1. education
2. school

Capital Improvement Planning
Sunset Ridge School District 29
April 27, 2015
EXPLORATION | INNOVATION | 21ST CENTURY
Overview
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
Assessment of Facility Repair & Improvement Needs
Selection of Architect and Construction Manger
Community Engagement
District Financial Analysis & Planning
Financing Options
Discussion & Recommendation
The Board of Education has reviewed
Basic repairs necessary to simply maintain buildings, including:
replacement of boilers and roofs
CONCLUSION:
Significant capital investment is necessary to ensure Educational and logistical that District 29 facilities shortcomings, including:facilities will continue inadequacy of certain instructional spaces
to support the level of lack of performing arts space excellence that has inadequacy of athletic facilities been a long tradition traffic flow and parking challenges desire for security enhancements
of the District.
accessibility improvements
replacing domestic water piping drain tiles abatement of asbestos
Anticipated Repairs by Building
Sunset Ridge Building Improvements
Middlefork Building Improvements
Projects
Projected Future Costs
Structural
Renovation of l obby bathrooms
Renovation of front l obby
Roof repairs
Roof Replacement (FY 2020-­‐2025)
$ 110,000
$ 400,000
$ 100,000
$ 1,500,000
Mechanical
Repair & Maintenance (annually)
Boiler Replacement (FY 2022-­‐2027)
Electrical
Exterior/interior l ights
Projects
Projected Future Costs
Structural
Replace roof -­‐ l arge gym (FY 2020)
General roof repairs
Roof Replacement (FY 2025)
Main e ntrance canopy
Kindergarten roof slabs/canopies
$ 120,000
$ 10,000
$ 800,000
$ 120,000
$ 3,000
$ 100,000
$ 500,000
Mechanical
Repair & Maintenance (annually)
Boiler Replacement (FY 2030)
$ 30,000
$ 250,000
$ 10,800
Electrical
Exterior/interior l ights
$ 2,800
Plumbing
Replacement of domestic galvanized water pipes
$ 345,000
Drainage/drain tile repairs/injection pumps/retention pond$ 500,000
Plumbing
Replacement of domestic galvanized water pipes
$ 162,000
Safety
Asbestos removal
Fire alarm i mprovements
Security Cameras
Lightning detection device
$ 15,500
$ 15,000
Safety
Security Cameras
Magnetic door hold-­‐open devices i n halls
Fire alarm i mprovements
Security Enhancements(vestibule, classroom doors, e tc.)
$ 10,000
$ 8,000
$ 7,000
$ 500,000
$ 230,000
Exterior Site Improvements
Repair asphalt and concrete around school
$ 175,000
$ 30,000
$ 12,000
Exterior Site Improvements
Repair asphalt and concrete around school
Misc. -­‐ (i.e. window replacement, room repairs, painting, etc.)
Replace l arge gym floor
$ 48,000
Attic i nsulation
$ 80,000
Window replacements
$ 54,000
Telephone system
$ 35,000
New dishwasher
$ 20,000
Repair foundation crack -­‐ 4/5 science room
Replace small gym floor
Floor tile replacements
Contingency
Totals
$ 50,000
$ 35,000
$ 15,000
$ 25,000
$ 4,230,300
Misc. -­‐ (i.e. window replacement, room repairs, painting, etc.)
Telephone system
$ 19,000
Repair/replace door frame molding
$ 15,000
Floor tile replacement
$ 15,000
Contingency
$ 25,000
Totals $ 2,271,800
Site Enhancements
Sunset Ridge Site Enhancements
Alleviate traffic issues
Drainage issues (i.e. cruddy creek)
Multi-­‐purpose room/Classroom addition
Restructing/rebuilding gym and music facilities; front/back drives; playing field areas
New 4th -­‐ 8th Grade Building
New K -­‐ 8th Grade Building
Middlefork Site Enhancements
$ 1,000,000
$ 2,000,000
$ 2,750,000
$ 14,000,000
$20 to $24 Million
$30 to $36 Million
Break-­‐out space/small group areas
Large multi-­‐purpose room addition
$ 325,000
$ 520,000
Guiding Principles •  High Quality Educational Facilities
o  Support 21st Century programming
•  Child-Centered Design
o  Design tailored to student needs
•  Fiscal Responsibility
o  Finance capital improvements with available funds
o  Avoid referendum for tax increase, if at all possible
•  Honoring History
o  How do we honor the great tradition within the SRS building (fireplace,
original classrooms, woodwork, artwork)?
Selecting our partners
Selection process for an architectural firm to develop capital improvement options.
Received qualifications from educational architecture firms and construction managers.
CONCLUSION:
On March 10, 2015 the Board of Education awarded CommiTee invited three architectural contracts to Wight & firms to participate in a “design Company
competition” to consider alternative and approaches.
Pepper Construction
Each firm submiHed capital improvement design concepts. UNIQUE, STUDENT-­‐‑
CENTERED ENVIRONMENT
Self Awareness Peer Awareness Community Awareness A CRESCENDO OF AWARENESS
Global Awareness Engage the Community
Community Engagement Process
•  Architectural Open House
o  Presentation of Renovation & New Construction Options
•  Literature & In-House Meetings
o  Disseminated information about repair & improvement needs and options
o  Discussed topic at PTO, Parent Connections meetings, Open-House Night
•  Engagesunsetridge29.com website
o  Launched website to share information and garner feedback
•  Community Engagement Meetings
o  Dates: March 18, 2015; April 9, 2015
o  Discussed options and participant’s preferences related to capital
improvements
PRIORITIES
to consider …
Quality Learning Environments
Future Viability
Community Vitality
Sustainability
On-­‐‑Site PE/Athletics
Performing Arts
Long-­‐‑Term Value (cost)
History and Tradition
Traffic Safety and Security
Site Considerations
Sunset Ridge School
9 acres
NORTH
Wagner Road
Sunset Ridge Road
Old Willow Road
Middlefork School
6 acres
Competition|Renovation Idea
Gym
Addition
Renovated Existing
Building
Academic
Addition
Competition|New Construction
New Building
Concept
Activities
group table discussion topics
new construction vs. renovate existing
grade level structure/
dynamics maintain one school site or two sites
priorities to consider Poll Results/March 18, 2015
Comments/March 18, 2015
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
Consider our culture
Maintenance going forward
Enrollment projections (2)
Research on effectiveness of K-­‐‑8 school
Outdoor learning spaces – garden, classroom
Traffic flow on Willow & Sunset Ridge
More practical options instead of talking hypothetical
Money $$$$
Timing (2)
New round of detailed site plans
Equity
Let’s talk design
Less expensive renovation
•  How to incorporate technology
•  Alternate plans – like 3rd through 8th – spending less on this and more for Middlefork
•  Educators recommendation on grade level ideal
•  Understanding the educational benefits of a K-­‐‑8 building
•  Cost of Middlefork renovation
•  What do teachers want?
•  Be clear about costs and the money that we already have to spend vs. taxes
•  Logistics of project and teaching kids
•  I’d like to hear from educators, planners about best practices around learning environments
•  Benefits of K-­‐‑8
New K-8 School Approach (conceptual)
Additional Building Footprint
18,000 s.f.(two-­‐‑stories:
28,000 s.f. total)
Additional
Stormwate
r
Detention
New Building Footprint
+/-­‐‑ 53,500 s.f.
(+/-­‐‑ 72,000 s.f. total)
Playground
Additional and Relocated Parking & Drives
27,000 s.f.
NORTH
Playgroun
d
Playgroun
d
Poten6al Benefits of K-­‐8 Configura6on Learning Environment for Students •  Access to 21st Century learning environment for ALL •  Collabora8ve opportuni8es across ALL grade levels •  Sustained Student : Teacher connec8ons for nine years •  Increased student contact 8me for travelling staff •  Possible achievement benefits for older students Learning Environment for Teachers •  Increased professional development and collabora8on 8me •  training, ar8cula8on, curriculum development, supervision Efficiency/Financials •  Reduced opera8ng and staffing costs •  Poten8al revenue genera8on from sale/lease of Middlefork Poten6al Drawbacks of K-­‐8 Configura6on Challenge in Space/Size Design •  Mee8ng more varied age levels/needs in common areas •  Traffic, parking, common areas (e.g., gym, lunch, music) •  Green spaces (fields, playgrounds) •  Before/aNer-­‐school programs Increased Cost (Es6mated $35 to $42 million) •  Larger facility (possible 3-­‐story design with zoning variances) •  Possible underground water reten8on •  Likely to require referendum to increase taxes Increased Construc6on Dura6on Limited Expansion Poten6al In The Event of Enrollment Growth Poll Results/April 9, 2015
Demographics > I am a ....... Answers Parent of Current SR Student Parent of Future SR Student Parent of Past SR Student Alumnus Staff Other Total Responses Percent 12 48.00% 4 16.00% 1 4.00% 0 0.00% 3 12.00% 5 20.00% 25 Given the op6ons for improving performing arts space, which do you prefer? Answers Renova8on Approach Addi8on Approach Mul8-­‐func8onal Auditorium/Cafeteria Approach Can't Decide Total Responses Percent 2 10.00% 4 20.00% 14 0 20 70.00% 0.00% Given the op6ons for improving physical educa6on space, which do you prefer? Answers Responses Percent Seat Renova8on Approach 0 0.00% Renovate/Enlarge Gym Approach 7 33.30% Gym & Locker Room Addi8on Approach 14 66.70% Can't Decide 0 0.00% Total 21 Given the op6ons for improving core academic spaces, which do you prefer? Answers Renova8on Approach Renovate/Addi8on Approach New Construc8on Approach Can't Decide Total Responses Percent 0 0.00% 5 21.70% 16 69.60% 2 8.70% 23 Select your priority for capital investment: Answers Responses Percent Improve Exis8ng: Performing Arts focus 2 10.00% Improve Exis8ng: PE/Wellness focus 0 0.00% Improve Exis8ng: Core Academics focus 2 10.00% None, I prefer to build a new Sunset Ridge School Total 16 20 80.00% Given the "POTENTIAL" benefits and drawbacks of a K-­‐8 campus, what would you prefer? Answers Maintain K-­‐3/4-­‐8 configura8on Change to a K-­‐8 configura8on Total Responses Percent 15 75.00% 5 25.00% 20 Poll Results/April 9, 2015
What critical themes should the Board consider as they determine the scope of our capital improvement project?
•  Middlefork as PK-­‐‑K move 1-­‐‑3 to new building •  Need to remember how much of an asset the proximity of the park district is to our K-­‐‑3 building. The child is at the heart of every decision.
•  How do any of these possibilities affect the ongoing education of the current students? •  Build 2 new schools several years apart and go to referendum •  What do the teachers want? •  Is a K8 building really possible on the site •  Make sure to consider all 3 additions as well •  Let'ʹs do what we can afford now and take on middle fork when we have some additional cash. •  Explain requirements gathering vs approval process. • 
Be progressive in the design and environmentally mindful. Include a garden and outdoor learning spaces STEM classes for every child. Build a 4-­‐‑8 now and in a few years improve or build a new MF (even if a referendum is necessary) The developmental needs of middle school (jr high) kids are very important and are quite different than their middle grade and elem counterparts. •  As a family of 2 working parents I would like to see us think about pre-­‐‑k for future parents. Just because we are a suburban community we should challenge our designed environment for the future not today. •  Decide to build new 4-­‐‑8 then begin to program the project in detail. There are too many options on the table. Logistics of new will be beHer for our current students. Community Engagement Summary
•  Community Priorities
o 
o 
o 
o 
o 
Safety & Security
Quality Learning Environment
Future Viability
Long-Term Value
Improve Performing Arts Facilities
•  New Construction over Renovation
•  Two-Building Format over K-8 Design
•  Other Considerations:
o  COST
o  Traffic Flow
o  Alternate Two School Configurations (e.g., PreK-3/4-8)
What Can We Afford?
•  Engage External Financial Analysis
o  PMA Financial
•  Consider Known and Unknown Assumptions
o 
o 
o 
o 
Staff Salaries & Benefits
CPI Trends
Federal & State Funding
Impacts of Potential Legislation
•  Develop Financial Model to Determine Available
Funds
District 29 Fund Balance Projection “Assumes No Capital Improvement Expenditures”
Aggregate View -­‐ Projec6on Summary -­‐ with No Projects $16,988,881 $18,000,000 $15,363,619 $16,000,000 $14,000,000 $14,089,413 $12,889,917 $13,050,064 2015 2016 $12,000,000 $10,000,000 $8,000,000 $6,000,000 $4,000,000 $2,000,000 $0 2017 FY End Balances 2018 2019 Fund Balance Related to Surplus Over Time
Assumes No Capital Improvement Expenditures
MODEL ASSUMPTIONS
ü  REVENUES & EXPENDITURES BOTH INCREASE AT RATE EQUAL TO THE CONSUMER PRICE INDEX (CPI)
ü  SUNSET RIDGE CAPITAL PROJECT EXPENDITURE: $25M •  $3M DOWN PAYMENT IN FY16
•  $22 M FINANCED
ü  MIDDLEFORK PROJECTS: $2.3M
Fund Balance Related to Surplus/Deficit Over Time
IMPACT OF CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS
ON FUND BALANCE
Fund Balance as a Percentage of Expenditures in 2025 Based on Total Cost of Projects
Constant: Middle Fork projects totat $2.4, paid in cash Variable: Amount for Sunset Ridge Constant: $3M down payment on Sunset Ridge Fund Balance as Percent of Expenditures in 2025 Total Cost: $23.4M $24.4M $25.4M $26.4M $27.4M $28.4M $29.4M Sunset Ridge: $21.0M $22.0M $23.0M $24.0M $25.0M $26.0M $27.0M 0% 70.7% 66.2% 61.7% 57.2% 52.8% 48.4% 44.1% 0.1% 70.1% 65.6% 61.1% 56.6% 52.2% 47.8% 43.5% 0.2% 69.5% 65.0% 60.5% 56.0% 51.6% 47.2% 42.9% 0.3% 68.9% 64.3% 59.8% 55.4% 51.0% 46.6% 42.3% 0.4% 68.3% 63.7% 59.2% 54.8% 50.4% 46.0% 41.7% 0.5% 67.7% 63.1% 58.6% 54.2% 49.8% 45.4% 41.1% IMPACT OF VARIED DOWN PAYMENTS ON FUND BALANCE
•  DOWN PAYMENT OF $5.4M
o  LOWEST FUND BALANCE WILL BE 41% IN FY16
•  DOWN PAYMENT OF $3M
o  LOWEST FUND BALANCE WILL BE 52.8 % IN FY25
•  DOWN PAYMENT OF $1.5M
o  LOWEST FUND BALANCE WILL BE 55.1% IN FY25
Borrowing Options:
“Lease Certificates” – Building a New Building without a Referendum
• 
The Illinois School Code allows a District to construct a new school building so long as tax dollars are not used to construct the building (Section 10-­‐‑22.36)
– 
– 
– 
– 
The District enters into a lease for the full amount of the project
The District finances the new building through a combination of fund balance and the issuance of lease certificates
•  The lease certificate debt service is paid from operating funds (not a separate tax levy like a GO Bond)
•  Lease certificates do not require any type of referendum
A separate entity is selected as lessor
•  A bank that has a trust department and is accustomed to the financing mechanism (e.g. Zion’s Bank)
•  A non-­‐‑profit entity
The District can take ownership of the building once the building is constructed and the lease is paid off
Borrowing Options (con’t): “Lease Certificates” – Building a New Building without a Referendum
• 
District intends to pay lease certificate debt service from operating funds
• 
In the future, a portion of the lease certificates could be refunded with “funding bonds” and paid from the Debt Service Extension Base
– 
The 2000 Bonds utilize the District’s non-­‐‑referendum capacity through fiscal year 2019
Lease Certificates –
Sample Plan of Finance
Estimated proceeds $22.0 million
Estimated Proceeds: $
Estimated TIC:
Fiscal
9,800,000 $
3.80%
12,200,000 $
2.97%
Lease
Lease
Certificates,
Certificates,
Combined:
22,000,000
3.49%
Total Debt
Year
Series 2015 (1) Series 2016 (1)
Service
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
2034
2035
$
242,573 $
386,400
386,400
386,400
386,400
386,400
386,400
386,400
386,400
386,400
386,400
386,400
386,400
1,611,400
1,607,400
1,611,600
1,608,600
1,608,600
1,611,400
1,606,800
164,654 $
1,230,850
1,232,000
1,232,400
1,232,050
1,230,950
1,229,100
1,231,900
1,233,700
1,233,900
1,232,325
1,233,725
1,227,875
-
407,228
1,617,250
1,618,400
1,618,800
1,618,450
1,617,350
1,615,500
1,618,300
1,620,100
1,620,300
1,618,725
1,620,125
1,614,275
1,611,400
1,607,400
1,611,600
1,608,600
1,608,600
1,611,400
1,606,800
$
16,145,173 $
14,945,429 $
31,090,603
(1) Rates based upon the "AAA" MMD index for April 22, 2015 and recent
bond sales which PMA believes to be accurate and reliable plus 0.25%.
Sunset Ridge 29 Debt Profile
“Existing Debt Service”
Non-Referendum Debt Service
Non
Referendum
$2,598,184
Debt Service
GO Limited Tax
Extension
School CABS,
Base Created
W/1994 Levy
Remaining
Bonds Debt
Loss/Cost
(1)
Margin (1)
Service
Debt Service
Levy
Fiscal
Series 2000
Year
Year
(WC)
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
2034
2035
$
Total DS From
Current FY: $
360,000 $
360,000
360,000
360,000
360,000
360,000
360,000
360,000
360,000
360,000
358,964
362,458
275,000
2,076,422 $
Total
360,000 $
360,000
360,000
360,000
360,000
360,000
360,000
360,000
360,000
360,000
358,964
362,458
275,000
2,076,422
Total General
Obligation
362,765 $
362,765
362,765
363,128
372,932
378,526
389,882
396,510
402,458
405,677
405,677
405,677
405,677
405,677
405,677
405,677
405,677
405,677
405,677
405,677
405,677
405,677
405,677
405,677
405,677
405,677
405,677
405,677
5.0% County
2,765 $
2,765
2,765
3,128
12,932
18,526
29,882
36,510
42,458
45,677
46,714
43,219
130,677
405,677
405,677
405,677
405,677
405,677
405,677
405,677
405,677
405,677
405,677
405,677
405,677
405,677
405,677
405,677
360,000 $
360,000
360,000
360,000
360,000
360,000
360,000
360,000
360,000
360,000
358,964
362,458
275,000
-
$
2,076,422 $
378,000 $
378,000
378,000
378,000
378,000
378,000
378,000
378,000
378,000
378,000
376,912
380,581
288,750
-
Growth B&I Tax
EAV
Rate
469,567,698
578,324,530 23.16%
615,261,741
6.39%
610,219,904 -0.82%
535,066,547 -12.32%
483,660,807 -9.61%
453,227,558 -6.29%
405,356,889 -10.56%
405,356,889
0.00%
405,356,889
0.00%
405,356,889
0.00%
405,356,889
0.00%
405,356,889
0.00%
405,356,889
0.00%
405,356,889
0.00%
405,356,889
0.00%
405,356,889
0.00%
405,356,889
0.00%
405,356,889
0.00%
405,356,889
0.00%
405,356,889
0.00%
405,356,889
0.00%
405,356,889
0.00%
405,356,889
0.00%
405,356,889
0.00%
405,356,889
0.00%
405,356,889
0.00%
405,356,889
0.00%
Rate
0.0805
0.0654
0.0614
0.0619
0.0706
0.0782
0.0834
0.0933
0.0933
0.0933
0.0930
0.0939
0.0712
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
2,180,243
________
(1) Pursuant to Public Act 96-0501, the District's DSEB will increase by the lesser of CPI or 5% each year starting with levy year 2009.
The applicable CPI increase has been applied to levy years 2009-2015, and assumed to be 0% per year thereafter.
If the District issues non-referendum bonds with debt service structured assuming a growing DSEB, it will need to pass resolutions,
perhaps annually, to capture the additional DSEB levy available from CPI growth.
If the CPI growth is less than estimated on average, the District will have to pay debt service in excess of the DSEB from funds on hand.
Next Steps
•  Identify Project Scope and District Funds to be
Expended
•  Begin Programming Meetings on Design
o  Staff, Students, Community Members
•  Establish BOE “Target Fund Balance” Policy
o  Delineate protocol if above/below fund balance target range
•  Secure Financing