COMPREHENSIVE MAINTENANCE PLAN FOR EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES
Table of Contents
I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... 1 I.A. The Challenge ...... 1 I.B. Near-Term Focus and Recent Achievement ...... 3 I.C. Long-Term Focus and Strategic Shift ...... 5 II. STRATEGIC INTENT AND PRIMARY OBJECTIVES ...... 9 II.A. Transform Long-Term Capital Strategy ...... 9 II.A.1. State Initiatives Driving a Change in Strategy ...... 9 II.A.2. FCPS Circumstances Driving a Change in Strategy ...... 10 II.A.3. FCPS Maintenance Department Perspective on a Revised Capital Strategy ...... 10 II.B. Alignment with State Directives and Guidance ...... 21 II.B.1. Regulatory CMP Requirements ...... 21 II.B.2. Procedural CMP Requirements ...... 22 II.C. Staff Development and Career Progression ...... 24 II.C.1. Quarterly Professional Development ...... 24 II.C.2. Foundations in Leadership ...... 25 II.C.3. Career Progression ...... 26 II.C.4. Certifications ...... 27 II.C.5. Paying It Forward and Student Interns ...... 27 II.C.6. Apprentice Program ...... 28 III. FACILITY PORTFOLIO COMPENDIUM ...... 29 III.A. Facility Quantity and Cumulative Area ...... 29 III.B. Facility Additions and Renovations ...... 30 III.C. Open Space Schools ...... 31 III.D. Facility Age ...... 32 III.D.1. Facility Age for the FCPS Portfolio - ...... 32 III.D.2. Placing FCPS Facility Age into a State-Wide Context - ...... 33 III.E. Facility Condition ...... 34 III.E.1. Maryland Condition Index ...... 35 III.E.2. FCPS Maintenance Facility Condition Index ...... 36 III.F. Composite Perspective (Facility Age and Facility Condition) ...... 41 III.G. Impact on Student Achievement ...... 42 III.H. Portfolio Recommendations ...... 43 IV. Maintenance and Operations Organization ...... 45 IV.1. Personnel Organization ...... 45 IV.1.A. Building Maintenance Branch ...... 45 IV.1.B. Maintenance Projects and Grounds ...... 47 IV.1.C. Custodial Services ...... 47 IV.1.D. Environmental Compliance and Occupational Health ...... 48 IV.1.E. Utilities and Solid Waste Management ...... 48 IV.2. Personnel Deployment ...... 48 V. Maintenance and Operations Funding ...... 49 V.1. Facilities Operations and Maintenance ...... 49 V.2. Custodial Services ...... 50 V.3. Energy Management and Recycling ...... 51 VI. Maintenance and Operations Work Processing ...... 51 VII. Maintenance and Operations Procedures ...... 52 VII.1. Planned Maintenance ...... 52 Predictive Maintenance ...... 52 Preventive Maintenance ...... 53 Inspection ...... 53 Corrective Maintenance ...... 54 VII.2. Unplanned Maintenance ...... 54 Emergency Response ...... 54 Routine Repair ...... 55 Customer Service Requests ...... 55 VII.3. Renovation and Upgrade ...... 56 VIII. Awards ...... 57 APPENDIX A – MAINTENANCE COST BY SCHOOL...... 59 APPENDIX B – ADMINISTRATIVE/SUPPORT BUILDINGS...... 63 APPENDIX C – ADDITION AND RENOVATION ...... 64 APPENDIX D – BUILDING AGE ANALYSIS ...... 65 APPENDIX E – FACILITY CONDITION INDEX ...... 67 APPENDIX F – SCHOOL FACILITY CONDITIONS AND STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT ...... 68 APPENDIX G – BUILDING SYSTEM EXPECTED LIFESPAN ...... 70 School Building Acronyms ...... 72
BOARD OF EDUCATION OF FREDERICK COUNTY
Brad Young, President Jay Mason, Vice President Liz Barrett, Board Member Michael Bunitsky, Board Member Rae Gallagher, Board Member Lois Jarman, Board Member Karen Yoho, Board Member Mia Martinez, Student Board Member
SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS Dr. Theresa R. Alban
DIVISION OF OPERATIONS Paul Lebo, Chief Operating Officer Robert Wilkinson, Director of Maintenance and Operations Curtis Orndorff, Building Maintenance Manager Gary Barkdoll, Maintenance Projects and Grounds Manager Larry Phillips, Custodial Services Manager Laura Olsen, Environmental Compliance and Occupational Health Manager
FCPS does not discriminate based on race, religion, color, national origin, age, marital status, disability, sexual orientation, gender identity, sex or genetic information as outlined in Policy 309.
We maintain the optimal learning environment I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY I.A. The Challenge One objective of this document is to illustrate an unceasing increase in the maintenance burden presented by a facility portfolio that is both aging and expanding. To begin, Frederick County’s population has increased dramatically over the last half-century, with growth progressing at a percentage increase treble that for the entire state of Maryland. State planning estimates call for the trend to continue.
7,000,000 350,000
6,000,000 300,000
5,000,000 250,000
4,000,000 200,000 State of Maryland - 3,000,000 150,000 Frederick County, MD County, Frederick
Average 25% – 2,000,000 Decade 8% 100,000 Increase
Population 1,000,000 50,000
- - Population 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 Decade
As population grows, Frederick County Public Schools (FCPS) student enrollment increases commensurately. FCPS enrollment for 2020 is nearly 45,000 students, an increase of more than 1,000 students over the year before. To gain perspective, consider that the average FCPS middle-school capacity is 980 students. This tremendous influx of students poses a daunting challenge for facilities management.
With respect to near-term capital planning, the urgency for new construction to accommodate burgeoning enrollment supersedes the competing urgency for capital renewal. Therein lies an enduring dilemma for FCPS – with such a large portion of capital resources concentrated on growth, how much longer can we ensure an optimal learning environment given the aging portfolio of school buildings?
The State of Maryland Interagency Commission on School Construction (IAC) asserts that prudent facility-lifecycle milestones include 30-year facility modernization, and 60-year facility replacement. Modernization – renovate existing facilities, improving physical condition and educational sufficiency Replacement – replace existing facilities in their entirety.
1 | Page
CAPITAL RENEWAL When evaluating our facilities within this paradigm, we find that 27 schools are candidates for modernization, and 12 schools are candidates for replacement. This backlog tally does not include the Urbana Elementary School replacement that will open in the 2021 school year. It does New Modernization Replacement Years include 13 schools that are programmed in the 2019 CIP 0 30 60 Plan, but that are not funded.
This is a tremendous capital renewal backlog, estimated to represent a cost of $1 billion. The table below illustrates this backlog using typical construction costs, and assuming that modernization projects are typically 40% of replacement cost. Actual costs (including design, furniture and equipment, and land acquisition, if necessary) would be higher. This high-level analysis is based on 30-year modernization and 60-year replacement paradigm, and does not consider other factors that may preclude individual school buildings from undergoing such capital-renewal activity.
Modernization Backlog Replacement Backlog Unit Cost Total Cost Unit Cost Total Cost Quantity Quantity ($M) ($M) ($M) ($M) Elementary School 13 $ 16.0 $ 208 9 $ 40 $ 360 Middle School 5 $ 17.6 $ 88 3 $ 44 $ 132 High School 5 $ 32.0 $ 160 0 $ 80 $ - Other Schools 4 $ 16.0 $ 64 0 $ 40 $ - Total 27 $ 520 12 $ 492
The long-term interests of FCPS are best served by enacting a facility management strategy that accommodates growth in the most cost-effective means, and that channels the remaining capital resources to accelerate capital renewal for our aged school buildings. In the past, capital maintenance (i.e., systemics) was a key component in our ongoing maintenance strategy, seeking to proactively replace important, aged building systems before their eventual failure. Given the capital renewal backlog, capital maintenance must now be curtailed to the largest degree possible.
Capital Maintenance (systemics): replace aged building systems within an existing facility. Systems that are 17 year and older, with replacement cost greater than $100,000. In lieu of capital maintenance, we now contend that it best to operate and maintain existing building systems for as long as possible. We propose to avoid capital maintenance all together, if possible – enacting capital repair or replacement only when a building system’s availability impedes building occupancy, or when system repair becomes practically or economically infeasible. The aim must be to maintain systems until they can be replaced under a planned, capital renewal project. Continued, effective maintenance will ensure that building systems operate for as long as practicable, and contingency plans will help to ensure that the duration and impact of failed building systems will have minimal impact on the learning environment.
2 | Page
I.B. Near-Term Focus and Recent Achievement Over 44,000 students now rely on the Maintenance and Operations Department to maintain the optimal learning environment. FCPS schools remain safe, reliable, and welcoming, due to the efforts of our dedicated maintenance, custodial, and capital program teams.
In this document we describe the strategy and methodology used by the Maintenance and Operations Department to support the delivery of educational programs in a safe and healthy environment. We provide data derived from our computerized maintenance management system (CMMS) that demonstrates the effectiveness of these methods, and in particular how our maintenance program has successfully extended the lifespan of building systems, while also responding to the evolving needs of our students and staff. FCPS anticipates that its past success, and its ongoing commitment to a dynamic maintenance program, will reinforce the State of Maryland’s confidence in committing future capital funds towards sustaining our school building portfolio.
FCPS employs a CMMS named Asset Essentials, as do seventy percent (70%) of Maryland’s LEAs. Asset Essentials supports the planning, execution, and reporting for planned maintenance (preventive, predictive) and unplanned work (corrective, customer service requests). This software is also in widespread use by K-12 systems worldwide. When compared with the performance of 3,418 total users, FCPS is found to be three times more proficient in work processing and recordkeeping.
Two common metrics (i.e., work orders per student, work orders per 1,000 square-feet) give perspective on our intent, and ability, to assign and track maintenance resources. FCPS is in the top echelon of user accountability as shown in the charts below. CMMS Key Performance Indicators
Top 20% of users Top 20% of users Median Median
FCPS
Work Orders per Student Work Orders per 1,000 sq-ft Independent assessment of the maintenance program’s efficacy can be derived from the State of Maryland IAC’s annual maintenance assessments. The FY19 assessment report identifies FCPS as one of only three local education agencies (LEA) that have achieved all “superior” or “good” ratings in school building assessments conducted over the past five years. The FY20 annual report has yet to be released.
We must note that the IAC, starting in July 2020, has dramatically transformed their facility assessment process and associated metrics. FCPS has found the new assessment to be much more rigorous and acute when compared to past assessments. We fully expect that our FY2021 assessments will result in collective rating of “good” for the 36 schools assessed this year. While this result is less than that achieved under the previous assessment process, the “good” rating is above State’s targeted baseline of
3 | Page
“adequate” which implies that FCPS is meeting and exceeding the State’s expectations for program viability and results. The State has provided recommendations for improvement, both with respect to individual building conditions and process quality-assurance, that FCPS will endeavor to rectify.
This level of facility maintenance demands substantial investment from both the Frederick County Government and the State of Maryland. Our Board of Education continues to support both the needs and initiatives of a robust maintenance program. The FCPS operating budget allocation for maintenance ranks 15th (from lowest to highest) out of the State’s 24 LEAs in expenditure per student – only 9 LEAs allocate more funding per student for the operation and maintenance of their buildings. FCPS ranks 16th (from lowest to highest) in allocation based on cost per square foot.
We are now in our fourth year of focused, professional development. Our quarterly training programs continue to offer sessions in trade proficiency, cultural proficiency, leadership, and wellness. This year we launched the first, annual Foundations in Leadership Academy to broaden our leadership capacity. Fifteen employees applied, and were accepted into this new program. Training topics explored by the Academy include emergency planning and response, budget and procurement, data analytics, and critical thinking and decision-making. We intend to further expand our efforts to include trades apprenticeship in response to current and projected dearth in qualified candidates for critical trades positions.
4 | Page
I.C. Long-Term Focus and Strategic Shift As stated above, capital funding has largely been consumed by new construction projects. In the last 30 years, FCPS has constructed 22 new schools, and 25 additions. In that same period of time, FCPS has executed only 2 modernization, and 5 school replacement projects. Modernization projects include: Governor Thomas Johnson HS, and West Frederick MS. Replacement projects include: Linganore HS, Lincoln ES, North Frederick ES, Frederick HS, and Urbana ES.
Year New Construction Capital Renewal Entire Schools Facility Addition Modernize Replace Affected 1991 2 1992 1 1 1993 1 2 1994 1 1995 2 1 1996 1 1997 1 1998 1 2 1999 1 2000 1 3 1 GTJHS 2001 2 2002 1 2 2003 1 2004 2 2005 1 1 2006 1 3 2007 2008 1 2 2009 1 2010 2 1 1 WFMS/LHS 2011 2 2012 1 1 LNES 2013 2014 1 NFES 2015 1 2016 2017 1 FHS 2018 2 2019 2020 1 UES Total 22 25 2 5
As shown above, FCPS has performed a total of 7 capital renewal projects in the last 30 years. Given that we have over 60 schools, Underlying Objective - and also that 30-year modernization and 60-year replacement is a Modernize or Replace recommended paradigm, we can approximate that FCPS should be 2 schools a year performing 2 capital renewal projects annually.
5 | Page
Intense preventive maintenance and capital maintenance have allowed FCPS to sustain older school buildings. However, this approach to facility management is ultimately unsustainable. There are several inescapable circumstances that are likely to preclude a successful outcome for our current strategy regarding capital planning and maintenance. These circumstances, described below, indicate a pressing need to alter strategy, as the continued postponement of capital renewal can have dire effect: • The inevitable failure of nonrenewable building systems – there are building systems, such as interior and exterior structure, and concealed utilities, that cannot reasonably be repaired, or replaced, absent a capital renewal project. Aged electrical distribution systems, along with water and sewer systems, cannot be replaced or upgraded during a minor renovation. The failure of these systems will disrupt instruction, and necessitate expensive, unplanned repairs. • Overwhelming capital maintenance needs – FCPS has successfully employed a maintenance strategy that extends the life of buildings systems beyond their projected lifespan. The adverse result of this life extension is that the estimate to replace all of the building systems beyond their projected lifespans is now $486 million. This capital maintenance backlog (also referred to as “deferred maintenance”) is projected to double Deferred Maintenance Projections in the next twenty years. We lack the $1,200M
capital resources 1,017,574,569 $1,000M necessary to 915,936,278 eliminate our capital $800M 788,707,246 maintenance backlog. Conversely, 634,067,439 $600M if we simply resort 486,338,824 to a reactive $400M response (address building systems as $200M they fail), we are likely to exhaust our $0 limited capital FY2021 FY2026 FY2031 FY2036 FY2041 resources enacting untimely, improvident, and expensive repairs. In many cases, such reactive repairs will be enacted within facilities that are nearing or exceeding their ultimate lifespan – so these repairs will represent lamentable sunk costs. • Operating budget limitations – continuous postponement of capital renewal will transfer a corrective-maintenance burden to the operating budget that cannot be fiscally sustained. • Compliance and suitability – continued, relentless maintenance can sustain building occupancy and functioning for quite some time. However, aging buildings amass deficiencies with respect to code compliance, energy efficiency, and educational sufficiency. The buildings remain safe to occupy, but they fail to meet the comprehensive needs of the occupants. Aged buildings, absent modernization, will eventually fail to meet the occupants’ needs. The FCPS capital funding strategy is complex for many reasons, including the fact that the Frederick County Government forward-funds school construction to accelerate our ability to accommodate student population growth. The end result is that capital funding and capital expenditure, on an annual basis, can vary greatly from year to year – in deference to both funding capacity and construction schedules.
6 | Page
For the sake of simple analysis, let’s assume that both State and local capital funding could be provided in a constant funding stream – the same amount every year. For illustrative purposes, let’s assume a total annual CIP funding level of $50 million, an amount greater than expected, but convenient for illustrative calculations. More detailed information is provided below.
Note: This table provides an approximated, 10- Funding Source Annual Allocation year average of CIP funding. While providing State CIP 25,000,000 insight into funding delineation and proportion, Local CIP 16,000,000 these numbers are greater than FCPS would State Systemics 3,800,000 normally expect, as the past decade’s funding Local Systemics 2,200,000 includes financial dynamics associated with Local Portables 700,000 forward-funding and impact fees, combined with State ASP 200,000 the reimbursement for large construction projects. Total: $47,900,000
Currently the cost to construct a new elementary school is approximately $46 million (including design, construction, furniture and equipment; exclusive of any land purchase, if necessary). Therefore, the construction of one new elementary school effectively consumes 92% of this abstract capital fund allocation (i.e., $50 million). Over time, that leaves little capital-funding balance to enact capital renewal or capital maintenance projects.
If we are to further assume that a modernization project costs 40% of the cost of a replacement project, then an elementary school modernization is estimated to cost $18.4 million. As shown below, if FCPS received $50 million annually, and constructs one new elementary school or replaces one elementary school annually, it will take 5 years to accumulate a sufficient funding balance to modernize one elementary school (i.e., $18.4 million). As stated above, it should be underlying objective to modernize or replace two of our existing schools every year – the current CIP funding level cannot support this underlying objective. Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Steady-Stream Annual CIP Allocation ($M) 50 50 50 50 50 New or Replacement ES Construction Cost ($M) -46 -46 -46 -46 -46 CIP Balance for ES Modernization ($M) 4 4 4 4 4 20 + + + +
The last approved CIP plan (included in the June 2020 Educational Facilities Master Plan) includes what may prove to be an overly optimistic funding profile, but the positive aspect is that the plan includes planned modernization projects that were uncommon in FCPS CIP plans of the past. FCPS is projecting that the state and local government will not have access to dramatically-increased capital funds in the near term, so we must look for other means to accelerate capital renewal projects. This document discusses action that exhibits a near-term shift in strategy, and examines other strategic decisions and actions that may be prudent to enact in the long-term.
For FCPS to sustain a viable (and reasonably maintainable) school facility portfolio, it must devise a capital planning schema that can accommodate enrollment growth while accelerating the modernization and replacement of aged school buildings. We presuppose that there are three primary
7 | Page
foci to a revised capital-planning schema - listed in order of complexity, from least to greatest: 1) reduce the size of new and replacement school buildings, 2) reduce the unit cost (i.e., $/square-foot) of new, replacement, and modernized school buildings, and 3) strategically consolidate students into new or modernized school buildings, and close aged, or underutilized school buildings.
FCPS must also continue with its funding and execution of a vigorous maintenance program. In the near-term, an effective maintenance program allows aging school buildings to serve as viable centers for education. In the long-term, the IAC has stated an affinity for future, financial incentives that recognize effective LEA construction and maintenance, when such techniques have served to reduce the overall total cost of ownership.
Our Department endeavors to continue with an innovative and effective maintenance program that maintains the optimal learning environment for FCPS students. We are thankful for the continued commitment of financial resources from both the State and County government, as well as the commensurate budget allocations via the Board of Education. We also appreciate the inspiration and reassurance that we receive from our Superintendent, the Board of Education, and the Interagency Commission on School Construction.
8 | Page
II. STRATEGIC INTENT AND PRIMARY OBJECTIVES
This section discusses the Department’s overall strategy to satisfy the State requirements and objectives for school maintenance and operations. Also included are discussion of plans and activities designed to uphold the Board of Education’s aspirational goals with respect to student achievement, employee development and achievement, strategic resource allocation, community engagement, and wellness and safety.
II.A. Transform Long-Term Capital Strategy Both the IAC and school construction workgroups charged by the State legislature seek to address and reverse the current trend of an aging, school-building portfolio. The FCPS school building portfolio mirrors the State’s overall trend of persistently aging school buildings. This section of the document reviews the circumstances driving change for FCPS, and examines both short- and long-term actions to reverse the deleterious trends.
II.A.1. State Initiatives Driving a Change in Strategy The cumulative, capital needs at the State level is great, and it is growing. The State continues to formulate strategic concepts, policies, and procedures that work collaboratively with LEA strategies to foster sustainable school facility management. Recently, the State’s Workgroup on the Assessment and Funding of School Facilities stressed the importance of controlling, and possibly curtailing, the total cost of ownership (TCOA) that may be achieved either through reductions in square footage, selection of efficient systems or materials, or a combination of both. The State is unlikely to stipulate and enforce TCOA criterion, as they recognize the LEAs independent authority to define and pursue their own capital construction objectives. Regardless of its incipiency or advocacy, a strategy that minimizes TCOA would appear to be a critical component to any strategy formulated in response to our current situation.
Total Cost of Ownership Total direct and indirect cost of purchasing and size maintaining a facility over its useful lifetime $/sf
The IAC has also expressed a desire to prioritize capital renewal Capital over capital maintenance. Simply, this means that to the largest $ degree possible, the targeted focus for State capital funding must Maintenance be on facility modernization and replacement, and not on systemics. Our Department believes that this is one prudent step, $ Capital among others, that must be considered to ensure the long-term Renewal sustainment of our facility portfolio.
9 | Page
II.A.2. FCPS Circumstances Driving a Change in Strategy Physical Condition – Despite the introduction of new school buildings, and the replacement of several older school buildings, the average age of FCPS school buildings within the entire Average building portfolio continues to increase. As buildings age, their Age physical condition will deteriorate, and we will eventually be faced with decreased availability, reliability, and maintainability. No amount of maintenance activity can preclude a building’s Educational Sufficiency ultimate demise. Detailed information on our school building portfolio, including building age, is presented later in this document.
Educational Sufficiency - The State will soon perform a statewide, Educational Sufficiency Evaluation school facilities assessment to Building (structure/plumbing/electrical/HVAC/safety) determine each facility’s ability to Classroom (adequate area/space/condition) satisfy the physical conditions and Site (adequate area/equipment/security) educational suitability as defined in the Maryland Public School Facilities Educational Sufficiency Standards. This is a more comprehensive assessment that looks at a school building’s ability to house students in a safe and healthful environment, while also providing the amenities and environmental conditions necessary for effective instruction. It is highly probable that some of FCPS’ school buildings will be found wanting with respect to these Sufficiency Standards.
Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) Backlog - In the recent past, FCPS has worked collaboratively with the Frederick County Government and the State of Maryland IAC, developing a CIP strategy that struck a precarious balance between competing needs - new construction, capital renewal, capital maintenance, and portable structures. Sustained periods of enrollment growth promoted the need for new construction, as well as the procurement and relocation of portable structures. Capital renewal funding has been understandably constrained, while the capital program awaits the abatement of enrollment growth. As abatement of student population growth appears improbable, and the backlog of capital renewal needs continues expanding, there is cause to alter strategy so that necessary capital renewal is not perpetually relegated to an unattainable objective.
II.A.3. FCPS Maintenance Department Perspective on a Revised Capital Strategy In the past, our department had become accustomed to simply identifying and prioritizing capital maintenance (or “systemic”) projects, in hopes of championing for, and receiving the funds necessary to replace what were deemed mission-critical systems. This simple approach avoided facing two looming issues: 1) the quantity of projects requested always exceeded the quantity funded, 2) piecemeal replacement of system components (e.g., boilers and chillers) may permit systems to continue operating, but could not ensure the overall efficiency or effectiveness of the system overall.
10 | Page
Over time, we have become more comfortable with the prospect of sustaining school buildings without planned capital maintenance. Given the current status or our aging portfolio, we agree that strategic change is necessary. In this section, we explore the rationale for enacting change in strategic thinking with respect to capital maintenance (systemics), capital renewal (facility modernization and replacement), and school building consolidation and closure.
II.A.3.1. Minimize Capital Maintenance - It may appear counterintuitive for Maintenance to advocate for the curtailment of capital maintenance, but we do so. In the past, the proactive replacement of aged building systems, prior to failure, has been a fundamental element of our strategy. In hindsight, this was an overly-conservative approach. Many of our systems were designed with durability in mind, and focused maintenance allowed many building systems to operate effectively long after their expected lifespan.
FCPS must be more judicious in its capital maintenance spending, and must be willing to accept lower standards in reliability, availability, and maintainability. We must never sacrifice occupant safety, but some short-term facility-management ambitions must be abandoned in favor of the long-term viability of our entire facility portfolio.
For the foreseeable future, capital maintenance projects must only be those that are necessary to allow a school facility to function safely, and effectively, until a scheduled, facility modernization or replacement. Ideally, the plan for each school building would result in all systems reaching their end-of- life at the time of facility renewal (i.e., modernization or replacement).
Adapting to this new strategy, without experiencing marked decrease in availability, demands three preemptive actions: 1. Critical Systemic identification, assessment, prioritization – Maintenance- and repair data analytics and experienced FCPS field technicians need to identify Capital Maintenance degraded building systems, such as roof sections, that Strategy Shift can no longer support safe or healthful building occupancy. FCPS must address such critical systems using capital maintenance funds, if necessary, with the intent of extending the systems lifespan until the next Proactive capital renewal milestone (i.e., 30-year modernization, Replacement or 60-year replacement). This may require a departure of critical, from our past practice in which we endeavor to design failing systems and build highly-durable systems, and replace in-kind. It makes no sense to replace an aging roof with one that has an expected 30-year lifespan, when we anticipate replacing the facility in less than 30 years. Emergency 2. Contingency plans and logistics – Without proactive Repair or replacement, it is likely that we may experience Replacement increased failure of equipment. The impact of Proactive equipment failure will depend on the type and scope of Replacement service provided by the failed equipment. For example, it’s relatively easy for a school administrator
11 | Page
to adapt to the temporary loss of one, or even several, classrooms due to a mechanical failure. However, the loss of central plant equipment (e.g., boiler, chiller) will be disruptive to instruction for an entire school building. When faced with the failure of a building system serving an entire building, we cannot accept prolonged downtime. We are continually developing and refining the technical, logistical, and procurement processes necessary to compensate for the loss of a critical system. A timely response to equipment failure may entail both temporary capability, such as chiller rental, as well as the timely and cost-effective permanent repair or replacement. In the past we have successfully handled such situations without sustained impact on instruction (e.g., electrical switchgear failure at Catoctin High School, Middletown High School, and Kemptown Elementary School; chiller failure at Oakdale Middle School) – in all of these situations we were able to restore equipment operation with minimal, to no, impact on instruction. 3. Emergency Systemic funding – We have worked collaboratively with Frederick County Government staff to incorporate a contingency component into the annual CIP program. An allocation of $0.7 million is set aside for emergency systemic projects, so that FCPS does not have to rely on limited, operating-budget contingency funds to respond to major repairs in a timely manner. For the County to allocate such funding for future, unidentified projects demonstrates noteworthy confidence and conviction shared between the County and FCPS. This table summarizes capital expenditures for completed projects, exclusive of new construction, over a 28-year (i.e., 1990-2017) period. Sources of funding for these projects included State and Local CIP funds, as well as QZAB and ASP grants.
Project Type Qty Cost Improvements $ 42,154,086 Regulatory (ADA/asbestos) 15 $ 3,798,214 Electrical Generator 4 $ 987,996 Instructional Improvements 13 $ 6,183,556 Roadway (traffic, parking) 12 $ 3,561,606 Security Improvements 5 $ 1,468,257 Stadium Lighting 3 $ 583,622 Technology 65 $ 25,570,835 Portables $ 19,838,855 Systemics $ 69,461,059 Electrical/Lighting 6 $ 1,300,345 Flooring 27 $ 4,195,305 HVAC (including fuel tanks) 117 $ 32,700,136 Life Safety 3 $ 524,855 Playgrounds 21 $ 1,508,874 Roof 79 $ 22,275,870 Athletics (tennis courts, tracks, lighting) 23 $ 4,006,641 Structural (underground vault, masonry) 4 $ 470,421 Water (storage tanks, piping) 4 $ 667,453 Window/Door 17 $ 1,811,159 Grand Total: $ 131,454,000 In hindsight, it’s worth considering whether some of these projects could have been delayed until a modernization or replacement, and whether some of the project funding could have otherwise been pooled together to enact a modernization or replacement in a number of schools. Many projects were
12 | Page
required, and all were advisable. However, if given our awareness of the current situation, it is worthwhile to consider how changing focus from systemics to limited renovation would have changed our current situation, and how that knowledge shapes future action.
Let’s assume that we could return to 1990 with the knowledge that we would receive a total of $131 million in funding over the next 28 years. Given the average cost of new school construction during this time period (i.e., 1990 to 2017), this cumulative expenditure of $131 million could feasibly have been used to construct an assemblage of replacement schools to include 4 elementary schools, 2 middle schools, and 1 high school.
To further this consideration, it’s important to realize that many assets such as roofs and fuel tanks have a 30-year expected lifespan, which aligns with the intended periodicity of modernization and replacement projects. If the $131 million had been used for modernization (or even limited renovation), the result would have been to replace many building systems, but also to rectify all of the building-code, regulatory, educational sufficiency, and technology deficiencies for the affected school buildings.
We are not proposing the total cessation of capital maintenance (systemics); only that capital maintenance is not preordained by past practice, and that capital funds are best used to target cost- effective capital renewal. The Maintenance Department has already minimized its capital maintenance request, in an attempt to channel more funding into capital renewal projects. In FY22, our systemic funding requests total $1.6 million, and are identified for: (1) roof replacement, (4) playground equipment replacements, and (1) track repair. In the past, the total value of our systemic requests ranged from $6-9 million. This reduction in systemic requests coincides with the introduction of limited renovations within the CIP plan.
II.A.3.2. Prioritize Capital Renewal – As stated above, if the objective is to pursue a more sustainable facility management strategy for an aging facility portfolio, absent a dramatic insertion of additional capital funds, we respectfully submit that the paramount objective must be to maximize the diversion of funding to capital renewal, and to optimize capital renewal strategy to affect as many school buildings as possible. We recommend the strategic adjustments as shown in the table below.
II.A.3.3. Consolidation of Small Schools and Closure of Aged Buildings – Of 38 elementary schools, 22 are overdue for capital renewal. Thirteen (or 34% of elementary schools) are overdue for 30-year modernization, and nine (or 24% of elementary schools) are overdue for 60-year replacement. While this capital renewal backlog is unfortunate, it presents a situation in which FCPS can focus on these schools collectively, and in a strategic manner that strengthens the viability of our facility portfolio.
The current CIP plan includes elements of optimization. For example, Waverley ES is a 51-year old school with a 54% FCI – this school is approaching the milestones for replacement based on both age and FCI. Waverley ES also has design elements, such as partial open space, that will lend itself to scoring lower on the State’s educational sufficiency survey. A new, larger Waverley ES will accommodate the increasing student population in an optimal learning environment. In the end, this project accomplishes opportune capital renewal and growth accommodation – it’s preferable from a financial and logistical perspective than building another small elementary school to accommodate the growth in that area.
13 | Page
Reduce Size – Statewide, school size Reduce Unit Cost – recent projects nearly doubled in the last half-century. have employed value engineering, Classroom size remained nearly out of necessity, to reduce New Accommodate Enrollment constant, while other areas increased. In construction costs. This practice Construction the last decade, FCPS consistently needs to continue, and broaden - but Growth replaced aging schools with larger must be done with full regard for facilities (in terms of sf/student). total-cost-of-ownership. FCPS has Reversing this trend, and reducing size enacted cost saving measures, would reduce cost for individual including: single-ply roofing, variable- projects, and accelerate funding for refrigerant flow HVAC in lieu of Facility additional projects. For example: geothermal, hard surface flooring in Replacement assuming an average construction cost of lieu of carpet, simplified lighting Capital $350/sf, a size reduction of 1,000 sf controls, and painted block walls. Renewal would save $350,000 to be applied to For example: assuming a reduction of other capital needs. $10/sf in a 100,000 sf facility would Facility save $1M to be applied to other capital needs. Modernization Curtail Proactive Projects, Plan for Extending Equipment Life - In the past, FCPS placed emphasis on strategic, proactive replacement of key building systems (i.e., roofing, boilers, chillers). Driven by an aspiration for optimal maintainability, reliability, and availability we may have replaced equipment prematurely. Robust preventive-maintenance programs have proven to extend Systemics - systems beyond their projected lifespan. We can no longer justify the funding of such proactive replacement. Systems must be maintained and operated for Building longer periods of time, so that CIP funding can be channeled into overdue Systems building modernization and building replacement. We now have contingency plans in place, to rapidly deploy temporary equipment and repair services in response to system failure. Our annual operating budget cannot sustain a large, Capital unplanned equipment repair or replacement, so we have worked with Frederick Maintenance County Government to incorporate a contingency component into the CIP program. Defer to Modernization or Replacement - There are so many safe and effective, albeit aged, facility components that support instructional and extracurricular activities. In the past we aspired to identify, prioritize, and fund updates and Systemics - upgrades to these facility components to enhance the educational experience. Educational Given the backlog of building modernization and replacement, we have come to Suitability realize that this type of systemic is untenable. We have identified repairs to these amenities that can sustain operation until modernization or replacement. In the case of artificial turf fields, we are now channeling outside user fees into a turf replacement fund to make that system self-sustaining. Minimize Deployment - Portable structures have long been viewed as an inexpensive option for providing additional space. FCPS now has 141 portable structures with an average age exceeding 23 years. The cost to procure a new, single portable is approximately the same expense incurred when relocating an Classrooms, existing portable from one school to another. The cost to procure and install, or Portable to relocate, a 12-unit portable structure approaches $1 million. Portable Bathrooms, structures serve to divert valuable capital funds that may otherwise be used to Structures Offices renovate of replace existing buildings. Portable structures should only be employed where absolutely necessary, and consideration should be given to leasing such structures when it provides a better financial solution. Unneeded portables, especially those older than 15 years, should be removed from inventory.
14 | Page
FCPS hopes to accomplish this same result with Brunswick Elementary School, and others.
The pool of aging elementary schools offers more opportunity for optimization. Below we discuss the motivation and opportunities to consider when evaluating the consolidation of smaller student bodies, and to close aged, deteriorated buildings.
Adequacy - As stated, there are 22 elementary schools overdue for modernization or replacement. The 2018 enrollment of these 22 elementary schools ranges from 86 to 769 students, with an average of 400 students. The building sizes range from 21,894 to 89,514 square-feet, with an average of 53,226 square- feet.
By contrast, the prototype elementary school currently under construction (i.e., Blue Heron Elementary School) has a student capacity of 725, and a Blue Heron Elementary School size of 95,085 square-feet. The space efficiency for this prototype is 131 square-feet per student. The building is situated on a 15-acre lot, considered to be minimal size for the prototype facility.
When comparing the 22 existing elementary school facilities (due for capital renewal) to the Blue Heron ES prototype, we find that 12 of the existing school lot sizes are inadequate when compared to current standards – all 12 sites are less than 15 acres, and 4 sites are less than 10 acres. For these 4 existing sites, it’s unlikely that the site can host a modern elementary school, complete with the necessary outdoor play areas, parking, and stormwater requirements. It’s even less conceivable that these smaller sites Lot Size - Existing versus Prototype (15 acres) will support a replacement construction project in which students X Acreage < 15 acres 12 55% remain in the existing building until √ Acreage ≥ 15 acres 10 45% 22 100% the new construction is complete. Building Size - Existing versus Prototype (95,058) All 22 of the existing elementary X Size (21,000-50,000 sf) 7 32% school buildings (due for capital X Size (51,000-60,000 sf) 10 45% Size (61,000-90,000 sf) 5 23% renewal) are smaller in size than the X 22 100% prototype. Only 4 of the 22 existing schools achieve a space efficiency Space Efficiency - Existing versus Prototype (131 sf/student) approaching the value for the Efficiency within 5% of Prototype: 4 prototype school (i.e., 131 X Space Efficiency ( 86-117 sf/student) 7 32% sf/student). √ Space Efficiency (124-138 sf/student) 4 18% X Space Efficiency (141-302 sf/student) 11 50% 22 100%
15 | Page
An endeavor to replace each of these individual school buildings with the intent of achieving a commensurate space efficiency carries substantial cost. There are economic and logistical benefits to schools that are larger in both size and student population; some are discussed below.
Quantity – For many reasons, it is undoubtedly appealing to sustain our small elementary schools. But, one must consider that a shift to larger elementary schools can offer some relief to the dilemma that we currently face with numerous, aging school buildings.
Based on the 2018 student enrollment data, the 22 existing schools (due for capital renewal) house 8,796 students. This quantity of students could be housed in 13 new, 725-seat schools similar to our current, prototype elementary school. This would result in an overall reduction in 9 school buildings. For illustrative purposes, and using hypothetical construction-cost estimates, it becomes evident that consolidation offers an economy-of-scale with regards to capital renewal strategies. 22 School Buildings 13 School Buildings
Student Population: 100-699 (average 400) Student Population: average 675
Another incentive is that consolidation would allow us to demolish and clear existing sites that could then serve as future school sites, and possibly reduce the need to procure additional sites in the future. Admittedly, there are ancillary issues with regards to districting and transportation that must be considered.
In general terms, the common space requirements for individual elementary schools are virtually identical, regardless of the total seating capacity of the school. All schools require hallways, lobbies, gymnasiums, media centers, and cafeterias. This prevailing design constraint is the primary reason that larger-capacity schools offer improved space efficiency.
An example will better explain this predicament. In the hypothetical example below, we illustrate two scenarios for housing 725 students – either (1) 725-seat school, or (2) 363-seat schools. To facilitate this example, we will consider New Midway, Woodsboro, and Liberty Elementary Schools.
Replacement Options
New Midway ES Woodsboro ES (2) 363 + (1) 725 seat seat schools school
Liberty ES
16 | Page
This example examines the replacement of Liberty Elementary School (enrollment 262, K through 5th), New Midway Elementary School (enrollment 135, 3rd-5th grades), and Woodsboro Elementary School (enrollment 156, pre-K through 2nd grade). We are also assuming that this replacement scenario would include the integration of New Midway and Woodsboro Elementary Schools into one facility, as the associated enrollment does not warrant a separate primary school. The Blue Heron Elementary School (enrollment 725, pre-K through 5th grade), currently under construction, was used as the basis for a design and cost comparison.
One (1) 600-seat Elementary School
Two (2) 300-seat Elementary Schools
Blue Heron ES Liberty ES New Midway ES Liberty ES Woodsboro ES New Midway ES Woodsboro ES 725 State Rated Capacity 363 363 725 Learning Space 27,550 28,796 47,362 Assembly Space 14,968 14,968 14,968 Support Space 4,525 4,525 4,676 Net Assignable Space 47,043 48,289 67,006 Grossing Factor 1.42 1.42 1.42 95,085 Gross Size 66,756 68,525 95,085 131 Square-Feet per Student 184 189 131 $ 41,425,791 Cost $ 29,755,510 $ 30,483,916 $Total: $60,239,426 $ 41,425,791
The construction of (2) 363-seat replacement schools require a cumulative total of 135,281 square- feet, while the (1) 725-seat replacement school requires only 95,085 square-feet. Housing all of the students in one, larger school building results in a 30% reduction in total gross square-feet. Using the Blue Heron ES construction costs for reference (including design, construction, and furniture and equipment), the construction of one, larger school would result in an estimated saving of $18.8 million dollars over the construction two, smaller schools.
It’s worth noting that ongoing efforts to improve the space efficiency of the prototype school have already yielded positive results. The Brunswick ES replacement is now projected to be 84,630 square-feet, or 10,455 square-feet less than Blue Heron ES.
Recurring Cost - Overall, the consolidation of smaller schools into newer, larger schools appears highly favorable in terms of maintenance cost. The charts below illustrate the maintenance cost per square-foot ($/sf), when compared to building size, and the maintenance cost per student($/student), when compared to student enrollment. When evaluating the trendlines for
17 | Page
these charts, it appears evident that the conversion to newer, larger schools would result in an overall reduction in operating-budget maintenance costs with respect to these schools.
The data represented in these charts represents a five-year average. As such, schools that are less than five years old are excluded in the dataset. The smaller, unique school buildings are also excluded (i.e., Heather Ridge School, Rock Creek School, Lincoln A, and Earth and Space Science Laboratory). More detailed versions of these charts are included as Appendix A.
$700.00
$600.00
$500.00
$400.00
$300.00
$200.00 Average
$100.00
Maintenance Cost per Student per Cost Maintenance $0.00 0 500 1000 1500 2000 Enrollment
$2.50 Foot - $2.00
$1.50 Average $1.00
$0.50
$0.00 0 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000 300000 350000 Maintenance Cost per Square per Cost Maintenance Size (square-feet)
18 | Page
There are many other operating-budget advantages to larger schools. Economic and logistical advantages can be found in reductions in staffing, utility consumption, snow removal, mowing, and other business expenses such as insurance. The student transportation impacts are not discussed herein, and would need to be considered in any such consolidation.
Sufficiency – The older, smaller elementary schools possess attributes that detract from their ability to satisfy the Loud 130 dB Maryland Public School Facilities Educational Sufficiency Standards. One example is the inability of open-space schools to consistently meet the classroom acoustics standard (i.e., Vacuum cleaner 70 sustained background sound level less than 55 decibels). The figure shown here provides some context for a 55-decibel Dishwasher 60 background. Refrigerator 50
The design of newer schools includes floorplan configurations, Quiet library 40 quieter mechanical systems, and sound-deadening materials that serve to eliminate, or reduce, background noise. Modernizing an older, smaller school may preclude the ability Soft 0 dB to achieve all of the Sufficiency Standards, such as minimal background noise.
Closing Aged Buildings – FCPS spends considerable time and attention in acquiring school sites and constructing new school buildings, but devotes little attention towards facility divestiture.
Often, organizations focus only on a facility’s sunk costs, choosing to view the aged facility as a convenient, inexpensive asset available for continued use. In reality, the facility poses considerable short- and long-term burden due to ongoing operating expenses and expanding deferred maintenance. From a facility management perspective, it is best to abandon and demolish the aged buildings that no longer serve the primary purpose of preK-12 instruction. More detailed rationale is provided below. • Functional Obsolescence – An aged building that no longer serves as a primary site for preK-12 instruction is unlikely to support some other similar function without considerable modernization or repair. If we enact only the necessary changes to support another function, and do not address the underlying infrastructure issues (e.g., structural, heating-cooling- ventilation) then we risk having an occupied building with low reliability and maintainability. The occupants do not benefit from all of the functional New Modernization Replacement improvement and comfort 30 years 60 years afforded by a state-of-the- art building. • Ongoing, Increasing Operating Costs - If FCPS retains ownership, or maintenance responsibility, for an aged building, we are compelled to continue with the same level of maintenance to
19 | Page
satisfy regulatory requirements (e.g., those associated with fire detection and suppression, elevators, water quality), as well as to respond to the needs of occupants. As shown in the charts above, a smaller, aged building will entail higher maintenance costs. When the facility requires the inevitable emergency repairs that arise an aged building, it will divert limited resources away from the other school buildings. There is particular concern with regards to obtaining parts and service for the critical equipment in these facilities. We have already experienced complication with the repair of fire alarm panels and chillers, in situations where the failure of an electronic circuit board necessitated the replacement of the entire piece of equipment because the manufacturer no longer manufactured, or stocked, replacement boards. The cost for this type of equipment replacement typically exceeds $100,000. • Technical Obsolescence – Each of these aged schools has nonrenewable infrastructure that cannot be refurbished outside of facility modernization or replacement. There are elements of structure, plumbing, and electric that, over time, will not support current needs, and possibly pose hazards to occupancy or occupant safety. There is an ever-increasing bevy of regulations, such as those related to lead-in-water, that equally apply to both old and new buildings – and it becomes increasingly difficult and expensive to render the older buildings in compliance. The 22 elementary schools overdue for capital renewal do not meet the current standards for the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). In 2015, the estimate to rectify these ADA deficiencies was $3.2 million, or an average of $146,000 per school. Many older schools lack a comprehensive fire suppression system. While this does not pose a marked hazard to current occupants, it does increase the probability that a fire event could result in much greater damage, and render the school inaccessible for a longer period of time. Accommodating a large student population in such a dire circumstance would be expensive, and disruptive to instruction. When evaluating the 22 elementary schools mentioned above, we find that each one of these school buildings has an average deferred maintenance burden of $6 million (individual building values ranging from $2.2 - 11.4 million). As these schools are still viable centers for education, all indications are that they have been well maintained. The average annual expenditure for the maintenance of each of these aged buildings is $70,382. However, it would be a mistake to assume that continued maintenance can sustain these buildings for a prolonged period.
Summary In conclusion, we advocate for a strategic shift, in capital planning and planned maintenance, to include: 1. Minimize capital maintenance projects (or “systemics”) in deference to the more aggressive funding of capital renewal, 2. Construct new school buildings, and replacement school buildings, that: • host a larger student body in order to maximize space efficiency (sf/student) and minimize operating costs ($/student), • employ design and construction techniques that minimize unit cost ($/sf), but preserve a reasonable total-cost-of-ownership, 3. Pursue modernization projects with minimal unit cost ($/sf) for school buildings at mid lifespan, to improve physical and equational-sufficiency, and to ensure their effective functionality to 60 years, or beyond,
20 | Page
4. When additions are necessary, design and construct additions of deliberate quality and durability to coincide with the future milestones of the host buildings. In other words, do not construct an addition with typical 60-year durability when it will be appended to a building due to be replaced within 30 years. The objective is for all building sections to reach their end-of-life at the same time, and 5. Consolidate smaller student bodies into larger schools, demolish vacant school buildings and retain vacant sites as a future school site, when needed.
II.B. Alignment with State Directives and Guidance This Comprehensive Maintenance Plan (CMP) is Interagency Commission on School Construction required by State regulation. Each LEA must produce a CMP, and the CMP must be approved State Superintendent of Schools by the LEA Board of Education prior its annual Secretary of Department of Planning submission to the State of Maryland IAC. The Secretary of Department of General Services Appointee of the President of the Senate (2) nine members of the IAC are shown in the Appointee of the Speaker of the House (2) adjacent figure. Appointee of the Governor (2) II.B.1. Regulatory CMP Requirements State Requirement The Code of Maryland Regulations (section 23.03.02.17) specifies LEAs obligations with respect to the maintenance of school facilities. Excerpts are provided below: A. Comprehensive Maintenance Plan - A comprehensive maintenance plan is a written plan approved by the local board of education that describes a strategy for maintaining public school facilities. B. The IAC may determine a project is ineligible for planning approval or funding approval for an existing school if: (1) The school is not properly maintained; or (2) The LEA does not have an adequate preventive maintenance program. C. Maintenance Surveys - The IAC shall annually survey the maintenance conditions at selected schools in each LEA. If a condition is identified that presents a hazard to occupants of the building or the threat of serious damage to the building, the LEA shall take immediate corrective action and notify the IAC of the steps it has taken.
FCPS Response
FCPS uses this CMP to document our ongoing, and evolving, strategy to maintain our school facilities in a financially responsible manner. We use the same CMMS system that is in widespread use among the State’s other LEAs, and have embedded within this CMMS a comprehensive program based on industry- standard protocol for equipment inventory and preventive-maintenance.
We strive to earn the confidence and respect of IAC staff, so that the IAC retains its trust in FCPS’ efforts to preserve the past and future taxpayer’s investment in school facilities. The IAC has included FCPS maintenance personnel in state-level strategy formulation, and has identified FCPS as a source of information on best management practices for other LEAs.
21 | Page
We actively support IAC school inspections, soliciting input and recommendation, exchanging lessons- learned information, and responding to inspection deficiencies in a timely manner.
II.B.2. Procedural CMP Requirements
State Requirement
The Public School Construction Program Administrative Procedures Guide further defines CMP requirements. Per the Guide, CMP’s COMPREHENSIVE MAINTENANCEFOR must be approved by the local Board of Education, and the Board PLAN must allocate funding necessary to implement the CMP. The purpose EDUCATIONAL and general content are also defined; excerpts are provided below: FACILITIES
CMP Purpose: A. The CMP represents an LEA's program of maintenance, which supports the delivery of educational programs in safe and healthy physical environments. B. The objectives of the maintenance program are to: 1. Maintain a positive learning environment; 2. Maintain the asset value of the property; 3. Eliminate or reduce the number and scope of fires, accidents and other safety hazards on the property; 4. Provide buildings that function at top efficiency; 5. Provide continuous use of facilities without disruptions to the education program; and 6. Conserve energy.
CMP Content: A. Personnel Organization - describes the organizational units in terms of its staffing and the activities that fall within its responsibilities. B. Maintenance Categories – 1. Scheduled Maintenance – Preventive maintenance - planned activities designed to maintain the component as nearly as possible in its original condition. Modifications and alterations - maintenance that does not add to the asset value and which is not precipitated by changes in instructional or administrative requirements. Scheduled replacement - sizable maintenance, usually occurring toward the end of the customary or specified life of an item or system. 2. Unscheduled Maintenance – including unscheduled repairs, and vandalism and security-related repairs. 3. Deferred Maintenance - scheduled activities, delayed or postponed for reasons such as lack of funds or personnel, changes in priorities and change of use.
FCPS Response
FCPS endeavors to “maintain the optimal learning environment” in each of our schools, and in the most efficient manner. All of the processes required by the State can be found in our computerized maintenance management system (CMMS). Our CMMS houses our equipment inventory, preventive
22 | Page
maintenance schedules, work processing for customer service requests and unscheduled maintenance, utility tracking, and deferred maintenance.
We believe that our CMMS-based program is highly proficient, based on common metrics: • FCPS has the largest, documented equipment inventory of all users of this CMMS, at 232,959 inventoried items. • In the last twelve months, FCPS has processed 37,212 planned maintenance work orders, and 39,962 unplanned maintenance work orders. In past discussions with the CMMS developer, we were informed that FCPS accounts for 24% of all work orders generated by the 17 LEAs using this CMMS within the State of Maryland. • FCPS work order processing and recordkeeping is the highest among all users, as measured by work-order-per-student and work-order-per-square-feet. This level of recordkeeping is necessary to generate the analytic data necessary for evaluating efficiency and cost- effectiveness. The effort to establish and maintain this level of recordkeeping takes tremendous discipline throughout the department. However, the effort does not add significantly to daily workload, and mirrors, to a lesser degree, the effort that a home repair technician would undertake to record and bill a homeowner.
Much of our effort is driven by regulatory requirements, such as those associated with fire detection and suppression, and elevator inspections and maintenance. This effort helps to ensure occupant safety and hazard mitigation. The basis for our regular preventive maintenance (e.g., equipment service tasks and service frequency) is derived from industry sources such as RS Means, and other authoritative agencies such as the National Fire Protection Association. For specialty equipment, such as food service items, we must resort to the manufacturer’s recommended preventive-maintenance service definitions.
The CMMS has a capital forecasting component that allows us to identify projected equipment- replacement needs, based on the expected lifespan of major equipment. This process allows us to track the deferred maintenance burden by facility, and by equipment. It also permits a time-based extrapolation so that we can project deferred maintenance growth over time.
In the past several years we have added to our maintenance program to improve its effectiveness: • Building Automation (direct digital controls) – These are the systems that monitor and control our heating, ventilation and air-conditioning systems. We have repaired, upgraded, and integrated our systems to allow for improved system monitoring and control. In addition, we added our second Building Automation technician this year by converting an existing position. This added position dramatically improves our ability to control occupant comfort, energy conservation, and humidity control. It’s common for a qualified contractor to charge $160 per hour, or more, for building automation services, so having in-house staff familiar with our individual systems can lead to considerable savings over time. • Predictive Maintenance – we have two technicians who use thermal imaging to monitor the conditions of critical components (e.g., motors, pumps) in an attempt to discern diminished, or faulty, operating conditions long before equipment failure ensues. It is our intent for these technicians to add vibration analysis to their analytical skillset in the future.
23 | Page
• Performance-Based Contracting – we contracted with a vendor from the State’s Department of General Service’s indefinite delivery contract (IDC) for energy service company (ESCA). With this contract, FCPS was able to enact utility-saving measures in 24 schools.
Again, the FCPS Maintenance and Operations Department strives to earn the confidence and respect of the State’s IAC. We have a dedicated team of facility management professionals, many of whom are developing an ever-increasing capacity in trade skills, and pursuing professional credentials to affirm their professional advancement and to honor their profession. II.C. Staff Development and Career Progression II.C.1. Quarterly Professional Development In 2017, sensing anxiety from newer employees and a dearth of succession planning, our Superintendent called for consequential leadership development. Our first leadership development event included fifteen training sessions. Much like professional conferences, attendees can select the training sessions they wish to attend, because we knew that such choice neutralized the pernicious nature of prescribed training. The Maintenance and Operations Department’s Quarterly Professional Development now enters its fourth year.
In our March session we structured an event in which maintenance technicians participated in the design of a hypothetical elementary school. The purpose of this design activity was to address the frustration among some field-based staff members that their concerns are not considered in school design and construction. Our team, divided into five design teams, worked directly with architects and engineers to define their desired design parameters for building structure, plumbing, lighting, heating and cooling, and stormwater management. Excerpts from training handouts are shown below.
ARCHITECTURE Scott Moir (GWWO Architects)
STORMWATER MGMT Jason Fritz (Adtek Engineering)
LIGHTING David Yates (Alban Engineering) Age-old questions PLUMBING Dan Hartlaub (Alban Engineering) HVAC Jeff Alban (Alban Engineering)
O S Kitchen
Gym Art S Cafeteria K K K Art 2 2 2 1 1 Health 3 3 3 4 4 4 5 5 DESIGN TEAMS Suite O Team 2 2 1 1 1 Media 3 3 4 4 5 5 5 K K K Front Center Leaders Office Subject Matter BASIC SCHOOL LAYOUT Expert Grades K – 5 OCCUPANCY Student Population 720
PLUMBING Staffing 78 Total Site 12 acres SITE DETAIL Building Footprint 1.5 acres Soils MvA Myersville silt loam
Public water and sewer UTILITIES Natural gas is available
24 | Page
Training session are led by architects, engineers, vendors, and in-house leaders from instruction, business, legal, and building trades. Two-thirds of our team voluntarily attend this event each calendar quarter. This year’s topics include: servicing food service equipment, effective hiring techniques, lighting system design and maintenance, servant leadership, and Microsoft Excel skill building. We have also included employee wellness topics such as personal retirement planning and restorative practices.
After each quarterly training, we ask each attendee to complete a post-training assessment for each session. The survey is a simple on-line tool based on Kirkpatrick’s four-level training evaluation model. Overall, the training sessions this year earned an 88% positive survey rating.
II.C.2. Foundations in Leadership This year we launched our year-long training academy to satisfy the needs of staff who were seeking more in-depth coaching in leadership and management. Candidates applied for entry into the program
You can divorce a decision from its outcome What’s How are you happening? prepared to The first report is always Gather Develop act? wrong Info strategy
You must act with 70% of Inform Who needs to Take the information & action know? assess What do you Failure is a bruise, not a What’s next for do? tattoo you and them?
Training Session: Emergency Anyone worried? Planning and Response
What should Honesty Integrity we do? Trust Quality Communication Dependability Teamwork ASPIRATIONAL GOAL #3 FCPS will pursue and utilize all resources strategically and responsibly to achieve identified outcomes and inspire public confidence FCPS will provide equitable distribution of all resources based on the varied needs of students and schools Training Session: Budget FCPS will promote clear communication and transparency in allocation of resources and Procurement
Activity Activity STRATEGIC PROCUREMENT #1 STAKEHOLDER PERSPECTIVE #3 Convince stakeholders that FCPS should construct and maintain its school facilities PARTICIPANTS HANDOUT Objective: Activity Define scope-of-work, and procurement BOARD PERSPECTIVE strategy to replace six parking lot lights #2 (including wiring, conduit, concrete Convince Board of Education to fund Maintenance needs bases, poles, heads, controls)
Things to Consider: Activity • Who will perform work #3 STRATEGIC PROCUREMENT • Specifications • Funding Existing Conditions Develop a plan to fund and execute a small project
25 | Page
and were part of a three-prong interview process in which we assessed leadership growth potential, teamwork agility, and organizational awareness. Fifteen employees were granted admission to the program.
Provided above are excerpts from two training sessions on Emergency Planning and Response, and Budget and Procurement. From this one can see that the program is intended to give the participants a wide array of experiences, ranging from conceptual to practical. Overall, the premise is to identify the knowledge and attributes whose absence may prevent an individual from progressing forward in the organization, and simply providing the opportunity to attain the missing aspects.
This program allows a small group to collectively explore prevalent leadership concepts, endeavoring to create a powerful learning experience, especially when examined within the context of our organization’s objectives and within situations commonly faced in our facility-management roles. The monthly sessions provide a blend of theoretical and practical knowledge that allow participants to expand their capacity as a facility-management professional. While succession planning is not an explicit objective, it is likely that participants will broaden their knowledge and skills in a manner that may assist them in furthering their career objectives.
Instruction is a combination of lecture, group activity, and role-playing scenarios. Participants interact with other departments within FCPS to build interorganizational bridges to long-term synergy. Sessions provide participants with knowledge and skills in the following areas: Finance and Business, Leadership and Strategy, Operations and Maintenance, Emergency Management, Data Analytics and Decision- making, and Project Management.
II.C.3. Career Progression This year we will complete our workforce development project conducted in coordination with the firm named Facility Engineering Associates (FEA). We selected to partner with FEA predominantly due to their extensive experience with Federal Buildings Personnel Training Act (FBPTA) tools that establish the framework for developing the right knowledge, skills, abilities, and competencies in the facility management workforce.
This project will develop a career progression program for all of our core positions. This will include identifying competencies needed to progress from one position to another as well as recommended training that is needed to prompt transition between positions. A competent workforce starts with an understanding of the competencies the workforce needs. The establishment of core competencies follows a known process, Job Task Analysis (JTA), that establishes definable core competencies and training curricula. JTA is a procedure for analyzing the tasks performed by individuals in an occupation, as well as the knowledge, skills, and abilities required to perform those tasks.
In the end, we find ourselves evaluating candidates during interviews and concluding that they do not yet possess the necessary attributes to convey to their desired position. In fairness to the employee, we are now establishing the specific skills and attributes necessary for each position, and providing employees with a training path intended to impart the necessary attributes for them to successfully progress in the future.
26 | Page
Two succinct excerpts from the core-competency definition and training needs is provided below to enable some understanding of the scope and content of this project.
Building Building CMMS CMMS Technical Plumber Plumber Plumber Electrician Electrician Electrician HVACR HVACR HVACR Maint Area Maint Area Task Description Maint Maint Administrator Administrator Competencies Entry Mid Senior Entry Mid Senior Entry Mid Senior Foremen Supervisor Mech Entry Mech Mid Mid Senior Read and understand contrSchematic diagrams X X X X Interpret building plans Read and understand build X X X X X X X X X X X and blueprints Work within the Computerized Maintenance Computerized Management System Maintenance X X X X X X X X X X X X X (CMMS) and complete all Management Systems required forms to (CMMS) document repair status and work orders. Category Organization Specific Training Professional & Technical Industry Training Training Source FCPS Specific Internal Training Safety Related PNNL BOC RED VECTOR BOMI IFMA PROFMI TBD
Position Trade Tools and Techniques and Tools Trade (TBD) Specialized Equipment and Systems (including Legacy) (TBD) Building Energy City/County and Codes, Permits, Inspections and (TBD) (FCPS System) Basics CMMS Maintenance Area Local Knowledge (TBD) Workforce Management (TBD) Leadership (TBD) Awareness Asbestos Confined Safety Space SafetyTrenching (TBD) Underground Utilities (TBD) Sewage Gas Safety (TBD) Security (TBD) Re-tuning for Buildings without Building Automation Systems Re-tuning for Buildings with Building Automation Systems Certification Operator Building (300) I) (Level Commercial HVAC Systems (200)Essentials Commercial Plumbing Systems (200)Essentials Electrical Systems and (200) Illumination Building Systems Maintenance (SMT)Technician (300) Building Systems Maintenance Administrator (SMA) (300) and Health Environmental (300) Safety &Operations Maintenance (300) Facility Management Professional Credential (FMP) - (300) courses 4 All (400) Manager Facility Certified ProFM Credential Program (300) Facilities in Cybersecurity Systems (Coming Soon)
Electrician Senior Electrician Mid Electrician Entry HVAC Senior HVAC Mid HVAC Entry Plumber Senior Plumber Mid Plumber Entry
II.C.4. Certifications FCPS has the largest quantity of FMPs among all K12 agencies. The Facility Management Professional (FMP) credential is issued by the International Facility Management Association (IFMA). We believe that the FMP credential is a baseline attribute that firmly establishes our staff as a professional member of their field, along with over 10,000 other such professionals worldwide. Select staff have also pursued other credentials, including: IFMA Certified Facility Manager, Certified Building Operator (Northwest Energy Efficiency Council), Certified Administrator (CMMS).
II.C.5. Paying It Forward and Student Interns We have had the great fortune to work with three outstanding student interns from our high schools, including: Charlotte Brittain – Charlotte was a graphic arts student at our Career and Technology Center. Her efforts were crucial to creating our on-line onboarding program, and resulted in FCPS winning the Association of School Business Officials (ASBO) Pinnacle of Excellence Award. Shaheer Syed – Shaheed helped to evolve the composting program from a pilot
27 | Page
program to a small-scale operation. His unique skillset allowed him to serve as an effective composting coach at many schools. Alyssa Swaim – Alyssa is enrolled in the Frederick High School LYNX (Linking Youth to New Experiences) program. As an aspiring architect looking for practical experience, Alyssa interviewed and was accepted for a part-time position with the FCPS Maintenance and Operations Department. Her projects included design layout for two renovations within FCPS administration buildings, analytical comparison of State and FCPS educational specifications, and defining standardized physical job demands for department job descriptions. In 2019, and with only one month on the job, Alyssa served as lead presenter for a discussion of the FY2020 CMP with the Board of Education. Next year Alyssa will begin her pursuit of a degree in architecture at the Thomas Jefferson University. Alyssa Swaim
The Department has become regular partners with the LYNX program, informing students of the need and career paths associated with facility management trades. Erik McKay (Maintenance Area 6 Supervisor) developed an HVAC trade presentation, with the assistance of intern Charlotte Brittain, and has presented career-guidance information to students as several high schools. Erik has also been appointed to serve on a committee to develop a State-sanctioned trade apprentice program at Frederick Community College. II.C.6. Apprentice Program This year we will be hiring three HVAC Apprentices. The Board of Education provided the necessary funding to begin this important program. Within one week, we had seven applicants and we are currently in the process of selecting dedicated individuals who will succeed in the four-year process of in-class and on-the-job training necessary to attain their Journeyman’s license.
Our highly-skilled HVAC mechanic team is looking forward to mentoring the next generation of skilled tradespersons. FCPS is also partnering with Frederick Community College who is hoping to establish a State- certified apprentice program. This potential synergy would provide a tremendous advantage for both organizations.
28 | Page
III. FACILITY PORTFOLIO COMPENDIUM This section provides a high-level inventory and evaluation of the FCPS facility portfolio. An evaluation of school building age and condition will provide an elaboration on earlier discussion regarding capital renewal backlog.
Facility Portfolio Compendium NOTE: This CMP document responds to the State of Maryland’s requirement to define the program Facility Quantity and Cumulative Area of maintenance for public school buildings. For Facility Additions and Renovations that reason, the administrate buildings are Open Space Schools included in inventory and age discussion, but are Facility Age excluded from subsequent analysis. However, to Facility Condition furnish a complete depiction of the maintenance Composite Perspective (Age & Condition) program, the status of the administrative and Impact on Student Achievement support buildings is provided as Appendix B. Portfolio Recommendations
III.A. Facility Quantity and Cumulative Area FCPS maintains a total of 72 buildings, including 66 school buildings and 6 administrative buildings. The total, maintainable space for these buildings is 6,762,513 gross square-feet. The facility portfolio also includes 141 portable structures that comprise 155,520 square-feet. FCPS’ total facility portfolio, including both school buildings and portable structures, equates to an area the size of 117 football fields.
School buildings identified as “Other Schools” include: Career and Technology Center, Earth and Space Science Laboratory, Quantity Area (square-feet) Heather Ridge School, Lincoln Elementary School 38 2,463,953 36% Elementary “A”, and Rock Creek Middle School 13 1,603,576 24% School. High School 10 2,300,616 34% Other Schools 5 204,406 3% The 6 administrative facilities include: Annex (Maintenance Subtotal 66 6,572,551 97% and Transportation), Bus Garage, Administrative 6 189,962 3%
Central Office Building, Staff Total 72 6,762,513 100%
29 | Page
Development Center, Warehouse, and the building currently called Walkersville Quantity Area (square-feet)
Library. Units PEU The 141 portable structures Elementary School 98 137 118,368 76% comprise 155,520 square-feet. Middle School 12 12 10,368 7% This area is equivalent to the High School 16 16 13,824 9% cumulative square-foot value Other Schools 12 12 10,368 7% of two elementary schools (i.e., Subtotal 138 177 152,928 98%
Carroll Manor and Deer Administrative 3 3 2,592 2% Crossing Elementary Schools). Total 141 180 155,520 100% The portable structures include: (134) single classrooms, (2) 4-unit classrooms, (3) 12-unit classrooms, (2) group bathrooms. In this table, 4- and 12-unit portable structures are translated into single-unit portables (or portable equivalent units, PEU) for a more normalized comparison. In that context, FCPS maintains the equivalent to 180 portable classrooms. III.B. Facility Additions and Renovations Many school buildings have received an addition, or have undergone a small-scale renovation. Only two schools have received a modernization since the year 2000 (i.e., Governor Thomas Johnson High School, West Frederick Middle School). The difference between renovation and modernization is provided below.
Modernization - renovate an existing facility, improving both physical condition and educational sufficiency. Renovation - modify an existing facility, often without comprehensive improvement to both physical condition and educational sufficiency.
There are 21 schools that were constructed prior to 25 1970 – this is about 1/3 of the entire school building 20 portfolio. This subgroup has received the majority of the 15 12 additions (41 events, or 75% 11 10 of all additions) and 10 9 9 renovations (16 events, or 6 6 62% of all renovations). 5 3 For one-half of the schools in 0 this pre-1970 subgroup, the 0 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 most recent addition, or Decade renovation, is now over 30- years old. Given the States Quantity of schools constructed in the decade 30- and 60-year milestones Quantity of Additions to the schools constructed in the decade (i.e., for modernization and Quantity of Renovations to the schools constructed in the decade replacement, respectively) a
30 | Page
30-year old addition would now be due for renovation, 40 38
and a 30-year old renovated 35 building would be due for replacement. 30 25 Of all schools in this subgroup, only Sabillasville 20 Elementary School has had 15 13 neither an addition nor 10 10 renovation. 5 5 This chart illustrates the 0 manner in which additions Elementary School Middle School High School Other Schools and renovations have been allotted among the different Quantity of schools of that type school types (i.e., Quantity of Additions to the schools of that type Quantity of Renovations to the schools of that type elementary, middle, high, and other). While illustrative, it can also be misleading if one does not consider that individual schools may have received multiple additions and renovations. For example, Thurmont MS has received 4 additions and 2 renovations over its 70-year life, while Crestwood MS has had none. The table below helps to demonstrate this circumstance.
An example will help to explain the table below. The table illustrates a total of 13 middle schools. The cell highlighted in green indicates that 4 middle schools have received 1 addition. The cell highlighted in red indicates that 3 middle schools have received 1 renovation. The cells highlighted in blue indicate that 6 middle schools have received neither an addition, nor a renovation; and that 4 middle schools have received at least 1 addition, and at least one renovation.
Quantity of Quantity of Neither Both Additions Renovations addition addition (per school) (per school) School Type Quantity nor and (by school type) 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 renovation renovation Elementary School 38 20 9 7 1 1 26 11 1 0 0 19 12 Middle School 13 6 4 1 1 1 9 3 1 0 0 6 4 High School 10 3 5 1 1 0 5 3 2 0 0 3 5 Other Schools 5 3 1 1 0 0 4 1 0 0 0 3 1
A complete tabulation of addition and renovation information is included as Appendix C.
III.C. Open Space Schools In the 1960s and 1970s the trend in school design tended towards open design. The idea of the open classroom was that a large group of students of varying skill levels would be in a single, large classroom with several teachers overseeing them. If poorly planned or laid out, open classrooms can sometimes lead to problems with educational sufficiency, such as background noise. By the late 1970s, the open space design fell into disfavor.
31 | Page
The FCPS Maintenance and Operations Department has enacted modification, using in-house staff, to eliminate open space completely in Yellow Springs Elementary School, and partially in other schools including: Green Valley ES, Middletown ES, New Market ES, Thurmont ES, Walkersville ES, Waverley ES, Middletown MS, Monocacy MS, Middletown HS, and Walkersville HS.
Open Partial Date(s) of Construction Open Enfilade Addition(s) Space Space Original Date sf Date sf Date sf Date sf Emmitsburg Elementary √ 1974 Green Valley Elementary √ 1971 Lewistown Elementary √ 1961 1967 18,970 Middletown Elementary √ 1974 Myersville Elementary √ 1971 1993 15,392 New Market Elementary √ 1933 1962 29,800 1977 25,860 1979 930 2008 23,181 Sabillasville Elementary √ 1964 Thurmont Elementary √ 1955 1959 20,729 1976 24,971 Valley Elementary √ 1967 1974 19,585 Walkersville Elementary √ 1974 2011 35,060 Waverley Elementary √ 1969 2002 960 Woodsboro Elementary √ 1952 1959 175 1973 19,957 Ballenger Creek Middle √ 1990 Brunswick Middle √ 1985 2006 39,796 Monocacy Middle √ 1981 New Market Middle √ 1974 Thurmont Middle √ 1950 1955 12,873 1958 20,502 1976 34,387 2002 45,390 Middletown High √ 1974 1998 30,791 Walkersville High √ 1976 1990 24,916 This table identifies schools that retain some open space architecture, and also schools that have an enfilade component. In architecture, an enfilade is a suite of rooms aligned with one another – in our case, it signifies adjacent classrooms arranged with limited pedestrian passageways, such that you have to pass through one classroom to access another. The construction dates (either of the original structure or addition) correlate with the time period in which open space design burgeoned.
III.D. Facility Age III.D.1. Facility Age for the FCPS Portfolio - (years) The age reported hereafter is based on the AGE 0 - 29 30 - 59 ≥ 60 opening year of the building’s original Elementary School 16 13 9 38 structure, and does not factor in Middle School 5 5 3 13 consideration for more recent additions, or High School 5 5 10 modernization. The “original” facility age is Other Schools 1 4 5 indicative of the condition of a building’s core elements (e.g., structural components, 27 27 12 Subtotal plumbing and electrical distribution, site Administrative 1 4 1 6 Grand utilities) and to some degree, a building’s 28 31 13 Total compliance with current building and safety
32 | Page
code. This “original” age also serves as a temporal prompt for building modernization and replacement, as discussed later in this section. The average age of all FCPS buildings is 40 years. The average age of all school buildings is 39 years. A more thorough analysis of building age is included as Appendix D.
The average age of portable structures is AGE (years) 23 years. Fifteen years is a commonly- 0-9 10-19 20-29 30-39 40-49 ≥50 used, projected lifespan for a portable Elementary School 8 35 27 25 3 98 structure. Only 16 (or 11% of the entire Middle School 3 2 4 3 12 inventory) or FCPS portable structures High School 3 7 6 16 are less than 15 years old. FCPS Other Schools 2 5 5 12 maintains 125 portable structures 11 42 43 39 3 0 Subtotal whose age is 15 years, or greater. There Administrative 1 1 1 3 Grand are 44 portable structures 30 years old, 11 42 44 39 4 1 or older – or twice as old as the Total projected lifespan for such structures. III.D.2. Placing FCPS Facility Age into a State-Wide Context - The State of Maryland IAC maintains a school facility inventory, and from that inventory the State calculates building ages that factor in consideration for additions and modernization (i.e., weighted average, as a function of date of modernization or addition, and square-feet affected). The IAC reports that in the year 2005, the average school facility age was 24 years (for all schools in the State). By 2018, the average age increased to 30 years, and it continues to climb.
The 30-year average age across the State, and ceaseless increase in average age, are a cornerstone in the State’s pursuit of changes to capital planning and funding. Data on FCPS’ portfolio of school buildings indicates that FCPS mirrors this disconcerting State-wide trend. The average age of FCPS school buildings is 30 years as calculated via the IAC’s weighted-average method.
The State of Maryland Public School Construction Program indicates that an effective facility management strategy for public school buildings would entail regular capital renewal. The State notes that a facility can typically last 30 years before a modernization, or a post-modernization replacement, is necessary to keep the facility up-to-date and in working condition. When evaluating FCPS school buildings relative to this strategic paradigm, we find that 27 school buildings should be considered for modernization, and 12 school buildings should be considered for replacement. This is a tremendous capital renewal backlog, estimated to represent a cost of $1 billion. The figure below provides a graphical profile of the schools needing capital replenishment, by school type.
33 | Page
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Elementary Schools 100 Middle Schools Age (years) High Schools Other Schools
Again, it’s important to understand that building age is only one determinant when conducting the comprehensive assessment of a particular school building. There are aged school buildings that have received meaningful, effective capital maintenance projects (e.g., roof replacement, boiler replacement) to ensure the building’s availability and reliability, and to improve its maintainability. However, in the end, age is important as the temporal deterioration in the overall efficiency, effectiveness, and financial viability associated with an aged building will overwhelm the cumulative benefit of capital maintenance.
Next, we will examine the physical condition of FCPS school buildings, and then provide a summary assessment based on both age and condition.
III.E. Facility Condition Facility condition can become an abstract concept when you consider the scope of stakeholders affected by school buildings. From our vantage, there are three fundamental perspectives that generally present a comprehensive consideration for all stakeholders: facility management, financial, and occupant. • Facility management – consideration for whether the facility is safe to occupy, and whether the reliability, maintainability, and availability are sufficient, or can be corrected within the bounds of available funding. • Financial – consideration for whether the organization’s long-term interests are best served by continuing to invest in capital maintenance or capital renewal, and how the existence or expected operating and capital funding supports or hampers such decisions. Ancillary consideration may also be given to issues of energy efficiency and necessary code compliance.
34 | Page
• Occupant – consideration should be given to the facility’s ability to satisfy the operational needs and comfort of occupants. In school buildings this may also include consideration for how the size and configuration of the facility satisfies evolved instructional methods, and technology. In this section we will discuss facility condition within two contexts: the State of Maryland IAC, and the FCPS Maintenance Department. The State’s context includes all three perspectives listed above (i.e., facility management, financial, and occupant), while the FCPS context is limited to the first two perspectives. This is not meant to imply that the FCPS Maintenance Department is indifferent to occupants, but only that our capital planning has focused on the physical building, while Planning generally focuses on other considerations. We hope that this document demonstrates that Maintenance is now broadening its perspective in order to provide FCPS leadership with the in-depth input necessary to make strategic decisions.
III.E.1. Maryland Condition Index Over the next year, the State will establish a score for each school facility, known as the Maryland Condition Index (MDCI). The score would describe the condition of the bricks-and-mortar elements of a school facility as well as the ability of the school facility to serve its educational function, as measured against the Maryland Public School Facilities Educational Sufficiency Standards adopted by the IAC on May 31, 2018.
Facility Condition Education Sufficiency Maryland Physical Conditions + Viability for the delivery = Condition of education Index
The State will calculate a Facility Condition Index (FCI) in a manner very similar to the method used by FCPS (described below). Site visits by the State’s consultant will allow for FCI adjustment, as well as visual and measurable assessments to determine the ability for the school to satisfy educational sufficiency standards.
The IAC has proposed that, once MDCI scores are generated for each of Maryland’s nearly 1,400 school facilities, those scores could be compared against one another and school facilities ranked from the highest (poorest condition) to the lowest (best condition). Those that ranked highest would be eligible for funding consideration for a new, renewal, or replacement project under a standards-based program.
FCPS awaits the opportunity to support the data needs and site assessments necessary for the State to generate its MDCI values. In the end, the MDCI will be a primary factor as FCPS plans, prioritizes, and conveys capital needs to the State in the future.
35 | Page
III.E.2. FCPS Maintenance Facility Condition Index Definition of Facility Condition Index The Facility Condition Index (FCI) is a condition-assessment parameter commonly used in the facility management profession. FCI is used to quantify a facility’s physical condition at a specific point in time. FCI is calculated using the expired system replacement costs (costs associated with systems that are beyond average service life) and the current replacement value (CRV) of the building. Expired system replacement costs consist of work that is necessary to restore the facility to a condition equivalent to its original (like new) state.
Deferred Maintenance Cost Facility Condition Index = Current Replacement Value
The FCI can be helpful in several respects, including: • Comparing the condition of one facility to a group of facilities • Tracking trends (the extent of improvement or deterioration over time) • Prioritizing capital improvement projects • Making modernization versus replacement decisions (analogous to the decision one makes when deciding to repair, or replace, and automobile; “should I fix it, or buy a new one?”). The FCI rating is a general indicator that must be applied judiciously – in our case the FCI is best used to gauge the adequacy of capital funding over a period of time, and to make decisions on individual facilities based in inter-facility comparison.
FCPS Facility Condition Index Values The table below provides a summary of the portfolio-wide FCI distribution, by school type. The FCI data for individual school buildings is included as Appendix E. Lower scores are better, as facilities with lower FCI scores have fewer building system deficiencies, are more reliable, and will require less maintenance spending on systems replacement and mission-critical emergencies.
Quantity Facility Condition Index (FCI) Deferred by Type 0-9% 10-19% 21-30% 31-40% 41-50% 51-60% 61-70% 71-80% 81-90% Maintenance Elementary School 38 7 6 9 9 2 4 1 $ 200,044,432 41% Middle School 13 4 2 3 1 2 1 $ 133,918,549 28% High School 10 4 4 2 $ 130,891,987 27% Other Schools 5 1 3 1 $ 21,483,857 4%
Total 66 16 8 19 12 5 5 0 0 1 $ 486,338,824 100% Next, we will place the FCPS school building FCI-values into context, for a better understanding of how to interpret these values.
36 | Page
Interpreting FCPS Facility Condition Index Values Every industry, and potentially every building owner within an industry, must use their discretion when interpreting FCI values a strategic manner. This section of the document will provide two interpretations: 1) a general (industry-wide) interpretation, and 2) a more conservative FCPS interpretation formed via research and conversation with the IAC.
Industry-Wide Perspective - The International Facility Management 0-5% Good Association (IFMA) is the world's largest, and most widely-recognized, 5-10% Fair international association for facility management professionals, supporting 10-30% Poor over 23,000 members in more than 100 countries. IFMA suggests some >30% Critical general FCI benchmarks as shown. Given IFMA’s benchmarks, FCPS has 24 (or 36% of the entire school building portfolio) are rated at “critical”.
Buildings in critical condition should be considered for modernization or possible replacement. This does not mean that the buildings are unsafe, but only that significant capital investment is needed to address deferred maintenance, and some cases it will be more cost effective to replace the building than to continue to maintain.
Detroit Public Schools Community District There is precedence for this general interpretation to be applied to public school FCI Rating Description Facility is new or well buildings. In 2018, a private consulting firm, 0-10 Good maintained under contract to the Detroit Public Schools Facility is satisfactorily 11-20 Fair Community District, conducted a facility maintained assessment of the Detroit school facility Poor Facility is under maintained 21-30 portfolio. The summary report uses an FCI Facility should be considered 31-60 Unsatisfactory for significant renovation or rating schema very similar to the IFMA possible replacement standard.
It’s now important to understand that IFMA members represent a diverse array of industries, including: academic, professional/office, airports, banking, healthcare, hospitality, manufacturing, and retail. IFMA benchmarks are intended to accommodate all of these industries. Many of these industries have more access to capital, and have practical, financial, or marketing motivators prompting them to undertake capital replenishment at a greater frequency than public school entities.
We believe that a more conservative approach to FCI evaluation is needed for public school buildings. Furthermore, to apply FCI to an individual school effectively, one must consider the age of the school, the criticality of overaged systems, as well as the school’s energy efficiency and educational suitability.
Conservative Perspective - In the case of public-school buildings, we hold that the FCI benchmarks described above prove too conservative for two reasons: 1) commercial building owners are typically more susceptible to pressure for modernization and renovation, and 2) private property owners have access to financial resources and tax incentives that foster capital renewal. In the
37 | Page
end, for public school facilities, the capital funding is insufficient to support IFMA-level capital renewal, and the occupancy patterns of school buildings generally disallow frequent, major repair, modernization, and replacement. We have chosen to interpret FCPS FCI values in a more pragmatic paradigm.
Our research has been unsuccessful in identifying one, prevailing standard to contextualize FCI values for public school buildings. The IAC does indicate that school buildings with an FCI score of 35% or less are “good”, and those with an FCI score above 60% will probably not be mission reliable.
Based on our research, and subsequent to FCI Recommended Action discussion with the IAC, we ascertain that an < 45% Maintain with Emergency Systemics FCI value of 45% is a reasonable antecedent 45 to 59% Consider for Modernization milestone for building modernization, and ≥ 60% Consider for Replacement an FCI value of 60% is a reasonable antecedent milestone for building replacement. An FCI value below 45% would place a facility within our stage of normal maintenance in which we continue to maintain and repair building systems using operating funds, and only enact capital maintenance using emergency systemic protocol. This chart illustrates how the two different FCI rating 70 REPLACE 2 Schools schema (i.e., IFMA and FCPS 60 MODERNIZE 8 Schools recommended) compare, CRITICAL 50 when applied to the FCPS 24 Schools school building portfolio. 40
30 Under the IFMA schema, 26 POOR MAINTAIN schools are overdue for 20 26 Schools
capital maintenance, and 24 10 FAIR 7 Schools schools are overdue for Quantity of School Buildings GOOD 9 Schools 56 Schools modernization or 0 IFMA FCPS replacement. Under the IFMA FCPS FCPS schema, 8 schools are overdue for modernization, and 2 schools are overdue for replacement.
Viewing the FCPS school building portfolio solely in the context of our FCPS FCI-rating schema (i.e., 45% and 60% as triggers for modernization and replacement, respectively) may leave one with the impression that there is no current, or pending, crisis. That would be a fallacious conclusion, for two reasons: 1) as discussed, a comprehensive evaluation of individual school buildings must consider several factors, including age, condition, and educational sufficiency, and 2) the composite FCI for all of FCPS school degrades dramatically in the near future. To assume that the viability of our school building portfolio is satisfactory based solely on current FCI values would be inimical, as we will discuss below.
38 | Page
This chart illustrates the School Building Portfolio FCI Permutation manner in which the portfolio- wide, composite FCI value FY 2021 FY 2026 FY 2031 FY 2036 FY 2041 permutates in successive 5-year 85% 77% 71% 59% 44% intervals, over the next 2 decades. In FY2021, FCI analysis suggests that 12% (or 30% 8) schools should be considered for modernization, and 3% (or 27% 21% 2) school should be considered 20% for replacement. 12% 3% 3% 8% 14% 26% Twenty years in the future (i.e., FY2041), and assuming no prior renovations or replacements, 30% (or 20) of schools should be considered for modernization, and 26% (or 17) of schools should be considered for replacement. The tabular rendition of this same dataset is provided below. Fiscal Year 2021 2026 2031 2036 2041 Maintain Modernize Replace Elementary School 31 5 2 30 6 2 28 7 3 23 9 6 17 9 12 Middle School 10 3 0 9 4 0 9 3 1 9 2 2 6 5 2 High School 10 0 0 8 2 0 7 2 1 6 3 1 5 4 1 Other Schools 5 0 0 4 1 0 3 2 0 1 4 0 1 2 2 Subtotal 56 8 2 51 13 2 47 14 5 39 18 9 29 20 17 % of total 85% 12% 3% 77% 20% 3% 71% 21% 8% 59% 27% 14% 44% 30% 26%
The current FCI status, and two-decade permutation is provided below, for each school type. These charts are constituted based on current, physical circumstances. We have not included pending changes to buildings based on planned or projected changes, or ongoing construction projects. For example, the old Urbana Elementary School is not included in the dataset because it
39 | Page
has been demolished, while Rock Creek Center and Waverley Elementary School are still included.
40 | Page
In summary, while FCI values alone may not indicate a clear and present dilemma, the examination of FCI permutation over time indicates an impending facility crisis. FCPS must take decisive steps soon to forestall such crisis. The average age, the FCI value are both increasing, and our older school buildings may be found inadequate with respect to the State Educational Sufficiency Standards. Adapting to accelerate capital replenishment, within the bounds of existing or expected capital funding, appears to be the most prudent course of action. III.F. Composite Perspective (Facility Age and Facility Condition) When discussing building age and FCI, one will see that, in some cases, there may exist little correlation between these two determinants. In other words, an aged building may have a relatively low (or “good”) FCI. The reason for this disparity is that FCPS has performed capital maintenance in many buildings (e.g., boiler, or chiller replacement), and such improvements can dramatically improve the FCI of an older building. This strategy helped ensure that the core systems (e.g., boilers, chillers, roofing) in older school buildings would allow safe, and uninterrupted occupancy. Other, less critical systems, and subsystems, were never addressed and much of quality of occupied space, including the features affecting educational suitability, has diminished. As stated previously, we intend to enact a strategy that will prevent this dynamic in the future. For the foreseeable future, capital maintenance projects must only be those that are necessary to allow a school facility to function safely, and effectively, until a scheduled, facility modernization or replacement. Ideally, the plan for each school building would result in all systems reaching their end-of-life at the time of facility renewal.
Therefore, neither age nor FCI can be used as a singular indicator that a school building is in need of capital renewal. Rather, a consideration of both age and FCI are best used as a prompt to initiate a more thorough investigation of an individual school building. When using age and FCI as indicators for further investigation, we have come to view a building’s lifespan as having three phases (as shown below): Antecedent Milestone Recommended Action Building Age (years) Facility Condition Index Maintain with Emergency Systemics Age < 30 FCI < 45% Consider for Modernization 30 ≤ Age < 60 45% ≤ FCI < 60% Consider for Replacement Age ≥ 60 FCI ≥ 60%
1. Maintain with Emergency Systemics – Buildings receive intensive scheduled- and unscheduled maintenance. Minor improvements and renovations are limited to projects driven by evolving, critical regulatory demands, or high-priority instructional initiatives. Systemics are limited to critical projects that are necessary to ensure a building’s availability and reliability. The overall intent is to ensure building availability and operation between new construction and modernization, and between modernization and replacement. 2. Consider for Modernization – In this phase, a building is candidate for a modernization that would bring the facility into compliance with current codes and standards, replace components that
41 | Page
typically have a 25-30 year lifecycle or lifespan, and reconfigure or upgrade to improve the overall educational sufficiency. 3. Consider Replacement – In this phase, a building has typically reached a threshold in which the organization’s long-term financial interests are best served by replacing a building, and not by continuing to invest in maintenance and repair. A replacement also accounts for the fact that many building systems are in poor condition, and cannot be suitably remedied by repair or modernization. III.G. Impact on Student Achievement Any evaluation of school buildings will inevitably lead to discussion regarding the impact of school building conditions on academic achievement. Appendix F provides a comparison of school academic performance with respect to four facility-related parameters.
Facility Age Facility Condition Academic Performance Open Space Over-Capacity
Academic Performance - The school performance data is based on Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) data for the 2018-2019 school year. The Maryland ESSA accountability system includes multiple ways to describe student and school performance, reflecting performance in multiple areas, including academic achievement, academic progress (for elementary and middle schools), school quality and student success measures, as well as graduation rates and college and career readiness (for high schools). A star rating is given to each school, expressing the “final score” in the Maryland accountability system. The higher the star rating, the greater attainment of total earned points.
Facility-related parameters - Age (years) – the age of the original school building, without adjustment for additions and renovations. Facility Condition Index – a condition assessment parameter discussed earlier in this document. Open Space – schools that have open-space architecture. Over Capacity – schools which, according to the Educational Facilities Master Plan (June 2019), have enrollment greater than the state-rated-capacity.
Analysis of the data presented in Appendix F shows no discernible trend that links ESSA results to facility-related parameters. While this dataset may present only a partial and inexact evaluation, it is worthy of consideration given that the dataset is readily available. Until a more comprehensive dataset presents itself, or until a more in-depth evaluation is undertaken, it is our assumption that our department can make facility-related decisions independent of ESSA star ratings, and can instead focus on the facility’s availability and reliability, and on the facilities ability to provide classroom environments with suitable lighting, heating, air-conditioning, and ventilation.
42 | Page
The chart below provides a summary display for illustrative purposes. The ESSA star ratings (i.e., 3, 4, 5) are relatively evenly spread among our schools, independent of age and FCI.
100 70%
90 60% 80
70 50%
60 Age 40% 50 30% 40 Facility Facility
30 20%
20 Index Condition Facility 10% 10
0 0% 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 ESSA Star Rating We must note that studies such as the School Facility Conditions and Student Academic Achievement (Earthman, October 2002) assert that school facility conditions do affect student academic achievement “when the socioeconomic status of students is controlled”. Our rudimentary evaluation did not include such parameter control. It’s also important to understand that such studies often involve facilities with known deficiencies in lighting and temperature control. In the end, we are very fortunate that all of FCPS school buildings have sufficient conditions, such as lighting and air-conditioning, and are absent of visible blight that may hamper or disturb either staff or students.
III.H. Portfolio Recommendations There are many determinants and circumstances that can Decision Factors influence strategic, facility-management of school buildings and, Age in particular, the selection and prioritization of individual Condition buildings to receive modernization, and replacement. We Educational Sufficiency propose an overall selection strategy that considers all of the Demography following: Capital Funding Age – as previously discussed, the age of the original structure is indicative of the condition of the building’s basic infrastructure (i.e., foundation, walls, plumbing, electrical), and generally suggestive of the building’s compliance with current building codes and educational sufficiency standards. Condition – at the highest level, the facility condition index (FCI) is indicative of the building systems that are beyond their useful lifespan, and that are likely to be operating in an ineffective or inefficient manner. An in-depth assessment of each building’s deferred maintenance will define the type and operational significance of building systems that have not been replaced.
43 | Page
Educational Sufficiency – the State has stated that it would oppose any suggestion that physical condition alone could determine the suitability of a school building for educational purposes. The building’s learning spaces must be educationally sufficient and this is a combination of both the condition of the actual building and the ability of the building to successfully support learning in a healthy and functional environment. The State will soon be conducting educational sufficiency assessments of each school building in Maryland. Demography – after evaluating individual schools with respect to their physical condition and educational sufficiency, one must consider how that school will support changes in the size of student population. From a facilities management perspective, there is tangible detriment for both an overcrowded school building as well as an underutilized school building. Also, individual school buildings must be evaluated within the context of its surrounding schools. As previously stated, combining and closing adjacent schools must be considered in order to improve sustainment of our large school building portfolio, given our limited capital funding. Capital Funding – It is easily discernable that FCPS will lack sufficient capital funding in the near future to dramatically reduce our backlog in capital renewal. Constrained funding will forcibly govern decisions to replace all of the building systems that have exceeded their projected lifespan (i.e., deferred maintenance). The expected lifespan values used by FCPS are included as Appendix G. The selection and prioritization will always entail a complex and multifaced analysis. It is our intent to provide the Chief Operating Officer, and ultimately the Superintendent and Board of Education, with valuable information necessary to make strategic decisions. In a theoretical decision-making process as shown below, the Maintenance Department can assist with the initial identification and down-selection based on age and condition, and remains ready to assist in whatever subsequent data gathering and analysis is necessary.
44 | Page
IV. Maintenance and Operations Organization Superintendent Superintendent’s Cabinet
IV.1. Personnel Organization Chief Operating The Superintendent’s cabinet is comprised of five members, Officer including the Chief Operating Officer. The Division of Division of Operations Operations is comprised of six departments, including Maintenance Maintenance and Operations. and Operations
The Maintenance and Operations Department is comprised Maintenance and Operations Department of 153 highly-skilled professionals organized into five Building Projects and Custodial operational branches, described below. Ninety-two percent Maintenance Grounds Services
(92%) of Department staff is engaged directly with the Environment Energy and important work that occurs daily, on-site in our school and Health Utilities buildings.
A detailed, Department organizational chart is Skilled provided below. The Department grew by one Tradespeople position in this fiscal year. Upon the departure of 74% an employee, we eliminated one supervisory position, and repurposed the associated funding. Working The result was to upgrade another vacant position Leadership 18% from semi-skilled to skilled position, and create another skilled position. FCPS now has 8% Leadership and redundancy, and succession capacity in two Administration important areas – the service and repair of fire alarm systems and building automation systems.
IV.1.A. Building Maintenance Branch The Branch includes eight field offices geographically dispersed throughout Frederick County. Each field office (or “Area”) is housed in one of our schools and provides regular and comprehensive customer service for up to ten facilities. Area teams consist of one Supervisor, one Foreman, and skilled tradespeople. On average, each Area maintains 875,000 square-feet of enclosed space.
The Branch has one Project Manager whose duties include contract management and oversight of the Master Tradesmen as well as the Electronic Building Systems Shop. The Computerized Maintenance Management System (CMMS) Administrator oversees system-wide processing of work orders and capital planning databases.
This year, the Electronic Building Systems (EBS) Shop is undergoing change. The Supervisor position has been repurposed in order to provide a second Building Automation (BAS) Systems Technician. The scope of BAS tasking has exceeded the available workload of one Technician, and the inherent value for this additional position has been established. The EBS shop maintains critical systems, such as fire-alarm
45 | Page
Director, Maintenance and Operations Secretary
Building Maintenance Manager Project & Grounds Manager Secretary Project Manager III Secretary Area 1 Area 2 Area 3 Area 4 Maintenance Area Supervisor Maintenance Area Supervisor Maintenance Area Supervisor Maintenance Area Supervisor Maintenance Project Manager II Maintenance Area Foreman Maintenance Area Foreman Maintenance Area Foreman Maintenance Area Foreman Carpenter Foreman Electrician Electrician Electrician Electrician Carpenter Electrician Electrician Electrician Electrician Carpenter HVAC/R Technician HVAC/R Technician HVAC/R Technician HVAC/R Technician Carpenter HVAC/R Technician HVAC/R Technician HVAC/R Technician HVAC/R Technician Locksmith Foreman HVAC/R Technician HVAC/R Technician HVAC/R Technician HVAC/R Technician Locksmith HVAC/R Technician HVAC/R Technician HVAC/R Technician HVAC/R Technician Painter Foreman Maint Mechanic, General Maint Mechanic, General Maint Mechanic, General Maint Mechanic, General Painter I Maint Mechanic, General Maint Mechanic, General Maint Mechanic, General Maint Mechanic, General Painter II Plumber Plumber Plumber Plumber Painter II Plumber Plumber Plumber Plumber Roofer Foreman Maint Mechanic, Roofer Area 5 Area 6 Area 7 Area 8 Maint Mechanic, Roofer Maintenance Area Supervisor Maintenance Area Supervisor Maintenance Area Supervisor Maintenance Area Supervisor Maintenance Area Foreman Maintenance Area Foreman Maintenance Area Foreman Maintenance Area Foreman Grounds Supervisor Electrician Electrician Electrician Electrician Grounds Crew Foreman Electrician Electrician Electrician Electrician Grounds Crew Foreman HVAC/R Technician HVAC/R Technician HVAC/R Technician HVAC/R Technician Grounds Crew Worker HVAC/R Technician HVAC/R Technician HVAC/R Technician HVAC/R Technician Grounds Crew Worker HVAC/R Technician HVAC/R Technician HVAC/R Technician HVAC/R Technician Grounds Crew Worker HVAC/R Technician HVAC/R Technician HVAC/R Technician HVAC/R Technician Grounds Crew Worker Maint Mechanic, General Maint Mechanic, General Maint Mechanic, General Maint Mechanic, General Grounds Crew Worker Maint Mechanic, General Maint Mechanic, General Maint Mechanic, General Maint Mechanic, General Grounds Crew Worker Plumber Plumber Plumber Plumber Grounds Crew Worker Plumber Plumber Plumber Plumber Grounds Equipment Repair Foreman Grounds Equipment Repair Tech
Maint Project Manager IV CMMS Administrator CMMS Data Quality Specialist Building Automation Sys Tech I Master Electrician Custodial Services Manager Building Automation Sys Tech II Master Plumber Secretary Electronic Building Sys Tech I Electronic Building Sys Tech I Custodian Support Specialist Electronic Building SysTech II Custodian Support Specialist Electronic Building SysTech II Electronic Building SysTech II Predictive Maint Technician Predictive Maint Technician Environmental/Health Manager
Pool Operations Supervisor Pool Operations Asst Supervisor Water Treatment Superintendent Water Treatment Operator
Energy and Utility Services Coordinator systems, building automation systems, and as well as select instructional technology. They also perform thermal imaging for predictive maintenance. This year we anticipate incorporating vibration analysis into the predictive maintenance program.
46 | Page
This Branch’s responsibilities include:
• Planned Maintenance – Perform scheduled preventive maintenance tasks to foster reliability, extend equipment life, ensure regulatory compliance, and improve energy efficiency. Predictive maintenance of key equipment to detect anomalous operating conditions so that repairs can be enacted prior to equipment failure. • Unplanned Maintenance - Satisfy customer service requests, and correct faults found during planned maintenance. • Respond to emergency situations that serve as interruptions to instruction, or that threaten the safety of occupants or the value of FCPS property. • Administer the CMMS that maintains the asset inventory, processes maintenance tasks and customer service requests, and enables capital planning. • Manage contracts, including those for water heaters, boiler and chiller repair, grease trap service, mechanical water treatment, plumbing parts, lighting, boiler repair, air filters, uniforms, cellular telephones, maintenance software, automated building controls, and the inspection and repair of fire-suppression systems, elevators, fire extinguishers, and bleacher inspections. IV.1.B. Maintenance Projects and Grounds This Branch consists of four trade shops and the grounds maintenance team. They are collocated at the Central Complex so that they can quickly dispatch to all facility locations.
This Branch’s responsibilities include:
• Trade shops have skilled tradesmen and equipment necessary to provide services not available within each of the Area teams. These trades include locksmithing, roofing, carpentry, and painting. • Maintain and repair all competition fields, tracks, and tennis courts at ten high schools. • Supplement the groundskeeping efforts of site-based custodial teams by inspecting and correcting stormwater assets, and by providing tree service, fence repair, and mulching. • Repair groundskeeping and snow removal equipment used throughout FCPS. • Perform regular inspection and repair of all playgrounds to maintain safe environments for students. • Repair and replace concrete and asphalt paving. • Design and construct building modifications to correct structural deficiencies, to support instructional innovation, and to address accessibility deficiencies (relative to the Americans with Disability Act). • Manage contracts, including those for stage curtains, roofing, wood floor finishing, fencing, door hardware, painting services, painting supplies, flooring, concrete and paving.
IV.1.C. Custodial Services This Branch includes a Manager and two Custodial Specialists that work directly with site-based custodial teams to resolve issues and improve performance. The tight coordination between Custodial Specialists and custodial teams is critical to quickly resolving facility issues that threaten to interrupt instruction.
47 | Page
This Branch’s responsibilities include:
• Provide support and consultation to building administrators with regards to building operations and the oversight of site-based custodial teams. • Provide regular trade training and targeted professional development for all custodians. • Provide efficient and effective equipment, tools, and supplies that allow custodial teams to operate schools in compliance with both regulations and best management practices. • Maintain a cadre of trained, part-time substitute custodians that can be dispatched to individual schools daily to assist when short-staffed, or when facing some emergent situation. • Perform annual inspections at each school to gauge and adjust custodial practices for maximum effectiveness and efficiency. • Manage contracts, including those for custodial equipment supply and repair, ice melt, cleaning supplies, bottled water, hand soap, cleaning chemicals, snow removal, and mowing.
IV.1.D. Environmental Compliance and Occupational Health This Branch’s responsibilities include:
• Provide technical support and consultation to building administrators, curriculum specialists, and others with regards to environmental compliance and occupational health concerns. • Maintain FCPS compliance with the regulations promulgated by Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Environmental Protection Agency, Maryland Department of the Environment, Maryland Department of Agriculture, and other agencies. • Operate 10 well water systems for schools that are not served by public water systems. • Operate and manage swimming pool operations, including complete coordination of use by outside groups whose user fees help to offset pool operation costs. • Manage contracts for industrial hygiene services, lead and asbestos remediation, emergency mitigation and repair, and fuel tank testing.
IV.1.E. Utilities and Solid Waste Management This Branch’s responsibilities include:
• Coordinate strategic procurement of energy and utilities. • Contract for recycling, composting, and waste collection and disposal services. • Prompt efforts to conserve resources via reduction in energy use and solid-waste generation. • Manage contracts, including those for electricity, natural gas, propane, heating oil, recycling, measurement and verification, and solid waste services.
IV.2. Personnel Deployment FCPS’ maintenance program is comprised of eight field (or “Area”) offices, and a central complex that houses our trade shops and administration. Under this program, Area maintenance personnel are familiar with the buildings under their purview, and as such, they are best prepared to operate and
48 | Page
service equipment, and they respond rapidly and decisively to emergent situations. Area teams operate semi-autonomously, prioritizing work and allocating resources to satisfy both programmed maintenance and customer service requests. Frederick County Each team is housed in a school building assigned to their Area. 660 square-miles When practical, each technician has a van equipped for his or her trade that serves as a mobile workshop. Cellular telephones and 1 Wi-Fi capable tablet computers allow technicians to remain in contact with both their supervisors and the Maintenance Direct work processing software. Wi-Fi connectivity offers the technicians 4 5 access to electronically-stored construction drawings, equipment 3 Centra l 8 specifications, repair manuals, and allows them to order parts on- 2 Compl ex line that will be delivered directly to the worksite. 6 7
The central complex shops include the specialized trades and equipment associated with water treatment, roofing, grounds maintenance, electronic building system repair, locksmithing, carpentry, and painting. FCPS’ Master Plumber, Master Electrician and the Superintendent of Water Treatment operate out of the central complex as well.
V. Maintenance and Operations Funding The entire allocation for Maintenance and Operations accounts for about 6.8% of the organization’s entire $637 million operating budget. The two largest segments of the Maintenance and Operations budget are for personnel (55.5%) and utilities (26.9%). The personnel allocation includes Maintenance and Operations FY20 Allocation all of the site-based custodial teams. Salaries and Wages $ 24,077,458 55.5% The FCPS operating-budget structure does Contracted Services $ 4,403,039 10.2% not align precisely with the Maintenance and Solid Waste ($934,000) Operations organizational structure, as the Supplies and Materials $ 2,827,487 6.5% budget is more function-based. As such, the Other Charges $ 11,903,526 27.5% descriptions below explain how the budget Utilities ($11,695,000) aligns with our functionality. Equipment $ 135,000 0.3% Total: $ 43,346,510 100% V.1. Facilities Operations and Maintenance The Facilities Operations and Maintenance budget allocation supports the preventive maintenance program for all FCPS facilities; responding to work order service requests issued by building administrators, teachers and food service staff in order to provide an optimal learning environment; performing regular inspections of equipment and building systems, such as roofs, boilers, chillers, sprinkler systems, fire alarms, elevators, fire extinguishers, etc.; providing service repair for all systems including food service equipment; coordinating in-house or contracted efforts necessary to maintain regulatory compliance for selected building systems; administering the computerized maintenance management system software; administering contracts, some of which include septic and grease trap
49 | Page systems, sprinkler system inspection, roof Facilities Operations and Maintenance repair, fuel tank testing, elevator inspection Positions 149 and mechanical water treatment. Budget Salaries and Wages $ 9,630,755 Specialized trade shops in this department Contracted Services $ 2,848,011 include grounds and athletic field Supplies and Materials $ 1,820,330 maintenance, locksmith, carpentry, painting and roofing. These trade shops are Other Charges $ 195,909 responsible for design and construction Equipment $ 65,000 services for minor building modifications $ 14,560,005 and the administration of unit price Custodial Services contracts, some of which include door Positions 370 hardware, painting supplies, flooring, Budget concrete and paving; grounds and athletic Salaries and Wages $ 14,345,366 field maintenance; the noxious weed control program; the storm water management Contracted Services $ 620,056 program; the playground safety inspection Supplies and Materials $ 1,003,657 program; and the portable maintenance Other Charges $ 12,300 program. Equipment $ 70,000 $ 16,051,379 Under Facilities Operations and Energy Management and Recycling Maintenance, the Environmental Compliance and Occupational Health Positions 1 program is responsible for directing Budget environmental health and related activities, Salaries and Wages $ 101,337 including environmental regulatory Solid Waste Management $ 934,972 compliance; managing all aspects of Supplies and Materials $ 3,500 swimming pool operations; providing Utilities $ 11,695,317 technical support and consultation services Equipment $ - for building administrators, curriculum $ 12,735,126 specialists, and departments on environmental concerns; assisting FCPS in developing preemptive measures and implementing responses to medical or environmental hazards; managing environmental programs and federal, state, or local compliance related to indoor air quality, water quality, asbestos, and lead abatement, integrated pest management; ensuring FCPS compliance with the Environmental Protection Agency, the Maryland Department of the Environment; administering contracts associated with industrial hygiene services and asbestos abatement; assisting other FCPS divisions or departments in the investigation of student and staff accidents; and assisting FCPS Fiscal Services Division in coordinating responses regarding building damage and liability insurance claims.
V.2. Custodial Services The Custodial Services program is responsible for providing technical support and training to school- based custodians regarding cleaning and building care related tasks, including the safe use of all chemicals and custodial equipment; providing support for school administrators in the management of custodial staff; performing annual inspections of custodial services at individual schools; providing
50 | Page
coordination and resources in response to weather-related events, medical issues, and emergency events that threaten the safe operations of schools; providing State of Maryland certified staff to deal with integrated pest management issues system-wide; assisting in the set-up and opening of new schools and school additions; administering the substitute custodian program; administering contracts for custodial equipment repair, snow removal, mowing, and other building operation functions; and managing contracts for the procurement of supplies and equipment for school custodians.
V.3. Energy Management and Recycling The Energy and Recycling program manages the procurement of energy requirements of the school system. Key elements include collecting and analyzing utility-billing data, including electric, natural gas, heating oil, propane, water/sewer, solid waste and recycling; coordinating the procurement of energy and solid waste services; managing contracts associated with energy and solid waste services; monitoring the energy market to direct procurement decisions; coordinating with state and local officials on issues associated with energy, water/sewer utilities and solid waste management; developing and overseeing energy reduction programs for FCPS; managing source reduction and recycling programs for FCPS.
VI. Maintenance and Operations Work Processing FCPS employs the Assets Essentials CMMS for workflow processing. Equipment inventory is at the heart of the system. We use this function to manage the data on individual pieces of equipment so that we can plan for its service, repair, and replacement. Since work is assigned to specific equipment we are also able to compile lifecycle costs for strategic replacement analysis. This replacement analysis is performed via the Capital Forecasting module. Planned maintenance and service requests allow us to establish and School execute our preventive and predictive maintenance tasks, and to respond timely to the service needs of our schools. All work, and Customer associated costs, are captured in near real-time in the field via the technician’s tablet computers for subsequent analysis. Request
Principal We allow and encourage individual teachers to submit service requests directly into the CMMS. This is the best means for us to
Approve Status Update receive timely and accurate information regarding issues affecting classroom instruction. The teacher can provide maintenance with a window of time that the work can be performed without interfering with classroom activity. Supervisor Assign In the CMMS, all service requests entered by school staff are now routed through the Principal’s office for review and approval. Once approved by the Principal, the work order is automatically
Time/Material Technician forwarded to the Area Supervisor responsible for that school. If Maintenance the Supervisor is unavailable, others are assigned to respond to and Operations the request in a timely manner.
51 | Page
Since the Area Supervisor is most familiar with that school, and with the procedures and work teams within Maintenance, the Supervisor can assign the work to one of his or her technicians, or forward the work on to the trade shop that can accomplish the work. As shown in the figure, the teacher can choose to receive automatic updates, via email, with regards to the status and completion of their service request.
The Facility Scheduling Direct module allows outside user groups direct access to the information and services that they need to rent a facility. A user can check the availability of a building, room, or field, submit a request for rental, and provide the necessary liability insurance information. The school administration can review and approve the individual rental requests, and submit work orders for custodians and maintenance to support the needs of the approved users. Eventually, we will integrate the facility use module with our building automation systems so that heating and cooling will be automatically scheduled to support each approved rental. This will result in savings, records now show that our department expended over $17,000 in labor over the past twelve months to manually schedule heating and cooling in support of facility rentals.
VII. Maintenance and Operations Procedures FCPS employs a comprehensive approach to maintaining safe and Planned Maintenance effective schools, and to protecting the taxpayer’s capital Predictive investment. It is important to note that our school buildings serve Preventive many functions beyond their primary mission of public education. Inspection Many of our schools serve as election polling sites, emergency Corrective shelters, and gathering space for civic and recreational use. Simply Unplanned Maintenance put, the maintenance strategy endeavors to avoid building system Emergency Response failure where practical, and expediting building system repair when Routine Repair failure occurs. Each of the elements shown in this figure are Customer Service Request discussed in detail below. Renovation and Upgrade VII.1. Planned Maintenance Planned Maintenance primary objectives include: • Ensure reliability of life-safety systems such as fire alarms, • Ensure compliance with regulations associated with safety and environmental protection, • Minimize system failures that detract from an optimal learning environment, • Prolong the lifespan of equipment that cannot be replaced due to limited funding, and • Verify proper equipment function, and improve energy efficiency. Predictive Maintenance Predictive maintenance (PdM) monitors equipment while in operation to detect anomalous conditions or trends that warrant further investigation and perhaps preemptive repair. This approach offers cost savings over preventive maintenance because technicians only need to perform maintenance work
52 | Page when warranted, as opposed to work based on a regular schedule. Ideally, PdM also allows you to identify a problem before equipment failure, so that you can schedule preemptive repairs at a time that will not interfere with instruction.
Our two Predictive Maintenance Technicians, assigned to the Electronic Building Systems Shop, execute this program. The Technicians use thermal (infrared) imaging to detect signs of mechanical and electrical deterioration in equipment. They will report any adverse findings to the Area maintenance teams that will determine when and how to address the anomaly. This year we hope to expand our PdM program to include vibration analysis, and system-wide testing of the oil and refrigerant used in large air-conditioning chillers.
Preventive Maintenance With Preventive maintenance (PM), one performs pre-defined maintenance tasks on a regular schedule, regardless of equipment condition. PM programs have two primary components – an accurate, up-to-date equipment inventory, and equipment-specific procedures defining service schedules and tasks.
FCPS uses the UniFormat equipment classification protocol to guide equipment inventory. This protocol is issued by the American Society for Testing and Materials for use by architects, engineers, and maintenance personnel to ensure thoroughness and consistency in all phases of facility management. Specifically, FCPS employs UniFormat; A Uniform Classification of Construction Systems and Assemblies. FCPS currently has 232,959 inventoried assets.
FCPS derives its PM schedules and tasks from RSMeans Facilities Maintenance & Repair Cost Data (2011 Version). The RSMeans PM schema is not exhaustive, and in some cases FCPS must rely on other sources for PM schedules and tasks. For life-safety systems (e.g., fire alarms and fire sprinkler systems) FCPS has adopted the more stringent PM procedures defined by the National Fire Protection Association. For other ancillary items, such as food-service and groundskeeping equipment, we must use PM as recommended by the equipment manufacturer.
Inspection Routine building tours - FCPS maintenance technicians perform daily building tours prior to student occupancy. If Maintenance detects a major deficiency that could preclude school opening, personnel are on-site to initiate corrective action. If they cannot correct the deficiency, maintenance can notify school administration so that they can make timely decisions regarding occupancy. The tours also provide maintenance an opportunity to identify minor deficiencies, and to issue Corrective Maintenance work orders to address these deficiencies.
Regulatory (State) - The State of Maryland Public School Construction Program performs periodic inspections to ensure that each county’s maintenance department places proper emphasis on protecting the value and serviceability of school buildings. FCPS endeavors to quickly correct any deficiency noted by the State. The State also requires that FCPS perform semi-annual inspection of each roof section. These inspections serve to detect roof failures in their incipient stage, where the
53 | Page
scope of repair and water-damage potential is less, and when warranty coverage is more likely to be in effect. It also helps to characterize roof performance attributes that define trends in roofing material, roofing contractor performance, and roof replacement needs.
Regulatory (Others) – Numerous agencies perform periodic and as-needed inspections, including the Maryland Department of Labor, Licensing, and Regulation, the Maryland Department of Agriculture, the Frederick County Fire Marshal, the County Health Department’s, and County Sustainability and Environmental Resources. Various regulations compel FCPS to contract for certified inspectors for elevators, fire extinguishers, underground storage tanks, pressure vessels, bleachers, diving boards, and fire suppression systems. Deficiencies found during these inspections are corrected as soon as possible as they can adversely affect occupant safety, or the environment.
Risk mitigation - FCPS works collaboratively with its liability insurance carrier to conduct routine safety inspections. The periodic inspections focus primarily on curricular areas that may pose higher risk activities such as technical education, science labs, and theatre arts.
Corrective Maintenance Corrective Maintenance (CM) is comprised of the reparative tasks that result from faults found during Planned Maintenance. Typically, if a technician detects equipment failure during a planned maintenance activity they will perform the repair at that time. The technician may defer the repair if extensive effort is required, or if parts are unavailable. In either case, the technician creates a work order in Maintenance Direct to capture the effort and cost associated with the necessary repair.
VII.2. Unplanned Maintenance Unplanned Maintenance includes activities that cannot be programmed or forecast, such as emergency repairs, equipment breakdown repair, and customer service requests. FCPS relies on well-established lines of communication to relay emergency situations and needs. Our staff is disseminated throughout the County, and they are equipped with cellular phones and vehicles to facilitate a rapid response.
Emergency Response School-based custodians provide the first level of emergency response. During the onset of a facility emergency, a swift and decisive custodial response has proven to be critical in damage mitigation, remediation, and allaying the concerns of disrupted building occupants. The Maintenance and Operations Department trains custodial teams on utility shut-offs and remediation techniques, and provides the resources to begin, and in most cases complete, post- emergency cleanup.
The Department’s Area maintenance program enables rapid deployment of technicians most familiar with the school in peril. Most building system failures can be repaired immediately with in- house forces. Maintenance has contracts in place with qualified contractors when emergencies require large-scale mobilization for cleanup and repair. The Manager of Environmental Compliance
54 | Page and Occupational Health personally, or with assistance of certified industrial hygiene professionals, ensures that remediated facilities are safe to reoccupy, when necessary.
Vandalism is much the same as an emergency repair. Our team can handle most damage resulting from vandalism. We rely on a contractor to quickly remove graffiti, as we have found that the faster you remove graffiti (typically within 24 hours), the easier it is to remove, and it is less likely for someone to do it again.
Maintenance is in the formative stages of a Root Cause and Failure Analysis program. The basis for this program will be to identify failures that pose the greatest threat for interrupting instruction, systematically analyzing past failures to identify the true root cause, and setting a practical course for failure prevention. In the end, it is unreasonable to expect that failures will not occur, but conversely it is unreasonable to allow the same failures to occur repeatedly.
Routine Repair Many school building assets do not warrant routine maintenance. The only maintenance provided to such assets is corrective, and then only after the asset has failed – this we commonly referred to as “run to failure”. Maintenance employs this strategy for assets that are not critical to safe and effective facility operations, and where typically the cumulative costs to maintain these assets is greater than the cost to replace.
The school custodians participate in rectifying many common failures, such as clogged plumbing fixtures, lamp replacement, ceiling tile replacement, and touchup painting. Where practical, the Department stocks parts for prompt repair, otherwise we depend on vendors for timely provision of necessary materials. The Department routinely salvages components from defunct equipment, as many older systems contain parts no longer available from the original equipment manufacturer. Maintenance vans serve as a form of mobile workshop, where supplies, parts, and tools are readily available for routine repairs.
Customer Service Requests At each school, the principal is the chief administrator and instructional leader, responsible for all phases of its operation. Maintenance acknowledges the momentous nature of a principal’s charge, and strives to support them in the most proactive manner. In addition to routine interaction, our Department supervisors schedule visits with school principals, proactively soliciting concerns and suggestions. The supervisors’ most important objective is to identify and resolve any protracted issues that affect safety and instruction, or simply divert the principal’s focus from more important activity.
Maintenance employs Dude Solution’s Maintenance Direct software module to capture, evaluate, and process customer service requests. Maintenance Direct’s Maintenance Work Order icon exists on every employees’ computer desktop, allowing them to submit requests personally into Maintenance Direct. In the past, teachers would have had to relay their concerns for others that would submit work orders - unnecessarily extending the time necessary to correct the problem.
55 | Page
VII.3. Renovation and Upgrade Maintenance routinely receives requests for facility improvement. Requests originate from many sources, and are prompted by change in regulations, instructional technology, energy conservation, and space planning. Maintenance plans and executes small renovation and system upgrades using a combination of in-house tradesmen and contractors.
The Board of Education requires that school administrators seek and obtain permission before proceeding with facility modifications or improvements – whether the proposed change originates from an outside user group (e.g., sports booster club) or school staff. This process is designed to avoid FCPS from unwittingly assuming liability or significant future maintenance costs. Maintenance’s role in this process is to collect, evaluate, and adjudicate the requests. In some cases, for an approved request with which the requestor provides the funding, we simply instruct them to proceed according to proper protocol. If the request requires an expenditure of Maintenance resources, we prioritize and schedule the work as resources permit.
The Department holds responsibility for situational compliance with the Americans with Disability Act (ADA). The Maintenance Projects and Grounds Branch has a list of deficiencies (relative to the 2012 ADA standards) for each existing school facility that was created by a professional architect. The Branch uses this list to select projects each fiscal year based on the programmed funding. The special education component of the Accelerating Achievement and Equity Department group notifies the Branch of an existing, or impending, student situation that requires prompt attention. The Department of Human Resources provides the same manner of notification for employee situations. These situations take precedence, and the Branch simply adjusts its annual retrofit plans to accommodate the greatest needs.
Carpenters from the Building Projects and Grounds Branch design and enact small renovations that dramatically improve the instructional environment in aging schools. The Electronic Building Systems Shop upgrades and replaces life-safety and audio-visual system, or major system components, which directly affect occupant safety and instructional effectiveness. Over the past several years the Department focused on eliminating single points of failure that could threaten school operations. For example, our Water Treatment Supervisor has led efforts to install and integrate two water wells in each well-fed school. Area maintenance plumbers have installed energy-efficient, natural-gas domestic water heaters so that each school has two, redundant water heaters. As the County Health Department requires domestic hot water for food service and safe building occupancy, we are now less likely to have to close the school due to system failure.
56 | Page
VIII. Awards There are numerous entities in the realms of education, school business, and facility-management that seek to identify noteworthy organizations and achievement. We are proud to have received recognition from a wide array of entities. One of the most cherished awards was the 2018 Pinnacle of Excellence Award (issued by the Association of Business Officials, International) which celebrates the work of outstanding individuals whose original solutions maximize resources and enhance student achievement. This award demonstrates our drive and desire to overcome obstacles that hinder our progress – this award was given to a Maintenance team, by a Business-related entity in recognition for excellence in Human Relations (i.e., employee onboarding).
The awards, listed below, have given our team the opportunity to both gather and share expertise with our contemporaries. Our team has been invited to present as many professional events, including: ASBO International Annual Conference, ASBO Allen Gaddis Leadership Academy, Dude Solutions University, and the FMXcellence Conference. Our team has also been featured in several trade periodicals. FCPS continues to serve as a noteworthy leader in our field, and provide meaningful networking collaboration with maintenance teams across the nation.
National Excellence Award (Indoor Air Quality Tools for Schools). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2010 The Brice and Shirley Phillips Best Practices Award. Association of School Business Officials (Maryland, District of Columbia Chapter), 2014 Achievement Award. Facility Maintenance Decisions Magazine, 2015 FMXcellence Award. Building Operating Management Magazine, 2016 Campus Champion in Maintenance (Operational Proficiency). Dude Solutions, Inc., 2016 State of Maryland “Silver Hammer” Award for Exceptional School Maintenance. Maryland Board of Public Works (State of Maryland Comptroller), 2016 Governor’s Citations for Superior Maintenance of Schools. Maryland Interagency Committee on School Construction, 2017 Employer Support of the Guard and Reserve (Patriotic Employer). Office of the Secretary of Defense, 2018
57 | Page
Certificate of Appreciation (FM Innovation Award).
International Facility CEO, Dude Solutions Management Association, 2018 Pinnacle of Excellence Award. Association of School Business Officials International, 2018 Achievement Award. Facility Maintenance Decisions Magazine, 2018 Dude Solutions Excellence Award (Inaugural). Dude Solutions, Inc., 2020
58 | Page
APPENDIX A – MAINTENANCE COST BY SCHOOL
Gross Year of Original Student Cost/ Type Square- Cost/sf School Building Construction Enrollment Student Feet (sf) Ballenger Creek Elementary E 1991 64,187 $ 1.00 613 $ 106.83 Brunswick Elementary E 1952 60,205 $ 1.46 769 $ 108.84 Carroll Manor Elementary E 1965 77,593 $ 0.81 605 $ 102.34 Centerville Elementary E 2005 87,175 $ 0.95 940 $ 95.28 Deer Crossing Elementary E 1997 77,966 $ 1.16 822 $ 112.38 Emmitsburg Elementary E 1974 45,080 $ 1.10 234 $ 179.01 Glade Elementary E 1995 66,500 $ 0.88 620 $ 93.42 Green Valley Elementary E 1971 51,888 $ 2.11 575 $ 203.71 Hillcrest Elementary E 1988 62,305 $ 1.50 739 $ 127.24 Kemptown Elementary E 1981 53,800 $ 1.53 422 $ 193.47 Lewistown Elementary E 1961 50,898 $ 1.52 184 $ 364.15 Liberty Elementary E 1927 40,720 $ 1.23 267 $ 162.37 Lincoln Elementary E 2012 98,463 $ 0.52 583 $ 93.17 Middletown Elementary E 1974 54,854 $ 0.78 502 $ 84.29 Middletown Primary E 2006 70,288 $ 0.94 485 $ 139.76 Monocacy Elementary E 1989 57,900 $ 1.46 642 $ 127.83 Myersville Elementary E 1971 54,889 $ 0.89 396 $ 131.00 New Market Elementary E 1933 88,983 $ 1.09 686 $ 146.41 New Midway Elementary E 1930 21,894 $ 2.37 144 $ 328.91 North Frederick Elementary E 2014 95,613 $ 0.55 664 $ 79.99 Oakdale Elementary E 2001 89,566 $ 0.78 720 $ 97.56 Orchard Grove Elementary E 1996 70,142 $ 1.20 606 $ 144.46 Parkway Elementary E 1930 32,223 $ 1.41 225 $ 197.58 Sabillasville Elementary E 1964 27,000 $ 1.93 86 $ 392.53 Spring Ridge Elementary E 1991 66,276 $ 1.05 475 $ 141.22 Thurmont Elementary E 1955 64,250 $ 0.84 311 $ 149.62 Thurmont Primary E 2001 66,334 $ 1.13 358 $ 194.91 Tuscarora Elementary E 2004 86,938 $ 0.87 662 $ 111.63 Twin Ridge Elementary E 1992 68,900 $ 1.66 472 $ 258.75 Valley Elementary E 1967 59,989 $ 1.69 496 $ 200.76 Walkersville Elementary E 1974 89,514 $ 0.68 690 $ 89.79 Waverley Elementary E 1969 54,178 $ 1.78 534 $ 188.17 Whittier Elementary E 1998 81,244 $ 0.99 668 $ 121.60 Wolfsville Elementary E 1959 41,657 $ 1.82 134 $ 499.07 Woodsboro Elementary E 1952 28,557 $ 1.61 152 $ 227.21 Yellow Springs Elementary E 1957 52,600 $ 1.38 446 $ 146.33 Ballenger Creek Middle M 1990 113,850 $ 0.77 850 $ 103.89 Brunswick Middle M 1985 119,539 $ 0.64 581 $ 133.04 Crestwood Middle M 2004 107,212 $ 0.68 719 $ 97.08 Governor Thomas Johnson Middle M 2000 126,700 $ 0.78 541 $ 176.48 Middletown Middle M 1953 114,974 $ 1.02 775 $ 148.29 Monocacy Middle M 1981 114,445 $ 0.85 970 $ 100.08 New Market Middle M 1974 114,936 $ 0.76 570 $ 144.73 Oakdale Middle M 2002 109,089 $ 0.88 830 $ 119.91 Thurmont Middle M 1950 135,260 $ 0.69 547 $ 164.15 Urbana Middle M 2006 145,135 $ 0.62 1,016 $ 92.58 Walkersville Middle M 1961 119,353 $ 0.83 886 $ 105.67 West Frederick Middle M 1958 166,439 $ 0.57 894 $ 111.65 Windsor Knolls Middle M 1993 116,644 $ 0.81 751 $ 121.50 Brunswick High H 1965 166,066 $ 0.98 769 $ 224.43 Catoctin High H 1969 179,045 $ 0.93 789 $ 210.14 Governor Thomas Johnson High H 1966 312,533 $ 0.69 1,804 $ 123.43 Linganore High H 2010 253,565 $ 0.79 1,309 $ 127.15 Middletown High H 1974 189,641 $ 1.55 1,139 $ 271.90 Oakdale High H 2008 241,061 $ 0.52 1,249 $ 100.94 Tuscarora High H 2003 257,062 $ 0.68 1,639 $ 108.03 Urbana High H 1995 249,609 $ 0.75 1,859 $ 102.92 Walkersville High H 1976 181,416 $ 0.86 1,184 $ 139.53
59 | Page
60 | Page
61 | Page
62 | Page
APPENDIX B – ADMINISTRATIVE/SUPPORT BUILDINGS
This document responds to the State of Maryland’s requirement to define the program of maintenance for public school buildings. For that reason, this document focuses exclusively on school buildings, and not buildings that host administrative and support functions.
However, to furnish a complete depiction of the maintenance program, the status of the administrative and support buildings is provided herein. The estimates provided are high-level planning projections that represent each building’s core components. In the case of the Bus Garage current replacement value, the estimates do not include the equipment and other specialized infrastructure necessary to support vehicle maintenance and repair. The terms used in this table (i.e., facility condition index, current replacement value, deferred maintenance) are defined in the Glossary of Terms and Acronyms.
Age Area Facility Current Deferred (SQFT) Condition Replacement Maintenance Index Value Central Office (191 South East St, Frederick) 11 89,840 3% $ 26,952,000 $ 878,207 Warehouse (33 Thomas Johnson Dr., Frederick) 45 43,100 11% $ 5,767,211 $ 618,000 Maintenance/Transportation Annex (7446 Hayward Rd., Frederick) 53 21,619 32% $ 5,296,655 $ 1,704,000 Bus Garage (7446 Hayward Rd., Frederick) 43 5,059 6% $ 998,242 $ 62,428 Staff Development Center (44 West Frederick St., Walkersville) 99 27,352 33% $ 9,299,680 $ 3,066,856 Central Office Annex (57 West Frederick St., Walkersville) 33 2,992 To be determined Total 189,962 $ 48,313,788 $ 6,329,491
63 | Page
APPENDIX C – ADDITION AND RENOVATION
Year of Original Age Quantity of Quantity of School Building Construction (years) Additions Renovations Ballenger Creek Elementary 1991 29 0 0 Brunswick Elementary 1952 68 2 1 Butterfly Ridge Elementary 2018 2 0 0 Carroll Manor Elementary 1965 55 2 1 Centerville Elementary 2005 15 0 0 Deer Crossing Elementary 1997 23 0 0 Emmitsburg Elementary 1974 46 0 0 Glade Elementary 1995 25 0 0 Green Valley Elementary 1971 49 0 0 Hillcrest Elementary 1988 32 1 0 Kemptown Elementary 1981 39 0 0 Lewistown Elementary 1961 59 1 0 Liberty Elementary 1950 93 3 1 Lincoln Elementary 2012 8 0 1 Middletown Elementary 1974 46 0 0 Middletown Primary 2006 14 0 0 Monocacy Elementary 1989 31 0 0 Myersville Elementary 1971 49 1 0 New Market Elementary 1933 87 4 2 New Midway Elementary 1930 90 2 1 North Frederick Elementary 2014 6 0 0 Oakdale Elementary 2001 19 1 1 Orchard Grove Elementary 1996 24 0 0 Parkway Elementary 1930 90 2 1 Sabillasville Elementary 1964 56 0 0 Spring Ridge Elementary 1991 29 0 0 Sugarloaf Elementary 2018 2 0 0 Thurmont Elementary 1955 65 2 0 Thurmont Primary 2001 19 1 1 Tuscarora Elementary 2004 16 0 0 Twin Ridge Elementary 1992 28 0 0 Valley Elementary 1967 53 1 1 Walkersville Elementary 1974 46 1 1 Waverley Elementary 1969 51 1 0 Whittier Elementary 1998 22 0 0 Wolfsville Elementary 1959 61 1 1 Woodsboro Elementary 1952 68 2 0 Yellow Springs Elementary 1957 63 2 0 Ballenger Creek Middle 1990 30 0 0 Brunswick Middle 1985 35 1 1 Crestwood Middle 2004 16 0 0 Governor Thomas Johnson Middle 2000 20 0 0 Middletown Middle 1953 67 3 0 Monocacy Middle 1981 39 0 0 New Market Middle 1974 46 0 0 Oakdale Middle 2002 18 0 0 Thurmont Middle 1950 70 4 2 Urbana Middle 2006 14 1 0 Walkersville Middle 1961 59 2 1 West Frederick Middle 1958 62 1 1 Windsor Knolls Middle 1993 27 1 0 Brunswick High 1965 55 3 1 Catoctin High 1969 51 2 1 Frederick High 2017 3 0 0 Governor Thomas Johnson High 1966 54 1 1 Linganore High 2010 10 0 0 Middletown High 1974 46 1 2 Oakdale High 2008 12 0 0 Tuscarora High 2003 17 1 0 Urbana High 1995 25 1 0 Walkersville High 1976 44 1 2 Career and Technology Center 1977 43 1 0 Earth and Space Sciences Laboratory 2009 11 0 0 Heather Ridge 1988 32 1 1 Lincoln A 1974 46 0 0 Rock Creek 1972 48 0 0
64 | Page
APPENDIX D – BUILDING AGE ANALYSIS
Age of FCPS School Buildings
The age of each school building (relative to the year 2020) is provided below. The age calculation is based on the opening year of the original school building, and does not consider the age of additions, or renovations.
Year of Year of Building Original Building Original Construction Age Construction Age Staff Development Center, Walkersville B 1921 99 Kemptown Elementary 1981 39 Parkway Elementary 1930 90 Monocacy Middle 1981 39 New Midway Elementary 1930 90 Brunswick Middle 1985 35 New Market Elementary 1933 87 Walkersville Library 1987 33 Liberty Elementary 1950 70 Hillcrest Elementary 1988 32 Thurmont Middle 1950 70 Heather Ridge 1988 32 Brunswick Elementary 1952 68 Monocacy Elementary 1989 31 Woodsboro Elementary 1952 68 Ballenger Creek Middle 1990 30 Middletown Middle 1953 67 Ballenger Creek Elementary 1991 29 Thurmont Elementary 1955 65 Spring Ridge Elementary 1991 29 Yellow Springs Elementary 1957 63 Twin Ridge Elementary 1992 28 West Frederick Middle 1958 62 Windsor Knolls Middle 1993 27 Wolfsville Elementary 1959 61 Glade Elementary 1995 25 Lewistown Elementary 1961 59 Urbana High 1995 25 Walkersville Middle 1961 59 Orchard Grove Elementary 1996 24 Sabillasville Elementary 1964 56 Deer Crossing Elementary 1997 23 Carroll Manor Elementary 1965 55 Whittier Elementary 1998 22 Brunswick High 1965 55 Governor Thomas Johnson Middle 2000 20 Governor Thomas Johnson High 1966 54 Thurmont Primary 2001 19 Valley Elementary 1967 53 Oakdale Elementary 2001 19 7446 Hayward Road, Annex 1967 53 Oakdale Middle 2002 18 Waverley Elementary 1969 51 Tuscarora High 2003 17 Catoctin High 1969 51 Tuscarora Elementary 2004 16 Green Valley Elementary 1971 49 Crestwood Middle 2004 16 Myersville Elementary 1971 49 Centerville Elementary 2005 15 Rock Creek 1972 48 Middletown Primary 2006 14 Middletown Elementary 1974 46 Urbana Middle 2006 14 Emmitsburg Elementary 1974 46 Oakdale High 2008 12 Walkersville Elementary 1974 46 Earth and Space Sciences Laboratory 2009 11 Middletown High 1974 46 191 South East Street, Frederick 2009 11 New Market Middle 1974 46 Linganore High 2010 10 Lincoln A 1974 46 Lincoln Elementary 2012 8 33 Thomas Johnson Drive, Frederick 1975 45 North Frederick Elementary 2014 6 Walkersville High 1976 44 Frederick High 2017 3 Career and Technology Center 1977 43 Butterfly Ridge Elementary 2018 2 7446 Hayward Road, Bus Garage 1977 43 Sugarloaf Elementary 2018 2
65 | Page
Impact of Pending Modernization and Replacement Projects
The chart below illustrates the age profile of all FCPS school buildings (relative to the year 2020). For simplicity, school buildings have been placed in 5-year age bins. The chart also denotes school buildings that are currently programmed for modernization or modernization.
NOTE: Replacements or modernizations are as defined in the Educational Facilities Master Plan Annual Update, dated June 2020. All projects in this plan are not fully funded.
• Rock Creek Center replacement (48 years old) • Waverley Elementary School replacement (51 years old) • Brunswick Elementary School modernization (68 years old) • Valley Elementary School modernization (53 years old) • Green Valley Elementary School modernization (49 years old) • Liberty Elementary School replacement (70 years old) • Yellow Springs Elementary School modernization (63 years old) • Middletown Middle School modernization (67 years old) • Walkersville Middle School modernization (59 years old) • Middletown High School modernization (46 years old) • Brunswick High School replacement (55 years old) • Middletown Elementary School modernization (46 years old)
M Planned Modernization 10 R Planned Replacement 9 R 8 M 7 M 6 M R 5 R R 4 M M M 3 M M 2 1 0 Quantity of Schools in each Age Bin Age each in Schools of Quantity Age Bins (5-year increments)
66 | Page
APPENDIX E – FACILITY CONDITION INDEX
Facility FCI 2020 Facility FCI 2020 Ballenger Creek Elementary 17% Myersville Elementary 23% Ballenger Creek Middle 19% New Market Elementary 34% Brunswick Elementary 31% New Market Middle 28% Brunswick High 22% New Midway Elementary 29% Brunswick Middle 18% North Frederick Elementary 0% Butterfly Ridge Elementary 0% Oakdale Elementary 5% Career and Technology Center 27% Oakdale High 2% Carroll Manor Elementary 13% Oakdale Middle 5% Catoctin High 42% Orchard Grove Elementary 13% Centerville Elementary 6% Parkway Elementary 51% Crestwood Middle 5% Rock Creek 34% Deer Crossing Elementary 12% Sabillasville Elementary 46% Earth & Space Sciences Lab 4% Spring Ridge Elementary 13% Emmitsburg Elementary 19% Staff Development Center 32% Frederick High 0% Sugarloaf Elementary 0% Glade Elementary 21% Thurmont Elementary 32% Governor Thomas Johnson High 23% Thurmont Middle 50% Governor Thomas Johnson Middle 13% Thurmont Primary 6% Green Valley Elementary 30% Tuscarora Elementary 6% Heather Ridge 24% Tuscarora High 4% Hillcrest Elementary 24% Twin Ridge Elementary 20% Kemptown Elementary 34% Urbana High 26% Lewistown Elementary 47% Urbana Middle 2% Liberty Elementary 82% Valley Elementary 52% Lincoln A 35% Walkersville Elementary 16% Lincoln Elementary 0% Walkersville High 26% Linganore High 2% Walkersville Middle 51% Middletown Elementary 28% Waverley Elementary 54% Middletown High 30% West Frederick Middle 8% Middletown Middle 56% Whittier Elementary 10% Middletown Primary 3% Windsor Knolls Middle 25% Monocacy Elementary 35% Wolfsville Elementary 30% Monocacy Middle 24% Woodsboro Elementary 34% Yellow Springs Elementary 41%
67 | Page
APPENDIX F – SCHOOL FACILITY CONDITIONS AND STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT
ESSA Facility AGE Open Over ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS STAR Condition (years) Space Capacity RATING Index Ballenger Creek Elementary School 4 29 28% X Brunswick Elementary School 4 68 38% X Butterfly Ridge Elementary School 3 2 0% Carroll Manor Elementary School 4 55 23% Centerville Elementary School 5 15 6% X Deer Crossing Elementary School 4 23 18% X Emmitsburg Elementary School 4 46 26% P X Glade Elementary School 4 25 18% Green Valley Elementary School 4 49 55% O X Hillcrest Elementary School 3 32 27% X Kemptown Elementary School 5 39 38% X Lewistown Elementary School 4 59 46% P X Liberty Elementary School 4 93 88% Lincoln Elementary School 4 8 3% Middletown Elementary School 4 46 35% O Monocacy Elementary School 4 31 32% X Myersville Elementary School 5 49 30% O New Market Elementary School 5 87 37% P X New Midway/Woodsboro Elementary School 4 90/68 37%/33% /O X/ North Frederick Elementary School 4 6 0% Oakdale Elementary School 4 19 11% X Orchard Grove Elementary School 4 24 25% Parkway Elementary School 4 90 54% Sabillasville Elementary School 5 56 46% P Spring Ridge Elementary School 4 29 26% Thurmont Elementary School 4 65 28% P Tuscarora Elementary School 4 16 6% X Twin Ridge Elementary School 4 28 35% Urbana Elementary School 5 2 0% Valley Elementary School 5 53 54% O Walkersville Elementary School 4 46 16% P Waverley Elementary School 4 51 60% P X Whittier Elementary School 4 22 10% X Wolfsville Elementary School 5 61 29% Yellow Springs Elementary School 4 63 39% X
68 | Page
ESSA Facility AGE Open Over MIDDLE SCHOOLS STAR Condition (years) Space Capacity RATING Index Ballenger Creek Middle School 3 30 21% E Brunswick Middle School 4 35 18% E Crestwood Middle School 3 16 5% Gov Thomas Johnson Middle School 3 20 13% Middletown Middle School 4 67 54% Monocacy Middle School 3 39 31% E New Market Middle School 4 46 28% E Oakdale Middle School 4 18 7% Thurmont Middle School 4 70 45% P Urbana Middle School 4 14 5% Walkersville Middle School 4 59 50% West Frederick Middle School 4 62 8% Windsor Knolls Middle School 4 27 25% ESSA Facility AGE Open Over HIGH SCHOOLS STAR Condition (years) Space Capacity RATING Index Brunswick High School 4 55 21% Catoctin High School 4 51 31% Frederick High School 3 3 0% Gov. Thomas Johnson High School 3 54 22% Linganore High School 5 10 2% Middletown High School 5 46 32% P Oakdale High School 5 12 2% Tuscarora High School 4 17 4% Urbana High School 5 25 24% Walkersville High School 5 44 26% P X
69 | Page
APPENDIX G – BUILDING SYSTEM EXPECTED LIFESPAN
LIFECYCLE VALUES CATEGORY COMPONENT Uniformat SUBCOMPONENT School Dude FCPS BOMA ASHRAE Foundations includes the following Standard Foundations: wall and column foundations; foundation walls up to level of top of slab on grade; pile caps; foundation excavation, backfill, and compaction; footings and bases; perimeter insulation; perimeter drainage; anchor Nonrenewable Foundations A10 plates; and dewatering. Special Foundations include pile foundations, 100 caissons, underpinning, dewatering, raft foundations, and pressure injected grouting. Slab on grade includes standard slab on grade, structural slab on grade, inclined slab on grade, trenches, pits and bases, and foundation drainage. Nonrenewable Basement Structure A20 Work Includes basement excavation, and basement walls. 100 Floor & Roof Construction & Work includes floor construction and roof construction. Nonrenewable B10 100 Stairs All materials associated with the following construction: exterior load- bearing walls, insulation and vapor barrier, parapets, exterior louvers Nonrenewable Exterior Walls (Framing) B2010 100 and screens, sun control devices (exterior), balcony walls and handrails, exterior soffits, screen walls, and exterior coatings. Assemblies include paint, stucco, etc. The unit of measure at the assembly level is area of exterior coatings. Most of FCPS schools are 5 Brick, we will use a 40 year life cycle for all Exterior Walls. Paint 5 5 Envelope Exterior Walls (Finishes) B2010.10 Brick 75 40 NR Stucco 75 Vinyl 30 Metal 30 40 Stone 100 35 Envelope Exterior Windows B2020 All windows located in exterior walls or exterior skin. 25 40 Envelope Exterior Doors B2050 All doors located in exterior walls or exterior skin. 15 30 B3010.50 4-ply Build-up 30 25 B3010.50 Single Ply 25 20 Envelope Roofing B3010.10 Metal 20 30 75 B3010.10 Asphalt shingles 30 25 B3010.10 Slate 50 75 Includes all interior partitions including fixed; Includes interior guardrail and screens, interior windows, glazed partitions and storefronts, Nonrenewable Partitions and Stairs C1010 100 NR interior glazing, interior joint sealant, and other partitions.
Interior Interior Doors C1030 All interior doors. 25 Compartments, cubicles, and toilet partitions, toilet and bath accessories, marker and tack boards, identifying devices, lockers, Interior Interior Specialties C1090 shelving, fire extinguisher cabinets, counters, cabinets, casework, 15 25 closets, firestopping penetrations, sprayed fire-resistive materials, entrance floor grilles and mats, and ornamental metalwork. C2010 Finishes that are applied to interior wall surfaces. 5 Interior Interior Wall Finishes 10 C2010.70 Paint 5 5 All flooring and floor finishes applied to interior floors. We have a C2030 12 variety of floor finished we will use a base 15 year life cycle. C2030.20 Vinyl Tile 12 12 C2030.75 Carpet 5 5 Interior Interior Floor Finishes C2030.70 Two Part Epoxy 10 15 C2030.40 Granite 75 75 C2030.60 Terrazzo 50 50 C2030.45 Hardwood Finish 10 15 C2030.30 Concrete 50 50 C2050 All ceilings and ceiling finishes applied to interiors. 13 2050.10 plaster/drywall 30 30 Interior Interior Ceiling Finishes 2025.10 suspended Lay-in system 25 25 25 2050.20 Ceiling Tiles 13 13 2050.20 Metal 25 25
70 | Page
LIFECYCLE VALUES CATEGORY COMPONENT Uniformat SUBCOMPONENT School Dude FCPS BOMA ASHRAE This system includes elevators, escalators, pneumatic tube systems, D1010 conveyors, chutes, etc. Foundations for these systems are included in 15 Conveying Conveying Systems System A, Substructure. 30 D1010.10 Hydraulic 35 D1010.10 traction 20 All terminal devices on the domestic plumbing system which have water D2010 supplied to the fixture. Hot water heaters, hose bibs, and special equipment are not counted as a fixture. Plumbing Plumbing Fixtures D2010.60 Faucets 30 7 D2010.60 Water Closet 30 D2010.60 Urinals 30 D2010.60 Sinks 30 This system provides for human health and comfort. The water supply needed is determined by the number of fixtures attached. Hot water 30 50 30 Plumbing Domestic Water Distribution D2010.40 heaters, hose bibs, and special equipment are not counted as a fixture.
Backflow Preventers 30 5 The plumbing system's primary function is the transfer of liquids and Plumbing Sanitary Waste D2020 gases. This system includes all water supply and waste items within the 30 50 building. Roof drainage system. Gutter and downspouts are not included in this Plumbing Rain Water Drainage B3020 75 subsystem. The energy input to the facility (other than electrical) in the form of fuels or hot and cold water distributed from a central base facility. HVAC Energy Supply D3010 30 Energy received from wind or solar power is included in this subsystem. (FCPS use is for FUEL Tanks) Boiler, Hot (fire Tube) 25 25 25 Boiler, Hot (Cast Iron) 35 35 35 HVAC Heat Generating Systems Boiler, Hot water(Electric) 30 20 15 Boiler, Steam (Cast Iron) 25 18 Condensing Boiler 15 Package Chiller (Reciprocation) 20 20 Package Chiller (Centrifugal) 28 23 HVAC Cooling Generating Systems Package Chiller (Screw) 25 30 Package Chiller (Scroll) 15 Cooling Tower 18 This includes systems that distribute heated and cooled air, ventilating HVAC Distribution System D3050 and exhaust air, hot and chilled water, steam, and glycol heating. 30 50
This category includes self-contained heating and cooling units. 15 HVAC Terminal & Package Units D3020.70 20 Roof top unit 15 Pneumatic 20 HVAC Controls & Instrumentation D8010.50 electric 20 16 electronic 15 This subsystem includes the complete standpipe system, the water Fire Protection Fire Sprinklers & Standpipe D4010 supply equipment and related piping from the equipment to the 25 50 sprinkler head. Assemblies include wire, conduit, conduit support or fastening systems, fire alarm devices, fire detection devices, safety switches, mass Fire Protection Fire Alarm & Detection D7050 10 10 notification, all electrical connections and other associated items.
This subsystem provides for all electrical devices that are required to Electrical Service & Distribution D5020.10 deliver the main source of power to the facility and to distribute this 40 35 30 power to subpanels. This assembly includes switches, receptacles, equipment connections, Electrical Branch Wiring D5030.10 30 40 30 conduit, and wire. Electrical Lighting D5040 This assembly includes fixtures, conduit, wire, and switching devices. 20 25 20 Assemblies include fixtures, motors used for power generation, connection and testing, transfer switches, conduit, wire, battery Electrical Electrical Other D3020.10 20 25 20 chargers, batteries, and solar panels. FCPS will use this for Generators.
71 | Page
School Building Acronyms
SCHOOL BUILDING ACRONYM SCHOOL BUILDING ACRONYM Ballenger Creek Elementary School BCES New Market Elementary School NMES Ballenger Creek Middle School BCMS New Market Middle School NMMS Brunswick Elementary School BES New Midway Elementary School NMdES Brunswick High School BHS North Frederick Elementary School NFES Brunswick Middle School BMS Oakdale Elementary School OES Butterfly Ridge Elementary School BRES Oakdale High School OHS Career and Technology Center CTC Oakdale Middle School OMS Carroll Manor Elementary School CMES Orchard Grove Elementary School OGES Catoctin High School CHS Parkway Elementary School PES Centerville Elementary School CES Rock Creek RCS Crestwood Middle School CMS Sabillasville Elementary School SES Deer Crossing Elementary School DCES Spring Ridge Elementary School SRES Earth and Space Sciences Laboratory ESSL Sugarloaf Elementary School SUES Emmitsburg Elementary School EES Thurmont Elementary School TES Frederick High School FHS Thurmont Middle School TMS Glade Elementary School GES Thurmont Primary TPS Governor Thomas Johnson High School GTJHS Tuscarora Elementary School TUES Governor Thomas Johnson Middle School GTJMS Tuscarora High School THS Green Valley Elementary School GVES Twin Ridge Elementary School TRES Heather Ridge HRS Urbana Elementary School UES Hillcrest Elementary School HES Urbana High School UHS Kemptown Elementary School KES Urbana Middle School UMS Lewistown Elementary School LEW Valley Elementary School VES Liberty Elementary School LIES Walkersville Elementary School WES Lincoln A/Success Program LincA Walkersville High School WHS Lincoln Elementary School LNES Walkersville Middle School WMS Linganore High School LHS Waverley Elementary School WAVES Middletown Elementary School MIES West Frederick Middle School WFMS Middletown High School MHS Whittier Elementary School WHES Middletown Middle School MMS Windsor Knolls Middle School WKMS Middletown Primary MPS Wolfsville Elementary School WFES Monocacy Elementary School MOES Woodsboro Elementary School WOES Monocacy Middle School MOMS Yellow Springs Elementary School YSES Myersville Elementary School MYES
72 | Page