Transcript Slide 1

Massachusetts Association
of Regional Schools
Update March 6, 2009
1
• An independent public Authority, created by Chapter 208 of
the Acts of 2004,
– composed of a 7 member board, chaired by State Treasurer Tim
Cahill, 4 professional educator/design-construction industry
professionals appointed by Treasurer Cahill, ANF and ESE
• What we do:
• Use our dedicated sales tax funds to pay down and audit
approximately $11 Billion for 1156 projects authorized under
the former SBA program including financing the $5.5B, 423
project wait list;
• Effectively manage, plan and create a new financially
sustainable school building construction and renovation
grant program;
• Use the remaining resources, after paying down inherited
debts from the former program, to equitably spread across
the Commonwealth for school construction and renovation
grants
2
First 4 Years: Significant Progress Made
MSBA’s accomplishments to date:
– Made over $6 Billion in payments to cities, towns, and regional school districts
•
–
Of the 428 projects on the Waiting List:
•
•
•
•
•
–
Under the former program, the state would have taken decades to make most of these payments
407 Wait list projects have received a payment or have been completely paid off
354 Wait list projects received a final Board Approved Audit
53 Wait list projects are in various stages of audit
9 Wait list projects still have not started
12 Wait list projects were removed under the Grant Conversion Program
Completed and Board Approved 727 audits of the 800 audit backlog inherited from the former
program. The completed audits have:
•
•
Saved the taxpayers of Massachusetts over $795 Million
Generated over $2.3 Billion in avoided local interest costs
–
Completed first ever capital survey of 1,817 schools in the Commonwealth
–
Completed most comprehensive revision of program regulations in 60 years
–
Developed and implemented a “pay-as-you-build” Progress Payment System for projects. The
new Progress Payment System:
•
•
–
Commenced the reformed grant program for school renovation and construction projects
•
•
–
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
In FY2008, the MSBA received and reviewed 423 Statements of Interest from 163 school districts and has
made over 400 visits to more than 140 school districts as part of the MSBA’s review and due diligence
process
In FY2009, the MSBA received 47 new Statements of Interest from 25 additional districts
Moved the first round of potential projects into the $2.5 Billion 5-year capital pipeline
3
The New Process for School
STANDARD CONTRACTS
Construction
andAND
Renovation
PROCEDURES
The New Process
The MSBA’s enabling statute places tremendous emphasis on planning, due
diligence and prioritization of scarce Authority resources. The statute and
MSBA regulations also require collaboration between local districts and the
MSBA during all phases of the process.
1. Identify the Problem
• Local community identifies deficiencies in school facilities through the
Statement of Interest (SOI) process
2. Validate the Problem
• MSBA and local community work together to validate deficiencies identified
• Requires the MSBA and the city, town or regional school district to agree on
the problem
3. Evaluation of potential solutions
• MSBA and local community work in collaboration to identify potential
solutions
• Solution must fit within the MSBA’s available funding, long-term capital plan
and will be prioritized based on the priorities established in G.L. c.70B § 8
4. Confirm the solution
• MSBA and local community agree on solution and appropriate course of
action
5. Implement the agreed upon solution
• MSBA and local community continue collaboration through design and
construction
5
MSBA Process Flow Chart
Phase I
Identify the
Problem
Statement of
Interest (SOI)
Initial
Compliance
Certificate
(ICC)
Phase II
Verify the
Problem
Senior Study
on Priority
SOI
Enrollment
Projection
Validation
Pre-study
Review
Meeting
Phase III
Collaborate
on Solution
Process to
Select
OPM
MSBA
Approves
OPM
Solicit
Feasibility
Designer/
Planner
Designer
Selection
Panel
Phase IV
Agree Upon
Solution
Project
Scope &
Budget
Conference
Project
Scope &
Budget
Agreement
MSBA
Board
Approval
Local Vote
within 120
Days
Phase V
Implement
Agreed Upon
Solution
Design &
Design
Review
Bidding
District
selects a
Priority SOI
Construction
Progress
Payment
and
Audit
Process
MSBA
Review of
SOI
Change
Order
Review
Process
Feasibility
Study
Preferred
Schematic
Design
Sign
Project
Funding
Agreement
Final
Building
Cx
Project
Closeout
6
Community
MSBA
Community &
MSBA
Phase I – Identify the Problem
Statement of Interest (SOI)
•
•
•
•
Clear, concise statement of the problem based on MSBA statutory priorities
Preparation does not require hiring consultants – low-cost entry into MSBA system
The MSBA will perform due diligence based on problems identified in the SOI
Need sufficient data in SOI for MSBA to understand deficiencies and their impact on
the educational program
–
–
•
Data/documentation from 3rd party and professional reports
Specific dates of events/ issues/impacts on facility and educational program
Links to local policies and budgets
Conclusion
•
The District has identified a problem that could fit one or more of MSBA’s statutory
priorities
•
The District has considered its educational and budget alternatives and is prepared to
move forward in collaboration with the MSBA in finding an appropriate solution
•
MSBA performance of a Senior Study may be appropriate
7
Phase II Due Diligence: Senior Study
• Efficient, cost effective diagnostic tool used to evaluate SOI
• Each study team composed of an MSBA staff member and two
senior architects with extensive knowledge of building systems and
educational programs
• Studies examine both facility condition and programmatic issues
– Identify goals and concerns of the school district
– Evaluate physical condition of the facility, including major building systems
(building envelope, HVAC, electrical distribution, interior finishes)
– Assess overcrowding or capacity issues
– Determine ability of the facility to support the required educational program
– Assess design factors such as availability of natural light which make a school’s
environment conducive to learning
– Examine site considerations
– Evaluate school district’s routine and capital maintenance programs
• Results summarized in concise report format permitting review and
comparison of numerous SOI
8
Senior Study Assessment Criteria
•
Building Condition
– Building exhibits signs of moderate to severe deficiencies in multiple building
systems such as: roofing system, façade, windows and doors, heating and
ventilation systems, and electrical distribution system.
– These deficiencies adversely impact the school facility’s ability to support the
delivery of the educational program.
•
Building Capacity
– Building exhibits signs of moderate to severe overcrowding including excessive
class sizes, inadequate number of classrooms, high number of cafeteria
seatings, and conversion of non-educational space to educational uses.
– These conditions adversely impact the school facility’s ability to support the
delivery of the educational program.
•
Educational Program
– The ability to support the required educational program is adversely impacted by
building condition and/or capacity, including use of inadequate spaces for the
delivery of educational programs.
•
Structural Deficiency
– Building has clearly documented structural deficiencies that pose an immediate
risk to health and safety of building occupants.
9
On-line Enrollment Forecasting Tool
•
The MSBA has developed an Enrollment Forecasting tool that is available on-line and
can be accessed via the MSBA website (www.MassSchoolBuildings.org).
•
The Enrollment Forecasting tool is intended to standardize the compilation of enrollment
projection data by using the same approach for projecting enrollment for all districts
based on a professionally developed modified cohort survival methodology.
–
–
–
Basic premise of the cohort survival method: the past is a reasonable predictor of the future
Year-to-year cohort survival ratios account for the net effects of factors such as in/out migration,
student retention rates, new home construction, etc.
Model allows districts to provide data on significant local changes that would impact historical
cohort survival ratios such as major employer moving in/out, opening/closing of private/charter
schools, open space being developed, major changes in transportation infrastructure, etc.
•
This system can be used by districts to generate draft enrollment projections at no
cost.
•
Districts will need to complete an Enrollment Questionnaire which asks for some very
basic and limited data on current year enrollments, housing permits, and birth data.
•
If a district intends to submit a Statement of Interest (SOI) and cite enrollment related
priorities 2, 4 or 6, then the district must transmit their enrollment data to the MSBA via
the Enrollment Forecasting tool.
10
Enrollment:
Every Square Foot Costs Money to Build
• How large or small does the building need to be?
= Enrollment
• Enrollments are dropping across the state for a majority of
districts
• New construction costs $70,000 to $115,000 per student
• When projected enrollments do not materialize, that’s another
district’s roof, classroom addition, science lab not done
– Projected Enrollments need to be realistic
– Some recently built schools are half empty, districts requesting to
close
– Some districts cannot afford the cost of maintaining recently built
larger schools
• MSBA will not authorize a project for further development until
enrollment is agreed upon with the District
• MSBA had a task force of superintendents to develop our online
enrollment model, available for every district
• MSBA will work with districts to accommodate local enrollment
idiosyncrasies….
• …but will not engage in wishful thinking.
11
Phase III: Collaborate on Solution
Invitation to Conduct a Feasibility Study
• Requires Board Approval
• District will need to hire OPM and Designer
• District must execute MSBA’s Standard Feasibility Study
Agreement (“FSA”)
• FSA defines Scope, Budget and Schedule for the Study
• Goal of Study Phase:
– to study a variety of potential solutions
– agree upon a preferred solution that is educationally sound and
cost effective for District and the MSBA
– generate schematic design, agreed upon scope, cost estimate,
and schedule
12
Phase III - Collaborate on Solution
Owner’s Project Manager (OPM)
•
•
•
•
•
•
OPM mandated for projects estimated to be > $1.5m
MSBA may require OPM for projects estimated to be less than or equal to $1.5M
By statute, OPM may be an Existing Employee of the District. MSBA expects existing
employee to provide all of the services required by the standard contract.
Locally conducted procurement process (open and competitive)
Qualifications-based selection pursuant to MGL c. 149, s. 44A½
District must use the MSBA’s Model RFS and the MSBA’s Standard Contract for procuring
and contracting with the OPM.
 Buildability reviews
 Coordinating parties and information
 Monitoring performance
 Assisting School District with decisions and procedures
 Alerting MSBA to possible schedule, cost, scope, or value changes
 Indemnification of Owner and MSBA
 Liability coverage requirements
 Compliance with Project Funding Agreement
 OPM’s services to continue through MSBA’s final audit
13
Phase III: Collaborate on Solution
Procurement of a Designer for the Feasibility Study
•
•
•
•
•
•
Procurement shall be open, competitive, qualifications-based
MSBA Designer Selection Panel (DSP) if project $5M or more
Selection by local process in accordance with Chapter 7 if project less than $5M
Scope, budget, and schedule as agreed to by District and MSBA
School District to be the primary source on all educational questions
Planner/architect likely core skill set, but other areas of expertise (depending on
type of project) may be:
 Environmental and Energy
 Cost estimating
 Technology
 Traffic
 Permitting
 Green Buildings
14
Once the MSBA and the District agree upon the most
cost effective and educationally sound option identified
in the Feasibility Study, the MSBA Board will vote to
authorize the District to proceed with developing the
Preferred Schematic Design Option which shall include,
but not be limited to:
• A detailed scope of the Proposed Project;
• Architectural and site drawings;
• A description of the major building
construction systems which are proposed for
the Proposed Project;
• A detailed budget cost estimate;
• A projected cash-flow;
• Permitting requirements;
• A proposed project design and construction
schedule including consideration of phasing
of the Proposed Project; and
• Sustainable design goals including
minimization of environmental and
transportation impacts and ways the
Proposed Project can meet those goals and
elements of construction or demolition waste
that would be recyclable.
Preferred
Schematic
Design
15
Phase IV - Agree Upon Solution
Project Scope and Budget Agreement
Details Scope , Schedule & Budget:
• Detailed scope
• Project Schedule
• Preliminary schematic design
• Detailed budget for construction, engineering and support costs
• Timeline for project and for cash flow
• Memorializing understandings reached at Scope and Budget
Conference
• Establish range of reimbursement percentage (contingent on
incentive points)
16
PROJECT SCOPE:
Focus on Attractive, Utilitarian Design
• Variegated Rooflines that leak
● Grand atria in the front entrances
• Copper clad facades…
These elements cost money
and do not educate children.
• Model School Program has provided us with
examples of attractive design that have low
change orders and still work years later
• MSBA wants lasting construction, but many cities
and towns and MSBA are still paying for costly
projects that didn’t last
17
Phase IV - Agree Upon Solution
Reimbursement Formula (40% – 80%)
Base Points
•
•
•
•
Base Rate
Income Factor (per capita income, from DOR data)
EQV (Property Valuation per capita, from DOR data)
Poverty (% on free/reduced lunch, from DOE data)
31%
– Incentive Points
• Maintenance Points Policy (poor, average, excellent)
• “School Facility Maintenance Trust”
• Alternatives to Construction
0–2%
1%
4%
» Of the 4%, can receive 1% for CM @ risk
» Of the 4%, can receive up to 3% for newly formed Regional District
• Major Reconstruction, Renovation
• Energy Efficiency (Green School)
• Non-state fund raising
0 - 5%
0 - 2%
» For every 1% of project costs raised, may receive 0.5%
•
•
•
•
Model School Incentive
Overlaying zoning district (40R, 40S)
40R with >100 units 2, 3 family, or 50% 2, 3 family
Innovative Community Use
up to 5%
1%
½%
3%
» Of the 3%, can receive up to 3% for newly formed Regional District
18
Phase IV - Conclusion
Project Funding Agreement
• MSBA Board Approves proposed Scope and Budget Agreement
• Local vote within 120 days of MSBA Board Action
• MSBA and School District sign Project Funding Agreement (PFA)
agreeing upon the project’s scope, budget, and schedule
19
Phase V - Implement Agreed Upon Solution
Project Funding Agreement: MSBA Grant terms and Grant total
fixed by
• Scope
• Budget
• Schedule
Progress Payments
• Monthly requests for reimbursement
• Reports and supporting invoices
• Prompt audit
• Quick determination of ineligible costs
• Identify and quickly resolve disagreements
20
Phase V – Implement Agreed Upon Solution
Key Objectives
• Coordination of design and rigorous constructability and value
engineering review
• Construction contractor’s performance conforms to the contract
plans and specifications through resident inspection
• Early identification and resolution of issues during design and
construction will control costs and limit schedule delays
• Provide central point of coordination among project participants
• Provide school districts and MSBA with timely information
necessary to insure adequate oversight of major investment in
public schools
21
MSBA Board Actions
2007/2008 SOI Process
Based on the MSBA diagnostic analysis and input from the
Facilities Assessment Subcommittee, the Board has taken
the following actions since November, 2007:
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
Feasibility Invitation
Preferred Schematic Option
Repair Assessment
Model School
Project Scope Invitation
Planning
Regionalization Assessment
Regional Vocational/Technical HS
Hold
Total
41
11
19
2
20
14
9
8
36
160
22
FY2009 Statement of Interest Summary
The window for filing/refreshing a Statement of Interest
(SOI) closed on December 19, 2008.
The MSBA is reviewing all submissions for compliance
with requirements and completeness.
The numbers in the following chart may change as the
MSBA continues its review process.
New SOI
FY2008 Refreshed SOI
Pending Submissions
Total FY2009 Submissions
47*
183
12
242
* 6 Projects moved into Repair Category at 1/09 Board
FY2008 SOI NOT refreshed
101
23
Standard Contracts and
STANDARD
CONTRACTS AND
Procedures
PROCEDURES
Standard Contracts and Procedures
Standard contracts and procedures assist Districts by:
•
•
•
Expediting consultant selection by providing standard Requests for Services (RFS)
Avoiding costly litigation
Providing a Model RFS and a contract which meets MSBA expectations and statute requirements
The standard contract provides:
•
•
•
•
•
Standard expectations of responsibilities for a school project
Definition of roles and responsibilities of the project participants - OPM, Designer, Contractor,
Commissioning Consultant, Owner
Provides contract provisions addressing Owner's concerns and liabilities
Uniformity and predictability for the design and owner's project manager community
Properly define interface with MSBA and its procedures
Standard contracts available:
• Owner’s Project Manager (OPM) Request for Services (RFS)
• Owner’s Project Manager (OPM) Contract
• Designer Request for Services (RFS)
• Designer Contract
25
STANDARD DESIGN CONTRACT
•
•
FORCES designer to “DESIGN TO BUDGET”
Reinforces the importance of updated cost estimates and project controls
- Standard expectation on deliverables in accordance with MSBA
guidelines
OWNER’S PROJECT MANAGER CONTRACT
Clearly defines the key role as expected by the MSBA and the Owner for
communication, project controls and the substantive role required to properly
administer the contract
● Defines communication role and responsibilities for both the Owner and the MSBA
● Includes independent cost estimates
●
BENEFITS:
Save Time & Money - MSBA standard contracts facilitate
negotiation and contract execution
MSBA Standard Contracts protect the best interest of the
DISTRICT, unlike industry contracts which protect the
interest of the vendors
26
Regional School Issues
MSBA required to work with Eligible Applicant
– For Regional School Districts, Eligible Applicant is the Regional District
School Committee
Why does MSBA work with Eligible Applicants?
– Regional School District establishes district-wide:
–
–
–
Educational Program
Budget
Coordination of services
– Potential Solutions may not involve town-owned buildings
– Potential Solutions to facility issues require a coordinated approach
– MSBA required to seek most educationally sound and cost effective
solutions, some of which may be a no-build solutions, re-use of existing
facilities, grade reorganization, optimization of current educational
spaces, all of which require a district-wide approach
– Regional Educational Program should be driving factor for SOI/school
improvements
27
Proposed Federal Stimulus
•
•
•
•
Pressure to spend on “shovel ready” within next 6 months
Governor given wide flexibility on use/allocations of Federal Stimulus Funds
School Projects could be accelerated under “Model/Accelerated Design” methods or
bulk repair program
Letter from Treasurer Cahill to Governor Patrick, Speaker DeLeo, Senate President
Murray urging 2 things:
• Use of federal stimulus funds to support local share of projects in pipeline
• Use of federal stimulus funds for a Vocational Ed “New Deal” for
improvements to these buildings
Several New Types of Bonds – awaiting US Treasury rules/regulations
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
Build America Taxable Bonds
Build America Tax Credit Bonds
Qualified School Construction Bonds
Recovery Zone Economic Development Bonds
Recovery Zone Private Activity Bonds
Clean Renewable Energy Bonds
Qualified Energy Conservation Bonds
28
Dedicated Sales Tax
and Budget
29
MSBA has a finite budget
1 Cent of
Sales Tax
Prior Grants
Waiting List
New Program
$5.1B
$5.5B
$500M per
year???
30
Recent Sales Tax Growth Trend
Historical Commonwealth Sales Tax Growth
Trend Analysis
10.0%
8.0%
6.0%
Historic growth trend (avg.
6% -7% )
4.0%
2.0%
0.0%
Recent growth trend (avg.
less than 2% )
-2.0%
-4.0%
-6.0%
20
06
20
05
20
04
20
03
20
02
20
01
20
00
19
99
19
98
19
97
19
96
19
95
19
94
19
93
19
92
19
91
19
90
19
89
19
88
-8.0%
19
87
% Increase/Decrease from Previous Fiscal Year
12.0%
Fiscal Year
31
Total MSBA Budget Capacity is
Reliant on Sales Tax Growth
Sales Tax Growth
Assumption
Estimated Total Amount of
Grants Funded in the next 30
years
0%
5,600,000,000
1%
8,100,000,000
2%
10,500,000,000
3%
13,800,000,000
4%
21,200,000,000
The former SBA program committed $20B over the last 20 years to
school construction.
This slide shows that at 0% sales tax growth only $5.6B will be
available for new projects until 2025….
32
How will MSBA Succeed in meeting
pipeline needs?
•
•
•
Never promise what we can’t afford to pay for
Work with cities, towns and regional school districts to create educationally sound
and fiscally responsible school facilities
Think creatively for solutions. Past examples of innovations that have generated
savings, created efficiencies and have helped the MSBA and cities, towns and
regional school districts reach goals on school facilities.
• ProPay system - gets reimbursement cash to cities and towns within 15 days of audit review
• Audit program – has generated approximately $800M in savings
• Low Interest Loan Program – will provide approximately $150M in 2% loans to Waiting List
communities to get projects completed and has the added benefit of saving local communities
over $90M in avoided interest costs
• Grant Conversion Program – will provide approximately $125M in relief to Waiting List
communities to get projects completed
• Model Schools Program - Innovative new program that is educationally sound, cost effective,
saves time in design development and gets shovel in the ground sooner which saves both the
local district and the MSBA money
– Saved approximately $26M in Norwood.
– Use of Model School Program ideals has saved approximately $50M in Wellesley
• Regulations Revisions to focus on Core Academic Spaces – remove focus on “grand” spaces,
spectator amenities and other spaces that do not have direct relation to educating students or
are not in regular use throughout the school day by a majority of the student population.
33
Norwood High School
Current Norwood
High School
New Norwood
High School Design
34
Capital Pipeline Status
30
Number of Projects at each Point in the Process
25
Abington
20
15
10
5
Auburn
AdamsCheshire
Boston
AshburnhamWestminster
Chelsea (R)
Attleboro (R)
Florida (R)
Douglas
Carver
Gardner
Dracut
Danvers
Holbrook
Fairhaven
Dedham
Hopedale (R)
Granby
Easthampton
Hudson
HamiltonWenham (R)
Fitchburg (R)
Bedford
Medway (R)
Hopkinton
Grafton
Blue Hills (R)
Narragansett
Leominster
(R)
HampdenWilbraham
(MS)
BerlinBoylston
Concord
Needham (R)
Longmeadow
Methuen
Billerica
East
Longmeadow
North Adams
Marblehead
Glover
Nashoba
Brookline
Lakeville (R)
Oxford (R)
Maynard
Natick
Burlington
Leiciester (R)
Randolph (R)
Peabody (R)
Norfolk
Carlisle
Medford (R)
Acton (R)
Rockport (R)
Quincy
Plymouth
Essex Agri
Tech
Sandwich (R)
Sharon
Rochester
Foxborough
(R)
Uxbridge
South Shore
(R)
Shrewsbury
Littleton (R)
Belmont
Duxbury (R)
Beverly
Whittier Reg.
VoTech (R)
Southbridge
Sturbridge
Marshfield
(R)
Braintree (R)
Hanover
Hingham
Sherborn (R)
Winchester
SouthwickTolland
Tewksbury
(MS)
Rockland
Hadley (R)
Norwood
(MS)
Manchester
Essex
Tyngsborough
(R)
Chelmsford
Winthrop (R)
Sutton
Woburn
Wayland
Middleton
Wellesley
Marblehead
VS (R)
West
Bridgewater (R)
Shawsheen
(R)
Local Clearance
OPM Selection
Total
Projects
99
Andover
21
20
Designer
Selection
Feasbility
Study Schematic
18
11
Milford (R)
Avon (R)
Project Scope
& Budget
Design
Development
4
5
North Reading
Construction
4
Northborough
(R)
Audit
14
Complete
2
Status of Project
Capital Pipeline Status at Previous Board Meetings
35
• Maintenance
• Science Labs
• Technology
• Vocational Technical
High Schools
• Regionalization
• Owner’s Project
Managers
• Construction
Contract Documents
36
Regionalization Task Force
Goal: to advise the MSBA on:
• identifying barriers to regionalization and potential
solutions to those barriers
• identifying cost savings and other efficiencies that occur
when districts regionalize
• Identifying incentives that would encourage the
formation of regional school districts
37
Regionalization Task Force
Accomplishments to date:
• The MSBA has provided a forum for all stakeholders and
the discussions have generated many ideas
• The Task Force identified barriers to formation
• The MSBA adopted generous incentive to Regionalize
– Up to 6 reimbursement points for districts that form new regional
school districts
• The MSBA has been providing technical assistance to
districts in the Regional Assessment category
38
Timothy P. Cahill
Chairman, State Treasurer
Katherine P. Craven
Executive Director
40 Broad Street , Suite 500
Boston , MA 02109
Phone: 617-720-4466
Fax: 617-720-5260
http://www.massschoolbuildings.org
Questions?
Brian McLaughlin
[email protected]