Transcript Los Alamos Public Schools 2006 Facilities Master Plan

Los Alamos Public Schools
20-Year Facilities Renewal Plan
2009 - 2029
Building Our Future. . .Schools Make a Difference
Report of the
Facilities Strategic Planning Committee
February 28, 2008
Los Alamos Public Schools
Building Our Future…Schools Make a Difference.
Contents








The Current Situation
Appoint a Focused Committee
The Committee’s Work
Financing Plan
Decision Making Process and Criteria
Proposed Projects
Recommendations
Testimonials
Los Alamos Public Schools
Feb 28, 2008
2
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?
Los Alamos Public Schools
Feb 28, 2008
3
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)
Los Alamos Public Schools
Feb 28, 2008
4
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 Projects
 Review recapitalization projections
 Tour Facilities

Recommend a course of action
 Financing
 Projects
Los Alamos Public Schools
Feb 28, 2008
5
Facilities Strategic Planning Committee
Realizing the need for long-range facility planning,
the LAPS Board of Education appointed
the Facilities Strategic Planning Committee in April 2007



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
Los Alamos Public Schools
Feb 28, 2008
6
Facilities Strategic Planning Committee
Appointed Membership Highlights





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
Los Alamos Public Schools
Feb 28, 2008
7
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
Los Alamos Public Schools
Feb 28, 2008
8
Committee Activities
May
June
July
Aug
Sept
Oct
Nov
Dec
Jan
Feb
Kickoff
Requirements
Schedule of Meeting List
May 10
May 22
June 19
July 10 – Aspen Tour
July 24 – LAMS Tour
August 30
September 18 – 1st LAHS Tour
Sept 25 – 2nd LAHS Tour
October 4
October 18
October 23
November 8
Jan 29
Feb 13
Tours
Los Alamos Public Schools
Epiphany
Accelerated
Efforts
Needed!
Financing
Projects Selection
Report
Feb 28, 2008
9
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
Los Alamos Public Schools
Feb 28, 2008
10
Facility Tours
(See the Issues First Hand)



Aspen Elementary
LAMS
LAHS (2 trips)
Walk down the three most needy!
Los Alamos Public Schools
Feb 28, 2008
11
Tour Observations
Los Alamos Public Schools
Feb 28, 2008
12
Tour Observations
Los Alamos Public Schools
Feb 28, 2008
13
Tour Observations
Los Alamos Public Schools
Feb 28, 2008
14
Tour Observations
Los Alamos Public Schools
Feb 28, 2008
15
An Epiphany
After the Tours, the Committee
Affirmed: WE ARE LOSING
Current Recapitalization Program is insufficient
(almost no funding for site improvements, major
building refurbishment or replacement, and falling
behind in facility maintenance.
Asked: How much money can we get?
Agreed: Let’s get started
Los Alamos Public Schools
Feb 28, 2008
16
The Ongoing Bond Program has
become Maintenance Dominated
7
6
5
4
$M
Maintenance
3
Capital
Improvement
2
1
0
Fund 1 Fund 2 Fund 3
98-02
02-06
06-10
Los Alamos Public Schools
Feb 28, 2008
17
Maintenance Needs Outweigh New
Investments 3 to 1
(and are under-funded)
20
15
$M
$M
10
5
0
Maintenance
Capital
Improvements
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Maintenance Maintenance
Requested
Funding
12 Year Cumulative Investment
Fund 3 – Maintenance Needs
1998 - 2010
2006 - 2010
Los Alamos Public Schools
Feb 28, 2008
18
The Reality
LAPS’ statutory bonding ceiling is ~$43M
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
Los Alamos Public Schools
Feb 28, 2008
19
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).
Los Alamos Public Schools
Feb 28, 2008
20
Tax Rate Impact for Homeowners
5.5 MIL INCREASE
Los Alamos Public Schools
Feb 28, 2008
21
History of Tax Rates
Starting at 1st Year of Bond Cycle
Tax
Year
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
Operational
Residential
Non-Residential
0.300
0.496
0.277
0.440
0.284
0.451
0.272
0.388
0.268
0.391
0.257
0.386
0.249
0.380
0.248
0.398
0.250
0.417
0.252
0.437
HB 33
Residential
Non-Residential
4.000
4.000
3.696
3.546
3.696
3.696
3.542
3.179
3.489
3.205
3.350
3.164
3.246
3.112
3.246
3.246
3.246
3.246
3.246
3.246
Debt
Service
4.529
3.870
3.852
3.568
3.969
3.901
3.552
3.281
3.26
3.262
Ed Tech
Notes
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.407
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Total
Residential
8.829
7.843
7.832
7.789
7.726
7.508
7.047
6.775
6.756
6.760
NonResidential
9.025
7.856
7.999
7.542
7.565
7.451
7.044
6.925
6.923
6.945
History of HB33 & GOB Tax Rates
5.000
4.500
4.000
3.500
3.000
2.500
2.000
1.500
1.000
0.500
0.000
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
HB33
Los Alamos Public Schools
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
GO Bonds
Feb 28, 2008
22
History of Assessed Valuation
Tax Year
LAPS
% Change Over
Previous
Year
$800,000,000
1998
$360,038,242
1.95%
$700,000,000
1999
407,565,526
13.20%
$600,000,000
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%
$500,000,000
$400,000,000
$300,000,000
$200,000,000
$100,000,000
$0
1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Los Alamos Public Schools
Feb 28, 2008
23
Comparison of Tax Rates
for Similar Sized Schools
Los Alamos
Artesia
Aztec
Bernalillo
Bloomfield
Grants
Lovington
Moriarty
Silver City
Taos
State Average
SB9
$0.000
1.982
2.000
2.000
2.000
2.000
2.000
1.964
2.000
2.000
1.880
HB33
$3.246
4.302
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
1.979
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.407
GO Bonds
$3.262
0.698
2.967
9.475
5.310
8.027
3.579
7.159
5.043
1.154
5.009
Ed Tech Notes
$0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
1.220
0.449
Total
$6.508
6.982
4.967
11.475
7.310
10.027
7.558
9.123
7.043
4.374
7.745
$12.000
$10.000
$8.000
$6.000
$4.000
$2.000
$0.000
Los
Alamos
Artesia
Astec
BernaililloBloomfield Grants
SB9
Los Alamos Public Schools
HB33
Lovington Moriarty Silver City
Ed Tech Notes
Taos
State
Average
GO Bonds
Feb 28, 2008
24
Comparison of Tax Rates by
Selected Schools
Selected School Districts
SB9
Los Alamos
Pojoaque
Los Lunas
Cuba
Jemez Valley
Gadsden
State Average
$0.000
2.000
2.000
2.000
2.000
2.000
1.880
HB33
$3.246
0.000
3.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.407
GO Bonds
Ed Tech Notes
$8.762
9.743
8.171
10.217
9.258
14.345
5.009
$0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.449
Total
$12.008
11.743
13.171
12.217
11.258
16.345
7.745
$20.000
$15.000
$10.000
$5.000
$0.000
Los
Pojoaque
Alamos
SB9
Los Alamos Public Schools
Los
Lunas
HB33
Cuba
Jemez
Valley
Ed Tech Notes
Gadsen
State
Average
GO Bonds
Feb 28, 2008
25
Comparison of Tax Rates by
Surrounding Area Schools
SB9
Los Alamos
Pojoaque
Espanola
Santa Fe
Bernalillo
State Average
HB33
$0.000
2.000
0.000
1.984
2.000
1.880
$3.246
0.000
0.000
1.426
0.000
0.407
GO Bonds
Ed Tech Notes
$3.262
9.743
5.159
3.437
9.475
5.009
$0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.449
Total
$6.508
11.743
5.159
6.847
11.475
7.745
$12.000
$10.000
$8.000
$6.000
$4.000
$2.000
$0.000
Los Alamos Pojoaque Espanola
SB9
Los Alamos Public Schools
HB33
Santa Fe
Ed Tech Notes
Bernalillo
State
Average
GO Bonds
Feb 28, 2008
26
Decision Making Process and Criteria
Establish the decision making
guidelines to meld individual
site needs into a district longterm capital renewal plan.
• Goals
• Basic Assumptions
• Prioritization Criteria
• Project Selection
 Assumptions
 Guidelines
Los Alamos Public Schools
Feb 28, 2008
27
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 decisions
 Sustainable building design, construction, and operation

Reduce impact on operational costs
Los Alamos Public Schools
Feb 28, 2008
28
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
Los Alamos Public Schools
Feb 28, 2008
29
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 unsafe
 Program space inhibits education or efficient use
 Energy Cost per Gross Sq Ft is high
 ADA compliance is very difficult and expensive
Los Alamos Public Schools
Feb 28, 2008
30
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).
Los Alamos Public Schools
Feb 28, 2008
31
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.
Los Alamos Public Schools
Feb 28, 2008
32
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 - $20M
 LAMS (complete multi-use PE, Classrooms)
 Aspen (Classrooms construction)

Funding Cycle 3 - $20M
 Civic Auditorium (renovation)
 Barranca and Pinon (renovation)
Los Alamos Public Schools
Feb 28, 2008
33
Project Distribution (20-years Worth)
Distribution of Funding Cycles by Schools
40
35
30
25
$M 20
Elementary
LAMS
15
10
5
LAHS
Mtn @ All
0
1
2
3
4
5
Funding Cycle (1 cycle = 4 years)



Plan largest “single” project first (aligned w/ funding)
Replace only when renovation is not feasible
Renovate when investment returns value
Los Alamos Public Schools
Feb 28, 2008
34
The Proposed Projects
High School
Los Alamos Public Schools
Feb 28, 2008
35
The Proposed Projects
LAMS
Los Alamos Public Schools
Feb 28, 2008
36
The Proposed Projects
Aspen
Los Alamos Public Schools
Feb 28, 2008
37
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
Los Alamos Public Schools
Feb 28, 2008
38
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.
Los Alamos Public Schools
Feb 28, 2008
39
Testimonials
Grant 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 reinvestment plan that will be presented to the School Board
at the February 28, 2008 work session.”
Los Alamos Public Schools
Feb 28, 2008
40
Testimonials
Morrie 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.”
Los Alamos Public Schools
Feb 28, 2008
41
Testimonials
Al 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.”
Los Alamos Public Schools
Feb 28, 2008
42
Testimonials
Larry 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."
Los Alamos Public Schools
Feb 28, 2008
43
Testimonials
Stan 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.”
Los Alamos Public Schools
Feb 28, 2008
44
Questions???
Los Alamos Public Schools
Feb 28, 2008
45