Charter school enrollment projections were also developed. The projections indicate an increase of 9,012 students in grades K through 12 from the 2010- 11 to the 2020-21 school year. The following tables illustrate projected enrollments by grade and by grade group through the 2020-21 school year.
Grade 2 0 1 0 -1 1 Actual 2 0 1 1 -1 2 2 0 1 2 -1 3 2 0 1 3 -1 4 2 0 1 4 -1 5 2 0 1 5 -1 6 2 0 1 6 -1 7 2 0 1 7 -1 8 2 0 1 8 -1 9 2 0 1 9 -2 0 2 0 2 0 -2 1 K 2 ,4 0 6 2,430 2,498 2,511 2,478 2,424 2,430 2,435 2,441 2,447 2,452 1 2 ,4 7 2 2,644 2,671 2,746 2,760 2,724 2,664 2,670 2,677 2,683 2,689 2 2 ,4 7 4 2,504 2,679 2,705 2,781 2,796 2,759 2,699 2,705 2,711 2,718 3 2 ,3 0 3 2,501 2,532 2,708 2,735 2,812 2,826 2,789 2,729 2,735 2,741 4 2 ,3 1 4 2,343 2,544 2,575 2,755 2,782 2,861 2,875 2,838 2,776 2,782 5 2 ,5 1 2 2,638 2,671 2,901 2,936 3,141 3,172 3,261 3,278 3,235 3,164 6 2 ,7 0 8 2,763 2,902 2,938 3,191 3,230 3,455 3,489 3,587 3,605 3,558 7 3 ,0 5 3 2,979 3,040 3,192 3,232 3,510 3,553 3,800 3,838 3,946 3,966 8 2 ,9 3 4 2,974 2,901 2,960 3,109 3,148 3,419 3,460 3,701 3,738 3,843 9 3 ,5 8 4 3,811 3,863 3,769 3,846 4,038 4,089 4,441 4,495 4,808 4,856 10 3 ,1 7 2 3,266 3,474 3,520 3,435 3,505 3,681 3,726 4,047 4,097 4,382 11 2 ,8 8 0 2,855 2,940 3,127 3,169 3,092 3,155 3,313 3,354 3,643 3,687 12 2 ,6 5 7 2,880 2,855 2,940 3,127 3,169 3,092 3,155 3,313 3,354 3,643 K - 12 Total 3 5 ,4 6 9 36,588 37,570 38,592 39,554 40,371 41,156 42,113 43,003 43,778 44,481 Grade 2 0 1 0 -1 1 Actual 2 0 1 1 -1 2 2 0 1 2 -1 3 2 0 1 3 -1 4 2 0 1 4 -1 5 2 0 1 5 -1 6 2 0 1 6 -1 7 2 0 1 7 -1 8 2 0 1 8 -1 9 2 0 1 9 -2 0 2 0 2 0 -2 1 K - 5 1 4 ,4 8 1 15,060 15,595 16,146 16,445 16,679 16,712 16,729 16,668 16,587 16,546 6 - 8 8 ,6 9 5 8,716 8,843 9,090 9,532 9,888 10,427 10,749 11,126 11,289 11,367 9 - 12 1 2 ,2 9 3 12,812 13,132 13,356 13,577 13,804 14,017 14,635 15,209 15,902 16,568 K - 12 Total 3 5 ,4 6 9 36,588 37,570 38,592 39,554 40,371 41,156 42,113 43,003 43,778 44,481
School District of Philadelphia Projected Charter School Enrollment
Source: DeJONG-HEALY
School District of Philadelphia
Projected Charter School Enrollment by G rade G roup
DRAFT- NOT A FINAL APPROVED DOCUMENT
November 2011
Page 32
Facilities- Condition
Building Condition must be evaluated periodically to note system deficiencies. Every building, regardless of type, has multiple systems and each of these systems has a life expectancy (or estimated years of service). Life expectancy can vary with usage, weather, regular maintenance and material quality but there are industry standards for major systems. Average life expectancies should be used as a guideline but not a guarantee of when a system will fail. Examples of average life expectancies based on School District experience are as follows:
Boilers - approximately 30 years
Typical Roof Structure – approximately 20 years Windows – approximately 20 years
The Facility Condition Index (FCI) is used throughout the facilities management industry as a general indicator of a building’s health as related to the various building systems. It is ultimately used to foster decision- making related to a building’s disposition or to compare the conditions of a group of buildings. The FCI is calculated by dividing a building’s Facility Condition Cost, or in this case, a Revised Renovation Cost, by the cost to replace (Replacement Value).
Calculating the FCI
In 2005, the School District of Philadelphia used a group of experts to conduct an inspection of its schools and determine the low, medium and high priority needs in the building. A dollar value was determined to establish the Original Assessment value. The URS Team was asked to utilize the School District of Philadelphia’s 2005 Facilities Condition Assessment as the foundation for the current master planning effort. The costs identified in this assessment were then escalated to 2010 dollars to account for the increase in the costs for materials and labor. Work completed under the District’s Capital Improvement Program over the last 6 years was deducted from the 2010 Assessment Costs. This final number became what we are calling the Revised Renovation Cost.
In order to calculate an FCI (Facilities Condition Index) for each school it is necessary to have a Repair Cost (Revised Renovation Cost) as well as a Replacement Cost. The Replacement Cost is calculated by taking a cost per
square foot value based on building type and multiplying that cost per square foot by the overall square footage of the building. The cost per square foot used for this calculation was formulated by taking 2010 RS Means Square Foot Costs per Building Type and applying Local and Regional cost adjustments based on historical school construction costs in the Philadelphia area. Other fees typically associated in the construction of these building were also considered, such as architectural and engineering fees.
Once the Replacement Costs were calculated, the FCI was calculated by dividing the Revised Renovation Cost by the Replacement Costs and multiplying by 100. The theoretical values and should be considered budgetary numbers for today’s construction market. A further explanation of FCI Levels follows.
It should be noted that the Facility Condition Indices do not take into account educational adequacies of the buildings. Educational Adequacy of a space encompasses a review of the schools ability to deliver the curriculum, i.e. “Is the design of the space adequate for the type of program being delivered?”
DRAFT- NOT A FINAL APPROVED DOCUMENT
November 2011
FCI Levels
For the sake of initial planning exercises, the established condition range values for FCIs are as follows:
Buildings falling in the low FCI range are considered to have a low repair value and thus would benefit from moderate repairs with manageable costs associated with those repairs. Medium FCI values represent modernization value and thus would benefit from systems upgrades and renovation of existing spaces. High FCI values often represent a need for either replacement of the existing facility or extensive renovation and reconfiguration of spaces to meet programmatic needs.
The reasoning behind using the 75% value as a planning threshold is based on a standard accounting principle known as “the rule of 2/3rds”. “The rule of 2/3rds” indicates that when the cost to renovate a facility approaches 2/3rds the estimated cost to replace it, thorough evaluations should be made to determine whether or not renovating the building would be as wise a use of capital as perhaps replacing the facility. Though 2/3rds would be around 65%, the value 75% was used in our evaluation to ensure that buildings with historical significance can be maintained, as well as to accommodate issues that are typical in urban environments that limit the opportunity to build new. For many public sector organizations, such as school districts, it is often necessary to adjust the threshold above 65% to perhaps as much as 80% so the facility portfolio as a whole can be managed effectively with available resources. By raising the threshold, the building managers can avoid or defer extremely large capital construction programs by simply renovating these buildings to keep them functional until further decisions and/or investments can be made.
The overall status of the District relative to the Facility Condition Indices is represented in Tables B and C (to follow). Essentially the tables show that
there are 24 schools that have a poor condition based on the 75% threshold and how they align with school types and the meeting areas in which they appear.
Reading the FCI Summary Sheet
In the pages that follow are the FCI data of each District operated school; organized by meeting area. For an explanation of terms, please see the Glossary of Terms included with this document.
The Summary Sheet is established strictly to provide a quick glance of the school conditions. The Meeting Area is an area established by the School District and the URS Team based on the City Planning Commissions 18 Planning Districts. The objective is to use these areas to disseminate information to the community in a concise manner.
Building Condition by FCI Levels
FCI Assessment
<33% Good Condition (Low) 33-75% Fair Condition (Medium) >75% Poor Condition (High)
FCI Range Count by School Type
District Summary < 0.33* 0.33 > and < 0.75 > 0.75 1 2 3 EC 0 0 1 ES 58 101 19 MS 17 13 1 Middle Secondary 5 2 0 HS 33 23 1 Other 4 0 0 Remedial Disc. 5 0 2 Special Center 0 1 0 Totals: 122 140 24
*46 Schools with 0.00 FCI - Indicates no renovation and/or replacement costs FCI Range Count by Meeting Area
District Summary < 0.33* 0.33 > and < 0.75 > 0.75 1 2 3 North-Central 53 28 7 Northeast 16 21 9 Northwest 21 27 4 South-Central 14 30 1 Southwest 7 18 1 West 11 16 2 Totals: 122 140 24
DRAFT- NOT A FINAL APPROVED DOCUMENT
November 2011
Page 34