Guilford County Schools Executive Council Facility Master Plan - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Guilford County Schools Executive Council Facility Master Plan Project Update October 11, 2018 MGT of America Consulting, LLC

Agenda DRAFT • Overview of the Facility Master Planning process and project update • Explanation and review of the preliminary facility assessment data – – Review of Demographic Data and Enrollment Projections – FCA Scores – Suitability Scores – Technology Infrastructure Scores – Site Scores – Combined Score – Cut Points (District Comparison to Peer MGT Clients) – Review of Capacity and Utilization Data – Utilization Threshold Models

Agenda (cont.) DRAFT • Capital Re-Investment Plan – Identified need – Capacity to address need – Resources to address need – Non-Capital solutions • Facility Master Plan – Strategies, Options and Timelines

Project Collaboration and Level of Effort DRAFT • On-going, on-site and virtual meetings • Assessment Standards and Suitability Guide • Building Assessments • Data quality control • Project deliverables to date • Remaining Project tasks – School Optimization – Capital Re-Investment – Facility Master Plan • Timeline

PK-12 Historical and Projected Enrollment DRAFT Guilford County Schools Historical and Projected PK-12 Enrollment by Grade Band 80,000 72,642 72,872 72,696 72,740 72,888 72,748 72,388 72,595 72,411 72,531 72,620 72,533 72,431 72,456 72,118 72,137 72,267 72,010 72,054 71,903 70,000 21,627 21,949 21,612 22,170 21,998 22,170 22,280 22,721 21,422 21,601 22,410 21,887 22,777 22,603 22,281 22,036 21,998 22,270 22,343 22,404 60,000 50,000 16,087 16,386 16,696 16,755 16,264 15,999 16,036 16,533 15,429 16,395 16,704 16,758 16,504 16,032 15,802 15,855 15,982 16,181 15,864 15,716 40,000 30,000 20,000 34,609 34,422 34,145 34,390 34,319 34,168 33,892 34,282 34,003 33,985 33,956 34,135 34,169 34,163 34,270 34,396 33,820 33,783 33,830 33,767 10,000 - PK-5 6-8 9-12

School Dashboard DRAFT SEDALIA ELEM. SEDALIA ELEM. PROJECTED UTILIZATION ASSESSMENT SCORES 120% 105% 104% 104% 104% 104% 103% 101% 98% 97% 95% 94% 100% BLDG 49 SUIT 66 80% UTILIZATION (%) TECH 82 60% SITE 50 COMB 56 40% 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 20% PERCENT SCORE 0% 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 Excellent/Like New Good Fair Poor Unsatisfactory SEDALIA ELEM. ENROLLMENT SEDALIA ELEM. 513 495 495 520 500 504 495 490 482 482 500 484 477 477 482 475 475 473 476 475 476 475 479 473 480 474 469 STUDENTS 470 468 468 462 466 468 468 460 464 466 480 464 470 460 458 458 458 458 458 458 458 452 460 460 450 440 440 420 430 Historical MGT Proj Enrollment MGT Capacity

Morehead Elementary School – Dashboard DRAFT

Building Assessment Score Ranges DRAFT FACILITY CONDITION SITE CONDITION BUILDING SITE FCA SCORE FCA SITE TYPE RANGE AVERAGE SCORE SITE TYPE AVERAGE LOW HIGH RANGE LOW HIGH Elementary Schools 18 100 87 Elementary Schools 20 100 69 Middle Schools 56 100 90 Middle Schools 23 100 70 High Schools 48 100 82 High Schools 40 99 71 Special 40 100 87 Special 40 100 70 Admin 17 89 46 Admin -1 100 46 EDUCATIONAL SUITABILITY TECHNOLOGY INFRASTRUCTURE TECHNOLOGY SCORE SUITABILITY SCORE RANGE SITE TYPE RANGE AVERAGE SITE TYPE AVERAGE LOW HIGH LOW HIGH Elementary Schools 48 93 68 Elementary Schools 63 100 84 Middle Schools 58 89 72 Middle Schools 56 100 88 High Schools 62 83 69 High Schools 72 100 83 Special 31 86 58 Special 50 100 82

Scoring Data – Building Condition DRAFT Building Condition Scores Percent of Schools by Rating 100% 7% 90% 25% 27% 29% 33% 80% 29% 70% 5% 15% 20% 7% 10% 60% 7% 7% 50% 13% 15% 20% 29% 40% 64% 30% 20% 40% 37% 33% 29% 10% 0% ES MS HS Special Support Unsat Poor Fair Good Excellent

Scoring Data – Education Suitability DRAFT Educational Suitability Scores Percent of Schools by Rating 100% 4% 7% 13% 90% 15% 29% 80% 20% 40% 70% 24% 60% 13% 29% 50% 24% 40% 30% 53% 53% 38% 20% 33% 10% 5% 0% ES MS HS Special Unsat Poor Fair Good Excellent

Scoring Data – Technology Infrastructure DRAFT Technology Infrastructure Scores Percent of Schools by Rating 100% 90% 20% 33% 80% 47% 57% 70% 60% 40% 50% 36% 13% 40% 13% 30% 29% 20% 22% 40% 13% 10% 10% 13% 9% 5% 0% ES MS HS Special Unsat Poor Fair Good Excellent

Scoring Data – Site Condition DRAFT Site Condition Scores Percent of Schools by Rating 100% 90% 23% 33% 80% 70% 15% 62% 67% 67% 60% 8% 27% 50% 40% 30% 20% 7% 19% 12% 54% 20% 13% 3% 7% 10% 9% 10% 5% 13% 13% 9% 5% 0% ES MS HS Special Support Unsat Poor Fair Good Excellent

Scoring Data – Combination Scores DRAFT Combined Scores Percent of Schools by Rating 100% 13% 18% 90% 24% 27% 80% 20% 19% 10% 70% 7% 7% 60% 12% 50% 33% 33% 27% 40% 27% 30% 19% 20% 20% 33% 24% 10% 14% 13% 0% ES MS HS Special Unsat Poor Fair Good Excellent

Scoring Data – District Summary DRAFT District Summary Percent of Schools by Assessment Type 100% 3% 90% 19% 16% 24% 37% 80% 16% 10% 70% 26% 65% 8% 60% 18% 50% 18% 32% 29% 40% 25% 30% 11% 5% 20% 40% 21% 6% 26% 22% 10% 13% 7% 3% 0% Bldg Suit Tech Site Comb Unsat Poor Fair Good Excellent

Facility Assessments – Scoring Cut Points DRAFT GUILFORD COUNTY SCHOOLS JEFFERSON PARISH PUBLIC SCHOOLS COMBINED SCORES DESCRIPTION COMBINED SCORES DESCRIPTION > 90% Excellent/Like New > 90% Excellent/Like New 80 - 90 Good 80 - 89 Good 70 - 79 Fair 70 - 79 Fair 60 - 69 Poor 60 - 69 Poor < 60 Unsatisfactory < 60 Unsatisfactory MILWAUKEE PUBLIC SCHOOLS METRO NASHVILLE PUBLIC SCHOOLS COMBINED SCORES DESCRIPTION COMBINED SCORES DESCRIPTION > 90% Excellent/Like New > 90% Excellent/Like New 80 - 89 Good 80 - 90 Good 70 - 79 Fair 70 - 79 Fair 60 - 69 Poor 60 - 69 Poor < 60 Unsatisfactory < 60 Unsatisfactory

Utilization Thresholds DRAFT GUILFORD COUNTY SCHOOLS JEFFERSON PARISH PUBLIC SCHOOLS UTILIZATION DESCRIPTION UTILIZATION DESCRIPTION > 110 Inadequate Space > 110 Inadequate Space 95 - 110 Approaching Inadequate Space 95 - 110 Approaching Inadequate Space 80 - 95 Adequate Space 80 - 95 Adequate Space 70 - 80 Approaching Inefficient Use of Space 70 - 80 Approaching Inefficient Use of Space < 70 Inefficient Use of Space < 70 Inefficient Use of Space MILWAUKEE PUBLIC SCHOOLS METRO NASHVILLE PUBLIC SCHOOLS UTILIZATION DESCRIPTION UTILIZATION DESCRIPTION > 110 Inadequate Space > 110 Inadequate Space 95 - 110 Approaching Inadequate Space 95 - 110 Approaching Inadequate Space 80 - 95 Adequate Space 80 - 95 Adequate Space 70 - 80 Approaching Inefficient Use of Space 70 - 80 Approaching Inefficient Use of Space < 70 Inefficient Use of Space < 70 Inefficient Use of Space

Combined Score Weighting Criteria DRAFT GUILFORD COUNTY SCHOOLS JEFFERSON PARISH PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEM 0.50 0.45 0.00 0.05 (50/30/10/10) 0.40 0.50 0.10 0.00 (40/50/10) Building Suitability Technology Combined Score Overall Suitability Technology Combined Score FCA Site FCA Score Site Score Score Score (50/30/10/10) Condition Score Score Score (40/50/10) Score MILWAUKEE PUBLIC SCHOOLS METRO NASHVILLE PUBLIC SCHOOLS 0.50 0.20 0.20 0.10 (50/20/20/10) 0.30 0.45 0.05 0.20 (30/45/5/20) Building Building Suitability Technology Combined Score Technology Combined Score Condition Site Score Condition Suitability Score Site Score Score Score (50/20/20/10) Score (30/45/5/20) Score Score