Alaska CEFPI Meeting

December 6, 2001

Work Session on State Standards

At the Alaska Chapter Annual Conference in Anchorage, a work session was held to discuss State space guidelines and regulations associated with school planning and construction.

This session was a follow-up of the worksession that occurred on February 24, 2001, which included members of the Bond Reimbursement and Grant Review Committee and Alaska CEFPI members.

The purpose of this work session was to gain greater input on the issues. The meeting was attended by approximately 70 persons, which represented a cross-section of school officials, design and construction professionals, State Department personnel, as well as seven state legislators.

Dr. William S. DeJong, from DeJong & Associates, Inc., facilitated the worksession and was assisted by Mr. Lee Brockway AIA from Fanning/Howey Associates and Dr. Frank Locker a Fellow with DeJong & Associates.

The report of the February 24, 2001 worksession was used as a reference for this work session and should be considered a companion document to this report. Please also reference:

Opening remarks were made by Dr. DeJong summarizing the results of the February 24, 2001 work session. Additional new survey information was shared by Tim Mearig from the Alaska State Department of Education and testimonials were given by persons from Juneau and Fairbanks to further clarify some of the issues.

Participants were randomly assigned to work groups to review the information from the previous work sessions and to gain agreement where possible regarding future direction pertaining to the issues identified. At the conclusion of the work session, each group shared their recommendations.

The following is the information developed by each of the work groups.

Group # 1: General Areas of Agreement from 2/24/01

Group #1 focused on a number of issues discussed at the February 24, 2001 meeting in which there was general agreement. Please note, the numbering follows the February 24, 2001 report. They are as follows:

1.State guidelines should be general (i.e. total square feet per student) versus more specific (i.e. standards for every space in building).

2. The State of Alaska should support, basic educational programs plus typical extracurricular activities and a full range of educational programs plus extracurricular, sports and community uses.

4. The guidelines should be adjusted to include:

  1. K-3 smaller class sizes
  2. Pre-school students
  3. Special needs students
  4. Changes in educational delivery methods

5. Alaska should continue to use the CEFPI “Guide for Planning Educational Facilities” as the basic guideline for educational facilities.

7. The State square foot allocations are about right, although there may need to be some adjustments should other issues be identified.

Elementary School: 110 sq. ft. plus supplemental formula for size of school adjustment

Secondary School: 157 sq. ft. plus supplemental formula for size of school adjustment

K-12 School:combines elementary/secondary, plus supplemental formula for size of school adjustment

9. The State should adjust the space allocation formula to address the issue of gym requirements in schools with less than 250 students.

10. Develop a process to allow 6th grade students to be counted in Elementary schools for K-6 configurations and in Middle schools in 6-8 configurations.

11. Calculate existing spaces for auditoriums, community uses and other high volume spaces separately, regarding square foot allocations and for funding purposes.

12.a Develop separate policies for vocational schools.

GROUP 1: FLIP CHART ANSWERS:

State Guidelines – Keep General
  • Always need for political accountability
  • Seek State enabling legislation to support multi-use facilities
  • Guidelines adjusted – YES
  • K-3
  • Pre-school
  • Special needs
  • Delivery program
  • Electronic delivery
  • CEFPI Guidelines – YES
  • With local amendments

NOTES:

  • Figure out how to move on
  • There will be guidelines due to needs for political accountability
  • 21 School districts pay nothing to support their schools
  • Consider move toward more distance delivery
  • #7 above doesn’t address issues such a mechanical and electical
  • Develop separate policies for vocational schools
  • 10 – 11 month schools
  • How can we give greater amounts of money with broader vision
  • Joint use in smaller rural villages
  • Secondary schools and K-12 schools need more square footage allowance
  • Enabling legislation needed to enable use of existing spaces for community use
  • Guidelines should remain general
  • Need legislation to enable multi-use funded facilities – combine school, post office, health, vocational training
  • Mechanical space should not be considered part of educational space
  • Involve other stakeholders – public involvement
  • Identify guiding policies for vocational schools

------

Conclusion:

The group mostly agreed with the items stated above. There is a need to work out the details and these should be incorporated into revisions of standards, guidelines and regulations.

Group #2:Enrollment Projections

Counting Existing Space

State Space Standard Allocations

The following areas were identified as being of a moderate to high degree of concern. Please review previous work and formulate recommendations for each of the following.

Enrollment Projection Methods

FLIP CHART ANSWERS:

  • Methods/Examples from other States
  • Population trends/ demographics
  • Population spikes – more consideration

NOTES:

Spikes from military, economic, economic, charter schools
  • State provide resources for demographic projections
  • More consideration for fluctuations caused by spikes
  • State provide population trends
  • State provide examples and guidelines for demographic projections

------

Counting Existing School Space

FLIP CHART ANSWERS:

  • Increase flexibility for schools that are unable to renovate.

NOTES:

  • Allow flexibility in guidelines for schools that don’t lend themselves to renovation

------

State Space Allocations

FLIP CHART ANSWERS:

  • Areas of Concern
Voc EdFood Service & Storage

Special EdCirculation areas

GymCommunity Use

AdminMechanical

NOTES:

Voc Ed, gym space, food service, admin space, food storage, circulation space, special education, community space, and mechanical space are all areas components that don’t often fit with in the space allocation budgets.

Conclusion:

The group suggested that there should be a uniform system for enrollment projections and that some local districts do not have the demographic expertise needed.

The group also indicated that there needed to be more flexibility to address issues associated with existing space and that space guidelines needed to be adjusted for a variety of issues associated with support areas, special types of schools as well as programmatic needs.

Group # 3: Separate Policy for Space Allocations Associated with:

Boarding Schools

Regional Schools

Joint Ventures with Colleges & Universities

Correspondence and Cyber Schools

Out-of-District Students and State-wide Programs

Charter Schools

The following areas require separate policies, however in some of these areas there are issues associated with operations and other issues that should first be addressed.

Voc-Tech Schools
Boarding Schools
Joint ventures with community
colleges and universities
Charter Schools

FLIP CHART ANSWERS:

  • Background – Legislature
  • Program vs. Facilities

GalenaBethelMt. Edgecombe

NenanaNome

  • Who counts the child?Village Regional
New Construction – difficult

Foundation Formula – operationally easier

  • Objectives in Village vs. BD School
  • Flexibility – Part time village & Regional

Movement of instructor

  • Not all or nothing – Village or BD School
  • Range vs. rule – justify

NOTES:

  • Can there be dual allocation?
  • Want clarification on joint ventures.
  • Model SF/student
  • Controversy – death of villages
  • St. Mary’s boarded up school
  • Villages want kids to stay at home
  • Which district gets allocation for the student?
  • Objectives for education in villages will differ dramatically from those in a boarding school in a separate district.
  • Need flexibility to allow student part time in village and part time at boarding school
  • Move instructors to village vs. moving students to instructors
  • Villages need more flexibility in planning for projected population

------

Conclusion:

The discussion of the group would suggest that Boarding Schools and Correspondence and cyber schools, out-of-district and statewide programs are not a primary concern at this point in time.

Charter schools may need to be looked at more closely.

Group # 4: Mechanical/Electrical Spaces

Net to Gross Space Allocations

Future Growth

Outbuilding Allocations

Covered Play and Entry Areas

The following areas were identified as being a high degree of concern. .

Mechanical/Electrical Spaces
Net to gross

FLIP CHART ANSWERS:

  • High level of concern
  • Break linkage between support and program space
  • Do not make the two areas compete for the same source of square footage

NOTES:

  • Allow for at least two boilers for redundancy – small boilers can be more easily replaced [especially schools in remote areas]
  • Mechanical spaces are consistently too small in schools
  • Mechanical systems should be less complex – easy to operate and repair
  • Mezzanine spaces will now be counted at 100% instead of 25%
  • Mezzanine have been used to get more space, but usability is decreased
  • Need to have a way to use common sense rather than an inflexible rule or formula
  • Putting mechanical equipment on the roof or hanging it from the structure to avoid using area is often a disaster
  • Mechanical/Electrical should be considered as a necessary function that is separate from the educational space. Focus needs to be to break the image

------

The following area was identified as being a high degree of concern. .

Future growth of Core Curriculum

FLIP CHART ANSWERS:

  • High level of concern
  • Regulations should allow a farther look into the future – be able to justify future additions and build sufficient core areas

NOTES:

  • Several of us have projects where larger core facilities to allow for future expansion
  • If can justify w/ demographics, must have a way to build core facilities for future expansion.
  • Need to go through exercise of evaluating where enrollment is going in the next 5 – 10 years.
  • Urban areas will probably continue to grow. Other areas are more difficult to analyze.
  • Regulations dealing w/ justification need to be revised. We look backward – need to look forward.
  • Schools in bush areas have a “build it and they will come” syndrome. This should be considered as demographics are reviewed.
  • In small communities demographics may not support a new school when one is absolutely necessary.

------

The following area was identified as being a low degree of concern. .

Outbuilding allowances

FLIP CHART ANSWERS:

  • Moderate to low concern
  • Not inhabitable – let budget take care of it

NOTES:

  • Need to define outbuildings- assume uninhabitable – i.e. storage buildings
  • Uninhabitable outbuildings should not be counted in inventory
  • Districts need to evaluate inventory in a responsible way and get rid of the junk

------

The following area was identified as being a high degree of concern. .

Covered play and entry areas

FLIP CHART ANSWERS:

  • High level of concern
  • Somewhat of a regional concern depending on climatic conditions
  • Take these out of space regulations and let the budget take care of them

NOTES:

  • Covered areas are very important in Alaskan schools and should be provided
  • Covered areas are a high priority for life safety
  • Covered play areas are a regional issue – some areas need them more than others
  • If budget is o.k., why be concerned about covered play areas?
  • Concern that architects/owners may play games and build walls around covered play areas in the future
  • Many schools have designed covered bus areas – these should not count.
  • Covered ramps and exit stairs are very important and should not impact area allocations

------

Conclusion:

The direction of the group is to address the special needs of Mechanical/ Electrical, Net to Gross, Core Space to allow for Future Growth, Covered Play and Entry Areas.

There is less of a concern with Outbuilding Allowances.

Group # 5Guidelines for Outdoor Spaces

There was a moderate to low concern with:

Guidelines for outdoor spaces

FLIP CHART ANSWERS:

  • Covered vs. open
  • 15% building area for covered is existing regulation – based on walkways, not play areas
  • Open is not regulated
  • RECOMMENDATION: Don’t regulate area. Leave to budget evaluation – add a covered area alternative
  • Open spaces have spatial “regulations”- whether by sports associations, zoning, or educational specifications
  • Urban needs differ from rural
  • Topography, climate, available space dictate areas
  • Excessive regulations may hamper districts’ site selections for saved areas
  • Location (geology & transportation to import materials) limit development due to economics.
  • North Slope’s indoor playgrounds (due to extreme climate) reduce educational space available
  • Outdoor spaces need to allow for master plans
  • RECOMMENDATION: possibly provide performance vs. prescriptive guides
  • Must be responsible to budgets at both local & State level – using all available budget may hurt another’s funding

NOTES:

Generally the same as the flip chart answers above

------

Conclusion:

There is less of a concern regarding the guidelines of outdoor spaces but it needs to be addressed in a manner that accounts for regional climatic conditions.

Group # 6: Criteria to Determine When a Building Should Be

Replaced

The following area was identified as being of a moderate concern.

Replacement criteria

FLIP CHART ANSWERS:

  • Building condition issues (structural, code, safety, etc.)
  • Educational adequacy
  • Site constraints – size and safety
  • Phasing, sequencing, & temporary facilities
  • Historical (community value)
  • Comparison of alternatives
  • Education delivery model (grade groupings)

NOTES:

  • Recycle existing structure when possible
  • Not feeling forced to use or reuse bad design in existing buildings
  • Inadequate land space for many village school sites – renovation on an existing site may not be practical
  • Criteria needed to eliminate buildings that are used that were never intended to function as a school
  • Criteria can’t become limiting
  • Historical trends – BIA & Molly Hooch
  • If and when school is approved for replacement – how much space?

------

Conclusion:

There is a moderate concern regarding the issues of criteria for building replacement. There were no specific recommendations made.

GROUP # 7 Other IDEAS

This group was given the task to identify areas that may have been overlooked. The following items were identified:

  • Justifying increased core facilities for future growth
  • Case study – does population growth follow projections
  • Waiver process for square foot area streamline and appeals board
  • Combining Major Maintenance and New Construction
  • Guidelines for numbers of bathroom fixtures – rural
  • Educational Hubs – boarding schools
  • Teacher housing in rural areas
  • Composite school / Community facilities
  • Growth due to new development

1