TheSchoolUpgradeProgramandComprehensiveModernizationProjects
PresentationtotheBudget,Facilities&AuditCommitteeApril9,2015
LAUSDFacilitiesRealities
AlmostHalfoftheDistrict’sBuildingswereConstructedatLeast50YearsAgo
Nearly800oftheBuildingsWereConstructedMoreThan75YearsAgo
TheGeneralFundAllocationforRoutineRepairandGeneralMaintenancehasBeenReducedbyOver50%Between2007and2014‐‐ThisSignificantDecreaseMakesitChallengingtoKeepourSchoolsinaStateofGoodRepair
LAUSD Facil it ies Realit ies Cont inued
LegacySchoolFacilitiesDoNotMeetCurrentBuildingCodes
LegacySchoolFacilitiesDoNotSupportCurrentInstructionalVision
OperationalFundingDoesNotKeepUpWithCapitalNeed
ItisEstimatedthattheDistrictWouldNeedApproximately10TimesMoreFundingthanisAvailabletoAddressAlltheCapitalNeedsofAllofOurSchools
The School Upgrade ProgramOverv iew
ThePrimaryFocusoftheSchoolUpgradeProgramistoUpgradeLegacySchoolFacilities PriorPhaseofBondProgramFocusedonConstructingNewSchoolFacilitiestoEliminateUseofMulti‐TrackCalendarsandInvoluntaryBusing
UndertheProgram,theDistrictwillModernize,BuildandRepairSchoolFacilitiestoImproveStudentHealth,Safety,andEducationalQuality
BoardProgramGoals: SchoolsShouldbePhysicallySafeandSecure SchoolBuildingSystemsShouldbeSoundandEfficient SchoolFacilitiesShouldAlignwithInstructionalRequirementsandVision
ProgramCurrentlyValuedat$7,852,900,000
18CategoriesofNeed/PrioritieswithAssociatedFundingSources
SchoolUpgradeProgramSpendingTargets
FACILITIES SERVICES DIVISION STRATEGIC EXECUTION PLAN $6,736,708,302 Major Renovations/Modernizations/Reconfigurations to School Campuses (“Comprehensive Modernization”) $4,293,396,567 Critical School Repair and Safety Improvements to School Building Components $938,841,200 Leverage Partnerships to Provide After School Activities & Programming and Community Use of Facilities $50,000,000
Specialized Client Programs $1,454,470,535 IT School Network Infrastructure Upgrades Executed by FSD $324,486,889 Modernize and Repair School Cafeterias to Make Nutritious Healthy Meals Available to More Students * $212,000,000 School Upgrades and Reconfigurations to Support Specialized Instructional Programs $193,973,646 Build New and Repair Aging Early Childhood Education Centers to Promote Learning for Youngest Students* $110,000,000 Provide/Upgrade Adult and Career Education Facilities Necessary to Provide Career Training and Adult Courses* $91,900,000 Renovate Special Education Centers for Career/Transition Programs & Increase Special Education Facilities on General Education Campuses $50,000,000 Districtwide Charter School Facilities - Provide Reasonably Equivalent New and Existing School Facilities* $402,110,000 Board Member Priority Projects $35,000,000 Educational Service Center Priority Projects $35,000,000
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY DIVISION STRATEGIC EXECUTION PLAN $529,761,698 Technology Infrastructure and System Upgrades - ISIS, Core IT Network Upgrades, Disaster Recovery Systems $151,816,592 Upgrade and Equip Schools with 21st Century Technology - Common Core Technology Project $327,945,106 Upgrade Districtwide Emergency Radio System Servicing Schools $50,000,000
TRANSPORTATION SERVICES STRATEGIC EXECUTION PLAN $46,500,000 Replace Aging and Polluting School Buses * $46,500,000
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL $40,000,000Conduct Ongoing Inspector General Independent Audits of Bond Projects to Ensure Transparency and Accountability $40,000,000
UNALLLOCATED $500,000,000Unallocated funds for to-be-determined needs $500,000,000
TOTAL SCHOOL UPGRADE PROGRAM $7,852,900,000
CATEGORIES OF NEEDGOALS DRIVING PROJECT DEVELOPMENT
Spending Target
Comprehensive Modernization Projects
Approximately$4BillionSpendingTargettoComprehensivelyModernizeLegacySchoolSites
ComprehensiveModernizationProjectsMayIncludeConstructingNewBuildings,ReconfiguringExistingFacilities,and/orUpgradingExistingSpaces
DependingonSpecificSiteConditions,ComprehensiveModernizationProjectsMayAddressSomeorAlloftheFollowingConditions: EarthquakeSafety FailingBuildingEquipmentandSystems PhysicalSafetyandSecurity InadequateGeneralandSpecializedClassrooms Fire‐LifeSafety CurrentBuildingCodes Accessibility DilapidatedPortableBuildings InadequateCoreFacilitiesandPlaySpace
Comprehensive Modernization Projects Cont inued
ProjectsWillAddresstheFacilityConditionsthatMustbeImprovedtoEnsureStudentsContinuetobeProvidedwithaSafeandHealthyLearningEnvironment,andthatFacilitiesdonotImpacttheSchool’sAbilitytoDelivertheInstructionalProgramorOperate
TheNeedtoUpdateOurSchoolsFarExceedsAvailableFunding,asSuch,itisNecessarytoDevelopaMethodologyforPrioritizingSchoolSitestoReceiveComprehensiveModernizations
AssesstheConditionsofOurSchoolFacilities CompletedCapitalNeedsAssessmentandMasterPlanningEffort EngagedStakeholdersatIndividualSchoolSites UndertookaFacilitiesConditionAssessment ThroughouttheDevelopmentoftheSchool‐SiteSurveysandMasterPlans,Morethan750MeetingsWereHeldwithSchool‐SiteStakeholders
CollectandAnalyzeData
EngageExpertsandStakeholders ConvenedInternalCommitteestoProvideStrategicGuidance ConvenedExternalTechnicalCommitteetoValidateProcess SolicitedFeedbackfromVariousStakeholdersinCommunityMeetings
Convened/ConveningRoundtabletoProvideFocusedFeedback DevelopedandVettedCategoriesofDataandWeights
PrioritizingMajorModernizationProjectsWhatWastheProcess?
InternalandExternalCommitteesStrategicGuidance&DirectionandValidationfromExternalExperts
InternalCommitteeProvidedStrategicGuidance MaureenDiekmann‐‐ ExecutiveDirector,EarlyChildhoodEducation MarkHovatter‐‐ ChiefFacilitiesExecutive MichelleKing‐‐ ChiefDeputySuperintendent RowenaLagrossa‐‐ ExecutiveDirector,ParentCommunityStudentServicesBranch ByronMaltez‐‐ InstructionalAreaSuperintendent,ESCNorth MeganReilly‐‐ ChiefFinancialOfficer BruceTakeguma‐‐ DirectorofSchoolManagementServices EdgarZazueta‐‐ DirectorofExternalAffairs
ExternalTechnicalCommitteeValidatedProcess RonniEphraim‐‐ 2U/LAUSD(Retired) MaryFilardo‐‐ 21stCenturySchoolFund GaryLeeMoore‐‐ L.A.DepartmentPublicWorks,BureauofEngineering ConnieRice‐‐ AdvancementProject MiguelSantana‐‐ LACityAdministrativeOfficer RichardSlawson‐‐ LA/OCBuilding&ConstructionTradesCouncil(Retired) ChesterWidom‐‐ DivisionoftheStateArchitect
EndUserRoundtableDiscussionsFeedback,SuggestionsandValidation
RoundtableDiscussionswithPrincipals,Teachers,StudentsandParents CoeurD’AleneAvenueES FairfaxHS WashingtonPreparatoryHS EmersonMS ThomasJeffersonHS WalterReedMS CesarE.ChavezHS GatesES CanogaParkHS BancroftMS TolandWayES BellHS DorseyHS GardenaHS BurroughsMS SolanoES
VanNuysHS MarshallHS MarltonSpecialEd. BartonHillES GageMS HuntingtonParkHS CortinesHS LawrenceMS GridleyES WestchesterHS GardenaHS BurroughsMS SolanoES VanNuysHS MarshallHS
HarryBridgesSpan SanFernandoHS LincolnHS HollywoodHS CarsonHS FrostMS RooseveltHS NorthHollywoodHS 32Street/USCPerformingArts GrandviewES EvansCommunityAdultSchool PacificBlvd.ES CharlesWhiteES FranklinHS
TheMajorityofParticipantsBelievethePhysicalConditionsRelatedtoSafetyWeretheMostImportantConsiderationsWhenPrioritizingComprehensiveModernizationProjects;ConsistentwiththeMethodologyUtilizedtoIdentifytheFirst11SchoolSiteswiththeWorstPhysicalConditions
SchoolSitesareIdentifiedBasedontheFollowing10Categories,withtheHealthandSafetyofOurSchoolFacilitiesBeingtheTopPriority:
ThePhysicalConditionofaSchool’sBuildings&OutdoorAreas‐‐ Identifiedbythe10‐YearFacilitiesConditionIndex(FCI),aComparativeIndicatoroftheRelativeConditionofaSchool’sFacilitiesinRelationtotheCurrentReplacementValue.Whereapplicable,theFCIscoreisadjustedtoreflectanyprojectsunderwayandtheimprovedconditionsthatwillbeprovided.
TheSeismicRiskFactorofaSchool’sBuildings‐‐ IdentifiedUsingtheFederalEmergencyManagementAgency’sHazus‐MHModelforDeterminingtheProbabilityofFailureBasedonthePredictedEarthquakeMagnitudeGeneratedbySpecificFaults,YearofConstruction,TypeofConstruction,NumberofStories,andCodeandConstructionQualityattheTimeofConstruction.
SizeofFoodServiceFacility,Multi‐PurposeRoom/Auditorium,andLibrary‐‐DeterminedbyanAssessmentoftheDifferenceBetweentheSizeoftheCoreFacilityandtheDesignStandardforConstructionofaNewFacility.
SizeofPlaySpace‐‐ DeterminedbyanAssessmentoftheDifferenceBetweentheSizeofaSchool’sPlayAreaandtheSizeRecommendedUndertheRodriguezConsentDecree.
PercentageofClassroomsinPortableBuildings‐‐ NumberofClassroomsinPortableBuildingsVersusNumberofClassroomsinPermanentBuildings.
AdequacyofControlledPublicAccessPoint‐‐ AssessmentofWhetheraCampusHasaSecuredSinglePointofEntryoranIntercom/CameraSystemthatControlsVisitorAccesstotheSchoolSite.
SiteDensity‐‐ DeterminedbyanExaminationoftheAmountofSquareFootagePerStudentataSchoolSite.
Identifying School Sites Comprehens ive Modern izat ion Pro jec t s
WeightsAppliedtoEachCategory
10‐YearBuildingFCI26.23%10‐YearGroundsFCI13.11%
SeismicRiskFactor21.31%
FoodServices 5.94%MPR/Auditorium 5.94%Library 5.94%
PlaySpace 5.94%
PortableClassrooms 5.19%
ControlledPublicAccess 5.19%
SiteDensity 5.19%
Scoring Methodology/Formula
w1(Score1)+w2(Score2)+w3(Score3)…..=TotalSiteScore
The“WeightedSum”Method
TheHighertheScore=theGreatertheNeedforFacilitiesImprovementsandaComprehensiveModernizationProject
Scoring Methodology/Formula
Goal:“Oranges toOranges”
Scoring
ScoringofDatasetsEachData‐SetisinDifferentUnits
EachData‐SetHasDifferentYardSticks
Ideally,ComparisonisDoneonaScaleof0‐100
50
AbovetheAverageorBenchmark
BelowtheAverageorBenchmark
1000
AverageorBenchmark
DataDistribution
Scoring Methodology/Formula
RawScore
T‐Score(Goal:Standardized)
Z‐Score(Goal:Normalize)
w1(Score1)+w2(Score2)+w3(Score3)…..=TotalSiteScore
STARTRawScoreistherawdatapointperschool
site.
Forexample….HighSchoolAhas8acresofplayacreage.
Scoring Methodology/FormulaHow i s the Data i n Each Category Scored?
RawScore
T‐Score(Goal:Standardized)
Z‐Score(Goal:Normalize)
w1(Score1)+w2(Score2)+w3(Score3)…..=TotalSiteScore
START
A“ZScore”istheMeasurementoftheGapBetweenaRawDataandtheBenchmarkorAverageUsedforComparison,ExpressedinStandardDeviations
(SchoolRawScore)– (BenchmarkforDataSet)StandardDeviationofthatDataSet
Scoring Methodology/FormulaHow i s the Data i n Each Category Scored?
RawScore
T‐Score(Goal:Standardized)
Z‐Score(Goal:Normalize)
w1(Score1)+w2(Score2)+w3(Score3)…..=TotalSiteScore
START
T‐ScoreistheConversionoftheZ‐ScoreforEaseofComparisononaLargerScale0to100
T‐Score=(Z‐Score)x10+50)
(‐ 0.30)x10+50=46.97
Needtoreversescoretoreflect‘worse’
100‐ 46.97=53.03T‐Score
Scoring Methodology/FormulaHow i s the Data i n Each Category Scored?
SchoolSitesthathaveDataforall10CategorieshavebeenScoredandWeighted LegacySecondarySchoolSites wereScoredandWeightedBasedonDataandConditionsasofDecember2014
LegacyElementarySchoolSitesFCAUnderway‐‐ AnticipateFCIDatainFall2015
ScoresinEachoftheCategoriesareCalculatedBasedonaStandardDeviationFromaNorm AsDatafromLegacyElementarySchoolSitesisAddedtotheModel,LegacySecondarySchoolSite’sScoresWithinEachCategoryWillLikelyChange
APrioritizedListofallLegacySchoolSitesWillbeDevelopedBasedontheSameAssessmentofthe10CategoriesThatLedtotheIdentificationoftheFirst11SchoolSites ACompleteListofAllLegacySchoolSiteswithSiteVitals,ScoresandWeightedScoresWillbePresentedAftertheElementarySchoolDataisAvailableandIncorporatedintotheModel
Prior i t iz ing Comprehensive Modernizat ion Projects Key Po in t s
NorthHollywoodHighSchool
HuntingtonParkHighSchool
GrantHighSchool
ShermanOaksCenterforEnrichedStudiesMagnet
RooseveltHighSchool
PolytechnicHighSchool
ClevelandHighSchool
BurroughsMiddleSchool
VeniceHighSchool
SanPedroHighSchool
JeffersonHighSchool
First 11 School SitesSchoo l s with Cr i t i ca l Phys i ca l Cond i t ions
11 Comprehensive Modernization Projects Deve lopment o f Pro jec t Def in i t ions
StaffAnticipatesBeginningtoBringProjectDefinitionProposalstotheBOCandBoardintheFallof2015
DueDiligenceandPre‐DesignActivitiesAreUnderway
StakeholderEngagement SiteSurveyandAnalysis
SpaceProgramming
EducationalProgramming
SeismicEvaluations
GeotechnicalInvestigations
PreliminaryEnvironmentalStudies
AboveActivitiesareNecessarytoDevelopWell‐DefinedProjectBudgets,ScopesandSchedules
11 Comprehensive Modernization ProjectsWhereareWe?
ProjectTeamsHaveMetwithAllPrincipals,EducationalServiceCenterLeadershipandComplexProjectManagers RequestedEachPrincipalandESCtoPreparetheEducationalProgramforUsebyFacilitiesTeam DiscussedStructureforSchoolSiteStakeholderEngagement
ProjectTeamsareNegotiatingwithArchitects PreliminarySiteAnalysisPending InvestigateandEvaluateFacilities .
AnalyzeConditionsandNeeds ProposeandDevelopIdeas/OptionsfortheComprehensiveModernizationProjectatEachSite
ProjectTeamGoalistoHoldtheFirstCommunityMeetingatEachSchoolSiteBeforeSummerBreak
Questions???