Transcript Slide 1

Westlake
City School District
We Educate for Excellence...
20/20 VISION COMMITTEE
October 7, 2009
Overview of 20/20 Process
Facility Focus Group
Mike Bilardo,
Hyland Software
Mark Pepera,
Westlake City Schools
Jim Connole,
City Council
Dave Puffer,
Westlake City Schools
Nate Cross,
City Planning Commission
Nancy Schill,
Schill Architecture
Mark Doran,
Energizer, Inc.
Steve Schill,
Schill Architecture
Dan Keenan,
Westlake City Schools
Steve Steffas,
C.B. Richard Ellis Property
Management
Chris Milowicki,
CJ Tom Builders
Overview of 20/20 Process
Facility Focus Group –
Findings and Recommendations
 A real problem exists that needs immediate attention
 Demonstrate care and pride in facilities by making
positive changes with existing budget and
maintaining the right way
 Move forward on engaging the entire community
– Conduct community forums to inform and seek input
– Establish a 20/20 Vision Committee to develop a plan using data
and community input
– Include a long term maintenance plan
– Have a facility plan that reflects the community’s values
 Do the job well, on budget, and plan maintenance
Overview of 20/20 Process
Vision 20/20 Committee Members
The 24 member committee is multi-generational, represents public
school and private school parents, those without children, civic leaders,
business leaders, faculty and student representation:
Harry Applegate
Bob Hertl
Andrew Mangels
Annette Caraulia
Kim Mather
Bonnie Smith
Brian Gottfried
Chris Milowicki
Jeff Williams
Duane Miller
Cathy Axcell
Melisa Yeoman
Steve Schill
Nancy Schill
Bill Baddour
Julie McCallister
Mike Medoro
Mark Pepera
Del Younglis
Steve Steffas
Nate Cross
Jon Dregalla
Dan Keenan
Dave Puffer
Overview of 20/20 Process
Summary of 20/20 Meetings
 During the 6 meetings committee members:
– Analyzed and requested various data
– Prioritized plans
– Discussed pros and challenges for each plan
– Listed important areas that needed to be considered
for facilities
– Debated each plan with strengths, weaknesses,
opportunities and threats
 Everyone, including people with connections to the
school and without, strongly agreed there was a
problem that needed to be addressed
responsibly and soon.
Overview of 20/20 Process
Vision 20/20 Committee Master Plan Options
Option
One:
Five buildings that are grade-level configured:
Option
Two:
Six buildings that keep neighborhood aspects:









Early Learning*
Primary*
Intermediate (4-6)
Middle School (7-8)
WHS (9-12)
(3) Elementary Schools: K-3, K-3, PK-3
Intermediate (4-6)
Middle School (7-8)
WHS (9-12)
Other considerations:
Consider how to include for maintenance, i.e. PI levy;
Recommended to do all at once so the expense is better contained.
*Grade level configuration for these two buildings to be determined by further
study which would include heavy input from educators.
Building Assessments
& Master Plan Options
Bob McAuliffe
Senior Manager, Hammond Construction
OSFC - RPC (Regional Program Consultant)
Todd Wrobleski, AIA, Principal-In-Charge
MKC Associates, Inc.
Architects - Engineers - Planners
Building Assessments
& Master Plan Options
Additional Option:
Phasing, or “Segmenting” version of Vision Group
Options #1 or #2
Option
Three:
Six buildings that keep neighborhood aspects:




(3) New Elementary Schools: PK/K-4
Renovate/Additions to Parkside: 5-6
Renovate/Additions to Lee Burneson: 7-8
Renovate/Additions to WHS (9-12)
Other considerations:
Parkside: Large gym, Auditorium, Planetarium
Mandate smaller class sizes
Private School students
Building Assessments &
Enrollment Projections
Process
1. District request - to OSFC (Ohio School
Facilities Commission)
2. OSFC assigns Regional Planning Coordinator
• Appoints Pre-qualified Assessment Firm
• CEFPI (Council of Educational Facility Planners Intl.)
Standards
3. Student Enrollment Projections
4. District’s Architect/Engineering Firm and Regional
Planning Coordinator review the assessment to
assure accuracy
Building Assessments &
Enrollment Projections
Enrollment &
Inflation Data
OSFC Enrollment
Projection
%
Construction
Cost Inflation
OSDM* Construction
Inflation Rate
%
1999 2000 01 02
03
*Ohio School Design Manual
04 05
06
07
08
09
Building
Assessments
Rating:
#1 =
Satisfactory
#2 =
Needs Repair
#3 = Needs
Replacement
* Based on 2009
OSFC Cost Set
FACILITY ASSESSMENT
Bassett Elementary School
Categories
Heating System
Roofing
Ventilating / Air Conditioning
Electrical Systems
Plumbing and Fixtures
Windows
Structure: Foundation
Structure: Walls & Chimneys
Structure: Floors and Roofs
General Finishes
Interior Lighting
Security Systems
Emergency/Egress Lighting
Fire Alarm
Handicapped Access
Site Condition
Sewage System
Water Supply
Exterior Doors
Hazardous Material
Life Safety
Loose Furnishings
Technology
Non Construction Cost
Renovation Cost Factor
Total
CEFPI
Rating
3
3
2
3
2
3
1
2
1
3
3
2
2
3
2
3
1
2
3
2
3
3
2
-
Estimated
Cost *
$ 1,228,605.00
378,038.28
53,912.00
743,463.48
64,018.00
108,832.60
0
52,517.50
525,256.00
660,724.00
177,450.00
45,764.40
25,134.00
62,406.00
101,960.40
360,406.31
0
500.00
24,500.00
19,000.00
149,955.48
141,960.00
444,330.72
1,311,597.86
104.16%
$ 6,958,233.85
Building Assessments
OSFC Assessments –
Renovate/Replace %
Building
Adjusted OSFC
Assessments
Bassett
75%
Dover
72%
Hilliard
68%
Holly Lane
67%
Parkside
70%
Lee Burneson
49%
High School
67%
Renovate/Replace %
compares cost of
assessment-based
renovation to new
construction cost of
the same-sized
building
Does not include cost
of additional space
required to serve the
number of students (by
OSFC standards) in that
building
Building Assessments
BASSETT ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
Students
383
Required SF (OSFC)
47,875 (Student enrollment x 125 SF/Student)
Existing SF
41,604
Required Addition SF
6,271 X $224.49 / SF (Constr. Cost) =
$1,407,777.
Reprogramming
$
72,567.
Specific Allowance
(LEED)
$
271,179.
SUB-TOTAL Required Addition Cost
$ 1,751,523.
Required Renovation Cost (From Assessment)
$ 6,958,234.
TOTAL - Addition + Renovation
$ 8,709,757.
TOTAL - New Building Cost
47,875 SF X $224.49 / SF (Constr. Cost)
Difference
Ratio: Renovate/Replace
$10,747,459.
$2,037,702.
81%
Building Assessments
Building
Cost to Keep*
Renovate + Add.
Keep to
Replace %
Cost to Replace
New Construction
(MKC)
Bassett
$8,709,757.
$10,747,459.
81%
Dover
$8,225,227.
$11,084,194.
74%
Hilliard
$7,476,557.
$ 9,807,355.
76%
Holly Lane
$7,687,147.
$ 9,803,906.
78%
Parkside
$14,428,104.
$16,663.382.
87%
Lee Burneson
$12,759,612.
--
High School
$34,542,675.
(replacement unnecessary)
44,299,406.
(with Perf. Arts Center)
-78%
TOTAL COST TO KEEP ALL EXISTING
$93,829,080. BUILDINGS, with Renovations + Additions
* meeting OSFC
Standards - renovate
to assessments and
SF/Student standards
to
Building Assessments - Master Plan Options - Recap
New PK-1
$ 14,167,342.
New 2-3
$ 14,291,919.
New 4-6 Intermediate
$ 23,050,311.
Lee Burneson Renov/Add.
$ 12,759,612.
HS Renov/Add.
$ 44,299,406
Demolition/Abatement
New PK-3
#2
#3
# of
Students
OPTION
#1
Scope of Work
COST TO BUILD
TOTAL NEW + Renov./ Add. MASTER PLAN
as shown
Option Cost
TOTAL
Renovation/
Add. Cost
DIFFERENCE
$109,658,738. $ 93,829,080. $15,829,659.
86%
$ 1,090,148
Master
Plan Recap
$11,051,538
New K-3
$10,045,928
New K-4
$10,045,928
New 4-6 Intermediate
$ 23,050,311 $112,342,870. $ 93,829,080. $18,513,790.
Lee Burneson Renov/Add.
$ 12,759,612.
HS Renov/Add.
$ 44,299,406
Demolition/Abatement
$
$11,992,089
New K-4
$13,163,492
New K-4
$11,992,089
Renovate/Add Parkside, 5-6
$14,428,104 $109,367,859. $ 93,829,080. $15,538,780.
Lee Burneson Renov/Add.
$ 12,759,612.
HS Renov/Add.
$ 44,299,406
$
84%
1,090,148
New PK-4
Demolition/Abatement
KEEP to
REPLACE
%
733,068
86%
Does Not include LFI’s
(Locally Funded Initiatives)
Process Going
Forward
Steve Miller
Educational Facility Planner
MKC Associates, Inc.
Architects - Engineers - Planners
Process Going Forward
Staff Engagement: Discussion of
Master Plan Options #1 and #2
SUMMARY: Staff Input on Master Plan Options
1. Limited feedback indicates more support for Option 2
2. The potential size of the buildings in Option 1 appears to
be a major concern and is cited often in the responses as a
reason to support Option 2
3. Comments on the number of transitions students would
have to make was also cited numerous times as a negative
for Option 1
4. This group would be inclined to support Option 2; although
this group may require more information on Option 1 for
full consideration
5. Administrative Program of Requirements (POR)
Process Going Forward
Vision Committee
Meeting Calendar
October 7th
Subjects
Scope & Budget Information
Master Plan Options 1,2, & 3
Next Steps
Educational Considerations
(Academic Performance, Additional Square Feet)
October 21st
Operational Issues
Example: Transportation
Site Considerations
November 4th
Co-Curricular Considerations
Arts
Athletics
Community Use
November 18th
Funding Options
December 2nd
What will the Community Support?
Final Master Plan Recommendation
Break-Out
Session
Steve Miller
Educational Facility Planner
MKC Associates, Inc.
Architects - Engineers - Planners
Break-Out Session
We have scheduled informative presentations
to include:
 Scope and Budget
 Educational Considerations
 Operating Issues
 Site Considerations
 Co Curricular Considerations
 Funding Options
What other information do you
need to select a Master Plan?
Thank You !
www.wlake.org
Next Meeting: October 21st
Westlake
City School District
We Educate for Excellence...