Facilities Board Workshop November 15, 2018 Agenda Section 1 - - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Facilities Board Workshop November 15, 2018 Agenda Section 1 - Presentation Overview Section 2 - Enrollment vs. Capacity Analysis Section 3 - Facility Master Plan Section 4 - School Site Projects Section 5 - School Facility
November 15, 2018
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Facilities Master Plan
1. Dublin Elementary School 2. Frederiksen Elementary School 3. Murray Elementary School
9
Why a Facilities Master Plan?
The Facilities Master Plan helps the District and Public to Define and Prioritize the projects to be done district-wide and on a site‐by site basis, in order to maximize Matching Funding and use the Taxpayer’s Money in the best possible way. Dublin Unified School District recognizes several challenges that it must face during the next decade:
residential construction in formerly undeveloped areas, enrollment changes, and infill development in existing residential areas;
provide educational equity throughout the District
10
The process of creating a comprehensive Facilities Master Plan includes input from multiple stakeholders and data.
11
Quattrocchi Kwok Architect
ATI Architect
Lionakis Architect
12
13
14
current administration location
lack of shade
significant upgrading
meet current and future load
courtyard buildings
15
decaying
condition
upgrading
services too small
concerns
16
needed
telecommunication cabling
system
detector in every classroom
at drop-off area
locations
17
18
19
20
ATI ARCHITECTS + ENGINEERS, INC. NOVEMBER 15, 2018
FREDERIKSEN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
21
FREDERIKSEN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
BOARD APPROVED SITE CONCEPT
22
FREDERIKSEN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
BOARD APPROVED SITE CONCEPT
23
FREDERIKSEN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
FACILITY NEEDS ASSESSMENT
24
FREDERIKSEN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
25
FREDERIKSEN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
COMMUNITY MEETING FEEDBACK
26
FREDERIKSEN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
CURRENT SCOPE OF WORK
27
FREDERIKSEN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
AERIAL VIEW
28
FREDERIKSEN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
REPLACEMENT SCHOOL – CONCEPT
29
30
31
ARCHITECTURE ENGINEERING PLANNING INTERIORS GRAPHICS SUSTAINABILITY
MURRAY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL COMMUNITY MEETING
DUBLIN UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT NOVEMBER 15, 2018
32
AGENDA
33
MURRAY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
NEED FOR ADDITIONAL BUILDINGS
– Expecting significant number of additional students by August 2020 – Not enough Primary Grade Classrooms – Not enough Kindergarten Classrooms – Multipurpose Building is too small – Already not enough parking / drop-off
34
MURRAY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
PROGRAM COMPARISON
35
MURRAY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
SITE PLAN – PREVIOUSLY PROPOSED MASTER PLAN
EXISTING BUILDING EXISTING BUILDING RELOCATED PROPOSED CLASSROOMS PROPOSED SUPPORT PROPOSED RESTROOMS LEGEND36
37
38
39
40
MURRAY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
COMMUNITY MEETING
– August 30, 2018 – Shared planning to date – Gathered input on current site issues – Heard feedback on proposed plan
41
MURRAY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
REVISED GOALS / SITE DESIGN PARAMETERS
stakeholder & community-at-large input:
– Create a “street frontage” on western edge of the site – Increase length of drop-off & number of parking spaces – Place main entry at “top” of site – Make buildings single-story – Stay away from neighbors’ property to extent possible – Maintain northern & western neighborhood access points
42
MURRAY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
REVISED SITE PLAN – REPLACE EXISTING & ADD NEW
43
MURRAY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
SCHEDULE
‒ Involve phased construction ‒ Start construction in fall of 2019 ‒ Assume use of pre-fabricated buildings to deliver new Classrooms in time for fall of 2020 ‒ Assume new Multi-purpose Building is constructed using conventional construction
December of 2022
fall of 2022
44
45
46
What Options Are Available To Fund Our Facilities?
47
Developer Fees
residential and commercial developments.
48
50
51
COP Financing
52
▪ An asset (usually a school site) is used to secure a lease. ▪ A non-profit financing corporation is used as lessor – provides upfront payment (COP proceeds) in exchange for initial lease from District. ▪ The District leases back property for annual lease payments. ▪ The non-profit corporation assigns lease payments to a trustee to pass on to COP holders. ▪ Sources of repayment include: ▪ General Fund ▪ Developer Fees ▪ Adult Education or other specific fund ▪ Special Taxes ▪ Ultimate security for the COPs is the District’s General Fund.
Characteristic GOBs COPs Voter Approval Required? Yes No Repayment Source Taxpayers District sources Use of Funds Capital projects, limited by bond language Capital projects as identified by District Board Repayment Term Up to 40 years, but no longer than 120% of useful life of project Useful life of project
Summary of COP Financing
Assumptions: ▪ Interest Rate COP Scale based on ‘Aa3/AA-’ rating provided by an underwriter.
Bond ratings. ▪ Financing term:
▪ Payment Dates:
$3 Million Estimated Annual revenue
Par Amount $51,040,000 Building Fund Deposit $50,249,973 Insurance 25 bps Surety 200 bps Developer Fee Revenue per Year 3 Million Escalation Rate
54
2016 Measure H Authorization
▪ Voters approved Measure H in June 2016 for a total of $283 million in bond authorization. ▪ With a higher than expected AV growth in 2018-19, the District will be able to accelerate the Measure H issuance schedule. ▪ Series C and D can be issued in 2021 and 2023, respectively. Assumptions: ▪ Max Tax Rate = $60/$100,000 of AV ▪ 4% annual AV growth ▪ Current interest bonds only ▪ Up to 30 year term per series
Estimated Tax Rates
Issue Issue Date Term Par Amount Series A 11/23/2016 30 years $60,000,000 Series B 10/26/2017 30 years 100,000,000 Series C 8/1/2021 27 years 90,000,000 Series D 8/1/2023 25 years 33,000,000 Total $283,000,000 Issuance Schedule
55
Potential 2020 Bond Measure
▪ District voters approved the Election of 1993 authorization on June 8, 1993 for a total of $36 million. All bonds have been issued under this authorization. ▪ The District currently has $16.355 million of principal outstanding with a final maturity of 8/1/2023. The highest estimated tax rate based on an AV growth of 4.00% is approximately $27 per $100,000 AV. ▪ The District could consider a future bond authorization with a “No Tax Rate Increase” (NTRI) corresponding to the outstanding Election
▪ Below is the estimated tax revenue capacity for the Election of 1993 (beyond what is needed for outstanding debt service) assuming a projected tax rate of $27 per $100,000 AV.
Capacity for new authorization
56
Funding Analysis: $144M Authorization
▪ Based on a tax rate of $27 per $100,000 of assessed value and projected AV growth of 4.0%, the District can seek bond authorization
Assumptions: ▪ Current interest bonds only ▪ Interest rates:
▪ Financing term:
▪ 4.00% annual AV growth rates
Future Bond Issuance Schedule Issue Issue Date Par Amount Series A 8/1/2021 $48,000,000 Series B 8/1/2024 48,000,000 Series C 8/1/2027 48,000,000 Total $144,000,000 Estimated Tax Rates
57
58
History of Assessed Values
Fiscal Year Total AV % Change
1993-94 1,533,050,385 ~ 1994-95 1,566,734,142 2.20% 1995-96 1,570,413,450 0.23% 1996-97 1,619,391,735 3.12% 1997-98 1,700,597,702 5.01% 1998-99 1,944,840,715 14.36% 1999-00 2,355,930,028 21.14% 2000-01 3,028,176,735 28.53% 2001-02 3,767,582,972 24.42% 2002-03 4,353,569,810 15.55% 2003-04 4,900,489,382 12.56% 2004-05 5,505,303,901 12.34% 2005-06 6,312,283,071 14.66% 2006-07 7,405,985,545 17.33% 2007-08 8,198,148,296 10.70% 2008-09 8,606,952,302 4.99% 2009-10 8,345,686,930
2010-11 8,194,714,097
2011-12 8,365,703,833 2.09% 2012-13 8,792,909,514 5.11% 2013-14 9,645,453,166 9.70% 2014-15 11,116,721,540 15.25% 2015-16 12,600,073,069 13.34% 2016-17 13,746,609,425 9.10% 2017-18 14,804,967,839 7.70% 2018-19 16,222,025,942 9.57%
Compound Annual Growth Rate
1 - Year 9.57% 15 - Year 8.31% 5 - Year 10.96% 20 - Year 11.19% 10 - Year 6.54% 25 - Year 9.90%
Source: California Municipal Statistics, Inc.59
Bond Assumptions
▪ For a new GO bond measure, the District will need to consider various structural features/underlying assumptions to calculate the bond measure amount and tax rate. ▪ Tax rate – under Proposition 39 general obligation bond measures, the maximum tax rate is $60 / $100,000 of assessed value. ▪ Number of issues – determined based on the anticipated cash- flow needs of the District. ▪ Bond repayment term – generally 25 to 30 years. ▪ Repayment ratios/interest costs. ▪ Assessed value (AV) growth assumptions.
AB No. 195 Local initiative measures: Ballot printing specifications AB No. 2116 School bonds: Projections of assessed property valuations
Summary:
The bill requires the statement describing the measure to be a true and impartial synopsis of the proposed measure, as specified. "…[The statement] would require the amount of money to be raised annually and the rate and duration of the tax to be levied."
Summary:
This bill requires the governing board of a school district and the governing board of a community college district to obtain reasonable and informed projections of assessed property valuations that take into consideration projections of assessed property valuations made by the county assessor. Bill would also delete obsolete references and make other nonsubstantive changes.
60
Developer Fee Collections
▪ Over the past ten years the District has collected over $81 million dollars in developer fee collections to assist with the impact of students generated from new developments.
Source: District.
61
Campaign Team
▪ Our approach regarding planning for a new bond measure emphasizes collaboration with industry experts to ensure the District is receiving thoughtful and unbiased information from experts in their respective fields. ▪ Our recommended approach is to begin with a feasibility analysis that includes the following:
structure and timing; ensures funding needed for projects can be delivered on time.
support and priorities.
provides input regarding project prioritization and tax rate sensitivity.
Campaign Team
Component Description Funding Analysis
based upon bonding capacity limits, tax rate constraints, and financing assumptions.
bond issuance schedule. Campaign Strategy
sensitivities and project specific information.
community characteristics and polling data. Voter Survey
support for various funding scenarios.
62
MSRB Rule G-42: Disclosure of Conflicts of Interest and Legal or Disciplinary Events
Pursuant to Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board (“MSRB”) Rule G-42, on Duties of Non-Solicitor Municipal Advisors, Municipal Advisors are required to make certain written disclosures to clients which include, amongst other things, Conflicts of Interest and any Legal or Disciplinary events of KNN Public Finance, LLC (“KNN Public Finance”) and its associated persons. Conflicts of Interest KNN Public Finance represents that in connection with the issuance of municipal securities, KNN Public Finance may receive compensation from an Issuer or Obligated Person for services rendered, which compensation is contingent upon the successful closing of a transaction and/or is based on the size of a transaction. Consistent with the requirements of MSRB Rule G-42, KNN Public Finance hereby discloses that such contingent and/or transactional compensation may present a potential conflict of interest regarding KNN Public Finance’s ability to provide unbiased advice to enter into such transaction. This conflict of interest will not impair KNN Public Finance’s ability to render unbiased and competent advice or to fulfill its fiduciary duty to the Issuer. If KNN Public Finance becomes aware of any additional potential or actual conflict of interest after this disclosure, KNN Public Finance will disclose the detailed information in writing to the Issuer in a timely manner. Legal or Disciplinary Events KNN Public Finance, LLC, has never been subject to any legal, disciplinary or regulatory actions nor was it ever subject to any legal, disciplinary or regulatory actions previously, when it was a division of Zions First National Bank or Zions Public Finance, Inc. A regulatory action disclosure has been made on Form MA-I for one of KNN Public Finance municipal advisory personnel relating to a 1998 U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) order that was filed while the municipal advisor was employed with a prior firm, (not KNN Public Finance). The details of which are available in Item 9; C(1), C(2), C(4), C(5) and the corresponding regulatory action DRP section on Form MA and Item 6C; (1), (2), (4), (5) and the corresponding regulatory action DRP section on Form MA-I. Issuers may electronically access KNN Public Finance’s most recent Form MA and each most recent Form MA-I filed with the Commission at the following website: www.sec.gov/edgar/searchedgar/companysearch.html. The SEC permits certain items of information required on Form MA and Form MA-I to be provided by reference to such required information already filed on a regulatory system (e.g., FINRA CRD). The above noted regulatory action has been referenced on both Form MA and MA-I due to the information already filed on FINRA’s CRD system and is publicly accessible through BrokerCheck at http://brokercheck.finra.org. For purposes of accessing such BrokerCheck information, the Municipal Advisor’s CRD number is 4457537.
63
Funding and Needs Analysis
64
For inquiries about the Facilities Master Plan for Dublin Unified School District, or
Planning Website or contact:
Joe Sorrera Assistant Superintendent, Business Services sorrerajoe@dublinusd.org Hilbert Contreras Chief Facilities Operations Officer contrerashilbert@dublinusd.org
65