Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

May 5, 2011 society of marketing professionals services forum

509 views

Published on

Published in: Business, Design
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

May 5, 2011 society of marketing professionals services forum

  1. 1. SMPS Panel Discussion: An Update on the Massachusetts School Building Authority May 5, 2011 Katherine Craven Executive Director Steven Grossman Chairman, State Treasurer Massachusetts School Building Authority www.MassSchoolBuildings.org
  2. 2. Who We Are… What We Do… <ul><li>AN INDEPENDENT PUBLIC AUTHORITY </li></ul><ul><li>Created by Ch. 208 of the Acts of 2004; </li></ul><ul><li>7-member Board; </li></ul><ul><li>Chaired by State Treasurer Steven Grossman; Secretary of Administration and Finance and Commissioner of Education; 4 members appointed by the Treasurer: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>professional educators / design/construction industry professionals. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Terry Kwan, Lisa Turnbaugh, Richard Bertman and Mary Grassa O’Neill </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Leverage dedicated 1-cent of state sales tax </li></ul><ul><li>Cost-reconcile and pay for approximately $11 billion for 1156 projects authorized under former SBA Program, </li></ul><ul><li>Includes accelerated financing for 423 Projects costing us $5.5 billion that had stalled on state wait list </li></ul><ul><li>Effectively manage, plan & create a new, financially sustainable school building construction and renovation grant program; </li></ul><ul><li>Equitably spread school building construction and renovation grants across the Commonwealth </li></ul>
  3. 3. How is the MSBA funded? <ul><ul><li>The Commonwealth has dedicated 1 cent of the statewide 6.25 cent sales tax (not including meals) to the MSBA </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>MSBA has relatively small staff and overhead: Administrative costs represent less than 1% of annual budget </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>MSBA will never promise funds that they can’t deliver. Program has been curtailed to meet available resources. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>MSBA will fund a capital program of $2.5B over the next few years… </li></ul></ul>
  4. 4. MSBA Dedicated Sales Tax 1 Cent of Statewide Sales Tax Old Program Prior Grants Inherited: $5.1B Paid-to-Date: $2.7B Old Program Waiting List Inherited: $5.5B Paid-to-Date: $4.6B New Program Committed: $1.4B Paid-to-Date: $301M
  5. 5. FY2011 Projected Expenditures
  6. 6. Significant Accomplishments <ul><li>Accelerated over $7.6B in payments to cities, towns and regional school districts </li></ul><ul><li>Moved stalled projects and funded them </li></ul><ul><ul><li>414 out of 428 Waiting List Projects have received a payment or have been completely paid off. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Only 2 still have not started; other projects were removed by the community </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Massive Cost Reconciliations </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Completed 767 out of 789 backlogged audits </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Saved the taxpayers of Massachusetts over $1.1 billion </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Generated over $2.9B in avoided local interest costs </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Created and implemented a “pay-as-you build” Progress Payment & Audit system </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Provides municipalities with much needed cash flow as projects are built </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Reduces the amount of debt a city, town or regional school district needs to issue </li></ul></ul>
  7. 7. Significant Accomplishments - Continued <ul><li>The new program prioritizes projects based on need and urgency and places heavy emphasis on planning, study and designing to realistic budgets </li></ul><ul><li>The MSBA works in collaboration with cities, towns and regional school districts to confirm problems and identify educationally sound and financially prudent solutions </li></ul><ul><li>The Designer Selection and Owner’s Project Manager Approval Panels encourage accountability </li></ul><ul><li>The MSBA developed standard OPM and Designer contracts to clearly delineate roles and responsibilities and to protect the rights of the districts </li></ul><ul><li>Standard Feasibility Study, Project Scope and Budget, and Project Funding Agreements memorialize the MSBA’s financial commitment to districts </li></ul>
  8. 8. Statement of Interest (SOI) <ul><li>Collecting problems rather than solutions </li></ul><ul><li>FY 2008 – Received 423 SOI from 163 districts and made over 400 visits to more than 140 districts as part of review and due diligence </li></ul><ul><li>Recent trend – Districts asking for repairs, not new buildings </li></ul>
  9. 9. Building With Us Scope Definition PEAK
  10. 10. Capital Pipeline Local Clearance Massachusetts School Building Authority PEAK
  11. 11. Capital Pipeline Scope Definition Massachusetts School Building Authority PEAK
  12. 12. Capital Pipeline Scope Monitoring Massachusetts School Building Authority PEAK
  13. 13. Owner’s Project Managers (OPM) <ul><li>Statute Mandates OPM for Projects Estimated to be $1.5M </li></ul><ul><li>Locally Conducted Procurement Process (Open and Competitive) </li></ul><ul><li>Qualifications Based Selection Pursuant to MGL c. 149, s. 44A½ </li></ul><ul><li>MSBA Standard RFS Template & Contracts </li></ul><ul><li>MSBA Approval Required </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Contributed over $74 million in OPM fees </li></ul></ul>Massachusetts School Building Authority
  14. 14. Designers <ul><li>Local Selection for Projects Estimated to be < $5M </li></ul><ul><li>MSBA Designer Selection Panel (DSP) for Projects Estimated to be > $5M </li></ul><ul><ul><li>3 Local members </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>12 permanent members </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Ranks top three firms based on responses and interviews (if conducted) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>MSBA Standard RFS Template and Contracts </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Contributed over $181 million in designer fees </li></ul></ul>Massachusetts School Building Authority
  15. 15. Commissioning Agents <ul><li>100% Funded by the MSBA </li></ul><ul><li>Demonstrates MSBA’s commitment to sustainable buildings, maximizing energy efficiency, promoting ease of maintenance and ensuring quality construction </li></ul><ul><li>Competitive Selection based on group of Pre-Qualified Firms </li></ul><ul><li>Testing, Maintenance Documentation and Training </li></ul><ul><li>Executed 63 Work Orders totaling ~ $7.0 million </li></ul><ul><li>Evaluating the efficacy of the program to date </li></ul>Massachusetts School Building Authority
  16. 16. More than one quarter of a Billion dollars in OPM & Designer Fees * Does not include OPM and Designer Fees associated with repair projects Over $74 Million in OPM Fees* 93 1 16 24 Owner’s Project Manager Over $181 Million in Designer Fees* 127 6 3 40 Designer Total Total Completed To Date Completed Activity this Period MSBA District Collaboration District Action to Complete
  17. 17. Potential Future Work MSBA Funded* Projects for 2011 Massachusetts School Building Authority * Project approved by MSBA Board of Directors **Based on Average OPM Fee of 3.7% of Construction ***Based on Average Design Fee of 12.8% Construction Estimated Filed-Sub Bids Date Estimated Value of Construction Estimated Value of OPM Fees** Estimated Value of Design Fees** First Quarter $116 M $4.3 M $14.8 M Second Quarter $316 M $11.7 M $40.4 M Third Quarter $112 M $4.1 M $14.3 M Fourth Quarter $255 M $9.4 M $32.6 M
  18. 18. Potential Future Work MSBA Estimated* Projects for 2012 Massachusetts School Building Authority * Districts Invited into Capital Pipeline but not approved by MSBA Board of Directors **Based on Average OPM Fee of 3.7% of Construction ***Based on Average Design Fee of 12.8% Construction Estimated Filed-Sub Bids Date Estimated Value of Construction Estimated Value of OPM Fees** Estimated Value of Design Fees** Low End $250 M $9.2 M $32.0 M More Likely $600 M $22.1 M $76.6 M High End $950 M $35.1 M $121.3 M
  19. 19. Potential Future Work 2011 Statement of Interest Update <ul><li>Process closed on January 26, 2012 </li></ul><ul><li>182 SOIs were submitted </li></ul><ul><ul><li>151 renewed </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>31 new projects </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Potential Project Type: </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>85 District Identified as New or Addition/ Renovation Projects </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>97 District Identified as Repair Projects </li></ul></ul>Massachusetts School Building Authority
  20. 20. Potential Future Work MSBA Program Updates for 2011 <ul><li>Program updates under discussion </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Commissioning program under evaluation </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Potential RFS for commissioning services </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Updated Repair Program </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Evaluating Green Repair Program components that may be carried forward in an updated on-going repair program </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Potential RFS for OPM services for repair projects </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Potential RFS for design services for repair projects </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>See Central Register and Com-PASS </li></ul></ul>Massachusetts School Building Authority
  21. 21. Upcoming Work www.MassSchoolBuildings.org Massachusetts School Building Authority PEAK
  22. 22. Green Initiatives $300 million for windows, boilers & roofs
  23. 23. Sustainability & Green Design <ul><li>MSBA has assumed leadership role in the admin and review of sustainability policies and Green Design </li></ul><ul><li>MSBA regs require promotion of green building practices & designs </li></ul><ul><li>Districts may be awarded up to an additional 2% of a project’s eligible costs </li></ul><ul><li>March 2010-Policy Recommendations relevant to sustainable design: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Minimum sustainable requirements including allowing designers to use a comparable LEED scale for the MA-CHPS standards when designing schools </li></ul></ul>
  24. 24. Green Repair Program <ul><li>American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) Bill provides the MSBA with a limited time opportunity to issue Qualified School Construction Bonds (QSCBs) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Eligible scope will be limited to ROOFS, WINDOWS and BOILERS in educationally sound school buildings with a long remaining useful life </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Grants will be awarded by the MSBA on a competitive basis </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Reimbursement rates for districts will be set at the statutory base rates of reimbursement – no incentive reimbursement points will be awarded by the MSBA </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Rare opportunity to address multiple projects in a single community </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Districts filed 185 SOIs for the Green Repair Program </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>To date, the MSBA has moved 186 Green Repair Projects into the Capital Pipeline. </li></ul></ul></ul>
  25. 25. Green Repair Program Status 186 Projects – 74 Projects authorized for PFA’s 40% Complete
  26. 26. <ul><li>OPM Selections * </li></ul><ul><li>Selection Complete – 77 Districts </li></ul><ul><li>Selection Underway – 1 District </li></ul><ul><li>Process Pending – 3 Districts </li></ul><ul><li>* Not all Districts are selecting OPM’s through this process </li></ul><ul><li>Designer Selections * </li></ul><ul><li> Selection Complete – 80 Districts </li></ul><ul><li> Selection Underway – 4 Districts </li></ul><ul><li> Process Pending – 3 Districts </li></ul><ul><li>* Boston, Sudbury, Springfield, Fitchburg and Newton are selecting more than one designer </li></ul>Green Repair Program Consultant Selection Status
  27. 27. Green Repair Program <ul><li>Available on website </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Green Project Master Schedule (new) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Repair Cost Data (updated each Board) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Comparison of Roof costs by type (new) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Consultant Lists by project (updated bi-monthly) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>OPMs </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Designers </li></ul></ul></ul>
  28. 28. Green Repair Program <ul><li>Program Benefits: </li></ul><ul><li>- Streamlined consultant selection process </li></ul><ul><li>- Impact many schools by allowing districts to apply for more than one project </li></ul><ul><li>- Provides data for long-term MSBA repair program </li></ul><ul><li>- Clearinghouse of cost data-construction costs and consultant fees </li></ul><ul><li>Program Challenges: </li></ul><ul><li>- Competitive bids and available contractor resources </li></ul><ul><li>- Appropriate contingencies </li></ul><ul><li>- Availability of local funding </li></ul><ul><li>- Will require extension of construction schedule into 2012 </li></ul><ul><li>- MBE and WBE compliance and outreach </li></ul>
  29. 29. Model School Program Reduce, Reuse, Recycle
  30. 30. Model School Program <ul><li>Effectively adapts and re-uses the design of successful, recently constructed schools </li></ul><ul><li>Schools are efficient in design, easy to maintain, incorporate sustainable design elements and are flexible in educational programming spaces </li></ul><ul><li>Districts get shovels in the ground far more quickly than when utilizing standard design process </li></ul><ul><li>Able to take advantage of competitive bidding climate </li></ul><ul><li>Estimated savings of approximately $58M on high school projects in Norwood, Tewksbury, Plymouth, Natick and Hampden-Wilbraham </li></ul><ul><li>Districts invited into the Model School Program are eligible for up to 5% additional reimbursement </li></ul>
  31. 31. Model School Adaptations <ul><li>High Schools: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Whitman-Hanson: </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>East Bridgewater </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Norwood </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Natick </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Plymouth North </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Ashland: </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Minnechaug </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Hudson: </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Tewksbury </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>West Springfield </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>Middle Schools: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Lynnfield: </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Quincy </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>Elementary Schools: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Winthrop: </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Douglas </li></ul></ul></ul></ul>
  32. 32. Model Schools – Phase V <ul><li>45 schools submitted in Phases I – V by 17 design firms </li></ul><ul><li>9 schools accepted as model schools </li></ul><ul><ul><li>3 high schools (Ashland, Hudson, Whitman-Hanson) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>1 middle/high school (Ipswich) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>1 middle school (Lynnfield) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>4 elementary schools (Fairhaven, Winthrop, Groton CT, Williamstown) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>17 schools currently under consideration </li></ul><ul><ul><li>4 elementary schools in Phase III & IV </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>13 schools of different grade configurations in </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Phase V </li></ul></ul>
  33. 33. Model School Program - Phase V <ul><li>Request for Designer Services issued on October 27, 2010, submissions received on December 2, 2010 </li></ul><ul><li>Targeted at public schools of any and all grade configurations with the following requirements: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Can be modified to reflect current code requirements </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Adaptable to other sites </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>New school (not the result of an addition/renovation project unless the addition/renovation is easily removed or adapted to current standards) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Incorporates energy efficient and sustainable design elements </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Recent construction </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Three phase, streamlined process </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Initial Phase: </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Evaluation based on threshold requirements </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Recommendations to MSBA Board </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Second Phase: </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Site visits </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Request additional information from designers; if required </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Third Phase: </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Final evaluation and MSBA Board selection </li></ul></ul></ul>
  34. 34. Model School Districts – Phase V
  35. 35. JUST RELEASED: The Needs Survey Statewide School Facilities and Findings
  36. 36. Buildings and Square Footage <ul><li>There are 1,757 schools, composed of 1,831 school-related permanent buildings and totaling 173,366,462 GSF. </li></ul><ul><ul><li>60 fewer schools than in 2005 </li></ul></ul><ul><li>The schools serve 927,252 students in 329 school districts </li></ul><ul><ul><li>An additional 28,311 students are enrolled in schools that are not eligible for MSBA funding </li></ul></ul><ul><li>About 1% of the state’s 63,000 classrooms are in temporary spaces </li></ul>
  37. 37. Enrollment <ul><li>Enrollment declined by 2.8% statewide from its peek in 2003 </li></ul><ul><li>No region of the state has been unaffected </li></ul><ul><li>MSBA and DESE predict that enrollment will continue to decline for the near future </li></ul><ul><li>More than 80 public schools have closed since the 2005 Needs Survey </li></ul><ul><ul><li>7 have closed since the Needs Survey visits were concluded in July 2010 </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Approximately 150 buildings are no longer being used as public schools </li></ul>
  38. 38. Massachusetts K-12 Enrollment * 2003 was the peak enrollment year.
  39. 39. School Construction Boom <ul><li>Between 2000 and 2010, nearly 70 million GSF of school facility space was built new or renovated. </li></ul><ul><li>About 40% of school GSF has been built new or renovated since 2000 </li></ul><ul><li>Includes projects funded under the former school building assistance program and new projects in the MSBA Capital Pipeline </li></ul>
  40. 40. Construction Activity by Decade
  41. 41. Summary of Conditions <ul><li>Massachusetts school facilities are generally in good condition and provide a good physical environment for learning. </li></ul><ul><li>84% received top scores for building conditions </li></ul><ul><li>97% received top scores for general physical environment </li></ul><ul><li>92% have adequate space to support their educational program and enrollment </li></ul>
  42. 42. Buildings Systems - Findings <ul><li>84.3% of public schools received a rating of 1 or 2, meaning that their site and building systems are in generally good condition. </li></ul><ul><li>Less than 1.5%, 23 schools, received a rating of 4, meaning that they are in poor condition. </li></ul>
  43. 43. General Environment - Findings <ul><li>97% of schools received a rating of 1 or 2, meaning that the school has a generally good environment for learning and teaching </li></ul><ul><li>Only 1.5%, 27 schools, have a rating of 4, while 30 schools received a 3 </li></ul>Number of Schools with each General Environment Score
  44. 44. Space Utilization - Findings <ul><li>Nearly 24% of schools are oversized for their current enrollment and educational program </li></ul><ul><li>Less than 8.0% of schools may be inadequately sized </li></ul>
  45. 45. Conclusion <ul><li>Massachusetts school buildings are in good condition and provide good physical environments for learning </li></ul><ul><li>Enrollment is declining and there is no evidence of widespread overcrowding </li></ul><ul><li>The MSBA is committed to collaborating with cities, towns and regional schools to develop solutions to school building deficiencies that are financially sustainable, appropriately sized and support the delivery of a 21 st Century curriculum </li></ul>
  46. 46. Questions? Contact: Katherine Craven Executive Director Steven Grossman Chairman, State Treasurer Massachusetts School Building Authority www.MassSchoolBuildings.org Katie Timmins Green Repair Project Manager 617-720-4466 [email_address]

×