School Facilities Workshop

Meetings

20

15

School Facilities WorkshopApril 27 - TSBA Headquarters

April 27, 2015TSBA/TSPMA Joint

School Facilities Workshop

Agenda

BREAKFAST sponsored by Michael Brady, Inc.

8:00 a.m. Welcome and Overview Tammy Grissom, Executive Director, TSBA

8:05 a.m. What is TSPMA and How Can It Help You? Joe Mike Akard, Executive Director, TSPMA

8:15 a.m. The Board’s Long Range Facilities Plan Joe Edgens, (Evaluating Your Existing Facilities) Executive Director of Facility Services (part-time/retired), Metro Davidson County

9:15 a.m. Design/Construction Contract Legal Issues Chuck Cagle, (Delivery System/Bidding Process) Attorney, Lewis, Thomason, King, Krieg & Waldrop, P.C.

10:15 a.m. BREAK sponsored by Kaatz, Binkley, Jones & Morris, Architects, Inc.

10:30 a.m. Total Cost of Ownership on Building New Phillip Graham, Director of And Remodeling Maintenance & Transportation, Greeneville

11:30 a.m. LUNCH

12:15 p.m. Inspections and New Requirements of Ed DePew, Director of Safety Data Sheets Maintenance, Bristol

Bill Shedden, Supervisor of Maintenance & Custodians, Kingsport; TSPMA President

1:15 p.m. Technology in the Classroom and Its Impact Andy Arnold, Director of On School Facilities Technology, Bristol; Chairman, TETA Board of Directors

Dr. Vonda Beavers, Curriculum & Testing Coordinator/Data Analyst, Bristol

2:15 p.m. BREAK sponsored by Cope Associates, Inc.

2:30 p.m. Panel Discussion of the Importance of Energy Zane Foraker, Energy Manager, Management&Efficiency Knox County

Pall Cross, Energy Efficient School Initiative

Reid Conway, Senior Energy Services Advisor, TDEC Office of Energy Programs

3:30 p.m. Wrap up and Evaluations

3:45 p.m. Adjourn

To access the digital version of this notebook, please visit www.issuu.com/tsba.

Joe Mike Akard, Executive Director TSPMA

What is TSPMA and How Can it Help You?

Notes

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________

Joe Edgens, Executive Director of Facility

Services (part-time/retired), Metro Davidson County

The Board’s Long Range Facilities Plan (Evaluating Your Existing Facilities)

1

Preparation of a Comprehensive Long-Range Facility Improvement Plan

TSBA School Facilities Workshop April 27, 2015

Joe A. Edgens, Executive Director of Facility Services (Retired) Metropolitan Nashville / Davidson County, TN Public Schools Contact: [email protected] or (615) 259-8516

Session Content

!  Why a Facility Master Plan !  Procedure

"  RFP "  Work Plan

! Deliverables "  Facility Condition Index

•  Standards •  Assessments •  Ranking

"  Projections "  Capacities "  Priorities

2

TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION PAGE NUMBER 1.0 Purpose 3 2.0 Background 3 3.0 Project Description 3 4.0 Scope of Services 3 5.0 Contractor’s Responsibilities 5 6.0 Metro’s Responsibilities 6 7.0 Instructions for Submission 6

7.01 Proposal Deadline 6 7.02 Pre-Proposal Conference 6 7.03 Questions 6 7.04 Proposal Opening 7 7.05 Proprietary Information 7 7.06 Procurement Timetable 7 7.07 Disclaimers 7 7.08 Proposals and Presentation Costs 8 7.09 Proposal Format 8

8.0 Ambiguity, Conflict, or Other Errors in RFP 9 9.0 Proposal Term 9 10.0 Late Submissions 10 11.0 Implied Requirements 10 12.0 Rejection of Proposal 10 13.0 Acceptance of Proposals 10 14.0 Evaluation Criteria 10 15.0 Contract Formation 11 16.0 Terms and Conditions 11 17.0 Insurance Requirements 11

EXHIBITS A.  Offeror Data Form 12 B.  Contract for Purchase of Services 13 C.  Affidavits 25 D.  Insurance Requirements 26 E.  Educational Analysis 31

RFP Critical Components

! PURPOSE "  Prioritize Capital Projects "  Document Capacities "  Document Areas of Growth "  Identify Possible School Closings/Consolidations

! BACKGROUND "  Number and Type of Buildings "  Age of Buildings "  Size of Buildings

! EXPECTATIONS "  Overall District Improvement Plan "  Vision for Future

3

Work Plan Overview for a Successful Master Planning Process

Task 1 - Project initiation and data gathering

Task 2 - Review current mission statement, goals and objectives. Review current and projected programs and services

Task 3 - Develop standards for ranking building condition & suitability (Facility Condition Index)

Task 4 - Conduct facility assessments Task 5 – Calculate condition/suitability score for each facility Task 6 - Review and verify demographic data Task 7 - Develop consistent formula(s) for calculating capacity Task 8 - Prepare final comprehensive long range facility

improvement plan

Methodology Components

1) Standards / Facility Assessments / Building Rankings

4

Facility Condition Index (FCI) Components

!  SITE "  Parking Lots "  Driveways "  Sidewalks "  Playgrounds "  Equipment "  Utilities

Facility Condition Index (FCI) Components

! PHYSICAL CONDITION "  Structure "  Mechanical "  Plumbing "  Electrical "  Roofing "  Finishes

!  FACILITY CONDITION SCORE

5

Facility Condition Assessment Report (Example)

% of Possible Percent

Systems Component(s) System Rating Score Score Score

Structural

Foundation\Structure Single Component 100.00 Good 11.49 12.77 90.00

Exterior Walls Single Component 100.00 Good 4.71 5.24 90.00

Roof Single Component 100.00 Good 4.65 5.16 90.00

Exterior Windows Single Component 100.00 Good 2.12 2.35 90.00

Exterior Doors Single Component 100.00 Good 0.51 0.56 90.00

Interior Floors Single Component 100.00 Good 6.69 7.43 90.00

Interior Walls Single Component 100.00 Good 7.82 8.68 90.00

Interior Doors Single Component 100.00 Good 1.00 1.11 90.00

Ceiling Single Component 100.00 Good 4.82 5.35 90.00

Fixed Equipment Single Component 100.00 Good 2.13 2.37 90.00

Mechanical

Electrical

Main Service Single Component 100.00 Good 2.90 3.22 90.00

Distribution Single Component 100.00 Good 2.90 3.22 90.00


% of Possible Percent

Systems Component(s) System Rating Score Score Score

ES Site Condition Assessment

Paved Surfaces

Parking Lots Single Component 100.00 Good 7.77 8.64 90.00

Driveways Single Component 100.00 Good 8.95 9.95 90.00

Sidewalks Single Component 100.00 Good 19.51 21.67 90.00

Play Courts Single Component 100.00 Good 7.63 8.48 90.00

Landscaped Surfaces

Lawns\Gardens Single Component 100.00 Good 5.75 6.39 90.00

Playfields Single Component 100.00 Good 3.96 4.40 90.00

Irrigation System Single Component 100.00 Good 3.77 4.19 90.00

Playgrounds

Equipment Single Component 100.00 Good 8.10 9.00 90.00

Playground Surfaces Single Component 100.00 Good 2.71 3.02 90.00

Utilities

Water Service Single Component 100.00 Good 4.24 4.71 90.00

6


Possible Percent

Suitability Rating Score Score Score

Suitability - Elementary

Traffic Fair 1.99 2.97 67.00

Parking Good 0.81 0.81 100.00

Playground Good 2.34 2.34 100.00

Fencing Good 0.75 0.75 100.00

Signage Good 0.09 0.09 100.00

General Classrooms

Size Good 16.80 16.80 100.00

Adjacencies Good 3.60 3.60 100.00

Storage\Fixed Equip. Good 3.60 3.60 100.00

Remedial Learning Spaces

Size Good 3.50 3.50 100.00

Adjacencies G/F 0.75 0.75 100.00

Storage\Fixed Equip. G/F 0.75 0.75 100.00

Reading Resource

Size Good 1.38 1.38 100.00


2) Projections and Capacity

7

Enrollment Projections

! Gather historical data ! Review existing projections ! Interviews

#  Planning Officials (Census Data) #  Economic Development Agencies #  District Officials

! Calculations #  Cohort Survival Model #  Linear Regression Models #  Student per Household Models

Enrollment Projections

Summary of Projection Models K-12

5,000

5,500

6,000

6,500

7,000

04 - 05 05 - 06 06 - 07 07 - 08 08 - 09 09 - 10 10 - 11 11 - 12 12 - 13 13 - 14

Year

Enro

llmen

t

Annual % Increase Regression Cohort Survival

Students/Household MGT Estimate

8

Capacity Standards

! Factors Affecting Capacity #  Class size limitations

"  Student-teacher ratios #  Educational programs #  Safety #  How teacher prep is handled #  Scheduling efficiency #  Accreditation #  Others…

Full Size Teaching Spaces

Teaching Spaces

Student Teacher Ratio

Capacity

Kindergarten 4 20 801st Grade 4 20 802nd Grade 4 20 803rd Grade 4 20 804th Grade 4 25 100Resource 1 - -Music 1 - -Art 1 - -Reading Room 1 - -Community Room 1 - -

Total 25 420efficiency factor 0.95 399

Cafeteria 1600Library/Media 4090Administration 1780

Physical Education 4620Itinerant 400

400 Student ModelFull Size Teaching

SpacesTeaching Spaces


Capacity








Capacity





600 Student Model

Full Size Teaching Spaces

Teaching Spaces


Capacity








Capacity


Total 47 815efficiency factor .95 774



800 Student Model

Budget Capacity Model

9

Projected Utilization Middle School Example


3) Determining Parameters and Priorities

10

Priorities

! Efficiently utilize all current district resources

! Maximize the life cycle of all facilities

! Minimize overcrowding throughout all district schools

! Celebrate the historical significance of District facilities where appropriate

! Address the differences among school size (capacity)

! Minimize the use of portables as classrooms to the degree possible

Priorities

! Address current facility condition deficiencies including physical condition, site condition and educational suitability condition

! Insure all appropriate learning spaces exist at each school

! Provide equity among district facilities to the degree possible

11


4) Cost / Benefit Analysis

Cost / Benefit Elements

! Building capacity ! Site size ! Utilization

#  Includes student teacher ratios ! Building condition

#  Physical Condition #  Suitability #  Technology Readiness #  Site Condition

! Weighing factors

12

Sample School Profile

METROPOLITAN BOARD OF PUBLIC EDUCATION OF NASHVILLE AND DAVIDSON COUNTY

FACILITY CONDITION MATRIX

Antioch High School YEAR OF ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION: 19979-12 CURRENT TOTAL SQUARE FOOTAGE: 287,393

YEAR OF MOST RECENT RENOVATION: N/AMOST RECENT RENOVATION SQUARE FOOTAGE: N/A

ACREAGE CONDITION SCORE

SUITABILITY SCORE

COMBINED SCORE

HISTORICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Current Projected A Current Projected

52.74 94.84% 96.00% 95.13% 2245 1691 109.14% None Identified

B

SCHOOL NAME:

UTILIZATIONENROLLMENT

SIP GRADE CONFIGURATION:

A -‐ Square Footage Per Student Model

CAPACITY

Comments:

Additions $

Condition $1,334,653.09

Suitability $264,401.56

Sub-total $1,599,054.65

B -‐ Instructional Space Model -‐ Based on 25 Students Per C lass, H igh School; 25 Students Per C lass, Middle School; 20.8 Students Per C lass, Elementary

2057

Total Number of Portables: 10

Number used for Classrooms: 9

Master Plan Recommendations

Antioch High School Cluster

SCHOOL NAME ACREAGE YEAR OF ORIGINAL CONST. CONDITION SCORE SUITABILITY SCORE COMBINED SCORE HISTORICAL

SIGNIFICANCE

Current Projected* Current Projected Replace Abandon Renovate AdditionBoundary Change

Districtwide Projects**

21,363,960$

3 B1,404,872$ 635,000$

-

3 B1,549,669$ 635,000$

-

3 B773,066$ 635,000$

ELEMENTARY TOTAL: 4281 4299 112.81% 113.28%

3 C2,181,151$ 221,000$

1 A2,919,598$ 573,520$

- C221,000$

MIDDLE SCHOOL TOTAL: 2959 2768 127.21% 119.00%D

- 250,000$

HIGH SCHOOL TOTAL: 2245 2864 109.14% 139.23%

None Identified

2057

None Identified

None Identified

None Identified

Additions needed at Apollo Middle School and Antioch Middle School or new Middle School necessary - Priority 1 Budget of $9,960,000

Add High School in conjunction with McGavock. Technology High School with capacity of 1,000 - Priority 1 Budget of $17,750,000. New Comprehensive High School in Southeast Quadrant -

1997

1967

2001

3795

METROPOLITAN BOARD OF PUBLIC EDUCATION OF NASHVILLE AND DAVIDSON COUNTY

MASTER PLAN RECOMMENDATIONS AND PRIORITIES

1967

2001

1962

Instructional Space Model

573

692

514

1988

1999

1987

1949

2326

2057

809

585

932

CAPACITY

Mountain View Elementary

Una Elementary

Antioch Middle

16.23

11.72

80.63% 100.00%

84.91% 721

Kennedy Middle

Antioch High

11.46 86.93%

52.74 94.84%

99.43%

77.99%

30.41

21.77

12.03 84.84%

CLUSTER NAME:

UTILIZATIONENROLLMENT

57.04% 77.89% 700 122.16%

Apollo Middle

Cole Elementary

Lakeview Elementary

Maxwell Elementary

Moss Elementary

RECOMMENDATIONS AND PRIORITIES

None Identified

Priority 1 recommendation is for new elementary with a capacity of 500, budget of $6,025,000

Worthy of Consideration

None Identified

None Identified

None Identified

15.88

11.40

None Identified

124.32%

85.55%

99.42%66.41% 81.80% 688

84.14% 87.22%

85.47%

79.37%

100.00% 99.44% 99.86% 941

59281.65%87.78%79.61%

99.90% 100.00% 99.93% 639

692

119.11%

135.02%

790

534

1147

122.99%

139.66%

123.07%

109.14%96.00%

99.57%

995

95.13%

83.50%

100.00%29.30

2245

817

13

Other Factors to Consider

! Administrative costs associated with implementing the plan and related benefits

! Criteria for optimum school sizes to reduce operating costs ! Analysis of long-term operating costs of equipment, maintenance,

and energy compared to quality of facility ! Development of measurable goals and objectives ! Exploration of joint-use opportunities with public/private

partnerships ! Standards and criteria to develop the scope of facility

improvements

Chuck Cagle, Attorney, Lewis, Thomason, King, Krieg & Waldrop, P.C.

Design/Construction Contract Legal Issues (Delivery System/Bidding Process)

Notes

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________

Phillip Graham, Director of Maintenance & Transportation, Greeneville

Total Cost of Ownership on Building New and Remodeling

Notes

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________

Ed DePew, Director of Maintenance, Bristol

Bill Shedden, Supervisor of Maintenance & Custodians, Kingsport; TSPMA President

Inspections and New Requirements of Safety Data Sheets

Notes

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________

Andy Arnold, Director of Technology, Bristol; Chairman, TETA Board of Directors

Dr. Vonda Beavers, Curriculum & Testing Coordinator/Data Analyst, Bristol

Technology in the Classroom and Its Impact on School Facilities

4/17/15

1

THE FUTURE OF EDUCATION

THEN & NOW

•  Times are changing.

•  Educa6on is changing.

4/17/15

2

ACTIVE ENGAGEMENT

•  Project-‐Based Learning

•  Problem-‐Based Learning

•  Authen6c Assessment

NEW LEARNING SPACES

•  Promote Crea6vity & Collabora6on

•  Invi6ng—Color, Space, Furnishings

•  “Wireless”

•  Include Makerspaces

•  Flexible

4/17/15

3

THE FUTURE IS NOW!

•  Vance Curriculum Pinterest Board

hTps://www.pinterest.com/vancecurriculum/the-‐future-‐is-‐now/

Zane Foraker, Energy Manager, Knox County

Pall Cross, Energy Efficient School Initiative

Reid Conway, Senior Energy Services Advisor, TDEC Office of Energy Programs

Panel Discussion of the Importance of Energy ManagementandEfficiency

STATE ENERGY PROGRAM 2013 COMPETITIVE AWARD:

“STIMULATING ENERGY INVESTMENT IN HARD-TO-REACH PUBLIC SECTORS:

SMALL TOWNS AND PUBLIC HOUSING AUTHORITIES.”

BACKGROUND

The Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation’s Office of Energy Programs (OEP) is the

U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE) designated State Energy Office for Tennessee. OEP, which joined the

Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC) in January 2013, is tasked with

developing and overseeing programs and initiatives that promote energy efficiency, renewable energy

and energy management in the State. OEP creates and fosters programs that engage stakeholders in

improving the environment and the economy through energy conservation, expanded use of viable

renewable energy and alternative fuels, and support for the commercialization of technologies that

encourage growth in the State’s clean energy sector.

In December 2013, OEP was awarded a grant under the U.S. DOE’s State Energy Program (SEP) 2013

Competitive Funding Opportunity Announcement to stimulate energy investments in the hard to reach

public sectors of small local jurisdictions and public housing authorities in Tennessee.

PROJECT OVERVIEW

The goal of the project is to provide education, outreach and technical assistance to small local

jurisdictions, K-12 schools, and public housing authorities that will support implementation of energy

efficiency, energy management and renewable energy projects of local government buildings and public

housing facilities in Tennessee. The project officially launched in July 2014.

The scope of work will include, but is not limited to, engaging local officials in the benefits of energy

efficiency and providing technical assistance on cost-effective energy efficiency measures, such as

building audits, requests for proposals to scope work, collaborating with energy service companies,

benchmarking, measurement and verification of energy savings, and procurements. The project will

explore four major financing options: (1) energy performance contracting; (2) utility incentives; (3) utility

bill repayments, such as on-bill financing; and (4) Commercial PACE. Other financing options may be

identified during the grant period, which currently runs through early 2016.

During the application process, OEP named Clean Energy Solutions, Inc. (CESI), as the project lead, in

collaboration with expert consultants from Knoxville's Community Development Corporation and BLT

Sustainable Energy. CESI is a leading energy consulting firm that works with local governments,

nonprofits, businesses, foundations and utilities to design and assist early implementation of

comprehensive energy efficiency, renewable energy and water conservation initiatives to reduce

electricity demand and energy consumption across all sectors. CESI is currently working with two other

states on similar projects.

PROJECT PARTNERS

Stakeholder partners include: Tennessee Renewable Energy Economic Development Council; Tennessee

Association of Housing and Redevelopment Authorities; Tennessee Housing and Development Agency;

TVA; and Tennessee Municipal League.

OEP has also received cost-share commitments from Metropolitan Government of Nashville and

Davidson County, the Memphis and Shelby County Office of Sustainability, the City of Franklin, and the

City of Knoxville.

CONTACT INFORMATION

Luke Gebhard, Senior Program Manager, Office of Energy Programs

Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation

615-741-2994 (office)

615-532-8798 (direct)

615-741-5070 (fax)

[email protected]

www.tn.gov/environment/energy.shtml

Acknowledgement

This program is funded under an agreement with the State of Tennessee. This material is based upon

work supported by the Department of Energy under Award Number DE-EE0006496. CFDA 81.119.

Disclaimer

The information, data, or work presented herein was funded in part by an agency of the United States

Government. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their

employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for

the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed,

or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific

commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does

not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States

Government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not

necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof.

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.tn.gov/environment/energy.shtml

This is a publication of the Tennessee School Boards Association

525 Brick Church Park DriveNashville, TN 37207

www.tsba.net

Documents

School Facilities Workshop