Los Alamos Public Schools 20-Year Facilities Renewal Plan 2009 - 2029

1. Los Alamos Public Schools Building Our Future…Schools Make a Difference. Los Alamos Public Schools20-Year Facilities Renewal Plan 2009 - 2029 Building Our Future. . .Schools Make a Difference Report of the Facilities Strategic Planning Committee February 28, 2008

2. Contents • The Current Situation • Appoint a Focused Committee • The Committee’s Work • Financing Plan • Decision Making Process and Criteria • Proposed Projects • Recommendations • Testimonials

3. 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?

4. 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)

5. 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

6. Facilities Strategic Planning Committee Realizing the need for long-range facility planning,the LAPS Board of Education appointedthe 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

7. 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

8. 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

9. May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Committee Activities Kickoff Requirements Accelerated Efforts Needed! Schedule of Meeting List Tours Epiphany 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 Financing Projects Selection Report

10. 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

11. Facility Tours(See the Issues First Hand) • Aspen Elementary • LAMS • LAHS (2 trips) Walk down the three most needy!

12. Tour Observations

13. Tour Observations

14. Tour Observations

15. Tour Observations

16. 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.

17. The Ongoing Bond Program has become Maintenance Dominated $M

18. Maintenance Needs Outweigh New Investments 3 to 1(and are under-funded) $M $M 12 Year Cumulative Investment 1998 - 2010 Fund 3 – Maintenance Needs 2006 - 2010

19. 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

20. 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).

21. Tax Rate Impact for Homeowners 5.5 MIL INCREASE

22. History of Tax RatesStarting at 1st Year of Bond Cycle

23. History of Assessed Valuation

24. Comparison of Tax Ratesfor Similar Sized Schools

25. Comparison of Tax Rates by Selected Schools

26. Comparison of Tax Rates by Surrounding Area Schools

27. 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

28. 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

29. 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

30. 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

31. 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).

32. 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.

33. 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)

34. 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

35. The Proposed ProjectsHigh School

36. The Proposed ProjectsLAMS

37. The Proposed Projects Aspen

38. 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

39. 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.

40. 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.”

41. 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.”

42. 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.”

43. 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."

44. 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.”

45. Questions???