Slide 1State of School Facilities Report Fulton County School Board Meeting
March 9, 2021
Enrollment Projections and
Analysis
process • Set clear standards for facilities and educational program components • Provide accurate data reviewed for thoroughness • Provide analysis leading to solid and useable recommendations • Support the development of five-year capital plan
Consultants’ Qualifications: • MGT has 45 years of experience working with government
agencies and school districts, including strategic planning and educational adequacy assessments
• Parsons' expertise with building condition assessments and capital planning provides a strong foundation for the identification of deficiencies and accompanying cost projections
Facility Planning Process to Date Educational Adequacy Assessment • Determined the extent to which each school space supports and enhances instructional and non-instructional programs • Compared programs with District standards, including the 2020 Ed Spec • Gathered input from Principals and/or designated leaders during site evaluation
Facility Condition Assessment • Collected systematic data related to facility deficiencies and required infrastructure life-cycle renewal • Gathered input from Principals and/or designated building leaders before and after FCA • Completed detailed analysis of building renovations data with facilities and maintenance leadership
Key Internal Stakeholder Engagement • Surveyed Principals and other district leaders regarding general capital considerations • Engaged Principals and leaders regarding capital considerations during a district leadership meeting • Reviewed FCA data with key central office leaders / departments • Identified priorities and collected additional considerations from key central office leaders / departments
4
•Mar 16, 2020
Data Analysis & Cost Estimating
•Sep 2020 – Feb 2021
18 High Schools7 Non-Instructional Facilities
• 100 Facilities Condition Assessments and 93 Educational Adequacy Assessments conducted between March 4 – June 5, 2020
• 15,090,813 Square Feet of FCS Spaces assessed
5
Educational Suitability Score (ESS): Assesses the school’s design against educational specifications
• Four components of educational suitability are assessed for each type of school space:
Facilities Assessments Tools
Excellent > 90 Good 80 - 89 Fair 70 - 79 Poor 60 - 69
Very Poor < 60
shown in the table
Space Types Rating Environment Size Location Storage/Fixed Equipment
Excellent 86 114 137 116 Good 57 30 9 15 Fair 7 6 4 17 Poor 0 0 0 0 Unsatisfactory 0 0 0 2 Excellent 29 26 30 31 Good 2 5 1 0 Fair 1 1 1 1 Poor 0 0 0 0 Unsatisfactory 0 0 0 0 Excellent 26 29 29 29 Good 6 2 2 2 Fair 0 1 1 1 Poor 0 0 0 0 Unsatisfactory 0 0 0 0 Excellent 82 57 88 85 Good 8 34 2 6 Fair 1 0 1 0 Poor 0 0 0 0 Unsatisfactory 0 0 0 0 Excellent 175 215 248 202 Good 91 38 15 58 Fair 7 12 9 11 Poor 1 8 1 1 Unsatisfactory 0 0 0 1 Excellent 69 71 87 56 Good 20 18 2 16 Fair 2 2 1 26 Poor 0 0 1 0 Unsatisfactory 0 0 0 0
Physical Education
Environment • Does it provide an inviting and
stimulating environment for learning?
specified in the district educational specifications?
Location • Is it appropriately located based
on the program needs?
equipment and sufficient storage for teacher and student materials?
System-wide Scoring Summary for Key Spaces:
Sheet1
Excellent
175
215
248
202
Good
91
38
15
58
Fair
7
12
9
11
Poor
1
8
1
1
Unsatisfactory
0
0
0
1
Facility Condition Index (FCI): Assesses the Facility
• Estimated cost of repair & renewal, divided by replacement cost • Higher the FCI, the poorer the condition & higher cost • Multiple systems evaluated, including critical systems and non-
critical systems • Critical systems keep the schools warm, safe, and dry
Facility Condition Assessment Score (FCA)
• Conversion of FCI index to a standard 100-point scale • An FCI of 0.10 or 10% equates to an FCA score of 90
Facilities Assessments - Tools
Excellent > 90 Good 80 - 89 Fair 70 - 79 Poor 60 - 69
Very Poor < 60
knowledge of existing facilities in terms of physical condition –
build the asset inventory
including corrective work required, and
verify ADA and building code compliance
Use software/tools to perform system life cycle analysis and
forecast capital renewal needs and
budgets
ForecastInspection
future capital improvement
9
Total 2020-2032
Avg. FCA
Elementary Schools $1,444,027,203 $191,457,373 $164,281,203 $235,116,340 $590,854,916 86.7
Middle Schools $610,770,221 $102,682,861 $107,727,650 $96,264,120 $306,674,631 83.2
High Schools $1,010,323,900 $89,601,508 $134,370,206 $234,586,574 $458,558,288 91.1
Non-Instructional $82,140,094 $11,821,975 $7,666,512 $6,878,731 $26,367,218 85.6
10
Facility Condition Assessments – District Average 87.4
Twenty-nine (29) schools fall into the Fair, Poor, or Very Poor categories and require significant attention by the district
Educational Suitability Scores – District Average 87.0
Rating ES MS HS Admin Total
Excellent (90 – 100) 25 9 8 4 46
Good (80 – 89) 18 1 6 0 25
Fair (70 – 79) 7 2 0 2 11
Poor (60 – 69) 7 4 1 0 12
Very Poor (<60) 2 2 1 1 6
Rating ES MS HS Admin Total
Excellent (90 – 100) 44 15 11 N/A 70
Good (80 – 89) 14 3 2 N/A 19
Fair (70 – 79) 1 0 1 N/A 2
Poor (60 – 69) 0 0 0 N/A 0
Very Poor (<60) 0 0 0 0 0
Facilities Assessments - Findings
FCA Score GSF %
90-100 8,543,357 56.58%
80-90 2,231,178 14.78%
70-80 1,299,235 8.60%
60-70 1,989,348 13.17%
Distribution of FCS Facilities by Age
Number of facilities built per decade, and average FCA score for facilities built in that decade
Facility Age
Average Age 28 Median Date Built 1997
Built 1977 or before 24% Built between 1978 and 1997 27% Built between 1998 and 2007 29%
Built 2008 or later 20%
Facilities Assessments - Findings
Critical Systems (Warm, Safe, Dry) • Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning (HVAC) • Roof Coverings • Fire Alarms • Data Communications
Non-Critical Systems (Look & Feel) • Painting • Flooring • Ceilings & Lighting • Plumbing Fixtures • Restroom Accessories
Deficiency Categories
14
15
16
Facilities Assessments - Findings
• This chart assumes that funding needed to address the current facility condition deficiencies and system renewals over the forecast period 2023-2032 is unavailable
• The blue line indicates the annual FCA score over the funding cycle based on the funding provided each year
• The green columns represent system renewal costs for each year
Summary of Findings
17
• Overall Ed Adequacy score of 87.0 • FCS facilities are overall in good condition
o Overall FCA score of 87.4
• Significant needs exist and are expected to grow: o The current deficiencies (through 2022) total
$396M o The 5-year life cycle needs (2023-2027) total
$414M o The 6-10 year life cycle needs (2028-2032) total
$573M o Total anticipated deficiencies and life cycle
renewal forecast over the next 10 years is anticipated to be $1.38B
Next Steps to Update Five-year Facilities Plan – Seek community input (March – May)
• Survey • 5 engagements regarding facilities
– Update analysis of enrollment forecast / capacity utilization – Assess and prioritize new construction projects – Evaluate districtwide facilities initiatives – Determine any support facility requirements to be addressed – Finalize renovation and capital renewal efforts – Present updated five-year facilities plan (June)
Technology and Safety & Security Plan Updates - April
Next Steps
Capital Plan Elements
Slide Number 3
Slide Number 4
Slide Number 5
Slide Number 6
Slide Number 7
Slide Number 8
Slide Number 9
Slide Number 10
Slide Number 11
Slide Number 12
Slide Number 13
Slide Number 14
Slide Number 15
Slide Number 17
Slide Number 18