School Facilities Workshop by Tennessee School Boards Association

2015

Meetings

School Facilities Workshop April 27 - TSBA Headquarters

April 27, 2015

TSBA/TSPMA Joint School Facilities Workshop Agenda

BREAKFAST sponsored by Michael Brady, Inc. 8:00 a.m. Welcome and Overview Tammy Grissom, Executive Director, TSBA 8:05 a.m. What is TSPMA and How Can It Help You? Joe Mike Akard, Executive Director, TSPMA 8:15 a.m. The Boardâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Long Range Facilities Plan Joe Edgens, (Evaluating Your Existing Facilities) Executive Director of Facility Services (part-time/retired), Metro Davidson County 9:15 a.m. Design/Construction Contract Legal Issues Chuck Cagle, (Delivery System/Bidding Process) Attorney, Lewis, Thomason, King, Krieg & Waldrop, P.C. 10:15 a.m.

BREAK sponsored by Kaatz, Binkley, Jones & Morris, Architects, Inc.

10:30 a.m. Total Cost of Ownership on Building New Phillip Graham, Director of And Remodeling Maintenance & Transportation, Greeneville 11:30 a.m.

LUNCH

12:15 p.m. Inspections and New Requirements of Ed DePew, Director of Safety Data Sheets Maintenance, Bristol Bill Shedden, Supervisor of Maintenance & Custodians, Kingsport; TSPMA President

1:15 p.m. Technology in the Classroom and Its Impact Andy Arnold, Director of On School Facilities Technology, Bristol; Chairman, TETA Board of Directors Dr. Vonda Beavers, Curriculum & Testing Coordinator/Data Analyst, Bristol 2:15 p.m.

BREAK sponsored by Cope Associates, Inc.

2:30 p.m.

Panel Discussion of the Importance of Energy Management & Efficiency

Zane Foraker, Energy Manager, Knox County

Pall Cross, Energy Efficient School Initiative Reid Conway, Senior Energy Services Advisor, TDEC Office of Energy Programs 3:30 p.m.

Wrap up and Evaluations

3:45 p.m.

Adjourn

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

What is TSPMA and How Can it Help You?

Joe Mike Akard, Executive Director TSPMA

Notes _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________

The Boardâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Long Range Facilities Plan (Evaluating Your Existing Facilities)

Joe Edgens, Executive Director of Facility Services (part-time/retired), Metro Davidson County

Preparation of a Comprehensive Long-Range Facility Improvement Plan

TSBA School Facilities Workshop April 27, 2015 Joe A. Edgens, Executive Director of Facility Services (Retired) Metropolitan Nashville / Davidson County, TN Public Schools Contact: Joe.Edgens@mnps.org or (615) 259-8516

Session Content

!  Why a Facility Master Plan !  Procedure "  RFP "  Work Plan ! Deliverables "  Facility Condition Index •  Standards •  Assessments •  Ranking

"  Projections "  Capacities "  Priorities

TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0

PAGE NUMBER Purpose Background Project Description Scope of Services Contractor’s Responsibilities Metro’s Responsibilities Instructions for Submission 7.01 Proposal Deadline 7.02 Pre-Proposal Conference 7.03 Questions 7.04 Proposal Opening 7.05 Proprietary Information 7.06 Procurement Timetable 7.07 Disclaimers 7.08 Proposals and Presentation Costs 7.09 Proposal Format Ambiguity, Conflict, or Other Errors in RFP Proposal Term Late Submissions Implied Requirements Rejection of Proposal Acceptance of Proposals Evaluation Criteria Contract Formation Terms and Conditions Insurance Requirements

8.0 9.0 10.0 11.0 12.0 13.0 14.0 15.0 16.0 17.0

3 3 3 3 5 6 6 6 6 6 7 7 7 7 8 8 9 9 10 10 10 10 10 11 11 11

EXHIBITS A.  B.  C.  D.  E.

Offeror Data Form Contract for Purchase of Services Affidavits Insurance Requirements Educational Analysis

12 13 25 26 31

RFP Critical Components

! PURPOSE "  Prioritize Capital Projects "  Document Capacities "  Document Areas of Growth "  Identify Possible School Closings/Consolidations ! BACKGROUND "  Number and Type of Buildings "  Age of Buildings "  Size of Buildings ! EXPECTATIONS "  Overall District Improvement Plan "  Vision for Future

Work Plan Overview for a Successful Master Planning Process Task 1 - Project initiation and data gathering Task 2 - Review current mission statement, goals and objectives. Review current and projected programs and services Task 3 - Develop standards for ranking building condition & suitability (Facility Condition Index) Task 4 - Conduct facility assessments Task 5 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Calculate condition/suitability score for each facility Task 6 - Review and verify demographic data Task 7 - Develop consistent formula(s) for calculating capacity Task 8 - Prepare final comprehensive long range facility improvement plan

Methodology Components

Standards / Facility Assessments / Building Rankings

Facility Condition Index (FCI) Components

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

Facility Condition Index (FCI) Components

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

Facility Condition Assessment Report (Example)

Possible

Percent

Component(s)

System

% of Rating

Score

Foundation\Structure

Single Component

100.00

Good

11.49

12.77

90.00

Exterior Walls

Single Component

100.00

Good

4.71

5.24

90.00

Roof

Single Component

100.00

Good

4.65

5.16

90.00

Exterior Windows

Single Component

100.00

Good

2.12

2.35

90.00

Exterior Doors

Single Component

100.00

Good

0.51

0.56

90.00

Interior Floors

Single Component

100.00

Good

6.69

7.43

90.00

Interior Walls

Single Component

100.00

Good

7.82

8.68

90.00

Interior Doors

Single Component

100.00

Good

1.00

1.11

90.00

Ceiling

Single Component

100.00

Good

4.82

5.35

90.00

Fixed Equipment

Single Component

100.00

Good

2.13

2.37

90.00

Main Service

Single Component

100.00

Good

2.90

3.22

90.00

Distribution

Single Component

100.00

Good

2.90

3.22

90.00

Systems Structural

Mechanical Electrical

Facility Condition Assessment Report (Example)

Possible

Percent

Component(s)

System

% of Rating

Score

Parking Lots

Single Component

100.00

Good

7.77

8.64

90.00

Driveways

Single Component

100.00

Good

8.95

9.95

90.00

Sidewalks

Single Component

100.00

Good

19.51

21.67

90.00

Play Courts

Single Component

100.00

Good

7.63

8.48

90.00

Lawns\Gardens

Single Component

100.00

Good

5.75

6.39

90.00

Playfields

Single Component

100.00

Good

3.96

4.40

90.00

Irrigation System

Single Component

100.00

Good

3.77

4.19

90.00

Equipment

Single Component

100.00

Good

8.10

9.00

90.00

Playground Surfaces

Single Component

100.00

Good

2.71

3.02

90.00

Single Component

100.00

Good

4.24

4.71

90.00

Systems ES Site Condition Assessment Paved Surfaces

Landscaped Surfaces

Playgrounds

Utilities Water Service

Facility Condition Assessment Report (Example)

Suitability

Possible

Percent

Rating

Score

Suitability - Elementary Traffic

Fair

1.99

2.97

67.00

Parking

Good

0.81

100.00

Playground

Good

2.34

100.00

Fencing

Good

0.75

100.00

Signage

Good

0.09

100.00

Size

Good

16.80

100.00

Adjacencies

Good

3.60

100.00

Storage\Fixed Equip.

Good

3.60

100.00

General Classrooms

Remedial Learning Spaces Size

Good

3.50

100.00

Adjacencies

G/F

0.75

100.00

Storage\Fixed Equip.

G/F

0.75

100.00

Good

1.38

100.00

Reading Resource Size

Methodology Components

Projections and Capacity

Enrollment Projections

! Gather historical data ! Review existing projections ! Interviews #  Planning Officials (Census Data) #  Economic Development Agencies #  District Officials

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

Enrollment Projections

Summary of Projection Models K-12

Enrollment

7,000 6,500 6,000 5,500 5,000

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

Year Annual % Increase

Regression

Students/Household

MGT Estimate

Cohort Survival

Capacity Standards

! Factors Affecting Capacity #  Class size limitations "  Student-teacher ratios

#  #  #  #  #  #

Educational programs Safety How teacher prep is handled Scheduling efficiency Accreditation Others…

Budget Capacity Model Full Size Teaching Spaces Kindergarten 1st Grade 2nd Grade 3rd Grade 4th Grade Resource Music Art Reading Room Community Room Total efficiency factor Cafeteria Library/Media Administration Physical Education Itinerant

Teaching Spaces 4 4 4 4 4 1 1 1 1 1 25 0.95 1600 4090 1780 4620 400

400 Student Model Student Teacher Ratio 20 20 20 20 25 -

Capacity 80 80 80 80 100 420 399

Full Size Teaching Teaching Spaces Spaces Kindergarten 5 1st Grade 5 2nd Grade 5 rd 3 Grade 5 4th Grade 4 Resource 1 Music 1 Art 1 Reading Room 1 Community Room 1 Total 29 efficiency factor 0.95 Cafeteria 2000 Library/Media 4090 Administration 1780 Physical Education 4620 Itinerant 400

Full Size Teaching Teaching Spaces Spaces Kindergarten 7 1st Grade 7 2nd Grade 7 3rd Grade 7 4th Grade 6 Resource 2 Music 2 Art 2 Reading Room 1 Community Room 1 Total 42 efficiency factor 0.95 Cafeteria 2800 Library/Media 4090 Administration 1830 Physical Education 4620 Itinerant 400

500 Student Model Student Capacity Teacher Ratio 20 100 20 100 20 100 20 100 25 100 500 475

700 Student Model Student Capacity Teacher Ratio 20 140 20 140 20 140 20 140 25 150 710 675

Full Size Teaching Teaching Spaces Spaces Kindergarten 6 1st Grade 6 2nd Grade 6 rd 3 Grade 6 4th Grade 5 Resource 1 Music 2 Art 2 Reading Room 1 Community Room 1 Total 36 efficiency factor 0.95 Cafeteria 2400 Library/Media 4090 Administration 1780 Physical Education 4620 Itinerant 400

Full Size Teaching Teaching Spaces Spaces Kindergarten 8 1st Grade 8 2nd Grade 8 3rd Grade 8 4th Grade 7 Resource 2 Music 2 Art 2 Reading Room 1 Community Room 1 Total 47 efficiency factor .95 Cafeteria 3200 Library/Media 4090 Administration 1830 4620 Physical Education Itinerant 400

600 Student Model Student Capacity Teacher Ratio 20 120 20 120 20 120 20 120 25 125 605 575

800 Student Model Student Capacity Teacher Ratio 20 160 20 160 20 160 20 160 25 175 815 774

Projected Utilization Middle School Example

Methodology Components

Determining Parameters and Priorities

Priorities

! Efficiently utilize all current district resources ! Maximize the life cycle of all facilities ! Minimize overcrowding throughout all district schools ! Celebrate the historical significance of District facilities where appropriate ! Address the differences among school size (capacity) ! Minimize the use of portables as classrooms to the degree possible

Priorities

! Address current facility condition deficiencies including physical condition, site condition and educational suitability condition ! Insure all appropriate learning spaces exist at each school ! Provide equity among district facilities to the degree possible

Methodology Components

Cost / Benefit Analysis

Cost / Benefit Elements

! Building capacity ! Site size ! Utilization #  Includes student teacher ratios

! Building condition #  #  #  #

Physical Condition Suitability Technology Readiness Site Condition

! Weighing factors

Sample School Profile METROPOLITAN BOARD OF PUBLIC EDUCATION OF NASHVILLE AND DAVIDSON COUNTY FACILITY CONDITION MATRIX SCHOOL NAME: Antioch High School SIP GRADE CONFIGURATION: 9-12

ACREAGE

CONDITION SCORE

SUITABILITY SCORE

YEAR OF ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION: CURRENT TOTAL SQUARE FOOTAGE: YEAR OF MOST RECENT RENOVATION: MOST RECENT RENOVATION SQUARE FOOTAGE:

COMBINED SCORE

ENROLLMENT Current

52.74

94.84%

96.00%

95.13%

CAPACITY

Projected

2245

1997 287,393 N/A N/A

UTILIZATION

Current

1691

2057

109.14%

HISTORICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Projected

None Identified

Condition $1,334,653.09 Suitability $264,401.56 Sub-total $1,599,054.65 Additions $ Comments:

Total Number of Portables: 10 Number used for Classrooms: 9

A -‐ Square Footage Per Student Model

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

Master Plan Recommendations

METROPOLITAN BOARD OF PUBLIC EDUCATION OF NASHVILLE AND DAVIDSON COUNTY MASTER PLAN RECOMMENDATIONS AND PRIORITIES CLUSTER NAME: Antioch High School Cluster

ACREAGE

YEAR OF ORIGINAL CONST.

CONDITION SCORE

SUITABILITY SCORE

COMBINED SCORE

Instructional Space Model

Current

Cole Elementary

12.03

1962

84.84%

57.04%

77.89%

700

573

122.16%

None Identified

Lakeview Elementary

11.46

1967

86.93%

66.41%

81.80%

688

692

99.42%

None Identified

Maxwell Elementary

15.88

2001

99.90%

100.00%

99.93%

639

514

124.32%

None Identified

Moss Elementary

11.40

1988

79.61%

87.78%

81.65%

592

692

85.55%

None Identified

Mountain View Elementary

16.23

1999

100.00%

99.44%

99.86%

941

790

119.11%

None Identified

Una Elementary

11.72

1987

84.14%

87.22%

84.91%

721

534

135.02%

Worthy of Consideration

3795

112.81%

SCHOOL NAME

ENROLLMENT Current

ELEMENTARY TOTAL:

4281

Projected*

4299

CAPACITY

UTILIZATION

HISTORICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Projected

RECOMMENDATIONS AND PRIORITIES Replace

Abandon

Renovate $ $

Addition

Boundary Change

2 1,363,960 3 1,404,872 -

Districtwide Projects**

B $

3 1,549,669 -

635,000

B $

3 $ 773,066 $ Priority 1 recommendation is for new elementary with a capacity of 500, budget of $6,025,000

635,000

B 635,000

113.28%

Antioch Middle

30.41

1949

80.63%

100.00%

85.47%

995

809

122.99%

None Identified

Apollo Middle

21.77

1967

77.99%

83.50%

79.37%

817

585

139.66%

None Identified

Kennedy Middle

29.30

2001

99.43%

100.00%

99.57%

1147

932

123.07%

None Identified

2326

127.21%

$ $

3 2,181,151 1 2,919,598 -

C $ $

221,000 A 573,520 C

221,000

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

2959

2768

119.00% D

Antioch High HIGH SCHOOL TOTAL:

52.74

1997

94.84%

96.00%

95.13%

2245 2245

2864

2057

109.14%

2057

109.14%

None Identified

250,000

139.23% Add High School in conjunction with McGavock. Technology High School with capacity of 1,000 Priority 1 Budget of $17,750,000. New Comprehensive High School in Southeast Quadrant -

Other Factors to Consider

! Administrative costs associated with implementing the plan and related benefits ! Criteria for optimum school sizes to reduce operating costs ! Analysis of long-term operating costs of equipment, maintenance, and energy compared to quality of facility ! Development of measurable goals and objectives ! Exploration of joint-use opportunities with public/private partnerships ! Standards and criteria to develop the scope of facility improvements

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

Total Cost of Ownership on Building New and Remodeling

Phillip Graham, Director of Maintenance & Transportation, Greeneville

Inspections and New Requirements of Safety Data Sheets Ed DePew, Director of Maintenance, Bristol Bill Shedden, Supervisor of Maintenance & Custodians, Kingsport; TSPMA President

Technology in the Classroom and Its Impact on School Facilities

Andy Arnold, Director of Technology, Bristol; Chairman, TETA Board of Directors Dr. Vonda Beavers, Curriculum & Testing Coordinator/Data Analyst, Bristol

4/17/15

THE FUTURE OF EDUCATION

THEN & NOW

•  Times are changing. •  Educa6on is changing.

4/17/15

ACTIVE ENGAGEMENT

•  Project-‐Based Learning •  Problem-‐Based Learning •  Authen6c Assessment

NEW LEARNING SPACES

•  Promote Crea6vity & Collabora6on •  Invi6ng—Color, Space, Furnishings •  “Wireless” •  Include Makerspaces •  Flexible

4/17/15

THE FUTURE IS NOW!

•  Vance Curriculum Pinterest Board

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

Panel Discussion of the Importance of Energy Management and Efficiency Zane Foraker, Energy Manager, Knox County Pall Cross, Energy Efficient School Initiative Reid Conway, Senior Energy Services Advisor, TDEC Office of Energy Programs

STATE ENERGY PROGRAM 2013 COMPETITIVE AWARD: “STIMULATING ENERGY INVESTMENT IN HARD-TO-REACH PUBLIC SECTORS: SMALL TOWNS AND PUBLIC HOUSING AUTHORITIES.” BACKGROUND The Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation’s Office of Energy Programs (OEP) is the U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE) designated State Energy Office for Tennessee. OEP, which joined the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC) in January 2013, is tasked with developing and overseeing programs and initiatives that promote energy efficiency, renewable energy and energy management in the State. OEP creates and fosters programs that engage stakeholders in improving the environment and the economy through energy conservation, expanded use of viable renewable energy and alternative fuels, and support for the commercialization of technologies that encourage growth in the State’s clean energy sector. In December 2013, OEP was awarded a grant under the U.S. DOE’s State Energy Program (SEP) 2013 Competitive Funding Opportunity Announcement to stimulate energy investments in the hard to reach public sectors of small local jurisdictions and public housing authorities in Tennessee.

PROJECT OVERVIEW The goal of the project is to provide education, outreach and technical assistance to small local jurisdictions, K-12 schools, and public housing authorities that will support implementation of energy efficiency, energy management and renewable energy projects of local government buildings and public housing facilities in Tennessee. The project officially launched in July 2014. The scope of work will include, but is not limited to, engaging local officials in the benefits of energy efficiency and providing technical assistance on cost-effective energy efficiency measures, such as building audits, requests for proposals to scope work, collaborating with energy service companies, benchmarking, measurement and verification of energy savings, and procurements. The project will explore four major financing options: (1) energy performance contracting; (2) utility incentives; (3) utility bill repayments, such as on-bill financing; and (4) Commercial PACE. Other financing options may be identified during the grant period, which currently runs through early 2016.

During the application process, OEP named Clean Energy Solutions, Inc. (CESI), as the project lead, in collaboration with expert consultants from Knoxville's Community Development Corporation and BLT Sustainable Energy. CESI is a leading energy consulting firm that works with local governments, nonprofits, businesses, foundations and utilities to design and assist early implementation of comprehensive energy efficiency, renewable energy and water conservation initiatives to reduce electricity demand and energy consumption across all sectors. CESI is currently working with two other states on similar projects.

PROJECT PARTNERS Stakeholder partners include: Tennessee Renewable Energy Economic Development Council; Tennessee Association of Housing and Redevelopment Authorities; Tennessee Housing and Development Agency; TVA; and Tennessee Municipal League. OEP has also received cost-share commitments from Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County, the Memphis and Shelby County Office of Sustainability, the City of Franklin, and the City of Knoxville.

CONTACT INFORMATION Luke Gebhard, Senior Program Manager, Office of Energy Programs Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation 615-741-2994 (office) 615-532-8798 (direct) 615-741-5070 (fax) luke.gebhard@tn.gov www.tn.gov/environment/energy.shtml Acknowledgement This program is funded under an agreement with the State of Tennessee. This material is based upon work supported by the Department of Energy under Award Number DE-EE0006496. CFDA 81.119. Disclaimer The information, data, or work presented herein was funded in part by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof.

This is a publication of the Tennessee School Boards Association 525 Brick Church Park Drive Nashville, TN 37207 www.tsba.net