2015-01-22 Facilities Report 2013-14
Clearview School Division No. 71Success is measured one child at a timeFACILITIESREPORT2014 Report forClearview PublicSchoolsJanuary 29, 20155031 – 50th Street P.O. Box 1720 Stettler, Alberta T0C 2L0 (P) 403.742.3331 (F) 403.742.1388 Website: www.clearview.ab.ca
Prepared byPeter Neale, Associate Superintendent, Business and FinanceRussell McKay, Director of Maintenance and Custodial Services(Information is quoted from Government of Alberta websites and publications)The material contained within this report is for the sole purposes of Clearview School Division No. 71.January 20152 Page
1 Executive SummaryThe purpose of the Facilities Report is to provide the Board of Trustees of Clearview School Division No. 71(Clearview Public Schools) with a tool that enables the Board to understand the condition of the school facilitiesof the Division, and assist the Board and Administration in making decisions that will provide quality educationalfacilities for the education of the Division’s student population, and quality workplaces for the Division’semployees.The report outlines Alberta Infrastructure’s Capital Plan Objectives and Funding Priorities.The report contains the Capital Submissions to Alberta Infrastructure for the school modernization andgymnasium at Stettler Middle School, the Modular request for Gus Wetter School in Castor, Capital Projects inProgress, the Infrastructure Maintenance Renewal (IMR) reports for 2013‐2014 and 2014‐2015 and the AlbertaInfrastructure’s Inspection Reports.Overall the Division educational facilities are in good condition and there are no critical issues at the Division’sfacilities. Maintenance items have been addressed, however due to funding reductions of close to 250,000from the removal of special education considerations, this may not be the case in future years. During the year,the modernization of Wm. E. Hay Composite High School was completed, and the final statement of cost wasfinalized with Alberta Infrastructure. Further, capital projects for remediation of the Erskine Gym Ceiling and theStettler Elementary School Roof were finalized in early 2015.During 2012‐13, Clearview participated in a value analysis process with Alberta Infrastructure to assess thescope, need, and costs for a modernization at the Stettler Middle School. The report on this process is availableon the Clearview Public Schools website (below). During 2013‐14, a committee of school stakeholdersdeveloped a vision for a shared facility in the Town of Stettler, and the Board is supporting with a communityexploratory process to develop the initiative further.Clearview has one capital priority at this time, represented by the Stettler Middle School modernization and gymreplacement. Two classrooms have been requested from Alberta Infrastructure for Gus Wetter School.One high‐value maintenance project is at Coronation School for parking lot remediation ( 305,000). This projectwill be reviewed during 2015 once infrastructure maintenance renewal funding is finalized and all resources areunderstood. This is currently reflected in the planning for infrastructure maintenance renewal in 2014‐15.Clearview’s strategic plan identifies three metrics to determine the success of maintaining our buildings: at least65% of schools are in good condition (FCI under 15%), less than 3% of schools are in poor condition (FCI over40%), and all other schools are in at least fair condition (FCI of 15% to 40%). FCI is the ratio of the cost to correctcurrent and future (five year) physical condition deficiencies, relative to current facility replacement value. AllClearview schools are under the FCI of 15% and therefore meet the criteria of success established by the Board.The highest FCI is Botha School at 13.67% FCI.On the Clearview Public Schools’ website, readers are able to access additional information including Clearview’s IMR reports, the 2012‐13 value analysis report for the Stettler Middle School, the Shared Facilities Committee Report, prior facility reports, and capital plans:http://www.clearview.ab.ca/FacilitiesReaders that are interested in more detailed information on the Alberta Government’s capital planning can access the AlbertaEducation/Alberta Infrastructure “School Capital Manual” (Oct 2013) using the below Page 3
The 2014 Facilities Report is meant to be used as a guideline for discussion, a starting point for future FacilitiesReports, and relies on the accuracy of Alberta Infrastructure’s Inspection Reports.Table of Contents1Executive Summary . 32Clearview Division Map . 63Introduction . 73.1Facility Assessment: Overview of Process . 73.2Alberta Infrastructure: Capital Plan Objectives . 83.3Alberta Infrastructure: Capital Plan Funding Priorities . 93.4Alberta Infrastructure: Area, Capacity Utilization Rate Calculations . 103.4.1Area and Capacity Calculations. 103.4.2Utilization Rate Calculation. 103.5Alberta Education: Infrastructure Maintenance and Renewal (IMR) Funding . 113.6Alberta Education: Plant Operations and Maintenance (POM) Funding . 124Division Summary . 144.1Summarized School Facility Evaluations . 144.1.1Big Valley School . 144.1.2Botha School . 144.1.3Brownfield School . 144.1.4Byemoor School . 154.1.5Coronation School . 154.1.6Donalda School . 154.1.7Erskine School . 164.1.8Gus Wetter School . 164.1.9Stettler Elementary School . 164.1.10Stettler Middle School . 174.1.11Wm. E Hay Composite High School (data included is pre‐modernization) . 174.2Facilities Condition Index . 184.3Facility Leases . 184.4Capital and Maintenance Overview . 194.4.1Proposed Three Year Capital Plan: New Construction and Modernization . 194.4.2New Modular Requests for 2015‐2016. 204.4.3Capital Projects in Progress . 214.4.4IMR Actual – 2013‐2014 . 234.4.5IMR Plan – 2014‐2015. 254.4.6Major Maintenance Issues by School . 274.4.7Long‐term Repair and Replacement Projections 2015‐2018 . 28Page 4
5Shared Facilities Committee . 296Goals for 2014‐15. 307Exhibit A ‐ Detailed School Facility Evaluations. 317.1Big Valley School . 317.2Botha School . 347.3Brownfield School . 377.4Byemoor School . 407.5Coronation School . 437.6Donalda School . 467.7Erskine School . 507.8Gus Wetter School . 537.9Stettler Elementary School. 567.10Stettler Middle School . 597.11Wm. E Hay Composite High School . 628Exhibit B – 2013‐2014 IMR Funding Summary . 659Exhibit C – 2013‐2014 POM Funding Summary . 6610Exhibit D – Breakdown of POM per Site . 67Page 5
2 Clearview Division MapPage 6
3 IntroductionThe primary purpose of this report is to examine the facility conditions which influence the achievement ofsuccess by the Division’s student population, and affect the workplace environment for the Division’semployees.The three components of the report are: The Capital Plan, as submitted to Alberta InfrastructureThe IMR reports for 2013‐2014 and 2014‐2015Facilities Evaluations, as performed by Alberta Infrastructure, with some adjustments for knownchanges. For 2013‐14, school buildings evaluated were Wm. E. Hay Composite High School andCoronation School, the results of which are reflected in this report. For 2014‐15, school buildings beingevaluated are Botha School and Donalda School, the results of which will be reflected in next year’sreport.With limited resources of time and funds, school divisions across the province are required to provide qualityeducation in quality facilities to students. The options available to school divisions are numerous. The reasonfor this report is to provide the Board of Trustees for the Clearview School Division No. 71 (Clearview PublicSchools) with the tools to understand the condition of the various school facilities in the Division, and to assistthe Board and Administration make choices that will improve the quality of facilities as it relates spaces andprograms.3.1 Facility Assessment: Overview of ProcessPurposeThe purpose of this section of the plan is to examine the relationship between the educational spaces in thefacilities and the ability of those spaces to provide an appropriate setting for the programs being deliveredbased on the condition of the facilities. Specific maintenance and technical items are addressed in the ReCAPPCondition Performance Measure Reports provided by Alberta Infrastructure.DefinitionsEnrolments: Enrolments for September 30, 2014 are assumed as those representing current enrolments.Utilization Rate: In all cases it is assumed that the most efficient use of a facility would be represented by an 85%utilization rate, which is determined by utilization rates formulae from Alberta Infrastructure. At 85% utilizationa facility is determined to be full.ProcessInformation gathered is processed and then categorized into three principal groups for each facility. Facility Profile Observations and commentsPage 7 Recommendations
Facility ProfilePertinent characteristics identified are:Year builtHistory of growthEstimated replacement costGrades servedNumber of permanent classroomsNumber of portable classroomsEnrolmentCapacityGross areaUtilizationObservations and commentsIn this section of the plan, factors which are more general in nature are identified. Some will require ongoingmonitoring and may require attention at some point in the future. Deficiencies in space provisions are identified where program needs are affected,Health and safety concerns are identified, andGeneral observations with regard to any obvious physical deficiencies are noted.RecommendationsThe recommendations made at this level of the plan address whose issues which: Should be addressed immediately,Should be addressed within a three to five year time frame,Require new construction, orRequire modernization.3.2 Alberta Infrastructure: Capital Plan ObjectivesAlberta Infrastructure Capital Funding Programs – IMR, Modernization/Preservation and New ConstructionProjects – are designed to enable school boards to prolong the life of existing school buildings, provide newschool space and to improve the physical quality and the functional adequacy of a school. Basic objectives ofthese programs are to: Accommodate local decision‐making in the planning and provisions of school facilities to meet studentand curriculum needs,Address the need for financial equity among school boards,Provide equity in the provision of educational facilities for Alberta students,Increase utilization of existing educational space, and ensure schools are safe and healthy environmentsfor learning,Prolong the life of school buildings,Provide new space where other viable alternatives do not exist,Provide full funding for approved projects, on the basis of cost guidelines established by AlbertaInfrastructure (no local contribution factor included),Provide provincial financial support that reflects all legitimate capital costs such as current constructioncosts, consultant fees, site development and furniture and equipment costs, andPromote advances in building technology, sustainability and design.Page 8
3.3 Alberta Infrastructure: Capital Plan Funding PrioritiesAlberta Infrastructure’s provincial priorities for capital funding allocations are:1. Health and Safety –Impact on health and safety of occupants of not proceeding with the project(e.g., replacement or essential modernization to correct unsafe conditions or prevent a majorbuilding failure).2. Building Condition – Facility audit scores and the facility condition evaluation is a key tool forgovernment and school boards' long‐term capital planning processes. It assists with determiningpriorities for investing in maintenance, upgrades and new infrastructure.Reviews are ongoing within a five‐year cycle so that each school is re‐evaluated five years followingits last review. The evaluation report generated from each review provides a "snapshot" of thephysical condition and building systems at that specific point in time. The review anticipates theamount and cost of maintenance work that may be required over the next five years to keep theschool in good condition.3. Utilization Rates – Utilization of existing facilities. The utilization formula is used as a measure of therelative occupancy levels of a school. When a facility reaches or exceeds a utilization of 85 per centcapital expansion may be considered.A high utilization rate at a school will not automatically result in the construction of additionalinfrastructure. Demographic trends, total utilization of the area, funding considerations and overallprovincial priorities are also taken into consideration, along with the relative priorities for schoolcapital projects identified by each of the school jurisdictions in their Three‐Year Capital Plans.4. Enrolment Projections ‐ Trends and subsequent school board plans for the accommodation ofstudents.5. Education Program Delivery – Alignment with the direction the board has described in the Three‐Year Education Plan.6. Additional Information, including opportunities for partnership/collaborations between one or moreschool jurisdictions and/or other partners and other supplementary information such as sitereadiness, studies, regional plans.Education then prepares the annual submission for the provincial Capital Planning Prioritization Process. Otherconsiderations include:7. Program Delivery Impact – Importance of the project to achieving ministry program deliveryrequirements.8. Infrastructure Performance – Recognition of infrastructure that is generally in greater need ofatt
13 value analysis report for the Stettler Middle School, the Shared Facilities Committee Report, prior facility reports, and capital plans: . Specific maintenance and technical items are addressed in the ReCAPP . Building Condition – Facility audit scores and the facility condition evaluation is a key tool .
2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 . Removal handle Sound output / wax protection system. 11 Virto V-10 Custom made shell Battery door Volume control (optional) Push button Removal handle . Before using
Alter Metal Recycling . 13 . 9/21/2015 156.73 9/24/2015 66.85 9/27/2015 22.24 9/30/2015 35.48 10/3/2015 31.36 10/6/2015 62.97 10/9/2015 36.17 10/12/2015 80.48 10/15/2015 84.99 10/18/2015 90.93 10/21/2015 82.
Phonak Bolero V70-P Phonak Bolero V70-SP Phonak Bolero V50-M Phonak Bolero V50-P Phonak Bolero V50-SP Phonak Bolero V30-M Phonak Bolero V30-P Phonak Bolero V30-SP CE mark applied 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 This user guide is valid for: 3 Your hearing aid details Model c
PB Oil and Gas Facilities February 2015 66 Oil and Gas Facilities February 2015 February 2015 Oil and Gas Facilities 1 February 2015 Oil and Gas Facilities 67 Prediction of Heavy-Oil Viscosities With a Simple Correlation Approach A. Bahadori, Southern Cross University, and M. Mahmoudi and A. Nouri, University of Alberta Ghett
2015-00732 ms. leima chanu shakti yambem 2015-00733 ms. fathima mufsina 2015-00735 mr. sanchit bhatia 2015-00743 ms. shiva manwatkar 2015-00746 mr. iytha sai mourya 2015-00748 ms. sohini das 2015-00755 ms. sahitya srinivasa rao 2015-00763 ms. rajasi chetan dharia 2015-00766 ms. manjushree ramakrishna 2015-00767 mr. abhishek narayan hl
Peekskill, NY 10566-8515 carlos.rodriguez@us.army.mil Jan. 2015 845 Feb. 2015 980 Mar. 2015 500 Apr. 2015 420 May. 2015 75 Jun. 2015 10 Jul. 2015 10 Aug. 2015 5 Sep. 2015 10 Oct. 2015 55 3,830 4 DMNA Armory Carlos Rodriquez Nov. 2014 200 10 West 195 Street Tel. #: 518-605-5183 Dec. 2014 534 Bronx, NY 10468-3072 carlos.rodriguez@us.army.mil Jan .
7.5 – References 62 7.5.1 Port Authority (All Facilities) 62 7.5.2 Aviation Facilities 63 7.5.3 Port Facilities 65 7.5.4 PATH Facilities 65 7.5.5 Real Estate Facilities 65 7.5.6 Tunnels, Bridges and Terminals 66 7.6 – FAQ 67
Under the terms of the Specialized Mental Health Rehabilitation Act of 2013, a number of facilities previously categorized as General Long-Term Care facilities were re-classified as Specialized Mental Health Rehabilitation Facilities (SMHRF). These facilities are: Health Service Area 2 Sharon Health Care Woods, Peoria Health Service Area 4
