FY 2012 PUBLIC SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM

1. FY 2012 PUBLIC SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM David Lever Executive Director Public School Construction Program February 23, 2011 Barbara Ingram School for the Arts Hagerstown Fall 2009 Evergreen Elementary St. Mary’s County LEED Gold Fall 2009 Maryland Association of Counties

2. The Capital Improvement Program: Changes from FY 2011 • Fourth year of decline in total number of project requests and dollar value of request • Reflects reduced local revenues: major projects have been deferred or reduced in scope • Also: • Construction costs continue to be low • Student Enrollments: • Decrease or even decline in some jurisdictions • Significant growth in others due to the economic situation  More attention is being given to existing buildings rather than new construction

3. Approximately 17% decline in FY 2012 requests compared to FY 2011, most likely due to local fiscal constraints • FY 2012 funding of $250 Million based on Governor’s submitted budget, January 2011

4. Interim FY 2012 Planning and Funding Approvals not shown

5. Local and State CIP Challenges Our collective challenges remain as before: • For local boards and governments: • Severe fiscal constraints continue to affect all major decisions • Urgent need to prioritize projects according to educational need, building condition, and community preferences • Need to respond to State requirements: High Performance Schools, MBE Requirements, educational programs (STEM, CTE, Special Education, others) • Protecting the maintenance budget to ensure no decline in existing building conditions • For State: • Allocate scarce resources to the most needed and eligible projects • Promote State educational mandates and initiatives (full-day kindergarten and science classroom renovation) • Use capital funds to promote other State policies and goals: Smart Growth, High Performance School requirements, Minority Business Enterprise participation, BRAC • Continue to encourage best practices in design, construction, and procurement

6. FY 2012 CIP: General Trends • Older facilities built in the 1960s and 1970s are reaching the end of their working life, needing major renovation or replacement • Maintenance remains a high priority for the IAC and BPW • A strong CIP reduces exposure to maintenance-related failures • Slowing of population growth in some LEAs allows increased attention to renovation of existing schools • Large jurisdictions: Continue to have long lists of facility needs; often have among the oldest facilities and the most complex demographics; some are seeing enrollment growth due to the recession • Small counties: Continue to need large projects that will affect all, or a very large number of, their students • Older fast-growth counties: Are turning their attention to renovation • Newer fast-growth counties: Achieving better balance between capacity building and renovation • Baltimore City: Showing enrollment growth for third year, combined with aggressive new educational programs

7. Issues for School Construction Qualified Zone Academy Bond Program • ARRA Funding for FY 2012: $15.9 milliom • Complex rules: • Must have 35% FRPM population • Must have 10% private entity contribution • Stringent federal timelines for encumbrance and reimbursement • Past distribution: by formula • Some schools systems refused their allocations • Some school systems could have used more • Some school systems had difficulty finding contribution • Proposed revisions (HB 86, SB 122): Divide funds between • Breakthrough Center Projects: lowest performing schools • Competitive application

8. Issues for School Construction High Performance School Buildings • PSCP Report High Performance Building Initiatives in Maryland Public Schools (January 2010): Reflects a focus on energy conservation and high performance among LEAs and local governments • 21 school systems have geothermal systems in design, construction, or operation • High Performance Buildings Act of 2008: New schools are to be LEED Silver or equivalent; includes a waiver provision; and provides State participation in the extra costs FY 2010 - FY 2014 • 47 LEED certified schools underway or occupied in 13 LEAs • 18 new and replacement projects were submitted for additional State funding in FY 2012

9. Issues for School Construction Minority Business Enterprise Participation New Procedural Requirements (summer 2008): • Individual project goals and subgoals must be set • A Procurement Review Group (PRG) must be established to set project goal and subgoals • A goal-setting analysis must be submitted with each project larger than $50,000 Impact on School Systems: • Contract award will not be recommended to IAC until all documentation is in order • Locally funded projects will not be recommended to IAC for State funding unless MBE procedures were followed in procurement • Review of waivers is adding time to the procurement process • LEA Procurement Group is working to resolve questions, methods

10. Issues for School Construction School Maintenance PSCP Maintenance Program: • Located within our agency for fourth year • Two inspectors survey 230 schools per year: high degree of consistency, year-to-year and school-to-school • A maintenance survey, not a facility assessment study Findings: • LEAs are giving greater attention to maintenance • Areas consistently well maintained: Exterior and interior appearance, playground equipment, doors and hardware • However, certain areas are problematic: • School safety issues related to schoolhouse management: overloaded power cables, combustible materials in classrooms, maintaining clear egress paths, overstocked and inappropriate storage areas • Electrical distribution • Fire and safety equipment • Rooftop equipment • Ceilings

11. School Safety Issues Blocked electrical panel Blocked electrical panel, blocked egress, improper chemical storage Neat classroom, excessive fuel load Messy classroom, excessive fuel load, blocked egress

12. Issues for School Construction Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC): • Enrollment impacts – number of students, their location, their grade levels and educational needs – remain largely unknown, and will likely remain so until BRAC changes are in full effect after this year • Impacts To Date have not been large • The State Dilemma: To assist local jurisdictions to be BRAC-ready, while allocating resources efficiently and not building excessive capacity

13. Issues for School Construction IAC BRAC-Readiness Policies and Practices: • BRAC Funding: Funding method allows State participation in BRAC-related enrollment growth, without danger of misallocation: • “BRAC-Related School”: 10 miles from the fence or 20 minutes from the gate, and within a Priority Funding Area (PFA) • State participation in the BRAC component will be based on actual BRAC students, not on projected enrollments at time of bid (the current requirement per Regulation) • LEA can build excess capacity at a BRAC-Related School to absorb anticipated BRAC impacts • LEA can request State reimbursement for a verifiable BRAC enrollment at a future date (e.g. four years after bid date) 2. New and Replacement Schools: Where school and adjacent schools show less than 50% utilization, State participation is based on half of the subject school’s projected enrollment 3. Planning Prioritization Process: BRAC-Related projects receive an extra point 4. BRAC Submissions: BRAC-Related projects can be submitted outside of the normal submission calendar

14. Issues for School Construction Smart Growth Smart Growth Sub-Cabinet is giving attention to: • Size and location of school sites to promote existing communities • Emphasis on renovation of existing facilities, without jeopardizing the need to build capacity in some jurisdictions • Encouragement for more intensive community use of schools • Encouragement of use of prototype designs, when appropriate • Smart Sites Program: Concentration of State technical resources at demonstration Smart Growth sites, including schools: • Germantown ES, Annapolis • Calvert MS, Prince Frederick • Hyattsville ES, Hyattsville

15. The Annual CIP Balancing Act TheIAC • Large and Intermediate Size LEAs: • Older schools • Complex demographics • Multiple facility needs  long lists of capital projects • Small LEAs: • Large single projects that affect a large proportion of students, economic development, etc: $$$ $$$ $250 MILLION

16. FY 2012 CIP Funding Goals • Large and Intermediate size jurisdictions: Overall funding must be reasonably scaled to the number of their students and the age/number of their school facilities. • Capital funds are not allocated on a per-student basis or through other formulas • A workgroup has been constituted to: • Examine how other states distribute capital funds • Make recommendations to streamline and simplify the CIP process • Small jurisdictions: Ensure that single, large projects can continue on schedule

17. Process for Approval of Projects • January 26, 2011: Board of Public Works approved funding for 75% of Governor’s preliminary allocation of $250 million, or $187.5 million. • February 24, 2011: IAC will approve recommendations for 90% of Governor’s proposed capital budget for school construction of $250 million, or $225 million • March 1, 2011: IAC will submit 90% recommendations • April 21, 2011: IAC will decide on recommendations for balance of funding • May 4, 2011: BPW will accept IAC recommendations and make decisions on the final CIP