DEKALB COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT SEPTEMBER 12, 2011Super Cluster 1 – High Schools Chamblee HS 43.32 108% 2 Cross Keys HS 75.44 79% Dunwoody HS 77.79 120% SC1 High School Average 65.51

10-YEAR FACILITY MASTER PLAN

DEKALB COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT

SEPTEMBER 12, 2011

DEKALB COUNTY SCHOOLS�� TEN-YEAR FACILITIES MASTER PLAN �� SEPTEMBER 12, 2011 2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction ................................................................................................................... 3

Approach ....................................................................................................................... 3

Recommendations ........................................................................................................ 5

TABLE OF APPENDICES

Appendix 1. Tables of Master Plan Recommendations ............................................. 7

Appendix 2. Combined Score Explanation ............................................................... 13

Appendix 3. Map of Super Clusters ........................................................................... 14


INTRODUCTION

DeKalb County School System (DCSS) is the third largest school district in the State of Georgia and serves

over 98,000 students. While it is the third largest, it has the largest number of facilities of all school

districts in the state. As such, it is important for the DeKalb County Board of Education (the Board) to

develop a strategic plan for its facilities into the future decade. This document provides DCSS with a

ten-year strategic plan on the use of its facilities. The overarching principle used in the development of

this plan is to ensure quality educational facilities into the future while maintaining cost efficiency to the

highest degree.

This ten-year facility plan document has been prepared in collaboration and in support of three

important strategic planning efforts. The district is currently preparing for the voters to decide on the

fourth installment of the educational special purpose local option sales tax (SPLOST IV) in Fall 2011.

SPLOST IV would provide funding from July 2012 through June 2017. The school district participates in

the Georgia Department of Education’s (DOE) capital outlay program and is therefore mandated to

develop a five-year local facility plan (LFP); the District is working on the next plan with anticipated

adoption by the Board in May 2012. Finally, the Board recently consolidated schools throughout the

district, effective the Fall 2011.

APPROACH

To develop the recommendations for the ten-year facilities master plan, Parsons, MGT of America

(MGT), and DCSS defined a set of cut points to prioritize facility renovation and replacement projects.

The cut points were then applied to the combined score for each school. Facilities with combined scores

that fell within or below a certain cut point threshold were slated for renovation or replacement and the

phase of when the improvement would occur was determined by the combined score.

The recommendations in this plan are based on the following priority cut points:

Table 1

DeKalb County Schools

Priority Cut Points for Recommendations

Phase Years SPLOST Combined Score Guidelines

2 FY 2013 – 2017 IV < 54 Replacement School

54 – 60 Limited Renovation

3 FY 2018 – 2022 V 54 – 60 Replacement School

60 – 65 Renovations

4 FY 2023+ VI+ 65 – 70 Renovations

Source: MGT of America, Inc., 2011.


It is important to note the following regarding the priority listing shown above:

� The phasing for these priorities begins with Phase 2 because Phase 1 of the master plan consists

of the redistricting and consolidation decisions implemented for the 2011-12 school year.

� The SPLOST column is meant to show the funding source anticipated for each phase. The

master plan phases and the total SPLOST projects are not the same. The SPLOST funding

traditionally has been utilized for both master plan priorities and regular on-going capital

projects.

� The values of the combined scores are and will be fluid over the course of the master plan. As

facilities are improved and/or experience further decline, the value of the combined scores for

each facility will change and the evaluation of the conditions to reflect these changes must be

updated.

� The combined score guideline is meant to be the first look at the prioritization process. In many

cases it will be necessary to examine closely each of the categories, whether the facility

condition score or the educational suitability, used to make up the combined score in order to

make final decisions.

These priority cut points were applied to each individual school and the recommended remediation

based on the needs of that super cluster. Possible remediation recommendations at a site include:

renovation, addition(s), replacement, or closure. Schools identified as a priority for renovation are those

that have low condition and/or low suitability scores. These schools are defined as needing major

renovation of the entire building. Other buildings may have some individual system needs that the

district could choose to address, i.e., roofing, HVAC, plumbing, or safety issues. These system

renovations are not covered in this facility plan, but are explicitly addressed in the capital renewal

section of the documents that support the SPLOST IV project list approved by the Board in June 2011.

For the purpose of this plan, the school district was divided into five geographic areas known as Super

Clusters 1 through 5; the sixth super cluster, which does not have a geographic area, consists of schools

that serve the entire district (the map of the schools and super clusters can be found in the appendices).

In addition to remediation at each site, MGT reviewed the needs of each super cluster and developed

recommendations based on total enrollment. In some clusters, there appear to be a sufficient number

of schools/instructional spaces, based on the planning-size targets defined by DCSS. Other clusters

appear to have too many schools or too few. Possible remediation recommendations for these clusters

include: new schools in the area, closing a school, or boundary adjustments. When a new school is

recommended, its size is based on the following planning targets: 900 students for elementary schools,

1,200 for middle schools, and 1,600 for high schools. In some cases where the current enrollment does

not justify a school of this size, it is recommended that core facilities be based on those numbers so

additional instructional spaces can be added as the enrollment increases.


RECOMMENDATIONS

Phase Two of the master plan encompasses the first five-year period of the ten-year planning period.

These recommendations would be funded by the revenues from the SPLOST IV funding source. The

recommendations in Phase Two include:

1. Replace nine schools:

a. Chamblee High School

b. McNair Middle School

c. Austin Elementary School

d. Fernbank Elementary School

e. Gresham Park Elementary School

f. Peachcrest Elementary School

g. Pleasantdale Elementary School

h. Rockbridge Elementary School

i. Smoke Rise Elementary School

2. Renovate and provide additions to Redan High School and Henderson Middle School.

3. Consolidate DeKalb School of the Arts (DSA; at Avondale High School) and DeKalb Elementary

School of the Arts (DESA) at Avondale Middle School; this will require some renovations for the

arts program and the addition of an auditorium.

4. Limited renovation to critically deficient systems at schools with scores between 54 and 60.

5. A capital renewal program for the preservation of assets, with a focus on roofing, HVAC,

plumbing, electrical, and environmental systems.

6. An annual evaluation of enrollment data to determine redistricting and consolidation needs.

The district in the past has gone for many years without redistricting and has had to catch up on

a large scale. In order to make this more manageable, it is recommended to conduct a review

every year and spot redistrict, as needed.

7. In preparation for SPLOST V and each ensuing 5-year DOE local facilities plan, the district should

conduct detailed evaluations and develop district-wide plans for:

a. Early childhood education,

b. Special education,

c. High achievers and other magnets, including arts,

d. English language learners (ELL), and

e. Career technical education, including but not limited to, science, technology,

engineering, and mathematics (STEM)

8. Reevaluation of combined scores in 2016 in preparation for SPLOST V/Phase Three.


The second five years and beyond encompass Phases Three and Four (FY 2017 and beyond). It is

recommended that DCSS:

1. Renovate and/or replace schools and other facilities based on combined scores and available

funding from SPLOST V and other sources.

2. Add capacity to facilities based on projected enrollment and available funding from SPLOST V

and other sources.

3. Relocate programs (e.g., early childhood, ELL, special needs, others) based on district-wide plans

(see #7 above).

4. Continue the capital renewal program for the preservation of assets, with a focus on roofing,

HVAC, plumbing, electrical, and environmental systems.

5. Continue the annual evaluation of enrollment data to determine redistricting and consolidation

needs.

Appendix 1 presents the master plan recommendations for each school. The recommendations are

broken out by each super cluster. Within each super cluster the schools are listed alphabetically within

the grade band – elementary school, middle school, and high school.

Capital improvements at schools that are identified with a single asterisk are dependent on the phasing

and extent of renovations depending on re-districting of new schools. As new facilities are occupied the

continued use of these facilities will be affected by the capacity and enrollment boundaries of the new

school. Schools identified with a double asterisk will receive limited renovation for usage until they are

replaced in Phase Three of the master plan.

DEKALB COUNTY SCHOOLS�� TEN-YEAR FACILITIES MASTER PLAN �� AUGUST 8, 2011 7

APPENDIX 1. TABLES OF MASTER PLAN RECOMMENDATIONS


Master Plan Recommendations

Super Cluster 1

Anticipated Funding:

Phase 2: SPLOST IV (FY 2013-2017)

Phase 3: SPLOST V (FY 2018-2022)

Phase 4: SPLOST VI & Beyond (FY 2023+)

COMBINED

SCORE

CURRENT

UTILIZATION

REPLACE

WITH NEW

FACILITY

RENOVATE ADDITION NEW SCHOOL

IN AREA

CLOSED

SCHOOLS

PROGRAM

RELOCATION

PHASE

Super Cluster 1 – Elementary Schools

Ashford Park ES 69.05 111% 4

Austin ES** 54.22 119% 2 3

Cary Reynolds ES 60.08 104% 3

Chesnut ES** 57.66 110% 2 3

Dresden ES 71.86 119%

Dunwoody ES 92.02 65%

Hightower ES 76.23 110%

Huntley Hills ES ** 55.93 101% 2 3

Kingsley ES** 59.97 88% 2 3

Montclair ES 62.93 123% 3

Montgomery ES** 58.74 105% 2 3

Oakcliff ES 74.92 114%

Vanderlyn ES 69.78 154% 4 3

Woodward ES 67.68 113% 4

SC1 Elementary School Average 66.50 107%

Super Cluster 1 – Middle Schools

Chamblee MS 89.62 92%

Peachtree Charter MS 91.39 112%

Sequoyah MS 69.75 91% 4

SC1 Middle School Average 83.59 99%

Super Cluster 1 – High Schools

Chamblee HS 43.32 108% 2

Cross Keys HS 75.44 79%

Dunwoody HS 77.79 120%

SC1 High School Average 65.51 103%

Super Cluster 1 Average 68.92 105%





Super Cluster 2





COMBINED

SCORE

CURRENT

UTILIZATION

REPLACE

WITH NEW

FACILITY


IN AREA

CLOSED

SCHOOLS

PROGRAM

RELOCATION

PHASE


Briar Vista ES * 54.43 71% 2 3

Briarlake ES 63.31 91% 3

Brockett ES 61.50 88% 3

Evansdale ES* 62.91 90% 2

Fernbank ES 53.09 119% 2

Hawthorne ES 60.17 92% 3

Henderson Mill ES** 56.61 101% 2 3

Idlewood ES 66.70 102% 4

Laurel Ridge ES** 59.77 80% 2 3

Livsey ES* 59.10 96% 2

McLendon ES 79.09 100%

Medlock ES 56.64 80% 1

Midvale ES 71.53 86%

Oak Grove ES 66.68 112% 4

Pleasantdale ES 49.89 127% 2

Sagamore Hills ES 62.62 119% 3

Smoke Rise ES 51.58 92% 2



Druid Hills MS 71.46 106%

Henderson MS 71.71 142% 2 2

Tucker MS 94.59 126%



Druid Hills HS 75.29 108%

Lakeside HS 61.24 108%

Tucker HS 92.80 107%




*Phasing and extent of renovations dependent upon redistricting of new schools

** Limited renovation to critical systems until school is replaced in Phase 3. These improvements are included as part of SPLOST IV capital improvement.




Super Cluster 3





COMBINED

SCORE

CURRENT

UTILIZATION

REPLACE

WITH NEW

FACILITY


IN AREA

CLOSED

SCHOOLS

PROGRAM

RELOCATION

PHASE


Eldridge Miller ES* 57.88 97% 2

Hambrick ES* 68.52 81% 2

Marbut ES 85.53 92%

Pine Ridge ES 60.99 61% 3

Princeton ES 94.42 96%

Rock Chapel ES 75.89 62%

Rockbridge ES 49.22 80% 2

Shadow Rock ES 85.24 92%

Stone Mill ES* 71.77 90% 2

Stone Mountain ES* 50.61 95% 2

Wynbrooke ES 94.29 98%



Champion MS** 57.52 92% 3 2

Redan MS 92.13 78%

Stephenson MS 85.17 80%

Stone Mountain MS 93.62 82%



Redan HS 57.99 114% 2 2

Stephenson HS 75.45 100%

Stone Mountain HS 63.93 99% 3









Super Cluster 4





COMBINED

SCORE

CURRENT

UTILIZATION

REPLACE

WITH NEW

FACILITY


IN AREA

CLOSED

SCHOOLS

PROGRAM

RELOCATION

PHASE


Bob Mathis ES 76.51 73%

Bouie ES 87.32 94%

Browns Mill ES 75.93 114%

Cedar Grove ES 72.24 78%

Chapel Hill ES** 54.95 94% 2 3

Fairington ES** 59.27 83% 2 3

Flat Rock ES 87.84 100%

Murphey Candler ES 72.05 71%

Narvie Harris ES 94.88 97%

Oakview ES 90.38 61%

Panola Way ES 67.10 86% 4

Rainbow ES 63.39 85% 3

Redan ES 67.53 88% 4

Stoneview ES 66.06 100% 4

Woodridge ES* 63.84 98% 2



Cedar Grove MS 84.71 81%

Chapel Hill MS 81.62 95% 2

Lithonia MS 86.96 101%

Miller Grove MS 62.23 106% 3

Salem MS 73.49 103%



Cedar Grove HS 68.43 92% 4

Lithonia HS 91.42 103%

M.L. King, Jr., HS 74.14 146%

Miller Grove HS 93.97 102%

Southwest DeKalb HS 64.73 130% 3









Super Cluster 5





COMBINED

SCORE

CURRENT

UTILIZATION

REPLACE

WITH NEW

FACILITY


IN AREA

CLOSED

SCHOOLS

PROGRAM

RELOCATION

PHASE


Allgood ES* 64.26 65% 2

Atherton ES 62.20 66% 1

Avondale ES 65.53 67% 4

Canby Lane ES 68.52 78% 4

Clifton ES* 75.52 66% 2

Columbia ES 65.29 79% 4

Dunaire ES* 68.24 87% 2

Flat shoals ES* 69.21 57% 2

Glen Haven ES 82.53 82% 1

Gresham Park ES 56.24 49% 2 1

Indian Creek ES** 58.90 102% 2 3

Jolly ES 74.37 66%

Kelley Lake ES* 71.39 75% 2

Knollwood ES* 75.33 39% 2

Meadowview ES* 61.80 82% 2

Midway ES* 72.88 62% 2

Peachcrest ES 58.10 48% 2 1

Robert Shaw ES 61.33 89% 3

Ronald E. McNair Discovery Learning Acad.* 89.34 80% 2

Rowland ES* 87.35 71% 2

Sky Haven ES 48.63 42% 1

Snapfinger ES* 74.23 51% 2

Toney ES** 53.52 74% 2 3



Avondale MS 94.13 55% 2 1

Columbia MS 93.68 86%

Freedom MS 94.94 72%

Mary McLeod Bethune MS 92.95 82%

Ronald McNair MS 57.10 60% 2



Avondale HS 60.55 81% 3 1 4

Clarkston HS 62.36 82% 3

Columbia HS 78.94 82%

Ronald McNair Sr. HS 89.15 62%

Towers HS 76.86 77%



Source: MGT of America, Inc., 2011. *Phasing and extent of renovations dependent upon redistricting of new schools





Super Cluster 6





COMBINED

SCORE

CURRENT

UTILIZATION

REPLACE

WITH NEW

FACILITY


IN AREA

CLOSED

SCHOOLS

PROGRAM

RELOCATION

PHASE


Coralwood ES 71.21 64%

DeKalb ES of the Arts at Terry Mills 86.44 76% 2

Kittredge ES 62.56 87% 3 3

Wadsworth ES** 52.18 32% 2 2

Shadow Rock Center 80.22 69%


Super Cluster 6 – Middle School

International Student Center** 53.57 51% 2 3



Arabia Mountain HS 89.40 89%

DeKalb Alternative Night School 74.48 17%

DeKalb Alternative School 74.23 32%

DeKalb Early College Academy (DECA) 95.75 57%

DeKalb HS of Technology South 62.89 N/A 3

DeKalb Transition Academy 36.03 24% 2

Eagle Woods Academy 53.58 51% 2

Elizabeth Andrews HS/DECA 93.41 54%

Warren Technical School 60.60 N/A 3







APPENDIX 2. COMBINED SCORE EXPLANATION

For the prioritization process, it is important to understand how the combined score for each facility was

determined. As discussed in the previous section of this report, the combined score was calculated by

taking the raw physical condition, educational adequacy, and technology readiness scores and applying

a weight to each of them. The weight applied to each score was 50 percent for physical condition, 40

percent for educational adequacy, and 10 percent for technology readiness. This model was based on

the relative cost for addressing the deficiencies as identified in each of those categories. Exhibit A2-1

below provides the equation example for a selected school.

Exhibit A2-1


Combined Score Equation Example – Brockett Elementary School

0.50(Physical

Condition) +

0.40(Educational

Adequacy) +

0.10(Technology

Readiness) = Combined Score

0.50(49.90) + 0.40(72.21) + 0.10(76.70) + 61.50

24.95 + 28.88 + 7.67 + 61.50


Exhibit A2-2 below provides an example of the combined score for the exhibit above and three

additional schools.

Exhibit A2-2


Combined Score Examples

School Name Condition Suitability Technology Combined

Score SCORE WEIGHTING FORMULA 50% 40% 10%

Brockett ES 49.90 72.21 76.70 61.50

Smoke Rise ES 37.10 63.40 76.70 51.60

Stephenson MS 81.51 92.29 75.00 85.17

Stone Mountain HS 66.83 57.74 74.20 63.93



APPENDIX 3. MAP OF SUPER CLUSTERS


Prepared By:

Prepared In Cooperation With:

DEKALB COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT SEPTEMBER 12, 2011Super Cluster 1 – High Schools Chamblee HS 43.32 108% 2 Cross Keys HS 75.44 79% Dunwoody HS 77.79 120% SC1 High School Average 65.51

Documents