Multi-Year Improvement Plan for All Schools (MYIPAS) Capital Improvement Program Recommendations, Phase 1 September 29, 2020 DRAFT Introductions DRAFT Paul Mills David Lever LEED AP AIA, DArch Project Manager & Planning Lead Capital Planning & Funding Lead #2 Facility Management Firm (#1 in U.S.) World Architecture 100, 2020 Top 5 US Education Firm The Third Teacher Authored by CannonDesign and an international team of architects and Designers 200+ Education Master Plans Building Design + Construction Top 5 Education Interior Design Firm 1,340 Educational Projects Interior Design, Giants Top 10 Engineering Firm World Architecture 100 DRAFT 325+ million SF of Education projects 9 Maryland Public School Boards Served by our team members 35+ employees Graduates, parents, and residents of Maryland LEAs 20+ Maryland public schools Attended by CannonDesign employee families 20 years in Maryland $340M + Projects in construction in state of Maryland 1M + SF of education projects in Maryland DRAFT SELECT RELEVANT EXPERIENCE Baltimore County Public Schools Hutti-Ye ar Improvement Plan (Case Study Project) 120 schools LLI LLI 4 EL (J Est. 2021 SCOPE PLAN Carroll County Public Schools? Redistri cling and School Closure 43 schools 2018 Garrett County Public School?r Facility Recommendations 12 schools 2019 Kent County Public Schools* Six-Year Facilities Strategic Plan 5 schools 2020 Prince George's County Public Schools" Organizational Efficiency and Eitectiyeness Study 206 schools 2018 Talbot County Public Schools" Educational Facilities Master Plan 9 schools 2020 Baltimore City Public Schools" oundary Study 1% schools 201'? Cherry Creek School District MasterPian (Case Study Project) T4 schools 2020 Prairie Grove Consolidated School Campus Master Plan and (Case Study Project) Facility Condition Assessment 2 schools 2018 Santa Monica?Malibu Uni?ed School District Ed Specs 8: Facilities Needs Assessment (Case Study Project) 21 schools 2019 Burbank chool District Facility Condition Assessment. Lite Safety Survey and Implementation Projects (Case Study Project) 8 schools 2016 Chicago Public Schools High School Capacityi?Utiliz ation Study and Facility Conditions Assessment 631 schools 20111 ?Norfolk City Schools* Facility Master Plan 56 ?boats 2018 . . Savannah-Chatham County Public Schools System 3 schools 2019 . . Groves Campus Master Plan New Orleans Public Schools* Hurricane Katrina Recovery Blueprint 128 schools 2008 . . Weld County School District Red. District Wide Facrlity Master Plan 12 2015 . . Pasadena Uni?ed School District District?Wide Facilities Master Plan 27 2019 . . Hilliard City Schoolst Subdivision Analysis and Facility Master 22 schools 2020 . . . Plan Culver City Uni?ed School District Long Range Facility Master Plan and 11 schools 2017 . . . Educational Speci?cations i Worthington City Schools" gm Facility Master Plan and Student Yield 20 schools 2018 . . . Jl?? .i Analysis . Orange Uni?ed School District Canyon High School, FMP and 42 schools 2016 . . Modernization Hawaii Department of Education" Facility Master Plan 261 2019 . Oakland Uni?ed School District" Facility Master Pland 90 2017 . . . CANVONDESIGN Agenda Overview Benchmarking Assessment Findings Recommendations CANVONDESIGN Overview MYIPAS Purpose: o o o Develop Capital Improvement Program (CIP) with resources allocated equitably Maximize State funding & find no-cost solutions Assess facilities with three pillars of analysis: 1. Educational Adequacy and Equity 2. Facility Condition 3. Capacity Utilization o Define facility priorities with community/ stakeholder input CannonDesign’s role: • Assessments and planning facilitation • Impartial, unbiased recommendations DRAFT Progress Procurement Nov‐19 RFP Nov 2019 Dec‐19 Jan‐20 Feb‐20 Phase 1: High Schools Mar‐20 Apr‐20 May‐20 Jun‐20 Notice to Proceed Mar 2020 Jul‐20 Aug‐20 Phase 2: Other Facilities Sep‐20 Oct‐20 Phase 1 High School CIP Recommendations Sept 2020 Nov‐20 FY2022 CIP Fall 2020 Dec‐20 Jan‐21 Feb‐21 Mar‐21 Final Report Apr‐21 May‐21 Jun‐21 Jul‐21 Phase 2 Master Plan (All Schools) Mar 2021 Critical milestones: • Phase 1: Interim High School CIP recommendations, Fall 2020 • Phase 2: Multiyear Improvement Plan for All Schools, Spring 2021 • Final Report, Fall 2021 Schedule considerations: • COVID • Modified stakeholder input through virtual workshops • Community survey – 22,000 responses from all schools (including 2500 students) DRAFT Aug‐21 Sep‐21 Final Report Fall 2021 CANVONDESIGN Benchmarking Benchmarking Aggregate Need Ranking ‐ based on ‘three pillars’  of assessment: 1. Educational Adequacy & Equity 2. Facility Condition 3. Capacity Utilization Greater need, higher priority DRAFT Aggregate Need Educational Adequacy and Equity Facility Condition Capacity Utilization Benchmarking 1. Educational Adequacy & Equity  Equity driven by objective measures  against consistent standards  Weighted rubric ‐ 6 Categories, 29 Key  Performance Indicators (KPIs)   Breakdown and weights developed with  stakeholder focus group DRAFT Adequacy Categories and KPIs Benchmarking High School 1. Educational Adequacy & Equity  Scores and ranking (Lower score = higher need) DRAFT Lansdowne Sparrows Point Eastern Technical Dulaney Overlea Towson Loch Raven Western Technical  Perry Hall Catonsville Owings Mills Kenwood Dundalk and Sollers Point Franklin Randallstown Milford Mill Academy Parkville New Town Woodlawn Hereford Chesapeake Pikesville Patapsco G.W. Carver CAT Educational  Rank Adequacy &  Equity Score 34 44 47 51 55 55 56 56 56 57 58 58 60 61 61 62 63 64 64 68 68 69 71 72 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 I Be Ch a ng High School Educational Relationships Wellness Safety 81 Technology Operational Program 81 Collabation Security and Utility Support Furnishings 1 . Ed ucatio a I Lansdowne Sparrows point lty Eastern Technical '11Dulaney Overlea 55 I 55 70 I 43 422' 55 57 422' 55 5 a ata Towson 55 422' 55 55 I 45 422' 54 51 422' 55 5 Loch Raven Western Technical '33'33? 51 56 3 Perry Hall 55 I 44 4L1: 55 I 43 4:7 55 4:1: 7o 4:27 55 5 Catonsville 54 cijjz- 55 55 432- 57 57 ?in2 55 432- 57 10 Owings Ml Kenwogd ndalk and Sollers Point Franklin Randal lstown 85 I 47 I 78 1fMilford Mill Academy '12: 53 {11parmne New Town Woodlawn Hereford IfChesapeake Ifpikegvn Patapgco G.W. Carver cm 41;: 67 I 54 I 55 4:Benchmarking 2. Facility Condition  Industry standard  Facility Condition Index (FCI)  assessment approach  Uniformat system breakdown  weighted by cost  Validated by stakeholder focus  group DRAFT Uniformat System Breakdown Benchmarking High School 2. Facility Condition  Scores and ranking (Lower score = higher need) DRAFT Lansdowne Perry Hall Towson Owings Mills Eastern Technical Western Technical  Dulaney Chesapeake Loch Raven Randallstown Sparrows Point Catonsville Milford Mill Academy New Town Parkville Hereford Kenwood Franklin Pikesville Woodlawn Overlea Patapsco Dundalk and Sollers Point G.W. Carver CAT Educational  Rank Adequacy &  Equity Score 34 56 55 58 47 56 51 68 56 61 44 57 62 64 63 68 58 61 69 64 55 71 60 72 1 9 6 11 3 8 4 21 7 15 2 10 16 18 17 20 12 14 22 19 5 23 13 24 Facility  Rank Condition  Score 75 78 78 78 80 81 84 84 85 86 87 87 87 88 88 89 91 91 92 93 94 97 100 100 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 23 mm. sand. :mm cm mm crew-75mm Mm.- mum?s mun IIJBMISE mum ?mm ups-u FACILITY CONDITION ASSESSMENT ?mm Architectural Civil Communication Lansdowne Hall owson Mills Eastern Technical estern Technical Loch Raven Randallstown Point Catonsville Milford Mill New Town Parkville Hereford Kenwood Franklin Pikesville oodlawn Overlea Dundalk and Sollers Point G.W. Carver CAT Electrical Fire Protection Fire Protection Mechanical Plumbing Plumbing Safety Security 7-Year FCI Benchmarking 3. Capacity Utilization  7‐Year Enrollment Projection (2026‐27)  State Rated Capacity  ESOL Programs DRAFT Cagacitg Utilization util weighted 2019 util weighted 2026 Surolus (Sagacity: Capacity?r Surplus EH19 ll d] Capacity Surplus 2026 ed] 32%. 135%. 174 {307) I 35% . 132%. E3 {504) 37%. 33%. .314 111%. 123%. I329) I788 31% . 132%. i533 {12$ Ca ruer H5 [Zlulane5r HS Hereford HS LodI Raven H5 Towson 123%. 33% . 111%. 32% . 33% . 133%. _ 53 I 253 I 125 [(359) 53 {224} I I 234 125 Irma} Eastern Technical HS Kenwo-o-d HS Duerlea HS Parlwille HS Hall 133%. 133%. 33% . 133%. 115%. 112%. 111%. 151r I 135 123 2 151' (53) I Franklin HS Milford Mill New Town HS Dwings Mills H3 Pikesuille HS Randallstown 135133255 135 (SB) I 135 353 Chesapeake HS Dundalk HS Patapsco HS Sparrows Point H5 32% . 123%. 132%. 122%. 32% . 145%. 112%. 135%. I 145 Catonsville HS La nidowne HS Western Tech Woodlawn H5 134123%. 134%. 33% . 35% . Enro?menf Projections are aojfusteo? to accomodate 550;?. programs a 1? home schoofs. Benchmarking High School 3. Capacity Utilization  Scores and ranking DRAFT Dundalk and Sollers Point Towson Sparrows Point Catonsville Patapsco Parkville Overlea Dulaney Perry Hall Owings Mills Lansdowne Kenwood Eastern Technical Western Technical  Chesapeake Loch Raven Randallstown Milford Mill Academy New Town Hereford Franklin Pikesville Woodlawn G.W. Carver CAT Educational  Rank Adequacy &  Equity Score 60 55 44 57 71 63 55 51 56 58 34 58 47 56 68 56 61 62 64 68 61 69 64 72 13 6 2 10 23 17 5 4 9 11 1 12 3 8 21 7 15 16 18 20 14 22 19 24 Facility  Rank Condition  Score 100 78 87 87 97 88 94 84 78 78 75 91 80 81 84 85 86 87 88 89 91 92 93 100 23 3 11 12 22 15 21 7 2 4 1 17 5 6 8 9 10 13 14 16 18 19 20 23 Capacity  Score  Rank 55 62 64 72 83 83 84 89 89 92 96 97 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 Benchmarking Aggregate Need Ranking  Score based on three assessments  Weighting based on 22,000+ responses  to county‐wide survey Aggregate Need Educational Adequacy and Equity Facility Condition Capacity Utilization Stakeholder Stakeholder Weight Weight Stakeholder Stakeholder Weight Weight Stakeholder Stakeholder Weight Weight 35% DRAFT 32% 33% Benchmarking How will this be used? o Criteria for facility options o Renovation project scope o Sequencing of CIP projects o Greater need, higher priority DRAFT CANVONDESIGN Assessment Findings Vk . kw! A Assessment Findings Assessed High School 7-year capital needs total $1.2 billion  High Schools only  7-year forecast only  Includes potential relief schools  Does not include land procurement  Does not include unfunded replacements DRAFT High School Needs $1.2B Assessment Findings Needs Compared to Budget    High Schools (1/3 of sq ft) $1.2B Other facilities (2/3 of sq ft) TBD Current State and County funding o Estimated $140M/year o ($100M County, $40M State) o Estimated 27 years Potential additional HB1 funding o Estimated additional $110M/year o ($80M County, $30M State) o Estimated 15 years Each $100M+ replacement project delays all other high school projects by approximately 2-3 years. DRAFT  Annual CIP budget $140M HS High School Needs $1.2B Annual CIP budget w/ HB1 $250M HS Assessment Findings Prioritization of needs  Priority 1 – Currently Critical o o  Priority 2 – Potentially Critical o o o  o o Systems exceeding useful lifespan Rapid return on investment Academic programs: STEM, CTE, PBL Priority 4 – Recommended o o o  Rapid deterioration, risk to occupancy Capacity shortage requiring due-diligence Special Ed, Social/Emotional Health, Technology Priority 3 – Necessary, Not Yet Critical o  Health and life-safety, code compliance Acute capacity shortage Aesthetic improvements Other programs: Arts, Athletics Administration, Parking Priority 5 – Additional Needs o Allowance for furniture refresh and other needs DRAFT Priority CANVONDESIGN Recommendations 111; -. . - Recommendations 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 Systemic Repairs (continuous, all schools) ~$100M (7-year forecast) Continue ongoing systemic repair program based on Facility Condition Assessment priorities. DRAFT 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 2045 2046 2047 2048 2049 2050 Recommendations 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 2045 2046 2047 2048 2049 Systemic Repairs (continuous, all schools) ~$100M (7-year forecast) Group 1: Legacy Projects ~$150M Complete mid-course Legacy Projects (those with design contracts fully-funded). Legacy Projects $$$$$ ~$150M 1. Lansdowne Replacement demolition/ reconstruction as 1700 capacity school DRAFT 2050 Recommendations 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 2045 2046 2047 2048 2049 2050 Systemic Repairs (continuous, all schools) ~$100M (7-year forecast) Group 1: Legacy Projects ~$150M Group 2: Critical Additions ~$100M Address high school capacity shortage, starting with quick-launch addition projects. Critical Additions $100M 1. Dundalk Addition - 650 seats 2. Towson Addition/Renovation - 500 seats, new kitchen/cafeteria 3. Loch Raven Addition/Renovation - 200 seats (relieve Parkville) 4. Patapsco Addition - 250 seats • Attendance Boundary Redistricting (possibly with grandfathering) DRAFT Recommendations 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 Systemic Repairs (continuous, all schools) ~$100M (7-year forecast) Group 1: Legacy Projects ~$150M Group 2: Critical Additions ~$100M Group 3: Relief Schools and/or Additions ~$100-350M 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2044 2045 2046 2047 2048 2049 After one-year stakeholder engagement and land due-diligence, determine whether to build relief schools or more additions. 1A: NE Additions and Renovations ~$50M OR 1. Perry Hall Addition/Renovation – 225 seats w cafeteria addition 2. Overlea Addition – 200 seats 3. Kenwood Addition – 75 seats • Attendance boundary redistricting 2A: Sparrows Point MS/HS Additions and Renovations ~$50M 1B: New NE High School and Renovations ~$200M 1. New Northeast High School – acquire land, new 1200 seat high school, potentially with magnet program/s, e.g. CTE 2. Perry Hall Renovation • OR 1. Sparrows Point Addition/ Renovation - long-range campus master plan, 325 seats DRAFT 2043 Attendance boundary redistricting 2B: New Sparrows Point MS and Sparrows Point HS Renovations ~$150M 1. New Sparrows Point Middle School – acquire land, new 750 seat middle school. 2. Sparrows Point HS Renovation 2050 Recommendations 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 2045 2046 2047 2048 2049 Systemic Repairs (continuous, all schools) ~$100M (7-year forecast) Group 1: Legacy Projects ~$150M Group 2: Critical Additions ~$100M Group 3: Relief Schools and/or Additions ~$100-350M Develop a renovation cycle strategy calibrating project scopes equitably based on available funding and reasonable renovation cycle timeline (e.g. 15 years). Three options depending on funding scenarios and implementation strategy. DRAFT 2050 Recommendations 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 2045 2046 2047 2048 2049 Systemic Repairs (continuous, all schools) ~$100M (7-year forecast) Group 1: Legacy Projects ~$150M Group 2: Critical Additions ~$100M Group 3: Relief Schools and/or Additions ~$100-350M Case 1: HB1 Passes Group 4: Renovations Priorities 1-5 ~$500-750M DRAFT If House Bill 1 (Built to Learn Act) passes and Baltimore County commits local matching funds, Case 1: large renovation projects for all assessed adequacy, equity, and condition priorities at all schools within 15-years. 2050 Recommendations 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 2045 2046 2047 2048 2049 Systemic Repairs (continuous, all schools) ~$100M (7-year forecast) Group 1: Legacy Projects ~$150M If House Bill 1 does not pass, two options: Group 2: Critical Additions ~$100M Case 2: prioritized renovations for reduced scope at all schools within 15-years. Group 3: Relief Schools and/or Additions ~$100-350M Case 1: HB1 Passes Group 4: Renovations Priorities 1-5 ~$500-750M Case 2: No HB1, Reduced Scope Group 4: Renovations Priorities 1-2+ ~$100-300M DRAFT 2050 Recommendations 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 2045 2046 2047 2048 2049 Systemic Repairs (continuous, all schools) ~$100M (7-year forecast) Group 1: Legacy Projects ~$150M If House Bill 1 does not pass, two options: Group 2: Critical Additions ~$100M Case 2: prioritized renovations for reduced level of assessed priorities at all schools within 15-years. Group 3: Relief Schools and/or Additions ~$100-350M Case 1: HB1 Passes Group 4: Renovations Priorities 1-5 ~$500-750M Case 2: No HB1, Reduced Scope Group 4: Renovations Priorities 1-2+ ~$100-300M Case 3: No HB1, Full Scope Group 4: Renovations Priorities 1-5 ~$500-750M DRAFT Case 3: single large renovations every 2-3 years, with many schools waiting decades for improvements. (Not recommended) 2050 Recommendations 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 2045 2046 2047 2048 2049 2050 Systemic Repairs (continuous, all schools) ~$100M (7-year forecast) Group 1: Legacy Projects ~$150M Group 2: Critical Additions ~$100M Group 3: Relief Schools and/or Additions ~$100-350M Case 1: HB1 Passes, Large Scope Group 4: Renovations Priorities 1-5 ~$500-750M Case 2: No HB1, Reduced Scope Group 4: Renovations Priorities 1-2+ ~$100-300M Case 3: No HB1, Large Scope (not recommended) Group 4: Renovations Priorities 1-5 ~$500-750M DRAFT FY2022 CIP Recommendations: 1) Fund and implement Systemic Repairs, Group 1 (construction) and Group 2 (design). 2) Initiate stakeholder outreach and land due-diligence and for Group 3 with deadline. 3) Advocate for HB1 Built to Learn Act. Questions? xx