BOARD OF TRUSTEES ELK ISLAND PUBLIC SCHOOLS REGIONAL DIVISION #14
REGULAR WEDNESDAY, MAY 22, 2019 Board Room SESSION Central Services Administration Building AGENDA
Mission Statement - To provide high quality student-centered education that builds strong, healthy communities.
9:00 am 1. CALL TO ORDER T. Boymook
2. COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
10:00 am 3. AMENDMENTS TO AGENDA / ADOPTION OF AGENDA
4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 4.1 Board Meeting – April 18, 2019 (encl.)
5. CHAIR’S REPORT T. Boymook 5.1 School Tours (Fultonvale Elementary/Jr. High, Pine Street Elementary, (verbal) Sherwood Heights Jr. High, École Campbelltown) – April 25, 2019 5.2 Ardrossan Elementary Volunteer Appreciation and Farewell to Old School Event (Grade 4 Assembly) – April 26, 2019 5.3 Bus Driver Appreciation: Salisbury Composite High School – May 6, 2019 5.4 Long Service and Retirement Event – May 7, 2019 5.5 Andrew School Public Meeting – May 9, 2019 5.6 Sherwood Park & District Chamber of Commerce Luncheon – May 15, 2019 5.7 F.R. Haythorne Spring Band Concert – May 15, 2019 5.8 Strathcona Christian Academy Elementary Volunteer Appreciation Event – May 16, 2019 5.9 Meeting with Jordan Walker, the member of the legislative assembly of Alberta for Sherwood Park – May 16, 2019
6. SUPERINTENDENT’S REPORT M. Liguori 6.1 Bus Driver Appreciation: Lamont – May 6, 2019 (verbal) 6.2 Andrew School Public Meeting – May 9, 2019 6.3 uLead 2019 – The Summit of Educational Leadership – May 12-14, 2019
7. COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC AND STAFF GROUP REPRESENTATIVES
ASSOCIATION/LOCAL REPORTS
8. ASBA ZONE 2/3 REPORT D. Irwin April 26, 2019 (verbal)
9. ATA LOCAL REPORT D. Zielke (verbal)
Page 1 of 2
BUSINESS ARISING FROM PREVIOUS MEETING
NEW BUSINESS
10. BUSINESS ARISING FROM IN CAMERA
11. FRENCH IMMERSION PROGRAMMING – HERITAGE HILLS M. Liguori/ D. Antymniuk (encl.)
12. 2018-19 BOARD MEETING SCHEDULE AMENDMENT T. Boymook (encl.)
13. CLASSIFIED TERMS AND CONDITIONS: COMPENSATION M. Liguori/B. Billey (encl.)
14. CRA CORPORATE APPOINTMENTS M. Liguori/C. Cole (encl.)
15. ADMINISTRATIVE FEES M. Liguori/C. Cole 15.1 Student Transportation Fees (encl.) 15.2 School Facility Rental Rates (encl.) 15.3 Partners for Science Fees (encl.)
16. POLICY 24, PERSONAL COMMUNICATION DEVICES H. Wall (encl.)
COMMITTEE REPORT
17. ADVOCACY COMMITTEE T. Boymook April 29, 2019 (verbal)
18. POLICY COMMITTEE H. Wall April 16, 2019 and May 7, 2019 (verbal)
REPORTS FOR INFORMATION
19. SUMMER PROJECTS REPORT M. Liguori/C. Wait (encl.)
20. FORT SASKATCHEWAN VALUE SCOPING REPORT M. Liguori/B. Dragon (encl.)
ADJOURNMENT
Page 2 of 2
RECOMMENDATIONS TO MAY 22, 2019 BOARD OF TRUSTEES
2. That the Board meet In Camera. That the Board revert to Regular Session.
3. That the Agenda be adopted as amended or as circulated.
4.1 That the Board of Trustees approve the Minutes of April 18, 2019 Board Meeting as amended or as circulated.
5. That the Board of Trustees receive the Chair’s report for information.
6. That the Board of Trustees receive the Superintendent’s report for information.
7. Comments from the Public and Staff Group Representatives
8. That the Board of Trustees receive the update from the ASBA Zone 2/3 Meeting held April 26, 2019, for information.
9. That the Board of Trustees receive the report from the representative of the ATA Local #28 for information.
Business Arising from Previous Meeting
10. Business Arising from In Camera.
11. That the Board of Trustees approve grandfathering for re-designated École Campbelltown students entering Grade 6 in the 2020-21 school year.
12. That the Board of Trustees approve the amended 2018-19 Board of Trustees Meeting Schedule, as presented.
Page 1 of 2
13. That the Board of Trustees approve the following change in classified benefits and general holiday pay effective September 1, 2019:
1. 100% coverage of benefit costs and increased vision care coverage
2. Coverage of 100% of employment benefits plan for 52 weeks for Maternity and Parental Leave Benefits
3. Substitutes paid general holiday pay for statutory holidays at 5% of the last four weeks worked
14. That the Board of Trustees approve Candace Cole, Secretary-Treasurer and Shirley Hagen, Director, Financial Services as owners on the corporate account for Elk Island Public Schools Division No. 14.
15.1 That the Board of Trustees approve the Student Transportation Fees for the 2019-20 school year.
15.2 That the Board of Trustees approve the School Rental Rate Schedule and Surplus Classroom Space Rate Schedule for the 2019-20 school year.
15.3 That the Board of Trustees approve the Partnerships 4 Science Fees for the 2019-20 school year.
16. That the Board of Trustees approve new Board Policy 24, Personal Communication Devices, effective for the 2019-20 school year, as presented.
17. That the Board of Trustees receive the report from the Advocacy Committee meeting held April 29, 2019, for information.
18. That the Board of Trustees receive the report from the Policy Committee meetings held April 16 and May 7, 2019, for information.
19. That the Board of Trustees receive the Facility Services - 2019 Summer Projects Plan for information.
20. That the Board of Trustees receive the Fort Saskatchewan Value Scoping Study Report for information.
Page 2 of 2
ELK ISLAND PUBLIC SCHOOLS REGIONAL DIVISION #14
The regular meeting of the Elk Island Public Schools Regional Division Board of Trustees was held on Thursday, April 18, 2019, in the Board Room, Central Services, Sherwood Park, Alberta.
The Board of Trustees Meeting convened with Board Chair Trina Boymook calling the meeting to order at 9:00 a.m.
Board members present: T. Boymook A. Hubick R. Footz D. Irwin S. Gordon H. Wall C. Holowaychuk
Board members absent: J. Seutter H. Stadnick
Administration present: M. Liguori Superintendent S. Stoddard Associate Superintendent, Supports for Students B. Billey Associate Superintendent, Human Resources C. Cole Secretary-Treasurer L. McNabb Director, Communication Services C. Langford-Pickering Executive Assistant/Recording Secretary
CALL TO ORDER Meeting called to order at 9:00 a.m. with all trustees noted above in attendance.
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE Moved by Trustee Irwin:
067/2019 THAT the Board meet In Camera (9:00 a.m.). CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
Moved by Vice-Chair Wall:
068/2019 THAT the Board revert to Regular Session (10:05 a.m.). CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
The Board recessed at 10:05 a.m. and reconvened at 10:11 a.m. with all trustees noted above in attendance.
Board Chair Boymook welcomed everyone in attendance and acknowledged with respect the history, spirituality, and culture and languages of the First Nations people with whom Treaty 6 was signed, the territory wherein EIPS resides. We acknowledge our responsibility as Treaty members. We also honour the heritage and gifts of the Metis people.
Board of Trustees April 18, 2019 Page 2
AGENDA The Board Chair called for additions or deletions to the agenda.
Moved by Vice-Chair Wall:
069/2019 THAT the Agenda be adopted, as circulated. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
APPROVAL OF The Board Chair called for confirmation of the March 14, MINUTES 2019 Board Meeting Minutes.
Moved by Trustee Irwin:
070/2019 THAT the Board of Trustees approve the Minutes CARRIED of March 14, 2019 Board Meeting, as circulated. UNANIMOUSLY
CHAIR’S REPORT Board Chair Boymook presented the Chair’s report.
Moved by Board Chair Boymook:
071/2019 THAT the Board of Trustees receive the Chair’s CARRIED report for information. UNANIMOUSLY
SUPERINTENDENT’S REPORT
Superintendent Liguori presented the Superintendent’s report.
Moved by Trustee Holowaychuk:
072/2019 THAT the Board of Trustees receive the Superintendent’s CARRIED report for information. UNANIMOUSLY
COMMENTS, PRESENTATIONS AND DELEGATIONS AT BOARD MEETINGS
ASSOCIATION/LOCAL REPORTS
ASBA Zone 2/3 Trustee Holowaychuk presented to the Board the report from the ASBA Report Zone 2/3 meeting held on March 15, 2019, at St. Anthony Centre.
Moved by Trustee Footz:
073/2019 THAT the Board of Trustees receive the report from the representative of the ASBA Zone 2/3 CARRIED for information. UNANIMOUSLY
Board of Trustees April 18, 2019 Page 3
Partners in Trustee Hubick presented the report from the Partners in Education Education Foundation Foundation meeting held on March 19, 2019. Report
Moved by Trustee Hubick:
074/2019 THAT the Board of Trustees receive the report from the representative of the Partners in Education CARRIED Foundation for information. UNANIMOUSLY
ATA Local Report ATA representative D. Zielke presented her report.
Moved by Trustee Gordon:
075/2019 THAT the Board of Trustees receive the report from the representative of the ATA Local #28 CARRIED for information. UNANIMOUSLY
BUSINESS ARISING FROM PREVIOUS MEETING
NEW BUSINESS
Business Arising From In Camera
076/2019 Moved by Trustee Holowaychuk:
THAT the Board directs the Board Chair on matter 2019-001. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
077/2019 Moved by Trustee Hubick:
THAT the Board directs the Board Chair on matter 2019-002. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
Policy Committee Vice-Chair Wall presented to the Board the amendment to Board Policy 17, Student Transportation Services for approval.
Moved by Trustee Irwin:
078/2019 THAT the Board of Trustees approve the amendment to Board Policy 17, Student Transportation Services, as presented.
Moved by Vice-Chair Wall:
079/2019 THAT the Board amend the preamble of Board Policy 17, Student Transportation Services and remove the CARRIED wording “from time to time”. UNANIMOUSLY
VOTE ON MAIN MOTION 078/2019 CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY Board of Trustees April 18, 2019 Page 4
Teachers’ Collective Board Chair Boymook presented to the Board the recommendation Agreement for Chair and Vice-Chair of the Teachers’ Collective Agreement Negotiations Negotiations Committee for approval. Committee
Moved by Trustee Gordon:
080/2019 THAT the Board of Trustees approve appoint Trina Boymook as Chair and Heather Wall as Vice-Chair of the Teachers’ Collective Agreement Negotiations CARRIED Committee. UNANIMOUSLY
Report of Superintendent Liguori presented to the Board a report for Andrew School recommendation on Andrew School. From October 2018 to April 2019, Elk Island Public Schools engaged in six consultation sessions with stakeholders regarding a potential program closure at Andrew School. The information collected was included in the report for recommendation.
Moved by Vice-Chair Wall:
081/2019 THAT the Board consider the possible closure of Grades 7-12 at Andrew School effective June 30, CARRIED 2019, and, if approved; UNANIMOUSLY
Board Chair Boymook opened the forum for questions by the Board.
Moved by Trustee Holowaychuk:
082/2019 THAT the Board amend motion 081/2019 to consider the possible closure of Grades 10-12 at Andrew School effective June 30, 2019.
Board Chair Boymook opened the forum for questions from the Board on the amendment.
VOTE ON THE AMENDMENT:
In Favour: Trustee R. Footz, Trustee D. Irwin, and Trustee A. Hubick, Trustee C. Holowaychuk
Opposed: Board Chair T. Boymook, Vice-Chair H. Wall, and Trustee S. Gordon CARRIED
Board Chair Boymook opened the floor for second and final rounds of questions from the Board.
VOTE ON THE AMENDED MOTION 082/2019. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
Board of Trustees April 18, 2019 Page 5
Moved by Trustee Irwin:
083/2019 THAT the Board approve the addition of a Public Board meeting on June 6, 2019 to the CARRIED Board calendar, and; UNANIMOUSLY
Moved by Vice-Chair Wall:
084/2019 THAT the Board direct administration to initiate all actions necessary to fulfill the requirements of the Closure of Schools Regulation (Alberta Regulation 238/1997 with amendments), including the preparation of a report regarding the possible closure and providing the report to CARRIED trustees prior to the June 6, 2019 Board meeting. UNANIMOUSLY
2018-19 Board Board Chair Boymook presented an amendment to the 2018-19 Meeting Schedule Board Meeting Schedule for approval. The amendment included Amendment a date change from Monday, May 27 to Tuesday, June 25, 2019. The change in schedule was made to accommodate the change in the Budget submission deadline of June 30, 2019.
Moved by Vice-Chair Wall:
085/2019 THAT the Board of Trustees approve the amended 2018-19 Board of Trustees Meeting Schedule, as CARRIED presented. UNANIMOUSLY
Volunteer Audit As per Board Policy 8, Board Committees, membership on the Committee Audit Committee includes two volunteer community members. Membership Superintendent Liguori presented the candidates selected by Appointment the Education Committee for approval.
Moved by Trustee Irwin:
086/2019 THAT the Board of Trustees approve the appointment of Monica Futerski and Mark Wiltzen as volunteer community members on the Audit Committee, to serve a two-year CARRIED term commencing June 2019. UNANIMOUSLY
COMMITTEE REPORT
Policy Vice-Chair Wall presented a report from the Policy Committee Committee meeting held on March 19, 2019, for information.
Moved by Vice-Chair Wall:
087/2019 THAT the Board of Trustees receive the report from the Policy Committee meeting held March 19, 2019, CARRIED for information. UNANIMOUSLY Board of Trustees April 18, 2019 Page 6
Student Expulsion Trustee Footz presented a report from the Student Expulsion Committee Committee meeting held on April 5, 2019, for information.
Moved by Trustee Footz:
088/2019 THAT the Board of Trustees receive the report from the Student Expulsion Committee meeting held CARRIED April 5, 2019, for information. UNANIMOUSLY
REPORTS FOR INFORMATION
Financial Superintendent Liguori called upon Secretary-Treasurer Cole to Projections present the year-end financial position to the Board, for information. A projection for the 2018-19 year is completed to ensure fiscal management and for incorporation into the 2019-20 budget, as per Policy 2, Role of the Board, Section 8.4 Fiscal Accountability.
Moved by Trustee Holowaychuk:
089/2019 THAT the Board of Trustees receive the year-end CARRIED Financial Projection for 2018-19, for information. UNANIMOUSLY
TRUSTEES’ REPORT/NOTICES OF MOTION/REQUEST FOR INFORMATION
Reports by Trustees were presented.
The Chair declared the meeting adjourned at 12:11 p.m.
Board Chair Superintendent RECOMMENDATION REPORT Page 1 of 2
DATE: May 22, 2019
TO: Board of Trustees
FROM: Mark Liguori, Superintendent
SUBJECT: French Immersion Programming - Heritage Hills Elementary
ORIGINATOR: Dave Antymniuk, Division Principal
REFERENCE: Administrative Procedure 305, School Attendance Areas and Requests to Attend Non-Designated Schools
EIPS PRIORITY: Enhance high quality learning and working environments.
EIPS GOAL: Quality infrastructure for all.
EIPS OUTCOME: Student learning is supported through the use of effective planning, managing, and investment in division infrastructure.
RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of Trustees approve grandfathering for re-designated École Campbelltown students entering Grade 6 in the 2020-21 school year.
BACKGROUND: To ease current and potential future enrolment pressures at École Campbelltown, it was necessary to establish an additional elementary French Immersion program in Sherwood Park. Consequently, in January 2019, the Board of Trustees approved new French Immersion elementary attendance boundaries. Effective 2020-21, all elementary French Immersion students residing in Sherwood Park east of Clover Bar Road will be designated to Heritage Hills Elementary and all students west designated to École Campbelltown.
As established during the opening of South Pointe School in 2017 and Davidson Creek Elementary in 2018, all students re-designated to a new school are directed to attend that school. This is done to ensure enrolment pressures are eased in existing schools and that new schools have sufficient student numbers to sustain programming. To minimize transitions, typically when a new school opens consideration is given to grandfathering students who are entering their final year which allows them the option of remaining at their current school.
At present there are 21 École Campbelltown students residing in the new Heritage Hills Elementary attendance area who are projected to be entering Grade 6 in September 2020. These individuals would have the option of being grandfathered to remain at École Campbelltown. This exception would not be extended to siblings. In addition, any grandfathered students who accessed busing would be assessed the Choice Fee (currently $462) or Choice Payride Fee (currently $876.50).
RECOMMENDATION REPORT Page 2 of 2
COMMUNICATION PLAN: All École Campbelltown families will receive a direct mail out in December 2019 identifying their designated elementary French Immersion school for the 2020-21 school year. For those who are being re-designated to Heritage Hills Elementary, it will also include information about grandfathering (if applicable) and busing (if applicable).
ATTACHMENT: 1. Sherwood Park Elementary French Immersion Attendance Boundaries (2020-21)
ML:da Elk Island Public Schools' Boundaries Effective 2020-21 Sherwood Park JuniorSeniorElementary HighHigh French AttendanceAttendance Immersion AttendanceBoundariesBoundaries Boundaries SherwoodSherwood Park Park Highway 16
Elk Island Public Schools Sherwood Park, AB MHVSAL 1. EIPS Central Administration Building – 683 Wye Road CLB EMERALD DRIVE
EMERALD DRIVE
2. Bev Facey Community High (10-12) BFH – 99 Colwill Boulevard EMERALD HILLS ELLESMERE WAY LAKELAND NORTH ELLESMERE WAY ELLESMERE 3. Brentwood Elementary (K-6) BWD – 28 Heron Road BLVD EATON VILLAGE SUMMERWOOD
4. École Campbelltown (K-6) CBN – 271 Conifer Street LN ELLESMERE 5. Clover Bar Junior High (7-9) CLB – 50 Main Boulevard AMBERLY WAY ESSEX WAY ESSEX RD 6. DavidsonF.R. Haythorne Creek Junior Elementary High ( 7-9)(K-6) FRH DCE – 300– 360 Colwill Davenport Boulevard Dr. SOMERSET DRIVE STILL CREEK CRES. AMBERLY WAY SOMERSET COVE
SANDSTONE BLVD AMBERLY WAY SUMMERWOOD EASTATES RD. 7. GlenF.R. Haythorne Allan Elementary Junior High (K-6) ( 7-9)GLN FRH – 106 – 300Georgian Colwill Way Boulevard SUMMERCOURT ALDRIDGE CR SOMERSET DRIVE EATON BLVD PNE
SWH SOMERSET PT SOMERSET DRIVE 8. GlenLakeland Allan Ridge Elementary (K-9) LLR (K-6) – 101 GLN Crimson – 106 GeorgianDrive Way SUNBURY PL SUMMERCOURT RD. ASPEN TRAIL PLACE SUMMERLAND DRIVE ASPEN TRAIL SUMMERCOURT RD.
ASPEN TRAILS SUNCREEK DR.
SUMMERCOURT WAY
9. HeritageMills Haven Hills Elementary Elementary ( K-6)(K-6) MHV HHE – – 73 280 Main Heritage Boulevard Dr. DRIVE STONERIDGE SUNVIEW DRIVE AMPTON CRT SUMMERWOOD BOULEVARD
APPLETON RD
10. LakelandNext Step Ridge – 1604 (K-9) Sherwood LLR – 101Drive Crimson Drive APPLETON CRES SUMMERWOOD BOULEVARD
ASHMORE DRIVE SUNVIEW 11. Mills Next Haven Step Home Elementary Education (K-6) (1-12) MHV – 73 Main Boulevard AINSLEY WY BAY SUNCREST ROAD SUMMERSTONE LANE AMBLESIDE
SUMMERLAND WY WY SUMMERFIELD PT SUMMERSTONE LANE SUMMERFI ELD WYND
SUMMERLAND LNDG SUMMERFIELD WYND SUMMERWOOD SUNCREST LANE 12. Next Next Step Step – Junior1604 Sherwood Senior High Drive (7-12) ASCOTT CRESCENT ASCOTT CRESCENT ABILENE SUNVIEW DRIVE
PT ASPEN TRAIL SUNTERRA WAY
SUNCREST WAY
SUNVIEW PT SUNVIEW SUNBROOK WY 11. Pine Next Street Step HomeElementary Education (K-6) (1-12)PNE – 133 Pine Street SUMMERTON ST
SUMMERWOOD DRIVE
SUNTERRA WAY
SUMMERTON CRESCENT SUMMERTON CRESCENT
CHURCHILL CRESCENT SUNCREST PT Highway 21 12. Salisbury Next Step Composite Junior Senior High High (10-12) (7-12) SAL – 20 Festival Way SUMMERLAND DRIVE SUNBROOK LANDING COWAN PT
PALISADES WAY
CENTENNIALPALISADES AVE Lakeland Drive CHURCHILL CRESCENT
13. PineSherwood Street Heights Elementary Junior (K-6) High PNE (7-9) – 133 SWH Pine – 241 Street Fir Street DONNELT TERRACE LLR DAWSON DRIVE DAWSON CRESCENT PARK LLR DAVENPORT DR 14. SalisburySCA† Elementary Composite (K-6) High SCE (1– 0-12)52362 SAL Range – 20 Road Festival 231 Way DORIAN WAY COACHMAN TERR
CAMPBELL DRIVE CAMPBELL COWAN CR Lakeland Drive DAWSON DRIVE
ARKDALE DR DARLINGTON DR CROCUS CR (North Entrance) † COACHMAN CRT CL
DAVIDSON CROCUS CR COWAN CR DORIAN WAY DAWSON CRESCENT
15. SherwoodSCA Secondary Heights (7-12) Junior SCS High – 1011 (7-9) Cloverbar SWH – 241Road Fir Street LANE SUNFLOWER
CLOVERBAR CROCUS WAY CAMPBELL DRIVE CAMPBELL DRIVE 16. SCWesA† HosfordElementary Elementary (K-6) SCE (K-6) – 52362 WHF Range – 207 RoadGranada 231 Boulevard RANCH CloverbarCREEK Road CACTUS WY DARLINGTON DR CODETTE WAY DARLINGTON PL DAVIDSON DR DAVENPORT DR NORTH CLARKDALE † DAVENPORTPL 17.17. SCWestboroA Secondary Elementary (7-12) (SCSK-6) –WBO 1011 – Cloverbar 1078 Strathcona Road Drive CROCUS CRESCENT
Sherwood Drive CARLYLE CRESCENT
CACHE CRT MEADOWS CRIMSON DRIVE MEADOWVIEW PT CHEYENNE CR DAVY CRESCENT CABRI CRT CARLYLE CRESCENT
COACHMAN WAY (West Entrance) (West WAY COACHMAN 6 18. WesWoodbridge Hosford FarmsElementary Elementary (K-6) WHF (K-6) – WBF 207 Granada– 1127 Parker Boulevard Drive CIMMARON WY 10
DARLINGTON DR
CANYON DR JIM COMMON DRIVE NW DARLINGTON TERRACE DAVENPORTPL 119.9. WestboroWye Elementary Elementary (K-6) WYE(K-6) –WBO 163, – 22560 1078 WyeStrathcona Road Drive DR CLARKDALE BISON WAY LAKELAND DARLINGTON CT TERRACE
DAVY CRESCENT CRESCENT ORCHID DEACON LN DEACON
MEADOWVIEW CRESCENT ORCHID DARLINGTON CONNOR LN CONNOR MNR DARLINGTON DR
RIDGE LN CONNOR
20. NewWoodbridge School ( K-6)Farms Elementary (K-6) WBF – 1127 Parker Drive WAY CRANBERRY
DEACON DR CHANCERY PT ORCHID CRESCENT CHANCERY WY CHARLTON WY 21. Replacement School (K-6) MEADOWVIEW TRAIL
CLARKDALE DR
WBF DRIVE CRIMSON CHELSEA WY LILAC TERR MEADOWVIEW CR CRYSTAL WAY CHARLTON CR CASCADE CR CHELSEA CRYSTAL WAY
JIM COMMON DRIVE NW
Revised May 7, 2019 LAKELAND ROAD CHATWIN BRIGHTON BAY HEIGHTS LILAC TERR PNEMEADOWVIEW CR CHARLTON CR CASCADE WY CRYSTAL WAY CHARLTON SWH CANTERBURY LN
CHARLTON ROAD
CROWSNEST CRES CROWSNEST RIDGE
CROWSNEST CRES CROWSNEST
MEADOWVIEW DR MEADOWVIEW LILAC LN JIM COMMON DRIVE CLARKDALE DR LILAC
HEIGHTS CHATWIN ROAD LILAC LN BETHEL WAY BETHEL PRIMROSE BLVD
MEADOWVIEW DR BROADWAY BETHEL DR. CAMERON CL MEADOWS LILAC LN JIM COMMON DRIVE CHARLTON ROAD ASTER CR AUTOMALL ROAD CRESCENT CARSON DR CRANFORD DRIVE ASTER VIEW SAL CRESCENT LILAC LN LARKSPUR PL BROADVIEW RD. MEADOWVIEW CHATWIN ROAD
CLB DRIVE CRIMSON BAY ASTER PL CARSON DR ASTER PT BROADWAY BOTHWELL DRIVE LILAC CRESCENT BROADVIEW DR. JIM COMMON DRIVE LILAC DR CHARLOTTE CRES ASTER DURHAM CRT
CRANFORD DRIVE STRATHCONA RD CAVAN CRANFORD WAY LILAC CRESCENT CHESTERMERE RD CHATWIN ROAD PL CHRISTINA WILD ROSE PL TOWN CENTRE CRT CHRISTINA CENTRE CHESTERMERE CRES CAVAN CRES SHIVAM BLVD. BLUEBERRY CR CHARLOTTE WY CLAIRE CLOSE CHESTERMERE WAY GREENBRIAR CR
CHESTERMERE DR CHESTERMERE BROWER DRIVE BROWER
MEADOWVIEW DR CRANFORD WAY CRANFORD WBF BLUEBERRY CR GREENBRIAR CR PL DEWBERRY
LAKELAND RIDGE I BLVD CLARKDALE BROADVIEW DR. BROADVIEW Baseline Road
GALLOWAY AVE. Baseline Road GALLOWAY RD. HIGHVALE CRES. GRAHAM CT. GALLOWAY PL. SENECA RD GALLOWAY ST. CARMEL RD.
MALVIERN CT.
GALLOWAY CT.
MALVERN PL.
MALVERN MALVERN HICKORY CRES. MARION DR. MARION DR. GRAHAM RD. GREYSTONE CRES.
TRC. BAY MARION PL.
GREYSTONE CT. CT. HUNTER HANOVER PL. HANOVER CARMEL RD.
CREE RD. GLENBROOK BLVD. GLENBROOK
CARMEL RD. CARMEL HIGHCLIFF RD. HILLVIEW CRES. HILLVIEW
MALVERN DR. GRAHAM PL. MALVERN DR. GRANT AVE.
MEADOWBROOK RD.
MORELAND CRES.
GLAMORGAN DR.
GALLOWAY DR. WYND CARMEL HAMPTON CT. HAMPTON HIGHLAND WAY MERRYWOOD CRES. Sherwood Drive BFH WYE HIGHLAND MARKHAM CRES. GLNFRH
MALVERN DR.
MELROSE CRES. GLEN
CHIPPEWA RD CHIPPEWA BAY GRAHAM RD. RD. CARMEL KASKA RD. BAY HANOVER
MILFORD CRES. GREYSTONE TRC. BROADMOOR BLVD BROADMOOR MHVMEDHURST CRES. CRES. HUDSON MORELAND RD. GLENRIDGE RD. GLAMORGAN DR. GALLOWAY TRC. CARMEL RD.
HARMONY PLACE HARMONY HILLTOP CRES. HIGHVIEW KASKA RD. KASKA RD. KASKA RD. MERRYWOOD CRES. CARMEL CL. ALLAN ALLAN BLVD. GLEN CRES.
GALLOWAY DR. GREYSTONE CRES.
HIGHCLIFF RD. HIGHRIDGE CRES. HIGHRIDGE
GLENBROOK BLVD. GREYSTONE PL. CARMEL RD. MARKHAM CRES. GRAHAM RD. GALLOWAY BAY MELROSE CRES. GLAMORGAN DR. GLAMORGAN DR. CRAIGAVON DR. HILLSIDE CRES. GARFIELD CRES. GRAVENHURST CRES. MORELAND CRES. CRAIGAVON ESTATES HIGHLAND WAY MELROSE CRES. WAY HIGHLAND MADISON AVE. GILMORE AVE. BLACKFOOT RD. HERITAGE DR MARION DR.
MEADOWBROOK RD.
CREE RD. GALLOWAY DR.
GLENRIDGE RD. MAIN BLVD. COURTENAY CT.
SHERWOOD DR. HIGHGROVE TERRACE HIGHGROVE
MEREDIAN RD. GALE AVE. GLENRIDGE PL.
GALAXY WAY
MARION DR. SIOUX RD. BROADMOOR MERRYVALE CRES. HIGHCLIFF CT. GLENGARRY CRES. MISSION ST. MAIN TRC. 11 GEORGIAN WAY HIGHGROVE CRT HIGHCLIFF POINT MAIN BLVD. GRANVILLE CRES. COURTENAY DR. 8 HIGHCLIFF RD.
GARNET AVE.
CHIPPEWA RD. CENTRE GARRISON CRES. ATHABASCAN AVE. GILLINGHAM CRES.
MARKET ST.
5 MEADOWBROOK RD. GRANVILLE CRES. HIGHGROVE CRES
CRAIGAVON CRT 9 MILBURN CRES.MILBURN PL. Road Cloverbar GARNET CRES. GRANVILLE CRES. MAIN PL. CRAIGAVON CL. GEORGIAN WAY CRAIGAVON DR. ATHABASCAN AVE. GLACIER CRES. COURTENAY CL. HERITAGE DRIVE HIGHGROVE CRES
HIGHLAND WAY HIGHLAND CRES. MANOR DR. MILLS HAVEN ALLAN BLVD. GLEN HERITAGE GEORGIAN TRC. COUTRENY PL. HIGHLAND CRES. Broadmoor Blvd. MENLO CRES. GILBY ST. CRAIGAVON BAY
GATEWOOD PL. CRAIGAVON DRIVE HIGHLAND WAY MISSION ST. GARNET RD. HILLS MILLER RD. MAIN BLVD. GREENGROVE AVE. CRES. GRANVILLE GLENCOE PL. GLENCOE COURTENAY CIR. SIOUX RD. MANOR DR. MANOR PL. MANOR TRC. GLENCOE BLVD. GLENCOE BLVD. MANOR CT. GATEWOOD BLVD. MANCHESTER DR. MANOR DR. HILLCREST CRT HIGHLAND WAY GUILFORD CT. SIOUX RD. MANCHESTER DR. GUILFORD CT. HERITAGE DR
CRAIGAVON HIGHLAND CLOSE MARDALE CRES.
MANCHESTER PL. COURTENAY DR. HERITAGE TRC
LANE GEORGIAN WAY HAWKVIEW CRT COURTENAY DR COURTENAY HERITAGE DR GARNET CRES. GREENGROVE AVE. TERRACE HIGHLAND WOODSTOCK DR. GROVELAND RD. GROVELAND RD. GROVELAND AVE. COURTENAY TRC
WOODBRIDGE WELLINGTON HIGHLAND WAY WOODLAKE RD. HERITAGE LAKE WAY COURTENAY DR HIGHLAND DRIVE
WOODLAKE WELLSPOINT LANE GREENGROVE CRES. GROVELAND PL. BEAUVISTA DR. BEAUVISTA BLVD. HERITAGE TRC CT. GALVESTON AVE.
WHF GROVELAND RD. BAY FARMS HIGHLAND DR
WOODLAKE COURTENAY
BEAUVISTA DR. GALVESTON AVE. HERITAGE WAY
MANOR WOODBRIDGE WAY
BROADMOOR BLVD. BRAESIDE CRES. HIGHLAND DRIVE WOODBRIDGE GEORGIAN PL. LAKE WOODSTOCK DR. HERITAGE LANE
PARKER MANOR HIGHLAND DRIVE CALICO DR.
Highway 21 GEORGIAN WAY GARLAND CRES.
GARDEN CRES.
BRAESIDE TRC. GARLAND CRES. CALICO DR.
PARKER DR. CT. GARLAND PARKER DR. GEORGIAN WAY HAWKSTONE LANDING WOODSTOCK TRC. BRAESIDE TRC. BRAESIDE TRC. OAK ST. CALICO DR. EASTGATE
PARKER TRC. WOODLAKE OAK ST. LAKE GAINSBORO CT.
PL. 7 GLOUCESTER AVE. 20 GARLAND TRC. WOODLAKE RD. GEORGIAN CT. 18 GAINSBORO RD. FOXHAVEN CRT GAINSBORO PL.
WOODBINE RD. FOXHAVEN DRIVE COLWILL BLVD. PARKER WOODFIELD DR. PNE GRANADA BLVD. CALICO DR. GALEN CRES. PL. HAYTHORNE CRES. FOXHAVEN CRT GALEN PL. HAYTHORNE RD. ALLEN BLVD. GLEN VILLAGE RD. DR. CALICO BRENTWOOD BLVD. BRENTWOOD GRANADA BLVD. Granada Blvd. COLWILL BLVD.
GARLAND CRES.
FOXHAVEN CRES FOXHAVEN KINGFISHER RD. CRES FOXHAVEN WOODBINE RD. GRANADA BLVD. SWALLOW AVE. FOXHAVEN DR
KINGFISHER GALEN CRES. SUNSET PL. ROADWAY KINGFISHER WOODFIELD PL. WOODBINE CT. ROADWAY BAY HAYTHORNE PL. CT. FOXHAVEN
HAYTHORNE RD.
FOXHAVEN CLOSE FOXHAVEN FOXHAVEN BAY FOXHAVEN FOXHAVEN PL VILLAGE RD. PENGUIN CRES. HUMMINGBIRD CT. GARLAND CRES. DRIVE FOXHAVEN
HAYTHORNE CRES. WOODBINE RD. DR. STARLING
HUMMINGBIRD RD.
FOXHAVEN LN FOXHAVEN
SANDPIPER DR. PEACOCK DR. PEACOCK
BROADMOOR BLVD. GREENRIDGE DR. FOXHAVEN WAY NOTTINGHAM CRES. FOXBORO CRESCENT
LUEDERS CRES. BRENTWOOD BLVD. LUEDERS CRES. VILLAGE CT. FAIRVIEW CT. BONNYVILLE CT.
Mc DERMID DR.
GREENGROVE DR.
OAK ST. CRT FOXBORO
MONY PENNY CRES. GLENMORE AVE. KIRKLEES GREENBOROUGH CRES. FOXBORO GRANADA BLVD. FOXBORO WAY ORIOLE DR. CRES. PL. FOXBORO LANE KIRKLEES RD. 19 SANDPIPER CT. CRES. ORIOLE KIRKLEES RD.
LUEDERS CT. NOTTINGHAM AVE. FOXBORO CRES FOXBORO
PARKER DR. 2 SWH STARLING DR. FORREST DRIVE STRATHCONA DR. AVONDALE CT. FOXBORO WAY 14 DRIVE FOXBORO FOXBORO PARK RD FOXBORO RUN WBO KIRKLEES PL. SHERWOOD DR.
FLAMINGO DR. NOTTINGHAM RD.
FOXBORO RUN
FORREST DRIVE WAY FOXBORO NOTTINGHAM DR. NOTTINGHAM CT. KIRKLEES RD. FOXBORO PARK RD FLAMINGO DR. RAVEN DR. FORREST GREENS STRATHCONA DR. BONNYVILLE DR. NOTTINGHAM RD. FOXBORO LOOP
BWD FORREST PL FORREST CT Sherwood Drive EAGLE DR.
FORREST DR WESTBORO JAYCT.
GLENMORE AVE. NOTTINGHAM BLVD. WAY FOXBORO FOXTAIL LINK FOXTAIL CRT.
BLUEBIRD CRES. BLUEBIRD NOTTINGHAM RD. LAKESIDE DR. FORREST DR RAVEN DR. FORREST DR FOXBORO
WILSON CRES. PINE ST. FOXBORO LINK FOXBORO FORREST DR
FOXBORO WAY FOXBORO
CLOVERBAR RD FORREST FOXBORO DR MOYER DR. SHERWOOD DR. WREN CRES. FORREST DR NOTTINGHAM RD. BAY FOXBORO DR FOXTAIL CV.
WILSON CRES. WILSON CRES. NOTTINGHAM BLVD. FOXTAIL WAY FOXTAIL GRV. SHERWOOD ST. PRIVET CONIFER ST. HERON RD. BLUEBIRD CT. CURLEW CRES. FOXBORO DR
12 RD. CRANE PRIVET ST. EAGLE CT. NEWPORT DR. STRATHCONA PL. FOXBORO CL BLUEBIRD CRES. GILLIES RD. NOTTINGHAM ESTATES HEIGHTS FORREST DR HAZEL ST. FOXTAIL LANE OAK ST. ELM ST. NOTTINGHAM BLVD.
WREN CRES. REGENCY RD MAPLE CT. FORREST DR CONIFER ST. CARDINAL PL.
STRATHCONA DR. COVE FOXBORO CYPRESS AVE. GROVE FOXBORO
ACACIA CT. TRC FOXBORO F OXW O OD GLENMORE AVE. FOXBORO LANDING NORWICH BAY BAY FOXBORO FOXWOOD CRES.
REDWOOD ST. DR. EAGLE FOXBORO
BROADMOOR BLVD. HERON RD. LANDNG PINE ST. FALCON DR. DOGWOOD AVE. YEW CT. CRANE RD. ADAMSON CRES. WILLOW ST. NOTTINGHAM POINT SHERWOOD DR. NORFOLK BAY NORFOLK NORWICH CRES.
Brentwood Blvd. FOXWOOD CRES. FOXBORO TERRACE
KEITH RD. WILLOW ST. EVERGREEN ST. HAWKINS CRES. FIR ST. 13 LARK ST. ROBIN ST.
MOYER DR. NOTTINGHAM BLVD. TAMARACK ST. 3 NORWICH BAY NORWICH CRES. CONIFER ST. BLVD. BRENTWOOD RIDGELAND PT RIDGELAND CRES REGAL CL REGENCY DR. NOTTINGHAM HARBOUR RIDGELAND BAY PINE ST. SAGE CRES. GREENWOOD WAY ALDERWOOD CRES. REGENCY DRIVE 4 DR. FALCON VILLAGE DR. VILLAGE DR. COTTONWOOD AVE.
VISCOUNT CRES. NORWICH CRES. RIDGELAND CRT REGAL CRT REGAL
VICTORIA CT. 15 NOTTINGHAM HARBOUR REGENCY DR. RAINBOW CRES. BRENTWOOD REGAL WAY REGENCY DR. NOTTINGHAM INLET SAGE CT. LARKWOOD PL. RAINBOW CRES. RIDGELAND DRIVE
VILLAGE PL. LARCH ST. NOTTINGHAM HARBOUR NOTTINGHAM POINCIANA CT. NORWICH CRES.
VICTORIA WAY JUNIPER AVE. GREENWOOD WAY CIRCLEWOOD DR. REGENCY DR. REGAL WAY RIDGEMONT CRES.
NOTTINGHAM BAY Cloverbar Road NORWOOD CT NORWOOD
VICTORIA SAGE CRES. CIRCLEWOOD DR. HOLLY AVE. RAINBOW CRES. MANOR VILLAGE LANE SPRUCE AVE. NOTTINGHAM BLVD RIDGELAND CRES VILLAGE ON FALCON DR. INLET NOTTINGHAM
REGENCY DR. VILLAGE DR. VILLAGE VILLAGE MEWS COTTONWOOD AVE. FIR ST.
SYCAMORE ST. MAYWOOD RD. ALDER AVE. REGENCY DR REGENCY
VILLAGE DR. SHERWOOD ARBUTUS CT. NOTTINGHAM BAY THEVISTA LAKE CIRCLEWOOD DR. VILLAGE SQ. NORCROSS BAY
RIDGEMONT CRES.
MANOR RIDGEMONT CRES. RAYMOND WAY REGAL WAY FIR ST. SPRUCE AVE.
CIRCLEWOOD DR CIRCLEWOOD RIDGEBROOK VISTA CT. REGENCY RD VISTA DR. VILLAGE DOWNS RITCHIE WAY CT. VILLAGE ESTATE HEIGHTS COTTONWOOD AVE. ALDER AVE. RIDGEBROOK ROAD GLENWOOD DR. REGENCY DRIVE ALDER CT. REGENCYRIDGEROCK DRIVE POINT RIDGELAND WAY
NORLAND CL RIDGEBAY PLACE
RAINBOW CRES. RAINBOW SHERWOOD DR. SHERWOOD NOTTINGHAM COVE
COTTONWOOD ST. FIR ST. CEDAR ST. APPLEWOOD RD. NOTTINGHAM BLVD JUNIPER AVE. BIRCH CRES. REGENCY
VANTAGE LANE WILLOW ST.
HIGHWOOD PL.
VILLAGE DR. DR CIRCLEWOOD
CONIFER ST. MEADOWOOD CRES. VENTNOR PL. IVY CT. NORWAY CRES RIDGEBROOK CL.
RIDGEVIEW COURT
RAINBOW CRES RAINBOW
VILLAGE CL. VILLAGE RIDGEPOINT WAY RIDGEPOINT
VILLAGE CT. NORWAY CRES NORWAY REGENCY PARK
VILLAGE DR. HAWTHORN ST. NORWAY CRES PARK RIDGEBROOK ROAD VILLAGE COTTONWOOD AVE. NORMANDY CRT VILLAGE GV. TRC. VIRGINIA CRES. ROSEWOOD DR.
FIR ST. RIDGEVIEW COURT RIDGEBROOK WAY SYCAMORE ST. NEWCASTLE ROAD ESTATES MAPLEGROVE NORMANDY DR
NOTTINGHAM WAY RIDGEPOINT WAY NORMANDY LANE FIR ST. FIR ST. RIDEGMONT WAY BIRCH AVE. CARAGANA AVE. MEADOWOOD CRES.
CEDAR ST.
ASH ST. ROSEWOOD PL. RIDGEBROOK ROAD
ORDZE RD.
MAPLEWOOD NEWCASTLE CRES
RAINBOW CRES RIDGEPOINT WAY NEWCASTLE CRES NEWCASTLE
NEWCASTLE CL. ALDER AVE. ALDER AVE. IVY CRES. ROSEWOOD DR. NEWCASTLE BAY 17
WYE RD. Wye Road WYE RD. WYE RD. WYE RD. SALISBURY WAY
SHERWOOD HILLS ESTATES ORDZE CRESCENT Wye Road 5 km
ASH ST.
RANGE ROAD 233 RANGE ROAD 232 RANGE ROAD 231 RIDGEWAY ESTATE DR. 1 19 ESTATE DR.
ESTATE DR.
SWHPNEESTATE DR. ASH ST. ESTATE DR. 16
EXECUTIVE ESTATES SHERWOOD HILLS ESTATES
CAMPBELLTOWN HEIGHTS
ESTATE DR. DR. ESTATE
ORDZE CRESCENT ESTATES OF SHERWOOD HILLS ESTATES
RANGE ROAD 233
RIDGEWAY SHERWOOD PARKESTATE DR.
ESTATE DR.
ESTATE DR. SHERWOOD HILLS ESTATES
ESTATE DR.
RANGE ROAD 231
RANGE ROAD 232 ESTATE DR. SHERWOOD HILLS ESTATES ORDZE CRESCENT ESTATE DR. ESTATE DR.
CAMPBELLTOWN HEIGHTS
CAMPBELLTOWN HEIGHTS SHERWOOD HILLS ESTATES HILLS SHERWOOD N EXECUTIVE ESTATES ESTATE DR. EXECUTIVE ESTATES ESTATE DR. CAMPBELLTOWN HEIGHTS ESTATE DR.
2018 - 2019 BOARD OF TRUSTEES MEETING SCHEDULE
Start time: 9:00 a.m., public session 10:00 a.m. (full day meetings) (Meeting start time subject to change)
Location: Board Room, Elk Island Public Schools Administration Building 683 Wye Road, Sherwood Park, Alberta
2018
September 27 Board of Trustees
October 18 Board of Trustees
November 22 Board of Trustees
December 20 Board of Trustees
2019
January 24 Board of Trustees
February 21 Board of Trustees
March 14 Board of Trustees
April 18 Board of Trustees
May 22 (Wed) Board of Trustees Public Budget Review
May 29 (Wed) 1 p.m. Board of Trustees
June 6 Board of Trustees
June 20 Board of Trustees
June 25 (Tues) Board of Trustees
August 29 Board of Trustees/Organizational Meeting
November 18, 19, and 20, 2018 – ASBA Fall General Meeting (Westin Hotel – Edmonton, AB) March 3-5, 2019 - Alberta Rural Education Symposium 2018 (Fantasyland Hotel – Edmonton, AB) June 3-4, 2019 - ASBA Spring General Meeting (Sheraton Hotel – Red Deer, AB)
Presented to Board: August 30, 2018 Amended: September 6, 2018 Amended: April 18, 2019 Amended: May 22, 2019 RECOMMENDATION REPORT Page 1 of 1
DATE: May 22, 2019
TO: Board of Trustees
FROM: Trina Boymook, Board Chair
SUBJECT: 2018-19 Board of Trustees Meeting Schedule Amendment
ORIGINATOR: Trina Boymook, Board Chair
RESOURCE STAFF: Candace Cole, Secretary-Treasurer Carol Langford-Pickering, Executive Assistant
REFERENCE: Board Policy 7, Board Operations School Act, Section 66-67
EIPS PRIORITY: Enhance public education through effective engagement, partnerships, and communication.
EIPS GOAL: Engaged and effective governance.
EIPS OUTCOME: The division is committed to ongoing advocacy to enhance public education.
RECOMMENDATION: THAT the Board of Trustees approve the amended 2018-19 Board of Trustees Meeting Schedule, as presented.
BACKGROUND: The 2018-19 Board of Trustees Meeting Schedule was approved at the Organizational Meeting on August 30, 2018 and amended on September 6, 2018 and April 18, 2019. An additional date has been added to the schedule to allow the Board adequate time to review the budget, as follows:
• Wednesday, May 29, 2019, starting at 1 p.m.
COMMUNICATION PLAN: The 2018-19 Board of Trustees Meeting Schedule will be updated on the website, Staff Connect and EIPS Leadership Calendar. All stakeholders will be advised.
ATTACHMENT(S): 1. Amended 2018-19 Board of Trustees Meeting Schedule (marked) 2. Amended 2018-19 Board of Trustees Meeting Schedule (unmarked)
CC:clp
2018 - 2019 BOARD OF TRUSTEES MEETING SCHEDULE
Start time: 9:00 a.m., public session 10:00 a.m. (full day meetings) (Meeting start time subject to change)
Location: Board Room, Elk Island Public Schools Administration Building 683 Wye Road, Sherwood Park, Alberta
2018
September 27 Board of Trustees
October 18 Board of Trustees
November 22 Board of Trustees
December 20 Board of Trustees
2019
January 24 Board of Trustees
February 21 Board of Trustees
March 14 Board of Trustees
April 18 Board of Trustees
May 22 (Wed) Board of Trustees
May 29 (Wed) 1 p.m. Board of Trustees
June 6 Board of Trustees
June 20 Board of Trustees
June 25 (Tues) Board of Trustees
August 29 Board of Trustees/Organizational Meeting
November 18, 19, and 20, 2018 – ASBA Fall General Meeting (Westin Hotel – Edmonton, AB) March 3-5, 2019 - Alberta Rural Education Symposium 2018 (Fantasyland Hotel – Edmonton, AB) June 3-4, 2019 - ASBA Spring General Meeting (Sheraton Hotel – Red Deer, AB)
Presented to Board: August 30, 2018 Amended: September 6, 2018 Amended: April 18, 2019 Amended: May 22, 2019 RECOMMENDATION REPORT Page 1 of 2
DATE: May 22, 2019
TO: Board of Trustees
FROM: Mark Liguori, Superintendent
SUBJECT: Classified Staff Terms and Conditions: Compensation
ORIGINATOR: Brent Billey, Associate Superintendent, Human Resources
RESOURCE STAFF: Candace Cole, Secretary‐Treasurer Shirley Hagen, Director, Financial Services Joanne Boot, Benefits Advisor, Human Resources
REFERENCE:
EIPS PRIORITY: Enhance high quality learning and working environments.
EIPS GOAL: Quality infrastructure for all.
EIPS OUTCOME: Student learning is supported through the use of effective planning, managing and investment in Division infrastructure.
RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of Trustees approve the following change in classified benefits and general holiday pay effective September 1, 2019: 1. 100% coverage of benefit costs and increased vision care coverage 2. Coverage of 100% of employment benefits plan for 52 weeks for Maternity and Parental Leave Benefits 3. Substitutes paid general holiday pay for statutory holidays at 5% of the last four weeks worked
BACKGROUND: Teachers’ Employer Bargaining Association (TEBA) ratified the 2018‐20 Central Table Agreement on March 16. The Alberta Teachers’ Association (ATA) also ratified the Agreement. Past practice in EIPS has been to give classified staff the same terms and conditions as certificated staff, where appropriate.
New provisions in the Teachers Agreement that are appropriate to classified staff:
A. Group Benefit Plans: a. Coverage of 100% of the benefit premium cost for Life Insurance, Accidental Death & Dismemberment, Extended Disability, Extended Health, Dental & Vision (currently 97%) b. Increase vision care coverage to Plan 3 with $400 per person every 2 years (currently Plan 2 with $300 per person every two years)
B. Maternity Leave Benefits – Coverage of 100% of employment benefits plan premiums for 52 weeks (currently 97% for 18 weeks) RECOMMENDATION REPORT Page 2 of 2
C. Substitutes paid general holiday pay for statutory holidays at 5% of the last four weeks worked (currently not paid).
As per the TEBA Agreement the maternity leave benefits and general holiday pay come into effect on May 1, 2019 for certificated employees, but Administration is recommending these benefits be effective September 1, 2019 for classified staff.
Classified staff have experienced the benefits of certificated contracts for a number of years.
The estimated cost for classified staff is $210,000 annually – $163,000 for benefit changes, $23,000 for maternity benefits, and $24,000 for statutory holidays.
COMMUNICATION PLAN: Once approved, the benefits will be incorporated into the 2019‐20 budget and changes will be communicated to staff.
ATTACHMENTS: N/A
CC:tb RECOMMENDATION REPORT Page 1 of 1
DATE: May 22, 2019
TO: Board of Trustees
FROM: Mark Liguori, Superintendent
SUBJECT: CRA Corporate Appointments
ORIGINATOR: Candace Cole, Secretary‐Treasurer
RESOURCE STAFF: Shirley Hagen, Director, Financial Services Terry White, Manager, Division & School Support
REFERENCE: Policy 2, Role of the Board
EIPS PRIORITY: Enhance high quality learning and working environments.
EIPS GOAL: Quality infrastructure for all.
EIPS OUTCOME: Student learning is supported through the use of effective planning, managing and investment in Division infrastructure.
RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of Trustees approve Candace Cole, Secretary‐Treasurer and Shirley Hagen, Director, Financial Services as owners on the corporate account for Elk Island Public School Division No. 14.
BACKGROUND: The Division has a Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) corporate business number that is used for grant applications, charitable donations, payroll and Goods and Services Tax (GST). As these services become more accessible online, access to the Division’s corporate business account information has also been moved online.
The role of the “owner” listed on the corporate account is to approve online access for client representatives on the account. The client representatives on the Division account are select individuals in Financial Services and Payroll, which allows them access to review quarterly returns and file payroll deduction remittances and receive correspondence with the CRA.
The current owners on the account are out of date. Adding the Secretary‐Treasurer and the Director, Financial Services as owners on the account will ensure that any required changes to client representative access can be made with the CRA.
COMMUNICATION PLAN: A letter will be sent to the CRA Business Number Services Unit to update the owners on the corportate account.
ATTACHMENTS: N/A
CC:tw RECOMMENDATION REPORT Page 1 of 3
DATE: May 22, 2019
TO: Board of Trustees
FROM: Mark Liguori, Superintendent
SUBJECT: Student Transportation Fees
ORIGINATOR: Lisa Weder, Director, Student Transportation
RESOURCE STAFF: Gurveer Chohan, Business Manager, Student Transportation
REFERENCE: Policy 2, Role of the Board, section 8.11 Policy 17, Student Transportation Funding Manual for School Authorities, Section 8.1 Administrative Procedure 505, School and Administrative Fees School Transportation Regulation AB 102/2017
EIPS PRIORITY: Enhance high quality learning and working environments.
EIPS GOAL: Quality infrastructure for all.
EIPS OUTCOME: Student learning is supported through the use of effective planning, managing and investment in Division infrastructure.
RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of Trustees approve the Student Transportation Fees for the 2019‐20 school year.
BACKGROUND: Policy 2, Role of the Board, Section 8.11 Fiscal Accountability establishes that the Board of Trustees will approve various administrative fees annually, including the student transportation fees.
Alberta Education provides transportation funding based on the following criteria: Students attending their designated school and residing greater than 2.39 km to the school. Students attending a non‐designated school and residing greater than 2.39 km to both their designated school and the school they are attending.
It was indicated by the Minister of Education that changes to the School Transportation Regulation would come in the fall of 2018 and would be effective for the 2019‐20 year. Conversely, the decision was made to keep eligibility criteria status quo. RECOMMENDATION REPORT Page 2 of 3
EIPS also provides enhanced student transportation services, for a fee, that exceeds the transportation mandate outlined by Alberta Education. In 2018‐19, 2,921 students fell under this category and were assessed a fee:
Students who do not qualify for funding as per above criteria. Students who attend a non‐designated school. Students who access an additional bus to an alternate address.
Charging fees assists in recovering a portion of the incremental cost of providing these additional services.
School Transportation Regulation AB 102/2017 Section 7(3) reads:
“Any surplus from transportation fees charged under subsection (1) must be used to subsidize the cost of transportation of students referred to in that subsection in the 2 school years following the school year in which the surplus was collected.”
Fees are used to offset the funding shortfall that resulted from providing the current level of transportation service by EIPS.
Student Transportation will continue to offer a payment plan for the 2019‐20 school year. The payment plan was added to assist families with fees over $400. Fee payments will be split over a five month period starting in September and ending in January. For the 2018‐19 school year, 216 families participated in the payment plan option. Student Transportation waived fees for a total cost of $46,848. Participation in both payment plans and fee waivers increased in 2018‐19.
The Board of Trustees requested a review and analysis of revenues vs. expenses of the Student Transportation budget in order to make an informed decision with respect to the approval of transportation fees for the 2019‐20 school year.
The following factors resulted in a surplus for the 2018‐19 budget:
Increase in urban grant funding from projections made in the spring of 2018 Savings to contracted transportation as the result of fuel costs coming in below the budgeted amount of $1.30/L. (Fuel was paid out in May at $1.20/L – steadily increased since January) Collection of transportation fees increased due to an increase in payride students and the addition of the Supplemental Bus Fee.
RECOMMENDATION REPORT Page 3 of 3
The following factors may impact the 2019‐20 budget: The continued rise in the cost of diesel fuel. Although we did not realize the full cost of $1.30/L, as budgeted, given the volatility of the market it is in our best interest to budget fuel at $1.30/L. For every five cent increase to the cost of diesel fuel, there is an approximate $5,000 increase per month to the contracted transportation expenditure. Fuel will be budgeted at $1.30/L as forecasting shows a continued increase to the cost of diesel fuel over the next year. A reserve carry forward for 2018‐19 of approximately $299,000. Introduction of the Mandatory Entry Level Training (MELT) program. New contract awards with a five‐year term effective the 2019‐20 school year.
In order to balance the 2019‐20 budget based on the above assumptions the following strategies could be adopted to expenditures as indicated below:
Budgeting fuel at $1.30/L. Funding rates from Alberta Education for Student Transportation remain status quo Number of bus routes will remain the same subject only to ridership change An incentive system to gain competitive advantage in order to retain current bus operators, that are not subject to MELT requirements, by offering a bonus incentive totaling approximately $60,000. An incentive system to attract new bus operators. Upon completion of 53.5 hours of training, bus operators would be compensated for their time. This is to remain competitive with other school divisions offering similar attraction strategies with an estimated cost of $30,000. Contract a MELT trainer to assist with training of new bus operators with an estimated cost of $40,000. Restore FTE back to 1.0 from 0.75 for administrative support to assist with additional MELT administrative work costing approximately $16,500.
Using all of the above strategies and assumptions, as well as the final approval of the fee schedule by the government, Student Transportation should be able to submit a balanced budget for 2019‐20.
Attached is a draft Student Transportation Fee Schedule for 2019‐20 which reflects fees remaining status quo.
COMMUNICATION PLAN: Once the fee schedule is approved by the Board of Trustees, the fees for 2019‐20: 1. will be submitted to the government for further approval pursuant to the School Transportation Regulation; and 2. updated on EIPS’ website and communicated to the leadership group, school councils and the appropriate community and parent groups.
ATTACHMENTS: 1. 2019‐20 Student Transportation Fee Schedule 2. Student Transportation Fee Flow Chart
Attachment 1
ELK ISLAND PUBLIC SCHOOLS STUDENT TRANSPORTATION FEE SCHEDULE 2019-20
DESCRIPTION 2019-20 2018-19 % Change
Payride Students who attend their designated school and $414.50 $414.50 0.00% reside less than 2.4 km from their designated school.
Choice Students who attend a non-designated school and $462.00 $462.00 0.00% reside greater than 2.39 km from both their designated and non-designated school.
Choice Payride Students who attend a non-designated school and $876.50 $876.50 0.00% reside less than 2.4 km from either their designated or non-designated school.
Kindergarten Payride $207.25 $207.25 0.00% Busing for Kindergarten students who reside less than 2.4 km away from their attended school.
Non Resident $876.50 $876.50 0.00% A student (including Kindergarten) who does not reside within the boundaries of EIPS.
Family Rate $945.00 $945.00 0.00% Applicable to families exceeding $900.00 in fees.
Supplemental Bus* $125.00 $125.00 0.00% Per student fee to access an additional bus to/from an alternate address. (*Note: fee not eligible for family rate discount)
Replacement Bus Pass $20.00 $20.00 0.00%
Administration Fee - Payment Plan $25.00 $25.00 0.00%
Administration Fee - Refunds $25.00 $25.00 0.00% Attachment 2 Student Transportation Fees 2019-2020
I am a Resident of Elk Island Public Schools I am NOT a Resident What grade is your child in? of Elk Island Public Schools Kindergarten Grade 1-12
Is your home address less than 2.4 km Is your child attending their designated school? from the school your child attends? YES NO NO YES Is your home address Is your home address less than less than 2.4 km from the 2.4 km from the attended OR school your child attends? designated school?
YES NO YES NO
No Fee Kindergarten Payride Fee No Fee Choice and Choice Fee Non-Resident Fee Payride Fee Payride Fee
I require transportation from an alternate address that will require an additional bus Supplemental Bus Fee*
Family Rate If multiple children in your family are using transportation and the fees are greater than $945, you qualify for the family rate. Contact Student Transportation to have your fees adjusted. *Supplemental bus fee not eligible for the family rate discount.
Calculating Home-to-School Distance Home-to-School Distance is calculated using a combination of roadways and walkways—it may not always match the driven distance of your family car. To determine the distance from your home to the school your child is designated to or attending visit Find My Designated School or Contact Student Transportation. RECOMMENDATION REPORT Page 1 of 2
DATE: May 22, 2019
TO: Board of Trustees
FROM: Mark Liguori, Superintendent
SUBJECT: 2019-20 School Facility Rental Rates
ORIGINATOR: Calvin Wait, Director, Facility Services
RESOURCE STAFF: Robert Derech, Assistant Director, Facility Services Darcie Bennett, Foreman, Facility Contracting Services, Facility Services Nicole Collin, Business Manager, Facility Services Joseph Clark, Principal, Next Step
REFERENCE: Board Policy 2, Role of the Board, section 8.11 Administrative Procedure 505, School and Administrative Fees Administrative Procedure 546, Public Use of Division Facilities
EIPS PRIORITY: Enhance public education through effective engagement, partnerships, and communication.
EIPS GOAL: Supports and services for students and families.
EIPS OUTCOME: Community partnerships support the needs of our students.
RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of Trustees approve the School Rental Rate Schedule and Surplus Classroom Space Rate Schedule for the 2019-20 school year.
BACKGROUND: Policy 2, Role of the Board, Section 8.11 Fiscal Accountability, establishes that the Board of Trustees will approve various administration fees annually, including school facility rental rates.
Leasing of school facilities shall be considered on the basis of functional compatibility, space availability, land use compliance, and financial impact. It is believed that after Division requirements have been met, the community shall have reasonable access to Division facilities (AP546). Offering surplus space for the provision of before and after school care supports families of EIPS students by having consistent and safe care for their children. Preschool programming provides opportunities for future students to reach social, intellectual and physical development milestones for kindergarten and grade 1 readiness.
Based on the 2017-18 school cost per square meter, there is an overall increase of 1.37% in costs. At this time, EIPS proposes to maintain the cost of $4.33/M2 to the Not-for-Profit Registered Societies Surplus Classroom RECOMMENDATION REPORT Page 2 of 2
Space Fees. After conducting market research on average commercial leases there does not appear to be any increases. As such, EIPS is also not recommending an increase in the fees for profit organizations at this time.
Supporting communities (students and their families) to engage in activities to promote healthy lifestyles continues to be a high priority for the Division. The use of gymnasiums and other division space will be offered to the community at rates based on actual cost recovery of costs incurred by the Division. In addition, as market rates have not increased EIPS does not propose an increase in rental rates for after-hour rentals.
COMMUNICATION PLAN: Following approval by the Board, school facility rental rates will be used to develop the 2019-20 budget. The rate schedules will be updated on the website and communicated to the leadership group, school councils and the appropriate community parent groups.
ATTACHMENT(S): 1. School Rental Rate Schedule 2019-20 2. Surplus Classroom Space Rate Schedule 2019-20 Attachment 1
ELK ISLAND PUBLIC SCHOOLS SCHOOL RENTAL RATE SCHEDULE 2019-20
DESCRIPTION 2019-20 2018-19 % Change Youth Adult Large Group Youth Adult Large Group Youth Adult Large Group Recreational Recreational Social & Recreational Recreational Social & Recreational Recreational Social & Commercial Commercial Commercial
Single Areas (Gymnasium) Tier 1 (area > 465 m2) Weekdays $ 24.21 $ 36.79 $ 81.82 $ 24.21 $ 36.79 $ 81.82 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Weekends (3 hour minimum fee) 36.79 54.22 81.82 36.79 54.22 81.82 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Volleyball Equipment Surcharge 2.91 2.91 - 2.91 2.91 - 0.00% 0.00% -
Tier 2 (area ≤ 465 m2) Weekdays $ 19.37 $ 29.53 $ 81.82 $ 19.37 $ 29.53 $ 81.82 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Weekends (3 hour minimum fee) 31.95 43.09 81.82 31.95 43.09 81.82 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Volleyball Equipment Surcharge 2.91 2.91 - 2.91 2.91 - 0.00% 0.00% -
Additional Areas (Classroom) Weekdays & Weekends $ 15.49 $ 20.33 $ 46.48 $ 15.49 $ 20.33 $ 46.48 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
Specialty Areas (Theatres/Cafeterias/Libraries) Weekdays & Weekends $ 50.35 $ 50.35 $ 100.70 $ 50.35 $ 50.35 $ 100.70 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
Cancellation Fee (Full/Partial Contract) 20% of rental 20% of rental 20% of rental 20% of rental 20% of rental 20% of rental 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
Change Fee (Excessive changes to contract) $ 23.75 $ 23.75 $ 23.75 $ 23.75 $ 23.75 $ 23.75 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
Administrative Fee (Default Payments) $ 23.75 $ 23.75 $ 23.75 $ 23.75 $ 23.75 $ 23.75 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
Booking Deposit Damage deposit $ - $ - $ 500. 00 $ - $ - $ 500.00 - - 0.00% Rental deposit - - - - - $ - - - -
External Community Surcharge $ 10.00 $ 10.00 $ 10.00 $ 10.00 $ 10.00 $ 10.00 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
Rates are per hour except for Booking Deposit and Cancellation, Change and Administrative Fees All rates are subject to GST External Communities = areas that are outside of the vicinty in which EIPS schools are located Attachment 2
ELK ISLAND PUBLIC SCHOOLS SURPLUS CLASSROOM SPACE RATE SCHEDULE 2019-20
SURPLUS CLASSROOM SPACE RATE SCHEDULE
DESCRIPTION 2019-20 2018-19 % Change
Not-for-Profit Registered Societies 4.33 4.33 0.00%
For Profit Organizations 14.60 14.60 0.00%
All rates are per square meter per month All rates are subject to GST Not-for-Profit rate reflects average cost recovery For Profit rate developed by analyzing market rates in all sectors RECOMMENDATION REPORT Page 1 of 2
DATE: May 22, 2019
TO: Board of Trustees
FROM: Mark Liguori, Superintendent
SUBJECT: 2019‐20 Partners 4 Science Fees (P4S)
ORIGINATOR: Sandra Stoddard, Associate Superintendent, Supports for Students
RESOURCE STAFF: Jeff Spady, Director, Career and Learning Design
REFERENCE: Policy 2, Role of the Board, section 8.11 Administrative Procedure 505, School and Administrative Fees
EIPS PRIORITY: Enhance high quality learning and working environments.
EIPS GOAL: Quality infrastructure for all.
EIPS OUTCOME: Student learning is supported through the use of effective planning, managing and investment in Division infrastructure.
RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of Trustees approve the Partners 4 Science Fees for the 2019‐20 school year.
BACKGROUND: Policy 2, Role of the Board, section 8.11 Fiscal Accountability establishes that the Board of Trustees will approve administrative fees annually, including the P4S fees.
Operating costs for P4S continue to increase, however, due to the increase in fees in 2018‐19 the budget is able to be effectively managed.
The attached fee schedule reflects a status quo for both elementary (0%) and junior high (0%) P4S programs.
Estimated total fees charged to Elk Island Catholic Schools for P4S Kits for the 2019‐20 school year are based on 2018‐19 EICS enrolment. A $25.00 restocking charge will continue to be used for the 2019‐20 school year as a means to minimize kits that are returned late, as this negatively impacts programming for the next receiving school.
COMMUNICATION PLAN: Once approved, the fees for 2019‐20 will be updated on the Elk Island Public Schools’ website and communicated to Elk Island Catholic Schools (EICS) who utilize the P4S Kits throughout their Division.
ATTACHMENT(S): 1. 2019‐20 Partners 4 Science Fee Schedule
Attachment 1
ELK ISLAND PUBLIC SCHOOLS Partners 4 Science Fees 2019‐20
DESCRIPTION 2019‐20 2018‐19 % Change
External P4S Program Fees
Elementary per student $12.50 $12.50 0% Estimated total fees $35,860 $35,860
Junior High per student $8.35 $8.35 0% Estimated total fees $12,660 $12,660
Late Return Fee (Restocking Charge) $25.00/day $25.00 /day 0%
RECOMMENDATION REPORT Page 1 of 2
DATE: May 22, 2019
TO: Board of Trustees
FROM: Policy Committee
SUBJECT: Policy 24, Personal Communication Devices
ORIGINATOR: Heather Wall, Chair, Policy Committee
RESOURCE STAFF: Mark Liguori, Superintendent
REFERENCE: Policy 10, Policy Making
EIPS PRIORITY: Enhance high quality learning and working environments.
EIPS GOAL: A focus on wellbeing including student citizenship and staff engagement.
EIPS OUTCOME: Our learning and working environments are welcoming, caring, respectful and safe.
RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of Trustees approve new Board Policy 24, Personal Communication Devices, effective for the 2019‐20 school year, as presented.
BACKGROUND: Over the past decade, smartphone possession and use among children and teens has achieved ubiquitous levels. While smartphones offer potential opportunities for communication and information access, the challenges they represent for classrooms and schools are significant. Recent research into digital technology use among children and teens has raised concerns over the impact smartphone use is having on mental and physical health, social wellbeing, and readiness to learn. A recent ban on smartphones in schools by France, along with a promised provincial ban in Ontario, has brought this issue focused media attention and raised the issue’s profile among parents and educators.
As a result, the Board wished to develop a Board Policy that would address the use of cell phones and other personal devices in the classroom. The Board directed administration to initiate a public engagement strategy regarding cell phone use by students in schools to assist in determining next steps in enhancing existing policy for the Division.
A comprehensive public consultation was conducted and input was collected from three key audiences: students (in divisions 2, 3 and 4), parents and guardians, and teachers and school administrators. Approximately 6,600 students, 3,500 parents and 1,200 school‐based staff completed the survey. Results were shared with the Board and a draft Policy 24, Personal Communication Devices was developed for approval (attachment 1).
RECOMMENDATION REPORT Page 2 of 2
COMMUNICATION PLAN: Once approved, the Board Policies and Administrative Procedures will be updated on the website and StaffConnect, and stakeholders will be advised.
ATTACHMENT(S): 1. Draft Policy 24, Personal Communication Devices
/tb
Draft Policy 24 PERSONAL COMMUNICATION DEVICES
The Board recognizes that there is an appropriate educational purpose for the use of technology in the classroom provided that it is used responsibly to achieve the learner outcomes in the Alberta Programs of Study and allows students to participate in learner activities chosen by the teacher.
We are committed to preparing our students to thrive in the 21st century. Digital citizenship is key to helping EIPS students learn to use available technology responsibly to enable them to reach their full potential as learners.
1. Definitions 1. Digital Citizenship (DC): Refers to the knowledge, skills and attitudes in our schools needed to demonstrate responsible and respectful behavior when using technology or participating in digital environments. 2. Educational Purpose refers to: 1. the use of the device to enable the student to achieve the learner outcomes in the Alberta Program of Study and/or participate in learner activities chosen by the teacher; 2. a diagnosed medical need of the student; 3. an inclusive education need identified in the student’s instructional support plan (ISP). 3. Personal Communication Device (PCD): Refers to personal digital devices that connect to the internet through WiFi, cellular network or other mobile devices. 2. Expectations 1. Division employees shall: 1. serve as role models and as such must only use PCDs as outlined in Board Policy and Administrative Procedures; 2. understand and promote a welcoming, caring, respectful, and safe working and learning environment. 2. Schools shall: 1. ensure Administrative Procedure 145, Use of Personal Communication Devices is communicated to all staff and students at the beginning of each school year and ensure it’s adherence; 2. develop a plan detailing the specific curricular circumstances that a PCD can be used in class; 3. establish how PCDs will be stored at the school. 3. Students of Divisions 1 and 2 (Grades K-6): 1. shall not access a PCD at school, unless required for: 1. diagnosed medical conditions; or 2. an identified inclusive educational need. 1. When not required, PCDs brought to school for a diagnosed medical condition or an identified inclusive educational need shall be stored according to the school PCD plan; 2. shall store a PCD according to the school PCD plan; 3. shall not access a PCD during break periods (recess, lunch break, etc.). 4. Students of Division 3 (Grades 7-9): 1. shall not have a PCD on them and shall store a PCD according to the school PCD plan (locker/classroom pouches), unless required for: 1. diagnosed medical conditions; or 2. an identified inclusive educational need. 2. may access a PCD when given permission by the teacher for a specific educational task or purpose; 3. shall have access to a PCD during identified break periods only (recess, class break, lunch break, etc.). 5. Students of Division 4 (Grades 10-12): 1. shall not have a PCD on them and shall store a PCD according to the school PCD plan (locker/classroom pouches), unless required for: 1. diagnosed medical conditions; or 2. an identified inclusive educational need. 2. may access a PCD when given permission by the teacher for a specific educational task or purpose; 3. shall have access to a PCD during identified break periods only (class break, lunch break, spare, etc.).
Reference:
Policy 19, Welcoming, Caring, Respectful and Safe Learning and Working Environment
Last reviewed: Last updated:
INFORMATION REPORT Page 1 of 2
DATE: May 22, 2019
TO: Board of Trustees
FROM: Mark Liguori, Superintendent
SUBJECT: 2019 Summer Projects
ORIGINATOR: Calvin Wait, Director, Facility Services
RESOURCE STAFF: Robert Derech, Assistant Director, Facility Services Dave Lesanko, Senior Manager, Maintenance and Operations Kelsey Tarrant, Project Manager, Facility Services Darcie Bennett, Manager, Contract Services REFERENCE:
EIPS PRIORITY: Enhance high quality learning and working environments.
EIPS GOAL: Quality infrastructure for all.
EIPS OUTCOME: Student learning is supported through the use of effective planning, managing and investment in division infrastructure.
ISSUE:
That the Board of Trustees receive the Facility Services – 2019 Summer Projects plan for information.
BACKGROUND:
Facility Services is preparing for the department’s summer projects season. With 117 projects planned, this will be a very exciting and challenging summer. Included in these summer projects is more than $5.5 million dollars of 2018‐19 infrastructure, maintenance and renewal (IMR) projects.
In addition to performing the normal summer projects contained within our maintenance program (gym floor refinishing, painting, inspection of fire protection systems, air handling system duct cleaning, custodial summer cleaning regime, vegetation control and parking lot repairs), Facility Services is also undertaking project management for the:
new construction of Heritage Hills Elementary, abatement and demolition of the old Ardrossan Elementary, demolition of six modular classrooms at Ardrossan Junior Senior High, demolition of one modular classroom at École Parc Élémentaire , demolition of one modular classroom at Uncas Elementary, and demolition and construction of one modular classroom at École Campbelltown INFORMATION REPORT Page 2 of 2
The major summer IMR project highlights include:
• Phase 1 replacement of air handling units complete with associated ducting in Bev Facey Community High • Remove existing and replace three air handling units at Westboro Elementary • Data cabling upgrade to CAT 6 at Salisbury Composite High, Win Ferguson Elementary and Mills Haven Elementary • Replacement of two air handling units at Rudolph Hennig Junior High • Roof repair at Bruderheim Elementary
2019‐20 school year IMR plan is in the process of development with planned presentation in June.
CURRENT SITUATION OR KEY POINT:
Projects are determined by several methods:
Facility Condition Indexing – annual inspections by government consultants and results documented with Alberta Infrastructure VFA facility condition reports Feedback from school administrators Feedback from operations and maintenance staff Facility Services management onsite inspections
For the purposes of prioritizing projects, the following points are considered from highest to lowest:
Health and safety items, including code violations Items that may compromise the integrity of the building envelope and reduce the life cycle of the facility Building components that have failed Educational areas to meet program requirements Facility requirements for students with special needs Building components that enhance energy conservation
ATTACHMENT(S):
1. Facility Services ‐ 2019 Summer Projects plan
CW: Attachment 1 Page 1 of 7
Facility Services - 2019 Summer Projects
Facility Description A.L. HORTON ELEMENTARY Fire extinguisher inspections and servicing Fire alarm systems inspections and servicing Dryer Duct Cleaning Custodial - Summer Cleaning Regime Screen/Coat Kindergarten Room Floor Vegetation Control Roofing update report ANDREW SCHOOL Fire extinguisher inspections and servicing Fire alarm systems inspections and servicing Dust collector servicing and inspections Sprinkler system inspections and servicing Dryer Duct Cleaning Custodial - Summer Cleaning Regime Screen/Coat Gymnasium Floor Vegetation Control Flooring upgrades Roofing update ARDROSSAN ELEMENTARY (NEW) Fire extinguisher inspections and servicing Sprinkler system servicing and inspections Dryer Duct Cleaning Fire alarm systems inspections and servicing Custodial - Summer Cleaning Regime Screen/Coat Gymnasium Floor Vegetation Control ARDROSSAN ELEMENTARY (OLD) Demolition of school and regrading ARDROSSAN JUNIOR SENIOR HIGH Dust collector servicing and inspections Fire extinguisher inspections and servicing Inpections of kitchen fire suppression systems Sprinkler system servicing and inspections Fire alarm systems inspections and servicing Dryer Duct Cleaning Clean grease traps and sump pits Custodial - Summer Cleaning Regime Screen/Coat Gymnasium Floor (both gyms) Vegetation Control Career Studies Technology upgrade Phase 2 Demolition of 6 modulars Library Upgrades Roofing Update Front Parking Design Only Attachment 1 Page 2 of 7
Facility Services - 2019 Summer Projects
Facility Description BEV FACEY COMMUNITY HIGH Dust collector servicing and inspections Sprinkler system servicing and inspections Commercial kitchen exhaust cleaning Sewer line flushing Inspections of kitchen fire suppression systems Emergency generator testing Fire extinguisher inspections and servicing Fire alarm systems inspections and servicing Dryer Duct Cleaning Clean grease traps and sump pits Custodial - Summer Cleaning Regime Vegetation Control 11 Air handling units Phase 2 & 3 - North and South Penthouses - Design only 5 Air handling units replacement Phase 1- Gym and Center Penthouse Roofing update report Horticulure Upgrade BRENTWOOD ELEMENTARY Fire extinguisher inspections and servicing Sprinkler system servicing and inspections Fire alarm systems inspections and servicing Custodial - Summer Cleaning Regime Vegetation Control Data Cabling Ceiling Replacement Upgrade Roofing update report BRUDERHEIM SCHOOL Fire extinguisher inspections and servicing Fire alarm systems inspections and servicing Custodial - Summer Cleaning Regime Screen/Coat Gymnasium Floor Vegetation Control Roofing Repair CLOVER BAR JUNIOR HIGH Dust collector servicing and inspections Emergency generator testing Fire extinguisher inspections and servicing Fire alarm systems inspections and servicing Dryer Duct Cleaning Clean grease traps and sump pits Replace underground water main Custodial - Summer Cleaning Regime Vegetation Control Kitchen Modernization Roofing update report DAVIDSON CREEK ELEMENTARY Fire extinguisher inspections and servicing Sprinkler system servicing and inspections Fire alarm systems inspections and servicing Dryer Duct Cleaning Custodial - Summer Cleaning Regime Vegetation Control Attachment 1 Page 3 of 7
Facility Services - 2019 Summer Projects
Facility Description ÉCOLE CAMPBELLTOWN Fire extinguisher inspections and servicing Fire alarm systems inspections and servicing Custodial - Summer Cleaning Regime Vegetation Control Roofing update report Demolition of 1 modular Install of 1 new modular ÉCOLE PARC ÉLÉMENTAIRE Fire extinguisher inspections and servicing Fire alarm systems inspections and servicing Custodial - Summer Cleaning Regime Screen/Coat Gymnasium Floor Vegetation Control Roofing update report Mechanical Room exterior blast and repaint by Contractor FORT SASKATCHEWAN CHRISTIAN Sprinkler systems servicing and inspections Fire extinguisher inspections and servicing Fire alarm systems inspections and servicing Dryer Duct Cleaning Custodial - Summer Cleaning Regime Screen/Coat Gymnasium Floor Vegetation Control Roofing update report FORT SASKATCHEWAN ELEMENTARY Sprinkler systems servicing and inspections Fire extinguisher inspections and servicing Fire alarm systems inspections and servicing Dryer Duct Cleaning Custodial - Summer Cleaning Regime Screen/Coat Gymnasium Floor Vegetation Control Roofing update report FORT SASKATCHEWAN HIGH Fire extinguisher inspections and servicing Fire alarm systems inspections and servicing Dust collector servicing and inspections Septic system cleaning Sprinkler systems servicing and inspections Inspections of kitchen fire suppression systems Sewer line flushing Dryer Duct Cleaning Clean grease traps and sump pits Custodial - Summer Cleaning Regime Vegetation Control Roofing update report F.R. HAYTHORNE JUNIOR HIGH Sprinkler systems servicing and inspections Fire extinguisher inspections and servicing Dust collector servicing and inspections Fire alarm systems inspections and servicing Dryer Duct Cleaning Install mechanical cooling in 2 modular classrooms Custodial - Summer Cleaning Regime Vegetation Control Roofing update report Attachment 1 Page 4 of 7
Facility Services - 2019 Summer Projects
Facility Description FULTONVALE ELEMENTARY JUNIOR HIGH Dust collector servicing and inspections Emergency fire pump maintenance Sprinkler systems servicing and inspections Fire extinguisher inspections and servicing Fire alarm systems inspections and servicing Install mechanical cooling in 12 modular classrooms Custodial - Summer Cleaning Regime Screen/Coat Gymnasium Floor Vegetation Control Roofing update report GLEN ALLAN ELEMENTARY Fire extinguisher inspections and servicing Fire alarm systems inspections and servicing Install mechanical cooling in 2 modular classrooms Custodial - Summer Cleaning Regime Vegetation Control Roofing update report JAMES MOWAT ELEMENTARY Sprinkler systems servicing and inspections Fire extinguisher inspections and servicing Fire alarm systems inspections and servicing Install mechanical cooling in 3 modular classrooms Custodial - Summer Cleaning Regime Vegetation Control Roof Repair LAKELAND RIDGE Fire extinguisher inspections and servicing Dust collector servicing and inspections Sprinkler systems servicing and inspections Fire alarm systems inspections Dryer Duct Cleaning Boys/Girls washroom (FS115&117) bathroom wall repair Custodial - Summer Cleaning Regime Screen/Coat Gymnasium Floor Vegetation Control Parking lot lines Roofing update report LAMONT ELEMENTARY Fire extinguisher inspections and servicing Kitchen Fire System inspection and servicing Fire alarm systems inspections and servicing Custodial - Summer Cleaning Regime Screen/Coat Gymnasium Floor Vegetation Control Roof Repair LAMONT HIGH Fire extinguisher inspections and servicing Fire alarm systems inspections and servicing Dust collector servicing and inspections Dryer Duct Cleaning Custodial - Summer Cleaning Regime Vegetation Control Drainage Corrections Sidewalk Repairs Roofing update report FS 105 & FS 106 Links classroom renovation Attachment 1 Page 5 of 7
Facility Services - 2019 Summer Projects
Facility Description North/North West exterior blasting and repainting by contractor MILLS HAVEN ELEMENTARY Fire extinguisher inspections and servicing Fire alarm systems inspections and servicing Dryer Duct Cleaning Replace underground water main Custodial - Summer Cleaning Regime Vegetation Control Exterior basketball court Roof Repair MUNDARE SCHOOL Sprinkler systems servicing and inspections Fire extinguisher inspections and servicing Fire alarm systems inspections and servicing Dryer Duct Cleaning Custodial - Summer Cleaning Regime Screen/Coat Gymnasium Floor Vegetation Control NEXT STEP SENIOR HIGH - FORT SASKATCHEWAN Fire extinguisher inspections and servicing Fire alarm systems inspections and servicing Custodial - Summer Cleaning Regime NEXT STEP JUNIOR SENIOR HIGH - SHERWOOD PARK Fire extinguisher inspections and servicing Fire alarm systems inspections and servicing Custodial - Summer Cleaning Regime NEXT STEP SENIOR HIGH - VEGREVILLE Fire extinguisher inspections and servicing Custodial - Summer Cleaning Regime PINE STREET ELEMENTARY Fire extinguisher inspections and servicing Fire alarm systems inspections and servicing Custodial - Summer Cleaning Regime Screen/Coat Gymnasium Floor Vegetation Control Roofing update report RUDOLPH HENNIG JUNIOR HIGH Fire extinguisher inspections and servicing Fire alarm systems inspections and servicing Emergency generator testing Sprinkler systems servicing and inspections Dust collector servicing and inspections Dryer Duct Cleaning RDH Install Unit Heater in FS 159 Custodial - Summer Cleaning Regime Vegetation Control 2 Air handling units replacement PH 1 - design and partial construction FS 122 and various hallways by contractor Roofing update report Attachment 1 Page 6 of 7
Facility Services - 2019 Summer Projects
Facility Description SALISBURY COMPOSITE HIGH Fire extinguisher inspections and servicing Fire alarm systems inspections and servicing Dust collector servicing and inspections Sewer line flushing Inspections of kitchen fire suppression systems Emergency generator testing Dryer Duct Cleaning Clean grease traps and sump pits Replace glycol pump Custodial - Summer Cleaning Regime Vegetation Control Cosmetology upgrage Kitchen exhaust upgrade Data cabling upgrade FS 114 & FS 116 (automotive bays) by contractor Roofing update report SHERWOOD HEIGHTS JUNIOR HIGH Fire extinguisher inspections and servicing Fire alarm systems inspections and servicing Dust collector servicing and inspections Spare pump as backup to pump 3 SHT Custodial - Summer Cleaning Regime Vegetation Control Roofing update report SOUTHPOINTE SCHOOL Fire extinguisher inspections and servicing Sprinkler systems servicing and inspections Fire alarm systems inspections Dust collector servicing and inspections Custodial - Summer Cleaning Regime Vegetation Control UNCAS ELEMENTARY Fire extinguisher inspections and servicing Fire alarm systems inspections and servicing Custodial - Summer Cleaning Regime Screen/Coat Gymnasium Floor Vegetation Control Washroom upgrades Roofing update report VEGREVILLE COMPOSITE HIGH Commercial kitchen exhaust cleaning Inspections of kitchen fire suppression systems Dust collector servicing and inspection Sprinkler systems servicing and inspections Paint booth fire system inspection Sewer line flushing Dryer Duct Cleaning Clean grease traps and sump pits Custodial - Summer Cleaning Regime Vegetation Control Office renovation Phase 1 - Design Student parking lot repair Attachment 1 Page 7 of 7
Facility Services - 2019 Summer Projects
Facility Description WESTBORO ELEMENTARY Fire extinguisher inspections and servicing Fire alarm systems inspections and servicing Dryer Duct Cleaning WBO Install Unit Heater in Mechanical Room Custodial - Summer Cleaning Regime Vegetation Control Air handling units replacement Roofing update report WES HOSFORD ELEMENTARY Fire extinguisher inspections and servicing Fire alarm systems inspections and servicing Install mechanical cooling in 3 modular classrooms Custodial - Summer Cleaning Regime Screen/Coat Gymnasium Floor Vegetation Control East drainage Exterior basketball court WIN FERGUSON ELEMENTARY Fire extinguisher inspections and servicing Fire alarm systems inspections and servicing Dryer Duct Cleaning Custodial - Summer Cleaning Regime Screen/Coat Gymnasium Floor Vegetation Control Roofing update report WOODBRIDGE FARMS ELEMENTARY Fire extinguisher inspections and servicing Fire alarm systems inspections and servicing Clean grease traps and sump pits Install mechanical cooling in 3 modular classrooms Custodial - Summer Cleaning Regime Vegetation Control Refurbish Gymnasium floor Roofing update report Exterior door replacement WYE ELEMENTARY Fire extinguisher inspections and servicing Fire alarm systems inspections and servicing Septic system cleaning Custodial - Summer Cleaning Regime New School construction MULTIPLE LOCATIONS Bike racks Fire gates Piperail fences INFORMATION REPORT Page 1 of 2
DATE: May 22, 2019
TO: Board of Trustees
FROM: Mark Liguori, Superintendent
SUBJECT: Value Scoping Study Report Fort Saskatchewan School Solutions
ORIGINATOR: Brent Dragon, Planner, Education Executive
RESOURCE STAFF: Calvin Wait, Director, Facility Services
REFERENCE: Alberta Education School Capital Manual, 2015 Administrative Procedure 540, Planning for School Facilities
EIPS PRIORITY: Priority 2: Enhance high-quality learning and working environments.
EIPS GOAL: Goal 2: Quality infrastructure for all.
EIPS OUTCOME: Student learning is supported through the use of effective planning, managing and investment in Division infrastructure.
ISSUE: To provide the Board with information about the Value Scoping Study Report, produced by Cornerstone PMP Inc. for Alberta Education. Elk Island Public Schools (EIPS) will use the report to help develop its 2020-2023 Three-Year Capital Plan.
BACKGROUND: In October 2018, Alberta Education facilitated a comprehensive Value Scoping Study to explore the best long- term solution for accommodating students living within Fort Saskatchewan. The study examined optimal programming opportunities; space requirements for elementary, junior high and senior high schools within the city’s growth regions; and aging school infrastructure within Fort Saskatchewan. The overall objective: To determine the best value solution for Fort Saskatchewan communities.
To complete the study, the SAVE Value Methodology Job Plan was used, which is an organized, multiphase approach (see Appendix B, “Value Methodology Job Plan”). Stakeholder value judgements varied. So, the structured plan reconciles differing priorities and offers the best value for all stakeholders.
CURRENT SITUATION OR KEY POINT: The Value Scoping Study Report identifies and evaluates options for addressing long-term solutions for accommodating elementary, junior high and senior high students living within the Fort Saskatchewan area. The study takes into consideration challenges associated with growth in new developing areas and the high- INFORMATION REPORT Page 2 of 2
operating and maintenance costs for aging infrastructure. The report also identifies the best value solution based on criteria established by the Division (see Appendix H REV 1, “Project Analysis”).
ATTACHMENT(S): 1. VALUE SCOPING STUDY REPORT FORT SASKATCHEWAN SOLUTIONS: OVERVIEW 2. FINAL REPORT REV1: Fort Saskatchewan Schools Solution, EIPS RD14 3. APPENDIX A: PARTICIPANTS – Fort Saskatchewan Schools Solution, EIPS RD14 4. APPENDIX B: VALUE METHODOLOGY JOB PLAN – Fort Saskatchewan Schools Solution, EIPS RD14 5. *APPENDIX C: AGENDAS AND MINUTES – Fort Saskatchewan Schools Solution, EIPS RD14 6. *APPENDIX D: PROJECT INFORMATION - Fort Saskatchewan Schools Solution, EIPS RD14 7. *APPENDIX E Rev 1: BASELINE CONCEPT – Fort Saskatchewan Schools Solution, EIPS RD14 8. APPENDIX F: IDEA EVALUATION MATRIX – Fort Saskatchewan Schools Solution, EIPS RD14 9. APPENDIX G: VALUE ALTERNATIVE DOCUMENTATION – Fort Saskatchewan Schools Solution, EIPS RD14 10. APPENDIX H REV 1: PROJECT ANALYSIS – Fort Saskatchewan Schools Solution, EIPS RD14 11. APPENDIX I: COST ANALYSIS – Fort Saskatchewan Schools Solutions, EIPS RD14 12. SOUTHFORT ASP – Proposed Land Use Concept, Bylaw C4-19 (2019)
* Appendix is available upon request by contacting the Recording Secretary at 780-417-8203. The appendices are not included in the Meeting Packages due to file size constraints.
Value Scoping Study Report Fort Saskatchewan Solutions: Overview
May 2019
Table of Contents 1. Executive Summary ...... 3 1.1. Division Challenges ...... 3 2. Outcomes ...... 3 3. Conclusion and Next Steps ...... 5
2
1. Executive Summary The Value Scoping Study Report Fort Saskatchewan School Solutions was prepared by Cornerstone PMP Inc., in consultation with Alberta Education, Alberta Infrastructure, Elk Island Public Schools (EIPS), the City of Fort Saskatchewan and local school communities, for Alberta Education. In October 2018, the company conducted a two-day working session with stakeholders. At the session, attendees evaluated five viable options to existing and anticipated challenges — all relating to elementary, junior high and senior high programming in Fort Saskatchewan. EIPS put forward a baseline concept, based on the 2019- 2022 Three-Year Capital Plan. Participants then developed four additional concepts for a total of five concepts (see “Final Report Rev1: Section 2.11 Creative and Idea Evaluation Process”). Cornerstone then evaluated the options, in relation to the baseline concept, to determine each option’s total performance score. Both the baseline concept and value alternatives were evaluated based on the following six performance attributes:
1. location of school 2. program compatibility 3. building organization 4. site organization 5. operation and maintenance 6. construction phasing
Each performance attribute is described in detail in Appendix H, “Project Analysis.”
1.1. Division Challenges Each option addresses four key Division challenges:
1. The elementary schools aren’t located in Fort Saskatchewan’s growth areas. 2. Most Fort Saskatchewan-based schools are in close proximity to each other. 3. The junior high and senior high schools have aging infrastructure. 4. School locations and school spaces do meet Division requirements.
2. Outcomes All five options are viable solutions and address the four Division Challenges in different ways. Each option was then ranked against the six performance attributes to determine the best overall solution.
The five options maintain the following recommendations:
• Add 12 modular classrooms to SouthPointe School. • Replace James Mowat Elementary with a replacement school at the Forest Ridge site and expand the student capacity to 600. • Modernize Win Ferguson Elementary. • Status quo for Fort Saskatchewan Elementary, Fort Saskatchewan Christian, and École Parc Eléméntaire.
3
Based on the performance attributes two recommended options were put forward:
Option 1
• Replace Fort Saskatchewan High and Rudolph Hennig Junior High with one replacement school located on the current Fort Saskatchewan High site. • Change the grade configuration—grades 7 to 12. • Expand the student capacity to 1,400. • Demolish Fort Saskatchewan High and Rudolph Hennig Junior High.
Option 2
• Modernize and expand Fort Saskatchewan High. • Change the grade configuration—grades 7 to 12. • Expand the student capacity to 1,400. • Demolish Rudolph Hennig Junior High.
Option 1.1 was not recommended by Cornerstone however, EIPS has incorporated this option into the Division’s 2020-2023 Three-Year Capital Plan.
Option 1.1
• Replace Fort Saskatchewan High and Rudolph Hennig Junior High with one replacements school located on the Southridge1 site. • Change the grade configuration—grades 7-12. • Expand the student capacity to 1,400. • Demolish Fort Saskatchewan High and Rudolph Hennig Junior High
Cornerstone’s project team identified Option 1.1 as the best performing option overall. The reason it was not recommended by Cornerstone was because of concerns the Southridge school site could take five years to shovel ready. That said, based on conversations with the City of Fort Saskatchewan, EIPS believes the school site will be ready sooner. In fact, the City of Fort Saskatchewan provided EIPS with a letter outlining the status of the requested school site, which is included in the 2020-2023 Three-Year Capital Plan. Already the City of Fort Saskatchewan has engaged the public about an amendment to the Area Structure Plan and is on track to bring the amendment forward in summer 2019. In addition, the city has indicated the school site’s subdivision and rezoning is slated to take place this winter.
Concerns were also raised about the Fort Saskatchewan High’s low Facility Condition Index (FCI), an industry-standard index that measures the relative condition of a facility by considering the costs of deferred maintenance, repairs and the value of the facility within a five-year window. Typically, Alberta Infrastructure audits government facilities on a five-year cycle. Fort Saskatchewan High has a FCI of 0.17 according the most recent audit conducted in November 2018.
1 The proposed school site is identified within the Southfort Area Structure Plan (ASP). Cornerstone refers to the school site as the Southridge site, while the 2020-2023 Three-Year Capital Plan refers to the site as the Southfort site. Southridge is used in reference to the Southfort Ridge neighbourhood within the Southfort ASP. In all cases the proposed site is located along Southridge Boulevard (see Attachment, “Southfort ASP”).
4
FCI Index rating:
Good: 0.00-0.15 Fair: 0.16-0.4 Poor: 0.5-1.00
3. Conclusion and Next Steps The Cornerstone project team identified eight action items—noted below in bold. A brief update follows each action item.
1. Review the Value Scoping Study Report for implementation by the Division to make a decision on how they wish to revise their school capital plan considering the results of this study.
On March 14, 2019, the Board of Trustees approved the 2020-2023 Three-Year Capital Plan, which incorporates Option 1.1 from the Value Scoping Study Report. Option 1.1 is most suitable because it:
• provides high-quality educational facilities in Fort Saskatchewan’s growth areas; • right sizes Division space to meet current and projected needs; and • works toward equitable access for all families.
2. Determine which project will be the highest priority and requested to proceed first.
Option 1.1 is comprised of three replacement schools and one major modernization for a total of four capital requests. The Three-Year Capital Plan must be submitted as a single aggregated list to the province. The priorities are identified as follows:
• Priority 2 - Rudolph Hennig Junior High • Priority 5 – Fort Saskatchewan High • Priority 6 – James Mowat Elementary • Priority 7 – Win Ferguson Elementary
Every year, EIPS reviews and updates its Three-Year Capital Plan and submits the plan to the province in April. To prepare the Three-Year Capital Plan, the Division reviews enrolment numbers, facility data and demographic information across the Division.
In addition to the four capital requests, Option 1.1 recommends adding 12 modular classrooms at SouthPointe School. The Division has requested six modular classrooms at SouthPointe for the 2019- 2020 school year. Funding has not been granted by the province for the requested modulars. The Division will continue to request modulars through Alberta Education’s modular classroom request program, submitted each fall.
3. Develop a strategy for managing student accommodation needs until all projects can be undertaken, considering that the Value Alternatives include 3 to 4 large capital projects each. It is unlikely that the Government of Alberta will approve the projects simultaneously; and may be split
5
into three or four different capital announcement years. However, the Division needs to be aware that there is a risk that all or some of the capital projects may not be approved in the near future.
The Division has not received a funding announcement since March 2017. As identified in the Value Scoping Study Report, EIPS will continue to require additional student capacity at the elementary level within the growth areas of Fort Saskatchewan. Major systems will continue to expire and funds that should be invested in updating teaching and learning spaces will be used to maintain outdated teaching and learning space. To manage the challenges in Fort Saskatchewan over the short term, EIPS has several tools it will use including modular relocations, boundary adjustments and creative Infrastructure Maintenance and Renewal funding solutions. These will ensure EIPS is able to manage the challenges in Fort Saskatchewan until provincial funding becomes available.
4. Engage with the City of Fort Saskatchewan to ascertain: a. Limitations on right-of ways and any other bylaws for bus laybys etc. that may constrain design solutions on the FSH site. And confirm that this site can accommodate a 1400 capacity school.
The proposed Southridge site is 6.9 hectares with access to Southridge Boulevard and Southfort Drive. The City of Fort Saskatchewan has indicated the current road access is adequate for the construction and operation of a school. b. Land ownership title on the Forest Ridge school site for JME is transferred to the City and ultimately to the Division.
The City of Fort Saskatchewan currently has legal title to the Forest Ridge site and is prepared to transfer the title to EIPS, if the province approves funding. c. Subdivision amendment and zoning for high school on the Southridge. The City of Fort Saskatchewan intimated that this process has begun and confirmation if the application is approved or not is anticipated by end April 2019.
Based on conversations held in March 2019, the City of Fort Saskatchewan is in the process of amending the Southfort Area Structure Plan to include the requested school site. The process is expected to be brought to council for approval in summer 2019. If approved, rezoning and the subdivision of the school site will follow, with an anticipated completion date next winter. Once complete, the legal title of the land will transfer to EIPS, if the province approves funding.
5. Continue discussing opportunities for partnerships with the City of Fort Saskatchewan and other community groups for dual credit programs such as fire fighting and other CTS programs, shared services such as the library, meeting rooms, commercial kitchen and community hall.
EIPS will further this conversation should funding be announced for capital projects.
6. Develop a Joint Use Agreement with any partnership groups mentioned above.
EIPS will further this conversation should funding be announced for capital projects.
7. Further investigation into the current conditions of FSH, RHJH, JME and WFE to address unforeseen conditions such as structural concerns, excessive HAZMAT etc. to determine if there are costs that have not been addressed.
6
EIPS will further this conversation should funding be announced for capital projects.
8. Conduct ESA and geotechnical investigations on Forest Ridge and Southridge sites for the replacement JME and FSH schools respectively.
EIPS will further this conversation should funding be announced for capital projects.
7
VALUE S COPING STUDY REPORT
Fort Saskatchewan School s Solution
Prepared for: Alberta Education . Contact:
Travis Hovland Director Capital Planning North 1 0155 102nd Street, 7th Floor, Commerce Pla ce Edmonton, AB, T5J 4L5 Tel: 780 643 0736 Prepared by: Cornerstone PMP Inc. Contact:
Natalie Wehner VMA , EMBA, B.Sc. 10060 Jasper Avenue, Tower 1, Suite 2020 Edmonton, AB, T5J3R6 Tel: 78 0 238 9289
Date: October 2018
www.cornerstonepmp.ca
December , 201 8 Government of Alberta Alberta Education 7 th Floor, Commerce Place 10155 – 102 nd Street Edmonton , Alberta, T5J 4L5
Attn: Travis Hovland , Director , Capital P lanning North
Dear M r. Hovland
Re: Va lue Scoping Study Report for Elk Island Public Schools Regional Division 14 – Fort Saskatchewan Schools Solution
Cornerstone PMP Inc. is pleased to transmit this Value Scoping Study Report for the referenced project. To assist the reader in using this re port, the organization and co ntent of this report, as well as key definitions used in the Value Scoping Study Report , are described in the following pages .
Providing and i mproving school facilities is an important part of ensuring that high standards for teacher effectiveness and st udent achievement can be met. Educational programs have changed over the past few decades in response to new standards for student performance and research findings about how children learn. These changes include a major expans ion of early childhood and sp ecial education schooling, increased “hands - on” and laboratory learning, integration of technology in the classroom, the addition of an array of school - based health and social services, and extended - day programs.
Meanwhile, Go vernment has limited resource s to provide or modernize buildings and individual classrooms needed to support these programs and meet these new and expanded demands. Educational facilities that are oversized, overcrowded, underutilized, poorly maintained, p oorly designed, or environmen tally unsound are inadequate. Any of these conditions can adversely affect a school’s educational program.
Cornerstone PMP Inc. appre ciates this opportunity to assist Alberta Education , Capital Planning and Elk Island Public S chools with improving and sustaining a desirable balance between the wants and needs of stakeholders and the resources need ed to satisfy them. Stakeholder value judgements vary, and the SAVE Value Methodology process applied by Cornerstone PMP Inc. reconc iles d iffe ring priorities to deliver best value for all stakeholders .
Please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned should you have any questions regarding this Value Scoping Study Report .
Yours Sincerely,
Natalie Wehner, VMA, EMBA, B.Sc. Value Sc oping Team Leader
CORPORATE OFFICE: www,cornerstonepmp.ca 10060 Jasper Avenue, 1816 Crowchild Trail NW, Tower 1, Suite 2020 Suite 700, Edmonton, AB, T5J3R8 Calgary, AB, T2M 3Y7 Tel: 780 238 9289 Tel: 403 805 9289
Table of Contents
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY / SYNOPSIS ...... 2
1.1 Introduction: ...... 2
1.2 Value Scoping Study Overview: ...... 2
1.3 Project Overview: ...... 2
1.4 Pr oject Analysis Overview ...... 3
1.5 Value Scoping Study Results Overview ...... 3
1.6 Recommendation ...... 4
1.7 Conclusion and Next Steps ...... 4
2.0 VALUE SCOPING STUDY ...... 6
2.1 Introduction: ...... 6
2.2 Value Scoping Study Timing: ...... 6
2.3 Project Purpose and Need ...... 6
2.4 The Scope of the Value Scoping Study ...... 7
2.5 The Objectives of the Value Scoping Study: ...... 7
2.6 Project Description: ...... 7
2.7 Key Project Issues: ...... 8
2.8 Information Provided to the Value Team ...... 11
Value Scoping Study Report: Elk Island Public Schools Regional Division #14 – For t Saskatchewan Schools Solution - Prepared for Alberta Education by Natalie Wehner, VMA, EMBA, B.Sc.(Hon s)
2.9 Project A nalysis: ...... 11
2.10 Baseline Concept: ...... 14
2.11 Creative and Idea Evaluation Process: ...... 15
2.12 Value Alternatives: ...... 17
2.13 Value Scoping Results: ...... 20
2.14 Recommendations ...... 23
2.15 Conclusions ...... 27
2.16 Recommended Next Steps ...... 27
3.0 APPENDIX A: PARTICIPANTS ...... 28
4.0 APPENDIX B: VALUE METHODOLOGY JOB PLAN ...... 28
5.0 APPENDIX C: AGENDAS AND MINUTES ...... 28
6.0 APPENDIX D: PROJECT INFORMATION ...... 28
7.0 APPENDIX E: BASELINE CONCEPT ...... 28
8.0 APPENDIX F: IDEA EVALUATION MATRIX ...... 28
9.0 APPENDIX G: VALUE ALTERNATIVES DOCUMENTATION ...... 28
10.0 APPENDIX H: PROJECT ANALYSIS ...... 28
11.0 APPENDIX I: COST ANALYSIS ...... 28
Value Scoping Study Report: Elk Island Public Schools Regional Division #14 – Fort Saskatchewan Schools Solution - Prepar ed for Alberta Education by Natalie Wehner, VMA, EMBA, B.Sc.(Hons)
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY / SYNOPSIS
1.1 Introduction:
T he Executive Summary provides an overview of the project, key findings, and the alternatives dev eloped by the Project Team and Value T eam for the Elk Island Public Schools Regional Division 14 – Fort Saskatchewan School s Solution Value Scoping Study .
1.2 Value Scoping Study Overview :
On October 2 and 3 , 201 8 , Alberta Education facilitated a compre hensive Value Scoping Study to fully explore a value comparison to determine what is Elk Island Public Schools Regional Division’s (Division) optimal opportunity for programming and providing elementary and junior / senior high school space required to mee t the projected growth and capacity needs in the regions of growth in Fort Saskatchewan; as well as addressing the aged school facilities in t he Fort Saskatchewan area. The objective is to determine the best value solution for the Fort Saskatchewan communi t ies as a whole.
Cornerstone PMP Inc. applies the SAVE Value Methodology Job Plan, which is an organized, multiphase approach as outlined in Appendix B of this report. Stakeholder value judgements vary , and this structured plan reconciles differing prior ities to deliver best value for all stakeholders .
The outcome of the Value Scoping S tudy is not a decision but an evaluation of options to d etermine the best value option that should be explor ed further and assist the Division to determine what should re main or be revised on their capital plan.
1.3 Project Overview :
The Elk Island Public Schools Regional Division 14 operates seven school facilities with eight schools in the City of F ort Saskatchewan. There are four elementary schools, two elementary / j unior high, one junior high and one high school. The Fort Saskatchewan Elementary School and Fort Saskatchewan Christian School shar e a facility. T he schools are predominantly located in two parts of the City and are situated in close proximity to each oth er. The Elk Island Public School s Regional Division ’s 3 - Year Capital Plan identifies the urgent need to address facility condition of the following schools in this priority: Rudolph Hennig Junior High, Fort Saskatchewan High James Mowat t Elementary Win Ferguson Elementary
The Division also has a need for approximately 500 students ’ additional capacity in growth areas of Fort Saskatchewan over the next 5 years . T he challenge s that the Division is experiencing are: 1. T he elementary schools are not located i n the areas of growth . 2. Most of the schools are in close proximity to each other . 3. The junior high and the high school have aging infrastructure. 4. T he configuration of school locations and space does meet with the Division ’ s requirements. 2 Value Scoping Study Report: Elk Island Public Schools Regional Division #14 – Fort Saskatchewan Schools Solution - Prepared for Alberta Education by Natalie Wehner, VMA, EMBA, B.Sc.(Hons)
1.4 Project Analys is Overview
The Project Team, consisting of the Government of Alberta, Elk Island Public Schools administrators, teachers, board members and parents from the various Fort Saskatchewan school s and the City of Fort Saskatchewan representatives chose 5 alter natives for providing school facilities in the Fort Saskatchewan area for t he Di vision . The options, called the Baseline Concept and Value Alternatives , are discussed in detail in Appendix E – “ Baseline Concept ” and Appendix G : “ Value Alternative Document a tion” section s of th is report respectively .
The Project Team then applied a number of analytical techniques to analyze the value i mprovement of each Value Alternative compared against the Baseline. A major component of this analysis was Value Metrics whic h seeks to assess the elements of cost, performance, time, and risk as they relate to project value. These elements required a deep er level of analysis, the results of which are detailed in Appendix H: Project Analysis section of this report .
Six P erforma nce Attributes were defined by the Project Team t hat they feel are essential to meeting the overall need and purpose of the project . These are:
1. Location of Schools 2. Program Compatibility 3. Building Organization 4. Site Organization 5. Operation and Maintenance 6. Construction Phasing
1.5 Value Scoping Study Results Overview
The 5 possible solutions chosen and their rank ings are outlined in the table below:
Strategy Capital Cost Value Index % Improv. Ranking
Baseline : Demolish & Replace FSHS 750 capacity on New Site; Modernize RHJH to 665 Capacity; Add 12 Modulars to SPS; Demolish & Replace JME to 600 $91,184,143 +3.0087 +0.0% 4 capacity on New Site; WFE to Current Size. FSE & FSC & EPE Status Quo Option 1: Replacement 7 - 12 School to 1400 Capa city on FSH Site; Demolish FSH & RHJH; Add 12 Modulars to SPS; Demolish & Replace JME to 600 Capacity on New $88,192,648 +4.2603 +41.6% 1 Site; Modernize WFE to Current Size. FSE & FSC & EPE Status Quo Option 1.1: Replacement 7 - 12 School @ 1400 Capacity on Southridge Site; Demolish FSH & RHJH; Add 12 Modulars to SPS; Demolish & Replace JME to $88,192,648 +3.8699 +28.6% 2 600 Capacity on New Site; Modernize WFE to Current Size. FSE & FSC & EPE Status Quo Option 2: Modernize & Expand FSH to 7 - 12 School @ 1400 Capacity; Demolish RHJH; Add 12 Modulars to SPS; Demolish & Replace JME to 600 Capacity on New $82,112,042 +3.8176 +26.9% 3 Site; Modernize WFE to Current Size. FSE & FSC & EPE Status Quo Option 3 : Modernize FSH to 750 Capacity; Modernize RHJH to 665 Capacity; Add 12 Modulars to SPS; Demolish & Replace JME to 600 Capacity on New Site; $84,584,148 +2.6786 - 11.0% 5 Modernize WFE to Current Size. FSE & FSC & EPE Status Quo Note: All the options are measured against the Baseline . 3 Value Scoping Study Report: Elk Island Public Schools Regional Division #14 – Fort Saskatchewan Schools Solution - Prepared for Alberta Education by Natalie Wehner, VMA, EMBA, B.Sc.(Hons)
The Value Scoping Study identified that the option providing the best value is Option 1 w ith a Value Index of 4.2603 , a 41.6 % value improvement compared to the Baseline . However, the V alue I nd i ces for Option 2 is slightly less , varying by only 1 4 .7 % with a significant capi tal co st saving of $6,080,606. There is also the benefit that the existing FSH, which has a low FCI (Facility Condition Index) of 12.95% would be modernized rather than demolished. ( *The FCI represents the estimated cost of required maintenance over the ne xt fiv e years divided by the estimated replacement cost of the building and expressed as a percentage. )
T he Baseline and Option 1.1 relies on the Southridge site to accommodate the high school/s; and the City of Fort Saskatchewan estimate that this site w ill no t be ready with access roads for another 5 years.
Option 3 offers the lowest value compared with the Baseline and the other Value Alternatives. It has a Value Index of 2.6786, a decrease of 37.9% compared to Option 2.
1.6 Recommendation
All the options are viable solutions for the Division’s purpose and needs .
However, considering risks and costs and certainty of timely project delivery the Value Team recommends Option 2, the third best value. This option is $6,080,606 million cheaper than Opti on 1 with a value decrease of 14.7%. This option maintains the FSH sc hool which has a low FCI Facility Condition Index) of 12.95% and would be modernized rather than demolished.
1.7 Conclusion and Next Steps
The Elk Island Public School Regional Division needs to:
1. Review the Value Scoping Study Report for implementation by the Division to make a decision on how they wish to revise their school capital plan considering the results of this study. 2. Determine which project will be the highest priori ty and requested to p roceed first . 3. Develop a strategy for managing student accommodation needs until all projects can be undertaken , considering t hat t he Value Alternatives include 3 to 4 large capital projects each . It is unlikely that the Government of Alberta will approve the projects simultaneously ; and may be split into three or four different capital announcement years. However, the Di vision needs to be aware that there is a risk that all or some of the capital projects may not be approved in the nea r future. 4. E ngage with the City of Fort Saskatchewan to ascertain : a. L imitations on right - of ways and any other bylaws for bus laybys etc. that may constrain design solutions on the FSH site. And confirm that this site can accommodate a 1400 capacity school. b. Land ownership title on the Forest Ridge school site for JME is transferred to the City and ultimately to the Division. c. Subdivision amendment and zoning for high school on the Southridge . The City of F ort Saskatchewan intimated that this process has begu n and confirmation if the application is approved or not is anticipated by end April 2019. 5. Continue discussing opportunities for partnerships with the City of Fort Saskatchewan and other community group s for dual credit programs such as fire fighting and other CTS programs, shared services such as the library, meeting rooms, commercial kitchen and community hall. 6. Develop a Joint Use Agreement with any partnership groups mentioned above.
4 Value Scoping Study Report: Elk Island Public Schools Regional Division #14 – Fort Saskatchewan Schools Solution - Prepared for Alberta Education by Natalie Wehner, VMA, EMBA, B.Sc.(Hons)
7. Further invest igation into the current conditions of FSH, RHJH, JME and WFE to address unforeseen conditions such as structural concerns, excessive HAZMAT etc. to determine if there are costs that have not been addressed. 8. Conduct ESA and geotechnical investigations on Forest Ridge and Southridge sites for the replacement JME and FSH schools respectively.
5 Value Scoping Study Report: Elk Island Public Schools Regional Division #14 – Fort Saskatchewan Schools Solution - Prepared for Alberta Education by Natalie Wehner, VMA, EMBA, B.Sc.(Hons)
2.0 VALUE SCOPING STUDY
2.1 Introduction:
This Value Scoping Study Report summarizes the events of the Value Scoping sponsored by Alberta Education and facilitated by Cornerstone PMP Inc. The subject of the study was Elk Island Public Schools Regional Division #14 – Fort Saskatchewan Schools Solution located in Fort Saskatchewan , Alberta, Canada.
The Value Scoping Study was intended to focus on alternat ives that would identify and evaluate options to address the element ary and junior / senior high school space required to meet the Elk Island Public Schools Regional Division #14 (Di vision ) projected growth and capacity needs in the regions of growth in Fo rt Saskatchewan; as well as addressing the aged Rudolph Hennig Junio r High, Fort Saskatchewan High , James Mowatt Elementary and Win Ferguson Elementary.
The Value Scoping Study determine d the best value solution that meets the Di vision ’s and students’ needs, whilst improv ing and sustain ing a desirable balance between the wants and needs of stakeholders and the resources needed to satisfy them. Stakeholder value judgements vary, and the SAV E Value Methodology process a pplied by Cornerstone PMP Inc. reconciles differing priorities to deliver best value for all stakeholders .
2.2 Value Scoping Study Timing :
The Elk Island Public Schools Regional Division 14 – Fort Saskatchewan School s Solution Value Scoping Study was conducted in the Capital Planning phase and the schedule was as follows:
Introduction Meeting 28 August 2018 School and Site Tours 20 September 2018 Kick off Meeting 21 November 2018 Value Scoping Session Day 1 2 October 2018 Value Scoping Session Day 2 3 October 2018
2 .3 Project Purpose and Need
Provide additional ele mentary school capacity (K - 6) in the growth area/s of Fort Saskatchewan to meet demand of future enrollment Primary Need projections over approximately the next 5+years.
Secondary Need Upgrade the aging Rudolph Hennig Junior , Fort Saskatchewan High, James Mowat t Ele mentary and Win Ferguson Elementary school facilit ies to ac hieve a functional and excellent facility for students that provides a modern learning environment and meets the needs of the students, teachers and the Division. Determine the most suitab le configuration of schools i.e. location to Other meet the growth and age demographics of the neighbourhood.
6 Value Scoping Study Report: Elk Island Public Schools Regional Division #14 – Fort Saskatchewan Schools Solution - Prepared for Alberta Education by Natalie Wehner, VMA, EMBA, B.Sc.(Hons)
The options being considered are:
1. N ew school s on a greenfield site or; 2. Modernization of existing schools
2 .4 The Scope of the Value Scoping Stud y
T he Value Scoping Sponsor, Alberta Education identified the following Value Scoping scope:
1. Identify and evaluate options for addressing the long - term solution for accommodating all e lementary , junior high and high school students in Fort Saskatchewan. Alberta .
2. Look at potential sites available for providing new or replacement school s .
2 . 5 The O bjectives of the Value Scoping Study :
The Value Scoping Study Sponsor, Alberta Education identified the following Value Scoping Study objectives and g oals:
1. To work with the Division to identify and evaluate options for addressing the Division ’s long - term solution for accommodating all elementary , junior high and high school students in Fort Saskatchewan area ; considering the challenges with growth in n ew developing areas and high operating and maintenance costs in aged facilities that do not function well for the 21 st Century pedagogy. The Value Scoping Study will identify the best value solution against criteria established by the Elk Island Public Sch ools Regional Division. This process will assist the Division prepare their capital plan.
2. Define scope of the project.
3. The project s identified must be supportable by the Government of Alberta, easily defended with reasoning why this solution is reco mmended. It is not necessarily the cheapest option but the solution that provides the best value and is an investment to the community. Th e Value Methodology Process applied in the Value Scoping Study will help identify this.
4. The outcome of the Value Sc oping Study is not a decision but an evaluation of options to determine the best value option that should be explored further and assist t he board to determine what should remain or be revised on their capital plan. GoA remains the owner of the report ; how ever, a draft and final copy will be shared with the board.
2 . 6 Project Description:
The Elk Island Public Schools Regional Division 14 operates seven school facilities with eight schools in the City of F ort Saskatchewan. There are four elementary schoo ls, two elementary / junior high, one junior high and one high school. The Fort Saskatchewan Elementary School and Fort Saskatchewan Christian School share a facility. The schools are predominantly located in two parts of the City and are situated in close proximity to each other.
One of the combined elementary/ junior (K - 9) high schools is a Christian school operated by the Division. One of the elementary schools is a single track French Immersion program.
7 Value Scoping Study Report: Elk Island Public Schools Regional Division #14 – Fort Saskatchewan Schools Solution - Prepared for Alberta Education by Natalie Wehner, VMA, EMBA, B.Sc.(Hons)
Th ree of the four elementa r y schools have high utilization ranging from 80% to 97% with a continued growth projection. The new South Pointe school has a 57% utilization but has grown by 100 students from 2017 to the 2018 school year and this growth is projected to continue, with the anticipation that i t will reach 100% utilizatio n within the next two years. The challenge s that the Division is experiencing are:
1) T he elementary schools are not located in the areas of growth. 2) Most of the schools are in close proximity to each other. 3) The junior high and th e high school have aging infrastructure. 4) T he configuration of school locations and space does meet with the Division ’ s requirements.
Elk Island Public Schools RD14 - Fort Saskatchewan Schools Solution - Summary of S chools 3 - Year Gross Instruct Adjusted Number Net School Name Capital Grade Year Built Area Area Enrolment Utilization *FCI of Mods Capacity Plan (m2) (m2) 2017/2018 É cole Parc 1962,1968, No K - 6 0 3569.81 1483.8 408 272 67% 18.67% É l é mentaire 1971, 1975 Fort 1 953 - 1956. Saskatchewan No K - 9 Modernized 3 3276.47 1384.6 424 368 87% TBD Christian in 2010 Fort Saskatchewan No K - 6 2010 7 4502.57 1492.1 430 343 80% TBD Elementary Fort 1957, 1963, Saskatchewan 2 10 - 12 1969, 1970, 0 7142.63 1974.2 756 440 58% 12.95% High 1979, 1987 James Mowatt 3 K - 6 1981 8 3252.44 1449 418 363 87% 23.55% Elementary Rudolph 1970, 1972, 1 7 - 9 0 5395.64 1650 663 513 77% 18.80% Hennig JR High 1978 South Pointe No K - 9 2017 0 5769.72 2115.32 556 318 57% TBD School Win Ferguson 4 K - 6 1976 12 4022.12 16 34 471 456 97% 20.38% Elementary
*The FCI represents the estimated cost of required maintenance over the next five years divided by the estimated replacement cost of the building and expressed as a percentage.
2 . 7 Key Project Issues:
The items listed below are the key drivers, constraints, or issues being addressed by the project and considered during this Elk Island Public Schools Regional Division 14 – Fort Saskatchewan School s Solution Value Scoping Study to identify possible improvements:
1. The City of Fort S askatchewan presented all the potential school sites in the Fort Saskatchewan area. The City identified the Forest Ridge site for the new or replacement elementary school and the Southridge site for a new or replacement high school. In February 2019, the C ity of Fort Saskatchewan provided an update on these sites status as outlined below.
1.1 Forest Ridge Site :
The City of Fort Saskatchewan advised that this is the most suitable site for the elementary sch ool 8 Value Scoping Study Report: Elk Island Public Schools Regional Division #14 – Fort Saskatchewan Schools Solution - Prepared for Alberta Education by Natalie Wehner, VMA, EMBA, B.Sc.(Hons)
to accommodate growth. It is 2.92 hectares in ar ea. The City of Fort Saskatchewan confirmed that this site is “shovel ready”. The site has water and sewage connections and road frontage access. It has been zoned and subdivided. The site is owned by the City of Fort Saskatchewan. The legal title is Lot: 62MR, Block: 39, Plan 1822643.
The school board has made it very clear that they need this site for an elementary school. The community in this neighbourhood are aware that a school could be located the re. The residents have received a notice. No further public consultation is required. Next stage is the development permit which does not get circulated to the public. There is road access to Woodbridge Link. The City of Fort Saskatchewan advise that the c onstruction of Willow Link (side road to the west) s hould be completed in Fall 2019. T he Government of Alberta and the Division confirmed that the side road is not a requirement before proceeding with the project.
1.2 Southridge Site :
The City of Fort Saskatchewan advised that this is the most suitable site for the high school. It is 6.92 hectares in area. The site has water and sewer connections and it has access to a main collector road, Southridge Blvd. The site is in close proximity to Highway 21. This site is proposed but not yet approved or zoned for a high school site. The Southfort Area Structure Plan (ASP) currently shows this site as medium density housing and a small park.
The City of Fort Saskatchewan advised that they are proposing am endments to the Southfort ASP. The plan would be revised to s how the site as a potential school site/park. The City has circulated the proposed amendment to stakeholders and utility companies for review. Public engagement including an open house for reside nts was held in December 2018. Council approval is required t o amend the Southfort ASP, and rezone the lands to allow for the development of a school site.
First Step: The City of Fort Saskatchewan has already circulated the amendments, and completed pub lic engagement. The amendment is anticipated to be brought to Council for a vote in Spring 2019. Confirmation of whether the ASP amendment is approved is anticipated before the end of Spring 2019.
Next step – Zoning Amendment – A zoning application would need to be completed after the ASP amendments are approved. A zoning application typically takes 6 to 10 weeks to process. Subdivision of the site could be done simultaneous with the zoning. There is currently road access from Southridge Boulevard. The Ci ty of Fort Saskatchewan expects all the roads and services to be constructed in the next 5 years or 2023.
2. The other potential school sites are:
2.1 Allocated to the Elk Island Catholic Separate Regio nal Division # 41 S chool Board . 2.2 Privatel y owned . F or example, South Fort site is owned by a privat e shareholder church . 2.3 Will not be shovel ready for the next 10 to 20 years as they are in the early development phases. 2.4 Elk Island Catholic Separate Regio nal Division # 41 School Board may potentially be interest ed in t he school site south of the existing SouthPoi nte School (joint use school site) .
3. The Division provided projected enrollment numbers for the next 8 years to 2028. This indicates that the Division requires approximately 500 additional elementary school capac ity. No additional 9 Value Scoping Study Report: Elk Island Public Schools Regional Division #14 – Fort Saskatchewan Schools Solution - Prepared for Alberta Education by Natalie Wehner, VMA, EMBA, B.Sc.(Hons)
capacity is required for J unior and Senior high schools. If the s e f a c i l i t i e s a r e c o m b i n e d a capacity of 1400 , Junior / Senior high school will be accommodated. 4. The princi pals of the respective schools advised that they are facing the following challenges in their facilities: 4.1 JME is in poor condition and needs to be upgraded to allow for innovative instructional design, such as flexible spaces to meet 21 s t Century pedagogy standards . The Facility Condition I nd e x (FCI) is high at 23.55%. The p ortables are quite dated and need to be replaced. The school has utilization rate of 87%. 4.2 RHJ enrolment n umbers have declined i n 2018 - 2019 . The gymna sium i s inade quate . Overall the facility is in a poor condition and needs to be right sized and upgraded to meet 21 st Century pedagogy standards. The l ibrary is too small to accommodate two classes at the sam e time. T he c ourtyard is not a us e able space. The school requires more space to accommodate special needs (LINKS) programming to meet the requirements from current elementary. 4.3 SPS has experienced a growth of 100 more students in 2018/2019 school year th a n the previous year. The school is located in a f ast - growing neighbourhood where there is a large volume of multifamily housing in the area. Projections for next year (2019/2020) indicate an increase of 100+ students. SPS is requesting modular units to ac commo date this growth . The school facility is expected to reach 100% capacity by 2020 if modulars are not added. 4.4 WF E has had four portables added over a three - year period. There are currently twelve portables in total. The p ortables added in 1978 and 1979 are very cold in the winter and very hot in the spring/summer, creating challenges to operation of the mechanical system in these units . The Facility Condition Ind ex (FCI) is high at 2 0 . 38 %. The Division’s b oundary review process affected enrolment - 100 stude nts fewer than the previous year ; but there are still growth concerns for special needs students needing accommodations. The school has high utilization rate of 97%. 4.5 EPE has three PALS programs taking up 3 large rooms. The re is significant growth to D ivision 2 (Grades 4 - 6). There are c urrently 50 students in Kindergarten. The school was r etrofitted 5 years ago to accommodate elementary students. The school may not meet growth dema nds in the future for the French Immersion program. 4.6 FSC cannot accommod ate expected g rowth and is experiencing space “ crunches ” . They are doubling up on space utilization; e.g. u sing the music room as a home room. The school is adding grades with no space to place the additional students. Projected growth has been 5.5% per ye ar and is expected to be consistent and continue . 4.7 FSE has two grades at every level and offers s pecial education programs which take up three classrooms. The school area is experienci ng a lot of growth with a utilization rate of 8 0%. However, some student s have moved to South Point School since it opened . 4.8 F SH has b uilding condition concerns with major deficiencies . The facility does not adequately support partnership programs. The gro wth experienced in the elementary schools poses the question of how this growth can be accommodated at the high school. Currently the school is losing students to Sherwood Park because of programming offered there that cannot be accommodated at the FSH fac ility . The school’s g oal is to maintain industry partnerships who have registered apprenticeship programs. A f ire in the mid 1980s destroyed half of the building. That half was rebuilt and combined with the old part of the school , which is causing maintenance issues. 5. H igh school growth projections: c urrently at 400 students. Expected 3% growth over the next three years in Fort Saskatchewan will increase the enrolment numbers to a pproximately 560 high school students. 10 Value Scoping Study Report: Elk Island Public Schools Regional Division #14 – Fort Saskatchewan Schools Solution - Prepared for Alberta Education by Natalie Wehner, VMA, EMBA, B.Sc.(Hons)
2.8 Information Provided to the Value Tea m
The Government of Alberta and the Elk Island Public Schools Regional Division 14 provided the following information to the Value Team for Review ahead of the Value Scopin g Study sessions :
Capital plan submissions for 3 - Year and 10 - Year Capital Plan. H AZMAT Reports Aerial views of school sites and land titles map. L egal plans relating to school sites. Facility audit reports Instructional area forms. Small scale plans of schools. Area, capacity and utilization reports. Enrolment projections . Land Titles :
Please refer Appendix D – Project Information for copies of these documents.
2 . 9 Project Analysis:
During the course of the Elk Island Public Schools Regional Division 14 – Fort Saskatchewan School s Solution Value Scoping Study , a number of analytica l techniques were applied to develop a better understanding of the Baseline Concept . A major component of this analysis was Value Metrics which seeks to assess the elements of cost, performance, time, and risk as they relate to project value. These element s required a deeper level of analysis, the results of which are detailed in Appendi x H - Project Analysis section of this report.
The key performance attributes identified for the project are listed in the table below :
Performance Attributes
P erformanc e Attribute Definition
Construction Phasing A measure of: The ease with which the project can be designed and constructed over the 3.5 years. This attribute considers the construction impacts of new buildings to existing operations and general public (Tra ffic, dust/noise, detours, decanting space and associated coordination); the ef fects of "throw - away" work.
11 Value Scoping Study Report: Elk Island Public Schools Regional Division #14 – Fort Saskatchewan Schools Solution - Prepared for Alberta Education by Natalie Wehner, VMA, EMBA, B.Sc.(Hons)
Performance Definition Attribute School Locations A measure of the ability of the school facilities to accommodate current and long term + 50 year s growth in the Fort Saskatchewan catchment area. This attribute considers:
The particular neighbourhood that the school is located – does it meet the age demographics of the population in the neighbourhood for grade configuration and capacity to m inimize transportation costs. Adjacencies of schools Consolidation of facilities for efficient use Providing facilities in areas that are growing where no schools exist. Capacity of high school for future growth Capacity of elementary schools for curre nt and f uture growth Will school closures be required and how many? Proximity to community facilities to be shared.
Operation and A measure of h ow easily the building and site can be maintained and operated over Maintenance its expected useful life. This attrib ute considers :
Energy consumption The frequency of equipment replacement The durability and longevity of building finishes Assumes a 30 - year life cycle before a major remodel. Efficiency of utilization of all facilities in Fort Saskatchewan Overall gross school area of building with the objective of ensuring that the circulation space is kept to a minimum to reduce operational costs; with no effect on program Ability of sharing costs for specialized CTF and CTS equipment with par tners and other schools in the area
Site Organization A measure of how well the campus is organized. This attribute considers:
Playground – maintain current playgrounds or have adequate space to accommodate a new playground and expand the playground. Accommodation of sports field s and adjacency t o the school facility Accommodate capacity fluctuations by adding or removing modular s Proximity to community facilities to access during school hours Accommodate bicycle racks Accommodate partnership opportunities Landscaping and greenspa ce Efficiency of site circulation: – Orientation of the building; – Parking availability for students, staff and public – Bus access and drop - offs – Adjacencies of site facilities to education facilities – Separation of buses from vehicles – Pedestrian access and safe ty - Separation of pedestrians from vehicular traffic. – Parent drop off Access roads to s chools
12 Value Scoping Study Report: Elk Island Public Schools Regional Division #14 – Fort Saskatchewan Schools Solution - Prepared for Alberta Education by Natalie Wehner, VMA, EMBA, B.Sc.(Hons)
P erformance Definition Attribute Program Compatibility A measure of how well the building’s interior spaces meet their intended function and objectives of the overall educational program. This attribute considers:
Size, shape and adjacencies of Instructional Space Flexibility of Space, space is adaptable, multifunctional. Moveable walls, Meet current and future pedagogy. Inclusive education facilities – bar rier free access, sensory rooms, accommodate special needs, accommodate con sultants / wrap around services CTS high school e.g. Robotics, Fabrication and welding, Mechanics, Automotive Mechanics, Cosmetology. Flexibility in CTF credits delivery to maintain and encourage enrolments and to enable industry partnerships. CTF JR High – e.g. Building Construction, Commercial Technology arts, Foods, Fashion, Technology based CTF, Robotics Kitchen and food programs. Commercial foods to the high school . Provide fo od delivery through the commercial foods program to the marginalized commun ities in Fort Saskatchewan and surrounding areas. Music and performing arts Learning Commons adequate size and location Sciences – two main labs, rotational for schedule. Would lik e transferable spaces. Outdoor learning classrooms, recreational facilities, comprehensive school sports, e.g. track, soccer fields etc. Provide adult learning to all communities. Continuing education is a central focal point for the community, as curre ntly provided in Sherwoo d Park.
Building Organization A measure of how well the interior spaces within the building are organized. This attribute considers:
Size and Shape and adjacencies of Administrative and Public Spaces, Flexibility of size of buildi ng. Efficient area ratio of instructional and non - instructional space. Seems that general average is 66% is no n - instructional , want to improve that ratio, ade quate storage space Efficiency of interior circulation Ease of way finding Separation of after - ho urs activities from teaching facilities for security. Important to accommodate community use afterhours and access the building after hours. Natural Lighting Comfort of environments Attractive Features e.g. Clerestoreys, gathering spaces for community eve nts, lunch spaces Accessibility for barrier free and mobility impaired, barrier free washrooms, number of washrooms. Flexibility of spaces for commun ity and industry partnerships. Public washrooms other than staff washroom. Flexibility for grade configu ration and clear demarcated areas for grading Opportunity for external partnerships to share or add additional space. Supervision sight lines and admi nistration area sight line at main entrances.
13 Value Scoping Study Report: Elk Island Public Schools Regional Division #14 – Fort Saskatchewan Schools Solution - Prepared for Alberta Education by Natalie Wehner, VMA, EMBA, B.Sc.(Hons)
Once the performance attributes were designed and their scales developed, the Project Team , which includes the user group stakeholders and Government of Alberta representatives , prioritized them based on their relative importance to the project. The Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) was utilized in the prioriti zation process. These performance criteria are used to evaluate the merits of the Baseline and alternate concepts generated in the Value Scoping Study .
The table and chart below provide the results of this analysis and includes the complete breakdown of t he priorities, expressed as a percentage of the whole.
PERFORMANCE ATTRIBUTE PRIORITIZATION
2 . 10 Baseline Concept :
Introduction:
The Baseline Concept serves as the basis of comparison for measuring performance, cost, time and risk of th e Value Alternatives selected to be developed by the Project Team. This is merely a mechanism to illustrate relative change and does not imply prefer ence.
Baseline Overview
Legend:
FSH: Fort Saskatchewan High School RHJH: Rudolph Hennig Junior High School SPS: Southpointe School JME: James Mowatt Elementary School WFE: Win Ferguson Elementary School FSE: Fort Saskatchewan Elementary FSC: Fort Saskatchewan Christian Elementary ÉPÉ: École Parc Élémentaire *The FCI represents the estimat ed cost of required maintenance over the next five years divided by the estimated replacement cost of the building and e xpressed as a percentage.
A Baseline Concept was selected at the Value Scoping Kick Off meeting by the Elk Island Public School Regiona l Division 14 as follows:
Demolish and R eplace FSH to 750 Capacity 10 - 12 High School on a New Site ( Southridge Site ) .
14 Value Scoping Study Report: Elk Island Public Schools Regional Division #14 – Fort Saskatchewan Schools Solution - Prepared for Alberta Education by Natalie Wehner, VMA, EMBA, B.Sc.(Hons)
Modernize RHJH 7 - 9 to 665 Capacity Add 12 Modulars to SPS K - 9 Demolish and Replace JME K - 6 to 600 Capacity on a New Site (Forest Ridg e Site) Modernize WFE K - 6 to Current 471 Capacity FSE, FSC and ÉPÉ remain Status Quo
The Elk Island P ublic Schools Regional Division cited two considerations the board deems important which motivated the choice of the Baseline Concept:
1. The District w ill need additional elementary school capacity within the next 3 to 5 years in areas where there is growth. Currently all the schools are located in two regions and not in growth areas.
2. FSH, RHJH, JME and WFE are aged facilit ies with high Facility Condition Ind ices (FCI) and need to be moder nized as soon as possible. The facility audit report , dated November 15, 2011 , indicates a low FCI for FSH at 12.95% . T his number could change when the next audit is conducted .
The Value Team reviewed the project informa tion and developed the Baseline Co ncept design options . A preliminary schedule was also prepared for discussion with the Project Team . The Value Team also prepared the Capital costs and Life Cycle benefit cost analysis (LCC) for each of the design options that form the Baseline Concept as outlined in Appendix I - Cost Analysis . This information was presented to the Project Team on Day 1 of the Value Scoping Study held on October 2, 2018 . . On day 2 of the Value Scoping Study the Project Team discussed the advantages, disadvantages and ris ks associated with the Baseline Concept and agreed to the overall schedule timeline. Following this discussion, the Project T eam voted on the p erformance of the Baseline Concept against the performance attributes described , using the VMS - Pro software and the overall rationale of the voting outcome was discussed and agreed by the Project Team. Please refer Appendix E to the Baseline section of thi s report the details of the Baseline option including a list of the advantages and disadvantages.
The Project Team p erformance measures are calculated by rating, on a scale of 0 to 10, the Baseline Concept against each of the weighted criteria to arrive at a total score (ratings times weight, and totals for all criteria added toget her ) . Please refer Appendix H - Project Analysis section of this report for an explanation of how the performance attributes and value are calculated.
2 . 11 Creative and Idea Ev aluation Process :
Introduction:
T he Creative Phase followed by the Evaluation Phase was started o n Day 1 of the Value Scoping Study Session held on October 2, 2018 ; after the Baseline Concept was presented by the Value T eam. The ideas gene rated by the Project and Value t eam s were carefully evaluated, and project - specific attributes were applied to each idea to ensure an objective evaluation.
Process :
The Project Team an d Value T eam, in a group brainstorming session, generated and evaluated ideas on how to perform the project functions to meet the purpose and need of the project using alternative approaches to the Baseline Concept. The Project and Value team s compared eac h of the ideas with
15 Value Scoping Study Report: Elk Island Public Schools Regional Division #14 – Fort Saskatchewan Schools Solution - Prepared for Alberta Education by Natalie Wehner, VMA, EMBA, B.Sc.(Hons)
the Baseline Concept for each of the performance criteria to determine whether it was better than, equal to, or worse than the Baseline Concept. Eac h idea was also evaluated with respect to the functional requirements of the project to r ight s ize and enhance operations and maintenance of the existing facilities and increase elementary school capacity by 500 students . Cost, time, and risk may also have been considered during this evaluation.
Once each idea was fully evaluated, the team reached a consensus on whether the idea improved value and should be developed or not. The alternatives that were not implemented, and the reasons why, are discussed i n Appendix F - Idea Evaluation Matrix section of this report.
A total of three Value Alternatives were agreed to be evaluated. However, a variance of Value Alternative Option 1 was also evaluated to determine the value variance between building a replacem ent 1400 capacity grade 7 - 12 school on the existing FSH site vs. on the So uthridge Site. Hence, The four Value Alternatives selected for d evelopment are:
Option 1 :
Replacement 7 - 12 School @ 1400 Capacity on FSH Site Demolish FSH and RHJH . Add 12 Modul ars to SPS K - 9 Demolish and Replace JME K - 6 to 600 Capacity on a New Site (Forest Ridge Site) Modernize WFE K - 6 to Current 471 Capacity FSE, FSC and ÉPÉ remain Status Quo Option 1.1 :
Replacement 7 - 12 School @ 1400 Capacity on Southridge Site Demolish FSH and RHJH. Add 12 Modulars to SPS K - 9 Demolish and Replace JME K - 6 to 600 Capacity on a New Site (Forest Ridge Site) Modernize WFE K - 6 to Current 471 Capacity FSE, FSC and ÉPÉ remain Status Quo Option 2 :
Modernize and Expand FSH to 7 - 12 School @ 1400 Cap acity Demolish RHJH Add 12 Modulars to SPS K - 9 Demolish and Replace JME K - 6 to 600 Capacity on a New Site (Forest Ridge Site) Modernize WFE K - 6 to Current 471 Capacity FSE, FSC and ÉPÉ remain Status Quo Option 3 :
Modernize FSH 10 - 12 to 750 Capacity Moder nize RHJH 7 - 9 to 665 Capacity Add 12 Modulars to SPS K - 9 Demolish and Replace JME K - 6 to 600 Capacity on a New Site (Forest Ridge Site) Modernize WFE K - 6 to Current 471 Capacity FSE, FSC and ÉPÉ remain Status Quo
16 Value Scoping Study Report: Elk Island Public Schools Regional Division #14 – Fort Saskatchewan Schools Solution - Prepared for Alberta Education by Natalie Wehner, VMA, EMBA, B.Sc.(Hons)
2 . 1 2 Value Alternatives:
Introduction:
The following describes the accepted alternatives along with their initial cost and/or life - cycle cost (LCC) savings, change in schedule, and performance that were validated by the Project Team in the V alue Scoping S tudy.
Process :
Following the Idea Ev a luation, the team then moved into the Development Phase of the Value Scoping Study . For the remainder of the afternoon of the Day 1 Value Scoping Study , the Project Team and Value Team split into two groups to develop the individual design options for the m odernization and a ddition of FSH, RHJH and WFE to meet the varying design capacities that make up each Value Alternative. The Replacement school s for FSH, RHJH and JME are based on the GoA design guidelines for a 1, 4 00 and 750 capacity high school and 60 0 capacity elementary school respectively ; and an actual design for replacement schools was not developed.
Day 2 of the Value Scoping Study was dedicated mostly to the Valu e Team presenting the designs of each Value Alternative. Then the Project Team and Value Team discussed the advantages, disadvantages, risks and overall schedule of each Value Alternative. Following the discussion of each Value Alternative, the Project T ea m voted on the Performance of the Value Alternatives, using the VMS - Pro software an d the overall rationale of the voting outcome was discussed and agreed by the Project Team. Please refer Appendix H - Project Analysis section of this report for an explanat ion of how the performance attributes and value are calculated.
Tech - Cost Consulti ng had developed the C apital and L ife C ycle (LCC) cost analysis for each of the design options consolidated into each of the Value Alternatives. Tech Cost Consulting present ed the costs for each Value Alternative to the Project Team at the end of the evalu ation of all the Value Alternatives. Please refer to Appendix I - Cost Analysis .
Each alternative consists of a summary of: The Baseline Concept A description of the sugges ted changes A listing of its advantages and disadvantages A cost comparison The change in performance and value The discussion of the schedule and risk impacts (if applicable) A brief narrative comparing the Baseline Concept with the Value Alternative concept. Architectural Sketches, Calculations and performance attribute ratings ar e also presented where applicable.
Please refer Appendix G: Value Alternative Documents section in this report which are presented as written by the team during the Value Scoping Study , while they may have been edited from the Preliminary Value Scoping S tudy Report to correct errors or better clarify the alternativ es.
17 Value Scoping Study Report: Elk Island Public Schools Regional Division #14 – Fort Saskatchewan Schools Solution - Prepared for Alberta Education by Natalie Wehner, VMA, EMBA, B.Sc.(Hons)
Summary of Value Alternatives
Similarities for Baseline and all the Value Alternatives
The Baseline and all of the Value Alternatives have the following in common:
Add 12 Modulars to SPS K - 9 school to increase capacity from 500 students to 800 students. Replace JME K - 6, 600 Capacity school on the Forest Ridge site. Modernize WFE K - 6 to current capacity. No changes to FSE, FSC and ÉPÉ The main variance from the Base line is looking at Value Alternatives for addressing RHJH and FSH schools. Hence, the summary of the Value Alternatives in Appendix G focus ed on the advantages, disadvantages and risks associated with the proposed solutions for these two schools. The advan tages, disadvantage s and risks for the SPS, JME, WFE, FSE, FSC and ÉPÉ will be the same as the Baseline, so please refer to Appendix E “Baseline Concept”. Cost, LCC, Schedule, Performance and Value Change: Sched ule Initial Cost Performance Value Alternative No. & Description LCC Savings Change Savings Change Change MONTHS Option 1: Replacement 7 - 12 School to 1400 Capacity on FSH Site ; Demolish FSH & RHJH; Add 12 Modulars to SPS; $ 2,991,495 $ 5,203,187 36 +13.6% +41.6% Demolish & Replace JME to 600 Capacity on New Site; Modernize WFE to Current Size. FSE & FS C & EPE Status Quo Option 1.1: Replacement 7 - 12 School to 1400 Capacity on Southridge Site ; Demolish FSH & RHJH; Add 12 Modulars to SPS; $ 2,991,495 $ 5,203,187 12 +18.9% +28.6% Demolish & Replace JME to 600 Capacity on New Site; Modernize WFE to Current Size. FSE & FSC & EPE Status Quo Option 2: Modernize and Expand FSH 7 - 12 School to 1400 Capacity; Demolish RHJH; Add 12 Modulars to SPS; $9,072,101 $ 11,283,794 24 - 2.1% +26.9% Demolish & Replace JME to 600 Capacity on New Site; Modernize WFE to Curr ent Size. FSE & FSC & EPE Status Quo Option 3: Modernize FSH to 750 Capacity; Modernize RHJH to 665 Capacity; Add 12 Modulars to SPS; Demolish & Replace JME to 600 $6,599,995 $6,599,995 12 - 13.9% - 11.0% Capacity on New Site; Modernize WFE to Curren t Size. FSE & FSC & EPE Status Quo Note: Because the data depicted above represent cost and time savings, a negative number represents an increase. E.G Baseline cost is $1,000 and the Value Alternative cost is highe r at $1,500 . T he cost saving on the table will be illustrated as a - $500 as it actually a cost increase. Similar with time increases for schedule. 18 Value Scoping Study Report: Elk Island Public Schools Regional Division #14 – Fort Saskatchewan Schools Solution - Prepared for Alberta Education by Natalie Wehner, VMA, EMBA, B.Sc.(Hons)
Summary of Costs: Note: Option 1.1 is the same cost as Option 1
19 Value Scoping Study Report: Elk Island Public Schools Regional Division #14 – Fort Saskatchewan Schools Solution - Prepared for Alberta Education by Natalie Wehner, VMA, EMBA, B.Sc.(Hons)
2 .1 3 Value Scoping Results:
A summar y of the Elk Island Public Schools Value Alternatives results i s provided in the following chart s and table s .
Comparison of Performance
T he Key Project Team members rated the performance of the Baseline and the Value Alternatives using the previously def ined scale for each P erformance A ttribute. The T otal P erformance scores reflect the performance rating for each attribute multiplied by its overall priority (weight) express ed using a ratio scale. A T otal P erformance score of "1" across all columns would indicate the highest level of desired performance (i.e., "ideal" performance).
The table and chart below compares the T otal P erformance scores for the Baseline Concept and the Value Alternativ es.
n
d o
y i e n n f t
t n i
c s
l o
o o a i i a i
s n
t e t g g z l m i b i n n i a a n c n o a t i g i n o z r o n u i i s o i a d e r a t t l g e t
Description t n h a i t p g a s a o a r a h u c r n r r c n i m t S P B g e P O o r o a S
o L p e C O C M t O i S Demolish & Replace FSHS 750 capacity on New Site; Modernize RHJH to 665 Capacity; Add 12 Modulars to Baseline 0.16 0.18 0.13 0.1 0.08 0.03 SPS; Demolish & Replace JME to 600 capacity on New Site; Modernize WF E to 450 Capacity Replacement 7 - 12 School to 1400 Capacity on Southridge Site; Demolish FSH & RHJH; Add 12 Option 1 .1 Modulars to SPS; Demolish & Replace JME to 600 0.19 0.21 0.15 0.13 0.09 0.04 Capacity on New Site; Modernize WFE to Current Size. FSE & FS C & EPE Status Quo Replacement 7 - 12 School @ 1400 Capacity on FSH Site; Demolish FSH & RHJH; Add 12 Modulars to SPS; Option 1 Demolish & Replace JME to 600 Capacity on New 0.17 0.21 0.15 0.12 0.08 0.03 Site; Modernize WFE to Current Size. FSE & FSC & EPE Status Quo Modernize & Expand FSH to 7 - 12 School @ 1400 Capacity; Demolish RHJH; Add 12 Modulars to SPS; Option 2 Demolish & Replace JME to 600 Capacity on New 0.17 0.17 0.13 0.1 0.07 0.03 Site; Modernize WFE to Current Size. FSE & FSC & EPE Status Quo Modernize FSH to 750 Capacity; Modernize RHJH to 665 Capacity; Add 12 Modulars to SPS; Demolish & Option 3 Replace JME to 600 Capacity on New Site; 0.15 0.15 0.1 0.08 0.07 0.02 Modernize WFE to Current Size. FSE & FSC & EPE Status Quo
20 Value Scoping Study Report: Elk Island Public Schools Regional Division #14 – Fort Saskatchewan Schools Solution - Prepared for Alberta Education by Natalie Wehner, VMA, EMBA, B.Sc.(Hons)
Performance measures are calculated by rating, on a scale of 0 to 10, the overall project against each of the weighted criteria to arrive at a total score (ratings times weight, and totals for all criteria added together). The difference be tween the score for the project with the value alternative incorporated, and the score of the Baseline Concept , is expressed as a percentage. Please refer to the Project Analysis section of this report for an explanation of how the performance attr ibutes a nd value are calculated .
Summary of Baseline Concepts and Value Alternatives Results
A Value Matrix was prepared which facilitated the comparison of competing strategies by organizing and summarizing this d ata into a tabular format. The performance score s for each strategy were divided by the total cost/time scores for each strategy to derive a V alue I ndex using the following algorithm .
V = Value P = Performance t = Time ƒ = Function C = Cost α = Risk
The V alue I ndices for the Value Alternatives a re then compared against the V alue I ndex of the Baseline Concept and the difference is expressed as a percent (±%) deviation.
The Elk Island Public Schools Regional Division 14 – Fort Saskatchewan Schools S olution Value Scoping result ed in the dev elopment of five possible solutions called a Baseline and Value Alternatives and are discussed in detail in the report, but a brief summary of the findings is outlined below : An X - Not Recommended √ = Recommended
21 Value Scoping Study Report: Elk Island Public Schools Regional Division #14 – Fort Saskatchewan Schools Solution - Prepared for Alberta Education by Natalie Wehner, VMA, EMBA, B.Sc.(Hons)
Perfor % Cost Net Time Net Value % Strategy mance Improv. Score Change Score Change Index Improv. Baseline - Demolish & Replace FSHS 750 capacity on New Site; Modernize RHJH to 665 Capacity; Add 12 Modular s to 0.6738 +0.0% 0.2100 0.0% 0.2368 0.0% + 3.0087 +0.0% SPS; Demolish & X Replace JME to 600 capacity on New Site; Modernize WFE to Current Size. FSE & FSC & EPE Status Quo Option 1 - Replacement 7 - 12 School @ 1400 Capacity on FS H Site; Demolish FSH & RHJH; Add 12 Modulars to 0.7651 +13.6% 0.2031 3.29% 0.1579 +33.3% +4.2603 +41.6% SPS; Demolish & √ Replace JME to 600 Capacity on New Site; Modernize WFE to Current Size. FSE & FSC & EPE Status Quo Option 1.1 - Replacement 7 - 12 School to 1400 Capacity on Southridge Site; Demolish FSH & RHJH; Add 12 Modulars to 0.8009 +18.9% 0.2031 +3.29 % 0.2105 11.1 % +3.8699 +28.6% X SPS; Demolish & Replace JME to 600 Capacity on New Site; Modernize WFE to Current Size. FSE & FSC & EPE St atus Quo Option 2 - Modernize & Expand FSH to 7 - 12 School @ 1400 Capacity; Demolish RHJH; Add 12 Modulars to SPS; 0.6599 - 2.1% 0.1891 9.95% 0.1579 +33.3% +3.8176 +26.9% Demolish & Replace √ JME to 600 Capacity on New Site; Modernize WFE to Current Size. FSE & FSC & EPE Status Quo Option 3 - Modernize FSH to 750 Capacity; Modernize RHJH to 665 Capacity; Add 12 Modulars to SPS; Demolish & 0.5803 - 13.9% 0.1 948 7.23% 0.2368 +0 % +2.6786 - 11.0% X Replace JME to 600 Capacity on New Site; Modernize WFE to Current Size. FSE & FSC & EPE Status Quo 22 Value Scoping Study Report: Elk Island Public Schools Regional Division #14 – Fort Saskatchewan Schools Solution - Prepared for Alberta Education by Natalie Wehner, VMA, EMBA, B.Sc.(Hons)
This chart illustrates the relative trade - offs between performance (shown by the blue columns) versus cost and schedule (shown by the green columns). The red value line indicates the net % change in total value relati ve to the Baseline Concept . Please refe r to Appendix H: Project Analysis section of this report for additional details on this analysis.
2.14 R ecommendations
Introduction:
The results of the Value Scoping Study outlined in this report are to be revi ewed by Elk Island Public School s Regional Division to assist with the implementation of a decision on how they wish to revise their school capital plan.
I t is not possible for all alternatives to be implemented . Some alternatives provide the better solu tion s for the project. This is due to the fact that some alternatives may be competing ideas or different ways to address the same issue. Some alternatives are developed to answer a question raised by a decision maker or to resolve an open issue and found not to be beneficial to the ultima te project. As a result of these factors, the Value Team makes their recommendation based on the Value Scoping Study results and the discussion of the advantages, disadvantages and risks of the Value A lternative s for the p roject to assist the decision make rs in their evaluation of the Value Alternatives.
The Value Alternative recommendation is based on factors that include improved performance, likelihood of implementation, least community impact, least risk, cost savings , or any combination of the projec t's performance attributes.
This information is a guide and is not intended to reject the other alternatives from project stakeholder consideration.
23 Value Scoping Study Report: Elk Island Public Schools Regional Division #14 – Fort Saskatchewan Schools Solution - Prepared for Alberta Education by Natalie Wehner, VMA, EMBA, B.Sc.(Hons)
Recommendations
Baseline Concept: Not Recommended for the followi ng reasons
It is the second lowest performer and value option compared to all the other Value Alternatives. Yet , i t is the most expensive option at $91,184,143. It is $2,991,495 more expensive than Option 1, the Best Value solution and $9,072,101 more exp ensive than Option 2, which is also recommended. It is the most expensive option for the Division to operate and maintain at a nPV of $ 133,810,291 as there are still two high schools to operate and maintain. It is $5,203,187 more expensive than Option 1, the Best Value solution and $ 11,283,794 more expensive tha n Option 2, which is also recommended. Similar to Option 3, which is also not recommended, th e Baseline has the highest risk as: The Southridge site is not zoned yet for high school and the City of Fort Saskatchewan has advised that the subdivision ame ndment and rezoning still requires public consultation and council approval. This risk could be mitigated when the City confirms that the site is rezoned, a process the City undertook to commence immed iately and have confirmation by April 30, 2019. This ri sk could also be avoided if the replacement FSH is placed on the existing FSH site in lieu of on the Southridge site The Southridge site is not shovel ready yet. The road frontage still has to be cons tructed. The City of Fort Saskatchewan estimates this site will only be ready in 5 years. This is subject to the developer and could take longer. Modernizing RHJH is disrupti ve to operat ions and there is less flexibility in design changes when modernizing versus replacing . Unforeseen conditions could impact both cost and time. This option requires five (5) capital projects to be approved. The two highest priority capital projects for FSH and RHJH are unlikely to be approved simultaneously, there could be a significant lag between project approvals, delaying addressing the building conditions at both schools . Demolishing FSH that has a low FCI index of 12.95% may be difficult to justify t o the GoA and may seem wasteful to the community. However, the FCI in dex will be updated following the next facility audit to ensure it reflects the current building condition. Moving high school students away from the downtown where they frequently go for lunch has a negative impact on the growth and economics of the downt own. This Southridge site is restrictive due to the location, triangular shape and size. It only has one street frontage. Considerations why the Baseline may be recommended are: Total Performance Index of 0.6 738 is in the satisfactory to good range. Val ue I ndex of 3. 0087 is in the good range. It scored above satisfactory and good rang e, with ratings ranging from 5.4 to 7.4 for all the performance attributes. Maintaining RHJH in its current location and continue using a robust concrete building, which m ay be perceived be less wasteful by the community. Keeping the junior and senior high students separated at different schools, which is often preferred by parents. Fire fighting p rogram for dual credits is a possibility for the FSH students at the Southri dge site. 24 Value Scoping Study Report: Elk Island Public Schools Regional Division #14 – Fort Saskatchewan Schools Solution - Prepared for Alberta Education by Natalie Wehner, VMA, EMBA, B.Sc.(Hons)
Option 1: Recommended for the following reasons
It is the best value solution with a Value Index of 4. 2603. This is a 41.6% improvement compared to the Baseline and a 13% improvement compared to Option 1.1, which is similar but p l acing the rep lacement FSH 1400 capacity school on the Southridge site. It is also a 14.7% improvement compared to the cheapest O ption 2. It is the second highest performer with a Total Performance score of 0.7651 i.e. in the good rang e, with ratings ranging from 6.3 to 8.2 for all the performance attributes . This option mitigates construction disruption to RHJH as the school is replaced. There is limited disruption to FSH as it is a replacement 1400 capacity facility and no disruption to existing buildings operations . Only the site is impeded by construction. Removing the RHJH which has a high FCI of 18.80%. This is also the most restrictive building to modernize due to the nature of concrete walls and sunken gym. There are only 4 capital projects for approval vs. f ive in the Baseline as the RHJH and FSH are combined as one school. There is less operations and maintenance costs for 4 facilities vs. 5 as indicated in the Baseline. The two highest priority projects, namely RHJH and FSH are addressed simultaneously an d do not wait for the Southridge site to be “shovel ready” in 5 years time for FSH. Keeping the high school students close to recreational amenities and the downtown .
Considerations why Option 1 may not be recommended are: It is the second most expensive option to construct and operate and maintain. Compared to Option 2, it is $6,080,606 higher capital cost to construct. Similar to the Baseline. demolishing FSH that has a low FCI index of 12.95% may be difficult to justify to the GoA; and may seem waste ful to the community. However, the FCI index will be updated following the next facility audit to ensure it reflects the current building condition. The City of Fort Saskatchewan needs to be requested to confirm that existing utilities on sit e can accommod ate the increased capacity of the high school from 750 to 1400. The vacant land available may be too restrictive to fit the replacement 1400 school before demolishing the existing FSH school.
Option 1.1 : Not Recommended for the following reasons
The ma in reason for not recommending this option is that the Southridge site will not be “shovel ready” for another 5 years, that is un til 2023. Then it will take another 3 to 4 years to construct the two highest priority projects for th e Division, with project completion estimated in 2027.
The Southridge site is a triangular shape and it may be challenging to fit a 1400 capacity high school on it with sports fields.
The Southridge site is not zoned yet for high school and the City of Fort Saskatchewan has ad vised that the subdivision amendment and rezon ing still requires public consultation and council approval. This risk could be mitigated when the City confirms that the site is rezoned, a process the City
25 Value Scoping Study Report: Elk Island Public Schools Regional Division #14 – Fort Saskatchewan Schools Solution - Prepared for Alberta Education by Natalie Wehner, VMA, EMBA, B.Sc.(Hons)
undertook to commence immediately and have confirmat ion by April 30, 2019. This risk could also be avoided if the replacement FSH is placed on the existing FSH site in lieu of on the Southridge site It is the second most expensive option to construct and operate and maintain. Compared to Option 2, it is $ 6,080,606 higher capital cost to construct. Similar to the Baseline and Option 1, demolishing FSH that has a low FCI index of 12.95% may be difficult to justify to the GoA; and may seem wasteful to the community. However, the FCI index will be updated fol lowing the next facility audit to ensure it r eflects the current building condition. It provides less 13% less value than Option 1 for the same cost and higher risk. It provides 2% less value than Option 2 for a capital cost premium of $6,080,606, Conside rations why this option may be recommended: I t is the highest performer with a Total Performance score of 0.8009, a 5.3% improvement compared to the best value solution, Option 1 and a 21% improvement compared to the cheapest Option 2 . If the City of Fort Saskatchewan can get th e Southridge site “ sh ovel ready ” sooner, it may be a consideration for the similar reasons to Option 1 above.
Option 2 : Recommended for the following reasons
Out of 5 options, i t is 3 rd best value with a V alue I ndex of 3. 8176, whi ch is in the very good range. This is 14.7% less than Option 1 and only 2% less than Option 1.1 . Yet, it is the cheapest option at $6,080,606 less than the best value Option 1 and second - best value Option 1.1. It scored above satisfactory to good range, w i th ratings ranging from 5.4 to 7. 1 for all the performance attributes. Similar to Option 1: This option mitigates construction disruption to RHJH as the school is replaced. Removing the RHJH which has a high FCI of 18.80%. This is also the most restricti ve building to modernize due to the nature of concrete walls and sunken gym. There are only 4 capital projects for approval vs. five in the Baseline as the RHJH and FSH are c ombined as one school. There is less operations and maintenance costs for 4 faci lities vs. 5 as indicated in the Baseline. The two highest priority projects, namely RHJH and FSH are addressed simultaneously and do not wait for the Southridge site to be “ shovel ready” in 5 years time for FSH. Keeping the high school students close to recreational amenities and the downtown . Why this option may be chosen over the best value O ption 1 :
It is $6,080,606 less however, with a 14.7% decreased Value Index. Not demolishing FSH that has a low FCI index of 12.95%; which may be difficult to jus tify to the GoA and may seem wasteful to the community. However, the FCI index will be updated following the next facility audit to ensure it reflects the current building condition. Mitigated the risk that the vacant land available may be too restrictive to fit the replacement 1400 school before demolishing the existing FSH school. The addition is much smaller for the 600 capacity RHJH as the existing FSH school st ays in its current footprint. 26 Value Scoping Study Report: Elk Island Public Schools Regional Division #14 – Fort Saskatchewan Schools Solution - Prepared for Alberta Education by Natalie Wehner, VMA, EMBA, B.Sc.(Hons)
Considerations why this option may not be recommended:
It is t he second lowest performer with a 2.1% performance decrease compared to the Baseline and a 15.7% decrease compared to the best value Option 1 .
The City of Fort S askatchewan needs to confirm that existing utilities on site can accommodate the increased ca pacity of the high school from 750 to 1400. Disruption to the FSH students during construction will impact program. However, the addition can be built for decanti ng space before modernizing the existing building.
Option 3 : Not Recommended for the follow ing reasons Disruption to programming and operations of both RHJH and FSH. The projects would be sequenced for RHJH as the first priority and FSH to be the second priority. This will result in students, feeding from RHJH to FSH potentially living through c onstruction their entire high school life . It is the second lowest performer with a Total Performance Index of 0.5 8 251 with second lowest V alue I ndex of 2. 6786. This is a 16% decrease in performance and value compared to Option 2. Yet the capital cost for Option 3 is $2,472,106 more expensive than Option 2. This option requires five (5) capital projects to be approved. The two highest priority capital projec ts for FSH and RHJH are unlikely to be approved simultaneously, there could be a significant lag bet ween project approvals, delaying addressing the building conditions at both school. There is one more facility to operate and maintain compared to Option 2 at a premium net present value of $4,683,799. Modernizing RHJH and FSH there is less flexibility in design changes when modernizing versus replacing . Unforeseen conditions could impact both cost and time. The Value Scoping Study did not identify any reasons why Option 3 should be recommended over and above Options1 or Option 2.
2 . 15 Conclusions
The Best Value option is Option 1 , the r eplacement 7 - 12 school @ 1400 capacity on the FSH site. However, it is the second most expensive option requiring the demolition of two schools; one of which, FSH has a low FCI of 12.95%; which may be difficult to justif y . It also has the risk that the FSH site might n ot accommodate a total 1400 capacity addition before demolishing the existing school.
Option 1.1 is the same as Option 1, except the replacement 7 - 12 school @ 1400 capacity is constructed on the Southridg e site. This site will not be ready with roads etc. for approximately 5 years. As the second - best value option, it is not recommended as the top priority project because RHJH would not be addressed for another 5 to 9 years.
The Value Team recommends Opti on 2, the third best value. This opt ion is approximately $6 million cheaper than Option 1 with a value reduction of just 14.7% . This option maintains the FSH school .
2.1 6 Recommended Next Steps
The Elk Island Public School Regional Division needs to: 1. Re view the Value Scoping Study Report for implementation by the Division to make a decision on how they wish to revise their school capital plan considering the results of this study. 27 Value Scoping Study Report: Elk Island Public Schools Regional Division #14 – Fort Saskatchewan Schools Solution - Prepared for Alberta Education by Natalie Wehner, VMA, EMBA, B.Sc.(Hons)
2. Determine which project will be the highest priority and requested to p ro ceed first . 3. Develop a strategy for managing student accommodation needs until all projects can be undertaken , considering t hat t he Value Alternatives include 3 to 4 large capital projects each. It is unlikely that the Government of Alberta will approve th e projects simultaneously ; and may be split into three or four different capital announcement years. However, the Di vision needs to be aware that there is a risk that all or some of the capital projects may not be approved in the near future. 4. E ngage with t he City of Fort Saskatchewan to ascertain : a. L imitations on right - of ways and any other bylaws for bus laybys etc. that may constrain design solutions on the FSH site. And confirm that this site can accommodate a 1400 capacity school. b. Land ownership title o n the Forest Ridge school site for JME is transferred to the City and ultimately to the Division. c. Subdivision a mendment and zoning for high school on the Southridge. The City of Fort Saskatchewan intimated that this process has begun and confirmation if t he application is approved or not is anticipated by end April 2019. 5. Continue discussing opportunities for partn erships with the City of Fort Saskatchewan and other community groups for dual credit programs such as fire fighting and other CTS programs, sha red services such as the library, meeting rooms, commercial kitchen and community hall. 6. Develop a Joint Use Ag reement with any partnership groups mentioned above. 7. Further investigation into the current conditions of FSH, RHJH, JME and WFE to address unf oreseen conditions such as structural concerns, excessive HAZMAT etc. to determine if there are costs that have not been addressed. 8. Conduct ESA and geotechnical investigations on Forest Ridge and Southridge sites for the replacement JME and FSH schools re spectively.
3.0 APPENDIX A: PARTICIPANTS
4.0 APPENDIX B: VALUE METHODOLOGY JOB PLAN
5 .0 APPENDIX C: AGENDAS AND MINUTES
6 .0 APPENDIX D: PROJECT INFORMATION
7 .0 APPENDIX E: BASELINE CONCEPT
8 .0 APPENDIX F: IDEA EVALUATION MATRIX
9 .0 APPENDIX G: VAL UE ALTERNATIVES DOCUMENTATION
10 .0 APPENDIX H: PROJECT ANALYSIS
11 .0 APPENDIX I: COST ANALYSIS
28 Value Scoping Study Report: Elk Island Public Schools Regional Division #14 – Fort Saskatchewan Schools Solution - Prepared for Alberta Education by Natalie Wehner, VMA, EMBA, B.Sc.(Hons) APPENDIX A: PARTICIPANTS
Table of Contents
Table of Contents ...... 0
3.0 APPENDIX A: PARTICIPANTS ...... 1
3.1 Key Project Team Members: ...... 1
3.2 Cornerstone PMP Inc.’s Value Team: ...... 7
3.3 Meeting Attendees ...... 8
Value Scoping Study Report Appendix A: Participants – Elk Island Public Schools Regional Division #14 – Fort Saskatchewan Schools Solution - Pre pared for Alberta Education by Natalie Wehner, VMA, EMBA, B.Sc.(Hons)
3.0 APPENDIX A : PARTICIPANTS
3 .1 Key Project Team Members:
PROJECT SPONSOR: ALBERTA EDUCATION
Name: Travis Hovland Title: Director Capital Planning North Organization: Alberta Education Phone: 780.643.0736 Email: [email protected]
Name: Allison Matichuk Title: Capital Planning Manager, North Orga nization: Alberta Education Email: [email protected]
Name: Archibald Sangrador Title: Capital Planning Analyst, North Organization: Alberta Education Email: [email protected]
PROJECT SPONSOR TECHNICAL EXPERTISE: ALBERTA INFRASTRUCTURE
Name: Tony Hodge Title: Director Learning Facilities Organization: Alberta Education Email: [email protected]
Name: Mark Latimer Title: Manager, School Planning and Grant Oversight; Learning Facilities Branch North Organization: A lberta Infrastructure Phone: 780.422.7422 Email: [email protected]
PROJECT USER GROUP: ELK ISLAND PUBLIC SCHOOLS REGIONAL DIVISION #14
Name: Mark Liguori Title: Superintendent Organization: Elk Island Public Schools RD14 Email: mark.lig [email protected]
Name: Sandra Stoddard Title: Associate Superintendent, Supports for Students Organization: Elk Island Public Schools RD14 Email: [email protected]
1 Value Scoping Study Report Appendix A: Participants – Elk Island Public Schools Regional Division #14 – Fort Saskatchewan Schools Solution - Prepared for Alberta Education by Natalie Wehner, VMA, EMBA, B.Sc.(Hons)
Name: Brent Billey Title: Associate Superintendent, Human Resources Organization: Elk Island Public Schools RD14 Email: [email protected]
Name: Candace Cole Title: Secretary - Treasurer Organization: Elk Island Public Schools RD14 Email: [email protected]
Name: Stephanie Dodyk Title: Support for Students Organization: Elk Island Public Schools RD14 Email: stephan [email protected]
Name: Calvin Wait Title: Director of Facility Services Organization: Elk Island Public Schools RD14 Email: [email protected]
Name: Carol Langford - Pickering Title: Executive Assistant Organization: Elk Island Public Schools RD14 Email: carol.langford - [email protected]
Name: Laura McNabb Title: Director, Communication Services Organization: Elk Island Public Schools RD14 Email: [email protected]
Name: Jeff Spady Title: Director of Career and Learning Design Organization: Elk Island Public Schools RD14 Email: [email protected]
Name: Ralph Sorochan Title: Director, Programming for Student Differences Organization: Elk Island Public Schools RD14 Email: [email protected]
Name: Dave Lesanko Title : Senior Manager, Maintenance and Operations Organization: Elk Island Public Schools RD14 Email: [email protected]
2 Value Scoping Study Report Appendix A: Participants – Elk Island Public Schools Regional Division #14 – Fort Saskatchewan Schools Solution - Prepared for Alberta Education by Natalie Wehner, VMA, EMBA, B.Sc.(Hons)
Name: Robert Derech Title: Senior Manager, Projects Organization: Elk Isla nd Public Schools RD14 Email: [email protected]
Name: Allan Schwanke Title: Electrical/Mechanical Foreman Organization: Elk Island Public Schools RD14 Email: [email protected]
Name: Dave Antymniuk Title: Corporate Secretary Organization: Elk Island Public Schools RD14 Email: [email protected]
Name: Karen Baranec Title: Commu nications Networking Specialist Organization: Elk Island Public Schools RD14 Email: [email protected]
Name: Trina Boymook Title: Board Trustee Organization: Elk Island Public Schools RD14 Emai l: [email protected]
Name: Heather Wall Title: Board Trustee Organization: Elk Island Public Schools RD14 Email: [email protected]
Name: Ha rvey Stadnick Title: Board Trustee Organization: Elk Island Public Schools RD14 Email: [email protected]
Name: Jennifer Goudie Title: FAC Organization: Elk Island Public Schools RD14 Em ail: [email protected]
Name: Dan Verhoeff Title: Principal, Ecole Parc Elementaire Organization: Elk Island Public Schools RD14 Email: dan.verho [email protected]
3 Value Scoping Study Report Appendix A: Participants – Elk Island Public Schools Regional Division #14 – Fort Saskatchewan Schools Solution - Prepared for Alberta Education by Natalie Wehner, VMA, EMBA, B.Sc.(Hons)
Name: Margie Davidson Title: Secretary, Ecole Parc Elementaire Organization: Elk Island Public Schools RD14 Email: [email protected]
Name: Kimberley Fischbach Title: C hair, Ecole Parc Elementaire PE Fundraising Society Organization: Elk Island Public Schools RD14
Name: Dave Armbruster Title: Principal, Fort Saskatchewan Christian Organization: Elk Island Public Schools RD14 Email: [email protected]
Name: Christi Nagel Title: Chair School Council, Fort Saskatchewan Christian Organization: Elk Island Public Schools RD14 Email: [email protected]
Name: Jessica Smith Title: Principal, Fort Saskatchewan Elementary Organization: Elk Island Public Schools RD14 Email: [email protected]
Name: Sandra Sorochan Title: Former Principal, Fo rt Saskatchewan Elementary Organization: Elk Island Public Schools RD14
Name: Robyn Michaelchuk Title: Fort Saskatchewan Elementary Parent Organization: Elk Island Park Schools RD14
Name: Barb McIsaac Title: Secretary, Fort Saskatchewan E lementary Organization: Elk Island Public Schools RD14 Email: [email protected]
Name: Robyn Murphy Title: Fort Saskatchewan Elementary Organization: Elk Island Park Schools RD14 Email: [email protected]
Name: Sunny Sandhu Title: Principal, Fort Saskatchewan High School Organization: Elk Island Public Schools RD14 Email: [email protected]
4 Value Scoping Study Report Appendix A: Participants – Elk Island Public Schools Regional Division #14 – Fort Saskatchewan Schools Solution - Prepared for Alberta Education by Natalie Wehner, VMA, EMBA, B.Sc.(Hons)
Name: Helen Bienert Title: -- Educational Assistant, Fort Saskatchewan High School Organization: Elk Island Public Schools RD14 Email: [email protected]
Name: Lisa Spray Title: Parent Co uncil, Fort Saskatchewan High School Organization: Elk Island Public Schools RD14
Name: Stacey Boyko Title: Principal, James Mowat Elementary Organization: Elk Island Public Schools RD14 Email: stace [email protected]
Name: Breanna Fedun Title: Parent Council, James Mowat Elementary Organization: Elk Island Public Schools RD14
Name: Chris Bartsch Title: Teacher, James Mowat Elementary Organization: Elk Island Public Schools RD14 Email : [email protected]
Name: Ken Wlos Title: Principal, Rudolph Henning Junior High Organization: Elk Island Public Schools RD14 Email: [email protected]
Name: Richard Reid Title: Teacher, Rudolph Hennig Jr High Organization: Elk Island Public Schools RD14
Name: Lindsey Reed Title: Parent Council Representative, Rudolph Hennig Jr High Organization: Elk Island Public Schools
Name: Carol Brown Title: Principal, South Pointe School Organization: Elk Island Public Schools RD14 Email: [email protected]
Name: Corey Kropp Title: Assistant Principal, South Pointe School Organization: Elk Island Public Schools RD14 Email: [email protected]
5 Value Scoping Study Report Appendix A: Participants – Elk Island Public Schools Regional Division #14 – Fort Saskatchewan Schools Solution - Prepared for Alberta Education by Natalie Wehner, VMA, EMBA, B.Sc.(Hons)
Name: Kathryn Kerelchuk Title: President Fundraising Association for South Pointe School Organization: Elk Island Public Schools RD14 Email : [email protected]
Name: Lana Lastiwka Title: Principal, Win Ferguson Elementary Organization: Elk Island Public Schools RD14 Email: lana. [email protected]
Name: Sarah Demers Title: Teacher, Win Ferguson Elementary Organization: Elk Island Public Schools RD14 Email: [email protected]
Name: Sherri Prince Title: Win Ferguson E lementary Organization: Elk Island Public Schools RD14
PROJECT STAKEHOLDER: CITY OF FORT SASKATCHEWAN
Name: Matthew Siddons Title: Current Planner Organization: City of Fort Saskatchewan Email: MSid [email protected]
6 Value Scoping Study Report Appendix A: Participants – Elk Island Public Schools Regional Division #14 – Fort Saskatchewan Schools Solution - Prepared for Alberta Education by Natalie Wehner, VMA, EMBA, B.Sc.(Hons)
3 .2 Cornerstone PMP Inc.’s Value Team:
Name: Natalie Wehner Title: Value Team Lead and Facilitator Organization: Cornerstone PMP Inc. Phone: 780.238.9289 Email: natalie@corn erstonepmp.ca
Name: Tara Bladon Title: Recorder Organization: Cornerstone PMP Inc. Phone: 403 - 805 - 9289 Email: admin.ab @cornerstonepmp.ca
Name: Myron Nebozuk Title: Architect Organization: IBI Group Email: [email protected]
Name: Brad Kimball Title: Architect Organization: IBI Group Phone: 780.428.4000 ext. 303 Email: bkimba [email protected]
Name: Kevin Drake Title: Quantity Surveyor Organization: Tech - Cost Consulting Ltd. Phone: 403.291.5566 Email: [email protected]
Name: Phil Vesty Title: Quantity Surveyor Organ ization: Tech - Cost Consulting Ltd Email: [email protected]
7 Value Scoping Study Report Appendix A: Participants – Elk Island Public Schools Regional Division #14 – Fort Saskatchewan Schools Solution - Prepared for Alberta Education by Natalie Wehner, VMA, EMBA, B.Sc.(Hons)
3.3 Meeting Attendees
g 1 2 g s n e
n n
l r i
n o y y 8 0 1 2 3
i o i u o f
i - - p t g g 2 2 2 f a a t p R o e - - - 0 0 o n n a o T / D D c i i o
8 9 9 1 1
z t t c l i n m u - - - - - c k n n S e e o n o
8 8 8 8 8 S a d c i
o o e e i o t i i 1 1 1 1 1 a e o i N e s s r K 0 0 0 0 0 h l s u g M M t s s l r 2 2 2 2 2 c a o n e e a I S P O V S S V Principal, James Elk Island Public X X X Stacey Boyko Mowat Elementary Schools RD14 Archibald Capital Planning Alberta X X Sangrador Analyst, North Education Electrical/Mechanical Elk Island Public X X X X Allan Schwa nke Foreman Schools RD14 Capital Planning Alberta X X X X Allison Matichuk Manager, North Education Teacher, James Elk Island Public X X X Chris Bartsch Mowat Elementary Schools RD14 Communi cations Elk Island Public X Karen Baranec Networking Specialist Schools RD14 X X Brad Kimball Architect IBI Group Chair School Council, Elk Island Public X X Christi Nagel Fort Saskatchewan Schools RD14 Christian Associate Elk Island Public X Brent Billey Superintendent, Schools RD14 Human Resources Elk Island Public X X X X X Candace Cole Secretary - Treasurer Schools RD14 Director of Facility Elk Island Public X X X Calvin Wait Services Schools RD14 Secretary, Fort Elk Island Public X X X Barb McIsaac Saskatchewan Schools RD14 Elemen tary Elk Island Public X Jennifer Goudie FAC Schools RD14 Elk Island Public X X X X Dave Antymniuk Corporate Secretary Schools RD14 Principal Fort Elk Island Public X X X Jessica Smith Saskatchewan School s RD14 Elementary Elk Island Public X X X Heather Wall Board Trustee Schools RD14 Elk Island Public X X X Harvey Stadnick Board Trustee Schools RD14
8 Value Scoping Study Report Appendix A: Participants – Elk Island Public Schools Regional Division #14 – Fort Saskatchewan Schools Solution - Prepared for Alberta Education by Natalie Wehner, VMA, EMBA, B.Sc.(Hons)
g
g
1 2 n g s
n e
i
n n
l r t i
n o y y 8 0 1 2 3 i o i u o
e i - - p t g 2 2 2 a a t p R o e - - - 0 0 e o n a T / D D c i o
8 9 9 1 1
z t c l i n M m u - - - - - c
n n S e o n f o
8 8 8 8 8 S a d f i
o o e o t i i 1 1 1 1 1 a e o i N o e s s r 0 0 0 0 0
h l s u g M t s s l r 2 2 2 2 2 k c a o n e e a I S c P O V i S S V K Carol Langford - Elk Island Public X Executive Assistant Pickering Schools RD14 Assistant Principal, Elk Island Public X X Corey Kropp South Pointe School Schools RD14 Principal, Ecole Parc Elk Island Public X X X Dan Verhoeff Elementaire Schools RD14 Principal, Fort Elk Island Public X X X Dave Armbruster Saskatchewan Schools RD14 Christian Director of Career Elk Island Pub lic X X X Jeff Spady and Learning Design Schools RD14 Principal, South Elk Island Public X X X Carol Brown Pointe School Schools RD14 Elk Island Public X X X Breanna Fedun -- Schools RD14 Senior Manager, Elk Island Public X X X Dave Lesanko Maintenance and Schools RD14 Operations Educational Assistant, Elk Island Public X X X Helen Bienert Fort High School Schools RD14 Elk Island Public X X X Trina Boymook Board Trustee Schools RD14 Elk Island Public X X X Mark Liguori Superintendent Schools RD14 Princip al, Win Elk Island Public X X Lana Lastiwka Ferguson Elementary Schools RD14 President Fundraising Kathryn Elk Island Public X X Association for South Kerelchuk Schools RD14 Pointe School Parent Council, Fort Elk Island Publi c X X X Lisa Spray Saskatchewan High Schools RD14 School Manager, School Alberta X X X Mark Latimer Planning and Grant Infrastructure Oversight Principal, Rudolph Elk Island Public X X X Ken Wlos Henning Junior High Schools RD14 Director, Elk Isla nd Public X X X Laura McNabb Communication Schools RD14 Services Parent Council Elk Island Public X X X Lindsey Reed Representative Schools
9 Value Scoping Study Report Appendix A: Participants – Elk Island Public Schools Regional Division #14 – Fort Saskatchewan Schools Solution - Prepared for Alberta Education by Natalie Wehner, VMA, EMBA, B.Sc.(Hons)
g
g 1 2 n g s n e
i
n n
l r t i
n o y y 8 0 1 2 3 i o i u o
e i - - p t g 2 2 2 a a t p R o e - - - 0 0 e o n a T / D D c i o
8 9 9 1 1
z t c l i n M m u - - - - - c
n n S e o n f o
8 8 8 8 8 S a d f i
o o e o t i i 1 1 1 1 1 a e o i N o e s s r 0 0 0 0 0
h l s u g M t s s l r 2 2 2 2 2 k c a o n e e a I S c P O V i S S V K Chair, Ecole Parc Kimberley Elk Island Public X X X Elementaire PE Fischbach Schools RD14 Fundraising Society Secretary, Ecole Parc Elk Island Public X X X Margie Davidson Elementaire Schools RD14 Director, Elk Island Public X X X Ralph So rochan Programming for Schools RD14 Student Differences Elk Island Public X X X Richard Reid Teacher Schools RD14 X X X X Myron Nebozuk Architect IBI Group Tech - Cost X X X X Phil Vesty Quantity Surveyor Consulting Ltd Cornerstone X X X X Natalie Wehner Facilitator PMP Inc. Matthew City of Fort X X X Current Planner Siddons Saskatchewan Win Ferguson Elk Island Public X X Sherri Prince Elementary Parent Schools RD14 Senior Manager, El k Island Public X X X Robert Derech Projects Schools RD14 Fort Saskatchewan Elk Island Park X X Robyn Murphy Elementary Schools RD14 Robyn Fort Saskatchewan Elk Island Park X X X M ichaelchuk Elementary Parent Schools RD14 Tech - Cost X X X Ryan Makar Quantity Surveyor Consulti ng Ltd Former Principal, Fort Sandra Elk Island Public X X X Saskatchewan Sorochan Schools RD14 Elementary Associate Sandra Elk Island Public X X X X X Superintendent, Stoddard Schools RD14 Supports for Students Teacher, Win Elk Island Public X X Sarah Demers Fergus on Elementary Schools RD14 Stephanie Elk Island Public X X X Consultant Dodyk Schools RD14 Principal, Fort High Elk Island Public X X X Sunny Sandhu School Schools RD14 Director Learning Alberta X X X Tony Hodge Facilities Educat ion Director Capital Alberta X X X X Travis Hovland Planning North Education
10 Value Scoping Study Report Appendix A: Participants – Elk Island Public Schools Regional Division #14 – Fort Saskatchewan Schools Solution - Prepared for Alberta Education by Natalie Wehner, VMA, EMBA, B.Sc.(Hons) APPENDIX B : VALUE METHODOLOGY
Table of Contents
4.0 APPENDIX B: VALUE METHODOLOGY JOB PLAN ...... 1
4.1 Value Methodology Job Plan ...... 1
4.1.1 Introduction ...... 1
4.1.2 Preparation ...... 2
4.1.3 Value Scoping Study ...... 2
4.1.4 Report ...... 3
4.2 Performance Measures ...... 3
4.2.1 Introduction ...... 3
4.2.2 Methodology ...... 5
4.3 GLOSSARY ...... 7
Value Scoping Study Appendix B: Value Methodology
4 .0 APPENDIX B : VALU E METHODOLOGY JOB PLAN
4 .1 Value Methodology Job Plan
4 .1.1 Introduction
The Value Methodology Job Pan (VM) process is an organized , multi - phased process ( as outlined in the attached graphic ) that has been effectively used within a wide range of private enterprises and public entities to help achieve continuous improvement goals, and in government agencies to better manage limited budgets. We follow each step i n sequence. We then use Value Metrics for measuring value improvement. All value improvement is measured against the B aseline project. The success of the VM is due to its capacity to identify opportunities and to remove unnecessary costs from projects whil e assuring that performance and other critical factors, meet or exceed the customer’s expectations.
Note : Implementations Phase is outside of the scope of this Value Scoping Study
The application of VM within the context of a Value Scoping Study is an intense, focused effort where members of the V alue T eam with technical expertise and , members of the P roject T eam comprising of project owner, user representatives and other stakeholders such as the community and local municipality; come together in the same room as a single team possessing a single goal – to improve project value to determine the best value project solution. Additionally, the VM techniques applied at each step of the Job Plan gathers, organizes, and develops information regarding the project; draws meaningful conclusions from the project information through Value Metrics; and fosters direct communication between team members through a consensus driven approach.
The Value Methodology process es involve several activities needed to ac complish a Value Scoping Study , organized in three parts: Preparation, Value Scoping Study and Report.
1 Value Scoping Study Appendix B: Value Methodology Job Plan
The individual tasks are summarized below :
4 . 1. 2 Preparation
Prior to the start of the Value Scoping Study , the Value Scoping Study Sponsor, Alberta Education and the Value Scoping Study Team Lead, Cornerstone PMP Inc. carry out the following activities:
Initiate Study – identify study project, define study goals, define study scope ; define preliminary Value Scoping Study schedule.
Organize Study – Conduct Introduction Meeting, select P roject T eam members, identify project purpose and need , define Value Scoping Study schedule.
Prepare Data – Collect and distribute data. Review data.
All the information gathered prior to the Value Scoping Study is given to the Value Team for their use.
4 . 1. 3 Value Scoping Study
The Value Scoping Study is split into 3 segments as follows :
Segment 1:
Inform Team – Receive designer presentation; develop performance criteria, define B aseline , visit project site
Analyze Function: - Identify stakeholder issues on functionality, identify basic function that describes the project purpose, identify higher order function that represents the specific need that the basic function exists to satisfy.
Define Baseline: - Prepare design, prepare cost model, develop LCC (Life Cycle Cost)
Segment 2:
Create ideas – List a large quantity of alternative ideas; use group/individual brainstorming.
Evaluate Ideas: - Evaluate all ideas against performance criteria; rank all ideas
Develop Alternatives – Develop high - ranked ideas into alternatives,
Segment 3:
Present Alternatives – Give interim presentation of alternatives, measure performance,
Present Results – Give final presentation of accepted alternatives – value matrix.
Performance measures are integral to the VM process and are used throughout the Value Scoping . Study .
2 Value Scoping Study Appendix B: Value Methodology Job Plan
4 . 1. 4 Report
Following the Value Scoping Study , the Team Lead assembles all study documentation into the final report.
Publish Final Results – P repare Final Value Scoping Study Report, distribute electronic copies
The Value Scoping Study is complete when the report is issued as a record of the V alue T eam’s analysis and development work.
4.2 Performance Measures
4.2.1 Introduction
True value improvement requires that cost , time and performance are given equal consideration. Value Metrics provides a standardized means of identifying, defining, evaluating, and measuring performance. The Performance Measures Process ( PMP alternately referred to as Value Metrics) was developed to better assess the impacts VM studies were having on the qualitative aspects of the performance of facilities . This syst em of techniques emphasizes the interrelationship between the elements of performance, cost, and time and how they can be quantified and compared in terms of how they contribute to overall value.
Improving the value of public projects requires a more nua nced and balanced approach because of the infinitely diverse perception s of the customer. The application of P erformance M easures P rocess (Value Metrics) to VM process provides the means to achieve this end. It has resulted in marked improvements both in t erms of results and the perceptions of stakeholders.
The methodology described herein measures project value by correlating the performance of project scope and delivery to the project costs. The objective of this methodology is to prescribe a systematic, objective approach to study and optimize a project budget, schedule and scope. This serves the school jurisdiction and Government of Alberta by identifying a quantifiable methodology to effectively analyze and compare the three project management componen ts (scope, schedule and budget), and measure resulting project value.
Project performance measures are an integral part of the Value Methodology (VM) and consist of a set of techniques as follows:
Identify key project (scope and delivery) performance cr iteria for the project . Establish the hierarchy and impact of these criteria upon the project . Establish the B aseline of the project performance by evaluating and rating the effectiveness of the B aseline design concepts . Identify the change in performance of alternative project concepts generated by the study . Measure the aggregate effect of alternative concepts relative to the B aseline project’s performance as a measure of the overall value improvement.
Project performance must be properly defined and ag reed to by the stakeholders at the beginning of the Value Scoping Study . The performance requirements and attributes developed are then used
3 Value Scoping Study Appendix B: Value Methodology Job Plan
throughout the study to identify, evaluate, and document alternatives. Project scope performance improvements are a lso one of the critical quantifiable results of the Value Scoping Study . All subsequent references to “project scope and delivery performance” will be abbreviated to performance.
The primary goal of VM is to improve project value. A simple way to think of value in terms of an equation is as follows:
This process, Value Metrics, emphasizes the interrelationship between the elements of performance, cost, and time and how they can be quantified and compared in terms of how they contribute to the overall value. Value Metrics provide a standardized means of identifying, defining, evaluating, and measuring performance. Once this has been achieved and costs for all Value Alternatives have been developed, measuring value is very straightforward.
Value Method ology (VM) has traditionally been perceived as an effective means for reducing project costs. This paradigm only addresses one part of the value equation, oftentimes at the expense of the role that VM can play regarding improving project performance. Proje ct costs are fairly easy to quantify and compare; performance is not.
The direct and active involvement of the project stakeholders is at the core of this process. The Value Team L ead, leads the key P roject T eam members through the methodology, using the power of process to distill subjective thought into an objective language that everyone can relate to and understand. The dialog that develops forms the basis for the V alue T eam’s understanding of performance requirements of the project and to what degree the B aseline concept is meeting those requirements. From this B aseline, the V M team can focus on developing alternative concepts that will quantify both performance and cost and contribute to overall project value.
This approach to project performance yi elds the following benefits:
Builds consensus among project stakeholders (especially those holding conflicting views) . Develops a better understanding of a project’s goals and objectives . Develops a B aseline understanding of how the project is meeting per formance goals and objectives. Develops a better understanding of an alternative’s effect on project performance . Develops an understanding of the relationship between performance and cost in determining value. Uses value as the true measurement for the basis for selecting the right project or design concept. Provides decisionmakers with a means of comparing costs and performance (i.e. costs vs . benefits) in a way that can assist with making better decisions.
4 Value Scoping Study Appendix B: Value Methodology Job Plan
4.2.2 Methodology
The application of performance methodology consists of the following steps:
1. Define the P erformance R equirements 2. Define the major P erformance A ttributes 3. Determine the relative importance of the attributes 4. Establish the performance “ B aseline” for the original concept 5. Evaluate the performance of the alternative concepts 6. Compare the performance ratings of alternative concepts on the “ B aseline” project. 7. Compare the cost and time (schedule) performance ratings of alternative concepts on the “ B aseline” project.
Step 1 - Define P erformance Requirements
Performance R equirements represent essential, non - discretionary aspects of project performance. Any concept that fails to meet the project’s P erformance R equirements, regardless of whether it was developed during the project’s design process or during the Value Scoping Study , cannot be considered as a viable solution. Concepts that do not meet a P erformance R equirement cannot be considered further unless su ch shortcomings are addressed through the Value Scoping Study process in the form of Value A lternatives. It should be noted that in some cases, a P erformance R equirement may also represent the minimum acceptable level of a P erformance A ttribute.
Step 2 – Determine the Major Performance Attributes and Scales
Performance A ttributes represent those aspects of a project's scope that may possess a range of potential values. For example, an attribute called "Environmental Impacts" may have a range of acceptab le values for a project ranging from 1 acre to 20 acres of wetland mitigation. It is clear that a concept that offered 15 acres of mitigation would perform at a higher level tha n one that offered 5 acres, but both would meet the project's need and purpose and their values (i.e., the relationship between performance and cost) could be rationally compared.
Step 3 - Prioritize Performance Attributes
The P erformance A ttributes of a project are seldom of equal importance. Therefore, a systematic approach must be utilized to determine their relative importance in meeting the project's need and purpose.
Step 4 – Establish the Performance of Baseline Concept
The next step in the process is to evaluate how well the B aseline design is addressing the project’s performance criteria. This step establishes a “ B aseline” against which the alternative concepts can be compared.
5 Value Scoping Study Appendix B: Value Methodology Job Plan
Step 5 - Evaluate the Performance of Value Alternative Concepts
Once the performance baseline has been established for the B aseline concep t, it can be used to help the V alue T eam develop performance ratings for individual Value Alternative (VA) developed.
Step 6 - Compare Performance
Compare Performance Ratings of Alternative Concepts to the “Baseline” Concept
The last step in the process completes Value Matrix that was initially begun to develop the performance ratings for the “Baseline” concept. The performance ratings developed for the Baseline concept and the Value Alternatives are entered into the Total Per formance Matrix, and the summary portion of the Value Matrix is completed using the following formula.
%Performance Improvement = Δ Total Performance Value Alternative Total Performance Bas eline Concept
The total performance scores reflect the performance rating for each attribute multiplied by its overall priority (weight) expressed using a ratio scale. A total performance score of “1” would indicate the highest level of desired performanc e (i.e., “ideal” performance). This table illustrate s how performance scores per attribute and total performance scores for the Baseline Concept and each Value Alternative (Design Option) were derived. In this comparison, a higher score is desirable as the project will benefit from higher performance.
Result : Value Matrix
Once relative scores for performance, cost and time have been derived, the next step is synthesize a value index for the Baseline Concept and each of the value strategies. This is achi eved by applying the following algorithm for value:
V = Value P = Performance t = Time ƒ = Function C = Cost α = Risk
6 Value Scoping Study Appendix B: Value Methodology Job Plan
4.3 GLOSSARY
1. Baseline: The Project Team selects a specific option to serve as the basis of comparison for measuring performance, cost, time and risk of the Value Alternatives selected to be developed by the Project Team . This is merely a mechanism to illustrate relative change and does not imply preference.
2. Certification, Certified Value Specialist® (CVS ®) : A professional certification of SAVE International® that recognizes individuals who have demonstrated a level of knowledge of and competency in the application of the Value Methodology sufficient to lead value studies. “Certified Value Specialist” and “CVS” are registered trademarks of SAVE International®. The CVS designation may be used only by individuals who have successfully completed the requirements of the CVS, received their certification, and continue to renew their CVS designation. The requirem ents to achieve the CVS designation can be found in the SAVE Certification Manual.
3. Certification, Value Methodology Associate (VMA) : A professional certification of SAVE International® that recognizes individuals who have demonstrated a fundamental level o f knowledge of the Value Methodology and competency in the application of the Value Methodology sufficient to lead value studies . The VMA designation may be used only by individuals who have successfully met the requirements of the VMA, received their cert ificate, and continue to renew their VMA designation. The requirements to achieve the VMA designation can be found in the SAVE Certification Manual.
4. Cost : The expenditure of resources expressed as a monetary valuation of effort, material, time and utiliti es consumed, risks incurred, and opportunity forgone in production and/or delivery of a project, product, or process.
5. Life - Cycle Cost (LCC) : The sum of all initial development, acquisition, production, or construction cost; cost of annual operations, main tenance, energy, or use; cost of periodic replacement of components; and disposal cost or salvage value for a product or project over a specified period of time. Costs are adjusted based on the time value of money to determine the total life - cycle cost. LC C is measured in net present value (present worth) or annualized cost.
6. Function : That which a project, product, or process must do to make it work and meet the customer's needs. A function identifies “what it does” independent of “what it is,” or “how” it is to be accomplished. It is expressed in a two - word active verb and measurable noun structure. The verb answers the question, “What does it do?” and the noun answers the question, “What does it do it to?”
7. Performance : The capacity of a project, product, o r process to fulfill its intended function. Factors such as reliability, maintainability, quality, and appearance contribute to performance.
8. Performance Attributes : R epresent those aspects of a project's scope that may possess a range of potential values. The Project Team define attributes of performance that represent project success .
9. Performance Requirements : R epresent essential, non - discretionary aspects of project performance. Any concept, regardless of whether it was developed during the project's desi gn process or during the course of the value study, that fails to meet the project's performance requirements cannot be considered as a viable solution. The following performance requirements were selected for this project:
7 Value Scoping Study Appendix B: Value Methodology Job Plan
10. Project: A set of interrelated t asks to be executed over a fixed period of time and within certain cost and other limitations. For the purpose of a Value Scoping Study, a project may be a modernization or new school facility.
11. Project Team : The stakeholders in the project as outlined in Appendix A: Participants. These include members of the Government of Alberta, School Division / District, and external stakeholders such as the local municipality and other.
12. Value : An expression of the relationship between function and resources where func tion is measured by the reliable performance of the functional requirements of the customer and resources are measured in the cost, time, energy, space, materials, labor, etc. required to accomplish the function. This relationship is expressed equivalently by the following equations: Value ≈ Function ÷ Cost, Value ≈ Function ÷ Resources, and Value ≈ Performance ÷ Resources.
13. Value Alte r native: Ideas generated and selected by the Project Team to be developed further as alternative approaches to the Baseline c oncept. The Project T eam compare s each of the ideas with the Ba seline concept for each of the P erformance Attributes to determine whether it was better than, equal to, or worse than the Baseline c oncept.
14. Value Index (VI) : The monetary relationship of function worth to function cost
15. Value Team Lead / Facilitator : One who is substantively neutral and has no substantive decision - making authority, who enables a group to improve how it identifies and solves problems, makes deci sions, and increases the group’s effectiveness. In the context of the Value Methodology, the term is used interchangeably with “Value Team Leader” — one who leads a group through the Value Methodology Job Plan, who is recognized by SAVE International® as a C ertified VMA or CVS® .
16. Value Methodology Job Plan (VM) : A sequential approach for conducting a value workshop used during the workshop stage of the Value Methodology, consisting of the following six sequential phases: 1. Information, 2. Function Analysis, 3 . Creative, 4. Evaluation, 5. Development, and 6. Presentation.
17. Value Scoping Study : The application of the three stages of the Value Methodology (pre - workshop, workshop, and postworkshop) in a structured effort led by a VMA or CVS® to improve the value of a project, product, or process.
18. Value Scoping Study Workshop / Session: The application of the six phases of the VM Job Plan (1. Information, 2. Function Analysis, 3. Creativity, 4. Evaluation, 5. Development, and 6. Presentation) to a project, product, o r process by a multidisciplinary team led or facilitated by a Certified VMA or CVS®.
19. Value Team : The consultant team as outlined in Appendix A: Participants. These include the Value Team Lead / Facilitator, Architects and Cost Consu l tants.
8 Value Scoping Study Appendix B: Value Methodology Job Plan APPENDIX F: IDEA EVALUATION MATRIX
Table of Contents
8.0 IDEA EVALUATION MATRIX ...... 1
Value Scoping Study Report Appendix F - Idea Evaluation: Elk Island Public Schools Regional Division #14 – Fort Saskatchewan Schools Solution - Prepared for Alberta Education by Natalie Wehner, VMA, EMBA, B.Sc.(Hons)
8 .0 IDEA EVALUATION MATRIX
All of the ideas that were generated during the Creative Phase using brainstorming techniques were recorded on the Idea Evaluation Matrix . These ideas were discussed and the advantages and disadvantages of each were listed. The detailed I dea E valuation Matrix is tabled below. Only those elements where the idea differs from the baseline concept are included in this summary.
1 Value Scoping Study Report Appendix F - Idea Evaluation: Elk Island Public Schools Regional Division #14 – Fort Saskatchewan Schools Solution - Prepared for Alberta Education by Natalie Wehner, VMA, EMBA, B.Sc.(Hons)
2 Value Scoping Study Report Appendix F - Idea Evaluation: Elk Island Public Schools Regional Division #14 – Fort Saskatchewan Schools Solution - Prepared for Alberta Education by Natalie Wehner, VMA, EMBA, B.Sc.(Hons)
3 Value Scoping Study Report Appendix F - Idea Evaluation: Elk Island Public Schools Regional Division #14 – Fort Saskatchewan Schools Solution - Prepared for Alberta Education by Natalie Wehner, VMA, EMBA, B.Sc.(Hons)
4 Value Scoping Study Report Appendix F - Idea Evaluation: Elk Island Public Schools Regional Division #14 – Fort Saskatchewan Schools Solution - Prepared for Alberta Education by Natalie Wehner, VMA, EMBA, B.Sc.(Hons)
5 Value Scoping Study Report Appendix F - Idea Evaluation: Elk Island Public Schools Regional Division #14 – Fort Saskatchewan Schools Solution - Prepared for Alberta Education by Natalie Wehner, VMA, EMBA, B.Sc.(Hons)
6 Value Scoping Study Report Appendix F - Idea Evaluation: Elk Island Public Schools Regional Division #14 – Fort Saskatchewan Schools Solution - Prepared for Alberta Education by Natalie Wehner, VMA, EMBA, B.Sc.(Hons)
7 Value Scoping Study Report Appendix F - Idea Evaluation: Elk Island Public Schools Regional Division #14 – Fort Saskatchewan Schools Solution - Prepared for Alberta Education by Natalie Wehner, VMA, EMBA, B.Sc.(Hons)
8 Value Scoping Study Report Appendix F - Idea Evaluation: Elk Island Public Schools Regional Division #14 – Fort Saskatchewan Schools Solution - Prepared for Alberta Education by Natalie Wehner, VMA, EMBA, B.Sc.(Hons)
9 Value Scoping Study Report Appendix F - Idea Evaluation: Elk Island Public Schools Regional Division #14 – Fort Saskatchewan Schools Solution - Prepared for Alberta Education by Natalie Wehner, VMA, EMBA, B.Sc.(Hons)
10 Value Scoping Study Report Appendix F - Idea Evaluation: Elk Island Public Schools Regional Division #14 – Fort Saskatchewan Schools Solution - Prepared for Alberta Education by Natalie Wehner, VMA, EMBA, B.Sc.(Hons)
11 Value Scoping Study Report Appendix F - Idea Evaluation: Elk Island Public Schools Regional Division #14 – Fort Saskatchewan Schools Solution - Prepared for Alberta Education by Natalie Wehner, VMA, EMBA, B.Sc.(Hons) APPENDIX G – VALUE ALTERNATIVE DOCUMENTATION
Table of Contents
9.0 VALUE ALTERNATIVE DOCUMENTATION ...... 1
9.1 Similarities for Baseline and all the Value Alternatives ...... 1
9.2 Value Alternative No: Option 1 ...... 2
9.2 Value Alternative No: Option 2 ...... 6
9.3 Value Alternative No: Option 3 ...... 10
9.4 Value Alternative No: Option 1.1 ...... 13
Value Scoping Study Report Appendix G- Value Alternatives Documentation: Elk Island Public Schools Regional Division #14– Fort Saskatchewan Schools Solution - Prepared for Alberta Education by Natalie Wehner, VMA, EMBA, B.Sc. (Hons)
9.0 VALUE ALTERNATIVE DOCUMENTATION
Legend:
FSH: Fort Saskatchewan High School RHJH: Rudolph Hennig Junior High School SPS: Southpointe School JME: James Mowatt Elementary School WFE: Win Ferguson Elementary School FSE: Fort Saskatchewan Elementary School FSC: Fort Saskatchewan Christian Elementary School ÉPÉ: École Parc Élémentaire
9.1 Similarities for Baseline and all the Value Alternatives
The Baseline and all of the Value Alternatives have the following in common:
1. Add 12 Modulars to SPS K-9 school to increase capacity from 500 students to 800 students. 2. Replace JME K-6, 600 Capacity school on the Forest Ridge site. 3. Modernize WFE K-6 to current capacity. 4. No changes to FSE, FSC and ÉPÉ
The main variance from the Baseline is looking at Value Alternatives for addressing RHJH and FSH schools. Hence, the summary of the Value Alternatives below will focus on the advantages, disadvantages and risks associated with the proposed solutions for these two schools. The advantages, disadvantages and risks for the SPS, JME, WFE, FSE, FSC and ÉPÉ will be the same as the Baseline, so please refer to Appendix E “Baseline Concept”.
1 Value Scoping Study Report Appendix G- Value Alternatives Documentation: Elk Island Public Schools Regional Division #14– Fort Saskatchewan Schools Solution - Prepared for Alberta Education by Natalie Wehner, VMA, EMBA, B.Sc. (Hons)
9.2 Value Alternative No: Option 1
DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVE NO: OPTION 1
Replacement 7-12 School @ 1400 Capacity on FSH Site Demolish RHJH and FSH OPTION 1 Add 12 Modulars to SPS Demolish and Replace JME to 600 Capacity on New Site (Forest Ridge Site) Modernize Win Ferguson to 450 Capacity FSE, FSC and EPE Status Quo Schedule Total Description Area Cost LCC (NPV) Capacity (Months) Performance New 7-12 FSH/RHJH 12,841m2 $51,943,738 $75,165,594 1400 SPS Add 12 Modulars 1,200m2 $4,164,159 $6,334,257 300 New JME 4,713m2 $19,071,195 $27,594,254 600 Modernize WFE 3,594m2 $13,013,555 $19,512,999 470 Total 22,348m2 $88,192,648 $128,607,104 2,770 72 0.7651 Performance Location Program Building Site Operations & Construction Attribute of School Compatibility Organization Organization Maintenance Phasing Rating 6.7 8.5 8.2 6.3 8.5 7.0
DESCRIPTION OF BASELINE CONCEPT
Demolish and Replace FSH to 750 Capacity on New Site (South Ridge) Modernize RHJH to 665 Capacity BASELINE Add 12 Modulars to SPS Demolish and Replace JME to 600 Capacity on New Site (Forest Ridge Site) Modernize Win Ferguson to 450 Capacity FSE, FSC and EPE Status Quo Schedule Total Description Area Cost LCC (NPV) Capacity (Months) Performance New FSH 7,590m2 $30,751,331 $44,477,199 750 Modernize RHJH 6,474m2 $24,183,903 $35,891,581 665 SPS Add 12 Modulars 1,200m2 $4,164,159 $6,334,257 300 New JME 4,713m2 $19,071,195 $27,594,254 600 Modernize WFE 3,594m2 $13,013,555 $19,512,999 470 Total 23,571m2 $91,184,143 $133,810,291 2,785 108 0.6738 Performance Location Program Building Site Operations & Construction Attribute of School Compatibility Organization Organization Maintenance Phasing Rating 6.6 7.4 6.9 5.9 7.0 5.4
2 Value Scoping Study Report Appendix G- Value Alternatives Documentation: Elk Island Public Schools Regional Division #14– Fort Saskatchewan Schools Solution - Prepared for Alberta Education by Natalie Wehner, VMA, EMBA, B.Sc. (Hons)
ADVANTAGES Combing schools - brand new facility for both junior and senior high Can be designed to meet 21st Century Pedagogy. No limitations because of existing structures. The building can be designed to have a better flow with more flexible spaces. Wayfinding challenges at RHJH are mitigated. One less facility to maintain and two old age facilities are replaced. 1200 square metres smaller with one building instead of two buildings - reduced overall facility area to operate and maintain. More longevity with new building and reduced operating and maintenance costs There are benefits for the students to be together. No need to individually staff the schools. Can share resources and services for both groups and provide partnership programs. Increase in programming that can be provided. Special programming (Lynx program), make programs more specialized carrying over to senior high. Support kids better in a more inclusive environment all the way through. Create more opportunity for partnerships and shared partnerships with the community and part of the community Will attract more families to Fort Saskatchewan. Higher retention rate of students as they are less likely to go to Sherwood Park with a new facility. Centrally located, close to downtown, close to the pool, golf course and existing facilities. This benefits the businesses in that area. Only bussing to one school, not two, reduce the transportation costs. Southpointe school is flexible for grade configuration K-6 and K-9 depending on enrollment demands. Bonus is that you have a junior high in two different locations. No one will be going to school under construction thus no disruption to any students. No costs for decanting students and potentially lose enrollment.
DISADVANTAGES Parents may not like having students 7-12 together and have the younger students associating with Grade 12 students FSHS has a low FCI index – will be difficult to motivate demolishing a school with a low FCI index. The facility condition needs to be reassessed and confirmed. Congestion in this well-established neighbourhood with a number of schools if you add another 550 students getting dropped off. Four schools that use the sports field will lose use of the fields during construction (the school across the street has its own field behind – keeping in mind there are community facilities 5-7-minute walk up the street) Lose green space. Limited site frontage - not same curb appeal Site is restrictive Costs for relocating ball diamonds (not covered by the Government of Alberta). Closer to the houses. Community may not want a 2-storey high school in their backyard.
RISKS Less risk due to: o The site is zoned and has services. Not pending a site that may or may not come about. o Not modernizing so not dealing with unforeseen building conditions that result in delays and additional costs. Increased Risk: o Unforeseen soil conditions for foundations o There may be existing services that have to be relocated which could impact cost and schedule. The City will be required to relocate these services so there must be more collaboration to get it done
3 Value Scoping Study Report Appendix G- Value Alternatives Documentation: Elk Island Public Schools Regional Division #14– Fort Saskatchewan Schools Solution - Prepared for Alberta Education by Natalie Wehner, VMA, EMBA, B.Sc. (Hons)
o Community may perceive demolishing three buildings as wasteful. o Costs for relocating ball diamonds (not covered by the Government of Alberta). May not get the partnerships to relocate o Potential for school closure or amalgamation with push back from community. o City of Fort Saskatchewan will need to conduct a traffic impact study. If road upgrades are required, this cost is not covered by Government of Alberta capital funding for a school.
AREA GUIDLEINES AND SKETCHES:
The replacement school will be built on the existing FSHS site. The existing FSHS and RHJH schools will be demolished once the new is built.
Areas
In accordance with Government of Alberta’s design guidelines, a 1400 capacity grade 7-12 senior high school will have a Gross Area of 12,841m2 as outlined in the attached PDF. IBI Group did not prepare a design for a replacement school as the Division is free to design as required within the parameters of the area guidelines provided.
Please Refer to Baseline for designs for SPS, JME, WFE
SCHEDULE
The total schedule duration agreed was 72 months (6 years).
Unlike the Baseline, Option 1 requires four and not five capital plan submissions and approvals by the Government of Alberta. It was thus assumed that the projects would be approved over a number of years and sequentially. The Division advised that their capital plan submission for the Fort Saskatchewan schools would be in the following priority:
1. Rudolph Hennig Junior High and Fort Saskatchewan High 1400 Capacity Replacement School 2. James Mowatt Elementary Replacement on Forest Ridge site 3. Win Ferguson Elementary Modernization
Project Approval Completion Replacement 1400 capacity High School April 2020 24 months (2 years – 2022 completion) James Mowatt Elementary April 2021 36 months (3 years – 2024 completion) Win Ferguson April 2023 36 months (3 years – 2026 completion)
Southpointe will remain a priority for 4 additional modulars when the Division submits it request for modulars in November 2018. The Division will apply for 4 modulars every year till all 12 modulars are approved.
4 Value Scoping Study Report Appendix G- Value Alternatives Documentation: Elk Island Public Schools Regional Division #14– Fort Saskatchewan Schools Solution - Prepared for Alberta Education by Natalie Wehner, VMA, EMBA, B.Sc. (Hons)
SUMMARY OF VALUE ALTERNATIVE OPTION 1 vs. BASELINE:
Change Change in Change in Change Description Cost Saving LCC (NPV) Saving in Area Performance in Value Schedule
Option1 1,223m2 $2,991,495 $5,203,187 36 +13.6% +41.6%
Note: Because the data for cost and time depicted above represents savings, a negative number represents an increase in cost and time.
Performance Location of Program Building Site Maintenance Construction Attribute School Compatibility Organization Organization & Operations Phasing Baseline 6.6 7.4 6.9 5.9 7.0 5.4 Rating Option 1 6.7 8.5 8.2 6.3 8.5 7.0 Rating
Please Refer to Appendix H: Project Analysis Section of this report for full details on performance and Value Index for full analysis of the Value Alternative against the Baseline.
5 Value Scoping Study Report Appendix G- Value Alternatives Documentation: Elk Island Public Schools Regional Division #14– Fort Saskatchewan Schools Solution - Prepared for Alberta Education by Natalie Wehner, VMA, EMBA, B.Sc. (Hons)
9.2 Value Alternative No: Option 2
DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVE NO: OPTION 2
Modernize and Expand FSHS to 7-12 School @ 1400 Capacity on FSH Site Demolish RHJH and FSH OPTION 2 Add 12 Modulars to SPS Demolish and Replace JME to 600 Capacity on New Site (Forest Ridge Site) Modernize Win Ferguson to 450 Capacity FSE, FSC and EPE Status Quo Schedule Total Description Area Cost LCC (NPV) Capacity (Months) Performance Modernize 7-12 FSH 12,841m2 $45,863,132 $69,084,987 1400 SPS Add 12 Modulars 1,200m2 $4,164,159 $6,334,257 300 New JME 4,713m2 $19,071,195 $27,594,254 600 Modernize WFE 3,594m2 $13,013,555 $19,512,999 470 Total 22,348m2 $82,112,042 $122,526,497 2,770 72 0.6599 Performance Location Program Building Site Operations & Construction Attribute of School Compatibility Organization Organization Maintenance Phasing Rating 6.7 7.1 6.6 5.4 6.9 6.0
DESCRIPTION OF BASELINE CONCEPT
Demolish and Replace FSH to 750 Capacity on New Site (South Ridge) Modernize RHJH to 665 Capacity BASELINE Add 12 Modulars to SPS Demolish and Replace JME to 600 Capacity on New Site (Forest Ridge Site) Modernize Win Ferguson to 450 Capacity FSE, FSC and EPE Status Quo Schedule Total Description Area Cost LCC (NPV) Capacity (Months) Performance New FSH 7,590m2 $30,751,331 $44,477,199 750 Modernize RHJH 6,474m2 $24,183,903 $35,891,581 665 SPS Add 12 Modulars 1,200m2 $4,164,159 $6,334,257 300 New JME 4,713m2 $19,071,195 $27,594,254 600 Modernize WFE 3,594m2 $13,013,555 $19,512,999 470 Total 23,571m2 $91,184,143 $133,810,291 2,785 108 0.6738 Performance Location Program Building Site Operations & Construction Attribute of School Compatibility Organization Organization Maintenance Phasing Rating 6.6 7.4 6.9 5.9 7.0 5.4
6 Value Scoping Study Report Appendix G- Value Alternatives Documentation: Elk Island Public Schools Regional Division #14– Fort Saskatchewan Schools Solution - Prepared for Alberta Education by Natalie Wehner, VMA, EMBA, B.Sc. (Hons)
ADVANTAGES Maintain the current street frontage. The site is zoned with services. Not waiting for a site or risking not getting a site Maintaining FSHS facility that could be difficult to motivate as to why we are demolishing that existing facility as it has a low FCI index. Construction phasing would be easier (less interruption to student and teaching programs), more swing space and more decanting space, not interrupting Rudolph Hennig at all Upgrading the facility with new electrical and mechanical components The building can be designed to have a better flow with more flexible spaces. Wayfinding challenges at RHJH are mitigated. One less facility to maintain and one old age facility is replaced. 1200 square metres smaller with one building instead of two buildings - reduced overall facility area to operate and maintain. There are benefits for the students to be together. No need to individually staff the schools. Can share resources and services for both groups and provide partnership programs. Increase in programming that can be provided. Special programming (Lynx program), make programs more specialized carrying over to senior high. Support kids better in a more inclusive environment all the way through. Create more opportunity for partnerships and shared partnerships with the community and part of the community Centrally located, close to downtown, close to the pool, golf course and existing facilities. This benefits the businesses in that area. Only bussing to one school, not two, reduce the transportation costs. Southpointe school is flexible for grade configuration K-6 and K-9 depending on enrollment demands. Bonus is that you have a junior high in two different locations.
DISADVANTAGES Parents may not like having students 7-12 together and have the younger students associating with Grade 12 students Old vs. new - trying to modernize an existing facility limits flexibility and design for the programs. Marrying a 1950 building which burned, and a 1980 building to a new building will pose significant challenges One main access road Infringes on Fort Elementary school site Challenges with installing the modular classrooms due to site and road frontage constraints. Losing sport fields Congestion in this well-established neighbourhood with a number of schools if you add another 550 students getting dropped off. Lose green space. Site is restrictive - narrow site
RISKS Less risk due to: o The site is zoned and has services. Not pending a site that may or may not come about. o Only modernizing one facility vs. two in the Baseline. RHJH is a concrete structure that would be difficult to modernize and this risk is mitigated by demolishing it. Increased Risk: o Unforeseen building conditions and soil conditions for modernization and expansion that could cause delays and cost increases. o Potential for school closure or amalgamation with push back from community.
7 Value Scoping Study Report Appendix G- Value Alternatives Documentation: Elk Island Public Schools Regional Division #14– Fort Saskatchewan Schools Solution - Prepared for Alberta Education by Natalie Wehner, VMA, EMBA, B.Sc. (Hons)
o City of Fort Saskatchewan will need to conduct a traffic impact study. If road upgrades are required, this cost is not covered by Government of Alberta capital funding for a school.
AREA GUIDLEINES AND SKETCHES:
Areas
In accordance with Government of Alberta’s design guidelines, a 1400 capacity grade 7-12 senior high school will have a Gross Area of 12,841m2 as outlined in the attached PDF. IBI Group prepared a modernization and addition design for a 1400 capacity grade 7-2 FSHS as provided in the attached PDF’s
Please Refer to Baseline for designs for SPS, JME, WFE
SCHEDULE
The total schedule duration agreed was 72 months (6 years).
Unlike the Baseline, Option 2 requires four and not five capital plan submissions and approvals by the Government of Alberta. It was thus assumed that the projects would be approved over a number of years and sequentially. The Division advised that their capital plan submission for the Fort Saskatchewan schools would be in the following priority:
1. Rudolph Hennig Junior High and Fort Saskatchewan High 1400 Capacity Modernization and Addition School 2. James Mowatt Elementary Replacement on Forest Ridge site 3. Win Ferguson Elementary Modernization
Project Approval Completion Replacement 1400 capacity High School April 2020 24 months (2 years – 2022 completion) James Mowatt Elementary April 2021 36 months (3 years – 2024 completion) Win Ferguson April 2023 36 months (3 years – 2026 completion)
Southpointe will remain a priority for 4 additional modulars when the Division submits it request for modulars in November 2018. The Division will apply for 4 modulars every year till all 12 modulars are approved.
8 Value Scoping Study Report Appendix G- Value Alternatives Documentation: Elk Island Public Schools Regional Division #14– Fort Saskatchewan Schools Solution - Prepared for Alberta Education by Natalie Wehner, VMA, EMBA, B.Sc. (Hons)
SUMMARY OF VALUE ALTERNATIVE OPTION 2 vs. BASELINE:
Change Change in Change in Change Description Cost Saving LCC (NPV) Saving in Area Performance in Value Schedule
Option 2 1,223m2 $9,072,101 $11,283,794 36 -2.1% +26.9%
Note: Because the data for cost and time depicted above represents savings, a negative number represents an increase in cost and time.
Performance Location of Program Building Site Maintenance Construction Attribute School Compatibility Organization Organization & Operations Phasing Baseline 6.6 7.4 6.9 5.9 7.0 5.4 Rating Option 2 6.7 7.1 6.6 5.4 6.9 6.0 Rating
Please Refer to Appendix H: Project Analysis Section of this report for full details on performance and Value Index for full analysis of the Value Alternative against the Baseline.
9 Value Scoping Study Report Appendix G- Value Alternatives Documentation: Elk Island Public Schools Regional Division #14– Fort Saskatchewan Schools Solution - Prepared for Alberta Education by Natalie Wehner, VMA, EMBA, B.Sc. (Hons)
9.3 Value Alternative No: Option 3
DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVE NO: OPTION 3
Modernize FSHS 10-12 School @ 750 Capacity Modernize RHJH 7-9 School @ 665 Capacity OPTION 3 Add 12 Modulars to SPS Demolish and Replace JME to 600 Capacity on New Site (Forest Ridge Site) Modernize Win Ferguson to 450 Capacity FSE, FSC and EPE Status Quo Schedule Total Description Area Cost LCC (NPV) Capacity (Months) Performance Modernize FSHS 7,590 m2 $24,151,336 $37,877,205 750 Modernize RHJH 6,474m2 $24,183,903 $35,891,581 665 SPS Add 12 Modulars 1,200m2 $4,164,159 $6,334,257 300 New JME 4,713m2 $19,071,195 $27,594,254 600 Modernize WFE 3,594m2 $13,013,555 $19,512,999 470 Total 22,571m2 $84,584,148 $127,210,296 2,785 96 0.5803 Performance Location Program Building Site Operations & Construction Attribute of School Compatibility Organization Organization Maintenance Phasing Rating 6.2 6.2 5.6 5.5 5.6 4.1
DESCRIPTION OF BASELINE CONCEPT
Demolish and Replace FSH to 750 Capacity on New Site (South Ridge) Modernize RHJH to 665 Capacity BASELINE Add 12 Modulars to SPS Demolish and Replace JME to 600 Capacity on New Site (Forest Ridge Site) Modernize Win Ferguson to 450 Capacity FSE, FSC and EPE Status Quo Schedule Total Description Area Cost LCC (NPV) Capacity (Months) Performance New FSH 7,590m2 $30,751,331 $44,477,199 750 Modernize RHJH 6,474m2 $24,183,903 $35,891,581 665 SPS Add 12 Modulars 1,200m2 $4,164,159 $6,334,257 300 New JME 4,713m2 $19,071,195 $27,594,254 600 Modernize WFE 3,594m2 $13,013,555 $19,512,999 470 Total 23,571m2 $91,184,143 $133,810,291 2,785 108 0.6738 Performance Location Program Building Site Operations & Construction Attribute of School Compatibility Organization Organization Maintenance Phasing Rating 6.6 7.4 6.9 5.9 7.0 5.4
10 Value Scoping Study Report Appendix G- Value Alternatives Documentation: Elk Island Public Schools Regional Division #14– Fort Saskatchewan Schools Solution - Prepared for Alberta Education by Natalie Wehner, VMA, EMBA, B.Sc. (Hons)
ADVANTAGES FSHS remains centrally located, close to downtown, close to the pool, golf course and existing facilities. This benefits the businesses in that area. Maintains FSHS street frontage The sites are zoned with services. Not waiting for a site or risking not getting a site Maintaining FSHS facility that could be difficult to motivate as to why we are demolishing that existing facility as it has a low FCI index. Upgrading the facilities with new electrical and mechanical components Not moving the RHJH students to a new location and no risk of school amalgamation process with community potentially objecting. Keeping the high school and junior high school students separate, which is preferred by some parents. Southpointe school is flexible for grade configuration K-6 and K-9 depending on enrollment demands. Bonus is that you have a junior high in two different locations. Not increasing congestion on FSHS school site. No loss of green space.
DISADVANTAGES Disruption to students at both RHJH and FSHS. The risk is that students will be disrupted for their entire high school life RHJH is the Division’s top priority then FSHS. The one modernization will just be competed and thee next starting as the students transition from junior high to high school. Significant decanting of students with costs for the division. Potentially lose enrollment. Still bussing to two schools, no reduction in transportation costs. Limitations on design as working with existing structures. Less opportunity to improve wayfinding challenges at RHJH. Still have two old age high school facilities to maintain with a 1200 square metres larger area to operate and maintain compared to combining the schools. Cannot share resources and services to maximize efficiency of staffing and increase program delivery. Partnership opportunities will only benefit one community at a time.
RISKS Less risk due to: o The site is zoned and has services. Not pending a site that may or may not come about. o No need to amalgamate schools. o No traffic impact assessment required on FSHS to accommodate 500 more students, so no risk of road and services upgrades off site not covered by Government of Alberta Increased Risk: o Unforeseen building conditions o two facilities that could result in significant delays and cost increases. o Enrollment may decline during construction.
AREA GUIDLEINES AND SKETCHES:
IBI Group prepared the modernization design for FSHS 750 capacity is per attached PDFs. The design of RHJH modernization is the same as the Baseline.
Please Refer to Baseline for designs for RHJH, SPS, JME, WFE
SCHEDULE
The total schedule duration agreed was 96 months (8 years).
11 Value Scoping Study Report Appendix G- Value Alternatives Documentation: Elk Island Public Schools Regional Division #14– Fort Saskatchewan Schools Solution - Prepared for Alberta Education by Natalie Wehner, VMA, EMBA, B.Sc. (Hons)
Similar to the Baseline, Option 3 requires five capital plan submissions and approvals by the Government of Alberta. It was thus assumed that the projects would be approved over a number of years and sequentially. The Division advised that their capital plan submission for the Fort Saskatchewan schools would be in the following priority:
1. Rudolph Hennig Junior High 665 Capacity Modernization 2. Fort Saskatchewan High 750 Capacity Modernization 3. James Mowatt Elementary Replacement on Forest Ridge site 4. Win Ferguson Elementary Modernization
Project Approval Completion Rudolph Hennig Junior High School April 2020 36 months (3 years – 2023 completion) Fort Saskatchewan High School April 2022 36 months (3 years – 2025 completion) James Mowatt Elementary April 2023 36 months (3 years – 2026 completion) Win Ferguson April 2026 36 months (3 years – 2028 completion) Southpointe will remain a priority for 4 additional modulars when the Division submits it request for modulars in November 2018. The Division will apply for 4 modulars every year till all 12 modulars are approved.
SUMMARY OF VALUE ALTERNATIVE OPTION 1 vs. BASELINE:
Change Change in Change in Change Description Cost Saving LCC (NPV) Saving in Area Performance in Value Schedule
Option 3 0m2 $6,599,995 $6,599,995 12 -13.9% -11.0%
Note: Because the data for cost and time depicted above represents savings, a negative number represents an increase in cost and time.
Performance Location of Program Building Site Maintenance Construction Attribute School Compatibility Organization Organization & Operations Phasing Baseline 6.6 7.4 6.9 5.9 7.0 5.4 Rating Option 3 6.2 6.2 5.6 5.5 5.6 4.1 Rating
Please Refer to Appendix H: Project Analysis Section of this report for full details on performance and Value Index for full analysis of the Value Alternative against the Baseline.
12 Value Scoping Study Report Appendix G- Value Alternatives Documentation: Elk Island Public Schools Regional Division #14– Fort Saskatchewan Schools Solution - Prepared for Alberta Education by Natalie Wehner, VMA, EMBA, B.Sc. (Hons)
9.4 Value Alternative No: Option 1.1
DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVE NO: OPTION 1.1
Replacement 7-12 School @ 1400 Capacity on Southridge Site Demolish RHJH and FSH OPTION 1.1 Add 12 Modulars to SPS Demolish and Replace JME to 600 Capacity on New Site (Forest Ridge Site) Modernize Win Ferguson to 450 Capacity FSE, FSC and EPE Status Quo Schedule Total Description Area Cost LCC (NPV) Capacity (Months) Performance New 7-12 FSH/RHJH 12,841m2 $51,943,738 $75,165,594 1400 SPS Add 12 Modulars 1,200m2 $4,164,159 $6,334,257 300 New JME 4,713m2 $19,071,195 $27,594,254 600 Modernize WFE 3,594m2 $13,013,555 $19,512,999 470 Total 22,348m2 $88,192,648 $128,607,104 2,770 108 0.8009 Performance Location Program Building Site Operations & Construction Attribute of School Compatibility Organization Organization Maintenance Phasing Rating 7.8 8.5 8.5 6.7 8.2 8.2
DESCRIPTION OF BASELINE CONCEPT
Demolish and Replace FSH to 750 Capacity on New Site (South Ridge) Modernize RHJH to 665 Capacity BASELINE Add 12 Modulars to SPS Demolish and Replace JME to 600 Capacity on New Site (Forest Ridge Site) Modernize Win Ferguson to 450 Capacity FSE, FSC and EPE Status Quo Schedule Total Description Area Cost LCC (NPV) Capacity (Months) Performance New FSH 7,590m2 $30,751,331 $44,477,199 750 Modernize RHJH 6,474m2 $24,183,903 $35,891,581 665 SPS Add 12 Modulars 1,200m2 $4,164,159 $6,334,257 300 New JME 4,713m2 $19,071,195 $27,594,254 600 Modernize WFE 3,594m2 $13,013,555 $19,512,999 470 Total 23,571m2 $91,184,143 $133,810,291 2,785 108 0.6738 Performance Location Program Building Site Operations & Construction Attribute of School Compatibility Organization Organization Maintenance Phasing Rating 6.6 7.4 6.9 5.9 7.0 5.4
13 Value Scoping Study Report Appendix G- Value Alternatives Documentation: Elk Island Public Schools Regional Division #14– Fort Saskatchewan Schools Solution - Prepared for Alberta Education by Natalie Wehner, VMA, EMBA, B.Sc. (Hons)
ADVANTAGES Combing schools - brand new facility for both junior and senior high Can be designed to meet 21st Century Pedagogy. No limitations because of existing structures. The building can be designed to have a better flow with more flexible spaces. Wayfinding challenges at RHJH are mitigated. One less facility to maintain and two old age facilities are replaced. 1200 square metres smaller with one building instead of two buildings - reduced overall facility area to operate and maintain. More longevity with new building and reduced operating and maintenance costs There are benefits for the students to be together. No need to individually staff the schools. Can share resources and services for both groups and provide partnership programs. Increase in programming that can be provided. Special programming (Lynx program), make programs more specialized carrying over to senior high. Support kids better in a more inclusive environment all the way through. Create more opportunity for partnerships and shared partnerships with the community and part of the community Will attract more families to Fort Saskatchewan. Higher retention rate of students as they are less likely to go to Sherwood Park with a new facility. Only bussing to one school, not two, reduce the transportation costs. Southpointe school is flexible for grade configuration K-6 and K-9 depending on enrollment demands. Bonus is that you have a junior high in two different locations. No one will be going to school under construction thus no disruption to any students. No costs for decanting students and potentially lose enrollment. The new school site will mitigate congestion in the neighbourhood where FSH is located with several other schools. No disruption to sports fields during and after construction. Even though the site is not the ideal shape, it is large enough to accommodate the 1400 capacity high school, plus parking, busses and sports fields. The site is not as restrictive as the FSH site per Option 1. The school is located near to future development with a new fire hall that can be used for external dual credit programs.
DISADVANTAGES The site is not centrally located and will take business away from the downtown. The school site is far from amenities such as the pool, golf course and existing facilities. The site is not ready for construction yet and the project cannot be approved until certainty of site readiness is established. This will delay the division in addressing their two highest priority capital projects for the Fort Saskatchewan area. With the two high schools not providing the facilities for 21st century pedagogy, the enrollment numbers may decline as students go to other areas, such as Sherwood Park for their high school education. Parents may not like having students 7-12 together and have the younger students associating with Grade 12 students FSHS has a low FCI index – will be difficult to motivate demolishing a school with a low FCI index. The facility condition needs to be reassessed and confirmed.
RISKS Less risk due to: o Modernizing so not dealing with unforeseen building conditions that result in delays and additional costs. Increased Risk: o The biggest risk is that the City of Fort Saskatchewan does not get the site zoning and utilities and roads installed for several years, delaying construction. o Unforeseen soil conditions for foundations 14 Value Scoping Study Report Appendix G- Value Alternatives Documentation: Elk Island Public Schools Regional Division #14– Fort Saskatchewan Schools Solution - Prepared for Alberta Education by Natalie Wehner, VMA, EMBA, B.Sc. (Hons)
o Community may perceive demolishing three buildings as wasteful. o Potential for school closure or amalgamation with push back from community.
AREA GUIDLEINES AND SKETCHES:
The replacement school will be built on the new Southridge site. The existing FSH and RHJH schools will be demolished once the new is built.
Areas
In accordance with Government of Alberta’s design guidelines, a 1400 capacity grade 7-12 senior high school will have a Gross Area of 12,841m2 as outlined in the attached PDF. IBI Group did not prepare a design for a replacement school as the Division is free to design as required within the parameters of the area guidelines provided.
Please Refer to Baseline for designs for SPS, JME, WFE
SCHEDULE
The total schedule duration agreed was 108 months (9 years).
Unlike the Baseline, Option 1 requires four and not five capital plan submissions and approvals by the Government of Alberta. It was thus assumed that the projects would be approved over a number of years and sequentially. The Division advised that their capital plan submission for the Fort Saskatchewan schools would be in the following priority, since the site readiness for the new high school will not be in place for at least 2 years:
1. James Mowatt Elementary Replacement on Forest Ridge site 2. Rudolph Hennig Junior High and Fort Saskatchewan High 1400 Capacity Replacement School 3. Win Ferguson Elementary Modernization
Project Approval Completion James Mowatt Elementary Replacement April 2021 36 months (3 years – 2024 completion)
Replacement 1400 capacity High School April 2023 42 months (31/2 years – 2027 completion) Win Ferguson April 2025 36 months (3 years – 2028 completion)
Southpointe will remain a priority for 4 additional modulars when the Division submits it request for modulars in November 2018. The Division will apply for 4 modulars every year till all 12 modulars are approved.
15 Value Scoping Study Report Appendix G- Value Alternatives Documentation: Elk Island Public Schools Regional Division #14– Fort Saskatchewan Schools Solution - Prepared for Alberta Education by Natalie Wehner, VMA, EMBA, B.Sc. (Hons)
SUMMARY OF VALUE ALTERNATIVE OPTION 1.1 vs. BASELINE:
Change Change in Change in Change Description Cost Saving LCC (NPV) Saving in Area Performance in Value Schedule
Option1.1 1,223m2 $2,991,495 $5,203,187 0 +18.9% +28.6%
Note: Because the data for cost and time depicted above represents savings, a negative number represents an increase in cost and time.
Performance Location of Program Building Site Maintenance Construction Attribute School Compatibility Organization Organization & Operations Phasing Baseline 6.6 7.4 6.9 5.9 7.0 5.4 Rating Option 1.1 7.8 8.5 8.5 6.7 8.2 8.2 Rating
Please Refer to Appendix H: Project Analysis Section of this report for full details on performance and Value Index for full analysis of the Value Alternative against the Baseline.
16 Value Scoping Study Report Appendix G- Value Alternatives Documentation: Elk Island Public Schools Regional Division #14– Fort Saskatchewan Schools Solution - Prepared for Alberta Education by Natalie Wehner, VMA, EMBA, B.Sc. (Hons) APPENDIX H: PROJECT ANALYSIS
Table of Contents
10.0 PROJECT ANALYSIS ...... 1
10.1 Performance Criteria / Measures Definitions ...... 1
10.1.1 Performance Requirements ...... 1
10.1.2 Performance Attributes and Scales ...... 2
10.2 Prioritize Performance Attributes ...... 9
10.3 Performance of Baseline Concept ...... 9
10.4 Performance of Value Alternatives ...... 10
10.5 Comparison of Performance ...... 15
10.6 Compare Cost and Time ...... 16
10.7 Value Matrix ...... 18
Value Scoping Study Report Appendi x H: Project Analysis - Elk Island Public Schools Regional Division #14 – Fort Saskatchewan Schools Solution - Prepared for Alberta Education by Natalie Wehner, VMA, EMBA, B.Sc.(Hons)
10 .0 PROJECT ANALYSIS
10.1 Performance Criteria / Measures Definit ions
These performance criteria are used to evaluate the merits of the alternate concepts generated in the Value Scoping Study.
10.1.1 Performance Requirements
The Value Team Lead requested the Project Team members identify P erformance R equirements tha t determine how the project must perform at a minimum . These are the “Go / No Go” criteria that, if an idea do es not meet a Performance Requirement, it cannot be considered further . Th ese Performance Requirements also indicate items for which a budget amou nt has been allocated in the Cost Analysis , but are not indicated in detail on the Value Alternative designs. Additionally, exceeding a Performance R equirement offers no additional val ue.
The following P erformance R equirements were selected for this proj ect.
Performance Definition Requirement Hazmat Abatement All schools will have Hazmat removed if it is disturbed during construction. Government of Design must meet government of Alberta's design and technical guidelines Alberta Guidelines outlined in the school capital manual and school act. Grade F ort Saskatchewan Area must provide school facilities for K - 12 and Early Configuration Learning Modernization must meet with LEED accreditations and new buildings must LEED meet LEED Silver Lockdown and Access control, security cameras and lockdown systems will be installed on S ecurity schools that are modernized or new. The design must meet with all the local municipal bylaws including building Municipal Bylaws and site drainage, fencing, landscaping, p arking, traffic control etc. National and Design must comply with all of the National and Provincial building codes Provincial Building such as washroom numbers, fire rating and protection such as sprinklers etc. Code In a modernization, all existing building mechani cal, electrical and plumbing Systems Upgrades systems must be replaced. Add sprinklers, fire and life safety. Applies to all schools An available site that has roads, utilities, land titles in school jurisdiction or the City of Fort Saskatchewan, appropriate size and zoning. All this needs to be Site Readiness in place before Government of Alberta will be able to consider the project for approval. Provide modern technology in terms of infrastructure to accommodate T echnology current and fut ure needs
Jurisdiction Only solutions for the Fort Saskatchewan Area will be evaluated
1 Value Scoping Study Report Appendix H: Project Analysis - Elk Island Public Schools Regional Division #14 – Fort Saskatchewan Schools Solution - Prepared for Alberta Education by Natalie Wehner, VMA, EMBA, B.Sc.(Hons)
Performance Requirement Definition Any prior decisions made at a board level may not be interfered with. Division Impacts Furthermore, programs offered in Fort Sas katchewan must not place delivering these programs in other communities at risk. No schools will provide dual track Engli sh and French Immersion Single Track Program program. É cole Parc É l é mentaire will remain a French Immersion Single track school. Schools such as Fort Saskatchewan Christian was modernized in 2010 M odernization / New in past and will not be modernized further. South Pointe School is a new 20 years school and will not be modernized. The EIPS RD14 Board will not cons ider options that provide for a Middle Schools Middl e School Grade configuration. The scope of the Value Scoping Study will not consider solutions for that encompass properties that fall within the potential annexure Annexure Agreement agreement between the City of Fo rt Saskatchewan and Strathcona County as this will take years before it is implemented. The EIPS RD14 Board will not consider options that provide for a Christian High School Christian High School in the Fort Saskatchewan area.
10.1.2 Performance Att ributes and Scales
The Value Team Lead requested the Project Team members identify performance criteria that they feel are essential to meeting the overall need and purpose of the project.
Six criteria were selected. All the potential criteria were tho roughly discussed. The criteria were discretely defined and quantif ied by developing a useable scale with values given from 0 to 10.
The six P erformance A ttributes selected for this project and their sliding scales are:
1. Location of Schools 2. Program Comp atibility 3. Building Organization 4. Site Organization 5. Operatio n and Maintenance 6. Construction Phasing
These are defined in more detail as listed below:
2 Value Scoping Study Report Appendix H: Project Analysis - Elk Island Public Schools Regional Division #14 – Fort Saskatchewan Schools Solution - Prepared for Alberta Education by Natalie Wehner, VMA, EMBA, B.Sc.(Hons)
Construction Phasing
A measure of the ease with which the project can be designed and incrementally co nstructed over 3.5 years. This attribute considers the construction impacts of new buildings to existing operations and general public (Traffic, dust/noise, detours, decanting space and associated coordination); th e effects of "throw - away" work.
Rating La bel Description The construction phasing approach will create major and disruptive operational impact. Noise and dust is high during construction during regular operations. Requires extreme coordination and travel to relocate 0.5 Unacceptable students to other locations to me et program needs. Construction of additional site elements significantly interrupts traffic around the site. Construction duration is extended beyond what is acceptable (5 years). Excessive decanting costs. The construction phasing approach will create operational, program 2.5 Fair delivery and cost impacts. The duration will exceed 3 years but be less than 5 years Minimum Noise and dust during construction (operating hours) with occasional interference in regular op erating hours. Separation of construction activities from operating space. Impacts to the traveling 5.0 Satisfactory public are typical of this type of construction. Construction duration is typical of this scope of project (2.5 to 3 years). Project requires some relocat io n coordination to meet program needs. The project can be phased in a manner that will have only minor impacts to ongoing operations and costs and can be completed in less than 2.5 7.5 Good years but more than 24 months. No noise and dust during operating hours with no interference of operational activity in regular operating hours. Secured separation of construction activities from operating space. Project requires minimal relocation coordination to meet program needs The project can b e phased i n a manner that will have no impacts to 9.5 Ideal ongoing operations and will not incur a cost premium. Construction duration is optimized for this scope of project (24 or fewer months). Project requires no relocation coordination to meet program needs
3 Value Scoping Study Report Appendix H: Project Analysis - Elk Island Public Schools Regional Division #14 – Fort Saskatchewan Schools Solution - Prepared for Alberta Education by Natalie Wehner, VMA, EMBA, B.Sc.(Hons)
Program C ompatibility
A measure of how well the building’s interior spaces meet their intended function and objectives of the overall educational program. This attribute considers:
Size, shape and adjacencies of Instructional Space Flexibility of Space, space is ad aptable, multifunctional. Moveable walls, Meet current and future pedagogy. Inclusive education facilities – barrier free access, sensory rooms, accommodate special needs, accommodate con sultants / wrap around services CTS high school e.g. Robotics, Fabri cation and welding, Mechanics, Automotive Mechanics, Cosmetology. Flexibility in CTF credits delivery to maintain and encourage enrolments and to enable industry partnerships. CTF JR High – e.g. Building Construction, Commercial Technology arts, Foods, Fa shion, Technology based CTF, Robotics Kitchen and food programs. Commercial foods to the high school . Provide food delivery through the commercial foods program to the marginalized communities in Fort Saskatchewan and surrounding areas. Music and perform ing arts Learning Commons adequate size and location Sciences – two main labs, rotational for schedul e. Would like transferable spaces. Outdoor learning classrooms, recreational facilities, comprehensive school sports, e.g. track, soccer fields etc. Prov ide adult learning to all communities.
Continuing education is a central focal point for the communi ty , as currently provided in Sherwood Park.
Rating Label Description The design of the building is incompatible with the program. There are 0. 5 Unacceptable numerous and significant problems that greatly diminish the delivery of the educational program. The size, shape, characteristics, and amenities of the interior spaces provide less than satisfactory level of performance and compatibility with the 2.5 Fair program and functioning of the building. Delivery of the education will be negatively affected by the design. The size, shape, characteristics, and amenities of the interior spaces provide a satisfactory level of p erformance and compatibility and meet with the 5.0 Satisfactory school capital manuals guidelines for instructional space with the program and functioning of the building in delivering the educational program. The size, shape, characteristics, and amenities of t he interior spaces provide a greater than satisfactory level of performance and compa tibility with the 7.5 Good program and functioning of the building in delivering the educational program. The size, shape, characteristics, and amenities of the interior spaces provide the highest level of performance and compatibility with the program and 9.5 Ideal functioning of the building. The design greatly exceeds the original program and provides the highest des ired level of performance in delivering the educational program .
4 Value Scoping Study Report Appendix H: Project Analysis - Elk Island Public Schools Regional Division #14 – Fort Saskatchewan Schools Solution - Prepared for Alberta Education by Natalie Wehner, VMA, EMBA, B.Sc.(Hons)
Building Organization
A measure of how well the interior spaces within the building are organized. This attribute considers:
Size and Shape and adjacencies of Administrative and Public Spaces, Flexibility of si ze of building. Efficient area ratio of instructional and non - instructional space. Seems that general average is 66% is no n - instructional , want to improve that ratio, adequate storage space Efficiency of interior circulation Ease of way finding Separation of after - hours activities from teaching facilities for security. Important to accommodate community use afterhours and access the building after hours. Natural Lighting Comfort of environments Attractive Features e.g. Clerestoreys, gathering sp aces for community events, lunch spaces Accessibility for barrier free and mobility impaired, barrier free washrooms, number of washrooms. Flexibility of spaces for community and industry partnerships. Public washrooms other than staff washroom. Flexibi lity for grade configuration and clear demarcated areas for grading Opportunity for external partnerships to share or add additional space. Supervision sight lines and administration area sight line at main entrances.
Rating Label D escription The building is organized in a manner that r esults in numerous and significant challenges related to operational efficiency with respect to administration, 0.5 Unacceptable interior circulation, ease of way finding, accommodating and separating public. Natural lighting, building comfort and attractive features have not been accommodated in the design. The building is organized in a manner that provides a less than satisfactory operational efficiency with respect to administration, interior circulation, ease of 2.5 Fair way finding, accommodating and separating publi c. Natural lighting, building comfort and attractive features have been accommodated minimally in the design. The building is organized in a manner that provides a satisfactory level of operational efficiency with respect to administratio n, interior circulation, ease of 5.0 Satisfactory way finding, accommodating and separating public. Natural lighting, building comfort and attractive features have been satisfa ctorily addressed in the design. The building is organized in a manner that provides a greater than satisfactory level of operational efficiency with respect to administration, interior circulation, 7.5 Good ease of way finding, accommodating and separating public. Natural lighting, building comfort and attractive features have been more than satisfa ctorily addressed in the design. T he building is organized in a manner that provide the highest levels of operational efficiency with respect to administration, interior circulation, ease of 9.5 Ideal way finding, accommodating and separating public. Natu ral lighting, building comfort and attractive features have been addressed to the highest levels in the design.
5 Value Scoping Study Report Appendix H: Project Analysis - Elk Island Public Schools Regional Division #14 – Fort Saskatchewan Schools Solution - Prepared for Alberta Education by Natalie Wehner, VMA, EMBA, B.Sc.(Hons)
Site Organization
A measure of how well the campus is organized. This attribute considers:
Playground – maintain current playgrounds or have adequate space to accommodate a new playground and expand the playground. Accommodation of sports fields and adjacency t o the school facility Accommodate capacity fluctuations by adding or removing modular s Proximity to community facilities to access during school hours Accommodate bicycle racks Accommodate partnership opportunities Landscaping and greenspace Efficiency of site circulation: o Orientation of the building; o Parking availability for students, staff and public o Bus access and drop - offs o Adjacencies of site facilities to education facilities o Separation of buses from vehicles o Pedestrian access and safety - Separation of pedestrians from vehicular traffic. o Parent drop off Access roads to s chools
Rating Label Description The site is org anized in a manner that results in numerous and significant challenges for circulation of vehicular traffic and pedestrians. No kiss and drop, 0.5 Unacceptable and below allowable parking, and below ten bus drop off lanes. No separation of separation of the pedestrians fro m the vehicular traffic. The site is organized in a manner that does not meet some of the major functional design objectives and will provide a less than satisfactory level of operational 2. 5 Fair performance. Below allowable parking. Not all pedestrian t raffic is separated from the vehicular traffic. The site has been organized in a manner that provides a satisfactory level of operational efficiency with respect to site circulation, orientation of the buildin g, 5 .0 Satisfactory and adjacencies of site el ements and access to and from site. Provides adequate bus drop off lanes, self - managed separation of pedestrians and vehicular traffic. Meets parking for staff, students and visitors. The site has been organized in a manner that provides a high er than satisfactory level of operational efficiency with respect to site circulation, orientation of the building, and adjacencies of site elements and access to and from site. Provides 7. 5 Good adequate bus drop off lanes , self - managed separation of pedestrians a nd vehicular traffic. Meets parking for staff, students and visitors and accommodates surges in parking. The site has been organized in a manner that provides the highest level of operational efficiency with respect to site circulation, orientat ion of the building, 9. 5 Ideal and adjacencies of site elements and access to and from site. Provides more than the required b us drop off lanes, self - managed separation of pedestrians and vehicular traffic. Meets parking for staff, students and visitors and flexibil ity for surges in parking needs.
6 Value Scoping Study Report Appendix H: Project Analysis - Elk Island Public Schools Regional Division #14 – Fort Saskatchewan Schools Solution - Prepared for Alberta Education by Natalie Wehner, VMA, EMBA, B.Sc.(Hons)
Operation and Maintenance
A measure of how easily the build ing and site can be maintained and operated over its expected useful life. This attribute considers :
E nergy consumption The fre quency of equipment replacement Th e durability and longevity of building finishes Assumes a 30 - year life cycle before a major re model. Efficiency of utilization of all f acilities in Fort Saskatchewan Overall gross school area of building with the objective of ensuring that the circulation space etc. are kept to a minimum to reduce operational costs; with no effect on program Abilit y of sharing costs for specialized CTF and CTS equipment with partners and other schools i n the area
Rating Label Description High and frequent maintenance and unsafe or complex maintenance access. The project is expected to require maintenance that far exceeds 0.5 Unacceptable the norm for a school facility of its kind. Operational costs far exceed the norm for schools of this kind. The project is expe cted to require maintenance greater than normal for 2.5 Fair a school facility of its kind. The project is expected to have operating costs that are greater than the norm for a school facility of its kind. The project provides a satisfactory level of maintainability that is typical 5.0 Satisfactory of school facility of this kind. Operational costs are typical of a facility of this kind. The project provides a high level of maintainability. The facility uses many low maintenance features and is better th an average in terms of 7. 5 Good expected maintenance. Operating costs are less than expected for a facility of this kind. The project provides the highest possible level of maintainability and far 9. 5 Ideal exceeds expectations when compared to comparable school f acilities. Operating costs are far less than expected for a facility of this kind
7 Value Scoping Study Report Appendix H: Project Analysis - Elk Island Public Schools Regional Division #14 – Fort Saskatchewan Schools Solution - Prepared for Alberta Education by Natalie Wehner, VMA, EMBA, B.Sc.(Hons)
School Locations
A measure of the ability of the school facilities to accommodate current and long term + 50 years growth in the Fort Saskatchewan catchment area. This a ttribute considers:
The particular neighbourhood that the school is located – does it meet the age demographics of the population in the neighbourhood for grade configuration and capacity to minimize t ransportation costs. Adjacencies of schools Consolida tion of facilities for efficient use Providing facilities in areas that are growing where no schools exist. Capacity of high school for future growth Capacity of elementary school s for current and fu ture growth Will school closures be required and how ma ny? Proximity to community facilities to be shared.
Rating Label Description Project cannot accommodate enrollments demands for the community as a whole and requires excessive travel by bus or otherwise for students 0. 5 Unacceptable to get to the school from their respective neighbourhoods. Numerous school closings are required. Project can accommodate enrollment demands but will re quire excessive rework, design and cost. Some schools are adequately 2. 5 Fair located whilst others still require long tra vel times by bus or otherwise to accommodate students in the Fort Saskatchewan area. Some school closures are required. Project can satisfactorily accommodate current and projected enrolment demand with minor changes to the building infr astructure and 0.5 Satisfactory by adding or removing modulars. The schools generally have the correct grade configuration and capacity for the age demographics they are located in and do not require long travel times for students. Project can accommodate lar ge variety of enrollment demands with minimal work and cost required. The schools generally have the correct 0.75 Good grade configuration and capacity for the age demographics they are located in and do not require long travel times for students. Proj ect can accommodate large variety enrollment demands with minimal work and cost required. The schools all located in all 0.95 Ideal neighborhoods and meet the grade configuration and capacity for the age demographics they are located in. The schools are located ideal ly and do not require long travel times for students.
8 Value Scoping Study Report Appendix H: Project Analysis - Elk Island Public Schools Regional Division #14 – Fort Saskatchewan Schools Solution - Prepared for Alberta Education by Natalie Wehner, VMA, EMBA, B.Sc.(Hons)
10.2 Prioritize Performance Attributes
At the Kick off meeting, t he P erformance A ttributes were systematically compared in pairs, asking the question: "An improvement to which attribute will prov ide the greatest benefit relative to the project's need and purpo se?" Participants were then asked to indicate their priorities and the relative intensities of their preferences. When all pairs had been discussed, the number of votes for each is tallied an d percentages (which will be used as weighted multipliers later i n the process) are calculated.
The table and chart below provides the results of this analysis and includes the complete breakdown of the priorities, expressed as a percentage of the whole.
PERFORMANCE ATTRIBUTE PRIORITIZATION
Performance Attributes Priority Location of Schools 0.24890186 Program Compatibility 0.24411466 Operation and Maintenance 0.18131027 Building Organization 0.14782748 Site Organization 0.13082186 Construction Phasing 0.04702386
10.3 Performance of Baseline Concept
On The Project Team and stakeholders evaluated the performance of the Baseline Concept assigning a 0 to 10 rating for each criterion, using the definitions and scales developed in Step 2.
The information below reflects t he performance ratings and associated rationale for each attribute.
Please refer to the assessment of the advantages, disadvantages, risks, costs and schedule for the Baseline in Appendix E: Baseline Concept sect ion of this report.
Baseline Overview 9 Value Scoping Study Report Appendix H: Project Analysis - Elk Island Public Schools Regional Division #14 – Fort Saskatchewan Schools Solution - Prepared for Alberta Education by Natalie Wehner, VMA, EMBA, B.Sc.(Hons)
Legend:
FSH: Fort Saskatchewan High School RHJH: Rudolph Hennig Junior High School SPS: Southpointe School JME: James Mowatt Elementary School WFE: Win Ferguson Elementary School FSE: Fort Saskatch ewan Elementary FSC: Fort Saskatchewan Christian Elementary ÉPÉ: École Parc Élémentaire
PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT MATRIX
Demolish & Replac e FSHS 750 capacity on New Site. Modernize RHJH to 665 Capacity . Baseline Add 12 Modulars to SPS. Dem olish & Replace JME to 600 capacity on New Site . Concept Modernize WFE to 450 Capacity . FSC, FSE and ÉPÉ Status Quo Performance Rationale Rating Value Attributes Two new schools are provided in the growth areas. Addressing gr owth at SPS by ad ding modulars. The current l ocation of RHJ H is not ideal access from the main feeder road. There is l ots of Location of residential surrounding the school creates traffic congestion which 6.6 0.66 Schools is further exacerbated by the pedestrian tr affic from the s urrounding elementary schools . The replacement high school is out of the residential area minimizing pedestrian traffic interference with a good collector road on Southridge Boulevard. J ME and FSH replacement will allow for flexibility of design to meet 21 st century pedagogy. RHJH modernizat ion does not allow for flexible design as the building is a concrete structure. However, the Program modernization will ad dress a lot of concerns in the RHJH by 7.4 0.74 Compatibility replacing the gym and the l ibrary adjacent to the flex s pace. Staff room is located centrally. Band is located in an ideal locatio n next to the drummer room. Abandoning services at the high school by moving it out of the downtown and the surrounding am enities. RHJH and WFE m odernization receives new M&E and windows and building envelope upgrades which will improve performance of Operation and these buildings. Two replacement schools vs . two old schools for 7.0 0.70 Maintenance FSH and JME will reduce maintenance costs . Addressing infrastructure at both RHJR an d FSH. RHJH is not organized well for wayfinding and still working within the original geometry of the building. The Project Team has not seen the FSH replacement school design so this is an unknown of how Building well this can be addressed on the Southridge site which is triangular 6.9 0.69 Organization in shape. site and in in overall layout. Two s chools are new build and the Division can design to their specific needs . Any new build is an improvement f rom what is currently provided. Will be opportunity to improve the site layout on the modernization of RHJH and WFE, but it will be limited. But can create separation Site Org anization of vehicles/ buses/ parents and students and overall safety. Still 5. 9 0.59 have one road on SPS . On the two new schools there will be improved site organi zation compared to the existing Construction Disruption to students in RHJH and JME during modernization 5.4 0.54 Phasing construction. FSH and JME not impacted.
10.4 Performance of Value Alternative s 10 Value Scoping Study Report Appendix H: Project Analysis - Elk Island Public Schools Regional Division #14 – Fort Saskatchewan Schools Solution - Prepared for Alberta Education by Natalie Wehner, VMA, EMBA, B.Sc.(Hons)
On da y 2 of the Value Scoping Study session, t he Key Project Team members prepared performance assessments of each of the design options during the Development Phase. For each design option, the Key Project Team members rated its performance using the previousl y defined scale for each P erformance A ttribute. The rationale for any change in performance as compared to the Baseline Concept was recorded.
Please refer to the individual performance assessments for each design option stating advantages, disadvantages, risks, costs and schedule as presente d in Appendix G: Value Alternatives Documentation section of this report.
The information below reflects the performance ratings and associated rationale for each attribute.
PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT MATRIX
Replacement 7 - 12 School @1400 capacity on FSH site. Demolish FSH and RHJH. OPTION 1 Add 12 Modulars to SPS. Demolish & Replace JME to 600 capacity on New Site. Modernize WFE to 450 Capacity . FSC, FSE and ÉPÉ Status Quo Performance Rationale Rating Valu e Attributes Future expansion of schools is limit ed on the FSH site. Lot of constraints in the FSH area. Neighborhood is close to residential units. Not in the growing part of the City. This is unchanged from the Baseline as the site is limited and is congested with surrounding schools , L ittle room for growth. If a better site for a replacement Location of high school was available this site would be less ideal, but the 6.7 0.67 Schools South r idge site is not idea l a nd has risks attached to it. Maintaining the school in the City clos e to amenities is an advantage. Mixing elementary and high school is more impactful on this option due to the large school on a congested site in a residential area. Re duced transportation to RHJH . Replacing both RH JRH and F SH can design for new programs and share programs . Opportunity for better partnership s. C continuity of Program students going through the program. Lose the Junior Fire Fighter 8.5 0.85 Compatibility program available at the new site. However, there is walking distance to the c urrent fire sta tion close to the existing FSH. Four schools instead o f five to operate and maintain. Reduced Operation and overall facilit y area by approximately 1000m2. RHJH a ged facility 6.5 0.65 Maintenance is demolished. Three replacement schools vs. two . Old vs new factor for operating and maintaining. Wayfinding challenges at RHJH are mitigated with the replacement school. Special programs can be designed to be Building conducive to senior high school for inclusive teaching to all 8.2 0.82 Organization students. Modernization of WFE and replacement of JME, FSH and RHJH the Division will get th e design and layout they want. Congestion on site during construction and the number of the schools located in this area. Lack of st reet frontage. Will have challeng es to fit parking, bus drop off. etc . on this site. More Site Organization 6.3 0.63 challenging than the Baseline. Compared to Baseline, the high school is still located in the highly congested area and in the Baseline. it i s out of town with many fe eder roads. Close to
11 Value Scoping Study Report Appendix H: Project Analysis - Elk Island Public Schools Regional Division #14 – Fort Saskatchewan Schools Solution - Prepared for Alberta Education by Natalie Wehner, VMA, EMBA, B.Sc.(Hons)
amenities in the area. City will have motivation with larger student population to enhance this area. Construction phasing no students put at risk at RHJH. Only WFE is impacted by construction. Five scho ols are affected for sports fields Construction access during construction . There are fields nearby and behind 7.0 0.7 Phasing one school that can be used during construction and the recreation center w it h ball diamond is nearby.
Replacement 7 - 12 School @1400 cap acity on Southridge site. Demolish FSH and RHJH. OPTION 1.1 Add 12 Modulars to SPS. Demolish & Replace JME to 600 capacity on New Site. Modernize WFE to 450 Capacity . FSC, FSE and ÉPÉ Status Quo Performance Rationale Rating Value Attributes
The RHJH is in the growth area . C onsolidating schools so less Location of transportation costs. Potential school closure process. Not localized 7.8 0.78 Schools community and school i s located away from existing student population homes and away for all the amenities. Replacing both RHJRH and F SH can design for new programs and share programs . Opportunity for better partnership s. C continuity of Program students going through the program. Lose the Junior Fire Fighter 8.5 0.85 C ompatibility program available at the new site. However, ther e is walking distance to the current fire sta tion close to the existing FSH. Four schools instead o f five to operate and maintain. Reduced Operation and overall facilit y area by approximately 1000m2. RHJH a ged facility 8.2 0.82 Maintenance is demolished. Three replacement schools vs. two . Old vs new factor for operating and maintaining. Wayfinding challenges at RHJH are mitigated with the replacement school. Special programs can be designed to be Building conducive to senior high sch ool for inclusive teaching to all 8.5 0.85 Organization students. Modernization of WFE and replacement of JME, FSH and RHJH the Division will get th e design and layout they want. Able to build a new high school on a site that is not surrounded by res idential units and elementary schools creating vehicular and pedestrian traffic congestion. T he existing site is difficult for drop off Site Organization and parking but this new site will be designed to better address 6.7 0.67 traffic and has a collector road. More opportunities fo r partnerships. Reduces congestion at the elementary school sites . Awkward shape site has to fit a larger school compared to Baseline RHJH students are not impacted by construction. Playfields at FSH Construction not impacted. All other s chools surrounding FSH ar e not impacted 8.2 0.82 Phasing by construction. Southridge site still has to be rezoned for high school which may impact schedule.
12 Value Scoping Study Report Appendix H: Project Analysis - Elk Island Public Schools Regional Division #14 – Fort Saskatchewan Schools Solution - Prepared for Alberta Education by Natalie Wehner, VMA, EMBA, B.Sc.(Hons)
Modernize and Expand FSH to 7 - 12 School @1400 capacity. Demolish RHJH. OPTION 2 Add 12 Modulars to SP S. Demolish & Replace JME to 600 capacity on New Site. Modernize WFE to 450 Capacity . FSC, FSE and ÉPÉ Status Quo Performance Rationale Rating Value Attributes Concerned about the school site configuration limited by the existing buil ding. Future expansion of schools is limited. Lot of constraints in the area. Neighborhood is close to residential and is on a limited site. Not i n the growing part of the City. This is Location of unchanged from the Baseline as it is congested, tight, little room for 6.7 0.67 Schools growt h. If a better site for a replacement high school was available this site would be less ideal, but the South Ridge site is not ideal and has risks attached to it. Maintaining the school in the City clos e to amenities is an advantage. Mixing elementar y and high school is more impactful on this option . Reduced transportation to RHJH. Modernization of high school will probably get more CTS space vs. replacement because the existing school will have larger area than the sc hool capital manual for replacement. Continuity in programming may not meet the design because of the current Program design layout, but this can be accommodated by changes to plan 7.1 0.71 Compatibility better and function be tte r in a more detailed design. Look at centralizing the CTS spac e to share for all grades 7 - 12. Can create a specialized area for sciences. Keep Learning commons and gyms centralized. Design can be more flexible than currently indicated in a limited time. Four schools instead o f five to operate and maintain. Reduced Operation and overall facilit y area by approximately 1000m2. RHJH a ged facility is 6.9 0.69 Maintenance demolished. Similar to Baseline only two replacement schools vs. three on Option 1 and 1.1 . Not getting a brand new high school to configure the layout optimally. Both junior high and the high school are additions / Building m odernization on a limited site. The way finding issues on RHJH will 6.6 0.66 Organization be mitigated. Similar to Baseline , modernizing an old structure and restricted by exist ing site a nd building footprint. Inability of the current FSH school road frontage to a ccommodate the increased traffic. The Baseline separates the traffic by reloc ating students in FSH to Southri dge site. M ay not pass on a Site Organization traf fic impact assessment and may need to be upgraded. More 5.4 0.54 conge stion in the area of the existing FSH together with lots of residential, pedestrian traffic and other traffic from elementary schools. Modernizing high sch ool and not replacement school for FSH will disrupt students. Can phase construction better by building the Construction Junior High, decant high school students into this space and then 6.0 0.60 Phasing modernize the high school. The students at RHJH are not disrupted by construction . There i s more decanting space than offered in the Baseline.
13 Value Scoping Study Report Appendix H: Project Analysis - Elk Island Public Schools Regional Division #14 – Fort Saskatchewan Schools Solution - Prepared for Alberta Education by Natalie Wehner, VMA, EMBA, B.Sc.(Hons)
Modernize FSH to 750 capacity. Modernize RHJH to 665 Capacity. Add 12 Modulars to OPTION 3 SPS. Demolish & Replace JME to 600 capacity on New Site. Modernize WFE to 450 Capacity . FSC, FSE a nd ÉPÉ Status Quo Performance Rationale Rating Value Attributes Concerned about the school site configuration limited by the existing building. Future expansion of schools is limited. Lot of Location of const raints in the area. Neighborhoods are close to residential and 6.2 0.62 Schools FSH is on a limited site. Not i n the growing part of the City. Maintaining the FSH school in the City clos e to amenities is an advantage. Modernization of high school will probably get more CTS spac e vs. replacement because the existing school will have larger area than the school capital manual for replacement. Continuity in programming may not meet the design because of the current Program design layout, but this can be accommodated by changes to plan 6.2 0.62 Compatibility bett er and function bette r in a more detailed design. Look at centralizing the CTS spac e to share for all grades 7 - 12. Can create a specialized area for sciences. Keep Learning commons and gyms centralized. Design can be more flexible than currently indicated in a limited time. Five schools instead o f four to operate and maintain. Increased Operation and overall facilit y area by approximately 1000m2 compared to 5.6 0.56 Maintenance Options 1 and 2. Modernizing three aged facilities vs. two in the Baseline as F SH is maintained. Not getting a brand new high school to configure the layout optimally. Both junior high and the high school are modernization Building on a limited site. The way finding issues on RHJH may not be 5.6 5.6 Organization mitigated working within the existing footprint. Similar to Baseline , modernizing an old structure and restricted by existing site a nd building footprint. More congestion in the area of the existing FSH together with lots Site Organization of residential, pedestria n traffic and other traffic from elementary 5.5 0.55 schools. Three major modernizations. FSH and RHJH students decanting is a challenge there will be significant disruption during construction . Construction Continuous construction for JR high in to the high sc hool as the 4.1 0.41 Phasing projects are phased with RHJH first followed by FSH. Students will experience entire high school life under construction.
14 Value Scoping Study Report Appendix H: Project Analysis - Elk Island Public Schools Regional Division #14 – Fort Saskatchewan Schools Solution - Prepared for Alberta Education by Natalie Wehner, VMA, EMBA, B.Sc.(Hons)
10.5 Compar ison of Performance
The t otal performance scores reflect the performance rating for each attribute multiplied by its overall priority (weight) expressed using a ratio scale. A to tal performance score of "1" would indicate the highest level of desired performance (i.e., "ideal" performance). The chart below compares the total performan ce scores for the Baseline Concept and the Value Alternatives . The table and chart below compares the total performance scores for the Baseline Concept and the Value Alternatives .
Comparison of Performance
n
d o
y i e n n f t
t n i
c s
l o
o o a i i a i
s n
t e t g g z l m i b i n n i a a n c n o a t i g i n o z r o n u i i s o i a d e r a t t l g e t
Description t n h a i t p g a s a o a r a h u c r n r r c n i m t S P B g e P O o r o a S
o L p e C O C M t O i S Demolish & Replace FSHS 750 capacity on New Site; Modernize RHJH to 665 Capacity; Add 12 Modulars to Baseline 0.16 0.18 0.13 0.1 0.08 0.03 SPS; Demolish & Replace JME to 600 cap acity on New Site; Modernize WFE to 450 Capacity Replacement 7 - 12 School to 1400 Capacity on Southridge Site; Demolish FSH & RHJH; Add 12 Option 1 .1 Modulars to SPS; Demolish & Replace JME to 600 0.19 0.21 0.15 0.13 0.09 0.04 Capacity on New Site; Moderniz e WFE to Current Size. FSE & FSC & EPE Status Quo Replacement 7 - 12 School @ 1400 Capacity on FSH Site; Demolish FSH & RHJH; Add 12 Modulars to SPS; Option 1 Demolish & Replace JME to 600 Capacity on New 0.17 0.21 0.15 0.12 0.08 0.03 Site; Modernize WFE t o Current Size. FSE & FSC & EPE Status Quo Modernize & Expand FSH to 7 - 12 School @ 1400 Capacity; Demolish RHJH; Add 12 Modulars to SPS; Option 2 Demolish & Replace JME to 600 Capacity on New 0.17 0.17 0.13 0.1 0.07 0.03 Site; Modernize WFE to Current Si ze. FSE & FSC & EPE Status Quo
15 Value Scoping Study Report Appendix H: Project Analysis - Elk Island Public Schools Regional Division #14 – Fort Saskatchewan Schools Solution - Prepared for Alberta Education by Natalie Wehner, VMA, EMBA, B.Sc.(Hons)
10.6 Compare Cost and Time
The cost and time (i.e., schedule) elements were compared and normalized for the Baseline Concept and the Value Alternatives using the following tables. These tables illustrate how cost and time (schedule) scores were derived. In this comparison, a lower score is desirable as the project will benefit from lower costs and a shorter schedule.
C omparison of Cost
Cost Score (CS) = Strategies Cost Change in Cost Δ Cost per Option Total Cost of Options Baseline : Demolish & Replace FSHS 750 capacity on New Site; Modernize RHJH to 665 Capacity; Add 12 Modulars to SPS; $91,184,143 0. 2100 Demolish & Replace JME to 600 capacity on New Site; WF E to Current Size. FSE & FSC & EPE Status Quo Option 1: Replacement 7 - 12 School to 1400 Capacity on FSH Site; Demolish FSH & RHJH; Add 12 Modulars to SPS; Demolish & $88,192,648 $ 2,991,495 0. 2031 Replace JME to 600 Capacity on New Site; Modernize WFE to Current Siz e. FSE & FSC & EPE Status Quo Option 1.1: Replacement 7 - 12 School @ 1400 Capacity on Southridge Site; Demolish FSH & RHJH; Add 12 Modulars to $88,192,648 2,991,495 0.2 031 SPS; Demolish & Replace JME to 600 Capacity on New Site; Modernize WFE to Current S ize. FSE & FSC & EPE Status Quo Option 2: Modernize & Expand FSH to 7 - 12 School @ 1400 Capacity; Demolish RHJH; Add 12 Modulars to SPS; Demolish & $82,112,042 $9,072,101 0. 1891 Replace JME to 600 Capacity on New Site; Modernize WFE to Current Size. FSE & F SC & EPE Status Quo Option 3 : Modernize FSH to 750 Capacity; Modernize RHJH to 665 Capacity; Add 12 Modulars to SPS; $84,584,148 $6,599,995 0 . 1948 Demolish & Replace JME to 600 Capacity on New Site; Modernize WFE to Current Size. FSE & FSC & EPE Status Q uo TOTAL $ 434,265,630 1.000
16 Value Scoping Study Report Appendix H: Project Analysis - Elk Island Public Schools Regional Division #14 – Fort Saskatchewan Schools Solution - Prepared for Alberta Education by Natalie Wehner, VMA, EMBA, B.Sc.(Hons)
C omparison of Time Time Score Strategies Change (TS)= Time in Time Δ Time per Option Total Time of Options Baseline : Demolish & Replace FSHS 750 capaci ty on New Site; Modernize 108 RHJH to 665 Capacity; Add 12 Modulars to SPS; Demolish & Replace JME to 0.2368 Months 600 capacity on New Site; WFE to Current Size. FSE & FSC & EPE Status Quo Option 1: Replacement 7 - 12 School to 1400 Capacity on FSH Site; Demolish 72 FSH & RHJH; Add 12 Modulars to SPS; Demolish & Replace JME to 600 - 36 0.1579 Capacity on New Site; Modernize WFE to Current Size. FSE & FSC & EPE Status Months Quo Option 1.1: Replacement 7 - 12 School @ 1400 Capacity on Southridge Site; 96 Demolis h FSH & RHJH; Add 12 Modulars to SPS; Demolish & Replace JME to - 12 0.2105 600 Capacity on New Site; Modernize WFE to Current Size. FSE & FSC & EPE Months Status Quo Option 2: Modernize & Expand FSH to 7 - 12 School @ 1400 Capacity; 72 Demolish RHJH; Add 12 Modulars to SPS; Demolish & Replace JME to 600 - 36 0.1579 Capacity on New Site; Modernize WFE to Current Size. FSE & FSC & EPE Status Months Quo Option 3 : Modernize FSH to 750 Capacity; Modernize RHJH to 665 Capacity; 108 Add 12 Modulars to SPS; Demolish & Replace JME to 600 Capacity on New - 0 0.2368 Months Site; Modernize WFE to Current Size. FSE & FSC & EPE Status Quo 456 TOTAL 1.000 Months
Key Project Team indicated the following preferences in considering trade - offs between cost and time:
Re lative Importance COST 48 % Cost Priority (CP) = 0. 48 TIME 52 % Time Priority (TP) = 0. 52
Total Cost and Time Cost Time % % Strategy Score Score Improv Improv CSxCP TSxTP Baseline : Demolish & Replace FSHS 750 capacity on New Site; Moderni ze RHJH to 665 Capacity; Add 12 Modulars to SPS; Demolish & Replace JME to 0. 1008 0.0% 0.12 31 0.0% 600 capacity on New Site; WFE to Current Size. FSE & FSC & EPE Status Quo Option 1: Replacement 7 - 12 School to 1400 Capacity on FSH Site; Demolish FSH & R HJH; Add 12 Modulars to SPS; Demolish & Replace JME to 600 0. 0975 3.27% 0.08 21 33.3 % Capacity on New Site; Modernize WFE to Current Size. FSE & FSC & EPE Status Quo Option 1.1: Replacement 7 - 12 School @ 1400 Capacity on Southridge Site; Demolish FSH & RHJ H; Add 12 Modulars to SPS; Demolish & Replace JME to 0. 0975 3.27% 0. 1095 11.05 % 600 Capacity on New Site; Modernize WFE to Current Size. FSE & FSC & EPE Status Quo Option 2: Modernize & Expand FSH to 7 - 12 School @ 1400 Capacity; Demolish RHJH; Add 12 Modu lars to SPS; Demolish & Replace JME to 600 0. 0908 9.92% 0.08 21 33.3 % Capacity on New Site; Modernize WFE to Current Size. FSE & FSC & EPE Status Quo Option 3 : Modernize FSH to 750 Capacity; Modernize RHJH to 665 Capacity; Add 12 Modulars to SPS; Demolish & Replace JME to 600 Capacity on New 0.0 935 7.24 0. 1231 0.0 % Site; Modernize WFE to Current Size. FSE & FSC & EPE Status Quo
17 Value Scoping Study Report Appendix H: Project Analysis - Elk Island Public Schools Regional Division #14 – Fort Saskatchewan Schools Solution - Prepared for Alberta Education by Natalie Wehner, VMA, EMBA, B.Sc.(Hons)
10.7 Value Matrix
A Value Matrix was prepared which facilitated the comparison of competing strategies by organizing and summari zing this data into a tabular format. The performance scores for each strategy were divided by the total cost/time scores for each strategy to der ive a V alue I ndex using the following algorithm .
V = Value P = Performance t = Time ƒ = Function C = Cost α = Risk
The V alue I ndices for the Value A lternatives are then compared against the V alue I ndex of the Baseline Concept and the difference is expressed as a percent (±%) deviation.
Baseline Concept and Value Alternatives (Design Options)
P erfor % Cost/Time Net Value % Strategy mance Improv. Score Change Index Improv. Baseline : Demolish & Replace FSHS 750 capacity on New Site; Modernize RHJH to 665 Capacity; Add 12 Modulars to SPS; Demolish & 0.6738 +0.0% 0.2239 +0.0% +3.0087 +0.0% Replace JME to 600 capacity on New Site; WFE to Current S ize. FSE & FSC & EPE Status Quo Option 1: Replacement 7 - 12 School to 1400 Capacity on FSH Site; Demolish FSH & RHJH; Add 12 Modulars to SPS; Demolish & Replace JME to 0.7651 +13.6% 0.1796 +19.8% +4.2603 + 41.6% 600 Capacity on New Site; Modernize WFE to Curre nt Size. FSE & FSC & EPE Status Quo Option 1.1: Replacement 7 - 12 School @ 1400 Capacity on Southridge Site; Demolish FSH & RHJH; Add 12 Modulars to SPS; Demolish & 0.8009 +18.9% 0.2070 +7.6% +3.8699 +28.6% Replace JME to 600 Capacity on New Site; Moderni ze WFE to Current Size. FSE & FSC & EPE Status Quo Option 2: Modernize & Expand FSH to 7 - 12 School @ 1400 Capacity; Demolish RHJH; Add 12 Modulars to SPS; Demolish & Replace JME to 0.6599 - 2.1% 0.1729 +22.8% +3.8176 +26.9% 600 Capacity on New Site; Modern ize WFE to Current Size. FSE & FSC & EPE Status Quo Option 3 : Modernize FSH to 750 Capacity; Modernize RHJH to 665 Capacity; Add 12 Modulars to SPS; Demolish & Replace JME to 600 0.5803 - 13.9% 0.2166 +3.3% +2.6786 - 11.0% Capacity on New Site; Modernize WF E to Current Size. FSE & FSC & EPE Status Quo
The results tables above are illustrated in the chart on the next page.
18 Value Scoping Study Report Appendix H: Project Analysis - Elk Island Public Schools Regional Division #14 – Fort Saskatchewan Schools Solution - Prepared for Alberta Education by Natalie Wehner, VMA, EMBA, B.Sc.(Hons)
19 Value Scoping Study Report Appendix H: Project Analysis - Elk Island Public Schools Regional Division #14 – Fort Saskatchewan Schools Solution - Prepared for Alberta Education by Natalie Wehner, VMA, EMBA, B.Sc.(Hons)
VALUE SCOPING COST ANALYSIS October 2-3, 2018
for
FORT SASKATCHEWAN SCHOOLS Elk Island Public Schools Sherwood Park, Alberta
Prepared For:
Prepared By:
tccl.ca
Calgary Edmonton Suite 209, 2725 12th Street NE Unit 2, 2207–90B Street SW Calgary, AB T2E 7J2 Edmonton, AB T6X 1V8 403.291.5566 780.433.7224 [email protected] [email protected]
Fort Saskatchewan Schools VA Value Scoping Cost Analysis Fort Saskatchewan, Alberta October 2-3, 2018
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Preamble
2. Methodology
3. Financial Overview 3.1. Summary of Costs 3.2. Analysis 3.3. Assumptions 3.4. Exclusions
4. Options - Calculations
5. Discounted Cash Flows
6. Construction Cost Benchmarking
7. Concepts
8. Definitions
Tech-Cost Consultants Ltd. Fort Saskatchewan Schools VA Value Scoping Cost Analysis Fort Saskatchewan, Alberta October 2-3, 2018
1. PREAMBLE
This report is intended to demonstrate the cost benefit analysis (CBA) solutions developed during the Value Scoping Session. These analyses are used to compare cost estimates for the qualitative concepts presented, with reasonable budgets forecast in planning for the long-term facility planning. The qualitative value recommendations for improvements ensuring proper occupational safety, operation and supply of quality learning are addressed in other sections of this report.
Options compared are listed below:
Baseline: Demolish & replace FSHS to 750 capacity on new site; modernize Rudolph Hennig to 665 Capacity; add 12 modulars to Southpointe; demolish & replace James Mowatt to 600 capacity on new site; modernize Win Ferguson to current size.
Replace Replace Fort Modernize Add 12 James Modernize Saskatchewan Rudolph modulars to Mowatt - K-6 Win Ferguson High School - Hennig 7-9 to Southpointe Core to 600 K-6 to current 750 capacity 665 Capacity K-9 School capacity on size. on new site new site
7,590 6,474 1,200 4,713 3,594
Option 1: Demolish & replace FSHS to 750 capacity on new site; modernize Rudolph Hennig to 665 Capacity; add 12 modulars to Southpointe; demolish & replace James Mowatt to 600 capacity on new site; modernize Win Ferguson to current size.
Replace Fort Replace Saskatchewan Add 12 James Modernize High School modulars to Mowatt - K-6 Win Ferguson with 7-12 - Southpointe Core to 600 K-6 to current 1400 capacity K-9 School capacity on size. on FSHS site new site
12,841 1,200 4,713 3,594
Option 2: Modernize & expand FSHS to 7-12 School @ 1400 capacity; demolish Rudolph Hennig; add 12 modulars to Southpointe; demolish & replace James Mowatt to 600 capacity on new site; modernize Win Ferguson to current size.
Modernize Fort Saskatchewan Replace High School - Add 12 James Modernize 750 capacity modulars to Mowatt - K-6 Win Ferguson add 665 Southpointe Core to 600 K-6 to current Capacity 7-9 K-9 School capacity on size. for total 1400 new site capacity 7-12 School 12,841 1,200 4,713 3,594
Tech-Cost Consultants Ltd. Page 1 of 36 Fort Saskatchewan Schools VA Value Scoping Cost Analysis Fort Saskatchewan, Alberta October 2-3, 2018
Option 3: Modernize FSHS to 750 capacity; modernize Rudolph Hennig to 665 Capacity; add 12 modulars to Southpointe; demolish & replace James Mowatt to 600 capacity on new site; modernize Win Ferguson to current size.
Replace Modernize Modernize Add 12 James Modernize Fort Rudolph modulars to Mowatt - K-6 Win Ferguson Saskatchewan Hennig 7-9 to Southpointe Core to 600 K-6 to current High School - 665 Capacity K-9 School capacity on size. 750 capacity new site
7,590 6,474 1,200 4,713 3,594
2. METHODOLOGY
Facility-Life Cost Planning
Facility-Life-Cost Planning applies to the long-term acquisition and ownership of assets. This report reviews options over a 25-year study period and can be used to compare the effect of costs over each facility life from different economic perspectives, enabling the Owner to understand the effects of Capital, Operating and Cyclical influences.
The purpose of life-cost planning is to use discounted cash flow analysis to determine the total costs of a building over a specified time frame in order to objectively assess the performance of the design in terms of durability, quality, energy usage and the like. Life-cost planning also establishes estimated target costs for the capital and running costs of a building or its elements. These targets provide a constraint and a useful measure against which selected design solutions can be later compared or evaluated. For this project, the various categories of capital and operating expenses shown are summarized as follows:
Capital cost • Land costs (not applicable) • Construction costs • Soft Costs • Purchase costs (not applicable)
Operating cost • Ownership costs • Maintenance costs • Occupancy costs • Selling costs (not applicable)
The basic capital dollars are expressed in current April 2019 dollars, that is, as if the project were tendered in April 2019.
Tech-Cost Consultants Ltd. Page 2 of 36 Fort Saskatchewan Schools VA Value Scoping Cost Analysis Fort Saskatchewan, Alberta October 2-3, 2018
Where possible, elements have been assessed or measured, then priced at rates considered competitive for a project of this type. This report is developed using standardized methods and techniques. Formatting of the report in accordance with the following documents:
Canadian Institute of Quantity Surveyors. "Elemental Cost Analysis-Method of Measurement and Pricing" (Toronto ON, Canada: Canadian Institute of Quantity Surveyors, 1990). Construction Specifications Institute. "UniFormat™: A Uniform Classification of Construction Systems and Assemblies"(Alexandria, VA, USA: The Construction Specifications Institute, 2010 Edition). Construction Specifications Institute. "MasterFormat 2010™" (Alexandria VA, USA: The Construction Specifications Institute, 2010 Edition).
Costing for the estimated areas of work is developed using the historical data of similar projects. Consideration is made to include for project complexity, geographic location and current market pricing.
Allowances / Contingencies:
As this project is currently at functional scoping development the following allowances have been included:
a. Design Allowance / Contingency
An allowance for design changes during the development of the design. The allowance is to cover unforeseen items during the design phase that do not change the project scope. The allowance, which is included in the primary stages, is ultimately absorbed into the design and quantified work as more detailed information becomes available and is therefore normally reduced to zero at tender stage
b. Phasing Allowance / Contingency
An allowance for increased requirements for projects being executed in multiple phases. This restriction leads to increased costs due to increased temporary protection requirements, etc.
c. Construction Allowance / Contingency An allowance for changes to the contract price during construction. The allowance is to cover unforeseen items during the construction period which will result in change orders
d. Location Allowance / Contingency
Location factors are applied to baseline unit costs, to allow for the higher costs of construction in locations that are further away from the main centers of operations, notably Edmonton and Calgary. Initially, these factors are calculated by assessing the extra costs of supplying skilled labour and delivering materials from either of the two main city centers to those remote locations, and incorporating the relative risks involved in doing business there.
Tech-Cost Consultants Ltd. Page 3 of 36 Fort Saskatchewan Schools VA Value Scoping Cost Analysis Fort Saskatchewan, Alberta October 2-3, 2018
3 FINANCIAL OVERVIEWS
3.1 Summary of Costs
The total life cost comparison is summarized in the table below for the options. Total are represented in Net Present Value dollars (NPV) for comparison purposes.
25 YEAR CUMULATIVE Options
Baseline: Demolish & replace FSHS to 750 capacity on new site; modernize Option 1: Replacement 7-12 School @ 1400 capacity on FSHS Option 2: Modernize & expand FSHS to 7-12 School @ 1400 Option 3: Modernize FSHS to 750 capacity; modernize Rudolph Hennig to 665 Rudolph Hennig to 665 Capacity; add 12 modulars to Southpointe; demolish & site; demolish FSHS & Rudolph Hennig; add 12 modulars to capacity; demolish Rudolph Hennig; add 12 modulars to Capacity; add 12 modulars to Southpointe; demolish & replace James Mowatt to replace James Mowatt to 600 capacity on new site; modernize Win Ferguson to Southpointe; demolish & replace James Mowatt to 600 capacity Southpointe; demolish & replace James Mowatt to 600 capacity 600 capacity on new site; modernize Win Ferguson to current size. current size. on new site; modernize Win Ferguson to current size. on new site; modernize Win Ferguson to current size.
Modernize Fort Replace Fort Saskatchewan Replace Fort Replace Replace Replace Modernize Replace Modernize Add 12 Saskatchewan Add 12 High School - Add 12 Modernize Add 12 Saskatchewan James Mowatt Modernize Win James Mowatt Modernize Win James Mowatt Modernize Win Fort James Mowatt Modernize Win Rudolph modulars to High School modulars to 750 capacity modulars to Rudolph modulars to High School - - K-6 Core to Ferguson K-6 - K-6 Core to Ferguson K-6 - K-6 Core to Ferguson K-6 Saskatchewan - K-6 Core to Ferguson K-6 Hennig 7-9 to Southpointe K- with 7-12 - 1400 Southpointe K- add 665 Southpointe K- Hennig 7-9 to Southpointe K- 750 capacity 600 capacity to current size. 600 capacity to current size. 600 capacity to current size. High School - 600 capacity to current size. 665 Capacity 9 School capacity on 9 School Capacity 7-9 9 School 665 Capacity 9 School on new site on new site on new site on new site 750 capacity on new site FSHS site for total 1400 capacity 7-12 School Area (m²) 7,590 6,474 1,200 4,713 3,594 12,841 1,200 4,713 3,594 12,841 1,200 4,713 3,594 7,590 6,474 1,200 4,713 3,594
CAPITAL COSTS - 2019
Hard Construction Cost $25,527,400 $20,257,919 $3,661,650 $16,043,471 $10,900,951 $43,098,912 $3,661,650 $16,043,471 $10,900,951 $38,325,537 $3,661,650 $16,043,471 $10,900,951 $20,230,638 $20,257,919 $3,661,650 $16,043,471 $10,900,951
Soft Construction Cost $4,739,658 $3,545,136 $436,932 $2,727,390 $1,907,666 $8,026,815 $436,932 $2,727,390 $1,907,666 $6,815,341 $436,932 $2,727,390 $1,907,666 $3,540,362 $3,545,136 $436,932 $2,727,390 $1,907,666
GST - Non Refundable $484,273 $380,849 $65,577 $300,334 $204,938 $818,012 $65,577 $300,334 $204,938 $722,254 $65,577 $300,334 $204,938 $380,336 $380,849 $65,577 $300,334 $204,938
Escalation $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$30,751,331 $24,183,903 $4,164,159 $19,071,195 $13,013,555 $51,943,738 $4,164,159 $19,071,195 $13,013,555 $45,863,132 $4,164,159 $19,071,195 $13,013,555 $24,151,336 $24,183,903 $4,164,159 $19,071,195 $13,013,555 TOTAL CAPITAL COSTS (End Cost) $91,184,143 $88,192,648 $82,112,042 $84,584,148
CUMULATIVE O&M COSTS
Facility Systems Maintenance $6,481,436 $5,528,434 $1,024,733 $4,024,639 $3,069,075 $10,965,496 $1,024,733 $4,024,639 $3,069,075 $10,965,496 $1,024,733 $4,024,639 $3,069,075 $6,481,436 $5,528,434 $1,024,733 $4,024,639 $3,069,075
Facility Operations - Utilities $4,741,387 $4,044,234 $749,626 $2,944,157 $2,245,131 $8,021,627 $749,626 $2,944,157 $2,245,131 $8,021,627 $749,626 $2,944,157 $2,245,131 $4,741,387 $4,044,234 $749,626 $2,944,157 $2,245,131
Facility Operations - Expenses $8,749,938 $7,463,386 $1,383,389 $5,433,262 $4,143,251 $14,803,420 $1,383,389 $5,433,262 $4,143,251 $14,803,420 $1,383,389 $5,433,262 $4,143,251 $8,749,938 $7,463,386 $1,383,389 $5,433,262 $4,143,251
Capital / Cyclical Renew al $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$19,972,761 $17,036,054 $3,157,749 $12,402,058 $9,457,457 $33,790,543 $3,157,749 $12,402,058 $9,457,457 $33,790,543 $3,157,749 $12,402,058 $9,457,457 $19,972,761 $17,036,054 $3,157,749 $12,402,058 $9,457,457 Total O&M Costs $62,026,079 $58,807,807 $58,807,807 $62,026,079
$50,724,091 $41,219,957 $7,321,908 $31,473,253 $22,471,013 $85,734,281 $7,321,908 $31,473,253 $22,471,013 $79,653,675 $7,321,908 $31,473,253 $22,471,013 $44,124,096 $41,219,957 $7,321,908 $31,473,253 $22,471,013 Total Future Costs (Capital and O&M $153,210,222 $147,000,455 $140,919,848 $146,610,227
$44,477,199 $35,891,581 $6,334,257 $27,594,254 $19,512,999 $75,165,594 $6,334,257 $27,594,254 $19,512,999 $69,084,987 $6,334,257 $27,594,254 $19,512,999 $37,877,205 $35,891,581 $6,334,257 $27,594,254 $19,512,999 Total Cost at year 25 (nPV) $133,810,291 $128,607,104 $122,526,497 $127,210,296
RANKING (e xclude s Re s idual) 4 3 1 2
Area (m²) 23,571 22,348 22,348 23,571
Tech-Cost Consultants Ltd Page 4 of 36 Fort Saskatchewan Schools VA Value Scoping Cost Analysis Fort Saskatchewan, Alberta October 2-3, 2018
3.2 Analysis
The financial analysis indicates that Option 2 Modernize & Expand FSHS to 7-12 School @ 1400 capacity; demolish Rudolph Hennig; add 12 modulars to Southpointe; demolish & replace James Mowatt to 600 capacity on new site; modernize Win Ferguson to current size has the lowest capital cost investment of $82.1 million, resulting in the lowest overall net present value of $122.5 million. Option 1 the new build replacement 7-12 school ranks third with a capital cost investment of $88.2 million and a net present value of $128.6 million.
The capital cost has been generated by the varying levels of modernization intensity. The values range from a medium modernization of $ 1,800.00 /m² to a major modernization of $2,600 /m² or 85% of replacement. New construction support rates ($2,900) are factored with a 3% location factor for a market construction rate of $2,987 m2
These construction rates have been applied to the affected facility components identified in the workshop to produce the capital cost investment.
3.3 Assumptions
The life cycle cost analysis uses the following key assumptions.
1) All construction capital costs exclude escalation. 2) Discount rate of 3.5% 3) Annual escalation factor a. 4.0% Facility Operations - utilities b. 2.5% Facility Operations – maintenance and expenses c. 3.0% Capital renewals 4) Phasing required for modernization options 5) Cyclical renewal costs are excluded 6) Residual values have been excluded in this comparison.
4.4 Exclusions
This is a comparative exercise only and the following items that may affect these projects have been excluded from the calculations compared in the options presented: 1. IT equipment and communications cabling 2. Land Costs 3. Property tax or its equivalent Grants-in-lieu. 4. Financing/Fundraising costs 5. Abnormal Soil conditions not covered in the Facility Evaluation reviews 6. Cyclical renewals
Tech-Cost Consultants Ltd Page 5 of 36 Fort Saskatchewan Schools VA Value Scoping Cost Analysis Fort Saskatchewan, Alberta October 2-3, 2018
Options
Tech-Cost Consultants Ltd. Page 6 of 36 Fort Saskatchewan Schools Value Scoping CALCULATIONS AND ASSUMPTIONS Replace Fort Saskatchewan High School - 750 capacity on new site
Total A Demolition B Preservation C New D Modular's E Other PROGRAM AREA (m²) (B+C+D+E)
Fort Saskatchewan High Demolish Existing School 7,143 0 New 750 Capacity 10-12 School 7,590 7,590 0 0
TOTAL : 7,143 0 7,590 0 0 7,590 CAPITAL COST
A Demolition Demo - Building 7,143 m² $175.00 $1,250,025 Hazmat - Selective 7,143 m² $10.00 $71,430 Hazmat reports indicate mostly already abated
A Demolition Net : $1,321,455 B Preservation/Modernization n/a Architectural 0 m² $0.00 $0 Structural 0 m² $0.00 $0 Mechanical 0 m² $0.00 $0 Electrical 0 m² $0.00 $0 GR & Fee 0 m² $0.00 $0
B Preservation/Modernization Net : $0 C New/Expansion New 750 Capacity 10-12 Sch 7,590 m² $2,900.00 $22,010,997
C New/Expansion Net : $22,010,997 D Modular's Construction 0 m² $2,900.00 $0
D Modular's Net : $0 E Other Solar Panels 1 sm $750,000.00 $750,000
Other Net : $750,000 Z Contingencies $24,082,452 Project 0.0% $0 Construction 3.0% $722,474 Phasing 0.0% $0 Location 3.0% $722,474
Z Contingencies Net : $1,444,947 (A+B+C+D+E+Z) Construction Net : $25,527,400
Soft/Other Costs Land Purchase acre $0.00 $0 MR Site Services acre $0.00 $0 assume site developed Project Admin 2.0% $510,548 Programming 0.0% $0 Design Fees 8.0% $2,042,192 Furnishings & Equipment 7.0% $1,786,918 IT 0.0% $0 CTS Equipment sum $400,000 4 Streams Decanting 0.0% $0
Soft/Other Net : $4,739,658 SUB-TOTAL $30,267,058 Non-refundable GST 1.60% $484,273 CAPITAL COST TOTAL (April 2019 $) $30,751,331 Escalation $0 CAPITAL COST TOTAL $30,751,331
Page 7 of 36 Tech-Cost Consultants Ltd. Fort Saskatchewan Schools Value Scoping CALCULATIONS AND ASSUMPTIONS Modernize Rudolph Hennig 7-9 to 665 Capacity
Total A Demolition B Preservation C New D Modular's E Other PROGRAM AREA (m²) (B+C+D+E)
Rudolf Henning 1970's Building 4,948 4,948 1970's Building 448 0 Modulars 0 Gym Addition 815 815 New Instructional 711 711
TOTAL : 448 4,948 1,526 0 0 6,474 CAPITAL COST
A Demolition Demo - Building 448 m² $175.00 $78,400 Demo - Selective 4,948 m² $75.00 $371,100 Demo roof for clerestory 800 m² $180.00 $144,000 Hazmat - Selective 5,396 m² $75.00 $404,700 Minor abatement previously carried out
A Demolition Net : $998,200 B Preservation/Modernization M&E Upgrade Architectural 4,948 m² $0.00 $0 Structural 4,948 m² $54.38 $269,087 Mechanical 4,948 m² $621.80 $3,076,662 Electrical 4,948 m² $292.89 $1,449,230 GR & Fee 4,948 m² $163.51 $809,060 1970's Building Major Modernization Architectural 2,314 m² $525.02 $1,214,902 Structural 2,314 m² $54.38 $125,842 Mechanical 2,314 m² $0.00 $0 Electrical 2,314 m² $0.00 $0 GR & Fee 2,314 m² $81.76 $189,184 1970's Building Minor Modernization Architectural 2,634 m² $319.75 $842,226 Structural 2,634 m² $0.00 $0 Mechanical 2,634 m² $0.00 $0 Electrical 2,634 m² $0.00 $0 GR & Fee 2,634 m² $81.76 $215,346
B Preservation/Modernization Net : $8,191,539 C New/Expansion Gym Addition 815 m² $3,380.42 $2,755,043 New Instructional 711 m² $2,900.00 $2,061,900
C New/Expansion Net : $4,816,942 D Modular's Construction 0 m² $2,900.00 $0
D Modular's Net : $0 E Other Envelope Upgrades 2,172 m² $200.00 $434,400 Allowance for new windows Reroofing 1,170 m² $300.00 $351,000 Recent replacement excluded, Includes new AHU Screens Clerestorey to Interior 800 m² $1,500.00 $1,200,000 Solar Panels 1 sm $750,000.00 $750,000 Separate Grant TBD
Other Net : $2,735,400 Z Contingencies $16,742,081 Project 5.0% $837,104 Construction 10.0% $1,674,208 Phasing 3.0% $502,262 Assumes occupied Location 3.0% $502,262
Z Contingencies Net : $3,515,837 (A+B+C+D+E+Z) Construction Net : $20,257,919
Page 8 of 36 Tech-Cost Consultants Ltd. Fort Saskatchewan Schools Value Scoping CALCULATIONS AND ASSUMPTIONS Modernize Rudolph Hennig 7-9 to 665 Capacity
Soft/Other Costs Land Purchase acre $0.00 $0 Site Services acre $0.00 $0 Project Admin 2.0% $405,158 Programming 0.0% $0 Design Fees 11.0% $2,228,371 Furnishings & Equipment 4.5% $911,606 IT 0.0% $0 CTS Equipment sum $0 reutilize Decanting 0.0% $0
Soft/Other Net : $3,545,136 SUB-TOTAL $23,803,054 Non-refundable GST 1.60% $380,849 CAPITAL COST TOTAL (April 2019 $) $24,183,903 Escalation $0 CAPITAL COST TOTAL $24,183,903
Page 9 of 36 Tech-Cost Consultants Ltd. Fort Saskatchewan Schools Value Scoping CALCULATIONS AND ASSUMPTIONS Add 12 modulars to Southpointe K-9 School
Total A Demolition B Preservation C New D Modular's E Other PROGRAM AREA (m²) (B+C+D+E)
Southpointe Modulars - 12 1,200 1,200
TOTAL : 0 0 0 1,200 0 1,200 CAPITAL COST
A Demolition Demo - Building 0 m² $175.00 $0 Demo - Selective 0 m² $75.00 $0 Hazmat - Selective 0 m² $75.00 $0
A Demolition Net : $0 B Preservation/Modernization B Preservation/Modernization Net : $0 C New/Expansion New Instructional 0 m² $2,900.00 $0
C New/Expansion Net : $0 D Modular's Modulars - 12 1,200 m² $2,900.00 $3,480,000
D Modular's Net : $3,480,000 E Other Landscaping/Site Grading 1 sm $75,000.00 $75,000
Other Net : $75,000 Z Contingencies $3,555,000 Project 0.0% $0 Construction 3.0% $106,650 Phasing 0.0% $0 Location 0.0% $0
Z Contingencies Net : $106,650 (A+B+C+D+E+Z) Construction Net : $3,661,650
Soft/Other Costs Land Purchase acre $0.00 $0 Site Services acre $0.00 $0 Project Admin 2.0% $73,233 Programming 0.0% $0 Design Fees 6.0% $219,699 Furnishings & Equipment $144,000 12,000 per modular IT 0.0% $0 CTS Equipment sum $0 Decanting 0.0% $0
Soft/Other Net : $436,932 SUB-TOTAL $4,098,582 Non-refundable GST 1.60% $65,577 CAPITAL COST TOTAL (April 2019 $) $4,164,159 Escalation $0 CAPITAL COST TOTAL $4,164,159
Page 10 of 36 Tech-Cost Consultants Ltd. Fort Saskatchewan Schools Value Scoping CALCULATIONS AND ASSUMPTIONS Replace James Mowatt - K-6 Core to 600 capacity on new site
Total A Demolition B Preservation C New D Modular's E Other PROGRAM AREA (m²) (B+C+D+E)
James Mowatt K-6 Demolish Existing 1981 School 2,369 0 Remove Modulars 883 0 New 600 Capacity K-6 School 3,913 800 4,713
TOTAL : 3,252 0 3,913 800 0 4,713 CAPITAL COST
A Demolition Demo - Building 2,369 m² $175.00 $414,575 Remove - Modulars 9 no $7,500.00 $67,500 Hazmat - Selective 3,141 m² $75.00 $235,575 Flooring abated. No report on other scopes, area excl. 2012 modular
A Demolition Net : $717,650 B Preservation/Modernization B Preservation/Modernization Net : $0 C New/Expansion New 600 Capacity K-6 Schoo 3,913 m² $2,900.00 $11,347,700
C New/Expansion Net : $11,347,700 D Modular's Construction 800 m² $2,900.00 $2,320,000
D Modular's Net : $2,320,000 E Other Solar Panels 1 sm $750,000.00 $750,000
Other Net : $750,000 Z Contingencies $15,135,350 Project 0.0% $0 Construction 3.0% $454,061 Phasing 0.0% $0 Location 3.0% $454,061
Z Contingencies Net : $908,121 (A+B+C+D+E+Z) Construction Net : $16,043,471
Soft/Other Costs Land Purchase acre $0.00 $0 Site Services acre $0.00 $0 Project Admin 2.0% $320,869 Programming 0.0% $0 Design Fees 8.0% $1,283,478 Furnishings & Equipment 7.0% $1,123,043 IT 0.0% $0 CTS Equipment sum $0 Decanting 0.0% $0
Soft/Other Net : $2,727,390 SUB-TOTAL $18,770,861 Non-refundable GST 1.60% $300,334 CAPITAL COST TOTAL (April 2019 $) $19,071,195 Escalation $0 CAPITAL COST TOTAL $19,071,195
Page 11 of 36 Tech-Cost Consultants Ltd. Fort Saskatchewan Schools Value Scoping CALCULATIONS AND ASSUMPTIONS Modernize Win Ferguson K-6 to current size.
Total A Demolition B Preservation C New D Modular's E Other PROGRAM AREA (m²) (B+C+D+E)
Win Ferguson 1976 Building 2,295 2,295 1976 Gym 453 453 1978-79 Modulars 828 0 2013-2016 Modulars 446 400 846
TOTAL : 828 3,194 0 400 0 3,594 CAPITAL COST
A Demolition Demo - Building 828 m² $175.00 $144,900 Demo - Selective 2,748 m² $75.00 $206,100 Demo roof structure for cleres 355 m² $275.00 $97,625 Hazmat - Selective 3,576 m² $75.00 $268,200 Boiler room and select floor areas abated
A Demolition Net : $716,825 B Preservation/Modernization M&E Upgrade Architectural 2,748 m² $0.00 $0 Structural 2,748 m² $54.38 $149,445 Mechanical 2,748 m² $621.80 $1,708,704 Electrical 2,748 m² $292.89 $804,867 GR & Fee 2,748 m² $163.51 $449,332 1976 Building Major Modernization Architectural 1,578 m² $525.02 $828,485 Structural 1,578 m² $54.38 $85,816 Mechanical 1,578 m² $0.00 $0 Electrical 1,578 m² $0.00 $0 GR & Fee 1,578 m² $81.76 $129,011 1976 Building Minor Modernization Architectural 717 m² $319.75 $229,262 Structural 717 m² $0.00 $0 Mechanical 717 m² $0.00 $0 Electrical 717 m² $0.00 $0 GR & Fee 717 m² $81.76 $58,619 1976 Gym Architectural 453 m² $319.75 $144,847 Structural 453 m² $0.00 $0 Mechanical 453 m² $0.00 $0 Electrical 453 m² $0.00 $0 GR & Fee 453 m² $81.76 $37,036
B Preservation/Modernization Net : $4,625,426 C New/Expansion n/a 0 m² $0.00 $0
C New/Expansion Net : $0 D Modular's Relocate exisitng 4 no $40,000.00 $160,000 Construction 400 m² $2,900.00 $1,160,000
D Modular's Net : $1,320,000
Page 12 of 36 Tech-Cost Consultants Ltd. E Other Elevator inc. structure 0 no $0.00 $0 Envelope Upgrades 1,543 m² $200.00 $308,600 Allowance for new windows 1970's scope Reroofing 2,748 m² $275.00 $755,700 Allowance for 1970's scope Clerestorey to Interior 355 m² $1,500.00 $532,500 Solar Panels 1 sm $750,000.00 $750,000
Other Net : $2,346,800 Z Contingencies $9,009,051 Project 5.0% $450,453 Construction 10.0% $900,905 Phasing 3.0% $270,272 Assumes occupied Location 3.0% $270,272
Z Contingencies Net : $1,891,901 (A+B+C+D+E+Z) Construction Net : $10,900,951
Soft/Other Costs Land Purchase acre $0.00 $0 Site Services acre $0.00 $0 Project Admin 2.0% $218,019 Programming 0.0% $0 Design Fees 11.0% $1,199,105 Furnishings & Equipment 4.5% $490,543 IT 0.0% $0 CTS Equipment sum $0 Decanting 0.0% $0
Soft/Other Net : $1,907,666 SUB-TOTAL $12,808,618 Non-refundable GST 1.60% $204,938 CAPITAL COST TOTAL (April 2019 $) $13,013,555 Escalation $0 CAPITAL COST TOTAL $13,013,555
Page 13 of 36 Tech-Cost Consultants Ltd. Fort Saskatchewan Schools Value Scoping CALCULATIONS AND ASSUMPTIONS Replace Fort Saskatchewan High School with 7-12 - 1400 capacity on FSHS site
Total A Demolition B Preservation C New D Modular's E Other PROGRAM AREA (m²) (B+C+D+E)
Fort Saskatchewan High Demolish FSHS 7,143 0 Demolish Rudolph Hennig 5,396 0 New 1400 Capacity 7-12 School 12,841 12,841
TOTAL : 12,539 0 12,841 0 0 12,841 CAPITAL COST
A Demolition Demo - Building 7,143 m² $175.00 $1,250,025 Demolish FSHS 5,396 m² $175.00 $944,300 Hazmat - Selective 7,143 m² $10.00 $71,430 Hazmat reports indicate mostly already abated Hazmat - Selective 5,396 m² $75.00 $404,700 Minor abatement previously carried out
A Demolition Net : $2,670,455 B Preservation/Modernization n/a Architectural 0 m² $0.00 $0 Structural 0 m² $0.00 $0 Mechanical 0 m² $0.00 $0 Electrical 0 m² $0.00 $0 GR & Fee 0 m² $0.00 $0
B Preservation/Modernization Net : $0 C New/Expansion New 1400 Capacity 7-12 Sch 12,841 m² $2,900.00 $37,238,896
C New/Expansion Net : $37,238,896 D Modular's Construction 0 m² $2,900.00 $0
D Modular's Net : $0 E Other Solar Panels 1 sm $750,000.00 $750,000
Other Net : $750,000 Z Contingencies $40,659,351 Project 0.0% $0 Construction 3.0% $1,219,781 Phasing 0.0% $0 Location 3.0% $1,219,781
Z Contingencies Net : $2,439,561 (A+B+C+D+E+Z) Construction Net : $43,098,912
Soft/Other Costs Land Purchase acre $0.00 $0 MR Site Services acre $0.00 $0 assume site developed Project Admin 2.0% $861,978 Programming 0.0% $0 Design Fees 8.0% $3,447,913 Furnishings & Equipment 7.0% $3,016,924 IT 0.0% $0 CTS Equipment sum $700,000 7 Streams Decanting 0.0% $0
Soft/Other Net : $8,026,815 SUB-TOTAL $51,125,727 Non-refundable GST 1.60% $818,012 CAPITAL COST TOTAL (April 2019 $) $51,943,738 Escalation $0 CAPITAL COST TOTAL $51,943,738
Page 14 of 36 Tech-Cost Consultants Ltd. Fort Saskatchewan Schools Value Scoping CALCULATIONS AND ASSUMPTIONS Modernize Fort Saskatchewan High School - 750 capacity add 665 Capacity 7-9 for total 1400 capacity 7-12 School
Total A Demolition B Preservation C New D Modular's E Other PROGRAM AREA (m²) (B+C+D+E)
Fort Saskatchewan High Demolish Rudolph Hennig 5,396 0 Moderized FSHS 7,143 0 7,143 New 665 Capacity 7-9 School 5,698 5,698 0
TOTAL : 5,396 7,143 5,698 0 0 12,841 CAPITAL COST
A Demolition Demolish Rudolph Hennig 5,396 m² $175.00 $944,300 Demo - Selective 7,143 m² $75.00 $535,725 Demo Roof for Cleres 678 m² $275.00 $186,450 Hazmat - Selective 5,396 m² $75.00 $404,700 Hazmat - Selective 7,143 m² $10.00 $71,430
A Demolition Net : $2,142,605 B Preservation/Modernization M&E Upgrade Architectural 7,143 m² $0.00 $0 Structural 7,143 m² $54.38 $388,458 Mechanical 7,143 m² $621.80 $4,441,510 Electrical 7,143 m² $292.89 $2,092,128 GR & Fee 7,143 m² $163.51 $1,167,970 Major Modernization Architectural 2,736 m² $525.02 $1,436,461 Structural 2,736 m² $54.38 $148,792 Mechanical 2,736 m² $0.00 $0 Electrical 2,736 m² $0.00 $0 GR & Fee 2,736 m² $81.76 $223,685 Minor Modernization Architectural 4,407 m² $319.75 $1,409,145 Structural 4,407 m² $0.00 $0 Mechanical 4,407 m² $0.00 $0 Electrical 4,407 m² $0.00 $0 GR & Fee 4,407 m² $81.76 $360,300
B Preservation/Modernization Net : $11,668,451 C New/Expansion New 665 Capacity 7-9 Schoo 5,698 m² $2,900.00 $16,524,198
C New/Expansion Net : $16,524,198 D Modular's Construction 0 m² $2,900.00 $0
D Modular's Net : $0 E Other New exterior envel 1,848 m² $200.00 $369,600 Reroof 2,849 m² $300.00 $854,700 Gathering Space Premium m² $800.00 $0 Clerestorey to Interior 678 m² $1,500.00 $1,017,000 Solar Panels 1 sm $750,000.00 $750,000
Other Net : $2,991,300 Z Contingencies $33,326,554 Project 3.0% $999,797 Construction 7.0% $2,332,859 Phasing 2.0% $666,531 Location 3.0% $999,797
Z Contingencies Net : $4,998,983 (A+B+C+D+E+Z) Construction Net : $38,325,537
Soft/Other Costs Land Purchase acre $0.00 $0 MR Site Services acre $0.00 $0 assume site developed Project Admin 2.0% $766,511 Programming 0.0% $0 Design Fees 8.0% $3,066,043 Furnishings & Equipment 7.0% $2,682,788Page 15 of 36 Tech-Cost Consultants Ltd. Fort Saskatchewan Schools Value Scoping CALCULATIONS AND ASSUMPTIONS Modernize Fort Saskatchewan High School - 750 capacity add 665 Capacity 7-9 for total 1400 capacity 7-12 School
IT 0.0% $0 CTS Equipment sum $300,000 3 Streams Decanting 0.0% $0
Soft/Other Net : $6,815,341 SUB-TOTAL $45,140,878 Non-refundable GST 1.60% $722,254 CAPITAL COST TOTAL (April 2019 $) $45,863,132 Escalation $0 CAPITAL COST TOTAL $45,863,132
Page 16 of 36 Tech-Cost Consultants Ltd. Fort Saskatchewan Schools Value Scoping CALCULATIONS AND ASSUMPTIONS Modernize Fort Saskatchewan High School - 750 capacity
Total A Demolition B Preservation C New D Modular's E Other PROGRAM AREA (m²) (B+C+D+E)
Fort Saskatchewan High FSHS 7,143 7,143 New Instructional 447 447 0
TOTAL : 0 7,143 447 0 0 7,590 CAPITAL COST
A Demolition Demo - Selective 7,143 m² $75.00 $535,725 Demo Roof for Cleres 678 m² $275.00 $186,450 Hazmat - Selective 7,143 m² $10.00 $71,430 Hazmat reports indicate mostly already abated
A Demolition Net : $793,605 B Preservation/Modernization M&E Upgrade Architectural 7,143 m² $0.00 $0 Structural 7,143 m² $54.38 $388,458 Mechanical 7,143 m² $621.80 $4,441,510 Electrical 7,143 m² $292.89 $2,092,128 GR & Fee 7,143 m² $163.51 $1,167,970 Major Modernization Architectural 2,620 m² $525.02 $1,375,559 Structural 2,620 m² $54.38 $142,484 Mechanical 2,620 m² $0.00 $0 Electrical 2,620 m² $0.00 $0 GR & Fee 2,620 m² $81.76 $214,201 Minor Modernization Architectural 4,523 m² $319.75 $1,446,237 Structural 4,523 m² $0.00 $0 Mechanical 4,523 m² $0.00 $0 Electrical 4,523 m² $0.00 $0 GR & Fee 4,523 m² $81.76 $369,784
B Preservation/Modernization Net : $11,638,331 C New/Expansion New Instructional 447 m² $2,900.00 $1,296,300
C New/Expansion Net : $1,296,300 D Modular's Construction 0 m² $2,900.00 $0
D Modular's Net : $0 E Other New exterior envel 1,848 m² $200.00 $369,600 Reroof 2,849 m² $300.00 $854,700 Clerestorey to Interior 678 m² $1,500.00 $1,017,000 Solar Panels 1 sm $750,000.00 $750,000
Other Net : $2,991,300 Z Contingencies $16,719,536 Project 5.0% $835,977 Construction 10.0% $1,671,954 Phasing 3.0% $501,586 Location 3.0% $501,586
Z Contingencies Net : $3,511,102 (A+B+C+D+E+Z) Construction Net : $20,230,638
Page 17 of 36 Tech-Cost Consultants Ltd. Fort Saskatchewan Schools Value Scoping CALCULATIONS AND ASSUMPTIONS Modernize Fort Saskatchewan High School - 750 capacity
Soft/Other Costs Land Purchase acre $0.00 $0 MR Site Services acre $0.00 $0 assume site developed Project Admin 2.0% $404,613 Programming 0.0% $0 Design Fees 11.0% $2,225,370 Furnishings & Equipment 4.5% $910,379 IT 0.0% $0 CTS Equipment sum $0 reutilize Decanting 0.0% $0
Soft/Other Net : $3,540,362 SUB-TOTAL $23,771,000 Non-refundable GST 1.60% $380,336 CAPITAL COST TOTAL (April 2019 $) $24,151,336 Escalation $0 CAPITAL COST TOTAL $24,151,336
Page 18 of 36 Tech-Cost Consultants Ltd. Fort Saskatchewan Schools Value Scoping CALCULATIONS AND ASSUMPTIONS Modernize Rudolph Hennig 7-9 to 665 Capacity
Total A Demolition B Preservation C New D Modular's E Other PROGRAM AREA (m²) (B+C+D+E)
Rudolf Henning 1970's Building 4,948 4,948 1970's Building 448 0 Modulars 0 Gym Addition 815 815 New Instructional 711 711
TOTAL : 448 4,948 1,526 0 0 6,474 CAPITAL COST
A Demolition Demo - Building 448 m² $175.00 $78,400 Demo - Selective 4,948 m² $75.00 $371,100 Demo roof for clerestory 800 m² $180.00 $144,000 Hazmat - Selective 5,396 m² $75.00 $404,700 Minor abatement previously carried out
A Demolition Net : $998,200 B Preservation/Modernization M&E Upgrade Architectural 4,948 m² $0.00 $0 Structural 4,948 m² $54.38 $269,087 Mechanical 4,948 m² $621.80 $3,076,662 Electrical 4,948 m² $292.89 $1,449,230 GR & Fee 4,948 m² $163.51 $809,060 1970's Building Major Modernization Architectural 2,314 m² $525.02 $1,214,902 Structural 2,314 m² $54.38 $125,842 Mechanical 2,314 m² $0.00 $0 Electrical 2,314 m² $0.00 $0 GR & Fee 2,314 m² $81.76 $189,184 1970's Building Minor Modernization Architectural 2,634 m² $319.75 $842,226 Structural 2,634 m² $0.00 $0 Mechanical 2,634 m² $0.00 $0 Electrical 2,634 m² $0.00 $0 GR & Fee 2,634 m² $81.76 $215,346
B Preservation/Modernization Net : $8,191,539 C New/Expansion Gym Addition 815 m² $3,380.42 $2,755,043 New Instructional 711 m² $2,900.00 $2,061,900
C New/Expansion Net : $4,816,942 D Modular's Construction 0 m² $2,900.00 $0
D Modular's Net : $0 E Other Envelope Upgrades 2,172 m² $200.00 $434,400 Allowance for new windows Reroofing 1,170 m² $300.00 $351,000 Recent replacement excluded, Includes new AHU Screens Clerestorey to Interior 800 m² $1,500.00 $1,200,000 Solar Panels 1 sm $750,000.00 $750,000 Separate Grant TBD
Other Net : $2,735,400 Z Contingencies $16,742,081 Project 5.0% $837,104 Construction 10.0% $1,674,208 Phasing 3.0% $502,262 Assumes occupied Location 3.0% $502,262
Z Contingencies Net : $3,515,837 (A+B+C+D+E+Z) Construction Net : $20,257,919
Page 19 of 36 Tech-Cost Consultants Ltd. Fort Saskatchewan Schools Value Scoping CALCULATIONS AND ASSUMPTIONS Modernize Rudolph Hennig 7-9 to 665 Capacity
Soft/Other Costs Land Purchase acre $0.00 $0 Site Services acre $0.00 $0 Project Admin 2.0% $405,158 Programming 0.0% $0 Design Fees 11.0% $2,228,371 Furnishings & Equipment 4.5% $911,606 IT 0.0% $0 CTS Equipment sum $0 reutilize Decanting 0.0% $0
Soft/Other Net : $3,545,136 SUB-TOTAL $23,803,054 Non-refundable GST 1.60% $380,849 CAPITAL COST TOTAL (April 2019 $) $24,183,903 Escalation $0 CAPITAL COST TOTAL $24,183,903
Page 20 of 36 Tech-Cost Consultants Ltd. Fort Saskatchewan Schools VA Value Scoping Cost Analysis Fort Saskatchewan, Alberta October 2-3, 2018
Discounted Cash Flow
Tech-Cost Consultants Ltd. Page 21 of 36 Fort Saskatchewan Schools VA Value Scoping Cost Analysis Fort Saskatchewan, Alberta October 2-3, 2018
Cost Benchmarking & Market
Tech-Cost Consultants Ltd. Page 22 of 36 Fort Saskatchewan Schools Value Scoping PROGRAM AREA (m²) 7,590 Replace Fort Saskatchewan High School - 750 capacity on new site Capital Cost 30,751,331
DISCOUNTED CASHFLOW 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Annual Costs (2+3+4+5+6+7+8) nPV CAPITAL / Net Annual Cumulative Facility Systems Facility Operations Facility Operations YEAR CAPITAL COST Community Receipts/Income CYCLICAL Maintenance - Utilities - Expenses Cash Present Present RENEWAL Flow Value Value 3.00% 3.00% 2.50% 4.00% 2.50% 3.00%
$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $
1 30,751,331 0 0 189,750 113,850 256,163 31,311,093 31,311,093 31,311,093 2 0 0 0 194,494 118,404 262,567 575,464 558,703 31,869,796 3 0 0 0 199,356 123,140 269,131 591,627 557,665 32,427,461 4 0 0 0 204,340 128,066 275,859 608,265 556,648 32,984,110 5 0 0 0 209,448 133,188 282,755 625,392 555,653 33,539,763 6 0 0 0 214,685 138,516 289,824 643,025 554,679 34,094,442 7 0 0 0 220,052 144,057 297,070 661,178 553,726 34,648,168 8 0 0 0 225,553 149,819 304,497 679,869 552,795 35,200,964 9 0 0 0 231,192 155,812 312,109 699,113 551,886 35,752,850 10 0 0 0 236,972 162,044 319,912 718,928 550,998 36,303,848 11 0 0 0 242,896 168,526 327,910 739,332 550,132 36,853,980 12 0 0 0 248,968 175,267 336,107 760,343 549,288 37,403,268 13 0 0 0 255,193 182,278 344,510 781,980 548,465 37,951,733 14 0 0 0 261,572 189,569 353,123 804,264 547,665 38,499,398 15 0 0 0 268,112 197,151 361,951 827,214 546,886 39,046,283 16 0 0 0 274,815 205,037 371,000 850,852 546,129 39,592,413 17 0 0 0 281,685 213,239 380,275 875,199 545,395 40,137,808 18 0 0 0 288,727 221,768 389,782 900,277 544,682 40,682,490 19 0 0 0 295,945 230,639 399,526 926,111 543,992 41,226,482 20 0 0 0 303,344 239,865 409,514 952,723 543,325 41,769,807 21 0 0 0 310,927 249,459 419,752 980,139 542,679 42,312,486 22 0 0 0 318,701 259,438 430,246 1,008,384 542,056 42,854,542 23 0 0 0 326,668 269,815 441,002 1,037,485 541,456 43,395,998 24 0 0 0 334,835 280,608 452,027 1,067,470 540,878 43,936,876 25 0 0 0 343,206 291,832 463,328 1,098,366 540,323 44,477,199
TOTALS 30,751,331 0 0 6,481,436 4,741,387 8,749,938 0 50,724,091 44,477,199
Tech-Cost Consultants Ltd.
Page 23 of 36 Fort Saskatchewan Schools Value Scoping PROGRAM AREA (m²) 6,474 Modernize Rudolph Hennig 7-9 to 665 Capacity Capital Cost 24,183,903
DISCOUNTED CASHFLOW 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Annual Costs (2+3+4+5+6+7+8) nPV CAPITAL / Net Annual Cumulative Facility Systems Facility Operations Facility Operations YEAR CAPITAL COST Community Receipts/Income CYCLICAL Maintenance - Utilities - Expenses Cash Present Present RENEWAL Flow Value Value 3.00% 3.00% 2.50% 4.00% 2.50% 3.00%
$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $
1 24,183,903 0 0 161,850 97,110 218,498 24,661,361 24,661,361 24,661,361 2 0 0 0 165,896 100,994 223,960 490,851 476,554 25,137,915 3 0 0 0 170,044 105,034 229,559 504,637 475,669 25,613,583 4 0 0 0 174,295 109,236 235,298 518,828 474,801 26,088,384 5 0 0 0 178,652 113,605 241,180 533,437 473,952 26,562,337 6 0 0 0 183,118 118,149 247,210 548,477 473,121 27,035,458 7 0 0 0 187,696 122,875 253,390 563,962 472,309 27,507,767 8 0 0 0 192,389 127,790 259,725 579,904 471,515 27,979,282 9 0 0 0 197,199 132,902 266,218 596,318 470,739 28,450,021 10 0 0 0 202,128 138,218 272,873 613,220 469,982 28,920,003 11 0 0 0 207,182 143,747 279,695 630,623 469,243 29,389,246 12 0 0 0 212,361 149,496 286,688 648,545 468,523 29,857,769 13 0 0 0 217,670 155,476 293,855 667,001 467,821 30,325,590 14 0 0 0 223,112 161,695 301,201 686,009 467,138 30,792,729 15 0 0 0 228,690 168,163 308,731 705,584 466,474 31,259,203 16 0 0 0 234,407 174,890 316,450 725,746 465,829 31,725,032 17 0 0 0 240,267 181,885 324,361 746,513 465,202 32,190,234 18 0 0 0 246,274 189,161 332,470 767,904 464,595 32,654,829 19 0 0 0 252,431 196,727 340,782 789,939 464,006 33,118,835 20 0 0 0 258,742 204,596 349,301 812,639 463,437 33,582,272 21 0 0 0 265,210 212,780 358,034 836,024 462,886 34,045,158 22 0 0 0 271,840 221,291 366,984 860,116 462,355 34,507,512 23 0 0 0 278,636 230,143 376,159 884,938 461,843 34,969,355 24 0 0 0 285,602 239,349 385,563 910,514 461,350 35,430,705 25 0 0 0 292,742 248,922 395,202 936,867 460,876 35,891,581
TOTALS 24,183,903 0 0 5,528,434 4,044,234 7,463,386 0 41,219,957 35,891,581
Tech-Cost Consultants Ltd.
Page 24 of 36 Fort Saskatchewan Schools Value Scoping PROGRAM AREA (m²) 1,200 Add 12 modulars to Southpointe K-9 School Capital Cost 4,164,159
DISCOUNTED CASHFLOW 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Annual Costs (2+3+4+5+6+7+8) nPV CAPITAL / Net Annual Cumulative Facility Systems Facility Operations Facility Operations YEAR CAPITAL COST Community Receipts/Income CYCLICAL Maintenance - Utilities - Expenses Cash Present Present RENEWAL Flow Value Value 3.00% 3.00% 2.50% 4.00% 2.50% 3.00%
$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $
1 4,164,159 0 0 30,000 18,000 40,500 4,252,659 4,252,659 4,252,659 2 0 0 0 30,750 18,720 41,513 90,983 88,333 4,340,992 3 0 0 0 31,519 19,469 42,550 93,538 88,168 4,429,160 4 0 0 0 32,307 20,248 43,614 96,168 88,008 4,517,168 5 0 0 0 33,114 21,057 44,704 98,876 87,850 4,605,018 6 0 0 0 33,942 21,900 45,822 101,664 87,696 4,692,714 7 0 0 0 34,791 22,776 46,968 104,534 87,546 4,780,260 8 0 0 0 35,661 23,687 48,142 107,489 87,398 4,867,659 9 0 0 0 36,552 24,634 49,345 110,532 87,255 4,954,913 10 0 0 0 37,466 25,620 50,579 113,664 87,114 5,042,028 11 0 0 0 38,403 26,644 51,843 116,890 86,977 5,129,005 12 0 0 0 39,363 27,710 53,140 120,212 86,844 5,215,849 13 0 0 0 40,347 28,819 54,468 123,633 86,714 5,302,563 14 0 0 0 41,355 29,971 55,830 127,156 86,587 5,389,150 15 0 0 0 42,389 31,170 57,225 130,785 86,464 5,475,614 16 0 0 0 43,449 32,417 58,656 134,522 86,345 5,561,959 17 0 0 0 44,535 33,714 60,122 138,371 86,228 5,648,187 18 0 0 0 45,649 35,062 61,626 142,336 86,116 5,734,303 19 0 0 0 46,790 36,465 63,166 146,421 86,007 5,820,310 20 0 0 0 47,960 37,923 64,745 150,628 85,901 5,906,211 21 0 0 0 49,158 39,440 66,364 154,963 85,799 5,992,010 22 0 0 0 50,387 41,018 68,023 159,428 85,701 6,077,711 23 0 0 0 51,647 42,659 69,724 164,029 85,606 6,163,316 24 0 0 0 52,938 44,365 71,467 168,770 85,514 6,248,831 25 0 0 0 54,262 46,139 73,253 173,655 85,427 6,334,257
TOTALS 4,164,159 0 0 1,024,733 749,626 1,383,389 0 7,321,908 6,334,257
Tech-Cost Consultants Ltd.
Page 25 of 36 Fort Saskatchewan Schools Value Scoping PROGRAM AREA (m²) 4,713 Replace James Mowatt - K-6 Core to 600 capacity on new site Capital Cost 19,071,195
DISCOUNTED CASHFLOW 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Annual Costs (2+3+4+5+6+7+8) nPV CAPITAL / Net Annual Cumulative Facility Systems Facility Operations - Facility Operations - YEAR CAPITAL COST Community Receipts/Income CYCLICAL Maintenance Utilities Expenses Cash Present Present RENEWAL Flow Value Value 3.00% 3.00% 2.50% 4.00% 2.50% 3.00%
$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $
1 19,071,195 0 0 117,825 70,695 159,064 19,418,779 19,418,779 19,418,779 2 0 0 0 120,771 73,523 163,040 357,334 346,926 19,765,705 3 0 0 0 123,790 76,464 167,116 367,370 346,281 20,111,986 4 0 0 0 126,885 79,522 171,294 377,701 345,650 20,457,636 5 0 0 0 130,057 82,703 175,577 388,337 345,032 20,802,668 6 0 0 0 133,308 86,011 179,966 399,285 344,427 21,147,095 7 0 0 0 136,641 89,452 184,465 410,558 343,836 21,490,931 8 0 0 0 140,057 93,030 189,077 422,164 343,258 21,834,188 9 0 0 0 143,558 96,751 193,804 434,113 342,693 22,176,881 10 0 0 0 147,147 100,621 198,649 446,417 342,142 22,519,023 11 0 0 0 150,826 104,646 203,615 459,087 341,604 22,860,627 12 0 0 0 154,597 108,832 208,705 472,134 341,079 23,201,706 13 0 0 0 158,462 113,185 213,923 485,570 340,569 23,542,275 14 0 0 0 162,423 117,712 219,271 499,407 340,072 23,882,346 15 0 0 0 166,484 122,421 224,753 513,657 339,588 24,221,934 16 0 0 0 170,646 127,318 230,372 528,335 339,118 24,561,053 17 0 0 0 174,912 132,410 236,131 543,453 338,662 24,899,715 18 0 0 0 179,285 137,707 242,034 559,026 338,220 25,237,935 19 0 0 0 183,767 143,215 248,085 575,067 337,791 25,575,726 20 0 0 0 188,361 148,944 254,287 591,592 337,377 25,913,103 21 0 0 0 193,070 154,901 260,644 608,616 336,976 26,250,078 22 0 0 0 197,897 161,098 267,161 626,155 336,589 26,586,667 23 0 0 0 202,844 167,541 273,840 644,225 336,216 26,922,884 24 0 0 0 207,915 174,243 280,686 662,844 335,858 27,258,741 25 0 0 0 213,113 181,213 287,703 682,029 335,513 27,594,254
TOTALS 19,071,195 0 0 4,024,639 2,944,157 5,433,262 0 31,473,253 27,594,254
Tech-Cost Consultants Ltd. Page 26 of 36 Fort Saskatchewan Schools Value Scoping PROGRAM AREA (m²) 3,594 Modernize Win Ferguson K-6 to current size. Capital Cost 13,013,555
DISCOUNTED CASHFLOW 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Annual Costs (2+3+4+5+6+7+8) nPV CAPITAL / Net Annual Cumulative Facility Systems Facility Operations Facility Operations YEAR CAPITAL COST Community Receipts/Income CYCLICAL Maintenance - Utilities - Expenses Cash Present Present RENEWAL Flow Value Value 3.00% 3.00% 2.50% 4.00% 2.50% 3.00%
$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $
1 13,013,555 0 0 89,850 53,910 121,298 13,278,613 13,278,613 13,278,613 2 0 0 0 92,096 56,066 124,330 272,493 264,556 13,543,169 3 0 0 0 94,399 58,309 127,438 280,146 264,064 13,807,233 4 0 0 0 96,759 60,641 130,624 288,024 263,583 14,070,816 5 0 0 0 99,178 63,067 133,890 296,134 263,112 14,333,928 6 0 0 0 101,657 65,590 137,237 304,484 262,650 14,596,578 7 0 0 0 104,198 68,213 140,668 313,080 262,199 14,858,778 8 0 0 0 106,803 70,942 144,185 321,930 261,758 15,120,536 9 0 0 0 109,474 73,780 147,789 331,042 261,328 15,381,864 10 0 0 0 112,210 76,731 151,484 340,425 260,907 15,642,771 11 0 0 0 115,016 79,800 155,271 350,087 260,497 15,903,269 12 0 0 0 117,891 82,992 159,153 360,036 260,098 16,163,366 13 0 0 0 120,838 86,312 163,132 370,282 259,708 16,423,074 14 0 0 0 123,859 89,764 167,210 380,833 259,329 16,682,403 15 0 0 0 126,956 93,355 171,390 391,701 258,960 16,941,363 16 0 0 0 130,130 97,089 175,675 402,893 258,602 17,199,965 17 0 0 0 133,383 100,972 180,067 414,422 258,254 17,458,219 18 0 0 0 136,717 105,011 184,568 426,297 257,917 17,716,136 19 0 0 0 140,135 109,212 189,183 438,530 257,590 17,973,726 20 0 0 0 143,639 113,580 193,912 451,131 257,274 18,231,000 21 0 0 0 147,230 118,123 198,760 464,113 256,968 18,487,968 22 0 0 0 150,910 122,848 203,729 477,488 256,673 18,744,642 23 0 0 0 154,683 127,762 208,822 491,268 256,389 19,001,031 24 0 0 0 158,550 132,873 214,043 505,466 256,115 19,257,146 25 0 0 0 162,514 138,188 219,394 520,096 255,853 19,512,999
TOTALS 13,013,555 0 0 3,069,075 2,245,131 4,143,251 0 22,471,013 19,512,999
Tech-Cost Consultants Ltd.
Page 27 of 36 Fort Saskatchewan Schools Value Scoping PROGRAM AREA (m²) 12,841 Replace Fort Saskatchewan High School with 7-12 - 1400 capacity on FSHS site Capital Cost 51,943,738
DISCOUNTED CASHFLOW 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Annual Costs (2+3+4+5+6+7+8) nPV CAPITAL / Net Annual Cumulative Facility Systems Facility Operations Facility Operations YEAR CAPITAL COST Community Receipts/Income CYCLICAL Maintenance - Utilities - Expenses Cash Present Present RENEWAL Flow Value Value 3.00% 3.00% 2.50% 4.00% 2.50% 3.00%
$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $
1 51,943,738 0 0 321,025 192,615 433,384 52,890,762 52,890,762 52,890,762 2 0 0 0 329,051 200,320 444,218 973,589 945,232 53,835,994 3 0 0 0 337,277 208,332 455,324 1,000,933 943,475 54,779,469 4 0 0 0 345,709 216,666 466,707 1,029,081 941,755 55,721,224 5 0 0 0 354,352 225,332 478,375 1,058,058 940,071 56,661,296 6 0 0 0 363,210 234,346 490,334 1,087,890 938,423 57,599,719 7 0 0 0 372,291 243,719 502,592 1,118,602 936,812 58,536,531 8 0 0 0 381,598 253,468 515,157 1,150,223 935,237 59,471,767 9 0 0 0 391,138 263,607 528,036 1,182,781 933,698 60,405,466 10 0 0 0 400,916 274,151 541,237 1,216,304 932,196 61,337,662 11 0 0 0 410,939 285,117 554,768 1,250,824 930,731 62,268,392 12 0 0 0 421,213 296,522 568,637 1,286,372 929,302 63,197,694 13 0 0 0 431,743 308,383 582,853 1,322,979 927,911 64,125,605 14 0 0 0 442,537 320,718 597,424 1,360,679 926,556 65,052,161 15 0 0 0 453,600 333,547 612,360 1,399,507 925,239 65,977,400 16 0 0 0 464,940 346,889 627,669 1,439,498 923,959 66,901,359 17 0 0 0 476,563 360,764 643,361 1,480,688 922,716 67,824,075 18 0 0 0 488,478 375,195 659,445 1,523,117 921,511 68,745,586 19 0 0 0 500,689 390,203 675,931 1,566,823 920,343 69,665,929 20 0 0 0 513,207 405,811 692,829 1,611,846 919,214 70,585,142 21 0 0 0 526,037 422,043 710,150 1,658,230 918,122 71,503,264 22 0 0 0 539,188 438,925 727,903 1,706,016 917,068 72,420,332 23 0 0 0 552,667 456,482 746,101 1,755,250 916,052 73,336,384 24 0 0 0 566,484 474,741 764,754 1,805,979 915,075 74,251,458 25 0 0 0 580,646 493,731 783,872 1,858,250 914,136 75,165,594
TOTALS 51,943,738 0 0 10,965,496 8,021,627 14,803,420 0 85,734,281 75,165,594
Tech-Cost Consultants Ltd.
Page 28 of 36 Fort Saskatchewan Schools Value Scoping PROGRAM AREA (m²) 12,841 Modernize Fort Saskatchewan High School - 750 capacity add 665 Capacity 7-9 for total 1400 capacity 7-12 School Capital Cost 45,863,132
DISCOUNTED CASHFLOW 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Annual Costs (2+3+4+5+6+7+8) nPV CAPITAL / Net Annual Cumulative Facility Systems Facility Operations Facility Operations YEAR CAPITAL COST Community Receipts/Income CYCLICAL Maintenance - Utilities - Expenses Cash Present Present RENEWAL Flow Value Value 3.00% 3.00% 2.50% 4.00% 2.50% 3.00%
$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $
1 45,863,132 0 0 321,025 192,615 433,384 46,810,156 46,810,156 46,810,156 2 0 0 0 329,051 200,320 444,218 973,589 945,232 47,755,387 3 0 0 0 337,277 208,332 455,324 1,000,933 943,475 48,698,863 4 0 0 0 345,709 216,666 466,707 1,029,081 941,755 49,640,618 5 0 0 0 354,352 225,332 478,375 1,058,058 940,071 50,580,689 6 0 0 0 363,210 234,346 490,334 1,087,890 938,423 51,519,113 7 0 0 0 372,291 243,719 502,592 1,118,602 936,812 52,455,924 8 0 0 0 381,598 253,468 515,157 1,150,223 935,237 53,391,161 9 0 0 0 391,138 263,607 528,036 1,182,781 933,698 54,324,859 10 0 0 0 400,916 274,151 541,237 1,216,304 932,196 55,257,055 11 0 0 0 410,939 285,117 554,768 1,250,824 930,731 56,187,786 12 0 0 0 421,213 296,522 568,637 1,286,372 929,302 57,117,088 13 0 0 0 431,743 308,383 582,853 1,322,979 927,911 58,044,999 14 0 0 0 442,537 320,718 597,424 1,360,679 926,556 58,971,555 15 0 0 0 453,600 333,547 612,360 1,399,507 925,239 59,896,794 16 0 0 0 464,940 346,889 627,669 1,439,498 923,959 60,820,752 17 0 0 0 476,563 360,764 643,361 1,480,688 922,716 61,743,468 18 0 0 0 488,478 375,195 659,445 1,523,117 921,511 62,664,979 19 0 0 0 500,689 390,203 675,931 1,566,823 920,343 63,585,322 20 0 0 0 513,207 405,811 692,829 1,611,846 919,214 64,504,536 21 0 0 0 526,037 422,043 710,150 1,658,230 918,122 65,422,657 22 0 0 0 539,188 438,925 727,903 1,706,016 917,068 66,339,725 23 0 0 0 552,667 456,482 746,101 1,755,250 916,052 67,255,777 24 0 0 0 566,484 474,741 764,754 1,805,979 915,075 68,170,852 25 0 0 0 580,646 493,731 783,872 1,858,250 914,136 69,084,987
TOTALS 45,863,132 0 0 10,965,496 8,021,627 14,803,420 0 79,653,675 69,084,987
Tech-Cost Consultants Ltd.
Page 29 of 36 Fort Saskatchewan Schools Value Scoping PROGRAM AREA (m²) 7,590 Modernize Fort Saskatchewan High School - 750 capacity Capital Cost 24,151,336
DISCOUNTED CASHFLOW 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Annual Costs (2+3+4+5+6+7+8) nPV CAPITAL / Net Annual Cumulative Facility Systems Facility Operations Facility Operations YEAR CAPITAL COST Community Receipts/Income CYCLICAL Maintenance - Utilities - Expenses Cash Present Present RENEWAL Flow Value Value 3.00% 3.00% 2.50% 4.00% 2.50% 3.00%
$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $
1 24,151,336 0 0 189,750 113,850 256,163 24,711,098 24,711,098 24,711,098 2 0 0 0 194,494 118,404 262,567 575,464 558,703 25,269,801 3 0 0 0 199,356 123,140 269,131 591,627 557,665 25,827,467 4 0 0 0 204,340 128,066 275,859 608,265 556,648 26,384,115 5 0 0 0 209,448 133,188 282,755 625,392 555,653 26,939,768 6 0 0 0 214,685 138,516 289,824 643,025 554,679 27,494,447 7 0 0 0 220,052 144,057 297,070 661,178 553,726 28,048,173 8 0 0 0 225,553 149,819 304,497 679,869 552,795 28,600,969 9 0 0 0 231,192 155,812 312,109 699,113 551,886 29,152,855 10 0 0 0 236,972 162,044 319,912 718,928 550,998 29,703,853 11 0 0 0 242,896 168,526 327,910 739,332 550,132 30,253,985 12 0 0 0 248,968 175,267 336,107 760,343 549,288 30,803,273 13 0 0 0 255,193 182,278 344,510 781,980 548,465 31,351,738 14 0 0 0 261,572 189,569 353,123 804,264 547,665 31,899,403 15 0 0 0 268,112 197,151 361,951 827,214 546,886 32,446,289 16 0 0 0 274,815 205,037 371,000 850,852 546,129 32,992,418 17 0 0 0 281,685 213,239 380,275 875,199 545,395 33,537,813 18 0 0 0 288,727 221,768 389,782 900,277 544,682 34,082,495 19 0 0 0 295,945 230,639 399,526 926,111 543,992 34,626,487 20 0 0 0 303,344 239,865 409,514 952,723 543,325 35,169,812 21 0 0 0 310,927 249,459 419,752 980,139 542,679 35,712,491 22 0 0 0 318,701 259,438 430,246 1,008,384 542,056 36,254,547 23 0 0 0 326,668 269,815 441,002 1,037,485 541,456 36,796,003 24 0 0 0 334,835 280,608 452,027 1,067,470 540,878 37,336,881 25 0 0 0 343,206 291,832 463,328 1,098,366 540,323 37,877,205
TOTALS 24,151,336 0 0 6,481,436 4,741,387 8,749,938 0 44,124,096 37,877,205
Tech-Cost Consultants Ltd.
Page 30 of 36 Fort Saskatchewan Schools VA Value Scoping Cost Analysis Fort Saskatchewan, Alberta October 2-3, 2018
Concepts
Tech-Cost Consultants Ltd. Page 31 of 36 Gymnasium Minor Modernization Major Modernization Clerestory raised roof
Page 32 of 36
Fort Sask. High School_Rev02-2.pdf (98% of Scale); Takeoff in Active Area: All Areas; Ft Sask High Jr High Modernization; OST Projects; 2018-10-02 08:07 PM Major Modernization Demolish/rebuild
Minor modernization Addition - Courtyard Infill Clerestory raised roof
Page 33 of 36
Rudolph Hennig Elementary Jr High-Rev02-2.pdf (100% of Scale); Takeoff in Active Area: All Areas; Rudolph Henning Mod; OST Projects; 2018-10-02 08:12 PM Minor Modernization Reposition existing modulars Major Modernization New Modulars
Gymnasium Clerestory raised roof Remove modulars from site
Page 34 of 36
Win Ferguson Community School-Rev02-2.pdf (100% of Scale); Takeoff in Active Area: All Areas; Win Ferguson; OST Projects; 2018-10-02 08:21 PM Fort Saskatchewan Schools VA Value Scoping Cost Analysis Fort Saskatchewan, Alberta October 2-3, 2018
Definitions
Tech-Cost Consultants Ltd. Page 35 of 36 Fort Saskatchewan Schools VA Value Scoping Cost Analysis Fort Saskatchewan, Alberta October 2-3, 2018
FINITIONS Discounted Present Value (DPV) The DPV is the theoretical value that needs to be set aside today to pay for a future cost. It recognizes that the time value of money is affected by the level of interest earned on available funds.
Net Present Value (NPV) A NPV calculation is used to account for the fact that $1 today is not worth the same as $1 five years from now, due to inflation and interest rates. The use of a NPV calculation is used to take into account the time value of money.
Discount Rate The discount rate is the combination of investment return and inflation. It acknowledges that money is normally working to accrue interest or dividends that help offset the otherwise devaluing effects of general inflation. The discount rate reflects, at least in part, the interest payable on borrowed money to finance an investment and/or interest lost through use of accumulated equity. A weighted combination of both interest rates if therefore involved. The interest rates may be real or nominal, before or after tax, and may included or exclude profit expectations and risk contingencies.
Discounted Cash Flow (DCF) The DCF analysis is a technique for assessing the return on capital employed in an investment project over its economic life. The DCF technique focuses on the overall cost consequences of an investment, considering the amount and timing of cash inflows and outflows and envisaged rates of return. The underlying principal is to determine the value of future cash flows generated by an investment opportunity over its economic life.
Mill Rate The tax per dollar of assessed value of property. The rate is expressed in "mills", where one mill is one-tenth of a cent ($0.001).
Whole Life Cost Whole-Life Costs are the Cumulative Total of Capital, Annual, Cyclical and Residual Future Costs Calculated in Today's Dollars (Net Present Value).
Tech-Cost Consultants Ltd. Page 36 of 36 Appendix E
95 ST SHERRIDON DR
96 AVE
96A AVE 101 ST
BRIDGEVIEW DR BRIDGEVIEW CR 96 AVE 111 ST
94 ST
99 ST ST ST 99 99 99
HWY 15 ST 99
98 ST ST ST 98 98 98
98 ST 98 95 AVE
97 ST ST ST ST 97 97 97 97
96 ST ST ST ST 96 96 96 96
95 ST ST ST 95 95 95 99 AVE ST 95
CLOSE RIVERPOINTERIVERPOINTE DR
PLACE RIVERPOINTE 94 AVE
SHERRIDON DR DR DR DR SHERRIDON SHERRIDON SHERRIDON SHERRIDON RIVER GLEN RIVERPOINTE CR 94 AVE 93 ST 93 AVE CEMETERY RD
RIVER GLEN 90 ST 93 AVE
100 A ST 88 ST 88 AVE 92 AVE 87A ST
99 AVE
100 AVE
97 ST ST ST ST 97 97 97 97
96 ST ST ST 96 96 96 96 ST 96 91 AVE 91 ST
98 AVE 93 ST
87 ST 90 ST 99 AVE 90 AVE
97A AVE 97 AVE 86 ST 89B ST 96 AVE HWY 15 98 AVE 109 ST
90A ST 92 ST 85A ST 87 ST 89A ST 101 ST 95 AVE 93 ST 100 AVE 96 AVE HWY 15
85 ST 89 ST 97 AVE 86 ST 98 AVE
84 ST 85A ST 96 AVE 95 AVE 100 AVE 83A ST 85 ST 90A ST 84 ST 94 AVE
90 ST 83 ST 86 Ave 97 AVE 101 ST 91 ST 92 AVE 95 AVE 90A ST 82 ST HWY 21 83A ST 89 ST
100 AVE 98 AVE 81 ST 99 AVE 83 ST 88 ST
80 ST 82A ST 87A ST 94 AVE 95A AVE 89 ST
81 ST 94 ST 93 AVE FORT SASKATCHEWAN 87 ST 92 AVE 88 ST CORRECTIONAL CENTRE
BECKER CRES
86 ST 97 AVE 82 ST 87 ST 84 ST 95 AVE
80 ST 96 AVE
81 ST
85 ST 95A AVE
95B AVE Allard Way
79 ST CALVERT WYND 86 ST
96 AVE 95A AVE CAMPBELL COURT
95B AVE 93 AVE 95A AVE
HILLCREST POINT 92 AVE 88 AVE (Road Closed 2005) 94 AVE BRUNETTE 85 ST PLACE
HILLTOP RIDGE
BREMNER CRES 95 AVE 84 ST 93 AVE HILLSIDE TERRACE 94 AVE 81 ST Greenfield Way 83 ST HILLVIEW CLOSE 81A ST WESTWOOD GREEN 82 ST WESTWOOD
WYND SONORA CR 93A AVE GALLOWAY 92 AVE DURRAND BEND WAY GREENFIELD PL 80 ST 81A ST E 93 AVE ELLISON CRT
79 ST SEQUOIA BEND GREEN 84 ST N 81 ST GALLOWAY WYND
WESTWOOD POINTE DICKENS ST
92A AVE SIENNA GATE
CANYON RD RD RD RD CANYON CANYON CANYON CANYON WESTWOOD POINTE DITTRICH AV
GREENFIELD CLOSE
ELLICE BEND SANTA FE E DURRAND BEND CT WESTWOOD LANE 92 AVE CRES 79 ST
DAVIS STREET
NAVAJO LN LN LN NAVAJO NAVAJO NAVAJO
WOODHAVEN DOW CENTENNIAL LN NAVAJO
CATALINA CT CT CT CT CATALINA CATALINA CATALINA CATALINA WESTWOODWESTWOOD LANE CENTRE Dillingham Ave
92 ST CATALINA CT
GREENFIELD WESTPARK Sienna Blvd BLVD GREENFIELD SouthPointe Blvd ROAD SEDONA PL
WINDERMERE CRT * SANTANA CR
GATE GATE GATE GATE E CREST N
SANDSTONE DR SANDSTONE SOLANO WINDSOR PLACE TOWN CL SIERRA WYND Southfort Blvd REED GARCIA CL CT RIDGELAND CT WYND RED CANYON WY E WESTPARK DR Greenfield Southfort Dr RENO GREENFIELD BEND
PT ROCKLEY WOODSMERE CLOSE GREENFIELD E PL GREENFIELD BAY
ROCKWELL WAY MISSION CL MISSION CIRCLE Link
RIDGELAND WY GREENFIELD RADCLIFFE WYND WYND
RADCLIFFE WYND
MONARCH WOODCREST LANE ROSEBERRY LANE CL RIDGEVIEW CL Meadowview Dr SPARROW MEADOW VIEW CL REDDING WAY GATE DRAGONFLY PT
HWY 21
WYND WELLINGTON PLACE RICHMOND LINK RIDGE POINT GATE RMU WILSHIRE BLVD Southridge Blvd
Strathcona County
Land Use Concept Low Density Residential Storm Water Management Facility E Estates Residential Commercial including Lots Medium Density Residential N Neighbourhood Service City of Fort Saskatchewan High Density Residential Institutional Southfort Area Structure Plan High Density Street Oriented Freeway Municipal Boundary Mixed Use Arterial Park & Ride Site Residential Mixed Use Potential Arterial * Urban Forest Corridor Park Collector Lot Parcel Potential School Site Potential Collector Potential Private School Site Optional Collector Note: All size, locations, and areas depicted are conceptual. Actual location & size will be determined through the outline plan and subdivision approval process. The number, size, and location of future school sites may change in response to student demographics. Building of new schools and other institutional uses is dependant upon provincial funding. March 2019