Reshape Schools

The Facilities Assessment conducted over the last eight months has yielded a large volume of data about the condition of all District facilities. This information is summarized below. As with any collection of data, an explanation can aid understanding. The hyperlinks reveal the raw data.

School Deficiency Listing: School Details

The School Deficiency Listing shows the specific items at each school/facility that need repair or replacement, such as electrical, technology, exterior, interior, plumbing issues, etc. Each item has a priority ranking:

Priority 1: Mission Critical Concerns (Immediate)

These deficiencies typically include items related to building safety, code compliance, severely damaged or failing building components, and other items that require near-term correction and may directly affect the school’s ability to remain open or deliver the educational curriculum.

Priority 2: Indirect Impact to Educational Mission (Year 1)

Priority 2 items are concerns that need to be addressed in the near term before escalating into Priority 1 items. Leaky roofs that may cause deterioration of other integral building systems are typical Priority 2 items.

Priority 3: Short -Term Conditions (Years 2-3)

These items should be considered as necessary improvements requiring correction to maximize facility efficiency and usefulness, but are not as urgent as Priority 1 and 2 concerns. Priority 3 items include additions to schools, site improvements, and improvements to other important systems.

Priority 4: Long-Term Requirements (Years 3-5)

Items or systems which are likely to require attention within the next five years or would be considered an enhancement to the instructional environment make up the group of Priority 4 concerns. Examples include cabinets, finishes, paving, and removal of abandoned equipment.

Priority 5: Enhancements

These items could be considered enhancements to the educational environment, including items like landscaping or signage.

Schools/facilities are categorized five ways based on the amount of repair needed. Generally, larger systems (i.e., electrical, boiler, roofing systems, etc.) that are past their useful life are more likely to earn a “Very Poor” rating.

Each school has a series of options for recommended upgrades, ranging from minor repairs to a complete replacement of the school.

The City of Portland maintains a Historic Resource Inventory and has identified schools with the greatest historical significance. When the Inventory was last completed, a ranking system indicated greater or lesser levels of historical importance. Schools that became more than 50 years of age since the Inventory was created will need to be evaluated for historical significance. The Facilities Assessment takes those rankings into consideration as options are considered for the future of individual schools.

The assessment work produced a cost of repair for every school and facility in the District. This report lists the historical city rating, current enrollment, size of the school/facility and the “Total Cost w/Life Cycle.” The “Total Cost w/Life Cycle” is the cost of all the repairs required as of 2008 plus the costs of repairs required over the next 10 years as additional major building systems (i.e. electrical, roof, boiler, etc.) pass their useful life.

Also listed is an "FCI w/Life Cycle rating." This number is the ratio of the repair cost to the cost of replacing the school, including elements that are due to wear out in the near future. The closer these repair costs are to the full replacement cost of the building of the same size, the higher the rating.

Using FCI as a guide for options at a high school campus does not take into consideration that a replacement facility may not be the same size or serve the same programs as when the high school building was originally built. PPS has yet to determine those factors.

Options for every school were developed based on demographic statistics from PSU's Population Research Center, and on the facility assessments produced under contract by Magellan Consulting. Thorough review of results was provided by PPS Facilities staff, PPS Area Directors and District School Principals, City of Portland Planning Bureau staff, the consulting staff of Magellan and DeJong, Inc. (the two firms hired to conduct the assessments), public members of the Facilities Citizens' Oversight Committee, and PPS District leaders.

These options list PSU's analysis of anticipated enrollment until 2012, supplemented by the PPS' own analysis of enrollment trends. The Facility Condition Index (FCI) has been determined for each school, based on a thorough analysis of the school's condition and how each facility meets educational standards.

Using the FCI, options for bringing each school up to standards are listed, along with costs for each option. Some schools only have one option listed because deficiencies are relatively limited.

The community may expand those options as the analysis and options are presented for public review and input, beginning with the Quadrant Meetings in January 2008.

Reports