This summary highlights the work undertaken by Brunas Consulting at the request of the Saskatchewan School Trustees Association (SSTA), Saskatchewan Education and the Saskatchewan Chapter, Council of Education Facilities Planners International to develop proposals for a Facilities Restoration Program and  associated capital funding changes necessary to implement this program.

The capital funding program proposal, which builds on the premise that Saskatchewan schools must be funded in an equitable way while respecting the mandate of school divisions, incorporates these eight basic objectives:
- ensure equitable access to quality k-12 educational facilities
- designate funding responsibilities from the smallest maintenance project to the construction of new facilities
- assist school divisions to develop a long-term capital plan by providing funding assistance and plan requirements
- ensure existing schools are well maintained facilities capable of providing approved educational programs to Saskatchewan students
- assist school divisions to consolidate facilities
- accommodate local decision making in the planning and operation of schools
- ensure schools have the required instructional area and equipment to accommodate educational programs and technology
- provide new school facilities required to accommodate enrollment growth or obsolescence or consolidation

This proposal defines funding categories and funding responsibilities for everything from the replacement of a door knob in an existing facility to the construction of a multi-million dollar school, and identifies four categories:
· Foundation Operating Grant
· Facilities Restoration
· Modernization/Renovation
· Formula Major Capital.

Foundation Operating Grant
Maintenance is not currently defined although it is part of the operating costs of a school division, and as such is included with recognized expenditures in the calculation of the Foundation Operating Grant.  It is proposed that maintenance under the Foundation Operating Grant be defined as any minor repairs or renovations, any one of which would not exceed $10,000.

Facilities Restoration Program
 The proposed Facilities Restoration Program is intended to supplement, not replace, existing maintenance and restoration budgets currently funded in school divisions’ annual operating budgets and to replace some existing block projects of smaller value.  It would provide a source of funding for projects required on a periodic basis to protect or extend the life of existing capital assets.  Funding can be applied to major maintenance/repair items in excess of $10,000, or renewal/restoration initiatives between $10,000 and $100,000, but is not to be used to carry out functional improvements, to construct new areas or to purchase equipment.

It is proposed that this Facilities Restoration Program be cost shared on a basis similar to the current sharing relationship which, on a provincial average, results in school boards contributing about one-third of the cost of all projects or $1 for every $2 received from Saskatchewan Education in the Facilities Restoration Envelope.

It is recommended that this funding envelope be set at $13,500,000, of which Saskatchewan Education would contribute $9,000,000 and school divisions would contribute $4,500,000.  This level of funding would be equivalent to 2% of the Current Replacement Value (CRV) which experts suggest as the minimum necessary to maintain educational facilities.

Based on the proposed formula, Boards will need to submit their current pupil enrolment and current floor area for their schools.  From this information, funding would flow to Boards who would then input their share to carry out the planned work in the budget year.  At the end of the budget year, Boards would submit an itemized description of their completed projects and periodic checks would be undertaken by the Facilities Planning Branch staff.

Modernization
These projects are defined as upgrades to existing facilities and may include major roof repairs, major code upgrades, program upgrades and modification of existing facilities to comply with Saskatchewan Education program upgrades and/or current building standards.  It is proposed that a modernization project be defined as one which exceeds $100,000 and has a project total area of not more than 10% of the existing area.  Consolidation projects that are the result of shifting and/or declining enrolments would qualify, as would projects that meet joint-use capital criteria

Major Capital Projects
These projects are defined as ones which provide new school facilities or major additions to existing schools, and are the result of enrolment growth or school consolidation with their long-term viability substantiated in the school division’s long-term capital plan.  It is proposed that a major addition be defined as a project where the new or increased school facility is more than 10% of the existing school facility.

Capital Approval Process
This recommended capital approval process provides for an enhanced transparency of Saskatchewan Education’s prioritization procedures, a more strategic allocation of available capital funds, identifiable blocks of funding, formal recognition of the requirement for school divisions to develop and maintain long-term capital plans, and a schedule for capital planning that is more compatible with the school year.

Brunas Consulting would like to acknowledge all the people who have assisted in developing this proposal.  I would like to especially thank  Al Ledingham and Art Scherr.  Your technical insights have significantly contributed to the quality of this proposal.

Back to contents

In March 2000, the Saskatchewan School Trustees Association (SSTA) contracted Brunas Consulting to prepare a Background Paper on Saskatchewan School Facility Needs.  The paper was to address the adequacy of provincial funding and to identify alternatives for more creative use of existing funding.

This Paper concluded with five recommendations:

1. Review and Update Saskatchewan Education’s Facility Planning Guidelines
- for compatibility with Saskatchewan Education curriculum and technology
- for ease in determining school capacity

2. Review Saskatchewan Education’s Facilities Prioritization Process
- reevaluate existing priorities
- develop new categories that reflect current trends of declining enrolments and school consolidation
- review transparency of the process

3. Implement a Facilities Quality Restoration Program
- Develop criteria for separate funding program to begin to systematically sustain existing facilities
- Recommend funding formulae

4. Review Capital Financing Alternatives
- Consider private financing, e.g. developer
- Return to long-term debt financing for the province and school divisions

5. Review Facilities Planning Expertise Options
- In-house expertise
- Shared-services with other school divisions
- Enhanced Saskatchewan Education capacity
- Private consultants

After reviewing this paper, the SSTA decided to have Brunas Consulting develop proposals for a Facilities Restoration Program and other associated capital funding changes necessary to implement this program.   Funding support for this study has been provided by Saskatchewan Education, the SSTA and the Saskatchewan Chapter of the Council of Education Facilities Planners International.  A Steering Committee, which included a cross selection of k-12 educational partners, was established to provide feedback.

This capital funding program proposal is designed to ensure that Saskatchewan schools are
 funded in an equitable way while respecting the mandate of school divisions. The basic objectives  of this program are to:

- ensure equitable access to quality k-12 educational facilities
- designate funding responsibilities from the smallest maintenance project to the construction of new facilities
- assist school divisions to develop a long-term capital plan by providing funding assistance and plan requirements
- ensure existing schools are well maintained facilities capable of providing approved educational programs to Saskatchewan students
- assist school divisions to consolidate facilities
- accommodate local decision making in the planning and operation of schools
- ensure schools have the required instructional area and equipment to accommodate educational programs and technology
- provide new school facilities required to accommodate enrollment growth or obsolescence or consolidation

Back to Table of Contents

FACILITIES  PLANNING BRANCH

Saskatchewan Education maintains a Facilities Planning Branch which reports to the Deputy Minister, and which includes a Director, three facility planners and a secretary. The section is based on an overview of the facilities planning procedures provided by Saskatchewan Education to new Directors of Education.

The Facilities Planning Branch provides a range of services to Saskatchewan Education and the school divisions of the province:

- Develop and maintain capital funding guidelines, regulations and other policies
- Develop and maintain school facility guidelines
- Capital budget planning
- Evaluate and prioritize capital requests
- Administer capital project funding
- Negotiate transfer of school properties in Treaty Land Entitlements
- Develop and maintain  tracking systems for lease information, vacant schools, unused relocatable classrooms, joint-use arrangements, capital surplus and reserve funds
- Maintain a detailed data base for enrolments, school plans and areas, building history and other facility related information
- Prepare detailed division and regional facility studies
- Facilitate development of joint-use initiatives

Back to Table of Contents

CAPITAL FUNDING

Saskatchewan Education provides capital funding, through the Facilities Planning Branch, to school divisions for the construction and upgrading of school facilities.  Capital funding is distributed in two major categories: Major Projects and Block Funding.

Major Projects

This category includes new facility construction and major renovations where the total construction cost is $500,000 or greater.  The department will usually distribute its funding for these projects over two or more years.  Major project funding requests submitted by school divisions are evaluated, prioritized and placed on the major capital project list.  When the annual capital budget is approved, the available funding is allocated to the projects beginning at the top of the list.  The major project list is updated each year.

Due to limited funding for major capital projects over the past few years, some of the smaller critical projects have been down-scaled and funded over a period of years through the block budget.  This is a quick response solution that results in higher project costs.

Block Projects

This category includes emergency repairs and building upgrade projects where total construction cost is under $500,000.  Types of work include roof repairs and replacements, relocatable classroom construction, minor additions, mechanical upgrading (ventilation, heating, air quality), structural stabilization, accessibility, asbestos removal and underground fuel tank removal.

Block project requests are considered on an continuous basis each fiscal year.  School divisions are asked to submit their needs each fall but emergencies are considered anytime during the year.

Maintenance

Maintenance applies to procedures for the purpose of maintaining satisfactory standards of comfort, safety and sanitation for the pupils and other users of the facility.  The maintenance of school facilities is the responsibility of Boards of Education - The Education Act, Section 85(1)(d) and (w).  Replacement of furniture, fixtures and small equipment that wears out over time will fall within the scope of maintenance.  Boards are expected to fund the replacement of light fixtures, ballasts, roof vents, down spouts, loose floor tiles, window panes, windows, doors and other such items from their
maintenance budget.

Maintenance is part of the operating costs of a school division and as such is included with recognized expenditures in the calculation of the Foundation Operating Grant.

Back to Table of Contents

CAPITAL APPROVAL AND DESIGN

Every year, Saskatchewan Education considers about 150 to 200 capital requests.  A comprehensive evaluation and priority setting process has evolved over the years to assure that a distribution of the province’s limited capital funds go to the projects with the greatest need.

Project Submission, Evaluation and Approval

School divisions submit to the department a Form B-5 which outlines their five-year capital plan.  This is updated on an annual basis each fall.  Specific project requests for the upcoming fiscal year are submitted on a Form B-1.

Teams consisting of regional directors and facility planners visit the sites of all major project requests in each region.  Each team will use the Facilities Priority Index, a field survey form designed to provide consistent evaluation of each request across the province.  The regional director will confirm enrolment projections and program information.  The planner provides existing facility information and  preliminary analysis.

The team determines each project’s proposed priority class.  The planner compiles all necessary facility information and uses the Schedule of Accommodation to prepare cost estimates, and the Facility Priority Index to calculate the precise ranking of the request.

The Schedule of Accommodation or the “SA-1” is the principal tool for facility cost estimating.  This Excel spreadsheet application provides area and cost estimates for new schools and addition renovation projects with any mix of enrolment.  Using this tool, the planner can quickly formulate a variety of facility solutions for each request.

The Facilities Priority Index Form produces a unique index rating for each project.  The weighted rating systems assures that the minimum points earned in any priority class is always greater than the maximum combined points of all the lower priority classes.  The Index uses several techniques including  Blended Service Life and Weighted Utilization to appraise the school building.  The point system will not alter a request’s priority class, but it will sort that request within each of the four major priority classes.

The Blended Service Life rates the remaining building service life that is expected under normal
operating conditions before replacement or major upgrading takes place.  As most schools consist
of sections of different ages and building types, a Blended Service Life formula generates a single number that represents the complete school.  Combining the service life of each addition removes the need to provide an Index form for each section of a school.

 Weighted Utilization compares the guideline space to the actual space that is in the school.  Saskatchewan Education places a higher priority on general classroom space than specialty program space such as art or music.  Consequently, schools with large program shortages were not being properly assessed whereas minor general classroom requests did receive approval.  Weighted Utilization is a factor that expresses the utilization of all program space as if this space was general classroom area.  The value of a particular program space, or its weighting, is based on its guideline relationship to general classroom area.  In this manner, schools with a variety of program shortages may be compared to each other as equivalent classroom shortages.  While the Department will refer to classroom and program utilization for specific comparisons, the Weighted Utilization analysis is preferred for consistency of evaluation.

The Facility Priority Index also uses a school’s utilization.  The school’s use of space will affect the placement of a project request on the annual capital list, but it will not determine a request’s priority.  There are three levels of “Utilization”:

- For each facility within a school
- A school’s utilization of all the recognized usable areas
- The total utilization of all the school division’s active schools within a 30 kilometer radius

The Facilities Planning Branch organizes all requests, both major capital and block projects into a preliminary five year request list.  From this list, the Director of Facilities Planning prepares a preliminary capital budget.

In late summer or early fall, regional directors, facility planners, and senior Department administrators will meet to set the project priority ratings for all capital requests. Group consensus will ratify or adjust the proposed priority class and the priority index for each project.  From this meeting will emerge a list that contains all k-12 project requests sorted by priority.  Facilities Planning will modify its three-year capital budget accordingly.

The five-year request list and the three-year capital budget are submitted to the Deputy Minister for approval and Treasury Board submission.  The Department distributes the five-year request list to school divisions.  Following Treasury Board release of its capital budget, the Department applies its capital allocation to its three-year capital plan until the funds are depleted.

A Minister’s letter or press conference is the first notification of a major project approval.  The
regional director will notify a school division of block project approvals.  This will be confirmed by letter from the Director of Facilities Planning.  The facility planner will arrange a meeting with the regional director and the school division to discuss the parameters of the project.

Priority Classes

Every year, department officials and facility planners have to consider about 150 to 200 capital requests.  A comprehensive evaluation and priority setting process has evolved to ensure that the distribution of the province’s limited capital funds go to the projects with the greatest need. Currently, the department places project requests into four major categories:

- Priority 1A - Health, Fire, Structural Safety

- High levels of asbestos, radon, toxic or other dangerous fumes
- Dead end corridors
- Unprotected combustible construction
- Failure of structural members

- Priority  1B

- Refers to those 1A projects which require further negotiation or investigation to produce a viable solution.

- Priority 2 -  Critical Space Shortages

- Projects with a Weighted Utilization over a value of 110%.  Weighted Utilization rates program shortages at approximately 50% of the value of general instruction shortages, then combines the two values to produce a  single weighted utilization for the school.

- 30 Kilometre Utilization Qualifier:  When a school is over-utilized, the planner will check the utilization of the division’s other active schools within 30 kilometers.  If this utilization is less than 80%, then this priority may be reconsidered.

- Priority 3 - Structural Repair / Systems / Building Restoration

- Renovation and repair to correct major structural problems or air quality issues which are not life threatening, e.g. replacement of boilers.  Renovations to upgrade non-critical building code compliance issues.

- Priority 4 - Non-Critical Space Shortages

- Consolidation of existing facilities where buildings are structurally sound.  New community school requests where bussing remains an option.

- Joint-Use Initiatives

The department encourages joint use between k-12 divisions and between divisions and other educational partners, such as regional colleges.  Project requests with an approved joint- use component will have their weighted utilization rating increased by 10%.

 This Joint-Use Premium will apply to all priority categories 1 through 4.  The effect of the Premium is strongest in Priority Two.  Within this category, the increased weighted utilization will move the joint-use project higher up the list, increasing the likelihood of funding.

Design Approval Process

At the initial meeting, the school division and the Department will agree on the basic scope, design and budget for the project.  For simpler projects, the department may ask the division to submit the architect’s estimate of the scope of the work and budget.  If approved, the Department immediately issues the E-2 Preliminary Approval.  Larger projects or those with unusual circumstances may require a longer period of conceptual negotiations.

The E-2 approval sets the Maximum Provincial Contribution (MPC) and the various construction allowances.  It allows the division to engage consultants and arrange funding for the project.  Where a project involves complex engineering or unknown site conditions, the Department may delay setting the final MPC until working drawings are underway.

Subject to its own budget constraints, the department accepts legitimate revisions to the project budget and the MPC until the close of tenders.

The facility planner works with the architect, senior division administrators, and other government regulatory agencies, such as the Fire Commissioner, in the design process.  The planner checks the preliminary design and  may request design changes for compliance with the Department’s Facility Guidelines.  The planner then issues a conditional preliminary design approval.  Any enlargement of the scope of the project after this approval, without the consent of the Department, will be at the expense of the division.  Design fees and disbursements associated with unauthorized work will also be the sole responsibility of the division.

The final conditional approval occurs when the  contract documents are about 75% complete.  This
approval allows the division to tender the  project.  Those approvals are subject to other regulatory
agencies accepting the design.  The planner typically will ask for modifications to the tender documents to ensure accurate accounting of the various costs within the contract according to the Department’s funding guidelines.  The Department may change or suspend the project where there are serious flaws in either the design of the project or the enrolment projections.

After the division opens the tenders, it will submit a B-3.  This form contains all the pertinent information on prices and other information as required with the contract award.  The Department asks that all contract tenders for major projects be open for a forty-five day period from point of tender.  A thirty day period is acceptable for simpler projects such as roof repairs.  This allows sufficient time for tender analysis by all affected parties.

The E-4 form conveys the Department’s formal acceptance of the proposed contract award.  The price may be from the B-3 or a mutually acceptable alternative developed after consultation with the division.  The Department will mail the Confirmation of Contract Award to the division along with
 the E-4.  When the division sends in the completed form, the Department will release the funding as follows:

- If the department share is greater than $50,000, half the funds will be released with the balance being held until a Certificate of Substantial Completion is received.
- If the department share is less than $50,000, all department funds will be released upon the receipt of the Certificate of Substantial Completion.

The architect will provide a Certificate of Substantial Completion (or Substantial Performance of Contract) to the division when approximately 95% of the contract has been fulfilled.  The division will submit to the Department a copy of the form.  Upon receipt of this form, the Department will release outstanding funding for the project.

Back to Table of Contents

FACILITIES PLANNING AND FUNDING GUIDELINES

For many years, Saskatchewan Education has maintained space planning and funding guidelines for its k-12 school system.  The Department periodically checks these guidelines against what is happening in the field.  In 1990, a major revision of the space guidelines was implemented to reflect the then emerging Core Curriculum.  In 1993, the guidelines document was expanded with a series of information appendices with changes in the areas of costing, funding and evaluation procedures.  New Child Care Units for infant children of student mothers were incorporated in 1994.  Other recent changes were inflation adjustment in estimating rates and computer space for grades 1 to 5.

K–12 School Facility Guidelines

The guidelines are intended to provide a school facility for any given enrolment. Educational space is derived from 20 categories plus an area mark-up for circulation and walls.

-   General Instruction - provides classrooms and teaching areas on a per student basis for all students k-12.
- Student Support Services - provides space for students requiring special services and assistance to meet individual needs (tutoring, resource/learning assistance, small group instruction, counseling, speech and pathologist, educational psychologist, life skills).
· Computer Instruction - distinct from the computer requirements in a Practical Arts CADD program.  May be disbursed throughout general instruction or built as a distinct teaching lab.  Information Technology Support Centre provides space for information technology equipment, cabinets and control centres.
· Child Care Units - provides space for child care services  for children aged 6 weeks to 6 years of secondary students.
· Designated Community Schools Guideline - available only for those schools recognized by Saskatchewan Education as “Community Schools”.
· Science Laboratories
· Resource Centre
· Gymnasium Allowance / Service Area / Spectator Seating
 · Auxiliary Training Room / Gymnasium
· Multi-Purpose Physical Activity Room - provided in lieu of a gymnasium for those schools with any enrolment distribution and a population of less than 100, or k-5 (only) schools with enrolments of 100 or more.  Multi-purpose Room Service area also provided.
· Servery - a food service area located adjacent to and opening onto an instruction, multi-purpose or other area.
· Arts Education - provides space for music, drama, dance and visual arts.
- Practical and Applied Arts – provides area for “classroom/lab” for programs such as foods/cooking, clothing arts, cosmetology, robotics, CAD and industrial design; “industrial lab” for traditional industrial arts programs and commercial cooking.
- Counseling / Support Services / Nurses
- Administration
- Staff Area
- Student Washrooms
- Educational Storage
- Mechanical/Electrical
- Janitor

Capital Funding Guidelines

Over the years, the Department has used different cost estimating models to suit the changing market place.  Until 1992, an annually adjusted flat rate per square metre was used, regardless of the type of space, location or age.  This procedure resulted, in some cases, in unpredictable cost over-runs in some projects and surpluses in others.  In 1993, a more responsive estimating model was introduced based on the type of space, where it is built and the scale of construction.  Variable Unit Rate cost estimates better reflect the type of school built.  The Distance Factor adjusts project estimates based on distances from Saskatoon or Regina cost centres and a secondary town or city.  The Scale Factor modifies the project estimate between 90% and 110%.  Supplies and manufacturers can provide reduced unit costs for large quantities of material. Small projects require a higher percentage of overhead costs for administration by the contractor and designer.

Funding Formula

Prior to 1993, Saskatchewan Education provided a nominal funding level of 80% of the project cost.  Some variation in funding support to individual divisions resulted from a calculation that related a division’s yearly operating grant to its yearly expenditure.  In 1993, three significant changes were made to the  funding formula:

- Maximum Provincial Contribution - Previous funding models set no cap for the  provincial contribution to a project.  The 1993 formula provided a “Maximum Provincial Contribution” (MPC).  Where early cost estimation is extremely difficult, the  MPC will be determined during the contract drawing phase.
- Reduction of the nominal Provincial Share to 65% from 80%.
 - The Mill Factor - The Mill Factor relates the school division contribution to its assessment and its ability to pay.  It modifies the calculation of a division’s base 35% share by the relationship between the value of the division’s mill and the average provincial mill.  For those divisions with mills less than the provincial average, the mill factor will ameliorate the effect of the 35% share calculation.  Those divisions with higher than average mills will have their 35% share calculation increased.

As a result of declining enrolments, many school divisions operate excess instructional space.  Higher operating costs restrict funds that could otherwise be directed to improving program, debt retirement or reducing taxes.  To encourage more efficient use of school space, in 1990 the department introduced a utilization factor into the capital funding formula for k-12 schools.  A utilization below 80% creates a factor that increases a division’s contribution.  Selecting 80% creates a “margin of forgiveness” to allow for that portion of actual space that is not suitable for use.  Poor design and fixed furniture layout can create this unusable area.  This calculation includes all schools within a radius of 30 kilometres.

School divisions must contribute a minimum down payment for all capital projects.  The contribution for roof projects is the lesser of 1/10th mill or $5,000 and 1/10th mill or $50,000 for all other approved capital projects with the exception of:

- Accessibility projects - no minimum down payment required.  Project cost shared by current formula.
- Underground Fuel Tank Removal - minimum division contribution of $5,000 per tank.
- Relocatable Classroom Transfer - maximum department contribution of $5,000 per unit.

Relocatable School Construction

Due to the unpredictability of changing population, schools built with permanent siting and construction techniques could be severely under populated or even closed many years before their service lives have expired.  This problem is even more acute in schools with lower enrolments as even small population shifts can jeopardize a school’s future.

Until recently, Saskatchewan Education relied on the collective expertise of its facility planners and regional directors to forecast enrolment shifts and the flexibility of its guidelines to absorb these changes.  However, some enrolment changes have been too severe and costly to the affected divisions.  Thus, the Department has developed a safeguard policy on the use of relocatable construction.

Policy

Where low and/or unstable enrolment exists, regardless of school location, all capital projects will maximize the use of relocatable construction.  For situations where low enrolment exists, the following conditions shall apply:
 - If a new school is requested (and approved) and the enrolment is close to but higher than 150  the board would be encouraged to maximize the use of relocatable construction.  Forty percent of the total school area can be designed with relocatable construction.  This is negotiable.
- If an addition is requested and approved and the enrolment is close to but higher than 150  the board would be encouraged to maximize the use of relocatables in the addition while the existing permanent building would be converted to house as many core facilities as possible - subject to good architectural practice.  Up to 40 % of a school’s classroom component after project completion may be relocatable.  This is negotiable.
- Project requests with a population of 150 or less would be offered relocatable construction only for new school projects.  For addition and renovation projects, the addition would be all relocatable while the existing permanent building would be converted to house as many core
facilities as possible - subject to good architectural practice.  This is not negotiable.  The only alternative would be consolidation with a neighboring facility, if available.

Sale of School Property

This policy applies to all school buildings.

The Total Property Value (land and buildings) will be subject to the department’s sale policy for school divisions.  School divisions will receive a direct benefit of 10% of the Total Property Value.  These funds may be used by the division at their own discretion.  For traditional sale of school property transactions, the remaining 90% of the total property value is retained in a capital reserve for use on the next project.

The retained capital reserve provides a benefit to both the school division and the department by reducing the payment for the future capital projects.  Capital reserves are taken off the Total Approved Cost before the funding formula is applied.  This reduces the share for both division and province.

Back to Table of Contents

The proposed K-12 Capital Funding Program defines funding categories and funding responsibilities for everything from the replacement of a door knob in an existing facility to the construction of a multi-million dollar school. This program identifies four categories - Foundation Grant Funding, Facilities Restoration, Modernization/Renovation, and Formula Major Capital.

FOUNDATION OPERATING GRANT

 This grant funding is provided to school divisions on the premise these funds will be used to cover Saskatchewan Education’s share of the day-to-day costs of plant operation and maintenance of the school facilities, which would include minor repairs and renovations, any one of which would not exceed $10,000.

FACILITIES RESTORATION PROGRAM

Purpose

- this program is proposed to provide a source of funding for projects required on a periodic basis to protect or extend the life of existing capital assets.  It is not to be used to carry out functional improvements, construct new area or purchase equipment.
- the funding can be applied to major maintenance/repair items in excess of $10,000, or renewal/restoration initiatives between $10,000 and $100,000.  Items less than $10,000 would be attended to from Foundation Grant and local funding.  Restoration items of greater than $100,000 would qualify for the Modernization Program.

Assumptions

- the objective of this funding envelope is to supplement, not replace, existing maintenance and restoration budgets currently funded in annual operating budgets of school divisions and replace some existing block projects of smaller dollar value.
- no paper blizzard and no large bureaucracy on the part of school divisions or Saskatchewan Education would be required to administer the program.  Simplicity is key.

Cost Sharing Proposed

- boards, by the Education Act, are responsible for maintaining their physical plant.  It is desired that the Restoration Envelope initiative provides a revitalized commitment to do so.
- as a major financial contributor to the construction of the school plant stock in the province, the provincial government has a vested interest in protecting these capital assets.
- given the current low levels of maintenance and restoration funding in relation to the current replacement value of the school facility assets, this initiative should be based on funds specifically identified for maintenance and renewal by both the provincial government and school boards.
- a significant Department share of the funding of this initiative should act as a catalyst for school boards to give greater attention to maintaining and restoring their physical plant assets.
- it is proposed that cost-sharing be equivalent to the current sharing relationship which, on a provincial average, results in school boards contributing about one third of the cost of all projects.  Therefore, across the province, school boards would contribute $1 for every $2 received from Saskatchewan Education in the Facilities Restoration Envelope.
 

 Type Of Projects Which Qualify

- the project categories listed below are a blending of Alberta BQRP criteria and British Columbia Annual Capital Allowance criteria.  The list is not in priority order.  School boards would develop an annual work program which would meet the project criteria in the list:

- correct health and safety concerns
- meet regulatory agency requirements, eg Fire Code
- upgrades for special needs persons
- loss prevention projects
- attend to immediate mechanical, electrical, structural breakdowns or deficiencies
- upgrades to building component systems to restore and extend the useful life of the    facility
- replace or augment building system components to improve energy efficiency
- upgrades to accommodate computer network and/or telecommunication
  technologies
- consolidate, amalgamate or demolish existing facilities, or portions thereof, to          improve facility utilization

Distribution of the Restoration Envelope Funding

Two possibilities are presented for the distribution of restoration funds to school divisions:

1. The first method is to establish a process similar to that now used for Major Capital and Block submissions.  Boards would compile a project list, together with cost estimates, and submit to Saskatchewan Education for review and granting of approval.  This method has the advantage of using the knowledge base of Saskatchewan Education Facilities Planning Branch staff in targeting funding to projects and school divisions most in need.

This method would require a great deal of work on behalf of the existing complement of Saskatchewan Education staff in reviewing submissions, and school board staff in putting together their work plan, complete with accurate estimates and supporting criteria.  It would not meet the previously stated assumption of simplicity.

This method of granting capital funding also has a tendency to penalize boards who have made significant efforts in past years to maintain and restore their school facilities.  These boards’ high priority projects often fell below projects submitted by other school divisions which were of higher priority when in competition for existing Saskatchewan Education capital funding.

 2. The second method is to distribute the funding envelope to all boards on the basis of a formula, and have the boards expend the funds on projects according to the established qualifying criteria, such as the examples given above.  This methodology is simple and generally fair in that all boards receive funding to contend with a matter they all face - the maintenance and restoration of  capital assets.  It also puts a very much reduced workload on Facilities Branch and school division staff in compiling and reviewing submissions up against the usual submission and approval deadlines.

Formula funding is the current method in use in Alberta, British Columbia and Ontario to  distribute restoration envelope funding.  The Alberta formula is distributed on the basis of
75% student enrolment and 25% building floor area.  The British Columbia formula is based on the average weighted age, replacement cost and expected service life of school buildings in the division.

It is recommended that a formula be developed to guide the distribution of funds.  Boards  would submit input required by the formula by the end of the calendar year, and the final envelope amount would be released soon after the tabling of the provincial budget.  The use of a formula would provide boards with a more predictable degree of annual funding for restoration than is now the case, and allow them to plan with some degree of confidence their annual project listing as to priority and a work schedule for the year.

Proposed Funding Envelope Formula

The cost of maintaining a building is a result of building size, function and age.  It costs more to maintain a big building than a small one.  It costs more to maintain a school building with extensive  laboratory and shop space as compared to a building of largely conventional classroom space.  Older buildings require greater maintenance and restoration inputs than buildings more recently constructed.  Also, it is more expensive to maintain buildings which are distant from major centres where skilled workers are concentrated.

Building size is a function of pupil enrolment.  However, in many instances in this province the current school enrolment is often much lower than the enrolments which dictated the current building areas, and boards are maintaining space which is surplus to their needs.  Surplus space needs to be decommissioned.  So to reward efficient use of plant, a formula should be weighted to the current number of pupils, but not 100% weighted.  Area still needs to be a factor, although a more minor one, as funding based strictly on enrolment would penalize divisions where building consolidation cannot readily be achieved.  Factors to account for building function, building age and distance from major centres could be achieved with some degree of reliability after some study.  In particular,  the average age of the portfolio should be considered as the needs of a young portfolio are quite a bit less than that of an older portfolio.  However, integrating these minor factors into a maintenance and restoration funding formula may not be worth the ‘paralysis caused by the analysis’.

 It is recommended that a funding formula be adopted similar to the Alberta BQRP formula which allocates 75% of the funds based on pupil enrolment and 25% on building floor area.  The distance factor currently used by Saskatchewan Education for major project work would also be applied in the calculation.  Boards would need to submit annually their pupil enrolment and total building floor area.  Once the grand total amount of the envelope has been established in the provincial budget, 75% of that amount would be divided by the total provincial k-12 enrolment and a per pupil figure obtained.  The remaining 25% of the provincial envelope would be divided by the total floor area of the school buildings in the province to obtain an allotment per unit area.  A board’s annual envelope would be calculated by multiplying their enrolment by the per pupil factor and their floor area by the per unit area factor, adding the two factors together, and multiplying that sum by the applicable distance factor.

A brief example illustrates.  As noted on page 18 of the Technical Appendix, the current expenditure level on a provincial scale for maintenance and restoration initiatives is equivalent to 1.54% of current replacement value (CRV).  To move the total maintenance and restoration funding level to 2.00% of CRV as recommended by Kaiser, an additional 0.46% of CRV or $13.5 million would be required provincially.  According to the recommended sharing relationship of $2 Saskatchewan Education and $1 school division, a provincial envelope of $9 million would need to be budgeted which would then be augmented by $4.5 million from the school divisions in the province.

For the Saskatchewan Education envelope of $9 million, 5% or $450,000, would be set aside for the distance factor portion.  Of the remaining $8,550,000, 75% or $6,412,500, would be allocated on the basis of pupil enrolment and 25%, or $2,137,500, would be allocated on the basis of floor area.  Given a provincial pupil enrolment of 190,000 and a provincial floor area of 2,370,000 m2, this would yield a per pupil factor of $33.75 and a per m2 factor of $0.90.

A small school division of 1500 pupils, 25,000 m2 of floor area and a distance factor of 1.05 would receive $76,780 in Saskatchewan Education restoration funding.  The provincial share of $76,780 would be augmented by a local school division share of $38,390.  This would yield a total package of $115,170, or 0.376% CRV, to fund appropriate projects in the school division.

A larger school division of 23,000 pupils, 300,000 m2 of floor area and a distance factor of 1.00 would receive $1,046,250 in provincial funding.  The school division input would be $523,125 for a total package of $1,569,375.  This is equivalent to 0.427% CRV.

It should be noted that, for the same funding formula, the larger school division will do 0.427% CRV of work and the smaller division 0.376% CRV of work.  This is due to better utilization.  The larger school division maintains less area per pupil - 13.0 m2 as compared to 16.7 m2.

Accountability Considerations

- Based on the proposed formula, boards will need to submit their current pupil enrolment and current floor area for schools providing service in their division.

- From the information provided above, the funding envelope would flow to boards, the boards would input their share and the planned work would be carried out in the budget year.  Accounting for the projects would occur in the 205200 lines.  At the end of the budget year boards would submit an itemized listing of a brief description of the project, the school where the project took place and the final cost of the project.  Periodic checks of completed work by Facilities Branch staff could be considered for accountability purposes.

- The following year, the process would repeat itself.  In addition to providing enrolment and floor area data, boards would submit the final unaudited totals of the 205100 and 205200 lines for the previous year.  The financial statement would establish base line data on the dollar amount of school building maintenance and restoration occurring provincially, and would provide feedback related to the maintenance of the assets relative to their CRV.   Such data would serve to enhance decision making and the leadership role in the protection of school capital assets.

- Surplus facilities restoration funding will be placed in a special capital reserve account and applied to projects in subsequent years.

Back to Table of Contents

MODERNIZATION

Modernization/renovation projects are defined as upgrades to existing facilities and may include major roof repairs, major building code upgrades, program upgrades, and modification of existing facilities to comply with education program upgrades and/or current building standards.  These projects meet the following criteria:

- The project’s estimated capital cost is more than $100,000.
- The project’s proposed total area is not more than 10% larger than the existing area.
- The long-term viability of the proposed modernized facility is substantiated in the school division’s capital plan.
- Repair and/or replace architectural finishes, structural components mechanical and electrical systems
- Consolidate facilities as result shifting and/or declining enrolments
- Accommodate joint-use capital requirements which meet joint-use criteria

MAJOR CAPITAL PROJECTS ( Facilities Acquisition)

Major capital projects are those which provide new school facilities or major additions to existing schools. Major capital projects are defined as those which meet the following criteria:

- the project will provide a new school facility or a major addition to an existing school.  A major addition is defined as a project where the new or increased school facility is more than 10% of the existing facility.  Relocatables would be included in this classification.
 - the project is the result of enrollment growth, obsolescence or school consolidation and its long-term viability is substantiated in the school division’s long-term plan.
- prior to the construction of a new facility, other alternatives to a new school shall have been considered in the school division capital plan.

Back to Table of Contents

CAPITAL FUNDING APPROVAL PROCESS

This recommended capital approval process provides for an enhanced transparency of Saskatchewan Education’s prioritization procedures, a more strategic allocation of available capital funds through identifiable blocks of funding, formal recognition of the requirement for school divisions to develop and maintain long-term capital plans, and a schedule for capital planning that is more compatible with the school year.

The following details the steps in the proposed process.

1. Capital Plan

The first and most essential component in the approval process is the development and submission of a long-term capital plan by each school division.  The agreement to this plan by Saskatchewan Education and the school division will ensure the effective and efficient allocation of capital resources throughout the province.

The capital plan is intended to provide a conceptual facility plan based on projected enrolments, local demographic information and Saskatchewan Education facilities planning standards, all of which are readily available to school divisions.

Should it be necessary to engage an outside consultant to develop a complex capital plan to consider things such as joint-use facilities, utilization of comprehensive schools or other complex local issues, Saskatchewan Education would share the cost of engaging such a consultant.  It is proposed that: where three or more school divisions jointly request funding to develop a capital plan, it would be 60% from Saskatchewan Education and 40% from the school divisions; where two school divisions jointly request funding, it  would be 50% from Saskatchewan Education and 50% from the school divisions; and where an individual board requests funding for capital plan development it would be 40% from Saskatchewan Education and 60% from the school division.

Long-term capital plans must be submitted to Saskatchewan Education by April 30 of each year, and will include all the following information to enable the Regional Site Visitation Teams to assess each project request.

 - A 10 year enrolment projection for each school in the division which is based on previous trends and current demographic projections.
- The current and 10 year projected utilization of each school in the division.
- Alternatives considered for each school in the division where the utilization will be less than 80% for the projected enrolment in the 10th year. Each alternative should include the financial and educational implications.
- Innovative educational solutions considered such as partnerships, joint-use facilities, distance education and any other solution that would reduce capital and operating costs and still meet the mandate of the school division.
- A floor plan drawn to scale for each school showing the year or years the facility was constructed, and any modernization or renovation completed in the last 20 years.

2. Regional Team Site Visits

The primary purpose of the site visitation is to assess each major and modernization capital request for the upcoming year in each school division.  The team will determine the proposed priority class according to criteria agreed upon by the education partners.

Team members will consist of the following:

1) 2 Regional Directors of Education
Two Regional Directors will be included on the team for each respective Region with the Visiting Regional Director rotating annually. The role of the Regional Director would be to verify the enrolment projections and the viability of the capital plan.
2) 1 Facility Planner
A Facility Planner will be assigned to the Region from the staff of the Facilities Planning Branch. The role of this Planner would be to apply the Facility Planning Guidelines, to complete the Facility Priority Index forms, and verify the viability of the capital plan.
3) 1 Independent Observer
Each of the education partners has a significant interest in ensuring that all capital funds are allocated according to mutually agreed upon criteria. The role of this Observer would be to see that this occurs. This Observer would be jointly agreed to by Saskatchewan Education and the SSTA and could be:
- an independent expert in facilities planning
- a member of a Board of Education from another of the education regions in the province
- an employee of a Board of Education from another of the education regions in the province
- any individual at large that does not have a vested interest in the projects being reviewed
    It is recommended that the Independent Observer be jointly funded by Saskatchewan Education and the SSTA.  It is estimated that the Independent Observer would need to be available for site visits and project meetings a total of 5 to 10 days per year for each Region.

3. Department Assessment

Facility planners prepare detailed SA-1s, proposed construction solutions and budgets for each project, as well as group estimates for each category.

Facility planners ensure accuracy and consistency in the interpretation of the Facility Priority Index and prepare a preliminary five-year list of capital projects requested for each Region.

These departmental assessments are completed during June and July of each year.

4. Capital Priority Meeting

This is the final review of all capital project requests on the provincial master list and would be conducted by all regional team members - Regional Directors, Facility Planners, SSTA Representatives, Director of Facility Planning and senior Saskatchewan Education personnel.

From this meeting the Director of Facilities Planning will prepare the final master list of all
capital projects for the next five years and recommended projects for approval in Years One, Two and Three.  This priority setting meeting would be completed by August 15 of each year.

5. Submission to the Minister of Education

The Deputy Minister and Director of Facilities Planning submit the master list and budget request to the Minister of Education by August 31 of each year.

6. Saskatchewan Finance

The Minister and Deputy Minister of Education submit the master list and budget request to the Minister of Finance by September 30 of each year.  Saskatchewan Finance advises Saskatchewan Education of the level of capital funding available for the subsequent year by November 15 of that year.  This will enable Saskatchewan Education to then provide school divisions with a notification of intent that will allow them to proceed with preliminary planning of projects that will receive formal approval in the following year’s budget.

7. Saskatchewan Education

   The Department releases the master list of all capital projects and issues formal approval (E2) for all projects that will be funded in the current fiscal year.  This will be completed by April 30 of each year.

 8. School Division

School division staff meet with Regional Director, Director of Facilities Planning and the
Facilities Planner to review conceptual parameters, budget and capital design process.

Back to Table of Contents

The existing capital funding programs have served the educational community well for many years,  and are the foundation for the proposed capital funding model.  However, changes are necessary to reflect the current provincial environment of rapidly decreasing k-12 enrolments, aging facilities and the educational partners’ limited financial resources, if all k-12 students are to have access to equitable facilities.

These programs were developed on the premise that providing and operating educational facilities is a joint responsibility between school boards and Saskatchewan Education.  As such, transparency is essential to the integrity of the programs.

The proposed capital funding programs, which are designed to assist the educational partners in implementing a variety of solutions for addressing their facility requirements, will:

- designate funding responsibilities for all maintenance and capital projects
- provide boards with a strategy for developing a long-term capital plan
- incorporate local decision-making in the planning and operation of schools
- provide a vehicle for schools to have the required instructional area and equipment to accommodate current educational programs and technology

However, if these programs are to be successful, it is critical that both school boards and Saskatchewan Education are committed to the planning and implementation process.  School boards need to develop long-term facilities plans that clearly demonstrate the options explored and the educational/financial benefits of each option.  Once this has been done and the plan adopted by the school board, it is incumbent upon the Department to assist the board with the plan’s implementation.  This does not suggest that the plan must be implemented in its entirety at once, as the process, by its very nature, is ongoing.

The proposed capital funding programs will provide the basis for a capital planning and approval process for many years.

Back to Table of Contents

Back to list of finance reports