Agenda Public School Capital Construction Assistance Board Meeting Vision

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
201 E. Colfax Ave., Room 101
Denver, CO 80203
February 25 , 2015
10:00 a.m.
Capital Construction Assistance Board Members
Lyndon Burnett – Chair
David Tadlock – Vice Chair
Cyndi Wright
I.
II.
III.
IV.
V.
VI.
VII.
VIII.
IX.
X.
XI.
XII.
XIII.
Tim Reed
Denise Pearson
Ken Haptonstall
Matt Throop
Karl Berg
Kathy Gebhardt
Call to Order
Pledge of Allegiance
Roll Call
Approve Agenda
Approve Previous Minutes from October 22nd, 2014 and January 28th, 2015 Meetings
Board Report
Director’s Report
a) Division Updates
b) Legislative Updates
Action Items
a) Review and approve proposed changes to BEST grant evaluation tool
Discussion Items
a) Discuss proposed changes to the grant waiver evaluation tool
b) Review the FY1314 Building Excellent Schools Today (BEST) Annual Report
c) Discuss the CCAB legislative platform
d) Discuss venue change for the May 19-20 BEST grant application evaluation meeting
Executive Session
a) The Public School Capital Construction Assistance Board may convene an executive session under
section 24-6-402(3)(a)(II), C.R.S. to receive legal advice on specific legal questions regarding the board’s
powers and duties
Future Meetings
• March 25th, 2015 – 10:00 a.m. Location: 201 E. Colfax Avenue, Room 101, Denver, CO 80203
• April 22nd, 2015 – 10:00 a.m. Location: 201 E. Colfax Avenue, Room 101, Denver, CO 80203
• May 19th-20th, 2015 – 8:30 a.m. Location: 10200 Wadsworth Blvd, Broomfield, CO 80021
Public Comment
Adjournment
All students in Colorado will become educated and productive citizens
capable of succeeding in a global society, in the workforce, and in life.
Every student, every step of the way
Read by
third grade
Start strong
Meet or
exceed standards
Graduate
ready
Date & Time:
Location:
October 22, 2014
1:00 p.m.
201 E. Colfax Ave.,
Denver, CO 80203
Capital Construction Assistance Board Members
Lyndon Burnett – Chair
Ken Haptonstall
Kathy Gebhardt
David Tadlock – Vice Chair
Denise Pearson
Tim Reed
Cyndi Wright
Karl Berg
Matt Throop
I.
Call to Order – 1:02 p.m.
II.
Pledge of Allegiance
III.
Roll Call: Lyndon Burnett, Karl Berg, Kathy Gebhardt, Denise Pearson, Tim Reed, David Tadlock, Matt Throop,
Cyndi Wright. CDE Staff Attendees: Scott Newell, Lola Underwood, Dustin Guerin, Cheryl Honigsberg, Kevin
Huber. BEST A.G.: Heidi Dineen
IV.
Approve Agenda

V.
Approve Previous Minutes from the September 16th and 24th, 2014 Meetings

VI.
The CCAB Chair asked for a motion to approve the agenda
o So moved by Cyndi Wright
o Karl Berg 2nd the motion
o Motion to approve the agenda as amended carried unanimously.
The CCAB Chair asked for a motion to approve the previous minutes from the September 16th and 24th,
2014 meetings
o So moved by Cyndi Wright
o Karl Berg 2nd the motion
o Discussion: The CCAB Chair asked that a couple of typographical errors be corrected
o Motion to approve the minutes as amended carried unanimously.
Board Report
The CCAB Chair informed the board that he visited Hi-Plains School District following their recent ribbon cutting
ceremony. He attended the Ellicott School District ribbon cutting ceremony with fellow CCAB member, Denise
Pearson. Board member Kathy Gebhardt told the CCAB she had attended the Western Slope Superintendents
meeting and participated on a panel while there. While on the panel, Ms. Gebhardt spoke about the BEST
program in an effort to garner support for the program’s forthcoming legislative agenda. Ms. Gebhardt also
spoke about the BEST program’s legislative agenda at the school finance project meeting.
VII.
Director’s Report
Scott Newell informed the CCAB of upcoming ribbon cuttings at the Rocky Mountain Deaf School on December
6th at 10:00 a.m. and Dolores School District in February. Mr. Newell told the CCAB that he had presented at the
recent Colorado Association of School Business Officials (CASBO) conference. He also informed the board of the
upcoming Green Schools Summit on November 14th and told them about the panel on which himself, the CCAB
Chair, and CCAB member Kathy Gebhardt would be sitting at the Colorado Association of School Boards (CASB)
conference on December 5th. Mr. Newell informed the board that the first edit of the BEST stakeholder video
was complete. The CCAB watched the video and responded with positive feedback.
VIII.
Action Items
a) Review and approve returning unused cash matching funds to Eagle County Charter School for their FY11-12
BEST Lease-Purchase grant – Scott Newell explained the language outlined in Eagle County Charter School
contract with the BEST grant as well as clarified the amount of their cash match remaining. He explained that
the CCAB needed to approve the return of the unused cash matching funds to Eagle County Charter School to
begin the process of returning the money to them.
 The CCAB Chair called for a motion to approve the return of unused cash matching funds to Eagle County
Charter School;
o So moved by Cyndi Wright
o Kathy Gebhardt 2nd the motion
o Motion to approve the return of unused cash matching funds to Eagle County Charter School carried
unanimously.
b) Adopt Resolution 14-1 instructing the State Treasurer pursuant to 22-43.7-110(2) C.R.S. to enter into one
lease-purchase agreement on behalf of the State to provide financial assistance to the BEST Lease-Purchase
project that was approved by the State Board on June 11, 2014, and has met the necessary requirements for
financing – Resolution 14-1 instructs the State Treasurer to enter into a lease-purchase agreement on
behalf of the State to provide financial assistance to the awarded BEST Lease-Purchase project. The
project has been recommended by the Capital Construction Assistance Board and authorized by the
State Board & the Capital Development Committee and is ready for financing. The CCAB Chair recited
Resolution 14-1. Heidi Dineen clarified that the funds for the projects will all come from one pot.
 The CCAB Chair called for a motion to adopt Resolution 14-1 instructing the State Treasurer pursuant to 2243.7-110(2) C.R.S. to enter into one lease-purchase agreement on behalf of the State to provide financial
assistance to the BEST Lease-Purchase project that was approved by the State Board on June 11, 2014;
o Kathy Gebhardt made a motion with a recommended change that the resolution be amended to
clarify that the Fort Morgan RE-3 project shall be paid from state excess proceeds.
o The CCAB Chair amended Resolution 14-1 to include the word “state” before “excess”: “The financial
assistance for the above Applicant and Project shall be paid from state excess proceeds of prior leasepurchase agreements…”
o David Tadlock 2nd the motion
o Motion to approve to adopt Resolution 14-1 instructing the State Treasurer pursuant to 22-43.7110(2) C.R.S. to enter into one lease-purchase agreement on behalf of the State to provide financial
assistance to the BEST Lease-Purchase project that was approved by the State Board on June 11, 2014
carried unanimously.
o The CCAB chair signed Resolution 14-1.
c) Review and approve the Capital Construction Assistance Board’s legislative platform – Scott Newell explained
to the CCAB that CCAB member Tim Reed’s comments had been added to the working legislative platform
document. Mr. Newell told the CCAB they could table the action item to approve the platform until a later
date or add to the document at the meeting. The CCAB Chair suggested holding a third legislative
subcommittee meeting to complete the platform. CCAB member Kathy Gebhardt suggested approving the
platform and modifying it at a third legislative subcommittee meeting. Ms. Gebhardt also suggested adding to
the second platform objective that aims to investigate statutory or rule changes for excise tax medical tax
free transfers.
Matt Samuelson of the Donnell KAY Foundation informed the CCAB of the findings of the Foundation’s
investigation into the marijuana excise tax statute and rules. Mr. Samuelson discussed the ambiguous
language of the statute and stated that seeking to change the language may provide an opportunity to close
the tax free, one-time transfer loophole. The CCAB discussed what the next steps could be and the potential
ramifications for the BEST program should action be taken to change the statute or rules to close the
loophole. CCAB member Tim Reed suggested pursuing a rule change rather than a statutory change.
However, Mr. Samuelson explained that it is a difficult process. He suggested adopting two strategies – both
rule and statutory changes – to improve the CCAB’s chances of closing the loophole permanently. The CCAB
Chair recommended the board to continue refining this objective.
Kathy Gebhardt asked that the purpose of the second objective, as currently drafted in the working legislative
platform document, be revised to more clearly articulate the CCAB’s purpose forclosing the marijuana excise
tax loophole in a timely manner. The CCAB Chair clarified the change made to the legislative platform.
 The CCAB Chair called for a motion to approve the Capital Construction Assistance Board’s legislative
platform as amended;
o So moved by Kathy Gebhardt
o David Tadlock 2nd the motion
o Motion to approve the Capital Construction Assistance Board’s legislative platform as amended
carried unanimously.
IX.
Discussion Items
a) Review redlined draft BEST Rules 1 CCR 303-3 – Scott Newell explained the proposed changes made to the
BEST rules to the CCAB, noting amendments to the board’s conflict of interest procedures, the grant
reserve policy, and the statutory changes that required amending the BEST emergency grant procedures.
Mr. Newell clarified the action to be taken by the CCAB to update the rules and outlined the next steps
involved in the rule making process.
b) Review proposed changes to Public School Facility Construction Guidelines 1 CCR 303-1 – Scott Newell
clarified that the revised construction guidelines document is almost entirely different to the previous
document and, as a result, a redline document wasn’t available. Mr. Newell explained the proposed
changes made to the construction guidelines, noting that the guidelines have been completely
restructured, codes had been updated, and documents incorporated by reference have been brought upto-date. Mr. Newell clarified that the data for the guidelines came from information gather by the
Cunningham Group from a national study they performed.. CCAB members Tim Reed and Karl Berg
provided feedback on the changes and Mr. Berg noted the absence of the International Building Code as a
reference in the document. Mr. Newell mentioned that one or two stakeholder webinars would be held to
collect further feedback and the Division was working towards a consensus among the community.
The CCAB called for a short recess at 1:59 p.m. The meeting commenced at 2:12 p.m.
c) Discuss treatment of remaining grantee project funds from closed BEST Lease-Purchase grant projects –
Scott Newell explained the current procedure regarding remaining grantee project funds from closed BEST
Lease-Purchase grant projects. Kathy Gebhardt stated that dollars raised locally should remain local. Mr.
Newell explained the current policy to apply remaining grantee Lease-Purchase project funds to the BEST’s
COP debt service. Kathy Gebhardt reiterated her desire for outside counsel to look at the current policy.
The CCAB discussed ways in which the policy could honor local commitment while not increasing the
state’s contribution. Heidi Dineen clarified the allowable uses for COP dollars. Ms. Dineen also noted that
remaining grantee moneys cannot come out of remaining COP bond proceeds and that statute dictates
that any cash grants from the program’s assistance fund can only be used for capital construction. Scott
Newell explained that moving forward new contract language would be required and would clarify the
different procedures regarding how matches are provided. Mr. Newell explained that matches provided in
cash can be returned whereas matches provided using a matching money bond cannot. Heidi Dineen
explained the role of matching money bonds in state borrowing.
Brett Johnson, deputy treasurer for the State of Colorado, explained the monetary obligation to grants held
by the state and its school districts. Mr. Johnson explained how the money is handled and the difficulties
associated with spending leftover borrowed funds. He explained that, unlike the State, school districts are
not part of the borrowing process or ultimately responsible for debt service payments. Heidi Dineen then
outlined an option the CCAB could consider to remedy this issue. She stated The Division of Capital
Construction can provide an alternative form of repayment to grantees in the form of a cash disbursement
from the assistance fund in lieu of refunding lease-purchase proceeds. The cash disbursement shall be
equal to the grantee’s remaining contribution from their completed lease-purchase project. Mr. Newell
said he would investigate this option and have a proposal drafted for the December CCAB meeting.
Charles Schultz spoke to the CCAB as a representative for Park County RE-2. Mr. Schultz encouraged the
CCAB to return unspent funds to school districts for additional capital construction projects. He also
thanked the CCAB for continuing to investigate the issue and expressed how encouraged he was by the
board’s actions. Mr. Schultz explained to the board that, due to a two-year delay in funding, the
construction costs for the Park County RE-2 project increased by 4%. Mr. Schultz asserted that these
inflated prices meant the project’s scope had to be reduced. Mr. Schultz gave the example of the school
track that wasn’t properly completed due to increased construction costs and is now deteriorating. Mr.
Schultz suggested that, with the return of unspent lease-purchase funds, schools would then be able to
finish projects, such as Park County’s track, that were value engineered out of the original project scope
due to budgetary constraints. He appealed to the board to continue investigating ways in which unspent
funds could be returned to the school districts. Mr. Schultz expressed his gratitude for the BEST program
and his pride in Park County’s new school.
Brian Christensen, Superintendent for Akron School District R-1, expressed his gratitude to the CCAB for
Akron’s new school building. Mr. Christensen told the CCAB he and project team had misunderstood the
borrowing process involved in Lease-Purchase grants and initially believed any unspent Lease-Purchase
proceeds would be returned to Akron School District. Mr. Christensen explained the financial breakdown of
grantee/State portions lead him to understand that remaining local dollars would be returned to local tax
payers. Mr. Christensen explained to the CCAB that he came before the board seeking clarification
regarding the unspent Lease-Purchase proceeds policy and procedures
CCAB member Matt Throop asked Mr. Schultz to explain the problems Park County had encountered with
the unfinished track. Mr. Schultz explained that the final bid from the contractor made the project cost
larger than the amount budgeted for the grant application, prompting certain items to be removed from
the scope, including the finish on the track. Mr. Schultz explained the surface of the track had a cost of
approximately $140,000 at the time and that cost had steadily increased between 2011 and 2014. Mr.
Schultz reiterated that other items had to be cut from the scope also. Mr. Schultz clarified that some of the
items removed from the scope of the project cannot be included now. The CCAB chair discussed cost
overruns with Mr. Schultz.
CCAB Vice-Chair David Tadlock asked Mr. Christensen what the school district would do with the remaining
Lease-Purchase grantee project funds if they were returned. Mr. Christensen explained they would be
applied to the bond. The CCAB Chair explained the policies surrounding bonds and investors for their
bonds. The CCAB Chair told Mr. Christensen he was unsure of the board’s options regarding unspent funds,
reiterating that it was a complicated issue that the CCAB would investigate further.
Kathy Gebhardt inquired about other projects with remaining funds and the possibility of those funds being
allocated to items that were previously in the initial scopes for each project. Mr. Newell explained that
there are likely other projects that fall into that category. Mr. Newell explained that some of the items
removed from original project scopes did not qualify as acceptable capital construction needs for grant
reserve funds, which had prompted the Division to revisit current grant reserve policy. Denise Pearson
asked for further information regarding project scope/items for the projects with unspent funds.
Scott Newell posed potential options for returning remaining grantee project funds, namely returning the
money to the district’s tax payers, shortening the life of the project’s debt service, or the award of a cash
grant to be used for further capital construction needs associated with the original grant project. Mr.
Christensen told Mr. Newell and the CCAB that anything that would of benefit to the taxpayers would be
welcomed.
David Tadlock asked if closed projects could be reopened. Mr. Newell clarified that closed Lease-Purchase
grant projects could not be reopened and, while cash grant projects could be reopened, it was a difficult
process.
Mr. Newell and the CCAB Chair explained that although no more Lease-Purchase grants would be awarded
until the COP cap is increased, positive changes are being made to the BEST grant process to more greatly
benefit future grantees.
Scott Newell clarified that cash grants are a plausible option for returning unspent Lease-Purchase
proceeds for closed projects.
X.
Public Comment
Kirk Banghart, Superintendent for Moffatt School District, updated the CCAB on the status of Moffatt’s BEST
project. Mr. Banghart explained the status of Moffat’s BEST project remained unchanged since his last
presentation to the CCAB. Mr. Banghart encouraged the board to fully explore any possible action to be taken at
the December CCAB meeting that would help Moffat’s school board figure out their next steps regarding
pursuing a supplemental BEST grant. Mr. Banghart asked for the CCAB’s help in providing reassurances to his
board regarding their uncompleted and over-budget project, and in presenting other options besides applying
for a supplemental grant.
Cindy Compton, Director at Swallows Charter Academy extended an invitation to the board to visit the charter
school.
XI.
Adjournment
 The CCAB Chair called for a motion to adjourn;
o So moved by Matt Throop
o Kathy Gebhardt 2nd the motion;
o Motion to adjourn carried unanimously;
o Meeting adjourned 3:11 p.m.
Public School Capital Construction Assistance Board Meeting Minutes
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:
201 E. Colfax Ave., Rm 101
Denver, CO 80203
th
January 28 , 2015
10:00 a.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 – 10:01 a.m.
II.
Pledge of Allegiance
III.
Roll Call: Lyndon Burnett, David Tadlock, Karl Berg, Kathy Gebhardt, Ken Haptonstall, Denise Pearson,
Tim Reed, Matt Throop, Cyndi Wright. CDE Staff Attendees: Scott Newell, Dustin Guerin, Cheryl
Honigsberg, Jay Hoskinson, Kevin Huber, Paul Reynolds, Lola Underwood
IV.
Approve Agenda
•
V.
Approve Previous Minutes from October 22nd and December 5th, 2014 Meetings
•
VI.
The CCAB Chair called for a motion to approve the agenda
o So moved by David Tadlock
o Ken Haptonstall 2nd the motion
o Motion to approve the agenda carried unanimously.
The CCAB Chair called for a motion to approve the previous minutes from the October 22nd and
December 5th, 2014 meetings
o So moved by Tim Reed
o Cyndi Wright 2nd the motion
o Discussion: The CCAB Chair informed the board that some minor grammatical errors had been
fixed. Kathy Gebhardt asked that the October 22nd, 2014 minutes be tabled until the February
meeting to give the CCAB more time to review the document.
o Tim Reed made a motion to approve the December 5th, 2014 minutes
o Motion to approve the December 5th, 2014 minutes carried unanimously.
Board Report
Matt Throop informed the CCAB he had a “walk –through” of Ouray school district’s new building with
the district’s superintendent.
The CCAB Chair informed the board he had visited the Ft. Lupton ribbon cutting ceremony on December
8th, 2014, along with CDE staff member, Cheryl Honigsberg. The CCAB Chair expressed the community’s
excitement regarding the new school building addition and historic renovation.
The CCAB Chair informed the board that he had seen the Colorado Lottery video of the Rocky Mountain
Deaf School opening, featuring CCAB member Tim Reed, Executive Director of Facilities and Construction
for Jefferson County Public Schools. Lola Underwood informed the CCAB that the Lottery video is
available on the Division website homepage.
The CCAB chair told the CCAB he had presented Resolution 14-2, which addresses the one-time, tax-free
transfer language in marijuana excise tax statute, as a discussion item to the State Board of Education at
their January meeting. Mr. Burnett clarified the resolution would be presented as an action item at their
February meeting. Mr. Burnett explained one State Board member voiced he would not support the
resolution as he felt an insufficient amount of money had been lost due to the tax-free transfer language
to warrant pursuing a statutory change. Mr. Burnett informed the CCAB that Senator Steadman would
be running a bill on Monday, February 2nd to change the current language in statute regarding marijuana
excise tax and one-time, tax-free transfers from medicinal to recreational facilities. The CCAB chair
clarified that approximately $5 million of revenue had been lost due to the tax-free transfers. He
expressed that the resolution had the support of most of the State Board.
Tim Reed informed the CCAB he attended the Sheridan ES ribbon cutting ceremony on December 20th,
2014. Mr. Reed commended Cyndi Wright and Cheryl Honigsberg for doing a great job, noting that the
new building was an outstanding facility.
Kathy Gebhardt informed the CCAB she attended the Northern Superintendent’s meeting and spoke
about the BEST program and the CCAB’S legislative platform. Ms. Gebhardt told the board that she
encountered a lot of support for the platform, especially the board’s plans to raise the COP cap. The
CCAB Chair reiterated Ms. Gebhardt’s comments that there is a lot of support and discussion
surrounding ways to raise the COP cap, particularly methods that would allow for a self-sustaining fund.
The CCAB Chair voiced his concern that the additional money may end up funding public school finance
rather than being used for school capital construction. The CCAB chair told the board that he is
encouraged by the progress being made with the board’s legislative agenda. Kathy Gebhardt stressed
the importance of having the support of CASB, as the organization has a far-reaching influence
throughout the educational environment. The CCAB Chair acknowledged he has experienced a positive
response from all who have interacted with and been affected by the BEST program.
VII.
Director’s Report
Scott Newell informed the CCAB the BEST grant application opened on January 5th, 2015, and 26
applications are in the system as of January 28th, 2015, 10 of which are charter schools. Mr. Newell
outlined the grant application process, explaining that the grant application closes at the end of
February, at which point the application review process begins. Mr. Newell informed the board that he
expected the number of applications in the system to steadily increase within the coming weeks.
Scott Newell informed the CCAB the Division’s annual report is due to the House and Senate Education
and Finance committees on February 15th, 2015. Mr. Newell informed the CCAB that all previous reports
are available on the Division website. Mr. Newell clarified the report indicates how much the Division is
recommending the JBC appropriate for BEST grants this year. Mr. Newell clarified the amount is
approximately $50 million, based on five-year projections from the State Land Trust, Colorado Lottery,
and marijuana excise tax revenues. Mr. Newell explained the State Land Board had provided updated
figures indicating the program would receive approximately $89 million from the State Land Trust, an
amount significantly lower than the projected $120 million. Mr. Newell went on to explain that the
figures for next year are estimated at $72 million. Mr. Newell told the CCAB he had met with the
Colorado Lottery commissioners to talk about the BEST program. Mr. Newell explained the Lottery’s
revenues are down, meaning the program is forecast to receive approximately $700,000 from the
Colorado Lottery. Mr. Newell explained that marijuana excise tax revenue is trending up, resulting in
approximately $16.5 million dollars in funding for the BEST program.
Scott Newell informed the CCAB of Ft. Morgan’s expected closure on February 5th, 2015 due to the
anticipated blizzard which closed the bond markets early. Mr. Newell explained how the bond markets
closing early pushed Ft. Morgan’s closing back to February 12th, 2015. Mr. Newell clarified funds would
be available for Ft. Morgan after February 12th and that the district continues to make progress with
their project.
Scott Newell informed the CCAB that Deputy State Treasurer Brett Johnson left the State Treasurer’s
Office for a job at CDOT. Mr. Newell informed the board he had met with Mr. Johnson’s replacement,
Jonathan Forbes. Mr. Newell explained that Mr. Forbes is very focused on education and believes there
are ways to potentially allow the BEST program to finance more without raising the COP cap. Mr. Newell
informed the board that he and Mr. Forbes would continue to work together on that matter.
Scott Newell informed the CCAB he spoken with Jennifer Mello, Legislative Liaison for the Colorado
Department of Education, regarding the process for this legislative session. Mr. Newell informed the
board that Ms. Mello would come to the CCAB’s monthly meetings to provide a legislative update, as
well as track any bills that may directly affect BEST, such as the current Wind for Schools bill.
Scott Newell informed the CCAB he had spoken to Craig about the State Assessment, who had suggested
a line item in the School Finance bill that would allow BEST to updated the assessment and bring on 6
FTE to update the data. Mr. Newell explained that the proposal was moving along. Mr. Newell outlined
the main points of the proposed plan to update the assessment, including restructuring the Division’s
database with valuable data points that could be categorized and/or extracted from district’s systems
and databases, how to administer the assessment, and how to perform quality control on updates from
school districts, as well as the RFP process. Mr. Newell clarified that a subcommittee of experts would
probably be formed to devise and agree upon the final structure of the database. Mr. Newell further
clarified that due to the size of the assessment project, the Division would eventually go through the
involved process of state procurement.
Denise Pearson joined the meeting at 10:25 a.m.
Scott Newell provided the CCAB with an update regarding returning closed lease-purchase proceeds to
districts, explaining they were making sure all pieces of the process fit together adequately and feasibly.
Mr. Newell explained that he is hoping to have the process finalized within the coming weeks, at which
point the application process for remaining Lease-Purchase proceeds could begin.
Scott Newell clarified that the Wind for Schools bill - SB 15-063 aimed to modify and expand existing
statutory language in order to expand the Wind for Schools program. Mr. Newell said he would provide
the board with more information about the bill.
The CCAB chair noted the proposed changes to the assessment seem to be well received and that the
proposal is largely understood as a reasonable and financially feasible solution.
Denise Pearson informed the CCAB she had had dinner with some superintendents, the lobbyist for the
East Central BOCES, and Senators Hill, Merrifield, and Woods, to talk about the East Central BOCES
legislative agenda. Ms. Pearson explained Senator Hill spoke about using the $40 million in marijuana
excise tax revenues to boost general education funding since he knew of a $102 million school built
approximately 20 years ago that sat empty. Ms. Pearson told the CCAB she informed Senator Hill that
the BEST program was not involved with that school, and that she and Frank Reeves, superintendent of
Genoa-Hugo school district, explained to Senator Hill the necessity of the BEST program, especially for
small school districts. The CCAB chair noted he would try to make an appointment with Senator Hill to
try remedy any reservations Senator Hill may have about the BEST program.
Denise Pearson informed the CCAB she had talked to the East Central BOCES about one line in their
legislative platform that voices support for the BEST program. Ms. Pearson explained the East Central
BOCES are willing to expand their platform to include the first two or three items in the CCAB legislative
platform.
VIII.
Discussion Items
a) Review and discuss the Genoa-Hugo C113 school district grant reserve request – Scott Newell
reminded the CCAB of the details surrounding the Genoa-Hugo abatement issue presented to the
board at the December 2014 meeting. Mr. Newell informed the CCAB that he had spoken with
Ninyo and Moore per the board’s request. Mr. Newell clarified that there was a miscommunication
between the parties involved, and that the project’s owner’s representative had misstated facts.
Mr. Newell clarified that, initially, the grant reserve was not approved due to the Division’s
understanding that the issue could not be categorized as unknown and unforeseen. Contrary to the
Division’s initial understanding of the issue, Mr. Newell clarified Ninyo and Moore had performed
their job as expected and in compliance with regulations. He explained that Ninyo and Moore
found that abatement work did not need to be performed. He explained the Department of Health
had visited the building site and requested that the work be done regardless. He explained that in
this scenario, the issue does qualify as an unknown and unforeseen circumstance, thus allowing
Genoa-Hugo to access their grant reserve through the BEST program. Mr. Newell clarified GenoaHugo had spent approximately $5,000 on legal fees that would be covered with the grant reserve.
Mr. Newell clarified the district would be receiving funding from grant reserves to the amount of
$280,000, thus covering the entire cost of the issue, rather than the $107,000 the district had
initially requested.
b) Discuss the board’s legislative priorities – The CCAB Chair reiterated the board’s earlier discussion
regarding their legislative priorities for Denise Pearson, namely updates regarding the assessment
piece of the platform and the marijuana excise tax language changes.
Kathy Gebhardt requested that the legislative subcommittee meet to discuss gaining support for an
increase in the program’s COP cap, and that the issue be added to the February meeting agenda as
an action item. The CCAB Chair responded that he would prefer the assessment piece and School
Finance bill be approved before the board took robust action elsewhere. With regard to pursuing
an increase in the COP cap, the CCAB Chair stated his belief that having the assessment piece in
place would give the board a stronger leg to stand on. He clarified that he did not wish for the
board to wait too long before pursuing their objective to raise the COP cap. The CCAB Chair
clarified that the legislative subcommittee could still meet, but that it would be preferable to wait
to take action on another of the board’s legislative objectives. He clarified that the CCAB could
move forward with the assessment piece while still having a conversation about raising the COP
cap. Kathy Gebhardt encouraged the CCAB to pay attention to the Long bill and how that may
potentially affect the School Finance bill. The CCAB Chair clarified that the board would have a
better idea of the success of the assessment piece by approximately late April. Kathy Gebhardt
voiced her concerns about waiting to take action on raising the COP cap and stated the board
should adopt a specific position on the matter. Ms. Gebhardt also explained that the assessment
piece and raising the COP cap are legislative priorities reliant on two different revenue streams.
The board clarified that the assessment would use general fund dollars. Mr. Newell clarified that
the new Deputy State Treasurer Jonathan Forbes seemed in favor of the board’s suggestion to
support the assessment using a tiered approach utilizing marijuana dollars first, followed by State
Land Trust money, which would then be backed by the general fund.
Scott Newell suggested the CCAB invite Jonathan Forbes to the legislative subcommittee in
February and/or the February 25th CCAB meeting to discuss his thoughts on potential methods for
raising the COP cap.
c) Discuss the school district match percentage changes – Kathy Gebhardt informed the CCAB she had
attended the Northern Superintendents meeting where she was approached regarding increases in
some school district’s minimum match percentages. Scott Newell clarified that school districts were
informed of the amount of their match in early December as has been the case in previous years.
Mr. Newell explained the Division’s regional program managers explained to their districts that,
with the statutory changes involved in this year’s match calculations, they should anticipate a
potential increase or decrease in their minimum match percentage. Mr. Newell clarified that a
comparison of last year’s and this year’s matches illustrated more than half of the matches
decreased this year’s, while some increased substantially and others’ decreased substantially. Mr.
Newell clarified that school districts were aware of the potential changes to their minimum match
percentages well in advance of the final numbers being released. Mr. Newell clarified that the
median match is still around 50%. Mr. Newell clarified the new calculations were weighted for all
new applications, including those districts reapplying for a grant that was not awarded last year.
Mr. Newell clarified that of the factors included in the match calculations, those that are better
representations of a school district’s financial capacity were weighted more heavily than other
metrics, such as free and reduced lunch, PPAV, and median household income that don’t directly
relate to a school district’s ability to provide matching funds.
Scott Newell discussed revisions made to the waiver application, as well as to the instructions for
applicants pursuing a waiver, that would help facilitate the statutory changes. Mr. Newell
explained how the first three questions of the waiver application would allow the school district or
charter school to describing how providing the required match would be detrimental to the school,
or how receiving a waiver would relieve some of the school’s financial obligations. Mr. Newell
explained the application had been changed to encourage more thorough explanations of an
applicant’s reasons for not being able to meet their required match, as well as to give the applicant
an avenue through which to explain how the statutory changes to the match calculation do not
appropriately represent the school’s financial capacity.
Scott Newell clarified that the match subcommittee made the decision to weight the factors. Kathy
Gebhardt voiced her concerns regarding how well heavily weighting bond capacity works for cash
grants versus Lease Purchase grants. Scott Newell requested that any changes the CCAB wishes to
make to the match calculation be performed in the summer rather than mid-grant cycle. Mr.
Newell used Ken Haptonstall’s school district as an example for smaller districts being able to bond
for larger projects and use some of that money as part of a match for smaller BEST projects. Mr.
Newell explained that, in that example, Dr. Haptonstall’s district did have bonding capacity which
they were able to use, which demonstrates how a district’s bonding capacity should affect its
minimum match.
Tim Reed stated that the new minimum match percentages came out as intended, with most small
districts experiencing a reduction in the minimum match and most large districts experiencing an
increase.
Scott Newell clarified that a school district can explain their inability to bond using the waiver
process, and that the waiver application gives schools the opportunity to thoroughly explain the
reason(s) for their waiver request. Tim Reed stated the matching spreadsheet should look for the
most objective method while the waiver process allows for subjectivity.
The CCAB Chair explained the revisions to the waiver application specifically address the audit
comments.
Kathy Gebhardt stated her concern that potential changes in the match were not well-enough
communicated to school districts prior to the official minimum match percentages being released.
Scott Newell clarified that the board could add an action item to the February meeting to review
and approve revisions made to the waiver application, but that while the instructions for the
waiver process have changed, the content has not. Mr. Newell explained the waiver applications
and instructions for completing it are already posted on the Division website. Mr. Newell reassured
the CCAB that the Division continues to communicate often with school districts and charter
schools regarding all aspects of the grant application. The CCAB Chair requested that Scott Newell
provide an update regarding the waiver at the February meeting.
The CCAB Chair called for a short recess at 11:15 a.m. The meeting reconvened at 11:20 a.m.
d) Review and discuss proposed changes to the grant application evaluation tool – Scott Newell
explained to the CCAB changes had been made to the grant application evaluation tool based on
feedback from both the board and grant applicants. Mr. Newell explained he wanted to ensure the
changes to the evaluation tool were addressed early to ensure grant applicants could review the
tool as soon as possible. Mr. Newell explained an action item to approve the updated grant
application evaluation tool would be included on the February agenda. Mr. Newell clarified the
majority of revisions made to the evaluation tool were syntactical in order to elicit more thorough,
informative responses. Mr. Newell clarified some questions were deleted while new questions
were added. Mr. Newell clarified the evaluation tool included Division comments in lieu of a
supplemental book. Mr. Newell walked through the redline document of the revised evaluation
tool with the CCAB so they could see where the changes occurred. He explained the changes to the
tool allowed for more consistent prioritization of projects i.e. looking at the project’s scope rather
than it’s assumed worth. He explained that the FCI and CFI were combined into one question as
both factors dealt with the same evaluation, while a question regarding due diligence was added to
that section. Mr. Newell explained potential approaches to projects without assessments, clarifying
that some universal score needed to be agreed upon so as not to penalize those projects. Mr.
Newell clarified the Division had discussed potentially giving projects without assessments a score
equal to the average score for that question, or to give such projects a neutral score of five.
Scott Newell explained to the board that most changes had been made to the evaluation tool
section addressing financial capacity, and that it was, admittedly, a difficult section to evaluate,
especially when evaluated alongside a match calculation that presumably paints a clear picture of a
school district’s or charter school’s financial ability. Mr. Newell explained the questions addressing
financial capacity are intended to look at an applicant’s financial ability regarding their proposed
project through evaluating their financial resources rather than their calculated matching fund. Mr.
Newell asked the CCAB if they would be agreeable to changing the “matching fund” language in the
Financial Capacity section to “resources”. The CCAB agreed to a change in the language.
Regarding the question about an applicant’s contributions to a capital reserve type fund versus
their general fund expenditures, Scott Newell explained the possibility of the Division calculating a
range to determine what counts as a suitable contribution. Ken Haptonstall discussed school
auditors warning against keeping or contributing to a capital reserve fund due to statutory changes
against it. Scott Newell explained that schools who had a capital reserve type fund but who were
no longer contributing to said fund and had a remaining balance at the time statute changed would
still have their reserve balance taken into account. Mr. Newell explained the Division would be
discussing the matter with applicants prior to the grant evaluation meeting in order to create
constructive comments for the CCAB on the evaluation sheet, unless the board had other
recommendations of how to address that question. The CCAB Chair explained that capital reserve
funds were originally intended to prolong the life of a school building by addressing small problems
are they arose yet the recent economic environment has made it increasingly difficult to maintain
such a fund. The CCAB chair suggested leaving the question as it is currently stated and simply
remaining aware of the potential circumstances or issues regarding capital reserve type funds for
schools. Scott Newell suggested changing the question entirely to include language pertaining to
capital expenditures or capital expenditures planning. Denise Pearson suggested requesting
applicants explain how they maintain their buildings. Ms. Pearson also discussed whether fiscal
warnings were an appropriate measure for charters. Scott Newell explained there would still be an
evaluation of the financial structure for charter schools. Mr. Newell explained that evaluation of a
charter school’s financial structure was not presented in the evaluation criteria in the evaluation
tool as the evaluation tool must be uniform for every applicant. Mr. Newell explained the
information would be presented as a data point on the application instead. Mr. Newell explained
for charter schools, the Division collected additional data points including who owns the building
and criteria pertaining to the lease structure of a charter school building. Mr. Newell explained the
Division added an additional data point for charter schools this year regarding funding received by
charter schools from alternative sources. Tim Reed reiterated and supported Denise Pearson’s
suggestion that applicants be asked to explain what they are doing to take care of their buildings.
Scott Newell explained an applicant’s expenditures/expenditure planning needs to be an
evaluation criterion, and to facilitate Denise Pearson’s suggestion, the Division would compile a
range through which the CCAB could rank the pool of applicants and determine whether or not the
school was providing a suitable amount. Paul Reynolds clarified that the questions asked and the
information sought after through the Financial Capacity section of the evaluation tool could be
continually revisited and revised based on what was useful and was not. Matthew Throop
recommended rewording the question regarding an applicant’s contributions to a capital reserve
type fund to read “The applicant is contributing a suitable amount for capital needs”. The CCAB and
Scott Newell agreed the suggested language allowed for evaluation.
Scott Newell explained the section regarding whether or not a project was recommended had
changed and would require an explanation why a project had not been recommended.
Scott Newell explained it was difficult to determine what is considered the standard square footage
cost on a typical project as it varies from region to school type. Mr. Newell explained the Division
has the relevant data but is trying to avoid using that data as an evaluation point. Mr. Newell
clarified the Division staff will make notes regarding whether or not a project’s square footage cost
is appropriate. Mr. Newell clarified there are safeguards in place to ensure a fair application
process.
Scott Newell clarified that although school districts are not required to adhere to the construction
guidelines, statute dictates that compliance with the construction guidelines will be considered
when applying for a BEST grant. Mr. Newell clarified that a district does not have to adhere to the
construction guidelines in order to be considered for a BEST grant, but they must explain how they
comply with the construction guidelines or why they do not comply the constructions guidelines.
Mr. Newell explained to the CCAB that the League of Charter Schools is seeking to change language
in the statute regarding the construction guidelines they feel currently penalizes grant applicants
from charter schools. Mr. Newell informed the CCAB he thinks creating a separate competitive
grant solely for charter schools may be a better solution.
Scott Newell clarified that a project still needs a majority vote in order to be recommended to the
State Board of Education for award.
e) Discuss venues for the May 19-20 BEST Grant application evaluation meetings – Scott Newell asked
the CCAB if they would be happy to use the Adams 12 Conference Center again for the grant
evaluation meetings or if they would prefer an alternative venue. The CCAB Chair expressed his
satisfaction with the Adams 12 facility, explaining the facility works well for the grant meetings and
giving his support for using the venue again. Kathy Gebhardt agreed with the CCAB Chair’s
assessment of the Adams 12 facility.
Kathy Gebhardt left the meeting at 12:00 p.m.
IX.
Future Meetings
•
•
•
February 25, 2015 - 1:00 p.m. Location: 201 E. Colfax Avenue, Room 101, Denver, CO 80203
March 25, 2015 - 1:00 p.m. Location: 201 E. Colfax Avenue, Room 101, Denver, CO 80203
April 22, 2015 - 2:00 p.m. Location: 201 E Colfax Avenue, Room 101, Denver, CO 80203
Scott Newell informed the CCAB that scheduling conflict with the State Board of Education
necessitated that the February, March, and April CCAB meetings be held from 10:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m.
in lieu of their usual running time of 1:00 p.m. to 3:30 p.m.
X.
Public Comment
There was no public comment.
XI.
Adjournment
• The CCAB Chair called for a motion to adjourn
o So moved by David Tadlock
o Ken Haptonstall 2nd the motion
o Motion to adjourn carried unanimously; Meeting adjourned 12:08 p.m.
Division of Capital Construction
PUBLIC SCHOOL CAPITAL CONSTRUCTION ASSISTANCE BOARD AGENDA SHEET
MEETING DATE:
February 25, 2015
SUBJECT:
Approve and adopt proposed changes to the grant application evaluation tool
TYPE:
Action X
Information
BACKGROUND (Include any statutory authority):
In response to feedback from stakeholders, and members of the CCAB during the board’s lessons learned
meetings, the Division has revised the BEST grant application evaluation tool.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Approve and adopt proposed changes to the grant application evaluation tool.
STAFF RECOMMENDED MOTION (If this is an action item)
I move to adopt the proposed changes to the grant application evaluation tool.
ATTACHMENTS:
FY2015-16 Proposed Grant Application Evaluation Tool
Applicant:
Project Name:
FY2015-16 BEST Grant Application Evaluation Tool
Board Member:
Grant Application Statutory Need
Pursuant to 22-43.7-109(5) C.R.S., the board shall prioritize applications that describe public school facility capital
construction projects deemed eligible for financial assistance based on the following criteria, in descending order of
importance:
Priority 1 This application addresses safety hazards or health concerns at existing public school facilities, including
concerns relating to public school facility security.
Priority 2 This application will relieve overcrowding in public school facilities, including but not limited to allowing
students to move from temporary instructional facilities into permanent facilities.
Priority 3 This application is to incorporate technology into the educational environment.
Priority 4 This application is for other types of capital improvements not addressed in priorities 1-3.
Division Comments: After review of the application, the division would consider this project a priority ___.
After Review of the Application, the Evaluator would Consider this Application a Priority:
(Optional Evaluator Comments & Notes)
Grant Application Scoring Key
Strongly Disagree
Somewhat Disagree
Neutral
Somewhat Agree
Strongly Agree
1-2
3-4
5-6
7-8
9-10
Review each section below and provide a score for each question based on your review of the application.
Conditions of the Entire Public School Facility
Division Comments:
Evaluator Review of Conditions of the Entire Public School Facility
The FCI and CFI support the scope of the proposed project.
The facility assessment supports the scope of the project.
The due diligence performed by the applicant supports the scope of the project.
Score 1-10 for Each
Total out of 30:
(Optional Evaluator Comments & Notes)
Financial Capacity
Division Comments:
Evaluator Review of Financial Capacity
Score 1-10 for Each
The amount of matching funds provided by the applicant is appropriate.
The applicant has made efforts to collaborate with outside partners to provide resources for
the project.
The applicant is contributing a suitable amount towards the capital needs of their facilities.
Total out of 30:
(Optional Evaluator Comments & Notes)
Proposed 150128
FY2015-16 BEST Grant Application Evaluation Tool
Project Proposal
Division Comments:
Evaluator Review of Project Proposal
Score 1-10 for Each
The deficiencies presented by the applicant are compelling and clearly noted within the
application.
The solution presented by the applicant resolves all deficiencies noted within the application.
The scope of work proposed in the solution appears to be reasonable and well planned.
The project is urgent in nature.
Total out of 40:
(Optional Evaluator Comments & Notes)
Other Application Considerations
Division Comments:
Evaluator Review of Other Application Considerations
Score 1-10 for Each
The project complies with the BEST Construction Guidelines.
The cost, cost per SF, and/or cost per pupil seem appropriate and supportable.
The SF of the project and/or SF per pupil seem reasonable and supportable.
The applicant is willing to pursue a fair, competitive, and transparent selection process for
contractors and consultants.
Total out of 40:
(Optional Evaluator Comments & Notes)
Grand Total of All Scores:
Evaluator Recommendation to Shortlist this Application (Check One)
Recommended to Shortlist
Not Recommended to Shortlist
If the Application is Not Recommended to the Shortlist, Please Provide the Evaluator’s Justification
Evaluator Notes Section for Information Only
Proposed 150128
Division of Capital Construction
PUBLIC SCHOOL CAPITAL CONSTRUCTION ASSISTANCE BOARD AGENDA SHEET
MEETING DATE:
February 25, 2015
SUBJECT:
Discuss proposed changes to the grant waiver evaluation tool
TYPE:
Action
Information X
BACKGROUND (Include any statutory authority):
In order to reflect the changes made to the grant waiver application, the Division has proposed revisions to
the grant waiver evaluation tool.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Discuss and review the proposed changes made to the grant waiver evaluation tool.
STAFF RECOMMENDED MOTION (If this is an action item)
N/A
ATTACHMENTS:
Grant Waiver Evaluation Tool Redline Draft
BEST Grant Waiver Evaluation Tool for School Districts and BOCES
Board Member: __________________________
The BEST grant is a matching grant. Each applicant is assigned a unique minimum matching requirement, based on the
factors outlined in statute, to identify financial capacity. An applicant may apply to the Capital Construction Assistance
Board for a waiver or reduction of the matching moneys requirement for their project if the applicant determines the
minimum match is not reflective of their current financial capacity.
Please review the applicant’s waiver application responses. Answer the questions below by marking each response with
a yes or no. Be sure to look at the specifics when reviewing each question and evaluate the applicant’s explanation to
the issues and impacts that make it impossible for the applicant to make its full matching contribution.
Yes No N/A -
The response demonstrated a high need for a reduction in the match contribution
The response did not demonstrate sufficient need for a reduction in the applicant’s match requirement
The applicant did not provide a response for the question in their waiver application
Grant Applicant Name___________________________ _____ Project Name__________________________________
Waiver application questions
1. Please describe why a waiver or reduction of the matching contribution would significantly enhance educational
opportunity and quality within your school district, charter school or BOCES.
Does this response support a reduction in the applicant’s match contribution?
YES
or
NO
2. Please describe why the cost of complying with the match contribution would significantly limit educational
opportunities within your school district, charter school or BOCES.
Does this response support a reduction in the applicant’s match contribution?
YES
or
NO
3. What efforts has the applicant made to coordinate the project with local governmental entities, community based
organizations, or other available grants or organizations to more efficiently or effectively leverage the applicant’s ability
to contribute financial assistance to the project?
Does this response support a reduction in the applicant’s match contribution?
YES
or
NO
NO
N/AYES
4. Justification for per pupil assessed valuation not being representative of their financial capacity.
Does this response support a reduction in the applicant’s match contribution?
or NO
YES
5. Justification for the district’s median household income not being representative of their financial capacity.
Does this response support a reduction in the applicant’s match contribution?
or NO
YES
NO
N/AYES
6. Justification for percentage of pupils eligible for free or reduced cost lunch not being representative of their financial
capacity.
Page 1
BEST Grant Waiver Evaluation Tool for School Districts and BOCES
Does this response support a reduction in the applicant’s match contribution?
or NO
YES
NO
N/AYES
7. Justification for bond election failures and successes in the last 10 years not being representative of their financial
capacity.
Does this response support a reduction in the applicant’s match contribution?
YES
NO
N/A
YES
NO
N/A
8. Justification for bond mill levy not being representative of their financial capacity.
Does this response support a reduction in the applicant’s match contribution?
9. Justification for the school district's current available bond capacity remaining not being representative of their
financial capacity.
Does this response support a reduction in the applicant’s match contribution?
10.
YES
NO
N/A
Justification for the school district's unreserved fund balance not being representative of their financial capacity.
Does this response support a reduction in the applicant’s match contribution?
YES
NO
N/A
11.
Please describe any other extenuating circumstances deemed appropriate for a waiver or reduction in the
matching contribution.
Does this response support a reduction in the applicant’s match contribution?
YES
NO
N/A
YES
or
NO
Additional Board Member Comments
Overall support based on the total number of yes responses versus no responses.
In the event of a tie, Robert’s Rules will apply and a “no” will be assigned.
Page 2
Division of Capital Construction
PUBLIC SCHOOL CAPITAL CONSTRUCTION ASSISTANCE BOARD AGENDA SHEET
MEETING DATE:
February 25, 2015
SUBJECT:
Review the FY13-14 Building Excellent Schools Today (BEST) Annual Report
TYPE:
Action
Information X
BACKGROUND (Include any statutory authority):
In 2008, the General Assembly of the State of Colorado enacted the “Building Excellent Schools Today Act” or “BEST”, in
order to address the limited capacity for many Colorado public schools to renew, or replace rapidly deteriorating
facilities with their own local resources.
BEST grants are available to Colorado public school districts, charter schools, boards of cooperative services (BOCES),
institute charter schools, and the Colorado School for the Deaf and Blind. Funding is provided from the State Land Trust,
Colorado Lottery spillover funds, recreational marijuana excise taxes, the applicants’ matching monies, and interest
accrued within the Assistance Fund itself. By providing these services, the BEST program hopes to meet students’
fundamental educational needs throughout the State of Colorado.
No later than February 15, 2010, and no later than each February 15 thereafter, the BEST Board shall present a written
report to the education and finance committees of the House of Representatives and the Senate, or any successor
committees, regarding the provision of financial assistance to applicants pursuant 22-43.7-101.
The report shall include, at a minimum:
An accounting of the financial assistance provided through the prior fiscal year that includes:
• A statement of the aggregate amount of financial assistance awarded through the prior fiscal year, including
statements of the amount of grants provided, and the amount of payments made and payments committed to be made
but not yet made in connection with lease-purchase agreements;
• An accounting of the financial assistance provided through the prior fiscal year that includes: a statement of the
aggregate amount of financial assistance provided as grants and the aggregate amount of payments made in connection
with lease-purchase agreements during the prior fiscal year;
An accounting of the financial assistance provided through the prior fiscal year that includes: a list of the public school
facility capital construction projects for which financial assistance has been provided, including a brief description of
each project, a statement of the amount and type of financial assistance provided for each project and, where
applicable, the amount of financial assistance committed to be provided for but not yet provided for each project, a
statement of the amount of matching moneys provided by the applicant for each project and, where applicable, the
amount of matching moneys committed to be provided by the applicant but not yet provided for each project, and a
summary of the reasons of the BEST Board and the State Board for providing financial assistance for the project;
A list of the public school facility capital construction projects for which financial assistance has been provided during
the prior fiscal year, including a brief description of each project, a statement of the amount and type of financial
assistance provided for each project, and a statement of the amount of matching moneys provided by the applicant for
each project;
A summary of the findings and conclusions of any public school facility inspections conducted during the prior fiscal
year;
A summary of any differences between the common physical design elements and characteristics of the highest
performing schools in the state and the lowest performing schools in the state as measured by academic productivity
measures such as the Colorado student assessment program created in part 4 of article 7 of this title or Colorado ACT
results;
A list of the financial assistance applications for public school facility capital construction that were denied financial
assistance during the prior fiscal year that includes for each project:
• A brief project description;
• A statement of the amount and type of financial assistance requested for the project;
• A statement indicating whether or not the BEST Board recommended a financial assistance award for the project;
• A summary of the reasons why the BEST Board or the State Board denied financial assistance for the project.
An estimate, to the extent feasible, of the total amounts of revenues to be credited to the assistance fund during the
current fiscal year and the next fiscal year and financial assistance to be awarded during the next fiscal year, including
separate estimates of the total amounts of financial assistance to be awarded as cash grants and under the terms of
lease-purchase agreements entered into pursuant to section 22-43.7-110 (2).
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Review the FY13-14 Building Excellent Schools Today (BEST) Annual Report
STAFF RECOMMENDED MOTION (If this is an action item)
N/A
ATTACHMENTS:
FY13-14 BEST Annual Report
Division of Capital Construction
PUBLIC SCHOOL CAPITAL CONSTRUCTION ASSISTANCE BOARD AGENDA SHEET
MEETING DATE:
February 25, 2015
SUBJECT:
Discuss the CCAB’s legislative priorities
TYPE:
Action
Information X
BACKGROUND (Include any statutory authority):
N/A
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Review and discuss the CCAB legislative platform. Make any necessary changes or additions.
STAFF RECOMMENDED MOTION (If this is an action item)
N/A
ATTACHMENTS:
CCAB Legislative Platform
Public School Capital Construction Assistance Board – Legislative
Platform 2014-15
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: Reconfigure and Update the Statewide Facility Assessment.
Purpose: In 2008 when the BEST Act was enacted, the Capital Construction Assistance Board was tasked with
conducting a financial assistance priority assessment (referred to as the statewide facility assessment) of all
public school facilities in Colorado. The statewide facility assessment gathered condition and suitability data for
each public school facility and created a statewide inventory of all public school facilities.
The statewide facility assessment assessed 8,419 facilities throughout Colorado's 178 school districts. The
facilities were comprised of main buildings, leased buildings, temporary classroom facilities, mini-buildings,
school sites, athletic fields, athletic facilities and other support buildings. The public school facility construction
guidelines were used to determine the health and safety considerations, education technology requirements,
site requirements, energy performance requirements, functionality or suitability considerations, capacity
requirements, accessibility and historic significance considerations. The statewide assessment data is used to
evaluate BEST grant applications and will be used to provide targeted outreach for prospective applicants. As the
assessment was only performed once, the data has since become outdated and less accurate therefore it is
ineffective in identifying current health and safety facility needs in the State and needs to be updated and the
database reconfigured to continue to be an effective tool.
Reconfiguring, adjusting and updating the statewide facility assessment is a priority for the CCAB since grant
funding decisions are evaluated against the facility assessment data. Furthermore, the division needs to provide
targeted outreach to school districts with the highest needs and this information is derived from the statewide
facility assessment. To effectively use this data the statewide assessment data needs to be current and
streamlined to easily identify health and safety needs across the State.
This proposal will benefit all BEST grant applicants and all school districts in the State which access their facility
assessment data for use at the district level. This proposal also affects the department’s performance plan goals
of “ensuring timely and accurate allocations of resources, reports, and reviews” and “providing exceptional
customer service, support, and consistent communications to districts”. Implementing this proposal will ensure
the division is providing justified targeted outreach to our stakeholders and providing exceptional customer
service and support, in addition to timely and accurate allocations of resources.
For the scope of work to reconfigure and adjust the current assessment database, the Capital Construction
Assistance Board, with the support of the Division, suggests continued use of the current assessment database
Capital Construction Assistance Board 2014-15
P a g e 1|3
after going through a process to reconfigure/consolidate data points as well as making adjustments to the data
to easily identify criteria related to health/safety/security, overcrowding, technology and other items as outlined
in statute. Doing so will allow the Capital Construction Assistance Board to validate their funding decisions with
data points that closely align with statutory criteria used regarding urgent health and safety facility needs.
For the scope of work to reconfigure and adjust the current assessment database which will further align the
data points with 22-43.7-107 C.R.S. and 22-43.7-108 C.R.S., it is estimated there will be a one-time cost of $2.7
million funded by the program’s assistance fund.
Without funding, the Capital Construction Assistance Board will not be able to make the necessary adjustments
to the assessment database which will align it more closely with statutory criteria used to make informed
funding decisions regarding urgent health and safety facility needs.
For the scope of work to update the statewide assessment and keep the data current, the Capital Construction
Assistance Board, with the support of the division, has determined that employing an in-house assessment team
would be the most cost effective, efficient and sustainable approach to keeping the statewide assessment data
continuously updated. The overall costs to the department would be significantly less than contracting for a onetime reassessment. The division would increase its personnel by employing in-house assessors to provide yearround assessment updates on existing facilities and full assessments on new facilities. The assessors would also
work with school districts currently performing their own assessments to incorporate their data into the
statewide assessment database. The assessors would only be required to assess tier 1 facilities. Tier 1 facilities
account for roughly 88% of total gross square feet in the state which equates to approximately 3,500 facilities.
Tier 1 facilities include academic facilities: school grounds, classrooms, libraries, and other teaching-learning
spaces. Tier 1 facilities do NOT include ancillary facilities such as: storage, temporary modular classrooms,
administration, maintenance, transportation and other support facilities. Doing so will allow the division to
provide targeted outreach to school districts and keep the statewide assessment continually updated.
For the scope of work to update the statewide assessment and keep the data current, the division shall establish
an in-house assessment team which necessitates an increase of 6 FTE. It is estimated there will be a one-time
cost of $100,000 to train the assessors and an annual ongoing increase of $580,000 for staffing costs.
Additionally, the assessors will provide technical assistance to districts and charter schools on facility needs.
Without funding, the Capital Construction Assistance Board will be unable to effectively provide targeted
outreach to prospective applicants due to the age and validity of the current assessment data. Additionally, the
Capital Construction Assistance Board will continue to make funding decisions based on dated data.
The Capital Construction Assistance Board, with the support of the division, evaluated five different approaches
to reconfiguring and updating the statewide facility assessment. These ranged from a complete reassessment of
every public school in the state, to a phased approach, to relying solely on self-reported data. The final solutions
being presented are supported by the Capital Construction Assistance Board and on June 3, 2014, were
presented to and reviewed by the Legislative Audit Committee. The Legislative Audit Committee had no
objections to the proposed direction for the revisions and reconfigurations to the priority assessment database
or the use of an in-house team to update and keep the priority assessment current. Representative Ryden stated
the in-house option to update the statewide assessment makes the most sense economically.
2nd Objective
Topic: Investigate statutory or rule changes for excise tax medical tax free transfers.
Purpose: To close the marijuana excise tax loophole in a timely manner.
Capital Construction Assistance Board 2014-15
P a g e 2|3
3rd Objective
Topic: Raise the COP cap to allow the CCAB to fund a larger scope of facility needs.
Purpose: 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.
4th Objective
Topic: Investigate statutory options for the Capital Construction Assistance Board’s powers and
duties.
Purpose:
2015-16 Future Legislative Objectives
•
•
Initiate a statewide ballot question specific to school facilities.
Investigate options for creating a facilities program outside of the CDE.
Capital Construction Assistance Board 2014-15
P a g e 3|3