Cefpi power point presentation revised

2010 Needs Survey

CEFPI Northeast Region Conference

Katherine Craven

Executive Director

Steven Grossman

Chairman, State Treasurer

Massachusetts School Building Authority

www.MassSchoolBuildings.orgApril 29, 2011

Massachusetts School Building Authority 2

Agenda

The Massachusetts School Building Authority Introduction and Overview Accomplishments and Vision

Needs Survey Overview and Purpose Planning Quality Assurance/Quality Control Scoring Methodology

Summary of Findings Questions

The MSBA

Who We Are and What We Do


Who We Are

An Independent Public Authority Created by the Legislature in 2004 to manage, plan

and create a financially sustainable school building construction and renovation grant program.

Seven-member Board of Directors Chaired by State Treasurer Steven Grossman Secretary of Administration and Finance Commissioner of Education Four members appointed by the Treasurer

Professional educators Design and construction industry professionals


MSBA Funding

The Commonwealth has dedicated 1 cent of the statewide 6.25 cent sales tax (not including meals) to the MSBA

The MSBA has a relatively small staff and overhead; administrative costs represent less than 1% of annual budget

MSBA will never promise funds they can’t deliver. Program tailored to meet available resources

MSBA will fund a capital program of $2.5 billion over the next few years


MSBA Dedicated Sales Tax

1 Cent ofStatewideSales Tax

Old ProgramPrior Grants

Inherited: $5.1BPaid-to-Date: $2.6B

Old Program Waiting List

Inherited: $5.5BPaid-to-Date: $4.6B

New Program

Committed: $1.4BPaid-to-Date: $301M


Reimbursement Rates

Every Community starts at a Base Rate of 31% Added to the 31% Base Rate are three (3) Ability

to Pay Factors: Equalized Property Values (Source: DOR) Median Income Comparison (Source: DOR) Percentage of Students in Federal Free/Reduced

Lunch (Source: DESE) Maximum Reimbursement Rate is 80% After calculating the Base Rate and Ability to

Pay Factors, the MSBA may, in its sole discretion, add Incentive Points


Reimbursement Rates-Incentive Points

Maintenance – range from 0% to 2% based on performance of Maintenance Best Practices

Construction Manager at Risk (CM-at-Risk) – up to 1% Newly-formed Regional School Districts – up to 6% Renovation/Reuse of existing facility- range up to 5%

based on a sliding scale of the percentage of space renovated versus new construction

Overlay zoning MGL c. 40R or 40S – up to 1% 100 or 50% of units 1, 2 & 3 family structures – up to 5%

Green School Program – up to 2% Model School Program – up to 5%


Significant Accomplishments

Accelerated over $7.6B in payments to cities, towns and regional school districts

Moved stalled projects and funded them 414 out of 428 Waiting List Projects have received a payment or have

been completely paid off. Only 2 still have not started; other projects were removed by the

community Massive Cost Reconciliations

Completed 767 out of 789 backlogged audits Saved the taxpayers of Massachusetts over $1.1 billion Generated over $2.9B in avoided local interest costs

Created and implemented a “pay-as-you build” Progress Payment & Audit system Provides municipalities with much needed cash flow as projects are built Reduces the amount of debt a city, town or regional school district

needs to issue


Significant Accomplishments - Continued

The new program prioritizes projects based on need and urgency and places heavy emphasis on planning, study and designing to realistic budgets

The MSBA works in collaboration with cities, towns and regional school districts to confirm problems and identify educationally sound and financially prudent solutions

The Designer Selection and Owner’s Project Manager Approval Panels encourage accountability

The MSBA developed standard OPM and Designer contracts to clearly delineate roles and responsibilities and to protect the rights of the districts

Standard Feasibility Study, Project Scope and Budget, and Project Funding Agreements memorialize the MSBA’s financial commitment to districts


Statement of Interest (SOI)

Collecting problems rather than solutions

FY 2008 – Received 432 SOI from 163 districts and made over 400 visits to more than 140 districts as part of review and due diligence

Recent trend – Districts asking for repairs, not new buildings

New Statements of Interest

47 43 31

432

0

100

200

300

400

500

FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011


Building With UsScope Definition

PE

AK


Model School Program

Effectively adapts and re-uses the design of successful, recently constructed schools

Schools are efficient in design, easy to maintain, incorporate sustainable design elements and are flexible in educational programming spaces

Districts get shovels in the ground far more quickly than when utilizing standard design process

Able to take advantage of competitive bidding climate Estimated savings of approximately $58M on high school

projects in Norwood, Tewksbury, Plymouth, Natick and Hampden-Wilbraham

Districts invited into the Model School Program are eligible for up to 5% additional reimbursement


Green Repair Program

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) provides the MSBA with a limited time opportunity to issue Qualified School Construction Bonds (QSCBs)

Eligible scope limited to Roofs, Windows and Boilers in buildings that are otherwise physically and educationally sound

Grants awarded on a competitive basis Reimbursement rates set at the statutory base rate with

no incentive points Rare opportunity to address multiple projects in a single

community MSBA has moved 173 Green Repair Projects into the

Capital Pipeline

The Needs Survey

Overview and Purpose


What is the Needs Survey?

The Needs Survey is a statewide assessment of the general conditions at all public K-12 educational facilities that may be eligible for funding from the MSBA Early Childhood Centers Elementary, Middle and High Schools Vocational Technical Schools Agricultural Schools Horace Mann Charter Schools

The Needs Survey does not include an evaluation of: Head Starts or other federally-funded schools Commonwealth Charter Schools Institutional Schools Private special education schools


Why conduct the Needs Survey?

The MSBA is required by statute (M.G.L. c. 70B) to conduct periodic surveys of cities, towns and regional school districts to determine the need for school construction and renovation

The Initial Needs Survey - 2005 Created the first centralized database of school facility condition

information in the Commonwealth Established baseline data for more than 1,800 public K-12

schools Assisted the MSBA in understanding how the needs of individual

schools fit within the statewide spectrum of need and urgency The findings are considered along with other factors,

including SOI, senior studies and availability of funding, to determine eligibility for MSBA grants

The Needs Survey

Planning and Implementation


Planning

Intensive Planning Reviewed 2005 Needs Survey Updated and refined questionnaire Developed web and software applications and

custom database Identified independent design and engineering

professionals to conduct survey Compiled preliminary list of schools Developed comprehensive plan for communicating

with municipal, district and school personnel about the Needs Survey


Quality Assurance & Quality Control

Training Week-long training session for assessors

including classroom and field training to ensure that data was collected consistently and accurately

Written training manual used throughout assessment phase as a guideline for evaluating building conditions

Weekly meetings with assessors to address issues that arose during site visits


QA/QC Procedures Web and software applications were developed to

contain a high percentage of required fields. Multi-tiered quality review process

Level I Assessors collected data on a paper form, then uploaded the

information into the database within 24 hours of collection Paper forms and floor plans uploaded to the database Reviewed 100% of paper questionnaires vs. electronic

database to identify and correct inconsistencies Developed queries to identify data that fell outside established

norms Level II

Sampled 20% of school reports Conducted follow-up site visits to verify accuracy of data

Superintendent Review


Site Visits

13-week Assessment Phase Coordinated visits through Superintendent’s

office Each site visit included:

30-minute interview with school principal and maintenance/custodial staff to gather detailed information about the building and building systems

Review of the floor plan and annotation of classroom usage

Tour of the school to view typical classrooms, science labs, core spaces, mechanical rooms and main electrical panels

Walk around the grounds

The Needs Survey

Scoring Methodology


Three Primary Metrics

Each school in the Needs Survey was assigned a rating in three categories Building Systems Conditions

Most Analogous to the 2005 Needs Survey rating 1 to 4 scale (1-Good; 4-Poor)

General Physical Environment Reflects how well a school’s physical elements support

teaching and learning 1 to 4 scale (1-Good; 4-Poor)

Space Utilization Evaluation of how space utilization at an individual school

compares with statewide norms


Building Systems – Ratings The MSBA evaluated 7 site and 18 building systems such as roofs, windows, HVAC, lighting, electrical systems and playgrounds to generate an overall building systems conditions rating

Scale Rating DescriptionPotential Future Action

Good 1The building is in good condition with few or no building systems needing attention

General Maintenance

2The building is in generally good condition, however a few building systems may need attention

Minor to Moderate Renovation

3The building is in fair to poor condition and some building systems may need to be repaired or replaced.

Moderate to Major Renovation

Poor 4The building is in poor condition and a possible candidate for major renovation or replacement

Major Renovation or Replacement


General Physical Environment – Ratings

The MSBA analyzed physical elements including daylighting, floor plans, classroom size and location, availability of core spaces and specialized classrooms, accessibility and permanent vs. temporary spaces to determine how well the physical environment supports teaching and learning.

Scale Rating Description

Good 1The school’s general physical environment is good and is conducive to learning and teaching.

2The school’s general physical environment is good, but a few conditions may make learning and teaching less than ideal.

3The school’s general physical environment is not good and several conditions make negatively affect learning and teaching.

Poor 4The school’s overall environment is poor and many conditions present obstacles to learning and teaching.


Space Utilization – Ratings

This rating is calculated using: GSF per student, students per classroom, classroom size, number of lunch seatings, number and percentage of temporary or non-traditional classrooms, and whether corridors are used for storage and breakout spaces.

Scale Rating Description

LowUtilization

Below Average

School Facilities may exceed the size necessary to house the current enrollment and educational program.

AverageUtilization

AverageSchool facilities appear to be adequately sized for the current enrollment and educational program.

HighUtilization

Above Average

School facilities may not be adequately sized for the current enrollment and educational program.

The Needs Survey

Statewide School Facilities and Findings


Buildings and Square Footage

There are 1,757 schools, composed of 1,831 school-related permanent buildings and totaling 173,366,462 GSF. 60 fewer schools than in 2005

The schools serve 927,252 students in 329 school districts An additional 28,311 students are enrolled in

schools that are not eligible for MSBA funding About 1% of the state’s 62,397 classrooms

are in temporary spaces


Enrollment

Enrollment declined by 2.8% statewide from its peek in 2003

No region of the state has been unaffected MSBA and DESE predict that enrollment will continue to

decline for the near future More than 80 public schools have closed since the 2005

Needs Survey 7 have closed since the Needs Survey visits were concluded in

July 2010 Districts cited lack of enrollment as a factor in 50% of closings

Approximately 150 buildings are no longer being used as public schools


Massachusetts K-12 Enrollment

Student Enrollment by Year

820,000

840,000

860,000

880,000

900,000

920,000

940,000

960,000

980,000

1,000,000

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

* 2003 was the peak enrollment year.


Enrollment – Closed Schools


School Construction Boom

Between 2000 and 2010, nearly 70 million GSF of school facility space was built new or renovated.

About 40% of school GSF has been built new or renovated since 2000

Includes projects funded under the former school building assistance program and new projects in the MSBA Capital Pipeline


Construction Activity by Decade

School Construction Activity

-

10,000,000

20,000,000

30,000,000

40,000,000

50,000,000

60,000,000

70,000,000

80,000,000

Prior to 1950 1950-1959 1960-1969 1970-1979 1980-1989 1990-1999 2000-2009

Tot

al S

quar

e F

oota

ge o

f Con

stru

ctio

n

New Schools Additions Renovations Average


Summary of Conditions

Massachusetts school facilities are generally in good condition and provide a good physical environment for learning.

84% received top scores for building conditions

97% received top scores for general physical environment

92% have adequate space to support their educational program and enrollment

School Building Improvement

76% 84%

2005 2010

Rated w ell

Rated poorly


Buildings Systems - Findings

84.3% of public schools received a rating of 1 or 2, meaning that their site and building systems are in generally good condition.

Less than 1.5%, 23 schools, received a rating of 4, meaning that they are in poor condition.

Number of Schools w ith each Building Systems Condition Score

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

1 2 3 4


General Environment - Findings

97% of schools received a rating of 1 or 2, meaning that the school has a generally good environment for learning and teaching

Only 1.5%, 27 schools, have a rating of 4, while 30 schools received a 3

Number of Schools w ith each General Environment Score

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1,600

1 2 3 4

Number of Schools with each General Environment Score


Space Utilization - Findings

Nearly 24% of schools are oversized for their current enrollment and educational program

Less than 8.0% of schools may be inadequately sized

Capacity Rating: Number of Schools w ith Each Score

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

Above AverageUtilization

AverageUtilization

Below AverageUtilization

The Needs Survey

Building Systems Conditions


Roofs, Windows, HVAC and Boilers

Most requested repairs Collected additional information about

these four systems Age of oldest portion of the system Type of system (PVC Roof, e.g.) Date and scope of the last significant repair or

replacement

Green Repair Program addresses many of the deficiencies identified in these systems


Maintenance

Districts must demonstrate that they have met certain maintenance criteria based on industry best practices as a prerequisite to MSBA funding

The MSBA may award up to 2 incentive reimbursement points if it determines, in its sole discretion, that a city, town or regional school district has exhibited best practices for routine and capital maintenance


Maintenance - Ratings

The 2010 Needs Survey included a general evaluation of maintenance in three areas: General Cleanliness Routine Systems Maintenance Capital Repair

Maintenance in each category was rated as average, above average or below average based on the observations of assessors, conditions of building systems and information provided by the district

More detailed examination of maintenance practices is conducted by the MSBA for districts who have requested funding


Maintenance – Results

• The vast majority of schools have average maintenance practices.

• Maintenance Matters•The average Building Systems Score of all schools is 1.63.•Schools with above average Capital and Routine Maintenance scores have an average Building Condition Score of 1.20.•Schools with below average Capital and Routine Maintenance scores have an average Building Condition Score of 2.67.


Maintenance Ratings

Maintenance Ratings

-

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1,600

General Cleanliness Routine Maintenance Capital Maintenance

Schools

Below Average Average Above Average

The Needs Survey

Space Utilization


Space Utilization

One out of every five schools is oversized for its current population

More than 1,300 classroom spaces are no longer being used for public education. Equivalent to 19 empty schools More than 1 million square feet Approximately 2% of total classroom space

Only 6% of the schools have more than 10% of their classrooms in temporary spaces


Addressing Space Utilization Issues

MSBA has worked with designers and educators to develop space guidelines for classroom and core spaces that are educationally appropriate and fiscally responsible

MSBA space allowances for GSF are based on a sliding scale that takes into account grades served and enrollment

MSBA has developed a free, web-based enrollment projection tool Establishing an accurate enrollment projection is one

of the first steps in the MSBA’s process Standard enrollment methodology has avoided over

$74.5 million in construction costs

The Needs Survey

Classrooms and Core Spaces


Classrooms - Overview

There are 62,397 classrooms in use across the Commonwealth.

The vast majority – 51,689 – are general classrooms

The average number of classrooms per school ranges from 15 at early childhood centers to 66 at the high school level.


Specialized Classrooms

Science Labs Science Demonstration Classrooms Art Music Special Education


Science Classrooms

Science classrooms account for the largest percentage of specialty classrooms and represent 6.5% of the total number of classrooms in the state. 1,055 Science Demonstration Classrooms 4,061 Science Labs

90% of all Middle Schools, Middle/High Schools and High Schools have dedicated science space


Art and Music

There are 1,924 Art rooms and 1,739 Music rooms in the state.

78% of all schools have at least one art room, while 69% have at least one dedicated music room. Auditoriums are often used to conduct music

classes in schools that do not have dedicated music rooms.

385 schools, 22%, have Art or Music “On a Cart”


Special Education

Most schools use a combination of inclusive classrooms and self-contained special education spaces to teach students with special needs

248 of 329 school districts belong to one or more special education collaboratives that allow multiple districts to pool resources to address the needs of students who require the highest levels of care

Public schools have dedicated 277 classrooms for use by collaboratives


Core Spaces

Gyms Library/Media Centers Cafeterias Auditoriums


Core Spaces - Findings

The vast majority of schools have the core spaces they need for their grade level 86% have a library/media center 77% have one or more gyms 86% maintain a cafeteria 35% have an auditorium 10% use a multipurpose room for one or more of

these uses Schools that lack these facilities typically share

with an adjacent school or have access to community resources

The Needs Survey

Technology


Technology

Schools use a variety of approaches to integrate technology into the classroom. 78% have dedicated computer labs Laptops on a cart Computer banks in library/media centers Interactive white boards

83.8% of schools have computers for student use in all or most of their classrooms

96% have access to the Internet More than one-quarter of those schools are

completely wireless


Technology - Challenges

Assessors identified only 76 schools whose technology systems may require significant upgrades These schools have an average age of 65

years One-third also received very poor ratings for

their electrical capacity and distribution systems


Technology – MSBA Support

The MSBA encourages districts to develop Technology Plans based on the State’s technology standards

The MSBA works with districts on approved projects to ensure that project scope supports the technology piece of the district’s desired educational program

The MSBA’s grant program includes a per student allowance of $1,200 to offset the costs of technology equipment for approved construction and renovation projects

The Needs Survey

Conclusion


Conclusion

Massachusetts school buildings are in good condition and provide good physical environments for learning

Enrollment is declining and there is no evidence of widespread overcrowding

The MSBA is committed to collaborating with cities, towns and regional schools to develop solutions to school building deficiencies that are financially sound, appropriately sized and support the delivery of a 21st Century curriculum

Questions?Contact:

Katherine Craven

Executive Director

Steven Grossman

Chairman, State Treasurer

Massachusetts School Building Authority

www.MassSchoolBuildings.orgFebruary 24, 2010

Jim Daiute

Government Affairs Liaison

617-720-4466

[email protected]