AZUSA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

Transcription

1 AZUSA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD STUDY SESSION December 12, 2013 EVALUATION OF STATUS OF FACILITES AND FUTURE NEEDS

2 PREVIOUS AUSD MEETINGS Information Regarding Facilities Needs Has Been Presented on the following dates: 1) February ) February 27, ) February 27, ) April 13, ) April 16, ) June 6, ) November 6, 2013

3 AZUSA UNIFIED SD TEAM BOARD OF EDUCATION, SUPERINTENDENT, STAFF BOND PASSAGE TEAM Information Team (AUSD + State, Erate and other Consultants) Community Poll Consultant Bond Campaign Consultant Printer Mailing Company Volunteers District Advocate FINANCIAL TEAM AUSD Team Financial Advisor Underwriter Bond Counsel Disclosure Counsel District Advocate CAPITAL FAC. PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION TEAM District Advocate/Owner Representative Architect Inspector Program Manager* Project and/or Construction Management* Low Bid Contractors Construction Attorney *TBD BY PROGRAM SIZE AND TIMELINE

4 AZUSA UNIFIED SD TEAM BOARD OF EDUCATION, SUPERINTENDENT, STAFF BOND PASSAGE TEAM Information Team (AUSD + State, Erate and other Consultants) Community Poll Consultant Bond Campaign Consultant Printer Mailing Company Volunteers District Advocate FINANCIAL TEAM AUSD Team Financial Advisor Underwriter Bond Counsel Disclosure Counsel District Advocate CAPITAL FAC. PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION TEAM District Advocate/Owner Representative Architect Inspector Program Manager* Project and/or Construction Management* Low Bid Contractors Construction Attorney *TBD BY PROGRAM SIZE AND TIMELINE

5 BUILDING BLOCKS OF A SOLUTION TO ADDRESS FACILITY NEEDS IMPLEMENTATION FUNDING NEEDS ASSESSMENT

6 IDEAL FACILITIES PLAN COMPREHENSIVE All identifiable needs are included INTEGRATED All known programs are taken into consideration COORDINATED Projects design/construction avoids duplication FULLY FUNDED Full funding is available on a timely manner

7 NEEDS vs. FUNDING (Current Situation)

8 NEEDS vs. FUNDING

9 BOARD S ROLE 1) Support the implementation of an entire Capital Facilities Program (CFP) 2) Facilitate the process of increasing the level of understanding of all involved regarding needs, available solutions and implementation strategies 3) Establish broad Board priorities 4) Allow for an objective organizational inventory 5) Manage expectations 6) Expect the unexpected

10 BOARD S ROLE 1) Support the implementation of an entire Capital Facilities Program (CFP) a) The Construction Program is only a portion of the entire CF program b) A Capital Facilities Program starts much earlier than you think i. Seeking and obtaining funding, and program concept development sometimes occurs years before construction starts ii. Integration of Pre-Construction activities into the existing organizational structure iii. Changes in staff roles and responsibilities iv. Get the right kind of help at the right time v. Coordination of in-house services with contracted services

11 BOARD S ROLE 2) Facilitate the process of bringing up the level of understanding of all involved regarding needs, available solutions and implementation strategies a) Capital facilities programs are not like anything else you (and in some cases your administration) have done before i. Start with the basics ii. Agree on common terminology iii. Let your Superintendent assemble the right team for your district (One size does not fit all) b) This will be an on-going process through the life of the CFP i. Board members and administrators will change ii. New staff will bring new sets of skills iii. What worked at the beginning of the program may not work towards the middle or the end

12 BOARD S ROLE 3) Establish Broad Board Priorities a) Allow for as much flexibility as possible b) Agree on a framework to make future decisions c) Avoid promising specifics d) Establish facilities standards 4) Allow for an objective organizational inventory a) Each district has a unique set of in-house skills and the needs of a CFP will not exactly match those skills b) This is not like hiring teachers, you have one-of-a-kind positions c) This is not like buying paper and pencils, you will have many one-of-a-kind needs, atypical situations and project specific solutions

13 BOARD S ROLE 5) Manage Expectations a) You are embarking in a multi-year, multi-million dollar journey b) Be prepared to alter the course while maintaining the same overall goals c) Do not use terms like state of the art, classroom of the future or top of the line. These terms are subjective and become a moving target d) Emphasize that modernization projects are 70-90% solutions. Some components of 50+ year old buildings and sites can not be replaced e) Solutions must be cost effective; personal taste/preferences cannot be accommodated without impacting the budget

14 BOARD S ROLE 6) Expect the unexpected (and be glad you built some flexibility into your Capital Facilities Program!) a) New laws/restrictions, changes in needs and variable market conditions will force changes into the program: i. Enrollment growth/decline ii. State funds run out sooner than expected iii. Each state-wide bond has a different set of rules iv. Williams-like law suits or court ordered mandates v. Labor compliance programs vi. Storm drain water restrictions vii. Asbestos, mold and some yet-to-be-discovered hazards viii.americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliance ix. Construction costs escalation in double digits for several years x. Etc. Etc. Etc.

15 SETTING PRIORITIES 5) OTHER ADDITIONAL IMPROVEMENTS 4) OTHER ARCHITECTURAL CHANGES 3) BASIC ARCHITECTURAL (CODE DRIVEN) REQUIREMENTS 2) BUILDING INFRASTRUCTURE 1) MAIN INFRASTRUCTURE

16 SETTING PRIORITIES FOR Azusa Unified School District 5) 4) 3) 2) Technology connectivity and Electrical outlets; Sinks; Flooring; Perimeter Fencing (Single Point of Entry?) 1) Roofing; Fire Alarms; Irrigation; ADA Compliance (Site, Restrooms, Parking)

17 PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION (PA) Contract negotiations Selection of vendors Accounting External Communication Internal controls Internal Communication Audit requirements Coordination of programs Reporting requirements Payment processing Purchasing Budgeting Pre and Post-Construction Activities Funding application Establish and Support Construction Activities Bond Oversight Identification of need Committee Audit process December 16,

18 PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION (PA) FUNCTIONAL VIEW Funding Functions Design Functions Construction Management Functions Communication Functions Fiduciary Functions Project Management Functions December 16,

19 Program Administration Functions Fiduciary Functions Funding Functions Communication Functions Design Functions Project Management Functions Construction Management Functions

20 Program Administration Functions Who is responsible? Fiduciary Functions Funding Functions Communication Functions Design Functions Project Management Functions Construction Management Functions BOARD SUPERINTENDENT STAFF CONTRACTED CONSULTANTS

21 REPAIRS IMPROVEMENTS 1) DEFERRED MAINTENANCE a) Regular b) Hardship Projects 1) MODERNIZATION a) State Mostly for buildings; cosmetic; supposed to last 30 yrs. b) District funded improvements targeted to severe/critical needs c) Reconstruction - Utilities; Infrastructure; may last 30+ yrs. 2) MAINTENANCE PROJECTS a) On going routine maintenance a) Necessary repairs 3) ADA COMPLIANCE 2) FACILITIES FOR GROWTH 4) TECHNOLOGY

22 August 11, 1998

23 August 11, 1998

24 BUILDING BLOCKS FOR 2002 MEASURE I IMPLEMENTATION ( ) FUNDING ( ) MASTER PLAN (1999 & 2001)

25 2002 BUDGET FOR IDENTIFIED SCOPE FINAL EXPENDITURES $22,000,000 $20,000,000 $18,000,000 $16,000,000 $14,000,000 $12,000,000 $10,000,000 $8,000,000 $6,000,000 $4,000,000 $2,000,000 $-

26 SAMPLE PICTURES OF WORK COMPLETED WITH 2002 COMPLETED - SAMPLES.pdf

27 2002 BUDGET FOR IDENTIFIED SCOPE FINAL EXPENDITURES COMPLETED SCOPE (as a % of Orig.Scope) $22,000,000 $20,000,000 $18,000,000 $16,000,000 $14,000,000 $12,000,000 $10,000,000 $8,000,000 $6,000,000 $4,000,000 $2,000,000 $-

28 BUILDING BLOCKS TO ADDRESS FACILITY NEEDS IMPLEMENTATION FUNDING NEEDS ASSESSMENT BASED ON EXISTING MASTER PLAN

29 2002 BUDGET FOR IDENTIFIED SCOPE FINAL EXPENDITURES COMPLETED SCOPE (as a % of Orig.Scope) 2013 BUDGET FOR IDENTIFIED SCOPE (PROJECT COST) $22,000,000 $20,000,000 $18,000,000 $16,000,000 $14,000,000 $12,000,000 $10,000,000 $8,000,000 $6,000,000 $4,000,000 $2,000,000 $-

30 FUTURE SCOPE OF WORK STANDARD CLASSROOM NEEDS KINDERGARTEN AND WORK ROOM ADMINISTRATION CAFETORIUM/FOOD SERVICE LIBRARY/MEDIA CENTER/COMPUTER LAB SPECIALIZED PROGRAM FACILITIES EXISTING STD. CLASSROOM PORTABLES GENERAL SITE SHOWER/LOCKER ROOM GYM OTHER ATHLETIC FACILITIES Standard Modernization Needs New Technology ADA Fire Life and Safety Augmentation Needs Standard Modernization Needs New Technology ADA Fire Life and Safety Augmentation Needs Standard Modernization Needs New Technology ADA Fire Life and Safety Augmentation Needs Standard Modernization Needs ADA Fire Life and Safety Standard Modernization Needs New Technology ADA Fire Life and Safety Augmentation Needs Modernization Needs New Technology ADA Fire Life and Safety Augmentation Needs Standard Modernization Needs New Technology Augmentation Needs Standard Modernization Needs New Technology ADA Fire Life and Safety Augmentation Needs Modernization Needs New Technology ADA Fire Life and Safety Augmentation Needs Modernization Needs New Technology ADA Fire Life and Safety Augmentation Needs Modernization Needs New Technology ADA Fire Life and Safety Augmentation Needs Longfell Ellingto Gladsto Hodge ow Magnoli Mtn.Vie Murray Powell n Elem ne Elem Elem Elem a Elem w Elem Elem Elem Valleyd ale Elem Foothill Middle Gladsto Azusa ne H.S. H.S. Sierra Cont HS Center Middle Paramo unt Elem Lee Elem SlausonDalton Middle Elem Adult Ed > 50% OF INITIALLY SCOPED 0% TO 25% OF INITIALLY SCOPED 100% AS INITIALLY SCOPED 26% TO 50% OF INITIALLY SCOPED

31 FUTURE SCOPE OF WORK COMBINED SCOPE COMPLETED-NEEDED.xlsx

32 OVERVIEW BY SITE DSA NON-CERTIFIED PROJECTS LPA NTD BUDGETS/EXPENDITURES AND ROUGH ORDER OF MAGNITUDE FOR IDENTIFIED SCOPES SITE DSA Non- Certified A# Submitted OR Certified DSA Non- Certified A# Submitted OR Certified 2002 BUDGET FOR IDENTIFIED SCOPE FINAL EXPENDITURES COMPLETED SCOPE (as a % of Original Scope) 2013 ROUGH ORDER OF MAGNITUDE BUDGET FOR IDENTIFIED SCOPE (PROJECT COST) ELLINGTON ELEMENTARY $ 4,228,983 $ 4,828,527 $ 3,383,187 $ 3,102,000 GLADSTONE ELEMENTARY 2 1 $ 5,155,013 $ 7,199,187 $ 4,124,010 $ 3,249,000 HODGE ELEMENTARY 2 $ 5,068,323 $ 5,715,642 $ 4,054,658 $ 3,390,000 LONGFELLOW ELEMENTARY 2 $ 2,596,993 $ 4,974,690 $ 2,077,594 $ 2,793,000 MAGNOLIA ELEMENTARY 2 $ 4,876,610 $ 7,580,889 $ 3,901,288 $ 3,330,000 MTN. VIEW ELEMENTARY 2 $ 4,712,834 $ 5,122,198 $ 3,770,267 $ 3,402,000 MURRAY ELEMENTARY 3 $ 5,263,171 $ 9,189,010 $ 4,210,536 $ 2,955,000 POWELL ELEMENTARY 2 1 $ 4,212,121 $ 6,825,415 $ 3,369,697 $ 2,706,000 VALLEYDALE ELEMENTARY 2 $ 5,559,027 $ 7,519,792 $ 4,447,222 $ 2,652,000 PARAMOUNT ELEMENTARY $ 5,013,401 $ 15,585 $ - $ 11,377,696 LEE ELEMENTARY 1 $ 4,963,531 $ 19,199 $ - $ 8,959,303 DALTON ELEMENTARY 1 $ 228,538 $ - $ - $ 7,291,802 FOOTHILL MIDDLE SCHOOL 3 $ 9,401,117 $ 11,581,759 $ 7,520,894 $ 2,418,000 CENTER MIDDLE SCHOOL $ 8,452,214 $ 112,485 $ - $ 15,479,864 SLAUSON MIDDLE SCHOOL 1 1 $ 9,671,674 $ 194,287 $ - $ 18,547,980 AZUSA HIGH SCHOOL 1 $ 21,975,584 $ 12,125,157 $ 13,185,351 $ 20,928,000 GLADSTONE HIGH SCHOOL 2 2 $ 18,882,228 $ 10,848,620 $ 11,329,337 $ 18,115,200 SIERRA CONTINUATION H.S. 2 $ 2,493,733 $ 4,653,909 $ 1,994,986 $ 600,000 ADULT EDUCATION CENTER $ 2,196,569 $ 1,228 $ 2,400,000 VARIOUS DISTRICT WIDE PROJ. $ 1,047,904 $ 1,047,904 $ 1,800,000 TOTAL $ 124,951,665 $ 99,555,483 $ 68,416,931 $ 135,496,846

33 IMMEDIATE NEEDS NEEDS CAN BE ADDRESSED AT THREE DIFFERENT LEVELS A. FACILITIES 1. Fix Permanently 2. Fix Temporarily 3. Leave as Is B. TECHNOLOGY 1. Time sensitive C. OTHER POSSIBLE NEEDS D. PREVIOUS COMMITMENTS

34 OPTIONS FOR FACILITIES NEEDS OPTION COST TIMING 1. PERMANENT FIX 2. TEMPORARY FIX HIGHEST COST RELATIVELY LOW 12 TO 18 MONTHS 3 TO 9 MONTHS 3. LEAVE AS-IS MINOR 1 MONTH

35 OPTIONS FOR TECHNOLOGY AND OTHER NEEDS OPTION COST TIMING 1. COMMON CORE STD. 2. OTHER NEEDS 3. PREVIOUS COMMITMENT $6 MILLION 6 TO 18 MONTHS UNKNOWN ANNUAL PAYMENTS TBD YEARLY PAYMENT (START 2017)

36 AUSD FUNDS 1) GENERAL FUND (F-01) 2) ADULT EDUCATION FUND (F-11) 3) CAFETERIAL FUND (F-13) 4) DEFERRED MAINTENANCE FUND (F-14) 5) SPECIAL RESERVE FUND (F-17) 6) BUILDING FUND (F-21) 7) CAPITAL FAC FUND (F-25) 8) COUNTY SCHOOL FAC FUND (F-35) 9) BOND INT AND REDEMPTION FUND (F-51) 10) TAX OVERRIDE FUND (F-53) 11) SELF-INSURANCE FUND (F-67)

37 AUSD FUNDS FUND FUND No. ENDING BALANCE AVAILABLE FUNDS DEFERRED MAINTENANCE FUND 14 $ 2,885, $ 2,096, BUILDING FUND 21 $ 5,708, $ 4,880, CAPITAL FAC FUND 25 $ 1,007, $ 1,007, TOTAL $ 9,902, $ 7,985,096.18

38 IMMEDIATE NEEDS ASSUMING A RESERVE OF $7 TO $7.5M A. FACILITIES 1. Fix Permanently $ 2. Fix Temporarily $ 3. Leave as Is $ 4. Pre-fund Pre-Design & Design Costs $ B. TECHNOLOGY 1. Time sensitive $ C. OTHER POSSIBLE NEEDS $ D. PREVIOUS COMMITMENTS $

39 COP REPAYMENT Year Principal Interest TOTAL PAYMENT PER YEAR CUMMULATIVE PAYMENTS 2017 $ 28, $ 1,627 $ 30,000 $ 30, $ 47, $ 2,712 $ 50,000 $ 80, $ 56, $ 3,254 $ 60,000 $ 140, $ 75, $ 4,339 $ 80,000 $ 220, $ 94, $ 5,424 $ 100,000 $ 320, $ 104, $ 5,966 $ 110,000 $ 430, $ 122, $ 7,051 $ 130,000 $ 560, $ 141, $ 8,136 $ 150,000 $ 710, $ 170, $ 9,763 $ 180,000 $ 890, $ 189, $ 10,848 $ 200,000 $ 1,090, $ 217, $ 12,475 $ 230,000 $ 1,320, S-total $ 7,358, $ 421, $ 7,780, $ 9,100,000 GRAND TOTAL $ 8,606, $ 493, $ 9,100,000.00

40 ALLOCATION OF CURRENT AUSD FUNDS No. SITE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT CUMMULATIVE TOTAL 1 District-Wide Reserve for COP repayment (10 yrs) $ 1,500,000 $ 1,500,000 2 District-Wide Reserve for Technology $ 2,000,000 $ 3,500,000 3 High Schools Bleachers' Safety Repairs $ 75,000 $ 3,575,000 4 All Sites School Curb Appeal Plan $ 333,450 $ 3,908,450 5 Various Sites Irrigation Systems Repairs $ 250,000 $ 4,158,450 6 AHS - GHS 7 Various Sites Design/Install New/Repair Electronic Marquees Estimate $225K $ 256,000 $ 4,414,450 Design Phase 1 Perimeter Fencing Front of Sites $1.5M $ 135,000 $ 4,549,450 8 AHS Design Project Lead The Way Estimated $ 100,000 $ 4,649,450 9 SITE TBD Design Modernization of a Site TBD Estimated Construction Approx. $9.5M $ 712,500 $ 5,361, District-Wide Reserve for Unknown Facilities Needs $ 2,623,146 $ 7,985, $ 7,985, $ 7,985,096 FUNDS CURRENTLY AVAILABLE $7,985,096.18

41 ALLOCATION OF CURRENT AUSD FUNDS 7M AVAILABLE FUNDS.xlsx

42 CAPITAL FACILITIES PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION 1) CRITERIA a)effective b)efficient c)economic d)equitable

43 CAPITAL FACILITIES PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION 1) Projects Can Be Designed and or Built a) By Type Of Improvement(s) Model b) By Site Model

44 CAPITAL FACILITIES PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION 1) Projects Are Designed and or Built a) By Type Of Improvement(s) Model b) By Site Model Scope A Scope B Scope C

45 CAPITAL FACILITIES PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION 1) Projects Are Designed and or Built a) By Type Of Improvement(s) Model b) By Site Model SITE #1 SITE #2 SITE #3 SITE #4

46 BY SITE MODEL PROS 1. Fewer Layers Of Work 2. Less Disruptions To Sites 3. More Predictable Cost (for first/second phase) 4. Requires More Through Planning 5. If Scope Reductions Are Needed They Will Affect All Sites CONS 1. Longer Design 2. Longer Disruptions to Sites 3. All Sites Get Similar Scope 4. Cost Variances Are Not Evenly Distributed 5. Smaller Projects Would Increase the pool of interested contractors 6. Uneven Distribution of Bond Resources

47 TYPE OF IMPROVEMENT MODEL PROS 1. Shorter Design 2. Targeted Scope 3. All Sites Get Similar Scope 4. Cost Variances Are Evenly Distributed By Site 5. Smaller Projects Would Increase The Pool Of Interested Contractors 6. More Even Distribution Of Bond Resources CONS 1. More Layers Of Work 2. More Disruptions To Sites 3. Could Be More Expensive 4. Requires More Through Planning

48 CAPITAL FACILITIES PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION 1) Proposed Implementation of Next Phase a) Hybrid Model Scope A Scope B Scope C SITE #1 SITE #2 SITE #3 SITE #4

49 HYBRID MODEL PROS 1. Would Bring Equity to Five Sites Not Addressed 2. Would Continue Upgrades at Partially Completed Sites 3. Would Buy Time to Address DSA Non-Certified Projects 4. Visibility of Work at More Sites 5. If Scope Reductions Are Needed They Could Be Distributed Across All Sites 6. More Even Distribution of Bond Resources CONS 1. Longer Design for Sites 2. Requires More Coordination for Other Sites 3. Multiple Submittals to DSA

50 Ideal Planned Steps

51 REALITY

52 Superintendent will: What Is Next? (December 12, 2013) 1) Schedule Site Visits With Board Members 2) Bring Recommendation for Bond/Disclosure Counsel and Other Team Members as Needed 3) Develop Process for Procurement of Architectural Services 4) Schedule Additional Study Sessions and Information Meetings JANUARY CONTINUE WORKING ON PYRAMID 2. FINALIZE $7.9M ALLOCATIONS 3. REPORT ON PROGRESS FOR SELECTION OF BOND/DISCLOSURE COUNSEL 4. PRESENT PROCESS FOR SELECTION OF ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES

53 QUESTIONS?