CSix-year plan for the years 2019-2024

Background Information:

3:00 p.m.

Six-Year Plan Narrative

1. FUNDING COMMITMENT

DEED has modified the form for submitting the six-year plan to include signature from the School Board President in addition to the Superintendent. The basis behind this is to document that the School Board acknowledges and accepts the potential local funding commitment to provide matching funds for all project applications on the list.

As shown, the current total amount on the six-year plan is approximately $42 million. It is expected that matching funds will be required in the 50% range in the future. This equates to obtaining voter approval to bond $21 million over the next six years.

If the School Board is not ready to commit to this funding effort, then the list needs to be modified to a level that is more accommodating.

2. FUNDING POTENTIAL

Historically, projects were placed on the six-year plan have been positioned by perceived need, with no regard to potential funding capability. Placement on the six-year plan is also critical in preserving points. Three points are lost for every notch down on the six-year plan. Through the years, DEED has modified how project grant submissions have been scored. For new school construction, there are 520 scoring points possible. The top 3 tend to score in the 270 to 300 range. This last year, the top three state projects were separated by only 20 points. For major maintenance projects, there are 370 scoring points possible. The top 10 tend to score in the 180 to 200 range. This last year, positions 3-11 were separated by less than 10 points.

In reviewing current scoring guidelines, there are several categories of projects that will never score high enough to qualify for funding. Some of those project types include:

• Replacing building components/systems that have failed due to age or insufficient maintenance.
  
  • Roofs
  • Mechanical systems
  • Mechanical control systems
  • Fire alarm systems
  • Siding
  • Windows
  • Doors and entries
• Parking lots
• Playgrounds

Projects that tend to score highest are for those facilities that are 30-40 years old, and have a history of being overcrowded.

Preliminary design efforts for ed-specs and schematic design provide a huge impact on the score.

3. FUNDING OPTIONS

Funding for projects falls into three basic funds; Bond Reimbursement, Grants, and Completed Project Reimbursements.

2. Reimbursement is limited to a narrow range of project types and does not have to compete in scoring. The School District would need to bond for the entire cost of the project with the potential of 70% reimbursement. This option is under moratorium until July 1, 2022.

Grants cover a broad scope of projects, but are extremely competitive as only the top scoring projects have a chance for funding. This is the recommended route for projects with the potential to score high in the evaluation process. Grants have required a 35% match by the requesting organization in the past, but it is anticipated that the matching amount will be increased in the future.

Completed Project Reimbursements cover a broad scope of projects, but do not have to compete in scoring. Restrictions are that the project must be eligible in nature, and all procurement guidelines had to have been followed. This is the recommended route for project with little opportunity to score high in the evaluation process. Reimbursement for completed projects that comply is 50% of the project cost. Reimbursements have no restrictions and can be used for other projects which could also qualify for a subsequent 50% reimbursement. Any project seeking reimbursement under this option could not be funded by bonding unless those bonds were issued after July 1, 2022.

4. PROJECTS DISCUSSION

1. Nanwalek Classroom

The original 2,900 square foot building in Nanwalek was constructed in 1958, with a 3,000 square foot addition added in 1977, and an 8,700 square foot addition added in 1984. The weighted age of the building is over 40 years. Located right on the coast, the aged building requires significant maintenance and most of the building systems are reaching critical age for replacement parts.

We are anticipating our ADM to be 140% of capacity.

The proposal to construct a standalone portable classroom as a stop-gap to the current classroom shortage.

Projected scoring of a project to either build a new facility, or add a classroom is +/- 275 to 280, which would have been the number 2 project compared to those submitted in the last year.

Under current guidelines, Nanwalek school would be eligible for a new 30,000 square foot facility at a projected cost of $20-$25 million. If the $500,00 portable is added, it would reduce our scoring to +/- 235 (#5 position) and would severely reduce our chances for receiving funding for a new school and require us to stay in the aged facility. Either way, no funding would be available until after July 1, 2022.

2. District Wide Security Upgrades and Office Remodels

DEED has changed their grant application parameters to not allow “district wide” projects. Projects are allowed to be bundled, but would have to be bid together as a single contract to be eligible for funding.

These upgrades / remodels will not score well, and do not have much chance of every being funded under normal procedures. It is recommended that these projects be funded with a separate bond and reimbursement applied for after construction is completed. To qualify for reimbursement, bonding for the project would have to be made after July 1, 2022.

3. Homer HS Re-roof

Normally, a roofing project would not qualify for grant funding. In this case, the project is tied to needs to repair internal gutters, and increase attic ventilation. Increased attic ventilation will reduce condensation in the attic and keep attic insulation drier and thereby keep the insulation factor up, reducing utility costs. As roof replacements do not qualify for grant funding, any funding would have to be justified through energy savings.

4. Redoubt Elementary Re-roof

As mentioned previously, roofing projects on their own are not eligible for grant funding. This original built-up roof has performed well beyond expectations, but is now fragile. The existing roof insulation has an R-factor of R-10 which was standard for the time, but is now inadequate. The proposal is to remove the existing roof membrane in order to increase insulation to a factor of R-38 intended to reduce utility costs. This project has the potential to be funded by remaining bond monies from the 2014 roofing bond, and could proceed immediately without grant funding if desired. However, due to the nature of the project, it would potentially score high enough on its own to qualify for a separate grant, allowing excess 2014 Bond funding to be used for another project that may not score well.

5. West Homer North Wall Sealing

Shortly after construction, evidence was found that moisture was penetrating the north exterior wall of fluted concrete block. Probable cause is driven rain through the porous nature of the block. Efforts to seal the block have not proven effective. Interior damage to wall surfaces and casework have been on-going. Some instances of mold have been discovered and dealt with. Increased interior ventilation has helped to a minor amount. This project would entail construction of a new wall system on the north face of the school with a drainage gap between the existing and new walls to eliminate the hydrostatic pressure being exerted on the block wall, and provide an avenue for moisture to escape without intruding into the building. Because of the nature of the project, this application should score well.

5. RECOMMENDATION

Even though funding options are under current moratorium, it would be advantageous to submit applications for several of our projects to determine how current scoring is being administered, and to keep our grant preparation system current.

It is recommended that applications be submitted for; Homer HS re-roofing and attic ventilation; Redoubt re-roofing and insulation; and West Homer north wall sealing.

In addition, discussion needs to take place regarding the direction the School Board would like to pursue for future building needs in Nanwalek, and to formulate a building plan to meet current and future needs for that locality. In many ways, a new facility in Nanwalek will face similar opposition that the K-Selo project is facing.