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

2. 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

3. Facility planning process
Steps for a Successful Plan

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

5. Capacity and Utilization Sample
SCHOOL
MGT
CAPACITY
2013 MGT UTILIZATION
MGT PROJECTED UTILIZATION
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

6. 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.

7. 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

8. 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

9. 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

10. THANK YOU ON BEHALF OF MGT

11. 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

12. 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

13. 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

14. 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

15. 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

16. 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

17. 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%

18. Communicating the plan
Interactive Display