Rebuilding our schools for health, safety, and cutting edge 21 st century learning

Transcription

1 Rebuilding our schools for health, safety, and cutting edge 21 st century learning The problem The state of our schools: aging infrastructure The plan The Sustainable Built Environment Strategy: deep retrofits phased in over 15 years Note: This presentation condenses and updates a presentation to Budget committee delivered on January 17, (See: Presentation-TDSB Capital Needs-Jan 2011, Paradigm Orig ID for more information.) Sheila Penny Director, Strategic Building and Renewal Toronto District School Board Monday, January 24,

2 2

3 The TDSB uses industry standard life cycle benchmarks provided by the Ministry to measure building renewal backlog Sample building systems Life cycle (years) Footings & foundations, structural framing 200 Duct systems, electrical power meter, primary utilities, sprinkler systems, heating and cooling piping systems Heat pumps, plumbing systems, air handling units, windows, boilers Exterior doors, alarm systems, interior lighting, exterior lighting, plumbing systems, HVAC pumps floor finishes, paved roadways, emergency lighting, door hardware, swimming pool systems Given that most TDSB schools were built in the 50s and 60s, it is clear that most major building systems within our schools need to be renewed. This issue is not related to building maintenance. 3

4 Unattended repairs in aging schools over time lead to exponentially rising backlog Building systems in over 450 schools each over 40 years old have surpassed the end of their average 35 year designed life cycle. 8 $ 3 billion backlog Billions of dollars $ 3 billion $ Year 2015? Note: This backlog includes the funds needed for the replacement of buildings systems (structural, mechanical, electrical and civil). It does not include funds needed for program changes and codecompliance. Projections based on the exponential pattern of growth are alarming, and suggest the backlog alone could reach $ 6 billion by

5 The impact of the urgent: an inability to plan Cost in s Cost of unplanned emergency repairs and health and safety projects ER Projects HS Projects Before 2001, emergency repairs and health and safety projects did not impact capital planning. Today, having increased from $2 to over $30, unplanned projects show a pattern of alarming increase that impairs the Board s ability to plan proactively. Year Health care metaphor: Our aging school buildings are like aging bodies. Both need interventions to maintain a healthy system. The Board itself is like the health care system. It is charged with finding strategies and funds to care for the entire building population. As people age, health care costs increase; as buildings age, the building care costs increase. Small problems unattended to become bigger problems that cost more to fix. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, as the saying goes. Our schools have gone without adequate care for a long time. Some will soon need critical care to be restored to health. This is another way to think about the growing backlog. 5

6 Facilities condition report card Industry standard benchmarks for ranking FCI percentages Good <5% Fair 5-10% Poor 10-30% Critical >30% Ranking Number of schools Ranking Number of schools Good 24 Good 6 Fair 29 Fair 9 Poor 249 Poor 101 Critical 247 Critical 432 The Facilities Condition Index allows us to track repair backlogs and make spending decisions. The Facilities Condition Index (FCI) is a percentage of the repair cost relative to the replacement cost of the building. Example: A backlog repair of $4 for a $20 building is 4/20=25%. So FCI=25% for such a building. The greater the percentage, the worse the condition of the building and the greater the urgency for repair because: maintenance backlogs increase exponentially over time critical building failures are unsafe and could result in school closure 6

7 Facilities condition report card 2010 FCI by Ward By 2019, only 6 schools will be considered to be in good condition. Rankings Good <5% Fair 5-10% Poor 10-30% Critical >30% 2019 Forecast of FCI by Ward 7

8 The heart of the proposal: the deep retrofit Deep retrofit A deep retrofit renews a building through a significant renovation. It serves multiple purposes by resolving 3 building-related issues at the same time: 1. Building renewal backlog + 2. Program upgrades 1. takes care of deferred maintenance and infrastructure deficiencies (Building renewal backlog) 2. updates the school with respect to its program spaces as assessed by the school board (Program upgrades) + 3. Code compliance 3. addresses safety and accessibility (Code compliance) 8

9 What do deep retrofits achieve? A deep retrofit resets the clock on the backlog for that school Applied at the right scale, the clock begins to reset on the burgeoning system backlog. Deep Retrofit The 3 categories of building-related issues (building renewal, program upgrades, and code-compliance) are intertwined in the building fabric. It will save time and money to address all three at once to achieve multiple benefits unattainable if we address them separately. 9

10 The Plan - deep retrofit of our schools over 15 years Before we can upgrade science or arts program spaces, we have to keep the heat on and the water running. We want to move toward board-wide improvements systematically. To do this, we need to increase our level of investment in our schools sooner rather than later to avoid being trapped at the lower end of Maslow s hierarchy of needs that is providing for our basic human needs for light, heat and water. Level of Investment Respond to emergencies Replace some building systems Engage communities in rebuilding schools through deep retrofits Basic facility needs light, heat and water. Excellent, modern, and efficient program spaces Sustainability note: Preserving the embedded energy of our existing infrastructure is not only the right decision from a sustainability standpoint, it is also more economical, and it preserves our city s architectural history which is very important for many of our school communities. The deep retrofit approach takes a holistic look at an entire school with the goal of optimizing program spaces and school grounds for the benefit of our students, staff and communities while also attending to the building renewal backlog and code compliance. 10

11 Broad strokes of the plan to deep retrofit all our schools Costs to deep retrofit typical elementary ($186/sq ft) and secondary schools ($200/sq ft ) based on a comprehensive building study analysis have been extrapolated to the whole system. (The analysis is available upon request: OrigID#14731). The charts that follow forecast the capital required to retrofit all our schools based on these costs. Limitations of forecast: The estimated costs in the charts that follow do not include the following costs: 1. The cost of emergency repairs and H&S projects over the next 15 years to keep schools open 2. Risk of rising energy prices 3. Potential increased costs arising from shortage of human and natural resources due to competing infrastructure projects 4. Unanticipated costs resulting from changes in the building code 5. Post-occupancy evaluations to ensure best practices are learned and deepened Note: If we reduce the number of school buildings in the system the deep retrofit costs will go down costs associated with emergency and health and safety projects will decrease the exponential growth of the backlog will rise more slowly 11

12 Broad strokes of the plan* to deep retrofit all our schools Develop Strategy Phase I - Engage and refine Phase II Build capacity Secure Funding Post Occupancy Evaluation (POE) Cumulative number of retrofitted schools Design Design Design Design Design Design Design Capital required (indexed to escalation of 5%) 6 elementary 2 secondary 10 elementary 2 secondary 14 elementary 2 secondary 20 elementary 4 secondary 24 elementary 4 secondary 28 elementary 4 secondary $134 $ 188 Cumulative capital - $322 $ 247 $569 $ 414 $ 983 $ 489 $ 1,472 $ 571 $ 2,043 * Note: This chart is conceptual in nature, showing the beginning, middle and end of a strategy for rebuilding our schools. The exact rollout for design, construction and their associated costs requires further planning and research. The challenge will be to retrofit schools while the system ages further incurring greater emergency repair costs. 12

13 Broad strokes of the plan* to deep retrofit all our schools (3 years) Secure Funding Post Occupancy Evaluation (POE) Cumulative number of retrofitted schools Capital required (indexed to escalation of 5%) Phase III-Full speed ahead (3 years) (3 years) Design Design Design Design 96 elementary 18 secondary 108 elementary 18 secondary 108 elementary 18 secondary $2,369 Cumulative capital $4,412 $2,954 $7,366 $ 3,419 $10,785 * Note: The key idea illustrated here is the way deep retrofits will have to be ramped up over time. The greater the capital funding earlier in the process, the greater the savings in the long-term as the emergency/health and safety costs decrease and buildings become more energy efficient. 13

14 A Legacy Project for TDSB s Future Learners TDSB s aging infrastructure * Deep retrofits s s 1900s s s s s 1950s 1960s s s 1990s s { { { Sustainable Built Environment Strategy Setting the stage ( ) Development of the strategy ( ) Design stage ( ) ( ) First phase thoughtful steps, proven success Accelerated construction to address renewal needs of post-war construction boom, incorporating best practice sustainable design. The Legacy: Normalized construction; sustainable capital plans; sustainable construction practices; program renewal is more affordable because of flexible designs implemented in deep retrofits * Note: the green portion of the graph is conceptual in nature. It expresses graphically the need to address aging infrastructure most of which will be in poor or critical condition in several years. 14