Boulder Valley School District Educational Facilities Master Plan

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSBoulder Valley School DistrictEducational Facilities Master PlanSpecial acknowledgement is given to the Capital Improvement Planning Committee, Board ofEducation members, staff, and MGT of America who participated in the preparation of thisreport.The following individuals earned commendation for the many long hours spent studying,researching, and envisioning the strategies and actions recommended in the Master Plan. Theirtime and commitment has made a dramatic contribution to the community’s responsibility tomaintain and improve the educational environment for students and staff in the Boulder ValleySchool District.Board of EducationHelayne JonesLesley SmithAngelika SchroederKen RobergePatti J. SmithJean PaxtonTeresa SteeleDr. George GarcíaPresident, Director District ADirector District BVice-President, Director District CDirector District DDirector District EDirector District FTreasurer, Director District GSuperintendent of SchoolsCapital Improvement Planning CommitteeKent Crawford, Co-Chair Real Estate DevelopmentSusan Churchill, Co-Chair Director District DKen RobinsonDirector District AJohn KovalDirector District BElisabeth Patterson Director District CVirginia BelvalDirector District FJan BaulsirDirector District GKatherine AllenAt LargeLinda KabothDirector District EKaren TylerAt LargeRodney SmithAt LargeMike MedinaElementary PrincipalTerry GillachMiddle Level PrincipalGinger RamseyHigh School PrincipalGail CasellaCommunity School ProgramDon Orr, Ex Officio Director of Planning, Engineering and ConstructionA special thanks to the District’s technical staff:Joe SleeperJohn BollingerLouis NovakDave ComptonBecky YoungJane BlanchardDave WilliamsonExecutive Director of OperationsEngineer, Project ManagerArchitect, Project ManagerArchitect, Facility CoordinatorCAD OperatorAdministrative SecretaryChief Information OfficerCapital Improvement Planning Committee May 2006 Page 2

Boulder Valley School DistrictEducational Facilities Master PlanTABLE OF CONTENTSEXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................. 51.0 INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................... 72.0 DATA VALIDATION, GUIDING PRINICIPLES AND OVERVIEW ........................................ 93.0 TECHNOLOGY OVERVIEW................................................................................................ 214.0 PUBLIC INPUT OVERVIEW................................................................................................ 255.0 DATA DETAIL ..................................................................................................................... 296.0 TECHNOLOGY DETAIL ...................................................................................................... 877.0 PUBLIC INFORMATION DETAIL........................................................................................ 998.0 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS........................................................................... 105Appendix I: SURVEY INSTRUMENT .................................................................................... 109Appendix II: BVSD ONLINE SURVEY .................................................................................. 111Capital Improvement Planning Committee May 2006 Page 3

Boulder Valley School DistrictEducational Facilities Master PlanThis report represents the results of this effort and contains the following sections:• Data Validation, Guiding Principles and Overview• Technology Overview• Public Input Overview• Data Detail• Technology Detail• Public Input Detail• Findings and RecommendationsCapital Improvement Planning Committee May 2006 Page 8

Boulder Valley School DistrictEducational Facilities Master Planthe K-8 schools are relatively new and meet the educational specifications. For high schools, theaverage PCI is 79 with Monarch at 92, and Centaurus at 76. PCI scores can be found in Section5.0.MULTI-USE OUTDOOR FACILITIESElementary school playgrounds along with secondary school playfields and outdoor athleticfacilities were assessed using onsite visits along with interviews with school staff includingathletic directors and coaches. These findings were compiled into separate reports, one forelementary schools and one for middle/K-8/high schools. A priority system was establishedbased on safety, usability, equity, and conditions that were then applied to all of the schools.INFORMATION TECHNOLOGYThe District’s Information Technology Department prepared a draft master plan document thatcentered around providing an enhanced infrastructure that includes upgrading the Wide AreaNetwork (WAN), upgrading LANs, installation of a single voice communication system, and avideo distribution system for educational purposes. The draft master plan has been validated byMGT.OTHER FACTORSIn addition to the numerical ratings for facility condition and program compatibility, several othernon-assessable factors may be present at given schools that can affect a school’s ability tosupport the educational programs. These non-assessable factors need to be considered in thefinal overall facility assessment, including:• Current enrollment exceeding building capacity• Future enrollment trends• Open enrollment pressure• District intent regarding destratification goals• Special programs at select schools (Special Education, ESL, Dual Immersion)• Dual programs occupying the same building (Aurora 7 with High Peaks/BCSIS andArapahoe Ridge/TEC)Capital Improvement Planning Committee May 2006 Page 11

Boulder Valley School DistrictEducational Facilities Master PlanFacility Condition Assessment (FCA)The Facility Condition Assessment identified physical deficiencies within the building systems foreach school. These deficiencies may represent items that need repair or are at the end of theirservice life, such as worn carpet or old, inefficient boilers. In addition, deficiencies could includeitems that need to be added to a building, such as air conditioning or security systems. Itemsthat may represent immediate safety or code related issues are dealt with by the District in anon-going program.Facility Condition Assessment (FCA) CategoryCategory 1Category 2Category 3Category 4Category 5Category 6Category 7Currently Critical - needsimmediate action to stopdeterioration or correct a hazardPotentially Critical - needs actionwithin 1 to 2 years to preventfurther deteriorationNecessary - Not yet critical - needsaction within 3 to 5 years topreclude deterioration or downtimeRecommended - Items that makea sensible improvement to thefacilityDoes not meet currentcodes/standardsBeyond rated life but stillserviceableHazardous material contained andmanaged in placeExamplesFire alarm improvements, exhaust issues,smoke hatches for stages, intercomimprovements, electrical issues, emergencylights, exit signsElectrical service, electrical distribution,ventilation issues, aged boilers, acousticsissues, irrigation improvements, clock systemimprovements, roofing, surge protection,intercom system, pavingHVAC improvements, site drainage, exteriordoors, exterior lighting, A/C for offices/computerrooms, painting, carpet, VCT, gym flooring,casework, windows, interior doors, replaceoperable walls, replace select exterior wallcomponents, ceilings, roofingFire sprinklers, A/C, plumbing componentenhancements and fixtures, electricalenhancementsADA toilet room improvements, drinkingfountains, and circulation improvementsReplace aged portables, replace interior doorsand hardwareAsbestos abatementCapital Improvement Planning Committee May 2006 Page 12

Boulder Valley School DistrictEducational Facilities Master PlanExamples of Facility Condition Deficiencies:Missing or damaged ceiling tiles.Older boilers exist throughout the District.Structural cracking in support structuresInefficient single pane windowswith aluminum frames.Capital Improvement Planning Committee May 2006 Page 13

Boulder Valley School DistrictEducational Facilities Master PlanProgram Compatibility Assessment (PCA)The Program Compatibility Assessment identified facility deficiencies which affected thebuilding’s ability to support the educational programs and teaching activities. The deficienciescould include the lack of instructional spaces, such as an art room or a computer lab, spaceswhich are too small for the program or the class size, and aesthetic issues which could have adirect bearing on student performance, such as natural lighting.Program Compatibility Assessment (PCA) CategoriesCategory 1Category 2Category 3Category 4Inadequate facilities that prohibitthe ability to deliver theeducational programInadequate facilities withnegative impact on functionalityand operation of the schoolInadequate facilities with minorimpact on the functionality andoperation of the schoolImprovements that are aestheticin nature, cannot be addressedwithin the structural limitations ofthe building, or are notaddressed in the EducationalSpecificationsExamplesCritical classroom additions, small groupspaces, Special Education spaces, musicadditions, applied tech labs, and science labsFaculty workrooms, other classroom additions,office additions, cafeteria additions, IMCadditions, art additions, small group spaces,consumer studies remodel, corridors,counseling, photo lab, kindergarten additions,and stage additionsPhysical education storage spaceESL spaces, preschool spaces, and art supportspacesCapital Improvement Planning Committee May 2006 Page 14

Boulder Valley School DistrictEducational Facilities Master PlanExamples of Program Compatibility Deficiencies:Art room does not provide forprogram deliveryOutdated science roomsBand room set up on cafeteria stageClassrooms lack adequate storagefor program curriculumCapital Improvement Planning Committee May 2006 Page 15

Boulder Valley School DistrictEducational Facilities Master PlanMulti-Use Outdoor Facilities (MUOF)The Multi-Use Outdoor Facilities assessment identified deficiencies in outdoor facilities, such asplaygrounds and athletic fields, which represented a Facility Condition issue and/or a ProgramCompatibility issue. The assessment included a range of priorities from necessary and/or safetyitems to enhancements. The assessment included items such as repaving play courts, addingdrinking fountains, and improving drainage on athletic fields.Multi-Use / Outdoor Facilities (MUOF) Categories (Fields/Playgrounds)ExamplesCategory 1Category 2Category 3Category 4Facility is lacking, substandard,inaccessible, orunsafeFacility does not meetcompetition standards orplayground equipmentguidelinesNonexistent or inadequateancillary facilitiesEnhancementsSafety related playground improvements, fieldimprovements, bleacher improvements, softballbleachers, and resurface trackOther playground improvements, and additionaltennis courtsPlayground amenities, baseball bleachers,press box improvements, and storageAdditional basketball backboards, expand track,and add field houseCapital Improvement Planning Committee May 2006 Page 16

Boulder Valley School DistrictEducational Facilities Master PlanExamples of Multi-Use Outdoor Facility Deficiencies:Swings do not meet Districtplayground guidelines.Climber does not meet Districtplayground guidelines.Deteriorated tennis surface.Deteriorated track surface.Capital Improvement Planning Committee May 2006 Page 17

Boulder Valley School DistrictEducational Facilities Master PlanInformation Technology (IT)The Information Technology assessment looked at five areas of specific need throughout theDistrict: Wide Area Network (WAN), Local Area Networks (LAN), Voice Over Internet Protocol(VoIP), Video distribution and facilities for housing IT equipment. Further detailed descriptions ateach school of the specific needs are provided in Section 6.0. The facility section of the ITpriorities was relocated to the FCA section of the recommendations to more appropriately alignfuture uses and needs of these spaces.An analysis of the four remaining priorities is detailed in section 3.0 of this report.IT PrioritiesCategory 1Category 2Category 3Category 4Category 5Build a fiber optic wide-area network to interconnect the schoolsUpgrade LAN infrastructureInstall a single, unified voice communication system for the entireDistrictVideo distributionIT facilityExamples of Information Technology Deficiencies:Inadequate LAN distribution.Inadequate computer lab.Capital Improvement Planning Committee May 2006 Page 18

3.0 TECHNOLOGY OVERVIEWBoulder Valley School DistrictEducational Facilities Master PlanThe CIPC and the Boulder Valley School District (BVSD) requested an independent validation ofthe technology cost estimates. A second phase in the development of the Master Plan includedan overall review of the current status of the technology infrastructure, the technology needs ofthe District, and an independent validation of the technology cost estimates. This chapterprovides an overview of this phase of the project.When reviewing the administrative technology resources of a school system, the processexamines the computing environment within which the administrative applications operate; theapplications themselves and the degree to which they satisfy user needs; the manner in whichthe infrastructure supports the overall operations of the school system; and the organizationalstructure within which the administrative technology support personnel operate.In reviewing instructional technology, the process analyzed all areas that contribute (or shouldcontribute) to the effective use of technology in the classroom. This included broad areas suchas the technology plan; the organizational structure; and the infrastructure, to more specificresources available in the classroom, such as the type of hardware employed; the method ofselecting software; and the access to outside resources. Other critical factors assessed includedstaff development for teachers, school-level technology support and maintenance, and theequitable distribution of technology among schools. MGT of America, Inc. was charged withleading this process.The Independent Validation Process (IVIT) included two public forums specifically dealing withBVSD technology. The forums gave individuals from the community an opportunity to voice theiropinions about what is going on in the current and planned technology implementationsthroughout the District.The large group survey questions were tailored to solicit input on five specific areas: WAN, LAN,Voice Over Internet Protocol (VoIP), Video and Facilities. Small groups were assembled at bothmeetings and discussions focused on the results of the Large Group Survey. Overall, althoughnot well attended, the forums were successful in understanding what issues were generallyimportant to the public.Data and information were gathered regarding vendor-provided cost estimates for each of thefive service areas (WAN, LAN, VoIP, Video and Facilities).Phone interviews were conducted with vendors to help the CIPC understand the details behindeach estimate. Cost saving options were explored for each of the service areas to determine ifthe environment had changed since the original estimates were given. In several areas,especially WAN, significant increases in the amount of fiber available and the opportunity forBVSD to 'piggyback' on this expanded infrastructure were considered as possible cost savingopportunities. Service costs were another area examined. This market has become much morecompetitive over the last several years and, as such, costs for data transport across fiber havedropped in the past three years.Finally, technology specialists familiar with industry standards and regional implementationsreviewed all documents pertinent to this study and have made several changes to the originalcost estimates. Those findings are made available in Section 6.0 of this report.Capital Improvement Planning Committee May 2006 Page 21

Boulder Valley School DistrictEducational Facilities Master PlanFor the purposes of this report, only the cost estimates of each of the following systems arebeing reviewed. It is the intention of the District to develop a five-year technology plan tofacilitate and manage the projects associated with the roll-out of these systems prior toinstallation.• High speed fiber connectivity to support the upgrade of the District WAN• Evaluation of the current LAN and the ability of the existing equipment to support the sitelevel demands for network processing• Examine and provide cost analysis as well as cost savings on the installation andimplementation of a VoIP• Review the current technology needs for supporting instructional delivery of classroomteachers in the integration of technology to support learning• Facility needs to adequately provide an appropriate environment for all network hardwareat each school siteThe fiber network installation plan and cost estimates provided by BVSD are complex andrequire detailed examination to ensure accurate information is provided for the decision makingpurposes to be effective. MGT has several sub-contractors who have worked on a number ofprojects around the country and their expertise is being utilized as part of this evaluationprocess. The activities of these individuals include examination of the cost estimates, review ofthe routes and maps, discussions with the vendors who originally submitted these proposals,and analysis of industry standard best practices to maximize the efficiency of the installationwhile adjusting costs to assure District values.Based on the analysis to date, estimated costs for this installation are between $10 - $12 million.It is possible to e-Rate as much as 50% of these costs once the installation is complete as wellas the ongoing transport costs associated with the WAN.The LAN equipment at several sites has been inspected in an effort to determine arepresentative sample of the District's network. The equipment is relatively old, in technologyterms (three years or more), and has been patched together with a variety of switches, hubs androuters. This has made the processing time across LANs lethargic and unreliable.Installation of new equipment to accommodate the implementation of a high speed network willbe necessary. Most importantly, a LAN topology, which clearly outlines the most effective andefficient implementation, will need to be designed and verified prior to installation of any newequipment.BVSD has CAT3 wiring in some of the buildings and will need to replace this with a minimum ofCAT5 or higher. Where possible, the District should use wireless devices to distributeconnectivity in the most efficient manner.The goal of the District should be to have ubiquitous access at all sites. Cost estimates for theLAN upgrades are between $5 -$7 million.Voice Over Internet Protocol (VoIP), to replace the existing phone system, will provide anupgrade in service quality as well as lowering the costs of phone service throughout the District.VoIP will be designed in such a manner to leverage the fiber backbone installation for the WAN.Currently, leasing costs for T-1 lines throughout the District exceed $500,000 annually. Sincetransport cost for VoIP is included in the fiber transport costs, the District can expect a return onCapital Improvement Planning Committee May 2006 Page 22

Boulder Valley School DistrictEducational Facilities Master Plantheir investment (ROI) of approximately $400,000 - $500,000 annually. MGT is contacting anumber of local area vendors to validate these costs and to ensure the long range benefits ofthese services are in the best interest of the District.Instructional technologies require that resources in the classroom be made available to teachersand educators to deliver curriculum in a 21st century learning model. To date, most teachers inBVSD lack these resources and as such are not able to maximize the curriculum. An additionalbenefit to this effort being examined by MGT is in the area of alternative education.Recently, major advances in technology delivered curriculum, either through distance learningopportunities or the installation of local software, have played a significant role in drop-outprevention, credit retention, and remediation which supports the alternative education goals ofthe District.This equipment, software, and distance learning capability are necessary to meet the everchanging needs of the District. Without these technological resources, teachers, staff, andadministration will continue to struggle in meeting the challenges of the 21st century classroom.The estimated costs for a pilot of these systems are $1,500,000.A facility review is included in this effort to ensure the investment being made by BVSD will beprotected for many years to come. MGT, along with the Planning, Engineering and ConstructionDepartment of BVSD, have designed an IT facility for each building which includes external andinternal egress and ingress. Each site will be provided a small concrete block or similar materialstructure, which will house all network equipment for each of the schools and offices. As BVSDenters into service level agreements with vendors to support, service, and maintain newlyinstalled network equipment, 24/7 access will be necessary.This model allows for outside vendor access to network equipment but prevents building levelaccess through separate key systems. BVSD IT staff can access the network facility eitherinternally or externally. Estimated costs for these buildings are approximately $500,000.ConclusionThe proposed solution provides BVSD with the most effective means of meeting the businessrequirements while minimizing risk and controlling timeframes and project costs. This section ofthe report summarizes the findings and recommendations based on a survey of the marketplaceand review of the BVSD’s current technology infrastructure. The recommendations ensure thefollowing:• Project management using generally accepted methodologies• Effective communication with the BVSD community• Appropriate independent oversight of all phases of the projectCapital Improvement Planning Committee May 2006 Page 23

Boulder Valley School DistrictEducational Facilities Master PlanTechnology Planning, Design and EngineeringVery few planning, design or engineering documents regarding any current or future systemswere available at the time of this study. This made it somewhat difficult for MGT to determinetrue and accurate costs for each phase of the project. However, through vendor interviews andthe expertise of the MGT staff, estimates were developed and the costs for planning, design, andengineering services were calculated at a 15-20% range for project contingencies.BVSD, upon acceptance of this report, should immediately engage in a comprehensive planning,design, and engineering effort. It will be beneficial for the District to continue to work with countyand city planners to ensure the latest information is available (knowledge of rights-of-way,existing conduits and opportunities to access existing fiber) for making effective and efficientimplementation decisions. Each phase of the project will need to go through a rigorous processof evaluation and design to assure that BVSD is receiving the most cost effective installation.The county and city planners will be important allies in the development of these plans andshould be consulted on a regular basis for the latest up-to-date information.The planning, design, and engineering of the technology systems is critical to their success inBVSD schools. Attention to detail regarding these elements will ensure a greater return on theinvestment being made by BVSD. The skill sets for these services do not exist within BVSDtechnology staff and will need to be contracted out through local area service providers.Service Level Agreements – When implementing large scale technology projects, it isextremely important to develop strategic and tactical support processes. In most cases, theprocesses come in the form of Service Level Agreements (SLA). These agreements arepurchased in conjunction with the accompanying systems. The purpose of the SLA is to ensurethe maximum uptime for the each of the systems. System downtime costs money and createsfrustration with the user community which detrimentally impacts the implementation of thesesystems.BVSD does not have the necessary man power nor technical expertise to effectively manageand support all of the proposed systems. Therefore, BVSD needs to examine on a system-bysystembasis the most effective way to manage these technologies. In the majority of cases,BVSD will be better served by contracting for these services.Resource Capacity – The BVSD Information Technology Department will be significantly taxedin terms of human capacity to design, manage, and install a WAN, LAN, VoIP and videodistribution system. Currently, the staff is focused on an equipment refreshment program whichrequires the installation of more than 300 computers per month. These activities, coupled withthe day-to-day support of the existing technology systems, far exceed the ability and staffing ofthe department. Additional resources will be required to mitigate these issues.E-Rate for the Wide-Area-Network – The Schools and Libraries Program of the UniversalService Fund makes discounts available to eligible schools and libraries for telecommunicationservices, Internet access, and internal connections. The program is intended to ensure thatschools and libraries have access to affordable telecommunications and information services.Capital Improvement Planning Committee May 2006 Page 24

4.0 PUBLIC INPUT OVERVIEWBoulder Valley School DistrictEducational Facilities Master PlanA third phase in the development of the final master plan involved the engagement of thecommunity, staff, parents, and business leaders in a discussion of the current status of schoolfacility needs and the alternatives for addressing those needs.In November 2005, Boulder Valley School District engaged MGT of America, Inc. to assist themin developing a comprehensive long-range facility improvement plan. The plan was to respondto the many conflicting issues that BVSD must balance in its quest to provide a qualityeducation to all of its students. School districts across the nation struggle with severerestrictions on available funds and numerous needs that must be addressed; BVSD is noexception. Compounding the problem further, the Boulder Valley community has exceedinglyhigh expectations for its school district.This section will focus on conducting public presentations and gathering public input.Objectives were established for this task which included the following:• To engage staff, community, parental, and business in the facilities planning process• To actively involve and engage the public in a discussion of major issues facing theDistrict• To create a “template” of public involvement that can be used in future informationalmeetings and facility planningThe following sections of this chapter will explain the process used to gather the public inputand the conclusions reached.PROCESSBoulder Valley School District designed a plan that would produce a comprehensive facility planto meet the future needs of the community. The plan consisted of the following elements:• Projections of future enrollments• Projections of future educational programs• Establishment of facility planning guidelines• Determination of each type of space needed at each school• Determination of current inventory of each type of space located at each school• Comparison of current inventory needs for each type of space• Evaluations of condition of current facilities• Development of a highly efficient, comprehensive, and long-range facilities plan• Development of a funding plan that will be supported by the communityOne of the most critical elements necessary in the plan involved the public presentations andthe gathering of information from the community. To that end, seven charrettes were conductedin District high schools and one Spanish-speaking charrette was conducted at PioneerElementary School. A total of 313 highly engaged citizens participated in these events. SeveralBoard members attended one of the charrettes; one Board member attended all but one. CIPCmembers were in attendance at all of the charrettes. The principals of each building welcomedthe participants and introduced the speakers.Capital Improvement Planning Committee May 2006 Page 25

Boulder Valley School DistrictEducational Facilities Master PlanEach charrette began with a public presentation by an MGT consultant on the work done by theCapital Improvement Planning Committee on behalf of the Board of Education. A power pointpresentation presented a project overview, work plan and timeline, the existing data collected,issues that had been identified by the CIPC, and an explanation of the process that would beused for gathering public input.Following this brief presentation, participating members were given an electronic device thatenabled them to record their answers to survey questions. Each participant was asked a seriesof questions, beginning with some basic demographic questions to establish characteristics ofthe audience for that evening. Following this, 15 questions were asked to determine the public’sopinion on critical issues for the school district (See Appendix 1).The results from each question were posted instantaneously for the audience to view.Following each question, a bar graph was projected which allowed the participants to view howthe large group had responded to each question. The audience reacted positively to this format,given the comments that were made during the presentations.Immediately upon completion of the data-gathering session in the large group format, smallergroups were created for purposes of conducting more intimate discussions. A facilitator wasassigned to each group with the express purpose of listening to the comments and recordingthe views of the small group. The opinions of the facilitators were not expressed in order tosolicit maximum input from the audience. The results generated from the charrette processwere used as the catalyst for this discussion, focusing these discussions on the key issues. Allfacilitators reported a lively discussion at every session.In addition to the public charrettes, an online survey was conducted asking respondents thesame 15 questions. Over 700 responses were obtained. Findings from the online survey wereranked, along with the charrette process, to help the CIPC understand community values.Soliciting data on the development of a long-range facility improvement plan also involved inputfrom internal sources. The public charrette process was preceded by interviews withadministrative personnel, including principals, teachers, and support staff. Confidentiality wasassured in order to ascertain accurate opinions. Upon completion of the interviews, summarypoints were captured. These will be shared in the Public Information Detail Section 7.0 of thisreport.MAJOR THEMES AND CONCLUSIONS:• Boulder Valley School District enjoys strong support for its educational program• Every school building in Boulder Valley School District has physical needs that must beaddressed• A strong education program is needed to communicate a clear understanding of thebuilding needs for the District and how a bond would address those needs• A comprehensive long range facility plan is essential for the District to garner publicsupport for a bond issue• Participants in the charrette process did not believe that the public at large wouldsupport the need to address facility deficiencies for BVSD• Participants in the process would support another bond issue provided that certainconditions were met:Capital Improvement Planning Committee May 2006 Page 26

Boulder Valley School DistrictEducational Facilities Master PlanooooBase the plan on a fair set of standardsCommunicate often and well with the publicCreate the plan and then follow itForm an oversight committee to ensure complianceIn conclusion, the charrette process produced information that is critical to a successful bondissue. More importantly, the Board and the CIPC made a promise to listen to the public beforepresenting a final long-term master facility plan. The community was engaged whole-heartedlyin this process. The outcomes reflect this commitment. The Board and the CapitalImprovement Planning Committee, as well as the entire Boulder Valley School Districtcommunity, are to be congratulated for their approach in creating a plan that will addressbuilding needs for the District. The Facility Master Plan is reflective of a sound process thatsolicited community input into the decision-making process in a meaningful way.Capital Improvement Planning Committee May 2006 Page 27

Boulder Valley School DistrictEducational Facilities Master Plan5.0 DATA DETAILUpon completion of the phases of the project described in the previous chapters, the informationgathered was compiled into a series of tables in order to fully examine the information and makedecisions based on the data. This chapter provides an overview of the facilities data detail.Chapters 6 and 7 provide similar data detail for the technology infrastructure and public input,respectively.The following information was used to create facility condition and program compatibilitycategorical funding models to assist in the development of the Master Planning projectpackages:School Name Level Square Year of Program Condition Combined Program May 2006Feet Original Score Score Score Capacity EnrollmentConstructionAurora 7 Elementary 47556 1963 56.00% 41.00% 48.50% 470 572Bear Creek Elementary 39549 1970 53.00% 51.00% 52.00% 370 357Birch Elementary 44714 1972 54.00% 60.00% 57.00% 463 410Coal Creek Elementary 51036 1984 69.00% 76.00% 72.50% 455 494Columbine Elementary 48941 1956 52.00% 47.00% 49.50% 413 392Community Mont. Elementary 42547 1960 48.00% 44.00% 46.00% 180 186Creekside Elementary 50993 1955 58.00% 59.00% 58.50% 316 276Crest View Elementary 54994 1958 63.00% 48.00% 55.50% 510 498Douglass Elementary 51269 1952 55.00% 46.00% 50.50% 435 473Eisenhower Elementary 53647 1971 64.00% 71.00% 67.50% 500 444Emerald Elementary 56300 1958 64.00% 52.00% 58.00% 377 386Fireside Elementary 58889 1989 73.00% 87.00% 80.00% 460 457Flatirons Elementary 33468 1956 56.00% 58.00% 57.00% 315 296Foothill Elementary 57819 1949 60.00% 48.00% 54.00% 485 490Gold Hill Elementary 3316 1915 70.00% 65.00% 67.50% 41 26Heatherwood Elementary 52016 1971 59.00% 65.00% 62.00% 319 325Jamestown Elementary 5030 1954 97.00% 63.00% 80.00% 18 13Kohl Elementary 54113 1959 67.00% 59.00% 63.00% 460 470Lafayette Elementary 56760 1964 69.00% 48.00% 58.50% 298 359Louisville Elementary 58458 1964 70.00% 55.00% 62.50% 460 413Mesa Elementary 45786 1966 52.00% 48.00% 50.00% 315 327Nederland Elementary 61470 1989 82.00% 94.00% 88.00% 345 326Pioneer Elementary 69518 1926 76.00% 67.00% 71.50% 341 397Ryan Elementary 49176 1983 75.00% 68.00% 71.50% 350 393Sanchez Elementary 49887 1986 71.00% 72.00% 71.50% 316 276Superior Elementary 63500 1996 86.00% 93.00% 89.50% 500 644University Hill Inter. Elementary 52962 1905 58.00% 63.00% 60.50% 314 310University Hill Pri. Elementary 15734 1949 40.00% 58.00% 49.00% ---- See above ----Whittier Elementary 35123 1882 67.00% 58.00% 62.50% 300 320Elementary School Mean 64.28% 60.83% 62.55%Capital Improvement Planning Committee May 2006 Page 29

Boulder Valley School DistrictEducational Facilities Master PlanSchool Name Level Square Year of Program Condition Combined Program May 2006Feet Original Score Score Score Capacity EnrollmentConstructionAspen Creek K-8 114478 2000 91.00% 99.00% 95.00% 969 872Eldorado K-8 114476 2000 93.00% 99.00% 96.00% 876 947Horizons K-8 29350 1959 * 56.00% 56.00% 315 318Monarch K-8 108802 1997 89.00% 99.00% 94.00% 753 705K-8 School Mean 91.00% 88.25% 85.25%Angevine Middle 121676 1989 88.00% 86.00% 87.00% 863 585Broomfield Heights Middle 107385 1983 75.00% 78.00% 76.50% 914 546Casey Middle 84007 1924 50.00% 63.00% 56.50% 612 356Centennial Middle 101008 1960 65.00% 78.00% 71.50% 750 592Halcyon Middle 8736 1955 * 45.00% 45.00% * 13Louisville Middle 89087 1939 61.00% 66.00% 63.50% 651 548Manhattan Middle 80692 1965 63.00% 52.00% 57.50% 605 444Platt Middle 117057 1958 65.00% 50.00% 57.50% 707 540Southern Hills Middle 72260 1963 56.00% 57.00% 56.50% 503 502Summit Middle 28455 1964 * 37.00% 37.00% 337 303Middle School Mean 65.38% 61.20% 60.85%Arapahoe Ridge/TEC High 121631 1965 59.00% 73.00% 66.00% 820 305Boulder High 229281 1937 84.00% 82.00% 83.00% 1994 1871Broomfield High 218163 1959 80.00% 74.00% 77.00% 1599 1369Centaurus High 188010 1973 76.00% 86.00% 81.00% 1607 972Fairview High 256392 1971 86.00% 78.00% 82.00% 1861 1847Monarch High 228827 1998 92.00% 99.00% 95.50% 1728 1601New Vista High 76805 1952 75.00% 59.00% 67.00% 659 327High School Mean 78.86% 78.71% 78.79%Peak to Peak Charter K-12 * * 71.00% * 71.00% 1200 1200Nederland Mid/Sen 97080 1971 74.00% 68.00% 71.00% 650 390Special School Mean 72.50% 68.00% 71.00%* These schools were not evaluated for their program compatibility due to their unique programdelivery. It was determined that application of adopted District educational specifications wasnot applicable to their situation. The facility condition assessment was not performed for Peakto Peak because the District does not own the campus.Capital Improvement Planning Committee May 2006 Page 30

Boulder Valley School DistrictEducational Facilities Master PlanThe following individual building data sheets reflect proposed improvements broken down byfacility condition, program compatibility, multi-use outdoor facilities, and Information Technology.These will be used in the development of cost implementation models and project packaging.Capital Improvement Planning Committee May 2006 Page 31

Boulder Valley School DistrictEducational Facilities Master PlanAngevine Middle SchoolOriginal Construction Date: 1989Total Gross Square Footage: 121,676Program Capacity: 863Student Enrollment May 2006: 585Facility Condition Score: 86%Program Compatibility Score: 88%School Budget: $1,754,718The Educational Facilities Master Plan includes the following work at Angevine MiddleSchool:Facility Condition Assessment (FCA):• Communication systems improvements• Irrigation system upgrades• Repair or replace asphalt and concrete paving• Interior Signage ProgramProgram Compatibility Assessment (PCA):• Provide special education spaces• Provide small group instructional spaces• Provide additional staff office spaceMulti-Use Outdoor Facilities (MUOF):• Improve field drainage• Install fencing along Delphi StreetInformation Technology (IT):• Upgrade WAN to provide capacity to support applications with high bandwidthdemands• Upgrade LANs to provide reliable and responsive access to data, research, andinformation• Implement VoIP to enhance communications capabilities and reduce costsCapital Improvement Planning Committee May 2006 Page 32

Boulder Valley School DistrictEducational Facilities Master PlanArapahoe Ridge High SchoolOriginal Construction Date: 1965Total Gross Square Footage: 121,631Program Capacity: 820Student Enrollment May 2006: 305Facility Condition Score: 73%Program Compatibility Score: 59%School Budget: $5,333,778The Educational Facilities Master Plan includes the following work at Arapahoe RidgeHigh School:Facility Condition Assessment (FCA):• Intercom system improvements• Fire alarm system improvements• Exit sign and lighting improvements• Boiler replacement• Interior finish upgrades• Clock and communication system improvements• Electrical service and distribution improvements• HVAC improvements• Interior Signage ProgramProgram Compatibility Assessment (PCA):• Classroom additions• Computer room and lab additions• IMC renovation and improvements• Auto shop expansion• Construction trades expansion• Administration office improvementsMulti-Use Outdoor Facilities (MUOF):Information Technology (IT):• Upgrade WAN to provide capacity to support applications with high bandwidthdemands• Upgrade LANs to provide reliable and responsive access to data, research, andinformation• Implement VoIP to enhance communications capabilities and reduce costsCapital Improvement Planning Committee May 2006 Page 33

Boulder Valley School DistrictEducational Facilities Master PlanAspen Creek K-8 SchoolOriginal Construction Date: 2000Total Gross Square Footage: 114,478Program Capacity: 969Student Enrollment May 2006: 872Facility Condition Score: 99%Program Compatibility Score: 91%School Budget: $964,370The Educational Facilities Master Plan includes the following work at Aspen Creek K-8:Facility Condition Assessment (FCA):• Exit signage improvements• HVAC improvements• Acoustical improvements in gymsProgram Compatibility Assessment (PCA):• Literacy improvements• Special Education ImprovementsMulti-Use Outdoor Facilities (MUOF):• Install a long jump/triple jump runway and pit• Upgrade playground surfacing, equipment, and fencing• Provide adequate curbing and drainage• Make playgrounds ADA accessibleInformation Technology (IT):• Upgrade WAN to provide capacity to support applications with high bandwidthdemands• Upgrade LANs to provide reliable and responsive access to data, research, andinformationCapital Improvement Planning Committee May 2006 Page 34

Boulder Valley School DistrictEducational Facilities Master PlanAurora 7 (BCSIS, High Peaks)Original Construction Date: 1963Total Gross Square Footage: 39,549Program Capacity: 470Student Enrollment May 2006: 572Facility Condition Score: 41%Program Compatibility Score: 56%School Budget: $7,042,039The Educational Facilities Master Plan includes the following work at Aurora 7 Campus:Facility Condition Assessment (FCA):• Electrical service and distribution improvements• Emergency lighting and exit sign improvements• Corridor construction improvements• Fire alarm, intercom, and clock system improvements• HVAC upgrades• Interior finish upgrades (paint, carpet, ceiling tile, flooring, etc.)• Interior Signage ProgramProgram Compatibility Assessment (PCA):• Art and music room addition/remodel• Administration office expansion• IMC/computer lab renovations• Gym/stage addition• Kitchen/cafeteria renovation• Special Education improvements• Classroom remodelingMulti-Use Outdoor Facilities (MUOF):• Upgrade playground surfacing, equipment, and fencing• Provide adequate curbing and drainage• Replace aged and/or unsafe playground equipment• Make playgrounds ADA accessibleInformation Technology (IT):• Upgrade WAN to provide capacity to support applications with high bandwidthdemands• Upgrade LANs to provide reliable and responsive access to data, research, andinformation• Implement VoIP to enhance communications capabilities and reduce costsCapital Improvement Planning Committee May 2006 Page 35

Boulder Valley School DistrictEducational Facilities Master PlanBear Creek ElementaryOriginal Construction Date: 1970Total Gross Square Footage: 39,549Program Capacity: 370Student Enrollment May 2006: 357Facility Condition Score: 51%Program Compatibility Score: 53%School Budget: $6,457,529The Educational Facilities Master Plan includes the following work at Bear CreekElementary:Facility Condition Assessment (FCA):• Clock and intercom upgrades• Interior finish upgrades (ceiling tiles, paint carpet, flooring, etc.)• Electrical service and distribution improvements• Roof replacement and repair• Landscape irrigation replacement and repair• Interior Signage ProgramProgram Compatibility Assessment (PCA):• Enlarge gym and remodel• Provide classroom additions and remodel• Enlarge library and computer room• Expand administration office and health room• Music, science, and art room additions and remodel• Reconfigure kindergartens• Expand cafeteria• Parking lot and drop-off improvementsMulti-Use Outdoor Facilities (MUOF):• Upgrade playground surfacing, equipment, and fencing• Provide adequate curbing and drainage• Replace aged and/or unsafe playground equipment• Make playgrounds ADA accessibleInformation Technology (IT):• Upgrade WAN to provide capacity to support applications with high bandwidthdemands• Upgrade LANs to provide reliable and responsive access to data, research, andinformation• Implement VoIP to enhance communications capabilities and reduce costsCapital Improvement Planning Committee May 2006 Page 36

Boulder Valley School DistrictEducational Facilities Master PlanBirch Elementary SchoolOriginal Construction Date: 1972Total Gross Square Footage: 44,714Program Capacity: 463Student Enrollment May 2006: 410Facility Condition Score: 60%Program Compatibility Score: 54%School Budget: $4,200,702The Educational Facilities Master Plan includes the following work at Birch Elementary:Facility Condition Assessment (FCA):• Fire alarm replacement• HVAC upgrades• Electrical service and distribution improvements• Interior finish improvements (paint, carpet, flooring, ceiling tile, etc.)• Irrigation system replacement• Selected exterior window replacement• Roof replacement• Replace boiler• Interior Signage ProgramProgram Compatibility Assessment (PCA):• Music and art room improvements• Enlarge library• Expand administration office and health room• Provide small group teaching spaces• Provide kindergarten remodel• Provide additional classrooms• Improve open space classroom acousticsMulti-Use Outdoor Facilities (MUOF):• Upgrade playground surfacing, equipment, and fencing• Provide adequate curbing and drainage• Replace aged and/or unsafe playground equipment• Make playgrounds ADA accessibleInformation Technology (IT):• Upgrade WAN to provide capacity to support applications with high bandwidthdemands• Upgrade LANs to provide reliable and responsive access to data, research, andinformation• Implement VoIP to enhance communications capabilities and reduce costsCapital Improvement Planning Committee May 2006 Page 37

Boulder Valley School DistrictEducational Facilities Master PlanBoulder High SchoolOriginal Construction Date: 1937Total Gross Square Footage: 229,281Program Capacity: 1994Student Enrollment May 2006: 1871Facility Condition Score: 82%Program Compatibility Score: 84%School Budget: $11,812,819The Educational Facilities Master Plan includes the following work at Boulder HighSchool:Facility Condition Assessment (FCA):• HVAC upgrades• Electrical distribution improvements• Clock and intercom systems improvements• Interior finishes upgraded (i.e. ceiling tiles, carpet, wall finishes, etc.)• Roof replacement and repairs• Restroom renovations including ADA accessibility where required• Site irrigation system improvements• Interior signage program• Site paving replacement and repair• Exterior wall repair and restorationProgram Compatibility Assessment (PCA):• Improvements to special education facilities• Enlarge and renovate administrative offices and counseling• Provide auditorium stagecraft and storage• Renovate consumer studies• Enlarge and renovate physical education facilitiesMulti-Use Outdoor Facilities (MUOF):• Upgrade visitor’s bleachers• Install a fire system water main to Recht Field• Provide a visitor’s team room and bridge over Boulder CreekInformation Technology (IT):• Upgrade WAN to provide capacity to support applications with high bandwidthdemands• Upgrade LANs to provide reliable and responsive access to data, research, andinformation• Implement VoIP to enhance communications capabilities and reduce costCapital Improvement Planning Committee May 2006 Page 38

Boulder Valley School DistrictEducational Facilities Master PlanBoulder Preparatory CharterOriginal Construction Date:Total Gross Square Footage:Program Capacity: N/AStudent Enrollment May 2006: 98Facility Condition Score: N/AProgram Compatibility Score: N/ASchool Budget: $400,000The Educational Facilities Master Plan includes the following work at BoulderPreparatory Charter:*The final determination of overall campus improvements will be determined asthe charter school completes its facility master plan.BVSD does not own this facility.Capital Improvement Planning Committee May 2006 Page 39

Boulder Valley School DistrictEducational Facilities Master PlanBroomfield Heights MiddleSchoolOriginal Construction Date: 1983Total Gross Square Footage: 107,385Program Capacity: 914Student Enrollment May 2006: 546Facility Condition Score: 78%Program Compatibility Score: 75%School Budget: $3,703,102The Educational Facilities Master Plan includes the following work at BroomfieldHeights Middle School:Facility Condition Assessment (FCA):• Intercom system improvements• Fire alarm system improvements• Exit sign and lighting improvements• Boiler replacement• Interior finish upgrades• Roof replacement and repairs• Selected window replacement• Interior Signage ProgramProgram Compatibility Assessment (PCA):• Music and art room additions and remodel• Gym/stage addition• Classroom renovations• Administration expansion• Provide Special Education space• Enlarge IMC• Cafeteria/kitchen improvementsMulti-Use Outdoor Facilities (MUOF):• Install a long jump/triple jump runway and pit• General improvements to the playfieldsInformation Technology (IT):• Upgrade WAN to provide capacity to support applications with high bandwidthdemands• Upgrade LANs to provide reliable and responsive access to data, research, andinformation• Implement VoIP to enhance communications capabilities and reduce costsCapital Improvement Planning Committee May 2006 Page 40

Boulder Valley School DistrictEducational Facilities Master PlanBroomfield High SchoolOriginal Construction Date: 1959Total Gross Square Footage: 218,163Program Capacity: 1599Student Enrollment May 2006: 1369Facility Condition Score: 74%Program Compatibility Score: 80%School Budget: $20,774,010The Educational Facilities Master Plan includes the following work at Broomfield HighSchool:Facility Condition Assessment (FCA):• HVAC upgrades including building wide air-conditioning• Electrical distribution improvements• Clock and intercom systems improvements• Interior finishes upgraded (i.e. ceiling tiles, carpet and wall finishes, etc.)• Roof replacement and repairs• Restroom renovations including ADA accessibility where required• Site irrigation system improvements• Interior signage program• Site paving replacement and repairProgram Compatibility Assessment (PCA):• Provide an applied technology lab facility• Provide an additional science lab• Renovate consumer studies• Counseling offices addition• Photo lab improvements• Replace the original junior high wing with a two story structure• Provide additional Special Education classrooms and officesMulti-Use Outdoor Facilities (MUOF):• Bleacher area improvements to paving and drainage• Bleachers for the softball fields• Connect stadium facilities to municipal sewer system• Resurface the running trackInformation Technology (IT):• Upgrade WAN to provide capacity to support applications with high bandwidthdemands• Upgrade LANs to provide reliable and responsive access to data, research, andinformation• Implement VoIP to enhance communications capabilities and reduce costsCapital Improvement Planning Committee May 2006 Page 41

Boulder Valley School DistrictEducational Facilities Master PlanCasey Middle SchoolOriginal Construction Date: 1924Total Gross Square Footage: 84,007Program Capacity: 612Student Enrollment May 2006: 356Facility Condition Score: 63%Program Compatibility Score: 50%School Budget: $31,122,650The Educational Facilities Master Plan includes the following work at Casey MiddleSchool:Facility Condition Assessment (FCA):• No work is anticipated due to the planned demolition of the existing buildingProgram Compatibility Assessment (PCA):• A new middle school, meeting the Educational Specifications, will beconstructed on the siteMulti-Use Outdoor Facilities (MUOF):• New synthetic turf playfield and multi-use hard paved areas will be provided onthe siteInformation Technology (IT):• A WAN to provide capacity to support applications with high bandwidthdemands• A LAN to provide reliable and responsive access to data, research, andinformation• Implement VoIP to enhance communications capabilities and reduce costs• Classroom spaces to use multimedia, projectors, and sound enhancementCapital Improvement Planning Committee May 2006 Page 42

Boulder Valley School DistrictEducational Facilities Master PlanCentaurus High SchoolOriginal Construction Date: 1973Total Gross Square Footage: 188,010Program Capacity: 1607Student Enrollment May 2006: 972Facility Condition Score: 86%Program Compatibility Score: 76%School Budget: $5,683,991The Educational Facilities Master Plan includes the following work at Centaurus HighSchool:Facility Condition Assessment (FCA):• HVAC upgrades• Electrical branch wiring improvements• Clock, fire alarm, and intercom systems improvements• Interior finishes upgraded (i.e. ceiling tiles, carpet, wall finishes, etc.)• Roof replacement and repairs• Restroom renovations including ADA accessibility where required• Site irrigation system improvements• Interior signage program• Site paving replacement and repair• Exterior wall repairProgram Compatibility Assessment (PCA):• Provide an applied technology lab facility• Provide additional Special Education classrooms and offices• Renovate and expand the art facilities• Expand and renovate the administrative and counseling officesMulti-Use Outdoor Facilities (MUOF):• Provide a home and visiting team field house• Provide six tennis courts• Bleacher area improvements to paving and drainage• Resurface the running trackInformation Technology (IT):• Upgrade WAN to provide capacity to support applications with high bandwidthdemands• Upgrade LANs to provide reliable and responsive access to data, research, andinformation• Implement VoIP to enhance communications capabilities and reduce costsCapital Improvement Planning Committee May 2006 Page 43

Boulder Valley School DistrictEducational Facilities Master PlanCentennial Middle SchoolOriginal Construction Date: 1960Total Gross Square Footage: 101,008Program Capacity: 750Student Enrollment May 2006: 592Facility Condition Score: 78%Program Compatibility Score: 65%School Budget: $7,150,842The Educational Facilities Master Plan includes the following work at Centennial MiddleSchool:Facility Condition Assessment (FCA):• HVAC upgrades• Boiler replacement• Exterior finish refurbishment• Intercom system improvements• Interior finishes upgraded (i.e. ceiling tiles, carpet, wall finishes, etc.)• Roof replacement and repairs• Restroom renovations including ADA accessibility where required• Site irrigation system improvements• Interior signage programProgram Compatibility Assessment (PCA):• New main gym and locker rooms• Upgrade science labs• Upgrade art roomMulti-Use Outdoor Facilities (MUOF):• New outdoor basketball courts• Replace bleachers at playfieldInformation Technology (IT):• Upgrade WAN to provide capacity to support applications with high bandwidthdemands• Upgrade LANs to provide reliable and responsive access to data, research, andinformation• Implement VoIP to enhance communications capabilities and reduce costsCapital Improvement Planning Committee May 2006 Page 44

Boulder Valley School DistrictEducational Facilities Master PlanCoal Creek ElementaryOriginal Construction Date: 1984Total Gross Square Footage: 51,036Program Capacity: 455Student Enrollment May 2006: 494Facility Condition Score: 76%Program Compatibility Score: 69%School Budget: $3,294,226The Educational Facilities Master Plan includes the following work at Coal CreekElementary:Facility Condition Assessment (FCA):• Intercom system improvements• Ventilation improvements• Irrigation system upgrades• Interior finishes upgraded (i.e. ceiling tiles, carpet, wall finishes)• Interior Signage ProgramProgram Compatibility Assessment (PCA):• Provide Special Education spaces• Provide small group instructional spaces• Provide additional staff office space• Enlarge cafeteria and upgrade kitchen• Expand instrumental music• Expand art roomMulti-Use Outdoor Facilities (MUOF):• Upgrade playground surfacing, equipment, and fencing• Provide adequate curbing and drainage• Replace aged and/or unsafe playground equipment• Make playgrounds ADA accessibleInformation Technology (IT):• Upgrade WAN to provide capacity to support applications with high bandwidthdemands• Upgrade LANs to provide reliable and responsive access to data, research, andinformation• Implement VoIP to enhance communications capabilities and reduce costsCapital Improvement Planning Committee May 2006 Page 45

Boulder Valley School DistrictEducational Facilities Master PlanColumbine ElementaryOriginal Construction Date: 1956Total Gross Square Footage: 48,941Program Capacity: 413Student Enrollment May 2006: 392Facility Condition Score: 47%Program Compatibility Score: 52%School Budget: $8,121,995The Educational Facilities Master Plan includes the following work at ColumbineElementary:Facility Condition Assessment (FCA):• HVAC upgrades• Electrical service and distribution improvements• Intercom and clock systems improvements• Interior finishes upgraded (i.e. ceiling tiles, carpet, wall finishes, ect.)• Roof replacement and repairs• Restroom renovations including ADA accessibility where required• Fire sprinkler system installed building wide• Site irrigation system improvements• Interior signage program• Site paving replacement and repairProgram Compatibility Assessment (PCA):• Provide additional classrooms• Music room addition• Expand the administrative offices• Provide a new cafeteria and kitchen• Provide additional staff office space and small group spaces• Expand the IMCMulti-Use Outdoor Facilities (MUOF):• Upgrade playground surfacing, equipment, and fencing• Provide adequate curbing and drainage• Replace aged and/or unsafe playground equipment• Make playgrounds ADA accessibleInformation Technology (IT):• Upgrade WAN to provide capacity to support applications with highbandwidth demands• Upgrade LANs to provide reliable and responsive access to data,research, and information• Implement VoIP to enhance communications capabilities and reducecostsCapital Improvement Planning Committee May 2006 Page 46

Boulder Valley School DistrictEducational Facilities Master PlanCommunity Montessori atPaddock CampusOriginal Construction Date: 1949Total Gross Square Footage: 42,583Program Capacity: 180Student Enrollment May 2006: 186Facility Condition Score: 44%Program Compatibility Score: 48%School Budget: $1,705,974The Educational Facilities Master Plan includes the following work at Paddock Campus:Facility Condition Assessment (FCA):• HVAC upgrades• Boiler replacement• Electrical service and distribution improvements• Intercom and clock systems improvements• Interior finishes upgraded (i.e. ceiling tiles, carpet, wall finishes)• Roof replacement and repairs• Restroom renovations including ADA accessibility where required• Playfield drainage improvements• Site irrigation system improvements• Interior signage program• Site paving replacement and repairProgram Compatibility Assessment (PCA):• Remodel science and computer labs into kindergarten classrooms• Remodel shop room into classroom• Improvements to pre-school classroomsMulti-Use Outdoor Facilities (MUOF):• Upgrade playground surfacing, equipment, and fencing• Provide adequate curbing and drainage• Replace aged and/or unsafe playground equipment• Make playgrounds ADA accessibleInformation Technology (IT):• Upgrade WAN to provide capacity to support applications with high bandwidthdemands• Upgrade LANs to provide reliable and responsive access to data, research, andinformation• Implement VoIP to enhance communications capabilities and reduce costsCapital Improvement Planning Committee May 2006 Page 47

Boulder Valley School DistrictEducational Facilities Master PlanCreekside ElementaryOriginal Construction Date: 1955Total Gross Square Footage: 50,993Program Capacity: 316Student Enrollment May 2006: 276Facility Condition Score: 59%Program Compatibility Score: 58%School Budget: $2,208,698The Educational Facilities Master Plan includes the following work at CreeksideElementary:Facility Condition Assessment (FCA):• HVAC upgrades• Electrical service and distribution improvements• Fire alarm, intercom and clock systems improvements• Interior finishes upgraded (i.e. ceiling tiles, carpet, wall finishes, etc.)• Roof replacement and repairs• Restroom renovations including ADA accessibility where required• Site irrigation system improvements• Interior signage program• Site paving replacement and repairProgram Compatibility Assessment (PCA):• Relocate and enlarge administrative offices for security control of main entrance• Relocate and enlarge staff workroom and lounge• Provide small group instructional spaceMulti-Use Outdoor Facilities (MUOF):• Upgrade playground surfacing, equipment, and fencing• Provide adequate curbing and drainage• Replace aged and/or unsafe playground equipment• Make playgrounds ADA accessibleInformation Technology (IT):• Upgrade WAN to provide capacity to support applications with high bandwidthdemands• Upgrade LANs to provide reliable and responsive access to data, research, andinformation• Implement VoIP to enhance communications capabilities and reduce costsCapital Improvement Planning Committee May 2006 Page 48

Boulder Valley School DistrictEducational Facilities Master PlanCrest View ElementaryOriginal Construction Date: 1958Total Gross Square Footage: 54,994Program Capacity: 510Student Enrollment May 2006: 498Facility Condition Score: 48%Program Compatibility Score: 63%School Budget: $5,892,213The Educational Facilities Master Plan includes the following work at Crest ViewElementary:Facility Condition Assessment (FCA):• HVAC upgrades• Electrical service and distribution improvements• Fire alarm, intercom and clock systems improvements• Interior finishes upgraded (i.e. ceiling tiles, carpet, wall finishes, etc.)• Roof replacement and repairs• Restroom renovations including ADA accessibility where required• Site irrigation system improvements• Interior signage program• Site paving replacement and repair• Site drainage improvementsProgram Compatibility Assessment (PCA):• Provide a stage for the gym• Provide small group instructional spaces• Enlarge the cafeteria and kitchen• Kindergarten addition• Enlarge and renovate the administration offices• Add additional classrooms for enrollment growthMulti-Use Outdoor Facilities (MUOF):• Upgrade playground surfacing, equipment, and fencing• Provide adequate curbing and drainage• Replace aged and/or unsafe playground equipment• Make playgrounds ADA accessibleInformation Technology (IT):• Upgrade WAN to provide capacity to support applications with high bandwidthdemands• Upgrade LANs to provide reliable and responsive access to data, research, andinformation• Implement VoIP to enhance communications capabilities and reduce costsCapital Improvement Planning Committee May 2006 Page 49

Boulder Valley School DistrictEducational Facilities Master PlanDouglass ElementaryOriginal Construction Date: 1952Total Gross Square Footage: 51,269Program Capacity: 435Student Enrollment May 2006: 473Facility Condition Score: 46%Program Compatibility Score: 55%School Budget: $3,422,937The Educational Facilities Master Plan includes the following work at DouglassElementary:Facility Condition Assessment (FCA):• Communication systems improvements• Ventilation improvements• Irrigation system upgrades• Interior finishes upgraded (i.e. ceiling tiles, carpet, wall finishes, etc.)• Upgrade electrical service and distribution• Interior Signage ProgramProgram Compatibility Assessment (PCA):• Provide Special Education spaces• Provide small group instructional spaces• Provide additional staff office space• Install elevator for ADA accessMulti-Use Outdoor Facilities (MUOF):• Upgrade playground surfacing, equipment, and fencing• Provide adequate curbing and drainage• Replace aged and/or unsafe playground equipment• Make playgrounds ADA accessibleInformation Technology (IT):• Upgrade WAN to provide capacity to support applications with high bandwidthdemands• Upgrade LANs to provide reliable and responsive access to data, research, andinformation• Implement VoIP to enhance communications capabilities and reduce costsCapital Improvement Planning Committee May 2006 Page 50

Boulder Valley School DistrictEducational Facilities Master PlanEducation CenterOriginal Construction Date: 1963Total Gross Square Footage: 133,662Program Capacity: N/AStudent Enrollment May 2006: N/AFacility Condition Score: 66%Program Compatibility Score: N/ABudget: $1,799,635The Educational Facilities Master Plan includes the following work at Education Center:Facility Condition Assessment (FCA):• Upgrade electrical distribution• Upgrade BAS control systemProgram Compatibility Assessment (PCA):Multi-Use Outdoor Facilities (MUOF):Information Technology (IT):• Upgrade WAN to provide capacity to support applications with high bandwidthdemands• Upgrade LANs to provide reliable and responsive access to data, research, andinformation• Implement VoIP to enhance communications capabilities and reduce costsCapital Improvement Planning Committee May 2006 Page 51

Boulder Valley School DistrictEducational Facilities Master PlanEisenhower ElementaryOriginal Construction Date: 1971Total Gross Square Footage: 53,647Program Capacity: 500Student Enrollment May 2006: 444Facility Condition Score: 71%Program Compatibility Score: 64%School Budget: $3,125,645The Educational Facilities Master Plan includes the following work at EisenhowerElementary:Facility Condition Assessment (FCA):• Communication systems improvements• Irrigation system upgrades• Interior finishes upgraded (i.e. ceiling tiles, carpet, wall finishes, etc.)• Upgrade electrical service and distribution• Install fire sprinkler system• Interior Signage ProgramProgram Compatibility Assessment (PCA):• Provide special education spaces• Provide small group instructional spaces• Provide additional staff office space• Provide additional storage space• Reconfigure kindergarten areaMulti-Use Outdoor Facilities (MUOF):• Upgrade playground surfacing, equipment, and fencing• Provide adequate curbing and drainage• Replace aged and/or unsafe playground equipment• Make playgrounds ADA accessibleInformation Technology (IT):• Upgrade WAN to provide capacity to support applications with high bandwidthdemands• Upgrade LANs to provide reliable and responsive access to data, research, andinformation• Implement VoIP to enhance communications capabilities and reduce costsCapital Improvement Planning Committee May 2006 Page 52

Boulder Valley School DistrictEducational Facilities Master PlanEldorado K-8 SchoolOriginal Construction Date: 2000Total Gross Square Footage: 114,476Program Capacity: 876Student Enrollment May 2006: 947Facility Condition Score: 99%Program Compatibility Score: 93%School Budget: $1,069,861The Educational Facilities Master Plan includes the following work at Eldorado K-8School:Facility Condition Assessment (FCA):• Exit signage improvements• HVAC improvements• Acoustical improvements in GymsProgram Compatibility Assessment (PCA):• Literacy improvements• Special Education improvementsMulti-Use Outdoor Facilities (MUOF):• Install a long jump/triple jump runway and pit• Upgrade playground surfacing, equipment, and fencing• Provide adequate curbing and drainage• Make playgrounds ADA accessibleInformation Technology (IT):• Upgrade WAN to provide capacity to support applications with high bandwidthdemands• Upgrade LANs to provide reliable and responsive access to data, research, andinformation• Implement VoIP to enhance communications capabilities and reduce costsCapital Improvement Planning Committee May 2006 Page 53

Boulder Valley School DistrictEducational Facilities Master PlanEmerald ElementaryOriginal Construction Date: 1958Total Gross Square Footage: 56,300Program Capacity: 377Student Enrollment May 2006: 386Facility Condition Score: 52%Program Compatibility Score: 64%School Budget: $3,201,265The Educational Facilities Master Plan includes the following work at EmeraldElementary:Facility Condition Assessment (FCA):• Fire alarm replacement• HVAC upgrades• Electrical service and distribution improvements• Interior finish improvements (i.e. paint, carpet, flooring, ceiling tile, etc.)• Selected exterior widow replacement• Interior Signage ProgramProgram Compatibility Assessment (PCA):• Art room addition• Provide Special Education space• Expand administration office and health room• Provide small group learning spaces• Provide stage/performance spaceMulti-Use Outdoor Facilities (MUOF):• Upgrade playground surfacing, equipment, and fencing• Provide adequate curbing and drainage• Replace aged and/or unsafe playground equipment• Make playgrounds ADA accessibleInformation Technology (IT):• Upgrade WAN to provide capacity to support applications with high bandwidthdemands• Upgrade LANs to provide reliable and responsive access to data, research, andinformation• Implement VoIP to enhance communications capabilities and reduce costsCapital Improvement Planning Committee May 2006 Page 54

Boulder Valley School DistrictEducational Facilities Master PlanFairview High SchoolOriginal Construction Date: 1971Total Gross Square Footage: 256,392Program Capacity: 1861Student Enrollment May 2006: 1847Facility Condition Score: 78%Program Compatibility Score: 86%School Budget: $10,910,579The Educational Facilities Master Plan includes the following work at Fairview HighSchool:Facility Condition Assessment (FCA):• Communication systems improvements• Ventilation improvements• Irrigation system upgrades• Interior finishes upgraded (i.e. ceiling tiles, carpet, wall finishes, etc.)• Upgrade electrical distribution• Replace boilers• Interior Signage ProgramProgram Compatibility Assessment (PCA):• Remodel 300 level• Remodel 700 level• Remodel counseling and senior balcony• Construct additional classrooms• Replace lockersMulti-Use Outdoor Facilities (MUOF):• Field house facility at the playfields with water and toilet facilities• Extend water and sewer utilities to the sports field• Upgrade condition of the softball fields• Provide additional security fencing and signage at the sports fieldsInformation Technology (IT):• Upgrade WAN to provide capacity to support applications with high bandwidthdemands• Upgrade LANs to provide reliable and responsive access to data, research, andinformation• Implement VoIP to enhance communications capabilities and reduce costsCapital Improvement Planning Committee May 2006 Page 55

Boulder Valley School DistrictEducational Facilities Master PlanFireside ElementaryOriginal Construction Date: 1989Total Gross Square Footage: 58,889Program Capacity: 460Student Enrollment May 2006: 457Facility Condition Score: 87%Program Compatibility Score: 73%School Budget: $1,112,961The Educational Facilities Master Plan includes the following work at FiresideElementary:Facility Condition Assessment (FCA):• Intercom system improvements• Ventilation improvements• Irrigation system upgrades• Interior Signage ProgramProgram Compatibility Assessment (PCA):• Provide Special Education spaces• Provide small group instructional spaces• Provide additional staff office spaceMulti-Use Outdoor Facilities (MUOF):• Upgrade playground surfacing, equipment, and fencing• Provide adequate curbing and drainage• Replace aged and/or unsafe playground equipment• Make playgrounds ADA accessibleInformation Technology (IT):• Upgrade WAN to provide capacity to support applications with high bandwidthdemands• Upgrade LANs to provide reliable and responsive access to data, research, andinformation• Implement VoIP to enhance communications capabilities and reduce costsCapital Improvement Planning Committee May 2006 Page 56

Boulder Valley School DistrictEducational Facilities Master PlanFlatirons ElementaryOriginal Construction Date: 1956Total Gross Square Footage: 33,468Program Capacity: 315Student Enrollment May 2006: 296Facility Condition Score: 58%Program Compatibility Score: 56%School Budget: $4,203,473The Educational Facilities Master Plan includes the following work at FlatironsElementary:Facility Condition Assessment (FCA):• Intercom improvements• Electrical service and distribution upgrades• Interior finish upgrades (i.e. paint, carpet, ceiling tile, flooring, etc.)• HVAC upgrades• Interior cabinet upgrades• Interior Signage ProgramProgram Compatibility Assessment (PCA):• Classroom additions• Art and music room additions/remodel• Expand gym/stage• Special Education classrooms• Expand administration/student health space• Cafeteria improvementsMulti-Use Outdoor Facilities (MUOF):• Upgrade playground surfacing, equipment, and fencing• Provide adequate curbing and drainage• Replace aged and/or unsafe playground equipment• Make playgrounds ADA accessibleInformation Technology (IT):• Upgrade WAN to provide capacity to support applications with high bandwidthdemands• Upgrade LANs to provide reliable and responsive access to data, research, andinformation• Implement VoIP to enhance communications capabilities and reduce costsCapital Improvement Planning Committee May 2006 Page 57

Boulder Valley School DistrictEducational Facilities Master PlanFoothill ElementaryOriginal Construction Date: 1949Total Gross Square Footage: 57,819Program Capacity: 485Student Enrollment May 2006: 490Facility Condition Score: 48%Program Compatibility Score: 60%School Budget: $9,051,405The Educational Facilities Master Plan includes the following work at FoothillElementary:Facility Condition Assessment (FCA):• HVAC upgrades• Boiler replacement• Electrical service and distribution improvements• Fire alarm, intercom and clock systems improvements• Interior finishes upgraded (i.e. ceiling tiles, carpet, wall finishes, etc.)• Roof replacement and repairs• Restroom renovations including ADA accessibility where required• Site irrigation system improvements• Interior signage program• Site paving replacement and repairProgram Compatibility Assessment (PCA):• Improvements to the IMC and Special Education, and art room• New kindergarten suites• Provide small group instruction spaces• New administrative offices, cafeteria, and kitchen• Add additional classrooms for enrollment growthMulti-Use Outdoor Facilities (MUOF):• Upgrade playground surfacing, equipment, and fencing• Provide adequate curbing and drainage• Replace aged and/or unsafe playground equipment• Make playgrounds ADA accessibleInformation Technology (IT):• Upgrade WAN to provide capacity to support applications with high bandwidthdemands• Upgrade LANs to provide reliable and responsive access to data, research, andinformation• Implement VoIP to enhance communications capabilities and reduce costs.Capital Improvement Planning Committee May 2006 Page 58

Boulder Valley School DistrictEducational Facilities Master PlanGold Hill ElementaryOriginal Construction Date: 1915Total Gross Square Footage: 3,316Program Capacity: 41Student Enrollment May 2006: 26Facility Condition Score: 65%Program Compatibility Score: 70%School Budget: $174,910The Educational Facilities Master Plan includes the following work at Gold HillElementary:Facility Condition Assessment (FCA):• Electrical service improvements• Clock systems improvements• Roof replacement• Interior finishes upgraded (i.e. ceiling tiles, carpet, wall finishes, etc.)• Paint exterior• Replace aged wood windowsProgram Compatibility Assessment (PCA):• Classroom improvements• Renovate library/lunch roomMulti-Use Outdoor Facilities (MUOF):• Upgrade playground surfacing, equipment, and fencing• Provide adequate curbing and drainage• Replace aged and/or unsafe playground equipment• Make playgrounds ADA accessibleInformation Technology (IT):• Wide area network upgrades• Upgrade LANs to provide reliable and responsive access to data, research, andinformation• Implement VoIP to enhance communications capabilities and reduce costs.Capital Improvement Planning Committee May 2006 Page 59

Boulder Valley School DistrictEducational Facilities Master PlanHeatherwood ElementaryOriginal Construction Date: 1971Total Gross Square Footage: 52,016Program Capacity: 319Student Enrollment May 2006: 325Facility Condition Score: 65%Program Compatibility Score: 59%School Budget: $3,615,572The Educational Facilities Master Plan includes the following work at HeatherwoodElementary:Facility Condition Assessment (FCA):• Communication systems improvements• Irrigation system upgrades• Interior finishes upgraded (i.e. ceiling tiles, carpet, wall finishes, etc.)• Upgrade electrical service and distribution• Install fire sprinkler system• Interior Signage ProgramProgram Compatibility Assessment (PCA):• Provide special education spaces• Provide small group instructional spaces• Provide additional staff office space• Computer lab addition• Reconfigure kindergarten area• Art and music additionMulti-Use Outdoor Facilities (MUOF):• Upgrade playground surfacing, equipment, and fencing• Provide adequate curbing and drainage• Replace aged and/or unsafe playground equipment• Make playgrounds ADA accessibleInformation Technology (IT):• Upgrade WAN to provide capacity to support applications with high bandwidthdemands• Upgrade LANs to provide reliable and responsive access to data, research, andinformation• Implement VoIP to enhance communications capabilities and reduce costsCapital Improvement Planning Committee May 2006 Page 60

Boulder Valley School DistrictEducational Facilities Master PlanHorizons K-8 Charter at BurkeCampusOriginal Construction Date: 1959Total Gross Square Footage: 29,350Program Capacity: 315Student Enrollment May 2006: 318Facility Condition Score: 56%Program Compatibility Score: N/ASchool Budget: $2,500,000The Educational Facilities Master Plan includes the following work at Horizons K-8Charter:Facility Condition Assessment (FCA):• Communication systems improvements• Ventilation improvements• Irrigation system upgrades• Interior finishes upgraded (i.e. ceiling tiles, carpet, wall finishes, etc.)• Upgrade electrical service and distribution• Interior Signage ProgramProgram Compatibility Assessment (PCA):• Kindergarten improvements• Add science labs• Add art and music rooms• Expand gym/cafeteria• Computer lab expansion• Add IMC• Administrative offices expansionMulti-Use Outdoor Facilities (MUOF):• Upgrade playground surfacing, equipment, and fencing• Provide adequate curbing and drainage• Replace aged and/or unsafe playground equipment• Make playgrounds ADA accessibleInformation Technology (IT):• Upgrade WAN to provide capacity to support applications with high bandwidthdemands• Upgrade LANs to provide reliable and responsive access to data, research, andinformation• Implement VoIP to enhance communications capabilities and reduce costs*The final determination of overall campus improvements will be determined as thecharter school completes its facility master plan.Capital Improvement Planning Committee May 2006 Page 61

Boulder Valley School DistrictEducational Facilities Master PlanJamestown ElementaryOriginal Construction Date: 1954Total Gross Square Footage: 5,030Program Capacity: 18Student Enrollment May 2006: 13Facility Condition Score: 63%Program Compatibility Score: 97%School Budget: $157,279The Educational Facilities Master Plan includes the following work atJamestown Elementary:Facility Condition Assessment (FCA):• Electrical service improvements• Clock systems improvements• Roof replacement and repairs• Interior finishes upgraded (i.e. ceiling tiles, carpet, wall finishes, etc.)• Correct site drainage issues• Replace interior doorsProgram Compatibility Assessment (PCA):• None identifiedMulti-Use Outdoor Facilities (MUOF):• Upgrade playground surfacing, equipment, and fencing• Provide adequate curbing and drainage• Replace aged and/or unsafe playground equipment• Make playgrounds ADA accessibleInformation Technology (IT):• Wide area network upgrades• Upgrade LANs to provide reliable and responsive access to data,research, and information• Implement VoIP to enhance communications capabilities and reducecosts.Capital Improvement Planning Committee May 2006 Page 62

Boulder Valley School DistrictEducational Facilities Master PlanKohl ElementaryOriginal Construction Date: 1959Total Gross Square Footage: 54,113Program Capacity: 460Student Enrollment May 2006: 470Facility Condition Score: 59%Program Compatibility Score: 67%School Budget: $3,986,949The Educational Facilities Master Plan includes the following work at Kohl Elementary:Facility Condition Assessment (FCA):• HVAC upgrades• Interior finishes upgraded (i.e. ceiling tiles, carpet, wall finishes, etc)• Roof replacement and repairs• Restroom renovations including ADA accessibility where required• Site irrigation system improvements• Interior signage program• Site paving replacement and repairProgram Compatibility Assessment (PCA):• Special Education improvements• Relocate art room• Provide small group instruction spaces• New cafeteria and kitchen facilities• New administrative offices and faculty workroomMulti-Use Outdoor Facilities (MUOF):• Upgrade playground surfacing, equipment, and fencing• Provide adequate curbing and drainage• Replace aged and/or unsafe playground equipment• Make playgrounds ADA accessibleInformation Technology (IT):• Upgrade WAN to provide capacity to support applications with high bandwidthdemands• Upgrade LANs to provide reliable and responsive access to data, research, andinformation• Implement VoIP to enhance communications capabilities and reduce costsCapital Improvement Planning Committee May 2006 Page 63

Boulder Valley School DistrictEducational Facilities Master PlanLafayette Bus FacilityOriginal Construction Date: 2000Total Gross Square Footage: 3,960Program Capacity: N/AStudent Enrollment May 2006: N/AFacility Condition Score: 97%Program Compatibility Score: N/ABudget: $The Educational Facilities Master Plan includes the following work at Lafayette BusFacility:Information Technology (IT):• Upgrade WAN to provide capacity to support applications with high bandwidthdemands• Upgrade LANs to provide reliable and responsive access to data, research, andinformation• Implement VoIP to enhance communications capabilities and reduce costsCapital Improvement Planning Committee May 2006 Page 64

Boulder Valley School DistrictEducational Facilities Master PlanLafayette ElementaryOriginal Construction Date: 1964Total Gross Square Footage: 56,760Program Capacity: 298Student Enrollment May 2006: 359Facility Condition Score: 48%Program Compatibility Score: 69%School Budget: $3,009,587The Educational Facilities Master Plan includes the following work at LafayetteElementary:Facility Condition Assessment (FCA):• Communication systems improvements• Ventilation improvements• Irrigation system upgrades• Interior finishes upgraded (i.e. ceiling tiles, carpet, wall finishes, etc.)• Upgrade electrical service and distribution• Interior Signage ProgramProgram Compatibility Assessment (PCA):• Provide small group instructional spaces• Provide additional staff office space• Provide additional classroomsMulti-Use Outdoor Facilities (MUOF):• Upgrade playground surfacing, equipment, and fencing• Provide adequate curbing and drainage• Replace aged and/or unsafe playground equipment• Make playgrounds ADA accessibleInformation Technology (IT):• Upgrade WAN to provide capacity to support applications with high bandwidthdemands• Upgrade LANs to provide reliable and responsive access to data, research, andinformation• Implement VoIP to enhance communications capabilities and reduce costsCapital Improvement Planning Committee May 2006 Page 65

Boulder Valley School DistrictEducational Facilities Master PlanLouisville ElementaryOriginal Construction Date: 1964Total Gross Square Footage: 58,458Program Capacity: 460Student Enrollment May 2006: 413Facility Condition Score: 55%Program Compatibility Score: 70%School Budget: $2,850,862The Educational Facilities Master Plan includes the following work at LouisvilleElementary:Facility Condition Assessment (FCA):• Communication systems improvements• Ventilation improvements• Irrigation system upgrades• Interior finishes upgraded (i.e. ceiling tiles, carpet, wall finishes etc.)• Upgrade electrical service and distributionProgram Compatibility Assessment (PCA):• Provide small group instructional spaces• Provide additional staff office space• Provide additional classroomsMulti-Use Outdoor Facilities (MUOF):• Upgrade playground surfacing, equipment, and fencing• Provide adequate curbing and drainage• Replace aged and/or unsafe playground equipment• Make playgrounds ADA accessibleInformation Technology (IT):• Upgrade WAN to provide capacity to support applications with high bandwidthdemands• Upgrade LANs to provide reliable and responsive access to data, research, andinformation• Implement VoIP to enhance communications capabilities and reduce costs• Upgrade classroom spaces to use multimedia, projectors, and soundenhancementCapital Improvement Planning Committee May 2006 Page 66

Boulder Valley School DistrictEducational Facilities Master PlanLouisville Middle SchoolOriginal Construction Date: 1939Total Gross Square Footage: 89,087Program Capacity: 651Student Enrollment May 2006: 548Facility Condition Score: 66%Program Compatibility Score: 61%School Budget: $16,045,864The Educational Facilities Master Plan includes the following work at Louisville MiddleSchool:Facility Condition Assessment (FCA):• Communication systems improvements• Irrigation system upgrades• Repair or replace asphalt and concrete paving• Upgrade electrical service and distribution• Interior Signage ProgramProgram Compatibility Assessment (PCA):• Reconstruct original part of building• Provide special education spaces• Enlarge IMC• Enlarge auditorium/music area• Enlarge elective areaMulti-Use Outdoor Facilities (MUOF):• Drainage improvements for the playfield and running track• New athletic equipment storage buildingInformation Technology (IT):• Upgrade WAN to provide capacity to support applications with high bandwidthdemands• Upgrade LANs to provide reliable and responsive access to data, research, andinformation• Implement VoIP to enhance communications capabilities and reduce costsCapital Improvement Planning Committee May 2006 Page 67

Boulder Valley School DistrictEducational Facilities Master PlanManhattan Middle SchoolOriginal Construction Date: 1965Total Gross Square Footage: 80,692Program Capacity: 605Student Enrollment May 2006: 444Facility Condition Score: 52%Program Compatibility Score: 63%School Budget: $10,461,508The Educational Facilities Master Plan includes the following work at Manhattan MiddleSchool:Facility Condition Assessment (FCA):• Communication systems improvements• Irrigation system upgrades• Replace obsolete lighting• Upgrade electrical service and distribution• Interior Signage ProgramProgram Compatibility Assessment (PCA):• Additional counseling/office space• Provide Special Education spaces• Enlarge IMC• Enlarge auditorium/music area• Enlarge elective areaMulti-Use Outdoor Facilities (MUOF):• General improvements to the playfields• Replace outdoor basketball courtsInformation Technology (IT):• Upgrade WAN to provide capacity to support applications with high bandwidthdemands• Upgrade LANs to provide reliable and responsive access to data, research, andinformation• Implement VoIP to enhance communications capabilities and reduce costsCapital Improvement Planning Committee May 2006 Page 68

Boulder Valley School DistrictEducational Facilities Master PlanMesa ElementaryOriginal Construction Date: 1966Total Gross Square Footage: 45,786Program Capacity: 315Student Enrollment May 2006: 327Facility Condition Score: 48%Program Compatibility Score: 52%School Budget: $4,303,892The Educational Facilities Master Plan includes the following work at Mesa Elementary:Facility Condition Assessment (FCA):• Communication systems improvements• Ventilation improvements• Irrigation system upgrades• Interior finishes upgraded (i.e. ceiling tiles, carpet, wall finishes, etc.)• Upgrade electrical service and distribution• Interior Signage ProgramProgram Compatibility Assessment (PCA):• Construct new gymnasium• Provide additional staff office space• Provide additional classrooms• Construct computer lab• Expand art room• Provide Special Education spaceMulti-Use Outdoor Facilities (MUOF):• Upgrade playground surfacing, equipment, and fencing• Provide adequate curbing and drainage• Replace aged and/or unsafe playground equipment• Make playgrounds ADA accessibleInformation Technology (IT):• Upgrade WAN to provide capacity to support applications with high bandwidthdemands• Upgrade LANs to provide reliable and responsive access to data, research, andinformation• Implement VoIP to enhance communications capabilities and reduce costsCapital Improvement Planning Committee May 2006 Page 69

Boulder Valley School DistrictEducational Facilities Master PlanMonarch High SchoolOriginal Construction Date: 1998Total Gross Square Footage: 228,827Program Capacity: 1728Student Enrollment May 2006: 1601Facility Condition Score: 99%Program Compatibility Score: 92%School Budget: $2,391,162The Educational Facilities Master Plan includes the following work at Monarch HighSchool:Facility Condition Assessment (FCA):• Install additional exit signs• Irrigation system upgrades• Repair cracking of exterior wallProgram Compatibility Assessment (PCA):• Provide additional classroom space• Enlarge cafeteriaMulti-Use Outdoor Facilities (MUOF):• Provide restroom facilities at the sports complex• Extend utility services to the sports complexInformation Technology (IT):• Upgrade WAN to provide capacity to support applications with high bandwidthdemands• Upgrade LANs to provide reliable and responsive access to data, research, andinformation• Implement VoIP to enhance communications capabilities and reduce costsCapital Improvement Planning Committee May 2006 Page 70

Boulder Valley School DistrictEducational Facilities Master PlanMonarch K-8 SchoolOriginal Construction Date: 1997Total Gross Square Footage: 108,802Program Capacity: 753Student Enrollment May 2006: 705Facility Condition Score: 99%Program Compatibility Score: 89%School Budget: $452,375The Educational Facilities Master Plan includes the following work at Monarch K-8School:Facility Condition Assessment (FCA):• Exit signage improvements• HVAC improvementsProgram Compatibility Assessment (PCA):Multi-Use Outdoor Facilities (MUOF):• Provide an additional playfield for use by the K8 and high school• Upgrade playground surfacing, equipment, and fencing• Provide adequate curbing and drainage• Make playgrounds ADA accessibleInformation Technology (IT):• Upgrade network wiring for computers and telephone, as necessary• Replace obsolete networking equipment• Implement VoIP to enhance communications capabilities and reduce costsCapital Improvement Planning Committee May 2006 Page 71

Boulder Valley School DistrictEducational Facilities Master PlanNederland Bus FacilityOriginal Construction Date: 2001Total Gross Square Footage: 3,960Program Capacity: N/AStudent Enrollment May 2006: N/AFacility Condition Score: 96%Program Compatibility Score: N/ABudget: $The Educational Facilities Master Plan includes the following work at Nederland BusFacility:Information Technology (IT):• Wide area network upgrades• Upgrade LANs to provide reliable and responsive access to data, research, andinformation• Implement VoIP to enhance communications capabilities and reduce costs.Capital Improvement Planning Committee May 2006 Page 72

Boulder Valley School DistrictEducational Facilities Master PlanNederland ElementaryOriginal Construction Date: 1989Total Gross Square Footage: 61,470Program Capacity: 345Student Enrollment May 2006: 326Facility Condition Score: 94%Program Compatibility Score: 82%School Budget: $988,466The Educational Facilities Master Plan includes the following work at NederlandElementary:Facility Condition Assessment (FCA):• Site concrete and asphalt repair• Interior and exterior finish upgrades• Exterior stair replacement• Interior Signage ProgramProgram Compatibility Assessment (PCA):• Parking and drop-off improvementsMulti-Use Outdoor Facilities (MUOF):• Upgrade playground surfacing, equipment, and fencing• Provide adequate curbing and drainage• Replace aged and/or unsafe playground equipment• Make playgrounds ADA accessibleInformation Technology (IT):• Wide area network upgrades• Upgrade LANs to provide reliable and responsive access to data, research, andinformation• Implement VoIP to enhance communications capabilities and reduce costs.Capital Improvement Planning Committee May 2006 Page 73

Boulder Valley School DistrictEducational Facilities Master PlanNederland Middle/Senior HighSchoolOriginal Construction Date: 1971Total Gross Square Footage: 97,080Program Capacity: 650Student Enrollment May 2006: 390Facility Condition Score: 68%Program Compatibility Score: 74%School Budget: $5,546,645The Educational Facilities Master Plan includes the following work at NederlandMiddle/Senior High School:Facility Condition Assessment (FCA):• HVAC improvements• Boiler replacement• Exterior stucco repairs• Intercom improvements• Electrical service and distribution improvements• Interior finish improvements (i.e. paint, carpet, flooring, ceiling tile, etc.)• Site pavement repair and replacement• Interior Signage ProgramProgram Compatibility Assessment (PCA):• Counseling office improvements• Gym storage improvements• Science classroom addition/remodel• Physical Education classroom/multi-purpose addition• Expand administration office/conference space• General storage additionMulti-Use Outdoor Facilities (MUOF):• Convert football/soccer field to synthetic turf• Provide a paved all-weather running track• Provide new concessions, restrooms, and athletic storage building• Extend water and sewer utilities to the stadium area• Upgrade the east playfield by removing the dirt infieldInformation Technology (IT):• Wide area network upgrades• Upgrade LANs to provide reliable and responsive access to data, research, andinformation• Implement VoIP to enhance communications capabilities and reduce costs.Capital Improvement Planning Committee May 2006 Page 74

Boulder Valley School DistrictEducational Facilities Master PlanNew Vista High School at BaseLine CampusOriginal Construction Date: 1952Total Gross Square Footage: 76,668Program Capacity: 659Student Enrollment May 2006: 327Facility Condition Score: 59%Program Compatibility Score: 75%School Budget: $4,098,081The Educational Facilities Master Plan includes the following work at New Vista HighSchool:Facility Condition Assessment (FCA):• HVAC improvements• Site irrigation improvements• Communication systems improvements• Interior finish repair/replacement• Upgrade electrical service and distribution• Repair exterior walls• Interior Signage ProgramProgram Compatibility Assessment (PCA):• Provide Special Education spaces• Provide additional classrooms• Provide additional staff office space• Provide additional computer labs• Provide additional storageInformation Technology (IT):• Upgrade WAN to provide capacity to support applications with high bandwidthdemands• Upgrade LANs to provide reliable and responsive access to data, research, andinformation• Implement VoIP to enhance communications capabilities and reduce costsCapital Improvement Planning Committee May 2006 Page 75

Boulder Valley School DistrictEducational Facilities Master PlanPeak to Peak K-12 CharterOriginal Construction Date:Total Gross Square Footage:Program Capacity: 1200Student Enrollment May 2006: 1200Facility Condition Score: N/AProgram Compatibility Score: 71%School Budget: $1,600,000The Educational Facilities Master Plan includes the following work at Peak to PeakK-12 Charter:*The final determination of overall campus improvements will be determined as thecharter school completes its facility master plan.BVSD does not own this facility.Capital Improvement Planning Committee May 2006 Page 76

Boulder Valley School DistrictEducational Facilities Master PlanPioneer ElementaryOriginal Construction Date: 1926Total Gross Square Footage: 69,518Program Capacity: 341Student Enrollment May 2006: 397Facility Condition Score: 67%Program Compatibility Score: 76%School Budget: $4,605,385The Educational Facilities Master Plan includes the following work at PioneerElementary:Facility Condition Assessment (FCA):• Fire alarm improvements• Boiler replacement• Electrical service and distribution improvements• Roof replacement and repair• Restroom improvements and ADA access• Selected window replacement• Concrete and asphalt replacement and repair• Interior Signage ProgramProgram Compatibility Assessment (PCA):• Kindergarten classroom renovation• IMC expansion and remodel• Expand administration and health space• Special Education classroom addition/remodel• Music classroom renovationMulti-Use Outdoor Facilities (MUOF):• Upgrade playground surfacing, equipment, and fencing• Provide adequate curbing and drainage• Replace aged and/or unsafe playground equipment• Make playgrounds ADA accessibleInformation Technology (IT):• Upgrade WAN to provide capacity to support applications with high bandwidthdemands• Upgrade LANs to provide reliable and responsive access to data, research, andinformation• Implement VoIP to enhance communications capabilities and reduce costsCapital Improvement Planning Committee May 2006 Page 77

Boulder Valley School DistrictEducational Facilities Master PlanPlatt Middle SchoolOriginal Construction Date: 1958Total Gross Square Footage: 117,057Program Capacity: 707Student Enrollment May 2006: 540Facility Condition Score: 50%Program Compatibility Score: 65%School Budget: $8,120,792The Educational Facilities Master Plan includes the following work at Platt MiddleSchool:Facility Condition Assessment (FCA):• Intercom system upgrade• Clock system upgrade• Electrical service and distribution improvements• Food service equipment replacement• HVAC upgrades• Selected window replacement• Interior finish upgrades (carpet, paint, ceiling tiles, flooring, etc.)• Interior cabinet replacement• Interior Signage ProgramProgram Compatibility Assessment (PCA):• Science classroom renovation• Art classroom renovation• Auditorium support improvements• Consumer studies renovation• Auxiliary gym expansion• Band/choir room addition and improvements• Administration office and health area improvements• Tech shop expansionMulti-Use Outdoor Facilities (MUOF):• Replace the pavement at the outdoor basketball courts• Repair and expand outdoor athletic storage facilitiesInformation Technology (IT):• Upgrade WAN to provide capacity to support applications with high bandwidthdemands• Upgrade LANs to provide reliable and responsive access to data, research, andinformation• Implement VoIP to enhance communications capabilities and reduce costsCapital Improvement Planning Committee May 2006 Page 78

Boulder Valley School DistrictEducational Facilities Master PlanRyan ElementaryOriginal Construction Date: 1983Total Gross Square Footage: 49,176Program Capacity: 350Student Enrollment May 2006: 393Facility Condition Score: 68%Program Compatibility Score: 75%School Budget: $3,616,816The Educational Facilities Master Plan includes the following work at Ryan Elementary:Facility Condition Assessment (FCA):• Communication systems improvements• Ventilation improvements• Irrigation system upgrades• Interior finishes upgraded (i.e. ceiling tiles, carpet, wall finishes)• Upgrade electrical distribution• Interior Signage ProgramProgram Compatibility Assessment (PCA):• Provide Special Education spaces• Provide small group instructional spaces• Provide additional staff office space• Enlarge cafeteria and upgrade kitchen• Expand instrumental music• Expand art roomMulti-Use Outdoor Facilities (MUOF):• Upgrade playground surfacing, equipment, and fencing• Provide adequate curbing and drainage• Replace aged and/or unsafe playground equipment• Make playgrounds ADA accessibleInformation Technology (IT):• Upgrade WAN to provide capacity to support applications with high bandwidthdemands• Upgrade LANs to provide reliable and responsive access to data, research, andinformation• Implement VoIP to enhance communications capabilities and reduce costsCapital Improvement Planning Committee May 2006 Page 79

Boulder Valley School DistrictEducational Facilities Master PlanSanchez ElementaryOriginal Construction Date: 1986Total Gross Square Footage: 49,887Program Capacity: 316Student Enrollment May 2006: 276Facility Condition Score: 72%Program Compatibility Score: 71%School Budget: $3,449,086The Educational Facilities Master Plan includes the following work at SanchezElementary:Facility Condition Assessment (FCA):• Intercom and fire alarm system improvements• Ventilation improvements• Irrigation system upgrades• Interior finishes upgraded (i.e. ceiling tiles, carpet, wall finishes, etc.)• Interior Signage ProgramProgram Compatibility Assessment (PCA):• Provide Special Education spaces• Provide small group instructional spaces• Provide additional staff office space• Enlarge cafeteria and upgrade kitchen• Expand instrumental music• Expand art roomMulti-Use Outdoor Facilities (MUOF):• Upgrade playground surfacing, equipment, and fencing• Provide adequate curbing and drainage• Replace aged and/or unsafe playground equipment• Make playgrounds ADA accessibleInformation Technology (IT):• Upgrade WAN to provide capacity to support applications with high bandwidthdemands• Upgrade LANs to provide reliable and responsive access to data, research, andinformation• Implement VoIP to enhance communications capabilities and reduce costsCapital Improvement Planning Committee May 2006 Page 80

Boulder Valley School DistrictEducational Facilities Master PlanSombrero MarshOriginal Construction Date: 2000Total Gross Square Footage: 4806Program Capacity: N/AStudent Enrollment May 2006: N/AFacility Condition Score: 96%Program Compatibility Score: N/ABudget: $The Educational Facilities Master Plan includes the following work at Sombrero Marsh:Information Technology (IT):• Upgrade WAN to provide capacity to support applications with high bandwidthdemands• Upgrade LANs to provide reliable and responsive access to data, research, andinformation• Implement VoIP to enhance communications capabilities and reduce costsCapital Improvement Planning Committee May 2006 Page 81

Boulder Valley School DistrictEducational Facilities Master PlanSouthern Hills Middle SchoolOriginal Construction Date: 1963Total Gross Square Footage: 72,260Program Capacity: 503Student Enrollment May 2006: 502Facility Condition Score: 57%Program Compatibility Score: 56%School Budget: $10,169,858The Educational Facilities Master Plan includes the following work at Southern HillsMiddle School:Facility Condition Assessment (FCA):• HVAC upgrades• Electrical service and distribution improvements• Clock system improvements• Interior finishes upgraded (i.e. ceiling tiles, carpet, wall finishes, etc)• Roof replacement and repairs• Restroom renovations including ADA accessibility where required• Site irrigation system improvements• Interior signage program• Site paving replacement and repair• Exterior wall repair and restorationProgram Compatibility Assessment (PCA):• New main gym and renovation of existing gym• Enlarge IMC• Provide new music room• Upgrade/replace science labs• Improvements to consumer studies• Enlarge and renovate administrative offices and counseling• Provide small group instructional spaces and resource staff offices• Provide Special Education facilitiesMulti-Use Outdoor Facilities (MUOF):• Field restoration• Provide additional outdoor recreational/leisure facilitiesInformation Technology (IT):• Upgrade WAN to provide capacity to support applications with high bandwidthdemands• Upgrade LANs to provide reliable and responsive access to data, research, andinformation• Implement VoIP to enhance communications capabilities and reduce costsCapital Improvement Planning Committee May 2006 Page 82

Boulder Valley School DistrictEducational Facilities Master PlanSummit Charter at MajesticHeights CampusOriginal Construction Date: 1964Total Gross Square Footage: 28,455Program Capacity: 337Student Enrollment May 2006: 303Facility Condition Score: 37%Program Compatibility Score: N/A%School Budget: $4,000,000The Educational Facilities Master Plan includes the following work at Summit Charter:Facility Condition Assessment (FCA):• Communication systems improvements• Ventilation improvements• Irrigation system upgrades• Interior finishes upgraded (i.e. ceiling tiles, carpet, wall finishes, etc.)• Upgrade electrical service and distributionProgram Compatibility Assessment (PCA):• Provide general upgrade of classrooms and instructional spaces• Provide science labs and classrooms• IMC expansion• Expansion of officesMulti-Use Outdoor Facilities (MUOF):• General site improvementsInformation Technology (IT):• Upgrade WAN to provide capacity to support applications with high bandwidthdemands• Upgrade LANs to provide reliable and responsive access to data, research, andinformation• Implement VoIP to enhance communications capabilities and reduce costs*The final determination of overall campus improvements will be determined as thecharter school completes its facility master plan.Capital Improvement Planning Committee May 2006 Page 83

Boulder Valley School DistrictEducational Facilities Master PlanSuperior ElementaryOriginal Construction Date: 1996Total Gross Square Footage: 63,500Program Capacity: 500Student Enrollment May 2006: 644Facility Condition Score: 93%Program Compatibility Score: 86%School Budget: $605,162The Educational Facilities Master Plan includes the following work at SuperiorElementary:Facility Condition Assessment (FCA):• HVAC improvements• Site irrigation improvements• Exterior masonry wall repair• Interior finish repair/replacement• Site pavingProgram Compatibility Assessment (PCA):• Enlarge cafeteriaMulti-Use Outdoor Facilities (MUOF):• Upgrade playground surfacing, equipment and fencing• Provide adequate curbing and drainage• Replace aged and/or unsafe playground equipment• Make playgrounds ADA accessibleInformation Technology (IT):• Upgrade WAN to provide capacity to support applications with high bandwidthdemands• Upgrade LANs to provide reliable and responsive access to data, research, andinformation• Implement VoIP to enhance communications capabilities and reduce costsCapital Improvement Planning Committee May 2006 Page 84

Boulder Valley School DistrictEducational Facilities Master PlanUniversity Hill ElementaryOriginal Construction Date: 1905Total Gross Square Footage: 52,962Program Capacity: 314Student Enrollment May 2006: 310Facility Condition Score: 63%Program Compatibility Score: 58%School Budget: $3,957,110The Educational Facilities Master Plan includes the following work at University HillElementary:Facility Condition Assessment (FCA):• HVAC upgrades• Boiler control upgrades• Electrical service and distribution improvements• Fire alarm, intercom, security and clock systems improvements• Interior finishes upgraded (i.e. ceiling tiles, carpet, wall finishes, etc.)• Roof replacement and repairs• Site irrigation system improvements• Interior signage program• Replace aged, unsafe wood windowsProgram Compatibility Assessment (PCA):• Relocate administrative offices• Provide adequate art and music facilities• Provide small group instructional spaces• Provide offices and meeting space for resource staffMulti-Use Outdoor Facilities (MUOF):• Upgrade playground surfacing, equipment, and fencing• Provide adequate curbing and drainage• Replace aged and/or unsafe playground equipment• Make playgrounds ADA accessibleInformation Technology (IT):• Upgrade WAN to provide capacity to support applications with high bandwidthdemands• Upgrade LANs to provide reliable and responsive access to data, research, andinformation• Implement VoIP to enhance communications capabilities and reduce costsCapital Improvement Planning Committee May 2006 Page 85

Boulder Valley School DistrictEducational Facilities Master PlanWhittier InternationalOriginal Construction Date: 1882Total Gross Square Footage: 35,123Program Capacity: 300Student Enrollment May 2006: 320Facility Condition Score: 58%Program Compatibility Score: 67%School Budget: $3,472,286The Educational Facilities Master Plan includes the following work at WhittierInternational:Facility Condition Assessment (FCA):• Intercom and clock system upgrades• Electrical service and distribution upgrade• Selected window replacement• Interior finish upgrades• Interior cabinet upgrades• HVAC improvements• Interior Signage ProgramProgram Compatibility Assessment (PCA):• Art and music classroom addition• Kindergarten classroom additions• Expand gym and stage• Computer lab• Expand administration office• Kitchen/storage improvementsMulti-Use Outdoor Facilities (MUOF):• Upgrade playground surfacing, equipment, and fencing• Provide adequate curbing and drainage• Replace aged and/or unsafe playground equipment• Make playgrounds ADA accessibleInformation Technology (IT):• Upgrade WAN to provide capacity to support applications with high bandwidthdemands• Upgrade LANs to provide reliable and responsive access to data, research, andinformation• Implement VoIP to enhance communications capabilities and reduce costsCapital Improvement Planning Committee May 2006 Page 86

6.0 TECHNOLOGY DETAILBoulder Valley School DistrictEducational Facilities Master PlanAs with the facilities data detail (Section 5.0 above), it was necessary to examine the technologydetail as well. This chapter includes analysis and details on the proposed IT improvements forthe district. With increased growth of the use of technology in the classroom, the availablebandwidth for data transmission to and from the schools has deteriorated significantly. Thedistrict needs to upgrade the wide area network to increase available bandwidth, upgrade LANsin the schools, and replace the current telephone system with a Voice-Over-Internet-Protocolsystem.BUDGET INFORMATION1. Wide Area Network (WAN) Check whether or not a budget augmentation will berequired to complete the proposed project. Identify the requested dollars by fiscal yearthroughout the project from the Project Funding Plan.2. Local Area Network (LAN)3. Voice Over Internet Protocol (VoIP)4. Video Distribution5. Project Costs: Summarize IT project costs from the Proposed Alternative Worksheet6. Sources of Funding: Indicate the anticipated source of funding by fiscal year for theproposed project. If the project is to be funded from multiple sources, quantify theamount from each source. Examples include the State General Fund, interagencyreimbursements, Federal funds, special funds, grant funds, and contracts7. Project Financial Benefits: Indicate the amount of cost savings to be realized eachfiscal yearBUSINESS OBJECTIVERecognizing the program and business opportunities that exist, MGT has identified andprioritized the business objectives for enhancements to the WAN, LAN, and phone system.The business objectives, in priority order, are:• Improve the bandwidth available to every school in BVSD• Increase LAN speeds in each building from 10 Mb to a minimum of 100Mb• Allow for the full integration of Point of Service (POS) to the WAN• Enhance the communication between the community and schoolsCURRENT ENVIRONMENTTechnical EnvironmentThis section provides a description of the technical environment affecting the BVSD technologyinfrastructure. It includes a description of the general technical environment, policies, andprocedures that must be considered, and any relevant policies and constraints that must berecognized. It also provides a description of the technical resources and staffing requirementsneeded to support the current infrastructure.Capital Improvement Planning Committee May 2006 Page 87

Boulder Valley School DistrictEducational Facilities Master PlanExisting InfrastructureThe figure below provides a high-level context of the of the BVSD infrastructure.WAN InfrastructureThe BVSD WAN is a collection of 61 T1 lines with a speed of 1.5 Mbps running from the schoolsite to the Qwest cloud, aggregated back over the 20 Mb ATM link. The WAN utilizes acombination of Qwest frame-relay, ATM, and point-to-point T1’s. The basic concept is 20 Mb/sATM from the Ed Center to the Qwest cloud. The Ed Center serves as the hub of the networkwith each school being a spoke off the main hub. The five major high schools each have twodata T1s (Monarch, Fairview, Centaurus, Boulder, and Broomfield). The mountain schoolsutilize point-to-point service back to the Ed Center (Nederland Elementary and Middle/Senior,Jamestown, Gold Hill). The rest of the schools have single F/R T1’s to the Qwest cloud. Theinternet link is a dedicated 10 Mb/s ATM link to the Front Range Gigapop. It runs at more than95% of capacity nearly 24x7.Capital Improvement Planning Committee May 2006 Page 88

Boulder Valley School DistrictEducational Facilities Master PlanBelow is a diagram of the current WANCapital Improvement Planning Committee May 2006 Page 89

Boulder Valley School DistrictEducational Facilities Master PlanLAN InfrastructureThe current LANs were built with connectivity in mind, with no regard for throughput or speed.In hundreds of locations 6, 12, or 24-port mini-hubs are used in classrooms or labs to provideconnectivity for an equivalent number of computers, which are all fed over a single 10 Mb linkwhich is often times daisy-chained to another hub supporting a number of computers with a 10Mb uplink of its own. Cabling has been installed incrementally over the years utilizing variousstandards. A significant amount of Category 3 cabling is still in use in buildings. MDF’s and/orIDF’s are typically installed in shared spaces with no room for growth, no cable management,and no security. Many equipment racks are located in unsafe service areas that require laddersfor access.Current Phone SystemBVSD is currently using a Nortel phone system. It is not one integrated system. Each buildinghas its own stand-alone system with an OPX connection from the Ed Center. The configurationallows for a maximum of two or three phone lines per school and one is usually dedicated toFAX and/or the alarm system. Qwest is the service provider for phone service.Desktop WorkstationsThe District is in the process of upgrading desktops in the classroom. With the addition of thesenew desktops, the demand for more content and faster service will increase as more locationsare upgraded. It is expected that the upgrade will be completed by 2010.PROPOSED SOLUTIONThis section describes the solution proposed to meet the business objectives defined in thisreport. MGT of America conducted market research and analysis to determine alternativesolutions to best meet the needs of BVSD. Based on this research, MGT believes that theproposed solution in this section will be the most effective for BVSD. The proposed solution ispresented in the following sections:• Solution Description• Rationale for Selection• Other Alternatives Considered• Alternative SolutionSolution DescriptionTo address the business needs and problems as described in Section 3 of this report, MGT isproposing a solution which involves the following components:• The leasing of a fiber optic Wide Area Network (WAN)• The upgrade of the LAN in each building• The replacement of current phone system with a Voice-Over-Internet Protocol (VoIP)systemThe foundation of the proposed solution is the leasing of dark fiber optic cable to support a WANdedicated to BVSD. Each building location will require some upgrading of the LAN for handlingthe higher capacity of the WAN. BVSD will also be able to build upon the fiber optic installationwith a centralized VoIP phone system. In order to implement the above components BVSD will:Capital Improvement Planning Committee May 2006 Page 90

Boulder Valley School DistrictEducational Facilities Master Plan• Increase the bandwidth to every building in the District• Increase the effectiveness of the school LANs with the new computers currently beinginstalled• Leverage the fiber optic network to run the VoIP• Enable cost savings for the running of phone system• Allow for the distribution of video content to every classroomHardware: The proposed solution will require the procurement of hardware to operatethe WAN, LAN, and the VoIP systems. It will include servers, switches, routers, andhubs as well as phones.WAN• Leasing of the fiber optical cable for 53 locations throughout BVSD:• 28 Elementary Schools• 5 K-8 Schools• 10 Middle Schools• 6 High Schools• 1 K-12 School• 2 Bus Terminals• 1 Community School• Ed Center/VO-TECH• Two pairs of dark fiber going to data entry point in each building in the WAN• One Gbps to every buildingLAN• Hubs, routers, and switches that support fiber-optic capacities• Installation of new wiring where required in each classroom, office, andworkspace to support speeds of 100 Mbps or higher to each workstation locationVoice-Over-Internet Protocol• Servers• Phones in each classroom, office, and workspace• WiringSoftware: The proposed solution will require the purchase of software to support theWAN, LAN, and VoIP. The specific software will be based on the vendor’s proposal.1. Integration issues: There are no other systems with which the solution mustinteroperate.2. Procurement approach: It is expected that the current BVSD RFP procedures willbe used to procure the proposed solution.Approach: The BVSD staff will develop the RFP to procure a vendor that willdevelop RFP for:• Project Management• Independent project oversight and verification• Installation of the WAN• Installation of the LAN at all BVSD locationsCapital Improvement Planning Committee May 2006 Page 91

Boulder Valley School DistrictEducational Facilities Master Plan• Installation of a VoIP systemBVSD will contact a number of vendors to solicit bids. The independent projectoversight manager will need to be under contract prior to other vendors so that theycan participate in the selection of the WAN, LAN, and VoIP vendors.Market Research: Once business and functional requirements were developedbased on interviews, focus groups with staff, and document reviews, the teamidentified a number of firms that appeared to provide the needed functionality. Thesefirms were identified through knowledge of the industry. Searches were performedto identify firms that had products that meet the needs of BVSD.3. Resource requirements: BVSD staff will be required at all phases of the project toprovide assistance in technical requirements, implementation, maintenance, and ongoingoperation of the proposed solution. The amount of resources needed fromBVSD will be limited due to the fact that each vendor will be providing maintenanceas part of Service Level Agreements.4. Security: The network will be built specifically with BVSD in mind and there will beno bandwidth sharing by any other party. It will NOT be an extension of sharedbandwidth allocation with other parties which may compromise security orthroughput. Dedicated fibers on existing and new cable will be provided to facilitatethe BVSD WAN. In addition, a pure fiber network will be utilized further reducingreliability concerns.5. Training plan: The development of a training plan will be the responsibility of BVSDin coordination with the vendors. The vendors will conduct the training with staff,supervisors, and managers. Training materials will be created and supplied byvendors to BVSD. The IT staff involvement during the requirements and test phaseswill provide them with an understanding of the system in order to provide operationalsupport for end-users. This training will enable the staff to perform analysis onsystem errors when they arise.6. On-going maintenance: Maintenance agreements and Service Level Agreementsbetween the vendors and BVSD will be established for the vendor to provide ongoingmaintenance for any application and third-party software that is part of the proposedsolution.7. Impact on end users: What is the anticipated impact of the new system on its endusers, and what actions are planned to address these issues? Consider changeacceptance, training needs, and modifications in the way in which work activities arecompleted.8. Impact on existing system: This installation of WAN, LAN, and VoIP will have lowimpact on the existing system currently used by BVSD. The proposed solution will,however, divert staff or other resources from other projects to ensure the success ofthe overall project.9. Consistency with overall strategies: The installation of the fiber optic WANcombined with the upgrade of the LAN in each building, aligns with the strategicgoals of BVSD in both the program and technology areas. The proposed project laysthe foundation for BVSD to provide its students and the community with a high levelof service.Capital Improvement Planning Committee May 2006 Page 92

Boulder Valley School DistrictEducational Facilities Master Plan10. Impact on data center: The proposed solution will require support from the BVSD ITDepartment.11. Costs and Benefits: The estimated one-time cost of implementing the proposedsolution is $20,216,798. Continuing annual costs are projected to be $479,200annually. It is assumed that the installation of cabling in the schools will only berequired in approximately one-third of the buildings. Thus the cost shown below isfor bringing those buildings up to standard. The expenses are identified in Exhibit6.1 below.WAN One-Time CostEXHIBIT 6.1ESTIMATED COST SUMMARYLeasing of dark fiber-optic cable $10,600,000Total WAN One-Time Cost $10,600,000LAN One-Time CostHardware (Routers, Hubs, Switches etc.) $2,662,853Cabling and Installation:High Schools and Voc Tech (7) $635,250Middle and K-8 Schools (15) $742,500Elementary and Community Schools (29) $717,750Total LAN One-Time Cost $4,758,103VoIP One-Time CostBase system $3,646,959Optional Equipment $575,316Installation and Shipping $395,600Provisioning $187,000Training $54,000Total VoIP One-Time Cost $4,858,875Total One-Time Cost $20,216,978WAN Continuing CostWAN monitoring cost $47,700Total WAN Continuing CostLAN Continuing CostMaintenance performed by BVSD staff $0Capital Improvement Planning Committee May 2006 Page 93

Boulder Valley School DistrictEducational Facilities Master PlanTotal LAN Continuing Cost $0VoIP Continuing CostMaintenance per year $287,500Network Monitoring per year $144,000Total VoIP Continuing Cost $431,500Total Continuing Cost $479,200Many benefits that cannot be quantified will occur when the system is deployed. Thepurpose of the project is to provide students and staff with a faster and more reliable network. Itwas not envisioned to either generate revenue or save money. BVSD will realize significantbenefits such as:• Reducing significant delays in the downloading of information from the internet• Allow for future expansion of the network at a reduced cost• The ability to accommodate current hardware needs in the classroom as newcomputers are installedInternal connections providers offer discounts on eligible services provided to schools andlibraries. While schools and libraries apply for these discounts, USAC works in conjunction withservice providers to make sure these discounts are passed on to program participants.BVSD will be eligible for up to a 50% rebate for costs associated with several of these systemsunder the e-Rate program. One stipulation of the program is the rules governing ownership asdescribed in the previous section. BVSD cannot own the WAN and submit for thereimbursement. Therefore, it will be in the best interest of the District to explore closely thebenefits of this program and to take full advantage of whatever cost savings can be achievedunder this model.Benefits: The proposed solution meets the requirements by increasing the bandwidth of theWAN. This will in turn increase the effectiveness by:• Better content delivery in the classroom• Increased effectiveness of the POS system in school cafeterias• Ability to build on fiber optic to handle other traffic (VOIP, video)• Expandability - the network is being constructed with the District in mind. Theproposed solution offers the BVSD GigE speeds to each facility location. As a result,there will be extra fiber pairs available to BVSD for future expansion needs.• Scalability - the proposed GigE connectivity to each facility will be delivered via GigEmodules installed on each router at each location. Because electronics, not fiber, isthe driver of throughput speeds, the District can scale, as needs warrant, by simplyupgrading these modules to the next level. The speeds available today are GigE, 10Gig, 100 Gig, etc.Cost: The rationale for having BSVD leasing fiber optic network, as opposed to building thefiber network, is driven by two factors related to cost:Capital Improvement Planning Committee May 2006 Page 94

Boulder Valley School DistrictEducational Facilities Master Plan• The cost of leasing the lines over a 10 year period would be a fixed cost. The costof BVSD building and owning the lines would be significantly higher over the sameperiod.• Excess bandwidth could be sold on the open market to reduce installations andoperating cost to the District.• A reduction in the cost of fiber optic WAN installation can be achieved if BVSDapplies for E-Rate which they can only do through leasing the lines. This mayreduce the cost of fiber leasing significantly. The actual savings amount cannot bepredicted at this time.The savings from VoIP over current leased line phone system can be used to offset LANupgrade cost. The District is current paying $45,000 per month in phone line leasing. The VoIPis minimal after the first year.Risk: The risk to the success of the upgrades is minimal. The review of available solutionsverified that multiple vendors within the marketplace have experience in meeting businessrequirements similar the needs of BVSD using proven technologies.OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDEREDIt is very rare that any information technology project focused on businessproblems/opportunities, business objectives, and business requirements would have only onesolution. In light of this, a thorough analysis was conducted of all feasible alternatives that wouldmeet the project’s objectives and requirements. After a review of the marketplace, MGT hasidentified an alternative solution to the installation of a fiber-optic cable network throughoutBVSD.The following section of this report contains a more detailed understanding of the alternatives.The second alternative would benefit BVSD by having the following functionality:• Faster implementation of the WANThe alternatives for the LAN and phone system would be to not upgrade and just continue withcurrent systems.Alternative1: Owning Fiber Optic LinesAs an alternative to BVSD leasing the fiber optic lines, the option of installing and owning lineswas researched.1. Description:• BVSD would install and maintain the lines2. Costs:• Pay the higher cost over the period of use by the District3. Benefits:• Cost would be fixedCapital Improvement Planning Committee May 2006 Page 95

Boulder Valley School DistrictEducational Facilities Master Plan4. Advantages:• Could sell excess capacity• Vendor maintains the network through Service Level Agreements5. Disadvantages:• Highest cost• Takes a long time to implement• Not able to take advantage of E-Rate discount• Requires skilled resources within the District that are not available• High risk to the District for successAlternative 2: Installation of Worldwide Interoperability for Microwave AccessAlternative for installation of fiber optic cable is the use of Worldwide Interoperability forMicrowave Access (WiMAX) also known as Wireless Broadband.1. Description:• WiMAX is based on the IEEE 802.16 standard delivering WAN access withspeeds up to 40Mbps over the air. “WiMAX is a standards-based technologyenabling the delivery of last mile wireless broadband access as an alternative tocable and DSL. WiMAX will provide fixed, nomadic, portable, and, eventually,mobile wireless broadband connectivity without the need for direct line-of-sight toa base station. In a typical cell radius deployment of three to 10 kilometers,WiMAX Forum Certified systems can be expected to deliver capacity of up to40 Mbps per channel, for fixed and portable access applications. This is enoughbandwidth to simultaneously support hundreds of businesses with T-1 speedconnectivity and thousands of residences with DSL speed connectivity.”2. Costs:• Determining design, engineering, and cost estimates for the installation of aWiMax network were beyond the scope of this document but are generallyconsidered to be less than those of the WAN high-speed network recommendedabove.3. Benefits:• Can be a resource for the entire community4. Advantage:• Faster implementation period• No cable to install in the ground to create the WAN5. Disadvantages:• Still an emerging technology• Standard has not been completed so equipment to support is very limitedCapital Improvement Planning Committee May 2006 Page 96

Boulder Valley School DistrictEducational Facilities Master Plan• Currently requires line-of-sight to connect cells. Radio jamming, oroverwhelming a receiver by continuously sending packets, might cause Denialof Service• Currently it is line-of-sight to install ( Problem for locations like Nederland)• FCC licensing issues since the technology is over-the-airCapital Improvement Planning Committee May 2006 Page 97

Boulder Valley School DistrictEducational Facilities Master Plan7.0 PUBLIC INFORMATION DETAILPUBLIC CHARRETTE PROCESSThe public charrette sessions were conducted during the week of March 6 in the BVSD highschools and Pioneer Elementary School (Spanish). The following chart depicts the number ofparticipants who signed the register. There were numerous other people who chose not to signin, but were active participants in the process. When survey results are shared, the number ofactual participants will not, therefore, always match the registered participants.EXHIBIT 7.1NUMBER OF REGISTERED PARTICIPANTSPUBLIC CHARRETTESSITETOTAL PARTICIPANTSBoulder 62Broomfield 76Centaurus 29Fairview 65Monarch 44Nederland 27Pioneer 10TOTALS 313Source: MGT of America, March 2006There were some key questions asked during the charrette process that focused on the issuesat hand. Participants were asked to share their views on key matters. The following analysisreflects the opinions that were expressed during the charrette large and small group process.These views may not be totally accurate as the audience may not have been aware of all thefacts pertaining to an issue. They do represent the perceptions of the audience whoparticipated in this process. The percentages reported in this report reflect a combination of allthe charrettes conducted.Capital Improvement Planning Committee May 2006 Page 99

Boulder Valley School DistrictEducational Facilities Master PlanThe question was asked, “What is your perception of the quality of education students receive inBVSD?” Participants in the charrettes rated schools as Positive/Somewhat Positive at 92%, animpressive percentage. Boulder Valley School District enjoys strong support for the educationalprograms within their schools.EXHIBIT 7.2PUBLIC PERCEPTION – QUALITY OF EDUCATIONPUBLIC CHARRETTES27%5% 3% 0%65%PositiveNeutralNegativeSomewhat PositiveSomewhat NegativeSource: MGT of America, March 2006During small group conversations, when asked why the high marks, participants responded withpositive comments about the efforts that were being made on behalf of students by faculty andstaff; the strong support from parents; the community has great students; and results beingachieved are impressive. Students who attend college and other post-secondary opportunitiesdo well. Academic excellence is a priority for the schools and standards for performance arehigh. Students feel safe when in school and parents feel confident that their children are safe.Overall, the District’s educational program is perceived to be a strong one, producing successfulstudents who are prepared for life.Even with scores as high as this, there were still “Opportunities for Improvement” with theeducational delivery system. A sampling of some of the issues raised on several occasionsincluded: class sizes in some elementary schools were perceived to be too high; the issue ofgrowth in the District in some areas was identified as a cause for over-crowding in someschools; open enrollment impacts class sizes; the achievement gap between whites andminorities was identified as an area of concern.Capital Improvement Planning Committee May 2006 Page 100

Boulder Valley School DistrictEducational Facilities Master PlanThe perception on the physical condition of BVSD schools generated a different view.Approximately 70% of the participants rated the buildings as poor/fair, with 15% expressing noopinion.EXHIBIT 7.3PUBLIC PERCEPTION – PHYSICAL CONDITIONPUBLIC CHARRETTES16%2%13%39%30%Excellent Good Fair Poor No OpinionSource: MGT of America, March 2006During small group discussions, numerous building concerns were identified. Many schoolswere dealing with circulation and parking issues outside the building; limited cafeteria spacesnecessitated the campus being designated as “open,” always a safety concern for parents;outdoor facilities enjoyed numerous comments on both condition and availability; HVAC issueswere prevalent in many buildings with 89% of participants indicating this was a mostimportant/important issue; windows were often single-paned and not energy efficient; indoorphysical education/athletic facilities were deemed to be inadequate; a lack of adequate and ageappropriateplayground equipment was a concern in the elementary schools; a lack of sufficientstorage was an issue; and the overall age of BVSD buildings was noted.As a generalization, the small group discussions indicated a serious concern for the overallcondition of BVSD buildings. Regardless of the age of the building, there were needs.Participants whose children attended school in some of the newer facilities also expressedconcern about building conditions, albeit they recognized that not all needs were of equalimportance.Capital Improvement Planning Committee May 2006 Page 101

Boulder Valley School DistrictEducational Facilities Master PlanBoulder Valley School District has building issues that need to be addressed and the public whoparticipated in the charrette process agreed. The question is whether the problem is seriousenough that action is required by the entire community. The question was posed on whetherthe community would support the need to address facility deficiencies. Only 50% of theparticipants felt that the community would support a bond issue. 30% of the participants felt thatthe community would not support a bond issue. A large percentage (21.72%) chose to remainneutral. These results led to interesting conversations during the small group process, givingparticipants an opportunity to explain their views.EXHIBIT 7.4PUBLIC PERCEPTION – BVSD COMMUNITY SUPPORT FOR BOND ISSUEPUBLIC CHARRETTES22%9%20%20%29%Strongly AgreeNeutralStrongly DisagreeAgreeDisagreeSource: MGT of America, March 2006Small group conversations were lively on this topic. It is important to note that this question wasdesigned to ascertain the participants’ views on whether the community at large would support abond issue, not whether they would do so. That question would come later. The participantswere much more guarded on whether the community would support an issue. Their reasonswere clarified during the small group meetings.Participants were united in their belief that the community had supported bond issues in the pastbut that support would be difficult to garner for a future bond issue. However, the strongperception is that the community would do so if certain conditions were met. The reasons forthe current state of distrust included: promises were made to spend bond money one way butthose promises were not kept; increases in taxes would be an issue; there is not a strongconnection in people’s minds that a viable school district is good for property values; poordecisions have been made in the past for how bond money was spent; the community at largedoes not understand the building needs for BVSD; mistrust by the community has increasedbecause of how past bond issues were done; the District does not have a vision.Capital Improvement Planning Committee May 2006 Page 102

Boulder Valley School DistrictEducational Facilities Master PlanThe next question was designed to ascertain whether there could ever be strong support for abond issue, if certain conditions were met. There is good cause to be more optimistic on thepublic’s willingness to support a bond issue based on these conversations. Participants wereextremely candid about why there is mistrust today; they were equally outspoken on their beliefthat something must be done to address all the building needs of BVSD and the conditions uponwhich they would do so.EXHIBIT 7.6PUBLIC PERCEPTION – INDIVIDUAL SUPPORT FOR BVSD BOND ISSUEPUBLIC CHARRETTES21%9%70%Support Not sure Would not supportSource: MGT of America, March 2006A surprising 70% of the participants indicated that they would support another bond issue forBoulder Valley School District. There are a significant number of participants who remainundecided (21%). The participants in the charrette process clearly indicated that their supportcould be gained for another issue provided that it was done in very specific ways. The smallgroup discussions brought these issues into focus.There is no doubt that the participants were unaware of the details surrounding past decisionsmade by the District. For example, there was a great deal of misunderstanding about thetechnology decisions that had recently been made. The purpose of the charrette was to listento the public’s perceptions, not explain past decisions. With that as a backdrop, MGT facilitatorsprobed into what those conditions had to be to generate support for a bond issue. Theconditions were reasonable, achievable, and consistent with how the Board would like toconduct its business.The public made the following suggestions:• Develop a vision for the District that articulates clear goals• Listen to the public in order to help identify needs and the priorities• Develop a set of fair standards that assigns priorities for addressing building needs• Communicate those standards to the public as well as the priority list culminating fromthe application of the standards• Follow the plan• Show the community that the plan is being followedCapital Improvement Planning Committee May 2006 Page 103

Boulder Valley School DistrictEducational Facilities Master Plan• Consider assigning the oversight and execution of the plan to a third party that reports tothe Board and SuperintendentADMINISTRATIVE INTERVIEWSMGT consultants conducted interviews with the BVSD administrators from December 12-15,2005. The compilation is organized into the following categories: Facility Condition,Program/Site Suitability, Community Perception/Input, and Outcomes. The entire summaryreport is contained in Appendix 2.General conclusions are presented for each category as follows:• Facility Condition: Administrators expressed concern about the overall condition ofschool buildings.• Program/Site Suitability: There is a desire to update the IT infrastructure. Concernswere also expressed regarding the athletic facilities, both within the building as well asoutside. There is a need for spaces to be reconciled with the new requirements foreducational programs. Concerns were also expressed regarding ADA compliance.• Community Perceptions: The community distrusts the District because of difficultdecisions that were made. Administrators made suggestions on how best to regain thepublic’s trust which included an effective communications plan.• Outcomes: Administrators want equity as an outcome from a bond issue. They wantsafe buildings that respond to the changing educational needs of students beingeducated today.Capital Improvement Planning Committee May 2006 Page 104

8.0 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONSBoulder Valley School DistrictEducational Facilities Master PlanThe findings and recommendations contained in this chapter are based on the data contained inthe previous chapters and will be divided into the following two sections:• The Educational Facilities Master Plan recommendations for school facilityimprovements, additions, and new construction.o This section will include recommendations for providing adequate instructionalfacilities over the next six year period which are planned to provide facilities thatsupport the instructional programs of the District.• Additional recommendations which will be specific to the technology portion of theserecommendations.o These recommendations will include WAN, LANs, VoIP, and video distribution.BACKGROUNDA variety of options were examined based on meeting the stated Guiding Principles asestablished by the CIPC as well as the findings that were generated by the pubiccharrettes, online surveys, and input from school faculty and staff. This activitygenerated a list of grouped corrective actions arranged as priorities, within each of theassessment categories; that is FCA, PCA, MUOF, and IT. The committee memberswere then asked to take a survey that identified the most important of these prioritiescorrective groups within each of the four assessment categories. The results of thissurvey were then reviewed by District staff and MGT and adjusted to reflect actualbudget requirements and anomalies that could be present in such a ranking exercise.These adjustments were reviewed and accepted by the committee. The results of thissurvey created the calculations for producing a weighted prioritization model for eachcategory. These calculations were further refined at subsequent meetings, and a finalmodel for developing categorical prioritization was established.Capital Improvement Planning Committee May 2006 Page 105

Boulder Valley School DistrictEducational Facilities Master PlanExhibit 8-1 below shows the fully funded model based on the deficiencies identifiedthrough the assessment process.Exhibit 8-1Fully Funded Deficiency ModelBVSD SchoolsCategoryRatings FCA PCA MUOF IT Totals1 $6,614,179 $115,648,415 $15,690,739 $11,000,000 $148,953,3332 $40,105,693 $48,758,781 $5,295,897 $6,000,000 $100,160,3713 $59,907,970 $4,486,958 $3,870,475 $2,500,000 $70,765,4034 $39,343,354 $19,926,980 $7,969,592 $12,500,000 $79,739,9265 $6,814,265 $0 $6,814,2656 $63,292 $63,2927 $3,472,781 $3,472,781Subtotals $156,321,534 $188,821,134 $32,826,703 $32,000,000 $409,969,371Rebuild Casey $30,915,560 $30,915,560Rebuild Columbine $18,094,700 $18,094,700Subtotal $49,010,260Total $458,979,631Once the prioritization models for each category were in place, the CIPC developed fourproposed funding models. The models included specific amounts for FCA, PCA, MUOF, and ITranging in amounts from $212,000,000 to $459,000,000 (fully funded model). Using theprioritization models adopted by the committee, the level of funding in each category wasdetermined for each of the models.It became apparent that funding below the $260,000,000 level would not provide equity acrossthe district, level of facility improvements that was required to meet the committee’s guidingprinciples and the public survey results. Likewise, the committee felt it was not financiallyresponsible to consider the fully funded model of $459,000,000. A $267,000,000 model wasstudied in detail and it too was found to be wanting when the indirect costs associated with aproject were deducted. It became obvious that in order to make a positive impact on theDistrict’s facilities in all four of the assessment categories (FCA, PCA, MUOF, and IT) a fundingmodel in excess of $300,000,000 would need to be considered. A funding model of$317,000,000 was therefore established and was presented to the Board in a work session onApril 27, 2006. The Board, while in general agreement on the need, requested the committee tomake a final review to ensure all potential cost savings were examined.District staff and MGT proceeded to study and value-engineer the $317,000,000 model.Savings in excess of $20,000,000 were identified that did not measurably reduce the overallimpact on the District’s facilities. These savings included changing Columbine’s improvementsfrom a new facility to a remodel/addition, re-evaluation of Arapahoe Ridge/TEC program needs,and a more equitable distribution of funding for charter schools. A $296,800,000 funding modelresulted was unanimously accepted by the committee at its May 17, 2006 meeting.Capital Improvement Planning Committee May 2006 Page 106

Boulder Valley School DistrictEducational Facilities Master PlanExhibit 8-2 reflects the final committee recommended amounts for each category with theinclusion of the identified cost saving items.Exhibit 8-2Adjusted Funding ModelAdjusted Category List FundingFCA PCA MUOFA ITFCA 1 $ 5,570,917 Rebuild $ 30,915,560 MUOFA 1 9,581,400 IT 1 10,645,125FCA 2 $ 38,141,071 PCA 1 $ 108,352,373 MUOFA 2 - IT 2 4,758,103FCA 3 selected $ 13,804,307 PCA 2 $ 42,258,631 MUOFA 3 $ - IT 3 4,858,875FCA 4 selected $ 2,263,685 PCA 3 $ - MUOFA 4 $ - IT 4 partial $ 1,489,760FCA 5 $ - PCA 4 selected $ 18,840,900IT 5 $-FCA 6 $-FCA 7 $-Totals $ 59,779,980$ 200,367,464$ 9,581,400$ 21,751,863Subtotal $ 291,480,707Project Reserve $ 5,328,103Total $ 296,808,810FCA 3 selected includes: Office & Computer Room A/CFCA 4 selected includes:Rebuild includes:A/C at Broomfield High School Casey MSFire sprinklers at Eisenhower and Heatherwood Elementary SchoolsPCA 4 selected includes:Foothill ES and Crest View ES Addns, Broomfield HS replace older Junior High wing.Uni Hill Art/Music expansion= Fully Funded= Partially Funded= Not FundedProject Reserve will be used for contigency funding for unforseen project conditionsOn May 17, 2006 the CIPC voted unanimously to recommend to the Board of Education that thefunding model reflected in exhibit 8-2 be presented.The $296.8 million funding model will provide the following level of capital improvements:• Facility Condition improvements budgeted at $59,779,980 will address major HVAC,electrical, clock/intercom, irrigation, paving, restroom renovation, and interior finishesimprovements. All administrative offices and computer labs, as well as Broomfield HighSchool, will be air conditioned.• Program Compatibility improvements budgeted at $200,367,464 are focused onimproving and expanding core instructional spaces at all schools in the District. Thisincludes classrooms, small group instructional spaces, art and music classrooms,literacy, and Special Education dedicated space, gyms, libraries, administrative offices,teacher workrooms, and cafeteria/kitchen expansions are also included at many schools.Included is a rebuild of Casey Middle School. Schools scheduled for major additionsand remodeling include: Columbine Elementary School, Foothill Elementary School,Aurora 7 Elementary School (BCSIS and High Peaks), Southern Hills Middle School,Louisville Middle School, and Broomfield High School.• Playground and athletic field improvements budgeted at $9,581,400 will provide forsafety upgrades and enhancements at all elementary school playgrounds and forgeneral specific improvements at all middle and high schools. This includes field housesat sports stadiums hosting dual schools and water/sanitary facilities at selected highschool sports fields. Nederland Middle/High School will receive a new synthetic turf fieldalong with a paved all-weather running track and general improvements to its outdoorsports complex.Capital Improvement Planning Committee May 2006 Page 107

Boulder Valley School DistrictEducational Facilities Master Plan• Information Technology improvements budgeted at $21,751,863 will provide for newcurrent technology Wide Area Network, LAN upgrades at all District facilities, a singleunified voice communication system for the entire District and a pilot video distributionsystem that will serve as a model for further implementation.For a detailed description of the improvements to be addressed at each school or facility, pleaserefer to the individual data sheets in Section 5.0 Data Detail.Capital Improvement Planning Committee May 2006 Page 108

Appendix I: SURVEY INSTRUMENTSurvey QuestionsPlease circle one response for each question below.Boulder Valley School DistrictEducational Facilities Master Plan1. Are you a parent or guardian of an elementary school student currently enrolled in theBVSD?Yes No2. Are you a parent or guardian of a middle school student currently enrolled in theBVSD?Yes No3. Are you a parent or guardian of a high school student currently enrolled in the BVSD?Yes No4. Are you a staff member or employee of BVSD?Yes No5. Are you a BVSD community member?Yes No6. What is your perception of the quality of education students receive in BVSD?Positive Somewhat positive Neutral Somewhat negative Negative7. What is your perception of the physical condition of Boulder Valley schools?Positive Somewhat positive Neutral Somewhat negative NegativePlease rank the following items 1 =Most important to 5 = Least important8. ADA Compliance?1 2 3 4 59. Appropriate learning spaces?1 2 3 4 510. Circulation / Traffic patterns?1 2 3 4 511. Exterior Appearance (sidewalks, landscaping, parking lots, paint)?Capital Improvement Planning Committee May 2006 Page 109

Boulder Valley School DistrictEducational Facilities Master Plan1 2 3 4 512. Food Service Facilities?1 2 3 4 513. Heating, Air Conditioning and Ventilation systems?1 2 3 4 514. Health / Environmental (air quality, asbestos abatement and mold)?1 2 3 4 515. Historical Preservation?1 2 3 4 516. Information Technology (WAN, LAN, Cabling, connectivity)?1 2 3 4 517. Interior Condition (floor coverings, bathrooms, storage, wall treatments)?1 2 3 4 518. Playgrounds / Ball Fields / Athletic Facilities?1 2 3 4 519. The Boulder Valley School District community supports the need to address facilitydeficiencies?Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree20. If the BVSD proposed a bond that generally addressed the issues discussed thisevening, would you support it?Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly DisagreeCapital Improvement Planning Committee May 2006 Page 110

Appendix II: BVSD ONLINE SURVEYBoulder Valley School DistrictEducational Facilities Master PlanSurvey TopicsScientificAssessmentRank Charrette Online Polling CIPCCategoryLearning Spaces:FCA1,1 91.1% 84.6% 80.0% 94.6% 75.0% PCA1,PCA 2 94.6%Health / Environmental:FCA2, FCA3,2 92.8% 82.5% 89.0% 81.9% 75.0% PCA2 81.9%HVAC:FCA2,FAC3,3 89.2% 80.1% 88.0% 91.0% 75.0% FCA4, PCA2 91.0%Interior Condition:FCA2, FCA3,4 81.9% 75.2% 80.0% 81.9% 75.0% PCA2 81.9%Information Technology: 5 80.0% 76.4% 67.0% 91.0% 75.0% IT1, IT2, IT3 91.0%Playgrounds / Ball Fields /Athletic Facilities? 6 73.1% 68.5% 55.0%Food Service Facilities? 7 56.9% 61.3%ADA Compliance? 8 66.6% 51.3%Circulation / Traffic patterns? 9 51.9% 55.3% 51.0%Exterior Appearance (sidewalks,landscaping, parking lots, paint)?10 47.8% 53.1%Historical Preservation? 11 21.9% 32.3%What is your perception of thequality of education studentsreceive in BVSD? 91.7% 91.0%What is your perception of thephysical condition of BoulderValley schools? 15.0% 34.9%The Boulder Valley SchoolDistrict community supports theneed to address facilitydeficiencies? 50.0% 52.8%If the BVSD proposed a bond thatgenerally addressed the issuesdiscussed this evening, wouldyou support it? 91.3% 77.4%Note:The CIPC surveys asked questions by Assessment Category. The remaining public input/survey datawere questions by topic/issue. The themes contained in the results had a very strong correlationsupporting the alignment of the data representations on this page.Capital Improvement Planning Committee May 2006 Page 111

Boulder Valley School DistrictEducational Facilities Master PlanOnline SurveyInformation Technology:CIPC, 91.0%Scientific Polling, 67.0%Online, 76.4%Charrette, 80.0%Interior Condition:CIPC, 81.9%Scientific Polling, 80.0%Online, 75.2%Charrette, 81.9%HVAC:CIPC, 91.0%Scientific Polling, 88.0%Online, 80.1%Charrette, 89.2%Health / Environmental:CIPC, 81.9%Scientific Polling, 89.0%Online, 82.5%Charrette, 92.8%Learning Spaces:CIPC, 94.6%Scientific Polling, 80.0%Online, 84.6%Charrette, 91.1%60.0% 65.0% 70.0% 75.0% 80.0% 85.0% 90.0% 95.0% 100.0%Capital Improvement Planning Committee May 2006 Page 112