Westlake City School

District

We Educate for Excellence...

20/20 VISION COMMITTEE

October 7, 2009

Facility Focus Group

Overview of 20/20 Process

Facility Focus Group – Findings and Recommendations

A real problem exists that needs immediate attention

Demonstrate care and pride in facilities by making positive changes with existing budget and maintaining the right way

Move forward on engaging the entire community– Conduct community forums to inform and seek input– Establish a 20/20 Vision Committee to develop a plan using

data and community input– Include a long term maintenance plan – Have a facility plan that reflects the community’s values

Do the job well, on budget, and plan maintenance

Overview of 20/20 Process

Vision 20/20 Committee MembersThe 24 member committee is multi-generational, represents public school and private school parents, those without children, civic leaders, business leaders, faculty and student representation:

Overview of 20/20 Process

Summary of 20/20 Meetings

During the 6 meetings committee members:– Analyzed and requested various data

– Prioritized plans

– Discussed pros and challenges for each plan

– Listed important areas that needed to be considered for facilities

– Debated each plan with strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats

Everyone, including people with connections to the school and without, strongly agreed there was a problem that needed to be addressed responsibly and soon.

Overview of 20/20 Process

Overview of 20/20 Process

Vision 20/20 Committee Master Plan OptionsOption One:

Five buildings that are grade-level configured: Early Learning* Primary* Intermediate (4-6) Middle School (7-8) WHS (9-12)

Option Two:

Six buildings that keep neighborhood aspects:(3) Elementary Schools: K-3, K-3, PK-3Intermediate (4-6)Middle School (7-8)WHS (9-12)

Other considerations:Consider how to include for maintenance, i.e. PI levy;Recommended to do all at once so the expense is better contained.

*Grade level configuration for these two buildings to be determined by further study which would include heavy input from educators.

Building Assessments & Master Plan Options

Bob McAuliffe Senior Manager, Hammond Construction

OSFC - RPC (Regional Program Consultant)

Todd Wrobleski, AIA, Principal-In-ChargeMKC Associates, Inc.

Architects - Engineers - Planners

Building Assessments & Master Plan Options

Option Three:

Six buildings that keep neighborhood aspects:(3) New Elementary Schools: PK/K-4Renovate/Additions to Parkside: 5-6Renovate/Additions to Lee Burneson: 7-8Renovate/Additions to WHS (9-12)

Other considerations:Parkside: Large gym, Auditorium, PlanetariumMandate smaller class sizesPrivate School students

Additional Option:Phasing, or “Segmenting” version of Vision Group Options #1 or #2

Building Assessments & Enrollment Projections

Process

1.District request - to OSFC (Ohio School Facilities Commission)

2.OSFC assigns Regional Planning Coordinator• Appoints Pre-qualified Assessment Firm

• CEFPI (Council of Educational Facility Planners Intl.) Standards

3.Student Enrollment Projections

4.District’s Architect/Engineering Firm and Regional Planning Coordinator review the assessment to assure accuracy

Building Assessments & Enrollment Projections

Enrollment & Inflation

Data

OSFC Enrollment Projection

%

%

*Ohio School Design Manual

Construction Cost Inflation

1999 2000 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09

OSDM* Construction Inflation Rate

Building Assessments

Rating:

#1 = Satisfactory

#2 = Needs Repair

#3 = Needs Replacement

* Based on 2009 OSFC Cost Set

FACILITY ASSESSMENTBassett Elementary School

CategoriesCEFPI Rating

Estimated Cost *

Heating System 3 $ 1,228,605.00 Roofing 3 378,038.28 Ventilating / Air Conditioning 2  53,912.00 Electrical Systems 3 743,463.48 Plumbing and Fixtures 2 64,018.00 Windows 3 108,832.60 Structure: Foundation 1 0 Structure: Walls & Chimneys 2 52,517.50 Structure: Floors and Roofs 1 525,256.00General Finishes 3 660,724.00 Interior Lighting 3 177,450.00 Security Systems 2 45,764.40 Emergency/Egress Lighting 2 25,134.00 Fire Alarm 3 62,406.00 Handicapped Access 2 101,960.40 Site Condition 3 360,406.31 Sewage System 1 0 Water Supply 2 500.00 Exterior Doors 3 24,500.00 Hazardous Material 2 19,000.00 Life Safety 3 149,955.48Loose Furnishings 3   141,960.00Technology 2 444,330.72

Non Construction Cost  - 1,311,597.86

Renovation Cost Factor 104.16%

Total $ 6,958,233.85

Building Assessments

OSFC Assessments –

Renovate/Replace %

BuildingAdjusted OSFC Assessments

Bassett 75%

Dover 72%

Hilliard 68%

Holly Lane 67%

Parkside 70%

Lee Burneson 49%

High School 67%

Renovate/Replace % compares cost of assessment-based renovation to new construction cost of the same-sized building

Does not include cost of additional space required to serve the number of students (by OSFC standards) in that building

Building Assessments

BASSETT ELEMENTARY SCHOOL

Students 383

Required SF (OSFC) 47,875 (Student enrollment x 125 SF/Student)

Existing SF 41,604

Required Addition SF 6,271 X $224.49 / SF (Constr. Cost) = $1,407,777.

Reprogramming $ 72,567.

Specific Allowance (LEED)

$ 271,179.

SUB-TOTAL Required Addition Cost $ 1,751,523.

Required Renovation Cost (From Assessment) $ 6,958,234.

TOTAL - Addition + Renovation $ 8,709,757.

TOTAL - New Building Cost 47,875 SF X $224.49 / SF (Constr. Cost) $10,747,459.

Difference $2,037,702.

Ratio: Renovate/Replace 81%

Building Assessments

BuildingCost to Keep*

Renovate + Add.Cost to ReplaceNew Construction

Keep to Replace %

(MKC)

Bassett $8,709,757. $10,747,459. 81%

Dover $8,225,227. $11,084,194. 74%

Hilliard $7,476,557. $ 9,807,355. 76%

Holly Lane $7,687,147. $ 9,803,906. 78%

Parkside $14,428,104. $16,663.382. 87%

Lee Burneson $12,759,612. --(replacement unnecessary)

--

High School $34,542,675. 44,299,406.(with Perf. Arts Center)

78%

$93,829,080.TOTAL COST TO KEEP ALL EXISTING BUILDINGS, with Renovations + Additions

to

* meeting OSFC Standards - renovate to assessments and SF/Student standards

Master Plan Recap

Building Assessments - Master Plan Options - Recap

Does Not include LFI’s (Locally Funded Initiatives)

Process Going Forward

Steve MillerEducational Facility Planner

MKC Associates, Inc.Architects - Engineers - Planners

Staff Engagement: Discussion of Master Plan Options #1 and #2

Process Going Forward

SUMMARY: Staff Input on Master Plan Options

1. Limited feedback indicates more support for Option 2

2. The potential size of the buildings in Option 1 appears to be a major concern and is cited often in the responses as a reason to support Option 2

3. Comments on the number of transitions students would have to make was also cited numerous times as a negative for Option 1

4. This group would be inclined to support Option 2; although this group may require more information on Option 1 for full consideration

5. Administrative Program of Requirements (POR)

Process Going Forward

Vision Committee Meeting Calendar

Subjects

October 7thScope & Budget InformationMaster Plan Options 1,2, & 3Next Steps

October 21st

Educational Considerations(Academic Performance, Additional Square Feet)Operational IssuesExample: TransportationSite Considerations

November 4thCo-Curricular Considerations Arts AthleticsCommunity Use

November 18th Funding Options

December 2ndWhat will the Community Support?Final Master Plan Recommendation

Break-OutSession

Steve MillerEducational Facility Planner

MKC Associates, Inc.Architects - Engineers - Planners

We have scheduled informative presentations to include:

Scope and Budget Educational Considerations Operating Issues Site Considerations Co Curricular Considerations Funding Options

What other information do you need to select a Master Plan?

Break-Out Session

Thank You !

www.wlake.org

Next Meeting: October 21st

Westlake City School District

We Educate for Excellence...