MSBA Update

1

• MSBA Update
• MMA Conference 2008

Treasurer Tim Cahill, Chair Katherine Craven,
Executive Director
2
The Massachusetts School Building Authority

• Chapter 208 of the Acts of 2004 created an
  independent public Authority, chaired by State
  Treasurer Tim Cahill, ending the former School
  Building Assistance Program administered by the
  Department of Education.
• The Authority is charged with
• Succeeding to the powers of the Department of
  Education, inheriting approximately 11 Billion
  in outstanding payments for 1156 projects
  authorized under the former SBA program
• Achieving the effective management, planning and
  financial sustainability of the school building
  assistance program
• Revising regulations for a new program of grants
  for school renovation and construction projects
  subject to the availability of funds and a
  statutory cap, beginning in FY08

3
Massachusetts Version of the Marshall Plan for
School Construction

• Massachusetts has expended over 20B--15B in
  state tax dollars-- on local schoolhouse capital
  facilities over the past 20 years
• Of the 1,817 schools in the Commonwealth, 1,156,
  or 63, are currently or recently reimbursed for
  construction or renovation projects undertaken
  between 1986 and 2005 with an approximate MSBA
  cost of 11 billion
• The condition of the 1,817 Massachusetts schools
  is generally good
• Over 76 rated in generally good condition
• Only 3, or 62 schools, rated in need of
  substantial work
• There was little correlation between the relative
  wealth of a school district and the general
  condition of the school buildings within that
  district
• Almost one-half of the current school facility
  square footage is new or recently renovatedare
  these projects being maintained?
• Massachusetts schools have been built 32 to 39
  larger, on average, than the maximum gross square
  footage space requirements per student in the
  Department of Education regulations

4
(No Transcript)
5
First 3 Years Significant Progress Made

• MSBAs accomplishments to date
• Made over 5.1 Billion in payments to cities,
  towns, and regional school districts
• Under the former program, the state would have
  taken decades to make most of these payments
• Of the 428 projects on the Waiting List
• 369 projects have received a payment or have been
  completely paid off
• 30 audits are in process, 20 projects have still
  not started, 9 projects were removed under the
  Grant Conversion Program
• Substantially completed over 700 audits of the
  800 audit backlog inherited from the former
  program. The completed audits have
• Saved the taxpayers of Massachusetts over 570
  Million
• Generated 2.1 Billion in avoided local interest
  costs
• Completed first ever capital survey of 1,817
  schools in the Commonwealth
• Completed most comprehensive revision of program
  regulations in 60 years
• Developed and implemented a pay-as-you-build
  Progress Payment System for projects. The new
  Progress Payment System
• Provides municipalities with much needed cash
  flow as projects are built
• Reduces the amount of debt a city, town or
  regional school district needs to issue

6
Waiting List Projects DOE Original Estimates vs.
Maximum Allowable Costs
In every year since 1999 the maximum cost allowed
by DOE for any given project far exceeded what
DOE originally estimated to be the cost of a
project on average costs exceeded original
estimates by almost 26
7
Sales Tax Dedicated to the MSBAs School
Renovation and Construction Program

• The Commonwealth has dedicated 1 cent of the
  statewide 5 cent sales tax to the MSBA for the
  school renovation and construction grant program
• The 1 cent is phased-in through fiscal year 2011
  with a guaranteed minimum amount through fiscal
  year 2009
• During a period when many other programs have
  been cut or level funded, the Commonwealth has
  dedicated, on average, an additional 76 Million
  per year for the school renovation and
  construction program.

Guaranteed
8
The Authoritys Finance Plan

• Fund Waiting List
• 5.5 billion between fiscal years 2006 and 2011

( in millions)

• Fund Prior Grants
• 5.1 billion from 2005 to 2023

Completion of a final audit is necessary to
complete payments on Waiting List projects and to
determine actual annual payment amounts on Prior
Grants.

• Fund New Grants beginning in fiscal year 2008
• Capped by law at the lesser of (i) 500 million
  per year growing at rate of growth of the MSBAs
  portion of the sales tax up to 4.5 annually or
  (ii) the availability of funds
• This allows for a 2.5B New Program, Five Year
  Capital Pipeline

9
New SBA program has finite budget
All of the Authoritys revenue is being committed
to the following types of payments Prior Grant
projects, debt service, operations of the
authority and eventually the new program.
10
The New Process

• The MSBAs enabling statute places tremendous
  emphasis on planning, due diligence and
  prioritization of scarce Authority resources.
  The statute and MSBA regulations also require
  collaboration between local districts and the
  MSBA during all phases of the process.
• The New Process
• 1. Identify the Problem
• Local community identifies deficiencies in school
  facilities through the Statement of Interest
  process
• 2. Validate the Problem
• MSBA and local community work together to
  validate deficiencies identified
• Requires the MSBA and the city, town or regional
  school district to agree on the problem
• 3. Evaluation of potential solutions
• MSBA and local community work in collaboration to
  identify potential solutions
• Solution must fit within the MSBAs available
  funding, long-term capital plan and will be
  prioritized based on the priorities established
  in G.L. c.70B s.8
• 4. Confirm the solution
• MSBA and local community agree on solution and
  appropriate course of action
• 5. Implement the agreed upon solution
• MSBA and local community continue collaboration
  through design and construction

11
Summary of SOI Submissions

• 423 Statements of Interest (SOI) submitted
• 162 different districts represented
• 91 of the SOIs are related to buildings that
  were rated 1 or 2 in MSBA Needs Survey (pretty
  good shape to brand new schools)
• Over half the SOI relate to Elementary Schools
• Many requests are for roofs, boiler renovations,
  and other moderate repairs
• Include everything from overcrowding to
  educational obsolescence

12
Statement of Interest Submissions by Month
13
SOI Diagnostic Process Overview

• Based on lessons learned from the Waiting List
  projects, each district was required to choose
  one priority on which the MSBA would focus the
  diagnostic process
• Diagnostic analysis by the MSBA includes
• Review of the SOI
• Meeting with local officials
• Site visits to assess overcrowding
• Facility assessments
• Senior studies
• Review of historical enrollment trends and
  forecasts
• Review of educational programs

14
Senior Study - Overview

• Efficient, cost effective diagnostic tool used to
  evaluate SOI
• Each study team composed of an MSBA staff member
  and two senior architects with extensive
  knowledge of building systems and educational
  programs
• Studies examine both facility condition and
  programmatic issues
• Identify goals and concerns of the school
  district
• Evaluate physical condition of the facility,
  including major building systems (building
  envelope, HVAC, electrical distribution, interior
  finishes)
• Assess overcrowding or capacity issues
• Determine ability of the facility to support the
  required educational program
• Assess design factors such as availability of
  natural light which make a schools environment
  conducive to learning
• Examine site considerations
• Evaluate school districts routine and capital
  maintenance programs
• Results summarized in concise report format
  permitting review and comparison of numerous SOI

15
Assessment Criteria

• Building Condition
• Building exhibits signs of moderate to severe
  deficiencies in multiple building systems such
  as roofing system, façade, windows and doors,
  heating and ventilation systems, and electrical
  distribution system.
• These deficiencies adversely impact the school
  facilitys ability to support the delivery of the
  educational program.
• Building Capacity
• Building exhibits signs of moderate to severe
  overcrowding including excessive class sizes,
  inadequate number of classrooms, high number of
  cafeteria seatings, and conversion of
  non-educational space to educational uses.
• These conditions adversely impact the school
  facilitys ability to support the delivery of the
  educational program.
• Educational Program
• The ability to support the required educational
  program is adversely impacted by building
  condition and/or capacity, including use of
  inadequate spaces for the delivery of educational
  programs.
• Structural Deficiency
• Building has clearly documented structural
  deficiencies that pose an immediate risk to
  health and safety of building occupants.

16
Senior Study Summary of Results

• Since July, Senior Studies have been conducted on
  132 schools
• Provide MSBA with a comparative tool for
  classifying priority SOI
• Created a practical knowledge base
• Many schools are functional but tired
• Worn interior finishes
• Aging mechanical systems
• Lack technology
• Some schools are overcrowded or cannot support
  the required educational program
• SPED instruction conducted in converted storage
  closets
• Classes held on auditorium stage
• Modulars used for 10 years to capacity
• Cafeterias with 5 or 6 lunch seatings
• PE conducted in corridors
• Wide disparity in level of locally supported
  capital improvements (roofs, windows and
  mechanical systems)

17
MSBA Categorization/ Desired Outcomes

• MSBA separates all potential projects into the
  following categories
• Feasibility Invitation Some medium-larger scope
  project will be agreed upon by MSBA and community
  to solve agreed upon facility problem with
  educational impact
• Repair Assessment Smaller, targeted projects
  over 250K that will extend useful life of a
  facility (roofs, windows, HVAC)
• Project Scope Invitation (2007 only) Projects
  that otherwise meet the need and urgency criteria
  established by C70B that commenced between
  2003-2007
• Planning MSBA working with Districts whose
  facility or educational needs and enrollments
  require clarification or solutions are not
  readily apparent. Includes MSBA sharing costs for
  technical services agreed to be necessary.
• Regionalization Assessment Certain districts may
  lend themselves to mergers with neighbors given
  small and decreasing enrollments and budget
  challenges for capital and operational costs
• Regional Vocational/Technical HS Non-repair,
  major potential projects which each have unique
  needs and local concerns
• Hold Community continues to work with MSBA to
  clarify Statements of Interest issues and resolve
  local issues about master planning

18
MSBA Board Actions November 2007

• Based on the MSBA diagnostic analysis and input
  from the Facilities Assessment Subcommittee, the
  Board took the following actions in November
  2007
• Feasibility Invitation 49
• Repair Assessment 27
• Project Scope Invitation 7
• Planning 13
• Regionalization Assessment 12
• Regional Vocational/Technical HS 9
• Hold 45
• Total 162

19
Next Steps Nota Bene

• Invitation to Collaborate on a Feasibility Study,
  Repair Assessment or Invitation to Collaborate on
  a Project Scope and Budget Conference is not
  approval of a project.
• The Moratorium ended June 30, 2007. Any city,
  town or regional school district that
  unilaterally proceeds with the design or
  construction of a school facility without the
  MSBA will be ineligible for funding.
• Moving forward in the process requires
  collaboration with MSBA. To qualify for funding,
  districts must follow MSBA statute and
  regulations which require MSBA collaboration and
  approval at each step of the process.
• Generally, SOIs placed in the hold category
  require further information or explanation from
  the district to clarify issues identified in the
  SOI.

20
Invitation to Collaborate on a Feasibility Study

• What this means
• This is not approval of a project. Districts
  must Proceed with Caution
• The city, town or regional school district will
  begin to collaborate with MSBA to explore
  potential solutions for identified problems
• Solutions to be explored may include
  non-construction options such as re-districting,
  regionalization, or re-programming of existing
  spaces
• Next Steps
• The MSBA will schedule a meeting to begin the
  process of exploring solutions for the problems
  identified with your school facility
• For SOIs invited to this phase, the following
  will need to occur
• Approval by the MSBA of an Owners Project
  Manager (OPM) which will include a review by the
  MSBA OPM Review Panel
• Selection of Feasibility Designer through the
  MSBAs Designer Selection Panel (DSP)
• Submission by the district of the Initial
  Compliance Certification (ICC)
• Execution of a Feasibility Study Agreement with
  the MSBA
• Agreement will detail scope, schedule and
  milestones of the Feasibility Study
• MSBA will pay its share of eligible Feasibility
  Study costs based on its calculation of the
  district's grant reimbursement rate
• If the district has already completed a
  Feasibility Study it is likely that it will need
  to be enhanced
• MSBA will require much more robust Feasibility
  Study than most studies done in the past

21
Repair Assessment

• What this means
• Initial review of SOI and evaluation of facility
  indicate scope of a potential project is limited
  to replacement or repair of one or a limited
  number of building systems
• Repair would materially extend the useful life of
  the school and preserve an asset that otherwise
  is capable of supporting the required educational
  program
• Next Steps
• If studies or assessments have been recently
  completed, the MSBA and the city, town or
  regional school district will review the studies,
  assessments and other data to confirm scope is
  limited to one or a limited number of building
  systems
• MSBA may require new assessment, study or design
  work to be completed
• MSBA may require selection of designer and/or OPM
  to complete feasibility study for scope of work
• MSBA may conduct further site visits to verify
  scope is limited and useful life of the school
  would be materially extended

22
Invitation to Collaborate on Project Scopeand
Budget Conference

• What this means
• Applies to the 7 Statements of Interest where the
  community has made significant progress during
  the moratorium (i.e. new facilities were
  constructed, are under construction, or detailed
  design is complete and ready for bid)
• Initial review by MSBA confirms that some action
  was required to correct significant deficiencies
  in the existing facility
• Next Steps
• MSBA will conduct a detailed scope review to
  assess whether the scope and cost of the project
  are appropriate and consistent with MSBA
  statutes, regulations and guidelines
• The scope review process may take several
  meetings
• The district will be required to provide design
  documents, educational specifications,
  educational program goals, and other information
  required by the MSBA

23
Planning

• What this means
• Statement of Interest submitted by school
  district identified issues that may warrant
  further action by MSBA, but were not clearly
  stated in the SOI or evident upon MSBA diagnostic
  investigations
• Additional information from the district and/or
  further investigations by the MSBA may required
  to establish the extent of the problem and
  identify the potential solution path, if needed
• Next Steps
• The MSBA and the city, town or regional school
  district will meet to begin the process of
  understanding the issues within the school
  facilities and what the best plan of action is
  moving forward
• The MSBA remains committed to working in
  partnership with districts that were placed in
  the Planning category to better understand the
  issues they perceive with their school facilities
  and how they impact the districts educational
  program

24
Regionalization Assessments

• What this means
• In reviewing certain Statements of Interest, the
  MSBA identified potential opportunities to
  address issues raised by the school district
  through the exploration of solutions combining
  regional resources
• May result in capital projects which address the
  educational needs of multiple school districts in
  a cost effective manner
• Next Steps
• The MSBA and the cities, towns or other
  neighboring regional school districts will meet
  to
• Review any previous exploratory discussions that
  may have occurred between the districts involved
• Begin the process of understanding the facility
  issues throughout the several districts and begin
  exploring ideas on combining resources with a
  goal of finding the best plan of action moving
  forward
• The MSBA remains committed to working in
  partnership with districts that were placed in
  the Regionalization Assessment category to better
  understand the issues they perceive with their
  school facilities and how they impact the
  districts educational program.

25
Regional Vocational Technical High Schools

• What this means
• Regional vocational technical high schools are
  complex, high cost institutions that require
  special consideration
• They typically serve geographically large
  regional districts which are overlaid on existing
  school districts containing academic high schools
  that may have other priorities which must be
  coordinated
• Next Steps
• The MSBA plans on performing a separate
  evaluation of regional vocational technical high
  schools
• The evaluation process will be aided by a review
  panel of key stakeholders to be formed by the MSBA

26
Hold

• What this means
• Issues identified in SOI may require long range
  planning
• Statement of Interest did not clearly identify
  issues warranting MSBA action
• In some instances the issues identified in the
  SOI were not verified during MSBA diagnostic
  investigations
• Issues identified in the SOI were clearly stated
  and confirmed by diagnostic investigations but
  were not of sufficient severity or urgency to
  require further MSBA action at this time
• Next Steps
• The MSBA will schedule a meeting with the city,
  town or regional school district to begin the
  process of understanding the issues within the
  school facilities and what the best plan of
  action is moving forward
• The MSBA remains committed to working in
  partnership with districts that were placed in
  the Hold category to better understand the issues
  they perceive with their school facilities and
  how they impact the districts educational
  program.

27
What does this all mean?

• The categorization the 423 SOIs is the
  culmination of months of due diligence and
  analysis by the MSBA to determine which school
  facilities across the Commonwealth are in most
  need of capital investment.
• The MSBA is implementing a rolling capital
  pipeline for project approvals, which means that
  the determinations of project progress made by
  the MSBA Board of Directors on November 28, 2007
  will not necessarily be the final time that any
  SOIs move forward to a different phase during
  this year.
• In general, the category status of any SOI is
  subject to change to reflect progress at any time
  during the year depending upon the MSBAs
  understanding of how a school facilitys need and
  urgency fit within the statewide spectrum of
  need.
• Once a district has submitted a complete SOI, it
  will not have to resubmit an SOI unless expressly
  directed to do so by the MSBA or unless facility
  conditions or enrollment have changed
  significantly.
• The MSBA is committed to spending our limited
  budget as equitably as possible where we agree
  that the need and urgency for projects exists.

28
Your SOI was placed in the Hold, Regional
Assessment, Planning, or Voc Tech Category

• It is not the end of the process, but the
  beginning of a dialogue with the MSBA about your
  school facilities
• MSBA will schedule a meeting to discuss your SOI
  and better understand deficiencies that your
  district perceives with their school facilities
• The MSBA may require your district to prepare or
  provide further information
• The MSBA may perform further diagnostic
  evaluation
• If through further dialogue and diagnostic
  evaluations, the MSBA determines that your SOI
  meets the statutory priorities and the need and
  urgency fit within the statewide spectrum of
  need, your districts SOI may be moved from
  current category to another appropriate category

29
Your SOI was placed in the Feasibility Study,
Project Scope or Repair Assessment Category

• This is not approval of project
• The MSBA will schedule a meeting to begin
  evaluating potential solutions or reviewing scope
  of work
• There still will be a lot of work to be done to
  determine the MSBAs participation in a school
  project, if any
• Timing of the process depends on
• the district, the extent and urgency of the
  problems,
• the number of potential solutions that may need
  to be explored,
• the ability of the MSBA and the local district to
  agree upon an educationally and financially sound
  solution,
• the ability of the local district to fund their
  portion of the agreed upon solution, and
• the many other factors that all could impact
  timing.

30
Designer Selection Panel

• The Designer Selection Panel (DSP) was created to
  ensure an impartial and objective designer
  selection process.
• Any city, town or regional school district
  selected to move forward to the Feasibility Study
  phase of the process with a school renovation or
  construction project estimated to be in excess of
  5 Million, will be required to select a designer
  through the MSBAs Designer Selection Panel.
• City, town or regional school district prepares a
  Request for Services based on scope of work from
  the Feasibility Study Agreement with MSBA.
• City, town or regional school district advertises
  the agreed upon scope of the study, receives
  submissions, check references of firms
  submitting, and forwards all information gathered
  to the DSP.
• DSP meets to review submissions and typically
  selects 3 firms that the DSP believes are most
  qualified based on qualifications, past
  performance, content of submissions, reference
  checks and other evaluation information on file
  with DCAMM, the MSBA or other agencies.
• DSP typically interviews the 3 selected firms and
  ranks them. It is expected that the city, town or
  regional school district will negotiate and enter
  a contract with the top ranked firm.
• Members of the DSP include 12 permanent members
  recruited from MSBA professional staff and
  independent professional groups and 3 revolving
  members recommended by the school district on a
  project-by-project basis.

31
Owners Project Manager Review Panel

• Any project over 1.5 Million is required to have
  an Owners Project Manager (OPM). The MSBA must
  approve OPMs for approved school projects that
  exceed the 1.5 Million threshold and may require
  an OPM on certain projects under the threshold.
• MSBA will require a very comprehensive role for
  the OPM to serve the needs of both the district
  and the MSBA. Scope of services will include
• Monitoring and reporting on total project budget,
  schedule, cash flow
• Monitoring and reporting on performance of
  designer and general contractor
• Facilitation in the resolution of issues between
  the designer and the contractor to prevent
  schedule slippage and cost overruns
• Providing effective management in field
  supervision of the contractor
• Conducting a review for constructability, long
  term maintenance and life cycle cost savings
• Providing representation at project and
  construction meetings
• Cost estimating and control, schedule analysis,
  quality control, safety
• Notifying the MSBA and city, town or regional
  school district of defective work
• Cities, towns and regional school districts must
  conduct a qualifications based selection process
  for selecting an OPM and submit to the MSBA a
  summary of the qualification process, the basis
  of its selection and recommendation to the MSBA
  for approval.
• The MSBA intends, with the assistance of its OPM
  Review Panel, to focus its review and approval
  on
• Prior relevant experience of firm, Project
  Director and Project Representative in the
  supervision of projects similar in type, size,
  dollar value and complexity to project being
  considered.
• Documentable evidence of past performance -
  number of projects managed, project dollar value,
  number and percentage completed on time, dollar
  value of change orders, safety record and number
  of legal actions
• Management approach
• Key Personnel

32
MSBA Capital Pipeline Flow Chart
33
MSBA Capital Pipeline
34
Local Votes

• The MSBA will require a very specific form and
  language for local votes going forward. The
  format of votes must be approved by the MSBA
  prior to adoption.
• One project One Vote
• Vote must be a separate, stand alone vote
• Vote cannot be lumped in with any other school
  facility projects or municipal projects
• Vote must be project specific and must include
  descriptions of
• Project Site street location, parcel,
  orientation on parcel where possible
• Project Scope New, Renovation, Addition,
  Repair, square footage, project components
• Total Project Costs Local Share, MSBA grant
• Vote must include language acknowledging that
• the MSBA grant program is a non-entitlement
  program
• the MSBA grant program is a discretionary program
  based on need, as determined by the MSBA
• the school facility that is the site of the
  project will remain in use as an educational
  facility for the instruction of school children
• any project costs in excess of the MSBA grant are
  the sole responsibility of the city, town or
  regional school district
• The MSBAs standards for votes apply to any local
  votes that may be required
• Appropriations Vote
• Debt Authorization Vote
• Override Vote (if any)
• Debt Exclusion Vote (if any)

35
40 Broad Street, 5th Floor Boston , MA
02109 Phone [phone]Fax [phone]
http//www.massschoolbuildings.org
Questions? Brian McLaughlin brian.mclaughlin_at_mass
schoolbuildings.org