CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL SCHOOL DISTRICT FACILITIES MASTER...

CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL SCHOOL

DISTRICTFACILITIES MASTER

PLAN

2014-2019Volume 1

i

Facili es Master Plan 2014 -2019 Carlsbad Municipal Schools

Table of Contents Carlsbad, New Mexico

1.0 Goals / Process - Volume - 1

1.1 Goals ........................................................................................................................ 1|1

1.2 Process .........................................................................................................................1|8

1.3 Acronyms/Defi ni ons .................................................................................................. 1|17

2.0 Exis ng and Projected Condi ons

2.1 Programs ....................................................................................................................2|1

2.2 Sites/Facili es .................................................................................................................2|7

2.3 District Growth .............................................................................................................2|15

2.4 Enrollment ..................................................................................................................2|34

2.5 U liza on & Capacity ...................................................................................................2|54

2.6 Technology ..................................................................................................................2|66

2.7 Energy Management Program ......................................................................................2|69

2.8 Capital Funding .............................................................................................................2|77

3.0 Capital Improvement Plan

3.1 Total Capital Needs .........................................................................................................3|1

3.2 Priori za on Process ...................................................................................................3|12

3.3 Capital Plan ..................................................................................................................3|25

4.0 Master Plan Support Material - Volume 2

4.0 School Site & Facili es ....................................................................................................4|1

PRE-K / KINDERGARTEN SCHOOLS

Dr EM Smith Pre School ..............................................................................................4|4 (Facility Information, Floor Plan, Site Information, Facility Excutive Summary Report,Evaluation Summary, Capital Improvement Needs, and Utilization)

Early Childhood Educa on Center ............................................................................4|20 (Facility Information, Floor Plan, Site Information, Facility Excutive Summary Report,Evaluation Summary, Capital Improvement Needs, and Utilization)

ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS

Cra Elementary School ...........................................................................................4|34 (Facility Information, Floor Plan, Site Information, Facility Excutive Summary

Report,Evaluation Summary, Capital Improvement Needs, and Utilization)

Acknowledgements

ii



Hillcrest Elementary School ................................................................................... 4|50

(Facility Information, Floor Plan, Site Information, Facility Excutive Summary Report,Evaluation Summary, Capital Improvement Needs, and Utilization)

Joe Stanley Smith Elementary School .................................................................... 4|67


Monterrey Elementary School ............................................................................... 4|81 (Facility Information, Floor Plan, Site Information, Facility Excutive Summary Report,Evaluation Summary, Capital Improvement Needs, and Utilization)

Pate Elementary School ......................................................................................... 4|96


Pucke Elementary School ................................................................................. 4|112


Riverside Elementary School ................................................................................ 4|127


Sunset Elementary School ................................................................................... 4|142


MIDDLE SCHOOLS

Alta Vista Middle School (6th Grade Academy) ................................................... 4|158


P.R. Leyva Middle School ..................................................................................... 4|178


HIGH SCHOOLS

Carlsbad High School .......................................................................................... 4|201


ALTERNATIVE/ CHARTER SCHOOLS

Eddy Alterna ve School ....................................................................................... 4|253

(Facility Information, Floor Plan, Site Information, Facility Excutive Summary Report,Evaluation Summary, and Capital Improvement Needs)

iii



Jeff erson Montessori Charter School ................................................................... 4|269


DISTRICT FACILITIES

Administra on/ Central Offi ce .................................................................................... 4|289

(Facility Information, Floor Plan, Site Information, Evaluation Summary, and Capital Improvement Needs)

Edison Special Educa on Center ................................................................................. 4|297


Warehouse Facility ...................................................................................................... 4|305


iv


Carlsbad, New Mexico

Acknowledgements

Carlsbad Municipal School Board of Educa on:Dr. Doris Bruton Carleton, President Abel Montoya, Vice PresidentAndrew Harris, Board SecretarySteve West, MemberRon Singleton, Member

Facili es Advisory Commi ee Par cipantsCarlsbad Municipal School District Administra on:Gary Perkowski, SuperintendentKelli Barta, Director of Secondary Educa onLaVern Shan, Director of Elementary Educa on and Federal ProgramsDon Owen, Director of Opera ons Gene Bradley, Maintenance SupervisorLaura Garcia, Director of Finance

Carlsbad Municipal School District Administra ve Staff and Teachers:Tammy HealeyGerry Frye Andrea Molina Bill Gunkel Sandra WhiteTamara Faulk

Community Representa ves:Be e Anne Brantley Donnie Rodriguez Lisa Chavez Michelle RodriguezNick Mills Rachelle Thompson Stephanie Shumsky Yve e Mendoza

PSFA Representa ve:Brian Stephens, PSFA

Consultants:Denise A. Davis, Facility Planning AssociatesColleen Mar nez, Visions in PlanningMolly Smith, thinkSmart Planning

Facilities Master Plan 2014‐2019 Carlsbad Municipal School District

1.0 Goals and Process Carlsbad, New Mexico

Section 1 | 1

1.1 Goals

1.1.1 District Mission Statement

The mission of the Carlsbad Board of Education is to create

a public school environment which meets the individual

educational needs of all children regardless of their ability,

ethnicity, creed, gender or social standing. We are

dedicated and will provide each student the opportunity

to develop intellectually emotionally, physically, and

socially in a safe and orderly environment.1

1.1.2 District Educational Goals

Changes have occurred in the way instruction is delivered

to today’s students such as: lower class sizes (as mandated

by the state); the addition of space allocated for critical

supplemental instruction such as reading, English as a

Second Language, and special education; and school

choice provided to families in the community through

student transfer requests.

The following educational goals are established by the

District. Specifically, the District instructional program will

be designed and implemented to provide for at least the

minimum instructional areas required by statute and shall

include1:

1 CMSD website, www.edline.net/pages/Carlsbad_Municipal_Schools



Section 1 | 2

Skills in communication ‐ to include reading and

language arts skills, including phonemic awareness,

phonics, comprehension, grammar and writing.

Skills in computation ‐ mathematics.

Appreciation of the world of work.

Pride of workmanship and skills for economic survival.

Appreciation of the importance of physical fitness.

Research and problem‐solving skills in science and

mathematics.

Ability to think analytically, critically, and

independently.

Skills in foreign or Native American language.

Ability leading to citizen responsibility.

Understanding and respect for our cultural heritage

and history.

Appreciation for the intrinsic value of education.

Appreciation of the fine arts.

Skills in the use of topographical and standard maps.

Skills in technology.

1.1.3 Decisions Affecting Future Educational Programs

One of Carlsbad Municipal Schools’ long term goals is to

improve educational equity and opportunities in its

facilities districtwide. The district’s goal for elementary

schools is to reduce overcrowding, improve programs, in

operationally efficient facilities. The district intends to

replace seven of the existing schools with four larger

capacity elementary schools for 600 students each and to



Section 1 | 3

either replace or renovate with an addition to increase

capacity at the remaining elementary existing school

(Hillcrest) to create a STEM magnet elementary school that

will accommodate the growing needs of the district in the

future. As of the 2014‐2015 school year, the District will

create a standalone 6th Grade Academy which will affect

P.R. Leyva Middle School and Alta Vista Middle Schools.

The Alta Vista location will become the new 6th Grade

Academy and all 7th and 8th graders will attend P.R. Leyva

Middle School. At the high school level, CMS the long

term goal is to construct a new facility for the 9th grade

academy to provide for the educational program that is

hindered in the current facility in addition to implementing

the new early college program at NMSU in 2014/15.

1.1.4 District Community Involvement Goals

The District strives to involve the community in its

educational process. A primary goal as indicated by the

District is to:

Ensure parental and community trust and involvement

through clear, open, and timely communication.

In support of this goal the District has an established web‐

site with a wealth of information ranging from school

calendars to detailed Board minutes.



Section 1 | 4

1.1.5 Facility Goals

Facility goals were developed during the FMP process in

order to guide decision‐making. Overall principles were

developed; the principles and analysis were:

Consolidate Elementary Schools, Build New, Higher

Capacity Schools

The District has considered the impact of building larger

schools versus expansion of current school facilities. A

primary implication is the decrease in operational costs.

Some of the benefits identified include:

Improve Educational Programs

A new facility provides the opportunities to better

create school communities within the larger

population and configure facilities in support of this

educational concept.

Impact to Staff A prime goal will be the retention of staff; staff will

only be decreased through attrition or staff will be

re‐assigned to needed positions. Staff is funded

per student and not facility however, there is a

concern that consolidation would result in staff

reductions and was included in the discussion.

A larger school will result in more efficient use of

staff time which impacts ancillary staff. Currently

ancillary staff travels from school to school to

provide services. The typical travel time per day is

30 minutes or more. Having school‐based ancillary

staff will provide better services to the students



Section 1 | 5

with increased accessibility to the staff and reduce

if not eliminate travel time.

New Schools vs. Old Schools with Renovation

The expansion of each of the current schools is less

desirable due to the age and condition of the

facilities. With the exception of Craft Elementary

School (1920), all of the remaining elementary

schools in the district were constructed in the

1950’s with various additions over the years to

accommodate growth. Historically, the District has

only passed GO Bonds of up to $7,500,000 and has

relied on HB‐33 and SB‐9 to support maintenance

and small construction projects. The February

2014 GO Bond for $60 Million is the largest in the

District’s history.

Expansion of the existing schools rather than

consolidation and building new schools would

mean that the old facilities would still require

major renovation which when costs for renovation

are included they fast approach that of a new

facility.

The safety issues identified during the assessment

will be rectified with the design of the new

elementary facilities. Traffic issues will be resolved,

mechanical will provide efficient systems that

provide improved air quality, electrical will provide

essential outlets (rather than cords that are



Section 1 | 6

sometimes used now), security will be greatly

enhanced.

The current sites are small and rely heavily on city

streets to support student drop‐off/pick‐up and

staff parking. There are significant safety issues

with the heavy volume of traffic at some of these

schools. The Master Plan has identified funding

requirements for upgrades of the site

infrastructure in an effort to improve these site

issues if new schools are not constructed. The

new school projects will allow for the optimal

design for site safety. The larger sites will be used

to consolidate schools while other schools will be

developed on other school property nearby in

order to increase the site areas.

Impact to School Size and Cost Implications

Replacing each school District‐wide rather than

consolidation would result in additional

construction costs. Consider building two new

schools vs. building one new school. The PSFA

Planning Guide recently revised Total Facility GSF

to Adequacy. Using these figures a 600 student

school is 73,740 GSF vs. two schools of 300

students at 41,112 GSF each or 82,224 GSF. The

estimated probable construction cost savings is

about $1.8 million. This also translates into

reduced utility costs.



Section 1 | 7

Impact to Operations

New facilities will not immediately have

maintenance issues that impact HB‐33 and SB‐9

funding due to warranties. This allows these to be

direct to needed projects at the district’s other

facilities.

Replace Portable Classrooms

Portable classrooms will be replaced with permanent

classrooms unless those portable classrooms are being

utilized for temporary housing during renovation or

remodel projects, or to address a temporary (3 years or

less) bubble in enrollment.

Provide Adequate Art, Science and Media Centers

Adequate art, science, and library instructional areas are a

problem in all elementary schools. New schools will

provide for the adequacies of these functions. A

proposed, combined art/science space will be provided at

each elementary school.

Media Centers will be provided at each elementary school.

Each media center is to meet state and PSFA

recommended sizes per school capacity and enrollment.

Respond to Future Programs

The focus of this bonding cycle is the construction of

replacement elementary schools. However, un‐funded



Section 1 | 8

projects have been identified to respond to changes in the

educational programs. These projects are included in

Section 4 under each school assessment document.

Comply with Educational Adequacy Standards

Compliance with the educational adequacy standards will

be addressed in the elements of the goals as described

above.

1.2 Process

1.2.1 Responsibility and Authority

The Carlsbad Municipal School District Board of Education

has commissioned the development of this Facilities

Master Plan 2014‐2019 to serve as a reference and guide

to the District over the next five years. It is recommended

that this document be utilized as a “living document” to

record district facility goals and accomplishments as they

are achieved. It is the responsibility of CMSD to review

and revise this Facilities Master Plan as changes occur in

the district and to complete a new document every five

years. It is the responsibility of the CMSD Board of

Education to review and adopt the FMP.

CMSD regularly reviews and approves the progress of the

Facilities Master Plan through the Operations Department.

A Facility Advisory Committee (FAC) has been established

to guide the FMP process. The committee includes the

Superintendent, Director of Operations, Maintenance

Supervisor; Carlsbad school staff and citizens invited by



Section 1 | 9

the District, comprise the voting members of the FAC. It is

the responsibility of the FAC to establish FMP goals, review

FMP progress, and make recommendations to the Board

of Education for approval and adoption.



Section 1 | 10

1.2.2 Facilities Master Plan Process

The Facility Advisory Committee (FAC) was assigned the

task of working together with district planners and

architects to review data and establish priorities for the

FMP. A diagram of the overall process and steps utilized in

this FMP are detailed in Figure 1‐1:

Figure 1‐1 Master Plan Process Diagram



Section 1 | 11

Pre‐Assessment activities, field, and data assessments of

all school and district facilities were conducted in 2010 and

updated in 2014. The following types of activities and

information were gathered in order to compile the

eventual recommendations to the FAC committee:

Community and School District Information

Information was gathered in a variety of methods from

gathering current demographic information, maintenance

records, FAD reports from the PSFA Facility Assessment

Database, current technology plan, and current staffing. A

summary of these activities include:

School staff were contacted to gain additional information

about current school programs, community programs,

after‐school programs, and the facility goals.

The 2010 walk‐through assessments were updated with

current maintenance projects, enrollment, staffing, and

reflect the plan to consolidate the schools. During the

facility walk‐throughs the team strived to be as

undisrupted as possible to the school programs but, to

also gain insight from teachers and students. It was

estimated that 40‐50% of the teachers provided

comments during the tours. Students were questioned

about their schools as the opportunity presented itself.



Section 1 | 12

Community involvement in the project was through public

representatives serving on the FAC and Board

presentations which are publicized and open to the public.

Additional community involvement was accomplished

through a series of public presentations conducted by the

District prior to the 2014 GO Bond election.

Community and school district information was gathered

and utilized in the overall assessment of each of the facility

for the district. This information included:

Maintenance records for a three year period,

Floor plans and site plans,

Previous Master Plan update,

FAD reports,

Technology Plan,

Maintenance Plan,

Special education needs report,

FAC reports on tours of all District facilities,

Instructional needs for educational programs and

program goals gained through interviews,

Individuals’ thoughts concerning the educational and

physical environment gained through one‐on‐one

interaction with teachers and students,

Community program offerings and facilities gained

through principal interviews.



Section 1 | 13

Educational Facilities Assessments

Facilities Analysis’

Walk‐through Assessments of each school were conducted

in 2010 and were updated in 2014. The assessments

include the following facilities:

Dr. E.M. Smith Pre‐ School

Early Childhood Education Center

Craft Elementary School

Hillcrest Elementary School

Monterrey Elementary School

Joe Stanley Smith Elementary School

Pate Elementary School

Puckett Elementary School

Riverside Elementary School

Sunset Elementary School

Alta Vista Middle School2

P.R. Leyva Middle School

Carlsbad High School

Eddy Alternative School

Jefferson Montessori Academy Charter School

District Warehouse

Edison Building – Special Education Center

District Administration Building

2 As of the 2014/15 school year Alta Vista will become the 6th Grade

Academy



Section 1 | 14

The walk‐through assessment included a visual or plan review assessment of the following:

Landscaping

Drainage/Storm Water Retention/Erosion/Ponding

Issues

Hardscape

Site Recreation Amenities

Site Safety and Security

School Plant Assessment

Educational Environment

Current information was collected to update the

assessment documents including the current school

enrollment, staffing, maintenance records, and FAD

reports.

Capacity/ Utilization Studies

Utilizing the Public Schools Facilities Authority

recommended worksheets for capacity and utilization, the

planning team calculated the enrollment capacity of each

school based on programs, enrollments, and scheduling.

School Information

Information about each school was gathered and included

in the overall assessment including: age of facilities, facility

construction, maintenance records, neighborhood growth

and conditions, and community goals and priorities.



Section 1 | 15

Demographics/ Enrollment

Demographics for Eddy County were gathered for input

and analysis into the overall trends within the area.

Migratory information within the district is revealed

through the growth rates at individual schools. Historic

enrollment information was gathered from the District’s

40‐day counts for a five year period. The following

categories of demographic and enrollment information is

utilized as informational in this FMP:

Overall population trends

Birth rates

Household size

Age composition

Economic trends

Development activity

Decision‐making Process

Decision‐making for the FMP was based on a non‐biased,

collaborative process. The 2010 Facility Advisory

Committee worked together with the planning team to

analyze the information as it was gathered and establish

priorities for ranking each potential project. The FAC, prior

to the commencement of the project, toured every facility.

The principals and staff were prepared to discuss the

issues, as they perceived them, with the committee. The

FAC then rated elements of each facility. Their findings are

included in the Appendix, facility evaluation summaries,

for reference. As a result of this prior knowledge, the



Section 1 | 16

committee was well prepared to provide the planning

team with guidance.

In 2013 and 2014, multiple evening and day‐long

workshops were conducted to communicate background

and gather additional committee guidance on the

proposed plan. The FAC meetings were open to the public

and public representatives who were invited to attend,

were present.

Project priorities were determined through discussion, FAC

knowledge of the schools, first‐hand experience during on‐

site school tours, response from FAC members in

reference to project sheets provided by the planning team,

review of schools deferred from the previous bond cycle,

consideration of the goals, and particular goals from

District Administration.

The planning team sorted all potential projects into several

categories: potential general obligation bond (GO Bond)

projects, SB9 funded projects, HB33 projects, and those

items requiring only normal maintenance.

Develop Financial Strategies

The primary focus of the Facilities Master Plan was the

development of projects for the 2014 General Obligation

Bond. The Board of Education approved the financial

strategy that is included in this FMP.



Section 1 | 17

Projects were also identified for SB‐9 and HB‐33 funding to

be implemented by the CMSD Operations Department.

Develop Implementation Plan

The implementation plan was developed to coincide with

the list of projects and the financial strategy approved by

the Board of Education.

Public Presentation and Board Approval

The Facilities Master Plan was presented for approval in

public forum at the Board the Education meeting on April

22, 2014. The 2014‐2019 Carlsbad Municipal Schools

FMP was approved at this Board meeting.

1.3 Acronyms / Definitions

Building Efficiency – The ratio of NASF / GSF

CMSD – Carlsbad Municipal School District

FAC – Facility Advisory Committee

DD Program – Developmentally Delayed Program

ES – Elementary School

ESL – English as a Second Language

FAD – Facility Assessment Database

FCI– Facility Condition Index (the ratio of

need repairs to current replacement

value)

FMP – Facilities Master Plan

GSF – Gross Square Feet, or the sum of the

net assignable square feet plus all



Section 1 | 18

other building area that is not

assignable. The “left over” area is

called “tare” which includes

circulation area, mechanical area,

toilets and wall areas

HS – High School

MACC – Maximum Allowable Construction

Cost

MECH – Mechanical

MS – Middle School, Media Storage

NASF – Net Assignable Square Feet, or

building area that can be assigned to

specific task, not including building

circulation, wall thickness,

mechanical equipment and toilet

facilities

NMCI – New Mexico Condition Index

OT/PT – Occupational Therapy / Physical

Therapy

PMP – Preventative Maintenance Plan

PSCOC – Public School Capital Outlay Council

PSFA – Public School Facilities Authority

PTR – Pupil / Teacher Ratio

SF – Square Feet

SLP – Speech / Language Pathology

SPED – Special Education

State FCI – State Facilities Condition Index

State ID – State Building Identification Number



Section 1 | 19

TPC – Total Project Cost, or the total cost

of the project including architectural

and engineering fees, moveable

equipment, land acquisition (if any),

administration and contingencies


2.0 Existing and Projected Conditions Carlsbad, New Mexico

Section 2 | 1

2.1 Programs

The Carlsbad Municipal School District (CMSD) is located in

Eddy County, New Mexico, and covers an area of 2,497 square

miles, although all schools are located within the Carlsbad city

limits. CMSD enrolled 6,390 students for the 2013/14 school

year (40‐day) in grades K‐12. The district is comprised of 51%

Hispanic, 21% White, 1% African‐American, 1% Native

American, and less than 1% Asian students. Free and reduced

lunch for district students ranges from 33‐88 percent in district

schools. According to a 2011‐12 report by the New Mexico

Department of Public Education, 16.8% of CMSD students were

living in poverty. District schools range from walkable,

neighborhood schools to schools that serve larger geographic

areas.

2.1.1 Number of Schools, Types / Grade Configuration

The district is comprised of fourteen (15) school facilities,

including one pre‐school, one early education center, eight (8)

elementary schools, two middle schools, one high school, and

one charter school. During the course of the previous Master

Plan, the District closed one elementary school, Eddy

Elementary, this facility is currently being partially used to

house the district’s alternative school program (1) and

technology department.



Section 2 | 2

Table 2‐1: School Numbers, Types, and Grade Configuration

School Configuration # of schools

Early Education Center:

Pre‐K – K 2

Elementary Schools:

Grades 1‐5 8

Middle Schools:

Grades 6‐8 2

High School:

Grades 9‐12 1

Alternative School:

Grades 3‐12 1

Charter School:

Grades K‐12 1

Total 15

As of 2013/14, 40‐day enrollment, Pre‐kindergarten and

Kindergarten schools enrolled 108 and 561 students

respectively; elementary schools range from 241 (Pate

Elementary, to 443 (Sunset Elementary) students; middle

schools enrolled 594 and 872 students; and the high school

enrolled 1,667 students for the 2013‐14 school year. The

Jefferson Montessori Charter School enrollment is 190

students.



Section 2 | 3

The following is a list of CMSD school facilities:

Table 2‐2: CMSD School Facilities

Schools Grades

Elementary Schools:

Early Childhood Education (ECE) Center K

Dr. E.M. Smith Elementary Pre‐K

Craft Elementary 1‐5

Hillcrest Elementary 1‐5

Joe Stanley Smith Elementary 1‐5

Monterrey Elementary 1‐5

Pate Elementary 1‐5

Puckett Elementary 1‐5

Riverside Elementary 1‐5

Sunset Elementary 1‐5

Middle Schools:

Alta Vista1 6‐8

P.R. Leyva 6‐8

High School:

Carlsbad High 9‐12

Alternative Schools:

Eddy Alternative School 3‐12

Charter School:

Jefferson Montessori K‐12

Total 15

1 As of the 2014/15 school year this will be the Alta Vista 6th Grade Academy



Section 2 | 4

2.1.2 Assumptions, Anticipated Changes in Program

The following are changes to school configuration and school

choices anticipated at CMSD within the next five years.

School Size

The Carlsbad Municipal School District made the decision to

close Eddy Elementary School during the course of the 2011‐

2015 Facilities Master Plan. Students were reassigned to other

schools; this change was reflected in the demographic analysis.

CMSD through its most recent GO Bond Election in February

2014, will be constructing four new elementary schools with a

capacity of 600 students each in order to improve education

programs at the elementary level. With the larger schools, the

district will be reducing the eight elementary schools into five.

The district intends to replace or renovate/expand the

remaining elementary (Hillcrest Elementary) as part of the

2018 GO Bond election.

Class Size

Due to the economic situation facing all schools, the District

requested from the State Department of Education an increase

in class size in the past, so the District is unlikely to pursue

further increases.

Grade‐level Configuration and Other Special Programs

Grade‐level configurations include Pre‐kindergarten,

Kindergarten in devoted, district‐wide facilities. The Pre‐

kindergarten students were relocated from the Early Childhood

Education Center to E.M Smith Elementary in the 2009‐2010

school year and once the new 600 student Pate Elementary



Section 2 | 5

replacement school is constructed, the Pre‐Kindergarten

program may be considered for relocation to Puckett

Elementary facility when vacated. The district anticipates that

demand for the preschool and kindergarten programs will

continue to grow based on the local demographic trends. The

Early Childhood Center that kindergarten students attend has

the ability to be expanded in the future to be able to

accommodate increased enrollment, however, the pre‐school

program is restricted to the existing facilities capacity and does

not have opportunities to grow in its current location. The

district will need to consider alternate locations in the future to

accommodate the needs of the pre‐school program.

All elementary schools are configured with grades 1‐5; middle

schools 6‐8; and the high school are 9‐12. With the exception

of the middle schools, these levels will continue for the next

five years. As of the 2014/15 school year, CMSD will be

establishing a 6th grade Academy at Alta Vista Middle School

and reconfigure the grade levels at P.R. Leyva to 7th and 8th

grade only.

At the high school level, the district will be implementing an

early college high school program which will be located at the

NMSU‐Carlsbad Campus starting in the 2014/15 school year for

eligible students.

CMSD has also created a special alternative program that

utilizes a portion of the former Eddy Elementary to house

students in grades 3‐12th that are at risk of dropping out or



Section 2 | 6

being expelled. These students are included in the enrollment

of their home schools but attend Eddy Alternative School in

lieu of being expelled for their at‐risk behaviors. Academic and

behavioral interventions are used to help students transition

back into the traditional school environment when

appropriate.

Curriculum

CMSD is not currently considering changes to the curriculum

that would require major modifications to school facilities.

Year‐round Schools and Magnet Programs

While CMSD is not considering a change to year‐round school,

it is however, considering a STEM magnet program at Hillcrest

Elementary, once the new four new elementary schools are

constructed to provide additional school program choice for

parents in Carlsbad.

2.1.3 Shared or Joint Use Facilities Opportunities

CMSD provides for after school programs which are provided

by others such as DARE and Reading buddies from the

Assistance League. School grounds are used for sports

programs such as Little League Football, Softball and T‐ball.

Indications are, these programs will continue.

2.2 Sites and Facilities

2.2.1 Map, Boundaries, and Locations

Carlsbad Municipal School District is located within Eddy

County in southeastern New Mexico. Eddy County includes the



Section 2 | 7

towns of Artesia, Carlsbad, Hope, and Loving. Carlsbad is the

county seat and largest city in the county.

The county covers 4,182 square miles and is home to over

50,000 people. The CMSD covers 2,497 square miles and has

6,390 students per the official 40‐day count for the 2013/14

school year. Two other school districts are included in Eddy

County: Artesia and Loving.

CMSD school facilities are all located within the municipal limits

of the City of Carlsbad. The map in

1 illustrates the location of CMSD in relation to other districts

in the state. Figure 2‐2 shows population distribution within

the state, as per the 2010 US Census.

Figure 2‐3 to 2‐4 shows the Carlsbad Municipal School District

boundaries for Elementary and Middle Schools including

changes due to the closing of Eddy Elementary. A separate

High School Boundary map is not necessary as it includes the

entire district boundary. The boundary encompasses all of the

area shown in the Elementary/Middle Schools Map.

Figure 2‐1: New Mexico School Districts



Section 2 | 8



Section 2 | 9

Figure 2‐2: County Population, New Mexico, 2010 US Census



Section 2 | 10

Figure 2‐3: Elementary/Middle School Boundary Map, The High School and as of 2014/15 school year the 6th Grade

Academy & P.R. Leyva Middle School attendance zone will encompass the entire district boundary.

Figure 2‐4: Zone Changes with the Closing of Eddy Elementary School



Section 2 | 11

2.2.2 Existing Facilities / Site Inventory Summary

The district has 1,170,987 gross square feet (GSF) of permanent

facilities and 20,007 GSF of portable facilities, an average of

161 GSF of permanent space per student or 165 GSF of total

space per student including portable classrooms. Figures 2‐5 to

2‐8 illustrates the breakdown of early childhood, elementary,

middle, high school, charter school, and administrative space.

Additionally, the district has 529 acres of land as noted in the

Site Inventory Chart.



Section 2 | 12

Figure 2‐5: CMSD Permanent Facilities, by Type*

Figure 2‐6: CMSD Portable Facilities, by Type*

*Note: As of the 2014/ 15 school year Alta Vista Middle School will become the 6th Grade Academy



Section 2 | 13

Figure 2‐7: CMSD Facilities, by Type*

*Note: As of the 2014/ 15 school year Alta Vista Middle School will become the 6th Grade Academy



Section 2 | 14

2

Facility Name District ID State ID Address ZIP Phone Fax Principal / Site Manager Open

DateAge

(Years) Construction Dates State FCI Site Acreage Owned or Leased?

Total Perm Bldg Area

Total Port Bldg Area

Total Bldg Area (GSF) Grades

2013/14Enrollment

(40 day)

Full-Size Classrooms

Half-Size Classrooms

Gym/Multi-Purpose

No. of Permanent

Classrooms

No. Double Portables

No. of Portable Class- rooms

Total Class- rooms

Port CR % of Total

GSF Per Student

Early ChildhoodEarly Childhood Education Center ECEC 011907 1801 West Lea Street 88220 (575) 234-3303 (575) 234-3445 Misti Fernandez 1994 20 27.60% 9.70 Owned 49,396 0 49,396 Kinder 561 32 0 1 33 0 0 33.0 0 88.0E. M. Smith Pre-School EM Smth 011907 2415 Carver Street 88220 (575) 234-3313 (575) 234-3570 Misti Fernandez 1960 54 1994, 2009 14.29% 4.13 Owned 17,983 0 17,983 Pre-K 108 9 0 1 10 0 0 10.0 0 166.5

Sub-Totals 13.83 67379.00 0.00 67,379 669 43.00 0.00 0.00 43.00 0.0% 100.72

Elementary Level

Craft Elementary School Craft ES 1 011907 406 West Lea Street 88220 (575) 234-3304 (575) 234-3492 Merci Renteria 1920 94 1947, 1968 27.39% 2.57 Owned 33,345 0 33,345 1st-5th 252 15 1 1 17.0 0.0 0.0 17.0 0% 132.3

Hillcrest Elementary School Hillcrest ES 2 011907 215 North Sixth Street 88220 (575) 234-3308 (575) 234-3522 Denice Peterson 1948 66 1961 25.29% 6.80 Owned 45,590 0 45,590 1st-5th 311 19 2 1 22.0 0.0 0.0 22.0 0% 146.6

Joe Stanley Smith Elementary School JS Smith ES 3 011907 505 Alta Vista Street 88220 (575) 234-3314 (575) 234-3581 Kim Arrington 1956 58 1964 47.61% 7.10 Owned 37,184 0 37,184 1st-5th 290 21 2 1 24.0 0.0 0.0 24.0 0% 128.2

Monterrey Elementary School Monterrey ES 4 011907 1001 North 9th Street 88220 (575) 234-3309 (575) 234-3531 Fran McCarthy 1954 60 1980 25.42% 7.17 Owned 39,930 896 40,826 1st-5th 330 18 1 1 20.0 0.0 1.0 21.0 5% 123.7

Pate Elementary School Pate ES 5 011907 120 Kircher Street 88220 (575) 234-3310 (575) 234-3543 Therese Rodriguez 1955 59 1994 47.71% 5.45 Owned 32,064 2,580 34,644 1st-5th 241 15 0 1 16.0 1.0 3.0 19.0 16% 143.8

Puckett Elementary School Puckett ES 6 011907 2212 Primrose Street 88220 (575) 234-3311 (575) 234-3552 Deborah Beard 1956 58 1963, 1994, 2003 29.40% 7.23 Owned 30,094 3,368 33,462 1st-5th 248 13 1 1 15.0 2.0 4.0 19.0 21% 134.9

Riverside Elementary School Riverside ES 7 011907 1600 Johnson Street 88220 (575) 234-3312 (575) 234-3561 Sandra Nunley 1956 58 1960, 1994 44.70% 6.16 Owned 31,660 896 32,556 1st-5th 283 12 1 1 14.0 0.0 1.0 15.0 7% 115.0

Sunset Elementary School Sunset ES 8 011907 923 North Walter Street 88220 (575) 234-3315 (575) 234-3593 Lee White 1952 62 1980 49.15% 10.07 Owned 36,197 4,480 40,677 1st-5th 443 17 1 1 19.0 2.0 5.0 24.0 21% 91.8

Sub-Totals 52.55 286,064 12,220 298,284 2398 147.00 5.00 14.00 161.00 8.7% 124.39* Middle or Junior High LevelAlta Vista Middle School* Alta Vista MS 1 011907 301 Alta Vista Place 88220 (575) 234-3316 (575) 234-3478 Mark Barela 1949 65 1955, 1968, 1977, 1990, 1993, 1995, 1998 37.19% 22.45 Owned 124,700 0 124,700 6th-8th 594 44 0 2 46 0 0 46.0 0% 209.9

P. R. Leyva Middle School PR Leyva MS 2 011907 800 West Church Street 88220 (575) 234-3318 (575) 234-3452 Mark McAlister 1940 74 1949, 1956, and 1967 21.62% 15.68 Owned 159,798 1,792 161,590 6th-8th 872 50 0 3 53 1 2 55.0 0% 185.3

Sub-Totals 38.13 284,498 1,792 286,290 1466 99.00 1.00 2.00 101.00 2.0% 195.29

High SchoolCarlsbad High School Carlsbad HS 1 011907 3000 West Church Street 88220 (575) 234-3319 (575) 234-3399 Mark Driskell 1961 53 1966, 1978, 1992,2007,2009, 23.43% 63.03 Owned 373,892 5,995 379,887 9th-12th 1,667 86 0 3 89 0 6 95.0 0% 227.9

Sub-Totals 63.03 373,892 5,995 379,887 1667 89.00 0.00 6.00 95.00 6.3% 227.9

Alternative Schools

Eddy Alternative School Eddy Alt 1 011907 700 W. Stevens Street 88220 (575) 234-3305 (575)234-3267 Dale Ballard 1948 66 1968 26.38% 2.57 Owned 21,420 0 21,420 3rd-12 N/A 8.0 0.0 0.0 8.0 0% -

Sub-Totals 2.57 21420 0.00 21,420 0 8.00 0.00 0.00 8.00 0.0% 0.0

Charter SchoolsJefferson Montessori Academy 011907 500 West Church Street 88220 (575) 234-1703 (575) 887-9391 Cindy Holguin 1954 60 1960, 1994, 2012 12.68% 5.00 District Owned 48,296 0 48,296 K-12th 190 10 0 1 11 0 0 11.0 0 254.2

Sub-Totals 5.00 48,296 0.00 48,296 190 11.00 0.00 0.00 11.00 0.0% 254.2

Administration and SupportDistrict Administration Administration 011907 408 N. Canyon Street 88220 (575) 234-3300 (575) 234-3367 Don Owen 1978 36 2.57 Owned 19,230 19,230 0.0 NA NA

District Warehouse Warehouse 011907 201 Alta Vista Street 88220 (575) 234-3322 (575) 234-3367 Gene Bradley 1963 51 1.00 Owned 24,304 24,304 0.0 NA NA

District Storage @ JMA Storage 011907 500 West Church Street 88220 (575) 234-1703 (575) 887-9391 Gene Bradley 1954 60 1960, 1994, 2012 13% - Owned 18,792 18,792

Edison Building Edison 011907 406 North Alameda Street 88220 (575) 234-3300 (575) 234-3367 Gene Bradley 1931 83 2.57 Owned 17,932 17,932 0.0 NA NA

Eddy Tech Center Tech Center 011907 700 West Stevens Street 88220 (575) 234-3300 (575) 234-3367 Gene Bradley 1948 66 1968 26.38% - Owned 9,180 9,180 0.0 NA NA

Sub-Totals 6.14 89,438 0 89,438 0.00

District Totals 181.26 1,170,987 20,007 1,190,994 0.00 6,390.00 397.00 6.00 22.00 419.00* Alta Vista 6th Grade Academy as of the 2014/15 School Year

Facilities Inventory DataFacility Inventory

Table 2‐3 Facility Inventory



Section 2 | 15

2.3 District Growth

This section analyzes the following demographic information to

determine growth trends in the district that may impact district

educational programs and student enrollment:

Overall population trends

Birth rates

Household size

Age composition

Economic trends

Local Area Housing

2.3.1 Carlsbad Area Population Growth Trends

According to the 2010 U.S. Census, 26,168 residents lived in the

City of Carlsbad, while 53,902 residents lived in Eddy County,

see Figures 2‐8, 2‐9, 2‐10 and 2‐11.

79% of district residents lived in the city of Carlsbad.

21% lived outside the city limits.

Census estimates indicates the number of residents in Carlsbad

increased by an estimated 2.1% between 2000 and 2010.

Population 2000 2010 % of Change

Eddy County 51,658 53,902 4.3%

Over 18 yrs 36,751 39,827 8.4%

Under 18 yrs 14,907 14,075 ‐5.6%

City of Carlsbad 25,625 26,168 2.1%

Over 18 yrs 18,668 19,454 4.2%

Under 18 yrs 6,957 6,714 ‐3.5% Total population growth in Eddy County increased 4.3% from

2000‐2010, while the state population grew 13.2% and has

increased another 1.7% since 2010. While growth in the City of

Carlsbad City and Eddy County is less than that of the State of

New Mexico it too has grown 2.9% since 2010. The significant

Figure 2‐8: Population Change – City / County, 2000‐2010



Section 2 | 16

economic investment in this area has prevented a population

decline that has occurred in several other areas of the state

and is beginning to grow.

Figure 2‐9: Population Change – City / County, 1920‐2010

S

o

u

S

ource: Bureau of Business and Economic Research, University of New Mexico

Figure 2‐10: Local Area Population – City / County, 2010 ‐2015

Source: Bureau of Business and Economic Research (Population Estimates), University of New Mexico



Section 2 | 17

Figure 2‐11: New Mexico County Population Percent Change, 2000‐2010

Source: US Census Bureau, 2010



Section 2 | 18

From 2015 through 2040, BBER projects population growth rates

to stay below 1% for Eddy County and to slow to 1% for the

statewide. See Figure 2‐12.

Figure 2‐12: Annual Growth Rate, 2010‐2040

Source: Bureau of Business and Economic Research, University of New Mexico

This projection results in a total growth of 21.2% between 2015

and 2040, to a population of 65,258 over a twenty‐five year

period. Eddy County population is expected to continue to grow

well into 2040, however after 2020, the rate of growth is

expected to progress at a slower pace. See Figures 2‐13 and 2‐14.

Figure 2‐13: Projected Total Population, Eddy County, 2010‐2040




Section 2 | 19

Figure 2‐14: Projected Growth Rate, 2015‐2040


According to the 2010 US Census, the community population

by age group for school age children has decreased 3.4% since

2000 for the City of Carlsbad and decreased at total of 5.6%

countywide. The chart below identifies the community

population for school age children for both 2000 and 2010.

Figure 2‐15: School Age Population, 2000‐2010

Source: US Census, 2000 & 2010 Census

Five Year Projected Growth Rate Percentage (%) 2015 - 2040



Section 2 | 20

2.3.2 Birth Rates

Birth rates in the United States began to decline in 2007 and

are at their lowest levels nationwide since World War II, while

New Mexico and Eddy County did not begin to experience this

decline until 2009 and began to rebound in 2011. Birth rates in

Eddy County over the past two years to more than the State of

New Mexico average, and are rebounding back to the county’s

historic average of 14.1 (births per 1,000) in the early part of

the 2,000’s. See Figure 2‐16.

Figure 2‐16: Birth Rates, 2003‐2012

Source: New Mexico Department of Health, Bureau of Vital Statistics and Health Statistics

Of those children born in Eddy County (outside the City of

Carlsbad) from 2001 to 2012 between 11‐23% enrolled in

kindergarten in the Carlsbad Municipal School District five

years later. Due to the increase of births county‐wide in 2006,

elementary enrollment has steadily increased each year and

will continue this trend over the next five years. On average,

CMSD provided schooling for 68% of the children born in Eddy

County for the period. See Figure 2‐17.



Section 2 | 21

Figure 2‐17: Eddy County Actual Births vs. Impact to CMSD

Source: New Mexico Department of Health, Bureau of Vital Statistics and Health Statistics

2.3.3 Household Size

The number of households increased in both Eddy County and

Carlsbad from 2000 and 2010 (300 households) and the

percent of households with children under age 18 increased,

contributing, in part, to the increase in school enrollment.

Figure 2‐18: Household Type and Size

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Census Table DP‐1 Profile of General Population and Housing Characteristics.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Census Table DP‐1 Profile of General Population and Housing Characteristics.

City of Carlsbad Average Household Size: 2.5 Average Family Size: 3.03 Eddy County Average Household Size: 2.59 Average Family Size: 3.08



Section 2 | 22

2.3.4 Age Composition of Residents Living in the District

The school age cohort has increased slightly since 2000. The

population under 5 years of age declined slightly between 2000

and 2010. The cohort of women of child‐bearing age increased

between 2000 and 2010, while the proportions of main labor

force and retiree cohorts have increased substantially. During

the same period, the Census estimates Eddy County’s school

age cohort was 28.9 % of the total population.

The U.S. Census estimates the median age for 2010 was 48.2

years old in Eddy County and 37.6 years old for the city of

Carlsbad and the CMSD. The median age in New Mexico is

higher, at 45.5 years old. See Figures 2‐19 and 2‐20.

Figure 2‐19: Eddy County Residents by Age Group, 2000 & 2010

Source: US Census, Total County Population by Sex and Five‐Year Age Groups: 2000 and 2010



Section 2 | 23

Figure 2‐20: Carlsbad Incorporated Area Residents by Age Group, 2000 & 2010

Source: US Census, Total Incorporated Area Population by Sex and Five‐Year Age Groups: 2000 and 2010

2.3.5 Income

Per capita personal income was $42,466 in the City of Carlsbad

for 2010, according to the US Census which is higher than that

of Eddy County. The median family income in Carlsbad was

$51,394 as compared to the New Mexico median family

income of $51,994 in 2010. See Figure 2‐21.

The US Department of Commerce reports the following per

capita income trend for the ten year period from 2000‐2010 for

Eddy County.



Section 2 | 24

Figure 2‐21: Per Capita Income, Eddy County, 2000‐2010

Source: U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis. Data released April 25, 2012.

Estimated household income in 2010 was $40,748 for Eddy

County, a 47.4% increase compared to 2000 ($21,460).

Household income in New Mexico in 2010 was lower, at

$33,342.2

2.3.6 Local Area Housing

While new housing has been built on an individual basis

throughout the City of Carlsbad, no new major housing

developments have been constructed since the mid to late

1960’s. Apartment complexes have also followed this trend as

well and no new apartments have been built in the area since

the 1970’s. With lack of available housing in the area, people

are living in local motels/hotels, sharing or multi‐generational

living in single family residences and also renting space in RV

2 U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis. Data released April 25,

2012.



Section 2 | 25

parks and living in their RV’s and fifth‐wheels. According to

Denise Griffith, a local realtor for Means Realty, when existing

housing stock typically comes on the market, they are sold

quickly. With local banks primarily being the lenders for

mortgages, sub‐prime lending has been minimal and foreclosed

homes in the area average 10 or less per year.

According to Stephanie Shumsky (Carlsbad City Planner), the

pent up demand for housing is causing a shift of demographics

in the city of the existing population as new housing is

constructed; not a large in‐migration of new residents. While

new people have moved into the area in response to the local

economic conditions, many of these people are temporary. In

response to pent up demand in the area, three new apartment

complexes and three new housing developments (by Ken

Thurston Homes) are being constructed in Carlsbad to help

relieve the housing shortage. Many of the new houses being

constructed are being purchased by local residents looking to

move‐up into another area of town and are selling their older

homes.

The new housing and apartment developments are located in

three areas of the city: north, south and central area. The

northern developments (both completed and under

construction) will add approximately 240 new single family

homes and 371 apartment homes over the next four years,

they consist of:

Spring Hollow (off of Callaway Dr.) – Eight floor plans

available with square footages ranging between 1,461 –



Section 2 | 26

2,244. At this site will be a combination of 190 three

and four bedroom units with 1 ¾ ‐2 ½ baths both in 1

and 2 story configurations. Costs at this site range

between $188,900 – 234,395. At this time 110 of the

Phase 1 houses have been sold and are occupied. Phase

2 of this project will add an additional 80 houses.

Copperstone Apartments ‐ 1101 Calloway Drive.

Currently being constructed in three phases, there will

be a total of 371 one, two and three bedroom units.

Phase 1 consisted of construction of 118 one and two

bedroom units have been completed and are currently

100% leased. Phase 2 consisted of 128 two and three

bedroom units and is also 100% leased. Phase 3 is in the

pre‐leasing stage and will consist of 125 two and three

bedroom units. Construction is anticipated to begin in

April 2014, and take a year for complete build out

although units will be occupied as they are completed.

North of Copperstone and next to the Assisted Living

Center there is a 14‐lot subdivision that has been plated

will be constructed for senior living in the next two

years.

La Heurta Subdivision – This area consists of 1 acre lots

and custom homes. Currently the area is experiencing

in‐fill development at the rate of approximately 8

homes per year for the next five years.

Future:



Section 2 | 27

o Copperstone has an additional fifteen acres of

land as part of its existing property available that

it could construct an additional 225 units as part

of a future phase (unit configuration is

unavailable at this time).

o North of Copperstone Apartments, there is

another 228 unit apartment complex in the

planning stage. This area was rezoned by the

City of Carlsbad and platted in 2012.

The local elementary school that will be impacted by

these developments is Riverside Elementary.

The central area developments will add approximately 60 new

single family homes and 192 apartment homes, they consist of:

Cottonwood (off of Center Street) – At this location,

sixty new homes will be constructed with three floor

plans available and the square footages range between

1,500 – 1,862. There will be a combination of three and

four bedroom units with 2 ‐2 ½ baths both in 1 and 2

story configurations. Costs at this site range between

$155,500 – 184,900. Currently growth in this

subdivision is slow and there are only 20 constructed

and occupied.

Avalon at Carlsbad (Affordable Housing Designation) ‐

1907 San Jose Blvd. This project was completed in two

phases, with the first phase of construction of 112 units

(24 ‐ 2 bed/ 2 bath units, 40 ‐ 2 bed/ 1 bath units, 48 ‐ 1

bed/ 1 bath units) was completed in August 2012. The



Section 2 | 28

Phase 2 construction was completed in summer 2013

and consisted of 80 units (20 ‐ 2 bed/ 2 bath units, 24 ‐

2 bed/ 2 bath units, 36 ‐ 1 bed/ 1 bath units), all of the

units are leased to 95% of capacity.

The local elementary school that has potential for

impact by these developments is Puckett Elementary.

The remaining south and central area developments will add

approximately 114 new single family homes and 243

apartment homes, they consist of:

The Village at Carlsbad ‐ 3821 National Parks Hwy. Two

phases of construction for this location, with the first

phase of construction of 144 units (64 ‐ 2 bed/ 2 bath

units, 24 ‐ 2 bed/ 2 bath units, 56 ‐ 1 bed/ 1 bath units)

that will be finishing construction in February 2014 –

pre‐leasing is currently at 96%. Phase 2 construction

should start late‐summer 2014 and will consist of an

additional 96 units (24 ‐ 2 bed/ 2 bath units, 24 ‐ 2 bed/

1 bath units, 48 ‐ 1 bed/ 1 bath units). There is a waiting

list for the Phase 2 units.

Farmview (off of the Loving Hwy just past Calvani’s

orchard). With four floor plans available the square

footages range between 1,789 – 2,540. There will be a

combination of 114 three and four bedroom units with

2 ‐2 ½ baths both in 1 and 2 story configurations. Costs

at this site range between $224,990 – 281,800.

Currently the first two construction phases have been

completed and have resulted in 52 new homes. Many of



Section 2 | 29

these homes have been sold and are occupied. There

are three remaining phases in this area that will be

required to achieve the final build‐out of 114 homes.

The local elementary school that has potential for

impact by these developments is Pate Elementary.

With this shift of existing population, we can determine the

schools impacted by the new developments but it is very

difficult to determine the out‐migration of students from the

remaining elementary schools as their families may or may not

seek to relocate into the new housing that is becoming

available. With that in mind, there is a need to consider a new

larger replacement school located in the Riverside area and a

boundary adjustment to reallocate the remaining elementary

population through the remainder of the district’s schools.

Additionally, it appears that there may be an impact to the

capacity of both of the district’s two middle schools due to an

increase in birth rates in the early 2000’s.

Figure 2‐22: Housing Data, City of Carlsbad / Eddy County

Carlsbad New MexicoHomeownership rate, 2007-2011 71.7% 69.6%Housing units in multi-unit structures, percent, 2007-2011 11.9% 15.0%

Median value of owner-occupied housing $90,700 $161,800Households, 2007-2011 9,909 762,002Persons per household, 2007-2011 2.56 2.62

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2009‐2011 American Community Survey

2.3.7 Employment Trends

Major industries that provide employment in the area are

tourism, retail, government, and mining. Carlsbad’s economy



Section 2 | 30

is also driven by oil and gas production, potash mining, the

Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP), retirement, and agriculture.

All areas of the job sector have seen the largest growth since

1980, from 22 to 36% of all employment.3 See Figure 2‐23.

The growth in Eddy County and Carlsbad’s economy and as well

as population can be attributed to a specific in‐migration

pattern of workers that include:

• Temporary Worker – Assigned to the area for a short period

of time (1 week to 6 months). Typically a single worker or

with a family that is unlikely to move to the area.

• Transient (Traveler) Worker – Assigned to the area for a

specific period of time (6 months to 18 months +). Typically

a single worker or with a family that unlikely to move to the

area.

• Resident Permanent Worker – Assigned to the area

permanently. Many of these workers have families that will

move with them from another area or currently reside to

the Carlsbad Area.

• Non‐Resident Permanent Worker – Assigned to the area

permanently. Many of these workers have families that will

move with them from another area or currently reside in

communities outside of Carlsbad, such as Loving, Artesia,

rural settings.

It is the Resident Permanent Workers that have families that

will impact Carlsbad Municipal Schools.

Figure 2‐23: Employment by Industry, City of Carlsbad / Eddy County

3 Regional Economic Information System, Bureau of Economic Analysis, US

Department of Commerce



Section 2 | 31

S

o

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2009‐2011 American Community Survey

Partial Listing of Carlsbad Employers: Carlsbad Employers:

• Intrepid Potash • Constructors, Inc. • WIPP • URS‐ EPD

(manufacturing) • PVT • Devon Energy • Carlsbad Medical

Center • Department of

Interior • City of Carlsbad • Westinghouse • Retail (Lowes,

Walmart, etc)



Section 2 | 32

Sector 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010Grand Total 19,219 19,531 19,677 19,743 20,234 21,051 22,030 23,207 23,280 23,547Total Private 15,956 16,224 16,335 16,343 16,797 17,539 18,500 19,628 19,483 19,712 Ag. For. Fish. & Hunting 378 454 406 366 356 318 325 325 395 367 Mining 2,580 2,480 2,492 2,699 2,821 3,124 3,359 3,752 3,545 4,025 Utilities 130 130 132 128 122 122 137 140 169 175 Construction 1,101 1,088 1,162 931 1,064 1,113 1,491 1,921 1,801 1,689 Manufacturing 828 876 872 823 783 707 720 801 850 841 Wholesale Trade 453 441 433 461 471 483 531 562 511 527 Retail Trade 2,263 2,185 2,178 2,093 2,115 2,184 2,239 2,307 2,341 2,276 Transportation & Warehousing 764 724 752 760 787 793 847 808 687 729 Information 301 301 259 229 244 238 232 244 256 D Finance & Insurance 513 581 590 601 587 620 646 647 637 662 Real Estate & Rental & Leasing 336 439 403 389 407 410 442 393 397 414 Professional & Technical Services 355 386 446 473 515 406 449 782 881 D Management of Companies & Enterprises 37 42 42 186 179 230 206 194 146 D Administrative & Waste Services 1,306 1,331 1,311 1,291 1,396 1,734 1,729 1,487 1,429 1,455 Educational Services 31 36 53 44 41 40 38 37 36 42 Health Care & Social Assistance 1,981 2,171 2,248 2,306 2,240 2,258 2,332 2,434 2,633 2,605 Arts, Entertainment & Recreation 78 57 68 78 82 50 42 38 38 46 Accommodation & Food Services 1,725 1,701 1,686 1,664 1,750 1,834 1,924 2,004 2,020 1,911 Other Services, ex. Public Administration 793 798 802 820 831 868 810 752 712 694 Unclassified 2 7 2 2 6 7 1 1 0 DTotal Government 3,262 3,306 3,342 3,400 3,436 3,512 3,530 3,579 3,797 3,834 Federal 501 533 530 560 596 654 736 763 853 881 State 565 569 580 603 606 609 596 601 600 582 Local 2,196 2,204 2,232 2,237 2,235 2,250 2,198 2,215 2,344 2,371

Note: All years have been revised in accordance with U.S. Dept. of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, databases.

New Mexico unemployment insurance (UI) law and related statutes. For a complete definition of covered employment see the attached definition sheet

AVERAGE ANNUAL COVERED WAGE AND SALARY EMPLOYMENT BY MAJOR INDUSTRIAL SECTOR EDDY COUNTY

D Withheld to avoid disclosing confidential data. Data that are not disclosed for individual industries are always included in the totals. Therefore, the individualindustries may not sum to the totals.

Figure 2‐24: Total Employees by Industry, Eddy County, 2001‐2010

Source: U.S. Dept. of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages. Table prepared by: Bureau of Business and Economic Research, University of New Mexico.

As Figures 2‐23 and 2‐24 indicates, total employment has

grown overall since 2000, from 19,219 employees to almost

23,547 employees in 2010, an increase of 22.5% over ten years.

Economic Opportunities have increased in the area through oil

production and other industries over the past several years:

• Intrepid Potash

• Yates Petroleum

• WIPP

• SunEdison

• Washington Tru Solutions

• Westinghouse

• Increase in Commercial & Retail (Ex. Lowes/ IHOP)



Section 2 | 33

Figure 2‐25: Total Employment, Eddy County, 2009 – 2014 (January)

Source: New Mexico Dept. of Workforce Solutions, Economic Research and Analysis Bureau, Table A (2009‐2014)

According to the New Mexico Economic Development

Department, the unemployment rate for Eddy County in

January 2009 was only 3.8%, compared to 5.7% for the state.

As of January 2014, Eddy County had an unemployment rate of

3.9%, compared with 6.6% for the state. See Figure 2‐26.

Figure 2‐26: Unemployment Rate, New Mexico & Eddy County, 2009‐2014 (January)

Source: New Mexico Dept. of Workforce Solutions, Economic Research and Analysis Bureau, Table A (2009‐2014)



Section 2 | 34

2.4 Enrollment

2.4.1 Enrollment 2012‐2018

The Carlsbad Municipal School District enrollment has

increased from 6,018 to 6,390 students over the last 10 years,

reflecting an overall average increase of almost 3.8%. However,

the district experienced a 4.7% decrease in enrollment from

2003/04 to 2008/09 due to poor economic conditions but has

since rebounded as of the 2013/14 school year by 7.3%. See

Figures 2‐27 and 2‐28.

This increase can be attributed to several population factors.

U.S. census data shows population stability or increase for the

county during the decade since the 2000 census, indicating

stable or increasing enrollment. Of this population, the portion

of those in their child‐bearing years has increased. Because

Carlsbad is the largest school district in the county, increasing

birth rates in Eddy County since 2006 also correlates to an

increase in elementary enrollment in the CMSD over the past

several years as well as future enrollment. Long term, the

increase in elementary enrollment will begin to impact the

district’s middle schools4 and high school in 2015 ‐2019.

4 As of the 2014/ 15 school year Alta Vista will become the 6th Grade Academy and PR Leyva will serve only grades 7th and 8th.



Section 2 | 35

Figure 2‐27: District‐wide 40‐Day Count Total Enrollment, 2004‐2013

Source: New Mexico Public Education Department

Figure 2‐28: Student Enrollment by School Type 2008‐2013

Source: New Mexico Public Education Department School Fact Sheets, 40‐Day Count Enrollment by District and Grade

Level, http://www.ped.state.nm.us/IT/schoolFactSheets.html



Section 2 | 36

The following tables and charts (Figures 2‐29 through 2‐35)

reflect demographic information gathered from CMSD and the

New Mexico Department of Education.

Figure 2‐29: District Enrollment by Grade, 2004‐2013

2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14

Pre-Kindergarten 88 97 95 94 96 92 94 96 125 114

Kindergarten 451 493 474 468 497 470 469 469 494 555

Grade 1 464 480 462 464 462 436 458 463 482 510

Grade 2 440 445 471 464 447 470 419 451 470 477

Grade 3 391 447 458 465 476 440 477 435 450 466

Grade 4 474 393 430 453 467 462 441 486 441 473

Grade 5 479 484 395 437 471 450 456 440 506 471

Total 2,787 2,839 2,785 2,845 2,916 2,820 2,814 2,840 2,968 3,066

Grade 6 359 502 489 409 443 461 477 471 446 507

Grade 7 438 420 503 482 400 443 455 485 480 469

Grade 8 499 440 431 491 473 398 442 445 494 490

Total 1,296 1,362 1,423 1,382 1,316 1,302 1,374 1,401 1,420 1,466

Grade 9 510 590 445 474 527 467 392 460 485 482

Grade 10 455 495 522 435 415 473 468 389 457 450

Grade 11 398 357 409 407 362 374 426 408 351 414

Grade 12 365 360 321 349 384 339 387 373 376 321

Total 1728 1802 1697 1665 1688 1653 1673 1630 1,669 1,667Charter School 123 92 81 82 126 147 164 169 204 191

Total Enrollment 5,811 6,003 5,905 5,892 5,920 5,775 5,861 5,871 6,057 6,390

High School

Carlsbad Municipal Schools Historic Enrollment

Elementary

Middle School



Section 2 | 37

Figure 2‐30: Early Childhood Education Student Enrollment by School and Grade, 2004‐2013

In the 2010‐2011 school year, the District created a separate

Pre‐school program to increase capacity for Kindergarten

students at the Early Childhood Center. At that time, pre‐

school students were moved to the Dr. E. M. Smith Elementary.

That school showed an enrollment of 96 students for the 2010‐

2011 school year and is currently at 108. Kindergarten

enrollment at the Early Childhood Center has increased over

the last several years and is expected to continue that trend

due to increased birth rates in the area over the past few years.

See Figure 2‐30.

Enrollment districtwide over the past five years has increased

in all grade levels and at all of the district’s schools. See Figures

2‐31 through 2‐34.

School Name 2004/2005 2005/2006 2006/2007 2007/2008 2008/2009 2009/2010 2010/2011 2011/2012 2012/2013 2013/2014

Early Childhood Education Center Historic

Pre- Kindergarten 88 97 95 94 96 92 94 0 0 6

Kindergarten 451 493 474 468 497 470 469 469 494 555

458 430 437 449 464 510

%Change 9% -4% -1% 5.5% -5.2% 0.2% -16.7% 5.3% 13.6%

Total 539 590 569 562 593 562 563 469 494 561

Dr Emmitt Smith ECC Historic

Pre- Kindergarten 96 125 108

Kindergarten

%Change 30.2% -13.6%

Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 96 125 108

TOTAL 539 590 569 562 593 562 563 565 619 669

Carlsbad Municipal Schools Pre-K and Kindergarten Enrollments



Section 2 | 38

Figure 2‐31: Elementary School Student Enrollment, 2004 – 2013

Figure 2‐32: Elementary School Student Enrollment, 2004 ‐ 2013

School Name 2004/2005 2005/2006 2006/2007 2007/2008 2008/2009 2009/2010 2010/2011 2011/2012 2012/2013 2013/2014

Craft Elementary Historic

Kindergarten

First 39 37 33 43 36 48 35 63 53 47

Second 37 34 36 45 40 35 46 42 59 58

Third 27 41 34 39 36 44 40 46 44 53

Fourth 32 30 36 38 44 43 46 46 42 48

Fifth 38 46 35 40 42 35 45 47 44 46

%Change 9% -7% 18% -3.4% 3.5% 3.4% 15.1% -0.8% 4.1%

Total 173 188 174 205 198 205 212 244 242 252

Eddy Elementary Historic

Kindergarten

First 38 57 44 38 38 32

Second 41 41 53 42 40 31

Third 27 40 46 47 40 35

Fourth 45 27 39 48 46 34

Fifth 49 47 26 40 47 46

%Change 6% -2% 3% -1.9% -15.6% -100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Total 200 212 208 215 211 178 0 0 0 0

Hillcrest Elementary Historic

Kindergarten

First 51 51 51 52 59 46 76 71 55 64

Second 45 52 43 48 44 52 57 72 71 65

Third 36 48 56 45 50 43 71 51 55 67

Fourth 40 35 35 55 40 41 50 60 43 67

Fifth 42 36 38 38 59 41 53 49 66 48

%Change 4% 0% 7% 5.9% -11.5% 37.7% -1.3% -4.3% 7.2%

Total 214 222 223 238 252 223 307 303 290 311

Joe Stanley Smith Elementary Historic

Kindergarten

First 63 45 51 39 46 55 56 44 61 66

Second 42 55 50 47 46 60 52 57 40 58

Third 49 45 57 46 61 44 66 53 56 45

Fourth 47 54 39 55 48 49 47 68 50 61

Fifth 49 49 46 41 55 39 58 49 67 60

%Change -1% -2% -6% 12.3% -3.5% 13.0% -2.9% 1.1% 5.8%

Total 250 248 243 228 256 247 279 271 274 290

Monterrey Elementary Historic

Kindergarten

First 59 58 61 72 57 40 66 64 69 74

Second 62 56 51 56 72 65 46 62 62 65

Third 59 48 51 53 57 69 72 51 63 70

Fourth 65 58 46 49 55 57 75 73 53 67

Fifth 70 63 57 56 48 53 64 71 76 54

%Change -10% -6% 8% 1.0% -1.7% 13.7% -0.6% 0.6% 2.2%

Total 315 283 266 286 289 284 323 321 323 330

Carlsbad Municipal Schools Elementary Enrollments



Section 2 | 39

School Name 2004/2005 2005/2006 2006/2007 2007/2008 2008/2009 2009/2010 2010/2011 2011/2012 2012/2013 2013/2014

Pate Elementary Historic

Kindergarten

First* 55 56 44 50 50 38 38 41 56 56

Second* 53 55 60 48 46 48 29 46 53 50

Third 50 55 49 57 48 47 37 36 44 51

Fourth 67 40 51 45 54 48 40 43 35 36

Fifth 68 59 34 45 50 51 36 42 45 48

%Change -10% -10% 3% 1.2% -6.5% -22.4% 15.6% 12.0% 3.4%

Total 293 265 238 245 248 232 180 208 233 241* EM Smith 2003-2008 Enrollment for Grades 1 & 2 before schools combined

Puckett Elementary Historic

Kindergarten

First 35 57 48 45 44 51 56 41 52 52

Second 38 37 51 47 38 43 55 48 40 49

Third 30 39 42 49 44 41 53 44 46 42

Fourth 52 34 41 38 52 44 43 46 52 51

Fifth 46 51 38 40 37 51 42 40 50 53

%Change 8% 1% 0% -1.8% 7.0% 8.3% -12.0% 9.6% 2.9%

Total 201 218 220 219 215 230 249 219 240 247

Riverside Elementary Historic

Kindergarten

First 47 40 58 51 46 57 45 46 45 62

Second 54 44 46 62 46 47 55 45 45 49

Third 48 62 54 51 61 48 44 62 50 49

Fourth 54 52 64 57 48 64 54 47 61 55

Fifth 57 61 52 64 55 54 65 51 49 68

%Change 0% 6% 4% -10.2% 5.5% -2.6% -4.6% -0.4% 13.2%

Total 260 259 274 285 256 270 263 251 250 283

Sunset Elementary Historic

Kindergarten

First 77 79 72 74 86 69 86 93 91 89

Second 68 71 81 69 75 89 79 79 100 83

Third 65 69 69 78 79 69 94 92 92 89

Fourth 72 63 79 68 80 82 86 103 105 88

Fifth 60 72 69 73 78 80 93 91 109 94

%Change 4% 5% -2% 9.9% -2.3% 12.6% 4.6% 8.5% -10.9%

Total 342 354 370 362 398 389 438 458 497 443

TOTAL 2248 2249 2216 2283 2323 2258 2251 2275 2349 2397

Carlsbad Municipal Schools Elementary Enrollments



Section 2 | 40

School Name 2004/2005 2005/2006 2006/2007 2007/2008 2008/2009 2009/2010 2010/2011 2011/2012 2012/2013 2013/2014

Alta Vista Middle School Historic

Sixth 173 199 223 172 198 217 203 193 185 208

Seventh 186 178 206 218 179 200 212 203 190 186

Eighth 231 183 200 198 211 172 188 201 211 210

%Change -5% 12% -7% 0.0% 0.2% 2.4% -1.0% -1.8% 3.1%

Total 590 560 629 588 588 589 603 597 586 604

Feeder Schools: All Elementary Schools - Grade change effective 2014/15

P.R. Leyva Middle School Historic

Sixth 186 303 266 237 245 244 274 278 261 299

Seventh 252 242 297 264 221 243 243 282 290 283

Eighth 268 257 231 293 262 226 254 244 283 280

%Change 14% -1% 0% -8.3% -2.1% 8.1% 4.3% 3.7% 3.4%

Total 706 802 794 794 728 713 771 804 834 862

Feeder Schools: Alta Vista Middle School - Grade change effective 2014/15

TOTAL 1296 1362 1423 1382 1316 1302 1374 1401 1420 1466

Carlsbad Municipal Middle School Enrollments

Figure 2‐33: Middle School Student Enrollment, 2004 – 2013

Figure 2‐34: High School Student Enrollment, 2004 – 2013

Carlsbad Municipal Schools High School Enrollments

School Name 2004/2005 2005/2006 2006/2007 2007/2008 2008/2009 2009/2010 2010/2011 2011/2012 2012/2013 2013/2014

Carlsbad High School Historic

Ninth 510 590 445 474 527 467 392 460 485 482

Tenth 455 495 522 435 415 473 468 389 457 450

Eleventh 398 357 409 407 362 374 426 408 351 414

Twelfth 365 360 321 349 384 339 387 373 376 321

%Change 4% -6% -2% 1.4% -2.1% 1.2% -2.6% 2.4% -0.1%

Total 1728 1802 1697 1665 1688 1653 1673 1630 1669 1667



Section 2 | 41

Figure 2‐35: District Charter School Enrollment, 2004 – 2013

School Name 2004/2005 2005/2006 2006/2007 2007/2008 2008/2009 2009/2010 2010/2011 2011/2012 2012/2013 2013/2014

Jefferson Montessori Historic (District Charter)

Kindergarten 7 4 3 8 16 21 15 16 21 20

First 10 5 5 4 6 21 14 18 11 16

Second 18 14 5 6 6 10 22 17 23 15

Third 12 3 8 4 7 11 23 23 17 23

Fourth 7 9 4 6 11 10 11 21 26 9

Fifth 6 6 6 3 8 13 9 8 24 23

Sixth 6 8 6 4 9 11 10 7 14 18

Seventh 13 3 8 12 14 10 16 10 12 11

Eighth 7 8 6 7 10 11 14 14 15 15

Ninth 10 8 12 7 11 6 6 11 14 9

Tenth 18 11 7 10 10 7 11 10 12 15

Eleventh 9 8 6 6 6 8 9 8 9 9

Twelve 0 5 5 5 12 8 4 6 6 8

%Change -25% -12% 1% 53.7% 16.7% 11.6% 3.0% 20.7% -6.4%

Total 123 92 81 82 126 147 164 169 204 191

Carlsbad Municipal Schools District Charter School Enrollments

2.4.2 Projected Enrollment 2014‐2019

District enrollment projections are developed based on a

cohort survival method which is the standard for projecting

school enrollments. In this method:

The number of students in a cohort (a group of students in a

certain age group who move together through one grade level

to the next) is tracked through past grades.

Survival rates (ratios of the number of students who remain

from one year to the next) are calculated from historical

enrollments.

Prevailing birth rates (for kindergarten) and average survival

rates (for other grades) are used to calculate future

enrollments.



Section 2 | 42

As warranted, ratios were adjusted slightly to reflect major

factors identified during the growth analysis such as the

construction of additional housing. Since the cohort survival

method addresses students who are currently in the system, it

tends to be fairly accurate from five to seven years.

Three enrollment projection scenarios were developed, based

on trends during the past seven years:

Low Range ‐ based on the average enrollment trends from

2007‐08 to 2013‐14. It assumes that the longer range trends

will prevail over the current faster growth rate and will have an

average annual growth rate of ‐0.4% including the District’s

Charter School.

Mid Range ‐ based on the average enrollment trends of the

past seven years, 2007‐08 to 2013‐14, with some downward

adjustment for the middle school, consistent with current

trends. This range is considered to be the most likely scenario

since it assumes continuing growth over the planning horizon.

Its average annual growth rate is 2.5% including the District’s

Charter School.

High Range ‐ based on the average enrollment trends from

2007‐08 to 2013‐14. This range assumes escalating elementary

enrollment that progresses through middle and high schools.

Its average annual growth rate is 4.0% including the District’s

Charter School.

See Figures 2‐36 to 2‐47.



Section 2 | 43

Figure 2‐36: CMSD District Schools Projected Enrollment Low‐High Range, 2014‐19

Figure 2‐37: District‐Wide School Projected Enrollment ‐ Moderate, 2014‐19

Note: District Charter School is NOT included in the above charts (see Figure 2‐38 for inclusion). Figure 2‐38: District‐Wide School Projected Enrollment By Grade Level, 2014‐19



Section 2 | 44

Elementary Forecast

109 124 135 99 113 123 104 119 127 108 123 134 106 121 131 107 122 133

553 591 613 538 575 588 489 523 533 515 550 576 534 571 592 525 561 582

436 510 581 433 505 572 404 470 536 382 446 509 428 501 567 445 522 588

469 525 582 452 521 601 434 512 587 407 479 553 396 465 528 447 522 588

435 496 547 474 543 605 462 542 620 444 527 600 422 499 575 413 487 554

431 488 542 433 511 570 471 557 620 466 553 630 453 545 615 438 523 598

444 496 555 432 505 564 438 526 594 471 563 630 480 573 647 464 570 636

2,875 3,229 3,554 2,860 3,272 3,623 2,801 3,248 3,617 2,792 3,241 3,632 2,820 3,275 3,655 2,840 3,307 3,678

Middle School Forecast

496 513 529 523 540 558 532 550 568 554 572 591 593 613 632 604 624 644

496 517 540 502 522 546 529 551 575 539 561 586 560 583 609 600 624 652

442 466 475 487 513 547 493 519 553 519 547 583 529 557 593 550 579 617

1,435 1,495 1,544 1,512 1,576 1,650 1,554 1,619 1,695 1,612 1,680 1,759 1,682 1,753 1,835 1,754 1,827 1,913

High School Forecast

489 516 542 444 490 517 486 540 573 491 546 587 518 575 619 527 580 630

455 465 460 461 497 517 419 472 496 459 520 546 464 526 560 489 555 590

397 415 421 401 428 431 407 458 489 370 435 464 404 480 504 409 485 525

355 376 403 351 377 396 363 389 408 373 416 459 341 396 433 364 436 473

1,695 1,771 1,826 1,657 1,792 1,860 1,674 1,860 1,966 1,692 1,918 2,057 1,727 1,977 2,116 1,788 2,055 2,218

6,005 6,495 6,924 6,029 6,640 7,133 6,030 6,727 7,278 6,096 6,839 7,448 6,228 7,005 7,605 6,382 7,189 7,809

-3.1% 4.8% 11.7% 0.4% 2.2% 3.0% 0.0% 1.3% 2.0% 1.1% 1.7% 2.3% 2.2% 2.4% 2.1% 2.5% 2.6% 2.7%

Jefferson Montesorri Charter School Forecast

139 193 239 138 192 246 140 195 246 142 195 246 146 196 247 148 199 250

6,145 6,688 7,162 6,167 6,832 7,379 6,169 6,922 7,525 6,238 7,034 7,694 6,375 7,200 7,853 6,529 7,388 8,059

-3.8% 4.7% 12.1% 0.4% 2.2% 3.0% 0.0% 1.3% 2.0% 1.1% 1.6% 2.3% 2.2% 2.4% 2.1% 2.4% 2.6% 2.6%

2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19

CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL SCHOOLS DISTRICTWIDE ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS 2014-2019

Total District Enrollment WITHOUT Charter School Enrollment

Total District Enrollment Including Charter School

2019-20

Figure 2‐39: CMSD District Schools Projected Enrollment Elementary Low‐High Range, 2014‐19



Section 2 | 45

Figure 2‐40: Pre‐K and Kindergarten Schools Projected Enrollment, 2013‐18

Early Childhood Education Center Forecast

Pre- Kindergarten

Kindergarten 553 591 613 538 575 588 489 523 533 515 550 576 534 571 592 525 561 582

509 591 578 495 575 562 450 523 511 474 550 538 492 571 558 483 561 549

%Change -1.4% 5.3% 9.2% -2.7% -2.7% -4.0% -9.1% -9.1% -9.4% 5.3% 5.3% 8.2% 3.7% 3.7% 2.7% -1.7% -1.7% -1.7%

Total553 591 613 538 575 588 489 523 533 515 550 576 534 571 592 525 561 582

Pre- Kindergarten 109 124 135 99 113 123 104 119 127 108 123 134 106 121 131 107 122 133

Kindergarten

%Change 0.7% 14.7% 25.2% -9.1% -9.1% -9.1% 5.3% 5.3% 3.7% 3.7% 3.7% 5.4% -1.7% -1.7% -2.4% 1.1% 1.1% 1.8%

Total109 124 135 99 113 123 104 119 127 108 123 134 106 121 131 107 122 133

Total662 715 748 637 687 711 593 641 660 623 673 711 640 692 723 632 683 715

2019/2020

Dr Emmitt Smith ECC Forecast

School Name

Carlsbad Municipal Schools - Early Childhood & Kindergarten Projections

2014/2015 2015/2016 2016/2017 2017/2018 2018/2019

Figure 2‐41: CMSD Elementary School Enrollment Projections, 2014‐19



Section 2 | 46

School Name

Kindergarten Low Mid Hi Low Mid Hi Low Mid Hi Low Mid Hi Low Mid Hi Low Mid Hi

First 46 55 63 45 54 61 43 49 56 44 51 58 44 53 61 44 54 63

Second 46 48 58 46 53 65 44 53 59 42 48 57 44 53 58 46 54 62

Third 51 59 67 44 48 61 47 55 65 44 50 57 41 47 58 45 54 59

Fourth 50 55 64 50 62 69 44 50 63 49 55 68 44 51 59 45 50 62

Fifth 46 52 62 48 57 66 52 63 71 44 51 65 51 57 70 46 52 62

%Change -5.4% 6.8% 24.6% -2.4% 1.2% 2.4% -1.2% -1.4% -2.4% -2.9% -4.9% -2.6% 0.7% 2.2% 0.3% 0.8% 1.0% 0.7%

Total 238 269 314 233 272 321 230 269 314 223 255 305 225 261 306 227 264 309


First 48 55 66 46 54 64 42 49 58 43 49 58 47 57 66 49 59 64

Second 57 65 73 48 56 68 45 54 68 41 50 61 44 54 62 47 59 70

Third 56 67 71 56 68 75 49 58 72 46 57 70 43 54 64 45 56 67

Fourth 57 68 75 54 68 74 52 68 77 48 58 73 45 60 72 46 57 68

Fifth 59 68 76 55 70 77 53 70 78 50 69 75 46 62 74 44 62 74

%Change -11.1% 3.8% 15.8% -6.3% -2.5% -0.8% -6.6% -4.8% -1.5% -5.6% -5.5% -4.4% -1.3% 1.4% 0.6% 2.8% 2.5% 1.9%

Total 277 323 360 259 315 357 242 300 352 228 283 336 225 287 338 232 294 345


First 50 63 71 52 61 69 48 56 63 45 53 60 50 61 69 53 62 70

Second 62 69 76 54 65 73 52 62 72 50 59 65 49 57 65 55 67 73

Third 54 62 64 65 71 78 53 66 75 53 64 73 53 62 68 52 59 68

Fourth 41 48 53 55 63 65 62 70 79 54 67 76 55 67 75 54 63 69

Fifth 56 63 69 43 50 55 54 62 66 60 68 78 57 69 77 56 67 75

%Change -9.6% 5.2% 14.9% 2.5% 1.8% 2.1% -0.1% 1.6% 4.4% -2.1% -1.5% -1.1% 0.5% 1.6% 0.8% 1.6% 0.7% 0.2%

Total 262 305 333 269 310 340 269 315 355 263 311 351 264 316 354 269 318 355


First 50 59 70 51 62 70 47 56 65 44 53 61 54 63 72 56 66 74

Second 67 76 80 55 63 73 53 63 71 48 57 67 49 58 62 57 67 75

Third 61 68 72 71 79 83 58 67 75 55 66 73 53 62 71 53 61 66

Fourth 67 73 78 61 72 76 73 81 85 60 69 77 60 71 77 56 66 75

Fifth 64 71 74 67 76 80 60 73 79 70 79 83 64 74 78 63 74 78

%Change -6.3% 5.1% 13.3% -1.2% 1.1% 2.2% -4.9% -3.1% -1.6% -4.5% -4.6% -4.0% 0.9% 1.1% -0.1% 1.8% 1.7% 2.1%

Total 309 347 374 306 351 382 291 340 376 278 324 361 280 328 360 285 334 368


First 50 58 66 54 61 70 48 55 66 43 51 60 50 59 68 51 60 69

Second 51 58 64 50 61 69 55 63 72 47 57 67 45 53 62 52 62 70

Third 46 52 57 50 59 67 51 64 71 56 64 73 49 59 69 47 56 64

Fourth 45 50 56 42 51 59 49 59 66 48 61 68 55 62 71 48 62 67

Fifth 33 38 43 44 52 57 43 53 61 50 60 66 50 62 70 57 66 73

%Change -6.3% 5.7% 18.7% 6.4% 11.7% 12.6% 2.5% 3.5% 4.4% -0.6% -0.6% -0.7% 1.4% 0.8% 1.7% 2.5% 4.0% 1.0%

Total 226 255 286 240 284 322 246 294 336 245 293 334 248 295 339 255 307 343

Carlsbad Municipal Schools Elementary Enrollment Projections

Craft Elementary Forecast

Hillcrest Elementary Forecast

Joe Stanley Smith Elementary Forecast

Monterrey Elementary Forecast

Pate Elementary Forecast

2019/20202014/2015 2015/2016 2016/2017 2017/2018 2018/2019

Figure 2‐42: CMSD Elementary School Enrollment Projections, 2014‐19



Section 2 | 47

School Name


First 51 60 68 50 58 67 45 53 60 40 48 56 48 56 64 53 61 69

Second 48 53 60 52 61 70 49 59 69 46 54 62 41 48 57 48 57 65

Third 45 50 60 47 54 63 51 61 73 50 60 70 47 54 63 41 49 60

Fourth 39 46 53 44 50 64 47 55 65 52 62 74 51 61 71 48 55 67

Fifth 47 55 63 40 47 58 46 53 66 48 56 68 53 64 76 52 62 74

%Change -6.3% 6.5% 23.7% 0.8% 2.4% 5.2% 2.1% 4.4% 3.6% -1.0% -0.7% -1.2% 1.3% 1.4% 0.6% 1.4% 0.2% 1.1%

Total 231 263 306 233 269 321 238 281 333 236 279 329 239 283 331 242 283 335


First 57 69 76 55 67 74 54 66 72 50 60 67 55 65 72 58 71 80

Second 57 66 73 63 70 79 55 69 76 54 67 75 50 62 69 59 66 73

Third 46 51 60 58 69 74 65 74 82 56 72 80 56 71 78 52 64 72

Fourth 45 54 62 45 53 62 57 71 77 64 76 85 55 74 83 58 74 81

Fifth 55 59 68 47 58 67 47 58 68 59 78 84 67 81 91 58 82 90

%Change -8.3% 5.9% 19.8% 3.5% 6.1% 5.1% 3.8% 6.4% 5.4% 1.9% 4.8% 3.9% -0.2% -0.7% 0.5% 0.7% 1.6% 1.1%

Total 260 300 339 269 318 356 279 338 376 284 354 390 283 352 392 285 357 397


First 83 91 100 79 88 97 77 86 95 72 80 89 80 87 96 82 88 98

Second 80 90 98 84 92 105 80 89 99 77 87 100 74 81 93 82 91 100

Third 78 88 95 83 96 105 88 98 107 83 95 104 80 91 103 77 87 98

Fourth 86 94 102 81 93 101 87 101 109 92 103 110 87 98 108 84 97 108

Fifth 84 90 99 88 96 103 83 95 105 89 102 111 94 104 111 89 104 109

%Change -7.4% 2.2% 11.6% 1.2% 2.7% 3.4% -0.3% 1.0% 0.7% -0.2% -0.3% -0.1% 0.5% -1.2% -0.8% -0.2% 0.9% 0.5%

Total 410 453 495 415 465 512 414 470 515 413 468 515 415 462 510 414 467 513

Total 2,214 2,514 2,807 2,224 2,585 2,913 2,208 2,607 2,957 2,170 2,568 2,921 2,180 2,583 2,932 2,208 2,623 2,963

Puckett Elementary Forecast*

Sunset Elementary Forecast

Riverside Elementary Forecast*

Carlsbad Municipal Schools Elementary Enrollment Projections

2019/20202014/2015 2015/2016 2016/2017 2017/2018 2018/2019



Section 2 | 48

Figure 2‐43: Projected Middle School Student Enrollment ‐ Low‐High Range, 2014‐19

Figure 2‐44: Projected Middle School Student Enrollment, 2014‐19 (Grade Reconfiguration effective 2014/15)

School Name

Sixth 496 513 529 523 540 558 532 550 568 554 572 591 593 613 632 604 624 644

Seventh

Eighth

%Change -17.9% -15.1% -12.4% 5.4% 5.4% 5.4% 1.8% 1.8% 1.8% 4.1% 4.1% 4.1% 7.0% 7.0% 7.0% 1.8% 1.8% 1.8%

Total 496 513 529 523 540 558 532 550 568 554 572 591 593 613 632 604 624 644

Sixth

Seventh 496 517 540 502 522 546 529 551 575 539 561 586 560 583 609 600 624 652

Eighth 442 466 475 487 513 547 493 519 553 519 547 583 529 557 593 550 579 617

%Change 8.9% 14.0% 17.7% 5.4% 5.4% 7.6% 3.3% 3.3% 3.2% 3.5% 3.6% 3.6% 3.0% 3.0% 2.9% 5.6% 5.6% 5.6%

Total 939 982 1,015 989 1,035 1,092 1,021 1,069 1,128 1,058 1,107 1,168 1,089 1,140 1,202 1,150 1,203 1,269

TOTAL 1,435 1,495 1,544 1,512 1,576 1,650 1,554 1,619 1,695 1,612 1,680 1,759 1,682 1,753 1,835 1,754 1,827 1,913

2014/2015 2015/2016 2016/2017 2017/2018 2018/2019 2019/2020

P.R. Leyva Middle School Forecast

Alta Vista 6th Grade Academy Forecast

Carlsbad Municipal Middle School Enrollment Projections

Figure 2‐45: Projected High School Student Enrollment ‐ Low‐High Range, 2014‐19



Section 2 | 49

Figure 2‐46: Projected High School Student Enrollment, 2014‐19

Carlsbad Municipal Schools High School Enrollment Projections

School Name

Ninth 489 516 542 444 490 517 486 540 573 491 546 587 518 575 619 527 580 630

Tenth 455 465 460 461 497 517 419 472 496 459 520 546 464 526 560 489 555 590

Eleventh 397 415 421 401 428 431 407 458 489 370 435 464 404 480 504 409 485 525

Twelfth 355 376 403 351 377 396 363 389 408 373 416 459 341 396 433 364 436 473

%Change 1.7% 6.3% 9.5% -2.3% 1.2% 1.9% 1.0% 3.8% 5.7% 1.1% 3.1% 4.6% 2.0% 3.1% 2.9% 3.6% 4.0% 4.8%

Total 1,695 1,771 1,826 1,657 1,792 1,860 1,674 1,860 1,966 1,692 1,918 2,057 1,727 1,977 2,116 1,788 2,055 2,218

Carlsbad High School Forecast

2014/2015 2015/2016 2016/2017 2017/2018 2018/2019 2019/2020

Figure 2‐47: Projected Alternative/ Charter School Enrollment, 2014‐19



Section 2 | 50

Kindergarten 17 20 23 15 19 23 17 21 24 16 20 23 16 20 23 14 18 20

First 15 19 23 12 17 21 13 16 20 12 15 19 13 17 21 13 18 22

Second 13 18 22 15 18 22 15 21 24 15 20 24 15 19 23 17 22 27

Third 8 12 17 12 16 18 11 15 18 13 16 21 11 15 20 12 14 18

Fourth 16 22 27 9 14 18 13 18 21 12 17 20 15 18 22 13 17 22

Fifth 5 8 13 15 21 26 9 14 19 13 18 22 12 17 21 15 18 22

Sixth 14 18 21 5 7 13 12 17 21 7 13 17 12 16 21 11 15 19

Seventh 12 16 19 12 17 22 4 6 12 11 15 19 6 11 16 10 14 19

Eighth 8 11 15 11 17 21 12 17 23 5 7 13 11 16 21 6 12 17

Ninth 9 14 17 7 15 18 12 16 21 11 16 21 5 7 10 10 15 20

Tenth 7 10 14 10 13 17 8 14 18 13 16 20 12 15 18 5 8 11

Eleventh 9 13 16 6 9 13 8 11 15 6 12 15 11 14 18 10 13 16

Twelve 6 9 12 8 10 14 5 8 12 8 10 13 7 11 14 11 14 18

%Change -27.0% 0.8% 24.9% -1.1% -0.3% 3.1% 1.2% 1.5% 0.1% 1.4% -0.1% 0.0% 3.3% 0.5% 0.4% 0.9% 1.7% 1.2%

Total139 193 239 138 192 246 140 195 246 142 195 246 146 196 247 148 199 250

2019/2020

Jefferson Montessori Forecast (District Charter)

School Name

Carlsbad Municipal Schools - District Charter School Projections

2014/2015 2015/2016 2016/2017 2017/2018 2018/2019

2.4.3 Methods Used to Project CMSD Enrollments

Analysis of History

First, birth trends were compared to kindergarten trends.

There has been a correlation between the birth rates and

students entering kindergarten. Carlsbad is the largest school

district in Eddy County and is the territory for which birth data

can be studied. The birth numbers portend a rise in

elementary enrollment numbers over the next five years.

The historical data includes birth trends only emerging at the

outset of the economic recession. The recession has had two

demographic effects on Carlsbad and the state and nation.

First, birth rates have declined (however not below historic

rates for Eddy County), and appears to be temporary as

families delay having children in the face of difficult times.

Second, the economic recession has caused a notable

reduction in migration as people “stay put” in the face of

uncertainty, including remaining in multi‐generational housing



Section 2 | 51

situations. Immigration to the United States has fallen off

dramatically according to US Census Bureau estimates.

The projections employ cohort progressions, for example,

ratios of fifth graders this year to fourth graders last year. A

historical review of progression ratios was performed with and

without the charter school, Jefferson Montessori. It is clear

from reviewing these data that Jefferson Montessori was

growing in the past five years as a result of reductions in

enrollment potential for other schools in the district. However,

Jefferson Montessori has no further plans for net growth

beyond current students, or student cohort numbers.

United States census data shows a steady population increase

for the county during the decade since the 2010 census, and

these data form a basis for enrollment projections. The

progression ratios confirm that there has been some net

migration growth in the school district due to improving

economic conditions.

Projection Overview

The method employed is a modified top‐down method,

meaning district totals are projected first. In order to initiate

the projections for district totals, kindergarten must first be

projected and synchronized with birth trends. Enrollments are

within grade for this phase of calculation, and include Special

Ed C and Special Ed D students.



Section 2 | 52

The historical pattern of the progression ratios by grade shows

stability once all district students have been accumulated,

including Jefferson Montessori Charter School. The grade

progression ratios are then projected, giving more weight to

the most recent numbers.

The economic recession has not impacted the demography of

Eddy County as significantly as the state and nation. All

indications are that recovery from the recession is happening in

Carlsbad. More recent historical trends are expected to be

good indicators to project the five‐year future.

The birth synchronized Kindergarten numbers are distributed

to the ECEC and Jefferson Montessori according to their most

recent proportions. This arithmetic is simple, and ECEC has

almost all the kindergarteners in the district.

For all but Jefferson Montessori, elementary schools use the

district average progression ratios applied to each school,

which maintains the unique school‐level cohort sizes that

existed in fall 2013. Each elementary school is progressed

individually in the projection until transition to middle school.

The transition to middle school numbers returns to the district

totals, also tracking cohorts, and projected totals are

proportionally allocated to the two middle schools. With

entering cohorts computed, the existing cohorts in the two

middle schools are each progressed through grade according to

district progression average but applied to each school’s

unique cohort size pattern.



Section 2 | 53

Returning to the transition district total progressed numbers,

entering high school numbers are apportioned to Carlsbad High

based upon the proportion in 2013, and then progressed by

grade to 12th grade. As a comment, the progression ratios do

not assume any change in drop‐out rates, which are a factor in

cohort losses in Carlsbad.

All of those computations leave a residual set of numbers,

which were placed into Jefferson Montessori Charter and

Grace House according to the evaluation of cohort sizes and

past trends now tempered by no expectation of future

significant growth in either physical facility. Jefferson

Montessori has some growth potential already built into

existing cohort sizes and district progression rates.

2.4.4 Conclusions

Enrollment projections will increase across the district by

approximately 2.5% annually as a mid‐range projection by

2019. District elementary schools are expected to be impacted

the most with an increase in enrollment as they have the least

capacity to absorb additional students.



Section 2 | 54

2.5 Utilization and Capacity

In order to calculate the capacity of a district’s school facilities,

it is important to first determine the total space available for

teaching and how it is currently being utilized. Utilization is the

total available space for teaching and how this space is being

used, and capacity is the amount of space available for

teaching in the context of the current educational program of a

school.

Guidelines developed by the state were used in the

determination of how each space was classified in terms of

utilization and capacity. A chart for each school was completed.

Utilization and capacity changes from year to year are

dependent upon the use of the facility; therefore, an annual

update of the use of each facility is recommended.

Methodology used to determine utilization and capacity

involved the following steps:

1. Each principal was asked to review and update

information;

2. Programs and current on site educational strategies

were discussed and documented;

3. A detailed walk through inventory of each school was

conducted in conjunction with a detailed assessment of

the physical facilities;

4. A classification of the current use and the availability or

deficit of space for the current educational programs

was completed;



Section 2 | 55

5. Recommendations based on additions and

reconfiguration of existing space were compiled;

6. Additional information and comments were

documented;

7. A summary of these findings was sent to the District’s

Superintendent for review.

2.5.1 Existing and Future Classroom Needs

An analysis of the future classroom needs is based on a facility

inventory, demographic analysis, and capacity and utilization

analysis. The conclusion is that the District will require

additional classrooms to satisfy changing demographics before

2018. Additionally, the District has indicated the desire to

renovate and replace aging school facilities. The following

analysis was completed to aid in this decision.

An identification and inventory of all space within each school

was conducted in 2014 by the FMP planning team. A detailed

inventory of each school includes information regarding the

number of classrooms and their current use (regular classroom,

special education, music, art, etc.) as well as other spaces used

for teaching.

Classroom capacity is based on using State maximum Pupil

Teacher Ratios. The District strives to reduce these ratios to

improve educational services. Currently the district has eight

elementary schools, two middle schools, one high school, one

kindergarten (early childhood) center, one pre‐kindergarten

center, and one K‐12 charter school.



Section 2 | 56

The demographic analysis for each school shows some

variables in enrollment from year to year, with some growth

enrollment due to changing economic conditions (incoming

business growth) and increased birth rates. In response, the

consolidation of some facilities and addition of others will be

needed. A utilization and capacity chart was developed for

each school and shown in the School Facility Summaries in the

Appendix. The following Capacity Analysis Summary Table

Figure 2‐48 was developed from the information generated in

these charts and updated in 2014.

Figure 2‐48: School Capacity Summary

The utilization of the schools is shown on the following

utilization analysis summary. The elementary school utilization

is between 93 and 100 percent utilization. The 93% utilization

is found in only one school, all other elementary schools are

Capacity Analysis

School Name Enrollment CapacityAvailable Seats 2014

Available Seats 2018

Growth/ Decline

EM Smith 109 67 (43) (55) 12

ECE 562 423 (139) (148) 9

Jefferson Montessori 204 269 65 73 (8)

Craft 252 258 6 (3) 9

Hillcrest 311 302 (9) 15 (24)

Joe Stanley 290 280 (9) (35) 26

Monterrey 321 325 4 (3) 7

Pate 254 258 4 (37) 41

Pucket 256 238 (19) (46) 27

Riverside 323 260 (63) (92) 29

Sunset 443 433 (10) (29) 19

Alta Vista 586 714 128 101 27

PR Levya 834 979 145 (161) 306

Carlsbad HS 1651 2118 467 141 326

Totals 6396 6924 527 (279) 806

ECEC



Section 2 | 57

utilized at 96‐100%. The utilization of the middle schools and

high school is low at 59 to 75%.

Utilization and capacity analysis support the conclusion that

there is sufficient space available in the middle and high

schools to accommodate growth. The Facilities Master Plan

emphasizes primarily upgrades to the Elementary Schools. It is

recommended that future master planning efforts consider

changes at the high school and middle school to increase

efficiency and utilization.

Figure 2‐49: Utilization Summary

The current number of available elementary school seats

(capacity shown in Figure 2‐48) not including special use spaces

for music, computer labs, bilingual programs and special

education in ½ size classrooms, is ‐94 seats (calculated by the

Utilization Analysis

School Start Time End Time # Periods Utilizaton Notes

EM Smith 8:00 2:25 100% High

ECEC 8:00 2:30 100% High

Jefferson Mont 8:00 3:30 6 100% High

Craft 8:00 2:50 5 100% High

Hillcrest 8:00 2:50 5 93% High

Joe Stanley 8:00 2:50 5 100% High

Monterrey 8:00 2:50 5 96% High

Pate 8:00 2:50 5 100% High

Puckett 8:00 2:50 5 100% High

Riverside 8:00 2:50 5 100% High

Sunset 8:00 2:50 5 100% High

Alta Vista 8:00 3:30 8 59% Low

PR Leyva 8:00 3:30 8 59% Low

Carlsbad HS 8:00 3:40 7 74% Adequate



Section 2 | 58

number of classrooms times the potential students per room

minus the current enrollment). By 2018, the number of

additional needed seats will be 228, or approximately 10

classrooms.

Figure 2‐50: Elementary School Capacity

This deficit of seats indicates that, due to the age and size of

some elementary schools, consolidation of boundary areas and

replacement of at least some facilities will be needed to

provide additional capacity and improve programs.

Elementary school re‐districting is recommended to create

evenly populated schools in the 600 student range – as they

are easier to maintain and more efficient in terms of staffing

and facilities use.

‐200

‐100

0

100

200

300

400

500

Craft Hillcrest JoeStanley

Monterrey Pate Pucket Riverside Sunset

Stu

den

ts

Enrollment

Capacity



Elementary Capacities 2014-18



Section 2 | 59

Currently, the middle schools and high school have sufficient

capacity to accommodate current and projected school

populations. See Figure 2‐51. The middle schools have 273

seats currently open, and the high school has 467 open seats.

This available capacity is expected to shrink in 2018, however,

to ‐60 open middle school seats in 2018, and 141 high school

seats.

Figure 2‐51: Middle and High School Capacity

(500)

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

Alta Vista PR Levya Carlsbad HS

Enrollment

Capacity





Section 2 | 60

2.5.2 Student Capacity Analysis at Each School Site

The school capacities were analyzed using both the classroom

square footage and the PTR capacity. A summary of each

school’s capacity and utilization analysis:


ECEC current school capacity is 423 based on PTRs of 15

students per teacher. The current student population is 562; a

maximum projection of 710 or an increase of 148 students.

The school currently is deficient by 139 seats and this deficit

will increase to 148 by 2018. Approximately ten (10) new

classrooms will be needed.

E.M. Smith Pre‐School

E. M. Smith current school capacity is 67 based on PTRs of 10

students per teacher. The current student population is 109.

Overall projected population could increase to 164 leaving a

deficit of 55 seats. Five new classrooms will be needed if the

program were to remain at its current location. The district is

considering to relocate the program to the Puckett Elementary

site once the new Pate Elementary is constructed.


Craft current school capacity is 258 based on classroom size.

The current student population is 252; a maximum projection

of 261 or an increase of 9 students. The school currently has 3

open seats and will be deficit by 3 in 2018. No classrooms will

be needed.



Section 2 | 61


Hillcrest current school capacity is 302 based on classroom size.


of 287 or a decrease of 15 students. The school currently has a

deficit of 9 seats but will have 15 available seats by 2018. No

new classrooms needed.

Joe Stanley Elementary School

Joe Stanley current school capacity is 280 based on classroom

size. The current student population is 290; a maximum

projection of 316 or an increase of 36 students. The school

currently has a deficit of 10 seats and will be deficient by 56

seats by 2018. Approximately two (2) new classrooms will be

needed.


Monterrey current school capacity is 325 based on classroom



currently has 4 available seats and will be deficient 3 seats by

2018. No new classrooms needed.


Pate current school capacity is 258 based on classroom size.


of 295 or an increase of 41 students. The school currently has

4 available seats and will be deficient 37 seats by 2018. Two (2)

new classrooms would be needed.




Section 2 | 62

Puckett current school capacity is 238 based on classroom size.



a deficient of 19 seats and will be deficient 46 seats by 2018.

Two (2) new classrooms would be needed.


Riverside current school capacity is 260 based on classroom



currently has a deficit of 63 seats and will be deficient 92 seats

by 2018. Five (5) new classrooms would be needed.


Sunset current school capacity is 433 based on classroom size.



a deficit of 10 seats and will be deficient by 29 seats by 2018.

Two (2) new classrooms would be needed.

Alta Vista Middle School

Alta Vista’s current school capacity is 714 based on classroom

size. The current student population is 604 students. Overall

projected population will increase to 613 with reconfiguration

into the district’s 6th Grade Academy in 2014/15. There is

sufficient space to accommodate changing programs and

additional students.

P. R. Leyva Middle School



Section 2 | 63

P R Leyva’s current school capacity is 979 based on classroom

size. The current student population is 862 students. Overall

projected population will increase to 1,140 with

reconfiguration to a 7th / 8th Grade school in 2014/15. There

will be a deficit of 131 seats by 2018 necessitating six (6) new

teaching spaces.


Carlsbad High School’s current school capacity is 2,118 based

on classroom size and 2,040 based on PTRs. The current

student population is 1,667 students. Overall projected

population will increase to 1,977. There is sufficient space to

accommodate changing programs and additional students.

Jefferson Montessori Academy

Jefferson Montessori Academy’s current school capacity is 269.

The current student population is 191 students, kindergarten

through twelfth grade. There are currently 78 seats available

and will be 73 seats available in 2018. Classroom space is

sufficient in the near future.

2.5.3 Special Factors Influencing Facility Use

Special factors influencing the facility use includes special

programs for Music, Title I and Bilingual classes at the

elementary school level. The special education programs also

play a major role in space use beyond general classrooms.

Although most schools currently have inclusion, space for

resource rooms and Level D classrooms are present.



Section 2 | 64

The District has open enrollment that allows students to attend

schools outside of their zone if there is capacity within the

school.

Another influence is the current configuration of the

boundaries. A review of the map shows that some schools

draw from pockets of geographical area. Re‐districting has

been discussed in above and is recommended as part of the

school replacement effort by the district. No other influences

were identified.

2.5.4 Strategies to Accommodate Needs

The CMSD will continue to experience growth over the next

five years due to expanded economic growth and increased

birth rates in the local area. These factors are expected to

impact the district primarily at the elementary level.

In response to an overall growth of approximately 241

elementary students by 2019, and the need to improve

elementary educational programs district wide the district

intends to replace smaller elementary schools with new

600 student schools. These new schools will provide the

needed additional capacity as well as operate more

efficiently and be able to provide more programs to

students such as music, PE, art, and extracurricular

activities.



Section 2 | 65

The main focus of the 2014 ‐2019 Facilities Master Plan is to

address the needs of the Elementary Schools. The District’s

Elementary Schools were all constructed between 1920 and

1956.

One of the District school goals is to upgrade all Elementary

Schools to a consistent educational environment by

providing program equity at all schools. Therefore, the

majority of projects identified are Elementary School

replacements.

Four elementary schools have been identified for facility

replacement. Pate, Riverside, Sunset and Joe Stanley Smith

Elementary Schools have determined by the District’s

Facilities Committee for replacement and funding has been

approved by the district’s voters through the February 2014

GO Bond Election. Two of schools have sufficient site area

to build new facilities, improve school access, student drop‐

off, parking, playgrounds, and other school infrastructure

needs. However, it is recommended that both Pate and

Riverside Elementary School sites be removed to new

locations. Once the new schools are constructed, the only

remaining original elementary school will be Hillcrest

Elementary.

Once the new schools are constructed, re‐districting of the

elementary school zones to evenly disperse the student

populations at each school will be required.



Section 2 | 66

2.6 Technology

Carlsbad Municipal School District has an IT department which

strives to keep the district and its students current in terms of

available technology and the necessary infrastructure.

Inasmuch, the district has implemented a formal technology

plan. The most current version, the 2012‐2014 Technology

Plan, is included in the appendix of the Master Plan.

The goals of the plan:

Assure that at every grade level, students progress to

become skilled computer users.

Introduce students to a broad array of technological

skills with opportunities to develop specialized skills in

their interest area.

Integrate technology as part of each teacher’s

instructional tools by providing the necessary leadership

and skills to implement and support a technologically

assisted plan of instruction.

Through technology, foster student instruction beyond

the traditional school day and year.

Develop a capital improvements purchase, placement

and replacement schedule.

Develop, implement and upgrade the systems to

manage the district’s data in an integrated and

computerized manner

CMSD believes the District must strive to provide students with

varied experiences to enhance the development of creative

and problem solving skills. In the technological realm, students

should be exposed to a variety of technological equipment and



Section 2 | 67

software. Multiple facet exposures equip the student to

evaluate and determine which tools best meet personal and

professional objectives. To this end, the District has computer

labs, smart labs, classroom computers and software in place

and available for use in meeting the district’s Educational Plan

for Student Success (EPSS) goals and for meeting state

technology standards

Professional development is recognized as an essential

component towards teacher effectiveness in the

implementation of technology based curriculum. In response,

the Technology Plan devotes an entire section to define

strategies for academic achievement and teacher effectiveness.

The administrative needs of the district cover a wide range of

functions:

Student Information System (Principal’s Aide) for collecting

and reporting consistent information regarding student

attendance, grades, graduation rates and indicators for

meeting state standards and benchmarks.

Electronic Grade Book (Teacher’s Aide) for input and

maintenance of student grades and attendance at the

classroom level. This information is then transferred into

the student information system to produce progress

reports, report cards and transcripts.

Finance System for tracking and maintaining all funds

received and all expenses on an annual basis. Also includes

an inventory tracking system of all capital outlay purchases.



Section 2 | 68

Cafeteria System for tracking and maintenance of student

meals accounts.

Library System for the tracking and maintenance of all

library materials and for progress reports on the use of

these materials.

The utilization of video cameras in crucial surveillance

areas.

All of the technology labs and classroom computer units are

replaced on a rotational basis of approximately five to six years

to insure that the hardware is the most current. All operating

system software installed on these units has built‐in

accessibility features.

The Facilities Master Plan will provide funds that will utilize the

existing data infrastructure to provide improved

communications District‐wide. In addition, funds are provided

to increase video surveillance at the middle school level. All

other District needs will be provided with HB‐33 funds as

defined in the Technology Plan.



Section 2 | 69

2.7 Energy Management Program

The Carlsbad Municipal School District has made energy

reduction a primary goal in all new projects and renovations.

Replacement of single pane windows with double paned

windows at the Middle Schools and replacement of ballasted

roofs with TPO, white reflective roofs are two of the initiatives

the District has employed in recent years. It is recommended

that as major projects for the Facilities Master Plan are

implemented that the following energy saving initiatives be

considered:

1. Lighting upgrades

a. Lighting accounts for 35% of building energy use (E

source)

Use better lighting technologies: T8 lamps, reflectors,

compact fluorescents “High Performance” T8 lamps are

a good option for retrofits because they are available in

4’ lengths and can be used to replace T12 or less

efficient T8. T5 lamps are more efficient, but currently

only come in metric sizes.

Electronic ballasts average 12% more efficiency than

magnetic ballasts

b. Controls

Occupancy sensors

Scheduling

Daylight harvesting – continuous dimming via

photo‐sensor technology



Section 2 | 70

Demand response – automatic feedback from

energy management system/utility use signals

c. Operations and Maintenance

Manage lamp lumen depreciation

Eliminate dirt accumulation

Control system maintenance

Control purchasing and inventory

d. Daylighting

Use highly reflective paints

Light pipes to deliver light from roof or exterior wall

mounted reflectors

2. Reduce Supplemental Loads

a. Corporate purchasing policy

Energy Star or other high performance qualification

DOE procurement policies (FEMP)

EPA procurement resources

Employee energy conservation training

b. Upgrade the building envelope (general)

Increase insulation values

Decrease infiltration

Manage radiation

c. Upgrade the building envelope (windows)

Window films – retro‐application to reduce heat

transfer ($1.35 ‐ $3.00/SF installed, energy star

building upgrade manual)

Interior window shading – blinds, retro‐fit light

shelves



Section 2 | 71

Exterior shading – exterior blinds, shade screen,

awnings, overhangs, vegetation (trees, bushes,

vines)

New window upgrade – double glazing, low‐e,

spectrally selective glass, gas fill, thermal break.

d. Upgrade the building envelope (roof)

Lower roof surface temperature by 50 ̊‐70 ̊F with

highly reflective surface

Insulate around structural members for internally

insulated roofs

3. Ventilation/Air Handling System

a. Optimize Zone‐Level Performance

Zone mixing dampers

Reheat coils

Thermostat control (recalibrate)

Prevent overcooling

Disable reheat systems in summer months

Regulate static pressure (check static balancing

dampers)

b. Convert constant volume system to variable volume

Achieve approximately 40% air volume reduction

Average costs are between $1‐$4/SF, Energy star

building upgrade manual

c. Fan Sizing

Replace oversize fans

Install high efficiency motors, energy efficient belts,

and variable speed drives, larger pullys

Increase equipment life + occupant comfort

d. Modify Controls



Section 2 | 72

Optimize schedules – adjust per seasons

/occupancy

Supply air temperature set point adjustment

Pressure modification

e. Economizer cooling (must consider ventilation/IAQ

issues)

Basic dry‐bulb economizer

Enthalpy economizer

Differential enthalpy economizer

f. Demand‐controlled ventilation

CO2 sensors with feedback to outside air intake

Can save $.05‐$1.00/SF/year, Energy Star building

upgrade manual

4. Heating and Cooling

a. Central heating systems – boilers and furnaces

Boiler Tune‐up – water treatment, air/fuel ratio,

boiler pressure, steam leaks, clean heat exchange

surfaces

Boiler system retro‐fit – add insulation, install VSD

controls on pump motors, install controls

(combustion, supply temperature, stack

economizer to capture waste heat, baffle inserts to

increase heat transfer,

Replace old boiler with more efficient model,

consider smaller (higher efficiency) boilers in series

Steam system upgrades – insulate distribution and

return lines, install wide‐dead band thermostats to

induce longer on‐off cycles + decrease demand



Section 2 | 73

Replace existing furnace with energy efficient

model

Install supply temperature controls

b. Packaged Roof Top Units

Replace old equipment with new high‐efficiency

models. Achieve highest EER within budget,

consider control systems – setback scheduling, VAV

capability, interface with energy management

system

Upgrade existing rooftop system – verify cooling

capacity and duct size capacity are appropriately

sized, Install EER+ heat‐exchange module

c. Air‐side Economizers

Uses dampers to use increasing amounts of outside

air for space cooling

d. Energy Recovery

Technologies capable of recovering 50‐80% of

heating/cooling energy

e. Night Pre‐cooling

Cost savings can range from 5%‐30%



Section 2 | 74

2.8 Capital Funding

2.8.1 History of Capital Funding

General Obligation Bonds

The Carlsbad community has generously supported the funding

of capital improvements within the Carlsbad Municipal School

District in the past. The community passed a $7.1 million bond

authorization in 2004 and 2007, $7.0 in 2011 and another $60

million was approved in February 2014.

The district has worked vigorously to implement the

community’s mandate for improved school facilities. Recent

projects have included roof replacements, mechanical, window

replacement, small projects and renovations. The 2011‐2015

Master Plan provided funding to improved restroom, cafeteria

and communications upgrades throughout the District which

was completed in 2011‐2012.

The declined debt service on the 2004, 2007, and bonds kept

tax rates at a stable level without a tax increase. However,



Section 2 | 75

with the increased facility needs in the district, a $60 million

Bond was passed in February 2014 that increased taxes by

approximately 2.7% over the previous rate. A history of the

bond sales are represented in Figure 2‐52.5

Figure 2‐52 Bond Sales Authorized 2013‐2019; provided by RBC Capital Markets

CURRENT DEBT

2007 ELECTION $7,100,000

EST TAX$6.000 SER 2004 $1.100 SER 8/1/04 TOTAL DEBT RATE

TYE 98%10/31 PRIN 8/1 COUPON INTEREST PRIN 8/1 COUPON INTEREST PRIN 8/1 COUPON INTEREST PRIN INTEREST TOTAL COLLEC

2014 500,000 3.90% 39,500 250,000 4.00% 164,725 750,000 204,225 954,225 1.3372015 500,000 4.00% 20,000 210,000 4.00% 154,725 710,000 174,725 884,725 0.4742016 500,000 4.00% 146,325 500,000 146,325 646,325 0.3362017 850,000 4.13% 126,325 850,000 126,325 976,325 0.4932018 1,225,000 3.70% 91,263 1,225,000 91,263 1,316,263 0.6452019 1,225,000 3.75% 45,938 1,225,000 45,938 1,270,938 0.605

Callable 8/1/12 TOTAL $1,000,000 $59,500 $0 $0 $4,260,000 $729,300 $5,260,000 $788,800 $6,048,800

Callable 8/1/16 11/20/2007 8/1/2008

CURRENT DEBT PROPOSED DEBT

2011 ELECTION 2012 EDUCATION TECH NOTES 2013 EDUCATION TECH NOTES 2014 ELECTION

EST TAX$7,000,000 SERIES 2011 $600,000 SERIES 2012 $0 SERIES 2013 $30,000,000 SERIES 2014 $30,000,000 SERIES 2016 TOTAL DEBT RATE

TYE 98%10/31 PRIN 8/1 COUPON INTEREST PRIN 2/1 COUPON INTEREST PRIN 10/1 COUPON INTEREST PRIN 8/1 COUPON INTEREST PRIN 8/1 COUPON INTEREST PRIN INTEREST TOTAL COLLEC

2014 435,000 2.00% 155,900 150,000 0.36% 3,870 1,335,000 363,995 1,698,995 1.3372015 315,000 2.00% 147,200 150,000 0.58% 3,330 4,675,000 3.75% 1,343,750 5,850,000 1,669,005 7,519,005 4.0012016 535,000 2.00% 140,900 150,000 0.79% 2,460 5,325,000 3.75% 949,688 6,510,000 1,239,373 7,749,373 4.0052017 425,000 2.00% 130,200 150,000 0.85% 1,275 1,000,000 3.75% 750,000 3,350,000 4.00% 1,200,000 5,775,000 2,207,800 7,982,800 4.0062018 300,000 3.00% 121,700 1,000,000 3.75% 712,500 3,750,000 4.00% 1,066,000 6,275,000 1,991,463 8,266,463 4.0282019 300,000 3.00% 112,700 1,775,000 3.75% 675,000 1,300,000 4.00% 916,000 4,600,000 1,749,638 6,349,638 2.9992020 500,000 3.00% 103,700 2,000,000 3.75% 608,438 2,000,000 4.00% 864,000 4,500,000 1,576,138 6,076,138 2.7852021 600,000 3.25% 88,700 2,000,000 3.75% 533,438 2,000,000 4.00% 784,000 4,600,000 1,406,138 6,006,138 2.6722022 650,000 3.25% 69,200 2,000,000 3.75% 458,438 2,000,000 4.00% 704,000 4,650,000 1,231,638 5,881,638 2.5402023 650,000 3.25% 48,075 2,000,000 3.75% 383,438 2,000,000 4.00% 624,000 4,650,000 1,055,513 5,705,513 2.3922024 770,000 3.50% 26,950 2,000,000 3.75% 308,438 2,000,000 4.00% 544,000 4,770,000 879,388 5,649,388 2.2992025 2,000,000 3.75% 233,438 2,000,000 4.00% 464,000 4,000,000 697,438 4,697,438 1.8532026 2,000,000 3.75% 158,438 2,000,000 4.00% 384,000 4,000,000 542,438 4,542,438 1.7392027 2,225,000 3.75% 83,438 2,500,000 4.00% 304,000 4,725,000 387,438 5,112,438 1.9022028 2,500,000 4.00% 204,000 2,500,000 204,000 2,704,000 0.9682029 2,600,000 4.00% 104,000 2,600,000 104,000 2,704,000 -0.018

TOTAL $5,480,000 $1,145,225 $600,000 $10,935 $0 $0 $30,000,000 $7,198,438 $30,000,000 $8,162,000 $71,340,000 $17,305,398 $88,645,398

Callable: 6/22/2011 8/1/2012 2/8/2012 2/1/2013 10/31/2012 10/1/2013 5/21/2014 8/1/2015 8/1/2016 8/1/2017

CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL SCHOOL DISTRICT$60 MILLION BOND ELECTION IN 2014 AND $20 MILLION BOND ELECTIONS THEREAFTER (TAX RATE = $4.00 LEVEL)

2004 APRIL ELECTION - $7,100,000$6,000,000 $1,100,000

$7,000,000 $60,000,000

Education Technology Notes (“ETNs”)

CMSD currently utilizes the Education Technology Notes for

districtwide technology improvements from hardware,

software to infrastructure. The district currently has $600,000

outstanding and is expected to issue another $850,000 in June

2014. ETN’s impact 6% of the district’s bonding capacity.

3 The District Financial Consultant is RBC Capital Markets, 6301 Uptown Blvd. NE, Suite 110, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87110, (505) 872‐5999. In July, 2013 RBC provided an update of the financial outlook for the District.



Section 2 | 76

Mill Levies

CMSD currently has a 2.0 mill levy in place to take advantage of

state matching funds under the NM Senate Bill 9 Program. The

most recent election was in February 2013. CMSD receives

$2.5M under the program.

CMSD currently has a 1.923 mill levy in place under NM House

Bill (HB33). HB33 funding is used most extensively for

remodeling, additions to, providing equipment for, furnishing

public school buildings, and purchasing or improving public

school grounds. HB33 Revenues provides $2.5 million per year.

Critical Capital Outlay Funds

All NM public school districts are eligible to receive New

Mexico Public School Capital Outlay Council (PSCOC) funds.

The district must compete with other districts for this funding.

CMSD’s match for this funding source is 75%. The state match

for this funding source is 25%. At this time, CMSD receives no

PSCOC funds.

Legislative Appropriations

CMSD can receive special appropriations granted by the

legislature. At this time, CMSD has direct appropriations

totaling $1,464,448 from the State Legislature.

Federal Impact Aid and Public Capital Outlay Fund

CMSD does not receive PL874 Federal Impact Aid funds. CMSD

does not receive funding from the Public School Capital Outlay

fund.



Section 2 | 77

History of Assessed Valuation

As of 2013, Carlsbad has a higher assessed valuation from the

oil and gas industry which accounts for up to 53.07% of the

Total Assessed Valuation. This value has also increased for

Non‐residential to 28.56% and decreased for Residential to

18.37% of the Total Assessed Valuation. The overall assessed

valuation has increased in the last five years to the current

2013 figure of $1,849,262,907.

Figure 2‐53, History of Assessed Valuation

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Residential 268,676,238$ 286,543,417$ 302,951,793$ 316,147,144$ 339,562,512$

Non-Residential 515,253,443 493,618,903 533,023,077 644,452,287 528,225,404

Oil and Gas 924,942,783 427,213,272 587,268,989 796,351,028 981,474,9911,708,872,464$ 1,207,375,592$ 1,423,243,859$ 1,756,950,459$ 1,849,262,907$

% Change Over Previous Year 23.4% -29.3% 17.9% 23.4% 5.3%

Comparison of Tax Rates to Other School Districts

CMSD has a history of much lower than average tax rates as

compared to surrounding area school districts. The following

chart is a comparison of Carlsbad Municipal School District’s tax

rate to other surrounding area Districts. The current tax rate

for CMSD is 5.837 mills and will increase to 8.510 in 2014/15. In

tax year 2014, the District’s debt service tax rate will be

approximately at the same level of other similar‐sized schools.

Figure 2‐54, Comparison of Tax Rates to Surrounding Area Districts



Section 2 | 78

Current Debt Management Plan

The current Debt Management allowed for a $60 million bond

election in February 2014 that will result in a tax increase for

the community. In addition, the district’s outstanding declining

debt service could permit new bonds in future without a tax

increase. The final maturity maximum is thirteen years. The

parameters and approach to the current Debt Management is:

Create capacity by retiring debt as quickly as cash

flow from tax levy will permit;

Attractive scheduling to bond buying community;

Constitution limits amount of bonds outstanding to

6% of 2013 Assessed Value;

Valuation (A.V.) as follows: $ 1,849,262,907 x .06 =

$ 110,955,774;



Section 2 | 79

A.V. growth assumption is 3%. Higher growth rates

permit more rapid pay down of debt;

Target debt service rate for tax year 2015: $4.00 level /

$1,000 of assessed valuation.

District is currently bonded to 37.3% capacity and

will be bonded to 44.52% in 2018.

2.8.2 Current and Future Financial Resources

The current CMSD tax rate of 5.837 mills, is the result of the

district’s current $11,340,000 outstanding in general obligation

bonds, and a total of $8,397,000 for SB‐9 and HB‐33 funds. The

Carlsbad School District has an opportunity to impact the lives

of the district’s young children with the replacement of four

elementary schools over the next four years. The plan is as

follows:

Increase GO Bond debt service tax rate to approximately

$4. 010 mills which is lower than the State average of

$4. 938 (based on the recent 2014 bond election).

Maintain HB33 levy at $ 2.00 and SB9 levy at $2.00

The District’s total capital improvements tax rate (SB9,

HB33, G/O Bonds and Notes) would

be approximately $ 8.510 (based on the recent 2014 bond

election).

Bond election in 2014 for $60 million

$30 million available in 2014


Bond election in 2018 for $20 million with no additional tax

rate increase.



Section 2 | 80



Bond election in 2022 for $20 million with no additional tax

rate increase.

• $10 million available in 2022

• $10 million available in 2024

• Total capital funding generated by the proposed plan: $100

million.

Facilities Master Plan 2014 ‐ 2019 Carlsbad Municipal School District

3.0 Capital Improvement Plan Carlsbad, New Mexico

Section 3 | 1

3.1 Total Capital Needs

The total capital needs are derived from the facility needs

identified on each campus, an evaluation of capacity versus

available area, and incorporates overall District goals for

improvements. A detailed evaluation and list of findings for

each school campus may be found in the Appendices.

The 2010 Facility Advisory Committee (FAC) was assigned the

task of working together with district planners and architects

to review data and establish priorities for the FMP. The new

Facility Master Plan 2014‐2019 builds upon the findings of the

previous plan. The 2014 Facility Advisory Committee (FAC)

prioritized the overall District goal of improving facility

conditions district‐wide and program equity at the district’s

elementary schools and worked with the district planners and

architects to establish a pathway in which to replace the

district’s aging elementary schools with larger more efficient

new schools. A GO Bond was passed in February, 2014 with

the expressed intent to design and construct four new

elementary schools.

3.1.1 Facility and Project Needs

This FMP updates and incorporates changes which may have

occurred from any prior documentation of facilities and the

work completed in 2010. The enrollment of each facility was

reviewed to determine the ability of the facility to

accommodate changes in the programs.



Section 3 | 2

Overall enrollment in the district has risen over the past

several years. This is a significant change from the previous

FMP which indicated a more moderate growth pattern. This

has prompted the District to re‐assess facility needs for

elementary schools.

The overriding goals for the 2014‐2019 FMP includes:

The district intends to replace seven of the existing

schools with four larger capacity elementary schools

for 600 students each under the current GO Bond cycle

and to either replace or renovate and construct an

addition to the remaining existing elementary school

(Hillcrest) into a STEM magnet elementary school to

accommodate the growing needs of the district in the

future.

Growth at the kindergarten and pre‐school levels will

impact the current facilities over the next five years.

The plan includes options for the pre‐school program

at EM Smith Pre‐school and the Early Childhood

Education Center. The projects at these schools are

currently un‐funded in this FMP cycle through the

current GO Bond, however, may receive funding

through SB‐9 or HB‐33 monies, or possible future GO

Bond.

The conversion of Alta Vista Middle School to a 6th

Grade Academy will occur in school year 2014‐2015.

P.R Leyva Middle School will be dedicated to 7th and 8th

grades. The planning team has completed a

preliminary evaluation of the space utilization to



Section 3 | 3

determine if there are capacity issues associated with

this program change. The 2010 projects identified for

these schools were then assessed to correspond to the

program needs. The projects at these schools are

currently un‐funded in through the current GO Bond,

however, may receive funding through SB‐9 or HB‐33

monies or possible a future GO Bond.

The following illustrations on pages 3|6‐3|7, show School

Replacement Plans based on Mid‐Range and High‐Range

Elementary Enrollment Projections. The schools that are

highest on the PSCOC ranking list are those that are targeted

for replacement. The illustrations show the schools to be

replaced (new, high capacity schools will replace the existing

schools) and the movement of students from the other

schools. The illustration also shows the 40‐day counts for

2012/13 and 2013/14, the 2018/2019 projections and the

current classroom capacity of the schools. The “Additional

Seats” shows the available seats after the construction and

district attendance zone reboundering of the new 600 student

school. This illustration was used as a tool for understanding

not only the plan but the capacity issues at each of the

schools.

The Mid‐range Consolidation Plan indicates that will be some

capacity in the new schools for growth beyond the 2018‐2019

projections. The High‐range Consolidation Plan shows

minimal capacity for growth beyond the 2018‐2019

projections. Hillcrest Elementary will be pivotal in the



Section 3 | 4

determination of accommodating growth. The need for an

additional 550 to 600 student capacity school would be

determined by a re‐examination of the growth in the next

FMP or update.

The School Consolidation Plan Mid‐Range Projections

explained:

Riverside Elementary School is ranked #45 and has a

projected enrollment of 352 students. Of the

projected capacity of Monterey Elementary School, the

new Riverside Elementary will accommodate 220

students and have a remaining capacity of 28 seats.

This will allow for some flexibility to accommodate

additional grow.

Pate Elementary School is ranked #32 and has a

projected enrollment of 295 students. Puckett

Elementary has a projected enrollment of 283 students

to be accommodated in the new Pate Elementary

School. A 22 seat capacity will remain after this

consolidation.

Joe Stanley Smith Elementary School is ranked #33 and

has a projected enrollment of 316 students. Craft

Elementary has a projected enrollment of 261 students

to be accommodated in the new school. An

additional 23 seats will be available for future growth.

Sunset Elementary is ranked #31 and has a projected

enrollment of 462 students. An additional 108

students from Monterrey Elementary will attend this



Section 3 | 5

new school. An additional 30 seats will be available for

growth.

The School Consolidation Plan High‐Range Projections

implications:

If the High‐range projections are realized, then each of

the new schools will meet the 600 student capacities

with no room for growth. At this point, Hillcrest will

become important in relieving the capacity at the new

schools. Option 1. Build a 550 student school, which

would only allow for 19 additional seats District‐wide;

Option 2. Build a 600 student school, which would

allow an additional 69 seats District‐wide. In other

words, more students could be housed at Hillcrest,

allowing for growth at the other schools. The decision

to build a 550 or 600 student school will be made in

the next FMP cycle based on a re‐assessment of the

projections.



Section 3 | 6

Sch

oo

l Co

nso

lidat

ion P

lan 2

018‐

2019

Mid P

roje

ctio

ns

248

30

52

84

13

8

Futu

re 5

50‐6

00 S

tud

ent

Exp

ansi

on P

roje

ct

Riv

ersi

de

Elem

enta

ry

Sch

oo

l(2

012‐

25

0/2

013‐

282

/P

roje

ctio

n‐3

52/C

apac

ity‐

260

)A

dd

itio

nal S

eats 2

8

Rep

lace

Exis

tin

g Sc

ho

ols

, In

crea

se

Cap

acit

y

Joe

Stan

ley

Smit

hEl

emen

tary S

cho

ol

(201

2‐2

74

/20

13‐2

89/

Pro

ject

ion‐3

16/C

apac

ity‐

281

)A

dd

itio

nal

Seat

s 2

3

Pu

cket

tEl

emen

tary

Sch

oo

l(2

012‐

24

0/2

013

‐256

/P

roje

ctio

n‐2

83/C

apac

ity‐

238

)

Sun

set

Elem

enta

ry

Sch

oo

l(2

012‐

497

/20

13‐

44

7/

Pro

ject

ion‐4

62

/Cap

acit

y‐4

33

)A

dd

itio

nal S

eats 3

0

Sch

oo

l C

on

solid

atio

n

Cra

ft E

lem

enta

ry

Sch

oo

l(2

012‐

24

2/20

13‐

252

/P

roje

ctio

n‐2

61

/Cap

acit

y‐25

8)

Mo

nte

rrey E

lem

enta

ry

Sch

oo

l(2

012‐

323

/20

13‐

32

7/

Pro

ject

ion‐3

28

/Cap

acit

y‐3

25

)

22

0

Hill

cres

t El

emen

tary

Sch

oo

l(2

012‐

298

/20

13‐

30

0/

Pro

ject

ion‐2

87

/Cap

acit

y‐3

02

)A

dd

itio

nal S

eats 1

5

261

Pat

e El

emen

tary

Sch

oo

l(2

012‐

233

/20

13‐

25

0/

Pro

ject

ion‐2

95

/Cap

acit

y‐2

58

)A

dd

itio

nal S

eats 2

2

28

31

08

Fro

mM

on

terr

ey

#32

#20

1

#14

9

#31

#12

4

#33

#45

#19

6

Stat

e R

anki

ng‐

Ran

k fo

r C

on

dit

ion

/A

deq

uac

y/G

row

th

Nu

mb

er o

f St

ud

ents

/Mo

ves

Cap

acit

ies

are

clas

sro

om

s o

nly



Section 3 | 7

Sch

oo

l Co

nso

lidat

ion P

lan 2

018‐

2019

Hig

h P

roje

ctio

ns

248

305

284

138

If a 5

50 C

apac

ity

Scho

ol i

s bu

ilt‐

19 A

ddit

iona

l Sea

ts

If a 6

00 C

apac

ity

Scho

ol i

s bu

ilt‐

69 A

ddit

iona

l Sea

ts

Riv

ersi

de

Elem

enta

ry

Sch

oo

l(2

012‐

250/

2013

‐282

/Pro

ject

ion

387/

Cap

acit

y 26

0)

Rep

lace

Exis

tin

g Sc

ho

ols

, In

crea

se

Cap

acit

y

Joe

Stan

ley

Smit

hEl

emen

tary S

cho

ol

(Cu

rren

t 27

4/P

roje

ctio

n

320/

Cap

acit

y 28

1)

Sun

set

Elem

enta

ry

Sch

oo

l(C

urr

ent

497/

Pro

ject

ion

506/

Cap

acit

y 43

3)

Sch

oo

l C

on

solid

atio

n

213

Hill

cres

t El

emen

tary

Sch

oo

l(C

urr

ent

Stu

den

ts

298/

Pro

ject

ion 3

65C

apac

ity

346)

280

Pat

e El

emen

tary

Sch

oo

l(C

urr

ent

233/

Pro

ject

ion

314/

Cap

acit

y 23

8)

208

#203

#151

#126

#198

Riv

ersi

de

Elem

enta

ry

Sch

oo

l(2

012‐

250/

2013

‐282

/P

roje

ctio

n‐3

92/C

apac

ity‐

260)

Ad

dit

ion

al S

eats 0

Rep

lace

Exis

tin

g Sc

ho

ols

, In

crea

se

Cap

acit

y

Joe

Stan

ley

Smit

hEl

emen

tary S

cho

ol

(201

2‐27

4/20

13‐2

89/

Pro

ject

ion‐3

54/C

apac

ity‐

281)

Ad

dit

ion

alSe

ats

0

Puck

ett

Elem

enta

ry

Sch

oo

l(2

012‐

240/

2013

‐256

/P

roje

ctio

n‐3

32/C

apac

ity‐

238)

Sun

set

Elem

enta

ry

Sch

oo

l(2

012‐

497/

2013

‐447

/P

roje

ctio

n‐5

10/C

apac

ity‐

433)

Ad

dit

ion

al S

eats 0

Sch

oo

l C

on

solid

atio

n

Craf

t El

emen

tary

Sch

oo

l(2

012‐

242/

2013

‐252

/P

roje

ctio

n‐3

06/C

apac

ity‐

258)

Mo

nte

rrey E

lem

enta

ry

Sch

oo

l(2

012‐

323/

2013

‐327

/P

roje

ctio

n‐3

60/C

apac

ity‐

325)

208

Hill

cres

t El

emen

tary

Sch

oo

l(2

012‐

298/

2013

‐300

/P

roje

ctio

n‐3

38/C

apac

ity‐

346)

Ad

dit

ion

al S

eats 1

9‐69

246

Pat

e El

emen

tary

Sch

oo

l(2

012‐

233/

2013

‐250

/P

roje

ctio

n‐3

39/C

apac

ity‐

258)

Ad

dit

ion

al S

eats 0

261

90

Fro

mM

on

terr

ey

#32

#201

#149

#31

#124

#33

#45

#196

6271

60

Stat

e R

anki

ng‐

Ran

k fo

r C

on

dit

ion

/A

deq

uac

y/G

row

th

Nu

mb

er o

f St

ud

ents

/Mo

ves

Cap

acit

ies

are

clas

sro

om

s o

nly



Section 3 | 8

Facility Resolution Plan

What will happen to the facilities once the new facilities are

constructed?

The facilities will be demolished, sold or the lower ranking

facilities will be re‐purposed to accommodate other District

needs. The higher ranking facilities will be demolished or the

property sold. The following illustration on page 3‐10 shows

the plan for each of the facilities.

Riverside Elementary will be constructed on a new site

acquired from the BLM. The current site is in a desirable

location that is conducive to residential development. The

property will be sold.

The new Pate Elementary School will be constructed on

the north end of the existing Puckett site which is currently

vacant land owned by the district. Depending on the final

design and site needs of the new facility, if the existing

Puckett facility is able to remain, the district may consider

to re‐purpose the building for use as a pre‐school facility

and relocating the program from the EM Smith facility.

This will allow the pre‐school program to expand and the

EM Smith location to be possibly sold. It should also be

noted that the new Pate Elementary will be for grades 1st

through 5th only and would not be conducive to sharing

facilities with the potential pre‐school program that could

be relocated into the Puckett facility as the programmatic

needs of both schools are vastly different as well as the

age groups of students.

Joe Stanley Smith Elementary facility will either be

constructed on the existing site or a site nearby. The



Section 3 | 9

building will be demolished if the new school is built on‐

site or the land will be sold with the existing facility or be

demolished.

The new Sunset Elementary School will be constructed on

the existing site and the existing structure will be

demolished.

Once the new schools are open, then the Pate and Craft

Elementary sites will be sold; demolition of the schools will

be determined as part of the sale of the property. The

current EM Smith School may be sold in its current

condition if the students are able to relocate to the re‐

purposed Puckett facility.

Once Riverside and Sunset are complete, the students

from Monterrey Elementary will move, allowing for the

demolition of that facility and the site will be re‐purposed

for a new Freshman Academy. This site is preferred for

this use, since it is adjacent to the high school which

means the freshmen can utilize the existing facilities

without duplicating the space on the new campus.

Hillcrest Elementary will be retained. A new facility or an

addition to the facility to increase the capacity will be

decided during the next master planning effort in 2018.

Given the growth anticipated in the kindergarten program,

the Early Childhood Education Center will likely require an

addition. This is an un‐funded project for this bond cycle.



Section 3 | 10

Sch

oo

l Co

nso

lidat

ion P

lan f

or

Pre‐s

cho

ol a

nd E

lem

enta

ry F

acili

ties

Riv

ersi

de

Elem

enta

ry

Sch

oo

lB

uild

on n

ew s

ite

Rep

lace E

xist

ing

Sch

oo

ls, I

ncr

ease

Cap

acit

y

Joe

Stan

ley

Smit

hEl

emen

tary S

cho

ol

Bu

ildo

n e

xist

ing

site o

rad

jace

nt

pro

per

ty

Sun

set

Elem

enta

ry

Sch

oo

lB

uild

on e

xist

ing

site

Cra

ft E

lem

enta

ry

Sch

oo

l

Mo

nte

rrey

Ele

men

tary

Sch

oo

lB

uild

New

On‐S

ite

Fres

hm

an

Aca

dem

y

Hill

cres

t El

emen

tary

Sch

oo

l

Pat

e El

emen

tary

Sch

oo

lB

uild

on P

uck

ett

Site

Sell

Pro

per

ties

Riv

ersi

de

Elem

enta

ry

Sch

oo

lSe

ll Ex

isti

ng

Site

Bu

ild o

n B

LM D

on

ated

Lan

d

Re‐

Pu

rpo

se

Pro

per

ties

Ret

ain

Pu

cket

tEl

emen

tary

Sch

oo

lR

e‐p

urp

ose

for

Pre‐K

pro

gram

at

EM S

mit

h

Pat

e El

emen

tary

Sch

oo

l

EM S

mit

h S

cho

ol

May s

ell a

s is t

o r

eco

op

rece

nt

cost

s

Ad

dit

ion

sEa

rly

Ch

ildh

oo

d

Cen

ter

* D

epen

den

t o

n f

ina

l des

ign a

nd s

ite

nee

ds

of

the

new

60

0 s

tud

ent

Pa

te E

lem

enta

ry. C

MSD

BO

E w

ill m

ake f

ina

l det

erm

ina

tio

n o

f h

ow f

aci

litie

s

(EM S

mit

h/

Pu

cket

t El

emen

tary

) w

ill b

e d

isp

ose

d o

f o

r re‐p

urp

ose

d d

uri

ng t

he

des

ign p

roce

ss.

*

*

*



Section 3 | 11

State Funding Assistance

The Carlsbad Municipal Schools anticipates application for

state funding assistance. Therefore, the school rankings by

PSCOC played a major role in the prioritization of the projects

since the four replacement schools all ranked within the top

100 schools in the state to receive PSCOC funding. The

district’s priorities are as follows:

Pate Elementary ranked number 32;

Riverside Elementary ranked number 45;

Joe Stanley Smith ranked number 33; and

Sunset Elementary ranked number 31.

The School District does not anticipate applying for PSCOC

funding for any other projects at this time.

Cost Estimating

Cost estimates for this FMP were based on the most current

construction data available. Costs for major projects include

the maximum allowable construction cost (MACC) and

additional funds for owner incurred project costs. Owner

incurred project costs include the architect and engineering,

movable furnishings and equipment, a small percentage for

administration which includes fees and surveys, and New

Mexico Gross Receipts Tax. The owner incurred soft costs

were generally determined using a percentage (15‐25%) of the

MACC plus contingency and escalation factors. The estimates

a construction contingency of 10%, and escalation is

calculated at 4% per year compounded.



Section 3 | 12

3.2 Prioritization Process

3.2.1 Facilities Master Plan Process

The Facility Advisory Committee (FAC) was assigned the task

of working together with district planners and architects to

review data and establish priorities for the FMP. A diagram of

the overall process and steps utilized in this FMP are detailed

in Figure 3‐1 below:

Figure 3‐1 Master Plan Process Diagram



Section 3 | 13

Pre‐Assessment activities, field, and data assessments of all

school and district facilities were conducted in 2010 and

updated in 2014. The following types of activities and

information were gathered in order to compile the eventual

recommendations to the FAC committee:

3.2.2 Educational Facilities Assessments

Facility Analysis

Walk‐through Assessments of each school were conducted in

2010 and deemed sufficient by PSFA, with modifications to

include projects that have been completed since that

evaluation. The assessments provided in Section 4 include a

detailed assessment of the following facilities:

Dr. E.M. Smith Pre‐ School





Joe Stanley Smith Elementary School





Alta Vista Middle School1

P.R. Leyva Middle School


1 As of 2014/15 Alta Vista will be the 6th Grade Academy



Section 3 | 14

Eddy Alternative School

District Warehouse

Edison Building

District Administration Building

Jefferson Montessori Academy Charter School

The walk‐through assessments include visual or plan review

assessment of the following:

Landscaping

Drainage/Storm Water Retention/Erosion/Ponding

Issues

Hardscape

Site Recreation Amenities

Site Safety and Security

School Plant Assessment

Educational Environment

Maintenance staff members were interviewed for information

regarding facility history and maintenance records. Additional

information was gathered from the District to include

completed projects for 2010‐ 2013.

Projects that were not completed remain as ranked according

to the FAC’s and District representative knowledge of the

condition of the schools and the District’s goals. The projects

fall within the following categories:

Life, Health and Safety‐Code Compliance

Educational/Programmatic

Adequacy



Section 3 | 15

Facility Renewal/Renovations

New Construction at Existing Schools

Educational Support (ex. Technology)

ADA Compliance

Site Improvements & Drainage

Demolition

Capacity/ Utilization Studies

Utilizing the Public Schools Facilities Authority recommended

worksheets for capacity and utilization, the planning team

calculated the enrollment capacity of each school based on

programs, enrollments, and scheduling.

School Information

Information about each school was gathered and included in

the overall assessment including: age of facilities, facility

construction, maintenance records, neighborhood growth and

conditions, and community goals and priorities.

Demographics/ Enrollment

Demographics for Eddy County were gathered for input and

analysis into the overall trends within the area. Migratory

information within the district is revealed through the growth

rates at individual schools. Historic enrollment information

was gathered from the District’s 40‐day counts for a five year

period. The following categories of demographic and

enrollment information is utilized as informational in this FMP:

Birth rates within Eddy County as compared to NM,

Housing starts and income information for the area,

Historical enrollment trends within the district,



Section 3 | 16

Changing educational program needs within the district.

Community and School District Information

In 2013 and 2014 multiple evening and day‐long meetings

were conducted to communicate background and garner

additional committee guidance on the proposed plan. The

FAC meetings are open to the public and public

representatives who were invited to attend, were present.

Project priorities were determined through discussion, FAC

knowledge of the schools, first‐hand experience during on‐site

school tours, response from FAC members in reference to

project sheets provided by the planning team, review of

schools deferred from the previous bond cycle, consideration

of the goals, and particular goals from District Administration.

The planning team sorted all potential projects into several

categories: potential general obligation bond (GO Bond)

projects, SB9 funded projects, HB33 projects, and those items

requiring only normal maintenance.

3.2.3 Financial Strategies

Local General Obligation Bonds

Local school districts may issue general obligation bonds for

the purpose of erecting, remodeling, making additions to and

furnishing school buildings, or purchasing or improving school

grounds or any combination of these purposes. In addition, a

school district may also use bond proceeds to purchase

computer equipment and software for student use in public

school classrooms. Prior to the issuance of bonds, the district



Section 3 | 17

is required to submit of the question to the voters by the local

school board. Upon successful election results, the local

school board may, subject to the approval of the Attorney

General, proceed to issue the bonds. There are restrictions: (1)

the district’s ability to sell bonds is limited to 6% of its

assessed valuation; (2) there is a four year period in which the

bonds may be sold from a particular approved resolution.

NOTE: The tax rate associated with this type of funding is likely

to fluctuate every year due to the timing of principal and

interest payments as well as changes in assessed valuations.2

The Public School Capital Improvements Act

Commonly referred to as SB‐9 or the “two‐mill levy,” this

funding mechanism allows districts to ask local voters to

approve a property levy of up to two mills for a maximum of

six years. Funds generated through imposition of the two‐mill

levy must be used for:

Erecting, remodeling, making additions to, providing

equipment for, or furnishing public school buildings;

Purchasing or improving public school grounds;

Maintenance of public school buildings or public school

grounds, including expenditures for technical training and

certification for maintenance and facilities management

2 New Mexico Public Education Department, State Budget and Finance

Analysis Bureau.

http://www.ped.state.nm.us/div/fin/school.budget/dl08/How%20NM%20

schools%20are%20fundedFY0806.pdf, Aug 2006, pg 10.



Section 3 | 18

personnel, but excluding salary expenses of school district

employees;

Purchasing activity vehicles for transporting students to

extracurricular activities; and

Purchasing computer software and hardware for student

use in public school classrooms.

An individual school district may only use SB‐9 funds for any or

all of these purposes as stated in the school district’s

individual resolution.3

The Public School Buildings Act

This Act, commonly referred to as HB‐33, allows districts to

impose a tax not to exceed 10 mills for a maximum of five

years on the net taxable value of property upon approval of

qualified voters. These funds are to be used for:

Erecting, remodeling, making additions to, providing

equipment for or furnishing public school buildings; and

Purchasing or improving public school grounds.

There are limitations and restrictions associated with this act:

(1) the authorized tax rate made under the Public Buildings

Act, when added to the tax rates for servicing the debt of the

3 New Mexico Public Education Department, State Budget and Finance

Analysis Bureau.

http://www.ped.state.nm.us/div/fin/school.budget/dl08/How%20NM%20

schools%20are%20fundedFY0806.pdf, Aug 2006, pg 9.



Section 3 | 19

school district and the rate authorized under the Public School

Capital Improvements Act, cannot exceed 15‐mills. If it does

exceed 15‐mills, the rate authorized under the Public School

Buildings Act will be adjusted downward to compensate; and

(2) the revenues generated from the Public School Buildings

Act are only to be used for specific capital improvements (as

defined above). This funding mechanism is most useful for

districts with high‐assessed valuation and low bonded

indebtedness.

The primary goal of the master plan was to identify projects

for the upcoming GO Bond Election. However, the planning

team identified projects to be completed under SB‐9 and HB‐

33 funds. A complete list of these projects is found in Section

4. The SB‐9 and HB‐33 projects will be completed by the

District as the funds are available. The funds are currently

allocated at approximately $2.5 million a year for SB‐9 and

$2.5 million per year for HB‐33.

Once all school data was gathered for consideration, the

planning team met with the FAC and utilized an interactive

spreadsheet tool to rank and prioritize all potential project

needs for the next five years. Each potential project was

discussed, ranked based on Tier Level priorities, and voted on

in order of priority for inclusion in the overall master plan.

3.2.4 Decision‐making and Planning Process

Decision‐making for the FMP was based on a non‐biased,

collaborative process. Rankings were established based on

the overall goals listed in this document and by knowledge of



Section 3 | 20

the needs of each school. Priorities were established by

priority categories including:

Life, Health and Safety‐Code Compliance

Educational/Programmatic

Adequacy

Facility Renewal/Renovations

New Construction at Existing Schools

Educational Support (ex. Technology)

ADA Compliance

Site Improvements & Drainage

Demolition

Major renovation and addition projects were assigned a

priority based on school needs. SB‐9 and HB‐33 projects were

categorized based on prime category and sub‐category

projects.

The FAC voted on projects in the following manner:

Schools with the greatest or most immediate needs

were identified

Projects identified for each of these schools were

reviewed

Discussion of each project

Vote to include the projects and the Tier Level to

assign the projects

A summary presentation of the FMP was presented to the

Board in first a working session and finally in a public meeting.



Section 3 | 21

The Board approved the course of the Master Plan on April 22,

2014.

3.2.5 Financial Outlook

The history and proposed financial debt management was

prepared and reviewed with the Board for consideration. The

information was gathered and presented by RBC Capital

Markets.3

Proposed Debt Management Plan

The Board voted to establish a strategy of increasing bonding

capacity following the 2011 GO Bond election which passed in

February, 2011. The 2011 GO Bond yielded $7,000,000 for

projects which were identified as Tier 1 projects in the 2010

FMP; these projects are largely complete. The debt service for

this bond will be complete by 2024.

The Board approved an overall budget target of $60 million for

the 2014 general obligation bond series which was established

based on the CMSD district’s assessed valuation of property.

This is actually less than the maximum bonding capacity

however, it was not deemed in the best interest of the District

to maximize this capacity. In 2014 the assessed value is

$1.849 Billion with a District bonding capacity of

$110,955,774.

Subsequent bonds will be decreased once vital upgrades of

aging facilities is complete. Future bond elections will be held

in 2018 and 2022; should these bonds pass an additional $20

million per election will be added to the debt.



Section 3 | 22

Proposed Debt Management Plan

The approved 2014 bond capacity will increase the debt

service tax rate by 4 mills. The following is a summary of the

proposed debt plan. The complete financial plan is provided

in Table 3.1 page 3|25.

Bond election in 2011 for $7 million with no tax rate

increase

Bond election in 2014 for $60 million with increase to

statewide average tax rate



Total capital funding generated by the proposed plan is $67

million over a four year period. With this plan, the overall

impact to taxpayers is $4.00 per $1,000 of assessed property

value.



Section 3 | 23

Table 3‐1. Existing and Proposed Debt, Source: RBC Capital Markets, LLC

CU

RREN

T DE

BT

20

07 E

LECT

ION

$7,1

00,0

00

EST

TAX

$6.0

00SE

R 20

04$1

.100

SER

8/1/

04TO

TAL

DEBT

RATE

TYE

98%

10/3

1PR

IN 8

/1CO

UPON

INTE

REST

PRIN

8/1

COUP

ONIN

TERE

STPR

IN 8

/1CO

UPON

INTE

REST

PRIN

INTE

REST

TOTA

LCO

LLEC

20

1450

0,00

03.

90%

39,5

0025

0,00

04.

00%

164,

725

750,

000

204,

225

954,

225

1.33

720

1550

0,00

04.

00%

20,0

0021

0,00

04.

00%

154,

725

710,

000

174,

725

884,

725

0.47

420

1650

0,00

04.

00%

146,

325

500,

000

146,

325

646,

325

0.33

620

1785

0,00

04.

13%

126,

325

850,

000

126,

325

976,

325

0.49

320

181,

225,

000

3.70

%91

,263

1,22

5,00

091

,263

1,31

6,26

30.

645

2019

1,22

5,00

03.

75%

45,9

381,

225,

000

45,9

381,

270,

938

0.60

5Ca

llable

8/1

/12

TO

TAL

$1,0

00,0

00$5

9,50

0$0

$0$4

,260

,000

$729

,300

$5,2

60,0

00$7

88,8

00$6

,048

,800

Calla

ble 8

/1/1

611

/20/

2007

8/1/

2008

CURR

ENT

DEBT

PROP

OSED

DEB

T

201

1 EL

ECTI

ON$7

,000

,000

2012

EDU

CATI

ON T

ECH

NOTE

S20

13 E

DUCA

TION

TEC

H NO

TES

20

14 E

LECT

ION

$60,

000,

000

ES

T TA

X$7

,000

,000

SERI

ES 2

011

$600

,000

SERI

ES 2

012

$0SE

RIES

201

3$3

0,00

0,00

0SE

RIES

201

4$3

0,00

0,00

0SE

RIES

201

6TO

TAL

DEBT

RATE

TYE

98%

10/3

1PR

IN 8

/1CO

UPON

INTE

REST

PRIN

2/1

COUP

ONIN

TERE

STPR

IN 1

0/1

COUP

ONIN

TERE

STPR

IN 8

/1CO

UPON

INTE

REST

PRIN

8/1

COUP

ONIN

TERE

STPR

ININ

TERE

STTO

TAL

COLL

EC

2014

435,

000

2.00

%15

5,90

015

0,00

00.

36%

3,87

01,

335,

000

363,

995

1,69

8,99

51.

337

2015

315,

000

2.00

%14

7,20

015

0,00

00.

58%

3,33

04,

675,

000

3.75

%1,

343,

750

5,85

0,00

01,

669,

005

7,51

9,00

54.

001

2016

535,

000

2.00

%14

0,90

015

0,00

00.

79%

2,46

05,

325,

000

3.75

%94

9,68

86,

510,

000

1,23

9,37

37,

749,

373

4.00

520

1742

5,00

02.

00%

130,

200

150,

000

0.85

%1,

275

1,00

0,00

03.

75%

750,

000

3,35

0,00

04.

00%

1,20

0,00

05,

775,

000

2,20

7,80

07,

982,

800

4.00

620

1830

0,00

03.

00%

121,

700

1,00

0,00

03.

75%

712,

500

3,75

0,00

04.

00%

1,06

6,00

06,

275,

000

1,99

1,46

38,

266,

463

4.02

820

1930

0,00

03.

00%

112,

700

1,77

5,00

03.

75%

675,

000

1,30

0,00

04.

00%

916,

000

4,60

0,00

01,

749,

638

6,34

9,63

82.

999

2020

500,

000

3.00

%10

3,70

02,

000,

000

3.75

%60

8,43

82,

000,

000

4.00

%86

4,00

04,

500,

000

1,57

6,13

86,

076,

138

2.78

520

2160

0,00

03.

25%

88,7

002,

000,

000

3.75

%53

3,43

82,

000,

000

4.00

%78

4,00

04,

600,

000

1,40

6,13

86,

006,

138

2.67

220

2265

0,00

03.

25%

69,2

002,

000,

000

3.75

%45

8,43

82,

000,

000

4.00

%70

4,00

04,

650,

000

1,23

1,63

85,

881,

638

2.54

020

2365

0,00

03.

25%

48,0

752,

000,

000

3.75

%38

3,43

82,

000,

000

4.00

%62

4,00

04,

650,

000

1,05

5,51

35,

705,

513

2.39

220

2477

0,00

03.

50%

26,9

502,

000,

000

3.75

%30

8,43

82,

000,

000

4.00

%54

4,00

04,

770,

000

879,

388

5,64

9,38

82.

299

2025

2,00

0,00

03.

75%

233,

438

2,00

0,00

04.

00%

464,

000

4,00

0,00

069

7,43

84,

697,

438

1.85

320

262,

000,

000

3.75

%15

8,43

82,

000,

000

4.00

%38

4,00

04,

000,

000

542,

438

4,54

2,43

81.

739

2027

2,22

5,00

03.

75%

83,4

382,

500,

000

4.00

%30

4,00

04,

725,

000

387,

438

5,11

2,43

81.

902

2028

2,50

0,00

04.

00%

204,

000

2,50

0,00

020

4,00

02,

704,

000

0.96

820

292,

600,

000

4.00

%10

4,00

02,

600,

000

104,

000

2,70

4,00

0-0

.018

TOTA

L$5

,480

,000

$1,1

45,2

25$6

00,0

00$1

0,93

5$0

$0$3

0,00

0,00

0$7

,198

,438

$30,

000,

000

$8,1

62,0

00$7

1,34

0,00

0$1

7,30

5,39

8$8

8,64

5,39

8

Calla

ble:

6/22

/201

18/

1/20

122/

8/20

122/

1/20

1310

/31/

2012

10/1

/201

35/

21/2

014

8/1/

2015

8/1/

2016

8/1/

2017

CARL

SBAD

MUN

ICIP

AL S

CHOO

L DI

STRI

CT$6

0 M

ILLI

ON B

OND

ELEC

TION

IN 2

014

AND

$20

MIL

LION

BON

D EL

ECTI

ONS

THER

EAFT

ER (T

AX R

ATE

= $4

.00

LEVE

L)

200

4 AP

RIL

ELEC

TION

- $7

,100

,000

$6,0

00,0

00$1

,100

,000



Section 3 | 24

Conclusion

The proposed increase for GO Bond funding provides for an

aggressive building program to replace aging elementary

school infrastructure; which in turn corrects health and safety

issues, replaces portables, responds to educational program

needs, and corrects deficiencies of the adequacy standards.



Section 3 | 25

3.3 Capital Implementation Plan

As seen in Sections 3.1 and 3.2 of this FMP, 2014 GO Bond will

be utilized to replace four elementary schools with new

schools to address aging elementary school infrastructure;

which in turn corrects health and safety issues, replaces

portables, responds to educational program needs, and

corrects deficiencies of the adequacy standards. Most schools

in the district are over 50 years old, with the oldest facility at

90 years old. The oldest school is Craft Elementary which will

close and be demolished under this plan. All projects noted

within the facilities assessment process were evaluated for

their suitability for the GO Bond, SB9 and HB33 funding. The

SB9 and HB33 projects are not included in the GO Bond

estimate. District Operations was supplied with the SB9 and

HB33 projects and priorities.

3.3.1 Implementation Plan

The following implementation plan is based on the financial

plan provided by RBC Capital Markets and shown in Table 3‐1.

This GO Bond cycle will have two series of bonds for $30

million each, beginning in 2014 and 2016. RBC considered

future elections that are outside the FMP timeframe. Future

elections will generate an additional $40 million in 2018 and

2022.



Section 3 | 26

Table 3‐2. Implementation Plan Cost Detail

Priority By Year Projects Total Budget

Budget Based On Share FUNDING SOURCE

#1

Pate Elementary School - Replacement for 600 Students: 73,800gsf (includes consolidation w/ Puckett Elementary and demolition) MACC $19,188,000 $14,391,000 District Share (75%)

$4,797,000 PSCOC (25%)Pate Elementary Soft Costs (A/E Fee’s, Contingency, NMGRT) $5,756,400 $4,317,300 District Share (75%)

$1,439,100 PSCOC (25%)Total Priority # 1 $24,944,400 $24,944,400

Total Project Funding $20,172,748.00 District GO Bond (inc offset)$6,236,100.00 PSCOC Share

Less Current 2013/14 District Offset from PSCOC Share ($1,464,448.00) Less OffsetTotal Priority Year 2014/15 $4,771,652.00 Total PSCOC Share

#2

Riverside Replacement Elementary School - 600 Students: 73,800gsf (includes consolidation w/ Puckett Elementary and demolition) MACC $19,188,000 $14,391,000 District Share (75%)

$4,797,000 PSCOC (25%)Offsite utilities / land acquisition costs 575,000.00$ 575,000.00$ District Share (100%)New Northside Elementary Soft Costs (A/E Fee’s, Contingency, NMGRT) $5,756,400 $4,317,300 District Share (75%)

$1,439,100 PSCOC (25%)Total Priority # 2 $25,519,400 $25,519,400

Total Project Funding $19,283,300.00 District GO Bond$6,236,100.00 PSCOC Share

#3Joe Stanley Smith Elementary - Replacement for 600 Students: 73,800gsf (includes consolidation and demolition) MACC $19,188,000 $14,391,000 District Share (75%)

$4,797,000 PSCOC (25%)Joe Stanley Smith Elementary Soft Costs (A/E Fee’s, Contingency, NMGRT) $5,756,400 $4,317,300 District Share (75%)

$1,439,100 PSCOC (25%)Total Priority #3 $24,944,400 $24,944,400

Total Project Funding $18,708,300.00 District GO Bond$6,236,100.00 PSCOC Share

#4Sunset Elementary - Replacement for 600 Students: 73,800gsf (includes consolidation and demolition) MACC $19,188,000 $14,391,000 District Share (75%)

$4,797,000 PSCOC (25%)Sunset Elementary Soft Costs (A/E Fee’s, Contingency, NMGRT) $5,756,400 $4,317,300 District Share (75%)

$1,439,100 PSCOC (25%)Total Priority #4 $24,944,400 $24,944,400

$18,708,300.00 District GO Bond$6,236,100.00 PSCOC Share

$76,872,648.00 District GO Bond$100,352,600.00 $23,479,952.00 PSCOC Share

Priority Year 2015/16






Section 3 | 27

Table 3.3 Implementation Plan Priorities

Tota

l MA

CC

Sof

t C

osts

Tota

l Pro

ject

C

osts

PS

CO

C25

%D

istr

ict

75%

Dis

tric

t10

0%To

tal P

roje

ct

Cos

tsTo

tal D

istr

ict

Pro

ject

Cos

tFu

ndin

g S

ourc

e

2014

/15

- #1

Pat

e E

lem

enta

ryR

epla

cem

ent S

choo

l$1

9,18

8,00

0$5

,756

,400

$24,

944,

400

$6,2

36,1

00$1

8,70

8,30

0$2

4,94

4,40

0$1

8,70

8,30

0P

SC

OC

/ GO

Bon

d

Pat

e E

lem

enta

ry(D

istri

ct O

ffset

App

lied)

-$1,

464,

448

$1,4

64,4

48$0

$1,4

64,4

48G

O B

ond

#2R

iver

side

Ele

men

tary

New

Sch

ool

$19,

188,

000

$5,7

56,4

00$2

4,94

4,40

0$6

,236

,100

$18,

708,

300

$24,

944,

400

$18,

708,

300

PS

CO

C/ G

O B

ond

Riv

ersi

de E

lem

enta

ryO

ff-si

te U

tiliti

es/ L

and

Acq

uisi

tion

Cos

ts$5

75,0

00$5

75,0

00$5

75,0

00$5

75,0

00$5

75,0

00G

O B

ond

$0$0

$0

$38,

951,

000

$11,

512,

800

$50,

463,

800

$11,

007,

752

$37,

416,

600

$2,0

39,4

48$5

0,46

3,80

0$3

9,45

6,04

8

2015

-16

#3Jo

e S

tanl

ey S

mith

E

lem

enta

ryR

epla

cem

ent S

choo

l$1

9,18

8,00

0$5

,756

,400

$24,

944,

400

$6,2

36,1

00$1

8,70

8,30

0$2

4,94

4,40

0$1

8,70

8,30

0P

SC

OC

/ GO

Bon

d

#4S

unse

t Ele

men

tary

Rep

lace

men

t Sch

ool

$19,

188,

000

$5,7

56,4

00$2

4,94

4,40

0$6

,236

,100

$18,

708,

300

$24,

944,

400

$18,

708,

300

PS

CO

C/ G

O B

ond

$38,

376,

000

$11,

512,

800

$49,

888,

800

$12,

472,

200

$37,

416,

600

$0$4

9,88

8,80

0$3

7,41

6,60

0

$77,

327,

000

$23,

025,

600

$100

,352

,600

$23,

479,

952

$74,

833,

200

$2,0

39,4

48$1

00,3

52,6

00$7

6,87

2,64

8

Tota

l 201

4/15

Pri

oriti

es

Tota

l 201

5/16

Pri

oriti

es

TOTA

L P

RO

JEC

T C

OS

TS

Car

lsba

d M

unic

ipal

Sch

ools

- 2

014

- 20

19

Pri

ority

By

Year

Dis

tric

t S

choo

lP

roje

ct D

escr

iptio

n

Impr

ovem

ent

Cos

tsFu

ndin

g



Section 3 | 28

The implementation plan identifies Carlsbad Municipal School

District PSFA FAD ranking, school project priorities, projected

costs, the funding source, and expected years of

implementation. Table 3‐2 shows the Implementation Plan.

3.3.2 FAD Priorities vs. Plan

The primary variance between the FAD and this plan is placing

Riverside Elementary before two other higher ranked schools.

The rationale is the desire to replace Riverside Elementary and

increase its capacity as soon as possible. Riverside is in a

higher growth area than the other two schools and concern

about not meeting this grow potential was the reason behind

this decision. The rankings and priorities, again are:

Pate Elementary ranked number 32;

Riverside Elementary ranked number 45;

Sunset Elementary ranked number 31; and

Joe Stanley Smith ranked number 33.

3.3.3 State Funding Assistance

CMSD anticipates that State Funding will be part of the next

FMP cycle. As shown in the Implementation Plan, Tables 3.2

and 3.3, page 3|26 and 3|27, State Funding will account for

25% of the project costs. An application for State Funding

assistance will be submitted in 2014.

3.3.4 Board Acceptance

A summary presentation of the FMP was presented to the

Board in first a working session and finally in a public meeting.

The Board approved the course of the Master Plan on April 22,

2014.

CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL SCHOOL DISTRICT FACILITIES MASTER...

Documents

Transcript of CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL SCHOOL DISTRICT FACILITIES MASTER...