Los Alamos Public Schools 20-Year Facilities Renewal Plan 2009 - 2029 Los Alamos Public Schools...
-
Upload
fernanda-jessel -
Category
Documents
-
view
216 -
download
0
Transcript of Los Alamos Public Schools 20-Year Facilities Renewal Plan 2009 - 2029 Los Alamos Public Schools...
Los Alamos Public Schools20-Year Facilities Renewal Plan
2009 - 2029
Los Alamos Public Schools Building Our Future…Schools Make a Difference.
Report of the
Facilities Strategic Planning Committee
February 28, 2008
Building Our Future. . .Schools Make a Difference
2Los Alamos Public Schools Feb 28, 2008
Contents
The Current Situation Appoint a Focused Committee The Committee’s Work Financing Plan Decision Making Process and Criteria Proposed Projects Recommendations Testimonials
3Los Alamos Public Schools Feb 28, 2008
The Current Situation Facility and site improvements are evident (all Sites). A successful G.O. Bond sale in 2006 (another $7M over 4 yrs). We are considering major improvements in less than adequate
facilities (e.g., electrical upgrades in B,C,D wings). Current Facilities Master Plan has a five-year horizon. What
facilities need critical long-term attention? Significant upgrade projects looming and not being addressed
(LAHS, LAMS, Aspen). Are we keeping up with protective maintenance? Can we afford new facilities? What can we afford?
4Los Alamos Public Schools Feb 28, 2008
Long-Range Facility Planning Needed
The 5-year Facilities Master Plan 2007-2011 has been adequate for guiding the ongoing Bond Program, but both lack a long-range strategic perspective.
However, a strategic capital renewal plan is required to proactively manage all active school site facilities. Extend useful life (repair or replace as warranted)Consistent with financial means (bonding capacity)
5Los Alamos Public Schools Feb 28, 2008
Appoint a Focused Committee
Tap into a knowledgeable citizen base for experts in facilities planning
Assess the situation Review current 2007-2011 Facilities Master Plan baseline
and ongoing Bond ProjectsReview recapitalization projectionsTour Facilities
Recommend a course of actionFinancing Projects
6Los Alamos Public Schools Feb 28, 2008
Facilities Strategic Planning Committee
Goal: Develop a long-range facility asset management plan for guiding and directing the strategic facility renewal needs of LAPS.
Membership: 5 Board appointees, 2 Board members, plus key District staff
Leverage the knowledge acquired by Architectural Research Consultants (ARC) and RBC Capital Markets
Realizing the need for long-range facility planning,the LAPS Board of Education appointed
the Facilities Strategic Planning Committee in April 2007
7Los Alamos Public Schools Feb 28, 2008
Facilities Strategic Planning Committee
Grant Stewart – Facilities engineer at LANL and former Public Works Director for LA County
Stan Primak – Local homebuilder and developer, former LAPS teacher and over 30 year resident
Morrie Pongratz – LANL physicist, former County Councilor (12 yrs) and former School Board member
Al Moellenbeck – Licensed Civil Engineer, Electrical and General Contractor
Larry Goen – Structural/Civil Engineer responsible for Facilities Infrastructure Reinvestment Program at LANL
Appointed Membership Highlights
8Los Alamos Public Schools Feb 28, 2008
The Committee’s Work
Understand the Current Situation Validate Requirements Communicate with ARC and RBC Tour Facilities Collaborate with ARC and RBC Establish Decision Making Criteria Propose Financing and Projects
9Los Alamos Public Schools Feb 28, 2008
Committee Activities
Kickoff
Requirements
Financing
Tours
Report
Projects Selection
Epiphany
May June Sept Oct FebJuly Aug DecNov Jan
Accelerated Efforts
Needed!May 10May 22June 19July 10 – Aspen TourJuly 24 – LAMS TourAugust 30September 18 – 1st LAHS TourSept 25 – 2nd LAHS TourOctober 4October 18October 23November 8Jan 29Feb 13
Schedule of Meeting List
10Los Alamos Public Schools Feb 28, 2008
Key Requirements Considered Understand safety and structural issues Consider all ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) issues Understand the State’s capital matching opportunities and
algorithms Establish criteria to guide replace versus renovate decisions Understand holistic life-cycle implications, i.e., new
equipment (pumps, HVACs) in old buildings is not effective Optimize classroom space flexibility Minimize operational costs (energy efficiency, shared space) Understand protective maintenance drivers Validate through facility tours
11Los Alamos Public Schools Feb 28, 2008
Facility Tours (See the Issues First Hand)
Aspen Elementary LAMS LAHS (2 trips)
Walk down the three most needy!
12Los Alamos Public Schools Feb 28, 2008
Tour Observations
13Los Alamos Public Schools Feb 28, 2008
Tour Observations
14Los Alamos Public Schools Feb 28, 2008
Tour Observations
15Los Alamos Public Schools Feb 28, 2008
Tour Observations
16Los Alamos Public Schools Feb 28, 2008
An Epiphany
After the Tours, the Committee
Affirmed: WE ARE LOSING
Asked: How much money can we get?
Agreed: Let’s get started
Current Recapitalization Program is insufficient (almost no funding for site improvements, major
building refurbishment or replacement, and falling behind in facility maintenance.
17Los Alamos Public Schools Feb 28, 2008
The Ongoing Bond Program has become Maintenance Dominated
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Fund 198-02
Fund 202-06
Fund 306-10
Maintenance
CapitalImprovement
$M
18Los Alamos Public Schools Feb 28, 2008
Maintenance Needs Outweigh New Investments 3 to 1
(and are under-funded)
12 Year Cumulative Investment
1998 - 2010
Fund 3 – Maintenance Needs
2006 - 2010
$M $M
19Los Alamos Public Schools Feb 28, 2008
The Reality
We cannot afford a new High School($100 – 120M)
We cannot afford a new Middle School($40 – 60M)
We cannot afford a new Elementary School($15 – 20M)
However, we can add decades of useful life to all schools
LAPS’ statutory bonding ceiling is ~$43M
20Los Alamos Public Schools Feb 28, 2008
Financing Plan
Raise $110-120M through G.O. Bonds over the next 16-20 years.
Increase G.O. Bond debt to the maximum ~$43M; 6% of 2007 assessed value (~$724M).
Additional $40M bond election will increase the tax rate by 5.5 mils (12.08 mils total).
Hold the bond election for $40M in February 2009 (concurrent with White Rock School Board Election).
21Los Alamos Public Schools Feb 28, 2008
Tax Rate Impact for Homeowners
5.5 MIL INCREASE
22Los Alamos Public Schools Feb 28, 2008
0.0000.5001.0001.5002.0002.5003.0003.5004.0004.5005.000
1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
History of HB33 & GOB Tax Rates
HB33 GO Bonds
History of Tax RatesStarting at 1st Year of Bond Cycle
Tax Debt Ed Tech Total Non-Year Residential Non-Residential Residential Non-Residential Service Notes Residential Residential1998 0.300 0.496 4.000 4.000 4.529 0.000 8.829 9.0251999 0.277 0.440 3.696 3.546 3.870 0.000 7.843 7.8562000 0.284 0.451 3.696 3.696 3.852 0.000 7.832 7.9992001 0.272 0.388 3.542 3.179 3.568 0.407 7.789 7.5422002 0.268 0.391 3.489 3.205 3.969 0.000 7.726 7.5652003 0.257 0.386 3.350 3.164 3.901 0.000 7.508 7.4512004 0.249 0.380 3.246 3.112 3.552 0.000 7.047 7.0442005 0.248 0.398 3.246 3.246 3.281 0.000 6.775 6.9252006 0.250 0.417 3.246 3.246 3.26 0.000 6.756 6.9232007 0.252 0.437 3.246 3.246 3.262 0.000 6.760 6.945
HB 33Operational
23Los Alamos Public Schools Feb 28, 2008
History of Assessed Valuation
$0
$100,000,000
$200,000,000
$300,000,000
$400,000,000
$500,000,000
$600,000,000
$700,000,000
$800,000,000
1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Tax Year LAPS
% Change Over Previous
Year
1998 $360,038,242 1.95%
1999 407,565,526 13.20%
2000 423,366,751 3.88%
2001 474,589,754 12.10%
2002 510,919,259 7.65%
2003 553,794,190 8.39%
2004 611,627,530 10.44%
2005 651,053,050 6.45%
2006 691,891,740 6.27%
2007 724,128,917 4.66%
24Los Alamos Public Schools Feb 28, 2008
SB9 HB33 GO Bonds Ed Tech Notes TotalLos Alamos $0.000 $3.246 $3.262 $0.000 $6.508Artesia 1.982 4.302 0.698 0.000 6.982Aztec 2.000 0.000 2.967 0.000 4.967Bernalillo 2.000 0.000 9.475 0.000 11.475Bloomfield 2.000 0.000 5.310 0.000 7.310Grants 2.000 0.000 8.027 0.000 10.027Lovington 2.000 1.979 3.579 0.000 7.558Moriarty 1.964 0.000 7.159 0.000 9.123Silver City 2.000 0.000 5.043 0.000 7.043Taos 2.000 0.000 1.154 1.220 4.374State Average 1.880 0.407 5.009 0.449 7.745
Comparison of Tax Ratesfor Similar Sized Schools
$0.000
$2.000
$4.000
$6.000
$8.000
$10.000
$12.000
LosAlamos
Artesia Astec BernaililloBloomfield Grants Lovington Moriarty Silver City Taos StateAverage
SB9 HB33 Ed Tech Notes GO Bonds
25Los Alamos Public Schools Feb 28, 2008
Comparison of Tax Rates by Selected Schools
SB9 HB33 GO Bonds Ed Tech Notes Total
Los Alamos $0.000 $3.246 $8.762 $0.000 $12.008Pojoaque 2.000 0.000 9.743 0.000 11.743Los Lunas 2.000 3.000 8.171 0.000 13.171Cuba 2.000 0.000 10.217 0.000 12.217Jemez Valley 2.000 0.000 9.258 0.000 11.258Gadsden 2.000 0.000 14.345 0.000 16.345State Average 1.880 0.407 5.009 0.449 7.745
Selected School Districts
$0.000
$5.000
$10.000
$15.000
$20.000
LosAlamos
Pojoaque LosLunas
Cuba JemezValley
Gadsen StateAverage
SB9 HB33 Ed Tech Notes GO Bonds
26Los Alamos Public Schools Feb 28, 2008
SB9 HB33 GO Bonds Ed Tech Notes Total
Los Alamos $0.000 $3.246 $3.262 $0.000 $6.508Pojoaque 2.000 0.000 9.743 0.000 11.743Espanola 0.000 0.000 5.159 0.000 5.159Santa Fe 1.984 1.426 3.437 0.000 6.847Bernalillo 2.000 0.000 9.475 0.000 11.475State Average 1.880 0.407 5.009 0.449 7.745
Comparison of Tax Rates by Surrounding Area Schools
$0.000
$2.000
$4.000
$6.000
$8.000
$10.000
$12.000
Los Alamos Pojoaque Espanola Santa Fe Bernalillo StateAverage
SB9 HB33 Ed Tech Notes GO Bonds
27Los Alamos Public Schools Feb 28, 2008
Decision Making Process and Criteria
Establish the decision making guidelines to meld individual site needs into a district long-term capital renewal plan. • Goals• Basic Assumptions• Prioritization Criteria• Project Selection
Assumptions Guidelines
28Los Alamos Public Schools Feb 28, 2008
District Goals
Create equity among school experiences. Maintain assets in a safe and efficient manner
extending life cycle values where possible Adapt to educational changes in
Technology, curriculum for a changing world and PED requirements.
Make “Green” based planning decisionsSustainable building design, construction, and operation
Reduce impact on operational costs
29Los Alamos Public Schools Feb 28, 2008
Basic Assumptions Continue grade distribution K-6, 7-8, 9-12 Expect no school closings Use G.O. Bonds only for strategy financing Support protective facility maintenance with a
capital program line item Keep the four lease sites in the inventory
Cover costs with rent Trinity relocation not included Keep promises already made to voters
30Los Alamos Public Schools Feb 28, 2008
Prioritization Criteria
Every site will be addressed over the 20-year plan. Perform engineering studies as necessary. Replace vs Renovate when:
Renovation is 60+% of replacement Base construction is poor or unsafeProgram space inhibits education or efficient use Energy Cost per Gross Sq Ft is highADA compliance is very difficult and expensive
31Los Alamos Public Schools Feb 28, 2008
Project Selection - Assumptions Facility condition and programmatic data is based on
the 5-Year Facilities Master Plan, dated March 2007; includes the 2003 survey updated in 2006-2007, site validation visits and facilities staff input.
Database cost estimating year is Dec 2007. Multiple-cycle bonding model provided by RBC
Capital Markets is sound. Inflation will remain on average 3.5% per year. Current G.O. Bond sale of $3M will proceed. PSFA matching, though impractical to predict, will
add capacity (current match of 25% State to 75% LAPS will shift favorably with tax increase).
32Los Alamos Public Schools Feb 28, 2008
Project Selection - Guidelines Address “most needy” replacements in first two
funding cycles (LAHS, LAMS, and Aspen). Support “sustaining” projects to address aging
problems while awaiting replacement or renovation; increase maintenance budget accordingly.
Replace maintenance intensive and operational cost prohibitive systems/buildings.
No “replacement” warranted at Barranca, Pinon, Chamisa and Mountain elementary schools.
Monitor deterioration of all systems/buildings. Update FRP every 4-5 years per PSFA direction.
33Los Alamos Public Schools Feb 28, 2008
Proposed Projects Funding Cycle 1 - $40M
LAHS (replace B-D Wings, Site work)LAMS (start multi-use PE, Classrooms)Aspen (Classrooms design)
Funding Cycle 2 - $20MLAMS (complete multi-use PE, Classrooms)Aspen (Classrooms construction)
Funding Cycle 3 - $20MCivic Auditorium (renovation)Barranca and Pinon (renovation)
34Los Alamos Public Schools Feb 28, 2008
Project Distribution (20-years Worth)
Plan largest “single” project first (aligned w/ funding) Replace only when renovation is not feasible Renovate when investment returns value
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
$M
1 2 3 4 5
Funding Cycle (1 cycle = 4 years)
Distribution of Funding Cycles by Schools
Elementary
LAMS
LAHS
Mtn @ All
35Los Alamos Public Schools Feb 28, 2008
The Proposed ProjectsHigh School
36Los Alamos Public Schools Feb 28, 2008
The Proposed ProjectsLAMS
37Los Alamos Public Schools Feb 28, 2008
The Proposed Projects Aspen
38Los Alamos Public Schools Feb 28, 2008
Recommendations to the Board
Target a bond election in February 2009 Pursue opportunity to work with the County
Council to reduce overall property tax mil levy
Remain flexible to maximize leverage with PSFA as practical
Utilize existing Bond Oversight Committee Support Ongoing FMP Committee Unanimous Board support required
39Los Alamos Public Schools Feb 28, 2008
Bond Election Considerations
Board decision to hold election needed 6 months in advance. Have a step-by-step plan for the timeframe up to the election.
Requires a sound communication plan (and data) to voters including unconditional site-wide advocacy.
Consider community-oriented Bond Advisory Committee as election will raise taxes.
Communicate project planning with PSFA for possible leverage.
Encourage massive grass roots marketing plan.
40Los Alamos Public Schools Feb 28, 2008
TestimonialsGrant Stewart
“I offer my endorsement of the LAPS Facility Planning Committee approach to development of a long range reinvestment program. The committee process allowed me to see the schools, meet and engage in detailed and relevant dialogue with subject-matter experts in finance and educational architectural planning, and participate with a board appointed panel of five local experts in construction, engineering, and capital re-investment in commercial and institutional facilities. I feel confident in the viability and appropriateness of the general re-investment plan that will be presented to the School Board at the February 28, 2008 work session.”
41Los Alamos Public Schools Feb 28, 2008
TestimonialsMorrie Pongratz
“I support the recommendations of the Facilities Planning Committee. The recommendations were arrived at after site visits and a professional examination of options with Bob Robie of ARC. The recommendations are a compromise between the practical need to gain community-wide support by addressing needs at the middle school and high school and the objective need to improve the facility at Aspen. Aspen has wood exterior walls that you can poke a finger through and Masonite interior walls held up by many, many layers of paint.”
42Los Alamos Public Schools Feb 28, 2008
TestimonialsAl Moellenbeck
“The program recommended by the “FPC” for the repair and replacement of our antiquated educational facilities has my whole hearted support. Many of the total major systems are requiring replacement and are no longer economically repairable. The design for our facilities is extremely inefficient in a few locations and not conducive to learning. Most of our buildings were constructed prior to the national consideration of disabled people and are not in all aspects compliant with ADA. All of these problems need to be addressed in an organized professional manner; this capital reinvestment plan achieves that goal.”
43Los Alamos Public Schools Feb 28, 2008
TestimonialsLarry Goen
“The facilities staff for LAPS and their consultant have done an excellent job of identifying facility needs and organizing into projects. Our walk through of several of the schools verified this. I believe we have put together a strategy that targets large investments in key facilities within the school system without leaving any school short of funding to address urgent maintenance and repair. As with any strategic plan, this plan will need to be revisited and updated periodically as progress is made and new issues emerge."
44Los Alamos Public Schools Feb 28, 2008
TestimonialsStan Primak
“It is prudent that Los Alamos maintain its high quality educational system. We have superb teachers and staff but our facilities are an embarrassment. It is time for us to establish a systematic long range plan to improve our school buildings, so our students can remain competitive in our changing world.”
45Los Alamos Public Schools Feb 28, 2008
Questions???