![Agenda ,[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object]]()
Recommandé
Recommandé
Contenu connexe
Tendances
Tendances (20)
En vedette
En vedette (9)
Similaire à Cefpi power point presentation revised
Similaire à Cefpi power point presentation revised (20)
Plus de Massachusetts School Building Authority
Plus de Massachusetts School Building Authority (7)
Dernier
Dernier (20)
Cefpi power point presentation revised
- 1. 2010 Needs Survey CEFPI Northeast Region Conference Katherine Craven Executive Director Steven Grossman Chairman, State Treasurer Massachusetts School Building Authority www.MassSchoolBuildings.org April 29, 2011
- 3. The MSBA Who We Are and What We Do
- 6. MSBA Dedicated Sales Tax 1 Cent of Statewide Sales Tax Old Program Prior Grants Inherited: $5.1B Paid-to-Date: $2.6B Old Program Waiting List Inherited: $5.5B Paid-to-Date: $4.6B New Program Committed: $1.4B Paid-to-Date: $301M
- 12. Building With Us Scope Definition PEAK
- 15. The Needs Survey Overview and Purpose
- 18. The Needs Survey Planning and Implementation
- 23. The Needs Survey Scoring Methodology
- 26. 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. The school’s overall environment is poor and many conditions present obstacles to learning and teaching. 4 Poor The school’s general physical environment is not good and several conditions make negatively affect learning and teaching. 3 The school’s general physical environment is good, but a few conditions may make learning and teaching less than ideal. 2 The school’s general physical environment is good and is conducive to learning and teaching. 1 Good Description Rating Scale
- 27. 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. School facilities may not be adequately sized for the current enrollment and educational program. Above Average High Utilization School facilities appear to be adequately sized for the current enrollment and educational program. Average Average Utilization School Facilities may exceed the size necessary to house the current enrollment and educational program. Below Average Low Utilization Description Rating Scale
- 28. The Needs Survey Statewide School Facilities and Findings
- 31. Massachusetts K-12 Enrollment * 2003 was the peak enrollment year.
- 32. Enrollment – Closed Schools
- 34. Construction Activity by Decade
- 39. The Needs Survey Building Systems Conditions
- 45. The Needs Survey Space Utilization
- 48. The Needs Survey Classrooms and Core Spaces
- 56. The Needs Survey Technology
- 60. The Needs Survey Conclusion
- 62. Questions? Contact: Katherine Craven Executive Director Steven Grossman Chairman, State Treasurer Massachusetts School Building Authority www.MassSchoolBuildings.org February 24, 2010 Jim Daiute Government Affairs Liaison 617-720-4466 [email_address]
Notes de l'éditeur
- Good morning and thank you for being here. I’m very excited to have the opportunity to present the findings of the MSBA’s 2010 Needs Survey. I’m joined today by First Deputy Treasurer and MSBA Executive Director Katherine Craven. NEXT SLIDE
- We have a lot of information to cover this morning, so I will try to move through it as quickly as possible. I’ll try to save some time at the end for questions. You also have my email address in your handout and you should feel free to contact me if you have any questions. We are going to begin this morning with an overview of the Massachusetts School Building Authority. For that, I am going to turn things over to Director Craven
- The MSBA was created in 2004 to reform the former school building assistance program that had been administered by the Department of Education. The program was financially unsustainable. There was a large backlog of projects and about $11 Billion in unfunded promises to cities and towns for school projects.
- The MSBA has a dedicated revenue stream. We receive one penny of the 6.25 cent sales tax. We have a small staff relative to the number of projects that we manage and our overhead costs are minimal. We are careful to limit our project approvals to those we can afford and we anticipate that we will fund a capital program of $2.5 billion over the next few years.
- Reimbursement Rates are determined by reference to a statutory formula that gives ever community a base rate of 31% to which are added three Ability to Pay Factors. Property Values and Median Income as compared to statewide averages and Percentage of Students in Federal Free/Reduced Lunch Maximum reimbursement rate is 80% Districts may also be eligible for certain discretionary incentive points for things such as: NEXT SLIDE
- Since 2004, the MSBA has made over $7.6 Billion in payments to cities, towns and regional school districts. We inherited 428 Waiting List Projects from the former program and we have made tremendous progress in moving those forward. We’ve completed 767 out of 789 backlogged audits. Those audits have saved over $1.1 billion in costs and $2.9 Billion in avoided local interest We created and implemented the ProPay system which allows municipalities to be reimbursed for project costs while they are incurred. Under the former program, cities, towns and regional school districts often had to wait years to get their first payments.
- The former program operated on a first come, first served basis. The MSBA prioritizes projects based on greatest need and urgency and places heavy emphasis on planning and study. We work with districts to confirm problems and to identify solutions that are financially prudent while still addressing their educational program needs. The MSBA has established a Designer Selection Panel for projects valued at more than $5 million. It’s a 15-member panel that includes 3 representatives from the school district whose project is being considered. Districts locally procure their OPM for projects valued at more than $1.5 million and the MSBA reviews that selection. The MSBA has developed standard OPM and Designer contracts to ensure that everyone who works on an MSBA-funded project understands what the roles, responsibilities and rights of the parties are. All of our financial commitments to cities, towns and districts are memorialized in standard Agreements.
- Districts who would like to be considered for funding must submit a Statement of Interest, which is simply a clear and concise statement of the problems at the school facilities in the district. SOI’s may be submitted electronically during a time period designated by the MSBA. The most recent window for submitting SOI’s closed in January. In FY2008, the first year the MSBA began accepting SOI’s, we received 423. The number of new SOI’s has dropped dramatically since then. And during our most recent SOI window, we received only 31 new requests for funding.
- We currently have 338 projects in the capital pipeline, including repairs, renovations, new construction and Green Repair Projects
- The MSBA launched the Model School program in 2008 in an effort to identify successful, recently constructed high school designs. We have since expanded the program to include elementary schools, middle schools and schools with more specialized grade configurations. In order to be considered as a model, the school design must be efficient, easy to maintain, incorporate sustainable elements and have flexibility in the educational spaces. The primary benefits of using a model school are 1) You can shorten the design time and get shovels in the ground much more quickly. This has been particularly advantageous during the last couple of years when the bidding climate has been so competitive; 2) Districts have the advantage of using a proven design that school administrators and educators like. They are able to tour the school and really get a sense of how it would work on a day-to-day basis. Districts must be invited to participate in the Model School Program and they are eligible for up to 5 additional reimbursement points.
- Prior to the Initial Needs Survey in 2005, there was no centralized database of school facility condition information in the Commonwealth. That survey provided us with the baseline data for more than 1,800 public schools. Assisted the MSBA in understanding the general level of need in the state and also allowed us to see how the needs of an individual school fit within the statewide spectrum. No school is granted or denied funding based solely on the findings of the Needs Survey. It is just one in a number of factors, including SOI, more detailed facilities studies and the availability of funding that is used to determine eligibility for MSBA grants.
- The MSBA conducted a competitive procurement in early 2010 and selected STV, Inc., an architectural firm with offices in Boston, to assist us in planning and conducting the Needs Survey. As you can imagine, it took quite a bit of planning to ensure that the data was collected efficiently, consistently and accurately. We used the 2005 Needs Survey and the questionnaire we used at that time as the starting point. We then updated and refined it to capture a broader range of information. Our IT staff developed data input applications and also created a custom database for uploading and storing our information long term. During the initial survey, we used retired Superintendents and educators to conduct the survey. This time we decided to work with design and engineering professionals with knowledge of educational facilities and building systems to perform the on-site assessments of the schools.
- A lot of time and thought went into ensuring that we had the right processes and controls in place so that we would have confidence in the accuracy of our data. The first step to consistency and accuracy was training. Along with STV, Inc. we held a week-long training session for assessors including both classroom and on-the-job training at seven schools of various ages and conditions. Every assessor was given a detailed training manual that he/she used throughout the assessment phase and we conducted weekly meetings to address issues that arose during the week.
- Our data input applications contained high percentages of required fields to eliminate inadvertent omissions of data. We employed a multi-tiered quality review process. Assessors were required to collect data using a paper questionnaire and then use either the Web or Windows app to upload the data into our database within 24 hours of collection. Working with STV and Magellan, Inc. we reviewed 100% of the paper questionnaires against the database to identify and correct inconsistencies. Assessors also uploaded their paper forms and school floor plans to the database and those serve as reference documents for us. If there were any questions, the assessor would get an email and would have to correct or clarify the information. We also developed queries to identify data that fell outside established norms. After the assessments were complete we randomly reviewed 20% of all the school reports and conducted follow-up site visits at about a dozen or so schools. Finally, we gave every superintendent an opportunity to review the factual data that we collected for accuracy.
- The Initial Needs Survey in 2005 gave each school a single score for building systems condition. We retained that rating for this survey, but also added an evaluation of the general physical environment – how well a school’s physical elements support teaching and learning – and a rating for space utilization – how space utilization at an individual school compares with statewide norms.
- To generate the building systems score, assessors evaluated the conditions of 7 site and 18 building systems. The Building Systems Condition Rating is based on a 1 to 4 scale with 1 being the best and 4 being the poorest.
- The General Physical Environment Rating is also based on a 1 to 4 scale and was calculated by evaluating specific physical elements, the most important of which were access to daylight, open floor plans and average classroom size.
- We looked at traditional criteria such as GSF per student and students per classroom as well as the number and percentage of non-traditional or temporary classrooms to generate a space utilization rating. Each school received an average, below average or above average rating.
- Enrollment in Massachusetts has declined by 2.8% from its peek in 2003 and 1.6% since the 2005 Needs Survey. Every region of the state has been affected, but Central and Western Mass saw the largest declines. Southeastern Mass, the Cape and Islands were also hard hit. Both the MSBA and the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education predict enrollment will continue to drop for the foreseeable future. More than 80 public schools have closed in the last 5 years, including 7 since July 2010. There are approximately 150 district-owned school buildings that are no longer being used as schools. Some have been shuttered due to age and condition, but a subset of this number have closed due to lack of enrollment.
- Despite the fact that enrollment has been declining, the decade between 2000 and 2010 saw an unprecedented construction boom. Nearly 70 million GSF of school facility space was built new or renovated during that period. That figure represents 40% of the total GSF in the state. The boom includes funded under both the former program and those in the MSBA’s Capital Pipeline
- Prior to 2000, construction activity averaged about 38 million square feet per decade with one notable exception in the 1980’s when two recessions and the adoption of Proposition 2 ½ limited the ability of cities and towns to make capital improvements.
- Not surprisingly, given the level of construction and renovation at schools across the Commonwealth over the last decade, school buildings are in good condition. 84% received the top scores for building conditions; 97 percent received top scores for general physical environment and 92% have at least adequate space to support their educational program and enrollment.
- An additional 244 schools were rated a 3. 10 of the schools that received a 4 and 63 of those that received a 3 have already been invited into our Capital Pipeline.
- 97% of our schools received a rating of 1 or 2 for General Physical Environment, meaning that the school’s overall physical environment is good and is conducive to learning and teaching. Only 27 schools, which includes many of the 23 that received a 4 for building conditions, were rated a 4 while another 30 received a 3.
- Nearly a quarter of schools was deemed to be oversized for their current enrollment and educational program while less than 8.0% may be inadequately sized. There are certainly pockets of growth in Massachusetts and the MSBA.
- As we did our evaluation of building systems, we collected a little extra data for these four building systems, primarily because these are the systems for which Districts are most likely to request repairs. The Green Repair Program that we talked about in the very early part of the presentation is addressing many of the deficiencies we identified during the Needs Survey.
- In order to be eligible for MSBA funding, districts have to meet certain maintenance criteria. Districts also have the opportunity to earn up to 2 incentive points if they can demonstrate that they have exhibited best practices for routine and capital maintenance.
- The Needs Survey is not intended to be an in depth review of maintenance practices.
- 14 of the 23 schools that received the poorest building conditions score received a Below Average Maintenance rating in either routine or capital maintenance.
- This number does not include the more than 1300 unused classrooms we just spoke about.
- The MSBA collected information about the number of specialized classrooms that were available at every school in the Commonwealth.
- During the needs survey, we also collected data on the availability of essential core spaces, including gyms…
- Generally speaking, students have access to essential core spaces. The vast majority of schools have the score spaces they need for their grade level.
- I know I’ve thrown a lot of information at you this morning, but this information is just a fraction of the data that we collected during our survey of more than 1750 schools across the Commonwealth. I’ll leave you with these three main points. The MSBA is committed to working with our private sector partners, including designers and OPMS and to collaborating with municipalities and regional school districts…