facility planning components for annual capital ... · cefpi - council of educational facility...

Insular ABC’s Phase 3

Facility Planning Components for Annual Capital Improvement Program Updates Guam November 2018

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

i

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

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

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

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

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

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

Agana Heights Elementary School ................................................. 8

Agueda Johnston Middle School .................................................. 10

Astumbo Elementary School ........................................................ 12

C.L. Taitano Elementary School ................................................... 14

Captain Price Elementary School ................................................. 16

Carbullido Elementary School ...................................................... 18

Chief Brodie Elementary School .................................................. 20

Daniel L. Perez Elementary School ............................................... 22

F.B. Leon Guerrero Middle School ............................................... 24

Finegayan Elementary School ...................................................... 26

George Washington High School ................................................. 28

Inarajan Elementary School ......................................................... 30

Inarajan Middle School ................................................................ 32

J.P. Torres Alternative School ...................................................... 34

J.Q. San Miguel Elementary School .............................................. 36

Jose Rios Middle School ............................................................... 38

Juan M. Guerrero Elementary School .......................................... 40

L.P. Untalan Middle School .......................................................... 42

L.B. Johnson Elementary School .................................................. 44

M.A. Sablan Elementary School ................................................... 46

M.U. Lujan Elementary School ..................................................... 48

Machananao Elementary School ................................................. 50

Maria A. Ulloa Elementary School ............................................... 52

Merizo Martyrs Memorial Elementary School............................. 54

Oceanview Middle School ............................................................ 56

Ordot/Chalan Pago Elementary School ....................................... 58

P.C. Lujan Elementary School....................................................... 60

Simon Sanchez High School ......................................................... 62

Southern High School ................................................................... 64

Talofofo Elementary School ......................................................... 66

Tamuning Elementary School ...................................................... 68

Truman Elementary School .......................................................... 70

Upi Elementary School ................................................................. 72

Vicente S.A. Benavente Middle School ........................................ 74

Wettengel Elementary School ..................................................... 76

5. School Facility Master Planning – Background/ Process ......... 78

Vision and Goal Setting ................................................................ 81


ii

Community Engagement ............................................................. 81

Project Selection and Prioritization ............................................. 82

Prioritization Committee Selection Process ................................ 83

6. School Standards and Facility Adequacy Considerations ........ 84

Modernization needs ................................................................... 84

GDOE 1999 Ten Year Capital Facilities Plan Standards – Space

Requirements ............................................................................... 85

New Construction and Renovation .............................................. 86

Educational Specifications. ...................................................... 86

Example Resources for Facility Requirement Calculations ...... 87

Cost Effectiveness ........................................................................ 87

Example Resources for Life-Cycle Cost Analysis ...................... 88

Future-Proofing ............................................................................ 88

Tropical Construction ................................................................... 89

Example Resources for Tropical Construction Recommendations

................................................................................................. 89

References ....................................................................................... 90

Acronyms CEFPI - Council of Educational Facility Planners

CIP - Capital Improvement Program

EAMS - Enterprise Asset Management System

Ed Specs - educational specifications

LCCA - Life-cycle cost analysis

M - million

M&R - maintenance and repair ()

O&M - operations and maintenance

sf - square feet

UFC - Unified Facilities Criteria

WCCUSD - West Contra Costa Unified School District


1

1. Introduction

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

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

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

and project sequencing.

In addition to CIP planning, Section 5 of this document outlines recommendations for larger-scale planning efforts (i.e., master planning) that

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

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

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

prioritization criteria.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

M&R funds.

Existing Conditions/Functionality:inventory-wide deferred maintenance and

renewal concerns

Enrollment Trends and Educational Requirments:

recent shifts and anticipated changes

School CIP Needs: capacity, facility adequacy, and

related CIP needs

CIP Cycle:

initial research

procuring design funds

planning and community outreach

design and preparation of construction documents

procuring construction funds

preparing construction documents

obtaining entitlements and necessary approvals

construction

[Several years from planning to completion]


2

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

economic conditions, evolving technology and educational/

programmatic needs, shifting enrollment patterns, investment and

redevelopment patterns, aging facilities, shortfalls in legislative

appropriations, and other challenges beyond a school district’s

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

school districts:

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

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

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

time)

Align appropriated CIP funds to short or longer-term

projects as appropriate

Provide equitable distribution

Key terms used in this report:

DM – deferred maintenance: the total cost of needed

repairs for work that should have been performed but was

delayed for a future period

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

estimated costs for elements assessed (at system, building,

school, island, or insular area levels)

FCI – facility condition index: the DM percentage of total

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

magnitude of particular problems regardless of cost

DM estimates, based on approximate building values derived from

locally adjusted cost components, were estimated for reporting and

planning purposes only and are not meant to determine exact

building values or project costs.

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

adequacy assessment of existing spaces is a critical metric for

considering facility condition.

Functional adequacy assessment helps identify programmatic needs

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

how well a school or building will support educational program

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

warranted. Full functionality assessment is extensive and can be

customized to focus on particular desired program upgrades.

Programmatic upgrade goals should be defined through a master

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

functional adequacy metrics were limited to critical spaces, safety,

and healthful learning space/conditions:

Classroom sizes – dimensions and general sizing

Core spaces (e.g., cafeteria, gym, media center) – present

and adequately sized

Restrooms – quantity and location of facilities are adequate

for student population and school staff

Technology/electrical – adequate power outlets/data lines

Indoor Environmental Quality – air quality, lighting/natural

light, acoustics provide a comfortable learning environment

Outdoor activity facilities – desired places for child play and

learning activities are present

Separation of pedestrian, bus and parking – conditions

support safe and efficient pedestrian and vehicle movement

Future assessment of functional adequacy and associated CIP needs

can be revised based on updated master planning requirements.


3

2. Existing Conditions

Total deferred maintenance for Guam Department of Education (GDOE) is

estimated to be $72 million (M), escalated to 2018 dollars, for the 35 schools

managed by GDOE (five other schools are managed under a third party

Design Build Finance Maintain arrangement).

Highest DM totals

1. Southern High School

2. F.B. Leon Guerrero Middle School

3. Simon Sanchez Elementary School

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

capacity needs are required to ascertain not only a larger scale

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

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

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

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

agreement on future educational goals and related facility needs. The

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

spaces. Sample considerations include: assessing each campus’ spatial

availability for expansion, functional relationships, potential adaptation of

spaces, structural suitability for expansion or modernization, potential

retrofits required by code.

$0.0 $2.5 $5.0 $7.5 $10.0 $12.5

L.P. Untalan MSJ.P. Torres ES

Machananao ESMerizo Martyrs Memorial ES

LBJ ESInarajan ES

Agana Heights ESChief Brodie Memorial ES

Talofofo ESOrdot/Chalan Pago ES

Jose Rios MSMaria A. Ulloa ES

Astumbo ESUpi ES

Carbullido ESFinegayan ES

M.U. Lujan ESJuan M. Guerrero ES

C.L. Taitano ESM.A. Sablan ES

Truman ESOceanview MS

Wettengel ESJ.Q. San Miguel ES

P.C. Lujan ESDaniel L. Perez ES

Inarajan MSCapt Price ESTamuning ES

Agueda Johnston MSVicente S.A. Benavente MS

George Washington HSSimon Sanchez HS

F.B. Leon Guerrero MSSouthern HS

Deferred Maintenance ($M; 2018)

2018 dollars in millions (M)


4

3. Territory Population Assessment

Based on United Nations population estimates and

projections data, “World Population Review” estimates

that Guam's 2018 population is 165,718, compared to

the official census figure of 159,000 in 2010 representing

an annual growth rate of approximately 0.5 percent

(World Population Review 2018). Figure 1 shows School-

age Population Projections for Guam through 2050,

which indicates no significant change in school-age

population for the foreseeable future (slight downward

trend for elementary school enrollment).

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

chart also shows no significant change in enrollments

over the period from 2012 through 2018. The five Design

Build Finance Maintain schools were excluded from this

analysis because facility management is the

responsibility of the third party (Adacao Elementary

School, Astumbo Middle School, JFK High School, Liguan

Elementary School, and Okkodo High School). Because of

this, as well as the exclusion of private schools, student

enrollment totals are lower in Figure two than those

represented in Figure 1.

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

20

00

20

02

20

04

20

06

20

08

20

10

20

12

20

14

20

16

20

18

20

20

20

22

20

24

20

26

20

28

20

30

20

32

20

34

20

36

20

38

20

40

20

42

20

44

20

46

20

48

20

50

School-age Population Projection

Elementary Middle High

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

Figure 2 - Actual enrollment from 2012 through 2018

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18

Public School Enrollment (35 schools)

ES MS HS


5

Figure 3 shows the percent change in Guam’s village populations from 2000 to 2010,

the trend being a reduction in population in the south and population increase in the

north.

Guam's population increased 1.2 percent from 2017 to 2018 and will rise further if

plans to move Marines into the region continue (World Population Review 2018).

However, this growth may not result in an increase in school age children in the near

term.

Capacity assessments for this report compare gross square feet per student (to

capture other supporting facilities, e.g., office, cafeteria, auditorium, media center,

circulation, restrooms), with national gross area per student averages, as reported

by The Council of Educational Facility Planners (CEFPI 2007). Four under capacity

schools in the south, and five over capacity schools in the north were identified

(Figure 4). These results correspond with the population trends indicated in the

census data.

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


6

8%

92%

0% Guam Elementary

Under Capacity (2)

Within Range (23)

Over Capacity (0)

20%

30%50%

Guam Secondary (MS & HS)

Under Capacity (2)

Within Range (3)

Over Capacity (5)

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

125%

150%

175%

200%

Sim

on

San

chez

HS

L.P.

Un

tala

n M

S

Jose

Rio

s M

S

Vic

ente

S.A

. Ben

aven

te M

S

Geo

rge

Was

hin

gto

n H

S

Mac

han

anao

ES

Fin

egay

an E

S

Juan

M. G

uer

rero

ES

Cap

t P

rice

ES

Ast

um

bo

ES

Tam

un

ing

ES

Agu

eda

Joh

nst

on

MS

Ord

ot/

Ch

alan

Pag

o E

S

M.U

. Lu

jan

ES

Car

bu

llid

o E

S

Wet

ten

gel E

S

Aga

na

Hei

ghts

ES

C.L

. Tai

tan

o E

S

F.B

. Leo

n G

uer

rero

MS

Up

i ES

LBJ

ES

J.Q

. San

Mig

uel

ES

Dan

iel L

. Pe

rez

ES

Talo

fofo

ES

Ch

ief

Bro

die

Mem

ori

al E

S

Mer

izo

Mar

tyrs

Mem

ori

al E

S

Inar

ajan

MS

Tru

man

ES

Mar

ia A

. Ullo

a ES

P.C

. Lu

jan

ES

J.P.

To

rres

ES

M.A

. Sab

lan

ES

Oce

anvi

ew M

S

Inar

ajan

ES

Sou

ther

n H

S

School Percent Capacity

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

George Washington HS: 140%

Inarajan ES: 44%

Jose Rios MS: 187% L.P. Untalan MS: 195%

M.A. Sablan ES: 64% Oceanview MS: 62%

Southern HS: 42%

V.S.A. Benavente MS: 178%

Simon Sanchez HS: 200%

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


7

4. School Facility and Grounds Needs

Based on the demographic data and capacity information covered in

Section 3, school expansion may be warranted at five schools due to

apparent overcapacity conditions. This does not necessarily mean

that additional classrooms are needed, but could indicate a need for

additional core or supporting facilities (noted in Section 1). Similarly,

some consolidation may be warranted at four schools due to

apparent under-capacity conditions. Potential for school expansion

and consolidation needs include (percentages indicate percent

capacity):

School Expansion/Replacement 1 Simon Sanchez High School1 200% 2 L.P. Untalan Middle School 195% 3 Jose Rios Middle School 187% 4 Vicente S.A. Benavente Middle School 178% 5 George Washington High School 140%

School Consolidation 1 Southern High School 42% 2 Inarajan Elementary School 44% 3 M.A. Sablan Elementary School 64% 4 Oceanview Middle School 62%

GDOE is currently creating a redistricting strategy in order to

address current facility limitations. The teacher’s union contract sets

teacher-to-student ratio limits (e.g., 1:14 to 1:28 depending on the

class type and level). GDOE provides classroom space to meet these

requirements and prevent overcrowding.

1 Simon Sanchez High School has been identified for replacement by GDOE

Major Repair/Replacement Expansion or replacement is needed for some older cafeteria

buildings. Some school cafeterias are too small and require two or

more lunch periods to serve all students. GDOE, through the

Department of Public Works, is soliciting assistance in formulating a

cost effective replacement or renovation strategy.

School-Specific Condition Summaries – Assumptions

The school-specific condition summaries provided in Section 4 are

based on the 2013 building condition assessments (August 2013)

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

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

Management System (EAMS), GDOE’s facility management system,

to capture current conditions.

DM estimates and facility replacement values were updated to 2018

dollars for inclusion in this report:

Cost Replacement Value was based on March 2013 dollars

and escalated to September 2018 dollars using the

“NAVFAC Building Cost Index” (used because this represents

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

Census Construction Price Indexes)

Deferred Maintenance costs were based on Sept 2015

dollars and escalated to Sept 2018 dollars

School by school conditions are summarized on subsequent pages

of Section 4.


8

Agana Heights Elementary School Formerly Hagatna Heights Elementary

Maximo Site GU01014

Facility Conditions:

Deferred Maintenance Estimate: $832K

Replacement value (2018 $): $11,810K

Facility Condition Index: 0.13

Number of Buildings: 13

Floor Area: 42,404 square feet

Campus Size: 9 acres http://insularabcs.org/School/Summary?id=GU01014

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

Spaces are adequate Yes No Adequate Bldg. Issues

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

Capacity:

School Actual GDOE ES Average

2017-18 Enrollment 400 518

Number of Classrooms 34 62.4

Students per Classroom 11.8 11.1

Square Feet per Student 106 121

413

532 505

413 420 400

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

Enrollment


9

Figure 6 - Agana Heights Elementary School

Legend

FCI = 0.0-0.1

FCI = 0.1-0.15

FCI = 0.15-0.5

FCI = 0.5-1.0

Demolished

7

3

11

1 9

6

4

8

5

12

13 2


10

Agueda Johnston Middle School Maximo Site GU01002


Deferred Maintenance Estimate: $2,490K




Floor Area: 108,809 SF


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



Capacity:

School Actual GDOE MS Average

2017-18 Enrollment 768 847




792854

913

810 788 768

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

Enrollment


11

Figure 7 - Agueda Johnston Middle School

Legend

FCI = 0.0-0.1

FCI = 0.1-0.15

FCI = 0.15-0.5

FCI = 0.5-1.0

1 15

6

2 3

4 5

7

8

11

12 13 15 10

9

15

14


12

Astumbo Elementary School Maximo Site GU01003







Campus Size 8 acres http://insularabcs.org/School/Summary?id=GU01003

Functionality Assessment:

[preliminary considerations; pending master plan input]



Capacity:

School Actual

GDOE ES Average

2017-18 Enrollment 583 518




547433 532 561 578 583

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

Enrollment


13

Figure 8 - Astumbo Elementary School

Legend

FCI = 0.0-0.1

FCI = 0.1-0.15

FCI = 0.15-0.5

FCI = 0.5-1.0

10

1

9 7 6

13

3 2

4 5

13

13

13 12

8

11

14


14

C.L. Taitano Elementary School Maximo Site GU01005












Capacity:

School Actual

GDOE ES Average

2017-18 Enrollment 602 518




648625 632

552 558602

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

Enrollment


15

Figure 9 - C.L. Taitano Elementary School

Legend

FCI = 0.0-0.1

FCI = 0.1-0.15

FCI = 0.15-0.5

FCI = 0.5-1.0

13

15 14

12

2

1

3

4

6

5

7

8

11 20 19

17

18

10 9


16

Captain Price Elementary School Maximo Site GU01006












Capacity:


2017-18 Enrollment 703 518




693

728 717700

681703

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

Enrollment


17

Figure 10 - Captain Price Elementary School

Legend

FCI = 0.0-0.1

FCI = 0.1-0.15

FCI = 0.15-0.5

FCI = 0.5-1.0

Demolished

14

15

13

9

8 7

6

5

4 2

1 3

19

11

10

17

16 21


18

Carbullido Elementary School Maximo Site GU01007












Capacity:

School Actual

GDOE ES Average

2017-18 Enrollment 492 518




531 521492

479 489 492

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

Enrollment


19

Legend

FCI = 0.0-0.1

FCI = 0.1-0.15

FCI = 0.15-0.5

FCI = 0.5-1.0

Legend

FCI = 0.0-0.1

FCI = 0.1-0.15

FCI = 0.15-0.5

FCI = 0.5-1.0

Figure 11 - Carbullido Elementary School

12

12 4

4

9

9

10

10

6

6

11

11

5

5

3

3

2

2 1

1

14

14

13

13

7

7

8

8

15

15

16

16


20

Chief Brodie Elementary School Maximo Site GU01008












Capacity:

School Actual

GDOE ES Average

2017-18 Enrollment 329 518


Students per Classroom 5 11.1


343 342 339320

304329

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

Enrollment


21

Figure 12 – Chief Brodie Elementary School

Legend

FCI = 0.0-0.1

FCI = 0.1-0.15

FCI = 0.15-0.5

FCI = 0.5-1.0

Legend

FCI = 0.0-0.1

FCI = 0.1-0.15

FCI = 0.15-0.5

FCI = 0.5-1.0

23

23

22

22

21

21

20

20

19

19

9

9

10

10

11

11

8

8

7

7

6

6

5

5

1

1

2

2

3

3

4

4 16

16

17

17

15

15

12

12 14

14

13

13

18

18

22

22


22

Daniel L. Perez Elementary School Maximo Site GU01009












Capacity:

School Actual

GDOE ES Average

2017-18 Enrollment 657 518




752713 721

676641 657

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

Enrollment


23

Figure 13 – Daniel L. Perez Elementary School

Legend

FCI = 0.0-0.1

FCI = 0.1-0.15

FCI = 0.15-0.5

FCI = 0.5-1.0

Legend

FCI = 0.0-0.1

FCI = 0.1-0.15

FCI = 0.15-0.5

FCI = 0.5-1.0

11

11

12

12

13

13

13

13

13

13

8

8

7

7

6

6

5

5

4

4

1

1

10

10

9

9

3

3

2

2


24

F.B. Leon Guerrero Middle School Maximo Site GU01010












Capacity:

School Actual GDOE MS Average

2017-18 Enrollment 1,129 847




1,1281,106

1,176

1,117 1,1061,129

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

Enrollment


25

Figure 14 – F.B. Leon Guerrero Middle School

Legend

FCI = 0.0-0.1

FCI = 0.1-0.15

FCI = 0.15-0.5

FCI = 0.5-1.0

Legend

FCI = 0.0-0.1

FCI = 0.1-0.15

FCI = 0.15-0.5

FCI = 0.5-1.0

16

16

17

17

15

15

18

18

20

20

14

14

19

19

21

21

11

11

10

10

9

9

8

8

7

7 12

12

5

5

6

6

13

13

24

24

25

25

23

23 2

2 1

1

3

3 4

4

1

1

3

3

2

2 4

4

12

12

11

11

5

5

6

6

7

7

8

8

10

10

9

9


26

Finegayan Elementary School Maximo Site GU01012












Capacity:


2017-18 Enrollment 849 518




906 936 979811 843 849

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

Enrollment


27

Figure 15 – Finegayan Elementary School

Legend

FCI = 0.0-0.1

FCI = 0.1-0.15

FCI = 0.15-0.5

FCI = 0.5-1.0

Legend

FCI = 0.0-0.1

FCI = 0.1-0.15

FCI = 0.15-0.5

FCI = 0.5-1.0

26

26

27

27

25

25

24

24

23

23

22

22 21

21

4

4

3

3

2

2 5

5 6

6

7

7

8

8

9

9 11

11

12

12

13

13

28

28

19

19

1

1


28

George Washington High School Maximo Site GU01013












Capacity:

School Actual

GDOE HS Average

2017-18 Enrollment 1,630 1,626

Number of Classrooms 154 151

Students per Classroom 10.6 10

Square Feet per Student 115 192.3

1,842

2,643 2,647

1,767 1,699 1,630

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

Enrollment


29

Figure 16 – George Washington High School

Legend

FCI = 0.0-0.1

FCI = 0.1-0.15

FCI = 0.15-0.5

FCI = 0.5-1.0

Legend

FCI = 0.0-0.1

FCI = 0.1-0.15

FCI = 0.15-0.5

FCI = 0.5-1.0

7

7

2

2 16

16 14

14

15

15

18

18

21

21

19

19

12

12

13

13

27

27

28

28

11

11

10

10 24

24 17

17

23

23

20

20

25

25

26

26

9

9 8

8 4

4

15

15

5

5

6

6 1

1

22

22

15

15

15

15


30

Inarajan Elementary School Maximo Site GU01015












Capacity:

School Actual

GDOE ES Average

2017-18 Enrollment 241 518




257 255

247 248244

241

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

Enrollment


31

Figure 17 – Inarajan Elementary School

Legend

FCI = 0.0-0.1

FCI = 0.1-0.15

FCI = 0.15-0.5

FCI = 0.5-1.0

Legend

FCI = 0.0-0.1

FCI = 0.1-0.15

FCI = 0.15-0.5

FCI = 0.5-1.0

8

8

4

4

6

6

7

7

2

2

3

3

5

5

1

1

9

9 9

9


32

Inarajan Middle School Maximo Site GU01016












Capacity:

School Actual

GDOE MS Average

2017-18 Enrollment 490 847




556 596 611531 515 490

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

Enrollment


33

Figure 18 – Inarajan Middle School

Legend

FCI = 0.0-0.1

FCI = 0.1-0.15

FCI = 0.15-0.5

FCI = 0.5-1.0

Legend

FCI = 0.0-0.1

FCI = 0.1-0.15

FCI = 0.15-0.5

FCI = 0.5-1.0

10

10 9

9

14

14

15

15

18

18

13

13

11

11

12

12

6

6

7

7

8

8

7

7

5

5

19

19

1

1

2

2

16

16

3

3

4

4

17

17


34

J.P. Torres Alternative School Maximo Site GU01017


Deferred Maintenance Estimate: $540k










Capacity:

School Actual

GDOE Average

2017-18 Enrollment 171 518




83

145124

39

154171

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

Enrollment


35

Figure 19 – J.P. Torres Alternative School

Legend

FCI = 0.0-0.1

FCI = 0.1-0.15

FCI = 0.15-0.5

FCI = 0.5-1.0

Legend

FCI = 0.0-0.1

FCI = 0.1-0.15

FCI = 0.15-0.5

FCI = 0.5-1.0

2

2 1

1 8

8

3

3

4

4

5

5

6

6

7

7


36

J.Q. San Miguel Elementary School Maximo Site GU01018












Capacity:


2017-18 Enrollment 503 518




506 505

498

513

501503

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

Enrollment


37

Figure 20 – J.Q. San Miguel Elementary School

Legend

FCI = 0.0-0.1

FCI = 0.1-0.15

FCI = 0.15-0.5

FCI = 0.5-1.0

Legend

FCI = 0.0-0.1

FCI = 0.1-0.15

FCI = 0.15-0.5

FCI = 0.5-1.0

2

2

1

1

10

10

11

11

4

4

5

5

8

8 13

13

3

3

14

14

9

9

12

12

6

6

7

7


38

Jose Rios Middle School Maximo Site GU01020












Capacity:

School Actual

GDOE MS Average

2017-18 Enrollment 822 847




891 925 990864 870 822

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

Enrollment


39

Figure 21 – Jose Rios Middle School

Legend

FCI = 0.0-0.1

FCI = 0.1-0.15

FCI = 0.15-0.5

FCI = 0.5-1.0

Legend

FCI = 0.0-0.1

FCI = 0.1-0.15

FCI = 0.15-0.5

FCI = 0.5-1.0

1

1

18

18

18

18

3

3

5

5

6

6

18

18 2

2

4

4

7

7

9

9

10

10

11

11

12

12

8

8 15

15

14

14

13

13

18

18

17

17

16

16


40

Juan M. Guerrero Elementary School Maximo Site GU01021












Capacity:


2017-18 Enrollment 711 518




778

681

729 741

680711

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

Enrollment


41

Figure 22 – Juan M. Guerrero Elementary School

Legend

FCI = 0.0-0.1

FCI = 0.1-0.15

FCI = 0.15-0.5

FCI = 0.5-1.0

Legend

FCI = 0.0-0.1

FCI = 0.1-0.15

FCI = 0.15-0.5

FCI = 0.5-1.0

1

1 21

21

23

23

22

22

19

19

3

3

18

18

24

24

2

2

6

6

7

7

8

8

7

7

9

9

7

7

10

10

12

12

11

11

13

13

14

14

15

15

16

16

17

17

4

4

22

22


42

L.P. Untalan Middle School Maximo Site GU01022












Capacity:

School Actual

GDOE MS Average

2017-18 Enrollment 1,111 847




1,065 1,068

1,172

1,088

1,1521,111

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

Enrollment


43

Figure 23 – L.P. Untalan Middle School

Legend

FCI = 0.0-0.1

FCI = 0.1-0.15

FCI = 0.15-0.5

FCI = 0.5-1.0

Legend

FCI = 0.0-0.1

FCI = 0.1-0.15

FCI = 0.15-0.5

FCI = 0.5-1.0

22

22

5

5 6

6

27

27

25

25 12

12

11

11

9

9

10

10

7

7

8

8

26

26

30

30

29

29

28

28

19

19

14

14

18

18 13

13

15

15

16

16

17

17 1

1

2

2

3

3

4

4

20

20

21

21


44

L.B. Johnson Elementary School Maximo Site GU01023












Capacity:

School Actual

GDOE ES Average

2017-18 Enrollment 243 518




311 338 310 296259 243

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

Enrollment


45

Figure 24 – L.B. Johnson Elementary School

Legend

FCI = 0.0-0.1

FCI = 0.1-0.15

FCI = 0.15-0.5

FCI = 0.5-1.0

Legend

FCI = 0.0-0.1

FCI = 0.1-0.15

FCI = 0.15-0.5

FCI = 0.5-1.0

23

23

17

17

21

21

13

13

14

14

28

28 12

12

9

9

8

8

15

15

10

10

11

11

16

16

18

18

19

19

29

29

22

22

20

20 7

7 1

1

2

2

5

5

3

3

6

6

4

4

27

27

24

24

26

26


46

M.A. Sablan Elementary School Maximo Site GU01025












Capacity: School Actual GDOE ES

Average

2017-18 Enrollment 437 518




436458 463

416 435 437

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

Enrollment


47

Figure 25 – M.A. Sablan Elementary School

Legend

FCI = 0.0-0.1

FCI = 0.1-0.15

FCI = 0.15-0.5

FCI = 0.5-1.0

Legend

FCI = 0.0-0.1

FCI = 0.1-0.15

FCI = 0.15-0.5

FCI = 0.5-1.0

24

24

23

23

22

22

21

21

20

20

19

19

14

14

15

15 18

18

17

17

16

16

25

25

1

1

2

2

4

4

3

3

5

5

6

6

11

11

7

7

8

8

9

9

10

10

12

12

13

13


48

M.U. Lujan Elementary School Maximo Site GU01026












Capacity: School

Actual GDOE ES Average

2017-18 Enrollment 437 518




644 672 656 601 611437

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

Enrollment


49

Figure 26 – M.U. Lujan Elementary School

Legend

FCI = 0.0-0.1

FCI = 0.1-0.15

FCI = 0.15-0.5

FCI = 0.5-1.0

Legend

FCI = 0.0-0.1

FCI = 0.1-0.15

FCI = 0.15-0.5

FCI = 0.5-1.0

21

21

20

20

22

22

23

23

19

19 18

18

16

16

15

15

14

14

15

15

11

11

15

15

13

13

15

15

12

12

15

15

17

17

15

15

4

4

15

15

1

1

15

15

2

2

15

15

3

3

15

15

5

5

15

15

6

6

15

15

7

7

15

15

8

8

15

15

9

9

15

15

10

10

15

15

24

24


50

Machananao Elementary School Maximo Site GU01027


Deferred Maintenance Estimate: $607k










Capacity:

School Actual

GDOE ES Average

2017-18 Enrollment 534 518




548

516

547

508 516534

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

Enrollment


51

Figure 27 – Machananao Elementary School

Legend

FCI = 0.0-0.1

FCI = 0.1-0.15

FCI = 0.15-0.5

FCI = 0.5-1.0

Legend

FCI = 0.0-0.1

FCI = 0.1-0.15

FCI = 0.15-0.5

FCI = 0.5-1.0

7

7

6

6

8

8 5

5

9

9

1

1

2

2

3

3 4

4

10

10

10

10


52

Maria A. Ulloa Elementary School Maximo Site GU01028












Capacity:

School Actual

GDOE ES Average

2017-18 Enrollment 719 518




776752 756

709 695719

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

Enrollment


53

Figure 28 – Maria A. Ulloa Elementary School

Legend

FCI = 0.0-0.1

FCI = 0.1-0.15

FCI = 0.15-0.5

FCI = 0.5-1.0

Legend

FCI = 0.0-0.1

FCI = 0.1-0.15

FCI = 0.15-0.5

FCI = 0.5-1.0

10

10

1

1

25

25

2

2

3

3

19

19

18

18

17

17

20

20

23

23

22

22

6

6

7

7 8

8

5

5

24

24

25

25

4

4

25

25

12

12

11

11

14

14

15

15

16

16

21

21

25

25

9

9

25

25

25

25


54

Merizo Martyrs Memorial Elementary School Maximo Site GU01029












Capacity:

School Actual

GDOE ES Average

2017-18 Enrollment 270 518




271 272 266

230 230

270

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

Enrollment


55

Figure 29 – Merizo Martyrs Elementary School

Legend

FCI = 0.0-0.1

FCI = 0.1-0.15

FCI = 0.15-0.5

FCI = 0.5-1.0

Legend

FCI = 0.0-0.1

FCI = 0.1-0.15

FCI = 0.15-0.5

FCI = 0.5-1.0

16

16 17

17

6

6

7

7

10

10

15

15

14

14

13

13

12

12

11

11

8

8 4

4

5

5

2

2

3

3

1

1


56

Oceanview Middle School Maximo Site GU01030












Capacity:

School Actual

GDOE MS Average

2017-18 Enrollment 435 847




469478

440 439428 435

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

Enrollment


57

Figure 30 – Oceanview Middle School

Legend

FCI = 0.0-0.1

FCI = 0.1-0.15

FCI = 0.15-0.5

FCI = 0.5-1.0

Legend

FCI = 0.0-0.1

FCI = 0.1-0.15

FCI = 0.15-0.5

FCI = 0.5-1.0

1

1

2

2

11

11

3

3

4

4

5

5

6

6

23

23

23

23

23

23

10

10

7

7

8

8

9

9 23

23 22

22

21

21

20

20

17

17

12

12

18

18

19

19 16

16

15

15

14

14

13

13


58

Ordot/Chalan Pago Elementary School Maximo Site GU01032












Capacity:


2017-18 Enrollment 493 518




543531

494

535

507493

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

Enrollment


59

Figure 31 – Ordot/Chalan Pago Elementary School

Legend

FCI = 0.0-0.1

FCI = 0.1-0.15

FCI = 0.15-0.5

FCI = 0.5-1.0

Legend

FCI = 0.0-0.1

FCI = 0.1-0.15

FCI = 0.15-0.5

FCI = 0.5-1.0

12

12

13

13

1

1

2

2

13

13

3

3

4

4

6

6

5

5 14

14

13

13

11

11

10

10

9

9

8

8


60

P.C. Lujan Elementary School Maximo Site GU01033







Campus Size 15 acres http://insularabcs.org/School/Summary?id=GU01033





Capacity:

School Actual

GDOE ES Average

2017-18 Enrollment 387 518




438 456 454 425369 387

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

Enrollment


61

Figure 32 – P.C. Lujan Elementary School

Legend

FCI = 0.0-0.1

FCI = 0.1-0.15

FCI = 0.15-0.5

FCI = 0.5-1.0

Legend

FCI = 0.0-0.1

FCI = 0.1-0.15

FCI = 0.15-0.5

FCI = 0.5-1.0

2

2

5

5 14

14 12

12

4

4

6

6

7

7 1

1 13

13

8

8

11

11

9

9 10

10

3

3


62

Simon Sanchez High School Maximo Ssite GU01034












Capacity:

School Actual GDOE HS Average

2017-18 Enrollment 1,851 1,626



Square Feet per Student 80 192.3

1,857

1,832

1,893

1,860

1,899

1,851

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

Enrollment


63

Figure 33 – Simon Sanchez High School

Legend

FCI = 0.0-0.1

FCI = 0.1-0.15

FCI = 0.15-0.5

FCI = 0.5-1.0

Legend

FCI = 0.0-0.1

FCI = 0.1-0.15

FCI = 0.15-0.5

FCI = 0.5-1.0

24

24

25

25

18

18

16

16 15

15

9

9

10

10

8

8

7

7

6

6

5

5

2

2

1

1

3

3

23

23

22

22 22

22 2

2 1

1

8

8

7

7

9

9

4

4 22

22


64

Southern High School Maximo Site GU01035












Capacity:

School Actual GDOE HS Average

2017-18 Enrollment 1,397 1,626



Square Feet per Student 1,399 192.3

1,475 1,466 1,577

1,2601,486 1,397

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

Enrollment


65

Figure 34 – Southern High School

Legend

FCI = 0.0-0.1

FCI = 0.1-0.15

FCI = 0.15-0.5

FCI = 0.5-1.0

Legend

FCI = 0.0-0.1

FCI = 0.1-0.15

FCI = 0.15-0.5

FCI = 0.5-1.0

20

20

19

19

18

18

11

11

12

12

24

24 7

7

6

6 5

5 4

4

3

3

2

2

1

1

8

8

9

9

21

21 10

10 15

15

16

16

17

17


66

Talofofo Elementary School Maximo Site GU01036












Capacity:

School Actual

GDOE ES Average

2017-18 Enrollment 301 518




257275 277 274 279

301

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

Enrollment


67

Figure 35 – Talofofo Elementary School

Legend

FCI = 0.0-0.1

FCI = 0.1-0.15

FCI = 0.15-0.5

FCI = 0.5-1.0

Legend

FCI = 0.0-0.1

FCI = 0.1-0.15

FCI = 0.15-0.5

FCI = 0.5-1.0

7

7 2

2

6

6 3

3

4

4

16

16

16

16

8

8

9

9 1

1

14

14

12

12

13

13

15

15

11

11

10

10

17

17

16

16


68

Tamuning Elementary School Maximo Site GU01037












Capacity:


2017-18 Enrollment 595 518




596

631615

565

615595

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

Enrollment


69

Figure 36 – Tamuning Elementary School

Legend

FCI = 0.0-0.1

FCI = 0.1-0.15

FCI = 0.15-0.5

FCI = 0.5-1.0

Legend

FCI = 0.0-0.1

FCI = 0.1-0.15

FCI = 0.15-0.5

FCI = 0.5-1.0

3

3

4

4

4

4 4

4

5

5

2

2

1

1

4

4

4

4


70

Truman Elementary School Maximo Site GU01038












Capacity:


2017-18 Enrollment 372 518




393409 405

352 361 372

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

Enrollment


71

Figure 37 – Truman Elementary School

Legend

FCI = 0.0-0.1

FCI = 0.1-0.15

FCI = 0.15-0.5

FCI = 0.5-1.0

Legend

FCI = 0.0-0.1

FCI = 0.1-0.15

FCI = 0.15-0.5

FCI = 0.5-1.0

4

4

1

1

16

16

14

14

3

3

15

15

5

5

12

12 6

6

7

7

13

13

11

11

8

8

9

9

10

10


72

Upi Elementary School Maximo Site GU01039












Capacity:


2017-18 Enrollment 882 518




888925

852 868825

882

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

Enrollment


73

Figure 38 – Upi Elementary School

Legend

FCI = 0.0-0.1

FCI = 0.1-0.15

FCI = 0.15-0.5

FCI = 0.5-1.0

Legend

FCI = 0.0-0.1

FCI = 0.1-0.15

FCI = 0.15-0.5

FCI = 0.5-1.0

1

1

2

2

11

11

12

12

8

8

14

14 15

15

16

16

5

5

3

3

4

4

7

7

19

19


74

Vicente S.A. Benavente Middle School Maximo Site GU01040












Capacity:

School Actual

GDOE ES Average

2017-18 Enrollment 1,171 847




1,2281,278 1,283

1,2391,174 1,171

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

Enrollment


75

Figure 39 – Vicente S.A. Benavente Middle School

Legend

FCI = 0.0-0.1

FCI = 0.1-0.15

FCI = 0.15-0.5

FCI = 0.5-1.0

Legend

FCI = 0.0-0.1

FCI = 0.1-0.15

FCI = 0.15-0.5

FCI = 0.5-1.0

16

16

14

14

1

1

2

2 3

3

4

4

23

23

24

24

24

24

24

24

5

5 8

8

7

7

6

6

11

11

10

10

12

12

24

24

13

13

20

20

21

21

22

22

15

15

19

19

18

18

17

17

24

24


76

Wettengel Elementary School Maximo Site GU01041












Capacity:


2017-18 Enrollment 701 518




754778

758

699 699 701

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

Enrollment


77

Figure 40 – Wettengel Elementary School

Legend

FCI = 0.0-0.1

FCI = 0.1-0.15

FCI = 0.15-0.5

FCI = 0.5-1.0

Legend

FCI = 0.0-0.1

FCI = 0.1-0.15

FCI = 0.15-0.5

FCI = 0.5-1.0

16

16

15

15

13

13

14

14

12

12

11

11

10

10

7

7

8

8

9

9 6

6

5

5 4

4

3

3 2

2

17

17 18

18


78

5. School Facility Master Planning – Background/ Process

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

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

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

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

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

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

static document, but a process that requires regular updates.2 It is the comprehensive conclusion of

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

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

make up the Facilities Master Plan as seen in Figure 41.

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

considers:

Condition: indoor air quality, thermal comfort, acoustics, lighting, maintenance adequacy3

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2 School District Master Planning: A Practical Guide to Demographics & Facility Planning. (Carey, 2011) 3 Facility conditions have been proven to affect standardized test scores, graduation and attendance rates, and teacher retention rates. (Barrett, 2015)

Demographics

Facility master plan

goals, standards, and processes

facility investment needs/priorities

informed alternatives analysis

holistic, objective investment

decisions

Facility master plan

goals, standards, and processes

facility investment needs/priorities

informed alternatives analysis

holistic, objective investment

decisions

Figure 41 - Master Plan Components


79

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Facility Data

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

•Project school enrollments and classroom capacity

Steering Committee

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

•Define educational vision and goals

•Set curriculum and facility standards

•Determine physical and monetary resources

Public Workshops

•Conduct community survey

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

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

Final Plan

•Set capital improvement goals and priorities

•Identify and rank projects

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


80

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

plan and referenced accordingly.

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

engagement, and establishment of CIP prioritization criteria.

Figure 37 - Example Planning Process for the WCCUSD Long Range Facilities Master Plan (WCCUSD 2016) *LCAP – Local Control and Accountability Plan for goal setting and resource allocation (California Department of Education https://www.cde.ca.gov/re/lc/)

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


81

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

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

building toward the established goal.

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

The focus here is on establishing objective and equitable criteria and

applying these criteria to define a project sequencing plan and

measurable implementation strategy.

Community Engagement Community engagement contributes to the success of the facility

planning process because residents can add their ideas and concerns

and build awareness of related challenges or complicating factors

that may limit what projects the school district can accomplish.

Example focus areas:

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

students and communities?

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

3. Individual input on the priority school sites.

The location of community meetings is important for capturing a

representative sample of the population, and efforts should be made

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

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

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

advertised.

The WCCUSD Master Planning process also included district-wide

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

prioritization criteria.

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

a priority list based on equitable, measurable criteria.

Define construction projects with budgets on all 21 Priority

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

and utilization.

Establish an implementation time-line for project completion.

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

DISTRICT-WIDE SURVEY

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

SCHOOL SITE SPECIFIC SURVEY


82

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

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

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

worked with an initial list of criteria that would be applied equally to all sites without

discussing individual site needs. They created draft selection criteria and weighting that would

prioritize projects, and vetted the criteria until they reached consensus. The committee then

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

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

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

Criteria Metric Weight

Number of Years since Last Improvement

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

6

Functionality Assessments scores prepared by Darden/iep2 6

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

5

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

Physical Condition Assessment scores prepared by Darden/iep2 5

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

4

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

Economically Disadvantaged Area Median Income of the Census Track 3

Eligible for State Funding Any State funding 2

% Of Enrollment ESL, Foster, or Low Income

LCAP unduplicated count 2

Lack of Technology Infrastructure IT Grading 2

Over or Nearing Capacity Utilization using capacity without portables 1

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

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

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

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

as decimal points.

Create prioritization committee

Draft selection criteria and weighting

Reach consensus

Final approval by Board of

Education

Figure 38 - Process for establishing project prioritization criteria (WCCUSD 2016)

Figure 38 - Process for establishing project prioritization criteria (WCCUSD 2016)


83

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

Criteria

[Value of recent]

# of Years Since Last Improve-

ments

Function Score

Seismic Needs

Age Condition

Score ADA Score

Completed Plans

Economically Disadvan-taged Area

Technology Infrastructure

Eligible for State Funding

Percent of Enrollment ESL, Foster,

or Low Income

Over or Nearing Capacity

Metric Dollars spent/

student

Assessment score

Seismic Report Priority

Building Age

(permanent)

Assessment score

Assessment score

Design stage of campus

improvement plans

Median household income ($)

Technology Department

Ranking

Eligible for a state funding program

2015-16 WCCUSD

LCAP

Utilization without

portables

10 Points

Under 5,000

Under 33 1 Before 1945

Under 25 Under 15 DSA

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

0 Points Over 50K 61+ No

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

Under 100%

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

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

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

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

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

inform the committee selection and criteria ranking process.


84

6. School Standards and Facility Adequacy Considerations

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

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

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

even unsafe. (State of Our Schools 2016)

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

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

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

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

Key considerations include:

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

light, sound/acoustics)

ADA accessibility

Flexibility of spaces (opportunities for alternative uses for all

spaces, to reduce the amount of time that spaces are

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

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

walls, drop-down electrical outlets, adjacency to outdoor

learning spaces)

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

dehumidification) to support the integration of technology

in schools for instruction and administration

Energy efficiency and cost effective operations

Life cycle cost analysis for materials and equipment

(including operational costs in addition to capital outlays)

Safety and security measures (for natural and manmade

risks; use as shelters)

Student/teacher as well as student/restroom ratio goals

(right size classrooms)

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

and environmental education) (State of Our Schools 2016)

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

analyzed:

Core Academics (classrooms, science labs)

Special Education (life skills, VOC, resource rooms)

Visual Arts (art, drawing, painting, media)

Performing Arts (music, band, drama)

Physical Education (locker rooms, weight room)

Shared Spaces (Gym, cafeteria, media center)

Site (parking, circulation, landscaping)

(Dejong Richter 2016)


85

GDOE 1999 Ten Year Capital Facilities Plan Standards – Space Requirements Guam Department of Education specified space types and quantities in its 1999 Ten Year Capital Facilities Plan. These definitions serve as a

sound starting point for considering facility requirements for various schools types and student populations. Quantities for each facility type are

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

Elementary:

General Classrooms – 900, 1150, or 1250

Multipurpose – 1250

Special Education – 1400 or 810

Itinerant – 330

Administrative – 3600

Faculty Center – 840

Cafetorium – 5500

Custodial – 330

Library – 6000

Computer – 900

Play Area Grades 1-2 – 40,000

Kindergarten – 5000

Play Area Grades 3-5 – 72,000

Middle:

General Classrooms – 900

Science Classrooms – 1600

Special Education – 810

Special Classroom – 900

Itinerant – 330

Band – 3580

Arts & Crafts – 1920

Home Economics – 1900

Industrial Arts Combined – 3390

Choir Room – 2200

Music Common areas – 400

Library/media center – 7100

Administration center – 5000

Cafetorium – 6500

Kitchen – 2800

Lab/Computer room – 1800

Custodial – 660

Faculty Center – 3500

PE Locker Shower – 6200

Volleyball courts (standard)

Basketball courts (standard)

Public restrooms (requirements based on program capacity)

Restrooms (requirements based on program capacity)

Field Equip storage

Softball Field (standard)

High:

Academy – 900

Science – 2120

Biology – 1940

Language – 900

Lab – 890

Art – 2500

Band – 3670

Choral – 1770

Music common – 670

Special ED – 810

Special ED self – 1880

Itinerant – 330

Library Media – 8600

Computer Resource – 1800

Administrative – 5800

Dining – 7600

Kitchen – 3400

Student Center (based on school size)

Faculty – 840

ROTC – 1000

Maintenance – 1000

Custodial – 400

Gym – 17700

Locker/Shower – 8600

PE Locker – 6400

Football field facilities – 3200

Weight rooms – 1200

PE Class – 900

Training room – 900

Concession stand – 400

Restrooms – 400

Athletic Office – 350

PE office – 250

Basketball courts (standard)

Tennis courts (standard)

Baseball field (standard)

Softball field (standard)

Combined football, track, soccer (standard)


86

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

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

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

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

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

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

conditions and help inform CIP decisions.

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

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

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

design preferences as well as integrating technological advances.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

with the educational program.

4. Community functions that may affect the school design.

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

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

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


87

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

PRES_2007-1006_Capacity-CEFPI.pdf

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

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

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

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

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

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

• National Institute of Building Sciences, Whole Building Design Guide

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

operating and maintaining the facility.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


88

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

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

Example Resources for Life-Cycle Cost Analysis • National Institute of Building Sciences, Whole Building Design Guide; Life-Cycle Cost Analysis: https://www.wbdg.org/resources/life-

cycle-cost-analysis-lcca

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

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

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

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

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

Some considerations during CIP planning:

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

not anticipated future practices.

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

practices into the names and sizes of spaces.

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

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

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

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

change is usually step change, any future facility will be asked to serve those several ideas simultaneously (Locker 2007).

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




89

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

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

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

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

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

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

specifications, as well as construction and maintenance methods

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

05n

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



90

References

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

https://creatingconnections.a4le.org/

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

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

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

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


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

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

home/docuploads/pub/331_StateofOurSchools2016.pdf

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

California Department of Education, School Facilities Planning Division.

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

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

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


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


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

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

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

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

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

https://creatingconnections.a4le.org/

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

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


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

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

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

http://www.schoolfacilities.com/



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

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

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


91

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

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

World Population Review 2018. Guam Population 2018. Accessed October 2018: http://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/guam-population/

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

http://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/guam-population/