HD71 - Report of the Planning and Construction Process to Support the Consolidation of the State's Two Schools for the Deaf, Blind, and Multi-Disabled


Executive Summary:
[This report was replaced on 10/12/05.]

The General Assembly has expressed its desire to improve the current facilities, operations, and programs offered to the students who attend Virginia's two schools for the deaf and the blind -the Virginia School for the Deaf and the Blind at Staunton and the Virginia School for the Deaf, the Blind, and the Multi-Disabled at Hampton. Over its last three sessions, the General Assembly has moved forward with the process to achieve these goals through consolidation of these two programs into a single program. This desire is clearly expressed in the most recent language included in the appropriation act, Chapter 951, 2005 Acts of Assembly, which states:

"In order to provide improved services through up-to-date facilities as well as to achieve long-term cost savings, notwithstanding other provisions of the Code of Virginia, the Virginia School for the Deaf and the Blind at Staunton and the Virginia School for the Deaf, Blind, and Multi-disabled at Hampton shall be consolidated into one school upon completion of any renovations, additions, or new facility construction at a site as determined by the State Board of education with assistance from the Department Of General Services."

The needs of children with sensory impairment have always been a complex task to address. In recent years, the design of buildings for the education and residential life of the deaf and the blind populations has recognized new and improved standards for improving the quality of space configuration, acoustics, and lighting that enhance communication and cognitive development for children. Among the many benefits that could be obtained with a consolidated facility, the most important one is the improvement in the physical facilities that will lead to improved learning and living environments of the students currently enrolled at either of the two schools.

To properly prepare these children with the skills they need to successfully enter the adult world of today's society, educational services must be designed for maximum access to current and emerging technologies and to learning environments that prepare them for employment and full integration into the community. Two critical objectives of consolidation are access to state-of-the-art programs and services and the development of an exemplary environment for the residential students who will call the school home. A secondary objective is for this school to serve as a demonstration site for school divisions. The consolidated campus must also comply with accessibility requirements and guidelines for sensory impaired and physically disabled individuals.

The actions of the Board of Education have relied upon the work that has been performed toward the General Assembly's goal of consolidation. The feasibility study prepared for the General Assembly in 2004 and presented at the 2005 session was a key component that guided the most recent actions that the Board of Education has taken toward achieving consolidation. The following is a report of the progress thus far and the estimated cost of consolidation for four options.

Actions by the General Assembly

At its 2005 session, the General Assembly took its third action toward consolidating the two schools for the deaf and the blind into a single school at a single location. Leading up to that session, action had been taken in both 2003 and 2004.

In 2003, the General Assembly charged the Board of Education with responsibility for forming a task force to study the issues related to the consolidation of the two schools and for reporting its findings to the 2004 General Assembly (see Appendix A). This task force, led by former Board of Education member Scott Goodman, submitted its findings to the 2004 General Assembly in a report titled, "Plan for Consolidating Services for the Deaf and/or Blind and Multi-Disabled Students Served by Virginia's Two Schools at Staunton and Hampton."

Based on those findings, the 2004 General Assembly directed the Secretary of Education (et al.) to conduct a feasibility study for a consolidated school (see Appendix A). The results of that feasibility study were presented to the 2005 General Assembly and are the basis of the latest actions of the General Assembly taken at its 2005 session.

The latest action by the General Assembly followed the findings of the feasibility study and required further action by the Board of Education to make decisions about the process for consolidation including site selection and the method for achieving the capital requirements necessary to consolidate the schools. The newest requirements placed on the Board of Education are described in language in the appropriation act, Chapter 951, 2005 Acts of Assembly (see Appendix A).

Actions by the Board of Education

At the Board of Education's planning session in April 2005, staff presented the requirements contained in the appropriation act and outlined the process for the department to follow in order to position the Board with as much information as possible to make the decisions required by the appropriation act. The most immediate Board action stipulated in the appropriation act required the Board to make decisions about the location of a consolidated school and whether or not to pursue a process for obtaining a single school through the Public-Private Education Facilities and Infrastructure Act (PPEA).

Following the April planning session, department staff worked with the Department of General Services (DGS) to solicit proposals under the PPEA for a vendor that could deliver a facility that met the program requirements outlined in the feasibility study and that permitted the two schools to be consolidated into one as directed by the General Assembly. At its July 2005 meeting, the Board decided to utilize the PPEA process and selected Trammell Crow Company as the vendor for the PPEA process to continue.

The Board took further action to direct Trammell Crow Company to prepare estimates of cost for various sites and to present those estimates at the Board's September 2005 meeting. Specifically, the motion adopted by the Board stated:

"The Board adopts the Trammell Crow proposal and authorizes the Department Of Education and Department of General Services to move forward with Trammell Crow to examine options for the following:

1. Renovation and/or construction of a new facility at Staunton.
2. Renovation and/or construction of a new facility at Hampton.
3. Construction of a new facility at alternate locations as in accordance with the guidelines for the new facility in the Department of education Feasibility Study.

The ultimate decision will come back to the Board to make a selection among the options."

The feasibility study provided the outline for the proposals considered by the Board under the PPEA. The Board's directive to the department and to Trammell Crow was for a facility consistent with the findings of the feasibility study with the knowledge that the appropriation act authorized $61.5 million for the PPEA.

The fall benefits of recent advances in design standards for the sensory impaired and physically disabled cannot be achieved at the existing campuses through renovation efforts alone. Rather, use of the existing campuses will require demolition of some old structures, renovation of some existing buildings, and the construction of new buildings. A new education building is critical to achieving the state-of-the-art features needed to improve instruction for the students. These needs can be met on the sites of either of the existing campuses. Because of the phasing of the construction process that is necessary to accommodate the presence of students and the demolition of existing buildings, approximately 39 months of construction time is estimated.

To the extent that a new facility at a new site, referred to as a "Greenfield site," does not have to contend with the issues of demolishing and renovating existing buildings, the period of construction is shorter and does not need to be concerned with the impact that the construction will have on students attending the school. A new facility placed on a new site is more cost-effective from the standpoint of construction; however, additional costs for site acquisition must be added that do not exist with construction at either of the existing sites. Because no buildings have to be demolished or renovated and because no accommodations have to be made for the presence of students, construction at a Greenfield site is estimated to take 22 months.

At its meeting on September 21, 2005, the Board of Education received a report from Trammell Crow Company in response to its directive as stated above. Trammell Crow presented the cost estimates and potential Greenfield sites to the Board for consideration and site selection; however, the cost estimates for each of the four sites presented greatly exceeded the $61.5million limit authorized by the General Assembly for a PPEA. The table below outlines the cost estimates presented to the Board.

[CHART CAN BE VIEWED IN THE FULL REPORT]

Upon receiving the results of Trammell Crow's estimates, the Board of Education voted not to proceed with the process of selecting a site until this information could be presented to the General Assembly so that it would have the benefit of the detailed cost estimates and could advise the Board of Education whether or not to proceed with the consolidation process.

The Department of Education, with assistance from the Department of General Services, has prepared this update on the planning and construction process for consolidation of the two schools for the deaf and the blind into a single school. As directed, the Board of Education considered new facility construction at Greenfield sites (undeveloped sites) and renovations plus new construction at the sites of the two schools for the deaf and the blind. The mission of the consolidated school was articulated in the 2004 Feasibility Study and an architectural program was identified to address the revised mission. The enclosed report meets the program proposed in the feasibility study. Some of the information requested by the General Assembly in their appropriation act language cannot be addressed in final detail since a final site has not yet been selected. This report includes as much information as can be provided at this point in time.