Facilities Master Plan Prioritization Survey Process Overview
● Process Used to Develop Survey ● Distribution of Survey ● Result Scoring ● Final Product Process Used to Develop Survey
Survey Created by the Facilities Advisory Committee
● Committee worked collaboratively to develop questions. ● Designing of question format. ● Developed the scoring mechanism to evaluate each answer. ● Committee members also worked with campus students / staff to gather questions / ideas. Distribution of Survey
1. Posted to campus websites via a popup window. 2. District Wide email to parents, students and staff. 3. Campus wide email from principals in weekly newsletters. 4. Survey Start Date 11/26/2016 Finish Date: 12/13/2016 Final Product -
Total Survey Responses by site: Leigh - 409 Del Mar - 106 Prospect - 87 Westmont - 135 Branham - 224 Result Scoring Committee analyzed results and created a worksheet with survey prioritizations for their campus. District Wide Averages Thank you Facilities Advisory Committee! Abra Evanoff Amisha Wadhwa Andrea Ciplickas Cheryl Lawton Creighton Nolte Earl Moody Eric Wasinger Eve Walton Gabriel Barron Gary Frost Jackson Large Jennifer Baldwin Joe Martinez Joell Hanson John Keating Joseph Slimak Juan Fernandez Maculet Krista Gaudie Landon Jacobs Mary Frances Lynch Mike Scialabba Nancy Pfeiffer Rita Gimelshein Sara Wasielewski Shari Scott-Sawyer Sharlyn Maeda Stacey Brown Susie Fleming Tamara Strachman
John Keating
Technology Director
The Campbell Union High Union School District HVAC Master Plan Chris Bristow, P.E., CEM January 5th, 2017 Phase I Work Completed
$5.7MM in Installations of unitary, diversified heating and cooling systems and controls have been or are being installed at the District, funded by Proposition 39 and COP provided dollars.
Areas Completed to Date (mostly classrooms): 48 at Del Mar High School 43 at Leigh High School 28 at Branham High School
2 Phase I Work Underway
Areas Presently Under Construction (mostly classrooms): 43 at Westmont High School to be completed by April 7th 29 at Branham High School to be completed by May 19th
3 Phase II HVAC Priorities
Priority 0: 9 Bldgs - Wi-Fi HVAC Controls Only • Facilities already comprised of newer HVAC systems, such as the District’s Performing Art Centers. No further upgrades other than consistent, wi-fi based thermostat controls are to be considered.
Priority 1: 8 Bldgs - No Current Cooling (29 Completed in Phase I) • Facilities other than gymnasiums with either no current air movement (radiant heat) or forced gas heat only. These facilities are to be retrofitted with unitary, direct gas fired and dx cooling HVAC systems with wi-fi based thermostat controls.
Priority 2: 18 Bldgs - Water Sourced Central Plant HVAC Systems • Original Campus and District Office construction incorporated central HVAC systems with chillers, cooling towers, and boilers. They pump hot and chilled water to peripheral air distribution systems for conditioning. Two options for retrofit are available.
Priority 3: 8 Bldgs - Gymnasiums • All campuses have main and auxiliary gymnasiums with forced air direct gas heat and fabric duct distribution systems. No air conditioning exists currently.
Priority 4: 11 Bldgs - Aging, Existing Unitary Packaged HVAC Systems • Facilities which already employ unitary packaged gas heating and dx cooling equipment, for which some of the systems are aging. IES will evaluate replacement of all systems in excess of their useful lifespan and incorporate wi-fi based thermostat controls. 4 Current District AC Status - Branham
Site Unit Type Current System Priority Status Notes Branham F Band Gas Heat Only 1 5/19/2017 Phase I Contract with IES Branham J Classrooms Radiant Heat 1 5/19/2017 Phase I Contract with IES Branham K Classrooms Radiant Heat 1 5/19/2017 Phase I Contract with IES Branham L Classrooms Radiant Heat 1 5/19/2017 Phase I Contract with IES Branham S Classrooms Radiant Heat 1 5/19/2017 Phase I Contract with IES Branham M Classrooms Gas Heat Only 1 COMPLETE Phase I Contract with IES Branham N Classrooms Gas Heat Only 1 COMPLETE Phase I Contract with IES Branham P Classrooms Gas Heat Only 1 COMPLETE Phase I Contract with IES Branham Q Classrooms Gas Heat Only 1 COMPLETE Phase I Contract with IES Branham R Classrooms Gas Heat Only 1 COMPLETE Phase I Contract with IES Branham A Offices Central CHW/HW 2 INCOMPLETE Original Water Sourced Central Plant Branham B Classrooms Central CHW/HW 2 INCOMPLETE Original Water Sourced Central Plant Branham C Library Central CHW/HW 2 INCOMPLETE Original Water Sourced Central Plant Branham D Cafetorium Gas/Electric Dx 4 INCOMPLETE Propose new if 15 Years + STATS Branham E Performance Central CHW/HW 2 INCOMPLETE Original Water Sourced Central Plant Branham G Gym Gas Heat Only 3 INCOMPLETE Evaluate Cooling Addition vs. Replacement Branham H Aux Gym Gas Heat Only 3 INCOMPLETE Evaluate Cooling Addition vs. Replacement Branham T Computer Gas/Electric Dx 4 INCOMPLETE Propose new if 15 Years + STATS Branham I PAC Gas/Electric Dx 0 NO CHANGE Newer Equipment - Add STATS
5 District AC Status – Del Mar & D.O.
Site Unit Type Current System Priority Status Notes Del Mar D Classrooms Gas Heat Only 1 COMPLETE Phase I Contract with IES Del Mar E Classrooms Gas Heat Only 1 COMPLETE Phase I Contract with IES Del Mar F Classrooms Gas Heat Only 1 COMPLETE Phase I Contract with IES Del Mar G Classrooms Gas Heat Only 1 COMPLETE Phase I Contract with IES Del Mar J Classrooms Gas Heat Only 1 COMPLETE Phase I Contract with IES Del Mar K Classrooms Gas Heat Only 1 COMPLETE Phase I Contract with IES Del Mar L Classrooms Gas Heat Only 1 COMPLETE Phase I Contract with IES Del Mar M Classrooms Gas Heat Only 1 COMPLETE Phase I Contract with IES Del Mar N Classrooms Gas Heat Only 2 COMPLETE Phase I Contract with IES Del Mar A Library/Office Gas/Electric Dx 4 INCOMPLETE Propose new if 15 Years + STATS Del Mar B Gym Gas Heat Only 3 INCOMPLETE Evaluate Cooling Addition vs. Replacement Del Mar C Caf/Music Gas/Electric Dx 4 INCOMPLETE Propose new if 15 Years + STATS Del Mar H Shop Radiant Heat 1 INCOMPLETE Need to determing future of facility 1st Del Mar P Classrooms Gas/Electric Dx 4 INCOMPLETE Propose new if 15 Years + STATS Del Mar Q Classrooms Radiant Heat/Cool 1 INCOMPLETE Del Mar PAC PAC Gas/Electric Dx 0 NO CHANGE Newer Equipment - Add STATS D.O. ALL Office/Board Central CHW/HW 2 INCOMPLETE
6 District AC Status – Leigh
Site Unit Type Current System Priority Status Notes Leigh G Classrooms Gas/Electric Dx 1 COMPLETE Phase I Contract with IES Leigh H Classrooms Gas/Electric Dx 2 COMPLETE Phase I Contract with IES Leigh J Classrooms Gas/Electric Dx 1 COMPLETE Phase I Contract with IES Leigh K Classrooms Gas/Electric Dx 1 COMPLETE Phase I Contract with IES Leigh L Classrooms Gas/Electric Dx 1 COMPLETE Phase I Contract with IES Leigh M Classrooms Gas/Electric Dx 1 COMPLETE Phase I Contract with IES Leigh A Office/Library Radiant Heat 1 INCOMPLETE Leigh C Music/Shop Gas Heat Only 1 INCOMPLETE Leigh D Gym Gas Heat Only 3 INCOMPLETE Evaluate Cooling Addition vs. Replacement Leigh E Classrooms Radiant Heat 1 INCOMPLETE Leigh F Classrooms Radiant Heat 1 INCOMPLETE Leigh N Weight Room Electrict Heat 1 INCOMPLETE Leigh P Classrooms Central CHW/HW 2 INCOMPLETE Leigh Q Classrooms Central CHW/HW 2 INCOMPLETE Leigh R Classrooms Central CHW/HW 2 INCOMPLETE Leigh S Classrooms Central CHW/HW 2 INCOMPLETE Leigh B Cafetorium Gas/Electric Dx 0 NO CHANGE Newer Equipment - Add STATS Leigh PAC PAC Gas/Electric Dx 0 NO CHANGE Newer Equipment - Add STATS
7 District AC Status – Prospect
Site Unit Type Current System Priority Status Notes Prospect A Classrooms Central CHW/HW 2 INCOMPLETE Original Water Sourced Central Plant Prospect B Offices Gas/Electric Dx 4 INCOMPLETE Propose new if 15 Years + STATS Prospect C Classrooms Central CHW/HW 2 INCOMPLETE Original Water Sourced Central Plant Prospect D Classrooms Central CHW/HW 2 INCOMPLETE Original Water Sourced Central Plant Prospect E Library Central CHW/HW 2 INCOMPLETE Original Water Sourced Central Plant Prospect F Classrooms Central CHW/HW 2 INCOMPLETE Current Mod on Central System Prospect G Gym Gas Heat Only 3 INCOMPLETE Evaluate Cooling Addition vs. Replacement Prospect H Aux Gym Gas Heat Only 3 INCOMPLETE Evaluate Cooling Addition vs. Replacement Prospect J Classrooms Central CHW/HW 2 INCOMPLETE Recently Modernized on Central System Prospect K Cafetorium Gas/Electric Dx 4 INCOMPLETE Propose new if 15 Years + Prospect L Classrooms Gas/Electric Dx 4 INCOMPLETE Propose new if 15 Years + Prospect I PAC Gas/Electric Dx 0 NO CHANGE Newer Equipment - Add STATS
8 District AC Status – Westmont
Site Unit Type Current System Priority Status Notes Westmont G Classrooms Gas Heat Only 1 4/7/2017 Phase I Contract with IES Westmont H Classrooms Gas Heat Only 1 4/7/2017 Phase I Contract with IES Westmont K Classrooms Gas Heat Only 1 4/7/2017 Phase I Contract with IES Westmont L Classrooms Gas Heat Only 1 4/7/2017 Phase I Contract with IES Westmont M Classrooms Gas Heat Only 1 4/7/2017 Phase I Contract with IES Westmont N Classrooms Gas Heat Only 1 4/7/2017 Phase I Contract with IES Westmont A Office/Class Gas/Electric Dx 4 INCOMPLETE Propose new if 15 Years + STATS Westmont B Cafetorium Gas/Electric Dx 4 INCOMPLETE Propose new if 15 Years + STATS Westmont C Shops NA 0 INCOMPLETE Under Current Modernization Westmont D1 Gym Gas Heat Only 3 INCOMPLETE Evaluate Cooling Addition vs. Replacement Westmont D2 Gym Gas Heat Only 3 INCOMPLETE Evaluate Cooling Addition vs. Replacement Westmont E Music Gas Heat Only 1 INCOMPLETE Westmont P Classrooms Gas/Electric Dx 4 INCOMPLETE Propose new if 15 Years + STATS Westmont Q Science Central CHW/HW 2 INCOMPLETE Cooling tower ONLY for cooling Westmont F Library Gas/Electric Dx 0 NO CHANGE Newer Equipment - Add STATS Westmont J Classrooms Gas/Electric Dx 0 NO CHANGE Newer Equipment - Add STATS Westmont PAC PAC Gas/Electric Dx 0 NO CHANGE Newer Equipment - Add STATS
9
Priority 2 System Options
One option is to replace aging central HVAC equipment and energy management systems + downstream controls, valves, dampers, actuators with new. This leaves aging piping in place & may not solve all comfort issues, but costs less (25% to 40% less than replacing the systems in entirety)
10 Priority 2 System Options
It may be possible to eliminate one of the water based systems by utilizing air to air heat exchange based chiller equipment instead of the existing cooling towers. Regardless, leaking, corroding, and scaling pipes will be in place and require loop water treatment and complex, ongoing maintenance and repairs of distribution systems and controls. 11 Priority 2 System Options
Most Districts have moved to replace water based heating and cooling systems with dx (refrigerant) cooling and direct gas heating equipment. Waters systems are eliminated, but more initial cost. With packaged or split HVAC systems, any residential contractor can provide service and maintenance. Complex, expensive energy management systems are replaced by $200 wi-fi based thermostats that can provide the same functionality. Energy use goes down! On paper central HVAC equipment more efficient, but the diversity of unitary 12 equipment trumps this efficiency difference every time.
Next Steps
1 IES completes preliminary evaluation of all systems District Wide (1.5 month duration)
After preliminary evaluation of all systems, options are selected by staff prior to 2 developing final project scope and pricing (0.5 month duration)
IES develops final scope and pricing of all District selected measures 3 (approximate 1 month duration).
4 Projects presented to the Board for final decision making and prioritization.
13
Campbell Union High School District Districtwide Seismic Evaluations San Jose, CA Project Scope ASCE 41 Performance Based Design ◦ Qualitative Assessments relative to current state of the art design practices ◦ Site Visits Rating System
Good
Buildings receiving this rating appear to possess global lateral force resisting systems and constituent lateral force resisting structural elements which, when subject to large locally occurring seismic events are regarded as providing a level of life safety protection to building occupants which is generally consistent with performance levels expected from buildings constructed to the 2013 California Building Code.
No significant seismic deficiencies are identified and no further action relating to seismic evaluation and/or retrofit measures are recommended at this time.
Satisfactory
Buildings receiving this rating appear to possess global lateral force resisting systems and constituent lateral force resisting structural elements, which when subjected to large locally occurring seismic events, are regarded as likely to not pose a life safety risk to building occupants.
Building is found to have met ASCE 41 life safety protection performance goal.
Deficient
Buildings receiving this rating appear to possess global lateral force resisting systems and constituent lateral force resisting structural elements, which when subjected to large locally occurring seismic events, are regarded as potentially posing a life safety risk to building occupants.
Building is evaluated to not meet ASCE 41 life safety protection performance goal.
Potential seismic deficiencies are identified.
Unacceptable
Buildings receiving this rating appear to possess global lateral force resisting systems and constituent lateral force resting structural elements, which when subjected to large locally occurring seismic events, are regarded as posing significant risk to building occupants.
Building is evaluated do not meet the ASCE 41 collapse prevention seismic performance goal.
Serious potential seismic deficiencies are identified.
It is recommended that further more detailed studies (beyond the scope of this report) be conducted as soon as practicable to more rigorously define the identified potential deficiencies and to verify and further refine mitigation measures that should be implemented to address this situation.
It is likely that Buildings with this classification could qualify for state funding under the Seismic Mitigation Program. Dangerous
Buildings receiving this rating are expected to be hazardous to building occupants when subjected to smaller seismic events which have a relatively high probability of occurrence within relatively short time intervals.
Steps should be undertaken to take these buildings out of service as soon as practicable so that mitigation measures can be immediately implemented.
Buildings with this classification will very likely qualify for state funding under the Seismic Mitigation Program. In the event that the Department of General Services or any licensed structural engineer or licensed architect finds and reports to the Governing Board that a district building is unsafe for use, the Superintendent or designee shall immediately obtain an estimate of the cost of repairs or reconstruction necessary to bring the building up to legal standards for structural safety.
The Board shall establish a system of priorities for the repair, reconstruction, or replacement of unsafe school buildings. (Education Code 17367)
Limitations and Assumptions
Preliminary engineering order of magnitude cost projections were developed for the recommended seismic retrofit measures.
These cost projections are intended to be used for planning purposes only. The cost projections do not include: ◦ provisions for hazardous material abatement ◦ soft costs: engineering and architectural fees, DSA permitting fees, construction management fees, testing and inspection fees ◦ costs associated with ADA improvements which may be mandated as a result of the project
Cost projections are based on the assumption that the seismic retrofit work will be a component of a comprehensive building modernization project.
Depending on how projects are configured, costs associated with these items could increase the overall implementation costs by a factor of 1.5 to 2.0 beyond those projected.
Construction Budgets should be established on actual cost estimates generated from more developed design drawings. Meeting with DSA and OPSC regarding funding through the State Seismic Mitigation Program Preparation and submittal of Eligibility Evaluation Reports for to DSA
Dan Lewin, SE [email protected] 650-617-5930 ext. 223
Stacy Gaddini, SE [email protected] 650-617-5930 ext. 260
Campbell Union High School District 3235 Union Ave. San Jose, CA 95124-2009 Ph: 408-371-0960 Dr. Robert Bravo, Superintendent
CAMPBELL UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT DEMOGRAPHIC STUDY 2016
January 2017
SchoolWorks, Inc. 8331 Sierra College Blvd., #221 Roseville, CA 95661 Phone: 916-733-0402 www.SchoolWorksGIS.com Campbell Union High School District Demographic Study 2016/17
TABLE OF CONTENTS Page
INTRODUCTION ...... 1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... 1
METHODOLOGY ...... 2
CLASSROOM COUNTS AND CAPACITY ...... 2
NEW HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS ...... 7
HISTORIC ENROLLMENT AND TRENDS ...... 10
SCHOOL PROJECTIONS...... 11
DISTRICT PROJECTIONS ...... 26
SCHOOL FACILITY UTILIZATION ...... 29
January 2017
Campbell Union High School District Demographic Study 2016/17
CHARTS Page
10 YEAR ENROLLMENT HISTORY AND 6 YEAR ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS ...... 3
2017/2018 1 YEAR ENROLLMENT PROJECTION BY SCHOOL ...... 4
NEW DEVELOPMENT CONSTRUCTION ...... 8
RETENTION RATES SINCE KINDERGARTEN ...... 9
HISTORIC ENROLLMENT AND COHORTS ...... 10
CAPACITY & PROJECTED ENROLLMENT
BRANHAM HIGH ...... 13 DEL MAR HIGH ...... 15 LEIGH HIGH ...... 17 PROSPECT HIGH ...... 19 WESTMONT HIGH ...... 21 BOYNTON HIGH ...... 23
STUDENT ATTENDANCE MATRIX ...... 24
STUDENT RESIDENCY AND ENROLLMENT COMPARISON ...... 25
10 YEAR ENROLLMENT HISTORY & 6 YEAR ENROLLMENT PROJECTION ...... 26
ONE YEAR ENROLLMENT PROJECTION SUMMARY ...... 27
ENROLLMENT PROJECTION SUMMARY BY GRADE ...... 28
ENROLLMENT PROJECTION SUMMARY BY SCHOOL ...... 28
SCHOOL FACILITY UTILIZATION ...... 29
January 2017
Campbell Union High School District Demographic Study 2016/17
MAPS
Page
DISTRICT MAP WITH STUDENT RESIDENTIAL LOCATION ...... 5
HIGH BOUNDARIES AND SCHOOL LOCATIONS ...... 6
NEW HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS ...... 7
SCHOOL BOUNDARY MAP
BRANHAM HIGH ...... 12 DEL MAR HIGH ...... 14 LEIGH HIGH ...... 16 PROSPECT HIGH ...... 18 WESTMONT HIGH ...... 20 BOYNTON HIGH ...... 22
January 2017
Campbell Union High School District Demographic Study 2016/17 Introduction
This Demographic Study provides a comprehensive enrollment analysis for the Campbell Union High School District. The district-wide and school-specific enrollment projections are meant to serve as a planning tool to help with both long and short term planning. Demographic Studies examine the factors that influence school enrollments, namely trends in demographics, birth rates, and housing development. They are also used as a tool to identify certain facility planning requirements such as capacity, utilization of existing facilities, planning for modernization or new construction, and attendance boundary redistricting. This Study provides information based on the 2016/17 District enrollments and programs, City planning policies and residential development. As these factors change and timelines are adjusted, the Demographic Study should be revised to reflect the most current information.
Executive Summary
Campbell Union High School District serves students in grades 9 through 12 residing in the Santa Clara County communities of San Jose, Campbell, Los Gatos, Saratoga, Santa Clara and Monte Sereno. The District consists of five (5) comprehensive High Schools and one (1) alternative High School. The School District provides high school education for Cambrian School District, Campbell Union School District, Luther Burbank School District, Moreland School District and Union Elementary School District.
This Study has been prepared using the 2016/17 student enrollment data, current District policies and the latest new housing development information available at the time of this Study. The District declined in enrollment from 7,838 students in 2007/08 to 7,353 students in 2013/14. Since 2013/14, the District’s enrollment has been increasing and is projected to continue to increase.
Campbell Union High School District is projected to grow in enrollment by 3.35% (or 262 students) for the 2017/18 school year. The District is projected to grow over the next ten (10) years with a projected enrollment of 9,139 students in the 2026/27 school year. This is a total growth of 1,343 students, which is an increase of 17.23%.
The projections are predicated upon information provided by local municipalities on the development of 1,804 housing units over the next six (6) years and an average of 600 units per year for years 7 to 10. If the building rates increase or decrease, then the timeline shown in this Study will need to be modified accordingly. These projected new developments in the District's boundary are expected to generate 9 students next year, and a total of 162 students in the next six (6) years.
Based on current District loading standards and classroom space, the District has a total capacity of 9,438 students, and a current enrollment of 7,796. This gives the District a current utilization factor of 82.6%. The projected utilization factor in six (6) years will be 93.4%. This assumes loading standards remain constant and no additional facilities are built or removed.
These projections assume the transfers between schools remain consistent. If changes in facilities, schedules, programs or policies are made, then the patterns may be impacted.
January 2017 Page 1
Campbell Union High School District Demographic Study 2016/17 Methodology
The enrollment projections for each school are generated using a State standard weighted cohort trend analysis. The basic projections are created by studying the individual geographic areas. Once the trends are analyzed for each area, the base projections are modified using the following procedures:
a) New Housing Development rates and yield factors are compared to the historical impact of development, and if the future projections exceed the historical values, the projections are augmented accordingly.
b) Inter-District student counts are not included in the base geographic trend analysis since these students reside outside of the District. Therefore, the current number of students- per-school and students-per-grade are added to the base projections.
c) Intra-District students are those who transfer from one school to another. The number of students transferring into and out of each school are calculated and used to determine the difference between the projections for students living in each attendance area versus those that are projected to attend the school.
d) The projections for special education students and alternative programs are created by assuming those programs typically serve a percentage of the total District population. Therefore, as the District grows or declines, the enrollment in those programs would increase or decrease accordingly.
Classroom Counts and Capacity
The classroom counts are shown for each school and are used to determine the capacity. The classroom counts represent the rooms that can be used for teaching purposes at each school site. The classroom counts may not represent the current classrooms being used, as there may be unused rooms on the school site. In some cases, there may be fewer classrooms counted than current teaching stations if some of the rooms being used were designed for other purposes but are currently being used as classrooms due to overcrowding.
The purpose of the classroom count and capacity are to show what the school capacity should be if all teaching spaces are being used in accordance with the educational programs of the District.
January 2017 Page 2
Campbell Union High School District Demographic Study 2016/17 10 Year Enrollment History and 10 Year Enrollment Projections
10 Year Enrollment History & 10 Year Enrollment Projection
9010 9139 8811 8643 8738 8759 8789 8270 8384 8058 7838 7746 7791 7796 7581 7676
7408 7417 7353 7453 Students
9139 8738 8811 8759 8789 9010 8384 8643 8058 8270 7838 7746 7791 7676 7796 7581 7407 7416 7353 7453
07/08 08/09 09/10 10/11 11/12 12/13 13/14 14/15 15/16 16/17 17/18 18/19 19/20 20/21 21/22 22/23 23/24 24/25 25/26 26/27 Year
9-12
The Campbell Union High School District declined in enrollment from 7,838 2007/08 to a low of 7,353 students in 2013/14. The increases in the past three years result in a current enrollment of 7,796 students. This chart provides a summary of the last ten (10) years of historic enrollment and projected enrollment for the next ten (10) years. The color blue represents the historic and projected enrollment for the high school grades 9-12. The entire District enrollment is shown at the top of each bar.
January 2017 Page 3
Campbell Union High School District Demographic Study 2016/17 2017/2018 1 Year Enrollment Projection by School
Campbell Union High School District Enrollment Projections YEAR 17/18, 1 Year Proj.
School 9 10 11 12 TOTAL Branham High 501 431 388 344 1,664 Del Mar High 332 281 330 283 1,226 Leigh High 462 432 455 383 1,732 Prospect High 407 412 367 341 1,527 Westmont High 450 418 409 339 1,616 Boynton High 0 5 49 143 197 Middle College 0 0 41 55 96 Totals 2,152 1,979 2,039 1,888 8,058
Current CBEDS 2,018 2,055 1,932 1,791 7,796
Net Change 134 -76 107 97 262
Cohort Change -39 -16 -44
Campbell Union High School District has a current enrollment of 7,796 students. The projected enrollment for next year shows an increase of 262 students. This one (1) year summary analyzes the net change between the current District enrollment by school and by grade, and the projected enrollment for 2017/18.
The cohort change factor indicates the change in the number of students for each grade compared to the number of students in the prior grade the previous year.
These projections assume the transfers between schools remain consistent. If changes in facilities, schedules, programs or policies are made, then the patterns may be impacted.
The students living in the boundary generate the cohort factors which are calculated for the past three (3) years and the weighted averaged is determined. Those cohorts are then used to determine the students who will be residing in each attendance area for the following years. Next the attendance factor is used to determine the net enrollment for each grade. The attendance factor is determined by analyzing the current year of students to see how many Inter- and Intra-district transfers there are.
January 2017 Page 4
Campbell Union High School District Demographic Study 2016/17 District Map with Student Residential Locations
Campbell Union High School District
This map shows the District boundary along with the location of each student based on their residential address. This geographic data is the foundation for our demographic analysis. Any red dots outside the District boundary will represent students attending one of the District schools or programs but have a residence outside the District. This map also identifies different areas of student population density.
January 2017 Page 5
Campbell Union High School District Demographic Study 2016/17 High School Boundaries and School Locations
66
22
44
55
FreeFree ZoneZone 11
11
33
FreeFree ZoneZone 22
Id School Grades Id School Grades 1 Branham High 9-12 4 Prospect High 9-12 2 Del Mar High 9-12 5 Westmont High 9-12 3 Leigh High 9-12 6 Boynton High 9-12
Students living within Free Zone 1 or Free Zone 2 have the choice to attend Branham High or Leigh High.
January 2017 Page 6
Campbell Union High School District Demographic Study 2016/17 New Housing Developments
22 1616 1515 1414
99 44
66
1313 55
33 2020
1717 1919 11 77
88 88 1010 1212 1212 1111 2121 1818 2222
2323 2424
This close up view of the District shows the location of the projected new development areas. The projections used in this report are based on the following number of units projected from these developments: Remaining 6 Year Remaining 6 Year ID Tract Units Projection ID Tract Units Projection 1 2295 S Winchester 16 16 14 CR31 W San Carlos (West) 200 0 2 C35 Valley Fair/Santana Row 2,635 700 15 CR32 Stevens Creek (East) 1,300 0 3 C36 Paseo de Saratoga 2,500 0 16 CR32 Stevens Creek (Mid) 250 0 4 C38 Winchester Part 1 1,500 300 17 Madison (Dillon Ave) 118 118 5 C38 Winchester Part 2 500 100 18 North 40 Specific Plan 0 0 6 C39 South Bascom (North) 1,560 0 19 Residences @ Railway 157 157 7 C40 S Bascom (South) v P1 600 74 20 V63 Hamilton/Meridian 710 0 8 C40 S Bascom (South) v P2 205 0 21 V67 Branham/Meridian 310 0 9 C41 Saratoga Ave (v) 1,115 89 22 V68 Camden/Branham 450 0 10 C44 Camden/Hillsdale Part 1 600 0 23 V69 Kooser/Meridian 350 0 11 C44 Camden/Hillsdale Part 2 300 0 24 V70 Camden/Kooser (v) 623 0 12 C44 Camden/Hillsdale Part 3 100 0 13 CR21 Southwest Exp (v) 3,007 250 Totals 19,106 1,804
January 2017 Page 7
Campbell Union High School District Demographic Study 2016/17 Assuming that 1,804 of the 19,106 planned units are completed over a six (6) year period, there would be an average of 301 new housing units per year. To determine the impact of the new housing development, each new housing unit is multiplied by the student yield rate. Currently the District student yield rate is 0.0899 students per housing unit. This breaks down as follows:
Grade District State 9-12 0.0899 0.20
The yield rate used for new construction eligibility determination in the State building program is 0.20 students per home for 9-12 districts. The yield rate in the Campbell Union High School District is lower than the State average.
Campbell Union High School District New Development Construction Housing Units per Year 17/18 18/19 19/20 20/21 21/22 22/23 School Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Totals Branham High 0 0 0 0 30 44 74 Del Mar High 105 113 157 200 450 500 1,525 Leigh High 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Prospect High 0 0 0 0 45 44 89 Westmont High 0 8 8 0 50 50 116 High Totals 105 121 165 200 575 638 1,804
Based on these estimated construction rates, the development will generate 9 students next year and a total of 162 students in the next six (6) years.
The enrolment projections for years 7 to 10 are based on construction of 600 new housing units per year.
January 2017 Page 8
Campbell Union High School District Demographic Study 2016/17 Retention Rates Since Kindergarten
This chart compares the original kindergarten class sizes in the feeder elementary districts to the current enrollment for each grade. For example, the current 10th grade class has 2,055 students and ten (10) years ago the kindergarten class had 2,254 students. Overall the class sizes have decreased since kindergarten. However, it is important to note that the current students enrolled in the feeder schools have larger classes and the incoming 9th graders are anticipated to be an average of 200 students more than previous years. The current 12th grade class is also a small class that will be graduating.
Cohort Change Since Kindergarten
3000 2615 2579 2589 2447 2458 2355 2333 2343 2500 2250 2297 2279 2254 2238
2000
1500
2436 2464 2419 2456 2402 2250 2301 2356 2291 2055 1000 2018 1932 1791
500
0 K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Current Grade
16/17 Enrollment Original K Class
January 2017 Page 9
Campbell Union High School District Demographic Study 2016/17 Historic Enrollment and Trends
Campbell Union High School District Historic Enrollment and Cohorts CBEDS Enrollment Historic Cohorts Weighted Grade 13/14 14/15 15/16 16/17 13 to 14 14 to 15 15 to 16 Average 9 1,919 1,963 2,082 2,018 10 1,868 1,873 1,945 2,055 -46 -18 -27 -27.2 11 1,796 1,833 1,839 1,932 -35 -34 -13 -23.7 12 1,770 1,784 1,810 1,791 -12 -23 -48 -33.7 Totals 7,353 7,453 7,676 7,796 -31.0 -25.0 -29.3 -28.2 Annual Change: 100 223 120
This chart shows the enrollment by grade level over the past four (4) years. The cohort values were calculated for each grade and each year, along with the weighted average for each grade. A positive cohort value indicates that grade is expected to have more students than the previous grade last year. A negative value would mean that the grade has fewer students compared to the previous grade last year.
In general, a positive cohort is representative of growth and a negative cohort indicates a decline in enrollment. There are some exceptions. First grade usually has a positive cohort, as there are some students that do not attend kindergarten at public schools but arrive in first grade.
Another important item to notice is the current breakdown by grade level of the student population. Comparing the number of students in the lower grades to the upper grades can indicate potential increases or decreases in future enrollments. Also, if there is a large class or a small class, it will slowly cause a ripple in the enrollments as it advances a grade each year.
Finally, the annual change at the bottom of this chart indicates the net impact of the changes in enrollment over the past few years.
January 2017 Page 10
Campbell Union High School District Demographic Study 2016/17 School Projections
After the boundary map for each school, there is a chart that shows the projected enrollment for the next six (6) years. These charts indicate the actual enrollment at each school over the past four (4) years along with the projected enrollment for the next six (6) years. In addition, the number of students living in the boundary are shown for the same time period. If there are more students attending than live in the area, then there is a net inflow. If more students live in the boundary than attend the school, then there is a net outflow.
The current capacity is shown on these charts to identify if there will be classroom space available for the students. If space is not available, then the attendance patterns will likely need to change if the additional facilities are not provided. The capacity for each school was determined by using the following loading standards for each classroom identified:
Grade Loading Standard 9-12 32 Continuation High 20
These loading standards are based on the average number of students housed in each classroom. In addition, there is a 90% utilization factor applied for the comprehensive high school to account for master schedule challenges. This results in the actual loading factor being 28.8 students per classroom. The capacity of a school will change if the loading factors change.
To allow for the impact of construction while the schools are being retrofitted for seismic upgrades, a net capacity has been determined. The net capacity assumes one third of the classrooms in the areas that need to be upgraded will not be available. This allows for a three phase implementation process for the seismic upgrade projects.
Backup data is provided below each projection chart that shows the calculations of the cohort factors used to determine the enrollment projections for each school.
The number of students living in the boundary are shown, which are then used to generate the cohort factors. The weighted average of the three (3) years was determined with the current year weighted 50%, the prior year 33.3% and the last year 16.7%. This gives the current trends more value in determining the projections. Those cohorts are then used to determine the students who will be residing in each attendance area for the following years. The kindergarten enrollment is projected using the birth data instead of the cohort factor shown here.
The Attendance Factors were determined by analyzing the current year of students to see how many Inter- and Intra-District transfers there are. Once the baseline projections are calculated for the residents in the attendance area, the Intra-District and Inter-District factors are applied to determine the projected enrollment for each school.
The last three (3) columns in the chart, Current Enrollment, 17/18 Projection, and Net Change, show the current enrollment, next year’s projection and net change in enrollment for next year. These are compared by grade to show the details needed for staffing and classroom needs.
January 2017 Page 11
Campbell Union High School District Demographic Study 2016/17
Branham High DelDel MarMar HighHigh DelDel MarMar HighHigh Student Legend Incoming from other Districts (24) Incoming from other schools (321) WestmontWestmont HighHigh Living in area and attending this school (1264) WestmontWestmont HighHigh Outgoing to other schools (119)
BranhamBranham HighHigh
BranhamBranham HighHigh oror LeighLeigh HighHigh
BranhamBranham HighHigh oror LeighLeigh HighHigh LeighLeigh HighHigh
Branham High Transfer Students
Inter-District 24 0
Boynton High 0 55
Branham or Leigh 171 0
Del Mar High 60 20
Leigh High 63 26
Prospect High 7 7
Westmont High 20 11
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 Students
Incoming Outgoing
January 2017 Page 12
Campbell Union High School District Demographic Study 2016/17
Capacity & Projected Enrollment
Branham High 2500
1946 1847 1879 2000 1768 Capacity 1664 1699 1604 1396 1468 1514 1500
1000
500
0 13/14 14/15 15/16 16/17 17/18 18/19 19/20 20/21 21/22 22/23 Students attending (History = CBEDS) Students living in attendance area Net Capacity = 1409 School Capacity = 1786
District Loading Standards Traditional School All Portables Loaded Classroom Count = 62 Grades Served = 9 - 12 Classroom Needs Timeline Projected Total Annual Spec. Ed. Facility Unhoused Annual CR Total CR's Available Housing Year Students* Change Students Capacity Students Needed Needed Seats Units 16/17 1604 90 0 1786 0 0 -6 182 17/18 1664 60 0 1786 0 0 -4 122 0 18/19 1699 35 0 1786 0 0 -3 87 0 19/20 1768 69 0 1786 0 0 -1 18 0 20/21 1847 79 0 1786 61 2 2 0 0 21/22 1879 32 0 1786 93 1 3 0 30 22/23 1946 67 0 1786 160 3 6 0 44
* Based on Students Attending (Squares on Graph) Classroom Count = 62 Branham High Students in boundary Historic Cohorts Weighted Attendance Factors Current 17/18 Net YEAR: 13/14 14/15 15/16 16/17 13 to 14 14 to 15 15 to 16 Average Intra Inter Enrollment Projection Change Grade K 508 500 519 591 -8 19 72 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 1 465 484 445 478 -24 -55 -41 -21 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 2 468 480 509 500 15 25 55 38 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 3 498 480 483 532 12 3 23 15 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 4 498 483 493 508 -15 13 25 14 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 5 491 495 491 517 -3 8 24 14 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 6 511 558 534 591 67 39 100 74 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 7 498 508 562 561 -3 4 27 14 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 8 499 502 525 567 4 17 5 9 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 9 343 352 363 356 -147 -139 -169 -155 24.2% 2.5% 451 501 50 10 325 330 353 365 -13 1 2 -1 21.1% 1.4% 447 431 -16 11 359 321 319 348 -4 -11 -5 -7 9.2% 1.1% 384 388 4 12 317 359 311 314 0 -10 -5 -6 1.0% 1.6% 322 344 22 Totals 5780 5852 5907 6228 -9.2 -6.6 8.7 -0.9 13.9% 1.7% 1604 1664 60
January 2017 Page 13
Campbell Union High School District Demographic Study 2016/17
Del Mar High Student Legend Incoming from other Districts (26) Incoming from other schools (120) Living in area and attending this school (1056) Outgoing to other schools (241)
ProspectProspect HighHigh
DelDel MarMar HighHigh
WestmontWestmont HighHigh
BranhamBranham HighHigh
Del Mar High Transfer Students
Inter-District 26 0
Boynton High 0 54
Branham High 20 60
Leigh High 0 17
Prospect High 24 86
Westmont High 76 24
0 20 40 60 80 100 Students
Incoming Outgoing
January 2017 Page 14
Campbell Union High School District Demographic Study 2016/17
Capacity & Projected Enrollment
Del Mar High 1800 Capacity 1600 1400 1333 1200 1292 1226 1224 1213 1261 1000 1167 1189 1073 1108 800 600 400 200 0 13/14 14/15 15/16 16/17 17/18 18/19 19/20 20/21 21/22 22/23 Students attending (History = CBEDS) Students living in attendance area Net Capacity = 1178 School Capacity = 1584
District Loading Standards Traditional School All Portables Loaded Classroom Count = 55 Grades Served = 9 - 12 Classroom Needs Timeline Projected Total Annual Spec. Ed. Facility Unhoused Annual CR Total CR's Available Housing Year Students* Change Students Capacity Students Needed Needed Seats Units 16/17 1189 22 0 1584 0 0 -14 395 17/18 1226 37 0 1584 0 0 -12 358 105 18/19 1224 -2 0 1584 0 0 -12 360 113 19/20 1213 -11 0 1584 0 0 -13 371 157 20/21 1261 48 0 1584 0 0 -11 323 200 21/22 1292 31 0 1584 0 0 -10 292 450 22/23 1333 41 0 1584 0 0 -9 251 500
* Based on Students Attending (Squares on Graph) Classroom Count = 55 Del Mar High Students in boundary Historic Cohorts Weighted Attendance Factors Current 17/18 Net YEAR: 13/14 14/15 15/16 16/17 13 to 14 14 to 15 15 to 16 Average Intra Inter Enrollment Projection Change Grade K 629 582 628 648 -47 46 20 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 1 521 534 459 505 -95 -123 -123 -59 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 2 506 508 511 463 -13 -23 4 -8 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 3 500 486 472 469 -20 -36 -42 -36 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 4 479 481 479 462 -19 -7 -10 -11 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 5 508 494 510 506 15 29 27 26 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 6 457 502 475 492 -6 -19 -18 -16 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 7 473 434 475 457 -23 -27 -18 -22 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 8 450 453 426 443 -20 -8 -32 -22 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 9 316 348 353 309 -102 -100 -117 -109 -2.3% 1.0% 305 332 27 10 312 300 333 362 -16 -15 9 -3 -9.7% 1.9% 334 281 -53 11 290 298 300 332 -14 0 -1 -3 -12.0% 2.7% 301 330 29 12 279 285 292 294 -5 -6 -6 -6 -17.7% 2.4% 249 283 34 Totals 5720 5705 5713 5742 -28.1 -22.2 -23.6 -20.7 -10.4% 2.0% 1189 1226 37
January 2017 Page 15
Campbell Union High School District Demographic Study 2016/17
Leigh High BranhamBranham HighHigh Student Legend Incoming from other Districts (42) Incoming from other schools (384) WestmontWestmont HighHigh Living in area and attending this school (1292) Outgoing to other schools (107)
BranhamBranham HighHigh oror LeighLeigh HighHigh
BranhamBranham HighHigh oror LeighLeigh HighHigh LeighLeigh HighHigh
Leigh High Transfer Students
Inter-District 42 0
Boynton High 0 37
Branham High 26 63
Branham or Leigh 332 0
Del Mar High 17 0
Prospect High 3 2
Westmont High 6 5
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 Students
Incoming Outgoing
January 2017 Page 16
Campbell Union High School District Demographic Study 2016/17
Capacity & Projected Enrollment
Leigh High 2500
Capacity 2000 1732 1783 1782 1787 1644 1665 1654 1691 1809 1783
1500
1000
500
0 13/14 14/15 15/16 16/17 17/18 18/19 19/20 20/21 21/22 22/23 Students attending (History = CBEDS) Students living in attendance area Net Capacity = 1668 School Capacity = 2016
District Loading Standards Traditional School All Portables Loaded Classroom Count = 70 Grades Served = 9 - 12 Classroom Needs Timeline Projected Total Annual Spec. Ed. Facility Unhoused Annual CR Total CR's Available Housing Year Students* Change Students Capacity Students Needed Needed Seats Units 16/17 1691 37 0 2016 0 0 -11 325 17/18 1732 41 0 2016 0 0 -10 284 0 18/19 1783 51 0 2016 0 0 -8 233 0 19/20 1782 -1 0 2016 0 0 -8 234 0 20/21 1787 5 0 2016 0 0 -8 229 0 21/22 1809 22 0 2016 0 0 -7 207 0 22/23 1783 -26 0 2016 0 0 -8 233 0
* Based on Students Attending (Squares on Graph) Classroom Count = 70 Leigh High Students in boundary Historic Cohorts Weighted Attendance Factors Current 17/18 Net YEAR: 13/14 14/15 15/16 16/17 13 to 14 14 to 15 15 to 16 Average Intra Inter Enrollment Projection Change Grade K 494 488 529 505 -6 41 -24 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 1 506 480 450 469 -14 -38 -60 -23 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 2 512 529 498 465 23 18 15 17 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 3 519 508 549 508 -4 20 10 11 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 4 486 533 513 546 14 5 -3 3 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 5 500 502 532 507 16 -1 -6 -1 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 6 448 479 489 468 -21 -13 -64 -40 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 7 438 456 469 482 8 -10 -7 -6 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 8 412 434 453 465 -4 -3 -4 -4 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 9 349 341 373 371 -71 -61 -82 -73 17.3% 2.2% 443 462 19 10 322 338 331 373 -11 -10 0 -5 15.3% 2.9% 441 432 -9 11 315 311 322 336 -11 -16 5 -5 23.2% 3.3% 425 455 30 12 296 294 283 319 -21 -28 -3 -14 16.0% 3.8% 382 383 1 Totals 5597 5693 5791 5814 -7.8 -7.4 -17.2 -10.8 17.9% 3.0% 1691 1732 41
January 2017 Page 17
Campbell Union High School District Demographic Study 2016/17
Prospect High Student Legend Incoming from other Districts (8) Incoming from other schools (201) Living in area and attending this school (1258) Outgoing to other schools (119)
DelDel MarMar HighHigh
ProspectProspect HighHigh
WestmontWestmont HighHigh
Prospect High Transfer Students
Inter-District 8 0
Boynton High 0 55
Branham High 7 7
Branham or Leigh 3 0
Del Mar High 86 24
Leigh High 2 3
Westmont High 103 30
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 Students
Incoming Outgoing
January 2017 Page 18
Campbell Union High School District Demographic Study 2016/17
Capacity & Projected Enrollment
Prospect High 2000 Capacity 1800 1600 1699 1707 1700 1604 1626 1400 1527 1474 1466 1200 1288 1343 1000 800 600 400 200 0 13/14 14/15 15/16 16/17 17/18 18/19 19/20 20/21 21/22 22/23 Students attending (History = CBEDS) Students living in attendance area Net Capacity = 1786 School Capacity = 1786
District Loading Standards Traditional School All Portables Loaded Classroom Count = 62 Grades Served = 9 - 12 Classroom Needs Timeline Projected Total Annual Spec. Ed. Facility Unhoused Annual CR Total CR's Available Housing Year Students* Change Students Capacity Students Needed Needed Seats Units 16/17 1466 -8 0 1786 0 0 -11 320 17/18 1527 61 0 1786 0 0 -9 259 0 18/19 1604 77 0 1786 0 0 -6 182 0 19/20 1626 22 0 1786 0 0 -6 160 0 20/21 1699 73 0 1786 0 0 -3 87 0 21/22 1707 8 0 1786 0 0 -3 79 45 22/23 1700 -7 0 1786 0 0 -3 86 44
* Based on Students Attending (Squares on Graph) Classroom Count = 62 Prospect High Students in boundary Historic Cohorts Weighted Attendance Factors Current 17/18 Net YEAR: 13/14 14/15 15/16 16/17 13 to 14 14 to 15 15 to 16 Average Intra Inter Enrollment Projection Change Grade K 571 580 579 529 9 -1 -50 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 1 458 522 488 514 -49 -92 -65 -36 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 2 539 476 508 477 18 -14 -11 -7 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 3 461 550 474 507 11 -2 -1 1 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 4 500 463 532 464 2 -18 -10 -11 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 5 452 494 468 516 -6 5 -16 -7 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 6 407 413 455 424 -39 -39 -44 -42 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 7 378 399 394 445 -8 -19 -10 -13 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 8 356 377 381 389 -1 -18 -5 -9 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 9 326 343 376 371 -13 -1 -10 -8 6.7% 0.3% 397 407 10 10 337 322 342 366 -4 -1 -10 -6 12.3% 0.5% 413 412 -1 11 290 325 315 339 -12 -7 -3 -6 1.5% 0.6% 346 367 21 12 292 288 325 301 -2 0 -14 -7 2.0% 1.0% 310 341 31 Totals 5367 5552 5637 5642 -7.2 -15.9 -19.2 -11.6 5.6% 0.6% 1466 1527 61
January 2017 Page 19
Campbell Union High School District Demographic Study 2016/17
Westmont High Student Legend Incoming from other Districts (8) Incoming from other schools (71) ProspectProspect HighHigh Living in area and attending this school (1481) Outgoing to other schools (291)
DelDel MarMar HighHigh
BranhamBranham HighHigh
BranhamBranham HighHigh oror LeighLeigh HighHigh WestmontWestmont HighHigh
Westmont High Transfer Students
Inter-District 8 0
Boynton High 0 86
Branham High 11 20
Branham or Leigh 1 0
Del Mar High 24 76
Leigh High 5 6
Prospect High 30 103
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 Students
Incoming Outgoing
January 2017 Page 20
Campbell Union High School District Demographic Study 2016/17
Capacity & Projected Enrollment
Westmont High 2500
Capacity 2000
1694 1730 1717 1500 1722 1616 1658 1573 1537 1541 1569
1000
500
0 13/14 14/15 15/16 16/17 17/18 18/19 19/20 20/21 21/22 22/23 Students attending (History = CBEDS) Students living in attendance area Net Capacity = 1494 School Capacity = 1987
District Loading Standards Traditional School All Portables Loaded Classroom Count = 69 Grades Served = 9 - 12 Classroom Needs Timeline Projected Total Annual Spec. Ed. Facility Unhoused Annual CR Total CR's Available Housing Year Students* Change Students Capacity Students Needed Needed Seats Units 16/17 1569 28 0 1987 0 0 -15 418 17/18 1616 47 0 1987 0 0 -13 371 0 18/19 1658 42 0 1987 0 0 -11 329 8 19/20 1694 36 0 1987 0 0 -10 293 8 20/21 1730 36 0 1987 0 0 -9 257 0 21/22 1722 -8 0 1987 0 0 -9 265 50 22/23 1717 -5 0 1987 0 0 -9 270 50
* Based on Students Attending (Squares on Graph) Classroom Count = 69 Westmont High Students in boundary Historic Cohorts Weighted Attendance Factors Current 17/18 Net YEAR: 13/14 14/15 15/16 16/17 13 to 14 14 to 15 15 to 16 Average Intra Inter Enrollment Projection Change Grade K 449 509 520 540 60 11 20 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 1 444 440 419 470 -9 -90 -50 -28 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 2 480 311 432 396 -133 -8 -23 -36 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 3 449 474 452 448 -6 141 16 54 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 4 459 452 453 439 3 -21 -13 -13 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 5 407 376 409 410 -83 -43 -43 -50 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 6 435 364 429 427 -43 53 18 20 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 7 440 362 415 411 -73 51 -18 -4 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 8 408 360 412 427 -80 50 12 9 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 9 438 433 451 456 25 91 44 57 -7.5% 0.0% 422 450 28 10 417 426 433 450 -12 0 -1 -3 -7.8% 0.0% 415 418 3 11 415 419 431 436 2 5 3 4 -11.0% 0.7% 391 409 18 12 427 387 411 430 -28 -8 -1 -8 -21.6% 0.9% 341 339 -2 Totals 5668 5313 5667 5740 -29.0 17.8 -2.8 0.2 -12.0% 0.4% 1569 1616 47
January 2017 Page 21
Campbell Union High School District Demographic Study 2016/17
Boynton High Student Legend Incoming from other Districts (4) Incoming from other schools (296)
DelDel MarMar HighHigh
ProspectProspect HighHigh
BranhamBranham HighHigh BranhamBranham HighHigh oror WestmontWestmont HighHigh LeighLeigh HighHigh
BranhamBranham HighHigh LeighLeigh HighHigh oror LeighLeigh HighHigh
Boynton High Transfer Students
Inter-District 4 0
Branham High 55 0
Branham or Leigh 9 0
Del Mar High 54 0
Leigh High 37 0
Prospect High 55 0
Westmont High 86 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 Students
Incoming Outgoing
January 2017 Page 22
Campbell Union High School District Demographic Study 2016/17
Capacity & Projected Enrollment
Boynton High 300 Capacity
250 223 214 214 221 197 204 202 191 186 200 177
150
100
50
0 13/14 14/15 15/16 16/17 17/18 18/19 19/20 20/21 21/22 22/23 Students attending (History = CBEDS) Students living in attendance area Net Capacity = 280 School Capacity = 280
District Loading Standards Traditional School All Portables Loaded Classroom Count = 14 Grades Served = 9 - 12 Classroom Needs Timeline Projected Total Annual Spec. Ed. Facility Unhoused Annual CR Total CR's Available Housing Year Students* Change Students Capacity Students Needed Needed Seats Units 16/17 186 -5 0 280 0 0 -5 94 17/18 197 11 0 280 0 0 -4 83 105 18/19 204 7 0 280 0 0 -4 76 121 19/20 202 -2 0 280 0 0 -4 78 165 20/21 214 12 0 280 0 0 -3 66 200 21/22 221 7 0 280 0 0 -3 59 575 22/23 223 2 0 280 0 0 -3 57 638
* Based on Students Attending (Squares on Graph) Classroom Count = 14 Boynton High Students in boundary Historic Cohorts Weighted Attendance Factors Current 17/18 Net YEAR: 13/14 14/15 15/16 16/17 13 to 14 14 to 15 15 to 16 Average Intra Inter Enrollment Projection Change Grade K 2651 2659 2775 2813 8 116 38 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 1 2394 2460 2261 2436 -191 -398 -339 -250.5 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 2 2505 2304 2458 2301 -90 -2 40 4 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 3 2427 2498 2430 2464 -7 126 6 44 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 4 2422 2412 2470 2419 -15 -28 -11 -17 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 5 2358 2361 2410 2456 -61 -2 -14 -18 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 6 2258 2316 2382 2402 -42 21 -8 -4 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 7 2227 2159 2315 2356 -99 -1 -26 -30 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 8 2125 2126 2197 2291 -101 38 -24 -16 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 9 1772 1817 1916 1863 -308 -210 -334 -288 -0.1% 0.1% 0 0 0 10 1713 1716 1792 1916 -56 -25 0 -18 -0.1% 0.4% 5 5 0 11 1669 1674 1687 1791 -39 -29 -1 -17 -2.8% 5.4% 46 49 3 12 1611 1613 1622 1658 -56 -52 -29 -41 -3.6% 11.8% 135 143 8 Totals 28132 28115 28715 29166 -81.3 -34.3 -54.0 -50.1 -2.2% 5.9% 186 197 11
January 2017 Page 23
Campbell Union High School District Demographic Study 2016/17 Student Attendance Matrix
ATTENDANCE MATRIX SCHOOL OF ATTENDANCE
SCHOOL: High Branham Mar High Del High Leigh Prospect High High Westmont Boynton High Residing Total R AREA E Inter-District 24 26 42 8 8 4 112 S Branham High 1,264 20 26 7 11 55 1,383 I Del Mar High 60 1,056 17 86 24 54 1,297 D Leigh High 63 0 1,292 2 5 37 1,399 E Prospect High 7 24 3 1,258 30 55 1,377 N Westmont High 20 76 6 103 1,481 86 1,772 Branham or Leigh 171 0 332 3 1 9 516 C Correction Factor* -5 -13 -27 -1 9 -23 -60 E Total Attending 1,604 1,189 1,691 1,466 1,569 277 7,796
Intra-Ins 321 120 384 201 71 296 1,393 Inter-Ins 24 26 42 8 8 4 112 Total In-Flow 345 146 426 209 79 300 1,505
Intra-Outs 119 241 107 119 291 0 877
% In Flow Students 21.5% 12.3% 25.2% 14.3% 5.0% 19.3% % Out Flow Students 8.6% 18.6% 7.6% 8.6% 16.4% 11.2% * The correction factor represents the difference between the student data download counts and the actual CALPADS counts.
This chart summarizes the transfers in and out of each school as were seen by the yellow dots and blue dots on the school attendance maps. In addition, the data has been analyzed to determine the total in-flow and out-flow rates for each school. The school with the largest in-flow rate is Leigh High and the school with the largest out- flow rate is Del Mar High. The column for Boynton High includes the students enrolled at Middle College.
January 2017 Page 24
Campbell Union High School District Demographic Study 2016/17 Student Residency and Enrollment Comparison
High Schools Boundary Student Residents & Enrollment Enrollment
2000
1800 1772 1691 1604 1600 1569 1466 1383 1399 1377 1400 1297 1189 1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0 Branham High Del Mar High Leigh High Prospect High Westmont High
This chart compares each individual high school enrollment to the students that reside within the school attendance boundary. Utilizing this data helps make it easy to see which schools have the largest and smallest enrollments as well as which boundaries are most populated. Schools with more students enrolled than those living in the boundary have a net transfer into the school. This is typically found at schools more capacity than the student population living in the boundary.
January 2017 Page 25
Campbell Union High School District Demographic Study 2016/17 District Projections
This graph shows a summary of the projections for the entire District. It shows the current enrollment for 2016/17, the historic enrollment for the past nine (9) years, and the projected enrollment for the next ten (10) years. The end result is a total of 9,139 students in the District in 2026/27.
10 Year Enrollment History & 10 Year Enrollment Projection
9010 9139 8811 8643 8738 8759 8789 8270 8384 8058 7838 7746 7791 7796 7581 7676
7408 7417 7353 7453 Students
9139 8738 8811 8759 8789 9010 8384 8643 8058 8270 7838 7746 7791 7676 7796 7581 7407 7416 7353 7453
07/08 08/09 09/10 10/11 11/12 12/13 13/14 14/15 15/16 16/17 17/18 18/19 19/20 20/21 21/22 22/23 23/24 24/25 25/26 26/27 Year
9-12
January 2017 Page 26
Campbell Union High School District Demographic Study 2016/17 One Year Enrollment Projection Summary
Campbell Union High School District Enrollment Projections YEAR 17/18, 1 Year Proj.
School 9 10 11 12 TOTAL Branham High 501 431 388 344 1,664 Del Mar High 332 281 330 283 1,226 Leigh High 462 432 455 383 1,732 Prospect High 407 412 367 341 1,527 Westmont High 450 418 409 339 1,616 Boynton High 0 5 49 143 197 Middle College 0 0 41 55 96 Totals 2,152 1,979 2,039 1,888 8,058
Current CBEDS 2,018 2,055 1,932 1,791 7,796
Net Change 134 -76 107 97 262
Cohort Change -39 -16 -44
The projection for next year (2017/18) shows an increase of 262 students. The only decline will be in 10th grade. The largest increases will be in 9th and 11th grades.
These projections assume the transfers between schools remain consistent. If changes in facilities, schedules, programs or policies are made then the patterns may be impacted.
January 2017 Page 27
Campbell Union High School District Demographic Study 2016/17
Enrollment Projection Summary by Grade
Campbell Union High School District Enrollment Projection Summary by Grade Current Enrollment Grade 16/17 17/18 18/19 19/20 20/21 21/22 22/23 9 2,018 2,152 2,195 2,206 2,254 2,208 2,243 10 2,055 1,979 2,113 2,157 2,169 2,227 2,181 11 1,932 2,039 1,960 2,102 2,149 2,172 2,232 12 1,791 1,888 2,002 1,919 2,071 2,131 2,155
Total 9-12 7,796 8,058 8,270 8,384 8,643 8,738 8,811
District Totals 7,796 8,058 8,270 8,384 8,643 8,738 8,811
Enrollment Projection Summary by School
Campbell Union High School District Enrollment Projection Summary by School Current Enrollment School 16/17 17/18 18/19 19/20 20/21 21/22 22/23 Branham High 1,604 1,664 1,699 1,768 1,847 1,879 1,946 Del Mar High 1,189 1,226 1,224 1,213 1,261 1,292 1,333 Leigh High 1,691 1,732 1,783 1,782 1,787 1,809 1,783 Prospect High 1,466 1,527 1,604 1,626 1,699 1,707 1,700 Westmont High 1,569 1,616 1,658 1,694 1,730 1,722 1,717 High Totals 7,519 7,765 7,968 8,083 8,324 8,409 8,479
Boynton High 186 197 204 202 214 221 223 Middle College 91 96 98 99 105 108 109 Other Totals 277 293 302 301 319 329 332
District Totals 7,796 8,058 8,270 8,384 8,643 8,738 8,811 Annual Change 262 212 114 259 95 73
January 2017 Page 28
Campbell Union High School District Demographic Study 2016/17
School Facility Utilization
The following chart shows the current and projected utilization rates for each school. It has been color coded with blue representing schools with a utilization rate of under 70%, yellow representing a utilization rate of at least 70% but under 80% and red for the schools that have over 100% utilization.
School Facility Utilization Swing Space 2016/17 2022/23 2016/17 2022/23 District Net Current Projected Current Projected High Schools Classrooms Capacity Capacity Enrollment Enrollment Utilization Utilization Branham High 62 1,786 1,409 1,604 1,946 89.8% 109.0% Del Mar High 55 1,584 1,178 1,189 1,333 75.1% 84.2% Leigh High 70 2,016 1,668 1,691 1,783 83.9% 88.4% Prospect High 62 1,786 1,786 1,466 1,700 82.1% 95.2% Westmont High 69 1,987 1,494 1,569 1,717 79.0% 86.4% Sub-Totals 318 9,158 7,535 7,519 8,479 82.1% 92.6%
Other Schools Boynton High 14 280 280 186 223 66.4% 79.6% Middle College 0 0 0 91 109 Sub-Totals 14 280 280 277 332 98.9% 118.6%
District Totals 332 9,438 7,815 7,796 8,811 82.6% 93.4%
For 2016, the most under-utilized comprehensive high school is Del Mar High and the highest utilization is at Branham High.
Over the next six years, there is a need for 6 additional classrooms at Branham High.
To account for the potential swing space needed during the seismic retrofit projects, the need increases to as many as 36 classrooms assuming the projects are taking place over the next six years. The following chart shows the number of classrooms needed by school assuming no boundaries are changed.
Interim Classrooms School Needed Branham High 19 Del Mar High 5 Leigh High 4 Prospect High 0 Westmont High 8 High School Totals 36
January 2017 Page 29
Campbell Union High School District
January 5, 2016
TO: Board of Trustees
FROM: Nancy Torres Pfeiffer, Assistant Superintendent of Business
PREPARED BY: Nancy Torres Pfeiffer, Assistant Superintendent of Business
SUBJECT: Presentation on Strategic Planning for EV Charging and Energy Storage
FOR: [ ] Public Hearing [X] Recognition/Presentation [ ] Report [ ] Discussion [ ] Communication [ ] Information/First Reading [ ] Consent [ ] Board Action
I. Support Information
On October 20 2016, the Board of Trustees ratified a contract with EcoMotion to conduct an assessment and potential strategic planning to implement EV Charging Stations and Energy Storage Solutions. On November 10th Ted Flannigan from EcoMotion and Matthew Harper from Avalon presented to the Board the potential for these two solutions. The team was given direction to return with a more firm analysis and potential cost to implement these solutions. On January 5th the Board will be presented with cost scenarios and potential timelines for implementation if the Board decides to move forward.
II. Recommendation
No Action Required
6-E-1 Power Outage Protection Campbell Union High School District January 5, 2017 Board Meeting The Goals
• #1 To be able to operate through the school day during power outages
• #2 To be able to serve the community as “PERCs” – powered emergency response centers-- in the event of long-term outages
To realize these goals, CUHSD campuses become microgrids
www.EcoMotion.us Defining Microgrids
A microgrid is a group of interconnected loads and distributed energy resources that acts as a controllable entity with respect to the grid.
A microgrid can connect and disconnect from the grid to enable it to operate in both grid-connected or “island-mode.”
www.EcoMotion.us Distributed Normal Operation Energy Controllable Loads
Energy Electric Microgrid Management Grid Controller System
Critical Loads
Distributed Storage
www.EcoMotion.us Four Fundamental Elements to the Microgrid
1. Distributed Energy – Solar at CUHSD to generate green power
2. Distributed Storage – Flow Batteries to store power for emergencies
3. Energy Management System – to control demand during outages
4. Microgrid Controller – the brains… the master controls
www.EcoMotion.us Distributed During Outage, Energy Power Continues Controllable Loads
Energy Electric Microgrid Management Grid Controller System
Critical Loads
Distributed Storage
www.EcoMotion.us Distributed Energy
• CUHSD installed 3.7 MW of solar in 2012 at a cost of $17 million (Measure G bond funding) • Solar will generate 80 – 90% of CUHSD’s power use for 25 years • Solar is by far the most expensive element of CUHSD’s microgrids
www.EcoMotion.us Distributed Storage -- Batteries Problem: The conventional solution – Conventional Backup Solution: to provide a UPS “backup battery” – is extremely expensive, and includes batteries that have negative environmental footprints.
Avalon’s Backup Solution: Solution: Avalon’s solution is to combine power from both safe, vanadium flow batteries combined + + with solar resources using microgrid controls to provide backup power.
www.EcoMotion.us Battery Sizing 101
• Determine power requirement for full-day school session (8.3 hours) • Evaluate interval data for each site to determine load profiles, peak usage • Back out meters supplying power to tennis courts, sports field lighting • Net out solar generation to determine balance of energy requirement to be fulfilled with energy storage • Size systems for each of five campuses and the District Office to cover load • Identify the risk of shortfalls for CUHSD administrators – engage EMS system to curtail non-essential loads during “perfect storm” periods
www.EcoMotion.us Prospect High School
Site Characteristics: • 2 meters • 622 kW of solar Battery System: • 270 kW power • 675 kWh energy
www.EcoMotion.us Branham High School
Site Characteristics: • 1 meter • 613 kW of solar Battery System: • 150 kW power • 375 kWh energy
www.EcoMotion.us Del Mar High School
Site Characteristics: • 3 meters* • 622 kW of solar Battery System: • 300 kW power • 750 kWh energy
* A fourth meter for the tennis court lighting will not be backed up
www.EcoMotion.us Leigh High School
Site Characteristics: • 1 meter • 570 kW of solar Battery System: • 260 kW power • 650 kWh energy
www.EcoMotion.us Westmont High School
Site Characteristics: • 3 meters* • 529 kW of solar Battery System: • 270 kW power • 675 kWh energy
* Additional meters for the football and baseball field lighting will not be backed up
www.EcoMotion.us District Office
Site Characteristics: • 2 meters • 159 kW of solar Battery System: • 150 kW power • 375 kWh energy
www.EcoMotion.us Battery Sizing and Cost Summary Share of School Days With Average Duration Power Capacity Equipment Estimated Annual 7+ hrs 6-7 hrs 5-6 hrs 4-5 hrs 3-4 hrs 2-3 hrs 1-2 hrs School Meter Annual (hrs) (KW) (kWh) Cost Installation Savings storage storage storage storage storage storage storage O&M Branham 1009304425 2 150 375 $384,375 $82,000 $11,531 $10,104 91% 3% 3% 1% 1% 2% 0% 1009889476 2 210 525 $538,125 $112,000 $16,144 $2,865 88% 6% 2% 4% 1% 0% 0% Del Mar 1009904856 2 30 75 $76,875 $22,000 $2,306 $856 92% 2% 2% 2% 2% 0% 0% 1009903983 4 40 200 $165,000 $47,000 $4,950 $2,170 95% 5% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Leigh 1004576351 2 260 650 $666,250 $137,000 $19,988 $2,758 85% 3% 2% 4% 4% 1% 0% 1009635902 2 220 550 $563,750 $117,000 $16,913 $987 86% 3% 2% 4% 4% 0% 0% Prospect 1009507318 2 50 125 $128,125 $32,000 $3,844 $1,862 82% 6% 4% 8% 1% 0% 0% 1009889317 2 140 350 $358,750 $77,000 $10,763 $11,419 81% 8% 7% 5% 0% 0% 0% District Office 1009275768 2 10 25 $25,625 $12,000 $769 -$21 83% 11% 6% 1% 0% 0% 0% 1009885076 2 210 525 $538,125 $112,000 $16,144 $1,915 87% 2% 3% 4% 2% 1% 0% Westmont 1004576633 2 40 100 $102,500 $27,000 $3,075 $1,554 96% 3% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1006716237 2 20 50 $51,250 $17,000 $1,538 -$24 91% 4% 2% 1% 2% 0% 0% Totals 1380 3550 $3,598,750 $794,000 $107,963 Share of Equipment Costs 22.1% 3.0%
Blackout Risk, Leigh High School Comments Blackouts per year 1 Shortfall hours 77 Hrs where a blackout could have exceeded the battery Share of teaching hours covered 93.9% = (1260-77)/1260 If blackout, chance it will affect teaching hours 0.88% = 77 / 8760 (the number of hrs in a year) Chance that the blackout will outlast the battery 50% Risk of insufficient backup capacity (per blackout) 0.44% = .88% x 50% Battery coverage 99.12% = 100% minus risk of insufficient capacity
www.EcoMotion.us Energy Storage Equipment Overview
• Solution Summary: • 12 battery arrays with integral microgrid control at 6 sites • 1,380 kW of power • 3,550 kWh of energy capacity
Costs: • $3.59 million battery equipment • $794,000 battery installation • $350,000 microgrid controls • Partially offset by market incentives of up to $552,000
www.EcoMotion.us Energy Management System Costs Del Mar $255,000 Westmont $242,100 Leigh $270,600 Branham $252,400 Prospect $282,150 Five schools total $1,302,250 District Office $75,400 Five Schools & District Office Total $1,377,650
www.EcoMotion.us Microgrid Controller: the Brains of the System • Monitors power flows
• Optimizes the “hybrid” system
• Includes hardware and software
• Provides for ongoing management and operations
www.EcoMotion.us EV Chargers Make: Clipper Creek Model: CS-60 Features: 48 Amp EV, 25 ft cable, UL Listed, NEMA 4 Enclosure
Charger Cost: $1,995 each, $25,000 per site Charge Ready Grant of $30,0000 per site Total EV Charging Cost Per Site: $55,000
Access Control Capabilities
Company: Liberty Access Technologies Service: Pay-By-Cell Cost: $6/month fee per charger Cost Recouped through kWh charges paid by users
www.EcoMotion.us Distributed Energy: Solar System already Cost complete Controllable Estimates Loads
Energy EV Charging Electric Microgrid Management System $55,000 Grid Controller per school $113,000 per school $260,450 per school
Critical Loads
Distributed Storage $789,120 per school
www.EcoMotion.us Budget Summary Combined Schools Per School District Offices + Percent of Total District Offices
Distributed Storage $789,120 $438,400 $4,384,000 66%
Energy Management $260,450 $75,400 $1,377,650 20% System Microgrid Controls w/ $118,400 $88,000 $680,000 10% O&M Electric Vehicle Charging $55,000 $55,000 $330,000 5% Trenching and Chargers Gross Cost $1,222,970 $656,800 $6,771,650
EV Charge-Ready Grant -$210,000 -3%
Net Cost $6,561,650 100%
www.EcoMotion.us Potential Revenue Sources
Source kW $/kW Annual Revenue
Demand and Energy Arbitrage $30,000
Utility Demand Response 690 $200 - 400 $138,000 - $207,000
ISO Ancillary Benefits 1,380 $50 - $100 $69,000 - $138,000
Total $237,000 - $375,000
www.EcoMotion.us How We Plan to Pay for It, and Pay it Back!
Qualified Zone Academy Bond One Income-Qualified Site $5,000,000 10% match requirement (General Fund) $500,000 General Fund for Balance $1,061,650 Total Microgrid System Cost $6,561,650
Revenue Annual Revenue Stream (midpoint) $306,000 Total Revenue after 20 years $6,120,000 Total Revenue after 25 years $7,650,000 Total Revenue after 20 years with 2% escalation $7,434,995 Total Revenue after 25 years with 2% escalation $9,801,272
www.EcoMotion.us Additional Benefits
• Fundamentally, during power outages, students stay in school and learn • During extended outages, CUHSD schools become Powered Emergency Response Centers (PERCs), providing community preparedness and resiliency value • CUHSD develops a model for emergency preparedness that can be scaled for regional and national applications
www.EcoMotion.us Potential Storage System Uses and Revenues • Utility Programs Power created on- • Demand response Distributed Energy • Peak period capacity site can be fed back Controllab auctions into the Electric le Loads Grid • ISO Ancillary Services Energy • Frequency regulation up Electric Microgrid Management • Frequency regulation Grid Controller System down • Voltage support • “Black start” Critical Loads
Distributed Storage
www.EcoMotion.us Next Steps If in favor… let’s roll!
• Arrange for staff to manage the process • Add to existing contract w/ EcoMotion as Owner’s Representative • Contract with Avalon to manage microgrid component integration • Pursue 4217 sole-source for flow battery and microgrid controls • Engage in a competitive procurement for EMS • Continue process of securing EV Charge Ready grant • Application and initial site-screening complete • Support in selecting and contracting EMS and EV charger vendors • Oversee installation and commissioning • Establish reporting and verification procedures
www.EcoMotion.us Thank You EcoMotion, Sustainability Solution www.EcoMotion.us [email protected] [email protected]
Campbell Union High School District
January 5, 2017
TO: Board of Trustees
FROM: Nancy Torres Pfeiffer, Assistant Superintendent of Business
PREPARED BY: Nancy Torres Pfeiffer, Assistant Superintendent of Business
SUBJECT: Facilities Bond Implementation Program Presentation
FOR: [ ] Public Hearing [X] Recognition/Presentation [ ] Report [ ] Discussion [ ] Communication [ ] Information/First Reading [ ] Consent [ ] Board Action
I. Support Information
Staff will synthesize the data gathered through the Facilities Master Plan Survey, the Hohbach-Lewin Seismic Evaluation, the SchoolWorks demographic study, the HVAC needs analysis, the Title IX facilities report and the EcoMotion solar proposal into a single plan to address the multiple facilities needs of campuses and present several options for carrying out that plan.
II. Recommendation
No Action Required
6-F-1 CAMPBELL UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT
FACILITIES PROGRAM OVERVIEW
January 5, 2017 • Share with the Board Multiple Data Points to Prioritize Facilities Needs • Share Recommendations for Facility Program Implementation Purpose
• Interactive Board Study Session • No Board Action Structure • Presentations From Multiple Experts and Staff
• Board Provide Direction to Staff • Board to be Informed of Future Board Action Needs Outcome
• From 5:00 to 8:00 p.m. Timing Agenda Facilities Master Plan Prioritization Survey
HVAC Status and Additional District Needs District Wide Seismic Evaluation
Demographic and Enrollment Projections Energy Efficiency Measures
Findings and Recommendations
Survey Category Summary Results
Energy Title Category Survey HVAC Seismic Enrollment Efficience IX M easure Building Improvements 2.430 X X X Technology 2.350 Learning Environment Design 2.270 X X CTE 2.190 X X Energy Efficiency M easures 2.140 X X Campus Improvements 2.100 X X X X Athletic Facilities Improvements 2.070 X X Landscaping 2.000 X Campus Safety Improvements 1.890 X X
Findings From Multiple Data Points
Seismic Retrofit Approximately 50% of Building District wide: Gymnasiums Library Administration Building Classrooms Science Labs Student Services Cafeterias Music Rooms
Modernize Buildings District Wide: HVAC Implementation Additional Bathrooms Water Bottle Stations Improve Signage Landscaping Outdoor Seating Improve Drop Off and Parking
Create a 21st Century Learning Environment: STEM Rooms Makerspace Physical Science Lab Technology Lab Wet Chemistry Lab CTE Classrooms Enlarge Classrooms Improve Classroom Furniture
Findings From Multiple Data Points
Centralize Student Services: Administration Building Library College and Career Centers Student Services Student Union Student Store
Upgrade Technology District Wide: Expand Wi-Fi Connectivity Chromebook Charging Capabilities Increase Number of Chromebooks Add Interactive Projectors Upgrade Projectors Add Document Cameras Add Touch Screens to Enhance Teaching and Learning
Implement Energy Saving Measures Store Solar Energy for Emergency Use Increase LED Lighting DW Provide Electric Car Charging Stations Implement New Energy Management System
Findings From Multiple Data Points- continues
Upgrade Sports Facilities Enlarge and Increase Depth of Swimming Pools Repair Softball and Baseball Fields Enlarge Gymnasiums Replace Deteriorated Astroturf Replace Old Press Boxes Upgrade Sound and Technology Display Systems Upgrade Locker-room Facilities Tennis Courts Add Storage
Improve Campus Safety Add More Security Cameras Limit Campus Access Points Emergency Notification System Improve Outdoor Lighting Digital Marquee
Remove All Tripping Hazards District Wide
Improve All ADA Accessibility
Remove Old Portable Build
Seismically Retrofit Buildings Create Swing Space
Options
1. Install More Portable Buildings
2. Install Modular Buildings
3. Install Prefabricated Buildings
4. Construct New Buildings
Seismically Retrofit Buildings Create Swing Space-continue
Option Limitations
1. Install More Temporary Portable Buildings a) Take too much space b) Too many on campus already c) Never temporary d) Only one story
2. Install Modular Buildings a) Still Considered Portable Buildings (DSA) b) Shorter Lifespan than a Prefabricated or New Construction Building c) Ongoing Maintenance and Repairs
3. Construct New Buildings a. Design, DSA and construction process too long b. Potential for Change Order to high c. Potential Construction Delays d. Only 50 Year Lifespan
4. Install Prefabricated Buildings a) Exterior Design Limitations
Seismically Retrofit Buildings Create Swing Space-continue
Option Benefits
1. Install More Temporary Portable Buildings a) No Architectural Building Design Needed b) Faster to install
2. Install Modular Buildings a) Some Architectural Building Design Needed b) Some Modular Building have DSA pre-approval c) Faster to install
3. Construct New Buildings a) Custom Design
4. Install Prefabricated Buildings a) Steel and Concrete Buildings (no termites or rotting) b) 100 Year Lifespan c) No Change Order –Guarantied d) DSA Pre-Approved Design for Standard Building e) Faster to Install f) Considered Permanent Buildings by DSA g) Custom Room Design h) Less expensive than permanent buildings Two Story 20,000 sq. ft. Permanent Building (12 Classrooms)
Stick Frame Buildings Hard Cost $600 sq. ft. 20,000 sq. ft. building $12,000,000 Soft Cost 27% of Hard Cost $ 3,240,000 Total Cost $14,400,000
Prefabricated Steel/Concrete Permanent Buildings Hard Cost $325 sq. ft. 20,000 sq. ft. building $6,500,000 Soft Cost 14% of Hard Cost $ 910,000 Total Cost $7,410,000
Prefabricated Steel Building Cost Savings $6,990,000 Seismically Retrofit Buildings Create Swing Space-continue
Recommendation
Centralize Student Services into Two Story Prefabricated Permanent Buildings to Create Swing Space
Districts Using Prefabricated Buildings
Lincoln Elementary School Garfield Elementary School Washington Elementary School William Northrup Elementary School Alhambra Unified School District Lynwood Unified School District Montebello High School East Palo Alto Academy Montebello Unified School District Sequoia Union High School District Columbus Elementary School Little Mountain Elementary School Glendale Unified School District Middle College High School Washington Elementary School Hawthorne School District Lincoln Elementary School Leuzinger High School Muscoy Elementary School Centinela Valley Union High School Vermont Elementary School District San Bernardino City Unified School Pomona Unified School District (In District Progress) Washington Elementary School
Move the Library, Student Services, Admin Building, add College Career Center and Student Union to Two Story Building to Create Swing Space Move the Library, Science Building, Admin Building, Add College and Career Center and Student Union to Two Story Building to Create Swing Space Move the Library, Admin Building, Student Services Add College and Career Center and Student Union to Two Story Building to Create Swing Space Add Two Story Building to Add College and Career Center, Student Union, Administration, Student Services Move the Library, Admin Building, Student Services, add College and Career Center and Student Union to Two Story Building to Create Swing Space Identify Unused Classrooms for Swing Space and Schedule Seismic Repairs During Summer Breaks
Construction Projects Waiting List
Building K- Cafeteria Prospect
Music Room Del Mar
CTE-Biotech Building Del Mar
Press Boxes • Branham, Del Mar and Westmont
Non-DSA Projects Managed In-house
Technology Infrastructure Upgrades
Install Exhaust Fan for Westmont Copier Room
Forced Air Exhaust Fans for 2 Science Labs at Leigh
Extend bicycle racks
Remove Wall in Library Between Two Small Offices
Add Water Downspout missing at Westmont Building A (possible Underground Erosion)
Gum Removal District Wide
Student Restroom Repairs
Repair Football Fields, Tracks, Baseball and Softball Fields
Add Door at AD Office at Del Mar
Remove and Replace Drinking Fountains with new Bottle Fillers
Remove Conex Boxes District Wide
Remove Old Portables
Construction Program Execution Options
1. Use Consultants a) Program Management Firm b) Construction Management Firm
2. Manage Program In-house
Contracted Construction Management Services Cost
District Bond $275,000,000 Pay-off COP -16,000,000 Balance $259,000,000
Program Management 3% $ 7,770,000 Construction Management 7% $ 18,130,000 $ 25,900,000 In-house Construction Management Services Cost
Program Manager Cost – No Cost
6 Full Time Employees $ 870,000
Annual Software and Miscellanies Cost $ 200,000 Total Annual Cost $1,070,000
Six-year Cost Including COLA $8,346,000
Bond Program Savings
Program Management $ 7,770,000
Construction Management $ 9,784,000 ($18,130,000-$8,346,000) $17,554,000
Districts Managing Construction Programs In-house
Berryessa Union School District
Hartnell Comunitu College District
Franklin-McKinley School District
Santa Cruz City School District
Pajaro Valley Unified School District
San Juan Bautista School District
North Monterey County School District
Campbell Elementary School District
Las Lomitas School District
San Mateo Community College District
Santa Rosa Jr. College
Facilities Department Team
Assistant Superintendent Business Program Manager Responsible for developing the construction implementation master plan as well as the securing all funding sources to complete the construction projects.
Facilities Director Implementation Manager Implements the construction master plan as well as all of the in-house non DSA projects. Also represents the District at construction meetings.
Construction Manager Represents the District at construction meetings. Resolves issues between the architect and general contractor. Tracks change orders, RFI’s works on CCD’s.
Facilities Department Team- Continued
Facilities Coordinator Track ALL projects including timelines, cash flow, coordinate access to facilities for contractors, subcontractors, etc. Will manage e-Builder Software.
Contract Specialist Responsible for RFP’s, RFQ, public notices, contract review, prequalification process. Manage software Quality Builders System.
Budget Analyst Position will handle all of the accounting, reporting requirements and Bond Compliance reporting using Capital Facilities Financial Management System.
FACILITIES DEPARTMENT TEAM
Assistant Superintendent Business (1 FTE) Existing Position
Facilities Director (1FTE) Existing Position
Construction Manager Facilities Coordinator (2 FTE) New Position (1 FTE) New Position
Contract Specialist (1 FTE) New Position
Budget Analyst (I FTE) Existing Position January 19th Board Meeting Potential Board Action
Job Descriptions: Construction Manager (2 FTE) Facilities Coordinator (1 FTE) Contract Specialist (1 FTE)
Contracts: e-Builder Software Quality Builders System Capital Facilities Financial Management System Structural Engineer Contract Hazards Material Inspection for Seismic Retrofit (asbestos and lead) Eco-Motion Contract Avalon Contract
Questions
Nancy Pfeiffer Assistant Superintendent Business
Eric Wasinger John Keating Facilities Director Technology Director