Public School Capital Construction Assistance Board Meeting Agenda Vision

Public School Capital Construction Assistance Board Meeting Agenda
Vision
All students in Colorado will become educated and productive citizens
capable of succeeding in society, the workforce, and life.
Goals
Every student, every step of the way
Read by
third grade
Start strong
Meet or
exceed standards
Date & Time:
Graduate
Ready
Location:
Sept. 23rd, 2015
1:00 p.m.
201 E. Colfax Ave., Room 101
Denver, CO 80203
Capital Construction Assistance Board Members
Lyndon Burnett – Chair
David Tadlock – Vice Chair
Cyndi Wright
Tim Reed
Denise Pearson
Ken Haptonstall
Matt Throop
Karl Berg
Kathy Gebhardt
I. Call to Order
II. Pledge of Allegiance
III. Roll Call
IV. Approve Agenda
V. Approve Previous Minutes from the July 29th CCAB Meeting, September 2nd Legislative Subcommittee Meeting,
and September 2nd CCAB Meeting
VI. Board Report
VII. Director’s Report
VIII. Action Items
a. Revise School District and BOCES Matching Criteria and Updated Weighting
IX. Discussion Items
a. CCAB Legislative Platform
X. Future Meetings
• October 28th, 2015 – 1:00 p.m. Location: 201 E. Colfax Avenue, Room 101, Denver, CO 80203
• November 11th, 2015 – 1:00 p.m. Location: 201 E. Colfax Avenue, Room 101, Denver, CO 80203
• December 4th, 2015 – 1:00 p.m. Location: 1 Lake Ave, El Pomar Board Room at the Broadmoor, Colorado
Springs, CO 80906
XI. Public Comment
XII. Adjournment
Public School Capital Construction Assistance Board Meeting Agenda
Vision
All students in Colorado will become educated and productive citizens
capable of succeeding in a global society, in the workforce, and in life.
Goals
Every student, every step of the way
Read by
third grade
Start strong
Meet or
exceed standards
Date & Time:
Graduate
ready
Location:
th
550 Village Rd., Iris Room
Breckenridge, CO 80424
July 29 , 2015
1:00 p.m.
Capital Construction Assistance Board Members
Lyndon Burnett – Chair
David Tadlock – Vice Chair
Cyndi Wright
Tim Reed
Denise Pearson
Ken Haptonstall
Matt Throop
Karl Berg
Kathy Gebhardt
I.
Call to Order – 1:12 p.m.
II.
Pledge of Allegiance – in the absence of a flag, the Pledge of Allegiance was foregone.
III.
Roll Call – Lyndon Burnett, Karl Berg, Kathy Gebhardt, Ken Haptonstall, Denise Pearson, Tim Reed (arrived late),
David Tadlock, Matt Throop, Cyndi Wright. CDE Staff Attendees: Scott Newell, Anna Fitzer
IV.
Approve Agenda
The CCAB Chair called for a motion to approve the agenda:
• So moved by Cyndi Wright;
• Matt Throop 2nd the motion;
• Scott Newell proposed an amendment to the agenda, adding an Action Item to Approve the Proposed Rule
Changes to the Capital Construction Guideline Rules as item eight on the agenda;
• Kathy Gebhardt moved to approved the amended agenda;
• Matt Throop 2nd the motion;
• Motion to approve the amended agenda carried unanimously.
V.
Approve Previous Minutes from the May 19th & 20th, 2015 CCAB Meeting
The CCAB Chair called for a motion to approve the minutes:
• So moved by Denise Pearson;
• Cyndi Wright 2nd the motion;
• Denise Pearson proposed changes to correct the names of two school presenters listed in the minutes;
• Motion to approve the minutes as amended carried unanimously.
VI.
Board Report
Lyndon Burnett announced that he had attended the Greeley/Evans Prairie Heights Middle School ribbon cutting. He
remarked on the beauty of the facility, and shared with the CCAB an exchange he had with one of the middle school’s
teachers while touring the school: the teacher, who wished to express her gratitude for the BEST grant funding, had
related that over the past seven years of teaching at the school, an issue that had weighed on her and her fellow
faculty members had been the lack of appropriate lighting in classrooms; she explained that the previous facility had
not had any windows, and lighting had been a continuous struggle. The new facility, complete with windows in every
classroom, would now meet those needs and provide students and teachers with an exceptional learning environment.
Scott Newell also added that State Representative Dave Young had attended the ribbon cutting, as did a representative
from the office of U.S. Senator Michael Bennett.
VII.
Director’s Report
Scott Newell notified the CCAB of five upcoming ribbon cuttings: Moffat 2 Pre-Kindergarten-12 school on the 7th of
August, Montezuma Cortez High School on the 14th, Creede Consolidated on the 15th, South Conejos on the 21st, and
Aspen Community Charter School on the 18th of September.
Mr. Newell informed the CCAB that he would be traveling to New Mexico with Dustin Guerin to meet with the state’s
Public School Facilities Authority, the entity which handles the state’s school facility needs including facility
assessments, in preparation of the RFP issuance.
He explained the need to delay the August 26th CCAB meeting until September 2nd in order to hold a public hearing on
the proposed rule changes to the Capital Construction Guidelines. He discussed the timeline for the hearing and the
statutory timeline for submitting the changes.
Mr. Newell apprised the CCAB of potential issues related to escalation costs on the Fort Morgan project. He explained
the Division’s present position was to deny the use of grant reserves because the project already included an
additional $2.2 million in the budget specifically to cover those types of costs. He further explained the project budget
was currently built upon having all those reserve dollars awarded and further discussions would be taking place with
the school district’s project team to address escalation or keep it within the original budget. Mr. Newell explained that
the project may elect to bring the request for grant reserve funds to the CCAB in the near future.
CCAB Member Tim Reed arrived to the meeting at 1:30 p.m.
Mr. Newell discussed the potential purchase of tablets for future CCAB meetings to save on the cost of the annual
project summary books. The CCAB discussed with Mr. Newell the merits of the tablets versus the use of printed books.
They asked which tablet the Division had in mind, and discussed the other options available on the market; the
discussion included consideration of cost benefits and best use of funds. The CCAB agreed the purchase of tablets
could have long-term cost savings.
VIII.
Action Item: Approve the Proposed Rules Changes to the Capital Construction Guidelines Rules
The CCAB Chair introduced the proposed rules and called for a motion to approve the changes:
• So moved by David Tadlock;
• Ken Haptonstall 2nd the motion;
• Scott Newell discussed the changes to the Capital Construction Guidelines, noting the additions to incorporated
by reference, and outlined the timeline for approving the changes and holding the public hearing;
• The CCAB discussed the changes to the incorporated by reference, and verified that it is a requirement to include
the edition years for documents and standards incorporated in the rules;
• Motion to approve the proposed rule changes was carried unanimously.
IX.
Discussion Items
a) Statewide Facility Assessment Update
Scott Newell reviewed the timeline for the issuance of the RFP, which he said is still on track to be issued in
September with notice to proceed in December. He described for the CCAB the criteria questions, outside of
Uniformat, which the assessors will use to supplement Uniformat when assessing school facility conditions. He
gave a brief overview of the subcommittee meeting on July 9th, in which the criteria questions were reviewed and
revised as deemed necessary; the final proposed versions of which were included in today’s meeting packet for
the CCAB to review. CCAB member Tim Reed, who also attended the subcommittee meeting, added that a good
variety of industry professionals had been present; he briefly recounted the dialogue and the live updates to the
questions as the discussion had taken place. Mr. Newell continued to apprise the CCAB of the preparatory work
the Division was undertaking, including their research on current software and facility management platforms. In
addition to this, he said, another component of the project would be to add the ability to use data points derived
from the supplemental criteria questions to assign a cost-association to the data in order to better identify costs
and needs for school facilities. He also added that one of the goals of the new system would allow for the ability to
update and adjust the assessment in the program as needed. The CCAB discussed the questions which had been
deleted from the assessment, asking why certain questions had been removed; CCAB member Tim Reed stated
that it was primarily a consolidation of questions which appeared on separate line items, rather than strict
deletion. In addition to this, Scott Newell said that some questions were deleted after it was ascertained the data
gathered did not provide any meaningful information, noting that the subcommittee had asked themselves “are
we using the information collected by this question, and if we’re not, is anyone going to?” while reviewing the
questionnaire; for example, regarding a deleted question which asked if weeds were under control, Mr. Newell
explained that it was unlikely anyone would ever call and ask for a report on the number of schools which had
weeds. Thus in the interest of ensuring the most useful data is obtained in the assessment, questions such as this
were deleted, consolidated, or revised. Mr. Newell continued with his description of the assessment updates: he
explained that the Division had gone through and assigned the statutory requirement to each criteria question,
identifying the deficiency as 1) health and safety issues, 2) overcrowding, 3) technology, or 4) other. Additionally,
the structure of questions had been updated to resolve any conflicting information resulting from questions which
were too general: previously the assessment had asked about the condition of a facility’s roof overall, for example,
which left no room for the assessment to identify any deficiencies which may have been present in a particular
roof section. The updated assessment would resolve these issues by allowing for individual roof section
assessments.
b) FY15-16 BEST Grant Applicant Survey Results
Public attendee Kirk Banghart with Moffat 2 school district, upon exiting the meeting, quickly announced and extended an
invitation to the CCAB to attend Moffat 2’s ribbon cutting on the 7th of August.
Scott Newell gave a brief overview of the respondent counts to the BEST Grant Applicant Survey, which was sent
out to all applicants who participated in the 2015-16 grant cycle, and the results. He noted multiple responses
which focused on the need to adjust the application format for a more user-friendly process and which noted that
the amount of information being asked was burdensome for smaller projects. The CCAB discussed the software
program used for the application process and avenues for improving it. The CCAB also discussed survey responses
regarding transparency and how best to create a more transparent environment during the grading and voting of
projects at the annual meetings; one potential method was to hold open discussion amongst board members
immediately following individual applicant presentations. The CCAB remarked on the quality of applications and
the impact it has on their ability to fully understand projects and make need-based decisions. Scott Newell said
that the Division would work on including questions in the application which would help provide the CCAB with
better information and provide a better understanding of applicants’ particular situations with regard to the match
and financing. The CCAB discussed different procedural changes to the process, and discussed lifting the limit of
two presenters per project and increasing the time limit for presentations from 2 minutes to 3 minutes.
c) Review School District and BOCES Matching Criteria and Weighting
Scott Newell explained that the CCAB had asked to review the formula used to assign school district matches on
grant projects and to re-evaluate the weights assigned to each criteria before for the match percentage for each
school is recalculated in November. The CCAB would discuss the weights and the Division would run numbers with
any proposed adjustments. Mr. Newell reminded the CCAB the subcommittee had weighted unreserved general
fund balance and remaining bond capacity at 25% each because at the time the subcommittee believed it was
reflective of actual financial capacity, while the other criteria points reflected demography. In light of the move
from financed projects to cash only grants, the conversation has changed: many grant requests are smaller in
scope and budget, and may not merit going to the voters for bonds. Thus, in order to reflect the current nature of
the grant’s funding, the CCAB would adjust weights to provide match calculations which better represent school
needs. The CCAB noted that PPAV (per pupil assessed valuation) and remaining bond capacity are not always
representative of the school’s actual funding capacity because these valuations are often artificially inflated due to
business industry in the district; for example, a district in which oil and natural gas operations reside but in which
the residential population is small and lower-income, the value of the oil and gas industry drives up the calculated
property value, making it appear that a district has a much higher bond capacity than its taxpayers can actually
afford. As such, the CCAB asked to lower these weights while increasing demographic criteria such as Free and
Reduced lunch. Mr. Newell asked the CCAB to outline several variations of weight adjustments for the Division to
model so the CCAB could see how the adjustments would affect match percentages. In addition to the discussion,
the CCAB asked how the weights affected Charter schools; Mr. Newell explained the calculations were used as a
starting point for charter match percentage, in addition to 12 other statutory criteria which adjusted the starting
point up or down. Continuing the discussion on weights, the CCAB proposed several adjustments for the Division
to model. The CCAB asked if it was possible to determine assessed valuation based on residential factors alone and
exclude business industry from the calculation. Mr. Newell said that information is determined by the county
assessor, but that he could include a question in the waiver application to support applicants who felt their match
was artificially increased due to their district’s business industry. The CCAB agreed on several iterations of match
adjustments for the Division to model, and elected to resume the conversation at the next CCAB meeting.
d) CCAB Legislative Platform
CCAB Chair began the discussion on the legislative platform, acknowledging that he has not gotten much traction
on raising the COP cap in the various discussions he has held with legislative members and the Governor’s office.
The CCAB noted that DPS had been able to pull operating monies out of the state trust funds, and that using this
example may aid in pressing for the COP cap increase. Because CDE is the top funded agency in the state and
routinely has large budget requests for other programs, the CCAB discussed the implication this has on BEST’s
ability to ask for additional funds, competing with the agency’s. The CCAB Chair said the main topic should center
on the ability of the BEST grant to be self-sustaining and remind the legislature that the program does not pose
any risk to the state’s general fund. The CCAB also discussed the statewide facility assessment program, saying
that because the Division is an expanding, well-run organization more autonomy would aid the CCAB in acquiring
additional funding for schools. Mr. Newell said that the CCAB should consider reaching out to the State Treasurer’s
office in order to investigate avenues to restructure COPs and better leverage the grant’s funding. The CCAB closed
the discussion, requesting a subcommittee meeting be held on the 2nd of September to further discuss the
legislative agenda.
X.
Future Meetings
• September 2nd, 2015 – 1:00 p.m. Location: 201 E. Colfax Avenue, Room 101, Denver, CO 80203
• September 23rd, 2015 – 1:00 p.m. Location: 201 E. Colfax Avenue, Room 101, Denver, CO 80203
• October 28th, 2015 – 1:00 p.m. Location: 201 E. Colfax Avenue, Room 101, Denver, CO 80203
XI.
Public Comment
The CCAB Chair asked if anyone was signed up for public comment, or if anyone from the public would like to speak;
there were none.
XII.
Adjournment
The CCAB Chair called for a motion to adjourn:
• So moved by Kathy Gebhardt;
• Cyndi Wright 2nd the motion;
• Motion to adjourn carried unanimously;
• Meeting adjourned 3:22 p.m.
Public School Capital Construction Assistance Board Meeting Agenda
Vision
All students in Colorado will become educated and productive citizens
capable of succeeding in society, the workforce, and life.
Goals
Every student, every step of the way
Read by
third grade
Start strong
Meet or
exceed standards
Date & Time:
Graduate
Ready
Location:
Sept. 2nd, 2015
11:00 a.m.
201 E. Colfax Ave., Room 101
Denver, CO 80203
Capital Construction Assistance Board Members
Lyndon Burnett – Chair
David Tadlock – Vice Chair
Cyndi Wright
Tim Reed
Denise Pearson
Ken Haptonstall
Matt Throop
Karl Berg
Kathy Gebhardt
I. Call to Order – 11:05 a.m.
II. Pledge of Allegiance
III. Roll Call – Lyndon Burnett, Karl Berg, Denise Pearson, David Tadlock, Cyndi Wright. CDE Staff Attendees: Scott Newell,
Anna Fitzer
IV. Approve Agenda
The CCAB Chair called for a motion to approve the agenda:
• So moved by Denise Pearson;
• David Tadlock 2nd the motion;
• Motion to approve the agenda passed with 5 votes yes, and 4 absent.
V. Discussion Items
a. Discuss the CCAB legislative platform and current legislative priorities
CCAB Chair Lyndon Burnett explained that in regards to the 1st objective to raise the COP cap allowance he
has not gotten a lot of positive feedback, including on using any portion of marijuana state excise tax funds
to bond against. He related a conversation he had with State Senator Steadman regarding the use of the $40
million the BEST grant would receive if the ballot question regarding marijuana taxes is passed in November
and indicated Senator Steadman was not supportive of “parking” the funds in order to spread the money
over several years for financing lease-purchase projects. Matt Samelson, a public attendee from the DonnellKay Foundation, a foundation which specializes in public education reform, was asked to weigh in on the
discussion. Mr. Samelson introduced himself to the CCAB, described his background and involvement in the
development of the BEST grant program; he said that he too was interested in thinking through a more
sustainable approach for the program’s use of the $40 million “gift”. He said that there were multiple
education groups with an interest in aiding the CCAB in devising an avenue for this type of approach. He
related his thoughts on how a message could be good stewardship of the $40 million gift by stretching out
the use of the funds over a long-term period, rather than spending the funds all at once. He advised the CCAB
to collaborate with the State Treasurer’s office on strategies to do just that and leverage the funds to raise
the COP. The CCAB discussed TABOR and the impact it has on committing future funds, as well as the various
interest groups working with the legislature to create additional avenues to access financing options. Mr.
Samelson added that Dan Ritchie with Building a Better Colorado was building a coalition on “good
governance” and would be a good resource for the CCAB. Mr. Samelson also acknowledged the unique
position of the CCAB in that in the case of the $40 million, the CCAB is not asking for money to raise the cap;
Public School Capital Construction Assistance Board Meeting Agenda
if the ballot question passes, the money will be the CCAB’s to use on capital projects. As such, the question
becomes how best to leverage the funds in a sustainable manner. He referenced the fight many school
district superintendents were engaged in to combat the Negative Factor, pointing to them as potential
partners with the CCAB on pushing for the use of the funds on COPs. The CCAB discussed other avenues to
allow for more lease-purchase projects without the need to raise the COP cap, including any potential for
refinancing the current debt service into staggered payoffs thereby freeing up funds for new projects, and
creating a dedicated revenue stream specifically for COPs. Scott Newell asked the CCAB to consider what
their definition of sustainable means in terms of the program’s ability to build a certain number of schools
per year, and the dollar amount needed to do so, and to develop a concrete plan before moving forward. He
also explained to the CCAB the difference between marijuana excise tax and sales tax, and noted that while
the conversation primarily revolves around marijuana proceeds, those proceeds only make up a small
portion of the fund; state land trust is the biggest contributor and that fund has been trending negatively,
which leaves the program with a much bigger problem to consider. The CCAB discussed the state land trust
funds and the projections for proceeds. Mr. Samelson asked if the CCAB had access to the governor’s
economists, saying that it would be helpful to show projections on state lands and marijuana proceeds over
the next 5-10 years, and point out that the program would never become a general fund liability. Scott
Newell said that they’ve been given some access in the past, but that the Statewide Facility Assessment
would also have forecast modeling in terms of projecting needs over time.
The CCAB Chair moved the discussion onto the 2nd Objective to investigate statutory options for the CCAB’s
powers and duties. He added that he had spoken with Henry Sobanet in the past and he had not been a
strong proponent at the time. The CCAB discussed the purpose for the additional authority, primarily being
the ability to accept endowments to the program. One CCAB member raised the idea of hiring the CCAB’s
own lobbyist to advocate for issues such as the COP cap increase; the CCAB discussed this idea, noting that
the voices of the independent education groups who work with the CCAB are much more powerful than a
lobbyist’s would be.
The CCAB Chair closed the meeting with a final discussion on an objective listed for future regarding the
investigation of a facilities program outside of CDE. He informed the CCAB of the difficulty he has with the
objective when working with the legislature on other issues, saying that it raises questions which the CCAB
has not yet fleshed out. The CCAB agreed the objective needed to be more fully developed before putting it
on the platform but agreed it should be discussed and its removal voted on in the CCAB meeting to take
place later in the day. Scott Newell added that New Mexico has a facilities program outside of their
education department, but the difference is that theirs is an actual program and not a grant.
VI. Future Meetings
• September 23rd, 2015 – I:00 p.m. Location: 201 E. Colfax Avenue, Room 101, Denver, CO 80203 (Tentative)
• October 28th, 2015 – TBD
• November 11th, 2015 – I:00 p.m. Location: 201 E. Colfax Avenue, Room 101, Denver, CO 80203
VII. Public Comment
The CCAB Chair asked if anyone was signed up for public comment, or if anyone from the public would like to speak;
there were none.
VIII. Adjournment
The CCAB Chair called for a motion to adjourn:
• So moved by Denise Pearson;
• Cyndi Wright 2nd the motion;
• Motion to adjourn passed with 5 votes yes, and 4 absent;
• Meeting adjourned 12:06 p.m.
Public School Capital Construction Assistance Board Meeting Agenda
Vision
All students in Colorado will become educated and productive citizens
capable of succeeding in society, the workforce, and life.
Goals
Every student, every step of the way
Read by
third grade
Start strong
Meet or
exceed standards
Date & Time:
Graduate
Ready
Location:
Sept. 2nd, 2015
1:00 p.m.
201 E. Colfax Ave., Room 101
Denver, CO 80203
Capital Construction Assistance Board Members
Lyndon Burnett – Chair
David Tadlock – Vice Chair
Cyndi Wright
Tim Reed
Denise Pearson
Ken Haptonstall
Matt Throop
Karl Berg
Kathy Gebhardt
I. Call to Order – 1:05 p.m.
II. Pledge of Allegiance
III. Roll Call – Lyndon Burnett, Karl Berg, Kathy Gebhardt (arrived late), Denise Pearson, David Tadlock, Matt Throop, Cyndi
Wright. CDE Staff Attendees: Scott Newell, Dustin Guerin, Kevin Huber, Anna Fitzer
IV. Approve Agenda
The CCAB Chair called for a motion to approve the agenda:
• So moved by Cyndi Wright;
• Matt Throop 2nd the motion;
• Denise Pearson proposed an amendment to the agenda to add a discussion item on Lessons learned from the
May grant process meetings;
• Motion to approve the amended agenda passed unanimously.
V. Approve Previous Minutes
The CCAB Chair called for a motion to approve the minutes:
• So moved by Denise Pearson;
• Cyndi Wright 2nd the motion;
• Motion to approve the minutes passed unanimously.
VI. Public Hearing (1:15 p.m.)
a. Rulemaking Hearing: Public hearing regarding the Rules of the Public School Facility Construction
Guidelines - 1 CCR 303-3. This is a time for the public to voice their opinion regarding Rules of the Public
School Facility Construction Guidelines and for the Assistance Board to evaluate whether any additional
changes need to be made.
The CCAB Chair called to order the hearing on the proposed amendments to the Rules of the Public School
Facility Construction Guidelines. He delineated the statutory basis for the rules and the amendments, and asked
if any member of the public would like to speak. Hearing none, the CCAB Chair declared the hearing at a close.
b. Assistance Board vote to consider the adoption of Rules of the Public School Facility Construction
Guidelines – 1 CCR 303-3
The CCAB Chair called for a motion to adopt the proposed amendments to the rules:
• So moved by David Tadlock;
• Cyndi Wright 2nd the motion;
Public School Capital Construction Assistance Board Meeting Agenda
• Motion to adopt the amendments to the rule passed unanimously.
VII. Director’s Report
Scott Newell announced the upcoming Aspen Community School ribbon cutting to be held on September 18.
Mr. Newell informed the CCAB the Dustin Guerin would be moving into the role of supervisor for the Statewide
Facility Assessment program. He also gave the CCAB a brief report on their trip to New Mexico to meet with the
state’s school facilities authority.
He informed the CCAB of several upcoming presentations he would be giving, including a presentation to CSI, the
League of Charter Schools, and a DU Law panel presentation on marijuana excise taxes.
Mr. Newell updated the CCAB on current media stories, saying that he had reached out to CDE’s communications
department to correct the inaccuracies reported in the stories.
CCAB Member Kathy Gebhardt arrived to the meeting at 1:27 p.m.
VIII. Board Report
Kathy Gebhardt informed the CCAB of the work she is doing with the Boulder School District and the company
they have hired called Fielding Nair. She described some of the research the company has done on what 21st
century schools should look like, and the impact the environment has on teaching and learning. The CCAB
discussed the possibility of having the company present at a future meeting.
Cyndi Wright reported to the CCAB she had attended the Moffat 2 ribbon cutting, and commented on how nice
the facility was. She said the ribbon cutting had a good turnout of approximately 200 guests.
Lyndon Burnett announced that he too had attended a ribbon cutting at Limon’s new school, which also had a
large turnout by the community. He commented on a tour he took with State Senator Steadman of two BEST
project schools and two older schools. In addition, he reported he had lunch with Bill Ryan from the State Land
Board at which he was given projections on land trust funds. He told the CCAB that there is a CLASS lawsuit
against the BEST legislation, originating from a group in Utah; he added that it was not a formal group or lawsuit.
The CCAB discussed the differences among states on the use of state land trust funds and funding education.
Lastly, the CCAB Chair added that he is appointed as a school board member; however, his current seat is
contested in the November election and it is possible if he is not re-elected he may lose his seat as CCAB Chair.
Scott Newell added he did not believe statute indicated he would have to step down.
IX. Discussion Items
a. Statewide Facility Assessment Update
Scott Newell updated the CCAB on where the program is in the process. He added that the subcommittee
meetings had been concluded and briefly went over the database criteria question changes. He went on to
say the RFP would go to the state procurement office on the 4th of September, and described the timeline
for the RFP process. Additionally, he told the CCAB the RFP review committee had been established and he
described the individuals the Division had selected for it. He asked the CCAB to schedule their December
board meeting for the day after the RFP selection occurred in order to approve the RFP committee’s vendor
selection. In addition, he added the timeline for hiring the Division assesors. Mr. Newell discussed the yearly
data collection the Division would perform for districts which already do assessments, and the effort to get
data for schools that do not. The CCAB asked if there were any potential concerns related to inconsistencies
between schools with their own assessments and those without, as well as potential inconsistencies
between how individual assessors’ assess each school.
b. Review School District and BOCES Matching Criteria and Updated Weighting (Cont.)
Scott Newell reviewed the weighting adjustments to each match criteria requirement as requested by the
CCAB in the July 29th meeting. He described some of the bigger shifts as modeled for each proposed weight
set, noting the spreads for bigger districts as a result of reducing the weights on unreserved general fund
Public School Capital Construction Assistance Board Meeting Agenda
balance and increasing the weights on free and reduced lunch. Kevin Huber added that the unreserved
general fund balance was a snapshot in time, and not necessarily reflective of the current funding capacity
of schools. The CCAB discussed several other variations on weighting the percentages for smaller schools
and analyzed which criteria impacted the variations. They discussed free and reduced lunch statistics as
calculated by schools, and school reporting timelines and procedures. The CCAB asked the Division to add
another proposed weighting scenario, and took a brief break while the weights were applied and
percentages calculated.
The CCAB Chair called for a brief break.
Kevin Huber presented the adjusted match percentages to the CCAB. The CCAB reviewed the new
percentages, discussed the criteria further, and elected to consider the adjustments and resume at the next
CCAB meeting on September 23rd to approve new weights.
c. CCAB Legislative Platform
CCAB Chair Lyndon Burnett gave a brief recap of the subcommittee meeting which took place earlier in the
day. He asked the CCAB to consider removing a future objective from the Legislative Platform pertaining to
investigating options for creating a facilities program outside of CDE. The CCAB agreed to remove the bullet
until further discussions could be had to flesh out and develop the objective. The CCAB continued their
discussion from earlier in the day regarding raising the COP cap, and discussed additional avenues and ideas
for funding more lease-purchase projects.
The CCAB Chair called for a motion to remove a future objective from the Legislative Platform:
• So moved by Cyndi Wright;
• Denise Pearson 2nd the motion;
• Motion to approve the removal of the future objective passed unanimously.
d. Lessons learned from the May grant process meeting
CCAB Member Denise Pearson presented her thoughts to provide additional aid to grant applicants during
the May grant process meetings by providing applicants with a copy of the application and all data points
which are given to the CCAB to use in the grading and voting of projects in advance of the grant selection
meeting. The CCAB discussed the merits of providing the applicants with the application packet, including
financial information which the Division adds for the CCAB’s selection process. The CCAB agreed providing
this information would be helpful in ensuring applicants are best prepared for their project presentations.
X. Future Meetings
• September 23rd, 2015 – I:00 p.m. Location: 201 E. Colfax Avenue, Room 101, Denver, CO 80203 (Tentative)
• October 28th, 2015 – TBD
• November 11th, 2015 – I:00 p.m. Location: 201 E. Colfax Avenue, Room 101, Denver, CO 80203
XI. Public Comment
The CCAB Chair asked if anyone was signed up for public comment, or if anyone from the public would like to speak;
there were none.
XII. Adjournment
The CCAB Chair called for a motion to adjourn:
• So moved by Denise Pearson;
• Kathy Gebhardt 2nd the motion;
• Motion to adjourn carried unanimously;
• Meeting adjourned 3:32 p.m.
Public School Capital Construction Assistance Board Agenda Sheet
MEETING DATE: September 23, 2015
SUBJECT: Revise School District and BOCES matching criteria and weighting
TYPE: Action X
Information
BACKGROUND:
The Capital Construction Assistance Board has reviewed new proposed match calculations based on desired
weighting of each factor. To ensure the matching funds requirements best reflect the financial capacity and
ability of school districts, and to ensure equity in the process, the CCAB will adjust the weighting of the
following criteria:
• Per pupil assessed valuation (Currently weighted at 10%);
• The district’s median household income (Currently weighted at 10%);
• Percentage of pupils eligible for free or reduced cost lunch (Currently weighted at 10%);
• Current bond mill levy (Currently weighted at 20%);
• Unreserved general fund balance (Currently weighted at 25%);
• Current bond capacity remaining (Currently weighted at 25%);
• Bond election failures and successes in the last 10 years (Currently subtracts 1% from the combined
criteria matching percent for each bond election failure or success).
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Revise the weights to the matching criteria factors.
STAFF RECOMMENDED MOTION:
NA
ATTACHMENTS:
Proposed BEST Match Calculation Adjustments for the FY1617 Grant Cycle
Proposed BEST Match Calculation Adjustments for the FY1617 Grant Cycle
DISTRICT
STEAMBOAT SPRINGS RE-2
CLEAR CREEK RE-1
BOULDER RE 2
GILPIN RE-1
SUMMIT RE-1
LITTLETON 6
DURANGO 9-R
EATON RE-2
EAGLE RE 50
ACADEMY 20
JEFFERSON R-1
MEEKER RE1
CHERRY CREEK 5
RANGELY RE-4
DOUGLAS RE 1
BAYFIELD 10 JT-R
CHEYENNE MOUNTAIN 12
THOMPSON R-2J
PLATEAU VALLEY 50
ASPEN 1
TELLURIDE R-1
PLATTE VALLEY RE-7
PRAIRIE RE-11
EAST GRAND 2
POUDRE R-1
WINDSOR RE-4
WIDEFIELD 3
ESTES PARK R-3
PLATEAU RE-5
GILCREST RE-1
JOHNSTOWN-MILLIKEN RE-5J
WOODLAND PARK RE-2
MANITOU SPRINGS 14
FALCON 49
ROARING FORK RE-1
HINSDALE RE 1
WELD COUNTY RE-3J
ARCHULETA 50 JT
KIT CARSON R-1
DEBEQUE 49JT
MESA VALLEY 51
MOFFAT COUNTY RE:NO 1
PAWNEE RE-12
ELIZABETH C-1
GARFIELD RE-2
GARFIELD 16
WEST GRAND 1-JT
STRASBURG 31J
ST VRAIN RE 1J
LEWIS-PALMER 38
MONTROSE RE-1J
IGNACIO 11 JT
KIOWA C-2
PLATTE CANYON 1
HAYDEN RE-1
FT. LUPTON RE-8
FOUNTAIN 8
ADAMS 12
AULT-HIGHLAND RE-9
BUENA VISTA R-31
PRIMERO 2
OURAY R-1
RIDGWAY R-2
BRIGGSDALE RE-10
BENNETT 29J
DELTA 50(J)
COLORADO SPRINGS 11
MONTEZUMA-CORTEZ RE-1
PPAV = 5%
Household = 20%
FRED = 15%
Current Mill = 20%
Unreserved GF = 20%
Match
(last cycle Bond Cap = 20%
S1
S1 Diff
FY1516)
80%
81%
76%
78%
81%
75%
79%
76%
80%
70%
76%
78%
72%
74%
69%
69%
62%
73%
69%
68%
67%
75%
71%
70%
69%
63%
66%
68%
64%
77%
63%
64%
59%
61%
67%
60%
73%
70%
63%
68%
68%
69%
67%
55%
72%
70%
62%
53%
61%
53%
68%
66%
55%
55%
58%
71%
60%
56%
62%
59%
61%
51%
51%
55%
48%
59%
63%
65%
81%
80%
78%
79%
80%
78%
77%
77%
79%
75%
78%
75%
75%
75%
73%
71%
69%
73%
69%
72%
71%
75%
69%
71%
69%
68%
68%
69%
66%
72%
68%
66%
63%
67%
68%
63%
71%
68%
66%
67%
66%
66%
62%
62%
68%
68%
63%
61%
64%
61%
65%
63%
60%
61%
60%
67%
61%
60%
61%
57%
59%
57%
56%
57%
54%
56%
59%
58%
1%
-1%
2%
1%
-1%
3%
-2%
1%
-1%
5%
2%
-3%
3%
1%
4%
2%
7%
0%
0%
4%
4%
0%
-2%
1%
0%
5%
2%
1%
2%
-5%
5%
2%
4%
6%
1%
3%
-2%
-2%
3%
-1%
-2%
-3%
-5%
7%
-4%
-2%
1%
8%
3%
8%
-3%
-3%
5%
6%
2%
-4%
1%
4%
-1%
-2%
-2%
6%
5%
2%
6%
-3%
-4%
-7%
PPAV = 5%
Household = 15%
FRED = 20%
Mill = 20%
Unreserved GF = 20%
Bond Cap = 20%
PPAV = 5%
Household = 15%
FRED = 20%
Mill = 25%
Unreserved GF = 10%
Bond Cap = 25%
PPAV = 5%
Household = 15%
FRED = 25%
Mill = 20%
Unreserved GF = 20%
Bond Cap = 15%
S2
S2 Diff
S3
S3 Diff
S4
S4 Diff
82%
80%
79%
79%
80%
78%
78%
77%
78%
75%
77%
76%
75%
74%
73%
71%
69%
73%
71%
72%
71%
73%
71%
71%
70%
68%
68%
68%
66%
71%
67%
66%
64%
66%
67%
64%
69%
67%
64%
66%
67%
66%
65%
62%
67%
66%
63%
60%
63%
61%
65%
63%
59%
60%
61%
64%
61%
59%
60%
58%
59%
56%
55%
56%
53%
56%
58%
58%
2%
-1%
3%
1%
-1%
3%
-1%
1%
-2%
5%
1%
-2%
3%
0%
4%
2%
7%
0%
2%
4%
4%
-2%
0%
1%
1%
5%
2%
0%
2%
-6%
4%
2%
5%
5%
0%
4%
-4%
-3%
1%
-2%
-1%
-3%
-2%
7%
-5%
-4%
1%
7%
2%
8%
-3%
-3%
4%
5%
3%
-7%
1%
3%
-2%
-1%
-2%
5%
4%
1%
5%
-3%
-5%
-7%
80%
80%
75%
80%
79%
75%
75%
78%
76%
70%
74%
77%
71%
75%
69%
70%
63%
70%
72%
79%
78%
75%
72%
71%
67%
64%
65%
68%
67%
72%
68%
63%
62%
63%
64%
66%
70%
65%
65%
70%
65%
64%
67%
59%
64%
67%
64%
58%
58%
55%
65%
60%
59%
60%
65%
63%
60%
53%
59%
57%
58%
58%
55%
62%
54%
56%
57%
58%
0%
-1%
-1%
2%
-2%
0%
-4%
2%
-4%
0%
-2%
-1%
-1%
1%
0%
1%
1%
-3%
3%
11%
11%
0%
1%
1%
-2%
1%
-1%
0%
3%
-5%
5%
-1%
3%
2%
-3%
6%
-3%
-5%
2%
2%
-3%
-5%
0%
4%
-8%
-3%
2%
5%
-3%
2%
-3%
-6%
4%
5%
7%
-8%
0%
-3%
-3%
-2%
-3%
7%
4%
7%
6%
-3%
-6%
-7%
82%
80%
79%
79%
79%
78%
77%
77%
76%
76%
76%
76%
74%
74%
73%
73%
72%
72%
72%
72%
72%
72%
72%
71%
70%
69%
68%
68%
68%
68%
68%
67%
66%
66%
66%
66%
66%
65%
65%
65%
65%
65%
65%
64%
64%
64%
64%
63%
63%
63%
63%
62%
61%
61%
61%
61%
60%
59%
59%
58%
58%
58%
57%
56%
55%
55%
55%
55%
2%
-1%
3%
1%
-2%
3%
-2%
1%
-4%
6%
0%
-2%
2%
0%
4%
4%
10%
-1%
3%
4%
5%
-3%
1%
1%
1%
6%
2%
0%
4%
-9%
5%
3%
7%
5%
-1%
6%
-7%
-5%
2%
-3%
-3%
-4%
-2%
9%
-8%
-6%
2%
10%
2%
10%
-5%
-4%
6%
6%
3%
-10%
0%
3%
-3%
-1%
-3%
7%
6%
1%
7%
-4%
-8%
-10%
September 23, 2015
Proposed BEST Match Calculation Adjustments for the FY1617 Grant Cycle
DISTRICT
PARK RE-2
DOLORES COUNTY RE 2
GUNNISON RE1J
CALHAN RJ-1
ARICKAREE R-2
HOEHNE 3
AGUILAR 6
BRANSON 82
LIBERTY J-4
SCHOOL DISTRICT 27J
BYERS 32J
DENVER 1
SOUTH ROUTT RE 3
JULESBURG RE-1
PEYTON 23 JT
MANCOS RE-6
WILEY RE-13 JT
WALSH RE-1
HOLYOKE RE-1J
DEER TRAIL 26J
AGATE 300
NORWOOD R-2J
GREELEY 6
WIGGINS RE-50(J)
YUMA 1
NORTH PARK R-1
EADS RE-1
BURLINGTON RE-6J
KARVAL RE-23
HAXTUN RE-2J
LONE STAR 101
ENGLEWOOD 1
SALIDA R-32
CHEYENNE RE-5
PLAINVIEW RE-2
BRUSH RE-2(J)
PUEBLO CITY 60
WRAY RD-2
MAPLETON 1
ELBERT 200
FRENCHMAN RE-3
BUFFALO RE-4
DEL NORTE C-7
MCCLAVE RE-2
NORTH CONEJOS RE-1J
FLORENCE RE-2
LAKE R-1
CREEDE 1
WELDON VALLEY RE-20(J)
COTOPAXI RE-3
LA VETA RE-2
VALLEY RE-1
CRIPPLE CREEK-VICTOR RE-1
HARRISON 2
PUEBLO RURAL 70
CROWLEY RE-1-J
CONSOLIDATED C-1
FT. MORGAN RE-3
WOODLIN R-104
WEST END RE-2
SPRINGFIELD RE-4
STRATTON R-4
LAMAR RE-2
SILVERTON 1
ADAMS 14
GRANADA RE-1
ELLICOTT 22
BETHUNE R-5
PPAV = 5%
Household = 20%
FRED = 15%
Current Mill = 20%
Unreserved GF = 20%
Match
(last cycle Bond Cap = 20%
S1
S1 Diff
FY1516)
59%
57%
49%
45%
52%
45%
44%
43%
41%
45%
46%
64%
46%
51%
40%
49%
42%
49%
46%
43%
43%
47%
56%
49%
55%
47%
42%
44%
39%
36%
37%
50%
44%
44%
42%
51%
56%
48%
50%
29%
35%
31%
51%
43%
45%
46%
51%
45%
35%
44%
40%
45%
49%
50%
34%
44%
41%
47%
43%
41%
39%
33%
43%
40%
48%
38%
33%
35%
56%
53%
51%
50%
52%
50%
46%
45%
47%
52%
51%
57%
50%
47%
46%
50%
47%
48%
46%
47%
47%
49%
51%
49%
49%
46%
43%
44%
40%
40%
43%
45%
42%
43%
41%
44%
48%
46%
47%
39%
39%
37%
45%
41%
41%
42%
47%
44%
37%
41%
42%
42%
45%
44%
41%
40%
38%
43%
38%
38%
37%
37%
39%
36%
41%
35%
37%
36%
-3%
-4%
2%
5%
0%
5%
2%
2%
6%
7%
5%
-7%
4%
-4%
6%
1%
5%
-1%
0%
4%
4%
2%
-5%
0%
-6%
-1%
1%
0%
1%
4%
6%
-5%
-2%
-1%
-1%
-7%
-8%
-2%
-3%
10%
4%
6%
-6%
-2%
-4%
-4%
-4%
-1%
2%
-3%
2%
-3%
-4%
-6%
7%
-4%
-3%
-4%
-5%
-3%
-2%
4%
-4%
-4%
-7%
-3%
4%
1%
PPAV = 5%
Household = 15%
FRED = 20%
Mill = 20%
Unreserved GF = 20%
Bond Cap = 20%
PPAV = 5%
Household = 15%
FRED = 20%
Mill = 25%
Unreserved GF = 10%
Bond Cap = 25%
PPAV = 5%
Household = 15%
FRED = 25%
Mill = 20%
Unreserved GF = 20%
Bond Cap = 15%
S2
S2 Diff
S3
S3 Diff
S4
S4 Diff
56%
55%
53%
51%
52%
50%
49%
48%
48%
50%
50%
55%
50%
49%
47%
49%
47%
48%
47%
46%
46%
47%
50%
47%
48%
45%
44%
45%
42%
42%
43%
45%
43%
44%
43%
46%
48%
45%
46%
39%
40%
39%
45%
41%
42%
42%
45%
42%
39%
41%
41%
42%
44%
43%
40%
40%
40%
42%
39%
39%
37%
36%
39%
37%
40%
36%
34%
35%
-3%
-2%
4%
6%
0%
5%
5%
5%
7%
5%
4%
-9%
4%
-2%
7%
0%
5%
-1%
1%
3%
3%
0%
-6%
-2%
-7%
-2%
2%
1%
3%
6%
6%
-5%
-1%
0%
1%
-5%
-8%
-3%
-4%
10%
5%
8%
-6%
-2%
-3%
-4%
-6%
-3%
4%
-3%
1%
-3%
-5%
-7%
6%
-4%
-1%
-5%
-4%
-2%
-2%
3%
-4%
-3%
-8%
-2%
1%
0%
56%
56%
56%
51%
54%
53%
53%
52%
51%
47%
55%
52%
53%
47%
44%
51%
46%
48%
49%
51%
50%
48%
46%
50%
45%
48%
46%
45%
44%
40%
45%
40%
40%
48%
45%
45%
45%
44%
43%
38%
41%
38%
47%
41%
40%
39%
47%
41%
40%
45%
45%
39%
47%
38%
44%
40%
45%
38%
41%
42%
38%
41%
41%
41%
35%
35%
29%
38%
-3%
-1%
7%
6%
2%
8%
9%
9%
10%
2%
9%
-12%
7%
-4%
4%
2%
4%
-1%
3%
8%
7%
1%
-10%
1%
-10%
1%
4%
1%
5%
4%
8%
-10%
-4%
4%
3%
-6%
-11%
-4%
-7%
9%
6%
7%
-4%
-2%
-5%
-7%
-4%
-4%
5%
1%
5%
-6%
-2%
-12%
10%
-4%
4%
-9%
-2%
1%
-1%
8%
-2%
1%
-13%
-3%
-4%
3%
55%
54%
54%
53%
53%
52%
52%
52%
52%
51%
51%
51%
51%
50%
49%
49%
49%
48%
48%
47%
47%
47%
47%
46%
46%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
44%
44%
44%
44%
44%
44%
44%
43%
43%
43%
43%
43%
42%
42%
42%
42%
42%
42%
41%
41%
41%
41%
40%
40%
39%
39%
39%
39%
38%
37%
37%
37%
37%
36%
36%
35%
35%
-4%
-3%
5%
8%
1%
7%
8%
9%
11%
6%
5%
-13%
5%
-1%
9%
0%
7%
-1%
2%
4%
4%
0%
-9%
-3%
-9%
-2%
3%
1%
6%
9%
8%
-6%
0%
0%
2%
-7%
-12%
-4%
-7%
14%
8%
12%
-8%
-1%
-3%
-4%
-9%
-3%
7%
-3%
1%
-4%
-8%
-10%
6%
-5%
-2%
-8%
-4%
-3%
-2%
4%
-6%
-3%
-12%
-2%
2%
0%
September 23, 2015
Proposed BEST Match Calculation Adjustments for the FY1617 Grant Cycle
DISTRICT
GENOA-HUGO C113
LIMON RE-4J
PRITCHETT RE-3
CANON CITY RE-1
HUERFANO RE-1
ARRIBA-FLAGLER C-20
CHERAW 31
SWINK 33
LAS ANIMAS RE-1
TRINIDAD 1
DOLORES RE-4A
ROCKY FORD R-2
WESTMINSTER 50
CAMPO RE-6
ADAMS-ARAPAHOE 28-J
MANZANOLA 3J
SARGENT RE-33J
SANFORD 6J
SIERRA GRANDE R-30
EDISON 54 JT
MOUNTAIN VALLEY RE 1
AKRON R-1
EAST OTERO R-1
FOWLER R-4J
BIG SANDY 100J
SANGRE DE CRISTO RE-22J
VILAS RE-5
MIAMI-YODER 60 JT
OTIS R-3
CENTENNIAL R-1
IDALIA RJ-3
KIM 88
MOFFAT 2
ALAMOSA RE-11J
SHERIDAN 2
HI PLAINS R-23
HANOVER 28
HOLLY RE-3
SOUTH CONEJOS RE-10
MONTE VISTA C-8
REVERE RE-3
CENTER 26 JT
Max
Min
Average
PPAV = 5%
Household = 20%
FRED = 15%
Current Mill = 20%
Unreserved GF = 20%
Match
(last cycle Bond Cap = 20%
S1
S1 Diff
FY1516)
40%
34%
34%
35%
44%
32%
28%
27%
41%
41%
26%
39%
38%
35%
30%
31%
19%
21%
36%
16%
32%
21%
32%
23%
18%
22%
26%
20%
14%
31%
17%
25%
26%
27%
28%
21%
17%
21%
16%
15%
15%
6%
81%
6%
49%
35%
35%
34%
34%
36%
32%
34%
31%
35%
35%
30%
35%
36%
30%
30%
29%
24%
26%
31%
23%
28%
23%
28%
23%
23%
23%
25%
24%
19%
24%
22%
22%
21%
23%
22%
20%
21%
19%
13%
14%
14%
5%
81%
5%
49%
-5%
1%
0%
-1%
-8%
0%
6%
4%
-6%
-6%
4%
-4%
-2%
-5%
0%
-2%
5%
5%
-5%
7%
-4%
2%
-4%
0%
5%
1%
-1%
4%
5%
-7%
5%
-3%
-5%
-4%
-6%
-1%
4%
-2%
-3%
-1%
-1%
-1%
10%
-8%
0%
18%
PPAV = 5%
Household = 15%
FRED = 20%
Mill = 20%
Unreserved GF = 20%
Bond Cap = 20%
PPAV = 5%
Household = 15%
FRED = 20%
Mill = 25%
Unreserved GF = 10%
Bond Cap = 25%
PPAV = 5%
Household = 15%
FRED = 25%
Mill = 20%
Unreserved GF = 20%
Bond Cap = 15%
S2
S2 Diff
S3
S3 Diff
S4
S4 Diff
36%
35%
34%
35%
36%
33%
33%
32%
35%
35%
31%
35%
34%
31%
29%
29%
26%
26%
31%
25%
28%
24%
28%
25%
23%
23%
24%
23%
21%
24%
21%
22%
22%
23%
22%
20%
18%
18%
15%
14%
13%
5%
82%
5%
49%
-4%
1%
0%
0%
-8%
1%
5%
5%
-6%
-6%
5%
-4%
-4%
-4%
-1%
-2%
7%
5%
-5%
9%
-4%
3%
-4%
2%
5%
1%
-2%
3%
7%
-7%
4%
-3%
-4%
-4%
-6%
-1%
1%
-3%
-1%
-1%
-2%
-1%
10%
-9%
0%
19%
34%
36%
37%
38%
36%
33%
36%
28%
36%
37%
35%
35%
29%
32%
19%
30%
27%
22%
36%
26%
31%
24%
23%
25%
21%
23%
28%
19%
20%
24%
20%
20%
18%
20%
16%
18%
18%
14%
16%
14%
12%
5%
80%
5%
49%
-6%
2%
3%
3%
-8%
1%
8%
1%
-5%
-4%
9%
-4%
-9%
-3%
-11%
-1%
8%
1%
0%
10%
-1%
3%
-9%
2%
3%
1%
2%
-1%
6%
-7%
3%
-5%
-8%
-7%
-12%
-3%
1%
-7%
0%
-1%
-3%
-1%
11%
-13%
0%
24%
35%
35%
34%
34%
34%
34%
34%
34%
33%
33%
33%
33%
32%
31%
29%
29%
29%
28%
28%
28%
27%
27%
26%
26%
25%
24%
24%
24%
24%
23%
23%
22%
22%
21%
21%
21%
19%
18%
14%
14%
14%
5%
82%
5%
49%
-5%
1%
0%
-1%
-10%
2%
6%
7%
-8%
-8%
7%
-6%
-6%
-4%
-1%
-2%
10%
7%
-8%
12%
-5%
6%
-6%
3%
7%
2%
-2%
4%
10%
-8%
6%
-3%
-4%
-6%
-7%
0%
2%
-3%
-2%
-1%
-1%
-1%
14%
-13%
0%
27%
September 23, 2015
Public School Capital Construction Assistance Board Agenda Sheet
MEETING DATE: September 23, 2015
SUBJECT: Discuss the CCAB’s legislative priorities
TYPE: Action _
Information X .
BACKGROUND:
N/A
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Review and discuss the CCAB legislative platform and make any necessary changes or additions.
STAFF RECOMMENDED MOTION:
N/A
ATTACHMENTS:
CCAB Legislative Platform
Public School Capital Construction Assistance Board – Legislative
Platform 2015-16
CCAB Powers & Duties
The CCAB was established to protect the health and safety of students, teachers, and other persons using public
school facilities, and maximize student achievement by ensuring that the condition and capacity of public school
facilities are sufficient to provide a safe and un-crowded environment conducive to students’ learning. The CCAB
is to ensure the most equitable, efficient, and effective use of State revenues dedicated to provide financial
assistance for capital construction projects pursuant to C.R.S 22-43.7 by assessing public school capital
construction needs throughout the State and providing expert recommendations based on objective criteria to
the State Board regarding the appropriate prioritization and allocation of such financial assistance. Below is a
summary of the CCAB’s legislative objectives.
1st Objective
Topic: Raise the COP cap to allow the CCAB to fund a larger scope of facility needs.
Purpose: The CCAB supports raising the statutory cap for issuing Certificates of Participation (COPs). The CCAB
requests legislative support for raising the cap $5 - $10 million per year. Raising the cap by the requested
amount would allow for new construction or renovations of approximately $120-$200 million per year. The
CCAB will work with the Treasurer’s office and the CDC towards building a sustainable and predictable funding
stream, thus allowing districts to know, from year to year, that there is revenue for such projects. This is also
consistent with past amounts and practices, and the program has successfully completed projects in many
districts where, without the collaboration of the State, the projects would not have been completed. The
sources of funding for this would be the marijuana revenues, the State Land Trust revenue, and the State
Education Fund.
Accrual of deficiencies will be identified in the proposed reassessment. The expectation is that in spite of the
funding that has been invested in school capital construction recently, the assessment will show an increase in
the financial exposure associated with school condition.
The lack of a defined annual funding amount inhibits the CCAB mission to provide for quality facilities
throughout the state. Raising the COP cap, even with defined annual limits, will go a long way to adding
stability and a degree of certainty to the program; raising the cap will also allow for an increase in smaller
projects to be funded by cash receipts while larger ones would be covered through lease purchase. Without
increasing the COP cap, the program will continue to rely on royalties, rents, sales from the state school lands,
and the taxes associated with the sale of marijuana - an unpredictable income stream.
2nd Objective
Topic: Investigate statutory options for the Capital Construction Assistance Board’s powers and duties.
Purpose: Revise C.R.S. 22-43.7-106 to give the Board more authority and discretion; Revise C.R.S. 22-43.7-106(2)
to add additional authority to the Board to:
a) Accept gifts, promote and advocate for funding for the BEST program
b) Perform any and all acts necessary for the performance of its duties hereunder
2015-16 Future Legislative Objectives
•
Initiate a statewide ballot question specific to school facilities.
Capital Construction Assistance Board 2015-16
P a g e 1|1