Public School Capital Construction Assistance Board Meeting Minutes Vision

Public School Capital Construction Assistance Board Meeting Minutes
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:
Oct. 28th, 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 – 1:12 p.m.
II. Pledge of Allegiance
III. Roll Call – Karl Berg, Ken Haptonstall, Denise Pearson, Tim Reed, David Tadlock, Matt Throop, Cyndi Wright,
Lyndon Burnett. CDE Staff Attendees: Scott Newell, Cheryl Honigsberg, Anna Fitzer
IV. Approve Agenda
The CCAB Chair called for a motion to approve the agenda:
• So moved by Tim Reed;
• Karl Berg 2nd the motion;
• Motion to approve the agenda carried unanimously.
V. Approve Previous Minutes from the September 23rd, 2015 CCAB Meeting
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 carried unanimously.
VI. Board Report
Denise Pearson told the CCAB that Scott Newell and Jay Hoskinson had attended her school’s board meeting to
discuss and provide information on master planning; she said that everyone in attendance really appreciated the
information Scott and Jay presented, and expressed how helpful it was for the school to hear.
Lyndon Burnett said that he had another conversation with Henry Sobanet regarding the CCAB’s legislative
platform, but said that he would discuss the conversation further during the Legislative Platform Discussion Item
on the agenda.
Matt Throop announced to the CCAB that he would be resigning from the position after the December meeting.
He expressed his gratitude to have been a part of the CCAB and to have been able to aid the program over his
tenure. CCAB Chair Lyndon Burnett thanked Mr. Throop for his time and dedication, saying that Mr. Throop’s
expertise and insight would be greatly missed.
David Tadlock said that he participated in a US Green School’s media call on Proposition BB. He said that on the
call he thanked Senator Steadman for the work he had done on the proposition and was anxious to see the results
Public School Capital Construction Assistance Board Meeting Minutes
of the pending election. Karl Berg asked if there were any polls indicating support; Mr. Tadlock briefly relayed the
recent polls he had seen.
Lyndon Burnett informed the CCAB that he had set up a breakout session for after the December 4th CCAB
meeting at CASB. Bill Ryan from the State Land Board, and the Children’s Land Alliance for Supporting Schools
would both do a presentation which would lead into and be incorporated with the BEST program. Scott Newell
would present the BEST program video, and a question and answer session would follow. Mr. Burnett invited the
CCAB members to join the discussion as either panelists or as guests for the session.
VII. Director’s Report
Scott Newell informed the CCAB that Kathy Gebhardt, who was unable to attend the meeting, had wanted to
discuss getting the CCAB on the State Board’s December agenda in order to present the CCAB’s legislative
platform. The CCAB Chair asked about the date of the State Board meeting, and asked Mr. Newell to proceed with
adding the CCAB to the their agenda in December.
Mr. Newell reminded the CCAB of three schools with bond elections on the November ballot, bonds which would
provide the schools with their match for their BEST grant: Roaring Fork, De Beque, and Brighton 27J.
He also informed the CCAB the Division would be delivering two upcoming presentations: one to a DU Law panel
discussing marijuana excise taxes and Proposition BB, and the other to the Green Schools Summit on Friday, 6th of
November.
Mr. Newell gave an update on the status of the Statewide Facility Assessment program RFP, noting that RFP
proposals were due Monday, November 2nd, at which time the first subcommittee meeting would take place. A
2nd meeting would be held on the 16th to go over initial evaluations, and oral interviews would be held on the 23rd
to go over final selections. At the December CCAB meeting, the selection would be presented to the CCAB for
discussion and approval. He added that the Division planned to open the application process at the beginning of
December to fill the five regional assessor positions.
Kathy Gebhardt joined the meeting via conference call at 1:29 pm and gave a brief update to the CCAB:
Ms. Gebhardt informed the CCAB she had attended a Superintendents meeting earlier in the month, which Ken
Haptonstall also attended. She said they spoke with superintendents about the BEST program, encouraging
schools to apply and updating them on the application process, as well as informing them of the adjustments
made to the grant matching percentage calculations. After Ms. Gebhardt concluded her announcement, the CCAB
Chair informed her of fellow member Matt Throop’s announcement to resign from the CCAB. Ms. Gebhardt
expressed her appreciation for Mr. Throop’s efforts as a CCAB member.
Ms. Gebhardt left the meeting at 1:35 pm.
VIII. Action Items
a. Review Edison BEST Grant Scope Amendment – Scott Newell opened the item by outlining what would be
needed of the CCAB: once the action item had been discussed, either approval or denial of the adjustments
to the Edison grant scope as requested by Edison’s Design Advisory committee would be required given that
the proposed changes would necessitate an amendment to the project contract; it would not, however,
need to be approved by the State Board. The Edison Design Advisory committee was in attendance to
answer any questions for the CCAB.
Referring to the attachments provided in the agenda packet, Mr. Newell discussed the original scope based
on the master plan and explained the school’s need to utilize the gym during the construction process. As
such, the design team identified several concerns with the original design, including needing to re-orient the
gym and relocate classrooms in order to mitigate the impact on students’ and the learning environment
while construction was ongoing. He explained that the design team, in conjunction with the community, had
come to the conclusion that the new proposed design would be a more suitable plan. He delineated the
biggest proposed change: to move the cafeteria and library, which serves the entire school and is currently
housed in the elementary wing, to a more centralized location. Under the original plan, the library and
cafeteria would not be moved; upper class students would continue to travel back and forth through the
elementary area for those services. Additionally, the original plan had Pre-kindergarten and special needs
classrooms located next to the gym – in the middle and high school areas. With the proposed changes to
Public School Capital Construction Assistance Board Meeting Minutes
move the library and cafeteria out of the elementary wing, the Pre-kindergarten and special needs
classrooms would be moved into the elementary wing so that all younger students were housed in the same
building. Mr. Newell noted for the CCAB that under the original project, grant funds were only approved to
be used in the high school area, but the proposed changes would allow Edison to use grant funds for work
done in the elementary school as well; importantly however, he noted that the cost of the changes to scope
would not exceed the awarded project funds, and no additional dollars would be granted to the project. The
school district would be solely responsible for any added costs should they be needed as a result of the
change in scope. The CCAB Chair asked the Edison Design Advisory committee to explain the differences
between Scheme 1 and Scheme 2 as submitted in the agenda packet. The CCAB also asked why Scheme 1
wasn’t investigated during the initial planning phase of the grant application, or prior to that when the
master plan was devised. The Edison Design Advisory committee explained that a different firm had worked
with them during the development of the master plan, and they had relied on that firm’s expertise. Now,
they were working with a new A/E firm whose proposed changes made more sense for the school, not only
during the construction phase but in the longer term. The CCAB asked if there had been a change in
leadership between the two time frames, which the Advisory committee said there had not been. The CCAB
also asked for clarification on some additional changes to the affected sq. ft. of the facility, and if there
would be any compromises to mechanical systems as result of changes to the basement square footage. The
Advisory committee explained the area footprint would actually be decreased with the proposed changes,
and that their design team was working diligently to ensure there would not be any compromises to building
strength or mechanical systems. The CCAB concluded their questions by asking the Edison Design Advisory
committee to give a more in-depth review of the construction needs if their request for changes to the
project scope is approved. The Advisory committee explained what would be required in order to make the
changes, adding that they were making efforts to minimize costs as a result of the adjustments, including
designing the new cafeteria location in order to maintain the layout of the current kitchen so that new
appliances would not be required.
The CCAB Chair called for a motion to approve the Edison BEST Grant Scope proposed changes:
• Matt Throop moved that the CCAB approve the change in scope to the Edison 54JT grant project and
instruct the Division of Capital Construction to amend the grant contract accordingly;
• David Tadlock 2nd the motion;
• Motion to approve the change in scope to the Edison 54JT grant project was approved unanimously.
IX. Discussion Items
a. CCAB Legislative Platform – The CCAB Chair informed the CCAB that he had a phone conference with Henry
Sobanet regarding raising the COP cap, but that Mr. Sobanet had reported current budget estimates seem to
suggest that funding for school finance will be at a deficit, potentially adding 10% to the negative factor. The
CCAB Chair said that he had discussed with Mr. Sobanet the role that the CCAB could play, particularly in
light of the budget deficit, to help offset school construction needs if the cap was raised; he said that Mr.
Sobanet wanted to see more specifics on a plan, and agreed to speak with the governor about it. They also
discussed excise taxes from marijuana proceeds, Proposition BB, and a conversation regarding the current
COP legislation and clarification on the structure of the cap which the CCAB Chair had with Heidi Dineen
from the Attorney General’s office, Scott Newell, and Jon Forbes, the Deputy Treasurer. The CCAB asked the
CCAB Chair if there had been any discussion about sustainable use of the $40 million that would come if
Proposition BB passed, which the CCAB Chair said they had discussed in brief. The CCAB deliberated on the
amount per year range by which they hoped the cap would be raised. Scott Newell said Jon Forbes was
putting together some financing models which would give a better idea of the range, as well as looking at
some restructuring of current bonds in order to allow for more room under the current cap. The CCAB also
discussed state land trust and marijuana funds, the bond market’s appetite for working with the CCAB, and
community and legislative support for the BEST program.
Scott Newell announced a proposal for the CCAB to consider: planning grants to aid schools in their master
planning; the grant would be approved by the Division and schools to which the grant would be awarded
would be based upon the Statewide Facility Assessment’s ranking of neediest schools. The CCAB discussed
with Mr. Newell how he envisioned the grant to work, and the benefits such a program would have. The
Public School Capital Construction Assistance Board Meeting Minutes
CCAB added that they would be in favor of a program of this type, provided the schools were also required
to contribute a match like that which is required to receive BEST grant funds.
X. Future Meetings
• December 4th, 2015 – 1:00 p.m. Location: 1 Lake Ave, El Pomar Board Room at the Broadmoor, Colorado
Springs, CO 80906
• January 27th, 2016 – 1:00 p.m. Location: 201 E. Colfax Avenue, Room 101, Denver, CO 80203
• February 24th, 2016 – 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; Kaye Taavialma from Ricardo Flores Magón Academy was present for public comment.
She introduced herself to the CCAB, and asked if they would give her an idea on how much more expensive it
needed to be in order for them to consider a rebuild more efficient than a renovation? The CCAB used Jefferson
County school district as an example, saying they would consider a rebuild more efficient than a renovation if the
total value of the deficiencies in the facility exceeds 60% of the value of the facility. They also added that when
evaluating which is best, the scope of the plan is important; once the value of the deficiencies have been
evaluated, the plan to rectify those deficiencies, whether with a rebuild or renovation, needs to be well thought
out and have a solid procedure in place. Asking the CCAB to evaluate the situation from their perspective and
provide guidance on which route would be best for the school, Scott Newell added some background and
clarification on the question: the Ricardo Flores Magón Academy is currently in a building which is dilapidated and
in need of major renovations but still maintains a good structure; one option would be to pursue renovation
plans, knowing there would still be issues inherent of an older facility, or the other option would be for the school
to investigate building a new facility. In the case of deciding which would be best to pursue for a grant application,
he asked if the CCAB had a threshold they could provide if, for example, the cost of renovations was $5 million,
the cost for a new building was $10 million, and the school felt that after evaluating the cost of deficiencies the
deficiencies amounted to a percentage of the value which made it an inefficient use of funds to renovate. He
asked if they should recognize that $5 million is a more competitive price tag and apply for a cheaper renovation
grant, or should they apply for a grant to build a new building even though the cost would be more expensive?
The CCAB answered saying that the school should consider the fact that funds are limited and the grant
competitive; but in addition to this, the CCAB does consider the best use of funds and what could be
accomplished at a lower cost or what necessitates a higher cost, provided need is adequately demonstrated.
Additionally, the school would need to consider that no two grant application years are the same and the pool of
competition differs; whereas a school may have been listed as the most needy in a previous year, the next year
could bring other applicants whose facility conditions are much worse, effectively re-ranking need. In sum, the
CCAB said their best advice is to have a solid, well thought out – creative and efficient – project plan effectively
demonstrating in the grant application why the chosen solution is best suited to address the school’s needs. The
CCAB added a final piece of advice: to understand the evaluation tool for grading grant applications and waivers
so the school is best equipped to write their application in a manner that addresses any and all issues of concern.
Ms. Taavialma indicated she had no further questions and thanked the CCAB for their input.
XII. Adjournment
The CCAB Chair called for a motion to adjourn:
• So moved by Matt Throop;
• David Tadlock 2nd the motion;
• Motion to adjourn carried unanimously;
• Meeting adjourned 2:46 p.m.