1 / 21

Facility Focus Group

Westlake City School District We Educate for Excellence... 20/20 Vision Committee October 7, 2009. Overview of 20/20 Process. Facility Focus Group. Mike Bilardo , Hyland Software  Jim Connole , City Council

parker
Download Presentation

Facility Focus Group

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Westlake City School DistrictWe Educate for Excellence...20/20 Vision CommitteeOctober 7, 2009

  2. Overview of 20/20 Process Facility Focus Group Mike Bilardo, Hyland Software  Jim Connole, City Council Nate Cross, City Planning Commission Mark Doran, Energizer, Inc.  Dan Keenan, Westlake City Schools Chris Milowicki, CJ Tom Builders Mark Pepera, Westlake City Schools Dave Puffer, Westlake City Schools Nancy Schill, Schill Architecture Steve Schill, Schill Architecture Steve Steffas, C.B. Richard Ellis Property Management

  3. Overview of 20/20 Process Facility Focus Group – Findings and Recommendations • A real problem exists that needs immediate attention • Demonstrate care and pride in facilities by making positive changes with existing budget and maintaining the right way • Move forward on engaging the entire community • Conduct community forums to inform and seek input • Establish a 20/20 Vision Committee to develop a plan using data and community input • Include a long term maintenance plan • Have a facility plan that reflects the community’s values • Do the job well, on budget, and plan maintenance

  4. Vision 20/20 Committee Members The 24 member committee is multi-generational, represents public school and private school parents, those without children, civic leaders, business leaders, faculty and student representation: Overview of 20/20 Process Harry Applegate Annette Caraulia Brian Gottfried Duane Miller Steve Schill Julie McCallister Del Younglis Jon Dregalla Bob Hertl Kim Mather Chris Milowicki Cathy Axcell Nancy Schill Mike Medoro Steve Steffas Dan Keenan Andrew Mangels Bonnie Smith Jeff Williams Melisa Yeoman Bill Baddour Mark Pepera Nate Cross Dave Puffer

  5. Overview of 20/20 Process Summary of 20/20 Meetings • During the 6 meetings committee members: • Analyzed and requested various data • Prioritized plans • Discussed pros and challenges for each plan • Listed important areas that needed to be considered for facilities • Debated each plan with strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats • Everyone, including people with connections to the school and without, strongly agreed there was a problem that needed to be addressed responsibly and soon.

  6. Overview of 20/20 Process Vision 20/20 Committee Master Plan Options

  7. Building Assessments & Master Plan Options Bob McAuliffe Senior Manager, Hammond Construction OSFC - RPC (Regional Program Consultant) Todd Wrobleski, AIA, Principal-In-Charge MKC Associates, Inc. Architects - Engineers - Planners

  8. Building Assessments & Master Plan Options Additional Option: Phasing, or “Segmenting” version of Vision Group Options #1 or #2

  9. Building Assessments & Enrollment Projections Process • District request - to OSFC (Ohio School Facilities Commission) • OSFC assigns Regional Planning Coordinator • Appoints Pre-qualified Assessment Firm • CEFPI (Council of Educational Facility Planners Intl.) Standards • Student Enrollment Projections • District’s Architect/Engineering Firm and Regional Planning Coordinator review the assessment to assure accuracy

  10. Building Assessments & Enrollment Projections Enrollment & Inflation Data OSFC Enrollment Projection % OSDM* Construction Inflation Rate Construction Cost Inflation 1999 2000 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 % *Ohio School Design Manual

  11. Building Assessments Rating: #1 = Satisfactory #2 = Needs Repair #3 = Needs Replacement *Based on 2009 OSFC Cost Set

  12. Building Assessments Renovate/Replace % compares cost of assessment-based renovation to new construction costof the same-sizedbuilding Does not include cost of additional space required to serve the number of students (by OSFC standards) in that building

  13. Building Assessments

  14. Building Assessments * meeting OSFC Standards - renovate to assessments and SF/Student standards to

  15. Building Assessments - Master Plan Options - Recap Master Plan Recap Does Not include LFI’s (Locally Funded Initiatives)

  16. Process Going Forward Steve Miller Educational Facility Planner MKC Associates, Inc. Architects - Engineers - Planners

  17. Process Going Forward Staff Engagement: Discussion of Master Plan Options #1 and #2

  18. Process Going Forward

  19. Break-Out Session Steve Miller Educational Facility Planner MKC Associates, Inc. Architects - Engineers - Planners

  20. Break-Out Session We have scheduled informative presentations to include: • Scope and Budget • Educational Considerations • Operating Issues • Site Considerations • Co Curricular Considerations • Funding Options What other information do you need to select a Master Plan?

  21. Thank You !www.wlake.orgNext Meeting: October 21st Westlake City School DistrictWe Educate for Excellence...

More Related