Anne Arundel County Public Schools Strategic Facilities Utilization Master Plan MGT of America, Inc. March 24 & 26, 2015

introductions Agenda MGT of America, Inc. Introductions Project Scope Facility Planning Process Large Group Survey Small Group Discussions National experience working with large school district with complex needs Professional educational facilities experts Prepared previous plan in 2005-06

Facility planning process Steps for a Successful Plan

Quantitative and Qualitative Data collection Quantitative and Qualitative Demographics/Enrollments Capacity /Utilization Facility assessments Budget development

Capacity and Utilization Sample SCHOOL MGT CAPACITY 2013 MGT UTILIZATION 2017-18 MGT PROJECTED UTILIZATION 2022-23 MGT PROJECTED UTILIZATION Carrolltowne 496 108% 95% 89% Charles Carroll 282 96% 86% Cranberry Station 520 94% 85% 83% Ebb Valley 542 93% 84% 80% Eldersburg 521 88% Elmer Wolfe 390 101% 90% Freedom 474 104% 99% Friendship Valley 501 102% Hampstead 483 73% 77% 78% Linton Springs 651 92% Manchester 607 97% Mt. Airy 503 98% Parr's Ridge Piney Ridge 498 123% 114% 111% Robert Moton 525 76% 65% 71% Runnymede 561 Sandymount 456 Spring Garden 573 82% Taneytown 455 87% Westminster Winfield 664 75% 81% ES TOTALS 11,778 UTILIZATION CATEGORY Elementary Schools >105% Inadequate 101% to 105% Approaching Inadequate 85% to 100.9% Adequate 75% to 84.9% Approaching Inefficient <75% Inefficient

Projected utilization Sample of Lincoln Public Schools Whether it is utilizing the available space or planning for future capital development, the foundation for educational facilities must ensure that the current and future needs of the student are met.

Scoring System Samples BASYS ASSESSMENT COMPONENTS Facility assessment Site Condition Building Condition Educational Suitability Technology Readiness Scoring System Samples Sample Facility Assessment Scores Site Score 75 Building Score 85 Educational Suitability Score 63 Technology Readiness Score 72 Combined Score 76

Master plan sample recommendation Douglas County School District Facilities Master Plan Valley Option C - Close One Middle School (PK-6, PK-8, 7-8, 9-12), Lake Option 2 Br 2 PK-12 Phase 1 (Years 1-3) Project Budget Actual Renovate Piñon Hills ES, addition for capacity $3,979,000 Renovate CC Meneley ES, addition for capacity, adjust boundary (+100 students) $3,881,000 Renovate Gardnerville ES, addition for capacity, adjust boundary (-50 students) $4,155,000 Renovate Jacks Valley ES, addition for capacity $4,290,600 Phase 1 Total $16,305,600 Phase 2 (Years 4-6) Renovate Douglas HS, convert to 9-12, addition for capacity $22,976,200 *Renovate middle school (-120 students) $1,033,000** Convert one ES to PK-8, addition for capacity (+120 students) $2,850,000 Phase 2 Total 28,293,800 Phase 3 (Years 7-10)   Renovate George Whittell HS to PK-12 $1,926,100 Renovate Scarselli ES, addition for capacity, adjust boundary (+46 students) $1,902,000 Phase 3 Total $3,828,100 Grand Total $46,992,900 Total with Inflationary Factor 5% annually $57,913,000 *Remaining MS (PWL/CVMS) based on higher level assessment, cost estimate shown is for Pau-Wa-Lu **Estimate based on Pau-Wa-Lu MS “The MGT team has the knowledge and experience to produce a plan that the School District can use as a guideline for years to come.” -Mike Kenton, Rapid City School District, Director of Support Services

Projected timeline Interactive Display TASKS 1.0 PROJECT INITATION February March April May June July August 1 2 3 4 1.0 PROJECT INITATION   2.0 DEVELOP FACILITIES & SITE INVENTORY 3.0 EDUCATIONAL REVIEW & PROGRAMMATIC PRIORITIES 4.0 CONDUCT FACILITIES ASSESSMENTS 5.0 ANALYSIS OF SCHOOL & COMMUNITY DEMOGRAPHICS 6.0 ANALYSIS OF CAPACITY & UTILIZATION 7.0 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT & COMMUNITY COLLABORATION 8.0 DEVELOP STANDARDS FOR RANKING BUILDING NEEDS 9.0 BUDGET ESTIMATES 10.0 DEVELOP MASTER PLAN SCENARIOS & BUDGETS 11.0 PREPARATION & PRESENTATION OF FINAL FACILITIES MASTER PLAN

THANK YOU ON BEHALF OF MGT

FLEXIBILITY FOR UNFORESEEN CONDITIONS Project Scope FOCUS ON AACPS’s GOALS Key Goals Educational goals and programs Community engagement to establish needs and priorities Demographic Analysis to project demand for facilities and services Facility capacity needs School/class size review Facility infrastructure needs Long-range planning scenarios FLEXIBILITY FOR UNFORESEEN CONDITIONS ACCURACY CONSISTENCY

Program Drives the Facility Plan Educational goals Program Drives the Facility Plan Educational goals include: Review current educational programs Review instructional delivery models Current and future use of IT Seek stakeholder engagement

Philosophy and approach FOCUS ON DISTRICT GOALS Philosophy and approach How to be Effective with School District Facility Planning USE POWERFUL TOOLS Start with a clear work plan Define standards for assessments Gather and organize data Communicate internally and externally Create a viable long-range plan ENGAGE THE COMMUNITY USE RELEVANT DATA TO CREATE THE PLAN

Stakeholder engagement process Interactive Process Small Group Discussion Charrettes Presentation Public Input for Master Plan Clickers SAMPLE GRAPHICAL RESULT OF AUDIENCE RESPONSE SAMPLE CHARRETTES PRESENTATION

Facility assessment software BASYS ASSESSMENT SOFTWARE Facility assessment software Assessing a school's condition, educational adequacy, and technology readiness are critical components of an educational facility plan. BASYS® assessment software is calibrated to your district's facility standards, educational programs, and space requirements. BASYS® Proven software used nationally Standards based scoring system Accessible online reporting

MGT’s brand of excellence COMMUNITY ENGAGEMNENT STRATEGY Community engagement Provide information Learn from internal community Listen to external community Provide multiple opportunities and tools Engage Being Inclusive Interactive process Real-time stakeholder feedback Online surveys with 24- hour access MGT’s brand of excellence

Establishing priorities sample matrix Based on Established Cut Points SCHOOL NAME ACREAGE CONDITION SCORE EDUCATIONAL SUITABILITY SCORE TECH READINESS SCORE GROUNDS SCORE COMBINED SCORE ENROLLMENT CAPACITY UITLIZATION   CURRENT (2009) PROJECTED (2019) CC Meneley Elementary School 10 69.08 52.51 58.30 59.81 60.45 553 556 563 99% Gardnerville Elementary School 12 72.20 43.74 53.30 64.59 58.16 539 554 611 91% Gene L. Scarselli Elementary School 30 75.48 83.20 89.20 60.02 78.39 570 614 594 103% Jacks Valley Elementary School 54 61.27 48.64 75.00 64.93 57.96 516 617 110% Minden Elementary School 80.84 83.24 86.70 65.26 80.83 445 546 468 117% Pinon Hills Elementary School 13 81.38 67.29 80.00 64.31 73.90 506 664 475 140% Carson Valley Middle School  26 74.32 58.77 50.80 60.00 64.32 798 849 803 106% Pau-Wa-Lu Middle School  30 79.45 63.35 65.54 73.55 607 490 782 63% Douglas High School  38 76.58 49.33 68.30 65.64 63.76 1,373 1,334 1,343 Total/Average 23 74.51 62.10 69.44 67.92 5,907 6,225 6,202 100%

Communicating the plan Interactive Display