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


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?


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)


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



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



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


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


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


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


Facility Tours (See the Issues First Hand)

Aspen Elementary LAMS LAHS (2 trips)

Walk down the three most needy!


Tour Observations


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.


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


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


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


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).


Tax Rate Impact for Homeowners

5.5 MIL INCREASE


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


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%


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


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 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



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


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


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


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


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).


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.


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)


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


The Proposed ProjectsHigh School


The Proposed ProjectsLAMS


The Proposed Projects Aspen


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


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.


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.”


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.”


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.”


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."


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.”


Questions???

los alamos public schools 20-year facilities renewal plan 2009 - 2029 los alamos public schools...

Documents

los alamos public schools

rbc tour facilities

adequate facilities

new facilities

difference slide

capacity slide

current facilities master

year facilities master