EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
MAURY COUNTY PUBLIC
SCHOOLS
March 10, 2016
Prepared By:
EMG
10461 Mill Run Circle
Suite 1100
Owings Mills, MD 21117
T: 800.733.0660
Y O U R P A R TN E R
IN
Contact Info:
Joseph Bernatowicz
Program Manager
T: 800.733.0660 ext. 6318
R E A L E S TA T E L IF E C Y C LE P LA N N IN G & M A N A G E M E N T
800.733.0660 • www.emgcorp.com
1
Table of Contents
Purpose and Scope ................................................................................................... 3
Purpose ........................................................................................................................................ 3
Scope ............................................................................................................................................ 3
Opinions of Probable Cost ....................................................................................... 5
Methodology.............................................................................................................................. 5
Overall Building Rating ........................................................................................................... 5
School Rating – Facility Condition Index..................................................................... 6
Purpose and Scope
Purpose
The purpose of EMG’s efforts was to assist Maury County Public Schools by providing valuable tools and
information as a result of its Facility Condition Assessments (FCAs). .
EMG conducted building and facilities condition assessments of twenty-two school sites.
In addition, a 20-year capital asset plan in coordination with the school district was provided.
For this effort, the major independent building components were observed and their physical conditions
were also evaluated in accordance with ASTM E2018-01, in order to evaluate the physical aspects of this
property and how its condition may affect the District’s financial decisions over time.
These components include the site and building exteriors and representative interior areas. The
estimated costs for repairs and capital reserve items were included. All findings relating to these opinions
of probable costs were included in the narrative sections of each Report.
Scope
The District contracted with EMG to conduct a comprehensive Facility Condition Assessment (FCA)
consisting of field observations, document review and related due diligence tasks for each site.
As a result, the facility assessment demonstrated the following:
 Determined the present condition and estimated life expectancy of various building systems and
components.
 Created a strategic plan for capital repairs, lifecycle component replacement and building
modernization. Anticipated facility reserve analyses - projections of ongoing degradation of facilities'
components and costs associated with the reserve or replacement of these components as they reach
the end of their useful lives
 Provided a Funding needs analysis report of deferred maintenance and systems and reserves funding
need for the next twenty years
 Established a standard operating procedure for the evaluation of sites by establishing a standard facility
assessment software platform. Establish anticipated renewal and replacement costs for the various
systems and components
 Identify and document recommended corrections for all deficiencies and provide cost estimates for
corrections. Prioritize, categorize and classify deficient conditions, associated corrective actions and
information concerning building systems and deficiency categories.
 Coordinate and consult with the updates to the master plan for prioritization of projects. The FCA will
be a guide for future replacement, repairs and improvements for the District to keep each facility in
proper working condition.
 Calculate the Current Replacement Value (CRV) and Facility Condition Index (FCI) for each site.
 The exterior and interior doors, door hardware, window systems, flooring, floor covering, walls, wall
coverings, ceiling tiles, and ceiling finishes are included in this assessment scope.
The evaluation team conducted a walk-through survey of the school buildings in order to observe building
systems and components, identify physical deficiencies and formulate recommendations to remedy the
physical deficiencies.
 As a part of the walk-through survey, the evaluation team surveyed 100% of the facility’s interior. In
addition, EMG surveyed the exterior of the properties including the building exterior and roofs.
 The evaluation team interviewed the building maintenance staff to inquire about the subject property’s
historical repairs and replacements and their costs, level of preventive maintenance exercised, pending
repairs and improvements, and frequency of repairs and replacements.
 The evaluation team developed opinions based on their site evaluation, interviews with relevant
maintenance contractors, municipal authorities, and experience gained on similar properties previously
evaluated. The evaluation team questioned others who are knowledgeable of the subject property’s
physical condition and operation or knowledgeable of similar systems to gain comparative information
to use in evaluation of the subject property.
 The evaluation team reviewed documents and information provided by the District staff that could also
aid with the knowledge of the subject property’s physical improvements, and extent and type of use.
The physical condition of building systems and related components were defined as being in one of three
conditions: Good, Fair, or Poor.. For the purposes of this effort, the following definitions were used:
Good
=
Satisfactory as-is. Requires only routine maintenance over the evaluation period. Repair or
replacement may be required due to a system’s estimated useful life.
Fair
=
Satisfactory as-is. Repair or replacement is required due to current physical condition or
estimated remaining useful life.
Poor
=
Immediate repair, replacement, or significant maintenance is required.
EMG’s calculation of probable capital needs methodology involves identification and quantification of
those systems or components requiring immediate actions or capital funding reserves over the lifecycle
horizon of the facility key components.
4
Opinions of Probable Cost
The estimates for the repair and capital reserves items were noted within the individual Facility
Condition Assessments.
These cost estimates are developed by construction resources such as R.S. Means and
Marshall & Swift, invoices and/or bid documents provided by the School system and EMG’s
experience with past costs for similar properties, city cost indexes, and assumptions regarding
future economic conditions.
Methodology
OVERALL BUILDING RATING
The 20-year Replacement Reserve Tables and the Facility Condition Index are valuable to the
Capital Facilities Plan. They are intended to provide the Maury County Public Schools with the
information necessary to properly maintain and plan for each school site. The data will allow
school districts to properly plan and prioritize capital improvements. This data is presented in
the Executive Summary Table A.
5
School Rating – Facility Condition Index
The overall rating of the buildings was determined by an FCI Ratio.
The Current Year FCI is the ratio of Immediate Repair Costs to the building’s Current Appraisal Value.
Similarly, a Five-Year ratio of anticipated Capital Reserve Needs over the next five compared to the
Current Appraised Value. Appraised Values were provided by MCPS.
FCI CONDITION
RATING
Good
Fair
Poor
Very Poor
DEFINITION
PERCENTAGE
VALUE
In new or well-maintained condition, with no visual evidence
of wear, soiling or other deficiencies.
0% to 5%
Subjected to wear and soiling but is still in a serviceable and
functioning condition.
Subjected to hard or long-term wear. Nearing the end of its
useful or serviceable life.
Has reached the end of its useful or serviceable life. Renewal
is now necessary.
School Name:
> than 5% to 10%
> than 10% to 60%
> than 60%
2016 Rating:
1 Baker Elementary
Poor
2 Central Office
Fair
3 College Hill
Good
4 Culleoka Unit School
Good
5 E.A. Cox Middle
Good
6 Hampshire Unit School
Poor
7 Highland Park Elementary
Poor
8 Howell Elementary
Good
9 J.E. Woodard Elementary
Poor
10 Joseph Brown Elementary
Poor
11 Maintenance Department
Good
12 Marvin Wright Elementary
Good
13 McDowell Elementary
Very Poor
14 Mt. Pleasant Elementary
Fair
15 Mt. Pleasant High School
Poor
16 Mt. Pleasant Middle
Fair
17 Riverside Elementary
Good
6
18 Santa Fe Unit School
Fair
19 Spring Hill Elementary
Poor
20 Spring Hill High
Good
21 Spring Hill Middle
Good
22 Whitthorne Middle
Poor
See the Executive Table A for more detailed rating information, appraised values,
and replacement costs.
7
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY – TABLE A
Year
Location
APPRAISAL
Baker Elementary
Central Office
College Hill
Culleoka Unit School
E.A. Cox Middle
Hampshire Unit School
Highland Park Elementary
Howell Elementary
J.E. Woodard Elementary
Joseph Brown Elementary
Maintenance Department
Marvin Wright Elementary
McDowell Elementary
Mt. Pleasant Elementary
Mt. Pleasant High School
Mt. Pleasant Middle
Riverside Elementary
Santa Fe Unit School
Spring Hill Elementary
Spring Hill High
Spring Hill Middle
Whitthorne Middle
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
GrandTotal (22)
$260,543,531
Greater than 60%
Between 10% - 60%
Between 5% - 10%
Less than 5%
6,437,548
2,017,386
5,509,888
22,858,120
18,106,679
8,741,234
7,127,692
10,217,217
11,699,579
7,650,311
1,039,452
10,561,521
5,897,651
9,442,715
14,589,620
15,836,467
8,223,913
12,383,260
9,544,387
29,592,367
22,149,224
20,917,300
VERY POOR
POOR
FAIR
GOOD
ALL
FCI
YEAR1
53%
7%
5%
4%
4%
16%
13%
1%
18%
57%
3%
3%
73%
10%
15%
7%
3%
7%
13%
4%
0%
13%
1
8
4
9
22
FCI
FCI
YEAR 5 YEAR 10
65%
8%
15%
14%
5%
23%
17%
8%
19%
59%
5%
4%
76%
98%
16%
12%
12%
20%
15%
13%
1%
17%
3
13
2
4
22
67%
18%
88%
71%
10%
94%
18%
15%
21%
67%
9%
13%
83%
106%
65%
21%
16%
24%
26%
18%
4%
51%
/
1
5
10
15
20
2016
2020
2025
2030
2035
$3,411,216
$132,417
$266,282
$984,263
$770,328
$1,418,548
$941,331
$81,896
$2,073,859
$4,370,529
$34,119
$275,593
$4,283,791
$916,575
$2,172,710
$1,041,018
$214,590
$861,365
$1,210,377
$1,125,492
$78,004
$2,725,560
$561,025
$24,372
$10,462
$1,371,690
$0
$132,072
$107,756
$0
$70,774
$31,592
$0
$0
$14,543
$291,351
$16,883
$0
$363,121
$33,018
$243,149
$1,503,389
$0
$870,212
$122,366
$147,791
$102,113
$11,677,017
$75,213
$956,112
$43,008
$89,510
$103,599
$0
$0
$0
$457,527
$0
$0
$0
$0
$170,737
$693,226
$1,400,687
$0
$7,087,174
$0
$62,565
$12,196
$150,233
$181,801
$53,732
$149,167
$0
$62,202
$22,838
$0
$0
$0
$29,740
$13,613
$0
$1,458,072
$57,987
$161,318
$50,154
$0
$0
$482,141
$584,272
$61,693
$964,802
$212,749
$106,789
$98,825
$0
$0
$59,555
$0
$151,503
$0
$54,604
$0
$0
$303,986
$51,441
$84,168
$0
$26,303
$6,191
$29,389,862 $5,645,410 $23,126,078 $2,465,618 $3,249,021
Total Escalated
Estimate
2016 - 2035
$4,861,538
$1,403,432
$6,081,409
$21,739,228
$7,733,552
$9,360,566
$2,006,292
$2,316,454
$3,637,731
$6,432,042
$234,235
$2,692,087
$4,936,785
$13,941,863
$20,543,688
$5,727,472
$4,317,651
$16,852,976
$5,269,769
$6,708,923
$6,170,196
$13,216,964
$166,184,853
8
12
1
1
22
The Table above shows that based on its FCI ratio, nine (9) school sites are currently in either poor or
very poor rating, four (4) sites are Fair, and nine (9) sites are Good.
If no funds are expended for capital renewal or capital improvements during the next 5 years, sixteen
(16) schools would be considered either Poor or Very Poor, two (2) sites Fair, and four (4) sites as Good.
A Facility Condition Index of 5% or less is Good Condition
A Facility Condition Index between 5% and 10% is considered Fair Condition
A Facility Condition Index between 10% and 60% is considered Poor
A Facility Condition Index greater than 60% is considered Very Poor
8
9