1. education
2. school

TheSchoolUpgradeProgramand
ComprehensiveModernizationProjects
PresentationtotheBudget,Facilities&AuditCommittee
April9,2015
LAUSDFacilitiesRealities
 AlmostHalfoftheDistrict’sBuildingswereConstructedatLeast
50YearsAgo
 Nearly800oftheBuildingsWereConstructedMoreThan75Years
Ago
 TheGeneralFundAllocationforRoutineRepairandGeneral
MaintenancehasBeenReducedbyOver50%Between2007and
2014‐‐ThisSignificantDecreaseMakesitChallengingtoKeepour
SchoolsinaStateofGoodRepair
LAUSDFacilitiesRealities
Continued
 LegacySchoolFacilitiesDoNotMeetCurrentBuildingCodes
 LegacySchoolFacilitiesDoNotSupportCurrentInstructional
Vision
 OperationalFundingDoesNotKeepUpWithCapitalNeed
 ItisEstimatedthattheDistrictWouldNeedApproximately10
TimesMoreFundingthanisAvailabletoAddressAlltheCapital
NeedsofAllofOurSchools
TheSchoolUpgradeProgram
Overview
 ThePrimaryFocusoftheSchoolUpgradeProgramistoUpgrade
LegacySchoolFacilities
 PriorPhaseofBondProgramFocusedonConstructingNewSchoolFacilities
toEliminateUseofMulti‐TrackCalendarsandInvoluntaryBusing
 UndertheProgram,theDistrictwillModernize,BuildandRepair
SchoolFacilitiestoImproveStudentHealth,Safety,and
EducationalQuality

BoardProgramGoals:



SchoolsShouldbePhysicallySafeandSecure
SchoolBuildingSystemsShouldbeSoundandEfficient
SchoolFacilitiesShouldAlignwithInstructionalRequirementsandVision
 ProgramCurrentlyValuedat$7,852,900,000

18CategoriesofNeed/PrioritieswithAssociatedFunding
Sources
SchoolUpgradeProgram
SpendingTargets
CATEGORIES OF NEED
GOALS DRIVING PROJECT DEVELOPMENT
FACILITIES SERVICES DIVISION STRATEGIC EXECUTION PLAN
Major Renovations/Modernizations/Reconfigurations to School Campuses (“Comprehensive Modernization”)
Critical School Repair and Safety Improvements to School Building Components
Leverage Partnerships to Provide After School Activities & Programming and Community Use of Facilities
Specialized Client Programs
IT School Network Infrastructure Upgrades Executed by FSD
Modernize and Repair School Cafeterias to Make Nutritious Healthy Meals Available to More Students *
School Upgrades and Reconfigurations to Support Specialized Instructional Programs
Build New and Repair Aging Early Childhood Education Centers to Promote Learning for Youngest Students*
Provide/Upgrade Adult and Career Education Facilities Necessary to Provide Career Training and Adult Courses*
Renovate Special Education Centers for Career/Transition Programs & Increase Special Education Facilities on General
Education Campuses
Districtwide Charter School Facilities - Provide Reasonably Equivalent New and Existing School Facilities*
Board Member Priority Projects
Educational Service Center Priority Projects
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY DIVISION STRATEGIC EXECUTION PLAN
Technology Infrastructure and System Upgrades - ISIS, Core IT Network Upgrades, Disaster Recovery Systems
Upgrade and Equip Schools with 21st Century Technology - Common Core Technology Project
Upgrade Districtwide Emergency Radio System Servicing Schools
TRANSPORTATION SERVICES STRATEGIC EXECUTION PLAN
Replace Aging and Polluting School Buses *
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL
Conduct Ongoing Inspector General Independent Audits of Bond Projects to Ensure Transparency and Accountability
UNALLLOCATED
Unallocated funds for to-be-determined needs
TOTAL SCHOOL UPGRADE PROGRAM
Spending
Target
$6,736,708,302
$4,293,396,567
$938,841,200
$50,000,000
$1,454,470,535
$324,486,889
$212,000,000
$193,973,646
$110,000,000
$91,900,000
$50,000,000
$402,110,000
$35,000,000
$35,000,000
$529,761,698
$151,816,592
$327,945,106
$50,000,000
$46,500,000
$46,500,000
$40,000,000
$40,000,000
$500,000,000
$500,000,000
$7,852,900,000
ComprehensiveModernizationProjects
 Approximately$4BillionSpendingTargettoComprehensively
ModernizeLegacySchoolSites
 ComprehensiveModernizationProjectsMayIncludeConstructing
NewBuildings,ReconfiguringExistingFacilities,and/orUpgrading
ExistingSpaces
 DependingonSpecificSiteConditions,Comprehensive
ModernizationProjectsMayAddressSomeorAlloftheFollowing
Conditions:









EarthquakeSafety
FailingBuildingEquipmentandSystems
PhysicalSafetyandSecurity
InadequateGeneralandSpecializedClassrooms
Fire‐LifeSafety
CurrentBuildingCodes
Accessibility
DilapidatedPortableBuildings
InadequateCoreFacilitiesandPlaySpace
ComprehensiveModernizationProjects
Continued
 ProjectsWillAddresstheFacilityConditionsthatMustbe
ImprovedtoEnsureStudentsContinuetobeProvidedwithaSafe
andHealthyLearningEnvironment,andthatFacilitiesdonot
ImpacttheSchool’sAbilitytoDelivertheInstructionalProgram
orOperate
 TheNeedtoUpdateOurSchoolsFarExceedsAvailableFunding,
asSuch,itisNecessarytoDevelopaMethodologyforPrioritizing
SchoolSitestoReceiveComprehensiveModernizations
PrioritizingMajorModernizationProjects
WhatWastheProcess?
 AssesstheConditionsofOurSchoolFacilities
 CompletedCapitalNeedsAssessmentandMasterPlanningEffort
 EngagedStakeholdersatIndividualSchoolSites
 UndertookaFacilitiesConditionAssessment
 ThroughouttheDevelopmentoftheSchool‐SiteSurveysand
MasterPlans,Morethan750MeetingsWereHeldwithSchool‐Site
Stakeholders
 CollectandAnalyzeData
 EngageExpertsandStakeholders
 ConvenedInternalCommitteestoProvideStrategicGuidance
 ConvenedExternalTechnicalCommitteetoValidateProcess
 SolicitedFeedbackfromVariousStakeholdersinCommunity
Meetings
 Convened/ConveningRoundtabletoProvideFocusedFeedback
 DevelopedandVettedCategoriesofDataandWeights
InternalandExternalCommittees
StrategicGuidance&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
EndUserRoundtableDiscussions
Feedback,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
TheMajorityofParticipantsBelievethePhysicalConditionsRelatedtoSafetyWeretheMostImportant
ConsiderationsWhenPrioritizingComprehensiveModernizationProjects;Consistentwiththe
MethodologyUtilizedtoIdentifytheFirst11SchoolSiteswiththeWorstPhysicalConditions
IdentifyingSchoolSites
ComprehensiveModernizationProjects
 SchoolSitesareIdentifiedBasedontheFollowing10Categories,with
theHealthandSafetyofOurSchoolFacilitiesBeingtheTopPriority:
WeightsAppliedtoEachCategory

ThePhysicalConditionofaSchool’sBuildings&OutdoorAreas‐‐ Identifiedby
the10‐YearFacilitiesConditionIndex(FCI),aComparativeIndicatorofthe
RelativeConditionofaSchool’sFacilitiesinRelationtotheCurrent
ReplacementValue.Whereapplicable,theFCIscoreisadjustedtoreflectany
projectsunderwayandtheimprovedconditionsthatwillbeprovided.
10‐YearBuildingFCI26.23%
10‐YearGroundsFCI13.11%

TheSeismicRiskFactorofaSchool’sBuildings‐‐ IdentifiedUsingtheFederal
EmergencyManagementAgency’sHazus‐MHModelforDeterminingthe
ProbabilityofFailureBasedonthePredictedEarthquakeMagnitudeGenerated
bySpecificFaults,YearofConstruction,TypeofConstruction,Numberof
Stories,andCodeandConstructionQualityattheTimeofConstruction.
SeismicRiskFactor21.31%

SizeofFoodServiceFacility,Multi‐PurposeRoom/Auditorium,andLibrary‐‐
DeterminedbyanAssessmentoftheDifferenceBetweentheSizeoftheCore
FacilityandtheDesignStandardforConstructionofaNewFacility.
FoodServices
MPR/Auditorium
Library
5.94%
5.94%
5.94%

SizeofPlaySpace‐‐ DeterminedbyanAssessmentoftheDifferenceBetween
theSizeofaSchool’sPlayAreaandtheSizeRecommendedUnderthe
RodriguezConsentDecree.
PlaySpace
5.94%

PercentageofClassroomsinPortableBuildings‐‐ NumberofClassroomsin
PortableBuildingsVersusNumberofClassroomsinPermanentBuildings.
PortableClassrooms
5.19%

AdequacyofControlledPublicAccessPoint‐‐ AssessmentofWhethera
CampusHasaSecuredSinglePointofEntryoranIntercom/CameraSystem
thatControlsVisitorAccesstotheSchoolSite.
ControlledPublicAccess
5.19%

SiteDensity‐‐ DeterminedbyanExaminationoftheAmountofSquareFootage
PerStudentataSchoolSite.
SiteDensity
5.19%
ScoringMethodology/Formula
The“WeightedSum”Method
w1(Score1)+w2(Score2)+w3(Score3)…..=TotalSiteScore
TheHighertheScore=theGreatertheNeedforFacilitiesImprovementsanda
ComprehensiveModernizationProject
ScoringMethodology/Formula
ScoringofDatasets
 EachData‐SetisinDifferentUnits
 EachData‐SetHasDifferentYardSticks
 Ideally,ComparisonisDoneonaScaleof0‐100
Goal:
“Oranges toOranges”
Scoring
ScoringMethodology/Formula
AverageorBenchmark
Data
Distribution
0
Belowthe
AverageorBenchmark
50
100
Abovethe
AverageorBenchmark
ScoringMethodology/Formula
HowistheDatainEachCategoryScored?
START
RawScore
RawScoreistheraw
datapointperschool
site.
Z‐Score
(Goal:Normalize)
T‐Score
(Goal:Standardized)
Forexample….
HighSchoolAhas8
acresofplayacreage.
w1(Score1)+w2(Score2)+w3(Score3)…..=TotalSiteScore
ScoringMethodology/Formula
HowistheDatainEachCategoryScored?
A“ZScore”istheMeasurementoftheGapBetweenaRawDataandthe
BenchmarkorAverageUsedforComparison,ExpressedinStandard
Deviations
START
RawScore
(SchoolRawScore)– (BenchmarkforDataSet)
StandardDeviationofthatDataSet
Z‐Score
(Goal:Normalize)
T‐Score
(Goal:Standardized)
w1(Score1)+w2(Score2)+w3(Score3)…..=TotalSiteScore
ScoringMethodology/Formula
HowistheDatainEachCategoryScored?
START
RawScore
Z‐Score
(Goal:Normalize)
T‐Score
(Goal:Standardized)
T‐ScoreistheConversionofthe
Z‐ScoreforEaseofComparison
onaLargerScale0to100
T‐Score=(Z‐Score)x10+50)
(‐ 0.30)x10+50=46.97
Needtoreversescoretoreflect‘worse’
100‐ 46.97=53.03T‐Score
w1(Score1)+w2(Score2)+w3(Score3)…..=TotalSiteScore
PrioritizingComprehensiveModernizationProjects
KeyPoints


SchoolSitesthathaveDataforall10CategorieshavebeenScored
andWeighted

LegacySecondarySchoolSites wereScoredandWeightedBasedonDataand
ConditionsasofDecember2014

LegacyElementarySchoolSitesFCAUnderway‐‐ AnticipateFCIDatainFall
2015
ScoresinEachoftheCategoriesareCalculatedBasedonaStandard
DeviationFromaNorm


AsDatafromLegacyElementarySchoolSitesisAddedtotheModel,Legacy
SecondarySchoolSite’sScoresWithinEachCategoryWillLikelyChange
APrioritizedListofallLegacySchoolSitesWillbeDevelopedBased
ontheSameAssessmentofthe10CategoriesThatLedtothe
IdentificationoftheFirst11SchoolSites

ACompleteListofAllLegacySchoolSiteswithSiteVitals,Scoresand
WeightedScoresWillbePresentedAftertheElementarySchoolDatais
AvailableandIncorporatedintotheModel
First11SchoolSites
SchoolswithCriticalPhysicalConditions
 NorthHollywoodHighSchool
 HuntingtonParkHighSchool
 GrantHighSchool
 ShermanOaksCenterforEnrichedStudiesMagnet
 RooseveltHighSchool
 PolytechnicHighSchool
 ClevelandHighSchool
 BurroughsMiddleSchool
 VeniceHighSchool
 SanPedroHighSchool
 JeffersonHighSchool
1 1 C o m p r e h e n s i v e M o d e r n i z a t i o n P r o j e c t s DevelopmentofProjectDefinitions
 StaffAnticipatesBeginningtoBringProjectDefinitionProposalsto
theBOCandBoardintheFallof2015
 DueDiligenceandPre‐DesignActivitiesAreUnderway
 StakeholderEngagement
 SiteSurveyandAnalysis
 SpaceProgramming
 EducationalProgramming
 SeismicEvaluations
 GeotechnicalInvestigations
 PreliminaryEnvironmentalStudies
 AboveActivitiesareNecessarytoDevelopWell‐DefinedProject
Budgets,ScopesandSchedules
1 1 C o m p r e h e n s i v e M o d e r n i z a t i o n P r o j e c t s
WhereareWe?
 ProjectTeamsHaveMetwithAllPrincipals,EducationalServiceCenter
LeadershipandComplexProjectManagers
 RequestedEachPrincipalandESCtoPreparetheEducationalProgramfor
UsebyFacilitiesTeam
 DiscussedStructureforSchoolSiteStakeholderEngagement
 ProjectTeamsareNegotiatingwithArchitects
 PreliminarySiteAnalysisPending
 InvestigateandEvaluateFacilities

.
 AnalyzeConditionsandNeeds
 ProposeandDevelopIdeas/OptionsfortheComprehensiveModernizationProject
atEachSite
 ProjectTeamGoalistoHoldtheFirstCommunityMeetingatEach
SchoolSiteBeforeSummerBreak
Questions???