estimates for 2011 – 2012

During the course of the facility condition assessment, the assessment teams discovered and observed damage to some foundation and exterior wall systems where further study and testing is needed to determine the best repair or remediation solution. In such cases, the assessment teams have provided budget estimates to conduct the additional study and testing. An estimated cost to perform the best repair or remediation solution has not been included in the budget estimates.

1 A deficiency is the physical state of being damaged, missing, inadequate or insufficient for an intended purpose. 2 Condition refers to the state of physical fitness or readiness of a facility, system or system element for its intended use. 3 Deferred maintenance refers to the Current Period (2011 - 2012) work associated with remedy of deficiencies for systems that have expired or work has been postponed until funds are available. This figure includes building code compliance and energy conservation opportunities. This figure excludes Function Adequacy & Technology Needs. 4 Educational Adequacy and Technology indicate how well a facility supports the programs that it houses as described in this report for determining needs for academic spaces, administrative and support spaces, sports fields and play areas, learning environment, site circulation patterns, and technology infrastructure. 5 Capital Renewal is the forecast period (2013 – 2022) replacement of building systems as those elements become obsolete or beyond their useful life that are not normally included in an annual operating budget. Functional Adequacy & Technology needs are excluded. 6 A facility is a building or part of a building, site grounds, or athletic feature which exists at a school and is maintained by DCSS.


92PAGE 8 OF 92

The following table provides a summary of the deferred maintenance, educational adequacy and technology readiness needs by the facility types assessed

2.7 Conclusion DCSS has 151 school, non-school, and vacant/closed facilities. In order to determine the needs of these facilities, the district conducted a comprehensive facility assessment during the period September 2010 – June 2011. The assessment included physical condition, educational adequacy, technology readiness, capacity and utilization of the facilities, as well as identification of energy conservation opportunities. This report presents not only the summarized findings, but also the individual building data. The data enables the district to measure needs based on the condition of the buildings and educational adequacy issues. In the next phase of the project, DCSS will use the data to develop short- and long-range plans to address the identified needs. It is strongly recommened that DCSS implement a 20% annual reassessment of the facilities portfolio beginning in 2013. Through this 20% annual reassessment, DCSS will be able to reevaluate the aging building systems and provide annual updates to this report.

Kelly Lake Elementary School

Facility TypeNumber

By Type

Gross Square Footage

Site Acres

2011 - 2012 Deferred

Maintenance Estimated

Budget Cost

2011 - 2012 Educational Adequacy Estimated

Budget Cost

2011 - 2012 Technology Readiness Estimated

Budget Cost

Current Replacement

Value

Average Replacement Cost by GSF

DeKalb County School System 151 14,396,754 2,919 $768,574,380 $356,946,000 $15,334,000 $3,177,777,708 $220.73 Elementary Schools 84 5,816,857 1,051 $420,306,027 $143,491,000 $5,844,000 $1,299,034,215 $223.32

Middle Schools 21 3,156,031 718 $101,148,284 $49,481,000 $2,791,000 $641,038,900 $203.12 High Schools 24 4,394,887 835 $182,943,871 $140,173,000 $5,231,000 $1,100,455,178 $250.39 Non-Schools 8 337,055 126 $24,348,979 $0 $0 $63,500,884 $188.40 P-12 Facilities 4 151,382 50 $15,824,124 $5,384,000 $270,000 $31,072,421 $205.26

Vacant / Closed Facilities 10 540,542 139 $24,003,095 $18,417,000 $1,198,000 $42,676,110 $78.95Note 1 - Deferred Maintenance Cost reflect cost for demolition only and no FCI or Condition Scores were produced.


92PAGE 9 OF 92

3.0 Assessment Methodology and Approach This Comprehensive Facility Assessment Report includes four critical parts, each with a distinctive methodology and process. Data and information from each part were used to produce the facility assessment findings and needs for DeKalb County Schools for the period of 2011 – 2022.

Section 3.1 includes an assessment of the physical condition of each school facility, building, or site system, such as foundations, roofing coverings, exterior walls, windows, doors, roadways, and parking lots, as well as mechanical, plumbing, and electrical equipment. Also included in the condition assessment process are the verification of building code compliance issues and energy conservation opportunities.

Section 3.2 includes an educational adequacy and technology readiness assessment and analysis of each school’s ability to meet the current educational and technological needs. This assessment was not conducted on storage, ancillary, athletic, or administrative buildings.

Section 3.3 includes a capacity and utilization assessment to define current and future student space needs. This capacity data will be combined with the assessment data in order to develop a facility master plan for DeKalb County Schools.

Section 3.4 includes the evaluation of the educational buildings and selected administrative and support buildings to identify possible energy conservation opportunities. This evaluation was not conducted on storage, ancillary, or athletic buildings.


92PAGE 10 OF 92

3.1 Facility Condition Assessment (FCA) Methodology To start the condition assessment, the Parsons team met with DCSS facilities and maintenance personnel in a kick-off meeting in November 2010 to gain a mutual understanding of the project goals and objectives to achieve a successful assessment. During this meeting, several key actions were taken that set the course on how the work would progress. These actions included:

Establishing the schools and the facilities that would be assessed.

Describing the various phases of the work and types of assessments involved.

Prioritizing the order of the schools assessed.

Identifying existing information that was available for each school.

Selecting and scheduling the schools for the pilot assessment.

Establishing the lines of communication.

Identifying access needs and procedures.

Preparing the Integrated Master Schedule and Weekly Assessment Schedules.

Parsons then conducted a pilot condition assessment on three school facilities and produced preliminary reports for review. After review of the pilot condition assessment reports, some adjustments were made to data collection, cost estimating, and reporting methods and information. Once mutual agreement on the information adjustments was achieved, Parsons’ staff was assigned to perform the condition assessment on the remaining sites.

During the field data collection and individual facility report preparation phase, between November 2010 and April 2011, a total of six separate draft report review sessions were held. The results of those separate facility reports and this summary report are compiled from and supported by Parsons’ Condition Management Estimation Technology (COMET) software, which stores and produces the assessment information for each school and non-school facility.

The process used by Parsons to perform the condition assessment on the facilities was as follows:

Assemble and map a list of the overall facilities to be assessed. From this list, Parsons produced the weekly assessment and reporting schedules for review and approval by DeKalb County Schools.

Gather existing information about each facility from school records and drawings as to the location, type of school, age, size, construction, additions, renovations, and major repairs or replacement of facility systems.

Develop school, facility, and building system cost models for each facility type using the RS Means cost estimating guides which are integral to Parsons’ COMET software to estimate facility Current Replacement Values (CRV).

Review and update the cost models with historical construction costs paid by DeKalb County Schools.


92PAGE 11 OF 92

Interview school administration, facilities management, maintenance, and operations personnel to learn what the people maintaining the schools know about the facilities, such as the original construction date, additions and upgrades done since construction, planned or on-going projects, and any known problems with the various facility systems, such as the foundation, structure, the mechanical, electrical, and plumbing systems, and the floor, wall, and ceiling finishes.

Review documents furnished by the DeKalb County Schools to learn more about special problems and needs, such as completed work orders, outstanding work orders, roof reports, and other studies. This includes information from the Special-Purpose Local-Option Sales Tax (SPLOST) data compiled by the district and any items for construction or improvement already identified by the district.

Visually assess and photograph the facilities to independently determine the overall physical condition of the existing components and systems, and prepare deficiency reports and cost estimates.

Enter the collected data into Parsons COMET proprietary software and database tool, gaining access to approved cost models that are designed for facilities assessment, cost estimating, reporting, and planning.

Identify energy conservation opportunities for each school or non-school main building.

Analyze the condition assessment data for completeness and produce individual facility assessment reports.

Henderson Middle School


92PAGE 12 OF 92

3.2 Educational Adequacy and Technology Readiness Assessments Methodology MGT of America, Inc. conducted assessments of educational adequacy and technology readiness for DeKalb County Schools (DCSS) from October through December 2010. In preparation for the site visits, MGT staff met with the district’s curriculum and technology specialists to ensure that the MGT data collection software, Building Assessment System (BASYS) was calibrated to measure the DCSS schools against the district’s current educational guidelines. This software has been used to evaluate educational adequacy and technology readiness for thousands of school buildings across the country. BASYS provides a consistent assessment of a district’s existing facilities.

MGT conducted two separate assessments: educational adequacy and technology readiness. The educational adequacy assessment evaluates how well the facility supports the educational program that it houses. This assessment looks at both the inside and the outside of the school. For the outside of the school, there are assessments regarding parking, traffic safety, play and athletic facilities, and signage. For the inside of the school, there are three issues relative to each kind of space: size, adjacency, and storage/fixed equipment.

Size of spaces – For example, are the classrooms large enough for the assigned enrollment; is the cafeteria large enough to seat an appropriate percent of the student body.

Adjacency of spaces – For example, is the library adjacent to the classrooms for easy access to information and support; is the music space near other noisy spaces.

Storage and fixed equipment in spaces – For example, do the science rooms have fire extinguishers and other safety equipment; is there space in the classrooms for teacher and student materials to be stored.

The technology readiness assessment measures the capability of the existing infrastructure to support information technology and associated equipment. This assessment does not include the number of computers or other devices. Instead, it reviews the capacity of the infrastructure to support current and planned technology.

These assessments measure the educational and programmatic needs required to promote safe and effective learning environments. A school-by-school assessment of educational adequacy and technology readiness is essential since all of these factors impact the learning environment

The district asked that all schools/school types be visited and have an on-site assessment. MGT assessed 144 schools through site visits. Each site visit began with a meeting between the site administrator (typically the principal or assistant principal) and the evaluator to discuss the educational program for the school. The principal then conducted a tour that included both the inside of the building(s) and the outside of the site, including play/athletic fields, parking lots, and circulation areas. The evaluator noted the appropriateness of approximately 50 items, the number of items varying depending on the grade level of the school. See Appendix D and E for the DCSS space guidelines and the assessment scoring criteria used for this assessment. The recorded data was entered into BASYS and a draft report was generated and reviewed with the site administrator. Community members and staff were included on each building tour.


92PAGE 13 OF 92

The assessments address the following major components, which will be discussed below:

Educational Guidelines, including room size

Space characteristics

Learning environment

Relationship of spaces

Technological infrastructure

Educational Guidelines MGT staff met with DCSS staff to establish the educational guidelines to be used to measure the current applicability of its educational facilities to support the educational program. The educational guidelines were then used to calibrate BASYS. This review included a review of appropriate room sizes based on the educational programs they housed.

Space Characteristics The educational assessment determined how well room sizes and configurations support the educational process and the district educational programs. On-site assessments were conducted using the BASYS software that is specifically designed to assess the educational adequacy measured against DCSS guidelines. BASYS was used to assess all spaces which make up the complete facility as listed in the Proposal, including instructional, administrative, and janitorial spaces.

Learning Environment MGT staff evaluated how well each facility supports a positive learning environment, including natural light levels, acoustics, and other characteristics.

Relationships of Spaces The assessment included how well educational, administrative, and other areas relate to each other. It is important to determine if all the noisy spaces, including the cafeteria, gym, and music rooms, are appropriately located relative to the quiet spaces like the classrooms or media center. It is also important that the main administrative offices are near the front door.

Technological Infrastructure MGT staff evaluated the facility infrastructure and its ability to support technology-based instructional delivery and administrative functions. This assessment included the evaluation of LANs, WANs, electricity available for classroom equipment, cable TV access, data drops, and other information systems support.


92PAGE 14 OF 92

3.3 Demographics, Capacity and Utilization Assessment Methodology 3.3.1 Demographics Methodology To be effective, a facility master plan must be responsive to the current and future number of students the district serves. Determining the future enrollment of the district requires the examination of a variety of demographic factors such as historic trends, live births, the number of housing units, local events, etc. It is important that all factors that could potentially impact student enrollment be considered and the correct methods employed when projecting future enrollment.

MGT used a multi-faceted approach to project enrollment for DeKalb County Schools. To begin, MGT collected two forms of data: quantitative (statistical data) and qualitative (demographic trends based on interviews). Quantitative data sources were obtained from the district, the county, and the U.S. Census Bureau (Census) in the form of historical and forecasted population (total population and total population broken down into age brackets), live births, housing units, and historical enrollment. Qualitative data was gathered from conversations with district officials familiar with enrollment trends and county planners. Both forms of data were critical to the preparation of enrollment projections for the district’s ten year facility master plan.

Next, MGT examined the district from three perspectives: the district as a whole, the super cluster system, and magnet/charter school trends. Examining the district as a whole was to provide context. However, in a district as large as DeKalb County Schools, analyzing trends solely at the district level can be misleading--there are areas within the district trend differently from the district as a whole. It was necessary to be aware of those area trends in order for the analysis to be effective. Accordingly, the second perspective divided the district into five super clusters based on high school attendance areas that resemble one another in historical experience and geographic location. The following Exhibit 3-1 identifies the five super clusters.


92PAGE 15 OF 92

Exhibit 3-1 Super Cluster Configuration

Source: DeKalb County School System


92PAGE 16 OF 92

These five super clusters are based on geographic areas. Two additional super clusters allow for analysis of trends at the magnet schools and the charter schools. Because the magnet schools and the charter schools draw enrollment from across the district, the analysis seeks to understand the enrollment trends at these schools separate and apart from the attendance area enrollment-based schools. This third perspective translates down to the individual school level, taking a look at trends within the magnet schools and the charter schools across the district.

Finally, MGT developed enrollment projections for the ten-year planning period, using the weighted average of four base enrollment projection models to determine future enrollment patterns for the district. Enrollment was projected for each super cluster and the projected enrollment for the district was the sum of the super cluster enrollment projections.

3.3.2 Data Examined

Historical Enrollment Historical enrollment provides the basis for all enrollment projections. Enrollment trends from past years can, in the absence of significant events, be reasonably expected to continue for the foreseeable future. Examining historical enrollment also provides insight into why trends do what they do.

The analysis begins with total enrollment. Then, the total enrollment is broken down by grade band, either elementary school (grades K-5), middle school (grades 6-8), or high school (grades 9-12). Frequently, one particular grade band will drive the trend seen in the total enrollment. For example, if total enrollment is increasing, it is instructional to know that elementary school enrollment is also increasing, while middle school and high school enrollment is holding steady. In such as situation, a planner will know that enrollment at the elementary schools will eventually lead to an increase in enrollment at the higher grades and will need to strategize accordingly.

Delving deeper into the data, the grade bands are organized into their respective grade levels (e.g., elementary school grade band into grades K, 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5). To continue the example from above, if elementary school enrollment is increasing, it is helpful to know that kindergarten enrollment was the initial impetus for the increase, and that continued increases in kindergarten enrollment has continued to push elementary school enrollment higher. Armed with this knowledge, a planner will know that elementary school enrollment will also be increasing in the short term.

Once the data has been fully pulled apart, it is also helpful to look at the increase or decrease in grade level enrollment over the historical study period. Trend anomalies such as a significant increase/decrease at a particular grade level require additional analysis. For example, a disproportionate increase in 9th grade enrollment could be caused by a number of factors. Possible reasons could be:

Students migrating from a non-public school after 8th grade and entering public school,

A large number of students retained in 9th grade due to poor academic performance, or

A significant number of students transferring from another part of the district to attend 9th grade in a particular super cluster.

The final perspective on historical enrollment is that of the average cohort survival rates. Cohort survival rates calculate the percentage of students who move from one grade level to the next from year to year. For example, if there are 100 students in grade 1 in 2008 and there are 110 students in grade 2 in 2009, the cohort survival rate is 110 percent. Similar to the analysis of the increase or decrease in enrollment over the study period, analyzing the average cohort survival rate over the historical enrollment study


92PAGE 17 OF 92

period allows a planner to identify additional areas of inquiry as a full understanding of historical enrollment trends is developed.

Intra-District Transfers An analysis of intra-district transfers provides an expanded understanding of historical enrollment trends and the potential effect on anticipated enrollment within a super cluster. For example, if a super cluster has experienced a dramatic increase in enrollment due to a high number of transfer students coming into that super cluster, the effect on enrollment projection methodology differs from the situation in which an increase in enrollment is driven by an increase in live births. Transfers are more volatile and program-based. The relocation of a program could lead to the relocation of that enrollment as well, leaving that super cluster with a much different enrollment picture in the future. Transfer data is critical to understanding historical enrollment trends and formulating a basis for weighting enrollment projection models.

Grade-Level Retention Additional understanding of historical enrollment trends comes from analyzing grade-level retention trends. A bubble in enrollment may be due to an unexpected influx of students, or it could be due to, among other possibilities, a significant number of students not progressing to the next grade level. Rather than assume that a bubble is due to an influx of students, a planner needs to evaluate retention data to determine whether that bubble is due to students being retained due to poor academic performance.

Live Births and Kindergarten Enrollment Another key component to analyzing potential future enrollment is to examine live-birth trends in the district and the live-births-to-kindergarten capture rate. A steady or increasing birth rate in the district could lead to additional students in the district, which would also push future enrollment higher.

When examining the ratio of live-births-to-kindergarten enrollment, live-birth data is collected for the past fifteen years and kindergarten enrollment for the past ten years. For example, a child born in 1990 would enroll in kindergarten in 1995 at the age of five. Therefore, in this analysis, we are looking at how many children are enrolled in kindergarten as compared to the number of children born in the city five years prior to a particular school year.

Two statistics are critical to understanding the relationship between live births and kindergarten enrollment in the district: correlation coefficient and capture rate. The correlation coefficient calculates the relationship between two series of data. A correlation coefficient of 1 indicates a strong relationship; a correlation coefficient of 0 indicates a weak relationship. The capture rate measures the percentage of live births that resulted in kindergarten enrollment five years later.

Future births provide a potential indication of future kindergarten enrollment. Therefore, projecting future live births is essential to understanding what future enrollment could be. This analysis employs two methods for estimating future live births. The first is a simple linear regression analysis, which finds the line of best fit within the historical data and then uses the slope of that line as the future live births projection.

The second method is more complicated and requires an examination of birth rates among females of child-bearing age groups. Child bearing age is generally between ages 15 and 45. By comparing historical live births by female age groupings (e.g., 10-19, 20-24, 25-34, etc.) with the number of females in each age grouping, a natality rate is generated for each grouping. For this analysis, this comparison is done for the 2000 U.S. Census year. An estimated natality rate for each grouping is calculated for 2010.


92PAGE 18 OF 92

Then, the 2010 natality rate is combined with the 2015 estimated female population at each age grouping to generate an estimated number of live births at each age grouping in 2015. Finally, for the years between 2010 and 2015, data is interpolated to plug in a number of live births in the interim years. Those live birth estimates will lead to estimated kindergarten enrollment between 2016 and 2020.

Planners need to examine future live births from both perspectives to validate an understanding of possible future live births and their impact on future kindergarten enrollments.

Housing Units Housing trends in a district are a good indication of where future students will be located. Significant housing increases in a particular area can generally be expected to result in additional students. Conversely, if an area is transitioning from multi-family to single-family housing, fewer students should be expected to be the result.

The key statistic is the student generation factor. In other words, how many students at each grade level do the three types of housing (single family, multi-family, mobile home) tend to produce? The total number of housing units is pulled apart into the three housing types, and the resulting trends are evaluated. Then, a gross student generation rate is calculated by dividing the number of students in a given year by the number of housing units in that same year. Next, each housing unit type is compared to the total number of housing units in that year to determine the proportion of the total each type comprises. That proportion is then multiplied by the gross student generation rate for each grade level. The resulting generation rate provides the planner with an opportunity to examine which type of housing generates more students and apply that understanding to the enrollment projection models.

Population Trends Trends in the population of the district as a whole can help a planner determine whether more students are moving into the district and what the likelihood of future students might be. Population trends analysis looks at the total population size and the age structure of the district. Of particular interest is the shape of the age structure. A pyramid-shaped age structure indicates a growing population. An age structure that is rectangular in shape indicates a stable population, i.e., a population that is neither growing nor shrinking, while an inverted pyramid-shaped age structure suggests an aging or declining population. Furthermore, a projected increase in school-age population suggests that the district will have more students in the future. Planners need to have a sense of the shape of the district’s population age structure to gain insights into possible future enrollment.

Racial Composition Though not a driving component of enrollment projection development, it is important to understand the racial composition of the district as a part of the context for each of the super clusters.

Non-Public School and Charter School Enrollment It is helpful to study the trends in enrollment experienced by other education providers in the area and to identify where common or complimentary trends are occuring. For example, if a decline in district enrollment ocurred over the same period that non-public school enrollment increased, a logical conclusion would be that district students have left to attend non-public schools. On the other hand, if both district and non-public enrollment is declining, the inquiry will lead to additional analysis of population trends to determine whether, for example, fewer children are being born in the district or, perhaps, children are


92PAGE 19 OF 92

leaving the district before reaching school age. Whatever the case may be, comparing district enrollment with non-public school enrollment can help to explain historical district enrollment trends.

Socio-Economic Status Like racial composition, socio-economic status is not a significant factor in developing enrollment projections. However, socio-economic status does provide important context for the analysis of historical data and the development of enrollment projections.

3.3.3 Enrollment Projection Methodology It is critical to understand that enrollment projections are merely an estimate of future activity based on the historical data and information provided. As demonstrated by the district calculations over the past ten years, there can be constant variations in growth. These numbers can be highly accurate, but it must be remembered that the numbers are still a projection or estimate. During the implementation of any of the recommendations provided, it is critical that the district reassess these numbers on a regular basis and adjust plans accordingly.

To identify trends and prepare for adequate spaces, teaching staff and materials and supplies, educational leaders use several methods of projecting enrollment. Among the most commonly used models are Average Percentage Annual Increase, Cohort Survival, Linear Regression, and Student-per-Housing Unit models. Because no one model is foolproof, MGT generates a weighted average of these four “base” models to arrive at its enrollment projection.

A rule of thumb when forecasting enrollment is that the models should use as many years of historical data as there are years in the projection period. In other words, if the model is projecting enrollment for five years from now, then five years of historical data is used. If the model is projecting enrollment for ten years from now, then ten years of historical data is used. Each of the following base models draw data in this manner for their calculations.

Average Percentage Annual Increase Model This model calculates future school enrollment growth based on the historical average growth from year to year for each grade level. This simple model multiplies the historical average percentage increase (or decrease) by the prior year’s enrollment to project future enrollment estimates. For example, if enrollment in first grade decrease five percent from 2000 to 2001 and decreased seven percent from 2001 to 2002, then the average percentage increase/decrease would be six percent, and six percent would be the factor used to project future enrollment in this base model.

Linear Regression Model This model uses a statistical approach to estimating an unknown future value of a variable by performing calculations on known historical values. Once calculated, several future values for different future dates can then be plotted to provide a regression or trend line. MGT has chosen a straight-line model to estimate future enrollment values, a model that is the most accommodating based on the historical data.

Cohort Survival Model This model calculates the growth or decline in a grade level over a period of ten years based on the ratio of students who attend each of the previous years, or the “survival rate”. This ratio is then applied to the incoming class to calculate the trends in that class as it “moves” or graduates through the school system. For example, if history shows that between the first and second grades, the classes for the last ten years


92PAGE 20 OF 92

have grown by an average of 3.5 percent, then the size of incoming classes for the next ten years is calculated by multiplying them by 103.5 percent. If the history shows a declining trend, the multiplying factor would be 100 percent minus the declining trend number.

The determination of future kindergarten enrollment estimates is critical, especially for projections exceeding more than five years. There are two methods of projecting kindergarten enrollment. The first model is based on the correlation between historical birth rates (natality rates) and historical kindergarten enrollment. The second model uses a linear regression line based on the historical kindergarten enrollment data. The correlation model was selected due to the strong correlation between live births and kindergarten enrollment as discussed above.

Students-Per-Household Model This last model utilizes the estimated number of households as its base data. Using the housing unit data and historical enrollment data, MGT created a student generation factor for each projected housing unit. By taking the total enrollment by grade level and dividing it by the current housing levels, a student generation factor (SGF) was calculated for each grade level. This factor indicates the number of students within each grade level that will be generated by each new housing unit.

Weighted Average Once each of these four base models has been calculated, MGT generates a weighted average of each of the models. A weighted average allows the analysis to reflect all of the trends observed in the historical data and the over-arching themes from the qualitative information gathered in this process. The weighted average also works to maximize the strengths of each of the “base” models.

Two models, the Average Percentage Annual Increase Model and the Linear Regression Model, emphasize historical data. These models are quite effective predictors if there is no expectation of unusual community growth or decline and student population rates have minimal fluctuation.

The Cohort Survival Model also uses historical enrollment numbers, but takes into account student-mobility patterns and the effects of the natality rates in prior years. The Cohort Survival Model is perhaps the best-known predictive tool using this type of data. However, like the Annual Percentage Annual Increase Model and the Linear Regression Model, the Cohort Survival Model loses its predictive capabilities in communities that experience, or are expecting to experience, more rapid growth.

The Students-Per-Household Model allows the planner to take into account projections for housing developments and general growth in the county. This model looks forward and is based on the input from local planners. The planning information is important and the district should continue to monitor this information.

3.3.4 Capacity Methodology MGT uses the Instructional Use Model to calculate a school’s capacity. The Instructional Use Model counts the number of the various types of instructional rooms and multiplies that number by a students-per-room or loading factor to identify the gross capacity for the school. The gross capacity is then multiplied by a scheduling factor, which takes into account the realities of how the space is used. For example, middle and high school students move from room to room and enroll in a variety of courses. As a result, some rooms will sit empty or will be less than fully occupied at any given time. Teacher preparation periods will also contribute to rooms not being used for instruction at a particular time. Therefore, MGT uses a 75 percent scheduling factor to reduce the gross capacity of the building to reflect the unused rooms due to the realities of how a high school functions. An elementary school, on the other


92PAGE 21 OF 92

hand, has students that remain in one room for most of the school day. Therefore, MGT uses a 90 percent scheduling factor for elementary schools to reflect the fairly consistent, day-long use of elementary classrooms. The guidelines used for these calculations are listed below.

Exhibit 3-2 Instructional Space Model Guidelines

Instructional Space Model Guidelines

Room Type MGT Students/ Room

Preschool 20

Kindergarten 20

K-5 Early Intervention (EIP) self-contained & pull-out classes 18

1-3 22

4-8 (E/LA, Math, Social Studies) 28

4-8 (Science) 0

K-3 Fine Arts (Music, Art) 0

6-8 Fine Arts & World Language 28

4-8 (all other subjects) 28

9-12 (E/LA, Math, Social Studies, World Language) 28

9-12 (Science) 28

9-12 (all other subjects) 28

Typing/Keyboarding 24

Vocational Labs 24

Instrumental Music (Band) (Secondary) 40

Choral Music (Secondary) 40

Physical Education (Secondary) 44


92PAGE 22 OF 92

Exhibit 3-2 Instructional Space Model Guidelines (cont.)

Instructional Space Model Guidelines

Room Type MGT Students/

Room

SPED - K-5 Gifted 12

SPED - K-5 Resource 12

SPED - 6-12 Gifted (Resource and Advanced Content) 12

SPED - 6-12 Remedial (REP) 12

Alternative Programs (ask principal) 20

K-3 ESOL 13

4-8 ESOL 16

9-12 ESOL 20

Computer Lab 0

Spec. Ed. - Self Contained 8

Portable (classrooms, not buildings) 0

Scheduling Factors

Elementary Schools 90.0%

Middle Schools 75.0%

High Schools 75.0% Source: MGT of America, Inc., 2011


92PAGE 23 OF 92

3.4 Energy Conservation Analyses Methodology Concurrent with the facility condition assessment, the teams also conducted a system level energy evaluation on the main educational buildings at each school to identify potential energy conservation opportunities. Prior to commencing this work, Parsons identified eight (8) UNIFORMAT II building systems that could offer potential energy conservation opportunities. The identified systems included:

Roof Coverings & Insulation

Exterior Windows

Window Treatments

Interior Lighting

Exterior Lighting

Heating, Cooling & Air Conditioning (HVAC)

Plumbing

Building Controls & Automation

The assessment teams subsequently assessed and identified for each school the systems that due to overall aged and condition, and if replaced, could provide potential energy conservation to the school system. Parsons prepared and provided to DeKalb County Schools the findings and opportunities for energy conservation for each of the schools. Summary of the findings and potential conservation opportunities for DeKalb County Schools can be found in the Findings section of this report. A large majority of the energy conservation opportunities can be achieved through the course of replacing those building systems that are identified as beyond their service life and are identified as current deferred needs (2010 – 2012) in the individual building assessment reports.

Cooling Generating System at Miller Grove Middle School


92PAGE 24 OF 92

4.0 Findings DCSS has school facilities that are performing well and should continue to meet the school system’s needs; however, the district must contend with the inevitable aging process of the facilities7, fluctuating numbers of students, and changing educational programs. Older schools have building and grounds systems that have already surpassed their service life and need replacing now, while the life cycle of some newer school systems will expire and need replacing in the next 10 years. Some schools are experiencing growth due to new student in-flow and, in some schools, student enrollments are decreasing as a result of demographic migration from one area to another. New technologies and initiatives that envision the evolving relationship between school facilities and student performance and behavior are profoundly impacting the school facilities and curricula. Addressing facility condition, educational adequacy, capacity and utilization, and technology readiness needs is critical to meet the DeKalb County School’s Master Plan initiatives.

This section of the report includes the findings of the facility assessments and includes four separate parts which describe the methodology and approach used to conduct the assessments. These four parts allow a review of the facility assessment findings and needs for DeKalb County Schools for the period of 2011 – 2022.

Section 4.1 includes the results of the physical condition assessment of each school facility, building or site system, such as foundations, roof coverings, exterior walls, windows, doors, roadways, and parking lots, as well as the mechanical, plumbing, and electrical equipment.

Section 4.2 includes the results of the educational adequacy and technology readiness assessments, and analysis of each school’s ability to meet the educational and technological needs into the future.

Section 4.3 includes the results of the capacity and utilization assessment and defines current and future student space needs.

Section 4.4 includes the various energy conservation opportunities for the schools.

Miller Grove High School

7 A facility refers to site(s), building(s), or building addition(s), or athletic features or combinations thereof that provide a particular service or support of an educational purpose.


92PAGE 25 OF 92

4.1 Facility Condition Assessment (FCA) Findings Part 1 details the findings on the physical condition of the building and site systems installed at each school facility. Information in this section is derived from the methods and approach used by the assessment team and described earlier to visually assess each school. This section includes the following information:

Benchmark Indices and Measurements Used to Rate the Current Physical Condition of Each School

Current Facility Condition Index and Rating for Each School

Facility Condition Index by Facility Type, e.g., Elementary School (ES), Middle School (MS), High School (HS), P-12 School, and Non-School Site (NSS)

Analysis and Comparison of Facility Age of the DeKalb County Schools

Deferred Maintenance and Capital Renewal Cost Estimates

Deferred Maintenance, Educational Adequacy, and Technology Readiness Needs by Super Cluster

Deferred Maintenance and Capital Renewal Needs by Gross Square Feet (GSF)

Facility Condition Index (FCI) by GSF

Current Needs by Facility System (Roofs, Windows, Etc.)

Current Needs by Deficiency Priority

Current Needs by Deficiency Category

Current Needs by Deficiency Distress

Capital Renewal Needs Forecast (2013 – 2022)

Funding Options to Target Condition Improvement

Benchmark Indices and Measurements When reading the findings of this report, it is important to understand that an assessment is a snapshot of conditions found at a facility on the day it is inspected. Facility conditions typically change subtly over time; however, they can also change very quickly. For example, the day after an inspection is conducted, a facility system or component may break or be repaired, and that break or repair will not be reflected in the assessment findings. Schools removed from or added to service after a scheduled field assessment will not be represented accurately. For this reason, the findings in this report should be viewed as time-bound although the conditions at the sites are ever-changing.

The Facility Condition Index (FCI) Standard One of the tasks of the assessment is to determine the Facility Condition Index (FCI) for each facility and the cost variables that are to be used in the FCI determination. The National Association of College and University Business Officers (NACUBO) established the FCI standard and defined the FCI as a ratio of the Cost of Repairs (Deferred Maintenance) divided by the Current Replacement Value (CRV) of a facility. This is typically expressed as a ratio:

FCI = Cost of Repairs (DM) / Current Replacement Value (CRV)


92PAGE 26 OF 92

NACUBO established and published this standard in 1991 as a means to quantitatively measure the physical condition of a facility or portfolio of facilities. This standard is widely used today. The standard provides a rating system relative to the FCI to offer a qualitative sense of the “Good”, “Fair”, “Poor”, or “Unsatisfactory” condition of a facility (or its components, or a group of facilities) against a cost model of a similar facility as if it was at the beginning of its useful life, or fully “renewed” to today’s standards. As shown below, the lower the FCI, the better the facility condition.

FCI% Rating

0% - 15%Good: The facility is in overall good physical condition with 15% or less of the value of the building systems needing repair or replacement.

15.1%- 30% Fair: The facility is in overall fair condition with 15.1% to 30% of the value of the building systems needing repair or replacement.

30.1% - 50%Poor: The facility is in overall poor condition with 30.1 to 50% of the value of the building systems needing repair or replacement. Many of the building systems have exceeded their expected useful life.

50%

Unsatisfactory: The facility is in unsatisfactory physical condition with more that 50% of the value of the building systems needing repair or replacement. Many of the building systems are failing or no longer meet the needs of the facility.

DeKalb County Schools FCI

Cost Estimates The cost and budget estimates in this report are order-of-magnitude8 repair estimates for full or partial replacement of expired systems or elements, out-of-cycle repairs, and modifications. In some cases, the total of these estimates may exceed a facility’s Current Replacement Value—an indicator that it may be more economical to replace a facility than to repair it. The cost estimates are taken from two sources. The first source is the 2011 RS Means Square Foot Cost for Construction Estimating Guide which provides the square foot unit cost estimate for each of the facility systems. The second source of the cost estimates is a comparison of the national RS Means unit cost to the actual, local cost of construction being paid by DeKalb County Schools.

Special Note regarding the Current Needs Budget Estimates for 2011 – 2012

During the course of the facility condition assessment the assessment teams discovered and observed damage to some foundation and exterior wall systems where further study and testing is needed to determine the best repair or remediation solution. In such cases, the assessment teams have provided budget estimates to conduct the additional study and testing. An estimated cost to perform the best repair or remediation solution has not been included in the budget estimates.

Additional Project Costs The cost estimates include additional project costs, such as design and management fees, surveys, permits, materials testing, and contingency.

8 Order of Magnitude is a rough approximation, made with a degree of knowledge and confidence that the estimated figure falls within a reasonable range of cost values.


92PAGE 27 OF 92

4.1.1 Condition Finding #1: Facility Condition Index (FCI) and Rating for Each Facility The table below contains the Current Deferred Maintenance Cost, Current Replacement Value, Facility Condition Index (FCI), and Rating for each school or non-school in DeKalb County.

Facility NameYear Built




Budget Cost


Budget Cost


Budget Cost

Current Replacement

Value FCI %

Condition Rating

DeKalb County School System 14,396,754 $768,574,380 $356,946,000 $15,334,000 $3,177,777,708 24.19% Fair Elementary Schools 5,816,857 $420,306,027 $143,491,000 $5,844,000 $1,299,034,215 32.36% Poor Allgood Elementary 1955 63,989 $6,363,842 $1,269,000 $86,000 $13,517,001 47.08% Poor Ashford Park Elementary 1955 49,726 $2,702,772 $1,602,000 $75,000 $10,716,578 25.22% Fair Atherton Elementary 1964 64,356 $7,246,269 $1,133,000 $72,000 $13,352,153 54.27% Unsat Austin Elementary 1975 60,581 $4,649,209 $3,517,000 $28,000 $13,219,479 35.17% Poor Avondale Elementary 1953 71,567 $10,226,565 $1,009,000 $61,000 $19,641,998 52.06% Unsat Bob Mathis Elementary 1975 69,401 $5,301,507 $1,489,000 $75,000 $23,846,622 22.23% Fair Briar Vista Elementary 1955 58,418 $7,177,740 $1,587,000 $93,000 $12,196,956 58.85% Unsat Briarlake Elementary 1957 53,750 $5,529,511 $1,700,000 $52,000 $13,971,344 39.58% Poor Brockett Elementary 1961 54,794 $6,273,203 $1,301,000 $59,000 $12,521,881 50.10% Unsat Browns Mill Elementary 1990 75,978 $3,094,130 $2,054,000 $67,000 $16,296,611 18.99% Fair Canby Lane Elementary 1967 67,806 $6,183,967 $994,000 $81,000 $14,032,927 44.07% Poor Cary Reynolds Elementary 1961 73,466 $6,195,299 $2,656,000 $77,000 $14,939,838 41.47% Poor Cedar Grove Elementary 1975 75,901 $5,869,487 $888,000 $117,000 $15,484,984 37.90% Poor Chapel Hill Elementary 1967 69,150 $8,226,293 $1,785,000 $110,000 $13,922,961 59.08% Unsat Chesnut Elementary 1969 52,018 $5,007,535 $2,051,000 $50,000 $11,491,572 43.58% Poor Clifton Elementary 1967 59,801 $4,881,298 $741,000 $35,000 $14,005,379 34.85% Poor Columbia Elementary 1961 75,793 $6,683,544 $1,893,000 $85,000 $16,227,895 41.19% Poor Coralwood Diagnostic Center 1967 38,102 $243,680 $2,217,000 $0 $7,938,213 3.07% Good DeKalb Elementary School of the Arts 1958 68,865 $2,471,777 $599,000 $32,000 $14,560,649 16.98% Fair Dresden Elementary 1963 69,760 $3,846,896 $1,604,000 $103,000 $13,538,173 28.42% Fair Dunaire Elementary 1967 67,401 $4,457,723 $2,011,000 $83,000 $14,738,709 30.25% Poor Dunwoody Elementary 2009 150,020 $16,568 $2,444,000 $23,000 $44,725,846 0.04% Good E.L. Bouie Elementary 1996 91,602 $1,392,505 $1,553,000 $53,000 $19,947,555 6.98% Good Eldridge Miller Elementary 1981 72,443 $7,759,358 $1,930,000 $76,000 $14,166,371 54.77% Unsat Evansdale Elementary 1967 53,998 $4,106,363 $2,024,000 $60,000 $11,992,543 34.24% Poor Fairington Elementary 1975 66,977 $4,395,435 $2,959,000 $132,000 $13,922,678 31.57% Poor Fernbank Elementary 1958 61,027 $7,041,787 $2,479,000 $52,000 $13,513,156 52.11% Unsat Flat Rock Elementary 2007 107,937 $667,504 $2,170,000 $67,000 $23,567,685 2.83% Good Flat Shoals Elementary 1966 63,644 $3,826,857 $1,836,000 $76,000 $14,088,453 27.16% Fair Glen Haven Elementary 1943 66,827 $2,605,595 $961,000 $46,000 $14,107,116 18.47% Fair Gresham Park Elementary 1958 55,718 $6,829,751 $1,710,000 $58,000 $12,584,750 54.27% Unsat Hambrick Elementary 1971 72,384 $6,845,794 $1,085,000 $89,000 $15,697,549 43.61% Poor Hawthorne Elementary 1961 53,418 $4,801,244 $1,815,000 $68,000 $11,340,681 42.34% Poor Henderson Mill Elementary 1965 55,887 $7,440,767 $2,246,000 $69,000 $16,984,911 43.81% Poor Hightower Elementary 1958 54,213 $1,285,043 $1,891,000 $50,000 $11,818,057 10.87% Good Huntley Hills Elementary 1964 54,012 $6,466,698 $1,580,000 $102,000 $12,296,880 52.59% Unsat Idlewood Elementary 1967 72,668 $5,348,763 $2,001,000 $87,000 $15,009,110 35.64% Poor Indian Creek Elementary 1961 80,323 $9,277,965 $2,125,000 $93,000 $17,697,307 52.43% Unsat Jolly Elementary 1968 71,924 $4,971,698 $1,181,000 $58,000 $15,353,347 32.38% Poor Kelley Lake Elementary 1963 53,237 $4,189,572 $920,000 $51,000 $11,363,903 36.87% Poor Kingsley Elementary 1971 60,378 $6,020,584 $1,734,000 $65,000 $12,414,305 48.50% Poor Kittredge Magnet School at Nancy Creek 1970 57,163 $6,206,535 $1,214,000 $48,000 $12,091,016 51.33% Unsat Knollwood Elementary 1955 63,342 $3,424,725 $1,361,000 $76,000 $14,240,671 24.05% Fair Laurel Ridge Elementary 1958 58,384 $6,561,153 $1,358,000 $77,000 $12,379,130 53.00% Unsat Livsey Elementary 1971 40,414 $4,399,272 $1,139,000 $48,000 $8,756,400 50.24% Unsat


92PAGE 28 OF 92


Gross Square

Footage



Budget Cost


Budget Cost


Budget Cost

Current Replacement

Value FCI %

Condition Rating

Marbut Elementary 1994 98,739 $2,767,985 $1,457,000 $49,000 $21,346,709 12.97% Good McLendon Elementary 1958 58,843 $1,635,565 $1,567,000 $48,000 $12,230,149 13.37% Good Meadowview Elementary 1961 54,761 $6,061,389 $1,193,000 $70,000 $12,003,317 50.50% Unsat Medlock Elementary 1951 40,054 $5,447,634 $877,000 $65,000 $9,201,836 59.20% Unsat Midvale Elementary 1966 60,855 $4,543,503 $1,383,000 $38,000 $13,768,850 33.00% Poor Midway Elementary 1958 71,318 $5,370,735 $913,000 $69,000 $14,099,186 38.09% Poor Montclair Elementary 1967 71,711 $5,160,614 $2,789,000 $58,000 $15,085,698 34.21% Poor Montgomery Elementary 1963 61,857 $6,215,176 $2,006,000 $72,000 $13,184,096 47.14% Poor Murphey Candler Elementary 1969 73,818 $1,922,993 $2,514,000 $165,000 $13,414,403 14.34% Good Narvie Harris Elementary 1998 99,190 $414,609 $319,000 $123,000 $22,013,857 1.88% Good Oak Grove Elementary 1958 55,666 $3,895,055 $1,946,000 $88,000 $14,396,300 27.06% Fair Oak View Elementary 2004 108,000 $4,271,752 $551,000 $79,000 $37,800,690 11.30% Good Oakcliff Elementary 1964 72,228 $4,139,194 $1,619,000 $67,000 $16,506,534 25.08% Fair Panola Way Elementary 1987 86,443 $7,704,227 $1,582,000 $103,000 $17,711,730 43.50% Poor Peachcrest Elementary 1961 72,194 $6,564,877 $2,616,000 $84,000 $14,632,830 44.86% Poor Pine Ridge Elementary 1988 87,192 $6,280,886 $3,541,000 $114,000 $18,308,914 34.31% Poor Pleasantdale Elementary 1968 64,744 $5,386,074 $3,738,000 $135,000 $14,505,285 37.13% Poor Princeton Elementary 2007 102,000 $83,150 $958,000 $47,000 $22,962,258 0.36% Good Rainbow Elementary 1970 72,970 $5,382,475 $2,717,000 $59,000 $15,450,935 34.84% Poor Redan Elementary 1935 82,784 $7,631,840 $1,391,000 $86,000 $17,074,208 44.70% Poor Robert Shaw Elementary 1955 56,249 $6,198,161 $1,170,000 $54,000 $11,541,847 53.70% Unsat Rock Chapel Elementary 1969 73,744 $6,605,587 $173,000 $9,000 $14,510,496 45.52% Poor Rockbridge Elementary 1972 60,708 $8,117,987 $2,190,000 $77,000 $13,039,123 62.26% Unsat Ronald E. McNair Discovery Learning Academy 2008 99,000 $21,726 $2,137,000 $23,000 $22,643,747 0.10% Good Rowland Elementary 1967 64,528 $885,959 $1,003,000 $65,000 $13,766,331 6.44% Good Sagamore Hills Elementary 1961 54,891 $4,847,786 $2,335,000 $40,000 $15,268,273 31.75% Poor Shadow Rock Elementary 1991 112,298 $6,319,707 $654,000 $29,000 $24,242,002 26.07% Fair Sky Haven Elementary 1955 63,875 $7,194,285 $2,492,000 $106,000 $14,216,158 50.61% Unsat Smoke Rise Elementary 1969 65,694 $8,837,248 $2,053,000 $71,000 $14,047,500 62.91% Unsat Snapfinger Elementary 1964 87,316 $3,594,463 $2,725,000 $81,000 $19,636,792 18.30% Fair Stone Mill Elementary 1975 70,896 $6,625,808 $637,000 $27,000 $14,284,617 46.38% Poor Stone Mountain Elementary 1954 65,647 $8,848,976 $2,035,000 $94,000 $13,915,949 63.59% Unsat Stoneview Elementary 1963 71,293 $6,596,528 $1,675,000 $91,000 $16,341,537 40.37% Poor Toney Elementary 1953 56,094 $6,813,151 $1,836,000 $65,000 $11,889,661 57.30% Unsat Vanderlyn Elementary 1973 58,951 $3,090,438 $2,067,000 $14,000 $11,619,629 26.60% Fair Wadsworth Elementary 1958 54,142 $6,452,795 $1,934,000 $63,000 $11,285,505 57.18% Unsat

Woodridge Elementary 1975 58,418 $5,107,390 $1,553,000 $56,000 $11,808,525 43.25% Poor

Woodward Elementary 1961 74,161 $3,742,750 $3,064,000 $114,000 $19,408,287 19.28% Fair

Wynbrooke Elementary 2001 95,022 $1,011,766 $265,000 $81,000 $19,649,108 5.15% Good

Middle Schools 3,156,031 $101,148,284 $49,481,000 $2,791,000 $641,038,900 15.78% Fair Avondale Middle 2000 156,479 $1,056,345 $620,000 $154,000 $35,041,991 3.01% Good

Cedar Grove Middle 1999 162,926 $4,329,585 $2,175,000 $155,000 $35,005,764 12.37% Good

Chamblee Middle 2006 129,449 $1,645,752 $1,682,000 $27,000 $25,695,716 6.40% Good

Champion Middle 1961 131,176 $13,995,260 $3,055,000 $254,000 $26,994,478 51.84% Unsat

Chapel Hill Middle 1991 154,881 $5,369,698 $2,392,000 $131,000 $31,821,022 16.87% Fair

Columbia Middle 2001 161,263 $357,380 $1,502,000 $68,000 $33,503,309 1.07% Good

Freedom Middle 2000 161,263 $839,038 $779,000 $85,000 $31,476,602 2.67% Good

Henderson Middle 1968 158,140 $6,242,405 $4,381,000 $251,000 $30,311,899 20.59% Fair

International Student Center 1958 47,808 $3,208,395 $2,277,000 $62,000 $8,502,158 37.74% Poor

Lithonia Middle 1955 148,358 $2,548,304 $2,025,000 $120,000 $30,950,668 8.23% Good

Mary McLeod Bethune Middle 2001 161,263 $1,745,345 $1,017,000 $68,000 $31,053,886 5.62% Good

Miller Grove Middle 1985 132,700 $11,019,027 $3,474,000 $98,000 $25,878,444 42.58% Poor

Peachtree Middle 2006 147,300 $186,524 $1,860,000 $114,000 $32,643,840 0.57% Good Redan Middle 2003 161,263 $1,216,443 $1,159,000 $165,000 $34,563,482 3.52% Good


92PAGE 29 OF 92


Gross Square

Footage



Budget Cost


Budget Cost


Budget Cost

Current Replacement

Value FCI %

Condition Rating

Ronald McNair Sr. Middle 1958 173,040 $17,769,168 $4,762,000 $201,000 $34,160,185 52.02% Unsat

Salem Middle 1989 138,469 $8,149,267 $1,949,000 $200,000 $25,693,885 31.72% Poor

Sequoyah Middle 1965 162,448 $7,658,186 $4,942,000 $183,000 $32,070,579 23.88% Fair

Shamrock Middle 1967 161,542 $5,914,928 $5,392,000 $154,000 $32,399,030 18.26% Fair

Stephenson Middle 1994 190,323 $7,326,677 $1,142,000 $201,000 $39,625,353 18.49% Fair

Stone Mountain Middle 2006 163,590 $115,438 $1,737,000 $52,000 $33,309,577 0.35% Good

Tucker Middle 2004 152,350 $455,119 $1,159,000 $48,000 $30,337,032 1.50% Good

High Schools 4,394,887 $182,943,871 $140,173,000 $5,231,000 $1,100,455,178 16.62% Fair Administrative & Instructional Complex 1988 274,075 $111,872 $2,159,000 $35,000 $63,952,238 0.17% Good

Arabia Mountain High 2009 227,670 $0 $5,532,000 $59,000 $56,679,150 0.00% Good

Avondale High/DeKalb School of the Arts 1955 175,429 $11,364,116 $9,503,000 $331,000 $39,119,117 29.05% Fair

Cedar Grove High 1972 207,700 $12,144,498 $8,058,000 $398,000 $51,557,313 23.56% Fair

Chamblee High 1963 193,320 $26,264,173 $12,548,000 $169,000 $46,842,842 56.07% Unsat

Clarkston High 1964 160,454 $13,409,049 $7,177,000 $245,000 $41,567,127 32.26% Poor

Columbia High 1966 187,240 $4,698,546 $5,818,000 $416,000 $60,291,913 7.79% Good

Cross Keys High 1958 175,847 $8,822,394 $5,197,000 $46,000 $37,441,958 23.56% Fair

DeKalb East Campus/Alt School/Alt Night School

1982 117,375 $3,450,653 $4,579,000 $164,000 $25,281,611 13.65% Good

DeKalb HS of Technology South 1977 47,467 $4,253,406 $1,627,000 $76,000 $10,750,113 39.57% Poor

Druid Hills High 1927 170,915 $8,327,400 $5,655,000 $134,000 $44,035,429 18.91% Fair

Dunwoody High 1972 182,604 $8,082,909 $5,428,000 $167,000 $49,827,995 16.22% Fair

Lakeside High 1965 164,666 $3,227,240 $12,348,000 $409,000 $56,757,248 5.69% Good

Lithonia High 2001 188,851 $1,964,875 $2,640,000 $74,000 $48,515,712 4.05% Good

Margaret Harris Comprehensive School 1967 43,766 $1,643,982 $590,000 $34,000 $10,762,933 15.27% Fair

Martin Luther King Jr. High 2001 186,272 $14,822,854 $3,457,000 $284,000 $48,673,677 30.45% Poor

Miller Grove High 2005 240,000 $2,651,183 $1,757,000 $94,000 $59,262,986 4.47% Good

Redan High 1976 180,668 $10,112,972 $10,575,000 $519,000 $41,473,117 24.38% Fair

Ronald McNair Sr. High 1964 222,769 $484,201 $4,197,000 $300,000 $54,647,343 0.89% Good Southwest DeKalb High 1967 206,179 $15,253,452 $8,849,000 $287,000 $51,626,248 29.55% Fair Stephenson High 1994 241,181 $15,889,204 $4,361,000 $336,000 $55,299,999 28.73% Fair Stone Mountain High 1976 173,918 $13,391,038 $7,074,000 $234,000 $40,374,609 33.17% Poor Towers High 1963 178,624 $2,573,854 $6,750,000 $420,000 $43,914,494 5.86% Good Tucker High 2010 247,897 $0 $4,294,000 $0 $61,800,006 0.00% Good

Non-Schools 337,055 $24,348,979 $0 $0 $63,500,884 38.34% Poor Adams Stadium 1962 14,048 $2,266,405 N/A N/A $4,463,997 50.77% Unsat

Avondale Stadium 1958 7,935 $2,371,195 N/A N/A $3,868,794 61.29% Unsat

Elks Lodge/East Campus II 1979 11,850 $72,285 N/A N/A $2,004,906 3.61% Good

James R. Hallford Stadium 1968 25,465 $2,988,380 N/A N/A $6,921,409 43.18% Poor

North DeKalb Stadium 1962 14,260 $4,482,143 N/A N/A $10,464,310 42.83% Poor

Panthersville Stadium 1968 24,873 $1,791,146 N/A N/A $7,064,901 25.35% Fair

Sam A. Moss Service Center 1970 197,583 $6,476,590 N/A N/A $20,519,684 31.56% Poor

William Bradley Bryant Center 1963 41,041 $3,900,835 N/A N/A $8,192,883 47.61% Poor

P-12 Facilities 151,382 $15,824,124 $5,384,000 $270,000 $31,072,421 50.93% Unsat DeKalb Transition Academy 1953 24,964 $2,988,219 $1,496,000 $75,000 $4,485,353 66.62% Unsat

Eagle Woods Academy 1970 44,000 $4,881,056 $1,578,000 $46,000 $8,268,125 59.03% Unsat

Fernbank Science Center 1967 38,740 $1,641,199 $1,506,000 $115,000 $7,881,831 20.82% Fair

Warren Technical School 1963 43,678 $6,313,650 $804,000 $34,000 $10,437,112 60.49% Unsat


92PAGE 30 OF 92

Eagle Woods Academy


Gross Square

Footage



Budget Cost


Budget Cost


Budget Cost

Current Replacement

Value FCI %

Condition Rating

Vacant / Closed Facilities 540,542 $24,003,095 $18,417,000 $1,198,000 $42,676,110 56.24% Unsat District Offices-Building A & B (Closed) 1973 81,000 $7,193,544 N/A N/A $17,079,896 42.12% Poor

Doraville Drivers Ed 1951 5,545 $996,824 $204,000 $15,000 $1,124,350 88.66% Unsat

Forrest Hills ES (Closed) 1954 68,430 $6,711,789 $3,048,000 $274,000 $14,679,575 45.72% Poor

Heritage School (Closed) 1968 35,132 $4,680,088 $1,602,000 $49,000 $8,626,247 54.25% Unsat

Hooper Alexander ES (Closed) 1935 68,906 $896,992 $4,133,000 N/A Note 1 Note 1 Note 1

Misty Waters (Land Only) 1980 0 $34,720 N/A N/A $208,607 16.64% Fair

Old Briarcliff Open Campus (Closed) 1958 154,855 $1,713,764 $7,196,000 $661,000 Note 1 Note 1 Note 1

Old Chamblee MS/Old Shallowford ES 1968 63,792 $732,082 N/A N/A Note 1 Note 1 Note 1

South Campus (Closed) 1977 5,333 $349,309 $104,000 $9,000 $957,435 36.48% Poor

Tilson Elementary (Closed) 1958 57,549 $693,983 $2,130,000 $190,000 Note 1 Note 1 Note 1Note 1 - Deferred Maintenance Cost reflect cost for demolition only and no FCI or Condition Scores were produced.


92PAGE 31 OF 92

4.1.2. Condition Finding #2: Facility Condition Index (FCI) by Facility Type Detailed in the table below are the Facility Condition Index (FCI) scores and ratings by facility type. The FCI is interpreted as, the lower the score, the better the condition of the facility. As can be seen in the following tables, the overall FCI for DeKalb County School System is rated as “Fair”. School facilities, which are defined as those used as traditional teaching facilities, are in much better condition than the Non-School, P-12 or the Vacant/Closed facilities. Non-School facilities are the athletic stadiums and other facilities used as administrative, special purpose, transportation, maintenance, support, or warehouses. P-12 facilities are older non-traditional facilities being used for special purpose or alternative school programs, and the Vacant/Closed facilities are either older school facilities which are no longer used for educational purposes.

Tucker Middle School

Facility TypeNumber

of Facilities


Site Acres



Budget Cost


Budget Cost


Budget Cost

Current Replacement

Value FCI %

Condition Rating

DeKalb County School System 151 14,396,754 2,919 $768,574,380 $356,946,000 $15,334,000 $3,177,777,708 24.19% Fair Elementary Schools 84 5,816,857 1,051 $420,306,027 $143,491,000 $5,844,000 $1,299,034,215 32.36% Poor Middle Schools 21 3,156,031 718 $101,148,284 $49,481,000 $2,791,000 $641,038,900 15.78% Fair High Schools 24 4,394,887 835 $182,943,871 $140,173,000 $5,231,000 $1,100,455,178 16.62% Fair Non-Schools 8 337,055 126 $24,348,979 $0 $0 $63,500,884 38.34% Poor P-12 Facilities 4 151,382 50 $15,824,124 $5,384,000 $270,000 $31,072,421 50.93% Unsat Vacant / Closed Facilities 10 540,542 139 $24,003,095 $18,417,000 $1,198,000 $42,676,110 56.24% Unsat


92PAGE 32 OF 92

4.1.3. Condition Finding #3: Distribution by Facility Type The facility type is the educational level provided by the facility. The square foot amounts include all permanent buildings, ancillary buildings, and athletic buildings. The following table indicates the functional distribution by gross square feet (GSF), the percent of total GSF, and associated FCI for each type of facility.

Cedar Grove Elementary School

`Number

of Facilities


% of Gross SF FCI %

Condition Rating

DeKalb County School System 151 14,396,754 100% 24.19% Fair Elementary Schools 84 5,816,857 40% 32.36% Poor Middle Schools 21 3,156,031 22% 15.78% Fair High Schools 24 4,394,887 31% 16.62% Fair Non-Schools 8 337,055 2% 38.34% Poor

P-12 Facilities 4 151,382 1% 50.93% Unsat Vacant / Closed Facilities - 10 Total 10 540,542 4% 56.24% Unsat


92PAGE 33 OF 92

4.1.4. Condition Finding #4: Facility Age According to the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), in 1998 the average age of a public school building in the United States was 42 years old. The average age ranged from 46 years in the Northeast and Central states to 37 years in the Southeast. The average age of the DeKalb County school buildings is 41 years, which is one year newer than the NCES national average and four years older than the Southeast regional average. Because the NCES does not track information on non-school buildings, such as administrative or athletic, the DeKalb County non-school buildings are not included in these figures. The following chart illustrates the average FCI per decade built, comparing the DeKalb County school buildings to the NCES average. This data makes clear the significant investment that DCSS has made in both building new schools and maintaining their older ones.

1 2 1

31

56

23

8 9

19

10

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

0.4

0.45

0.5

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

1920

1930

1940

1950

1960

1970

1980

1990

2000

2010

FCI

Scho

ols

Decade

Schools Avg. FCI

School Characteristics DeKalb CountyNational Center for Education Statistics

(NCES)Average Age 41 42

Median Date Built 1967 N/ABuilt before 1950 3% 28%

Built between 1950 and 1969 58% 45%Built between 1970 and 1984 17% 17%

Built after 1985 21% 10%

Excludes Adequacy and Technology Needs


92PAGE 34 OF 92

4.1.5. Condition Finding #5: Deferred Maintenance and Capital Renewal Cost Estimates The following table summarizes the cost estimates and indices for the Current Period (2011 -2012) condition deferred maintenance needs and the Forecast Period (2013 – 2022) capital renewal needs.

Finding Budget EstimateCondition Deferred Maintenance Needs (2011 - 2012) $768,574,380

Educational Adequacy Needs (2011 - 2012) $356,946,000Technology Infrastructure Readiness Needs (2011 - 2012) $15,334,000

Total Current Facility Needs (2011 - 2012) $1,140,854,380

Capital Renewal Needs (2013 - 2017) $394,590,651Capital Renewal Needs (2018 - 2022) $563,196,625

Total Forecast Capital Renewal Facility Needs (2013 - 2022) $957,787,276

Grand Total Current and Forecast Facility Needs (2011 - 2022) $2,098,641,656

Condition Deferred

Maintenance Needs

(2011 ‐ 2012) $773,882,200,

37%

Educational Adequacy Needs (2011 ‐ 2012) $356,946,000

17%

Technology Infrastructure

Readiness Needs (2011 ‐ 2012) $15,334,000

1%

Forecast Capital Renewal

Needs (2013 ‐ 2017)$393,801,603

19%

Forecast Capital Renewal

Needs (2018 ‐ 2022)$563,257,856

27%


92PAGE 35 OF 92

Notes:

1) Condition Deferred Maintenances needs reflect order-of-magnitude estimates as of 2011 and represent Current Period (2011 – 2012) deferred maintenance needs. This figure includes building code compliance deficiencies and energy conservation opportunities. Capital Renewal needs for the Forecast Period (2013 – 2022) is excluded.

2) Current Replacement Value (CRV) represents the hypothetical total cost of rebuilding or replacing an existing facility in current dollars to its optimal condition under current codes and construction methods.

3) Capital Renewal needs are forecast needs based on the anticipated chronological expiration of the remaining useful life of those building system not yet expired as of 2011. Dollar amounts are order-of-magnitude estimates.

4) During the course of the facility condition assessment the assessment teams discovered and observed damage to some foundation and exterior wall systems where further study and testing is needed to determine the best repair or remediation solution. In such cases, the assessment teams have provided budget estimates to conduct the additional study and testing. An estimated cost to perform the best repair or remediation solution has not been included in the budget estimates.

Hawthorne Elementary School


92PAGE 36 OF 92

4.1.6. Condition Finding #6: Deferred Maintenance, Educational Adequacy, and Technology Readiness Needs by Super Cluster The following chart and table provides the condition deferred maintenance, educational adequacy, and technology readiness needs for the Current Period (2011- 2012) by DCSS Super Cluster.

Cluster



Budget Cost


Budget Cost


Budget CostDeKalb County School System $768,574,380 $356,946,000 $15,334,000

Super Cluster 0 $49,993,273 $19,923,000 $1,313,000Super Cluster 1 $111,198,714 $62,281,000 $1,604,000Super Cluster 2 $117,439,760 $64,778,000 $2,146,000Super Cluster 3 $123,314,036 $44,028,000 $2,453,000Super Cluster 4 $146,231,418 $61,976,000 $3,224,000Super Cluster 5 $178,171,159 $77,354,000 $3,866,000Super Cluster 6 $42,226,020 $26,606,000 $728,000

$0

$20

$40

$60

$80

$100

$120

$140

$160

$180

$200

Super Cluster 0

Super Cluster 1

Super Cluster 2

Super Cluster 3

Super Cluster 4

Super Cluster 5

Super Cluster 6

Millions

2011 ‐ 2012 Deferred Maintenance Estimated Budget Cost

2011 ‐ 2012 Educational Adequacy Estimated Budget Cost

2011 ‐ 2012 Technology Readiness Estimated Budget Cost


92PAGE 37 OF 92

4.1.7. Condition Finding #7: Deferred Maintenance and Capital Renewal Needs by Gross Square Feet (GSF) The following chart and table indicate condition deferred maintenance needs for the Current Period (2011- 2012) and capital renewal needs for the Forecast Period (2013 – 2022). This finding does not include educational adequacy or technology readiness needs.

Finding Gross SF Assessed

Budget Estimate

Cost SF% of

Budget Estimate

Condition Deferred Maintenance Needs (2011 - 2012) 14,396,754 $768,574,380 $53.39 37%Educational Adequacy Needs (2011 - 2012) 14,396,754 $356,946,000 $24.79 17%

Technology Infrastructure Readiness Needs (2011 - 2012) 14,396,754 $15,334,000 $1.07 1%Forecast Capital Renewal Facility Needs (2013 - 2017) 14,396,754 $394,590,651 $27.41 19%Forecast Capital Renewal Facility Needs (2018 - 2022) 14,396,754 $563,196,625 $39.12 27%

Grand Total Current and Forecast Facility Needs (2011 - 2022) 14,396,754 $2,098,641,656 $145.77 100%

2011 ‐ 2012Deferred Condition

$768,574,38036%

2011 ‐ 2012Educational Adequacy

$356,946,00017%

2011 ‐2012Technology

Infrastructure Readiness

$15,334,0001%

2013 ‐ 2017Forecast Capital

Renewal$394,590,651

19%

2018 ‐ 2022Forecast Capital

Renewal$563,196,625

27%

Needs By Square Feet


92PAGE 38 OF 92

4.1.8. Condition Finding #8: Facility Condition Index (FCI) per GSF The following chart and table illustrates the Facility Condition Index (FCI) per GSF. Gross Square Footage figures do not include portable classrooms.

FCI of 0–15%(Good)

5,007,535 SF (35%)

FCI of 15.1‐30%(Fair)

3,463,399 (24%)

FCI of 30.1‐50%(Poor)

3,592,887 (25%)

FCI >50%(Unsatisfactory

)2,332,933 SF

(16%)

FCI by Gross Square Feet

FCI GSF % of GSF

0–15% 5,007,535 35%

15.1-30% 3,463,399 24%

30.1-50% 3,592,887 25%

>50% 2,332,933 16%

Total 14,396,754 100%

FCI% Rating

0% - 15%Good: The facility is in overall good physical condition with 15% or less of the value of the building systems needing repair or replacement.

15.1%- 30% Fair: The facility is in overall fair condition with 15.1% to 30% of the value of the building systems needing repair or replacement.

30.1% - 50%Poor: The facility is in overall poor condition with 30.1 to 50% of the value of the building systems needing repair or replacement. Many of the building systems have exceeded their expected useful life.

50%

Unsatisfactory: The facility is in unsatisfactory physical condition with more that 50% of the value of the building systems needing repair or replacement. Many of the building systems are failing or no longer meet the needs of the facility.

DeKalb County Schools FCI


92PAGE 39 OF 92

4.1.9. Condition Finding #9: Current Needs by Facility System The following tables indicate school condition needs (excluding educational and technology needs) by major building system9. The first table lists the building systems needs at the major system level. The succeeding table expands the major systems into sub-systems. The basis of the cost estimates are taken from two sources. The first source is the 2011 RS Means Square Foot Cost for Construction Estimating Guide which provides the square foot unit cost for each of the facility systems; and the second source of the cost estimates is a local comparison of the RS Means unit cost to the actual cost of construction being paid by DeKalb County Schools.

Condition Deferred Maintenance Needs by Facility Major System

Major Systems Current Needs (2011 - 2012)

% Current Facility Needs

Foundations $806,572 0.10%

Superstructure $196,579 0.03%

Exterior Enclosure $50,514,046 6.57%

Roofing $29,285,345 3.81%

Interior Construction $35,716,797 4.65%

Interior Finishes $100,835,025 13.12%

Conveying $775,398 0.10%

Plumbing $98,709,155 12.84%

HVAC $157,697,909 20.52%

Electrical $102,687,272 13.36%

Equipment $32,868,669 4.28%

Furnishings $32,198,505 4.19%

Special Construction $17,061,723 2.22%

Site Preparation $4,036,820 0.53%

Site Improvements $87,069,014 11.33%

Site Mechanical Utilities $8,637,635 1.12%

Site Electrical Utilities $9,477,916 1.23%

TOTAL $768,574,380 100.00%

Excludes Adequacy and Technology Needs

9 System refers to building and related site work elements or components as described by National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) UNIFORMAT II, Classification for Building Elements (NISTIR 6389), and a format for classifying major facility elements common to most buildings. Elements usually perform a given function, regardless of the design specification, construction method, or materials used.


92PAGE 40 OF 92

Condition Deferred Maintenance Needs by Facility Sub-System

Sub-System Major SystemLife

Cycle

Deferred Maintenance

Estimate

% of Total Deferred

Maintenance Estimate

Terminal & Package Units HVAC 15 86,138,090$ 11%

Floor Finishes Interior Finishes 20 43,405,337$ 6%

Communications and Security Electrical 10 29,131,311$ 4%

Ceiling Finishes Interior Finishes 20 38,819,937$ 5%

Driveways / Roadways Site Improvements 25 29,134,333$ 4%

Roof Coverings Roofing 20 28,484,749$ 4%

Branch Wiring Electrical 30 32,105,948$ 4%

Fixed Furnishings Equipment & Furnishings 20 32,198,505$ 4%

Parking Lots Site Improvements 25 24,951,711$ 3%

Fittings Interior Construction 20 22,142,354$ 3%

Wall Finishes Interior Finishes 10 18,609,751$ 2%

Exterior Windows Exterior Enclosure 30 43,605,422$ 6%

Distribution Systems HVAC 30 24,605,339$ 3%

Lighting Electrical 30 32,292,611$ 4%

Special Facilities Special Construction 20 16,329,319$ 2%

Domestic Water Distribution Plumbing 30 11,169,374$ 1%

Interior Doors Interior Construction 30 12,875,789$ 2%

Pedestrian Paving Site Improvements 25 13,293,202$ 2%

Plumbing Fixtures Plumbing 20 73,882,884$ 10%

Site Development Site Improvements 30 17,740,779$ 2%

Sanitary Waste Plumbing 30 2,992,090$ 0%

Controls & Instrumention HVAC 20 12,893,266$ 2%

Cooling Generating Systems HVAC 30 10,444,080$ 1%

Electrical Service/Distribution Electrical 30 8,401,515$ 1%

Exterior Doors Exterior Enclosure 30 5,268,349$ 1%

Site Lighting Site Electrical Utilities 30 8,515,898$ 1%

Heat Generating Systems HVAC 30 19,545,342$ 3%

Equipment - Kitchen / Commercial Equipment & Furnishings 20 29,835,777$ 4%

Storm Sewer Site Mechanical Utilities 50 5,268,478$ 1%

Site Fuel Distribution - Gas Site Mechanical Utilities 30 138,503$ 0.0%

Other HVAC Systems/Equip HVAC 20 4,071,792$ 0.5%

Other Electrical Systems Electrical 30 755,887$ 0.1%

Special Structures Special Construction 20 704,625$ 0.1%

Rain Water Drainage Plumbing 30 2,038,498$ 0.3%

Roof Openings Roofing 30 800,596$ 0.1%

Institutional Equipment Equipment & Furnishings 20 2,905,555$ 0.4%

Water Supply Plumbing 30 1,733,669$ 0.2%


92PAGE 41 OF 92

Condition Deferred Maintenance Needs by Facility Sub-System (Continued)

Sub-System Major SystemLife

Cycle

Deferred Maintenance

Estimate

% of Total Deferred

Maintenance Estimate

Exterior Walls Exterior Enclosure 100 1,640,275$ 0.21%

Site Electrical Distribution Site Electrical Utilities 30 875,063$ 0.11%

Sanitary Sewer Site Mechanical Utilities 50 9,111,623$ 1.19%

Slab on Grade Foundations 100 284,488$ 0.04%

Other Plumbing Systems Plumbing 30 949,190$ 0.12%

Landscaping Site Improvements 1 1,948,989$ 0.25%

Site Preparation Site Preparation 30 4,036,820$ 0.53%

Elevators and Lifts Conveying 30 775,398$ 0.10%

Standard Foundations Foundations 100 522,084$ 0.07%

Other Equipment - Sports / Athletic / Automotive Equipment & Furnishings 20 217,597$ 0.03%

Site Communications Site Electrical Utilities 30 86,955$ 0.01%

Partitions Interior Construction 100 698,654$ 0.09%

Roof Construction Superstructure 100 196,579$ 0.03%

768,574,380$ 100%Total

Tucker High School


92PAGE 42 OF 92

4.1.10. Condition Finding #10: Current Needs by Deficiency Priority The following table indicates school condition needs (excluding educational and technology needs) by deficiency priority. Priority ranking was determined by assessor and school staff observations. Priorities do not reflect the affordability of needed repairs within a district, nor do they reconcile facility needs with a district’s master plan priorities or educational program objectives. The relatively low figure for Priority 1 – Critical / Immediate needs reveals that critical and safety related work is being managed well by DeKalb County Schools. It is normal for priorities to be reevaluated as financial resources and limits are established. Some Building Code and Energy Conservation Opportunities are considered as deferred maintenance and are included with Priority 3.

Deficiency Priority Description

Current Needs (2011 - 2012)

Budget Estimate

% of Needs

1 - CriticalUsed only for critical issues that pose immediate threats to the life, health, or safety of persons within the facility. $3,653,698 0.5%

2 - Potentially CriticalAssigned to systems or deficiencies that are mission critical and beyond service life or most systems that are 150% beyond service life. $24,968,426 3.2%

3 - NecessaryAssigned to systems or deficiencies that should be repaired to mitigate additional damage. $519,463,016 67.6%

4 - RecommendedAssigned to systems or deficiencies that are beyond their service life, however, exhibit no signs of immediate repair requirements. $179,535,224 23.4%

5 - DiscretionaryAssigned to systems or deficiencies that could be considered cosmetic or low priority issues. $40,954,016 5.3%

Total $768,574,380 100.0%Excludes Adequacy and Technology Needs

Stephenson High School


92PAGE 43 OF 92

4.1.11. Condition Finding #11: Current Needs by Deficiency Category The following table and chart indicate school condition needs (excluding educational and technology needs) by deficiency category. Categories do not reflect the affordability of needed repairs within the district, nor do they reconcile facility needs with the district’s master plan priorities or educational program objectives. Additional Building Code Compliance and Energy Conservation Opportunities are identified as Deferred Maintenance deficiencies because the associated systems are beyond their useful life.

Deficiency Category Description


Budget Estimate

% of Needs

Capital ImprovementsInstallation of a building system where the system did not previously exist (e.g., elementary school gym cooling). $4,314,322 0.56%

Code ComplianceSystem does not meet current code/standards (e.g., missing backflow preventer or accessibility feature). $818,819 0.11%

Deferred MaintenanceIncludes system replacements that are beyond their service life, damaged, broken, inadequate, or needs remediation. $751,452,379 97.77%

Safety

Includes system or component replacements that are not immediate life-safety issues, but could be considered safety risks (e.g., structural study or installation of a hand rail). $11,988,860 1.56%


Capital Improvements$4,314,322

0.56%

Code Compliance $818,8190.11%

Deferred Maintenance$751,452,379

97.77%

Safety$11,988,860

1.56%


92PAGE 44 OF 92

4.1.12. Condition Finding #12: Current Needs by Deficiency Distress The following table and chart indicate condition needs (excluding educational and technology needs) by deficiency distress. Distress does not reflect the affordability of needed repairs within a district, nor does it reconcile facility needs with a district’s master plan priorities or educational program objectives. Distress defines those items that are beyond expected useful life, missing, inadequate, failing, or damaged. As shown, most of the needs in DCSS are based on systems being beyond expected useful life.

Deficiency Distress Description


Budget Estimate

% of Needs

Beyond Service LifeThe system or components have exceeded their design or estimated useful life $637,091,002 82.89%

Damaged Use or function is impaired or broken $36,846,416 4.79%Inadequate System is insufficient for intended purpose $16,250,962 2.11%

Missing System or component is absent $4,718,568 0.61%

Needs RemediationSystem functions sporadically or intermittently; special study or evaluation is needed $73,667,432 9.58%


Beyond Service Life $637,091,002

82.89%

Damaged$36,846,416

4.79%

Inadequate$16,250,962

2.11%

Missing$4,718,568

0.61%

Needs Remediation$73,667,432

9.58%


92PAGE 45 OF 92

4.1.13. Condition Finding #13: Capital Renewal Needs Forecast An integral part of this report is a look toward the future. Having identified Current Period (2011-2012) deferred maintenance needs, Parsons modeled future facility and site improvement depreciation, resulting in Forecast Period (2013–2022) capital renewal needs of $957,787,276. The following chart and table show the District’s capital renewal needs (excluding educational and technology needs). In the chart, the FCI line depicts an increase in FCI from the current 24.19% to 45.71% by 2022 if capital renewal needs and the current $768,574,400 in deferred maintenance needs are not funded. A low FCI score represents a better facility condition than a high score. The current FCI of 24.19% is in the “Fair” category. The projected FCI, based on no capital renewal and no investment in deferred maintenance, would be in the “Poor” category.

Year Capital Renewal Estimate

FCI

2011‐2012 24.19%2013 $41,263,498 16.87%2014 $77,011,454 19.30%2015 $146,050,281 23.89%2016 $98,010,016 26.98%2017 $32,255,402 27.99%

2013 ‐ 2017 Sub‐Total $394,590,651 2018 $110,760,881 31.48%2019 $63,707,667 33.48%2020 $241,988,933 41.10%2021 $116,738,787 44.77%2022 $30,000,357 45.71%

2018 ‐ 2022 Sub‐Total $563,196,625

2013 - 2022 Grand Total $957,787,276Excludes Adequacy and Technology Needs

0.00%

5.00%

10.00%

15.00%

20.00%

25.00%

30.00%

35.00%

40.00%

45.00%

$0

$50,000,000

$100,000,000

$150,000,000

$200,000,000

$250,000,000

$300,000,000

FCI

Capit

al Re

newa

l

Capital Renewal FCI


92PAGE 46 OF 92

The following chart and table illustrates three scenarios to either maintain current school conditions or improve them. Depicted in the chart and table are:

10-Year Funding Needed to Maintain the Current FCI of 24.19 (Fair)

10-Year Funding Needed to Improve the FCI to 15% (Good)

10 Year Funding Needed to Improve the FCI to 8% (Good)

The funding options and scenarios are exclusive of the Educational Adequacy or Technology Readiness needs.


92PAGE 47 OF 92

4.2 Educational Adequacy and Technology Readiness Assessment Findings Educational Guidelines To establish educational adequacy guidelines for the DeKalb County Schools facilities assessment, MGT staff met with a team of curriculum leaders from the district and discussed assessment guidelines for all curriculum areas. MGT reviewed the current DeKalb County Educational Specifications and Design Guidelines document and used the information (see Appendix D for detailed space and technology guidelines) to calibrate their Building Assessment System (BASYS) software for use by the on-site evaluators.

Educational Adequacy and Technology Readiness Assessments This section presents the results of the educational adequacy and technology readiness assessments that were conducted by MGT for the DeKalb County Schools (DCSS). The data in this report represents the results for the 144 schools that were physically assessed.


92PAGE 48 OF 92

4.2.1. Adequacy Finding #1: Educational Adequacy Assessment - Score Range and Average by Facility Type The educational adequacy assessment evaluates how well a facility supports the educational program that it houses. Each school receives one educational adequacy score because the score applies to how well all the buildings at the site support the educational program. The educational adequacy assessment includes the following categories:

The overall environment of the schools with respect to creating a safe, stimulating, and positive learning environment.

Pedestrian/vehicular circulation and the appropriateness of site facilities and signage. The existence of facilities and spaces to support the educational program offered. These

include general classrooms, special learning spaces (e.g. music rooms, libraries, science labs), and support spaces (e.g., administrative offices, counseling offices, reception areas, kitchens, health clinics).

The adequacy of the size of the program spaces. The appropriateness of adjacencies (e.g., physical education space separated from quiet

spaces). The appropriateness of utilities, fixed equipment, storage, and room surfaces (e.g., flooring,

ceiling materials, and wall coverings). The safety and security of various elements in the facility.

Adequacy scores can be interpreted as follows:

90+ Excellent: The facility has all the facility components needed to fully support the educational program.

80-89 Good: The facility is designed to provide for and support the educational program offered. It may have minor suitability issues but generally meets the needs of the educational program.

65-79 Fair: The facility has some problems meeting the needs of the educational program and may require some remodeling.

50-64 Poor: The facility has numerous problems meeting the needs of the educational program and needs significant remodeling or additions.

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

The schools in DeKalb County vary significantly in the degree to which they meet the educational adequacy needs of the programs they house. Using the scale shown above schools which scored above 90 and can be described as having “Excellent” educational adequacy, meaning they essentially provide


92PAGE 49 OF 92

facilities for all educational program needs. It is important to remember that all the schools, regardless of when they were built, were assessed against the current educational specifications. This enables the district to understand how well the schools are supporting the current educational program. Many DCSS schools were designed and built under earlier versions that called for different kinds of spaces or different sizes of spaces or were built before there were comprehensive specifications. This means that some relatively new schools may have lower scores than expected because they were built under different guidelines.

Exhibit 4-1 below presents the range of educational adequacy scores. Educational adequacy scores vary widely, from 98 to 22, with the average for middle schools higher than that for elementary, high schools and PK-12 schools.

Exhibit 4-1 DeKalb County Schools

Educational Adequacy Score Range and Average by Facility Type

Adequacy School Type Minimum Maximum Average

Elementary Schools 32 98 69

Middle Schools 39 95 78

High Schools 22 92 65

PK-12 Schools 38 81 60

Closed 38 80 57

Source: MGT of America, Inc., 2011

Arabia Mountain High School


92PAGE 50 OF 92

4.2.2. Adequacy Finding #2: Educational Adequacy by Site

The following Exhibit 4-2 presents the educational adequacy scores for each school.


Adequacy Scores – By Site

Site Name Adequacy

Score

Elementary Schools Allgood ES 76.78 Ashford Park ES 62.28 Atherton ES 79.39 Austin ES 32.02 Avondale ES 83.48 Bob Mathis ES 74.88 Briar Vista ES 68.19 Briarlake ES 62.96 Brockett ES 72.21 Browns Mill ES 68.34 Canby Lane ES 82.83 Cary Reynolds ES 57.67 Cedar Grove ES 86.30 Chapel Hill ES 69.78 Chesnut ES [Charter] 53.82 Clifton ES 85.48 Columbia ES 70.76 Coralwood ES 31.87 DeKalb ES of the Arts at Terry Mills 89.82 Dresden ES 73.08 Dunaire ES 65.07 Dunwoody ES 80.92 Bouie ES 80.15 Eldridge Miller ES 68.80 Evansdale ES 56.10 Fairington ES 48.27 Fernbank ES 52.44 Flat Rock ES 76.46 Flat shoals ES 66.22 Glen Haven ES 83.16 Gresham Park ES 64.07


92PAGE 51 OF 92


Adequacy Scores – By Site (continued)

Site Name Adequacy Score

Elementary Schools (Cont.) Hambrick ES 82.45 Hawthorne ES 60.22 Henderson Mill ES 52.95 Hightower ES 59.15 Huntley Hills ES 65.75 Idlewood ES 67.75 Indian Creek ES 69.02 Jolly ES 80.78 Kelley Lake ES 79.76 Kingsley ES 66.37 Kittredge ES 75.14 Knollwood ES 74.84 Laurel Ridge ES 72.76 Livsey ES 67.01 Marbut ES 82.72 McLendon ES 68.82 Meadowview ES 74.49 Medlock ES 74.35 Midvale ES 73.39 Midway ES 85.01 Montclair ES 54.45 Montgomery ES 62.02 Murphey Candler ES 60.11 Narvie Harris ES 96.23 Oak Grove ES 59.07 Oakview ES 94.02 Oakcliff ES 73.76 Panola Way ES 78.57 Peachcrest ES 57.57 Pine Ridge ES 52.44 Pleasantdale ES 32.39 Princeton ES 89.00 Rainbow ES 56.39 Redan ES 80.32 Robert Shaw ES 75.65 Rock Chapel ES 97.25 Rockbridge ES 57.76


92PAGE 52 OF 92




Elementary Schools (Cont.) Ronald E. McNair Discovery Learning Academy 74.72

Rowland ES 81.81 Sagamore Hills ES 50.19 Shadow Rock ES 98.00 Shadow Rock Center 83.39 Sky Haven ES 54.32 Smoke Rise ES 63.40 Snapfinger ES 63.46 Stone Mill ES 89.48 Stone Mountain ES 63.70 Stoneview ES 72.49 Toney ES 61.68 Vanderlyn ES 58.94 Wadsworth ES 58.17 Woodridge ES 68.87 Woodward ES 51.63 Wynbrooke ES 96.74

Elementary School Average 69

Middle Schools Avondale MS 94.91 Cedar Grove MS 82.85 Chamblee MS 83.31 Champion MS 70.07 Chapel Hill MS 80.16 Columbia MS 88.04 Freedom MS 93.80 Henderson MS 64.40 International Student Center 38.79 Lithonia MS 82.47 Mary McLeod Bethune MS 91.90 Miller Grove MS 66.36 Peachtree Charter MS 83.78 Redan MS 90.77 Ronald McNair MS 64.64 Salem MS 81.91


92PAGE 53 OF 92




Middle Schools (Cont.) Sequoyah MS 60.91 Shamrock MS 57.11 Stephenson MS 92.29 Stone Mountain MS 86.36 Tucker MS 90.22

Middle School Average 78

High Schools Arabia Mountain HS 74.75 Avondale HS 44.79 DeKalb School of the Arts (DSA) 41.55 Cedar Grove HS 59.69 Chamblee HS 32.56 Clarkston HS 53.53 Columbia HS 67.72 Cross Keys HS 69.30 DeKalb Alternative School 59.30 DeKalb Alternative Night School 59.94 DeKalb HS of Technology South 64.38 Druid Hills HS 65.62 Dunwoody HS 69.11 Lakeside HS 22.09 Lithonia HS 85.48 Margaret Harris Comprehensive School 85.99 M.L. King, Jr., HS 80.72 Miller Grove HS 92.39 Elizabeth Andrews HS 85.62 DeKalb Early College Academy (DECA) 89.58 Redan HS 39.18 Ronald McNair Sr. HS 80.43 Southwest DeKalb HS 55.41 Stephenson HS 81.21 Stone Mountain HS 57.74 Towers HS 60.74 Tucker HS 82.00

High School Average 65


92PAGE 54 OF 92




PK-12 Schools DeKalb Transition Academy 37.73 Eagle Woods Academy 62.73 Fernbank Science Center 59.61 Warren Technical School 80.88

PK-12 School Average 60

Closed Schools Doraville Drivers Ed Site 61.80 Forest Hills ES (Closed) 53.72 Heritage School Site 52.63 Hooper Alexander Facility (Closed) 37.69 Old Briarcliff Open Campus Facility (Closed) 51.72 South Campus Driver Ed Center 79.77 Tilson ES Site (Closed) 61.54

Closed School Average 57

District Average 69


Arabia Mountain High School

4.2.3. A

There is wmatch thedepicts th“Excellen“Fair” catcategory. being met

S

2011 Co

dequacy F

wide variatione needs of the he average adent” category, 2tegory, 32 per Schools in th

t.

ource: MGT

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

omprehensive

Finding #3:

n of educationprograms at

equacy scores24 percent of rcent scored ihe “Poor” and

Adequacy

T of America

ES

De

Perc

Facility Asses

92P

: Percent o

nal adequacy the school, ws by school tyschools scoren the “Poor” d “Unsatisfac

EDeKalb

Scores - Perc

a, Inc., 2011

eKalb CoAdequaent of Sc

sment Report f

PAGE 55 OF 92

of Schools

in the schoolswhile others arype. Of the sced in the “Gocategory, and

ctory” categor

Exhibit 4-3 County Schcent of Schoo

MS

ounty Schacy Scorchools b

for DeKalb Co

s by Facilit

s in DeKalb Cre not as closechools assesseod” categoryd 8% scored iries have facil

hools ols by Facilit

HS

hoolses by Type

ounty School Sy

ty Type

County. Somely matched. ed, 8% of sch, 28 percent sin the “Unsatility needs tha

ty Type

ystem

me facilities cl Exhibit 4-3 b

hools scored iscored in the isfactory” at are currently

Excellent

Good

Fair

Poor

Unsat

osely below n the

y not

4.2.4. A

There are the educatschools inschools atthe high sfew years

S

2011 Co

dequacy F

differences btional adequa

n each rating ct the middle leschool level th.

ource: MGT

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

U

omprehensive

Finding #4:

between elemacy needs of tcategory by sevel than the han at the oth

Adequa

T of America

Unsat

D

Perc

Facility Asses

92P

: Educatio

mentary, middlhe programs chool type. Belementary oer two levels

EDeKalb

acy Scores - P

a, Inc., 2011

Poor

eKalb CoAdequ

cent of S

sment Report f

PAGE 56 OF 92

onal Adequ

le, and high sthey house. EBased on the or high school

This is likely

Exhibit 4-4 County Sch

Percent of Sc

Fair

ounty Scuacy ScoSchools b

for DeKalb Co

uacy Perce

chools based Exhibit 4-4 beassessments, l level, and my a result of t

hools chools by Rat

Good

choolsres by Rating

ounty School Sy

ent of Scho

on how well elow shows ththere are mor

more “Unsatisfthe SPLOST f

ting

Exce

g

ystem

ools by Rat

the facilities he percent of re “Excellent”factory” schofocus over the

llent

ting

meet f ” ols at e past


92PAGE 57 OF 92

Technology Readiness Assessment The BASYS technology readiness score measures the capability of the existing infrastructure to support information technology and associated equipment. This assessment reviews a variety of support systems that are intended to allow current and future technology to be implemented. See Appendix E for a complete listing of the technology readiness criteria. The scores can be interpreted as follows:

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

80-89 Good: The facility has most of the infrastructure to support information technology.

65-79 Fair: The facility is lacking in some infrastructure.

50-64 Poor: The facility is lacking significant infrastructure to support information technology.

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

4.2.5. Adequacy Finding #5: Technology Readiness Score Range and Average by Facility Type Technology readiness scores vary widely, from 100 to 18, with the averages for elementary, middle and high school site types in the “Fair” category. Exhibit 4-5 below presents the range of technology readiness scores and the average technology readiness scores by facility type.


Technology Readiness Score Range and Average by Facility Type

Technology

School Type Minimum Maximum Average

Elementary 52 100 78

Middle School 54 95 79

High School 45 100 76

PK-12 Schools 43 85 63

Closed 18 73 45

Source: MGT of America, Inc., 2011.


92PAGE 58 OF 92

4.2.6. Adequacy Finding #6: Technology Readiness Scores by Site The following Exhibit 4-6 presents the technology readiness scores by school site. As with the educational adequacy score, each school site receives only one technology readiness score, regardless of the number of buildings at a site.


Technology Scores – By Site

Site Name Tech Score

Elementary Schools Allgood ES 70.90 Ashford Park ES 67.50 Atherton ES 75.80 Austin ES 90.00 Avondale ES 81.70 Bob Mathis ES 76.70 Briar Vista ES 65.80 Briarlake ES 79.20 Brockett ES 76.70 Browns Mill ES 80.90 Canby Lane ES 74.20 Cary Reynolds ES 77.50 Cedar Grove ES 66.70 Chapel Hill ES 65.80 Chesnut ES [Charter] 79.20 Clifton ES 87.50 Columbia ES 75.80 Coralwood ES 100.00 DeKalb ES of the Arts at Terry Mills 90.00 Dresden ES 68.30 Dunaire ES 73.30 Dunwoody ES 96.70 Bouie ES 87.50 Eldridge Miller ES 77.50 Evansdale ES 75.90 Fairington ES 57.50 Fernbank ES 81.70 Flat Rock ES 86.70 Flat shoals ES 74.20 Glen Haven ES 85.00 Gresham Park ES 77.50 Hambrick ES 73.40 Hawthorne ES 72.50 Henderson Mill ES 73.30


92PAGE 59 OF 92


Technology Scores – By Site (continued)


Elementary Schools (Cont.) Hightower ES 80.10 Huntley Hills ES 59.20 Idlewood ES 74.20 Indian Creek ES 75.00 Jolly ES 82.50 Kelley Lake ES 79.20 Kingsley ES 76.70 Kittredge ES 81.70 Knollwood ES 74.20 Laurel Ridge ES 71.70 Livsey ES 74.20 Marbut ES 89.20 McLendon ES 82.50 Meadowview ES 72.50 Medlock ES 65.00 Midvale ES 86.70 Midway ES 79.20 Montclair ES 82.50 Montgomery ES 75.00 Murphey Candler ES 51.70 Narvie Harris ES 73.30 Oak Grove ES 65.80 Oakview ES 84.20 Oakcliff ES 80.00 Panola Way ES 74.20 Peachcrest ES 75.00 Pine Ridge ES 71.70 Pleasantdale ES 55.00 Princeton ES 90.00 Rainbow ES 82.50 Redan ES 77.50 Robert Shaw ES 79.20 Rock Chapel ES 97.50 Rockbridge ES 72.50 Ronald E. McNair Discovery Learning Academy 95.00


92PAGE 60 OF 92




Elementary Schools (Cont.) Rowland ES 78.40 Sagamore Hills ES 84.20 Shadow Rock ES 91.70 Shadow Rock Center 100.00 Sky Haven ES 64.20 Smoke Rise ES 76.70 Snapfinger ES 80.00 Stone Mill ES 91.70 Stone Mountain ES 69.20 Stoneview ES 72.50 Toney ES 75.00 Vanderlyn ES 95.00 Wadsworth ES 75.00 Woodridge ES 79.20 Woodward ES 66.70 Wynbrooke ES 81.70

Elementary School Average 78

Middle Schools Avondale MS 76.70 Cedar Grove MS 77.50 Chamblee MS 95.00 Champion MS 54.10 Chapel Hill MS 80.00 Columbia MS 90.00 Freedom MS 87.50 Henderson MS 62.50 International Student Center 69.20 Lithonia MS 80.90 Mary McLeod Bethune MS 90.00 Miller Grove MS 82.50 Peachtree Charter MS 81.70 Redan MS 75.80 Ronald McNair MS 72.50 Salem MS 65.80 Sequoyah MS 73.30 Shamrock MS 77.50


92PAGE 61 OF 92




Middle Schools (Cont.) Stephenson MS 75.00 Stone Mountain MS 92.50 Tucker MS 92.50

Middle School Average 79

High Schools Arabia Mountain HS 95.00 Avondale HS 59.20 DeKalb School of the Arts (DSA) 73.40 Cedar Grove HS 63.30 Chamblee HS 83.30 Clarkston HS 70.80 Columbia HS 57.50 Cross Keys HS 95.00 DeKalb Alternative School 73.30 DeKalb Alternative Night School 73.30 DeKalb HS of Technology South 69.20 Druid Hills HS 85.00 Dunwoody HS 82.50 Lakeside HS 52.50 Lithonia HS 92.50 Margaret Harris Comprehensive School 85.00 M.L. King, Jr., HS 70.80 Miller Grove HS 92.50 Elizabeth Andrews HS 92.50 DeKalb Early College Academy (DECA) 100.00 Redan HS 45.06 Ronald McNair Sr. HS 74.20 Southwest DeKalb HS 73.40 Stephenson HS 73.30 Stone Mountain HS 74.20 Towers HS 55.00 Tucker HS 100.00

High School Average 76


92PAGE 62 OF 92




PK-12 Schools DeKalb Transition Academy 42.50 Eagle Woods Academy 80.00 Fernbank Science Center 43.30 Warren Technical School 85.00

PK-12 School Average 63

Closed Schools Doraville Drivers Ed Site 49.20 Forest Hills ES (Closed) 23.30 Heritage School Site 73.33 Hooper Alexander Facility (Closed) N/A Old Briarcliff Open Campus Facility (Closed) 18.30 South Campus Driver Ed Center 66.70 Tilson ES Site (Closed) 36.70

Closed School Average 45

District Average 78


4.2.7. A

Based on necessarycategory f

S

2011 Co

dequacy F

the criteria dey to provide qufor technolog

ource: MGT

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

U

omprehensive

Finding #7:

escribed abovuality educatiy infrastructu

Technolo

T of America

Unsat

D

Perc

Facility Asses

92P

: Technolo

ve, a majorityion. Forty-ninure.

EDeKalb

ogy Scores -

a, Inc., 2011

Poor

eKalb CoTechno

cent of S

sment Report f

PAGE 63 OF 92

ogy Readin

y of the schoone (49) perce

Exhibit 4-7 County SchPercent of S

Fair

ounty Scology ScoSchools b

for DeKalb Co

ness Perce

ols lack some ent the school

hools Schools by Ra

Good

choolsores by Rating

ounty School Sy

ent of Scho

technology ins score in the

ating

Exce

g

ystem

ools by Ra

nfrastructure “Fair” rating

llent

ating

g

4.2.8. A

The level with manymiddle, an

S

2011 Co

dequacy F

of infrastructy schools scond high schoo

ource: MGT

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

omprehensive

Finding #8:

ture in supporring in the “F

ols relative to

Technolo

T of America

ES

De

Perc

Facility Asses

92P

: Technolo

rt of technoloFair” category each rating c

EDeKalb

ogy Results -

a, Inc., 2011

eKalb CoTechnolcent of S

sment Report f

PAGE 64 OF 92

ogy Readin

ogy in DCSS vy. The exhibicategory.

Exhibit 4-8 County Sch Percent of S

MS

ounty Sclogy ScoSchools b

for DeKalb Co

ness Perce

varies by schoit below show

hools Schools by R

HS

choolsores by Type

ounty School Sy

ent of Scho

ool, but is genws the percent

ating

E

G

F

P

U

ystem

ools by Ra

nerally averagt of elementar

Excellent

Good

Fair

Poor

Unsat

ating

ge ry,


92PAGE 65 OF 92

4.3 Demographics, Capacity and Utilization Assessment Findings 4.3.1 - District-Wide Context Population Growth The district has experienced growth in population over the last two decades and is expected to continue to experience growth over the next five years, at least. As Exhibits 4-9 through 4-11 illustrate, the Southern and Eastern areas of the district have seen the most significant growth since 1990. There were areas of growth in the North and Central areas as well, but much less growth in the Western sections of the district. Over the next five years, the Central core of the district is expected to decline in population, while the Southeast and East will see most of the growth, with some pockets of growth in the North.

Exhibit 4-9 DeKalb County Rate of Population Change 1990 to 2000

Source: DeKalb County Department of Planning & Development


92PAGE 66 OF 92

Exhibit 4-10 DeKalb County Rate of Population Change 2000 to 2010 (est.)



92PAGE 67 OF 92

Exhibit 4-11 DeKalb County Rate of Population Change 2010 (est.) to 2015 (est.)



92PAGE 68 OF 92

Socio-Economic Status The socio-economic status of the district mirrors the population growth fairly closely. The areas with higher socio-economic status are focused in the southeast, east, and northern parts of the district. The areas in the eastern part of the district are the areas of lower socio-economic status.

DeKalb County Comprehensive Plan Other local government units have their own plans for the county, which will affect the potential student population the district will serve. It is important to coordinate district planning with county planning so that complimentary efforts can result. The following Exhibit 4-12 is the DeKalb County Comprehensive Plan for 2005-2025.

Exhibit 4-12 DeKalb County Comprehensive Development Plan 2005-2025



92PAGE 69 OF 92

4.3.2 - Capacity Findings Based on the capacity methodology explained in section 3.3.4 of this report, the following example shows how MGT used the Instructional Use Model to calculate the capacity of Columbia High School:

Exhibit 4-13 DeKalb County Public Schools

Example Calculation of Capacity - Columbia High School

Room Type Number of Classrooms Students/Classroom = Capacity

9-12 (all other subjects): 0 28 -

9-12 (E/LA, Math, Social Studies, World Language): 37 28 1,036

9-12 (Science): 9 28 252

Typing/Keyboarding: 0 24 -

Vocational Labs: 9 24 216

Instrumental Music (Band): 1 40 40

Choral Music: 1 40 40

Physical Education: 7 44 308

SPED - K-5 Gifted: 0 12 -

SPED - 6-12 Gifted (Resource and Advanced Content): 0 12 -

SPED - K-5 Resource: 0 12 -

SPED - 6-12 Remedial (REP): 1 12 12

Alternative Programs 1 20 20

K-3 ESOL: 0 13 -

4-8 ESOL: 0 16 -

9-12 ESOL: 0 20 -

Computer Lab: 3 0 -

Spec Ed - Self Contained: 4 8 32

Portable (Count of classrooms, not buildings): 0 0 -

Total Capacity (w/o scheduling factor) = 1,956

x High School scheduling factor of 75%

Sumner High School Capacity = 1,467Source: MGT of America, Inc., 2011


92PAGE 70 OF 92

Using the Instructional Use Model, as shown in Exhibit 4-13, MGT has calculated the capacity for each of the district’s school buildings.

The following Exhibit 4-14 identifies the average capacity by super cluster at each grade band.


Capacity Analysis Summary by Super Cluster by Site Type

Elementary Schools Enroll (PK-12) Capacity

Super Cluster 1 (Average) 696 650






Elementary School Average 564 652

Middle Schools Enroll (PK-12) Capacity

Super Cluster 1 (Average) 1,012 1,019


Super Cluster 3 (Average) 945 1,158




Middle School Average 971 1,075


92PAGE 71 OF 92


Capacity Analysis Summary by Super Cluster by Site Type (cont.)

High Schools Enroll (PK-12) Capacity







High School Average 1,042 1,121

K-12 School Enroll (PK-12) Capacity

Margaret Harris Comprehensive School 76 411


4.3.3 – School Capacity and Enrollment Findings The effective management of school facilities requires a school’s capacity and enrollment to be correctly aligned. When capacity exceeds enrollment (underutilization), operational costs are higher than necessary and facilities may need to be repurposed or the facilities may need to be removed from inventory. When enrollment exceeds capacity (overutilization), the school may be overcrowded and capital expenditures may need to be increased. MGT has calculated and analyzed the present utilization rates for each grade band based on the enrollment information in the preceding section and the capacity information above-noted. Exhibit 4-15 presents that information for each grade band. Exhibit 4-16 – Exhibit 4-22 presents that information for each school in the district by super cluster.


92PAGE 72 OF 92


*Utilization by Grade Band

Site Type *Capacity Enrollment Utilization

2010 2020 2010 2020

Elementary Schools 55,435 47,902 53,428 86% 96%

Middle Schools 22,570 20,392 20,887 90% 93%

High Schools 30,255 28,140 29,964 93% 99%

District Total 108,260 96,434 104,279 89% 96%

Source: MGT of America, Inc., 2011 *Excludes Cluster Not Assigned and Closed Schools

Druid Hills High School


92PAGE 73 OF 92


Capacity and Utilization Super Cluster 1 School

School Name 2010

Enroll (PK-12)

Capacity Open Seats

2010 Utilization

2011 Projected Enrollment (PK-12)

2011 Projected Utilization

(PK-12)

2020 Projected

Enrollment(PK-12)

2020 ProjectedUtilization

(PK-12) Super Cluster 1

Elementary Schools Ashford Park ES 486 437 -49 111% 535 122% 764 175% Austin ES 697 588 -109 119% 732 125% 998 170% Cary Reynolds ES 832 802 -30 104% 910 113% 1,071 134% Chesnut ES 534 487 -47 110% 561 115% 772 159% Dresden ES 836 705 -131 119% 863 122% 1,072 152% Dunwoody ES 738 1,136 398 65% 750 66% 858 76% Hightower ES 654 595 -59 110% 690 116% 915 154% Huntley Hills ES 474 471 -3 101% 471 100% 691 147% Kingsley ES 481 546 65 88% 485 89% 694 127% Montclair ES 883 716 -167 123% 952 133% 1,233 172% Montgomery ES 654 623 -31 105% 715 115% 1,355 217% Oakcliff ES 812 715 -97 114% 855 120% 997 140% Vanderlyn ES 827 538 -289 154% 832 155% 1,130 210% Woodward ES 834 735 -99 113% 896 122% 1,128 153% SC1 ES Total 9,742 9,095 -647 107% 10,247 113% 13,678 150%

Middle Schools Chamblee MS 851 924 73 92% 946 102% 1,867 202% Peachtree Charter MS

1,251 1,113 -138 112% 1,347 121% 1,653 149%

Sequoyah MS 933 1,020 87 91% 1,005 99% 1,121 110% SC1 MS Total 3,035 3,057 22 99% 3,298 108% 4,641 152%

High Schools Chamblee HS 1,521 1,413 -108 108% 1,376 97% 2,933 208% Cross Keys HS 981 1,242 261 79% 1,084 87% 1,234 99% Dunwoody HS 1,496 1,242 -254 120% 1,468 118% 2,123 171% SC1 HS Total 3,998 3,897 -101 103% 3,928 101% 6,290 161% Super Cluster 1 Total

16,775 16,049 -726 105% 17,473 109% 24,609 153%



92PAGE 74 OF 92


Capacity and Utilization Super Cluster 2 Schools

School Name 2010

Enroll (PK-12)

Capacity Open Seats

2010 Utilization

2011 Projected

Enrollment (PK-12)


(PK-12)

2020 Projected

Enrollment(PK-12)



Elementary Schools Briar Vista ES 386 542 156 71% 401 74% 468 86% Briarlake ES 434 475 41 91% 444 93% 532 112% Brockett ES 428 487 59 88% 431 89% 514 106% Evansdale ES 497 552 55 90% 487 88% 556 101% Fernbank ES 690 578 -112 119% 698 121% 860 149% Hawthorne ES 453 494 41 92% 452 91% 585 118% Henderson Mill ES 573 565 -8 101% 630 111% 696 123% Idlewood ES 823 808 -15 102% 857 106% 926 115% Laurel Ridge ES 354 443 89 80% 344 78% 445 100% Livsey ES 343 357 14 96% 343 96% 420 118% McLendon ES 558 559 1 100% 577 103% 639 114% Medlock ES 300 374 74 80% 310 83% 359 96% Midvale ES 458 535 77 86% 475 89% 547 102% Oak Grove ES 660 590 -70 112% 655 111% 782 132% Pleasantdale ES 877 689 -189 127% 956 139% 1,138 165% Sagamore Hills ES 522 437 -85 119% 526 120% 630 144% Smoke Rise ES 515 557 42 92% 548 98% 589 106% SC2 ES Total 8,871 9,043 172 98% 9,134 101% 10,686 118%

Middle Schools Henderson MS 1,453 1,026 -427 142% 1,452 142% 1,723 168% Shamrock MS 1,091 1,029 -62 106% 1,057 103% 1,305 127% Tucker MS 1,321 1,047 -274 126% 1,426 136% 1,753 167% SC2 MS Total 3,865 3,102 -763 125% 3,935 127% 4,781 154%

High Schools Druid Hills HS 1,489 1,377 -112 108% 1,550 113% 1,706 124% Lakeside HS* 1,806 1,680 -126 108% 1,927 115% 2,326 138% Tucker HS 1,542 1,437 -105 107% 1,600 111% 2,052 143% SC2 HS Total 4,837 4,494 -343 108% 5,077 113% 6,084 135% Super Cluster 2 Total

17,573 16,639 -934 106% 18,146 109% 21,551 130%


*Lakeside HS capacity includes a 25-room addition, spring 2011


92PAGE 75 OF 92



School Name 2010

Enroll (PK-12)

Capacity Open Seats

2010 Utilization

2011 Projected

Enrollment (PK-12)


(PK-12)

2020 Projected

Enrollment(PK-12)



Elementary Schools Eldridge Miller ES 563 581 18 97% 577 99% 492 85% Hambrick ES 645 792 147 81% 654 83% 654 83% Marbut ES 823 898 75 92% 764 85% 717 80% Pine Ridge ES 577 942 365 61% 534 57% 446 47% Princeton ES 1,022 1,067 45 96% 1,010 95% 940 88% Rock Chapel ES 408 662 254 62% 419 63% 272 41% Rockbridge ES 493 616 123 80% 484 79% 464 75% Shadow Rock ES 689 746 57 92% 665 89% 669 90% Stone Mill ES 686 760 74 90% 677 89% 748 98% Stone Mountain ES 576 609 33 95% 588 97% 480 79% Wynbrooke ES 932 952 20 98% 889 93% 990 104% SC3 ES Total 7,414 8,626 1,212 86% 7,261 84% 6,872 80%

Middle Schools Champion MS 604 657 53 92% 552 84% 291 44% Redan MS 947 1,218 271 78% 960 79% 987 81% Stephenson MS 1,161 1,452 291 80% 1,182 81% 986 68% Stone Mountain MS 1,067 1,305 238 82% 1,074 82% 936 72% SC3 MS Total 3,779 4,632 853 82% 3,768 81% 3,200 69%

High Schools Redan HS 1,356 1,194 -162 114% 1,304 109% 962 81% Stephenson HS 1,668 1,665 -3 100% 1,585 95% 1,346 81% Stone Mountain HS 1,182 1,194 12 99% 1,100 92% 1,012 85% SC3 HS Total 4,206 4,053 -153 104% 3,989 98% 3,320 82% Super Cluster 3 Total 15,399 17,311 1,912 89% 15,018 87% 13,392 77%



92PAGE 76 OF 92



School Name 2010

Enroll (PK-12)

Capacity Open Seats

2010 Utilization

2011 Projected

Enrollment (PK-12)


(PK-12)

2020 Projected

Enrollment(PK-12)



Elementary Schools Bob Mathis ES 365 498 133 73% 367 74% 392 79% Bouie ES 836 886 50 94% 838 95% 869 98% Browns Mill ES 745 651 -94 114% 773 119% 826 127% Cedar Grove ES 559 713 154 78% 567 80% 521 73% Chapel Hill ES 688 729 41 94% 749 103% 841 115% Fairington ES 514 616 102 83% 564 92% 571 93% Flat Rock ES 1,133 1,134 1 100% 1,134 100% 1,319 116% Murphey Candler ES 526 740 214 71% 573 77% 552 75% Narvie Harris ES 973 999 26 97% 985 99% 1,083 108% Oakview ES 641 1,059 418 61% 556 52% 566 53% Panola Way ES 822 953 131 86% 873 92% 897 94% Rainbow ES 500 590 90 85% 505 86% 606 103% Redan ES 581 662 81 88% 607 92% 598 90% Stoneview ES 756 758 2 100% 795 105% 838 111% Woodridge ES 555 569 14 98% 587 103% 641 113% SC4 ES Total 10,194 11,556 1,362 88% 10,473 91% 11,120 96%

Middle Schools Cedar Grove MS 942 1,170 228 81% 983 84% 869 74% Chapel Hill MS 1,033 1,092 59 95% 990 91% 1,085 99% Lithonia MS 1,186 1,179 -7 101% 1,251 106% 1,081 92% Miller Grove MS 1,039 984 -55 106% 1,024 104% 952 97% Salem MS 1,150 1,120 -30 103% 1,270 113% 937 84% SC4 MS Total 5,350 5,545 195 96% 5,518 100% 4,924 89%

High Schools Cedar Grove HS 1,083 1,176 93 92% 1,092 93% 793 67% Lithonia HS 1,365 1,320 -45 103% 1,386 105% 1,399 106% M.L. King, Jr., HS 1,665 1,143 -522 146% 1,634 143% 1,706 149% Miller Grove HS 1,608 1,575 -33 102% 1,584 101% 1,737 110% Southwest DeKalb HS 1,670 1,289 -382 130% 1,593 124% 1,640 127% SC4 HS Total 7,391 6,503 -889 114% 7,289 112% 7,275 112%

Super Cluster 4 Total 22,935 23,604 669 97% 23,280 99% 23,319 99%



92PAGE 77 OF 92



School Name 2010

Enroll (PK-12)

Capacity Open Seats

2010 Utilization

2011 Projected

Enrollment (PK-12)


(PK-12)

2020 Projected

Enrollment(PK-12)



Elementary Schools Allgood ES 424 649 225 65% 405 62% 347 53% Atherton ES 394 594 200 66% 371 62% 354 60% Avondale ES 461 686 225 67% 460 67% 440 64% Canby Lane ES 562 721 159 78% 548 76% 546 76% Clifton ES 311 473 162 66% 262 55% 251 53% Columbia ES 567 720 153 79% 556 77% 644 89% Dunaire ES 522 598 76 87% 527 88% 466 78% Flat shoals ES 339 596 257 57% 320 54% 307 52% Glen Haven ES 454 551 97 82% 452 82% 417 76% Gresham Park ES 246 506 260 49% 227 45% 190 38% Indian Creek ES 915 900 -15 102% 990 110% 1,186 132% Jolly ES 520 792 272 66% 514 65% 522 66% Kelley Lake ES 348 464 116 75% 339 73% 334 72% Knollwood ES 267 689 422 39% 262 38% 191 28% Meadowview ES 359 439 80 82% 372 85% 375 85% Midway ES 478 765 287 62% 453 59% 430 56% Peachcrest ES 327 679 352 48% 302 45% 306 45% Robert Shaw ES 471 532 61 89% 433 81% 407 77% Ronald E. McNair Discovery Learning Academy

825 1,037 212 80% 744 72% 656 63%

Rowland ES 372 527 155 71% 345 66% 312 59% Sky Haven ES 274 659 385 42% 262 40% 130 20% Snapfinger ES 481 950 469 51% 477 50% 395 42% Toney ES 454 614 160 74% 457 74% 434 71% SC5 ES Total 10,371 15,141 4,770 68% 10,078 67% 9,640 64%

Middle Schools Avondale MS 522 948 426 55% 525 55% 265 28% Columbia MS 1,028 1,191 163 86% 1,014 85% 832 70% Freedom MS 916 1,266 350 72% 904 71% 707 56% Mary McLeod Bethune MS

904 1,104 200 82% 868 79% 584 53%

Ronald McNair MS 777 1,299 522 60% 751 58% 705 54% SC5 MS Total 4,147 5,808 1,661 71% 4,062 70% 3,093 53%


92PAGE 78 OF 92



School Name 2010

Enroll (PK-12)

Capacity Open Seats

2010 Utilization

2011 Projected

Enrollment (PK-12)


(PK-12)

2020 Projected

Enrollment(PK-12)



High Schools Avondale HS 589 726 137 81% 550 76% 331 46% Clarkston HS 1,075 1,308 233 82% 1,140 87% 1,039 79% Columbia HS 1,204 1,467 263 82% 1,163 79% 1,108 76% Ronald McNair Sr. HS 945 1,536 591 62% 892 58% 804 52% Towers HS 939 1,215 276 77% 933 77% 745 61% SC5 HS Total 4,752 6,252 1,500 76% 4,678 75% 4,027 64% Super Cluster 5 Total 19,270 27,201 7,931 71% 18,818 69% 16,760 62%


Columbia High School


92PAGE 79 OF 92



School Name 2010

Enroll (PK-12)

Capacity Open Seats2010

Utilization

2011 Projected

Enrollment (PK-12)


(PK-12)

2020 Projected

Enrollment(PK-12)



Elementary SchoolsCoralwood ES 156 245 89 64% 231 94% 252 103% DeKalb ES of the Arts at Terry Mills

541 707 166 76% 544 77% 558 79%

Kittredge ES 415 479 64 87% 414 86% 414 86% Wadsworth ES 153 479 326 32% 153 32% 161 34% Shadow Rock Center 45 65 20 69% 45 69% 47 73% SC6 Elementary Total 1,310 1,975 665 66% 1,387 70% 1,432 73%

Middle SchoolsInternational Student Center 216 426 210 51% 216 51% 248 58% SC6 Middle Total 216 426 210 51% 216 51% 248 58%

High SchoolsArabia Mountain HS 1,473 1,650 177 89% 1,473 89% 1,694 103% DeKalb Alternative Night School

94 552 458 17% 104 19% 260 47%

DeKalb Alternative School 178 552 374 32% 141 26% 27 5% DeKalb Early College Academy (DECA)

187 327 140 57% 187 57% 215 66%

DeKalb School of the Arts (DSA)

313 558 245 56% 333 60% 420 75%

DeKalb Transition Academy 40 165 125 24% 101 61% 117 71% Eagle Woods Academy 101 198 97 51% 101 51% 106 54% Elizabeth Andrews HS 570 1,055 485 54% 534 51% 129 12% SC6 High Total 2,956 5,057 2,101 58% 2,974 59% 2,968 59%

Super Cluster 6 Total 4,482 7,457 2,975 60% 4,577 61% 4,648 62%



PAGE 80 OF 92


Capacity and Utilization Cluster-Not-Assigned/Closed Schools/District Average

School Name 2010

Enroll (PK-12)

Capacity Open Seats2010

Utilization

2011 Projected

Enrollment (PK-12)


(PK-12)

2020 Projected

Enrollment(PK-12)


(PK-12) Cluster Not Assigned/Closed

DeKalb HS of Technology South N/A 198 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Fernbank Science Center N/A 231 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Warren Technical School N/A 204 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

No Cluster Total N/A 633 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Forest Hills ES (Closed) N/A 454 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Heritage School Site N/A 338 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Hooper Alexander Facility (Closed)

N/A 497 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Margaret Harris Comprehensive School

76 411 335 18% 73 18% 86 21%

Old Briarcliff Open Campus Facility (Closed)

N/A 1,143 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Tilson ES Site (Closed) N/A 504 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Closed Total N/A 3,347 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Cluster Not Assigned/Closed Total

N/A 3,980 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

District Average (Excludes Cluster Not Assigned/Admin and Closed)

96,434 108,260 11,826 89% 97,312 90% 104,279 96%


Because of the significant underutilization of schools across the district, it is anticipated that the district’s facility master plan will be operating a smaller number of schools than those currently in operation. The District goal of working toward elementary schools of 900 capacity, middle schools of 1,200 capacity, and high schools of 1,600 capacity (as referenced from the Blue Ribbon Task Force Report) will need to be incorporated into the Master Plan recommendations. Over time this will result in fewer schools, increased utilization, and more efficiency.


PAGE 81 OF 92

4.4 Energy Conservation Analysis Findings Data Collection

Concurrent with the facility condition assessment, the assessment teams also conducted a system level evaluation to identify potential energy conservation opportunities. Prior to commencing this work, Parsons identified eight (8) UNIFORMAT II building systems that could offer potential energy conservation opportunities. The selected systems included:

Roof Coverings & Insulation

Exterior Windows

Window Treatments

Interior Lighting

Exterior Lighting

Heating, Cooling & Air Conditioning (HVAC)

Plumbing

Building Controls & Automation

The assessment teams subsequently assessed and identified for each school the building or site systems that were worn, aged or beyond their expected service life, and, if replaced, could provide a potential energy conservation opportunity to the school system. Parsons prepared the following table which summarizes the findings and potential conservation opportunities for each school facility. The table reads left to right. Find the particular school and then move right to the building system. A “green” block with “Y” indicates that replacing the system is considered an energy conservation opportunity. A “red” block with “N” indicates that the system does not currently offer an energy conservation opportunity. A block with “N/A” indicates that the facility or systems were not evaluated for energy conservation.


PAGE 82 OF 92


Summary of Energy Conservation Opportunities by School

SCHOOL FACILITY

ROOF INSU

LATION

EXTERIOR WINDOWS

WINDOW

TREA

TMEN

TS

INTERIOR LIGHTING

EXTERIOR LIGHTING

HVAC

PLUMBING

BUILDING CONTROLS

& AUTO

MATION

ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS Allgood Elementary N Y Y Y N Y Y Y Ashford Park Elementary N y Y N N Y N Y Atherton Elementary Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Austin Elementary Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Avondale Elementary N Y Y N Y N Y Y Bob Mathis Elementary N Y Y Y N Y Y Y Briar Vista Elementary Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Briarlake Elementary Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Brockett Elementary Y N N Y Y Y Y Y Browns Mill Elementary Y N N N Y Y N Y Canby Lane Elementary Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Cary Reynolds Elementary N Y Y Y N Y Y Y Cedar Grove Elementary Y Y Y Y N Y N Y Chapel Hill Elementary N Y N Y N Y Y Y Chesnut Elementary Y Y Y N Y Y N Y Clifton Elementary Y Y Y N N Y N Y Columbia Elementary Y Y Y N N Y Y Y Coralwood Diagnostic Center N N N N N N N N DeKalb Elementary School of the Arts N N N Y N Y N Y Dresden Elementary Y Y Y Y N Y N Y Dunaire Elementary N Y Y N Y Y Y Y Dunwoody Elementary N N N N N N N N E.L. Bouie Elementary Y N N N N Y N Y Eldridge Miller Elementary N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Evansdale Elementary N N Y N Y Y Y Y Fairington Elementary N Y Y N N Y Y Y Fernbank Elementary Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Flat Rock Elementary N N N N Y N N N Flat Shoals Elementary N Y Y N Y Y N Y Glen Haven Elementary N Y Y N N Y N Y Gresham Park Elementary Y Y Y N N Y Y Y Hambrick Elementary N Y Y Y Y Y N Y Hawthorne Elementary N Y Y N Y Y Y Y Henderson Mill Elementary Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Hightower Elementary Y N Y N N Y N Y Huntley Hills Elementary N Y Y Y N Y N Y Idlewood Elementary Y Y N Y N Y N Y Indian Creek Elementary Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Jolly Elementary Y Y Y N N Y Y Y Kelley Lake Elementary Y Y Y N N Y N Y Kingsley Elementary Y Y Y N N Y Y Y Kittredge Magnet School at Nancy Creek N Y Y Y N Y Y Y Knollwood Elementary Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Laurel Ridge Elementary Y Y Y Y N Y Y N Livsey Elementary Y Y Y Y N Y N Y


PAGE 83 OF 92


Summary of Energy Conservation Opportunities by School (Continued)

SCHOOL FACILITY

ROOF IN

SULA

TION

EXTE

RIOR W

INDOW

S

WIN

DOW

TR

EATM

ENTS

INTE

RIOR LIGHTING

EXTE

RIOR LIGHTING

HVAC

PLUMBING

BUILDIN

G CONTR

OLS

& AUTO

MATION

ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS ‐ Continued Marbut Elementary Y N N Y N Y N Y McLendon Elementary N Y Y N N N N Y Meadowview Elementary Y Y N Y N Y Y Y Medlock Elementary Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Midvale Elementary N Y Y N N N N Y Midway Elementary N Y Y Y N Y Y Y Montclair Elementary y y y y N y Y y Montgomery Elementary Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Murphey Candler Elementary N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Narvie Harris Elementary Y N N N N Y N N Oak Grove Elementary Y Y Y Y N N N Y Oak View Elementary N N Y N N N Y Y Oakcliff Elementary Y Y Y N N Y Y Y Panola Way Elementary Y N Y Y N Y Y Y Peachcrest Elementary Y Y Y Y N Y N Y Pine Ridge Elementary N N N Y Y Y Y Y Pleasantdale Elementary Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Princeton Elementary Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Rainbow Elementary N Y Y Y Y Y N Y Redan Elementary N N N N N N Y N Robert Shaw Elementary Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Rock Chapel Elementary N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Rockbridge Elementary Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Ronald E. McNair Discovery Learning Academy N N N N N N Y Y Rowland Elementary N N Y N N N Y Y Sagamore Hills Elementary N Y Y Y Y Y N Y Shadow Rock Elementary Y N N Y Y Y N Y Sky Haven Elementary N N Y Y Y N Y N Smoke Rise Elementary Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Snapfinger Elementary N N Y Y Y N Y Y Stone Mill Elementary Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Stone Mountain Elementary Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Stoneview Elementary Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Toney Elementary Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Vanderlyn Elementary N Y Y N Y Y N Y Wadsworth Elementary N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Woodridge Elementary N Y Y Y N Y Y Y Woodward Elementary Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Wynbrooke Elementary Y N N N Y Y N N


PAGE 84 OF 92



SCHOOL FACILITY

ROOF INSU

LATION

EXTERIOR WINDOWS

WINDOW

TREA

TMEN

TS

INTERIOR LIGHTING

EXTERIOR LIGHTING

HVAC

PLUMBING

BUILDING CONTROLS

& AUTO

MATION

MIDDLE SCHOOLS Avondale Middle N N N Y Y Y Y Y Cedar Grove Middle Y N N N N N Y Y Chamblee Middle N N N N N Y N Y Champion Middle Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Chapel Hill Middle Y Y Y N N N Y Y Columbia Middle N N Y N N Y N Y Freedom Middle Y Y Y N N Y Y Y Henderson Middle Y Y Y N N N N Y International Student Center Y Y Y N N Y Y Y Lithonia Middle Y Y Y N N N Y Y Mary McLeod Bethune Middle N N Y N N N Y Y Miller Grove Middle Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Peachtree Middle N N N N N N N N Redan Middle N N N N N N Y Y Ronald McNair Sr. Middle Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Salem Middle Y N N Y Y Y Y Y Sequoyah Middle N N N N N Y Y Y Shamrock Middle N Y Y N N N N Y Stephenson Middle Y Y Y N N Y N Y Stone Mountain Middle Y N N N N Y N Y Tucker Middle N N N N N N N N

HIGH SCHOOLS Administrative & Instructional Complex N N N Y N Y Y Y Arabia Mountain High N N N N N N N Y Avondale High/DeKalb School of the Arts Y Y Y N N N N N Cedar Grove High Y Y Y N N N Y N Chamblee High N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Clarkston High Y Y Y N N Y N Y Columbia High N Y Y N N Y N Y Cross Keys High N N N N Y N Y N DeKalb East Campus/Alt School/Alt Night School N N N N N Y N Y DeKalb HS of Technology South N N N Y Y Y N Y Druid Hills High Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Dunwoody High N N N N Y N N N Lakeside High N Y Y N N N N N Lithonia High N N N N N N N N Margaret Harris Comprehensive School N N N N Y N N N Martin Luther King Jr. High N N N N N Y Y Y Miller Grove High N N N N N N N N Redan High N N N N Y N N N Ronald McNair Sr. High N N N N N N N N Southwest DeKalb High Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Stephenson High Y N N N N Y Y Y Stone Mountain High N N N N N N Y N Towers High Y N N N N N N N Tucker High N N N N N N N N


PAGE 85 OF 92



A large majority of the energy conservation opportunities can realized through the course of replacing those building systems that are identified as beyond their service life and are identified as current deferred needs (2011 – 2012) in the individual building assessment reports.

SCHOOL FACILITY

ROOF

INSU

LATION

EXTERIOR

WINDOWS

WINDOW

TREA

TMEN

TS

INTERIOR

LIGHTING

EXTERIOR

LIGHTING

HVAC

PLUMBING

BUILDING

CONTROLS &

AUTO

MATION

NON‐SCHOOLS Adams Stadium Y Y N Y Y N Y Y Avondale Stadium Y Y N N Y Y Y Y Elks Lodge/East Campus II N Y N N N N N N James R. Hallford Stadium Y N N Y Y Y Y Y North DeKalb Stadium N Y Y N Y Y Y Y Panthersville Stadium N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Sam A. Moss Service Center Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y William Bradley Bryant Center Y Y Y N Y Y N Y

P‐12 FACILITIES DeKalb Transition Academy Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Eagle Woods Academy Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Fernbank Science Center N N N Y N Y N Y Warren Technical School Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y

VACANT / CLOSED FACILITIES District Offices‐Building A & B (Closed) Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Doraville Drivers Ed N N N Y N Y Y Y Forrest Hills ES (Closed) Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Heritage School (Closed) N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Hooper Alexander ES (Closed) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Misty Waters (Land Only) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Old Briarcliff Open Campus (Closed) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Old Chamblee MS/Old Shallowford ES N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A South Campus (Closed) Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Tilson Elementary (Closed) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A


PAGE 86 OF 92

4.5 Combined Condition, Educational Adequacy, and Technology Readiness Findings This section of the report presents a combined score analysis based on the physical condition, educational adequacy, and technology readiness findings of the assessment. It describes the process for combining the condition, educational adequacy, and technology readiness scores into a single, combined score so that school's need can be reviewed more holistically and groups of schools can be identified and prioritized.

Because the assessment methods and approach to condition assessment and the functional adequacy assessment are different, Parsons utilizes a process for combining the rating and scoring information into one common format.

The condition assessment of the schools was measured using Parsons’ Condition Estimation Management Technology (COMET) software, which stores and produces the assessment information for each school and facility. The COMET score for a site is the FCI, where a low score depicts a building in good shape.

The educational assessment of the school facilities was measured through the application of MGT of America’s BASYS educational adequacy assessment tool for each facility. The BASYS score for a site is the Educational Adequacy score, where a high score depicts a building in good shape.

Combined Condition, Educational Adequacy, and Technology Assessment Scores The building condition, educational adequacy, and technology readiness scores are combined into one score for each school to assist in the task of prioritizing projects. Since the building condition score is a measure of the maintenance needs (e.g., leaky roofs, etc.) and the educational adequacy score is a measure of how well the building design and configuration supports the educational program (e.g., the location of the library or the size of general education classrooms), it is possible to have a high score for one assessment and a low score for the other assessment. It is the combined score that will provide a comprehensive picture of the conditions that exist at each school and how each school compares relative to the other schools in the district.

The first step in creating the combined score is to convert the FCI condition score to a 100-point scale. The formula for that conversion is (1.00-FCI) X 100. The table below shows this conversion for a sample of schools.

School FCI % Condition Score (1-FCI) x 100

Avondale Elementary 52.06% 47.94

Bob Mathis Elementary 22.23% 77.77

Tucker Middle 1.50% 98.50

Redan High 24.38% 75.62

To create the combined score, each of the scores is weighted, based on the deficiencies the district wants to focus on and the relative impact on capital costs. For DCSS, the condition score was weighted 50%, the educational adequacy score was weighted 40% and the technology readiness score was weighted 10%. Exhibit 2-9 presents all the scores for each facility and the resulting combined score using this weighting formula. Exhibit 4-24 also provides the data to start the process of prioritizing needs based on the overall


PAGE 87 OF 92

findings for each facility. It is important to note that the combined score is provided as a tool to assist with the prioritization of needs as the facilities master plan is developed. This score can be very helpful in grouping of schools needing improvement based on an overall combined assessment. In order to understand the score definition, it is necessary to look at each of the component scores (condition, adequacy, technology).


Combined Scores

Site Condition Adequacy Tech Combined 50% 40%

10%

Elementary Schools Allgood ES 52.92 76.78 70.90 64.26

Ashford Park ES 74.78 62.28 67.50 69.05

Atherton ES 45.73 79.39 75.80 62.20

Austin ES 64.83 32.02 90.00 54.22

Avondale ES 47.94 83.48 81.70 65.53

Bob Mathis ES 77.77 74.88 76.70 76.51

Briar Vista ES 41.15 68.19 65.80 54.43

Briarlake ES 60.42 62.96 79.20 63.31

Brockett ES 49.90 72.21 76.70 61.50

Browns Mill ES 81.01 68.34 80.90 75.93

Canby Lane ES 55.93 82.83 74.20 68.52

Cary Reynolds ES 58.53 57.67 77.50 60.08

Cedar Grove ES 62.10 86.30 66.70 72.24

Chapel Hill ES 40.92 69.78 65.80 54.95

Chesnut ES [Charter] 56.42 53.82 79.20 57.66

Clifton ES 65.15 85.48 87.50 75.52

Columbia ES 58.81 70.76 75.80 65.29

Coralwood ES 96.93 31.87 100.00 71.21

DeKalb ES of the Arts at Terry Mills 83.02 89.82 90.00 86.44

Dresden ES 71.58 73.08 68.30 71.86

Dunaire ES 69.75 65.07 73.30 68.24

Dunwoody ES 99.96 80.92 96.70 92.02

Bouie ES 93.02 80.15 87.50 87.32

Eldridge Miller ES 45.23 68.80 77.50 57.88


PAGE 88 OF 92


Combined Scores (continued)


10%

Elementary Schools (Cont.)

Evansdale ES 65.76 56.10 75.90 62.91

Fairington ES 68.43 48.27 57.50 59.27

Fernbank ES 47.89 52.44 81.70 53.09

Flat Rock ES 97.17 76.46 86.70 87.84

Flat Shoals ES 72.84 66.22 74.20 70.33

Glen Haven ES 81.53 83.16 85.00 82.53

Gresham Park ES 45.73 64.07 77.50 56.24

Hambrick ES 56.39 82.45 73.40 68.52

Hawthorne ES 57.66 60.22 72.50 60.17

Henderson Mill ES 56.19 52.95 73.30 56.61

Hightower ES 89.13 59.15 80.10 76.23

Huntley Hills ES 47.41 65.75 59.20 55.93

Idlewood ES 64.36 67.75 74.20 66.70

Indian Creek ES 47.57 69.02 75.00 58.90

Jolly ES 67.62 80.78 82.50 74.37

Kelley Lake ES 63.13 79.76 79.20 71.39

Kingsley ES 51.50 66.37 76.70 59.97

Kittredge ES 48.67 75.14 81.70 62.56

Knollwood ES 75.95 74.84 74.20 75.33

Laurel Ridge ES 47.00 72.76 71.70 59.77

Livsey ES 49.76 67.01 74.20 59.10

Marbut ES 87.03 82.72 89.20 85.53

McLendon ES 86.63 68.82 82.50 79.09

Meadowview ES 49.50 74.49 72.50 61.80

Medlock ES 40.80 74.35 65.00 56.64

Midvale ES 67.00 73.39 86.70 71.53

Midway ES 61.91 85.01 79.20 72.88

Montclair ES 65.79 54.45 82.50 62.93

Montgomery ES 52.86 62.02 75.00 58.74


PAGE 89 OF 92



Site Condition

Adequacy Tech

Combined 50% 40%

10% Elementary Schools (Cont.)

Murphey Candler ES 85.66 60.11 51.70 72.05

Narvie Harris ES 98.12 96.23 73.30 94.88

Oak Grove ES 72.94 59.07 65.80 66.68

Oakview ES 88.70 94.02 84.20 90.38

Oakcliff ES 74.92 73.76 80.00 74.96 Panola Way ES 56.50 78.57 74.20 67.10

Peachcrest ES 55.14 57.57 75.00 58.10

Pine Ridge ES 65.69 52.44 71.70 60.99

Pleasantdale ES 62.87 32.39 55.00 49.89

Princeton ES 99.64 89.00 90.00 94.42

Rainbow ES 65.16 56.39 82.50 63.39

Redan ES 55.30 80.32 77.50 67.53

Robert Shaw ES 46.30 75.65 79.20 61.33

Rock Chapel ES 54.48 97.25 97.50 75.89

Rockbridge ES 37.74 57.76 72.50 49.22

Ronald E. McNair Discovery Learning Academy 99.90 74.72 95.00 89.34

Rowland ES 93.56 81.81 78.40 87.35

Sagamore Hills ES 68.25 50.19 84.20 62.62

Shadow Rock ES 73.93 98.00 91.70 85.34 Shadow Rock Center 73.93 83.39 100.00 80.32 Sky Haven ES 49.39 54.32 64.20 52.85 Smoke Rise ES 37.09 63.40 76.70 51.58

Snapfinger ES 81.70 63.46 80.00 74.23

Stone Mill ES 53.62 89.48 91.70 71.77

Stone Mountain ES 36.41 63.70 69.20 50.61

Stoneview ES 59.63 72.49 72.50 66.06

Toney ES 42.70 61.68 75.00 53.52

Vanderlyn ES 73.40 58.94 95.00 69.78 Wadsworth Elementary 42.82 58.17 75.00 52.18


PAGE 90 OF 92



Site Condition Adequacy Tech Combined 50% 40% 10%

Elementary Schools (Cont.)

Woodridge Elementary 56.75 68.87 79.20 63.84Woodward Elementary 80.72 51.63 66.70 67.68Wynbrooke Elementary 94.85 96.74 81.70 94.29

Elementary School Average 68 69 78 68

Middle Schools Avondale MS 96.99 94.91 76.70 94.13

Cedar Grove MS 87.63 82.85 77.50 84.71

Chamblee MS 93.60 83.31 95.00 89.62

Champion MS 48.16 70.07 54.10 57.52

Chapel Hill MS 83.13 80.16 80.00 81.62

Columbia MS 98.93 88.04 90.00 93.68

Freedom MS 97.33 93.80 87.50 94.94

Henderson MS 79.41 64.40 62.50 71.71

International Student Center 62.26 38.79 69.20 53.57

Lithonia MS 91.77 82.47 80.90 86.96

Mary McLeod Bethune MS 94.38 91.90 90.00 92.95

Miller Grove MS 57.42 66.36 82.50 63.51 Peachtree Charter MS 99.43 83.78 81.70 91.39

Redan MS 96.48 90.77 75.80 92.13

Ronald McNair MS 47.98 64.64 72.50 57.10

Salem MS 68.28 81.91 65.80 73.49

Sequoyah MS 76.12 60.91 73.30 69.75

Shamrock MS 81.74 57.11 77.50 71.46

Stephenson MS 81.51 92.29 75.00 85.17

Stone Mountain MS 99.65 86.36 92.50 93.62

Tucker MS 98.50 90.22 92.50 94.59

Middle School Average 84 78 79 81


PAGE 91 OF 92




10%

High Schools Arabia Mountain HS 100.00 74.75 95.00 89.40

Avondale HS 70.95 44.79 59.20 59.31 DeKalb School of the Arts (DSA) 70.95 41.55 73.40 59.44 Cedar Grove HS 76.44 59.69 63.30 68.43

Chamblee HS 43.93 32.56 83.30 43.32

Clarkston HS 67.74 53.53 70.80 62.36

Columbia HS 92.21 67.72 57.50 78.94

Cross Keys HS 76.44 69.30 95.00 75.44

DeKalb Alternative School 86.35 59.30 73.30 74.23

DeKalb Alternative Night School 86.35 59.94 73.30 74.48

DeKalb HS of Technology South 60.43 64.38 69.20 62.89

Druid Hills HS 81.09 65.62 85.00 75.29

Dunwoody HS 83.78 69.11 82.50 77.79

Lakeside HS 94.31 22.09 52.50 61.24

Lithonia HS 95.95 85.48 92.50 91.42

Margaret Harris Comprehensive School 84.73 85.99 85.00 85.26

M.L. King, Jr., HS 69.55 80.72 70.80 74.14

Miller Grove HS 95.53 92.39 92.50 93.97

Elizabeth Andrews HS 99.83 85.62 92.50 93.41

DeKalb Early College Academy (DECA) 99.83 89.58 100.00 95.75

Redan HS 75.62 39.18 45.06 57.99

Ronald McNair Sr. HS 99.11 80.43 74.20 89.15

Southwest DeKalb HS 70.45 55.41 73.40 64.73

Stephenson HS 71.27 81.21 73.30 75.45

Stone Mountain High 66.83 57.74 74.20 63.93

Towers High 94.14 60.74 55.00 76.86

Tucker High 100.00 82.00 100.00 92.80

High School Average 82 65 76 75


PAGE 92 OF 92




10%

PK-12 Schools

DeKalb Transition Academy 33.38 37.73 42.50 36.03

Eagle Woods Academy 40.97 62.73 80.00 53.58

Fernbank Science Center 79.03 59.61 43.30 67.69

Warren Technical School 39.51 80.88 85.00 60.61

PK-12 School Average 49 60 63 54

Closed Schools

Doraville Drivers Ed Site 11.34 61.80 49.20 35.31

Forest Hills ES (Closed) 54.28 53.72 23.30 50.96

Heritage School Site 45.75 52.63 73.33 51.26

Hooper Alexander Facility (Closed) Note 1 37.69 N/A N/A

Old Briarcliff Open Campus Facility (Closed) Note 1 51.72 18.30 N/A

South Campus Driver Ed Center 63.52 79.77 66.70 70.34

Tilson ES Site (Closed) Note 1 61.54 36.70 N/A

Closed School Average 44 57 45 52

District Average 75 69 75 70

Source: Parsons and MGT of America, Inc., 2011 Note 1 - Facility is recommended for demolition and has no Current Replacement Value, FCI.

Scope of Work As part of their 2011 – 2022 Facilities Master Plan development, DeKalb County Schools endeavors to provide the best possible learning experience for each student. This includes providing facilities that are capable of supporting and sustaining the educational needs of the students, faculty, administrators, and the community today and in the future.

As facilities age, the physical condition of the systems and components will decline and become obsolete, even with good maintenance practices. In addition, as education standards and demands change, the construction and layout of older facilities no longer meets the space requirements of the new standards. It is therefore necessary to periodically evaluate and assess each school facility to determine current physical condition and educational adequacy to support the learning requirements and needs of the district’s students. To that end, the DeKalb County Board of Education contracted with the Parsons team of experts to perform a comprehensive facility condition assessment (FCA) to:

Provide information on each school facility as it exists today.

Provide a list of facility deficiencies and corrective work required.

Provide an estimate for current and future budgets for facility system replacement or renovation.

Provide insight into energy conservation opportunities.

Provide an educational adequacy assessment and analysis to help determine the educational adequacy and technology readiness of existing school facilities.

Provide a capacity and utilization assessment and analysis to help determine overcrowding or under-utilization of existing school facilities, and provide data to help determine needs for future schools.

Provide information to be used by DeKalb County Schools to strategically address current and future financial options.

No assumptions or considerations regarding the closure, consolidation, or construction of new schools or facilities are used or made in the development of the findings or in preparation of this report.

Lithonia High School

Terms and Definitions The following terms are used throughout this report and are defined here for clarification purposes.

Facility Condition Assessment (FCA)

A facility condition assessment (FCA) is a visual inspection of buildings and grounds at a facility to identify and estimate current and future needed repairs or replacements of major systems for planning and budgeting purposes. It is typically performed for organizations that are tasked with the day to day maintenance, operation, and capital renewal (replacement) of building systems and components of a large inventory of facilities. The primary goal of an FCA is to objectively and quantifiably identify, inspect, and prioritize the repair and replacement needs of the building and ground systems (e.g., roofs, windows, doors, floor finishes, plumbing fixtures, parking lot, and sidewalks) within facilities that have either failed or have surpassed their service life, and to indentify and forecast future capital replacement needs for systems that have not yet failed, but planned replacement of those systems is needed to ensure that the facilities will continue to meet the mission of the organization.

An FCA is an important tool for collecting, assembling and reporting the condition of facilities for decision makers to use in the budgeting and project planning process. Planning maintenance and repair and capital renewal budgets is best done in three phases. These phases correspond to the three main objectives of the FCA. The three phases of a typical FCA are:

1) Establish the current deferred maintenance and repair costs. These are maintenance and repair costs that have not been completed typically due to lack of funding.

2) Forecast future capital renewal costs. These are project replacement cost for building systems that are likely to require replacement within the next 5 to 10 years.

3) Maintain the FCA data. These three phases will demonstrate existing needs clearly and save money in the long run by giving the facility owner the ability to proactively plan and execute maintenance, repair, and capital renewal projects.

An FCA allows the owner to collect existing condition data in a standardized method and then turn that raw data into usable information. The result of the FCA is a facility condition index (FCI) for each facility. The FCI allows the facility owner to objectively compare the condition of each facility against other facilities allowing the owner to understand and rate the condition of the overall facilities portfolio. The result of this data analysis becomes the basis for prioritizing and funding the maintenance repair and the capital renewal program. Parsons uses its proprietary Condition Management Estimation Technology (COMET) software to meet the critical goals of an FCA.

COMET

Condition Management Estimation Technology (COMET) is Parsons proprietary facility asset management software developed to provide facility managers with a state of the art, web-based tool to develop and maintain a comprehensive database of FCA data and information used for facility asset management, maintenance and repair, and capital renewal planning. COMET software is used by Parsons and its clients as the primary tool for collecting FCA data, preparing cost estimates, generating individual facility reports and cost estimates, and developing the overall capital renewal program.

Facility Condition Index (FCI)

The facility condition index (FCI) is a measure widely used in the facility management and building industry to measure the physical condition of a facility compared to its replacement value.

The term FCI was originally used by the National Association of College and University Business Officers (NACUBO) and the US Navy’s Naval Facilities Engineering Command (NAVFAC) to aid in funding and prioritizing maintenance and repair. It has been adopted and refined by numerous national facility maintenance, trade, and facility administrator associations, and is generally used as a means of comparing relative facility conditions. The FCI measures the estimated cost of the current year repair and replacement deficiencies, including recommended modernization improvements and grandfathered code issues, divided by the current replacement value of the facility to contemporary construction standards and design best practices. The result of this division is an index, generally expressed as a percentage, which is the FCI. The higher the FCI, the poorer the relative condition of the facility.

Although current industry standards consider a building with an FCI of 0 to 5% good, 6 to 10% fair and 10% and above poor, in practice, few, if any, inventories of public buildings ever achieve an overall rating of 10% or below. These FCI guidelines are general guidelines that are under constant review debate within the building ownership communities. Parsons routinely finds average FCI ratings for public school facilities throughout the United States within the range of 25%-35%, with 0-15% representing Good condition; 16%–30% representing Fair condition, and 31% and greater representing Poor condition.

FCI = Unweighted Repair Costs + Adequacy Costs

Current Replacement Value

Weighted Facility Condition Index (WFCI)

Weighted FCI scoring uses the same basic principle as the FCI calculations, except that COMET’s deficiency priority ratings can be weighted to magnify the importance of criteria – a weighting factor is multiplied by the value of each category (the more critical a need, the higher the factor) so that the facilities with a higher proportion of higher weighted priorities receive a higher score. In the case of DeKalb County School System, the priority weight is based on the relative importance of each deficiency. All necessary deficiencies which need to be

corrected to keep the buildings in the current level of functionality will be the starting point, having a weight of 1.00. If a deficiency is considered a life safety item, meaning that the deficient item represents a risk to the public health, will be is prioritized as 1.25. On the other hand if the deficiency is purely cosmetic it would receive a priority of 0.5.

Weighted scoring is intended to more accurately rank facilities that have similar FCIs and to place emphasis on the criticality of a deficiency priority type. Below is an example of how Weighted FCI is calculated using simple weights for each priority:

[(Priority 1 x 1.25) + (Priority 2 x 1.10) + (Priority 3 x 1.00) + (Priority 4 x 0.75) + (Priority 5 x 0.50)]

Current Replacement Value

Deficiency Priority Definitions and Priority Weighting Factors

Each COMET deficiency was assigned a preliminary priority number of 1 through 5, to reflect that deficiency’s priority status as determined by the assessment team. (NOTE: These preliminary deficiency priority settings are internal to the database and do not reflect the final priority setting assigned to proposed project repairs as determined by DCSS in their funding requests).

Priority #

EXAMPLE Deficiency Priority Weight

1 Critical / Immediate Need 1.25

2 Potentially Critical – Year 1 1.10

3 Necessary – Years 2-5 1.00

4 Recommended – Years 3-10 0.75

5 Discretionary – Cosmetic issues 0.50

The following table includes a brief summary of each data priority and its relative cost weighting in the database:

Deficiency Priority #

Description (Weight Factor Used)

1

Critical – Immediate Need (Weight Factor: 1.25): Used only for critical issues that pose immediate threats to the life, health, or safety of persons within the facility. Examples include:

- Obvious or suspected asbestos; potential release into the air - Unprotected exit corridors - Serious code violations such as blocked egress, improper fire detection/warning, electrical hazards, structural

failures, emergency lighting, etc.

2

Potentially Critical – 1 Year (Weight Factor: 1.10): Assigned to systems or deficiencies that are mission critical and beyond service life or most systems that are 150% beyond service life. Examples include:

- Fire alarm/detection systems whose age is between 100% and 150% of the life cycle. - Any system that is in serious disrepair or where failure is imminent - Severely damaged walls, floors and ceilings - Most systems that have exceeded 150% of their service life.

3

Necessary – Years 2-5 (Weight Factor: 1.00): Assigned to systems or deficiencies that should be repaired to mitigate additional damage. Examples include:

- Roofs that are leaking - Exterior walls, doors, window systems that chronically leak. - Inadequate ventilation systems that could result in moisture damage or mold creation.

4

Recommended – Years 3-10 (Weight Factor: .75): Assigned to systems or deficiencies that are beyond their service life, however, exhibit no signs of immediate repair requirements. Examples include:

- Electrical service equipment that is 110% of the expected service life yet is functioning well. - Most interior finishes not severely damaged, torn, etc.

5

Discretionary – Funding Triggered (Weight Factor: .50): Assigned to systems or deficiencies that could be considered cosmetic or low priority issues. Examples include:

- Re-seeding of playgrounds. - Finishes, flooring type, architectural standards, etc.

COMET Cost Models

COMET cost models are derived from RS Means Square Foot Cost Data cost models and these models are used to develop the current replacement value (CRV) and assign life cycle costs to the various systems within a building. Cost models are detailed to Uniformat II – Level 3 building systems and are assigned current costs-per-square-foot replacement values (see Appendix 3). The Cost models are designed to represent a client specific facility that meets local standards cost trends.

Current Replacement Value (CRV)

The Current Replacement Value (CRV) of a facility, building or system represents the hypothetical cost of rebuilding or replacing an existing facility under today’s codes and construction standards, using its current configuration. For example, an existing building that currently does not have a fire sprinkler, but requires one under today’s codes or DCSS standards, would include costs for this system as part of its replacement value. It is calculated by multiplying the gross area of the facility by a square foot cost developed in that facility’s schedule of values cost model. Replacement cost includes construction costs and owner’s additional or “soft” costs for fees, permits and other expenses to reflect a total project cost.

Order of Magnitude Repair Budgets

These are the budgeted costs to make partial or full replacement of expired systems, costs for out of cycle repair adjustments, and costs for condition, suitability and sufficiency deficiencies. Because project costs typically include budget elements in addition to condition repair costs of a current facility, i.e.,

modernization upgrade items, area sufficiency items, etc., the total order of magnitude repair costs can exceed the current replacement cost.

Order of magnitude repair costs are budget numbers, not actual project costs. The facility condition assessment data should not be considered specific scope of work descriptions for individual buildings; rather it is a repair-program budgeting tool that offers reference data for the repair planning process.

Within a construction project, substantial cost differences may be recognized from the estimated cost figures provided in the COMET database, depending on the method of repair procurement, the construction market at the time, and the actual scope of work anticipated. Detailed engineering studies may also be required to fully determine costs associated with individual component failures that were beyond the scope of the assessment.

The scope of the assessment findings and the figures contained in the COMET database do not include additional renovation costs and mark-ups that may be recommended as part of the project analysis or within the business unit’s proposed comprehensive repair program, of which the COMET facility assessment is one input component. The assessment also does not include information regarding the affordability of any potential repairs or replacements, nor does it prioritize the business unit’s objectives that will become a major component of any facility repair plan.

Additional Costs—Soft Costs

Additional costs or “soft” costs are costs that are necessary to accomplish the corrective work but are not directly attributable to the deficient system’s direct construction cost, which are often referred to as “hard cost”. Soft costs vary by owner but usually include architect and contractor fees, contingencies and other owner incurred costs necessary to fully develop and build a facility. These soft costs can be adjusted anytime within the COMET database at the Owner’s discretion.

Soft costs currently included in the COMET database are as follows:

Life Cycles

Parsons assigns expected life cycles to all building systems based on Building Operators and Managers of America (BOMA) recommended life cycles, manufacturer’s suggested life, and RS Means-recommended material life based on their historical records. BOMA standards are a nationally recognized source of life cycle data (based on its members’ historical data) for various components and/or systems associated with facilities. RS Means is a national company specializing in construction estimating and costs.

Renewal Factors

Renewal factors represent the difference in cost of renovating or replacing an existing system, rather than new construction of a building system. For example, installing a new built-up roof on an existing building would include removing and disposing of the old roof, a cost not associated with new construction. Using a renewal premium to account for demolition and other difficulty costs, we typically assign a renewal factor of 110%.

System Generated Deficiencies

COMET automatically generates system deficiencies based on system life cycles using the systems’ installation dates as the base year. By adjusting the Next Renewal date ahead or behind the predicted or stated life cycle date, a system cost will come due earlier or later than the originally installed life cycle date. This utility accounts for good maintenance conditions and a longer life, or early expiration of a system life due to any number of adverse factors such as poor installation, acts of god, material defects, poor design applications and other factors that may shorten the life of a material or system. It is important

to mention that the condition of the systems is not necessarily a reflection of maintenance practices,

but a combination of system usage and age.

Building Systems

COMET uses Uniformat II to organize building data. Uniformat II was originally developed by the federal General Services Administration to delineate building costs by systems rather than by material. Uniformat II was formalized by an NIST standard, NISTIR 6389 in 1999. It has been further quantified and updated by ASTM standard 2005, E1557-05. The Construction Specifications Institute, CSI, has taken over the standard as part of their MasterFormat / MasterSpec system. RS Means has adopted Uniformat II as its cost classification system, but with custom modifications, for example, C3020 is Floor Finishes in Uniformat II, but RS Means uses the 5th digit to discriminate between assemblies for:

C3020 – Floor Finishes (new construction assemblies all use 0 for 5th digit)

C3023 – Floor Finishes (repair and renovation floor assemblies all use 3 for 5th digit)

C3025 – Floor Finishes (preventative maintenance assemblies all use 5 for 5th digit)

Reference Organizations

Several organizations are referenced throughout the document and include: Acronym Organization

BOMA BUILDING OWNERS AND MANAGERS ASSOCIATION: National organization of public and private facilities focused on building management tools and maintenance techniques. COMET reference: Building and component system effective economic life expectancies.

RS Means RS MEANS: Primary national company specializing in construction cost data.

Acronym Organization COMET reference: Cost models and deficiency pricing.

CSI CONSTRUCTION SPECIFICATIONS INSTITUTE: Primary national organization specializing in construction materials data and data location in construction documents. COMET reference: Uniformat II materials classification.

ASTM ASTM INTERNATIONAL (ASTM): Originally known as the American Society for Testing and Materials, is an international standards organization that develops and publishes voluntary consensus technical standards for a wide range of materials, products, systems, and services. COMET reference: Asset Priority Index.

Flat Rock Elementary School

Terms Building

An enclosed and roofed structure that can be traversed without exiting to the exterior. Building Addition

An area, space or component of a building added to a building after the original building’s year built date. Capital Renewal

Capital renewal is condition work (excluding suitability and energy audit work) that includes the replacement of building systems or elements (as they become obsolete or beyond their useful life) not normally included in an annual operating budget. Calculated Next Renewal

The year a system or element would be expected to expire based solely on the date it was installed and the expected useful lifetime for that kind of system. Next Renewal

The assessor adjusted expected useful life of a system or element based on on-site inspection. Condition

Condition refers to the state of physical fitness or readiness of a facility, system, or system element for its intended use. Current Replacement Value (CRV)

Current Replacement Value (CRV) represents the hypothetical total cost of rebuilding or replacing an existing facility in current dollars to its optimal condition (excluding auxiliary facilities) under current codes and construction standards. Deferred Maintenance

Deferred maintenance is condition work (excluding suitability and energy audit needs) deferred on a planned or unplanned basis to a future budget cycle or postponed until funds are available. Deficiency

A deficiency is a repair item that is damaged, missing, inadequate or insufficient for an intended purpose. Element

Elements are the major components that comprise building systems. Facility

A facility refers to site(s), building(s), or building addition(s), or combinations thereof that provide a particular service or support of an educational purpose. Facility Condition Index (FCI)

FCI is an industry-standard measurement of a facility's condition that is the ratio of the cost to correct a facility's deficiencies to the Current Replacement Value of the facilities. The higher the FCI, the poorer the condition of a facility. After an FCI is established for all buildings within a portfolio, a building's condition can be ranked relative to other buildings. The FCI may also represent the condition of a portfolio based on the cumulative FCIs of the portfolio's facilities.

Gross Square Feet (GSF)

The size of the enclosed floor space of a building in square feet, measured to the outside face of the enclosing wall. Install Year

The year a building or system was built or the most recent major renovation date (where a minimum of 70% of the system’s Current Replacement Value (CRV) was replaced). Life Cycle

The period of time that a building or site system or element can be expected to adequately serve its intended function. Site

A facility’s grounds and its utilities, roadways, landscaping, fencing and other typical land improvements needed to support the facility. System

System refers to building and related site work elements as described by ASTM Uniformat II, Classification for Building Elements (E1557-97), a format for classifying major facility elements common to most buildings. Elements usually perform a given function, regardless of the design specification, construction method, or materials used. See also, Uniformat. Uniformat II

Uniformat II is ASTM Uniformat II, Classification for Building Elements (E1557-97), a format for classifying major facility components common to most buildings. Year Built

The year that a building or addition was originally built based on substantial completion or occupancy.

Stone Mill Elementary School

Facility Assessment Reports (Separate Cover) Appendix C is a nine volume set of separately bound books which contain the individual Facility Condition Assessment, Educational Adequacy, and Technology Readiness Reports for each school and non-school sites. Please refer to the specific Volume and School for these individual reports.

Volume 1

Elementary Schools (Allgood - Chestnut)

Volume 2

Elementary Schools (Clifiton - Glen Haven)

Volume 3

Elementary Schools (Gresham Park - Livsey)

Volume 4

Elementary Schools (Marbut - Redan)

Volume 5

Elementary Schools (Robert Shaw-Wynbrooke)

Volume 6

Middle Schools (Avondale – Ronald McNair Sr.)

Volume 7

Middle Schools (Salem – Tucker)

High Schools (Administrative and Instructional Complex – DeKalb HS of Technology South)

Volume 8

High Schools (Druid Hills – Tucker)

Volume 9

P – 12 Schools: DeKalb Transition Academy – Warren Technical School

Non School Sites: Adams Stadium – William Bradley Bryant Center

Vacant Sites: Distract Offices Buildings (Closed) – Tilson ES (Closed)

ELEMENTARY SCHOOL SF PROGRAMMING SHEET

Functional Area Qty. IUs DOE Min SF DCSS SF Est. Program SF

Media Center 3,900 4,500 0

0

Kindergarten 750 900 0

First Grade 750 900 0

Second Grade 750 750 0

Third Grade 750 750 0

Fourth Grade 660 750 0

Fifth Grade 660 750 0

Art 1,000 850 0

Music 1,000 1,100 0

Computer Science 660 1,000 0

Foreign Language 660 800 0

Math Lab 660 750 0

Reading Lab 660 800 0

Science 660 1,200 0

Title 1 660 750 0

Discovery 660 750 0

Special Education 660 1584 0

0

Physical Education 0 5,200 0

Kitchen 2,400 2,706 0

Cafeteria 2,778 5,644 0

0

Adminstration 0 3,300 0

Guidance 0 572 0

Misc. Spaces (Planning, RR, Circ, Etc) 0 27,648 0

Totals 0 0 0

MIDDLE SCHOOL SF PROGRAMMING SHEET

Functional Area Qty. IUs DOE

Min SF DCSS SF

Est.

Program

SFAdminstration N/A 5,902 0

Guidance N/A 1,456 0


English Language 660 720 0


Mathematics 660 720 0

Social Studies 660 720 0

Science 1,000 1,000 0

Art 1,800 2,000 0

Instrumental/Orchestra 1,400 3,600 0

Choral/Keyboard 1,200 2,300 0

English Technology Lab 660 850 0

Math Lab 660 800 0

Computer Reading Lab 1,000 1,150 0

Home Economics 1,500 2,000 0

Business 1,000 1,000 0

Technology/Construction 2,100 3,200 0

Career Connections 750 720 0

In-School Suspension 660 720 0

Special Education 660 2,250 0

Impact/Gifted 660 720 0

Health Lab 660 850 0

Physical Education 16,000 18,552 0

Kitchen 3,500 3,862 0

Cafeteria 5,300 9,000 0

0

Misc. Spaces (Planning, RR, Circ, Etc) N/A 44,076 0

Totals 0 0 0

HIGH SCHOOL SF PROGRAMMING SHEET

Functional Area Qty. IUs DOE Min SF DCSS SF Est. Program SF

English Language 600 750 0


Mathematics 600 750 0

Social Studies 600 750 0

Science 1,000 1,000 0

Art 1,800 2,200 0

Instrumental/Orchestra 1,800 3,888 0

Choral/Keyboard 1,800 2,848 0

Drama 1,000 2,000 0

Technology/Construction 3,000 3,700 0

Vocational Agriculture 3,600 3,600 0

Home Economics 1,500 2,400 0

Business 1,100 1,200 0

Health Lab 700 2,000 0

Physical Ed 30,000 29,964 0

Electronics 1,800 1,800 0

Food Service 2,000 4,000 0

ROTC 3,600 4,400 0

In-School Suspension 600 750 0

Special Education 600 660 0


Impact 600 850 0

Reading 600 850 0

Auditorium 13,000 14,000 0

Administrative 4,000 4,716 0

Counseling 0 2,208 0

Kitchen 4,000 4,000 0

Cafeteria (Commons) 8,000 10,000 0

Miscellanous Spaces 0 0 0

Totals 0 0 0

Facilities Section

160-5-4-.16 Design and Construction Standards and Construction Costs

(1) (a) (4)

SQUARE FOOTAGE REQUIREMENTS FOR USE IN DEVELOPING

THE LOCAL FACILITIES PLANS AND STATE CAPITAL OUTLAY APPLICATIONS

FOR FUNDING

GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION FACILITIES SERVICES UNIT

(Except as noted on IU Allocation Chart)

Georgia Department of Education

Kathy Cox, Superintendent of Schools

Effective Date: September 11, 2008

of 14

GEORGIA PUBLIC SCHOOLS MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR

FACILITIES PLANS - APPLICATIONS - ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN

I. NEW SCHOOL BUILDING REQUIREMENTS

Total square footage for new facilities is determined by formula. All required spaces with adequate size must be designed from the space budget. New School Formula: Square Footage Budget Elementary School Facilities 1,800 x I.U. = Construction Budget*

Middle School Facilities 2,250 x I.U. = Construction Budget

High School Facilities 2,850 x I.U. = Construction Budget *If Music, Art, and/or Physical Education are not included in the program, S.F. and funding calculations will be reduced accordingly.

II. SPACE REQUIREMENTS FOR INSTRUCTIONAL AND SUPPORT AREAS

All square footages shown below are NET, computed by using inside dimensions of room;

square footage of support spaces (including interior partition thickness) in suites (Art,

Music, Science, Vocational, Media, ROTC, Theater, Physical Education, and Kitchen)

may be included when computing the square footage of the suite. Examples of support

spaces are: storage room, office, kiln, etc.

A. CLASSROOM

1. Existing instructional units (including labs, but excluding medias) are approvable

up to a ten percent reduction in the square footage required. 2. New classrooms must meet net square footage requirements (total inside square

footage for instructional units).

3. Grades Square Footage

K-3 (Each Primary classroom shall have immediate accessibility to a work counter (a minimum of 8 lineal feet) with sink and gooseneck faucet.

750

4-8 660 9-12 600

of 14

B. CORRIDORS

The minimum clear width of corridors shall be 8 feet when serving 2 or more instructional units. High school corridors, where lockers will be installed, shall be a minimum clear width of 9 feet if the lockers are on one side only. If there are to be lockers on both sides, the corridor must be at least 10 feet wide. When a corridor serves 10 or more instructional units, add 1 more foot to the base clear width and adjust with 1 additional foot for each width of lockers that is located in the corridor. Major high school facility corridors serving 12 or more instructional units shall be at least 12'0" wide with an additional foot added for each width of lockers to be located in the corridor.

C. ART SQUARE FOOTAGE

1. High School 1,800-2,000 2. Middle School 1,800-2,000 3. Elementary School 1,000

D. MUSIC SQUARE FOOTAGE 1. High School Instrumental (Band) 1,800-2,400 Choral 1,500-1,800 Combination Instrumental & Choral 1,800-2,400 2. Middle School Instrumental (Band) 1,400-1,600 Choral 1,200-1,400 Combination Instrumental & Choral 1,400-1,600 3. Elementary School Instrumental/Choral 1,000

E. SCIENCE 1. High School Laboratory 900 Laboratory & Classroom Combination 1,000-1,200 2. Middle School Classroom with Teacher Demo Table 1,000-1,100

of 14

F.

VOCATIONAL

See CTAE Guidelines for industry certification requirements. High School Agricultural Education One teacher 3,600 *Each additional teacher, add 1,100* *Additional Structures or Labs: *Greenhouse 2,000* *Animal Science Lab 1,000* *Forestry 5 acre minimum* *Land Lab 5 acre minimum* Business, Marketing, and Information Technology Business Education (CBE) 1,100 Marketing Education (ME) 1,300 Family and Consumer Sciences (Home Economics): One Teacher 1,500 Two Teachers 2,400 Early Childhood Development (Child Care) 1,800 Professional Foods & Management (Food Service) 2,300 Health Occupations 1,800 Technology Education (Technology) 3,000 -3,600

Career and Intervention Programs

Career Connections 750 Program of Education and Career Exploration

(PECE) 750

Workplace Readiness 750 Coordinated Vocational and Academic Education

(CVAE) 750

Related Vocational Instruction (RVI) 750 *The minimum requirements for Agricultural Education and the maximum square footage eligible for state participation is 3,600 square feet. If any additional programs are planned the square footages shown above are offered as recommendations.

of 14

F. VOCATIONAL--High School (continued) SQUARE FOOTAGE Trade and Industrial Education (Clusters): Automotive Service Technology (Transportation ) 3,200 Aviation Maintenance Technology 14,000 Broadcast and Video Production 1,800 Collision Repair (Auto Body) 2,700 Construction Technology 3,000 Cosmetology 2,000 Engineering, Drawing, & Design Technology (CAD)

1,000 Heating, Ventilation, Air Conditioning, & Refrigeration

(HVACR)

2,400 Electronics & Telecommunications Technology 1,800 Graphic Arts & Commercial Art 2,400 Manufacturing & Engineering Sciences 2,100 Metalworking Technology (Sheet Metal & Welding) 2,800 Public Safety (Law Enforcement) 1,000 Diversified Cooperative Training (DCT) 900 Middle School Agri-science Technology 2,500 Career Connections 750 Computer Technology and Keyboarding 1,000 Explorations of Business and Marketing 1,000 Exploration in Technology (Exploratory Technology) 2,100-2,700 Family and Consumer Sciences (Home Economics ) 1,500 Add square footage for rest rooms and circulation, when required.

of 14

G. MEDIA CENTER SQUARE FOOTAGE

FTE Square Footage FTE Square Footage FTE Square Footage 0-263 1900 1051-1076 4425 1839-1864 6675

264-289 1995 1077-1103 4500 1865-1890 6750 290-315 2090 1104-1129 4575 1891-1916 6825 316-341 2185 1130-1155 4650 1917-1943 6900 342-368 2280 1156-1181 4725 1944-1969 6975 369-394 2375 1182-1208 4800 1970-1995 7050 395-420 2470 1209-1234 4875 1996-2021 7125 421-446 2565 1235-1260 4950 2022-2048 7200 447-473 2660 1261-1286 5025 2049-2074 7275 474-499 2755 1287-1313 5100 2075-2100 7350 500-525 2850

526-551 2925 1314-1339 5175 2101-2126 7425 552-578 3000 1340-1365 5250 2127-2153 7500 579-604 3075 1366-1391 5325 2154-2179 7575 605-630 3150 1392-1418 5400 2180-2205 7650 631-656 3225 1419-1444 5475 2206-2231 7725 657-683 3300 1445-1470 5550 2232-2258 7800 684-709 3375 1471-1496 5625 2259-2284 7875 710-735 3450 1497-1523 5700 2285-2310 7950 736-761 3525 1524-1549 5775 2311-2336 8025 762-788 3600 1550-1575 5850 2337-2363 8100

789-814 3675 1576-1601 5925 2364-2389 8175 815-840 3750 1602-1628 6000 2390-2415 8250 841-866 3825 1629-1654 6075 2416-2441 8325 867-893 3900 1655-1680 6150 2442-2468 8400 894-919 3975 1681-1706 6225 2469-2494 8475 920-945 4050 1707-1733 6300 2495-2520 8550 946-971 4125 1734-1759 6375 2521-2546 8625 972-998 4200 1760-1785 6450 2547-2573 8700

999-1024 4275 1786-1811 6525 2574-2599 8775 1025-1050 4350 1812-1838 6600 2600-2625 8850

Facilities over 2625 FTE should add 75 square feet per 26 students beyond the 8850 square footage figure. All square footages stated are net totals. Existing media centers are approvable with up to a 500 square foot reduction from requirements. If a facility is enlarged, then the media center must meet the above requirements.

School systems are encouraged to incorporate the use and support of technology in the media center. It is permissible to use space within the media center square footage for computers, printers, internet applications, technology support, electronic distribution, networks, and associated instructional processes and equipment.

of 14

Electronic Distribution System (EDS) All new facilities and additions to existing facilities shall be equipped with a completely operational electronic distribution system including wiring, amplifiers, splitters, mixers, taps, outlets and all other active and inactive devices necessary for the acquisition, processing and distribution of television channels and FM radio. Plans for new facilities shall also provide all available instructional TV channels possible without programming duplication, commercial channels that carry either ABC, CBS, or NBC and an instructional FM radio station. Data Communication Network Wiring

All facilities shall be equipped with a completely operational Local Area Network (LAN). This data communication network shall be a complete operational LAN including: a main distribution frame, intermediate distribution frames, all wiring, outlets, and necessary devices for a data communication system. Architectural plans shall include this information when submitted to the Department for review. A Local Area Network (LAN) is required within each facility with an appropriate capability to connect to a System Wide Area Network (WAN) or to a Metropolitan Area Network (MAN). The intent is to require Internet capability to every instructional space designed to support the Quality Core Curriculum, but not require a specified number of computers or computer connections. The local system should plan for, provide and insure the necessary infrastructure so future changes in instructional needs will support the curriculum as dictated by the State curriculum requirements. The individual course content, objectives, and recommended instructional delivery approaches to be used shall dictate the actual configuration of the infrastructure for each instructional space.

Architectural/Engineering drawings submitted at the Check Set Stage on all new facility construction, additions, or renovations must include the configuration of technology infrastructure to meet student instructional needs and for management of data for administrative purposes. The Architectural/Engineering drawings must reflect the school systems approved Technology Plan including the Index for Technology Integration Components. The infrastructure may be wired or wireless, but must be in compliance with the approved system technology plan. Due to the continuing evolution of technology resulting in changes in cost, the “Technology Section” may be bid separately or as an alternate, but must be included in the original drawings. The local systems decision to include or bid separately must be declared at the “Check Set Stage”. Substantial changes in design may require a resubmission of that Section of the Specifications.

of 14

H. RESERVE OFFICERS TRAINING CORP

Sq. Ft. with range Sq. Ft. without range 1. Range, Storage, Administration and one

Classroom

3,600

2,000 2. Range, Storage, Administration and two

Classrooms

4,400

2,800 3. Range, Storage, Administration and three

Classrooms

5,200

3,600

I. THEATER

A maximum of 1,500 square feet may be developed for drama when it is included in the instructional program according to the following:

1. Excess units may be modified in existing facilities. 2. Total square footage for new facilities is determined by formula. All required spaces

with adequate size must be designed from the space budget. Good planning by the educator and architect may result in space for the theater in a new school.

of 14

J. PHYSICAL EDUCATION SQUARE FOOTAGE Elementary School 5,000-8,000* Middle School 16,000** High School 22,000***

* 5,000 S.F. for one instructor; 8,000 S.F. for more than one instructor (FTE must be 900 or more for the state to participate in an 8,000 S.F. PE facility). ** 1,000 S.F. of the recommended amount is for athletics; therefore, 1,000 S.F. is ineligible for state funding.

***3,000 S.F. of recommended amount is for athletics; therefore 3,000 S.F. is ineligible for state funding.

K. FOOD SERVICE

1. Formula for Cafeteria: Elementary = Total FTE divided by 3.15 multiplied by 10 Middle and High = Total FTE divided by 3.15 multiplied by 12 If a space for assembly is included in cafeteria, the formula is total

FTE multiplied by five (5) square feet. 2. Kitchen and all support areas for food service:

FTE SQUARE FOOTAGE

Up to 525 1,600 526-788 2,000

789-1,050 2,400 1,051-1,313 3,000 1,314-1,575 3,500 1,576-2,100 4,000 2101-3000 4,200

a. For updating old facilities, the additional square footage for assembly areas will be

provided with local funds. b. Total square footage for new schools is determined by formula. All required spaces

with adequate size must be designed from the space budget. Good planning by the educator and architect may result in space for assembly areas in the cafeteria for a new school.

of 14

L. ADMINISTRATION UNIT

Minimum administration facilities shall include: Reception space, principal’s office, counseling (reception and office), storage for school records, storage for supplies, clinic, teachers’ work rooms, and toilets.

M. TOILETS

MINIMUM PLUMBING FIXTURE REQUIREMENTS FOR SCHOOL MAIN BATTERY TOILET ROOMS

No. of Pupils

each sex

GIRLS

BOYS

Grades

K-5

Grades

6-8

Grades

9-12

Grades

K-5

Grades

6-8

Grades

9-12

WC

Lav

WC

Lav

WC

Lav

WC

U

Lav

WC

U

Lav

WC

U

Lav

50*

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

60

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

70

3

2

3

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

80

3

2

3

2

3

2

2

3

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

90

4

2

3

2

3

2

3

3

2

2

3

2

2

2

2

100

4

2

3

2

3

2

3

3

2

3

3

2

2

2

2

110

4

2

4

2

4

2

3

4

2

3

3

2

2

2

2

120

5

2

4

2

4

2

3

4

2

3

4

2

3

3

2

130

5

2

5

2

4

2

4

4

2

3

4

2

3

3

2

140

6

2

5

2

4

2

4

4

2

4

4

2

3

3

2

150

6

3

6

3

5

2

4

4

3

4

4

2

3

3

2

160

6

3

6

3

5

2

4

5

3

4

4

2

3

3

2

170

7

3

6

3

5

2

4

5

3

4

4

2

3

3

2

180

7

3

6

3

5

2

5

5

3

4

4

3

3

3

2

190

8

3

7

3

6

2

5

5

3

4

5

3

4

4

2

200

8

3

7

3

6

2

5

6

3

5

5

3

4

4

2

210

8

4

7

3

6

2

5

6

4

5

5

3

4

4

2

In K-5 - Toilet rooms required must be within the wing, pod, etc., of classrooms. In 6-8 - Toilet locations must be in closer proximity to rooms than 9-12. In 9-12 - Toilet locations must be on floor adequate for population of floor. *Minimum student battery toilet. The maximum number of students of either sex to be served by a single battery toilet, shall be 210 students.

of 14

Number of fixtures for students’ toilet rooms:

For elementary school facilities, student toilet rooms shall be sized at 20 students per classroom in the area considered. If self-contained classrooms are in the area, deduct 20 students for each such classroom.

For self-contained primary classrooms, provide two separate toilet rooms (each with one lavatory and one water closet) one for males and one for females. Two adjacent classrooms may share a pair of toilet rooms. For high schools and middle school facilities, student toilet rooms shall be sized at 25 students per instructional unit.

All toilet rooms:

The privacy of student toilet rooms shall be protected with adequate privacy screening. (Wash fountains and/or lavatories may be located in a corridor recess without privacy screening provided that at least one operational lavatory with privacy screening is located inside the toilet room.) Provide partitions between all toilet areas. Provide doors for all toilet booths. Toilet rooms having two or more human waste fixtures shall be provided with a floor drain and hose bibb.

Separate toilet fixtures and facilities shall be provided for each sex.

Number of drinking fountains:

At least two fountain heads shall be provided in each facility. At least one fountain head shall be provided for each 100 elementary and each 100 to 125 middle or high school pupils, or fraction thereof in the area to be served. Fountains shall be exclusive of playground fountains, lunchroom fountains, or other special purpose fountains.

III. WAIVER REQUESTS

Requests for waivers of the minimum square footage requirements for instructional programs will be considered on a case-by-case basis by the State Board of Education. Requests must be in the form of a Local Board Resolution signed by the Board Chairman and System Superintendent and must include a description of the desired waiver and the justification for the change. If a waiver in a state project involves constructing, modifying, and/or renovating less square footage than stipulated in the application, state funding for that project will be reduced accordingly. The Local Board of Education will not be entitled to any state funds in the future for modifying or increasing these spaces if a waiver is granted. All modifications and increases to the waived spaces must be funded at the local level. All requests for waivers shall be addressed to the State Superintendent of Schools c/o Facilities Services Unit.

of 14

IV. INSTRUCTIONAL UNIT ALLOCATIONS (Effective Date July 1, 2004)

FTE MID-RANGE 100 125 150 175 200 225 250 275 300 325 350 375 400 425

FTE

RANGE

88

to

112

113

to

137

138

to

162

163

to

187

188

to

212

213

to

237

238

to

262

263

to

287

288

to

312

313

to

337

338

to

362

363

to

387

388

to

412

413

to

437

K 8 9 11 13 14 16 17 19 21 22 24 26 27 29

K-2 7 9 10 12 14 15 17 18 20 22 23 25 26 28

K-3 7 9 10 12 14 15 17 18 20 21 23 25 26 28

K-4 7 9 10 12 13 15 16 18 19 21 22 24 25 27

K-5 7 8 10 11 13 14 16 17 18 20 21 23 24 26

K-6 7 8 10 11 12 14 15 17 18 19 21 22 24 25

K-7 7 8 9 11 12 14 15 16 18 19 20 22 23 25

K-8 6 8 9 11 12 13 15 16 17 19 20 22 23 24

1-3 7 8 10 11 13 14 16 17 19 20 22 23 25 26

3-8 (ES Only) 6 7 8 9 11 12 13 14 15 17 18 19 20 21

[Elementary Schools below base size (450 FTE) are ineligible for music, art, & PE units]

MIDDLE SCHOOL PROGRAM K-8 7 8 10 11 13 15 17 18 19 21 22 24 25 27

6-8 10 11 13 14 16 17 19 20 22 23 24 26 27 29

6-12 9 11 12 13 15 16 18 19 20 22 23 24 26 27

7-12 9 11 12 13 15 16 17 19 20 21 23 24 25 26

HIGH SCHOOL 8-12 9 10 11 13 14 15 16 18 19 20 21 23 24 25

9-12 9 10 12 13 14 15 17 18 19 20 22 23 24 25

10-12 9 10 12 13 14 15 17 18 19 20 22 23 24 25

FTE MID-RANGE 450 475 500 525 550 575 600 625 650 675 700 725 750 775

FTE

RANGE

438

to

462

463

to

487

488

to

512

513

to

537

538

to

562

563

to

587

588

to

612

613

to

637

638

to

662

663

to

687

688

to

712

713

to

737

738

to

762

763

to

787

K 34 35 37 39 40 42 44 45 47 48 50 52 53 55

K-2 32 34 36 37 39 40 42 44 45 47 48 50 51 53

K-3 32 34 36 37 39 40 42 43 45 47 48 50 51 53

K-4 31 33 34 36 37 39 40 42 43 45 46 48 49 51

K-5 30 32 33 35 36 37 39 40 42 43 45 46 48 49

K-6 30 31 32 34 35 37 38 39 41 42 44 45 47 48

K-7 29 30 32 33 35 36 37 39 40 42 43 44 46 47

K-8 29 30 31 33 34 36 37 38 40 41 42 44 45 46

1-3 31 32 34 35 37 38 40 41 43 44 46 47 49 50

3-8 (ES Only) 26 27 28 29 30 32 33 34 35 36 38 39 40 41

[Elementary Schools below base size (450 FTE) are ineligible for music, art, & PE units]

MIDDLE SCHOOL PROGRAM

K-8 30 32 33 34 36 37 39 40 42 43 45 46 48 49

6-8 30 32 33 35 36 38 39 41 42 43 45 46 48 49

6-12 28 30 31 32 34 35 36 38 39 41 42 43 45 46

7-12 28 29 30 32 33 34 36 37 38 40 41 42 44 45

HIGH SCHOOL 8-12 26 28 29 30 31 33 34 35 36 38 39 40 41 42

9-12 27 28 29 30 32 33 34 35 37 38 39 40 42 43

10-12 27 28 29 30 32 33 34 35 37 38 39 40 42 43

of 14

IV. INSTRUCTIONAL UNIT ALLOCATIONS (Effective Date July 1, 2004) (Continued)

FTE MID-RANGE 800 825 850 875 900 925 950 975 1000 1025 1050 1075 1100 1125 1150

FTE

RANGE

788 to

812

813

to

837

838

to

862

863

to

887

888

to

912

913

to

937

938

to

962

963

to

987

988

to

1012

1013

to

1037

1038

to

1062

1063

to

1087

1088

to

1112

1113

to

1137

1138

to

1162

K 57 58 60 62 65 67 69 70 72 73 75 77 78 80 82

K-2 55 56 58 59 63 64 66 68 69 71 72 74 76 77 79

K-3 54 56 58 59 63 64 66 67 69 71 72 74 75 77 78

K-4 52 54 55 57 60 62 63 65 66 68 69 71 72 74 75

K-5 51 52 53 55 58 60 61 63 64 66 67 69 70 71 73

K-6 49 51 52 54 57 58 60 61 63 64 66 67 68 70 71

K-7 49 50 51 53 56 57 59 60 62 63 64 66 67 69 70

K-8 48 49 51 52 55 57 58 59 61 62 64 65 66 68 69

1-3 52 53 54 56 59 61 62 64 65 67 68 70 71 73 74

3-8 (ES Only) 43 44 45 46 49 51 52 53 54 55 57 58 59 60 61


K-8 50 52 53 55 56 58 59 61 62 64 65 66 68 69 71

6-8 51 52 54 55 57 58 59 61 62 64 65 67 68 70 71

6-12 47 48 49 50 52 53 54 56 57 58 60 61 62 64 65

7-12 46 48 49 50 52 53 54 56 57 58 60 61 62 64 65

HIGH SCHOOL 8-12 44 45 46 47 49 50 51 52 54 55 56 57 59 60 61

9-12 44 45 47 48 49 50 52 53 54 55 57 58 59 60 62

10-12 44 45 47 48 49 50 52 53 54 55 57 58 59 60 62

FTE MID-RANGE 1175 1200 1225 1250 1275 1300 1325 1350 1375 1400 1425 1450 1475 1500 1525

FTE

RANGE

1163

to

1187

1188

to

1212

1213

to

1237

1238

to

1262

1263

to

1287

1288

to

1312

1313

to

1337

1338

to

1362

1363

to

1387

1388

to

1412

1413

to

1437

1438

to

1462

1463

to

1487

1488

to

1512

1513 to

1537

K 83 85 87 88 90 92 93 95 97 98 100 101 103 105 108

K-2 80 82 83 85 87 88 90 91 93 94 96 98 99 101 104

K-3 80 82 83 85 86 88 89 91 93 94 96 97 99 101 104

K-4 77 78 80 81 83 84 86 87 89 90 92 93 95 96 100

K-5 74 76 77 79 80 82 83 85 86 87 89 90 92 93 97

K-6 73 74 76 77 78 80 81 83 84 85 87 88 90 91 95

K-7 71 73 74 76 77 78 80 81 83 84 85 87 88 89 93

K-8 70 72 73 75 76 77 79 80 81 83 84 85 87 88 92

1-3 76 77 79 80 82 83 85 86 88 89 91 92 94 95 99

3-8 (ES Only) 63 64 65 66 67 69 70 71 72 73 75 76 77 78 81


K-8 72 74 75 79 80 81 83 84 86 87 89 90 92 93 95

6-8 73 74 76 77 78 80 81 83 84 86 87 89 90 92 93

6-12 66 68 69 70 72 73 74 76 77 78 80 81 82 84 85

7-12 66 68 69 70 71 73 74 75 77 78 79 81 82 83 85

HIGH SCHOOL 8-12 62 64 65 66 67 69 70 71 72 74 75 76 77 78 80

9-12 63 64 65 67 68 69 70 72 73 74 75 77 78 79 80

10-12 63 64 65 67 68 69 70 72 73 74 75 77 78 79 80

of 14

IV. INSTRUCTIONAL UNIT ALLOCATIONS (Effective Date July 1, 2004) (Continued)

FTE MID-RANGE 1550 1575 1600 1625 1650 1675 1700 1725 1750 1775 1800 1825 1850 1875 1900

FTE

RANGE

1538 to

1562

1563

to

1587

1588

to

1612

1613

to

1637

1638

to

1662

1663

to

1687

1688

to

1712

1713

to

1737

1738

to

1762

1763

to

1787

1788

to

1812

1813

to

1837

1838

to

1862

1863

to

1887

1888

to

1912

K 110 112 113 115 117 118 120 122 123 125 127 128 130 131 133

K-2 106 108 109 111 112 114 115 117 119 120 122 123 125 127 128

K-3 106 107 109 110 112 114 115 117 118 120 121 123 125 126 128

K-4 101 103 105 106 108 110 111 113 114 116 117 119 120 122 123

K-5 98 100 101 103 104 105 107 108 110 111 113 114 116 117 119

K-6 96 97 99 100 102 103 104 106 107 109 110 112 113 114 116

K-7 94 96 97 98 100 101 103 104 105 107 108 110 111 112 114

K-8 93 94 96 97 98 100 101 103 104 105 107 108 109 111 112

1-3 100 102 103 105 106 108 109 110 112 113 115 116 118 119 121

3-8 (ES Only) 83 84 85 86 87 89 90 91 92 93 95 96 97 98 99


K-8 96 97 99 100 102 103 105 106 108 109 111 112 113 115 116

6-8 95 96 97 99 100 102 103 105 106 108 109 111 112 114 115

6-12 86 87 89 90 91 93 94 95 97 98 99 101 102 103 105

7-12 86 88 89 90 92 93 94 96 97 98 100 101 102 104 105

HIGH SCHOOL 8-12 81 82 83 85 86 87 88 90 91 92 93 95 96 97 98

9-12 81 82 84 85 86 87 89 90 91 92 94 95 96 97 98

10-12 82 83 84 85 87 88 89 90 92 93 94 95 97 98 99

FTE MID-RANGE 1925 1950 1975 2000 2025 2050 2075 2100 2125 2150 2175 2200 2225 2250 2275

FTE

RANGE

1913

to

1937

1938

to

1962

1963

to

1987

1988

to

2012

2013

to

2037

2038

to

2062

2063

to

2087

2088

to

2112

2113

to

2137

2138

to

2162

2163

to

2187

2188

to

2212

2213

to

2237

2238

to

2262

2263 to

2287

K 135 136 138 140 141 143 145 148 150 152 153 155 156 158 160

K-2 130 131 133 134 136 138 139 143 144 146 147 149 151 152 154

K-3 129 131 132 134 136 137 139 142 144 145 147 149 150 152 153

K-4 125 126 128 129 131 132 134 137 139 140 142 143 145 146 147

K-5 120 121 123 124 126 127 129 132 134 135 137 138 139 141 142

K-6 117 119 120 121 123 124 126 129 131 132 133 135 136 138 139

K-7 115 117 118 119 121 122 123 127 128 130 131 132 134 135 137

K-8 113 115 116 118 119 120 122 125 126 128 129 131 132 133 135

1-3 122 124 125 127 128 130 131 135 136 138 139 141 142 144 145

3-8 (ES Only) 101 102 103 104 106 107 108 111 112 114 115 116 117 118 120


K-8 118 119 121 122 124 125 127 128 129 133 134 136 137 139 140

6-8 116 118 119 121 122 124 125 127 128 130 131 133 134 135 137

6-12 106 107 109 110 111 113 114 115 117 118 119 121 122 123 123

7-12 106 108 109 110 112 113 114 116 117 118 120 121 122 123 124

HIGH SCHOOL 8-12 100 101 102 103 105 106 107 108 109 111 112 113 114 116 117

9-12 100 101 102 103 105 106 107 108 110 111 112 113 115 116 118

10-12 100 102 103 104 105 107 108 109 110 112 113 114 115 117 118

of 14

IV. INSTRUCTIONAL UNIT ALLOCATIONS (Effective Date July 1, 2004) (Continued) FTE MID-RANGE 2300 2325 2350 2375 2400 2425 2450 2475 2500 2525 2550 2575 2600 2625 2650

FTE

RANGE

2288 to

2312

2313

to

2337

2338

to

2362

2363

to

2387

2388

to

2412

2413

to

2437

2438

to

2462

2463

to

2487

2488

to

2512

2513

to

2537

2538

to

2562

2563

to

2587

2588

to

2612

2613

to

2637

2638

to

2662

K 161 163 165 166 168 170 171 173 175 176 178 180 181 183 184

K-2 155 157 159 160 162 163 165 166 168 170 171 173 174 176 177

K-3 155 156 158 160 161 163 164 166 168 169 171 172 174 175 177

K-4 148 150 151 153 154 156 157 159 160 162 163 165 166 168 169

K-5 144 145 147 148 150 151 153 154 155 157 158 160 161 163 164

K-6 141 142 143 145 146 148 149 150 152 153 155 156 158 159 160

K-7 138 139 141 142 144 145 146 148 149 151 152 153 155 156 157

K-8 136 137 139 140 142 143 144 146 147 148 150 151 152 154 155

1-3 147 148 150 151 153 154 156 157 159 160 161 163 164 166 167

3--8 (ES Only) 121 122 123 124 126 127 128 129 130 132 133 134 135 136 138


K-8 142 143 144 146 147 149 150 152 153 155 156 158 159 160 162

6-8 138 140 141 143 144 146 147 149 150 151 153 154 156 157 159

6-12 124 125 127 128 129 131 132 133 135 136 137 138 140 141 142

7-12 125 127 128 129 131 132 133 134 136 137 138 140 141 142 144

HIGH SCHOOL 8-12 118 119 121 122 123 124 126 127 128 129 131 132 133 134 136

9-12 119 120 122 123 124 125 127 128 129 130 132 133 134 135 137

10-12 119 120 122 123 124 125 127 128 129 130 132 133 134 135 137

FTE MID-RANGE 2675 2700 2725 2750 2775 2800 2825 2850 2875 2900 2925 2950 2975 3000

FTE

RANGE

2663

to

2687

2688

to

2712

2713

to

2737

2738

to

2762

2763

to

2787

2788

to

2812

2813

to

2837

2838

to

2862

2863

to

2887

2888

to

2912

2913

to

2937

2938

to

2962

2963

to

2987

2988

to

3012

K 186 188 189 191 193 194 196 198 199 201 203 204 206 208

K-2 179 181 182 184 185 187 189 190 192 193 195 196 198 200

K-3 179 180 182 183 185 186 188 190 191 193 194 196 197 199

K-4 171 172 174 175 177 178 180 181 183 184 186 187 189 190

K-5 166 167 169 170 171 173 174 176 177 179 180 182 183 185

K-6 162 163 165 166 167 169 170 172 173 175 176 177 179 180

K-7 159 160 162 163 164 166 167 169 170 171 173 174 176 177

K-8 157 158 159 161 162 163 165 166 168 169 170 172 173 174

1-3 169 170 172 173 175 176 178 179 181 182 184 185 187 188

3-8 (ES Only) 139 140 141 142 144 145 146 147 148 150 151 152 153 154


K-8 163 165 166 168 169 171 172 174 175 176 178 179 181 182

6-8 160 162 163 165 166 168 169 170 172 173 175 176 178 179

6-12 144 145 146 148 149 150 152 153 154 155 157 158 159 161

7-12 145 146 148 149 150 152 153 154 156 157 158 159 161 162

HIGH SCHOOL 8-12 137 138 139 140 142 143 144 145 147 148 149 150 152 153

9-12 138 139 140 142 143 144 145 147 148 149 150 152 153 154

10-12 138 139 140 142 143 144 145 147 148 149 150 152 153 154

Setup Detail Report

Item Name

Possible

Points PctRating

Site 0.000

Suitability - Elementary 100.000

Site 6.126

Traffic 2.000

GoodTraffic routing is characterized by safety and good separation. Bus, parent, service lanes are "off-street"

and do not conflict with each other, or playground, or parking areas. There is adequate bus parking near

entrances to the building.

100%

FairTraffic routing has some safety and separation problems. At least one of the bus, parent, or service

delivery access lanes is missing or has circulation conflict. 67%

PoorTraffic routing has numerous safety and separation problems. Most, but not all, of the bus, parent, or

service delivery access lanes are missing or have circulation conflict due to separation problems. 33%

UnsatAll traffic routing has safety and separation problems. The bus, parent, or service delivery access lanes

are missing and there are circulation conflicts due to separation problems. 0%

Pedestrian Traffic 0.973

GoodPedestrian traffic routing is characterized by safety and good separation. Routes funnel students to main

entrances. Routing adequately meets needs for pedestrian access to the school. 100%

FairPedestrian traffic routing has some safety and separation problems. Routes generally funnel students to

main entrances. Routing typically meets the needs for pedestrian access to the school. 67%

PoorPedestrian traffic routing has numerous safety and separation problems. Few routes funnel students to

main entrances. Routing typically does not meet the needs for pedestrian access to the school. 33%

UnsatPedestrian traffic routing has safety and separation problems. Routes do not funnel students to main

entrances. Routing does not meet the needs for pedestrian access to the school. 0%

Parking 0.812

GoodThere is adequate off-street parking for staff and visitors. Parking lots have reasonable access to main

school entrances. 100%

FairThere is adequate off-street parking for most staff and visitors. Parking lots have reasonable access to

main school entrances. 67%

PoorMost parking for staff and visitors is on-street. Parking lots do not have reasonable access to main


UnsatAll, or nearly all, parking for staff and visitors is on-street. Parking lots do not have reasonable access to


Playground 2.341

GoodAll playgrounds are large enough to allow organized and free play. Playgrounds are adjacent to the

school, ADA accessible, and well developed. Equipment is age-appropriate. 100%

FairMost playgrounds are large enough to allow organized and free play and are adjacent to the school.

There may be minor accessibility problems and may have minor development problems. Some

equipment is not age appropriate.

67%

PoorMost playgrounds are too small to allow organized and free play and are not adjacent to the school.

There are major accessibility problems and major development problems. Most equipment is not age

appropriate.

33%

UnsatPlaygrounds are nonexistent or are severely undersized. Organized and free play is not practical. 0%

Safety and Security 6.751

Fencing 0.751

GoodThe school site is adequately fenced. Entrances and egresses are limited, where appropriate. 100%

FairMost of the school site is adequately fenced, but there are minor problems. Most entrances and

egresses are limited, where appropriate. 67%

PoorThe school site has major fencing inadequacies. Many entrances and egresses are not limited where

needed for safety. 33%

UnsatThe school site has no fencing. Entrances and egresses are unlimited. There are significant resultant

safety problems. 0%

Signage & Way Finding 1.000

GoodThe site has adequate large signage or graphics to direct the public to major spaces (e.g. entrance,

office, gym, auditorium, etc.) of the school building and grounds. All rooms are identified with signs. 100%

6/14/2011 7:28:03AM

Item Name

Possible

Points PctRating

FairThe site has some large signage or graphics to direct the public to major spaces (e.g. entrance, office,

gym, auditorium, etc.) of the school building and grounds. Most rooms are identified with signs. 67%

PoorThe site has few or no large signage or graphics to direct the public to major spaces (e.g. entrance,

office, gym, auditorium, etc.) of the school building and grounds. Some rooms are identified with signs. 33%

UnsatThe site has few or no large signage or graphics to direct the public to major spaces (e.g. entrance,

office, gym, auditorium, etc.) of the school building and grounds. Most rooms are not identified with

signs.

0%

Ease of Supervision 3.500

G/FAGREE: The facility is designed so that supervision is enhanced through proper sightlines, few or no

"hiding areas", good visibility both inside and outside the building, and visual access to appropriate

areas.

100%

P/UDISAGREE: The facility is designed so that supervision is enhanced through proper sightlines, few or no


areas.

0%

Limited Entrances 0.500

G/FAGREE: School design or configuration has limited the number of entrances to the school. Public

entrances are easily supervised. 100%

P/UDISAGREE: School design or configuration has limited the number of entrances to the school. Public


Interior Circulation 0.500

G/FAGREE: Hallways, and stairwells are large enough to accommodate student movement. Intersections

and corridors are not congested and the commons area is large enough for the school and its programs. 100%

P/UDISAGREE: Hallways, and stairwells are large enough to accommodate student movement.

Intersections and corridors are not congested and the commons area is large enough for the school and

its programs.

0%

Sprinkler System 0.500

GoodAGREE: The school has a fire suppression sprinkler system. 100%

PoorPARTIALLY: The school has a fire suppression sprinkler system. 50%

UnsatDISAGREE: The school has a fire suppression sprinkler system. 0%

School Climate 11.000

Learning Style Variety 5.000

G/FAGREE: Facility is designed to allow for small group discussions and work projects, individual

workstations and distance learning as well as traditional classrooms. Spaces are flexible, allowing for

different teaching, administrative and learning styles.

100%

P/UDISAGREE: Facility is designed to allow for small group discussions and wk projects, individual wk

stations and distance learning as well as traditional classrooms. Spaces are flexible, allowing for


0%

School Environment 5.000

G/FAGREE: The facility provides an inviting and stimulating environment. Spatial configurations, acoustics,

lighting levels, natural light and the overall aesthetics support and promote learning. 100%

P/UDISAGREE: The facility provides an inviting and stimulating environment. Spatial configurations,

acoustics, lighting levels, natural light and the overall aesthetics support and promote learning. 0%

Landscaping 1.000

G/FAGREE: Facility landscaping (including grass, shrubs and trees) provides an inviting environment. 100%

P/UDISAGREE: Facility landscaping (including grass, shrubs and trees) provides an inviting environment. 0%

General Classrooms 23.500

Size 16.450

GoodAll, or nearly all, of the general classrooms are appropriate for the class size and instructional program. 100%

FairMost of the general classrooms are appropriate for the class size and instructional program. A few

classrooms are undersized. 67%

PoorSome of the general classrooms are appropriate for the class size and instructional program. Many

classrooms are undersized, even for small classes. 33%

UnsatFew or none of the general classrooms are appropriate for the class size and instructional program. Most


Adjacencies 3.525

GoodAll or nearly all of the general classrooms are near the media cntr, computer rms, and support spaces.

They are acoustically isolated from noisy spaces & acoustics are internally appropriate (e.g. gyms,

kitchens, music).

100%

FairMost of the general classrooms are near the media cntr, computer rms, and support spaces. They are

acoustically isolated from most noisy spaces & acoustics are internally appropriate (e.g. gyms, kitchens,

music).

67%

PoorSome of the general classrooms are near the media cntr, computer rms, and support spaces. They are

not acoustically isolated from noisy spaces & have internal acoustic problems (eg. gyms, kitchens,

music).

33%

6/14/2011 7:28:03AM

Item Name

Possible

Points PctRating

UnsatFew or none of the general classrms are near the media cntr, computer rms, and support spaces. They

are not acoustically isolated from noisy spaces & have internal acoustic problems (eg. gyms, kitchens,

music).

0%

Storage\Fixed Equip. 3.525

GoodAll, or nearly all, of the general classrooms have adequate casework and appropriate storage (cabinets

and bookshelves), sinks, whiteboards, and technology equipment. 100%

FairMost of the general classrooms have adequate casework and appropriate storage (cabinets and

bookshelves), sinks, whiteboards, and technology equipment. 67%

PoorSome of the general classrooms have adequate casework and appropriate storage (cabinets and


UnsatFew or none of the general classrooms have adequate casework and appropriate storage (cabinets and


Remedial - Special Needs 5.000

Size 3.500

GoodAll, or nearly all, of the remedial and special education spaces (including therapy rooms, testing rooms,

offices, etc) are large enough for the typical group size and instructional program. 100%

FairMost of the remedial and special education spaces (including therapy rooms, testing rooms, offices, etc)

are large enough for the typical group size and instructional program. 50%

P/UFew or none of the remedial and special education spaces (including therapy rooms, testing rooms,

offices, etc.) are large enough for the typical group size and instructional program. 0%

Adjacencies 0.750

G/FAGREE: Remedial and special education spaces are near the media center, computer rooms, and

general classrooms. Therapy rooms, testing rooms, offices, etc. are near programs they serve. They are

acoustically isolated from noisy spaces.

100%

P/UDISAGREE: Remedial and special education spaces are near the media center, computer rooms, and



0%


G/FAGREE: Remedial and special education spaces (including therapy rooms, testing rooms, offices, etc)

have adequate casework and appropriate storage (cabinets and bookshelves), sinks, whiteboards, and

technology equipment.

100%

P/UDISAGREE: Remedial and special education spaces (including therapy rooms, testing rooms, offices,

etc) have adequate casework and appropriate storage (cabinets and bookshelves), sinks, whiteboards,

and technology equipment.

0%

Library 4.873

Size 3.411

GoodAll, or nearly all, of the library spaces (including office, work rooms, conference room, etc.) are large

enough for the school size and instructional programs. 100%

FairMost of the library spaces (including office, work rooms, conference room, etc.) are large enough for the

school size and instructional programs. 50%

P/UFew or none of the library spaces (including office, work rooms, conference room, etc.) are large enough

for the school size and instructional programs. 0%

Adjacencies 0.731

G/FAGREE: Library spaces (including office, work rooms, conference room, etc.) are near the academic

programs they serve. The spaces are acoustically isolated from the noisy spaces of the school (e.g.

gyms, kitchens, music, shops, etc.).

100%

P/UDISAGREE: Library spaces (including office, work rooms, conference room, etc.) are near the academic



0%


G/FAGREE: The library spaces (including office, work rooms, conference room, etc.) have adequate

casework and appropriate storage (cabinets and bookshelves), sinks, counter-tops for production,

equipment storage, and technology equipment.

100%

P/UDISAGREE: The library spaces (including office, work rooms, conference room, etc.) have adequate



0%

P.E. 9.601

Size 6.720

GoodAll, or nearly all, of the physical education spaces (e.g. gym, storage, PE teacher office) are large

enough for the school size and instructional program. 100%

FairMost of the physical education spaces (e.g. gym, storage, PE teacher office) are large enough for the

school size and instructional program. 50%

P/UFew or none of the physical education spaces (e.g. gym, storage, PE teacher office) are large enough for

the school size and instructional program. 0%

Adjacencies 1.440

6/14/2011 7:28:03AM

Item Name

Possible

Points PctRating

G/FAGREE: Physical education spaces are near the other "noisy" programs (music, kitchen, etc.). The

spaces are acoustically isolated from the quiet academic spaces and provide convenient public &

after-school access and separation from other spaces.

100%

P/UDISAGREE: Physical education spaces are near the other "noisy" programs (music, kitchen, etc.). The



0%


G/FAGREE: The physical education spaces have adequate casework and cabinets and appropriate storage,

water fountains and fixed equipment (backboards, etc.). 100%

P/UDISAGREE: The physical education spaces have adequate casework and cabinets and appropriate

storage, water fountains and fixed equipment (backboards, etc.). 0%

Music 3.704

Size 2.593

GoodAll, or nearly all, of the music spaces (including office) are large enough for the school size and

instructional program. 100%

FairMost of the music spaces (including office) are large enough for the school size and instructional

program. 50%

P/UFew or none of the music spaces (including office) are large enough for the school size and instructional

program. 0%

Adjacencies 0.556

G/FAGREE: Music spaces are near the other "noisy" programs (P.E., kitchen, etc.). The spaces are

acoustically isolated from the quiet academic spaces of the school. 100%

P/UDISAGREE: Music spaces are near the other "noisy" programs (P.E., kitchen, etc.). The spaces are



G/FAGREE: Music spaces have adequate casework (cabinets and bookshelves), appropriate storage, sinks,

whiteboards, and technology equipment. 100%

P/UDISAGREE: Music spaces have adequate casework (cabinets and bookshelves), appropriate storage,

sinks, whiteboards, and technology equipment. 0%

Art 2.339

Size 1.638

GoodAll, or nearly all, of the art spaces are large enough for the school size and instructional program. 100%

FairMost of the art spaces are large enough for the school size and instructional program. 50%

P/UFew or none of the art spaces are large enough for the school size and instructional program. 0%

Adjacencies 0.351

G/FAGREE: Art spaces are near the other academic programs. The spaces are isolated from the "noisy"

spaces of the school (e.g. P.E., music, kitchen, etc.). 100%

P/UDISAGREE: Art spaces are near the other academic programs. The spaces are isolated from the

"noisy" spaces of the school (e.g. P.E., music, kitchen, etc.). 0%


G/FAGREE: The art spaces have adequate casework (cabinets and bookshelves), appropriate storage,

sinks & clay traps, whiteboards, drying racks, lighting, and technology equipment. The flooring is a VCT

or tile.

100%

P/UDISAGREE: The art spaces have adequate casework (cabinets and bookshelves), appropriate storage,


or tile.

0%

Performing Arts\Auditorium 3.022

Size 2.115

GoodAll, or nearly all, of the performing arts/auditorium spaces (stage, green room, storage, dressing room,

light sound booth, etc.) are large enough for the group size and instructional program. 100%

FairMost of the performing arts/auditorium spaces (stage, green room, storage, dressing room, light sound

booth, etc.) are large enough for the group size and instructional program. 67%

PoorSome of the performing arts/auditorium spaces (stage, green room, storage, dressing room, light sound


UnsatFew or none of the performing arts/auditorium spaces (stage, green room, storage, dressing room, light

sound booth, etc.) are large enough for the group size and instructional program. 0%

Adjacencies 0.453

GoodAll, or nearly all, of the performing arts/auditorium spaces are near each other and other performing arts

spaces (e.g. music, drama, etc.). They provide convenient public and after hours access plus separation

from other spaces in the building.

100%

FairMost of the performing arts/auditorium spaces are near each other and other performing arts spaces

(e.g. music, drama, etc.). They provide convenient public and after hours access plus separation from

other spaces in the building.

67%

6/14/2011 7:28:03AM

Item Name

Possible

Points PctRating

PoorSome of the performing arts/auditorium spaces are near each other and other performing arts spaces

(e.g. music, drama, etc.). They do not provide convenient public and after hours access plus separation


33%

UnsatFew or none of the performing arts/auditorium spaces are near each other and other performing arts

spaces (e.g. music, drama, etc.). They do not provide convenient public and after hours access plus

separation from other spaces in the building.

0%


GoodAll or nearly all of the performing arts/auditorium spaces have adequate casework and appropriate

storage, water fountains, fixed equipment and technology equipment. 100%

Fair50-75% of the performing arts/auditorium spaces have adequate casework and cabinets and appropriate


P/UFewer than 50% of the performing arts/auditorium spaces have adequate casework and cabinets and

appropriate storage, water fountains, fixed equipment and technology equipment. 0%

Computer Labs 1.706

Size 1.194

GoodAll, or nearly all, of the computer lab spaces are large enough for the school size and instructional

program. 100%

FairMost of the computer lab spaces are large enough for the school size and instructional program. 50%

P/UFew or none of the computer lab spaces are large enough for the school size and instructional program. 0%

Adjacencies 0.256

G/FAGREE: Computer lab spaces are near the other academic programs. The spaces are isolated from the


P/UDISAGREE: Computer lab spaces are near the other academic programs. The spaces are isolated from

the "noisy" spaces of the school (e.g. P.E., music, kitchen, etc.). 0%


G/FAGREE: Computer lab spaces have adequate casework (cabinets and bookshelves), appropriate

storage, sinks, whiteboards, lighting, and technology equipment. 100%

P/UDISAGREE: Computer lab spaces have adequate casework (cabinets and bookshelves), appropriate

storage, sinks, whiteboards, lighting, and technology equipment. 0%

Kindergarten 4.085

Size 2.860

GoodAll, or nearly all, of the kindergarten spaces (including restroom) are large enough for the school size and


FairMost of the kindergarten spaces (including restroom) are large enough for the school size and


P/UFew or none of the kindergarten spaces (including restroom) are large enough for the school size and


Adjacencies 0.613

G/FAGREE: Kindergarten spaces are near the other academic programs and an adjacent restroom. Spaces

provide convenient access from parent drop-off areas. The spaces are isolated from the "noisy" spaces

of the school (e.g. P.E., music, kitchen, etc.).

100%

P/UDISAGREE: Kindergarten spaces are near the other academic programs and an adjacent restroom.

Spaces provide convenient access from parent drop-off areas. The spaces are isolated from the "noisy"

spaces of the school (e.g. P.E., music, kitchen, etc.).

0%


G/FAGREE: Kindergarten spaces have adequate casework (cabinets and bookshelves), appropriate

storage, sinks, whiteboards, lighting, and technology equipment. Some of the flooring is a "wet area". 100%

P/UDISAGREE: Kindergarten spaces have adequate casework (cabinets and bookshelves), appropriate

storage, sinks, whiteboards, lighting, and technology equipment. Some of the flooring is a "wet area". 0%

Administration 3.558

Size 2.491

GoodAll, or nearly all, of the administrative spaces (reception, office, work rooms, conf. rooms, restrooms,

etc.) are large enough for the school size. 100%

FairMost of the administrative spaces (reception, office, work rooms, conf. rooms, restrooms, etc.) are large

enough for the school size. 50%

P/UFew or none of administrative spaces (reception, office, work rooms, conf. rooms, restrooms, etc.) are

large enough for the school size. 0%

Adjacencies 0.534

G/FAGREE: The administration and reception spaces are located near the main entrance areas, have sight

lines of the school entrance, and are near instructional areas. 100%

P/UDISAGREE: The administration and reception spaces are located near the main entrance areas, have

sight lines of the school entrance, and are near instructional areas. 0%


6/14/2011 7:28:03AM

Item Name

Possible

Points PctRating

G/FAGREE: The administration and reception spaces have adequate and appropriate storage, utilities,

technology equipment and fixed equipment. 100%

P/UDISAGREE: The administration and reception spaces have adequate and appropriate storage, utilities,


Restrooms (Student) 0.887

GoodAll, or nearly all, of the restroom spaces are adequately ventilated. Fixtures are age-appropriate. Floor

and wall surfaces are washable. Toilet partitions, urinal privacy partitions, towel dispensers, and soap

dispensers are in place & functional.

100%

Fair50-75% of the restroom spaces are adequately ventilated. Fixtures are age-appropriate. Floor and wall

surfaces are washable. Toilet partitions, urinal privacy partitions, towel dispensers, and soap dispensers

are in place & functional.

50%

P/UFewer than 50% of the rstrm spaces are adequately ventilated. Fixtures are not age-appropriate. Floor

and wall surfaces are not washable. Toilet partitions, urinal privacy partitions, towel dispensers, and

soap dispensers are not in place & functional.

0%

Teacher Lounge and Work Room(s) 1.267

GoodAll, or nearly all, of the teacher lounge, workrooms, and restrooms are large enough for the school size.

They are located near the main instructional areas, and have appropriate storage, utilities, technology

equipment and fixed equipment.

100%

Fair50-75% of the teacher lounge, workrooms, and restrooms are large enough for the school size. They are

located near the main instructional areas, and have appropriate storage, utilities, technology equipment

and fixed equipment.

50%

P/UFewer than 50% of the teacher lounge, workrooms, and restrooms are large enough for the school size.

They're not located near the main instructional areas, and have inadequate storage, utilities, technology


0%

Cafeteria 5.000

GoodAll, or nearly all, of the cafeteria spaces (cafeteria, table and chair storage, etc.) are sized correctly.

Circulation and routing are good. They are acoustically isolated, have appropriate storage and seating. 100%

FairMost of the cafeteria spaces (cafeteria, table and chair storage, etc.) are sized correctly. Circulation and

routing are good. They are acoustically isolated, have appropriate storage and seating. 67%

PoorSome of the cafeteria spaces (cafeteria, table and chair storage, etc.) are sized correctly. Circulation and


UnsatFew or none of the cafeteria spaces (cafeteria, table and chair storage, etc.) are sized correctly.


Food Prep 6.204

GoodAll, or nearly all, of the food prep spaces (kitchen, freezer, cooler, storage, office, etc.) are sized

correctly. They are acoustically isolated, have provisions for pickup and delivery, & have adequate

storage, utilities, and fixed equip.

100%

FairMost of the food prep spaces (kitchen, freezer, cooler, storage, office, etc.) are sized correctly. They are

acoustically isolated, have provisions for pickup and delivery, & have adequate storage, utilities, and

fixed equip.

67%

PoorSome of the food prep spaces (kitchen, freezer, cooler, storage, office, etc.) are sized correctly. They are

not acoustically isolated, have no provisions for pickup and delivery, and inadequate storage, utilities,

and fixed equip.

33%

UnsatFew or none of the food prep spaces (kitchen, freezer, cooler, storage, office, etc.) are sized correctly.

They are not acoustically isolated, have no provisions for pickup and delivery, and inadequate storage,

utilities, and fixed equip.

0%

Counseling 0.292

GoodAll, or nearly all, of the counseling spaces (offices, reception, etc.) are large enough for the school size.

They are located near the main instructional areas, and have adequate storage, utilities, and fixed

equipment.

100%

FairMost of the counseling spaces (offices, reception, etc.) are large enough for the school size. They are

located near the main instructional areas, and have adequate storage, utilities, and fixed equipment. 50%

P/UFew or none of the counseling spaces (offices, reception, etc.) are large enough for the school size.

They are located away from the main instructional areas, and have inadequate storage, utilities, and

fixed equipment.

0%

Clinic 0.585

G/FAGREE: Clinic spaces (office, restroom, clinic, etc.) are large enough for the school size. They are

located near the main administrative area, and have adequate storage, utilities, and fixed equipment. 100%

P/UDISAGREE: Clinic spaces (office, restroom, clinic, etc.) are large enough for the school size. They are


Custodial & Maintenance 0.500

G/FAGREE: Custodial and maintenance spaces (custodial closets, fire proof equipment storage, etc.) are

large enough for the school size. They are conveniently located and have adequate storage, utilities,


100%

P/UDISAGREE: Custodial and maintenance spaces (custodial closets, fire proof equipment storage, etc.)

are large enough for the school size. They are conveniently located and have adequate storage, utilities,


0%

6/14/2011 7:28:03AM

Item Name

Possible

Points PctRating

Suitability - Middle_Jr. High 100.000

Site 6.339

Traffic 4.000




100%
















Parking 0.860









Play Courts & Fields 1.047

GoodAll play courts/fields are large enough to allow organized and free play. Play courts/fields are adjacent to

the school, accessible, and well developed. Equipment is age-appropriate. 100%

FairMost play courts/fields are large enough to allow organized and free play and are adjacent to the school.



67%

PoorMost play courts/fields are too small to allow organized and free play and are not adjacent to the school.


appropriate.

33%

UnsatPlay courts/fields are nonexistent or are severely undersized. Organized and free play is not practical. 0%


Fencing 0.776







safety problems. 0%










signs.

0%




areas.

100%

P/UDISAGREE: The facility is designed so that supervision is enhanced through proper sightlines, few or no"

hiding areas", good visibility both inside and outside the building, and visual access to appropriate areas. 0%

6/14/2011 7:28:03AM

Item Name

Possible

Points PctRating











its programs.

0%










100%




0%






Landscaping 1.000




Size 13.650








Adjacencies 2.925



kitchens, music).

100%



music).

67%



music).

33%



music).

0%











6/14/2011 7:28:03AM

Item Name

Possible

Points PctRating

Size 3.026







Adjacencies 0.648




100%




0%





100%




0%

Library 4.640

Size 3.248







Adjacencies 0.696




100%




0%





100%




0%

P.E. 12.000

Size 8.400







Adjacencies 1.800




100%




0%






Music 3.678

Size 2.575

6/14/2011 7:28:03AM

Item Name

Possible

Points PctRating




program. 50%


program. 0%

Adjacencies 0.552










Art 3.225

Size 2.258




Adjacencies 0.484








or tile.

100%



or tile.

0%


Size 1.466









Adjacencies 0.314




100%




67%




33%




0%








Vocational Technical 6.745

6/14/2011 7:28:03AM

Item Name

Possible

Points PctRating

Size 4.721

GoodAll, or nearly all, of the vocational/technical lab spaces are large enough for the school size and


FairMost of the vocational/technical lab spaces are large enough for the school size and instructional

program. 67%

PoorSome of the vocational/technical lab spaces are large enough for the school size and instructional

program. 33%

UnsatFew or none of the vocational/technical lab spaces are large enough for the school size and instructional

program. 0%

Adjacencies 1.012

GoodAll, or nearly all, of the vocational/technical lab spaces are near the other academic programs. The

technology lab spaces are isolated from the "noisy" spaces of the school (e.g. P.E., music, kitchen, etc.). 100%

FairMost of the vocational/technical lab spaces are near the other academic programs. The spaces are

isolated from the "noisy" spaces of the school (e.g. P.E., music, kitchen, etc.). 67%

PoorSome of the vocational/technical lab spaces are near other academic programs. The spaces are near


UnsatFew or none of the vocational/technical lab spaces are near other academic programs. The spaces are

near the "noisy" spaces of the school (e.g. P.E., music, kitchen, etc.). 0%


G/FAGREE: Vocational/technical lab spaces have adequate casework (cabinets and bookshelves),

appropriate storage, sinks, whiteboards, lighting, and technology equipment. 100%

P/UDISAGREE: Vocational/technical lab spaces have adequate casework (cabinets and bookshelves),


Science 4.771

Size 3.340

GoodAll, or nearly all, of the science spaces (including prep room) are large enough for the school size and


FairMost of the science spaces (including prep room) are large enough for the school size and instructional

program 50%

P/UFew or none of the science spaces (including prep room) are large enough for the school size and


Adjacencies 0.716

GoodAll, or nearly all, of the science spaces are near the other academic programs. The science spaces are


Fair50-75% of the science spaces are near other academic programs. The spaces are isolated from the


P/UFewer than 50% of the science spaces are near other academic programs. Most of the spaces are near



G/FAGREE: Science spaces have adequate casework (cabinets and bookshelves), appropriate storage,

sinks, whiteboards, lighting, and technology equipment. The flooring is a VCT or tile. 100%

P/UDISAGREE: Science spaces have adequate casework (cabinets and bookshelves), appropriate storage,



Size 1.467







Adjacencies 0.314











6/14/2011 7:28:03AM

Item Name

Possible

Points PctRating




100%




50%




0%





100%




50%




0%

Cafeteria 4.000









Food Prep 5.716




100%



fixed equip.

67%



and fixed equip.

33%




0%

Counseling 0.424



equipment.

100%





fixed equipment.

0%

Clinic 0.340









100%




0%

6/14/2011 7:28:03AM

Item Name

Possible

Points PctRating

Suitability - High School 100.000

Site 6.853

Traffic 1.000




100%
















Parking 2.108









Play Courts & Fields 2.765

GoodAll play courts/fields are large enough to allow organized and free play. Play courts/fields are adjacent to

the school, accessible, and well developed. Equipment is age-appropriate. 100%

FairMost play courts/fields are large enough to allow organized and free play and are adjacent to the school.



67%

PoorMost play courts/fields are too small to allow organized and free play and are not adjacent to the school.


appropriate.

33%

UnsatPlay courts/fields are nonexistent or are severely undersized. Organized and free play is not practical. 0%


Fencing 0.847







safety problems. 0%










signs.

0%




areas.

100%

P/UDISAGREE: The facility is designed so that supervision is enhanced through proper sightlines, few or no"

hiding areas", good visibility both inside and outside the building, and visual access to appropriate areas. 0%

6/14/2011 7:28:03AM

Item Name

Possible

Points PctRating











its programs.

0%










100%




0%






Landscaping 1.000




Size 13.650








Adjacencies 2.925



kitchens, music).

100%



music).

67%



music).

33%



music).

0%











6/14/2011 7:28:03AM

Item Name

Possible

Points PctRating

Size 2.910







Adjacencies 0.624




100%




0%





100%




0%

Library 4.216

Size 2.951







Adjacencies 0.632




100%




0%





100%




0%

P.E. 12.000

Size 8.400







Adjacencies 1.800




100%




0%






Music 2.969

Size 2.078

6/14/2011 7:28:03AM

Item Name

Possible

Points PctRating




program. 50%


program. 0%

Adjacencies 0.445










Art 3.325

Size 2.328




Adjacencies 0.499








or tile.

100%



or tile.

0%


Size 1.122









Adjacencies 0.241




100%




67%




33%




0%








Vocational Technical 8.545

6/14/2011 7:28:03AM

Item Name

Possible

Points PctRating

Size 5.982

GoodAll, or nearly all, of the vocational/technical lab spaces are large enough for the school size and


FairMost of the vocational/technical lab spaces are large enough for the school size and instructional

program. 67%

PoorSome of the vocational/technical lab spaces are large enough for the school size and instructional

program. 33%

UnsatFew or none of the vocational/technical lab spaces are large enough for the school size and instructional

program. 0%

Adjacencies 1.282

GoodAll, or nearly all, of the vocational/technical lab spaces are near the other academic programs. The

technology lab spaces are isolated from the "noisy" spaces of the school (e.g. P.E., music, kitchen, etc.). 100%

FairMost of the vocational/technical lab spaces are near the other academic programs. The spaces are


PoorSome of the vocational/technical lab spaces are near other academic programs. The spaces are near


UnsatFew or none of the vocational/technical lab spaces are near other academic programs. The spaces are

near the "noisy" spaces of the school (e.g. P.E., music, kitchen, etc.). 0%


G/FAGREE: Vocational/technical lab spaces have adequate casework (cabinets and bookshelves),


P/UDISAGREE: Vocational/technical lab spaces have adequate casework (cabinets and bookshelves),


Science 4.149

Size 2.904

GoodAll, or nearly all, of the science spaces (including prep room) are large enough for the school size and


FairMost of the science spaces (including prep room) are large enough for the school size and instructional

program 50%

P/UFew or none of the science spaces (including prep room) are large enough for the school size and


Adjacencies 0.622

GoodAll, or nearly all, of the science spaces are near the other academic programs. The science spaces are


Fair50-75% of the science spaces are near other academic programs. The spaces are isolated from the


P/UFewer than 50% of the science spaces are near other academic programs. Most of the spaces are near



G/FAGREE: Science spaces have adequate casework (cabinets and bookshelves), appropriate storage,


P/UDISAGREE: Science spaces have adequate casework (cabinets and bookshelves), appropriate storage,



Size 1.827







Adjacencies 0.392











6/14/2011 7:28:03AM

Item Name

Possible

Points PctRating




100%




50%




0%





100%




50%




0%

Cafeteria 4.000









Food Prep 5.106




100%



fixed equip.

67%



and fixed equip.

33%




0%

Counseling 0.757



equipment.

100%





fixed equipment.

0%

Clinic 0.238









100%




0%

6/14/2011 7:28:03AM

Item Name

Possible

Points PctRating

Technology Readiness 100.000

MDF\IT Equipment Environment 15.000

GoodAGREE: Equipment is located in a place designed for MDF/IT equipment. Space is properly

conditioned, secure, easily accessible, and within 90 meters (295 ft) of the equipment it serves. The area

has adequate storage, utilities, and fixed equipment.

100%

FairMOST: Equipment is located in a place designed for MDF/IT equipment. Space is properly conditioned,

secure, easily accessible, and within 90 meters (295 ft) of the equipment it serves. The area has

adequate storage, utilities, and fixed equipment.

50%

UnsatDISAGREE: Equipment is located in a place designed for MDF/IT equipment. Space is properly

conditioned, secure, easily accessible, and within 90 meters (295 ft) of the equipment it serves. The area

has adequate storage, utilities, and fixed equipment.

0%

Electrical Power 10.000

GoodAGREE: Each instructional space (classrooms, library, etc. has sufficient electrical power requirements

and outlets for a minimum of four computers. 100%

FairMORE THAN HALF: Each instructional space (classrooms, library, etc. has sufficient electrical power

requirements and outlets for a minimum of four computers. 50%

UnsatDISAGREE: Each instructional space (classrooms, library, etc. has sufficient electrical power

requirements and outlets for a minimum of four computers. 0%

Cooling 10.000

GoodAGREE: Each classroom or computer lab has sufficient HVAC capacity for the number of computers

present. The spaces have adequate year round cooling and ventilation. 100%

FairMORE THAN HALF: Each classroom or computer lab has sufficient HVAC capacity for the number of

computers present. The spaces have adequate year round cooling and ventilation. 50%

UnsatDISAGREE: Each classroom or computer lab has sufficient HVAC capacity for the number of computers

present. The spaces have adequate year round cooling and ventilation. 0%

Drops 10.000

GoodAGREE: Each instructional space has two computer drops and four computers per room. 100%

FairMOST: Each instructional space has two computer drops and four computers per room. List deficient

spaces in the comment section. 67%

PoorSOME: Each instructional space has two computer drops and four computers per room. List deficient

spaces in the comment section. 33%

UnsatDISAGREE: Each instructional space has two computer drops and four computers per room. List

deficient spaces in the comment section. 0%

Wireless 5.000

GoodAGREE: Instructional spaces (classrooms, library, etc.) have wireless capability. 100%

FairPARTIAL: Instructional spaces (classrooms, library, etc.) have wireless capability. List deficient spaces

in the comment section. 50%

UnsatDISAGREE: Instructional spaces (classrooms, library, etc.) have wireless capability. List deficient spaces

in the comment section. 0%

WAN Backbone 10.000

GoodFIBER: The facility has fiber based connectivity to the Internet. 100%

FairT1: The facility has T1 based connectivity to the Internet. 67%

PoorDSL: The facility has DSL based connectivity to the Internet. 33%

UnsatDIAL-UP: The facility has dial-up based connectivity to the Internet. 0%

LAN-WAN Performance 10.000

GoodAGREE: Internet connectivity is available and reliable all of the time. 100%

FairMOST: Internet connectivity is available and reliable a majority of the time. 67%

PoorSOME: Internet connectivity is available and reliable some of the time. 33%

UnsatDISAGREE: Internet connectivity is available and reliable all of the time. 0%

Video Distribution 5.000

GoodThe facility has smartboards for video distribution. 100%

FairThe facility has infrastructure for video distribution (e.g. cable TV, satellite, streaming). 50%

UnsatThe facility does not have infrastructure for video distribution 0%

Voice Distribution 5.000

GoodPHONE AND INTERCOM AND OUTSIDE LINE ACCESS AND VM AND VOIP: The facility has 2-way

voice communication to the classrooms via phone with intercom services including access to outside

lines. Faculty and staff have voice mail access.

100%

FairPHONE OR INTERCOM: More than half of the facility has 2-way voice communication (VOIP) to the

classrooms via phone or intercom services and access to outside lines. Faculty and staff have voice

mail access.

50%

UnsatDISAGREE: The facility has 2-way voice communication VOIP to the classrooms via phone or intercom

services and access to outside lines. Faculty and staff have voice mail access. 0%

6/14/2011 7:28:03AM

Item Name

Possible

Points PctRating

Faculty & Staff Technology 10.000

GoodAGREE: Faculty stations have wireless connections and sufficient electrical power to run computers and

multimedia equipment in classrooms. Staff stations have appropriately

located computer drops and electrical outlets.

100%

FairMOST: Faculty stations have wireless connections and sufficient electrical power to run computers and



67%

PoorSOME: Faculty stations have wireless connections and sufficient electrical power to run computers and



33%

UnsatDISAGREE: Faculty stations have wireless connections and sufficient electrical power to run computers

and multimedia equipment in classrooms. Staff stations have appropriately


0%

Emergency Alert 5.000

GoodAGREE: There an emergency event alert notification system. 100%

UnsatDISAGREE: There an emergency event alert notification system. 0%

Projectors 5.000

GoodAGREE: All nstructional spaces have ceiling mounted projectors. 100%

UnsatDISAGREE: All instructional spaces have ceiling mounted projectors. Indicate percentage of

instructional spaces without ceiling mounted projectors in comments. 0%

6/14/2011 7:28:03AM

Costing Method Development Budgets for correcting the condition, adequacy, and technology deficiencies at a given school were developed using methodologies applied to similar assessments conducted nationally by both Parsons and MGT. The amount calculated is intended to be used as an “order of magnitude” budget estimate for correcting the facility condition deficiencies, or addressing the educational adequacy and technology readiness needs of a facility or any combination thereof.

Budget estimates for correcting the facility condition deficiencies were developed using a combination of three nationally recognized construction cost estimating standards to establish the average construction cost per square foot for a typical elementary, middle, or high school. These standards included the RS Means Square Foot Cost Guides, McGraw Hill Cost Guides, and the American School and University cost tables. These square foot costs were then compared to the average square foot cost of construction at DeKalb County Schools for various school types. The square foot cost estimates were compared at both the building and site system level and at the overall building or site level. Once these comparisons were made, specific square foot unit cost was developed for the building or site systems that were installed at each school facility. This square foot cost forms the basis for both the replacement value and the repair cost detailed in this report.

Budget estimates for adequacy and technology readiness improvements can be developed based on the adequacy and technology readiness score of a particular school, local and national cost models for correcting deficiencies, and experience in correcting similar defeciencies. Therefore, budgets for correcting the adequacy and technology readiness deficiencies at a given school were developed using a methodology applied to similar assessments conducted nationally by MGT. The amount calculated is intended to be used as a budget for correcting the overall educational suitability needs of a facility and not as a cost estimates for individual deficiencies.

Experience has shown that it is difficult to calculate the cost of correcting items such as classrooms that are sized incorrectly, inappropriate adjacencies, lack of a variety of teaching/learning spaces, etc., prior to developing a specific design solution. The remediation of these deficiencies can take a variety of forms and requires a design study before accurate cost calculations can be made. As stated above, we can however develop a budget for adequacy and technology improvements based on the overall score of a particular school and our experience in correcting the overall deficiencies based on that score. Budget projections for each facility are included in the report and should be used as a starting place for long range planning. To develop these budgets, each assessment item is weighted based on its relative importance in developing the overall cost of the building. The overall level of deficiencies is then multiplied by the gross square footage in the facility and the cost per square foot to replace the facility. This calculation produces a budget for correcting the educational suitability deficiencies specific to the individual school.

Budget estimate projections for each facility are included in the report and will be used as a starting point for long-range planning. Budgets include both construction of the building and required site work, fees, general condition costs and contingency.

DeKalb High School of Technology South

1900 West Loop South, Suite 400

Houston, Texas 77027

713-871-7300

[email protected]

www.parsons.com

2011 Comprehensive Facility Assessment Report

Documents

Transcript of 2011 Comprehensive Facility Assessment Report