TheSchoolUpgradeProgramandComprehensiveModernizationProjects

PresentationtotheBudget,Facilities&AuditCommitteeApril9,2015

LAUSDFacilitiesRealities

AlmostHalfoftheDistrict’sBuildingswereConstructedatLeast50YearsAgo

Nearly800oftheBuildingsWereConstructedMoreThan75YearsAgo

TheGeneralFundAllocationforRoutineRepairandGeneralMaintenancehasBeenReducedbyOver50%Between2007and2014‐‐ThisSignificantDecreaseMakesitChallengingtoKeepourSchoolsinaStateofGoodRepair

LAUSD Facil it ies Realit ies Cont inued

LegacySchoolFacilitiesDoNotMeetCurrentBuildingCodes

LegacySchoolFacilitiesDoNotSupportCurrentInstructionalVision

OperationalFundingDoesNotKeepUpWithCapitalNeed

ItisEstimatedthattheDistrictWouldNeedApproximately10TimesMoreFundingthanisAvailabletoAddressAlltheCapitalNeedsofAllofOurSchools

The School Upgrade ProgramOverv iew

ThePrimaryFocusoftheSchoolUpgradeProgramistoUpgradeLegacySchoolFacilities PriorPhaseofBondProgramFocusedonConstructingNewSchoolFacilitiestoEliminateUseofMulti‐TrackCalendarsandInvoluntaryBusing

UndertheProgram,theDistrictwillModernize,BuildandRepairSchoolFacilitiestoImproveStudentHealth,Safety,andEducationalQuality

BoardProgramGoals: SchoolsShouldbePhysicallySafeandSecure SchoolBuildingSystemsShouldbeSoundandEfficient SchoolFacilitiesShouldAlignwithInstructionalRequirementsandVision

ProgramCurrentlyValuedat$7,852,900,000

18CategoriesofNeed/PrioritieswithAssociatedFundingSources

SchoolUpgradeProgramSpendingTargets

FACILITIES SERVICES DIVISION STRATEGIC EXECUTION PLAN $6,736,708,302 Major Renovations/Modernizations/Reconfigurations to School Campuses (“Comprehensive Modernization”) $4,293,396,567 Critical School Repair and Safety Improvements to School Building Components $938,841,200 Leverage Partnerships to Provide After School Activities & Programming and Community Use of Facilities $50,000,000

Specialized Client Programs $1,454,470,535 IT School Network Infrastructure Upgrades Executed by FSD $324,486,889 Modernize and Repair School Cafeterias to Make Nutritious Healthy Meals Available to More Students * $212,000,000 School Upgrades and Reconfigurations to Support Specialized Instructional Programs $193,973,646 Build New and Repair Aging Early Childhood Education Centers to Promote Learning for Youngest Students* $110,000,000 Provide/Upgrade Adult and Career Education Facilities Necessary to Provide Career Training and Adult Courses* $91,900,000 Renovate Special Education Centers for Career/Transition Programs & Increase Special Education Facilities on General Education Campuses $50,000,000 Districtwide Charter School Facilities - Provide Reasonably Equivalent New and Existing School Facilities* $402,110,000 Board Member Priority Projects $35,000,000 Educational Service Center Priority Projects $35,000,000

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY DIVISION STRATEGIC EXECUTION PLAN $529,761,698 Technology Infrastructure and System Upgrades - ISIS, Core IT Network Upgrades, Disaster Recovery Systems $151,816,592 Upgrade and Equip Schools with 21st Century Technology - Common Core Technology Project $327,945,106 Upgrade Districtwide Emergency Radio System Servicing Schools $50,000,000

TRANSPORTATION SERVICES STRATEGIC EXECUTION PLAN $46,500,000 Replace Aging and Polluting School Buses * $46,500,000

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL $40,000,000Conduct Ongoing Inspector General Independent Audits of Bond Projects to Ensure Transparency and Accountability $40,000,000

UNALLLOCATED $500,000,000Unallocated funds for to-be-determined needs $500,000,000

TOTAL SCHOOL UPGRADE PROGRAM $7,852,900,000

CATEGORIES OF NEEDGOALS DRIVING PROJECT DEVELOPMENT

Spending Target

Comprehensive Modernization Projects

Approximately$4BillionSpendingTargettoComprehensivelyModernizeLegacySchoolSites

ComprehensiveModernizationProjectsMayIncludeConstructingNewBuildings,ReconfiguringExistingFacilities,and/orUpgradingExistingSpaces

DependingonSpecificSiteConditions,ComprehensiveModernizationProjectsMayAddressSomeorAlloftheFollowingConditions: EarthquakeSafety FailingBuildingEquipmentandSystems PhysicalSafetyandSecurity InadequateGeneralandSpecializedClassrooms Fire‐LifeSafety CurrentBuildingCodes Accessibility DilapidatedPortableBuildings InadequateCoreFacilitiesandPlaySpace

Comprehensive Modernization Projects Cont inued

ProjectsWillAddresstheFacilityConditionsthatMustbeImprovedtoEnsureStudentsContinuetobeProvidedwithaSafeandHealthyLearningEnvironment,andthatFacilitiesdonotImpacttheSchool’sAbilitytoDelivertheInstructionalProgramorOperate

TheNeedtoUpdateOurSchoolsFarExceedsAvailableFunding,asSuch,itisNecessarytoDevelopaMethodologyforPrioritizingSchoolSitestoReceiveComprehensiveModernizations

AssesstheConditionsofOurSchoolFacilities CompletedCapitalNeedsAssessmentandMasterPlanningEffort EngagedStakeholdersatIndividualSchoolSites UndertookaFacilitiesConditionAssessment ThroughouttheDevelopmentoftheSchool‐SiteSurveysandMasterPlans,Morethan750MeetingsWereHeldwithSchool‐SiteStakeholders

CollectandAnalyzeData

EngageExpertsandStakeholders ConvenedInternalCommitteestoProvideStrategicGuidance ConvenedExternalTechnicalCommitteetoValidateProcess SolicitedFeedbackfromVariousStakeholdersinCommunityMeetings

Convened/ConveningRoundtabletoProvideFocusedFeedback DevelopedandVettedCategoriesofDataandWeights

PrioritizingMajorModernizationProjectsWhatWastheProcess?

InternalandExternalCommitteesStrategicGuidance&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

EndUserRoundtableDiscussionsFeedback,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

TheMajorityofParticipantsBelievethePhysicalConditionsRelatedtoSafetyWeretheMostImportantConsiderationsWhenPrioritizingComprehensiveModernizationProjects;ConsistentwiththeMethodologyUtilizedtoIdentifytheFirst11SchoolSiteswiththeWorstPhysicalConditions

SchoolSitesareIdentifiedBasedontheFollowing10Categories,withtheHealthandSafetyofOurSchoolFacilitiesBeingtheTopPriority:

ThePhysicalConditionofaSchool’sBuildings&OutdoorAreas‐‐ Identifiedbythe10‐YearFacilitiesConditionIndex(FCI),aComparativeIndicatoroftheRelativeConditionofaSchool’sFacilitiesinRelationtotheCurrentReplacementValue.Whereapplicable,theFCIscoreisadjustedtoreflectanyprojectsunderwayandtheimprovedconditionsthatwillbeprovided.

TheSeismicRiskFactorofaSchool’sBuildings‐‐ IdentifiedUsingtheFederalEmergencyManagementAgency’sHazus‐MHModelforDeterminingtheProbabilityofFailureBasedonthePredictedEarthquakeMagnitudeGeneratedbySpecificFaults,YearofConstruction,TypeofConstruction,NumberofStories,andCodeandConstructionQualityattheTimeofConstruction.

SizeofFoodServiceFacility,Multi‐PurposeRoom/Auditorium,andLibrary‐‐DeterminedbyanAssessmentoftheDifferenceBetweentheSizeoftheCoreFacilityandtheDesignStandardforConstructionofaNewFacility.

SizeofPlaySpace‐‐ DeterminedbyanAssessmentoftheDifferenceBetweentheSizeofaSchool’sPlayAreaandtheSizeRecommendedUndertheRodriguezConsentDecree.

PercentageofClassroomsinPortableBuildings‐‐ NumberofClassroomsinPortableBuildingsVersusNumberofClassroomsinPermanentBuildings.

AdequacyofControlledPublicAccessPoint‐‐ AssessmentofWhetheraCampusHasaSecuredSinglePointofEntryoranIntercom/CameraSystemthatControlsVisitorAccesstotheSchoolSite.

SiteDensity‐‐ DeterminedbyanExaminationoftheAmountofSquareFootagePerStudentataSchoolSite.

Identifying School Sites Comprehens ive Modern izat ion Pro jec t s

WeightsAppliedtoEachCategory

10‐YearBuildingFCI26.23%10‐YearGroundsFCI13.11%

SeismicRiskFactor21.31%

FoodServices 5.94%MPR/Auditorium 5.94%Library 5.94%

PlaySpace 5.94%

PortableClassrooms 5.19%

ControlledPublicAccess 5.19%

SiteDensity 5.19%

Scoring Methodology/Formula

w1(Score1)+w2(Score2)+w3(Score3)…..=TotalSiteScore

The“WeightedSum”Method

TheHighertheScore=theGreatertheNeedforFacilitiesImprovementsandaComprehensiveModernizationProject

Scoring Methodology/Formula

Goal:“Oranges toOranges”

Scoring

ScoringofDatasetsEachData‐SetisinDifferentUnits

EachData‐SetHasDifferentYardSticks

Ideally,ComparisonisDoneonaScaleof0‐100

50

AbovetheAverageorBenchmark

BelowtheAverageorBenchmark

1000

AverageorBenchmark

DataDistribution

Scoring Methodology/Formula

RawScore

T‐Score(Goal:Standardized)

Z‐Score(Goal:Normalize)

w1(Score1)+w2(Score2)+w3(Score3)…..=TotalSiteScore

STARTRawScoreistherawdatapointperschool

site.

Forexample….HighSchoolAhas8acresofplayacreage.

Scoring Methodology/FormulaHow i s the Data i n Each Category Scored?

RawScore

T‐Score(Goal:Standardized)

Z‐Score(Goal:Normalize)

w1(Score1)+w2(Score2)+w3(Score3)…..=TotalSiteScore

START

A“ZScore”istheMeasurementoftheGapBetweenaRawDataandtheBenchmarkorAverageUsedforComparison,ExpressedinStandardDeviations

(SchoolRawScore)– (BenchmarkforDataSet)StandardDeviationofthatDataSet

Scoring Methodology/FormulaHow i s the Data i n Each Category Scored?

RawScore

T‐Score(Goal:Standardized)

Z‐Score(Goal:Normalize)

w1(Score1)+w2(Score2)+w3(Score3)…..=TotalSiteScore

START

T‐ScoreistheConversionoftheZ‐ScoreforEaseofComparisononaLargerScale0to100

T‐Score=(Z‐Score)x10+50)

(‐ 0.30)x10+50=46.97

Needtoreversescoretoreflect‘worse’

100‐ 46.97=53.03T‐Score

Scoring Methodology/FormulaHow i s the Data i n Each Category Scored?

SchoolSitesthathaveDataforall10CategorieshavebeenScoredandWeighted LegacySecondarySchoolSites wereScoredandWeightedBasedonDataandConditionsasofDecember2014

LegacyElementarySchoolSitesFCAUnderway‐‐ AnticipateFCIDatainFall2015

ScoresinEachoftheCategoriesareCalculatedBasedonaStandardDeviationFromaNorm AsDatafromLegacyElementarySchoolSitesisAddedtotheModel,LegacySecondarySchoolSite’sScoresWithinEachCategoryWillLikelyChange

APrioritizedListofallLegacySchoolSitesWillbeDevelopedBasedontheSameAssessmentofthe10CategoriesThatLedtotheIdentificationoftheFirst11SchoolSites ACompleteListofAllLegacySchoolSiteswithSiteVitals,ScoresandWeightedScoresWillbePresentedAftertheElementarySchoolDataisAvailableandIncorporatedintotheModel

Prior i t iz ing Comprehensive Modernizat ion Projects Key Po in t s

NorthHollywoodHighSchool

HuntingtonParkHighSchool

GrantHighSchool

ShermanOaksCenterforEnrichedStudiesMagnet

RooseveltHighSchool

PolytechnicHighSchool

ClevelandHighSchool

BurroughsMiddleSchool

VeniceHighSchool

SanPedroHighSchool

JeffersonHighSchool

First 11 School SitesSchoo l s with Cr i t i ca l Phys i ca l Cond i t ions

11 Comprehensive Modernization Projects Deve lopment o f Pro jec t Def in i t ions

StaffAnticipatesBeginningtoBringProjectDefinitionProposalstotheBOCandBoardintheFallof2015

DueDiligenceandPre‐DesignActivitiesAreUnderway

StakeholderEngagement SiteSurveyandAnalysis

SpaceProgramming

EducationalProgramming

SeismicEvaluations

GeotechnicalInvestigations

PreliminaryEnvironmentalStudies

AboveActivitiesareNecessarytoDevelopWell‐DefinedProjectBudgets,ScopesandSchedules

11 Comprehensive Modernization ProjectsWhereareWe?

ProjectTeamsHaveMetwithAllPrincipals,EducationalServiceCenterLeadershipandComplexProjectManagers RequestedEachPrincipalandESCtoPreparetheEducationalProgramforUsebyFacilitiesTeam DiscussedStructureforSchoolSiteStakeholderEngagement

ProjectTeamsareNegotiatingwithArchitects PreliminarySiteAnalysisPending InvestigateandEvaluateFacilities .

AnalyzeConditionsandNeeds ProposeandDevelopIdeas/OptionsfortheComprehensiveModernizationProjectatEachSite

ProjectTeamGoalistoHoldtheFirstCommunityMeetingatEachSchoolSiteBeforeSummerBreak

Questions???