NTPS Facility Advisory Committee

NTPS Facility Advisory CommitteeModernizations Komachin M.S.Feb. 2

Agenda Dick Withycombe

1 min. OSPI Funding Tom Kuehn 10

min. Qualifying Projects Mike Laverty 5 min.

KMS Overview Joyce Ott, Principal

10 min. Break: Tour of Komachin M.S. Joyce Ott,

Principal25

min. Tour Q & A Joyce Ott, Principal

10 min. Bond & Levy Presentation Jon Gores 25 min.

Polling Options & Information John Bash 5 min.

Discussion/Input Dick Withycombe

30 min.


30 min.



1 min.




min.

2011-13 K-12 Capital BudgetGovernor’s Proposal

Maintenance Level of $486.6 Million Construction Cost Allocation inflationary increases to:FY 2012 = $183.78

FY 2013 = $188.55 Small Repair grant program $10 Million Skills Center Minor Works $3 Million Aviation High School $2 Million

2011-13 K-12 Capital Budget dollars in millions OSPI

Request

Governor

Proposal

Fund Source

SCAP – Maintenance $660.1 $486.6 Bonds/Common School Construction Account (Cash)

SCAP – Enhancement $93.0 $0.0

Space Study $0.2 $0.0

Small Repair $5.0 $10.0 Bonds

Energy Grants $20.0 $0.0

Facility Safety Net $80.0 $0.0

Seismic Assessment $0.5 $0.0

Skill Centers - Minors

$5.7 $3.0 Bonds

Skill Centers – Majors & Satellites

$80.4 $0.0

Aviation High School $0.0 $2.0 Bonds

Administration $3.9 $3.9 Common School Construction Account

TOTAL $948.8 $505.5

2011-13 K-12 Capital Budget State Bond Capacity

1.9

1.2 1.1

0.161

3.2

2009-11 September forecast

Recent passage of Inititive 1107

November forecast

Requests so far!

Debt Capacity Compared to Requests(in Billions)

The need to use the priority system is very likely.

YEAR MATCHABLE LOCAL STATE ART BONDFUNDED PROJECT SQ. FT. FUNDS FUNDS GRANT STATUS PASS

North Thurston 3

1992 New River Ridge High 165,000 $8,667,258.52 $10,827,112.7

0 $52,178.51 D10 2/88

1992 River Ridge High Ad 10,384 $1,126,814.79 $705,221.61 $3,401.59 D10 9/91

Jun-95 North Thurston High Ad 18,488 $2,553,711.80 $1,322,749.20 $6,379.44 D10

1998 Lakes El Ad (N/L) 1,353 $612,736.02 $64,108.05 $312.87 D10 9/91

1998 Lakes El Mod 41,277 $1,824,671.99 $2,659,789.49 $0.00 D10 9/91

May-99 Olympic View El Mod 41,615 $1,221,606.60 $2,618,366.29 $0.00 D10 9/91

1999 Lydia Hawk El Repl (N/L) 37,572 $2,654,850.88 $2,449,009.30 $11,795.19 D10 9/91

1999 Mountain View El Mod 49,879 $1,277,728.82 $3,211,501.72 $0.00 D10 9/91

1999 South Bay El Mod 8,315 $1,075,185.73 $560,412.02 $0.00 D10 9/91

2001 Lacey El Mod 36,719 $2,909,904.40 $2,661,574.75 $0.00 D10 9/91

2002 Lacey El Gym Mod 5,600 $139,132.48 $340,974.40 $0.00 D10 9/91

2003 North Thurston High Pool Mod 8,775 $457,322.63 $745,536.23 $0.00 D10 9/91

2007 Timberline High Ad - Phase 2 4,340 $5,423,766.62 $451,651.11 $2,176.69 D10 2/06

2007 Timberline Hi Repl (N/L) - Phase 2 77,872 $8,785,985.63 $8,546,661.48 $41,269.85 D10 2/06

2007 Timberline High Mod - Phase 2 17,854 $3,168,035.72 $1,942,044.30 $0.00 D10 2/06

2007 Woodland El Ad 5,486 $1,360,087.18 $571,094.20 $2,804.33 D10 2/06

2007 Woodland El Mod 43,497 $4,920,159.99 $4,786,578.67 $0.00 D10 2/06

2008 New Elementary #13 57,373 $9,535,016.12 $6,316,016.16 $31,024.32 D10 2/06

2008 Timberline High Mod - Phase 3 61,211

$12,271,230.43 $7,126,794.76 $0.00 D10 2/06

2008 South Bay El Ad 4,958 $1,056,580.78 $536,375.85 $2,633.85 D10 2/06

2008 South Bay El Mod 34,964 $4,895,100.13 $4,017,944.86 $0.00 D10 2/06

2008 Nisqually Mid Ad 1,779 $265,217.32 $200,471.00 $976.51 D10 2/06

2008 Nisqually Mid Mod 86,156 $6,020,176.33 $7,496,935.58 $0.00 D10 2/06

2009 Chinook Mid Ad 1,692 $367,909.49 $196,949.95 $959.37 D10 2/06

2009 Chinook Mid Mod 85,072 $6,282,509.00 $6,544,852.53 $0.00 D10 2/06

907,231 $88,872,699.

40 $76,900,726.

21 $155,912.52 $77,056,638.73

NTSD – OSPI PARTNERSHIP SINCE 1992

Determining EligibilityFor New

Construction:

For Modernization or New-in-Lieu:

Projected Enrollment

Space Allocation

Existing Inventory

Un/Over Housed

XRegular ( 1049 ) Handicapped ( 1066 )

E-90, M-117, H-130Hdcp. -144

X =

Square footage from Study &

Survey =

Eligibility for New Construction

Calculated SF Improved Space Eligibility for Mod or N/L

=

SQUARE FOOTAGE BASED ON STATE ALLOCATIONS AND CURRENT OCTOBER ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS EXISTING SCHOOL DISTRICT

SQUARE FOOTAGE

“OVER-HOUSED” SCHOOL DISTRICT

9

Determining Eligibility for New Construction

SQUARE FOOTAGE BASED ON STATE ALLOCATIONS AND CURRENT OCTOBER ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS

EXISTING SCHOOL DISTRICT SQUARE FOOTAGE

“UN-HOUSED” SCHOOL DISTRICT

10

Determining Eligibility for New Construction

Square Foot Allocation

Elementary K-6 90 SF per student

Middle 7-8 117 SF per student

High 9-12 130 SF per student

Handicapped 144 SF per student

Existing Inventory by Grade Span (Report 3)

State Assisted Projects by Biennial Year – Improved Space (Report 1)

North Thurston Draft Calculation - October 2010North Thurston School District #003 Thurston County #34 Date evaluated 10/20/10

BUILDING INVENTORY

BLDG. NO. FACILITY NAME GRADE SPAN REPORT 3 SF 2007 S/S SFDIFF BETW REPT 3 AND 2007 S/S

INVENTORY SF USED IN ELIG CALC

IMPROVED SPACE

STATE ASSIST. MOD/N/L < 20

YRS. (& < 30 YRS AFTER '93)

NEW CONSTRN <

20 YRS. NOTES 2754South Bay ES K-6 48,575 48,575 0 48,575 (48,237) (43,279) (4,958) Built 1973, mod and add in 1978

3130Mountain View ES K-6 51,439 51,439 0 51,439 (49,879) (49,879) 0

Built in 1922 w/adds in 1925, 1941, 1952, & 1957. N/L 33,565 sf, 2003; mod 5,136 sf, 2003. Updated S&S not available, old S&S shows 36,455 sf.

3262Lydia Hawk ES K-6 43,164 43,164 0 43,164 (43,164) (37,572) (5,592)Built in 1949, w/adds in 1953 and 1958 with mod in 1978.

3539Lakes ES K-6 52,060 52,060 0 52,060 (48,236) (41,277) (6,959)Built in 1954 w/adds in 1956, 1958, and 1978. Covered play in 1959.

3653Lacey ES K-6 47,505 47,505 0 47,505 (42,319) (42,319) 0 Built in 1956 with adds and mods in 1978. Covered play in 1978.

3709Olympic View ES K-6 43,111 43,111 0 43,111 (41,615) (41,615) 0 Built N/L 50,827 sf, 1996. Old Dry Crk was sold in 2000, and was 19,030 sf.

4058Evergreen Forest ES K-6 44,008 44,008 0 44,008 0 0 0 4122Woodland ES K-6 49,494 49,494 0 49,494 (48,983) (43,497) (5,486)4255Meadows ES K-6 48,202 48,202 0 48,202 0 0 0 4271Pleasant Glade ES K-6 48,482 48,482 0 48,482 0 0 0 4368Seven Oaks ES K-6 56,589 56,589 0 56,589 (56,551) 0 (56,551) 4408Horizons ES K-6 51,016 51,016 0 51,016 (50,720) 0 (50,720) 4636Chambers Prairie ES K-6 57,373 57,373 0 57,373 (57,373) 0 (57,373)

K-6 SPAN

TOTAL 641,018 641,018 0 641,018 (273,450)

3361Chinook MS 7-8 86,764 86,764 0 86,764 (86,764) (85,072) (1,692)Built in 1960 with adds in 1964, 1978, and some mod in 1978.

3611Nisqually MS 7-8 87,294 87,294 0 87,294 (87,935) (86,156) (1,779) Built in 1978.4409KomachinMS 7-8 89,360 89,360 0 89,360 (89,717) 0 (89,717)

7-8 SPAN

TOTAL 263,418 263,418 0 263,418 (174,699)

3010North Thurston HS 9-12 175,459 175,459 0 175,459 (27,263) (8,775) (18,488)

Eleven buildings built from 1953 to 1978. Report 3 shows 231,953; S&S shows 213,953.

3710Timberline HS 9-12 279,023 279,023 0 279,023 (185,617) (156,937) (28,680)

Built in 1953 (upper) and 1955 (lower). S&S narrative sets the size of the building at 10,064 sf.

4314South Sound HS 9-12 29,842 29,842 0 29,842 (29,982) 0 (29,982) 4427River Ridge HS 9-12 176,772 176,772 0 176,772 (177,116) 0 (177,116)

9-12 SPAN

TOTAL 661,096 661,096 0 661,096 (419,978) (868,127)

K-6 SPAN TOTAL 641,018 K-6 SPAN TOTAL (273,450)

7-8 SPAN TOTAL 263,418 7-8 SPAN TOTAL (174,699)

9-12 SPAN TOTAL 661,096 9-12 SPAN TOTAL (419,978)

904,436 (868,127)

Form 1066

Students with Disabilities

Growing

+ 57

7,755

Projected Enrollment - 1049


Construction:



Space Allocation

Existing Inventory

Un/Over Housed


E-90, M-117, H-130Hdcp. -144

X =


Survey =



=

NORTH THURSTON SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 003, THURSTON COUNTY #34

DRAFT January 2011 2005-06 1066 SFA 55.83%

ANALYSIS OF EXISTING FACILITIES ENROLLMENT (HEADCOUNT)Grade Class- Sq. Ft. Oct. 1, Projections No. UnhousedLevel rooms Area Capacity 2009 2015 - 2016 2015 - 2016

K-6 129 592,634 6,585 7,626 9,009 2,424

Hdcp. 28 48,384 336 129 122 (214)

Total 641,018 6,921 7,755 9,131 2,210 7-8 67 247,866 2,043 2,113 2,352 309

Hdcp. 9 15,552 108 13 32 (76)

Total 263,418 2,151 2,126 2,384 233 9-12 99 635,176 4,886 4,312 4,619 (267)

Hdcp. 15 25,920 180 48 62 (118)

Total 661,096 5,066 4,360 4,681 (385)

District Totals 14,138 14,241 16,196 2,058 1.33%

ELIGIBILITY CALCULATION: K-6 810,810 9-12 600,470 Hdcp. 10 17,280 Hdcp. 8,640 5 7-8 285,368 609,110

Hdcp. 3 5,184 Less 9-12 inventory 661,096 1,118,642 Sq. ft. overhoused (51,986)

Less K-6 inventory 641,018

Less 7-8 inventory 263,418

Sq. ft. unhoused 214,206

Area of Need Area of Need K-6: 828,090 9-12 609,110 7-8 290,552 (419,978)Less 9-12 Improved Space

1,118,642 189,132 SF elig Mod or N/L

(273,450) Less K-6 Improved Space(174,699)Less 7-8 Improved Space DRAFT670,493 SF elig Mod or N/L

NEW

MOD / NEW-IN-LIEU

Eligibility Calculation Spreadsheet

Eligible for New Construction


Construction:



Space Allocation

Existing Inventory

Un/Over Housed


E-90, M-117, H-130Hdcp. -144

X =


Survey =



=

NORTH THURSTON SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 003, THURSTON COUNTY #34

DRAFT January 2011 2005-06 1066 SFA 55.83%

ANALYSIS OF EXISTING FACILITIES ENROLLMENT (HEADCOUNT)Grade Class- Sq. Ft. Oct. 1, Projections No. UnhousedLevel rooms Area Capacity 2009 2015 - 2016 2015 - 2016

K-6 129 592,634 6,585 7,626 9,009 2,424

Hdcp. 28 48,384 336 129 122 (214)

Total 641,018 6,921 7,755 9,131 2,210 7-8 67 247,866 2,043 2,113 2,352 309

Hdcp. 9 15,552 108 13 32 (76)

Total 263,418 2,151 2,126 2,384 233 9-12 99 635,176 4,886 4,312 4,619 (267)

Hdcp. 15 25,920 180 48 62 (118)

Total 661,096 5,066 4,360 4,681 (385)

District Totals 14,138 14,241 16,196 2,058 1.33%

ELIGIBILITY CALCULATION: K-6 810,810 9-12 600,470 Hdcp. 10 17,280 Hdcp. 8,640 5 7-8 285,368 609,110

Hdcp. 3 5,184 Less 9-12 inventory 661,096 1,118,642 Sq. ft. unhoused (51,986)

Less K-6 inventory 641,018

Less 7-8 inventory 263,418 DRAFT

Sq. ft. unhoused 214,206

Area of Need Area of Need K-6: 828,090 9-12 609,110 7-8 290,552 (419,978)Less 9-12 Improved Space

1,118,642 189,132 SF elig Mod or N/L (273,450) Less K-6 Improved Space

(174,699)Less 7-8 Improved Space670,493 SF elig Mod or N/L

NEW

MOD / NEW-IN-LIEU

Eligible for Mod or N/L

New ConstructionMiddle School #5 $12,742,000 $28,000,000 $6,000,000 $46,742,000 Elementary #14 $2,500,000 $15,000,000 $12,500,000 $30,000,000 Elementary #15 $2,500,000 $2,500,000 Service Center North $400,000 $2,600,000 $3,000,000

Modernizations Evergreen Forest ES $4,000,000 $8,500,000 $7,000,000 $19,500,000 North Thurston HS $3,500,000 $10,000,000 $25,000,000 $5,000,000 $43,500,000 Meadows Elementary $1,000,000 2,750,000 $9,000,000 $7,500,000 $20,250,000 Pleasant Glade Elementary $1,000,000 $3,500,000 $9,000,000 $7,500,000 $21,000,000 Seven Oaks Elementary $1,000,000 $3,000,000 $9,500,000 $8,000,000 $21,500,000

Facility Upgrades Komachin Middle School $800,000 $5,250,000 $6,050,000 Horizons Primary $400,000 $2,900,000 $3,300,000 River Ridge High School $1,050,000 $5,000,000 $6,050,000 Service Center - Phase IV $400,000 $2,600,000 $3,000,000 Olympic View Elementary $350,000 $2,650,000 $3,000,000 Lakes Elementary $350,000 $2,650,000 $3,000,000 Mountain View Elementary $350,000 $2,650,000 $3,000,000 Lydia Hawk Elementary $350,000 $2,650,000 $3,000,000 Lacey Elementary $350,000 $2,650,000 $3,000,000 Subtotal $21,042,000 $54,550,000 $54,300,000 $47,100,000 $45,950,000 $18,450,000 $241,392,000

SIX-YEAR BOND FINANCE PLAN - 2012 THROUGH 2018(In Order of Priority)

ProposedProposed Proposed Proposed Proposed Proposed Proposed 6-Year Bond

Projects 12-13 13-14 14-15 15-16 16-17 17-18 Total

SIX-YEAR BOND FINANCE PLAN - 2012 THROUGH 2018


Projects 12-13 13-14 14-15 15-16 16-17 17-18 TotalEmergent Needs Building Upgrades: Roofing & Exterior $600,000 $600,000 $600,000 $750,000 $750,000 $750,000 $4,050,000 Building Upgrades: Interior $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $300,000 $300,000 $300,000 $1,650,000 Operating Systems $3,000,000 $3,000,000 $3,000,000 $3,500,000 $3,500,000 $3,500,000 $19,500,000 Safety & Health $125,000 $125,000 $125,000 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $825,000 Site $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,250,000 $1,250,000 $1,250,000 $6,750,000 Capital Equipment $1,500,000 $1,500,000 $1,500,000 $1,750,000 $1,750,000 $1,750,000 $9,750,000 Capital Projects Administration $550,000 $550,000 $550,000 $550,000 $550,000 $550,000 $3,300,000 Subtotal $7,025,000 $7,025,000 $7,025,000 $8,250,000 $8,250,000 $8,250,000 $45,825,000 Mitigation Land Acquisition * $3,500,000 $3,500,000 Facility Planning * $250,000 $250,000 Portables/Modulars * $400,000 $400,000 $400,000 $400,000 $400,000 $400,000 $2,400,000 Subtotal $4,150,000 $400,000 $400,000 $400,000 $400,000 $400,000 $6,150,000 TOTALS $32,217,000 $61,975,000 $61,725,000 $55,750,000 $54,600,000 $27,100,000 $293,367,000 Less Anticipated Mitigation Funds $28,067,000 $61,575,000 $61,325,000 $55,350,000 $54,200,000 $26,700,000 $287,217,000

*To be funded with Mitigation Fees

New Construction

Middle School #5 $0 Elementary #14 $0 Elementary #15 $0 Service Center North $0

Modernizations Evergreen Forest Elementary $0 North Thurston High School $0 Meadows Elementary $0 Pleasant Glade Elementary $0 Seven Oaks Elementary $0 Facility Upgrades Komachin Middle School $0 Horizons Primary $0 River Ridge High School $0 Service Center - Phase IV $0 Olympic View Elementary $0 Lakes Elementary $0 Mountain View Elementary $0 Lydia Hawk Elementary $0 Lacey Elementary $0 Subtotal $0 $0 $0 $0

CAPITAL PROJECTS SIX-YEAR FINANCE PLAN - 2010 THROUGH 2016(Assumes 2012 Bond Does NOT Pass)


Projects 10-11 11-12 12-13 13-14 14-15 15-16 Total

Emergent Needs Building Upgrades: Roofing & Exterior $950,000 $450,000 $450,000 $1,850,000 Building Upgrades: Interior $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $600,000 Operating Systems $2,650,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $4,650,000 Safety & Health $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $300,000 Site $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $600,000 Capital Equipment $1,350,000 $700,000 $600,000 $2,650,000 Capital Projects Administration $575,000 $575,000 $550,000 $1,700,000 $0 Mitigation Land Acquisition * $0 Facility Planning * $700,000 $700,000 Portables/Modulars * $412,000 $412,000 SUBTOTALS $7,137,000 $3,225,000 $3,100,000 $13,462,000 TOTALS $7,137,000 $3,225,000 $3,100,000 $13,462,000 Less Anticipated Mitigation Funds

*To be funded with Mitigation Fees

CAPITAL PROJECTS SIX-YEAR FINANCE PLAN - 2010 THROUGH 2016(Assumes 2012 Bond Does NOT Pass)


Projects 10-11 11-12 12-13 13-14 14-15 15-16 Total






30 min.







Principal25

min.


30 min.



1 min.

OSPI Funding Tom Kuehn 10 min. Qualifying Projects Mike Laverty 5 min.



Principal25


10 min.


30 min.



1 min.




Principal25




30 min.

Bond Issue Planning

February 2, 2011

Jon GoresSenior Vice President (206) 389-4043 [email protected]

North ThurstonPublic Schools No. 3

mailto:[email protected]

31

M&O Levies: 179 passed and 3 failed

Capital Projects Levies: 35 passed and 2 failed

Transportation Levies: 5 passed and 0 failed

Bond Authorizations: 10 passed and 9 failed

2010 Election Results Summary--Statewide

32

Voting Patterns

Source: Washington State Secretary of States Office

Bond Issues Passed by YearSchools Only

43%

38%

41%

24%

28%

38%

53%

34%

45%46%

37%

45%

38%

44% 45%

40%

23%

45%47%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

199286

199373

199499

199562

199678

199778

199855

199959

200040

200139

200243

200353

200434

200534

200660

200750

200835

200931

201019

Per

cent

Pas

sed

Years 1992 through November 2010, inclusive.

33

Survey Results

How likely would you be to support an extra local levyto raise funds for your school?

106

54

171

190

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200

Very Unlikely

Somewhat Unlikely

Somewhat Likely

Very Likely

Number of responses

(37%)

(20%)

(10%)

(33%)

Source: Economic Research Center, Washington State University. May 2010.

34

Survey Results

Which of these statements do you agree with the most?

83

196

164

44

0 50 100 150 200 250

4. Local school taxes are too high.

3. Local school taxes are just about where they should be.

2. Local school taxes could be increased somewhat to providebetter support for schools.

1. Local school taxes are a good bargain.

Number of responses

(9%)

Source: Economic Research Center, Washington State University. May 2010.

(34%)

(40%)

(17%)

35

Survey ResultsIn your opinion what is the SINGLE most important issue facing Washington State today?

1%

10%

22%

2%

6%

1%

1%

1%

0%

2%

11%

22%

22%

1%

4%

3%

5%

1%

0%

0

2%

2%

8%

26%

37%

11%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40%

13. Gas prices

12. Taxes

11. Other

10. Transportation, Traffi c congestion, Roads

9. Health care

8. Family

7. Crime

6. Agriculture

5. Growth

4. Environment

3. Education

2. Jobs and Wages

1. Economy

Percent of Responses

2010 2011

Source: Social and Economic Sciences Research Center, Washington State University. January 2011.

(1)

(112)

(115)

(55)

(12)

(3)

(3)

(3)

(31)

(11)

(114)

(53)

(4)

(133)

(95)

(27)

(8)

(6)

(0)

(3)

(1)

(17)

(11)

(41)

(16)

(2)

36

Survey ResultsIn your opinion, which ONE of these 11 areas do you think should have the HIGHEST

priority for tax dollars in Washington State?

4%

8%

3%

26%

1%

2%

1%

7%

3%

5%

40%

4%

8%

3%

30%

1%

2%

1%

7%

6%

4%

35%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45%

11. Something else

10. Tax reductions

9. Roads

8. Economic development and jobs

7. Prisons

6. The environment

5. Natural resources

4. Health

3. Social welfare

2. Higher education

1. Public education (Grades K-12)


2010 2011


(135)

(125)

(25)

(16)

(34)

(6)

(5)

(12)

(15)

(39)

(22)

(208)

(15)

(21)

(24)

(4)

(6)

(2)

(110)

(10)

(30)

(15)

37

Survey ResultsLooking ahead do you expect that your economic situation in 5 years will be much better, somewhat

better, about the same, somwhat worse, or much worse than it is now?

9%

11%

33%

29%

15%

5%

20%

34%

31%

10%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40%

5. Much worse

4. Somewhat worse

3. About the same

2. Somewhat better

1. Much better


2010 2011


(152)

(47)

(56)

(174)

(77)

(35)

(104)

(116)

(66)

(18)

38

Capital Financing Options

BondsVotedNon-voted

Capital Projects Levy

39

Types of School District Bonds Voted- Unlimited Tax General Obligation Bonds (UTGO) Non-voted – Limited General Obligation Bonds (LGO)

A. Voter approved bonds are (UTGO) repaid with property taxes approved with a 60% yes vote, 40% validation 5% Debt Capacity = $482,536,454–$141,010,609 (outstanding

debt) = $341,525,845

B. Non-voted bonds are (LGO) repaid with existing revenue can’t be used for “new” construction 3/8 of 1% Debt Capacity = $36,190,234–$2,455,609 (outstanding

debt) = $33,734,625


40


Bonds are the primary method used by Washington school districts to finance large scale capital projects because:

cash is generated up front payments can be spread over time, and districts have some control over taxpayer impacts

C. Capital Projects Levy Requires simple majority vote No debt limit Limited to a period of two through six years May be used to construct, modernize, remodel school facilities, technology

and technology training, painting, equipment repair Multiple capital levy ballot propositions for different purposes (e.g.,

technology and new roof) at same election are permissible

41

Assumptions for Tax Rate Planning

Interest Rates

Bond Rating

Assessed Value

Bond Structure

Financial Planning

42

Assumptions for Tax Rate PlanningA. Interest Rates

- Lower interest rates result in lower tax rates for bonds.- Interest rates are determined when bonds are actually sold.- Assumption: All issue current rates plus 1.50% (150 basis points)

Financial Planning

Bond Buyer Index20-Year General Obligation Bond

(1 year history)

3.753.904.054.204.354.504.654.804.955.105.255.405.555.705.856.006.156.30

Jan

-10

Feb

-10

Mar

-10

Ap

r-10

May

-10

Jun

-10

Jul-

10

Au

g-10

Sep

-10

Oct

-10

Nov

-10

Dec

-10

Jan

-11

Rat

es (

%)

Bond Buyer Index20-Year General Obligation Bond

(25 year history)

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

7.00

8.00

9.00

10.00

11.00

12.00

13.00

14.00

Jan

-86

Jan

-87

Jan

-88

Jan

-89

Jan

-90

Jan

-91

Jan

-92

Jan

-93

Jan

-94

Jan

-95

Jan

-96

Jan

-97

Jan

-98

Jan

-99

Jan

-00

Jan

-01

Jan

-02

Jan

-03

Jan

-04

Jan

-05

Jan

-06

Jan

-07

Jan

-08

Jan

-09

Jan

-10

Jan

-11

Rat

es (

%)

43

B. Bond Ratings- A higher bond rating results in lower interest rates.- Assumption: Aa1 (with State Guarantee)

Aa2 (District Rating)

A Guide to Bond Ratings

Moody’s Investors Service – Founded 1918

Highest Quality Aaa

Aa1, Aa2, Aa3

A1, A2, A3

Lowest Quality Baa1, Baa2, Baa3NR (Nonrated)

Financial Planning

44

Financial PlanningB. Bond Ratings continued… Options include:

– District’s rating (Aa2)

– State Guarantee (Aa1)

Assumption: Aa1 (State Guarantee)Aa2 (District Rating)

The Rating

DebtFactors Economy

Governmental Factors

FinancialPerformance

45

Financial PlanningC. Assessed Value

Year Historical Bond AV New ConstructionBond Levy Rate/$1000 % change

% growthfrom New

ConstructionGrowth due purely to NC

2000 3,797,857,279 $2.24 N/A 0.0%2001 4,053,129,732 110,319,399 $2.22 6.7% 43.2% 2.9%2002 4,388,009,098 113,082,369 $2.10 8.3% 33.8% 2.8%2003 4,801,831,578 146,412,921 $1.93 9.4% 35.4% 3.3%2004 5,204,705,094 173,346,207 $1.99 8.4% 43.0% 3.6%2005 5,937,175,579 216,956,126 $1.47 14.1% 29.6% 4.2%2006 6,801,903,841 265,623,912 $1.40 14.6% 30.7% 4.5%2007 7,993,077,509 454,649,377 $2.01 17.5% 38.2% 6.7%2008 9,948,759,722 482,299,056 $1.78 24.5% 24.7% 6.0%2009 10,407,924,616 315,853,925 $1.68 4.6% 68.8% 3.2%2010 10,266,014,227 205,643,594 $1.32 -1.36% -144.9% 2.0%2011 9,546,878,338 131,584,939 $1.23 -7.0% -18.3% 1.3%

5 year Compound Annual Growth Rate (2006-2011): 7.0%10 year Compound Annual Growth Rate (2001-2011): 8.9%

Assessed Value History2000-2011

North Thurston School District No. 3

46

Financial Planning

North Thurston School District No. 3

C. Assessed Value continued…

Historical Assessed Value and Levy Rates for Bonds

-

2,000,000,000

4,000,000,000

6,000,000,000

8,000,000,000

10,000,000,000

12,000,000,000

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Bo

nd

Ass

esse

d V

alu

e

$0.00

$0.50

$1.00

$1.50

$2.00

$2.50

$3.00

$3.50

$4.00

$4.50

Bo

nd

Le

vy R

ate

(p

er

$1

,00

0 A

V)

Historical Bond AV Bond Levy Rate/$1000

Actual Growth 7.0% 5yr Avg.

Annual Growth Rate

47

Financial Planning

Projected Assessed Value Growth

– Final 2010: -1.36%

– Final 2011: -7.0% growth

– Projected 2012: 1% growth

– Projected 2013: 2% growth

– Projected 2014-2036: 3% annual growth

Higher assessed values will lower the District’s tax rates (but not the overall payment)

An individual’s taxes will be based on the assessed value for their property

New construction vs. increase in value of existing property

Assessed Value continued…

48

Financial Planning

D. Bond Structure

State law gives Districts great flexibility in determining bond structures

Options:

– Level Debt

– Level Tax Rate

– Stepped Level Tax Rate

49

Interest Rates: All issue current rates plus 1.50% (150 basis points)Bond Rating: Aa1 (State Guarantee)District Rating: Aa2Assessed Value Growth: 2010: -1.36%; Final 2011: -7.0% growth; 2012: 1% growth; Projected 2013: 2% growth; Projected

2014-2036: 3% annual growth.

Bond Structure – Summary Comparison

Total Bond Authorization: $100,000,000 $100,000,000 $150,000,000 $150,000,000

Structure Stepped Tax Rate Stepped Tax Rate Stepped Tax Rate Stepped Tax Rate

Bond Sale Dates and Amounts

June 2012Dec 2013Dec 2014Dec 2016

$50,000,000$25,000,000$25,000,000

--

$50,000,000--

$25,000,000$25,000,000

$50,000,000$50,000,000$50,000,000

--

$50,000,000--

$50,000,000$50,000,000

Bond Tax Rates Actual 2010

Projected 20112012201320152016202020252026

$1.32$1.25$1.24$1.73$1.73$1.59$1.59$1.59$0.83

$1.32$1.25$1.24$1.69$1.69$1.59$1.59$1.59$0.65

$1.32$1.25$1.24$1.93$1.93$1.84$1.84$1.84$1.25

$1.32$1.25$1.24$1.86$1.86$1.77$1.77$1.77$1.04

Estimated 2013 Bond Tax Rate Increase over 2011 $0.48 $0.44 $0.68 $0.61

Total Interest Cost $102,870,000 $99,330,000 $151,100,000 $150,120,000

Final Maturity 2034 2036 2034 2036

50

Projected Tax Rates

-

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2021

2022

2023

2024

2025

2026

2027

2028

2029

2030

2031

2032

2033

2034

Projected Tax RatesLevy / $1000 Assessed Value

Existing Bonds 2012 Bonds

2013 Bonds 2014 Bonds

North Thurston School District No. 3Thurston County

$100,000,000 Level Bond Levy Rate with a Stepdown in 2016 and 2026

51

Total Project Cost:State Match:Bond Authorization Amount: $100,000,000

0.48

Assessed Gross Property MonthlyValue of Tax Increase Gross Property for Bonds Increase 25% 28% 33% 35%

$100,000 $48.00 $4.00 $36.00 $34.56 $32.16 $31.20200,000 96.00 8.00 72.00 69.12 64.32 62.40250,000 120.00 10.00 90.00 86.40 80.40 78.00300,000 144.00 12.00 108.00 103.68 96.48 93.60350,000 168.00 14.00 126.00 120.96 112.56 109.20500,000 240.00 20.00 180.00 172.80 160.80 156.00

NOTE:

Bonds After Allowing forIncome Tax Deduction

Federal Income Tax Bracket

Qualified homeowners may apply for a senior exemption. Please contact your County Assessor for details.

North Thurston School District No. 3TAX IMPACT ANALYSIS

Scenario 8: Level Bond Levy Rate with a Stepdown in 2016 and 2026, Sales in 2012, 2013, 2014, $100 million

Estimated 2013 Tax Rate Increase over 2011 Tax Rate (Bonds Only)

(per $1,000 assessed value):

Net Tax Increase from

Tax Impact Analysis

52

Projected Tax Rates

-

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2021

2022

2023

2024

2025

2026

2027

2028

2029

2030

2031

2032

2033

2034

2035

2036


Existing Bonds 2012 Bonds2014 Bonds 2016 Bonds



53


0.44


$100,000 $44.13 $3.68 $33.10 $31.77 $29.57 $28.68200,000 88.26 7.35 66.19 63.55 59.13 57.37250,000 110.32 9.19 82.74 79.43 73.92 71.71300,000 132.39 11.03 99.29 95.32 88.70 86.05350,000 154.45 12.87 115.84 111.21 103.48 100.40500,000 220.65 18.39 165.49 158.87 147.83 143.42

NOTE:





Scenario 7: Level Bond Levy Rate with a Stepdown in 2016 and 2026, $100 Million




Tax Impact Analysis

54

Projected Tax Rates


-

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2021

2022

2023

2024

2025

2026

2027

2028

2029

2030

2031

2032

2033

2034





55

Tax Impact Analysis


0.68


$100,000 $67.85 $5.65 $50.89 $48.85 $45.46 $44.10200,000 135.71 11.31 101.78 97.71 90.92 88.21250,000 169.63 14.14 127.22 122.14 113.65 110.26300,000 203.56 16.96 152.67 146.56 136.38 132.31350,000 237.48 19.79 178.11 170.99 159.11 154.37500,000 339.26 28.27 254.45 244.27 227.31 220.52

NOTE:




Level Bond Levy Rate with a Stepdown in 2016 and 2026





56

Projected Tax RatesNorth Thurston School District No. 3

Thurston County$150,000,000 Level Bond Levy Rate with a Stepdown in 2016 and 2026

-

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2021

2022

2023

2024

2025

2026

2027

2028

2029

2030

2031

2032

2033

2034




57


0.61


$100,000 $60.97 $5.08 $45.73 $43.90 $40.85 $39.63200,000 121.94 10.16 91.45 87.80 81.70 79.26250,000 152.42 12.70 114.32 109.74 102.12 99.08300,000 182.91 15.24 137.18 131.69 122.55 118.89350,000 213.39 17.78 160.04 153.64 142.97 138.71500,000 304.85 25.40 228.63 219.49 204.25 198.15

NOTE:





Level Bond Levy Rate with a Stepdown in 2016 and 2026




Tax Impact Analysis

58

Total Tax Rate Comparison

Thurston County School Districts2010 Total Tax Rates

DistrictAssessed

Value(1) ($) Bonds ($) M&O ($)Capital

Projects ($) Trans. ($) Total ($)

Tenino School District No. 402 918,321,234 -- 2.63167 -- -- 2.63167

Griffin School District No. 324 1,099,335,836 1.06460 1.60201 0.36149 -- 3.02810

North Thurston Public Schools, District No. 3 10,263,853,750 1.31502 2.44139 -- -- 3.75641

Olympia School District No. 111 8,079,574,908 1.79224 2.18120 0.24818 -- 4.22162

Yelm Community Schools No. 2 (3) 2,836,604,653 1.42501 2.61119 -- -- 4.03620

Rochester School District No. 401(2) 1,112,567,707 1.25926 3.00605 -- -- 4.26531

Tumwater School District No. 33 4,610,391,725 1.99072 2.52585 -- -- 4.51657

Rainier School District No. 307 479,253,267 1.58608 2.96029 -- -- 4.54637

(1) Bond Assessed Value does not include TAV.(2) Thurston and Lewis Counties.(3) Thurston and Pierce Counties.

59

Total Tax Rate Comparison

Washington School Districts2010 Total Tax Rates

DistrictAssessedValue* ($) Bonds ($) M&O ($)

CapitalProjects ($) Trans. ($) Total ($)

Mercer Island School District No. 400 8,667,003,244 0.54229 1.14490 0.32306 -- 2.01025

Peninsula School District No. 401 11,256,638,276 0.68581 1.46604 -- -- 2.15185

Bellingham School District No. 501 11,436,730,766 0.93563 1.90854 0.17605 -- 3.02022

North Thurston Public Schools, District No. 3 10,263,853,750 1.31502 2.44139 -- -- 3.75641

Olympia School District No. 111 8,079,574,908 1.79224 2.18120 0.24818 -- 4.22162

Vancouver Public Schools No. 37 13,248,296,457 1.48667 2.80036 -- -- 4.28703

Highline School District No. 401 13,666,617,660 1.72698 2.63804 -- -- 4.36502

Puyallup School District No. 3 13,111,898,005 1.69663 2.90284 -- -- 4.59947

Evergreen School District No. 114 12,210,980,959 1.51502 3.15286 -- -- 4.66788

Bethel School District No. 403 9,375,972,461 2.00954 2.77077 -- -- 4.78031

Snohomish School District No. 201 7,152,609,762 2.48745 2.50341 -- -- 4.99086

Auburn School District No. 408 8,886,234,190 0.81866 2.92479 1.35037 -- 5.09382

Federal Way Public Schools No. 210 12,020,615,721 1.72204 3.23581 0.14974 -- 5.10759

Shoreline School District No. 412 8,675,064,740 2.95675 2.32682 -- -- 5.28357

*Bond Assessed Value does not include TAV.



1 min.




Principal25



Polling Options & Information John Bash 5 min.


30 min.



1 min.




Principal25



Polling Options & Information John Bash 5 min. Discussion/Input Dick

Withycombe30

min.


30 min.

NTPS Facility Advisory CommitteeWednesdays (except for Board Meetings) 6:30 – 8:00

pm

Feb. 16

FACILITY UPGRADES & EMERGENT NEEDS

Meadows Elementary

Mar. 2

NEEDS EVALUTION Pleasant Glade Elementary

Apr. 19

BOARD PRESENTATION Evergreen Forest Elementary

Mar. 23

RECOMMENDATIONS Seven Oaks Elementary

Mar. 30

FAC PRESENTERS/EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

Review Upcoming Agendas and Board Reports

NTPS Facility Advisory Committee

Documents

Transcript of NTPS Facility Advisory Committee