office of public education facilities modernization...

2010 MASTER FACILITIES PLAN DC PUBLIC SCHOOLS

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

MAYOR ADRIAN M. FENTY

PLAN DETAIL NARRATIVE

SOUSA MIDDLE SCHOOL

OFFICE OF PUBLIC EDUCATION FACILITIES MODERNIZATION

Demographics and Data

PLAN DETAIL NARRATIVE- 1

2010 Master Facilities Plan


Table of Contents 1. Introduction

2. Legislated MFP Requirements

3. The Phased Approach

3.1. Impact of the Indoor Environment on Student Performance 3.2. Elementary & Middle Schools 3.3. High Schools 3.4. New Construction Projects 3.5. Sequencing Parameters & City-wide Phasing Summary 3.6. Consideration of Charter Schools 3.7. Program Goals 3.8. Program Achievements

3.8.1. 2009 Phase 1 Modernizations 3.8.2. 2009 Full Modernizations 3.8.3. OPEFM CBE and Work Force Participation

4. Schedule

4.1. Sequencing 4.2. The First 5 Years 4.3. Later Years 4.4. Project Implementation Timelines

4.4.1. Phase 1 Modernizations 4.4.2. Combined Phase Modernizations

4.5. Future MFP Evaluations 5. Budget

5.1. 8-Year MFP Financial Projection 5.1.1. Sources of Funds 5.1.2. Uses of Funds

5.2. Scope of Work and Estimating Methodology 5.2.1. Conceptual Nature of Budgeting 5.2.2. Elementary & Middle Schools 5.2.3. High Schools

6. Mini-Master Plans

6.1. Aerial Photo / Site Plan 6.2. Proposed Program Profile 6.3. Condition Assessment 6.4. Recent History of Modernization 6.5. Concept Plans

7. Glossary of Terms





1.0 Introduction This document outlines the overall implementation strategy and provides school-by-school detail for the 2010 Master Facilities Plan (MFP). As a master plan, this document is intended to serve as a guiding tool for the phased implementation of modernization projects. As such, it describes the approach to project scoping, establishes parameters for scheduling, and illustrates a framework for project budgeting; however, it is not intended to serve as the definitive basis for construction activity at each school. Rather, each individual project summarized herein will be subject to more detailed scoping, programming, budgeting, and review as its implementation date is reached. The formal design and construction planning activities will involve input from school and community constituents as an integral component of the process. Moreover, the detailed project scoping will give consideration to evolving academic initiatives and the realities of the condition of the facility in question at the time. In addition to embracing the desired educational and associated facility outcomes, each project will be managed to achieve essential goals relating to green design, CBE participation, and on-time and on-budget delivery. This document is an extension of the work previously completed by the Superintendent of Schools and the Board of Education and builds upon the public meeting data gathered during the previous planning process for earlier MFP drafts. OPEFM held two public community round table sessions in February 2010 to engage the community for the 2010 draft. Thus, this MFP benefits from the extensive public engagement process conducted from 2006 through 2010 and from the exhaustive analysis and documentation of DCPS facilities’ existing conditions completed during those years. Moreover, this plan responds to lessons learned by OPEFM in its implementation of the most aggressive modernization program in DCPS history, conducted during 2007, 2008 and 2009. The “real-world” experience resulting from this program informs the plan and shapes its approach. At the heart of this plan is the premise that the quality of the learning environment significantly impacts student achievement. No child should wait fifteen years or more before their school is brought up to a standard of excellence. This plan will bring the benefit of modernized schools to as many students as possible, as soon as possible. Using academic principles grounded in sound policies, the MFP plans for modern, well-maintained, and efficient facilities. The MFP is driven by the "Guiding Principles" established by the Office of the Chancellor of the District of Columbia Public Schools (OOC), in order to align educational programs with facilities. The resulting facility plan will be implemented by the Office of Public Education Facilities Modernization (OPEFM), the District agency charged with central management of the planning, design, construction and maintenance of school facilities. Building on the success and lessons learned from the school renovation projects of the last three years, it is now known that with targeted modernization investments a school facility can be dramatically improved in just one year. With a strategic approach, it is possible to modernize the core academic components of every DCPS school in the next five years. By utilizing such an approach, the 2010 MFP will fulfill the goals of the School Modernization Financing Act within the anticipated budget and meet every parent's vision of being able to send their child to a safe, welcoming and supportive learning environment. Moreover, the 2010 MFP envisions modernization as a continual process. By making substantial investments in the components of our schools on an ongoing basis and implementing a comprehensive maintenance program, the District will maintain the level of quality and sustain the functionality of each building, maximizing the benefits to the learning environment and its long-term investment. Finally, the MFP delivers both an immediate response and a long-term strategy to address the central issue of serving the present population while simultaneously preparing for growth as DCPS' goals are achieved and families return to the system.





2.0 Legislated Plan Requirements The MFP addresses and responds to the several specific requirements of the plan legislated by the DC City Council. The Executive Summary outlines the analysis of historical and projected enrollment data, current and projected demographic information, and other relevant neighborhood and planning issues. The Mini-master Plans developed for each school address required, building-specific evaluations, including facility condition assessments; existing capacities, utilization levels, and appropriate consolidations; and incorporate school disposition considerations. The Mini-master plan is utilized to begin the larger and more thorough planning effort in concert with the school community. The Plan Detail narrative and the Executive Summary both describe the education objectives of the OOC and outline specific facility requirements, consideration of public charter schools, and potential public – private and public-public partnerships that work to advance the stated education goals and outcomes. District legislation also creates a Modernization Advisory Committee that is responsible for participating in the planning process and offering specific comments on and assessments of draft versions of the MFP. OPEFM has worked to keep the MAC engaged in the planning process, providing draft planning documents for review, participating in evaluation sessions, collecting Advisory Committee assessments, and incorporating comments and suggested refinements. As per the legislation, the MAC reviewed the 2009 draft of this MFP to verify the adequacy of the planning and facility information, the support created for the educational programs, the consideration of community planning issues, and the participation of disadvantaged business enterprises in the modernization program. In addition to the verification process, the MAC also offered detailed assessments and suggestions for improvements regarding the alignment with educational outcomes, the sufficiency of the capital budget, the quality of community participation, the potential role private and agency partnerships, and the establishment of measurable benchmarks for the implementation of the MFP.





3.0 The Phased Approach The MFP is designed to respond to the Guiding Principles as defined by the Office of the Chancellor of the District of Columbia Public Schools (“OOC”) through strategic and phased improvement which, consistent with Mayor Adrian M. Fenty’s school reform effort, emphasizes bringing all classrooms into compliance with modernized standards within five years. The OOC and the Office of the Deputy Mayor for Education were intimately involved in all scoping and phasing exercises and contributed to the development of the classroom focus and phased-approach strategy. Unlike previous plans, the MFP prioritizes improvements that will improve the learning environment, improve student performance, and advance educational outcomes within five years rather than pursuing more capital-intensive building programs that could require more than a decade for all schools to be addressed. 3.1 Impact of the Indoor Environment on Student Performance Mounting academic research has cited the significant impact that quality, indoor classroom environments can have on improving student performance, behaviors, and educational outcomes. Multiple studies and publications have suggested that student achievement improves when classroom spaces are designed to mitigate physical conditions considered non-conducive to learning. Lighting quality, environmental and air quality, acoustics, technology, and furniture are typically identified among the most essential elements for improvement within the classroom. 3.1.1 Lighting Quality

Daylighting improves visibility by providing higher illumination levels and better light quality, both of which facilitate the completion of tasks in the classroom. As documented in Daylighting in Schools, the Heschong Mahone Group (the “Group”) discovered a positive correlation between natural light and elementary student performance. The results of the study demonstrated that students in classrooms with the most natural illumination performed at a higher level on standardized tests than those in classrooms with the least daylighting, scoring 20 percent and 26 percent higher on math and reading tests, respectively.

In general, high levels of illumination are recommended for visually demanding tasks, such as reading and writing. Artificial lighting can be used to supplement natural light in the classroom and thereby optimize student performance. A 2007 study conducted by the National Research Council, entitled Green Schools: Attributes for Health and Learning, suggested that lighting criteria for educational spaces ideally vary according to the integration of task requirements, spatial layout, and surface finishes in a particular space.

H.D.COOKE





3.1.2 Environmental / Air Quality Evidence detailed by the National Research Council identifies a connection between children’s health and academic aptitude and classroom indoor air quality. Air quality is the product of a number of factors, including ventilation rate and effectiveness, filter efficiency, and temperature control. Asthma and other respiratory conditions and irritations, for example, are commonly linked to exposure to pollutants in indoor air, such as mold, dust, and bacteria. Likewise, student task performance is closely associated with the thermal comfort of the educational space with regard to temperature and relative humidity. Properly designed and maintained HVAC systems improve indoor air quality by filtering pollutants from the air while also heating and cooling air circulated in classrooms. Natural ventilation can also have a positive effect on student achievement, an assertion made by the Heschong Mahone Group in its daylighting study; the presence of operable windows in the classroom was positively correlated with student performance on standardized tests, as students in such classrooms scored seven to eight percent higher in math and reading than those students in classrooms with fixed windows. 3.1.3 Acoustics The acoustical quality of educational space is critical to the development of language skills in children. The National Research Council found in its 2007 study that speech perception of young children can be impaired by reverberation and ambient noise transmitted from HVAC systems and outdoor and adjacent spaces. Although speech development evolves through the ages of 13 to 15, children in kindergarten and the first and second grades, especially, require quieter classroom conditions so as to discern subtle differences in sounds. It is in these years that children learn to break down words phonetically, a fundamental step in developing reading skills. To that end, optimum acoustical design not only reduces unwanted noise and controls reverberation but also improves student recognition and comprehension of speech sounds. Apart from its impact on children’s speech recognition, excessive noise can further impair student performance by interfering with classroom activities and distracting students from the tasks at hand. The ability to pay attention in class is most crucial during activities that involve higher mental processes, such as learning new or complex information. It was found, for instance, that students faced with noisy classroom conditions are more likely to give up on completing difficult tasks, a trend that could be reflected in reported evidence of decreased student achievement in such conditions.

TUBMAN





3.1.4 Technology Educational technology – which includes computer hardware and software, computer-based multimedia, and the Internet – has become an invaluable facet of student learning and teaching, effecting positive impacts on achievement for children in kindergarten through the 12th grade. The U.S. Department of

Education has found that computer-based technology in the classroom not only aids in the instruction and retention of basic skills through the use of automated drilling programs, it also facilitates fact-gathering with the application of tools such as the Internet in critical thinking exercises. Furthermore, technology can shape students’ orientation toward learning and improve their attitudes toward in-class tasks and support instruction and instructional innovations. Effective utilization of technology in daily instruction requires consistent access to computers, data connections, and multi-media equipment by both students and teachers. It has been demonstrated that students who have access to computers in the classroom exhibit

greater improvement in basic skills than do those students who rely upon limited instruction in a computer lab setting. But it is not only about computers, it also involves an integration of the machine into the curriculum. This comprehensive integration of computer-based technology into curricula helps students acquire content knowledge, develop abilities to use hardware and software, and hone skills that can be used later in the workplace. 3.1.5 Furniture Back, neck, and headache pain are commonly reported ailments among grade school children. Findings published in the Journal of Adolescent Health in 1999 suggest that furniture used in the classroom often is not adequately suited to the bodily dimensions of children. Resultantly, more than 80 percent of students are seated in poorly designed chair and desk combinations that negatively impact the spine and cause bad posture. Most commonly, students are seated in chairs that are either too deep or too high and at desks that are also too high, which create problematic conditions given the lengthy time children spend sitting during the school day. Musculoskeletal stress can occur when classroom furniture requires children to exert greater muscular force in order to mitigate discomfort and achieve a tolerable seated position, which draws students’ attention away from learning and disrupts those seated around them. Although the use of non-standardized furniture designed for the individual would likely produce optimal results, providing a range of standardized furniture sizes to accommodate variations in student body type and dimensions would nevertheless promote favorable health and learning outcomes in the classroom.

SOUSA

PHELPS





The phased approach strategy places the highest priority and earliest attention on those investments that will provide the greatest return in supporting academic achievement, within the context of the available annual budgetary resources. The result is a categorization of modernization work into the following general phases:

Phase 1—Academic Components: Consists of targeted improvements projects designed to improve the educational environment in every class room and complementary, specialized academic spaces.

Phase 2—Support Components: Addresses the need for improved support spaces, such as cafeterias, gymnasia, school grounds, auditoria that advance the extracurricular components of a well-rounded academic program.

Phase 3—Systems Components: Includes the upgrading and replacement of utility, mechanical, electrical, plumbing, security and IT systems that are critical to the life of the facility. The targeted projects will leverage the improvements already made during the 2007-2008 Stabilization initiatives.

The phases as defined above reflect scope areas that are generally expected to be undertaken sequentially over time. However, it is important to note that multiple phases may be undertaken concurrently, particularly in the case of high schools as described in more detail below. 3.2 Elementary & Middle Schools While the Phase 1 strategy is focused on improving the classrooms and learning environments for all students, the need is particularly pronounced in elementary and middle schools. Unlike high schools where students rotate among several classrooms in a typical day and use multiple extracurricular spaces, in most cases a single classroom is the central place of learning for elementary and middle school students. As a result, the Phase 1 efforts for elementary and middle schools are designed to improve the standards where students typically spend the majority of their time. Learning from work completed in 2009, the Phase 1 baseline scope of work has been expanded in the 2010 MFP to include corridors, entry lobbies, and bathrooms, in addition to core academic spaces. These spaces have been included in recognition that students must first pass through these spaces as they begin their school day and are important in setting the tone of a student’s daily academic experience. Within five years, the classrooms will be brought to essential educational standards with a particular focus on the following aspects:

Lighting Quality: Improvement of natural and artificial lighting in classrooms with

complementary bright painting.

Environmental / Air Quality: Addressing of temperature control, ventilation, air filtration, carbon dioxide levels, and HVAC background noise to ensure comfortable rooms.

Technology: Providing data connections for online learning resources, AV equipment, closed-circuit televisions, and a sound system with emergency capabilities.

Acoustics: Limits reverberation and background noise and improves the sound isolation.

Furniture: Introduction of adaptable and flexible furniture systems, mobile media systems, and mobile media carts.

The general standards to which Phase 1 will bring all classrooms in all elementary and middle schools in each of these areas are outlined on the following pages.





*The classroom layout will evolve per the guidelines of a pending DCPS comprehensive IT strategy and implementation plan.





Completion of the Phase 1 improvements is scheduled for years One through Five of the 2010 MFP timeframe; Phase 2 is scheduled for years Six through Eight and Phase 3 improvements scheduled to be completed in years Eight through Ten. Potential Phase 2 improvements, which will be defined on a school-by-school basis, target support components such as auditoriums, cafeterias, and school ground renovations. The Phase 3 improvements will leverage system improvements completed during the 2007-2008 Stabilization initiatives to protect the health, safety and well-being of students through repairs and upgrades to building systems. The systems typically targeted for improvements include the following:

Heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) Plumbing and fixtures Electric service Exterior envelope improvements, including roofs and windows Enhanced technology improvements

In some cases, a Phase 1 modernization project may necessitate and require Phase 2 and/or Phase 3 work to be performed concurrently. For example, to ensure that electrical service standards are met under Phase 1, portions of the Phase 2 system improvements may need to be completed. In these situations, the improvement plans will be dealt with strategically so as to not preclude future implementation of an additional phase. It is also acknowledged that portions of the completed Phase 1 work may be disrupted by following Phase 2 and Phase 3 work. OPEFM cost and planning analyses have shown that the “rework” impact is real but a very small piece of the total budget expenditures, such that overall this is the most financially sound approach. The 2010 MFP calls for the engagement of a design team to fully plan and design an individual project’s modernization at the start of its Phase 1 work. While most elementary and middle school buildings have excess capacity for planned current and projected enrollments, there are those that have an insufficient student capacity. For those facilities requiring increased capacity, the plan proposes appropriate additions to alleviate the capacity issue, which are scheduled to occur either before or concurrently with Phase 1 work. The development of school additions will, in some cases, require the completion of some or all of the Phase 2 and Phase 3 improvements, which are scheduled to be completed simultaneously to link new building systems with those of the existing structure. 3.3 High Schools Unlike the smaller schools, high schools students do not spend the majority of their time in a single classroom but instead make greater use of the entire facility, including support and extracurricular spaces. Consequently, the MFP outlines the simultaneous implementation of Phases 1, 2, and 3 for all high schools. This approach still differs from those in earlier draft MFP documents, however, in that there is a rigorous focus on the rehabilitation of existing structures, rather than new construction, wherever feasible. Re-use of existing structures minimizes cost and respects the rich historic tradition of the DCPS facilities. 3.4 New Construction Projects Although the MFP emphasizes the phased improvement and re-use of existing facilities over new construction, it recognizes that there are some school buildings that are so structurally unsuitable for adaptation to an environment conducive to learning that they must be demolished and reconstructed. These schools are included within the plan and phased to be constructed as funds allow within the first five years of the plan timeframe.





3.5 Sequencing Parameters & City-Wide Phasing Summary The modernization phasing plan proposed by the MFP takes into consideration the unique condition of each school, the OOC Guiding Principles, the preferred alignment of academics with facilities, the changing demographics of the District, city-wide phasing, and the annual availability of modernization funds. The primary goal of the 2010 MFP is to modernize as many schools as possible within an individual fiscal year. The number of schools scheduled each year is a function of the annual availability of modernization funds and square footage of space this funding can cover. Budgeting parameters will be described in detail in section 5.0 but in general, a school’s modernization budget is based on the square footage of the building. To reach the primary goal of touching as many schools as possible in one year, the schedule of schools must be balanced between those with smaller and larger square footages. The 2010 MFP used two parameters for determining the sequence of schools. The first parameter used is the immediate needs of the academic program. In close consultation with the Office of the Chancellor, OPEFM took into consideration the immediate needs of each facility’s academic program, for example, capacity issues, open-plan configurations, PreK-8 needs, and emerging academic foci such as STEM/Fine Arts schools. The second parameter is the physical condition of the building. Across both these parameters is a third lens, that of resource equity across the city. All of these parameters were considered in the careful sequencing of projects across the 10-year plan. The following pages and graphics summarize distribution on a total MFP and annual basis.





3.5.1 Proposed Phasing Plans Organized by Ward

Ward 2 ‐ 10 Year Plan

Type

SFType

SFType

SFType

SFType

SFType

SFType

SFType

SFType

SFType

SFType

SF

Francis‐Stevens

RSB

95,100

195,100

295,100

395,100

Garrison

160,200

260,200

360,200

Hardy

M116,872

Hyde‐Addison

120,000

220,000

320,000

Montgomery

Ross

122,400

222,400

322,400

School Without Walls

M35,680

Shaw

NC

57,500

NC

57,500

Seaton

165,000

265,000

365,000

Thomson

M40,950

TOTA

L:4

288,602

00

165,000

279,900

277,500

2155,300

287,400

120,000

2155,300

3107,400

2155,300

Note: M

(Modernization), NC (New

Construction), D (Design), A (Addition), 1 (Phase 1), 2 (Phase 2), 3 (Phase 3), RSB

(2008 Receiving School Blitz)

FY2018

FY2019

No longer in DCPS Inventory after AY09‐10

FY2012

FY2013

FY2014

FY2015

FY2016

FY2017

FY2011

School

Completed

<2010

FY2010


Type

SFType

SFType

SFType

SFType

SFType

SFType

SFType

SFType

SFType

SFType

SF

Bancroft

179,800

279,800

379,800

Bruce M

onroe / Park View

182,200

282,200

382,200

Cardozo

D35,540

M159,930

M159,930

Cleveland

M53,000

Columbia Heights

NC

325,217

Cooke, H

.D.

M85,708

Oyster ‐ Adams (Adams)

159,400

259,400

359,400

Reed, M

arie

1162,700

2162,700

3162,700

Shaw at Garnet‐Patterson

Tubman

166,600

266,600

366,600

TOTA

L:4

530,525

00

135,540

3404,830

3299,130

00

2229,300

3221,400

166,600

2244,900

2139,200

Note: M




School

FY2015

FY2016

FY2017

FY2018

FY2019

Completed

< 2010

FY2010

FY2011

FY2012

FY2013

FY2014






Type

SFType

SFType

SFType

SFType

SFType

SFType

SFType

SFType

SFType

SFType

SF

Deal

M181,000

Eaton

149,100

249,100

349,100

Hearst

A10,000

A & 1

27,400

217,400

317,400

Janney

M21,700

M21,700

Key

M50,000

Mann

A10,000

A & 1

31,903

221,903

321,903

Murch

147,700

247,700

347,700

Oyster ‐ Adams (Oyster)

NC

47,984

Stoddert

D5,220

M12,180

Wilson, W

oodrow

D27,130

M122,085

M122,085

TOTA

L:5

311,334

3155,965

2143,785

220,000

259,303

296,800

00

121,903

3114,200

117,400

3118,703

Note: M




FY2018

FY2019

FY2012

FY2013

FY2014

FY2015

FY2016

FY2017

FY2011

School

Completed

<2010

FY2010


Type

SFType

SFType

SFType

SFType

SFType

SFType

SFType

SFType

SFType

SFType

SF

Barnard

NC

72,500

Brightwood

M86,120

Coolidge

D27,130

M122,085

M122,085

Lafayette

1113,600

2113,600

3113,600

LaSalle‐Backus

RSB

63,000

163,000

263,000

363,000

MacFarland

RSB

110,000

1110,000

2110,000

3110,000

Powell

RSB

38,500

138,500

238,500

338,500

Raym

ond

RSB

73,600

173,600

273,600

373,600

Roosevelt

D33,190

M149,355

M149,355

Sharpe Health

M80,500

Shepherd

179,700

279,700

379,700

Takoma

1119,000

2119,000

3119,000

Truesdell

169,600

A10,000

269,600

369,600

West

RSB

69,600

169,600

269,600

369,600

Whittier

166,600

A7,500

266,600

366,600

TOTA

L:7

513,320

2136,200

00

4215,190

6641,255

5267,585

4296,785

4374,785

6512,000

2101,500

6565,500

Note: M




FY2018

FY2019

FY2012

FY2013

FY2014

FY2015

FY2016

FY2017

FY2011

School

Completed

<2010

FY2010






Type

SFType

SFType

SFType

SFType

SFType

SFType

SFType

SFType

SFType

SFType

SF

Amidon ‐ Bowen

170,800

270,800

370,800

Brent

147,500

247,500

347,500

Eastern

M144,400

M144,400

Eliot / Hine

RSB

77,550

1155,100

2155,100

3155,100

Jefferson

1109,000

2109,000

3109,000

Ludlow‐Taylor

166,900

266,900

366,900

Maury

146,800

246,800

346,800

Miner

NC

76,900

Payne

183,800

283,800

383,800

Peabody

137,800

237,800

337,800

Prospect LC

159,200

259,200

359,200

Stuart‐Hobson

1105,900

2105,900

3105,900

Tyler

169,600

269,600

369,600

Walker‐Jones

NC

104,200

Watkins

169,300

269,300

369,300

Wilson, J.O.

198,900

298,900

398,900

TOTA

L:5

450,550

3312,900

146,800

3214,500

2175,900

3367,400

6406,500

3246,700

5454,900

5352,000

7581,100

Note: M




FY2018

FY2019

FY2012

FY2013

FY2014

FY2015

FY2016

FY2017

FY2011

School

Completed

<2010

FY2010


Type

SFType

SFType

SFType

SFType

SFType

SFType

SFType

SFType

SFType

SFType

SF

Brookland / Bunker Hill

RSB

69,400

A7,500

169,400

269,400

369,400

Browne

RSB

215,400

1215,400

2215,400

3215,400

Burroughs

163,900

A6,300

263,900

363,900

Dunbar

D17,170

M51,510

M137,360

M137,360

Emery

163,800

263,800

363,800

Hamilton Center

1180,700

2180,700

3180,700

Langdon

A7,500

1101,400

2101,400

3101,400

Lee, M

amie D.

145,800

245,800

345,800

Luke C. M

oore Academ

yNC

27,482

Marshall

1103,800

2103,800

3103,800

McKinley

M282,200

Noyes

NC

51,500

Phelps

M180,000

Shaed

167,200

267,200

367,200

Spingarn

D22,500

M101,250

M101,250

Wheatley

M87,200

TOTA

L:8

977,082

223,470

17,500

4207,900

1101,400

6661,110

2223,660

4409,410

4278,150

5633,100

6714,300

Note: M




FY2018

FY2019

FY2012

FY2013

FY2014

FY2015

FY2016

FY2017

FY2011

School

Completed

<2010

FY2010






Type

SFType

SFType

SFType

SFType

SFType

SFType

SFType

SFType

SFType

SFType

SF

Aiton

157,100

257,100

357,100

Beers

177,500

277,500

377,500

Brown, Ronald

RSB

156,000

1156,000

2156,000

3156,000

Burrville

195,000

295,000

395,000

Davis

171,100

271,100

371,100

Drew

172,800

272,800

372,800

Harris, C.W

.1

56,000

256,000

356,000

Houston

159,900

259,900

359,900

Kelly M

iller

NC

115,000

Kenilworth

157,100

257,100

357,100

Kim

ball

183,400

283,400

383,400

Nalle

183,900

283,900

383,900

Plummer

169,400

269,400

369,400

Randle Highlands

NC

75,500

River Terrace

162,800

262,800

362,800

Shadd

172,100

272,100

372,100

Smothers

RSB

43,000

143,000

243,000

343,000

Sousa

M132,000

Thomas

187,600

287,600

387,600

Winston

1137,700

2137,700

3137,700

Woodson, H

.D.

M25,110

M112,995

M112,995

TOTA

L:6

546,610

4368,395

2175,795

3299,800

00

10

724,400

6558,100

159,900

9669,900

8672,500

10

724,400

Note: M




FY2018

FY2019

FY2012

FY2013

FY2014

FY2015

FY2016

FY2017

FY2011

School

Completed

<2010

FY2010






Type

SFType

SFType

SFType

SFType

SFType

SFType

SFType

SFType

SFType

SFType

SF

Anacostia

D24,790

M49,580

M86,765

M86,765

Ballou

D27,130

M122,085

M122,085

Ferebee‐Hope

1193,800

2193,800

3193,800

Garfield

126,509

258,908

358,908

Hart

1210,700

2210,700

3210,700

Hendley

132,940

273,200

373,200

Johnson

1182,500

2182,500

3182,500

Ketcham

188,300

288,300

388,300

King, M

.L.

165,500

265,500

365,500

Kramer

1154,000

2154,000

3154,000

Leckie

165,000

265,000

365,000

Malcolm

X1

110,800

2110,800

3110,800

Moten / W

ilkinson

RSB

144,900

M*

144,900

1144,900

2144,900

3144,900

Orr

175,900

275,900

375,900

Patterson

NC

78,300

Savoy

M99,975

Simon

166,200

266,200

366,200

Stanton

183,800

283,800

383,800

Terrell, M

.C. / M

cGogney

1112,000

2112,000

3112,000

Turner / Green

177,700

177,700

277,700

377,700

TOTA

L:5

541,765

3297,580

5630,865

8667,995

4257,434

3359,885

91,186,200

4263,308

6755,500

10

1,024,700

3296,708

Note: M




Note: Scope of Work for Moten / W

ilkinson in 2011 includes extra scope to reopen

the closed facility (i.e. boiler work)

FY2018

FY2019

FY2012

FY2013

FY2014

FY2015

FY2016

FY2017

FY2011

School

Completed

<2010

FY2010

City Wide Schools ‐ 10 Year Plan

Type

SFType

SFType

SFType

SFType

SFType

SFType

SFType

SFType

SFType

SFType

SF

Banneker

D18,000

M81,000

M81,000

Ellington

P16,750

M75,375

M75,375

MS Fine Arts

1TBD

1TBD

2TBD

TOTA

L:0

00

01

TBD

116,750

275,375

275,375

118,000

181,000

181,000

00

00

Note: M




FY2011

School

Completed

< 2010

FY2010

FY2018

FY2019

FY2017

FY2012

FY2013

FY2014

FY2015

FY2016





3.6 Consideration of Charter Schools Recognizing the prevalence of public charter schools across the District, many of whom lack appropriate school facilities, co-location of public charter and DCPS school programs can provide an option for better utilization of excess space. Co-location can be mutually beneficial to both schools involved, enabling them to share common facility areas and potentially collaborate on programs, extracurricular and afterschool activities, and even instructional methods. Co-location between DCPS and public charter schools can yield more than just the efficient use of space for DCPS. A structured partnership between schools and principals, engaging on professional development, for example, can impact the classroom directly. In order for a co-location between two schools to be successful, careful planning for the facility and learning environment is important. Student entrances, use agreements regarding shared space (including cafeterias, gymnasiums, and playgrounds), and adequate measures to separate the two school populations must be considered. Public charter schools also are often able to secure additional funding for facilities improvements. These improvements should be leveraged as part of the co-location arrangement so that both schools can benefit and avoid a situation where one school is dramatically different than another in terms of facilities. Beyond co-locations within the same facility, public charter schools may become the tenant of a school property that is no longer in use by DCPS. Long term, detailed planning for this situation is difficult due to the unpredictability of individual charter school programs and the absence of a centralized governing body. Charter schools by their very nature are autonomous and unique to their programs’ needs. Nevertheless, as enrollment and demographic figures begin to predict that a DCPS facility may be closed, DCPS and OPEFM, along with other District agencies such as the Department of Real Estate Services, can begin to cooperatively plan for the potential future use of an unused school facility by a public charter school. 3.7 Program Goals In addition to improving academic achievement and better aligning academic objectives and facility programs, the investment in the implementation of the MFP presents real opportunities to advance other, associated outcomes. It is recognized that the investment in school facilities creates an opportunity to create or enhance community assets, generate employment opportunities, improve neighborhoods, and generally enhance community development initiatives. From a fundamental project delivery perspective, OPEFM has built on the agency’s experience with school improvement projects over the past two years to continue to refine methodologies and industry reputations and ensure on-time, on-budget delivery of improvement projects. Furthermore, OPEFM has proactively instituted and managed a successful Certified Business Establishment program that has achieved a nearly 50 percent participation rate on projects and contracts of all sizes. Lastly, OPEFM stands committed to continue advancing sustainable design and building practices that have targeted, at a minimum, LEED Silver certifications. OPEFM Program Goals

On-time Project Delivery On-budget Project Delivery Maximum CBE Participation Implementation of Green Design, Building, and Operating Practices

WILSON AQUATIC CENTER





3.8 2009 OPEFM Program Achievements 3.8.1 2009 Phase 1 Modernizations The 2008 MFP introduced the phased modernization approach and was implemented in 2009. Four schools received Phase 1 modernizations in 2009 – Brent Elementary School, Burroughs Education Campus, Ferebee-Hope Elementary School, and Tubman Elementary School. All four facilities received extensive classroom upgrades and were completed on-time and on-budget during the summer months. The four projects again demonstrated that academic spaces can be significantly improved in just one year. 3.8.2 2009 Full Modernizations In August 2009, OPEFM completed a record number of five full modernization projects totaling over $215 million. H.D. Cooke Elementary School, Alice Deal Middle School, Savoy Elementary School, School Without Walls High School, and Wheatley Education Campus opened on-time and on-budget. The five facilities are representative of OPEFM’s standard of excellence, featuring quality construction and green design elements. At the time of this publication H.D. Cooke is the only school to have received final certification from the US Green Building Council (USGBC), achieving LEED for Schools Gold level certification, but final certification of School Without Walls and Savoy will soon follow in Spring 2010. H.D. Cooke is the first public school to receive certification under the LEED for Schools green building program in the mid-Atlantic region. In 2009 OPEFM also managed the construction of the Wilson Aquatic Center, the modernization and conversion of the former Bowen Elementary School into Metropolitan Police Department’s First District Headquarters, and the 15,000 SF addition at Scott Montgomery Elementary School. All three projects opened on-time and on-budget. Wilson Aquatic Center and the addition at Scott Montgomery will both soon receive final LEED certification from the USGBC. Newly constructed Walker Jones Education Campus also opened in August 2009. The project was managed by DMPED. 3.8.3 OPEFM CBE and Work Force Participation The 2009 modernization projects also represented the successful participation of CBE firms. Each project met its contractual target participation rate. OPEFM is required to meet a 50 percent certified business enterprise participation rate in its contracting (or 35 percent for contracts executed prior to OPEFM’s inception). OPEFM continues to improve its CBE and Work Force participation coordination. In the fall of 2009 OPEFM, in cooperation with the Department of Small and Local Business Development and the Department of Employment Services, launched a Contractor’s Reference Guide to Certified Business Enterprises & Workforce Participation. The guide is a step by step manual with information on how to register with DOES; how to obtain information on the First Source Employment Agreement and documents; wage determination information; DOES requirements for apprenticeship; First Source and Apprentice reporting documents; OPEFM requirement and reporting forms; OPEFM skilled laborer selection database; OPEFM apprentice selection database, and OPEFM unskilled laborers selection database. The Guide also includes copies of the laws which mandate CBE, First Source and Apprenticeship and contact information for OPEFM, DOES and DSLBD representatives. The Contractor’s Reference Guide to Certified Business Enterprises & Workforce Participation has been distributed to OPEFM staff, construction managers and general contractors, and placed on OPEFM’s website for quick reference. It has also been shared with other District government agencies and City Council members. OPEFM continues to encourage construction managers and general contractors to utilize the database of pre-screened District residents. For example, the CBE contractor selected by the Construction Manager





to perform the earthwork at HD Woodson HS has hired 7 District residents to work on that project. Positions range from certified flaggers to operating engineers. Representatives of the DC Office of Apprenticeship audit certified payrolls on all projects to verify compliance with both the Davis-Bacon wage rates and proper classification of all workers. These ongoing audits and meetings with general contractors/construction managers are successful because subcontractors found to be non-compliant have an opportunity to hire District residents through OPEFM’s database, DOES and/or workforce development organizations; Subcontractors are put on notice to properly classify workers and to pay restitution to those workers who have not been properly compensated. OPEFM is highly committed to working with general contractors and construction managers to meet and exceed their CBE requirements and to ensure that District residents are hired in all scopes of work.





4.0 Schedule The 2010 MFP includes an implementation schedule that phases the completion of projects between FY 2010 and FY 2019. The schedule was developed in conjunction with the OOC and the Office of the Deputy Mayor for Education (“DME”) and is informed by OPEFM’s experience over the past two years with school modernization projects. Included are modernization projects currently in progress, the Phase 1, 2 and 3 elementary and middle school modernizations, and the proposed Phase 1, 2 and 3 combined high school modernization projects, selected additions and new construction projects. The MFP organizes implementation of the modernization of DC Public Schools in three phases. Phase 1 will focus on improvements to the classroom environment, Phase 2 will address support spaces, and Phase 3 will provide system upgrades. These phases may be undertaken sequentially, in overlapping timeframes, or simultaneously, depending on the circumstances of each school. It is, however, generally planned that all high schools will have Phase 1, 2, and 3 modernizations completed simultaneously. The initial focus for elementary and middle schools will be completing Phase 1 improvements for all schools within the first 5 years. Phase 2 will begin in Year 6 and continue through Year 9, and Phase 3 work begin in Year 8, overlapping with Phase 2 work and be completed by Year 10. The 2008 MFP introduced the phased modernization approach. The phased concept represents a departure from previous plans that viewed safe, modern school facilities as something that can only be achieved, one at a time, over the course of more than a decade. Students should not have to wait their entire educational careers to be in school buildings that provide the kind of learning environment they deserve. A highly important feature of the “phase” modernization approach is that each phase can be completed during the summer months prior to school opening. This virtually eliminates the need to “swing” most schools to temporary sites that are often times not located in their students’ neighborhoods. Eliminating the need to “swing” students helps schools sustain academic momentum, retain students, and avoid the intense stress and effort of relocating. From an economic perspective, eliminating the need to “swing” students thus avoiding costs associated with logistic support, busing, and preparing temporary school locations. The 2010 MFP continues this strategic phased approach, now further enhanced by the lessons learned over the course of implementing the program in 2009. The Master Facilities Plan addresses the challenge of focusing investments in a strategic way while maximizing the impact for all students and building upon the substantial work that has already been completed. Whereas previous plans established a prolonged approach that left too many schools waiting ten years or longer while a select few were being rebuilt, the 2010 Master Facilities Plan continues the 2008 proposal to modernize the core academic spaces in every school in the District dramatically within a shorter time period. 4.1 The First 5 Years The project phasing plan is fundamentally designed to move forward as aggressively as possible with Phase 1 improvements and impact all schools within five years between FY 2010-FY 2014. Subsequent phases and remaining needs will be addressed over the following five years between FY 2015-FY 2019. The plan was cooperatively developed with a consideration of the academic priorities of the school reform effort, the severity of the facility’s need for modernization, equity of resources across the city, and the annual maximization of available funding sources. The following pages include a detailed schedule of the Phase 1 improvements as well as other projects that will require Phase 2 and 3 improvements to achieve the Phase 1 goals. School sites co-located with other District facilities or under consideration for a public private partnership may be resequenced in order to 1) follow the District's policy to use public private partnerships to spur development, provide affordable housing, generate tax revenues, and create jobs; 2) minimize construction impacts on school populations and surrounding communities; and 3) take advantage of economies of scale.





4.1.1 Project Schedule: Current Modernizations, High School Modernizations, and Select Additions and New Construction

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

High School Modernizations & New Construction

Eastern

W. Wilson

H.D. Woodson

Anacostia

Cardozo

Ballou

Ellington

Roosevelt

Coolidge

Dunbar

Banneker

Spingarn

Elementary & Middle School Modernizations, Additions, & New Construction

Burroughs (Addition)

Wheatley (Addition)

Stoddert (Modernization)

Janney (Modernization)

Bunkerhill (Addition)

Fine Arts Middle School

Hearst (Addition)

Langdon (Addition)

LaSalle (Elevator)

Mann (Addition)

Peabody (Elevator)

Shaw (NC)

Lafayette (Addition)

Truesdell (Addition)

Whittier (Addition)





4.1.2 Project Schedule: Phase 1, 2 & 3 Modernizations

Phase 1 Modernizations

Brent Burrville Hart Amidon Adams Aiton

Burroughs Drew Malcom X Bancroft Beers

Ferebee‐Hope Johnson Maury Garfield Browne

Tubman ML King Moten [1] Bruce Monroe Hearst CW Harris

Thomas River Terrace Emery Hendley Davis

Truesdell Seaton Houston Hyde Eaton

Tyler Turner Ketcham Jefferson Eliot

J. O. Wilson Lasalle Lafayette Francis/Stevens

Whittier Leckie Langdon Garrison

Marie Reed Ludlow‐Taylor Hamilton

MC Terrell MacFarland Kenilworth

Moten ‐ Wilkinson Mann Kimball

Nalle Orr Kramer

Peabody Shepherd Lee

Powell Takoma Marshall

Ron Brown West Murch

Ross Payne

Shaed Plummer

Sharpe Prospect

Simon Raymond

Stuart Hobson Shadd

Turner [1] Smothers

Stanton

Watkins

Winston

[1] Includes additional work to re‐open closed facility

2014

Brookland @

BunkerHill

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013





2014 2015 2016 2017 2018


Burroughs Brent Amidon Shaed Browne

Ferebee‐Hope Bruce Monroe Hearst Hamilton

Tubman Houston Lafayette Kenilworth

Burrville Lasalle Orr Marshall

Drew Leckie Takoma Prospect

Johnson Simon West Shadd

ML King Aiton Smothers

Thomas Beers Watkins

Truesdell Adams CW Harris Winston

Tyler Bancroft Davis

J. O. Wilson Garfield Eaton

Whittier Hendley Eliot

Hart Hyde Francis/Stevens

Malcom X Jefferson Garrison

Maury Langdon Kimball

River Terrace Ludlow‐Taylor Kramer

Seaton MacFarland Lee

Turner Mann Murch

Emery Shepherd Payne

Ketcham Plummer

Marie Reed Raymond

MC Terrell Stanton

Moten ‐ Wilkinson

Nalle

Peabody

Powell

Ron Brown

Ross

Stuart Hobson

Brookland @

BunkerHill





2017 2018 2019


Brent Hart Adams

Burroughs Malcom X Bancroft

Ferebee‐Hope Maury Eaton

Tubman River Terrace Garfield

Burrville Seaton Jefferson

Drew Turner Lafayette

Johnson Amidon Langdon

ML King Ludlow‐Taylor

Thomas MacFarland

Truesdell Bruce Monroe Mann

Tyler Emery Shaed

J. O. Wilson Houston Takoma

Whittier Ketcham West

Lasalle Aiton

Leckie Beers

Marie Reed Browne

MC Terrell CW Harris

Moten ‐ Wilkinson Davis

Nalle Eliot

Orr Francis/Stevens

Powell Garrison

Ron Brown Hamilton

Ross Kenilworth

Simon Kimball

Stuart Hobson Kramer

Hearst Lee

Hendley Marshall

Hyde Murch

Payne

Peabody

Plummer

Prospect

Raymond

Shadd

Shepherd

Smothers

Stanton

Watkins

Winston

Brookland @

BunkerHill





4.2 The Second Five Years Phase 2 and 3 requirements are based heavily on the conditions of facility systems at the time they are improved. The 2008 MFP did not outline the specific schedule of Phase 2 and 3 modernizations based on the premise that, five years prior to the commencement of these phases, it would be impossible to determine with certainty the conditions that will be faced. The 2010 MFP now schedules Phase 2 and 3 modernization work for all schools following the completion of all Phase 1 work in Year 5. Although specific schools have been identified for later years of the MFP, OPEFM will continually re-evaluate the sequence of schools based upon periodic facility condition assessments to ensure that the schools with the most need for improvement are impacted as early in the plan as possible. 4.3 Project Implementation Timelines As described previously, the three modernization phases may be undertaken sequentially, in overlapping timeframes, or simultaneously, depending on the circumstances of each school. It is, however, generally planned that all high schools will have Phase 1, 2, and 3 modernizations completed simultaneously. The elementary and middle schools will have an initial focus on completing Phase 1 for all schools within the first 5 years, with Phase 2 and 3 work starting in year 2015 and 2017 respectfully and continuing beyond it. Based upon the lessons learned from completed projects, OPEFM has developed accurate models for the scoping, estimating, contracting and implementation of the various modernization phases. The Receiving Schools improvements provided a baseline for the 2009 elementary and middle school Phase 1 modernizations. Learning from the 2009 projects, OPEFM has further refined the Phase 1 project methodology. The baseline scope of work has been expanded in the 2010 MFP to include corridors, entry lobbies, and bathrooms in addition to core academic spaces. These spaces have been included in recognition that students must first pass through these spaces as they begin their school day and are important in setting the tone of a student’s daily academic experience. Another adjustment is the full engagement of design teams during a school’s Phase 1 modernization. A project will now be fully designed for all phases of work at the beginning of its Phase 1 modernization. The involvement of the school community and constituents, through a School Improvement Team (“SIT”) will be essential to the success of each project. A School Improvement Team will be organized at the initiation of a school’s Phase 1 work and will remain fully engaged through all three phases of work. With the completion of nearly 10 full modernizations, OPEFM has several direct models for the combined Phase 1, 2, and 3 modernization of high schools. An adjustment to the treatment of this program is the addition of a year of intense planning to the projects’ schedules. This planning period will allow for the comprehensive and complex high school modernization to incorporate designs that best meet the school community’s needs in a fiscally responsible manner. As good as these models are, they illustrate that each school building is unique in its needs, configuration and existing conditions. As a result, the scoping and design of project work must be developed in detail at the time of implementation for each modernization project. OPEFM proposes that the scoping of each modernization project adhere to a consistent procedure and general timeline appropriate to that phase of work. The stand-alone Phase 1 modernizations plan for construction work to be completed during a single summer between mid-June and mid-August. The combined Phase 1, 2, and 3 modernizations are planned to be completed within 16 months, using two summers to complete the most invasive construction activities and using the academic year for less invasive work. In both cases, the construction activity of the first summer will be preceded by a full academic year of planning and design work. Each of these procedures will include the participation of the SIT in the initial scoping, the development and review of design documents, and the review of construction progress.





4.3.1 Phase 1 Modernizations – Illustrative Example Phase 1 modernizations to elementary schools and middle schools are planned to be completed during the summer months of a single year. For all schools, this work will be based on a standard performance specification designed to ensure conduciveness to learning within the classroom, addressing the five key categories of lighting, environment, acoustics, technology, and furniture. However, the scope of work at each school must also be tailored to the existing conditions of that school and consider the school community’s priorities as identified by the SIT. OPEFM has therefore outlined an implementation strategy for Phase 1 modernizations that convenes a SIT as soon as a project is initiated and engages a design-build contractor immediately thereafter, allowing the SIT, the designer, and the contractor to all work together under OPEFM’s coordination to develop the scope of work and design for the project. The design-build delivery method is optimal for this approach as it brings both architect and builder together with the clients (OPEFM and the SIT) early, enabling scoping and design decisions to be made with the direct input of the contractor who will ultimately be responsible for taking the risk on project costs. At the same time, the anticipated schedule allows enough time for the design and construction activities so that projects can be scoped thoughtfully and contracts submitted to Council for review on a timely basis. A desired Phase 1 schedule would include: September (immediately prior to the fiscal year in which work will be completed)

Identify and Formalize SIT Membership Update Facility Conditions Assessment Issue RFP for Design-Build Contractor

October

Convene SIT for Organizational Meeting Select Design-Build Contractor Submit Design-Build Contract to Council for Approval

November

Develop Scope of Work with SIT and Design-Build Contractor Initiate Design Work

December – January

Continue and Complete Design Work Monthly Meetings with SIT

February

Finalize Contract Scope of Work Develop Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP) & Submit GMP Contract to Council Apply for Permits and Approvals

March – Mid-June

Notice to Proceed for Design-Build Contractor for full GMP Contract Initiate Purchase of Early-lead Items

Mid-June to Mid-August

Construction Activity Mid-August

Occupancy

SOUSA





DREW ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 5600 Eads Street NE, Washington, DC

GROSS BUILDING 72,800 SF, GROSS FLOOR 19,757 SF, SECOND FLOOR

Phase 1 SCOPE OF WORK

Phase 1-Academic Components: Consists of targeted improvements projects designed to improve the educational environment in every classroom and complementary specialized academic spaces. 6 CLASSROOMS CORRIDORS ENTRY WAYS


Phase 2 - Support Components: Addresses the need for improved support spaces, such as cafeterias, gymnasia, auditoria and arts spaces that advance the extracurricular components of a well-rounded academic program. PARENT RESOURCE COMPUTER LAB MEDIA CENTER STORAGE OT/PT


Phase 3- Systems Components: Includes the upgrading and replacement of utility, mechanical, electrical, plumbing, security and IT systems that are critical to the life of the facility. The targeted projects will leverage the improvements already made during the 2007-2008 stabilization initiatives. MECHANICAL BUILDING SUPPORT ELEVATOR STAIRS

NET 5,477 SF

NET 1,660 SF

NET 6,680 SF

PHASE 1 (CLASSROOMS)

PHASE 2 (SUPPORT)

PHASE 3 (SYSTEMS)





4.3.2 Phase 1, 2, and 3 Combined Modernizations – Illustrative Example The combined Phase 1, 2, and 3 modernizations for high schools are planned to be completed over 16 months, spanning two summers and the academic year in between. This schedule contemplates that planning and design activities would begin during the preceding academic year, enabling the first summer to be used for major abatement and utility work, building envelope repairs, and preparation of on-site swing space, if necessary. The subsequent academic year, during which the school would operate in a reduced, concentrated area within the building and on the grounds, will be used to complete major systems work in the rest of the building and on off-hours in the occupied spaces. The final summer will be used for major reconfiguration, interior finishes, and the completion of systems work. In projects for which no major exterior architectural changes are required, major envelope repairs will be completed during the first summer, while those which may require historic or other external design review may require such work to be completed during the second summer. The SIT will have regular participation in the planning and design activities leading up to the construction work. A typical Phase 1 schedule would include: October – Year 1

Issue RFP for Design Team Identify and Formalize SIT Membership

November – Year 1

Convene SIT for Organizational Meeting Update Facility Conditions Assessment Select Design Team Submit Design Team Contract to Council for Approval

December – Year 1

Issue RFP for Design Team Identify and Formalize SIT Membership Develop Scope of Work with SIT and Designer Initiate Design Work

January – June – Year 1

Continue Design Work Monthly Meetings with SIT

June – August – Year 1

Continue Design Work Monthly Meetings with SIT Finalize Contract Scope of Work Conduct Summer Construct to Prepare Building for Modernization (i.e. Abatement)

August – Year 2

Continue Design Work & SIT Engagement Issue RFP for Design-Build Contractor

September – Year 2

Select Design-Build Contractor Submit Design-Build Contract to Council for Approval

October – Year 2

Develop Scope of Work with SIT and Design-Build Contractor





November – March – Year 2 Complete Design Work Monthly Meetings with SIT Finalize Contract Scope of Work Develop Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP) Submit GMP Contract to Council Apply for Permits and Approvals

May – Mid-June – Year 2

Notice to Proceed for Design-Build Contractor for full GMP Contract Initiate Purchase of Early-lead items

Mid-June to Mid-August

Summer Construction Activity (Abatement, Utilities, Envelope, Systems Core, Preparation of Swing Space – Internal and Demountables)

Mid-August to Mid-June - Year 3

Academic Year Construction Activity Mid-June to Mid-August - Year 3

Complete Construction Activity Mid-August - Year 3

Occupancy 4.4 Future MFP Evaluations The MFP is not a static document but instead one that will regularly respond to changing conditions. At a minimum, the MFP will be re-evaluated and re-aligned every two years to consider, for example, changing enrollments, shifting demographic trends, refined educational goals, and the impact of charter schools. Furthermore, the near continuous evaluation process will track implementation progress against that outlined in the MFP. Regular reviews will be completed to ensure that the scope of improvements, budgets, and schedules detailed in the MFP are being realized.





5.0 Budget Based upon the outlined sequencing and phasing plan, OPEFM has developed an annual estimate of the sources and uses of funds required to fund the modernization projects. The budget attempts to make maximum use of the fixed available funds as defined by the OCFO with modernization projects scheduled as early as possible. All values are escalated at 1 percent annually to account for the time cost of money and assume the availability of starting balances remaining from the FY 2010 allocation to OPEFM. In previous plans escalation was calculated at 5 percent annually. This number has been adjusted to reflect current economic conditions. The following chart summarizes the projected sources and uses of funds for FY 2010 through FY 2019.





5.1 10-Year MFP Financial Projection ($1,000s)

OFFICE OF PUBLIC EDUCATION FACILITIES MODERNIZATION

6‐Year CIP Modeling

SUMMARY

YEAR 0 YEAR 1 YEAR 2 YEAR 3 YEAR 4 YEAR 5 YEAR 6

FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 FY 14 FY 15 FY 16 FY 17 FY 18 FY 19

Total Sources (per CIP) 236,435$ 260,344$ 268,825$ 290,107$ 307,461$ 323,773$ 264,611$ 353,213$ 370,457$ 388,553$

Modernizations

Modernizations Underway

Budget (per previous CIP) 39,782$ 28,189$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$

Capital Staff Cost Allocation 1,350$ 1,483$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$

Project Budgets 38,432$ 26,707$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$

Modernizations Underway Total 39,782$ 28,189$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$

High Schools

Budget (per previous CIP) 84,427$ 136,709$ 171,620$ 128,969$ 77,465$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$

Plus Savings on FY 09 Completed Projects (Savoy, HD Cooke) 5,000$

Total Funding Including Stimulus 89,427$ 136,709$ 171,620$ 128,969$ 77,465$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$

Capital Staff Cost Allocation 1,939$ 3,936$ 994$ 1,322$ 896$ 325$ 644$ 480$ ‐$ ‐$

Project Budgets 87,459$ 118,703$ 78,453$ 117,629$ 98,417$ 39,811$ 67,602$ 73,931$ ‐$ ‐$

High Schools Total 89,398$ 122,638$ 79,447$ 118,951$ 99,313$ 40,136$ 68,246$ 74,411$ ‐$ ‐$

Elementary & Middle Schools (Phases 1, 2, and 3)


Plus Green Stimulus 7,850$

Total Funding Including Stimulus 51,385$ 29,937$ 18,870$ 42,763$ 48,657$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$

Capital Staff Cost Allocation 1,375$ 3,045$ 1,397$ 891$ 1,437$ 1,759$ 1,130$ 1,670$ 1,982$ 1,806$

Project Budgets 50,080$ 42,126$ 110,275$ 79,340$ 157,823$ 215,429$ 118,627$ 257,366$ 290,942$ 333,188$

Elementary & Middle Schools (I & II) Total 51,455$ 45,171$ 111,672$ 80,232$ 159,259$ 217,189$ 119,757$ 259,036$ 292,924$ 334,994$

Selective Additions and New Construction


Capital Staff Cost Allocation 486$ 2,102$ 487$ 533$ 276$ 378$ 536$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$

Project Budgets 34,572$ 27,114$ 38,486$ 47,476$ 30,288$ 46,305$ 56,305$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$

Selective Additions and New Construction Total 35,058$ 29,217$ 38,973$ 48,010$ 30,564$ 46,683$ 56,841$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$

Elementary & Middle School Systems (Phases II and III) ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$

Other Capital Uses

Stabilization Budget (per Previous CIP) 33,593$ 35,129$ 38,733$ 41,695$ 17,061$ 17,501$ 17,501$ 17,501$ 17,501$ 17,501$

Capital Staff Cost Allocation 1,593$ 1,673$ 2,634$ 2,766$ 2,904$ 3,050$ 3,202$ 3,362$ 3,530$ 3,707$

Project Budgets 32,000$ 33,456$ 36,099$ 38,929$ 14,157$ 14,451$ 14,299$ 14,139$ 13,971$ 13,794$

Selective Additions and New Construction Total 33,593$ 35,129$ 38,733$ 41,695$ 17,061$ 17,501$ 17,501$ 17,501$ 17,501$ 17,501$

ADA Budget (per Previous CIP) ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 1,220$ 1,264$ 2,265$ 2,265$ 2,265$ 2,265$ 2,265$

Major Small Capital Projects ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 57,767$ 33,793$

Total Uses 249,285$ 260,344$ 268,825$ 290,107$ 307,461$ 323,773$ 264,611$ 353,213$ 370,457$ 388,553$

Total Sources Less Uses ‐$ (0)$ 0$ 0$ (0)$ (0)$ 0$ 0$ (0)$ 0$

ESTIMATE





5.1.1 Sources of Funds Generally, the sources of funds included in the OPEFM model are as provided by the Office of the Chief Financial Officer without further analysis or modification by OPEFM. The exception to this is third-party funding sources, which represent funds provided by other agencies via inter-agency transfer for OPEFM to administer projects on those agencies’ behalf.

General Obligation Funds: Proceeds of general obligation bond funding for school modernization, as provided by the OCFO.

G.O. Small Caps Funds: Proceeds of general obligation bond funding for small capital projects, as provided by OCFO.

Paygo Funds: Proceeds of District Paygo funds for school modernization, as provided by OCFO.

3rd Party Funding Sources: Represents funding being provided or planned to be provided by other agencies or parties through development MOUs. This category includes funds received from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.

5.1.2 Uses of Funds The uses of funds in the OPEFM model are as estimated by OPEFM based on the phasing schedule outlined in Section 4.0 of this document and reasonable budgeting assumptions. It should be noted that all cost estimates rely on a level of assumptions appropriate to master planning and are not based on detailed design. They are therefore subject to significant refinement at the time of actual project implementation.

Modernizations Underway: Represents required spending for completion of projects currently in development.

Future Modernizations High Schools (Combined Phases 1, 2, and 3): Based upon estimates and project

schedules developed by OPEFM specific to each school. Elementary & Middle Schools (Phases 1, 2, & 3): Represents spending in actual dollars

estimated at $66 / building square foot (Phase 1 & 2), $10 / site area square foot (Phase 2 only), and $95 / building square footage (Phase 3) in 2010 dollars and escalated 1 percent annually.

Selective Additions and New Construction: Represents spending in actual dollars estimated at $400 / square foot in FY 2010 dollars and escalated 1 percent annually.

Stabilization: Represents a continuation of the 2007-2008 Stabilization initiative through 2013 with a reduction in spending every year thereafter.

ADA Budget: Represents allocations for FY 2013 and beyond to perform ADA upgrades as needed.

Major Small Capital Projects: Represents allocations beginning FY 2018 to perform small capital projects as needed.





5.2 Scope of Work and Estimating Methodology To the extent possible, OPEFM has developed unique scopes of work for each category of funds and an associated cost estimate. Based largely upon the agency’s previous two years of modernization experience, informed scopes and cost estimates have been developed using specific cost metrics with an understanding of each facility’s unique needs and condition. 5.2.1 Conceptual Nature of Budgeting It must be emphasized that all budgeting has been completed as accurately as possible, but remains a function of a master plan document. As such, full designs have not been created for each project and all budgets must be considered conceptual, planning-level projections. As each project is designed and implemented, budgets and programs will be refined to provide school-specific data. 5.2.2 Elementary & Middle School Estimate Methodology Budgets were established for the Phase 1 elementary and middle school work according to a common scope of work and cost metric. The Receiving Schools and Consolidations work from the Summer of 2008 provided a real-world basis for establishing the 2008 MFP metric of $30 per square foot cost. Learning from experience in 2009 and adjusting the baseline scope of work to include corridors, entry ways, and bathrooms, the metric has been increased to $66 per square foot for both Phase 1 and 2 work. Phase 2 work includes school grounds improvements and is budgeted at $10 per site area square foot, adjusted on an individual project basis where significant playground or athletic field work has already been completed. Phase 3 is calculated at $95 per square foot. In each case, the cost metrics are considered conservative to account for unknown conditions that cannot be discovered until detailed design work is completed. 5.2.3 High Schools The budgets for the high schools with the combined Phase 1, 2, and 3 approach were established less conceptually than that of the elementary and middle schools. For each high school, professional estimators were engaged to review each facility, evaluate the existing conditions, and address specific programming needs. Ultimately, the project budgets ranged from between $210 and $255 / square foot with detailed budgets broken down by major improvement category.





6.0 School Mini-Master Plans OPEFM has produced a mini-master plan for each school that generally summarizes the existing facility conditions, outlines the work completed through the stabilization and summer blitz programs, and provides a conceptual test-fit of the building’s capacity to absorb the preferred academic programs and enrollment projections. Each mini-master plan follows a consistent format that includes the same categories of information. The mini-master plans do NOT represent design solutions but rather present a proposal for the academic programs and projected enrollment might be accommodated on the property. Following is a summary of each component of the included mini-master plans. Recently completed and in-progress projects are included in the front of the section and do not follow the same mini-master plan format, but instead present current project information. 6.1 Aerial Photo / Site Plan: Included is the most recent aerial image of the property. For those schools that have been modernized or are in the process of being modernized, the mini-master plans include site plans. 6.2 Proposed Program Profile: The profiles summarize the relevant data points for the school, including the proposed program, an inventory of spaces, the projected enrollment, and the capacity of the facility. 6.3 Condition Assessment: The condition assessment represents an amalgam of detailed assessments completed in 2005 and an on-site review by OPEFM staff in 2007, including notations of work completed in 2008. The assessment is divided into eleven major categories with comments for each. The assessment is summarized with a rating system based on the Facility Condition Index (FCI) rating system. This system rates individual building systems on a 0 to 1.00 scale in which 0 represents a new, fully functioning system with a full useful life ahead of it, while 1.00 represents the need for complete system replacement.

Good (FCI less than .25): The facility components are working and appear in good condition, requiring only preventative maintenance or minor repair.

Fair (FCI 0.25 – 0.50): The facility components are working; however, they may require repairs or periodic monitoring of components.

Poor (FCI 0.51 – 0.85): The facility components are not functioning properly or are in such disrepair that they require attention.

Unsatisfactory (FCI greater than .86): The facility components are in need of immediate attention or replacement due to health or safety risks or failure to meet code.

6.4 Recent History of Modernization While noted in the condition assessment, recent work completed by OPEFM in 2007, 2008 and 2009 is aggregated and summarized in a separate sheet. A majority of the completed OPEFM work was part of the Stabilization initiative, the Summer Blitz program, and the athletic fields modernization effort.





6.5 Concept Plans Each school includes a series of floor plans that are color coded according to potential space uses. As mentioned earlier, the plans do NOT represent design solutions and are simply illustrative planning exercises that confirm the facility’s capacity to support the academic program and projected enrollment. It is expected that these concepts will be used as the starting point for formal design, which will begin in earnest with the cooperation of all constituents once the project moves into implementation. Conceptual space analyses have not been included for those projects being implemented by or with other agencies or private entities.





7.0 Glossary of Terms Modernization Major capital improvements made to a school for the purpose of bringing the

entire building or select areas and systems into compliance with current educational or facility standards.

Stabilization Capital improvements, either large or small, made to building systems as part of

a multi-facility program to alleviate major concerns related to health, safety, security, or accessibility for students, teachers and staff.

Phase 1 Modernization projects focused on the improvement of all occupied classrooms

within the DCPS inventory, bringing each into conformance with a common set of standards for lighting, air quality, technology, acoustics, and furniture within the first five years of the MFP timeframe.

Phase 2 Modernization projects focused on the improvement of support spaces such as

cafeterias, gymnasiums, etc. Phase 3 Modernization of systems, such as mechanical, electrical, and plumbing. Unsatisfactory A rating used in the Conditions Assessment, indicating that the referenced facility

components are in need of immediate attention or replacement due to health or safety risks or failure to meet code.

Poor A rating used in the Conditions Assessment, indicating that the referenced facility

components are not functioning properly or are in such disrepair that they require attention.

Fair A rating used in the Conditions Assessment, indicating that the referenced facility

components are working; however, they may require repairs or periodic monitoring of components.

Good A rating used in the Conditions Assessment, indicating that the referenced facility

components are working and appear in good condition, requiring only preventative maintenance or minor repair.

office of public education facilities modernization...

Documents