Process, Cost and Schedule Summary

Master Plan Overview

To fulfill the ideals outlined in their mission, the AUSD governing board voted to develop a Facilities Master Plan. A Master Plan is a living document that connects Albany Unified School District’s diverse and rich heritage with its vibrant future by defining a set of guiding principles and facility projects that will align its built environment with its strategic vision, acting as a long-term blueprint for meeting the changing facility needs of the District. The Master Plan is the keystone of District planning and possibly the most important tool available to direct and guide the use of District resources. As a living document, the Master Plan will continue to evolve to address the ever-changing needs of a dynamic district.

Developed with input from the Albany community and AUSD staff, the Master Plan will provide a framework and foundation for the future of the District. Its intention is to provide continual improvement for the next generation of students and families. To keep this living document relevant and a fully functional decision shaping tool, it is expected and necessary that it be modified as the variables shaping a district change (demographic shifts, growth in technology, changes in regulations and community needs, etc). These updates are necessary to assure that the District’s strategic vision is viable and appropriate.


Master Plan Process Summary

In order to develop the recommendations seen in this Master Plan, WLC Architects, Inc., along with representatives from every site, went through an extensive and energetic community participation process. In creating the assessments and determining site goals it was critical to understand the communities at each site and the character of each campus. In the context of each school’s personality, fundamental questions were asked to help understand the existing site limitations affecting student and staff safety and achievement. Solutions to these limitations were then categorized under three key priorities: code compliance, functionality, and education suitability. This information was gathered in three ways; data provided by the sites and District, site observations, and meeting with the existing site experts (students, parents and site staff, etc.).

This process began by developing a comprehensive facilities assessment, which can be found in its entirety in Appendix 2. The Albany Unified School District Facilities Assessment is a report that outlines specific building shortcomings and needs in great detail. It focuses only on the physical site and building systems such as structural, mechanical, plumbing, electrical, landscaping and code compliance. Information for this report was gathered using as-built drawings, satellite images, and a thorough site walk of each campus. Architects and engineers from all disciplines examined building contitions and took photographs which fed the content of the assessment. The Albany Unified School District Facilities Assessment accomplishes two things: First, it allows the District Maintenance and Operations staff to get a big picture idea of the needs of each site, thus providing a road map for their staff. Second, it feeds into the assessment and recommendations of this master plan, which guides the District through large scale facility changes over a period of many years.

Overall, the facilities assessment provided foundational information to understand context. The intention of the Facilities Master Plan is to further analyze the facilities beyond a ‘nuts & bolts’ assessment to consider big picture issues that consider site layout in the parking lots and drop-off, building layouts that inhibited site supervision, security, full utilization of the hardscape play areas, educational suitability of classrooms and educational support spaces, and strategic analysis to help prepare each campus for long term success.

The next step in the comprehensive analysis of each site was to meet with the site experts, or the teachers, principals, and staff who experience these facilities on a daily basis. WLC and each site had up to four scheduled meetings specifically regarding the Master Plan. The intention of the first meeting was to introduce all of the site participants to the Master Plan, what it was and how it would affect their site in the future, as well as to gather user site concerns regarding student and staff safety. The WLC staff used a satellite image to get acquainted with the site and to locate specific site issues brought up by the site committees. Additionally, specific facility concerns were recorded in the meeting minutes.

The first site committee meeting focused mainly on gathering information. This research, as well as information from the engineering team, was then used to develop a list of site needs. During the second series of site committee meetings the design team presented the list and defined its priorities. The objective of these meetings was to understand which site needs were more important to that group of people. For example, some sites found it more important to have large multi-use classrooms on site rather than have a larger library and media center. Both items are important, but if they had to choose it would be the additional teaching space. This process supports the design team with design and site phasing. Although it is ideal to incorporate all site needs in the recommendations, when the limitations of budget and schedule are introduced, the priority lists will be a valuable tool. To accomplish this understanding, each site committee member was given votes in the form of stickers which were then placed next to their desired item. At the end of the meeting the group saw the final priorities and were allowed to raise objections, however, the wisdom of the group was typically well received. The voting boards from each session are found under each site in this master plan.

The next process was developed in-house. The priorities from each site were incorporated into a graphic recommendation as well as a written recommendation. These were presented to the District steering committee throughout the duration of the master plan where they received further feedback and refinement. The recommendations were then incorporated into a cost model developed by WLC. The cost model uses the most up to date information on costs per square foot for schools in the Bay Area. A table on what these costs include is shown on page 11. The cost model is not an estimate as it has not itemized and specifically looked at every piece of information. It is more of a road map to show the magnitude of each project so informed decisions about schedule and future bonds can be made. The cost model in conjunction with a site committee analysis enabled a site prioritization schedule to be set. The site schedule was further informed by understanding the urgency of some projects over others.

In all, the Master Plan in its entirety was created through a joint effort with site staff, teachers, parents, the master plan steering committee, and District staff. Everyone who participated had a profound impact on the making of this plan and the future of your District and school. Our firm, WLC, thanks everyone for their committed support and for allowing us to be a part of the fantastic vision of Albany Unified School District.


WLC Educational Suitability Review

Various components are reviewed and considered in determining the educational suitability of a room and/or building. These include room environment, room size, flexibility, ability to meet program requirements and storage/equipment. Below is a check list of criteria noted at each site.

With regard to the room environment, the room should provide an inviting and stimulating environment for teaching and learning.

Is the spatial configuration flexible and does it support the instructional program?
Is there natural light and are the lighting levels appropriate for the educational activities?
Acoustically, are there impediments to hearing the teacher and are external noises transferred into the
Is there proper ventilation and consistent/appropriate climate control to make the room comfortable?
Do the aesthetics create an inviting learning environment?

With regard to size, the room should meet the square footage standard for the classroom program.

Is the space appropriately sized to current standards and for the grade level?
Is the space large enough to allow all the activities typically conducted in that sort of program (i.e., art, science, music, etc.)?

Location is also considered, since the room should be appropriately located for the instructional program.

Is the physical location of the room/area in relative proximity to the students who need to use it?
Does the space have appropriate proximity to other program relevant spaces?
Does its location allow for future flexibility?

With regard to classroom storage and equipment, the room should have adequate storage space and all the equipment appropriate to the program.

Does the room have adequate casework, appropriate materials, and project storage?
Are there sinks for programs that require sinks?
Is there appropriate ventilation and display space where required?
Does the space have appropriate types of flooring and easily cleanable surfaces (countertops, table tops)?
Is there access to the necessary technology and related infrastructure (i.e., capacity to darken a room to
display projected imagery)?

This analysis occurred site by site and, with the exception of the middle school and the high school, the vast majority of teaching spaces require upgrades to raise the educational suitability to industry standards. The lack of technological tools and various analogue teaching implements necessitate comprehensive upgrades. The specific nature of these changes and improvements needs to be shaped by the District’s educational mission and goals and can, in some cases, be determined by the creation of District-wide master specifications. Some of these improvements will need to be shaped/defined campus-by-campus to fit the culture and character of each site. For site specific analyses please refer to the appropriate succeeding sections.


Demographic Assessment Summary

Per District projections, enrollment numbers are expected to remain stable, with no major expected growth in the student population in the near future. This might change depending on changes to the County’s population and on statewide immigration and migration. Between 2000 and 2010 the population of Albany did grow by 2,095 new residents. Of these new residents 858 are children under the age of 18. Most of this growth has occured west of Masonic Avenue because of the rebuilding of University Village. This has directly affected Ocean View Elementary School. Our recommendations account for the past growth. For purposes of this plan, future growth will be considereded minimal.


Capacity Assessment Summary

In a summary analysis of the District’s campuses, overall the campuses are consistently close to or above capacity, with Albany Middle School being very over capacity.


State Funding Eligibility Assessment

Modernization – Based on OPSC’s website, all campuses used their modernization eligibility. All campuses are presently ineligible.

Special ED – This funding is tied to a modernization or new construction application and can be determined on a project-by-project basis.

Off-Site – This funding is tied to a modernization or new construction application and can be determined on a project?by-project basis.

Overcrowding relief – N/A

ADA – This funding is tied to a modernization application and can be determined on a project-by-project basis.

Seismic – The OPSC has loosened the requirements and there are currently 221 applications in the queue, so AUSD would need to pursue these funds after the next bond if monies are set aside for seismic work. This funding is dependent on meeting the criteria of the seismic program. Future eligibility can be determined on a project-by-project basis. Marin ES and Ocean View ES would be eligible if they get in the queue.

HPI Grants – This funding is tied to modernization or new construction applications and can be determined on a project­?by-project basis.

Prop 39 Funds – Presently, it appears that funding will be $55/$60 per ADA, plus a 15% increase for free and reduced and a minimum amount for small school districts.


Facility Assessments and Costs Summary

After visiting and assessing each of the District’s sites, a mosaic of conditions was found, from elementary schools in need of comprehensive modernizations to the middle school and high school that have been recently built. Big picture, the data confirms that throughout the District various improvements are necessary so that Albany USD’s core mission can be realized.

WLC met with the District to review the draft rough order of magnitude cost model and develop possible project phasing and priorities for the master plan steering committee to review. A rough order of magnitude cost model is not a detailed estimate, but rather a tool using square foot costs for varying levels of modernization and new construction, per the following K-12 School Construction Costs spread sheet. Each campus and building scope is assigned a cost per square foot depending on the scope of work recommended in the Master Plan. The cost model also calculates a typical design contingency, escalation, industry standard change order cost, and soft costs for each project. The high and low costs based on the K-12 School Construction Cost spreadsheet have been calculated for all of the options presented. The District expressed a strong desire to focus the bond program initially on the elementary schools, which has been reflected in the preliminary bond project phasing scenario.

Pursuant to the Master Plan Site Committee meeting on January 27, 2014, please find herein the Albany Unified School District Master Plan site options, the rough order of magnitude cost model, and the recommended bond project phasing scenario.



Costs Summary Table

K-12 Cost Summary

K-12 School Construction Costs (Greater San Francisco Bay Area)              
WLC Architects, Inc.                
Project Type: Elementary School    Middle School    High School 
Scope  Construction Cost Project Cost    Construction Cost Project Cost    Construction Cost Project Cost
Modernization Per SF Per SF   Per SF Per SF   Per SF Per SF
Minor Improvements                
Includes interior painting, some flooring replacement, some low voltage systems upgrades, repairs of existing systems $10 - $25 $15 - $36   $25 - $50 $36 - $72   $50 -$100 $72 - $143
Minor Modernization $50 - $100 $72 - $143   $75 - $125 $107 - $179   $125 - $225 $179 - $322
Basic modernization including repair or replacement of most finishes, minor upgrade or replacement of some systems.                
Major Modernization $100 - $180 $143 - $257   $125 - $205 $179 - $293    $225 - $255 $322 - $364
More involved modernization including replacement of finishes, major upgrade or replacement of all systems, voluntary seismic upgrade.                
Reconstruction $180 - $280 $257 - $400   $205 - $305 $293 - $436   $255 - $355 $364 - $507
Includes striping the building to its structure, total seismic upgrade to current code, completed replacement of systems and finishes.                
New Construction                
Low  $ 250  $ 357    $ 300  $ 429    $ 350  $ 500
Single story, wood frame, plaster exterior, basic interior finishes (VCT, painted drywall, 2x4 lay-in ceiling, meets T-24 energy requirements, minimal site issues, follows state loading/capacity guidelines                
Medium  $ 300  $ 429    $ 350  $ 500    $ 400  $ 571
Masonry and steel construction, multi-story, better interior finishes (linoleum floors, impact resistant drywall w/tackable surface, acoustic ceiling) exceeds T24 energy requirements by 15%, medium site size/issues, some special programs reducing capacity (increasing SF requirements)                 
High  $ 350  $ 500    $ 400  $ 571    $ 450  $ 643
Masonry, GFRC panels, and steel construction, multi-story, best interior finishes (terrazzo floors, impact resistant drywall w/tackable surface, acoustic ceiling meeting the 35dB sound requirements) exceeds T24 energy requirements by 25%,large site size/issues, significant special programs reducing capacity or requiring special facilities (increasing SF requirements)                 
Costs are considered a Rough-Order-of-Magnitude budget.                
Cost per SF assumes "typical" building conditions and ranges because specific scope requirements vary for each project.        
Project Costs do not include F&E, District wide bond contingency, District staff costs, Bond sales and administration cost, or interim housing.      
Soft Costs are typically 30% of Project Costs and typically include A&E, IOR, T&I, Survey, Geotech, DSA, CGS, CDE fees, Permits, and Project Construction Contingency.  
Specific stand alone specialty facilities such as science lab buildings and performing arts centers may exceed these costs.        
The SF costs may vary significantly based on the overall size, complexity and scope of a project, (i.e. larger projects have an economy of scale, but may have multiple phases effecting costs).
District Standards for class size/loading, design standards and product/system standards have a significant impact on costs.         
Costs are based on current 2013 dollars and do not include any escalation.              



Schedule Summary


schedule summary


Edited: Sara, 5/16/2014
Published: Sara, 5/16/2014