Public School Capital Outlay Council 2004 2005 NMASBO

Public School Capital Outlay Council 2004 -2005 NMASBO PSAB SUPPLEMENT 16 Public School Facilities Authority Presented by: Robert Gorrell, Director March 23 d and 24 th, 2004 -- Albuquerque, NM Public School Facilities Authority Phone: (505) 988 -5989 2019 Galisteo, Suite B-1 Fax: Santa Fe, NM 87505 http: //www. nmschoolbuildings. org (505) 988 -5933

Presentation Outline Introduction Purpose of the Public School Capital Outlay Council (PSCOC) Members of the PSCOC Recent Capital Outlay History Eligibility Requirements Adequacy Standards Facilities Condition Index The Application Timeline PSFA Assistance District Responsibilities Maintenance Requirements Roofing Issues

Introduction Public school capital outlay is financed by and the responsibility of the 89 local school districts and the State of New Mexico. Three pillars that support the new process: – Adequacy – Uniformity – Fairness Adequacy -- establish the minimum acceptable level for the physical condition and capacity of buildings, the educational suitability of facilities and the need for technological infrastructure. Uniformity – Adequacy Standards applied statewide; every school district may apply for funds. Fairness -- Utilization of the New Mexico Facilities Condition Index database rankings addressing greatest needs first.

Purpose of the PSCOC Ø The Public School Capital Outlay Council is charged with carrying out the Public School Capital Outlay Act. Ø The purpose of the Public School Capital Outlay Act (22 -242) is to ensure that, through a standards-based process for all school districts, the physical condition and capacity, educational suitability and technology infrastructure of all public school facilities in New Mexico meet an adequate level statewide and the design, construction and maintenance of school sites and facilities encourage, promote and maximize safe, functional and durable learning environments in order for the state to meet its educational responsibilities and for New Mexico’s students to have the opportunity to achieve success.

Deficiencies Correction Program Part of the Capital Outlay Act All Districts eligible for 100% Funding. Limited to certain serious prioritized life, safety or health deficiencies. $294. 6 million from various sources. As of March 2, 2004, 373 projects totaling $211. 2 M have been allocated by the Council. All projects are to be identified & funded by June 2005 and completed by June 2007.

Members of the PSCOC Ø Ø Ø Ø Ø [School] Catherine Smith, Chair [Legis. ] Paula Tackett (LCS Director) [Exec. ] James Jimenez (DFA Secretary) [Legis] Dr. Pauline Rindone (LESC Director) [Exec. ] Victoria Garcia (PED Secretary) [School] Marvin Marquez (NMSBA – designee) [Exec. ] Lisa Martinez (CID Director) [Exec. ] David Contarino (Governor – designee) [Legis. ] David Abbey (LFC Director)

Recent Capital Outlay History 1975 – 2001: districts qualified for capital outlay by reaching a threshold of local bonded indebtedness and demonstrating need. 1998: lawsuit filed by the Zuni Pubic School District against the State. The lawsuit challenged the constitutionality of the state’s process for funding public school capital outlay. 1999: State ordered by the court to correct past inequities and to establish and implement a uniform system of funding for future school capital outlay. 2000: State established a Public School Capital Outlay Task Force. 2001: Task Force recommendations enacted into law – Deficiencies Correction Unit created – $294. 6 million committed YTD to correct outstanding deficiencies statewide – Funding provided to continue to remedy critical capital outlay needs – Increased the funding for maintenance – Set the timeframe and framework for the implementation of a long-term public school capital improvement process – Standards-based.

Past Eligibility Requirements (allocation cycles before September 1, 2003) A need exists requiring action; The residents of the school district have provided available resources to the school district to meet its capital outlay requirements. This criterion is met by the applicant school district imposing a two (2) mill levy for the fiscal years in which the allocation will be distributed in accordance with the Public School Capital Improvement Act (sections 22 -25 -1 through 22 -25 -10 NMSA 1978); The school district has used its capital resources in a prudent manner; The school district is indebted at not less than 65% of the total general obligation debt authorized by law or, a district has been indebted at 65% within the past three years and currently has a critical need to complete a project previously funded by the PSCOC within that period for the initial stages;

Past Eligibility Requirements (continued) The application includes the capital needs of any charter schools located in the school district or, the school district has shown that the capital needs of the charter schools are not as great as the capital needs requested in the application; The application includes facilities needed in the school district to implement a full-day kindergarten program or, the school district has shown that the need for facilities to implement the program is not as great as the capital needs requested in the application; The school district has submitted a five-year facility plan that includes enrollment projections; a current preventative maintenance plan to which the school adheres for each public school in the district; and projections for the facilities needed in order to maintain a full-day kindergarten program.

PSCOC Grant Eligibility Requirements All school districts eligible to apply for funding, regardless of level of indebtedness. A Standards based need exists requiring action; The school district has used its capital resources in a prudent manner. The school district has current Facilities Master Plan The school district has current Preventive Maintenance Plan and it is being implemented. Priority projects determined by using the statewide adequacy standards adopted by the PSCOC, September 1, 2002. State-local share of approved project costs to be calculated by sliding scale formula (22 -24 -5 NMSA), the average of which is approx. 50 -50. Council may pay 100% of project cost if subject district unable to pay but may be required to be repaid by the district.

Facilities Condition Index • Based on BOMA Standards • Measures Facility Life Cycles • Includes a 3% Annual Cost Escalation (inflation) • Eight deficiency and inadequacy priority categories are weighted according to the relative priority. The “weighted” FCI referred to as: New Mexico Condition Index (NMCI) The NMCI database is a tool to help the PSCOC and districts prioritize which facilities should receive funding first.

Facilities Condition Index • Based on BOMA Standards • Measures Facility Life Cycles • Includes a 3% Annual Cost Escalation (inflation) Formula: Needed Repairs ($) Replacement Value = “Simple” FCI Example: Needed Repairs of $10 K = 10% Facility Value of $100 K

New Mexico Condition Index NMCI (%) Renewal Repairs ($) (Weighted) + Growth Factors + Adequacy Standards Correction Costs (Weighted) _________________ Replacement Value ($)

NM Facilities Condition Index (continued) Weights applied to Standards deficiencies Category Description 1 Adequacy: life, safety, health Weight 3. 5 7 3 Adequacy – Space Mitigate Additional Damage 3. 0 2 6 5 8 4 Potential Mission Impact/ Degraded Adequacy – Facility Grandfathered or State Recommended Adequacy -- Equipment Beyond Expected Life 1. 5 1. 0 0. 5 0. 25

New Mexico Condition Index (Conclusion) Schools with the greatest needs (relatively high NMCI values %) will be addressed first, and then PSCOC will work down the list each year until every school facility in the state meets the Adequacy Standards for the delivery of quality education in a safe, clean and fully functional facility. The NMCI rankings may change through data evaluation, revision and appeals process. The number of projects approved is subject to available annual funding.

The Application http: //www. nmschoolbuildings. org

PSCOC Grant Awards • Grants up to 100% of Adequacy (Districts to fund above) • District matching fund contingencies • Lack of matching fund affirmation • Current phasing commitments and future phasing scenarios –multiyear funding scenarios within funding limits to be determined. • Direct/Indirect project management by PSFA o District preferences & financial capabilities o Certification Training (procurement, contracts) o PSFA Staffing • Direct Payment/District Payment/Reimbursement Options

Additional Application Info ü First Submission due April 30 th, 2004. ü Final Revised application due July 12 th. • Ten weeks between first due date and final revision for collaboration with PSFA “honing” application. • If you have a current Master Plan, a new one is likely not required. Some updates and completion of facility utilization worksheet will be required. • If you have a current Preventive Maintenance Plan, a new one may not be required. Completion of on-line budget information and roof inventory (or equal) will be required. Implementation will be verified.

Timeline 03/18 – 03/19 Application Training 03/24 – 03/26 PED Spring budget workshop 04/07 District 3/DI corrections data due to PSFA 04/09 Final NMFCI rankings 04/12 District appeals of rankings due to PSFA 04/13 PSCOC awards review of preliminary applicant pool 04/15 Web-Based Maintenance Plan rollout – phase 1 04/15 – 05/01 PSFA Master Planner Visits to Districts 04/16 PSCOC Meeting 04/21 Final NMFCI rankings and potential pool published.

Timeline (continued) 04/30 PSCO 2004 -2005 Initial Application Deadline 05/05 PSCOC Rules – Public Hearing 05/12 PSCOC Meeting 05/13 Web-based Master Plan – Phase 1 Rollout 06/09 PSCOC Meeting 07/20 Final Revised Application Deadline 08/04 – 08/05 PSCOC Presentation Meeting 08/10 – 08/11 PSCOC Presentation Meeting 09/15 PSCOC Awards Sub-committee 09/21 PSCOC 2004 -2005 Grant Awards Meeting

PSFA Support Your regional manager, known to you as your Construction Manager, are your primary source for PSFA assistance. If he or she does not have the immediate answer or help you need, they will get it from our central staff and make sure it gets to you in a timely fashion. Project Planning Code Assistance Plan Checking Rules for RFPs & Contracts Building Standards Project Management Project Close-out Training – CIMMS, Comet, Procurement, etc. Application Assistance NMCI Data Base Modifications

PSFA Assistance Ø www. nmschoolbuildings. org – – – – General Information Approved Projects Centralized Bid & RFP Announcements Building Standards and Specifications Adequacy Standards and Guidelines PSFA Forms and Documents Other Website Links Ø Questions about completing the grant application? Contact: Tim Berry tberry@psfa. k 12. nm. us 505 -988 -5989 x 109 Ø Require training on the FCI Database? Contact: Julia Small jsmall@psfa. k 12. nm. us 505 -771 -2640 cell: 505 362 -2325

Post Award: District Responsibilities 1. Designate “District Representative” to serve as single point-of-contact for all PSCOC funded work. 2. The Work belongs to the District! a) The PSFA is available to assist b) The District must manage it’s own work 3. Provide centralized purchasing functions in accordance with the Procurement Code. 4. District central purchasing shall: a) Draft Requests for Proposals (RFP) b) Issue legal notices c) Administer RFP selection process d) Draft contracts e) Issue Invitation to Bid (ITB) f) Process Pay Apps. (to PSFA-CM)

Roles and Responsibilities Authority – The PSFA has been charged with assisting school district in the development, implementation and review of maintenance plans and performance pursuant to those plans.

Roles and Responsibilities Purpose – Develop and support a long-term, statewide maintenance effort – Promote training opportunities to improve the districts ability to maintain their facilities – Create a standardized reporting format to facilitate districts ability to comply with preventive maintenance requirements – Create a phased process for implementing the collection of district maintenance data – Conduct maintenance management reviews

Roles and Responsibilities Scope – Applies to all district maintenance plans and district personnel responsible for maintenance, repair, custodial and grounds functions within district school property and facilities

Roles and Responsibilities Tasks – Ensure all districts have a preventive maintenance plan – Provide Guidance to district to fulfill their maintenance plan obligations – Provide support to districts and the PSCOC regarding maintenance related issues – Be a resource for job descriptions, staff training, industry standards and life cycle analysis of building/site systems – Interface with other state agencies to resolve jurisdictional and inspection conflicts – Create recommendations for wage and benefit equity where applicable – Develop requirements for, evaluate, test and implement a facilities information management software system (FIMS) – Integrate maintenance plan reporting into the FIMS system with standardized web format

Roles and Responsibilities Requirements – Prioritized maintenance for all property and installed equipment – Detailed master equipment list for both safety and non-safety related equipment, components and structures – Budget and accounting for maintenance plans shall be consistent with legislative and public education department guidelines – Maintenance of all furniture, fixtures and equipment shall meet or exceed their design requirements – Periodic review of structures, systems and components for deterioration or obsolescence which could threaten performance or safety

Roles and Responsibilities Objectives – Develop a maintenance budget within available resources, based on requirements that are defendable and facilitate the tracking of expenditures – Ensure reliability, safety and operability of structures, systems and components – Ensure compliance with environmental, safety and health standards – Ensure that responsibility, authority and accountability for each maintenance classification is clearly defined – Ensure that there are effective procedures to evaluate and measure the condition of facilities – Installation of an automated maintenance control and reporting system (FIMS)

Maintenance Plan Guidelines Overview – Provide a standard format for reporting requested information – Auto-generation to be used where possible – Web accessible – User friendly

Maintenance Plan Guidelines Password protected access

Maintenance Plan Guidelines Menu

Maintenance Plan Guidelines Contact information Vision Statement Mission Statement Goal Statement

Maintenance Plan Guidelines Organization and Staffing

Maintenance Plan Guidelines Organization Responsibilities/Obstacles and Training Concerns

Maintenance Plan Guidelines District Maintenance Budget

Maintenance Plan Guidelines District Funding Sources

Maintenance Plan Guidelines Condition of Facilities

Maintenance Plan Guidelines Preventive Maintenance Program

Maintenance Plan Guidelines Site Management – Phased implementation requirement for all districts • • • FY 2004 – Controls/Energy Management FY 2004 – Roofs FY 2005 – HVAC/Mechanical Systems FY 2005 – Janitorial/Custodial FY 2006 – Electrical/Lighting Systems FY 2006 – Fire Control/Security/Communications FY 2006 – Grounds/Landscaping/Irrigation FY 2007 – Plumbing/Boiler/Pumps FY 2007 – Building Envelopes FY 2008 – Kitchen/Others Systems TBD

Maintenance Plan Guidelines Roofs

Maintenance Plan Guidelines Work Control System

Roof Management Presented by David Armstrong Group, Inc

Introduction Armstrong Group is a New Mexico Roof Consulting Firm Overview of problems and issues we have found The following is the scope of work we are presently providing in many of the districts

Roof Management Knowing and Understanding the Roofing Inventory Implementation of a Plan Execution of on-going Maintenance and Roof Management Plan

Knowing and Understanding the Roofing Inventory Complete Roof Evaluations are key – Complete leak history analysis – Evaluating the existing conditions – Evaluating application issues – Evaluating material conditions – Evaluating other trades that affect the roofing system – Gathering all the data required to put budgets and scopes of work together

Implementation of a Plan Creating the plan from the evaluation – Interpreting the data collected from the evaluation and creating the report for • • • Immediate repair needs Immediate roofing needs Warranty issues Development of currant costs and future budgets Development of on repair and maintenance requirements

Implementation of a Plan Execution of the work – Understanding the scope work – Development of good and clear bidding documents – Observation of the installation, maintenance and fixing of warranty issues by a third party roof consultant

Execution of on-going Maintenance and Roof Management Plans Execution of district wide evaluations Inspections every other year of the districts roofs Development and execution of the Roof Plan Installation over site for quality control by a third party Keeping good records of the evaluations, Warranties and work performed