Master Plan Tutorial Powerpoint 4/2014

Master Plan 2014, revising Cleveland’s roadmap for school construction A guide for understanding basic issues, possible solutions

What is a Master Plan? 





‘Roadmap’ for construction and renovation cofunded by state (at 68% of most costs) Plots high schools and K-8s by segment, with student capacity of each school Co-funded district-wide total high school and K-8 student capacity limited to need forecasted by state for targeted completion year of construction program

Why is the Master Plan important? 





Determines whether each neighborhood will have necessary access to high-quality educational facilities Determines the cost to be borne by local taxpayers ‘Right-sizing’ the Plan according to need minimizes construction costs, as well as future maintenance and operating costs

State enrollment forecasts 







Done for OSFC/OFCC (the state) by a consultant every two or three years Latest ‘draft’ forecast dated Jan. 14, 2014 Analyzes birth and enrollment data, community demographics, housing information Cohort survival method (primary method used) forecasts future by how births historically have translated to K enrollment, K enrollment to Grade 1, Grade 1 enrollment to Grade 2, etc.

Target completion year 



 



Year in which entire construction program is expected to be completed AKA ‘build-out’ year Defined by state in consultation with District Construction delays cause target to shift to later year Currently 2018-19, subject to change depending on how District wants to revise its Master Plan

Segment 5 delays

Project Agreement signed for five K-8s, four high schools -November

Five K-8 construction contracts awarded May-June

District transformation process puts hold on construction program

2008

2009

2010

Optimal start of K-8 construction bidding after 12-14 months of design

2011

2012

Optimal end of K-8 construction without delays

Optimal end of high school construction without delays under design-bid-build method

Optimal start of high school construction bidding under design-bid-build delivery method

Final four K-8s completed August November

2013

2014

Construction Manager at Risk contracts awarded for three high schools March-June

2015

Current completion target for three high schools

New build-out year forecast    

23,408 K-8 students 9,035 high school and ungraded students District-wide total: 32,443 Current Master Plan (6/21/2010) provides for 35,639 enrollment: 27,405 K-8 students, and 8,234 high school students

Forecast is district-wide 





District must decide where and how to allocate co-funded K-8 and high school space New limits on co-funded space include past construction So, subtract space constructed in Segments 1-5 from new build-out forecasts to get co-funded space for future construction segments

Available co-funded construction space under enrollment forecast for 2018-19 Built or under way, Segments 1-5

Segment Segment Segment Segment Segment Totals

1 2 3 4 5

high K-8 school total students students students 2437 2967 5404 3506 1005 4511 4101 0 4101 4326 0 4326 2251 2610 4861 16621 6582 23203

OFCC consultant's draft forecast for 2018-19

23408

9035

32443

Available unbuilt co-funded space 6787

2453

9240

Currently planned co-funded space *2010 Master Plan

9793

1512

11305

Changes from 2010 Master Plan Required * Allowed

cut 3006

cut 2065 add 941

* af ter cutting closed Giddings, deSauze K-8s

Revisions of Master Plan ď Ž

ď Ž

State policy requires revision if a build-out year forecast shows significant decline in expected enrollment Must be done before next construction segment can be launched via a Project Agreement

2008 Master Plan 







Based on 2006 state enrollment forecast for 40,743 students in build-out year of 2015-16 Revision draft dated Dec. 12, 2008 Revision allowed School District to enter Project Agreement for Segment 5 BUT new state forecast draft report in August 2009 predicted 36,234 students in new build-out year of 2017-18

2010 Master Plan 









2009 enrollment forecast meant District had to devise new Master Plan before Segment 6 start Revision draft dated June 21, 2010 Provided for 35,639 students, 595 fewer than allowed Compared with 2008 Plan, changed some school sizes, deleted 14 K-8 schools but added three, and cut one high school Segment 6 Project Agreement approved late 2010/early 2011

Segment 6, 2008 Plan vs. 2010 Plan SEGMENT 6

2008 Master Plan A.G. Bell, new K-8 Case, renovate K-8 Giddings, new K-8 Gracemount, new K-8 Paul Revere, new K-8

Mt. Auburn, demolition

Total

Capacity 350 375 450 450 450

0

2075

2010 Master Plan Buckeye-Woodland, new PK-8 Case, new PK-8 Empire (Glenville), new PK-8 A.B. Hart, demolition Alexander Hamilton, demolition A.J. Rickoff (old), demolition Audubon, demolition Brooklawn, demolition Empire Computech, demolition Gracemount, demolition Henry W. Longfellow, demolition Jesse Owens, demolition John W. Raper, demolition Joseph Landis, demolition Louis Pasteur, demolition Mount Auburn, demolition Robert Fulton,demolition Stephen E. Howe, demo

Capacity 450 450 450 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1350

Project Agreement Approved

by Board of Education Capacity Buckeye-Woodland, new PK-8 450 Case, new PK-8 450 Empire (Glenville), new PK-8 450 A.B. Hart, demolition 0 Alexander Hamilton, demolition 0 A.J. Rickoff (old), demolition 0 Audubon, demolition 0 Empire Computech, demolition Gracemount, demolition Henry W. Longfellow, demolition Jesse Owens, demolition John W. Raper, demolition Joseph Landis, demolition Louis Pasteur, demolition Mount Auburn, demolition Robert Fulton,demolition Stephen E. Howe, demolition

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1350

2014 Master Plan revision    



 

Must cut space for 3,997 K-8 students from 2010 Plan 1,025 slots already cut with closings of Giddings and deSauze, smaller School of the Arts 34 slots added at Alcott Total K-8 cuts still needed from 2010 Plan to stay within state co-funding limit: 3,006 student slots May add space to 2010 Plan for 801 high school students, plus 140 slots deleted from new Marshall, for total of 941 2010 Plan already provides for 600-student West Side High and 912-student Glenville, both not built yet Total high school space still available to be built with state co-funding: 2,453 student slots

BAC analysis 







Examines school and neighborhood enrollment trends 2008-14 Projects average annual enrollment change of each neighborhood 5 years into future (until build-out year of 2018-19) to estimate neighborhood’s school needs Compares projected need with capacity provided by 2010 Master Plan, to see where cuts or additions may be needed Designed to prevent waste of tax $: Unused space costs $250 per square foot and benefits no one; taxpayers must heat, cool, clean and maintain unused space for 40-plus years

BAC analysis, by neighborhood 

 



For K-8s, uses 10 academic neighborhoods as formerly defined by District; uses three high school regions District data show neighborhood enrollment trends vary greatly Means one-size-fits-all percentage reductions in capacity would create unused space in some neighborhoods, too little space in others School enrollment data show where people choose to send their children to school, thereby encompassing many other variables, including geographic factors, safety, academic programming, etc.

Neighborhood enrollment 8000 7000 Collinwood East East Tech Glenville Rhodes Adams Kennedy Marshall Lincoln-West South

6000 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 0 2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

Neighborhood enrollment % change 2008-14 0.00% -10.00% -20.00% -30.00% -40.00% -50.00% -60.00% -70.00%

Collinwood East East Tech Glenville Rhodes Adams Kennedy Marshall Lincoln-West South

BAC Estimates of Capacity Need and Suggested Plan Changes ď Ž ď Ž

Based on neighborhood enrollment trends 306 slots short of cuts required for full co-funding 2019 estimated enrollment range

Collinwood 1970-2009 East 2363-2366 East Tech 1533-1575 Glenville 505-542 Rhodes 16541677 Adams 1089-1160 Kennedy 904-910 Marshall 4850-4965 Lincoln-West * 4092-4902 South 1707-1745 Total suggested changes

Capacity provided Excess / (deficit) capacity Suggested changes to by 2010 Plan provided by 2010 Plan 2010 Plan capacity

1783 3895 1705 2015 1770 2370 900 5671 4043 2020

(187-226) 1529-1532 130-172 1473-1510 93-116 1210-1281 (4-10) 706-821 (49) 275-313

*Lincoln-West recommendation accounts for specialized program at Thomas Jefferson not available to general student population, resulting in unused capacity currently in excess of 400 slots

none cut 900 cut 140 cut 450 none cut 350 none cut 860 add 350 cut 350 cut 2700

Limitations of BAC analysis 

Based only on enrollment, because that is how state sets co-funding



Generally does not consider geography, including walking routes



Does not consider specialized academic programming or needs, although state does provide accommodation for special-education



Treats regional-draw K-8 schools as if they are neighborhood schools



Does not account for unknown effect of planned effort to attract more Pre-K students to elementary schools



Does not account for local availability of high-performing charter schools, because operators may close them at will



District uses 12-cluster (instead of 10-neighborhood) model, but BAC lacks information to adopt new model

Why do suggested K-8 changes fail to cut enough to meet co-funding limit? 







3,776 unused K-8 slots at schools built in Segments 1-5 – 23% of total -- still count toward state’s district-wide cofunding limit for 2018-19 30% of K-8 schools built in Segments 1-5 are in four neighborhoods where enrollment losses have ranged from 37% to 61% since 2008 But 68% (13 of 19) of the schools currently planned for future are in just three neighborhoods, where enrollment has declined by only 16% to 21% since 2008 Remaining planned co-funded construction cannot be cut enough to meet co-funding target while still fulfilling each neighborhood’s need for new school space

Capacity vs. enrollment 18000 16000 14000 12000

Segment 5 Segment 4 Segment 3 Segment 2 Segment 1

10000 8000 6000 4000 2000 0 As-built student capacity

Enrolled now

Unused capacity 



 



Created largely by enrollment falling faster than construction planners recognized In 2004, state consultant predicted 59,175 students in District for 2013-14; actual enrollment, 38,885 Charter school growth Cleveland population decline Impact of foreclosure crisis: eviction → neglect → vandalism → uninhabitable → demolition

Charter Schools in District

ď Ž

(Source: FutureThink Draft Report for Ohio Facilities Construction Commission (Jan. 14, 2014)

Population density

Available Housing

Housing vacancy

Foreclosures 2006-12

Options for District 

New co-funded Master Plan must conform to state’s new enrollment



District may adopt a larger, unofficial Master Plan that includes co-funded work but also additional schools or school improvements financed with only local tax dollars



District could adopt transportation solutions as an alternative that would minimize unused school space while also reducing overall operational costs



District may rely on charter schools to fill gaps in Districtprovided high-quality educational space