Mountain Home School District |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
3-26-08 Letter to the Editor
PowerPoint Presentation
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
2004 Statewide Educational Facilities Assessment Report Statewide state of condition of
academic facilities |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Facilities Condition / Educational
Suitability Reports Adobe Reader required to view & print files
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
More about Facility Condition
(Page 19) "Facility Condition consists of two variables. The first is Current Deficiencies. Deficiencies include ANY ITEMS THAT REQUIRE REPAIR (emphasis added), in the following system categories (site, roofing, exterior, structural, interior, plumbing, electrical, HVAC, technology, fire & safety and specialties), as identified by the assessment teams. This might include the need for new flooring, replacement of carpets, or problems associated with wiring. "The second variable is Year Zero Lifecycle. Included in this category are systems identified by the assessors based on their age, which have expired." These items were identified by the state's own building assessment teams and prioritized in the following manner: "Priority 1: Mission Critical Concerns -- These issues are considered deficiencies or conditions that directly affect the school’s ability to remain open, or deliver the educational curriculum. These deficiencies typically include items related to building safety, accessibility codes, severely damaged or failing building components and other items that require near term correction. These are also deficiencies that are currently contributing to further degradation of other building components. These are primarily systems and conditions that have failed. "Priority 2: Concerns with an Indirect Impact to the Educational Mission --Items found, that if not addressed in the near term, may progress to a Priority 1 item. These include poor roofs that, if they deteriorate further, will cause deterioration of integral building systems, HVAC and plumbing issues that may render the building unusable if not addressed, and other items that require repair in order to keep the facility in appropriate operating condition. These are systems that are at risk of failing possibly within the year. "Priority 3: Short Term Conditions -- These items are necessary to the mission of the school, but may not require immediate attention. These items should be considered as necessary improvements requiring incorporation in order to maximize efficiency and usefulness of the facility. Priority 3 items include site improvements and improvements to other important systems. Priority 1,2, and 3 deficiencies may be referred to as those items needing correction in order to keep the facility “safe, dry and healthy. "Priority 4: Long Term Requirements -- These items or systems are likely to require attention within the next five years, or would be considered an enhancement to the instructional environment. The enhancements may be aesthetic or may provide greater functionality. Examples include cabinets, finishes, paving, removal or abandoned equipment, and educational enhancement associated with special programs."
Regarding the Facility Condition Index, according to Page 23 of the 2004 State Report, buildings with an FCI of less than 30% are considered to be in "relatively better condition." Those with an FCI of over 50% are considered to be in need of major renovation or replacement. (Page 23) MH School's FCI's for academic buildings range from .89% at the high school to 6.13% at Guy Berry. (These statistics can be found on the District-wide facilities condition report, above.) The 2004 State Report also says: "To provide an understanding of the comparisons from school to school, use the FCI. To gain an understanding of the longer term costs use the total facility condition costs. To gain an understanding of the shorter-term costs, use the priority 1 & 2 costs." (Page 27) BCFT has done just this, using the numbers given to us by the state of AR. We are not arguing the fact that work is needed to keep our schools in proper order; what we're concerned with is how much, and at what cost. Not just to be difficult, as our detractors seem to believe, but to keep the cost to the taxpayers of this district as low as possible, while still delivering the quality education we all want for our kids and grandkids. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
More about Educational Suitability
& Existing Facilities (Page 33) To determine Educational Suitability, the space guidelines were applied to all existing schools in Arkansas. A program space model based on size and type of schools was applied and if a school had more space than required, no cost was identified. If there was less space than required, the cost of the additional space was determined. Based on the suggested space requirements, it is interesting to note the statewide comparison above. The problem clearly lies not in the required amount of space, but in the location of space.
BCFT's research into the state-prepared reports shows that based on gross square footage, the district has enough space, even allowing for growth, for several years. The problem lies in how that space is allocated. MHSD administration has decided this inequity is reason enough to demolish part of Nelson-Wilks-Herron and build a new elementary school across town. It is possible to have an existing building that meets gross square footage standards but has other areas that are below standard. According to the AR School Facility Manual, the state's standards and guidelines "will apply to new school facilities and new additions to existing buildings." (See Section 2, Chapter 1: Standards & Guidelines, p. 1000-1, first paragraph.) Another section in the AR School Facility Manual on existing buildings says: "Consideration should also be given to realistically maintaining existing spaces and functional areas, although not originally designed in accordance with new facility space standards, with application of the new space standards where practical." (See Section 2, Chapter 1: Standards & Guidelines, p. 1200-1, last paragraph.) In our opinion, this confirms that there are other options available besides building a new $18 million elementary school, and there is no immediate need to bring all parts of every building up to the new standards. A less-ambitious, less-costly construction plan should suffice. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Overage calculator
|
