1. Facilities Planning

Educational facilities are often regarded as educational tools designed to facilitate, promote, and stimulate the educational program. Actually, educational facilities sometimes possess physical characteristics that impose severe restrictions on the educational program. Inadequate or unsuitable instructional facilities can reshape, limit, or modify the school curriculum beyond tolerable limits. Consequently, school boards and administrative leaders must clearly envision the complete educational task to be accomplished before any long-range program is developed.
School districts and charter schools planning for new buildings must deal with complex issues and needs—inflation, energy conservation, extending the use of school facilities as a community resource, providing appropriate technology to the classroom, modernizing and extending the life of existing facilities, designing to avoid vandalism, providing flexibility to allow for appropriate responses to future unknown needs, providing for students and other individuals with disabilities, etc. At the same time, the problems of planning and designing economical buildings to construct and to operate for the best possible support of the educational program remains paramount.

a. The Importance of Planning

The greater the challenge, the more important prudent planning becomes to an effective school building program. Well-designed, functional educational facilities where they are needed, and available for use when they are needed, are an essential support to an effective educational program. Such educational facilities designed for high benefit-cost ratio are essential to a cost-effective educational system.
Such building programs don’t just happen; they must be well planned. Planning for the total building program and planning for the individual school, if done well, are difficult, time-consuming activities which can tax the talents and energies of a large number of people, but returns are more than worth it. The greatest assurance of long-range master plan of school facility needs.
The responsibility of the planning process rests with the school district and charter school board and administration. It is not uncommon for educators to blame the architect or engineer for deficiencies in a particular building; however, more often than nor, such deficiencies can be traced directly to a lack of educational planning. Most poorly designed school facilities result from poorly conceived and incomplete education specifications or from the educator abdicating the responsibility to the design architect.
b. Long-Range Planning
A long-range planning process provides a comprehensive plan for the orderly replacement of buildings and the addition of buildings to accommodate growth. A district-wide or charter school building plan may be projected over many years; however, a minimum plan should encompass the five years of the district’s and charter’s Comprehensive Capital Outlay Plan. This plan should include current utilization of educational facilities, projected school enrollments, school building needs, support building needs, sites, and fiscal projections for the five-year period. The State office of Education has published a Per Student Space Criteria as a general guideline for school districts and charter schools to follow when planning overall size of a facility.

(1) Planning Philosophy

The planning document should include a statement which delineates area community aspirations and education goals. These goals and aspirations form the basis of a sound philosophy from which decisions are made in education planning.

(a) Community Aspirations and Goals

A study should be made to review the area's history, traditions, socioeconomic conditions, and projections for the future in terms of interests and willingness to pay for new facilities. Needs assessments and other survey instruments may well be used to determine local thinking and ambitions. Regional and community master plans and zoning requirements lend a great deal of insight to the observer in terms of the area's interests and potential. In addition, close coordination with municipalities, counties, local health department officials, the State Fire Marshal, State Department of Environmental Quality and/or the federal Environmental Protection Agency, as well as the Utah Geological Survey to be sure the school district's and charter school’s master plan will appropriately match the community's long-term plans. (Click here to see Design Principles for Developing Schools as Centers of Community from NCEF, the National Clearinghouse for Educational Facilities).

(b) Education Goals

The lifestyle of a community will reflect an affinity to certain subject areas and vocations, such as the arts, sciences, career and technical education, or perhaps languages. In addition to the basic Core subjects required by the State Board of Education and the local board, a determination should be made regarding the intensity of desire by parents for the education of their children and the types of additional subjects they expect. It is also helpful to know parents' attitudes toward such things as educational experimentation, innovation, traditionalism, and discipline. Knowledge concerning these items should determine the distribution of staff, and financial support in school facility construction and utilization.

(c) Identify the Most Suitable Grade Organization

There may be several solutions regarding grade organization and attendance areas in a school district or charter school, depending on the philosophy and character of the educational program, distribution of pupil homes, and the capacity, location, and use of existing schools. Any grade organization should be carefully considered in terms of educational, psychological, and operational factors. The fact that a given grade organization works well in one school district or charter school is no guarantee that it will work or even be applicable to any other. To some degree, the capacity, location, and type of available facilities will favor one grade organization over another, but the focus should be primarily on the educational soundness of the plan, rather than simply on providing space for student desks. The recommended grade organization should help to provide high-quality education and effective utilization of present facilities with a minimum of student inconvenience.

(d) Long-Term Economy

A good long-range plan is geared to long-term economy in capital outlay, maintenance, and operation. Such a plan provides maximum space utilization and keeps costs of operation, maintenance, transportation, supervision, and administration to a minimum. Buildings with high maintenance cost per pupil should be scheduled for abandonment or renovation. Schools that are too small to offer a broad program of modern instruction should not be continued in operation except on an emergency basis.

(e) Flexibility

Any long-range plan must provide for the foreseeable as well as provide allowances for the unforeseeable. The plan should be devised so as to leave as many alternatives as possible open to future boards of education. For example, if a school district board has a choice for providing two high school educational facilities or one; it would be far more advantageous from the standpoint of future planning and community growth to include two high schools in the long-range plan. The flexibility of such a plan is quite clear. Any future board of education could add to one or both schools; in the event of an enrollment downturn, could eliminate one high school before it is built; or in the event of a large growth pattern in a given area, could simply plan a third unit and still remain in balance in the size of the high schools in the district.

(2) Enrollments

School enrollment and projections are critical elements of long-range facility planning. Student populations usually grow and decline within a predictable cyclical range. Utilizing historical trends, demographic and economic data, state and local agencies and private entities can assist school district and charter school planners in making large or small-area projections. These may include the Governor's Office of Planning and Budget [Governor's Office of Planning and Budget], utility companies [Rocky Mountain Power] [Questar Gas], Utah Association of Realtors [Utah Association of REALTORS®], Associations of Local Governments such as [Local Government Association (LGA)] and the [Utah Association of Governments] as well as the State Office of Education [Utah State Office of Education - USOE- ].

(3) Survey of Existing School Facilities

A thorough knowledge of existing school plants is necessary for effective planning. Facilities should be surveyed for educational adequacy, physical condition, life-cycle cost projections, possible temporary housing, and plans for orderly replacement.

(a) Educational Adequacy

Several items need to be checked when considering educational adequacy for the future. Is the site large enough for the educational program? Are special facilities needed to house unique local programs? Does the school district or charter school have objectives and plans to provide needed facilities for students with disabilities? Do the buildings have adequate capacity for future growth? Do buildings have flexibility to respond to change in space demands?

(b) Building Physical Condition Evaluation

To some degree, the continued use of educational facilities depends on the soundness of the physical structure. Soundness depends, in part, on the age of the building. A building also should have the proper life safety remodeling to ensure continued use. The flexibility of buildings in terms of expandability, renovation, and modifications should also be determined.
The State Office of Education has partnered with Asset Evolution (AE) and Facility Management Engineering (FME)—by funding the initial developmental costs—to provide Utah School Districts and Charter Schools with a comprehensive Capital Asset Management Solution and a Computerized Maintenance Management System at reduced costs. These tools help districts and charters better manage facilities and limited resources more efficiently and effectively.
Asset Evolution is providing a Capital Asset Management solution and Facility Management Engineering is providing the CMMS tool for maintaining facilities. The software has been purchased by the State of Utah. Utah School Districts and Charter Schools are only responsible for the initial training and ongoing software maintenance and hosting fees if they elect to participate in this program. Districts and Charters may choose one or the other, or both services. These fees have been drastically reduced so all School Districts and Charter Schools can take advantage of this opportunity.

Asset Evolution™ Capital Asset Management™

The Capital Asset Management system:

Provides the information and methodology needed to facility managers and financial managers to plan and prioritize capital spending.
Reduces emergency replacements of assets and save money through effective management of fixed assets.
Justifies each dollar spent on capital needs at the ideal time in the asset lifecycle.
Provides the tools needed to effectively track asset lifecycles and remaining useful life to project future short-term and long-term needs of the organization.

Asset Evolution™ (AE) is an asset management company based in Utah and has developed a Capital Asset Management™ (CAM) solution for Facility Managers. The CAM system has been identified as a “best practice” by facilities management organizations and the United States General Accounting Office. Asset Evolution utilizes a 100% Web-based application for ease of use and accessibility, with a foundation of security and stability. The CAM approach has been shared with Fortune 500 Companies for over 10 years and has been in use at primary locations for over 20 years. The CAM approach is being utilized by many organizations including the United States Air Force, school districts and entire campus facilities at colleges and universities.

For additional details regarding the Asset Evolution solutions please contact Coray Christensen:

Contact information:
Coray Christensen
Asset Evolution
(801) 404-1201
coray@assetevolution.com
www.assetevolution.com
Facility Management Engineering (FME) Sprocket™ CMMS

Sprocket Allows Facilities to:

Increase efficiency by automating and streamline maintenance processes
Facilitate communication between requestors, facilities employees and upper level management.
Document and track labor and material costs
Quickly and easily create customized meaningful reports on employee productivity, work type, total job costs and more…

Sprocket, CMMS, was designed by Facility Managers to specifically meet the needs of today’s FM professionals. With bi-annual system updates and a company focus on quickly responding to customer suggestions, Sprocket is a comprehensive and reliable computerized maintenance management system, based on industry best practices. Sprocket gives facilities operations the tools and resources they need to deploy and benefit from a world class maintenance program.

For additional details regarding the Facility Management Engineering solutions please contact Rebecca Farraway:

Contact information:
Rebecca Farraway
Facility Management Engineering, Inc.
(801) 509-0643
rfarraway@fmei.com
www.FMEI.com

(c) Temporary Housing

In some school districts or charter schools, a peak enrollment period will be predicted, will in fact occur, and then an enrollment decline may follow. In other districts or charters, growth may be so rapid that permanent construction does not keep pace with school housing needs. These circumstances may warrant using temporary classrooms—relocatables—just before the peak is achieved or while new facilities are being planned to affect the most economical solution to such problems.

(d) Orderly Replacement of Facilities

Long-range planning should provide for the orderly replacement of all school facilities over a period of 50 to 75 years. General obligation bonding, voted capital property tax levies, or use of capital outlay reserve funds are methods which may be used by school districts to accomplish this task. Charter schools may use other methods such as lease or lease-purchase agreements, or—using a not-for-profit designation—secure bonds for facility purchase, or they may use other long-term private or public (more than one year) financing.
(4) Fiscal Ability Projections
A long-range building program should be geared to the financial ability of the school district or charter school. It should be realistic and practical from the standpoint of public acceptance but should not compromise desirable goals and sound educational principles. Fortunately, most Utahans are willing to support good education if they are fully informed of current needs and the soundness of proposed methods of meeting the needs.
For school districts to make accurate forecasts of their capital outlay financial abilities, it is necessary to project assessed valuations, bonding ability, reserve fund potential, debt service, and estimated state and other building aid. These components, together with the statutes and administrative rules, provide the basis of projections regarding the financial ability of a school district. Charter schools may lease former school district or other educational institution facilities; they may secure long-term financing through cooperation with local municipalities; or they may secure other private financing or bonding through a not-for-profit designation.

(5) District or Charter School Advisory Committees

The formation of a representative advisory committee, together with community advisory committees, to assist in long-range planning can be a positive reinforcement for an effective school building program. Committee members should include parents, community leaders, and others interested in long-range facility planning. If the working parameters of such a committee are carefully defined, their recommendations will be of great assistance to the district or charter school administration and local board of education in formulating long-range plans.

(6) Priority of Building Projects

One part of each school district's and charter school’s five-year Comprehensive Capital Outlay Plan is the list, in order of priority, of all identified additions, remodels and new construction needs. The district and charter administration and board should establish priority criteria. Three desirable features of this method of projection are:
●          The inclusion of all additions, remodeling and new construction.
●          The time sequence proposed for completion of all projects.
●          The estimated costs.
As conditions change within a school district or at a charter school, the priority of building construction needs will require some revision. Evaluation and updating of the priority criteria as well as the specific building priority ratings should be completed at regular intervals.

(7) When you are Ready to Begin Construction

When you are ready to begin the construction process, a checklist is a handy tool to use to ensure your process is timely, complete and sequential. The checklist needs to cover the following general topics:

Architect
General contractor
Survey's and testing
Schematic design
Local and state governmental review
Construction documents and plan reviews
Construction
Punch list
Final documents

Here are links to a sample checklist that Alpine School District has developed that you may want to begin with and modify to meet your specific needs; it is linked to both Microsoft Excel and Adobe Acrobat formats.